From: Viktor Golubic <Diverge247.nul> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 16:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 19:25:26 -0400 Subject: Re: Socorro Again >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:17:15 +0100 >Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>From: Viktor Golubic <Diverge247.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:29:39 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:09:19 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Socorro Again ><snip> >>That map of Rudiak's is too widespread to fill in the necessary >>details in the area of interest. Though its good to show the >>regional trend, it does not however have enough resolution in >>the area of interest. There simply isn't enough wind stations to >>provide that level of detail. >Not enough to do what? Prove to a level p = 1.0 that a wind-born >object is physically impossible? Of course! But as you keep >telling us, you "don't deal in absolutes" you deal in >probability. Consider therefore the probability, with due regard >to quantities, instead of leaping in with facile assertions that >a candle-balloon flying against the strong surface wind >direction is "completely plausible". This does not at all address my point. my point was that local >What you should have said is that this behaviour may not >necessarily be physically impossible, and in light of the actual >weather situation you should concede that this is another way of >saying that it is improbable. But I don't expect this. You talk >a good objective game (if obscurely) but your language betrays >your true underlying expectation :- "I'm somewhat paused in >going completely forward until the pranksters come forward to >fill in more of the details. But, it's conceivable they can be >tracked down rather quickly" >> And why I felt it important to >>convey how wind near mountain ranges can and does actually >>behave. >Yes it is important. So please do convey it, in detail. Explain >exactly, if you would, how drainage winds and/or turbulent flow >in the lee of mountains in the order of 10 miles away cause an >abrupt ~180-degree, tens-of-knots wind shear at a height of a >few meters above the ground near Socorro in conditions where the >local surface wind field measured at surrounding sites is fresh >to strong and steady in direction throughout the day. I provided a document reference for all to review. The facts are that wind can flow counter to the prevailing winds within and near mountain regions. >BTW, David Rudiak pointed out that the wind field fits a >synoptic scale low pressure system centred over the NM/Colorado >border and dominating weather in the area. A couple of points: >This type of weather would not be unexpected in terms of the >general weather pattern of the month, which according to the >Monthly Weather Review was unusually stormy ("THE WEATHER AND >CIRCULATION OF APRIL 1964, Stormy Month in the Midwest, 1. >SEVERE WEATHER IN APRIL 1964 Frequent storms swept through the >West this month and intensified in the Plains States..."). >I checked the Daily Weather Maps for April 24 and 25 1964 and >David is almost exactly correct. There was indeed a large low >pressure area dominating New Mexico, but the centre was further >north than the border, moving east across central Colorado. This >does not in the least alter the fact that the wind in central NM >was dominated by this system. An associated weather front passed >across the state between midnight local (0100EST) on Apr 23/24 >and midnight on 24/25, rotating west to east and following the >low pressure circulation. I never said there wasn't a weather pattern as Rudiak claimed. I only pointed out and increased need to be cautious given the pertience of the thermal topography and down drafts. Winds can spiral downward off a mountain and spill in reverse direction. >>Also, these stations can report average values over a >>given interval of time. >You don't like the "level of detail" in the actual hourly wind >measurements, you prefer the generalisation that "these stations >can" report averages. Viktor, they don't. Some specifics: >_Hourly_ observations at Albuquerque to the north and Truth & >Consequences to the south show the wind steady and fresh to >strong from the SW throughout the whole day. Again, it's true that local gusts and reverse trends can be missed given their shorter duration. That is my point. >In these situations we never have the ideal "level of detail", >which would be a bunch of radiosondes within meters of the >sighting area plotting the windfield in 3D up to the >stratosphere. What we have is a scatter of data and our brains >to reason with - just like the way you have proceeded in the >1965 Heflin case to determine from surrounding surface stations >that the likely winds up to a few hundred feet over Myford Rd >were probably blowing counter to the implied drift direction of >Heflin's smoke ring. This is not the same point at all since there are no mountains present to affect the intepretation of the outcome. And, the supposed ring lasted for several minutes - enough time and height to gather the local averages. >In that case it is _possible_ to argue, given evidence of light >and variable winds that morning, that the breeze in the >immediate sighting area temporarily bucked the NW trend >indicated by the few and scattered data points, rescuing >Heflin's photo. It isn't physically impossible . But you would >not argue that. You would (and do) argue that the probability of >a NW flow is strongly suggested by the trend of the wind plots. No, the wind data in the Heflin case was local and directly relevant with no mountains to confound the interpretation. And, I would never say impossible but unlikely in any final account. >The question you should be asking, in balance with your >reservations about the level of wind detail in Socorro, is about >the level of detail in Bragalia's candle-balloon hypothesis >which you find oh so completely plausible. Beyond a few words of >hearsay marginalia scribbled on a letter by a third party, what >detailed evidence does he have? Cardboard from pyrotechnic >devices? No. ? Suspicious foreign chemicals in the soil? No. >Tyre tracks and footprints of hoaxers leading in and out of the >site? No. Any other evidence? No. Any hoax claimants, even, >delighted with having gulled their supposed victim? No. >Speculation? Oh yes. No, I don't find it the most likely explanation but one that needs extra detail and discussion. I merely entertain the possibility and what factors not accounted for could possibly support it. >>let's not forget that Lonnie was interviewed not too long after >>the incident (maybe 1 to 2 hrs) on the local radio and was under >>considerable public pressure to maintain what he was then >>compelled to possibly say under the influence of a strong radio >>personality. >To the extent that this is comprehensible, I guess you must be >saying that Zamora was persuaded by a radio presenter to fib >about the direction of departure of the object? But i admit that >this is unclear to me . Some analysis of specific documentary >evidence and a plausible motivation might help us to understand >you. No, I'm saying that this is a forceful factor and we don't no the full impact it may have had. An honest investigator is obligated to report the facts as brought before him. I would say most people don't no this fact about the case. I only became aware of it as others in the area brought it up. I was actually interviewing about the Roswell case and there was more than one UFO case in the area open to their potential recall. >>That is what some of the locals will tell you if >>you interview them. >Will they indeed? That is interesting. I'm sure it would not be >completely futile to poll local Socorro residents in 2012 as to >their speculations re Zamora's psychology during a 1964 radio >interview - but almost. I suppose what you mean is that there >are people in Socorro in 2012 who believe that Zamora was >hoaxed, some people who, if asked to tick "yes or no" when asked >if Zamora might have been intimidated by a radio presenter in >1964, would tick "yes"? Well, golly, that's a forceful >scientific datum, Vik. Yes, these are not my assertions but that of the locals. It is relevant to the story and how it unfolded. Again, I'm obligated to report what has been said from those closest to the events. Obviously, Hynek can't interview everyone who heard the broadcast or what flavor and impression it left. >>Hynek and others were not the first to interview him! >Hynek and the others were the first to interview the people you >are telling us to interview now, 50 years later, but you appear >to have no interest in what they told Hynek and the others then. >Hynek and the others also gave a lot of direct testimony about >Zamora's character and it was not that of a weak-willed and >easily pressured person. I think you should read the case file. No, I'm only adding to what has been reported and how it could possibly lend support to this reported claim. Vikor Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp