Friday, May 6, 2016

Weirdness abounds

Here are some weird stories...

http://reportingtexas.com/out-of-the-shadows-witchcraft-expands-in-austin-and-beyond/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/man-seeks-restraining-order-against-god/

And for Rich Reynolds who is fascinated about the looming of A.I. and posthumanism:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/7130791/KFC-opens-futuristic-robot-run-restaurant-in-Shanghai.html

With the push to increase minimum wages, especially here in California, we can probably see an increase in automation.  Carl's Jr. has already put forth plans to build a totally automated restaurant prototype.


Sunday, April 24, 2016

The personal effects of pseudoscience

My son Nick!


We're all aware of the numerous themes that encompass the use of pseudoscience.  As a refresher, pseudoscience is the claim, belief or practice presented as science, yet devoid of any validation through the use of scientific methodology.

There are numerous examples of pseudoscience and rather than list them, it's easier to search on-line and find a comprehensive listing.

I have a 27 year old son who has autistic traits.  He's on the spectrum, not having full blown autism, yet readily noticeable when having a conversation with him.  To make it easier for everyone else, my wife and I will tell people that he has autism, because that term is readily known and easier to intellectually digest, but to explain the spectrum traits tends to be somewhat of a challenge.

My son is considered high functioning.  Through years of early interventions and forcing school districts to provide quality IEP programs for special education, my son is on the verge of receiving his AA degree through one of the local community colleges.  It's been a long arduous road for him.

My son knows that he is "different."  His ability to learn, process and retain information is slowed.  Abstract thoughts for the most part is fleeting, as he is still (probably always will) a concrete thinker.  Despite these intellectual challenges, he is like any normal individual who harbors common hopes, dreams and desires.  His thought process and content tend to be in the present tense, as the future is too abstract of a concept to logically contemplate.

He is a computer savant.  He cannot read an English essay or short story for comprehension, but he can read a computer tech manual word for word.  Digest the conceptual aspects and discuss the concepts in a logical and meaningful manner.  He has built his own computer from scratch always chasing that mythical and allusive high clock speed.  Yet his down fall in the abstract world of computer hardware and software is the concrete idea that "more is better."  The glass is always mentally perceived as half empty.

Those who have autistic traits tend to be overly obsessive-compulsive and somewhat ritualistic.  My son is no different as his OCD traits gravitate towards collecting data...lots of data.  He is a data miner.  He mines for data that is mostly irrelevant to my wife or myself, but has significant meaning for him.

Despite the above, and like I stated, my son knows that he is different.  He looks for science to cure his autistic traits.  He has researched the future for the use of biological nanobots to repair damaged parts of his  brain.  Yes, I've told him that such things may be in the offering, but this technology may still be years in the research phases and still may offer no curative measures for him.

Last night, while at work, he calls me and tells me that he has watched the most amazing video that may offer hope and it was from a gentleman named Bruce Lipton who stated that people such as my son can alter their core genetics and DNA through a person's beliefs.  

Lipton? Warning bells went off in my mind.  I quickly pulled up Lipton and his work on my computer and my suspicions were confirmed.  My son was pulled into the lure of pseudoscience's siren call.

Here is Lipton's wiki page. Plus a simple Google search brings up much more.

"Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics, basically ignored by mainstream science.[13]
Surgical oncologist David Gorski has described Lipton as a crank who misunderstands evolutionary biology. He notes that some of Lipton's ideas start out based on research from epigenetics but he twists them into a "woo-sphere".[14]

Lipton's cure is merely another remedy from new age alternative medicine.  Or as most like to coin, "integrative medicine."  Lipton's work has been discredited by his peers as lacking any scientific proof of efficacy.  He offers fool's gold to those such as my son.

As I explained to my son, there is no cure at this time for those who are autistic or are on the spectrum.  There may be in the distant future, but as of now there is none.  I provided him the analogy of a traffic accident on a high speed interstate highway where traffic back and forth are at a stand still.  In order to mitigate the back up of traffic, detours are put in place to allow traffic to go around the accident.  These detours may not be as efficient as the interstate, but it allows traffic to flow around the accident.  

By the use of early interventions and special education programs, these "detours" are the new information pathways that have formed in my son's brain.  Some may use the term as rewiring, but nonetheless, these new pathways allow the processing of information.  It may not be efficient, but it does get the job done in a long roundabout way.

I do not discourage my son from researching for new methodologies.  I only ask that if he finds something of interest that we both look into it.  I'm a man of complete optimism and instill in my son that his future is still bright and that I will walk down this path with my arm around his shoulders. 

Friday, April 8, 2016

Brian Bell proposes an interesting theory about the 1947 Roswell incident

I saw this over at Rich Reynold's UFO Conjectures regarding a series of comments posted by Brian on Kevin Randle's blog.

Brian, who has commented a few times here, proposes an intriguing theory about Roswell. Brian writes that he is not sure that this had been proposed in the past. [I've not seen this either]

Hopefully Brian won't mind if I take the liberty of posting his comments.

Blogger Brian Bell said...
@ Anthony -

Indeed. You wrote:

"So I think that we are at the point where to argue for a conventional explanation we need a specific proposal with some actual evidence to support it."

I'll offer yet another proposal that I doubt has ever been considered. If it has I'd be surprised.

Yes this one is based on documented facts, although the speculative portion is simply mine. It may sound to some as impossible, but no more impossible than the speculations that aliens crashed near Roswell. At least we have facts that could support it.

PART I - FACTS:

1) In 1943 Stalin wanted to pursue the development of a long range multi engine strategic bomber.

2) During 1944 and 1945, three intact US B-29's and one wrecked one were interned with their crews after landing near Vladivostok after bombing raids on Japan.

3) Stalin immediately ordered his aviation industry to "reverse engineer" the B-29 in no more than two years (1947). The project was the TU-4.

4) The TU-4 project was well underway early in 1945. An increase in quality control and sheer perseverance moved things along. The end of the war with Japan made no difference in the production effort. It was full speed ahead. The U.S. had previously not believed the Russians had the capability to clone the B-29, it seemed totally inconceivable. The public Russian debut in the Aviation Day parade in August 1947 changed their minds. The U.S. found itself in a panic situation when they learned the TU-4 was indeed a reality, capable of hitting any target in the U.S. There were reports of “one way” missions by hundreds of TU-4s carrying nuclear bombs attacking the U.S. This forced the U.S. to beef up their Radar systems, surface to air missiles, and interceptor jet fighters.

5) The initial production TU-4's were first flown in May 1947 several months ahead of the July 7 Roswell incident. The US had no knowledge they existed at that time thinking the Russians could not reverse engineer the aircraft.

6) The Soviets were challenged by the complexity of the bomber, and it drove them to evaluate how to develop new alloys and composites to keep the aircraft within targeted weights - they had to come up with ways of making things lighter, which they achieved within 1% of the B-29's weight.

7) The Soviets captured a great deal of German Luftwaffe industrial technology at the close of WWII. That included experimental aircraft material including advanced composites (plastic impregnated wood) and titanium alloys.

8) It is well known that during the Cold War Soviet aircrews and allied communist nations defected by flying their aircraft to the West. The first officially reported incident of a Soviet defection occurred October 9, 1948 when Piotr Pirogov and Anatoly Barsov defected by flying their TU-2 bomber from the USSR to Linz, Austria.

8) The Soviets also began their own atomic weapons research in 1943. US intelligence predicted the Soviets could not achieve the bomb until 1952 while Britain predicted 1953.

9) With the help of German scientists captured at the close of WWII (Soviet Alsos) the Russians shocked the world when they detonated their first A-bomb in 1949. This achievement was facilitated by acquisition of plutonium and uranium between 1945 and 1947.

10) The TU-4 was being developed simultaneously with the Soviet A-bomb and Stalin's plan was to use the reverse engineered plane as the delivery vehicle for his A-bomb over US territory. The TU-4 was intended to be a "one way" non-return strike bomber that could hit any target in the US. It did prove to have the range to accomplish this.
April 8, 2016 at 8:23 AM
Blogger Brian Bell said...
PART II - SPECULATIVE HYPOTHESIS:

1) A Soviet TU-4 was flown from Russia to the US in July 1947 by a flight crew intent on defecting to the West. The planes had already been in full production for two months before the incident and aircraft were available to do so.

2) The aircraft had full capability of accomplishing this long-range flight, and could be flown successfully with a crew of four men (not the full compliment of eleven) consisting of pilot, copilot, navigator, and flight engineer.

3) Soviet aircrews trained in the captured US B-29s beginning in 1945 and had the skill to accomplish this mission since that was what they were intended to do if deployed - a one-way trip.

4) The TU-4 entered US airspace undetected. As an exact clone of the B-29 it was visually not identified as a Soviet aircraft.

5) The Soviets were well aware of the 509th being located at RAAFB and its significance in the Cold War. The defectors were intent on landing their atomic capable TU-4 as close to the 509th as possible and deliver it into the hands of US intelligence.

6) Fuel loss and weather conditions forced the aircraft to land short of RAAFB. The aircraft attempted to ditch but hit the ground once and bounced leaving portions of the fuselage scattered over the Foster Ranch. Perhaps one crew member was even thrown out of the aircraft onto the ranch due to the impact or faulty decompression during decent (hence the rumors Brazel also saw a body in the debris field).

7) The pilot flew several miles more before crash landing near Corona. The plane disintegrated and despite near empty fuel tanks partially exploded leaving a burn mark and the burnt remains of three or four crew members. Perhaps one even survived.

8) Not understanding what they had discovered in the debris field, and concluding no one was looking for this aircraft, Marcel thought the material found was from one of the many saucers currently being reported. Cyrillic symbols or Russian markings on composite wreckage compounded the problem.

9) Following the discovery of the primary crash site, intelligence quickly reversed the initial disc report to mislead the press concerning their discovery.
April 8, 2016 at 8:32 AM
Blogger Brian Bell said...
PART III

10) The Pentagon chose to hide the truth to avoid war panic and embarrassment that their strategic bomber was copied by the Soviets and had entered US airspace undetected.

11) The subject remains classified to this day as a matter of breached US national security, our inability to prevent Soviets from entering our airspace, and pride and embarrassment. Furthermore the records were destroyed just as reported by the USAF and GAO.

12) The testimony of Chester Barton is correct, but he saw the broken remains of a Soviet copy of the B-29.

13) No B-29 crash was reported since it wasn't our aircraft. So it can't be found in USAF crash records.

14) Barton's claim about radioactivity warnings were correct because they didn't know if this plane was carrying the A-bomb or was an attempted preemptive strike against our base at RAAFB.

15) Material was crated and shipped to Wright Field since Air Technical Command is were all foreign material was sent for evaluation. Even the bodies.

16) David's Ramey memo is correct. The "disc" reference in parenthesis is a covert recall to Haut's initial claim it was a disc, and the "victims of the wreck" are the Soviet flight crew.
April 8, 2016 at 8:48 AM

Brian provides an interesting hypothesis that is based on factual accounts of the Soviet's reverse-engineering of the B-29.  The old Military Channel devoted some years ago a whole segment pertaining to this effort.

Now Brian actually goes against the grain concerning those who have supported a Mogul or Mogul-like balloon theory, so it will be equally interesting how those individuals respond as well as the Roswell faithful.

Monday, March 7, 2016

Project Minuteman is up and running...



I've got the new blog up and running.  Project Minuteman is listed on the right side bar of this blog.  Click on to the link and you will be taken directly to the site.

Project Minuteman:  timhebert4.blogspot.com

Here is your opportunity for relaying your experiences in a hassle-free format.

Have at it!

Sunday, March 6, 2016

New Blog in the works: Project Minuteman

I've had this project on the back burner for a while, but I'm soon to launch a new blog titled "Project Minuteman" as a means for collecting historical data concerning UFOs and the Minuteman ICBM force.

This will be a vehicle designed to encourage the telling of past and present experiences in a written format.  I'll be encouraging those who served in Minuteman I, II, and III...past and present. This includes operational launch crews, security personnel, facility managers, cooks, maintenance personnel and relevant contractors.

I'll be also encouraging those individuals who were on alert in the Titan II and Peace Keeper systems.  I've noticed that there is little to no UFO reports concerning these two weapon systems.

The format used will be based on the subjective and objective concept that we use in our current clinical assessment tools in my line of work.  Subjective meaning what was the perception of the individual who experienced the event(s).  Objective meaning what measurable data was/is available at the time:  weather, time of day, month, year, etc.

The reports will be posted in the comment sections of the blog.  The individual may comment anonymously or provide his/her real name.  Since most would probably be posting anonymously, I will ask that relevant background information be provided:  rank, wing/squadron affiliation, job classification (MOS), name of wing commander in place at the time of the experience, etc. as this will provide me with enough details to provide authenticity of the commenters.   

The comments will be moderated as a means of filtering the reports and allowing me to list only the reports themselves without having to deal with any outside criticism or off topic comments. Hopefully I'll be able to filter "impostors" who would be intent on skewing data or causing mischief. 

The "devils in the details" so one needs to provide a detailed report as best as possible.  I plan for now to add no comments of my own, but will use the information only as a data collection source for future publication if possible. 

I'll also invite those current and former Air Force personnel who had provided information to Robert Hastings in support of his work.  Though I tend to oppose Hastings theories, I will accept those reports without criticism.  BTW, if said individuals feel that Hastings had taken their experiences/statements out of context then I would be interested in reading those comments as well.

Hope to have the site up in running in a few days.  The blog is ready to go with the exception of adding the criteria and formatting instruction for the reports. 


Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Re-emphasis on methodology for the Minot 1968 case

The following are segments of first postings regarding the Minot case.  I feel that it is important for the reader to have a sense of my approach towards this case.  My apologies to those who have already read this, if so then we'll move on, but if your new to this blog, the following should help with providing a frame of reference.

I've chosen to break up the case in sections or parts which is very similar to my approach to the Malmstrom Oscar Flight write up on this blog.  I believe that most readers will stay with my presentations if I provide several meaningful posts that describes a given situation in a moderately length article rather than a long drawn out single post which boarders on the perception of a manifesto or novella.  Simply, I'm trying to avoid reader fatigue.

The reader needs to keep in mind that this is a simple blog and not the place to park a research paper, nor am I intending to write a research paper.  For example, I've not attempted to contact and interview the key players in the Minot sighting because that has already been done by Tom Tulien and others.  Those interviews are conveniently available on numerous websites and the appropriate links and excerpts will be cited.  

The Minot 1968 case can be broken up into several parts.

1.  The missile maintenance team in route to  N-07.
2.  The missile security teams (FSCs and site security teams). 
3.  The diverted B-52 component (crew visuals, radar returns, UHF radio issues)
4.  The O-07 intrusion.
5.  Minot's UFO officer's (LtCol Werlich) investigation.
6.  Blue Book's responses and final conclusion.

Each of the above areas may have subsets.  These subsets may include data from Minot's base operations, wing security control, input from other launch control facilities and relevant information from the Memo for Records.

The focus of my work will center around the final Blue Book conclusions.  That is, does the final conclusions make logical sense.  My initial read of BBs 13 Nov1968 conclusions leaves me with the sense that it's somewhat wanting for the most part.  When I read the entire report, I couldn't help but see the lack of follow-up by both FTD and Minot's UFO Officer, LtCol Werlich.

The reader also needs to understand that I was not a pilot or navigator.  My knowledge of radar operations is relatively poor.  I did have the opportunity to sit in the pilot's seat of a B-52D at March AFB back in the late 1970s, but that does not qualify for any meaningful knowledge base of practical experience other than to provide knowledge of the cramp confines of the flight deck.  I do have experience in using UHF/HF/VHF radio equipment since the missile launch control centers were equipped with numerous radio and other communication systems.

Below is the key points of BB's conclusion:

1.  Ground visuals appear to be the star Sirius and the over flying B-52.   The missile maintenance teams AF-117s show that this may indeed be possible as stellar objects tend to be misidentified and the characteristics of the phenomena observed was that of the B-52. Yet the question remains, did they misinterpret stars and the aircraft for a UFO(s)?

2.  The B-52 radar contact and temporary loss of UHF transmission could be attributed to plasma/ball lightning.  This one bothers me due to the rarity of such a phenomena.  I get the impression (right/wrong) that this contributory theory was just thrown into the mix.

3.  The B-52 visual observation was the star Vega, ground light, or plasma.  This is an odd set of conclusions, but I believe that I have a good candidate for what was actually seen from the cockpit of the B-52.  The clues are embedded in the case files and appeared to have been glossed over during the investigation.  Plus there is a psychological component that was innocently introduced.

4.  The break in of Oscar-07 was not related to the event.  I tentatively agree with this conclusion.


So there we have it.  I hope to have something on the Oscar-07 incident next posting...then on to the next.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Resetting the stage for Minot 1968

November 01 Launch Control Facility - Minot AFB

Since it has been some time that I've posted about the 1968 Minot UFO case, I thought that it would be helpful to re-establish some of the key segments of last posts.  This provides a sense of where my thoughts were at that given time.

It is interesting for the reader to note that there where errors discovered in my star locations at certain points of the the night in question...this brought out by Tim Printy: 

"Your elevation angles for Sirius at 0300 is wrong. It should be about 19 degrees. I also think your azimuth for Sirius is wrong for 0100. It is way to far East.It should be ESE or SE (azimuth of about 123 degrees). Not that these values are that big a deal but I know how certain individuals like to harp on small details like this to make it appear the larger work is flawed. I am sure it was an honest mistake in the way you ran the astronomy program."

I have to admit that I was slightly taken aback by Printy's comment especially at the possibility that I may have intentionally manipulated data to fit my theory.  This was my reply to Printy:

"Tim, thanks for the info and input. The elevations for 0300 and 0400 for Sirius and Rigel were obtained from PBB data. Who ever computed the elevations at Wright-Patterson listed Sirius at 28 degrees above the horizon at 0300 L.

If you ran a program that shows differently, then you discovered a flaw in PBB's analysis, which eventually goes to one of my hypothesis that the entire investigation from Minot and W-P AFB was less than pristine.

As far as my 0100 azimuth for Sirius, your probably right as I had used a star chart for 24 October that was not as accurate as I had liked. You'll notice that in the post I listed some of my locations as "approximately" because of the lack of precision. I had believed that it was within the ball park. It was my intent to show that Sirius was in the general vicinity regarding Isley's and O'Connors initial observation times. Simply, I got to cute with the chart that I had at hand.

I'll take your figures and supply another chart in an addendum post as I value your expertise in the matters of astronomy.

Thanks for the constructive critique!"

The initial data that I had used was the very data that PBB had used.  How PBB obtained their data is unknown at this time.  With the data supplied by Printy, I re-calculated the positioning of the known stellar objects for the night/morning of 24 Oct 1968.  This information was provided in an addendum post.

Possibilities

When looking at the key principle's AF-117s, I have to take into account three possibilities:

1.  The ground observers, primarily O'Connor/Isley, Jablonski/Adams and Bond/Williams, saw lights and/or an object in their respective flight areas.  The possibility exists that this could have been a mis-identified star...possible, but not certain.

2.  At a given point in time, the B-52 visually supplants the initial object and the observers focus solely on the B-52.  I believe that this is possible, but not certain.

3.  The object is neither a star, nor the B-52, but of an unknown origin.  A UFO, if you will. This is possible, but not definitive nor is it certain.

Are the AF-117s accurate concerning the plotted directions and elevations of the object/light?  I tend to think not.  The observation reports were completed either the next day or a few days after the incident.  Werlich, per memo for record, had told the staff of PBB that he had to show most how to annotate the directions and elevations on the AF-117s.  If this is true, then the diagrams were best guesses based on memory recall.  Each observer perceived the event in a different way.

There is another AF-117, that of the B-52's pilot, Maj James Partin, that provides possible clues to his sighting that possibly discounts a UFO on or near the ground.  In my opinion, Partin's AF-117 does not corroborate the observations from the ground teams.  I'm not talking about the radar data, but of Partin's visual observations, what he saw with his own eyes. The radar data will be discussed in a separate post. 

Is a stellar observation possible?

This is what Blue Book proposed.  Unfortunately in today's UFO research climate, the mere mentioning of Blue Book tends to be toxic, but was a stellar component possible?  In order to answer this question we have to compare the ground observers' estimated plotted positions while on site at N-07 and the potential candidates for a proposed stellar observation.

What was the actual conditions during the night? This depends on the perception of each observer.  O'Connor listed the conditions as partly cloudy with nimbus clouds, a few stars, no moon. Isley wrote that the night was clear, few stars, no moon light.  Jablonski wrote that it was a clear night, few stars, no moon light.  The same for Adams.  Bond, at N-01, stated the night was clear with a few stars.  William Smith, O-01, wrote that it was completely overcast, clouds, no stars, and no moon.  James Partin, the B-52 pilot, wrote that there were many stars and no moon light, but Partin was at altitude in his aircraft.

Based on the above descriptions, it appears that the ground teams in the November Flight area, particular to N-07, had a fairly non-obscured sky during the observations.  Oscar Flight, NE of November Flight, was the only exception as it appeared to had been overcast, per William Smith, yet he saw a light/object SSW, 15 degrees above the horizon.

James Partin's View from the B-52

James Partin was the pilot of the B-52 that over-flew the November flight area.  His aircraft was 10 miles northeast of Minot AFB at an altitude of 3200 ft MSL per his AF-117.  He saw a bright orange ball of light at his one o'clock.  It appeared to be 15 miles away either on the ground or slightly above the ground.  The light remained stationary as he flew towards it. During his 5 minute visual observation, the object never moved, even when he was directly above it. To Partin, "It looked like a miniature sun placed on the ground below the aircraft.

Nowhere in Partin's AF-117 does he describe a light/object moving about the flight area, as compared to the descriptions provided by the ground observers. Partin only saw a bright object or source of light on or near the ground...and it was stationary...not moving.

What was the bright light that Partin observed?  Project Blue Book offered the possibility of ball lightning or the star Vega.  Both of these options are very poor choices as Vega was barely above the horizon in the north, if at all, and ball lightning being a very rare event and hardly a stationary phenomena.

If we rule out Vega and ball lightning, then what is the source?  The answer may well be annotated by the ground observers AF-117s and the flight path of the B-52.

The PBB staff and LtCol Werlich either missed or glossed over a key passage in Jablonski's AF-117, in particular, section 11 e, Major Source of Illumination."  Jablonski had wrote in section 11 e, "Head lights and site lights".  While on N-07, the site's top-side lights were on and the team's vehicle head lights were on.

I asked two former missile maintenance officers about the arrangement of the site lights on a launch facility.  Both stated that there were 2 light posts with 3 lights mounted on each pole.  When asked how bright these lights were, one stated that all were very bright, lighting up the entire area of the launch facility.  I assume that all six lights were positioned in different angles on their respective poles to provide the illumination coverage.

If we look at the flight path of the B-52,  N-07 would have been in the direction of Partin's one o'clock.  The flight path takes the aircraft near N-07. I believe that what Partin had described as a stationary source of bright light was actually N-07 with it's site lights activated.  In his AF-117, Partin draws what he believes to have seen either on the ground or hovering above the ground.

The site lights would have brightly lit the entire topside of the LF and a portion of the outside perimeter. The graveled topside and concrete components could have been seen as a bright reflection being observed by Partin.  In an interview with Tulien/Klotz, Jablonski gave the impression that he and Adams had parked their vehicle on the access road.

I cannot say the above is exactly what Partin saw, but I believe that it is possible...plausible. It is "possible" that the ground observers saw a star, or a series of stars that appeared to move slowly over time.  It is "possible" that at a given point in time, the overflying B-52 takes over and is now the focus of the ground observers as the UFO.  Add in the light pollution by the bright site lights from N-07, it is "possible" that the ground observers lost frequent eye contact with the initial object (star?).  It is "possible" that Maj. Partin was actually observing a "stationary" brightly lit N-07.