Mansfield helicopter ufo incident

This is from your own linked article:

"Any theory of the object’s being a meteor (UFO skeptic Philip Klass maintains that the object was a “fireball of the Orionid meteor shower”) can readily be rejected on the basis of: (1) the duration of the event (an estimated 300 seconds); (2) the marked deceleration and hard-angle maneuver of the object at closest approach; (3) the precisely defined shape of the object; and (4) the horizon-to-horizon flight path."
 
Magical Realist said:
Except that doesn't match with the eyewitness accounts at all:

"After the red-lighted object stopped, the green light flared up. "When we got out, everything was green. I saw that thing and the helicopter." The witnesses agreed that the helicopter was green "because of the light from the thing up above... It was so bright that you couldn't see too far. Everything was green. The trees, the car, everything."
Click to expand...
These were the witnesses who Klass found were actually miles away from the helicopter, right?

And here's a description by the pilot:

"The object appeared solid, blotting out the stars behind it. It had a red light at the nose, a white light at the tail, and a distinctive green beam emanating from the lower part of the otherwise featureless "fuselage." The green beam swung up over the helicopter nose, through the windshield, and into the upper tinted window panels. The cockpit was bathed in intense green light. No noise or turbulence was noted."
Click to expand...
When was this description given, and to whom?

According to Jennie Zeidman, one of the crew, Jezzi, reported only a bright white light, comparable to the leading light of a small aircraft, visible through the top “greenhouse’ panels of the windshield.

Ref: http://www.clevelandufo.com/?page_id=18
 
Klass apparently relies on the old meteor explanation quite regularly. The problem is something like that would be seen for hundreds of miles in cities all across Ohio. Yet no mention is ever made of such an event in any of the papers the next day. Why is that James?
 
Magical Realist said:
Because he obviously didn't accept that explanation as noted in his later behavior.
Click to expand...
Yeah. That $5000 prize, and lucrative speaking engagements at UFO conferences, might have changed his mind.

Magical Realist said:
This is from your own linked article:

"Any theory of the object’s being a meteor (UFO skeptic Philip Klass maintains that the object was a “fireball of the Orionid meteor shower”) can readily be rejected on the basis of: (1) the duration of the event (an estimated 300 seconds); (2) the marked deceleration and hard-angle maneuver of the object at closest approach; (3) the precisely defined shape of the object; and (4) the horizon-to-horizon flight path."
Click to expand...
Sure, that's the author's conclusion there.

But I think we should concentrate on reports made contemporaneously with the incident, and not years later after Coyne had made a living out of telling tales of alien spaceships.
 
These were the witnesses who Klass found were actually miles away from the helicopter, right
Click to expand...

That's what Klass claims. I have my doubts. In any case, I suspect a helicopter and a bright ufo can be sighted from "miles away."
 
James R said:
Yeah. That $5000 prize, and lucrative speaking engagements at UFO conferences, might have changed his mind.
Click to expand...

Ad homing eyewitnesses won't add credibility to your argument.

Sure, that's the author's conclusion there.

But I think we should concentrate on reports made contemporaneously with the incident, and not years later after Coyne had made a living out of telling tales of alien spaceships.
Click to expand...

I'm going by all statements made by all the eyewitnesses. There will be no editing of accounts to suit Klass's conclusion.
 
When was this description given, and to whom?
Click to expand...

I provided the link. Go find it.

According to Jennie Zeidman, one of the crew, Jezzi, reported only a bright white light, comparable to the leading light of a small aircraft, visible through the top “greenhouse’ panels of the windshield.
Click to expand...

Effectively ruling out anything remotely resembling a meteor.

Jezzi also said this:

"It took just a couple of seconds," Jezzi said. "I remember looking up through the ceiling and I saw a white light moving over top of us. I followed it to the left horizon where it disappeared."

Jezzi isn't sure what he saw. It was like no aircraft he'd ever seen. He guessed it was traveling at least 500 knots, twice the speed of his Huey.

"Red navigational lights aren't located in the front of an aircraft," he said. "That's what was moving toward us. I don't know what it was."

http://www.ufocasebook.com/coyne.html
 
Does it also "effectively rule out" the (alleged) green light that everyone else claimed they saw?
Click to expand...

You mean descriptions like this?

“It wasn’t cruising, it was stopped. For maybe ten to twelve seconds – just stopped,” Yanacsek reported. Coyne, Healey, and Yanacsek agree that a cigar-shaped, slightly domed object substended an angle of nearly the width of the front windshield. A featureless, gray, metallic-looking structure was precisely delineated against the background stars. Yanacsek reported “a suggestion of windows” along the top dome section. The red light emanated from the bow, a white light became visible at a slightly indented stern, and then, from aft/below, a green ‘pyramid shaped” beam equated to a directional spotlight became visible. The green beam passed upward over the helicopter nose, swung up through the windshield, continued upward and entered the tinted upper window panels.

At that point (and not before), the cockpit was enveloped in green light. Jezzi reported only a bright white light, comparable to the leading light of a small aircraft"---http://www.clevelandufo.com/?page_id=18
 
Magical Realist said:
That's what Klass claims. I have my doubts. In any case, I suspect a helicopter and a bright ufo can be sighted from "miles away."
Click to expand...
Why do you doubt Klass's investigations, but not the statements of the supposed eyewitnesses on the ground?

Magical Realist said:
I provided the link. Go find it.
Click to expand...
Does your link say when that statement was made, or doesn't it?

Effectively ruling out anything remotely resembling a meteor.
Click to expand...
How so?

Jezzi also said this:

"It took just a couple of seconds," Jezzi said. "I remember looking up through the ceiling and I saw a white light moving over top of us. I followed it to the left horizon where it disappeared."

Jezzi isn't sure what he saw. It was like no aircraft he'd ever seen. He guessed it was traveling at least 500 knots, twice the speed of his Huey.
Click to expand...
But the helicopter wasn't rated for a speed of anything like 250 knots. How could it possibly being doing that speed?

"Red navigational lights aren't located in the front of an aircraft," he said. "That's what was moving toward us. I don't know what it was."
Click to expand...
Highlighted for emphasis. Maybe it was a meteor.
 
The problem with statements made years after the fact is obviously that a lot of time has elapsed in which witnesses can embellish both their statements and their memories of the incident.

If you're being paid to tell your UFO story, you want to make it a good one. "I saw a light in the sky and I wasn't sure what it was" doesn't make for good press. As time after an incident goes on, the pressure to make the story more interesting inevitably mounts. And so do the monetary and other incentives.
 
Why do you doubt Klass's investigations, but not the statements of the supposed eyewitnesses on the ground?
Click to expand...

Because the eyewitnesses were there. Klass wasn't and has an agenda of debunking the ufo as a meteor. Now who should we trust? Hmmmm...

How so?
Click to expand...

Describes it as a craft with a white spotlight "moving over the top of us" and a red leading light. That's not a meteor, which would only be one white blinding flash.

But the helicopter wasn't rated for a speed of anything like 250 knots. How could it possibly being doing that speed.
Click to expand...

He might not have been familiar with the helicopter's top speed. So what?
 
James R said:
The problem with statements made years after the fact is obviously that a lot of time has elapsed in which witnesses can embellish both their statements and their memories of the incident.

If you're being paid to tell your UFO story, you want to make it a good one. "I saw a light in the sky and I wasn't sure what it was" doesn't make for good press. As time after an incident goes on, the pressure to make the story more interesting inevitably mounts. And so do the monetary and other incentives.
Click to expand...

The detailed description of the craft by the pilots and ground witnesses is there in the accounts from the beginning. You don't get detail of structure like that from seeing a blinding meteor.
 
Magical Realist said:
He might not have been familiar with the helicopter's top speed. So what?
Click to expand...
And - given that he "mis-estimated" the helicopter's speed - what are the chances he also got the "500 knots" wrong?

Because the eyewitnesses were there.
Click to expand...
That's an assumption on your part and an unconfirmed claim on theirs.
 
Magical Realist said:
He might not have been familiar with the helicopter's top speed. So what?
Click to expand...
Since he got that wrong then what other "details" did he get wrong due to "unfamiliarity"?
What details did the rest of the crew get wrong?
You either accept everything as stated or you check and question everything: obviously not a philosophy to which you subscribe - your modus operandi appears to be "Accept without reservation everything that supports your pre-formed opinion and dismiss as irrelevant or trivial anything that might call it into question".
 
And - given that he "mis-estimated" the helicopter's speed - what are the chances he also got the "500 knots" wrong?
Click to expand...

So not knowing the top speed of a helicopter means you can't estimate the flight speed of an observed craft? Uh no.

That's an assumption on your part and an unconfirmed claim on theirs.
Click to expand...

And you're assuming they weren't there and are lying because that suits Klass's assumption that is was a meteor.
 
Since he got that wrong then what other "details" did he get wrong due to "unfamiliarity"?
What details did the rest of the crew get wrong?
Click to expand...

What does one person not knowing the speed parameters of his helicopter have to do with other crew members getting anything wrong? That doesn't even make sense.

You either accept everything as stated or you check and question everything: obviously not a philosophy to which you subscribe - your modus operandi appears to be "Accept without reservation everything that supports your pre-formed opinion and dismiss as irrelevant or trivial anything that might call it into question".
Click to expand...

Right. I accept the eyewitness accounts as given. You on the other hand dismiss parts of the accounts or whole accounts to suit your debunking agenda that it was not a real ufo. That's called confirmation bias.
 
Magical Realist said:
So not knowing the top speed of a helicopter means you can't estimate the flight speed of an observed craft? Uh no.
Click to expand...
Really?
If he didn't know what speed he was doing (for whatever reason) then how would he have any idea what speed the "UFO" was going at?
Given the lack of confirmed size/ distance reference then it would necessarily be based on a comparison between his own craft and the "UFO". And, given that he got his own speed wrong...

And you're assuming they weren't there and are lying
Click to expand...
Nope: I'm saying that - lacking definitive confirmation either way (and the dispute over their location) - there's no reason to assume that they were in fact there.

What does one person not knowing the speed parameters of his helicopter have to do with other crew members getting anything wrong? That doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. You acknowledge that ONE guy (out of four) got something wrong but... what? The other three are infallible?
We know for a fact that at least part of one person's testimony is flawed - so should we assume that he was the ONLY one that got something wrong?

Right. I accept the eyewitness accounts as given. You on the other hand dismiss parts of the accounts or whole accounts to suit your debunking agenda that it was not a real ufo. That's called confirmation bias
Click to expand...
Um, no. Try reading what I actually wrote: You either accept everything as stated or you check and question everything. YOU personally are essentially doing the former whereas I (and James and...) are doing the latter. Ergo the confirmation bias is entirely yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top