Target: The Roswell incident of July 1947.
Method: Use Xeno's simplified Analysis of Competing Hypothesis ( ACH ) technique to minimize flawed thinking, human error and deliberate deception.
Step 1, Identify all potential hypotheses.
Step 2, List "facts" in time line on spread sheet and assign validity value scores.
Step 3, Create matrix: Link each fact as being for, neutral, or against each hypothesis
Step 4, Score shows winning hypothesis.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
--
Step 1, Identify all potential hypotheses.
Read everything you can on the topic, pull out distinct explanations. Come back and add to this as you go through the other steps.
H0: US Ordinary weather balloon
H1: US Mogul project to monitor soviet nuke tests
H2: US flying wing test crash
H3: US flying saucer test crash
H4: US rocket test
H5: Japanese FUGO balloon bomb
H6: Nazi flying saucer
H7: Soviet spy device
H8: Aliens
Step 2, List facts in time line on spread sheet matrix and assign validity values.
Here are the validity value scores I currently use.
100 points: (=) Undisputed physical evidence or historical fact.
75 points: (£) Logical deduction from undisputed evidence/facts
50 points: (O) Witness report untainted trained/careful/credible observer
25 points: (o) Eye-witness testimony of untainted layperson
10 points: (+) Second hand information, unexposed to disinfo
2 points: (?) Unverified from researchers who also cite known facts
1 point: (~) Testimony after disinfo contact, coersion, or long time
0 points: (-) Imagination, rumors, unknownWith a spreadsheet you can adjust validity values to see which hypothesis wins.
July 7, 2008: The time line I was building here got too big so I moved it here.
7 comments:
Xeno, wasn't there a wave of sightings during the mid to late 40s? Kenneth Arnold, much publicized sighting, was only one of many, if I remember correctly. (I wish someone would do some real archival research looking at old newspapers in libraries and put them online. That would be just too cool! But, that would take a lot of time.)
Whatever, lots of luck.
Speaking of which, I came across some documents (released in accordance to the FOIA, supposedly) concerning Barry Goldwater's interest in UFOs. Goldwater, who was an elected member of Congress, was told, in so many words to mind his own business by yet an acquaintance when he asked about UFOs.
Yeah, I know, he was a Republican and a way too conservative one at that . . . so much for that bit.
Could you provide a caption for the photo of the aircraft? Its always best to do that when you are trying to make a point with a photo.
Thanks for the captions, and the new photos.
As we can see, it is impossible that what Arnold saw was a squadron of Horten Parabolae flying in formation. We can also see that the artists impression he is holding is also not what he saw. According to his own detailed description and his accompanying sketch, its pretty clear that what he saw was in fact what William Rhodes photographed.
Astonishing.
When you get right down to the raw facts, everthing comes together, no matter what the outcome. This is what real research does; it uncovers what really happened, and in this case, the non human manufactured 'discs' that Kenneth Arnold saw.
Why would Arnold pose with something that did not look like what he saw? Do you have any references about who created the photo he is holding and the circumstances there? You may be right, I just want to check it out because what you say does not seem obvious to me at all.
You know...after looking at that picture of the Horten Parabola for some time now, I am starting to have doubts.
Something seems off with the picture. My mind is triggering up little alarm bells to do with the focus and scale. I used to make model kits when I was younger, 've spent many years looking at images of dioramas made by modellers that depict (mostly) ultra-realistic Tamiya model kits.
But something about the images always spoiled the realism of the modeller's craft - the fact that no matter how hard you try, it is incredibly difficult to get a figure or vehicle who is only a few inches high look full-sized- mostly due to the depth of focus.
The image of the Parabola seems to not feel quite right. The size of the cockpit canopy would (assuming it is a small canopy to start with) suggest that the plane is rather large. But the sticking point is that if that is the case, the panelling that sticks up would seem to be quite raised - maybe half a foot. Which would cause all kinds of problems with aerodynamics.
And the ground upon which the plane is pictured, althouh pretty indistinct, looks like grass, but also looks out of scale with the plane.
There is just something about this image - the scale effects, the paint job and the overall reflectivity of the craft, the focus, the panel lines, the convenient lack of anything to denote scale, the strange angle of the image that would have to be taken fro a high tower - that make me think this is a model and not a full sized vehicle. Reminds me of a picture of a wood and paper remote control plane kit.
Is there anything to corroborate that this is an image of a full sized vehicle, or that it is at least a genuine image of either the Parabola or a miniature prototype from the time, and not just some modern mock-up? What is the provenance of the image?
Just my random musings...
Dammit, I just typed all that and then noticed the note about the Nazi UFO stuff being a hoax :)
Unless of course you mean that the Operation Paperclip stuff (and therefore the Horten Parabola) is real?
I have confused myself now! :)
[...] interesting articles over at Xenophilia.com, our good friend Xenophilius Lovegood has put up an interesting article that looks at all that is known about the alleged crash of something at Roswell, New Mexico in [...]
Post a Comment