So his changing stories about finding the secret film has no evidence to back it up and is dubious at best and now you, johne, are showing that his calculations about multiple UFOs floating over heavily populated SoCal are also problematic. And he thinks there are long term spy balloons floating around (post #37).
How credible do you find him now?
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't get the impression that you posted this in the spirit of "Hey guys, this person is full of BS, please help me debunk him". I get the feeling that you post things like this as credible sources of UFO/paranormal information.
no offense, but you find all sorts of normal, everyday things hard to believe. you find it hard to believe the UFOs are balloons when you are literally looking at them with your own two eyes.I still find it hard to believe that he entirely made up the story about discovering the Gemini film canisters under the floor.
https://www.history.nasa.gov/SP-168/section3b.htmTheir cameras included not only the NASA-modified Hasselblad Model 500-C used successfully on previous flights, but also super-wide-angle Hasselblads with Zeiss Biogon 38-mm lenses and 70-mm space cameras with Xenotar 80-mm lenses.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case978.htmYet McDivitt himself has never made much of his sighting, however often he has politely retold the tale to fascinated audiences and interviewers. He remains of the mind that he saw some unidentified but still man-made piece of orbital debris. There is no evidence anybody took the slightest official notice, nor is there any record that the astronaut ever filed a UFO report with Project Blue Book.
I marked "agree" on that, on the grounds that I agree with the majority of the points. I agree that it is unclear how, or even if, he determined the distance to the objects. I agree that the points you mention, among others, makes one question his judgement.I still find it hard to believe that he entirely made up the story about discovering the Gemini film canisters under the floor.
I don't understand how he determined the distance to objects of unknown size from photos taken from a single viewpoint.
It is funny that he mistook a Pony balloon for some sort of spying device. Also on the face of it he seems rather paranoid about military planes near his house. It does make one question his judgement.
This a great story to analyze just on the face of it, never mind evidence or the changing details or the un-named other people involved. What is the actual story saying? At it's heart, it's a hero quest, or in Western Christan terms, a testimony or conversion story. Let's break it down:I still find it hard to believe that he entirely made up the story about discovering the Gemini film canisters under the floor.
Exactly. Though John says "in his book Rudnyk calculated the size of the objects".
Perhaps John could contact him and ask him how he arrived at the ground distance?
Humans are notoriously bad at estimating even medium distances without cues such as object size or observer motion.If the objects were that close [300 ft/100m] wouldn't he notice? They would be just across the intersection.
Stereoscopic vision works most effectively for distances up to 18 feet. Beyond this distance, your brain starts using relative size and motion to determine depth.
If an O[bserver] is presented with unfamiliar objects in a situation where secondary cues to distance are lacking (e .g., an otherwise completely dark room), his judgments of size and distance are not reliably related to the actual sizes and distances of the objects.
It is not simply that such judgments are inaccurate, but rather that their variability, both between and within as, is so large as to make it virtually impossible to establish psychophysical functions.
I got a reply from Marian Rudnyk. He confirmed that he just estimated the distance by eye given his knowledge of the local area, the cloud deck heights and reference landmarks.
For me the jury is still out!Thanks for doing that: it's always good, if we can, to go to the source.
As pointed out above - and as common sense should tell us - I would propose that those estimates are basically worthless.
I wonder where that leaves this case - and Rudnyk's credibility - then?