Kaikoura Lights

Occam’sLawyer

New Member
Ross Coulthart’s “In Plain Sight” discusses an incident known as the “Kaikoura Lights.” For a brief Wikipedia summary, see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaikoura_lights

I am curious as to whether this incident has been debunked, and would love Mick’s analysis. Coulthart cites a witness named John Cordy, who was a radar operator at the time. The book states:

“John Cordy has long since retired, but nothing in the years since has dimmed his belief that the objects he tracked on his radar that night were in no way capable of prosaic explanation. He remains bitter that the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s official finding asserted that he and other air traffic controllers at Wellington Airport were confused by anomalous faulty radar returns, yet he was never even questioned about what he saw. He knew enough to know that what the Argosy aircraft’s occupants saw that night was neither squid boat lights nor the planet Venus. Yet neither is he saying the objects were aliens in flying saucers. ‘They were simply unidentified. There’s been lots of explanations but none of them fit the facts,’ he tells me. ‘We saw targets on radar that we could not explain. We were in communication with the pilot as he described the objects moving around him and we could see those on the radar. They parallel-tracked the plane for 40 miles. I’d love to have seen how squid boats could possibly be dropping their lines from the 14,000-feet altitude where we tracked these objects.’”

I find this paragraph interesting because it notes that there were multiple forms of observation at the same time.
Thoughts?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The first step is to look for existing debunks, and also the original reports, some of which appear to be linked from the wikipedia article?

Wikipedia doesn't reflect that an analysis of the sightings was declassified this summer, finding that seems a good idea:
Article:
In a report submitted to the United Nations in January 1979, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) classified the objects as "UFOs until identified", but said the "prospect of extra terrestrial intervention being proved is regarded as extremely remote".

The document is one of a large group of declassified documents regarding "Unidentified Flying Objects" at Archives New Zealand, which came from New Zealand's post at the UN between 1977 and 1982.


And here's a bit of analysis of the TV footage:
Article:
The following day there was nightly news comment on the overnight breaking news item. The inevitable expert came on and claimed it was most likely the planet Venus. It was all a big mistake. He dismissed the stuff from the radar people that it was (e.g.) only a few miles away from their hired aircraft and was seen moving from one side to the other. Radars were complicated and always picking up spurious returns from birds or basketball poles and stuff like that.

The film crew was highly unimpressed with their item thrown in the garbage can by the "expert(s)". The boot was on the other foot now.
So they went up the next night same time same cameras same lenses same aircraft and retraced their route again taking shots of Venus out the aircraft windows. Their new footage was shown on the nightly news the next day. It "obviously" looked one hell of a lot different to the glowing blob they caught the previous night zipping around their plane.

And of course being an accountant type I put the apparent angular diameter of the original object (compared with Venus with the same camera/lens) and the range of distances the radar people had been citing the prev night to calculate the object -- or at least the glowing part of it -- was only about 2m across.

I remember I was very disappointed because I couldn't imagine a bunch of aliens could be so small to fit in that kind of tiny space.

Obviously a copy of that TV footage would be good, too, because it meets Metabunk's requirement of actual evidence.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
You mention Klass and Maccabee.

"Philip J. Klass published the squid boat explanation in his book, UFOs, THE PUBLIC DECEIVED (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1983)" (source below). I haven't seen this explanation.

The other side argues extensively against it, as laid out in this Dec 7, 2020, blog post:
Article:
This is a two part presentation. The first part consists of three technical papers which discuss one of the sightings that occurred off the East Coast of the South Island of New Zealand. These papers are unique because they seem to be the only series of articles containing a discussion of a single UFO sighting that has appeared in a refereed technical journal. The journal is called Applied Optics, a publication of the Optical Society of America. The second part of this presentation is an analysis of the squid boat hypothesis which has been proposed to explain the sighting that is discussed in the Applied Optics papers.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
My own guess would've been some type of ball lightning, which, as a physical phenomenon (or a set of different phenomena), seems to still be somewhat poorly understood, though we know more than we did 40 years ago.
 

Occam’sLawyer

New Member
I find this interesting because there is a combination of radar tracking simultaneous to eyewitness reporting. They dispute Venus and squid boats. Could these have been drones (in 1978 no less) or something else? Ball Lightning’s characteristics don’t seem to match.

Ross Couthart continues:

“Dennis Grant later moved to Australia to work in journalism, and he became a well-respected political correspondent for one of the main television networks. He joined Fogarty on the Argosy plane’s return trip from Christchurch to Blenheim that December 1978 night and saw the objects. ‘It still remains the most intriguing and strange story I have ever worked on,’ Grant tells me. ‘I have no idea what we saw. We didn’t see Venus, which is what the air force suggested. Venus was at an entirely wrong angle to where we were looking. And it wasn’t reflected fishing boat lights, which was their other claim.’ Dennis Grant was the only person on board the plane that night to keep contemporaneous notes. What struck him the most was that, frequently during the flight, the strange glowing orbs they all witnessed moving around their aircraft were simultaneously tracked on both Wellington radar and the plane’s radar. ‘We were listening in to the conversation with Wellington radar and when we said where we could see an object, they were tracking it across Cook Strait on their equipment,’ he tells me.“

“Grant also says they were close enough to the orbs at times to see their light reflected on the ocean below, underlining the falsity of official findings that all on board were confused by squid boat lights somehow refracted on the clouds. He said the objects were lit internally; some were clearly circular but others were elongated. ‘There must have been some sort of dimension, a solidity, to them because they were picked up by the radar sets as we were watching them,’ he told me. Adding to the intrigue, he recalled that the plane was also in communication with Christchurch air traffic control in the South Island, as well as Wellington in the North Island, but he learned the audio tapes of the Christchurch radio exchanges were lost within a few days of the incident. I was not surprised to hear from Grant that he was not interviewed by the Royal New Zealand Air Force investigators.”
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
You mention Klass and Maccabee.

"Philip J. Klass published the squid boat explanation in his book, UFOs, THE PUBLIC DECEIVED (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1983)" (source below). I haven't seen this explanation.

The other side argues extensively against it, as laid out in this Dec 7, 2020, blog post:
Article:
This is a two part presentation. The first part consists of three technical papers which discuss one of the sightings that occurred off the East Coast of the South Island of New Zealand. These papers are unique because they seem to be the only series of articles containing a discussion of a single UFO sighting that has appeared in a refereed technical journal. The journal is called Applied Optics, a publication of the Optical Society of America. The second part of this presentation is an analysis of the squid boat hypothesis which has been proposed to explain the sighting that is discussed in the Applied Optics papers.
I think this is something of a distortion. I'm still all consumingly busy just now so I haven't been able to give the material at the link you included more than 10 minutes time. So if someone else wants to do a more detailed analysis it would be appreciated.

... discussion of a single UFO sighting that has appeared in a refereed technical journal. The journal is called Applied Optics, a publication of the Optical Society of America.

This implies that there was an independent, peer reviewed article. If I'm getting it right, what actually happened is: Maccabee wrote a letter to the editor, it was rebutted - again in the letters to the editor section - and Maccabee wrote a response to the rebuttal. There was no peer reviewed article.

Maccabee presents a list and sums it up with: "There you have it: 19 reasons it wasn't a squid boat. All you needed is one!"

A sample:
9. The crew and passengers had the impression that at no time while the plane was flying along a straight path did the light move much with respect to the plane. Instead, they clearly had the impression that it was pacing the plane. The second reporter on board (Dennis Grant) wrote a note at the time which states “170 pace us”, which meant that when the plane was traveling about 170 mph (statute miles/hour) the light was pacing the plane...

19. The second reporter (Grant) specifically remembered seeing a reflection in the water! Not only that, but the captain was quoted in a NZ newspaper story, dated Jan 1, 1979, as saying that the light was reflected in the sea.

My over all impression is: Just more of the same. A long and tedious argument presented by an intelligent eccentric who won't let it go.

As I said, this is a possibly flawed impression made in haste.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Active Member
I think this is something of a distortion. I'm still all consumingly busy just now so I haven't been able to give the material at the link you included more than 10 minutes time. So if someone else wants to do a more detailed analysis it would be appreciated.
I'm no technical expert, but I'll give it a try Mr. Wolf.

Firstly, it's somewhat confusing as to what the post in question actually is. It's not a Blogpost, rather it appears to be a reprint from a now defunct website. While it never states who the author is, it is an article from ~2000 re-hashing the Kaikoura-lights that includes the aforementioned "articles" in Applies Optics. The "articles" were as, Z.D.Wolf pointed out, really just Letters to the Editor by Bruce Maccebee and this article talks about the history of letters in the first person.

So it's likely a Blogpost from ~2000 by Bruce Maccebee that includes a reprint of his article/letters from 1979, reasons the Kaikoura lights are not squid boats and how Bruce outsmarted the editors of Applied Optics by taking his article that was rejected by Nature and getting them to publish it.

Maccebee is a long time UFO believer and has championed such sketchy cases as "The Gulf Breeze Photos". (bold by me)

n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Breeze_UFO_incident

As far as I can find he never recanted.

The reprinted Letters to the Editor are difficult to read, as they resemble old FAX copies that were scanned and uploaded. It's a lot of math about how bright the object must have been at a giving distance depending on the type of film used and how much light hits it.


/thecosmicreport.com/the-kaikoura-ufo-sighting/

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to highlight passages in the article, so I'll just have to write out the sentence I noticed.

"For highly overexposed images it is difficult to estimate the illuminance on the film plane. On the other hand, smeared images are somewhat less over exposed and allow better estimates of the film plane illuminance."
Middle of 2nd paragraph, right hand column above the formula.

To a lay person this sounds like most of the film is over and/or highly overexposed and all this math is a lot of guess work.

There is then a rebuttal letter to his letter saying, yes it's a bright light, just like on a squid boat.

Maccebee follows back up:




Interesting here, is his diagram. It's hard to read, but I got that:

1. Plane takes off at 2:17
2 At 2:19, we get box A: "Sector A indicates uncertainties in the remembered radar distance and radar/visual azimuth angle when the object was first seen." I'm taking this as, we're not really sure where we were looking or how far it was when first seen.
3. At 2:24 we get box B: "The vertical arrows through Sector B indicate an added uncertainty in the time at which the radar target went off the scope..." More uncertainty.
4. At 2:30 the plane makes a full 90* turn to the right then so that the piolet can now see the light, before tuning back to the left and heading back on course.
5. Box E: "The square area at E represents the estimated location of the object when last seen."

Seems like if the "uncertain" azimuth and distances of A and B were off by a little, they could have been looking at E the whole time, right?

The article goes on and on after showing these reprinted Letters to the Editor with more diagrams and drawings and reasons the light wasn't a squid boat. More interesting is his account of how he repurposed a rejected Nature article into Applied Optics: (I've heavily edited some of this for brevity. One can always go read the whole thing)

https://thecosmicreport.com/the-kaikoura-ufo-sighting/

That's enough for now, I got stuff to do.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
170 mph = 270 km/h
At that speed, the aircraft moves 18 km in 4 minutes, not 23 km; this difference makes up for the alleged motion of the light.

If it's 170 knots = 315 km/h, the aircraft moves 21 km in 4 minutes, but obviously that's nautical miles/hour.
 

NorCal Dave

Active Member
170 mph = 270 km/h
At that speed, the aircraft moves 18 km in 4 minutes, not 23 km; this difference makes up for the alleged motion of the light.

If it's 170 knots = 315 km/h, the aircraft moves 21 km in 4 minutes, but obviously that's nautical miles/hour.
So we have an ET proponent of the incident, inadvertently saying that the light doesn't move much?

As I read about this I was struck by how accommodating the ET was in this incident, at least according to Maccebee:

https://thecosmicreport.com/the-kaikoura-ufo-sighting/

So the ET showed up again in the same spot to get photographed.

Then upon chasing an actual real ET with a film crew onboard, the piolet decided he couldn't keep up with it and headed back to his original course to deliver the mail or what ever they were transporting : (bold by me)


https://thecosmicreport.com/the-kaikoura-ufo-sighting/

They were chasing an UFO/ET with a camera crew onboard! And they decided, " never mind, we've got mail or diapers (nappies), or what ever to deliver, let's skip it".
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
One thing I've also learned from our UFO discussions is that "superior flight capacity" usually means "object isn't where we thought it was".
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
If I remember rightly the plane was delivering morning edition newspapers. That used to be important stuff.

Once again, the social status of witnesses is emphasized... to the point that you don't dare disagree with them. Pilots! (The almighty steely-eyed pilot with a square jaw and faultless perception.) Professional cameraman! Experienced reporter! Essentially delivery drivers and naïve and credulous fluff-piece news guys.

Not long ago, a police officer (a trained observer!) and two fluff-piece news guys mistook three successive 737s at high altitude as being mysterious Colorado drones a few hundred feet above their head.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drone-photo-over-colorado-actually-a-boeing-737.11055/#post-235847
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
derwoodii Claim The seabed around Kaikoura, New Zealand has risen by up to 1.8 m earthquake General Discussion 22
jarlrmai Explained: Reddit UFO Los Angeles lights in the sky [Light on Pole] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
Mick West Explained: Birdwatcher's "Amazing UFO", Burwell Fen, UK. [C-130 Landing Lights] UFOs and Aliens 2
Daves! Phoenix Lights UFOs and Aliens 20
U Strange line up of lights in the sky of Verano, Italy. [Internal reflections] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 18
Vara La Fey Video of all FAA mandated aircraft lights? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Stefan Leahu Help identifying lights on the ocean surface, Pacific Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
N Trio of lights over Dubbo, NSW Australia Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
H Lights in the Sky Over I-80, Near Sacramento Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
J Strange lights on picture of the moon during "Blood Moon" [Stuck Pixels] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
Rory Unusual line of lights seen over Baja California Sur, Mexico Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Bright Lights Behind Trees, With Roiling Glare. Panama City, Florida. Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 32
Mick West Unusual Light Track in Long Exposures, Grand Canyon Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 38
8 Strange Row of Lights Under a Plane? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 42
Mick West The Shape and Size of Glare Around Bright Lights UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 44
Mick West Maui Optical Tracking Facility Five Lights UFO. [Plane + Slow Camera] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 16
jarlrmai Landing lights? Can anyone id the configuration Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Mick West Strange Lights in Phone Photos - Flash Reflection from Window UFOs and Aliens 0
I Flares in the Sky? [Landing Lights of Planes landing at Phoenix Airport] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
abi Lights in the sky above town lights [Lens Flares] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Andrew Gillett Explained: Squares in the sky? [Reflection of lights in a window] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 18
Mick West Red Winged UFO, Mufon case 91964 - Plane Lights Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 34
Mick West Explained: Mysterious lights over Milwaukee [Seagulls, Night Exposure Trails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 27
Mick West Explained: Mexico City Earthquake Lights [Power Line Arcing and Transformer Explosions] Science and Pseudoscience 35
deirdre Debunked: Lights chasing each other carving holes in clouds (fake video, fallstreak holes) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
Mick West Lights over Sacramento - Just a Plane, But what's that Beam? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
P Another photographic anomaly [Long exposure of plane lights] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Trailspotter UFO with navigation lights, Drone or aircraft? [Low Flying FedEx 777] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
deirdre Debunked: Jane Seymour advocates red lights for gun free homes (Satire site) General Discussion 6
M Physical Object or Camera Artifcat? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
derwoodii Debunked: Strange lights above Canberra: (Photoshop mistake) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West Debunked: Airplane passenger 'takes picture of UFO that was giving off bright lights and orbs' UFOs and Aliens 28
WhiteTiger Explained: "Chemdust fallout" [Out of Focus Photos of dust, mist, lights, etc.] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West Identifying Landing Lights Reported as UFOs Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 45
n0sweat Lights in the Sky (Swansea UK 11/10/14) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Mick West "Strange Lights" over Hawaii [Aegis Ashore SM-3 Missile Test] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Robert Tankersley Debunked: Video of UFO behind a cloud, dropping flashing blue lights [Viral Marketing Hoax] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 43
November Dashed Lights Coming From the Sky [Likely long exposure + flash + flickering lights] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 92
Jarmey 657 More Strange lights in the Sky! [Short Sunlit Contrails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 58
Related Articles







































Related Articles

Top