Re: Misperception of Satellite Re-Entries - Seeing is Not Necessarily Believing.

From: Ronald Lansing (
Date: Mon Jan 13 2014 - 16:47:14 UTC

  • Next message: "Re: Obs - Video of ISS and Cygnus"

    Don't get me wrong, I was trying to help you avoid contaminating your valuable work with a questionable data source "The Condon Report".
    However, since UFOs have appeared to show an interest in spacecraft/aircraft, especially in their contrails, there well may be occurrences of both, a UFO  (unidentified reentry vehicle) and a UFO (unknown object), in the same event, seen by only some. 
    The finding of a reentry event may well be an indicator that there is a good chance another vehicle may be in the same vicinity.
    While working for the Air Force as a radar satellite controller, we were instructed to insure we were locked on to the correct target.
    We were told we could be seeing a harmonic and not the target satellite. So on each pass, we would do some validation of the vehicle.
    Back then space was a empty area, or so we were led to believe.
    It did not occur to me, until seeing your work, that there may have been shadow vehicles there as well. 
    Keep up the good work.
    Ron Lansing
    "You will not see, if you do not look"
    Mount Snoopy Observatory
    Surprise, AZ  USA
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ted Molczan <>
    To: seesat-l <>
    Sent: Sun, Jan 12, 2014 5:24 pm
    Subject: RE: Misperception of Satellite Re-Entries - Seeing is Not Necessarily Believing.
    Ron Lansing wrote:
    > In my opinion, anyone should avoid referencing the Condon Report.
    > Through documentation released under the FOI, it was determined the report was 
    nothing more
    > than an attempt by the CIA to cover up reported UFO activity. Very similar the 
    AF Project Blue Book.
    > Perhaps with the same cast of characters or directors.
    > Even researchers left the project once they realized no real research was 
    being done.
    The Scientific Study Of Unidentified Flying Objects (aka Condon report), 
    published in 1968, covers many topics, written
    by different authors. Jim Oberg and I were particularly interested in Dr. 
    William Hartmann's observations and findings
    related to the UFO reports that resulted from the re-entry of debris from the 
    launch of Zond IV. Some witnesses
    perceived more or less the true phenomenon, others perceived craft with lights.
    An important test of the validity of the findings of scientific research is 
    their repeatability. Were Dr. Hartmann's
    findings unique to the case he studied, or are they generally applicable?
    Jim has compiled a long list of additional re-entry cases that yielded the wide 
    range of perceptions that Hartmann
    found. He concentrated on cases with witness drawings of both categories of 
    perception. We have both found that knowing
    the ways in which people misperceive re-entries is helpful in identifying 
    previously unknown cases. I found more than 40
    previously unidentified re-entries in government and private UFO reports and 
    publications - a powerful demonstration of
    the value of Hartmann's findings.
    Clearly, this knowledge is also important to those who investigate UFO sightings 
    hoping to determine their causes.
    Had Jim and I followed your advice, we might never have learned of Hartmann's 
    findings, to the detriment of our
    Ted Molczan
    Seesat-l mailing list
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    Seesat-l mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 13 2014 - 16:48:25 UTC