SKEPTICAL REPLY 1—THE “IT WAS A METEOR, THEN VENUS, THEN A BALLOON” ARGUMENT

Skeptic.(a)If any prosaic scenario fits the reported events, and if there is positive evidence for that prosaic scenario, then the UFO was not exotic.

The following prosaic scenario fits the reported events:

Spur and Neff first saw a meteor moving through the sky, mistaking it for a flying saucer. They thought it was close, but we know that accurately judging distances to objects in the night sky can be impossible. Then they got in the car and lost sight of the object.

When they looked again, they saw the planet Venus, which was rising at that time in the southeast, and thought it was the same object. “[T]he brilliant planet Venus was shining like a searchlight in the east-southeast. [It was n]ear its maximum elongation from the sun….” [S p.181] Venus was about five magnitudes brighter than a star of the first magnitude, and was in the east [S pp.182]. The officers drove toward the light, and, since they were chasing Venus, could never catch up with it. “…celestial bodies appear to ‘pace’ a moving vehicle. Every child at some point asks his parent why the moon seems to be ‘following’ their car.” [S p.183] They “followed” Venus from Ohio into Pennsylvania. Huston, who joined the chase later, was also chasing the planet.

Near the end of the chase, when Venus grew too dim to be easily seen, it’s extremely probable that the officers, after losing sight of Venus when they encountered traffic at Brady’s Run Park, in Pennsylvania, once again transferred their attention to another object, this time to a “high-altitude research balloon launched by some university or research agency.”[S p.189] Since such balloons can travel great distances, it can often be almost impossible to know their origins.

(b)The above is a prosaic scenario that fits the reported events.

(c)And there is positive evidence for that scenario:

First, (d)if the locations in the sky where the UFO was seen from the beginning of the chase to Brady’s Run Park matched Venus’ positions, then they were probably chasing Venus.

(e)There were many instances when the locations in the sky where the UFO was seen matched Venus’ positions:

For example, it was probably not coincidental that Spaur reported the UFO was hovering in the east, where Venus was located. [S pp.182-3].

After going through Atwater Center, Spaur said that the object had “gained altitude.” This is just what Venus was doing as it was rising with the sun. Between the time that they first sighted Venus (thinking it was a UFO) until they arrived at Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, the planet had risen from an elevation of 12o to 19o [S p.184]

Neff stated that as they travelled between Atwater Center and Deerfield, the object kept a position a little south of east. This matches Venus’ position at about 115o[S p.184].

Soon after the Ohio officers crossed into Pennsylvania, five to ten minutes before sunrise, they saw that the UFO was a little higher in the sky, and had become harder to see. Venus would also have risen and would have become harder to see.[S p.187]

So, the locations in the sky where the UFO was seen did match Venus’ positions. (f)Therefore, the officers were probably chasing Venus. [d,e,f 1]

Second, (g)if the average direction of the chase closely matches the average apparent azimuth of Venus, then that is evidence that the officers were chasing Venus. (h)At the end of the chase, Spaur’s car, cruiser P-13, had traveled 45 miles east and 25 miles south of the chase’s origin. This translates to an average chase direction of 117o. The average azimuth of Venus during the chase was 115o—an almost exact match.[S p.189] (i)Therefore there is this evidence that the officers were chasing Venus. [g,h,i 1]

Third, (j)if the object was not Venus, then the officers would have seen two bright objects to the east: the UFO and Venus. (k)But they did not see two bright objects to the east. In fact, although they chased the UFO for more than twenty miles along a straight road, they failed to report having seen Venus during this time. It’s hard to believe that that they would not have noticed the planet as well as the UFO, if these had been separate objects.[S p.184] (l)That means that the “UFO” had to have been Venus. [j,k,l 4] [S p.183]

Fourth, Panzanella claimed the object rose slowly. (m)If a balloon would have behaved this way, then that is good evidence that they were actually watching a balloon. (n)In fact, a balloon would have behaved this way: balloons will rise as the sun rises, as the sun heats the balloon’s gases. (o)Therefore, we have good evidence that the officers were actually watching a balloon.[see S p.189] [m,n,o 1]

Fifth, (p)if Panzanella spotted an object in the eastern sky while the chase was approaching from the west, he couldn’t have been seeing the alleged house-sized craft being chased by the Ohio officers. (q)He did spot it in the east. (r)So, he could not have been watching the same object that the Ohio officers were chasing.[see S pp.187-8] [p,q,r 1]

So there’s a prosaic scenario that fits, and there’s other evidence for that scenario.

(s)Therefore, the UFO was not exotic. [a,b,c,s 3]

I respond to Skeptic’s argument this way:

First, the object could not have been a meteor:

(1) The initial sighting by Spaur and Neff was not a meteor: (t)If there had been a large meteor streaking across the sky in that region at that time, then surely someone else would have seen it. (u)There’s no indication that anyone else in the region saw a large meteor at that time. (v)Therefore, there’s every reason to think that there was no large meteor in the sky in that region at that time. [t,u,v 4]

To this, the Skeptic might respond:

Skeptic. Your claim, u, is not true. Someone else did see a meteor that morning: According to Project Blue Book records, a woman in Vandalia, Ohio, over a hundred miles from where the chase began, reported seeing a starlike object “swiftly” move across the sky from west to northeast. [S p.182]

But the woman saw the starlike object (which there is no reason to suppose was a meteor) at 5:30, whereas Spaur and Neff had their encounter at 5:05.

Skeptic. Because the two events were so similar, and so close in time and space, the two reports probably refer to the same event. [S p.182]

Because of the difference in time, it seems unlikely that both reports describe the same event. This point by Skeptic is very weak in the face of the other arguments against the claim that Spaur saw a meteor.

(2) Skeptic says (at a), “If any prosaic scenario fits the reported events, and if there is other evidence for that prosaic scenario, then the UFO was not exotic.” In fact, Skeptic’s scenario does not fit the reported events. The following exercise shows without doubt that the object that Spaur and Neff saw in their initial sighting could not have been a meteor:

Imagine the scene according to the skeptic’s scenario: Spaur saw a bright meteor, a bolide, and for some reason did not recognize it as a meteor. Perhaps, simply because he’d heard that a woman had just reported a UFO, Spaur, by the power of suggestion, was freaking out—even though he and the others had joked about the report(1). He interpreted the approaching meteor (which surely would have burnt out within a few seconds, ten at most) as coming up over some trees right beside the road. He crazily perceived this meteor, which actually would have no appreciable angular extension (if the tail is not considered), as being as big as a house 100 feet above the ground. The meteor got brighter and started to light up the area. Spaur looked at Barney and told him to look over his shoulder. At the sight of this meteor, which surely was by now fading or extinguished, Barney stood there with his mouth open for a minute. Both men imagined that this probably now-burnt-out bolide was still so bright that they felt they had to avert their eyes. Although the meteor must have faded or disappeared by this time, Spaur, felt that he had to look at his hands and clothes to make sure they weren’t burning.

They continued to imagine that they could still see the meteor; moreover, they imagined that it stopped right over on top of their heads. Spaur said he “was pretty scared for a couple of minutes…” as the imaginary thing hovered above them—this when there could not have been anything to see. Spaur was so incredibly traumatized by this imaginary object that he was concerned that maybe his movements would be impaired, so he moved his right foot, finding that everything was working all right. Even though the surroundings must have by that point taken on the character of an ordinary nighttime scene, both men ran to the car for protection and got in.

They sat there for a bit, while they imagined that the brilliant meteor hovered outside. Spaur described the specter as being as “big as a house! And,” he said, “it was very bright; it’d make your eyes water.” He (now both men had to have been hallucinating) said that whenever the object moved, it tipped in the direction toward which it was moving, and that the object was oval-shaped, 18 to 24 feet thick, 35 to 45 feet in diameter, and had rounded underside and a top that was dimly visible as a silhouette. He said that it gave off a blue-white light that was so bright that it lit the ground as if it was “high noon.” While sitting in the car, the two officers apparently somehow transferred their attention to Venus, thinking it was the same object, now moving east. The officers sat there for a moment—Spaur assessed their condition and decided they were both OK. Thinking Venus was moving away, they chased after it.

This, then, is the ridiculous scenario that Skeptic’s explanation implies. My main arguments are as follows:

(a)If it’s implausible that a non-hallucinating, reasonably intelligent person would not recognize a meteor for what it is, then the object, as first seen by Spaur, could not have been a meteor. (b)The appearance of a meteor is such that everyone who is neither hallucinating nor a dope recognizes it for what it is. Meteors are obviously meteors. No one claims that both Spaur and Neff were hallucinating or that they were complete imbeciles. (c)Therefore, the object could not have been a meteor. [a,b,c 1]

(a)If the appearance and actions of a meteor do not match Spaur’s description of the approaching object, then it could not have been a meteor. (b)Spaur described the apparent size of the object as being as big as a house as seen from only 100 feet below it; a meteor could never appear that large (unless it was, say, the size of a house and 100 feet above the ground, in which case it would have been visible for only an instant). Also, Spaur heard the object humming. Also, unless a meteor were extremely large and close, it would not be as bright as the object that Spaur describes—it was so bright that it lit up the area, made his eyes water and made him think his hands and clothes might be on fire. Spaur said the object stopped and hovered above their heads—meteors do not hover. Spaur described the object (apparently as it appeared from inside the cruiser) this way: He said that whenever the object moved, it tipped in the direction toward which it was moving, and that the object was oval-shaped, 18 to 24 feet thick, 35 to 45 feet in diameter, and had a rounded underside and a top that was dimly visible as a silhouette. The object continued to light up the ground as if it was “high noon.” The appearance and actions of the object, as described by Spaur, do not even remotely match the appearance and actions of a meteor. (c)Therefore it was not a meteor. [a,b,c 1]

The skeptic might respond as follows:

Skeptic. You cite [see b] Spaur as saying that the object lit the area. (d)If there was another source of the light, then there’s no reason to attribute the light to any flying saucer. (e)But there was another source of the light: It was 5:07 in the morning and the sun would rise in less than forty minutes; so, of course the area around the patrol car would have been lit up. (f)Therefore, there’s no reason to attribute the light to a saucer.[S p.182] [d,e,f 1]1

But Skeptic’s conditional here (at d) is not necessarily true. Skeptic should have said “If there was another source of light adequate to explain what Spaur saw, then there’s no reason….” Clearly, Spaur wasn’t describing the dim light of early morning; he said that it illuminated the ground as if it was “high noon.” The dim morning light was not adequate to explain what Spaur saw.

Skeptic. You cite (see b) Spaur as saying that the object made a hum, but, in his earliest testimony, Spaur felt that the humming may have been coming from a power line. [S p.182]

I admit that the humming might not be something that we can confidently attribute to the object. But the rest of Spaur’s description clearly shows that the object was not a meteor.

(a)Also, if the events that Spaur said occurred while the men were first watching the object were such that they would have taken a longer time to occur than it would take for a meteor to burn out or disappear, then the object could not have been a meteor. (b)Spaur said that, as it approached, the object got brighter and lit up the ground. He told Neff to look behind him. He said that Neff “stood there…for a minute.” The officers averted their eyes. Spaur examined his hands and clothes to make sure they were not burning. Spaur perceived the object has having stopped and to be hovering above them; he said he “was pretty scared for a couple of minutes…” Spaur moved his right foot to make sure his movements were not impaired. Then the men went for the protection of the police car and got in. In the car, the men apparently continued to watch the object, noting its appearance and motions in detail. Surely all these events would have taken much longer than it would take a meteor, even a large one, to streak across the sky and disappear. (c)Therefore, the object could not have been a meteor. [a,b,c 1]

If what Spaur and Neff saw initially had been a meteor, then it was either a magically slow, hovering, structured, incredibly bright meteor, or the two officers would have had to have been hallucinating—or they would have had to have been dopes to have reacted to a normal meteor, even a large one, this way. (I saw a bolide once, and said to myself, “Wow, that’s a big meteor.”) Of course the meteor was not magic, the two men could not have been simultaneously and fleetingly hallucinating, and no one claimed that the officers were dopes. Therefore, the object simply could not have been a meteor.

Second, the chased object was not Venus:

(1) Skeptic doesn’t prove that the men were chasing Venus. For one thing, he says (in his Third example of positive evidence for his scenario) that, at the beginning of the chase, Spaur and Neff should have seen two lights in the east, the UFO and Venus; they didn’t see two lights, so the “UFO” had to have been Venus. But Skeptic can’t know that they didn’t see two lights. He can only know that they did not report seeing Venus as a separate object. They might have seen it, but simply have failed to say anything about it—or they might have been too distracted by the UFO to notice Venus; after all, they would have seen the crescent moon too, yet they did not report seeing the moon at the beginning of the chase.

Skeptic says, “[T]he brilliant planet Venus was shining like a searchlight in the east-southeast. [It was n]ear its maximum elongation from the sun…” Skeptic might be exaggerating a bit here. Venus was not at its brightest. Venus is brightest not when at maximum elongation (50o full), but when it is closer to us and a bright crescent (26o full). And Spaur (35) did report seeing Venus and the object; and Panzanella saw the object to the left of the moon, whereas Venus was to the right of the moon (32).

Skeptic. They only saw an object and Venus at the end of the chase, when they were watching a balloon.[S 189]

But the object they were watching at this point could not have been a balloon (see below).

(2) In fact, the officers could not have been chasing Venus. Skeptic says (in his First example of positive evidence for his scenario) that Spaur said the UFO was hovering in the east, and so must have been Venus. (a)But, in fact, according to Spaur (5), the object “stopped, right over on top of us.” Huston (20) said of the object, “I watched it go right overhead.” (b)If the object was overhead, then it could not have been Venus. (c)So, the object could not have been Venus. [b,a,c 1]

(3) (a)According to Spaur (10), the object’s light was so brilliant that he almost didn’t need his headlights. (b)But if the light was that brilliant, it could not have been Venus—Venus is not nearly bright enough to do this. (c)Therefore, it wasn’t Venus. [b,a,c 1]

Also, (a)the object flew over a construction site near Atwater Center, lighting up the construction equipment (11). (b)If the object lit up the ground like this, it could not have been Venus—Venus could not have done this. (c)Therefore, the object was not Venus. [b,a,c 1]

(4) (a)If the officers had noted instances of the object moving through the sky, then it could not have been Venus. (b)In fact, the officers did note many instances of the object’s movements, Here are some examples:

Spaur made a turn onto 183 from 224, going south(10). The object stopped over a field on 224. Spaur reports that the object appeared to be due north. Spaur got back onto 224 to continue the chase. The object headed to the south and crossed 224. After 100 yards, it turned east.

At the Berlin Reservoir (12), in Mahoning County, the UFO rose to 1000 feet, crossing the road toward the north.

Skeptic. As the chase crossed over the Berlin Reservoir, the UFO was said to have moved from the south side of the road over to the north side, and then back to the south. But the road curves at this location south then north. If they were chasing a fixed point in the sky, the point would have appeared to move in exactly the way described. And it is not surprising that the object would have appeared to be rising, because that is exactly what Venus was doing. [S 184]

But, of course, if they were following a UFO that was on a fixed course, the effect would be the same as if they were “following” Venus.

Then, just before Canfield (14), Ohio, the UFO crossed the road toward the south in front of Spaur.

At Canfield, Ohio, the object (15) was moving farther toward the southeast. Then it made an abrupt turn toward the east, passing in front of the patrol car. Then it went toward the southeast again. Spaur made a right turn onto Route 46, so that he would still be able to follow the object. Then the UFO flew over the road to the south of the car.

Skeptic. Neff reported that when Spaur turned south onto Route 46 at Canfield, the UFO came “across in front of us,” to the left side of the car, then returned to the right side. Venus, being at a fixed location in space, would have appeared to make these exact movements.[S p.184] (Also, as the car went through Canfield, the object ascended, as Venus would have done.)[S 186]

It’s hard to see how Spaur and Neff could have been fooled by an illusory motion of Venus. Venus was very close to the crescent moon, and the men would have seen the moon “moving” with Venus, and it would have been obvious to the officers that the apparent movement was due to the change in direction of their moving car.

If the men had been chasing Venus, and even if it were true that turning south onto Route 46 from Route 224 could have produced such an illusion, the light would have appeared to return to the car’s right side only many miles further along the road, at Columbiana. And Skeptic’s explanation cannot account for the UFO’s abrupt turn toward the east, and its return toward the southeast, motions that presumably occurred before the officers turned onto Route 46 as they were heading east on Route 224.

Having gone into Pennsylvania, the officers encountered traffic at Brady’s Run Park, near Rochester and lost sight of the object, spotting it again by Rochester—it had come down a few hundred feet and seemed to have been waiting for them to catch up. The UFO then climbed to 1000 feet. At this point, Huston saw a projection on top of it.‘ (see 21).

Skeptic. This is not an argument against the object being Venus, because it is at this point that, I claim, the officers had transferred their attention to a balloon.

But the object they were watching at that time could not have been a balloon (see below).

Skeptic. (c)If, in general, Spaur’s statements about direction can be shown not always to be accurate, then we cannot be confident that his descriptions of the object’s apparent movements actually reflect reality. (d)In fact, his statements about direction can be shown to be sometimes inaccurate. For instance, in his Project Blue Book interview, taped by William Weitzel, Spaur stated that they started “east” from the scene of the accident when he clearly meant “west.” And he said that they found the old abandoned car two miles “east” of Route 183, when it was actually west of 183. Neff had been present during this interview, but did not correct Spaur. After the transcript of the interview had been made, Spaur admitted to the errors, saying “I was a little mad at this point.” [S p.181] (e)So we cannot be confident that Spaur’s descriptions of the object’s apparent movements actually reflect reality. [c,d,e 1]

Spaur may have confused west and east a couple times, but movements of the object were described in ways that did not involve reference to the points of the compass; for instance, the object was said to have stopped in a field, crossed the road, made an abrupt turn, passed in front of the patrol car, and descended.

(Here’s a piece of speculation, one which might open a new discussion: re Skeptic’s fourth point. The average direction of the chase matched the average Venus azimuth. Might the ufonauts have planned it that way, to give a false argument to the nay-sayers? This looks like another instance of what I call the UFO Dilemma—See a fuller discussion about this dilemma here).

Given all these examples of the object’s complex motions, we can say with confidence that (f)the object could not have been Venus. [a,b,f 1]

(5) Huston saw the object coming in out of the northwest (19), so it could not have been Venus.

Skeptic. (a)If Weitzel (a UFO investigator who interviewed the witnesses shortly after the event) had claimed that Panzanella had seen the object come from the west, and if it turned out that the claim was not true, then it’s completely plausible that Huston, also, didn’t, in fact, see the object approach from the west either. (b)Actually, Weitzel did say that Panzanella had seen the UFO come from the west, (c)and this was shown not to be true. (d)So, claims that Huston saw the object approach from the west could well have also been false. [S p.186] [a,b,c,d 3]

It is a silly argument to say that someone made a false claim once, therefore this (different) claim may be false. Of course any claim may be false—we back claims up with evidence; for instance:

James McDonald verified that Huston saw the UFO arrive from the west. McDonald said, “I have personally interviewed Neff, Huston, and Panzanella,….The fact that Officer Huston saw the object coming in out of the northwest clearly rules out his seeing Venus.” [M p.16]

(6) (a)Huston said (19) that the object went right over his head. It was, he said, about 800 to 900 feet in the air. (b)He said he could see its shape (something like a right-side-up ice-cream cone, with a partly melted-down, dome-shaped top and a possibly unsolid bottom, as bright as the rising sun). (c)If Huston said the object went right over his head and that he could see its complex shape, then the object could not have been Venus; (d)so, the object could not have been Venus. [c,a,b,d 3]

Skeptic. (a)If, in his account (19), Huston says that he first saw the object when Spaur’s car was about five miles away, and if the car and the object were traveling at 80 to 85 miles per hour, (b)then he would have had at least three and a half minutes to observe the object carefully; yet, in contradiction to this, he said (in an interview with UFO investigator Weitzel) that the object passed by him, overhead, in mere seconds and that, therefore, he had only had seconds to observe it. Either Huston’s account is internally inconsistent, or he was watching a different object than the one the officers were chasing. [S p.186][ a,b Inference]

But surely what Huston was saying was that the UFO was close enough for him to get a good view of it for only a few seconds, as would be the case for any object going by at 80-85 m.p.h.—he said it passed overhead in a matter of seconds. Of course he would not have had the entire three and a half minutes “to observe the object carefully,” but only a tiny portion of that time. He could not have been talking about the whole time that he was observing it. There is no internal inconsistency in Huston’s account at all.

(7) (a)If Spaur said that the apparent size of the object had an appreciable apparent size, then the object could not have been Venus. (b)In fact, Spaur (21) said that the apparent size of the object was larger than his rearview mirror. (c)Therefore, the object could not have been Venus. [a,b,c 1]

Skeptic. At this point, he would have been looking at the balloon.

I don’t think Skeptic makes a good point here, because any balloon with an apparent size of the rearview mirror would have been easily identifiable as a balloon. They were not looking at a balloon. (I show below that the object they were watching then could not have been a balloon.)

(8) (a)If, as the sun began to come up, the officers could discern the detail of the object’s features more clearly, then the object could not have been Venus. (b)In fact, as the sun began to come up, Spaur and Neff could make out the UFO’s features more clearly: The top of the object was domelike, and had a “satiny” look. A fin, perhaps 18 feet long was attached to the top surface, to the rear. (15) If the object were Venus, its features would become less distinct as the sun rose, and Venus would not appear domelike, etc. (c)The object could not have been Venus. [a,b,c 1]

Skeptic. Venus, due to the imperfections inherent in normal vision, will appear to have structural features.

Go outside some evening or morning when Venus is bright. You will likely see it as if it had some shape, or as if it were emitting rays, etc., but these are not features of the sort that would give the impression of a dome or an 18 foot-long fin attached to the rear.

Third, the object at the end of the chase could not have been a balloon:

(1) (a)If, near the end of the chase, the object appeared very large, then if the object was a balloon, then the officers would have identified it as such. (b)Spaur said (21) that the apparent size of the object was larger than his rearview mirror. (c)So, if it had been a balloon, then he would have had identified it as such. [a,b,c 1] (d)The officers did not identify it as a balloon. (e)Therefore, the object was not a balloon. [c,d,e 4]

(2) (a)If, at the end of the chase, the object exhibited un-balloon-like behavior, then it could not have been a balloon. (b)The object did exhibit un-balloon-like behavior:

In Spaur’s conversation with Quintanilla (28-30), we see this dialogue:

Spaur. “…we watched it make a vertical climb straight up. And this, sir….

Quintanilla: Disappeared.

Spaur: My knowledge is God’s truth. Yes. Sir….we watched it, and it went up, stopped, the airliner went under it, and then it went straight up. Just as straight up as, well, just straight up. [H p.105]

According to Panzanella (26), the object started moving, at about a 1,000 foot altitude, toward the south, in the direction of Harmony Township. The UFO came to a stop, then shot straight up to approximately 3,500 feet.[C pp.453-4]

Panzanella, in his signed testimony (33), stated that all four of the officers saw the UFO "shoot straight up and disappear" [H p.103]

So, all the officers said that at the end of the chase, the object ascended rapidly straight up before disappearing. (27-36)—balloons do not do this.

The skeptic might respond to this point as follows:

Skeptic. In an interview in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 18, 1966, Spaur said that, in Conway, the officers could still see the object when they all went indoors to make a phone call. When they went back out, they could not find it. In an interview in the East Liverpool Review, April 18, 1966, Huston said that “the object was still hovering” when they left. In an interview in the Beaver County Times, April 18, 1966, Panzanella said that the object was “barely visible” after it had ascended higher in the sky. When Spaur and Neff were filling out a sighting report, they were asked, ‘Did the object disappear while you were watching it?’ Both wrote no.” [S p.190]

(c)If officers’ testimony contradicts the claim that the object went straight up, then it didn’t go straight up, and so could have been a balloon. (d)As I’ve just shown, the officers’ testimony contradicts the claim that the object went straight up. (e)Therefore, the object didn’t go straight up, and could’ve been a balloon. 2 [c,d,e 1]

But going straight up is not the same as disappearing. Skeptic’s argument here only shows that the object did not completely disappear immediately aftter it shot straight up the second time! Perhaps Panzanella was not speaking with precision and the object did not disappear completely upon ascending. Spaur does not clearly make the claim that it disappeared immediately in the above exchange with Quintanilla. Sheaffer cites the newspaper interview in which Spaur said that the object was still visible when he and the others went inside to make a phone call. When they went back outside, they saw that the object had, after ascending, in fact disappeared.

So, it seems clear that the sequence of events was this: the object shot straight up; it stopped; it remained barely visible; the men went inside; they came back out and it was gone.

(f)So, the object the officers were watching at the end was not a balloon. (Since the object at this time behaved in an exotic manner, there’s every reason to believe that it was the exotically-behaving object that they had been chasing.) [a,b,f 1]

Regarding Skeptic’s fifth point, that “if Panzanella spotted an object in the eastern sky while the chase was approaching from the west, he couldn’t have been seeing the alleged house-sized craft being chased by the Ohio officers,” we respond by saying that Panzanella told the Ohio officers (24) that he’d been watching it for ten minutes—that means, of course, that Spaur, Neff and Huston were only ten minutes away when Panzanella spotted the object (and saying that they were ten minutes away gives us only a rough clue as to their distance). It is not clear whether the UFO was close enough to the Ohio officers during this period to create a contradiction here.

Notes

1. from an argument by Robert Sheaffer in The UFO Verdict

2. from an argument by Sheaffer, p. 190