UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

Originally purchased in 1961 (formerly known as Sunshine Ranch), the area was formally established as a Class A park on June 29, 1999. Today Windermere Lake Provincial Park protects one of the last remaining tracts of native grassland and riparian habitats along the western shores of Windermere Lake. Large populations of ungulates (white-tail deer, mule deer and elk) also use this area for winter range.

Was it a park/nature preserve prior to 1999? Did they allow visitors on the premises back in 1973?

 

[carlitos]

ufology could clear this up by posting the location of the house. If he's really concerned about "privacy" regarding a 40-year-ago location (I don't believe him on this), then he could just narrow it down to a couple of blocks. Easy.

Oh, wait - Never mind, I just re-checked Aberhaten's post, and he drew the line to some cabins that were 3km away, near Stark Dr. My mistake.

 

[Akhenaten]

The yellow line on that map doesn't match ufology's description and coordinates.

The large cleared area NNW of the tree symbol is outside the park.

nope, the park specifically encloses

one of the last remaining tracts of native grassland and riparian

that large cleared area is the park
see for yourself
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/map.html

This is the Google Earth map I previously posted with a big red 'X' added to it.

This is a map of Windermere Lake Provincial Park published by the British Columbia
Provincial Government with a big red 'X' added in the same place as the image above.​

See for yourself.

 

[Garrison]

You got a point.

What was frustrating about my sighting were the damn trees that bracketed the object's flight path. If not for them I would have had time to grab my trusty "UFO-Buster" binoculars.

[speculation]One of the things that made this qualify as a "UFO," it's silence (a Stealth Fighter would have made some noise), increases the likelihood that this was something like a balloon. If a balloon can resemble various animals I'm sure one can make me think of a Stargate prop. Hell, this could have been nothing more than one of those polyethylene shopping bags caught up in a wind gust.[/speculation]

Alas, I'll never know...

The thing that ufologists forget is that the brain is not a camera, when you see something that lies outside of your normal experience you brain still tries to make sense of it, and some times it comes up with really odd results.

 

[Akhenaten]

ufology could clear this up by posting the location of the house. If he's really concerned about "privacy" regarding a 40-year-ago location (I don't believe him on this), then he could just narrow it down to a couple of blocks. Easy.

Oh, wait - Never mind, I just re-checked Aberhaten's post, and he drew the line to some cabins that were 3km away, near Stark Dr. My mistake.

I'll argue about ufology's flying saucer claims until the cows come home but accusing him of lying about the location of his alleged sighting when it's one of the few things supported by the evidence is beyond the pale.

 

[AdMan]

I'll argue about ufology's flying saucer claims until the cows come home but accusing him of lying about the location of his alleged sighting on when it's one of the few things supported by the evidence is beyond the pale.

Agreed.

 

[Stray Cat]

The altitude of the object when it departed appeared to be at around 4608ft. as drawn along the mountains behind it, but was probably lower due to the viewing angle and the object's distance away from the mountains in the background. I haven't figured out what that altitude would be yet, but it can be extrapolated.

Is this supposed to be 4608ft above sea level or just 4608ft above the ground at that point?

 

[Resume]

Is this supposed to be 4608ft above sea level or just 4608ft above the ground at that point?

4608 ft above the orifice he pulled this particular figure from.

The Man with the Range Finding Eyes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, won't it feel good when you stop running away from the difficult questions?:

Why are UFOs [using your definition] sometimes later found to be mundane?

Do you think there are people who have misperceived something and thought it was an alien spaceship?


Answering simple questions couldn't shake your strongly held beliefs, could it?

 

[AdMan]

we covered this before, all his distances were off by miles
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7478229&postcount=10717

Since this is the evidence thread, I still think it's important to determine what landmark ufology used to calculate the 25 Km distance, since that is such an important part of the claim that what he saw was a UFO flying alien craft.

If he tells us specifically how he calculated the distance, we can start by checking whether the landmark he used is even visible/identifiable from 25 Km away.

 

[Stray Cat]

4608 ft above the orifice he pulled this particular figure from.

The Man with the Range Finding Eyes.

Yes most likely, but asking for confirmation may reveal stuff.


ufology: The reason I asked was in relation to this which you wrote on 24th July:

"The object rose up about two thirds the height of the mountains, stopped, got really bright, and instantly accelerated up the valley north between the mountains, as far as you could see, which is much farther than the above picture has for a field of view ... leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake."
ETA: Source

Now looking at the relevant details in Google Earth (it's really the first chance I've had to look at this in any sort of detail).
I plotted the positions you've given and that we've estimated (because you bothered for some reason about giving the exact location away) your position at the time of the sighting, which can't really be too far out.
Here is the overhead view:

The blue helicopter is actually set to show a 4608ft above ground level, so when we put Google Earth into "Ground Level" view, we see it in relation to the mountains behind.

That's not "two thirds the height" of the mountains.

So a lot needs clarifying here. Were you talking relative heights in relation to your viewing position when you mentioned two thirds up the mountain (that would put the object much lower than the later claimed 4608ft) or are you saying you could work out the height of the mountains and mentally triangulate the objects height taking into account it's closer position?

Disclaimer: I realise that Google Earth is not pin point accurate, but it's also not wildly inaccurate so as a rough measure (given the rough information we have work from), it's close enough at this point.

 

[AdMan]

Yes most likely, but asking for confirmation may reveal stuff.


ufology: The reason I asked was in relation to this which you wrote on 24th July:

"The object rose up about two thirds the height of the mountains, stopped, got really bright, and instantly accelerated up the valley north between the mountains, as far as you could see, which is much farther than the above picture has for a field of view ... leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake."
ETA: Source

Now looking at the relevant details in Google Earth (it's really the first chance I've had to look at this in any sort of detail).
I plotted the positions you've given and that we've estimated (because you bothered for some reason about giving the exact location away) your position at the time of the sighting, which can't really be too far out.
Here is the overhead view:
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/UFO-Canada.jpg[/qimg]

The blue helicopter is actually set to show a 4608ft above ground level, so when we put Google Earth into "Ground Level" view, we see it in relation to the mountains behind.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/UFO-Canada-2.jpg[/qimg]

That's not "two thirds the height" of the mountains.

So a lot needs clarifying here. Were you talking relative heights in relation to your viewing position when you mentioned two thirds up the mountain (that would put the object much lower than the later claimed 4608ft) or are you saying you could work out the height of the mountains and mentally triangulate the objects height taking into account it's closer position?

Disclaimer: I realise that Google Earth is not pin point accurate, but it's also not wildly inaccurate so as a rough measure (given the rough information we have work from), it's close enough at this point.

Hmm... Interesting.

Good work, Stray Cat. I await ufology's clarifications with bated breath.

The more specifics are revealed, the more interesting the case gets.

 

[Stray Cat]

The more specifics are revealed, the more interesting the case gets.

The most interesting thing to me is that these things are relatively easy to work out nowadays. The fact that ufology hasn't bothered to do any of this stuff himself shows how unimportant verifiable fact is to him, preferring instead to rely on unsubstantiatable claims of infallibility.

 

[ufology]

So a lot needs clarifying here ....

Lately I've been using the elevations marked on Google Earth.

Four Points Mtn: 50°28'21.05" N 115°53'25.74" W | Elevation: 6200 ft

LZ: 50°26'32.96" N 115°56'34.17" W | Elevation: 2931 ft.

So the diagram posted earlier showing the heights as way above the mountain tops are way off ... or Google's heights are off ... or we have our programs on different settings, but those markers are not accurate for some reason.

BTW: We used to party on Sunshine Ranch. They used to have a big bash out there every summer. I played one of my first live shows there. So although the land may have been purchased in the 60s, they weren't enforcing the rules much ... and didn't that article say they didn't really do anything with it until the 90s? Please ease up on the presumptions that I'm trying to put something over on you guys. I wouldn't build a whole website and publish a fake story just so I could come here and mess with the JREF forum people.

 

[Stray Cat]

Lately I've been using the elevations marked on Google Earth.

Four Points Mtn: 50°28'21.05" N 115°53'25.74" W | Elevation: 6200 ft

LZ: 50°26'32.96" N 115°56'34.17" W | Elevation: 2931 ft.

So the diagram posted earlier showing the heights as way above the mountain tops are way off ... or Google's heights are off ... or we have our programs on different settings, but those markers are not accurate for some reason.

I acknowledged that they may not be pin point accurate.
They are however, not completely inaccurate either.

The geometry worked out from the map roughly confirms that the UFO would have appeard well above the mountain top (and not two thirds up it) if it were really at 4608ft.

And again, I'm not claiming the cross section is accurate, but it doesn't affect the geometry anyway.

So could you answer my question now;

Were you talking relative heights in relation to your viewing position when you mentioned two thirds up the mountain (that would put the object much lower than the later claimed 4608ft) or are you saying you could work out the height of the mountains and mentally triangulate the objects height taking into account it's closer position?

 

[EHocking]

I acknowledged that they may not be pin point accurate.
They are however, not completely inaccurate either.

The geometry worked out from the map roughly confirms that the UFO would have appeard well above the mountain top (and not two thirds up it) if it were really at 4608ft.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/UFO-Canada-Diagram.jpg

And again, I'm not claiming the cross section is accurate, but it doesn't affect the geometry anyway.

So could you answer my question now;

Were you talking relative heights in relation to your viewing position when you mentioned two thirds up the mountain (that would put the object much lower than the later claimed 4608ft) or are you saying you could work out the height of the mountains and mentally triangulate the objects height taking into account it's closer position?

Hmmm, looks like we're revisiting my posts of many pages ago regarding Ufology's trig problems.

Add to the above, Stray Cat, that the observer was supposedly at an elevation of 3000ft (one presumes true elevation, rMSL).

 

[Correa Neto]

Ufology, I suggest you to check at Google Earth the "Tools" box... Go to "options", "3D visualization" and then the "increase elevation" (or something like that, typing from memory here). Should be "1". If its above this value the vertical scale of the DTM is increased (slopes will look steeper and hills taller), if its below 1, its decreased (the opposite of the above).

ETA- just checked in my GE install; the landscape looks pretty much like StrayCat's pic. My GE is set to no vertical exageration.

 

[Resume]

I wouldn't build a whole website and publish a fake story just so I could come here and mess with the JREF forum people.

I'm not claiming your story is fake, but that your memory and perceptions are flawed and unreliable. Countless links have been posted as to the fallibility of memory and perception but you choose to ignore them.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I wouldn't build a whole website and publish a fake story just so I could come here and mess with the JREF forum people.

The questions are still there and I'll continue to remind you about them.

Why are UFOs [using your definition] sometimes later found to be mundane?

Do you think there are people who have misperceived something mundane and thought it was an alien spaceship?

I'm not sure why you fear those questions so much that you have to continually run away from them. Are there questions you wish I would ask in their place?

 

[Aepervius]

Hmmm, looks like we're revisiting my posts of many pages ago regarding Ufology's trig problems.

Add to the above, Stray Cat, that the observer was supposedly at an elevation of 3000ft (one presumes true elevation, rMSL).

reusing the same diagram as straycat and placing ufology at 3000 foot, make the viewing line angle much lower (red line). Still to be visually at "2/3" of the mountain that would place it roughly at the blue line, or about 4000 foot vertically from the position Ufology seems to think it landed.