Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[John Albert]

You know, I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt with your little dodge above. Now I believe that you made a mistake and are too proud to admit it.

Dodge?!?

I was trying to be a nice guy and welcome you to the thread by bringing you up to speed on what's going on, and you turn it around as an affront. My only "mistake" was ever taking you off ignore.

 

[Stray Cat]

Interesting plot Stray Cat. I find it intersting that none of the witnesses in the WV-2 can seem to agree exactly where the object was located.

Or even where they were. Though majority seem to be putting the plane in the Catalina Channel.

The UFOlogists picked a point between Santa Cruz and point Mugu but I think that position is not very accurate and your position seems more correct (possibly a bit further north of Santa Barbara but that is quibbling). One would think these gentlemen could have written down headings of the aircraft and azimuths to provide more precise information.

Yes, I agree that the object was most likely somewhere South of Santa Cruz.
I only did that graphic to demonstrate where the object would have to be in order for both observing groups to not be able to see it move away, but would only see it getting smaller, whilst trying to only incorporate information given in the various statements.

But no matter which way you look at it, the object could not possibly only be 175' wide (as Mr Oof is claiming). Even if the object was halfway between Johnson and the plane, it would be too small for the flight crew to resolve with their eyes and they would have seen it leave as it (supposedly) headed West if it was big enough to see.

 

[Pixel42]

Perhaps, before I waste my time, you should quote the bit of my post where I "judg[e your] reaction as overly harsh"?

It seemed clear to me that he was simply acknowledging that someone coming into this thread not having read the previous one might reasonably think the reaction was overly harsh.

 

[R.A.F.]

You mean you actually had a point to begin with?

Your bias was pointed out to you...instead of addressing that bias, you consciously decided to "focus" on irrelevancies...ie. one word.

The "point" was your obvious bias...will you be addressing that, or will you ignore it as you did before??

 

[John Albert]

It seemed clear to me that he was simply acknowledging that someone coming into this thread not having read the previous one might reasonably think the reaction was overly harsh.

Thank you, Pixel42. That's exactly what I was doing.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It seemed clear to me that he was simply acknowledging that someone coming into this thread not having read the previous one might reasonably think the reaction was overly harsh.

And it seemed clear to me that that is not what he was doing, especially given that my response mirrored those which people seem to think others might think might have been overly harsh, and gave no indication whatsoever that I might think that that was the case myself. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but then he started being an arse about it, leading me to think differently.

Anyway, I have no wish to get in to further debate about this. I'm sure the people reading this thread have no interest whatsoever and would rather discuss the topic of the thread itself.

 

[Stray Cat]

And it seemed clear to me that that is not what he was doing, especially given that my response mirrored those which people seem to think others might think might have been overly harsh, and gave no indication whatsoever that I might think that that was the case myself. I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, but then he started being an arse about it, leading me to think differently.

Anyway, I have no wish to get in to further debate about this. I'm sure the people reading this thread have no interest whatsoever and would rather discuss the topic of the thread itself.

Indeed, instead of reading about an intention that wasn't there and a reply to that non existent intention that implied an incorrect assumption based upon an intention that wasn't incorporated in the original post of the person not making the intentional inference towards the outcome.

We'd rather be discussing a non existent object that may or may not have been seen in various directions at various distances by several people who are not sure what their position was in relation to the object they couldn't identify whilst at the same time assuming it was something that they could discern details about that could only be discerned if they knew what the object was.

 

[John Albert]

Indeed, instead of reading about an intention that wasn't there and a reply to that non existent intention that implied an incorrect assumption based upon an intention that wasn't incorporated in the original post of the person not making the intentional inference towards the outcome.

We'd rather be discussing a non existent object that may or may not have been seen in various directions at various distances by several people who are not sure what their position was in relation to the object they couldn't identify whilst at the same time assuming it was something that they could discern details about that could only be discerned if they knew what the object was.

Nominated.

 

[Garrison]

I think Straycat's map makes it clear that that you can't take the eyewitnesses accounts at face value; the claims about details seen can't be aligned with the claims about position and if they are wrong about one why not both?

 

[Krikkiter]

Everyone knows "embiggened" is a perfectly cromulent word.

 

[wollery]

I couldn't agree more, and since the skeptics take particular joy in debunking these claims it seemed logical that maybe one of them here either already knew of some further information or might be interested in exposing an actual hoax rather than simply sitting back and making excuses as to why they don't need to bother. But with the exceptions of skeptics like Astro and Lance, such is typical here.

There's nothing to debunk, so why bother?

Seriously, why bother debunking something that needs no more debunking than to simply say, "There's absolutely no reason to believe a word of this."

 

[23_Tauri]

I think Straycat's map makes it clear that that you can't take the eyewitnesses accounts at face value; the claims about details seen can't be aligned with the claims about position and if they are wrong about one why not both?

Yes, this was how I was thinking too. Now that it's been demonstrated that at least some of the details we've inherited from the eye witness reports are inaccurate, then it stands to reason that one can't cherry pick the details that supports a particular theory and dump the rest. There's no way of telling whose testimony is the most accurate reflection of the details that are missing, such as the true distance, size and 'performance characteristics' of the object.

This is why we don't rely on eyewitness testimonies in the absence of physical data*! Can you hear me, folo?

Do I need to point out to Mr Ooly that all the witnesses to this incident were men with military training? Those men of renown who, if we were to believe the ufologists, don't make these kinds of errors?

Thank you Stray Cat, for your picture.

*not forgetting FLIR and anomalous propagation of course

 

[ufology]

blah blah blah ... They didn't say that was what they saw (that is your mental construct) ... blah blah blah

Stray,



You mean they didn't say anything like these quotes from the report ... which I admit are "mental constructs" because I have the mental capacity to read ... something you seemed to have forgotten to do.

1. "After studying it for several minutes, I deduced that it was not a cloud because it had too definite sharp edges and its appearance stayed constant. It looked to me like I was flying directly towards, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane." ( Airborne observers )
2. "It had a definite shape which to me appeared to be like a crescent. Others on board describe it as a huge flying wing."( Airborne observers )

Let's look at these other descriptions:

• My first thought is that it was a large airplane, possibly a C-124, but after looking more closely, it seemed to be a large object without wings with a maximum thickness in the middle tapering toward either side." ( Airborne observers )
  
  Examining the above statement we again can see how although he says "no wings", he does use the word airplane and describes it as, "maximum thickness in the middle tapering toward either side" , exactly like what you would expect when viewing a YB-49 from head on or from directly behind. This is further strengthed by this statement:
  
  
• "The object appered as a thin black line, giving a first impression of a B-36 type airplane heading straight towrd us and sillhoutted against a bright background." ( Airborne observers )
  
  
  A YB-49 would look exactly like the above but without the bulky feuselage if viewed from the side.

Now let's look at how the aircraft "disappearerd" ... to quote:

• "In 90 seconds from the time it started to move, the object had completely disappeared in a long shallow climb on the heading noted." ( Ground observer )
• "Flew directly toward it for about five minutes and from our relative position did not appear to change." ( Airborne observers )
• "After about five minutes I suddenly realized it was moving away from us heading straight west." ( Airborne observers )

From the above description we can clearly see that the airborne observers had noticed the flying wing, made a turn to pursue it and ended up behind it as it sped away ... matching the ground oserver's story. The relative angles can be reconciled by a combination of margin of error, timing, and maneuvering. The Airborne observers say that, "While flying off the coast in the vicinty of Santa Monica." which is around 45Km south of Point Morgu, that they made a turn to pursue the object but after 5 minutes they had not gained on it even though they were going 225 MPH, which would put them about 30Km, closer to Point Morgu, and if the object was heading west, they would also have been making a constant slow west turn toward it until they were both heading west.

So distances of hundreds of miles aren't necessary to explain this incident. Again, given that the airborne observer says, "It looked to me like I was flying directly towards, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane." and the YB-49 fits this description, and the distances when plotted on the map are about the right ( around 40 -50 Km ), and that other large aircraft were thought to be what the object was, the most logical explanation remains a YB-49.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuIFvNA1UgU

 

[Tomtomkent]

My first thought... thought it looked like...looked to me like....

Yeah, real convincing. I don't notice a "It was," or "I was able to possitively identify as" in there. How odd.

 

[ufology]

There's nothing to debunk, so why bother?

Seriously, why bother debunking something that needs no more debunking than to simply say, "There's absolutely no reason to believe a word of this."

Although the object in question can be explained by human activity, there is still no evidence of an outright hoax. So it's not merely the object that is of interest here, but how the story came into being and if an intentional hoax can be proven.

 

[GeeMack]

My first thought... thought it looked like...looked to me like....

Yeah, real convincing. I don't notice a "It was," or "I was able to possitively identify as" in there. How odd.

Not to mention any observation allegedly made by Kelly Johnson on the ground is nonsense. He couldn't have seen any detail in a 200 foot wide thing from a distance of over 25 miles. It is not humanly possible. Accepting that he could see any such thing at all is giving him the extreme benefit of the doubt. This is another case of ufology fabricating a scenario in his mind then dishonestly assembling the information in a way that makes it fit his imagination. A lot like that silly giant talking rabbit story he tells or the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax he's been trying to perpetrate here for months.

 

[ufology]

My first thought... thought it looked like...looked to me like....

Yeah, real convincing. I don't notice a "It was," or "I was able to possitively identify as" in there. How odd.

Tomtomkent,

So if I say "It looks to me like a quote by Tomtomkent above", I'd be wrong because I didn't say, "It is a quote from Tomtomkent above"? Try to put two and two together here. It looked like a flying wing. It acted like a flying wing. Flying wings existed at that time and were about the size as the flying wing in question was estimated to have been. So it probably was a flying wing ... maybe not a YB-49 ... but something similar.

 

[John Albert]

Although the object in question can be explained by human activity, there is still no evidence of an outright hoax. So it's not merely the object that is of interest here, but how the story came into being and if an intentional hoax can be proven.

Strawman.

Nobody alleged it was a hoax.

 

[ufology]

Not to mention any observation allegedly made by Kelly Johnson on the ground is nonsense. He couldn't have seen any detail in a 200 foot wide thing from a distance of over 25 miles. It is not humanly possible. Accepting that he could see any such thing at all is giving him the extreme benefit of the doubt. This is another case of ufology fabricating a scenario in his mind then dishonestly assembling the information in a way that makes it fit his imagination. A lot like that silly giant talking rabbit story he tells or the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax he's been trying to perpetrate here for months.

GeeMack you doze, the flying wing description came from the airborne observers. You haven't even looked into the case yourself have you?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Although the object in question can be explained by human activity, there is still no evidence of an outright hoax. So it's not merely the object that is of interest here, but how the story came into being and if an intentional hoax can be proven.

Burden of proof, again.