Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Garrison]

Garrison,

Stray cat already missed the direct quotes of the witnesses who said it looked like a flying wing,

Didn't miss them simply demonstrated they are inconsistent with the rest of the statements

failed to take into account how the flight time affected the distance of the airborne observers, resulting in failing to see how the airborne observers had turned and ended up directly behind what looked like a flying wing headed west, fails to acknowledge that the possibility of a cloud was considered, but rejected by all the witnesses ( experienced airmen ),

And again your argument comes back to taking every word of the eyewitness accounts as accurate, even when they are internally inconsistent.

fails to take into account that the Northrop ( makers of the YB-49 ) were nearby,

Takes into account your miserable failure to provide any evidence it was flying.

and admits himself there is enough margin of error to allow for significant differences in all the calculations.

But not enough to make the witness statements stack up.

Now all that being said, maybe Stray is still correct, but in the absence of any further evidence in favor of a cloud, the YB-49 is still the better explanation.

Based on nothing but your interpretation of inconsistent eyewitness reports.

However go ahead and support your buddy anyway ... add a little confirmation bias to the long list of other biases demonstrated by the pseudoskeptics here.

And another claim of bias instead of evidence. It's a new thread Ufology, why not try a new tack like finding actual evidence and understanding the limitations of eyewitness testimony?

 

[23_Tauri]

Yes but based on those same statements Straycat showed the object would be too distant to make out any details, the eyewitness statements are thus not internally consistent.

Yes, in order for folo's statement to make any sense, the Lockheed airplane would need to have been flying close to the ranch, but according to the witness statements this wasn't the case.

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

Oh well this will be fun then.

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 )

So far we have "it looked to me like"
Well, to me, this lenticular cloud I saw and photographed;

Looked like the hull of a holiday cruise ship.

But that doesn't mean that's what I thought it was and it would be really silly of anyone to make such a presumption.

Then we have a "describe it as a huge flying wing", which is very similar to me describing the cloud I photographed as a "cruise ship's hull".
Again it would be really silly for anyone to presume that's what I'd seen.

Let's look at these other descriptions:

Oooo yes please, this is fun.

• 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.

So here we have someone's "first thought", which he then reconsidered.
Then we have something "giving the impression of"


A YB-49 wouldn't look anything like the above, because the flight crew were at least 25 (and much more likely at approximately 45 miles) away from the object. What it would look like if it was a YB-49 is too small to see.

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

Well apart from the fact that you seem stuck on calling it an aircraft and not simply 'the object' (remembering we don't know what it was yet!!!!)...
Yes, let's.

• "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.

On my map, please show how a plane traveling at 225mph can cover a distance of 45 miles and make a 90° left turn in order to get "behind" the object as it heads West, without actually reporting such movements.

Also where you reference Johnson's report, he says the object moved in a "long shallow climb", he reports it was heading West away from him, but he couldn't know that. Yes it got smaller as it rose. In exactly the same way a lenticular cloud would if it got caught in an updraft and moved into colder, different pressure air. Which could look like it was moving away until it disappeared.

The relative angles can be reconciled by a combination of margin of error,

Ah, that mythical "margin of error" that you keep spouting about but have not demonstrated any numerical values for, or how you reached them.

timing, and maneuvering. The Airborne observers say that, "While flying off the coast in the vicinty of Santa Monica."

No they don't. Only one of them says as far up as Santa Monica. The rest of the crew all seem to agree to an extent that the plane was somewhere in the Catalina Channel.

which is around 45Km south of Point Morgu, that they made a turn to pursue the object

And how did they first see the object?
If they are heading South down the coast, just off the coast at Santa Monica, the object is behind them.

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.

You are making many assumptions beyond what is reported and ignoring all the eye witness information that doesn't match your predetermined conclusion (that's the majority of it). Nowhere in any of the reports do they mention turning left to go towards the object. Though several of them mention making a slight turn right to head towards it (note it was first observed by the aircrew "off to the right", but also that it could be viewed through the windscreen and well as through the co-pilot's window.

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.

Except that in your rush to identify an unidentified object, you have ignored the majority of the information, made constructs and assumptions that have no basis in the information you have to go on and not actually considered any of the possibilities.

Must try harder!

 

[23_Tauri]

Garrison,

Stray cat already missed the direct quotes of the witnesses who said it looked like a flying wing, failed to take into account how the flight time affected the distance of the airborne observers, resulting in failing to see how the airborne observers had turned and ended up directly behind what looked like a flying wing headed west, fails to acknowledge that the possibility of a cloud was considered, but rejected by all the witnesses ( experienced airmen ), fails to take into account that the Northrop ( makers of the YB-49 ) were nearby, and admits himself there is enough margin of error to allow for significant differences in all the calculations. Now all that being said, maybe Stray is still correct, but in the absence of any further evidence in favor of a cloud, the YB-49 is still the better explanation. However go ahead and support your buddy anyway ... add a little confirmation bias to the long list of other biases demonstrated by the pseudoskeptics here.

So are you basically saying that because these witnesses (experienced airmen) said it wasn't a cloud then it couldn't have been a cloud? How can you have such faith in the accuracy of their observations and conclusions when their statements aren't consistent with each other?

Because when we look at where the various observers were positioned, and align that with what they report to have seen, we get an object that has to be a considerable distance away, which would not correspond to the object being the size of an aircraft.

 

[ufology]

And you still don't understand the concept of burden of proof. It lies with those who claim the artefact is alien to provide evidence to support that contention. The rest of us have no need to 'look further'.

Dude, I wasn't asking anyone to prove the artifact isn't real, I was asking if anyone had any evidence his story was a hoax. I wasn't making any claims or demands ... just asking a simple question, and all these "burden of proof" answers have nothing to do with providing that answer.

 

[ufology]

So are you basically saying that because these witnesses (experienced airmen) said it wasn't a cloud then it couldn't have been a cloud? How can you have such faith in the accuracy of their observations and conclusions when their statements aren't consistent with each other?

Because when we look at where the various observers were positioned, and align that with what they report to have seen, we get an object that has to be a considerable distance away, which would not correspond to the object being the size of an aircraft.

Tauri,

Q: You asked ( or if rhetorical put words in my mouth ): So are you basically saying that because these witnesses (experienced airmen) said it wasn't a cloud then it couldn't have been a cloud?
A: You must have missed this part here: "Now all that being said, maybe Stray is still correct, but in the absence of any further evidence in favor of a cloud, the YB-49 is still the better explanation.

 

[Garrison]

Dude, I wasn't asking anyone to prove the artifact isn't real, I was asking if anyone had any evidence his story was a hoax. I wasn't making any claims or demands ... just asking a simple question, and all these "burden of proof" answers have nothing to do with providing that answer.

And of course if anyone here says they have such evidence you'll just accept it right? You won't endlessly dispute it and expect them to jump through ever more hoops to satisfy you?

 

[Garrison]

Tauri,

Q: You asked ( or if rhetorical put words in my mouth ): So are you basically saying that because these witnesses (experienced airmen) said it wasn't a cloud then it couldn't have been a cloud?
A: You must have missed this part here: "Now all that being said, maybe Stray is still correct, but in the absence of any further evidence in favor of a cloud, the YB-49 is still the better explanation.

This would be the more relevant part, where you ignore the evidence of the inconsistencies in the stories to stick with your chosen explanation, new case same old Ufology.

 

[Stray Cat]

Garrison,

Stray cat already missed the direct quotes of the witnesses who said it looked like a flying wing, failed to take into account how the flight time affected the distance of the airborne observers, resulting in failing to see how the airborne observers had turned and ended up directly behind what looked like a flying wing headed west, fails to acknowledge that the possibility of a cloud was considered, but rejected by all the witnesses ( experienced airmen ), fails to take into account that the Northrop ( makers of the YB-49 ) were nearby,

I haven't failed to notice anything. I've only just started with my analysis.
You have obviously finished yours in record time, which is what a typical UFOlogist will do.

My analysis will run to many different parts of the eye witness statements against the map and various positions to come up with as many various scenarios as can be gleaned from all the the conflicting information badly reported by these "experts" and "highly trained professionals"

It may take weeks because I do things as thoroughly as possible, not slap dash, half assed ignoring bits so I can get an early night.

and admits himself there is enough margin of error to allow for significant differences in all the calculations.

No, I'm going one step further than admitting it. I'm actually working out the parameters of that margin of error using numbers and everything.
When it's done I'll be able to post a graphic with all the different and conflicting positions of the plane, the object and direction. So that other people can exactly how I've worked it out. Much better than asserting some BS and then blindly defending it with stuff I can make up to cover how wrong it was.

Now all that being said, maybe Stray is still correct, but in the absence of any further evidence in favor of a cloud,

If I was sure it was a cloud at this point, I'd be jumping the gun.
I'm still trying to find a workable way that incorporates the majority of the information given in the various conflicting reports, that could point more closely to what the object was. I'm not the one trying to prove my conclusion here. I'm the one who's looking at the evidence seeing where it goes.

the YB-49 is still the better explanation.

Not at the moment it's not.
At the moment, there isn't an explanation.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri,

Q: You asked ( or if rhetorical put words in my mouth ): So are you basically saying that because these witnesses (experienced airmen) said it wasn't a cloud then it couldn't have been a cloud?
A: You must have missed this part here: "Now all that being said, maybe Stray is still correct, but in the absence of any further evidence in favor of a cloud, the YB-49 is still the better explanation.

Ok.

So you accept the possibility that it could be a (lenticular) cloud however you would prefer to go with wing aircraft as the more likely explanation. Why? It seems to me that you go with the wing theory as the more likely one on the basis of the eye witness testimonies, coupled with your interpretation of them (weight to be given to various bits etc).

But what of the discrepancies? These have been pointed out to you (no lateral movement, distances to great to make out detail such as the shape of object were that object small like an airplane). Shucks, I'm treading on others toes (and paws) here, for they are doing a better job than I of fighting their corners.

Ooly, can you map the position of your alleged wing aircraft plus ranch and Lockheed airplane on a Google Earth map, at the point where it started to move away from the observers, in the way Stray Cat has done?

Maybe then we can compare your map with the statements?

 

[23_Tauri]

Garrison,

Stray cat already missed the direct quotes of the witnesses who said it looked like a flying wing,

oofly, does this look like a cloud to you?

If you'd never seen one of these before, would you automatically think it was a cloud? Or might you think it looked too freakin' bizarre to be a cloud?

fails to acknowledge that the possibility of a cloud was considered, but rejected by all the witnesses ( experienced airmen ),

You might want to check with Astrophotographer or Puddle Duck, but I don't think Lenticular Cloud Spotting was necessarily on an airmen's training program in the 1950s. Even if they were experienced pilots as these chaps appear to have been, I wager that lenticular clouds are rare enough for someone to have been flying for several years and not seen one.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Dude, I wasn't asking anyone to prove the artifact isn't real, I was asking if anyone had any evidence his story was a hoax.

What research into the matter have you done? You are, after all, the only person that thinks the question is in any way relevant.

 

[John Albert]

Dude, I wasn't asking anyone to prove the artifact isn't real, I was asking if anyone had any evidence his story was a hoax. I wasn't making any claims or demands ... just asking a simple question, and all these "burden of proof" answers have nothing to do with providing that answer.

On the contrary, the "burden of proof" answers have everything to do with why the skeptics feel it is unnecessary to waste time making unfounded allegations of hoaxes and then investigating them.

You just refuse to recognize the relevance of those answers, because you refuse to acknowledge the concept of burden of proof and how it relates to the process of critical thinking.

 

[carlitos]

Hiya John Albert,

I think you may have missed this:

Ufology, I've asked you this question before, many times now, but you've never answered me:

Have you ever traveled in a commercial airliner during the daytime, and looked out the window with an unobstructed view of the sky and ground while in flight?

Yes.

 

[John Albert]

OK then, ufology, since you have been in a plane at altitude, looking out the window, then you can probably understand how difficult it is for the human eye to discern very distant, unidentified objects in the sky, without any references for scale. Correct?

 

[ufology]

What research into the matter have you done? You are, after all, the only person that thinks the question is in any way relevant.

Squeegee Beckenheim,

I haven't done any "research". I've only read a few accounts of the story, listened to an interview with the artifact's owner, and read the eSkeptic's article. Because the artifact allegedly came from a UFO it is certainly germane to the thread, and being a skeptically oriented website, it seemed reasonable to ask if anyone might know of any information pointing to a hoax or if anyone might be interested in digging in that direction. Now I think we've got the answers from the crew here ... which is the the usual who needs to bother attitude. So unless someone can add anything new, we can leave this issue behind for now.

 

[ufology]

OK then, ufology, since you have been in a plane at altitude, looking out the window, then you can probably understand how difficult it is for the human eye to discern very distant, unidentified objects in the sky, without any references for scale. Correct?

I don't need to have been in an airplane to know that precision estimates of distant objects in the sky can be a challenge. Please just get to your point.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Now I think we've got the answers from the crew here ... which is the the usual who needs to bother attitude.

Bother with what? If it was never shown to be an alien artifact, what is there to bother about?

You explain what you understand the burden of proof to be so that we may see that you do comprehend it. If you don't understand the burden of proof any better than you do the null hypothesis, then we have some serious spadework ahead of us.

 

[ufology]

Ok.

So you accept the possibility that it could be a (lenticular) cloud however you would prefer to go with wing aircraft as the more likely explanation. Why?

It seems to me that you go with the wing theory as the more likely one on the basis of the eye witness testimonies, coupled with your interpretation of them (weight to be given to various bits etc).

But what of the discrepancies? These have been pointed out to you (no lateral movement, distances to great to make out detail such as the shape of object were that object small like an airplane). Shucks, I'm treading on others toes (and paws) here, for they are doing a better job than I of fighting their corners.

Ooly, can you map the position of your alleged wing aircraft plus ranch and Lockheed airplane on a Google Earth map, at the point where it started to move away from the observers, in the way Stray Cat has done?

Maybe then we can compare your map with the statements?

Tauri,

Q. You asked: So you accept the possibility that it could be a (lenticular) cloud however you would prefer to go with wing aircraft as the more likely explanation. Why?

A. Several reasons most notably this quote from the airborne observer: "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 toward, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane."

And then you say: "It seems to me that you go with the wing theory as the more likely one on the basis of the eye witness testimonies, coupled with your interpretation of them (weight to be given to various bits etc)."

Response: Fair enough, since that's really all we have to work with anyway.

And then you asked: But what of the discrepancies?

A. I did deal with the discrepancies including the shape by pointing out how aircraft appear when viewed from directly behind or in front, and pointing out that the other discrepancies can be explained by examining the testimony and going with what makes the most sense regarding distance and attributing the rest to be part of the margin of error based on illusion, possibly from relative movement of the flying wing and the airborne observers. The biggest challenge is establishing the position and heading of the airborne observers when they first spotted the object. I also find it curious that the ground observer made no mention of seeing the airborne observer's aircraft.

And then you asked: " ... can you map the position of your alleged wing aircraft plus ranch and Lockheed airplane on a Google Earth map, at the point where it started to move away from the observers, in the way Stray Cat has done?"

A. I did that here but I haven't made any screen captures. It's not that hard to apply the headings and distances to Google Earth yourself.


All that aside, we don't know for sure what it was and will probably never know. But perhaps Stray will come up with some more information in support of his theory, plus Astro still has to weigh in. Until then, unless I'm given sufficient reason based on the available information to change my view, I'll stick with the YB-49 as a probable explanation.

Oh BTW: This is yet another example that proves that the picture of ufologists portrayed here by the mocking pseudoskeptical propaganda is false ... I've not jumped to "OMG Aliens!" as the explanation for this case, nor the Campeche case, nor many others ... so there isn't even a "tendency" to jump to "OMG Aliens!" as an explanation. Only a willingness to consider it a possibility.

 

[Stray Cat]

I haven't done any "research".

I think I may have stumbled upon what the problem is with your asking about the bit of metal then.

Trying to take the easiest route again so you can have an early night.