• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

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.


RoboTimbo,

What don't you get about the situation being merely a simple question as opposed to a challenge or claim? You are supplying answers that were never required for a context that doesn't exist.
 
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.


Stray,

One of these days an early night would be nice. And if you "stumble" on any relevant information, maybe post that too.
 
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.
It's funny that you should think this.
Because you are still showing the classic signs of how a UFOlogists mind works and what they are prepared to overlook in order to support their conclusion.

Just because you have not jumped to the conclusion of 'alien' means nothing. You are still jumping to your conclusion. You are the only one here who is so convinced of his theory that he'll argue against the majority of the information in order to support it.

But tonight, I'll be taking the full statement from the single crew member who placed the plane 30miles further north than the other three and we'll see what he actually says in full.
So look forward to another Map when you wake up in the morning.
It's OK, I'll do all the research and maths and provide support and transparency for it. Then you can tell me how wrong it is later.
 
Bump.

I think I saw a UFO last night. It exhibited behavior that I couldn't (no one could!) explain. It must be from beyond our knowledge, or, in other words, alien. I was clear-headed, not on any drugs (as far as I can remember), and I had clear sight-lines. It looked like a VW bug that was glowing so brightly that you couldn't tell it was a VW bug, but any radar could have tracked it.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

[/snark]
 
Bump.

I think I saw a UFO last night. It exhibited behavior that I couldn't (no one could!) explain. It must be from beyond our knowledge, or, in other words, alien. I was clear-headed, not on any drugs (as far as I can remember), and I had clear sight-lines. It looked like a VW bug that was glowing so brightly that you couldn't tell it was a VW bug, but any radar could have tracked it.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

[/snark]


Hey Paul,

So you've seen one too eh!
 
RoboTimbo,

What don't you get about the situation being merely a simple question as opposed to a challenge or claim? You are supplying answers that were never required for a context that doesn't exist.

Again with your dishonest misrepresentations. You are the one who said, "Now I think we've got the answers from the crew here ... which is the the usual who needs to bother attitude." How is that attitude a simple question? I was supplying a rebuttal in the context of your blatant attack. I've asked you before to please start posting honestly.

Now that I have your attention, maybe you can answer some simple questions which you've been cowardly dodging.

With the sufficiency of evidence for UFOs ( witches ), do you logy believe in UFOs ( witches ), YES or NO?

There is sufficient evidence pointing to you as the perpetrator of the J Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax. Is that sufficient evidence for you to admit your complicity?

Do you still claim that the word "sufficient" is objective so that what is sufficient for one person makes it suffiicient for another?
 
Again with your dishonest misrepresentations. You are the one who said, "Now I think we've got the answers from the crew here ... which is the the usual who needs to bother attitude." How is that attitude a simple question? I was supplying a rebuttal in the context of your blatant attack. I've asked you before to please start posting honestly.

Now that I have your attention, maybe you can answer some simple questions which you've been cowardly dodging.

With the sufficiency of evidence for UFOs ( witches ), do you logy believe in UFOs ( witches ), YES or NO?

There is sufficient evidence pointing to you as the perpetrator of the J Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax. Is that sufficient evidence for you to admit your complicity?

Do you still claim that the word "sufficient" is objective so that what is sufficient for one person makes it suffiicient for another?


RoboTimbo,

So show me then where someone hasn't answered with the usual who needs to bother attitude and instead provided something in context and useful with respect to the original question. Maybe I missed it amid all the noise you're making.
 
Last edited:
[* Attempt to divert from the main points snipped. *]


You missed this one...

There is sufficient evidence pointing to you as the perpetrator of the J Randall Murphy VolksUFO ( firefly ) Hoax. Is that sufficient evidence for you to admit your complicity?


You've been asked several times to provide your thoughts on the J. Randall Murphy UFO hoax, but it's almost as if the words are invisible to you. Why the persistent ignorance?
 
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.


They're part and parcel of the same issue. Of course he doesn't, or maybe he simply doesn't want to.
 
OK, so we'll move on to Coleman's statement next then (so Mr Oof can have an early night).

Note: In these initial analyses, I'm presuming what is being said by each individual observer is true (though obviously if one is true that also presumes the rest are false). I'm not ignoring anything each individual says or making presumptions about what they may have meant.

As we only have one report from the Johnson ranch on the ground, that information will not change over the course of these initial analyses.
Johnson states that from his ranch, the object was somewhere over Pt. Mugu. We have no way of knowing how far over, so I've simply left in the line of sight that the object would need to be on, in order for it to appear over Pt. Mugu from the Johnson ranch.

Coleman-Version.jpg


I've placed the plane "off the coast somewhere in the vicinity of Santa Monica" and I think I've been generous in how far off the coast and how far up the coast, but I'm ready to make a 5 mile allowance either way from my positioning.

Coleman states that the object was spotted at approximately 5.00pm.
So the bottom plane position represents where the object was first spotted from. He goes on to say "I saw an object apparently standing still in the air off the coast in the vicinity of Point Mugu"

Assuming that Coleman is correct, we have to place the plane traveling somewhere between due West and North West (because the other reports say the object was to the "right" and any further toward North would put the object to the left of the plane).

The closest that the plane could be to the object at this point is 25 miles if it was actually directly over Point Mugu, but as Colman says "off the coast, in the vicinity of Point Mugu", we can put the position of the object further away from the plane somewhere along the red line.

Where the red line and the yellow line cross is 29 miles away from the plane, but if we're factoring a margin of error in here (the 5 miles each way), that would put the plane as close as 24 miles (this is a margin of error of about 20% which is very generous).

Next part of Coleman's statement says they headed towards the object and that "I estimate the object was hovering in our sight for about ten minutes"

Now as we know from Thorem (who was controlling the plane), that the plane was traveling at 225mph, over that ten minutes, it would have travelled to somewhere around the top end of my yellow line.

Then Colman goes on to say "Thereafter, it suddenly accelerated due West and in a time, in the order of ten seconds disappeared from view"

Any questions?
 
What are the coords of that? I want to Google Map it and get a perspective view from there.

From what I remember of that landscape (I was actually right at that general location last summer), there's a mountainous ridge right along the coast, inland of the Ventura Freeway. I'm just wondering whether the elevation was high enough for Johnson to have had a clear view of the sea from that location, or if any landscape would be in the way.
 
Last edited:
What are the coords of that? I want to Google Map it and get a perspective view from there.

From what I remember of that landscape (I was down there last summer), there's a mountainous ridge right along the coast, inland of the Ventura Freeway. I'm just wondering whether the elevation was high enough for Johnson to have had a clear view of the sea from that location, or if any landscape would be in the way.
No, he couldn't see the ocean at all. He states he saw the object above a mountain at the other side of the valley. His ranch faces due West according to him.

All I did to plot the position was to search for Agoura in the Google Earth search bar and then measure from the center of the marker, 3 miles due west and then find the Ventura freeway and measure 1 mile due North from there.

34° 09' 52.03" N
118° 47' 26.46 W

Though these coordinates are actually right in the bottom of the valley (where the road runs). In reality, the ranch would have been further up the right hand side of the valley. But we're not talking massive error margins here. It'll be within half a mile of this location.
 
No, he couldn't see the ocean at all. He states he saw the object above a mountain at the other side of the valley. His ranch faces due West according to him.


OK that makes total sense. I'm checking it out on Google Earth anyway, just to get a perspective view of what he would have seen.


All I did to plot the position was to search for Agoura in the Google Earth search bar and then measure from the center of the marker, 3 miles due west and then find the Ventura freeway and measure 1 mile due North from there.

34° 09' 52.03" N
118° 47' 26.46 W

Though these coordinates are actually right in the bottom of the valley (where the road runs). In reality, the ranch would have been further up the right hand side of the valley. But we're not talking massive error margins here. It'll be within half a mile of this location.


OK
 
Yeah, I don't see how he could have made anything close to an accurate judgment of its distance. It must have been pretty high up from the horizon. That terrain is very mountainous.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I've just re-read Johnson's account and he says;
"... on a hill facing South West"

(human fallibility on action there, I thought he'd said due West). :blush:

But even from the top of the hill on the East side of Lindero Valley, you can't see much but mountains. Certainly can't see the ocean from there.

But if the object was at an altitude of between 16,000 and 20,000 feet as the flight crew say, then I think it's certainly high enough for him to see above the mountains. It's a shame that such a highly trained expert in aviation can't report what angle it was from the horizon.
 
Last edited:
In that mountainous terrain though, the "horizon" was probably only a few miles away, because of the mountains and hills.

I was thinking that getting the terrestrial observer's viewpoint might add some clues, but there's no way to accurately pinpoint his position, and that terrain just complicates matters.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom