Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

You're assuming I wasn't aware of it. There is also Vandenburg to the north, Edwards AFB to the east over the mountains, and the Northrop plant at Hawethorne ( Makers of the YB-49 ).

You mean makers of the YB-49 until they cancelled the programme on March 15th 1950 Having made only three of them?
Two which we know for sure crashed and were totally destroyed and one who's fate when it's engines caught fire I haven't managed to find out yet.

 

[Akhenaten]

Unless they are aliens and have the "shrink" button on the dashboard of their flying craft. Makes as much sense as the anti gravity cloaking device ufology invented.

Or a flying coven of witches moving from an echelon formation to line astern.

 

[ufology]

No, let's not "work it a bit" I'm not making presumptions that are not included in the eye witness report ...

Stray,

I've used information from the reports and not fabricated anything. You've failed to take into account the reported movement of the object away from the observers over time, and just because the YB-49 was cancelled doesn't mean there wasn't anything else like it anywhere else or that one or two didn't survive in secret like some of the blackbirds. Oh and I think this photo shows more than three ...

 

[Stray Cat]

TjW,

Maybe it was a cloud, and you are right that any one of "all those highlighted descriptions" I've posted might be enough to counter the YB-49 theory, but I've given numerous reasons from very qualified observers ... observers who would most probably be at least as knowledgeable as you are and with firsthand experience,

And who have all given contradictory accounts of their own position and the position of the object they are reporting seeing and how long they saw it for and what direction they were travelling in.
In fact if you add up all the contradictory information, you'll see that the vast majority of it can not be true... Which would be really poor from "very qualified observers" who are "knowledgeable" and who had "first hand experience"

And yet, there they are, in black and white. In their own words.

and who rejected the cloud explanation after studying the object for several minutes and in the end saying it looked like a flying wing aircraft.

Again, an assumption that they came to that conclusion after seeing the object for a few minutes. The reports were written over a two week period after the incident. The crew met with Johnson and discussed the incident prior to writing their reports.

So the YB-49 theory still makes more sense.

Lol!
Maybe it was a ghost plane YB-49?

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray,

I've used information from the reports and not fabricated anything.

You think that's what you've done, but I've shown in detail where you have made assumptions that are not supported by the information in the written reports.
You've also cherry picked from wildly differing reports from different people, only picking the bits that you think most closely match your non existent YB-49

You've failed to take into account the reported movement of the object away from the observers over time,

I haven't failed to take anything into account.
I've tried to tie the only witness who's even remotely close to your theory, into Johnson's account to see where it leads.
Like I already said (and you already ignored once). I'm only just getting started analysing here, I like to do things thoroughly and consider all the possibilities. You obviously don't work like that... That's why you're a UFOlogist.

and just because the YB-49 was cancelled doesn't mean there wasn't anything else like it anywhere else or that one or two didn't survive in secret like some of the blackbirds.

Then be a good chap and rush off and find something that was like that, that was in the area at that time. Because "something else like it" doesn't actually move anyone closer than "Unidentified Flying Object" does it?

 

[Krikkiter]

Stray,

I've used information from the reports and not fabricated anything. You've failed to take into account the reported movement of the object away from the observers over time, and [1]just because the YB-49 was cancelled doesn't mean there wasn't anything else like it anywhere else [2]or that one or two didn't survive in secret like some of the blackbirds. Oh and I think [3]this photo shows more than three ...

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/YB49-9_300.jpg/220px-YB49-9_300.jpg[/qimg]

lol You're really not very good at this stuff are you ufology?

1. Speculation - care to provide evidence?
2. Speculation - care to provide evidence?
3. Source? Hmmmmm.... "Partially completed YB-35B airframes lined up for completion or conversion to YRB-49As."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YB-49

 

[John Albert]

Any questions?

Stray,

OK ... it looks like your basic coordinates are within tolerances, so let's work it a bit.

"Work it" indeed.

 

[Akhenaten]

Stray,

I've used information from the reports and not fabricated anything.

What you've fabricated is the certainty that the object was a flying wing.

A certainty that is now a position in which you are so entrenched that you're willing to make more stuff up just to support it.

You've failed to take into account the reported movement of the object away from the observers over time . . .

That's simply not true.

. . . and just because the YB-49 was cancelled doesn't mean there wasn't anything else like it anywhere else or that one or two didn't survive in secret like some of the blackbirds.

As I said above. You're so tied to the certainty that this was a flying wing that you're prepared to invent, without the slightest hint of actual evidence, the existance of secret aircraft.

Oh and I think this photo shows more than three ...

The caption on the Wikipedia picture that you've hotlinked says:

Partially completed YB-35B airframes lined up for completion or conversion to YRB-49As.​

The very same page mentions that the total number of YB-49s built was 3 converted from YB-35s. 2 YB-49s and one YRB-49A, more incomplete examples scrapped.

ie. Most if not all of those airframes in your picture never flew.

I have a hard time believing you did not know this.



ETA: Krikkiter the Kwikk wins this round.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I haven't done any "research".

Why not?

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.

So because nobody else wants to do any research on the subject you can't be bothered? But it's you who thinks that the question needs an answer. Why would you only be interested in the answer if it's other people doing the work?

 

[SezMe]

... observers who would most probably be at least as knowledgeable as you are and with firsthand experience, ...

"firsthand experience" of what?

 

[Akhenaten]

So because nobody else wants to do any research on the subject you can't be bothered? But it's you who thinks that the question needs an answer. Why would you only be interested in the answer if it's other people doing the work?

He's not really interested in an answer at all. He does it:

In order to create a veneer of genuine willingness to undertake objective investigations and hopefully begin an attempt in this new thread to crawl out of the Crater of Credulity™ that he fell into in Part 1.

 

[Krikkiter]

ETA: Krikkiter the Kwikk wins this round.

Well he doesn't seem to read or respond to my posts so thanks Plus, reading it twice might help him?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well he doesn't seem to read or respond to my posts so thanks

Welcome to the TOXIC ELEMENT zone.

Plus, reading it twice might help him?

Nearly got him mixed up with an honest researcher, didn't you?

 

[Stray Cat]

Oh and I think this photo shows more than three ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/YB49-9_300.jpg/220px-YB49-9_300.jpg

That'll be because they are YB-35s

You are either a really bad researcher or a bloody liar.

Even the wiki page caption tells you this.

"Partially completed YB-35B airframes lined up for completion or conversion to YRB-49As."

But the Wiki article also says only two YB-49 were ever made (I prefer to believe the official history rather than Wiki).

For your information (apparently you need spoon feeding). The XB-35s and YB-35s were prop driven and didn't have anywhere near the same performance stats as the jet engined YB-49. so they began a programme of fitting them with 8 Allison J35 Turbo Jet engines. The jet powered ones were the YB-49s.

The histories of these XB-35, YB-35 and YB-49's is a sad one of crashes failures and only prototypes and pre production small runs (sometimes only one, two or three) in their variations all based on the same XB-35 airframe and all destined to be grounded or wrecked before 1953.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tauri,

In the case we are discussing there are points of reference, two sets of observers in two different locations that indicate the object was in the direction of Point Mugu. This allows the position of the object to be determined as in the vicinity of Point Mugu ( just draw the lines from the observers positions to Point Mugu and you'll see that they intersect ).

For someone who has flatly refused to do any of the groundwork whatsoever you sure do come over as a tiny bit pompous, Ooly.

As it is, I was making a general comment. But if you want to make it specific to the case in hand then the bit you've chosen to over look is most relevant; that is that we don't know what the object is so any distinctions of distance by the observers in out the window, and secondly that the statements don't tally in terms of the object's position.

This final point is what Stray Cat is trying to make you understand. Plotting the statements from different observers gives you different result. They're all "highly trained" military personnel, ooly, so who's correct, in your opinion?

 

[23_Tauri]

"Work it" indeed.

[qimg]http://oi41.tinypic.com/23mmxpu.jpg[/qimg]

well quite. Mr J Randall Murphy, if you had any idea how your "let's work it" quip had come across, I swear you would hang your head in shame.

 

[John Albert]

For your information (apparently you need spoon feeding). The XB-35s and YB-35s were prop driven and didn't have anywhere near the same performance stats as the jet engined YB-49. so they began a programme of fitting them with 8 Allison J35 Turbo Jet engines. The jet powered ones were the YB-49s.

The histories of these XB-35, YB-35 and YB-49's is a sad one of crashes failures and only prototypes and pre production small runs (sometimes only one, two or three) in their variations all based on the same XB-35 airframe and all destined to be grounded or wrecked before 1953.

That's because the "flying wing" is a singularly awful aerodynamic design, that was horribly prone to stalling. The entire program was scrapped because the planes were simply not stable enough to be flown by unassisted humans.

It wasn't until the late 1970s, when computerized "fly-by-wire" systems became advanced enough to handle such unstable airframes, that the "flying wing" concept was revisited, and eventually refined into the F-117 and B-2 designs.

 

[Stray Cat]

well quite. Mr J Randall Murphy, if you had any idea how your "let's work it" quip had come across, I swear you would hang your head in shame.

Yes, but cut Mr Oof some slack. Whilst I've been here literally all night reading and researching, he's probably had his website to update and all the hard work that that entails... We're lucky he's found time in his schedule to fit us in.

 

[ufology]

That's because the "flying wing" is a singularly awful aerodynamic design, that was horribly prone to stalling. The entire program was scrapped because the planes were simply not stable enough to be flown by unassisted humans.

It wasn't until the late 1970s, when computerized "fly-by-wire" systems became advanced enough to handle such unstable airframes, that the "flying wing" concept was revisited, and eventually refined into the F-117 and B-2 designs.

John Albert,

Actually there is quite a bit of controversy over the actual performance of the YB-49 and if you watch some of the videos it looks like it flies pretty damn good.

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

( watch the whole video )


And again, if we were building them, then others could have done so as well. So even if it wasn't one of ours, the wing that was spotted could have been someone elses.

 

[Stray Cat]

And again, if we were building them, then others could have done so as well. So even if it wasn't one of ours, the wing that was spotted could have been someone elses.

Then off you go and find one that was being flown in the area around that time. It's called "supported by evidence" and it's what we try to do around here.

Otherwise, like I already said, you're no closer than "Unidentified Flying Object" which is kind of where we started and the idea of this game is try to get beyond that point.