Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

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.

So you've gone from thinking that a YB-49 is the most likely explanation because the base where they were built was nearby to thinking that something like a YB-49 but built by a foreign nation and flown in US airspace is the most likely explanation?

I'd suggest starting at the beginning again, looking at all the evidence with an open mind, and then drawing your conclusions from that, rather than trying to fit any available data to the conclusion you've already drawn.
 
When did this happen? I was just skimming the thread and saw the reference to Pt. Mugu but now I see people talking about the YB-49, that was after WWII sometime, maybe fifties. VX-4 wasn't commissioned until the early fifties and I don't think VAQ-34 was up and running until the Eighties. This is a continuation so I think I missed the important posts about this event. Is there a link to a site or post which lays out the basics?


If you start from Astrophotographer's post # 25 here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7971333&postcount=25

Basically, ufology is claiming that an as yet Unidentified Flying Object can in fact be definitively identified (based on anecdotes alone - the only real analysis and research has been done by the very patient and obliging skeptics here, not by ufology himself) as a "flying wing."

My point was that ufology once again failed to take into account the existence of such things as you mentioned. I would have thought your astute observances would have been very relevant ... surprisingly, Mr J. Randall Murphy didn't.
 
Basically, ufology is claiming that an as yet Unidentified Flying Object can in fact be definitively identified ... as a "flying wing."
But it's getting even sillier at the moment. Because in the wake of the realisation that his pet theory of the YB-49 has crashed in a ball of flames, he's now claiming that an Unidentified Flying Object can be identified as an unidentified flying object.
 
But it's getting even sillier at the moment. Because in the wake of the realisation that his pet theory of the YB-49 has crashed in a ball of flames, he's now claiming that an Unidentified Flying Object can be identified as an unidentified flying object.

:D :D

It's worth logging on and reading just for the laughs.
 
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.


Fair enough comment, but it's also fair to determine if we are in the realm of possibilities and I have provided sufficient evidence of that, which for me pretty much makes it pointless to investigate it as a UFO ... and consequently no more than a curiosity with respect to this thread.
 
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"?


No, you'd simply have your inability to give straight answers pointed out to you for the 583,217th time.


Try to put two and two together here.


The way you do such that two of anything + two new definitions = Omgaliens?

That doesn't seem like very good advice.


It looked like a flying wing lenticular cloud. It acted like a flying wing lenticular cloud. flying wings lenticular clouds existed at that time and were about the size as the flying wing lenticular cloud in question was estimated to have been. So it probably was a flying wing lenticular cloud ...


No charge.


... maybe not a YB-49 ... but something similar.


Maybe something . . . undentified.
 
Fair enough comment, but it's also fair to determine if we are in the realm of possibilities and I have provided sufficient evidence of that, which for me pretty much makes it pointless to investigate it as a UFO ... and consequently no more than a curiosity with respect to this thread.


Newsflash for you folo.

It's not all about you.
 
John Albert,

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.


Yes and OMGAliens could have built one too, capable of navigating the vast distances from their home planet, Hoth.
 
Fair enough comment, but it's also fair to determine if we are in the realm of possibilities and I have provided sufficient evidence of that, which for me pretty much makes it pointless to investigate it as a UFO ... and consequently no more than a curiosity with respect to this thread.

The fact is that you don't know what it was. No-one does. At least some here are trying to find out. You on the other hand would rather cling to your unproven position.
 
So what? A lot of well designed planes have crashed and the video I posted clearly shows that it also actually flew really well ... unless of course you think that video is fake.


The video doesn't have to be fake. The video alone does not prove anything.

Just because you have video of one such plane "flying really well," that doesn't mean the design flew really well all the time, or that the slightest adverse condition did not cause serious problems.

Maybe instead of getting all your info out of a YouTube vid, you should open an actual book and do some reading on the subject.
 
So what? A lot of well designed planes have crashed and the video I posted clearly shows that it also actually flew really well ... unless of course you think that video is fake.
They made 3.
2 crashed, one set on fire.

Programme was cancelled!

Compare that to the bigger, heavier, more powerful Boeing B-52 (prototyped in 1951)
Which is still in service today and the USAF expect to keep using them until 2045 when they will have been in service for 90 years.

They've crashed too, but bearing in mind they've made thousands and they've seen actuall battle conditions in Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf, they've stood the test of time, stability and battle.

The YB-49 didn't get past testing the prototypes... there must have been a reason for that.
 
Well, let's start with this one. I dislike UFO videos but it sort of shows how UFOlogists like to portray cases and how the OP would have promoted it here:

Ah, I think this must be the OP of this event, and I have some...questions...about how this case is being portrayed! :)

At 1:50 in the video the lady says something about accelerating at 130 (!) Gs to an altitude of what sounds like ninety miles. None of that makes any sense to me at all, and I couldn't find any reference to those numbers in the official papers, (though I could barely read them, some not at all) or the write up at the site.

130 Gs is...ummm...a lot. It would be a good way to turn a person into a puddle of warm goo in little time, one tenth of that, 13 Gs, could easily kill a person. If they're aliens I suppose they could have adamantium skeletons or even carapaces, but how come those figures aren't featured prominently in the report? Someone like Kelly Johnson would know that instantly and made mention of it, and if he did it was in the illegible (with this monitor at least) portions.

An altitude of ninety miles? Huh? I got to thinking they might have meant nineteen miles, as that would basically be the edge of the atmosphere, ~100k ft, but I've listened specifically three times now and either my ears are failing or she made a mistake, but it sure sounds to me like "an altitude of ninety miles." What the hell does that mean? Why isn't any of this data showcased in the reports? Did they just take the line where it said something about disappearing from site in ten seconds and took that at maximum values by figuring the horizon or something?

The plane that was flying was a radar plane, basically not much more than an airborne transmitter, receiver and antenna. What showed up on radar and why didn't he mention it in his report? He could supposedly see it. It 'seemed to be moving' he says, well for crissakes that's what his radar is for when you can't see the object, it still works when it's in visual range! I cannot understand why he doesn't even mention whether he got a hit on radar, was the system turned off after the test and they were under orders not to fire it back up, perhaps because of some parameters of the test? Did they not think of it because they could see it and airborne radar was a fairly new concept in those days? It doesn't make sense.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwgqFd5ApZM

A UFOlogist, who I respect is Joel Carpenter, and he wrote the following about the case:

http://www.nicap.org/reports/lockufoinc.htm

The actual reports can be found here:

http://www.nicap.org/docs/lockufo3.pdf

I think the video goes over the top. There are claims of "precise measurements" by visual observations and triangulation. I wonder what the margin for error there is for these observations? To be honest, I only have glanced at the case materials very briefly and I noticed that Bluebook classified it as a lenticular cloud.

I checked, and according to this VX-4 was assigned there in '52 so it would have been active when this incident occurred. Finding a (possible) experimental aircraft over a facility that tests experimental aircraft is not an especially unusual finding, and the fact that nothing in the reports I've seen mention anything about someone from Pt. Mugu regarding this issue makes me wonder if they didn't 'see' this object which was described as being right over the facility because they knew what it was. They also have radar, and they like finding out what strange things in the sky are doing there, you might say they can get in trouble if they don't!

Incidentally, you can spend years at NAS Pt Mugu and they'll tell you that the Camarillo State Mental Institution is the building on the cover of the Eagle's 'Hotel California;' (it's not--it's the Beverly Hills Hotel) they'll tell you the part of the El Camino Real that now goes to the inside of Mugu rock was 'Dead Man's Curve' from the Jan and Dean song before they eliminated the hairpin turn going outside it, (it's not--that was the end of Sunset Blvd or somesuch) but they don't tell you, or at least I don't recall ever hearing, that they saw a UFO--or that one was sighted in the area.
 
We can also consider the contextual historicity of the testimony. Clarence L. Johnson says he believes in “flying saucers”. He believes he has previously seen “flying saucers”. He describes the “flying saucer” he witnessed as a black elliptical form.


It's almost as if the thing he thought he saw was exactly the thing he wanted it to be.

There's a lot of it about.
 
Fair enough comment, but it's also fair to determine if we are in the realm of possibilities and I have provided sufficient evidence of that,
You've provided nothing of the sort.
I've not seen you do a single sum to support your distances, directions and speeds. I've not seen your diagram of how you interpret the "highly trained" and "expert" eye witnesses contradictory statements into a 'most likely' possibility.

which for me pretty much makes it pointless to investigate it as a UFO ... and consequently no more than a curiosity with respect to this thread.
"pointless to investigate it as a UFO"?
It is a UFO. The conclusion you've been forced to arrive at in light of your failed (and yet soooooo confident) insistence that it was a YB-49, is that it is an Unidentified Flying Object.

That's the perfect thing to investigate as a UFO.
 
If you start from Astrophotographer's post # 25 here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7971333&postcount=25

Basically, ufology is claiming that an as yet Unidentified Flying Object can in fact be definitively identified (based on anecdotes alone - the only real analysis and research has been done by the very patient and obliging skeptics here, not by ufology himself) as a "flying wing."

I dunno about that, a YB-49 isn't a Navy plane, that thing wasn't going to be landing on any carriers. They used to say the A-5 was the largest thing ever to do so on a regular basis, and just in wingspan the YB-49 must have been three times the size of the (A-5) Vigilante. It might have been from Pt Mugu anyway, perhaps some joint project, or one of the AFBs in the area that just happened to be over Pt. Mugu at the time, but even it it was, that wouldn't be unusual.

I wonder though: what is less probable? A cloud independently fooling an experienced aircrew and a legendary aircraft designer, or an experimental aircraft being sighted over a facility that tests experimental aircraft?
 

Back
Top Bottom