Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tomtomkent]

I wonder if Folo is familiar with the Titanic? I wonder if he could explain how, given the uncanny accuracy he puts on the accuaracy of perception of regular humans, he explains some (proven to be false) observations made on the night of the Titanics sinking. First, it was a clear night, with no clouds and incredible visibility. Bare that in mind:

The Watch, on the Calafornian, a meer ten miles away could see the bright lights of the Titanics broiadside, but thought the lights had turned off when they "should" have seen it turning nose towards them. They then watched it for the next four or so hours and believed the lights were steaming away from them. Yet they were remaining in the same possition and descending into the depths.

After the sinking lifeboats scattered over a small radius of a few miles were able to mistake the flares launched by one lifeboat to try and signal the Californian for an approaching ship. Yet these were with in a few short miles on a clear night, with out trees or other detritus in the way.

How can such mistakes be possible if the average human can discern the objects and detail Ufology attributes to himself and other UFo witnesses?

 

[ufology]

Yes because that smoke bellowing from those B-52s looks just like the "sharp edged", non moving object that both the air crew and Johnson reported watching for at least three and as long as ten minutes.... jeesus.

Do your fingers ever start aching from clutching at these straws?

At 25 miles the smoke from those engines in a tight turn wouldn't look like it was "billowing" at all, and then as it dissipated the retreating aircraft would become visible as a distinct shape through the binoculars. No straw clutching required.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snip>

"I wondered why this one object was so dark, considering that the sun was behind it, I immediately thought that some aircraft had made an intense smoke trail; so I studied the object closely."

The incongruity of this statement has already been pointed out at least once.

Any object with the Sun behind it will appear dark.

It's even possible that the smoke trail formed into a temporary lenticular-like cloud as the aircraft completed its turn and headed west, which also explains how it could have appeared to not change shape much, then be visible as an aircraft after he got the binoculars.

Just because you can show some nice black smoke billowing out from some B52s at takeoff power at ground level doesn't mean you can assume the damn things are going to be generating giant black clouds at 40,000 feet.

Again ... on the apparent motion of the object away from both observers at the same time, The WV-2 had changed direction to investigate and therefore was trying to intercept the object by keeping it dead ahead. At the shallow angle of the objects heading compared to the WV-2 and by constantly keeping the object dead ahead, it would look to the crew on the WV-2 that the object was always pulling directly away, while on the ground the object was headed nearly due west ( also directly away ).

I find that to be better explained by the object being much larger and further away than any of the witnesses assumed it to be.

There is no big mystery here unless we can get some confirmation that the object was stadium sized

Neither you nor anyone else is ever likely to know how big it was.

. . . or as big as the wing in the Phoenix case ( not the flares ) the huge silent black wing seen by other witnesses ... although even that could possibly be explained with conventional technology in most instances.

Trying to estimate the size of one UFO by comparing it with another UFO is not going to end well, fo.

 

[ufology]

I wonder if Folo is familiar with the Titanic? I wonder if he could explain how, given the uncanny accuracy he puts on the accuaracy of perception of regular humans, he explains some (proven to be false) observations made on the night of the Titanics sinking. First, it was a clear night, with no clouds and incredible visibility. Bare that in mind:

The Watch, on the Calafornian, a meer ten miles away could see the bright lights of the Titanics broiadside, but thought the lights had turned off when they "should" have seen it turning nose towards them. They then watched it for the next four or so hours and believed the lights were steaming away from them. Yet they were remaining in the same possition and descending into the depths.

After the sinking lifeboats scattered over a small radius of a few miles were able to mistake the flares launched by one lifeboat to try and signal the Californian for an approaching ship. Yet these were with in a few short miles on a clear night, with out trees or other detritus in the way.

How can such mistakes be possible if the average human can discern the objects and detail Ufology attributes to himself and other UFo witnesses?

Tomtomkent,


Thanks ... you've just given an example of how relative movement of two objects can give an illusion of something different that what the actual case is ... which is what I was getting at.

 

[RoboTimbo]

therefore I have no reason to conclude that the object in the report was a UFO.

Was there ever a question about it being an Unidentified Flying Object? Or are you now claiming that it's a UFO ( witch )?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent,


Thanks ... you've just given an example of how relative movement of two objects can give an illusion of something different that what the actual case is ... which is what I was getting at.

Good, so with that in mind, and knowing we have no reason to assume your own observations are accurate, and the changing distances you placed on the "craft" you saw, why should we assume you were correct in your assessment it was something for which there is no evidence, instead of assuming that like everybody else in the world you may have seen something with a mundane and natural explanation that you misinterpreted?

Why would we believe that ANYBODY who claims to have seen something would be seeing something for which there is no evidence, instead of a natural or mundane object they misinterpreted?

What makes your sighting different to the rest of humanity?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So all in all there was plenty of information to make a reasonable estimate of the size of the UFO I saw ... and compare them to VWs ... which funny enough were once promoted with an advertising slogan, "back engineered from UFOs"

Do you think this is when you started conflating VW's with Alien Space Ships?

 

[Akhenaten]

It's even possible that the smoke trail formed into a temporary lenticular-like cloud as the aircraft completed its turn and headed west, which also explains how it could have appeared to not change shape much, then be visible as an aircraft after he got the binoculars.

At 25 miles the smoke from those engines in a tight turn wouldn't look like it was "billowing" at all, and then as it dissipated the retreating aircraft would become visible as a distinct shape through the binoculars.

One of these things is not like the other thing. Is this smoke forming giant clouds or is it dissipating?

No straw clutching required.

O rly?

 

[Akhenaten]

Do you think this is when you started conflating VW's with Alien Space Ships?

My thought also.

 

[GeeMack]

At 25 miles the smoke from those engines in a tight turn wouldn't look like it was "billowing" at all, and then as it dissipated the retreating aircraft would become visible as a distinct shape through the binoculars. No straw clutching required.

It's a wholly unsubstantiated opinion, as John has mentioned, a WAG. You're trying to fit any little bits and pieces into what you desperately wish it to be by fluffing it all up with "ifs". Yes, if we disregard all the things that contradict your preconceived notion, and if we make a bunch of assumptions that make it conform to your preconceived notion, then it seems to match that preconceived notion. Well, duh. That is definitively clutching at straws. And although that sort of silly rationalizing is standard operating procedure for the pseudoscience of "ufology", it's not how rational objective people go about trying to explain things.

 

[Akhenaten]

My mistake there ( at least I can acknowledge it, unlike the typical behavior of the rest of crew here ) ... my confusion was in reading, "I ran outside and started to focus the glasses on the object" ... which happened after he got the binoculars which were inside.

Well will you be acknowledging your mistake outright misrepresentation in posting this:

Stray,

<snip>

Oh and I think this photo shows more than three [YB-49s] ...

 

[lancemoody]

I've done quite a bit of work on the Kelly Johnson case which is currently much beloved by the UFO enthusiasts. It is an interesting case with the two separate parties seeing the same thing and then comparing notes on it.

One thing for sure is that the case was completely distorted in the Paul Kimball film, Best Evidence, and his mistakes were then dully copied by other pro-UFO sites. When I pointed out these mistakes, he never denied them but still stuck to the idea that the case still stands as "best evidence."


I painstakingly transcribed the hard to read case file and am happy to post here if anyone desires. One of the great things about the case is that EVERYTHING known about it is contained in a small number of pages.

Several other folks have mentioned here some of the unsupported statements made by the UFO believers:

1. Actual location of plane cannot be ascertained from the evidence, making talk of triangulation absurd.
2. The departure event was described as taking about a minute (or more) by most witnesses, including the two witnesses who most continuously sighted the objects. Only one witness made the claim that the departure took 10 seconds. Guess which one the UFO guys chose to use as gospel? This witness also happened to be a UFO enthusiast, having attended the Giant Rock UFO conventions.
3. Several witnesses at first thought the object might be a cloud but dismissed this idea later because the shape was so well defined.
4. Several of the witnesses (including those who most continuously viewed the object) described the "departure" in terms that might also describe a cloud dissapating, i.e. slowly getting smaller and harder to see.
5. UFO believers get things confused as to when the witnesses are describing a general shape and an estimate of size. The witnesses didn't bother with size guesses since they aren't idiots.

That is just a couple of the things I found wrong with the myth as it is passed down among believers. I am happy to discuss more if anyone would like to!

Lance Moody

 

[Stray Cat]

OK so we have both smoke and lenticular clouds being considered as possible causes.

No... One of us maybe entertaining smoke as a possibility. At the moment, I'm simply going systematically through the actual information to see what facts will show to be possible.

Here's the relevant quote for the exhaust:

"I wondered why this one object was so dark, considering that the sun was behind it, I immediately thought that some aircraft had made an intense smoke trail; so I studied the object closely."

Is this the same statement where he also thought it was a Lenticular cloud and then changed his mind and finally settled on it being a flying saucer because of it's sharply defined edges?

I mean I realise this the part where Johnson apparently demonstrates he doesn't know how silhouettes work by his apparent confusion as to why the object was so dark when the setting sun was behind it.

It's even possible that the smoke trail formed into a temporary lenticular-like cloud as the aircraft completed its turn and headed west, which also explains how it could have appeared to not change shape much, then be visible as an aircraft after he got the binoculars.

Cool, then now all you have to is find an example of this happening elsewhere or show how the mechanism of the formation of a lenticular cloud in cool air could be in anyway the same as hot exhaust smoke coming out of the back of a B-52.... otherwise your assumptions about what is possible is a accurate as the possibility it was a flock of migrating Witches heading West for Christmas.

Again ... on the apparent motion of the object away from both observers at the same time, The WV-2 had changed direction to investigate and therefore was trying to intercept the object by keeping it dead ahead. At the shallow angle of the objects heading compared to the WV-2 and by constantly keeping the object dead ahead, it would look to the crew on the WV-2 that the object was always pulling directly away, while on the ground the object was headed nearly due west ( also directly away ).

So what you're saying is that as long as everything is where you imagine it might be if your imagination is right, it'll all fit together just like your imagination imagines it to be. None of these extra movements (turning left) required are actually mentioned in any way and you have to assume that the plane somehow changed direction by about 45° without anyone noticing. Bearing in mind that Thoren (the guy at the controls) says in his statement that he didn't continuously watch the object because he was flying the plane. And when it finally disappeared from view he clearly states "It's [the object's] direction was almost due West", he doesn't say the plane was going due West. In fact he doesn't state any direction or position all the way thourgh his statement. And if the Lockheed was at the same altitude and directly behind the object, it would have been directly between Johnson and the object and yet Johnson doesn't report seeing the plane.

There is no big mystery here unless we can get some confirmation that the object was stadium sized or as big as the wing in the Phoenix case ( not the flares ) the huge silent black wing seen by other witnesses ... although even that could possibly be explained with conventional technology in most instances.

Well it can be explained by the fact that it wasn't a "wing" it was a squadron of small wings.

 

[Stray Cat]

At 25 miles the smoke from those engines in a tight turn wouldn't look like it was "billowing" at all, and then as it dissipated the retreating aircraft would become visible as a distinct shape through the binoculars. No straw clutching required.

In your imagination it may not look like it was billowing from 25 miles, now demonstrate how your imagination is accurate... because for it to be visible from 25 miles it would have to billow.

 

[Akhenaten]

I wonder if Folo is familiar with the Titanic? I wonder if he could explain how, given the uncanny accuracy he puts on the accuaracy of perception of regular humans, he explains some (proven to be false) observations made on the night of the Titanics sinking. First, it was a clear night, with no clouds and incredible visibility. Bare that in mind:

The Watch, on the Calafornian, a meer ten miles away could see the bright lights of the Titanics broiadside, but thought the lights had turned off when they "should" have seen it turning nose towards them. They then watched it for the next four or so hours and believed the lights were steaming away from them. Yet they were remaining in the same possition and descending into the depths.

After the sinking lifeboats scattered over a small radius of a few miles were able to mistake the flares launched by one lifeboat to try and signal the Californian for an approaching ship. Yet these were with in a few short miles on a clear night, with out trees or other detritus in the way.

How can such mistakes be possible if the average human can discern the objects and detail Ufology attributes to himself and other UFo witnesses?

General: Where have you been soldier?
Folo: Training, sir.
Ufailogists: Training, sir.
General: What kind of training?
Folo: Ufology training, sir.
Ufailogists: Ufology training, sir.

 

[Akhenaten]

In your imagination it may not look like it was billowing from 25 miles, now demonstrate how your imagination is accurate... because for it to be visible from 25 miles it would have to billow.

Billowing like a witch's cape in a winter gale, in fact.

 

[tsig]

It would be a lie, of course, to suggest "they" rejected the cloud explanation. Apparently Kelly Johnson didn't think it was a cloud, but with his less than perfect vision and the fact that he couldn't have seen more than a speck from his position anyway, points you continue to dishonestly and willfully ignore, his opinion on the matter is nearly irrelevant.

By the way, what did the USAF consider the likely explanation?

And what exactly are the differences between known flight characteristics of a lenticular cloud, a Northrop flying wing, and an alien craft?

A lenticular cloud hangs damply in the sky, a Northrop flying wing falls backward out of the sky and an alien craft ignores all rules of physics.

 

[Garrison]

My mistake there ( at least I can acknowledge it, unlike the typical behavior of the rest of crew here ) ... my confusion was in reading, "I ran outside and started to focus the glasses on the object" ... which happened after he got the binoculars which were inside.

Actually Ufology I think you'll find that's 1 down about 100 more to go, how about admitting that anecdotes aren't evidence next?

 

[tsig]

OH and Ufology I notice that you only responded to the first half of my post. Do I take it this means you have no intention of doing the research to back up your claim?

UFO research consists telling anecdotes, patting each other on the back and challenging skeptics to prove them wrong.

 

[GeeMack]

UFO research consists telling anecdotes, patting each other on the back and challenging skeptics to prove them wrong.

No, no, no. That would be a religion. Oh... wait... I see what you mean.