Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Not quite. I actually said that based on the witness statements, a YB-49 or some other flying wing or some other jet aircraft like a B-52 is a more probable explanation than merely a cloud . . .

You've said lots of things, including that the fireflies at Windermere Lake are alien flying saucers.

This tends to affect the way people will receive your theories ( WAGs ).

. . . posted images and links for them, and explained how the object in the report could appear to recede from both viewers at the same time . . .

You've posted a few irrelevant pictures, some with knowingly deceptive descriptions, and your explanations are totally unsupported by the types of measurements and calculations that you should have but haven't bothered to carry out yourself.

. . . and added that there was nothing that couldn't be explained by the technology of the day combined with some reasonable margin of error.

There are a number of things that, as reported, can't be explained by the technology of any day but you refuse to acknowledge them because you've made up your mind that it was a flying wing and that's that.

So unless there is some other information to counter that position, then there is no reason to consider the object in the UFO report to be an alien craft ...

Who exactly is doing this?

. . . even though I know you want me jump to the conclusion, "OMG Aliens!" just to so you can point fingers at the only ufologist here ... once again ... sorry to disappoint.

Jumping to the conclusion "OMG . . . flying wing!" is no better than jumping to any other conclusion.

It's no disappointment at all to find a UFOlogist doing this. It's what they do.

 

[Akhenaten]

More flames above ... even in the wake of the mods warning.

Was your response to this post one of the ones culled?

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] ...

 

[Akhenaten]

Which is interesting but irrelevant to the question of what Kelly Johnson and Co. saw.

I give you an exact quote that says it looked like a large flying wing and a film of a flying wing from that time period and you call it "irrelevant"? Why?

Because the film clip you linked bore no resemblance whatsoever to the quote you were trying to relate it to.

What logical reason can you give that makes you so sure?

Irrelevant means 'unrelated to the matter being considered' and your little propaganda film was exactly that.

Or has irrelevant been Rredefined?

 

[Akhenaten]

Any object with the Sun behind it will appear dark.

Acky,

I'll give you a chance to retract ( or rephrase ) the above before I post a photo of a bright cloud illuminated by the sun directly behind it ... you should know better than to make absolutist statements that are so easily disputed.

And you should know better than to cherry pick one tiny part of a post that you think you can bluster your way through and ignore the more substantive parts in hope that they'll be forgotten about.

<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.

 

[ufology]

Was your response to this post one of the ones culled?

You mean the picture of nine flying wings with no propellers? The picture does show what I think looks like more than three YB-49s. I didn't know at that time they supposedly weren't completed ... in fact we still don't know with absolute certainty they weren't completed. There have been a number of flying wing reports since then and before the B2 was built. And at least I've shown that operational flying wings existed in those days and matched it to a description provided by the observers as well as shown the proximity of the plant where they were made. These things made it perfectly reasonable to consider the YB-49 in our lineup of suspects.

So perhaps instead of constantly looking for a reason to trash my character, attacking me with your flames, jumping to some nefarious conclusion, beaking off some accusatory remark, and insisting I prove my innocence, try pointing out the apparent fault in my example and waiting for a response ... that really isn't too much to ask.

 

[Akhenaten]

You mean the picture of nine flying wings with no propellers? The picture does show what I think looks like more than three YB-49s. I didn't know at that time they supposedly weren't completed ...

What did the original caption say, ufology? You know, the one where you hotlinked the picture from.

. . . in fact we still don't know with absolute certainty they weren't completed.

<bluster>

The source that you used for the picture had this to say:

Number built:

3 converted from YB-35, 2 YB-49 and one YRB-49A, more incomplete examples scrapped.​

Do you have some special knowledge that they don't?

 

[23_Tauri]

So anyway,

I need to get my post count up so that I can post some additional information.
I would love to hear any comments or questions about my lenticular cloud theory for the Kelly Johnson case.

I think the fact that Air Force also concluded (possibly after a real investigation) that this was the solution galls a lot of the UFO faithful.

The case file doesn't mention how this conclusion was reached, it just summarily states: Lenticular Cloud. They hate that!

Lance

Hello Lance, and welcome. I'm sorry I didn't know who you were. Previous to you appearance I'd only ever heard on one chap called Lance, and he rides bikes.

Anyways, I congratulate you on your idea to shrink Meyer's cloud so as to demonstrate how such a cloud would have appeared to Johnson and the WV-2 crew from a distance.

Exactly like their descriptions of the UFO in the witness statements.

When I read the statements "lenticular cloud" seemed to me to be the most likely explanation too. When Stray Cat constructed his triangulation of the incident, based on the estimated positions of the WV-2 and Johnson's ranch, for me it only added significant weight to the cloud theory.

 

[Akhenaten]

TjW,
I haven't ignored any of the cloudy possibilities proposed by the proponents of cloudy possibilities. So asking "Why?" is irrelevant. It's like asking you when you stopped stealing candy from the kids down the block.

Posting nonsense like this:

Uh ... reminder here ... I said right at the start I don't think the 1953 flying wing case we're discussing was an alien craft.

<irrelevant guff about non-alien artifacts>

is pretty much displaying a wilfull ignorance of all possibilities other than your jumped-to conclusion.

However I am looking forward to Astro and Lance finally weighing in with their exhaustive study concluding how the object in the 1953 Mugu point UFO report probably wasn't an alien craft ... something I've been saying from the start.

Why does anyone need to 'weigh in' with the null hypothesis?

 

[Akhenaten]

It's "ufology" not UFOlogy ... and maybe try being more congenial.

Why isn't it 'aliencraftology'? Wouldn't that be less ambiguous.

 

[23_Tauri]

Not quite. I actually said that based on the witness statements, a YB-49 or some other flying wing or some other jet aircraft like a B-52 is a more probable explanation than merely a cloud, posted images and links for them, and explained how the object in the report could appear to recede from both viewers at the same time,

Only by embellishing the story with bits that you had made up and not taking proper account of their positions and flight path based solely their reports. Otherwise it's not possible to show how the object would appear to recede from both viewers at the same time unless the object was much, much larger than an airplane, and much, much further away. Like a cloud, for example.

This is what Stray Cat demonstrated with his first Google Earth image.

As for basing your wing theory on witness statements, that’s not really true, is it? As I say, what you’ve done is cherry picked the bits where the observers said “it looked like a wing” and then added your made-up stuff, like these gems:

So in the diagram you need to take the projected intercept point and compensate. The projected intercept point would be about where the ground observer saw it through binoculars, and then as it moved off to the west we can extrapolate a speed equal to or greater than the WV-2 ( because the WV-2 never caught it ), so by the time the WV-2 reached the intercept point the object would be farther out to sea, and the WV-2 would have been making a long slow arc toward the west to end up directly behind it at some distance.

However if the object was a large jet going into a power turn it may have spewed out a bunch of black exhaust typical of those early jets, and in doing so create a large black streak, which is what the ground observer said he thought it was at first. Then he got his binoculars and looked at it. And if as I've shown is consistent with the information in the reports, the jet was heading nearly directly away or toward the observers, then the visibility of the fuselage would be minimized ... so it doesn't even need to be a YB-49. It could have been a B-52.

... 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 ).

(Note: nothing in the crew's reports mentioned turning left to follow the object)

All without showing your workings. This is called making stuff up to fit your a priori conclusion, otherwise known as ‘jumping to conclusions’ and ‘dancing around the points’. I do believe we had a picture of that once upon a time.

At which point you had the effrontery to call the people who had done all the work for you “nerf herders” and “class clowns”, which is just downright rude.

and added that there was nothing that couldn't be explained by the technology of the day combined with some reasonable margin of error.

A margin of error that you still haven't explained to us, because you've quite conspicuously refused to do any maths since we started this discussion. Someone else did include a margin of error of 20 miles into his calculations though.... hmmm... I wonder who that could have been?

So unless there is some other information to counter that position, then there is no reason to consider the object in the UFO report to be an alien craft ... even though I know you want me jump to the conclusion, "OMG Aliens!" just to so you can point fingers at the only ufologist here ... once again ... sorry to disappoint.

No one here has suggested it was an alien craft. Why even bring that into the conversation, Mr J Randall Murphy?

 

[ufology]

What did the original caption say, ufology? You know, the one where you hotlinked the picture from. The source that you used for the picture had this to say:

Number built:

3 converted from YB-35, 2 YB-49 and one YRB-49A, more incomplete examples scrapped.
​

Do you have some special knowledge that they don't?

There was no caption. I just did a Google search, opened the image alone in a new tab, and selected the properties. I never looked at the article itself until this point of contention came up. As for "special knowledge", no I don't have any special knowledge, but like I said before there have been other flying wing sightings since then and before the B2, so maybe they weren't all scrapped ... after all, the picture isn't of planes being scrapped, it's of nine flying wings in the process of being built ... and they already look pretty much done, so for all we know more were actually completed and sitting there waiting to be flown out. Then there are a couple of decent color films of them ... and oddly enough a black and white identical one that looks really old. Why would they want to make a newer clean color film look like an old black and white one on purpose?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Another demonstration of rigorous research in ufology.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I never looked at the article itself until this point of contention came up.

I would suggest that there's a lesson to be learned, there.

 

[Akhenaten]

There was no caption. I just did a Google search, opened the image alone in a new tab, and selected the properties. I never looked at the article itself until this point of contention came up.

So you just posted a picture you found on Google and said it was evidence that more than three YB49s had been built without even checking to see what the picture actually showed.

Mad research, skillz, ufology.

As for "special knowledge", no I don't have any special knowledge, but like I said before there have been other flying wing sightings since then and before the B2, so maybe they weren't all scrapped ...

There have been sightings since then of everything from the Hindenburg to the Death Star.

That you use this as a premise on which to build a supposition that the US secretly went ahead and built more YB49s says a great deal about the way UFOlogy works and none of it is very good.

. . .after all, the picture isn't of planes being scrapped, it's of nine flying wings in the process of being built ... and they already look pretty much done, so for all we know more were actually completed and sitting there waiting to be flown out.

No.

"For all we know" they only built three. The very article that your photo was lifted from says as much.

Then there are a couple of decent color films of them ... and oddly enough a black and white identical one that looks really old.

Do these films show more than three YB49s?

Why would they want to make a newer clean color film look like an old black and white one on purpose?

I have no idea, but since you're the one speculating that this is what happened then you're the one that needs to explain it, not me.

 

[23_Tauri]

So you just posted a picture you found on Google and said it was evidence that more than three YB49s had been built without even checking to see what the picture actually showed.

Mad research, skillz, ufology.

Otherwise known as "Critical Thinking in Ufology".

 

[SezMe]

I wanted to get the sense of the size of what this sighting is. So I calculated the angle subtended by a 200 foot wide object at 20 miles away. I then computed how wide an object held at arm's length (3 feet) would be that would have the same appearance. Yes, ufology, I actually figured out the formula and did the plug and chug (which, for you young farts, means I used Excel).

The answer is about the same width as 10 human hairs. The result is roughly inversely proportional to distance and directly proportional to width. So if the object was 100 feet wide and 60 miles away, the result would be 1-2 human hairs.

So, assuming the object has an aspect ratio of 10:1 then imagine holding a SINGLE human hair away from you at arm's length that is 10 human hairs long.

Anybody here think that ANY accurate description can be given regarding the shape, edge characteristics, etc. of that piece of hair? I don't.

 

[ufology]

Only by embellishing the story with bits that you had made up and not taking proper account of their positions and flight path based solely their reports ... blah blah blah

You're really missing quite a lot and making unfounded proclamations and I'm tiring of explaining it over and over again.

Using information in the report to support our theories is what everyone here is doing, so why pick on me? What do you expect ... for us not to use the information to support our ideas?

As for the math ... I took into account the speed of the airpborne observers and calculated travel distance, calculated relative closeness through 8 X binoculars, calculated the angles and took into account the arc that would have been made by the airborne observers. You said you want to play with the boys toys ... so do better, find counterpoints and add up the pros and cons. Don't just sit there and be critical. Here's some stuff to start with.

- Rudy who was flying at th time turned around and headed toward the object.

- I immediately thought that some aircraft had made an intense smoke trail,

- It looked to me like I was flying directly towards, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane."

- Our attention was drawn to what looked like a large airplane off to our right.

- 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.

- My first thought is that it was a large airplane, possibly a C-124,

- It had a definite shape which appeared to me like a crescent.

- Others on board describe it as a huge flying wing.
- After watching it for a few minutes we decided that it wasn’t a cloud but some kind of object.

- In 90 seconds from the time it started to move, the object had completely disappeared in a long shallow climb on the heading noted.

- Thereafter, it suddenly accelerated due west and in a time, in the order of 10 seconds, disappeared from view.

- ... the object had reduced in size to a mere speck, and then disappeared. It’s direction was almost due west.

- After looking at the object off and on for about five minutes, it became apparent that it was moving away from us and in just a minute or two it completely disappeared.

- Right up until the time it disappeared it maintained its sharp outline and definite shape so I know it was not a cloud that dissolved giving the appearance of moving away.

- I might add that I have had considerable experience, while doing radar bombing on P2V’s, of estimating distance where there is very little to judge by and I am convinced this was a large object some distance away.
- Kelly then related that last night at about 5:05 p.m. he had seen an objectin the western sky and had gotten binoculars and looked at it in detail. He described it as a wing with an aspect ratio of approximately seven. He said that it appeared stationary for several minutes, and then heading directly west it disappeared in one to two minutes, as I recollect his conversation. This story jibes exactly with what we saw in flight at the same time.

=============================

The cloud theory was considered by the witnesses and discarded by all of them. However none of them discarded the possibility of another aircraft. To these experienced people it had aircraft like characteristics and behavior, but wasn't anything typical and some described it as a "flying saucer" a generic term for sightings of out of the ordinary craft that had been reported in the news, and theorized by some to be of extraterrestrial origin.

 

[ufology]

I wanted to get the sense of the size of what this sighting is. So I calculated the angle subtended by a 200 foot wide object at 20 miles away. I then computed how wide an object held at arm's length (3 feet) would be that would have the same appearance. Yes, ufology, I actually figured out the formula and did the plug and chug (which, for you young farts, means I used Excel).

The answer is about the same width as 10 human hairs. The result is roughly inversely proportional to distance and directly proportional to width. So if the object was 100 feet wide and 60 miles away, the result would be 1-2 human hairs.

So, assuming the object has an aspect ratio of 10:1 then imagine holding a SINGLE human hair away from you at arm's length that is 10 human hairs long.

Anybody here think that ANY accurate description can be given regarding the shape, edge characteristics, etc. of that piece of hair? I don't.

Except we're only talking about 25 miles away and viewed through 8 times lenses. And the airborne observers probably ended up closer at one point because of the travel time at their speed of 200 plus MPH. So go back to the chalk-board or Excel or whatever and the map and put it all together again.

The alternative is that you are implying a coordinated hoax and that nothing was actually seen at all except for a distant speck that they thought they would go chase ... not likely.

 

[Akhenaten]

You're really missing quite a lot and making unfounded proclamations and I'm tiring of explaining it over and over again.

Perhaps you'd find it less tiring if you didn't make up a new explanation every few posts.

Using information in the report to support our theories is what everyone here is doing, so why pick on me?

Pointing out that the reports DO NOT support your theory and that your research is shoddy isn't picking on you.

What do you expect ... for us not to use the information to support our ideas?

Us?

As for the math ...

<snip complete absence of anything resembling mathematics>

Well, where is it?

 

[Akhenaten]

Except we're only talking about 25 miles away and viewed through 8 times lenses. And the airborne observers probably ended up closer at one point because of the travel time at their speed of 200 plus MPH.

That's not what the actual calculations show.

So go back to the chalk-board or Excel or whatever and the map and put it all together again.

I'd offer you the same advice, except that the 'again' part would need to be replaced with 'instead of just guessing'

The alternative is that you are implying a coordinated hoax and that nothing was actually seen at all except for a distant speck that they thought they would go chase ... not likely.

That is a false dichotomy.