Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Krikkiter]

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... <snip>

THIS is what people are being critical of. NOT you personally but your methods. Do you see that ufology? Do you see what's wrong with the above? Really. I'd like to know.

You're now trying to insist that more than three of the aircraft were completed and actually flew. And why? Because it's the only way you can make your pet conclusion work.

This is the standard of your research skills. A first year university student would have to re-submit.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Richard Feynman argued that a distinguishing feature of cargo-cult science (pseudoscience) is a lack of honesty. I think that the laziness that we see in a lot of UFO research is a reflection of a lack of intelectual honesty.

From his 1974 Caltech address:

But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

Please show your workings, because on the basis of the speeds and distances you gave the WV-6 would have crashed into the object. It did not. From the point of view of the crew, they appeared to not gain on the object at all.

Can you show, overlaid on a map, how the WV-6 and Johnson could have both been in their relative positions and both seen the object due west and disappearing without any lateral movement?

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 made a slight turn heading right towards the object". That's what Thoren says in his statement. If the object was relatively near, and travelling westwards, then how could he have turned his airplane to the right towards the object, unless they were travelling south or SW at the time?

The cloud theory was considered by the witnesses and discarded by all of them.

So? They discussed it between them at the time in the plane. Doesn't mean they there initial hunches weren't correct. Did you read my earlier post where I referred to Twelve Angry Men?

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.

The crew and Johnson's many references, mainly in jest, is a reflection of the zeitgeist of the time. Kenneth Arnold's sighting was only five years earlier and 'Flying saucers' had by 1952 made it into the popular media.

Today, most of us have only know what a lenticular cloud is because we've got the internet. They're very rare and only form under stable, cold conditions. Experienced airmen they may have been, but that doesn't mean this wasn't the first time they'd seen a lenticular cloud. I should add that despite their training they still weren't able to agree on their aircraft's position at the time of the sighting, nor on the distance of the object from their aircraft.

 

[Krikkiter]

Richard Feynman argued that a distinguishing feature of cargo-cult science (pseudoscience) is a lack of honesty. I think that the laziness that we see in a lot of UFO research is a reflection of a lack of intelectual honesty.

From his 1974 Caltech address:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

Thank you Sideroxylon.

Please read and understand this ufology.

 

[lancemoody]

Just a quick mention that all of the estimates of size seem to stem from the misunderstanding of UFO people. The witnesses all knew that it was foolish to try to estimate size.

Much the same for the shape, the dull folks who try to peddle UFOs hear a description that it looked like a flying wing at the sme elevation flying directly towards the craft and immediately see all sorts of aircraft details (the Best Evidence film actually uses a stealth aircraft type plane to show this).

What I think the saucer enthusiasts are missing is that the witnesses are more likely just describing a shape. A flying wing headed directly towards you is essentially a featureless oval just like the shape Johnson drew. That the UFO believers see wings, etc says a lot about their own desires but doesn't jibe with the statements.

Lance

 

[Akhenaten]

But . . . but . . .

The equivocation . . . the special pleading . . . the arguments from incredulity . . .

Are you saying it's all been in vain?

You beast!!??eleventy!!

 

[Stray Cat]

I took into account the speed of the airpborne observers and calculated travel distance, calculated relative closeness through 8 X binoculars,

I'd like to see that calculation...

Because for the life of me, I can't see how knowing what their relationships with their parents was like has any bearing on this case.

Seriously; what sums did you do? what numbers did you use for those sums?
Because simply telling us you did some calculations and then informing us your calculations were correct without giving us the information needed to check them is nothing more than 'unsupported assertion' from you.

 

[Stray Cat]

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

Regarding the Lake Windermere Fire Fly incident.

Based on the witness statement, a firefly or some other flying bug or some other beast like a goose is a more probable explanation than an alien space ship, we posted images and links for them, and explained how the object in the report could appear to bounce down a mountain, land and take off and perform figure eights, and added that there was nothing that couldn't be explained by the natural behaviour of fireflies combined with some reasonable margin of error in human preception. 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.

I see how this works.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Before you start asking people to find counterpoints, you should show that you've actually done what you claim to have done. Show us your calculations of the relative closeness through 8 power binoculars. I've done that calculation. I don't believe you have. Show us your calculation of the angles and arc made by the airborne observers. Stray Cat has done those calculations, but I don't believe you have. And if you are just saying you've done those calculations, then your argument above is another typical pseudoscience "ufology" falsehood.

Speaking of calculations, you've mentioned calculating the probability that some UFOs are alien craft. Unless you've rescinded your claim, how about you show that calculation, too. I've offered many times now to help you with the math if it's presenting some difficulty, and my offer still stands.

 

[Astrophotographer]

It's a shame we can't just make something up and presume we're right about it.

Just an update on this Radiosonde data thing. I can't figure out how I got data off this thing the first time but I did. I keep trying and all I can figure is Windows dos box is not going to do it. I have plans to build a small dos machine in the next day or so and HOPEFULLY the CD will work with this.

Thanks Lance for the transcription.

The one thing I noticed in all the letters is we never get an angle of elevation or an angular size, which is so disappointing. One would think we would get something comparing it to the size of the full moon from such technical people.
We have an estimated altitude based on the line of sight with the airplane's altitude. That may or may not be correct.
The positions of the plane and actual heading of the plane seem to be questionable but, as best I can tell, they all seemed to indicate a direction of west or WNW for where the plane was pointing. Correct me if I am wrong on this.
The bottom line on all of this is Lance's evaluation of the UFOlogists take on this seems to be accurate. Claims of accuracy and precise measurements are a joke here and are only precise when one cherry picks the statements one wants to accept and rejects the others. This is similar to what I found in the RB-47 case evaluation in the last SUNlite. There were claims of precise measurements by equipment and observers but we never had values relative to the aircraft's true heading. Too many assumptions were made in order to paint the particular case as something truly exotic instead of trying to see if there were more mundane possibilities. Of course, it is UFOlogy, where skeptics are lying debunkers with closed minds, who don't want to accept the evidence.

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

OK, so because us helpful sceptics like to consider all the possibilities. Lets consider for one moment that ufology is correct and do some calculations based upon his theory.

I've put the plane at it's closest possible position according to the flight crew information (Coleman's statement) So it's "off the coast in the vicinity of Santa Monica"

In this scenario, taking Coleman's statement as accurate, they watched the object for 10 minutes. Marrying that up against ufology's theory, Travelling at 225mph towards the object in a slight left hand curve to get directly behind it as it sped away from them.

The lower yellow line represents where the plane would intersect the flight path of the object if they had taken the shortest route towards it, so in reality, the plane would arrive directly behind the object (or close enough) at a point between the two yellow lines (or somewhere within the triangle created by the two yellow lines and the flight path of the object).

For the purposes of making this more possible, I've presumed the object was only traveling at the same speed as the plane because all the crew members agree that they were not closing in on it.

After ten minutes, the object would also have traveled 37.5 miles and it's position is shown at the most Easterly end of the pink line.

Now ufology is going to explain to us how the flight crew didn't manage to spot that the object they insisted was hovering motionless, managed to fly over a small island and right infront of a bigger island, without the flight crew realising that it must be moving and not as they all reported "motionless".

Also, it would be interesting to hear how the flight crew could see an object with a maximum width of 200' from at least 23 miles away, bearing in mind that any sharp clear edged smoke trailing from the engines of the object that allowed Johnson to first see the object, would look like a long line of smoke to someone looking at it from an angle of about 45° and vise versa.

Margin of error time.
I've done these calculations based upon the information that is most forgiving to ufology's theory.

The margin of error we have for the length of time that the flight crew watched the object is anywhere between 5 and 10 minutes.
Any time taken off the viewing time, will effect the ability of the plane to get anywhere near the flight path of the object to be able to get into a position that would prevent them from seeing lateral movement.

The margin of error for the position of the plane when they first spotted the object is between 23 miles away (Coleman) and 61 miles away (Ware)
For this diagram, I have used the closest reported position for the plane. Any other possibility would mean the plane was further away and would not be able to get to a position that would prevent the flight crew from seeing lateral movement of the object.

The margin of error for the calculated speed of the object is between 225mph and 500mph. The lower estimate is based upon the speed of the following Lockheed and the high estimate is based upon the maximum speed of flying wing type aircraft and B-52 type aircraft.
Note that as the Lockheed was not able to gain on the object it must have been traveling at at least the same speed as the Lockheed. If it was travelling for the full distance at 500mph, it would have traveled 83 miles (marked on the diagram as a blue line). The end point at which the crew lost sight of the object would have to be somewhere between the Eastern end of the pink line and the Eastern end of the blue line.

 

[ufology]

That's not what the actual calculations show.

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

As if you bothered to do any "actual" work yourself to be able to make the above statement. I did. It's not even that hard to do. But instead you just sit there and flame the thread with your pointless remarks.

 

[GeeMack]

As if you bothered to do any "actual" work yourself to be able to make the above statement. I did. It's not even that hard to do. But instead you just sit there and flame the thread with your pointless remarks.

You're still arguing that you've done some relevant calculations, but for some reason you're being reluctant to show us how you went about it. So, you're on...

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.

Where's your math?

And when you've shown us how you calculated those, maybe you can start on that calculation of the probability that some UFOs are alien craft. You've at least implicitly claimed to have done it, but never showed us how you did that either.

 

[Sideroxylon]

As if you bothered to do any "actual" work yourself to be able to make the above statement. I did. It's not even that hard to do. But instead you just sit there and flame the thread with your pointless remarks.

You are the one posing as a UFOlogist with a lifetime interest in the subject. You are the one making the claims, including of having done calculations, but you have not been the one to demonstrate any research or effort in examining cases, your own included. You have been well and truely outshone by sceptics in this regard.

 

[Akhenaten]

That's not what the actual calculations show.

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

As if you bothered to do any "actual" work yourself to be able to make the above statement. I did. It's not even that hard to do. But instead you just sit there and flame the thread with your pointless remarks.

I don't have to redo the fine work already done by others to know that:

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.

is not what the actual calculations show.


Perhaps you'd be better off trying to address the issues, ufology, rather than repetitively accusing people of setting fire to things.

 

[Stray Cat]

The one thing I noticed in all the letters is we never get an angle of elevation or an angular size, which is so disappointing. One would think we would get something comparing it to the size of the full moon from such technical people.

GeeMack did this calculation using astronomy software and real numbers and sums.

This shows the position of the sun at 5.00pm PST from LA on 16th December 1953. (below the horizon as reported by all witnesses)

The little green horizontal line has been added to show the angle of elevation above the horizon of an object 25 miles away which is at an altitude of 18,000' (curvature of Earth not taken into account).

Taking all the proportions as to scale, if that green line was in fact 25 miles away, it would be 1 mile wide.

 

[23_Tauri]

As if you bothered to do any "actual" work yourself to be able to make the above statement. I did. It's not even that hard to do.

No you haven't. Show your workings, like Stray Cat has, to defend your stance.

C'mon buddy, let's work it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Taking all the proportions as to scale, if that green line was in fact 25 miles away, it would be 1 mile wide.

I believe Air Vice-Marshal Leigh-Mallory was an advocate of that sort of thing during the Battle of Britain, wasn't he?

 

[TjW]

Please show your workings, because on the basis of the speeds and distances you gave the WV-6 would have crashed into the object. It did not. From the point of view of the crew, they appeared to not gain on the object at all.

Can you show, overlaid on a map, how the WV-6 and Johnson could have both been in their relative positions and both seen the object due west and disappearing without any lateral movement?


"I made a slight turn heading right towards the object". That's what Thoren says in his statement. If the object was relatively near, and travelling westwards, then how could he have turned his airplane to the right towards the object, unless they were travelling south or SW at the time?


So? They discussed it between them at the time in the plane. Doesn't mean they there initial hunches weren't correct. Did you read my earlier post where I referred to Twelve Angry Men?


The crew and Johnson's many references, mainly in jest, is a reflection of the zeitgeist of the time. Kenneth Arnold's sighting was only five years earlier and 'Flying saucers' had by 1952 made it into the popular media.

Today, most of us have only know what a lenticular cloud is because we've got the internet. They're very rare and only form under stable, cold conditions. Experienced airmen they may have been, but that doesn't mean this wasn't the first time they'd seen a lenticular cloud. I should add that despite their training they still weren't able to agree on their aircraft's position at the time of the sighting, nor on the distance of the object from their aircraft.

They're not actually that rare, it's just that -- like lots of other weather phenomena -- many people don't notice them. To someone without an interest, the difference between a cirro-stratus and a lennie is probably of less than zero significance.

If these were experienced flight test guys who'd spent time out in the high desert and the Eastern Sierra, I guarantee they'd seen lennies. 1953 was just after the end of the first phase of the Sierra Wave project, which involved flights in and around lenticular clouds to very high altitudes. Atmospheric wave would have been a very current flight test topic in 1953. Which is not to say that everything is/was known about atmospheric wave. But "It ain't what you don't know that kills you, it's what you know that ain't so."

No, the argument against a lenticular cloud out over flat ocean is that the ocean is flat, and there's nothing there to generate the vertical motion of the atmosphere that forms the lennie.

Except that I've seen a wave system at Point Sal, a hundred miles or so north of where the sighting took place, where there was an atmospheric wave upwind of the discontinuity. If I hadn't seen that, I'd be really puzzled as to what could cause the wave.
Any wave -- and the associated lennies -- caused by the Channel Islands would more typically be downwind of the islands, rather than over them.
So it would be pretty easy for an experienced flight test participant, knowledgeable of what was then known about atmospheric wave and lenticular clouds, to reject the idea of a lenticular cloud being what he was seeing, on the basis that there wasn't anything that could cause it.
In this particular case, a passing familiarity with the then-current research could lead to a wrong conclusion.

ETA:
I'm not sure why Mr Johnson thought that the lennie being stationary was contraindicative of it being a lennie. Most of the lennies I've seen have been stationary over periods of minutes or tens of minutes.

 

[GeeMack]

Taking all the proportions as to scale, if that green line was in fact 25 miles away, it would be 1 mile wide.

Given a typical field of view for an 8X pair of binoculars of about 300 feet at 1000 yards, the little black speck is something 200 feet wide and 25 miles away...

This is what Kelly Johnson might have seen after he got the binoculars.