Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Lucian]

There's only one possible explanation.

Probably Grendel's mother. Or an amphibious flying wing.

 

[tsig]

Mr Ufology seems to have such a high regard for authority that he must take such accounts at face value, even when they contradict. In this case the claim is a plane but to admit the failabilty of witnesses like these would undermine a major part of the foundations of his belief in flying saucers.

He's hung on a dilemma, if he acknowledges the witness were wrong about this incident it calls into question his unbending faith in the witnesses to UFOaliens(witches).

And, of course, his own story.

 

[tsig]

There's only one possible explanation.

I loved this passage:

In addition to their powers over water, sea witches could often control the wind. A common feature of many tales was a rope tied into three knots, which witches often sold to sailors to aid them on a voyage. Pulling the first knot could yield a gentle, southeasterly wind, while pulling two could generate a strong northerly wind.[3]

Somehow the phrase "pulling his knot" gives me a different image.

 

[Akhenaten]

Probably Grendel's mother. Or an amphibious flying wing.

Yikes! That's going to take a whole lot more than four skin divers to deal with.

 

[Akhenaten]

Somehow the phrase "pulling his knot" gives me a different image.

Sounds like a job for a trained UFOlogist.

 

[John Albert]

Lumbering along at 200+ mph, full of witnesses describing an object that hovered motionless while at the same time streaking out of sight like a witch on a Nimbus 2000.

Could it possibly be a mere coincidence that Harry Potter's flying witch-broom is named after a type of cloud?



Some kind of conspiracy's afoot. I can taste it!

 

[tsig]

Could it possibly be a mere coincidence that Harry Potter's flying witch-broom is named after a type of cloud?



Some kind of conspiracy's afoot. I can taste it!

Tastes just like chicken!

 

[John Albert]

Lumbering along at 200+ mph, full of witnesses describing an object that hovered motionless while at the same time streaking out of sight like a witch on a Nimbus 2000.

Could it possibly be a mere coincidence that Harry Potter's flying witch-broom is named after a type of cloud?



Some kind of conspiracy's afoot. I can taste it!

Tastes just like chicken!

I meant the foot. I can really taste a foot. (Don't judge me!)

 

[Stray Cat]

I meant the foot. I can really taste a foot. (Don't judge me!)

Tastes like chicken, but smells like cheese?

 

[ufology]

Your yellow flight path ignores what the test pilot stated. He stated they went southeast towards Santa Ana and Long Beach. When they got in the vicinity of that area, they went west. Only one person put the plane out over Santa Monica. Most of the others agreed they were west of Long Beach.

However, let's consider another possiblity. Maybe a large jet (not just a flying wing) did take off from the airstrip at Point Mugu with JATO assist (or some equivalent from 1953) and head due west. That might explain some of this. However, one might expect them to see the smoke leading up to the aircraft heading due west. I am not sure why we need to involve an aircraft like the YB-49. I think that one is a non-starter since there is no record of them in flight in 1953 and you should simply drop it.

Point: Your yellow flight path ignores what the test pilot stated. He stated they went southeast to wards Santa Ana and Long Beach.
Response: Not ignored. We also have this quote: "While flying off the coast in the vicinity of Santa Monica." That coupled with the margin of error that everyone seems to think can be so huge in this case, and that they also needed to be closer to be able to really notice a mystery aircraft ( if it was an aircraft ), makes this flight path a reasonable option to consider.

Point: I am not sure why we need to involve an aircraft like the YB-49.
Response: I think we need to consider the YB-49 because it fits the description in the report of a flying wing, and it shows that such flying wing aircraft did exist back then. According to one article, the last YRB-49 was recalled in November of that year, but when or where it was actually destroyed I don't know. However I do concede that the info saying they were all destroyed is a significant strike against the YB-49 specifically. But we can set it aside anyway for now in order to move on if you like.


Point: On the issue of the smoke trail.
Response: It isn't just during takeoff that they can blow smoke. Takeoff is just one instance when they've got them under high power, so if some jet came in slow over the base and then made a power turn and began accelerating at maximum thrust to get away from the area, you could get a temporary blast of smoke right over that spot, and as the aircraft completed it's turn south and then due west, the relative views and movements between the temporary smoke, and the two aircraft could account for:

• The mystery aircraft seeming to remain more or less still.
• Why the WV-2 couldn't intercept it.
• How the mystery aircraft ended up departing the area dead ahead of the WV-2 while on a nearly due west heading.
• How the two aircraft could get within visual distance.
• How the ground observer came to notice it.

It was actually over Point Mugu ... over the land at the time it was making its turn ... not out over the sea, (Quote: "I estimated the position of the object to be roughly over Point Mugu." ) and the ranch was three miles west of Agoura, so we have a closer distance than has been used by the other estimates, as close as 16 miles.

Lastly if it was an aircraft that had taken off east out of Point Mugu ( unlikely but possible ) ... then it would have been even closer, moving slower, and blowing black smoke that then dissipated leaving only the aircraft visible in the binoculars as it headed out to sea ... an even better fit.

Point: The Occam's Razor issue made by another poster.
Response: Points to consider in favor of the simplest explanation ( an aircraft ).

• With several airstrips in the surrounding area, aircraft were common and therefore more likely than a rare weird lenticular cloud illusion that affected multiple witnesses.
• The explanation I've offered matches several key points without resorting to strange weird rare cloud illusions that affect multiple witnesses.

 

[23_Tauri]

Tastes like chicken, but smells like cheese?

Really? I smell a weasel. Must be.....














weasel cheese!!!!

 

[23_Tauri]

On the issue of the smoke trial. It isn't just during takeoff that they can blow smoke. ....

That's not what Puddle Duck told us:

In the picture of the three BUFFs taking off with the black smoke, the smoke is caused by water injection in the engines. It is only used on takeoffs and lasts for about two minutes. Look at the belly on the third bird in that stick and notice the gear doors still open. Both BUFFs and Tankers used it since it gave some extra thrust for TAKEOFF. Once at altitude, there was no more water to be used.

Hmmm... who to believe, the poster who's a fighter pilot or the poster who's a ufologist?

 

[Akhenaten]

Point: Your yellow flight path ignores what the test pilot stated. He stated they went southeast to wards Santa Ana and Long Beach.

Response: Not ignored. We also have this quote: "While flying off the coast in the vicinity of Santa Monica." That coupled with the margin of error that everyone seems to think can be so huge in this case, and that they also needed to be closer to be able to really notice a mystery aircraft ( if it was an aircraft ), makes this flight path a reasonable option to consider.

Yes, I ignored it because it didn't fit into my fairytale version of events.


Point: I am not sure why we need to involve an aircraft like the YB-49.

Response: I think we need to consider the YB-49 because it fit the description in the report of a flying wing, and it shows that such flying wing aircraft did exist back then. According to one article, the last YRB-49 was recalled in November of that year, but when or where it was actually destroyed I don't know. However I do concede that the info saying they were all destroyed is a significant strike against the YB-49 specifically.

But I want it to be a YB-49. Waaaaaaaah!

No charge.

On the issue of the smoke trial. It isn't just during takeoff that they can blow smoke. Takeoff is just one instance when they've got them under high power, so if some jet came in slow over the base and then made a power turn and began accelerating at maximum thrust to get away from the area, you could get a temporary blast of smoke right over that spot, and as the aircraft completed it's turn south and then due west, the relative views and movements between the temporary smoke, and the two aircraft could account for:

Nothing.

You have no idea about how gas turbines work and even less idea about how aerial reconnaissance is carried out and you're just embarrassing yourself further by trying to pretend that you do.

It was actually over Point Mugu ... over the land at the time it was making its turn ... not out over the sea, (Quote: "I estimated the position of the object to be roughly over Point Mugu." ) and the ranch was three miles west of Agoura, so we have a closer distance than has been used by the other estimates, as close as 16 miles.

If this "rough estimate" is actually as correct as you want to pretend it is then the witnesses in the WV-2 obviously didn't have much of a clue where either they or the 'object' were.

Lastly if it was an aircraft that had taken off east out of Point Mugu ( unlikely but possible ) ...

Keep clutching those straws.

. . . then it would have been even closer, moving slower, and blowing black smoke that then dissipated leaving only the aircraft visible in the binoculars as it headed out to sea ... an even better fit.

There's only one thing blowing smoke here, ufology, and it's not an aircraft.

 

[John Albert]

He. Rramjet, Ufology and McAbees used math... But only within the conditions that would return the OMG! ALIENS!1! answer. All you have to do is forget about experimental errors, make broad untestable assumptions and take the numbers you need out of you know where...

That's where the "working it" comes into the equation, so to speak.

Maybe he was just "pulling his knot" or whatever.


Looking at this in the morning light, I have a few more questions:

Kelly Johnson's report states that the object appeared to be an aircraft as seen straight-on, and that it was moving directly away from him. If it happened as you're proposing, then why did he not report the alleged "airplane" executing a banked turn just after spewing the apocryphal black smoke?

Why did the crew of the WV-2 report seeing the alleged "airplane" in the vicinity of Pt. Mugu, or seeing it executing any maneuvers or belching black smoke?

If the "airplane" performed the flight path you're alleging it did, then why did the crew of the WV-2 report seeing it from head-on at all times, and not from 2 different side views as it made its approach to and departure from Pt. Mugu?

Why did they not report executing a turn to approach and identify the aircraft?

What was the closest distance that the WV-2 actually got to the alleged "mystery plane"?

I think there are some serious timing issues that you really need to work out for this hypothesis to come even close to matching the eyewitness accounts. My suggestion is that you calculate the airspeeds of the two aircraft, paying special attention to the necessary changes as they execute the alleged maneuvers. Then revise the model accordingly, adding a timeline of events so we can synchronize the two observers' accounts. Right now, there are too many gaping holes in the hypothesis for it all to add up.

You're also going to need to account for the fact that there are no other eyewitness accounts of this event, which one would certainly expect if an unknown aircraft had indeed buzzed an air force base nearby a major metropolis. None of the air force bases in the area reported any strange, unaccounted-for aircraft in the area either. You need to explain why there is no radar data on this event.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Ok, after fighting with DOS this morning, I finally figured out that the NCDC software has a bug in it and won't allow sorting the data according to the station. However, it does work according to time so I was able to acquire the necessary data. December 16, 1953 has only two stations reporting in the area. One is Long Beach and the other is Santa Maria, which is just above Vandenberg. I am providing the radiosonde data for both at 0300 Zulu on the 17th (which equates to 1900 on the 16th). The only data point before that is 1300 PST for Long Beach on the 16th.

Long Beach:
254 3 17 DEC 1953
1 23129 72297 33.83 118.15 20 32767
2 150 300 250 24 7 0
3 LGB kt
9 1017 20 125 97 68 2
4 1000 161 155 42 90 6
5 950 600 174 32767 113 8
5 900 1056 147 32767 158 8
4 850 1535 118 32767 203 10
5 800 2039 88 32767 203 12
5 750 2580 51 32767 203 13
4 700 3126 15 -150 203 12
5 650 3710 -34 -83 248 13
5 600 4345 -77 -205 270 19
5 550 5010 -111 -252 293 31
4 500 5739 -160 -285 293 33
5 450 6530 -207 -340 293 35
4 400 7377 -284 -385 293 37
5 350 8317 -364 32767 293 40
4 300 9368 -429 32767 338 52
4 250 10578 -498 32767 293 50
4 200 12031 -519 32767 270 46
5 175 12902 -522 32767 270 42
4 150 13882 -590 32767 270 52

Santa Maria

254 3 17 DEC 1953
1 23236 72394 34.93 120.42 71 32767
2 100 200 215 35 7 0
3 SMX kt
9 1010 71 85 73 0 0
5 1003 120 130 94 32767 32767
4 1000 155 132 95 135 2
5 961 490 170 10 32767 32767
5 950 600 167 -5 158 12
5 900 1048 152 32767 135 17
5 883 1210 146 32767 32767 32767
4 850 1529 122 32767 135 15
5 800 2033 87 -150 158 8
5 750 2580 49 -156 203 8
4 700 3121 9 -159 203 4
5 650 3730 -37 -153 203 8
5 632 3950 -56 -141 32767 32767
5 600 4340 -73 -172 293 8
5 556 4940 -92 -264 32767 32767
5 550 5030 -98 -270 293 21
4 500 5742 -148 -285 293 23
5 450 6540 -212 -328 293 35
4 400 7389 -274 32767 293 37
5 350 8333 -357 32767 293 40
4 300 9384 -448 32767 293 46
5 275 9940 -501 32767 32767 32767
5 264 10200 -485 32767 32767 32767
4 250 10582 -512 32767 293 31
5 215 11540 -584 32767 32767 32767
4 200 12001 -567 32767 270 58
5 192 12280 -506 32767 32767 32767
5 175 12864 -521 32767 270 48
4 150 13846 -589 32767 270 29
5 125 14974 -630 32767 248 31
4 100 16334 -673 32767 248 25

Pertinent information. The first few lines are pertinent information associated with the station (longitude/latitude, etc.)

The first column just designates what kind of reading it is (the number is usually 4 or 5). The second column is atmospheric pressure (mbar). The third column is altitude (Meters). The fourth column is temperature in C with the decimal point dropped (i.e. 171 = 17.1). The fifth column is dewpoint. The sixth column is wind direction (direction wind is coming from) and the seventh column is wind speed in knots. If there is a value of 32767 it means there is no data.

I think it is important to look at the values of between 4500 and 6000 meters. This seems to cover the range of altitudes where the object MAY have been. The thing that jumps out to me is there is a constant wind from bearing 293 degrees and a wind speed near 20-30 knots. Anybody have a degree in meteorology or are we going to have to wing it?

 

[ufology]

That's not what Puddle Duck told us:


Hmmm... who to believe, the poster who's a fighter pilot or the poster who's a ufologist?

OK that's a fair comment ... but it doesn't mean there wasn't some in reserve for the aircrft to use, or that it didn't have a kerosene based fuel that also causes black smoke or that it wasn't an aircraft that had taken off eastward out of Point Mugu.

 

[Stray Cat]

You do make up some nonsense.

Point: Your yellow flight path ignores what the test pilot stated. He stated they went southeast to wards Santa Ana and Long Beach.

Response: Not ignored. We also have this quote: "While flying off the coast in the vicinity of Santa Monica." That coupled with the margin of error that everyone seems to think can be so huge in this case, and that they also needed to be closer to be able to really notice a mystery aircraft ( if it was an aircraft ), makes this flight path a reasonable option to consider.

Yes ignored... very much ignored as three people in the plane put the position of the plane in the Catalina Channel. Even the one crew member who you quoted earlier as "considerable experience ... establishing distances where there is very little to judge by" who puts the plane in the vicinity of Santa Monica (30 miles further South East).

BTW: Other people don't "seem to think" there is a huge margin of error. Other people have actually worked out what those margins of error are. You're the only one seeming to think (without actually showing any signs of thought).

Point: I am not sure why we need to involve an aircraft like the YB-49.

Response: I think we need to consider the YB-49 because it fit the description in the report of a flying wing, and it shows that such flying wing aircraft did exist back then. According to one article, the last YRB-49 was recalled in November of that year, but when or where it was actually destroyed I don't know. However I do concede that the info saying they were all destroyed is a significant strike against the YB-49 specifically.

This is another distortion (I'm being kind here).

The actual history states that the single YRB-49A flew for the last time in 1951:

"The sole prototype reconnaissance platform, the YRB-49A, first flew on 4 May 1950. After only 13 flights, testing ended abruptly on 26 April 1951. It was then flown back to Northrop's headquarters from Edwards Air Force Base (formally Muroc) on what would be its last flight. There, this remaining Flying Wing sat at edge of Northrop's Ontario airport for more than two years, abandoned. It was finally ordered scrapped on 1 December 1953"

On the issue of the smoke trial. It isn't just during takeoff that they can blow smoke. Takeoff is just one instance when they've got them under high power, so if some jet came in slow over the base and then made a power turn and began accelerating at maximum thrust to get away from the area, you could get a temporary blast of smoke right over that spot,

You haven't done any research or even been reading the information provided in this thread by people who know what they are talking about have you?
The smoke is caused by injecting water into the fuel at take off. When the planes are in the air, there is nothing in the system to produce thick black smoke.

and as the aircraft completed it's turn south and then due west, the relative views and movements between the temporary smoke, and the two aircraft could account for it seeming to remain more or less still, why the WV-2 couldn't intercept it, and how the mystery aircraft ended up departing the area dead ahead of the WV-2 while on a nearly due west heading.

This is all just made up guff from you. It in no way matches any of the information in any of the eye witness statements. It contradicts it.

It also explains how the two aircraft could get within visual distance and how the ground observer came to notice it.

Care to tell us how using your diagram, Johnson failed to notice that the object was moving from his right to left and that it's back end was dissipating? (presuming of course we're still pretending this magical non billowing smoke was being emitted from the objects exhausts).
Have you worked out how much Southerly movement the object would have traveled in the three minutes Johnson claimed it was motionless somewhere in the direction of Point Mugu? Because you've got it moving about 8 miles across Johnson's field of vision.

That would look like this;

That's as wide as the green line. In fact wider because that green line has been worked out as if it was 25 miles away.

It was actually over Point Mugu ... over the land at the time it was making its turn ... not out over the sea, (Quote: "I estimated the position of the object to be roughly over Point Mugu." ) and the ranch was three miles west of Agoura, so we have a closer distance than has been used by the other estimates, as close as 16 miles.

As there was a mountain between Johnson and Point Mugu, he had no way of knowing how far away the object was. Further the only crew member who puts the object anywhere near Point Mugu is Coleman, who says "off the coast in the vicinity of Pt. Mugu" not over the land.

Lastly if it was an aircraft that had taken off east out of Point Mugu ( unlikely as that may seem, but possible ) ... then it would have been even closer, moving slower, and blowing black smoke that then dissipated leaving only the aircraft visible in the binoculars as it headed out to sea ... an even better fit.

If it had taken off East, it would have flow over Johnson... as that's not what he or anyone reported, we can safely presume it didn't.

Unless you mean West, in which case, it wouldn't have been flying South would it?

 

[Astrophotographer]

[*]With several airstrips in the surrounding area, aircraft were common and therefore more likely than a rare weird lenticular cloud illusion that affected multiple witnesses.
[*]The explanation I've offered matches several key points without resorting to strange weird rare cloud illusions that affect multiple witnesses.

However, you are involving an aircraft that there is no evidence for existing in the area or even being flown on the date in question. Therefore, I feel a need to reject the YB-49 hypothesis unless you can provide better evidence that it was even flying at the time. Unless you can show it was actually flying at the time, then the lenticular cloud is more likely. I am willing to shelve the cloud idea for something else but I see no reason to bring into play aircraft that are known not to be flying at the time. I would prefer an experimental aircraft out of Pt. Mugu or even a Regulus missile test firing over the YB-49 theory. There is a greater possibility for that kind of explanation but there is no documentation yet found to support them either. Therefore, the lenticular/peculiar cloud still sits up as the more likely until we have evidence of something else that might be the source.

 

[GeeMack]

[* Desperate attempt to make a fantasy into reality snipped. *]

Point: The Occam's Razor issue made by another poster.
Response: Points to consider in favor of the simplest explanation ( an aircraft ).

• With several airstrips in the surrounding area, aircraft were common and therefore more likely than a rare weird lenticular cloud illusion that affected multiple witnesses.

A lenticular cloud is not an illusion. And you've never demonstrated the slightest ability to calculate, much less understand how concepts like "common", "rare", or "likelihood" might fit into your attempt to write a piece of fiction to support your WAG. So your opinion above is wholly without merit. Well, okay, it merits ridicule.

• The explanation I've offered matches several key points without resorting to strange weird rare cloud illusions that affect multiple witnesses.

A lenticular cloud is not an illusion. And the explanation you've offered requires the addition of far more WAGs, unqualified assertions, and unsupported assumptions than the amount of actual known information it includes. It's nonsense, clutching at straws, contradicts reality on several issues, and consequently amounts to another typically dishonest "ufology" failure.

 

[ufology]

Anybody have a degree in meteorology or are we going to have to wing it?

Ya someone here does ( have a degree ... or something ) in meteorology , or at least they said they did a while back.


NOTE: Here in Calgary we get these weather patterns called Chinooks. With them often come some pretty stiff winds, yet the cloud formations to the west can remain intact. I also see a lot of lenticular clouds here ... I've seen dozens and dozens of them, and they are able to hang in there for quite a while sometimes, even with the wind blowing. I don't know how they do it ... but they do ... OMG I just realized ... Aliens!