Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[carlitos]

( Someone please copy it because I'm, not leaving it up for long. )

What a bizarre thing to, say.

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

Fixed.

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

It's like deja vu all over again.

 

[Akhenaten]

OK that's a fair comment ... but it doesn't mean there wasn't some in reserve for the aircrft to use,

Stop digging, ufology.

The water injection system is a one-shot arrangement. You turn it on and it stops when it runs out of water.

. . . or that it didn't have a kerosene based fuel that also causes black smoke . . .

Do you have any idea at all - even the slightest inkling - of how patently absurd your 'theories' sound to people who actually know How Things Work?

. . . or that it wasn't an aircraft that had taken off eastward out of Point Mugu.

Without the Navy or the USAF knowing about it and without anyone but Kelly Johnson seeing it.

​

 

[GregInAustin]

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?

Hehe!

 

[GeeMack]

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.

It doesn't mean it wasn't an alien craft, either. Shall we start the list of all the things it doesn't mean? Or how about we all agree that listing all the things it doesn't mean is a stupid exercise in futility, and write off your above comment as just another desperate and dishonest attempt to support your otherwise unsupported guess with a bunch of "ifs"?

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

Confirming we can add Occam's razor to the list of concepts you don't understand.
It has nothing to do with the end result, it is about the amount of assumptions you have to make to get that result.

Jeebus...

 

[Akhenaten]

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

<nonsense>

There are people here with [all kinds of] degrees in things <snip>, ufology, but what difference does that make when you ignore them all anyway in favour of believing in your fairytales?

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rules 0/12

 

[ufology]

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.

Astro,

Sure, like I said, I only think we need to considered it, or to be more specific at this juncture, needed to consider the YB-49 because it existed and fit the description and the Northrop plant was in the immediate vicinity. But since someone pointed out that they were supposedly all destroyed, it is logical to set that particular aircraft aside ( pending further evidence ) in favor of other aircraft like a B-52 or other large jet of the day ... and of course also expand on the cloud theory. As for needing to prove that an aircraft was in the vicinity in order to be taken as seriously as the cloud theory, there is no logic in that. The two theories are both possible and likely to remain unproven. Therefore they are both perfectly valid to consider.

The question is which one seems more reasonable. The aircraft theory still seems to fit best for all the reasons so far given ... or at least in my view it does, based mostly on how sure all the witnesses were that it wasn't a cloud, and that they were all more experienced and qualified to make that evaluation than us ... who weren't even there. I doubt a cloud would fool any of us here, and those guys were in a much better position to judge. I don't even like having to contradict them by using the aircraft explanation, but the object they described, apart from possibly being something too huge for us to have built at the time behaved no differently than an aircraft. Given that the size can be compensated for by the margin of error in distances ( which could be huge according to the other skeptics here due to human frailty ), an aircraft fits all the pieces of the puzzle better than a cloud.

 

[Stray Cat]

Astro,

Sure, like I said, I only think we need to considered it,

What needs to be done is considering the information we have from the statements. We don't consider possibilities until we see where the information leads.

or to be more specific at this juncture, needed to consider the YB-49 because it existed and fit the description and the Northrop plant was in the immediate vicinity. But since someone pointed out that they were supposedly all destroyed, it is logical to set that particular aircraft aside ( pending further evidence ) in favor of other aircraft like a B-52 or other large jet of the day ... and of course also expand on the cloud theory. As for needing to prove that an aircarft was in the vicinity in order to be taken as seriously as the cloud theory, there is no logic in that. The two theories are both possible and likely to remain unproven. Therefore they are both perfectly valid to consider. The question is which one seems more reasonable. The aircraft theory still seems to fit best for all the reasons so far given.

After we've seen where the information leads, we can rule out certain things (not all things but an amount of them). In this case, looking at the information we have, we can rule out it being a plane. Unless some further information comes to light (that's "comes to light" not pops into our imaginations).

So the two theories are not equally valid at all.
The numbers don't add up for it to be a plane of any kind.

 

[Akhenaten]

<inane waffle>

The aircraft theory still seems to fit best for all the reasons so far given.

Which thread are you reading? The 'conclusion' you've reached above certainly didn't come from this one.

 

[Akhenaten]

So the two theories are not equally valid at all.
The numbers don't add up for it to be a plane of any kind.

Well, almost any kind . . .

 

[Stray Cat]

The aircraft theory still seems to fit best for all the reasons so far given

Only if you use this method for doing your research:

... or at least in my view it does, based mostly on how sure all the witnesses were that it wasn't a cloud,

And how sure they were about their position, the position of the object they were looking at and how long they were looking at it for?

and that they were all more experienced and qualified to make that evaluation than us

There is no training center or educational facility that offers a course in "Looking At Stuff You Can Not Identify"
Google it if you don't believe me.

... who weren't even there. I doubt a cloud would fool any of us here, and those guys were in a much better position to judge.

One of the main things about being fooled is that until you find out you have been fooled, there really is no reliable way of knowing.

But I guess you were in a much better position to know if your mind fooled you into believing you met a talking rabbit.

 

[ufology]

What needs to be done is considering the information we have from the statements. We don't consider possibilities until we see where the information leads.


After we've seen where the information leads, we can rule out certain things (not all things but an amount of them). In this case, looking at the information we have, we can rule out it being a plane. Unless some further information comes to light (that's "comes to light" not pops into our imaginations).

So the two theories are not equally valid at all.
The numbers don't add up for it to be a plane of any kind.

I've shown how the numbers can add up if we consider certain statements of the witnesses combined with the timing and movement of the mystery aircraft and the airborne observers ... plus if we add in that huge amount of error you say is always possible with human estimates and memory, the numbers could conceivably fit perfectly ... at least as well as the others posed so far.

 

[GregInAustin]

I've shown how the numbers can add up...

What numbers? You haven't shown any numbers. Why should anyone here believe a word you say?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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:

If we assume that you're right that the aircraft could produce smoke under these conditions (which you're not), then you're left arguing that the pilot of this unknown craft was applying full power while turning. This does not happen.

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.

So you're saying that an aircraft of which there was possibly only 1 in the whole world, and maybe not even that, at that time is less rare than something which this book describes thusly:

Lenticularis occur quite often[...]

And that's not mentioning the fact that you're claiming that this particular plane, of which there was only one in the world, was a foreign spy plane in US airspace in broad daylight, which then scarpered. So your hypothesis relies on a foreign power using a US plane for their covert operations, and carrying their covert operations out in broad daylight. While a radar test was going on.

It's also odd that you're holding the fact that the object was seen by multiple witnesses up as if that's somehow a strike against it being a cloud. Can you explain why it being seen by multiple witnesses makes it less likely to be a cloud? Especially in light of the fact that the cloud hypothesis easily explains the discrepancies in the witness statements, while your explanation of it being a plane doesn't without you having to assume a lot of extra things for which there is, at best, no information and, at worst, information which contradicts the hypothesis.

Furthermore, you're still forgetting that your hypothesis is the cloud hypothesis, just with an additional bunch of things added on, too.

So, no, it really doesn't pass Occham's Razor, I'm afraid.

 

[Stray Cat]

I don't even like having to contradict them by using the aircraft explanation,

But you're willing to contradict experienced people who were in a much better position then you to be able to tell these things.... as long as you can maintain the illusion in your head that you're right.

but the object they described, apart from possibly being something too huge for us to have built at the time behaved no differently than an aircraft.

Except both groups of observers state it was motionless for the vast majority of the time they were watching it. So maybe a jet powered blimp then?

Given that the size can be compensated for by the margin of error in distances ( which could be huge according to the other skeptics here due to human frailty ), an aircraft fits all the pieces of the puzzle better than a cloud.

You're still clinging to this mythical "margin of error" that you haven't worked out but think you can use (along with a liberal dollop of completely fabricated guff) to fill the gaps in your theory.

If you did some sums, you'd be able to work out the margins of error required to explain your own version. But no one's holding their breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've shown how the numbers can add up if we consider certain statements of the witnesses combined with the timing and movement of the mystery aircraft and the airborne observers ...

You've done no such thing and it's an insult to the people who have that you would dare to make this outrageous claim.

When, for example, will you be dealing with ths:

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.

. . . plus if we add in that huge amount of error you say is always possible with human estimates and memory, the numbers could conceivably fit perfectly ... at least as well as the others posed so far.

Brilliant!

Adding in huge amounts of error = numbers could conceivably fit perfectly​

Spoken like a true ufailogist.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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

I think it's more likely to be a cloud than a wing.

Sorry.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've shown how the numbers can add up...

What numbers? You haven't shown any numbers. Why should anyone here believe a word you say?

Damn straight. This latest claim of having 'worked' the numbers is an outright lie.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I also see a lot of lenticular clouds here ... I've seen dozens and dozens of them[...]

So, in fact, not as rare as a YB-49 in 1953.

 

[carlitos]

I've shown how the numbers can add up if we consider certain statements of the witnesses combined with the timing and movement of the mystery aircraft and the airborne observers ... plus if we add in that huge amount of error you say is always possible with human estimates and memory, the numbers could conceivably fit perfectly ... at least as well as the others posed so far.

Numbers? Error margin?