Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

And that aircraft actually took off from a US base, and despite its secret mission it was using special smoke-producing fuel, and its devastatingly cunning escape plan was to turn directly towards an approaching US Electronic Warfare/Special Electronics aircraft whilst making smoke.

Maybe it was just a big jet that took off from the Point Mugu airstrip and made a turn to head out to sea.

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe it was just a big jet that took off from the Point Mugu airstrip and made a turn to head out to sea.

No.

And since you seem intent on ignoring all of the explanations why and responding to this throw-away post of mine instead of addressing all of the substantive issues that have been raised in regard to your WAGs I'm certainly not going to bother trying to explain it to you again.


Why are you here, ufology?

 

[GregInAustin]

Maybe it was just a big jet that took off from the Point Mugu airstrip and made a turn to head out to sea.

Maybe it was a lenticular cloud that was much bigger and much further away than the witnesses thought. That is, after all, where the evidence leads.

 

[ufology]

The very first B-52 rolled off the line in 1952 in Seattle, the first three were used by Boeing as test beds. The USAF received the first one in '54 and it went operational in '55. So no b-52s available at Pt. Mugu in '53. The only large jet bomber then was the B-47, and by stretching it a bit, you could put the B-36 in there.

Ufology
To see how the AF puts out a report, Google "The Shootdown of Trigger 4". Follow this model.

You can get it on kindle for $4, but you'll need a color kindle as it has colour maps.

For anyone not wanting to spend google time, here are three links, Amazon and two places to either read it on line or download it if you have the capabilities

http://www.amazon.com/Shootdown-Trigger-Report-Project-ebook/dp/B004R1Q3G8.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1454747/US-Air-Force-trigger4

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7214022...er-4-Report-of-the-Project-Trigger-Study-Team

PD

Puddle Duck,

Thanks for that. Seattle is up the coast from there and since B-52s did exist at the time, maybe one landed and took off from the Mugu airstrip as part of the tests you mention. Or maybe it was a foreign aircraft on a reconnaissance mission. I ran across a photo of one landing at Mugu on the net someplace. And we still don't have concrete proof all the YB-49s were actually destroyed. All these possibilities are within the technology of the day ... so even if it was a craft as opposed to a cloud or other illusion, I still don't see any reason yet to think it was something alien ... other than the apparent size, which can be explained by merely applying the margin of error that the skeptics here think is so huge to only one aspect of the data, that being the distance to the mystery aircraft. So either cloud or aircraft, it makes little difference from a ufology perspective. It doesn't come across as any thing alien to me.

 

[ufology]

Maybe it was a lenticular cloud that was much bigger and much further away than the witnesses thought. That is, after all, where the evidence leads.

Maybe ... but saying the evidence leads there is a bit premature considering every witness who provided the evidence in the first place says they considered the cloud theory and rejected it, and like I said before, I don't think anyone in this discussion would be fooled by a cloud, lenticular or otherwise, I've seen dozens and dozens of them and never once did I think one was a flying wing or an alien craft or even an airplane. So dismissing the accounts of experienced airmen who were firsthand witnesses isn't something that should be so offhandedly accepted as reasonable.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe it was just a big jet that took off from the Point Mugu airstrip and made a turn to head out to sea.

A big jet that took off from the Point Mugu airstrip that the armed forces were unaware of? Or do you suppose that nobody upon receiving the reports of a UFO would think to check that?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I ran across a photo of one landing at Mugu on the net someplace.

Did you read the caption to see what it was actually a photo of?

 

[Akhenaten]

Puddle Duck,

Thanks for that. Seattle is up the coast from there and since B-52s did exist at the time, maybe one landed and took off from the Mugu airstrip as part of the tests you mention.

What do you hope to gain by positing such a bizarrely unlikely scenario?

Or maybe it was a foreign aircraft on a reconnaissance mission.

What do you hope to gain by positing such a bizarrely unlikely scenario?

I ran across a photo of one landing at Mugu on the net someplace.

Even if that's true, unless it was in 1953 then it's of no relevance to the discussion at hand.

And we still don't have concrete proof all the YB-49s were actually destroyed.

Any chance of you picking a single hypothesis and sticking with it for more than two consecutive posts?

All these possibilities are within the technology of the day ... so even if it was a craft as opposed to a cloud or other illusion, I still don't see any reason yet to think it was something alien ...

What in the name of Hathor are you talking about?

. . . other than the apparent size, which can be explained by merely applying the margin of error that the skeptics here think is so huge to only one aspect of the data, that being the distance to the mystery aircraft.

Size has nothing to do with whatever you're rabbitting on about. There's nothing to suggest, and nobody has made the suggestion, that there's anything alien about this sighting.

So either cloud or aircraft, it makes little difference from a ufology perspective.

How would it? The 'ufology perspective' doesn't allow one to distinguish between clouds, aircraft or in fact, any kind of object or phenomenon.

It doesn't come across as any thing alien to me.

And this would be of significance to how many people, do you reckon?

 

[wollery]

ufology's current line of argument reminds me of Juror number 3 at the end of 12 Angry Men.

"You can't prove it wasn't a flying wing. Oh sure, you can point to the reports that say they were all destroyed the year before, but you can't prove it. One of them might have survived. And what about the witnesses? They swear blind it wasn't a cloud. I bet you a million bucks if I saw a cloud I'd recognize it. Well, what do you have to say? Why are you all staring at me?"

 

[Akhenaten]

Maybe ... but saying the evidence leads there is a bit premature considering every witness who provided the evidence in the first place says they considered the cloud theory and rejected it, and like I said before, I don't think anyone in this discussion would be fooled by a cloud, lenticular or otherwise, I've seen dozens and dozens of them and never once did I think one was a flying wing or an alien craft or even an airplane.

How would you know that "saying the evidence leads there is a bit premature" when you've ignored about 95% of it?

So dismissing the accounts of experienced airmen who were firsthand witnesses isn't something that should be so offhandedly accepted as reasonable.

Perhaps you should stop doing it then.

 

[Akhenaten]

Did you read the caption to see what it was actually a photo of?

I don't think the 'ufology perspective' allows for analysis of that depth to be carried out.

 

[Akhenaten]

A big jet that took off from the Point Mugu airstrip that the armed forces were unaware of? Or do you suppose that nobody upon receiving the reports of a UFO would think to check that?

Not to mention that a heavy jet taking off to the East from Mugu would have just about flown directly overhead Kelly Johnson's position.

 

[Audible Click]

<snip>

It doesn't come across as any thing alien to me.

So what was the point? What was the watershed moment where you changed your mind regarding this latest "is it or isn't it" discussion?

 

[23_Tauri]

Maybe ... but saying the evidence leads there is a bit premature considering every witness who provided the evidence in the first place says they considered the cloud theory and rejected it, and like I said before, I don't think anyone in this discussion would be fooled by a cloud, lenticular or otherwise, I've seen dozens and dozens of them and never once did I think one was a flying wing or an alien craft or even an airplane.

How do you know you haven't? Go back and look at Lance's simulated version of Meyer's photo here and tell me how you would conclude through your amazing powers of deductive reasoning that this wasn't an airplane. Or an alien space ship. Or a witch riding her broomstick.

So dismissing the accounts of experienced airmen who were firsthand witnesses isn't something that should be so offhandedly accepted as reasonable.

But by proposing that they saw a B-52 or other non-'wing' shaped aeroplane you are dismissing their accounts!

 

[Stray Cat]

Puddle Duck,

Thanks for that. Seattle is up the coast from there and since B-52s did exist at the time, maybe one landed and took off from the Mugu airstrip as part of the tests you mention.

Perhaps you tell us how often a privately owned and operated jet plane is allowed access to land at and take off from a top secret military installation at the height of the cold war?
Support your theory with some substance.

Or maybe it was a foreign aircraft on a reconnaissance mission.

A spy plane flying so low and emitting such a trail of thick black smoke that it can be seen from at least 25 miles away?
And yet the USAF didn't realise it was there and therefore didn't scramble any fighter jets to check it out?

I forgot, they only ever scramble jets when they see alien flying saucers over the capitol,

I ran across a photo of one landing at Mugu on the net someplace.

But you conveniently can't post a link to it so we can check what year it was, or if it was even a B-52... or even for that matter if it was really at Pt. Mugu.

And we still don't have concrete proof all the YB-49s were actually destroyed.

Yes we do, we have the written history of the flying wing programme.
But it's ironic that once again, you are still managing to use the UFOlogist's tactic of Argument from Ignorance. Only in this case it's willful ignorance because you have been pointed towards the information you claim we don't have and once more showing that famous double standard where apparently concrete proof is required to disprove your theory but no proof is required for you to claim it's the most probable.

All these possibilities are within the technology of the day

Television was also within the technology of the day. Does that mean they may have seen a TV set?

... so even if it was a craft as opposed to a cloud or other illusion,

A cloud is not an illusion.

I still don't see any reason yet to think it was something alien

But I though alien meant "unknown" in your world. As we don't know what it was it is by your definition alien... Or are you dishonestly interchanging your definition? (you'd never do such a thing surely!!!)

... other than the apparent size, which can be explained by merely applying the margin of error that the skeptics here think is so huge to only one aspect of the data, that being the distance to the mystery aircraft.

How many times do you need this explaining to you before you stop dishonestly misrepresenting what the helpful and mathematically adept sceptics mean when they talk about a margin of error?

If you have a theory, you work your own margin of error out using numbers supported by the information you have against the physical possibility of the information being accurate. You haven't done this. All you've done is make your conclusion and then assert that the margin of error is exactly enough to make your theory possible.

So either cloud or aircraft, it makes little difference from a ufology perspective.

Yes we already fully realise that UFOlogy isn't actually interested in following the evidence to arrive at the truth. It's more interested in supporting the it's unevidenced fantasy conclusions of aliens in flying saucers.
UFOlogy; the supposed study of Unidentified Flying Objects doesn't give a crap about identifying objects which are flying.

You're a joke!

It doesn't come across as any thing alien to me.

You don't know what it is, it's "unknown", the epitome of alien in your rredefinition.

 

[23_Tauri]

ufology's current line of argument reminds me of Juror number 3 at the end of 12 Angry Men.

"You can't prove it wasn't a flying wing. Oh sure, you can point to the reports that say they were all destroyed the year before, but you can't prove it. One of them might have survived. And what about the witnesses? They swear blind it wasn't a cloud. I bet you a million bucks if I saw a cloud I'd recognize it. Well, what do you have to say? Why are you all staring at me?"

A few day's ago I did ask Mr Fology if he had seen the film, but I didn't get an answer. Perhaps he didn't think my question was relevant.

 

[Stray Cat]

Maybe ... but saying the evidence leads there is a bit premature considering every witness who provided the evidence in the first place says they considered the cloud theory and rejected it, and like I said before, I don't think anyone in this discussion would be fooled by a cloud, lenticular or otherwise, I've seen dozens and dozens of them and never once did I think one was a flying wing or an alien craft or even an airplane. So dismissing the accounts of experienced airmen who were firsthand witnesses isn't something that should be so offhandedly accepted as reasonable.

And again we apparently can't dismiss the accounts of these experienced airmen who were first hand witnesses and yet you have dismissed everything they say they saw. (not that anyone here except for you is dismissing their accounts)

They described something that looked like a flying wing.
You now claim they didn't see a flying a wing.

They claimed it looked like it was heading straight for them.
You claim it was heading from right to left across their field of vision.

They claim they headed towards it and it was motionless from anything from 5 minutes to ten minutes.
You claim it was to their right the whole time until the very last few minutes.

They claimed it was over Pt. Mugu
You claim they chased it over Santa Cruz

 

[Akhenaten]

A few day's ago I did ask Mr Fology if he had seen the film, but I didn't get an answer. Perhaps he didn't think my question was relevant.

It was probably deemed antipragmatic.

 

[23_Tauri]

It was probably deemed antipragmatic.

Or toxic.

 

[GeeMack]

Maybe it was just a big jet that took off from the Point Mugu airstrip and made a turn to head out to sea.

And maybe it was an alien craft. You don't know one way or another. You haven't demonstrated objectively that Kelly Johnson could have seen any sort of plane at the alleged distance involved. All your continued claims that it may have been a plane are dishonest arguments from ignorance.