• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ufology
Since the B-52 was destined for the USAF, those three test beds would have been flying in one or all of three places: out of SeaTac or whatever it was called then and flying west out over the ocean; Edwards & their test facilities using the Muroc test area; and Nellis to use the Nellis Range. They were probably using all three at the same time and had support and test personnel at the AF bases. Conceivably one might have had to use Mugu as an emergency field, but it would have to be a ball of flying fire for that to happen. There were many AF bases further north along the coast for them to use, that were a lot closer to any test area Boeing would use, probably San Francisco would have been the southernmost field that they would use. Travis had all the runway they could use. And the other bases had beaucoup runways to use.

Did the Canucks have any secret large jet intrusion recon birds with sloppy engine designs, at that time that could be there? Otherwise, I know not of any foreign powers that would have anything with the legs to do that.

As to other large jet aircraft using Mugu, the first Boeing airliner, the prototype of the 707, flew in '54. The only jet airliner in the skies in '53 that I know of, was the Comet, and I don't think it was landing at USN flight test and development field. If you have something else, let me know.

As for any VB-49s that were stashed away and still flying in '53, since you are Canadien, where is the last CF-105 hidden? I have always wanted to know that.

PD
 
Audible Click said:
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?
Click to expand...


Click,

Back at my very first post on this issue. I pointed out that the mystery aircraft ( if it was an aircraft ) demonstrated no maneuvers and had no features that would justify calling it alien and that its description ( "a large flying wing aircraft" ) was proven to have been built and flown before this sighting. Therefore terrestrial technology can explain it and without further information there is no reason to think it was an alien craft.
 
ufology said:
Click,

Back at my very first post on this issue. I pointed out that the mystery aircraft ( if it was an aircraft ) demonstrated no maneuvers and had no features that would justify calling it alien and that its description ( "a large flying wing aircraft" ) was proven to have been built and flown before this sighting. Therefore terrestrial technology can explain it and without further information there is no reason to think it was an alien craft.
Click to expand...

Nobody but you ever had.
 
ufology said:
Back at my very first post on this issue. I pointed out that the mystery aircraft ( if it was an aircraft ) demonstrated no maneuvers and had no features that would justify calling it alien and that its description ( "a large flying wing aircraft" ) was proven to have been built and flown before this sighting. Therefore terrestrial technology can explain it and without further information there is no reason to think it was an alien craft.
Click to expand...


You can't possibly claim that with any degree of honesty unless you are able to objectively describe the flight characteristics of an alien craft, or of all alien craft actually. Can you?
 
ufology said:
Click,

Back at my very first post on this issue. I pointed out that the mystery aircraft ( if it was an aircraft ) demonstrated no maneuvers and had no features that would justify calling it alien and that its description ( "a large flying wing aircraft" ) was proven to have been built and flown before this sighting. Therefore terrestrial technology can explain it and without further information there is no reason to think it was an alien craft.
Click to expand...
It apparently hovered motionless for at least five minutes and as much as ten, before disappearing in a matter of less than one minute (as little as ten seconds) according to the witness statements that we can't dismiss because the people who wrote them were experienced and qualified to observe such things.

I'd be interested to know; what technology did we have in 1953 that could do that?
 
Puddle Duck said:
Ufology
Since the B-52 was destined for the USAF, those three test beds would have been flying in one or all of three places: out of SeaTac or whatever it was called then and flying west out over the ocean; Edwards & their test facilities using the Muroc test area; and Nellis to use the Nellis Range. They were probably using all three at the same time and had support and test personnel at the AF bases. Conceivably one might have had to use Mugu as an emergency field, but it would have to be a ball of flying fire for that to happen. There were many AF bases further north along the coast for them to use, that were a lot closer to any test area Boeing would use, probably San Francisco would have been the southernmost field that they would use. Travis had all the runway they could use. And the other bases had beaucoup runways to use.

Did the Canucks have any secret large jet intrusion recon birds with sloppy engine designs, at that time that could be there? Otherwise, I know not of any foreign powers that would have anything with the legs to do that.

As to other large jet aircraft using Mugu, the first Boeing airliner, the prototype of the 707, flew in '54. The only jet airliner in the skies in '53 that I know of, was the Comet, and I don't think it was landing at USN flight test and development field. If you have something else, let me know.

As for any VB-49s that were stashed away and still flying in '53, since you are Canadien, where is the last CF-105 hidden? I have always wanted to know that.

PD
Click to expand...


All reasonable objections, however an Air and Space article says in regard to the flying wings, "The case history concludes, "[By 1950,] the only full-scale flying wing aircraft [then] remaining in existence was the YB-35A which was being modified to the jet reconnaissance configuration and designated the YRB-49A. This aircraft was tested under contract ac-2172 until it was authorized for reclamation in November 1953." So since the reclamation authorization didn't happen until November, maybe it wasn't sliced and diced for a few more weeks.

http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/Need-to-Know-Flying-Wing.html

As for the B-52 ... the XB-52 was flown out of Edwards which isn't that far away. So it's certainly possible that it was a B-52 that was seen, whether or not it actually landed or took off at Point Mugu, maybe it was just making a pass as part of its testing ... who knows for sure ... nobody here. But we do know for sure it existed and flew, which now means we have two examples of terrestrial technology that could conceivably be involved in the incident.
 
ufology said:
[* Excuses and rationalizations snipped. *] But we do know for sure it existed and flew, which now means we have two examples of terrestrial technology that could conceivably be involved in the incident.
Click to expand...


How have you eliminated the possibility that is was an alien craft?
 
Stray Cat said:
It apparently hovered motionless for at least five minutes and as much as ten, before disappearing in a matter of less than one minute (as little as ten seconds) according to the witness statements that we can't dismiss because the people who wrote them were experienced and qualified to observe such things.

I'd be interested to know; what technology did we have in 1953 that could do that?
Click to expand...


And you're a big fan of human frailty regarding the perception of time an distance, and we have other estimates of the time it took to dissappear, and in all those estimates the context was that it didn't simply vanish, but appeared to be moving away. We have one count of 90 seconds, and as I've already shown, if it was already 16 plus miles away going over 250 miles an hour the opposite direction into the failing light, it could easily have been an aircraft.
 
Has anyone considered the possibility that it might have been a jet-powered lenticular cloud flown by military-trained witches as part of a top secret mission?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Nobody but you ever had.
Click to expand...


Wrong. It seems that although I don't have sufficient cause to class the object as a UFO, other people besides me have. I think this was revealed in the video that kicked this discussion off.
 
ufology said:
No. Have you?
Click to expand...


Geez. You've ignored almost every yes/no question put to you regarding your outrageous claims and alleged support for them. You've ignored almost every yes/no question attempting to actually help you understand the scientific process and how we go about objectively explaining reality. Then when a question comes along that isn't a yes/no question, your demonstrably failed powers of observation lead you to think it was a yes/no question and you answer it. So much for that alleged observation of an alien craft on that Led Zeppelin, too-much-weed party night when you were a kid, eh? It's all a lie, isn't it?
 
Lucian said:
Has anyone considered the possibility that it might have been a jet-powered lenticular cloud flown by military-trained witches as part of a top secret mission?
Click to expand...


Careful now ... I might think that's actually pretty funny but ( and I don't mean to sound paranoid ) we're being watched.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
Geez. You've ignored almost every yes/no question put to you regarding your outrageous claims and alleged support for them. You've ignored almost every yes/no question attempting to actually help you understand the scientific process and how we go about objectively explaining reality. Then when a question comes along that isn't a yes/no question, your demonstrably failed powers of observation lead you to think it was a yes/no question and you answer it. So much for that alleged observation of an alien craft on that Led Zeppelin, too-much-weed party night when you were a kid, eh? It's all a lie, isn't it?
Click to expand...


No.
 
ufology said:
Wrong. It seems that although I don't have sufficient cause to class the object as a UFO, other people besides me have. I think this was revealed in the video that kicked this discussion off.
Click to expand...


It was at the time, and remains today an unidentified flying object. It is definitively a UFO. It takes an argument from abject willful ignorance to claim otherwise.
 
GeeMack said:
It was at the time, and remains today an unidentified flying object. It is definitively a UFO. It takes an argument from abject willful ignorance to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...


That's a switch. I think it's more likely it was an aircraft or a cloud, but you insist it was a UFO. I don't think I've ever seen anyone convert so quickly. It's usually a much more gradual process.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
That's a switch. I think it's more likely it was an aircraft or a cloud, but you insist it was a UFO. I don't think I've ever seen anyone convert so quickly.
Click to expand...


A UFO is an unidentified flying object. The flying object under discussion remains unidentified. Your opinion is constructed from arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, works of fiction, WAGs, and yes, lies. Your arguments have failed completely to be compelling, or even reasonable for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom