Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

How many of us are here mainly because we're trying to hone our shtick in some fantasy of taking our stand-up on the road?

I dunno Paul ... but ( and I don't mean this any offensive way ), you do bear a slight resemblance to George Carlin.

 

[ufology]

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.

Why and how? Please elaborate.

 

[R.A.F.]

Why and how? Please elaborate.

The letters "U", "F", and "O" stand for the words unidentified flying object.

You "want" those letters to represent something else, but they do not.

Why must this be explained to you more than once??

 

[Krikkiter]

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.

You admit that you're not sure what it was - maybe an aircraft (of some sort), maybe a cloud - then you insist it can not be an Unidentified Flying Object. Come on now ufology.

Unidentified Flying Object does not mean Alien Craft otherwise it would be an Identified Flying Object right?

No-one will take you seriously if you insist on this line of reasoning.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

I was referring to people in this thread. Everyone but you in this thread considers it to be an Unidentified Flying Object. Why do you think it isn't? Have you positively identified it in some way that you haven't revealed here?

With the sufficiency of evidence for UFOs ( witches ), do you believe they exist, YES or NO? It's time for you to stop dodging the question and be honest for a change.

 

[Krikkiter]

Also, unless you have evidence to the contrary, ufology, we can rule out the YRB-49a

"The aircraft was flown one more time on April 26, 1951, from short-term storage facilities at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., to long-term storage at Northrop's Ontario airport (Calif.) facilities. The YRB-49A sat until it was scrapped in late 1953."

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2674

... just in case it hasn't been posted before.

 

[ufology]

Also, unless you have evidence to the contrary, ufology, we can rule out the YRB-49a

"The aircraft was flown one more time on April 26, 1951, from short-term storage facilities at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., to long-term storage at Northrop's Ontario airport (Calif.) facilities. The YRB-49A sat until it was scrapped in late 1953."

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2674

... just in case it hasn't been posted before.

Krikkiter,

Thanks for that. So the last operational YB-49 was also in the area during the time period, but according to the article in storage. So we've gone from it being probably a WB-49, to that being impossible because they were all supposedly destroyed, to an operational one in the area, but in storage ... and we have a report of a "large flying wing type aircraft" sighted in the area ... hmmm ... interesting ... it must have been a cloud.

 

[Akhenaten]

Krikkiter,

Thanks for that. So the last operational YB-49 was also in the area during the time period, but according to the article in storage. So we've gone from it being probably a WB-49, to that being impossible because they were all supposedly destroyed, to an operational one in the area, but in storage ... and we have a report of a "large flying wing type aircraft" sighted in the area ... hmmm ... interesting ... it must have been a cloud.

We'll just add 'operational' to the list of things you don't understand will we?

Should you ever decide to try and clear up your confusion I'll give you a hint to get you started.

Aircraft in long-term storage are not operational.

 

[Krikkiter]

Krikkiter,

Thanks for that. So the last operational YB-49 was also in the area during the time period, but according to the article in storage. So we've gone from it being probably a WB-49, to that being impossible because they were all supposedly destroyed, to an operational one in the area, but in storage ... and we have a report of a "large flying wing type aircraft" sighted in the area ... hmmm ... interesting ... it must have been a cloud.

Yes. In storage, and it "sat" until destroyed. No need for speculation unless you'd like to email the people at the website and ask them if they're sure that's what happened.

 

[Akhenaten]

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,

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.

You were able to eliminate Omgaliens before you'd even determined whether or not it was an aircraft?

Therefore terrestrial technology can explain it and without further information there is no reason to think it was an alien craft.

Since when does "terrestrial" mean "non-alien" in ufologese?

That's not the way you've translated it previously.

 

[Paul2]

I dunno Paul ... but ( and I don't mean this any offensive way ), you do bear a slight resemblance to George Carlin.

That is totally a compliment that I accept in every way, shape, and form.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

It was in long term storage. It couldn't fly. Your head-in-the-sand denial of this has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

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.

Lenticular clouds existed in 1953 and in far greater numbers than B-52s.

The mere fact of existance adds nothing to your ridiculous argument.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Or engaging its cloaking device.

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.

If??? Every time you write this word, ufology, you are tacitly acknowledging that you don't know whether the statement that follows it is true or not, and yet all of your conclusions are based on the premise that they are undeniably true.

You are using the word "if" to mean "because".


Since you have no idea how big the object was:

• You haven't shown how far away it was.
  
  
• You haven't shown how fast or in what direction it was going.

You don't have a clue what the object was.

 

[Akhenaten]

[* 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.

How have you eliminated the possibility that is was an alien craft?

Such is the marvellous advantage that UFOlogy has over conventional forms of investigation.

By starting with a fully-formed conclusion not only is the requirement for deductive reasoning made unnecessary, but hindrances like having to eliminate other possibile explanations evaporate like a cloud in the hot summer Sun.

 

[Akhenaten]

How have you eliminated the possibility that is was an alien craft?

I haven't.

O rly?

So either cloud or aircraft, it makes little difference from a ufology perspective. It doesn't come across as any thing alien to me.

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.

There are other examples of your duplicity in this matter, but those two are more than adequate.

Have you?

Not necessary when we have a lovely null hypothesis to do it for us.

As a believer in Omgaliens, however, you don't get it quite so easy.

I guess that's why you have to tell lies like the rather clumsy one that I've pointed out above.

 

[Akhenaten]

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?

Not considered it in detail yet, but on my list of the 100 most likely explanations for the Point Wugu incident this is 53 places ahead of anything that ufology has suggested.

 

[ufology]

That is totally a compliment that I accept in every way, shape, and form.

I thought you might

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

When are you going to acknowledge that you're completely wrong about the smoke-producing characteristics of these aircraft on which so much of your fancithesis depends?

 

[Akhenaten]

Chocks away!

Clear prop!

 

[Akhenaten]

Wrong. It seems that although I don't have sufficient cause to class the object as a UFO, other people besides me have.

That would be because you are unique here in your inability to come to terms with UFO being an acronym for Unidentified Flying Object and not an abbreviation for "OMG . . . aliens!"

I think this was revealed in the video that kicked this discussion off.

No, it was revealed when you first started posting here.