Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[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?

Careful now ... I might think that's actually pretty funny but ( and I don't mean to sound paranoid ) we're being watched.

Protip 1 :

The meaningless non sequitur is difficult to employ successfully as a humourous riposte and should only be attempted by experts.​

Protip 2 :

If you're any kind of serious about wishing to avoid being labelled as paranoid then it's best to make sure that none of your posts contain the phrase 'we're being watched'.​

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

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.

I gather that this is another attempt at humour based on your wish to have the viewers understand that GeeMack is using the term UFO in the same, misguided "OMG . . . aliens!" way that you do.

Obviously it fails, since you're the only one here who is handicapped by this particular inability to understand a simple acronym, and all you're really doing is highlighting that fact rather than initiating any kind of gay repartee.

Making lame jokes and then being the only one in the room giggling at them is no way to go through life, son. I think you'd be better off sticking to your marginally less embarrassing campfire stories.

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

Funny isn't it how we don't need to have this conversation in relaton to lenticular clouds?

"By 1952 the Flying Spaghetti Monster has decommissioned the Model 567-B Lenticular Cloud as it was prone to exploding in mid air. The new configuration was designated the 567-C however by 1953 the only known working model of the 567-C was being tested by his Great Noodly-ness at the South Pole....."

 

[Sideroxylon]

[...]

Protip 2 :

If you're any kind of serious about wishing to avoid being labelled as paranoid then it's best to make sure that none of your posts contain the phrase 'we're being watched'.​

You wouldn't be saying that if you'd had a visit from Caddy drving Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

Q: Why?

A: Because arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, works of fiction, WAGs and lies are the only raw materials available to UFOlogy on which to base its opinions. Things like facts, evidence and ctitical thought are considered by it to be toxic elements and are avoided at all costs.


Q: How?

A: By sticking its fingers in its ears and singing "There's Klingons on the starboard bow!" really loudly, over and over.


Q: Please elaborate.

A:

​

 

[Akhenaten]

You wouldn't be saying that if you'd had a visit from Caddy drving Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'd just sick my talking rabbit on the bastiges.

 

[23_Tauri]

Clear prop!

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ClearProp.jpg[/qimg]​

Will do. It appears to be being used to prop up some evidence from the OMGSpyPlane! camp.

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

Again, you've shown nothing of the sort.
If the object was traveling away from Johnson for even only 3 minutes at 250mph, starting at 16 miles away from him, it would be 27.5 miles away before his wife handed him the binoculars.

As the very helpful sceptic GeeMack has already shown (by doing some actual sums not guessing),

Given a typical field of view for an 8X pair of binoculars of about 300 feet at 1000 yards, the little black speck is something 200 feet wide and 25 miles away...

This is what Kelly Johnson might have seen after he got the binoculars.

And as I showed earlier, if the object had followed the flight path you drew on the map as an excuse as to why both parties didn't see it's movement because of it's direction of travel (making a turn), Johnson would have seen it travelling across his field of vision this much;

Test your theories against reality before asserting them.

 

[Akhenaten]

Funny isn't it how we don't need to have this conversation in relaton to lenticular clouds?

"By 1952 the Flying Spaghetti Monster has decommissioned the Model 567-B Lenticular Cloud as it was prone to exploding in mid air. The new configuration was designated the 567-C however by 1953 the only known working model of the 567-C was being tested by his Great Noodly-ness at the South Pole....."

It seems quite amazing that the Witchish technique of reductio ad absurdum is indistinguishable from what the Ufologese refer to as 'presenting my best evidence'.

 

[Stray Cat]

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

I've already posted this information once, so I'll presume willful ignorance on your part when you make silly claims like the one above.

"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"
Source: Your favourite reference book

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.

Only none of the witnesses describe such a thing or even hint at it and the sums (real sums not your imagined ones) don't add up.

 

[Stray Cat]

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

What is the quantitative amount of information required for you to have enough "cause" required to class a flying object as unidentified?

"sufficient" seems so wishy washy.

I would think it ranges from "not much" to "none"

 

[Stray Cat]

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 made a typo... fixed it for you.

Good to see you have started to take the Witch Hypothesis a bit more seriously... It's usually a much more gradual process.

 

[23_Tauri]

It seems quite amazing that the Witchish technique of reductio ad absurdum is indistinguishable from what the Ufologese refer to as 'presenting my best evidence'.

That was indeed the comparison I was trying to draw.

But I imagine the subtlety will be lost on its main target.

 

[Akhenaten]

That was indeed the comparison I was trying to draw.

I was sure it was, but I couldn't resist taking the opportunity to use the word 'Witchish' in sentence.

​

 

[23_Tauri]

I was sure it was, but I couldn't resist taking the opportunity to use the word 'Witchish' in sentence.

You antipragmatist, you!

 

[Garrison]

It's astonishing that even when Ufology is arguing for a mundane explanation for a UFO sighting, one where you would imagine actual evidence could be found by a diligent researcher, he still falls back on just making wild speculations and cherry picking the witness statements to try and make them fit his theory, and then when the holes in his theory are pointed out he just adds more speculation rather than just conceding the theory doesn't work.

 

[Pixel42]

It's astonishing that even when Ufology is arguing for a mundane explanation for a UFO sighting, one where you would imagine actual evidence could be found by a diligent researcher, he still falls back on just making wild speculations and cherry picking the witness statements to try and make them fit his theory, and then when the holes in his theory are pointed out he just adds more speculation rather than just conceding the theory doesn't work.

This whole exercise has been an excellent opportunity for ufology to finally understand, and learn how to correct, the flaws in his thinking process. Unfortunately the flaws in his thinking process prevent him from realising and grasping that opportunity.

 

[Stray Cat]

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?

Just bumping this because it's been overlooked.

I can't help with it because it means absolutely nothing to me and I'm not going to pretend otherwise, but it is real data and not assumptions about mythical soopa sekrit planes with thick black smoke trails.

 

[tsig]

It's astonishing that even when Ufology is arguing for a mundane explanation for a UFO sighting, one where you would imagine actual evidence could be found by a diligent researcher, he still falls back on just making wild speculations and cherry picking the witness statements to try and make them fit his theory, and then when the holes in his theory are pointed out he just adds more speculation rather than just conceding the theory doesn't work.

You gotta go with your strengths.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just bumping this because it's been overlooked.

I can't help with it because it means absolutely nothing to me and I'm not going to pretend otherwise, but it is real data and not assumptions about mythical soopa sekrit planes with thick black smoke trails.

I am just curious if it may give information that it was possible a lenticular cloud could form. I am not an expert on meteorology and I was hoping the collective brain trust might be able to evaluate the data. I did notice that the winds below 13,000 feet were blowing from the WSW (203 degrees azimuth) and starting around 14,000-15,000 feet they were blowing from the WNW (293 degrees). That is a 90 degree shift and might give a shear effect that could produce clouds of this type.
However, in this instance, the "cloud" (for the sake of argument - I am not identifying it as such) was isolated by itself. So, if it were a cloud, it would have been something localized. Once the cloud drifted from the area where the conditions were ideal, it disappeared. In that case, the data would not be very helpful unless the radiosonde happened to fly into this particular region at the right altitude.