Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

That means... OMG... Aliens1!!!

You said it; not me.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe ... but every lenticular I've seen that moves any distance has changed shape and become fuzzy around the edges, and not disappeared by getting smaller, but by thinning out into haze or layers or merging with other clouds.

The witnesses describe the object not moving.

 

[tsig]

I respectfully disagree. Would a cloud fool you or anyone else here except maybe GeeMack ( he said he was fooled by a mountain top once )? Clouds have never fooled me into thinking I was looking at an airplane. My house faces west and I watch airplanes and clouds daily. I've viewed both through binoculars many times and at many different times of day, including sunset. I've seen so many it would be pointless to guess how many. Yet never once ... including the dozens and dozens of lenticular clouds I've seen have I ever confused one with an aircraft. Now I'm just an average guy ... so why would I think multiple experienced airmen would be less competent than me ... and why would you think you are more competent that they are ... and you weren't even there yourself. Sorry but if they say they considered a cloud and after some study they all ruled it out, then it's just not reasonable to insist it had to be a cloud.

If there was any major error, it's more likely to be in the distances, which I've shown through example can be ( under the right circumstances ) much closer than the other estimates used by proponents of the cloud theory. It is also just more logical from a common sense point of view. For example suppose you are flying and you see another aircraft. Which bit of information is more likely to be in error:

A: The exact distance to the aircraft.
B: That it is actually an aircraft.

If we're being honest we'll admit that it's much more likely that we can be sure we are looking at an aircraft than it is to know the exact distance to it. So if we're close enough to be sure it's some kind of flying craft, then the distance estimates are probably the ones that are off. It doesn't matter if we can make out the exact make and model. Those details aren't even all that relevant to our case. Then add in that this flying craft was seen over a military base with an airport ... really how much more obvious does this need to get?

Argument by anecdote.

Fire flies.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Not to change the subject, but I found another case of "UFO evidence" at the NUFORC website.
http://www.nuforc.org/
These are photographs of an object that supposedly overtook an airplane. When I originally saw them, I felt they were in the following order
http://www.nuforc.org/S86794_b.jpghttp://www.nuforc.org/S86794_a.jpg

However the photographer states they were the other way around indicating the object overtook the airplane. The EXIF data shows they were taken at the same time, which is no surprise considering how short the time was between photos. The passage of the scenery indicates it was a and then b. So, the question is, what did they photograph?

To me, the object looks blurry but not the kind of blur one would expect from motion right to left. It looks like an out of focus blur. That indicates something close to the camera. The wing is in focus, so could it be a hoax of something on the window? Thoughts?

 

[Lucian]

Maybe ... but every lenticular I've seen that moves any distance has changed shape and become fuzzy around the edges, and not disappeared by getting smaller, but by thinning out into haze or layers or merging with other clouds.

I'm curious, like I've said before, I've seen dozens and dozens of lenticular clouds and not once ever thought they were aircraft or UFOs. How about you? Do you honestly believe a cloud would fool you personally into being sure after several minutes of study ... with binoculars ... that you were looking at a distinct flying object that was not a cloud?

How do you know? You haven't mistaken any of the lenticular clouds you've identified as lenticular clouds for aircraft or UFOs, but how can you (or we) be sure that certain objects that you believed were aircraft or UFOs weren't in fact misidentified lenticular clouds?

 

[GeeMack]

I respectfully disagree. Would a cloud fool you or anyone else here except maybe GeeMack ( he said he was fooled by a mountain top once )? Clouds have never fooled me into thinking I was looking at an airplane.

Leaving aside for a moment your dishonest misrepresentation of my experience, something fooled you into thinking you saw a giant talking rabbit, and unless you've recently recanted that claim, your credibility is nonexistent. Consequently your opinion on the issue is without merit.

My house faces west and I watch airplanes and clouds daily. I've viewed both through binoculars many times and at many different times of day, including sunset. I've seen so many it would be pointless to guess how many. Yet never once ... including the dozens and dozens of lenticular clouds I've seen have I ever confused one with an aircraft. Now I'm just an average guy ... so why would I think multiple experienced airmen would be less competent than me ... and why would you think you are more competent that they are ... and you weren't even there yourself.

Funny, the people who were actually there didn't conclude that the object was an airplane, yet you have. It brings this question to mind: Now forgetting for a moment that you claim to have seen a giant talking rabbit, and that the method you choose to seek explanations for unexplained events requires incorporating flat out dishonesty, you're just an average guy. So why would you think yourself more competent than multiple experienced airmen, none of whom came to the conclusion that they were seeing a plane? Why would you think you are more competent than they are when you weren't even there yourself?

Sorry but if they say they considered a cloud and after some study they all ruled it out, then it's just not reasonable to insist it had to be a cloud.

Sorry, but unless you can find anywhere that anyone here has claimed it had to be a cloud, your argument above is a dishonest misinterpretation of the facts.

If there was any major error, it's more likely to be in the distances, [...]

There you go again using the term "likely" differently than it might normally be used when considering various possibilities to explain an event.

[...] which I've shown through example can be ( under the right circumstances ) much closer than the other estimates used by proponents of the cloud theory.

Well, no, you haven't actually showed that. You said it, but the unsupported assertion doesn't really show anything other than that you say things.

It is also just more logical from a common sense point of view.

An appeal to common sense from a guy who admits having seen a giant talking rabbit? Pardon me for a moment while I compose myself...

​

Okay, where were we? Oh yeah...

For example suppose you are flying and you see another aircraft. Which bit of information is more likely to be in error:

A: The exact distance to the aircraft.
B: That it is actually an aircraft.

Constructive contribution from a helpful cooperative skeptic here: That's called a non sequitur. In Latin it means approximately, "It does not follow." You'd do well to look it up and avoid using such a fallacy in the future. It will only result in failure.

If we're being honest [...]

Uh... "if"... because "ufology" is simply rife with honesty.

we'll admit that it's much more likely that we can be sure we are looking at an aircraft than it is to know the exact distance to it.

There you go talking about "likely", as if the concept has a place in the pseudoscience of "ufology".

So if we're close enough to be sure it's some kind of flying craft, then the distance estimates are probably the ones that are off. It doesn't matter if we can make out the exact make and model. Those details aren't even relevant to our case.

So "if" again? If your fantasy was real, it would be reality. Is that how that works?

Then add in that this flying craft UFO was seen over a military base with an airport the Santa Barbara Channel... really how much more obvious does this need to get?

There, fixed for honesty. And you're welcome.

Oh, and about that "ufology" method of drawing conclusions based on what seems to you to be more obvious? It has failed you every single time.

 

[23_Tauri]

That isn't a relevant argument. The word aircraft implies precision.

Does it indeed? Is this another of your attempts at redefining words? Combining the words "air" and "craft" implies nothing more than a craft in the air. This would cover a whole host of oddities, including broomsticks and pegasuses.

We rarely say, "I saw a perfect airplane fly by."

But you just used the word 'perfect' in your post. Why did you do that when by your own admission we don't go around saying that things are perfect all the time, Mr Ufology?

As it is, the word 'aircraft' is used only once in the witnesses' statements; by Johnson:

I immediately thought that some aircraft had made an intense smoke trail, so I studied the object closely. It was apparent, after my first few seconds of consideration, that the outline of the object did not change. - Johnson

"some aircraft" is not the same as "a perfect flying wing" now, is it? Or do they mean the same thing in ufologese?

The object was first thought to be either a cloud or an airplane, and then after studying it for several minutes they all concluded that it was not a cloud, but an object flying in the vicinity of a military base with an airport.

Seeing as you don't even know where the object was, and nor do the witnesses, announcing that it was "flying in the vicinity of a military base" is a bit of a huge, unsubstantiated presupposition on your part, is it not, Mr Ufology?

The most logical answer is therefore obvious.

Indeed. So why are you having so much difficulty in seeing it?

 

[23_Tauri]

Not to change the subject, but I found another case of "UFO evidence" at the NUFORC website. ....

Thank you Astrophotographer, I think a new case is very welcome.

ETA: wanting to be the first to chip in, it looks like a giant pair of flying scissors!

By the way, on the meterological data that you posted, how about posting a thread in Science, Maths Med and Tech asking if there's anyone there who is a meterologist who would be so kind as to come over here for a moment and look at the data? If there is a meterologist in the house perhaps they are most likely to lurk in SMM&T?

 

[GeeMack]

That isn't a relevant argument. The word aircraft implies precision. We rarely say, "I saw a perfect airplane fly by." The object was first thought to be either a cloud or an airplane, and then after studying it for several minutes they all concluded that it was not a cloud, but an object flying in the vicinity of a military base with an airport. The most logical answer is therefore obvious. I was caught dishonestly using the phrase "perfect flying wing" to create a straw man argument, but since I never ever admit my arguments have failed, I will dig myself even further into this ditch by again attempting to dishonestly redefine terms.

Translated from "ufologese".

 

[23_Tauri]

Translated from "ufologese".

Mmmm. When I read it, I saw this:

 

[Stray Cat]

Even though it's already been pointed out a few times. It bears repeating

That isn't a relevant argument. The word aircraft implies precision. We rarely say, "I saw a perfect airplane fly by."

So why did you ask me to show you a photo of a cloud that looks like a "perfect flying wing"? in this post;

Show me a picture of a cloud that looks like a perfect flying wing.

Highlighting mine

The object was first thought to be either a cloud or an airplane, and then after studying it for several minutes they all concluded that it was not a cloud, but an object flying in the vicinity of a military base with an airport. The most logical answer is therefore obvious.

No, exactly none of them concluded that at all... So far, only you have concluded that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thoughts?

It looks like Iron Man with boobs.

 

[ufology]

The witnesses describe the object not moving.

I have offered an explanation for that as well based on the relative movement of the two aircraft and a margin of error for the duration of time is seemed to be hovering. Also, again we are more likely to experience the illusion of movement or no movement than we are to mistake what we are looking at. Have you ever been sitting at a stop light when the car next to you rolls back a bit, giving you the impression you started to move, but in fact you had remained perfectly still? Even if you haven't experienced that particular illusion, it has been demonstrated many times in other ways to show how relative movement can produce such illusions. Theater and movies have also used it to give the impression of movement. Even planets seem to stop and reverse direction ... it's all based on relative motion and our viewing perspective. Get it just right and an object that is in fact moving may seem to be hovering, even if you aren't looking at it dead ahead. Now in this case if you combine that illusion with the illusion of hovering when dead ahead, you could conceivably get exactly what was described by the witnesses.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have offered an explanation for that as well based on the relative movement of the two aircraft and a margin of error for the duration of time is seemed to be hovering. Also, again we are more likely to experience the illusion of movement or no movement than we are to mistake what we are looking at. Have you ever been sitting at a stop light when the car next to you rolls back a bit, giving you the impression you started to move, but in fact you had remained perfectly still? Even if you haven't experienced that particular illusion, it has been demonstrated many times in other ways to show how relative movement can produce such illusions. Theater and movies have also used it to give the impression of movement. Even planets seem to stop and reverse direction ... it's all based on relative motion and our viewing perspective. Get it just right and an object that is in fact moving may seem to be hovering, even if you aren't looking at it dead ahead. Now in this case if you combine that illusion with the illusion of hovering when dead ahead, you could conceivably get exactly what was described by the witnesses.

All of which is irrelevant to the argument of yours that I was pointing out the flaw in. If you remember, you argued that one of the reasons you thought it was unlikely to be a cloud was because a lenticular cloud, in your experience, loses its definition if it moves. The reason this is flawed as an argument against the cloud hypothesis is that the object was not described as moving. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[GeeMack]

Not to change the subject, but I found another case of "UFO evidence" at the NUFORC website.
http://www.nuforc.org/
These are photographs of an object that supposedly overtook an airplane. When I originally saw them, I felt they were in the following order
http://www.nuforc.org/S86794_b.jpghttp://www.nuforc.org/S86794_a.jpg

However the photographer states they were the other way around indicating the object overtook the airplane. The EXIF data shows they were taken at the same time, which is no surprise considering how short the time was between photos. The passage of the scenery indicates it was a and then b. So, the question is, what did they photograph?

To me, the object looks blurry but not the kind of blur one would expect from motion right to left. It looks like an out of focus blur. That indicates something close to the camera. The wing is in focus, so could it be a hoax of something on the window? Thoughts?

The object looks out-of-focus blurry without any signs of motion blur. The float on the airplane, which would obviously be much nearer than the object, is in crisp focus, every rivet clearly seen. And the mountains, which are either much further away than the object, or much smaller, are also in crisp focus. I've done digital photography and digital photo processing/manipulation for over a decade, and that blurred thing between two reasonably well focused things raises some red flags for me. I'd start by questioning its authenticity. It's pretty common knowledge that EXIF data can be modified, or changed altogether. A couple of photos and an hour in the digital darkroom, so to speak, and making something like these wouldn't be so tough.

 

[23_Tauri]

I have offered an explanation for that as well based on the relative movement of the two aircraft and a margin of error for the duration of time is seemed to be hovering.

No, you've provided a theory that shows the object moving a full eight miles across Johnson's field of vision. Or did you miss this helpful graphic? Or are you now simply dismissing all of Johnson's testimony in favour of the airplane crew alone?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7990430#post7990430

 

[GeeMack]

No, you've provided a theory that shows the object moving a full eight miles across Johnson's field of vision. Or did you miss this helpful graphic? Or are you now simply dismissing all of Johnson's testimony in favour of the airplane crew alone?

Uh, excuse me. "Ufology" mode here: Johnson could have been running north-northwest and it would have looked like it was hovering from his perspective, too! (<-- And a damned sight more imaginative than most of the nonsense offered by the "UFOs = alien craft" crowd, don't you think?)

 

[Stray Cat]

I have offered an explanation for that as well based on the relative movement of the two aircraft and a margin of error for the duration of time is seemed to be hovering.

You keep saying this, but you have done no such thing.

You have no idea what a margin of error is, you have shown no signs of working one out and yet you keep going on about it as if it magically makes you right... when it doesn't.

Let's look at a real margin of error shall we?

Directly from the information given in the statements we know that the minimum amount of time the flight crew watched the object motionless is 5 minutes and the maximum is 10 minutes. If you are working outside of those parameters, you are ignoring the information we have.

Let's take the lower estimate and work out using your flight path how far the object would have travelled in 5 minutes presuming for a moment that you are correct and it was a large jet plane.

We'll be really kind and presume the object is only travelling at the same speed as the Lockheed (any faster and it becomes even less possible).
5 minutes @ 225mph = 18.75 miles

That's about the same distance as from Pt. Mugu to Anna Cappa Island.
If the flight crew saw the object at Pt. Mugu and they headed towards it, it would very soon be noticable that it was in fact flying infront of Anna Cappa Island and then infront of Santa Cruz. None of the flight crew say that's what happened.

And bear in mind I've used your map to work this out and your story to make the calculations from, using your flight path. If we use your original timings and work it out so that the Lockheed follows the object for 10 minutes, it's already out and past the most Western point of Santa Cruz and certainly wouldn't look like it was hovering motionless.

Also, again we are more likely to experience the illusion of movement or no movement than we are to mistake what we are looking at.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.
A person can be mistaken by both things, one of the things or neither of the things. In this case we know they were certainly unsure about both of the things, because they can't agree where they were, where the object was, or what the object was.

Have you ever been sitting at a stop light when the car next to you rolls back a bit, giving you the impression you started to move, but in fact you had remained perfectly still? Even if you haven't experienced that particular illusion, it has been demonstrated many times in other ways to show how relative movement can produce such illusions.

Unless you own a hover car, this is quite irrelevant. We don't need teaching about parallax. A small object closer to you than a large object further away will actually increase the illusion of movement, not decrease it.

Theater and movies have also used it to give the impression of movement. Even planets seem to stop and reverse direction ... it's all based on relative motion and our viewing perspective. Get it just right and an object that is in fact moving may seem to be hovering,

And even though you haven't calculated it, "get it just right" means you imagine it's just right enough for your theory to be correct.
Well it's not and the maths prove it's not.

If you want me to draw up a parallax diagram to show you how wrong you are I'd be happy to do that.

even if you aren't looking at it dead ahead. Now in this case if you combine that illusion with the illusion of hovering when dead ahead, you could conceivably get exactly what was described by the witnesses.

No you couldn't, not for at least 5 minutes from two groups of observers looking at the object from two different angles, one of them not moving and the others with a small object passing infront of a large island as they chase it out to the West.

 

[Garrison]

Not to change the subject, but I found another case of "UFO evidence" at the NUFORC website.
http://www.nuforc.org/
These are photographs of an object that supposedly overtook an airplane. When I originally saw them, I felt they were in the following order
http://www.nuforc.org/S86794_b.jpghttp://www.nuforc.org/S86794_a.jpg

To me, the object looks blurry but not the kind of blur one would expect from motion right to left. It looks like an out of focus blur. That indicates something close to the camera. The wing is in focus, so could it be a hoax of something on the window? Thoughts?

I've seen a couple of other images allegedly shot out of aircraft windows where it looked distinctly like someone hand just crumpled and folded some sort of food wrapper or beverage container, wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't something along those lines.

Or maybe the Red Arrows were passing by.

 

[GeeMack]

To me, the object looks blurry but not the kind of blur one would expect from motion right to left. It looks like an out of focus blur. That indicates something close to the camera. The wing is in focus, so could it be a hoax of something on the window? Thoughts?

The EXIF data, if it is to be believed, shows the B shot was taken 7 seconds after the A shot. But the thing that stands out for me is the first shot was supposedly taken at an angle of 172.8°, or barely east of due south. The second shot, 7 seconds later, was supposedly taken at an angle of 268.8°, which is almost due west. And there is pretty clearly not a 90° difference in the apparent angle of the two images. Also the primary GPS information shows both images taken from exactly the same location, no change between them, none. I don't know how fast one of those Apple iPhone 4 units might update or correct its GPS and/or directional information, but something other than the focus issue is at least a little suspicious.