Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[lancemoody]

Yes, it is the disparity of position that argues mightily against the airplane idea. That the object looked more or less the same from different angles speaks to something more amorphous, like maybe a cloud.

By the way, I have no idea why we are even discussing an airplane idea...no evidence has been placed that even suggests it.

Lance

 

[Stray Cat]

By the way, I have no idea why we are even discussing an airplane idea...no evidence has been placed that even suggests it.

Mainly because if the plane 'theory' goes unchallenged in all of the hundreds of ways it can be challenged, ufology (and other people who read but don't post) may be under the impression that the plane theory has some merit.

Plus, it's something to do to break the monotony and hard work of actually doing real research... and of course it can be quite entertaining watching the mental gymnastics (not an olympic sport yet) which can be nearly as spectacular as watching a B-52 do a top secret, full throttle, tight turn above a Navy base whilst emitting thick black smoke that can be seen from miles away.

 

[carlitos]

And I suppose that should go for the amazing lenticular cloud illusion too, something that at least one witness says was not the case even though it had been considered.

Clouds aren't illusions, though. They're clouds.

ETA - Whoa, missed a whole page of posts. My bad. I guess I'll edit my post completely so I look less of an idiot just leave this here.

 

[EHocking]

Another point to wonder at is how with all this flying around in circles and changing direction to keep the following Lockheed directly behind it, whilst keeping it directly in line with Johnson's ranch, there's no mention of this little point, that if they were close enough to see it was an aircraft, would be quite obvious;

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/B-52-turn.jpg

And of course the invention of a black smoke trail from the "engines" of such craft have also been shown to be adequately explained by lenticular clouds, from your earlier post...

ug, here's a lenticular cloud with the sun sinking behind it...

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030326.html

ETA
Here's a coincidence. That cloud fits perfectly into an eclipse of finesse ratio of 10:1 (the red one).
The yellow is 7:1 (and both are nowhere near Johnson's drawn 4.8:1 ellipse.)

 

[lancemoody]

I need to take moment to apologize for somer earlier remarks I made in reference to a comment made over in the weather discussion.

My comments were in poor form and didn't advance understanding in any way.

Best,

Lance

 

[tsig]

Doh!

I keep forgetting that everything is reversed in the Northern Hemisphere ( lame excuse )


I has teh dumb.

I'd go with the "English ain't me native language, mate" we'd all believe that.

 

[ufology]

Another point to wonder at is how with all this flying around in circles and changing direction to keep the following Lockheed directly behind it, whilst keeping it directly in line with Johnson's ranch, there's no mention of this little point, that if they were close enough to see it was an aircraft, would be quite obvious;

Actually, I've explained it more than once, but maybe it just wasn't noticed ... seems to be a recurring theme around here.

 

[Stray Cat]

Actually, I've explained it more than once, but maybe it just wasn't noticed ... seems to be a recurring theme around here.

If it was clear enough to be described as an airplane (even to some people guessing what type it may have been), then your silly "obscured by magic smoke" argument goes out the window (but not before stopping to put it's shoes on no doubt).

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually, I've explained it more than once, but maybe it just wasn't noticed ... seems to be a recurring theme around here.

Link to these explanations?

And as for the failure to have any notice taken of your ideas, there's only one person to blame for that state of affairs.

 

[GeeMack]

Actually, I've explained it more than once, but maybe it just wasn't noticed, like the other times such comments were made ... seems to be a recurring theme around here.

Explaining it in that sort of religious "ufology" anything-goes way isn't actually an explanation, contrary to your apparent belief. This discussion is taking place in reality where critical thinking is the method used for reasonable analysis. Wild guessing, dishonestly attempting to get around contradictions with if-this and if-that, and making up stuff to suit your preconceived conclusion are not allowed. So no, you haven't explained it in a way that makes it work according to objective reality.

 

[EHocking]

Actually, I've explained it more than once, but maybe it just wasn't noticed ... seems to be a recurring theme around here.

You would do well to extend the courtesy that you begged earlier in this thread.

ufology : Take it easy there. I don't always read everyone's posts because I'm not on here 24/7 and pages can go by between visits. In the future if I miss a question please include a link to it in your reminder.

So how about the link?

 

[Akhenaten]

I'd go with the "English ain't me native language, mate" we'd all believe that.

Crikey, why didn't I think of that?

 

[ufology]

So do you have ANY comment on the sillhouettes I posted in Post #1055.
I see that the link has failed, so if you missed it, here are the other aircraft mentioned in the report, with Johnson's described ellipse surrounding them.

It seems to me that for the aircraft theory to fly, all witnesses must not have been able to discern the tailplanes of the aircraft, in order for the profiles to fit into any of Johnson's ellipse.

Oh, but of course, Johnson declared that, ""At all times the object appeared as an ellipse, with a finese[sic] of the larger axis to the minor one of about 7 or 10 to 1.".

Which aircraft of the time have elliptical head on profiles?

Or is this witness's account in question?

Good Job on the illustrations. The lenticular cloud makes a compelling graphic. The only thing I would say is that the thinest parts like the tail and wingtips may not have been visible because the details were not visible, an ellipse can still be made to fit pretty well, and we do have other descriptions besides the disk shape ... like a flying wing and other aircraft. Below we have the basic dimensions, the prominence of the wings, and some exhaust that would become haze as it spread out.

 

[GeeMack]

Good Job on the illustrations. The lenticular cloud makes a compelling graphic. The only thing I would say is that the thinest parts like the tail and wingtips may not have been visible because the details were not visible, an ellipse can still be made to fit pretty well, and we do have other descriptions besides the disk shape ... like a flying wing and other aircraft. Below we have the basic dimensions, the prominence of the wings, and some exhaust that would become haze as it spread out.

You haven't even been able to show that any part of any plane would be visible, so what you have above is another wild guess. This conversation is taking place in reality, not in the religious confines of "ufology" where mathematics is just a bunch of squiggly lines. Constructive contribution: If you need some help with the math, let someone know.

 

[Spektator]

Crikey, why didn't I think of that?

Okay, it's an ancient story, but someone elsewhere noted that this is the 200th birthday of Charles Dickens....

Charles's great-granddaughter Monica Dickens was a novelist herself, and on a book tour of Australia she sat signing copies of her latest. A lady came up, handed her the book, and said "Emma Chizzit," and Dickens inscribed the book to that name. The angry woman then explained that wasn't her name--she was just asking the price of the book.

Derail ends here.

 

[Akhenaten]

Good Job on the illustrations. The lenticular cloud makes a compelling graphic.

<snip>

Yes, we know. Now where's the link to your explanation of why none of the witnesses reported seeing the object banking?

 

[Akhenaten]

Why have you used a photograph of a B-52 taking off? Are you suggesting this would have been the configuration of your imaginary aircraft?

 

[EHocking]

Good Job on the illustrations. The lenticular cloud makes a compelling graphic.

That's because I didn't try to force any assumptions to fit into the ellipses.

The only thing I would say is that the thinest parts like the tail and wingtips may not have been visible because the details were not visible,

Whoa, so you are now stating that the "expert witnesses" were WRONG?

an ellipse can still be made to fit pretty well,

That's where our approach is different, I didn't try to make an ellipse fit.
I drew the bounds of the ellipses and compared the sillhouettes of the proposed aircraft alternatives.

and we do have other descriptions besides the disk shape ... like a flying wing and other aircraft.

So. You ARE saying that Johnson's description that, "At all times the object appeared as an ellipse, with a finese[sic] of the larger axis to the minor one of about 7 or 10 to 1.", is in fact inaccurate?

Below we have the basic dimensions, the prominence of the wings, and some exhaust that would become haze as it spread out.

http://www.ufopages.com/B-52SIL-01a.JPG

Yet all the descriptions are of an object at the same level as the aircraft observers and going directly away/towards them and at the same altitude.

Why have you used a "skewed" photo that shows an aircraft at an angle/attitude to the observer, instead of what they would have actually observed?

Whereas, the photo of the lenticular cloud fits the ellipse described by Johnson perfectly - and also has a "contrail" that has the appearance of black "smoke". Remarkably, it is also lit from behind at sunset and is black.

All of the above are perfect reflections of (at least) Johnson's obervations. No?

ETA : You have yet to clarify your position on lenticular clouds.
If they are rare as you assert, how do you ratify that with you personally seeing dozens and dozens of them?
It seems that quite a few of my posts on this and the original thread seem to be overlooked by you...

... seems to be a recurring theme around here.

 

[Garrison]

Why have you used a photograph of a B-52 taking off? Are you suggesting this would have been the configuration of your imaginary aircraft?

Most likely because it has the black smoke he's so fond of, which Ufology still hasn't conceded wouldn't be available after take off unless I missed that post.

 

[ufology]

You would do well to extend the courtesy that you begged earlier in this thread. So how about the link?

I'll just put all the bits and pieces together here in one place. Please read it carefully ... it answers the question(s) and why it's nearly impossible for it to have been a cloud ... so one more time ... the detailed version:

From the ground position the object would always seem to be at nearly the same heading. The smoke trail that originally caught Johnson's attention would have dissipated into haze leaving only the silhouette of the receding aircraft in view in his 8 power binoculars. The issue of not seeing the process of dissipation can be explained by taking into account that the cloud had already formed before Johnson noticed it so Johnson didn't know how long it had been there, which means when he first saw it, it had already begun to dissipate, but as the sun had gone down it was getting steadily darker and the changing light and distance could temporarily compensate for the thinning. Then by the time he went inside, got the binoculars, went back outside, got the binoculars into position and focused on the object, the smoke could have dissipated into the haze he saw, leaving the silhouetted aircraft receding into the distance.

From the airborne observers position(s). When they first spotted the object they may have also been looking at the smoke cloud in the same place Johnson saw it, and if the aircraft that made it was in the process of circling once or twice, the cloud would seem dark and disk or wing like, and hovering ... and the aircraft itself would be obscured.

Then as the airborne observers changed heading toward it, they would be moving steadily closer, and the cloud would be dissipating into haze leaving the now closer and consequently larger aircraft sharply visible. Then as the mystery aircraft started heading west, the airborne observers who were now following it would be making a slow turn away from the position of the cloud, all the while keeping the mystery aircraft dead ahead of them, giving the impression that it was always at the same bearing. We know this had to be the case because the airborne observers lost sight of the object after they had turned toward it ( northerly ), but the object had departed almost due west away from them some minutes later.

To reinforce ... we know the mystery object was near Point Mugu because the initial intersections of the two lines of sight on the object are in that area. So for the approaching Warning Star coming from the south toward Point Mugu to end up facing almost due west, while maintaining a steady bearing on a lenticular cloud, would by necessity mean the lenticular cloud would had to have been moving at some considerable speed on a westerly heading, all the while maintaining a perfect shape. On the other hand, if the cloud had simply dissipated, creating the illusion of movement, the Warning Star would still have been heading north toward Point Mugu when the object disappeared. Is that clear enough?