Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[tsig]

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?


[qimg]http://ufopages.com/Mugu-01a.jpg[/qimg]

He was inside when he first saw it. Your account of this incident is growing more and more detailed* as time goes by, unfortunately the details are wrong.

*sort of like another account.(fire flies)

 

[ufology]

Returning to that unrelated Albatross pilot sighting. Something to consider is that the picture was taken with an iPhone 4. The first image of the artifact ( As it enters the frame ) was taken at 11:16:28 and the second was taken at 11:16:35 ... making the shots about 7 seconds apart. If it took 7 seconds for the object to travel from the edge of the frame to not even as far as the back of the wing, then we certainly aren't looking at anything zooming by in a blur. It would have taken at least 30 seconds just to get past the airplane, and it would have been in clear view and very sharp. This doesn't fit with the story and it begs the question, why wasn't whatever it was observed by the pilot? Also, the pilot says he was flying the Albatross, but the photo is not from the cockpit position ... so ... who was at the controls? Why didn't they see anything? Or are was this plane on auto-pilot? Mind you I'm no photo expert ... or aviation expert, so if anyone can add anything by all means please do so.

 

[Stray Cat]

To go through this guff point by point is pointless because it's already been pointed out the these points are nonsense.

But here's a few major mistakes you keep making over and over.

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.

He didn't go inside to get the binoculars. You've been told this countless times.
He was already inside looking at the object through a plate glass window.
He asked his wife to get the binoculars do he didn't have to take his eyes off the object. Then he states he ran outside when his wife had handed him the binoculars.
Where in the seconds it took him to get outside and focus a pair of binoculars is the time required for a cloud of thick black smoke that Johnson had already been watching for 3 minutes (without it moving or altering in any way) to magically dissipate?

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.

Go and do some calculations as to the turning circle of a B-52.
Did anyone report an object a few miles wide?
In fact nothing other than a Harrier Jumpjet or similar VLTO craft could do these circles you keep making up in your mind.
And the more excuses you make for your imaginary scenario to be true make it even dafter.


The rest is following on in the same style. Made up and not supported by anything anyone who wrote a statement actually said. A bunch of poorly informed speculation that doesn't calculate in the real world where sums have to add up.

 

[carlitos]

When I searched this thread, the only post containing the word "albatross" was the one above. Am I wrong? Does someone else know what ufology is discussing here?

 

[ufology]

He was inside when he first saw it. Your account of this incident is growing more and more detailed* as time goes by, unfortunately the details are wrong.

*sort of like another account.(fire flies)

Fair enough, I'm making a presumption that the cloud hadn't materialized between the time Johnson went inside ranch house and the time he looked out the window ... a span of around 10 minutes. Which is actually an interesting point and further supports my theory that it was a smoke trail/aircraft combination because if it had been visible before they went inside, why didn't they notice it right away? The ranch house is on a hill facing west to they almost certainly would have had a view, and if so, the relatively sudden appearance tends to support the smoke cloud/aircraft theory better than a natural cloud. But this is a minor detail compared to the main point at the end which you have not made any comment on. If it was a cloud, just how did it move so quickly out to sea?

 

[ufology]

To go through this guff point by point is pointless because it's already been pointed out the these points are nonsense.

But here's a few major mistakes you keep making over and over.


He didn't go inside to get the binoculars. You've been told this countless times.
He was already inside looking at the object through a plate glass window.
He asked his wife to get the binoculars do he didn't have to take his eyes off the object. Then he states he ran outside when his wife had handed him the binoculars.
Where in the seconds it took him to get outside and focus a pair of binoculars is the time required for a cloud of thick black smoke that Johnson had already been watching for 3 minutes (without it moving or altering in any way) to magically dissipate?


Go and do some calculations as to the turning circle of a B-52.
Did anyone report an object a few miles wide?
In fact nothing other than a Harrier Jumpjet or similar VLTO craft could do these circles you keep making up in your mind.
And the more excuses you make for your imaginary scenario to be true make it even dafter.


The rest is following on in the same style. Made up and not supported by anything anyone who wrote a statement actually said. A bunch of poorly informed speculation that doesn't calculate in the real world where sums have to add up.

You're taking me out of context ... they went to the ranch house and went inside ... that is where the binoculars were ... then he went outside with them to look at the object. Therefore he had to go inside to get the binoculars. Where I was making the presumption before is that I mistakenly thought he had seen the object before going into the house in the first place. But we've already cleared that up. So how about explaining how a lenticular cloud can move the way it must have had to in order to be the object in question?

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Assumes facts not in evidence. You made up the smoke trail to force fit your preconceived conclusion, now you're dishonestly using it as if it's a fact. That's a lot like lying. Constructive contribution: Stop dishonestly making up stuff.

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.

Aside from the fact that you're making up the sequence of events to force fit your preconceived conclusion, you have also never demonstrated quantitatively and objectively that Johnson could have even seen an airplane from his location without binoculars. So you've dishonestly made up stuff again. Constructive contribution: Stop making up stuff. It makes your arguments look like lies.

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.

They "may have" been looking at a smoke trail in 1953 that you just made up a couple days ago? And you just now made up "if the aircraft that made it was in the process of circling once or twice". And if you ever actually saw an airplane emitting smoke exhaust you'd know how completely silly it is to make up smoke so thick "the aircraft itself would be obscured". Constructive contribution: Your made up nonsense is getting thicker than the smoke from a B52 taking off. But it's still made up, a lot like a lie. Stop it.

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.

"We" don't know any such thing because it would require that "we" accept your made up version of reality in order to "know" it. Constructive contribution: Every time you've made up some details to fit your preconceived conclusion you've been caught. Your dishonesty is transparent. Using the methods of the "ufology" religion, making up stuff and pretending it's real, does not work when trying to explain reality.

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?

Clear enough. In order to make your preconceived conclusion work you had to make up most of your story from scratch, dishonestly constructing it out of your imagination. Constructive contribution: Making up stories may be standard operating procedure for people who hear giant rabbits talking to them, people who can't separate fantasy from reality, and adherents to the "ufology" religion, but this discussion is being held in reality. All the BS you make up has no place in this conversation. Constructive contribution: Leave the made up stuff over on your alien believers club web site where it belongs.

 

[ufology]

When I searched this thread, the only post containing the word "albatross" was the one above. Am I wrong? Does someone else know what ufology is discussing here?

Carlitos:

It's way back here now: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7992646&postcount=702

 

[GeeMack]

Returning to that unrelated Albatross pilot sighting. Something to consider is that the picture was taken with an iPhone 4. The first image of the artifact ( As it enters the frame ) was taken at 11:16:28 and the second was taken at 11:16:35 ... making the shots about 7 seconds apart. If it took 7 seconds for the object to travel from the edge of the frame to not even as far as the back of the wing, then we certainly aren't looking at anything zooming by in a blur. It would have taken at least 30 seconds just to get past the airplane, and it would have been in clear view and very sharp. This doesn't fit with the story and it begs the question, why wasn't whatever it was observed by the pilot? Also, the pilot says he was flying the Albatross, but the photo is not from the cockpit position ... so ... who was at the controls? Why didn't they see anything? Or are was this plane on auto-pilot? Mind you I'm no photo expert ... or aviation expert, so if anyone can add anything by all means please do so.

Constructive contribution: Every point you've made above was already noted and recorded right here in this thread a few days ago. You have added absolutely nothing. And in stating this as if you just discovered, realized, noticed, or considered it, it looks like you're not paying any attention at all to what's being discussed. You've also lent more credence to the notion that lack of attention and sub-par observation skills seem to be characteristic of the pseudoscience of "ufology".

 

[Stray Cat]

Returning to that unrelated Albatross pilot sighting...

It's a hoax.

The object is traveling too slow for it to be motion blur (plus at a shutter speed of 1/1700th that's enough to put a hummingbird's flapping wings in focus) and the fact that the in focus depth of field goes from the wing of the plane all the way to the distant mountains shows it's not simply 'out of focus'.

It looks to me as if it's been added using one of the many iPhone apps that you can buy or even download for free that allows you to add UFOs to your photos.

The pilot who took the photo goes into great detail about his experience as a pilot and for some reason thinks it's necessary to explain that his plane is full of high tech equipment (all things which have no bearing on the report) and yet fails to mention that he wasn't sat at the controls when he took the photo and claims the object was a "blur" as it whizzed past. Patently untrue if it took over 30 seconds to overtake the plane.

There is nothing in either the written report or the photos that points to anything other than a hoax.

 

[Stray Cat]

So how about explaining how a lenticular cloud can move the way it must have had to in order to be the object in question?

Who said it moved?
I didn't.

One of the properties of a lenticular cloud is that it can remain motionless and unbroken even when there is a wind blowing through it.

Another property of a lenticular cloud is that it can retain it's relatively sharp edges as it dissipates. Of course there will be a point when the clouds density makes it gradually more transparent, which would look to an observer like there was a layer of haze between him and the object.
You know how binoculars already exaggerate any haze in the atmosphere anyway right?

 

[23_Tauri]

So how about explaining how a lenticular cloud can move the way it must have had to in order to be the object in question?

By dissipating.

I ran outside and started to focus the glasses on the object, which was now moving fast on a heading between 240˚ and 260˚. When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving behind the first layer of haze. I gathered its speed was very high, because of the rate of fore-shortening of its major axis. The object, even in the glasses, appeared black and distinct, but i could make out no detail, as I was looking toward the setting sun, which was, of course, below the horizon at the time.

All the above can be explained by a lenti dissipating, with the observer to the east and the cloud between the observer and the setting sun. The fallacious inference that you are making is that the object would have to move its position in order for Johnson to observe apparent movement, when all it need do is to decrease in size.

ETA: Stray Cat! I wish you wouldn't do that, pip me at the post making a point in a post. Grrrr....

 

[ufology]

It's a hoax.

The object is traveling too slow for it to be motion blur (plus at a shutter speed of 1/1700th that's enough to put a hummingbird's flapping wings in focus) and the fact that the in focus depth of field goes from the wing of the plane all the way to the distant mountains shows it's not simply 'out of focus'.

It looks to me as if it's been added using one of the many iPhone apps that you can buy or even download for free that allows you to add UFOs to your photos.

The pilot who took the photo goes into great detail about his experience as a pilot and for some reason thinks it's necessary to explain that his plane is full of high tech equipment (all things which have no bearing on the report) and yet fails to mention that he wasn't sat at the controls when he took the photo and claims the object was a "blur" as it whizzed past. Patently untrue if it took over 30 seconds to overtake the plane.

There is nothing in either the written report or the photos that points to anything other than a hoax.

Stray,

A hoax would mean it was done intentionally. I'm not sure we can conclude that yet. But it's not looking good. Those lenses are so small on those phones that perhaps a small streak of water over it might refract some of the surrounding colors into the lens. I certainly don't think the picture is of any kind of craft outside of Albatross One ... oh and I forgot to add ... OMG ... Aliens!

 

[GeeMack]

Who said it moved?
I didn't.

It had to move to accommodate all those squiggly airplane lines ufology made up and put on the map about his tale. Notice how he made the bad guys' spy flying wing all scary black with blood red outlines. Cool, eh?

 

[Stray Cat]

Fair enough, I'm making a presumption that the cloud hadn't materialized between the time Johnson went inside ranch house and the time he looked out the window ... a span of around 10 minutes. Which is actually an interesting point and further supports my theory that it was a smoke trail/aircraft combination because if it had been visible before they went inside, why didn't they notice it right away?

Errr.... I presume because they were concentrating on taking the 4 beige hard shell suitcases from the trunk of their car and fumbling in their jacket pockets to find their door keys because they forgotten which one of them had 'kept them safe' when they had set off on that cold overcast morning just as it was getting light and they were running late. Then having a quick visual check of their ranch house to check there were no signs of a forced entry or birds nests that could potentially block their gutters.

It's good being to just make stuff up instead of having to rely on the information presented by the witnesses

The ranch house is on a hill facing west to they almost certainly would have had a view,

The ranch house faced South West, but it's quite irrelevant really.
Someone not noticing something is no reason to presume that the something wasn't there when they didn't notice it.

 

[GregInAustin]

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:

Can you please highlight in your diagram the aircrew's position when they first spotted the UFO, and their position at the end of the 10 minutes? (based on average speed of the aircraft). Also, please mark the locations for your imaginary aircraft for the same times.

This will require some simple speed/distant calculations and measurements on your map.

Thanks!

 

[ufology]

Who said it moved?
I didn't.

One of the properties of a lenticular cloud is that it can remain motionless and unbroken even when there is a wind blowing through it.

Another property of a lenticular cloud is that it can retain it's relatively sharp edges as it dissipates. Of course there will be a point when the clouds density makes it gradually more transparent, which would look to an observer like there was a layer of haze between him and the object.
You know how binoculars already exaggerate any haze in the atmosphere anyway right?

The cloud would had to have moved west fairly quickly in order to explain how the Warning Star was at first heading north toward it but ended up facing west and still toward it. Simple dissipation doesn't explain how this is possible. If it had simply dissipated the Warning Star would have still been heading north toward the cloud when it disappeared. That's not what happened ( according to the information at hand ).

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray,

A hoax would mean it was done intentionally.

As opposed to accidentally adding a fake UFO on to his photos using a iPhone app for the purposes of faking UFO photos...

I'm not sure we can conclude that yet.

It's not a conclusion, it's a working hypothesis and at present there is no information that falsifies it.

But it's not looking good. Those lenses are so small on those phones that perhaps a small streak of water over it might refract some of the surrounding colors into the lens.

With a lens that's only 2mm (actually the lens part is even smaller than that), the "small streak of water" would have to be microscopic and yet retain the refraction properties of a much larger drop of water and move a microscopic amount whilst retaining it's ability to refract something that had the ability to be refracted the same amount even though the plane, the camera, the scenery, the thing that was refracting it and the photographer had all moved. Optically impossible.

I certainly don't think the picture is of any kind of craft outside of Albatross One ... oh and I forgot to add ... OMG ... Aliens!

It is a "craft" ouside of the Albatross one.
Just depending upon which definition of craft you choose to use.

craft

[kraft, krahft] Show IPA noun, plural crafts or, for 5, 8, craft, verb
noun 1. an art, trade, or occupation requiring special skill, especially manual skill: the craft of a mason.
2. skill; dexterity: The silversmith worked with great craft.
3. skill or ability used for bad purposes; cunning; deceit; guile.4. the members of a trade or profession collectively; a guild.
5. a ship or other vessel.

Source

 

[GeeMack]

The cloud would had to have moved west fairly quickly in order to explain how the Warning Star was at first heading north toward it but ended up facing west and still toward it. Simple dissipation doesn't explain how this is possible.

But a black spy plane that looked like a perfect flying wing which was making a couple of circles over a naval air station and hiding inside its own opaque smoke trail does explain it.

​

 

[Stray Cat]

The cloud would had to have moved west fairly quickly in order to explain how the Warning Star was at first heading north toward it but ended up facing west and still toward it. Simple dissipation doesn't explain how this is possible. If it had simply dissipated the Warning Star would have still been heading north toward the cloud when it disappeared. That's not what happened ( according to the information at hand ).

Where in any of the witness statements do they say they were "heading north" towards it?