Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

Unless you can show that the airstrip at Mugu was not capable of facilitating takeoffs and landings or approaches then it's actually 100% possible ( and there are even photos of B-52s taking off from there in later years ). What you really mean is "highly improbable" ... and there is some sense in your reasoning, but not enough to justify "definitely not" as in 100% certain.

Unless you can show using real sums, how a B-52 could be seen hovering motionless by two groups of observers at different angles for at least 3 minutes and by the flight crew alone for at least 5 minutes, remembering to include all your calculations so they can be quantitatively verified, you're flogging a dead horse. Whilst it may have been physically possible for a B-52 to land and take off from Pt. Mugu, it remains physically impossible for it to have been what the 5 witnesses described in their statements.

We know this because we've done the sums and worked it out.
Heck I've spent another three hours tonight working on it again, going laboriously through each statement and trying to tie up what they say to where they were and plotting out a flight plan that corresponds with the scant information they made available from the time they took off to the time they lost sight of the object.

I'll post it before the weekend's over... but that still won't be the end of the calculations that need doing.

 

[GeeMack]

Unless you can show that the airstrip at Mugu was not capable of facilitating takeoffs and landings or approaches then it's actually 100% possible ( and there are even photos of B-52s taking off from there in later years ). What you really mean is "highly improbable" ... and there is some sense in your reasoning, but not enough to justify "definitely not" as in 100% certain.

You are attempting to employ the dishonest tactic of deflecting the burden of proof. Here's how it really works, for honest people: You've stated your conclusion that the UFO of December 16, 1953, was an airplane. If you're going to defend that conclusion, you show that it's objectively and quantitatively plausible, which you haven't, and show that it is objectively and quantitatively a better explanation than any of the others under consideration, which you haven't. And before you lie and say you have, you have not done that yet in any quantitative objective way. Simply babbling about if this and if that and if everything was the way you desperately wish it would be does not constitute an objective argument.

And if you cannot objectively support your conclusion, here's the constructive contribution you've been waiting for: Have the decency and honesty to admit that you've failed. Learn a little about why you failed. Learn a little bit about critical thinking. Buck up and move on.

 

[GeeMack]

I'll post it before the weekend's over... but that still won't be the end of the calculations that need doing.

It's really too bad the "ufology" proponents won't lift a finger. Some of these UFO mysteries might come closer to being solved if they'd get up off their butts and actually be cooperative and helpful to the skeptics who are doing all the work.

 

[GeeMack]

You're still ignoring this part: "I do not know how long it was there before my attention was called to it." If the aircraft had already made it's turn, the smoke trail wouldn't appear to be moving, and at that distance and time it could have seemed to have been quite well defined. Although he says he "ran outside" we don't know for sure exactly how long his eyes were off it while he reached for the binoculars his wife had gotten for him, went to the door, perhaps put his shoes on, opened the door, got in position, and then got the object focused in the binoculars. Consider this statement:

• 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.

So he "started to focus", implying getting in position, locating the object in the field of view, and turning the focusing dial until the object came into focus ... and by then the object was moving "behind the first layer of haze". This haze it was moving behind could easily have been the dissipating smoke trail, now thinned out enough to reveal the magnified receding aircraft. So to answer your question ... Yes I really am thinking it through, and you can park your demeaning innuendo that I'm not. If my fantasy was real it would be real.

Translated from "ufologese".

 

[Stray Cat]

You're still ignoring this part: "I do not know how long it was there before my attention was called to it."

No, I'm not ignoring it at all. But how long it was their before he noticed it is quite irrelevant. We're dealing here with what he saw after his attention was called to it.

If the aircraft had already made it's turn, the smoke trail wouldn't appear to be moving, and at that distance and time it could have seemed to have been quite well defined.

And if it were a jet plane as you think, it would be heading directly away from him at a speed of as much as 500mph. Even if it was only 16 miles away from him to begin with, within 3 minutes it would be at least 27 miles away (if it was only traveling at the same speed as the Lockheed) and 41 miles away if it was at full speed.

At the same time a Lockheed was turning West and noticing the object on their right, because they were South of it. They would surely see this trail of smoke because they were looking the object's flight path from a greater angle than Johnson. Or was the magic smoke only visible from the back?

Although he says he "ran outside" we don't know for sure exactly how long his eyes were off it while he reached for the binoculars his wife had gotten for him, went to the door, perhaps put his shoes on,

Perhaps stopped for a cup of tea and buttered scone, stumbled into the hallway closet to get his hat and scarf... "perhaps"... however, he doesn't say any of that so we have to assume he ran straight outside (because he didn't want to take his eyes off it for any longer than necessary).

Stop making stuff up and covering your theory in "ifs" "perhaps" and "probablies"

opened the door, got in position, and then got the object focused in the binoculars. Consider this statement:

• 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.

Yes, I wonder how he could see it at all to know it was moving fast, whilst it was at least 27 miles away... It's a wonder he managed to know where to focus his binoculars.


Could you see a plane with a wingspan of 180' from directly behind from 27 miles away?
Or was the magic smoke that the flight crew in the Lockheed couldn't see making the object more obvious as it hung in the air in a trail heading out West nearly at right angles to the Lockheed.

So he "started to focus", implying getting in position, locating the object in the field of view, and turning the focusing dial until the object came into focus ... and by then the object was moving "behind the first layer of haze". This haze it was moving behind could easily have been the dissipating smoke trail, now thinned out enough to reveal the magnified receding aircraft.

Nope, the Lockheed flight crew report no smoke trail. They do report layers of haze and a few clouds.


You know when you look through binoculars and haze in the atmosphere is exaggerated? You know if the object was much bigger and much further away than he could tell, it would look extra hazy through binoculars?


You know if it was a jet plane heading on a roughly Westerly course at only 225mph, it would have been at least 27 miles away by then? Even further away if Johnson had had to stop to put his shoes on (you didn't theorize whether he would be wearing lace ups or slip-ons so we have no margin of error for that part)


Can you see a plane with a wingspan of 182' through 8X power binoculars if it's 27 miles away from you?

So to answer your question ... Yes I really am thinking it through, and you can park your demeaning innuendo that I'm not.

But as I keep pointing out using actual numbers, you're not thinking it through. You're making it up as you go along.

If you were thinking it through, you would have all these calculations and you'd know it's not possible. If you could refute my calculations with anything more than excuses disguised as "perhaps" or "maybe", then perhaps you'd maybe post some actual calculations with some actual numbers so we can quantitatively verify them.

 

[GeeMack]

You're really not thinking this through are you?

Yes I really am thinking it through, and you can park your demeaning innuendo that I'm not.

It wasn't an innuendo. It was a very direct statement, very well evidenced, to the extent that it can reasonably be accepted as a fact. But if you see it otherwise, perhaps there's a greater problem here than the apparent lack of any critical thinking being applied to any of your arguments.

In the name helpful cooperative skepticism, maybe there's simply a barrier in communication. You seem to have entirely different meanings for very many of the terms we're using in this discussion. You've even been quite insistent on using definitions that pretty much no articulate English speaking person would use. Is English not your first language?

 

[lancemoody]

I am new to this long thread, but is the whole thing just about Ufology trolling (or whatever) and everyone else responding over and over? Seems unproductive.

Lance

 

[Puddle Duck]

Unless you can show that the airstrip at Mugu was not capable of facilitating takeoffs and landings or approaches then it's actually 100% possible ( and there are even photos of B-52s taking off from there in later years ). What you really mean is "highly improbable" ... and there is some sense in your reasoning, but not enough to justify "definitely not" as in 100% certain.

It is certainly physically possible for one to approach and/or land, and I'm sure that in later years, USAF B-52s did so. However, these were not operational USAF airframes, these were private experimental craft owned by Boeing, and there was a LEGAL requirement that they stay within a certain airspace for all test flights. That would be the airspace in the vicinity of Edwards. For any flights going out of the area short of an emergency, there is a requirement to get a waiver from the FAA. A waiver would be needed to ferry one from Edwards back to Seattle, or from Seattle to Edwards. Ergo, no flights to Mugu.

Here is an exercise for you. I am sure Calgary has an EAA chapter there. They are the guys who build their own airplanes. The rules for homebuilts are very similar in the US and Canada. Call the club and ask what the rules are for flying the brand new airplane for the first 25 hours, especially for the flight location. Ask the person if you could fly your new plane with say seven hours on it, up to Red Deer for lunch. Report back to me after this is done.

I'll make it little easier for you, the club is EAA Chapter 1410 at High River, phone 403-271-5330 or 720-6554.

PD

 

[I Am He]

Geeze, what can I say. I showed you an example of how a very compact (but real) lenticular cloud might look at distance. It matches EXACTLY what Johnson drew. The edges get very crisp the further you are away from the object. That you apparently ignore this entire line of reasoning and then imply that I said that my suggested solution is the ONLY possible one shows that you are either not paying attention to my posts (which is understandable in such a long complicated thread but hey., stop it) or you are very stupid.

Best,

Lance

How can you say such a thing to a guy who from an early age has a photographic memory which only gets better with time. If you don't believe me, just ask him. He also has never been fooled by facts when he knows things that really are being said by the witnesses and backing them up with his say so. He'd show the math to back it up but he just doesn't want to make fools of everyone. Now if you want to get to the bottom of this just ask him and he'll show you all the evidence you need in his most humble opinion. After all he is known for his impeccable research and honest relies.




I Am He

 

[Krikkiter]

I am new to this long thread, but is the whole thing just about Ufology trolling (or whatever) and everyone else responding over and over? Seems unproductive.

Lance

I don't think ufology is trolling. I think he really, truly believes everything he says - concerning I know, considering some of the things he posts. People have been putting the E in JREFF in pointing out the flaws in his reasoning and research techniques.

Unfortunately, poor old ufology is very set in his ways and doesn't seem to want to learn about anything... at all.

As I and others have pointed out to him, he really needs to address the following:

- Correct use of terminology
- The null hypothesis
- His research skills
- His understanding of what constitutes evidence
- Burden of proof
- Critical thinking

ufology should be thanking everyone for their tireless efforts really.

 

[Stray Cat]

I am new to this long thread, but is the whole thing just about Ufology trolling (or whatever) and everyone else responding over and over? Seems unproductive.

Lance

It can seem unproductive, but really having someone disagree with you and disagreeing with someone else is a really good way of honing your research and debating skills (and we get some lolz along the way).

Because of ufology's input, I've done calculations that I wouldn't have needed to do otherwise. And those calculations have been quite revealing in some cases (not in ufology's favour I may add). So I look on it as I'm learning stuff and even though he may not be, we can hope that other people who dip in and out of this thread will learn things too as well as be entertained by the lolz. Though I fear we will never reach the dizzy heights we rose to when discussing Gay Rodeo Blimps and other UFO matters with Rramjet...

 

[ufology]

I am new to this long thread, but is the whole thing just about Ufology trolling (or whatever) and everyone else responding over and over? Seems unproductive.

Lance

Lance,

I'd be happy to carry on a discussion with you to help you get your posting numbers up. What is your primary reason for coming here to the JREF forum? Maybe we can explore some of those interests in the context of this thread ( UFO research & evidence ).

 

[Tomtomkent]

So why is it Ufology will argue other people can be foolled by what they thought they saw, but remains absolutely of his own light in the sky, given the number of changes to and revisions he has made to his own tale?

 

[23_Tauri]

Here you go:

This video sure doesn't look like it takes 8 miles for a B-52 to make a turn ... even at takeoff.

Dude! It's based on your diagram!!!!

Here, in case you've forgotten that you drew it. Or in case you need to properly look at it again, alongside the on-the-ground graphic composed by GeeMack and Stray Cat, so you can marry to the two together and make sense of your wiggly lines.

But regardless, the answer is that if we suppose it was an aircraft that had made a turn leaving a smoke trail, then the trail would just be hanging there ... not moving. Quote: "I do not know how long it was there before my attention was called to it." So by the time he saw it and went outside with the binoculars and got them focused on the spot, most of the smoke may have been gone, leaving only the magnified aircraft that had already made the turn heading directly away as a distinct and object in the distance that "disappeared, in a long shallow climb".

How many presumptious presumptions do you want to make before breakfast, today, Mr Ufology?

 

[23_Tauri]

Unless you can show that the airstrip at Mugu was not capable of facilitating takeoffs and landings or approaches then it's actually 100% possible ( and there are even photos of B-52s taking off from there in later years ). What you really mean is "highly improbable" ... and there is some sense in your reasoning, but not enough to justify "definitely not" as in 100% certain.

Am I reading this right, Mister Ufology? Are you saying that a highly trained military pilot is wrong about something? If you are, then I think you need to retract an awful lot of the emphatic "he was a pilot so he can't be wrong" statements you've made over the past few months.

I don't understand how you can have so much unwavering deference to long-dead military personnel whom you've never met, and yet in the same breath be so dismissive of an individual (military trained) with whom you are conversing with, on the internet, in real time. And one who is very much alive.

 

[Stray Cat]

Lance,

I'd be happy to carry on a discussion with you to help you get your posting numbers up. What is your primary reason for coming here to the JREF forum? Maybe we can explore some of those interests in the context of this thread ( UFO research & evidence ).

Your powerz of observation are on top form again.

Lance has been a member here for about a year and a half longer than you.
What was it about his post that made you conclude from what he said that he wanted to get his posting numbers up?

And how from what he said do you conclude he'd want to do it with you?

 

[23_Tauri]

I am new to this long thread, but is the whole thing just about Ufology trolling (or whatever) and everyone else responding over and over? Seems unproductive.

Lance

Hello Lance.

On the contrary, I don't believe that ufology, aka Mister J Randall Murphy of the website Ufology Society International, is trolling. Over the past months he has given us all reason to believe that he believes everything he writes.

For me, this has been far from an unproductive thread. Mister Ufology has shown continued inability to grasp concepts such as looking at the evidence, the scientific method, critical thinking, the null hypothesis, how words work, y'know stuff like that. This has initiated many people much brainier than I to explain to him how these processes work. As a result, novices like myself have learnt a great deal and made friends along the way. If Mister Ufology hadn't acted in the way he had, none of this would have happened.

So really, in a strange, twisted way I owe Mister Ufology a thank you.

 

[23_Tauri]

ufology should be thanking everyone for their tireless efforts really.

Yes, shouldn't he just. But seeing as he won't, I'll do it for him.

Thank you everyone for your tireless efforts.

 

[ufology]

The page hasn't even turned yet and you're repeating the same unsupported nonsense.

You don't know if you've ever been fooled by a cloud that looked like a plane or a plane that looked like a cloud. The thing about being fooled is that you don't know. You only know about the times when you weren't fooled.

What happened in the Johnson/Lockheed case, was that they had first impressions and concluded they didn't know what they saw.

Johnson himself moved through cloud to plane to flying saucer.
His conclusion was he saw a flying saucer.

Now obviously he was fooled because even you agree it wasn't a flying saucer don't you?

You aren't making any sense. Here is one way a person can know they were fooled.

• A person can be fooled momentarily or maybe even for a few minutes and then realize what is going on, thereby knowing they were fooled at one point along the way and correcting for their error.

Also, the "but you wouldn't know" argument is only valid when there is sufficient ambiguity that you can't tell the difference. However where there is a wide difference between two objects, the "but you wouldn't know" argument just becomes an insult against someone's intellect. It's the equivalent of saying, "you're so inept or stupid or gullible that you can't tell the difference", and I caution you against going there.

 

[Akhenaten]

Apparently certain words give you trouble, so I've done what I can to help.

[Akhenaten]... You appear to have the same problem ... I'll return the favor.

Edited by kmortis: 

Do not alter other poster's usernames for purposes of insult or ridicule.

• I was looking at the sunset through a large plateglass window, when I noticed above a mountain to the west what I first thought to be a black cloud ...

Did you forget that you were supposed to be posting reasons to suspect something other than a cloud?

An interesting quote though, nonetheless. Especially the part about "looking at the sunset through a large plateglass window" that seems somehow familiar. I vaguely remember this other story . . .

• After watching it for a few minutes we decided that it wasn’t a cloud but some kind of object. It had a definite shape which appeared to me like a crescent. Others on board described it as a huge flying wing.

An eyewitness-report-by-committee, eh? Have you ever heard it said that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, ufology?

And one must wonder, since these are highly trained observers, how discrepancies like this are possible at all.

• Wimmer’s first impression was that it was a small cloud. After studying for several minutes, though, I deduced that it was not a cloud ..."

After several minutes it was still there? But it was "making its getaway" at such high speed that the "lumbering" WV-2 couldn't keep up with it!

• The clouds were coming onshore, in a direction of travel opposite to that of the object.

How much attention have you paid to Astrophotographer's radiosonde 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.

In other words, clouds at different altitudes could quite easly be moving in different directions. The fact is, this is such a common phenomenon that few people would even give it a second thought.

Something else occurred to me in looking at Astrophotographers post as well and I'll address it more fully in a future post.

I did notice that the winds below 13,000 feet were blowing from the WSW . . .

This means that your fantasy scenario has your "mystery aircraft" taking off downwind from Point Mugu.

Is this a common technique for heavy bombers in your version of reality, ufology?