• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Akhenaten said:
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?
Click to expand...

Actually, I made an error when I said this. If you look at the data, the winds at ground level up to around 5-7,000 feet were blowing from the E and ESE. Correct me if I am wrong but it was my understanding that planes taking off usually take off in a direction the wind is blowing from to add lift.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
From the USAF definition of UFO:

"Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

From the report in question:

  • "Our attention was drawn to what looked like a large airplane off to our right ( north - west )."
  • "My first thought is that it was a large airplane, possibly a C-124."
  • "It looked to me like I was flying directly towards, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane."
  • It was seen in the vicinity of an airport.
Four major strikes against classifying the object as a UFO according to the USAF definition, a definition by the people who invented the phrase in the first place. And there are plenty more reasons besides that. So let's not get on that merry-go-round again.
Click to expand...

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that things which have been identified as "Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft" shouldn't be included in an UNidentified Flying Object report. But of course, if you don't recognize that it's one of those things, or do recognize it, but allow someone else or your own expectations to talk you out of it, then those items will still show up in the reports.
 
Astrophotographer said:
One case at a time. The "Phoenix lights", which really should be called the Arizona lights/UFOs was discussed in detail in SUNlite 2-3.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_3.pdf
Click to expand...
Sorry Astrophotographer, I was getting a bit over excited there. :)

ETA: but, just to clarify, the point Akhenaten and I were making with our maps is that Mr Ufology's use of an out-dated definition of the term 'UFO' to exclude the possibility of an alien origin for the object in the Lockheed case is misplaced. Rather than looking at the proxmity of nearby airports in order to reach his conclusion, he should be looking at the evidence, but without an a priori conclusion of "secret spy plane".
 
Last edited:
Astrophotographer said:
Actually, I made an error when I said this. If you look at the data, the winds at ground level up to around 5-7,000 feet were blowing from the E and ESE. Correct me if I am wrong but it was my understanding that planes taking off usually take off in a direction the wind is blowing from to add lift.
Click to expand...


Yup, I had a look and east-south-easterly it is. That'll teach me not to do my own number looking-at. Well spotted and thanks for the correction.

You're also quite correct about taking off upwind. Something like a B-52 taking off downwind would have still been on the ground when it got to Kelly Johnson's location.

I withdraw my objection on this count.
 
Last edited:
Hi guys,

I am attempting to write up the compact lenticular idea for my blog.

I used to spend a lot of time at believer sites, arguing (apparently I even had some long exchanges with Ufology, which I did not remember).

At any rate, I first noticed problems with the Kelly Johnson case (as it is related by UFO believers) a few years ago and brought them to the attention of Paul Kimball the director of the Best Evidence video on one of these boards. Kimball didn't even attempt to argue the facts (which I found reprehensible) but he did post a few responses from UFO zealot, Brad Sparks, the man who did all of the "research" for Best Evidence.

I was wondering if any of you stalwart folks might be willing to review that thread to see if I made any errors and also if there is something I missed in Sparks' evasive replies.

I don't think I am allowed to post links but the thread can be found at theparacast dot com>choose the forums>search for "Kelly Johnson" (that is the name of the thread--it will be about the 5th result in the search).

It's a long one and very unrewarding! You guys may love it!

The other part of my musings on this lenticular idea is in reference to the departure event. What i am wondering is, if the apparent departure was actually caused by the cloud dissipating, is our window of time (1-2 minutes) long enough for this to happen?

I have video that demonstrates the evaporation of a lenticular and suggests apparent motion by getting smaller and smaller but it is time-lapsed and I don't know the actual duration.

Many thanks,

Lance
 
Akhenaten said:
Here's the linky, mate.

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/kelly-johnson.6957/
Click to expand...

Thanks, Akhenaten and at first glance nice work, Lance.


I am struck by the very odd definition of "UFO" being touted over there:
For me the very fact that the "sighting" was taken seriously at the time, and "official testimony" does exist from "credible" sources, I can only draw the conclusion that they definatley did see something, that they could not explain in the sky or in other words a "UFO".
Click to expand...

What is that all about?
 
ufology said:
I'm not that invested in this incident.
Click to expand...

That's certainly not how you're coming across in this thread. And you've asserted that you've already done the maths. It would take less effort to simply post the calculations you claim you've already done in this thread that it would to keep explaining how you're not going to.

So whether or not we can positively identify the exact make and model of aircraft, or whether or not it was just an illusion caused by a cloud, it's nothing so far out of the ordinary, or unexplainable that I can personally justify calling it a UFO ( alien craft ) ... and those are what I'm interested in.
Click to expand...

It is a UFO. It's an object that was flying which hasn't been identified. That's what the term means.
 
ufology said:
From the USAF definition of UFO:

"Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."
Click to expand...

All of those things have been identified. That's why they don't fall within the definition of "unidentified flying object".

http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070703-004.pdf

From the very next paragraph to the one you quoted:

Unidentified Flying Objects. Any areal phenomena, airborne object or objects which are unknown or appear out of the ordinary to the observer because of performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features.
Click to expand...

Why you cited that document as if it upheld your claim that UFO is synonymous with "alien craft" I do not know. You will note, however, that the case under discussion concerns an "areal phenomen[on], airborne object [...] which [is] unknown". Hence a UFO, by definition, according to the source that you provided.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It is a UFO. It's an object that was flying which hasn't been identified. That's what the term means.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. ;)

I understand that as a newcomer to this thread you won't have seen all the history. But let's just say that in ufologese, 'UFO' means 'Alien Space Ship', as does 'unknown' as it happens. No amount of logic or reasoning on your part is going to make Mister Ufology change his mind on this. But please don't let that stop you from trying.
 
lancemoody said:
It's a long one and very unrewarding! You guys may love it!
Click to expand...
What ever are you trying to say? :mad:

:D

lancemoody said:
The other part of my musings on this lenticular idea is in reference to the departure event. What i am wondering is, if the apparent departure was actually caused by the cloud dissipating, is our window of time (1-2 minutes) long enough for this to happen?
Click to expand...
IICR, earlier in the thread TjW (? I think) talked in detail about lenticular clouds mentioning that they can appear to be motionless even in winds because the area that has the correct dew point area remains motionless. I guess if the cloud can form and dissipate at those speeds, the whole thing cloud* collapse in a short amount of time too. But I'm only guessing so my calculations could have a margin of error of 100% :D

Right, I'm off to read another thread on another forum... another rewarding Saturday night then.



* this word is a genuine typo and should of course have said 'could' but I decided to leave it because it amused me.
 
lancemoody said:
Hi guys,

I am attempting to write up the compact lenticular idea for my blog.


The other part of my musings on this lenticular idea is in reference to the departure event. What i am wondering is, if the apparent departure was actually caused by the cloud dissipating, is our window of time (1-2 minutes) long enough for this to happen?

I have video that demonstrates the evaporation of a lenticular and suggests apparent motion by getting smaller and smaller but it is time-lapsed and I don't know the actual duration.

Many thanks,

Lance
Click to expand...

Consider this: in a very consistent, stable mountain wave system, the wind may be blowing at 60 knots, and yet the edge of the cloud is stationary.
Even if we take stationary to mean "not moving by more than twenty feet or so", that implies that the water vapor is evaporating within about a quarter of a second.

Really, it's all a function of the temperature and the humidity. If the thermocline lifts, the bottom of the cloud will vanish. If a parcel of air with lower humidity comes along, the cloud will go away.

In this Youtube of an altitude pressure chamber rapid decompression, you can see how the room fills with condensation in just seconds. It goes away pretty rapidly, as well, because the room of course has a significant thermal mass, and rewarms the air.

On a slightly different subject, I hadn't noticed the low-level winds were ESE at Point Mugu. Considering the fairly high winds at the upper altitudes, it might be worthwhile comparing the atmospheric soundings to the conditions associated with one of Santa Barbara's "Sundowner" wind events. They're a mountain wave phenomena of the Santa Ynez Mountains. Take a look at this, for those conditions. Take a look at this for a pretty picture of a Santa Barbara lennie.
 
Wow, many thanks for the comments and links Tjw!

I am also suggesting that the Sunset conditions played a role, that the cloud was silhouetted against the sky, making its appearance more striking very much like the nice photo I used for my demonstration.

Lance
 
Akhenaten said:
Cool! Bonus question.


What does the 'U' in 'UFO' stand for, ufology?
Click to expand...


The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage? Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly. An unrelated example is BDD ( Business Desktop Deployment ). Without the context that it is used by Microsoft, we could just as easily think we are talking about office furniture.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Akhenaten said:
Cool! Bonus question.


What does the 'U' in 'UFO' stand for, ufology?
Click to expand...


The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage? Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly.
Click to expand...


There's no need for all that waffle. All you had to say was "I don't know" and I would have helped you out.

It stands for "Unidentified".

Do you require an explanation of the meaning of 'unidentified'?
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage? Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly. An unrelated example is BDD ( Business Desktop Deployment ). Without the context that it is used by Microsoft, we could just as easily think we are talking about office furniture.
Click to expand...
Note to Squeegee Beckenheim:






I did warn you. :boggled:
 
ufology said:
The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage? Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly. An unrelated example is BDD ( Business Desktop Deployment ). Without the context that it is used by Microsoft, we could just as easily think we are talking about office furniture.
Click to expand...

That waffle ignores the epistemelogical problem that there is no justification for the leap from "I don't know what I saw" to "OMG... Aliens!1!!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom