Then do us all a "favor" and stop posting garbage.
There is no "pro" UFO position...only those who delude themselves into thinking aliens are real and here.
Then do us all a "favor" and stop posting garbage.
There is no "pro" UFO position...only those who delude themselves into thinking aliens are real and here.
earlier data said:
I'd like to point out that I'm not married to the idea of a lenticular cloud, but my personal prejudices do lean in that direction, mostly because of my experiences in noticing interesting (to me, anyway) weather, pointing it out to other people and getting a really blank stare, or possibly a pitying shake of the head, if I try to explain why that's unusual.
So then to have an argument from incredulity -- 'Oh, it couldn't be a cloud, clouds can't have property X' presented to me gets right up my nose, because I know darn well most people -- and that's including my fellow hang glider and sailplane pilots -- don't pay all that much attention.
Honestly, I'd have to say it doesn't look to me like the 1953 data points to a Sundowner event.
Based on the forecast guidelines I linked to earlier:
Actually, I think they mean insolation, rather than isolation.forecast guide said:
So it doesn't look northerly enough for an actual Sundowner event, and though lenticulars are often associated with Sundowners, that's not the only time they can happen.
The 1953 Long Beach data is interesting. The 30 knot winds could probably create a wave out over the Santa Barbara channel, but at least at the time the soundings were taken, that layer was much higher than La Cumbre Peak. There are ways that the higher level layer could have interacted with the Santa Ynez Range, even though it was above it. Out in Texas, sailplanes fly wave from high altitude wind bumping up against rows of thermals.
So at my amateur level of interpretation, it's a whole lot of inconclusive. Can't rule a lenticular cloud out or in. Sorry.
Puddle Duck
Scholar
Astro
Aircraft use magnetic headings/courses almost exclusively. There used to be a system used at the poles, that overlaid a rectangular grid for navigation, but I don''t know if it is still being used. His use of true headings is puzzling to me. And true, maps are laid out with true north on the vertical, but every compass rose on the map shows a magnetic rose, every airport is marked in magnetic and every nav system in the airplane is marked in magnetic. I don't know what is going on with the new gps systems, but if you make a landing, you are landing on a mag course and every airway is marked as magnetic. If you can get a look at a Sectional map, you'' see what I mean.
PD
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
On This: "... there is simply no way to triangulate the object from the data provided."
If the above is still on the 1953 Point Mugu incident, we have two different angles of view both indicating the bearing as being toward Point Mugu.
"I estimated the position of the object to be roughly over Point Mugu, which lies on a bearing about 255° from my ranch."
"I saw an object apparently standing still in the air off the coast, in the vicinity of Point Mugu"
So in this case we can establish that the 2D intersection point ( x,y ) for the two lines of sight L1 and L2 must is somewhere near Point Mugu, and since the distance from the ground observer to Point Mugu is known, no triangulation is necessary to be able to establish the approximate distance from the object to the ground observer. Simple linear distance measurement is all that is required. It is probable that it is this logic that is being referenced incorrectly with the word "triangulate", a different process that uses trigonometry.
Last edited:
Puddle Duck
Scholar
Stray
I can't give you the real skinny because I don't know the bird, but for a first cut wag try 2/3 of the cruise speed for a recip. So try 150 indicated and 180 true for a TAS average climb speed. Don't trust that very far. No idea what the rate of climb would be and you would need that for time and distance to climb. You would need an old Connie driver or the flight manual for the real stuff.
That 225mph at cruise is going to be the indicated air speed since no one said anything about true airspeed. The TAS at 17-18k altitude should be just under 300 using the 500mb temp at vandenburg.
PD
Last edited:
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
First, pulling wild guesses out of the air, like you've done above, is the wrong way to go about explaining reality. You seem to be doing it because you've started with a conclusion and you're desperate to try to make the little information we have support that conclusion. Yes, that is how "ufology" works. But it's a stupid argument. And it's not objective, scientific, or a reasonable way to determine the truth.
And second, since Johnson couldn't have actually known how far away the UFO was, and since there were conflicting guesses about the actual location of the observers in the air, there's no possible way for you to rationally come to the conclusion you've made above.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
Um ... no ... I haven't rescinded anything. I've only said that so far as I know, we don't have sufficient verifiable scientific evidence to prove my claims or beliefs. But I still believe I've seen an alien craft and I still believe other people have as well ... regardless.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
Wrong above. No wild guesses. We only need to accept that both sets of observers saw the object in the direction of Point Mugu from wherever they were at the time.
Last edited:
Puddle Duck
Scholar
John Albert
Careful there youngster. I was around the airpatch pushing a jet in '66.
PD
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
You don't have any evidence at all ufology.
You can believe whatever you want but please keep your faith to yourself and stop trying to get others to buy into it - literally.
ufology
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 2,681
I'm just as free to discuss UFOs and whatever I consider to be valid evidence as anyone else here. If you don't like it, you can always ignore it.
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
The problem is, you're not discussing UFO's - you don't even know what they are even though you pretend you do ( hmmmmm... confusing huh? )!
Puddle Duck
Scholar
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
Ahhhh that's right.... anecdotes are evidence in the pseudoscience of UFOlogy. But only if the anecdote is from someone you personally have deemed to be a quality anecdotist. That's right, I can make words up too.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
There's your mistake right there. We only need to accept something that isn't supported by the available information. Constructive contribution: The "ufology" method, making wild guesses to form a conclusion then dishonestly changing what we know or including material from your imagination to fit the conclusion is a lot like lying. Stop it.
Why do we "need" to accept that an actual physical "object" was observed?
Did anyone go up to it and "knock" on it?...it not, how was it determined to be an actual physical "object"?
...and don't be insulting by assuming that it must be a physical object...not unless there is evidence for that.
lancemoody
Student
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2010
- Messages
- 46
Randall/Ufology,
I am going to give you a pass here but please read the whole case file before you try to participate in the conversation about it. You will look smarter that way.
The witnesses on the plane gave different locations for the location of the object (if it was an object):
Thoren: "somewhere between Point Mugu and the Santa Barbara Islands"
Wimmer: roughly "somewhere east of Santa Cruz island at about our altitude"
Colman: "in the vicinity of Point Mugu"
Ware: "It seemed to be somewhat above us and to the West, over the water, possibly in the vicinity of Santa Barbara Islands"
See what I mean?
And even if they all said Point Mugu, you would still be wrong because we don't know where the plane was precisely... Let me demonstrate:
Let's say you were at Johnson's ranch and looking at the same object.
And I am 100 miles west of you looking back at the same object.
We would both say it was towards Point Mugu. Exact where on that 100 mile line cannot be known from the data we have before us. Period.
Make sure your next message acknowledges your mistake if you want to continue any discussions with me (I've seen your work here).
Lance
I am going to give you a pass here but please read the whole case file before you try to participate in the conversation about it. You will look smarter that way.
The witnesses on the plane gave different locations for the location of the object (if it was an object):
Thoren: "somewhere between Point Mugu and the Santa Barbara Islands"
Wimmer: roughly "somewhere east of Santa Cruz island at about our altitude"
Colman: "in the vicinity of Point Mugu"
Ware: "It seemed to be somewhat above us and to the West, over the water, possibly in the vicinity of Santa Barbara Islands"
See what I mean?
And even if they all said Point Mugu, you would still be wrong because we don't know where the plane was precisely... Let me demonstrate:
Let's say you were at Johnson's ranch and looking at the same object.
And I am 100 miles west of you looking back at the same object.
We would both say it was towards Point Mugu. Exact where on that 100 mile line cannot be known from the data we have before us. Period.
Make sure your next message acknowledges your mistake if you want to continue any discussions with me (I've seen your work here).
Lance
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
The trouble for your WAG though is that there are more than two 'angles of view described' and therefore no triangle.
No, we can't. Only someone who carefully picks out the bits of the story that support his own pre-formed conclusion and ignores the bits that don't can do this.
The approximate distance to the object was based on a complete guess as to its size. You cannot use this as a basis for your calculations, should yopu ever decide to do any.
It is probable that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
What you have most definitely rescinded then is that there is any basis in reality for your belief in the Omgaliens and its simply a matter of faith, like any other religion.
Clearly you are posting not only in the wrong thread, but in the wrong sub-forum.
I must admit though, that GeeMack did make one mistake, and that was in thinking that you'd made progress toward taking a skeptical stand. Such a position is obviously as far away from you as ever.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
"Both" is inapplicable. The conflicting reports of the observers on the WV-2 mean that they must be treated as more than just two bearings to the object.
Which neither they or you knew, despite your assertions to the contrary.
You are indeed making wild guesses, and completely ignoring the work of those who have approached this matter as it should have been. Your ridiculous excuse for an argument is totally devoid of integrity, and again contrary to your unshakeable beliefs, everyone can see that this is the case.