Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[R.A.F.]

No, not with all the quality research into UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) sightings provided by some of our forum members. Hats off to you all.

We can do that without [ufology]'s commentary...perhaps he should be moved to the religion forum.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

I hope you choose to examine new cases to see where the evidence goes.

Where has the evidence "led" in the last 60+ years??

 

[Stray Cat]

This is an assumption that we can not conclude as what actually happened.The pilot may have flown on a bearing of 255, and understanding the magnetic deviation, knew he would be flying in a true west direction? Stating he was absolutely flying in a magnetic west direction is making an assumption that may or may not be correct.

Yes I agree, which makes the flight path I'm trying to draw even more futile in that respect.
I may continue though as I still think it's important to get at least a feel of the minimum amount of distance the plane could have flown in that 30 minutes (of course we'll have to assume it didn't make big circles as it climbed to altitude or did zig zags) even if it doesn't move us closer to getting a more exact position for the plane when the crew spotted the object.

Also, related but not directly; One of the crew (sorry I don't remember which one at the moment and haven't got the relevant pages open) mentioned he looked at the object through the "co-pilot's window". I'm presuming that there's nothing about the Lockheed that would mean the pilot didn't sit to the left?
It's just that if after spotting the object and turning toward it, they were heading towards Pt. Mugu and yet the object was heading out West (on a bearing of between 240° and 260° as Johnson states), it would be on the pilot's side not seen through the co-pilot's window.
Now depending on if the Lockheed was closer to the mainland than Santa Catalina or vise versa, makes their direction of travel and required turn to head towards it quite different.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Where has the evidence "led" in the last 60+ years??

To quite a list of mundane phenomena, both man made and natural. Quite a number of unknowns too. "Unknown" of course is not a blank cheque for flying saucers or witches. Sorry, folks.

 

[TjW]

This is an assumption that we can not conclude as what actually happened.The pilot may have flown on a bearing of 255, and understanding the magnetic deviation, knew he would be flying in a true west direction? Stating he was absolutely flying in a magnetic west direction is making an assumption that may or may not be correct.

There's a VOR at Los Alamitos. If they'd flown down V597, then intercepted V8, that would put their turn between SNA and LGB, and take them over Palos Verdes on a heading of 251 degrees. I don't know if having an easily-duplicable flight path would have been useful for the sort of testing they were doing or not.

 

[Puddle Duck]

For Astrophotographer and Stray Cat

A few comments

In a western world fixed wing aircraft, the copilot's window is always on the right.

When he said he was flying west, unless he states a specific heading, he is giving a general heading, something + or - 20 degrees or so. I know that makes your job harder. The error circle just got bigger.

Ground speed is TAS corrected for wind. In this case GS is what you are wanting to use for positions, direction and time across the ground. For distances from aircraft to aircraft at the same altitude and wind, Indicated AS would be satisfactory.

Weather conditions 2 hours away from the incident would be getting iffy for accuracy. Unless there was a front close by, the wind would be fairly accurate. (what accurate means, I don't know; for my purposes, it didn't matter.)

Unless the pilot specifically stated, for some esoteric reason, that he was using true headings, he was using mag, that is just the way a pilot thinks.

I know this makes things more complicated, and it gets complicated pretty fast. You saw on the other site, one of the posters getting totally confused. He was actually making it more complicated than necessary, as well as making the wrong assumptions.

For Stray Cat

Your straight climb would be correct unless there would be some weird airspace restrictions. I also found a rate of climb number for a Super Connie of 1600 fps. Considering the difference in models, using 1400 fps should put you in the ball park and probably with less error than the rest of the story. You should now be able to calculate time and distance to climb.

PD

 

[Correa Neto]

Headings and numbers apart, a quick question.

You are going to fly a prototype, a test aircraft.

Where are you going to test it?

( ) Option a. Over the continent.

( ) Option b. Over the ocean, where if something goes wrong, rescue and recovery of crew and wreckage will be quite harder?

Now, put this on ufology's "theory" context- you are going to test a flying wing in the early 50's.

 

[Astrophotographer]

D: Sparks calculates the object to have been 4 arc minutes wide and Johnson describes the object as being an ellipse with a dimension between 7:1 and 10:1. If the object is simply 4 arc minutes across and 7:1, it is only 0.54 arc minutes in height and therefore can't be seen because it doesn't fit the criteria of being the minimum 1 arc minute that the eye can see.

But Johnson was using binoculars. There is the problem. He could resolve objects below the 1 arc minute level.

 

[Puddle Duck]

For Stray Cat

I also found a rate of climb number for a Super Connie of 1600 fps. Considering the difference in models, using 1400 fps should put you in the ball park and probably with less error than the rest of the story.

Sorry Stray cat
Those climb rates should be FPM-feet per minute, not fps.

PD

 

[TjW]

But Johnson was using binoculars. There is the problem. He could resolve objects below the 1 arc minute level.

Yes, but why did he get the binoculars? He saw something without them. That would seem to me to make the minimum size of the object as 1 x 7 arc minutes.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, but why did he get the binoculars? He saw something without them. That would seem to me to make the minimum size of the object as 1 x 7 arc minutes.

The point being if he was wrong about either the size or distance, we can not trust either. What he describes does not match what estimated, so we have no basis to assume either part of his calculation correct.

 

[Stray Cat]

But Johnson was using binoculars. There is the problem. He could resolve objects below the 1 arc minute level.

Sparks is claiming that the flight crew could have seen it from their position because if it was 200' wide, it would be 4 arc minutes.

Sparks goes onto claim that Johnson had a better view with the binoculars and his view of it would be 8x bigger; 34 arc minutes (he makes some comparison to it being 1/8 the width of the full moon). But if it was only 4arc minutes across from Johnson's position without binoculars, the flight crew of the Lockheed couldn't have seen it at all in the position Sparks has it at. And if it was a 7:1 ellipse like Johnson says, the flight crew couldn't have seen it even it was 4 arc minutes across because it was less than 1 arc minute high.

It seems like circular reasoning to me in that one guess is being used to validate another and that is then being used to validate the first.

That's why I'm trying to get my head around it a bit. It just doesn't seem to add up. I'll have another read through Sparks response later.

 

[lancemoody]

Just a quick reminder that none of the witnesses ventured a guess on size or distance. These were smart men and knew that such estimates would be foolish.

The size and distance figures (presented as fact, of course) came from the dumb asses that peddle saucers.

Lance

 

[23_Tauri]

I've managed to grab the attention of a couple of meterologists / weather buffs over on ukweatherworld.co.uk forum, who are keen to help out:

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/89414-interpretation-of-historic-radiosonde-data-help-wanted/

Makes interesting reading so far, and looking favourable for a lennie.

I'm happy to post any additional information up on behalf of anyone here if they think I am missing anything pertinent. Or you could of course register in your own name and join in.

 

[lancemoody]

Wow...Tauri!

Much respect!

Lance

 

[Krikkiter]

Wow...Tauri!

Much respect!

Lance

Seconded.

 

[23_Tauri]

Thank you. I just had this thought that there's got to be someone out there on the interwebz who is really into clouds, it's only a matter of finding them.

It would add some extra confidence for the lenticular cloud theory if the radiosonde data holds up to scrutiny. Let's see what they come up with!

 

[Garrison]

Seconded.

Thirded. Of course 23_Tauri wouldn't have to do this if any ufologist had gotten off their butt over the years and done some real research but I guess it's easier to just say 'but you must believe the witnesses, they are sooo credible.'

 

[Krikkiter]

Thirded. Of course 23_Tauri wouldn't have to do this if any ufologist had gotten off their butt over the years and done some real research but I guess it's easier to just say 'but you must believe the witnesses, they are sooo credible.'

Absolutely!

I'm still confused as to how ufology measures a witness' credibility. He says it has to do with "quality" and education but these values seem to be wholly reliant on his own judgement so the credibility of the witness seems to be a completely subjective (ufology) value.

Anyhoo, I'm really looking forward to the discussion on ukweather.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Nice 23_Tauri. I just haven't had the time to chase this information, which is why I put it out there. As I said previously, I am not sure if this will help. The event appeared to be localized and the radiosonde values may not reflect this area. At best, it can show that Lenticular clouds might form.

 

[23_Tauri]

Nice 23_Tauri. I just haven't had the time to chase this information, which is why I put it out there. As I said previously, I am not sure if this will help. The event appeared to be localized and the radiosonde values may not reflect this area. At best, it can show that Lenticular clouds might form.

I agree. I think that's the best we can hope for, but it would be good to know that for the purposes of adding robustness to the theory.