Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]



To answer the first part of your question, I'm not aware of any sufficient verifiable material evidence that will scientifically prove the existence of alien craft.

<waffle>

Excellent.

Does this mean we've seen an end to your UFOs ( alien craft ) nonsense?

Speaking of which . . . have you worked out what the correct abbreviation for 'Unidentified Flying Object' is yet?

 

[ufology]

Hmmm... is right. Johnson felt his visibility was great. The airplane crew felt it had good visibility. The fog issue has to be considered as to when that observation was made. I believe there was a statement of clouds coming in from the west after sunset by one of the airplane witnesses.

Um not exactly ... a reminder that Johnson saw the object moving behind "haze".

• "When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving behind the first layer of haze."

Haze is traditionally an atmospheric phenomenon where dust, smoke and other dry particles obscure the clarity of the sky ( Wikipedia ) and Johnson seems pretty certain that the object was moving away behind it, meaning the haze was closer to Johnson than the object. So again, we have a first impression of a "smoke trail" from an airplane followed by the sighting of an object that "disappeared, in a long shallow climb" away from a layer of haze ... that lies in the direction of an airport. The air crew may not have noticed this haze because by the time the air crew saw the object it was out over the water and moving away from the airport ...

 

[Akhenaten]

Um not exactly ... a reminder that Johnson saw the object moving behind "haze".

• "When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving behind the first layer of haze."

Haze is traditionally an atmospheric phenomenon where dust, smoke and other dry particles obscure the clarity of the sky ( Wikipedia ) and Johnson seems pretty certain that the object was moving away behind it, meaning the haze was closer to Johnson than the object. So again, we have a first impression of a "smoke trail" from an airplane followed by the sighting of an object that "disappeared, in a long shallow climb" away from a layer of haze ... that lies in the direction of an airport. The air crew may not have noticed this haze because by the time the air crew saw the object it was out over the water and moving away from the airport ...

You started off reasonably well and then for no good reason inserted the highlighted bit that you just made up out of whole cloth.

Furthermore, why do you repeatedly refer to "the airport"? Do you have any evidence that actually connects this incident to any particular airport?

 

[GeeMack]

Um not exactly ... a reminder that Johnson saw the object moving behind "haze".

• "When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving behind the first layer of haze."

Haze is traditionally an atmospheric phenomenon where dust, smoke and other dry particles obscure the clarity of the sky ( Wikipedia ) and Johnson seems pretty certain that the object was moving away behind it, meaning the haze was closer to Johnson than the object. So again, we have a first impression of a "smoke trail" from an airplane followed by the sighting of an object that "disappeared, in a long shallow climb" away from a layer of haze ... that lies in the direction of an airport. The air crew may not have noticed this haze because by the time the air crew saw the object it was out over the water and moving away from the airport ...

More BS. It is a complete distortion of the meaning of the word "haze" to equate it with a "smoke trail" simply because Wiki uses the word "smoke" within their description of the term. In "ufology" you can just make up any old thing to support your religious belief in aliens. But in reality we apply a quantitative, objective analysis when we want to explain things. In "ufology" you can start with a conclusion and make up any old thing to make the fantasy feel real. But in reality we don't start with a conclusion and insert pieces and parts of made up crap to make it true.

Your method for rationalizing your religious belief in aliens fails to support that conjecture on this side of the reality/fantasy line. You're applying that same failed method to your belief that the UFO of December 16, 1953 was some sort of airplane. And you've managed to fail at that, too. Constructive contribution: Stop making stuff up to support your beliefs. It's dishonest and, if our experience in this thread tells us anything, it is certain to result in failure.

 

[lancemoody]

Just a quick note to say that my source (who is a highly respected TV meteorologist) thinks that he can get data from Point Mugu but needs a few days to plot the info.

I am excited about this since our two sources for data are 79-111 (at least) miles away.

Best,

Lance
Notaghost.com

 

[lancemoody]

Stray Cat,

I absolutely love your maps above (and will undoubtedly beg you to let me steal them for my write up). The one thing I am wondering is why the Johnson pie slice might not also include areas north of point Mugu. Since Johnson himself admitted some room for error, might not he have been looking a few degrees north of Mugu as well?

Best,

Lance
notaghost.com

 

[Garrison]

to answer the first part of your question, i'm not aware of any sufficient verifiable material evidence that will scientifically prove for the existence of alien craft.

ftfy

 

[Tomtomkent]

To answer the first part of your question, I'm not aware of any sufficient verifiable material evidence that will scientifically prove the existence of alien craft. To answer the second part, "forever" is a long time and apparently, statistically speaking, if we use infinity as a factor in calculating probabilities, then anything you can possibly imagine is almost sure to happen, therefore it is very likely that it is just a matter of time before such evidence will be produced, and I would almost surely say it would happen before the monkeys finish typing Shakespeare.

Well your understanding of probability is hindered by the fact that the universe, human civilisation or this thread will last for an infinite time.

So taking "forever" to mean a practical lifetime, or any meaningful timescale, no. You wont produce any evidence, nor will all the atoms of your cup of tea jump six inches to the left of their own accord.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Just a quick note to say that my source (who is a highly respected TV meteorologist) thinks that he can get data from Point Mugu but needs a few days to plot the info.

Great. I could not find any data associated with Pt Mugu on the NOAA CD-ROM. They only had data from the end of the month. I assumed that was because their records were incomplete or not incorporated into the database. I know that some data sets are missing from the CD simply because all the data from NM is not there in June 1947 (which Charles Moore was able to access for his work on the NYU flights).

 

[Astrophotographer]

Um not exactly ... a reminder that Johnson saw the object moving behind "haze".

• "When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving behind the first layer of haze."

Haze is not the same thing as fog, which is what I was referring to.

 

[lancemoody]

@Tim: he had not yet accessed any Point Mugu data when he wrote me so there is the possibility that he will run into the same problem you did.

Lance

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray Cat,

I absolutely love your maps above (and will undoubtedly beg you to let me steal them for my write up). The one thing I am wondering is why the Johnson pie slice might not also include areas north of point Mugu. Since Johnson himself admitted some room for error, might not he have been looking a few degrees north of Mugu as well?

Best,

Lance
notaghost.com

Firstly: Feel free to take and use anytihng I post on the forums. If you need a larger version, I usually save one of those too so let me know.

Secondly: Yes you are correct that the object could have been further North than Pt. Mugu. The map was done presuming all the details given in all the statements were true (which they couldn't have been of course) and as such only reflects the 2 areas (for the object and Lockheed) using information (headings and locations) actually given in the statements.

Having said that, Johnson's description of the object being "roughly over Point Mugu, which lies on a bearing about 255˚ from my ranch." shows that Johnson himself knew he wasn't being accurate and felt a need to give his own margin of error when he stated the between 240° and 260° departure headings.

But yes, you're right, I have not presumed any margin for error by the witnesses on this map and as such, the object could be further north of the indicated lines denoting the boundaries of what Johnson states.

 

[lancemoody]

Stray,

Are you saying that your lines for Johnson are already 240-260? If so, then I am in error. That is exactly what I think they should be.

Best,

Lance

 

[Stray Cat]

Summary of what the witnesses reported about the atmospheric conditions:

Johnson:

"The sun had gone down and the whole western sky was gold and red, with several thin layers of clouds or haze at fairly high altitude"

"When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving behind the first layer of haze"

"The clouds were coming onshore"


Wimmer

"The sun had just set but the air was very clear and the light was real good toward the west. I noticed a cloud layer in the west starting somewhere east of Santa Cruz island at about our altitude. Above this could layer, well out in the clear air, I saw what I thought was a small cloud."


Coleman

"The background was bright due to the fact that the sun was just setting"


Thoren

"I climbed through a very thin, scattered overcast, somewhere around 14,000 feet, avoided a couple of small clouds, and continued to climb towards 20,000 feet."

"At the same time, the sun had gone down below the horizon but the sky was red,"

"The atmosphere was extremely clear"


Ware

"on top of a scattered to broken overcast. The horizon was well defined by the rays of the setting sun and the sky above the overcast was clear."



Note: The more I read Coleman's statement, the more it becomes apparent he has given the least amount of information and the information that he has given differs wildly from that given by the other three crew members. It beggars belief that Sparks would choose Coleman's 10 second departure time and justify it with this paragraph of pure guff:

"It is a classic debunking tactic to deconstruct a UFO case by insisting tacitly, as an unspoken hidden premise, that all witnesses must be identical observing robots who report exactly the same details, and if any of them deviate in any way then the debunker gets to trump the accurate or more certain witnesses, who get dismissed in the process. So, with this tactic, if one witness makes a casual, inexact comment that something happened in "a minute or two," then that vague offhand remark gets to trump and destroy the witness who gives a precise numerical figure of "10 seconds." And if someone who analyzes the data uses the 10-second figure as the authoritative witness number, then the debunker screams "foul" and complains that the exact data is what is wrong and must be rejected or obfuscated with casual non-estimates and offhanded comments. Sorry, but that's not the way science is done. The 10-second figure for object disappearance is the controlling data point in any truly scientific analysis of this case"

Coleman's "in the order of 10 seconds" is no more accurately reported than Johnson's "In 90 seconds from the time it started to move, the object had completely disappeared." In fact even by Sparks' standard as quoted above, Johnson doesn't say "in the order of", and therefore there is no reason why Sparks (using his own faulty premise) shouldn't use Johnson's reported departure time for his dodgy deductions.

 

[Stray Cat]

Stray,

Are you saying that your lines for Johnson are already 240-260? If so, then I am in error. That is exactly what I think they should be.

Best,

Lance

Yes, the upper most line is set at 260° and the lower one at 240° exactly.
But note that Pt. Mugu is not directly between those two lines, it is nearly at the upper limit at 255°. Therefore if you use Pt. Mugu as reference and add +/- 10° margin of error to that, the upper line would be at 265° and not 260°.

 

[ufology]

Haze is not the same thing as fog, which is what I was referring to.

I thought you were reerring to the visibility, to quote you: "Johnson felt his visibility was great." I don't really see anywhere where Johnson actually says he had "great visibility". I do however see, where he says these things:

• I noticed above a mountain to the west what I first thought to be a black cloud.
• the whole western sky was gold and red, with several thin layers of clouds or haze at fairly high altitude.
• I immediately thought that some aircraft had made an intense smoke trail.
  
• Thinking it was a lenticular cloud, I continued to study it.

So I presume that the issue of visibility with respect to the above is not being ignored simply because we don't have data on fog ... which of course is different than haze or clouds or a smoke trail.

I'll also point out that if an aircraft made a 180 degree turn, or perhaps circled a couple of times while leaving a smoke trail, the resulting arc or circle would be somewhat wing or disk like, and from a distance may seem to be more solid and to hover ( from both angles of view ) for some time before dissipating into haze, leaving the aircraft visible as it departed the area.

 

[Stray Cat]

I'll also point out that if an aircraft made a 180 degree turn, or perhaps circled a couple of times while leaving a smoke trail, the resulting arc or circle would be somewhat wing or disk like, and from a distance may seem to be more solid and to hover ( from both angles of view ) for some time before dissipating into haze, leaving the aircraft visible as it departed the area.

And if it had sky written "Aliens Woz Here" in thick black smoke, the story would be a totally different one again.

Sadly neither my absurd nor your equally absurd smoke trail fairy tales have anything to do with the information contained within these statements. So please stop introducing elements which are not supported by the scant information we do have.

 

[ufology]

You started off reasonably well and then for no good reason inserted the highlighted bit that you just made up out of whole cloth.

Furthermore, why do you repeatedly refer to "the airport"? Do you have any evidence that actually connects this incident to any particular airport?

You obviously aren't paying attention to the information. Point Mugu, where Johnson said the object appeared to be over, has an airport, and Johnson also said, "In 90 seconds from the time it started to move, the object had completely disappeared, in a long shallow climb on the heading noted." ( away from Point Mugu ). So in the direction of an airport we have some object climbing away through haze, not fog, but haze. What are the probabilities that some object climbing away from an airport is an aircraft? Did any of the observers at any point think they they were looking at an aircraft ... I wonder? Did any of them think this cloud might have been a smoke trail from an aircraft ... I wonder? Does smoke from aircraft dissipate into haze ... I wonder?

 

[ufology]

More BS. It is a complete distortion of the meaning of the word "haze" to equate it with a "smoke trail" simply because Wiki uses the word "smoke" within their description of the term. In "ufology" you can just make up any old thing to support your religious belief in aliens. But in reality we apply a quantitative, objective analysis when we want to explain things. In "ufology" you can start with a conclusion and make up any old thing to make the fantasy feel real. But in reality we don't start with a conclusion and insert pieces and parts of made up crap to make it true.

Your method for rationalizing your religious belief in aliens fails to support that conjecture on this side of the reality/fantasy line. You're applying that same failed method to your belief that the UFO of December 16, 1953 was some sort of airplane. And you've managed to fail at that, too. Constructive contribution: Stop making stuff up to support your beliefs. It's dishonest and, if our experience in this thread tells us anything, it is certain to result in failure.

Apparently, according to our moderator, until I'm informed otherwise, all members ( that would of course include yourself ), have no right to have their ideas taken seriously.

 

[Stray Cat]

You obviously aren't paying attention to the information. Point Mugu, where Johnson said the object appeared to be over, has an airport,

Either you haven't done any research into Pt. Mugu or you are trying to either redefine 'airport' or simply don't know what constitutes an 'airport'

What are the probabilities that some object climbing away from an airport is an aircraft?

Anywhere from 'zero' to 'definite' depending on if it was an aircraft or not.

In this particular case, the information shows 'zero' to be the best "probability".

Did any of the observers at any point think they they were looking at an aircraft ... I wonder?

Did a pilot flying over the Gulf of Mexico "think" he saw a squadron of flying saucers keeping pace with him and surrounding his jetplane as they dodged amongst the clouds?

Did any of the observers in the Lockheed 1953 case conclude it actually was an airplane?

Did any of them think this cloud might have been a smoke trail from an aircraft ... I wonder?

See above.

Does smoke from aircraft dissipate into haze ... I wonder?

Is that what any of the 5 witnesses say in their statements?
That they saw smoke dissipating into haze?