Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

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?

Point Mugu has three airports.

1. Point Mugu NAS (KNTD),
   
   
2. Camarillo (KCMA), and
   
   
3. Oxnard (KOXR).

Also in in the direction indicated by Kelly Johnson are:

1. Christy Airstrip (CA97), and
   
   
2. Santa Cruz Island Airstrip (SZN).

In the USA, particularly in a place like Southern California, it's impossible to not be looking in the direction of a nearby airport.

So I'll ask you again . . .

Do you have any evidence that actually connects this incident to any particular airport?

 

[ufology]

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.

I've not introduced elements which are not supported by the information. The elements I've introduced are based on direct quotes from the witnesses, including a belief that at one point during the observation a smoke trail was believed to be what the object was. All I've done is pointed out how such a smoke trail could appear as a wing or disk that dissipated into haze leaving a departing aircraft visible through some binoculars. It's just as valid as pointing out how a lenticular cloud might dissipate giving the illusion of moving off into the distance. And it explains how by the end of the incident every witness was sure they were watching a solid object and not a cloud.

 

[ufology]

Point Mugu has three airports.

1. Point Mugu NAS (KNTD),
   
   
2. Camarillo (KCMA), and
   
   
3. Oxnard (KOXR)

Also in in the direction indicated by Kelly Johnson are:

1. Christy Airstrip (CA97), and
   
   
2. Santa Cruz Island Airstrip (SZN)

In the USA, particularly in a place like Southern California, it's impossible to not be looking in the direction of a nearby airport.

So I'll ask you again . . .

Do you have any evidence that actually connects this incident to any particular airport?

How about this Airport Diagram from Point Mugu:

NOTE: See the little square that says "Jet High Power Turn Area".

 

[Akhenaten]

How about this Airport Diagram from Point Mugu:

It's very pretty.

NOTE: See the little square that says "Jet High Power Turn Area".

No.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry, I missed your comment on the map of the airport I posted as the evidence you wanted to see. Would you also like a few links to aircraft taking off from there? I found one of a B-52 in case you might be interested?

Only if it was it in 1953.

 

[Astrophotographer]

How about this Airport Diagram from Point Mugu:


[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/NTD_-_FAA_airport_diagram.gif/390px-NTD_-_FAA_airport_diagram.gif[/qimg]

NOTE: See the little square that says "Jet High Power Turn Area".

First of all, is this the strip as it appeared in 1953?

Second of all, I believe that has to do with where the jet turns to line up for take off. Perhaps Puddle Duck can elaborate on what it means.

 

[Stray Cat]

I've not introduced elements which are not supported by the information.

Yes you have. Mystery jet planes spewing thick black smoke, now apparently flying in circles.

The elements I've introduced are based on direct quotes from the witnesses, including a belief that at one point during the observation a smoke trail was believed to be what the object was.

And once again apart from cherry picking, you are taking the witness statements as your only source of information. They are not, we can do calculations based upon their statements to verify if the information they gave was accurate and see what it supports. None of the calculations support the object being any sort of plane, let alone a jet spewing thick black smoke whilst it circled above Pt. Mugu.

All I've done is pointed out how such a smoke trail could appear as a wing or disk that dissipated into haze leaving a departing aircraft visible through some binoculars.

I'm sure it could, but because of the information we do have in this case, it didn't. And the only reason you can keep claiming "it could" is because you haven't done any calculations so see how the two different groups of observers would see the object.

It's just as valid as pointing out how a lenticular cloud might dissipate giving the illusion of moving off into the distance.

No, the calculations have ruled out it being a plane of any kind. So far the calculations haven't been able to rule out a lenticular cloud. That will be down to the weather data to determine (if we can get the actually data from Pt. Mugu as Lance has said he'd try)

And it explains how by the end of the incident every witness was sure they were watching a solid object and not a cloud.

You're the only one trying to "explain" your conclusion, from what I see everyone else in this thread is still analysing the information. Due to our thoroughness, we can confidently say that your 'mystery plane spewing out thick black smoke flying in circles above Pt. Mugu' theory is nonsensical. It not supported by the majority of the information within the statements, it contradicts the majority of the information that the witnesses even agree on and is not borne out by the sums.

 

[Akhenaten]

First of all, is this the strip as it appeared in 1953?

It most certainly is not. That was the map in use in October/November 2006.

Second of all, I believe that has to do with where the jet turns to line up for take off. Perhaps Puddle Duck can elaborate on what it means.

You are correct. The area marked is part of the apron and has nothing to do with airborne aircraft.

 

[23_Tauri]

And now the latest on the weather, brought to you by the thread's Chief Meterological Liasion Officer, 23_Tauri:

Hi Tauri,

Have just looked at the sonde data and one thing does stand out.

There appears to be a significant wind veer and increase in the wind speed near 600hPa on both ascents. Winds veer roughly from south-southwest round to west-northwest in fairly narrow depth, with uni-directional flow both above and below.

The ascents are also rather dry, precluding the development of much cloud; differences between temperature and dew point is generally in excess of 10 degrees.

However, the veer and increase in wind with height suggests there is a layer of warm advection going on near 600hPa, suggesting a weak elevated warm front. Although I cannot calculate theta w's off that list, there is an indication of a slight rise in theta w near height 600hPa.

Warm advection causes lifting, cooling and moistening of a slab of air, and the change in wind speed and direction with height through a relative shallow layer would make the flow somewhat non-laminar through this layer, and therefore would have the ability to bounce, or at least cause some wave phenomena.

This bounce or non laminar flow, coupled with warm advection may have lifted air within a wave within this layer just sufficiently to cause condensation of water vapour into a wave cloud. The driness of the atmosphere would have limited the time that the wave would have formed, so that soon after the cloud formed, it dissipated.

Sounds like a short-lived lentic to me.

N.

Wahey!

 

[Akhenaten]

I've not introduced elements which are not supported by the information.

<snip>

Where's all this smoke coming from then?

 

[Akhenaten]

Thank you for the comment on the map I posted. The Jet High Power Turn Area is the center-left square. It's marked inside.

Let's hear your description of what the Jet High Power Turn Area is used for, ufology.

I'm sure it will be entertaining.

 

[Akhenaten]

And now the latest on the weather, brought to you by the thread's Chief Meterological Liasion Officer, 23_Tauri:


Wahey!

More actual research!

Looks like the forecast is another bad day for UFOlogy.

 

[ufology]

From the Base history page: "The Naval Air Station was established on Aug. 1, 1949, to support the U.S. Naval Air Missile Test Center by providing material and service support, including military personnel administration, air traffic control and flight line functions." So there is no doubt that there was airport there in 1953, whether the map I posted reflects that date or not isn't relevant. But you're probably right that the High Power Turn Area is a ground location only. Odd that GeeMack still can't see it.

 

[Akhenaten]

From the Base history page: "The Naval Air Station was established on Aug. 1, 1949, to support the U.S. Naval Air Missile Test Center by providing material and service support, including military personnel administration, air traffic control and flight line functions." So there is no doubt that there was airport there in 1953, whether the map I posted reflects that date or not isn't relevant.

It's at least as relevant as your alluded-to-but-not-yet-seen photos of B-52 ops out of Point Mugu.

By the way, will your photo be showing B-52s taking off from (or rather, crashing off the end of) the 5,498-foot Runway 9 or the more accomodating 11,106-foot Runway 21?

As far as I know, a B-52 needs at least 11,000 feet. (They can get off in 8,200 feet but the extra is needed in case they don't make it to S1 speed and need to abort.)

What do you know about this?

But you're probably right that the High Power Turn Area is a ground location only.

There's no probably about it, ufology. You are out of your depth.

Odd that GeeMack still can't see it.

Nobody can see anything in that stupid little picture you posted.

 

[GeeMack]

From the Base history page: "The Naval Air Station was established on Aug. 1, 1949, to support the U.S. Naval Air Missile Test Center by providing material and service support, including military personnel administration, air traffic control and flight line functions." So there is no doubt that there was airport there in 1953, whether the map I posted reflects that date or not isn't relevant. But you're probably right that the High Power Turn Area is a ground location only. Odd that GeeMack still can't see it.

The question was (and pay close attention because this is in English, not "ufologese"): "Do you have any evidence that actually connects this incident to any particular airport?"

The answer, in English, is no, you do not. Showing that an airport is or was in the vicinity may be evidence according to the pseudoscience of "ufology" where any made up nonsense is acceptable. This conversation is being held in English and at a skeptics' forum, where making stuff up absolutely does not constitute evidence.

Constructive contribution: The discussion will be far more productive if you communicate using common English meanings, not some esoteric made up or cherry picked definitions designed to support a religious belief in aliens.

 

[Stray Cat]

So how far away could Johnson have seen your alleged airplane without the binoculars? Oh that's right, the quantitative analysis done by the skeptics here shows that he couldn't have seen an airplane at all.

In all fairness, if the plane was directly over Pt. Mugu base, it would have been only 19 miles from Johnson's ranch.

So we can take the example of the B-52 (wingspan 185') and calculate that at 19 miles, the B-52's major axis would have an angular size of 6.3 arcminutes.

But it's height is only 40' and that's including the tail fin (which wouldn't really be seen from directly behind) so we're only talking about the fuselage which is about 15', so we can calculate that at 19 miles, it's minor axis would have an angular size of only 0.5 arcminute (half of that which the human eye can resolve. Now add to that the problem that the wings of the B-52 (or any plane for that matter) are by their very nature, thin in comparison to the fuselage, they are too small to actually be resolved from directly behind, so the only part which has a major and minor axis roughly equal is the fuselage (which is about as wide as it is high)... So that can't be seen either as it's only 0.5 arcminutes square.

However, all this doesn't mean that no plane could be seen from Pt. Mugu.
There is one plane that could. The Spruce Goose had a wingspan of 318' (11 arcminutes at 19 miles) and the fuselage was approx 30' wide (1 arcminute). So if the Huges H-4 Hercules was flying in and around Pt. Mugu and it was on it's side presenting it's largest surface area to Johnson, he could have seen it at the very limit of someone who has 20/20 vision (which we know Johnson didn't have because he was rejected for entry into the Air Training Corp when he failed the eye test.) at an angular size of 11 arcminutes for it's major axis and 1 arcminute for it's minor axis.

 

[GeeMack]

In all fairness, if the plane was directly over Pt. Mugu base, it would have been only 19 miles from Johnson's ranch.

So we can take the example of the B-52 (wingspan 185') and calculate that at 19 miles, the B-52's major axis would have an angular size of 6.3 arcminutes.

But it's height is only 40' and that's including the tail fin (which wouldn't really be seen from directly behind) so we're only talking about the fuselage which is about 15', so we can calculate that at 19 miles, it's minor axis would have an angular size of only 0.5 arcminute (half of that which the human eye can resolve. Now add to that the problem that the wings of the B-52 (or any plane for that matter) are by their very nature, thin in comparison to the fuselage, they are too small to actually be resolved from directly behind, so the only part which has a major and minor axis roughly equal is the fuselage (which is about as wide as it is high)... So that can't be seen either as it's only 0.5 arcminutes square.

However, all this doesn't mean that no plane could be seen from Pt. Mugu.
There is one plane that could. The Spruce Goose had a wingspan of 318' (11 arcminutes at 19 miles) and the fuselage was approx 30' wide (1 arcminute). So if the Huges H-4 Hercules was flying in and around Pt. Mugu and it was on it's side presenting it's largest surface area to Johnson, he could have seen it at the very limit of someone who has 20/20 vision (which we know Johnson didn't have because he was rejected for entry into the Air Training Corp when he failed the eye test.) at an angular size of 11 arcminutes for it's major axis and 1 arcminute for it's minor axis.

The Spruce Goose is currently on display at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, Oregon. Hey, wait, isn't McMinnville where the fraudulent Trent UFO photos were taken in 1950? Aha! I think we're beginning to make a connection!

 

[ufology]

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'


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 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?


See above.



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

So in this case you feel there is a zero probability that the object was an aircraft because ( pick one or more ):

• The object was thought at one point to be a smoke trail from an aircraft.
• The object was at one point thought to be an aircraft by more than one observer.
• The object was seen in the direction of an airport by more than one observer ... the Point Point Mugu Naval Air Base.
• The object seemed to be moving away in a long shallow climb.
• All observers studied the object for several minutes after which time none believed it was a cloud.

As for the issue of watching the smoke trail dissipate into haze, this could be explained by the positioning and the timing of the observations. Johnson didn't know how long the object he had first thought to be a smoke trail had been there, indicating it was already there when he first noticed it. Then he went inside, had a look, got some binoculars and went outside to have another look, and then by the time he got his binoculars focused on the object, a layer of haze could be seen behind it as it moved off into the distance.

From the airborne observers position, after they started heading toward the object, because it appeared to be heading west, in order to keep it ahead of them, they would have to slowly change course away from where the smoke trail was, while at the same time getting closer to the object itself leaving only the object ( which did not dissipate because it actually was solid ) in view. At first there was an airborne observer who thought the object was a small cloud, and if they had simply turned away from it to follow the object, it's significance would have become trivial to the issue of the object they were pursuing and simply not been noticed or mentioned as a factor in the report.

 

[Stray Cat]

Even back in the day those Californians had smoking laws.

 

[Akhenaten]

So in this case you feel there is a zero probability that the object was an aircraft because ( pick one or more ):

<snip>

Since nobody has said there is zero probability that the object was an aircraft then the rest of your post is a bit of a strawman, isn't it?


Any response to this yet?

It's at least as relevant as your alluded-to-but-not-yet-seen photos of B-52 ops out of Point Mugu.

By the way, will your photo be showing B-52s taking off from (or rather, crashing off the end of) the 5,498-foot Runway 9 or the more accomodating 11,106-foot Runway 21?

As far as I know, a B-52 needs at least 11,000 feet. (They can get off in 8,200 feet but the extra is needed in case they don't make it to S1 speed and need to abort.)

What do you know about this?

Also, what is the correct abbreviation for 'Unidentified Flying Object'?