• 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:
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?
Click to expand...
At the moment, the sums make ufology's aircraft theory impossible.

Of course the sums can change if other information is found, so it's not ruled out forever, just at the moment the "probability" is zero. :)
 
ufology said:
So in this case you feel there is a zero probability that the object was an aircraft because ( pick one or more ):

  • [...] thought at one point to be [...]
  • [...] at one point thought to be [...]
  • [...] seen in the direction of [...]
  • [...] seemed to be [..]
  • [...] none believed [...]
Click to expand...


None of that nonsense really has anything to do with it. The reason your conclusion has been rejected is because there is no quantitative objective support for it, and because after applying a quantitative objective analysis, there is/was no aircraft which could account for the witnesses' descriptions. Again, this is real life, not the "ufology" religion.

[* Rationalizations to dishonestly force a conclusion snipped. *][...] 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.
Click to expand...


You don't get to make up stuff to fill in missing spaces to fit your belief. If it wasn't in the report, you do not get to guess. You've drawn a conclusion you can't support without making something up. And what you're trying to make up is very much like lying. Constructive contribution: If you don't want to be accused of dishonesty, stop offering arguments based on dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
ETA: By the way, have you had a chance to look at the Weather Witch's Post #1015 yet?
Click to expand...

Yes, I was wrestling with the data shared by the WWF (Weather Watching Female).
We've had one post saying 'yay' and one saying 'nay', which if nothing else, proves Newton's first law of experts (for every expert, you'll find an equal and opposite expert). :)

The good news is that we haven't had anyone saying the data definitely rules it out and we may have more, even more relevant data coming from Mugu.
 
Akhenaten said:
Point taken.

I'll amend my analysis of ufology's post from 'strawman' to 'meaningless blather'.


ETA: By the way, have you had a chance to look at the Weather Witch's Post #1015 yet?
Click to expand...
What I find particularly interesting about Mr Bolton's analysis is that even though I gave only the data, with very little other information for context, he concluded that:

"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."

Unless he followed the link that the poster Stephen had provided for the nicap website and reports, Nigel would not have known that the visual sighting for both Johnson and the air crew was relatively short. It would appear that he's come to this conclusion independently, purely on the basis of the sonde data alone, without the bias that would come from having read the witness statements.

None of this is conclusive. Please note, Mr Ufology, how none of us have made up our minds about what the object was. However, for me it is noteworthy to have someone who is obviously learned in the ways of atmospheric phenomena to come to the conclusion that the data, not the witness statements, suggests a short-lived lentic cloud.
 
Stray Cat said:
Yes, I was wrestling with the data shared by the WWF (Weather Watching Female).
We've had one post saying 'yay' and one saying 'nay', which if nothing else, proves Newton's first law of experts (for every expert, you'll find an equal and opposite expert). :)
Click to expand...
I think we've got two yays (Dave W and Nigel Bolton) and one nay (Paul Domaille) actually. :p
 
Stray Cat said:
Even back in the day those Californians had smoking laws.

Smokin.jpg
Click to expand...


Good one! :D
 
Akhenaten said:
About the same time as it takes an anti-colllision beacon to flash twice, I'd say.
Click to expand...

Speaking of, if the UFO seen in the Pt. Mugu vicinity were indeed an aircraft, wouldn't the aircrew have seen the plane's lights? After all, the sun had already set.

:cool:
 
GregInAustin said:
Speaking of, if the UFO seen in the Pt. Mugu vicinity were indeed an aircraft, wouldn't the aircrew have seen the plane's lights? After all, the sun had already set.

:cool:
Click to expand...
No, they wouldn't have seen the lights for all the smoke the secret plane was spewing out. :D
 
GregInAustin said:
Speaking of, if the UFO seen in the Pt. Mugu vicinity were indeed an aircraft, wouldn't the aircrew have seen the plane's lights? After all, the sun had already set.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Stray Cat said:
No, they wouldn't have seen the lights for all the smoke the secret plane was spewing out. :D
Click to expand...


If something the size of a B-52 had tried to take off from Runway 9 as ufology is trying to suggest then just about everyone in Southern California would have seen the fireball as it speared off the end of the runway and crashed into the base of La Jolla Peak.
 
Astrophotographer said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's for going out to the back forty to make noise without bothering the neighbors.

Actually, it gets used to do things to the engines, trim runs & such, when they have to be run at high power settings whilst still in the airplane. They get put out there away from everyone, to keep the noise down in the normally trafficked area and to prevent the blast from knocking over people, vehicles, equipment, etc.

Never understood why they called it a "turn" area.

PD
 
23_Tauri said:
And now the latest on the weather, brought to you by the thread's Chief Meterological Liasion Officer, 23_Tauri:
Wahey! :)
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....I guess what I noted before about the 90 degree shift in winds as the altitude increased might have been correct.

I also feel that it is hard to make any assessment of local conditions based on these samples. They are two hours after the event and not from the area where the cloud was observed.
 
ufology said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're an inspiration to us all.

Squid-Mag6c.jpg


Just not in the way you'd want to be.

Now let's work it.
007.gif
 
Last edited:
Puddle Duck said:
It's for going out to the back forty to make noise without bothering the neighbors.

Actually, it gets used to do things to the engines, trim runs & such, when they have to be run at high power settings whilst still in the airplane. They get put out there away from everyone, to keep the noise down in the normally trafficked area and to prevent the blast from knocking over people, vehicles, equipment, etc.

Never understood why they called it a "turn" area.

PD
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
GregInAustin said:
Speaking of, if the UFO seen in the Pt. Mugu vicinity were indeed an aircraft, wouldn't the aircrew have seen the plane's lights? After all, the sun had already set.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Hmmm....what were the lighting rules in 1953? Certainly, one should see the nav lights. However, at a great distance, the nav lights may be invisible against the bright sky. Anti-Collision beacons were not mandatory then if I recall correctly and landing lights are only on when approaching and taking off. Considering the distances involved, it is possible the plane's lighting may not have been visible against a bright red sky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom