Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

Good thinking. That is a valid strike against the aircraft theory. It can be countered by a circumstance when the lights were not switched on because it didn't want to be seen.

And it worked very well... it wasn't seen by anyone...







... Except by some people flying just off the coast at least 30 miles away and a bloke with dodgy eyesight who was sat in his house.

 

[Krikkiter]

Good thinking. That is a valid strike against the aircraft theory. It can be countered by a circumstance when the lights were not switched on because it didn't want to be seen. That probability is more remote, but not as remote as multiple experienced airmen studying an object for several minutes and still being fooled by some freaky cloud illusion.

I believe it's considered impolite (rude), to significantly alter a post after someone has already quoted said post. Just sayin'.

I suppose it doesn't really matter though since you've only shown that you still insist on engaging in whimsical speculation.

 

[Puddle Duck]

Not only was the size of the thing previously (or since) unheard of. This is his original post, which he altered after Krikkiter had pointed out how feeble it was:

​

We need to add to the list of this mystery aircraft's characteristics that it was capable of a round trip clean across the Pacific Ocean.

It didn't need any legs. It was carried by the I-400 & I-401s hidden sister boats and assembled behind the island.

PD

 

[lancemoody]

Just a quick suggestion that guesses of size and distance probably should not bear much weight in a discussion of the Lockheed case.

So in my opinion, the known wingspans of contemporaneous craft cannot rule out an aircraft solution. There are other factors that, I think, do tend to contraindicate an aircraft but not that.

Best,

Lance

 

[TjW]

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

To everything turn, turn, turn
There is an area turn, turn, turn
And a place for every action on the airport

A place to run up, a place to wind down
A place to test brakes, measure full-power sound
A place for reversing thrust. A place for clamshells to open -- or bust.

To everything turn, turn, turn
There is an area turn, turn, turn
And a place for every action on the airport





Now you know.

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

Goodness me, you're a hard man to please, Astrophotographer! I guess that's what makes you a good researcher.

Although you're right to point out the weaknesses in the data as it relates to this event, I think the exercise is far from futile. We're never going to have data for the exact location of the object, so the best we can do is with the sonde data we have already and possibly, for Pt Mugu also.

What seems to becoming apparent is that conditions in the area would have been suitable for the formation of a lenticular cloud and - reservations regarding very localised conditions aside - I think this is supportive information for the lenti-cloud theory.

 

[23_Tauri]

As it is, the case has certainly aroused interest from the posters over on ukweatherworld forum. For me, that in itself makes the exercise worthwhile. Paul is back with the following:

I find this fascinating, forensic analysis with limited data ! A couple of points, the chart link provided by Glyn above does show limited visibility, thats not to say there couldn't have been a clearer area in the region but the odds would be against that, so a sighting would likely be closer rather than further away. The possibility of a mirage are still there. There is an inversion ceiling on the Long Beach ascent at between 600m and 1056m which could produce a mirage although I am not ofay with how much difference in density is required for this effect. I must say I am a believer that MOST UFO sitings can be explained by natural phenomona.
As Nigel has indicated the difference between th DP and Temp is quite substantial, in the region of 13 to 20c except at the 650hpa level on the Long Beach ascent where it is only 4.9c, so it wouldn't require a huge drop in temp to produce saturation point.I would guess it would require a vertical displacement of about 600m (should be able to work it out but my brain isn't functioning properly at the moment !). Nigel is far more knowledgable in this area than me, perhaps he could say if my reasoning is reasonable !
Cheers.
Paul D

 

[23_Tauri]

Good thinking. That is a valid strike against the aircraft theory. It can be countered by a circumstance when the lights were not switched on because it didn't want to be seen. That probability is more remote, but not as remote as multiple experienced airmen studying an object for several minutes and still being fooled by some freaky cloud illusion.

For the umpteenth time, ufology, a lenticular cloud is not an illusion, it's a cloud! C-L-O-U-D CLOUD!

Or in your language, not

lenticular cloud ( illusion); but
lenticular cloud ( meterological phenomenon )

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Good thinking. That is a valid strike against the aircraft theory. It can be countered by a circumstance when the lights were not switched on because it didn't want to be seen. That probability is more remote, but not as remote as multiple experienced airmen studying an object for several minutes and still being fooled by some freaky cloud illusion.

Let's not forget that this foreign aircraft would have to be in the shape of a "perfect flying wing".

 

[Sideroxylon]

For the umpteenth time, ufology, a lenticular cloud is not an illusion, it's a cloud! C-L-O-U-D CLOUD!

Or in your language, not

lenticular cloud ( illusion); but
lenticular cloud ( meterological phenomenon )

But anything that could fool those American eagle eyed servicemen with their square jaws and beribboned starched uniforms hiding their firm cut bodies ...

I'll be in my bunk.

 

[ufology]

Let's not forget that this foreign aircraft would have to be in the shape of a "perfect flying wing".

Not necessarily. Other aircraft were mentioned in the report, and at certain angles and distances the fuselage may not have been all that prominent, particularly from directly behind, which was the viewing angle of both sets of observers during most of the observing time ( added up between the two ). So even though flying wings were proven to be within human technological and engineering capability at the time, it didn't have to be one, and an aircraft still makes more sense than an illusion caused by a rare lenticular cloud ( the cloud illusion theory ).

 

[EHocking]

... So even though flying wings were proven to be within human technological and engineering capability at the time, it didn't have to be one, and an aircraft still makes more sense than an illusion caused by a rare lenticular cloud ( the cloud illusion theory ).

As ever you are consistent in your inconsistency.

... I also see a lot of lenticular clouds here ... I've seen dozens and dozens of them, and they are able to hang in there for quite a while sometimes, even with the wind blowing. ...!

So despite you personally seeing "dozens and dozens" of them, you dismiss the possibility of the sighting being a lenticular cloud because you ALSO claim they are rare.

I'm fairly sure that the above confusion is not being caused by my lack of reading comprehension.

So what is the root of this contradiction?

 

[Akhenaten]

Just a quick suggestion that guesses of size and distance probably should not bear much weight in a discussion of the Lockheed case.

So in my opinion, the known wingspans of contemporaneous craft cannot rule out an aircraft solution. There are other factors that, I think, do tend to contraindicate an aircraft but not that.

Best,

Lance

Well, quite, but ufology's WAGs involving aircraft the size of a B-52 or YB-49 overflying/taking off from heavily populated areas in Southern California and only being seen by one witness on the ground and one airborne group are definitely contraindicated.

 

[Akhenaten]

Let's not forget that this foreign aircraft would have to be in the shape of a "perfect flying wing".

Not necessarily. Other aircraft were mentioned in the report, and at certain angles and distances the fuselage may not have been all that prominent . . .

When will be seeing your calculations of these angles and distances?

. . . particularly from directly behind, which was the viewing angle of both sets of observers during most of the observing time ( added up between the two ).

You know this how?

So even though flying wings were proven to be within human technological and engineering capability at the time, it didn't have to be one . . .

You don't say. Where would we be without you?

. . . and an aircraft still makes more sense than an illusion caused by a rare lenticular cloud.

In the face of all the analysis so far carried out by pretty much everyone else but you this baseless assertion serves as little more than a punchline to the long-running joke that forms your 'argument'.

. . . ( the cloud illusion theory ).

Demonstrating that you don't even understand what's being discussed is hardly likely to help you get out of the hole you've dug for yourself.


And one more time for luck . . .

What's the correct abbreviation for 'Unidentified Flying Object'?​

 

[Spektator]

(snip)
Which foreign power at that time had aircraft capable of reaching the East coast of the USA and how did they manage to overfly the U.S. Navy's major missile development and test facility without attracting any attention?

It may be that I haven't had my coffee yet, but wasn't the sighting on the west coast of the USA, not the east?

Not that I believe the sighting was of an aircraft. I don't. Still and all.

 

[Akhenaten]

It may be that I haven't had my coffee yet, but wasn't the sighting on the west coast of the USA, not the east?

Not that I believe the sighting was of an aircraft. I don't. Still and all.

Doh!

I keep forgetting that everything is reversed in the Northern Hemisphere ( lame excuse )


I has teh dumb.

 

[Spektator]

Doh!

I keep forgetting that everything is reversed in the Northern Hemisphere ( lame excuse )


I has teh dumb.

No worries, mate. I know it's different up there on the top of the world.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[EHocking]

Not necessarily. Other aircraft were mentioned in the report, and at certain angles and distances the fuselage may not have been all that prominent, particularly from directly behind, which was the viewing angle of both sets of observers during most of the observing time ( added up between the two ).

So do you have ANY comment on the sillhouettes I posted in Post #1055.
I see that the link has failed, so if you missed it, here are the other aircraft mentioned in the report, with Johnson's described ellipse surrounding them.

So even though flying wings were proven to be within human technological and engineering capability at the time, it didn't have to be one, and an aircraft still makes more sense than an illusion caused by a rare lenticular cloud ( the cloud illusion theory ).

It seems to me that for the aircraft theory to fly, all witnesses must not have been able to discern the tailplanes of the aircraft, in order for the profiles to fit into any of Johnson's ellipse.

Oh, but of course, Johnson declared that, ""At all times the object appeared as an ellipse, with a finese[sic] of the larger axis to the minor one of about 7 or 10 to 1.".

Which aircraft of the time have elliptical head on profiles?

Or is this witness's account in question?

 

[Stray Cat]

It seems to me that for the aircraft theory to fly, all witnesses must not have been able to discern the tailplanes of the aircraft, in order for the profiles to fit into any of Johnson's ellipse.

Another point to wonder at is how with all this flying around in circles and changing direction to keep the following Lockheed directly behind it, whilst keeping it directly in line with Johnson's ranch, there's no mention of this little point, that if they were close enough to see it was an aircraft, would be quite obvious;