Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

You're an inspiration to us all.

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

<SFM>

Now let's work it.

Brillo, as always.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Maybe one of our pilots can fill us in on what sort of regulations applied in 1953, but today planes equipped with anti-collision lights are required to use them anytime they're flying. And the red, green, and white position indicator lights must be in operation between sunset and sunrise. The 1953 UFO under discussion was observed at approximately 17:00PST. The sun set at the location of the incident at 16:44PST on that day.

 

[ufology]

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.

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.

 

[Krikkiter]

Show of hands... who predicted the following...

That's one of the first really goods points I've seen made so far. Good thinking. One answer could be that the lights may not have been switched on because it wasn't something that had taken off from the Point Mugu airstrip, but something else ... perhaps a foreign spy plane that simply made a turn over the base and headed back out to sea.

Well I guess it's up to you but ... evidence rather than speculation please ufology.

 

[EHocking]

...And if it was a 7:1 ellipse like Johnson says...

... our options of aircraft would look like this.

On the left, I've fitted the aircraft's wingspan and on the right their total sillhouette.

For context, this is Johnson's quote, direct from the report.

"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."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=25225

Frankly, for a designer, his draft skills are pretty poor IMO.
Here are the same ellipses, 10:1 (red) and 7:1 (blue) overlaid on his sketch of the "flying saucer".




And yes, before anyone asks, I believe I am qualified to criticise as I started my professional career as an engineering draftsman.

The answer to the unasked question is that ratio of the ellipse as he drew it is 4.8 to 1.

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

That's one of the first really goods points I've seen made so far.

I'd suggest you go back to the beginning of Part 1 of this thread and start again.

You seem to have missed 174,368 things.

Good thinking. One answer could be that the lights may not have been switched on because it wasn't something that had taken off from the Point Mugu airstrip, but something else ... perhaps a foreign spy plane that simply made a turn over the base and headed back out to sea.

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?

 

[Akhenaten]

The answer to the unasked question is that ratio of the ellipse as he drew it is 4.8 to 1.

A blimp!!!eleventy!!??

 

[ufology]

Show of hands... who predicted the following... Well I guess it's up to you but ... evidence rather than speculation please ufology.

And I suppose that should go for the amazing lenticular cloud illusion too, something that at least one witness says was not the case even though it had been considered.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Something about the maps I noticed was that the reference to the Santa Barbara islands may be in reference to Santa Cruz and not Santa Barbara Island. The area of Santa Barbara is west of Ventura and the channel between Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz is called the Santa Barbara channel. Just some information that needs to be considered.
I have been trying to find topo maps from the time period. So far, this is the best I can do:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/250k/txu-pclmaps-topo-us-los_angeles-1947.jpg

 

[Akhenaten]

Show of hands... who predicted the following...

That's one of the first really goods points I've seen made so far. Good thinking. One answer could be that the lights may not have been switched on because it wasn't something that had taken off from the Point Mugu airstrip, but something else ... perhaps a foreign spy plane that simply made a turn over the base and headed back out to sea.

Are there bonus points for also predicting that he'd go back and edit his post after you'd pointed out the obvious problems with it?

 

[jond]

You're an inspiration to us all.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Squid-Mag6c.jpg[/qimg]

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

Now let's work it.
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/007.gif[/qimg]

Thank you!

 

[EHocking]

And I suppose that should go for the amazing lenticular cloud illusion too, something that at least one witness says was not the case even though it had been considered.

This would be the witness that was rejected for entry into the Air Training Corp when he failed the eye test...

 

[Akhenaten]

And I suppose that should go for the amazing lenticular cloud illusion too, something that at least one witness says was not the case even though it had been considered.

Apart from your melodramatic language, yes. None of the witnesses knew what they saw, so all must be regarded as speculative.

Although not to anywhere near the same extent as your WAGs.

 

[Stray Cat]

... our options of aircraft would look like this.

On the left, I've fitted the aircraft's wingspan and on the right their total sillhouette.

For context, this is Johnson's quote, direct from the report.

"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."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26614f3068bfb7d69.jpg

Frankly, for a designer, his draft skills are pretty poor IMO.
Here are the same ellipses, 10:1 (red) and 7:1 (blue) overlaid on his sketch of the "flying saucer".


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_26614f306c4d4539d.jpg

And yes, before anyone asks, I believe I am qualified to criticise as I started my professional career as an engineering draftsman.

The answer to the unasked question is that ratio of the ellipse as he drew it is 4.8 to 1.

This is all starting to sound a bit like another "expert draftsman" who drew a shoddy picture of a flying saucer and started a right old rant from Rramjet.

When I pointed out to him that a draftsman would likely draw a picture that looked like it was drawn by a draftsman if it was indeed the shape Rramjet was claiming.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

There is no aircraft theory unless you can find some sort of aircraft that was flying in 1953 that had a wingspan greater than about 300 feet with wings thicker than about 30 feet. Constructive contribution: Pay attention so you'll know when you've already failed. It'll help you avoid making really stupid obsolete arguments and possibly save you much embarrassment.

 

[GeeMack]

And I suppose that should go for the amazing lenticular cloud illusion too, something that at least one witness says was not the case even though it had been considered.

That argument is, of course, another work of fiction, unless you can show where any witness mentioned a lenticular cloud illusion. Constructive contribution: This discussion is being held in reality, not in a "ufology" fantasy. As much as you keep trying to make it about your made up nonsense, dishonesty is not allowed. Leave that stuff on your own alien believers club web site where it belongs.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Don't you wish you'd known that before you started posting ridiculous ideas?

 

[Akhenaten]

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.

There is no aircraft theory unless you can find some sort of aircraft that was flying in 1953 that had a wingspan greater than about 300 feet with wings thicker than about 30 feet.

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:

That's one of the first really goods points I've seen made so far. Good thinking. One answer could be that the lights may not have been switched on because it wasn't something that had taken off from the Point Mugu airstrip, but something else ... perhaps a foreign spy plane that simply made a turn over the base and headed back out to sea.

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.

 

[Krikkiter]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/209954b06e8b167056.gif[/qimg]

Are there bonus points for also predicting that he'd go back and edit his post after you'd pointed out the obvious problems with it?

Good catch! Ricky Ponting would be proud. Definitely bonus points.

 

[Krikkiter]

And I suppose that should go for the amazing lenticular cloud illusion too, something that at least one witness says was not the case even though it had been considered.

Maybe but I don't think I need to remind you that this is the "UFOs: The Research, The Evidence" thread where people engage in (proper - not speculation-based) research and the gathering of evidence.

As I and others have tried to point out to you, so far you've not been doing it properly. Once again, please read this post carefully.