It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO report from top aeronautical engineer Kelly Johnson - Dec, 1953.

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
This is a pretty intriguing UFO sighting submitted by top aeronautical engineer Kelly Johnson (bio) and several Lockheed engineering test pilots - as it states at the link what makes the case particularly unusual (and scientifically useful) is that it was 'a long-duration daylight sighting of an object seen by two independent groups of observers' thus allowing triangulation of the unknown object's position.


Incident:





Although the sighting was not highly dramatic in comparison to many UFO reports, what makes it particularly unusual - and scientifically useful - is that it was a long-duration daylight sighting of an object seen by two independent groups of observers. Moreover, these groups - one stationary and one moving - were separated by very long baselines in both horizontal and vertical planes, facilitating triangulation of the object's position. One group even had the advantage of using optical instruments to view the UFO. Unlike many sensationalized UFO events, these observations were recorded in a calm, professional manner by the witnesses themselves while the details were still fresh in their minds. No media attention was sought or desired. And most importantly, the integrity and competence of this particular group of observers is almost unquestionable. A more qualified set of eyewitnesses would be hard to imagine.

Because of their precise observations and careful documentation of the incident, a great deal of information can be extracted from the account. Available weather data makes it clear that Blue Book's rubber-stamp identification of the object as a lenticular cloud is untenable...and therefore the object's identity is still a mystery.

There was no question in about this in Kelly Johnson’s view. He was absolutely certain that it was no cloud, aircraft or other mundane object.


The Lockheed UFO Case




Witness Sketch:





At approximately Five pm Johnson was looking through a window at the remarkable sunset when he recognized a darkish elliptical form in the sky in direction of Pt. Mugu cape. At first he assumed the object might have been a lenticular cloud, or maybe a smoke trail from a plane, however it stayed fixed on the sky unaffected for several minutes. He called for his wife to bring him his 8-power binoculars and ran outdoors. When he got outside the object began to move, speeding up in the direction faraway from him in a superficial ascend in a contrary path in regard to the movement of other clouds on the horizon. The object appeared to be substantial in size (about 200 foot long), distant and shifting. Unfortunately, he had no true technique of comprehending its precise dimensions, distance or velocity.

Simultaneously, a Lockhead WV2 aircraft was being flown by one of Johnson’s test crews over Long Beach California. The WV2 was a massive four-engine transport plane loaded with huge blisters housing radar antennas constructed to fly very long standing patrols far off the coasts of North America to deliver long-range recognition of incoming Soviet bombers. The crew spotted the object at about the same time as Johnson did at about 15,000 feet altitude and when they chose to get a closer look, and proceeded toward the object the UFO took off at a great speed.

Soon after Johnson stated in his official report: “I am now more convinced than ever, that such devices exist, and I have some highly technical converts in this belief.”When US Air Force took a look into the case they concluded that Johnson, his wife, and also the airplane team saw a lenticular cloud..


link




UFO Hunters:





Sceptical 'lenticular cloud' theory:

link




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I remember this case from a while ago. I don't exactly buy the lenticular cloud theory though. How would that explain the high-speed take-off?

S + F
edit on 9-6-2012 by thesearchfortruth because: eta



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The bottom drawing in tthe witness sketch looks EXACTLY like the first sighting by Kenneth Arnold near Mt. Rainier where he said they "skipped like saucers over water." Journalists picked up on "flyng saucer" when Arnold never used the term "saucer" to describe the shape of the crafts themselves.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
I remember this case from a while ago. I don't exactly buy the lenticular cloud theory though. How would that explain the high-speed take-off?


It wouldn't... unless all observers were looking at it from the same direction, and it's pretty clear they were not. (A stationary dissipating cloud will always appear to be receding directly away from the observer.) So lenticular cloud is a tough fit for this sighting, overall.

I see that Mr. Moody was in no hurry to mention the following witness statements (among others), which are from their official written accounts made to Project Blue Book:

-Kelly Johnson: "I gathered [the object's] speed was very high, because of the rate of fore-shortening of its major axis. The object, even in the glasses, appeared black and distinct..."

-Roy Wimmer: "Right up until the time it disappeared it maintained its sharp outline and definite shape so I know it was not a cloud that dissolved giving the appearance of moving away."

Lance spends so much time obnoxiously ridiculing UFO "true believers" that I guess he didn't have time to point these (and other) inconvenient facts out. If that sounds harsh, consider how routinely he mocks anyone holding even very reasonable and conservative pro-UFO positions. I'm sure he's a decent guy, and I'll always listen to what someone has to say, but so far, when it comes to UFO analysis, I've found him to be pretty much an intellectual fraud. He cannot be trusted to "fight fair." Google his name +UFO, read his insulting comments to others, and you'll see exactly what I mean. He's also as guilty of selectively picking evidence as the UFO "nuts" he so loathes, as can partially be seen here....


edit on 9-6-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
One of the best cases in proving that these craft were not U.S. military, so that leaves rockets, which they were not, where your belief goes after that is up to you


And ofc, it's already proven that the military does reverse tech, the B-2 doesn't resemble anything else I've seen.
edit on 9-6-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
One of the best cases in proving that these craft were not U.S. military, so that leaves rockets, which they were not, where your belief goes after that is up to you


And ofc, it's already proven that the military does reverse tech, the B-2 doesn't resemble anything else I've seen.
edit on 9-6-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)


Except for the Northrup YB-35 and YB-49 Flying Wings, developed in the 1940s

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...





Both of which were based on the Northrop N-1 Flying Wing developed in the 1930s

en.wikipedia.org...



The Germans had the Horton Ho 229, which was a prototype:


and the Horton HO IV Flying Wing Glider:
images.ookaboo.com...


Both the Horton Brothers and Jack Northrup loved the flying wing idea because it is one of the most aerodynamically efficient aircraft designs. This efficient design is not an alien secret -- it just comes from good- old fashioned engineering.

HOWEVER, it is also an inherently unstable design, due to the lack of stabilizers. It wasn't until the computer age that computer avionics (which make tiny automatic flight corrections hundreds of times per second) would allow such an unstable plane to be able to be flown, other than as prototypes.


edit on 6/9/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Didn't most of those flying wing programs not get scrapped? Either way, I don't see any of them being capable of "great speed", especially in the 50s.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 

I think this is what he was talking about.

And ofc, it's already proven that the military does reverse tech, the B-2 doesn't resemble anything else I've seen.


edit on 6/9/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 

The bottom drawing is not from this sighting. It is from something Johnson saw in 1951, not an object.

I should also state that about two years ago Mrs. Johnson and I saw an object which I believed at the time, and still do, to be a saucer, flying west of Brents Junction, California, on a very dark night. I did not see the object itself but saw a clearly defined flame or emanation, as shown on the attached sketch.

www.bluebookarchive.org...


edit on 6/9/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


it wouldn't... unless all observers were looking at it from the same direction, and it's pretty clear they were not. (A stationary dissipating cloud will always appear to be receding directly away from the observer.) So lenticular cloud is a tough fit for this sighting, overall.

Why? An evaporating saucer shaped cloud would present the illusion of receding no matter what direction it was viewed from.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Yes, clearly the two sketches have different dates written at the bottom, they are of different observations.

I believe the Germans also had flying wing aircraft under development.
Presumably, the scientists involved either went to the US (operation Paperclip) or Russia. (or South America?).
Or better still, to Antartica, then the Moon.


But you would seriously think an aeronautical engineer would know the different between a cloud and a solid flying craft.
Besides he is a God, he was involved in the SR71...thats Gods territory.


Tho the U2 was more of a British English Electric Canberra Bomber copy.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


They may all be flying wing design but the early craft are nothing like the B-2.

edit on 9-6-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by gort51
 


But you would seriously think an aeronautical engineer would know the different between a cloud and a solid flying craft.


Possibly a case of observational bias?

I should state that for at least five years I have definitely believed in the possibility that flying saucers exist - this in spite of a good deal of kidding from my technical associates.



edit on 6/9/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 

Are you kidding?
You really think the B2 could not be a development of this?


edit on 6/9/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


He thought of clouds first...not flying objects.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Yes he did. But was his rationale for dismissing really valid? A lenticular cloud can remain stationary for much longer than three minutes. In fact, that's what they do. But he used that to come to the definite conclusion that it was a saucer, something he had been looking for for 5 years.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
I think you're dismissing his judgement too lightly.

He says he considered lenticular cloud so he probably did. Also if he was waiting five years, his will-to-believe must have been kept in check by his science-based intellect. He even escaped 1952 without seeing, or claiming to see, a UFO which further emphasises that his account was credible and likely accurate.

ETA: It's worth adding that the flight crew also jumped first to 'cloud' before ruling it out.

edit on 10-6-2012 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

I'm not dismissing it lightly. He gives his reasons for discarding his first thought; it didn't move or disintegrate for a relatively short period of time. Not valid.

He had decided it was a saucer before he even had the binoculars. Once he had made up his mind about what it was, his observational bias takes over. I've seen it happen.

I don't see how not having a sighting for a year makes any difference. Are there no examples of single sightings by a witness which turned out to be misidentifications?


The flight crew's reasons for dismissing it as a cloud are no more valid than Johnson's. Lenticular clouds have sharply defined edges with smooth curves. Lenticular clouds remain stationary. These are the very reasons they are often misidentified as saucers.
edit on 6/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Normally I would agree, phage. But this is Kelly Johnson, man. He designed the SR71. He didn't mistake a cloud for a triangle shaped UFO, no way. He is the definition of an ideal testimony witness. Not to mention his crew in the air saw the same thing from a different angle. Also, he wrote back to the folks that decided it was a cloud formation, and said no way, that's unacceptable.

Karl, it's funny you post this tonight. I just watched the whole top 10 UFO case documentary and this was in there.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


He didn't mistake a cloud for a triangle shaped UFO, no way.

Johnson never described a triangle shaped UFO. In the 1953 sighting (the one being discussed) he described a saucer. He also described a "flame or emanation" that he saw in 1951 which was not a triangle either.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join