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: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I accept that, I said triangle because of the delta wing design in the video.

My point remains the same though.




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Fair enough, but ask yourself if you're operating on a little confirmation bias too?

These men were fallible and yet they were familiar enough with lenticular clouds to know they existed. It was the first conclusion. Knowing of their existence suggests that they might also have been aware of cloud characteristics. If so, they'd differentiated between the edges seen on some lenticular clouds and those seen on an object.

Your argument that they didn't quite know enough about cloud characteristics isn't a strong one.

Regarding Kelly's account, you aren't quite twirling your finger next to your head, but it isn't far off is it? You've characterised the man as someone who's so credulous that he sees a cloud and gets carried away into seeing a flying object. If I point out his career record as a sober person and credible witness, you'll charge me with an appeal to authority so I'll leave that one out.

One would imagine a character like you are imagining to have seen flying objects every other week and to have gone on the UFO circuit.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

No one can avoid confirmation bias. That's one reason one should only consider the available facts and to attempt to separate facts from assumptions and perceptions.

Johnson mentioned a lenticular cloud but his reasons for dismissing it show that he did not understand their behavior. There is no mention of lenticular clouds in Wimmer's report.

I am far from "twirling my finger" about Johnson's report. People make misidentifications all the time. That doesn't mean they are crazy. The most credible witnesses are capable of making mistakes.


One would imagine a character like you are imagining to have seen flying objects every other week and to have gone on the UFO circuit.

One could take that statement like that as an ad hominem argument.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
I disagree with your argument. The descriptions don't conform to the characteristics of a cloud. The time spent looking at the 'object' was long enough to differentiate between dissipating cloud and something else.

If you're satisfied that they all misidentified a cloud as a flying object due to ignorance and a will-to-believe in flying saucers, what else can I say? If it makes sense to you, it hardly matters what they claimed to have seen and their descriptions become redundant.

We'll agree to disagree.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


If you're satisfied that they all misidentified a cloud as a flying object due to ignorance and a will-to-believe in flying saucers, what else can I say? If it makes sense to you, it hardly matters what they claimed to have seen and their descriptions become redundant.

Put it this way. I am not satisfied that a lenticular cloud can be ruled out. Have you seen a lenticular cloud near the horizon at sunset?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
I have and I've looked at the dozens of images available on-line. Maybe I've been unlucky though because I haven't seen a cloud that would convince me it was an object or an aircraft. Resemblances yes, 5 minutes and still convinced, no.

They ruled out clouds. They described the object as moving away at speed. They discussed it amongst themselves.

It wasn't a case of the flight crew being uneducated or ill-informed; neither does the report seem to be prejudiced by one member being overly-enthusiastic about saucers. They saw something, considered other possibilities and then concluded it was an unknown object.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


They ruled out clouds.
The reasons given in the report are insufficient for doing so.


They described the object as moving away at speed
A cloud diminishing in size would present the illusion of doing so.


They discussed it amongst themselves.
Yes.

Above this cloud layer, well out in the clear air, I saw what I thought was a small cloud. Just for the fun of it I said, “Boy, look at the flying saucer!”

We were roughly paralleling the coast at the time and Roy, I think mentioned, “There’s a flying saucer”. We have kidded Roy a good deal about flying saucers since the night about two years ago when he and Bob Laird were in 1951 and sighted some lights over Catalina. These lights reportedly stood still for a while and moved around over the island and finally disappeared.



It wasn't a case of the flight crew being uneducated or ill-informed; neither does the report seem to be prejudiced by one member being overly-enthusiastic about saucers.
Certainly not uneducated. Familiar with lenticular clouds? No mention of it having been considered.
Flight Engineer Ware:

I’ve been interested in flying saucers, particularly ever since one evening during the 1951 Christmas Holidays. I was putting up a TV antenna on my roof when I looked up toward the north over the hills behind our home and saw a large circular object, apparently stationary. The time of day was abut dusk and I watched the object for several minutes and called Leslie and a neighbor, Mr. Murphy, who also looked at it.

A seed was planted by Wimmer. Wimmer had had a prior sighting. Ware had an interest and a prior sighting. That's two out of four. People are social creatures, evolved to reach consensus. I don't know if you've seen this post of mine but it can be useful in illustrating this and other aspects of sightings with multiple witnesses who "discuss" it. Discussion does not necessarily mean valid conclusions are reached.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


They saw something, considered other possibilities and then concluded it was an unknown object.

The only explanation of why a cloud was ruled out is Thoren's

Wimmer’s first impression was that it was a small cloud. After studying for several minutes, though, I deduced that it was not a cloud because it had too definite sharp edges and its appearance stayed constant.
That is a description of a lenticular cloud.

edit on 6/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Phage, you make a good argument, but I personally agree with Kandinsky, I don't understand how all these witnesses are only seeing a cloud....

apod.nasa.gov...

I don't care how smooth it looks, I don't think that looks at all like the craft the witnesses claimed to have seen.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The only explanation of why a cloud was ruled out is Thoren's

Wimmer’s first impression was that it was a small cloud. After studying for several minutes, though, I deduced that it was not a cloud because it had too definite sharp edges and its appearance stayed constant.

That is a description of a lenticular cloud.


As already noted, Johnson said "[t]he object, even in the [8x binoculars], appeared black and distinct." That really needs to be addressed more fully before it can be dismissed or considered explained.

Also, the directional issue has not been dealt with. Both sets of witnesses described the object as having flown off to the west. For this to have been a dissipating lenticular cloud it would need to be established that Johnson and the flight crew were all on approximately the same radial from it, i.e. that the flight crew was basically in between Johnson and the cloud. I think the geometry behind this very important point is obvious to most, but we can discuss it in detail if needed.

To me, Phage, it sounds like you're so sure of what they could NOT have seen that you're willing to connect some unlikely dots, and in the process don't mind attributing some rather unflattering personal traits to these men. I wouldn't go that far myself.

Finally, it would be helpful if everyone looked at the thread that Lance Moody references in his article, since Lance says the information in it supports his conclusion that "the December 16th, 1953 weather conditions were ripe for the formation of lenticular clouds." Be your own judge as to Mr. Moody's conclusions. But what I see there is someone fishing for anyone to give him even just a 'yeah, maybe' as to the lenticular possibility, even if it's over the objections of other posters in the thread. (Like the one who says, sarcastically: "I find this fascinating, forensic analysis with limited data!") Lance is usually more than happy to chastise the "UFO nuts" for their poor data analysis skills and evidence selectivity, but I can't see that his methods are in any way superior.

edit on 10-6-2012 by TeaAndStrumpets because: clarification



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
If it is a V shaped object or rather boomerang-shaped, B2 or similar tech is not excludable but no way one can mistaken a lenticular cloud with it and claim it's a UFO, I never understood the claims someone who has a trained eye to mistaken a real object with a cloud.. Also, it was moving like an aircraft, totally not a cloud.
edit on 10-6-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 


I don't care how smooth it looks, I don't think that looks at all like the craft the witnesses claimed to have seen.

Not all lenticulars are the same.
Also, the farther away it is the more sharply defined it would appear.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Do you honestly believe that one of the most renowned aeronautic engineers would mistake a cloud for a UFO?

You have more common sense than that phage, the story speaks for itself. We're talking about multiple experts and trained observers looking at this and concluding it was not a cloud.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


As already noted, Johnson said "[t]he object, even in the [8x binoculars], appeared black and distinct." That really needs to be addressed more fully before it can be dismissed or considered explained.

It was contrasted against the sunset sky. What would you expect it to look like? There is nothing in his description which precludes a lenticular cloud. He had decided that it was a saucer before he even saw it with the binoculars. He was subject to observational bias.


For this to have been a dissipating lenticular cloud it would need to be established that Johnson and the flight crew were all on approximately the same radial from it, i.e. that the flight crew was basically in between Johnson and the cloud.

Johnson says:

I ran outside and started to focus the glasses on the object, which was now moving fast on a heading between 240˚ and 260˚
He says he was looking toward the setting sun, which in December was setting at an azimuth of 242º. This is a strong correlation. What can we determine from it? There is no indication of horizontal movement. Johnson says that the object was moving in the direction he was looking.

What about the observers on the Plane. Here it gets ambiguous.
Wimmer does not provide a definitive direction for the object but he does say:

We flew directly toward it for about five minutes and our relative position did not appear to change. I do not recall our exact speed, whether we were still climbing or whether we had leveled off during the time.
As Rudy was flying the airplane, I had nothing else to do but to watch the object. After about five minutes I suddenly realized it was moving away from us heading straight west. In the space of about one minute it grew smaller and disappeared.

Unless the object were moving in the same direction Wimmer was looking, he could not determine it's direction of movement. If the object were moving horizontally across the canopy why would he "suddenly realize" it after five minutes. Wouldn't it have been obvious the moment it started to move? Was the plane flying directly west? Note how long it took to disappear.

Colman:

The background was bright due to the fact that the sun was just setting. The object appeared not to move while we progressed with our tests. For a few moments we turned the airplane toward the object but did not apparently change our distance sufficiently to get any change of impression. I estimate that the object was hovering in out sight for about ten minutes. Thereafter, it suddenly accelerated due west and in a time, in the order of 10 seconds, disappeared from view.

How long did the plane fly toward it before turning back to its original heading? How could he determine what direction the object was unless the plane was flying the same direction? How long did it take to disappear? Remember the direction of the Sunset? It was in the SSW. Wasn't the object in the NNW? Colman also said that the plane was off of Santa Monica at the time. I'm not at all sure his statements are useful.

Thoren:

Although the object appeared to be absolutely stationary, we did not seem to be closing the gap between us and this object. even though we were flying at some 225 miles per hour. The object then seemed to be getting smaller, and my attention was diverted from it for a minute or so, but Wimmer mentioned that the object was disappearing. In probably an elapsed time of somewhere around a minute, the object had reduced in size to a mere speck, and then disappeared. It’s direction was almost due west.

Thoren had turned to fly directly toward the object. He notices it getting smaller (no mention of it moving in any direction) while flying toward it then looks away for "a minute or two". He then looks back to see it dissappear a minute later. How long did it take for the object to completely disappear? He says it was moving almost due west. Unless the plane was also flying due west he could not determine that.

Ware:

After looking at the object off and on for about five minutes, it became apparent that it was moving away from us and in just a minute or two it completely disappeared. As it was disappearing, I looked at it off and on and gradually I could not see it at all. Roy watched it continuously and could see it after I had lost sight of it--he actually observed it continuously I believe. It disappeared in a generally westward direction (toward the setting sun).

Again, how could he determine the direction it was moving unless it was moving in the same direction as the plane?

cont.->



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


Do you honestly believe that one of the most renowned aeronautic engineers would mistake a cloud for a UFO?
Sure. Why would an aeronautical engineer know much about lenticular clouds? The reasons he gave for discarding a lenticular cloud are not sufficient to do so.



We're talking about multiple experts and trained observers looking at this and concluding it was not a cloud.

We are taking about 2 engineers whose field is not meteorology, 2 airplane pilots, and a flight engineer. Where does the expertise on cloud identification come in? Where does the "trained observer" come in.

The descriptions given match the description of a lenticular cloud.
edit on 6/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Any one whose taken a course in aviation knows that pilots are trained observers, and highly credible. It takes brains to fly an airplane. Meteorologists or not, they are certainly trained in spotting other aircraft.

Engineers know structure. So when an aeronautical engineer says he saw a craft, and not a cloud I am willing to accept that.

I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, I just wanted to ask you.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


Any one whose taken a course in aviation knows that pilots are trained observers, and highly credible. It takes brains to fly an airplane.

I have, I was not trained in observation. I was taught how to fly an airplane. I know lots of pilots, I don't consider them more credible than anyone else in particular. It may take brains but they don't always use them.
www.flightglobal.com...


Engineers know structure. So when an aeronautical engineer says he saw a craft, and not a cloud I am willing to accept that.

Why? When he can see no details of it at all. All he saw was a shape which he decided was not a cloud because it stayed in the same place.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Your course instructor didn't tell you immediately that you should spend about 70 percent of your time in the cockpit scanning the skies? He didn't teach you how to use short eye movements in about 10 degree increments to spot air traffics wheather formations, or something unexpected, like a flock of birds? Before making any maneuvers you should scan the area you will be ascending or descending to?

Of course pilots are trained observers, Phage.

I would retake the course, buddy.
edit on 10-6-2012 by W3RLIED2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


Your course instructor didn't tell you immediately that you should spend about 70 percent of your time in the cockpit scanning the skies? He didn't teach you how to use short eye movements in about 10 degree increments to spot air traffics wheather formations, or something unexpected, like a flock of birds? Before making any maneuvers you should scan the area you will be ascending or descending to?


Absolutely. But "see and avoid" is not about really about observing and analyzing what you see, it is about looking around in order to keep from hitting something.

I don't recall ever being told about lenticular clouds in training sessions but then, I already knew about them.

The descriptions match that of a lenticular cloud. The reasons given for discounting a cloud are not valid.


edit on 6/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

I don't recall ever being told about lenticular clouds in training sessions but then, I already knew about them.



edit on 6/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




Yea my instructor never said anything about them either. I see your points.

It's hard for me to deny Kelly Johnson though. He was a giant in the industry.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join