The UFO sighting of Clarence Kelly Johnson , Father of Area 51 and the SR-71 Blackbird

a reply to: wmd_2008

REALLY yet we had so many supposed educated professionals that couldn't understand why no stars show in the Apollo Moon surface pictures.

Really? whats this got to do with the subject matter...or are you just derailing threads again?

Peoples ideas of distance and estimated speed always give me a how do they work it out they don't have an exact size or distance for the objects so claims like that are pure BS.

Your opinion backed up by what?.... at least the OP provided this as the two extremes fro consideration...

Whether the UFO was smaller and much closer to the witnesses than they thought or it was bigger and further away, the UFO had to be traveling at beyond 2000 MPH to follow a path, get smaller and finally leave the witnesses' sight. They all state this. The bigger it was, the faster it must have been traveling.

Did you bother to read that?

a reply to: gortex
I must say, that for such a technical expert that Johnson was, his Blue Book report leaves a little to be desired....
From the report...
'When it did not move or disintegrate, I asked my wife to get me our eight-power binoculars, so I would not have to take my eyes off the object which by now I had recognized as a so called "saucer"'
Then...
'As soon as I was given the glasses, I ran outside and started to focus the glasses on the object...'
So he didn't want to take his eyes off the object, then the next thing he is running outside with the glasses????
Therefore I hypothesize, he did not keep the object in sight for the whole time.
Might not mean anything... but a bit average report writing for someone of his technical ability.

a reply to: CovertAgenda

Therefore I hypothesize, he did not keep the object in sight for the whole time.

It seems in the time between being given his binoculars and going outside the object had started to move but even though Johnson didn't see it for a short period the aircraft crew viewed the object continuously for at least 5 minutes before it appeared to move away.
Blue Book report from the pilot

a reply to: CovertAgenda

To a degree, your argument is placing him in the modern catch-all of 'pics or it didn't happen.' Most sightings reports are bewildering and fast. However witnesses are expected to pull out their phones, turn on the cameras and get one or more photographs with enough detail to satisfy the peanut gallery...or the genuinely interested.

He described being indoors and watching this object through the window. His wife gets the binoculars and he 'runs' outside. We don't know the layout of his home and the door could have been right there in the room. He may not have taken his eyes off it at all apart from raising the glasses and focusing.

Does it affect the report if he did take his eyes off for a few moments? As for the report? ~600 words is probably ample for detailing the incident. He didn't know size or distance so there was only so far he could go.

a reply to: Kandinsky
Firstly, what I wrote was not an 'argument', it was an observation related to the facts presented, it was not 'placing him in the modern catch-all.....' or anything related to your 'peanut gallery' insinuations.
As for your second paragraph, yes I read the report too, hence my post, no need to assume or speculate anything about house layout etc etc. I was merely looking at the facts as presented in the BB report he allegedly made.
Does it affect the report if he did take his eyes off for a few moments (Few moments is your speculation)
Well yes it does. Humor me with the following example in point....
Defendant - ' I asked my wife to get me our eight-power binoculars, so I would not have to take my eyes off the object'
Prosecutor - 'And did you keep the object in view?"
Defendant - 'yes sir the whole time'
Prosecutor - ' and yet in your affidavit you say "As soon as I was given the glasses, I ran outside and started to focus the glasses on the object.".'
Defendant - Yes i did sir...
Prosecutor - ' so whilst running outside you did NOT have the object in view?'
Defendant - 'well..umm err..no sir'
Prosecutor - 'so the first object sighted may not have been the one that you viewed through the binoculars'...
etc..etc..
So I will say it again... Might not mean anything... but very average report writing for someone of his technical ability. (i.e. If he actually wrote the report..... after all ...hasn't the whole BlueBook scenario/purposes/modus operandi/outcomes been questioned (disinfo/intell/countintell etc?)

a reply to: CovertAgenda

To be fair, you made two points; one being he took his eyes off and the second being the report was badly written.

I took the first point to be similar to when someone finds one issue and dismisses everything else. That's why I mentioned the 'pics or it didn't happen' argument.

I can look at the sky from my rear window and go outside without taking my eyes off the sky. Big window and French doors. I imagine his house with views of the mountains might have had a door opening on the same wall as his large plate window. Who knows??

The second point is fair opinion. It could have contained more technical language, but would it have added more details or authority? The bare facts are in there and very little speculation.

a reply to: Kandinsky
Thanks for the response, Just to clarify, Not two points, just one, that is- in that section, the report 'left a little to be desired, and/or very average' for someone of his ability. (Not as you say - badly written - different altogether). To me, whether he kept the object in view or not, is mostly irrelevant, it was the discrepancy in language and intent that seemed suspicious.
Maybe small inconsistencies could add up to a bigger picture kind-of-thing.

a reply to: CovertAgenda

Yeah fair enough. I'm not entirely sure why we're even nitpicking the case. It's not as if anything will change.

All the best

a reply to: gortex

Hey gortex, thank you. I too, like many have not heard of this report before. Kelly was a genius. So his observations and declarations via the Blue Book hold some definite weight. I'm sure that there is a lot out there we just have not been told about.

And as someone else had mentioned earlier, Ben Rich pretty much revealed slyly that there was much we knew (We meaning those in the know and the black projects) and that was back in the '60's. So I would suspect that our progress with propulsion systems has greatly evolved in the last 50 years. To what? I dunno.....but I want to believe. Peace

It is interesting that the "UFO" was seen over Point Mugu. I remember landing there a few times when I was in the Navy.
It had a great deal of off-limit areas as I recall. They did not really want us to get off the P3 one time, just fuel up and get outa here.

Naval Air Station Point Mugu is a former United States Navy air station that operated from 1942 to 2000 in California. In 2000, it merged with nearby Naval Construction Battalion Center Port Hueneme to form Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC). At Point Mugu, NBVC operates two runways and encompasses a 36,000 square mile sea test range, anchored by San Nicolas Island. The range allows the military to test and track weapons systems in restricted air- and sea-space without encroaching on civilian air traffic or shipping lanes. The range can be expanded through interagency coordination between the U.S. Navy and the Federal Aviation Administration. Telemetry data can be tracked and recorded using technology housed at San Nicolas Island, Point Mugu and Laguna Peak, a Tier 1 facility also controlled by NBVC.

Source WP

a reply to: Kandinsky

I'm sure you have seen some rather dark clouds in your lifetime and all...
But tell me....
How many of those dark clouds would you call black?
That's what you should have asked Phage...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Kandinsky

I'm sure you have seen some rather dark clouds in your lifetime and all...
But tell me....
How many of those dark clouds would you call black?
That's what you should have asked Phage...

I've seen plenty of black clouds, but the lenticular "flying saucer" clouds only form over certain topology and in certain conditions. Here's a black lenticular or "saucer" cloud:

www.thelivingmoon.com...


This one isn't black yet because the sun is still shining on it, but if you see this at sunset, as the sun continues to set it's going to get darker and darker, and the other thing that will happen as Earth's shadow obscures the sun is that shadow will move across the cloud, which depending on lighting conditions could be construed as apparent motion.



I don't know what he saw but I don't see why everybody is so eager to dismiss the cloud explanation. The biggest suggestion that it's a cloud is in the language of the report:

"When it did not move or disintegrate, I asked my wife to get me out eight-power binoculars..."

Who in the heck looks at a solid object and says "when it didn't disintegrate, I decided to take a closer look"? Why would anybody say such a thing? I'll tell you why. Even though he said he considered it might be a cloud and rejected the idea, in that statement is the false basis for his rejection, because he expected if it was a cloud it would disintegrate.

The guy may be a genius at designing planes but that doesn't make him an expert at everything and this shows he doesn't really understand lenticular clouds very well if the fact that it didn't immediately disintegrate was his basis for rejecting the cloud hypothesis. His description of the apparent motion of the object and changing lighting conditions is also somewhat consistent with the changing lighting conditions of a setting sun casting shadows.

Many the clues are there in a careful reading of this report but phage is apparently one of the few people smart enough to be able to pick up on them. I deleted my earlier reply because I figure if you guys want to believe this was something other than a cloud, and that gives you some satisfaction somehow, I don't want to rain on your parade so to speak, but after the "no such thing as black clouds" post I couldn't stand it anymore.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Who in the heck looks at a solid object and says "when it didn't disintegrate, I decided to take a closer look"? Why would anybody say such a thing? Why would anybody say such a thing? I'll tell you why. Even though he said he considered it might be a cloud and rejected the idea, in that statement is the false basis for his rejection, because he expected if it was a cloud it would disintegrate

Somebody looking for a rational explanation perhaps , it could have been a cloud but the Pilot of the aircraft didn't think so either.


We don't know what it was other than an interesting sighting from a time long ago , just assuming it was a cloud because clouds exist makes as much sense as just assuming it was a flying saucer.

a reply to: gortex
Again I don't know what it was, but once again here the basis for rejecting the cloud hypothesis seems unfounded, the sharp edges. Note the one of the two lenticular cloud pics I posted also has sharp edges. There is no doubt that lenticular clouds have resulted in UFO reports as they can have a very distinctive saucer shape and the sharp edges in that second picture are not features one would normally associate with a cloud.

Whether this was a cloud or not we'll never know, but the bigger mystery is, why didn't he have his wife get the camera instead of binoculars, or both? Then at least we'd have a photo, though I'm not sure it would show much.

originally posted by: gortex
People will no doubt say that what Kelly Johnson saw was an experimental aircraft of some kind and I would usually agree but with this witness being at the forefront of experimental aircraft at that time that explanation is almost as difficult to believe as the official explanation of a lenticular Cloud.

Not saying it's Aliens but .....

Clearly a rock formation. Or a balloon. Or a Chinese lantern.

Here's some interesting information from an article that was published in International UFO Reporter: "About the time of the December 1953 sighting by Johnson and his test pilots, Lockheed had won a contract from the Naval Research Laboratory to modify a WV-2 with a new, advanced AN/APS-82 radar that would enable air targets to be more easily detected in high sea-clutter states. The new antenna's size - 17.5 feet wide - was such that it was initially thought that it could not be accommodated on an aircraft (one concept was to place it in an airship) but Lockheed’s engineers, beginning their design work in January 1954, had devised a unique solution. Wind tunnel tests demonstrated that a properly-shaped rotating fairing could provide enough lift to nearly offset the weight of the antenna system. An 18,000 lb lenticular "rotodome" some thirty feet in diameter -- the first of its kind -- was installed on a WV-2 that was retained by Lockheed as an experimental model. It was the same aircraft, Constellation air frame number 4301, that had been involved in the December 1953 UFO sighting. The WV-2E made its first flight with the saucer-like fairing in August 1956."

a reply to: Kandinsky

Yeah, . . . welllll . . . as I've noted a number of times . . .

some folks are Siamese twins joined at the head with a FALSE NEGATIVE ERROR RISK sooooooo intensely and extensively that they SCIENTIFICALLY absolutely MUST be frequent victims of that sort of error.

Of course, the degree to which they are wedded to such an error risk is seemingly fairly directly 1:1 proportional to the degree to which they are in absolute denial about such a flaw in their perceptiveness, data collection, data sorting, data interpretation and conclusions.

Or . . . they simply are hirelings for a different agenda--whether philosophically, organizationally or financially.

It has been mystifying to me for a long time . . . what goes into such absolutely stubborn rigidity in the face of soooo much contrary evidence.

Perhaps like taste, there's no accounting for intense rigid bias for those of us with serious RAD (Attachment Disorder). Insecurities can become intensely emotionally wedded to such narrow, rigid perspectives.

I've studied the UFO field for 54 years. Initially, I was fascinated out of my SciFi interest.

I quickly realized it HAD to play a role in END TIMES Biblical prophecy stuff.

Then I realized shortly after I began to study the oligarchy's globalism efforts in 1965 . . . that it also HAD to relate to that.

Then along about 1970, my close relative noted that he used to work Nev, where he routinely watched them with binoculars--one of only two pairs of binoculars allowed in that area.

For a lot of years, I tried to collect and read everything of significance on the topic that I could afford or came across.

And, when I came across folks with interesting jobs or life experiences and positions likely to offer some observations and/or insights into the field, I queried them with my best psychologist interviewing skills. That sometimes turned up some affirmations of earlier factoids.

I went to China around the time of the huge UFO shadowing the JAL cargo plane over Alaska. Then, within a year or so, Japan's foremost UFO expert happened to be touring my area of China and stayed at the same guest house at the University. He affirmed the JAL narrative.

The slightly short of it all is that there's an ABUNDANCE of factoids affirming some fairly consistent aspects of the phenomena. And, there's still tons of mystery and unknowns.

However, at this point, to pretend that it's all swamp gas, lenticular clouds and the more stupid "mass hallucination," . . . wellll . . . such a pretense is just simply terminally ignorant or terminally uninformed or terminally deceived.

Quality researchers like Dr J. Allen Hynek (who was really a government insider on the topic--AS WAS CARL SAGAN--as a paid debunking stooge), Dr Jacques Vallee, Tom Horn, Cris Putnam, Guy Malone, L.A. Marzulli, et al . . . have sketched out a fairly robust set of factoids that reveal more than we (the public) knew 30 years ago by a good margin.

Is there a lot unknown? Certainly. And some of the key unknowns will likely make a horrific bunch of difference in the not distant future. Yet, some of those unknowns have been speculated about with a LOT of good research and judgment. The well informed will not be caught near as ignorant nor near as bent over grabbing their ankles as the average citizen . . . not to mention the average hyper-skeptic.

At this point, I find the hyper-skeptic more or less a pathetic dying breed. We are increasingly close to the point in time when LOTS HAS to be disclosed for the agenda of the globalist oligarchy to continue to unfold at the increasing pace it has been unfolding in the last decade.

Of course, such a disclosure WILL STILL include thick layers of horrific deception, manipulation, tyranny, fear etc.

But those who are well informed will not likely be near AS catatonic near as long as those more willfully and terminally ignorant.


.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

imho, it is rational, sensible to ask informed, bright people questions

WHEN

it is likely one can get a meaningful response.

I'm increasingly skeptical that some folks are up to that level of responsiveness.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I think it's somewhat common for folks to 'leave their technical, job-side' of their conversation largely at work when in a family, social situation. All the more so if they are close to their wife and family, emotionally.

a reply to: gortex
Hello I am trying to find out how all this works I have been thru the intro part and don't know if I'm posting right can you plz help