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

Phage said:
"The descriptions given match the description of a lenticular cloud."

Only if you ignore enough of those descriptions' content, and basic geometry.

Geometrically, we don't need to be able to precisely triangulate the object's position in order to see that something is very wrong with the cloud theory. The maps on Moody's own page scream out (even to the most geometrically naive) that "cloud" is a fundamentally untenable explanation, once one realizes that all witnesses describe the object as having departed to the west:
-- Wimmer said "moving away from us heading straight west";
-- Thoren said "almost due west";
-- Colman said it "suddenly accelerated due west ";
-- Ware is less specific, saying it departed in a "generally westward direction (toward the setting sun)" [Interesting that you chose this statement above all others, Phage. So you could use the significantly lesser heading, 242? That figure hurts as much as helps the lenticular theory, geometrically, at the other end....]
-- Johnson himself, many miles away, and from a significantly different direction, said the object departed at a heading of "between 240 and 260";

Was the aircrew viewing the object at a bearing of 290 degrees, 300, or 310? It doesn't ultimately matter much, as Johnson is clear and pretty precise: he was viewing it at a bearing of about 255.

So, how does a cloud that is actually stationary appear to be moving (quickly) in the same direction when viewed from both the ENE and the ESE? (Two locations that are a good 40 degrees apart, minimum.) This strains credulity. It makes sense only if Johnson, or the crew, or both, actually did perceive lateral motion in the object. Which would preclude the lenticular cloud theory. And Johnson, though he knew the object's bearing was 255, says it left at a heading of between 240 and 260... not 255 +/-10. Significant for an engineer. He may have indeed perceived lateral motion.

Phage said:
"[Thoren] says it was moving almost due west. Unless the plane was also flying due west he could not determine that."

Really? We all do something similar many times a day. What assumptions underlie your remark? (I think your bias is showing. ;-)

Phage said:
"I see nothing while eliminates the possibility of a misidentification of a lenticular cloud."

Basic geometry? The witnesses' words?

Colman:
"The difference in the positions, both horizontally and vertically between [the aircrew, and Kelly Johnson] indicate that the object had sufficient depth to eliminate the possibility that it was a cloud phenomena. The similarity of the explanations of the shape and actions of the object is remarkable."

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."

Johnson:
"When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving behind the first layer of haze.... The object, even in the glasses, appeared black and distinct.... In 90 seconds from the time it started to move, the object had completely disappeared, in a long shallow climb on the heading noted [between 240 and 260 degrees]. The clouds were coming onshore, in a direction of travel opposite to that of the object."

Thoren:
"I had estimated that it was somewhere between Point Mugu and the Santa Barbara Islands. Incidentally, at the time I had sighted it, we were flying over the ocean just off of Long Beach." [Establishing quite a difference in the object's bearing than the bearing from Johnson.]

And more... but I'm tired. "Lenticular cloud" is not even a serious possibility unless these witnesses are either liars or incompetent. You can say, Phage, that you've "said nothing about the character of the people involved", but... you have, even if unintentional.

And all based upon coarse, 60 yr. old weather data... taken 2 hours after the sighting, and from geographical points significantly distant from Point Mugu... which weather data was posted in some forum, by some guy (who?)... who gets a lone user there to say, based on sparse data and over the clear objections of a few other members, that the conditions that day in '53 may have been conducive to lenticulars.

Okay!?!

Read that entire thread. It is disingenuous for Lance Moody or anyone to characterize what's found there as supporting Lance's conclusion that "weather conditions were ripe for the formation of lenticular clouds."

Tell me how this kind of armchair dismissal, based on that meager weather data, without having talked to any of those involved, is not completely insulting to those men? You've implicitly accused them of conspiring to 'get their stories straight' -- either changing their sighting data outright, or pretending it was stronger than it really was. Would you be insulted?

reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

Read that entire thread. It is disingenuous for Lance Moody or anyone to characterize what's found there as supporting Lance's conclusion that "weather conditions were ripe for the formation of lenticular clouds."

What thread? Who is Lance Moody? I don't know anything about the weather conditions, can you direct me to that source?

You've implicitly accused them of conspiring to 'get their stories straight' -- either changing their sighting data outright, or pretending it was stronger than it really was. Would you be insulted?

You are again misrepresenting what I have said. I have implied no conspiracy. I have said that it is a known phenomenon that groups of people tend to reinforce each others' observations. It is a subconscious process. Eyewitness reports are not entirely reliable. Group eyewitness reports are no more reliable, especially when they involve discussion between members of the group.

Loftus and Palmer argue that two kinds of information go into a person's memory of a complex event. The first is the information obtained from perceiving the event, and the second is the other information supplied to us after the event. Over time, information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable to tell from which source some specific detail is recalled. All we have is one 'memory'. This argument is called the reconstructive hypothesis.

www.holah.co.uk...

Individual eyewitness recall reports were gathered from witnesses (29 undergraduates) who were later put into 4 groups to discuss and reach a consensus on a description of a simulated crime they had witnessed. Groups gave more complete reports but at the price of a significant increase in errors of commission (the fabrication of details under group pressure). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

psycnet.apa.org...

It was found that individuals tend to agree in their testimony following group discussion, and are liable to change their original replies to bring themselves into agreement with group leaders' recall.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

As I said earlier, I have personally seen the effect during a "UFO" sighting.

I don't think all aspects of the reports from the crew members can be considered accurate, especially since Johnson had volunteered his personal description (which would have included saying that he saw the object moving to the west) before hearing from them. There are certain gaps in the descriptions which indicate this.

The easy dismissal by the witnesses of the possibility that the object was a cloud and the reasons given for that dismissal to not help strengthen the reliability of their reports. I am not convinced that they did not all see a lenticular cloud which evaporated.

Originally posted by Phage
What thread? Who is Lance Moody? I don't know anything about the weather conditions, can you direct me to that source?

How can you argue so forcefully for the lenticular cloud hypothesis without knowing the weather data? Is it just that no other reasonable prosaic explanation has been offered, and the object simply must be something mundane, so... lenticular it is? Maybe you've researched the weather conditions that day for yourself, or have seen the data elsewhere. That's fine. Sounds like it was hard to come by though. I do hope you're simply not accepting without question and analysis the Blue Book conclusion.

Oh, the weather thread I referenced.... The link to the 'skeptical view' of the Johnson case is at the very bottom of karl12's original post in this thread. That link takes you to Lance Moody's piece attempting to cast doubt upon the Johnson sightings. (A worthwhile endeavor... if done honestly.) In that article, Lance cites a forum discussion, here, that he feels justifies his statement that there's "evidence from UK forecaster, Nigel Bolton, that the December 16th, 1953 weather conditions were ripe for the formation of lenticular clouds."

I think that's a very questionable statement indeed. I hope people will read the thread just to see just how sparse / coarse the data really is.

You are again misrepresenting what I have said. I have implied no conspiracy. I have said that it is a known phenomenon that groups of people tend to reinforce each others' observations. It is a subconscious process. Eyewitness reports are not entirely reliable. Group eyewitness reports are no more reliable, especially when they involve discussion between members of the group.

Point taken, and I appreciate the links to that research. I'm always happy to be offered an opportunity to learn something new. I do disagree with you about me misrepresenting your words; at one point you were a little harsh WRT what you were willing to assume about these men, in my opinion, but that's fine. And I absolutely agree that people in groups can influence one another's perceptions and conclusions, no doubt. I just think that there are reasonable limits to that, and given the caliber of witnesses involved here, and what they put on the line by even reporting this, their words deserve a little more weight. In my opinion.

I don't think all aspects of the reports from the crew members can be considered accurate, especially since Johnson had volunteered his personal description (which would have included saying that he saw the object moving to the west) before hearing from them. There are certain gaps in the descriptions which indicate this.

I agree to a certain extent. And we don't know who's most accurate. But there's general agreement about the 'gist' of the sighting details. The bearing to the object from the aircrew, and to the object from Johnson, seems to be at least 40 degrees different, probably a little more, and yet there is a pretty consistent reporting of the object having moved west, probably heading about 260-270 if we believe 4 of the 5 people involved.

If you want to use that one outlier report to say the object 'departed' at a heading of 243, since that's precisely towards the sun, okay. That just hurts you at the other end. The aircrew is still looking at the object in the same directions initially, bearing 295 at a minimum, it appears. But now (using Hdg243) the departing object has even more lateral motion, a greater velocity vector component perpendicular to the crews' sight line. A very substantial problem for the lenticular cloud theory.

The easy dismissal by the witnesses of the possibility that the object was a cloud and the reasons given for that dismissal to not help strengthen the reliability of their reports. I am not convinced that they did not all see a lenticular cloud which evaporated.

How do you know they didn't dismiss the lenticular cloud theory for perfectly legitimate reasons, such as finally perceiving some lateral motion in it? There is some evidence for this in the reports, already mentioned. Implicit, even.

And your statements like these still concern me:
--"How could he determine what direction the object was unless the plane was flying the same direction?"
--"[Thoren] says it was moving almost due west. Unless the plane was also flying due west he could not determine that."
They're concerning because it makes it seem like you're assuming the identity of the object (a lenticular cloud, which can't be moving) even before fairly evaluating the very statements which should be helping us determine that identity.

I'm fine agreeing to disagree. People should read the original reports, the skeptical view, that weather thread, etc., and just decide for themselves.

reply to post by Phage


Don't wanna start anything here, I dropped in late...but Phage...you are practically saying that we should ignore expert whitness testimony, because they are not weather specialists ?


Maybe you guys wanna debate this issue, but the reality of it is...and appears nobody wants to say it...there is no way to misidentify a flying object with a cloud. Give me a picture or a video of a cloud...I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference. You can grade me.


And...if a pilot....any kind a pilot, can not differentiate a cloud from a solid flying object...than God help us all...and good luck to any passengers flying out there.

yep check the manual for more information please

Discarding manual

discard testimony if witness is civilian

In the case that the civilian is a pro in any field check paragraph 1

Paragraph 1
discard astronomer testimony
discard physicist testimony
discard pilot testimony
discard astronaut testimony
discard weather specialist testimony
discard policeman testimony
discard army officials testimony
discard colonel testimony
discard president testimony

If above fails then what, check paragraph 2

Paragraph 2
If above fails deny anything that has to do with the incident,IT cant happen therefore it didnt,so we got nothing to discuss.



make them debate whether ufos exist or not so they wont go any deeper.Divide and conquer at its finest

Just had a looksy. Googled lenticular clouds and found awesome cloud pics. None of them would make me thing UFO...some of them do cast a small resemblance to something regular, but a second look is enough to call it what it is...a cloud.

Maybe I just have perfect eye sight.

Originally posted by IMSAM
yep check the manual for more information please

Discarding manual

discard testimony if witness is civilian

In the case that the civilian is a pro in any field check paragraph 1

Paragraph 1
discard astronomer testimony
discard physicist testimony
discard pilot testimony
discard astronaut testimony
discard weather specialist testimony
discard policeman testimony
discard army officials testimony
discard colonel testimony
discard president testimony

If above fails then what, check paragraph 2

Paragraph 2
If above fails deny anything that has to do with the incident,IT cant happen therefore it didnt,so we got nothing to discuss.



make them debate whether ufos exist or not so they wont go any deeper.Divide and conquer at its finest

Spot on matey

cheers