Kelly Johnson

[Xylo]

Head Skunk | History of Flight

To be honest I didn't know much about Kelly Johnson except the few snippets I've read about him with respect to his sighting. So this article gave me a bit more information about the man behind a great deal of aircraft design improvements.

 

[Frank Stalter]

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB19-1710

 

[Paul Kimball]

Still one of my 2 or 3 favourite cases, if for no other reason than the USAF's patently absurd explanation.

 

[Ron Collins]

Still one of my 2 or 3 favourite cases, if for no other reason than the USAF's patently absurd explanation.

Oh yeah, the "lenticular clouds" explanation. I always forget to mention that one.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Oh yeah, the "lenticular clouds" explanation. I always forget to mention that one.

The thing I would ask the disbelievers is this:

What do you think Johnson and his aircrew saw, at the same time but from different places? If it was a structured craft made by us:

a) don't you think they would have been able to recognize it, given who they were and what they did?

b) why the interest by the USAF, who obviously did not know what they saw?

c) why such a lame explanation as a lenticular cloud?

Just curious.

Of course, this is exactly the kind of case that someone like Phil Klass wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, and that you won't hear someone like Bill Nye or James McGaha discuss today.

Paul

 

[Han]

my five pence:
If it was a cloud "lenticular" or not, why was an official report made .?

The fact that multiple people(Aeronautically trained included) saw something they could not explain, and were compelled to report it gives this "case" above normal credibility.

For me the very fact that the "sighting" was taken seriously at the time, and "official testimony" does exist from "credible" sources, I can only draw the conclusion that they definatley did see something, that they could not explain in the sky or in other words a "UFO".

The report concluding that they saw a cloud seems to me like a "mediating tool" or "pacifier" in other words admitting that they saw something and were not "diluded" but disagreeing with what they saw.

 

[Kieran]

In fact if anyone else knows anything about this top, cream of the crop, case, I would love to hear about it.

I was able to find some of the missing numbers I mention above in relation to this case. Unfortunately the source was always this documentary.

I imagine that a few folks can see the implications of my above post and I'm hoping to clear things up as soon as I can since I am sure that there must be reasonable explanation: Paul's documentary is often cited as one of the best and I'm sure that I must be missing something.

Thanks,

Lance

Lance their is no implications in your posting. Kelly Johnson saw an object he couldn't recognise and he reported it. That is now part of history. Of course you'll have different views on what they saw, but all of them reported it was an object they couldn't recognise!!

Paul will have to address your questions about the size of the craft, and were he got that estimate from? They are boring questions Lance, to be honest. It doesn't really matter how big the object was or how fast the object flew off or any other minor detail you take issue with. The fact nobody recognised the object and it had the ability to fly, is the important part of the story. Lance have you personally been fooled by a cloud, and mistook it for something else

 

[Keiko]

I did say there would only be a few people who understand the implications.

I think it's important to at least determine what was actually reported before I can participate in the discussion of what the object might have been.

But I know it's more fun to get into the saucery goodness than any old boring details.

"I don't care about the facts, I just wanna praise Saucer Jesus" is a perfectly good scientific position to take and is probably right at the top of many folk's list of what a true skeptic is!

Lance

Lance what is this 'Saucer Jesus' you keep reffering to? Are implying that because I (or others) think there are enough reports of unidentified flying objects over the last few decades to force me to consider we have and are being visited by intelligent beings from elsewhere we are part of some kind of messianic cult?

Apart from being condescending it's getting a bit tiresome. I think most people posting on this forum are searching for some truth about this whole phenomenon.

 

[Xylo]

I did say there would only be a few people who understand the implications.

I think it's important to at least determine what was actually reported before I can participate in the discussion of what the object might have been.

I agree. The significant part though

"I don't care about the facts, I just wanna praise Saucer Jesus" is a perfectly good scientific position to take and is probably right at the top of many folk's list of what a true skeptic is!

Lance

C'mon Lance, that's a shot below the belt. Most of us on this board don't post crap like that. The ones that do quickly leave this forum. The majority of posters here aren't necessarily sourcing the phenomenon, but continuing to argue it's existence to someone who claims "skeptic" is tiresome.

 

[Kieran]

I did say there would only be a few people who understand the implications.

I think it's important to at least determine what was actually reported before I can participate in the discussion of what the object might have been.

But I know it's more fun to get into the saucery goodness than any old boring details.

"I don't care about the facts, I just wanna praise Saucer Jesus" is a perfectly good scientific position to take and is probably right at the top of many folk's list of what a true skeptic is!

Lance

Here is a fascinating review of the Kelly Johnston story. It answers a couple of your questions!!! I understood perfectly, but are you doing it to learn, or is this, your way of debunking the whole story in it's entirety?

http://www.nicap.org/lockufoinc.htm

 

[Ron Collins]

They are boring questions Lance, to be honest. It doesn't really matter how big the object was or how fast the object flew off or any other minor detail you take issue with.

I am going to disagree with this. If we are going to assert that this is one of the best cases Ufology has to offer, then there are no "boring" questions. If a statement is contain facts such as size and speed then it needs to be shown how this information was arrived at. I agree Kelly Johnson and his team believed that they saw something amazing. They were certainly familiar with not only normal aircraft but were at the forefront of aeronautical R&D. They also new a lot about atmospheric phenomenon and certainly about lenticular clouds. Since the Air Force decided to mark this case as solved and slap the lenticular explanation on it there needs to be ample reason to show this is false.

This is precisely why he is asking about the witness testimony. Consistency is important. Sighting characteristics are important. Now, I will also be the first to say that we should take the collective opinions and estimations of Johnson and his crew as they are undoubtedly experts. That they all agreed it was anomalous and displayed observable flight characteristics far more advanced than these guys could conceive should not be lost here. This isn't some country bumpkin and his drinking buddies out in the swamp after a couple of cases. But, we need to reconcile, as much as possible, the witness testimony aspect as well.

As this is one of the best cases it should have the least number of loose ends.

 

[Kieran]

I am going to disagree with this. If we are going to assert that this is one of the best cases Ufology has to offer, then there are no "boring" questions. If a statement is contain facts such as size and speed then it needs to be shown how this information was arrived at. I agree Kelly Johnson and his team believed that they saw something amazing. They were certainly familiar with not only normal aircraft but were at the forefront of aeronautical R&D. They also new a lot about atmospheric phenomenon and certainly about lenticular clouds. Since the Air Force decided to mark this case as solved and slap the lenticular explanation on it there needs to be ample reason to show this is false.

This is precisely why he is asking about the witness testimony. Consistency is important. Sighting characteristics are important. Now, I will also be the first to say that we should take the collective opinions and estimations of Johnson and his crew as they are undoubtedly experts. That they all agreed it was anomalous and displayed observable flight characteristics far more advanced than these guys could conceive should not be lost here. This isn't some country bumpkin and his drinking buddies out in the swamp after a couple of cases. But, we need to reconcile, as much as possible, the witness testimony aspect as well.

As this is one of the best cases it should have the least number of loose ends.

That is why i posted the website Ron, for Lance. (Lance) First Paragraph... The website says Kelly had no way of knowing the actual size, distance or speed size. It's in Paul's video it was 200 foot long (who made that claim)
I was wrong to say such things are boring. Again that is why i posted this link for Lance.

 

[Xylo]

@Xylo

I love that...and I suppose you determine what's significant? I do admit that you could shorten the witness interview process quite a bit using this method:

Witness: And there it was, a flying saucer!
Investigator: I am gonna stop you right there. We have what we need.

@ Lance...

I was referring to your post.

And yes, if I'm replying to your post I can determine what's significant in your post.

Oh and Lance, I'm probably more of a skeptic than you are (and I've had a couple of sightings) I just prefer to address posters in a more civil and less snide way.

 

[Xylo]

@ xylo


Will ya take another look at this thread--the posts are in chronological order. Tell me when the snideness started -- was it before or after I was told that the questions I was asking were "boring"? I may be misunderstanding the ground rules here. Is it only snide if its skeptical? I am already aware of the rules for Ad Hominem attacks and I think I am getting a sense of how sarcasm is policed, too.

I am aware of this thread, I created it. Show me where my posts called for snideness, where I answered or posted with any rudeness or otherwise perpetuated any ad hominem attacks.

In fact, your snideness is in direct response to my agreement with you. Silly you.

 

[Xylo]

Xylo,

Perhaps I did misunderstand your first response to me. I took it (after reading several other posts that suggest that the details of what the witnesses said were not important) that you also meant that my list of uncorrelated numbers from Paul's documentary (frequently cited as one of the most reliable and best UFO docs) were not significant. If that is not what you meant then I apologize--perhaps you can see how I made that mistake?

Lance

No problem then.

And yes, I think numbers are important to a degree. If one has no idea of the size of an aircraft OR it's altitude OR it's relative speed, then any guess is only just a guess no matter how qualified the observer is.

 

[Kieran]

@ Kieran who said:



Just to be sure, are you confirming that none of my questions are answered in that web site? Because I couldn't find any.

I dropped Paul Kimball a note and I am sure that he will be by to let us know where those numbers he used came from.

Thanks,

Lance

I haven't researched this case all that much . So I have to be careful, not to rule out other possibilities that might occur in the future. One / that Paul has the information you need?

Lance, you said.

Paul's clip. States as fact that the object was 200 foot across--this not stated in any of the testimony as far as i can see.

My view is "Joel Carpenter", the author of the piece is ruling it out, that Kelly Johnston could have calculated the actual size of the object from his vantage point. So it would be my opinion if I am reading Joel Carpenter right? Kelly would have been unable to make such a claim!!

Somebody else most have made that claim. Who i do not know? Paul?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Paul does not strike me as someone to just make stuff up, so I'm sure he found that information somewhere.

 

[Kieran]

Paul does not strike me as someone to just make stuff up, so I'm sure he found that information somewhere.

I don't believe Paul, would intentionally claimed something was true when it wasn't. I respect his intregrity, i just have a feeling(I hope it not true) this information was handed from one UFO researcher to another, and nobody bothered to check the source?

Hopefully, I am wrong on that.

 

[Keiko]

@Kieran:

@Kieko:

Then check out the post just above my previous one where I am told that trying to get the facts straight is boring and then tell me how you reconcile this with your heroic search for the truth?

Lance

Lance it's not the first time you have referred to this 'Saucer Jesus' metaphor in a post. I have no issue with you arguing your point (quite often I agree or at least find it challenging)...that's not my point - using a dismissive term like this just seems inappropriate. Surely you can just respond with the facts - which is what you were arguing about anyway. As for 'my heroic search for truth' - your words not mine...but now that you mention it, the search for truth is heroic. I presume that's why you are interested in this field and spend quite a bit of your time researching UFO cases, or am I mistaken?

 

[Kieran]

Thanks for the above posts, as I said, I have asked Paul to be kind enough to clear up the source of those numbers. I cannot find any interviews or any other contemporaneous material related to this case other the original Project BlueBook Files. Which I have carefully read several times.

I do find the numbers parroted several other places but all of them seem to be referring to this documentary as their source.

I do want to further discuss the case (which everyone seems to agree, apparently based on watching Paul's much-lauded depiction of it, is one of the best cases there is) but before I do I just want to clear up these little issues.

Thanks,

Lance

I don't think it effects the credibility of the witnesses or the case, it has the potential do it harm. Since some of the believed facts might not be true. I too have found no sourcing for the 2OO foot claim, if didn't come from the Eyewitnesses. Then it is only hearsay or second hand information (not good)

---------- Post added at 10:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

But the term "boring" is perfectly fine?

Please understand that I don't care that Kieran said that. I know that he would expect to get back a response in kind. Which is what I gave. Saucer Jesus is my way of referring to the idea that facts are just boring in the face of the overall religious "truth" of UFOs.

This is so perfectly illustrated in the above exchange with Kieran that it's like I made it up. Maybe read it all again and you will see?

Thanks,
Lance

This case is not the be all and end all for me (Lance). I still believe Kelly Johnston saw an Object, he couldn't identify. I said boring, because you, were in my opinion trying to discredit this case, on minor issues, which have more to do with the reporting of this sighting (from others). In the overall scheme of things (the answers you get) still don't explain what the object was!!.

But i accept your questions need to answered because other people are saying things that might not be true.