Kelly Johnson

[Kieran]

Kieran, I haven't said one word that discredits the case. I just was trying to understand what this top ten case even is. And I am certain that Paul has a document that gave him all those numbers that make the case so compelling (how it zoomed off at 130 g's and the method whereby someone can observe a non illuminated object from 90 miles away). I am just looking forward to seeing it.

It shouldn't be long now.

Thanks,

Lance

Lance, The negativity you have shown to this subject is obvious. So Pardon me, if i was assuming more then I Should.

I'm sure you will not take it to heart since I am a faceless person to you!!

I have my own top ten list. Maybe you might research the Hudson Valley case next. It just as important? When a case has flaws, you have to admit Lance. I do engage constructively and do not hid.

 

[Keiko]

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

Lance

I think it's a blanket term used to dismiss serious study of this subject. It lumps everyone who has come to the conclusion that this is a real phemonemon, possibly extraterrestrial in origin, in one basket - from the authors of the French Cometa report to a follower of the Billy Meier saga - and I think that is ridiculous. Does being a witness make you part of this cult? Sure there are people who turn this subject into a religion and that's there perogative. But not everyone does. I welcome real skeptic input...and I think most of us are skeptics in the true sense - questioning things. Just because others have come to a different conclusion to you doesn't mean they haven't gone through a logic rational process. What about Ricky Sorrells - a down to earth Texan rancher who saw the huge craft at Stephenville? Is he supposed to deny to himself what he saw because other people say a football sized craft silently cannot silently fly over your ranch? This is actually the opposite of a cult/religion. He was not looking for a belief system of space brothers or whatever, he and others had their belief systems shattered and are looking for answers and they deserve some - especially from those elected to govern and protect, if they have them. If they don't then they should have the decency to have a real and proper investigation, not ridicule and intimidate. 'Saucer Jesus' and the use of language like this does not serve anyone.

Regards,

Keiko

 

[Keiko]

Hey thanks for looking at both sides!

As long as they aren't gonna be all boring with details and stuff, yeah?

Lance

It's clear, but I still think it's polarising and unhelpful to throw out terms like that - just to clarify: are Parviz Jafari and Fife Syminton (Iran UFO 1976 and former govenor of Arizona) members of the Saucer Jesus cult because they both have witnessed UFOs and believe they are not 'ours'?

Are you implying I would like an investigation without details? I don't get it. What have I said in previous posts that would give you this idea?

Thanks
Keiko

I see you removed that quote from previous post. thanks.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I can't find a specific estimate of 200 feet for the UFO, but JF Hare Jr wrote at first he thought it might be a C-124, which has a wingspan of about 175 feet. Johnson wrote it "appeared to be very large." RL Thoren wrote "the object must have been considerable larger than I had estimated." It was pretty big, of that we can be sure.

I used Google Earth to try to come up with a visualization of the sighting. I think my estimates are about right based on what I've read. I expect Johnson's place was somewhere in the orange highlighted area. The black dot is obviously the vehicle. It would have had to be pretty big for anyone to notice it at all.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Thanks for this Frank-very helpful.

Well if you think that's interesting, take a look at Johnson's drawings and compare them with the Northrop B-2. It's almost like a Johnson fan at Northrop read his UFO report, looked at the drawings and a bell went off. It's a much more elegant design than Lockheed's boxy F-117

 

[Paul Kimball]

It should be fairly obvious where the 200 ft calculation came from when one watches the film - the reports allowed "researchers" to triangulate the object's position, and given where the rest of the information comes from in the narrative, I thought it was pretty clear that this was the case for it as well.

Brad Sparks was the primary consultant on the film. The calculations came from him. I believe he based them on Johnson's diagram, as well as the witness descriptions describing it as certain types of aircraft, although I would have to double check that, as it's been several years now since we last discussed it.

What I don't appreciate is Lance's tone, which suggests that I somehow "cooked the books" here, or made stuff up. I have always been consistent in directing people to the Blue Book report for the full picture, as well as the NICAP materials, and I would also encourage them to do their own calculations as to size and altitude.

Of course, none of this actually addresses the case does it? Even if you completely ignore my film - feel free to do so - the case itself remains, as do my original questions, which also remain unanswered.

---------- Post added at 04:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 AM ----------

I'm always the party pooper, Frank, but the bottom drawing was from a different sighting altogether (note the date and description) and depicts only the flame Johnson saw of that event--Johnson didn't actually see an object on that occasion. I think Paul may have made the same mistake because he uses a similar shape in his animation--it's not indicated by the testimony Note Johnson's somewhat indistinct ellipse at the top.That is his drawing from this sighting.

While the other witnesses did describe the object as somewhat like a flying wing, this was always from the perceptive of it being at the same altitude with it flying towards them and I think this reflects the idea that they could see no tail structure more so than it being the shape we see in Paul's video.

Thanks,

Lance

It's not a mistake to represent it as a flying wing type object, because, as you say, that's how the other witnesses described it. You're entitled to your explanation for what they say they saw, but that's simply an opinion. You are absolutely correct, however, about the second drawing, which relates to an earlier sighting Johnson had.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I'm always the party pooper, Frank, but the bottom drawing was from a different sighting altogether (note the date and description) and depicts only the flame Johnson saw of that event--Johnson didn't actually see an object on that occasion. I think Paul may have made the same mistake because he uses a similar shape in his animation--it's not indicated by the testimony Note Johnson's somewhat indistinct ellipse at the top. That is his drawing from this sighting.

Thanks,

Lance

No party poop, you're exactly correct. The bottom drawing was from a separate incident and it is clearly described as an emanation. The gestalts are amazingly similar, that's my only point. The witnesses from the plane described a flying wing shape to the vehicle, which they saw from a different angle, apparently tailing it while it flew across Johnson's view. Johnson didn't have the same view and drew an oval, classic saucer shape. A discrepancy like that actually adds to the credibility of the witnesses and their attention to detail.

 

[Ron Collins]

Lance, The negativity you have shown to this subject is obvious. So Pardon me, if i was assuming more then I Should.

I'm sure you will not take it to heart since I am a faceless person to you!!

I have my own top ten list. Maybe you might research the Hudson Valley case next. It just as important? When a case has flaws, you have to admit Lance. I do engage constructively and do not hid.

Lets discuss them both. Why dont you open a thread on the Hudson Valley case? I think it is a very good one as well.

 

[Frank Stalter]

There are only vague approximations in the testimony of where the plane was. And to say that somehow these same vague points could define the size of a 200 ft. craft? C'mon, think about it for a minute. It's simply not possible.

Johnson, wisely, never attempted to assign a size--his diagram only shows the shape and the size ratio.

So I'm not saying you made it up. I am saying that it is bullshit without some other supporting documents.

Any ideas about the other numbers---the precise speed

Johnson figures the UFO's position at Point Mugu and the airplane passengers said they were over Long Beach/Santa Ana and about 50-60 miles from the UFO and Long Beach is about 50 miles from Point Mugu. I'll take their ballpark estimates. The witnesses were all professionals in the aviation field. 200 feet seems like a reasonable estimate to me.

The top speed could be phenomenal, 2000 maybe 4000 mph. Thoren has their plane traveling right at it at 225 mph for about 5 minutes. During this time, they are able to make out a crescent/flying wing shape and then within one minute see the UFO go from a size and shape they can make out to a mere speck to disappearing on a day with clear visibility. So you've got hovering as described by Johnson and then jumping to an extraordinary speed just like that. It's very similar in this regard to the Deke Slayton case.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Frank,

I challenge you to describe the math whereby you estimate the size of an object using only one known point and one vague point (within 50 miles or so) to somehow get the size of an object only 200' wide? Can you just give me the numbers. Usually triangulation can give you a good idea of a location of something. IF YOU HAVE 2 KNOWN POINTS AND ANGLES TO THE 3RD. I could accept that. But to say that you can go further and actually get the size...!!! Please just show me your math.

Thanks,

Lance

What math? I'm going by the consistent descriptions of the witnesses. They all were in the aviation business and all said it was big. The most extraordinary part of the case isn't the size of the vehicle. C-124s had a wing span of 170 feet. The Spruce Goose had a wingspan of 320 feet. It's the flight characteristics, hovering and then hitting an out of this world speed within a minute.

 

[Ron Collins]

I gotta be honest, this bums me out. I was under the impression that the numbers came from Johnson's team(not sure why). Though I am a bit ashamed I never looked into that closer(mental not to look for things like this in other cases I like.). Here is the deal, since I know my way around a calculator, I have to concede this point. We simply can not calculate the size, or for that matter speed, unless we know an accurate craft position. Unfortunately, I think we have to toss them out or at least plot a curve showing the possible size as a function of the assumed distances from each witness... or I could hammer nails in my feet. It sounds just as fun and is probably less painful.

Short of a blockbuster explanation from Brad Sparks the precision of the numbers is can not be shown. Now, that aside, we can still talk about witness testimony.

 

[Paul Kimball]

This from Brad:

The crew of the Lockheed WV-2 said the object was about the size of a "very large" or "huge" Flying Wing (YB-49 was 172 ft) or a C-124 (174 ft) or a B-36 (230 ft). Test pilot Roy Wimmer specifically said he had "considerable experience" in visually estimating distances which were checked with radar, and his estimate of 50-60 miles (initial distance as they flew about 30 miles closer in 6 minutes) was correct and verified by triangulation with Kelly Johnson's sighting line intersection. The size and distance matches the angular size needed for visibility to the human eye and for disappearance due to distance, and matches Johnson's ability to see the UFO's high speed departure for about 9x longer duration (90 seconds vs witnesses aboard the aircraft only 10 secs) because he used 8x binoculars.

And I too can see exactly where this is going. Lance has no explanation for this case, so he is focusing in on the estimated size point, as it appears in my film. This is a distraction. I noticed the same tactics when he "discussed" the Tehran case in another thread.

So, I'll make it easy for you, Lance, because I'm going to assume that you really do want to have a good faith conversation about this case. Ignore my film entirely. Forget it ever happened (although I personally stand behind Brad's estimated size). Deal solely with the reports contained in the Blue Book file as you try to definitively explain the case in purely prosaic terms. Perhaps you even agree with the USAF - that what Johnson, his wife, and his co-workers saw was a lenticular cloud. I won't be the least bit surprised if you do.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Johnson said it looked like it might have been at Point Mugu.

Another witness said it looked like it might be off the Santa Barbara Islands (25 miles further West).

Estimating a size is an exercise in futility (I don't deny that it was big).

A couple points about Johnson's account. He was at home, so he's going to know the surrounding area reasonably well, and Point Mugu is also the site of a Naval Air station which is obviously going to have plenty of air traffic and he can make a comparison of the UFO to that. Of course if the UFO was closer to the Santa Barbara islands than Mugu, the 200 ft estimate could be very conservative.

 

[Kieran]

Lets discuss them both. Why dont you open a thread on the Hudson Valley case? I think it is a very good one as well.

I'm all for it Ron. But would that thread get the attention as this one has? Lance said; I am less knowledgeable on cases after the 1970's, but all I wanted was for him to give his views on the Hudson valley case (good or bad) If he found flaws with the case, I love to read what those flaws are, and let us discuss them in a civil manner.

I don't mind Lance, he has an agenda (no offence) but at least the conversation is stimulating, he has got me to think more about cases that I had previously just took for granted like Roswell and the Kelly Johnston case.

 

[Ron Collins]

This from Brad:



And I too can see exactly where this is going. Lance has no explanation for this case, so he is focusing in on the estimated size point, as it appears in my film. This is a distraction. I noticed the same tactics when he "discussed" the Tehran case in another thread.

So, I'll make it easy for you, Lance, because I'm going to assume that you really do want to have a good faith conversation about this case. Ignore my film entirely. Forget it ever happened (although I personally stand behind Brad's estimated size). Deal solely with the reports contained in the Blue Book file as you try to definitively explain the case in purely prosaic terms. Perhaps you even agree with the USAF - that what Johnson, his wife, and his co-workers saw was a lenticular cloud. I won't be the least bit surprised if you do.

There is simply no way anyone will convince me that a team of aerospace engineers (that developed spy planes) would mistake a lenticular cloud for a UFO. I think they saw what they said they saw. Even when leaving the calculations out of the case the testimony is still relevant. These guys did know what they were doing. They were in a better position(scientifically) to make that determination than perhaps anyone in the world.

 

[Frank Stalter]

As a known skeptic, it's sort of par for the course that my motives, etc will be defined and proclaimed by other people. I just want to ask folks to bear with me a bit on this and even more importantly read the documentation (it's only a few pages and it is fascinating). Maybe I could get you to take another look at those few pages, Paul?

I think what we have here is a case with more nuance than is often found and that doesn't make it easy to boil a thorough synopsis down to under four minutes. Subtract the time you need to establish Johnson's reputation as an aeronautical designer and you aren't left with much time. I think it goes without saying that the estimates based on the witness accounts were just that. Produce an hour long documentary on just this case and not make that clear and I might feel differently. Some excellent detail is also lost in the segment, but that's show biz!

 

[Frank Stalter]

But it is not nuanced. The numbers are wrong. And not just wrong In the matter of size, they actually imply the opposite of what the witnesses related. In the matter of the departing altitude, they appear to have been created whole cloth.

In no way am I disputing the fact that Johnson and company saw something they thought was unusual that day. They did.

But the sad thing is that the majority of people are never gonna know any of the real facts, At best they will know what they see in this documentary or what they read as the pro-UFO sites dutifully copy the incorrect info as fact.

It's hard to prove things in such a black and white way as I have done (I hope) above. I took about 15 minutes to read the actual documentation and then I immediately saw the errors on my 1st viewing of Paul's clip.

For me, this is sort of a textbook example of how Ufology shoots itself in the foot when it comes to credibility.

For many other folks I sure that it will flow over them without making any impression at all, leaving them confident that as long as the story is Pro-UFO, the details don't matter.

Lance

I've been interested in this case for awhile but never looked at it this closely and it's a great one. We live in a glorious time when there's enough information available online and amazing computer visualization tools available to go back and take a good close look at the great cases. 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.

The most curious part of the accounts is that the airborne witnesses were able to make out a crescent/flying wing shape from more than double the distance of Johnson and without the aid of binoculars, and Johnson was not. I've done some 3D visualizations to scale and he got a good look. For Johnson to only see a saucer shape, I think the UFO would have had to remain at just the right angle to him the entire sighting. It's possible but curious and maybe helpful. Just like in science, sometimes you have to make assumptions.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Frank, I went into detail about how the witnesses said different things about the motion--with durations from 10 seconds to 2 minutes. Can you share some numbers as to how the above is true? Airplanes leave my sight here at home in about a minute--are they going 2000MPH? Is there anyway you can explain what you mean above--using numbers?

Thanks,

Lance

Planes leaving your sight in a minute? Maybe if you're turning your head.

My math is thus, but you won't like my assumptions. I accept 200 feet as a nice round number and Point Mugu as the general location where the UFO was hovering. The only fixed point we're sure of is Johnson's location . . . . home. I don't know exactly where he lived but he did. ;O) The two other points obviously float along the timeline of 5 or so minutes total. During the hovering phase with aid of binoculars, johnson is able to get a good look and the object is 20 miles away. For an object that size to completely vanish, I estimate it has to travel at least 50 miles further away in the 90 seconds. I think that is conservative when you figure that the airborne witnesses see the object from about 50 miles away at first and with unaided vision. With the binoculars, Johnson should be able to see the UFO well beyond 70 miles away. But 50 miles in 90 seconds is 2000 mph.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Ok, I can't teach logic here. If you have no distances (which you don't) you can't make any of the above claims. I note with some amusement, that the "triangulation" (UFO-style with only 1 known point!) that appears in the film shows the object not at Point Mugu but 50+ miles further West!

I suppose the moral here is to do whatever makes it work!

I am not going to comment further on this. I already look like a nut with the level of detail I have given it! If you find a factual error (or some more testimony) in my above notes, please let me know. I would love to correct any errors.

If you think I am wrong in your heart then I advise you that you are using the wrong calculator. But by all means shower some thanks and smileys and dittos and so on on those who argue against my agenda, etc.

I will say to Paul, that I really do like you as a person! Really. And I know that you are smart enough to know what I have laid out here rings true. If Brad Sparks led you wrong, there is no shame in that.

Thanks,

Lance

Lance, there is only one fixed point and that's Johnson's location. That's it. The other points float. C'mon it's self evident and shouldn't be that hard to accept. I noticed the graphic being far west of the Point Mogu as well but you're back to talking about Paul's film, not about the case.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Frank forgive me!

Are you just saying that it COULD have been 200ft across?

Yes by all means!

The problem is that if could have also been 2000Ft across or 2 miles.

We just don't know and we can't know from the data.

Thanks,

Lance

It's just a guess. I think it were much smaller, the UFO wouldn't even have been noticed, especially by the airborne witnesses. Much bigger and for an object that size to vanish, the speed would have been insane. I think it is a good guess, but of course there's some play in it.

I think the real key is the lighting. Sun down below the horizon, sky orange, UFO backlit. I think it's really the only way at least the airborne witnesses would have even noticed it. It couldn't have been much more than a dot that turned into a speck. Based on what are obviously assumptions, I cobbled together this impression of what Johnson saw through the binoculars and I added an airplane model for reference. Pretty easy to tell it's supposed to be a plane. The plane is about 10 miles from the camera and scaled to wingspan of 100 ft. The UFO is 20 miles away and scaled to 200 feet. You see they both look the same size. I took the additional step of scaling each object 8X larger to match Johnson's binocular aided viewing.