• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Kelly Johnson

Free episodes:

Thanks Frank!

Yes all we really have is a good line extending out from Johnson's home (1mile north of Ventura Blvd/3miles west of Agoura) towards Point Mugu. That is good data.

Where on that line the object was, we cannot know. The further away it, the bigger it would have to be.
The airborne witnesses STRONGLY suggest it was at least over the islands---maybe further.

Thanks,

Lance

Well there was also a path out of the area for the UFO and that would have been out over the islands. The airborne witness said they thought it headed close to due west (270 degrees) and Johnson had it's path at 240-260 degrees.
 
That is roughly the same line. The object was west of Johnson and "moved" West. Tantalizingly if Johnson hadn't neglected to include the angle he was viewing at we could have gotten a rough estimate of where the object was--he included so much other good data but forgot this.

As is is now, we can't get anything using the available data:

Location
Distance
Size
Speed

We do have a rough altitude.

Lance

And all those parameters have margins for error, of course. The altitude is roughly 17500 ft with a margin of error maybe 1500 feet in each direction. Size? Well Thoren wrote that he initially thought the UFO was about 7 miles away. Seems based on his own reconsideration and Johnson's account, it's more like 40-50 miles. Let's say initially that Thoren thought the UFO was the size of a P-51 with a 37 ft wingspan. Multiply that by the six times further away it seems the UFO was and you've got 222 ft. I think those on the fly estimates are pretty decent. They seem to cross check. They're in the ballpark. The airborne witnesses probably saw the object before Johnson, but Johnson was able to follow it longer because he was closer and had binoculars. But it all really comes down to speed and I don't think there's any other way of slicing it, the UFO took off at a solid 2000 mph.
 
Frank,

I don't think the math is done that way for estimating visual size: just multiplying. I could be wrong.

And where did you get the P-51 thing? Where did Thoren say that?

I really just don't get the idea of using a bunch of guesses. And what do you mean? In the ballpark? In the ballpark of what?

I mean let's go with the B-36 first guess that one of the guys actually made (230ft wingspan) now multiply it by 6 and we have a 1300 ft. craft---why would we only use numbers that make an apology for Brad Sparks?

Lance

Thoren didn't say anything about a P-51, he just said his initial estimate of the distance to the UFO was 7 miles. What you get from the airborne witnesses is them trying to gauge the size of the object based on quantities they already know. Hare thought it might be a C-124, Colman thought B-36. These were big planes. Thoren apparently initially though, smaller vehicle, must be closer. That's all that is. As far as guesses, they're assumptions. You have to make them when you don't have all the facts, but you can make good ones.
 
I read through the documentation (I am still reading and am not finished) -- here are my preliminary remarks:

(1) Several references indicate the location of the craft between point Mugu and the Santa Barbara Islands
(2) I checked out and pinpointed on the map the approximate location of the ranch near Thousand Oaks (if you follow a strict 3 miles west of Agoura and one mile north of the blvd.
(3) I set the google sun time at 12/16/10 at 4:45 PST ... indeed the sun is just below the largest mountain from that point and the vector toward point mugu lies on the right side of the tallest mountain.
(4) Some of the statements seem to indicate the UAP at near or about the same altitude of the test craft.

Given this preliminary data (a very rough sketch in my mind is developing from reading and pinpointing data on the map through google earth)--I am not convinced a derivation of Sparks numbers are as far fetched as Lance would like to think. For instance, silhouettes mentioned against high altitude clouds (given the type, altostratus, cirrostratus, etc) gives a good indication of the elevation angle from the ground and test craft observers.

Of course a good report should include the details--but my current impression is that Sparks numbers check out.
 
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.

Well said.

Actually if you are not a pilot you can't imagine the skills you need to have a long and safe pilot life. I can tell you that if you are to mistake a lenticular cloud or any other for something else, you won't stay airborne for long. "Reading the weather" with the clouds is as vital as understanding road signs when you drive.

As a paraglider pilot I stay airborne and alive (and my passengers) some 600h a year by doing just that: accurately identifying clouds and drawing a plethora of weather informations from it. The first time I will misread any informations when I am basically hanging from a plastic bag at 12 000 ft altitude in a sifting environment like the Himalayas will be my last.

Pokhara 2010.jpg

So yeah I tend to take seasoned pilots testimonies at "face value", and still do not consider myself to be a "believer'.
 
I've already said that for the sake of argument you can toss out the 200 ft. figure, and just assume that we overstated the case on that, and should have said "a researcher's estimate" or something like that. I'll even stipulate, for the further sake of argument, that this was an example of what Lance calls ufology's general habit of overstating a case. I don't believe that either is the case, and that the estimate itself is reasonable and well-founded, but as Lance is using it to gum up the works, I'll agree with him in principle, just to move us forward, because I await with baited breath his explanation. So, toss the 200 foot estimate, and just talk about the Blue Book report (ahh... deja vu...).

What we really have here is Lance, who seems like a nice enough fellow, terribly reasonable and all that, giving us a perfect example of Klass-ism - focus in on one error / overstatement (remember, I'm willing to stipulate for the sake of argument that the object size measurement presented in the doc was either erroneous or at best an estimate that some people may not agree with) made by someone not involved with the case (that would be Brad and I, not any of the actual participants), as opposed to actually discussing the case itself.

Lance is using an old magician's trick, also often used by lawyers and debaters, so I recognize it well - distract people from the real story. Politicians love it. So do exopolitics types, and so do those people whom Greg Bishop properly calls fundamentalist debunkers (two sides of the same belief / disbelief coin).

Now, lance, if you can legitimately debunk this case, or provide a reasonable explanation, based on the reports of the witnesses (again, let's get beyond the documentary distraction), then by all means, please do so. I would happily place it in my "IFO" file if you can actually solve it, and so would any UFO researcher I know - especially a skeptical guy like Brad, who is hardly some wild-eyed ET believer.
 
What we really have here is Lance, who seems like a nice enough fellow, terribly reasonable and all that, giving us a perfect example of Klass-ism - focus in on one error / overstatement (remember, I'm willing to stipulate for the sake of argument that the object size measurement presented in the doc was either erroneous or at best an estimate that some people may not agree with) made by someone not involved with the case (that would be Brad and I, not any of the actual participants), as opposed to actually discussing the case itself.

Lance is using an old magician's trick, also often used by lawyers and debaters, so I recognize it well - distract people from the real story. Politicians love it. So do exopolitics types, and so do those people whom Greg Bishop properly calls fundamentalist debunkers (two sides of the same belief / disbelief coin).

Spot on! . . . particularly the part about politicians and lawyers . . .
 
Paul,

I am well aware that you would like to sweep the errors under the rug. You continue to use your own tricks to understate (imagine that!) the points I have been making here. I am not just saying that your size estimate is unsupported as you must know from above.

I have shown that the figures you gave for:

1. Size
2. Speed
3. Location
4. And Departing Altitude

Are all impossible to support.

I didn't just show that you overstated the case. What can you say about Sparks using the one witness who's testimony was different than the other three guys in the plane? What is that other than misleading and unprofessional?

Your film showed a triangulation when there is no way one could have been done. You have too few points/angles to do so. This is not merely understating things--it's creating stuff.



Really.

Really?

It's pretty simple. Can you say what portion of the evidence I might not what covered? Where your sticking point is? Maybe I can clear it up or see where I might be off.

Nah, easier to say that you are not convinced. I wonder how long you ruminated on Brad Sparks' info....did he do a lot of drafts for you until you were satisfied?

I can see why you would like to move on and start laughing at any possible explanation I might attempt. That would be easy to do since I really would be guessing. But the difference is that I can admit that. I am still planning to speak with an expert to see if my idea is even possible.

Just because you want to talk about a particular aspect of this topic does not preclude others aspects from being discussed. This is very interesting to me as is your response because I know you are smart enough to know what I am saying is true. These are all things you can (and maybe you have?) look at yourself to double check and show me where I was wrong. Instead you pretend that I am only talking about the size and try to change the subject.

Lance

Okay, Lance, there it is - you just called me unprofessional. But I'll let that go, because it says more about you than me. I stand by my work, and I stand by my conclusions about you - sound and fury, signifying nothing, and with nothing constructive to contribute to the conversation.

And you're also outright lying, because you say you've read the Blue Book reports, and yet above you say the altitude figure we used is unsubstantiated, when it was clearly stated as an estimate in the crew reports. Unbelieveable. Do you just throw stuff like that out there and hope no-one will challenge you on it?

I have been patient with you, in this and many other threads. I have tried to engage you constructively, and yet have gotten nothing back of substance - rather, it's been one dodge after another. I've told you here that we should just move on from my doc, and talk about the Blue Book files. You just can't do that, because you would rather bash me and Sparks, for whatever reason.

So I'm done. Others can continue to chat it up with you - that's their call. But I've had enough of trying to be reasonable with someone who clearly has no interest in being reasonable.
 
I said departing altitude--the absurd 90 mile high figure that appears in your film and nowhere else. Check the previous pages where I do discuss the altitude from the testimony in full. Like when I said (on the previous page):



Mislead much?

Wait, who's dodging?

And thanks for using the evidence to make your devastating response! The funny thing is I know. And I know that you know.

Your best bet when discussing this is to be sure that no response is possible--you will look better that way.

But if you ever want to debate this, please let me know. It's the kind of thing that can be cleared up quickly when one party can't hide behind rhetoric.

Bravely done,

Lance

Hi I'm new here, and I have been reading a lot of good materials. I have just been prompted on login to post soon or be deleted. I will probably be banned at first post but can't resist.

Lance you are a real ass, WTF ? What kind of frustrated moron you must be in real life. Don't think that nobody will notice that you actually enjoy bullshitting and hurting people. The fact that Paul Kimball is respected in the field is what motivates your hatred. "HOOO LET'S GET SOME BIG GUY!."
Look, most here don't buy your I-am-doing-it-for-the love-of-truth BS. Your motivations and natural mental imbalance are clear, so, knowing that, continue as long as you want to.
 
LM is quite right about the altitude thing. I mis-read his post in the heat of the moment. I apologize for that.

I stand by everything else I said.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

The fact that Paul Kimball is respected in the field is what motivates your hatred. "HOOO LET'S GET SOME BIG GUY!."

Umm... I appreciate the "support," but I'm not in the "field" and have never claimed to be. I don't even think there is a "field," and even if there was, I aspire to greater things than being "big" in it.

I'm just a guy interested in a civil and honest discourse about interesting things. And that's where Lance and I differ.

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

Now, having said that, I also contacted Brad because, as I said, I'm all about an honest discourse with people who are really interested in looking for answers. I told him about this thread, and asked him to have a look, and then send me any thoughts he might have. While Brad is basically out of UFO-related research these days (he's focused on other topics), he views the Santa Barbara Channel case as a top notch UFO / UAP incident, so he was happy to oblige with a detailed explanation. I won't be asking him for more information or input, but here's his take:

As you know Paul, these were not ordinary witnesses, but the world's top experts in aviation, aerodynamics, and aircraft design, with Kelly Johnson being the world's foremost aircraft designer (who had just begun work on the U-2 on this sighting date). One was Lockheed's Cal Tech-trained Chief Aerodynamicist. They were also experts in visual observation of aircraft and objects at long distances, which they had to do in their daily work for Lockheed, most of them being pilots if not test pilots. One of them had trained in calibrating his visual estimates of distance of aircraft with radar tracking, which helped him match visual cues for distance with actual range (for example atmospheric haze can allow one to estimate distance, comparing an object's apparent haze to the observable haze of known objects at known distance, etc.). Very few people ever get such training (most people in a technical position like that can just use the radar to get the exact distances). One could not think of better UFO witnesses, expert trained witnesses, in all of UFO history.

I keep seeing the comment that there is no triangulation because there is only "one point" and people can't see objects from the ground at an altitude of 90 miles. That's absurd.

Let's take the second issue first: The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle are more than 170 miles in altitude above the ground and are seen all the time by naked-eye observers on the ground. Altitude alone has nothing to do with visibility per se. Angular size (size to distance ratio) and contrast with sky background are the determining factors in an object's visibility at long distances.

As for triangulation data points: There were 2 sets of Lockheed observers in 2 different locations separated by a baseline for triangulation of more than 30 miles. With people reading over the Lockheed witness statements, why has no one bothered noting that Kelly Johnson gave a specific sighting azimuth (direction) of 255 degs, based on his knowledge of his home's location with respect to his local geography (I personally visited the area myself)?

Johnson wrote: "I estimated the position of the object to be roughly over Point Mugu, which lies on a bearing about 255° from my ranch." The Lockheed WV-2 aircraft headed straight towards the hovering object and had their aircraft magnetic compass to give them an exact heading of due West Magnetic (270 degs or 285 True for that location in 1953). The 255 True bearing from Johnson's position and the 285 True bearing from the Lockheed aircraft's position intersect over the Santa Barbara Channel near Anacapa Island. That's called a triangulation. Lockheed chief test pilot and main pilot for this flight, Rudy Thoren, reported in excellent agreement with this triangulation that he "estimated that it [the object] was somewhere between Point Mugu and the Santa Barbara Islands" -- but the triangulation is more accurate than his estimate and should not be cited as if better than the triangulation, nor should other's estimates be used to trump the more accurate data.

That 255 direction from Kelly Johnson puts the object on a sighting line directly over Point Mugu, but the triangulated intersection point does not put the object itself directly over Point Mugu (about 20 miles away) but about ten miles farther away, at about 30 miles from Johnson. The direction to the object remains exactly the same, 255 degs, only the distance is greater, a parameter that is difficult to observe. Johnson said "roughly" the position was over Point Mugu, that means "very approximately."

There is a basic rule in science and engineering data analysis: Use the most accurate data! You don't mix in the less-accurate and vague data, and demand some kind of perverse "fairness" doctrine insisting that the most accurate data must always be allowed to be swamped by the vague or inaccurate data and then name-call anyone who selects accurate over the vague as "cherry-picking."

If astronomer-mathematician Lincoln LaPaz had followed this procedure in his decades of successful meteorite tracking he would never have found a single meteorite. But he found many meteorites using witness reports because he ignored or put little or no weight on vague imprecise witness statements and he quite scientifically "cherry-picked" the accurate data from among his data set. This is not just proper scientific procedure it is the required scientific procedure. It is the height of lunacy to use lousy data when you have better data. No scientist would take a witness statement of time of "oh, it was around 5 o'clock," and prefer it over the witness who precisely reports the time was 5:00 to 5:05.

It is a classic debunking tactic to deconstruct a UFO case by insisting tacitly, as an unspoken hidden premise, that all witnesses must be identical observing robots who report exactly the same details, and if any of them deviate in any way then the debunker gets to trump the accurate or more certain witnesses, who get dismissed in the process. So, with this tactic, if one witness makes a casual, inexact comment that something happened in "a minute or two," then that vague offhand remark gets to trump and destroy the witness who gives a precise numerical figure of "10 seconds." And if someone who analyzes the data uses the 10-second figure as the authoritative witness number, then the debunker screams "foul" and complains that the exact data is what is wrong and must be rejected or obfuscated with casual non-estimates and offhanded comments. Sorry, but that's not the way science is done. The 10-second figure for object disappearance is the controlling data point in any truly scientific analysis of this case.

It is another debunking tactic to insist that the witness must be his own PhD scientist investigator of his own sighting and do all sighting analysis himself, and do it correctly and completely as if he knows of all other witnesses' reports, and anything he says and any mistake he makes will be used against him, using hypercritical nitpicking techniques. The Lockheed crew and Johnson and his wife were not UFO investigators, and could hardly investigate their own sightings in their initial sighting reports in any case. They expected the AF to investigate, do triangulations, etc., and no doubt assumed that the AF did its job (which the AF did not, so far as we know).

What if Kelly Johnson had not been so careful and had not used the qualifying words "estimated" and "roughly" when he said he "estimated the position of the object to be roughly over Point Mugu" and had instead just said "it looked like it was over Point Mugu?" Would a debunker get to jump all over Johnson when the triangulation turns out to put the object about 10 miles farther away, but still on a line directly over Point Mugu? Would they get to say this disproves the entire sighting, or refutes Johnson's observational data? I think not. What if Johnson had been a little rushed that day in getting his secretary to type his report and had left out those qualifying words, thus making his report more vulnerable? Fortunately he didn't, but no doubt there are other parts of his report and other witnesses' reports that could be nitpicked to death with debunking tactics instead of common sense, scientific data procedures.

As the principal investigator of this case, I have spent years investigating and analyzing the sighting details, including interviewing the last surviving witness and indirectly communicating with the second-to-last (pilot Roy Wimmer, in a nursing home, via his daughter). I have carefully studied each parameter of the case, including aircraft location, altitude, time, heading, speed, turns, meteorological data, and the sighting parameters and physics for the UFO. I have constructed a sighting model with 3-D data that uses the best and most accurate data to reconstruct the sighting circumstances, physics and dynamics, including the Lockheed WV-2 flight time-altitude record data that was reported, in order to determine what actually happened, not what is most convenient to some ETH scenario (which I reject in general, and have all my life), or some debunker anti-ETH scenario. This flight record and reconstruction helps refine the fuzzier data on altitude and time. I am not ready to publish all of this work yet as it is book-length.

Facts are facts, however, even when they clash with my own personal beliefs and views (I do not "believe" in aliens). If the data in this multiple-witness, triangulated Lockheed sighting suggests an extraordinary flying object was observed by expert witnesses, then I report the data and do my best to reconstruct it in the most accurate manner, even if I do not agree with the direction the case points in, so to speak. It is admittedly a challenge to my anti-ETH position. But I will not force-fit the data into a debunking scenario by perversely choosing the most deviant and inaccurate details and ignore the most reliable and accurate data.

It is a fact that the human eye's Minimum Angle of Resolution (MAR) is about 1 arcminute -- one cannot "see" an object smaller than that with the unaided eye (with one exception not pertinent here). The angular size of a 200 foot object at about 60 miles distance is about 2 arcminutes or about twice (2x) the minimum to be visible. If the object had been smaller than 100 feet it could not have been seen at 60 miles. As the Lockheed aircraft approached to about 30 miles from the stationary object, the angular size would double to about 4 arcminutes or 4x minimum resolution or visibility (the Full Moon is about 32 arcmins in diameter for comparison, so the object would have been about 1/8 the angular diameter of the Full Moon and thus very easy to see and make out a rough shape, but not large enough for finer details). So what's the problem? Kelly Johnson was also at about that latter distance, but he also had 8-power binoculars which extended the range he could observe the object as it took off away from him in a climb.

That means they all could have observed the departing object out to a distance of about 120 miles with the unaided eye before disappearing due to distance. With the 8-power binoculars Johnson could see it to eight-times greater distance, or about 960 miles, where it would disappear (at an altitude of about 90 miles at a modest ascent angle of 5 degs) . Do the math. It is easy arithmetic. Therefore, during the object's 10-second departure as seen from the Lockheed WV-2 aircraft, it would have traveled about 90 miles (from about 30 to 120 miles) in 10 seconds. That's about 9 miles per second average velocity, or about 32,000 mph.

If Lockheed's test pilot Roy Wimmer saw the departure sequence for about 3 seconds longer than Lockheed Chief Aerodynamicist Philip Colman's 10-second high-speed departure interval (as Wimmer indicated when he said he "was able to see it for several seconds after the rest of the crew had lost sight of it") then I can be conservative and reduce this average velocity to about 7 miles per second or 25,000 mph at minimum (90 mi/13 secs = 7 mi/sec approx.). But that's an average velocity. It had to start from zero velocity, so the peak velocity could have been at least double that, or 50,000 mph. The acceleration required to reach 50,0000 mph in 13 seconds is about 175 g's. To be conservative, I can reduce this figure a bit more by assuming Wimmer's "several seconds" extra time than Colman might have been as much as say 5 secs longer, or 15 secs total for the escape sequence, but cannot reasonably stretch this much more than that. That results in an acceleration of about 130 g's.

Postulating outlandish object dimensions such as 1300 feet instead of the more reasonable 200 feet indicated by the Minimum Angle of Resolution and the 170-230-ft Flying WIng/C-124/B-36 comparisons made by the witnesses, only make these velocity and acceleration figures almost infinitely worse. Parameters cannot be arbitrarily changed like that without causing a massive ripple effect on all other dynamic physics parameters of this sighting. An object as large as 1300 ft in size would have to reach a distance of about 6.5x farther, or about 780 miles to disappear to the naked eye in about 10-15 secs, or about 6,240 miles distance to disappear in Kelly Johnson's binoculars in about 90 secs. The average speed is nearly 250,000 mph and peak velocity 500,000 mph reached at about 750 g's. I leave it to others to check this easy math for themselves.

Brad

Once again, I stand by Brad's work, and my film. But by all means, folks can continue to accuse me of being unprofessional. I have no doubt that they will present a definitive and detailed rebuttal to Brad's remarks, however, using their years of experience with these types of reports and calculations.

Having said that, the fundamental material is still the original reports, to which my original three questions - still unanswered by Lance or anyone else - were related. Those questions, once again, are:

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?

So, this conversation can go in a lot of different directions now. I'll be fascinated to see who chimes in.

P.S. This just in from Brad:

PS: A typo: I meant 1/8 the size of the Full Moon, not 1/4. I have been working on projects all night and this slipped by. There are a few clumsy wordings that can be misconstrued too (I forgot to put the word "about" in a few places). Off to dreamland (NOT the Area 51 kind!).

I have made the correction in the original post, but wanted to note this in case someone accused Brad or I of... well, whatever they could dream up, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Paul
 
Having said that, the fundamental material is still the original reports, to which my original three questions - still unanswered by Lance or anyone else - were related. Those questions, once again, are:

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?


So, this conversation can go in a lot of different directions now. I'll be fascinated to see who chimes in.
***chime***
Just to say that Ron and I gave our opinion on question a) and I've read a good one here on c), "pacifying explanation" or something...
 
***chime***
Just to say that Ron and I gave our opinion on question a) and I've read a good one here on c), "pacifying explanation" or something...

Thanks JC, but I was referring more to certain "skeptics" who have chosen not to address these questions. I absolutely agree with you on point A.

In terms of the USAF explanation, the hilarious thing is that Johnson et al specifically considered that explanation, and ruled it out, because it did not fit.

The USAF gave a similarly absurd explanation for the 1957 RB47 case. By the way, I brought that up on the forum with certain "skeptics," and as I recall, they didn't address it then either.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
 
Lance, the vector of the sighting from the craft would introduce a much higher variation than a mere translation of the vector's point of origin. Sounds as though you are leaning on the position vector rather than the sighting vector from the craft.
 
You mean the aircraft, when you say craft, yeah?

Absolutely. There is so much variation that all guesses are useless. That is all I have been saying (and overstating).

Sparks is claiming that the plane flew directly west towards the object (I need to check the testimony to see if that is accurate or just an inference) which, if true, can easily put the object MUCH further West.

Never mind that the film draws a line NORTHWEST from the "plane" to the object! Hilarious to see the UFO science at work.

Michael--did you have any further thoughts on a method of getting Johnson's viewing angle, you suggested you were working on it? I see no way from the data but maybe I missed something.

Thanks,

Lance

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 285* (true West) actually NorthWest?
 
Argh--I was afraid someone would ask that! My (possibly wrong and stupid) answer is that Magnetic North is slightly to the west of True North in our part of the planet. Heading True West though still means that on a map you would be heading WEST as we all understand it--straight left.

Please correct this if it is wrong.

By the way I don't see Brad's idea that they turned due west in the testimony. They did turn towards the object but I don't see where they correlated this with True West (or any direction).

I would ask Sparks or anyone else interested in an honest discussion where that is in the accounts.

Ironically this idea makes my points so much stronger because it takes the possible intersection points (the object) many many more miles out to sea. But it doesn't follow the data so I can't hold onto it.

See how that works?

In fact this entire matter could be settled in a few moments if I were talking directly with either Paul or Brad. They choose to stand by their account without backing it up.

You really cant triangulate with only one known point despite what Brad says. Ask someone you know who is good at math. I did!



Thanks,

Lance

Lance. The 200 foot claim, is only an estimate and I don't believe anyone could proclaim it wasn't. Kelly Johnston saw the object at a specific location, but I don't believe he could have judged the speed or size with exact accuracy. Brad is wrong in my opinion.

Now we all that said and done. Paul asked you a few questions. I Believe your obligated to at least try to answer one of them.
 
Hi Kieran.

Check earlier, I did try to answer Paul's questions.

And I appreciate the comments but there is a difference between an estimate and a wild guess.

I understand that Brad and Paul THINK that they made an estimate on the factors of this sighting. I simply have shown that their numbers (which appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the testimony, biased choice of certain testimony, and a plain old ignorance of basic math) are wrong.

Walk into any college math class and say that you can solve for a triangle using only one known point. This is laughable anywhere but on a paranormal chat forum. In 2 seconds face to face, I could demolish all pretense that this stuff makes sense or is supported. Here the truth is ruled by emotions over facts (and measured in smileys etc.) but in the real world it's not.

Thanks,

Lance

Your last post is 86 do you know which post save time?
 
It's a very short thread--can't you just read it all?

Just kidding: 80.

Lance

So your not denying the fact. An object was spotted by Kelly Johnston and he couldn't identify it. Now Lance you don't need to get frightened by the term UFO. Nobody is saying this object was piloted by Aliens. Lance we are grown ups. What do you think it was? If you say Cloud . I will pull your two ears
 
So your not denying the fact. An object was spotted by Kelly Johnston and he couldn't identify it. Now Lance you don't need to get frightened by the term UFO. Nobody is saying this object was piloted by Aliens. Lance we are grown ups. What do you think it was? If you say Cloud . I will pull your two ears

I think everyone on the Paracast forum knows that a UFO doen't mean alien - it's just what pop-culture has done to the term. Despite whether one agrees with Lance or not, no one can say that he isn't trying his best to "solve" this case. I have to say I'm impressed.
 
Back
Top