Moderated: Continuation - UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

I already realise I'm peeing into the wind here, but who needs sleep?

Originally Posted by ufology

Shows how close you read my post and looked at the illustration, which was stated as being not perfect and primarily to illustrate the ideas, but even so, if you look at the black arc on the red line ... that is where I suggested the smoke line may have been for a slow approach and power turn/accelleration... and it's not 8 miles.

You're right, it's not

The black line indicating where the smoke would be is only 5 miles across Johnson's line of sight. Remind me, did Johnson happen to mention a 5 mile wide streak with a solid looking blob at one end?

Of course, the mistake I made was not realising that the actual plane would turn invisible once it had stopped belching out magic smoke, because in your inaccurate diagram (that you did as fluff in lieu of not actually being bothered to do any calculations with real numbers and stuff)
The arc of the plane extends well beyond the smoke line thus, the distance the plane would travel across Johnson's line of sight would be 8.2 miles.



And apparently wouldn't be seen in the remains of the magic disappearing smoke, but about 3 miles to the left of it.

Are you starting to see why we actually do calculations yet and not just rely on our "regular guy without any professional air experience" guesses?

Originally Posted by ufology

For an actual takeoff the line would have been in another place altogether.

Yes, and for it to not have been there at all it would also have been in a different place altogether.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by John Albert

Well it was definitely a UFO, but how do you know it was not an alien craft?

I don't know with any certainty it was not a UFO or other alien thing, I just don't have sufficient reason to think it was either.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

I respectfully disagree.

Presents at least one fact not in evidence.

Originally Posted by ufology

Would a cloud fool you or anyone else here except maybe GeeMack ( he said he was fooled by a mountain top once )?

I'm absolutely positive that all of us have been fooled into thinking that what we were looking at was something else at some stage.

Is attempting to turn a simple statement of this obvious fact into an insult part of what you refer to as 'respectful disgrement'?

The term as you use it certain is counterintuitive, I must say.

Originally Posted by ufology

Clouds have never fooled me into thinking I was looking at an airplane.

You don't know that.

Originally Posted by ufology

My house faces west and I watch airplanes and clouds daily. I've viewed both through binoculars many times and at many different times of day, including sunset. I've seen so many it would be pointless to guess how many. Yet never once ... including the dozens and dozens of lenticular clouds I've seen have I ever confused one with an aircraft.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy so what do you reckon pretending that the appelant is the authority should be called? Delusion? Straw clutchery?

Originally Posted by ufology

Now I'm just an average guy ... so why would I think multiple experienced airmen would be less competent than me ... and why would you think you are more competent that they are ... and you weren't even there yourself. Sorry but if they say they considered a cloud and after some study they all ruled it out, then it's just not reasonable to insist it had to be a cloud.

That's why the only thing that's being insisted on is that it was a UFO ( UFO )

Originally Posted by ufology

If there was any major error, it's more likely to be in the distances, which I've shown through example can be ( under the right circumstances ) much closer than the other estimates used by proponents of the cloud theory.

You can shout this claim from the rooftops and stamp your widdle foot until your toes fall off but it'll never be true.

You've shown no such thing, other than for values of 'showing' that include reapeatedly whining "'tis so!"

Originally Posted by ufology

It is also just more logical from a common sense point of view. For example suppose you are flying and you see another aircraft. Which bit of information is more likely to be in error:

A: The exact distance to the aircraft.
B: That it is actually an aircraft.

I'd say neither. What do your calculations show?

Originally Posted by ufology

If we're being honest we'll admit that it's much more likely that we can be sure we are looking at an aircraft than it is to know the exact distance to it. So if we're close enough to be sure it's some kind of flying craft, then the distance estimates are probably the ones that are off. It doesn't matter if we can make out the exact make and model. Those details aren't even all that relevant to our case. Then add in that this flying craft was seen over a military base with an airport ... really how much more obvious does this need to get?

It's quite noticeable that despite admonishing everyone else not to jump to the cloud conclusion, everything you say about this case indicates that you have arrived at the aircraft conclusion and won't be budged from it.

[ufology]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

I already realise I'm peeing into the wind here, but who needs sleep?



You're right, it's not

The black line indicating where the smoke would be is only 5 miles across Johnson's line of sight. Remind me, did Johnson happen to mention a 5 mile wide streak with a solid looking blob at one end?

Of course, the mistake I made was not realising that the actual plane would turn invisible once it had stopped belching out magic smoke, because in your inaccurate diagram (that you did as fluff in lieu of not actually being bothered to do any calculations with real numbers and stuff)
The arc of the plane extends well beyond the smoke line thus, the distance the plane would travel across Johnson's line of sight would be 8.2 miles.



And apparently wouldn't be seen in the remains of the magic disappearing smoke, but about 3 miles to the left of it.

Are you starting to see why we actually do calculations yet and not just rely on our "regular guy without any professional air experience" guesses?


Yes, and for it to not have been there at all it would also have been in a different place altogether.

Again the measurement on my diagram isn't of the black mark along the red line just after the start of the turn, but of the entire turn radius. I accept that the black part of the line does not stand out huge ... but it is definitely there. And you'll notice I didn't say it was a perfect representation. But it's good enough to get the idea across and could be made more precise ... I just don't have the time or inclination for this case. Give me a reason I should think the object was a UFO ( alien craft ) and that might get my attention. As for what Johnson saw ... yet another time: He didn't know how long the black thing was there before he saw it, ( the thing that he originally thought was jet smoke ), but by the time he got his binoculars on it, there was a black object heading out through a layer of haze that could easily have been the dissipating smoke. Then as it started to speed away, the pursuing air observers ended up coming in behind it at some distance and watched the aircraft as it disappeared into the distance ... it's really quite simple. As for your calculations, I'm glad you are having fun with them but garbage in = garbage out and since we really don't have any precise and verifiable numbers to work with, any calculations are just reflections of our own theories ... they don't actually prove anything unless they are way way way outside the possible margin of error, which as you are so fond of pointing out, is in your opinion almost astronomical whenever human estmates are concerned.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

From the USAF definition of UFO:

<irrelevance>

What does the 'U' In 'UFO' stand for, ufology?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

I don't know with any certainty it was not a UFO or other alien thing, I just don't have sufficient reason to think it was either.

Cool! Bonus question.


What does the 'U' in 'UFO' stand for, ufology?

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by ufology

From the USAF definition of UFO:

"Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

Just wondering what the cut off point is for "near airports and airways" before it's not classed as a UFO.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

Again the measurement on my diagram isn't of the black mark along the red line just after the start of the turn, but of the entire turn radius. I accept that the black part of the line does not stand out huge ... but it is definitely there.

Remind me, ufology, what is the significance of the black part of the line?

Originally Posted by ufology

And you'll notice I didn't say it was a perfect representation. But it's good enough to get the idea across and could be made more precise ... I just don't have the time or inclination for this case.

That's why your pronouncements about it are being universally rejected, and yet you seem to think this is unjustified.

Originally Posted by ufology

Give me a reason I should think the object was a UFO ( alien craft )

Because until it's shown to be otherwise, there's no such thing as a UFO ( alien craft ).

Originally Posted by ufology

. . . and that might get my attention.

Your attention is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by ufology

As for what Johnson saw ... yet another time: He didn't know how long the black thing was there before he saw it, ( the thing that he originally thought was jet smoke ), but by the time he got his binoculars on it, there was a black object heading out through a layer of haze that could easily have been the dissipating smoke.

Or a formation of witches breaking up.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

It's about honing your critical thinking skills, not working out whether the object was definitively a cloud, or definitively a plane or witch or flying saucer or wotnot.

Of course, we've all been overlooking the obvious...



... It was nothing more than a "wotnot"

Case closed, now what happened to that pair of flying scissors that overtook the plane who's very experienced trustworthy pilot who was flying his aircraft from the third passenger seat from the back whilst taking photos out of the window?

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by ufology

From the USAF definition of UFO:

"Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

What I find odd is that the USAF were so sure that aliens weren't interested in having a closer look at our airports, therefore enabling them to rule out any unidentified things seen near airports or airways as being of alien origin. After all, aliens in their little saucers were very interested in missile bases and had spent plenty of flying hours hovering around Malmstrom AFB, so why not airports too?

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Of course, we've all been overlooking the obvious...



... It was nothing more than a "wotnot"

It was. It was witches' wotnot n'all.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Case closed, now what happened to that pair of flying scissors that overtook the plane who's very experienced trustworthy pilot who was flying his aircraft from the third passenger seat from the back whilst taking photos out of the window?

They're very talented these highly trained pilots, they can do it from the back of the plane too!

Aren't you asleep yet?

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by ufology

Again the measurement on my diagram isn't of the black mark along the red line just after the start of the turn, but of the entire turn radius.

What does this even mean?
Originally you said the black line represented the black smoke.
Are you changing your mind now?
If you're not, that would make the black smoke trail 5 miles wide across Johnson's field of vision.

Originally Posted by ufology

I accept that the black part of the line does not stand out huge ... but it is definitely there.

I know, I measured it.

Originally Posted by ufology

And you'll notice I didn't say it was a perfect representation. But it's good enough to get the idea across and could be made more precise ... I just don't have the time or inclination for this case.

That's part of the problem with ufologists, they never have time to do anything precise. Too busy trying to cut corners to try and prove their conclusion to bother with accuracy.

Originally Posted by ufology

Give me a reason I should think the object was a UFO ( alien craft ) and that might get my attention.

That very experienced aircraft designer, ultra trustworthy, trained observer and celebrated engineering genius Kelly Johnson concluded:
"I should state that for at least five years I have definitely believed in the possibility that flying saucers exist - this in spite of a good deal of kidding from my technical associates. Having seen this particular object on December 16th, I am now more firmly convinced than ever that such devices exist and I have some highly technical converts in this belief as of this date"
Now unless you think he could have been fooled without knowing it. Then isn't it flying saucers that you're wanting to investigate?

The fact that the report is actually called:
Sighting of a Fly Saucer by certain Lockheed Aircraft Operation Personnel on 16 december 1953
Sort of gives it away doesn't it?

Unless he was wrong about it.

Originally Posted by ufology

As for what Johnson saw ... yet another time: He didn't know how long the black thing was there before he saw it, ( the thing that he originally thought was jet smoke ), but by the time he got his binoculars on it, there was a black object heading out through a layer of haze that could easily have been the dissipating smoke. Then as it started to speed away, the pursuing air observers ended up coming in behind it at some distance and watched the aircraft as it disappeared into the distance ... it's really quite simple.

Meh, already covered once in this post;
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=725
I'm not going through it again.
You haven't offered anything new, just re asserted the same unfounded stuff I questioned you about last time that you didn't answer.

Originally Posted by ufology

As for your calculations, I'm glad you are having fun with them but garbage in = garbage out

The irony, it burns.

Originally Posted by ufology

and since we really don't have any precise and verifiable numbers to work with,

Well, we haven't had any precise and verifiable numbers from you.
Mine have all been as precise as I have stated they are and all verifiable against the accurate diagrams I have drawn. GeeMacks similarly... yours not so much.

Originally Posted by ufology

any calculations are just reflections of our own theories

You see, I keep wondering how spectacularly wronger you can get and you manage it every time.

Listen very carefully: I don't have a theory yet.

Originally Posted by ufology

... they don't actually prove anything unless they are way way way outside the possible margin of error, which as you are so fond of pointing out, is in your opinion almost astronomical whenever human estmates are concerned.

Please stop telling lies about my opinion, it is nothing of the kind and I've pointed it out to you more than three times already quite recently.

BTW: I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm just looking objectively at the evidence and seeing where it goes. Try it yourself sometime, you get much more accurate results and if you get in the habit of doing it correctly, when that real alien flying saucer report lands on your desk, you;ll be able to investigate it accurately and non the of the nasty sceptics will be able to criticise you for just making stuff up when you want to fill a gap in the story.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

What I find odd is that the USAF were so sure that aliens weren't interested in having a closer look at our airports, therefore enabling them to rule out any unidentified things seen near airports or airways as being of alien origin. After all, aliens in their little saucers were very interested in missile bases and had spent plenty of flying hours hovering around Malmstrom AFB, so why not airports too?

Just think how many airports there are in Washington DC.

Dulles
Reagan
Andrews

For starters those are just the big ones... can't have been any UFO's over Washington either.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Just think how many airports there are in Washington DC.

Dulles
Reagan
Andrews

For starters those are just the big ones... can't have been any UFO's over Washington either.

Major (blue) and minor (solid pink) controlled airports and
uncontrolled (unfilled pink) airports in the Washington area

[Stray Cat]

Well there's no space for any real UFOs to fly in then.

Witches have no fear of airports.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

That's part of the problem with ufologists, they never have time to do anything precise. Too busy trying to cut corners to try and prove their conclusion to bother with accuracy.

QFT. Also quite odd given our very own UFOgists lifetime interest in the subject. Sadly he has so little to show for it in terms of research skills or case knowledge. There are a lot of people who manage to reach a high level of competency in hobbies they are passionate about. You wouldn't expect someone presenting themselves as an expert or even a long-time passionate amateur with their own website to be so half arsed.

[Stray Cat]

Indeed, I'd call myself a UFOlogist but I wouldn't want to be tarred with the same brush.


But I have made a good case for this Johnson/Lockheed case being a flying saucer.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by ufology

I don't know with any certainty it was not a UFO or other alien thing, I just don't have sufficient reason to think it was either.

As long as it remains unidentified it will be a UFO, your persistent demand that we accept your dishonest redefinition notwithstanding.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

What does the 'U' In 'UFO' stand for, ufology?

Alien?


No...


Hmmm. If only I had a wrod to describe something I couldn't identify.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/Hos...onAirports.jpg
Major (blue) and minor (solid pink) controlled airports and
uncontrolled (unfilled pink) airports in the Washington area

ooh goody this game is fun!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

Quote:

The Phoenix Lights (sometimes referred to as the, "Lights over Phoenix") were a series of widely sighted unidentified flying objects observed in the skies over the U.S. states of, Arizona, Nevada and the Mexican state of Sonora on March 13, 1997.

Lights of varying descriptions were seen by thousands of people between 19:30 and 22:30 MST, in a space of about 300 miles, from the Nevada line, through Phoenix, to the edge of Tucson.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

This means that your fantasy scenario has your "mystery aircraft" taking off downwind from Point Mugu.

Is this a common technique for heavy bombers in your version of reality, ufology?

Actually, I made an error when I said this. If you look at the data, the winds at ground level up to around 5-7,000 feet were blowing from the E and ESE. Correct me if I am wrong but it was my understanding that planes taking off usually take off in a direction the wind is blowing from to add lift.

[Astrophotographer]

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

ooh goody this game is fun! http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p...1/clapping.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights


http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p...portsreduc.jpg

One case at a time. The "Phoenix lights", which really should be called the Arizona lights/UFOs was discussed in detail in SUNlite 2-3.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_3.pdf

[TjW]

Originally Posted by ufology

From the USAF definition of UFO:

"Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

From the report in question:

• "Our attention was drawn to what looked like a large airplane off to our right ( north - west )."
• "My first thought is that it was a large airplane, possibly a C-124."
• "It looked to me like I was flying directly towards, and at about the same elevation as, a very large flying wing airplane."
• It was seen in the vicinity of an airport.

Four major strikes against classifying the object as a UFO according to the USAF definition, a definition by the people who invented the phrase in the first place. And there are plenty more reasons besides that. So let's not get on that merry-go-round again.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that things which have been identified as "Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling [hilite]or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft" shouldn't be included in an UNidentified Flying Object report.

But of course, if you don't recognize that it's one of those things, or do recognize it, but allow someone else or your own expectations to talk you out of it, then those items will still show up in the reports.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

One case at a time. The "Phoenix lights", which really should be called the Arizona lights/UFOs was discussed in detail in SUNlite 2-3.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_3.pdf

Sorry Astrophotographer, I was getting a bit over excited there.

ETA: but, just to clarify, the point Akhenaten and I were making with our maps is that Mr Ufology's use of an out-dated definition of the term 'UFO' to exclude the possibility of an alien origin for the object in the Lockheed case is misplaced. Rather than looking at the proxmity of nearby airports in order to reach his conclusion, he should be looking at the evidence, but without an a priori conclusion of "secret spy plane".

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

Actually, I made an error when I said this. If you look at the data, the winds at ground level up to around 5-7,000 feet were blowing from the E and ESE. Correct me if I am wrong but it was my understanding that planes taking off usually take off in a direction the wind is blowing from to add lift.

Yup, I had a look and east-south-easterly it is. That'll teach me not to do my own number looking-at. Well spotted and thanks for the correction.

You're also quite correct about taking off upwind. Something like a B-52 taking off downwind would have still been on the ground when it got to Kelly Johnson's location.

I withdraw my objection on this count.

[lancemoody]

Hi guys,

I am attempting to write up the compact lenticular idea for my blog.

I used to spend a lot of time at believer sites, arguing (apparently I even had some long exchanges with Ufology, which I did not remember).

At any rate, I first noticed problems with the Kelly Johnson case (as it is related by UFO believers) a few years ago and brought them to the attention of Paul Kimball the director of the Best Evidence video on one of these boards. Kimball didn't even attempt to argue the facts (which I found reprehensible) but he did post a few responses from UFO zealot, Brad Sparks, the man who did all of the "research" for Best Evidence.

I was wondering if any of you stalwart folks might be willing to review that thread to see if I made any errors and also if there is something I missed in Sparks' evasive replies.

I don't think I am allowed to post links but the thread can be found at theparacast dot com>choose the forums>search for "Kelly Johnson" (that is the name of the thread--it will be about the 5th result in the search).

It's a long one and very unrewarding! You guys may love it!

The other part of my musings on this lenticular idea is in reference to the departure event. What i am wondering is, if the apparent departure was actually caused by the cloud dissipating, is our window of time (1-2 minutes) long enough for this to happen?

I have video that demonstrates the evaporation of a lenticular and suggests apparent motion by getting smaller and smaller but it is time-lapsed and I don't know the actual duration.

Many thanks,

Lance

[Akhenaten]

Here's the linky, mate.

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/thr...-johnson.6957/

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Here's the linky, mate.

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/thr...-johnson.6957/

Thanks, Akhenaten and at first glance nice work, Lance.


I am struck by the very odd definition of "UFO" being touted over there:

Quote:

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".

What is that all about?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by ufology

I'm not that invested in this incident.

That's certainly not how you're coming across in this thread. And you've asserted that you've already done the maths. It would take less effort to simply post the calculations you claim you've already done in this thread that it would to keep explaining how you're not going to.

Quote:

So whether or not we can positively identify the exact make and model of aircraft, or whether or not it was just an illusion caused by a cloud, it's nothing so far out of the ordinary, or unexplainable that I can personally justify calling it a UFO ( alien craft ) ... and those are what I'm interested in.

It is a UFO. It's an object that was flying which hasn't been identified. That's what the term means.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by ufology

From the USAF definition of UFO:

"Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling or near airports and airways, and other similar phenomena resulting from, or indications of aircraft. These should not be reported under this regulation as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO."

All of those things have been identified. That's why they don't fall within the definition of "unidentified flying object".

http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/...070703-004.pdf

From the very next paragraph to the one you quoted:

Quote:

Unidentified Flying Objects. Any areal phenomena, airborne object or objects which are unknown or appear out of the ordinary to the observer because of performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features.

Why you cited that document as if it upheld your claim that UFO is synonymous with "alien craft" I do not know. You will note, however, that the case under discussion concerns an "areal phenomen[on], airborne object [...] which [is] unknown". Hence a UFO, by definition, according to the source that you provided.

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

It is a UFO. It's an object that was flying which hasn't been identified. That's what the term means.

Good luck with that.

I understand that as a newcomer to this thread you won't have seen all the history. But let's just say that in ufologese, 'UFO' means 'Alien Space Ship', as does 'unknown' as it happens. No amount of logic or reasoning on your part is going to make Mister Ufology change his mind on this. But please don't let that stop you from trying.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

It is a UFO. It's an object that was flying which hasn't been identified. That's what the term means.

As the girl in the pointy hat said - welcome to the Floogyverse.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by lancemoody

It's a long one and very unrewarding! You guys may love it!

What ever are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by lancemoody

The other part of my musings on this lenticular idea is in reference to the departure event. What i am wondering is, if the apparent departure was actually caused by the cloud dissipating, is our window of time (1-2 minutes) long enough for this to happen?

IICR, earlier in the thread TjW (? I think) talked in detail about lenticular clouds mentioning that they can appear to be motionless even in winds because the area that has the correct dew point area remains motionless. I guess if the cloud can form and dissipate at those speeds, the whole thing cloud* collapse in a short amount of time too. But I'm only guessing so my calculations could have a margin of error of 100%

Right, I'm off to read another thread on another forum... another rewarding Saturday night then.



* this word is a genuine typo and should of course have said 'could' but I decided to leave it because it amused me.

[TjW]

Originally Posted by lancemoody

Hi guys,

I am attempting to write up the compact lenticular idea for my blog.


The other part of my musings on this lenticular idea is in reference to the departure event. What i am wondering is, if the apparent departure was actually caused by the cloud dissipating, is our window of time (1-2 minutes) long enough for this to happen?

I have video that demonstrates the evaporation of a lenticular and suggests apparent motion by getting smaller and smaller but it is time-lapsed and I don't know the actual duration.

Many thanks,

Lance

Consider this: in a very consistent, stable mountain wave system, the wind may be blowing at 60 knots, and yet the edge of the cloud is stationary.
Even if we take stationary to mean "not moving by more than twenty feet or so", that implies that the water vapor is evaporating within about a quarter of a second.

Really, it's all a function of the temperature and the humidity. If the thermocline lifts, the bottom of the cloud will vanish. If a parcel of air with lower humidity comes along, the cloud will go away.

In this Youtube of an altitude pressure chamber rapid decompression, you can see how the room fills with condensation in just seconds.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It goes away pretty rapidly, as well, because the room of course has a significant thermal mass, and rewarms the air.

On a slightly different subject, I hadn't noticed the low-level winds were ESE at Point Mugu. Considering the fairly high winds at the upper altitudes, it might be worthwhile comparing the atmospheric soundings to the conditions associated with one of Santa Barbara's "Sundowner" wind events. They're a mountain wave phenomena of the Santa Ynez Mountains. Take a look at this, for those conditions. Take a look at this for a pretty picture of a Santa Barbara lennie.

[lancemoody]

Wow, many thanks for the comments and links Tjw!

I am also suggesting that the Sunset conditions played a role, that the cloud was silhouetted against the sky, making its appearance more striking very much like the nice photo I used for my demonstration.

Lance

[ufology]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Cool! Bonus question.


What does the 'U' in 'UFO' stand for, ufology?

The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage? Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly. An unrelated example is BDD ( Business Desktop Deployment ). Without the context that it is used by Microsoft, we could just as easily think we are talking about office furniture.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ufology

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Cool! Bonus question.


What does the 'U' in 'UFO' stand for, ufology?

The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage? Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly.

There's no need for all that waffle. All you had to say was "I don't know" and I would have helped you out.

It stands for "Unidentified".

Do you require an explanation of the meaning of 'unidentified'?

[23_Tauri]

Originally Posted by ufology

The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage? Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly. An unrelated example is BDD ( Business Desktop Deployment ). Without the context that it is used by Microsoft, we could just as easily think we are talking about office furniture.

Note to Squeegee Beckenheim:






I did warn you.

[Akhenaten]

I'd say we're about due for a copy/paste of United States Air Force Regulation 200-2 of Feb 05 1958, aren't we?

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by ufology

The relevant question is, what does it mean in the context of the entire acronym and its associated history and usage? Simplifying it to a literal removes the context and without context floats it in a manner that isn't accurate with respect to interpretation. Many acronyms work in this manner, but UFO is particularly sticky and requires more than casual usage to understand it properly. An unrelated example is BDD ( Business Desktop Deployment ). Without the context that it is used by Microsoft, we could just as easily think we are talking about office furniture.

That waffle ignores the epistemelogical problem that there is no justification for the leap from "I don't know what I saw" to "OMG... Aliens!1!!!"