Kelly Johnson

[Kieran]

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.

Lance has proven his worth in my opinion, and I am someone who believes in the Paranormal. If Lance can solve this case. I have no problem accepting his findings, if they do make Sense. I hope Lance doesn't want to be like Klass (Klass was an asshole) Be better, prove something is incorrect with evidence.

 

[Michael Allen]

Some data: according to NOAA's Geophysical Data Center - Geomagnetic Data magnetic declination on 12/16/1953 at 34.13 N Lat 118.76 W Long was about 15 deg E. This means actual true west would read 285 on a magnetic compass (as indicated above). Now at the time the rate of change was about 2 min W/year. The current value and rate has changed to 12 deg E - 5min W/year.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I also project past this one little clip to suggest that this is certainly happening everywhere in the "field". And it is counterproductive to what Pro-UFO thinkers say they are trying to do. And that doesn't just fall on Paul or Brad. It just so happens that everyone (me included) was unlucky enough that I happened to have viewed that clip.

I liked Paul's doc and I like most of the UFO docs I see on the various cable channels. It's a fascinating subject and there is obviously a lot more detail to the great cases than can be represented in a few minutes on video tape. You could project beyond the UFO field and include every documentary or news broadcast feature ever produced about any subject. It's the nature of the medium to heavily truncate material.

 

[Xylo]

So Lance, from what I'm reading, the only three things that you object to in this report are: the size of the object, the reported durations of the sighting, and the relative distance of the object?

 

[Michael Allen]

Picasa Web Albums - Mercury (Michael A.) - Mathematical ...

<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/6L5M3GUmbcuL9uMQoWGsbA?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_FFq2XJDYc3U/TEUGdO-8srI/AAAAAAAAATg/8GAE9plbIDA/s800/snap.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; text-align:right">From <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/julius.dedekind/MathematicalDeception?feat=embedwebsite">Mathematical Deception</a></td></tr></table>


Lance I'm still working on it--here's what I am looking at right now -- shows a lower bound with respect to the angle of elevation.
I took a line of sight from a location exactly 3 miles due west (true) and 1 mile north of the (now) Ventura Hwy. I noted the true bearing to point Mugu as 247 degrees on the map...add the declination of -15 deg and I get 232 as the actual magnetic bearing (assuming Kelly used a compass). Edit: earlier I had a sign error--so I need to recheck either the 255 bearing or the actual location of the ranch.


Here's a very rough view from an "eye altitude" of about 1859 ft according to Google Earth.

Picasa Web Albums - Mercury (Michael A.) - Mathematical ...

Note the position of the sun and the highest point in view. If the sighted UAP was in that area it would have to be > 2.6 degrees above the actual horizon. Again, I am just playing around with this right now...really I need a better coordinate location for the ranch (I'd rather not work backward from Point Mugu)

 

[Frank Stalter]

Thus it follows that the size cannot be known.

The specific size can't be known but a reasonable range can be determined. If it were 100 ft, I frankly don't think the airborne witnesses could have seen it, and they couldn't have made out a crescent/flying wing shape. They all must have had eyes like hawks as it was. If you get up to say 400 ft, then you're talking about a conservative speed estimate, and I stress a very conservative estimate, of 4000 mph as it left the area. The bigger it was, obviously the faster it needed to travel in order to disappear from view within the fixed time provided by Johnson, who got the best look aided by the binoculars.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I can accept this all Frank--I do not know how to calculate speed's relation to visual field, etc. I can accept it because you don't present it as a fact but a range. This is reasonable. I urge you to remember that despite the binoculars, Johnson could have been 50 or more miles further away than the plane was.

Can you show me the equations that tell you all this? (I am not challenging it-I just want to learn it).

Thanks,

Lance

Well, the common measurement of speed is MPH. You've got 3600 seconds in an hour. There's your constant. You divide that by your first variable, the number of seconds traveled and then multiply by the miles traveled to get an MPH. Now there's obviously some guesswork in determining how far any object would have to travel before becoming too small to follow. Weather conditions are a huge factor, and by all accounts they sound perfect for being able to keep the UFO in view for a great many miles. I already went with 70 miles for Johnson with his binoculars and I think that is conservative. Clear day, backlit by a setting sun. No reflection off the vehicle that might have caused it to blend into a background sky or clouds, just the opposite. The more you look at it, the more you just have to say it's a helluva case.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Thanks--so what numbers exactly get you to 2000MPH?

50 miles in 90 seconds. I'm assuming an initial distance of 20 miles for the UFO from Johnson during the hovering sequence. If you take Johnson's sightline as your Z-axis, and the altitude of the UFO is along the Y-axis, and I think the airborne witnesses provide a reasonable estimate for that, the only thing you don't have nailed is the position of the UFO along the Z-axis. It obviously could have been closer or further than 20 miles, but I think when he estimates Point Mugu we can reasonably go with that.

 

[Michael Allen]

The clouds--apparently altostratus at about 15000 ft ? Those are precisely the type of clouds that would create bright golden / reddish sunsets.

Here's a quote from P. A. Coleman

"While flying off the coast in the vicinity of Santa Monica, I saw an object apparently standing still in the air off the coast, in the vicinity of Point Mugu. We were flying at 16,000 ft. , and to the best of my judgment the object was at the same altitude."

And R. L. Thoren reports going through a thin scattered layer of clouds at around 14,000 ft. (Probably stratified altocumulus)

So between 14,000 and 16,000 at around Point Mugu. -- Roughly 10 degrees (arctan( 14000ft / (5280ft*15mi) ) above the horizon and about 7 degrees from the top of the nearby highest point between Mugu and the Ranch.

Unsanitized Lockheed Case File

If I read the handwriting correctly, there's supposed to be an attachment with an estimate of the position of their craft when they saw the object:
(Handwriting of Joseph F. Ware, Jr)

I have marked on attached map my estimate of our position we we saw the "saucer" and my estimate of the position of the saucer. J.

 

[Michael Allen]

Thanks Lance.

Indeed putting it more West jibes better with other accounts, don't you think (considering several remarks sighting it to the West)? Or is point Mugu a better estimate?

This is going to require pinning down several factors

(1) Noting that one of the flight engineers (can't remember right now) stated they were between Avalon and Palos Verdes Hills flying southeast parallel to the coast (Santa Monica)--this makes sense because another statement says the object was seen outside the "copilot" window first (so on the left).
(2) At this point I need to figure out the bearing to the craft once they turned toward it--some indicate toward the setting sun, but I'll need to know how far off this winter sun is from its usual setting point for the time of year (I'll use a program called celestia to corroborate google's data).
(3) At this point I am leaning toward a position between the first island and point Mugu--depending on whether the bearing was a magnetic one or true.

Let me ask you this...can you tell, by using the height of the terrain between Johnson's ranch and out to the ocean what the maximum distance would be West that the object could be seen in the sky (assuming 16,000 ft height) by Johnson above that terrain (frankly this is well beyond my abilities but I assume that there are mountains between him and the ocean)?

Yes, this is what motivated my looking into the clouds/cloud types and topography--except for the annoying drop off toward the north, a bearing of about 246 (magnetic) from the approximate (still need to verify) location of the ranch goes right over the mountain, which hogs about 3 degrees above the horizon. If the object was sighted above that mountain by a full 7 degrees (i.e. using my earlier figures) I think you could (notwithstanding curvature) solve for the distance

Arctan(14000ft / Distance) = 2.6 deg

So about 308303 ft -- or 58 miles

And if the UAP was seen from Johnson's position moving toward the setting sun, then the bound would hold the moment it accelerated and vanished.

And wow on the note by Ware--I missed that!

I usually read over scribbles--this time that one stuck out.

I also see that the map is mentioned on the cover page stipulating that there was only one copy of it.

That's...weird.

Well...going to sleep for now.

 

[Michael Allen]

<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bOZgw-HGhE-Wl4p8dNJImtvTLAXOx1rbxBy1rAXZVvQ?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_FFq2XJDYc3U/TEZxIzbc37I/AAAAAAAAAT8/3hMzPukd7yw/s800/triangulation.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; text-align:right">From <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/julius.dedekind/20100310?authkey=Gv1sRgCKbLkv7DoO2w8QE&feat=embedwebsite">2010-03-10</a></td></tr></table>

I am leaning more and more to this configuration--the bearing from the Ranch is almost exactly 255 magnetic [THIS IS WRONG--its 240 TB--sign error]. Basically I worked backward from point mugu along a bearing of 60 degrees (true). I drew a path parallel to Ventura Hwy exactly 1 mile -- the line from pt Mugu cross over a hill that seemed appropriate based on the description.
Anyhow, the map from google earth shows the object about 35 miles away from the ranch location I pinned on the map and about 49 miles from the estimated location of the plane.
The only inconsistency is the apparent distance from what might intuitively be called "just off point mugu" an the actual location of the UAP, however Kelly did mention in his report that the object took a heading between 240 and 260. That would equate to a proper motion between the Islands (e.g. Anacapa) and the approximate azimuth of the sun at the time (244 degrees TB).

Btw...here's the sun data for 1700 @ offset +8 on 12/16/1953

<table style="width:auto;"><tr><td><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/XWuCNZX9hxvQqiZ01RKhpNvTLAXOx1rbxBy1rAXZVvQ?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_FFq2XJDYc3U/TEZxJPSd9_I/AAAAAAAAAUI/RqMULaCnssc/s800/sunaz_1700.jpg" /></a></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:arial,sans-serif; font-size:11px; text-align:right">From <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/julius.dedekind/20100310?authkey=Gv1sRgCKbLkv7DoO2w8QE&feat=embedwebsite">2010-03-10</a></td></tr></table>

For some reason I keep getting my TB/MB conversions backwards...here's the formula for anyone who wants to check--basically

True Bearing = Mag. Bearing + Magnetic Declination (+ for east, - for west)

Now the magnetic declination at the time at that location was about 15 whopping degrees east of north. That means 285 would have appeared as "due magnetic west."

So assuming Kelly gives the magnetic bearing without declination adj...

TB = 255 + 15 = 270 ==> True west (which doesn't seem correct, since point Mugu is at 240.

So I assumed Kelly did the adjustment

Then 255 = Mag + 15 ==> Magnetic bearing at 240

So I made an error in the map...if the true bearing was 240 (which it is as drawn) -- then the magnetic was 225

Back to the drawing board.

 

[Michael Allen]

Well...I'll have to sleep on it...my placement of the plane was a combination of several statements

(1) "Vicinity of Santa Monica"
(2) "Between Avalon and Palos Verdes Hills"
(3) "Parallel to the beach" (that could be a paraphrase)
(4) "object located on the right through the co-pilot window" -- etc

The one reference that was confusing was the "catalina channel" comment.

Basically, to calculate your distance you need to know the following

(1) the elevation difference (YP1) from the ranch to the highest point(P1) along the vector (R1) (if you put it along 240 degrees near the setting sun and the tallest mountain, that gives you a point)
(2) You take the distance to that point as a baseline (google gives the horizontal component) (XP1)
(3) Then the angle is Arctan(YP1/XP1)
(4) Take the triangulated position of the UAP along the vector (R1) as an unknown--call it X_UAP (this is the distance of the ufo from the ranch)
(6) Solve for X_UAP

Arctan(16000ft / X_UAP) = 3 deg

Note...taking the tan of both sides gives a familiar similar right triangles

16000ft / X_UAP = YP1 / XP1

Or 16000ft x (Horiz. Distance to Mountain Base) = (Elev. of Mt - Elev. of Ranch) * X_UAP

I think I did this earlier and came up with 58 miles or something like that in an earlier post.

 

[Ron Collins]

Arctan(16000ft / X_UAP) = 3 deg

Note...taking the tan of both sides gives a familiar similar right triangles

16000ft / X_UAP = YP1 / XP1

Or 16000ft x (Horiz. Distance to Mountain Base) = (Elev. of Mt - Elev. of Ranch) * X_UAP

I think I did this earlier and came up with 58 miles or something like that in an earlier post.

This might be an obvious question, forgive me if so I havn't read the entire thread yet. Why the 16000ft? If it is answered in the thread I will read it tonight and you should ignore my question. Thanks, Ron

 

[Michael Allen]

Ron,

I think I just picked 16000 as an example since Lance mentioned 16k earlier--recall I did the first calculation using 15000. The midpoint is 17k.

But this gives me an idea....

I need to correlate a ray trace from the apex of the tallest mountain along (TB) 240 to about 280 (more toward the "CoG" of the islands) to a boundary along the ocean surface. That boundary might give a good picture of the 'furthest distance sample space' of sighting the object at 14000-17000ft.

Lance,

I found the documents difficult to read--perhaps I should type all the position-specific references into a spreadsheet. That way I can stop going back to atrocious image documents. I definitely think I can provide a good fix on the plane coordinates (basically need to double check my current data and analysis before submitting--typical slesdexia paranoia).

 

[Michael Allen]

I am currently putting some of this data loosely in a spreadsheet

Welcome to Google Docs

But I found that I missed a section from Roy's report:

I think started to climb to 20,000 feet and turned the controls over to Rudy Thoren. We continued our climb in a south-[westerly or easterly] cir[?][c]uit [circuit? circle?] [unreadable][unreadable] are in the vicinity of Long Beach or Santa Ana between 18,000 and 20,000 feet we made a right turn onto a west heading. The sun had just set but the air was very clear and the light was real good toward the west. I noticed a cloud layer in the west starting somewhere east of of Santa Cruz Island at about our altitude. Above this cloud layer, well out in the old [???] I [saw?] what I thought was a small cloud. . . After watching it for a few minutes we decided it wasn't a cloud, but some kind of object. It had a definite shape which appeared to me like a crescent. Others on board described it as a huge flying wing. I could not detect any details other than the shape of it. I estimate the distance from us to be at least fifty or sixty miles and possibly much farther. In the clear air like that it is very hard to judge distance

Whew..that hurt my eyes to read.

Source: Unsanitized Lockheed Case File

 

[Michael Allen]

As I have shown above, Sparks mistakenly has the plane going NW when it first sights the object when in reality it was going the opposite way!

Probably--more likely it just made sense to show the direction of the plane after they decided to pursue the UAP. I really didn't pay much attention (and am trying to forget really) the documentary so I can clear my head of any potential biases. Not that I disagree with Spark's layout, I just think that a more precise map needs to be pinned down (so to speak).

I am pretty sure my plane location is not correct (after giving it some thought) -- but it's a good starting point (ultimately it helped me find a contradiction which traced back to a formula error).

I love your Google doc and will review it. May I make suggestions as well?

Go ahead and add notes if you like -- right now I am going through the process of reading more (almost unreadable) text.
I am probably going to progress to using a cognitive mapping tool such as this one: http://cmap.ihmc.us/

 

[Michael Allen]

Ok...I don't think I can squint anymore.

Welcome to Google Docs

I have added more information.

 

[Ron Collins]

WOW Guys, this is some really good work. I am going to devote a few hours tomorrow to going over this in vivid detail. Just a quick note, this atmosphere of cooperative analysis is all I have ever hoped for. Thank you both for doing it! I will read tomorrow and if I can add to or help with anything, I will let you know or volunteer my efforts.

Again, great work so far!

 

[Frank Stalter]

Great work Lance. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever get more than a very general idea of where the plane was. Still, they confirm Johnson's account in its' essential elements and he was the closest plus he had the binoculars.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Thanks Frank,

Two more documents to go. I can't imagine a better way to get close to this case than by doing these transcripts. It has been a little hard but also enjoyable.
And I agree that the accounts are remarkably consistent--it's one of the things that make this case so good.

Frank, I asked before but you may have missed it, do you know when this case became an important one for UFO enthusiasts? I ask because I don't remember it being much discussed until fairly recently.

Lance

The obvious answer is as soon as they became aware of it, but I can't say when that was. I know I've seen it mentioned in the various UFO Learning Channel docs. The quote about his opinions on UFOs that gets used a lot comes directly from the report, so I see no evidence he ever commented on the matter publicly. The report was apparently never classified, although Deke Slayton's was. Slayton was in the Air Force and Johnson was a private citizen. I don't know if that had any bearing.

He had his following, no question about that. I think it's more likely the sighting was absorbed into the UFO folklore through them. I'm still convinced whoever designed the B-2 at Northrop took a look at his report and a light bulb appeared over his head. :O)