Kelly Johnson

[tyder001]

Absolutely agree. I'm gonna let it go cause it needs to be let go of. But, (ya know I'm gonna put in one but) If ya come onto a thread with the word "spritual" in the title such as "Spiritual aspects of the UFO experience or whatever the thread title was" then ya might be subjected to a spritual "take" on things.

Other than that I completey agree with Martina about the privacy of "ones" own spritual walk and unless it is the "topic" or entered into willingly then indeed it should remain private. Of course here on the "Para"cast discussion boards and show things like "sprits" and ufo's and bigfeet even other dimensons do get brought up from time to time. "I think it that whole "Para" part of the Cast thing.

 

[Martina]

Absolutely agree. I'm gonna let it go cause it needs to be let go of. But, (ya know I'm gonna put in one but) If ya come onto a thread with the word "spritual" in the title such as "Spiritual aspects of the UFO experience or whatever the thread title was" then ya might be subjected to a spritual "take" on things.

Well I don't really expect that as I've thus far not had any reason to suppose that UFO's have any connection to spirituality, and whoever might be piloting them has not said anything to me on the subject, they just flew on past, however, in the Serpo postings it's recorded that the Ebens did believe in God. How about that!

 

[tyder001]

Well, I'm glad to have a "civil" conversation Martina. As for Men, God or aliens I "personally" don't think we are being visited from "outer space" However, I do remain open minded and am willing to "listen" and research (as much as a couch potato can."

 

[Kieran]

I also think it's a pity that Paul and Lance are no longer posting here, but I understand their reasons as well.

I haven't had the time to contact Paul yet, but Lance is an outspoken skeptic and he took people to task for making allegations, now it is his turn. No word yet well over a month and half. I believe you agree with me, it time for us all to read his solution.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I haven't had the time to contact Paul yet, but Lance is an outspoken skeptic and he took people to task for making allegations, now it is his turn. No word yet well over a month and half. I believe you agree with me, it time for us all to read his solution.

I have no problem with an honest skeptic who can bring a little more thought to his argument than "No, it isn't" and I think Lance avoided that. A forum thread about a case that's almost 60 years old generated 16 pages and Lance played a big part in that.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And thanks for popping in Lance.

 

[tyder001]

Hey, there goes Lance. How ya doing .....ggggggg.....ggggggg? Gone again. Man, he's fast these days.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And welcome back.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Yeah, Lance, stick around for a while and post some stuff. Maybe back me up on that prediction thread!

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Lance, I am fine with whatever explanation is true, be it saucers or clouds. I find it a bit of a stretch to think an evaporating cloud would be mistaken by these guys for a solid object moving away at speed.
Of course it is within the realm of possibility. I don't even want to say it is more likely that it was some UFO cos without proof that would just be silly. Anyone can be fooled by tricks of shape and light. Anyone. But I tend to think several people in that industry would be a little above the average in terms of ability to adjudicate whether what they saw was something solid or a trick of the clouds and light?
I am being careful in not labelling you a debunker as I think If you saw a saucer land in front of you, you would call it what it was. Debunkers would still try to find a 'non-saucer' explanation!

No offence Lance but sometimes I get the impression that some people, although calling themselves 'skeptical' are actively looking for a reason for it not to be unexplained, that they would be happier for it to be mundane. Of course things are what they are in actual fact, what we 'see' them as is a whole other debate. I may add I have never seen anything resembling a UFO but probably on the balance of all the evidence I have read/seen/heard I think there is something to the UFO topic.

I would be genuinely interested to hear if you have an explanation of the case of Capt. Ray Bowyer who a few years back, crossing the English channel in a commerical aircraft, spotted 2 UFOs over a 15min period, sometimes through binoculars. Passengers also saw the craft as did another pilot in another plane.
Capt. Bowyer reportedly estimated the size of these objects as about a mile across. This was in daylight and the case was reported officially and notably, the company involved was happy to have it publicised (maybe cos any publicity is better than none and it's a small company!).

I will emphasise Lance that I am not labelling you anything but would genuinely love to hear an explanation for that case?
If it was not an alien craft (or whatever) I would love to know what the hell is flying in our airspace of that scale?

 

[trainedobserver]

Great presentation Lance! You make an excellent case for the cloud theory. It certainly raises some interesting questions about that case.

I would be interested in seeing you take a swing at the Cash Landrum case.

 

[Kieran]

How does a lenticular move off at high speed would be my question!

Kelly Johnston:

This object was travelling from east to west at a
very high speed and with no noise. The flame or emanation was a beautiful
light blue, having extremely well defined edges. My first impression was
that it was an afterburning airplane, but the lack of noise and the pure
spread of the flame eliminated that possibility completely.

This is an account of my experience of witnessing the presence of an object in
the sky. I was flying in the Lockheed WV-2 airplane with Mr. R.L. Thoren, Mr.
Joseph Ware, Mr. Roy Wimmer plus other members of the Flight Test Group. The
three individuals mentioned and I were in the pilot’s compartment of the airplane,
at approximately 5:00 p.m. on the night of Wednesday, December 16, 1953.

I estimate that
the object was hovering in out sight for about ten minutes. Thereafter, it sud-
denly accelerated due west and in a time, in the order of 10 seconds, disappeared
from view.

Acceleration and high speeds when have clouds whatever their make up is done that kind of thing? The cloud theory simply doesn't work here based on what their claiming here!

 

[Sentry]

I posted about this on Lance's blog, but am repeating and expanding it here.
Kelly Johnson had contacted Project Blue Book on at least one other UFO case. See this letter from July 8, 1949:
http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=MAXW-PBB6-970
As seen in the letters Lance reproduced and the file I linked, Kelly Johnson had a lasting interest in flying saucers, and that interest was shared by some others working with him at Lockheed.

The strangest part about that is this was during the time of the Contactees. One of the the witnesses in this case had visited the saucer convention at Giant Rock, which was run by an ex-Lockheed man George Van Tassel. Another Lockheed Giant Rock connection was Orfeo Angelucci, a contactee who attended the events as a speaker. Saucer fever was big in those days, but seems to have run red-hot at Lockheed!

 

[The Pair of Cats]

So we wait for around 9 months for your conclusion that it may have been a lenticular cloud that Johnson saw? Really? In other words you don't really know what they saw but your conclusion, based on somewhat vague data, is a lenticular cloud. You are asking us to believe that trained pilots and crew are going to mistakenly misinterpret what they saw as a cloud?
But wait, we already know these things about you, Lance:

• You do not believe that visiting alien craft exist in any way, shape or form. (or UFOs)
• You believe that all witness testimony is unreliable, no matter the expertise or standing of the person(s) in question.
• You like to criticize those who have differing opinions, which is shown in your report and somewhat undermines the impartiality of that report.

Leaving me to surmise that, overall, it is an extremely biased and unreliable opinion.
Perhaps saying that you don't know what it was that they saw would have been a better option.
As Kieran has said (and which is borne out in the report by Johnson),

"The flame or emanation was a beautiful light blue, having extremely well defined edges. My first impression was
that it was an afterburning airplane, but the lack of noise and the pure spread of the flame eliminated that possibility completely."

Are we to believe that lenticular clouds are powered by afterburners?
Also the pilot, Wimmer spent 5 minutes studying the object after handing control to Thoren and yet was still unable to identify the object as a cloud.

I'm sorry Lance your report smacks of bias and snideness. And whilst it is possible that it was a cloud it is no more plausible than if they saw a UFO. Most probably less so as Johnson et al were experienced aviators and given the amount of time they had with the object in view.

 

[mike]

Well said Phil, skeptics like this are not looking for the truth, the reality, just explanations that fit their prejudiced already made up mind.

I pity those who go through life without a sense of wonder

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Well said Phil, skeptics like this are not looking for the truth, the reality, just explanations that fit their prejudiced already made up mind.

I pity those who go through life without a sense of wonder

Thanks Mike. While Lance is entitled to his conclusion, as unlikely as it may be, it is an annoyance that those sceptical of eyewitness testimony continue to render alternate theories that are more implausible than the original. It smacks of the old swamp gas/venus explanations of the '50s & 60s.
What we do know is that they saw a U.F.O, an Unidentified Flying Object. It remained unidentified because the witnesses to the object, who were experts in the field of IDENTIFIABLE flying objects, were unable to identify it. To say that these people were unable to distinguish the difference between a lenticular cloud and a solid structured craft emitting a blue colored flame is bordering on ridiculous.
To Lance's credit he at least researched the matter but unfortunately for him his biases show through and his explanation is found wanting.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@ The Pair of Cats - mate, I can't 'like' your post ten times so once will have to do. Very well said indeed. Very well said.

 

[boomerang]

Lance, good to hear from you. Labels such as "Skeptic" and "Believer" are pointless. Your critical thinking works to keep us all thinking and on our toes.

 

[Sentry]

I'm sorry Lance your report smacks of bias and snideness. And whilst it is possible that it was a cloud it is no more plausible than if they saw a UFO. Most probably less so as Johnson et al were experienced aviators and given the amount of time they had with the object in view.

I agree with much of this. Lance's analysis would be a stronger piece if he left out the feud with Paul Kimball- it's just a distraction.

The cloud explanation should not be dismissed so easily. Lance has done his homework showing that a lenticular cloud could behave in just the way to produce the effect that the craft seemed to perform. It is a good candidate for an explanation, but does not conclusively solve the case.

The quality of the witnesses in this Lockheed case is extremely high, but some of them also had a prior interest in flying saucers. This may have influenced they way they interpreted their sighting of an unknown object seen in the air from a great distance.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So we wait for around 9 months for your conclusion that it may have been a lenticular cloud that Johnson saw? Really? In other words you don't really know what they saw but your conclusion, based on somewhat vague data, is a lenticular cloud. You are asking us to believe that trained pilots and crew are going to mistakenly misinterpret what they saw as a cloud?
But wait, we already know these things about you, Lance:

• You do not believe that visiting alien craft exist in any way, shape or form. (or UFOs)
• You believe that all witness testimony is unreliable, no matter the expertise or standing of the person(s) in question.
• You like to criticize those who have differing opinions, which is shown in your report and somewhat undermines the impartiality of that report.

Leaving me to surmise that, overall, it is an extremely biased and unreliable opinion.

Perhaps saying that you don't know what it was that they saw would have been a better option.
As Kieran has said (and which is borne out in the report by Johnson),

Are we to believe that lenticular clouds are powered by afterburners?
Also the pilot, Wimmer spent 5 minutes studying the object after handing control to Thoren and yet was still unable to identify the object as a cloud.

I'm sorry Lance your report smacks of bias and snideness. And whilst it is possible that it was a cloud it is no more plausible than if they saw a UFO. Most probably less so as Johnson et al were experienced aviators and given the amount of time they had with the object in view.

Well, when you can't attack the data, attack the person providing it. You have just provided us a textbook example of an Ad Hominem logical fallacy. When your three main points against the article all start with "you," there's a problem. Why don't you point out where his DATA is wrong, that's what's more important.

This is something that happens a lot when these topics are discussed and it ends up leading nowhere. I know I've been guilty of it in the past, but I have made a conscious effort of avoiding it as much as possible.

Phil, it's like saying that because you believe that astrology is real that you are wrong about everything. Point out where his data is wrong, not in what Lance believes, and we will go a long way in moving forward in this discussion.