Kelly Johnson

[Angel of Ioren]

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

There's a lot of wonder out there, and even though I'm skeptical of all things paranormal, I am still amazed by many things that are not paranormal. The fact that this forum exists fills me with wonder - I'm discussing stuff I find fascinating with people on the other side of the planet - that fills me with wonder even though I understand how it's done.
Now, is Lance 100% right? We will never know. But don't shoot down his plausible explanation just because you think he has some sort of debunking agenda, it's unfair to all the work he put into it. There is a possibility he's right, especially after reading the article. You're accusing him of having preconceived notions, well that works both ways, no?

 

[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.

Also, I just want to point out, the blue flame came from Johnson's OTHER UFO sighting, and not the once Lance is talking about in his article. There were no blue flames in that one.

From PROJECT 1947: A Ghost Rocket Chronology - Joel Carpenter - Part Four:

Nov 51 - Kelly Johnson sighting: "I should also state that about two years ago [ie, Nov 1951] Mrs. Johnson and I saw an object which I believed at the time, and still do, to be a saucer, flying west of Brents Junction, California, on a very dark night. I did not see the object itself but saw a clearly defined flame or emanation, as shown on the attached sketch. 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." [Project Blue Book Lockheed case file]

 

[Kieran]

Also, I just want to point out, the blue flame came from Johnson's OTHER UFO sighting, and not the once Lance is talking about in his article. There were no blue flames in that one.

From PROJECT 1947: A Ghost Rocket Chronology - Joel Carpenter - Part Four:

You're right however that was my mistake not Phil's!

I only glanced briefly at the Kelly Johnson case transcript that Lance had provided at his blog site. This information about the first sighting was not a separate report and not knowing Johnston had claimed another sighting of a UFO previous to the December 1953 episode. I just assumed here this information was referring to the sighting of December 1953.

Is his first sighting irrelevant? Johnson claims he saw a saucer UFO two years prior. How would Lance explain Johnsons second sighting?

Edit: I just noticed he said i never saw the object itself yet he said i believe it to be a saucer. Hmm thats odd have to think about that more.

Kelly Johnston states:
I should also state that about two years ago Mrs. Johnson and I saw an
object which I believed at the time, and still do, to be a saucer, flying
west of Brents Junction, California, on a very dark night. I did not see
the object itself but saw a clearly defined flame or emanation, as shown on
the attached sketch. 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.

Is this a lenticular cloud too?

Lance has a theory and while i discount this theory and others do too. Who can say for sure he is wrong on the explanation for the second sighting? I can't go that far because there is a slim possibility whatever the percentage is he is correct?

I like Lance as well, and he has shown with the Philip Imbrogno case he has some smarts for sniffing out the losers of ufology. Lets try to be civil as possible and not resort to insults if we can. I've got into heated exchanges with Lance in the past and its all good its part of the course. Lance just has different reality view to some of us, if we were all alike we probably be bored out of our minds lol

 

[The Pair of Cats]

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.

Sorry Angelo, you can wrap your reply in any amount of JREF speak as you want but the facts are that Lance has a huge bias towards proving that all UFO cases are bunk. He has admitted on several occasions that he does not believe that UFOs even exist. So when it comes time for him to analyze a case this bias will always get in the way and flavor his result. It's just how it is.
Yes the the cloud theory is plausible, i have said that before in this and an other thread. But to have us believe that Johnson and crew mistook what they saw with a cloud is more unbelievable than if they saw a UFO. Simple. When the attempted explanation is more unbelievable than the witness report it is quite easy to dismiss it.
My opinion is that Lances explanation is less credible than Kelly Johnson's. Especially since Johnson was there and Lance was not. I have great respect for Lance, he has done some great work and i agree with him more often than not these days. But not today.
Lance saying it was a cloud is no different than Marcel being told it was a weather balloon or the American public later being told that the Roswell case was really Project Mogul. Both clumsy attempts at telling the witnesses what they really saw and that is what Lance is doing, telling the witnesses what they saw.
In the end i believe that it is relatively pointless going over these old cases decades after the fact and trying to prove or disprove them. They have all been well researched and indeed done to death.
As for the blue flame, i am sorry to have injected that into the mix as i was indeed working off Kieran's post. It does not change my opinion however.

Phil, it's like saying that because you believe that astrology is real that you are wrong about everything.

More like saying that because you, Angelo, don't believe in paranormal events therefore there is no such thing as the paranormal or that all things can be explained by science or James Randi. A simplistic yet erroneous point of view. A point of view that takes the polar opposite to the true believers who believe every sighting is an alien event. Therefore it is just as unreliable. I don't think you can be truly considered sceptical if you are biased either way.
If you read Lance's report you discover the bias of personal opinion oozing through it. That is not sceptical, in the true sense. He has let his disdain for the subject color his objectivity.
Go to his blog site. It is not just me who has seen it. Others there have commented on it also.
As for the data, sure it is fine and well researched if you were looking to make it fit your cloud explanation. Unfortunately it is also, if not more-so compelling, that what they saw was an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT. Lance's presentation only provides us with an ALTERNATIVE explanation not a DEFINITIVE one. And in the balance of probability considering the calibre of the witnesses I go with Johnson's testimony.
You see i don't have a problem with Lance's data (collection or application in this case) only i know he is biased and will seek to apply it to suit his way of thinking. Just as i suspect you will Angelo.
p.s
I find this amusing.
One of the things Lance was critical about was that that Johnson and others had an interest in UFOs before this particular sighting leading Lance to believe that this may have colored his testimony. So what we seem to have ended up with is a UFO biased witness being told by an equally biased "No such thing as a UFO" researcher what he saw. What we seemed to be left with amidst this debacle is which explanation is more plausible and that, as always, is up to the beerholder(sic). lol

 

[Hotkafka]

I find it the ultimate irony, Lance, that you're site is called "Not a Ghost," and you're busy recreating one.

You are driven, that's for sure.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Lance has pointed out an error in the final part of my previous post.
It was this quote i was erroneously referring to:

I decided to delve into the actual evidence, the testimony of the men, and found a disturbing trend. In the video, it was obvious that the evidence was being looked at from one particular perspective, a pro-UFO one, and evidence that didn't tend to lead to a UFO conclusion was often being ignored or misinterpreted

Lance you are correct. This quote is not being attributed to Johnson but to producers of the film. (Paul Kimball in this case i believe). Thanks for pointing this out. And my appologies for it!!!
I will immediately post this as a retraction of this point on the forums.
Although it does point out the disdain you have for the video and for Paul Kimball and illustrates my point re: the tone of the report.
It does not change my opinion of the conclusion or the fact that i believe you are biased towards that conclusion.
That being said, nice hearing from you again.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I believe many 'skeptics' get really wound up by puzzling cases. They can't actually relax until they find an 'explanation' where in actual fact there may not be one.
Once they find their 'explanation', however ridiculous or plausible, you can just hear the audible groan as the 'explanation' allows them to relax and move. Phew! sorted out another case, that's better. Aaaaaah

This cloud theory is kinda possible but as said previously I think it is unlikely to be more plausible than the unidentified object in the sky theory that Kelly has.
At what point does skepticism (the healthy kind) turn into fanaticism? Cos it seems to do just that?

 

[boomerang]

Humans love a mystery but hate an unsolved problem. This phenomenon keeps us somewhere between the two.

 

[Voyager]

I believe many 'skeptics' get really wound up by puzzling cases. They can't actually relax until they find an 'explanation' where in actual fact there may not be one.
Once they find their 'explanation', however ridiculous or plausible, you can just hear the audible groan as the 'explanation' allows them to relax and move. Phew! sorted out another case, that's better. Aaaaaah

This cloud theory is kinda possible but as said previously I think it is unlikely to be more plausible than the unidentified object in the sky theory that Kelly has.
At what point does skepticism (the healthy kind) turn into fanaticism? Cos it seems to do just that?

At what point does skepticism (the healthy kind) turn into fanaticism?

I agree. Arrogance and ego: "Some people are a legend in their own mind."

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I believe many 'skeptics' get really wound up by puzzling cases. They can't actually relax until they find an 'explanation' where in actual fact there may not be one.

Boomerang:-Humans love a mystery but hate an unsolved problem. This phenomenon keeps us somewhere between the two.

I agree with both of you here. Also, sometimes i think it's better to say "I just don't know"

 

[Aardvark]

I agree with both of you here. Also, sometimes i think it's better to say "I just don't know"

I believe that is the same as maintaining your own personal Gray Box. It is where you place those topics/quandries that do not qualify to be placed in either the White Box or the Black Box.

 

[Kieran]

Kelly Johnston was most reluctant to hand in this report of the second sighting claimed Lockheed personnel! So it fairly obvious from that alone Kelly was not seeking publicity and was not wanting at all to make a big fuss to what he had seen out at his Ranch.

The Johnson eyewitness report was forwarded to Colonel George L. Wertenbaker Commander Air Technical Intelligence Center Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio by D.L. Putt Lieutenant General, USAF Commander to help with their studies into the ongoing UFO problem so to speak.

Few things i noticed within this report that could rule out this sighting as been a lenticular cloud?

Kelly Johnston:
Thinking it was a lenticular cloud, I continued to study it, but it did not
move at all for three minutes. I do not know how long it was there
before my attention was called to it.

Johnston too thought it might be, but began to have doubts it was a lenticular cloud. Got to remember here Johnston is himself pondering could it be a lenticular cloud long before the Air Force stated it was that.

Kelly Johnston:
When it did not move or disintegrate, I asked my wife to get me our
eight-power binoculars, so I would not have to take my eyes off the object,
which by now I had recognized as a so-called “saucer”. As soon as I
was given the glasses, I ran outside and started to focus the glasses on
the object, which was now moving fast on a heading between 240˚ and 260˚.
When I got the glasses focused on the object, it was already moving
behind the first layer of haze. I gathered its speed was very high, because
of the rate of fore-shortening of its major axis


Clouds move to the Earth's axis they do not stop and remain stationary for long periods of time. While lenticular clouds do not move and linger in spots for long periods of time. They can not change direction and move fast.

Johnston also refers to the unexplained flying phenomenon he saw as being a saucer ( he also says the same thing with his first sighting "Saucer") without been able to ask him what he truly meant here. I think he means UFO? The time is the 50's and saucer to many during that time equates to being a UFO.

Johnston also had a helping hand with magnification using the eight-power binoculars.
According to Johnston the object started to move away "Fast" on heading between 240 and 260 degrees (360 degrees standard) as he was looking through his binoculars. So is he saying the object had the ability to move directionally? How is that possible with a lenticular cloud? And how does a lenticular move fast?


Kelly Johnston:
the object had completely
disappeared, in a long shallow climb on the heading noted. The clouds
were coming onshore, in a direction of travel opposite to that of the
object.

The clouds were heading an opposite direction to the object they were coming onshore.

Would a lenticular cloud follow a different path to the other clouds in that area?

Roy Wimmer
Engineering Test Pilot
After watching it for a few minutes we decided that 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.

As Rudy was flying the airplane, I had nothing else to do but to
watch the object. After about five minutes I suddenly realized it was moving
away from us heading straight west. In the space of about one minute it grew
smaller and disappeared. I was watching it all the time so I was able to see
it for several seconds after the rest of the crew lost sight of it. Right
up until the time it disappeared it maintained its sharp outline and definite
shape so I know it was not a cloud that dissolved giving the appearance of
moving away.

The cloud theory was suggested but ultimately ruled out not been the answer.

 

[Frank Stalter]

The cloud explanation should not be dismissed so easily.

It's a much easier explanation to buy if Johnson is the sole witness. The real key is the difference in the angle the crew saw the UFO vs. Johnson's angle. I think Lance has to cheat the crew almost north to Malibu and flying much closer to directly west to make his solution work. In reading the crew accounts, I have them at a good 50-70 degree difference from Johnson. While I accept an unusual cloud could fool pros, I think they themselves would have recognized something was off if the UFO was actually a cloud suddenly dissolving in essentially the same position. If the illusion creates the impression of a rapidly departing vehicle, the perceived exit paths would have been radically different. I think they would have caught this amongst themselves.

 

[Sentry]

I just came across this file:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_11.PDF
Within, Kelly Johnson briefly discusses how the flying saucer shape is ideal for stealth. His protege, Ben Rich said the same thing in his Skunk Works book.

I don't really have a point by bringing this up, other than to speculate on how UFOs appear on radar.
Other than that, so much for the claim that nothing ever came from studying flying saucers- we got stealth!

 

[Randall]

It's a much easier explanation to buy if Johnson is the sole witness. The real key is the difference in the angle the crew saw the UFO vs. Johnson's angle. I think Lance has to cheat the crew almost north to Malibu and flying much closer to directly west to make his solution work. In reading the crew accounts, I have them at a good 50-70 degree difference from Johnson. While I accept an unusual cloud could fool pros, I think they themselves would have recognized something was off if the UFO was actually a cloud suddenly dissolving in essentially the same position. If the illusion creates the impression of a rapidly departing vehicle, the perceived exit paths would have been radically different. I think they would have caught this amongst themselves.

This case was covered in some detail by the skeptics over at the JREF where they were of the opinion that it was a lenticular cloud. However if the evidence is even close to accurate, a lenticular cloud can be entirely ruled out, so I was of the opinion that it was probably a large aircraft and proposed that it may have been a flying wing ( YB-49 ), but it turned out that those had been decommissioned. The next candidate was a B-52 in combination with a smoke trail from it's engines. Ultimately for investigative purposes, the object does not fit the definition of UFO. It was shaped like an aircraft, performed like an aircraft, and was spotted in close proximity to a naval air base. The JREF people still stuck to their lenticular cloud theory, and the discussion on this case is a perfect example of how some skeptics will refuse to acknowledge evidence simply because it's been presented by a UFO proponent. Below is a map that charts the positions of the observers and the unknown object in the Point Mugu sighting.

See the JREF discussion here.
Hey @Goggs Mackay was that you over there too !​

 

[Xylo]

The funny thing about this thread is that it wasn't created to discuss Kelly Johnson's UFO sighting. I was actually just posting an article about Kelly Johnson himself. But it was interesting to ride along on the journey that this thread has taken us. I don't think Mr. Johnson would have wanted to be remembered only for his UFO sighting, there is way more depth to his life than one event.