Lance Moody Revisits 1953 Lockheed UFO Case

[Lauren Jones]

Lance Moody has posted a new blog on the 1953 Lockheed UFO Case. Lance always does great work and this piece does not disappoint. Check it out...

The Lockheed UFO Case Revisited - Not A Ghost!

 

[boomerang]

Moody's assessment of the case (as per evidence presented) seems reasonable. My only reservation would be that high time pilots are intimately acquainted with cloud formations. But a rare convergence of meteorological factors would not be impossible.


Addendum: Looking at a PDF of the original testimony, the cloud explanation seems marginal. Statements are made of sighting a definite outline through binoculars, and that the object was moving in a direction opposite clouds in the area.

http://www.nicap.org/docs/lockufo2.pdf

 

[Randall]

I got into this case heavy with the folks over on the JREF website and using data from the original reports showed how it would have been virtually impossible for the object seen in this case to have been a natural cloud, lenticular or otherwise. However in true JREF form, the logic of my case was bulldozed over with the usual JREF diatribe. I made an attempt to alert Lance of the serious flaw in his analysis prior to his publication, but it seems he'd rather play partisan politics.

The bottom line of my analysis is that the object was probably an aircraft/smoke trail combination resulting from a jet near the Point Mugu military complex. The object didn't look like or make any maneuvers that were beyond the technical capability of the day, and the details of the incident aren't definitive enough to classify the object as a UFO. Below is a map of the incident that is more technically precise than the one Lance chose to use in his analysis ( even though he was free to use this one if he wanted to ):

When the evidence of the case is studied carefully, for everything to add up logically, the object ( no matter what it was ) had to move some distance almost due west ( magnetic or true ), otherwise the Warning Star would have intercepted it at ( F ) on the map, and once we accept that the object must have moved, in order to explain why the Warning Star never intercepted it after ( F ), we're looking at the object moving away at a speed greater than than that of the Warning Star, which was travelling at about 225 MPH. Cloud? I think not. Aircraft? Most likely explanation.

 

[Frank Stalter]

If the UFO was a lenticular cloud, I think Johnson and the crew were at such different vantage points, they would have figured out, before making a report, that they were seeing the same essentially stationary illusion.

 

[Randall]

If the UFO was a lenticular cloud, I think Johnson and the crew where at such different vantage points, they would have figured out, before making a report, that they were seeing the same essentially stationary illusion.

Agreed, also explain how the lenticular cloud outran the Warning Star. Not possible.

 

[Frank Stalter]

A specific plane that fits the description from the aerial crew to a T, size shape and everything, is the Northrop YRB-49A. What doesn't fit is the apparent speed the UFO left the area. I really do owe Lance an update on my article, I applaud his effort on the case, although I think he's got the plane crew way too close to Malibu to make his explanation more plausible. I like your map a lot, but I intend to do something with animation as soon as I get around to it.

Northrop YB-49 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Randall]

A specific plane that fits the description from the aerial crew to a T, size shape and everything, is the Northrop YRB-49A ...

The YB-49 was the first thing that came to my mind as well, and I posted it on the JREF site, however it turned out that they were all supposedly destroyed prior to the Point Mugu sighting. We hashed this issue out pretty good and the only way it could have been a YB-49 was if one escaped the scrap heap, or if some foreign power had developed one, which although possible, isn't that likely. The next aircraft in the line of suspects was the B-52, which were undergoing testing around that time and were known for their thick black smoke trails:

 

[Frank Stalter]

There was one prototype in California at the time.

"The sole prototype reconnaissance platform, the YRB-49A, first flew on 4 May 1950. After only 13 flights, testing ended abruptly on 26 April 1951. It was then flown back to Northrop's headquarters from Edwards Air Force Base (formally Muroc) on what would be its last flight. There, this remaining flying wing sat abandoned at the edge of Northrop's Ontario airport for more than two years. It was finally ordered scrapped on 1 December 1953."

That is a close fit to the timeline although testing reportedly stopped in April 51, although it wasn't ordered scrapped until the same month as the sighting. Doesn't mean the demo work started immediately. The flight characteristics don't fit, hovering and then hitting high speed. You would also think that Johnson and the others would at least be aware of it, although Johnson describes a saucer, one of the crew describes the crescent shape.

 

[Randall]

There was one prototype in California at the time.

"The sole prototype reconnaissance platform, the YRB-49A, first flew on 4 May 1950. After only 13 flights, testing ended abruptly on 26 April 1951. It was then flown back to Northrop's headquarters from Edwards Air Force Base (formally Muroc) on what would be its last flight. There, this remaining flying wing sat abandoned at the edge of Northrop's Ontario airport for more than two years. It was finally ordered scrapped on 1 December 1953."

That is a close fit to the timeline although testing reportedly stopped in April 51, although it wasn't ordered scrapped until the same month as the sighting. Doesn't mean the demo work started immediately. The flight characteristics don't fit, hovering and then hitting high speed. You would also think that Johnson and the others would at least be aware of it, although Johnson describes a saucer, one of the crew describes the crescent shape.

Yup, been through all that. I'd like to think that they weren't all scrapped because there have been a few flying wing sightings afterward as well, but I haven't been able to find any real evidence that any actually survived ( unfortunately ). Still, it's fun to think that the Point Mugu sighting might represent the one that got away. They were cool planes.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Hell yeah, it was an awesome plane. Maybe a little short along the Z-axis to make it practical as a bomber, but an awesome damn plane that seems like it was killed more because of politics and bullsh!t than anything else.

 

[boomerang]

Without reviewing particulars in this case, it still remains highly rated on my personal credibility/strangeness graph. Pilots know clouds. High time pilots and people who design aircraft know them very well.

 

[Frank Stalter]

It certainly seems like Johnson believed it and his later work was second to no one's. Regardless of what the UFO actually was, it's no stretch to say he was absolutely inspired by alien spacecraft whether they exist or not.

 

[Randall]

It certainly seems like Johnson believed it and his later work was second to no one's. Regardless of what the UFO actually was, it's no stretch to say he was absolutely inspired by alien spacecraft whether they exist or not.

He wouldn't be the first engineer to be inspired by the UFO phenomenon ( think Paul R. Hill ). I also don't rule out that what they saw could have been a UFO, it's just that there are too many other factors against it for that to be the most reasonable explanation given the evidence at hand. Perhaps if we could have been there ourselves we might have a different opinion. But no matter how we look at it, Lance's analysis doesn't add up. But last time I checked he's still promoting his debunking effort ( The Lockheed UFO Case Revisited - Not A Ghost! ).

 

[Decker]

Ufology, why even bother with those closed minded morons at JREF? They are just like bigots, close minded and so sure of their place in the universe. A number of years ago I was over there because of another aspect of the paranormal and saw what a closed little elitist group of assholes they were and I ended up not even bothering. Why waste your breath or in this case ... electrons? You could take a crashed saucer over there and it wouldn't make a difference. Just like politics recently, I am simply sick and tired of the bickering. Hell, back in the day you could simply drop a rock on em' and folks would respect you for it. Now a days they haul ya off. Nope, not worth my time or raising my blood pressure.

Decker

 

[Randall]

Ufology, why even bother with those closed minded morons at JREF? They are just like bigots, close minded and so sure of their place in the universe. A number of years ago I was over there because of another aspect of the paranormal and saw what a closed little elitist group of assholes they were and I ended up not even bothering. Why waste your breath or in this case ... electrons? You could take a crashed saucer over there and it wouldn't make a difference. Just like politics recently, I am simply sick and tired of the bickering. Hell, back in the day you could simply drop a rock on em' and folks would respect you for it. Now a days they haul ya off. Nope, not worth my time or raising my blood pressure.

Decker

Well ... I went over there thinking naively that because it was involved with the James Randi Foundation ( the illusionist who worked on Alice Cooper's Billion Dollar Babies tour ) and because they supported things like exposing rip off artists like religious scammers who con senior's out of their savings or fraudulent medical claims, and advertised that they supported "friendly debate and critical thinking" and Penn & Teller even did a bit with James, I just thought it would be a good resource to get a healthy constructive skeptical point of view ... ( did I mention naively back there someplace? ). Anyway I used my ufology handle and my real website which has my real name and they started a character assassination campaign involving Google and I had to stay and fight, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. In the end the experience was educational, but I sure know what you mean by "raising your blood pressure" ... man I swear a few of them are actually psychological warfare agents rather than skeptics. I ended up putting the worst bunch on ignore and I don't go there nearly as often as I used to.

 

[kruggutter]

Well ... I went over there thinking naively that because it was involved with the James Randi Foundation ( the illusionist who worked on Alice Cooper's Billion Dollar Babies tour ) and because they supported things like exposing rip off artists like religious scammers who con senior's out of their savings or fraudulent medical claims, and advertised that they supported "friendly debate and critical thinking" and Penn & Teller even did a bit with James, I just thought it would be a good resource to get a healthy constructive skeptical point of view ... ( did I mention naively back there someplace? ). Anyway I used my ufology handle and my real website which has my real name and they started a character assassination campaign involving Google and I had to stay and fight, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. In the end the experience was educational, but I sure know what you mean by "raising your blood pressure" ... man I swear a few of them are actually psychological warfare agents rather than skeptics. I ended up putting the worst bunch on ignore and I don't go there nearly as often as I used to.

Hi Paracast User Ufology

I'm sorry to hear that you were treated so badly at the other forum. It's one of
the worst, yet most common, features of engaging in paranormal discussions,
especially on the internet.

Generally when the facts don't support some individual's points of view on a
subject they do anything they can to deflect away from the issue in question.
They then resort to antagonising a person until they elicit an angry reaction.
It's childish and pointless and they are not worth engaging with.

Don't let it get you down. The opinions of people who can't acknowledge and
obey logic and facts are not worth worrying about. Decker sums it up well.

Sincerely

Sean F. Meers

 

[Frank Stalter]

He wouldn't be the first engineer to be inspired by the UFO phenomenon ( think Paul R. Hill ). I also don't rule out that what they saw could have been a UFO, it's just that there are too many other factors against it for that to be the most reasonable explanation given the evidence at hand. Perhaps if we could have been there ourselves we might have a different opinion. But no matter how we look at it, Lance's analysis doesn't add up. But last time I checked he's still promoting his debunking effort ( The Lockheed UFO Case Revisited - Not A Ghost! ).

It would have been very nice to have been there or a lot of other cases to see what was actually seen. Like I said before, I like Lance and his work. I think there's value in skepticism and he did a lot of work on the case. I don't think he found the right solution this time around . . . . like I helped out on with Socorro 64 . . . . but I think he did a good job in posting up an honest evaluation. I might add his article and mine both came about due to a spirited debate on these boards, so thanks Paracast forums.

 

[Randall]

It would have been very nice to have been there or a lot of other cases to see what was actually seen. Like I said before, I like Lance and his work. I think there's value in skepticism and he did a lot of work on the case. I don't think he found the right solution this time around . . . . like I helped out on with Socorro 64 . . . . but I think he did a good job in posting up an honest evaluation. I might add his article and mine both came about due to a spirited debate on these boards, so thanks Paracast forums.

I agree that constructive skepticism is valuable. It forces us to think. As for Lance himself. I've been civil. I've been courteous. I've tried to communicate with him, but he's been consistently aloof and pulled his rather antisocial "I'm done talking to you" routine on me more than once. You and I seem to be having a much better conversation.

 

[Frank Stalter]

I agree that constructive skepticism is valuable. It forces us to think. As for Lance himself. I've been civil. I've been courteous. I've tried to communicate with him, but he's been consistently aloof and pulled his rather antisocial "I'm done talking to you" routine on me more than once. You and I seem to be having a much better conversation.

Yeah well sometimes things get hot and words look a lot different in text than if you're talking directly and probably having a laugh and a beer. It's part of the game.

 

[Randall]

Yeah well sometimes things get hot and words look a lot different in text than if you're talking directly and probably having a laugh and a beer. It's part of the game.

You've got a great attitude. I do tend to take what I do more seriously than people who just dabble. So in the absence of anything deserving of being ignored, I see the "I'm done talking with you" routine as a provocative and childish cop-out. If it were in the same discussion over a beer, I'd find it extremely rude.

NOTE: I've also been known to take a break from my serious ufology side and post in the "Funny Stuff" and "Space Babes" section too . Too bad we aren't in the same city. I'd be glad to have a beer with you sometime.