Lockheed Lenticulars Update

My suggestion of a possible source for the famous Kelly Johnson case (discussed below) was a very densely packed lenticular cloud. In searching for photographs of clouds that matched the one I was proposing, I had to look far and wide. Most lenticulars are nowhere near dense enough for the scenario I proposed. I finally found the excellent photograph by Mark Meyer that I used in the piece. I love that image but have always hoped that I would find even better ones.

Recently some photos that seem to be of a lenticular cloud taken in Brazil have surfaced that feature the extremely smooth edges that I suggested may have fooled Kelly Johnson. 

Here is one of them:

7764_10201385068611843_1921530127_n 

Such a beautiful photo. And so very like the description given by Johnson and Crew.

Here is a discussion that features more of the photos of the same cloud.

Thanks to Leonardo Araujo for permission to use the photo here.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Lockheed Lenticulars Update

  1. Hi Lance, thanks for the photo. The proponents keep claiming there are SO many reports of this or that, and their right. The ETH proponents have masses of reports to look at, in a world of UFO excitement and starry-eyed wonder. The Bigfoot believers base their (or at least claim to base their) belief on the thousands and thousands of reports.
    The Loch-Ness Monster, ghosts, angelic visitation, recipients of placebo-dependent relief/healing/comfort and so on. With a world population of billions the reports are many, the believers legion.
    I couldn’t help but notice, before and after I gladly took critical-thinking and scientific skepticism into my mind, that there is also an almost endless list of discoveries, conclusive natural research and so on that can’t help but tip the scales somewhat back to natural explanations.
    I was going to rant on a bit in this fashion, but I need to say now:
    I’m really curious too! Simply the number of reports that we are dealing with, grasped by hard-working journalists and exposed in a manner reminiscent of previous times, when AMAZING stories of pulp supernatural detail were given the most visible and high-priced places in our media circus.
    I think that most likely something happened to these witnesses, something entered their perceptions, their thoughts and then their reports (all three very rarely being the same).
    I am keen to know what caused their claims too. I’m very curious about what it actually was that they saw. But I can’t help being a skeptic, can I?
    I can’t accept supposition and make a leap which I see as unsupported or not adequately supported, can I?
    Likely or at least quite possible natural explanations, no matter how many, will not move most firm believers. Research into human psychology and natural perceptions and a long history of gullible humanity, none of it will matter to them.
    See?
    Believers? Maybe we are feeling like you feel sometimes.
    We’re pointing to studies, research, pictures of natural things that bear an uncanny resemblance to the unknowns that you insist upon the existence of (just like the picture above).
    We’re throwing our arms in the air too!
    The difference I see, is that we are pointing at findings supported by research and scientific testing, not a multitude of anecdotes and creative logical fallacies. Believers can point at reports and ‘new evidence’ that furthers the story but doesn’t further our actual knowledge of exactly what that strange thing you saw was.
    Had to get that out of my system, thanks for reading.
    Andrew.

  2. Hi Andrew,
    Thanks for the excellent comment. I’ll just mention how skeptics like me look at this stuff.
    The large number of UFO cases isn’t meaningful. The quality of the individual cases is. And the quality is almost uniformly dismal.
    Recently, Roger Marsh started posting MUFON case summaries to a Facebook group. Without exception, they were laughably bad: a photo of an insect (you could see the wings), a woman who recorded a long video that begins with her identifying her experience as a dream, etc. Additionally, one can see another big problem with the case files as I read them: they are being created by biased and credulous believers who have flocked to MUFON to become “investigators”.
    And while these were supposedly raw reports that had not yet been fully investigated, MUFON adds all the reports to something it calls the UFO alert level for each state. In other words, the crappy evidence leads to a pretend number that UFO believers point to as meaningful.
    All this is my way of saying that the plural of anecdote is not data.
    Thanks very much for the comment!
    Lance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s