Sorry outlaw. You're citing after the fact speculation which happens on both sides of this issue .. which is why I have a problem with UFO "investigation" in the first place. How can UFOs be properly investigated if they are no longer there? You started this so I'll keep asking until I get a straight answer.

In retrospect outlaw, who "started " our above back-and-forth is relative. I was gonna edit it but I figure I'll let this be a lesson on snap-replies. I voiced the reason why I think investigation of UFOs is a flawed concept first, you called me on it. That's the only concession I'm making though. The ball is still in your court.

Ahh man, this can't be good--I just read that the Jennings report gets into the (retarded) adbuction thing. Drat ](*,)

Well, that might not be such a bad thing scourge. It could mean that they'll cover all aspects of the UFO topic, which they should. Lay it all out and let the chips fall.

I'm trying to calculate and imagine a few things about the Gulf B29 thing as linked.
They travelled at 5240 mph (more or less), and never came closer than 20 miles. That would make it a 15 second trip to pass through 45 degrees of one's vision (I hope I'm clear here and that my math is solid enough for those basic calculations). Would it appear as a 'streak', a 'flash', with that relative speed? I doubt it, but I guess there are people with more experience in that area here.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Well, for simplicity I assumed that the UFO was flying in a circle around the B-29, at around that speed it would take about 25 seconds to cover 90 degrees of the flyaround, at a distance of 20 miles.

Streak/flash? Not likely.

Even going as low as one second to cover 90 degrees of the flyaround would still probably not be considered a streak/flash. But let's assume so, just for fun. 1 second, 90 degrees of a flyaround, at a distance of 20 miles. That'd make it fly at close to 200,000 km/h, or around 135,000 mph. *chuckles*


edit: spelling and clarification.

Agree completely. I just assumed that they travelled in a straight line along the plane, with the closest point being 20 miles away. Then you get 15 seconds for 45 degrees iso 25 seconds for 90 degrees. Not a great difference, just thought I would clarify!

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Yeah that's what I started my calculations on, but since I'm on my lunch break I figured it'd be easier to do the quick and dirty, so a circle it was.
Seem to remember somewhere it mentioned how the UFOs were flying around the B-29, never coming closer than 20 miles. Then a circle would make more sense.

But you're right, not a big difference with these distances/speeds.

Meh, maybe you’re right…but the abduction hysteria pretty much obliterates the already marginal credibility of the whole topic. There’s a gulf of difference between ‘sometimes really confounding events witnessed by trained observers seem to coincide with incredible radar returns’ and ‘little grey men pulled me from my bed without waking my wife sleeping beside me, only to subject me to traceless, nonsensical medical experiments and fill my head with a bunch of ridiculous new age drivel, then put me back in bed without ruffling the covers. And oh yeah, they do this all the time.’ !?! Y’know?

I see no reason to assume that sightings and ‘abductions’ are even related. I know a few people who have had night paralysis episodes, and they thought demons or something were holding them down…abductions are purely psychological. How come military Colonels and scientists never get abducted? Because the people who report abductions are loons, that’s why. IMHO, of course, :^o

Boeing also equipped the B-29 with advanced radar equipment and avionics. Depending on the type of mission, a B-29 carried the AN/APQ-13 or AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar system to aid bombing and navigation. These systems were accurate enough to permit blind bombing through cloud layers that completely obscured the target. The B-29B was equipped with the AN/APG-15B airborne radar gun sighting system mounted in the tail, insuring accurate defense against enemy fighters attacking at night. The B-29s also routinely carried as many as twenty different types of radios and navigation devices.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...boeing_b29.htm

But this wasen't one of those B-29s. This was one of three AEW B-29s that had a AEW radar (AN/APN-20? from memory), why would they have bombing radar on a AEW aircraft? not to mention you couldn't pick up objects at a distance of 20 miles, that were horizontal compared to your position, with a bombing radar. No, I'd guess they didn't even have a bombing radar.

Oh yeah, I checked your link, that's for a normal B-29, not the AEW aircrafts. Maybe you should get your facts straight?

Hmmm, look what I found. B-29 AEW picture

I can't see any turrets on it. Can you? Why would they have radar gun sighting systems on a aircraft without turrets?

So again, why would they have 3 radar scopes, when they only have one radar, and only a maximum of two people to operate them? redundant backups?

Now the question is, did they only have a crew of 3? I'd think that on a AEW they'd have more people, I mean half the bombbay was redone to house radar equipment.

Speaking of 3, there were 3 AEW B-29s. One blew its radar early on. Second one didn't have a preassurized cabin so it just flew low altitude training. Which leaves one plane, which of course basically just flew training/test flights.

Remember, these weren't operational planes, these were prototype tests.

God old magnifying glass.
Try it...I hope you will get better results.Because actually you have only made the demonstration than that it is not so easy to make a good faked UFO picture.Even with actual technology not available in the 50 and 60.
Maybe you can point me to the UFO picture you were suppose being able to fake?

The observation report is about a B-29 Superfortress during a training flight.
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/gulfc.htm

Oulaw, what about the bled pixels (I could see them without magnifying glass) on the non copy paste picture I've shown? And on the non copy-pasted trees in Johnno's picture? What does that say about the pixels around his craft being caused by copy-paste?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

That is only around the object these "extra sized" pixels giving a "blurry effect" are visible revealing the copy and paste.
Edited.

outlaw, can you make this further clear to me? I see as much blur and pixels around the tree the left down wing is pointing at, and seemingly enlarged pixels are also visible in that same tree and in the most right tree, at the same size of the enlarged pixels in the craft. At the moment, I see no clear difference between the copy paste edge and edges with only JPG artifacts.

EDITED TO ADD and that branch on the right of the craft seems to have exactly the same amount of pixels floating around it and seamingly enlarged pixels. Edges on the same angle show similar aliasing.

I know the craft is copy pasted, but what exactly shows to you the difference with the jpg artifacts around the trees and branch?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

The pixels around the "craft" do not match the pixelisation of the trees it is even worst when zooming.The pixels around the "craft" -make the wings looking grossly like a... chainsaw.-
edited - -

Bahahaha, priceless. Anyone who wants a laugh go read that article. Now keep in mind what we've been talking about. A craft at a 20 mile distance, going by in a flash, would be travelling at more than 135,000 mph. Also, let's assume for fun, that this was a B-29, with a crew of 3.

The names of the crew.

Pilot
Radar Officer
Flight Engineer?/Radar Operator?
Navigator
Wait, wait... 4 people? *chuckles*

No... correction...
Hehe, 5 people!

So, is it a AEW B-29? Or a regular B-29? Did the AEW B-29 have a larger crew? That would explain the additional radar scopes. But why did they only have a crew of 3 in the other report, while saying it had the same amount of scopes.

Wait, is it supposed to be the same incident? Same numbers, same date. But different crews. Same location, same wordings (blur, flashes)....

Sounds like completely made up stories to me. Anyone comparing these, and doing the maths, will know they're bunk.

No that is the number of radar scopes on board.Are you suggesting than a b29 is to small to carry more than 3 people on board.Check your math.
[/quote]