[23_Tauri]

Hello everyone on ukweatherworld forums

I am having a discussion on another forum about an event off the west coast of USA back in 1953. An object was seen in the sky by several observers. That the object was a lenticular cloud is one theory explaining the sightings. One of my fellow posters has managed to get hold of radiosonde data for the day in question, 16th December 1953, for two reporting stations: Long Beach and Santa Maria. The reason the data might be useful to us is because we would like to know if the conditions on the day would have been suitable for the formation of a lenticular cloud. That is our main question at the moment, but anything else that can be gleaned from the data that could tell us about the conditions on the day, anything unusual or particularly significant, would be very helpful. We don't have any meterologists on our forum so I've come to over here to see if anyone can help us.

Here is the radiosonde data for the two stations: Long Beach and Santa Maria, which is just above Vandenberg. The radiosonde data is for 0300 Zulu on the 17th (which equates to 1900 on the 16th) for both stations. The only data point before that is 1300 PST for Long Beach on the 16th.

Long Beach:
254 3 17 DEC 1953
1 23129 72297 33.83 118.15 20 32767
2 150 300 250 24 7 0
3 LGB kt
9 1017 20 125 97 68 2
4 1000 161 155 42 90 6
5 950 600 174 32767 113 8
5 900 1056 147 32767 158 8
4 850 1535 118 32767 203 10
5 800 2039 88 32767 203 12
5 750 2580 51 32767 203 13
4 700 3126 15 -150 203 12
5 650 3710 -34 -83 248 13
5 600 4345 -77 -205 270 19
5 550 5010 -111 -252 293 31
4 500 5739 -160 -285 293 33
5 450 6530 -207 -340 293 35
4 400 7377 -284 -385 293 37
5 350 8317 -364 32767 293 40
4 300 9368 -429 32767 338 52
4 250 10578 -498 32767 293 50
4 200 12031 -519 32767 270 46
5 175 12902 -522 32767 270 42
4 150 13882 -590 32767 270 52

Santa Maria

254 3 17 DEC 1953
1 23236 72394 34.93 120.42 71 32767
2 100 200 215 35 7 0
3 SMX kt
9 1010 71 85 73 0 0
5 1003 120 130 94 32767 32767
4 1000 155 132 95 135 2
5 961 490 170 10 32767 32767
5 950 600 167 -5 158 12
5 900 1048 152 32767 135 17
5 883 1210 146 32767 32767 32767
4 850 1529 122 32767 135 15
5 800 2033 87 -150 158 8
5 750 2580 49 -156 203 8
4 700 3121 9 -159 203 4
5 650 3730 -37 -153 203 8
5 632 3950 -56 -141 32767 32767
5 600 4340 -73 -172 293 8
5 556 4940 -92 -264 32767 32767
5 550 5030 -98 -270 293 21
4 500 5742 -148 -285 293 23
5 450 6540 -212 -328 293 35
4 400 7389 -274 32767 293 37
5 350 8333 -357 32767 293 40
4 300 9384 -448 32767 293 46
5 275 9940 -501 32767 32767 32767
5 264 10200 -485 32767 32767 32767
4 250 10582 -512 32767 293 31
5 215 11540 -584 32767 32767 32767
4 200 12001 -567 32767 270 58
5 192 12280 -506 32767 32767 32767
5 175 12864 -521 32767 270 48
4 150 13846 -589 32767 270 29
5 125 14974 -630 32767 248 31
4 100 16334 -673 32767 248 25

Pertinent information. The first few lines are pertinent information associated with the station (longitude/latitude, etc.)

The first column just designates what kind of reading it is (the number is usually 4 or 5). The second column is atmospheric pressure (mbar). The third column is altitude (Metres). The fourth column is temperature in C with the decimal point dropped (i.e. 171 = 17.1). The fifth column is dewpoint. The sixth column is wind direction (direction wind is coming from) and the seventh column is wind speed in knots. If there is a value of 32767 it means there is no data.

The values between 4500 and 6000 metres might be the ones that cover the range of altitudes where the object MAY have been. Do these figures, or any other in the above lists, provide any clues?

I hope very much that someone can help.

Thank you.

[Bazmundo]

I'm not that good at interpreting sounding data, if I get time I might try a plot. Does seem fairly dry throughout.

If it helps I've found charts for the ConUS for the 16th Dec via here (req plug-in viewer): http://docs.lib.noaa...ather_maps.html

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 
• 

[23_Tauri]

Hi Bazmundo, thanks for the link to the charts. Certainly looks dry and still. If you do fancy plotting the data that would be great.

[Paul Domaille]

Hi Tauri,
I've had a look at the Long Beach Data set. Interesting how Radiosonde data has changed nowadays, they had been in operation just over 20 years when these were taken ! Could you provide us with a specific location you were looking at and also the time of day and which day. The goegraphy of the location can be quite important, it could at least provide us with a definite no or a maybe.
Interesting challenge !
Cheers,
Paul D

[Dave W]

The Long Beach area weather stations are reporting various types of Ac yes , the type of clouds most commonly lenticular, at medium levels

[23_Tauri]

Dave and Paul, thank you very much for your input so far.

Regards local conditions, the incident took place at between 5pm and 5.05pm local time on 16th December 1953. Clarence Johnson was looking west from his ranch near Agoura, out towards Point Mugu, when he saw the object. From Johnson's statement it's been estimated that the object, if a lenticular cloud, would be somewhere over Santa Cruz Island. Map with co-ordinates below. If you'd like to read the whole of Johnson's statement about his sighting, I'm happy to provide a link to the pdf. If you need any more information at this stage, just give me a shout.

[Paul Domaille]

Still not easy, although I am begining to think not lentics. looking at the charts for the 16th and 17th winds in the region are light and vary between east and west over the two days. There is quite a lot of fog in the region, especially on the 16th and to the north of the area on the 17th, this would limit visibility at the times the charts were made.Overall Visibility is given at between 6 and 10 milesover the two days. Given that Santa Cruz is about 20 miles offshore it is highly unlikely that he would have seen a lenticular formed from the island ( Santa Cruz has a max height of only 2430') especially as he was observing from a further 15/20 miles inland. Sea temps (going on todays readings which are probably lower than December's) would indicate that the sea temp was probably equal too or warmer than the land, in the synoptic setup my best guess would be for an offshore breeze , if any, which would make any lentic formation to the west of Santa Cruz (even further away from the observer. There isn also quite a difference between the temp and DP at the 2,400' level, +4.9c DP -15.6c at Santa Ana (Long Beach unavailable). If this were the same or similar at Santa Cruz in these light winds I would think it unlikely that Lentics would form.
Cheers,
Paul D

[23_Tauri]

Paul, thank you. Interesting. This adds a twist to the tale, as the USAF concluded, from witness statements, that the most likely explanation was a lenticular cloud. However, I don't think that they looked at the weather data, only the statements from Mr Johnson and from the crew of a WV-6 airplane that was also in the vicinity. It certainly is a tricky case, far from conclusive.

Thank you once again, really helpful analysis, it is much appreciated.

[StephenS]

I don't think lenticulars are too likely in this set-up, but in any case they wouldn't fit too well with what was described by the witnesses - one of many accounts can be found here: http://www.nicap.org.../lockufoinc.htm

My concern about the Lockheed case has always been the reliability of the witnesses and the personal, corporate and political factors involved. If I could see beyond that and take the reports at face value, I'd say that lenticular or other clouds seen in fading light and quite poor visibility offer a possible, but not very likely, explanation. A more fruitful line of enquiry might be some kind of mirage caused by an inversion.

[23_Tauri]

thank you Stephen for your thoughts on the matter.

This post has been edited by 23_Tauri: 06 February 2012 - 07:18

[23_Tauri]

Further to my posts yesterday, we’ve had a bit more discussion on the possible location for the ‘object’, observed by Johnson at his ranch and also by the crew of a WV-2 Lockheed airplane, which was in the vicinity. The problem is estimating – as accurately as possible from the statements made by the crew members that unfortunately are not 100% internally consistent – the location of the airplane at the time of the sighting, 1700 to 1705 hrs on 16^th Dec.

Over on the James Randi Educational Foundation where we are having this discussion, one of my fellow posters, Stray Cat, has produced a map showing the area where the object could have been, based on the statements of the crew (in the air) and Johnson (on the ground). The map shows that the object would not necessarily be over Santa Cruz Island, which clips the top of the white ‘possible location for object cone’. What is particularly notable is that the cone extends a long way out to sea, implying that the object could have been over the ocean and at some considerable distance from land, although as the object was visible from Johnson’s ranch it is unlikely it was this far out to sea, it’s just that this is where the lines converge.

The lines delineating the cone are based on co-ordinates of 240° and 260° given by Johnson for the location of the object.

The white shaded area is the area the object would have been inside. The Red shaded area is the area where the Lockheed WV-2 would have been inside.




The above is zoomed in, but this one:



shows the full extent of the possible area.

Does the above analysis change anything in terms of the likelihood of the object being a lenticular cloud? Or anything else about the weather conditions in the area where it's been estimated the object could have been?

Over to you!

This post has been edited by 23_Tauri: 06 February 2012 - 10:38

[Nigel Bolton]

Hi Tauri,

Have just looked at the sonde data and one thing does stand out.

There appears to be a significant wind veer and increase in the wind speed near 600hPa on both ascents. Winds veer roughly from south-southwest round to west-northwest in fairly narrow depth, with uni-directional flow both above and below.

The ascents are also rather dry, precluding the development of much cloud; differences between temperature and dew point is generally in excess of 10 degrees.

However, the veer and increase in wind with height suggests there is a layer of warm advection going on near 600hPa, suggesting a weak elevated warm front. Although I cannot calculate theta w's off that list, there is an indication of a slight rise in theta w near height 600hPa.

Warm advection causes lifting, cooling and moistening of a slab of air, and the change in wind speed and direction with height through a relative shallow layer would make the flow somewhat non-laminar through this layer, and therefore would have the ability to bounce, or at least cause some wave phenomena.

This bounce or non laminar flow, coupled with warm advection may have lifted air within a wave within this layer just sufficiently to cause condensation of water vapour into a wave cloud. The driness of the atmosphere would have limited the time that the wave would have formed, so that soon after the cloud formed, it dissipated.

Sounds like a short-lived lentic to me.

N.

[23_Tauri]

Thank you Nigel, that is marvellous. I've relayed your comments to the various pilots, ex-naval officers and assorted researchers over on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum where we're having this discussion. I must say I'm pleasantly surprised and extremely grateful at the assistance that you've all provided here with the radiosonde data. Thank you all, and please don't stop providing further comments or ask questions if you so wish.

[Paul Domaille]

I find this fascinating, forensic analysis with limited data ! A couple of points, the chart link provided by Glyn above does show limited visibility, thats not to say there couldn't have been a clearer area in the region but the odds would be against that, so a sighting would likely be closer rather than further away. The possibility of a mirage are still there. There is an inversion ceiling on the Long Beach ascent at between 600m and 1056m which could produce a mirage although I am not ofay with how much difference in density is required for this effect. I must say I am a believer that MOST UFO sitings can be explained by natural phenomona.
As Nigel has indicated the difference between th DP and Temp is quite substantial, in the region of 13 to 20c except at the 650hpa level on the Long Beach ascent where it is only 4.9c, so it wouldn't require a huge drop in temp to produce saturation point.I would guess it would require a vertical displacement of about 600m (should be able to work it out but my brain isn't functioning properly at the moment !). Nigel is far more knowledgable in this area than me, perhaps he could say if my reasoning is reasonable !
Cheers.
Paul D

[Nigel Bolton]

23_Tauri, on 06 February 2012 - 19:53, said:

Thank you Nigel, that is marvellous. I've relayed your comments to the various pilots, ex-naval officers and assorted researchers over on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum where we're having this discussion. I must say I'm pleasantly surprised and extremely grateful at the assistance that you've all provided here with the radiosonde data. Thank you all, and please don't stop providing further comments or ask questions if you so wish.

No probs.

I quite enjoy trying to explain the unexplained, even if some think my ideas are a bit off centre.

Best,

N.

[23_Tauri]

Just to say that one of the posters on JREF is trying to source the sonde data for Point Mugu for the day in question, which would be much nearer to the position of the witnesses who saw the object. Santa Maria and Long Beach are 80-100 miles away so it will be great if he can get hold that data. If he does, then I'll post it here.

[Bazmundo]

I can't find Point Mugu (72391) in the Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive before 1971 unfortunately, but then I can't find Long Beach or Santa Maria at all in there?

http://www.ncdc.noaa...a/climate/igra/

[23_Tauri]

Bazmundo, on 08 February 2012 - 00:20, said:

I can't find Point Mugu (72391) in the Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive before 1971 unfortunately, but then I can't find Long Beach or Santa Maria at all in there?

http://www.ncdc.noaa...a/climate/igra/

Bazmundo
The data was posted up on JREF by Astrophotographer, here:

Continuation: UFOs The Research, The Evidence page 14

I think he extracted the data from a CD Rom, not the NOAA website, but you can check this with him if you like. Or I can.