UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Tapio]

I might note also that a blimp is an aircraft.

Of course. I was simply wondering why there wasn't any relevant corrective under 'aircraft' as there was with 'other' (kites). I do find it a bit strange the original investigators wouldn't have taken into account the hangar nearby...if there really was one...which leads me to Marduk! Where are those references?

I'm at the point where, if provided adequate backup (actual data showing the hangar existing and still active at the time of the sighting) for the blimp-hypothesis, I'm willing to accept that was the case. Until then, no matter how mundane or logical the hypothesis may be, I simply have to conclude 'I don't know'. I would like to know, so I could move onward from this case.

Oh yeah, Rramjet, there was a good suggestion earlier. About moving to examine the 'top case' research-wise...how about it? What case do you feel has got the best research behind it's conclusions?

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Ah… Patricio Elicer knows the mind of “aliens”. Please, go on, tell me why “they” do what “they” do? As you might have guessed, I am very interested in the topic.

I don't know the mind of aliens (and you don't, either), but I do know that they have to be very intelligent, as to be able to travel the light years to come to Earth (as UFO enthusiasts purport, that is). And intelligent beings don't play silly games. Why are they hiding from us, whereas they can help solve our problems?. Why do they "abduct" thousands of people to examine, when only one would be enough?

Remember, they are intelligent. Or maybe they aren't?.

They are intelligent enough to device technology to traverse the light years, but not intelligent enough to figure out human biology?.

They want to hide from us, but they are not intelligent enough to figure that they don't have to use lights?

All this UFO stuff don't make any sense. In one word... nonsense!

 

[Vortigern99]

I've looked at the Rogue River drawings, and in my unscientific opinion, they look like blimps.

Also, Marduk claims to have evidence that blimps were in the area:

You chose it at the suggestion of Tapio one page back, why deny it now that evidence to the contrary is provided, shall we guess why you'd do that ?

you haven't got a clue have you
I have physical evidence, the blimps and blimp hangar
I have documentary evidence, the flight routes
I have scientific evidence, the profiles of a blimp in flight
I have demonstrative evidence, go look at a blimp
you have hearsay, from non experts, which is next to worthless


I am stating it true based on my own research and evidence
you are stating it false based on imagination and no evidence
you lose

really if this demonstrates anything its demonstrating that even if I provided a statement written by the blimp pilot stating that he was in that location on that day and nothing else was flying in the area you wouldn't believe it

youre a ufo nut, thats suddenly become very very clear, as such you don't deserve any more time wasted on you, you just deserve contempt
you certainly now have mine and before you start spouting crapola its your attitude and refusal to look at real evidence thats earned it, nothing else
well done, youve proved to everyone here that youre a complete waste of our time

 

[BlackKat]

...That is, that if the AirForce had blimps in the area, they would have been the very first to say so. Is that not a reasonable conclusion to reach?

Besides, no-one has yet shown ANY evidence of blimps in the area.

And absence of blimps is absence of blimps. Full stop.

The Air Force had NO blimps in the area. The Navy did.

However it is true that some blimps are obviously being piloted by E.T.s

 

[jer_j]

Is there a point to this discussion? I don't expect to see convincing evidence for UFOs, but if we're going to put the effort into debating someone, we should at least expect a vaguely meaningful response for our trouble. In my opinion, being asked why a toaster doesn't turn into a clothesline (after I ask a valid question about why the government/alien conspiracy allows people to keep spreading UFO reports) doesn't qualify. And saying that the absence of evidence for UFOs is excused because we can't conceive of what a world with aliens would look like is essentially declining to engage in debate.

The only reason I'm not thoroughly convinced that we're being trolled is the time and detail that's gone into Rramjet's presentation. But even if he were just yanking our chain, could anyone imagine the quality of discussion being worse than it is? I second the motion that we get off this ride. It's going absolutely nowhere.

 

[Stray Cat]

Portland Oregon Naval Blimp Base:

Some information from Examiner.com

Photo of Blimp tethered outside Portland Blimp Hangar:

The Hangar houses up to 9 blimps

Which had a range of 2,000 miles and could stay afloat for 3 days.


Another candidate could be Santa Ana NAS, Tustin CA:
Built specifically as a blimp base in 1942.
Decommissioned in 1949,
Transferred to Marine Corp. in 1951

Photo clearly showing wrinkled/serrated nose of blimp:

Come one Rramjet... it's all there... Refusing to look is no defense for claiming that the evidence doesn't exist!

 

[Tapio]

But even if he were just yanking our chain, could anyone imagine the quality of discussion being worse than it is? I second the motion that we get off this ride. It's going absolutely nowhere.

Nowhere in what sense? In the sense you'd get something revolutionary regarding UFOs? Nah...wouldn't hold my breath...

But in the sense that we're having (once again) a wonderful opportunity to learn how the mind of someone like Rramjet works (who AFAIK is an exceptionally well equipped UFO proponent) and what are the ways we must use if wanting to engage in rational discussion and, on the other hand, what methods take us only down a long road of bickering...in that sense I feel the ride is faring well .

ETA: Beautiful blimps, Stray Cat! I'm feeling the pull of gravity on this case...

 

[jer_j]

Nowhere in what sense? In the sense you'd get something revolutionary regarding UFOs? Nah...wouldn't hold my breath...

But in the sense that we're having (once again) a wonderful opportunity to learn how the mind of someone like Rramjet works (who AFAIK is an exceptionally well equipped UFO proponent) and what are the ways we must use if wanting to engage in rational discussion and, on the other hand, what methods take us only down a long road of bickering...in that sense I feel the ride is faring well .

ETA: Beautiful blimps, Stray Cat! I'm feeling the pull of gravity on this case...

I don't mean anything revolutionary, of course. I would just hope to see him present even a plausible series of arguments - or anything beyond blatant, repetitive evasiveness or shifting the burden of proof. It might be interesting at first, but after a while it just feels like a run-around.

I can see why people would enjoy the look into Rramjet's head. But I'm not feeling it right now. Then again I have a headache today, and my patience might not be at its best.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Remember, they are intelligent. Or maybe they aren't?.

Well, I do remember one SCI-FI story I read in a book series called "There will be war". I think the short story was written by Harry Turtledove but I could be wrong. It involved an alien race that had advanced spacecraft but their weaponry involved muskets. When they viewed the earth as "ripe for the picking", they encountered a race with highly advanced weaponry but not so advanced in spacecraft. Once they were defeated (rather easily as they tried to line up in musket formation, they were mowed down by machine gun fire), our scientists discovered that, for some unknown reason, we missed an obvious clue on how to travel faster than the speed of light. We took their technology and, because these were the most advanced creatures in the galaxy, began to set out to conquer many worlds the same way the Europeans took over the new world. At least that was the way I remember the story. It was very amusing and I thought I would share it since this seems to be the same kind of technology the aliens piloting these UFO/Spaceships have. They don't want to land because our rockets/bombs/machine guns/tanks/etc. would rip their little gray bodies to shreds.

Edit: I was right. It was Harry Turtledove and the story was "The road not taken". There is a summary of it in Wikipedia. I now return everyone to the endless argument about UFOs where no evidence for alien spaceships are presented but any mundane explanation is not acceptable because we know these people see something other than mundane objects. BTW, nice blimps!

 

[GeeMack]

Show me ANY evidence that there were ANY blimps anywhere near the area.

It seems to be a matter of historic fact that blimps were based nearer than 200 miles from the sighting, well within the flight range of such an aircraft.

Portland Oregon Naval Blimp Base:

Some information from Examiner.com

Photo of Blimp tethered outside Portland Blimp Hangar:
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/AirialBlimpHangerAdjusted.jpg[/qimg]

The Hangar houses up to 9 blimps
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/BlimpsHangar2_thumb.jpg[/qimg]

Which had a range of 2,000 miles and could stay afloat for 3 days.

Now tell us, Rramjet, as a matter of historic fact, in 1949 were there ETs, indigenous "aliens", or time travelers within 200 miles of the Rogue River, or anywhere else on Earth for that matter? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Rramjet]

Okay --

Rogue River seems to have moved...

HERE IT IS: (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

NOW we can ALL examine the research AND the eyewitnesses for ourselves.

Happy Reading

 

[Sledge]

I don't know or care about the Rogue River case. What I'm trying to understand is what you're trying to achieve here. If none of the cases are convincing by themselves, why would they be convincing when put alongside other unconvincing evidence?

ETA: which is exactly what I said in the first place. What are you disagreeing with?

Just gonna drop this off here.

 

[Rramjet]

Portland Oregon Naval Blimp Base:

(...)

Another candidate could be Santa Ana NAS, Tustin CA:

(...)

Come one Rramjet... it's all there... Refusing to look is no defense for claiming that the evidence doesn't exist!

I simply asked (am asking) you to produce EVIDENCE that a blimp was ANYWHERE near the area on or even around the time of the sighting. ANYTHING...

...and all you have done is to produce some old photos of something that looks NOTHING like what the witnesses describe.

Moreover, Portland is more than 200 miles away and Santa Ana is over 1000 miles away!

You are simply grasping at straws StrayCat.
You have shown me NO evidence to demonstrate the probability of a blimp in the Rogue River area.
You have countered NONE of the evidence in the Rogue River case.

Until you do, it remains a TRUE UNKNOWN. A UFO.

PS: In case anyone missed it ...the site is now back up.
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

 

[Nonpareil]

I simply asked (am asking) you to produce EVIDENCE that a blimp was ANYWHERE near the area on or even around the time of the sighting. ANYTHING...

...and all you have done is to produce some old photos of something that looks NOTHING like what the witnesses describe.

Moreover, Portland is more than 200 miles away and Santa Ana is over 1000 miles away!

You are simply grasping at straws StrayCat.
You have shown me NO evidence to demonstrate the probability of a blimp in the Rogue River area.
You have countered NONE of the evidence in the Rogue River case.

Until you do, it remains a TRUE UNKNOWN. A UFO.

PS: In case anyone missed it ...the site is now back up.
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

Prove that there WASN'T a blimp in the area. The burden of proof is on you. You must prove the falsity of all the other possibilities before your idea is accepted.

 

[Hindmost]

Ah yes, the "physics is dead" argument - we know everything there is to know and nothing new will be discovered. Or another way. "It cannot be, therefore it is not".

Point to ANY post of mine where I have argued that.

Now the astute reader will immediately recognise this as the "strawman argument". Set up a false statement attributable to you opponent, merely to knock it down. We are getting it all here today! Roll up ladies and gentlemen... roll up and see...

The strawmen is exactly what you setup. I never indicated "physics is dead."

What I am implying is that physics and engineering are a needed first step. The protons, neutrons and electrons in our star system are no different from the rest of the universe. Therefore, the aliens have to deal with the same periodic table that we have...perhaps a slightly different nuclide chart. Conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and the laws of thermo apply to our alien friends just as much as they do on earth.

Chemical energy...did our alien friends get here on liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. They would need a ship about the size of Jupiter. So, not very probable--we certainly would see that one coming.

That leaves nuclear. Much better. Either fusion or matter-anti-matter. Fusion has a reasonable shot at it. But the ship would still be huge..and easy to detect since all the gamma rays flitting about and the exhaust would be distinctive.

Matter-antimatter: Another reasonable possibility, but making and storing antimatter in a matter shell is really, really tough. Magnetic fields are not too perfect...just look at how difficult it is to fuse hydrogen in a tokamak. The consequences of a containment failure would be bad and very visible. The other real problem is making antimatter as it does not occur too much in nature. Making positrons is fairly easy, but antiprotons are somewhat more difficult. The energy required in an accelerator to make a few antiprotons is enormous. Then of course, matter-antimatter reactions are very easy to monitor with all the muons and gamma rays etc...we would be able to see that.

Please tell me how these huge ships got here from 20 to 50 light-years distance and somehow wink in and out of existence so quickly. Until they arrive, there is no reason to analyze poor photographs and listen to anecdotes.

glenn

 

[Jungle Jim]

Regarding the issue of seeing unidentified aircraft with the naked eye...

I was a firefighter under the DOD stationed at a Naval Air Station (1977 - 1986). One of our duties was to monitor the takeoffs and landings of all flights. During the course of my nine years at the base I had the opportunity to witness the take offs and landings of every type of U.S. military aircraft (at the time) from helicopter to even Air Force One, both in daylight and night and under every conceivable weather condition. I was never short of amazement at the possible optical effects aircraft have when traversing though clouds, storms, sunlight, with running lights, landing lights, at various altitudes, and direction of approach, etc. Having experienced all of the above, I would be skeptical to the extreme of any eye witness UFO reports.

 

[Pantaz]

Actually no...I did NOT post that link...Pantaz did... it is therefore NOT "my" preferred evidence that you discuss. Perhaps ask Pantaz about it.

^ That's what I like to call intellectual dishonesty.

Let's be perfectly clear about this. The link you posted in the OP, under the heading "Physical Evidence", http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicalevidence.htm is simply a page of yet more links.

When kitakaze referenced that page, stating that most of the subsequent links were bad, I visited the page and clicked each of the links. I found only two working pages. Hoping to save other people the same frustration, I re-posted those two links.

 

[Rramjet]

(snip irrelevant story)

I now return everyone to the endless argument about UFOs where no evidence for alien spaceships are presented but any mundane explanation is not acceptable because we know these people see something other than mundane objects. BTW, nice blimps!

If you feel there is no evidence, then why don't you comment on the case directly under discussion, the Rogue River case? (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

What is it you fear? If you had a rational case against the evidence, then you would produce it.

"nice blimps" simply does NOT make the case explicable in terms of blimps.

The debunkers and skeptics of this forum cry long and loud about how evidence is necessary to "prove" UFOs, yet when it comes to their own pronouncements, then suddenly no evidence at all is required. This is simply a double standard. It is nothing short of hypocritical.

 

[Rramjet]

The strawmen is exactly what you setup. I never indicated "physics is dead."

What I am implying is that physics and engineering are a needed

(...)

Chemical energy...

(...)

That leaves nuclear.

(...)

Matter-antimatter:

(...)

Please tell me how these huge ships got here from 20 to 50 light-years distance and somehow wink in and out of existence so quickly. Until they arrive, there is no reason to analyze poor photographs and listen to anecdotes.

glenn

You forgot Dark Matter...
You forgot, clear photos, video, radar and physical trace evidence...

But the main point is that you ARE precisely and directly arguing that "physics is dead" - that what we know now is all there is to know - and that no new discoveries will be forthcoming.

 

[StevenCalder]

I simply asked (am asking) you to produce EVIDENCE that a blimp was ANYWHERE near the area on or even around the time of the sighting. ANYTHING...

Why would we need to? I have no problem with the Unknown label. Its highly likely from the proximity of the bases and the drawings what the end result will be in this case.

So I could spend the next couple months fighting with the US military for access to very old records which may not even exist any more which given the nature of the inquiry I would probably never get, but why? So I could move something from unknown to mundane for the benefit of a guy I met on a forum?

What If I don't find the records? Does this mean there were no blimps there or the records are simply lost? Who knows! Have I actually done anything worth while with my time? No - I've moved an unknown to unknown.

In this particular case I'm not too bothered by the degree of remaining ambiguity.

...and all you have done is to produce some old photos of something that looks NOTHING like what the witnesses describe.

I'm not even sure I know how to respond to this. I even showed the images to my girlfriend and asked her what it was without any other information, without a moments hesitation: Blimp.

I cannot even begin to fathom in any way shape or form <insert more emphasis here> how you can say the above.

Moreover, Portland is more than 200 miles away and Santa Ana is over 1000 miles away!

Which is massively within the aircraft's range.

Until you do, it remains a TRUE UNKNOWN. A UFO.

Personally, in this particular case, the presumptive result seems quite clear to me.
But I'm fine with some conclusive ambiguity.