UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

If there is NO EVIDENCE- i.e. pilot testimony, flight plan, tower log, ground crew, ect.

Then it WASN'T a blimp.

Now that you have made another positive assertion, please provide your proof that it wasn't a blimp.

 

[Stray Cat]

OK I've just caught up with the last three pages of this thread.
Disappointed to see it hasn't moved on any and I have now (I think) identified the problem.

Rramjet seems to be expecting or anticipating the sceptics to provide a solid conclusion and he is under the impression that our 'blimp possible explanation' is our conclusive endgame.

So, just so that's it very clear: A blimp is just one of several possibilities, which also include 'alien space craft' (or even native non human intelligently piloted craft). If the Rogue River sighting had happened yesterday and we could have access to the details and witnesses, we may be in a good position to close the case, but as we are looking through the fog of time, at reports made when UFOlogy was in its infancy (it is now a toddler), we don't have access to many aspects that we need to make better informed conclusions... so as sceptics, we don't make conclusions, we are happy for it to remain 'unidentified'. The blimp possibility is just that... one of several possibilities, none of which rule out the alternative.
Rramjet is trying to force a conclusive response and he's not getting one, which is why he is resorting to his constant huff, puff and guff, because he must know that for his "It doesn't have a mundane possibility" viewpoint, he has to be able to conclusively show that no mundane possibility is errr... well... possible. Something he can't do unless he just denies that in 1949 blimps with a range of 2,000 miles were stationed less than 200 miles away and regularly flew from Portland to the coast (and down to the other blimp base at Santa Ana, California), the drawings made from the witness descriptions resemble (though not exactly) Blimps. Not conclusive at all by my own (and from what I gather everyone else's) POV, but it can not be ruled out as a possibility... unless Rramjet can provide something a bit more solid than what he's provided already.

 

[GeeMack]

Then what's all this guff about the Rogue River case possibly being a blimp? According to all posts on the "skeptical" side, the debunkers are arguing: "It MIGHT have been a blimp; therefore it WAS a blimp"

Nobody is saying that. You're a liar.

Keep it civil please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. Rramjet has a claim (he believes something)
2. He has to give back up to his claim (his belief) in order for others to discuss and evaluate it

Ok so far.

3. After he's given this back up (which he now has done) it is up to anyone disgreeing with his claim (and support for that claim) to offer equal/overriding support of their case against his claim

The above is incorrect.

4. Only then we can evaluate both claims for and against, comparing their support indipendently and as rival claims

So yes, the burden of proof is initially on the one making a claim. But I think after that person has provided his proof (no matter what the quality of proof may be)

And the above is also incorrect.

 

[GeeMack]

It might have been, therefore it is?

For you to contend that anyone is saying that makes you a liar.

 

[King of the Americas]

Now that you have made another positive assertion, please provide your proof that it wasn't a blimp.

I have submitted a question to the FAA, and will respond more effectively when I get a response.

Blimps are slow moving craft, and I'd almost bet that even in 1949, launching such a craft would have required some kind of record.

They DO require pilots & ground crews.

No record of the flight + no pilots claiming they flew + no ground crew saying they launched = NO FLIGHT

 

[GeeMack]

Why don’t you say what you really mean…

Andrew, if you can SHOW me ANY evidence where I have either:

Moved the goalposts
Been intellectually dishonest
Been self deceiving
“imitation debators” (I have NO idea what that means…)

Intellectually dishonest...

Then what's all this guff about the Rogue River case possibly being a blimp? According to all posts on the "skeptical" side, the debunkers are arguing: "It MIGHT have been a blimp; therefore it WAS a blimp"

You're a liar, Rramjet. And your continued ignorance is noted as well. Remember this one?...

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.

So what is it? Yes or no?

 

[Rramjet]

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/siege_of_little_green_men/

A slightly different view of the Hopkinsville incident...

Let's then look at this a little more closely shall we...

Just to show what sort of researcher Joe Nickel let’s do a quick comparison:

http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm
Billy Ray Taylor (a friend of the Suttons and owner of the farmhouse) came in from the well with the "wild story's that he had seen a really bright "flying saucer," with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow, fly across the sky and drop into a forty-foot gully near the edge of their property. However, the Suttons did not take him seriously and laughed the story off as an embellishment of his seeing a "falling star."

Please note the drawing attached: Drawing of the initial sighting by Billy Ray Taylor of the object which 'landed" in the gully. The drawing was made by. A. Ledwith on the afternoon following the sighting. CUFOS

http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm
At the well, he saw an shining object land in a small gully about a quarter of a mile away. Running back to the house, he excitedly reported his sighting to the eleven people in the house. Billy was laughed at, as no one believed his tale and no one left the house to check.

Joe Nickell (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/siege_of_little_green_men/)
About seven o’clock, Billy Ray Taylor was drawing water from the well when he saw a bright light streak across the sky and disappear beyond a tree line some distance from the house.

Wow…that’s not an investigation…that is a truncated summary at best. If he was a TRUE investigator and was conducting properly constituted research he would have included as MUCH detail as possible. That he did not shows that he was NOT serious in obtaining all the facts of the matter.

I also would like you to compare Nickell’s “research effort” with that of Maccabee at (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm). In that comparison you can immediately see how Nickell actually does NOT conduct research at all, merely makes a truncated, summary and then hypothesises a “Solution”, not based on the description of events as they occurred, but rather from ”mere” speculation about possible solutions (note not even probable).

So what were Nickell’s “solutions”? Well he proposed that the “Flatwoods Monster”(1952 Flatwoods Monster UFO Event (12 Sep 1952)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case535.htm) and the “Mothman” (Mothman - Point Pleasant, West Virginia (12 Nov 1966 - 15 Dec 1967)
(http://www.xprojectmagazine.com/archives/cryptozoology/mothman.html) were “convincingly identified as a barn owl” and a “barred owl” respectively.

Now, I simply ask readers at this point to have a look at the two cases and see if you find “barn owl” at ALL convincing.

In the Hopkinsville case that now becomes an “eagle owl”….and that’s IT.

So, ignoring ALL the witness descriptions and drawings (eg: “The eyes were large and glowed with a yellowish light; the arms were long, extended nearly to the ground, and ended in large hands with talons. The entire creature seemed made of silver metal. As the creature approached, its hands were raised over its head as if it were being held up. http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm) – Nickells is basically contending “It might have been, therefore it IS”.

Nickells states “As to their behavior, Great Horned Owls are “extremely aggressive when defending the nest,” and their activity typically “begins at dusk” (“Great” 2006).” Never mind that none of the witnesses described an owl nesting in the vicinity… and if there were owls in the region and nesting so close to the house don’t you think the witnesses would have thought…at least on initial sighting…”Oh , that pesky owl is back again!” But they DID NOT.

Nickells describes the owl in question as 25 inches in “height” (that is 2 feet) yet the witnesses described the “creatures as “four feet in height”.

Nickells also neglects to mention that an owl on the ground is nowhere NEAR that height, in fact on the ground it has trouble standing at all.

Moreover, the men shot the creatures numerous times and noticed definite effects of the bullets:

http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm
“…at the moment that the creature was no farther than 20 feet to them. Billy Ray fired a shot with his .22, and Lucky unloaded with his shotgun. Both men later admitted that there was no way they missed the creature at close range, but the little being just did a back flip, stood up again, and fled into the woods.

No sooner had the two men reentered the house before the creature, or another like it, appeared at a window. They took a shot at him, leaving a blast hole through the screen. They ran back outside to see if the creature was dead, but found no trace of it. Standing at the front of the house, the men were terrified by a clawed hand reaching down from the roof in an attempt to touch them.”*

And

“The two men would fire at them, the bullet did metallic clanging noise when it hit the creature, which would flip over, or float in the air, or escape on all fours towards the weeds, only to come back again minutes later.”

* Note also Nickells description: “…they went outside, whereupon, on one occasion, Taylor’s hair was grabbed by a huge, clawlike hand.” (Yeah, sure…)

Oh yeah, Nickells mentions “As to the “flying saucer” sighting that preceded the encounter, there were area sightings of “meteors” at the time (Davis and Bloecher 1978, 33—34, 61—62). Most likely what was witnessed was a very bright meteor (or “fireball”).” But as any regular skywatcher will tell you, there is not a single night that passes without meteors entering the atmosphere – no matter where you are. More, he neglects the “with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow, fly across the sky and drop into a forty-foot gully near the edge of their property” part of the witness statement (Not to mention the drawing produced the very next day! – which of course does NOT look like a meteor).

Nickells has conducted NO serious investigation here. “What a hoot!

 

[GeeMack]

I have submitted a question to the FAA, and will respond more effectively when I get a response.

Blimps are slow moving craft, and I'd almost bet that even in 1949, launching such a craft would have required some kind of record.

They DO require pilots & ground crews.

No record of the flight + no pilots claiming they flew + no ground crew saying they launched = NO FLIGHT

And you, King of the Americas? Care to take a shot at this simple yes/no question? Rramjet doesn't have the courage, honesty, or reading skills necessary to handle it. Do you?...

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.

So how about it, King of the Americas, 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.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Oh yeah, Nickells mentions “As to the “flying saucer” sighting that preceded the encounter, there were area sightings of “meteors” at the time (Davis and Bloecher 1978, 33—34, 61—62). Most likely what was witnessed was a very bright meteor (or “fireball”).” But as any regular skywatcher will tell you, there is not a single night that passes without meteors entering the atmosphere – no matter where you are. More, he neglects the “with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow, fly across the sky and drop into a forty-foot gully near the edge of their property” part of the witness statement (Not to mention the drawing produced the very next day! – which of course does NOT look like a meteor).

For a "scientist", you seem to have a problem understanding terms used by other scientists. A "fireball" is not a normal meteor, which you just contended it to be. A fireball is a very bright meteor (sometimes casting shadows) that usually lasts much longer than a normal "shooting star/meteor". A recent example is a bright fireball on September 25, 2009 at 9:03 PM over Ontario . It was caught on one of those all sky cameras I discussed sometime ago (you know the kind that should record these massive ufos everybody is reporting but for some reason miss them). Looking at the MUFON database, we have a witness making the following statement about the event:

I have seen shooting stars, I can promise this was not one of those. It could have been a meteorite or "space junk" or whatever, but the 4 points I saw distinctly and at night seemed to not just be a piece of random junk.

So, he dismissed the possibility of it being a meteor or even a meteorite (which is an incorrect classification but I think he is talking about a meteorite coming to earth) because it was his impression that it was so unusual it must have been something else. Therefore, it is possible for somebody to report seeing a fireball and then convince themselves it was something else.

BTW, still wanting to hear your definition for a True UFO as compared to a normal UFO.

 

[Nonpareil]

Since this accusation is coming up quite frequently I'd like to address it before moving on to the next case Rramjet put up:

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)

So, this 'burden of proof' assertion, as useful (and logically true) as it is, seems to raise it's head in truly bizarre situations. Like the case at hand. The way I see it is:

1. Rramjet has a claim (he believes something)
2. He has to give back up to his claim (his belief) in order for others to discuss and evaluate it
3. After he's given this back up (which he now has done) it is up to anyone disgreeing with his claim (and support for that claim) to offer equal/overriding support of their case against his claim
4. Only then we can evaluate both claims for and against, comparing their support indipendently and as rival claims
So yes, the burden of proof is initially on the one making a claim. But I think after that person has provided his proof (no matter what the quality of proof may be), if someone is to dismiss that person's claim, they will also have to put up equal or 'better' proof for their argument to be taken seriously.

No. See, this would be correct, assuming that Rramjet had actually made a case with his "proof". He hasn't. In fact, he refuses to admit that he's actually trying to make a case. Everyone knows that he's trying to prove aliens, but he won't admit that. Besides, his "proof" is bunk, as we've demonstrated.

Judging solely by proof, in my eyes the blimp-theory has not yet been shown to be the most likely explanation (though I'm still inclined to believe it is, there's just not enough evidence YET to back up full confirmation).

No, there isn't. There probably never will be. But have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? In this situation, Occam's Razor strips away "alien spacecraft" pretty neatly. A lot of the other, more convoluted explanations fall away as well. Only a few are left. And, of them, "blimp" is probably the correct one, judging by the evidence.

Moo-poo!

ALL that we have continuously asked for IS evidence for "blimp", or your 'default contentions', to which NOTHING has been provided.

Again, you're being willfully ignorant. There was a blimp base within easy distance of Rogue River. Even if we can't produce any specific flight records from that exact day at that exact time, the mere presence of an active blimp base makes it extraordinarily likely that it was a blimp, seeing as how the descriptions and photographs of witnesses match with blimp descriptions.

I have submitted a question to the FAA, and will respond more effectively when I get a response.

Blimps are slow moving craft, and I'd almost bet that even in 1949, launching such a craft would have required some kind of record.

They DO require pilots & ground crews.

No record of the flight + no pilots claiming they flew + no ground crew saying they launched = NO FLIGHT

No record of the flight + no aliens claiming they flew + no ground crew saying they launched = NO ALIENS

<snip nonsense>

Okay, that was some of the most entertaining reading I've done in a long time. It was like a campfire ghost story for six-year-olds!

 

[Rramjet]

(...) Something he can't do unless he just denies that in 1949 blimps with a range of 2,000 miles were stationed less than 200 miles away and regularly flew from Portland to the coast (and down to the other blimp base at Santa Ana, California), (...)

But that is exactly what I DO deny ...NO evidence (NONE) has been provided to support this contention.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Now we're getting somewhere. You've finally made a positive claim that you'll have to prove.

Please provide proof that it CANNOT have been anything mundane. I think you might be starting to understand burden of proof since so many have explained it to you so many times.

You didn't answer this, Rramjet. You made a positive assertion that it could NOT have been anything mundane. Please provide proof for your extraordinary claim.

 

[Nonpareil]

But that is exactly what I DO deny ...NO evidence (NONE) has been provided to support this contention.

Really? Really? REALLY?

Records of the blimp base have been given! Photographs of it! Not fuzzy, "it-might-be-a-blimp-base" photos, but actual, conclusive pictures of blimps! Stray Cat gave you all this information three pages back!

Please, stop pretending. You're beaten. Admit it and move on.

 

[Rramjet]

(...) A "fireball" is not a normal meteor, which you just contended it to be. A fireball is a very bright meteor (sometimes casting shadows) that usually lasts much longer than a normal "shooting star/meteor".

(...)

BTW, still wanting to hear your definition for a True UFO as compared to a normal UFO.

So a fireball "with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow" that lands forty feet away in a nearby Gully. Ummm...Tell me, how often does that happen?

I actually used the term "True UFO" because I was immersed in studying the Maccabee's research on the Rogue River case and that was a term he used - so I suppose it just "stuck" in a post I made ...I cannot even remember which one now... I guess the two can be used interchangeably, there was no "other" meaning attached...

 

[GeeMack]

You didn't answer this, Rramjet. [...]

Seems to be somewhat of a habit.

 

[Nonpareil]

So a fireball "with an exhaust all the colors of the rainbow" that lands forty feet away in a nearby Gully. Ummm...Tell me, how often does that happen?

As often as you light up.

 

[Rramjet]

Really? Really? REALLY?

Records of the blimp base have been given! Photographs of it! Not fuzzy, "it-might-be-a-blimp-base" photos, but actual, conclusive pictures of blimps! Stray Cat gave you all this information three pages back!

Please, stop pretending. You're beaten. Admit it and move on.

But the "evidence" was merely a couple of blimp photos (that look NOTHING like the UFO descriptions) and a description of a "hanger". There was NOTHING about where they flew the things. No evidence for a blimp at Rogue River, no-one else saw or reported a blimp (how BIG are those things by the way? 25-35 feet? And of course they are circular...! And they move at the speed of a jet plane...! And they make no sound at all as they do it....), the AirForce wanted "kite" from 340 miles away but ignored "blimp" 200 miles away? It all just beggars belief.

So...just provide the evidence and I will be satisfied... but until you can, the case remains "unknown". A UFO in other words.

Now can we move on please?

 

[Nonpareil]

But the "evidence" was merely a couple of blimp photos (that look NOTHING like the UFO descriptions)

Actually, they looked remarkably like the descriptions.

and a description of a "hanger".

Hangar. HANGAR.

There was NOTHING about where they flew the things.

But blimps travel long distances, and this hangar was very near Rogue River. It isn't unreasonable to believe that, even if the blimp didn't fly OVER Rogue River specifically, it could have been seen from a distance.

No evidence for a blimp at Rogue River, no-one else saw or reported a blimp (how BIG are those things by the way? 25-35 feet? And of course they are circular...! And they move at the speed of a jet plane...! And they make no sound at all as they do it....),

Uh, are you trying to describe the blimps or the UFOs?

the AirForce wanted "kite" from 340 miles away but ignored "blimp" 200 miles away? It all just beggars belief.

Nope.

So...just provide the evidence and I will be satisfied... but until you can, the case remains "unknown". A UFO in other words.

Now can we move on please?

Fine. If that's all that you're saying, then we are in agreement. But that's not all your saying, is it, Rramjet? Come on, you can tell us. Come on. Come ooooon. Admit it. It's aliens, isn't it? You can tell your ol' pals.

 

[Rramjet]

You didn't answer this, Rramjet. You made a positive assertion that it could NOT have been anything mundane. Please provide proof for your extraordinary claim.

Right... getting to as many as possible...

I did make that contention didn't I... well I guess that was a mistake... I therefore extend my aplogies for any confusion that contention might have caused. It was at odds with everything I had written to that point and everything I have written after. So you see how I too can slip into logical fallacy if I am not careful... (OMG! Does that mean... I am human... aghhh... )

What I meant was (should have said was):
There is nothing mundane that is known of that matches the descriptions provided by the eyewitness sworn testimony. Therefore, I conclude that it is an unknown object.

And that contrasts with the fallacious argument that: "It might have been (a blimp), therefore it was (a blimp)".

I hope that clears up the confusion...