UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[RoboTimbo]

No, I have NEVER contended "alien craft". Especially for Rogue River.

But I contend that by "alien craft", YOU actually refer to the ET hypothesis.

I want to state clearly also - that whenever I use "alien" I do NOT mean ET.

Another positive assertion that you've been alluding to. Provide extraordinary evidence for aliens among us. You have quite the homework list. Better get cracking on it. Here's where you are now:

Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary assertions - 0

 

[StevenCalder]

This is nonsensical (unless you know the mind of God), because you cannot possibly KNOW all the likelihood values for all possible explanations. For all you know, "alien craft" might actually BE the most likely.

This is getting silly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is getting silly.

He's getting desperate.

 

[TjW]

So, you think the investigators 'at the time', didn't think to LOOK for such evidence?

I mean if there WAS a blimp in the area, do you think the operators hid this fact?

---

"Hello, this is the blimp hanger, how may I direct your call."

"This is Airforce investigator 'Bob', and I am investigating a report of a U.F.O. in the area last week. Did you guys have any blimps airborne, and in area XYZ, performing maneuvers?"

"Let me transfer you to the tower, they keep the launch and flights logs, please hold..."

"..."

"This is the tower flight log, we are unable to answer the phone right now, because we are busy destroying ALL of our blimp flight information. If you are the Airforce attempting to investigate the U.F.O. sighting, we've been informed that you should just say it was a 'blimp', it is the default position, so you guys don't need our records to confirm anything. If you are anyone else leave your name, number, a brief message, and no one will get back to you."

Ah, yes. Because we all know how well Air Force pilots and Naval Aviators get along.

 

[GeeMack]

This "presumptive mundane explanation, and most likely one I've seen" of yours presupposes you know the likelihood values for all the different explanations possible - and have chosen from that "blimp" as THE most likely.

This is nonsensical (unless you know the mind of God), because you cannot possibly KNOW all the likelihood values for all possible explanations. For all you know, "alien craft" might actually BE the most likely.

You are stuck again in irrational argument.

So Rramjet, it does seem you'd like to remain in your state of desperate dishonest ignorance, but it only takes typing two or three characters to answer this...

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.

Would that be a yes or a no, Rramjet?

 

[GeeMack]

Another positive assertion that you've been alluding to. Provide extraordinary evidence for aliens among us. You have quite the homework list. Better get cracking on it. Here's where you are now:

Extraordinary Reasonable evidence for extraordinary any assertions - 0

Fixed it for you, RoboTimbo.

 

[Rramjet]

1. There is no definitive proof of a mundane explanation (blimps), but

Let's stop shillyshallying about that point...there is NO proof. Full stop.

2. The mundane explanation is possible and cannot be disproved...

Equally then you must allow that the "alien craft" explanation is possible and cannot be disproved.

... because there some suggestive evidence:

Place here all the UFO characteristics that defy rational explanation.

presence of nearby blimp hangars within flight radius...

...but critically NO evidence that blimps EVER flew near Rogue River...

similarity of eyewitness drawings and photos of blimps.

ONLY if you ignore the sworn eyewitness testimony of circular shape (actually "round" like a "pancake"), 25-35 feet in diameter, no sound, speeds of a jet plane...

In that case, do we consider extraordinary explanations, or tentatively conclude that it was *likely* a mundane explanation (but without definitive proof)?

Actually, no you cannot conclude blimp was even likely, simply becuase you have no idea the of relative likelihood estimates of other explanations which might be even MORE likely.

And also on the evidence... That the Airforce chose "kite" from 340 miles away but ignored "likely blimp" ...not likely!

 

[Paul2]

This is nonsensical (unless you know the mind of God), because you cannot possibly KNOW all the likelihood values for all possible explanations. For all you know, "alien craft" might actually BE the most likely.

This approach disables basing research on any other research.

It does, however, let you have fun with imagining all sorts of cool stuff.

 

[Rramjet]

Another positive assertion that you've been alluding to. Provide extraordinary evidence for aliens among us. You have quite the homework list. Better get cracking on it. Here's where you are now:

Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary assertions - 0

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

IS a logical fallacy.

Your understanding of logical fallacy leaves a lot to be desired. I'll say again what others have said, but I'm beginning to believe that you're too attached to your position to debate this impartially.

Your contention that this is a potential spacecraft, alien craft, craft of secret advanced nonhumans among us, or whatever your concept is at this particular moment, requires that there be no other plausible explanation. A blimp near a blimp base (200 miles away is near, for something with a range of thousands of miles) is a plausible explanation. Do I know for sure it was a blimp? No. It does however, completely and thoroughly disprove a hypothesis that requires the lack of alternate explanation. That's the problem with making the jump from UFO to nonhuman craft. It's one thing to say that we're not certain what we saw. I'm willing to let it stay there. You've shown a willingness to jump past that, and say that, in the absence of any other plausible explanation, it must be something nonhuman. That opens your hypothesis up to disproof just by showing a plausible alternate explanation. I didn't set your argument up this way; you did.

Don't let it get you so butthurt. I know you saw something once, and you've been really attached to the idea that what you saw was special and important. I've seen things I can't explain too. I know it makes you feel special and important to feel like you're the one who realizes this mysterious truth that the rest of us deny. I realize you're going to take this as an attack on your specialness and importance, but believe me, you're not important, I'm not important, neither one of us is special, and this isn't personal. This is about truth, and the truth is that there isn't anything out there. Human nature is a strange thing. We love to invent stories, and we believe those stories. Our eyes aren't the foolproof measuring instruments we think they are, and our brains play tricks on us. We often see what we want to see. Sometimes we wake up and realize that we don't need to invent stories for the world to be a special and interesting place, and we work really hard on the parts of our mind that make us fool ourselves.

I'm doing you the courtesy of replying to you like this because I like what you wrote in your other thread about nature, and I said there that I'd hoped we'd be able to debate this courteously.

I'm not going to stick around this thread much longer. It's obvious that we're managing to make you look pretty foolish, but that's just making you get butthurt and do a lot of thrashing around and poor debating, and so the point that needs to be made is slipping right by you. I've accomplished what I set out to do, which is to adequately determine and demonstrate that your arguments are based on faith rather than logic. There's no point in trying to debate you further, until you choose to return to debate and stop preaching.

Good day to you, sir.

A.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)

More link dropping?

Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims - 0

You lose.

 

[EHocking]

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.

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.

And from the Tillamook Museum FAQ,

The blimps normally cruised at a sustained speed of 57.5 m.p.h., but could obtain a top-speed of around 77.5 m.p.h.

So, even with a trip of 200 miles, it would only take the blimps 3 to 4 hours to reach Rogue River...

 

[Paul2]

Let's stop shillyshallying about that point...there is NO proof. Full stop.

Uh, you mean "evidence," not "proof." I agreed above there wasn't proof for blimps. Also, something is either proved or it isn't, but something can have a little evidence or a lot.

Equally then you must allow that the "alien craft" explanation is possible and cannot be disproved.

But blimps and alien craft are not equal hypotheses because we have exceedingly firm evidence of the existence of blimps, and for alien spacecraft. . . not so much. This is a fundamental point, I think, and crops up later (see below).

Given a set of data (observations, equipment readings, whatever), it is rational to not start from a blank slate, so to speak, in which any conceivable hypothesis is on an equal footing with any other. Agreed?

Place here all the UFO characteristics that defy rational explanation.

Not equal situations between blimps and aliens, see above.

...but critically NO evidence that blimps EVER flew near Rogue River...

"Aliens of the gaps" (to coin a phrase).

The presence of the blimp hangar to the sighting location within the flight radius *IS* a single piece of necessary but not sufficient evidence for the blimp hypothesis. Not proof, but a single piece of necessary but not sufficient evidence.

ONLY if you ignore the sworn eyewitness testimony of circular shape (actually "round" like a "pancake"), 25-35 feet in diameter, no sound, speeds of a jet plane...

This is an empirical point that I propose we hypothesize. I will grant you that I have a different argument if the eyewitness shapes are not blimp shapes. Will you grant me that your argument would change if the shapes were the same? Just for the sake of argument? Humor me, please.

By the way, "no sound" is consistent with blimps, eh?

The speed of the jet plane has been questioned for its reliability earlier in the thread, quite well.

Actually, no you cannot conclude blimp was even likely, simply becuase you have no idea the of relative likelihood estimates of other explanations which might be even MORE likely.

This assumes equality between the two hypotheses, see above.

And also on the evidence... That the Airforce chose "kite" from 340 miles away but ignored "likely blimp" ...not likely!

Human error is always likely. No matter which side you take, this thread surely shows that.

 

[Nonpareil]

This thread is getting progressively more ludicrous. Having just sat through one of Rramjet's BS attempts to prove aliens with one UFO account, I have reached the conclusion that I am not willing to sit through another.
Goodbye, Rramjet. Have fun in your fantasy world.

 

[LTC8K6]

I hate to quote myself, but:

You have to eliminate the mundane, before you can run with the extraordinary.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've been away for a couple of hours.

So to summarize what's happened while I was sleeping:

The Rouge River sighting was of a perfectly round but flat with a fin, alien space craft as large as a C-46 that moved like a slow, but fast jet plane, and had dirty wrinkles on it? Having proved this we are now moving on to another case where gunshots were fired but the alien creature picked up all the shotgun buckshot and the vaulted off with them?

Have I got that right?

Thank you very much!

Good.

 

[Spektator]

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. (snip)

I can't resist a very short Simpsons derail: "Our massive intellects are not match for their puny weapons!"

 

[Astrophotographer]

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?

Let's try this one from Von Del Chamberlain's description of how people interpreted the Great Lake Fireball (of Kecksburg fame),

These imagined happenings arose from the impossibility of estimating the distance to an object in the sky. Almost everyone who saw the fireball thought it was much closer than it really was. When it had disappeared behind a house or a tree, many people thought it had fallen only a few hundred yards beyond. (Sky and Telescope February 1966 p 79 and 82)

It mirrors what I learned from talking to various people about fireballs they observed. Many would swear it disappeared just beyond the treeline or over the next hill. This is the usual problem with eyewitnesses estimating distances against the sky. As for the colors of the rainbow, I can probably find a similar description of a bright fireball somewhere for you if you would like. Not that it matters, because you won't accept it anyway.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Equally then you must allow that the "alien craft" explanation is possible and cannot be disproved.

No it is not equal. There is no evidence that alien craft are visiting earth. However, there is a wealth of evidence that blimps existed and were operational in the time period not excessively far from the area of the sighting. It seems to me, that it is more likely for this to be a misidentified blimp than an actual alien craft.

 

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Rramjet
I stated that I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”. The following set of links provides just that.



I find this incredible...exactly HOW is that statement a false claim?

..and how have you not got it yet...Simply stating that something is true, does not MAKE it true.

Here for example is evidence of an "alien"...

The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)

I really want to say something very rude to you right now. I'm not going to, but I think you should be aware that the desire is there.

How DARE you say to anyone "Simply stating that something is true, does not MAKE it true"? Your whole argument consists of exactly that. You're posting drivel you yourself admit isn't convincing, but insisting that the sheer weight of this horse manure makes it the truth. Some people see a couple of owls, but that's all the proof you need of aliens? Good grief.

Either admit you have no proof or present it. Not people thinking they saw something that can't be explained any other way, PROOF.