And as if the point need further demonstrating... Are you (Rramjet) saying that the drawing of the object does not in any way resemble the blimp?
In case anyone missed this, above Stray Cat has positioned a drawing by one of the Rogue River eyewitnesses of the "UFO" over a photograph of an actual blimp.
This raises a number of immediate questions:
1. How can the object continue to be labeled "unknown" when an eyewitness has drawn a clear and evident picture of a blimp, a known and extant dirigible, and included known blimp details such as "wrinkles in the tail" in their testimony?
2. How can eyewitness testimony continue to be taken at face value, as though it is not in dispute and not open to human error, when the "precise drawings" made by Rogue River eyewitnesses are so radically different (at least one being round, while the above is clearly cylindrical or oblong) from one another? And moreover, when such testimony is known and documented to be subject to error time and time again? (qv a video of a case study at:
http://www.onlineclassroom.tv/psych...y_critical_issues/eyewitness_testimony#header ; psychological analysis here:
http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/eyewitness-testimony.html ; and overview of legalities and scientific value here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence [sample quote:
Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation..
3. Why would anyone believe that a known and extant dirigible such as a blimp, the proximity of a hangar for which there is ample and irrefutable evidence near the site under discussion, is an
equally plausible explanation for the sighting as an alien craft, for which we have no physical, unambiguous, non-hoaxable evidence whatsoever?
4. Why do UFO proponents with no professional degrees or published scientific papers believe that their thought processes and methodologies are superior to trained professional scientists?
