UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[StevenCalder]

can I have some clarification please?

This has been vigorously explained to you.

I'm sorry Rramjet, I'm not sure I can assume anything but dishonesty with this post. Intentional or unintentional I have no idea.

Read some posts.

ETA: Now I'm done

 

[jer_j]

Explain this comment then...
Strange and interesting... everyone is suddenly denying they ever variously asserted or believed in or argued for the blimp hypothesis!

One lighthearted comment, taken out of context in an attempt to wrongly define the argument. And one more way to demonstrate a lack of basic comprehension skills - there's a world of difference between saying it IS a blimp and saying the possibility of being a blimp places the burden of proof upon...

Oh, what am I trying to accomplish???​

This is Jer, signing out once and for all... If I say one more word on this thread, even to beg other people to drop it, may my bowels fall out and my body burst into flame.

I beg everyone else here to follow my lead. Anyone who keeps responding to Rramjet is only giving him undeserved power to frustrate and get a reaction.

 

[Stray Cat]

Um ... I think you will find the burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

Nope

If I claimed "alien" then you would demand evidence! (as indeed you rightly do)

In an unidentified case, if 'alien' were given as one of the possibilities, I doubt ANYONE here would have any issue with it... infact I included alien on my list of possibilities.

You claim "blimp" and then deny that you must provide evidence!

Once again...
I DON'T CLAIM BLIMP!!
I simply add Blimp to my list of possibilities because there was a blimp base operational in 1949, 200 miles away that housed blimps that had a range of 2,000 miles.
Another Blimp Base at Santa Ana, California (where the blimps used to transfer for certain duties) is directly South South East of the Rogue River sighting position and the UFO was reported as traveling in a South South Easterly direction (170° clockwise of North it says in the report).
And to top it all off, the drawing done by one witness is the same shape as the make and model of Blimp flying out of Tillamook.

That is demonstrably then a hypocritical stance to take StrayCat.

Nope

 

[Rramjet]

Okay...so now we have the general position that it COULD have been a blimp.

Now I simply ask you to show evidence that a blimp was anywhere NEAR Rogue River on the day... No, I'll make it even easier for you, or indeed was EVER anywhere near Rogue River.

If you cannot supply that information then I am afraid I will legitimately conclude that you have NOT shown the blimp hypothesis to be even possible and remain with the conclusion UFO.

Moreover, to maintain the blimp hypothesis you must ALSO discount the witness testimony AND deny the competency of the AFOSI in the matter.

Do you DO that? If so for what reasons?

Astrophotographer has at least made an attempt at justification and for that he is to be applauded. I have debated his contentions. Now it us up to him to refute my objections in return. THAT is how a debate works. And that is all I have ever wanted.

 

[Stray Cat]

If you cannot supply that information then I am afraid I will legitimately conclude that you have NOT shown the blimp hypothesis to be even possible and remain with the conclusion UFO.

It is and probably always will remain a UFO (unless an exact same designed alien space ship turns up on the Whitehouse lawn that we can conclusively confirm to be the one witnessed back in 1949).

So it's taken us ten pages to confirm what we all knew ten pages ago... That in 1949 an UNIDENTIFIED flying object flew across the river and was seen by some people... Where next?
On to the Tehran UFO for another ten pages to confirm that it was indeed an UNIDENTIFIED flying object?
And then onto the next... In EVERY single case, the mundane hasn't been completely ruled out, so what possible advances can be made?

What a waste of time, space and energy.

 

[LissaLysikan]

I'm still waiting for the evidence of aliens promised in the OP. I (along with everyone else) always knew there were objects seen flying that have not been identified, so don't really need links to blurry pictures and testimony of people saying they saw something they couldn't identify.

 

[Rramjet]

It is and probably always will remain a UFO (unless an exact same designed alien space ship turns up on the Whitehouse lawn that we can conclusively confirm to be the one witnessed back in 1949).

So it's taken us ten pages to confirm what we all knew ten pages ago... That in 1949 an UNIDENTIFIED flying object flew across the river and was seen by some people... Where next?
On to the Tehran UFO for another ten pages to confirm that it was indeed an UNIDENTIFIED flying object?
And then onto the next... In EVERY single case, the mundane hasn't been completely ruled out, so what possible advances can be made?

What a waste of time, space and energy.

That's all I want to establish.
My first contention.
That UFOs exist.
Does everyone then agree with that contention?

"...waste of time and energy..."? Well that is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it.

But I also then need to move on to my next contention:
That "aliens" exist.
And I could not do that without first establishing general consensus on the UFO contention.
And we cannot explore my second contention without exploring other cases.

NOTE: By "alien" I do NOT necessarily mean ET.

So, if we ARE all agreed that UFOs exist, then we CAN indeed move on.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

NOTE: By "alien" I do NOT necessarily mean ET.

So, could you please define what you understand by "alien"?.

Apologies in advance if you already did it, I may have missed it.

 

[GeeMack]

Strange and interesting... everyone is suddenly denying they ever variously asserted or believed in or argued for the blimp hypothesis!

Let me get this straight... who among you wants to explain Rogue River as a "blimp"?

If no-one does, then who among you will accept the UFO categorisation (ie; that it is "unknown")?

If no-one does and it was not a blimp, then what alternative explanation do you propose?

Just thought we should clarify this, because I thought "blimp" was the general contention - but now I see people backing away from that, so... can I have some clarification please?

Nobody here ever asserted that the Rogue River sighting was a blimp. If you honestly believe they have, find the quotes where anyone made that assertion and post them. If you can't, how about showing a mote of integrity and admit what we (including you) already know, that you've either seriously misunderstood what you've read (time after time after time), or admit that you're a liar. Then we can move on with a mutual understanding of your position.

 

[Astrophotographer]

But then…
“in one case you say the witnesses were lying” and “In the other, you are stating the witnesses were simply mistaken.”
Ummm… what? Actually I think it might (and please correct me if I am wrong), it just might be the debunker position to claim that…not me…

You were the one stating we must be questioning the witnesses veracity (i.e. truthfulness). We are not making that claim. We are questioning if the witnesses were accurate.

Sure… but that is a general assertion. A generalisation. You NEED to explain precisely how that pertains to THIS case (Rogue River).

Here we go again. I thought we beat this to death long ago. Trot out that old horse of yours and we can beat it some more. Witnesses can make mistakes and therefore it is possible for a mistake to be made here. That is how it pertains.

Actually I have NEVER claimed that. This is an assertion that is ENTIRELY without foundation.

I thought that was your position in the previous thread. Whatever....

If you claim the witnesses were unreliable in the Rgue River case then you must trell me HOW it was that they were unreliable. Merely stating the general “witnesses are unreliable” does NOT make it so.

The potential for error is there as is common in many UFO reports. We already know the witnesses could not be consistent for what they thought the distance was. That in itself indicates an error and, as a result, the report loses some reliability. What makes you think the witnesses were highly reliable?

But this presupposes that Agent brooks did not consider “blimps” to be an explanation… we have no way of knowing either way. You contend he did NOT think of blimps. I contend he DID think of blimps. Therefore an impasse is reached. We must agree to disagree on this one and remove it from consideration as having a bearing on the matter.

Actually Brooks spoke at length of what he attempted to discover in his report. He never mentioned blimps or checking with the Navy about their blimps, which indicates he did not think about it. He did mention trying to determine air traffic in the area through the SF CAA. That seemed to be a dead end. Can you demonstrate he looked into the possibility of blimps to back up your contention that he did think of blimps?

So now I have placed my counterarguments to your original arguments. For the debate to proceed rationally, you must now counter or accept my positions. THAT is how a debate works. Will you follow through Astrophotographer?

Your argument boils down to two points.

1) Brooks thought of looking into the Blimp explanation. However, he never mentions it in his report despite mentioning a whole host of things he checked. Since it was not mentioned then you can not claim he thought of it.

2) The witnesses were accurate in their descriptions. We already have seen where their estimates of distance are varied. What makes you think they were accurate in their observations? What evidence do you have that they were 100% accurate in their descriptions? When compared to a blimp, it does have the same aspects. Seen from the right angle with the right lighting, I can see how they might confuse a blimp for the object that was drawn. Therefore, you can not eliminate the possibility of it being a blimp without something better.

If you want to present evidence that it was not a blimp, you have to do better than just say the witnesses would have recognized a blimp. You have to present evidence that there were no blimps in the area. Let me know what you find out. Then we can look at other possibilities once that is eliminated. Until then, the possibility of it being a blimp remains.

 

[Astrophotographer]

That UFOs exist.

Sigh....UFOs exist because people can not identify things in the sky. Nobody has ever argued against that. However, it is your interpretation about what this means that everyone has a problem with. You contend it is something unknown to science or "alien" or whatever you want to call it. However, the item you continuously overlook is the problem with the data. Anywhere between 75-90% (depending on who is talking) of all UFO reports turn out to be explanable as mundane objects. What makes you think the remaining 10-25% are something truly exotic/alien/unnatural? Couldn't they simply be reports distorted by the witnesses so much that they defy explanation? There are plenty of examples of distorted observations that if the source were not known, they would be placed in that 10-25%.

Your little exercise here is pointless. Why aren't you out there attempting to get the evidence if it is so obvious to you? What scientific proposal have you come up with?

 

[Stray Cat]

What a waste of time, space and energy.

That's all I want to establish.

Well you've certainly managed to do that.

 

[TjW]

Surely the object seen was a banana? It's yellow, so it must be. We can conviently ignore all the other evidence because it doesn't fit with my theory.

I like your banana theory. It has appeal.

 

[Akhenaten]

I like your banana theory. It has appeal.

Careful. You're on a slippery slope there.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Careful. You're on a slippery slope there.

What a bunch of comedians.

 

[MattusMaximus]

This is very true, and the only reason I keep revisiting these sorts of threads. If my concept of success here was contingent on convincing Ramjet and KoA that they're incorrect, then I could never do that. No level of evidence will convince these goalpost moving, intellectually dishonest, self decieving imitation debators. On the other hand, it's easy to demonstrate that the debate isn't honest. One merely needs to meet the initial standard of proof given, and see the goalposts move. In this case, it was 'provide an alternate explanation'. The alternate explanation was given; the presence of an active blimp base within range, combined with the blimp-like nature of the witnesses drawings make that at least possible, and actually likely. The goalposts were moved: provide the flight plan of the individual blimp and prove that it was in that location, on that exact day. Given the unlikely chance that the pilot's log still survives 60 years later, even if it did say that there was a blimp in the area, that still doesn't entirely disprove the possibility that a blimp shaped alien craft made of wrinkled fabric happened to be in the same area at the same time. It does, however, make it extremely to vanishingly unlikely. Everyone in this thread who understands debating and logic knows how this one is turning out. It's over.

For all the observers out there, this is what woo looks like when it dies.

A.

AW, all excellent points. But don't forget that I also specifically asked Rramjet to outline criteria for confirming/disconfirming evidence in addition to methods for potentially falsifying his various "ET" / "alien" claims.

None of which he did - he simply ignored these demands for the most basic scientific protocol.

But what he did do is exactly what I predicted he'd do - argue from ignorance.

Once I saw that, the rest is just arm-waving & distraction on his part. Classic pseudoscience

 

[MattusMaximus]

Rramjet, why do you blatantly refuse to address GeeMack's direct question, as outlined in post #345?

GeeMack has asked this question of you repeatedly, and it simply requires a yes or no response. So why haven't you answered it?

Based upon this and similar behavior I've seen from you here, I'm very close to joining the chorus in labeling you as dishonest.

Prove me wrong. Please address GeeMack's question. Yes or no?

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

I simply add Blimp to my list of possibilities because there was a blimp base operational in 1949, 200 miles away that housed blimps that had a range of 2,000 miles.
Another Blimp Base at Santa Ana, California (where the blimps used to transfer for certain duties) is directly South South East of the Rogue River sighting position and the UFO was reported as traveling in a South South Easterly direction (170° clockwise of North it says in the report).
And to top it all off, the drawing done by one witness is the same shape as the make and model of Blimp flying out of Tillamook.

In 1949, Tillamook was being used for lumber milling (http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/hangars/use.htm). In August of 1947, Santa Ana ceased its blimp operations, thereby ending all blimp operations on the West Coast (http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html). Santa Ana decommissioned on June 6, 1949 (see previous reference), and thereafter reestablished itself for civilian use for less than two years (http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_OrangeCo_SE.htm). This seems to suggest that since the sighting occurred on May 24, a civilian blimp at Santa Ana would not have been out flying on the day of the sighting either, unless the date of the sighting is wrong.

 

[apathoid]

Strange and interesting... everyone is suddenly denying they ever variously asserted or believed in or argued for the blimp hypothesis!

Let me get this straight... who among you wants to explain Rogue River as a "blimp"?

If no-one does, then who among you will accept the UFO categorisation (ie; that it is "unknown")?

How is it that "blimp" is suddenly NOT a hypothesis? It is, it is not, it is, it is not ...perhaps you would like to confer among yourselves and get the story straight?

My God, this is worse than dealing with the 9/11 Truthers. At least they seem to be able to understand written English. It's been pointed out about eleventy bazillion times that the "blimp hypothesis" is just one possible mundane explanation. No one here has stated that the case is closed and that the Rogue River craft was definitely a blimp. You seem hell bent on creating a easy strawman argument to knock down. Not at this forum, skippy.

In case that was too much, or you still don't understand, I'll summarize the above:

• No one here has stated the craft was definitely a blimp.
• No one here has stated the craft was definitely not a blimp.
• All posters agree the blimp is a possibility

Do you understand? Please quote the above post and type "yes" or "no" and we can move on.


ETA: Ah I see that the light has finally turned on.

If you cannot supply that information then I am afraid I will legitimately conclude that you have NOT shown the blimp hypothesis to be even possible and remain with the conclusion UFO.

Excellent, UFO it is. Case closed. Next?

 

[Marduk]

Explain this comment then...

sarcasm, (a hasty comment meant for comedic effect )

did you miss it ?