UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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

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

Hi Patricio -

I am using the following as my basic schema. Hope it helps.

UFO categorisation

1) Known (ie: natural or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information
3) Unknown

Then the speculative hypotheses for the Unknown category might look like:
1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

 

[Vortigern99]

Given that:

1. at least one eyewitness drew and described an object that looks almost exactly like a blimp;

2. the site lay at a point between two nearby blimp-launching airfields;

3. blimps are dirigibles known to be in operation at the time; and

4. eyewitnesses are known and documented to commit factual errors based on a variety of psychological and sensory-perceptual factors

... (all of which points have been brought up, with evidence in support of each claim, throughout the last few pages of this thread), my stance on Rogue River is that the object witnessed was in all likelihood (meaning probably, ie "there is a high probability that it was") a blimp.

The sighting can be classified as "unknown" since no physical evidence of an on-site blimp has been produced, but logic and the standards of evidence (see above 4 points) point to a high probability that the blimp hypothesis is the correct one.

 

[Rramjet]

THE DEBATE: Astrophotographer V. Rramjet

I have listed the arguments and replies so far. Astrophotographers arguments are in italics. His arguments are written first, mine follow, and so on...

This debate on Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) is instructive as it covers many of the points and issues already raised in a concise succinct form.

PART 1.
Prologue:
We agree the witnesses saw something.
Astrophotographer raised a question about whether the witnesses could have misinterpreted what they saw.

1.1
“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.”

Then you must show me why you question the accuracy of the witnesses.

1.2
“The ability of witnesses to accurately report what they have seen is a common problem with UFO reports.”

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.”

But you MUST then direct your assertion to some part of the witness testimony you consider inaccurate and explain why you think so. Otherwise you are again merely saying “It could be so, therefore it is so. And we all know that is a logical fallacy.

1.2 addendum
“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.”

All I am stating is that unless we have sound reasons to believe there were substantive inaccuracies in the witness testimony that affect what we can conclude from that testimony, then we MUST take the testimony at face value. You state the “their” estimate of distance varied. Whose estimate varied? Moreover A blimp is CIGAR SHAPED but the UFO as described was circular “like a pancake”. The UFO was examined through binoculars, even when with the naked eye they could see it was circular…NOT cigar shaped. Your assessment merely denies the veracity of the witness testimony, yet you have not explained WHY you believe that testimony to be inaccurate in this respect.

1.3
“Of course, you assume all witnesses are 100% reliable.”

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....

You are simply mistaken. Link to ANY statement in ANY thread where I have made that claim. Again you are resorting to the fallacious “It might have been, therefore it is.”

1.4
“The real fact surrounding such testimony is that it is not 100% reliable.”

Yes, agreed, but we DO KNOW PRECISELY under what conditions eyewitness testimony can be unreliable (note “can be” – meaning not always even under those conditions) and we can therefore account for those conditions in our assessments. 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?”

I am claiming ONLY that unless we have reason to disbelieve the witness testimony then we must take them at face value. Again you make a sweeping generalisation but FAIL to point to ANY aspect of the witnesses statements showing HOW they might have been inaccurate. For example if size was an issue, then you must show HOW the witnesses could have mistaken size. Dr. Maccabee included in his research report a detailed assessment of that very topic. Do you refute his assessment and on what grounds? AGAIN… merely stating that they COULD have been inaccurate does not MAKE them inaccurate.

PART 2

2.1
“AFOSI is manned by humans that can make mistakes.”

Yes, a general assertion that humans make mistakes…but again, how is that directly relevant to this case? Were mistakes made? And if so where?

[Astrophotographer provides no reply here]

2.2
“Perhaps the investigating officer did not think of a blimp as a source.”

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?”

Can you demonstrate he did not? As I say, neither can demonstrate their case here because the case, as reported, simply does not contain the relevant information. I repeat therefore we must strike this point from further analysis as “unknowable”.

2.2 addendum
“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.”

And by the same token you cannot claim he did not. As I say, neither can demonstrate their case here because the case, as reported, simply does not contain the relevant information. I repeat therefore we must strike this point from further analysis as “unknowable”.

2.3
“To me, there are a myriad of possible sources with a blimp being a reasonable possibility”

Now here you make a value judgement (“reasonable possibility”). I contend that you need to SHOW, using “reasonable” evidence that blimp is - not only a reasonable possibility - but also why you chose THAT possibility over the “myriad” of other possibilities you raise the spectre of. And remember, a blimp factory nearby is NOT enough. You MUST show reliable evidence that blimps actually flew in the Rogue River area. For example, I live 50 miles from an airport. That does NOT mean I see ANY planes from that airport fly over my location.

[Astrophotographer provides no reply here]

2.4
“I would think you would be the one questioning AFOSI. This is during the "dark days" of project GRUDGE where the whole idea was to sweep all UFO reports under the rug (if you believe UFOlogists). AFOSI would simply have stated, we looked into this and it was a blimp/kite/airplane/etc. Apparently, AFOSI suddenly becomes highly reliable when were are talking about a "True" UFO."

No, why would I be questioning the ability of the AFOSI? In fact, if you notice in the OP, I list all their reports as evidence. I DO claim the AirForce did the best job they could under the circumstances. I further contend that if the AFOSI seriously thought “blimp” to have been even a remote possibility they would have jumped on that explanation with alacrity – instead they reached the (entirely unreasonable IMO) “kite” explanation from over 340 miles away – when the blimp explanation was much closer to hand. Besides…”blimp” does NOT match the eyewitness descriptions.

[Astrophotographer provides no reply here]

2.5
“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.”

Now this really turns logic on its head. For example, if I claimed “UFOs are alien craft” you would immediately require me to produce EVIDENCE that my contention was correct. Yet, when you claim “The UFO is a blimp”, you suddenly don’t think you need to provide evidence. I therefore conclude (as IMO any reasonable person would) that this is a hypocritical stance to take. You are in fact applying a double standard here Astrophotographer - and I suggest that is NOT the stance of a critical thinker.

________________________________

I appreciate your replies Astrophotographer and commend you for taking the time to enter into the debate. Thank you.

I have answered all your contentions as best I can - but you have failed to address a number of my substantive points. Would you care to address them now?

I invite the readers to assess each of our arguments and whether or not you think Astrophotographer has successfully argued that my conclusion of UFO in the case of Rogue River is in any way misguided.

 

[Rramjet]

Given that:

1. at least one eyewitness drew and described an object that looks almost exactly like a blimp;

2. the site lay at a point between two nearby blimp-launching airfields;

3. blimps are dirigibles known to be in operation at the time; and

4. eyewitnesses are known and documented to commit factual errors based on a variety of psychological and sensory-perceptual factors

... (all of which points have been brought up, with evidence in support of each claim, throughout the last few pages of this thread), my stance on Rogue River is that the object witnessed was in all likelihood (meaning probably, ie "there is a high probability that it was") a blimp.

The sighting can be classified as "unknown" since no physical evidence of an on-site blimp has been produced, but logic and the standards of evidence (see above 4 points) point to a high probability that the blimp hypothesis is the correct one.

This merely denies the sworn testimony of the five eye witnesses - two of whom observed the object with the aid of binoculars.

They described a circular craft, 25-35 feet in diameter, moving at the speed of a jet plane, with no noise. A side plan drawing does NOT provide depth information.

A blimp is CIGAR shaped...the UFO was CIRCULAR... case closed unless you can refute the eyewitness testimony AND impugn the AFOSI investigation.

Conclusion: UFO; NOT blimp.

 

[Marduk]

Look unless, you can provide at least some solid evidence that it wasn't a blimp, then I think we'd all like to call it an UBO (Unidentified Blimp Object)
so do you have any solid evidence ?

 

[Rramjet]

Look unless, you can provide at least some solid evidence that it wasn't a blimp, then I think we'd all like to call it an UBO (Unidentified Blimp Object)
so do you have any solid evidence ?

Now this really turns logic on its head. For example, if I claimed “UFOs are alien craft” you would immediately require me to produce EVIDENCE that my contention was correct. Yet, when you claim “The UFO is a blimp”, you suddenly don’t think you need to provide evidence. I therefore conclude (as IMO any reasonable person would) that this is a hypocritical stance to take. You are in fact applying a double standard here Marduk- and I suggest that is NOT the stance of a critical thinker.

 

[Akhenaten]

Unidentified Blimp-like Object then.

 

[Marduk]

Unidentified Blimp-like Object then.

Possibly Unidentified Blimp-like Object

 

[Sledge]

Are we seriously at 12 pages and still debating whether a bunch of people near a hangar where blimps were based, under the flight path of said blimps, who saw a blimp-shaped object actually saw a blimp? Is there any reason whatsoever to think it wasn't a blimp? I can't follow the logic insisting it can't have been a blimp.

It's kinda like knowing that I was in London yesterday, and New York 24 hours later. The reasonable assumption is I took a plane. Without access to information most people won't have (my passport, airline records, etc) you can't say which plane it was, or definitively prove I took a plane. Does that make it equally reasonable to assume I must have teleported, and even to argue with people who say I probably travelled by plane?

 

[apathoid]

This merely denies the sworn testimony of the five eye witnesses - two of whom observed the object with the aid of binoculars.

They described a circular craft, 25-35 feet in diameter, moving at the speed of a jet plane, with no noise. A side plan drawing does NOT provide depth information.

We've already shown that this testimony is, at best, inconsistent with the other eyewitness account of the same UFO.....which is perfectly consistent with the history of eyewitness testimony. Two sets of people saw the exact same thing and described it's movement, size and behavior completely differently.

A blimp is CIGAR shaped...the UFO was CIRCULAR... case closed unless you can refute the eyewitness testimony AND impugn the AFOSI investigation.

The eyewitness drawing was posted about a dozen times, and you've yet to comment on it. It looks very much like a blimp. I don't need you, a UFO hobbyist with a penchant for dishonesty, to tell me what a blimp looks like. And if one is looking at a blimp side-on from a distance, and was under the impression that they were viewing it from the front..it may very well seem circular, or disclike.

Conclusion: UFO; NOT blimp.

Just a quick question: Do think it's possible for someone to mistake a blimp for a UFO?

 

[Akhenaten]

Possibly Unidentified Blimp-like Object

Just goes to show that some people don't know their UFOs from their PUBOs.

I believe some have a similar difficulty with naughybottomwords and elbows as well.

 

[Jocce]

Now I simply ask you to show evidence that a blimp was anywhere NEAR Rogue River on the day

I know it's not fool proof evidence since eye witnesses can be mistaken but imho the below comparison between a blimp and an eyewitness drawing, together with the fact that blimps were located in the area makes it highly likely that it was in fact a blimp.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Blimp.jpg[/qimg]

And btw, you're a coward for not ever commenting on this comparison.

 

[Jocce]

So I guess we are now on the:

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

We were there a few pages ago and I still await your comment on my reply:

From your own link:

The most telling criticism of the incident, however, is that there is absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever that the incident actually occurred. Skeptics point out that no footprints were found (the ground was extremely hard), no marks were on the roof (although the creatures seemed nearly weightless and may not have left marks), there was no blood on then, the bullets did no apparent damage), et cetera. One could thus conclude that the family "faked" the entire incident.

However, investigators who interviewed the Suttons afterward painted a picture of them that is quite different from the sort of people who could fabricate an elaborate hoax: They were uneducated, simple farm folk with no apparent interest in exploiting the rather considerable publicity that they engendered.

Summary: They don't seem to be dishonest but there is no evidence that anything at all happened.

 

[Rramjet]

I know it's not fool proof evidence since eye witnesses can be mistaken but imho the below comparison between a blimp and an eyewitness drawing, together with the fact that blimps were located in the area makes it highly likely that it was in fact a blimp.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Blimp.jpg[/qimg]

And btw, you're a coward for not ever commenting on this comparison.

I can only guess then you do not read my posts - for I have commented on this many times.

To repeat:

First, the sworn eyewitness testimony described a circular object, 25-35 feet in diameter, travelling at the speed of a jet, with no sound.

Second, a blimp is a CIGAR shaped object, as apparent in the photos. The UFO was CIRCULAR (round... and "like a pancake"...). NOTHING like the shape of a blimp.

Third, ONE of the drawings represents the side view of the UFO but DOES NOT indicate ANY depth information. I repeat, the eyewitness testimony of five people, two using binoculars, describe the object as a CIRCULAR object.

So, to maintain "blimp" as the explanation you MUST first refute the sworn eyewitness testimony AND you MUST also contend that the AFOSI investigation was not competent.

A mere graphic representation of ONE of the UFO drawing in side view in relation to a photo of a blimp (which is HOW many times LARGER than the UFO?) does NOT constitute anything but a misrepresentation of the evidence.

Finally, the burden of proof issue:

If I claimed “UFOs are alien craft” you would immediately require me to produce EVIDENCE that my contention was correct. Yet, when you claim “The UFO is a blimp”, you suddenly don’t think you need to provide evidence. I therefore conclude (as IMO any reasonable person would) that this is a hypocritical stance to take. You are in fact applying a double standard here Jocce - and I suggest that is NOT the stance of a critical thinker.

So, there you have it. Simple. Logical. Rational. Factual.

Conclusion: UFO; NOT "Blimp".

 

[Tapio]

Tapio, note how, despite being told dozens of times that this is a strawman, he continues to pummel this strawman:

Yes, thanks. I've noted that and must say I hold respect for all of the posters here who still have the patience to argue with him about the Rogue River case .

This is what I was referring to, his attempt at shifting the burden of proof. He attributes this assertion to sceptics and then demands that they defend it. That's shifting the burden of proof.

Maybe you could help me understand this better...my POV is that Rramjet's original claim was that he believes something, not that something is. Can you see the difference?

Maybe I've misinterpreted him from the beginning, but if his claim was his belief in something, in my eyes he has provided proof for that (and so it rests on anybody challenging his belief to bring forth proof of the contrary). If, on the other hand, his claim was indeed that the UFO was of alien origin, then I'd also conclude the burden of proof still rests on his shoulders.

Rramjet, could you help us out here, once more? Are you claiming:

1. You believe the UFO was of mundane origin
2. You claim the UFO was of mundane origin
3. You claim the UFO was indeed a UFO (thus could be of either mundane or alien origin, but there's no way to know for certain or even with great enough probability to give judgement)
4. You believe the UFO was of alien origin
5. You claim the UFO was of alien origin
6. Something else, what?

That's why I said that you were incorrect that sceptics now had the burden of proof. No disrespect intended.

Thanks for clarifying, no disrespect felt. If indeed Rramjet claims number 5, I stand corrected .

 

[Rramjet]

We've already shown that this testimony is, at best, inconsistent with the other eyewitness account of the same UFO.....which is perfectly consistent with the history of eyewitness testimony. Two sets of people saw the exact same thing and described it's movement, size and behavior completely differently.

Merely stating that it is so, does not MAKE it so... you need to produce evidence to support your contentions. Something like:

"I believe the eyewitness testimony is inconsistent because Mr. stated while Mrs...stated..."

The eyewitness drawing was posted about a dozen times, and you've yet to comment on it. It looks very much like a blimp. I don't need you, a UFO hobbyist with a penchant for dishonesty, to tell me what a blimp looks like. And if one is looking at a blimp side-on from a distance, and was under the impression that they were viewing it from the front..it may very well seem circular, or disclike.

I have now commented directly for those who did not read my earlier posts (see my previous post). Moreover, obviously you have yet to read the research report found at: (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm). If you had, then you would understand the relationship between the witnesses and the UFO a little more accurately. They never viewed it "from the front". For example, from Mrs C.'s record of interview:

"...an object was sighted about 5000 feet above the ground in a direction approximately 60 degrees clockwise from north. Object appeared to be about one or two miles away. Mr. C observed the object (for) about 30 seconds with the naked eye at which time he could see only a bright glitter, like a round mirror standing on edge with no apparent motion. Just as the object began to move, Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges, perfectly flat on the bottom with a small fin or vane arising about midship and growing gradually higher to the rear, ending flush with a trailing edge as the object travelled. Flat surface was parallel to the earth. The object appeared to be made of aluminum or some other shiny metal, and while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section."

Until you actually READ the report, I believe you are unqualified to comment.

Just a quick question: Do think it's possible for someone to mistake a blimp for a UFO?

In the Rogue River case. No, the witnesses, on the evidence presented, could NOT have misidentified a blimp. That is clear from their sworn testimony and it is also clear from the research analysis conducted on this issue by Dr. Maccabee in his research report. Perhaps you would like to comment on his analysis?

 

[Rramjet]

(...)

Rramjet, could you help us out here, once more? Are you claiming:

1. You believe the UFO was of mundane origin
2. You claim the UFO was of mundane origin
3. You claim the UFO was indeed a UFO (thus could be of either mundane or alien origin, but there's no way to know for certain or even with great enough probability to give judgement)
4. You believe the UFO was of alien origin
5. You claim the UFO was of alien origin
6. Something else, what?

Thanks for clarifying, no disrespect felt. If indeed Rramjet claims number 5, I stand corrected .

Tapio... I have stated my contentions numerous times in direct reply to that exact same question from a number of posters here - but for you here they are again

I have TWO primary contentions.

1. UFOs exist.
2. Aliens exist.

I have been trying to argue that the Rogue River case represents one piece of evidence as to why I believe the first contention to be true... but as you may have noted, I have run into a wall of obfuscation, bluster, non-answering of many of my questions, logical fallacy and unfounded generalisation. But if people want to keep proposing logical fallacies and unfounded generalisations... all I can do is keep pointing out their errors.

Then considering my second contention (I guess, no disrespect intended, you stand corrected) I have not even BEGUN to argue that contention yet... primarily becuase it seems there are some people here still so hung up on non-existent blimps that they can't get past them (over them?).

Have you read my "Debate" with Astrophotographer? I really would like you to read that post and tell me what you think.

 

[Marduk]

so do you have any evidence that its not a blimp ?

 

[LissaLysikan]

UFOs exist. No one disputes that. Evidence of them is rather easy - any blurry picture of something flying will do.
Aliens - well, that's going to be a LOT harder since "alien" is not even close to "unknown". I would really love to see EVIDENCE of aliens, whether ET, inter-dimensional, or trans-dimensional, or some other source yet to be determined - as long as by "alien" we aren't talking about humans that have simply changed country.

 

[Tapio]

Tapio... I have stated my contentions numerous times in direct reply to that exact same question from a number of posters here - but for you here they are again

I understand this must be very frustrating (for both sides). But hey, it's only words on a screen...got to live with it . Thank you for your reply.

I have TWO primary contentions.

1. UFOs exist.
2. Aliens exist.

I have been trying to argue that the Rogue River case represents one piece of evidence as to why I believe the first contention to be true...

I'm having problems understanding exactly what you mean by the highlited part. Could you please post an answer, based on my earlier 6 options, only regarding the Rogue River case (though I understand it's only a small piece of the whole)?

I'd really like to take this discussion onward, but I feel it to be impossible before everything is clear regarding the first step.

Then considering my second contention (I guess, no disrespect intended, you stand corrected) I have not even BEGUN to argue that contention yet... primarily becuase it seems there are some people here still so hung up on non-existent blimps that they can't get past them (over them?).

Actually my confusion on the burden if proof business has to do only with your claim on the origin of the UFO regarding only the Rogue River case. I'd be thrilled to get to discuss your second contention, but...step at a time...we're in no rush here.

Have you read my "Debate" with Astrophotographer? I really would like you to read that post and tell me what you think.

I've read your posts, but am not sure what exact post you are referring to. Could you post a link? Thanks.