UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Stray Cat]

StrayCat... do you consider Mrs A.'s testimony reliable or not?

I don't consider ANYONE'S testimony reliable unless supported by corroborating physical evidence.

But the question wasn't about reliability, it was about your assertion that there was no inconsistency in the witness statements.

 

[Rramjet]

Examining reports after fifty years is not going to get you anywhere and it is hard to ascertain the true facts unless you have a time machine. I find it amazing that you just made the claim that the witnesses could not misidentify a blimp! How do you know that? What makes you so sure? Are you now saying the witnesses are 100% reliable?

When it comes to knowing if what they saw was a blimp? Then YES, the witnesses are 100% reliable in knowing it was NOT a blimp they saw... Their statements support this contention. They consistently between them report the object as circular, 25-35 feet in diameter, travelling at the speed of a jet plane and making no noise ...also it was flat on the bottom with no protuberances ...in fact NOTHING like the description of a blimp.

So, a Simple, Straightforward, Factual, assessment. The witnesses would have known if they were viewing a blimp. Full stop.

 

[Rramjet]

I don't consider ANYONE'S testimony reliable unless supported by corroborating physical evidence.

But the question wasn't about reliability, it was about your assertion that there was no inconsistency in the witness statements.

But don't you see...if you contend the witness testimony to be totally unreliable, then you cannot then turn around and use it to point out inconsistencies.

According to your logic, if the witness statements are totally unreliable as evidence, it would be remarkable if their statements agreed on anything...yet...they agree on just about EVERYTHING.

 

[StevenCalder]

Then you discuss including “unknown later found to be mundane” as a separate category. BUT you miss the logical consequence of that “finding” …such a report then is IMMEDIATELY (re)categorised under the KNOWNs. Simple, straightforward. No need to add categories. All that are needed are there. I DO hope you see that?

UNKNOWN —. This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.

And due to the definition of "unknown" your using which presupposes that all mundane explanations have been completely falsified where we should be placing this into the "Unidentified" category until an "Exotic" or mundane hypotheses has been shown, your placing it into an "Exotic" category until a mundane hypothesis has been shown.

So we assume that its probably 'aliens' (by your definition) until a mundane explanation is shown to be true? Given the ambiguous nature of the data you can build yourself a support set out of nothing. Can you not see the madness here?

Your categories are arranged to get the data to seem like its supporting your supposition.

The correct categories would look something like;

1. As of yet Unidentified.
2. Identified - Mundane.
3. Identified - Exotic.

Each of which can be further subdivided. We have plenty of 1s and 2s, and as of yet no 3's.

My god what am I doing?

 

[Rramjet]

...but really. In the REAL world, witness testimony is rarely consistent. Details often slightly differ (if not worse), so it IS remarkable when we find such agreement as we do in the Rogue River Case...and that is what makes it so compelling.

 

[Stray Cat]

But don't you see...if you contend the witness testimony to be totally unreliable, then you cannot then turn around and use it to point out inconsistencies.

According to your logic, if the witness statements are totally unreliable as evidence, it would be remarkable if their statements agreed on anything...yet...they agree on just about EVERYTHING.

Pure nonsense...

 

[Jocce]

please reply specifically to the answers I have already provided (above),

HERE:

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

And it has been shown over and over again that the witnesses stories doesn't match, changes over time and have internal inconsistencies.

1.2 But you MUST then direct your assertion to some part of the witness testimony you consider inaccurate and explain why you think so.

Se above.

1.3 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.

See above. And, we MUST not do anything since even in a court of law, testimonies are not allowed to be the ONLY evidence.

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

Actually I have NEVER claimed that

Can't tell, don't have the energy to read backlogs.

2.1 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?

It is relevant because humans are involved. Notice that this goes both ways. Humans would could also make the mistake of identifying an actual UFO as something KNOWN.

2.2 this presupposes that Agent brooks did not consider “blimps” to be an explanation… we have no way of knowing either way.

Exactly. So it COULD still be blimps. That's all we're claiming.

2.2 the case, as reported, simply does not contain the relevant information (ED: to make a definate conclusion).

Correct.

2.3 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”

Because it matches at least two descriptions and one drawing and they were based in the neighbourhood. Makes it more likely than f ex an F18 hornet which didn't exist at the time.

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

Prove it.

2.5 Yet, when you claim “The UFO is a blimp”

NOONE IS CLAIMING THAT!!! IS and COULD HAVE BEEN are worlds apart.

 

[Rramjet]

My god what am I doing?

I’ve no idea Steven…

My advice to you would be to go to Blue Book Special report No. 14 (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf), download the pdf file and then read the first 14 pages. THEN you will see why and how the categories have been arrived at. There was no ulterior motive behind them… they actually favour against the UNKNOWN category, because the researchers could always claim “insufficient information” if they could not fit a “mundane” objection… so please , read the report’s first few pages and THEN I contend, you WILL know what you are doing.

Ooo..sorry about the big snip...no intention of implying that you REALLY don't know what you are doing...it was merely in jest, in case you were wondering...

 

[Stray Cat]

...but really. In the REAL world, witness testimony is rarely consistent. Details often slightly differ (if not worse), so it IS remarkable when we find such agreement as we do in the Rogue River Case...and that is what makes it so compelling.

So now do we have to cite cases where witnesses discuss events and align their stories in accordance to group consensus?

Perhaps re-state the police's method of witness separation to stop this from happening?

 

[Jocce]

YES, the witnesses are 100% reliable in knowing it was NOT a blimp they saw... Their statements support this contention. They consistently between them report the object as circular, 25-35 feet in diameter, travelling at the speed of a jet plane and making no noise ...also it was flat on the bottom with no protuberances ...in fact NOTHING like the description of a blimp.

No they are not and you know it. Since when is a C-47 a jet plane f ex? Also, it's painfully obvious that many of them are describing oblong objects.

 

[Nonpareil]

I had a really great joke here, but it would probably count as a violation of the membership agreement. Stupid "no ad homs" rule...

 

[Stray Cat]

I had a really great joke here, but it would probably count as a violation of the membership agreement. Stupid "no ad homs" rule...

PM it to me

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

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.

Didn't anyone read my post on the activities of the blimp hangars around the time the incident in question occurred? For convenience, I have reproduced my post below:

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.

 

[StevenCalder]

My advice to you would be to go to Blue Book Special report No. 14 (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf), download the pdf file and then read the first 14 pages. THEN you will see why and how the categories have been arrived at. There was no ulterior motive behind them… they actually favour against the UNKNOWN category, because the researchers could always claim “insufficient information” if they could not fit a “mundane” objection… so please , read the report’s first few pages and THEN I contend, you WILL know what you are doing.

Argue the point yourself please.

I could have asked you to go read various authors on this subject, Carl Sagan being the most blatantly obvious, but I didn't, I concisely made the points myself.

 

[Jocce]

Didn't anyone read my post on the activities of the blimp hangars around the time the incident in question occurred? For convenience, I have reproduced my post below:

Good, hadn't seen that If correct, that makes it less likely that it was a blimp.

 

[GeeMack]

Good, hadn't seen that If correct, that makes it less likely that it was a blimp.

Less likely than what? Would you say it was less likely to be something which existed on Earth at the time, as supported by factual evidence, than something for which there is no factual evidence at all to even demonstrate its existence?

 

[Jocce]

No, I say it's less likely as compared to if there had been an active blimp base in the neighborhood at the time. No need to get all worked up over nothing. Read what I write, not what you think I mean. I still think the descriptions match very well with a blimp or similar vehicle and find it a lot more likely than an alien ship.

ETA: Especially since it was still in civilian use for 2 more years after the military ceased operations.

 

[Correa Neto]

What about my excellent UFO pictures? I can also add an "eyewitness report", actually multiple eyewitnesses... Would that make "my sighting" a compelling case for aliens visiting our rotating ball of boredom?

If UFOlogists wish to build a solid case for UFOs (as product of some "unknown" intelligence), the quality of evidence presented must be way above the material available so far. Trying to "sell" the same old -inconclusive at best- material as gold will not make it.

 

[Tapio]

Ughh Tapio… I apologise to you then if my remarks seemed “arrogant”…They were not meant to be… I guess I am just a little frustrated that no-one seems to address the issues that I raise in my posts – merely rattle on repeating the same old arguments as if stating them over and over will make them any more logical or rational – to which I MUST keep pointing to the logical fallacy and irrationality every time…what else can I do…then I expected of YOU to at least (given how we began conversing) to at least have a go at addressing the issues I raise in my posts – but instead you seemed to address and agree with the issues raised ONLY in other’s posts… then perhaps you can understand my frustration … I thought (hoped) you of anyone here was at least following my arguments… Anyway…I do apologise and I hope we can move through it.

Apologie accepted.

You know, what you wrote makes me wonder...

What does a person inclined to critical thinking do when confronted with a situation like the one you outlined above?

Steps outside the box.

Have you paused to think that perhaps it's not a question of all other posters here twisting things? Maybe you also have a part in this? Have you been as open to new ideas as possible? If somebody implies, time and time again, that you have misinterpreted them (and gives a corrective), at what point will you stop to actually notice it? If you feel the points you raise aren't discussed adequately, maybe there's something in the way you raise them that makes it impossible? Maybe, just maybe, it's not as simple as a matter of almighty, infallible Rramjet being witch-hunted by close minded skeptics. Maybe there's more to it? Maybe you could try a different approach? I know I've seen tons of tries from other posters.

If you have a truly open mind and we do have at least a working relationship, then I humbly ask you to read my debate with Astrophotographer and to comment on it because it is VERY instructive and contains just about everything we (all of us) have discussed in one neat package. I did not link the WHOLE discussion because it was on the same page as THIS post and it was rather lengthy... (just scroll up…)

This I shall do, when I get to it.

Sure, but you are willing to categorise as KNOWN based on such testimony…

Aww, c'mon, you're losing it here, man! I have not categorized anything. You know it. I have merely given my opinion on the usefulness/uselesness of a 'unknown' category in your first list.

so you can’t have it both ways…you cannot say the testimony is reliable ONLY when we can categorise things as KNOWN, it is either reliable enough to categorise as KNOWN or UNKNOWN...

Agreed. That's why I said I think an eyewitness testimony should not be held as such evidence to conclude anything (known/unknown) based solely on it/them. The only category we can objectively arrive at by using eyewitness is 'insufficient information' (which then later on can be corrected if more reliable data is aquired).

and anything that is NOT so is “Insufficient information”… Actually if you read the SR14 study they initially threw out about a thousand cases where they thought it was not even worth them investigating in the study further… BEFORE they categorised the remaining. Now I call THAT conservative.

I am aware of that, but still feel the 'unknown' and 'insufficent information' categories should be combined as one.

Then you discuss including “unknown later found to be mundane” as a separate category. BUT you miss the logical consequence of that “finding” …such a report then is IMMEDIATELY (re)categorised under the KNOWNs. Simple, straightforward. No need to add categories. All that are needed are there. I DO hope you see that?

I see your point, and agree on it. But it is not what I was talking about.

Here's the thing. If we are to speculate on the cases which go under the category of 'insufficient information' or 'unknown' (though I feel that category is useless), we must include the possibility of a mundane explanation in our series of hypothesis as well as other possibilities.
That's what I'm talking about.

ETA: Thanks, BabyHeadedMan for re-posting your links! That makes the case ever more interesting...

 

[Vortigern99]

When it comes to knowing if what they saw was a blimp? Then YES, the witnesses are 100% reliable in knowing it was NOT a blimp they saw... Their statements support this contention. They consistently between them report the object as circular, 25-35 feet in diameter, travelling at the speed of a jet plane and making no noise ...also it was flat on the bottom with no protuberances ...in fact NOTHING like the description of a blimp.

So, a Simple, Straightforward, Factual, assessment. The witnesses would have known if they were viewing a blimp. Full stop.

(From http://www.nicap.org/490524roguedraw.htm linked from http://www.nicap.org/rogue490524dir.htm )

How can you keep insisting the eyewitnesses "consistently report the object as circular", when their "precise drawings" (your description) show a cigar-shaped and irregular oval-shaped object?

Further, how can you keep insisting the eyewitnesses' assessments of the speed, silence and distance of the object are irrefutable and not subject to error, when eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence have been repeatedly, consistently shown to be questionable? (qv http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm, excerpt: "Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory."; and http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence, excerpt: "Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ['I know a person who...; I know of a case where... etc.] The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is." -- in addition to the four links I supplied, upthread, which contest the validity of anecdotal evidence on the grounds of perceptual distortion, etc.)

It doesn't add up, Rramjet. Your goose is cooked.