UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Belz...]

How CAN you be the judge of whether what a person reported was an accurate description of what was observed?

Physical evidence. Still waiting, in fact.

 

[Belz...]

Pure, unadulterated bunk. This is an antirational stance that flies in the face of scientific and logical enterprise.

I don't think you understand what "simplest explanation" means.

 

[SnidelyW]

Here are what appears to be the original investigative statements from the Rogue river/ Gold Beach incident. They are of poor quality, and need to be squinted at.

http://www.nicap.org/docs/rogue490524docs3.htm

Everyone can examine the same documents and assess their worth.

 

[Belz...]

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

I think you're just abusing the term "burden of proof", here. In fact, I'm pretty sure you understand what it means and I'm starting to think you're not arguing entirely honestly, here.

 

[Belz...]

...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.

Not really. Witnesses to an event will often work towards a unified account, without realizing it, just by talking about it afterwards. They adjust their interpretation based on the accounts of others present.

 

[SnidelyW]

Physical evidence. Still waiting, in fact.

Back in 1997, a quasi scientific attempt appeared to be made to examine what little physical evidence was available.

The article describing the discussion is found here;

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc485.htm


I make no claim for knowing anything about the writer, nor the 'evidence workshop' he writes of.

It seems that if a case can be made for physical evidence, this might be the best shot at it.

 

[Rramjet]

Proof: No blimp at rogue river

This is it - I finally have thePROOF that there were NO Blimps at Rogue River in 1949.

"Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended."

("http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)

Now. THAT I contend stops the "blimp" hypothesis DEAD.

 

[Sledge]

So at that point, all the blimps in the United States ceased to exist?

 

[Rramjet]

Vortigern stated:

So we see that a standard blimp could easily have been mistaken for a circular or round disc-shaped object by a viewer who did not understand what they were looking at.

Most definitely agreed (though couldn't view the 'spaceballs').

Now, Rramjet, here lies a straightforward challenge for you to prove you have a critical thinking mind...do you agree with the highlited part of Vortigern99's quote (nothing more, nothing less)? Yes/no will do. Thanks.

My answer, Tapio, is a firm and positive NO. Here is why:

First, I think a key phrase here is actually “by a viewer who did not understand what they were looking at.”

In my opinion, a blimp is an almost instantly recognisable object. Go to (http://images.google.com.au/images?...esult_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQsAQwAw) and begin scanning the pictures for example…

Second, blimps generally have a distinctive CIGAR shape (especially those built around the era we are talking about) and usually have a gondola of some sort hanging beneath with engines protruding – and this MUST have been the configuration for a “free ranging” blimp the debunkers propose for Rogue River…yet the witnesses who saw the UFO (through binoculars mind you) contend the object had a flat bottom with NO protuberances at all (not to mention the other descriptors like “circular” and “speed of a jet” and 25-35 feet in diameter and “no sound”…).

Finally, we have the direct evidence that there was NO blimp.

“Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended.” (http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)

Please note carefully the words “and all” in this phrase.

So my answer, Tapio, is a firm and positive NO.

 

[Rramjet]

So at that point, all the blimps in the United States ceased to exist?

Umm... I think you will find the phrase "all blimp operations on the West Coast ended" might give away the answer...

Clue: "West Coast"...

 

[jer_j]

While remembering the curses I called down upon myself if I rejoined this thread, I feel compelled to add one bit of context to Rramjet's quote. All you have to do is read a few more sentences, and it appears the blimp hypothesis is not quite as dead as it might seem.

"Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended. On June 6, 1949, Santa Ana decommissioned becoming an OLF. For a time, the hangars were used by advertising blimps."

 

[Sledge]

Umm... I think you will find the phrase "all blimp operations on the West Coast ended" might give away the answer...

Clue: "West Coast"...

No, that's not an answer to my question. Try again.

 

[GeeMack]

So at that point, all the blimps in the United States ceased to exist?

Actually there are aerial photos of various locations in and around Salem, Oregon, taken from the Goodyear blimp in May of 1949. Traveling from Salem to Rogue River would be about 40 miles less than traveling from the Portland naval station to Rogue River. Last I checked, the Goodyear blimp is technically a blimp. That's probably why it looks so much like one.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Looking at the newspaper archive, the Goodyear blimp Volunteer was operational on the west coast in 1949. It offered rides in LA (March 1949) and was operating out of Oakland in April 1949. It seemed to move up and down the coast a bit doing "Blimpcasts" where they scrolled news headlines when they flew over various population centers. That does not mean it was in Oregon on that fateful day but it was operational.

The blimp idea is good but it seems to be less likely now that we realize that there were less blimps operational than previously expected. However, it does not eliminate other possiblities. The more I look at the Catalina film, the more possible it could have been just an aircraft seen under conditions that made it appear circular.

 

[Rramjet]

Apologie accepted.

Thank you for your graciousness.

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.

And maybe it is exactly as I say it is... there is no accounting for the implacability of illogic. Almost, by definition the person holding an illogical POV cannot understand why it is illogical. A rational person on the other hand will examine the evidence to see why and where they might have been mistaken. If you notice, where I make a mistake and it is pointed out to me, I immediately move to acknowledge and correct the error and apologise if necessary (so I am NOT infallible at all...). I do NOT see that happening in return.

Could I try a different approach? Maybe you could suggest how? I will NOT stand for irrational thinking and illogical argument. It is my DUTY as a skeptic to point these things out and correct them where I see them.

This I shall do, when I get to it.

Thank you. That is a breath of fresh air.

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.

Perhaps I worded that badly then… what I meant to say was merely that IF you were inclined to believe all eyewitness testimony to be unreliable, then you cannot use that same testimony to conclude the “object” to be a “known” object. It was a “general “you”, not a personal “you” … I apologise if my wording conveyed the wrong impression.

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).

But now you are saying that NO eyewitness testimony can be taken to mean ANYTHING at all. No that is going TOO far (IMO). There has to be a balanced perspective. And the clue to where that balance might lie is in the research on perceptual fallibility. Simply this research is pretty comprehensive and the conditions likely to cause misperceptions have been well described. We can therefore ACCOUNT for those conditions when we examine eyewitness testimony because we UNDERSTAND what conditions cause it. If those conditions are present, then we reject the testimony. If those conditions are NOT present, then we are inclined to (note not “will” or “should” just - “inclined to” ) accept the testimony all other thing being equal.

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

Then perhaps I could direct you attention to the first few pages of the Blue Book SR14 (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf). I draw your attention particularly to pages 10 – 14.

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.

First, if you merely hypothesise mundane explanations, then you MUST categorise as “unknown” until the mundane hypothesis is shown to be either reasonable or not. Then you categorise as “known” or “unknown”.

Second, actually, we DO NOT speculate on “Insufficient information” category reports at all. Once they are in that category, they are DONE with. Similarly with the “Known” category – once they have been explained thus, that is what they ARE. HOWEVER, it is entirely legitimate to speculate on the “Unknown” category reports. Science can only progress by hypothesising answers to the unknown – then testing those hypotheses against observation. THAT is how we get new knowledge. I hope you see the point I am trying to make here.

I appreciate you argument here Tapio – I can see you really are trying to think this through, and I commend you for that. Thank you.

 

[Rramjet]

While remembering the curses I called down upon myself if I rejoined this thread, I feel compelled to add one bit of context to Rramjet's quote. All you have to do is read a few more sentences, and it appears the blimp hypothesis is not quite as dead as it might seem.

"Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended. On June 6, 1949, Santa Ana decommissioned becoming an OLF. For a time, the hangars were used by advertising blimps."

Ughh... Advertising blimps...? You mean those blimps that make themselves as VISIBLE and RECOGNISABLE as POSSIBLE in order to attract attention to themselves and try their BEST not to be recognisable as anything other than the product they are trying to represent? The ones that "scream" in huge colourful letters and images "THIS is my product!" You mean THOSE things?

Now who is grasping at straws?

 

[Marduk]

only you
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_en-GBGB316GB316&q=blimp+ufo

 

[Rramjet]

Looking at the newspaper archive, the Goodyear blimp Volunteer was operational on the west coast in 1949. It offered rides in LA (March 1949) and was operating out of Oakland in April 1949. It seemed to move up and down the coast a bit doing "Blimpcasts" where they scrolled news headlines when they flew over various population centers. That does not mean it was in Oregon on that fateful day but it was operational.

The blimp idea is good but it seems to be less likely now that we realize that there were less blimps operational than previously expected. However, it does not eliminate other possiblities. The more I look at the Catalina film, the more possible it could have been just an aircraft seen under conditions that made it appear circular.

You mean This?

I think we are grasping at straws if we contend THIS is the object in question - for THIS is precisely the type of blimp operational at the time.

... and IMO, THIS object, when viewed moving around for any length of time could hardly be described as circular... and besides, you have to ask yourself...what was it doing at 5000 feet...?

Ooo and don't forget... have a look at the SIZE of this thing... (edited in Rr.)

 

[Rramjet]

I can see how many might still want to cling to the blimp hypothesis - after all, so many have invested so much into it. But can we just be big enough and brave enough now to admit the blimp hypothesis - on the evidence - is implausible...

PS: "plausible" is a word you all should have been using MUCH earlier in the argument. Indeed some did mention it, but never followed through in proposing counter arguments to my own logical structures... (shrugs) Now you know... AND NO, I was NOT deliberately holding out on that... It "came" to me last night just before I fell asleep, that the term "plausible" was not stressed by the debunkers nearly enough... MERELY my opinion of course. I could be wrong...

Anyway. Can we NOW categorise Rogue River as a UFO that supports my contention that UFOs exist and so move on?

 

[Rramjet]

Physical evidence. Still waiting, in fact.

You raise a valid and pertinant point Belz. Physical evidence.

I contend however we must take things step by step on that road to discovery.

We are still stuck on my contention that "UFOs exist" and that Rogue River consists plausible evidence to support that contention.

I hope given my recent posts on that issue we are about to achieve a breakthrough...

Your point however IS well taken however and I WILL get to answering that soon. Patience please.

In the meantime can I suggest there are two cases we have already touched on that provide evidence beyond "mere" UFO.

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

and one that goes "part" way (one small step toward) your question ...

Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)


Ummm actually Belz...try this link (edited in Rr.)

Trans en Provence UFO (8 Jan 1981)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ufo_briefingdocument/1981.htm