(chuckles in amusement)
Name the branch of science and name the journals. Surely you can do that much without "blowing your cover."
Can I suggest then you simply apply the standards of evidence and reject my claims to be a scientist and move on?
Now, let’s see what we actually have here then…
You raise the burden of proof issue.
Tell me: If I say “aliens did it” would you expect me to show proof?
Then if you say “blimps did it”. I expect you to show proof also.
Simple really isn’t it?
You say
Read a post - then in responding 1) choose a detail that doesn't make sense to answer, and/or 2) respond to it in a way that shows he didn't comprehend the main point of the post.
Show me exactly where I have done that and you might have a point… until then… merely saying it IS so, does NOT make it so…
REPEATEDLY ask people to prove an object was a blimp, when such an assertion was never made and the request was utterly unexpected and uncalled for.
Are you seriously arguing that no-one has raised the blimp hypothesis as a way of explaining Rogue River… I believe you are simply being vexatious – for it is CLEAR to everyone (except you perhaps) that the blimp hypothesis has been a PRIMARY topic of discussion in this thread…
Besides there is this
"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)
And then even YOU state:
So easily decide that a mundane object such as a blimp could not POSSIBLY have seen and misinterpreted by eyewitnesses back in 1949, and thus extraterrestrial craft is an explanation that deserves our consideration.
No, on the evidence presented blimp is an implausible explanation (especially regarding the eyewitness testimony that states: circular, 25-35 feet in diameter, speed of a jet plane, no protuberances, no sound, etc. There is also the lack of fins on any other part of the object (as a blimp clearly has), lack of a “gondola” – lack of any letters of markings saying (for example) THIS is MY product! And so on. It makes the blimp hypothesis IMPLAUSIBLE.
And if you want to claim the eyewitness testimony is unreliable then you must tell me, logically and rationally, which aspects you consider unreliable.
I invite you to visit (
http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) and argue your case... from the evidence.
Use a line of reasoning such as, "We don't know what a world visited by aliens would look like - therefore, despite the lack of observed aliens in our everyday lives, we can still believe their are aliens visiting us."
Ummm… no, you just used that (il)logic… I never have… and merely stating it is so, does not make it so.
Moreover I contend there ARE observed aliens… and I have presented evidence… if you choose not to even look at that evidence…then I cannot help you in the matter.
I don't say this to attack anyone's character or intelligence. But Rramjet has both posted arguments for our consideration and tried backing them up with a vague reference to scientific credentials, and I think it's fair for us to evaluate his claims on both points.
Actually I think you will find that I explained my motivations very clearly and precisely here:
Indeed, you are correct. But I cannot provide that evidence without "blowing my cover" so to speak and inviting you all into my home and my workplace and THAT is something I am NOT about to do at this point, given the nature of some of the posts I have been the object of here in this forum. Perhaps if you had all "played nice" I might have considered it ... but as it stands... no thanks.
So I guess you will just have to take my word for it, and if not, I am not going to argue the point. It really matters not, I was simply trying to allow people to understand that I was speaking from experience when I talked about the policy of editorial boards of peer-reviewed publications. I suppose I could link to those policies at the journals in question, but all are expensive subscription services, and while usually a general editorial policy is publicly available, their specific detailed policies are usually not...
So, indeed you are correct to be skeptical, as I would also be skeptical of such a claim if I was in your in your position.
His writing style and grammar are actually remarkable, considering what appears to be a demonstrated lack of basic comprehension skills in his posts.
That’s you opinion and you are entitled to it but merely saying it is so does not MAKE it so.
Based on this, my guesses about his scientific credentials, if they exist, are as follows:
1) His field is "UFOlogy," and he publishes to "peer-reviewed journals" in that field.
2) His field is something like "Human Relations" or "Critical Theory." If you've attended a state university in the past 15 years, you probably know what I'm talking about.
3) He is a respected scientist in a serious field of study, and this is some kind of experiment to elicit and study reactions from us.
Guess away. It is amusing to me. Can I again suggest you simply apply the standards of evidence and just reject my claims to be a scientist and move on?
But this is not about ME…this is about the evidence. Perhaps you talk about me so much in order to distract from that evidence?
For example:
The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter (21-22 Aug 1955)
(
http://www.nicap.org/kelly-hendry.htm)
(
http://ufologie.net/htm/kelly55.htm#witness)
