UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[StevenCalder]

[..]NOT "alien".[..]
If you want to change the rules of evidence and burden of proof to suit your own purposes, then go right ahead, but don't expect me to believe your contentions after you have done so. Simple. Logical. Scientific.

Ah I see you didn't get it, oh well

Unless you actually confirm that there's anything of interest going on here at all, I see no reason to run around attempting to prove mundane hypotheses and could think of no bigger waste of my time.

Well, one.

 

[Rramjet]

Only in your mind. With complete lack of objective evidence, it might as well be a prank.

That doesn't help much, in fact a clear day can be very bad, if the object reflects light to a good degree everything gets distorted. And others have already told you that the witnesses accounts don't match up enough to eliminate doubt.

I therefore am compelled to again present the EVIDENCE for my contention that the Rogue River sighting (24 May 1949) confirms that UFOs exist.

To begin we have the comprehensive research analysis of the case conducted by Dr. Bruce Maccabee: (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

However, we have the contention that a blimp might have been involved.

"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)

Failing that then we have the contention that it might actually have been the GoodYear blimp.

Here then is a picture of the precise type of blimp that was flying in 1949. Tell me, where exactly in the witnesses descriptions does it say that "GoodYear" was written on the side of the object?

Then of course we have the witness' sworn testimony, CONSISTENT between themselves, describing the object as (observation made by five witnesses under perfect viewing conditions with the sun at their backs, two with the aid of binoculars):

UFO: CIRCULAR, pancake shaped (blimp: CIGAR shaped)
UFO: 25-35 feet in diameter (blimp: HUGE in comparison)
UFO: Speed of a jet plane (how fast does the Goodyear blimp go again?)
UFO: No sound (how does the blimp propel itself again?)
UFO: "rotation about the vertical axis" (blimp: I’d like to see that…)
UFO: FLAT, smooth underside (blimp curved, lots of protuberances)

The witness descriptions also lack the features a blimp DOES have:

BLIMP: Bottom and horizontal fins (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Gondola (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Engines (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Trailing tether lines (UFO: None)
BLIMP: BIG sign on side stating “Good Year” - some with flashing neon lights too! (UFO: No markings whatsoever)

I therefore contend the "blimp" hypothesis to be entirely IMPLAUSIBLE.

Now if you wish to argue the inaccuracy or inconsistency of the sworn eyewitness testimony, then I invite you to visit (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) and using the evidence available point out precisely, logically and rationally, HOW and WHERE the witness descriptions are to be considered inaccurate to any extant that the "blimp" hypothesis becomes plausible.

Until ANYONE provides EVIDENCE of ANY plausible mundane explanation the Rogue River object MUST then REMAIN categorised as a UFO.

Evidence. Scientific research. Logic. Facts. Rational thought. Simple really….

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

It has been proven that distinguishing features on an airship at the distance reported can not be seen (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5217289#post5217289). It has been shown that civilian airships where operating in the neighbourhood at the time. This shows that a plausible mundane explanations exist. What part of this do you not understand?

Reference has been made to photographs taken by the Goodyear blimp in May of 1949 in Salem, Oregon, earlier in this thread, but I believe no link was given, so to make it clear the Goodyear blimp was in fact in the area in the general time frame of the report, here is one such photograph: http://photos.salemhistory.net/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/max&CISOPTR=749&CISOBOX=1&REC=3.

The possibility of the Rogue River case simply having been a misidentification of a blimp is much too significant for the report to be able to suggest to any reasonable degree that what was seen by the witnesses was anything out of the ordinary. Maybe we can find a more interesting case to discuss because this one has been shown to be pretty much worthless; it doesn't even give you so much as an inkling that further investigation into the chance of there being present at least one form of advanced nonhuman intelligence on this planet might amount to anything.

 

[Rramjet]

The Burden of Proof

If I assert UFOs to be alien spacecraft, you would ask me to supply evidence to support that contention.

If you contend UFOs to be blimps, then I would ask you to supply evidence to support that contention.

In other words, the burden of proof always falls to those asserting the explanatory hypothesis.

Factual. Logical. Rational. Simple really...

 

[EHocking]

You seem to have made a critical logical error here. That is you use the field of view estimates to conclude something about the magnification of the object... and that is just plain wrong. Mistaken in other words.

Sorry, but you're quite incorrect. See below.

The FOV describes the area of view covered by the binoculars it says NOTHING about what size an object could be within that field of view.

From my post 667 which you seem to have overlooked.

A quick Google of Navy issue 8X binoculars in the 40s yields a model: 8 x 56, with an 6deg 25min FOV.

Calculations, backed by tech sheets on similar power x aperture binocular yields an horizontal FOV, at 1000m (3280ft) of 122m, or 400ft."

As my diagrams showed. At 1000m the field of view for 8x56 binoulars displays 122m. As a sense check, I showed how 13 circles of 10m(30ft) diameter would appear in that FOV for those binoculars. By simple trigonometry, I then showed the relative size of a 30ft diameter circle at 4 miles in the same FOV. You are quite mistaken that this is not possible and that my calculations and subsequent diagrams were inaccurate given the information we have.

You are simply in error here. That's all.

Not at all, as explained above.

Your understanding of FOV and what can been calculated is in error.

ETA: Oh, and here's the view of a 30ft diameter circle at 2 1/2 miles

The above shows that either a. the object was larger than eye-witness estimates or b. the object was closer than eye-witness estimates.

Either way, the eye-witness testimony is in error, given the optical properties of the binoculars used to view the UFO.

 

[Rramjet]

QUOTE=Jocce;5219374]It has been proven that distinguishing features on an airship at the distance reported can not be seen (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5217289#post5217289)./QUOTE]

It has been shown that civilian airships where operating in the neighbourhood at the time. This shows that a plausible mundane explanations exist. What part of this do you not understand?

Then I would simply ask you to refute the following in comparison:

“A key characteristic of the object which makes a mundane identification unlikely (or impossible) is the overall shape. Could the shape have been misperceived by all of the witnesses including the two who used binoculars? The answer to this question is based on the angular size of the image in the binoculars. Unfortunately the two witnesses did not provide an estimate of the apparent size in the binoculars, but all the witnesses together, in an indirect way, did provide an estimate of the minimum angular size. This indirect estimate is based on the fact that all the witnesses claimed that the object was circular. Since the object was not directly overhead (where a circular object would appear truly circular) this claim suggests that the bottom of the object, as seen from their location, appeared elliptical (as shown in the illustrations in SR14). The fact that they were able to discern an overall shape other than a “point in the sky” indicates that it had an angular size larger than the minimum angular resolution of the eye in daylight conditions. The minimum angular resolution (the “resolution element”) is on the order of a minute of arc or about 0.0003 radian (0.0174 radians per degree and 60 minutes of arc per degree). Experiments have shown that in order for a viewer to characterize an object as having a shape other than a “point”, the angular size of the object must be at least two resolution elements across its largest dimension and at least one across its smallest dimension. In this case the angular size was very probably larger than this (see below), but two resolution elements is sufficient to deduce that the witnesses who used binoculars were clearly able to see the overall shape. In the view of the 8X binoculars the angular size was 8 times larger so there were at least 16 resolution elements across the major dimension of the object and 8 elements across the minimum dimension, more than enough to determine that its shape appeared elliptical, as if it were a circular object seen from an oblique angle. One of the witnesses (Mr C.) stated that the surface looked wrinkled or dirty. If a person can see an object well enough to see surface details such as this, the person is certainly able to see the overall shape. Therefore it appears that the overall circular or “pancake” shape was a true characteristic of this strange object.”​

(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

Reference has been made to photographs taken by the Goodyear blimp in May of 1949 in Salem, Oregon, earlier in this thread, but I believe no link was given, so to make it clear the Goodyear blimp was in fact in the area in the general time frame of the report, here is one such photograph: http://photos.salemhistory.net/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/max&CISOPTR=749&CISOBOX=1&REC=3.

Need I really point out that Salem is actually over 120 miles from Gold Beach (Rogue River)? THIS photo does NOT put the blimp anywhere NEAR the UFO sighting.

Got any REAL evidence? No...didn't think so.

 

[GeeMack]

Good. So we all agree that the exact identity Rogue River sighting is unknown, and that there are reasonable, plausible, mundane explanations as to its possible identity. Seems odd that this thread has gone nearly 750 postings to get to the place where we pretty much all agreed before even started.

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

If I assert UFOs to be alien spacecraft, you would ask me to supply evidence to support that contention.

If you contend UFOs to be blimps, then I would ask you to supply evidence to support that contention.

In other words, the burden of proof always falls to those asserting the explanatory hypothesis.

Factual. Logical. Rational. Simple really...

It doesn't need to be proven the Rogue River UFO was a blimp; what critics of the case are trying to prove is not that what was seen by the witnesses was a blimp but that because of other outstanding possibilities which have not been adequately shown not to be good explanations, it has not been proven this particular UFO was anything out of the ordinary to an extent enough where it would be necessary to start revising long-standing scientific concepts or even to consider revising them.

 

[EHocking]

...
Now if you wish to argue the inaccuracy or inconsistency of the sworn eyewitness testimony, then I invite you to visit (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) and using the evidence available point out precisely, logically and rationally, HOW and WHERE the witness descriptions are to be considered inaccurate to any extant that the "blimp" hypothesis becomes plausible.

Until ANYONE provides EVIDENCE of ANY plausible mundane explanation the Rogue River object MUST then REMAIN categorised as a UFO.

Evidence. Scientific research. Logic. Facts. Rational thought. Simple really….

Here's some inconsistency on the observation of Mr.C, for example,

When first sighted it appeared to be a glitter about four miles away laterally, at some 5000 feet above the ground which, at that point, was at sea level or approximately so.

All witnesses were looking NE to ENE at a point on the river near Elephant Rock.

Here's that position in Google Maps. Turn on the "terrain" feature and you will see that in that position, they were looking directly at a ridge, 1 mile away, that rises to 650ft. Further on (3 miles) they would have seen a peak of 800ft. At 4 miles away in that line of sight there is a peak of 1,400ft which would have been directly underneath the UFO and slightly to the right. Behind this, at a distance of 6 miles is another peak that is 2,160ft in height. All visible in that line of sight.

So, the accuracy of the description of this area as "..at that point, was at sea level or approximately so" is wildly different to the actual terrain in the area and makes one doubt the accuracy of the other observations if these witnesses can describe the steeply hilly surroundings of Rogue River as "at sea leavel or approximately so".

 

[BlackKat]

...
UFO: CIRCULAR, pancake shaped (blimp: CIGAR shaped)

Depends on ones viewing angle

UFO: 25-35 feet in diameter (blimp: HUGE in comparison)
]UFO: Speed of a jet plane (how fast does the Goodyear blimp go again?)

Impossible to accurately judge distances, dimensions, or speed of objects in the air.

UFO: No sound (how does the blimp propel itself again?)

Depending on distance, wind, etc. not be able to hear the propellor engines.
In fact from the ground one almost NEVER hears blimps.
We have a Hood milk blimp over the city for a minimum of 81 home games here and I've never heard a single noise from it.
Because it's thousands of feet in the air.

UFO: "rotation about the vertical axis" (blimp: I’d like to see that…)

From a distance one can not determine this.

UFO: FLAT, smooth underside (blimp curved, lots of protuberances)

From a distance any such details are going to be not visible.

The witness descriptions also lack the features a blimp DOES have:
BLIMP: Bottom and horizontal fins (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Gondola (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Engines (UFO: None)
BLIMP: Trailing tether lines (UFO: None)

From a distance any such details might not be visible. Especially something as thin as a rope. But some of the witness descriptions DID indicate such fins.

BLIMP: BIG sign on side stating “Good Year” - some with flashing neon lights too! (UFO: No markings whatsoever)
...

Not all blimps say Good Year, nor do all have flashing lights.
If one is viewing the blimp from the bottom, front, or even an oblique angle any such details, especially at a distance, are going to be not visible.

 

[Rramjet]

Here is Mr. EHocking claiming to quote from Mr. C.'s evidence.

When first sighted it appeared to be a glitter about four miles away laterally, at some 5000 feet above the ground which, at that point, was at sea level or approximately so.

There is only one thing to do when faced with such epic historical revisionism …and that is to simply enter the evidence into the record. Then if he persists with such falsehoods – I will simply ignore him as irrelevant to the discussion. We need to move on anyway.

Mr C’s record of Interview“
On 24 May 1949, at 1700 P.S.T., approximately two to two and a half miles upstream from the mouth of the Rogue River, in a boat anchored approximately midstream, about the same distance east of the town of Gold Beach, Oregon, 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. There appeared to be no opening or protuberance of any sort other than the fin already described. Object appeared to be roughly 25 to 30 feet in diameter. It was travelling in a southeasterly direction, about 170 degrees clockwise from north. It executed no manoeuvres; no lights, no propellers, no landing gear, or any method of propulsion could be seen or heard. There were no clouds and the sun was at Mr. C's back at the time of the sighting. The trailing edge of the object as it travelled appeared to be somewhat wrinkled and dirty looking. Mr. C ventured that these might have been vents but he said he could not see them well enough to say for sure. With Mr. B and Mr. C in the boat at the time of the sighting was Mrs. WWW (We’ll call her “Mrs. D”), wife of a druggist at Ione, Calif; Mrs. A, wife of a Standard Oil distributor at Gold Beach; and Mrs. XXX.*
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)


Mr C.s sworn Testimony.
"While fishing with a party of friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from its mouth at Gold Beach, Oregon, at approximately 5:00 p.m., 24 May 1949, my attention was called to an object in the sky. The object was to the east of us about one (1) mile, at approximately 5000 feet altitude. With the naked eye, little but a glare and a silvery glint could be seen. But after watching it for approximately one minute and a half, I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that the object was roughly circular in shape and appeared to be 30 to 35 feet in diameter. It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges. A small triangular fin started in the middle and grew gradually higher to the rear as the object travelled. When first sighted, it was moving very slowly. As I watched it through the glasses, it picked up speed and when it vanished from sight approximately 90 seconds later, it was travelling as fast or faster than a jet plane. As far as could be seen, it had no openings or protuberances of any kind other than the fin, and there was neither sight nor sound of any driving force. It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction, mostly south."
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

So now we can clearly see that EHocking was simply making things up.

Simple. Factual. Scientific Research. Evidence. Logic. Rational thought processes. Simple really...

 

[Rramjet]

Another Good Case: More Evidence

Now. Moving on from the demonstrably false claims of some, I enter into the record of evidence the following case.

http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

It seems to represent a technology "out of this world".

The assertion is that THIS UFO represents a technological craft of some sort. It supports the assertion that not only do UFOs exist, but that there is some sort of technology behind them.

What do others think?

 

[StevenCalder]

It supports the assertion that not only do UFOs exist, but that there is some sort of technology behind them.

 

[LTC8K6]

Now. Moving on from the demonstrably false claims of some, I enter into the record of evidence the following case.

http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

It seems to represent a technology "out of this world".

The assertion is that THIS UFO represents a technological craft of some sort. It supports the assertion that not only do UFOs exist, but that there is some sort of technology behind them.

What do others think?

Again, I did not see any reason in the report to believe that this was a spacecraft, or that it had any advanced technology.

The satellite confirmation seems in doubt as well, according to other reports.

 

[Astrophotographer]

But here are the things that I wonder about. I find it highly improbable that hundreds, if not several thousand people could all be fooled collectively on this one particular night by planes flying in a squadron and parachutes with flares. .

The videos have been shown to be flares. As for the “thousands” of people, it is a misleading statement. In reality, only a small minority of the witnesses report seeing a massive craft behind the lights. A majority just report seeing a formation of lights and several of those reported independent movement. This is confirmed by the one video of the lights.

Also, it seems odd that all of these people would collectively suffer from an optical anomaly that makes something very high appear as though it’s right over their heads.

Again, only a small minority reported this. This is common with many fireball reports, where witnesses stated they saw something just overhead and it landed less than a mile away.

I find it odd that these people who lived by Barry Goldwater firing range for years and had to have been exposed to these types of things many times in the past, would all of a sudden be bamboozled and not make the obvious connection.

No witnesses in that area reported such information. Everything was reporting in the upper portion of the state and in Phoenix. Perhaps you have information that I do not. Feel free to present it if you do.

I am going to snip your story about a UFO in Seattle because it does not relate IMO to this discussion.

Anyway, you present a very compelling theory as to why it is a mundane occurrence, but like all of the theories for Phoenix, both for UFO and against UFO, there are some gaps that need words like “possibly” “assuming” “it’s possible”, etc., to weave them together.

Of course, I can’t put the nail in the coffin because I don’t have the hard evidence that you desire. That being said, if I were to present to you the names of the pilots and aircraft involved with the flyover, would you be satisfied? I think not because we do have the names of the pilots and planes of the group that dropped the flares, which caused the 10PM videos and you seem to be arguing that those could not be flares.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Now. Moving on from the demonstrably false claims of some, I enter into the record of evidence the following case.

http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

It seems to represent a technology "out of this world".

The assertion is that THIS UFO represents a technological craft of some sort. It supports the assertion that not only do UFOs exist, but that there is some sort of technology behind them.

What do others think?

Sorry, the link would not work for me (when I went to the parent it did for some reason). However, I believe we are talking about the Teheran incident of 1976? If you think it is "out of this world technology" I suggest you explain why. IMO, I think it is indicates that the Iranian aircrews did not maintain their aircraft and they failed when they were asked to perform. It is easy to blame a UFO when you don't want to admit that your aircraft fail under battlefield conditions.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/IRANIAN JET CASE.doc

 

[Rramjet]

Again, I did not see any reason in the report to believe that this was a spacecraft, or that it had any advanced technology.

The satellite confirmation seems in doubt as well, according to other reports.

What do you make of the following accounts then? (Excerpts from The Iranian Jet UFO Case, http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

He reported to Pirouzi that every time he closed on the object it affected his radio and all his instruments. According to Pirouzi, “….his engines were working normally, the lights on the instrument panel were working but all his navigation aids were out…” Youssefi ordered him to close again to get a better view. This time, according to the Air Force teletype message (see below) of Lt. Col. Mooy, when he got to a range of about 25 nautical miles (about 29 statute miles; 1 nm = 6077 feet), he “lost all instrumentation and communications (UHF radio and intercom).” [Note: the intercom allows communication between the pilot in the front seat and the radar operator in the back seat of the aircraft.] Pirouzi reported that “ … at one point as he was talking to me, his radio went dead completely as he got close to the object.” By this time he was running low on fuel so he broke off the chase and headed back toward Shaharoki. According to the Air Force teletype message, “When the F-4 turned away from the object and apparently was no longer a threat to it the aircraft regained all instrumentation and communications.”

As the range decreased to 25 nm the object moved away at a speed that was visible on the radar scope and stayed at 25 nm.” [Comment: to decrease the distance by 2 nm when the rate of closure is 150 nm/hr would require about 48 seconds. Apparently the VC decreased as the object sped up, meaning that the lock-on period was definitely longer than 48 seconds.] The AF teletype message further states, “The size of the (radar) return was comparable to a 707 tanker. The visual size of the object was difficult to discern because of its intense brilliance. The light that it gave off was that of flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern and alternating blue, green, red and orange in color. The sequence of the lights was so fast that all the colors could be seen at once.”

The pilot put the “pedal to the metal” and reached a speed of about Mach 2 (1,500 mph or 25 miles per minute) and still couldn’t catch it. He was flying toward the Afghanistan border, about 500 miles east of Tehran. Youssefi ordered him to return to Tehran if he couldn’t catch it, so he turned and headed back eastward. The object also reversed direction and began to chase the plane. In a short section of an audio tape recording (I presume made at the Air Traffic Control Center at Mehrabad) that was published in a local newspaper (see below), Jafari reported “something is coming at me from behind. It is 15 miles away…now ten miles…now five miles…It is level now…I think it is going to crash into me…It has just passed me by..missing me narrowly..” According to the newspaper report, “The disturbed voice of the pilot was clear on the tape. He then asked to be guided back to base.”

This second object headed straight toward the F-4 at a very fast pace. The pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 (heat seeking) missile at the object but at that instant his weapons control panel went off and he lost all communications (UHS and intercom). At this point the pilot initiated a turn and a negative G dive to get away. As he turned the object fell in trail at what appeared to be about 3-4 nm. As he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn and then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin.”

. As the plane went “screaming” over the airport Pirouzi and the others saw a dark rectangular form almost “sitting” on top of the jet. It was at about this time that the communications were lost, cut off in mid-sentence. The plane then went into a diving turn and it wasn’t until the plane and object were over Saveh, about 15 miles south of the airport, that communications were re-established. Then the pilot reported to Pirouzi that the second object had broken off the chase and was traveling within a few meters of the first. Then he reported that they had rejoined, as described above.

 

[Belz...]

Oooh oooh oooh! Me sir me sir me sir!

Is it because they fly their blimp-shaped alien saucers out of there to provoke easily-debunked UFO sightings and distract us from the real NWO conspiracy?

Not to forget their star-shaped, plane-shaped, cloud-shaped or venus-shaped spacecraft.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes. yes. I know... But my use of the term UFO in this context is actually not really at odds with what my contentions have been all along. I am merely pointing out that even though this IS a UFO, there does seem to be some technological capability behind it. I almost want to say that it was acting as if under intelligent control... well maybe I DO want to say that... it certainly, on the evidence as presented, seems that way... of course that does not MAKE it that way...