Belz...
Fiend God
With a small difference: we know blimps exist.
Why more so in that case than in the rest of reality ?
Considering that you are positing an alien explanation, I don't think "implausible" means what you think.
- Status
With a small difference: we know blimps exist.
Why more so in that case than in the rest of reality ?
Considering that you are positing an alien explanation, I don't think "implausible" means what you think.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Ummm...those would be the accounts I read.
StevenCalder
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 207
I live in area frequented by planes heading for airports.
Each one of those that I can barely make out and have not identified yet also shows that UFO's exist and that there seems to be some technological capability behind them and thus provides as much confirmation for your assertion as this case does.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
I was in error - it was Mr.B.
Would you care to retract your accusation that I lied? Resisting ad hom attacks (especially unfounded accusation) will also help your argument.
So now we can clearly see that EHocking was not making anything up, but merely misattributed the witness testimony.
Quite simple actually -Mr.C estimates 1 to 2 miles, Mr.B estimates 4 miles.
So in answer to your request, "...if you wish to argue the inaccuracy or inconsistency of the sworn eyewitness testimony, then I invite you to [use] the evidence available point out precisely, logically and rationally, HOW and WHERE the witness descriptions are to be considered inaccurate to any extant [sic]...", I have done so.
And in the spirit of open debate, this is the FOV at 1 mile.
This at least shows that the details seen by the witnesses are quite feasible AND that the drawing does look like a blimp.
Last edited:
BabyHeadedMan
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 79
Even if the object were 16 arcminutes across in the binoculars, that's still only about half the angular diameter of the Moon as seen from Earth, which might not be enough for the object to have been seen in reasonable detail even by the witnesses who saw it through binoculars.
The distance between Salem and Gold Beach is 188 miles (http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Salem,+OR/to/Gold+Beach,+OR#). That said, it is thoroughly documented that blimps of that era could and did travel more than 188 miles. I would also presume it quite plausible that there could be places from where blimps launched at the time about which we don't even know. It is not, however, thoroughly documented that there exists an advanced nonhuman intelligence in a position to travel to Gold Beach, Oregon. In order to convincingly make the case that something was out of the ordinary, you would have to provide evidence to counterbalance the asymmetry between how well verified the existences of blimps and failures of perception are and how poorly verified the existence of an advanced nonhuman intelligence on Earth is. In science, when a person wants to draw a novel conclusion about the world, they have to demonstrate why that conclusion is necessary from the evidence. Mundane phenomena are already known to be true, so merely demonstrating there to be a possibility of an explanation limited to them for a given case shows it is not necessary to draw novel conclusions from that case because there are potential answers to that case where novel conclusions would be wrong. This is why the skeptical viewpoint needs only to show something to be possible, whereas the viewpoint advocating something new must show why everything else already well understood to be real is either tremendously improbable or impossible under a particular set of circumstances for whose explanation we must account.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Hoax, blimp, hallucination, clouds, plane, etc.
You know, those pesky things we KNOW exist.
Belz...
Fiend God
Then you have no point, no argument and no position.
Belz...
Fiend God
Not really nearly so simple as you think. Since blimps exist, and we don't know that aliens exist, the default explanation must be a mundane one. If blimps were the only mundane explanation (they're not), then that'd be it until shown otherwise. If no mundane explanation was probable, then you're left with "unidentified", which doesn't help your case anyway. The only way out of this for you is to present evidence of aliens. WE have no such obligation.
Belz...
Fiend God
We're clearly wasting our time here, BHM. Ramjet is playing the equivocation game. In his mind, and in my previous example of shadowy men in my bedroom, we'd have to provide evidence that the shadows are only shadows and not government agents.
Other people have again torn your case apart before I could reply.
Actually, no, to be truly correct, because it lacks any evidence (recordings, pictures, samples, etc), we must catgorize this as a possible unidentified flying object.
Your case lacks all these things.
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
In order to merely establish a PLAUSIBLE hypothesis that it was a blimp, one doesn't need a photo of a blimp at the site, merely a photo of a blimp within the flight radius of a blimp.
Nice work, EHocking. I didn't think it was worth the time to recreate the event to prove what we already know....but very informative, Thanks.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Yes, good work EHocking.
And just to hammer the point home.
Here's a more accurate photo of what the Goodyear Blimp actually looked like in 1949... in fact here are several of them floating above the Goodyear Blimp Hangar in Ohio.
The approximate measure of size as seen through 8X binoculars would be the fourth one from the top down at my guess being generous.
And just to reiterate: This information in no way confirms the UFO sighting as being a Blimp, it merely shows the possibility of it being a blimp is not zero...
And just to hammer the point home.
Here's a more accurate photo of what the Goodyear Blimp actually looked like in 1949... in fact here are several of them floating above the Goodyear Blimp Hangar in Ohio.
The approximate measure of size as seen through 8X binoculars would be the fourth one from the top down at my guess being generous.
And just to reiterate: This information in no way confirms the UFO sighting as being a Blimp, it merely shows the possibility of it being a blimp is not zero...
I stated
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.
But the point is you do NOT know that blimps exist at Rogue River at all – in fact I have provided a great deal of evidence to show that blimps did NOT exist at Rogue River.
You however have provided NO plausible evidence to show that blimps might even have possibly been at Rogue River.
I stated:
Sure, but those "clues" make for some pretty compelling testimony in the case of Rogue River
Your contention does not follow from what I said, but that is YOUR logical inconsistency, not mine. Besides, I have shown you many times the evidence that makes Rogue River a compelling case.
You however have provided NO evidence that would allow any reasonable person to conclude that my assertions in this matter are incorrect.
I stated:
All I am asking is that you ACTUALLY PRESENT a plausible mundane solution to Rogue River. That's all. Clearly the "blimp" hypothesis, on the evidence available, is IMPLAUSIBLE...
I am NOT “posting an alien explanation”. You merely had to be paying attention to my previous posts to understand I have contended all along that Rogue River represents a UFO: Nothing more, nothing less.
I stated:
I am merely pointing out that even though this IS a UFO, there does seem to be some technological capability behind it
Right... Have any of your “planes heading for airports” been chased by military jets at Mach 2? Have they been “square” in shape? Have any of them in turn chased a military jet?
Moreover, you clearly identify the objects you view as “planes” – you directly state that much at least. So your contention is that actually you cannot identify the “type” of plane, not that you cannot identify them as “planes” and this is ENTIRELY a different thing than not being able to identify the object at all.
Thank you for that correction.
I stated:
Then if he persists with such falsehoods – I will simply ignore him as irrelevant to the discussion.
Actually I have not accused you of lying. I first showed, by presenting evidence, that what you originally posted was false. I then stated that if you persisted with such falsehoods then I would ignore you as irrelevant to the discussion.
That is NOT an accusation of lying sir, it is merely a statement of fact. I do hope you understand this, because at all times I do try to be civil and try hard to not adopt the tactics of a bully (as some have clearly adopted toward me – and have been sanctioned for such).
I DO appreciate your latest FOV diagram – and while I remain skeptical as to the veracity of the size of the images represented in that diagram, your comment attached is the assessment of a reasonable person and for that I commend you. I only hope that such a spirit of reasonable debate will carry us forward.
But we are not talking about “blimps” in the general sense. We are talking SPECIFICALLY about the GOODYEAR blimp. An advertising vehicle. For that was the ONLY blimp shown to have been operational at the time.
So, you have to ask yourself: WHAT was an advertising blimp doing in a sparsely populated area nearly 200 miles from it’s home base? WHAT evidence can you show that demonstrates a plausible reason for it to be there? I contend that it is entirely IMPLAUSIBLE for such a blimp to be anywhere near Rogue River.
Actually, it is NOT plausible because the GoodYear blimp NEEDS a hanger of substantial proportion to be housed. If you look at the GoodYear website you will see that they supply a good amount of detail about their operations and NONE of them show operations very far from their home base.
Actually, I have NEVER claimed the Rogue River sighting to be anything other than a UFO. It is nothing more, nothing less. So your assertions in this respect are just plain incorrect.
Moreover, you AGAIN misconstrue the burden of proof.
If I say “aliens did it”, then you rightly can demand I produce evidence for that assertion before you believe it might be possible.
Similarly, if you assert “blimps did it” then equally I will demand evidence to support that assertion from you before I could believe it might be possible.
You have shown no such evidence – and in fact I have presented much evidence to show that the blimp hypothesis is implausible.
A GoodYear blimp at Rogue River is a novel conclusion about the world!
Cats are mundane objects, known to be true, but I would not expect one to be on the moon!
WHERE have you demonstrated this? I HAVE demonstrated the opposite by providing evidence. Where is the evidence for your assertion?
This does not make sense…
Nobody is drawing “novel” conclusions except YOU. I repeat, a GoodYear blimp at Rogue River IS a novel conclusion.
WHAT potential answers? I have shown by presenting evidence that it is implausible for the GoodYear blimp to have been at Rogue River. You NEED to provide evidence to support you contention that “there are potential answers”. You have provided no “potential” answer other than the GoodYear blimp and that you have NO evidence for. If you have OTHER “potential” answers, then please present them with supporting evidence.
Oh dear… it is POSSIBLE for any number of objects to have been in the sky above Rogue river – including for example a B52. Do you really contend that the object WAS a B52 merely because it is POSSIBLE? It is POSSIBLE that you are insane… but do I conclude that you ARE merely because it is possible? NO, I do NOT. Because to do so is irrational in itself.
But again, YOU are the one contending “something new”, for THAT is exactly what a GoodYear blimp over Rogue River in 1949 would be…something new.
Again you misconstrue the burden of proof. If you propose a “real” explanation for the Rogue River sighting, then you MUST support your assertions with evidence.
I am merely providing evidence that NO mundane explanation “fits” the observations in the case. I am NOT saying that there is no POSSIBLE mundane explanation – just that NO mundane explanation so far fits the evidence. If you HAVE a mundane explanation that DOES fit the evidence, then please present it, along with your supporting evidence, for consideration
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.
But the point is you do NOT know that blimps exist at Rogue River at all – in fact I have provided a great deal of evidence to show that blimps did NOT exist at Rogue River.
You however have provided NO plausible evidence to show that blimps might even have possibly been at Rogue River.
I stated:
Sure, but those "clues" make for some pretty compelling testimony in the case of Rogue River
Your contention does not follow from what I said, but that is YOUR logical inconsistency, not mine. Besides, I have shown you many times the evidence that makes Rogue River a compelling case.
You however have provided NO evidence that would allow any reasonable person to conclude that my assertions in this matter are incorrect.
I stated:
All I am asking is that you ACTUALLY PRESENT a plausible mundane solution to Rogue River. That's all. Clearly the "blimp" hypothesis, on the evidence available, is IMPLAUSIBLE...
I am NOT “posting an alien explanation”. You merely had to be paying attention to my previous posts to understand I have contended all along that Rogue River represents a UFO: Nothing more, nothing less.
I stated:
I am merely pointing out that even though this IS a UFO, there does seem to be some technological capability behind it
Right... Have any of your “planes heading for airports” been chased by military jets at Mach 2? Have they been “square” in shape? Have any of them in turn chased a military jet?
Moreover, you clearly identify the objects you view as “planes” – you directly state that much at least. So your contention is that actually you cannot identify the “type” of plane, not that you cannot identify them as “planes” and this is ENTIRELY a different thing than not being able to identify the object at all.
Thank you for that correction.
I stated:
Then if he persists with such falsehoods – I will simply ignore him as irrelevant to the discussion.
Actually I have not accused you of lying. I first showed, by presenting evidence, that what you originally posted was false. I then stated that if you persisted with such falsehoods then I would ignore you as irrelevant to the discussion.
That is NOT an accusation of lying sir, it is merely a statement of fact. I do hope you understand this, because at all times I do try to be civil and try hard to not adopt the tactics of a bully (as some have clearly adopted toward me – and have been sanctioned for such).
I DO appreciate your latest FOV diagram – and while I remain skeptical as to the veracity of the size of the images represented in that diagram, your comment attached is the assessment of a reasonable person and for that I commend you. I only hope that such a spirit of reasonable debate will carry us forward.
But we are not talking about “blimps” in the general sense. We are talking SPECIFICALLY about the GOODYEAR blimp. An advertising vehicle. For that was the ONLY blimp shown to have been operational at the time.
So, you have to ask yourself: WHAT was an advertising blimp doing in a sparsely populated area nearly 200 miles from it’s home base? WHAT evidence can you show that demonstrates a plausible reason for it to be there? I contend that it is entirely IMPLAUSIBLE for such a blimp to be anywhere near Rogue River.
Actually, it is NOT plausible because the GoodYear blimp NEEDS a hanger of substantial proportion to be housed. If you look at the GoodYear website you will see that they supply a good amount of detail about their operations and NONE of them show operations very far from their home base.
Actually, I have NEVER claimed the Rogue River sighting to be anything other than a UFO. It is nothing more, nothing less. So your assertions in this respect are just plain incorrect.
Moreover, you AGAIN misconstrue the burden of proof.
If I say “aliens did it”, then you rightly can demand I produce evidence for that assertion before you believe it might be possible.
Similarly, if you assert “blimps did it” then equally I will demand evidence to support that assertion from you before I could believe it might be possible.
You have shown no such evidence – and in fact I have presented much evidence to show that the blimp hypothesis is implausible.
A GoodYear blimp at Rogue River is a novel conclusion about the world!
Cats are mundane objects, known to be true, but I would not expect one to be on the moon!
WHERE have you demonstrated this? I HAVE demonstrated the opposite by providing evidence. Where is the evidence for your assertion?
This does not make sense…
Nobody is drawing “novel” conclusions except YOU. I repeat, a GoodYear blimp at Rogue River IS a novel conclusion.
WHAT potential answers? I have shown by presenting evidence that it is implausible for the GoodYear blimp to have been at Rogue River. You NEED to provide evidence to support you contention that “there are potential answers”. You have provided no “potential” answer other than the GoodYear blimp and that you have NO evidence for. If you have OTHER “potential” answers, then please present them with supporting evidence.
Oh dear… it is POSSIBLE for any number of objects to have been in the sky above Rogue river – including for example a B52. Do you really contend that the object WAS a B52 merely because it is POSSIBLE? It is POSSIBLE that you are insane… but do I conclude that you ARE merely because it is possible? NO, I do NOT. Because to do so is irrational in itself.
But again, YOU are the one contending “something new”, for THAT is exactly what a GoodYear blimp over Rogue River in 1949 would be…something new.
Again you misconstrue the burden of proof. If you propose a “real” explanation for the Rogue River sighting, then you MUST support your assertions with evidence.
I am merely providing evidence that NO mundane explanation “fits” the observations in the case. I am NOT saying that there is no POSSIBLE mundane explanation – just that NO mundane explanation so far fits the evidence. If you HAVE a mundane explanation that DOES fit the evidence, then please present it, along with your supporting evidence, for consideration
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
Once again, the equality you seek to establish between the aliens hypothesis and the blimps hypothesis fails.
When we say "blimps did it," we already know that blimps even exist at all.
We do not know the aliens exist all, at least not on the same level that blimps exist - not at the river, not in 1949, but at all.
That's a starting point that introduces a substantial inequality between the aliens hypothesis and the blimp hypothesis.
jer_j
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 108
This is the song that doesn't end,
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend.
Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue singing it forever just because
This is the song that doesn't end,
Yes, it goes on and on, my friend...
"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)
Moreover it has been shown that the ONLY blimps in operation that COULD have been at Rogue River were the GOODYEAR blimps.
Either you have NOT been following the debate - because I have posted the above link MANY times now - or you are simply being disingenuous in posting pictures of NAVY blimps.
NAVY blimps were NOT in operation on the West Coast after 1947!
Moreover I have presented a GREAT DEAL of evidence to show that it is absolutely implausible for the Goodyear blimp to be even a possible explanation for the Rogue River sighting...
Factual. Logical. Scientific. Simple really.
- Status