UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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.

ANY hypothesis MUST have supporting evidence to make it plausible. This is such an obvious truth that to contend against it is simply not rational.

All hypotheses are equal: they can either be supported by the evidence, or they are not supported by the evidence. There is NO "in between" position. It really is that simple and I boggle at your powers of rational thought if you cannot understand such a simple and obvious truth.

I have NEVER contended an "alien" explanation for Rogue River.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have NEVER contended an "alien" explanation for Rogue River.

If you don't think it was a spacecraft, then there doesn't seem to be much reason to discuss the incident...

 

[Stray Cat]

"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.

No it hasn't and
No you haven't

You are perhaps getting the word 'operations' confused with the term 'in operation'.
As the 2 Navy Blimp units were eventually relocated to Lakenhurst in March 1949 and the Goodyear Blimp was constantly on tour from 1947 (to present day... with newer versions of blimp obviously), The Goodyear blimp was moored at Tillamook (as stated on the Tillamook history website) and Goodyear had enough contracts with the US Navy to be in good enough position to utilise their Blimp bases (at Tillamook, Santa Ana and Moffett Field).
Meanwhile a steady development of Blimp technology continued into the Korean War with Blimps being fitted out for ASW combat readiness (Anti Submarine Warfare) on the East Coast, though mention of the Tillamook base being used for blimp developments/balloon launching to the present day suggest that although clearly stated "West Coast Operations" ceased, they were specifically the operations to guard against Japanese Submarines during WWII and until the bases at Santa Ana, Tillamook and Moffett were decommissioned could well have been utilised by the Navy and Goodyear who were given the contract to build the Blimps for various blimp developments and training exercises.

But back now to the Goodyear blimp... shown to be well within the range of Rogue River, if not on that exact date, at least at the general time period, it can be shown that the Blimp was operational along the West Coast Area.
It has been shown that the shape (as drawn by the witness) resembles a blimp. It's altitude is roughly that of a Blimp, a Blimp at that altitude at that distance would not seem to make noise to people on a riverboat. It's shiny metallic surface would reflect the clear sun further distorting it's shape, which could (as demonstrated by EHocking) only just be seen as a small dot in the binoculars (that only two of the 5 witnesses had access to).

Which only leaves the witness statements "speed of a jet plane" to point toward anything other than a Blimp... So Rramjet, all you have to do is PROVE that the witnesses are 100% accurate with this claim and you may be onto something. But as speed and size are regularly not reliably reported by eye witnesses... I think you're going to struggle...

Remembering of course that it only has to remain a possibility that blimp is ONE of the possibilities. No further proof is required.

 

[Marduk]

"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.

you havent provided any evidence at all
I am thinking you are delusional
this seems to be something you have in common with KOTA
and also the reason that no one here puts any credibility in your posts at all
if only you could see it we might be getting somewhere
but alas, thats never going to happen is it
youre too far into never never land

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

Moreover it has been shown that the ONLY blimps in operation that COULD have been at Rogue River were the GOODYEAR blimps.

I haven't read anything in this discussion which would rule out the presence of other privately operated blimps in the area's skies.

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...

Cats are mundane objects, known to be true, but I would not expect one to be on the moon!

No matter how you want to spin it, the implausibility of a Goodyear blimp having been in Gold Beach on the day of the report is not the same as that of a cat on the Moon.

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.

Goodyear's "Volunteer" blimp was based in Los Angeles (http://www.goodyearblimp.com/archive/h_lindy.html), yet there are records of it having taken pictures in Salem, Oregon (http://photos.salemhistory.net/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/max&CISOPTR=5331&CISOBOX=1&REC=14).

We also can't rule out there having been other private blimps having nothing to do with Goodyear in the area, and you still haven't conclusively shown that there aren't more places from where blimps can launch we haven't yet considered.

 

[Marduk]

We also can't rule out there having been other private blimps having nothing to do with Goodyear in the area, and you still haven't conclusively shown that there aren't more places from where blimps can launch we haven't yet considered.

well the big clue there is that they were used by the Navy for ASW, they werent thinking of launching them from the beach yanno


how far is the rogue river sighting from the sea ?

An employee in the supersonic laboratory of an aeronautical laboratory and some other employees of this lab, were by a river, 2-1/2 miles from its mouth

ooh wheres the mouth

The Rogue River in the southwestern part of the U.S. state of Oregon flows about 215 miles (346 km) from the Cascade Range to the Pacific Ocean.

ok so anyone know, is the pacific ocean capable of supporting naval vessels
hehe

 

[Rramjet]

A final word on the blimp and then: Move on!

Look, until you people learn how to abide by the rules of a rational debate, then we are going to get absolutely nowhere.

Simply posting over and over unfounded assertions:

Such as Stray_Cat’s

“Goodyear had enough contracts with the US Navy to be in good enough position to utilise their Blimp bases (at Tillamook, Santa Ana and Moffett Field).”​

AND

“although clearly stated "West Coast Operations" ceased, they were specifically the operations to guard against Japanese Submarines during WWII and until the bases at Santa Ana, Tillamook and Moffett were decommissioned could well have been utilised by the Navy”​

AND

“But back now to the Goodyear blimp... (…) it can be shown that the Blimp was operational along the West Coast Area.”​

AND

similarly with BaldyHeadedMan’s (repeated) linking to: ((http://photos.salemhistory.net/cdm4/...SOBOX=1&REC=14)​

while contending this shows that a GoodYear blimp could have been in the Rogue River area when it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out that Salem is nearly 200 miles from Rogue River and that there would be NO rational reason for such a blimp to be anywhere near Rogue River…even if it WAS equipped for such a journey – for which again, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence.

And so on... - is merely being obstructionist while preaching to the choir.

I you MAKE such statements I expect them to be supported by the evidence. For example, whenever I make such statements I provide a link to a website and quote the relevant passage to support my assertion. I EXPECT no less from you… but you simply REFUSE to do that…and THAT, if repeated over and over in the face of calls to present your evidence is merely (IMO) being OBSTRUCTIONIST.

So UNLESS ANYONE has actual EVIDENCE to support their assertions, then their assertions simply amount to nothing at all – and even pointing out that it is POSSIBLE for a blimp to have been at Rogue River does not help your case, because it is POSSIBLE for V2 rockets, B52s, any number of things to have been there also, but it does NOT make it a rational proposition merely to state that it is possible. It has to be plausible.

So that’s it. Provide the EVIDENCE for your assertions, or move on. There are plenty of people who might want to discuss other interesting cases even if you do not.

 

[LTC8K6]

because it is POSSIBLE for V2 rockets, B52s

No, not those two. I personally rule those two out.

B52 did not exist, V2 can't fly such a profile.

 

[Paul2]

All hypotheses are equal:

The hypothesis that I am Paul and the hypothesis that I am the Queen of England are not equal. Q.E.D.

It really is that simple and I boggle at your powers of rational thought if you cannot understand such a simple and obvious truth..

Right back at'cha.

 

[Paul2]

That idea that all hypothesis are equal assumes some sort of hyper-rationality that doesn't exist in the real world. Taken to it's ultimate position, it is the idea that we would have to prove *any* and *every* hypothesis from scratch, ultimately without admitting a single prior piece of knowledge (which is an impossibility, actually). Once any single piece of prior knowledge is admitted ("A=A;" "The Queen of England is extremely unlikely to be the real identity of Paul2 who is writing this post;" etc.), some hypotheses become more likely (note: but are not proven) from the get-go.

There is clearly a tension between rejecting a extraordinary hypothesis because it goes against prior knowledge and being open to an extraordinary claim, but that doesn't mean that all hypothesis are equal. It merely means that we must handle that tension intelligently, which includes acknowledging our prior established knowledge as well as remaining open to new hypotheses.

 

[Marduk]

There are plenty of people who might want to discuss other interesting cases even if you do not.

bare assertion and a little deluded if you dont mind me saying so, if you havent realised that no ones interested in discussing aliens with you yet, then you never will. This is not a UFO site full of cranks, but a sceptic site full of people who require real evidence and who recognise a flim flam merchant when they see one

 

[Jocce]

I contend Rogue River represents a UFO and that supports my contention that UFOs exist. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And we all agree. Everyone here knows that not all flying things can be identified.

while I remain skeptical as to the veracity of the size of the images represented in that diagram

For crying out loud, you can verify the calculations yourself.

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.

Noone has shown that this is the ONLY blimp that could have been in the area at the time. Furthermore, noone has shown that it would be impossible for witnesses to miss that it was the goodyear blimp they saw. It's painfully obvious that you have no practical experience of using binoculars or even trying to identify things in the distance. I'm a birdwatcher since 30+ years and I've seen people making a snowy owl out of a plastic bag, a falcon out of the Concord and actually, a Goodyear airship into a soaring eagle. Human perception is fallable, binoculars of the time had crappy quality, deal with it.

Similarly, if you assert "blimps did it"

Again, noone is asserting that. The possibility that it was a blimp remains and has been shown.

Oh dear it is POSSIBLE for any number of objects to have been in the sky above Rogue river including for example a B52

Finally! I never thought you would admit that. Then we can move on.

For example, whenever I make such statements I provide a link to a website and quote the relevant passage to support my assertion.

And yet you try to lie and say all witnesses described it as circular, having the same speed etc.

 

[Rramjet]

That idea that all hypothesis are equal assumes some sort of hyper-rationality that doesn't exist in the real world. Taken to it's ultimate position, it is the idea that we would have to prove *any* and *every* hypothesis from scratch, ultimately without admitting a single prior piece of knowledge (which is an impossibility, actually). Once any single piece of prior knowledge is admitted ("A=A;" "The Queen of England is extremely unlikely to be the real identity of Paul2 who is writing this post;" etc.), some hypotheses become more likely (note: but are not proven) from the get-go.

There is clearly a tension between rejecting a extraordinary hypothesis because it goes against prior knowledge and being open to an extraordinary claim, but that doesn't mean that all hypothesis are equal. It merely means that we must handle that tension intelligently, which includes acknowledging our prior established knowledge as well as remaining open to new hypotheses.

All hypotheses ARE equal!

To pretend otherwise is to admit to being illogical, antirational and antiscientific.

Here’s why.

One person’s “extraordinary hypothesis” is another person’s “banal idea”. Who is to be the ultimate arbiter in such a dispute? No, of course science does not operate, in principle on such value judgements – it cannot – it would quickly descend into a chaos of claim and counter-claim with no end in sight. No, ALL that is required is that ANY hypothesis put forward by ANY person, which is supposed as an explanation for something, MUST be supported by the evidence. Full stop.

If it is not supported, then it falls, if it is supported, then it stands… while ALWAYS realising the possibility of a circumstance arising that would negate it –even if EVERY single observation that has come before has seemed to support it. The history of science is littered with examples beginning with the relationship of the earth to the cosmos, to the structure of matter, to the nature of the “ether” .., just about EVERY branch of science has progressed through hypotheses that have seen to be supported by observations but ultimately have failed when a counter example is observed.

It really IS that simple and for me to have to repeat this “lesson” in the nature of science over and over simply means that people are not willing to realise the hard learned lessons of history.

 

[Rramjet]

bare assertion and a little deluded if you dont mind me saying so, if you havent realised that no ones interested in discussing aliens with you yet, then you never will. This is not a UFO site full of cranks, but a sceptic site full of people who require real evidence and who recognise a flim flam merchant when they see one

If evidence is what is required, THEN SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE that supports your assertions.

 

[Rramjet]

The hypothesis that I am Paul and the hypothesis that I am the Queen of England are not equal. Q.E.D.
Right back at'cha.

The two ARE equal! You have evidence that you are Paul...you do not have evidence that you are the Queen...THAT is the ONLY difference between the two hypotheses.

 

[Marduk]

If evidence is what is required, THEN SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE that supports your assertions.

these will be the assertions that you are making Roger, youre the one here who needs some evidence
pity you havent managed to provide any yet

 

[Marduk]

The two ARE equal! You have evidence that you are Paul...you do not have evidence that you are the Queen...THAT is the ONLY difference between the two hypotheses.

whos using the family brain cell this week ?
one hypothesis is stronger than the other as one is supported and the other easily disproven, so they arent equal are they
I am starting to see why youve been banned from most of the forums youve posted at.

 

[fromdownunder]

Rramjet, I am a bit confused as to what you are trying to achieve with the Rogue River UFO. AFAIK, nobody has said it IS a blimp, just that it might be a blimp, so asking for evidence of a "might be" seems rather pointless. Also I do believe that everybody has said it may be a UFO, or it may be something else, which is fine by me.

So, are you trying to say it is a UFO, which everybody appears to agree with, without even qualifying what "sort of" a UFO it is? I am afraid that the point of your contention is getting a bit lost:

1. Rogue River is a UFO
2. Yes, it is, or may be.
3. Therefore ........

Please fill in No. 3.

If you cannot, then what exactly are you trying to say? I think that this is the most frustrating thing about this thread. Please give us the point if you have one.

Norm

 

[Ferguson]

Rramjet
Please fill in No. 3.

If you cannot, then what exactly are you trying to say? I think that this is the most frustrating thing about this thread. Please give us the point if you have one.

Norm

To me the whole thread reads like an I.D. thread, i.e.:

1- "I'm agnostic but, evolution is a lie, life and the universe were specially created by an intelligence."
2- "Do you have any evidence?"
1- "I don't need evidence! I didn't mention God! Where's your evidence it was created by something other than an intelligence?"

In other words, he's arguing it's aliens, while feigning agnosticism and "true skeptic"ism. So he's not saying it is aliens, he's just saying it's not not aliens.

 

[AWPrime]

Look, until you people learn how to abide by the rules of a rational debate, then we are going to get absolutely nowhere.

You should be saying this in front of a mirror.

So UNLESS ANYONE has actual EVIDENCE to support their assertions, then their assertions simply amount to nothing at all – and even pointing out that it is POSSIBLE for a blimp to have been at Rogue River does not help your case, because it is POSSIBLE for V2 rockets, B52s, any number of things to have been there also, but it does NOT make it a rational proposition merely to state that it is possible. It has to be plausible.

The irony it burns...