UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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

Thank you for your post Norm

I have been trying to say something very simple

I have a contention (well more than one but we will come to the second after I explain what happened to the first so that you can understand the answer to your question):

UFOs exist.
I provide what I believe to be evidence for that contention: The Rogue River case.
SOME people say… Yeah …okay …it is a UFO …so what?
OTHERS say…actually it COULD have been a blimp.
So I say well actually no, the blimp hypothesis is implausible because:
First - The NAVY ceased all blimp operations on the West coast inn 1947,
Second – all the evidence suggests that the ONLY blimp(s) flying in the area after that date (in 1949) were the GOODYEAR blimps
Third – that the eyewitness accounts UNANIMOUSLY described the object as “circular”, (the description “like a pancake” is also included and the eyewitness testimony) also the testimony puts the size at between 25-35 feet, speed of a jet plane, flat bottom… ( and so on down a long list ) and all that rules out “blimp” as the object in question.
Then people say – oh but it is still possible for it to have been a blimp… and you lie when you claim eyewitnesses state the object is circular
Of course the latter is easily disroven because it IS in the testimony that ALL said it was circular, but they just repeat the assertion anyway...
I then say…then show me the EVIDENCE that it COULD have been a blimp
They say…we do not have to provide that, the burden of proof is on you to disprove a blimp
I say… well I HAVE provided all the evidence to disprove the blimp and disprove the "lie" assetion
They say …it is still possible… and you still lie
I say show me the evidence…
They say we do not have to…

And so we are at an impasse where people like you come along and say
Ummm… I’m confused, What is your contention…?
I say: UFOs exist and Rogue River supports that contention
And so it starts all over again.

It is a senseless argument really because, in my opinion, the illogic of the debunkers is patently obvious… but because they are so heavily invested in their fallacies of “extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary evidence” and “because it is possible, therefore it IS” and “All the cats I have seen are black, therefore all cats are black” they just cannot see out of that peculiarly narrow world.


Your confusion about my contentions and intentions can be further explained as follows. In my opinion, there are some that are here merely to shut the debate down, simply repeating the same (or similar) assertions unsupported by any evidence, as a tactic to keep me justifying my position rather than dealing with the actual evidence - like the "lie" assertion (in my opinion of course). So when I or others (like Tapio or Astrophotographer or others like them) try to move to another case that IS interesting, they refuse to move on, and start posting all the old “blimp” fallacies over again, so that any possible discussion of the new case is lost in the (what is in my opinion) garbage…

I have posted my contentions a number of times in an effort to “clear the air” and begin anew, but the people I believe are simply here to be obstructionists, just keep coming back to the same old theme, refusing to move on to new and interesting cases. That is just the way I see it of course.

So: My first contention is that UFOs exist and that I believe this is supported by at least one case: Rogue River.

My second contention is that aliens exist (and NO I do NOT necessarily mean ET – and I have explained why many times in this thread).

I then post a case that I believe demonstrates that there is evidence for such a contention.

For example

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

AND
The Iranian Jet case
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/


But what happens then…? The posts start up about that damnable blimp!

You can see the tactic here of course. But then I suppose the old contention that many people have about the JREF forum …that they never let the evidence get in the way of a good story, in my experience with the forum so far …seems actually to ring startlingly true… and this to me is disappointing, because I thought this forum was devoted to debunking “woo”, which means debunking thought processes that are not logical, rational or committed to the scientific method, yet I find (in my humble opinion) precisely the opposite to be true.

I DO hope that answers you question Norm.

 

[Marduk]

UFOs exist.

unidentified things exist you say ?
wow
just like wow


Aliens don't though do they Roger

That is just the way I see it of course.

Minorities are usually minorities for a reason, can you see what the reason is yet ?

 

[Rramjet]

unidentified things exist you say ?
wow
just like wow

Umm.. of course unidentified things exist...go ask Astrophotographer... or any astronomer or physicist or chemist or biologist or ...

Aliens don't though do they Roger

Yes they do and I have posted what I believe is evidence to support that contention. Shall we debate that evidence?

Minorities are usually minorities for a reason, can you see what the reason is yet ?

So you can laugh at them and otherwise generally discriminate against them?

 

[Marduk]

Umm.. of course unidentified things exist...go ask Astrophotographer... or any astronomer or physicist or chemist or biologist or ...

everyone here has been saying ufos exist from page 1
did you miss it ?

Yes they do and I have posted what I believe is evidence to support that contention. Shall we debate that evidence?

sure, but you'd best post it again, without the rants and the CAPITALISED INDICATIONS OF MANIA

So you can laugh at them and otherwise generally discriminate against them?

because you have disagreed with everything said to you, no matter what it was or who said it, this is because you have no objectivity and everyone else here has. We have all been saying that UFO's exist right from the start, that was the point of this thread wasn't it. You have ignored that everyone has agreed with the point of your OP all the way through this. It is for this main reason that people have started to ridicule you, because you seem incapable of understanding basic english

so its like this
1. everyone here believes that there are unidentified objects
2. no one here will believe that they are aliens without evidence

perhaps its time you moved on from 1 and concentrated on 2
obviously though thats going to be pretty pointless as if there was any solid evidence for Aliens we would already have heard it on the news

btw you should know, anecdotal evidence is not going to prove anything. Its not evidence of a high enough standard. I could claim for instance that God told me that there are no Aliens. To disprove that statement you would have to first prove that God exists and then prove that he's wrong, because without real evidence to the contrary youd have no chance of proving that I lied about it, I could just as easily be deluded, and so could all your UFO eyewitnesses
see how thats not going to work out on an internet forum ?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

see how thats not going to work out on an internet forum ?

We can only hope. Past performance is not indicative of future results, as the stockbrokers love to say when they lose your money, so we can still hope...

A

 

[Jocce]

the blimp hypothesis is implausible because:
First - The NAVY ceased all blimp operations on the West coast inn 1947,
Second – all the evidence suggests that the ONLY blimp(s) flying in the area after that date (in 1949) were the GOODYEAR blimps
Third – that the eyewitness accounts UNANIMOUSLY described the object as “circular”, (the description “like a pancake” is also included and the eyewitness testimony) also the testimony puts the size at between 25-35 feet, speed of a jet plane, flat bottom… ( and so on down a long list ) and all that rules out “blimp” as the object in question.

Second - has not been shown

Third - Another lie. C-47 doesnt have the speed of a jet plane. Not all witnesses say it's circular. Go read the witness statements and you see for yourself.

It is a senseless argument really because, in my opinion, the illogic of the debunkers is patently obvious.

It's patentely obvious that a mundane explanation like a blimp can not be ruled out on the basis of available data.

 

[EHocking]

...
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.

Note bolding. You stated that I post falsehoods(=lies). It is clear you calling me a liar and I don't appreciate it. Show some cajones and retract the statement.

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.

Since we're pursuing this, I believe I have supplied enough information that you can confirm for yourself that the FOV (angle and linear width) representations I have given for each of the distances are correct and indeed accurate and the relative sizes of objects displayed are realistic.

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.

Not quite accurate, vis;

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2002/nd02/lighter.pdf.

During WW II, lighter-than-air (LTA) craft were key components in the war against the German U-boat, flying critical convoy escort and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) patrol missions. After war’s end, blimps continued to serve in ASW and other roles, and in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ZP-651 was based at NAS Akron,Ohio; ZPs 751, 752 and 753 at NAS Lakehurst,N.J.; ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.; ZP-911 at NAS Squantum, Mass.; and ZPs 951 and 952 atMCAF Santa Ana, Calif.

So we see that from 1949 until the 60s, 3 LTA squadrons were operative in the region. Yes, a few hundreds of miles away, but remember that the LTAs had a range or thousands of miles.

On the basis of this information, we CANNOT rule out blimp sightings.

I contend that it is entirely IMPLAUSIBLE for such a blimp to be anywhere near Rogue River.

I believe that the information given above refutes that contention. It is not only plausible it is PROBABLE that blimps were operating along the Oregon/California coast.

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.

See above for evidence of blimp operations in the area from 1949 to the 1960s.

 

[Belz...]

But the point is you do NOT know that blimps exist at Rogue River at all

Ramjet, that is IRRELEVANT. The point is that "blimp" is a mundane explanation and "aliens" is not, making blimps (and many other mundane explanations for this observation) automatically more probable. No one here is saying that it's a shut case.

You however have provided NO plausible evidence to show that blimps might even have possibly been at Rogue River.

Other than the hangars and the fact that the craft looked like a blimp ?

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.

I think you're having trouble following, here. What makes the eyewitnesses for THIS case more compelling than those of OTHER cases where eyewitnesses are shown to have misinterpreted what they saw ?

You however have provided NO evidence that would allow any reasonable person to conclude that my assertions in this matter are incorrect.

I think you should read up on burden of proof. So far your understanding of it is fragmentary, at best.

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.

Ram, this is dishonest. "UFO" means it's uniditified "for now". I told you this already. Everybody here AGREES that it's unidentified. And no matter how much you want to, it won't be identified in this thread. So it will remain a UFO well after we've all left here. But if you're actually interested in knowing the probable identifications for the observation, it's clear that you favor an alien or otherwise mystical explanation. I don't.

 

[Belz...]

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

Ram, you have no idea what those rules ARE.

All hypotheses ARE equal!

No, they are not. That is your fundamental mistake in this thread.

 

[BlackKat]

...
My second contention is that aliens exist (and NO I do NOT necessarily mean ET – and I have explained why many times in this thread).

I then post a case that I believe demonstrates that there is evidence for such a contention.

For example

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

...

This one was already thoroughly addressed with the following quotes from the links you provided:
"Nothing was found,"
"Nothing was found"

So again we have a tall tale from some rednecks in the hills with nothing whatsoever to back it up.
Stories without physical evidence are even more worthless than worthless.
Especially when the story tellers are backwoods rubes who used to work for a carnival.

If you want to sway one of us to your point of view please provide a craft or piece of, or alien (dead or alive).
If you can not come up with physical evidence, feel free to keep subjecting yourself to us for abuse and our entertainment. But without such physical evidence you're just barking at the moon.

 

[LTC8K6]

All hypotheses ARE equal!

Then why be so bitter over the blimp idea?

 

[GeeMack]

Okay, just to make sure we've all caught up to the same place here...

We all agree that the exact identity of the sighting at Rogue River is unknown, but that clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanations, including that it may have been a blimp, have been shown to be possible, even very likely.

And we all agree that nobody has asserted that the Rogue River sighting was a blimp.

And we all agree that Rramjet hasn't provided any compelling evidence to support his contention that it could not have been a blimp, nor has he offered any compelling evidence that it was anything else in particular.

And we all agree that all hypotheses are not equal.

Everyone good with that so far?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So..... root beer time?

 

[makaya325]

unidentified things exist you say ?
wow
just like wow

That is not an extraordinary claim Mar. People see things they can not identify all of the time.

Aliens don't though do they Roger

In our universe? Yes
On earth? unlikely, but not impossible

 

[Astrophotographer]

I say: UFOs exist and Rogue River supports that contention
And so it starts all over again.

Gee, only one case proves that things are unidentified? What about all the other Bluebook unknowns? They also prove that "unidentifieds" exist. Again, nobody has ever stated in this forum that UFOs don't exist. It is your twisted definition of what a UFO is that is confusing everyone. I suggest you refrain from using the statement "UFOs exist" and state what you really want to say. If I read your statements correctly it would read something like this, "There are some UFO reports that are so exotic they can not be explained by mundane sources." or you can call them "exotic UFO reports". However, just repeating that "UFOs exist" is just dumb because nobody is disagreeing with this.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, just to make sure we've all caught up to the same place here...

We all agree that the exact identity of the sighting at Rogue River is unknown, but that clearly plausible, perfectly mundane explanations, including that it may have been a blimp, have been shown to be possible, even very likely.

And we all agree that nobody has asserted that the Rogue River sighting was a blimp.

And we all agree that Rramjet hasn't provided any compelling evidence to support his contention that it could not have been a blimp, nor has he offered any compelling evidence that it was anything else in particular.

And we all agree that all hypotheses are not equal.

Everyone good with that so far?

So long as "all" and "everyone" excludes Ramjet, sure.

 

[Marduk]

That is not an extraordinary claim Mar. People see things they can not identify all of the time.

yes I see what you mean, just for a minute there I must have come over all ignorant, perhaps I am emulating someone

In our universe? Yes
On earth? unlikely, but not impossible

apart from the behaviour of some celebrities, what evidence is there that theyve ever been here. Put yourself in their shoes, with the whole universe to choose from, why would you come to this backwater. Theres probably some signs the other side of the Kuiper belt "danger human ignorance ahead"

 

[Rramjet]

Note bolding. You stated that I post falsehoods(=lies). It is clear you calling me a liar and I don't appreciate it. Show some cajones and retract the statement.Since we're pursuing this, I believe I have supplied enough information that you can confirm for yourself that the FOV (angle and linear width) representations I have given for each of the distances are correct and indeed accurate and the relative sizes of objects displayed are realistic.Not quite accurate, vis;

During WW II, lighter-than-air (LTA) craft were key components in the war against the German U-boat, flying critical convoy escort and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) patrol missions. After war’s end, blimps continued to serve in ASW and other roles, and in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ZP-651 was based at NAS Akron,Ohio; ZPs 751, 752 and 753 at NAS Lakehurst,N.J.; ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.; ZP-911 at NAS Squantum, Mass.; and ZPs 951 and 952 atMCAF Santa Ana, Calif.

So we see that from 1949 until the 60s, 3 LTA squadrons were operative in the region. Yes, a few hundreds of miles away, but remember that the LTAs had a range or thousands of miles.

On the basis of this information, we CANNOT rule out blimp sightings.I believe that the information given above refutes that contention. It is not only plausible it is PROBABLE that blimps were operating along the Oregon/California coast. See above for evidence of blimp operations in the area from 1949 to the 1960s.

Now THAT's what I am talking about! Evidence. Well done, this is all I have ever asked for, evidence to support your contentions. I commend you for it and appreciate you posting it. Thank you!

Now, in the spirit of a rational debate, I then counter THAT evidence with the following notes, links and comments:

I am a little confused however. The following detailed history seems to show that actually your statement is not accurate – perhaps merely a brief summary where the writer “skimmed over” or “lost” the accurate details in order to enable a short, comprehensive paragraph to be written.

From exactly the same article, further down we have:

"The reduction in LTA following the war left ZP-12 at NAS Lakehurst and ZP-31 at NAS Santa Ana as the only active squadrons. A detachment of ZP-31 continued at NAS Moffett Field. On November 15, 1946, ZP-12 was redesignated ZP-2 and ZP-31 became ZP-1. In the summer of 1947, ZP-1 made a home port and fleet change from NAS Santa Ana in the Pacific Fleet to NAS Weeksville in the Atlantic. The change was due to the reduction of NAS Santa Ana to a maintenance status and the elimination of the ZP overhaul mission at NAS Moffett Field." (http://www.history.navy.mil/download/lta-09.pdf)​

Now this indicates that the Santa Ana blimps were relocated to NAS Weekville in 1947. Two years before Rogue River.

More, we have from a book: “Oakland Aviation” By Ronald T. Reuther, William T. Larkins

“Navy Reserve Squadron ZP-871 (Lighter than air) flew one after the war at Oakland from 1952 to 1958 (Note: this is a reference to the GoodYear type blimp). (This photograph shows…) It was used as a slow, low-flying billboard, with the words “JOIN THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE, BE A NAVAL AVIATION CADET” on the side."(http://books.google.com.au/books?id...resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false)​

So there was ONLY ONE blimp at Oakland - and it was used solely as an advertising blimp over the city, between 1952 – 1958!

Add that to my original source: "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 I think we can conclude that perhaps there WERE no blimps, apart from a “possible” GOODYEAR blimp - but even accepting the GOODYEAR blimp WAS active we must also account for 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 maintain, on the evidence, the "blimp" hypothesis to be IMPLAUSIBLE.

Now, I was NOT calling you a liar. I AM sorry you took it that way. I was merely saying that you were factually incorrect - that your assertion was false - and if you continued posting such falsehoods I would ignore you. Perhaps I should have used "false statements" instead of "falsehoods" but I repeat: it was NOT my intention to call you a liar - if that HAD been my intention - I would have called you a liar - as others have done to me... but I don't believe in such tactics. Seriously.

The only thing I WILL say about the FOV diagram you posted - apart from the fact that I think it WAS a rational, honest attempt to post real investigative evidence - is that I AM allowed to say I remain skeptical while acknowledging your work as above. This does NOT mean I disbelieve you outright, just that, as I stated, I am no expert and thus have no way of verifying your work as accurate.

 

[Correa Neto]

I say the "Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter" is evidence for Gremlins and not for aliens.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Tapio]

Everyone good with that so far?

Bueno.