UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[TjW]

Rramjet:

A blimp or airship's profile is essentially elliptical in shape. A flat, circular object, viewed at an angle, also has an elliptical shape (you can try this with a coin, if you like). Given only an elliptical shape, it could be interpreted as a blimp's profile, or a flat circular object, viewed at an angle.
This would actually explain why one account describes a flat circular craft, while the drawings are of a blimp-shaped thing.

 

[Rramjet]

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.

I contend, as I have ALWAYS contended that UFO means exactly and precisely "Unidentified Flying Object, nothing more nothing less.

My purpose in presenting the Rogue River case was to show that there exist GOOD cases that support that contention. NOT "prove" it, just support it. Of course there are hundreds of Blue Book cases that might achieve the same end, but as there seemed to be a pretty comprehensive analysis of the Rogue River case that INCLUDED ALL the sworn eyewitness testimony - something we mere mortals cannot get from the list of Blue Book unknowns - I thought it would at least be an interesting case we could discuss and debate rationally.

Moreover, BECAUSE it was unknown and NOT "Unknown merely because we cannot think of a mundane explanation at this point in time" - if you like (and you don't and neither do I but when the need for a distinction arises what choice do I have?) a TRUE UFO - or - there is NO mundane explanation we can think of or find evidence for that plausibly fits the facts in the case.

THIS does NOT mean it is exotic. "Exotic" would entail an hypothesis about WHAT it does represent and on the evidence presented in that case, I could NOT hypothesise rationally about anything further. I can ONLY assert that it is a UFO. Full stop.

NOW... my NEXT contention is that "aliens exist". The case I present (leaving aside Hopkinsville for a moment - I will come back to that) is the Iranian UFO case - which I believe shows a craft under intelligent control and by INFERENCE "aliens". I KNOW that conclusion does NOT necessarily follow, however, it represents an "in between" step in the chain of evidence from UFO to "alien" and I am TRYING to present my argument in small increments to avoid outright, outraged, denial BEFORE any evidence I present is examined.

SO...

The Iranian UFO then.... WHAT do you make of the case?

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

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Like sarcasm, perhaps?

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

Well said, Dude.

<snippy>


Apart from the behaviour of some celebrities, what evidence is there that they've 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"

But I read in an encyclopedia somewhere that Earth was "mostly harmless".

 

[TjW]

SO...

The Iranian UFO then.... WHAT do you make of the case?

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

I'm more interested in what YOU think of it. If I were a cynical sort, I'd say you were just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
You clearly hadn't carefully read the links regarding the Las Lomas footage.
So enough about us. What is compelling about this to YOU?

 

[Rramjet]

I'm more interested in what YOU think of it. If I were a cynical sort, I'd say you were just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
You clearly hadn't carefully read the links regarding the Las Lomas footage.
So enough about us. What is compelling about this to YOU?

Good question.

What I find compelling is,
First: that the case is well documented (ie: it was not merely "a figment of someone's imagination")
Second: it has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO and THEN being chased by the UFO!
Third: The object itself is ENTIRELY "weird" (unlike ANYTHING that could be labelled a "blimp" and it exhibited aspects that could NOT be explained as anything like a possible secret US weapons system or program etc...
Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as multiple witnesses (not to mention the pilots)
Fifth: the UFO(s) was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)
Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing)

So these are some of the primary aspects of the case I find compelling.

Oh and if I missed Las Lomas, then I apologise...I DO try to read every post and look at the evidence presented... perhaps you would like to repost the link, but PLEASE if it is about "blimps" I no longer want to know!

 

[Tapio]

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)

Hi Rramjet. First thing I did after coming home I read through the above links, with thouht and due consideration. I must say I'm not impressed (not that it means anything). But to consider The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter as evidence for anything else than people experiencing something that frightened them...well, I think calling it far fetched is quite a moderate way of putting it.

I'm not one to start pondering on what it might have actually been (even including aliens), but the stories in the links can not be counted as evidence for any hypothesis. Maybe a biologist could help in giving a hypothesis of what natural phenomena could have occured back then. But to conclude it was of 'alien' origin is, to me, the opposite of being skeptical.

And yet, the article ends in:

Did "creatures" really visit the farmhouse in Kentucky on that night of August 21, 1955? Or did the many witnesses, mostly adults, excite themselves to the point of exaggerating some lesser stimulus? The Kelly/Hopkinsville case still stands as one of the more provocative CE III events to date.

Sorry, but...


ETA: Maybe I should add that as a child of a great big congregation of charismatic Christians, I've grown up sucking on stories of odd things and miracles with way more wheight evidence-wise than this Hopkinsville case...so it will take a lot more than stories to make me even entertain the idea of alien visitors (UFO's are a totally different case).

 

[Rramjet]

Hi Rramjet. First thing I did after coming home I read through the above links, with thouht and due consideration. I must say I'm not impressed (not that it means anything). But to consider The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter as evidence for anything else than people experiencing something that frightened them...well, I think calling it far fetched is quite a moderate way of putting it.

I'm not one to start pondering on what it might have actually been (even including aliens), but the stories in the links can not be counted as evidence for any hypothesis. Maybe a biologist could help in giving a hypothesis of what natural phenomena could have occured back then. But to conclude it was of 'alien' origin is, to me, the opposite of being skeptical.

And yet, the article ends in:



Sorry, but...


ETA: Maybe I should add that as a child of a great big congregation of charismatic Christians, I've grown up sucking on stories of odd things and miracles with way more wheight evidence-wise than this Hopkinsville case...so it will take a lot more than stories to make me even entertain the idea of alien visitors (UFO's are a totally different case).

Hi Tapio - I appreciate you position, as always (well...MOSTLY always

Actually my position is that such cases do not prove anything, they merely add weight to my contention that "aliens" exist. HOWEVER, they only do that insofar as you believe that the events occurred as the witnesses described them as occurring. THAT is where the debate lies in such a case. SOMETHING frightened them and I find the "owl" hypothesis implausible... so WHAT frightened them? How DO we explain such a case?

I find myself in a difficult position of knowing whether to concentrate on Hopkinsville or the Iranian thing. Doing both I think would confuse the thread a little too much, given the precedent of just one Rogue River case! I would actually like to do the Iranian case first ..and return to the Hopkinsville case after that. But since I DID raise the case and you have investigated it, I will give you the chance to request I do it the other way around... or in fact maybe we do "cover" both...What do you think?

Anyway, I will discuss cases further, but it is 2:50 am here and I just gotta get some sleep...

 

[EHocking]

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.<snip>

I read them all and only posted the relevant parts.

What is confusing you is that at the end of the war the NAVY squadrons were disestablished. What we then formed were 8 NEW NAVY RESERVE squadrons. 3 of these operated from 1949 to the 60s.

They are separate entities.

The active navy squadrons were disestablished in 1947 or so and their craft were transferred to the NEW reserve squadrons.

I don't think I need to restate links, as you seem to have read them.

And I think we can conclude that perhaps there WERE no blimps, apart from a “possible” GOODYEAR blimp

No. There were 8 Naval Air Reserve squadrons created in 1949 that continued LTA operations until the 60s. 3 of these were on the west coast.

<snip>I therefore maintain, on the evidence, the "blimp" hypothesis to be IMPLAUSIBLE.

There is sufficient evidence that blimps were still working in the area - so still plausible.

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.

Since non of my statemets WERE false, you incorrectly accussed me of posting falsehoods (lies) and declared if I continued to lie, you'd ignore me.

Flat out accusation of lying, non-apology not accepted.

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.[/quote]Just because you cannot to the maths does NOT invalidate mine. It is a simple matter of trigonometry. Below is a plan view of the FOV, giving 3 distances and the three comparitive objects all of diameter 30ft.

This will show that the % of the field of view in my previous diagrams are accurate.

You can doubt as much as you like if it supports you beliefs, but to remain sceptical of this evidence is unsupportable.

Note that you cannot directly measure the FOV angle as the vertical and horizontal axes are not the same, but given the figures previously and basic trig, anyone can verify my calculations.

 

[Belz...]

I contend, as I have ALWAYS contended that UFO means exactly and precisely "Unidentified Flying Object, nothing more nothing less.

My purpose in presenting the Rogue River case was to show that there exist GOOD cases that support that contention.

It's a truism, then. What the hell are you trying to achieve, since everybody already agrees ?

Moreover, BECAUSE it was unknown and NOT "Unknown merely because we cannot think of a mundane explanation at this point in time" - if you like (and you don't and neither do I but when the need for a distinction arises what choice do I have?) a TRUE UFO - or - there is NO mundane explanation we can think of or find evidence for that plausibly fits the facts in the case.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I contend, as I have ALWAYS contended that UFO means exactly and precisely "Unidentified Flying Object, nothing more nothing less.

Then we all can agree that a UFO is simply an "unidentified object" the witness can not identify. It means nothing more and nothing less. Finally, we have closure on this. Now, perhaps you can explain why the Rogue River case is an excellent example of a UFO while other cases (like Zond IV) are not?

In both cases, the witnesses saw something they could not identify. Therefore, they are both UFO reports. What makes the Rogue River case better than Zond IV?

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

AND

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

You suggested Goodyear blimps never go far from their bases. I gave you evidence of a Goodyear blimp that was based in Los Angeles flying over Salem, Oregon, a location 793 miles away from Los Angeles (http://www.convertunits.com/distance/from/Los+Angeles,+CA/to/Salem,+OR).

 

[Paul2]

Perhaps the disagreement about hypotheses being equal or not rests on this: Before one has a single thought, literally, I guess you could say that all hypotheses are equal (again, in some hyper-rational, abstract sense).

But the sense in which they are not equal, in a more practical sense, and the sense that I meant, is that, for instance, the hypothesis that I am the Queen of England has a lot against it without anyone moving from where they are one millimeter. Immediately, all sorts of background evidence comes into play that argues strongly against this hypothesis.

This is what happens with extraordinary claims. There is a weight of (background or already established) evidence that argues against the claim, which is why one needs even more evidence than that great weight of already existing evidence to overturn it.

 

[apathoid]

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

In 1976, there were a number of very fast airplanes capable of jamming and electronic warfare. The SR-71, MiG-25 and Mig-31 all were faster than the F-4s, flew higher and were capable jamming and other electronic countermeasures.

I'll continue reading though...

 

[jer_j]

Perhaps the disagreement about hypotheses being equal or not rests on this: Before one has a single thought, literally, I guess you could say that all hypotheses are equal (again, in some hyper-rational, abstract sense).

But the sense in which they are not equal ... the hypothesis that I am the Queen of England has a lot against it without anyone moving from where they are one millimeter. Immediately, all sorts of background evidence comes into play that argues strongly against this hypothesis.

This is what happens with extraordinary claims. There is a weight of (background or already established) evidence that argues against the claim, which is why one needs even more evidence than that great weight of already existing evidence to overturn it.

If I can nail down one pivotal point that this argument keeps getting hung up on, that is it. Unfortunately, our "trained, published scientist" can't seem to comprehend it - and that's why this entire discussion will get nowhere (that and persistent distractions that make it feel suspiciously like someone's just yanking our chain).

 

[Jocce]

the witness' sworn testimony, CONSISTENT between themselves,

You are lying and I will show a couple of examples here (Source: http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm):

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

From mr B’s record of interview
"Object appeared round and shiny, something like a 50-cent piece, viewed from below and to one side."

Question: How does a 50-cent piece look, viewed from below and to one side? Is the outline against the background circular or oval?

UFO: Speed of a jet plane (how fast does the Goodyear blimp go again?)

From Mrs A’s record of interview:
"It appeared to be travelling at the same rate of speed as a C-47"

Question: Is the C-47 a fast jet plane?

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

BLIMP: Bottom and horizontal fins (UFO: None)

From Mr B’s record of interview:
"There were no protuberances other than a slight fin which seemed to start amidship and come back flush with the trailing edge"

Question: Why doesn't that fin count as a fin all of a sudden?

So, I have to ask. Why are you lying about these things that are so easy to verify?

 

[apathoid]

So, I have to ask. Why are you lying about these things that are so easy to verify?

How else would one try to bolster a very weak case?

I pointed out about 10 pages ago that the two sets of eyewitness accounts are inconsistent in nearly every major aspect. Rramjet said the second account was merely paraphrased and shouldn't be taken literally(as if summarizing the account would change the size, speed and distance estimates ),then told us we aren't allowed to point out inconsistencies if the accounts are unreliable.

Now he's saying there are no inconsistencies? One step closer to my ignore list...

 

[calebprime]

I, for one, curtsy or bow down or kneel or whatever in the presence of our new Queen, Paul2.

Your majesty, you are wise, beneficent and handsome.

 

[Correa Neto]

In 1976, there were a number of very fast airplanes capable of jamming and electronic warfare. The SR-71, MiG-25 and Mig-31 all were faster than the F-4s, flew higher and were capable jamming and other electronic countermeasures.

I'll continue reading though...

Not to mention the reccon drones.

 

[Paul2]

I, for one, curtsy or bow down or kneel or whatever in the presence of our new Queen, Paul2.

I accept the throne as your queen. I shall be known formally as "Queen Paul2 the First."

Your majesty, you are wise, beneficent and handsome.

You forgot "forgetful."

 

[LTC8K6]

My first thought about the Iran case was "military op".

Possibly to recover a fallen satellite, or possibly related to the hostilities with Iraq.