UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Not to mention the reccon drones.

Created by mad scientists!

 

[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?

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

Of course.

 

[Rramjet]

What are you people so hung up on the “implausible blimp hypothesis” for… I thought “we all agree” that Rogue River represented a UFO?
No?
Obviously not!

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.

Okay… it should be easy to establish WHERE these “new” squadrons were LOCATED.

I really think the following information says it all.

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)

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.

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)

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.

Then show me EVIDENCE that “3 of these were located on the west coast”
(You will notice we seem to have slipped back into “I say it is so, therefore it IS so”… and THAT is of course a nonsense argument)

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

So…SHOW me the evidence! Merely stating it is so does NOT make it so.

A note on your FOV diagram:
But what is the point of all that “trigonometry” anyway, if you have already accepted that the witnesses could have seen and described the object accurately if we take their consensus opinion that it was about 1 mile away.

Moreover, you seem to base your assessments on theoretical “drawings” but have you actually studied what Dr. Maccabee has stated in conjunction with this issue: That is:

COULD THE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT THE SHAPE?
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.

DO THE ESTIMATED SIZE AND DISTANCE CORRESPOND TO AN ANGULAR SIZE GREATER THAN THE ANGULAR RESOLUTION OF THE EYE?
Although neither the actual size nor the true distance of the object is known, the witnesses did provide estimates of both these quantities, even though it is considered “impossible” to be accurate in estimating these quantities when viewing an unknown object in the clear sky. The witnesses indicated the diameter was in the range of 25 – 35 ft and that the distance was 1 to 4 miles (three estimates were 1 mile, one was 4 miles; see the table above) with an altitude of about 1 mile. A thirty foot diameter object at a distance of 1 mile (measured along the sighting line) would have an angular size of about 0.0057 radians and at 4 miles about 0.0014 radians. Both of these angular sizes are much greater than the eye resolution mentioned above. This tells us two things: (1) if they were anywhere near correct in their size and distance estimates, then the angular size was large enough for the witnesses to clearly see the overall shape and (2) the actual size was probably close to their estimate.​

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

Now… do you dispute these findings and if so How and Why?

Moving On:
I stated:
“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 ?

Actually, you seem not to be paying attention, it is obvious that not everyone does agree…

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...A/to/Salem,+OR).

Actually, you did no such thing. The contention all along has been that after the NAVY quit blimp operations, GOODYEAR continued in the NAVY’s former hangers at Santa Ana to house their advertising blimps. If I remember, the picture referenced (your link not working…) at Salem stated that it WAS taken from a GOODYEAR blimp.

Following the war, all blimp squadrons decommissioned except two which included Santa Ana's ZP 31 renamed ZP-1. Santa Ana also became an aircraft storage facility in November 1945. Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended. On June 6, 1949, Santa Ana decommissioned becoming an OLF. For a time, the hangars were used by advertising blimps.
http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html

So you really need to get your facts straight.

Perhaps the disagreement about hypotheses being equal or not rests on this: (…)

All hypotheses ARE EQUAL. Either an hypothesis has evidence to support it, or it does not.

You merely place your own value judgement on the Paul v Queen hypotheses because from your own perspective, the Paul hypothesis would seem to have overwhelming amounts of evidence to support it, while the queen hypothesis only limited amounts.

You are simply confusing a post hoc assessment of “amount evidence” with the a priori statement of “hypotheses”.

More: I think you are so wedded to the fallacy “extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary evidence,” that you simply cannot see the fallacious thinking behind such an irrational contention.

Moving on again:
I stated
“…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):

Nice! But perhaps you simply lack the reading skills then because it is all there in black text on a white ground (ideal viewing conditions one would have thought):

From Mr B.’s sworn statement…
“To the naked eye this object appeared circular and standing on edge.”

From Mr C.’s sworn statement…
“It was then possible to see that the object was roughly circular in shape…”

From Mr D.’s sworn statement…
“The object,(was) circular in formation as a silver dollar…”

From Mrs D.’s sworn statement
“…my husband, Mr. D, called the attention of the group to a silver object, circular in shape…”

Now we don’t have a sworn statement from Mrs A, but we DO have her record of interview.
“…sighted an object described as being round in shape…”

If all THAT is not consistent I don’t know what is!

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?

But we also have …” The interviewee stated that she was not familiar with aircraft; therefore, she could not estimate with any accuracy the speed or altitude at which the object was travelling.”

But notice also that SHAPE IS able to be determined – simply because that quality does not rely on an accurate estimate of speed or distance.

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?

Yes, of course it IS a “fin” – but what TYPE of fin is it? Do you know any blimps - that plausibly could have been in the area - with such a “fin” configuration? Especially as the witnesses described the UFO as having “no other protuberances! For example from Mr. B.’s sworn statement (when describing what the UFO looked like through binoculars):

“Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center. A triangular fin appeared to arise amidship and extended to the trailing end of the object viewed as it travelled. There were no openings visible and no sound was heard. There appeared to be no engines or motors, no landing gear, no other protruding parts other than the fin already described.”​

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

Yes, precisely, as you say, easy to verify…

Finally I must address:

(…)
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?

Are you SERIOUSLY contending that the re-entry of some “space junk” is comparable to the Rogue River case? Seriously? I think if you DO contend this then you better provide the evidence to support your contention… merely stating that both were case where witnesses could not identify the object in NO WAY makes the two cases comparable… you just LOVE Red Herrings don’t you Astrophotographer…

(and before you get on your high horse - your statement "What makes the Rogue River case better than Zond IV?" implies that a comparison CAN be made between the cases. So tell me HOW they are comparable.)


Has no-one anything rational to say about The Iranian Jet case
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

I have stated:

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. WHAT do others think?

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, we all agree that Rogue River represents a UFO sighting. We also agree that a blimp is one possible exaplantion for that sighting. You, apparently, do not. Let's try and find out why. Give us one reason you don't think a blimp is a possibly explanation for the sighting. Just one for now, we'll settle that then move on. Ok?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Are you SERIOUSLY contending that the re-entry of some “space junk” is comparable to the Rogue River case? Seriously? I think if you DO contend this then you better provide the evidence to support your contention… merely stating that both were case where witnesses could not identify the object in NO WAY makes the two cases comparable… you just LOVE Red Herrings don’t you Astrophotographer….

Why don't you answer my questions? I asked, "perhaps you can explain why the Rogue River case is an excellent example of a UFO while other cases (like Zond IV) are not?" Can you explain this to us?

To answer your question, in both cases, we have witnesses swearing they saw a craft of some kind. For instance in the Zond IV case, we have a reliable witness (who saw the event with her husband and the mayor of their town) stating the following:

It was shaped like a fat cigar, in my estimation. I was impressed that it seemed of considerable size, the size of one of our largest airplane fuselages, or larger.

and

It appeared to have square-shaped windows along the side that was facing us. I remember the urge to count the windows, but other details flashed n view and my curiosity made me jump to other observations. For an instant, I thought I caught a glimpse of a metallic look about the fuselage, and this really made me feel that the “thing” was close!

and

It appeared to me that the fuselage was constructed of many pieces of flat sheets of metal-like material with a “riveted together look.” It occurred to me that the fuselage was not of the smooth contour. The many “windows” seemed to be lit up from the inside of the fuselage with light that was quite bright.

and

I was impressed with what looked to me like low altitude of the craft at this point of my sighting—I thought, around 1,000 feet or less. Also, when the craft was flying near us, it did seem to travel in a flat trajectory. I toyed with the idea that it even slowed down somewhat, for how else could we observe so much detail in a mere flash across the sky?

We have shape, size, structure, and altitude, which is very similar to what happened at Rogue River. Why do you state they can not be comparable? What makes Rogue River so special? Is it because it is an exotic craft? Isn't the Zond IV description an exotic craft as well? Why can't the Zond IV be examined for inaccuracies in the witness testimony? Why did the witness misidentify the shape, which should not happen with witness testimony?

(and before you get on your high horse - your statement "What makes the Rogue River case better than Zond IV?" implies that a comparison CAN be made between the cases. So tell me HOW they are comparable.)

They are both reports filed by witnesses who did not know what they saw. They both started out as UNIDENTIFIEDS which is a what a UFO is (I hope you agree with this because we are just going back to square one if you don't). The difference is one has been positively identified (turning it into an IFO) and the other has not. That makes one "better" than the other. However, if we ignore the fact that the Zond IV was identified, can't one look at the reports and see comparisons? If not, perhaps you can explain why.

 

[GeeMack]

What are you people so hung up on the "implausible blimp hypothesis" for... I thought "we all agree" that Rogue River represented a UFO?

Oddly enough, you are the only one here who doesn't understand that a blimp is a highly plausible explanation for the sighting at Rogue River. Let me repeat that. You are the only one here who doesn't understand...

There must be a reason why your position is singularly different from that of many intelligent and informed people, and in this thread of nearly 850 postings, you haven't been able to satisfactorily convince anyone that your position is correct. It seems to come down to just a couple of primary possibilities (not to exclude, of course, other more remote possibilities).

It could be that you are wholly incapable of communicating your argument in a way that anyone else finds compelling enough to consider your position valid. In other words, it might be that you are, as has been surmised by several here and supported by evidence provided in many of your own comments, simply a crappy communicator. If that's the case, obviously continuing to spam the forum isn't getting you anywhere. Your deficient communication skills aren't working for you. It might take another approach.

The other best guess explanation for your inability to convince any of these good people? A possibility that is also well supported by the evidence in this thread of almost 850 exchanges, this dialog where you've made no discernable progress? It's not only plausible, but well supported by that abundance of evidence, that you are just plain wrong.

Is there some other way you can think of, aside from your failed attempt to repeat-until-true, to sway some of these fine people to believe, as you do, that there are no plausible, prosaic explanations for the Rogue River sighting?

Also, these folks think your notion that all hypotheses are equal is not just wrong, but irrational. Can you come up with a method, other than parroting, to make a better argument for that inane conjecture? Can you try another tack that might make it compelling enough to get other people to agree with you?

 

[Paul2]

Rramjet's post #843 did not address any of the details in my post #832.

Refute my ideas in their own terms.

 

[Jocce]

A note on your FOV diagram:
But what is the point of all that “trigonometry” anyway, if you have already accepted that the witnesses could have seen and described the object accurately if we take their consensus opinion that it was about 1 mile away.

It seems consensus doesn't mean what you think it means.

Moreover, you seem to base your assessments on theoretical “drawings” but have you actually studied what Dr. Maccabee has stated in conjunction with this issue: That is:

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.

This is amazing. Dr. Maccabee tries to prove that the witnesses could have seen details by saying that if the object had been too far away they couldn't have seen the detail they report. Circular reasoning at it's finest. He also claims they all saw a circular object which is of course wrong

 

[Jocce]

What are you people so hung up on the “implausible blimp hypothesis” for… I thought “we all agree” that Rogue River represented a UFO?

Very easy. We all agree it is a UFO. However, we all say that it could have been a blimp. You say it couldn't have been a blimp which at least I think is a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[Jocce]

Has no-one anything rational to say about The Iranian Jet case
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

I have stated:

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. WHAT do others think?

I have something rational to say about it which is found right at the beginning of the text you provide as evidence:

Note: what follows is my reconstruction of the sighting history. This is based, in part, on two interviews of Hossain Pirouzi, done 3 and 4 months after the events. They were provided to me by reporter Bob Pratt, who was, at the time, a full time UFO investigator employed by the National Enquirer. This history is also based on newspaper accounts and on the initially classified (Confidential) U. S. Air Force (USAF) teletype message by Lt. Col. Olin Mooy, that primarily describes the events as recounted during an interview of the pilot of the second jet.

Translation: "Someone told me what someone else said a long time after the actual events and I also read about it in the newpapers. I also read someones teletyped summary of what someone else experienced."

What in the world is wrong with you? Is hearsay compelling evidence?

ETA: I refuse to wade through that kind of hearsay. If you have real evidence, then provide it and I'll gladly look at it but this kind of "reconstruction of the sighting history" is rubbish imo.

 

[Tapio]

All hypotheses ARE EQUAL. Either an hypothesis has evidence to support it, or it does not.

You merely place your own value judgement on the Paul v Queen hypotheses because from your own perspective, the Paul hypothesis would seem to have overwhelming amounts of evidence to support it, while the queen hypothesis only limited amounts.

You are simply confusing a post hoc assessment of “amount evidence” with the a priori statement of “hypotheses”.

You know, I've witnessed this sort of argumentation quite a lot in my life. I worked 4 years as a teacher for eight very special boys (aged 10-12), all diagnosed with asperger syndrome (read especially the 'speech and language' part).

from Wiki...people with it therefore show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported.

What you are doing here, to my eyes, is nothing more than wordplay (though I'm sure it's very serious to you). You seem like an intelligent person, but it has become clear your social skills, at least through an internet forum, might not be on the same level.

Please, I'm trying here to help you. Because I'm so interested in the actual cases I find it an unnescessary derail to get stuck on this hypotheses are/aren't equal argument (especially when it is clear we all agree, but your wording for it goes beyond conventional ways of describing the concept).

Just a thought...

 

[arthwollipot]

I've just skipped about 500 posts. Have we got anywhere yet?

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet insists that UFOs exist, and that we don't believe in them. So I'd call that a "no."

 

[arthwollipot]

Last I checked, Rramjet was still trying to claim that we were saying "it might have been, therefore it was". Is he still riffing on that?

 

[Sledge]

Yup.

 

[Jocce]

I've just skipped about 500 posts. Have we got anywhere yet?

The goal is the journey. All aboard...CHOOO...CHOOO...

 

[LissaLysikan]

What he's doing does make sense in light of what he said the aim is.
To weaken the arguments against aliens he has to get people to accept that "alien" is the more plausible explanation for things "unknown" than "mundane" is. As long as we are saying that "unknown" includes "unconfirmed mundane" his "aliens" evidence is going to fall flat and he knows it.

 

[Tapio]

Rramjet insists that UFOs exist, and that we don't believe in them. So I'd call that a "no."

Yup.

That's plain unfair. No he's not.

Arthwollipot, we are making slow progress. EHocking and Ram are engaged in comparing evidence for/against blimp activity in the Rogue River area. Then there is a debate on the eywitness testimonies reliability and who said what means what etc.

Oh, and some semantics on if all hypotheses are equal or not...

So we are making progress, and I feel Rramjet has actually improved in his way of communicating. There's more text regarding actual evidence than dismissing peoples 'inability to understand logic' etc.

No compelling evidence for aliens visiting us, though...

 

[Sledge]

Let's look at Rramjet's own words from his most recent post:

What are you people so hung up on the “implausible blimp hypothesis” for… I thought “we all agree” that Rogue River represented a UFO?
No?
Obviously not!

Everyone has said we agree Rogue River is an example of a UFO sighting. Rramjet claims we do not. I stand by my comment.

ETA: I don't see how any progress is being made. The dance Ehocking and Rramjet are doing is one we've been over before. Rramjet insists that Rogue River couldn't have been a blimp sighting in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary. I don't see how someone sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to acknowledge new evidence of even the inconvenient parts of their own evidence can be considered "progress."

 

[Tapio]

Everyone has said we agree Rogue River is an example of a UFO sighting. Rramjet claims we do not. I stand by my comment.

Actually it was the highlited part of your previous comment...

Rramjet insists that UFOs exist, and that we don't believe in them. So I'd call that a "no."

...that I was more in disagreement with. I should've been more precise. I haven't seen Rramjet claim that the skeptics here don't believe in UFOs in a while. I feel he's more arguing against how the rest of us maintain our view of how a blimp would be a very likely explanation in the Rogue River case.

ETA: I don't see how any progress is being made.

Sorry to hear that. It must be utterly frustrating to think we're only going 'round and 'round for 22 pages...

The dance Ehocking and Rramjet are doing is one we've been over before. Rramjet insists that Rogue River couldn't have been a blimp sighting in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.

I disagree. Although the field of discussion is the same (likely/unlikely blimp) Rramjet is addressing the new info posted by other members here by providing new info (check his most recent atempt at rebutting EHockings post). This is how discussion makes progress. It doesn't mean we can instantly reach a mutual agreement. But IMO the level of argumentation has clearly shifted to a more factual base (comparing evidence rather than opinion) from what it was 10 pages ago.

I don't see how someone sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to acknowledge new evidence of even the inconvenient parts of their own evidence can be considered "progress."

But Rramjet is clearly acknowledging new evidence. He is only (as anyone trying to defend their position) putting it through the closest possible scrutiny. Now, I think his style of writing is more of a problem here than his actual arguments. We seem to be dealing with a person inclined to interpret everything in the most literal sense. That is why I think we should not fall in doing the same, but view his text in a broader perspective and do our best to try to find out what he actually means and is attempting at (which he has quite clearly defined and which is why I would personally hope that we wouldn't concentrate so much in nitpicking over sentances, but focus on comparing evidence).

Anyway, I do respect your position. Maybe it's just my history with people communicating the way Rrmajet does that keeps me from ending in the same conclusions (even if there might be all the reason to do so).