UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

The witnesses obviously knew it was a blimp that was twice as far away as they thought it was to be able to tell it was moving faster than a blimp... Oh hang on, no... they knew it was blimp that was twice as close as they thought it was, then it'd appear to be moving twice as fast as a blimp... but it'd be bigger... oh hang on... maybe it was... oh never mind.

I can't remember now, remind me, did any of the witnesses who DIDN'T have binoculars describe what size and shape it was?

You HAVE raised a critical point though.

If the object was further away than they thought, then the actual speed of the object would have been faster than their estimate of "jet plane speeds" - which would make it moving VERY fast indeed...too fast for a blimp!

If the object was closer than they thought, then it was smaller than they thought, and thus too small for it to have been a blimp!

 

[Rramjet]

It could have been a blimp.

(chuckles) the only world that Wollery exists in is in Wollery's mind!

This must be so because all the evidence in the real world rules out the blimp hypothesis, so we can only then assume that Wollery lives "in a world of his own".

 

[wollery]

(chuckles) the only world that Wollery exists in is in Wollery's mind!

This must be so because all the evidence in the real world rules out the blimp hypothesis, so we can only then assume that Wollery lives "in a world of his own".

It was actually a joke.

Of course, there is a serious point to make as well. As much as you try, desperately, to prove that it couldn't possibly have been a blimp, you will never succeed. You can show that it is less likely than was previously thought, but that is all you can do.

In fact, in your previous post, you have shown, quite conclusively, that it's entirely possible! You have shown, with your own evidence, that there were blimps within flying distance of the sighting at the time it occurred, and that it is therefore possible that it was a blimp.

But that isn't really the point.

We are all agreed that it is unidentified. We all agree that it might not be a blimp. But you want to make a leap from that to "It must be alien". That leap is unwarranted.

Let me be clear at this point. I would absolutely love it if the Rogue River sighting was genuinely caused by an alien craft. I would love it even more if aliens landed tomorrow and announced themselves to the world. I'd be first in line for a trip to the stars on an alien spaceship. I mean this wholeheartedly. I work as a research astrophysicist, and I'd love the opportunity to visit other solar systems and see the stars up close. I want to see what the weather looks like on LP944-20. I want to watch a white dwarf dragging material from its main sequence binary companion's outer atmosphere. I'd love to set foot on another planet. I'd want to ask the aliens all about their culture, their religions, their science, and chew the fat over the alien version of a Martini.

I want the conclusion that "we're being visited by aliens" to be completely warranted.

But it isn't.

 

[GeeMack]

A question is posed: Could a blimp have been responsible for the Rogue River UFO sighting

Yes, with very little doubt.

 

[Rramjet]

It was actually a joke.

Of course, there is a serious point to make as well. As much as you try, desperately, to prove that it couldn't possibly have been a blimp, you will never succeed. You can show that it is less likely than was previously thought, but that is all you can do.

In fact, in your previous post, you have shown, quite conclusively, that it's entirely possible! You have shown, with your own evidence, that there were blimps within flying distance of the sighting at the time it occurred, and that it is therefore possible that it was a blimp.

But that isn't really the point.

We are all agreed that it is unidentified. We all agree that it might not be a blimp. But you want to make a leap from that to "It must be alien". That leap is unwarranted.

Let me be clear at this point. I would absolutely love it if the Rogue River sighting was genuinely caused by an alien craft. I would love it even more if aliens landed tomorrow and announced themselves to the world. I'd be first in line for a trip to the stars on an alien spaceship. I mean this wholeheartedly. I work as a research astrophysicist, and I'd love the opportunity to visit other solar systems and see the stars up close. I want to see what the weather looks like on LP944-20. I want to watch a white dwarf dragging material from its main sequence binary companion's outer atmosphere. I'd love to set foot on another planet. I'd want to ask the aliens all about their culture, their religions, their science, and chew the fat over the alien version of a Martini.

I want the conclusion that "we're being visited by aliens" to be completely warranted.

But it isn't.

Yeah, sure, accepted, but so was my comment a joke.

The evidence surrounding the blimp hypothesis allows us to conclude: Maybe “possible” but certainly not “entirely possible” and most certainly “improbable”.

You stated”
“We all agree that it might not be a blimp.”

But this is not what the evidence warrants. The evidence is clearly pointing to a conclusion that it was not a blimp. The evidence does not support “might not have been a blimp” – based on the evidence, that is far to weak a conclusion to reach.

I agree that it is not impossible for a blimp to have been there – but the evidence suggests that this contention is highly improbable.

Then we have to account for the eyewitness testimony AND the OSI investigation on top of that. These factors decrease the “possibility” of blimp even further. The blimp hypothesis then has “negligible” veracity in the face of all the evidence.

After all it is possible, as I have pointed out previously, for it to have been a bird or radar kite etc, but MERE possibility does not allow one to contend things that, on the balance of evidence, are highly implausible… like a bird, radar kite, and blimp.

If everyone agrees it was a UFO, then why cannot they just admit the blimp hypothesis to be entirely implausible? The evidence certainly warrants this conclusion.

 

[Sledge]

Because the blimp hypothesis isn't implausible. And IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even if you conclusively prove that it couldn't possibly be a blimp, that doesn't change the fact no one knows what it was. What is your obsession with arguing the toss between "might have been a blimp" and "probably wasn't"?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

It seems like that RR takes offense that the notion that unidentified includes the fact that it could be mundane.

I really think that's the root of the problem. I tried to point it out to him, and got a personal attack post in return, and as he's usually unreasonable but not actively hostile, I think that means it hit a nerve.

A

 

[wollery]

Yeah, sure, accepted, but so was my comment a joke.

The evidence surrounding the blimp hypothesis allows us to conclude: Maybe “possible” but certainly not “entirely possible” and most certainly “improbable”.

You stated”
“We all agree that it might not be a blimp.”

But this is not what the evidence warrants. The evidence is clearly pointing to a conclusion that it was not a blimp. The evidence does not support “might not have been a blimp” – based on the evidence, that is far to weak a conclusion to reach.

I agree that it is not impossible for a blimp to have been there – but the evidence suggests that this contention is highly improbable.

Then we have to account for the eyewitness testimony AND the OSI investigation on top of that. These factors decrease the “possibility” of blimp even further. The blimp hypothesis then has “negligible” veracity in the face of all the evidence.

After all it is possible, as I have pointed out previously, for it to have been a bird or radar kite etc, but MERE possibility does not allow one to contend things that, on the balance of evidence, are highly implausible… like a bird, radar kite, and blimp.

If everyone agrees it was a UFO, then why cannot they just admit the blimp hypothesis to be entirely implausible? The evidence certainly warrants this conclusion.

There's a very big difference between "unlikely" and "implausible".

Your own evidence, that you produced to defend your position, shows that the blimp hypothesis is plausible, even if it may be unlikely.

You seem very intent on trying to get people to use the words you want, to put words in their mouths, and to attribute motive where it is not apparent.

I have to wonder why that is.

 

[MattusMaximus]

It wasn't a blimp, it was leprechauns.

At least, no one can prove it wasn't leprechauns, so... you know... I'm just sayin'

Honestly, I cannot believe this damn thread is still alive. Kill it, please

 

[apathoid]

Honestly, I cannot believe this damn thread is still alive. Kill it, please

Seconded.

I keep hoping something interesting will be posted by Rramjet, but he's still building his strawmen, lying, equivocating the terms UFO's and aliens, as well as being totally ineducable about some very simple ideas and concepts(burden of proof, fallibility of eyewitnesses, all theories not being equally plausible) that have been carefully articulated in many ways, by many posters. And to top it off, he's still got people trying to convince him that we believe that UFOs do exist and the Rogue River object is one of them..

 

[EHocking]

A question is posed: Could a blimp have been responsible for the Rogue River UFO sighting<snip>

Yes.

I snipped that wall of text because it doesn't address the fact that there is testimony of Navy Reserve personnel based at Santa Ana that states that blimps were operating on the west coast in '49/50 and we even had a photo of it.

I notice you are studiously avoiding this point, but, as you keep insisting, let's address a previous post of yours.

I can hear the wails of anguish even as I start to type, but, I can't let you get away with this goad.

The “skeptics” make their arguments by selectively rejecting portions of the witness testimony – while at the same time accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis. But if you do that, you can explain ANYTHING.

The problem with making such statements is that they can come back and bite you. Also, you imply that you yourself do NOT make your arguments in this manner. Others may hold their own opinion on that, I prefer the "petard" approach.
So,

Even accepting the GOODYEAR (or even a Navy reserve) 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):

OK, so you've accepted that the blimp explanation is a plausible alternative.
Now to assess the relative merits of each "equal" hypothesis, with an aim to eliminating "selectively rejecting portions of the witness testimony – while at the same time accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis."
We start.

UFO: CIRCULAR,

I will refer to the eyewitnesses merely by their letter designations in the linked document.
Mrs.A: Round coming from east.
Mr. B: Round in plan view laterally (east is implied). completely circular or somewhat oval
Mr. C: like a round mirror standing on edge. could be round in plan view
Mr. D: circular as a silver dollar
Mrs.D: circular disk
So all agreed that when it was heading towards them from the east, it was circular.

Those with the binoculars, described the shape as circular/round in plan view" implying that, respective to their position it was coming towards them (therefore head on) as is ALSO implied by their reference to it turning and moving off to the south.
What shape is blimp if it is head on? Circular.

pancake shaped

Mrs.A: -
Mr. B: something like a 50cent piece from below and one side. thin near the edges and thicker in center<sic>
Mr. C: pancake-like, thicker in center<sic>, thinner edges
Mr. D: -
Mrs.D: -
So, only 1 eyewitness described it as pancake shaped. Maccabbee erroneously states that both did, and then extends this to all eyewitness descriptions of the UFO. This is a gross exaggeration of the actual facts from statements. Let's remind ourselves of our mission statement here,

...make their arguments by...accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis. But if you do that, you can explain ANYTHING.

What we can agree on is that both observers that had use of the binoculars described it as this shape after the object had made the turn from heading at them from the E, to a path SE to SSE. This is evidence by the fact that they then describe a tail fin that was not commented on before the object turned away, both stated it was round in plan view and that is later confirmed when Mr.C says "cross-sectional appearance of a pancake". So it is circular head on and is thinner at the edges and thicker in the center side-on.
What other obect is thinner at the edges and thicker in the centre (other than a brontosaurus).?
I've seen cigars like that, in fact, that's quite cigar-shaped.
What shape is a blimp?

(blimp: CIGAR shaped)

OK.
So, so far the eyewitness account could be describing a blimp. Circular head on and cigar-shape side on.

UFO: 25-35 feet in diameter

Mrs.A: about size of a C-47. Wiki says 63ft 9in fuselage and 95.5ft wingspan. Let's say 64 feet.
Mr. B: 30 foot diameter
Mr. C: 25-30ft diam. later, 30-35ft diam
Mr. D: diameter = the length of a DC-3, Wiki says that's 64ft 9in
Mrs.D: size as a large passenger plane though shaped like a disk. A DC-4 is 94ft long.
United States airliners 1940-1949^WPDC4-94ft, Boeing 307,377-74-110ft, Constellation-116ft, Convair-75ft, Martin-75ft.
So let's restate the size estimate according to the actual eyewitness statements shall we?

UFO: 25-94 feet in diameter

This is a huge difference and certainly does not support the assertion that the eyewitness accounts are CONSISTENT between themselves. There is a common denominator between the two extremes of size estimate, and that is naked-eye reckoning and that through binoculars. B and C (30ft) give their estimated size AFTER they viewed it in binoculars (in the order given in their statements). The others (call it ~70ft) estimated from naked eye sightings only.
I was tempted to use the smallest number of 74ft as that would bring the estimate closer to others, i.e. CONSISTENT eyewitness testimony and if I had used the largest number someone might be tempted to accusing me of "accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis", so as a compromise, I chose the DC-4. Feel free to choose another aircraft, I discuss options below anyway.

(blimp: HUGE in comparison)

For the record?
A K-Class blimp has a diameter of 58 feet.
The average of the estimates is 55.4ft.
If I use the larger number by C, it's 57.4ft.
If I use the smaller passenger aircraft as an estimate for size for Mrs.D, UFO is 51.7ft to 53.9ft
At best, the range is between 25ft and 75ft (being generous).

A K-Class blimp is well within this range of estimates and since 3 of the 5 estimate are in the higher range (avg 67.8ft), it is quite plausible that a 58ft K-Class blimp fits the bill for 3 of the 5 eyewitness estimates.

I know that will be hotly argued - I'm not going to, I've merely stated the facts as we have them.

UFO: Speed of a jet plane

Not exactly correct - Maccabbee grossly misrepresents the testimony in order to get this. Firstly not everyone says this, but first, let's get the quotes from the testimonies.

Mrs.A: It was coming from the east, but later turned to the southwest[sic]. It appeared to be travelling at the same rate of speed as a C-47.
Mr. B: moving slowly (from (E), speeded up after turn (SSE). ...when last seen was disappearing in a southeasterly direction, accelerating to an approximate speed of a jet plane.
Mr. C: When first sighted, it was moving very slowly. As I watched it through the glasses, it picked up speed and when it vanished from sight approximately 90 seconds later, it was travelling as fast or faster than a jet plane. And from the SR14, It moved off in a horizontal flight at a gradually increasing rate of speed, until it seemed to approach the speed of a jet before it disappeared.
Mr. D: ...travelling at a height of approximately 5000 feet in a southerly direction...travelled ...at a speed greater than a high speed or jet plane...visible to the naked eye for approximately two minutes
Mrs.D: Mr. D, called the attention of the group to a silver object,..crossing the sky at a high attitude and at a high rate of speed...it crossed our range of vision in two or three minutescrossed point of view (E to SE) in 2 or 3 mins

Before I try to guesstimate an actual speed, lets first discuss the CONSISTENCY of these eyewitnesses accounts.

It was Mr.D that first spotted the object. This is supported by everyone's testimony.

But he says, "my attention was attracted by a silvery object in the sky, travelling at a height of approximately 5000 feet in a southerly direction." EVERYONE else, A, B and C, except for his wife (Mrs.D), states when they first had it drawn to their attention, it was moving TOWARDS them slowly (i.e. travelling west) and THEN turned SE and accelerated away.

This is a very basic conflict of statements. If Mr.D spotted it first, travelling away from them at speed in a southerly direction, how is it possible that AFTER the others were alerted by him, they claim it was flying towards them (W) and THEN turned southerly?

I don't think,from the evidence at hand that is going to be resolved, but it does conflict with the claim that the eyewitness accounts are "CONSISTENT between themselves".

Anyway, lets try to pin a speed down.
Mrs.A: moving southwest(SE?) at speed of a C-47
Mr.B: moving slowly until turn southerly, then accelerated to approx speed of a jet plane
Mr.C: moving slowly until tuning and gradually accelerating to seamingly speed of a jet plane
Mr.D: moving southerly at speed greater than a high speed plane or jet plane
Mrs.D: crossing sky at high rate of speed
So everyone agrees that speed was slow as it headed towards them (from E), except Mr and Mrs.D. Arguably.

It is possible that they couldn't guage a speed because it was heading towards them, so let's ignore the initial speed and try to estimate it's ultimate speed.

From Mrs.A's account we have an estimate of speed of 160mph-224mph the speed of a C-47 Skytrain^WP

Mr.D only saw it speeding away (but at a high rate of speed) in a southerly direction for 2 mins until it could not be seen by the naked eye.

Can we attempt an estimate? Perhaps. How valid is it? Not very, but regardless let us at least attempt to analyse the evidence rather than ignoring it.

Given the quoted resolution of the eye as 2' of arc to discern a shape rather than a point (Maccabee) and Mr.D could see a round shape, lets assume an object arc angle of 6X, or 12' arc.

Using this calculator since trig seems not to be your strong point, we get a distance of 8,594ft.

At an elevation of 5000ft, the ground distance is therefore 6,990ft or 1.3miles. Nicely fits with the bounds of other witnesses' estimates.

Let's then assume an angle of 2' as the "disappear" point for the naked eye. This yields a distance of 51,566ft or 9.8miles.

So,8.8 miles in 2-3 mins (is an average speed of 176mph-264mph.

Mrs.D said it crossed from their field of view (NE to SE) in 2 or 3 mins.
Assuming an initial sighting at 1 mile, this is the situation diagrammatically. Red line is the path of the UFO on a SSE heading.

From (not so simple) trig, the path taken is 2.5miles.
2.5 miles in 2-3 mins = 75-50mph

B and C states mention the that it turned and then accelerated away from them to the speed of a jet. Note, that both indicate it accelerated to something like the speed of a jet and Mr.C qualifying that as gradually increasing rate of speed. Mr.D only saw it once it was heading S, therefore his estimate as a fast plane or jet would concur with B and C.

Referring back to United States airliners 1940-1949^WP, I couldn't find a passenger jet operating in the 40s in the US, so referred to history of flight timeline.

From that we the options of military craft: Bell P-59 introduced in '44, F-86 Sabre in '47, Lockheed T-33 in '48, Boeing XB-47 in '49. Cruise speed range for these is 250-500mph (look 'em up on Wiki to verify).

Upshot of it is, is that from eyewitness estimates we have an estimated speed range from 50mph to 500mph - an order of magnitude.

Since part of this exercise is to also to "account for the witness' sworn testimony, CONSISTENT between themselves", we can see once again that there is NO consistency between the eyewitness accounts.
So big fail there.

(how fast does the Goodyear blimp go again?)

A K class blimp^WP has a cruise speed of 58mph and a maximum of 78mph.

This is actually consistent with Mrs.D's account and certainly within our speed range, but other than that, we can pretty much say - speed inconclusive.

What we CAN say is that Maccabee's rant that, "The investigators also ...had to ignore the witness' claim that the object departed at the speed of a jet.", is NOT the whole truth.

The witnesses' claims do NOT agree, 2 of the 5 estimates are well below the cruising speed of 1940s era US military jets.

I'd say - speed inconclusive, but blimp can't necessarily be ruled out if ALL the witnesses' claims are taken into account. To me it seems that Maccabee is doing just what he accuses the investigators of doing -

...rejecting portions of the witness testimony – while at the same time accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis.

UFO: No sound (how does the blimp propel itself again?)

The UFO was a mile away and a mile above the witnesses. We are not given a wind direction, but it not unlikely that a propeller could not be heard.
Note also, that the witnesses were in a boat on a river that is in a valley surrounded by steep hills. In fact directly to the NE of them they were facing a ridge that was 680ft high. Enough to act as a baffle for sound coming from a mile away.

Additionally, on (K class blimp^WP) engines, "the only major change was in engines from Pratt & Whitney R-1340-16s to Wright R-975-28s. The Wright engine/propeller combination proved excessively noisy and was replaced in later K-ships with the Pratt & Whitney engines."
This proves nothing in itself, but a factoid nonetheless.

Personally I have witnessed jet and prop planes as well as helicopters a mile or so away and not heard their engines, so I don't find "silent running" is a valid argument to rule out a blimp.

UFO: "rotation about the vertical axis" (blimp: I’d like to see that…)

Ask and ye shall receive -
http://staging.vimeo.com/4834596

At the 2:16 mark the blimp stops and pivots in place. It pivots 90deg, the equivalent of heading east and pivoting to south, so nearly exactly the manoeuvre described by some of the witnesses at Rogue River.

UFO: FLAT, smooth underside

Only Mr.C described it in this manner - so NOT a consensus between witnesses, everyone else described it as round.

As a blimp is circular in "plan" view and the sun was behind and above the witness, I have no reason not to envisage that the shadow beneath a top-lit tube could give the appearance of a flat bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:K_class_blimp.jpg is an example of a flat line demarking the shiny top surface and shadowed bottom surface.
I'm not convinced that this poses a valid refutation of the possibility of a blimp.

(blimp curved, lots of protuberances)

Says you. See the video linked above. At the same time slot,2:16. "tail on" you can barely make out the tail fins and the gondola is not that distinct either. Of course this shot is of a blimp that is much closer than a mile from the video camera. 1/2 a mile at best.

The witness descriptions also lack the features a blimp DOES have:
BLIMP: Bottom and horizontal fins (UFO: None)

See vid above - fins barely visible at 1/2 a mile.

BLIMP: Gondola (UFO: None)

See vid above - barely visible at 1/2 a mile.

BLIMP: Engines (UFO: None)

See vid above - barely visible at 1/2 a mile.

BLIMP: Trailing tether lines (UFO: None)

See vid above - none visible. Also, see this moored K-Class.
http://www.elizcity.com/weeksnas/graphics/kmoor1.jpg
No tethers in sight, and you'll note the same in flight - no tethers in sight.

BLIMP: BIG sign on side stating “Good Year” - some with flashing neon lights too!

Since we're talking about 1940s military blimps, try this image, http://www.members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/NC/Weeksville_NC_blimp.jpg . Where's the BIG sign and flashing neon? There is none.

(UFO: No markings whatsoever)

Ah, here's that selective process happening again.

Refer to the drawings in the report and you will note a black patch on the fin - pointed out on the drawing.
Your "No markings whasoever" is a misrepresentation of the evidence.
I am only applying the same standard to your statements as you presume to on "skeptics".

Let me now add some additional comments to the above points.
A blimp or airship is typically 3 or 4 (or more) times long than it is wide. If the witnesses had seen it coming directly toward or directly away from them they would have seen something not quite circular but like a fat ellipse with its major axis vertical.

See vid above - you are incorrect.

However, they said it crossed in front of them (heading almost southward while they looked eastward). In this case they should have viewed it broadside and seen an overall shape somewhat like a cigar with its major axis horizontal.

Only 2 of the witnesses could discern a shape other than a shiny disk, because they were able to view it through binoculars. BOTH described it as thinner and ends and thicker in the middle - cigar-shaped.

They might mistake this for an oblique view of a disc - but when it turned, at least the guy with binoculars would have seen its length appear to shorten

No. It was head on, so circular, when it turned the side on it would appear to LENGTHEN.

or, if it weren't perfectly transverse to the line of sight, the width of the image would change. Yet the witnesses describe no such change – maintaining it appeared circular throughout.

No - please stop misrepresenting the eyewitness testimony, something you are accusing sceptics of doing. Truth is, 3 could not discern detail beyond shingy glare and the 2 that got binoculars on it described it as circular when it was heading west and cigar-shaped when it was heading south.
And you accuse sceptics of "selectively rejecting portions of the witness testimony – while at the same time accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis.". Please apply the same level of integrity to your appraisals...

Then the witnesses describe (and indeed represent in a drawing) an object with a fin on the top (and this is where the “blimp hypothesis” people want to claim “resemblance” to a blimp). First the “fin” in the drawing begins “amidship” while a fin on a blimp is very much restricted the end of the object. Furthermore, it is obvious that if the witnesses (two using binoculars) could see the “top fin”, they would also have noticed if there were lower and horizontal fins (and a gondola!).

No, it is not obvious. Others have supplied photos in this thread to that effect.

One skeptic has complained that Mrs. A described the object as travelling at the speed of a C-47, which is not a jet aircraft. Right, not a jet aircraft, but still faster than you're likely to see a blimp travel!

Addressed above. The speed estimates are all over the shop - NONE of the witnesses give a CONSISTENT estimate, so, not really a point "won" here.

(Note also that Mrs A was referring specifically to the speed of the object, not its’ size or shape)

Nitpicking here - read her statement, she most certainly DID refer to a C47's size.

The “skeptics” make their arguments by selectively rejecting portions of the witness testimony – while at the same time accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis. But if you do that, you can explain ANYTHING.

I think I have demonstrated that this is not the case - I have not seen ANY one else here being selective in their recall of evidence. Anyone that is except Maccabee and by your regurgitation of much of his assertions, yourself, I'm afraid. YOu would have done yourselve a service by applying as critical an eye on Maccabee's portrayal of the facts as you apply it to the rest of us.

Finally, the “skeptics” seem to want to define a UFO...

I'll leave that discussion to others

The evidence MUST be viewed in toto. All together.

I agree. Maccabee doesn't as do you by repeating unexpurgated quotes from his article.
I feel that I have done a more complete analysis of the ENTIRE evidence that either Maccabee has in his article or you have in this post.

First, the direct evidence that a blimp could possibly have been in the area seems conflicted (at BEST),

Only if you are in denial. There is NO conflicting evidence at all - you merely wish to select the evidence that supports your hypothesis.

.. but even accepting it was possible for a blimp to have been in the area (and given also the location that seems highly unlikely), then we have the eyewitness testimony that describes an object quite unlike a blimp in most, if not all, characteristics AND the OSI investigation to account for.

Let's review your contention taking ALL the testimonial evidence into account.

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)

UFO: Circular in plan view, BLIMP: Circular in plan view
UFO: thinner at the edges, thicker in the middle, BLIMP: thinner at the edges, thicker in the middle
UFO: Average of estimates, 55-57ft (range 25-94ft), BLIMP: 58ft
UFO: Speed range 50-500mph, BLIMP: 58-78mph
UFO: no sound at 1+ miles, BLIMP: plausibly no sound at 1+ miles
UFO: able to rotate on vertical axis, BLIMP: also
UFO: flat underside (one witness only), BLIMP: possible as seen from photos
UFO: smooth underside , BLIMP: possible as seen from photos and video
UFO: no trailing tether lines, BLIMP: no trailing tether lines when flying

A couple of items that you and Maccabee seem to have overlooked.
Pertinent to your claims that the eyewitness descriptions are CONSISTENT with each other.

Mr.B: No radio antenna or windows, portholes, or any other protuberances, gaps, or openings were visible.
Mr.C: The trailing edge ...appeared to be somewhat wrinkled and dirty looking. ...these might have been vents...
Mr.C: (2nd interview) As far as could be seen, it had no openings...

Also, the drawing of the UFO in the report has a black rectangle on the rear fin described as, "Something equivalent to a patch". Hmm, so your contention that there were "No markings whatsoever" on the UFO is inaccurate.
Unless, of course, you were prone to be a little selective of what evidence you post to support your arguments...

Together the evidence points toward UFO as the only conclusion that can be reached.

NO. All together, the evidence points to an UFO and also that the mundane explanation of a WWII blimp is a plausible one.

...My assessment above (and in previous posts) has not "dismissed with the wave of a hand" anything at all.

But you were certainly selective with what evidence you presented - something that you accused sceptics of doing.

In fact I have provided much detailed evidence and explanation to support my position.

I see you and raise you.

Anyone reading this (should have given up by now) would acknowledge that you and Maccabee have presented a SELECTION of the evidence and that your summarisation of same is quite a misrepresentation of much of the testimony.

You claim detailed?
Gin.

Rather it is the "skeptics" who "dismiss at the wave of a hand". They simply refuse to directly address most, if any, of the substantive, detailed points that have been made by me.

Unlike you who responded directly to my last post re:Navy Reserve flights on the west coast and Vortigern's post reminding you of same...

I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that both of your assertions are baseless.

It is as simple as that.

Yes, it was.

 

[EHocking]

One last. You'll all be relieved to know that the above is the last I intend to post on the subject. What can be said has been said.

 

[Rramjet]

Yes.

I snipped that wall of text because it doesn't address the fact that there is testimony of Navy Reserve personnel based at Santa Ana that states that blimps were operating on the west coast in '49/50 and we even had a photo of it.

(snipped a "wall of text" that is irrelevant)

If you have any evidence that is not addressed in my post above (photographic or otherwise) then you should produce it.

My post above was quite detailed and conclusive on the issue. It showed that while not "impossible" it was highly unlikely (implausible in fact) that a "blimp done it".

This was the post (below), I suggest readers have a look to see the END of the blimp hypothesis.

A question is posed: Could a blimp have been responsible for the Rogue River UFO sighting

The primary hypothesis for Rogue River from the skeptical camp is that “It could have been a blimp that done it". We must therefore closely examine the evidence to see if this hypothesis might be plausible. (<snipped> detailed exploration of all the relevant evidence pertaining to the "blimp" hypothesis produced in this thread)

EHocking, If you have new evidence - produce it. Otherwise you are wasting everyone’s time.

You do address some issues pertaining to the eyewitness testimony... If I have time I will reply to that part of your post later - in order to dispel any lingering doubts that despite you protestations - the blimp hypothesis is dead.

 

[BlackKat]

I give up. Consider me battered into submission by Rramjet's untiring habit of insisting what we say and believe contrary to reality.
I admit that Rogue River must have been Astrozombies.

...

What I don't understand is where we're going here. So what if we have a plausible explanation for an unknown or no explanation (yet), or never will have a plausible explanation.
Unknown does not equal anything other than unknown.

There is, contrary to Rramjet's assertions, nothing further to read into this unknown and no way to 'scientifically study' such unknowns without being present at the time and place of such alleged events.
And there is no evidence that even if one could study further such events that anything meaningful would result. Science costs money. Money must be well spent... well usually anyhow.

Like Kota, Rramjet seeming to be aiming at Aliens that are not ETs so they've been here all along in their underwater cities or whatever. But instead of trying to provide us with irrelevant and mundane architecture like Kota has at least done, Rramjet just shows us an endless string of unknowns. At least Kota had the guts to try to show us evidence as farcical as it was.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155070&page=14

So, like so many other's here have done I ask:
What is the point of this thread?
Doing laps for no good reason can be fun and all, if you're into NASCAR I guess, but I'd prefer a race where we're actually getting somewhere, like WRC.

 

[Sledge]

Hey, Rramjet, remember when you said you'd present evidence of aliens? Yeah, I was kinda wondering if you were planning to do that at any point.

 

[LissaLysikan]

... snip conclusive evidence of Rramjet's dishonesty ...

I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that both of your assertions are baseless.

Thank you, EHocking, for that marvelous point-by-point layout. I'm surprised at how much work you must have put in.

 

[EHocking]

Thanks - I had a few spare hours and was particularly galled by the "sceptics selectively ignore evidence" jibe to nail it on the head once and for all.

By the way Rramjet, before you go off the rails, the comment above "... snip conclusive evidence of Rramjet's dishonesty ..." was not a statement of mine, but LissaLysikan's snip of my WallOfText^(TM)

 

[Aepervius]

in order to dispel any lingering doubts that despite you protestations - the blimp hypothesis is dead.

In other word rramjet just put his hand on his ear, then yelled loduly LALALALA NOTHING TO SEE YOU ARE WRONG BLIMP HYPOTHESIS DEAD LALALA.

This feals like arguying with a YEC that earth is older than the few thousand range, or aguying with an homeopath that indeed with perfect dilution above 12C by definition there cannot be any mother tincture left except as impurity, or argyuing with a truther on 9/11 : nothing on substance on rramjet side just adamant refusal to accept basic logic, and the will to make up their own new definition UFO, evidence etc...

An utter waste of time. His FAITH is so deep anchored in his mind just like the above, that not much can move it.

 

[Caustic Logic]

This thread is amazingly long for an Oct 09 thread. I suppose I should read the OP at least. Have a good friend into UFOs, I've looked at it a bit, and I have to admit, there's a hella lot of documented reports from credible witnesses of something flying around. All different kinds, doing weird stuff that doesn't make sense. What exactly I dunno, but at the very least if its ball lightning or mass hysteria, these are of a weird enough sort and scale to warrant some study and genuine thought. We're all agreed then there's something interesting here? Okay then, I'll read the OP.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The OP is so full of links, I'm sure there's something good and something dumb in there. I've wondered if the AF hadn't developed some useless (for now) flying technology and used it like the Chinese did gunpowder - for fireworks, not guns. They zip around some colored prototypes in front of AF pilots and sometimes farmers, etc. and let the public - and the Russkies - just keep wondering. Concoct some none-too-subtle "cover-up" panels, make a show of "discrediting someone...," have your own "rogue" experts deduce it could only be aliens... Actual motives are a little obscure but could be many. To keep a people who've outgrown religion is some religion-like state of distracted subservience, maybe?