UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[jhunter1163]

EHocking: Puttin' the E in JREF since 2004. Splendid post.

 

[Stray Cat]

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

Seconded from me too Ehocking. My patience ran out a while back.

So now in view of ALL the evidence for and against a blimp, we arrive once again at a conclusion that it 'might' have been a blimp. Certainly not ruled out that possibility.

Now I'm hoping Rramjet can supply as much detailed, verifiable information on size, shape and speed of Alien (intelligently controlled) craft. so we can compare the two "equal" hypotheses.

Rramjet seems to think that a hypothesis should be disproved by those who don't agree with it, when in reality, it should be proven by those who do. In wasting his time trying to show how the blimp possibility is not possible (and failing), he has not managed to provide one iota of evidence to support his own "alien craft' hypothesis.

We have all provided verifiable documentary, photographic and video evidence of blimps all of which stands up to scrutiny. Rramjet on the other hand has provided some contradictory anecdotes and two blimplike drawings, with no verifiable documentary, photographic or video evidence of the sizes, speeds, shapes, markings or technical specs of alien craft to support his hypothesis... I wonder why?

 

[EHocking]

.... I've wondered if the AF hadn't .... 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?

While an "interesting" hypothesis, I've read the Condon Report and, compared to other government whitewashes (Hatton in the UK comes to mind) it is a rational and logical appraisal of the evidence at hand at the time and was produced to determine if there were any security implications in possibly unknown craft overflying the USA. It concludes that there are NOT aliens, so rather contradicts your conspiracy theory, I'm afraid.

Then again, I may be part of the conspiracy.

For the record I have seen an UFO. Three separate bright green lights (i.e. not lights on a single craft) in the classic triangular formation. I was fortunate that 100s of people in Melbourne, Australia also saw them and it made the newspapers the next day. So at least I can be confident I didn't imagine them (or wasn't the only one who did). Even as a young teen when I announced to my parents and their friends that I had just seen some UFOs - I never attributed those lights to anything ET, merely unknown. I guess scepticism was innate, with me...

 

[EHocking]

Straycat, jhunter1163. I appreciate the comments.
Believe it or not I enjoyed the mental exercise, which is just as well as one part of my job is to review and analyse incident and operations reports and distill them into a concise and accurate summary for non-technical management and other such audiences.

Despite the impression others might have gotten from my posts, I wasn't doing this out of bloody-mindedness, it was the mental challenge and a chance to keep my skills honed (that an a certain anal-retentiveness that goes with being an engineer).

Oh, should anal-retentive be hyphenated?

 

[Stray Cat]

Believe it or not I enjoyed the mental exercise,

I appreciate that and I too find that doing exercises like that are a good way to not only examine the evidence but also to really examine my own position.
There have been times when closely working through information, my position has been changed simply because I was paying closer attention to all the detail.

Sadly, in most of those sorts of cases it was when I was a UFO believer and my position altered from belief to seeing how wrong that belief was.

 

[EHocking]

I can only see a happy result there!

At least you were open-minded enough to consider all (equal) hypotheses.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I enjoyed the mental exercise

EHocking, a round of root beers on me, my friend. That previous post was most enlightening and well thought out. You demonstrate the vast difference between critical thinking and the religious fervor of a UFO believer.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet

First: that the case is well documented (ie: it was not merely "a figment of someone's imagination")

How does that make it alien?

Second: it has Iranian Airforce jets chasing a UFO and THEN being chased by the UFO!

How does that make it alien?

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...

How can you attribute that to aliens?

Fourth: There was radar confirmation of the object as well as multiple witnesses (not to mention the pilots)

How does that make it alien?

Fifth: the UFO(s) was able to affect its' surroundings (ie; the instrumentation and functionality of the fighter jets)

How does that make it alien?

Sixth: The UFO(s) seemed to exhibit intelligent control - (fleeing, affecting, and chasing)

How does that make it alien?

Note also the “intelligent control” point.

Note that most humans exhibit intelligent control when they aren't in a religious fervor about UFOs.

 

[Marduk]

oh, are you still trying to reason with him, after 28 pages, really, do you think you could actually get him to see sense at all,
youre all going about this the wrong way
what you need to help him understand is a C.I.A interrogator and a blowtorch
otherwise I'll see if youve made any progress in another 28 pages

 

[RoboTimbo]

I just like to poke him with a stick occasionally.

 

[Rramjet]

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)

Yet you willfully ignore the historical evidence as presented in my post (#1059) confirming that it was highly implausible for a blimp to have been at Rogue River in May 1949.

You have totally ignored my call for you to produce ANY evidence for your continuing to maintain support for the "blimp" hypothesis.

It is interesting how the "debunkers" in this thread shy away from confronting any hard evidence when it is presented to them... preferring instead to maintain the line "If I say it is so, it must be so."

Again -if you have ANY evidence to dispute my detailed post outlining the historical data that leads to a conclusion that a blimp is an implausible candidate to explain the Rogue River sighting - produce it!

Otherwise you have simply wasted everybody's time - including your own.

 

[Rramjet]

Seconded from me too Ehocking.

(...)

We have all provided verifiable documentary, photographic and video evidence of blimps all of which stands up to scrutiny. Rramjet on the other hand has provided some contradictory anecdotes and two blimplike drawings, with no verifiable documentary, photographic or video evidence of the sizes, speeds, shapes, markings or technical specs of alien craft to support his hypothesis... I wonder why?

If you have ANY such evidence that refutes my post (#1059) then produce it!

 

[Stray Cat]

If you have ANY such evidence that refutes my post (#1059) then produce it!

That's where the problem is though... enough evidence to back and to deny the claim has been presented.
None of what you have supplied entirely rules out the possibility of it being a blimp, and what we (especially EHocking) have provided shows that it could have been... it doesn't matter how remote that possibility is, it exists as evidenced by the invention and constant use of blimps since the Civil War up to the present day. No one will however be 100% certain that what was seen on Rogue River was a blimp...

...This is why the object will remain UNIDENTIFIED.

Now unless you have positive evidence to back up your own hypothesis (remember we have seen NONE yet) so that we can all compare the blimp hypothesis to the alien craft hypothesis, there really is nothing more to discuss.

 

[EHocking]

...

See Post 1072.

 

[Rramjet]

This is EHocking at his finest...

You all congratulated EHocking on what a fine hatchet job he conducted. Let us examine the evidence to see if he really did what he stated he did.

We start.
Quote:
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.

Yes, but I would wish to add to you incomplete analysis here. You merely summarise and by doing so (when you could provide the actual quotes from the sworn eyewitness testimony) you mislead by placing your own interpretation (however subtle) on what was actually stated. Compare your “summaries” above with the actual quotes for example.

Mrs A. was recorded as saying “…sighted an object described as being round in shape…” (...) “It was coming from the east, but later turned to the southwest.”

Mr B. stated “To the naked eye this object appeared circular and standing on edge. I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular and that we appeared to be looking upward at the bottom side of it…” (…) “As I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south…” (…) “…either completely circular or somewhat oval.”

Mr C. stated “I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that the object was roughly circular in shape…” (…) “It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges.” (…) “…the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction, mostly south."

Mr D. stated “The object,(was) circular in formation as a silver dollar…”

Mrs D. stated “…my husband, Mr. D, called the attention of the group to a silver object, circular in shape…”

Those with the binoculars, described the shape as circular/round in plan view"

Well no, not exactly… Mr B. and Mr C. sighted the object through 8x power Navy binoculars.

Mr B. stated “…we appeared to be looking upward at the bottom side of it…” (…) “It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center.”

Mr C. stated “It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges.”

So your contention that “Those with the binoculars, described the shape as circular/round in plan view" is misleading at best.

You continue:

“…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.

Yes, it WAS originally coming toward them (as implied by their various statements testifying to having the sun at their backs) but notice that it DID turn generally southward – at which time – if it WAS a blimp, then they would have had a perfectly good view of the SIDE of it and hence should have described then a CIGAR shape. They did not. They maintained it kept its perspective (as generally circular) throughout!

Thus your conclusion is fallacious and such a conclusion was brought on by your own “missummary” of the evidence.

What shape is blimp if it is head on? Circular.

What shape is a blimp side on? Cigar shaped.

Quote:
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: -

Again you mis-summarise:

Mr B. “It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center.”

Mr C. “It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges.”

Mr D. “The object,(was) circular in formation as a silver dollar…”

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 complete and utter fabrication. Nowhere in Dr. Maccabee’s analysis does he do this. To be kind I will assert you have simply misread the research. But you are completely and incontrovertibly incorrect on this point.

This is a gross exaggeration of the actual facts from statements.

Never a truer word EHocking!

Let's remind ourselves of our mission statement here,
Quote:
...make their arguments by...accepting only those portions that support their own hypothesis. But if you do that, you can explain ANYTHING.

Again, never a truer word.

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.

No, again you misread the evidence . Plainly the witnesses described the object a “circular" THROUGHOUT the sighting. That aspect NEVER changed (see Mr. B’s statements above for example)

Now I have not finished with EHocking by a long chalk...but this should at least give you a taste of what is to come...and also an indication of the type of argument he mounts. He might SEEM plausible on the surface, but scratch a little (as above) and the whole deck of cards comes tumbling down

 

[Marduk]

No, again you misread the evidence . Plainly the witnesses described the object a “circular" THROUGHOUT the sighting. That aspect NEVER changed (see Mr. B’s statements above for example)

lets check that shall we

“It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center.”

ok do you have evidence of a circle that is thin near the edges and thicker in the center
I know something that is
this

what sort of shape is this ?

A, Square
B, Circular
D, Triangular ?

I'd like to take this oppotunity to congratulate E.Hocking

good job dude,

Rramjet, you really are just being retarded now. No one here has bought anything you said, and with each new post you make the chances of anyone ever buying anything are decreasing rapidly. Your intellectual dishonesty finished your credibility some time ago......

 

[Jocce]

Yet you willfully ignore the historical evidence as presented in my post (#1059) confirming that it was highly implausible for a blimp to have been at Rogue River in May 1949.

You have totally ignored my call for you to produce ANY evidence for your continuing to maintain support for the "blimp" hypothesis.

Omg.. EHockings post is full of data and it's clear that you haven't examined it. You stick your fingers in yoyr ears, close your eyes and go NANANANANA. You don't think anyone notice that? You're being very dishonest in your debating tactics. Sorry, won't work.

ETA: EHocking, tremendous job. Nuff said.

 

[Jocce]

Now I have not finished with EHocking by a long chalk...but this should at least give you a taste of what is to come...and also an indication of the type of argument he mounts. He might SEEM plausible on the surface, but scratch a little (as above) and the whole deck of cards comes tumbling down

You're finished, period. You are one delusional sob.

 

[Sledge]

Rramjet, 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"? By saying the blimp hypothesis is implausible, you acknowledge that it is possible, so what point are you trying to make?

 

[Marduk]

Rramjet, 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"? By saying the blimp hypothesis is implausible, you acknowledge that it is possible, so what point are you trying to make?

I thought that was rather obvious
by concluding that the Rogue river ufo is unidentified he will then claim that it has to be Alien, because nothing else fits, thats why hes so against anything that does fit.