So in all of that bluster, NO-ONE can come up with a definition of "Extraordinary Evidence"?
All we have is a Christian website contending a film of Jesus would be extraordinary evidence ... No... impossible actually...
and another website claiming
"Not only must the experiments be written up in such a way that others can challenge the assumptions and be able to spot errors, but they must also be independently replicated."
THIS is your definition of "Extraordinary evidence"?
NO-ONE can define "Extraordinary evidence"?
Why does that not surprise me?
So falls the house of cards.
Oh, and Tapio - EHocking TOTALLY ignored my post concerning evidence against the blimp hypothesis... perhaps you have not read it either? You began claiming you were willing to look at the evidence... and you have the temerity to ignore my post while claiming I have ignored another's...(shrugs)...
Perhaps you would like to read it now and make a comment?
The evidence against 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.
Is it even possible for a blimp have been at Rogue River on 24th May 1949? Perhaps so:
“During WW II, lighter-than-air (LTA) craft were key components in the war against the German U-boat, flying critical convoy escort and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) patrol missions. After war’s end, blimps continued to serve in ASW and other roles, and in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ZP-651 was based at NAS Akron,Ohio; ZPs 751, 752 and 753 at NAS Lakehurst,N.J.; ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.; ZP-911 at NAS Squantum, Mass.; and ZPs 951 and 952 atMCAF Santa Ana, Calif.” (
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/back...02/lighter.pdf.)
We must consider then two candidate LTA bases on the West Coast: NAS Oakland, California (in San Francisco some 340 miles SSW of Rogue River) and MCAF Santa Ana, California (near Los Angeles some 700 miles SSW of Rogue River).
Obviously we can then rule out Santa Ana as a candidate - for what possible rationale would a Santa Ana blimp be sent 400 miles to overfly San Francisco and the Oakland base and then proceed another 300 miles to Rogue River? Remember these were ostensibly NAVY RESERVE training bases.
One must also note the location of Rogue River. This is a relatively sparsely populated region of the continental US, on the West Coast in the centre of the Siskiyou National Forest region with only one main road in and out of the region (the Oregon Coast Highway 101).
Next we note the following detailed history from the same official navy source as above which seems to show that initial statement is not completely accurate – perhaps the initial statement is merely a summary (coming as it does so early in the history) where the actual details were “skimmed over” or “lost” in order to enable a short, comprehensive summary paragraph to be written.
“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)
Moreover we have from another source:
“The squadron was relocated to MCAS El Toro in 1948” … ” “Santa Ana NAS was decommissioned by the Navy in 1949” … “For less than 2 years, the huge former Navy blimp airfield was evidently reused as a civilian airport.” … “The civilian use of the airfield ended in 1951, when the property was transferred to the Marine Corps, which renamed it as the Marine Corps Air Facility Santa Ana. According to The California State Military Museum, the station reopened during the Korean War. Blimp operations staged a brief resurrection when the Navy established a 2-blimp Naval Air Reserve Training Unit (NARTU) on April 1, 1951. The Marines arrived the next month establishing a helicopter air facility.” (
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/...rangeCo_SE.htm)
So this confirms we must indeed rule out Santa Ana as a candidate LTA base – there were simply no Navy blimps at the base in 1949. Some have however argued that as the Santa Ana base continued to be used by advertising blimps (GoodYear blimps as it turns out) then one of those could have been responsible. However it beggars belief that an advertising blimp would travel 700 miles (as the crow flies) bypassing major population centres (San Francisco for one) to be sighted over a sparsely populated region of the country. Moreover, such blimps were simply not equipped for such a journey.
But what about Oakland (which is the closer of the two bases to Rogue River and was always the most likely candidate anyway)? The following documentary source provided additional information.
“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)
This would seem to put the clincher on the argument – “Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended.”
But it is interesting to note that Oakland has not been directly ruled out as a candidate in a specific historical document (apart from the general “…all west Coast operations ceased… of course, but skeptics are very hard to please…). So, we have from a book history:
Oakland Aviation by Ronald T. Reuther and William T. Larkins:
“Navy Reserve Squadron ZP-871 (Lighter than air) flew one after the war at Oakland from 1952 to 1958. (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 a blimp at Oakland – just one - but it seems it was used solely as an advertising blimp for the Navy over the city, between 1952 and1958. So again, nothing for May 1949.
Now the skeptics are extremely hard to please and despite the evidence thus far presented continued (some would say irrationally at this point) to assert “A blimp done it” (working possibly on the assumption “never let the evidence get in the way of a good story”).
So what other evidence did they present?
Well, they brought in another possible candidate LTA Navy base – Tillamook. Now it is possible there were blimps at the base in 1949 because:
“After the war, NAS Tillamook was quickly disestablished, but her facilities continued to provide staging areas for private airship companies.” (
http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/base/uses.htm)
So then the following link is used to evidence that the GoodYear blimp operation “could have done it”. (
http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/hangars/use.htm)
But under that link is a simple table:
1947 Goodyear West Coast Blimp Tour
1949-1982 Lumber Planing Mills
1952-1953 USAF Balloon Testing 1958 Balloon Launching (Cosmic Ray Research) 1963 & 1979 Coast-To-Coast Launching Point
1981-1991 Cyclocrane Development
1984 Short Take-Off & Landing Experiments
1984-Present Various Blimp Developments
1989 Government Aerostat Testing
1990 Trans-World Balloon Testing
1992-Present Aircraft Museum (Hangar B)
1994 USAF Tethered Radar Balloon Testing
Now we must note that the Goodyear “Tour” was operational only in 1947: That is, not 1948 or 1949 - because it if was operational in those years, there would have been indication recorded in the table that it was.
Still the blimp hypothesis would not die. So what next did the skeptics argue?
They entered the following photo into the record: (
http://photos.salemhistory.net/cdm4/...ISOBOX=1&REC=3) which shows “This is a view from the Goodyear blimp on May 6, 1949, of Bush Pasture park before Willamette University's McCullough Stadium was built.”
Ah, so we are back to the Goodyear blimp (Note: Salem, Oregon is some 190 miles NNE of Rogue River).
So we must ask and answer the question: How fast and how far can the blimp go? From Goodyear themselves we have:
“The usual cruising speed is thirty-five miles per hour in a zero wind condition; all-out top speed is fifty-three miles per hour on the GZ20. As to cruising range: the ship can carry enough fuel to fly for twenty- four hours, although it rarely does so. When traveling cross-country the blimps fly wherever they go, and the crews try for an eight-hour day, or about 300 air miles.” (
http://www.goodyearblimp.com/faqs/fa...ion.html#speed)
Thus it would seem to stretch credulity to its limits to suppose that a Goodyear blimp would even attempt the 190 mile journey from Salem to Rogue River. Even if conditions were absolutely perfect a one way journey would have taken upwards of 4 hours AND the whole journey would have required the blimp to travel at top speed, without a break for more than eight hours – an engineering and feat of stamina I suggest quite unlikely indeed.
But still the skeptics refused to let go!
Now they tried a distinction between Navy operations and Navy Reserve operations.
“During WW II, lighter-than-air (LTA) craft were key components in the war against the German U-boat, flying critical convoy escort and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) patrol missions. After war's end, blimps continued to serve in ASW and other roles, and in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ZP-651 was based at NAS Akron, Ohio; ZPs 751, 752 and 753 at NAS Lakehurst, N.J.; ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.; ZP-911 at NAS Squantum, Mass.; and ZPs 951 and 952 at MCAF Santa Ana, Calif. These reserve ZP squadrons were even more unusual than their lighter-than-air brethren, as revealed bv a closer look at ZP-911.” (
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-276238111.html)
Now the skeptics have not read that passage as carefully as they might because contained within it is the last sentence “These reserve ZP squadrons were even more unusual than their lighter-than-air brethren…”
But perhaps the statement does not mean what we think it means. Is there in fact a conflict between this statement and the statements of the official Navy history (above)?
One clue to the resolution of this apparent conflict could be the relatively imprecise date in this statement – 1949. It is certainly acknowledged that blimps were operating in the 1950s; we have evidence for that*, but 1949? I think the key term to be considered is “established” in 1949. This does not mean “became operational” in 1949. If we accept that the squadrons in question were “established” in 1949 but their operational status only reached in (as early as) 1950 then there is no conflict with official sources. But of course this does NOT put a blimp in Rogue River in May 1949.
* For example: Photographic proof that LTA squadrons were still operating in California in 1950 (
http://www.bluffshoa.com/history.php).
At this point the skeptics at last ran out of ideas. Of course they did not drop the claim that it was possible for a “blimp to have done it”, but I contend that in consideration of all the evidence presented above, that it is highly unlikely that a blimp was at Rogue River on the 24th May, 1949.
Now I suppose, knowing that old saw about UFO debunkers “that they never let the evidence get in the way of a good story”, I can expect that the “blimp” hypothesis will never die – even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
One final note; All this is even BEFORE we have considered the sworn eyewitness testimony that describes an object that in no way substantially resembles a blimp.
I hope that will be the end of it… but why do I doubt it?
