UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoboTimbo said:
Then you've not answered it at all. How did you make the gigantic leap from "not being proof" to being proof of aliens in your mind?
Click to expand...

here is my hypothesis on what is going on with his logic in his mind. I could be wrong (almostcertainly). But it really look like this:

1) there are numerous sighting of Unidentified objects.
2) each hypothese are equal in weight
3) there are numerous hypothese on it being a known object (50% for all those) and that it is an alien (50%) OR alien hypothese is as probable as other hypothese
4) if you look at all those high % of alien exisence, it is not possible that all are mistaken or highly improbable due to the sighting being numerous
5) therefor some UFO are aliens

Which is why I think he insist very HEAVILY on point 2, otherwise, it would destroy the foundation of his logic.

PS it is hardto type when your cat is on your lap , purring and pawing at the key of the keyboard
 
Jocce said:
Then I have to conclude that you have serious reading comprehension problems. The whole article is about the reserve squadrons established in 1949. Your browser has a search feature. Use it to search for 1949 (hint: It's in the 3d line). I thought you would be familiar with this article since you have quoted it yourself before. Selective perception?
Click to expand...
Ugh. I know I promised that I wouldn't post on this anymore, but I see that it's not going to go away.

So - some irrefutable evidence that just cannot be denied.

The following link is to the, Index for Naval Aeronautical Organization, Fiscal Year 1923 through Fiscal Year 1952

The purpose of each document was,
"...issued as a means of presenting to interested commands the planned size and composition of Naval Aviation. Implementation of changes in the current organization will be effected by separate correspondence in the of specific directives."

i.e. Navy financial and budget reports for all their US operations.

I have read all of the pertinent reports (below) which categorically show,
that there were 2 operating blimp NAS in California and that NAS Oakland was to be "retained in commission in reduced operating status for Reserve Training." as well as an order for 4 NEW blimps to be delivered to these bases from 1 July 1949 to 1 July 1950.

They also outline the reassignment of US Navy LTA to newly designated USN Reserve bases and names them.

The May 1949 report has the LTA fleet (USN & USNR) as:

  • 2 LTA Tactical Squadrons with
    - an operational LTA inventory of 20 airships.
    - 28 non-aviator, 18 ground staff, 130 officers and 500 enlisted men
  • Expectaion of 30 newly trained LTA pilots
  • NAS Moffett, Oakland and Santa Ana are specifically listed and their operational support status is also confirmed.
I am NOT going to summarise these 4 reports for anyone - if you want confirmation you can read it yourself!

I am NOT stating that this is "proof" that a blimp was in Oregon on May 24, 1949, but I will say that this IS irrefutable hard evidence that active blimp operations were still being run by the Navy and the Navy Reserve, continuously from 1947 to 1950 on the west coasts of California and Oregon.

Relevant reports in PDF form are:
FY-1949 Dated May 1947
FY-1949 Dated June 1948
FY-1950 Dated May 1949
FY-1951 Dated July 1950

So Rramjet, I see your invalid assertion,
Actually this points out a real difference between me and JREF skeptics.
When faced with evidence that contradicts my opinions I will defer to the evidence and admit my earlier contentions to have been mistaken. I did that in the referenced "Mexican UFO" video. As soon as evidence was presented that showed my conclusion to be in error, I admitted it.

Unfortunately, JREF skeptics are too insecure (IMO), or not brave enough to admit to the same sort of errors when confronted with contrary evidence (witness the "blimp" fiasco).
Click to expand...
, raise and call you on irrefutable evidence and a display of integrity.
 
Ugh. I know I promised that I wouldn't post on this anymore, but I see that it's not going to go away.
Click to expand...

I know the feeling. Thanx for finding this. I was just about to start looking for something similar.
 
Marduk said:
or indeed, any evidence at all, which has not, so far, been forthcoming.
:D
Click to expand...
The word "evidence" just sounds all sciency and stuff. Maybe if I repeat it over and over, people will believe that aliens really, really, exist. Maybe if I say the word "quantum" enough, people will stop believing in those stupid blimps.:rolleyes:
 
Rramjet said:
Okay, but if they do not provide indications of an alien presence…why do they not then - in your opinion?
Click to expand...

That is not the way this works. You claim that they provide indications of an alien presence. You provide the proof. So far you've said, in summary: "I can't explain it so it must be alien". You can do better than that.

ETA: To make it easier to follow, this is what I'm talking about:

Rramjet said:
Next however I raised two cases that I believe do have a level of information that goes beyond the mere assertion of "UFO" to take things to another level. That is; the Hopkinsville case and the Iranian UFO case. Clearly there is something to these cases that command our attention. The first involved "creatures" which are nowhere described in the scientific record as indigenous and the second shows a "craft" performing intelligent and extraordinary maneuvers.

Now while these creatures and object characteristics do not in themselves provide "proof" of anything - except that we as humans still have a great deal to learn about "reality" - they do provide indications that something "alien" is amongst us.
Click to expand...



There is no evidence for creatures other than the witnesses saying so. Do you believe everyone who says that they saw faries, angels and unicorns? Just because they say so?

Why does "a craft" performing intelligent and extraordinary maneuvers" point to aliens. Can't ordinary people perform intelligently and make extraordinary maneuvers? Also, there is no evidence for any craft at all other than a written report of something that allegedly happened.
 
Last edited:
Jocce said:
Why does "a craft" performing intelligent and extraordinary maneuvers" point to aliens. Can't ordinary people perform intelligently and make extraordinary maneuvers? Also, there is no evidence for any craft at all other than a written report of something that allegedly happened.
Click to expand...

Queing Rramjet to come in and complain about the use of the word 'extraordinary' here in 3...2...1...

Is it as obvious to others as it is to myself that he simply doesn't have the capability to interpret words in more than a single, rigid (self-serving) way?
 
Rramjet said:
Thank you KotA.
I appreciate you input.
You make your points clearly and concisely.
You are right of course. The "skeptics" cannot enter into a proper debate - because they know that they will lose it. Simply because the precepts of science and the tenets of logic are not on their side.
For them it is all about "winning at all costs" and, unfortunately, not about journeys of discovery or intellectual curiosity at all.
Click to expand...

Ramjet, I think that this post above concerns YOU, not us. Again, you seem like a person who only knows the very basics of logic and science, but has no idea how to apply them. Please, get an education on the subject.
 
Stray Cat said:
No it wouldn't... eye witnesses are unreliable regardless of if they have won a prize...

... Now if the Nobel Prize Winner was given his prize for being the first Physicist to observe, study examine and test a UFO and identify it as a Zorbian Class 3 Intergalactic Transporter, who then got his prize for providing his physical evidence to the scientific community (including his captured UFO), that may add some weight to his report... but then we would expect it to not be a UFO report but a Zorbian Class 3 Intergalactic Transporter sighting. ;)


There shouldn't be a bias to the conclusion... If proper investigation is carried out into the evidence.
If the two people above reported a UFO and no further evidence was submitted, it would most likely remain a UFO, there would be no need to add more weight to a Nobel Prize Winner's report than to a homeless guys report... both saw something they couldn't identify.

Which is why I'm steering well clear of painting the Gun toting, alien shooting, carnival working, backwoods, uneducated, drunk folk as uncredible. ;)

Because the case will stand or fall on the physical evidence... which in that case is none. Nothing to support it, nothing to refute it (except there is no physical evidence of anything where you may expect to find some).
Click to expand...

So, will it all come down to the formalized, peer reviewed, scientifically presented chunk of Zorbian seat upholstery over a Nobel prize winners claim that he/she had a conversation with said Zorbian?

If I am reading you correctly, the conversation is out as evidence, and the upholstery is in. Would that be a fair assessment?

I am saying both are equally acceptable. Does that make my standards any less rigourous than yours? I do not see how.
 
EHocking said:
Ugh. I know I promised that I wouldn't post on this anymore, but I see that it's not going to go away.

So - some irrefutable evidence that just cannot be denied.

The following link is to the, Index for Naval Aeronautical Organization, Fiscal Year 1923 through Fiscal Year 1952

The purpose of each document was,
"...issued as a means of presenting to interested commands the planned size and composition of Naval Aviation. Implementation of changes in the current organization will be effected by separate correspondence in the of specific directives."

i.e. Navy financial and budget reports for all their US operations.

I have read all of the pertinent reports (below) which categorically show,
that there were 2 operating blimp NAS in California and that NAS Oakland was to be "retained in commission in reduced operating status for Reserve Training." as well as an order for 4 NEW blimps to be delivered to these bases from 1 July 1949 to 1 July 1950.

They also outline the reassignment of US Navy LTA to newly designated USN Reserve bases and names them.

The May 1949 report has the LTA fleet (USN & USNR) as:

  • 2 LTA Tactical Squadrons with
    - an operational LTA inventory of 20 airships.
    - 28 non-aviator, 18 ground staff, 130 officers and 500 enlisted men
  • Expectaion of 30 newly trained LTA pilots
  • NAS Moffett, Oakland and Santa Ana are specifically listed and their operational support status is also confirmed.
I am NOT going to summarise these 4 reports for anyone - if you want confirmation you can read it yourself!

I am NOT stating that this is "proof" that a blimp was in Oregon on May 24, 1949, but I will say that this IS irrefutable hard evidence that active blimp operations were still being run by the Navy and the Navy Reserve, continuously from 1947 to 1950 on the west coasts of California and Oregon.

Relevant reports in PDF form are:
FY-1949 Dated May 1947
FY-1949 Dated June 1948
FY-1950 Dated May 1949
FY-1951 Dated July 1950

So Rramjet, I see your invalid assertion, , raise and call you on irrefutable evidence and a display of integrity.
Click to expand...

Okay let’s see what we have then:

I WILL summarise the reports (actually provide direct quotes from them)

NOTE: Data for Fiscal year 1949 (1948 indicated in brackets where different to 1949). That is 1949 data is for Jul 1949 Jun 1950 (1948 data Jul 1948 to Jun 1949).

NOTE: The following sections are quoted directly as the ONLY extant references to either LTA or ZP squadrons in the relevant time period documents.

SECTION I – SUMMARY
2. Aircraft Units.
(A) Navy
(10) Lighter-than-Airships Tactical Squadrons 3 (1948 = 2)

SECTION 111. - AIRCRAFT
5. LIGHTER-THAN-AIR
USN
Z NP Squadrons 3 (squadrons) 12(airships) (1948 = 2 & 8)
Training 4
Experiment & Development 4

7. Operating Level By Model.
(B) LTA 6(USNR) 20(USN) 26(TOTAL)

SECTION IV. - SHORE ESTABLISHMENTS
1. Continental Air Stations.
(A) Supporting the Fleet
(2) Navy LTA
NAS Key West, FLA. Night Carrier Trng. 1 ZP Det.
NAS Moffett, Cal. Wings, Avia. Special 1 ZP

(Note: 1 ZP is the name of LTA squadron 1)

Navy (LTA)
NAS Lakehurst, N.J. Support Fleet LTA 2 ZP. 1 ZP Trng.

(Note: 2 ZP is the name of LTA squadron 2)

(E) Storage Facilities
NAF Weeksville, N.C BuAr A/C Sorage Program (A/C Preservation), LTA 1 ZP
NAS Santa Ana, Cal. BuAr A/C Sorage Program (A/C Preservation), LTA 1 ZP

AIRCRAFT IN STORAGE AT END OF PERIOD
1948
Jun ZP-K 24 (in inactive storage) 3 (active storage) ZP-M 1(active storage) ZT_G 3 (inactive storage) ZT-L 3 (inactive storage)
Dec ZP-K 24 (in inactive storage) 3 (active storage) ZP-M 1(active storage) ZT_G 3 (inactive storage) ZT-L 3 (inactive storage)
1949
Jun ZP-K 24 (in inactive storage) 3 (active storage) ZP-M 1(active storage) ZT_G 3 (inactive storage) ZT-L 3 (inactive storage)
Dec (no data)

8. New Procurement Fiscal 1949 Funds.
1 JULY 1949 - 30 JUNE 1950
j. Airships 2(Units) 2 (TOTAL) (1948 = 4)

SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
3. Aircraft Assignments (Stations)
NAS Lakehurst 6 (AIRSHIPS) (1948 = 2)

1948
Santa Ana (LTA) 2
Cleveland – Akron 2


So, this data covers the period from 1 July 1948 to 1 July 1950.

Summarising
1. There were 2 LTA squadrons 1948/49 (ZP1 & ZP2)
In 1949/50 there were 3 (ZP1, ZP2 and an unnamed squadron – probably a Navy Reserve Squadron)

2. ZP1 was based at NAS Key West, FLa (with a special detachment at Moffet, Cal.)
ZP2 was based at NAS Lakehurst, NJ (with ZP1 training also undertaken there)

3. NAS Santa Ana is registered as an LTA storage and preservation facility for ZP1 (2 airships stored there in 1948, no data for 1949)

4. From July 1948 to Dec 1949 24 ZP-Ks were in inactive storage (there were some other classes operating (probably out of Key West and Lakehurst).

5. In 1950 the Navy again reinstated active involvement in LTAs, but 1948/49 saw a period of general inactivity and decommissioning of bases. Indeed the 1948/49 fiscal year document states:

“39 continental and 21 overseas air facilities have been disestablished. These are being retained under US ownership pending final disposition. Of these, 22 continental and 6 overseas facilities have been, or are being, leased or made available to various other agencies at no cost to the Navy.” (p 13)

6. There is a suggestion of a special detachment of ZP 1 at Moffet but only in late 1949 (but only after July – Rogue River was in May)

So, in ALL that we STILL have NO blimps on the WEST COAST operational in MAY 1949 - and this IS just as the official histories have recorded it.

In your own words then:

So EHocking, I see your invalid assertion, raise and call you on irrefutable evidence and a display of integrity.
 
I can see how you might have missed this question, Rramjet, seeing as I've only posted it about half a dozen times: what point are you trying to make?
 
Rramjet said:
So, in ALL that we STILL have NO blimps on the WEST COAST operational in MAY 1949 - and this IS just as the official histories have recorded it.
Click to expand...


This is another lie. It has been established to the satisfaction of every sane intelligent person here that there were indeed blimps in Oregon in May of 1949. Your argument to the contrary is from ignorance and incredulity.
 
What is my point...?

These cases (that I present), with Rogue River, form stepping stones on a journey of discovery that we must take before we can draw any firm conclusions at all - if indeed ever we can ( and indeed, every scientific exploration of the environment around us is just such a journey).

In other words I am trying to show that there are cases that represent things that indicate that there is a LOT more to “reality” than we understand at present. I contend that the evidence points toward an “alien” presence.

Of course if I only presented one case, then you can argue ‘till the cows come home about the veracity of that case. But if I go on presenting cases, I believe there comes a point where any rational person must begin to sit up and begin to take notice. “Hang on a minute…” they will say “Some of this stuff is verified by witnesses and agencies at the highest levels (with radar evidence, photos and videos, and physical trace evidence). There are UFOs that exhibit characteristics that are simply outside our range of conception. So what the…?”

And so begins the journey of discovery. The more you look, the more the evidence mounts, until it can no longer be ignored.

I contend the end-point is “aliens” but I have NO clear concept of what “alien” really means except “Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we take to be the limits of the natural world”.

That is what I am driving at. I believe the evidence supports this contention and conception. I believe the only way to get people to understand why I hold these ideas is to present cases that I think support my ideas. (and obviously just one case will not do the job…) so …on with the show!

I hope that (again) answers any questions of what my point is in all of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom