RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Awwww, what a shame
I only ever buy the ones with Atlantean hieroglyphs on them.
I've got some with Hershey's hieroglyphs, if that helps.
Last edited:
- Status
I've got some with Hershey's hieroglyphs, if that helps.
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
A meteor makes the sound of an out of control freight train as it comes in- according to my sister, who experienced just such an event in late November last year in eastern Alberta, Canada. Fragments landed on her ranch and several adjacent ones.
Regarding the attention- do you really think that, given the sheer number of alleged UFO photos, videos, etc., that 'another' UFO photo, video etc., would be taken any more seriously by the general public to earn its owner any decent money or notoriety?
just speculating...
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Awwww, what a shame
I only ever buy the ones with Atlantean hieroglyphs on them.
my neighbour has the crashed spaceship with the Atlantean hieroglyphs, my other neighbour has the one with the Egyptian Hieroglyphs, for some reason no one has any with cuneiform.
lol
none of you will get that
Tapio
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 756
This is all your fault you know Tapio, if you hadn't asked me to look into Rogue River in the first place Rramjet would have proved it was an alien blimp by now
Ha! Good one, mate!
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
Final reply to EHocking and the "blimp"...
There has been some comment that I did not fully address EHockings blimp analysis in full.
I originally posted the following as a comprehensive analysis of the historical record.
EHocking chose to ignore that and reply with:
I partially addressed his post it here:
But there were complaints I did not address his post fully. I intend therefore to do so in more detail.
NOTE: Just to refresh our memories - subsequent to all that Ehocking posted the following (I guess as a partial response to my original post assessing the historical record).
To which I replied, quoting the documents in his link as a refutation:
Now, To address EHockings post that some have complained I missed (especially the "trigonometric" assessment).
NOTE: I know some contend Rogue River IS a UFO, plain and simple, but there are many others who want to maintain the "blimp" hypothesis - so now I hope the following, in addition to my posts above, will FINALLY put the "blimp" hypothesis to rest (R.I.P.).
Rogue River Object v. Blimp
What would a blimp look like coming at the eyewitnesses? Apparently it was coming from the East. (Mr. C stated it was initially seen by him when at about 60 degrees azimuth relative to North). IF it had traveled directly toward the witnesses and was initially so far away that it appeared simply as a glitter in the sky, as it attracted the attention of the first person to see it, then it would have appeared basically circular, like a "disc on edge" when viewed almost exactly along its horizontal axis (almost directly front on). As it got closer (at a constant altitude) its angular elevation would increase and its outline would start to "elongate" in the vertical direction. Initially it would appear as a small, "fat" ellipse with the major ellipse axis vertical. Then this ellipse would become elongated along its vertical axis as the blimp approached.
From the witness statements of estimated height and distance one gets the impression that the angular elevation at its closest was higher than arctan(1 mile/4 miles) = 14 degrees and possibly as high as arctan(1 mile up/1 mile horizontal) = 45 degrees. In any case, over this range of angles the oncoming blimp would look roughly like an ellipse with its length along the vertical axis continually growing. (If it got to overhead it would appear roughly as an ellipse with its major axis the length of the blimp and its minor axis the width of the blimp).
The main point is that its approach its apparent shape would change from circular when far away to elliptical with the ellipse major axis vertical. One would expect that if the angle did get to be as high as 40 degrees or more (about 5000 ft up and about 5280 ft away horizontally), the witnesses’ with binoculars could have seen the lateral fins silhouetted against the sky. Not only that, but the angular size would have been sufficient for the non-binocular witnesses to also realize what it was. If the blimp were 55 ft in diameter and only 110 ft long its angular size at a radial distance of 1.4 miles (1 mile up, 1 mile horizontally) would be arctan(55/1.4/5280) = .426 degrees = 25.6 arc minutes or .0074 radians, well within the ability for the eye to resolve. Its’ angular length would be twice that. It would not look at all circular.
Conclusion: As it approached, the witnesses could have noticed a pronounced change in the overall shape. If it had been a blimp at a distance of 4 miles the angular sizes would have been about 1/4 of the sizes given here, still plenty of resolution to see the shape change.
Then the “blimp” made nearly a right angle turn and, according to the first man to use binoculars, it turned on its vertical axis. A blimp is turned by a rudder, a large vertical "paddle" at the back end. In order to do what it is supposed to do, there must be fluid flowing past the rudder at enough speed to create a turning force. Hence the blimp has to be traveling at some speed and when it begins the turn it must keep up the speed. This prevents it from turning about a vertical axis such as would a disc, and instead results in a turning radius of many feet. What would be the apparent shape after the blimp changed direction from traveling roughly westward (approaching the witnesses from the east) to a direction basically south-southeastward (one witness indicated a course direction of 170 degrees relative to north)?
The witnesses, even the non-binocular witnesses, should have noticed that the major axis of the roughly elliptical shape had rotated so that it was now horizontal. This rotation of the major axis from vertical to horizontal would be characteristic of the blimp. But no one reported such a change. Mr. B reported it turned on its vertical axis but did not report that the major axis of its overall roughly elliptical shape rotated. In fact, based on the drawings of Mr. C the "major axis of the overall shape" remained horizontal as it turned. This is consistent with the object being circular as in a coin with a vertical axis (horizontal disc) but not with a blimp shape.
What about the overall speed?
EHocking is approaching this "scientifically" by making some assumptions and, wherever possible, being quantitative. Of course, this cuts both ways: the numerical results you get may be illustrative or indicative of something interesting or they may be just plain wrong. Consider his calculation of the speed based on the distance to disappearance (he said 51,566 ft) and the 2 minute estimated sighting time. THE PROBLEM IS: he calculates it as if the whole time the object was moving steadily southeast, but it seems from the eyewitness reports that most of the time it was actually stationary (or moving slowly). Thus one might say it was moving fast for only 1 minute ( and more likely - 30 seconds). This "ups the ante" for' the blimp explanation considerably.
Thus, during much of the time of the 2 minute (aprox.) observation the object was stationary or moving slowly. Only near the end did it accelerate and then disappear. The distance when closest might have been 1 mile. The distance at disappearance was much greater. Since it was a reflective (even shiny) object in the sky, its disappearance wouldn't be based on the angular size approaching the 1 minute of arc "eye resolution angle". It would be based on the amount of light coming from the object as compared to the adjacent sky brightness. It is likely that it could have been seen farther than the 1 arc minute resolution would suggest. But this is really an imponderable so IF it were a blimp heading away from the observers - and if it appeared as a 55 ft diameter circle (taking the smaller of EHocking’s size estimate) - then its distance to have a 1 arc minute or 0.00029 radian eye resolution angular size would be about 55/.00029 = 190000 ft or about 36 miles! (ie; to be far enough away to “disappear”). If it covered a distance of 35 miles (36 miles - 1 mile) in 1 minute, its average speed would have been about 2,100 mph. If the size had been the roughly 30 ft estimated by the witnesses (note: too small to be a blimp) the disappearance distance (based on resolution element of the eye) would have been about half of the previously calculated value and the speed would have been 1/2 of the calculated value. Even if the 30 ft object had taken 2 minutes to disappear at constant speed, its average speed would have been about 18 miles/(2/60 hour) = 540 mph. These are all well beyond blimp speeds.
So now, I hope that FINALLY puts the "blimp" hypothesis to rest (R.I.P.).
There has been some comment that I did not fully address EHockings blimp analysis in full.
I originally posted the following as a comprehensive analysis of the historical record.
EHocking chose to ignore that and reply with:
I partially addressed his post it here:
But there were complaints I did not address his post fully. I intend therefore to do so in more detail.
NOTE: Just to refresh our memories - subsequent to all that Ehocking posted the following (I guess as a partial response to my original post assessing the historical record).
To which I replied, quoting the documents in his link as a refutation:
Now, To address EHockings post that some have complained I missed (especially the "trigonometric" assessment).
NOTE: I know some contend Rogue River IS a UFO, plain and simple, but there are many others who want to maintain the "blimp" hypothesis - so now I hope the following, in addition to my posts above, will FINALLY put the "blimp" hypothesis to rest (R.I.P.).
Rogue River Object v. Blimp
What would a blimp look like coming at the eyewitnesses? Apparently it was coming from the East. (Mr. C stated it was initially seen by him when at about 60 degrees azimuth relative to North). IF it had traveled directly toward the witnesses and was initially so far away that it appeared simply as a glitter in the sky, as it attracted the attention of the first person to see it, then it would have appeared basically circular, like a "disc on edge" when viewed almost exactly along its horizontal axis (almost directly front on). As it got closer (at a constant altitude) its angular elevation would increase and its outline would start to "elongate" in the vertical direction. Initially it would appear as a small, "fat" ellipse with the major ellipse axis vertical. Then this ellipse would become elongated along its vertical axis as the blimp approached.
From the witness statements of estimated height and distance one gets the impression that the angular elevation at its closest was higher than arctan(1 mile/4 miles) = 14 degrees and possibly as high as arctan(1 mile up/1 mile horizontal) = 45 degrees. In any case, over this range of angles the oncoming blimp would look roughly like an ellipse with its length along the vertical axis continually growing. (If it got to overhead it would appear roughly as an ellipse with its major axis the length of the blimp and its minor axis the width of the blimp).
The main point is that its approach its apparent shape would change from circular when far away to elliptical with the ellipse major axis vertical. One would expect that if the angle did get to be as high as 40 degrees or more (about 5000 ft up and about 5280 ft away horizontally), the witnesses’ with binoculars could have seen the lateral fins silhouetted against the sky. Not only that, but the angular size would have been sufficient for the non-binocular witnesses to also realize what it was. If the blimp were 55 ft in diameter and only 110 ft long its angular size at a radial distance of 1.4 miles (1 mile up, 1 mile horizontally) would be arctan(55/1.4/5280) = .426 degrees = 25.6 arc minutes or .0074 radians, well within the ability for the eye to resolve. Its’ angular length would be twice that. It would not look at all circular.
Conclusion: As it approached, the witnesses could have noticed a pronounced change in the overall shape. If it had been a blimp at a distance of 4 miles the angular sizes would have been about 1/4 of the sizes given here, still plenty of resolution to see the shape change.
Then the “blimp” made nearly a right angle turn and, according to the first man to use binoculars, it turned on its vertical axis. A blimp is turned by a rudder, a large vertical "paddle" at the back end. In order to do what it is supposed to do, there must be fluid flowing past the rudder at enough speed to create a turning force. Hence the blimp has to be traveling at some speed and when it begins the turn it must keep up the speed. This prevents it from turning about a vertical axis such as would a disc, and instead results in a turning radius of many feet. What would be the apparent shape after the blimp changed direction from traveling roughly westward (approaching the witnesses from the east) to a direction basically south-southeastward (one witness indicated a course direction of 170 degrees relative to north)?
The witnesses, even the non-binocular witnesses, should have noticed that the major axis of the roughly elliptical shape had rotated so that it was now horizontal. This rotation of the major axis from vertical to horizontal would be characteristic of the blimp. But no one reported such a change. Mr. B reported it turned on its vertical axis but did not report that the major axis of its overall roughly elliptical shape rotated. In fact, based on the drawings of Mr. C the "major axis of the overall shape" remained horizontal as it turned. This is consistent with the object being circular as in a coin with a vertical axis (horizontal disc) but not with a blimp shape.
What about the overall speed?
EHocking is approaching this "scientifically" by making some assumptions and, wherever possible, being quantitative. Of course, this cuts both ways: the numerical results you get may be illustrative or indicative of something interesting or they may be just plain wrong. Consider his calculation of the speed based on the distance to disappearance (he said 51,566 ft) and the 2 minute estimated sighting time. THE PROBLEM IS: he calculates it as if the whole time the object was moving steadily southeast, but it seems from the eyewitness reports that most of the time it was actually stationary (or moving slowly). Thus one might say it was moving fast for only 1 minute ( and more likely - 30 seconds). This "ups the ante" for' the blimp explanation considerably.
Thus, during much of the time of the 2 minute (aprox.) observation the object was stationary or moving slowly. Only near the end did it accelerate and then disappear. The distance when closest might have been 1 mile. The distance at disappearance was much greater. Since it was a reflective (even shiny) object in the sky, its disappearance wouldn't be based on the angular size approaching the 1 minute of arc "eye resolution angle". It would be based on the amount of light coming from the object as compared to the adjacent sky brightness. It is likely that it could have been seen farther than the 1 arc minute resolution would suggest. But this is really an imponderable so IF it were a blimp heading away from the observers - and if it appeared as a 55 ft diameter circle (taking the smaller of EHocking’s size estimate) - then its distance to have a 1 arc minute or 0.00029 radian eye resolution angular size would be about 55/.00029 = 190000 ft or about 36 miles! (ie; to be far enough away to “disappear”). If it covered a distance of 35 miles (36 miles - 1 mile) in 1 minute, its average speed would have been about 2,100 mph. If the size had been the roughly 30 ft estimated by the witnesses (note: too small to be a blimp) the disappearance distance (based on resolution element of the eye) would have been about half of the previously calculated value and the speed would have been 1/2 of the calculated value. Even if the 30 ft object had taken 2 minutes to disappear at constant speed, its average speed would have been about 18 miles/(2/60 hour) = 540 mph. These are all well beyond blimp speeds.
So now, I hope that FINALLY puts the "blimp" hypothesis to rest (R.I.P.).
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
So how does that make it alien?
Back on topic... The Iranian UFO
I have contended that the Iranian UFO provides (at least partial) evidence that might lead us to a conclusion that "aliens exist" (remembering my definition of "alien" as “Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we take to be the limits of the natural world”)
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident
I have also provided a list of reasons WHY I think this case is compelling:
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"
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)
Seventh: I note also that the Iranian UFO exhibited many characteristics that preclude mundane explanations – including its’ shape, speed, maneuverability and the ability to join and split apart. For example: “…as he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin. Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other side of the primary object going straight down, at a great rate of speed.” Is just ONE example showing human involvement to be HIGHLY implausible. Note also the “intelligent control” point.
Now some have contended that this is all second hand information and thus not of any value. However, from the first link above (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf) (and noting carefully that the pilot involved was a primary source for this information):
On page 2 of the “Routing Slip” we find under:
“B. RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION” that
“1. Confirmed by other sources” is checked
[and it is checked in preference over 2. Substantially true, 3. Cannot be judged, 4 Doubtful and 5. False]
...and in the very next panel :
VALUE OF INFORMATION, we find that
“1 High (unique, Timely, and of Major Significance)” is checked
[in preference over “ 2. Contributory and Useful, 3. Low (marginal), 4. None (of no use) and 5. Cannot be judged (analyst has no basis for value judgement)].
NOW - can we discuss the case and WHY others might or might not think the case lends support to (provides evidence for) either of my contentions that “UFOs exist” or “Aliens exist”.
Or has no-one anything rational to say on the point at all?
I have contended that the Iranian UFO provides (at least partial) evidence that might lead us to a conclusion that "aliens exist" (remembering my definition of "alien" as “Intelligent agencies acting outside the bounds of what we take to be the limits of the natural world”)
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident
I have also provided a list of reasons WHY I think this case is compelling:
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"
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)
Seventh: I note also that the Iranian UFO exhibited many characteristics that preclude mundane explanations – including its’ shape, speed, maneuverability and the ability to join and split apart. For example: “…as he continued in his turn away from the primary object the second object went to the inside of his turn then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin. Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other side of the primary object going straight down, at a great rate of speed.” Is just ONE example showing human involvement to be HIGHLY implausible. Note also the “intelligent control” point.
Now some have contended that this is all second hand information and thus not of any value. However, from the first link above (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf) (and noting carefully that the pilot involved was a primary source for this information):
On page 2 of the “Routing Slip” we find under:
“B. RELIABILITY OF INFORMATION” that
“1. Confirmed by other sources” is checked
[and it is checked in preference over 2. Substantially true, 3. Cannot be judged, 4 Doubtful and 5. False]
...and in the very next panel :
VALUE OF INFORMATION, we find that
“1 High (unique, Timely, and of Major Significance)” is checked
[in preference over “ 2. Contributory and Useful, 3. Low (marginal), 4. None (of no use) and 5. Cannot be judged (analyst has no basis for value judgement)].
NOW - can we discuss the case and WHY others might or might not think the case lends support to (provides evidence for) either of my contentions that “UFOs exist” or “Aliens exist”.
Or has no-one anything rational to say on the point at all?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How does this make it alien?
How does this make it alien?
How does this make it alien?
How does this make it alien?
How does this make it alien?
How does this make it alien?
How do you know all mundane expalantions are ruled out, considering eyewitness fallability?
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
before you start cherry picking your next baloney, why don't you adress the rogue river baloney ?
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
try again, without lieing about the evidence first, as it is all you just did was fabricated evidence to support your contention while at the same time ignoring the real evidence which undermines it.
THAT's all you got...? All that evidence stated and referenced in my post, from both EHocking and myself...
...and that's all you got?
I'm disappointed Marduk (...but perhaps not surprised).
PS: RoboTimbo seems to have his needle stuck in a groove... can someone give him a bump just in case there is actually more than one track on his record?
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
While misrepresenting the Fiscal reports for the period. I know that there are posters who will also read those links and see your assessment for the misreprentations that they are.
You hypocrite - misquoting/changing posts is actually a breach of membership rules. Fortunately I am not petty enough or find your "arguments" valid enough to bother reporting you.
It has been put to rest.... by ratiional people.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Your evidence was dishonest, you claimed for instance that its speed was 2,100 mph, this is no doubt based on the witness claiming its speed was comparable with a Jet aircraft, what youre missing there is that the typical speed of 1950s jets was in the 600mph range, so your claim is both baloney and intellectually dishonest, as are all of your attempts to deny that it could have been a blimp. Like, have you even accepted yet that there were Navy reserve squadrons operating blimps in oregon in range of the rogue river on the date in question or are you still having an inability to grasp the facts there.
maybe you could answer his posts then instead of ignoring the repeated questions you are forcing him to ask youPS: RoboTimbo seems to have his needle stuck in a groove... can someone give him a bump just in case there is actually more than one track on his record?
hopeless, just hopeless
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
PS: RoboTimbo seems to have his needle stuck in a groove... can someone give him a bump just in case there is actually more than one track on his record?
Why are you unwilling to answer? You seem more than willing to repeatedly post the same list of non-evidence. Why are you then unwilling to defend your assertions?
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Keep your shirt on please. I merely referenced the posts so that people could get to the actual post with a single click. A matter of convenience (you will notice I referenced my own posts in a similar manner…). I am sure if I included the WHOLE of every post I referenced you would complain I was merely reposting stuff already posted.
I stated "NOTE: I know some contend Rogue River IS a UFO, plain and simple, but there are many others who want to maintain the "blimp" hypothesis - so now I hope the following, in addition to my posts above, will FINALLY put the "blimp" hypothesis to rest (R.I.P.)."
Exactly - and I have just done so.
I stated "What about the overall speed?"
If you say so… but if you dispute my calculations then you must show WHY and HOW you do so… after all, I have provided detailed reasons why I dispute your calculations.
Oh but the evidence clearly suggests quite strongly that there were NO operational Navy blimps on the West Coast in May 1949…
But I DO draw conclusions from the calculations. Do you dispute them. If so, why and how?
But the eyewitness testimony IS consistent… that is what makes the case so compelling.
Then perhaps you better reassess the eyewitness testimony… after all… YOU have used it in your own assessments…
I stated: "So now, I hope that FINALLY puts the "blimp" hypothesis to rest (R.I.P.)."
You have your faith… I have the evidence…
Ummm… actually the historical records and the data you referenced DO dispute it.
If you have any evidence of misrepresentation – present it – otherwise your merely stating so does not make it true.
Again – you seem not to have read any of my posts – If you can show me ANY post where I have “shouted” “Aliens! Aliens!" then please do… otherwise your mere saying so does not make it true.
Never a truer word was said.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How does that make it alien?
Last edited:
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Yes, Rramjet. You said you'd bring in the evidence to support your notion that aliens exist, yet you haven't presented any yet. You've brought in lies and you've argued from your ignorance and incredulity, but not a speck of evidence yet to support your contention. Figure to get around to that eventually?
- Status