Clarification #1
There seems to be some argument latterly that I have not presented any evidence or that I have not addressed the issues raised or that I have been somehow arguing illogically or have otherwise been in error in the way I have presented my evidence.
I will therefore spend a little time recapping the cases I have presented so far. I do this in order to show the above contentions to be in error.
The first case I presented was:
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/rogue490524docs3.htm)
As far as I can tell there were only ever two rational arguments against the evidence that I presented in that case.
First: That the eyewitnesses are not reliable.
Second: That there could be mundane explanations that cover the sightings.
I will give you all a chance here to raise any other arguments you might have. Indeed I implore you to do so.
Now…let us see how these arguments applied to the case.
HOW RELIABLE IS THIS REPORT?
“This sighting is unique among the collection of visual-only sightings in that it combines multiple witness testimony (5 witnesses) with a relatively long duration (minutes instead of seconds) and clear viewing (no visual obscurations and optimum lighting). The long duration allowed the witnesses, especially those with binoculars, to go through the "escalation of hypotheses" (Hynek): is it a bird? (no); is it an airplane? (no); is it a balloon? (no); well, then what the heck is it? (don't know). When they reached the "don't know" stage, they may well have gone into the "interpretation" stage and they may have asked themselves, "Is this what we have heard about? Is this a flying saucer?" But, to the credit of the interviewer, the verbal testimony concentrates on the observations rather than any interpretations. (One of the toughest jobs of the UFO investigator is to separate witness observations, such as shape, angular size, angular speed, noise, etc., from witness interpretations of what they saw.) In this case the descriptions of the object, accompanied by drawings that show details of shape and surface markings, are clear and credible enough so that the object would have been identified, at least by the Battelle scientists if not by the witnesses, if their description had been consistent with a mundane object such as a bird, a plane, a balloon (blimp) or even a radar kite(!). The fact that no such identification is possible is based on clear and credible descriptions of the following characteristics of the object: (a) shape (disc/pancake with a "fin" on top);(b) reflectivity (like metal); (c) flight dynamics (approaching to within some distance of the witnesses, hovering, rotating on its vertical axis and accelerating to "the speed of a jet,"} (d) no noise despite the speedy departure;(e) no evidence of wings, engines, landing gear or antenna; and (f) no contrail or smoke or vapor despite the the jet-like speed of departure.
Sightings are often "explained," usually in an unconvincing way, by rejecting one or more of the elements of reported evidence. (Note: one may not know whether or not an explanation is correct. However, one can decide whether or not a particular explanation is convincing.) The analyst may assign low credibility to one or more of the reported characteristics of the object and then point out that the remaining charactistics are reasonably consistent with the characteristics of a particular known object or phenomenon. For example, in this case the Project Grudge staff personnel "identified" the object reported by "Mrs. A" by ignoring her comment about the shape (round) and instead emphasizing her report of seeing the object high in the sky where, of course, one often finds "aircraft." They then stated (without justification) that there was no reason that it couldn't have been an "aircraft" and so, the final identification was "aircraft" (it seems that any explanation is better than none). A similar sort of reasoning led to the "kites" identification: the Grudge staff evidently assigned low credibility to the detailed verbal description and drawings and then converted a "possible explanation" (that a radar kite from the San Francisco area might have traveled to the sighting location) to a "definite" (it was a radar kite). Although this explanation technique was applied to this sighting, leading to the "final identification" as given in the table of contents of the Blue Book sighting list, it is apparent that these identifications (aircraft, kites) did not convince the Battelle analysts. And they don't convince me.
Any investigator, when confronted with a detailed sighting such as this and explanations such as these has to decide for himself just what is necessary to convince him that a sighting is unexplainable or that a sighting has been explained.”
COULD THIS SIGHTING REPORT HAVE BEEN A HOAX?
It is my opinion that this report was not a hoax. When the two men decided to report the UFO, they did not turn to the newspapers or TV or radio to get the maximum publicity for their story. Instead, the two men, who worked in responsible positions within the Ames Research Laboratory, reported it to the security office at their own laboratory. If it was a hoax, by reporting it directly to their workplace security, they were (at the very least) endangering their jobs if exposed.
One might suggest that the time between the sighting and the report lends an air of “hoax” to the situation. It took the witnesses about three weeks to report the sighting. To me however, this suggests an element of caution on their part, in keeping with their reported character assessments. Did they really dare to report such a thing? Certainly they would not have wanted to look foolish. And what about their positions within the Ames laboratory? Yet they probably would also have felt - as confirmed by several of the early witnesses who reported “flying saucers” - that it was their duty as American citizens to report these things so that the government would know about them.
Of course the "dyed in the wool skeptic" (a phrase used by Phil Klass to describe himself during my first phone conversation with him in 1974) or “debunker” might argue that they played for high stakes. If they could get their story past the OSI investigators they could either laugh at the government (they did it for the fun of it) or use the OSI investigation as evidence it was a genuine sighting and make lots of money selling their story to the press, or both.
However, this scenario is unlikely. There is no indication I am aware of that they ever told anyone other than the OSI the details of their sighting. Hence they certainly didn't "do it for the money". Of course, I cannot prove they didn't do it for fun, but it would seem to be a highly risky undertaking for men in responsible positions to put their jobs on the line merely to be able to laugh at the OSI investigators.
ARE THERE ANY “MUNDANE” OBJECTS THAT THIS UFO SIGHTING COULD PLAUSIBLY BE MISTAKEN FOR?
A question was posed by the skeptics: Could a blimp have been responsible for the Rogue River UFO sighting?
The primary hypothesis from the skeptical camp for a “mundane object” explanation for the Rogue River is that “It could have been a blimp". 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.
But there is even more evidence that makes the blimp hypothesis implausible.
Even if we did not have the historical evidence to make the blimp hypothesis implausible, we DO have the eyewitness (five witnesses under perfect viewing conditions with the sun at their backs, two with the aid of binoculars) sworn testimony, consistent between themselves, describing the object as ;
(Mr. B)
"On 24 May 1949, at approximately 5:00 p.m., while fishing with several friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from Gold Beach, Oregon, my attention was drawn to an object in the sky by Mr. D, one of the members of the party. 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 nearly as possible to tell, the object appeared about 5000 feet in altitude, and not more than a mile away. When I first observed it, object was moving very slowly. As I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south, with no banking or leaning, and picked up speed. I then handed the glasses to Mr. C in order that he might see the object. Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center. A triangular fin appeared to arise amidship and extended to the trailing end of the object viewed as it travelled. There were no openings visible and no sound was heard. There appeared to be no engines or motors, no landing gear, no other protruding parts other than the fin already described. The object was in sight for approximately one (1) minute. Sun was at our backs and there were no clouds."
(Mr. C)
"While fishing with a party of friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from its mouth at Gold Beach, Oregon, at approximately 5:00 p.m., 24 May 1949, my attention was called to an object in the sky. The object was to the east of us about one (1) mile, at approximately 5000 feet altitude. With the naked eye, little but a glare and a silvery glint could be seen. But after watching it for approximately one minute and a half, 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 and appeared to be 30 to 35 feet in diameter. It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges. A small triangular fin started in the middle and grew gradually higher to the rear as the object travelled. 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. As far as could be seen, it had no openings or protuberances of any kind other than the fin, and there was neither sight nor sound of any driving force. It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction, mostly south."
(Mr. D)
"During the latter part of May 1949, at approximately 1630 in the afternoon, while fishing in a boat on the Rogue River near Gold Beach, Oregon, together with [list of people deleted; assumed to be Mrs. A, Mr. B, Mr. C] and my wife, my attention was attracted by a silvery object in the sky, travelling at a height of approximately 5000 feet in a southerly direction. The object,(was) circular in formation as a silver dollar (and) travelled without sound at a speed greater than a high speed or jet plane. Mr. B and Mr. C used a binocular to view the object, which was visible to the naked eye for approximately two minutes. Not using binoculars, I could not make out any irregularities of formation, or whether the object had a motor or motors, landing gear, or other items usually connected with a plane. It had no appearance of the conventional plane but in size would be of the diameter of the fuselage length of the DC-3 plane. I have fished in the general area a number of years and have observed various', type planes flying in this area, but have never observed anything of this nature before."
(Mrs. D)
"While on vacation near Gold Beach, Oregon, during the latter part of May 1949, and while fishing from a boat in the Rogue River in the late afternoon, my husband, Mr. D, called the attention of the group to a silver object, circular in shape, crossing the sky at a high attitude and at a high rate of speed. I could not estimate its height and its size was as large as a large passenger plane though shaped like a shiny circular disk. No sound was heard and it crossed our range of vision in two or three minutes. The day had been clear, visibility was good, and the sun was just setting. Other occupants of the party who observed the object were [names deleted; assumed to be Mrs. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C ] and my husband. There was no sound and the object travelled on a direct course."
Unfortunately we only have the record of interview from Mrs A – so these are not her own words – nevertheless:
(Mrs A’s record of interview)
"At approximately 1700 hours, 24 May 1949, she and four other persons, while fishing on the Rogue River near Elephant Rock, approximately 1 1/2 miles above the highway bridge near Gold Beach, Oregon, sighted an object described as being round in shape, silver in color, and about the size of a C-47 aircraft. When first brought to Mrs. A's attention by one of the other witnesses, the object appeared to be three or four miles away. It was coming from the east, but later turned to the southwest. It appeared to be travelling at the same rate of speed as a C-47. It made no noise, left no exhaust trail, and made no manoeuvres. The interviewee stated that she was not familiar with aircraft; therefore, she could not estimate with any accuracy the speed or altitude at which the object was travelling. Mrs. A made the comparison between the object and a C-47 because she is familiar with that type of aircraft; her son has pointed out C-47s as they flew over Gold Beach. "
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. 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. 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 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.
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!).
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! Other skeptics point out that Mrs A also referred to the size of the object as “about the size of a C-47 aircraft”, however they fail to note that “The interviewee stated that she was not familiar with aircraft; therefore, she could not estimate with any accuracy the speed or altitude at which the object was travelling.”
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.
Finally, the “skeptics” seem to want to define a UFO a la Condon as “an object unidentified by the observer”. But this denies the OSI investigation by experts who should have been able to identify known, mundane phenomena/objects yet failed to identify the object despite sufficient detailed, credible information that identification should be possible based on what is known "today."
One point: it is well known that distance estimates are highly fallible when observing an object in a clear blue sky. The estimated size was based on the fact that the object had some size, even to the naked eye it was not an unresolvable point, and thus through binoculars it would have been even clearer to describe the characteristics observed.
But the point is that ultimately it gets down to arguing over which characteristics of the reported object are believably reported, or which characteristics will one accept as likely to be true, and these must be compared with the "Candidate Explanatory Hypotheses" which is the set of potential explanations. Blimp is a CEH. So is "bird", "kite" (radar kite) and anything else you can think of after ruling out true impossibilities such as locomotive, meteor, Venus, battleship, car, flying carrot, panther, etc. Most things that exist are thus not even potential CEH's. One must simply stick with the CEH's that have the most characteristics that match the characteristic of the reported object/phenomenon. "Blimp" falls short of this test of potential candidates on a number of described object characteristics.
The evidence MUST be viewed in toto. All together. First, the direct evidence that a blimp could possibly have been in the area seems conflicted (at BEST), 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.
Together the evidence points toward UFO as the only conclusion that can be reached. All other explanations "wind blown trash", "kite", "balloon of some kind", "parachute", etc. just do NOT fit the evidence. It's as simple as that.
My assessment above (and in previous posts) has not "dismissed with the wave of a hand" anything at all. In fact I have provided much detailed evidence and explanation to support my position. 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. It is as simple as that.
I therefore maintain the "blimp" hypothesis to be entirely implausible.
So WHAT WAS the object sighted?
We have shown the witnesses to be reliable.
We have ruled out any plausible mundane hypotheses to explain the sighting (at least there are none that anyone can think of that matches the sighting).
Simply therefore we do not know what the object at Rogue River was.
Therefore we must conclude it was a UFO. But critically it is not “merely” a UFO - as defined by “A UFO is only such because the observers could not identify it at the time” (a la Condon), No, it is a UFO, given the knowledge we have today and the research that has been conducted since the time of the sighting.
Now this is all I have ever argued for the Rogue River case: That the case supported my contention that UFOs exist. Clearly, on the evidence, it does that.
If anyone has any objections to this they should raise them now.
(PS: Case #2: The Iranian UFO will be summarised next.)
There seems to be some argument latterly that I have not presented any evidence or that I have not addressed the issues raised or that I have been somehow arguing illogically or have otherwise been in error in the way I have presented my evidence.
I will therefore spend a little time recapping the cases I have presented so far. I do this in order to show the above contentions to be in error.
The first case I presented was:
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/docs/rogue490524docs3.htm)
As far as I can tell there were only ever two rational arguments against the evidence that I presented in that case.
First: That the eyewitnesses are not reliable.
Second: That there could be mundane explanations that cover the sightings.
I will give you all a chance here to raise any other arguments you might have. Indeed I implore you to do so.
Now…let us see how these arguments applied to the case.
HOW RELIABLE IS THIS REPORT?
“This sighting is unique among the collection of visual-only sightings in that it combines multiple witness testimony (5 witnesses) with a relatively long duration (minutes instead of seconds) and clear viewing (no visual obscurations and optimum lighting). The long duration allowed the witnesses, especially those with binoculars, to go through the "escalation of hypotheses" (Hynek): is it a bird? (no); is it an airplane? (no); is it a balloon? (no); well, then what the heck is it? (don't know). When they reached the "don't know" stage, they may well have gone into the "interpretation" stage and they may have asked themselves, "Is this what we have heard about? Is this a flying saucer?" But, to the credit of the interviewer, the verbal testimony concentrates on the observations rather than any interpretations. (One of the toughest jobs of the UFO investigator is to separate witness observations, such as shape, angular size, angular speed, noise, etc., from witness interpretations of what they saw.) In this case the descriptions of the object, accompanied by drawings that show details of shape and surface markings, are clear and credible enough so that the object would have been identified, at least by the Battelle scientists if not by the witnesses, if their description had been consistent with a mundane object such as a bird, a plane, a balloon (blimp) or even a radar kite(!). The fact that no such identification is possible is based on clear and credible descriptions of the following characteristics of the object: (a) shape (disc/pancake with a "fin" on top);(b) reflectivity (like metal); (c) flight dynamics (approaching to within some distance of the witnesses, hovering, rotating on its vertical axis and accelerating to "the speed of a jet,"} (d) no noise despite the speedy departure;(e) no evidence of wings, engines, landing gear or antenna; and (f) no contrail or smoke or vapor despite the the jet-like speed of departure.
Sightings are often "explained," usually in an unconvincing way, by rejecting one or more of the elements of reported evidence. (Note: one may not know whether or not an explanation is correct. However, one can decide whether or not a particular explanation is convincing.) The analyst may assign low credibility to one or more of the reported characteristics of the object and then point out that the remaining charactistics are reasonably consistent with the characteristics of a particular known object or phenomenon. For example, in this case the Project Grudge staff personnel "identified" the object reported by "Mrs. A" by ignoring her comment about the shape (round) and instead emphasizing her report of seeing the object high in the sky where, of course, one often finds "aircraft." They then stated (without justification) that there was no reason that it couldn't have been an "aircraft" and so, the final identification was "aircraft" (it seems that any explanation is better than none). A similar sort of reasoning led to the "kites" identification: the Grudge staff evidently assigned low credibility to the detailed verbal description and drawings and then converted a "possible explanation" (that a radar kite from the San Francisco area might have traveled to the sighting location) to a "definite" (it was a radar kite). Although this explanation technique was applied to this sighting, leading to the "final identification" as given in the table of contents of the Blue Book sighting list, it is apparent that these identifications (aircraft, kites) did not convince the Battelle analysts. And they don't convince me.
Any investigator, when confronted with a detailed sighting such as this and explanations such as these has to decide for himself just what is necessary to convince him that a sighting is unexplainable or that a sighting has been explained.”
COULD THIS SIGHTING REPORT HAVE BEEN A HOAX?
It is my opinion that this report was not a hoax. When the two men decided to report the UFO, they did not turn to the newspapers or TV or radio to get the maximum publicity for their story. Instead, the two men, who worked in responsible positions within the Ames Research Laboratory, reported it to the security office at their own laboratory. If it was a hoax, by reporting it directly to their workplace security, they were (at the very least) endangering their jobs if exposed.
One might suggest that the time between the sighting and the report lends an air of “hoax” to the situation. It took the witnesses about three weeks to report the sighting. To me however, this suggests an element of caution on their part, in keeping with their reported character assessments. Did they really dare to report such a thing? Certainly they would not have wanted to look foolish. And what about their positions within the Ames laboratory? Yet they probably would also have felt - as confirmed by several of the early witnesses who reported “flying saucers” - that it was their duty as American citizens to report these things so that the government would know about them.
Of course the "dyed in the wool skeptic" (a phrase used by Phil Klass to describe himself during my first phone conversation with him in 1974) or “debunker” might argue that they played for high stakes. If they could get their story past the OSI investigators they could either laugh at the government (they did it for the fun of it) or use the OSI investigation as evidence it was a genuine sighting and make lots of money selling their story to the press, or both.
However, this scenario is unlikely. There is no indication I am aware of that they ever told anyone other than the OSI the details of their sighting. Hence they certainly didn't "do it for the money". Of course, I cannot prove they didn't do it for fun, but it would seem to be a highly risky undertaking for men in responsible positions to put their jobs on the line merely to be able to laugh at the OSI investigators.
ARE THERE ANY “MUNDANE” OBJECTS THAT THIS UFO SIGHTING COULD PLAUSIBLY BE MISTAKEN FOR?
A question was posed by the skeptics: Could a blimp have been responsible for the Rogue River UFO sighting?
The primary hypothesis from the skeptical camp for a “mundane object” explanation for the Rogue River is that “It could have been a blimp". 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.
But there is even more evidence that makes the blimp hypothesis implausible.
Even if we did not have the historical evidence to make the blimp hypothesis implausible, we DO have the eyewitness (five witnesses under perfect viewing conditions with the sun at their backs, two with the aid of binoculars) sworn testimony, consistent between themselves, describing the object as ;
(Mr. B)
"On 24 May 1949, at approximately 5:00 p.m., while fishing with several friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from Gold Beach, Oregon, my attention was drawn to an object in the sky by Mr. D, one of the members of the party. 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 nearly as possible to tell, the object appeared about 5000 feet in altitude, and not more than a mile away. When I first observed it, object was moving very slowly. As I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south, with no banking or leaning, and picked up speed. I then handed the glasses to Mr. C in order that he might see the object. Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center. A triangular fin appeared to arise amidship and extended to the trailing end of the object viewed as it travelled. There were no openings visible and no sound was heard. There appeared to be no engines or motors, no landing gear, no other protruding parts other than the fin already described. The object was in sight for approximately one (1) minute. Sun was at our backs and there were no clouds."
(Mr. C)
"While fishing with a party of friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from its mouth at Gold Beach, Oregon, at approximately 5:00 p.m., 24 May 1949, my attention was called to an object in the sky. The object was to the east of us about one (1) mile, at approximately 5000 feet altitude. With the naked eye, little but a glare and a silvery glint could be seen. But after watching it for approximately one minute and a half, 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 and appeared to be 30 to 35 feet in diameter. It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges. A small triangular fin started in the middle and grew gradually higher to the rear as the object travelled. 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. As far as could be seen, it had no openings or protuberances of any kind other than the fin, and there was neither sight nor sound of any driving force. It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction, mostly south."
(Mr. D)
"During the latter part of May 1949, at approximately 1630 in the afternoon, while fishing in a boat on the Rogue River near Gold Beach, Oregon, together with [list of people deleted; assumed to be Mrs. A, Mr. B, Mr. C] and my wife, my attention was attracted by a silvery object in the sky, travelling at a height of approximately 5000 feet in a southerly direction. The object,(was) circular in formation as a silver dollar (and) travelled without sound at a speed greater than a high speed or jet plane. Mr. B and Mr. C used a binocular to view the object, which was visible to the naked eye for approximately two minutes. Not using binoculars, I could not make out any irregularities of formation, or whether the object had a motor or motors, landing gear, or other items usually connected with a plane. It had no appearance of the conventional plane but in size would be of the diameter of the fuselage length of the DC-3 plane. I have fished in the general area a number of years and have observed various', type planes flying in this area, but have never observed anything of this nature before."
(Mrs. D)
"While on vacation near Gold Beach, Oregon, during the latter part of May 1949, and while fishing from a boat in the Rogue River in the late afternoon, my husband, Mr. D, called the attention of the group to a silver object, circular in shape, crossing the sky at a high attitude and at a high rate of speed. I could not estimate its height and its size was as large as a large passenger plane though shaped like a shiny circular disk. No sound was heard and it crossed our range of vision in two or three minutes. The day had been clear, visibility was good, and the sun was just setting. Other occupants of the party who observed the object were [names deleted; assumed to be Mrs. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C ] and my husband. There was no sound and the object travelled on a direct course."
Unfortunately we only have the record of interview from Mrs A – so these are not her own words – nevertheless:
(Mrs A’s record of interview)
"At approximately 1700 hours, 24 May 1949, she and four other persons, while fishing on the Rogue River near Elephant Rock, approximately 1 1/2 miles above the highway bridge near Gold Beach, Oregon, sighted an object described as being round in shape, silver in color, and about the size of a C-47 aircraft. When first brought to Mrs. A's attention by one of the other witnesses, the object appeared to be three or four miles away. It was coming from the east, but later turned to the southwest. It appeared to be travelling at the same rate of speed as a C-47. It made no noise, left no exhaust trail, and made no manoeuvres. The interviewee stated that she was not familiar with aircraft; therefore, she could not estimate with any accuracy the speed or altitude at which the object was travelling. Mrs. A made the comparison between the object and a C-47 because she is familiar with that type of aircraft; her son has pointed out C-47s as they flew over Gold Beach. "
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. 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. 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 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.
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!).
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! Other skeptics point out that Mrs A also referred to the size of the object as “about the size of a C-47 aircraft”, however they fail to note that “The interviewee stated that she was not familiar with aircraft; therefore, she could not estimate with any accuracy the speed or altitude at which the object was travelling.”
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.
Finally, the “skeptics” seem to want to define a UFO a la Condon as “an object unidentified by the observer”. But this denies the OSI investigation by experts who should have been able to identify known, mundane phenomena/objects yet failed to identify the object despite sufficient detailed, credible information that identification should be possible based on what is known "today."
One point: it is well known that distance estimates are highly fallible when observing an object in a clear blue sky. The estimated size was based on the fact that the object had some size, even to the naked eye it was not an unresolvable point, and thus through binoculars it would have been even clearer to describe the characteristics observed.
But the point is that ultimately it gets down to arguing over which characteristics of the reported object are believably reported, or which characteristics will one accept as likely to be true, and these must be compared with the "Candidate Explanatory Hypotheses" which is the set of potential explanations. Blimp is a CEH. So is "bird", "kite" (radar kite) and anything else you can think of after ruling out true impossibilities such as locomotive, meteor, Venus, battleship, car, flying carrot, panther, etc. Most things that exist are thus not even potential CEH's. One must simply stick with the CEH's that have the most characteristics that match the characteristic of the reported object/phenomenon. "Blimp" falls short of this test of potential candidates on a number of described object characteristics.
The evidence MUST be viewed in toto. All together. First, the direct evidence that a blimp could possibly have been in the area seems conflicted (at BEST), 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.
Together the evidence points toward UFO as the only conclusion that can be reached. All other explanations "wind blown trash", "kite", "balloon of some kind", "parachute", etc. just do NOT fit the evidence. It's as simple as that.
My assessment above (and in previous posts) has not "dismissed with the wave of a hand" anything at all. In fact I have provided much detailed evidence and explanation to support my position. 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. It is as simple as that.
I therefore maintain the "blimp" hypothesis to be entirely implausible.
So WHAT WAS the object sighted?
We have shown the witnesses to be reliable.
We have ruled out any plausible mundane hypotheses to explain the sighting (at least there are none that anyone can think of that matches the sighting).
Simply therefore we do not know what the object at Rogue River was.
Therefore we must conclude it was a UFO. But critically it is not “merely” a UFO - as defined by “A UFO is only such because the observers could not identify it at the time” (a la Condon), No, it is a UFO, given the knowledge we have today and the research that has been conducted since the time of the sighting.
Now this is all I have ever argued for the Rogue River case: That the case supported my contention that UFOs exist. Clearly, on the evidence, it does that.
If anyone has any objections to this they should raise them now.
(PS: Case #2: The Iranian UFO will be summarised next.)
