UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tapio said:
EHocking, I feel you've done an impressive job in holding this thread at a high level of evidence-based interest.

Since I have not been able to make any kind of database regarding all posts here, I would also be very interested in seeing what you exactly mean by accusing Rramjet of "misrepresenting (by ommision)".

I know it's probably too much to ask, but for the last time...please could you re-post the parts you mean? I understand completely if you can't bring yourself to do it...but never hurts to ask, eh?

Grand respect in any case.
Click to expand...


Rramjet said:
<drivel>


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.


<irrelevant whargarble snipped>
Click to expand...


Nice rant, but where did all this RELEVANT information go?


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...


Hmm. Omitted, it was. That's not very honest.
 
Tapio said:
This is where, as with GeeMack, I feel baffled. Maybe it's just that I'm still taking baby steps regarding skepticism/critical thinking or maybe something else, but I honestly feel he is making a good case (regardless of it's validity).:confused:
Click to expand...


So, Tapio, once more, please point out where Rramjet has provided any objective evidence, something other than an argument from ignorance, incredulity, or lies, to support his claim that aliens exist.

Or do you actually think he is, as you've said, "making a good case" using no objective evidence and relying exclusively on his arguments from incredulity, ignorance, and lies?
 
Last night the wife and I saw what we're pretty sure was a meteor, streaking east-->west over wooded hills, just north of Hwy 71 between Bastrop and Austin, TX, at about 8:45 PM CST. We too were traveling east-->west along Hwy 71, so we watched it pass at our right hand and to some distance in front of the car.

Judging from the object's distance above the ground, it appeared to be traveling in the troposphere, at an angle of some 10-15 degrees relative to the ground.

The meteor was an indeterminable distance away, but judging by its size relative to the horizon, it was closer and larger than any meteor either of us had ever seen. It was in color a brilliant white against the blue-black sky.

Its rate of travel was faster than any car on the road, and in total appeared to cover a distance of about a half-mile (measuring from A to B at bisected points on a line adjacent to and parallel to the highway). The object vanished while on a downward trajectory, about a half-mile to the west in front of our car.

Curiosity about the object has led me to investigate, not for the first time, various websites about meteors and their several varieties. I've learned that the correct term for what we saw is a fireball (roughly synonymous with a bolide), in that it was a "a meteor brighter than any of the planets". It cannot properly be described as a meteorite because we don't know if any of its remnants reached the surface of the Earth.

Also, its (estimated) position in the troposphere, less than 6 miles up, is unusual; most meteors are seen in the mesosphere, between 28 and 50 miles up.

Meanwhile, wonder inspired my wife and I to clasp hands and "make a wish"... because we're both romantics at heart, and given to such woo-ish flights of fancy (which is why, we admit, we need the tenets of skepticism to guide and guard us through life!). :blush::shy:
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
So, Tapio, once more, please point out where Rramjet has provided any objective evidence, something other than an argument from ignorance, incredulity, or lies, to support his claim that aliens exist.

Or do you actually think he is, as you've said, "making a good case" using no objective evidence and relying exclusively on his arguments from incredulity, ignorance, and lies?
Click to expand...

actually I think Tapio is posting here apparently in support of Rramjet because he feels so guilty that he asked me as a sceptic to have a look at the rogue river case "if I was so smart" or something like that
I came up with blimp
so for Tapio this isn't a thread about science
its just puragtory
haha
;)
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
Meanwhile, wonder inspired my wife and I to clasp hands and "make a wish"... because we're both romantics at heart, and given to such woo-ish flights of fancy (which is why, we admit, we need the tenets of skepticism to guide and guard us through life!). :blush::shy:
Click to expand...

actually that wasn't a wooish flight of fancy, it was part of the Roman cult of venus and only applies to her symbolic planet, apparently it isn't transferable to bollides. I expect that you got that from the arch Heretic Disney though, I dont think he explained it very well in Pinocchio
:p
 
Akhenaten said:
Nice rant, but where did all this RELEVANT information go?

Hmm. Omitted, it was. That's not very honest.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the summary Akhenaten, let's see if I can boil it down for Tapio.

FISCAL YEAR 1949 (10 May 1947)

SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES
1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Regular Operations by,...ZP
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP

NAS Santa Ana, Cal. - Provide facilities to support;
LTA Fleet Support - Regular Operations by, 1 ZP
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP

4. Assignment of aircraft [from Navy] to the [Navy] Air Reserve by models is indicated below:...ZPK - 6

The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal

FISCAL YEAR 1949 (28 June 1948)

SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES

1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Regular Operations by,...1 ZP

E. Storage Facilities
NAS Santa Ana, Cal. - Provide facilities to support;
Regular Operations by,...(LTA Activities)...1 ZP

The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal

FISCAL YEAR 1950 (01 May 1949)

SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES
1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP

The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal

PACIFIC FLEET SUPPORT
1. CONTINENTAL
NAS Moffet Field. - Mission - ...Fleet and major activities will include..One airship squadron (occasional)

NAVAL Air RESERVE
The following Naval Air Stations will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned..
NAS Oakland; Mission - Provide facilities to support the naval and Marine Air Reserve Training.

As with Rramjet's previous allusions to the "All crows are black" argument.
All you need to disprove this is to provide clear evidence of one non-black crow.

Thus, we only need to provide evidence of one operational blimp on the west coast of USA in May 1949 to disprove Rramjet's contention that there were NO OPERATIONAL BLIMP BASES there in May of 1949.

And that has been done.
 
Last edited:
ok so theres no evidence that it could have been a blimp, except for the non extraordinary kind

thats what I thought
;)
 
Jocce said:
So let's look at the routing slip. I haven't dug it all out but here's something to start with. How the objects looked:

First object - Visual description
Bigger and brighter than a star
Size can't be estimated due to brightness
Fast flashing rectangular pattern of blue, green, red and orange.
Flashing sequence so fast all colors seen at once (strobelight effect)

Second object (emerged from the first object - Visual description
Bright
Size like 1/2 or 1/3 full moon

Third object (emerged from the first object) - Visual discription
Emitting very strong light after landing

Fourth object - Visual discription
Cylinder shaped object
Size of T-bird(?) at 10M
Bright steady lights at each end and flasher in the middle.

Feel free to check if I missed some physical characteristics.

Now, is there anything regarding how they looked that excludes manmade objects?
Click to expand...

Jocce, I think you have done this type of thing before with the Rogue River sighting summarising innacurately and out of context.

Let us compare what you wrote with the actual text.

Jocce:
First object - Visual description
Bigger and brighter than a star

“The command post called BG Yousefi, Assistant Deputy Commander of operations. (…) he noticed an object in the sky similar to a star, bigger and brighter. He decided to scramble an f-4 from Bhahrokhi to investigate.”

“Due to its brilliance the object was easily visible from 70 miles away.”

J: Size can't be estimated due to brightness

“The size of the radar return was comparable to that of a 7?7 tanker. The visual size of the object was difficult to discern because of its intense brilliance.”

J: Fast flashing rectangular pattern of blue, green, red and orange.
Flashing sequence so fast all colors seen at once (strobelight effect)

“The light that it gave off was that of flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern and alternating blue, green, red and orange in color. The sequence of lights was so fast that all the colors could be seen at once.”

Jocce:
Second object (emerged from the first object - Visual description
Bright
Size like 1/2 or 1/3 full moon

“Another brightly lighted object, estimated to be one half to one third the apparent size of the moon came out of the original object. This second object headed straight toward the F-4 at a vey fast rate of speed, the pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 missile at the object but at that instant his weapons control panel went off and he lost all communications (UHF and Interphone)”

I feel it useful to point out what happened to that object…

“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.

Jocce:
Third object (emerged from the first object) - Visual discription
Emitting very strong light after landing

“Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object another object appeared to come out of the other her side of the primary object going straight down at a great rate of speed. The f-4 crew had regained communications and the weapons control panel and watched the object approach the ground anticipating a large explosion. This object appeared to come to rest gently on the earth and cast a very bright light over an area of about 2-3 kilometres.”

Jocce:
Fourth object - Visual description
Cylinder shaped object
Size of T-bird(?) at 10M
Bright steady lights at each end and flasher in the middle.

“While the F-4 was on a long final approach the crew noticed another cylinder shaped object (about the size of a t-bird at 10m) with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle”

J: Feel free to check if I missed some physical characteristics.

Obviously you missed some physical characteristics. You also missed a great deal of the context and description of the behaviour of both the military and the UFO.

J: [Now, is there anything regarding how they looked that excludes manmade objects?

You mean apart from the splitting apart and “perfect” rejoining, or the “brilliance” of the object, or the rectangular “alternating blue, green, red and orange in color” – “so fast that all the colors could be seen at once”, or the “cylinder” shape, or that the landed part “cast a very bright light over an area of about 2-3 kilometres.”

And you missed entirely the bits about its nullifying affect on the jets weaponry and communication systems. Or that it “headed toward the F-4 at a great rate of speed”…

So if you are contending this to be a manmade object then I simply ask WHAT manmade object has the capabilities of that UFO(s)?
 
Rramjet said:
[*a whole lot of leftover spam removed*]

So if you are contending this to be a manmade object then I simply ask WHAT manmade object has the capabilities of that UFO(s)?
Click to expand...


See? Another simple argument from incredulity. Rramjet can't conceive of any mundane explanations, and the fallacy occurs at the point where he makes the jump from, "I can't believe this could be anything non-alien," to his unfounded conclusion, "Therefore this is evidence that aliens exist." He incorrectly thinks his incredulity is actually evidence to support his claim. It's not.

You paying attention here, Tapio? This is not how one goes about intelligently and rationally making a good case.
 
EHocking said:
I appreciate the summary Akhenaten, let's see if I can boil it down for Tapio.

FISCAL YEAR 1949 (10 May 1947)

SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES
1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Regular Operations by,...ZP
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP

NAS Santa Ana, Cal. - Provide facilities to support;
LTA Fleet Support - Regular Operations by, 1 ZP
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP

4. Assignment of aircraft [from Navy] to the [Navy] Air Reserve by models is indicated below:...ZPK - 6

The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal

FISCAL YEAR 1949 (28 June 1948)

SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES

1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Regular Operations by,...1 ZP

E. Storage Facilities
NAS Santa Ana, Cal. - Provide facilities to support;
Regular Operations by,...(LTA Activities)...1 ZP

The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal

FISCAL YEAR 1950 (01 May 1949)

SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES
1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP

The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal

PACIFIC FLEET SUPPORT
1. CONTINENTAL
NAS Moffet Field. - Mission - ...Fleet and major activities will include..One airship squadron (occasional)

NAVAL Air RESERVE
The following Naval Air Stations will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned..
NAS Oakland; Mission - Provide facilities to support the naval and Marine Air Reserve Training.

As with Rramjet's previous allusions to the "All crows are black" argument.
All you need to disprove this is to provide clear evidence of one non-black crow.

Thus, we only need to provide evidence of one operational blimp on the west coast of USA in May 1949 to disprove Rramjet's contention that there were NO OPERATIONAL BLIMP BASES there in May of 1949.

And that has been done.
Click to expand...

The documents you quote from are FORWARD estimates and do NOT represent what actually occurred in practice.

For example the first document you claim was for “fiscal year 1949” was actually prepared in 1947! The second you quote from was actually prepared in 1948!

The third prepared BEFORE May 1949!

But let us examine the last document a little more carefully shall we – as it might have at least some relevence?

You wrote:
SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES
1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP

I state:
For Moffet (designated HTA- Heavier Than Air) field there were “Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP” (p.17)

BUT crucially there is NO mention of ANY OTHER BASES that might be operational regarding LTA squadrons. The ONLY base mentioned that has ANYTHING to do with LTA operational capacity is Lakehurst! (p.17)

So let us refer back to the official history:

“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)

The crucial point to note here that there was an overhall mission at Moffet field…that is maintenance activities – NOT operational flying - and even THAT capacity was "eliminated".

Remember the document you quote is a forward estimate...not what actually happened.

You stated:

“The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal”

And that is absolute rubbish! The relevant page is p. 24 and NOWHERE in the list is Oakland mentioned. So you are simply mistaken (at best!).

In fact if you look on p. 25, the ONLY base listed as having an operational LTA capacity is Lakehurst. Oakland is listed as having NONE (repeat NONE) and Santa Ana is not even mentioned as an operational base for ANY reason or purpose.

It is YOU sir who are misleading people NOT I. You should be ashamed of such tactics – especially when they are so easily checked against the records.

Shame sir – shame on you!
 
Marduk said:
Rramjet
are you going to address this evidence at some point,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5269199&postcount=1988
you seem to be deliberately ignoring it and quite frankly the reason youre ignoring it has become so apparent to us all that youre not going to get anywhere until you do.
:D
Click to expand...

So now that I HAVE addressed it... what do you have to say now? I would be interested to hear see your comments now that EHockings particular misinformation has been shown up to be exactly that.
 
Rramjet said:
The documents you quote from [*repeated whining snipped*]
Click to expand...


There were blimps in Oregon in May of 1949. The evidence has been provided. It's been accepted by everyone, well, aside from those who are arguing from ignorance.
 
Astrophotographer said:
The "wonder and curiousity" is a great thing. When one examines or sees something that is strange, it should be investigated. However, this is where most UFO reports end. The investigations are lack luster and the witnesses are rarely any help since they tend to taint their observations with their own perceptions. When it is suggested the person is seeing a star or a planet, they immediately deny this is possible. See Peter Davenport's latest comment about NUFORC reports:

http://www.nuforc.org/Statement090830.html

A few other items that we recommend people observe are “twinkling” stars, and planets. I believe the majority of time I spend on the Hotline is devoted to trying to convince people who have been staring for hours at a star or planet that the object of interest is not a UFO!!

A recent amateur astronomer report I looked into turned out to be most likely a NASA research balloon. The amateur astronomer refused to accept this conclusion, even though he was looking in the direction the balloon was located at the correct time. He had the wonder and curiosity to report the "UFO" to MUFON but lacked the "wonder and curiosity" to look into possible explanations for his observations.
Click to expand...

And this is precisely why I am presenting cases that could in NO way be (mis)construed as stars or planets... and there are plenty of other reports too. Watch this space!
 
Rramjet said:
And this is precisely why I am presenting cases that could in NO way be (mis)construed as stars or planets... and there are plenty of other reports too. Watch this space!
Click to expand...


And again the classic argument from incredulity. Can't believe, no way, could not have been anything on any list of any mundane explanations, therefore the claim that aliens exist is supported.

Notice the pattern here, Tapio? :)
 
Rramjet said:
So now that I HAVE addressed it... what do you have to say now? I would be interested to hear see your comments now that EHockings particular misinformation has been shown up to be exactly that.
Click to expand...

ok so now all you have to do is prove that the goodyear blimp wasn't flying above Oregon in may 1949 and you might have something

can you do that Rramjet ?
:)
 
Marduk said:
ok so now all you have to do is prove that the goodyear blimp wasn't flying above Oregon in may 1949 and you might have something

can you do that Rramjet ?
:)
Click to expand...

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.

Anything else?
 
Rramjet said:
Wollery you're right... I am no expert in this so I will have to conduct a little further research to find out exactly what sort of error margins could be expected in such calculations.

I DO notice that, even though YOU claim to be an expert, even YOU cannot give us typical error margins for such calculations. ... or maybe you DO know and they are usually small... (eg you state the baseline measurement error is expected to be so small as to be negligible) but you don't tell us what we should expect the error margins to be.

It would also be surprising that these people could not synchronise their instruments to a high degree of accuracy - at least to 100th of a second - for that is what the instruments were capable of at least.

Moreover, As I say, the observers and mathematicians would NOT have reported ANYTHING they felt they could not have supported with confidence under close scrutiny… for such is the nature of the report they would have expected a great deal of it.

Anyway... I have some research to do and I will get back to you on your previous posts.
Click to expand...
You were perfectly happy to make broad sweeping pronouncements about how the errors couldn't possibly be that high. Now that I've shown that you can't even tell different error sources apart you suddenly admit that you aren't sure, and need to do more research.

Oh, but wait, no, you're still insisting that the analysts couldn't possibly have submitted a figure with a large error! :rolleyes:

What you suppose about the motivations of the analysts is completely irrelevant. As I point out in my last post, they could have been under pressure to get a number, any number, regardless of how large the error was.

You keep saying that we should examine the evidence, but the evidence says that we don't have an error value for the altitude. No matter what you suppose, or reason, or imagine, there is no error value given.

Yes, we could estimate the typical error values for tracking a rocket in flight, but that isn't what they were doing. We could try to estimate what we expect the typical errors should be for tracking a UFO that's actually at 150,000ft, but that would only tell us what we expect the error to be, not what the error actually was.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, but we will never have an error value for that datum, and you can therefore never say with any certainty what the error value was.

And that's the bottom line.

1 single solitary data point, with no error, and no way of ascertaining what the error was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom