UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

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.

And another declaration of incredulity, but not a shred of substantive evidence that aliens exist.

 

[Marduk]

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?

ok so youre claiming that blimps were flying above Salem, Oregon in May 1949 then just 190 miles from the rogue river, and that this fact somehow weakens the blimp claim, werent you the one trying to claim that there were no Blimps at all on the west coast a little while ago ?

so can we see the evidence you have that blimps were flying above salem in 1949, or are you lying by omission again ?

 

[GeeMack]

ok so youre claiming that blimps were flying above Salem, Oregon in May 1949 then just 190 miles from the rogue river, and that this fact somehow weakens the blimp claim, werent you the one trying to claim that there were no Blimps at all on the west coast a little while ago ?

so can we see the evidence you have that blimps were flying above salem in 1949, or are you lying by omission again ?

Blimps were flying over Salem, Oregon in May of 1949. Here is a link to an aerial photograph taken from the Goodyear blimp on May 6, 1949. This link was posted in this thread hundreds of posts ago.

All Rramjet's claims that there were no blimps on the west coast during that time have been lies or arguments from ignorance. His claim that no blimps would/could have been in the area of the Rogue River at the time of the sighting is another of his arguments from incredulity. Lies, ignorance, and incredulity seem to be pretty much all he's got for arguments so far.

 

[Marduk]

Blimps were flying over Salem, Oregon in May of 1949. Here is a link to an aerial photograph taken from the Goodyear blimp on May 6, 1949. This link was posted in this thread hundreds of posts ago.

All Rramjet's claims that there were no blimps on the west coast during that time have been lies or arguments from ignorance. His claim that no blimps would/could have been in the area of the Rogue River at the time of the sighting is another of his arguments from incredulity. Lies, ignorance, and incredulity seem to be pretty much all he's got for arguments so far.

heres a link that proves a blimp was in san francisco shortly after that
http://issuu.com/boxoffice/docs/boxoffice_061849-1

so we have blimp in Salem 6 may 1949
and a blimp in Frisco 18 June 1949

and rogue river is approx half way between the two

odd isnt it that at a date almost exactly betwen these two a blimp was seen halfway between the two, almost as if it was intelligently controlled
..............................
............................
..........................
......................
..................
...............
............
.........
......
by Goodyear


still saying there were no blimps on the west coast in 49, Rramjet that could have been responsible are you ???
roflmfao

 

[Jocce]

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

It's an accurate summary of how he objects looked (shape, color, size etc.), not how they behaved. I was going to adress that later as I wrote in my post. But if you don't want to it's fine with me and I ask you instead to provide evidence that aliens have the technology necessary to perform as described in the reports.

 

[Rramjet]

heres a link that proves a blimp was in san francisco shortly after that
http://issuu.com/boxoffice/docs/boxoffice_061849-1

so we have blimp in Salem 6 may 1949
and a blimp in Frisco 18 June 1949

and rogue river is approx half way between the two

odd isnt it that at a date almost exactly betwen these two a blimp was seen halfway between the two, almost as if it was intelligently controlled

by Goodyear


still saying there were no blimps on the west coast in 49, Rramjet that could have been responsible are you ???
roflmfao

Pity people cannot read my posts before replying with the same nonsense over again… There was indeed a possible Goodyear blimp candidate in Salem (190miles NNE of Gold Beach (Rogue River)). I have already told you that in my arguments against the blimp hypothesis (and as indicated in a picture taken from a Goodyear blimp over the University in that city that I have also referenced in my arguments). This is the closest point to the river we have any evidence that a blimp could have been moored at the time.

My contention was that to reach Gold Beach from there (even though there was no earthly reason for such a blimp to go there at the time) would have been implausible. Besides the point that a blimp's shape and characteristics in NO way match those characteristics the eyewitnesses swore to - we have first and the capability of the blimp itself (a blimp running out of fuel without a safe mooring is a blimp in big trouble) and second is the weather conditions on the day (winds generally from the west to the east as Dr. Maccabee's research has shown) that make it more unlikely. Besides, if any Goodyear blimps made such an unlikely journey, there would have been records of such journeys being made - and there are simply none.

I could repeat all the arguments I have already made - but I won't. For those that are interested I simply refer you back to my posts dealing with the evidence (I am sure all those interested will have read them by now anyway).

There seems to be a peculiar blindness operating here. I keep presenting the evidence and yet people keep ignoring it. I have gone over the arguments against the blimp hypothesis many times before, but it seems people merely wait until those posts are "buried" in the thread - then possibly working on the assumption "out of sight out of mind" they then mount the same old arguments over again (and again... and again...) never dealing directly with my arguments or the evidence in support of my position... This type of tactic, in my opinion, represents a peculiar madness. It is as if people somehow believe mere repetition is a logical form of argument.

The arguments and evidence against a blimp being responsible for the Rogue River sighting (as I have shown many times in many different ways) are practically overwhelming... yet it seems people's faith is so strong that logical argument and presentation of evidence just does not make an iota of difference to their faith. Simply they have a faith based belief and they will stick to that belief come hell or high water. In my opinion this is not a rational position and it certainly shows the JREF in a poor light... but then THAT is not my problem... actually, I guess it works in my favour.

 

[Jocce]

Pity people cannot read my posts before replying with the same nonsense over again…

If you didn't have these reading comprehension problems you wouldn't have to look so foolish. Please read the post again and adress what's in it, not what you pretend/think is in it.

 

[Jocce]

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

So, you now claim that they didn't follow through according to plan? Got evidence?

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!

Yes? And? Do you usually plan afterwards instead of beforehand?

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?

Ehh....why would you want to do that? It describes how the navy plan to be organized at the end of fy50.

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

If you have evidence that they didn't follow through with their plans, now would be a good time to present it.

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!).

If you look in the correct document it is. That document would be the one describing the organisation at the end of fy49

 

[Tapio]

To GeeMack, Marduk, Akhenaten and EHocking:

Look again, Tapio. It's not just the blimp issue. Every single argument Rramjet offers is an argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. He can't believe there's an explanation that works as well as aliens, therefore he concludes aliens. He hasn't provided a single shred of objective, tangible, scientific evidence to support his claim that aliens exist.

I agree. But I'm also under the impression that at this stage of the discussion that is not his aim yet. I believe he is still going on attemting to 'prove that UFOs exist, and that some of them have characteristics that imply alien intelligent control'. That's why I'm not personally yet asking him to prove his 'main claim'.

Oh, maybe I see where the problem is. With a couple notable exceptions, nobody else here actually thinks that his totally crappy case, backed exclusively by arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies, can be construed as making a good case. I suppose if you want to redefine words and phrases at your whim, as Rramjet does, then you could say that making no substantive case at all is the same thing as making a good case. I doubt that most of the rest of us agree with your definition.

Hmm...I feel you might have hit something here. But I wouldn't call it 'redifining' on my part. If you are correct, I would rather express it as understanding the concept of 'making a good case' in a different (even wrong?) manner. Remember, I'm not complementing him on the validity of his case, simply that it's 'well built'. I'm ready to accept my understanding of the English language is flawed and I can not read into the intricacies of it. But if I'd want to express in Finnish how I feel towards Rramjet's capability to build a case (regardless of it's validity), I'd call it 'well made' (hyvin rakennettu in Finnish).

So, go figure...anyway, when I'm calling his case well made, I'm not commenting on the validity or the way in which he succeeds/fails in supporting his original claim. I'm simply commenting on how it is made (remember what I said of what I believe he is trying to prove at this stage).

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

Hmm. Omitted, it was. That's not very honest.

Thank you, both Akhenaten and EHocking for summarizing this point! I'm eagerly waiting for your response to Rramjet's rebuttal attempt.

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?

I don't think he is trying to prove the highlited claim yet. For the rest, see above.

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

<fart>

:

 

[Jocce]

So we must ask and answer the question: How fast and how far can the blimp go?

From wikipedia we have 2205 miles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_class_blimp). And, I still don't understand why you exclude all USN and USNR blimps from the equation.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Jocce that's an easy question:
Rramjet has to ignore USNR blimps otherwise his belief is in danger!
Next.

 

[Akhenaten]

Thank you Akhenaten and EHocking for summarizing this point! I'm eagerly waiting for your response to Rramjet's rebuttal attempt.

I'll leave it to EHocking. I was just filling in while he was having a coffee.

I do have a response for Rramjet though.

"Drivel"

Of course, answers like that don't count as answers for Rramjet, but fortunately I don't care what it thinks about anything really, so I'm good with it.


Cheers,

Dave

 

[EHocking]

The evidence has been presented, as well as photographic evidence from an USN Reservist of a blimp he was assigned to at Santa Ana in 1950.

Tapio, Ramjet's "arguments" have been addressed ad infinitum, I'm afraid you'll have to plough through the thread to read such - search on my user name to find my refutations, if you like, but there is just no reasonable discussion to be had with a believer.

Rramjet is now merely sitting behind his keyboard, eyes closed and fingers jammed firmly in his early chanting "la la la I'm not listening".

 

[Jocce]

Jocce that's an easy question:
Rramjet has to ignore USNR blimps otherwise his belief is in danger!
Next.

Same goes for USN blimps since in fy-1949-jun48.pdf one can read that the plan is that both Moffet and St. Ana should be involved in navy blimp operations too.

 

[Jocce]

I believe he is still going on attemting to 'prove that UFOs exist, and that some of them have characteristics that imply alien intelligent control'. That's why I'm not personally yet asking him to prove his 'main claim'.

Fair enough. What I have a bit of a problem with is that he's trying to redefine UFO to exclude mundane explanations. At least it seems that way to me but I might be wrong.

I'm not complementing him on the validity of his case, simply that it's 'well built'.

I'll give him credit for stamina but I object when he totally disregards evidence that points in another direction than he would prefer.

<fart>

Omg....just when I was going to have lunch...

 

[Marcus]

heres a link that proves a blimp was in san francisco shortly after that
http://issuu.com/boxoffice/docs/boxoffice_061849-1

so we have blimp in Salem 6 may 1949
and a blimp in Frisco 18 June 1949

and rogue river is approx half way between the two

odd isnt it that at a date almost exactly betwen these two a blimp was seen halfway between the two, almost as if it was intelligently controlled
..............................
............................
..........................
......................
..................
...............
............
.........
......
by Goodyear


still saying there were no blimps on the west coast in 49, Rramjet that could have been responsible are you ???
roflmfao

But, but, but, Rramjet already won the Rogue River debate, he said so himself!

 

[RoboTimbo]

...in my opinion...

Well there's your problem.

 

[Belz...]

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.

This is what happens when someone is exposed to the absolute bare minimum knowledge in science and logic. They think it's all so simple but they don't know how to use it.

Just like cheap philosophers who just learned about philosophy in class and imagine that they've reached the end of their journey in the form of solipsism.

 

[Belz...]

Pity people cannot read my posts before replying with the same nonsense over again…

 

[Rramjet]

More on the blimp... plus an extra UFO case

I have already addressed all the issues raised (even just now above) in my posts No. 1881, 1883 & 1888 on p.49 of this thread. Some additional information is included in post No. 1993 (p.50) There, in those posts, the reader will find comprehensively addressed the issues of the USN as well as the USNR and the Goodyear blimps. You will also find explanations of why a “blimp” does NOT even fit with the eyewitness evidence – and more. Quite simply the blimp hypothesis is implausible. If no-one wants to believe the evidence (even of official navy histories), then there is nothing more I can do.

A note on the “fiscal year” forward estimates:

People are resorting to posting a lot of rubbish about these “forward estimates” and seemingly they are confused about what the documents actually represent - and which years the estimates actually refer to. For example Jocce contends that the document describing the financial year 1949 describes operational East Coast LTA bases - but this document was created in 1947! Not only does this document NOT list Oakland where he says it does - but Jocce is simply imposing an incorrect reading of what the document actually represents. A later document CREATED in May 1949 (fy1950.pdf) lists ONLY ONE current operational LTA base – Lakehurst (N.J.). While there IS a document in between these two (fy1949-jun48.pdf) - because it was created in Jun 1948 – it lists Moffet as an operational LTA base, but it misses the fact that in early 1949 this base too was closed. Nowhere does this document list Oakland as having blimps operational either. Thus the 1950 document correctly mentions only Lakehurst as the sole remaining operational LTA base. Interestingly the 1949 document lists Santa Ana as a STORAGE & Preservation facility for ZP-1 – but that too disappears in the 1950 forward estimate.

More… the 1949-48 document lists Lakehurst with 6 blimps, but in 1950 it is down to 2! The simple facts of the matter are, that the USN – during 1949, shut down, almost in entirety, its LTA operations. Them’s the FACTS of the matter. They DID begin reinstating various operations in the 1950s, including on the East Coast, but that was WELL after the Rogue River event in late May 1949.

Thus there is STRONG evidence that no blimp activity was conducted on the East Coast by the USN or USNR in 1949 because the forward estimates and the official USN histories directly show this to be the case. To reiterate, LTA activity WAS recommenced in 1950, but 1949 was a year when “all was quiet”, the whole East Coast blimp program was in “mothballs” and the former blimp bases were all leased to civilian companies for various purposes (while ultimately remaining under USN control) – anyway, the information is all there in my posts – and in the estimates and official histories.

So merely repeating assertions that have been addressed and refuted over and over again is simply being obstructionist in the extreme. Especially when many of the people posting these spurious assertions have already agreed that Rogue River is a UFO.

So, let us move on. I am of course still interested in arguing the merits of the White Sands and the Iranian UFO cases – but for those already bored with those cases here is a quick case that has some rather fascinating documentation attached.

Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)
Some related documents and discussion
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/brazilianairforceadmits.html)
(http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9299893.php)
(http://www.cohenufo.org/BrazilianUFODocumentsReleased.htm)
(http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0909/declassified.php)

In the first link is the statement made by the investigating officer (Air Brigadier JOSÉ PESSOA CAVALCANTI DE ALBUQUERQUE acting commander of COMDA/NuCOMDABRA) under his concluding statements section (IV – FINAL CONSIDERATIONS)

“3. As a conclusion of the observed constant facts in almost all presentations, it is
the opinion of this Command that the phenomenon is solid and reflects intelligence by its capacity to follow and sustain distance from the observers, as well as to fly in formation, and are not necessarily manned craft.”

Now that is merely the third of his concluding comments and that is some pretty direct talk there from an Air Brigadier!

THIS case I suggest DOES provide evidence that something “alien” is going on here – something not manmade. Now I know you will object immediately to this – such is the nature of faith – but just have a quick read of the initial report and see what you make of it.

Comments still welcome on White sands and the Iranian UFO