Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
- Status
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
You are the one suggesting that the Rogue River sighting was not unidentified, but alien. You haven't provided any evidence towards this end, despite assertions to the contrary.Evidence that it wasn't this or that does nothing towards proving that it was alien. As for moving on and forgetting abour Rogue River, you eliminated that option when you falsely claimed victory.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
That's what led to his disqualification. It's amazing to see him still trying to compete though, while everyone else has had a shower, got changed and gone home to discuss next week's game.
Hopefully it'll get dark soon, and he'll have to come inside and do his homework. At least most of the embarrassment should stop then.
Hopefully it'll get dark soon, and he'll have to come inside and do his homework. At least most of the embarrassment should stop then.
Some quick general comments on White Sands
Sorry... time is against me just now but:
On the error margin:
10% is just a guess at an error bound that is intentionally larger than they probably would have had. The intent was to point out that even with an error as large as 10% the calculation yields an altitude greater than that of a high altitude balloon. Note that even at a "horrible" 20% error the lowest altitude estimate would be 120,000 ft, still above the high altitude balloons of those days.
Even the high altitude (Skyhook) balloons in those days achieved only 100,000 to 110,000 ft - at which altitude they had large diameters of about 100 ft (the maximum altitudes of Skyhook balloons increased with time. In 1956 a record was set at 144,000 ft. Presently the record altitude for an unmanned balloon is 170,000 ft. set in 1972). You would also think that if someone had launched a Skyhook balloon near the testing area the observers would have known it (after all, they wouldn't want the Shrike missile to hit a balloon!) And high altitude balloons move relatively slowly - and they have a "teardrop" shape. They also carry payloads hanging beneath and considering there were 4 objects sighted on 27 April,, no-one was likely to launch 4 high altitude balloons at the same time. So any balloon hypothesis must be rejected
The objects also weren't meteors. Meteors travel too fast. The fastest is about 45 mps; see, e.g.: (http://www.meteorobs.org/maillist/msg13492.html) Going with meteors for a moment, since there were four objects, they likely would have been parts of an exploded fireball (large meteor) and traveling at an altitude of 40 miles or greater. If the four objects had been meteors one would think the observers would have realized they were watching glowing objects and noted such a rare occurrence. Meteors travel too fast, are brightly glowing objects (actually the air around them glows) and leave trails. So we must also reject meteor hypothesis.
Forgive me I lost who raised the following objection point:
February 24 1949
Army/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Bumper-WAC two-stage rocket (WAC Corporal mounted on a V-2 first stage) reaches highest altitude ever attained by manmade object to date - 244 miles - and record speed of 5,150 miles per hour over White Sands, yielding information about ion densities in the F-region of the ionosphere. Some sources indicate that this altitude record officially stood until 1957. (http://www.project1947.com/gfb/gfbchron.html)
Obviously rockets can go higher than balloons - and are fast. Of course this is just what the camera operators were accustomed to seeing – and specifically trained for. If there had been any rockets launched that could pass over White Sands, the observers would have been informed. More, it would not be likely that anyone launched four rockets to pass over the test range without telling security, observers etc. So the rocket hypothesis. must also be rejected.
Sorry... time is against me just now but:
On the error margin:
10% is just a guess at an error bound that is intentionally larger than they probably would have had. The intent was to point out that even with an error as large as 10% the calculation yields an altitude greater than that of a high altitude balloon. Note that even at a "horrible" 20% error the lowest altitude estimate would be 120,000 ft, still above the high altitude balloons of those days.
Even the high altitude (Skyhook) balloons in those days achieved only 100,000 to 110,000 ft - at which altitude they had large diameters of about 100 ft (the maximum altitudes of Skyhook balloons increased with time. In 1956 a record was set at 144,000 ft. Presently the record altitude for an unmanned balloon is 170,000 ft. set in 1972). You would also think that if someone had launched a Skyhook balloon near the testing area the observers would have known it (after all, they wouldn't want the Shrike missile to hit a balloon!) And high altitude balloons move relatively slowly - and they have a "teardrop" shape. They also carry payloads hanging beneath and considering there were 4 objects sighted on 27 April,, no-one was likely to launch 4 high altitude balloons at the same time. So any balloon hypothesis must be rejected
The objects also weren't meteors. Meteors travel too fast. The fastest is about 45 mps; see, e.g.: (http://www.meteorobs.org/maillist/msg13492.html) Going with meteors for a moment, since there were four objects, they likely would have been parts of an exploded fireball (large meteor) and traveling at an altitude of 40 miles or greater. If the four objects had been meteors one would think the observers would have realized they were watching glowing objects and noted such a rare occurrence. Meteors travel too fast, are brightly glowing objects (actually the air around them glows) and leave trails. So we must also reject meteor hypothesis.
Forgive me I lost who raised the following objection point:
February 24 1949
Army/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Bumper-WAC two-stage rocket (WAC Corporal mounted on a V-2 first stage) reaches highest altitude ever attained by manmade object to date - 244 miles - and record speed of 5,150 miles per hour over White Sands, yielding information about ion densities in the F-region of the ionosphere. Some sources indicate that this altitude record officially stood until 1957. (http://www.project1947.com/gfb/gfbchron.html)
Obviously rockets can go higher than balloons - and are fast. Of course this is just what the camera operators were accustomed to seeing – and specifically trained for. If there had been any rockets launched that could pass over White Sands, the observers would have been informed. More, it would not be likely that anyone launched four rockets to pass over the test range without telling security, observers etc. So the rocket hypothesis. must also be rejected.
Merely stating such an assertion does NOT make it true. You need to provide evidence to support such assertions and you have provided NONE.
I on the other hand have provided extensive and comprehensive evidence to support my assertions.
When will you learn that just because you SAY something, it does not make it true.
ETA: Of course you also seem to ignore "the elephant in the room" - the Brazilian UFO case. But again, why let the evidence get in the way of your faith?
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
I disagree. by that point the irony meter has exploded, and the part subsequently exploded again from the overflow of irony, until nothing was left but sub-particle.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Of course not. But the statement was already true, and my assertion of it was just garnish.
I don't NEED to do anything. Are you the Thread Police™?
In any case, my assertion was that your arguments have failed. There are, as at this writing, 395 pieces of evidence in this very thread to support that contention.
Nup.
When I was four. Not everyone is so lucky, apparently.
Exactly. Be pretty pointless being Pharaoh if that's not the way things are going to be.
2/10
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Okay, Tapio, since you seem to believe Rramjet is making a good case, you go ahead and point out where he has supported his assertion that no blimps were in the area of Rogue River, or that it's not plausible for a blimp to have been seen there at the time of the incident. And find something that isn't just an argument from ignorance, incredulity, or lies. If you can't, you might want to reconsider your position that he's "making a good case". (Again, unless your definition of "making a good case" is something like "failing in every way to support his claim".)
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Take as long as you need. It's the dearth of facts that's actually causing your problems.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
No, you haven't, but I'll give you another chance. I'll make it easy and just ask one question.
How does a case being well documented mean that the subject is of alien origin?
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
You have yet to demonstrate that the ONE azimuth reading is accurate enough to obtain such a height value. We have FOUR targets yet only ONE azimuth reading. How do we know they had the same target? According to the report they all pretty much looked the same. How do we even know that ONE azimuth reading was of any of these FOUR separate targets? How do we know that they were following something else? With all this UFO activity over White Sands, why isn't there similar activity today? Certainly, we have UFO reports but nobody reports seeing high flying discs anymore. Instead, we get little grey men lurking around at night, distant lights in the sky, massive V shaped craft, etc. that are not recorded by instruments set up to monitor the sky (weather cams, volcano cams, meteor cams, etc. etc. etc.). Since you can not find anything current, you drag out some old report that is championed by a scientist who has shown the ability to fall for hoaxes (Carp, Gulf Breeze, Lawton OK) and be rather biased in his writings.
To the cursory reader it might seem as though you make a convincing case here. However, I'm not a cursory reader.
If you care to read what I write, alternatively stop lying, you will see that the document you refer too, as well as the revision from june 1948 that I am refering to contains the following text (it's right at the start so I'm sure you didn't miss it):
The activities, organisations and units listed are indicated in their ultimate status at the end of the fiscal year
The fiscal year of 1949 for USN is 1 july 1948 until 30 june 1949. Therefore, the document shows how the USN plans to be organised around one month after the UFO sighting. Maybe you then want to argue that this is not evidence of how things where in may? Then go back one more fiscal year and extrapolate from there. You will find even more blimps on the west coast. The navy wasn't increasing it's blimp operations, it was decreasing.
In this document it is clear that the USN is planning to have two blimp bases on the west coast. I can give you the page numbers if you have a hard time finding it.
Again, you confuse things. fy1949-jun48.pdf describes the planned organisation on JUNE 30 1949. The document "CREATED in May 1949" refers to how the USN plan to be organized in JUNE 1950. That my dear friend, is irrelevant.
I'm also extremely interested in hearing how you come to equalize the phrase "USN assigns 6 blimps for use by USNR" with the phrase "USNR has 6 blimps".
Belz...
Fiend God
No, I've decided to put more money on my current irony meter. This one can't explode. It just maxes out.
IXP
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
Ramjet, you are hoist by your own petard. Also from the Goodyear web site:
In the 1940s and 1950s, Goodyear built a series of large surveillance airships used to protect merchant fleets along the coast. They also served as early warning radar stations. Some of these airships could stay aloft for more than a week at a time. In fact, an airship of this type still holds the flying endurance record of 11 days in flight. The airship was a Goodyear-built ZPG-2 called the Snow Bird. In March 1957, it flew from Weymouth, Massachusetts, to Europe and Africa and back to Key West, Florida, without refueling or landing.
http://www.goodyearblimp.com/history/index.html
Do you still maintain that a blimp could not have flown 190 miles without stopping?
IXP
Tapio
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 756
Argh. This is quite frustrating, since despite all of my efforts I clearly haven't been able to convey what I mean by 'making a good case'. So, I'll try one last time.
What I don't mean is:
- he is proving aliens
- he is proving no blimps near Rogue River
- he is proving aliens in Iran and/or Hopkinsville
- he is taking into account all mundane possibilities before claiming aliens in White Sands
etc.
What I do mean is:
- he is consistent (not evidence-wise, but in how he presents his case)
- he does an incredible job in replying to several demanding adversaries
- he bares with all the bullying and bs going on without resorting to the same
- he is detailed in his posts (regardless of the cherry-picking and arguments from incredulity and ignorance)
- he has shown the capability of admitting to errors
etc.
Get it now? I'm talking about how he makes the case, not what the case consists of. These are too separate things to me. I think you can make an incredibly crappy case consisting of exact and correct evidence, as well as vice versa. Now, please, if I have utterly misunderstood how you correctly use the phrase 'to make a good case' in English, do point it out. I want to learn.
Last edited:
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Still short on time & bandwidth, but I must note that Rramjet's "new best case" was pointed out to him by a skeptic (me)...
More later...
More later...
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I understand what you're saying, Tapio, and I appreciate your calm rationality. Do you think you could try to get Rramjet to answer my question, please? He must have me on ignore for some reason.
The question is: How do his seven points mean that the subject under investigation is alien? Here's a link to a complete post.
His seventh point in particular. He says it rules out any mundane explanations and therefore must be alien. Rramjet can't rule out even one specific mundane explanation (blimp) and yet he insists on his seventh point ruling out every mundane explanation.
Thanks for your help, Tapio.
Yeah...thanx a lot. Another case is just what we need now that we've finished with the first ones.
- Status