RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Why do you allow them to be 100% accurate when they agree with your preconceived beliefs?
- Status
Why do you allow them to be 100% accurate when they agree with your preconceived beliefs?
I will try to answer you Tapio as honestly and as best I can
We live in the real world Tapio. Not the barren wasteland that seems to be your dear (respectfully left nameless person's) imagination. There are some things that we must take as given. For example could the Rogue River object have been a bird? No, of course not – they eyewitnesses would have recognised that immediately. So with many other “mundane” objects. We MUST give the eyewitnesses SOME credit in ruling out possible contenders. Could the UFO have been an astronomical phenomenon (moon, planet, meteor)? Again, no, they would have recognised such things. So we can rule out a great MANY “mundane” objects by virtue of us all living in the world with shared observational experiences.
Next, when we think that we might come across “mundane” objects that the witnesses might possibly HAVE misinterpreted, we then have the descriptions of the object itself - provided by the witnesses - to go by. According to the witness descriptions we, as outside observers, can then rule out (or in) things that the witnesses might not have thought of or might have misinterpreted. Could it have been a plane? Well, no, because there was no sound, no wings, no engines, etc. So a plane is implausible. By this process we CAN rule out 99.999’% of ALL mundane objects. WHAT then are we left with. WHAT plausible contenders are we left with?
Well, a blimp of course! So then we must determine if a blimp could have been at Rogue River at the time. The historical documents rule out USN and USNR blimps but DO leave open the possibility of the Good Year blimp (unlikely, but admittedly possible).
Then we must determine if a blimp actually “fits” the evidence’ According to the eyewitnesses it does NOT. So how do we explain that if we want to hang on to the blimp hypothesis?
Well, could it have been a hoax. Not according to who these people were. Responsible and reliable people according to those who knew them. Moreover, they held responsible research positions within a high level military research laboratory and they reported their sighting to the security people of that laboratory. They did not go to the press and as far as we can tell, they told NO-ONE else about the sighting to their dying day – just the investigating officers. And there the case rested in the archives until relatively recently. Those are not the actions of hoaxers. So hoax is unlikely in the circumstances.
What are we left with then? Of course we are left with misinterpretation. But it is NOT enough to say the witnesses simply misinterpreted what they saw. We know enough about HOW and WHY misinterpretation arises to be able to explain a misinterpretation if it occurred. So HOW could the observers have misinterpreted when there was near perfect viewing conditions?
Well, this is where the “glare” hypothesis arose. Perhaps light reflecting off the blimp obscured viewing conditions so that the lower regions of the blimp were simply not visible (fins, gondola, engines, etc). THAT is where I have now provided a “proof” against that hypothesis (post 2217).
So NOW what are we left with? All “mundane” hypotheses HAVE been ruled out and we are left with “UFO” of course.
Does that mean the UFO is “alien”? Who knows? It COULD be. But of course the Rogue River case is not a “proof” of aliens. It merely shows us that there DO exist things flying around that despite our best efforts, we cannot identify.
So, Rogue River, UFO.
Now we need to take the next step toward “aliens”. We need to show that a UFO actually performed outside the limits of the natural - or technological – world. Again this would not constitute a direct proof of “aliens” but it DOES get us closer to the consideration.
Thus I presented the Iranian UFO. Here the UFO shape shifted and split apart and rejoined. THAT is the “beyond the limits" of known natural/technological objects. BUT this also has not yet accounted for “mundane” explanations.
So what mundane explanations might there be? Again we can immediately rule out 99.99’% of all such objects. After all what mundane objects can perform under apparently intelligent control at speeds over Mach2 to chase, catch and overfly a military jet while disabling the jet’s weapons systems (while shape shifting and splitting apart and rejoining)?
VERY few candidates are left to us (certainly blimps, and normal civilian and/or military aircraft are ruled out). No, we are left with “secret” technology as the ONLY contender. Because again we have been able to rule our 99.99'% of ALL mundane hypothesis simply by having a shared experience of the real world and also the eyewitness testimony to guide us (and note again, the veracity and reliability of the observers is not at issue here because the case DID happen substantially as told). But this is the point where the real trouble starts. How do you explain one unknown (UFO) by proposing another unknown (secret technology - unknown because we know as much about it as we do aliens!). It is irrational to do so, for that is no explanation at all.
However, there has been some argument around this point that is only partially resolved. But let us imagine that it is resolved. WHERE then does that leave us. We now have a UFO the performs outside the limits of the known world. And WHAT does THAT tell us?
I suggest that it brings us closer to accepting the “alien” hypothesis. Of course once again it is not absolute “proof”, but it sure as hell is suggestive.
(The White Sands case is a strep in between these two cases.)
Next I present the Brazilian UFO… to move us that little step closer again…but this, so far has been studiously ignored by the skeptics…perhaps they fear what it has to show. What do YOU think it shows?
You see, I am taking (or attempting to take) people on a journey of discovery. Using “baby steps”. This is the only tactic possible, because if I leap straight to the end game, then there will be immediate shutdown of discussion. Simply no-one will believe the evidence before their eyes. So I must first, using the more “mundane” cases. Dispel some of the sceptical mythology surrounding the subject. This includes ruling out the argument that merely stating something does not make it true. Also the “extraordinary evidence” claim (for no-one can even define what that might look like) and (a contentious one) but the burden of proof. Simply, everyone making a contention or assertion SHOULD be able to supply evidence to support that assertion. If they cannot then the assertion remains unfounded. That is science. We cannot run a debate where one side demands evidence from the other yet refuses to supply evidence of its own. That is a double standard. Hypocrisy at its worst. And we NEED to get that out of the way before we move on to the next step.
Now we are (were) debating the Iranian UFO – until the backsliders wanted a return to Rogue River…but that is Okay…we need to get that out of the way before we can move on.
So, The Iranian UFO? What do YOU think Tapio? (note one of the pilot's first hand accounts are included here)
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)
The Brazillian UFO? What do You think? (note the conclusions of the document found under the first link).
Brazilian UFO Night (19 May 1986)
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)
(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)
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Of course you've ignored so many details like the reflective effect of various skin materials, surface textures, type of paint, etc. You've ignored visibility conditions like humidity, pollen, airborne pollutants, etc. You've ignored the quality of the binoculars, lens coatings, condition of lenses, prism alignment, how clean the lenses were, etc.
You've neglected most of the relevant details required to make an analysis thorough enough to fully discredit the possibility that the witnesses saw a blimp. Yet you still insist that your uninformed disbelief is evidence to support your claim that aliens exist? Do you really not realize how ridiculous your argument from incredulity and ignorance is? It's not just a plain old ordinary argument from ignorance and incredulity, it's a calculated, wilful, intentionally obtuse, cherry picked, dishonest argument from ignorance and incredulity. You have failed, Rramjet. Do you really not see this?
The right thing to do now is to admit that you've been wrong, that there are indeed plausible, mundane possibilities that could explain the Rogue River sighting. Acknowledge that you don't have enough data to support your claim that the witnesses descriptions were accurate and reliable, didn't omit any critical details, and didn't include any guesses, hyperbole, mistakes in judgement, or unfounded speculation. Admit that you haven't been able to eliminate a blimp as one possibility to explain what they saw, and that you never will.
You see, whenever you admit that a reasonable, plausible, mundane possibility exists to explain the Rogue River sighting, you can move on, and hopefully, eventually show us the legitimate evidence you say you have to support your claim that aliens exist. That was part of your stated purpose for opening this thread, and you haven't even begun to do that yet.
Actually I think you will find the colour photo in the centre of my posted pictures (with the red nose cone) IS a K-class blimp of the precise kind used in the 1950s. "Aluminium foil" indeed!
But of course you don't have to merely take my word for it. Google Images "Blimp" or Blimp Photos" etc. to see for yourself!
You have obviously not spent much time outside viewing planes and other objects flying around have you? It is actually quite remarkable how far one can see and what object shapes and characteristics can be discerned against a clear blue sky with the sun at your back (as was the case at Rogue River) ...besides a "proof" has been undertaken by Dr. Macabee addressing that very issue and it shows that the object - especially through binoculars - would have been clearly visible at the distances estimated. (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
So you have no understanding on how glare works. Some features will be glared away no matter what the angle.
You fail again, your blimps are less reflective then old style and the light comes from a different angle also your pictures are taken far closer.
Welcome back GeeMack! (…well almost - your bullying habits - eg: "It's not just a plain old ordinary argument from ignorance and incredulity, it's a calculated, wilful, intentionally obtuse, cherry picked, dishonest argument from ignorance and incredulity. You have failed" - die hard I guess, but at least you raise some issues this time (well, sort of… but I won’t quibble too much seeing you have at least made the attempt)!
I have just provided the argument about reflections of various skin textures and paint colours – if you disagree then you can prove this for yourself by Google Images “blimp” or “Blimp Photos”, etc and see for yourself. Perhaps you did not read that post or see the images I posted (#2217 above)?
As to the visibility question I have already answered that. For example:
The conditions on the day are clearly described (Mr C) “It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs”, and (Mrs D) “The day had been clear, visibility was good, and the sun was just setting.” And this was confirmed by Agent Brooks “During his investigation, Agent Brooks compiled supplementary information from various sources: (a) the (low altitude) weather charts for the area indicated the coast was clear on the date of the sighting.”
As to the condition of the binoculars…have you ever tried looking through binoculars with the faults you describe? No –of course you haven’t. Simply it makes them almost unusable - and certainly the witnesses did NOT describe a pair of worn out scrappy binoculars that were virtually unusable. Also, given their positions at the research facility, if the binoculars were in the condition described, they would have, being the type of people they were, responsible and reliable, simply procured a new set. These were not the type of people to go out for the day taking with them substandard equipment. It is not credible to think they would. No, we must assume that the binoculars were in as reasonable condition as any normal use binoculars ever are. Quite suitable for viewing what they did.
So and you can see I have neglected nothing relevant to the sighting.
I have provided a detailed "proof" against the "glare" hypothesis WITH the blimps used at the time as examples above (#2217). Obviously you need to go and read that and absorb the meaning of that post of mine before posting again on this topic. I await you INFORMED comments next time.
And of course here must be a late comer who has yet to realise that merely stating something is true does NOT make it true. Unfounded assertions will always remain simply that: unfounded.
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
Could have been a blimp.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Assuming that a miracle occurs, and we all become convinced, what then Rramjet?
Are you at liberty to reveal phase 2 of your cunning plan? I'll bet it's a beauty.
Are you at liberty to reveal phase 2 of your cunning plan? I'll bet it's a beauty.
I have set out my plan in precise detail in post #2222 above. Perhaps you should take the time to read it.
So, what do you make of the report and its conclusions found here:
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How do you know? And you may want to go back and answer some of my previous questions that haven't been answered.
...and you could be barking mad... but both contentions are equally unfounded and therefore may be dismissed without further ado.
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
Nah...I was talking about real weather data and not what the witnesses described it as.
I really wish you would stop making things up and look at the source. She quotes three studies where experiments were conducted and overestimated time. I appreciate you quoting three other studies that demonstrated the opposite was true. However, these studies seem to indicate that time passes quickly when people are occupied and under long duration . The studies cited by Loftus had to do with short duration events under stress, which is exactly the type of incident we have here. If you want me to spend an entire page here citing Loftus book, then I am not going to waste the space or time retyping everything for you. However, on page 30 she states,
"Thus we have ample evidence that people overestimate the time that a complex event takes. Furthermore, there is evidence that when a person is feeling stress or anxiety, the tendency to overestimate the passage of time is increased even further (Sarason and Stoops 1978)."
Do you? What kind of boat was in use? Was it a yacht or simple fishing boat? What were the size of the waves? This is where pertinent data can come in handy. If it were rough waves then the boat would rock. If it were a reasonably small boat, it would rock as people move about inside it trying to get a better look. We don't know but it is a variable to consider.
False the study you cited had to do with long passage of time with people being occupied and not short duration events that Loftus describes.
Then your witness statements you prize so much are inaccurate. This was the altitude of the sun at the time (I think it was something like 27 degrees actually) and it's azimuth was about 275 degrees (I don't recall the exact value). Feel free to check it up if you desire. Unless I used my astronomy program incorrectly (which is possible), these are the FACTS of the sun's position at the time and location in question.
And you arguments quantify nothing or show how you compensate for the potential of witness misperception, which was your claim.
I guess I will have to go into the archives to do your research for you. Perhaps we can get wave conditions as well. Just because a witness say's it was clear does not mean it was not hazy but looked clear. Just restating what the witnesses perceived is not adequate.
Said the pot calling the kettle black.
You dismissed it because you don't like evidence that does not support your claims. It is another excellent example of misperception that fooled many people including the photographer under conditions similar to those stated by the Rogue River witnesses. Failing to acknowledge this is just sticking your head in the ground.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
And you could be a scientist?
Astrophotographer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,843
I was not guessing (another case of calling somebody a liar without any evidence - good scientific thought). Did you actually use PDT or PST? My applet showed 27 degrees but I used PST. If you used PDT, then you will get about a 10 degree higher altitude. In either case, the sun would not be "Low at their backs" (even at 27 degrees altitude), indicating the witnesses were wrong about this. What else were they wrong about?
BTW, I ran the same applet and I got the following:
GOLD BEACH, OREGON
o , o ,
W124 25, N42 25
Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
May 24, 1950
Pacific Standard Time
Altitude Azimuth
(E of N)
h m o o
16:00 38.4 263.7
16:10 36.6 265.5
16:20 34.8 267.2
16:30 32.9 269.0
16:40 31.1 270.7
16:50 29.2 272.3
17:00 27.4 274.0
17:10 25.6 275.6
17:20 23.7 277.2
17:30 21.9 278.7
17:40 20.1 280.3
17:50 18.3 281.9
18:00 16.5 283.4
So where did you get 38 degrees for 5PM?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Daylight savings was instituted and has been running since WWII, so my azimuth should be correct. Perhaps "relatively low" would be a more precise term. The witnesses did not use the term themselves, it is a mere extrapolation from the time of the sighting. So no error can be attributed to the witnesses... but of course you KNEW that and are merely dragging red herrings across the trail again. It is a tactic beneath you Astrophotographer... or perhaps not...?
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
No it is not. It is a GZ-20, s/n 4118, built by Goodyear in 2002.
Still misrepresenting evidence, I see.
Indeed.
Photos of a K Class blimp at Santa Ana NAS in 1950.
http://www.bluffshoa.com/history.php
we would and do not.
Dr.Macabee
1. was wrong in his calculations and
2. selectively summarised the eyewitness accounts in order to leave out observations by them that did not suit his argument.
Just as you do.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Also:
7. perceptual distortion
8. confabulation
9. cognitive bias
10. unfalsifiability of anecdotal accounts
11. "person who" logical fallacy
12. subjective validation
13. false memory
14. optical distortion via luminous reflectivity
- Status