UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Daylight savings was instituted and has been running since WWII, so my azimuth should be correct.

Wrong again. DST was not uniform until 1966.

I find it funny that you can't even admit that the witnesses might be in error about the sun's altitude at the time of the event. Go figure....

 

[Rramjet]

Nah...I was talking about real weather data and not what the witnesses described it as.

Actually you should READ what I wrote more carefully then. Agent Brooks stated that The weather charts indicated that the weather was clear on the day! But of course you KNEW that already. The conclusion as to why you do this is obvious, but perhaps best left unstated at this point lest we wake the children.

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)."

Unfortunately, you are just plain wrong here. WHAT complex event are we talking about -it really MATTERS. Stress and anxiety? You REALLY MUST provide a relevant quote from Loftus WITH the relevant context - as I have done in quoting the research I did) if you want to support your contentions. Without it you are still making unfounded assertions in the FACE of ALL the research evidence! The research is simply AGAINST you on this point. You won't believe me, but I KNOW this. It really is one of the fundamentals of psychology. Perhaps you should read Loftus more carefully? Particularly the context in which she makes the claims you suppose.

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.

WHAT boat? WHAT waves? Grasping at straws now aren't we? How deep was the river at the point of observation? How do you know they were not simply wading or walking along the shore? But of course it is anothe rred herring from you. That seems to be your specialty of late when you run out of real argument.

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.

Again you need to provide the proper quotes and in correct context. You're just plain wrong here Astrophotographer - ask any qualified psychologist. AND PLEASE -Provide the relevant quotes from Loftus to support your contentions. Merely stating it is so does NOT make it so.

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.

I have replied to this already (above)

And you arguments quantify nothing or show how you compensate for the potential of witness misperception, which was your claim.

THEN HOW and WHY are the witnesses perceptions mislead? Merely stating so does NOT make it so.

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.

The witnesses state the conditions were clear. The weather charts of the day state the weather was clear. You read that as meaning hazy? THEN provide EVIDENCE that "clear" actually means "hazy"! Another red herring!

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.

Again -you fail to present the evidence to support your contentions. I asked you HOW it was relevant to the Rogue River case. merely repeating over and over that it is, does NOT make it so. And merely stating the conditions "were similar" does NOT make them so. WHERE is you evidence?

 

[Stray Cat]

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.

Oh, you mean the photo of the blimp taken from about 80 feet away, of a blimp that is flying at about 12 feet altitude... that one?

"Aluminium foil" indeed!

Well a combination of man made substances that produce a shiny metallic surface when completed.

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!

Oh, yes, I see now thanks:

You have obviously not spent much time outside viewing planes and other objects flying around have you?

No, I already said once in this thread... I never leave the house.

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)

And yet still such controversy about what the planes that slammed in to the WTC actually looked like!

...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)

Stop the difference:
a). Clearly visible
b). Able to be seen in great detail

 

[Akhenaten]

I have set out my plan in precise detail in post #2222 above. Perhaps you should take the time to read it.

So, there is no part 2 then? That seems pointless.

So, what do you make of the report and its conclusions found here:
(http://www.ufo.com.br/documentos/night/Occurrence Report - Translated.pdf)?

Pick one of the following.


1. I am totally convinced.

2. Driffel.


You will either not answer this with a simple 1 or 2 or you will get it wrong.

I see no other possible outcomes, therefore I am right.

I win again!

 

[TjW]

Rramjet:
The sun angle is an objective, verifiable fact. Celestial mechanics hasn't changed a bit since 1949. Your use of PDT rather than PST makes your case worse, not better.

If the witnesses were correct about the time, then the sun was at a fairly high angle.

An honest investigator would welcome objective, verifiable facts.
You call them "red herrings", not because the facts indicate the witnesses made a mistake, but because the facts are not favorable to your case.

 

[GeeMack]

[*snipped irrelevant babbling*]

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.

So we have another demonstration of your sub-par reading skills? (That's giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, because it could be that you're just being dishonest again.) Go re-read my post. I didn't describe any faults in any binoculars. Have you asked the principal or English teacher there at your high school about those remedial reading programs?

Your argument from incredulity and ignorance regarding the quality and condition of the binoculars is, well, an argument from incredulity and ignorance. You don't know anything about the condition of the binoculars. Ignorance. And you can't believe that they could have been less than sufficient to support your position. Incredulity. I'm sure you agree. (If you don't, you'll get a chance to redeem yourself below...)

Since you seem to be pretty damned certain about all the criteria involved which would have affected the Rogue River sighting, if you're going to eliminate every mundane possibility, how about you start here...

What make and model were the binoculars? What sort of prisms? What sort of lens coating? What magnification? How old/new? How often were they serviced/cleaned? How recently? Under what conditions were they stored/carried? Did they get wet? Ever? Were they waterproof? Any river sand ever get into the slides/focusing gears? Were they the personal property of the witnesses? Did they tune the diopter adjustment regularly? Recently? For each person that handled them?

What material was used as blimp skins in 1949? What differences were there between the skin of the envelope and the skin of control surfaces? What differences were there between covering material for the horizontal stabilizer and the elevator surface, vertical stabilizer and the rudder surface? What materials were used for the surfacing the gondola? What types of paint were used for all those various surfaces? All the same? Different types for different surfaces? What was the pigment that made it silvery? What was the paint base made from? Technically describe its reflective qualities, or even in layman's terms, flat, matte, satiny, glossy? What would have been the maximum angle of all four control surfaces, elevators and rudders, and how would that have affected the light reflectivity from all various distances within the guesses of the witnesses?

What was the pollen count at that time on that day in that part of that state? What kinds of pollens? What was the measured humidity level, temperature, air pressure? Which direction was the wind from and at what speed? Where were any sources of pollen and/or pollutants relative to the sighting? Distances and directions? What sort of man made environmental pollutants were in the air? In what densities? What optical distortion and/or reflective properties would those various pollutants cause at those various densities and at various distances within the range of guesses of the witnesses? What sort of non-pollen natural pollutants, dusts, spores, sea salts, etc., were in the air? In what densities? How would their various optical properties have specifically affected viewing conditions of the atmosphere that day?

If you really want to eliminate all the mundane possibilities, you need to provide detailed answers to all those questions. And when you're done with those, oh yes, there will be more, Rramjet. Many, many more. You've got a lot of work to do.

Or maybe, if you can't answer all those questions above, with citations and support from relevant source material of course, here's an angle...

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.

 

[Rramjet]

Wrong again. DST was not uniform until 1966.

I find it funny that you can't even admit that the witnesses might be in error about the sun's altitude at the time of the event. Go figure....

Not "uniform"? So you have proof that DST was NOT instituted in Rogue River at the time? No. I thought not.

Your willful ignorance is becoming boring here. I already stated that the witnesses did NOT make any precise judgements about how high or low the sun was. But you KNEW that already... you are simply wasting people's time here - pretending the witnesses were in error about something they never stated! THAT is a straw man at its most prominent! And it stinks of red herring.

 

[AWPrime]

I have provided a detailed "proof" against the "glare" hypothesis WITH the blimps used at the time as examples above (#2217). [bla bla bla]

I have read it and none of the photos you provide match the conditions. Therefore you have provided no evidence. Now go and provide us with photos with the same range, size, light conditions, surfaces, etc.

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.

Go look into a mirror and say that again.

 

[Access Denied]

I have more to say about the Iran and White Sands cases but I’ve been running short on free time lately so will have to post it later but for now I just wanted to point out this fundamental error in Rramjet’s approach here…

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.

All UFOs are equal and casually connected?

The Rogue River UFO did not “shape shift” or do anything else like Iran UFO(s) so there’s no reason to assume there’s a causal connection or common source. (as with the first reported object in the Iran case and the later)

All cases must be evaluated on an individual basis. The only thing these two cases have in common is they were unidentified at the time. (and may never be positively identified, at least not to everyone’s satisfaction)

Never mind the fact they happened over 25 years apart…

 

[Vortigern99]

To review the rebuttals to Rramjet's post about reflectivity and visibility of details:

How about resizing them so they represent the relative sizes at 1 mile through the binoculars?

Can't make out any wrtiting on that K Class and can barely make out the top and bottom fins.



With the naked eye, these would be merely dots.

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.

You do appreciate, I'm sure, that those photos are inevitably pre-selected for quality by their original posters? (i.e. most people discard their duff photos, they just don't shove them all online.)

Remembering that the estimates of distance were between 1 and 4 miles away and at an altitude of 5,000 feet!

Also the 1940s/1950's blimps were made from [a material similar to aluminium foil in terms of reflectivity], making them more reflective than the modern ones (as is evident by the only vintage photo posted by Rramjet).

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.

BLIMPS EXIST.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Vortigern99]

Photo 1, upper left: No visible gondola; lower fin appears to be small checker-shape within body of blimp.

Photo 2, upper right: No visible gondola; fins jumble together into single indistinct mass.

Photo 3, lower left: Gondola and lower fins visible only as miniscule lumps.

Photo 4, lower right: No details visible.

 

[Correa Neto]

That must be the Mirror Universe Enterprise!!!!!

You know the Enterprise has generated an UFO report, don't you?

As well as the Voyager...

See? Both are aliens from beyond the borders of what we consider the natural world to be (or something like that).

I win.

 

[Paul2]

...and you could be barking mad... but both contentions are equally unfounded and therefore may be dismissed without further ado.

A more perfect example of all hypotheses NOT being equal we couldn't find.

 

[Jocce]

WHAT boat? WHAT waves? Grasping at straws now aren't we? How deep was the river at the point of observation? How do you know they were not simply wading or walking along the shore?

Because the witness reports say they were in A BOAT!! My god, you post the article yourself and didn't read it?

Did you ever try using binoculars in a boat? Do you have any idea about the binocular quality in 1949?

 

[Jocce]

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).

You are such a big liar. The historical documents show that there was both USN and USNR blimp bases within range for a blimp in 1949. We have shown this already. You think you can just continue lying like this?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Photo 1, upper left: No visible gondola; lower fin appears to be small checker-shape within body of blimp.

Photo 2, upper right: No visible gondola; fins jumble together into single indistinct mass.

Photo 3, lower left: Gondola and lower fins visible only as miniscule lumps.

Photo 4, lower right: No details visible.

Photo 4 looks circular to me. I wonder if it's a UFO.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Unfortunately, you are just plain wrong here. WHAT complex event are we talking about -it really MATTERS. Stress and anxiety? You REALLY MUST provide a relevant quote from Loftus WITH the relevant context - as I have done in quoting the research I did) if you want to support your contentions. Without it you are still making unfounded assertions in the FACE of ALL the research evidence! The research is simply AGAINST you on this point. You won't believe me, but I KNOW this. It really is one of the fundamentals of psychology. Perhaps you should read Loftus more carefully? Particularly the context in which she makes the claims you suppose.

Do you want me to quote the entire chapter? All of the studies she cites had to do with stressful events commonly seen in crimes of short duration. You chose to pick some study that is not specific and has everything to do with long duration events that involve being occupied. Which is more applicable? Her studies or the ones you claim prove your point. Once again, you are declaring yourself the ultimate authority. I think the studies Loftus presents are far more appropriate.

Some of it can be read at "google books". Read to your heart's content what they give you from the book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uBlAU24-qsoC&dq=eyewitness+testimony+loftus&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=xwP6HExTxY&sig=4XZBBGJMKy89asdtrKX1R_Ucsug&hl=en&ei=22P0Ss-EA8uW8Ab1krDzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false


As far as "I Know this" comment, that is typical of you. You are the ultimate authority. If you actually read the Loftus document, you would realize how wrong you truly are. Stick your head in the sand some more.

WHAT boat? WHAT waves? Grasping at straws now aren't we? How deep was the river at the point of observation? How do you know they were not simply wading or walking along the shore? But of course it is anothe rred herring from you. That seems to be your specialty of late when you run out of real argument.

These details are pertinent to the observations made by the witnesses. You simply refuse to even look into this as a potential problem.

Again you need to provide the proper quotes and in correct context. You're just plain wrong here Astrophotographer - ask any qualified psychologist. AND PLEASE -Provide the relevant quotes from Loftus to support your contentions. Merely stating it is so does NOT make it so.

If you are not going to bother to look it up, then I am not going to waste my time retyping two pages worth of material because you are too lazy to specify what you want to see. Even if I did you would contend your study is more appropriate since you are, in your opinion, the ultimate authority here.

THEN HOW and WHY are the witnesses perceptions mislead? Merely stating so does NOT make it so.

And merely proclaiming you can compensate for witness error without describing your methodology does not make you right.

The witnesses state the conditions were clear. The weather charts of the day state the weather was clear. You read that as meaning hazy? THEN provide EVIDENCE that "clear" actually means "hazy"! Another red herring!

Wrong, I stated just because the witnesses state it was clear does not mean there could be haze as well. I have seen numerous "clear" days where the sky is unacceptable for astronomy simply because it was not "clear enough". It has to do with transparency, which is my point. What was visibility that day? Present the weather charts.

Again -you fail to present the evidence to support your contentions. I asked you HOW it was relevant to the Rogue River case. merely repeating over and over that it is, does NOT make it so. And merely stating the conditions "were similar" does NOT make them so. WHERE is you evidence?

I have presented my evidence. The witness states clear skies, the witness is a professional photographer, the witness claimed to see a disc, the film looks like a disc but it is actually a plane. It is highly pertinent but you refuse to accept it.

Your arguments are just plain nonsense. You lack the objectivity for a scientist and fail to even see potential other explanations. As far as your defense of the Rogue River case, you have failed.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Not "uniform"? So you have proof that DST was NOT instituted in Rogue River at the time? No. I thought not.

DST did not get enacted until 1966 when it became uniform. Before that, and after the war, various states and counties seemed to adopt dst or not. How do we know what the witnesses were using for time? Was it PST or PDT, we do not know. However, your initial claim was that DST was in use. I have demonstrated that it may or may not have been. If it was PDT, then the sun's elevation was much higher, which demonstrates the witnesses claim about the sun being "at their backs" is less accurate. Go figure....

Edit addition:

From Dr. Maccabee's website:

"On Tuesday, 24 May 1949, at 1700 P.S.T., Mr. B and four other persons, while fishing two miles upstream from the mouth of the Rogue River, at approximately the same direction and distance from the town of Gold Beach, Oregon, sighted an object which is described as follows...."

I knew I had seen PST somewhere. BTW, Oregon ran both PST and PDT in various places in 1950. The state of Oregon had to enact a law called the UNIFORM time act in the November elections simply because various localities were using PDT and others were using PST making for some very confusing paper stories. A paper I read had an election being announced with the times the ballot office was open in both PST and PDT!

 

[Akhenaten]

That must be the Mirror Universe Enterprise!!!!!

You know the Enterprise has generated an UFO report, don't you?

As well as the Voyager...

See? Both are aliens from beyond the borders of what we consider the natural world to be (or something like that).

I win.

Good eye, Correa. I couldn't find a pic of the damn blimp and the starship both pointing in the same direction anywhere. I like your explanation and do not require evidence. (it's self-evident, really)

Name added to winners list. You have won three times so far.