UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

You might also want to give some space to the effect observer discussion. That is, they didn't report the sighting until the following day, and surely discussed it in the meantime, which would make most, if not all, of them alter their perception of the event.

 

[Rramjet]

I see. In addition to playing the role of a scientist, you are now playing the role of a qualified psychologist. Forgive me for questioning your supreme authority. Let me figure this out. In the experiments cited by Loftus, the witnesses were asked to determine the duration of the short and stressful events. In these experiments, the witnesses consistently overestimated the duration of event. I am trying to figure out how you interpret these experiments to mean the witnesses are going to underestimate the duration of the Rogue River event. Your logic is amazing.

In case you did not apparently bother to read Loftus, I transcribed the pertinent sections for you:

In order to study the effects of eyewitness testimony in a realistic setting, Buckhout and his colleagues staged and assault on a california state university campus (Buckhout 1977; Buckhout et. al. 1975). A distraught student "attacked" a professor in front of 141 witnesses. The entire event was recorded on videotape so that the actual incident could be compared wtih eyewitness accounts. The attack lasted only thirty-four seconds, and after it was over, sworn statements were taken from each of the witnesses. One question about the duration of the incident produced an average of eighty-one seconds. Thus the witnesses overestimated by a factor of almost two and a half to one.

Two additional studies show the same tendency to overestimate time. In the first (Marshall 1966) the subjects watched a forty-two second film in which a young man rocks a baby carriage and then flees when a woman approaches him. A week after the subjects had seen the picture and after they had made written or oral reports on the recollection, they were asked how long the picture had taken. On the average the subjects thought it had lasted about a minute and a half. In the second study (Johnson and Scott 1976) unsuspecting subjects who were waiting to participate in an experiment overheard either a neutral or violent conversation going on in the next room. A person, referred to as the "target" then departed from the room, spending approximately four seconds in the presence of the waiting subjects. Both males and females overestimated the amount of time they thought they had viewed the target. Females reported that they had viewed him for an average of twenty-five seconds while males claimed it had been seven seconds on the average. Thus we have ample evidence that people overestimate the amount of 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)...... (I snipped a section where there is discussion about a court room case that the time question was an issue).
In sum, there is solid evidence that errors occur in people's estimates of the duration of an incident, and the errors are in the direction of overestimation..... (Loftus Eyewitness testimony 30-31)

And so it is PRECISELY as I contended. In traumatic events, subjective time is dilated (slowed). In exiting or otherwise normal, but busy events, time is compressed. This is exactly as the research has found and also exactly as common conception (or folklaw) suggests it is so. So my contention that in an event like Rogue River, where "busyness" is apparent (trying to work out what the object is) plus a degree of excitement (what the hell IS that thing?) actually compressed subjective time, making the duration seem shorter than it actually was.

So you see Astrophotographer, you have learned something today (who would have thought huh?)

Because the report says they were in a boat. If you actually read the report you would know this.

Right. Now we are getting somewhere. Now: How does an anchored boat preclude accurate viewing? Remember there were five people in the boat. How deep was the river at that point? How do you know there were "waves" that could rock the boat? How do you know that the boat wasn't perfectly stable with no rocking at all? In other words, you must show evidence that simply being in a boat precludes accurate observation - in THIS particular instance.

If I were to present weather data, you would refuse to look at it anyway. To summarize so far, I found a weather map for 1030 PM PST. It only shows observations for a few stations in Oregon and California. Those on the coast show clouds. Inland was clear. The Oakland tribune states fog moved into the coast that evening. I will keep trying to find additional information. Obviously, this is something new to your scientific mind.

Not at all, I am ASKING you repeatedly to present your evidence. You contend that Agent Brooks was wrong ("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..." (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)...so, please, present you data!

My point is that we do not know what "clear" skies described by the witnesses meant. Just because it was "clear" did not mean visiblity was that great. Since the object was at least a mile away, any mist, haze, or humdity can affect the observations. It is important to understand what the conditions were so we can understand how it might affect the obseravtions. Just like understanding they were in a boat or that it was PST (things you obviously missed in your extensive reading of the case). It may seem small but it is important. I thought that obtaining all the facts was important for scientific analysis. You seem not interested in fact checking or any additional information. How scientific of you. Are you sure you aren't just a "stand up philosopher"?

No, not missed at all. I merely required you to clarify and present evidence for your contentions. We simply don't know the type of boat or how stable it was or how deep the river was but we DO have the fact that the witnesses did NOT say, oh the boat was rocking, the binoculars were crap, etc... in putting forward these implausible you also impugn the skills of Agent Brooks as an investigator and researcher.

But also, as soon as you start down this road, then ANY historical event can be re-interpreted to represent anything we want. You are simply engaged in what has become commonly termed "historical revisionism". This is a tactic used by such people as holocaust deniers and the like.

I also maintain you have NOT presented evidence that PST WAS operating on the date in question. As I say, DST was instituted after WWII. If it was NOT done so in Rogue River, then please present your evidence.

 

[Vortigern99]

First we have the FOV drawing originally made by EHocking, along with the contention that the viewing is poor and “and can barely make out the top and bottom fins”.

But of course here we have a tiny drawing of a blimp on a yellow background which of course bears absolutely NO relation to the viewing conditions in the REAL world at the time of the Rogue River sighting… and MORE – we CAN see the details of the blimp in the drawing so there IS absolutely no point to the excersize at all from Vortigern99.

The point is that the blimp is presented at the proper size at which it would have been viewed at RR, according to EHocking's calculations, rather than at the size of the enormous, detailed photographs of blimps which you've misleadingly posted.

Notice also that even though Vortigern99 repeats an earlier post, he does NOT include the rebuttals also made at the time…

Astrophotographer has by now rebutted your ill-informed assertions about reflectivity; so, moving on:

If you have EVIDENCE that specular glare can be created from a blimp – then PRESENT it. Merely stating it is so does not make it so.

Semi-specular reflectivity, defined in your own words as "where the intensity of the reflection is greater where a specular 'glint' would have been - but also brighter spreading over the surrounding area, becoming more diffuse the further away" is all that's required to account for areas of the sighted object being blotted out behind light effects. Since you allow that "semi-specular type of reflection is the type of reflection that is apparent from blimps", I rest my case with no need for further comment.

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

So? What’s your point? It has been shown that the observers could have easily made out the details. (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
So what’s your point?

The point is that the sighted object was much smaller and much farther away than the close-up, detailed blimp photos you've misleadingly posted. See Stray Cat's four distant blimp pics, and EHocking's illustration of the proper sizing, above and upthread, to get an idea of what details fall away from the eye, or are not captured by the camera lens, at distances more accurately approximating the RR accounts than the huge, close-up pics you've given us.

You will find that I have used a picture of the blimp in question. Just go to my post. You will see it in the pictures. There is NO specular glare apparent from such a surface. And again you simply speculate from unfounded assumptions about the reflectivity of “modern” v. old-style” blimps. How do you know the exact reverse of what you contend is not actually the case?

You have not shown that USNR blimps could not have been at RR. No one here but you accepts your baseless dismissal of the USN information that asserts that NR blimps were in operation at the time. Therefore your insistence that you "have used a picture of the blimp in question" is incorrect.

On the other hand, as an example of intellectual honesty on my part, I confess I don't know what materials blimps are made of today, nor what they were made of in the 1940s. A few minutes of research yields no information, and this is not my area of expertise. To explain, my post was a re-posting of others' assertions so that you would not overlook them in an already bloated thread. Perhaps the member who made the assertion can back it up with links?

Meanwhile, here's a picture of the USS Akron in Nov. 1931. Note the high degree of reflectivity of the surface, the tiny, nearly invisible gondola (if that's even a gondola?), the window or window-like units along the side, the way the bottom fin blends in with the sky:

Not all airships look the same, and you're dismissing out of hand and with no basis the hypothesis that an unusual, experimental airship may have been on a test run from one of the USN or NR strips that day. We know airships exist, and we know the military experiments with flight technology which, for reasons of national security, it does not share with the public. On the other hand we do not know that "alien" vessels exist; we have no reliable evidence of them. Therefore it is more plausible that an experimental aircraft was spotted than that it was "alien" (whatever that may mean).

Actually, again my pictures represent “of various skin materials, surface textures, type of paint, etc” so you have NO point here.

... in giant, close-up, detailed pics that bear no relation to the reported viewing conditions at RR, and all of Goodyear blimps that may or may not be accurate representations of USN, USNR or experimental military airships.

If you have evidence that “humidity, pollen, airborne pollutants” was present in 1949 on a clear, bluesky day at Rogue River, then present it, otherwise you are merely grasping at straws with unfounded assertion.

I am not stating that "humidity, pollen, airborne pollutants, quality of the binoculars, lens coatings, condition of lenses, prism alignment and cleanness" were "definitely present at RR", but they are variables which, if present, could introduce doubt into the witnesses' accounts. It behooves you as the claimant to show that visibility was entirely clear and free of these factors; it is enough for us, as the skeptics, to introduce doubt and the possibility that visibility might reasonably have been compromised. A single adjective, "clear", as reported is insufficient to show total clarity of vision with regard to humidity, pollen, binocular lenses, etc., some or all of which problems the witnesses might not even have been aware of. Again I note your continued attempts to shift the burden of proof to those refuting your claims.

Ummm…but I thought you all agreed…UFOs exist….

Yes, unidentified flying/floating objects do indeed exist. That is a catch-all term for objects that, you guessed it, have not been identified. It is not an explanation of what the object was or might have been.

Blimps, on the other hand, are known to exist. Since they conform in most respects to the reported features of the object, it is reasonable to conclude that a blimp or some kind of related airship is what was seen.

 

[Rramjet]

So, let me get this straight, Rramjet.

You are now contending that the witnesses in the Rogue River case underestimated the time it took for the whole event to occur. So instead of it taking the object about 2 minutes to disappear from sight it probably actually took about 4 minutes?

So in fact, their estimates of the speed of the object are wrong then, since they would be based on distance covered divided by time taken, and to them time seemed compressed, so it would have actually been moving slower than they say.

Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

No, I was merely countering Astrophotographer's contention that the viewing time was much shorter than supposed. I have successfully countered that by presenting the evidence based research on the matter. I then stated that according to the research, it was likely that the time was underestimated , rather than overestimated. That is NOT to say that the viewing time was NOT accurately remembered by the witnesses - just that all other things being equal, Astrophotographer's contention was (and is), according to evidence based research, just plain wrong.

Moreover, your own contention assumes a distance measure that is relatively unknowable. Also there is a VAST gulf between the speed of a blimp and the speed of a jet plane - that mere "minor in comparison" differences in subjective time estimates simply cannot cover.

 

[GeeMack]

Right. Now we are getting somewhere. Now: How does an anchored boat preclude accurate viewing? Remember there were five people in the boat. How deep was the river at that point? How do you know there were "waves" that could rock the boat? How do you know that the boat wasn't perfectly stable with no rocking at all? In other words, you must show evidence that simply being in a boat precludes accurate observation - in THIS particular instance.

Good. So you acknowledge that you don't have the slightest idea about the water conditions experienced by the witnesses. It's good that you can admit your argument is from ignorance and incredulity now and then. The attempt to shift the burden of proof again makes for a crappy argument, of course, but you know that.

Now, how about all those questions in my Post 2246? You've got a lot of answering to do if you want to eliminate blimps as a plausible, mundane explanation for the Rogue River sighting. You do realize it will be more difficult for you now that you've admitted there are unknowns about the witnesses' viewing conditions.

 

[GeeMack]

No, I was merely countering Astrophotographer's contention that the viewing time was much shorter than supposed. I have successfully countered that by presenting the evidence based research on the matter.

Your claim that you have "successfully countered" anything would be dependent on other people agreeing with your position on it. Nobody here does. Your argument is a failure and your claim to success is not true.

 

[Rramjet]

The point is that the blimp is presented at the proper size at which it would have been viewed at RR, according to EHocking's calculations, rather than at the size of the enormous, detailed photographs of blimps which you've misleadingly posted.

Vortigern…I did NOT post the pictures of the blimp to represent SIZE! They were to show how light reflected off blimps. THAT is all. ANY fool can present blurred or otherwise indistinct pictures of blimps – but that indicates or “proves” nothing!

In the FOV diagrams – we CAN make out the details of the blimp. AND research has been conducted to show that the witnesses could have observed the details they did. So what is the point of this…oh, I get it. Merely repeating unfounded assertions over and over constitute evidence according to the rules of the JREF?

Semi-specular reflectivity, defined in your own words as "where the intensity of the reflection is greater where a specular 'glint' would have been - but also brighter spreading over the surrounding area, becoming more diffuse the further away" is all that's required to account for areas of the sighted object being blotted out behind light effects. Since you allow that "semi-specular type of reflection is the type of reflection that is apparent from blimps", I rest my case with no need for further comment.

The term is “semi-specular”. I provided a definition. You ignore that to contend semi-specular actually means “specular”? (shakes head in dumfounded disbelief) I have already shown that (especially) when it comes to blimps, semispecular reflections obscure NOTHING of the details.

The point is that the sighted object was much smaller and much farther away than the close-up, detailed blimp photos you've misleadingly posted. See Stray Cat's four distant blimp pics, and EHocking's illustration of the proper sizing, above and upthread, to get an idea of what details fall away from the eye, or are not captured by the camera lens, at distances more accurately approximating the RR accounts than the huge, close-up pics you've given us.

Again…ANY fool can post pictures of far away indistinct blimps – but THAT proves nothing at all! I posted the pictures I did to demonstrate the types of light reflection we get from blimps.

You have not shown that USNR blimps could not have been at RR. No one here but you accepts your baseless dismissal of the USN information that asserts that NR blimps were in operation at the time. Therefore your insistence that you "have used a picture of the blimp in question" is incorrect.

My evidence against USN and USNR blimps is on the record. If you refuse to accept the official historical records then you are engaged in the same historical revisionism as Astrophotographer. This is a tactic used by holocaust deniers.

On the other hand, as an example of intellectual honesty on my part, I confess I don't know what materials blimps are made of today, nor what they were made of in the 1940s. A few minutes of research yields no information, and this is not my area of expertise. To explain, my post was a re-posting of others' assertions so that you would not overlook them in an already bloated thread. Perhaps the member who made the assertion can back it up with links?

No, but we do know that the Good Year blimps of the period were the “K-class” and I have posted a picture of exactly that type of blimp to demonstrate its reflective properties. It is a colour photo no less!

Meanwhile, here's a picture of the USS Akron in Nov. 1931. Note the high degree of reflectivity of the surface, the tiny, nearly invisible gondola (if that's even a gondola?), the window or window-like units along the side, the way the bottom fin blends in with the sky:

Yes, and we observe semi-specular reflection and note that the details of the blimp are not obscured in any way.

Not all airships look the same, and you're dismissing out of hand and with no basis the hypothesis that an unusual, experimental airship may have been on a test run from one of the USN or NR strips that day. We know airships exist, and we know the military experiments with flight technology which, for reasons of national security, it does not share with the public. On the other hand we do not know that "alien" vessels exist; we have no reliable evidence of them. Therefore it is more plausible that an experimental aircraft was spotted than that it was "alien" (whatever that may mean).

We KNOW there were NO military blimps on the East Coast in 1949! You simply ignore the official histories on the matter. I have posted the evidence. Please stop engaging in historical revisionism. More…WE DO know the GoodYear blimps (the ONLY other possible contender) were the K-class blimps. That is a matter of historical record too.

... in giant, close-up, detailed pics that bear no relation to the reported viewing conditions at RR, and all of Goodyear blimps that may or may not be accurate representations of USN, USNR or experimental military airships.

Oh then perhaps you missed that there were five pictures? Not all were “close-ups”. Perhaps also you should go back and acquaint yourself with the historical records: K-class blimps.

I am not stating that "humidity, pollen, airborne pollutants, quality of the binoculars, lens coatings, condition of lenses, prism alignment and cleanness" were "definitely present at RR", but they are variables which, if present, could introduce doubt into the witnesses' accounts. It behooves you as the claimant to show that visibility was entirely clear and free of these factors; it is enough for us, as the skeptics, to introduce doubt and the possibility that visibility might reasonably have been compromised. A single adjective, "clear", as reported is insufficient to show total clarity of vision with regard to humidity, pollen, binocular lenses, etc., some or all of which problems the witnesses might not even have been aware of. Again I note your continued attempts to shift the burden of proof to those refuting your claims.

I am not saying you are barking mad, but it behooves you to show me that you are not? Is that how this works? After all it is a problem which you COULD be labouring under. So according to your own logic, it is up to YOU to prove to ME that you are not barking mad. Bunk!

Yes, unidentified flying/floating objects do indeed exist. That is a catch-all term for objects that, you guessed it, have not been identified. It is not an explanation of what the object was or might have been.

Blimps, on the other hand, are known to exist. Since they conform in most respects to the reported features of the object, it is reasonable to conclude that a blimp or some kind of related airship is what was seen.

Oh, I see. A UFO is not a UFO at all…it is merely an unexplained mundane event. But here you are engaged in a priori assumption that is not supported by the evidence. It IS possible for UFOs to represent “aliens” too. But of course, not being bound by the rules of logic or the tenets of scientific investigation, you simply deny that possibility even exists.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So my contention that in an event like Rogue River, where "busyness" is apparent (trying to work out what the object is) plus a degree of excitement (what the hell IS that thing?) actually compressed subjective time, making the duration seem shorter than it actually was.

Boy you really have turned things upside down. Failure to understand how witnesses tend to overestimate time is just too much for you to grasp. You are just trying desperately to make it appear you are right when you are actually wrong. Pretending to be a scientist/psycholgist is really affecting your reasoning skills.

Now: How does an anchored boat preclude accurate viewing? Remember there were five people in the boat. How deep was the river at that point? How do you know there were "waves" that could rock the boat? How do you know that the boat wasn't perfectly stable with no rocking at all? In other words, you must show evidence that simply being in a boat precludes accurate observation - in THIS particular instance.

The more people the more potential for rocking the boat. You stated the witnesses were subject to "excitement". Therefore, they will cause motion of the boat if they move only a small amount. These are all factors that affect the quality of the observation. You NEVER even considered this because Dr. Maccabee et al. never considered it. So much for scientific curiousity, which you seem to have so precious little of.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I missed this gem where Rramjet refuses to admit his error and repeats the same one:

I also maintain you have NOT presented evidence that PST WAS operating on the date in question. As I say, DST was instituted after WWII. If it was NOT done so in Rogue River, then please present your evidence.

And I demonstrated that you were incorrect about the idea that DST was instituted after WWII (unless you want 1966 to be "after WWII). DST was called "war time" during WWII but was no longer used except in isolated areas (major cities and in some localities). As I pointed out Oregon was so disjointed (varous communities observing PST and PDT) that papers had to list times in PDT and PST! In November 1950, Oregon had to vote to have the "uniform time" set up so this problem could be avoided.
However, the proof comes from rom 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 am not sure why you can't read PST (which I bolded for you in a previous post). If you want to keep saying it was possible that they meant PDT, feel free to go right ahead. However, it is apparent they meant PST and not PDT based on this statement.

 

[GeeMack]

It IS possible for UFOs to represent "aliens" too.

Only after you provide evidence that aliens exist. And so far your repeated arguments from ignorance, incredulity, and lies have failed miserably to support that claim of yours.

When do you figure to get started demonstrating that no mundane possibilities could explain the Rogue River sighting? A good place to start might be to answer all my questions in Post 2246. You see, as long as you can't eliminate all doubt about the viewing conditions, you haven't really eliminated any mundane explanations.

And in the unlikely event you ever get past that hurdle, it would be interesting to see if you actually have any evidence to support your claim that aliens exist.

 

[Vortigern99]

Vortigern…I did NOT post the pictures of the blimp to represent SIZE! They were to show how light reflected off blimps. THAT is all. ANY fool can present blurred or otherwise indistinct pictures of blimps – but that indicates or “proves” nothing!

In the FOV diagrams – we CAN make out the details of the blimp. AND research has been conducted to show that the witnesses could have observed the details they did. So what is the point of this…oh, I get it. Merely repeating unfounded assertions over and over constitute evidence according to the rules of the JREF?

You asked what the point was, I explained it was to show that size and distance are factors in accurately identifying details. Now you're claiming I'm "repeating unfounded assertions over and over" and that IMO these assertions "constitute evidence according to the rules of the JREF". I have to admit I haven't the slightest notion what you mean by this. As an aside, EHocking apparently made his diagram from his own calculations; hardly the efforts of a "fool", but you delight in ad hominem so this insult is unsurprising.

The term is “semi-specular”. I provided a definition. You ignore that to contend semi-specular actually means “specular”? (shakes head in dumfounded disbelief) I have already shown that (especially) when it comes to blimps, semispecular reflections obscure NOTHING of the details.

I quoted your definition of semi-specular, not of specular. You can go back and check if you like; I tire of this pointless bickering and of your lack of reading comprehension, even when it comes to your own writing. Of course, "any fool" can quote wikipedia or whatever source you derived your definitions from, but "that indicates or proves nothing!"

Again…ANY fool can post pictures of far away indistinct blimps – but THAT proves nothing at all! I posted the pictures I did to demonstrate the types of light reflection we get from blimps.

Okay, and we posted the distant pics to show that detail gets lost behind layers of atmospheric molecules, sunlight and the laws of perspective. I'm glad we had this chance to explain our motivations.

My evidence against USN and USNR blimps is on the record. If you refuse to accept the official historical records then you are engaged in the same historical revisionism as Astrophotographer. This is a tactic used by holocaust deniers.

Your evidence is contradicted by other sources, also on record in this thread. Which account is correct? Yours? Why must we conclude that your data supercedes all others? For our purposes, it is enough that doubt has been introduced by official USN sources. Your continued failure to address those sources does not depict you as a fair- or open-minded researcher.

No, but we do know that the Good Year blimps of the period were the “K-class” and I have posted a picture of exactly that type of blimp to demonstrate its reflective properties. It is a colour photo no less!

But "ANY fool can present pictures of blimps – but that indicates or 'proves' nothing!" You said it, so it must be true.

Yes, and we observe semi-specular reflection and note that the details of the blimp are not obscured in any way.

I note that you fail to address the other features of the USS Akron which are consistent with the RR sighting, namely the lack of a visible gondola, the windows or window-like objects along the side, and the blending of the lower fin with the background to nigh invisibility. Your continued neglect of points contradictory to your position does not depict you as fair- or open-minded researcher.

We KNOW there were NO military blimps on the East Coast in 1949! You simply ignore the official histories on the matter. I have posted the evidence. Please stop engaging in historical revisionism. More…WE DO know the GoodYear blimps (the ONLY other possible contender) were the K-class blimps. That is a matter of historical record too.

No, we don't "KNOW" that, no matter how many capital letters you use to assert it. Your sources on Naval blimps contradict ours, as ours contradict yours, so at worst we are at a stale-mate on this point. At the end of the day, we know blimps exist, so whatever the facts regarding Naval airships in California in 1949, they are still a more plausible explanation than "aliens", for which we have no reliable evidence. You lose.

Oh then perhaps you missed that there were five pictures? Not all were “close-ups”. Perhaps also you should go back and acquaint yourself with the historical records: K-class blimps.

"ANY fool can present pictures of blimps – but that indicates or 'proves' nothing!" Nothing I tell you! Have fun eating those words over and over.

I am not saying you are barking mad, but it behooves you to show me that you are not? Is that how this works? After all it is a problem which you COULD be labouring under. So according to your own logic, it is up to YOU to prove to ME that you are not barking mad. Bunk!

The burden of proof rests on the claimant. You are claiming an alien vessel or an unidentified vessel, where the mundane explanation f "blimp" or "experimental military airship" already covers nearly all the available facts, and various cognitive distortions endemic to eyewitness accounts covers all the rest. Your move.

Oh, I see. A UFO is not a UFO at all…it is merely an unexplained mundane event. But here you are engaged in a priori assumption that is not supported by the evidence. It IS possible for UFOs to represent “aliens” too. But of course, not being bound by the rules of logic or the tenets of scientific investigation, you simply deny that possibility even exists.

A mundane explanation is absolutely supported by the evidence. That you're emotionally attached to an extraordinary paranormal explanation is clouding your judgement, and represents no impetus for the rest of us to follow suit.

It is also possible that "aliens" might be responsible for the object as well. Being bound by rules of logic and the tenets of scientific investigation, I must concede that aliens might have been maneuvering a remarkably blimp-like object in the skies over RR in May 1949. But since we have no evidence of that, nor indeed of any "alien" vessel or being, I'm going to go ahead and accept tentatively, pending further data, that the ****ing thing was a blimp.

 

[Akhenaten]

No I didn't and I thought of UFFO Enterprise too late to edit.

That's an excellent suggestion!

Yes, it's too late to edit the post, so if I change the file name the picture will disappear.

However, I do have some experience of manipulating small pictures.

Naturally I will have to post the picture again for Rramjet, who may have missed vital evidence the first time. It's for the good of Earthkind.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Your claim that you have "successfully countered" anything would be dependent on other people agreeing with your position on it. Nobody here does. Your argument is a failure and your claim to success is not true.

Rramjet has actually claimed success in arguing against the skeptics here? Wow, that's a new one to me... has he/she convinced one single skeptic here of his/her claims? The answer to that question would seem a reasonable gauge of "success", it seems.

I'm guessing the answer starts with "N"

 

[Akhenaten]

Thanks for the name, Toke!

 

[Akhenaten]

Rramjet has actually claimed success in arguing against the skeptics here? Wow, that's a new one to me... has he/she convinced one single skeptic here of his/her claims? The answer to that question would seem a reasonable gauge of "success", it seems.

I'm guessing the answer starts with "N"

"N"o convincees, but all other posters have won the debate at least twice, several have won 3 times, and GeeMack is a Quadruple Champion.

Some are too modest, and have declined their awards.

I have a list. I've checked it twice.


Update soon.

 

[MattusMaximus]

"N"o convincees, but all other posters have won the debate at least twice, several have won 3 times, and GeeMack is a Quadruple Champion.

Some are too modest, and have declined their awards.

I have a list. I've checked it twice.

Update soon.

It is as I thought then... complete and utter FAIL.

 

[Akhenaten]

It seems.

It's just occurred to me also that we may be able to extrapolate the likely number of unconvinced lurkers, but I am not a mathematician, nor do I play one sumtimes (opinion is divided), plus I lack sufficient remainder of my i quotient to do the arithmetic, so I'll leave that to others.

 

[Rramjet]

You asked what the point was, I explained it was to show that size and distance are factors in accurately identifying details.

But you ignore my argument entirely. ANY fool can post a fuzzy or distant picture of picture of a blimp, but it proves nothing. The fact that blimps can get lost in the pixels of a photo says NOTHING about how the human eye perceives objects. Posting pictures cannot indicate how distance and size relate to direct perception of the human eye.

More - Posting such pictures is entirely irrelevant to the discussion about the “glare” hypothesis.

Now you're claiming I'm "repeating unfounded assertions over and over" and that IMO these assertions "constitute evidence according to the rules of the JREF". I have to admit I haven't the slightest notion what you mean by this. As an aside, EHocking apparently made his diagram from his own calculations; hardly the efforts of a "fool", but you delight in ad hominem so this insult is unsurprising.

You repeatedly posted the pictures, even in the face of my argument that
1. They were irrelevant to the discussion at hand and
2. That they were even irrelevant to the point YOU were trying to make!

That you continued posting the pictures without addressing the issues I raised IS merely posting the same unfounded assertions over and over again. I then speculated that you were perhaps doing so under the fallacious impression that mere repetition of unfounded assertion makes a logical argument (I also speculated the this seems to be a common fallacy among the members of JREF).

I quoted your definition of semi-specular, not of specular. You can go back and check if you like; I tire of this pointless bickering and of your lack of reading comprehension, even when it comes to your own writing. Of course, "any fool" can quote wikipedia or whatever source you derived your definitions from, but "that indicates or proves nothing!"

Sure, you quoted it, then proceeded to argue as if you had misunderstood it. I can state categorically that I did not obtain the definition from the gossip site Wikipedia or from any textbook on the subject. The words are my own.

Okay, and we posted the distant pics to show that detail gets lost behind layers of atmospheric molecules, sunlight and the laws of perspective. I'm glad we had this chance to explain our motivations.

But the pictures you posted don’t show this…all they show is that fuzzy pictures of blimps make it difficult to tell what the real world view and perspective might have been.

I stated:
My evidence against USN and USNR blimps is on the record. If you refuse to accept the official historical records then you are engaged in the same historical revisionism as Astrophotographer. This is a tactic used by holocaust deniers.

Your evidence is contradicted by other sources, also on record in this thread. Which account is correct? Yours? Why must we conclude that your data supercedes all others? For our purposes, it is enough that doubt has been introduced by official USN sources. Your continued failure to address those sources does not depict you as a fair- or open-minded researcher.

If you choose to ignore the historical data then I am sure you are not alone in this respect. This thread seems full of people willing to ignore the evidence. I addressed all the sources you mention and you can verify this by going back to the relevant posts. I have no fear of such an investigation because I know I am correct in that assessment. So your continued assertions in this vein are unfounded.

I stated:
No, but we do know that the Good Year blimps of the period were the “K-class” and I have posted a picture of exactly that type of blimp to demonstrate its reflective properties. It is a colour photo no less!

But "ANY fool can present pictures of blimps – but that indicates or 'proves' nothing!" You said it, so it must be true.

But what I posted were NOT “mere” pictures of blimps. They show the semispecular reflections that can come from blimps. There was a specific purpose and that specific purpose was fulfilled by the pictures I posted. Unfortunately for you, you had a purpose, but the pictures you posted did not fulfil that purpose (as described above).

I stated”
Yes, and we observe semi-specular reflection and note that the details of the blimp are not obscured in any way.

I note that you fail to address the other features of the USS Akron which are consistent with the RR sighting, namely the lack of a visible gondola, the windows or window-like objects along the side, and the blending of the lower fin with the background to nigh invisibility. Your continued neglect of points contradictory to your position does not depict you as fair- or open-minded researcher.

But so what…are you contending the USS Akron was over Rogue River at the time of the sighting? Nonsense! Besides, the Akron is NOT a K-class blimp. I stated many times in my last reply to you that the GoodYear blimps of the period were K-class blimps. THAT was the only possible (but highly unlikely) blimp that COULD have been anywhere near Rogue River at the time. THAT much we also know from the historical records. You persist in ignoring the historical evidence. Thus again you are merely entering into the realm of historical revisionism.

I stated:
We KNOW there were NO military blimps on the East Coast in 1949! You simply ignore the official histories on the matter. I have posted the evidence. Please stop engaging in historical revisionism. More…WE DO know the GoodYear blimps (the ONLY other possible contender) were the K-class blimps. That is a matter of historical record too.

No, we don't "KNOW" that, no matter how many capital letters you use to assert it. Your sources on Naval blimps contradict ours, as ours contradict yours, so at worst we are at a stale-mate on this point. At the end of the day, we know blimps exist, so whatever the facts regarding Naval airships in California in 1949, they are still a more plausible explanation than "aliens", for which we have no reliable evidence. You lose.

You persistence in ignoring the historical data. What more can I say. Go back to my posts on the matter. You will see it all laid out there. I have nothing to hide. I have addressed all the issues. What more do you want? Just because your faith does not allow you to “believe” in “aliens” does not mean that your faith is correct. We are working with the EVIDENCE here – not a system of beliefs. But of course in an argument between faith and logic and faith and evidence, logic and evidence lose every time.

I stated:
Oh then perhaps you missed that there were five pictures? Not all were “close-ups”. Perhaps also you should go back and acquaint yourself with the historical records: K-class blimps.

"ANY fool can present pictures of blimps – but that indicates or 'proves' nothing!" Nothing I tell you! Have fun eating those words over and over.

But I have already told you the pictures I posted showed precisely the type of reflections we can expect from blimps. They fulfilled the purpose they were intended for. But I guess any fool can ignore the evidence I present…

The burden of proof rests on the claimant. You are claiming an alien vessel or an unidentified vessel, where the mundane explanation f "blimp" or "experimental military airship" already covers nearly all the available facts, and various cognitive distortions endemic to eyewitness accounts covers all the rest. Your move.

I claim UFO. I claim UFO because there have been no plausible mundane explanations that fit either the historical record OR the eyewitness descriptions. That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And notice the “nearly covers all the available facts” simply does NOT cut it. The explanation must cover ALL the available facts. The geocentric view of the earth in the cosmos “covered nearly all of the available facts” too!

A mundane explanation is absolutely supported by the evidence. That you're emotionally attached to an extraordinary paranormal explanation is clouding your judgement, and represents no impetus for the rest of us to follow suit.

No, I merely contend a UFO, and so far NOTHING mundane has been proposed that fits ALL the available facts!

It is also possible that "aliens" might be responsible for the object as well. Being bound by rules of logic and the tenets of scientific investigation, I must concede that aliens might have been maneuvering a remarkably blimp-like object in the skies over RR in May 1949. But since we have no evidence of that, nor indeed of any "alien" vessel or being, I'm going to go ahead and accept tentatively, pending further data, that the ****ing thing was a blimp.

Now you are going so far as to break the forum rules here. Should someone report you, your entire post could be removed and all that effort will have been for naught!

If aliens have been ”maneuvering a remarkably blimp-like object” that’s their lookout. Unfortunately no-one saw those particular aliens. People did however observe an entirely UNBLIMPLIKE object above Rogue River. Accept what you like. You have to ignore the evidence to do so…but that is the nature of faith I guess.

 

[Jocce]

Rearding the absence of a lower fin. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ok? Noone is saying that the observed object HAD a lower fin that the witnesses didn't see. We're just saying it's possible. You're the one saying it is impossible for them to miss that so go ahead and prove it.

How does an anchored boat preclude accurate viewing? Remember there were five people in the boat. How deep was the river at that point? How do you know there were "waves" that could rock the boat? How do you know that the boat wasn't perfectly stable with no rocking at all? In other words, you must show evidence that simply being in a boat precludes accurate observation - in THIS particular instance.

No, we all know that boats are unstable to varying degree. You claim that this particular boat was an exception to that. Prove it.

 

[Akhenaten]

<yikes!>


I stated:
No, but we do know that the Good Year blimps of the period were the “K-class” and I have posted a picture of exactly that type of blimp to demonstrate its reflective properties. It is a colour photo no less!


<words>

Mine's better. More colours and less fins. I win!



ETA: And it's a "Galaxy-class" "Galaxy" has more letters than "K". I double win!


EATA: Eric Idle has a song called the Galaxy Song and it's really good. Trifecta!


EYATA: You spelled "Goodyear" wrong. I'll check, but I think this is the first quadrella.