I will look into all this later but a brief skimming through the wall'o'text reveals yet another try to be dishonest.
Yeah, sure. You merely stating it does NOT make it so. Unfounded assertion is not a really clever way to begin a refutation to a detailed presentation of the evidence and the arguments surrounding that evidence. Perhaps you care not about your own credibility?
Jocce;5295309Rramjet said:
http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao-23-52.htm[/url]
I actually used BOTH the 1948 and 1949 produced documents to make the point. The first document I used was the May 1949 document, the second WAS the June 1948 document. But you totally missed that didn't you!
This is a summary of what you have been claiming all through this thread. There's nothing new here. I'm just going to snip out the long parts with no content.
Well, not exactly. Granted there is a lot that has been stated, but there IS new stuff there as well. And you are going to "snip out the long parts with no context? Well ...I suppose if everyone could understand my arguments I would be home free! That there are people who do not, does not surprise me.
I stated:
To assess the veracity of the claim of “UFO” for the Rogue River, Oregon sighting (24th May 1949) we must decide on two things.
First, the reliability of the eyewitness descriptions, and
Second, any plausible mundane hypothesis that might fit the eyewitness descriptions.
To address the reliability issue we must also come to a decision concerning two factors.
First, could the sighting have been a hoax, and if not,
Second, could the eyewitnesses have been mistaken in their descriptions of the object.
Bolded sentences are the same thing.
The two sentences are similar, yes. But there is a subtle distinction. The first goes to speaks to the reliability of BOTH the witnesses AND the descriptions they present. The second concerns itself with just the descriptions. Perhaps it could have been worded a little more clearly – but the distinction is there.
I have seen no indications that this could be a hoax so I'm fine with that. As a general comment though, I wouldn't take Maccabees interweb articles for the Truth(TM). He's been shown wrong in this thread already (calculations in Iran case f ex).
Yes, sure, But I think we all have been shown to be wrong at one point or another. It would be a brave or foolhardy person to contend that they have been correct about every assertion they have ever made. We all are after all, human (I think…)
Excuse me but on a warm and sunny may day there will be heat haze which blurs out details. That is a fact. Then we can speculate about air being polluted by pollen (it's spring) which further deteriorates seeing and transparency but we don't know.
"On a warm day"? Let me ask you this, have you ever seen heat haze produced over a wide flat river on ANY day, let alone a "warm" day? Heat haze is a "ground" effect phenomenon... but why do I even think you would know something like that? But then also you have not seen the penultimate point in my article”
As a final note on the viewing conditions: Even though it was a “clear” day with no clouds, it is possible there might have been some haze in the air which the witnesses did not think to mention - but if the object were as huge as a blimp and only a mile or a few miles away, it would have been visible unless there was so much haze that the witnesses would have most likely mentioned it. It must be pointed out, concerning this haze issue, that typical the phrase "clear air and visibility unlimited" during the daytime means one can see objects up to 15 miles away (or further if bright enough) - so to see for a few miles ought to have been relatively "easy" for the observers at the time. This then adds a final note of implausibility to the blimp hypothesis.
Also the witnesses using binoculars used terms such as “resolved” and “it was then possible to see…” so it is reasonable to assume that any haze, pollen, dust, etc was not sufficient to obscure their view of the details of the object.
As you note yourself, size and sped estimates are interlinked and since we know that those things are hard to estimate when seeing an object against the clear sky we can't think it's very reliable can we?
Rather than quoting the whole block of text of witness descriptions and your conclusion that the all witness statements are in agreement I just want to point out that this is nothing new to science. All witness were in the same boat, they had time to discuss the observation with eachother, both during observation and afterwards. When they were interviewed the next day it's no big surprise that they have very similar descriptions. That doesn't mean that they all actually saw the same carachteristics
Yes, sure. That is why I merely point out that there WERE differences in size estimates.
If the object’s distance from the observers was greater (> 5000 feet), then its actual size would have been greater (> 65 feet), and critically its speed would have been greater also (> jet plane speed). Conversely, if the distance from the observers was less (< 5000 feet), the object’s size would have been less (< 65 feet), and then the object’s speed would have been slower (< jet plane speed). This factor becomes critical in examining possible plausible mundane hypothesis, as we shall see later.
…and go on to make the point that this makes the blimp hypothesis implausible. If you have an argument against the points I present above, then please put them forward for consideration.
There were differences also in estimated distances. The speed was never precisely estimated, but given all but Mrs A (and perhaps Mrs D) were probably reasonably familiar with seeing jets fly over, then “speed of a jet plane” was accurate to the extent of the factors outlined above. However, shape, an easily identified feature NOT dependent so much on the above factors WAS consistent.
It would be very hard to discern an outline on a warm day like this. This doesn't exclude a blimp at all.
Yes, with the naked eye, the witnesses had less chance, but WITH binoculars they used the phrases as I have mentioned above (“resolved” and “it was then possible to see…”).
I once again would like to point out that the witness was using binoculars in a boat and the binoculars were from the 1940's. It's not at all certain that they would give a better image than the naked eye. You should try it some time and learn something new.
Ughhh.. then in your haste to dismiss the whole thing as containing “nothing new” you have obviously missed the detailed discussion of these very aspects. Perhaps you should go back to those places in my document and then post a reply that directly refutes the points I make about your contentions.
There is nothing in the shape description that makes a blimp impossible.
Again you have merely ignored the detailed discussion and arguments about this very point. If you reject my arguments or assertions on this point you NEED to point out HOW and WHY you do so. Merely ignoring my arguments and evidence on this very point gets noone anywhere. You started out in this post well enough, but now you have returned to merely contending “It IS so, because I SAY it is so” and THAT is not a logical or rational argument.
I stated:
Some skeptics have raised the issue that the binoculars might have been damaged in some way so that they might cause misperceptions (cracked or dirty lenses, faulty prism alignment, etc). However, all (or most) of the faults mentioned by the skeptics would cause the binoculars to be practically useless
Not useless, just less good. Bad enough for example to not being able to read Goodyear on the side of the small, blurry dot they was looking at.
Oh but again you ignore the phrases the witnesses utilised after they applied the binoculars ((“resolved” and “it was then possible to see…”). And “small blurry dot”? No, now you are just flat out ignoring the evidence before you. You have descended from rational argument in the beginning of your post to the ridiculous. You have possibly not read Astrophotographer posted “conditions” for rational scientific research to be taken seriously? This applies to ALL people at ALL times. If you want to have your arguments heard and accepted, then you MUST rationally and logically address the evidence.
I stated:
Could such an observation “platform” have contributed to “misidentification” of the object? First the boat was anchored, so there was no lateral movement to disturb observations. What about the condition of the River (waves rocking the boat for example)? At the point on the Rogue River at which the party were anchored the river is quite wide and slow moving. The time of year (summer) also meant that the river was carrying a relatively low amount of water compared to other times. Indeed, Google Earth images of the river at the point where the witnesses were anchored show a wide, flat riverscape in a shallow valley. It must also be remembered that the witnesses were there on a fishing expedition. Thus it is implausible to imagine that, given the location and time of year, the river was very much disturbed at all, and considering also that they were fishing, it is equally implausible to imagine that they would have anchored anywhere that might have made it uncomfortable and difficult for them to fish. It is implausible then that the condition of the river (rocking the boat) made observations of the object difficult enough to cause misidentification.
Seriously? Are you now claiming that a boat, small enough to be used for fishing in a river with 5 people in it is a rock steady observation platform? Seriously, you need to get out more.
Now you are contending things I did NOT say. I made a number of substantive points and ridicule is NOT an argument against those points. Address my points with refutations and you might get a better response.
There is nothing that excludes a blimp as an explanation.
If you have any substantive points to make against the evidence I present, then I suggest you make them. Once again you are merely stating “It IS so because I SAY it is so” and THAT is NOT an argument for or against anything.
We know that the Goodyear blimp was active within flying distance.
We know that two navy bases had blimps within flying distance
We know that the navy reserve had blimps within flying distance.
The first is true, but then you have not addressed my points against the Goodyear blimp. Do you even know what those points were? No. I thought not.
I have supplied a great deal of evidence that categorically rules out USN and USNR blimps. Do you know what that evidence is? No, of course you don’t.
You simply have not read my post! Or, if you have, you have simply ignored the evidence presented. You keep making the same mistakes over again. Just because you SAY something, does NOT mean
that something is true!
The arguments for this has been presented throughout the thread and you failing to aknowledge it doesn't make it go away. See for example my previous post (
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...09#post5295309).
Here again you show your ignorance of my evidence. I HAVE used the document in question! I HAVE presented the evidence it contains. If you refute that evidence, then do so by stating HOW and WHY I might be in error.
No? Of course you cannot.
There are so many words claiming a lot of things but no substance whatsoever. I'm really dissapointed that you can't come up with something new.
See, you missed all the new bits in my arguments! You don’t even know what (or where) those bits in the document are do you? You simply make unfounded assertions, hoping (having faith more like) that no-one will bother to check. I can assure you that people DO check and people DO take notice of the evidence when it is presented to them – even if you do not. Call yourself a skeptic? Not on this performance my friend.
