UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[GeeMack]

In one of the few truly scientific studies to explore this statistic...

"The Battelle Study" (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)

...it was found that 21.5% of the over 3000 reports directly examined constituted "UNKNOWN" - as opposed to either "Identified" (mundane) or "Not enough information".

I contend that statistic to be just a "little" different than the figures you believe to be true...

What percentage of those reports were identified as alien craft?

 

[RoboTimbo]

It is my sincere hope that others will similarly use research and evidence to support and prosecute their own cases.

Since you are sincere in your hope, how about the Campeche infrared UFO in March 2004?

First: It was well documented
Second: It paced the military airplane
Third: The objects were entirely weird
Fourth: There was infrared confirmation as well as multiple witnesses (trained military personnel!)
Fifth: The UFOs affected their surroundings
Sixth: The UFOs exhibited intelligent behavior

So, by your criteria, these UFOs were aliens?

 

[Rramjet]

What is wrong with you? You are still saying that the proof that they could see enough detail to rule out a blimp is that they didn't see all the details they would see on a blimp. How is that not circular reasoning?

Perhaps the distinction was too subtle for you…? Here are the statements again…

“Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. With the binoculars, the object resolved…”

And

“I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that…”

And

“I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that…”

These statements support the contention that there was nothing wrong with the binoculars.

THIS contention DOES NOT rely on WHAT details the witnesses saw or described. They rely on the simple fact that it was possible to see more clearly through the binoculars the details for the object than it was with the naked eye. THIS is precisely what binoculars are for!

My argument is therefore not circular.

You coninue your drivel by claiming that, in this particular case, the boat was a stable enough platform to not cause any difficulty in observing. Which planet do you come from? You should really try it yourself sometime and you'd see how completely ridiculous your assertion is. A boat is unstable, period. It doesn't matter if the wind is totally calm and everyone is trying to stay completely still. It will still rock enough to let an observed object dance around in the field of view.

You have NO idea how stable the boat was. You have NO idea even what KIND of boat it was. It might have been a catamaran type with extremely wide outriggers, making it an inordinately stable object. YOU don’t know! There is absolutely NO reason to assume that being in a boat where they were would have made their description of the object invalid. It is THAT simple.

<snip the general abuse>
Abuse is the lowest form of argument, one step short of violence. It is the preserve of bullies. I thought you might have been better than this Jocce. You disappoint me.

Raw data is meteorological observations from reliable sources. Not tourists saying "oh, we had really nice weather".

We DO have the meteorological data obtained 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…”

And the most telling statement remains for example (Mrs D) “The day had been clear, visibility was good” - simple, direct, no nonsense. The other witnesses made similar statements but one is sufficient to prove the point.

There was haze that day or it was completely unique among all the sunny spring days in history. You claiming otherwise is quite astonishing. Or are you claiming that the rules of physics were suspended during the time of observation?

You are mistaken. Here is my argument - seeing you have clearly missed it in the SAME POST you quote from…incredible but true folks!

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 (for example they might have stated “We lost site of it when it disappeared into the haze…” rather than merely “…disappeared…” or “…the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction”). It must be pointed out, concerning this haze issue, that typically 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.​

So please read my evidence and argument before posting again. (…missed from the very post he quotes from…shakes head in disbelief…)

 

[Rramjet]

Since you are sincere in your hope, how about the Campeche infrared UFO in March 2004?

First: It was well documented
Second: It paced the military airplane
Third: The objects were entirely weird
Fourth: There was infrared confirmation as well as multiple witnesses (trained military personnel!)
Fifth: The UFOs affected their surroundings
Sixth: The UFOs exhibited intelligent behavior

So, by your criteria, these UFOs were aliens?

I have watched the video. According to the evidence of the video:

First: A simple infrared "video' is NOT "well documented"
Second: There is no evidence in the video the objects were moving at all
Third: Lights in the sky (or on the ground?) are not "weird"
Fourth: The video infrared is the ONLY confirmation
Fifth: No apparent affect of surroundings
Sixth: No apparent intelligent behaviour

So what is your point? This is an extremely poor case to make ANYTHING of, let alone aliens. What is your point?

I suggest you try the following case ( I think you will find it will get you MUCH closer to the conditions you describe above. Do let me know what you think of it - in consideration of your criteria listed above... I would be extremely interested to know)

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)

 

[Astrophotographer]

Thus the "glare" hypothesis is refuted.

More: "Angle of incidence/reflection" ONLY applies to specular reflections - and this is NOT the case from blimps so your question is irrelevant. And as for "coefficients of reflection", if you can demonstrate that such a coefficient of reflection from blimps precludes accurate observation of details, then go ahead. But of course you CANNOT. You raise the issue, yet again cannot provide evidence that the issue is relevant.

Who said anything about blimps? I was thinking of any type of aircraft or kite. Therefore, to refute that any reflection is impossible, you need to demonstrate that a reflection could not occur. Once again, angles of incidence/reflection and coefficient of reflection come into play. When you have those and demonstrate that it is impossible, then you can declare you have refuted it.

 

[Astrophotographer]

But we don't need to carry out this experiment. We can base reasonable judgements on the evidence we already have.

You are assuming based on what you want to believe. This kind of experiment would be worth trying to determine how good such observations could be. Another hand waving gesture.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have watched the video. According to the evidence of the video:

First: A simple infrared "video' is NOT "well documented"

You think anecdotal evidence is better or worse than video evidence from military personnel? From the Ministry of Defense specifically. None the less, from this site: "But the Mexican incident is one of the most intriguing cases in recent memory--and one of the best documented."

Second: There is no evidence in the video the objects were moving at all

How did they form a circle around the airplane then? "At one point, eight of the objects formed a circle around the plane. Crew members were understandably shaken."

Third: The video infrared is the ONLY confirmation

How much more do you want than this: "couldn't come up with any explanation for what had been seen by radar, FLIR, cameras and eyewitnesses."

Fifth: No apparent affect of surroundings

Because they used advanced alien cloaking technology. There can be no other mundane explanation.

Sixth: No apparent intelligent behaviour

Except: "that they had flown along with the C26A under what appeared to be intelligent control."

 

[Astrophotographer]

In one of the few truly scientific studies to explore this statistic...

"The Battelle Study" (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)

...it was found that 21.5% of the over 3000 reports directly examined constituted "UNKNOWN" - as opposed to either "Identified" (mundane) or "Not enough information".

I contend that statistic to be just a "little" different than the figures you believe to be true....

The Battelle study is your "ace in the hole". However, you do not tell everyone that they did not investigate anything but just reviewed the cases and categorized them. The authors remarked,

...the data were subjective, consisting of qualified estimates of physical characteristics rather than of precise measurements. Furthermore, most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately. The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years. Both of these factors introduced an element of doubt concerning the validity of the original data, and increased it s subjectivity. (p3-4)

You also did not tell everyone about the last part of the study where they looked at these unknowns and determined probable causes for many. Therefore, you picking the 21.5% is inaccurate.

However, other values determined over the years indicate this value is usually around 10%. Allan Hendry's work was less than 10% and he expressed doubts about many of the "unknowns" he had based on what he knew about the knowns.

 

[Rramjet]

Who said anything about blimps? I was thinking of any type of aircraft or kite. Therefore, to refute that any reflection is impossible, you need to demonstrate that a reflection could not occur. Once again, angles of incidence/reflection and coefficient of reflection come into play. When you have those and demonstrate that it is impossible, then you can declare you have refuted it.

Chuckles... then shakes head in bemusement... the Master of the Red Herring. We should institute a society for you Astrophotographer.

I presented the evidence you wanted... the "coefficients of reflection" you wanted... and you then ignore that completely! You ask me to present the evidence, I DO, and you completely ignore it!

Chuckles (again) I think we can safely say that planes and "kites" (do you even know what that term means in the context of this case?) HAVE been ruled out as plausible mundane explanations... there is just NO evidence to support such hypotheses. If you like I can post the witnesses statements on the matter ... perhaps you would like me to post Dr. Maccabee's WHOLE report in refutation? Perhaps even the reports from other sources? Here for example (http://www.nicap.org/docs/rogue490524docs3.htm). No?

Please DO try and stick to the evidence and the facts in the case in future.

 

[Rramjet]

You think anecdotal evidence is better or worse than video evidence from military personnel? From the Ministry of Defense specifically. None the less, from this site: "But the Mexican incident is one of the most intriguing cases in recent memory--and one of the best documented."

How did they form a circle around the airplane then? "At one point, eight of the objects formed a circle around the plane. Crew members were understandably shaken."

How much more do you want than this: "couldn't come up with any explanation for what had been seen by radar, FLIR, cameras and eyewitnesses."

Because they used advanced alien cloaking technology. There can be no other mundane explanation.

Except: "that they had flown along with the C26A under what appeared to be intelligent control."

Okay... maybe... but where are the original source documents? We have the video and we have a website that recounts a "story" - but critically cites no sources (we also have your "speculative hypotheses" but no supporting evidence for them). So far, on what you have presented, it is merely of passing interest - certainly not at the stage of "evidence" for anything yet.

I suggest however the Tehran Incident (Sep 1976) to be far more compelling. There we DO have official government source documents and first hand pilot accounts.

 

[Rramjet]

The Battelle study is your "ace in the hole". However, you do not tell everyone that they did not investigate anything but just reviewed the cases and categorized them. The authors remarked,

...the data were subjective, consisting of qualified estimates of physical characteristics rather than of precise measurements. Furthermore, most of the reports were not reduced to written form immediately. The time between sighting and report varied from one day to several years. Both of these factors introduced an element of doubt concerning the validity of the original data, and increased it s subjectivity. (p3-4)

You also did not tell everyone about the last part of the study where they looked at these unknowns and determined probable causes for many. Therefore, you picking the 21.5% is inaccurate.

However, other values determined over the years indicate this value is usually around 10%. Allan Hendry's work was less than 10% and he expressed doubts about many of the "unknowns" he had based on what he knew about the knowns.

Nice attempt AstroP... but I will merely let the readers view the report for themselves and they can make up their own minds whether your assertions stand up against the research in that study. I recommend the study to any interested party (debunkers and UFO researchers alike) - it makes extremely interesting reading!

For those that missed the link:
The Battelle Study (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)

 

[RoboTimbo]

Okay... maybe... but where are the original source documents? We have the video and we have a website that recounts a "story" - but critically cites no sources (we also have your "speculative hypotheses" but no supporting evidence for them). So far, on what you have presented, it is merely of passing interest - certainly not at the stage of "evidence" for anything yet.

I suggest however the Tehran Incident (Sep 1976) to be far more compelling. There we DO have official government source documents and first hand pilot accounts.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. (Shakes head in bemusement.) I've presented evidence that this is a TRUE UFO and possible evidence of aliens. You have presented NO evidence that it isn't alien. I've provided links to ACTUAL VIDEO taken by TRAINED MILITARY OBSERVERS and an analysis of the typical "debunker" party line.

How do you think it looks, you being a scientist and all, that you are toeing the party line without providing a single shred of evidence that this could be something mundane? And only of "passing interest"? I'm an actual scientist* and I have more than a passing interest in this case since it has the most compelling evidence to date. As they say, "Just because you say it's so, doensn't mean that it is so."

Hey, this is fun, turning the burden of proof on its head. I see why you try to do it so much now, Rramjet.

*(not meant to imply that I am an actual scientist)

 

[Jocce]

Okay... maybe... but where are the original source documents? We have the video and we have a website that recounts a "story" - but critically cites no sources (we also have your "speculative hypotheses" but no supporting evidence for them).

What, why??!
websites that recounts stories has been good enough for you for 65 pages. You got me confused now.

 

[leafman91]

Here is a case as reported by Carl Sagan in his investigation of this kooky subject many years ago.
I quote.
''There was a famous case in which a firefly was trapped between two adjacent panes of glass in an airplane cockpit window and the pilots were radioing about fantastic right-angle turns, defying the laws of inertia, estimated fantastic speeds. They imagined it at some huge distance away instead of right in front of their noses.''
End of quote.
I laughed out loud upon reading that.
These were pilots who should know better. Cops are no better.
A cop come upon what to him seemed a flying saucer landing in a field. Incredulus he radios to another officer who was just five minutes away to come quickly. When the other officer arrived, sure enough the 'flying saucer' was still there but this time there was a farmer close to it who seemed to be unaware of this momentous historical event and kept on doing whatever it was he was doing. The two officers rushed to the landed 'craft' and shouted to the farmer. ''Don't you see that spacecraft behind you?''
''What spacecraft?'' ''There right behind you'' said the excited officers.
"That's my wheat silo you idiots'' said the farmer, and sure enough it was shaped sort of flat and round and built out of galvanized sheets of iron which caused it to shine in the sunlight.
99.9% of UFOs are explainable. The 01% is of mistaken natural phenomena

There are plenty of reasonable arguments against UFO's. This is not one of them.

First of all, as everyone keeps stating, the plural of anecdotes is not evidence. Stereotyping the police force based on 5 guys you heard about one time isn't critical thinking.
Secondly, if 99.9% have been identified, then you can't assume anything about the 0.1%, as you haven't identified it yet.

 

[Belz...]

The burden of proof according to JREF members posting in this thread...imo.

NO. That is your INTERPRETATION of what we're saying because you are NOT listening.

WE are not making an assertion. WE are simply showing that YOUR hypothesis doesn't survive Occam's Razor.

If you can't or won't understand this there CAN be no progress, here.

 

[Jocce]

Perhaps the distinction was too subtle for you…? Here are the statements again…

“Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. With the binoculars, the object resolved…”

And

“I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that…”

And

“I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that…”

These statements support the contention that there was nothing wrong with the binoculars.

These statements support the contention that the witnesses saw something in the binoculars. There's a world of difference between that and seeing enough details to rule out a blimp.

You have NO idea how stable the boat was. You have NO idea even what KIND of boat it was. It might have been a catamaran type with extremely wide outriggers, making it an inordinately stable object. YOU don’t know! There is absolutely NO reason to assume that being in a boat where they were would have made their description of the object invalid. It is THAT simple.

You are really grasping for straws when you try to claim that a boat is a steady observation platform when using binoculars. Do you have any evidence that the boat was as good as firm ground?

<snip the general abuse>
Abuse is the lowest form of argument, one step short of violence. It is the preserve of bullies. I thought you might have been better than this Jocce. You disappoint me.

Sorry about that. It's a sign that your constant refusal to look at any counter evidence with open eyes is starting to get pretty tedious. Is this result you're getting a conscious effort on your part? Was this your intention when starting the thread? Did you decide from the start to just hand wave away any objections?

We DO have the meteorological data obtained 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…”

And the most telling statement remains for example (Mrs D) “The day had been clear, visibility was good” - simple, direct, no nonsense. The other witnesses made similar statements but one is sufficient to prove the point.

And this is exactly the conditions that cause severe heat haze in spring/summer! It makes binoculars close to useless when it comes to seeing details on distant objects. If lucky, you see a general outline that twists and turns but you're hard pressed to differentiate between a plane and an eagle. You could very easily test this yourself if you wanna go all sciency and stuff.

 

[GeeMack]

I think it's reasonable to accept that Rramjet simply doesn't know the answers to the, what, about 38 questions below. These are questions which must be answered, verifiably and in detail, in order to even begin to eliminate the mundane possibility of a blimp, or several other mundane possibilities for that matter, as explanations for the Rogue River sighting.

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?​

Of course there are still many more issues including the water conditions that he has admitted he knows nothing about, the professionally assessed quality of vision of the various witnesses which hasn't even been discussed, whether any or all of the witnesses were taking medications which subjected them to lapses of clear vision, rational thinking, hallucinations, and/or lapses of memory, and several other considerations which cast doubt on Rramjet's claim.

So other than Rramjet himself, who has offered nothing more than his arguments from ignorance and incredulity as support for his case, I think we all agree that his claim that he has eliminated all possible mundane explanations for the Rogue River incident has been shown, to everyone else's satisfaction, to be unsupported.

Anyone disagree?

 

[tsig]

If you say so… then I will simply (again) present my arguments below to show how wide of the mark you are.


You people are playing a totally irrational game here. I present evidence. You ignore the evidence I present to claim the same things over and over again. For example:

I have made the contention that there is nothing about the case or witness statements that would lead any reasonable person to believe they were using faulty binoculars. In fact quite the opposite is true. I HAVE presented evidence such as (for example);

“Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. With the binoculars, the object resolved…”

And

“I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that…”

And

“I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that…”

These witness statements indicate that the binoculars were perfectly capable of resolving details of the object. That is, on any reasonable assessment of the evidence, a reasonable person would conclude the binoculars worked just fine!

Now the witness statements above, along with the following assessment...

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.​

...Clearly indicate to any reasonable person making a rational judgement based on the available evidence, that neither the binoculars nor the location or viewing position would have detrimentally affected the ability of the witnesses to describe the object.


Actually, the position of the sun DOES affect viewing conditions... need I spell that out in more detail?


Actually, as has been clearly demonstrated above, I do NOT use the detail of what the witnesses describe to support my case. I use the nature of the statements themselves and what we know of the location. This is scientific investigation at its best…using real evidence and data to explore and conclude about things that are not readily apparent in the “raw” data.


I have placed my case on the record, I have supported it with evidence and have provided reasons for the conclusions I have reached. If you want to argue against that evidence, argument and conclusions then I suggest you consider that a truly scientific (rational and logical) response would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.


I have not “ignored this” at all. In fact I have supplied a detailed argument to support my case.

I have provided the raw data: For example: the witnesses described a “clear” day – (eg; Mrs D) “The day had been clear, visibility was good” and that the meteorological data from Agent Brooks described the weather as ”clear” and also the sun was no more than 38 deg. above and behind the witnesses…

That is VERY “clear. No rational person would then contend “Oh but the haze…oh, but the pollen…!” But even ignoring the above DIRECT evidence we also have rational inference.

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 (for example they might have stated “We lost site of it when it disappeared into the haze…” rather than merely “…disappeared…” or “…the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction”). 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.​

Again I state: If you have any rational refutations then a truly scientific (rational and logical) response would be to cite my argument and follow that with a counter-argument supported by the evidence.

Citing your previous posts as evidence is not very convincing.

 

[tsig]

In one of the few truly scientific studies to explore this statistic...

"The Battelle Study" (5 May 1955 - Blue Book Special Report No. 14) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)

...it was found that 21.5% of the over 3000 reports directly examined constituted "UNKNOWN" - as opposed to either "Identified" (mundane) or "Not enough information".

I contend that statistic to be just a "little" different than the figures you believe to be true...

I would support the evidence of truly scientific studies over "folklaw" conceptions any day.

I am posting in this forum in part to dispel some of the "folklaw mythology" of just this kind that seems prevalent in the "debunker" community. I use the evidence provided by scientific research to do this and to support my case more generally. It is my sincere hope that others will similarly use research and evidence to support and prosecute their own cases.

You really think that rehashing 60 year old anecdotal accounts is research?

 

[Nonpareil]

I think it's reasonable to accept that Rramjet simply doesn't know the answers to the, what, about 38 questions below. These are questions which must be answered, verifiably and in detail, in order to even begin to eliminate the mundane possibility of a blimp, or several other mundane possibilities for that matter, as explanations for the Rogue River sighting.

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?​

Of course there are still many more issues including the water conditions that he has admitted he knows nothing about, the professionally assessed quality of vision of the various witnesses which hasn't even been discussed, whether any or all of the witnesses were taking medications which subjected them to lapses of clear vision, rational thinking, hallucinations, and/or lapses of memory, and several other considerations which cast doubt on Rramjet's claim.

So other than Rramjet himself, who has offered nothing more than his arguments from ignorance and incredulity as support for his case, I think we all agree that his claim that he has eliminated all possible mundane explanations for the Rogue River incident has been shown, to everyone else's satisfaction, to be unsupported.

Anyone disagree?

No objection here.