UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

At the risk of repeating some stuff others have already pointed out in regards to the Iran case and assuming anybody’s still interested, here’s my $0.02…

Originally Posted by Rramjet
Now some have contended that this is all second hand information and thus not of any value.
And they would be justified in their skepticism. To wit…
Originally Posted by Rramjet
To show this is not correct, first we have:

“The pilots were interviewed the next day. The Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG), in the person of Lt. Col. Mooy, sat in on the interview of the second pilot who landed at Mehrebad.”

Oh really? Are you sure about that?

Apparently you are relying on a source article (http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm) written by Bob Pratt and an email exchange between Bob Pratt and Jerry Cohen (http://www.cohenufo.org/BPratt_conversations.htm) from both of which you selectively quote portions of conversation out of context. This is disingenuous to put it politely.

You also mix things up with your criticisms of Dr Maccabee as if to make coherent reply to your assertions as difficult as possible.

Let us first however tackle this contention of yours above.

Bob Pratt:

“When the Pentagon finally declassified and released the Iran UFO message from Colonel McKenzie, it made interesting read¬ing even though most of the details of the encounter were already known.”​

(Note: FRANK B, MCKENZIE, COL, USAF, SATT was the one who sent the “routing slip”)

”For the first time, we learned that McKenzie had sent the message to the Defense Intelligence Agency, which had re-transmitted it to the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Secretary of State, the White House, the chiefs of the Air Force, the Navy and the Army as well as to the commander in chief of our Euro¬pean forces and the commanders of several European bases.

I tried to find out from the Pentagon if it was routine to send UFO messages to the CIA, NSA, White House and all the others, but the only answer I got was that it is routine to send intelligence messages to these points, with the stress on the word "intelligence."

With the name of the man who sent the message now known, I phoned Colonel McKenzie in Tehran and reached him at his home. I wanted to find out from him why the UFO message was sent and whether it was a common thing to send UFO messages to the Pentagon.

"No, it's not necessarily common, I guess," he replied in an easy-going, disarming way. "Part of our job over here is reporting on unusual things and a UFO report is unusual regardless of whether you believe in them or not. This thing had such big play in the papers over here that it was almost unreal."

REPORTS TO PENTAGON REQUIRED

For many years, American and Canadian military forces operated under JANAP 146 (E), or the Joint Army, Navy and Air Force Procedures for reporting "vital intelligence sightings." One portion of it requires reports to the Pentagon on any UFO incidents involving military installations, equipment or personnel and includes two and a half pages of specific details to check for on unidentified objects.

I asked McKenzie if he was familiar with JANAP 146 (E) and was this why he sent the UFO message to the Pentagon.

No, he said, he wasn’t familiar with it and added: "I sent it in because it was an unusual incident and not necessarily in relation to or in response to any requirement."

I asked how he obtained the information for his report and he replied: "Well, we read the newspapers, we talked to various people around town, other attachés. It was really quite a topic of conversa¬tion for three or four days.”

The partial report published by NICAP indicated he had talked to one of the Iranian pilots, but McKenzie said:

"I didn't talk to the Iranian pilots. As a matter of fact, I didn't talk to anybody who did talk to him, per se. I got my informa¬tion from, oh, various sources. I got a lot of it from the newspapers, in fact."

I said he had an awful lot of details that weren't in the newspapers.

"Yeah, I can agree with that," he said. "In fact, if you set all the newspapers down most of it is in there but some of the detail probably isn't. If I had a real source that was giving me all this information I'd be hard pressed to tell you who it is but I don't have a one-source type of guy."

But, I said, certainly you investigated to some extent before you sent the message to the Pentagon to make sure your information was as accurate as possible?

"Well, I guess I would do that with anything," he replied.

A REVEALING ‘MEMO OF RECORD’

Colonel McKenzie had said he had no "one-man source" for his information and had no ties with MAAG. However, the Air Force event¬ually released another document on the Iran affair.

It was a "Memorandum of Record," written by Lieutenant Colonel Olin R. Mooy, the U.S. Air Force executive officer for MAAG. He was one of two U.S. Air Force colonels who sat in on the debriefing of First Lieutenant Jalal Damirian and Second Lieutenant Hossein Shokry, the crew of the second F-4 Phantom jet (similar to the one shown here) that went up that night.

It is interesting that Colonel McKenzie's classified message to the Pentagon on the UFO incident says exactly the same thing, word for word, as Colonel Mooy's report written after the debriefing.”​

(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)

Interesting indeed! NOW we can place YOUR comments IN context. You stated:

Originally Posted by Pratt
I asked how he obtained the information for his report and he replied: "Well, we read the newspapers, we talked to various people around town, other attachés. It was really quite a topic of conversation for three or four days.”

The partial report published by NICAP indicated he had talked to one of the Iranian pilots, but McKenzie said:

"I didn't talk to the Iranian pilots. As a matter of fact, I didn't talk to anybody who did talk to him, per se. I got my information from, oh, various sources. I got a lot of it from the newspapers, in fact."

So no official pilot interview.

So given what Pratt was asking - and given how McKenzie responded - we can see that MacKenzie was trying hard NOT to reveal his source (Colonel Mooy). What YOU contended is that Mckenie’s statements represented his ACTUAL sources (newspapers, various people… etc). So there WAS a pilot interview. THIS is a contemptible tactic from you Access Denied. You have twisted the meaning of Pratts interview out of all recognition. We are supposed to be dealing with legitimate research and evidence here. Shame on you!

Now that we KNOW this is your tactic, THIS ALSO puts the rest of your comments into a new perspective.

You stated:

Let’s see if Maccabee’s “analysis” written in 2006 (and curiously updated a few weeks ago on Oct. 17th, 2009) stands up under closer scrutiny.

Maccabee states his primary sources are…

[not counting the anonymous sources “Bob” and “Henry” he used that conveniently can’t be independently verified]

Dr Maccabee:

“[Note: what follows is my reconstruction of the sighting history. This is based, in part, on two interviews of Hossain Pirouzi, done 3 and 4 months after the events. They were provided to me by reporter Bob Pratt, who was, at the time, a full time UFO investigator employed by the National Enquirer. This history is also based on newspaper accounts and on the initially classified (Confidential) U. S. Air Force (USAF) teletype message by Lt. Col. Olin Mooy, that primarily describes the events as recounted during an interview of the pilot of the second jet. Col. Mooy was a member of the MAAG or Military Assistance and Advisory Group which consisted of USAF officers who provided assistance and advice to the Imperial Iranian Air Force (IIAF).”​

(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

(Bolding mine. Rr)

And from Bob Pratt:

“That is only part of the story, as obtained by John Checkley, then a National Enquirer reporter based in London, and Vahe Petrossian, a freelance journalist then living in Tehran. The military was releasing no details of the incident and Pirouzi, the air traffic controller, was the only one who would talk about it at that time.”​

(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)

Regarding “Henry”: Dr Macabee stated:

“When I talked to Henry in late 1982 he still remembered the night, 6 years before, when he was rudely awakened by the loud roar of jets taking off at full speed. (…) Henry was an employee of the Westinghouse Corp. and he was in Iran to help maintain the avionics, including radar, in the F-4 Phantom jets that the Iranians had bought several years earlier.”​

((http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)

So we CAN verify the sources! Again you simply try to mislead us. You take your readers for fools. BUT you have been found out!

You state:

Maccabee then goes on placing much weight on this report and the alleged interview throughout his “reconstruction” as evidenced by the following collection of snippets…

It is NOT an “alleged” interview after all. AND your “snippets” from Dr Macabee’s report are thus accurate representations of the evidence.

You then state:

Originally Posted by Maccabee
THE AIRCRAFT AND AREA WHERE THE OBJECT IS BELIEVED TO HAVE LANDED ARE BEING CHECKED FOR POSSIBLE RADIATION. RO COMMENTS: [redacted] ACTUAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT WAS OBTAINED FROM SOURCE IN CONVERSATION WITH A SUB-SOURCE, AND IIAF PILOT OF ONE OF THE F-4S. MORE INFORMATION WILL BE FORWARDED WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE.

Read that again very carefully. Sounds to me like the “source”, not the RO (reporting official), “interviewed” a “sub-source”, and one of the pilots… hence the reason it’s presented as preliminary information in the very next sentence. This leads me to believe the entire report was based on secondhand information. One wonders why Maccabee did not include that sentence?

[it’s redacted in the early “leaked” version of the document but present in the later FOIA release]

And you stated:

So it appears Maccabee’s “reconstruction” is wrong based on his own sources…

1. The teletype wasn’t written by a Lt. Col. Mooy with the MAAG who is alleged to have “interviewed” one of the pilots.

2. The “source” mentioned in the teletype was likely the freelance journalist Petrossian.

3. The “sub-source” mentioned in the teletype was likey the air traffic controller Pirouzi.

So who actually “interviewed” the pilot?

Col. Mooy sat in on the debriefing of Jafari, the second pilot. Then Mooy wrote the message which was sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency, which had re-transmitted it to the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Secretary of State, the White House, the chiefs of the Air Force, the Navy and the Army as well as to the commander in chief of our European forces and the commanders of several European bases - on McKenzie's authority as head of the MAAG. The source of info in the teletype most certainly was not any freelance journalist. The source was Jafari. Jafari was interviewed by officials of the Iranian AF. General Azerbarzin was one of them and Pratt mentions him. McKenzie apparently didn't want to make it clear who sat in on the debriefing.

Does THAT help you out with your confusion at all Access Denied?

You state:

Before I continue, I’d like to remind everyone about this…

Originally Posted by Pratt
In those days the Enquirer was offering $1 million to anyone who could prove that UFOs came from outer space. The Blue Ribbon panel was formed to determine whether any case provided that proof. The panel would get together at least once a year to assess the "best" cases of the previous year. None, of course, proved UFOs were from outer space, but the Enquirer also paid $5,000 to $10,000 to those witnesses involved in the case of the year that provided the "best scientific evidence of the reality of UFOs" or something to that effect.

This is from Email Exchanges between Bob Pratt and Jerry Cohen (http://www.cohenufo.org/BPratt_conversations.htm)

You fail to mention WHO was on the Blue Ribbon Panel… for example…

Bob Pratt:

“Enquirer had what we called a "Blue Ribbon UFO Panel" consisting of four or five Ph.Ds and a "mini-panel" composed of the heads of NICAP, APRO and MUFON (John Schuessler represented MUFON instead of Walt Andrus; Walt and Jim Lorenzen despised each other). Leo Sprinkle, Jim Harder, Frank Salisbury, Dr. Hynek, John Warren and at least two other fellows whose names I can't remember were members of the Blue Ribbon panel at various times.”​

Jerry Cohen:

“US Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General Tom C. Clark, and former New York Court of Appeals Judge Francis Bergan. I remember the panel. (Evidently Lorenzen, Acuff, and Schuessler were screening cases, then passing them on to the judges for their final decision.”​

I contend:
So the panel had some pretty high profile people on board! You make out that somehow because the money was supplied by the Enquirer and they paid witnesses that somehow it was illegitimate. As you can see, this is NOT the case.

More, you fail to mention that NONE of the panel members were paid! The FULL paragraph –which you selectively cut of in mid explanation reads:

“In those days the Enquirer was offering $1 million to anyone who could prove that UFOs came from outer space. The Blue Ribbon panel was formed to determine whether any case provided that proof. The panel would get together at least once a year to assess the "best" cases of the previous year. None, of course, proved UFOs were from outer space, but the Enquirer also paid $5,000 to $10,000 to those witnesses involved in the case of the year that provided the "best scientific evidence of the reality of UFOs" or something to that effect. That was the main task of the panel, choosing the best case. The mini-panel, consisting of representatives of the three main UFO organizations, would meet once or twice a year with me and my editor to help select those cases that would be considered by the big panel. No one got paid anything but the Enquirer took care of all arrangements and all expenses for visits to south Florida or wherever the panel would meet -- such places as New York, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and even Mexico City).”​

(http://www.cohenufo.org/BPratt_conversations.htm)

(Bolding mine. Rr)

You go on to state the section above “lifted from Pratt’s article at (http://www.cohenufo.org/BPratt_conversations.htm) which we have dealt with above.

After that you state

Now back to Maccabee’s “analysis” where he speculates…
Originally Posted by Maccabee
[Note: there are no further US Air Force memoranda on this case. That does not mean that there was no further investigation by the USAF or the IIAF.]

However, that does mean there’s absolutely no evidence there was.

Perhaps you have simply NOT read Bob Pratt’s article correctly then. (Note: Dr Maccabee’s article was published in 1976)

Bob Pratt:

“Late in 1978, a new, revealing document about the case came to light. Todd Zechel, then a UFO researcher and one of the founders of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS), uncovered it. He obtained a copy of a military intelligence analyst's evaluation report of the Iran incident as reported by Colonel McKenzie.

Zechel informed me that the analyst was Air Force Major Roland B. Evans, who was then stationed at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska. I phoned Major Evans in January 1979.

“This was a classic case because everything that was bizarre about it was confirmed with real sources," he told me. "We don't have this capability to jam all these systems simultaneously.”

Major Evans, then forty, had served as a military capabilities analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Washington for four years. He was then re-assigned to Offut AFB in July 1978, where he was serving as an electronic warfare officer flying in an RC-l35 reconnaissance aircraft with the 343rd Reconnaissance Squadron.”​

(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)

Then you go on to present claim and counter-claim in an effort to muddy the waters about who said what to whom and WHO was a “firsthand” witness, what was secondhand information and so on and so on… until finally your concluding claims:

Conclusion: (…) in other words, this case is nothing more than unsubstantiated National Enquirer material.

You have been proven incorrect!

Originally Posted by Rramjet
So we can note that the information in the case was derived from first hand accounts and that the information was considered reliable and valuable by the NSA.

No, "we" can’t.

I would merely point out that we DO ALSO have video testimony of one of the pilots!
Here:
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
And here:
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370)

So your assessment is a pack of self-serving garbage (to put it nicely!)

 

[Belz...]

I have replied to this post already, but given the "blimp" hypothesis for Rogue River has such currency among the debunkers... I feel it might be worth placing another nail in the coffin of that hypothesis.

The overall shape of the second (pancake) illustration has been compared to the overall shape of a blimp in order to argue that the witnesses actually saw, but failed to identify, a blimp. The question addressed here is this:: Is it legitimate to compare the drawing with a blimp as originally done in Post #333 (here )?

Consider first the testimony of Mr. B (actually we do know his name was Rivera and he was a draftsman) "The object was then examined through a pair of 8-power, Navy- type binoculars. Observation time about 90- 120 seconds. Object appeared round and shiny, something like a 50-cent piece, viewed from below and to one side. Object's color was silvery and it appeared round in plan view.” Note the use of the terminology - appeared to be round ”in plan view".

Consider now the testimony of Mr. C (Heaphy) "With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges, perfectly flat on the bottom with a small fin or vane arising about midship and growing gradually higher to the rear, ending flush with a trailing edge as the object traveled. Flat surface was parallel to the earth. The object appeared to be made of aluminum or some other shiny metal, and while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section."

Mr. B compared its appearance to that of a 50c piece seen from below and to one side. Such a coin has a milled edge which, from the side and below (a coin with its flat surface horizontal) looks somewhat like the short vertical lines that form the outer boundary or edge of the object in the upper drawing in the Special Report #14, Case 10 presentation - see attached image). In other words the overall shape of the Rogue River object looked like a very short cylinder with a FLAT BOTTOM.

Keep in mind that the witnesses had many seconds (to a minute or more) to observe details. Mr B was a draftsman. He used the term "plan view". This means that in his opinion, if he had observed the object from a point directly above (or below) it, it would have appeared circular (with a flat bottom). Mr. C compared it to a pancake and he also said that, whereas it "appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section." This is again similar to a coin, but he also said a little thicker in the center than at the edges. He also specifically refers to the bottom of the object as being "perfectly flat" and says that surface was "parallel to the earth".

So, what is this "plan view" or "plan section"? Look it up on Wiki. One imagines a horizontal plane "cut through" the body of the object and then one imagines removing the upper portion leaving an "section view" of the object. What is important here is that the "plan view" would show the true shape of the outer boundary of the object (as if observed from above). So, when they say circular in plan view (or section), they mean that, in their estimation, the object was round. Note that a flat round disc seen from a point off the axis of the disc would appear elliptical or, what some might incorrectly call "oval."

So by combining these descriptions we get an object which is circular in "plan view," (i.e. when seen from directly above or below), the lower surface of which is FLAT and which also was "parallel to the earth" and the upper surface of which has a slight curvature (or bulge) in the centre. These descriptions, properly understood by anyone familiar with "drafting" or mechanical drawing, explain why the sketches look as they do. The man or men who drew these sketches (don't know if both sketches were drawn by Mr. C or by both B and C, as a "joint effort") was (were) trying to portray what they actually saw in perspective view as opposed to "plan view". Hence, as pointed out in post #333 there is a "vague resemblance" of the second sketch to the overall shape of the blimp because the perspective view of the drawing seems to show a downward "bulge" of the bottom of the object similar to the downward bulge of the bottom of the blimp. But from the verbal description of the object as resembling a coin and the specific statement that it had a FLAT BOTTOM , it is apparent that the "downward bulge" in the drawing is actually an artefact of the perspective view (from below and to one side of the axis of rotation) of a circular, coin or pancake shaped object that has a FLAT BOTTOM.

Now, compare this with the perspective view of a blimp: there is NO flat bottom. The bottom of a blimp bulges downward from all viewing directions (that allow for a view of the bottom - i.e., from every side and bottom view but, of course, not from a top view). Look at the numerous blimp pictures. I see none that appear to have a "perfectly flat" bottom, as described by Mr. C.

The two major witnesses weren't incompetent. You can bet that they gave their full attention to this sighting and they felt very confident that they had made a good observation before they went to the security office to make a report to NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics).

So, live with it: the object was not a blimp.

Woah. Déjà vu.

Must be a glitch in the Matrix...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's amazing that 65 pages ago it was already established nobody here is claiming UFO's dont exist - as anything flying and unidentified fits that bill, including blimps - just that the probability of them being actual extraterrestrials is extremely low compared to more rational explanations.

Yet this argument is still going on.

The argument blunders on because Roger is not content with that definition of a UFO (as an unidentified flying object). He wants it to be an unidentified-flying-object-for-which-no-conceivable-terrestrial-explanation-is-plausible. Not everyone is content to agree that those exist, to put it mildly. Using familiar terms to mean different things just wastes bandwidth as people talk at cross purposes. It generates a lot of heat but sadly doesn't seem to shed much light.

 

[Rramjet]

It's amazing that 65 pages ago it was already established nobody here is claiming UFO's dont exist - as anything flying and unidentified fits that bill, including blimps - just that the probability of them being actual extraterrestrials is extremely low compared to more rational explanations.

Yet this argument is still going on.

Yet virtually nobody here wants to admit that "UFOs exist".

You stated:
"…anything flying and unidentified fits that bill, including blimps…

A "blimp" is not a UFO, it is an IFO!

...and THAT is precisely WHY we are "still" arguing. People want UFOs to be mundane objects! A UFO is "Unidentified".

The confusion arises because people are not thinking clearly about WHERE categorisation ends and hypothesis begins. For example a long time ago I posted something similar to the following schematic to try and clarify the situation. Perhaps it might help here.

We have the sighted object categorisation of:

1) Known (ie; IFO: natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

The categorisation is then easier to understand and I hope it makes my contentions easier to place in context. I think that is where people are actually having trouble with my ideas...they have no schema in which to place them. So I refer you to the above. I hope it helps!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...The overall shape of the second (pancake) illustration has been compared to the overall shape of a blimp in order to argue that the witnesses actually saw, but failed to identify, a blimp. The question addressed here is this:: Is it legitimate to compare the drawing with a blimp as originally done in Post #333 (here )?

...Mr. B "Object appeared round and shiny, something like a 50-cent piece, viewed from below and to one side. Object's color was silvery and it appeared round in plan view.”

...Mr. C (Heaphy) "the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges, perfectly flat on the bottom with a small fin or vane arising about midship and growing gradually higher to the rear, ending flush with a trailing edge as the object traveled. Flat surface was parallel to the earth. The object appeared to be made of aluminum or some other shiny metal, and while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section."

The two major witnesses weren't incompetent. You can bet that they gave their full attention to this sighting and they felt very confident that they had made a good observation before they went to the security office to make a report to NACA

I'm sure they were quite sincere. They agreed with each other that the object they saw had an elliptical outline, which they interpreted as a flat cylindrical shape seen in profile. So that's what they drew. That does not mean they were correct, and to argue that it could not have been a blimp because a disc in profile presents the same outline is not even circular logic - it's no logic at all.

There's little point, I'm sure, in pointing out to you that they may have unintentionally biased themselves to expect to see that "flying saucer" shape. I can't help wondering how the conversation in the boat went when they first spotted a distant, silvery object in the sky. Who do you think jokingly said "flying saucer" first, and do you suppose it was before or after the binoculars came out?

 

[Darat]

Yet virtually nobody here wants to admit that "UFOs exist".

You stated:
"…anything flying and unidentified fits that bill, including blimps…

A "blimp" is not a UFO, it is an IFO!

...and THAT is precisely WHY we are "still" arguing. People want UFOs to be mundane objects! A UFO is "Unidentified".

The confusion arises because people are not thinking clearly about WHERE categorisation ends and hypothesis begins. For example a long time ago I posted something similar to the following schematic to try and clarify the situation. Perhaps it might help here.

We have the sighted object categorisation of:

1) Known (ie; IFO: natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

The categorisation is then easier to understand and I hope it makes my contentions easier to place in context. I think that is where people are actually having trouble with my ideas...they have no schema in which to place them. So I refer you to the above. I hope it helps!

You seem to have missed one option - I'll add it as 0)

0) natural, prosaic or "mundane"
1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

 

[amb]

The day someone comes forward with some solid evidence, like an alien star map, a piece of metal that could not possibly have been made on Earth and a clear pic/video of the craft and occupants that will stand up to testing in a lab, all this talk of UFOs can be safely ignored.

 

[Rramjet]

You seem to have missed one option - I'll add it as 0)

0) natural, prosaic or "mundane"
1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

Hi Darat -welcome to the fray!

So then you do not believe "UFOs exist". According to the above (by inference) you believe that everything thus far "labelled" as UFO has a mundane explanation. Fair enough.

I would then be interested to hear your views on the Iranian UFO case (now that it has been established as containing reliable information from first hand sources).

http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

If, according to you, all UFOs have a mundane explanation... then what plausible mundane explanation might be offered here?

 

[Rramjet]

I'm sure they were quite sincere. They agreed with each other that the object they saw had an elliptical outline, which they interpreted as a flat cylindrical shape seen in profile. So that's what they drew. That does not mean they were correct, and to argue that it could not have been a blimp because a disc in profile presents the same outline is not even circular logic - it's no logic at all.

There's little point, I'm sure, in pointing out to you that they may have unintentionally biased themselves to expect to see that "flying saucer" shape. I can't help wondering how the conversation in the boat went when they first spotted a distant, silvery object in the sky. Who do you think jokingly said "flying saucer" first, and do you suppose it was before or after the binoculars came out?

I'll simply refer you back to the report then.

"...The long duration allowed the witnesses, especially those with binoculars, to go through the "escalation of hypotheses" (Hynek): is it a bird? (no); is it an airplane? (no); is it a balloon? (no); well, then what the heck is it? (don't know). When they reached the "don't know" stage, they may well have gone into the "interpretation" stage and they may have asked themselves, "Is this what we have heard about? Is this a flying saucer?" But, to the credit of the interviewer, the verbal testimony concentrates on the observations rather than any interpretations. (One of the toughest jobs of the UFO investigator is to separate witness observations, such as shape, angular size, angular speed, noise, etc., from witness interpretations of what they saw.) In this case the descriptions of the object, accompanied by drawings that show details of shape and surface markings, are clear and credible enough so that the object would have been identified, at least by the Battelle scientists if not by the witnesses, if their description had been consistent with a mundane object such as a bird, a plane, a balloon (blimp) or even a radar kite(!). The fact that no such identification is possible is based on clear and credible descriptions of the following characteristics of the object: (a) shape (disc/pancake with a "fin" on top);(b) reflectivity (like metal); (c) flight dynamics (approaching to within some distance of the witnesses, hovering, rotating on its vertical axis and accelerating to "the speed of a jet,"} (d) no noise despite the speedy departure;(e) no evidence of wings, engines, landing gear or antenna; and (f) no contrail or smoke or vapor despite the the jet-like speed of departure."​

(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

 

[jond]

Yet virtually nobody here wants to admit that "UFOs exist".

You stated:
"…anything flying and unidentified fits that bill, including blimps…

A "blimp" is not a UFO, it is an IFO!

...and THAT is precisely WHY we are "still" arguing. People want UFOs to be mundane objects! A UFO is "Unidentified".

The confusion arises because people are not thinking clearly about WHERE categorisation ends and hypothesis begins. For example a long time ago I posted something similar to the following schematic to try and clarify the situation. Perhaps it might help here.

We have the sighted object categorisation of:

1) Known (ie; IFO: natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) ET
2) Interdimesional
3) Indigenous "aliens"
3) Jungian conciousness
4) add as you think of one...

The categorisation is then easier to understand and I hope it makes my contentions easier to place in context. I think that is where people are actually having trouble with my ideas...they have no schema in which to place them. So I refer you to the above. I hope it helps!

Nobody is saying it IS a blimp, they're all saying that it COULD BE a blimp. Your attempts at eliminating that possibility have fallen flat. As far as we're all concerned it is unidentified. Your assertion that it's an "alien" is an identification--you're the one saying it isn't a UFO. You're the one who's put an identity on it. And, as such, it's up to you to prove that it is "alien." So far you've done no such thing.

 

[Darat]

Hi Darat -welcome to the fray!

So then you do not believe "UFOs exist". According to the above (by inference) you believe that everything thus far "labelled" as UFO has a mundane explanation. Fair enough.

...snip...

I suggest you re-read my post - I gave no opinion about UFOs, I simply pointed out that in your explanation list you had left one possible explanation.

 

[Rramjet]

The day someone comes forward with some solid evidence, like an alien star map, a piece of metal that could not possibly have been made on Earth and a clear pic/video of the craft and occupants that will stand up to testing in a lab, all this talk of UFOs can be safely ignored.

I think you will find that Betty Hill was able to produce a "star map", there ARE (disputed) claims of "alien metal" and clear pictures (disputed of course) Do exist... and I'll come to such things in due course - however the substantive point of yours here is actually:

"...can be safely ignored."

Can we "safely" ignore UFOs?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, I take it that you are finished discussing the implications that the Campeche UFO incident has for your Iranian UFO incident?

A pity, I thought you were sincere when you said you were sincere about discussing other cases.

 

[Rramjet]

I suggest you re-read my post - I gave no opinion about UFOs, I simply pointed out that in your explanation list you had left one possible explanation.

Oh right, I see now... apologies. Because the sighted object "categories" were missing from your post, I thought you meant to dismiss the categories outright - to leave just the hypotheses as the whole schematic!

But... then... I guess you might be correct!

I HAVE missed that hypothetical...!

Thank you for pointing that out. It makes the whole thing a better schematic.
Cheers.

So, NOW we have the sighted object categorisation of:

1) Known (ie; IFO: natural, prosaic or "mundane")
2) Insufficient Information (ie; no categorisation possible)
3) Unknown (ie; UFO)

Then the speculative but unproven hypotheses for the “Unknown” category might look like:

1) Natural, prosaic or "mundane"
2) ET
3) Interdimesional
4) Indigenous "aliens"
5) Jungian conciousness
6) add as you think of one...

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, I take it that you are finished discussing the implications that the Campeche UFO incident has for your Iranian UFO incident?

A pity, I thought you were sincere when you said you were sincere about discussing other cases.

So what exactly IS it about the Campeche case - widely acknowledged as oilfield fires - that you believe has ramifications for the Iranian UFO case?

 

[RoboTimbo]

So what exactly IS it about the Campeche case - widely acknowledged as oilfield fires - that you believe has ramifications for the Iranian UFO case?

The sound you hear is the point flying over your head. You probably thought it was a TRUE UFO!

What do you believe the ramifications are about what you would call a compelling case (Campeche) that meets your six assertions being thoroughly debunked has on your other compelling case that meets your six assertions but has only anecdotal evidence to back it up?

If there had been no FLIR video to help in debunking Campeche, would it have been on your short list of compelling cases? Why or why not?

 

[Rramjet]

Nobody is saying it IS a blimp, they're all saying that it COULD BE a blimp. Your attempts at eliminating that possibility have fallen flat. As far as we're all concerned it is unidentified. Your assertion that it's an "alien" is an identification--you're the one saying it isn't a UFO. You're the one who's put an identity on it. And, as such, it's up to you to prove that it is "alien." So far you've done no such thing.

But you are merely putting forward an unfounded assertion. I have put on record an extensive and comprehensive analysis of the Rogue River case here

The following present the research and evidence surrounding the 24th May 1949 Rogue River UFO case.

and have, in subsequent posts refuted all continuing claims for the blimp hypothesis. You continuing belief in the "blimp" hypothesis runs counter to the evidence that, by ANY reasonable standard of evidence, makes the "blimp" hypothesis implausible.

Moreover, I DO NOT claim "alien" for the Rogue River UFO. I claim it is a UFO, that's it.

I DO contend that it does represent a beginning in a chain of evidence that will lead inexorably to the conclusion "alien" -and the next link in the chain is the Iranian UFO - but that is entirely different to claiming it is "alien" in its own right.

So how about discussing the next link. The Iranian UFO. What do you make of that case?

 

[Rramjet]

The sound you hear is the point flying over your head. You probably thought it was a TRUE UFO!

What do you believe the ramifications are about what you would call a compelling case (Campeche) that meets your six assertions being thoroughly debunked has on your other compelling case that meets your six assertions but has only anecdotal evidence to back it up?

If there had been no FLIR video to help in debunking Campeche, would it have been on your short list of compelling cases? Why or why not?

But... I have already stated (consistently from the beginning many times over) that it was oilfield fires ...how do you get that I "call it a compelling case" from that?

I have already answered you directly that it does NOT meet the six assertions in the Iranian case...

AND I have already TOLD you directly that if there were no FLIR then the case "might" have been of passing interest, but certainly not one I would have presented in any argument as "compelling" - especially considering cases such as the Iranian UFO...

Simply, I stick (primarily) to cases where there IS compelling evidence...

Do you want to discuss the Iranian case or not?

 

[RoboTimbo]

But you are merely putting forward an unfounded assertion.

No he isn't. Another point flies over your head.

I have put on record an extensive and comprehensive analysis of the Rogue River case here and have, in subsequent posts refuted all continuing claims for the blimp hypothesis.

No you haven't. Another point flies over your head.

You continuing belief in the "blimp" hypothesis runs counter to the evidence that, by ANY reasonable standard of evidence, makes the "blimp" hypothesis implausible.

Now you're deliberately lying. He says specifically that nobody is claiming blimp. Another point flies over your head.

Moreover, I DO NOT claim "alien" for the Rogue River UFO. I claim it is a UFO, that's it.

As long as you get to define UFO as "something unidentified but not mundane". This point flies over your head.

I DO contend that it does represent a beginning in a chain of evidence that will lead inexorably to the conclusion "alien" -and the next link in the chain is the Iranian UFO - but that is entirely different to claiming it is "alien" in its own right.

If you aren't contending that it's alien, how can it be a link in your alien chain? You can't even be honest with yourself. Another point flies over your head.

So how about discussing the next link. The Iranian UFO. What do you make of that case?

What do you make of it? Is it definitely alien, do you think? A whole squadron of points are streaking over your head. Are they alien?

 

[RoboTimbo]

But... I have already stated (consistently from the beginning many times over) that it was oilfield fires ...how do you get that I "call it a compelling case" from that?

Because it meets your six criteria for being a compelling case. The "confused" smiley is appropriate for you there.

I have already answered you directly that it does NOT meet the six assertions in the Iranian case...

"Your saying so does not make it so", I've heard it said somewhere. It does meet the six criteria, whether you want to believe it or not.

AND I have already TOLD you directly that if there were no FLIR then the case "might" have been of passing interest, but certainly not one I would have presented in any argument as "compelling" - especially considering cases such as the Iranian UFO...

And I have already told you, it would have been a compelling case for aliens to you if there had been no FLIR video. Whether you admit it to yourself now or not.

Simply, I stick (primarily) to cases where there IS compelling evidence...

You stick to cases that don't have enough information to determine what it is so that you can plug "alien" into the gaps. Whether you admit it to yourself or not.

Do you want to discuss the Iranian case or not?

You may discuss it. How does the evidence make it alien?

Thanks in advance.