UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

It tells me that we know very little indeed about "alien" technology and that we possibly ignore that fact at our own peril. I suggest research is a logical necessity.

The alternative. You stick your head in the sand and pretend to be a "Flat Earther", taking every opportunity to ridicule and abuse. You present NO argument or evidence of your own. This is not a particularly intellectual or rational response. Your reaction however DOES tell me that YOU are fearful of something - for your reaction is a typical fear response. WHAT are you fearful of ...that I may be RIGHT?

you know what I get from your posts, and I'm sure that this isn't just my opinion
you are deluded
thats all, so anything you say can be safely ignored as delusional
I expect you have other issues in your life that have caused it, personal impotence perhaps, or a wrecked relationship.
I am the person who first suggested that Rogue river was a blimp, because of that now everyone but you is more sure of that answer than anything youve imagined
that should tell you everything you need to know.

 

[TjW]

How do you measure the distance of a distant light source at night while peeking around your shoulder, or looking through a rear view mirror?

Yeah, I really like this. The pilot doesn't know what it is, or how big it is looking at it straight on. But glancing at it in a vibrating mirror, he (or his GIB) can make accurate estimates of its distance from twenty-five miles away.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Remember there are TWO people in an F-4. Utilising all the information and instrumentation available to the pilot and the backseater, it is certainly possible to estimate the range of the UFO coming from above and behind them. Remember Jafairi initially dived to avoid the UFO and he was 25nm from it (or less) when he did so. The UFO would then have come from behind and ABOVE him to catch him up. There is no difficulty here. You are simply not aware of all the facts in the case.

Earlier you indicated the rearward passive system would give them the range. Now you are stating that "available instrumentation" would do this in conjunction with some seat of the pants guess by the pilot and weapons officer of a point source behind their wildly maneuvering plane. Maybe you could elaborate on what you mean by the "available instrumentation" comment. Unless you can point towards some instrumentation that performed this task, then your claim here is false. You are not using facts and, instead, are just pressing the "I believe" button.

Jafari was squadron commander at the time with the rank of Major. He retired as a General. (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/ufoconference3.html and http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/ufoconference4.html ... look at the caption of the F-4 pics) You don't get to be a squadron commander without a great deal of flying experience.

I find it interesting that the "squadron commander" would be the pilot on alert at the time. Maybe he would be doing the night shift but it seems unlikely for the person in charge of the squadron would be the ready pilot. Also, why is it that I keep reading he was a LT at the time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident
I wonder if Jafari might have been inflating his resume' somewhat to give credence to his story.

 

[GeeMack]

No, we also have [...]

... no evidence to support the claim that aliens exist.

 

[Rramjet]

Funny how, depending on how the argument is going at the time, people either tell me "NO-ONE" is claiming it was a blimp...and then a little while later people claim they are "sure" it WAS a blimp - then they reverse that position...and round and round they go!

The evidence AGAINST the Rogue River UFO being a blimp is simply overwhelming. If you simply ignore the evidence to stick to your faith-based, fear-induced beliefs ... I can't help you there. Unfortunately logic and evidence will always be a "loser" in any argument against faith. I simply refer you all one again to Leon Festinger so you may understand the theoretical constructs showing how this works in the human mind when such beliefs such as yours are as strongly held as they obviously are. Perhaps through such an understanding you might be able to lift your head from the stifling sands of your own belief system, then to raise your eyes to the wider your horizons that are all around you.

 

[RoboTimbo]

SnidelyW, what is your best case for the existence of aliens?

SnidleyW, if you haven't gone for good, how about that best case? Rramjet can only provide evidence of anecdotes.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ok, Rramjet. I understand your unwillingness to face the implications of witness misidentification in the Campeche case. It would unravel your whole belief system if you were to face it.

How about the Rendlesham Forest case? What do you think that was?

 

[Marduk]

Funny how, depending on how the argument is going at the time, people either tell me "NO-ONE" is claiming it was a blimp...and then a little while later people claim they are "sure" it WAS a blimp - then they reverse that position...and round and round they go!

isnt that a bit like someone claiming that something is a UFO and in the next breath saying its deffo aliens

The evidence AGAINST the Rogue River UFO being a blimp is simply overwhelming. If you simply ignore the evidence to stick to your faith-based, fear-induced beliefs ... I can't help you there. Unfortunately logic and evidence will always be a "loser" in any argument against faith. I simply refer you all one again to Leon Festinger so you may understand the theoretical constructs showing how this works in the human mind when such beliefs such as yours are as strongly held as they obviously are. Perhaps through such an understanding you might be able to lift your head from the stifling sands of your own belief system, then to raise your eyes to the wider your horizons that are all around you.

still delusional, but at least youve stopped using as many CAPITALS in the middle of normal text

 

[Astrophotographer]

The evidence AGAINST the Rogue River UFO being a blimp is simply overwhelming.

Other than your interpretation of the witness descriptions, what evidence do we have that demonstrates a blimp could not have been near Rogue River that day? Have we accounted for the location of all blimps on the west coast that day? That would be "overwhelming" evidence. From what I recall, we knew the Goodyear blimp was in Oregon before the incident and was then reported back in California after the incident. Between the two dates, nobody has been able to ascertain where it was. Therefore, it could have been in the Rogue River area while enroute to California.

As always, I am not saying it was a blimp (personally I am more apt to suggest it was an aircraft seen under conditions that made it appear disc shaped) but the possiblity remains it could have been.

 

[Akhenaten]

Funny how, depending on how the argument is going at the time, people either tell me "NO-ONE" is claiming it was a blimp...and then a little while later people claim they are "sure" it WAS a blimp - then they reverse that position...and round and round they go!

Well. there have been lots of beaut blimp pictures, so it wasn't a complete waste. In any case, I'm coming around to the idea that the Rogue River UFB™ was more likely an F4 with an experimental Towed Array that just looked like a blimp. They don't call them Phantoms for nothing, you know. Prolly one o' them there Wild Weasel chappies, most likely.

The evidence AGAINST the Rogue River UFO being a blimp is simply overwhelming. If you simply ignore the evidence to stick to your faith-based, fear-induced beliefs ... I can't help you there.

Have you thought about stopping your attempts? It seems in the common interest to do so.

Unfortunately logic and evidence will always be a "loser" in any argument against faith.

No.

I simply refer you all one again to Leon Festinger so you may understand the theoretical constructs showing how this works in the human mind when such beliefs such as yours are as strongly held as they obviously are. Perhaps through such an understanding you might be able to lift your head from the stifling sands of your own belief system, then to raise your eyes to the wider your horizons that are all around you.

I've already done that. All I can see is more blimps.

 

[Marduk]

Other than your interpretation of the witness descriptions, what evidence do we have that demonstrates a blimp could not have been near Rogue River that day? Have we accounted for the location of all blimps on the west coast that day? That would be "overwhelming" evidence. From what I recall, we knew the Goodyear blimp was in Oregon before the incident and was then reported back in California after the incident. Between the two dates, nobody has been able to ascertain where it was. Therefore, it could have been in the Rogue River area while enroute to California.

that is not what we ascertained, I already posted information and pictures that the Goodyear blimp was in a town south of rogue river before the sighting and another town directly north of rogue river a few weeks after
it would have actually had to cross rogue river on the day in question to get to where we know it was from where we know it was
of course
Rramjet ignored the evidence

 

[Stray Cat]

How about the Rendlesham Forest case? What do you think that was?

I know I've posted this before... but...

 

[Akhenaten]

Yet another thread winner!

Also, I like the picture of the blimp on the cover.

 

[Rramjet]

that is not what we ascertained, I already posted information and pictures that the Goodyear blimp was in a town south of rogue river before the sighting and another town directly north of rogue river the week after
it would have actually had to cross rogue river on the day in question to get to where we know it was from where we know it was
of course
Rramjet ignored the evidence

Garbage. You have NO such evidence! You are simply making things up in the hope that people have forgotten the REAL evidence in the case!

 

[Marduk]

Garbage. You have NO such evidence! You are simply making things up in the hope that people have forgotten the REAL evidence in the case!

oh really, so heres a challenge then Roger, please go ahead and publically call me a liar, like you have called anyone who had any real evidence
I will then post a link to the post I made that contained that information and you can go get yourself banned

deal ?

I'd also like to point out that you were fully aware of my post because you responded to it, you called it nonsense, now whos a liar eh

 

[GeeMack]

The evidence AGAINST the Rogue River UFO being a blimp is simply overwhelming.

But you don't even know what make and model of binoculars were used. You don't know what sort of lens coating they had, if any. You don't know how old the binoculars were, how many pieces of glass, how transparent. You don't know when they were most recently cleaned and/or serviced. You don't know how they were stored and carried. You don't know if they'd gotten wet, or sandy, or smoky, or muddy. You don't know whose they were. You don't know if the diopter setting was adjusted each time they were passed between users.

You don't know what material was used for blimp skins in 1949, or what differences there may have been between the skin material used on the envelope as compared to the material used to cover control surfaces. You don't know if the material used to cover the stabilizers was different from that used on the elevators and rudders. You don't know what material was used to cover the gondola. You don't know what type(s) of paint was used on various parts of a blimp or what the pigment was composed of. You have no idea what the various reflective properties were for those various skins and paints on those various parts. You don't know what angle might have been achieved by the control surfaces in their maximum positions, or even in their minimum positions given that they probably required some amount of trim to simply maintain level straight flight on a windless day.

You don't know how much of what kinds of pollens were in the air that day, mold spores, fungus and fern spores, man made pollutants, dust, humidity, or for that matter any other airborne materials that might have affected transparency, reflection, refraction, and distortion. You don't know the sources of those potential optical pollutants. You don't know the direction or speed of the wind and how that might have affected the concentrations and locations of those various pollutants. You don't know anything about the optical properties of those pollutants.

Basically, compared to what you clearly don't know about the Rogue River sighting, what you claim you do know amounts to almost nothing. So almost nothing, in your mind, constitutes overwhelming evidence? (Everyone else is welcome to remove the commas if it works better for you that way.)

 

[Rramjet]

oh really, so heres a challenge then Roger, please go ahead and publically call me a liar, like you have called anyone who had any real evidence
I will then post a link to the post I made that contained that information and you can go get yourself banned

deal ?

I'd also like to point out that you were fully aware of my post because you responded to it, you called it nonsense, now whos a liar eh

(distasteful Ughhh...) YOU claimed:

"I already posted information and pictures that the Goodyear blimp was in a town south of rogue river before the sighting and another town directly north of rogue river a few weeks after it would have actually had to cross rogue river on the day in question to get to where we know it was..."

I merely contend that yours is a FALSE claim and that IF you had ANY such evidence, you would have produced it at the time. More: I also asked if you could produce the evidence you claim you have so that we can measure that against your claim (quoted above).

Simple and straightforward.
No need for belligerency.
No need of abusive terms.

 

[Marduk]

(distasteful Ughhh...) YOU claimed:

"I already posted information and pictures that the Goodyear blimp was in a town south of rogue river before the sighting and another town directly north of rogue river a few weeks after it would have actually had to cross rogue river on the day in question to get to where we know it was..."

I merely contend that yours is a FALSE claim and that IF you had ANY such evidence, you would have produced it at the time. More: I also asked if you could produce the evidence you claim you have so that we can measure that against your claim (quoted above).

Simple and straightforward.
No need for belligerency.
No need of abusive terms.

really, a minute a go you were calling me a liar and youre trying to tell me that theres no need for abusive terms ?
please show me where my post which illicited an abusive response from you contained anything abusive. fact is, you are abusive

this is the post I was talking about, right near the top of the page, post number 2004
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5269944#post5269944
when youve read that you can take a look at post number 2006 which is your response
so pretending that evidence doesnt exist when youve already seen it and responded to its existence. Can only be one reason can't there, you're a liar, this post proves it.
It also proves what an egotist you are, the post you responded to wasn't even posted to you, it was posted to astrophotographer

 

[Rramjet]

really, a minute a go you were calling me a liar and youre trying to tell me that theres no need for abusive terms ?
please show me where my post which illicited an abusive response from you contained anything abusive. fact is, you are abusive

this is the post I was talking about, right near the top of the page, post number 2004
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5269944#post5269944
when youve read that you can take a look at post number 2006 which is your response
so pretending that evidence doesnt exist when youve already seen it and responded to its existence. Can only be one reason can't there, you're a liar, this post proves it.
It also proves what an egotist you are, the post you responded to wasn't even posted to you, it was posted to astrophotographer

Either there is something completely screwy in what you regard as “evidence” - or in my opinion you are still just making things up.

The first link you reference contends a Goodyear blimp in Salem on May 6th. No-one has denied that.

The second link is to a “Box Office” magazine that has no reference to a blimp as far as I can see...

I asked you to produce evidence that a blimp was in Rogue River. You have not even produced evidence that a blimp flew from Salem to San Francisco! ( a route on which, incidentally, Rogue River is NOT even near) OR even that a blimp WAS in San Francisco...

But let us look at the EVIDENCE:
To make a case for a blimp you have to deny the Goodyear blimp carried a Good Year logo (!), You have to deny that Goodyear blimps were painted blue and yellow, You have to contend that the Goodyear site is incorrect when it asserts that its blimps flew a maximum eight hour days, You have to contend that the blimp made a large DETOUR to Rogue River on route to San Francisco (it is NOT a direct route), You have to contend a blimp has only ONE fin (on top), You have to deny that blimps have a gondola and engines, You have to contend a blimp makes no sound when in powered flight, You have to contend that a blimp is only (about) 35 feet long, You have to assert that a blimp is completely circular (like a coin), You have to assert that a blimp can reach the speed of a jet plane, you have to assert that the eyewitnesses could not identify a blimp under near perfect viewing conditions (with the aid of binoculars), and so on…

In other words, to make a case for the Goodyear blimp you simply must DENY the EVIDENCE in the case! That is simply not a rational proposition. It is not logical and it is certainly not a scientific or skeptical position to take. I have presented the evidence in the case many, many times. If you continue to willfully ignore the evidence, then in my opinion you don’t belong in any forum that identifies with a skeptical position.

Unless you produce EVIDENCE to support your claims, we are entitled to dismiss them as flights of fantasy. It is as simple as that.

 

[Jocce]

No, we also have the Initial Memorandum-for-the-Record written by Mooy! And interviews with many of the personell involved including the tower controller Houssain Pirouzi, the pilot of the second F-4 (Jafari), two of the electronic engineers (Henry and Bob), McKenzie, etc, etc… so there is a WEALTH of “official” and first hand accounts to draw information from.

Can you please repost links to that information because I must have missed it. I want to read it too.

IF that pilot sticks to his area of expertise THEN we might believe him… but even there he has been shown to be in error… so what do you want…? You take the word of anyone who supports your beliefs without so much as a question of reliability of credentials, yet when it comes to people who oppose your beliefs, you mercilessly ridicule their reliability and credentials. Hypocritical in the extreme I suggest.

When it can be shown that the person knows the details in such a good way I tend to believe it yes. However, when someone is obviously just guessing and argumenting out of incredlity then I don't care much about the persons opinion. Surely you understand that.

Dr Maccabee stated he interviewed both Henry and Bob (the avionics engineers). THAT is a fact ON the record.

I do not care what Dr. Maccabee did or did not do. Show me official documentation, not a sensationalist writers stories. They don't hold much weight. Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper too?

There were three separate “beeper” signals. They were transmitted on a frequency close to but NOT precisely matching legitimate emergency beeper signals. The UFO was in the area. No other air-traffic except those picking up the signals were in the area. The logical inference IS… the UFO has something to do with it.

There's only a temporal connection and you're just guessing. Stick to the facts please.

Remember there are TWO people in an F-4. Utilising all the information and instrumentation available to the pilot and the backseater, it is certainly possible to estimate the range of the UFO coming from above and behind them.

Yes, I can hear that you claim that this is possible. However, claiming something is not the same as providing evidence that it is true. Try again and stick to the facts.

This is NOT a guess. Go ask ANY pilot and they will tell you that to invert a plane on a dark night with no operational avionics and no communications (internal or external) is INVITING disaster. Disorientation is a very real and practically immediate outcome of such a reckless manoeuvrer. And THIS is just one of the reasons I MUST question Puddle Duck’s credentials.

Again, I do not care about your uninformed opinion on this matter. It holds zero weight because you know nothing about flying.

As I already said - we also have Mooy’s Memorandum-for-the-Record and numerous first hand eyewitness interviews, INCLUDING the pilot of the second F-4 AND the tower controller, etc , etc. There is a WEALTH of information to draw on. You just need to do a little more research on the matter is all.

Then you should have no problem comming forward with signed witness statements, radar data, flight data, etc. that was produced/gathered at the time. Why don't you post it?