"What shape is a blimp when viewed face on? "
Are you contending that the object sighted at Rogue River was
on the ground? That is patently a ridiculous assertion. As researchers we MUST work with the data and evidence that pertains to the case. According to the witnesses the object was 5000 feet up and 1 mile or more distant! That means they were viewing it from below and at some angle! No matter HOW you cut it, it means a blimp viewed from this position heading directly toward the observers would present as an elipse!
So, basically what you're saying is that, if we say it was head-on, you say it was from the side, and if we say it was from the side, you say the opposite ?
If you say head on then I assume you mean that the observers were viewing the object “head on”… a blimp “head on” viewed from below presents as an ellipse… (shrugs) what more do you want?
How's your burden-of-proof research going ?
Better than yours, obviously!
Your answer didn't answer the question, Ramjet.
The question was “What shape is a blimp when viewed face on?” but of course THAT question has NOTHING to DO with the Rogue River case… unless of course you contend the blimp to be grounded …and even then, given the height of a blimp compared to the height of an observer, the aspect presented to an observer on the ground would be slightly elliptical! NOT circular at all. The ONLY time a blimp would present as precisely circular would be if the observer were at precisely the same height as the central axis extending through the nose cone and patently the observers at rogue River were NOT in
that position!
I guess that perspective is not a strong suit of yours Belz?
You ARE aware, of course, that you can draw a circle on a 2-dimensional surface ?
You can draw anything you want to on a flat surface, however, because the surface is two dimensional, representing three dimensional objects on a 2-D surface will ALWAYS be problematic for an observer who is unfamiliar with the perspective supposed to be represented (unless the perspective information is clearly labelled on the drawing – which it is not in the Rogue River drawings). We can only go by the witness statements that the object was CIRCULAR and remained that way throughout the observation – a feat practically impossible for a blimp to have achieved!
No, you answered a question that wasn't asked, supplied your own interpretation of what the question should have been, and answered that instead.
How elliptical exactly would a typical blimp be from the distance and height that the observers describe it as having? And what if they are wrong about the height?
Oh, but of course, they're never wrong, are they.
I refer you to (
http://brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) where I think you will find an appendix has been added that addresses the very issue you raise here.
Ah, so by circular they mean, "circular from one perspective", which I presume was not the only perspective they saw, otherwise how would they know to draw it as a cigar shape? So when they say it was circular the whole time, are they lying? Or did it appear at some time during their observations to have a cigar shape?
At no time did the witnesses describe the object as “cigar shaped” …in fact they were ALL consistent in describing the object as “circular”. I think you are being deliberately obtuse in thinking that the witnesses who drew the object did so with a “cigar” shape in mind. No, they described it as circular (with a flat bottom as well!) and they would have drawn the object accordingly. It is only via the limitations of a 2-D surface that you could even contemplate your assertions and patently they are NOT correct.
I'd laugh, but this is just too sad to laugh at. I don't for a moment say it was a blimp, only that it is possible. You on the other hand distort the facts as far as possible (and sometimes further) to show that it couldn't possibly be a blimp.
I merely contend that, given the witness descriptions, a blimp is absolutely improbable (you forget about “jet” speeds too! A blimp does NOT travel at the speed of a jet!).
You state that the descriptions are consistently that the object was circular, and even argure that the drawings of cigar shaped objects are only so because of perspective. But we have to assume that the observers had that perspective, i.e. they at some point saw the object as cigar shaped.
So either they are lying, or misinterpreting their view, or they are mistaken.
Ah now (finally) you get closer to actuality and the evidence and data in the case. Of course the observers MUST have seen the object as elliptical at some point in their observations.
And here is where the whole sceptical modus operandi reveals itself for what it truly is,
a mere semantic device. The sceptical argument is neither sceptical nor scientific. It is in effect anti-rational, using semantics to cloud and obscure, it does not aim to enlighten or to discover new knowledge, just destroy whatever knowledge we might gain. This is a force of evil we are working with here. It is the methodology of the Dark Ages. It is barbaric in its approach… yet the so-called UFO skeptics are totally insensible to the fact! It would be laughable if it did not have such dark consequences for the direction of humanity in the search for knowledge and enlightenment.
Here for example the skeptics have been trying to make me state that a blimp seen head on would be circular, supposing that the witnesses SAW a circular object… when in fact the witnesses actually would have SEEN an ellipse!
The witnesses merely
interpreted what they saw as a circle and they did this for a number of sound reasons. Primarily its aspect did not change as it first moved toward, then obliquely to and then away from the observers. A cigar shaped objects (blimps) aspect would have changed markedly under those conditions. The statements of the witnesses using binoculars are telling too:
(Mr. B) "Object's color was silvery and it appeared round in plan view."; (Mr. C) "while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section" and (Mr. B again)"Object appeared round and shiny, something like a 50-cent piece, viewed from below and to one side."
The blimp hypothesis runs into more trouble with descriptions of the object as “pancake” shaped with a “flat bottom” (other descriptions like “no sound” and no protuberances” do not help the blimp hypothesis either). Second was the fact that a blimp cannot move at the speeds of a jet plane! More, there is NO evidence for a blimp at rogue River at the time and so coupled with the eyewitness evidence this makes the mere
possibility of a blimp fade into utter insignificance.
That it was not daylight.... er... that's it.
But according to your OWN figures it WAS twilight on the first sighting and daylight on the second… so again I ask what’s your point?
See sky pictures on the post I referred to please - 3067 - Thanks
Sky pictures? There ARE no “sky pictures” in that post…
Also, could you shed some light as to the weather conditions on the days of the sightings?
The weather conditions on the first night were of increasing cloud leading to rain and on the second “night”…
“The next evening, about 6 P.M., the same or a similar object reappeared while the sky was still bright, first seen by Annie Laura Borews, a Papuan medical assistant at the hospital.”
And given that Venus was supposedly clearly visible in the sky on that night (Menzel) I presume the sky to be clear.
And you are already wrong. That we don't know what someone saw does not allow you to claim that it must by default have been something we can't explain. The only reason these cases remain inexplicable to you is your refusal to accept any mundane explanation.
WHAT mundane explanation do you have then for the Tehran and father Gill cases?
Cases where you have failed to offer evidence for either hypothesis.
The Tehran case clearly suggests intelligent control and the Father Gill case has humanoid beings waving at the people on the ground! No evidence indeed!
I stated:
I have stated from the outset that I am trying to build a coherent body of evidence that inexorably leads toward an “alien” conclusion. Beginning with “mere” UFOs and working through cases, each time “upping the ante” slightly. I believe this is a rational and coherent approach to the topic.
You believe wrongly. Adding supposition to speculation does not result in proof.
You merely stating so does not MAKE it so. If you believe my approach to be flawed and you state so then you must show where and how it is so flawed. Where is the “supposition”? WHERE is the “speculation”. Again just using these throwaway terms does NOT make them correct.
I stated:
You may disagree with that approach
Me and everyone else it would seem. Including the scientific community. Is there a reason we should take your approach over one that produces verifiable, repeatable results?
You suppose to speak for “everyone” – “including the scientific community”? Now who is “supposing” and “speculating”. This is typical of the debunker mentality. Accuse me of the very things that YOU DO!
I stated:
and you may want to skip directly to the “end game” (probably evidence of “alien artifacts” or some other such “compelling” evidence) but I am determined to stick with my step-by-step approach.
That approach will lead you nowhere. You will never, by this technique, prove your assertions. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing.
My approach is logical and scientific…that you think it is not a good technique does NOT surprise me in the least! If you think that the Tehran and Father Gill cases amount to “nothing” then you are simply burying your head in the sand and denying the evidence in those cases.
