UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Of course "blimp" does NOT fit that description and is thus ruled OUT as a plausible explanatory hypothesis.

must........eat.......peanut.... (crash goes that truckload of cookies)

Your mere repitition of "it can not be a blimp because the witnesses say so" is completely ignoring the problems with witness perception issues, which we have gone over ad infinitum. Your response to that argument is very unscientific since you have yet to prove that people can be 100% accurate in their observations and the way they report them 100% of the time. One would think that a man of science would understand the problems with instruments that do not provide accurate data. To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, "...even if in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a high form of evidence, in the court of science, it is the lowest form of evidence you could possibly put forth" (UFOs: Seeing is believing)

All you are doing is demonstrating that you can not positively eliminate all mundane explanations (in this case blimp or other potential aircraft). Claiming that you have is not the same as demonstrating that you have. To do so you must demonstrate that there was no blimp, aircraft, or any other airborne objects visible from that location that day. You have to present records of all these things to elminate them. You have not done this and therefore, the potential remains for these mundane explanations. Your argument that all mundane explanations are eliminated is false.

 

[wollery]

I agree.

On the other hand knowing that there is NO mundane explanation does mean that by definition[ we are dealing with "aliens".

And right there is where you fail.

Please state one case where you know, completely, categorically, with no margin for error, that there is absolutely no possibility of a mundane explanation, even a mundane explanation that nobody has thought of.

If you suggest any case as fulfilling the above then you are either a liar or a complete idiot.

 

[Rramjet]

Oh knock it off. We went over that. Repeatedly. You simply don't want to accept the boring, mundane explanation. You keep on imagining there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, just don't try and insist the rest of us are wrong for not buying into your delusions.

Now, explain how you can be sure there's no mundane explanation for something if you don't know what it was. This oughta be good.

Please enlighten us then on precisely HOW a "blimp" fits "circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane."

No “fairies at the bottom of the garden” and no “delusions”, just a plain, simple explanation of how “blimp” conforms to the description of the object (above) will do thank you.

I can explain that there is no mundane explanation as follows: There is no mundane object that fits the description of circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.

If you DO have knowledge of such a “mundane” explanation as fits the above description – then please enlighten us.

 

[RoboTimbo]

But I agree with you. Misinterpretations obviously occur. In fact it is fair to say that a majority of UFO reports result from misinterpretations of mundane objects.

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

Hypothesis: This case has no mundane explanation.

Proof: There is no mundane object that fits the description of circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.

One of these is not like the other. Have you forgotten Campeche so soon?

 

[tsig]

Because Logic Indicates Mundane Properties.

Specially Questioning Unidentified Incidents Directly

Being light indicates more proof.

 

[Rramjet]

Your mere repitition of "it can not be a blimp because the witnesses say so" is completely ignoring the problems with witness perception issues, which we have gone over ad infinitum. Your response to that argument is very unscientific since you have yet to prove that people can be 100% accurate in their observations and the way they report them 100% of the time. One would think that a man of science would understand the problems with instruments that do not provide accurate data. To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, "...even if in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a high form of evidence, in the court of science, it is the lowest form of evidence you could possibly put forth" (UFOs: Seeing is believing)

No-one has ever claimed that eyewitnesses are 100% reliable 100% of the time. In the Rogue River case the witnesses only had to be reliable enough to note that the craft was “"circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.".

The witnesses had the advantage of a clear “blue-sky” day with the sun at their backs. Two of the witnesses had the added advantage of being able to observe the object with the aid of binoculars.

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s statement is obvious hyperbole. For example I doubt that he would contend that hearsay evidence is worse than direct observations – and in science, direct observation is a primary tool of the trade. Direct observation might not 100% reliable, but that does not stop science from utilising its benefits.

All you are doing is demonstrating that you can not positively eliminate all mundane explanations (in this case blimp or other potential aircraft). Claiming that you have is not the same as demonstrating that you have. To do so you must demonstrate that there was no blimp, aircraft, or any other airborne objects visible from that location that day. You have to present records of all these things to elminate them. You have not done this and therefore, the potential remains for these mundane explanations. Your argument that all mundane explanations are eliminated is false.

IF YOU can come up with a mundane explanation which fits the description of the object ("circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane."), then please do. Until then my claim that no such object exists will stand as the most likely hypothesis.

I do not have to “present records” - although I did choose to present the historical records to show that it was implausible that a blimp could have been at the place at the time. All I have to demonstrate is that no known object exists that fit the descriptions of the object. Moreover, considering the attributes of a blimp (overall shape, fins, gondola, noisy engines, large colourful advertising logo), it would be totally implausible for the witnesses (five of them!) to have missed a “blimp” for precisely what it was.

My contention is that there IS no mundane explanation because our collective knowledge of the natural and technological world contains no object that matches the description.

 

[Toke]

Blimp.

 

[Rramjet]

I don't know.

See how easy it is to admit?

I don't know. I have no idea. They could be mundane things that we haven't thought of. They could be evil aliens plotting an invasion. they could be travellers from the future. They could be from another dimension. They could be completely made up by people who know how to spin a yarn.

I don't know.

And here's the important part - neither do you!

And all of these cases that you're examining - nobody will ever know what they were.

So what do you hope to achieve?

That's a serious question. Over 6000 posts in the last thread basically ended up with you admitting what everyone else had been saying all along. UFOs are unidentified. Well, whoop-de-frelling-doo. We all already knew that. The clue is in the title. The U of UFO stands for unidentified. We don't know what they are or were. We don't know. Nobody does (unless they were hoaxes, in which case the hoaxer knows).

So now what?

Examining old cases is fruitless. At best we'll discover that some of them can be explained as mundane. At worst we'll have wasted time and money to conclude that we still don't know what they were.

So what do you want?

I want people to realise that their implacable opposition (and their ridicule and abuse) toward the subject of UFOs and UFO proponents is misguided. I want people to realise that many people in the field are genuine, qualified researchers who seek to use the tools of science, logic, rational though AND sceptical thinking (for what is a scientist if not a sceptic) to explicate the mystery of UFOs. I want people to realise there is a genuine mystery at the heart of UFO sightings. There is a lot of “noise” but there is also a “signal” and we need to sort the signal from the noise. I want people to realise that while there are cases that DO indeed have mundane explanations, there also exist well documented, reliable cases that do not.

I want them to realise that I too am frustrated and disappointed that the field of UFO research is full to the brim with hoaxers, and charlatans, but that should not prevent a true search for accurate knowledge. That also does not mean that an irrational, unsceptical generalisation of ridicule and abuse should be directed toward anyone who “dares” to propose an opinion opposite to those in this thread who think that they “know it all”.

Simply, I want people to realise that genuine UFOs exist and that there are genuine people involved in trying to find out what they represent. The mantra of the UFO debunkers has been a blind assertion of a statement of belief that “It cannot be, therefore it isn’t”. I am here to challenge that belief.

Examining “old” cases is not “fruitless” if they can show that genuine UFOs, for which there is NO plausible mundane explanation, exist (if you notice there is a case from 2006 on my list –hardly an “old” case).

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

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

Hypothesis: This case has no mundane explanation.

Proof: There is no mundane object that fits the description of circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.

Are you serious? Another "Don't bother me with the evidence my mind is made up" and "what the public doesn't know I won't tell them" from The jet.

 

[Marduk]

case: Rogue river (http://www.brumac.8k.com/rogue/rogueriver2.htm).

Hypothesis: This case has no mundane explanation.

Proof: There is no mundane object that fits the description of circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.

Blimp

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“Case: Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

Hypothesis: This case has no mundane explanation.

Proof: There is no mundane object that fits the description of circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.”

Are you serious? Another "Don't bother me with the evidence my mind is made up" and "what the public doesn't know I won't tell them" from The jet.

You don’t seem to make any logical or rational point here.

Demonstrably I have presented the evidence (the document contained under the link I provided) and I have presented a summary description of the “craft”. If you refuse to look at that evidence (or even consider it) then the statement "Don't bother me with the evidence my mind is made up" will clearly apply to you.

If anyone asks for more information about the case I am only to happy to provide it – so your statement "what the public doesn't know I won't tell them" is demonstrably not applicable to me. Perhaps however you are privy to information that I am not, but in that case, considering that you have not divulged that information, the statement will clearly apply to you.

If however your statement is your convoluted way in which you contest my assertion that there is no mundane object that fits the description - or that you contest the description itself - then what are the reasons you so contest?

 

[Rramjet]

Blimp

...but this is a mere belief statement and I have provided the evidence that shows that belief to be false.

To support your belief, you need to show HOW the description of the object [that is: circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.”] matches that of a blimp - and it must account for the primary features of a blimp such as the general shape, four fins, noisy engines, a passenger gondola, and a large and colourful advertising logo emblazoned on each side. Can you DO that?

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Doing the same again and again and expecting different results is a sign of insanity.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

Please fellow JREF members stop answering to the same old anecdotes, rramjet is not able to see his errors because that would endanger his religious belief in "aliens" visiting us.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

This thread (and the Mk I) would fit into humor, religion or AAH.
At AAH we could merge with all the beautiful posters designed by Stray Cat.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

To support your belief, you need to show HOW the description of the object [that is: circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.”] matches that of a blimp - and it must account for the primary features of a blimp such as the general shape, four fins, noisy engines, a passenger gondola, and a large and colourful advertising logo emblazoned on each side. Can you DO that?

Blimp at a distance. What bit don't you get?

 

[Akhenaten]

Unfortunately, due to the bad behaviour of a few posters, the moderators have seen fit to close the previous thread of this name down. In my opinion this was premature and I have appealed the decision.

my bolding


Rramjet, since I am loath to call anyone, even you, a liar, I will restrict myself to pointing out that this statement is factually wrong, and therefore your cheap shot at the other posters and your alleged appeal are both quite laughable.


Comments?

When should I expect an answer to this, Rramjet?

 

[Sledge]

Do you have anything new to bring to this thread, Rramjet? Whilst looking at your case files on blimps is hilarious, it's not forwarding the cause of UFOlogy.

 

[EHocking]

Considering the number of breaches of the membership agreement, I propose that the moderators should close this thread.

Unfortunately, due to the bad behaviour of a few posters, the moderators have seen fit to close the previous thread of this name down. In my opinion this was premature and I have appealed the decision.

Rule 12. “Attack the argument, not the arguer."

RESEARCH REPORTS AND COMMITTEES
<snip>

Rule 6. You will not "spam" or "flood" the Forum.

Okay then, finally an honest answer.

Rule 12. “Attack the argument, not the arguer."

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

I stated:
“Case: Rogue River (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

Rule 6. You will not "spam" or "flood" the Forum.

 

[Stray Cat]

To support your belief, you need to show HOW the description of the object [that is: circular (analogous to a coin), with silent motion (displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed) with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.”] matches that of a blimp - and it must account for the primary features of a blimp such as the general shape, four fins, noisy engines, a passenger gondola, and a large and colourful advertising logo emblazoned on each side. Can you DO that?

Sure... here:

This is a photo of a blimp, it's roughly at the same distance as reported by the witnesses, roughly the right height against a clear sky and gives a good representation of what they would have seen.
Bearing in mind that they were on a fishing boat (not squid fishing), in the tidal section of a river estuary, we can expect an amount of movement from the water making the the binoculars only amplify any movement of the boat and therefore not getting a very good 'fix' on the object. Further, in and around water, there would be noise, even the general background noise of flowing water can be enough to drown out other noises, especially noises generated from a blimp engine that is a mile away 5,000 feet in the air. Also do you have the weather records for that day showing which way the wind was blowing? Remembering of course that even noise can be prevented from traveling against wind to an extent.

OK now the speed aspect. My last post in the MKI thread:

"How long would it take a vehicle traveling at jet plane speeds to cross the relatively limited amount of sky in a river estuary surrounded by hills if it was at 5,000 feet altitude?

Got some calculations there? "

All these factors are one's which you overlook in your enthusiasm to believe and the only reason all you have are these old dead horses to flog, is that it is safe to do so, because you are obviously as aware as everyone else in this thread that no amount of examining and discussing the details and events, the most that can be concluded is that the object remains unidentified. This gives you the wriggle space you need to make the giant leap of faith from unidentified to alien and nothing that can be presented here is ever going to alter that, so looking at old cases is like comfort food to you.


ETA: I just did it again didn't I?.... damn, sorry chaps.