UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Akhenaten]

Just as reminder of where the game is up to, Rramjet:

Who knows what it is (except those who know - including you of course).

First mistake.

However, a mere photo of an object that looks like any number of mundane objects that I can think of is evidence of nothing at all.

Second mistake.

Clearly it is not a UFO because I KNOW that YOU know what it is.

Third mistake

It is only where such photos positively defy mundane description and explanation (eg: McMinnville) that we have pause for thought.

Fourth mistake.

Clearly, given the source of the photo and the nature of the photo itself - it obviously has a mundane explanation and is thus not a UFO.

Fifth mistake.


Congratulations Rramjet. A clean sweep. I did warn you to be careful, but as usual, you chose poorly and ignored the warning.

When I get home from my Niece's birthday party I'll enlighten you. It's going to be hellish embarrassing for you, I'm afraid.


Enjoy the wait.


Cheers,

Waenre

Bit late to refuse to play, don't you think?


Your move, Mr Blimp Debunker.

 

[Stray Cat]

Thus while there were No USN airships on the West Coast in 1949 - there WERE Goodyear advertising blimps - hence the UFO debunkers claim for Rogue River ...but to mistake a huge (K-type), noisy Goodyear advertising blimp -with large colourful logos emblazoned on both sides - positively designed to be noticed - for a small, silent circular "craft" - is totally implausible.

Prove the Goodyear blimp had colourful logos on it in 1949.

And then explain how big even a large logo would look on an object that was only this big:

Let's a have a closer look at an advertising blimp:

And then remembering that the witnesses were on a boat in the tidal stretch of a river estuary, and two of them used a pair of binoculars that were something like the standard issue US Navy one's... That's 'standard' issue ones, not the really good one's they give to the important observers in the Navy... It would have looked a bit like this.

 

[Access Denied]

Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)

22+ anonymous witnesses that can’t be independently verified… check.

http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22faqs.htm

“A related question: is the investigator making this story up? This is equally improbable, as I would be risking loosing my credibility as a professional and risking my future employment and livelihood for my myself and my family.”​

And if you believe that…

It would seems to me to be a great case for us all to explore.

Go ahead and knock yourself out…

“Cost $12 Can or $10 USD includes shipping.”

I’m not buying it.

Next…

 

[Access Denied]

Prove the Goodyear blimp had colourful logos on it in 1949.

Oh look, somebody took a photo of this thread…

 

[Akhenaten]

Prove the Goodyear blimp had colourful logos on it in 1949.

And then explain how big even a large logo would look on an object that was only this big:

Let's a have a closer look at an advertising blimp:

Ohnoes! Blimps + HAARP!

We are so screwed.

Oh look, somebody took a photo of this thread…

Hmm, to nom or not to nom.

No-brainer really.

 

[Rramjet]

Prove the Goodyear blimp had colourful logos on it in 1949.

And then explain how big even a large logo would look on an object that was only this big:

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/blimp-1.jpg[/qimg]

Let's a have a closer look at an advertising blimp:
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/San_Francisco_01.jpg[/qimg]

And then remembering that the witnesses were on a boat in the tidal stretch of a river estuary, and two of them used a pair of binoculars that were something like the standard issue US Navy one's... That's 'standard' issue ones, not the really good one's they give to the important observers in the Navy... It would have looked a bit like this.

Proof of colourful logo...that's easy:
(http://www.goodyearblimp.com/archive/ph_historic.html)

Your presentation of blurry photos while claiming they represent what can be seen by eye (and through binoculars) simply demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of both photography and perceptual acuity - especially with the aid of binoculars.

Your "assessment" of what was able to be seen with the aid of binoculars simply runs counter to the evidence - you know, that information about the case you continually ignore. For example:

(Mr B) "I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular ... I then handed the glasses to Mr. C in order that he might see the object."

(Mr C) "With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape..."

So it is readily apparent that the use of binoculars substantially increased the visible detail of the object. It does not matter what "type" of binoculars they were, it does not even matter if they were "very good", all that matters is that when the witnesses used the binoculars they were able to determine detail that could not be seen with the naked eye. THAT is the bottom line here.

 

[Rramjet]

22+ anonymous witnesses that can’t be independently verified… check.

http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22faqs.htm

“A related question: is the investigator making this story up? This is equally improbable, as I would be risking loosing my credibility as a professional and risking my future employment and livelihood for my myself and my family.”​

And if you believe that…


Go ahead and knock yourself out…

“Cost $12 Can or $10 USD includes shipping.”

I’m not buying it.

Next…

So you simply dismiss the testimony of more than 20 withnesses, many of them independent? Of course you do. How could I have expected anything different? This just (again) confirms the "typical" UFO debunker truism "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up"

"How do we know that the witnesses are not making it up?

The answer lies in the demeanor of the witnesses in their interviews. Only two witnesses approached the media or a UFO investigator, the remaining 20 had to be sought after. Once found, they were reluctant to talk. However, when they were assured that their identity would be kept from being made public, they opened up. As they were describing their sighting, apprehension was replaced by excitement. It was like reliving the experience with them. This behavior is not consistent with someone making up a story.

If it were an orchestrated hoax by all these people they would not had sat around for someone to show up at their door until two and a half years later. It is not likely that they would have arranged to stop consecutively at Braeburn Lodge and tell a made-up UFO story to the lodge owner."(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22faqs.htm)​

Moreover, not ALL the witnesses are anonymous. For example:
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/indian-river-ufo/irufo-page1.html)

 

[Rramjet]

Just as reminder of where the game is up to, Rramjet:

Bit late to refuse to play, don't you think?

Your move, Mr Blimp Debunker.

Typical UFO debunker tactic ...promise something, then refuse to deliver ...then claim it is your opponent's move!

...still waiting...

 

[Yeah_Right]

"Don't bother me with the bad evidence, my mind is looking for good evidence"


Fixed that for you.

 

[Sledge]

Typical UFO debunker tactic ...promise something, then refuse to deliver ...then claim it is your opponent's move!

...still waiting...

Elipses are never a good sign, are they? Kinda surprising it's taken this long for Rramjet to succomb to using it in place of appropriate punctuation.

Anyhoo, no one here has promised to deliver anything, with one exception: you. You promised evidence of aliens, Rramjet. So far all you've delivered are UFO sightings, waffle and insults. Do you have any of that evidence you promised, or is this thread a social experiment to see how long an internet discussion can run without any substance?

 

[Access Denied]

So you simply dismiss the testimony of more than 20 withnesses, many of them independent?

So you would be OK with being convicted for murder based on the "testimony" of anonymous “witnesses” alone?

Sorry, that's not evidence in my book.

Moreover, not ALL the witnesses are anonymous.

Yes, they are. Pay attention to what you post before you post it. That’s not even from the same date... it's from months earlier.

Do you know anything about the phenomenon of modern folklore Rramjet?

[aka urban legends]

So this is your best evidence?

Why am I not surprised….

 

[23_Tauri]

Ohnoes! Blimps + HAARP!

We are so screwed.

Now that is funny!

 

[Akhenaten]

Typical UFO debunker tactic ...promise something, then refuse to deliver ...then claim it is your opponent's move!

...still waiting...

OK, here's a question for both of you.

What are these?

Hints:

1. They are flying.

2. They are objects.


I'd answer very carefully if I were you, Rramjet, considering that I am one of the people whom you claim deny the existence of these things.

Who knows what it is (except those who know - including you of course).

I don't have a clue what they are, except for the caption given by the person who took the picture describing them as "light tracks of night flying aircraft" before sharing them on the internet.

Flickr​

Why have you leapt to the conclusion that I know what they are?

I, like many others have repeatedly told you that things like these are Unidentified Flying Objects. I have posted this picture of Unidentified Flying Objects.

Despite this, you continue to label me with the epithet of 'UFO debunker'.

So it seems that you are claiming that I don't believe in the existence of the very things that I'm posting pictures of.

I know you can't see how ridiculous your position is, and it's why I have so much fun with this thread. It's comedy gold that writes itself.

However, a mere photo of an object that looks like any number of mundane objects that I can think of is evidence of nothing at all.

What it's evidence of, Rramjet, is your willingness to ascribe beliefs and points of view of your own fabrication to people who don't hold those beliefs and points of view.

It's a picture of some Unidentified Flying Objects. I posted it and I'm describing it as a picture of Unidentified Flying Objects, and yet you will continue to describe me as a UFO debunker.

It's quite ludicrous of you to do so, but as I've already pointed out, it's comedy gold.

Clearly it is not a UFO because I KNOW that YOU know what it is.

Pwned.

It is only where such photos positively defy mundane description and explanation (eg: McMinnville) that we have pause for thought.

The photo defies mundane description pretty well for me, given that it's just a random picture of something that I grabbed off the intertubes. As far as I know, even the person who took the picture doesn't know what the objects are. I certainly dont. Are you going to suggest that you do?

Good luck with that.

Clearly, given the source of the photo and the nature of the photo itself

Given what, Rramjet???

You had absolutely no idea of either the source or the nature of the photo.

You still don't, but you keep talking, don't you.

Wanna borrow a shovel? The one you're using is showing signs of wear.

- it obviously has a mundane explanation and is thus not a UFO.

Let's hear your "obvious mundane explanation" then Rramjet.

Clearly, I can't provide one, other than that they are flying objects which I have no way of identifying - UFOs for short.

You know? The things you like to label me as being a debunker of.

 

[Akhenaten]

Now that is funny!

As I enjoy pointing out to Mr Rramjet, this thread is a never-ending comedy sketch that writes itself.

I can't believe he doesn't want it to go away.

 

[wollery]

Proof of colourful logo...that's easy:
(http://www.goodyearblimp.com/archive/ph_historic.html)

Which of those is a Goodyear blimp from the time period in question?

What? None of them? But how could that be, this is supposed to be evidence that the Goodyear blimps of the time had bright colourful logos!

Your presentation of blurry photos while claiming they represent what can be seen by eye (and through binoculars) simply demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of both photography and perceptual acuity - especially with the aid of binoculars.

So, you're an expert on optics are you?

Your "assessment" of what was able to be seen with the aid of binoculars simply runs counter to the evidence - you know, that information about the case you continually ignore. For example:

(Mr B) "I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular ... I then handed the glasses to Mr. C in order that he might see the object."

(Mr C) "With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape..."

So it is readily apparent that the use of binoculars substantially increased the visible detail of the object. It does not matter what "type" of binoculars they were, it does not even matter if they were "very good", all that matters is that when the witnesses used the binoculars they were able to determine detail that could not be seen with the naked eye. THAT is the bottom line here.

Let me repeat something you just said;

It does not matter what "type" of binoculars they were, it does not even matter if they were "very good",

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure I read that right, let's have that last bit again;

it does not even matter if they were "very good"

WTF?!?!?!

Of course it matters, you twonk!!

How on earth can the quality of the binoculars not matter to the ability of the observers to make observations??

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
“Who knows what it is (except those who know - including you of course).”

I don't have a clue what they are, except for the caption given by the person who took the picture describing them as "light tracks of night flying aircraft" before sharing them on the internet.

Flickr​

Why have you leapt to the conclusion that I know what they are?

I, like many others have repeatedly told you that things like these are Unidentified Flying Objects. I have posted this picture of Unidentified Flying Objects.

Despite this, you continue to label me with the epithet of 'UFO debunker'.

So it seems that you are claiming that I don't believe in the existence of the very things that I'm posting pictures of.

I know you can't see how ridiculous your position is, and it's why I have so much fun with this thread. It's comedy gold that writes itself.

Okay - Let’s look at your logic here.

First (your statements):
1. “I don’t know what they are."
2. They are “Unidentified Flying Objects”

If you don’t know what they are – how can you know that they are “flying” or that they are “objects” or that it even IS a "photo"? For example the “photo” could be entirely a Photoshop fabrication – that is it might be a fabricated image and not a photo of anything real at all! Thus if you TRULY do not know what “they” are, then you do NOT know “UFO” or "photo" either! But of course you are not being entirely truthful either because:

(your statements)
1. “I don’t know what they are.”
2. They are “light tracks of night flying aircraft”

So then you DO know what they are!

So, either you DO know what they are – in which case my guess that you DID know was correct, or that you do NOT know what “they” are, in which case you cannot ascribe “UFO” either.

Together:
1. “I don’t know what they are.
2. They are “light tracks of night flying aircraft”.
3. They are “Unidentified Flying Objects”.

And of course this simply does not make sense - 2. and 3. are mutually exclusive.

So no matter which way you look at it, you are in ERROR. Simple as that. So when you state about me: “I know you can't see how ridiculous your position is, and it's why I have so much fun with this thread. It's comedy gold that writes itself. then obviously, by now, if you were a normal person, you might be feeling embarrassed and not a little foolish.

I stated:
“However, a mere photo of an object that looks like any number of mundane objects that I can think of is evidence of nothing at all.

What it's evidence of, Rramjet, is your willingness to ascribe beliefs and points of view of your own fabrication to people who don't hold those beliefs and points of view.

I stated it “…is evidence of nothing at all

Obviously your cult-like adherence to your own faith-based belief system prevents you from actually reading what is before you and understanding the meaning of what you have just read. My meaning could hardly be clearer: it is “…is evidence of nothing at all

Once again you prove the UFO debunker behavioural truism of accusing your opponents of the very same sins they themselves commit.

It's a picture of some Unidentified Flying Objects. I posted it and I'm describing it as a picture of Unidentified Flying Objects…

You are in ERROR yet again. In the original post you stated that:

“1. They are flying.

2. They are objects.”​

NOWHERE did you state they were “unidentified” and you certainly did NOT state “Unidentified Flying Objects”.

Indeed you positively implied you KNEW what they were: That is, “I'd answer very carefully if I were you, Rramjet, considering that I am one of the people whom you claim deny the existence of these things. ...and you (in this post) confirmed that with "aircraft lights" ....but then contradicted yourself with "UFO". You CANNOT have it both ways.

…and yet you will continue to describe me as a UFO debunker.

It's quite ludicrous of you to do so, but as I've already pointed out, it's comedy gold.

This is simply irrational. What have the two things (the image you posted and my terminology regarding your behaviour in this thread) got to do with each other? Once again you have proved your inability to put together a logical structure where a rational conclusion can be reached.

I stated:
Clearly it is not a UFO because I KNOW that YOU know what it is.

Pwned.

..and here you have just proved you cannot even put together sensible English language words. What does “Pwned” mean?

The photo defies mundane description pretty well for me, given that it's just a random picture of something that I grabbed off the intertubes. As far as I know, even the person who took the picture doesn't know what the objects are. I certainly dont. Are you going to suggest that you do?

Good luck with that.

First, according to your own statements, you DON’T KNOW that it IS a photo (or a UFO... or perhaps it is "aircraft lights"...ughhh...you are contradicting yourself so no-one KNOWS what your true position now IS!).

Second, it does not surprise me that it “defies mundane description” for you.

Third, I have NEVER claimed that I knew what it was.

But you keep contradicting yourself. Either you KNOW what it is (“They are flying”, They are objects”, They are “night flying aircraft” lights) or you DON’T KNOW what it is (hence you don’t know “UFO” or "photo" either).

I stated:
“Clearly, given the source of the photo and the nature of the photo itself - it obviously has a mundane explanation and is thus not a UFO.”

Given what, Rramjet???

You had absolutely no idea of either the source or the nature of the photo.

You still don't, but you keep talking, don't you.

Wanna borrow a shovel? The one you're using is showing signs of wear.

The source was YOU!

The nature of the “photo” is: “it looks like any number of mundane objects” (for example to me it looks like a chrome plated aerial with its lead wire – to Toke it looks like “Well, my best guess is some time/shutter trick and a bicycle with front and rear light on a dark road with some trees providing shadow” – so OTHER people DO say it looks like it could be mundane objects)

I STILL don’t KNOW what it is – YOU promised an “explanation” yet you have NOT delivered… huh!

“Wanna borrow a shovel?” I have no shovel, but you obviously have one as witnessed by the rate of increase in the size of the hole you are digging for yourself. LOL.

Let's hear your "obvious mundane explanation" then Rramjet.

You completely misunderstood the meaning of my sentence. It was YOU who was going to supply the “obvious” mundane explanation. YOU posted the image – YOU implied the you KNEW what it was – YOU promised to tell us after your “niece’s” birthday party.

Clearly, I can't provide one, other than that they are flying objects which I have no way of identifying - UFOs for short.

Again you are contradicting yourself and are in complete ERROR. Either you KNOW what it is (“They are flying”, They are objects”, They are “night flying aircraft” lights) or you DON’T KNOW what it is (hence you don’t know “UFO” OR “photo” either).

You know? The things you like to label me as being a debunker of.

…and here you cannot even string 14 simple words together to make a meaningful rational sentence (or two). Clearly you are attempting to "debunk" UFOs, thus you are a "UFO debunker". Clearly also, you don't actually "believe" in UFOs, YOU only believe in UFMOs (Unidentified Flying Mundane Objects!)

 

[Akhenaten]

I stated:

<stuff>

 

[Rramjet]

Which of those is a Goodyear blimp from the time period in question?

What? None of them? But how could that be, this is supposed to be evidence that the Goodyear blimps of the time had bright colourful logos!

Clearly there are photos of blimps on that site taken before the time in question and photos of the same blimps taken after the time in question - with the logos on - and there are some photos which show the WHOLE fleet Goodyear blimps before the time with Logos. Clearly any reasonable person would infer that the Goodyear blimps of the date and time in question carried Goodyear logos. Therefore you are simply being “contrarian”. On that performance from you I suspect that unless I showed you a photo of a blimp taken at precisely the date and time, you would STILL claim I have not provided “proof”. AND I suspect even IF I showed you a photo of a blimp at precisely the date and time you would cry “photoshop!”. Bunk!

So, you're an expert on optics are you?

Of course not. All I am claiming is that to present blurry photos and to pass them off as what one would “see” with one’s own eyes if one were actually standing where the camera was positioned is erroneous and shows a misunderstanding of the nature of photography and the nature of perceptual acuity.

I stated”
“So it is readily apparent that the use of binoculars substantially increased the visible detail of the object. It does not matter what "type" of binoculars they were, it does not even matter if they were "very good", all that matters is that when the witnesses used the binoculars they were able to determine detail that could not be seen with the naked eye. THAT is the bottom line here.”

How on earth can the quality of the binoculars not matter to the ability of the observers to make observations??

I stated NOTHING about the quality of the binoculars themselves. I merely observed that, according to the evidence, more details of the object were able to be noted WITH the application of binoculars than without them. In that sense it did not matter WHAT “type” of binoculars they were, all that DID matter was that they were good enough to allow more details of the object to be observed than when viewed with the naked eye. And that IS the bottom line. So I stand by my statement.

I will make more final note about your post though: IMO verbal (or written) abuse is the domain of bullies and cowards and is the lowest form of argument short of physical violence. Obviously you are a linguistically violent person, should we infer from that that you are also a physically violent person?

 

[Stray Cat]

Proof of colourful logo...that's easy:
(http://www.goodyearblimp.com/archive/ph_historic.html)

Not as easy as you claim.
What colour was the logo?
All those photos showing the colourful logo look like black and white photos to me. Yes there are some from 1999 and later in colour, but the Goodyear logo had developed a fair bit by then. What colour was it in 1948?
Exactly how colourful was the logo?

Your presentation of blurry photos

Is more conclusive than your presentation of blurry UFO anecdotes.

while claiming they represent what can be seen by eye (and through binoculars) simply demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of both photography and perceptual acuity - especially with the aid of binoculars.

Yes sure Rramjet, you keep saying that I obviously have no knowledge of photography even though I have told you more than a few times that I am a fully trained, qualified photographer and photographic technician. Not that that has anything to do with the photos I posted. They were posted as an estimate to the angular size that a person would see if the blimp were about a mile away at an altitude of 5,000 feet. Even if the photos were the same resolution as a human eye, you would not be able to see detail like a logo, or gondola. I know that instead of recognising this, it's easier to make a baseless claim about my expertise in photography.

Your "assessment" of what was able to be seen with the aid of binoculars simply runs counter to the evidence - you know, that information about the case you continually ignore. For example:

(Mr B) "I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular ... I then handed the glasses to Mr. C in order that he might see the object."

What shape does any small object go through optical devices that are not quite in focus?

(Mr C) "With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape..."

So it was circular and then in the next second, it was a pancake, or did Mr C focus the binoculars correctly and see the distinct outline shape of a blimp?

Have you conclusively ruled this out?

So it is readily apparent that the use of binoculars substantially increased the visible detail of the object.

Nope.
Go try it, get some fake navy (cheap knock off) binoculars and look at an object about 1 mile away, that is 50 feet in length. See exactly how much detail you can see. For added effect sway too and fro to imitate a boat rocking. Report back when you've done this practical test... either that or just sit there and make hollow claims and 'readily apparentnesses'

It does not matter what "type" of binoculars they were, it does not even matter if they were "very good",

Yes, I know, a blimp looks much the same at that distance, cheapo binoculars or top of the range... you really are losing it Rramjet.

all that matters is that when the witnesses used the binoculars they were able to determine detail that could not be seen with the naked eye. THAT is the bottom line here.

No, all that matters to you is that Maccabee tells you that they could see detail, but obviously they couldn't otherwise they would have reported that it said Goodyear down the side and had a gondola suspended from it.

 

[Stray Cat]

All I am claiming is that to present blurry photos and to pass them off as what one would “see” with one’s own eyes if one were actually standing where the camera was positioned is erroneous and shows a misunderstanding of the nature of photography and the nature of perceptual acuity.

All I am claiming is that to present black and white photos and to pass them off as proof that the Goodyear blimp had a colourful logo is erroneous and shows a misunderstanding of the difference between colour and black & white photography.