UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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?

And…

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.

Oh yeah …I forgot …The photos are black and white and so that MUST mean that the world was black and white too! Yep, colour was only invented with the advent of colour photography, before that everything was simply shades of grey (except for the black and white bits of course! LOL).

…and Goodyear, wanting their logo to stand out, and not having access to the traditional yellow for their logo (colour wasn’t invented yet) just painted their logo on the sides of their advertising blimps in a dull grey colour. After all, what other choices did they have… (the photos show it was not white or black at least…)? …or DO they… maybe, seeing there was no such thing as colour, it WAS black, white AND grey… (here for example - http://www.goodyearblimp.com/archive/). Oh, and such a sign would NOT have been noticeable either! LOL.

Anyway, if I DID present you with a colour photo – you would cry “photoshop”! If I present an eyewitness that was there in 1949 – you cry “misperception”. According to your criteria, there is no such thing as history – it MUST be all bunk to you, because we have NO evidence that history ever existed. Sure we could date some ancient text or other – but according to you – whatever is written in those texts is purely “anecdotal” and therefore cannot be “evidence” for history.

Is more conclusive than your presentation of blurry UFO anecdotes.

Oh and exactly HOW are they “blurry anecdotes”? According to the evidence there is a great deal of highly detailed description in them – especially (for example) in the plan drawings of the Rogue River “craft”.

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.

Yeah, right Stray Cat, and your claim to “expertise” in photography, without evidence, is invalid – as you WELL know. You cannot make such claims while denying other’s right to make such claims also – for that would be to indulge in hypocrisy! And if you suppose that the photo you posted to “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” is representative of what one would see with the naked eye – that simply means that your “claim” is even more suspect!

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

Oh …so now the witnesses did not even know how to focus their binoculars? Your claims are becoming more and more implausible every time you post.

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?

Yeah, typical. You simply ignore the evidence! With the naked eye the object looked “circular”. "With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape...” (Mr C).

If they saw a blimp, then they would have reported a blimp –OR in fact, there would be NO report at all!

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.

The very fact that WITH binoculars the ”object resolved” tells us a great deal about the binoculars. Primarily that they were adequate for the task of discerning detail that the unaided eye could not. Twist and turn and make as many unfounded assertions as you want – it is the evidence that has to be accounted for – NOT unfounded supposition.

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.

The information about what the witnesses saw is quoted directly by Dr Maccabee from the Blue Book files. It is THAT evidence I base my assessments on – NOTHING else. Simply, your faith-based beliefs require the object to have been a blimp, otherwise the whole house of cards threatens to come crashing down around you. As it is, that house of cards is built on implausible and unfounded assertions that positively fail to account for the evidence.

I am sorry, but I prefer the evidence and the first hand accounts over belief-based suppositions any day.

 

[Akhenaten]

And…

<garbage, and I'm only marginally sorry that there's no polite way of saying it>


I am sorry, but I prefer the evidence and the first hand accounts over belief-based suppositions any day.

Piffle.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

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” "aliens"

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”. "aliens".
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.

I stated it “…is evidence of nothing at all

Akhenaten, well played sir! I doff my cap to you for setting so cunning a trap! Rramjet will forever be unable to claim any UFOs are alien in origin since they are UFOs. And the particularly ironic part:

“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."

 

[Akhenaten]

My thanks to you and Mauser.

Truth is, DOC taught me everything I know, in an oblique kind of way.

 

[Stray Cat]

And…


Oh yeah …I forgot …The photos are black and white and so that MUST mean that the world was black and white too! Yep, colour was only invented with the advent of colour photography, before that everything was simply shades of grey (except for the black and white bits of course! LOL).

How's that strawman coming along?

…and Goodyear, wanting their logo to stand out, and not having access to the traditional yellow for their logo (colour wasn’t invented yet) just painted their logo on the sides of their advertising blimps in a dull grey colour. After all, what other choices did they have… (the photos show it was not white or black at least…)? …or DO they… maybe, seeing there was no such thing as colour, it WAS black, white AND grey… (here for example - http://www.goodyearblimp.com/archive/). Oh, and such a sign would NOT have been noticeable either! LOL.

Remember the bigger you make that strawman, the easier it is to knock down.

Anyway, if I DID present you with a colour photo – you would cry “photoshop”! If I present an eyewitness that was there in 1949 – you cry “misperception”. According to your criteria, there is no such thing as history – it MUST be all bunk to you, because we have NO evidence that history ever existed. Sure we could date some ancient text or other – but according to you – whatever is written in those texts is purely “anecdotal” and therefore cannot be “evidence” for history.

It's getting bigger by the minute.

So coming back to my point and not your stawman, what colour was the Goodyear logo in 1949?

If the object according to Maccabee's calculations was only just resolvable by the human eye (with the aid of binoculars), what chance that a detail on it (the detail being less than one quarter the size of the only just resolvable object) could be seen? On a shiny blimp reflecting sunlight that was directly behind the viewer, who was on a rocking fishing boat in the tidal section of a river estuary using binoculars of unknown quality?

Oh and exactly HOW are they “blurry anecdotes”? According to the evidence there is a great deal of highly detailed description in them – especially (for example) in the plan drawings of the Rogue River “craft”.

Have you not been reading your own thread?

Yeah, right Stray Cat, and your claim to “expertise” in photography, without evidence, is invalid – as you WELL know. You cannot make such claims while denying other’s right to make such claims also – for that would be to indulge in hypocrisy!

What do you want, the certificate? the name of the head of photography at the institute that I gained the qualification so you get a reference? the name of the University where I was a photographic technician for 2 years? examples of the commercial photography I have done? Receipts for the photographic equipment I have bought over the years? The names and addresses of the various advertising agencies I have worked at over the last 20 years who have taken full advantage of the fact I was a qualified photographer as well as a graphic designer? Copies of the photographs I took that adorn the product packaging I have designed for them?
But then again... even though I can provide all this, it's just your distraction from the original point isn't it?
My expertise in photography and my ability to take and develop a good photo and to know the technical aspects of photography has nothing to do with me posting a photo that I didn't take to demonstrate the angular size of a blimp when seen from about 1 mile away.

And if you suppose that the photo you posted to “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” is representative of what one would see with the naked eye – that simply means that your “claim” is even more suspect!

As it actually is the object in question, photographed at approximately the right distance from the camera, I don't know what I could provide that demonstrates it better

Oh …so now the witnesses did not even know how to focus their binoculars? Your claims are becoming more and more implausible every time you post.

Strawman.

Yeah, typical. You simply ignore the evidence! With the naked eye the object looked “circular”. "With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape...” (Mr C).

Excuse me?
Mr B said it looked circular though the binoculars... Mr C said it looked like a pancake through the binoculars.

If they saw a blimp, then they would have reported a blimp –OR in fact, there would be NO report at all!

Where in reality, they couldn't see it well enough to identify it, which is why it has been classified as an UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object. Seems reasonable to me. The blimp explanation is only a possibility, it is the one with the most supporting evidence but no firm conclusion can be made.

The very fact that WITH binoculars the ”object resolved” tells us a great deal about the binoculars. Primarily that they were adequate for the task of discerning detail that the unaided eye could not. Twist and turn and make as many unfounded assertions as you want – it is the evidence that has to be accounted for – NOT unfounded supposition.

So we have to accept the unfounded assertions of the witnesses?
And your hand waving away of the evidence that directly contradicts them?
Even if I accept everything they say as totally honest and accurate and accept that it has all been recorded 100% accurately with nothing missed out, the result is still only an UNIDENTIFIED flying object. So now all you have to do to back up your hypothesis is prove it was alien in origin... Good luck with that.

The information about what the witnesses saw is quoted directly by Dr Maccabee from the Blue Book files. It is THAT evidence I base my assessments on – NOTHING else. Simply, your faith-based beliefs require the object to have been a blimp, otherwise the whole house of cards threatens to come crashing down around you. As it is, that house of cards is built on implausible and unfounded assertions that positively fail to account for the evidence.

And yet the position I take seems to be a standard one whilst your alien origin one isn't accepted by science or those with a shred of common sense and critical thinking... Go figure.

I am sorry, but I prefer the evidence and the first hand accounts over belief-based suppositions any day.

No Rramjet, you prefer the selective evidence that conforms to your worldview and like that fact that some people tell stories that you can relate to because you have a fantasy that aliens are pointlessly flying around in secret (and yet not doing the secret bit very well if the thousands of reports are to be believed).

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Shovel.jpg[/qimg]​

Now available in the jet powered versions. Dig faster! deeper! and in less time!

 

[Vortigern99]

Pardon the intrusion, but what if the RR object was not a blimp? For the sake of argument, let's allow that the object was precisely as the eyewitnesses described it: silent, circular "like a pancake", and capable of moving at tremendous speed.

Okay, now what? I mean, so what?

We know that the US military conducts experiments with all manner of technologies, including vehicular and including aeronautics. We know that the military keeps these projects secret because of the nature of modern warfare. We have direct evidence of the foregoing assertions in any number of once-secret, now-known devices and vehicles, such as the stealth fighter.

On the other hand, we have no evidence of alien visitation. Therefore it is more plausible and more probable that the RR object, if it was not a blimp, and if it was exactly as described by the eyewitnesses, was a military experimental aircraft.

/thread

 

[23_Tauri]

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.

Unbeknownst to us mortals, this thread isn't about UFOs at all. I've decided Mr Rramjet is an incognito Buddhist monk feigning stupidity so as to teach us about the true nature of the endless cycle of suffering on samsara. Maybe that's why he doesn't go away?

 

[23_Tauri]

Just a bit of trollery, I suspect.

The avatar is from the master, Paulhoff, who added some startled little blinks to my already-surprised kitten. I'm afraid it's only a temporary fixture, but you're more than welcome to it when I put my cartouche back up.

thank you, you're most kind to offer me your surprised kitten. However, with a name like mine, my avatar should be something a bit bullish

 

[carlitos]

Just now I was in a moving car watching a jumbo jet land. I watched for a good 2 minutes and it really looked like it was hovering, not moving at all. It's amazing how perspective changes when the object is so big and you are moving a little bit yourself. At nighttime, who knows what I would have "witnessed first hand" just now.

Anyway, about the alien hypothesis, is any forthcoming? Promised in post #1, right?

 

[Rramjet]

Akhenaten states:

“Piffle.”

So this is what now passes for intelligent debate among UFO debunkers in the JREF?

RoboTimbo responds (equally as intelligently)

“Akhenaten, well played sir!”

But to be fair, RoboTimbo was actually supporting THIS chain of logic from Akhenaten:

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

Stray Cat then supplies some unfounded hogwash about being an “expert” in photography – proposing that out-of-focus photos actually represent what can be perceived by the human eye - yeah right – and pigs can fly too!

Not only that he cannot read (perhaps after all it is actually his eyesight that is in question – it is all “blurry” to him). Let me now place on the record the statements of Mr B and Mr C so that all may understand what was testified to without the “aid” of Stray Cat’s misrepresentations.

“Mr B’s record of interview
"On Tuesday, 24 May 1949, at 1700 P.S.T., Mr. B and four other persons, while fishing two miles upstream from the mouth of the Rogue River, at approximately the same direction and distance from the town of Gold Beach, Oregon, sighted an object which is described as follows: When first sighted it appeared to be a glitter about four miles away laterally, at some 5000 feet above the ground which, at that point, was at sea level or approximately so. 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. The object seemed to be solid with no visible openings and was about 30 feet in diameter, as nearly as could be judged. Just before Mr. B handed the glasses to Mr. XXX (We’ll call him “Mr. C”), the object made a turn on its vertical axis with no tilting or banking and started to move in a southeasterly direction. There was no sign of exhaust or propeller; no driving force could be seen or felt, and no sound was heard. The object at no time contacted the earth or came any closer than 5000 feet, approximately, to the earth, and when last seen was disappearing in a southeasterly direction, accelerating to an approximate speed of a jet plane. There were no protuberances other than a slight fin which seemed to start amidship and come back flush with the trailing edge viewed as the ship drifted. No radio antenna or windows, portholes, or any other protuberances, gaps, or openings were visible. The only landmark near the sighting point was a rock formation locally known as Elephant Rock, approximately 700 yards northeast of the boat in which Mr. B and party were anchored."
On June 24, Agent Brooks also interviewed Mr.C (named in the record of interview above), who is described as being a mechanic who worked on a supersonic wind tunnel at Ames Laboratory. This interview revealed the following information:
Mr C’s record of Interview
“On 24 May 1949, at 1700 P.S.T., approximately two to two and a half miles upstream from the mouth of the Rogue River, in a boat anchored approximately midstream, about the same distance east of the town of Gold Beach, Oregon, an object was sighted about 5000 feet above the ground in a direction approximately 60 degrees clockwise from north. Object appeared to be about one or two miles away. Mr. C observed the object (for) about 30 seconds with the naked eye at which time he could see only a bright glitter, like a round mirror standing on edge with no apparent motion. Just as the object began to move, Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. 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 travelled. 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. There appeared to be no opening or protuberance of any sort other than the fin already described. Object appeared to be roughly 25 to 30 feet in diameter. It was travelling in a southeasterly direction, about 170 degrees clockwise from north. It executed no manoeuvres; no lights, no propellers, no landing gear, or any method of propulsion could be seen or heard. There were no clouds and the sun was at Mr. C's back at the time of the sighting. The trailing edge of the object as it travelled appeared to be somewhat wrinkled and dirty looking. Mr. C ventured that these might have been vents but he said he could not see them well enough to say for sure. With Mr. B and Mr. C in the boat at the time of the sighting was Mrs. WWW (We’ll call her “Mrs. D”), wife of a druggist at Ione, Calif; Mrs. A, wife of a Standard Oil distributor at Gold Beach; and Mrs. XXX.*
Note: Mr. B and Mr. C stated their attention was drawn to the object by its glittering as at the time they were engaged in looking upstream to see if they could spot any feeding fish on the surface. It appeared to this agent that Mr. B [or C] was a very reliable person, not at all easily excited, in fact, prone to be rather blasé or indifferent. Mr C [or B] appeared to be a sober, well-rounded person, very mature and not easily swayed by someone else's opinion."
[* I believe the above information contains an error by the investigator. It seems to me that, instead of "Mrs. XXX," the fifth person was actually Mr. D, the husband of Mrs. D, as further interviews revealed]

SIGNED STATEMENTS!
Agent Brooks was not satisfied with the information in the above "casual interviews" that were made at the work locations of the witnesses. Therefore, on August 2, 1949, he obtained the following signed statements from the witnesses:
(Mr. B)
"On 24 May 1949, at approximately 5:00 p.m., while fishing with several friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from Gold Beach, Oregon, my attention was drawn to an object in the sky by Mr. D, one of the members of the party. To the naked eye this object appeared circular and standing on edge. I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular and that we appeared to be looking upward at the bottom side of it. As nearly as possible to tell, the object appeared about 5000 feet in altitude, and not more than a mile away. When I first observed it, object was moving very slowly. As I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south, with no banking or leaning, and picked up speed. I then handed the glasses to Mr. C in order that he might see the object. Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center. A triangular fin appeared to arise amidship and extended to the trailing end of the object viewed as it travelled. There were no openings visible and no sound was heard. There appeared to be no engines or motors, no landing gear, no other protruding parts other than the fin already described. The object was in sight for approximately one (1) minute. Sun was at our backs and there were no clouds."
(Mr. C)
"While fishing with a party of friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from its mouth at Gold Beach, Oregon, at approximately 5:00 p.m., 24 May 1949, my attention was called to an object in the sky. The object was to the east of us about one (1) mile, at approximately 5000 feet altitude. With the naked eye, little but a glare and a silvery glint could be seen. But after watching it for approximately one minute and a half, I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that the object was roughly circular in shape and appeared to be 30 to 35 feet in diameter. It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges. A small triangular fin started in the middle and grew gradually higher to the rear as the object travelled. When first sighted, it was moving very slowly. As I watched it through the glasses, it picked up speed and when it vanished from sight approximately 90 seconds later, it was travelling as fast or faster than a jet plane. As far as could be seen, it had no openings or protuberances of any kind other than the fin, and there was neither sight nor sound of any driving force. It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction, mostly south." (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)​

Clearly the binoculars were useful in aiding the observation of the object.

Stray Cat then contends that this object is nothing unusual. Merely a UFO. There are “thousands of reports” of such things he says. So what’s all the fuss about? Yeah, and if everyone had that attitude toward the “unknown” we would still be sitting in a cave somewhere, staring at our shadows on the wall, going “What’s that? Oh …sorry, it happens all the time …nothing to get excited about …go back to staring at your navel and don’t upset the children with your “curiosity”. None of us have any curiosity, so you should not either, nor should anyone ever have such a thing and we will do our best to stamp it out wherever it should arise!”

Stray Cat also makes the leap from UFO to “aliens pointlessly flying around”. This is typical of the UFO Debunkers, they just cannot get the Little Green Men in Spacecraft” idea out of their head. However many times it is pointed out to them that the evidence does not warrant this type of conclusion – they persist. Totally ignoring the evidence that we do have on the grounds that “Little Green men in Spacecraft” are unlikely. And Stray Cat accuses ME of building “straw men”!

Vortigern comes in attempting to explain one unknown with another unknown… an eminently productive pursuit! Well played sir!

…and 23 Tauri implies that we can just ignore the evidence and instead propose fantastical ideas about the thread and the motivations of the person supplying the evidence. Now that reminds me of …what was that UFO debunker truism…? Oh yeah, here it is “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”!

carlitos comes in to show us how easily a UFO debunker may be fooled by an object such as a Jumbo Jet …but wait… he contradicts himself by stating he knew it was a Jumbo Jet all along… yep, typical UFO debunker logic on display here…

UFOs are “alien” by definition because they defy mundane principles. It is as simple as that.

Perhaps you can explain this case?

Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22eventsum.htm)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/indian-river-ufo/irufo-page1.html) (late Jul 1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm) (11 Dec 1996)

 

[Marduk]

thats rich, I remember a certain poster saying that they were going to provide evidence of Aliens
and here we all are still waiting

soon is it rroger ?

 

[Sledge]

Is there a point to this? Rramjet is doing nothing other than masturbating his ego by posting walls of text that have nothing to do with his claim. We're at 169 pages of this bollocks now! Where is the proof of aliens?

 

[Marduk]

Is there a point to this? Rramjet is doing nothing other than masturbating his ego by posting walls of text that have nothing to do with his claim. We're at 169 pages of this bollocks now! Where is the proof of aliens?

Obviously when he said that he was just lying, like he did about being a scientist

 

[Stray Cat]

...Bloody Long Inadequate Masturbatory Post snipped...

Poppycock! all of it.

 

[dafydd]

I'm still not getting this.There are unidentified lights in the sky,therefore aliens are visiting us? Evidence?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm still not getting this.There are unidentified lights in the sky,therefore aliens are visiting us? Evidence?

Welcome to our world. You'd have to ask Rramjet how he gets from UFO to aliens in a single mental leap. Except for Rogue River which he has pretty conclusively proven to be a blimp. And Campeche which he has pretty conclusively proven has to be anything but oil well fires. After all, that's not what the eyewitnesses (trained military observers) described.

 

[Marduk]

Welcome to our world. You'd have to ask Rramjet how he gets from UFO to aliens in a single mental leap. Except for Rogue River which he has pretty conclusively proven to be a blimp. And Campeche which he has pretty conclusively proven has to be anything but oil well fires. After all, that's not what the eyewitnesses (trained military observers) described.

Don't forget he also conclusively proved that there was a genuine ufo conspiracy

by being a part of it

 

[Vortigern99]

Vortigern comes in attempting to explain one unknown with another unknown… an eminently productive pursuit! Well played sir!

First, the sarcasm is unnecessary. Your accusing "debunkers" of unwarranted derision loses credibility when you respond with scorn to a sincere effort at discussion and debate. I've never insulted you in any way, and I expect the same treatment from you.

Second, military experimental aircraft are not "unknown". They are in point of fact known and documented to exist. The dozens of X series planes, the Aurora SR-71 replacement, the "Bird of Prey" and other stealth fighters, are all aircraft developed in secret by the US military. They were "unknown" to the general populace at one time, but now their existence has been declassified.

"Alien" aircraft, by whatever definition you choose to apply, are not known or documented to exist.

Speaking in terms of plausibility and probability, as you have often done in this thread, the explanation that the Rogue River object is a classified military experimental aircraft is several orders of magnitude more plausible than that it was an "alien" aircraft.

Please don't respond with sarcasm or derision. If you're interested in an exchange of facts and opinions, I'm game; but please, approach my effort at discussion with a modicum of respect, and I promise I'll do the same for you. Thank you.

 

[carlitos]

carlitos comes in to show us how easily a UFO debunker may be fooled by an object such as a Jumbo Jet …but wait… he contradicts himself by stating he knew it was a Jumbo Jet all along… yep, typical UFO debunker logic on display here…

I am only responding to this for one reason. I want you to understand why everyone else here is treating you like a joke.

I made a serious point. From a slightly moving vehicle, and for no reason whatsoever, I found myself mesmerized, watching a jumbo jet land from the back seat of a taxi, because it literally looked like it was hovering. Do you see why I found this so significant, I actually got the blackberry out and posted it here? Imagine if it was nighttime or hazy or that I was watching it from miles away, or through binoculars or on a boat or something. The point:

THE EYES ARE EASILY FOOLED!!!!!

I thought that I saw something defy the laws of physics. Because it was a jumbo jet and I was near the airport, it was easy for me to accept the mundane explanation, but my eyes still swore that it was hovering. I was picking out landmarks and watching whether it moved across them.

So, what say you after I made this point in good faith, in an attempt to illustrate a concept that you fail to grasp even after dozens of explanations in thousands of posts here? A point which is completely germane to this discussion (which rests entirely on people thinking that they saw something defy the laws of physics e.g., a jumbo jet hovering)???

You call me a freaking "UFO debunker." What the hell is a UFO debunker? Having seen both 'balls of light' and shooting stars in my lifetime, there is nothing I'd love more than to have these things explained, or to discover alien life forms.

You, if I recall correctly, were going to provide evidence of aliens? You don't even have the balls to write a hypothesis about aliens. You just make up words that mean different things because you put them in "quotes" or whatever. You are a real piece of work there, Rramjet. I won't be responding further. You deserve the ridicule.

UFOs are “alien” by definition because they defy mundane principles. It is as simple as that.

No it isn't. They "appear" to defy mundane principles. That's why you have no evidence except eyewitnesses. This entire thread could be about bigfoot and it wouldn't be a bit different.

Apologies all. I totally understand why you don't take this seriously any longer.