1. See drawings
2. See drawings
3. Distant object
4. Ehh...wut?
5. Not confirmed, contradictory witness statements, etc.
(Points 1 & 2)
What is this obsession with trying to misrepresent the drawings? Anyone who has followed the case will realise that the drawings represent a
circular craft. The witnesses who drew the craft described in their interview testimony a
circular (like a coin or pancake) shaped craft. So how is it that the UFO debunkers in this forum can suppose that the witnesses then
drew a “cigar-shaped” craft? It simply does not make any sense.
Of course the UFO debunkers MUST misrepresent the drawings, because “blimp” is the ONLY “explanation” they can come up with - even though such an “explanation” does NOT fit with EITHER the eyewitness descriptions, OR the historical evidence!
(Point 3)
The engines on blimps (especially those of the era) are (and were)
particularly noisy beasts. As far as can be ascertained, there was no wind on the day (the witnesses were able to search the river surface for “feeding fish” – indicating that the river surface was not “ruffled” by any wind: It was a “clear” blue-sky day). The strength of wind needed to “blow” sound away is quite substantial. For example:
“The sound speed, at moderate velocities of wind, is almost constant throughout the flow field. That is, velocities of wind such as 10 m/s does not produce a substantial variation of the speed of sound compared with that in still air. What makes the desired sound more difficult to be heard is the interference with the rest of pressure waves in your ears produced by wind fluctuations as you said in a windy day. Another point is that the sound wave can be carried faster if the wind is faster, because the sound wave is advected by the fluid. But such difference is negligible at ordinary wind velocities because 345m/s>>10m/s. The thing is pretty different at Mach Numbers of order 1 though... (
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-149392.html)
(see also the discussion here for example (
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=273093)
The bottom line is that because sound moves at 343 m/s any “wind” is going to have a negligible affect on the sound reaching you from a distant object (remember also the object is radiating sound in all directions). If the sound is “shifted” at all by the wind moving the whole airmass – remembering also that
“This downwind refraction effect occurs because there is a wind gradient; the sound is not being carried along by the wind.” (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound), then you simply pick up the sound that is radiated “not-directly” at you from source.
So basically, the wind would have to be above Mach 1 (which after all is the speed of sound) before any substantial “wind” effects become apparent.
(Point 4)
The object “manoeuvred”. That is, when first sighted it was heading toward the observers, but it turned through an angle of greater than 90 degrees to eventually head diagonally away from the observers and disappear into the distance (I’d like to see a blimp do THAT without exposing its “flank” to any observer!).
(Point 5)
Mr B, Mr C AND Mrs D claimed it was moving at, or faster than, a jet plane. Mr D claimed it was moving at a “high rate of speed”. Only Mrs A – who acknowledged she had no experience in estimation (
“The interviewee stated that she was not familiar with aircraft; therefore, she could not estimate with any accuracy the speed or altitude at which the object was travelling.” stated anything different (speed of a C-47). So your contention here is a
misrepresentation (again!) of the
evidence.
A question needs to be asked. What gives the UFO debunkers the licence to feel free to
misrepresent the evidence (as above)? I thought they were “sceptics” and adhered to “scientific methodology” - at least they CLAIM they are – and do… Quite
clearly – on the
evidence - their claims in this direction are wholly bankrupt.
Just because you can't think of a mundane explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. This is your major mistake.
Oh but this is NOT the case at all. It is not ME (alone) who cannot “think” of a mundane explanation. The cases I am presenting have been
thoroughly researched by many, many people –including UFO debunkers - in some cases over many decades – and STILL no mundane answers are forthcoming (at least none that are
plausible AND fit the evidence)!
Same mistake again. Something that when observed seems to defy physics doesn't necessarily have to do that. We can be mistaken.
In many of the cases I have been presenting there is no “seems” about it! For example in the Tehran case we had a UFO that (while in flight at speed) first split apart then rejoined and then split apart again and landed part of itself – while the rest kept flying and “harassing” the F-4. The UFO also “jumped locations” (being in one place, then disappearing only to reappear at a more distant location). If that is not “defying” the laws of physics as we know them I don’t know what is!
Up close yes. Not on a distant blimp, on a heat hazy day, watching through binoculars from a rocky boat.
We don’t have an accurate distance for the blimp, but the eyewitness consensus is that it was about 1 mile away. HEAT HAZE IS A GROUND EFFECT and does NOT appear over water! The use of binoculars enabled a “resolution” of details about the object that could not be seen with the un-aided eye. The water was still, calm and flat – (it was a wide, flat, tidal section of the river and they were looking for “feeding” fish on the surface and to do this the surface MUST be relatively calm)
Your continual efforts to
misrepresent the evidence are telling. If the ONLY way you can get a mundane explanation up is to
misrepresent the evidence, then that says a great deal about the
plausibility of your “explanation”. Simply, the
evidence does NOT support your “blimp” explanation!
Your opinion is not shared by the majority of posters here. Your belifsystem just filters out any data that doesn't confirm it. Maybe start posting in the religious forum instead?
I have shown (many times including above) where YOU do this (allow your
belief system to “filter out data any data that does not confirm it). You have NOT shown if I have done this. Perhaps you should look to your own advice. Again we have the “old” UFO debunker trick of accusing (without foundation or supplying evidence) your opponent of the very sins you (yourself) commit.
Only you, in the whole wide world, doesn't understand what is meant by that. Don't be silly, you know what we mean.
IF YOU understand what
“extraordinary evidence” IS – then YOU will be able to provide an explanation and examples. My challenge to YOU is therefore to ‘explain (with examples) what
“extraordinary evidence” actually IS.
Of course you cannot DO this because the concept is a TOTAL nonsense. Evidence is evidence – you either have it or you do not.
And this is where you once again state your opinion as fact. "Plausible" is based on your own imagination and previous experience. You are still saying that "Since I personally can't think of a mundane solution it must be alien".
Are you contending that any mundane “explanation” does NOT have to be a
plausible explanation?
Moreover, you completely ignore my explanations of “alien”. But I have explained this point MANY times now. A UFO is “alien” by
definition because there ARE NO mundane solutions. (I have addressed the “personally can’t think of a mundane explanation” above)
UFO means exactly Unidentified. We don't know. Could be mundane, could be exotic.
No, UFOs are UFOs BECAUSE mundane solutions have been
ruled out! Of course you simply confirm what I have always contended that UFO debunkers do NOT “believe” in UFOs at all, instead they
believe in UFMOs (Unidentified Flying
Mundane Objects).
IF there are NO mundane explanations, then
by definition UFOs are “exotic”.
But you don't provide any positive evidence for your claim of "aliens". You just try to provide evidence that it can't be anything mundane that you personally can think of.
Oh? Then perhaps you would care to explain the “beings” in the Father Gill case, the Lonnie Zamora case and the Travis Walton case? Here IS “positive”
evidence (If the “craft” in these cases ARE “UFOs” (and thus “alien”), then
by definition any beings associated with them WILL be “aliens”).
You also keep stating “your personally can think of” (or words to that effect) but I have already explained this to you above. Perhaps you believe that by stating unfounded assertions many times over, they somehow
become true via mere repetition?
No, they are unidentified things. You don't know if it's alien or mundane, neither do I. Stop redefining things to suit your argumentation.
But they are not
merely unidentified “things”. They have NO mundane explanation and are thus,
by definition “alien”. It is actually YOU who wants to “redefine” “UFO” to mean “UFMO”! Again you accuse ME (without evidence) of the very sin you (yourself) commit. Huh.
