UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jocce]

The evidence is that the witnesses observed and described a circular object (like a coin or pancake). Do you honestly believe that after observing and describing a circular craft, they would then draw a shape that they did NOT observe and describe?

The key is to recognise that the drawings are a 2-dimensional representation of a 3-dimensional object. The upper drawing represents a view of a (the) circular object when seen from below and at an offset angle. It is a drawing of a circular craft as they would have seen it – thus elliptical. This drawing has perspective: That is, the upper edge is closer to us (coming out of the page) than the lower edge (receding into the page).

Yes, we have read this claim of yours several times and have argued that the witnesses could also have misinterpreted a blimpshaped object for a pancakeshaped object seen from an angle. It's not really such a farfetched possibility considering the observation conditions. You should be able to understand this, and refute it if you can. You have not done so, but stick to repeating your own claim. I can only conclude that you can't refute it so...

Oh but it is NOT just ME alone that cannot come to any mundane conclusion – it is also YOU. Moreover, these cases I am presenting are in some instances decades old and have been thoroughly researched by UFO proponents, UFO debunkers and qualified scientists alike – and STILL no mundane solution is apparent!

Besides, there is only a limited set of possible mundane solutions that we have to work with. First it is “flying” – so “Is it a bird, is it a plane…? Meteorite, plasma ball, Venus …?” “Illusion, hoax …?” Very quickly we DO run out of possible mundane explanations!

Yes, we know that this is your opinion, but unfortunately it is not correct. There will always be a greater than zero chance that it is an unidentified mundane object. As long as the mere possibility exist, your little logic excercise below is invalid.

I stated:

My logic is quite simple really:
P1: If something is not mundane (of this world) then by definition it is “alien”.

P2: The UFO cases I am presenting have NO mundane explanation,

C: Therefore UFOs are "alien".

My conclusion follows logically from my premises.​

P2 is NOT false if there ARE no mundane solutions.

Yeah, IF P2 is true. But, you have not shown that. I can equally well reverse your statement to refute it:

P1: If something is not mundane (of this world) then by definition it is “alien”.
P2: The UFO cases I am presenting have NO alien explanation,

C: Therefore UFOs are mundane.

Then what?

You make a basic mistake in your logic excersise. When you make a binary statement you can't all of a sudden enter probabilities into the equation. You either keep it binary or make the outcome a non zero probability. This is elementary and should be obvious.

Yes, eyewitnesses CAN lie. They CAN also misperceive and they CAN be deluded, but that does NOT mean that they are ALWAYS lying, mistaken or deluded.

My reply was in response to your claim:

Evidence is evidence… it simply cannot be wrong or incorrect.

I showed you that it is not true.

In the cases I am presenting I am contending that, based on the evidence, the probability of the witnesses IN THESE CASES lying or being mistaken or deluded is remote. Of course there is always the possibility that they are, but given the evidence that possibility is very unlikely.

But yet non zero, so your case falls flat on it's nose when you try to prove aliens by disproving all mundane explanations.

 

[Paul2]

Yeah, IF P2 is true. But, you have not shown that. I can equally well reverse your statement to refute it:

P1: If something is not mundane (of this world) then by definition it is “alien”.
P2: The UFO cases I am presenting have NO alien explanation,

C: Therefore UFOs are mundane.

Then what?

You make a basic mistake in your logic excersise. When you make a binary statement you can't all of a sudden enter probabilities into the equation. You either keep it binary or make the outcome a non zero probability. This is elementary and should be obvious.

Well done!

 

[Rramjet]

Yes, we have read this claim of yours several times and have argued that the witnesses could also have misinterpreted a blimpshaped object for a pancakeshaped object seen from an angle. It's not really such a farfetched possibility considering the observation conditions. You should be able to understand this, and refute it if you can. You have not done so, but stick to repeating your own claim. I can only conclude that you can't refute it so...

It is quite simple really. The witnesses saw a circular object and they drew a circular object. They had the advantage of a clear “blue-sky” day with the sun at their backs while utilising pair of binoculars through which the object “resolved” in detail. They were able to observe the silently manoeuvring object for perhaps two minutes.

A Goodyear advertising blimp is very distinctive. It is very noisy for a start (it has engines), it has four fins, it has a passenger gondola and it also has large colourful advertising logos emblazoned over both sides. It is also much larger than the sighted object and has a distinctive “cigar” shape.

Under such good viewing conditions as were apparent on the day, for five witnesses to mistake such an object as the Goodyear blimp for a silent, circular object, moving at the speed of a jet plane and perhaps 1/3 (or less) of a blimp’s size IS “farfetched”!

Yes, we know that this is your opinion, but unfortunately it is not correct. There will always be a greater than zero chance that it is an unidentified mundane object. As long as the mere possibility exist, your little logic excercise below is invalid.

If it is NOT a mundane object, then the chance that it IS a mundane object IS ZERO. Besides, you have yet to come up with ANY plausible mundane object that the Rogue River (and other cases) UFO could have been.

…and it sounds like you are back to believing in UFMOs (Unidentified Flying Mundane Objects) rather than UFOs - meaning of course, contrary to protestations and ridicule and mock outrage, you do NOT believe UFOs exist! You are in effect stating that for EVERY “UFO” there is a non-zero probability that it will have a mundane explanation – even if we do not know what that is – and that DOES mean do NOT believe UFOs exist – only UFMOs.

Then you conduct a little logic exercise of your own (borrowing from mine you contend):

P1: If something is not mundane (of this world) then by definition it is “alien”.
P2: The UFO cases I am presenting have NO alien explanation,

C: Therefore UFOs are mundane.

Then what?

This is spurious because “alien” has been defined as anything other than “mundane” (ie; “not mundane”). That means of course that your P2 cannot be shown to be true – because patently it is possible for us to imagine “not mundane” solutions (for example and such as) ETI to exist and if they exist it IS possible for them to be here and you cannot prove they are not. And thus while the logical structure IS sound your conclusion can never be shown to be true and thus is not useful for our purposes.

However, when we consider my formulation:

P1: If something is not mundane (of this world) then by definition it is “alien”.
P2: The UFO cases I am presenting have NO mundane explanation,
C: Therefore UFOs are "alien".​

It CAN be demonstrated that there are no mundane explanations and thus P2 CAN be proven true or false and thus a determination about the truth of falsehood of the conclusion CAN be made.

My original definition of “alien” was along the lines of: UFOs are “alien” because they seem to exist outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural and technological world. That is their characteristics positively defy mundane explanation – and IF there IS no mundane explanation then that means (drawing on my logic from above) that UFOs are by definition “alien”.

Your logic falls down because if the indeterminacy of your P2. My P2 however can be determined.

You make a basic mistake in your logic excersise. When you make a binary statement you can't all of a sudden enter probabilities into the equation. You either keep it binary or make the outcome a non zero probability. This is elementary and should be obvious.

However THIS statement from you is (obviously!) incorrect. There was no mistake in my logic. It was perfectly logically sound (as was your reformulation!). There are NO “probability” statements in either formulation. Either the conditions in P2 are fulfilled, making the conclusion true, or the are not fulfilled, making the conclusion false (in either formulation).

My reply was in response to your claim:

Evidence is evidence… it simply cannot be wrong or incorrect.

I showed you that it is not true.

I wish (!) the UFO debunkers would STOP making unfounded assertions. Why cannot you support your assertions with evidence? If I simply replied in kind “No you haven’t”, where does THAT get us? It is a shouting match, not a debate.

Let me ask you a question. What is a lie evidence of? If it is evidence of ANYTHING then it shows that evidence cannot be “wrong”. Perhaps it is evidence of a character flaw – but it is still evidence FOR “character flaw” - and is not therefore “wrong”. As I stated, evidence cannot be “wrong” – it is ONLY our interpretation of the evidence that is mistaken (in the case of a lie it is our misinterpretation that the content of the lie is evidence for the “truth” – rather than evidence of a “falsehood” – or a bad character, or blackmail, or madness, or a linguistic error, or a slip of the tongue, or a joke, or coercion, or hypnosis, or a Pavlovian response, or… perhaps you can think of something else it may be evidence for?).

Thus I stand by my original contention that “Evidence is evidence… it simply cannot be wrong or incorrect.” while adding the clarifying statement that it is our interpretation of what the evidence represents that can be “wrong” – NOT the evidence itself.

But yet non zero, so your case falls flat on it's nose when you try to prove aliens by disproving all mundane explanations.

Actually I am NOT “trying to prove” aliens, I am only showing “not mundane” according to my hypothesis: All UFOs have a mundane explanation. Which IS of course YOUR hypothesis (!) (ie; UFMO).

As I stated above, my original definition of “alien” was along the lines of: UFOs are “alien” because they seem to exist outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural and technological world. That is their characteristics positively defy mundane explanation – and IF there IS no mundane explanation then that means (drawing on my logic from above) that UFOs are by definition “alien”.

..besides, again, your “non-zero” probability is indeterminate. Is it 1 in a million – a billion – a trillion? What ARE these “non-zero” probabilities for a mundane solution? How DO you determine them in any particular case. Of course you cannot! That is why I insert the term plausible as a caveat on explanations. Clearly any explanation with such odds against it being correct is not a plausible explanation for UFOs. If you contend the odds are less – then show me HOW you determined those odds.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is quite simple really. The witnesses saw a circular object and they drew a circular object. They had the advantage of a clear “blue-sky” day with the sun at their backs while utilising pair of binoculars through which the object “resolved” in detail. They were able to observe the silently manoeuvring object for perhaps two minutes.

They saw an object with what they agreed was, from their point of view, an oval profile, and which they interpreted as a disc seen at an oblique angle. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. They did not "see a circular object". They interpreted a circular object.

A Goodyear advertising blimp is very distinctive. It is very noisy for a start (it has engines), it has four fins, it has a passenger gondola and it also has large colourful advertising logos emblazoned over both sides. It is also much larger than the sighted object and has a distinctive “cigar” shape.

The ability to discern all of the above details depend on how far away from the blimp you happen to be. Far enough and it just becomes a silvery blob, gliding quietly across the sky.

Under such good viewing conditions as were apparent on the day, for five witnesses to mistake such an object as the Goodyear blimp for a silent, circular object, moving at the speed of a jet plane and perhaps 1/3 (or less) of a blimp’s size IS “farfetched”!

Your opinion is noted. Again.
I do not share it. References to the dependability of witness accounts keeps reminding me of the remarkably talented Campeche oilwell fires...

If it is NOT a mundane object, then the chance that it IS a mundane object IS ZERO. Besides, you have yet to come up with ANY plausible mundane object that the Rogue River (and other cases) UFO could have been.

Oilwell fires. They can do all that stuff. Seriously - it was probably a blimp. That is a perfectly plausible explanation which only you reject as it does not fit with every single detail claimed by the eyewitnesses - which takes us straight back to oilwell fires.

…and it sounds like you are back to believing in UFMOs (Unidentified Flying Mundane Objects) rather than UFOs - meaning of course, contrary to protestations and ridicule and mock outrage, you do NOT believe UFOs exist! You are in effect stating that for EVERY “UFO” there is a non-zero probability that it will have a mundane explanation – even if we do not know what that is – and that DOES mean do NOT believe UFOs exist – only UFMOs.

Your logic lets you down. A non-zero probability of mundane explanation in every case would not preclude a non-mundane explanation in any case.

Then you conduct a little logic exercise of your own (borrowing from mine
<snip a bit>
It CAN be demonstrated that there are no mundane explanations ...
<snip>
Your logic falls down because if the indeterminacy of your P2. My P2 however can be determined.

I really don't believe you have successfully demonstrated that claim.

 

[Rramjet]

All of these cases appear to have perfectly mundane explanations to me.

Okay – lets quickly run through the list and perhaps you can give me the “perfectly” mundane explanations for each of the following cases.

1. Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
2. The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
3. White Sands: Project Twinkle (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
4. The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)
5. Tremonton, Utah, UFO Colour Film (02 July 1952)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/tremontonruppelt.htm)
6. The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)
7. The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)
8. Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
9. The (New Zealand) Kaikoura UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
10. Val Johnson (Minnesota) Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
11. The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html)
12. JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html)
13. Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm)
14. O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (07 Nov 2006)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)

The UFO debunkers have protested long and loud that there DO exist mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting. Well, the above is a representative list of those cases – so please, once and for all – instead of merely continuing to make the unfounded assertion – provide the mundane explanations for those cases.

NOTE: Remember, for your explanations to be taken seriously they must be plausible explanations. That is, they MUST fit the evidence. If they do NOT fit the evidence, I expect you to outline HOW and WHY you deem the evidence should not be applicable to your explanation.

You can take the cases one at a time if you wish (in fact I recommend you start with number 1.)

And yet you use that evidence to rubbish the SETI project, when you state clearly (above) that it isn't a supportable conclusion.

Actually, I don’t “rubbish” SETI, I merely claim that in my opinion, given its extremely remote chances of success, it is a waste of resources that could be better directed elsewhere – for example into UFO research.

If you don't think the evidence is that strong, then you can't use it to fault people for using other methods to search for ETIs. Alternatively, if you want to fault people for using other methods then you should support that with strong evidence.

You can't have it both ways.

It is not a matter of evidence, it is a matter of resource distribution and what distribution might provide us the better chance of gaining knowledge. I happen to be of the opinion that SETI is a waste of resources. It is putting the cart before the horse. Currently we are involved in the ever more successful venture of finding planets around other stars. When we get to the point of being able to point to habitable planets, then perhaps SETI might have a role to play – but the current stab in the dark, needle in a haystack approach of SETI (given the sheer size of the haystack) just does not seem to me to be an exercise that is likely to produce results.

Where we are talking about evidence, I believe that the evidence that UFOs represent “aliens from another planet” is not good enough for us to make the categorical assertion. It certainly appears that this might be what is occurring, but as you well know, appearances can be deceptive. There is a sense in which it also appears that whatever “intelligence” is behind UFOs – it is being deliberately deceptive. It is almost as if “they” are telling us “Your concepts of reality are in error – but you have to find this out for yourselves – all we can do is give you clues that this is the case – we can go no further.” But WHO is the “we”? And WHY are “they” doing this? The whole thing seems surreal (but that does not mean it IS). Does that mean we just write the whole thing off as “too difficult” for us? Do we throw up our hands and declare “Despite appearances, my reality is ALL there is!” and that is the end of the story? History would suggest this is not the way to proceed.

The UFO debunkers propose that UFOs represent things that exist within our current paradigm concerning “reality” – but critically they cannot “explain” how that can be so. I AM willing to accept that if there ARE plausible mundane solutions to the UFO cases I have been presenting (above) then I could be mistaken in my opinions in all of the above – but if there ARE no plausible mundane solutions, then we MUST consider alternate hypotheses.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Thus I stand by my original contention that “Evidence is evidence… it simply cannot be wrong or incorrect.” while adding the clarifying statement that it is our interpretation of what the evidence represents that can be “wrong” – NOT the evidence itself.

That's utterly wrong, you can't truly believe that. Evidence can be wrong, look at hoaxed evidence for UFO's. I'm getting the idea that we should use all evidence since it's the "interpretation" of said evidence that is wrong.

Actually I am NOT “trying to prove” aliens, I am only showing “not mundane” according to my hypothesis: All UFOs have a mundane explanation. Which IS of course YOUR hypothesis (!) (ie; UFMO).

No, no one here has that hypothesis, the real one is MOST sights can be chalked up to the mundane(what ever that is). Also I thought you were here to prove alien

As I stated above, my original definition of “alien” was along the lines of: UFOs are “alien” because they seem to exist outside the boundaries of what we take to be the limits of the natural and technological world. That is their characteristics positively defy mundane explanation – and IF there IS no mundane explanation then that means (drawing on my logic from above) that UFOs are by definition “alien”.

Your assuming again, that the ufo's are piloted by foreign entities(eg aliens). So if you have evidence of UFO's being piloted by foreign entities(eg aliens) where is it? What is it? ETC

 

[Jocce]

It is quite simple really. The witnesses saw a circular object and they drew a circular object.

No, they draw an outline that is clearly oval. They interpreted what they saw as being circular, flat and seen from an angle. You have still not refuted that this could be possible.

They had the advantage of a clear “blue-sky” day with the sun at their backs while utilising pair of binoculars through which the object “resolved” in detail.

Heat haze, reflective surface and unknown quality of optics. You have not shown that they saw any significant detail yet. That claim is very close to circular reasoning.

A Goodyear advertising blimp is very distinctive. It is very noisy for a start (it has engines),

First of all, GoodYear is only one possibility. Second:

The object, according to witnesses was around 5000 feet up and at least 1 mile away. Calculating the linear distance to the object we get approximately 7000 feet. Using this we can calculate how much the sound level is dampened byt the distance alone. Granted, the situation is a little more complex than the ideal conditions but it gives an idea about how much could be heard.

Plugging some numbers into http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm we get:
r1: 7000 (7000 feet away from sound source)
L1: 40 dB (sound level at observation point)
r2: 3 (3 feet away from sound source)
L2: 107 dB (sound level 3 feet from source)

Play with the numbers and look at this chart for real life examples of the sound level at the observation point: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureLevels.htm

Then tell me again that a blimp engine should have been clearly heard.

If it is NOT a mundane object, then the chance that it IS a mundane object IS ZERO. Besides, you have yet to come up with ANY plausible mundane object that the Rogue River (and other cases) UFO could have been.

Your premise is "The UFO cases I am presenting have NO mundane explanation". It is not "The UFO cases I am presenting have NO PLAUSIBLE mundane explanation". There is a difference even you should be able to spot. Since you claim NO mundane explanation you are the one who has to enumerate ALL mundane explanations and show that none of them is possible. Burden of proof.

…and it sounds like you are back to believing in UFMOs (Unidentified Flying Mundane Objects) rather than UFOs - meaning of course, contrary to protestations and ridicule and mock outrage, you do NOT believe UFOs exist! You are in effect stating that for EVERY “UFO” there is a non-zero probability that it will have a mundane explanation – even if we do not know what that is – and that DOES mean do NOT believe UFOs exist – only UFMOs.

I have been quite clear about this. To me it means unidentified. Could be mundane, could be aliens. Ok? Get it now? We simply don't know.

because patently it is possible for us to imagine “not mundane” solutions (for example and such as) ETI to exist and if they exist it IS possible for them to be here and you cannot prove they are not.

It's not PLAUSIBLE for them to be here. If you can do that, so can I.

And thus while the logical structure IS sound your conclusion can never be shown to be true and thus is not useful for our purposes.

Just like your own P2.

However, when we consider my formulation:

P1: If something is not mundane (of this world) then by definition it is “alien”.
P2: The UFO cases I am presenting have NO mundane explanation,
C: Therefore UFOs are "alien".

It CAN be demonstrated that there are no mundane explanations

First of all, NO, that can't be demonstrated. Second of all, this is not what you're arguing. You are really arguing (outside of the logic statements) that no plausible explanation is possible. Plausible is a totally subjective concept and worthless. It's an argument from incredulity. Either argue from your own premises or change them.

There was no mistake in my logic. It was perfectly logically sound (as was your reformulation!). There are NO “probability” statements in either formulation. Either the conditions in P2 are fulfilled, making the conclusion true, or the are not fulfilled, making the conclusion false (in either formulation).

And yet your argumentation mentions such words as plausible, possible, probable, etc. I don't find those in the statements. Either reformulate or argue from the premises that you have set up.

Let me ask you a question. What is a lie evidence of?
<snip>

It is evidence that the liar has dubious moral character. It sure is not evidence of aliens so stop putting my comment in a new context. I.e. moving the goal posts. You're really not very good at holding and presenting a coherent train of thoughts.

Actually I am NOT “trying to prove” aliens,

Need I remind you of your first post in this thread? You claim to present evidence for aliens (note plural) and yet here you are trying to disprove evidence for the mundane.

..besides, again, your “non-zero” probability is indeterminate. Is it 1 in a million – a billion – a trillion? What ARE these “non-zero” probabilities for a mundane solution? How DO you determine them in any particular case.

I'm waiting for you to answer that. After all, you are the one making the claim.

Of course you cannot! That is why I insert the term plausible as a caveat on explanations. Clearly any explanation with such odds against it being correct is not a plausible explanation for UFOs. If you contend the odds are less – then show me HOW you determined those odds.

Don't shift the burden of proof. It's your claim.

 

[Jocce]

Okay – lets quickly run through the list and perhaps you can give me the “perfectly” mundane explanations for each of the following cases.

No, it is your claim that there are NO mundane explanations. Then it's up to you to present the evidence.

The UFO debunkers have protested long and loud that there DO exist mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting. Well, the above is a representative list of those cases – so please, once and for all – instead of merely continuing to make the unfounded assertion – provide the mundane explanations for those cases.

1. Noone is trying to debunk UFO's, that'd be silly
2. You are making a claim, you back it up. That's how it works.

To remind you in case you forgot what you have claimed:

Claim 1: You have evidence of aliens
Claim 2: No mundane explanations exist

NOTE: Remember, for your explanations to be taken seriously they must be plausible explanations. That is, they MUST fit the evidence. If they do NOT fit the evidence, I expect you to outline HOW and WHY you deem the evidence should not be applicable to your explanation.

And I repeat. You have to back up your own claims and not expect me or anyone else to do it. Show how NO mundane explanations could fit the evidence in either of these cases. When you're done with that, move on to prove that aliens have the technology necessary to perform as described.

The UFO debunkers propose that UFOs represent things that exist within our current paradigm concerning “reality” – but critically they cannot “explain” how that can be so. I AM willing to accept that if there ARE plausible mundane solutions to the UFO cases I have been presenting (above) then I could be mistaken in my opinions in all of the above – but if there ARE no plausible mundane solutions, then we MUST consider alternate hypotheses.

The UFO debunkers propose that UFOs could represent things that exist within our current paradigm concerning “reality”. You clim that it can't so you back it up by ruling out all mundane explanations. Good luck.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...so please, once and for all – instead of merely continuing to make the unfounded assertion – provide the mundane explanations for those cases.

No. Your claim, your thread, you provide evidence that it is impossible for any of them to be mundane. You must explain away every mundane solution including witnesses lying, mistaken identity, and hoaxing.

Remember my last post (which you haven't addressed) where I explained how one of your methods is to attempt to switch the burden of proof?

I suggest you start with #1.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Okay – lets quickly run through the list and perhaps you can give me the “perfectly” mundane explanations for each of the following cases.

[list snipped]

The UFO debunkers have protested long and loud that there DO exist mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting. Well, the above is a representative list of those cases – so please, once and for all – instead of merely continuing to make the unfounded assertion – provide the mundane explanations for those cases.

NOTE: Remember, for your explanations to be taken seriously they must be plausible explanations. That is, they MUST fit the evidence. If they do NOT fit the evidence, I expect you to outline HOW and WHY you deem the evidence should not be applicable to your explanation.

You can take the cases one at a time if you wish (in fact I recommend you start with number 1.)

Let's start with number 2: blimp.

 

[Rramjet]

They saw an object with what they agreed was, from their point of view, an oval profile, and which they interpreted as a disc seen at an oblique angle. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that. They did not "see a circular object". They interpreted a circular object.

Okay then, to be more precise they perceived a circular object. However, the object turned on its axis, so the witnesses would have been able to observe a change in dimension if it had been anything other than a circular object – and they clearly described the object a circular (like a coin or pancake).

For example (Mr B) “…the object made a turn on its vertical axis with no tilting or banking and started to move in a southeasterly direction.”

“Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

The ability to discern all of the above details depend on how far away from the blimp you happen to be. Far enough and it just becomes a silvery blob, gliding quietly across the sky.

The object was observed through binoculars, through which the object “resolved” in detail.

From SR14 case report: “However, when the witness looked at it with 8-power binoculars, there was no glare. [Did glasses have filter?] It was of metallic construction and was seen with good enough resolution to show the skin was dirty.”

I stated:
“ Under such good viewing conditions as were apparent on the day, for five witnesses to mistake such an object as the Goodyear blimp for a silent, circular object, moving at the speed of a jet plane and perhaps 1/3 (or less) of a blimp’s size IS “farfetched”!

Your opinion is noted. Again.
I do not share it. References to the dependability of witness accounts keeps reminding me of the remarkably talented Campeche oilwell fires...

And…

Oilwell fires. They can do all that stuff. Seriously - it was probably a blimp. That is a perfectly plausible explanation which only you reject as it does not fit with every single detail claimed by the eyewitnesses - which takes us straight back to oilwell fires.

First perhaps you should actually acquaint yourself with the Campeche case details… (http://brumac.8k.com/MexicanDOD5mar04/) and my summary analysis of the case here:

(…)

I would very much like to hear your assessment of the Campeche case in light of your own analysis. What’s that, you have NOT conducted any analysis of the case? Hmmm… perhaps you should do so before commenting again?

Second, the “blimp” explanation in NO WAY “fits” the evidence in the Rogue River case.

The sighted object was circular, relatively small, silent and moved at the speed of a jet plane.

A blimp is cigar shaped, relatively large, has four fins, noisy engines, a passenger gondola, a large colourful advertising logo emblazoned on both sides and most certainly does NOT move at the speed of a jet plane.

How DO you reconcile the evident differences?

Your logic lets you down.

My logic is sound. You have provided no evidence that it is otherwise.

A non-zero probability of mundane explanation in every case would not preclude a non-mundane explanation in any case.

Exactly. However the question I asked was how you determine the size of that “non-zero” probability or even IF it exists at ALL? IF there ARE no mundane explanations, then the probability of a mundane explanation is precisely zero!

That's utterly wrong, you can't truly believe that. Evidence can be wrong, look at hoaxed evidence for UFO's. I'm getting the idea that we should use all evidence since it's the "interpretation" of said evidence that is wrong.

It is quite simple really – if the evidence is “wrong” - then it would no longer BE evidence! Either something IS evidence… or it is NOT evidence. Evidence cannot be “wrong”!

No, no one here has that hypothesis, the real one is MOST sights can be chalked up to the mundane(what ever that is). Also I thought you were here to prove alien

There will always be a greater than zero chance that UFO debunkers believe in UFMO’s rather than UFOs. Therefore it is possible that ALL UFO debunkers believe in UFMOs.

If I have NOT presented evidence for aliens then perhaps you might like to explain the “beings” in the following cases I have presented: Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora, Travis Walton, Hopkinsville… and then there are cases such as those listed here (for example): (http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/index.shtml)

Your assuming again, that the ufo's are piloted by foreign entities(eg aliens). So if you have evidence of UFO's being piloted by foreign entities(eg aliens) where is it? What is it? ETC

I make NO such assumption. UFO debunkers make that assumption, NOT I. I merely note that “beings” have been seen in conjunction with UFOs (in the cases I have presented: Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora, Travis Walton, Hopkinsville…) and then there are cases such as those listed here (for example): (http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/index.shtml) and of course the UFO debunkers simply REFUSE to (or cannot) “explain” those beings!

No, they draw an outline that is clearly oval. They interpreted what they saw as being circular, flat and seen from an angle. You have still not refuted that this could be possible.

It is quite simple really. The witnesses perceived a circular object and they drew a circular object. They had the advantage of a clear “blue-sky” day with the sun at their backs while utilising pair of binoculars through which the object “resolved” in detail. They were able to observe the silently manoeuvring object for perhaps two minutes.

A Goodyear advertising blimp is very distinctive. It is very noisy for a start (it has two very noisy engines), it has four fins, it has a passenger gondola and it also has large colourful advertising logos emblazoned over both sides. It is also much larger than the sighted object and has a distinctive “cigar” shape.

Under such good viewing conditions as were apparent on the day, for five witnesses to mistake such an object as the Goodyear blimp for a silent, circular object, moving at the speed of a jet plane and perhaps 1/3 (or less) of a blimp’s size IS “farfetched”!

Heat haze, reflective surface and unknown quality of optics. You have not shown that they saw any significant detail yet. That claim is very close to circular reasoning.

Heat haze is a GROUND EFFECT and is NOT manifest over water! A blimp has a semi-specular surface and does NOT “glint” and the “optics” were good enough so that when utilised the object “resolved” in detail – so much so that parts of the object’s surface could be seen to be “dirty”! The drawings prove that they saw “detail” – such as a “fin” on the upper surface of the object and even a “patch” on the surface of that “fin”!

First of all, GoodYear is only one possibility.

Only “one” possibility? Since it has been conclusively determined that there were NO USN/USNR blimps on the west coast in 1949, then what ARE you talking about? Oh of course “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”!

Second: The object, according to witnesses was around 5000 feet up and at least 1 mile away. Calculating the linear distance to the object we get approximately 7000 feet. Using this we can calculate how much the sound level is dampened byt the distance alone. Granted, the situation is a little more complex than the ideal conditions but it gives an idea about how much could be heard.

Plugging some numbers into http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm we get:
<snip>

Even if I accept these calculations, engine noise is STILL apparent!

Your premise is "The UFO cases I am presenting have NO mundane explanation". It is not "The UFO cases I am presenting have NO PLAUSIBLE mundane explanation". There is a difference even you should be able to spot. Since you claim NO mundane explanation you are the one who has to enumerate ALL mundane explanations and show that none of them is possible. Burden of proof.

Sure, but I HAVE …”enumerated” … all possible mundane explanations and they have been ruled out. A bird? Obviously not. A plane? No wings, no engine noise, circular. Astronomical? Obviously not. A balloon? Circular (like a coin/pancake), jet plane speed. A blimp? Circular, silent, advertising logos. Radar kite? Circular, jet plane speed. So what else IS there?

I have been quite clear about this. To me it means unidentified. Could be mundane, could be aliens. Ok? Get it now? We simply don't know.

IF you truly contend it is “Unknown”, why then WHY for EVERY case do you try and “force fit” a mundane explanation – even when the evidence does NOT support that explanation?

It's not PLAUSIBLE for them to be here. If you can do that, so can I.

Why is it not plausible for “them” to be here?

Just like your own P2.

I have just demonstrated there are no possible mundane explanations for Rogue River. Can you similarly demonstrate there are no “alien” explanations? Of course you cannot.

First of all, NO, that can't be demonstrated. Second of all, this is not what you're arguing. You are really arguing (outside of the logic statements) that no plausible explanation is possible. Plausible is a totally subjective concept and worthless. It's an argument from incredulity. Either argue from your own premises or change them.

First of all, I just DID demonstrate it. Second, I cannot believe that you consider that (for example) the properties of credibility, believability, truthfulness, veracity, etc… cannot help us in determining between competing explanatory hypotheses. I HAVE “argued” from my own premises!

And yet your argumentation mentions such words as plausible, possible, probable, etc. I don't find those in the statements. Either reformulate or argue from the premises that you have set up.

Oooo… I think you will find that “possible” and “probable” are YOUR methods of making an explanation “fit” when it is not supported by the evidence. I DO contend an explanation needs to be a plausible[ explanation – and that is a quite reasonable requirement - but it is YOU who contend that it merely has to be “possible” and that there is a “non zero probability” that “mundane” is the explanation!

It is evidence that the liar has dubious moral character.

Yes, exactly. And therefore it is not “wrong”! Evidence cannot BE “wrong”. If it can be considered “wrong” at all, then it is NO LONGER EVIDENCE!

It sure is not evidence of aliens so stop putting my comment in a new context. I.e. moving the goal posts.

I have NEVER contended that a “lie” is evidence for ‘aliens” – it is YOU who put it into that context! And here is a prime example of the UFO debunker “trick” of accusing their opponent of the very sins they are themselves guilty of even while they indulge in that sin!

Don't shift the burden of proof. It's your claim.

And here we go again! YOU claimed (in your OWN words!) “There will always be a greater than zero chance that it is an unidentified mundane object.” All I did was (reasonably) ask how you determine (quantify) that probability. Of course your answer to that question speaks volumes about your inability to DO so – especially in the face of my being able to rule out ALL “possible” mundane explanations!

In other words it was YOUR claim and YOU are shifting the burden of proof!!

I stated:
“Okay – lets quickly run through the list and perhaps you can give me the “perfectly” mundane explanations for each of the following cases.”

No, it is your claim that there are NO mundane explanations. Then it's up to you to present the evidence.

Again it is now YOU who support the claim by Access Denied that: “All of these cases appear to have perfectly mundane explanations to me.”

I HAVE ruled out all possible mundane explanations. However, IF YOU can supply a mundane explanation that I have NOT ruled out, then go ahead and do so… but of course you cannot, and that is why you attempt to shift the burden of proof!

1. Noone is trying to debunk UFO's, that'd be silly
2. You are making a claim, you back it up. That's how it works.

1. If you are NOT “debunking” UFOs, then what ARE you doing?
2. My hypothesis is that ALL UFOs have a mundane explanation. In order to falsify that hypothesis I have presented cases where it is not possible to come up with ANY mundane explanation. However, if, for the cases I have presented, you CAN come up with a mundane explanation that fits the evidence, please go ahead.

It is that simple really. In the cases I have presented there exist no mundane explanations that fit the evidence. No bird (mundane animal), no plane (mundane technology), no astronomical object (star, planet, meteor, etc), no illusion (inc. atmospheric anomalies, etc), no lie, misperception, hoax or delusion, fits the evidence. If, on the evidence the “object” is NONE of these things, then we are left with UFO. THEN we have to account for the descriptive characteristics of the UFO and the fact that in some cases we have the involvement of “beings”!

To remind you in case you forgot what you have claimed:

Claim 1: You have evidence of aliens
Claim 2: No mundane explanations exist

Claim 1: IF UFOs cannot be explained in terms of the “mundane”, then by definition they are “alien”. THEN if we note the involvement of “beings” in conjunction with UFOs, THEN those “beings” are “aliens”.
Claim2: I have demonstrated that there ARE no mundane explanations (that fit the evidence).

And I repeat. You have to back up your own claims and not expect me or anyone else to do it. Show how NO mundane explanations could fit the evidence in either of these cases. When you're done with that, move on to prove that aliens have the technology necessary to perform as described.

I HAVE shown there ARE NO mundane explanations. That is: No bird (mundane animal), no plane (mundane technology), no astronomical object (star, planet, meteor, etc), no illusion (including atmospheric anomalies, etc), no lie, misperception, hoax or delusion, fits the evidence. If, on the evidence the “object” is NONE of these things, then we are left with UFO. THEN we have to account for the descriptive characteristics of the UFO and the fact that in some cases we have the involvement of “beings”!

You are making the assumption that “alien technology” IS involved. I do NOT make that assumption.

The UFO debunkers propose that UFOs could represent things that exist within our current paradigm concerning “reality”. You clim that it can't so you back it up by ruling out all mundane explanations. Good luck.

(see my answer above)

No. Your claim, your thread, you provide evidence that it is impossible for any of them to be mundane. You must explain away every mundane solution including witnesses lying, mistaken identity, and hoaxing.

(see my answer above)

Remember my last post (which you haven't addressed) where I explained how one of your methods is to attempt to switch the burden of proof?

Oh, so you ignore my posts when it suits you (what happened to Campeche RoboTimbo? LOL) yet claim I ignore yours? Patently I do reply to your posts!! So it is YOU who is “shifting” things around, not me!

Given that the evidence rules out all mundane explanations in the cases I have been presenting, and that YOUR claim is that there ARE mundane explanations, then it is up to YOU to make those explanations known to the rest of us. If you CANNOT do so, then you must DROP your claim that the UFOs in the cases I have been presenting HAVE a mundane explanation.

Let's start with number 2: blimp.

The object sighted was circular, small, silent and moved at the speed of a jet plane.

A blimp is cigar shaped, large, noisy, does not move at the speed of a jet plane and has other characteristics the sighted object did not have – four fins, engines, a passenger gondola and large colourful advertising logos emblazoned on both sides for a start.

It is quite evident that “blimp” is NOT the explanation because it simply does NOT fit the evidence. The only way to maintain “blimp” as the explanation is to ignore the evidence – and since that is what you DO, then the truism as applied to UFO debunkers “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” is once AGAIN proved.

 

[Access Denied]

First, allow me to refine my previous statement to better match Rramjet’s conjecture…

All of these cases appear to have perfectly plausible mundane explanations to me.

[note the addition of the adjective “plausible” in italics]

Now, back to the issue at hand…

Okay – lets quickly run through the list and perhaps you can give me the “perfectly” mundane explanations for each of the following cases.

Sure, I’d be happy to summarize my opinion of each of those cases for you in case you missed it, but only under the condition that you first…

a) acknowledge the fact that I’m under no obligation (nor is anybody else for that matter) to “perfectly” explain any of these case to yours or anybody else’s satisfaction in order to successfully refute your claim that they’re evidence of “aliens”

b) sufficiently demonstrate to me that you can answer the following questions with something approaching intellectual honesty…

The UFO debunkers have protested long and loud that there DO exist mundane explanations for the cases I have been presenting. Well, the above is a representative list of those cases – so please, once and for all – instead of merely continuing to make the unfounded assertion – provide the mundane explanations for those cases.

Are you claiming that I (or anybody else for that matter) have not already presented what I (or anybody else) consider to be plausible mundane explanations for those cases?

If not, are you claiming you haven’t been reading, or are unable to retain, the counterarguments that have been presented to you in this, your own thread?

NOTE: Remember, for your explanations to be taken seriously they must be plausible explanations. That is, they MUST fit the evidence. If they do NOT fit the evidence, I expect you to outline HOW and WHY you deem the evidence should not be applicable to your explanation.

Are you claiming that in order for any proposed explanations to be taken seriously (by who?) that we must consider the only evidence we have, anecdotal, to be 100% accurate and unquestionably reliable?

If so, on what empirical evidence do you base your a priori belief in the infallibility of human perception in particular on?

Also, since I assume we’re trying to be scientific here, are you claiming that your opinion of what’s plausible is the only one that matters?

And finally, please answer these questions you completely ignored in my last post…

Please explain how you rationalize the fact that you (or anybody else for that matter) have been unable to present one single shred of objective evidence for “aliens”?

Where’s the multiple, independently obtained, and unambiguous photographs or video of an unidentified flying object?

Where’s the artificial material of extraterrestrial origin?

Where’s the biological material of extraterrestrial origin?

Fair enough?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, again you've ignored this. Months ago you said that you made a mistake when you said there could be no mundane explanations. Is this your typical bait and switch?

You didn't answer this, Rramjet. You made a positive assertion that it could NOT have been anything mundane. Please provide proof for your extraordinary claim.

I did make that contention didn't I... well I guess that was a mistake...

And the typical UFO creduloid tactic of accusing your opponent of doing the exact same thing you do:

Oh, so you ignore my posts when it suits you (what happened to Campeche RoboTimbo? LOL) yet claim I ignore yours? Patently I do reply to your posts!! So it is YOU who is “shifting” things around, not me!

Here is the answer I had already given you:

Not at all. I'd simply given up on you answering honestly. You've ignored the witness testimony since you already know the end.

So, how tall were the Kelly, Kentucky aliens?

You will note that I did answer about your dishonesty about Campeche. I hope that clears up your confusion.

You will also note that you failed to answer how tall the aliens were at Kelly, Kentucky.

I have just demonstrated there are no possible mundane explanations for Rogue River.

And I've just demonstrated using your own post that you've admitted that you can't rule out all mundane explanations. Here it is again:

I did make that contention didn't I... well I guess that was a mistake...

So what is the explanation for Campeche then? Oil well fires can't surround a military plane. Oil well fires aren't invisible to the naked eye. One of the objects was estimated to be as tall as a 15 story building! This is one of Gary Heseltine's Top Ten UFO cases. One of the objects can be seen to split in two! Oil well fires can't do that. What star system do you believe they come from?

I think you're beginning to see how Campeche relates here and just don't want to admit it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

“Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” is once AGAIN proved.

Indeed.

For example, Rramjet says (7 times!) that the Rogue River UFO could not have been a blimp because the UFO was silent. As several people have patiently explained, however, a blimp is fairly quiet; for example, you will often see a blimp at major golf tournaments, flying directly overhead while the putting golfer's caddy raises his hands to call for absolute silence. A blimp would not have been heard at the distance from which the Rogue River UFO was observed.

Furthermore, the Rogue River itself is far from silent. (I've been there.) Its waterfalls and whitewater rapids echo down the canyon, and even its quiet stretches are filled with the sound of water rippling rapidly over rocks in the shallows and near shore. A distant blimp could not have been heard.

And so on for Rramjet's other objections. The Rogue River UFO was probably a blimp, but Rramjet can't even admit the possibility of a blimp.

As Access Denied has explained, Rramjet bears the burden of proof because his argument, if we can call it that, runs roughly as follows:

1. The UFO incidents listed by Rramjet have no mundane explanation.
2. Therefore aliens beyond what we call nature.

Goddesses, for example.

Even if the second part were to follow from the first, which it does not, Rramjet has not even come close to establishing the first part of his argument. Although no one can say for certain that the Rogue River UFO was a blimp, that mundane explanation fits the evidence, and Rramjet denies that fact only because he ignores the evidence.

His mind is made up.

 

[Rramjet]

Indeed.

For example, Rramjet says (7 times!) that the Rogue River UFO could not have been a blimp because the UFO was silent. As several people have patiently explained, however, a blimp is fairly quiet; for example, you will often see a blimp at major golf tournaments, flying directly overhead while the putting golfer's caddy raises his hands to call for absolute silence. A blimp would not have been heard at the distance from which the Rogue River UFO was observed.

The Goodyear blimp of the time was powerd by:
“Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-2 radials,, 425 hp (317 kW) each” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_class_blimp)

Do you realise how NOISY those things were? Quite different to “modern day" blimps!

Furthermore, the Rogue River itself is far from silent. (I've been there.) Its waterfalls and whitewater rapids echo down the canyon, and even its quiet stretches are filled with the sound of water rippling rapidly over rocks in the shallows and near shore. A distant blimp could not have been heard.

The stretch of river where the witnesses were located was a flat, wide, tidal section of river (about 1.5 miles from the mouth – check it out on Google Earth). The is NO “canyon”, NO whitewater rapids”, NO “echo”, NO “water rippling rapidly”. Besides, it has already been SHOWN that the engines would have been heard.

Plugging some numbers into http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm...

And so on for Rramjet's other objections. The Rogue River UFO was probably a blimp, but Rramjet can't even admit the possibility of a blimp.

But you have not demonstrated HOW “blimp’ accounts for the evidence in the case. That is: The object sighted was circular, small, silent and moved at the speed of a jet plane. A blimp is cigar shaped, large, noisy, does not move at the speed of a jet plane and has other characteristics the sighted object did not have – four fins, engines, a passenger gondola and large colourful advertising logos emblazoned on both sides for a start.

As Access Denied has explained, Rramjet bears the burden of proof because his argument, if we can call it that, runs roughly as follows:
1. The UFO incidents listed by Rramjet have no mundane explanation.
2. Therefore aliens beyond what we call nature.
Goddesses, for example.

IF you want to argue that “Goddess” IS the explanation for UFOs go right ahead. It is not an explanation that I support. However, feel free to make your case.

Even if the second part were to follow from the first, which it does not, Rramjet has not even come close to establishing the first part of his argument. Although no one can say for certain that the Rogue River UFO was a blimp, that mundane explanation fits the evidence, and Rramjet denies that fact only because he ignores the evidence.

Perhaps you can explain to us HOW it “fits the evidence” when patently the blimp explanation does NOT fit! Your merely making the unfounded assertion that it does fit, does NOT make that unfounded assertion true. You MUST supply evidence and explanation as to HOW it “fits” - accounting for the evidence.

His mind is made up.

My mind IS currently made up that “blimp” does NOT fit the evidence. However, that does not mean it is permanently in that state. IF you can SHOW me HOW “blimp” DOES fit the evidence, while accounting for the evidence, then I will certainly consider it with an open mind.

 

[Jocce]

My mind IS currently made up that “blimp” does NOT fit the evidence. However, that does not mean it is permanently in that state. IF you can SHOW me HOW “blimp” DOES fit the evidence, while accounting for the evidence, then I will certainly consider it with an open mind.

This has been done for hundreds of pages. You just choose to not listen to anything anyone says if it doesn't conform to your made up mind. Engine noise, heat haze problems, instable observation platform etc.

 

[Jocce]

Do you realise how NOISY those things were? Quite different to “modern day" blimps!

No, please do tell me. How many dB closeup? When you give a figure on that, it's trivial to estimate how loud the noise would be >1 mile from it. Are you gonna keep on making unsupported claims or come up with some calculations to back it up?

The stretch of river where the witnesses were located was a flat, wide, tidal section of river (about 1.5 miles from the mouth – check it out on Google Earth). The is NO “canyon”, NO whitewater rapids”, NO “echo”, NO “water rippling rapidly”.

You haven't been out much in the countryside huh? Wind makes noise, slow moving water makes noise against a boat hull. Seagulls are noisy. People moving around and talking are noisy. There are so many sounds that easily could drain a 30-40dB far away sound.

Besides, it has already been SHOWN that the engines would have been heard.

No, I showed you that it is unlikely that they could be heard. Pay attention please or come up with some counter argument. Backed up by calculations.

 

[Jocce]

Regarding Rramjets claim that the object resolved into detail.

This is patently untrue and has no support in the witness statements. The single detail that any of the witnesses reported seeing is the fin. That is all.

However, Rramjet gets his fantasy from these witness statements and several similar:

There were no openings visible

There appeared to be no engines or motors, no landing gear, no other protruding parts other than the fin

As far as could be seen, it had no openings or protuberances of any kind other than the fin

The fact is that the two persons who actually used binoculars just say that they could not see any other detail than a fin.

There is also no mention of the object "resolving into detail", The only mention of anything that resolves is this:

the object resolved into a pancake-like shape

So Rramjet. Any claims you would like to retract so far regarding this?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The Goodyear blimp of the time was powerd by
... 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-2 radials... Do you realise how NOISY those things were? Quite different to “modern day" blimps!

OK, I'm fascinated to know: exactly how noisy were they, in this configuration? How much noisier than modern day blimps? What figures are you basing this point on?

... it has already been SHOWN that the engines would have been heard.

Where please? Since this thread is now so unweildy that it's near impossible to search, I hope you won't mind my asking you to point out the calculation showing that a blimp's engines would necessarily have been heard.

But you have not demonstrated HOW “blimp’ accounts for the evidence in the case. That is: The object sighted was circular, small, silent and moved at the speed of a jet plane. A blimp is cigar shaped, large, noisy, does not move at the speed of a jet plane and has other characteristics the sighted object did not have – four fins, engines, a passenger gondola and large colourful advertising logos emblazoned on both sides for a start.

Shape: Not circular - the object presented an oval profile (as I rather thought you agreed just a few posts ago). They may plausibly have misinterpreted what they saw as circular when it was actually blimp-shaped.
Size: "Small" is of course relative, and depends upon their correctly estimating distance. They may plausibly have been wrong about how far away it was. It could have been a blimp.
Sound: Once again, whether they'd have heard engines depends on their correctly estimating how far away the object was, and once again they could have misjudged it.
Speed: A blimp cannot move nearly as fast as a jet plane, but without any timings having been noted, it's impossible to know how accurate the witnesses impression is of how fast the object moved across the sky. I think it's entirely plausible that the object seemed to the witnesses to move impressively quickly but their "jet plane" analogy was a serious overestimate.
Details: Once again, the resolution of the details depends on how far away the object really was.

Of course, every word of this has been chewed over again and again. Is there anything new left to say on this matter?

 

[carlitos]

re: Rogue River

It's a small point, but in the 1940's, how many people would be able to accurately estimate the "speed of a jet plane" across the sky? Jets just barely made into service in WWII towards the end. Again, very recently, I saw the "speed of a jet plane" landing at O'Hare and by my perception it was standing still in the sky. This claim of speed sounds extremely subjective to me.

And the drawings look just like a blimp.