UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[W.D.Clinger]

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

False, and quoting Jocce in support of that false statement was downright disingenuous at best. As Jocce has already responded, his calculations have shown the engines would not have been heard.

Once again, you have twisted evidence to fit your preconceived beliefs.

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.

I do not wish to argue that goddesses are the explanation for UFOs in a literal sense, although your posts in this thread have provided a wealth of evidence that the goddesses Hope and Ossa (goddess of rumor) account for much of the UFO literature.

On the other hand, you have stated that your goal is to convince us of the existence of aliens from beyond nature. You are no longer trying to prove the existence of extra-terrestrial aliens.

Goddesses show how easy it would be to make your case without mentioning UFOs at all. A majority of my countrymen already believe in gods and/or goddesses independently of UFOs, and belief in gods/goddesses has been common throughout recorded history. Of all the aliens beyond what we call nature, gods and goddesses are the best attested and documented. If, as you claim, your real goal is to convince people of aliens beyond what we call nature, then your obsession with UFOs is working against you, not for you. It would be easier for you to convince people of gods and goddesses.

It may be that despite your belief in a connection between UFOs and aliens, you do not believe in goddesses. After all, you're having a hard enough time believing in blimps.

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.

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.

Your responses to evidence presented by many posters, most recently by Jocce, do not reveal evidence of an open mind.

We shall see. What's more, we have seen.

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh... My... What makes more noise- blimps from the late 40's or modern jet liners?

When I am take a walk by the sea side, its not uncommon for me to watch jet airplanes taking off or landing from 5 kilometers away and hear no sound. More than once I stood near a runway's end and heard no sound of an airliner landing 1.5km from me.

Now, here's the options according to Rramjet's "logic" (remember, Rogue River UFO must have been silent because the eyewitnesses said so):
- Blimps from the late 40's made more noise than modern jet liners
- Windspeed was above Mach 1.
- I am deaf or with a poor hearing
- I am not telling the truth

Rramjet will not look at the above example and then take in to account wave attenuation with distance from the source and the influence of ambient noise - facts which are very basic but inconvenient to his "Rogue River was a sighting of aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means)" belief. These facts provide simple, mundane, plausible explanations for the perceived lack of noise from the craft. Rramjet, however, tries to back the claim the object had a silent propulsion - an "unearthly" property - by building a fallacious construct with sloppy logic which involves denial of basic facts, poor understanding (if not intentional twist and/or misrepresentation) of acoustics as well as other errors.

Typical UFOlogy pseudoscientific methodology. Its not the way a person with real bona fide scientific formation would behave, even if his/hers science is rusty.

 

[Garrette]

Oh... My... What makes more noise- blimps from the late 40's or modern jet liners?

When I am take a walk by the sea side, its not uncommon for me to watch jet airplanes taking off or landing from 5 kilometers away and hear no sound. More than once I stood near a runway's end and heard no sound of an airliner landing 1.5km from me.

Now, here's the options according to Rramjet's "logic" (remember, Rogue River UFO must have been silent because the eyewitnesses said so):
- Blimps from the late 40's made more noise than modern jet liners
- Windspeed was above Mach 1.
- I am deaf or with a poor hearing
- I am not telling the truth

Rramjet will not look at the above example and then take in to account wave attenuation with distance from the source and the influence of ambient noise - facts which are very basic but inconvenient to his "Rogue River was a sighting of aliens from beyond the borders of what we call nature (whatever that means)" belief. These facts provide simple, mundane, plausible explanations for the perceived lack of noise from the craft. Rramjet, however, tries to back the claim the object had a silent propulsion - an "unearthly" property - by building a fallacious construct with sloppy logic which involves denial of basic facts, poor understanding (if not intentional twist and/or misrepresentation) of acoustics as well as other errors.

Typical UFOlogy pseudoscientific methodology. Its not the way a person with real bona fide scientific formation would behave, even if his/hers science is rusty.

Option 5, and most likely: What you have been seeing is the alien fleet of squid-piloted blimps.

 

[Wolrab]

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.

I could not agree more. I almost posted something similar about how common were jets in the late 1940's.

 

[Rramjet]

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]

That’s fine and a much more acceptable reformulation - as long as you can outline those explanations and how they relate to the evidence in the case. That is where they accord with the evidence and where they do not accord with the evidence and why in each case we should either accept or reject the evidence.

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”

I think you will find that YOUR contention (initial starting position) DOES contain the word “perfectly”, so unless you want to remove that term from your initial position, then you DO have such an obligation.

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

In my opinion you have been living in “debunker world” for too long and have consequently become suspicious of motivations and (perhaps wisely) aware of deliberate misrepresentation. I contend that I have ALWAYS attempted to answer all points put to me with as much intellectual honesty as I can. However, I DO give you that undertaking as long as you can do so as well.

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?

Yes, that is what I am claiming.

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?

I have pointed out many times that in some cases we have MORE that “anecdotal” evidence. Radar, visual, film, photographic and physical trace evidence exists (and in some cases the conjunction of such evidence types is apparent).

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

I have pointed out MANY times that human perception IS fallible (!) and that we have much scientific research that can inform us as to the how and why of that fallibility and that we must then utilise the outcomes and conclusions of such research in our investigation of any case.

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?

No, of course I am not claiming that. I merely note that the properties inherent in the term “plausible” (such as credibility, truthfulness, validity, etc, …and probably “honesty” as well) are properties that we should aspire to when we are formulating arguments and proposing explanations. There are no hard and fast rules. Just as you want “intellectual honesty” as an aspirational property of our “debate in summary”, the properties inherent in the term “plausible” should also be foremost considerations.

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”?

Forgive me if I am wrong, I do NOT mean to be condescending, but actually I think you MEAN empirical rather than “objective”.
Objective: “undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
Empirical: “derived from experiment and observation rather than theory”

That is I don’t think that Father Gill was being anything less than objective when he made his observations of “beings” on the UFO he described. At least his tone is very matter of fact in his written and interview accounts of the sighting – and I do think that applies to most cases I have presented.

I think you do mean evidence that would be sufficient to “scientifically” convince us of “aliens” - “empirical” enough allow a paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal for example - Having the properties of “repeatability” and the accuracy to allow precise “quantification” for example.

I do believe that where radar is involved we can go some way toward realising that goal. Also there is one case where a conjunction of radar, visual and film evidence is apparent. There is also a physical trace evidence case. So it is not as if we are entirely bereft of such evidence.

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

Well, we DO have the film in the NZ case. That fulfils the criteria you ask for in this question.

Where’s the artificial material of extraterrestrial origin?

Again, there ARE such cases. I have not presented them, primarily because although I know about such cases, I have not yet had time to independently appraise them. Believe it or not, before I came to this forum, I was a “naïve” UFO proponent – relying almost entirely on personal experience to tell me that UFOs DO exist and that mundane explanations simply do NOT work – at least in my personal experience – but of course THAT experience is NOT going to “cut the mustard” with the skeptics, so I turned to a list of cases (in my OP) that seemed to have high “ratings” from various sources. I have since – as you may have noted, drastically “refined” that list of cases. I now have just 14 cases that I consider ‘solid” enough to argue confidently for. That list will no doubt continue to expand (for example, though I am yet to include it on “my list” – and probably will not because I am not “confident” enough in it to argue - the Campeche case, despite the “oil-well” fires, DOES seem to involve at least one UFO).

Where’s the biological material of extraterrestrial origin?

I have heard of a case. Perhaps you have too. “Hair of the alien”? (going purely on memory here – I have not even “Googled” it as I write this – but I HAVE heard that there IS something in this case… perhaps it is a case we can look into “together”?

Okay, I believe I have answered your questions in the spirit of open and honest debate. You may disagree and no doubt – in the spirit of “intellectual honesty” – you will tell me where and why you do disagree.

However, unless you have a better suggestion, let us debate the first case on my list:

1. Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

Fair enough?

 

[Rramjet]

The evidence against the "blimp" explanation

1. They witnesses described and drew a circular object. A blimp is a cigar shaped object. Yes, a circular object would have presented in aspect as slightly elliptical, but as the object was first noted approaching the witnesses and then turned to travel away from them - and the aspect did not alter - then the natural conclusion is that the object is circular. The aspect of a blimp, first heading toward the witnesses then turning away from them, would have changed substantially, and would have indicated a cigar shaped object. The conclusion we can draw from just this one piece of evidence is that the object could not have been a blimp.

(Mr B) “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.” and “…while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section.” (Mr C) “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.”

There has been some speculation that the drawings made by the witnesses look blimp shaped, but that speculation is, given the above, entirely unfounded. It is totally implausible that the witnesses observed what they concluded was a “circular” object then drew a “cigar” shape! The explanation is of course that the drawings are on a 2-dimensional surface, representing a 3-dimensional object – anyone with a basic understanding of 3-dimensional perspective and how it is represented on a 2-dimensional surface will be able to understand this.

2. The witnesses who were in the best position to judge (ie; those using binoculars) described an object that was much smaller than a blimp. [(Mr B) “…was about 30 feet in diameter…”, (Mr C) “Object appeared to be roughly 25 to 30 feet in diameter.” ] Yes, size perception in a clear blue sky is prone to error, but we can look at the conjunction of the estimated size, distance and speed* to make some rough estimates about whether the size and speed matches a blimp. That is: IF the object was actually larger than witness estimates, then it would have been further away than estimated and therefore the actual speed would have been greater than the estimated jet plane speed – and this rules out a blimp. Alternately, if the object was smaller, then that alone rules out a blimp. Now we have two bits of evidence indicating the object was not a blimp.

*(Mr B) “…accelerating to an approximate speed of a jet plane.”, (Mr C) “…it was travelling as fast or faster than a jet plane.”, (Mr D) “…travelled without sound at a speed greater than a high speed or jet plane.”[/I] and it is interesting to note what Mr D adds: “I have fished in the general area a number of years and have observed various', type planes flying in this area, but have never observed anything of this nature before.".

What about Mr B and Mr C, were they familiar enough with jet planes to make such a judgement? Well, they worked for the Ames Research Laboratory for a start! (From SR14) “An employee in the supersonic laboratory of an aeronautical laboratory and some other employees of this lab”. Mr C specifically was “… a mechanic who worked on a supersonic wind tunnel at Ames Laboratory.”.

Not only that, the laboratory was located at Moffett Field and was not too far from Oakland and both these bases were directly involved in USN/USNR blimps during the war and with the Goodyear blimps after the war. So not only would the witnesses have been completely familiar with the capabilities of jet aircraft, they would have been familiar with blimps as well!

3. The Goodyear blimp of the time was powered by:
“Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-2 radials, 425 hp (317 kW) each” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_class_blimp). The fact is that these engines are very loud, and the fact that these engines would have been heard by the witnesses can be noted by plugging in various numbers into the calculator to found at this website (http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm). The witnesses instead noted that the object was silent. Again, this evidence rules against the object being a blimp.

4. There is also the fact that the witnesses (using binoculars through which the object “resolved” in detail*) could see no passenger gondola, could see no engines, could see no fins and critically, could see no advertising logo, which was emblazoned on all the Goodyear blimps of the time.

* this is shown by statements such as:
(From SR14) “…was seen with good enough resolution to show the skin was dirty.”,

(from Mr B’s record of interview) “The object was then examined through a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars. … The object seemed to be solid with no visible openings and was about 30 feet in diameter, as nearly as could be judged. … There was no sign of exhaust or propeller; no driving force could be seen or felt, and no sound was heard. … 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.”,

(from Mr C’s record of interview) “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 executed no manoeuvres; no lights, no propellers, no landing gear, or any method of propulsion could be seen or heard. … The trailing edge of the object as it travelled appeared to be somewhat wrinkled and dirty looking.”,

(from Mr C’s testimony) “…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.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

5. What about environmental factors?
Location: “while fishing on the Rogue River near Elephant Rock, approximately 1 1/2 miles above the highway bridge near Gold Beach, Oregon,…” and “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." At that point the river is still tidal, wide, relatively shallow and flat.

Weather conditions: (Mr B) “. Sun was at our backs and there were no clouds.", (Mr C) “It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs…”, (Mrs D) “The day had been clear, visibility was good, and the sun was just setting.”, (Agent Brooks) “During his investigation, Agent Brooks compiled supplementary information from various sources: (a) the (low altitude) weather charts for the area indicated the coast was clear on the date of the sighting…”

We can note here that there were no adverse conditions in either the location or the weather that would have made viewing of the object difficult (for example heat haze is a ground effect and not apparent over water, so is not a factor - and the witnesses generally described a “clear” day so general atmospheric haze is also not a factor)

It is also notable that the witnesses were at one point “… engaged in looking upstream to see if they could spot any feeding fish on the surface.” If the river surface were disturbed to any degree that might have upset an anchored boat by wind or wave, then this task would have not been possible. We can therefore conclude that wind and wave were not present as factors in the sighting.

The role of binoculars has already been discussed (ie; the object “resolved” in detail when they were used) and there is nothing to indicate that the binoculars were not of sufficient standard to achieve the results as described.

6. The reliability of the witnesses:

“Agent Brooks also obtained statements from six other people who had known one or the other of the witnesses for periods of time ranging from several months to several years. These character references concluded with statements that they were (for example) "inclined to take seriously any statement Mr.___ might make"; "inclined to place considerable reliability in anything Mr.___ might have to say"; and so on, all indicating the general reliability and trustworthiness of the witnesses.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)​

Further, Agent Brooks stated: “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.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

“The Battelle and ATIC scientists and engineers who studied this report evidently considered this case to be unexplainable. That is, given the nature of the sighting (five witnesses, a pair of binoculars, a clear day and plenty of time to view the object) the scientists found it difficult to imagine how this sighting could have been a simple misidentification of some manmade (airplane, helicopter, balloon borne device) or natural (bird) object in the sky. They also did not think it was a hoax. Moreover, there were sufficient details in the descriptions of the object so that it could not be categorized as “Insufficient Information for identification”. Although the sighted object bears some resemblance to experimental semi-circular or circular aircraft that had been proposed in the 1940's, no such craft flying were ever “operational” and even if they were, they wouldn't have been flying in an area very far from the support of aircraft research facilities. Hence, the Battelle and ATIC personnel considered this sighting to be unexplainable.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)​

“When the two men decided to report the UFO, they did not turn to the newspapers or TV or radio to get the maximum publicity for their story. Instead, the two men, who worked in responsible positions within the Ames Research Laboratory, reported it to the security office at their own laboratory. … There is no indication … that they ever told anyone other than the OSI the details of their sighting.” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)​

It is easy to say things like “It is possible for a blimp to have been in the area and therefore a blimp cannot be ruled out as an explanation”, but of course as soon as one begins to examine the evidence one quickly realises the evidence simply does not match a "blimp as explanation” scenario. Quite simply, given the evidence, the “blimp” explanation just does not fit – that is it is implausible as an explanation for the sighting because it simply does not match the evidence we have in the case.

 

[Jocce]

Forgive me if I am wrong, I do NOT mean to be condescending, but actually I think you MEAN empirical rather than “objective”.
Objective: “undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
Empirical: “derived from experiment and observation rather than theory”

I am pretty sure that AD, as myself, means exactly objective. Unbiased by personal opinion.

That is I don’t think that Father Gill was being anything less than objective when he made his observations of “beings” on the UFO he described. At least his tone is very matter of fact in his written and interview accounts of the sighting – and I do think that applies to most cases I have presented.

Nonone, not you, not me, not Father Gill is completely objective. We all interpret events and can never be totally objective.

I think you do mean evidence that would be sufficient to “scientifically” convince us of “aliens” - “empirical” enough allow a paper to be published in a peer-reviewed journal for example - Having the properties of “repeatability” and the accuracy to allow precise “quantification” for example.

Again, objective evidence is what we're looking for. The same thing as in scientific research.

I do believe that where radar is involved we can go some way toward realising that goal. Also there is one case where a conjunction of radar, visual and film evidence is apparent.

You have no such case. A radar echo in the approximate direction, at the approximate time of a visual observation just isn't good enough.

I have heard of a case. Perhaps you have too. “Hair of the alien”? (going purely on memory here – I have not even “Googled” it as I write this – but I HAVE heard that there IS something in this case…

I have heard that there's a haunted mansion somewhere east of my place. That doesn't make it true.

1. Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

And then you end by bringing up a century old, non confirmed, newspaper article. Do tell, where's the objective, undeniable evidence here?

 

[Jocce]

1. They witnesses described and drew a circular object. A blimp is a cigar shaped object. Yes, a circular object would have presented in aspect as slightly elliptical, but as the object was first noted approaching the witnesses and then turned to travel away from them - and the aspect did not alter -

From the witness statements:

To the naked eye this object appeared circular and standing on edge

Comment: Just as a blimp seen head on.

As I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south

So the complete turn wasn't seen through binoculars.

Coin standing on edge that after turn has an oval outline. Sounds a lot like blimp to me.

There has been some speculation that the drawings made by the witnesses look blimp shaped,

The drawings look blimp shaped. There's no speculation here.

What about Mr B and Mr C, were they familiar enough with jet planes to make such a judgement? Well, they worked for the Ames Research Laboratory for a start! (From SR14) “An employee in the supersonic laboratory of an aeronautical laboratory and some other employees of this lab”. Mr C specifically was “… a mechanic who worked on a supersonic wind tunnel at Ames Laboratory.”.

“Mr. B”) who worked in the Drafting Section of the National Advisory Committee, Ames Laboratory, Moffett Field.

How do you conclude that these two guys are expert enough on planes, blimps etc?

3. The Goodyear blimp of the time was powered by:
“Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-2 radials, 425 hp (317 kW) each” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_class_blimp). The fact is that these engines are very loud, and the fact that these engines would have been heard by the witnesses can be noted by plugging in various numbers into the calculator to found at this website (http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-distance.htm). The witnesses instead noted that the object was silent. Again, this evidence rules against the object being a blimp.

What numbers are you plugging in and what result do you get? I asked you this before but you choose not to deliver.

4. There is also the fact that the witnesses (using binoculars through which the object “resolved” in detail*)

Not, this is not a fact. This claim of yours has no support in the witness statements. I told you this before. Do you have me on ignore or what?

5. What about environmental factors?
Location: “while fishing on the Rogue River near Elephant Rock, approximately 1 1/2 miles above the highway bridge near Gold Beach, Oregon,…” and “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." At that point the river is still tidal, wide, relatively shallow and flat.

Weather conditions: (Mr B) “. Sun was at our backs and there were no clouds.", (Mr C) “It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs…”, (Mrs D) “The day had been clear, visibility was good, and the sun was just setting.”, (Agent Brooks) “During his investigation, Agent Brooks compiled supplementary information from various sources: (a) the (low altitude) weather charts for the area indicated the coast was clear on the date of the sighting…”

We can note here that there were no adverse conditions in either the location or the weather that would have made viewing of the object difficult (for example heat haze is a ground effect and not apparent over water, so is not a factor - and the witnesses generally described a “clear” day so general atmospheric haze is also not a factor)

I have explained to you already why heat haze is a factor. I have explained to you why a boat is an unstable observation platform. Why are you ignoring that?

It is also notable that the witnesses were at one point “… engaged in looking upstream to see if they could spot any feeding fish on the surface.” If the river surface were disturbed to any degree that might have upset an anchored boat by wind or wave, then this task would have not been possible.

I have explained to you that a disturbed water surface is no problem for this task. Why do you ignore that?

The role of binoculars has already been discussed (ie; the object “resolved” in detail when they were used) and there is nothing to indicate that the binoculars were not of sufficient standard to achieve the results as described.

We don't know. You don't know. Yet, the quality of optics in 1949 was generally bad.

6. The reliability of the witnesses:

“The Battelle and ATIC scientists and engineers who studied this report evidently considered this case to be unexplainable. That is, given the nature of the sighting (five witnesses, a pair of binoculars, a clear day and plenty of time to view the object) the scientists found it difficult to imagine how this sighting could have been a simple misidentification of some manmade (airplane, helicopter, balloon borne device) or natural (bird) object in the sky.

That they don't even consider, and argue against, a blimp is very very strange and indicates a less than thorough investigation.

Quite simply, given the evidence, the “blimp” explanation just does not fit – that is it is implausible as an explanation for the sighting because it simply does not match the evidence we have in the case.

It fits the evidence very well indeed. You choose to not see it.

 

[Cuddles]

1. They witnesses described and drew a circular object.

How many times are you going to repeat this lie? The witnesses described and drew a blimp-shaped object, as beautifully demonstrated in this picture you posted yourself:

They claimed that this represents a circular object seen from the side, it is so blatantly obvious for everyone to see what they actually drew that it really boggles the imagination to wonder why you would pretend it is anything else. Whether it is actually a blimp or not may be up for debate, but the fact that it is clearly shaped liked a blimp is not. That could be due to a disc viewed from the side, or it could be simply that it was in fact shaped like a blimp. Lying about what a picture shows while everyone else is actually looking at it is just utterly bizarre.

 

[Astrophotographer]

I have pointed out MANY times that human perception IS fallible (!) and that we have much scientific research that can inform us as to the how and why of that fallibility and that we must then utilise the outcomes and conclusions of such research in our investigation of any case.

And you still have yet to demonstrate what scientific studies that you have employed in these specific cases. For instance, in Rogue river, exactly what scientific paper have you researched and cited that demonstrates the witnesses were 100% accurate in relating their "experience" in these reports? It is your contention they could not mistake a blimp or an aircraft for what they have reported. Since this is the case, then you must demonstrate they were 100% accurate in their observations of the object in question or how you can "compensate" for errors in their observations. If you can not cite a scientific paper that demonstrates they were accurate or how you can "compensate" for any misperception, then it is entirely plausible they mistook an aircraft or a blimp for something else. As a result, the case fails and should be rejected as "evidence".

 

[Rramjet]

Access Denied stated:

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”?

I replied:

Forgive me if I am wrong, I do NOT mean to be condescending, but actually I think you MEAN empirical rather than “objective”.
Objective: “undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
Empirical: “derived from experiment and observation rather than theory”

You contended however that:

I am pretty sure that AD, as myself, means exactly objective. Unbiased by personal opinion.

Nonone, not you, not me, not Father Gill is completely objective. We all interpret events and can never be totally objective.

Again, objective evidence is what we're looking for. The same thing as in scientific research.

You claim that the evidence you are looking for is “the same thing as in scientific research”. That would be scientific evidence then.

Research into:
(http://www.dur.ac.uk/rosalyn.roberts/Evidence/cofev.htm)
What is:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence)
Legal definition of:
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+Evidence)

You will note that nowhere in ANY of the above is ”objective” mentioned or referred to. So I simply reiterate my original contention that you (and AD) actually want empirical evidence because that IS the evidence utilised in “scientific research”.

I therefore claimed:

I do believe that where radar is involved we can go some way toward realising that goal. Also there is one case where a conjunction of radar, visual and film evidence is apparent. There is also a physical trace evidence case. So it is not as if we are entirely bereft of such evidence.

...to which you replied:

You have no such case. A radar echo in the approximate direction, at the approximate time of a visual observation just isn't good enough.

Of course I was (and you are) referring to the New Zealand (Kaikoura) UFO sightings case (31 Dec 1978) as outlined in the following document: “A HISTORY OF THE NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS OF DECEMBER 31, 1978” (http://brumac.8k.com/) and expanded upon in the document found at (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc) (which – given your comment above - you probably were not aware of).

You will note on reading the documents that there were a number of times when there were radar/visual contacts, however of particular interest is the Northern leg of the flight where there is a conjunction of radar/visual AND film. That is the plane’s radar indicated a target which was visible to both the aircrew and news-crew and which was also filmed by the news-crew cameraman.

The UFO debunker contention in denial is that although the radar indicated a target in a specific direction (and when the crew looked in that direction a visual target was also apparent), visual identification could NOT confirm that the distance indicated by the radar was the same as the distance to the visual object. Therefore it does not constitute “proof” of a radar/visual contact.

However, while this is semantically correct, in the real world it proposes an implausible scenario. That is, that there were actually two “objects” – one invisible (radar target) and one visible (what the crew saw) – that lay in precisely the same orientation to the airplane, but at different distances from it. Given also that the radar and the visual target were observed continuously over many minutes, that would also mean that the TWO UFOs also tracked each other precisely with regard to their directional orientation to the airplane! So far from clarifying the position, the UFO debunkers now have TWO UFOs to contend with (as if one visible UFO was not enough, they also propose an invisible one!) that also maintain a precise directional orientation with regard to each other and the airplane!

This of course (while not impossible I suppose), is most definitely an implausible scenario. The UFO debunkers have often cited Occam's Razor in their negative quest, yet here they seemed to have abandoned the principle altogether!

No, given the alternative (as implied in the UFO debunker denial), it is of course eminently more reasonable to conclude that the radar and visual objects were one and the same.

Then Jocce states:

I have heard that there's a haunted mansion somewhere east of my place. That doesn't make it true.

Apropos of..? (It does not make it false either…)

And then you end by bringing up a century old, non confirmed, newspaper article. Do tell, where's the objective, undeniable evidence here?

You refer of course to this case:
Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

However, you ask a question containing incompatible terms.

First, if it is an “objective” case you are after, then this case fits the bill perfectly. The author of the report is entirely matter of fact and objective. There is absolutely NO mention of “UFOs” and there is not even a hint that the author of the report even knew that UFOs existed! He merely assumed that it was a electrical/meteorological phenomenon – possibly related to the type Scientific American had under discussion – that perhaps scientist should be made aware of as a potentially useful data point in their quest to understand such natural phenomena – and the author clearly assumed it WAS a natural (although unusual) phenomenon.

Second, the evidence in the case, while eminently “objective” - is certainly not “undeniable”. One could, and you obviously might, raise objections. For example it constitutes the observations of one man in a far away place where we no longer have access to the witnesses or records of what specifically occurred. It is thus an anecdotal account and therefore does not constitute “scientific proof” of the occurrences outlined in the report. But then I thought you were calling for “objective” evidence…

 

[Rramjet]

Now we move back (again…) to the Rogue River case:

From the witness statements:

To the naked eye this object appeared circular and standing on edge

Comment: Just as a blimp seen head on.

As I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south

So the complete turn wasn't seen through binoculars.

Coin standing on edge that after turn has an oval outline. Sounds a lot like blimp to me.

Although there does seem to be some form of contradiction in the eyewitness testimony here – when the relevant sections of the evidence are viewed in context – it becomes very apparent that YOUR statements are simply incorrect.

(Mr B – record of interview) “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."

(Mr B – signed testimony) “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 I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south, with no banking or leaning, and picked up speed.”

(Mr C – record of interview) “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.”

(Mr C – signed testimony) “The object was to the east of us… (…) 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. (…) …as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction, mostly south”

(Mrs A – record of interview) “It was coming from the east, but later turned to the southwest.”

The first thing to note is that Mr B DID observe the turn with binoculars!

The second thing to note is that, even after the turn, both Mr B and Mr C (if it was a blimp) would have had either a direct side on view (if it was travelling southward) or an oblique side view (if it was travelling southeast or south west). Given that the UFO debunker contention is a Goodyear blimp (for that is the only possible blimp), and given the fine detail about the object otherwise reported, then where is the Goodyear logo, where are the engines, where is the passenger gondola, where are the “missing” fins?

Given that you use only truncated or otherwise very narrowly defined sections of the witness testimony to make your points, have you considered the role that confirmation bias might play in your assessment of this case?

For example, evidence that confirmation bias IS playing a role in your thinking about this case can be found in the very next statement you make:

The drawings look blimp shaped. There's no speculation here.

They only look “blimp shaped” if you have blimps on your mind! To a person who has read the witness descriptions of a circular craft and understands how 3-dimensional circular objects are represented on a 2-dimensional surface, then they simply “see” the drawings for what they ARE (and what they are supposed to represent) – that is a representation of a circular craft.

“Mr. B”) who worked in the Drafting Section of the National Advisory Committee, Ames Laboratory, Moffett Field.

How do you conclude that these two guys are expert enough on planes, blimps etc?

This is a typical UFO debunker “trick”. I stated “familiar enough” yet you contend that I concluded “expert enough”!

That is what I DID state:

What about Mr B and Mr C, were they familiar enough with jet planes to make such a judgement? Well, they worked for the Ames Research Laboratory for a start! (From SR14) “An employee in the supersonic laboratory of an aeronautical laboratory and some other employees of this lab”. Mr C specifically was “… a mechanic who worked on a supersonic wind tunnel at Ames Laboratory.”.

There is a vast difference between “familiar” and “expert”. Not only that you selectively quote me (once again demonstrating confirmation bias). The section of my post that you lifted my quote from indicates that the witnesses, given their workplace and location, would have been familiar with both the capabilities of jets and familiar with blimps.

Moreover, when people use comparative terms, they generally seek to use terms they are familiar with, thus when the witnesses in this case compared the speed of the object to that of a jet plane, it means that they had a good concept of such speed in their minds.

What numbers are you plugging in and what result do you get? I asked you this before but you choose not to deliver.

I used the same numbers you indicted that you used. I accepted your numbers and your results. Are you now trying to tell me that these are somehow incorrect?

I stated:

“4. There is also the fact that the witnesses (using binoculars through which the object “resolved” in detail*)…”

Not, this is not a fact. This claim of yours has no support in the witness statements. I told you this before. Do you have me on ignore or what?

(Mr C - record of interview) “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. (…) 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 executed no manoeuvres; no lights, no propellers, no landing gear, or any method of propulsion could be seen or heard. … The trailing edge of the object as it travelled appeared to be somewhat wrinkled and dirty looking.”

Clearly the object “resolved” in (a great deal of) detail with the use of binoculars! Perhaps it is YOU who are ignoring both me AND the evidence then? In my opinion this is about as blatant a case of “Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up” as one is likely to encounter!

I have explained to you already why heat haze is a factor. I have explained to you why a boat is an unstable observation platform. Why are you ignoring that?

Simply making unfounded assertions does NOT make those assertions true. Three sentences, three unfounded assertions, three … misapprehensions.

You have NOT “explained” why heat haze was a factor. You merely asserted that it was. I have informed you that heat haze is strictly a ground effect phenomenon - thus could play NO role in the viewing of an object some 5000 feet up! You DO ignore that. You have NOT “explained” why a boat is an unstable platform. You have merely asserted that it was. However, I HAVE explained to you how the location and weather conditions played no adverse role in the sighting. You HAVE ignored that. My explanations in this respect were in reply to your assertions – so clearly I have not “ignored” them. You DO ignore mine!

You then make another completely unfounded assertion:

…the quality of optics in 1949 was generally bad.

This is just garbage and I guarantee you cannot cite a reference to that effect.

That they don't even consider, and argue against, a blimp is very very strange and indicates a less than thorough investigation.

In my opinion, it is only “very very” strange to one blinded by confirmation bias. The description of the object so obviously does NOT resemble a blimp that to even consider a blimp to be a possibility would seem (at the very least) a total waste of time and effort. Nevertheless, here the UFO debunkers are! They have no argument per se for a blimp – because very little of the actual evidence can be construed as “blimplike”, rather they simply rely on making the unfounded assertion over and over - in complete ignorance of the bulk of the evidence - as if mere repetition will somehow make the assertion true. In my opinion, this type of behaviour is akin to an attempt at (self?) indoctrination. That is to repeat the mantra over and over until it is so deeply imbedded in the mind that it seems like the truth...

Besides, you don’t KNOW that the Battelle scientists did NOT “consider” a blimp. We have only Dr Maccabee’s summary statement on the matter to go by. There is also no mention in that summary of meteors, astronomical objects, clouds, meterological phenomena, atmospheric illusions, wind blow debri …and a whole host of other mundane phenomena that could (and would) have been considered. The parenthesised “list” Dr Maccabee provided was not meant to be an exhaustive list of all mundane phenomena the scientists considered and ruled out, it was merely an exemplary of some of the most common.

It fits the evidence very well indeed. You choose to not see it.

Oh contraire… I see very well how you might think it does (and also WHY you might think that) but that does NOT mean it DOES, in reality, fit the evidence “very well”.

 

[Access Denied]

I think you will find that YOUR contention (initial starting position) DOES contain the word “perfectly”, so unless you want to remove that term from your initial position, then you DO have such an obligation.

Whether or not I consider any given explanation to be “perfectly mundane” or “perfectly plausible” and “mundane” is irrelevant to the fact I asked you to acknowledge… specifically that no mundane explanation is required in order to refute your claim that any of the cases you listed are evidence of “aliens”.

That you continue to refuse to acknowledge this point fails my first conditional requirement for summarizing my opinion of those cases for you.

[and for the record by “perfectly” I mean makes perfect sense to me]

In my opinion you have been living in “debunker world” for too long and have consequently become suspicious of motivations and (perhaps wisely) aware of deliberate misrepresentation.

In my opinion you haven’t been living in the “debunker world” long enough and consequently you’re far too naïve to be taken seriously.

Yes, that is what I am claiming.

So, in other words, you’re denying the rather large body of evidence to the contrary that has been painstakingly presented to you in this thread by it’s many participants.

That fails my second conditional requirement for you to demonstrate something approaching intellectual honesty. Therefore, I see no point in discussing any of those cases with you any further. As W.D.Clinger pointed out, your mind is made up.

I have pointed out many times that in some cases we have MORE that “anecdotal” evidence.

In your opinion, not in the eyes of Science… otherwise you wouldn’t be in the position UFOlogy is in.

[firmly within the realm of pseudoscience]

No, of course I am not claiming that.

Well, I don’t believe you but I do understand where you’re coming from… I must admit my own critical thinking skills certainly didn’t develop overnight and the storytellers can be pretty convincing to anyone uninitiated in the principals of scientific skepticism.

Forgive me if I am wrong, I do NOT mean to be condescending, but actually I think you MEAN empirical rather than “objective”.

Jocce has already addressed this.

Well, we DO have the film in the NZ case. That fulfils the criteria you ask for in this question.

No, it doesn’t. What part of “multiple”, “independent” and “unambiguous” did you not understand? The NZ cases fails to fulfill any of that criteria… it’s a single film taken from a single location by a single group of a fuzzy light.

Please present a case that does or explain how you justify the fact that such a case does not exist when arguably at least one should by now. We have this kind of evidence for events as rare as plane crashes or as fleeting as bolides, why not “aliens”?

Again, there ARE such cases.

Prove it.

Believe it or not, before I came to this forum, I was a “naïve” UFO proponent – relying almost entirely on personal experience to tell me that UFOs DO exist and that mundane explanations simply do NOT work – at least in my personal experience – but of course THAT experience is NOT going to “cut the mustard” with the skeptics, so I turned to a list of cases (in my OP) that seemed to have high “ratings” from various sources.

That much is self-evident and that was probably your first mistake. Far better (but not easier) to do your own research and come to your own conclusions rather than relying on somebody else to do it for you…

Fair enough?

No, not yet.

 

[Rramjet]

And you still have yet to demonstrate what scientific studies that you have employed in these specific cases. For instance, in Rogue river, exactly what scientific paper have you researched and cited that demonstrates the witnesses were 100% accurate in relating their "experience" in these reports? It is your contention they could not mistake a blimp or an aircraft for what they have reported. Since this is the case, then you must demonstrate they were 100% accurate in their observations of the object in question or how you can "compensate" for errors in their observations. If you can not cite a scientific paper that demonstrates they were accurate or how you can "compensate" for any misperception, then it is entirely plausible they mistook an aircraft or a blimp for something else. As a result, the case fails and should be rejected as "evidence".

LOL, I have stated MANY times now - and in no uncertain terms - that the witnesses were NOT 100% accurate in this case. Moreover you KNOW that what you contend in this regard is a falsehood because I have done so a number of times in direct reply to YOUR posts! So why do you do it?

I have already pointed out many times that the witnesses were inaccurate where we expect them to be accurate – that is in judging distance, size and possibly speed. There is however one other instance where inaccuracies are apparent and that is found in the differences between observations with the naked eye and with the use of binoculars. However given that the object “resolved” in detail when binoculars were used (the use of binoculars revealed much detail about the object that was not otherwise apparent with the naked eye), we can reasonably conclude that the naked eye descriptions are error prone, probably because of the size of the object in relation to the distance to it.

Given the detail in the case, it is utterly implausible that the witnesses “mistook” an aircraft or a blimp. There is simply too much evidential detail – and NONE for “mistake” – to make such a conclusion rational or reasonable.

Rather than repost the evidence in the case I simply refer you to the report found here: (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm). I urge you to READ the report and if you have any specific objections to any of the evidence contained therein - please delineate them - for the generalised unfounded assertions that you do make do not demonstrate any particular knowledge of the case by you, and without that knowledge, you cannot argue against the evidence contained within the witness testimony.

 

[Rramjet]

The witnesses described and drew a blimp-shaped object, as beautifully demonstrated in this picture you posted yourself:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=427&pictureid=2691[/qimg]

They claimed that this represents a circular object seen from the side, it is so blatantly obvious for everyone to see what they actually drew. Whether it is actually a blimp or not may be up for debate, but the fact that it is clearly shaped liked a blimp is not. That could be due to a disc viewed from the side, or it could be simply that it was in fact shaped like a blimp.

Below is a K-class blimp (the class of Goodyear blimp that was around in 1949) overlayed on the witness’ drawings. We can see immediately that the witness' drawings are CLEARLY NOT "shaped like a blimp" at all!

 

[Astrophotographer]

Given the detail in the case, it is utterly implausible that the witnesses “mistook” an aircraft or a blimp. There is simply too much evidential detail – and NONE for “mistake” – to make such a conclusion rational or reasonable.

So, it is your contention that because they used binoculars, it would be impossible for them to make a mistake in perception? Exactly what scientific papers/studies can you present that demonstrate this is true.

On the other hand I can present numerous cases where experienced astronomers have made errors in perception after carefully observing an object through a telescope. Read "Planets and perception" by Dobbins and Sheehan for numerous examples. Of course, the one that stands out in that book are the canals on Mars. Not only did Lowell see canals but others did as well. It was the consensus that these canals did exist at the time. Of course, we now know this was an error in perception. I can also point towards an article that appeared in Sky and Telescope a few years back called "The egg moons of Jupiter" by the same authors. In that case, William Pickering stated his observations of Jupiter's moons were not circular but oblong ("egg shaped"). The authors suggested his optics were not properly aligned but Pickering stood by his claim for many years indicating he convinced himself this was the case. With the evidence of how astronomers can make errors in perception using their optical instruments which are on stable platforms and are sustained observations lasting hours, how can you actually state that a few people on a rocking boat with a pair of binoculars could not mistake a plane or blimp for a circular disc? Feel free to present ACTUAL evidence that shows that this is impossible.

 

[Jocce]

Now we move back (again…) to the Rogue River case:

Although there does seem to be some form of contradiction in the eyewitness testimony here – when the relevant sections of the evidence are viewed in context – it becomes very apparent that YOUR statements are simply incorrect.

Then our opinions differ.

They only look “blimp shaped” if you have blimps on your mind! To a person who has read the witness descriptions of a circular craft and understands how 3-dimensional circular objects are represented on a 2-dimensional surface, then they simply “see” the drawings for what they ARE (and what they are supposed to represent) – that is a representation of a circular craft.

Unbiased by the opinion of others, they look blimp shaped. Deal with it.

This is a typical UFO debunker “trick”. I stated “familiar enough” yet you contend that I concluded “expert enough”!

Sorry, my mistake. How do you conclude that these two guys are familiar enough with planes, blimps etc?

I used the same numbers you indicted that you used. I accepted your numbers and your results. Are you now trying to tell me that these are somehow incorrect?

And you conclude that the engine should be heard? 30dB is the sound level in a silent bedroom at night. 40dB is the sound of a quiet library. How do you reach the conclusion that this is loud enough to hear under the circumstances?

Clearly the object “resolved” in (a great deal of) detail with the use of binoculars!

Ok, enumerate the details that they saw. And please, not the details that they didn't see.

You have NOT “explained” why heat haze was a factor. You merely asserted that it was. I have informed you that heat haze is strictly a ground effect phenomenon - thus could play NO role in the viewing of an object some 5000 feet up!

It's very nice of you to "inform me" of things I know very well. You are also wrong. Every spring I watch migrating raptors soaring at a height of 3-6000 feet. I do that from an island in the baltic sea, the raptors are over the mainland and sometimes over the sea itself. I assure you that heat haze is a major problem.

You have NOT “explained” why a boat is an unstable platform.

Wow, is this a serious question? Five people in a boat small enough to fish from on a river. Seriously?

Besides, you don’t KNOW that the Battelle scientists did NOT “consider” a blimp.

I have seen no argumentation in any investigation about the possibility of a blimp. By all means, show me one if you got it.

We have only Dr Maccabee’s summary statement on the matter to go by.

Yeah, I agree. the dr. is not a very trustworthy source what with all the miscalculations and stuff going on in his texts.

 

[Jocce]

I have already pointed out many times that the witnesses were inaccurate where we expect them to be accurate – that is in judging distance, size and possibly speed.

So when it suits your argumentation we don't have any reliable data to work with?

However given that the object “resolved” in detail when binoculars were used

According to witness statements, the object resolved into a pancake like shape. Not into detail. The only detail they claim to have seen is that the skin appeared dirty and/or wrinkled which could easily be something else seen through the heat haze from an unstable observation platform. Like a logo maybe?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Below is a K-class blimp (the class of Goodyear blimp that was around in 1949) overlayed on the witness’ drawings. We can see immediately that the witness' drawings are CLEARLY NOT "shaped like a blimp" at all!
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=427&pictureid=2752[/qimg]

I'm not sure how you could more completely prove Cuddles' point about refuting your own beliefs than this. Bizarre is simply an understatement.

 

[Marcus]

…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.

There is no such term as UFMO, you made that up. I'm still waiting for the evidence that someone here does not believe in UFO's. I'm perfectly willing to believe it, it seems at least possible, but you just have not provided any evidence, like a quote from a member that there aren't any unidentified flying objects.