UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Thus your statement here completely ignores the context in which the alleged errors occurred. If the witnesses to those cases were in a moving car with the windows covered in mud and they were legally blind, then obviously it is plausible that their observations might have been in error! (Even then they might have got it right – but it is reasonable to assume they would not have). So you failure to provide the contextual information probably means that these cases are simply not relevant to the cases I have been presenting – otherwise I have no doubt that you would have supplied the information from those cases to refute my contentions with some alacrity.

But I have provided the details.

Coral Sea: We had trained pilots who could not distinguish between an Oiler and an aircraft carrier. They had clear skies and multiple pilots observed the ship. All gave the report that it was an aircraft carrier they were attacking and observing (some were just scouts observing the ship and others conducted MULTIPLE attacks on the ship). I gave you sky conditions, approximate distances of observation, aircraft air speeds, ship speeds, sea conditions from the WWII histories of this case. Your refused to read them and now are claiming their windshields were dirty?

Catalina Island: I also gave details regarding this. The sky was perfectly clear and the cameraman stated it was a disc. The film showed a disc. It was enlarged many times by UFO proponents (well beyond 8X) with the same conclusion (it being a flying disc). However, it turned out to be an airplane.

Both cases involved reasonably clear or perfectly clear skies and sustained observations of the target. Both were misperceptions. Your refusal to accept them as arguments against Rogue River just demonstrates you are stuck in will to believe mindset.

 

[Astrophotographer]

…and what is this if not evidence?

“As mentioned in the previous chapter, the brain is especially sensitive to perceptual features such as lines, shapes, edges, spots, and colors.” (Coon, D. (1992) Introduction to Psychology: exploration and application (6th ed.). West Publishing Company. St. Paul, MN. p. 132)

Ahhh...but I have demonstrated that this has nothing to do with people recognizing shapes correctly. You have quoted the author out of context since he is addressing the issue of perception being a learned process (see the experiment on the kittens with the different striped containers experiment). It also occurs after the author talks about the Ames room illusion. Your evidence does not support your claim that witnesses always get the shapes of objects correct. Can you provide something more convincing (such as actual studies of people drawing shapes they observed?) or are you going to trot out this one quote every time?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Actually it is you who have taken the above quotes out of context!

Nope. I think I understand the perceptual process pretty well. You have decided to attempt to make it appear that you have provided evidence for your claim. You have not. You have given a very selective quote that is not applicable to your claim, which is that the eyewitnesses at Rogue River could not get the shape wrong because of what we know about perceptual research. I have yet to see you demonstrate (with actual source material) that it would be highly unlikely they would get the shape wrong. All I have seen from the literature is people make mistakes and that nobody is perfect in these observations. Once again, I request you provide evidence, based on the perceptual literature and research, that demonstrates that it is highly unlikely the witnesses got the shape wrong.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Then you again make a completely and utterly false claim about my contentions. I claim that we can use perceptual research to assess the veracity of the observations. Once the particular descriptive aspects of the object are verified as plausible or not, then we can use the plausible descriptive characteristics in a process of elimination. What is it you do not get about this scientific process?

It is you who seems to have problems with this process. You claim you can eliminate the blimp or airplane hypotheses based on perceptual research. You have not demonstrated this to be true. THAT is the scientific process. What about this don't you understand?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Again your own question is the one question you fail to answer for the cases you present: ” Why did't the witnesses get these shapes right?”

Answer your own question and we will be getting somewhere positive!

I know why they did not get the shapes correct. They made mistakes in observation. Perhaps you can enlighten us why you think they got them wrong using some of the perceptual literature. In the Catalina case, I see a very similar situation as the Rogue River case. Why would they get it wrong there and why do you contend the witnesses in Rogue River got it right?

 

[wollery]

We have the experienced minds of the observers to measure them with! They were not newborn infants with absolutely no experience in such observation, they worked at an aerospace laboratory attached to a military airfield! They would have had a great deal of experience with planes of manykinds (including blimps!).

Hang on, I thought your "conclusive" evidence showed that there hadn't been any blimps on the US west coast since 1947, and only one since 1945! That's 4 years without seeing hide nor hair of a blimp, and you want us to believe that they were really familiar with them?

One of them was a draughtsman and the other worked in a wind tunnel! So exactly how much experience did they have with aircraft?

This is what I mean about you not putting evidence together. You tell us that there were no blimps, and then tell us that because they worked in an office attached to an airfield that they would have had a lot of experience with blimps. But according to you there were no blimps for them to have any experience of! You can't have it both ways Roger. Either they were familiar with blimps because there were blimps in the area, or there hadn't been any blimps in the area for several years and they weren't familiar with them.

 

[NordaVinci]

Many people don't need any convincing at all that there are flying saucers (UFO's) because of having seen them in person. I often share my flying saucer story and find that others easily open up and tell theirs.

So here goes....

It was the summer between 5th and 6th grades. I had my Matell Stallion bike outside the front door. Just having stayed up till about 12, later than I remember ever having stayed up before, I decided to jump on my bike and mail the letter I had written. The mailbox was about 300 feet down the road in front of the corner store at the intersection of Staple St., Knight St. and Haviland Ave. As soon as I rode past the big maple tree, about halfway there, whose leaves obscured the second story and roof of the store..I saw it. It was about 10 feet from the top of the store. Maybe it was forty feet in diameter, the main body not illuminated, but out of the top came a large glowing white globe, and from the bottom there were three somewhat smaller glowing red globes, I assumed the landing gear.

As soon as I saw it, I realized that I had to get somebody to see it with me, or no one would believe me. So I shouted in the street. No one got up or looked out the window. No one drove by. Then I jumped off my bike and ran to three houses and pounded on their doors shouting to get up, but no one did. Then I got back on my bike and rode down to the corner. By this time it had ascended in the air to about a hundred feet. Now the main body of it was glowing white light. The landing gear was gone, and no large globe coming out of the top. It moved slowing down Bush St. toward Haviland's Cove, the public beach at the Hudson River in Glens Falls, NY 12801. I thought, "If it stays above the road, I'll follow it." But it didn't. It veered to the right, moving slowly over the field (Now there are houses there.) Moving slowly just above the trees, it went quietly without a sound off over the horizon line of the top of the trees and disappeared from sight.

Then I rode back. I was kinda of excited about this. So I knocked on the window of my friend's bedroom across the street. He woke up and looked out the window, and said, "Peter! You know what time it is?!!" I said, "Bill I just saw a flying saucer!" He said, "Yeah, yeah, go to bed." Then I had to knock on my front door, because my father, thinking I had gone to bed, had locked it. When he opened the door, I said, "Dad. Guess what? I just saw a flying saucer! I was coming down on top of the corner store...." His eyes got real big. His mouth became wide open in amazement. ANd then he started slapping his knee and laughing, saying, "Pete, that's the best joke you've ever told!"

My father never believed me. He thought I must've seen a jet. He didn't realize that this thing was 10 feet from the top of the store. Anyway, at that time it wasn't I guess considered any big deal to see a flying saucer, as my parents didn't report it to anyone. I really was never in the habit of telling jokes. That was just how my father rationalized it, since his world view wasn't then and, even now, isn't ready to cope with flying saucers.

 

[Rramjet]

Lines, shapes and edges get you the sillhouette. We are questioning the witness interpretation of those lines and edges into a 3-dimensional object and has argued that they might have gotten it wrong.

Lines, shapes and edges “get you” a great deal more than just a silhouette. They also give you perspective – especially if the object is moving across and turning within the field of view. I merely pointed out that our brains are especially sensitive to this kind of information and also that it is pre-cognitive. Sure, there are specific conditions that might lead us to cognitively interpret (and thus perceive) an illusion – but in the absence of such conditions then we are good at determining shape, etc.

We know that one such condition was the presentation of an ellipse, which was interpreted as circular. But we know that the interpretation (“circular”) is most likely correct because of the way the object variously manoeuvred within the visual field of the observers without changing aspect – and only a circular object (like a coin or pancake) could have possibly achieved this (ie; a blimp-shaped object could not have).

We also know another condition was the size/distance perception in a clear blue sky. However, I have already pointed out that the witnesses (being employees of an aerospace laboratory attached to a military airfield) would not have been entirely bereft of experience here. Also there was the small matter of perspective provided by the landscape around them. Yes, the estimates most likely would have been in error, but also given the circumstances, the error had definable limits.

We can also “play” with the estimates to show that if the size estimate was too small, then the object must have been further away and thus not a blimp because it would also have been moving faster than the “speed of a jet plane” estimate – so not a blimp.

(Note here that Astrophotographer has also recently reminded us that we often see planes in the sky seeming to move much more slowly than their actual speed[/I] – but we NEVER see things the other way around – unless of course the observer is moving at high speed – which the observers at Rogue River were clearly NOT doing – so their speed estimate is likely to have been an underestimate, rather than the other way around).

If the object were smaller… then not a blimp either.

Hazy day, in a boat, using binoculars of unknown quality observing a distant object with no references in the field of view. There are so many potential sources for errors and yet you claim that they don't affect the witness accuracy to any noticeable degree.

It was a CLEAR day! The witnesses state that it was and the weather report also states it was. What don’t you get about that?

With the use of binoculars, many details about the object “resolved” in clarity and became apparent. What don’t you get about that?

They were in a boat, yes – but the river, at the point was wide and flat - this was no rough sea - so that in itself does not preclude accurate observation – especially over a period of minutes.

They had the entire landscape around them as a “reference” in their field of view.

Other “potential sources of error”? Your mere statement of an unfounded assertion here does not make it true.

I have outlined my thoughts on the matter clearly, concisely and many times. NEVER have I claimed any of the factors mentioned “don't affect the witness accuracy to any noticeable degree.” I have also specifically pointed out where I consider the witnesses to be accurate and where not.

 

[Rramjet]

So we are back to the "trained observers" argument? This is a false argument based on what we know about UFO reports.

Not at all, I am merely pointing out that employees of a laboratory attached to a military airfield would have been more experienced in the observation of aircraft of many types than the average person.

I gave you Hendry and refused to believe his data. Now I will quote Hynek from 1949:

First of all, it is obvious that it would usually be impossible for observers to make reliable estimates of the speed, distance, or size of such stimulus objects. It is not possible to estimate accurately the distance of small bright objects viewed against a clear sky, UNLESS THE OBJECT IS IDENTIFIED FIRST… It must be concluded, therefore, that most of the statements of speed, distance, altitude and size ARE EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED (My emphasis). (Steiger Project Blue Book p. 228)

Of course at the time it was well known that Hynek was doing and stating his best to debunk as many UFO reports as he could, often using spurious methodology and unfounded assertion. He later admitted that he “went too far” in this regard. His statement that distance/size estimates should be “disregarded” is clearly an example of this going too far. Clearly we CAN use such estimates – as I have demonstrated in the Rogue River case - to enable us to rule out “blimp” as a plausible explanation. This is a practical example that positively refutes Hynek’s assertion in this regard.

Of course, SR 14 states the same thing:

This was intensified by the recognized inability of the average individual to estimate speeds, distances, and sizes of objects in the air with any degree of accuracy.

This is a merely a much weaker version of Hynek’s “debunker era” statement above. Two key phrases should be noted – “average individual” and “ with any degree of accuracy”. The witnesses at Rogue River were not merely “average” individuals. They had more experience than average. Also I have positively pointed out that the witness estimates were likely to have been in error (minimally in the fact that they varied between each other – proving no collusion in this respect at least – and “minimally” because the fact that they could have been in error does not preclude that one of them might have got it right!)

Unless you can provide evidence that these individuals were above average (i.e. tests that were run on them on estimating speeds and distances), then this claim (that they were experienced observers who could make accurate estimates of these types) remains invalid.

I don’t claim they were “experts” – stop misrepresenting my position please. I merely claim that it is likely that they would have been better at such estimates than the “average” person (given their experience) but even so, that they most likely DID get it wrong – BUT that we CAN use (even those error prone) estimates to rule out (the UFO debunker favourite) “blimp”.

But I have provided the details.

Coral Sea: We had trained pilots who could not distinguish between an Oiler and an aircraft carrier. They had clear skies and multiple pilots observed the ship. All gave the report that it was an aircraft carrier they were attacking and observing (some were just scouts observing the ship and others conducted MULTIPLE attacks on the ship). I gave you sky conditions, approximate distances of observation, aircraft air speeds, ship speeds, sea conditions from the WWII histories of this case. Your refused to read them and now are claiming their windshields were dirty?

Catalina Island: I also gave details regarding this. The sky was perfectly clear and the cameraman stated it was a disc. The film showed a disc. It was enlarged many times by UFO proponents (well beyond 8X) with the same conclusion (it being a flying disc). However, it turned out to be an airplane.

Both cases involved reasonably clear or perfectly clear skies and sustained observations of the target. Both were misperceptions. Your refusal to accept them as arguments against Rogue River just demonstrates you are stuck in will to believe mindset.

No…these are not the “details” of the cases – they are merely your summary of the cases. There is simply not enough information in those summaries, as to the specific circumstances, to make any accurate judgements on the specific conditions that might have lead to the alleged errors.

You claim these cases are relevant to Rogue River – stop shifting the burden of proof - You need to provide the specific contextual comparisons between the two (three) to show (demonstrate) that your contention is supportable by the evidence. You make the claim – you need to support that claim with evidence.

I stated:
““As mentioned in the previous chapter, the brain is especially sensitive to perceptual features such as lines, shapes, edges, spots, and colors.” (Coon, D. (1992) Introduction to Psychology: exploration and application (6th ed.). West Publishing Company. St. Paul, MN. p. 132)”

Ahhh...but I have demonstrated that this has nothing to do with people recognizing shapes correctly…

You have done no such thing! Please stop claiming you have done things when you have not!

(…But it occurs to me because of the status of this thread that you must not have had the benefit of my latest post on this issue – so I have snipped the rest of your post because it seems to indicate that you have not read that post (#7178) - which directly addresses all the issues you have raised here)

(#7178)

I stated:
“Actually it is you who have taken the above quotes out of context!”

Nope. I think I understand the perceptual process pretty well…

(Again in deference to the fact that you obviously have not had the benefit of my post on this issue (#7178) I will delay responding until you have)

It is you who seems to have problems with this process…

(Again I refer you to post (#7178)

I know why they did not get the shapes correct…

(Again I refer you to post (#7178)

 

[Rramjet]

Hang on, I thought your "conclusive" evidence showed that there hadn't been any blimps on the US west coast since 1947, and only one since 1945! That's 4 years without seeing hide nor hair of a blimp, and you want us to believe that they were really familiar with them?

One of them was a draughtsman and the other worked in a wind tunnel! So exactly how much experience did they have with aircraft?

This is what I mean about you not putting evidence together. You tell us that there were no blimps, and then tell us that because they worked in an office attached to an airfield that they would have had a lot of experience with blimps. But according to you there were no blimps for them to have any experience of! You can't have it both ways Roger. Either they were familiar with blimps because there were blimps in the area, or there hadn't been any blimps in the area for several years and they weren't familiar with them.

The WWII and post WWII era was an era when blimps were a familiar sight in the skies – especially around Moffett field(!) an erstwhile (pre-1947) USN blimp base – where the witnesses were working as long standing employees in a laboratory attached to that base(!) Being longstanding employees of that laboratory they would have had plenty of opportunity to have observed aircraft of many varieties (including blimps) coming and going from Moffett field. Indeed, they could hardly have missed them.

So I am not “having it both ways” at all. I am merely noting the facts of the matter and drawing reasonable conclusions from those facts.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, are you now claiming that the Rogue River UFO is definitely alien in origin by the very nature of it being unidentified? Can you post a link to a verified alien craft so we can compare the witness descriptions from Rogue River to that to see that the witnesses are describing an alien craft rather than a blimp?

You seem to have finally accepted your defeat at Campeche and acknowledge that witnesses (trained military observers confirmed by FLIR evidence) can be mistaken.

 

[wollery]

The WWII and post WWII era was an era when blimps were a familiar sight in the skies – especially around Moffett field(!) an erstwhile (pre-1947) USN blimp base – where the witnesses were working as long standing employees in a laboratory attached to that base(!) Being longstanding employees of that laboratory they would have had plenty of opportunity to have observed aircraft of many varieties (including blimps) coming and going from Moffett field. Indeed, they could hardly have missed them.

So I am not “having it both ways” at all. I am merely noting the facts of the matter and drawing reasonable conclusions from those facts.

Really? How do you know that they were long standing employees? It doesn't say anything to that effect in the evidence.

 

[Rramjet]

Many people don't need any convincing at all that there are flying saucers (UFO's) because of having seen them in person. I often share my flying saucer story and find that others easily open up and tell theirs.

So here goes....

Hi NordaVinci – Welcome to the thread!

Your UFO encounter is very interesting. Thank you for sharing it with us.

It is encounters like this that ordinary people all over the world experience regularly, yet never (or rarely) report them. They may tell a few friends/family etc. but usually there will be a reaction of dismissal and ridicule from one or more of them (as you experienced) – and this in turn tends to mean that the UFO encounter never gets reported - and thus a true accounting of the extent of good UFO reports is never made.

Interestingly I also have had a number of UFO encounters that I have never “officially” reported. The reason is a feeling of pointlessness. What good would it do? My reports would simply get lost in the static and noise from the hoaxers and other attention seekers.

A friend of mine has similarly never reported his UFO encounters… in fact of all the people I know who have had UFO encounters, NONE of them have reported them! …and if most people never actually report their encounters, then the existing data will be a “mess” - and positively over-represented by hoaxers and other generally unreliable attention seekers.

There is also no “central reporting agency” that people can turn to. There are a number of disparate groups who take reports – but the general public has little sense of which groups are “legitimate” and even how to contact them.

You are right NordaVinci – the world is not yet ready to cope with the reality of “flying saucers”.

 

[Jocce]

Lines, shapes and edges “get you” a great deal more than just a silhouette. They also give you perspective – especially if the object is moving across and turning within the field of view. I merely pointed out that our brains are especially sensitive to this kind of information and also that it is pre-cognitive. Sure, there are specific conditions that might lead us to cognitively interpret (and thus perceive) an illusion – but in the absence of such conditions then we are good at determining shape, etc.

It is perfectly plausible that the witnesses could have misinterpreted the shape considering the observation conditions.

We know that one such condition was the presentation of an ellipse, which was interpreted as circular. But we know that the interpretation (“circular”) is most likely correct because of the way the object variously manoeuvred within the visual field of the observers without changing aspect – and only a circular object (like a coin or pancake) could have possibly achieved this (ie; a blimp-shaped object could not have).

When first seen it was circular and after turning, it was oval.

Yes, the estimates most likely would have been in error, but also given the circumstances, the error had definable limits.

Then, by all means, define them.

It was a CLEAR day! The witnesses state that it was and the weather report also states it was. What don’t you get about that?

I get that the seeing and transparency is unknown.

With the use of binoculars, many details about the object “resolved” in clarity and became apparent. What don’t you get about that?

The object "resolved" into a pancake like shape, that's it. Why do you feel the need to exaggerate everything all the time?

They were in a boat, yes – but the river, at the point was wide and flat - this was no rough sea - so that in itself does not preclude accurate observation – especially over a period of minutes.

How big was the boat?

They had the entire landscape around them as a “reference” in their field of view.

Not when observing through binoculars.

 

[carlitos]

Lines, shapes and edges “get you” a great deal more than just a silhouette. They also give you perspective – especially if the object is moving across and turning within the field of view. I merely pointed out that our brains are especially sensitive to this kind of information and also that it is pre-cognitive. Sure, there are specific conditions that might lead us to cognitively interpret (and thus perceive) an illusion – but in the absence of such conditions then we are good at determining shape, etc.

We know that one such condition was the presentation of an ellipse, which was interpreted as circular. But we know that the interpretation (“circular”) is most likely correct because of the way the object variously manoeuvred within the visual field of the observers without changing aspect – and only a circular object (like a coin or pancake) could have possibly achieved this (ie; a blimp-shaped object could not have).

Then why did they draw something that looks just like a blimp?


(Note here that Astrophotographer has also recently reminded us that we often see planes in the sky seeming to move much more slowly than their actual speed[/I] – but we NEVER see things the other way around – unless of course the observer is moving at high speed – which the observers at Rogue River were clearly NOT doing – so their speed estimate is likely to have been an underestimate, rather than the other way around).
[/QUOTE]
Do you have evidence that we never see things "the other way around?" (i.e., we never see things moving faster than their actual speed)?

NordaVinci - Cool story!

 

[Astrophotographer]

At the rate this thread is moderated and because nothing seems to have been accomplished for some time other than restating our points of view on the matter, I am terminating my participation in this topic.

When the aliens land, or something equivalent occurs, I will change my opinion. Until that moment, I remain skeptical of the evidence presented that suggests that UFOs are anything but misperceptions of ordinary objects/events or hoaxes. It is up to the proponents to provide better evidence. The ball is in their court.

 

[Rramjet]

Merida, Mexico: Alien Encounter

Here is an interesting story that shows (what has been termed as) an “attempted alien abduction”. Two boys playing with a soccer ball, one goes to fetch the ball and an “alien” reaches out from behind a post and attempts to pull the boy inward. The boy jumps backward and runs yelling back toward the camera. The camera refocusses on the post where the “alien” pokes its head out for a couple of seconds then disappears.

Some time later, while at a conference in the area, Jaime Maussan hears of an “alien” video doing the rounds on local cell phones and decides to investigate. He tracks down the boys involved, gets their story and returns to the site with an investigator with a Geiger counter who discovers extremely high (but strangely localised) residual radiation. Maussen goes public with the story.

Milenio newspaper then claimed to have interviewed the boys and obtained statements from them to the effect that it was all a hoax. Unfortunately for the newspaper, it turned out that it was the reporters who had “hoaxed” the newspaper! – they had not interviewed the boys at all! - and a retraction was published.

Jaime Maussan’s & Santiago Garza’s Analysis Of An Alien Abduction Attempt Caught On Video In Merida Mexico.
Part 1: (http://ufo-tv.com/alien-abductions/...-an-alien-abduction-attempt-caught-on-video-6)
Part 2: (http://ufo-tv.com/alien-abductions/...-an-alien-abduction-attempt-caught-on-video-3)
Description of incident
(http://www.rense.com/general69/alien.htm)
Milenio Newspaper is forced into a public retraction of its “hoax” claims.
(http://www.ufoinfo.com/news/meridaalien.shtml)

So what are we to make of this? We have the video. The boys are sticking to their story. Investigation shows extremely high radiation at the site.

Interestingly a “multidimensional being” may not be out of the question!
(http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/)
(http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html)
(http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080430/full/453022a.html)

But has anyone investigated this possibility? It seems so!
(http://www.spinvestigations.org/What_we_know.pdf)
(http://www.spinvestigations.org/)
(http://www.theparacast.com/podcast/now-playing-january-24-2010-david-m-rountree/)

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, are you now claiming that the Rogue River UFO is definitely alien in origin by the very nature of it being unidentified? Can you post a link to a verified alien craft so we can compare the witness descriptions from Rogue River to that to see that the witnesses are describing an alien craft rather than a blimp?

You seem to have finally accepted your defeat at Campeche and acknowledge that witnesses (trained military observers confirmed by FLIR evidence) can be mistaken.

I have consistently and on many occasions stated that Rogue River is a UFO, plain and simple. I make absolutely no claims about it being an “alien craft” – in fact I have specifically denied this claim by the UFO debunkers on many occasions. Here was my latest post on the matter for example in direct reply to RoboTimbo’s last attempt to misrepresent my position:

I stated
“I make NO claims regarding aliens at Rogue River.”

I also stated in my OP:
“I would present the evidence, not only for UFOs, but also for “aliens”.

Yours is simply a misreading of my claims here. Nowhere did I – or have I ever – indicated that Rogue River is evidence for aliens. I have presented evidence for aliens elsewhere (Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora, Travis Walton for example) but NOT Rogue River. Rogue River is a UFO and that’s the extent of the claims I make there.

As for Campeche… RoboTimbo is attempting a similar misrepresentation. See here

(…) Let us conduct a little analysis of the evidence in the Campeche case to see how the two factors I mentioned above tie in together.

(…)

Finally, it should be quite obvious to anyone interested that the “public” FLIR images tell but a small fraction of the story, even if some limited sections of FLIR recording can be “explained” as lights from oil-well fires (as it seems is plausible to do), there is still the mysterious radar target to account for and other seemingly “anomalous” FLIR images. The UFO debunkers have latched onto the “oil-well” fires explanation as if that is the whole story and that should be the end of it. This is at least a mistaken conception of the case. (…)

and here for example

(…) I have provided a detailed summary analysis of the case - at your request - then asked you for YOUR opinion (...) You also contended the case somehow relates to Rogue River – yet cannot – or will not - state HOW it does...” (…)

 

[Rramjet]

It is perfectly plausible that the witnesses could have misinterpreted the shape considering the observation conditions.

The mere stating of “Witnesses can be mistaken” does not mean that in any particular case they are mistaken. All the evidence in the Rogue River case (five witnesses, clear day, sun at their backs, the use of binoculars, etc) points to the fact that the witnesses provided an accurate description of a circular (like a coin or pancake) object which crossed their field of vision and departed “at the speed of a jet plane”. Can it really true that the only way the UFO debunkers believe they can “debunk” Rogue River is by making unfounded assertions? If so, then they simply do not have a case!

When first seen it was circular and after turning, it was oval.

The object presented as an ellipse throughout. The witnesses interpreted it as “circular” because it manoeuvred within their field of vision while maintaining its elliptical aspect (oval – elliptical, what’s the distinction?).

Then, by all means, define them.

I already have. Here for example:

We have estimates of those parameters and assuming them to be in error we can assess what happens to the observations and other parameters if we vary those estimates. We also know the outer limits of those parameters – that is it was not a few feet away and it was not a few miles away – so those form some limits, then it was not a few inches in size and it was not a 1000 feet in size – more limits - and the speed was observed from basically stationary to a certain estimated high speed. We can note also that these are not exactly naive observers when it comes to such estimates (they worked at a laboratory attached to a military airfield for example – so they would have had life experience in observing various planes over many years). So while the precise error margins surrounding these estimates are indeterminate, we can reasonably assume that the estimates they DID provide are “in the ball park” and not “wildly” inaccurate.

I stated:
“It was a CLEAR day! The witnesses state that it was and the weather report also states it was. What don’t you get about that?

I get that the seeing and transparency is unknown.

Obviously then “clear” has a different meaning for you than everyone else?

The object "resolved" into a pancake like shape, that's it. Why do you feel the need to exaggerate everything all the time?

(Mr. B)
"On 24 May 1949, at approximately 5:00 p.m., while fishing with several friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from Gold Beach, Oregon, my attention was drawn to an object in the sky by Mr. D, one of the members of the party. To the naked eye this object appeared circular and standing on edge. I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular and that we appeared to be looking upward at the bottom side of it. As nearly as possible to tell, the object appeared about 5000 feet in altitude, and not more than a mile away. When I first observed it, object was moving very slowly. As I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south, with no banking or leaning, and picked up speed. I then handed the glasses to Mr. C in order that he might see the object. Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center. A triangular fin appeared to arise amidship and extended to the trailing end of the object viewed as it travelled. There were no openings visible and no sound was heard. There appeared to be no engines or motors, no landing gear, no other protruding parts other than the fin already described. The object was in sight for approximately one (1) minute. Sun was at our backs and there were no clouds."

(Mr. C)
"While fishing with a party of friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from its mouth at Gold Beach, Oregon, at approximately 5:00 p.m., 24 May 1949, my attention was called to an object in the sky. The object was to the east of us about one (1) mile, at approximately 5000 feet altitude. With the naked eye, little but a glare and a silvery glint could be seen. But after watching it for approximately one minute and a half, I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that the object was roughly circular in shape and appeared to be 30 to 35 feet in diameter. It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges. A small triangular fin started in the middle and grew gradually higher to the rear as the object travelled. When first sighted, it was moving very slowly. As I watched it through the glasses, it picked up speed and when it vanished from sight approximately 90 seconds later, it was travelling as fast or faster than a jet plane. As far as could be seen, it had no openings or protuberances of any kind other than the fin, and there was neither sight nor sound of any driving force. It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction, mostly south." ((http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)

So why do you feel you have to misrepresent “everything all the time”?

 

[Rramjet]

Then why did they draw something that looks just like a blimp?

It only looks like a blimp if you have no understanding of how such a three dimensional circular object as the witnesses observed was represented on a 2-dimensional surface.

Let me try to explain what the drawings represent. You will have to pay careful attention here because the drawings are VERY sophisticated - and thus obviously drawn by Mr C, the draftsman – for no “novice” or “naive” person could have produced them.

Here I highly recommend that you have a picture of the drawing in front of you as you read this and the following explanations – I would also recommend you obtain a physical representation of the object – such as a saucer from a saucer and tea-cup set… I would suggest you obtain two and tape them together face to face, but failing that, one will suffice – (got all that in front of you? Right, we can proceed):

The upper drawing represents a circular object seen from below and at an offset angle.

Now hold your saucer (right way up) at arms length out in front of you – with both hands. Adjust the angle of the saucer so that it matches what is seen in the upper drawing. Now imagine the edge of your saucer is a bit thicker and there is a small fin poking above the left side. See…it matches!

The witnesses described a circular object and the draftsman who created the drawing represented that circular object on a 2-dimensional surface as seen from a particular perspective – that is, from below and at an offset angle.

Now the second (lower) drawing. This is a MUCH more sophisticated rendering of the circular object.

Invert your saucer and place your left index finger over the upturned base (to represent the fin). Raise the saucer with your right hand to eye level (with your left index finger still in place). Adjust the angle (by rotating the saucer – left side toward you) so that the upper left surface of the saucer appears as a small sliver behind your index finger. You should now be able to see a large portion of the upper right surface in front of your index finger and a small sliver of upper left surface just behind it (just as represented in the drawing!). Now, NOTE the direction your index finger is now pointing – for THAT is the direction of travel as represented in the drawing (and that is why the directional arrow in the diagram seems to be pointing slightly down – it is meant to represent the object travelling into the page away from the observer)

Okay… now (if you have not used two saucers taped together) imagine that second saucer underneath facing the first and imagine the edge a little thicker. See…? It represents the drawing pretty closely doesn’t it?

NOW can you see how your “blimp shape” is a complete misinterpretation of what the drawings actually represent? If you do not, then you have simply failed to conduct the experiment as outlined

I have explained this a number of times. Here:

(...) First: The two drawings represent different aspects of the same object. I am perplexed that you cannot see this – as I HAVE pointed it out MANY times now. (...)

and here:

(...) Now the drawings. The drawings only resemble a blimp if you have a confirmation bias toward “blimp”. The drawings are a rather sophisticated representation of a 3-dimensional circular object on 2-dimensional surface. (...)

to name but two more examples of the many I have provided.

I stated:
“(Note here that Astrophotographer has also recently reminded us that we often see planes in the sky seeming to move much more slowly than their actual speed – but we NEVER see things the other way around – unless of course the observer is moving at high speed – which the observers at Rogue River were clearly NOT doing – so their speed estimate is likely to have been an underestimate, rather than the other way around).”

Do you have evidence that we never see things "the other way around?" (i.e., we never see things moving faster than their actual speed)?

You have simply failed to note my caveat there: “unless of course the observer is moving at high speed - which the observers at Rogue River were clearly NOT doing” (perhaps to clarify I could have added ...moving at high speed in the same direction to the motion of the sighted object... but I simply assumed people would know what I meant - a misguided assumption obviously.)