I stated:
However, is it legitimate to label both categories as “unidentified”? If we consider UNKNOWN to equal “unidentified” (which it must if we label that category as “unidentified”) then no, it is not legitimate. That is, we simply do not have the information to decide whether any case in the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category is either “unidentified” (UNKNOWN) or “identified” (KNOWN). In fact the authors specifically state that there is nothing that would prevent them all from being labelled as “identified” (KNOWN).
Oh, I see where you get confused. I am talking about how it is (objects in both groups are unidentified). You are talking about how things could have been (some objects could be identified already). I don't understand why that obvious thing warrants such a a long piece of text though.
Can you please tell me where in that statement you quoted I used the term “could have been”?
In excising from my statements the section that clarifies the bit you quoted, you have removed reference to the very thing you see problems with! To make your point, the section you
actually needed to quote was:
So to label them all as “unidentified” (as Jocce does) is patently false and misleading (on the one hand “unidentified” represents a report that we know “could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon” and on the other it represents a report where we don’t know if the report could or could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon. This of course equates to the distinction I have drawn previously between “I don’t know” – which admits of both Known and Unknown things - and “defies plausible mundane explanation” – which rules out Known things).
And then it can be noted that I merely used the past tense because the analysis and report has already been completed.
Of course the point you are
trying to make - now that I have exposed your previous false and misleading statements for what they
were – is that perhaps some of the Battelle UNKNOWN reports have
subsequently been “identified” (have become KNOWN). If that is the case, then you will be able to provide an example. If not, then the assertion is unfounded and may be dismissed as such.
I stated:
Interestingly, an honest assessment of the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category would hold that the proportion of KNOWNS to UNKNOWNS in this category should actually reflect the proportion in the broader dataset. That is in the Poor reliability reports we would expect there to be (approximately) 16% UNKNOWNS and for the Excellent reliability reports we would expect there to be (approximately) 33% UNKNOWNS.
Interestingly, the proportion of unidentified objects in both excellent and poor reports is the same.
Perhaps – because you split the relevant statement into parts you have simply missed the meaning of it? I will put it all together for you:
However, is it legitimate to label both categories as “unidentified”? If we consider UNKNOWN to equal “unidentified” (which it must if we label that category as “unidentified”) then no, it is not legitimate. That is, we simply do not have the information to decide whether any case in the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category is either “unidentified” (UNKNOWN) or “identified” (KNOWN). In fact the authors specifically state that there is nothing that would prevent them all from being labelled as “identified” (KNOWN). So to label them all as “unidentified” (as Jocce does) is patently false and misleading (on the one hand “unidentified” represents a report that we know “could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon” and on the other it represents a report where we don’t know if the report could or could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon. This of course equates to the distinction I have drawn previously between “I don’t know” – which admits of both Known and Unknown things - and “defies plausible mundane explanation” – which rules out Known things).
Do you now understand how your statements are false and misleading?
Once again, it's quite an arbitrary set line between "unknown" and "unsufficient information".
Oh …I see that you do not. I can see that my merely quoting the categorical definitions from the report itself was insufficient to demonstrate to you the difference between them – so let me try and define the categories more succinctly then:
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION: There is not enough information to decide if the report represents a KNOWN or an UNKNOWN object.
UNKNOWN: A report that can “not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon”.
Does that help you distinguish between the two categories?
They can't possibly know when they have all the information they need to rule out mundane objects when at the same time, none of the objects can be described in detail.
Perhaps another quote from the report might help clarify things then:
”Dr. Hynek’s definition of the term is "any aerial phenomenon or sighting that remains unexplained to the viewer at least long enough for him to write a report about it"). Dr. Hynek, elaborating on his definition, says, "Each flying saucer, so defined, has associated with it a probable lifetime. It wanders in the field of public inspection like an electron in a field of ions, until ' captured1 by an explanation which puts an end to its existence as a 'flying saucer'").
This definition would be applicable to any and all of the sightings which remained unidentified throughout this study. However, the term "flying saucers" shall be used hereafter in this report to mean a novel, airborne phenomenon, a manifestation that is not a part of or readily explainable by the fund of scientific knowledge known to be possessed by the Free World.” (p. 1 - (
http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)
Moreover, seeing that the blimp from Rogue river is placed in the unknown category kinda proves my point.
Are you putting this up as an example of a report that has subsequently been explained? It has been pointed out many times that the “blimp hypothesis” simply does not fit the evidence. For a start the historical record shows there were no blimps in the area at the time and moreover, a “blimp” simply does not match the eyewitness observations.
Of course lest I simply be accused of putting fporward unfounded assertions it then becomes necessary to expand on this to show why the “blimp hypothesis” is not plausible (and is thus a case that has
not been “subsequently explained”) the following, for the first time, presents the research and evidence surrounding the 24th May 1949 Rogue River UFO case in one place.
To assess the veracity of the claim of “UFO” for the Rogue River, Oregon sighting (24th May 1949) we must decide on two things. First, the reliability of the eyewitness descriptions, and Second, any plausible mundane hypothesis that might fit the eyewitness descriptions.
To address the reliability issue we must also come to a decision concerning two factors: First, could the sighting have been a hoax, and if not, Second, could the eyewitnesses have been mistaken in their descriptions of the object.
On the hoax issue, we have the assessment of Dr. Bruce Maccabee, who has extensively researched this case From his web site (
http://brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver.html) we have:
COULD THIS SIGHTING REPORT HAVE BEEN A HOAX?
It is my opinion that this report was not a hoax. 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. If it was a hoax, by reporting it directly to their workplace security, they were (at the very least) endangering their jobs if exposed.
One might suggest that the time between the sighting and the report lends an air of “hoax” to the situation. It took the witnesses about three weeks to report the sighting. To me however, this suggests an element of caution on their part, in keeping with their reported character assessments*. Did they really dare to report such a thing? Certainly they would not have wanted to look foolish. And what about their positions within the Ames laboratory? Yet they probably would also have felt - as confirmed by several of the early witnesses who reported “flying saucers” - that it was their duty as American citizens to report these things so that the government would know about them.
Of course the "dyed in the wool skeptic" (a phrase used by Phil Klass to describe himself during my first phone conversation with him in 1974) or “debunker” might argue that they played for high stakes. If they could get their story past the OSI investigators they could either laugh at the government (they did it for the fun of it) or use the OSI investigation as evidence it was a genuine sighting and make lots of money selling their story to the press, or both.
However, this scenario is unlikely. There is no indication I am aware of that they ever told anyone other than the OSI the details of their sighting. Hence they certainly didn't "do it for the money". Of course, I cannot prove they didn't do it for fun, but it would seem to be a highly risky undertaking for men in responsible positions to put their jobs on the line merely to be able to laugh at the OSI investigators.”
* So what were their character assessments?
“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.”
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)
So, we can reasonably rule out “hoax”. On the evidence it is simply an implausible explanation for the sighting.
If not a hoax, then we must assess whether the witnesses could have been somehow mistaken in their descriptions of the object.
Note: there were five witnesses to the sighting. The Blue Book files do not name them so, following Dr. Maccabee, we will call them Mrs A, Mr B, Mr C, Mr D and Mrs D respectively.
To answer this question we must explore a number of issues:
First, the viewing conditions (including atmospheric conditions, the angle of the sun, etc)
Second, the capability of the witnesses to describe the object (size, shape, distance, etc)
Third, the contributions made by the physical surroundings (location caused disturbances)
First then, what were the weather conditions on the day?
Mr B stated (in his testimonial before Agent Brooks): “Sun was at our backs and there were no clouds."
In his record of interview before Agent Brooks Mr C is recorded as stating: “There were no clouds and the sun was at Mr. C's back at the time of the sighting.” And in his testimonial statement (again before Agent Brooks): “It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs…”
Mrs D stated (in her testimonial before Agent T.H. Kelley): “The day had been clear, visibility was good, and the sun was just setting.”
Note: The sighting took place at about 1700hrs Pacific Standard Time (5PM PST).
This assessment of the weather conditions is supported by further investigation undertaken by 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…”
Thus the weather conditions (clear day, no clouds) and the position of the sun (relatively low at their backs) meant that viewing conditions were likely to have been practically ideal. It is implausible then to suppose that either atmospheric conditions or the angle of the sun would have played any significant role whatsoever in making identification of the object difficult.
Second then, what were the capabilities of the eyewitnesses in describing the object’s characteristics?
There are three broad characteristics of the object described by the eyewitnesses, its shape, size, and speed. All three characteristics depend on distance from the observer. Too far away and shape will be indiscernible, size indistinguishable, and speed underestimated. However, the closer the object is, the more accurately these characteristics will be able to be described. So how close was the object to the observers?
In Mrs A’s record of interview with Agent Brooks he stated “The interviewee stated that she was not familiar with aircraft; therefore, she could not estimate with any accuracy the speed or altitude at which the object was travelling.” So we can rule her out as providing any accurate information.
Mr B stated (in his testimonial before Agent Brooks): “As nearly as possible to tell, the object appeared about 5000 feet in altitude, and not more than a mile away.” Mr C stated (in his testimonial before Agent Brooks): “The object was to the east of us about one (1) mile, at approximately 5000 feet altitude.” Mr D stated (in his testimonial before Agent Brooks): “…travelling at a height of approximately 5000 feet in a southerly direction.” Mrs D stated (in her testimonial before Agent Brooks): “I could not estimate its height…”
A couple of points should be noted here. If the object was further away from the observers than they thought it was, then the object’s actual size was larger and its speed greater. If it was closer, then the object’s size was smaller and the speed was less.
So what were the estimates of size and speed? In Mr B’s record of interview with Agent Brooks he stated “…about 30 feet in diameter … accelerating to an approximate speed of a jet plane.” In Mr B’s record of interview with Agent Brooks he stated “Object appeared to be roughly 25 to 30 feet in diameter.” And in his testimonial “… it was travelling as fast or faster than a jet plane.” In Mr C’s testimonial “… at a speed greater than a high speed or jet plane … but in size would be of the diameter of the fuselage length of the DC-3 plane.” In Mrs D’s testimonial: “its size was as large as a large passenger plane … at a high rate of speed … and it crossed our range of vision in two or three minutes.”
As might be expected, there is a apparent size estimate discrepancy between the eyewitnesses - although all estimated high speed travel. From nose to tail a DC-3 is a 6 inches short of 65 feet. So the size estimates range from 25 - 65 feet.
To reiterate, if the object’s distance from the observers was greater (> 5000 feet), then its actual size would have been greater (> 65 feet), and critically its speed would have been greater also (> jet plane speed). Conversely, if the distance from the observers was less (< 5000 feet), the object’s size would have been less (< 65 feet), and then the object’s speed would have been slower (< jet plane speed). This factor becomes critical in examining possible plausible mundane hypothesis, as we shall see later.
What about the shape of the object?
All witnesses described the object as circular. Even Mrs A, who on her own admission was not able to estimate speed or distance, was able to determine shape: (Agent Brooks stated) “…sighted an object described as being round in shape…” Mr B’s testimonial: “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 … either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center”. Mr C’s testimonial: “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 … cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges”. Mr D’s testimonial: “The object (was) circular…” Mrs D’s testimonial: “…shaped like a shiny circular disk.”
So there is no contention here. All eyewitnesses agree that the object was circular.
A question might be raised however as to whether the observers could have seen an object of such a size (say 30 feet in diameter) and still make out its shape and size. Especially since other detailed characteristics of the object were also described.
Given that Dr Maccabee is the expert in optics, perhaps we should return here to his analysis.
COULD THE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT THE SHAPE?
A key characteristic of the object which makes a mundane identification unlikely (or impossible) is the overall shape. Could the shape have been misperceived by all of the witnesses including the two who used binoculars? The answer to this question is based on the angular size of the image in the binoculars. Unfortunately the two witnesses did not provide an estimate of the apparent size in the binoculars, but all the witnesses together, in an indirect way, did provide an estimate of the minimum angular size. This indirect estimate is based on the fact that all the witnesses claimed that the object was circular. Since the object was not directly overhead (where a circular object would appear truly circular) this claim suggests that the bottom of the object, as seen from their location, appeared elliptical (as shown in the illustrations in SR14). The fact that they were able to discern an overall shape other than a “point in the sky” indicates that it had an angular size larger than the minimum angular resolution of the eye in daylight conditions. The minimum angular resolution (the “resolution element”) is on the order of a minute of arc or about 0.0003 radian (0.0174 radians per degree and 60 minutes of arc per degree). Experiments have shown that in order for a viewer to characterize an object as having a shape other than a “point”, the angular size of the object must be at least two resolution elements across its largest dimension and at least one across its smallest dimension. In this case the angular size was very probably larger than this (see below), but two resolution elements is sufficient to deduce that the witnesses who used binoculars were clearly able to see the overall shape. In the view of the 8X binoculars the angular size was 8 times larger so there were at least 16 resolution elements across the major dimension of the object and 8 elements across the minimum dimension, more than enough to determine that its shape appeared elliptical, as if it were a circular object seen from an oblique angle. One of the witnesses (Mr C.) stated that the surface looked wrinkled or dirty. If a person can see an object well enough to see surface details such as this, the person is certainly able to see the overall shape. Therefore it appears that the overall circular or “pancake” shape was a true characteristic of this strange object.
DO THE ESTIMATED SIZE AND DISTANCE CORRESPOND TO AN ANGULAR SIZE GREATER THAN THE ANGULAR RESOLUTION OF THE EYE?
Although neither the actual size nor the true distance of the object is known, the witnesses did provide estimates of both these quantities, even though it is considered “impossible” to be accurate in estimating these quantities when viewing an unknown object in the clear sky. The witnesses indicated the diameter was in the range of 25 – 35 ft and that the distance was 1 to 4 miles (three estimates were 1 mile, one was 4 miles; see the table above) with an altitude of about 1 mile. A thirty foot diameter object at a distance of 1 mile (measured along the sighting line) would have an angular size of about 0.0057 radians and at 4 miles about 0.0014 radians. Both of these angular sizes are much greater than the eye resolution mentioned above. This tells us two things: (1) if they were anywhere near correct in their size and distance estimates, then the angular size was large enough for the witnesses to clearly see the overall shape and (2) the actual size was probably close to their estimate.
(
http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
Some skeptics have raised the issue that the binoculars might have been damaged in some way so that they might cause misperceptions (cracked or dirty lenses, faulty prism alignment, etc). However, all (or most) of the faults mentioned by the skeptics would cause the binoculars to be practically useless – the witnesses could of course clean a dirty lens, and would have, considering they would have wanted as clear a view of the object as possible, especially since they could not identify it. But nowhere in either Mr B’s or Mr C’s statements do they indicate that the binoculars were not up to the job. In fact they seem to have no trouble using them at all. If the binoculars were faulty, this would have come out in the interviews. Nowhere does a witness say “I was frustrated because the binoculars did not provide a clear view”, in fact quite the opposite is true. From Agent Brook’s record of interview with Mr C he states “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.” And Mr C, in his testimonial states “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.”
Such a “resolution” of the object would not have been possible with the damage described by the skeptics. Simply then we must conclude that the binoculars were in as good a condition as required to resolve the object - as the observers did.
So based on the evidence, it seems that the witnesses could have made out the shape and other details of the object even if their size and distance estimates were inaccurate (and of course there remains the possibility that these estimates were substantially accurate – but that cannot be proven).
Finally in this section we must consider possible the contributions made by the physical surroundings (location caused disturbances). The witnesses observed the object from a boat anchored in the Rogue River.
From Mr B’s record of interview “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." And from Mr C’s record of interview “On 24 May 1949, at 1700 P.S.T., approximately two to two and a half miles upstream from the mouth of the Rogue River, in a boat anchored approximately midstream, about the same distance east of the town of Gold Beach, Oregon...”
Could such an observation “platform” have contributed to “misidentification” of the object? First the boat was anchored, so there was no lateral movement to disturb observations. What about the condition of the River (waves rocking the boat for example)? At the point on the Rogue River at which the party were anchored the river is quite wide and slow moving. The time of year (summer) also meant that the river was carrying a relatively low amount of water compared to other times. Indeed, Google Earth images of the river at the point where the witnesses were anchored show a wide, flat riverscape in a shallow valley. It must also be remembered that the witnesses were there on a fishing expedition. Thus it is implausible to imagine that, given the location and time of year, the river was very much disturbed at all, and considering also that they were fishing, it is equally implausible to imagine that they would have anchored anywhere that might have made it uncomfortable and difficult for them to fish. It is implausible then that the condition of the river (rocking the boat) made observations of the object difficult enough to cause misidentification.
To sum up then. First, we have found that a hoax is implausible as an explanation. To all intents and purposes the witnesses were responsible, reliable people. Second, we have found that the viewing conditions were as close to perfect as we are likely to get (clear day, sun at their backs). Third, we have found that it was physically possible (especially for the two witnesses using binoculars) to have observed and described the object as they did. Finally we have found that local conditions (anchored in a boat on a wide flat river) were not plausibly responsible for any misinterpretation of the object.
Thus we must assume that the witnesses described the object to a fair degree of accuracy. This of course does not rule out a misidentification of a mundane object and this is the hypothesis we will explore next.
What mundane object could possibly account for the sighting?
The Blue Book files contain two possible explanations “Airplane” and “Radar kite”. The airplane hypothesis seems implausible. There were simply too many characteristics of the object that make such a hypothesis implausible. Aside from the fact that all witnesses described the object as “circular” we have for example: (Mr B) “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.” (Mr C) “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 … no lights, no propellers, no landing gear, or any method of propulsion could be seen or heard.” (Mr D) “It had no appearance of the conventional plane…” (Mrs D) “No sound was heard…”
The “airplane” hypothesis is therefore an untenable hypothesis. The witness descriptions also rule out “Radar kite”. A radar kite is a high altitude balloon, teardrop shaped with a payload of box-like radar reflectors hanging beneath. Had it even been possible for such an object to have been at Rogue River on the day (and that consideration has been shown by Dr. Maccabee to be highly implausible) then its characteristics do not match the eyewitness descriptions in the slightest degree. So “Radar kite” must also be considered an implausible hypothesis.
What mundane objects are we left with then? It has been proposed that the object was a blimp which the witnesses failed to identify. The witness descriptions do not seem to support this conjecture, but for the purpose of advancing the discussion, let’s explore this further. It is well known that the US Navy operated a number of blimp bases on the West Coast during and after the war and used them in anti-ship and anti-submarine exercises. So could a blimp be the explanation? We must therefore closely examine the evidence to see if this hypothesis might be plausible.
Is it even possible for a blimp have been at Rogue River on 24th May 1949? Perhaps so:
“During WW II, lighter-than-air (LTA) craft were key components in the war against the German U-boat, flying critical convoy escort and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) patrol missions. After war’s end, blimps continued to serve in ASW and other roles, and in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ZP-651 was based at NAS Akron,Ohio; ZPs 751, 752 and 753 at NAS Lakehurst,N.J.; ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.; ZP-911 at NAS Squantum, Mass.; and ZPs 951 and 952 at MCAF Santa Ana, Calif.” (
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/back...02/lighter.pdf)
We must consider then two candidate LTA bases on the West Coast: NAS Oakland, California (in San Francisco some 340 miles SSW of Rogue River) and MCAF Santa Ana, California (near Los Angeles some 700 miles SSW of Rogue River).
Obviously we can then rule out Santa Ana as a candidate - for what possible rationale would a Santa Ana blimp be sent 400 miles to overfly the existing San Francisco and the Oakland bases and then proceed another 300 miles to Rogue River? Remember these were ostensibly NAVY RESERVE training bases.
One must also note the location of Rogue River. This is a relatively sparsely populated region of the continental US, on the West Coast in the centre of the Siskiyou National Forest region with only one main road in and out of the region (the Oregon Coast Highway 101).
Next we note the following detailed history (from the same official navy document as above) which seems to show that initial statement (above) may not completely accurate – perhaps the initial statement is merely a summary (coming as it does so early in the document) where the actual details were “skimmed over” or “lost” in order to enable a short, comprehensive summary paragraph to be written.
“The reduction in LTA following the war left ZP-12 at NAS Lakehurst and ZP-31 at NAS Santa Ana as the only active squadrons. A detachment of ZP-31 continued at NAS Moffett Field. On November 15, 1946, ZP-12 was redesignated ZP-2 and ZP-31 became ZP-1. In the summer of 1947, ZP-1 made a home port and fleet change from NAS Santa Ana in the Pacific Fleet to NAS Weeksville in the Atlantic. The change was due to the reduction of NAS Santa Ana to a maintenance status and the elimination of the ZP overhaul mission at NAS Moffett Field.” (
http://www.history.navy.mil/download/lta-09.pdf)
Moreover we have from another source:
“The squadron was relocated to MCAS El Toro in 1948” … ” “Santa Ana NAS was decommissioned by the Navy in 1949” … “For less than 2 years, the huge former Navy blimp airfield was evidently reused as a civilian airport.” … “The civilian use of the airfield ended in 1951, when the property was transferred to the Marine Corps, which renamed it as the Marine Corps Air Facility Santa Ana. According to The California State Military Museum, the station reopened during the Korean War. Blimp operations staged a brief resurrection when the Navy established a 2-blimp Naval Air Reserve Training Unit (NARTU) on April 1, 1951. The Marines arrived the next month establishing a helicopter air facility.” (
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_OrangeCo_SE.htm)
So this confirms we must indeed rule out Santa Ana as a candidate LTA base – there were simply
no Navy blimps at the base in 1949. Some have however argued that as the Santa Ana base continued to be used by advertising blimps (Good Year blimps as it turns out) then one of those could have been responsible. However it seems highly unlikely that an advertising blimp would travel 700 miles (as the crow flies) bypassing major population centres (San Francisco for one) to be sighted over a sparsely populated region of the country. We will return to the Good Year blimps later in this exploration of the evidence.
But what about Oakland (which is the closer of the two bases to Rogue River and was always the most likely candidate anyway)? The following documentary source provided additional information.
“Following the war, all blimp squadrons decommissioned except two which included Santa Ana's ZP 31 renamed ZP-1. Santa Ana also became an aircraft storage facility in November 1945. Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended. On June 6, 1949, Santa Ana decommissioned becoming an OLF. For a time, the hangars were used by advertising blimps.”(
http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)
This would seem to put the clincher on the argument –
“Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended.”
But it is interesting to note that Oakland has not been
directly ruled out as a candidate in a specific historical document (apart from the general
“…all West Coast operations ceased…” of course, but skeptics are very hard to please…). So, we have from a book history:
Oakland Aviation by Ronald T. Reuther and William T. Larkins:
“Navy Reserve Squadron ZP-871 (Lighter than air) flew one after the war at Oakland from 1952 to 1958. (This photograph shows…) It was used as a slow, low-flying billboard, with the words “JOIN THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE, BE A NAVAL AVIATION CADET” on the side.”
So there
was a blimp at Oakland – just one - but it seems it was used solely as an advertising blimp for the Navy over the city, between 1952 and1958. So again, nothing for May 1949.
At this point it seems unlikely that there would have been a blimp anywhere near the mouth of the Rogue River, but nevertheless, the search continued.
Could there have been a blimp from the LTA Navy base at Tillamook? It is possible there were blimps at the base in 1949 because:
The following link provides evidence that suggests that the Good Year blimp operation “could have done it”. (
http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/hangars/use.htm)
But under that link is a simple table:
1947 Goodyear West Coast Blimp Tour
1949-1982 Lumber Planing Mills
1952-1953 USAF Balloon Testing 1958 Balloon Launching (Cosmic Ray Research) 1963 & 1979 Coast-To-Coast Launching Point
1981-1991 Cyclocrane Development
1984 Short Take-Off & Landing Experiments
1984-Present Various Blimp Developments
1989 Government Aerostat Testing
1990 Trans-World Balloon Testing
1992-Present Aircraft Museum (Hangar B)
1994 USAF Tethered Radar Balloon Testing
Now we must note that the Goodyear “Tour” was operational
only in 1947: That is,
not 1948 or 1949 - because it if was operational in those years, there would have been an indication recorded in the table that it was.
Once more there is a lack of evidence that there was a blimp available to cause the sighting. However, a photo was found that proves there was an operating blimp in the West Coast in Oregon: (
http://photos.salemhistory.net/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/max&CISOPTR=749&CISOBOX=1&REC=3) with a caption that reads: “This is a view from the Goodyear blimp on May 6, 1949, of Bush Pasture park before Willamette University's McCullough Stadium was built.”
(Note: Salem, Oregon is some 190 miles NNE of Rogue River).
Now before we move on with the Good Year blimp hypothesis. Some skeptics refused to let the US Navy blimps go. There was even a contention that if it wasn’t the USN, then it might have been the USN Reserve.
The skeptics cited a number of forward estimates (of naval asset registers) that seemed to show that despite the official histories, there actually were operational USN bases on the East Coast in May 1949.
First the skeptics tried to point out a distinction between Navy operations and Navy Reserve operations in a statement already presented here. That is:
“During WW II, lighter-than-air (LTA) craft were key components in the war against the German U-boat, flying critical convoy escort and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) patrol missions. After war's end, blimps continued to serve in ASW and other roles, and in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ZP-651 was based at NAS Akron, Ohio; ZPs 751, 752 and 753 at NAS Lakehurst, N.J.; ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.; ZP-911 at NAS Squantum, Mass.; and ZPs 951 and 952 at MCAF Santa Ana, Calif. These reserve ZP squadrons were even more unusual than their lighter-than-air brethren, as revealed bv a closer look at ZP-911.” (
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-276238111.html)
Now the skeptics may have not read that passage as carefully as they might because contained within it is the last sentence “These reserve ZP squadrons were even more unusual than their lighter-than-air brethren…”
But perhaps the statement does
not mean what we think it means. Is there in fact a conflict between this statement and the statements of the official Navy history (above)?
One clue to the resolution of this apparent conflict could be the relatively imprecise date in this statement – 1949. It is certainly acknowledged that USN blimps were operating in the 1950s; we have evidence for that*, but 1949? I think the key term to be considered is “established” in 1949. This does not mean “became operational” in 1949. If we accept that the squadrons in question were “established” in 1949 but their operational status only reached in (as early as) 1950 then there is no conflict with official sources. But of course this does NOT put a blimp in Rogue River in May 1949.
* For example: Photographic proof that LTA squadrons were still operating in California in 1950 (
http://www.bluffshoa.com/history.php). But note, this again is 1950, not 1949, and as we are about to discover. The USN did close all its operating bases down by early 1949 (and leased them out to private companies such as Good year), but beginning in 1950, they began reinstating operational capacity in at least some of the bases on the East Coast.
So, the forward estimates were entered as evidence of USN and USNR blimp operations. We must then examine them to see what they contain.
There was some confusion over the dates of these forward estimates. The 1949 fiscal year estimate was, for example, produced in 1947. So we must be careful to distinguish what was a “forward estimate” with what the situation was “on the ground” on the dates in question.
Subject: Naval Aeronautical Organisation, Fiscal Year 1950.
3. This pamphlet is issued as a means of presenting to interested commands the planned size and composition of naval Aviation.
(Ed. Note: Apart from the contents list, the following LTA references are the only LTA references in the whole document.)
SECTION I
2. Aircraft Units
(10) Lighter-than Airships Tactical Squadrons, 2
SECTION 111. – AIRCRAFT
7. OPERATING LEVEL BY MODEL (End of fiscal 1950)
(A) LTA USNR 2, USN 16, TOTAL 18 (Revised 2 March 1949)
SECTION IV – AVIATION BASES
I. CONTINENTAL AIR STATIONS
A. SUPPORTING THE FLEET
(1) NAVY HTA
NAS Key West, Fla. OpDevFor Sqdn. Air Ships 1 ZP Det.
(2) NAVY (LTA)
NAS Lakehurst, N. J. Fleet LTA, LTA Tra. 1 ZP
E. STORAGE FACILITIES
NAF Weeksville, N.C. LTA Operations 1 ZP
SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
2. Aircraft Assignment (Stations)
Assignment of aircraft by types to reserve Air Stations is indicated below:
NARTU Lakehurst, N.J. ZP 2 (airships)
…and that is it! There are simply no West Coast bases mentioned at all. They are of no consideration and this means of course that they were not operational at the time. Nevertheless, there still remains a slight confusion here. Does this mean planned operation or existing operation? The introduction to the document indicates “existing” and the note in Section III indicates “existing”, but the intention of the document remains a forward estimate nevertheless. We must then examine the previous year to make a proper determination.
The 1949 forward estimate.
The following sections are quoted as the ONLY references to either LTA or ZP squadrons.
SECTION I – SUMMARY
2. Aircraft Units.
(A) Navy
(10) Lighter-than-Airships Tactical Squadrons 3
(Ed. Note: we see there were 3 Squadrons noted here, whereas in the above only 2 are mentioned. Is it possible then that the extra squadron was located on the East Coast?)
SECTION 111. – AIRCRAFT
5. LIGHTER-THAN-AIR
USN
Z NP Squadrons 3 (squadrons) 12(airships)
Training 4
Experiment & Development 4
7. Operating Level By Model.
(B) LTA 6(USNR) 20(USN) 26(TOTAL)
SECTION IV. - SHORE ESTLBLISHMENT
1. Continental Air Stations.
(A) Supporting the Fleet
(2) Navy LTA
NAS Key West, FLA. Night Carrier Trng 1 ZP Det.
NAS Moffett, Cal. Wings, Avia. Special 1 ZP
(Note: 1 ZP is the name of LTA squadron 1)
Navy (LTA)
NAS Lakehurst, N.J. Support Fleet LTA 2 ZP. 1 ZP Trng.
(Note: 2 ZP is the name of LTA squadron 2)
(E) Storage Facilities
NAF Weeksville, N.C BuAr A/C Sorage Program (A/C Preservation), LTA 1 ZP
NAS Santa Ana, Cal. BuAr A/C Sorage Program (A/C Preservation), LTA 1 ZP
AIRCRAFT IN STORAGE AT END OF PERIOD
1948
Jun ZP-K 24 (in inactive storage) 3 (active storage) ZP-M 1(active storage) ZT_G 3 (inactive storage) ZT-L 3 (inactive storage)
Dec ZP-K 24 (in inactive storage) 3 (active storage) ZP-M 1(active storage) ZT_G 3 (inactive storage) ZT-L 3 (inactive storage)
1949
Jun ZP-K 24 (in inactive storage) 3 (active storage) ZP-M 1(active storage) ZT_G 3 (inactive storage) ZT-L 3 (inactive storage)
Dec (no data)
8. New Procurement Fiscal 1949 Funds.
1 JULY 1949 - 30 JUNE 1950
j. Airships 2(Units) 2 (TOTAL)
SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
3. Aircraft Assignments (Stations)
NAS Lakehurst 6 (AIRSHIPS)
Indeed we note here that there are two West Coast bases mentioned; NAS Moffett and NAS Santa Ana. However, Santa Ana is listed as a “storage facility” so no operational flights there. What about NAS Moffett then?
According to the Moffett Field Historical Society:
“In January 1944, the last airship arrived at Moffett for assembly. Two months later, Moffett graduated its last training class for pilots and crew. And in August 1947, a blimp went down off the Cape of Mendocino. No lives were lost, but it would be the last flight for the LTA program at Moffett. That same month, the last blimp at Moffett Field was deflated. (
http://www.moffettfieldmuseum.org/history.html)
Now that’s a pretty categorical statement. No operational blimps at Moffett after August 1947! And this accords with the official histories already examined.
So, given the official histories, we must conclude that there were no operational USN or USNR blimps on the East Coast in May 1949. That much is very clear, however, this still does not discount the Good Year blimps.
What were the characteristics of the Good Year blimps of the time?
According to one source: “The K-Class blimp was a product of the austere times of the American depression. In 1937, the K-2 was ordered from Goodyear as part of a contract that also bought the L-1. The L-Class was Goodyear’s standard advertising and passenger blimp.” (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_class_blimp). We also have: “Goodyear resumed its fleet operations with the purchase of seven L-ships and six K-ships from the Government. During 1946 and '47, the Ranger, Volunteer, Enterprise, and Mayflower were put into service, then the larger Puritan (the former K-28). The neon night sign panels were replaced by incandescent light panels on the TZs. The K was equipped with an incandescent grid for a running sign.” (
http://wikimapia.org/10955/Goodyear-Tire-Rubber-Company-s-Wingfoot-Lake-Airship-Base-4OH6) Therefore, the “Goodyear” blimps of the period were either the K-class or the L-class blimp.
Specifications (K-14)
General characteristics
Crew: 9-10
Length: 251 ft 8 in (76.73 m)
Diameter: 57 ft 10 in (17.63 m)
Volume: 425,000 ft³ (12,043 m³)
Useful lift: 7,770 lb (3,524 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-2 radials,, 425 hp (317 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 78 mph (125 km/h)
Cruise speed: 58 mph (93 km/h)
Range: 2,205 miles (3,537 km)
Endurance: 38 hours 12 min
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_class_blimp)
Specifications (L-4)
General characteristics
Crew: Two
Length: 147 ft 6 in (44.97 m)
Diameter: 39 ft 10 in (12.14 m)
Height: 34 ft 0 in (16.46 m)
Volume: 123,000 ft³ (3,482 m³)
Useful lift: 2,540 lb (1,152 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Warner R-500-2 radials,, 145 hp (108 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 61 mph (96 km/h)
Cruise speed: 46 mph (74 km/h)
Range: 2,205 miles (3,537 km)
Endurance: 11 hours 54 min
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-Class_Blimps)
Could such a blimp have been mistaken by the eyewitnesses at Rogue River? (we will leave aside the implausibility of such a blimp actually being at Rogue River at the time and consider it unlikely but still “possible”)
There are two considerations the skeptics raise here. First a blimp, when viewed front on, is roughly circular and second, given the eyewitness descriptions, reflected light from the blimp might have obscured fins, gondola, engines, etc.
Let us examine the first contention…a “circular” blimp (after all, the eyewitnesses unanimously described the Rogue River object as circular).
To understand why this is an implausible contention we must note that while the blimp was “circular” when viewed front on, it was also approximately 4 times as long as it was round. The front on dimension (34 ft) is comparable to the eyewitness’ estimated object dimension (30 – 35 ft), but the length was 147 feet (or if K-class, 57 feet and 251 feet respectively)!
Let us see what the eyewitnesses had to say about the movement of the object – noting of course that if the object was moving (as it patently was) then a front on view meant the object was moving toward the observers.
(Mr B) (Record of interview) “…the object made a turn on its vertical axis with no tilting or banking and started to move in a southeasterly direction ... when last seen was disappearing in a southeasterly direction, accelerating to an approximate speed of a jet plane. There were no protuberances other than a slight fin which seemed to start amidship and come back flush with the trailing edge viewed as the ship drifted. No radio antenna or windows, portholes, or any other protuberances, gaps, or openings were visible” (In his own words) “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 ... 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.”
(Mr C) (Record of interview) “Just before Mr. B handed the glasses to Mr. XXX (We’ll call him “Mr. C”), the object made a turn on its vertical axis with no tilting or banking and started to move in a southeasterly direction … 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 ... It was travelling in a southeasterly direction, about 170 degrees clockwise from north.” (In his own words) “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.”
First then we can note that it was probable that the object was first moving generally toward the observers (as the skeptics MUST admit if they are to maintain the blimp hypothesis), that is, moving generally northeasterly toward the observers, but then the witnesses say it turned (“…made a turn to the south…”) away from them so that “…when last seen was disappearing in a southeasterly direction…”
Now this is where the blimp hypothesis conclusively begins to fall apart. If a blimp turns, then it will present a side view to the witnesses. It will then be apparently “cigar-shaped” (four times as long as high). We must note that the witnesses maintained their description of “circular” throughout - that is - they did not claim the object’s shape changed at all as it turned. First Mr B claimed “…the object made a turn on its vertical axis with no tilting or banking…” and that is a highly unlikely manoeuvre for a blimp. Second, in fact Mr C viewed the object through the binoculars AFTER it had turned and still described the object as circular. It is then pretty conclusive: Circular before the object turned, Circular after the object turned. This in no way describes the characteristics of a blimp executing such a turn. This alone makes the blimp hypothesis implausible.
Here a note on the speed of the object is in order. To reiterate, if the object’s distance from the observers was greater (> 5000 feet), then its actual size (in order to have the same angular size or apparent size) would have been greater (> 65 feet), and, critically, its speed would have been greater also (> jet plane speed). Conversely, if the distance from the observers was less (< 5000 feet), the object’s size would have been less (< 65 feet), and then the object’s speed would have been slower (< jet plane speed). To maintain the blimp hypothesis, the skeptics must contend the object was further away than estimated (to make the size match), but then the object’s speed would have been commensurably greater than estimated! Given that the top speed of an L-class blimp is 61 mph (or 78mph for K-class), then the witnesses estimate of “speed of a jet” again makes the blimp hypothesis implausible. Furthermore, the witness descriptions imply that the object accelerated and departed quickly. Acceleration comparable to that of a jet plane is not a characteristic of a blimp.
Then we must note that the top fin as described by the witnesses as beginning “amidship” does not resemble the fin of a blimp, which is very much restricted to the rear fifth of a blimp of the time - and is rather “squarish” (rather than “triangular” as on the object), again adding another level of implausibility to the blimp hypothesis!
A note must also be made of the fact that the Goodyear blimps all had a big “Goodyear” logo on their flanks. It is hard to imagine the witnesses with binoculars missing that “small” detail! For example from Mr C’s record of interview we have the statement “The trailing edge of the object as it travelled appeared to be somewhat wrinkled and dirty looking.” If he could see this sort of detail on the object, how could he have missed a big “Goodyear” logo? Again another level of implausibility is added to the blimp hypothesis.
However, we have yet to deal with the “reflected obscuring light” hypothesis. Could a blimp be “lost in the glare” such that only the “top fin” was visible (obscuring all three other fins, gondola, engines, etc), while making it look as if it maintained a circular shape even while turning (and making it look as if travelling at “jet plane” speeds)?
What sort of “glare” can be expected from a blimp in full sunlight?
First we must consider that the “glare’ hypothesis is implausible because the motion of the blimp (first toward, then turning and angling away from the observers) would have shifted the "glare" so that features of a blimp should have been alternately revealed and obscured over time - especially as neither the observers nor the light source moved.
However (of course) this is perhaps too subtle an argument for the skeptics to accept (not being "specialists" in observation) so what else do we have?
To explain what is occurring with reflected light off a blimp we first must recognise that there are three types of reflection possible: Specular, Diffuse and Semispecular (a mix of the first two). Specular reflection is when light is reflected back as a “beam” such as light off a mirror. This is where the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence and it creates the “glint” phenomenon - and it is well known that this "glint" can obscure the view of reflective objects. And this is where the "glare" hypothesis arises from.
Diffuse reflection is where the light is reflected from a surface equally in all directions - and there is no “glint” – such as off a piece of matte-white paper.
Semispecular is a mixture of both types, but where the intensity of the reflection is greater where a specular “glint” would have been (but of course there is no “glint”, just a brighter area of diffuse reflection) - spreading over the surrounding area and becoming more diffuse the further away from the “central region of glare” one gets.
Semi-specular reflection is precisely the type of reflection that is apparent from blimps. That is, blimps do NOT “glint”. Anyone can prove this for themselves by going to Google Images and entering the search terms “Blimp” or “Blimp Photo” (etc). There, thousands of blimp photos are available and in those with the greatest apparent surface “glare” you will notice a semi-specular reflection of light, but never a Specular reflection (a “glint”). It is also notable that in all such pictures, none of the details of ANY blimp is “lost” in the “glare”. This simply does not happen with blimps (see attached pictures for example).
Some have contended that the blimps of the time were constructed of “aluminium” and thus could have created an obscuring glint. However these objectors must first realise the properties of aluminium - it oxidises very quickly in the open to a matte finish – besides, the advertising blimps were usually painted in lively colours – blue and yellow for Goodyear – and second, that blimps were NOT constructed of aluminium at all. While the airframe might have been (aircraft grade aluminium), the “envelope” most definitely was not: For example “The envelope is usually made of a combination of man-made materials: Dacron, polyester, Mylar, and/or Tedlar bonded with Hytrel. The high-tech, weather-resistant plastic film is laminated to a rip-stop polyester fabric. The envelope's fabric also protects against ultraviolet light. Usually the envelope is smaller than the bladder to ensure that the envelope takes the load when the blimp is fully inflated. The bladder is made of a thin leak-resistant polyurethane plastic film … The envelope is made of patterns of fabric panels. Two or three plies of cloth are impregnated with an elastomer. One of these plies is placed in a bias direction with respect to others. The pieces of the envelope can be put together in a number of ways. They can be cemented and sewn together, or heat-welded (heat-sealed). The outside of the envelope is coated with aluminized paint for protection against sunlight. The envelope will have the required shape when filled with gas.” (
http://www.enotes.com/how-products-encyclopedia/airship)
So what have we discovered about the blimp hypothesis? First, there were NO USN or USNR blimps available to have been in the area at the time. Second, that the Goodyear blimp was a “possible” contender (being at least flying on the West Coast) but that a combination of eyewitness descriptions and blimp characteristics rule such a blimp hypothesis out of contention; that is, makes it implausible for it to have been a blimp of
any variety, let alone a highly visible (and deliberately painted and logo’d) advertising blimp of the Goodyear variety.
As a final note on the viewing conditions: Even though it was a “clear” day with no clouds, it is possible there might have been some haze in the air which the witnesses did not think to mention - but if the object were as huge as a blimp and only a mile or a few miles away, it would have been visible unless there was so much haze that the witnesses would have most likely mentioned it. It must be pointed out, concerning this haze issue, that typical the phrase "clear air and visibility unlimited" during the daytime means one can see objects up to 15 miles away (or further if bright enough) - so to see for a few miles ought to have been relatively "easy" for the observers at the time. This then adds a final note of implausibility to the blimp hypothesis.
So in summary.
First we have determined that the eyewitnesses were reliable, responsible people, thus making the “hoax” explanation implausible.
Second we have viewing conditions (clear day, sun at their backs, anchored in a wide, slow moving river) making it implausible that such conditions could have substantially contributed to viewing errors.
Third there are no know mundane hypotheses that fit the eyewitness descriptions (not a plane, not a “Radar kite” and certainly not a blimp).
Therefore we must categorise the object sighted at Rogue River as a UFO – just as the Battelle scientists did.
