UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

And yet you use this self same "second (even third?) hand" information to assert that the symptoms resemble radiation sickness, despite the fact that they also resemble the symptoms of other causal agents.

What “other causal agents”? I am merely taking Cowgill’s first hand observations as having veracity and all else as potentially flawed unless it can be shown evidentially or logically to not be so. For example most of the symptoms he could observe for himself – except the initial vomiting – but it is hard to see how the witnesses or a second or even third hand retelling by a doctor or caregiver could be mistaken about the initial vomiting (that it occurred). What they could be mistaken about however, is the time frame of the vomiting.

So, please tell us, how long do you suppose it takes to wake up in terror, think the world is ending, drop to your knees in prayer and then vomit violently "almost immediately"? Seconds? Minutes? An hour? More?

Possibly – who really knows?

Seriously, for radiation to cause vomiting on a timescale less than 10 minutes requires a dose of at least 8Gy, and probably more. That would be fatal within 2 weeks, probably less. Are you seriously contending that either their actions as described (and summarised just above) could take more than 10 minutes, or that they could survive a dose in excess of 8Gy?

Actually the cited sources (Merck etc.) mention (and the historical records indicate – eg; WWII and Chernobyl) that large doses are survivable - and even given that, we do not really know if some (or all) the victims did not subsequently die.

Second, you have based the dose (which seems to be increasing on every re-telling… from 3 to 6 and now 8) on a stated “10 minute” time frame when we simply cannot know this at all.

If we assume that the letter is genuine (which most of us have stipulated to) then there is no plausible mundane explanation that anyone here can think of, you included. We aren't arguing about the plausibility of radiation sickness to try to show a plausible mundane explanation. We're arguing about it to show that you cling to unreasonable conclusions despite the evidence, which shows that radiation sickness is utterly implausible. And of course, if it was radiation sickness then that isn't a mundane explanation anyway!

Indeed. Radiation poisoning in 1886 Venezuela is certainly not a mundane explanation. Nor does it seem plausible. All I am noting however is that radiation sickness is an explanation that best fits the evidence. If you cannot see that vomiting, swelling, a latency period, damaged skin turning to virulent sores and hair falling out resembles radiation poisoning, then I don’t know what more I can add except perhaps that the case defies mundane explanation.

It depends on the assessment being made. If a witness estimates that an event took 5 minutes then that 5 minutes is a subjective time-frame, that could be as little as ~2 minutes or as much as ~10 minutes. It would be ridiculous to suggest that it was actually 30 minutes. When someone describes their actions during an event we can reasonably reconstruct a range of times that those actions would have taken. Yes, it's still subjective, and open to a range of values, but how do you stretch "almost immediately" to more than 1 or 2 minutes without stretching credibility beyond breaking point?

All I am pointing out is that the “almost immediate” vomiting, (subjective as that statement is) might not be an accurate reflection of reality. All the other symptoms Cowgill could observe first hand - but who told him about the vomiting time frame? The victims, a doctor? We just don’t know. For example the victims might have told a doctor “sometime soon after” and the doctor tells Cowgill “soon after” and he tells us “almost immediately”.

But you take all sorts of witness statements as "literally true" when you draw conclusions. For instance, until I pointed out that the witness description that their injuries were worse on the side on which they had been lying hurt the radiation hypothesis, you were using it as an argument against the burn hypothesis.

No, it was you who took that statement to be literally true to make a point about radiation. I merely noted that IF true, as you wanted it to be for your own reasons, then it actually counted against one of your own hypotheses (in other words you can’t have it both ways).

So for you it's a matter of resources, whilst for your opponents it's a vested interest in not getting at the truth? Are you projecting, or just slinging mud?

Simply I don’t have the resources to get to Venezuela on the off chance the hospital records still exist. I was then speculating that given the debunkers statements in this thread (eg; Jocce’s false and misleading statements above about the Battelle study) that the debunkers seem to want to obscure the facts rather than illuminate and clarify the issue. Then based on that (and similar performances from others), I asserted that if they had the resources, the debunkers would not want to use them as they seem to think that such cases are best left in as obscure a state as possible.

I stated:
” So there the matter must rest until the necessary resources are made available.”

Which they never will be, but I'm sure you won't remove the case from your files.

Why should I? The case defies plausible mundane explanation. It is a true mystery.
Besides, radiation sickness in 1886 Venezuela? What the…

 

[Rramjet]

To further illustrate how the UFO debunkers like to obscure rather than illuminate and clarify, RoboT has cited that the Delphos case’s principle witness, Ronald Johnson, also claimed to have sighted a “Wolf Girl”.

Rremjet, why didn't you post any links to the Delphos case that discussed Johnson's later claim to being psychic? Or his later claim to seeing a wolf girl?

What RoboT fails to mention is that:

The following 'Wolf Girl' / UFO case was in the end proved to be simple hoax perpetrated by local kids… (http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Delphosgirl.htm)​

So yes he might have sighted a “wolf girl” - but as it was later proved to be a hoax - and thus there was indeed a “wolf girl” to be sighted - then the mere sighting of the “wolf girl” should not be held against the poor guy.

As to his later claims of “psychic powers”? In consideration that:

“The glow of the objects bottom increased as it began to rise up into the sky. Ron would later state that he was temporarily blinded by the brightness of the craft as it ascended.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

“For days after the UFO sighting, Johnson complained of headaches and nightmares and he said his eyes hurt.” (http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/galleryg/id62.html)​

” The day after the incident, Ronald's eyes became red and watered as though from irritation. For a week after the incident he had nightmares from which he awoke screaming.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)​

Quite obviously the poor guy was somewhat affected by his UFO experience.

There is also the following to consider:

“Only if you're one of those debunkers who thinks that if you find an explanation for part of an incident, then you have "debunked" the entire incident. Remember, three witnesses saw a UFO, not just the ring, and their sighting was at least partly corroborated by a fourth witness eleven miles away in Minneapolis. The ring itself may not be directly related to the UFO sighting, and the presence of a fungus in the soil does not explain how the fluorescent material got onto the surrounding trees, nor how the branches got broken and the dead Chinese elm tree knocked down.

Both Thaddia Smith and Sheriff Enlow told Ted Phillips in 1972 that the Johnsons were well respected in the area and that they did not believe that it was possible that the family could be perpetrating a hoax.

The dog would furiously try to get into the house at nightfall.

The day after the incident, Ronald's eyes became red and watered as though from irritation. For a week after the incident he had nightmares from which he awoke screaming.

Even the animals were traumatized by the sighting. Vallee says:

For about two weeks, every evening at sunset, the sheep would jump out of the pen and run wildly. The dog would furiously try to get into the house at nightfall. He practically destroyed the screen door, and the only way to keep him outside was to replace it with a stronger metal door.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)​

Why did none of your links mention the $5000 from the National Enquirer paid to the Johnsons?

First you provide no evidence that this is actually true (none of the links you provide state this). However, HERE is the link you failed to provide (and we can see why when we examine it!) (http://www.chancy.org/family/Familyinfo/Kansas/delphos.html)

” The National Enquirer awarded the Johnsons a $5,000 award in 1973 for their UFO story because it "supplied the most scientifically valuable evidence of UFOs in 1972.”​

So, a full two years after the incident the National Enquirer sees fit to make an award to the Johnsons. Critically, the Johnsons did not solicit the payment, nor were they probably even aware that such a payment might be awarded to them. Just how is this supposed to detract from their story RoboT?

As I stated at the beginning of this post – clearly the express intent of the UFO debunkers is to obscure rather than to illuminate and clarify - that much at least, in my opinion, should be readily apparent to anyone reading this thread.

 

[wollery]

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:

Update your links. It should be; http://brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm

Given that Dr Maccabee is the expert in optics, perhaps we should return here to his analysis.

Is this the same expert in optics who, in assessing the White Sands case, estimated the pixel count of the object on the film by using only the estimated height as a distance to obtain angular size on the film and then calculated the area on the film of the circular objects by squaring their diameters, thus obtaining a value almost three times higher than it should have been? That expert in optics?

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:

“After the war, NAS Tillamook was quickly disestablished, but her facilities continued to provide staging areas for private airship companies.” (http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/base/uses.htm)​

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.

And what else is on that page? The quote that you have consistently left out every time you churn out this list?

"Spanning the years that followed, the hangars have participated in a variety of novel projects:"

Let's marry that up with the statement from the other page shall we.

"...her facilities continued to provide staging areas for private airship companies."

"Spanning the years that followed, the hangars have participated in a variety of novel projects:"

The Goodyear West Coast Tour was a "novel project", but the facility was used to provide a staging area for private airship companies. That means that private airship companies could moor their airships there overnight if they wanted, and this would not be included in a list of "novel projects", because it would be a run of the mill overnight stop.

In other words, your list proves absolutely nothing.

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).

Ah, so there was a blimp in the area at the time. How fast can a blimp fly? How much distance can it cover in one day?

To summarise.

We have an analysis performed by an expert in optics who performed an analysis in another case that was very misleading, either because of incompetence or dishonesty.

We also have a list of operations of an airship base (supplied by you ostensibly to prove that no blimps could have been in the area) that wouldn't have listed ordinary day to day blimp operations, which a page on the same website says the base continued to perform for private companies.

And finally, we have a documented case of a blimp in the same general area just a few weeks before the sighting. If you are correct about all these blimp bases, and have shown that there was nowhere for a blimp to moor, then what was it doing there? How did it get there? Where did it refuel? Why is there no other record of it?

 

[Jocce]

I stated:

Can you please tell me where in that statement you quoted I used the term “could have been”?

You did not use that exact term (and I never claimed you did) but some other phrases to that effect (wishing things were another way):

"If we consider UNKNOWN to equal “unidentified”
Well, noone did that so you're talking about a theoretical situation, i.e. a situation that could have been.

"the authors specifically state that there is nothing that would prevent them all from being labelled as “identified”
Well, they were not so once again you're talking about how things "could have been".

Do you now understand how your statements are false and misleading?

My statement is neither false, nor misleading. Equal proportions of unidentified objects are found in both excellent and poor reports (~38%). Just look at the data.

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?

I have no problem distinguishing between the categories. The problem is that the authors claim that they can, based on fragmented and subjective estimations of true facts, exclude mundane explanations while at the same time not being able to describe any object in detail. That's pretty much the same thing as using your own "process of elimination" which has been shown to be seriously flawed when used in this context.

Are you putting this (ed: blimp at Rogue River) up as an example of a report that has subsequently been explained?

Yes, it was probably a blimp. The witnesses drew pictures of an object that looks like a blimp, seen in an area were blimps were flewn in to and out from bases for reservist training during weekends. They made their "detailed" observations using binoculars, sitting (all of them) in the same rocking boat on a river on a warm day in may with heat haze. Yesh, blimp is a plausible explanation and you have been shown the evidence for that before but wilfully choose to ignore it.

 

[SOdhner]

Rramjet, are you planning to reply to my last two posts responding to (and refuting) your claims that the letter being factually inaccurate isn't a plausible explanation?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6931455&postcount=8408

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6935927&postcount=8418

You haven't responded to either one and it looks as if you're trying to move on to another case.

 

[RoboTimbo]

To further illustrate how the UFO debunkers like to obscure rather than illuminate and clarify, RoboT has cited that the Delphos case’s principle witness, Ronald Johnson, also claimed to have sighted a “Wolf Girl”.

What RoboT fails to mention is that:

The following 'Wolf Girl' / UFO case was in the end proved to be simple hoax perpetrated by local kids… (http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Delphosgirl.htm)​

So yes he might have sighted a “wolf girl” - but as it was later proved to be a hoax - and thus there was indeed a “wolf girl” to be sighted - then the mere sighting of the “wolf girl” should not be held against the poor guy.

This makes no sense whatsoever. He claimed to have seen a wolf girl and then three years later some other local kids claim to have seen a wolf girl, probably based on his claim to an earlier sighting. Johnson's claimed sighting was in 1971, shortly after a similar claim in Mobile, AL. The other teens' claims began in 1974. From that you get that there was actually a wolf girl? No, Rramjet, this is evidence that the boy made up stories, likely from trigger events. Tell me again how you eliminated "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation?

As to his later claims of “psychic powers”? In consideration that:

“The glow of the objects bottom increased as it began to rise up into the sky. Ron would later state that he was temporarily blinded by the brightness of the craft as it ascended.” (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

“For days after the UFO sighting, Johnson complained of headaches and nightmares and he said his eyes hurt.” (http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/galleryg/id62.html)​

” The day after the incident, Ronald's eyes became red and watered as though from irritation. For a week after the incident he had nightmares from which he awoke screaming.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)​

Quite obviously the poor guy was somewhat affected by his UFO experience.

Even more obviously, you have left out a line:

"Later he claimed he acquired psychic powers since his close encounter, but never explained what these powers were."

This is more evidence that the boys made up stories. Unless you have evidence that psychic abilities exist and how his manifested? Tell me again how you eliminated "HOAX" as a plausible mundane possibility?

There is also the following to consider:

“Only if you're one of those debunkers who thinks that if you find an explanation for part of an incident, then you have "debunked" the entire incident. Remember, three witnesses saw a UFO, not just the ring, and their sighting was at least partly corroborated by a fourth witness eleven miles away in Minneapolis. The ring itself may not be directly related to the UFO sighting, and the presence of a fungus in the soil does not explain how the fluorescent material got onto the surrounding trees, nor how the branches got broken and the dead Chinese elm tree knocked down.​

Where it should have read, "If you're one of those creduloids who equate causation with correlation, then a fairy ring, broken branches and a dead tree falling down equal ALIENS!" Tell me again, if you knew the fairy ring was mundane, why were you fighting so hard to link it to a UFO hoax? Tell me again, how did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation?

Both Thaddia Smith and Sheriff Enlow told Ted Phillips in 1972 that the Johnsons were well respected in the area and that they did not believe that it was possible that the family could be perpetrating a hoax.

To a creduloid, this is gospel that it would be impossible for Ron Johnson to tell a tall story. Look back up in this post where we discuss a "wolf girl" and his claimed psychic powers. Tell me again, how did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation?

The dog would furiously try to get into the house at nightfall.

The day after the incident, Ronald's eyes became red and watered as though from irritation. For a week after the incident he had nightmares from which he awoke screaming.

Even the animals were traumatized by the sighting. Vallee says:

For about two weeks, every evening at sunset, the sheep would jump out of the pen and run wildly. The dog would furiously try to get into the house at nightfall. He practically destroyed the screen door, and the only way to keep him outside was to replace it with a stronger metal door.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)

Anecdotal. Also, what evidence would tie these events, IF TRUE, to aliens? Note above what was said about correlation and causation. Tell me again, how did you eliminate "HOAX" from the list of plausible mundane possiblities?

First you provide no evidence that this is actually true (none of the links you provide state this). However, HERE is the link you failed to provide (and we can see why when we examine it!) (http://www.chancy.org/family/Familyinfo/Kansas/delphos.html)

” The National Enquirer awarded the Johnsons a $5,000 award in 1973 for their UFO story because it "supplied the most scientifically valuable evidence of UFOs in 1972.”​

So, a full two years after the incident the National Enquirer sees fit to make an award to the Johnsons. Critically, the Johnsons did not solicit the payment, nor were they probably even aware that such a payment might be awarded to them. Just how is this supposed to detract from their story RoboT?

Hm, you're right. I didn't include a link to that, thought I had. Apparently you knew about it, though. Thanks for supplying the link. Anyway, do you have evidence that Ron Johnson or his family were unaware of the prize?

As I stated at the beginning of this post – clearly the express intent of the UFO debunkers is to obscure rather than to illuminate and clarify - that much at least, in my opinion, should be readily apparent to anyone reading this thread.

No, you are incorrect. Your intent is clear in this thread. It is obvious from the above that you will use any means to try to lend credibility to your anecdotes.

Note that there were not three witnesses to what Ron Johnson saw. He claimed to have seen a craft in detail and went to get his parents. When they got back, they saw a glow in the sky. What was the glow caused by that they claimed to see? I'll let you search some non-creduloid websites and see if you can come up with the answer before I give it to you. Or do you already know the answer to that one also?

Why were you careful to NOT provide links to his claimed psychic ability or his claim to have seen a "wolf girl"?

Tell me again, how did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation in this case?

Looks like your version of a process of elimination is still fatally flawed.

 

[Rramjet]

Is this the same expert in optics who, in assessing the White Sands case, estimated the pixel count of the object on the film by using only the estimated height as a distance to obtain angular size on the film and then calculated the area on the film of the circular objects by squaring their diameters, thus obtaining a value almost three times higher than it should have been? That expert in optics?

So now you too must resort to putting forward false and misleading statements?

First:

” Bruce spent his early year in Rutland, Vt. After high school he studied physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, Mass (B.S. in physics) and then at The American University, Washington, DC (M.S. and Ph. D. in physics). In 1972 commenced his long career at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, presently headquartered at Dahlgren, Virginia. He has worked on optical data processing, generation of underwater sound with lasers and various aspects of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) using high power lasers.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail23.htm)​

Second:

” The focal length of the typical telescope was 60 cm. One may assume that the 35 mm film used had an image size resolution, determined by the average film grain size, of 0.001 cm (0.01 mm or 10 microns), or less (if high resolution film was used the grain size could be as small as about 5 microns). Assuming 0.001 cm resolution at the film plane, the angular resolution was on the order of 0.001 cm/60 cm = 1.6 x 10^-5 radians = 0.0009 degrees which is about 3 arc-second resolution (1 arc-sec = 0.00028 deg). When this distance is projected to 150,000 ft it corresponds to about 2 1/2 ft. This is a "resolution element" at that distance. Hence it is not surprising that the film image discussed above is a quite good representation of the shape of the V-2 rocket at a high altitude.

An object 30 ft in diameter would have 12 of these resolution elements across its width, and about 140 such elements over the whole image area (if roughly round) which would be more than enough to assure that the film image would be clearly show the the overall shape of the object. (If the film resolution were better than 10 microns the number of resolution elements in the image would be even greater. The more resolution elements there are, the more accurate is the depiction of the actual shape of the object.) The bottom line is that it is very UNLIKELY that the expert analysts at White Sands were wrong when they stated that the objects were about 150,000 ft high and about 30 ft in diameter (and traveling at a high speed).” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)​

Did you not think I would check the veracity of your statements wollery? Do you not consider what it does to your credibility when you are found out to be putting forward false and misleading statements? Yet this was not the only one you put forward…

Next you have taken the statement:

"Spanning the years that followed, the hangars have participated in a variety of novel projects:"

And have falsely and misleadingly attempted to marry it with a completely unrelated statement from elsewhere! Lets put that statement back into it’s correct context shall we:

After the last LTA operations ceased at NAS Tillamook, the base continued to serve as a surplus storage depot. Spanning the years that followed, the hangars have participated in a variety of novel projects:

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​

(http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/hangars/use.htm)​

So we can see that the “novel projects” the base was used for are listed!

You have also falsely and misleadingly implied that there were “private airship companies” in operation on the West Coast other than Goodyear.

The Goodyear West Coast Tour was a "novel project", but the facility was used to provide a staging area for private airship companies. That means that private airship companies could moor their airships there overnight if they wanted, and this would not be included in a list of "novel projects", because it would be a run of the mill overnight stop.

That statement amounts to what is in essence a straight up falsification of history!

In other words, your list proves absolutely nothing.

The list (and the preceding paragraph) demonstrated that Tillamook was not used to stage Goodyear blimps (the only blimps in operation on the West Coast at the time) in 1949!

Ah, so there was a blimp in the area at the time. How fast can a blimp fly? How much distance can it cover in one day?

Yes a Goodyear blimp was at Salem (some 190 miles NNE of Rogue River) and these blimps were painted bright Blue and Yellow and had great big yellow “GoodYear” logos emblazoned down their flanks. And of course the witness descriptions describe nothing like a GoodYear blimp!

So once again it seems the UFO debunker desire to obscure and muddy the waters – rather than to illuminate and clarify – comes to the for in false and misleading statements - which are so easily shown to be false and misleading that one wonders, considering the potential damage to their own credibility, why the UFO debunkers insist on putting them forward...

 

[Rramjet]

My statement is neither false, nor misleading. Equal proportions of unidentified objects are found in both excellent and poor reports (~38%). Just look at the data.

You have falsely and misleadingly conflated two separate and distinct sighting categories:

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”.

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).

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.

It can therefore be seen in the above that not only do Jocce’s statements falsely and misleadingly conflate separate categories of report, his statements also falsely and misleadingly conflate separate meanings of “unidentified”. Of course Jocce’s intention in putting forward such false and misleading statements is quite clear: That is an attempt obscure the obvious trend in the data that the more reliable the report, the more UNKNOWNS there are!

I have no problem distinguishing between the categories.

If that is so then one can only conclude that your statements are deliberately false and misleading…

The problem is that the authors claim that they can, based on fragmented and subjective estimations of true facts, exclude mundane explanations while at the same time not being able to describe any object in detail. That's pretty much the same thing as using your own "process of elimination" which has been shown to be seriously flawed when used in this context.

”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)​

Yes, it was probably a blimp.

That is simply a statement that amounts to a falsification of the historical record.

The witnesses drew pictures of an object that looks like a blimp…

This is a straight up false statement. The witnesses drew a CIRCULAR object (like a coin or a pancake) with a fin on its back that looks nothing like any blimp of the era!

…seen in an area were blimps were flewn in to and out from bases for reservist training during weekends.

This is a mere unfounded assertion and once again amounts to a direct falsification of the historical record.

They made their "detailed" observations using binoculars, sitting (all of them) in the same rocking boat on a river on a warm day in may with heat haze.

This is again a mere falsification of the historical record and eyewitness testimony.

Yesh, blimp is a plausible explanation and you have been shown the evidence for that before but wilfully choose to ignore it.

Let me ask you a question Jocce. Do you think that making up false and misleading statements in direct opposition to both the historical record and the eyewitness testimony will enhance or detract from your credibility?

 

[Jocce]

You have falsely and misleadingly conflated two separate and distinct sighting categories:

The categories have one thing in common. They both contain unidentified objects. Do you now claim that some unknown objects were in fact identified or what?

Let me ask you a question Jocce. Do you think that making up false and misleading statements in direct opposition to both the historical record and the eyewitness testimony will enhance or detract from your credibility?

You choose to ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting a blimp in the Rouge river case presented to you over a year ago. Not my problem.

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
” You have falsely and misleadingly conflated two separate and distinct sighting categories”

The categories have one thing in common. They both contain unidentified objects. Do you now claim that some unknown objects were in fact identified or what?

First it is your conflation of the data in the two categories that is false and misleading because they are separate and distinct categories of data. Second your use of the term “unidentified” is also false and misleading. The UNKNOWN category may contain unidentified objects, however we simply don’t know what the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category contains. It may contain identifiable or unidentifiable objects - but not unidentified objects.

You choose to ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting a blimp in the Rouge river case presented to you over a year ago. Not my problem.

That you persist in misnaming Rogue River clearly indicates that you have ignored the evidence to such an extent that you have not even bothered to understand the name of the location! Either that or it is a deliberate misnaming and we can only then conclude that you are so intent on making deliberate false and misleading statements that you will stop short of nothing to make them – right down to a misnaming of the location!

Clearly – as evidenced by THIS post – I have carefully studied and presented the evidence to show the “blimp hypothesis” to be implausible in the extreme. Not only do the historical records indicate no “blimps”, the eyewitness descriptions rule them out also. That is the evidence that you ignore Jocce.

So not only is your statement about the name of the location false and misleading and not only are your conjectures about the veracity of the “blimp hypothesis” false and misleading, your statement about precisely who it is that has ignored the evidence in this case is also false and misleading.

You did not answer my question about what all that does to your credibility in being able to comment legitimately on these (and other) cases Jocce (and that is a problem you now have).

 

[Rramjet]

This makes no sense whatsoever. He claimed to have seen a wolf girl and then three years later some other local kids claim to have seen a wolf girl, probably based on his claim to an earlier sighting. Johnson's claimed sighting was in 1971, shortly after a similar claim in Mobile, AL. The other teens' claims began in 1974. From that you get that there was actually a wolf girl? No, Rramjet, this is evidence that the boy made up stories, likely from trigger events. Tell me again how you eliminated "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation?

This is merely confirmation bias from you RoboT. You believe it to be a hoax - so through that prism you interpret such evidence as being supportive of a hoax.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that the boy’s claims - made after his UFO experience - to have seen a “wolf-girl” and to have developed “psychic powers” are not genuine claims – in that he truly believes in those claims. All the evidence suggests he does believe in those claims. There may be other explanations for those claims – but “hoax” is not it.

Where it should have read, "If you're one of those creduloids who equate causation with correlation, then a fairy ring, broken branches and a dead tree falling down equal ALIENS!"

You see, this is where your argument keeps breaking down. It is in fact you who is illegitimately equating correlation with causation. I am not claiming ET as the explanation for any of the cases I am presenting. While ET may seem to be a plausible hypothetical explanation – we simply do not have any direct evidence to determine its veracity in these cases.

Tell me again, if you knew the fairy ring was mundane, why were you fighting so hard to link it to a UFO hoax?

The “landing ring” was certainly not mundane.

The ring was still clearly visible thirty-two days later when examined by a UFO investigator named Ted Phillips, who specializes in physical-trace cases. The soil in the ring itself was still dry to a depth of at least twelve inches even though at this time it was covered by snow, whereas the soil outside the ring was wet and black. Phillips took several photos of the ring and collected soil samples from the ring and from the ground outside the ring.

A number of analyses were done of soil samples taken from the ring and from the surrounding soil. The ring soil was found to be resistant to water, to contain more calcium and more soluble salts, and to be more acidic than soil from outside the ring. In addition, the soil from the ring was found to contain an unidentified hydrocarbon and an organic material composed of white, crystal-like fibers. (http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)​

For a more detailed analysis of the composition of the “landing ring” see here (http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf)

As to the original analysis:

Further experimentation showed the ground under the ring to be dry to a depth of one foot. The ring itself was composed of a whitish substance, which was sent to a laboratory for analysis. The findings were as follows:

[it was resolved into fibers which] was vegetal in nature and belonged to an organism of the order of Actinomycetales, which is an intermediate organism between bacteria and fungus... family actiniomycete, genus Nocardia... [and is] often found together with a fungus of the order Basidomycetes, which may flouresce under certain conditions.. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

Now any one who knows about how fungus growth patterns will tell you that they spread from a central point outward, with the hyphae extending out radially under the soil (from that central point) and the “flowering heads” (most visibly noted by us in the form of mushroom “rings” for various fungal types) appearing seasonally. What this means of course is that, considering the nature of the “fungus” in question, there should have been a circular patch – not a ring…

So definitely not mundane!

Tell me again, how did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation?

See above and below.

I quoted:
” Both Thaddia Smith and Sheriff Enlow told Ted Phillips in 1972 that the Johnsons were well respected in the area and that they did not believe that it was possible that the family could be perpetrating a hoax.”

To a creduloid, this is gospel that it would be impossible for Ron Johnson to tell a tall story.

Not at all. It is simply another piece of evidence speaking against your hoax hypothesis.

Look back up in this post where we discuss a "wolf girl" and his claimed psychic powers. Tell me again, how did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation?

See above.

I quoted anecdotal evidence about the behaviour of various animals after the evident.

Anecdotal.

Sure – as you say – anecdotal – but it all contributes to a weight of evidence. Each bit, in and of itself, not particularly compelling, but when added together a picture of something unusual begins to emerge.

Also, what evidence would tie these events, IF TRUE, to aliens?

Again, I am not claiming ET as the answer. Why do you insist (if true) that it is?

Hm, you're right. I didn't include a link to that, thought I had. Apparently you knew about it, though. Thanks for supplying the link. Anyway, do you have evidence that Ron Johnson or his family were unaware of the prize?

I did not know about it until you pointed it out. I merely Googled your information and found the link. However, the point is that they did not solicit their “prize” - and it was awarded two years after the event – well after their story had been in the public domain – so how could the awarding of the prize have affected the case at that stage?

I stated that the intent of the UFO debunkers seems to be one of obscuring rather than clarifying.

No, you are incorrect. Your intent is clear in this thread. It is obvious from the above that you will use any means to try to lend credibility to your anecdotes.

Not any means – merely a presentation of the evidence. What are you presenting?

Note that there were not three witnesses to what Ron Johnson saw. He claimed to have seen a craft in detail and went to get his parents. When they got back, they saw a glow in the sky. What was the glow caused by that they claimed to see? I'll let you search some non-creduloid websites and see if you can come up with the answer before I give it to you. Or do you already know the answer to that one also?

First:

Ron's parents came running around the side of the house to get a glimpse of the unusual phenomena. They arrived just in time to see the object, now big as the full moon, as it disappeared from view. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

Second:

On 11-03-71 Mr. Lester Ensbarger of 416 Argyle St. in Minneapolis advised Deputy Sheriff Leonard Simpson that at approx. 7:30 p.m. 11-02-71 he had observed a bright light descending in the sky in the Delphos area. (http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)​

Why were you careful to NOT provide links to his claimed psychic ability or his claim to have seen a "wolf girl"?

I did not know those links existed. Obviously they were not hard to find however. I merely present the evidence I have and wherever that subsequently leads I have no control over. That differs substantially from your failure to provide the link to the National Enquirer “prize” that you quoted (and we know why you did not – because the link actually refutes your contention that the awarding of the prize supports your hoax theory).

 

[Jocce]

I stated:
” You have falsely and misleadingly conflated two separate and distinct sighting categories”

First it is your conflation of the data in the two categories that is false and misleading because they are separate and distinct categories of data.

And they both contain unidentified objects.

Second your use of the term “unidentified” is also false and misleading. The UNKNOWN category may contain unidentified objects, however we simply don’t know what the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category contains. It may contain identifiable or unidentifiable objects - but not unidentified objects.

I'm not talking about if the objects are identifiable or not but since they are categorised as "insufficient info." and "unknown" it seems as if they are not identifiable using the available data.

What we do know is that the objects in these groups have not been identified. I.e. they are unidentified, in equal proportions in the poor and excellent reports. Once again you are talking about how things could have been, not how they are.

That you persist in misnaming Rogue River clearly indicates that you have ignored the evidence to such an extent that you have not even bothered to understand the name of the location! Either that or it is a deliberate misnaming and we can only then conclude that you are so intent on making deliberate false and misleading statements that you will stop short of nothing to make them – right down to a misnaming of the location!

Sorry.

Clearly – as evidenced by THIS post – I have carefully studied and presented the evidence to show the “blimp hypothesis” to be implausible in the extreme. Not only do the historical records indicate no “blimps”, the eyewitness descriptions rule them out also. That is the evidence that you ignore Jocce.

Hundreds of posts in this thread show that you're wrong. If you choose to ignore the evidence, all hope for a rational discussion with you is lost .

You did not answer my question about what all that does to your credibility in being able to comment legitimately on these (and other) cases Jocce (and that is a problem you now have).

I misspelled Rogue river twice, sorry about that.

 

[RoboTimbo]

This is merely confirmation bias from you RoboT. You believe it to be a hoax - so through that prism you interpret such evidence as being supportive of a hoax.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that the boy’s claims - made after his UFO experience - to have seen a “wolf-girl” and to have developed “psychic powers” are not genuine claims – in that he truly believes in those claims. All the evidence suggests he does believe in those claims. There may be other explanations for those claims – but “hoax” is not it.

That tells me how you eliminated "HOAX". With wishful thinking. Wouldn't you agree that the rest of your claims to having elimated plausible mundane explanations are now suspect as well?

If you posted a link to where a wolf girl or psychic claims had been confirmed (other than by wishful thinking) I missed it. Perhaps you would post it again?

And then tell me again, how did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation?

You see, this is where your argument keeps breaking down. It is in fact you who is illegitimately equating correlation with causation. I am not claiming ET as the explanation for any of the cases I am presenting. While ET may seem to be a plausible hypothetical explanation – we simply do not have any direct evidence to determine its veracity in these cases.

Then you presented this case knowing it was off topic to this thread? In fact, every case you have presented is off topic since you haven't shown any of them to be "aliens". Why did you equate correlation with causation with the mundane fairy ring, broken branches, and a dead tree falling over?

Tell me again how ET is a plausible explanation for this case but "HOAX" isn't?

The “landing ring” was certainly not mundane.

The ring was still clearly visible thirty-two days later when examined by a UFO investigator named Ted Phillips, who specializes in physical-trace cases. The soil in the ring itself was still dry to a depth of at least twelve inches even though at this time it was covered by snow, whereas the soil outside the ring was wet and black. Phillips took several photos of the ring and collected soil samples from the ring and from the ground outside the ring.

A number of analyses were done of soil samples taken from the ring and from the surrounding soil. The ring soil was found to be resistant to water, to contain more calcium and more soluble salts, and to be more acidic than soil from outside the ring. In addition, the soil from the ring was found to contain an unidentified hydrocarbon and an organic material composed of white, crystal-like fibers. (http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)​

For a more detailed analysis of the composition of the “landing ring” see here (http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf)

As to the original analysis:

Further experimentation showed the ground under the ring to be dry to a depth of one foot. The ring itself was composed of a whitish substance, which was sent to a laboratory for analysis. The findings were as follows:

[it was resolved into fibers which] was vegetal in nature and belonged to an organism of the order of Actinomycetales, which is an intermediate organism between bacteria and fungus... family actiniomycete, genus Nocardia... [and is] often found together with a fungus of the order Basidomycetes, which may flouresce under certain conditions.. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

Now any one who knows about how fungus growth patterns will tell you that they spread from a central point outward, with the hyphae extending out radially under the soil (from that central point) and the “flowering heads” (most visibly noted by us in the form of mushroom “rings” for various fungal types) appearing seasonally. What this means of course is that, considering the nature of the “fungus” in question, there should have been a circular patch – not a ring…

So definitely not mundane!

Actually, yes, mundane. A known fungus. Unless you have evidence that aliens landing in their spacecraft cause fairy rings? A link would be best. I think you continuing to call it a "landing ring" says volumes about your belief system.

See above and below.

I quoted:
” Both Thaddia Smith and Sheriff Enlow told Ted Phillips in 1972 that the Johnsons were well respected in the area and that they did not believe that it was possible that the family could be perpetrating a hoax.”

Not at all. It is simply another piece of evidence speaking against your hoax hypothesis.

Actually, it isn't unless you're already a believer. See above.

See above.

I quoted anecdotal evidence about the behaviour of various animals after the evident.

Sure – as you say – anecdotal – but it all contributes to a weight of evidence. Each bit, in and of itself, not particularly compelling, but when added together a picture of something unusual begins to emerge.

Actually, no. It is anecdotal and nothing at all unusual. Unless you have evidence that aliens landing in their spacecraft cause dead trees to fall down and dogs to want indoors at night? A link would be best.

Again, I am not claiming ET as the answer. Why do you insist (if true) that it is?

This is evidence that you see aliens everywhere. You now believe that I have been swayed by the anecdotes you have presented. See above.

I did not know about it until you pointed it out. I merely Googled your information and found the link. However, the point is that they did not solicit their “prize” - and it was awarded two years after the event – well after their story had been in the public domain – so how could the awarding of the prize have affected the case at that stage?

It is simply implausible that a rural Kansas farm family didn't subscribe to the National Enquirer and was aware of the prize.

I stated that the intent of the UFO debunkers seems to be one of obscuring rather than clarifying.

Yes, and it is still an unfounded assertion. In fact, the evidence points exactly the opposite way. See entire thread.

Not any means – merely a presentation of the evidence. What are you presenting?

Evidence that you're presenting evidence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have presented anecdotes and mundane occurrences. There is no evidence in this thread for aliens or "aliens". If you did present some, could you provide a link to that post?

First:

Ron's parents came running around the side of the house to get a glimpse of the unusual phenomena. They arrived just in time to see the object, now big as the full moon, as it disappeared from view. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)​

Second:

On 11-03-71 Mr. Lester Ensbarger of 416 Argyle St. in Minneapolis advised Deputy Sheriff Leonard Simpson that at approx. 7:30 p.m. 11-02-71 he had observed a bright light descending in the sky in the Delphos area. (http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)​

What do you suppose bright lights descending in the sky to be?

I did not know those links existed. Obviously they were not hard to find however. I merely present the evidence I have and wherever that subsequently leads I have no control over. That differs substantially from your failure to provide the link to the National Enquirer “prize” that you quoted (and we know why you did not – because the link actually refutes your contention that the awarding of the prize supports your hoax theory).

Those aren't the only websites that talk about his claimed wolf girl sighting or his claimed psychic abilities. I know why you only included links that specifically excluded those two facts. They show this incident to be a "HOAX" which you had eliminated using your version of a process of elimination. You didn't want the fatal flaws in your version to be held up for examination.

A plausible mundane explanation for this case is "HOAX". You eliminated that with your version of a process of elimination. Your version of a process of elimination is fatally flawed.

 

[Access Denied]

First it is your conflation of the data in the two categories that is false and misleading because they are separate and distinct categories of data. Second your use of the term “unidentified” is also false and misleading. The UNKNOWN category may contain unidentified objects, however we simply don’t know what the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category contains. It may contain identifiable or unidentifiable objects - but not unidentified objects.

Unbelievable! You cite the first series of statistical tests from the naïve Battelle study to claim there was a significant difference between KNOWNS and UNKNOWNS that the study ignored while you yourself ignored the second series of tests that reduced the apparent difference significantly and when Jocce pointed out the existence of this revised series of tests, you completely ignored it again. Then when Jocce cited the results of the second series of statistical tests for everybody to see so you can no longer ignore it, you then try to claim it supports your original claim by ignoring this…

It is apparent that the deletion of astronomical sightings gives a better fit, although the decision is not clear cut, since for two cases (light brightness and speed), the chi square increased. However, it can again be pointed out that the reporting of these two characteristics is highly subjective and is open to question. The estimation of speed is especially open to question because of the impossibility of accurately determining it visually.​

And you completely ignore the very last paragraph (concluding remarks) of the statistical portion of the study…

[emphasis mine]

It was decided that this process would not be carried to its logical conclusion (that is, the determination of a linear combination of KNOWNS that would give a negligible chi square when compared with the UNKNOWNS), since it was felt that the inaccuracies in the reports would give a distorted and meaningless result.​

And now this?

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind you’re just making this all up as you go along and you’ve never actually done any research of your own in this field before you started this thread. Otherwise I don’t think you would be here endlessly flinging up other people’s “research” (fantastical claims and sales pitches) without having made any effort to validate it and consequently finding yourself having to backpedal furiously whenever someone points out the problems you (if you’re half as intelligent as it seems you would like people to think you are) shouldn’t have missed in order to avoid having to admit you’ve been had because of your evidently non-existent credibility filter.

[how’s that for a run on sentence?]

Instead you just keep lashing out at those who have been (tirelessly in some cases) trying to help you understand the deliberate deceptions and logical fallacies used by all the charlatans in this field who are in it for the “fame” and “fortune” by calling them “debunkers” (as if that’s a bad thing) or worse and twisting their words around as if it’s their fault you bought it.

For example, I find it amusing that you’ve been citing Allen “Swamp Gas” Hynek’s criticism of the Battelle study from his (for-profit) book that he wrote after he lost his cozy little consulting gig with the Air Force when Project Blue Book was shut down, especially when his own conclusions regarding some presumably reliable (“excellent”) witnesses are apparently 180° out from yours…

UFO book based on questionable foundation
Eyewitness accounts require hard look, even if witness is a pilot
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38852385

[emphasis mine]

One of the world’s first genuine UFO investigators, Allen Hynek of Northwestern University, came to believe that some encounters really could have otherworldly causes. But he was much more skeptical about the reliability of pilot testimony. "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses," he wrote in "The Hynek UFO Report."

Hynek found that the best class of witnesses had a 50 percent misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88 percent for military pilots, 89 percent for commercial pilots, the worst of all categories listed. Pilots could be counted on for an accurate identification of familiar objects — such as aircraft and ground structures — but Hynek said "it should come as no surprise that the majority of pilot misidentifications were of astronomical objects."

Remind us again what the significance of the study statistic you've been repeating incessantly that, when taken in isolation, seems to indicate the more presumably reliable the observer is, the more likely their sighting is to be “identified” as UNKNOWN is?

Exactly what do you think an UNKNOWN is? For reference, here’s the definition of UNKNOWN used in the study again…

UNKNOWN — This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon.​

Apparently you believe you can fit the descriptions to known objects or phenomena, otherwise it seems to me an UNKNOWN is UNIDENTIFIED.

[hence the U in the term UFO adopted by the USAF subsequent to the study]

What KNOWN objects or phenomena do you have evidence (objective data) for that they didn’t that allows you to eliminate the KNOWN potential for subjective inaccuracies in the descriptions (regardless of how presumably “reliable” the observer may be) and identify (i.e. fit to a model, correlate) all of the UNKNOWN sightings and move them into some KNOWN category (“alien”?) and claim you’ve debunked the study?

If you don’t have any objective (reliable) data on the performance and appearance characteristics of “alien” flying objects, you’re guilty of a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent as follows…

1. If “aliens” are flying around in our skies, then some sightings of flying objects made by presumably reliable/credible observers will be unidentified/unexplained.
2. Some sightings of flying objects made by presumably reliable/credible observers are unidentified/unexplained.
3. Therefore, “aliens” are flying around in our skies.​

“Aliens” flying around in our skies isn’t the only reason (or necessarily even a valid one, but if I have to explain you probably wouldn’t understand or acknowledge it) some sightings of flying objects made by presumably reliable/credible observers will be unidentified/unexplained. There are a number of possible reasons why some sightings could be unidentified/unexplained including observation error.

Another could be it’s just not worth the effort…

 

[Rramjet]

I stated:
”You have falsely and misleadingly conflated two separate and distinct sighting categories”

And they both contain unidentified objects.

Jocce – they do NOT both contain “unidentified objects”. You are simply confused about the difference between “unidentified” (meaning not identified - in the UNKNOWN category) and “unidentifiable” (meaning unable to be identified - in the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category). I cannot believe you are not able to grasp this concept.

I'm not talking about if the objects are identifiable or not but since they are categorised as "insufficient info." and "unknown" it seems as if they are not identifiable using the available data.

I can only present the information about the categories and summarise them clearly for you. Perhaps if you read over the definitions again you will understand the difference between the two categories.

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon. It is emphasized that this category of identification was not used as a convenient way to dispose of what might be called "poor unknowns", but as a category for reports that, perhaps, could have been one of several known objects or natural phenomena. No reports identified as INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION contain authenticated facts or impressions concerning the sighting that would prevent its being identified as a known object or phenomenon (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)​

In this category there is simply not enough information to decide if the report represents a KNOWN or an UNKNOWN object.

UNKNOWN —. This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)​

In this category there is sufficient information available, but the report simply can “not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon”.

Please tell me you understand the difference between the two categories. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to describe in your own words what the difference between the two categories is. If you cannot do so it will clearly indicate you are missing something and you should then go back and carefully study the definitions to determine what you are missing.

What we do know is that the objects in these groups have not been identified.

You are simply incorrect.
In the UNKNOWN category the objects are not identified - despite being identifiable.
In the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category the objects are unable to be identified because of a lack of identifying information.

I.e. they are unidentified, in equal proportions in the poor and excellent reports.

Besides being an entirely arbitrary conflation (why not good and poor or doubtful and excellent, etc), yours is simply a false and misleading statement. The two categories of data are separate and distinct and it is utterly illegitimate to conflate the two as you are attempting to do.

What is obvious in the data is a trend showing that the more reliable the report the greater the proportion of UNKNOWNS there are. That is, the Doubtful and Poor reports contain 13% and 16% UNKNOWNS respectively, the Good reports contain 25%, the Excellent reports contain 33% and the most reliable reports – those from trained military observers – contain a full 38% UNKNOWNS. That is a manifest trend in the data Jocce. Yours is simply a false and misleading conflation of separate and distinct categories.

Once again you are talking about how things could have been, not how they are.

I am sorry but your statement here simply does not make sense.

Re: The Rogue River case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm):

Hundreds of posts in this thread show that you're wrong.

That is merely an unfounded assertion and may be dismissed as such.

If you choose to ignore the evidence, all hope for a rational discussion with you is lost.

Clearly – as evidenced by THIS post – I have carefully studied and presented the evidence to show the “blimp hypothesis” to be implausible in the extreme. Not only do the historical records indicate no “blimps”, the eyewitness descriptions rule them out also. That is the evidence that you ignore Jocce.

I misspelled Rogue river twice, sorry about that.

No, you persistently misspell the location’s name and have done so many times.

 

[Rramjet]

RoboT – how am I expected to rationally engage with your replies? I make statements and provide evidential support for their veracity - and in reply you simply persist in making repeated and unfounded accusations - often in the form of disingenuous questions – as if I had not made the statements and provided the supporting evidence for them (for example your persistent accusations that I believe aliens are the explanation when I have explicitly and consistently denied that assertion). You are therefore simply talking past me, shouting over the top of me, and in such a circumstance there is simply no means of rationally communicating with you.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

[irony] Sorry. Your claim of UFO is... well... how can I put it?.... I just don't find it extraordinary enough, personally speaking. It doesn't quite thrill me. Therefore, I'm not even going to bother reviewing it. [/irony]

 

[wollery]

What “other causal agents”? I am merely taking Cowgill’s first hand observations as having veracity and all else as potentially flawed unless it can be shown evidentially or logically to not be so. For example most of the symptoms he could observe for himself – except the initial vomiting – but it is hard to see how the witnesses or a second or even third hand retelling by a doctor or caregiver could be mistaken about the initial vomiting (that it occurred). What they could be mistaken about however, is the time frame of the vomiting.

Heavy metal toxicity can cause all of the symptoms mentioned, as can burns.

I'll come back to the point about Cowgill's observations later.

Possibly – who really knows?

So you think it's possible for a group of people to wake in terror, drop to their knees in prayer because they think the world is ending, and vomit before they can finish their prayers, and for these events to take an hour to occur?

Wow. Just, wow.

Actually the cited sources (Merck etc.) mention (and the historical records indicate – eg; WWII and Chernobyl) that large doses are survivable - and even given that, we do not really know if some (or all) the victims did not subsequently die.

Survivable, yes. But what percentage of people survive such high doses, and how long do people who don't survive them live? Saying that such high doses are survivable is a far cry from saying that 9 people of different ages and (one must assume) levels of health can all survive such doses for 3 weeks without relevant medical care.

Second, you have based the dose (which seems to be increasing on every re-telling… from 3 to 6 and now 8) on a stated “10 minute” time frame when we simply cannot know this at all.

All of the posts on this subject are on the record in this thread.

I suggested a dose of 3 Gy on the basis of the latency period and the majority of the reported symptoms, pointing out that the vomiting was inconsistent with that dosage. You suggested a dose of 6 Gy in order to reduce the time delay before the onset of vomiting, but only after suggesting that it was their terror, or some other toxin (in the "smoke") that caused it. I pointed out, based on data from websites that you introduced as evidence, that to get the delay time under 10 minutes would require a dose in excess of 8 Gy. So, no, I haven't altered the dosage "on every retelling", I have simply pointed out, using your sources, which dosages are required for particular symptoms and latency periods.

Indeed. Radiation poisoning in 1886 Venezuela is certainly not a mundane explanation. Nor does it seem plausible.

Well, that's quite an admission. So if it's neither mundane, nor plausible, why are you arguing so hard for it, and twisting evidence so far to support it?

All I am noting however is that radiation sickness is an explanation that best fits the evidence.

If the best fit doesn't fit then what use is it?

If you cannot see that vomiting, swelling, a latency period, damaged skin turning to virulent sores and hair falling out resembles radiation poisoning, then I don’t know what more I can add except perhaps that the case defies mundane explanation.

Except that when we examine the timeline and the required dosage for the various symptoms it really doesn't fit well at all.

All I am pointing out is that the “almost immediate” vomiting, (subjective as that statement is) might not be an accurate reflection of reality. All the other symptoms Cowgill could observe first hand - but who told him about the vomiting time frame? The victims, a doctor? We just don’t know. For example the victims might have told a doctor “sometime soon after” and the doctor tells Cowgill “soon after” and he tells us “almost immediately”.

Are you sure you want to follow that line of reasoning?

The reason I ask is that it throws the entire account into doubt.

Which symptoms did Cowgill observe first hand?
Did he observe the swelling?
Did he observe the eruption of the sores on the 9th day?
Did he observe the hair falling out on the 9th day?
When did he visit them?
Who did he get his information from?
If the timing of the vomiting can get so mangled then how can we dismiss the possibility of other details getting completely mangled?
When did they get to the hospital? At the end of the letter Cowgill states, "I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of the hospitals of this city". That suggests that they did not get to the hospital until well after their symptoms developed. His letter is dated three and a half weeks after the initial incident, which suggests that he did not visit them until well after the 9th day.
That also brings up yet more questions;
How long after the visit did he write the letter? The same day? The next day? A week later?
Did he make notes at the time, or was he writing his account from memory?
Did the doctors in the Maracaibo hospital see the progression of the symptoms, or were they simply going from the victims account?
If the latter, then how much did the victims remember incorrectly, and how much did the doctors remember incorrectly?

Just what can we trust from this account, given that, at best, it is second hand, and may be as much as third or even fourth hand, and may have been distorted by the amount of time between the event and the number of times it was retold?

No, it was you who took that statement to be literally true to make a point about radiation. I merely noted that IF true, as you wanted it to be for your own reasons, then it actually counted against one of your own hypotheses (in other words you can’t have it both ways).

Really?

The posts in this thread tell a different story.

Jocce started it, by suggesting that they got burned.

I think they just got burned doing something they don't want to tell about. The witnessed symptoms are consistent with that (i.e. hair that has fallen off on one side of the head, blackened blotches on the body that has turned into sores when the skin peeled off on the same side of the body as the hair was missing on).

A couple of posts later, you respond to a question about the radiation affecting the side that was underneath;

The nature of an anomalous occurrence is that it just does not seem to fit in with anything we currently know. It positively defies mundane explanation! The symptomatology seems to closely resemble some form of radiation poisoning - and yet the fit is not precise - it is however, at the same time, also a lesser fit fit with explanations such as "heavy metal poisoning" or (in your example) some form of direct burn ... it is in essence an anomalous occurence - and that is what makes it so intriguing to us.

And later on, you tell us that the burn hypothesis is inconsistent with the evidence, i.e. that it was the side that was underneath which was most affected.

You are simply mischaracterising the injuries - see my above quotes concerning the “blotches” and “swellings” for example. As for the hair falling off, the exact quote was: ”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…” (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)

Now that “happened to be underneath” is not consistent with a “burn” either…

And again.

I merely pointed out that your statement referring to the “blackened skin” is according to the document (and as shown by the quotes I provided) erroneous (ie; they were simply located ”on the face and body”) - and further, that the document also states: “”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…” and that this is simply inconsistent with the “burn” hypothesis. Your whole statement is therefore a complete mischaracterisation of the injuries and quite simply, if you are going to argue about this case I would have expected you to be at least familiar with the text (the evidence)!

And yet again, in response to me, and later in the same post, to Jocce again.

I cannot follow the logic of that argument... The argument was put forward that the injuries could have been caused by a “burn” and I merely pointed out that the document states: ”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…” and that this is simply inconsistent with the “burn” hypothesis.

...........

I have just demonstrated the inconsistency in the “burns” hypothesis (”The hair of the head fell off upon the side which happened to be underneath when the phenomenon occurred…”)

I asked the question of why this doesn't also affect the radiation hypothesis;

Actually, I have a question at this point. You claim that the burn hypothesis is implausible, because the side that was injured was the side that was underneath at the time. Does this not also make the radiation hypothesis implausible? After all, the light wasn't shining from underneath them, was it?

I got no response, so I had to ask again;

To whit, I asked why your reason for dismissing the burns hypothesis didn't also refute the radiation hypothesis. After all, the hair fell out on the "side that was underneath at the time". How does radiation do this where burns can't?

Your initial answer is, to say the least, terse;

Simply because there is no evidence of “burning” whereas there is evidence for a radiation source (brilliant light, no heat).

And finally, you tell us that we must be wary of such statements.

On Cowgills side we must in turn be wary of statements such as “upon the side which happened to be underneath”. With a group of nine people, given their circumstances and generally “panicked” state of mind at the time, it would be remarkable indeed if they could all accurately remember on which side they were lying at the time of injury. It is however interesting to note that intense radiation injuries do cause the side facing the source to be more seriously injured (eg: http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyhn8.htm)

To summarise, my account of the sequence of posts and statements is accurate.

You rebutted the burn hypothesis put forward by Jocce by stating that it was inconsistent with the evidence. You did this on several occasions, and on every occasion the piece of evidence you used was the statement that it was the side that was underneath at the time that was the worst affected. I pointed out that that also made the radiation hypothesis problematic, and after much prodding and pointing out of other inconsistencies you say that we should be wary of such details.

Simply put, you used a piece of evidence that you thought counted in your favour, until it was shown that it counted against you, and then you tried to diminish its importance and accuracy.

Your denial of this sequence of events is at best a serious lapse of memory, and at worst a blatant act of dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Simply I don’t have the resources to get to Venezuela on the off chance the hospital records still exist. I was then speculating that given the debunkers statements in this thread (eg; Jocce’s false and misleading statements above about the Battelle study) that the debunkers seem to want to obscure the facts rather than illuminate and clarify the issue. Then based on that (and similar performances from others), I asserted that if they had the resources, the debunkers would not want to use them as they seem to think that such cases are best left in as obscure a state as possible.

So it's just mud-slinging then.

I stated:
” So there the matter must rest until the necessary resources are made available.”

They will never be made available.

Why should I? The case defies plausible mundane explanation. It is a true mystery.

That you seem to want to twist to fit one particular causal agent. You've admitted that radiation is neither mundane nor plausible, and yet, despite dismissing hypotheses in many other cases on the grounds that they are not mundane, or that they are not plausible, you keep pushing the radiation hypothesis. Why?

Besides, radiation sickness in 1886 Venezuela? What the…

Indeed. I couldn't have put it better myself.

There is simply no reason to posit radiation poisoning in light of the evidence, but you continue to do so.

 

[wollery]

So now you too must resort to putting forward false and misleading statements?

I made no false statements, and you only consider them to be misleading because they damage the reputation and reliability of someone you appear to hold beyond reproach.

First:

” Bruce spent his early year in Rutland, Vt. After high school he studied physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, Mass (B.S. in physics) and then at The American University, Washington, DC (M.S. and Ph. D. in physics). In 1972 commenced his long career at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, presently headquartered at Dahlgren, Virginia. He has worked on optical data processing, generation of underwater sound with lasers and various aspects of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) using high power lasers.” (http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail23.htm)​

So, he's qualified in optics. That doesn't mean he can't get things wrong.

Second:

” The focal length of the typical telescope was 60 cm. One may assume that the 35 mm film used had an image size resolution, determined by the average film grain size, of 0.001 cm (0.01 mm or 10 microns), or less (if high resolution film was used the grain size could be as small as about 5 microns). Assuming 0.001 cm resolution at the film plane, the angular resolution was on the order of 0.001 cm/60 cm = 1.6 x 10^-5 radians = 0.0009 degrees which is about 3 arc-second resolution (1 arc-sec = 0.00028 deg). When this distance is projected to 150,000 ft it corresponds to about 2 1/2 ft. This is a "resolution element" at that distance. Hence it is not surprising that the film image discussed above is a quite good representation of the shape of the V-2 rocket at a high altitude.

An object 30 ft in diameter would have 12 of these resolution elements across its width, and about 140 such elements over the whole image area (if roughly round) which would be more than enough to assure that the film image would be clearly show the the overall shape of the object. (If the film resolution were better than 10 microns the number of resolution elements in the image would be even greater. The more resolution elements there are, the more accurate is the depiction of the actual shape of the object.) The bottom line is that it is very UNLIKELY that the expert analysts at White Sands were wrong when they stated that the objects were about 150,000 ft high and about 30 ft in diameter (and traveling at a high speed).” (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)​

Thank you for posting the incorrect calculations I was talking about. You'll note that he uses 150,000 feet as the distance to calculate the number of pixel elements (pixels) that the round objects would cover. In reality that would only be the case if the objects were directly overhead, which they weren't. Assuming a lateral distance of roughly the same amount (we can't know for sure what the distance was, but it seems reasonable) that gives us an angle of 45 degrees, and therefore a reduction in pixel number of about 30% (sin45=0.707). So instead of 12 pixels we have 9 or 10. Next he states that a circle of diameter 12 pixels has a total of about 140 pixels over the whole image. Now I don't doubt he had to do some pretty tough maths to get his qualifications, but most 14 year old students could tell you that the area of a circle with a diameter equivalent to 12 pixels is a shade over 113 pixels. But we don't have a circle of diameter 12 pixels, we have a circle of diameter 9 or 10 pixels. Let's be generous and say 10, which gives a total area of 78.5, or 79 pixels, only just over half of MacCabee's estimate, and that's the generous value. If it's 9 pixels then we get a total area of 64 pixels, which is less than half of Dr. MacCabee's calculated value. Okay, maybe on going from memory I overstated his inaccuracy a bit, but it's still rather a long way from the realistic value you'd expect from such an "expert".

Of course, we don't know where the cameras were located, and the horizontal distance could be larger than 28 miles. Certainly the cameras wouldn't be stationed on the base from which the rocket tests were launched, they'd want some distance to allow the angles to be measured accurately. A distance of 50 miles would give an angle of 30 degrees and give a diameter of 6 pixels for the objects, giving a total of less than 30 pixels for the whole image. That's just a quarter of the value Dr. MacCabee gives. So it's pretty easy to see that since we don't know where the cameras were we have a huge range of possible image sizes. A 50 mile distance from the objects is not all that unrealistic.

What Dr. MacCabee did was to take the minimum possible distance, which is both unrealistic and contrary to the evidence, and calculate the area as though it were a square. This is either a shocking oversight for a man of his qualifications and experience, or it is an attempt to make the numbers seem better than they are. Either way, it throws into doubt any analysis that he performs on this subject, particularly if we don't have his maths to check any calculations he may have performed. To simply take his word because he has some qualifications is unscientific, and gullible.

Did you not think I would check the veracity of your statements wollery? Do you not consider what it does to your credibility when you are found out to be putting forward false and misleading statements? Yet this was not the only one you put forward…

So, where was my statement incorrect?

Next you have taken the statement:

And have falsely and misleadingly attempted to marry it with a completely unrelated statement from elsewhere!

A statement on a different page of the same website. Hardly completely unrelated! And I note that you have failed to quote the other statement I quoted;

After the war, NAS Tillamook was quickly disestablished, but her facilities continued to provide staging areas for private airship companies.

Lets put that statement back into it’s correct context shall we:

Yes, let's.

After the last LTA operations ceased at NAS Tillamook, the base continued to serve as a surplus storage depot. Spanning the years that followed, the hangars have participated in a variety of novel projects:

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​

(http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/hangars/use.htm)​

So we can see that the “novel projects” the base was used for are listed!

Yes, the "novel projects" are listed. But day to day operations, such as the overnight stay of a single airship, something for which the base was being used (see the other quote, that you decided to drop), would not have been listed!

You have also falsely and misleadingly implied that there were “private airship companies” in operation on the West Coast other than Goodyear.

That statement amounts to what is in essence a straight up falsification of history!

I just quoted what the NAS Tillamook site said. I implied nothing, their website does that all by itself.

The list (and the preceding paragraph) demonstrated that Tillamook was not used to stage Goodyear blimps (the only blimps in operation on the West Coast at the time) in 1949!

No, it demonstrates that there were no "novel projects" involving airships in 1949. But the other section of their website states that it was used as a staging area for private airship companies. Why say "private airship companies" (plural) if the base was only used by one company for one project?

Yes a Goodyear blimp was at Salem (some 190 miles NNE of Rogue River) and these blimps were painted bright Blue and Yellow and had great big yellow “GoodYear” logos emblazoned down their flanks. And of course the witness descriptions describe nothing like a GoodYear blimp!

Really?

This is a photo of Goodyear blimps in the 1960s

Here's one from 1988.

In fact I couldn't find a single photo that pre-dates the 1990s that showed the Goodyear blimp with a bright blue and yellow livery. The closest was a photo from the 1960s in which the logo was in blue and yellow, but the main body of the blimp was still silvery grey.

So once again it seems the UFO debunker desire to obscure and muddy the waters – rather than to illuminate and clarify – comes to the for in false and misleading statements - which are so easily shown to be false and misleading that one wonders, considering the potential damage to their own credibility, why the UFO debunkers insist on putting them forward...

So, given the above evidence, which of my statements was false or misleading?

That Dr. MacCabee's assessment of the image size in the White Sand's case was wrong? No, and I've shown again that it was wrong, and just how wrong it was.

That the NAS Tillamook website suggests that it was used for other blimps? No, because that's what the website implies.

That there was a Goodyear blimp in the general area in the same general timeframe as the Rogue River sighting? No, because there was.

In fact, you're the one posting false or misleading information, suggesting that someone's credentials imply that they can't be wrong or biased, that two different pages from the same website are completely unrelated, and saying that a Goodyear blimp in 1949 was bright blue and yellow.

How do you feel about your own credibility now?

 

[Jocce]

Jocce – they do NOT both contain “unidentified objects”. You are simply confused about the difference between “unidentified” (meaning not identified - in the UNKNOWN category) and “unidentifiable” (meaning unable to be identified - in the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category). I cannot believe you are not able to grasp this concept.

Wow, what an extraordinary claim you're making. I'm sure you will be happy to prove that at least one object in either of the categories "insufficient information" and "unknown" was in fact identified in the study. One object Rramjet, just one.

Perhaps if you read over the definitions again you will understand the difference between the two categories.

Perhaps if you consult your nearest dictionary you will find out the meaning of unidentified and how it perfectly describes all objects in both categories (unknowns as well as insufficient info.).

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION - This identification category was assigned to a report when, upon final consideration, there was some essential item of information missing, or there was enough doubt about what data were available to disallow identification as a common object or some natural phenomenon.known object or phenomenon (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) In this category there is simply not enough information to decide if the report represents a KNOWN or an UNKNOWN object.

This is an explanation of why the objects in this category are unidentified.

UNKNOWN —. This designation in the identification code was assigned to those reports of sightings wherein the description of the object and its maneuvers could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)

In this category there is sufficient information available, but the report simply can “not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon”.

This is an explanation of why the objects in this category are unidentified.

Please tell me you understand the difference between the two categories.

I know the difference between the categories. I also know the similarity between the categories; they both contain exclusively unidentified objects.

You are simply incorrect.
In the UNKNOWN category the objects are not identified - despite being identifiable.
In the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category the objects are unable to be identified because of a lack of identifying information.

LOL. This is quite funny. You say yourself (see bolded) that the objects in one category are not identified and that in the other category they can't be identified. Yet you argue that they are not unidentified. Who do you think you can convince with this logic?

What is obvious in the data is a trend showing that the more reliable the report the greater the proportion of UNKNOWNS there are.

Is the variation statistically significant?

No, you persistently misspell the location’s name and have done so many times.

Wow. You must really be running out of relevant arguments.