UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

The report stated that the objects (four of them) were sighted overhead between the base (Holloman) and Tularosa Peak. That is a distance of 7 miles (36,960 feet). The altitude was reported as 150,000 feet.

Assuming the object was directly above Tularosa peak (at 150,000 feet elevation above the ground) and the camera was at Holloman - giving both the maximum possible distance from the camera to the peak (7 miles) and from camera to object - and using trigonometry - that gives 154,000 feet (line of sight) from the camera to the object. We can assume however that the objects were closer to camera than directly over the peak – however – even using the maximum possible distance – that represents only a 2.6% difference (between 150,000 and 154,000 feet). If we then use your calculation of an image size of 113 pixels (and not Maccabbee’s error of 140) - that means 110 pixels – the difference is negligible and certainly still enough to determine size and shape. So you are correct (altitude or elevation or distance from the camera):

Oh please.

2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter

There's no use of the word "overhead". In fact that word doesn't appear at all in any of the reports or letters, or Dr. MacCabee's analysis, and your use of the word here is misleading.

Placing the cameras at the base would be ridiculous. They were used to film and measure the altitudes of rockets fired from the base, which means that the worst possible place to put them would be at the base. That's because it would be impossible to track such fast moving objects from such a short distance. Also, you need to have a reasonable distance between the cameras to get a good measure of the angles. Note also that the cameras were at stations M7 and P10. Clearly there were several observing sites, each with its own reference code. Do you know where these stations were? Do you really think that the codes M7 or P10 would be used for the base itself? If they were at the base why not just say that?

Want to try again?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, the case defies mundane explanation.

Well, no. You've proven that you can't eliminate mundane explanations.

Which non-mundane explanations do you think are plausible?

 

[Jocce]

Sorry, but not even that statement is correct. If you look at the following drawings of the object, I will explain:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=427&pictureid=2691
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)

No need, I understand and this silly objection of yours has been dealt with ad nauseam. The witnesses could have mistaken an oval object for a circular one seen from an angle. This has been explained to you before.

First a question to you. According to you, since the outlines of the two drawings are different, then there were TWO objects sighted (a fat one and a skinny one).

No, even an oval object can be seen from different angles. According to your own reasoning here it can't be circular either then.

All this and more has been dealt with thoroughly and evidence has been presented that shows blimp to be a probable explanation for the Rogue river sighting.

 

[Rramjet]

Oh please.

There's no use of the word "overhead". In fact that word doesn't appear at all in any of the reports or letters, or Dr. MacCabee's analysis, and your use of the word here is misleading.

Placing the cameras at the base would be ridiculous. They were used to film and measure the altitudes of rockets fired from the base, which means that the worst possible place to put them would be at the base. That's because it would be impossible to track such fast moving objects from such a short distance. Also, you need to have a reasonable distance between the cameras to get a good measure of the angles. Note also that the cameras were at stations M7 and P10. Clearly there were several observing sites, each with its own reference code. Do you know where these stations were? Do you really think that the codes M7 or P10 would be used for the base itself? If they were at the base why not just say that?

Want to try again?

wollery, I am not sure what you are actually objecting to. You seem to be splitting hairs about camera locations and distances. The facts of the matter were that the mathemeticians calculated the object’s altitude and size and in a summery report summarised those to be “at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.” and that they were “approximately 30 feet in diameter”.

These people knew their jobs. Their usual employment was in the production of data for V2 rockets tests up to similar altitudes. If they could not accurately observe, calculate and produce such information as they did on the UFOs, then they would have quickly found themselves out of a job (or if they remained in their jobs the US ballistic missile program would still be stuck with V2s).

No matter how you spin it wollery, the observers and analysts were trained experts and they produced precisely the data they were trained to produce. What we see is a summary report – meant to convey some basic information quickly and succinctly. What we don’t see is the actual report where presumably their calculations would have been fully described - at least in enough detail that they could be reworked by independent analysts if any dispute over the figures arose. That would have been standard procedure.

You, like Jocce, with your statements, seem to be obfuscating and doing everything you possibly can to muddy the waters surrounding this case. It then becomes legitimate to pose the same question to you as I did Jocce: To what end do you obfuscate in your statements – that is – who are your trying to deceive with them – yourself – or the readers of this thread – or both?

No need, I understand and this silly objection of yours has been dealt with ad nauseam. The witnesses could have mistaken an oval object for a circular one seen from an angle. This has been explained to you before.

“Silly objection”? All I am doing is pointing out the facts of the matter Jocce.

Five observers (two with the aid of binoculars), in independent testimony, described the object as circular. The object, when first sighted, was travelling toward them, then executed a turn across their line of sight to disappear into the distance (at speeds of a jet plane) at an angle away from them. The object was observed for 2 -3 minutes. The witnesses with binoculars were able to see that the skin of the object near the tail appeared wrinkled and dirty. No matter how you try and spin it, those are the facts of the matter Jocce.

All this and more has been dealt with thoroughly and evidence has been presented that shows blimp to be a probable explanation for the Rogue river sighting.

What was not observed was a huge GoodYear logo, fins, a gondola and engines. What was not observed was the shape of a blimp (remember, when first seen, it was heading toward them, turned in front of them and then headed at an angle away from them). There is just no way that a blimp could execute such a manoeuvre without its apparent shape changing substantially – yet all the witnesses maintained that it was a circular object (like a coin or pancake). What was not observed was the speed of a blimp (top speed some 70 mph) – instead the witnesses described speeds of a jet plane.

These are the inescapable facts of the case Jocce. The “blimp hypothesis” can only be maintained if you ignore both the eyewitness and historical evidence. But I ask you – whenever have UFO debunkers ignored the evidence? Surely they would not do such a thing? Surely not… what possible reason could they have?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, he hasn't.

He has admitted that Dr MacCabee made an error, but Dr MacCabee had absolutely nothing to do with the original report. So his error, in analysing the case 40 years after the fact, has no bearing on the possibility of errors in that original report.

Ah, I see my mistake. Thanks.

 

[RoboTimbo]

These are the inescapable facts of the case Jocce.

Well, no. You are confusing anecdotes with facts. The inescapable fact is that it's an anecdote.

I also notice you refuse to answer my other question.

What is a plausible non-mundane explanation for Rogue River?

 

[Jocce]

“Silly objection”? All I am doing is pointing out the facts of the matter Jocce.

No. What is obvious to even the most casual reader of this thread is that you're ignoring all evidence that goes against your preconcieved notions.

 

[Rramjet]

Well, no. You are confusing anecdotes with facts. The inescapable fact is that it's an anecdote.

No, it is the eyewitness testimony coupled with historical evidence that I am presenting. The fact is that the eyewitnesses described an object that does not resemble a blimp. The fact is that the historical evidence suggests there was no blimp at the place and time. It is a moot point given the eyewitness and other historical evidence, but one must also note that given the time of the sighting (late in the day) that tends to rule out blimps as well because presumably GoodYear would not run a tour where they had to make the return trip in the dark (after all it would be a sightseeing tour, not a spend-half-the-trip-in-darkness tour).

I also notice you refuse to answer my other question.

What is a plausible non-mundane explanation for Rogue River?

I am proposing no explanation at all. All I am noting is that the case simply defies mundane explanation.

No. What is obvious to even the most casual reader of this thread is that you're ignoring all evidence that goes against your preconcieved notions.

I find it fascinating that when I present a wealth of eyewitness testimonial evidence and a great deal of historical evidence (HERE for example) - that both supports my case and refutes the “blimp hypothesis” - I stand accused of ignoring evidence. The accusation is of course an unfounded assertion (something the UFO debunkers seem completely unable to break the habit of) and may therefore be dismissed as such.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, it is the eyewitness testimony coupled with historical evidence that I am presenting. The fact is that the eyewitnesses described an object that does not resemble a blimp. The fact is that the historical evidence suggests there was no blimp at the place and time. It is a moot point given the eyewitness and other historical evidence, but one must also note that given the time of the sighting (late in the day) that tends to rule out blimps as well because presumably GoodYear would not run a tour where they had to make the return trip in the dark (after all it would be a sightseeing tour, not a spend-half-the-trip-in-darkness tour).

So you ARE assuming that witness testimony is 100% accurate and presenting it as facts?

I am proposing no explanation at all. All I am noting is that the case simply defies mundane explanation.

Well, no. You don't have the ability to do so. See previous posts of yours and mine.

I find it fascinating that when I present a wealth of eyewitness testimonial evidence and a great deal of historical evidence (HERE for example) - that both supports my case and refutes the “blimp hypothesis” - I stand accused of ignoring evidence. The accusation is of course an unfounded assertion (something the UFO debunkers seem completely unable to break the habit of) and may therefore be dismissed as such.

So you're still using witness testimony as 100% factual, without error. Interesting. And historical evidence points to a blimp being in the area in the same time frame but you dismiss that out of hand. Interesting.

But you aren't proposing any explanation at all in this thread where you are going to show evidence for "aliens" and "UFOs". Why bring Rogue River into this thread then if it's off topic?

You also never answer my question about how you ruled out HOAX at Delphos.

 

[Rramjet]

So you ARE assuming that witness testimony is 100% accurate and presenting it as facts?

Not at all. I am presenting as fact the disparity between what the witnesses describe and the “blimp hypothesis”. The details of the witnesses descriptive statements may not be accurate, indeed, I have pointed out many times that distance and speed estimates might not be specifically accurate (only generally so). However, when it comes to determining characteristics such as basic shape (ie; circular) then it is hard to see how five witnesses (two with the aid of binoculars), all describing a circular shape could be mistaken (especially in light of the fact that the object turned across their line of sight). It is also hard to imagine that (especially the two who used binoculars) would not have seen a logo, fins, gondola and engines if it had been a blimp (especially also since they were able to describe the skin as dirty and wrinkled and the presence of a fin on top). So not 100% accurate, but certainly enough to rule out the “blimp hypothesis” (airplanes, balloons, kites, etc and so on) such that we can only conclude that the object simply defies mundane explanation.

But you aren't proposing any explanation at all in this thread where you are going to show evidence for "aliens" and "UFOs". Why bring Rogue River into this thread then if it's off topic?

Obviously you are still in the dark as to the purpose of this thread. An obvious clue is of course to be found in the title of the thread (UFOS: The Research, The Evidence).

As to “aliens” (in quotation marks), if you had read my OP, then you would have seen that the term (as I use it) simply means something outside our knowledge of the technological and natural world (that is, something that defies mundane explanation). It does not (necessarily) mean ET (or aliens, or beings from another planet, etc and so on).

What I am providing then is the evidence and the research both for the existence of UFOs, and the evidence and the research showing that, in many cases, they simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

You also never answer my question about how you ruled out HOAX at Delphos.

I have answered your “questions” in this regard many times RoboT (eg; HERE). Your persistent claims in this direction simply defy charitable mundane explanation.

 

[wollery]

wollery, I am not sure what you are actually objecting to. You seem to be splitting hairs about camera locations and distances. The facts of the matter were that the mathemeticians calculated the object’s altitude and size and in a summery report summarised those to be “at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.” and that they were “approximately 30 feet in diameter”.

These people knew their jobs. Their usual employment was in the production of data for V2 rockets tests up to similar altitudes. If they could not accurately observe, calculate and produce such information as they did on the UFOs, then they would have quickly found themselves out of a job (or if they remained in their jobs the US ballistic missile program would still be stuck with V2s).

No matter how you spin it wollery, the observers and analysts were trained experts and they produced precisely the data they were trained to produce. What we see is a summary report – meant to convey some basic information quickly and succinctly. What we don’t see is the actual report where presumably their calculations would have been fully described - at least in enough detail that they could be reworked by independent analysts if any dispute over the figures arose. That would have been standard procedure.

All of which is utterly moot, because my objection, and this argument, is about Dr. MacCabee's erroneous assessment, which cast his competence and or honesty in a poor light.

You defended him, even posting his error filled calculations as if they were some sort of proof of his abilities, despite the fact that I've pointed out his errors and unwarranted assumption in this instance before. You made your own unwarranted assumptions (that the objects were directly over one of the cameras), twisted the language of the report (equating altitude with line of sight distance), and tried desperately to defend your position, even though it was clear to other people that you were posting silly arguments (Jocce pointed out your unwarranted assumption and the problem with your interpretation of "altitude").

Maybe you were doing so to distract from Dr. MacCabee's errors, but if that's the case then you have failed. The simple fact is that Dr. MacCabee was wrong, and you were wrong. That you were wrong is forgiveable, after all, you're not an expert in optics or triangulation, but Dr. MacCabee is, and he should not make such simple errors. That he does can only lead to one of three possible conclusions - either he is not very competent, or he is lazy, or he was intentionally trying to massage the numbers to make the results look better than they actually are. I leave it to others to decide which they think it is.

The bottom line in all of this is that you were arguing a moot point, that doesn't really affect the analysts report, and doing so with all the poor argumentation techniques that you so often accuse "debunkers" of using. You've been doing the exact same thing in the Maracaibo case, defending the radiation hypothesis with every obfuscation and assumption you can find, despite the fact that it's utterly irrelevant to the case whether they were affected by radiation, heavy metals or some other unknown agent.

In the last couple of months you have misquoted and misattributed posts, put words into my mouth (at first refusing to acknowledge you'd done so, and then refusing to apologise when it was shown that you had), and in the last couple of weeks you gave an incorrect date for a piece of evidence, clearly without checking, denied the course of an argument and your statements within it, despite my posting the record of that exchange, and then ignored further questions about it, presumably hoping it would just go away, and used all of the debate tactics that you berate others for using. And when presented with the undeniable facts that you were wrong you either deflect (e.g. by changing the focus from Dr. MacCabee's mistakes to the analysts expertise) or ignore (as you did when I showed that my version of the exchanges in the "burns hypothesis" debate was correct and yours was wrong).

I seriously think you need to consider you own approach to arguing these cases before you accuse others of dishonesty or bias.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Not at all. I am presenting as fact the disparity between what the witnesses describe and the “blimp hypothesis”. The details of the witnesses descriptive statements may not be accurate, indeed, I have pointed out many times that distance and speed estimates might not be specifically accurate (only generally so). However, when it comes to determining characteristics such as basic shape (ie; circular) then it is hard to see how five witnesses (two with the aid of binoculars), all describing a circular shape could be mistaken (especially in light of the fact that the object turned across their line of sight). It is also hard to imagine that (especially the two who used binoculars) would not have seen a logo, fins, gondola and engines if it had been a blimp (especially also since they were able to describe the skin as dirty and wrinkled and the presence of a fin on top). So not 100% accurate, but certainly enough to rule out the “blimp hypothesis” (airplanes, balloons, kites, etc and so on) such that we can only conclude that the object simply defies mundane explanation.

Yes, you are assuming that the witness testimony is 100% correct and discounting the drawing resembling a blimp and the fact that a blimp was in the area in the time frame. Interesting.

Obviously you are still in the dark as to the purpose of this thread. An obvious clue is of course to be found in the title of the thread (UFOS: The Research, The Evidence).

Not at all. You may want to review your OP where you promised evidence for "aliens" and "UFOs". As you have been told many times, you really didn't have to provide evidence for UFOs, we know there are things that people haven't identified in the sky. Like blimps. You haven't kept your promise about the "alien" part so I'm not sure why you're bringing in some case that you say doesn't involve "aliens".

As to “aliens” (in quotation marks), if you had read my OP, then you would have seen that the term (as I use it) simply means something outside our knowledge of the technological and natural world (that is, something that defies mundane explanation). It does not (necessarily) mean ET (or aliens, or beings from another planet, etc and so on).

Indeed. Many people have also been telling you right along that we've been using your contrived definition but you keep dishonestly putting up your strawman.

What I am providing then is the evidence and the research both for the existence of UFOs, and the evidence and the research showing that, in many cases, they simply defy plausible mundane explanation.

Ah, you are still in the dark about your ability to eliminate plausible mundane explanations. You may want to go back and review my posts, you seem to have missed them.

I have answered your “questions” in this regard many times RoboT (eg; HERE). Your persistent claims in this direction simply defy charitable mundane explanation.

Well, no. You have never answered the question. You tried to wish it into the corn field and the post that you linked to was refuted HERE. You've never satisfactorily explained your version of a process of elimination and why it has failed so much.

Nor have you explained why you continue to pretend that somehow, despite the failures, it still works for you. Apparently it works by wishful thinking?

 

[Jocce]

The fact is that the eyewitnesses described an object that does not resemble a blimp.

Witness drawing:
http://brumac.8k.com/Rogue/Rogue_River_Oregon_SR14_Case10_p86.jpg

Blimps:
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Tustin_CA_43_blimp.jpg
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/12/31/eb/blimp-from-the-bedroom.jpg

The fact is that the historical evidence suggests there was no blimp at the place and time.

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 atMCAF Santa Ana, Calif.
Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2002/nd02/lighter.pdf

I find it fascinating that when I present a wealth of eyewitness testimonial evidence and a great deal of historical evidence (HERE for example) - that both supports my case and refutes the “blimp hypothesis” - I stand accused of ignoring evidence.

See two explanations above.

 

[Jocce]

Five observers (two with the aid of binoculars), in independent testimony, described the object as circular. The object, when first sighted, was travelling toward them, then executed a turn across their line of sight to disappear into the distance (at speeds of a jet plane) at an angle away from them. The object was observed for 2 -3 minutes. The witnesses with binoculars were able to see that the skin of the object near the tail appeared wrinkled and dirty. No matter how you try and spin it, those are the facts of the matter Jocce.

Re. bolded part, they might have given their testimonies independently but they were all sitting, litterally, in the same boat observing the object.

Btw, how much detail would a group of people see if they looked at a blimp a few miles away, through 1950's quality binoculars on a warm hazy may day, sitting in a small rocking boat on a river?

Someone tried to visualize it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDgiCM7tmn0

 

[Rramjet]

I seriously think you need to consider you own approach to arguing these cases before you accuse others of dishonesty or bias.

Actually I accused both you and Jocce of obfuscation in making false statements and in so doing misrepresenting the research and mischaracterising the evidence - and in light of that asked a question about whether either of you intended to deceive the readers of this thread, yourselves, or both.

Who cares if Dr Maccabee made a small error in his calculations that did not in any way affect the outcome? Have you never made an erroneous calculation? And one does not need to be an “expert” in triangulation, all one needs to know is how to do it (it is basic trigonometry after all). Moreover, I am not really concerned about how you may characterise my argument (or my argumentative technique) because the research and the evidence speaks for itself. That is:

In the White Sands case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html):

Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950

2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

a) The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b) The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c) The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d) The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.​

(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit​

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

Five eyewitnesses provided testimony that the object they sighted (two of them using binoculars) was circular (like a coin or pancake), with no protuberances whatsoever except for a small “fin” on the top and that moved at the speed of a jet plane. What they did not see was a GoodYear logo, fins, a gondola or engines.​

In the Venezuelan case (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Cause: Brilliant light, no heat
Symptoms: Vomiting, swelling, skin damage,
Latency period of about a week then hospital,
Symptoms: Virulent sores, loss of hair, “truly horrible” appearance and it was hoped that they would not die.​

In the Battelle study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf):

More that 20% of all reports (2199 of them) were classified as UNKNOWN (could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon) and there was a notable trend in the data showing that the more reliable a report was, the more likely it was to be classified as UNKNOWN.​

 

[Rramjet]

Witness drawing:
http://brumac.8k.com/Rogue/Rogue_River_Oregon_SR14_Case10_p86.jpg

Blimps:
http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Tustin_CA_43_blimp.jpg
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/12/31/eb/blimp-from-the-bedroom.jpg

You have simply ignored the following:

Sorry, but not even that statement is correct. If you look at the following drawings of the object, I will explain:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=427&pictureid=2691
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf)

First a question to you. According to you, since the outlines of the two drawings are different, then there were TWO objects sighted (a fat one and a skinny one). Where in the eyewitness testimony does it mention two objects? Of course the witnesses sighted only one object, so how are we to interpret the differing outlines of the two drawings?

First we must note that the eyewitnesses described a circular object (like a coin or a pancake) and that drawings we see above are constructed in such a manner so as to show us a three dimensional perspective on a circular (like a coin) object.

Noting the uppermost drawing: Imagine a coin with a slight curve or bulge outward in the both upper and lower faces. Imagine then you are looking at that coin at arm’s length and from slightly below. You will see the lower face of the coin as slightly elliptical and you will see a portion of the edge of the coin that is closest to you - as indicated in the upper drawing - with the upper face of that coin hidden from your view (the arrow in the drawing is indicating a motion of the object at right angles to your line of sight from left to right). There is a small triangular fin on the object, but it is partially hidden from your view because it is on the upper face and the angle you are viewing it from hides the lower part of it.

Noting now the lower drawing: Imagine you are looking at that same coin directly edge on (from neither above, nor below). Also imagine that it has that small, right angled triangular fin - with the vertical edge placed against the edge of the coin - on the upper face. Now rotate that coin so that the direction of motion is slightly away from you (away from the fin at the rear). You will now see portions of both the upper and lower faces (because of the slight bulge in those faces) but you will see (because it is travelling at an angle away from you) a larger portion of the upper right rear face and a smaller portion of the upper left rear face (that would otherwise be hidden from you if the object were travelling at right angles to your line of sight). The slight downward slope of the direction arrow in this drawing is meant to indicate the object is travelling away from us - into the page so to speak.

From the perspective described above it can be seen that what you are attempting in your statements on the matter Jocce is to mischaracterise the drawings. As this follows closely on the heels of your misrepresentative and misleading statements on the Battelle data and analyses, it becomes legitimate to suppose that what you are actually attempting with your statements is an obfuscation of the research and evidence – to muddy the waters so to speak – rather than to make any genuine attempt to clarify and understand the research and the evidence. One is entitled then to ask what the purpose of such deceptive, obfuscating statements from you is. That is; Who are you attempting to deceive - yourself - or the readers of this thread – or both?

..and you have provided a positively misleading photo of a blimp that is nothing like a GoodYear (or Navy) blimp of the era!

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 atMCAF Santa Ana, Calif.
Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2002/nd02/lighter.pdf

You are simply incorrigible. You have ignored the historical evidence that demonstrates that there were no Navy blimps on the West Coast in 1949!

Even if we ignore the following statement:

”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)​

We still have the historical evidence that shows:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6937291#post6937291

 

[Rramjet]

Btw, how much detail would a group of people see if they looked at a blimp a few miles away, through 1950's quality binoculars on a warm hazy may day, sitting in a small rocking boat on a river?

First:

… from the National Weather Center in Ashville, North Carolina (…) The weather records showed that during that latter part of May 23 and all day May 24 the prevailing upper altitude winds were from the west and northwest, with occasional winds from the southwest at various altitudes and times.​

From the signed witness testimony:

(Mr. B) “Sun was at our backs and there were no clouds."​

(Mr. C) “It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs…”​

(Mrs. D) “The day had been clear, visibility was good, and the sun was just setting.”​

Second:

Agent Brooks was not satisfied with the information in the above "casual interviews" that were made at the work locations of the witnesses. Therefore, on August 2, 1949, he obtained the following signed statements from the witnesses:

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

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

The above signed testimonials were obtained by Agent Brooks at Moffett Field and Sunnyvale, California, on August 2, 1949. 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.

Several days previously, on July 26, 1949 in a completely separate interview, Agent T.H. Kelley obtained the following signed statements from Mr. and Mrs. D. of Ione, California.

(Mr. D)
"During the latter part of May 1949, at approximately 1630 in the afternoon, while fishing in a boat on the Rogue River near Gold Beach, Oregon, together with [list of people deleted; assumed to be Mrs. A, Mr. B, Mr. C] and my wife, my attention was attracted by a silvery object in the sky, travelling at a height of approximately 5000 feet in a southerly direction. The object,(was) circular in formation as a silver dollar (and) travelled without sound at a speed greater than a high speed or jet plane. Mr. B and Mr. C used a binocular to view the object, which was visible to the naked eye for approximately two minutes. Not using binoculars, I could not make out any irregularities of formation, or whether the object had a motor or motors, landing gear, or other items usually connected with a plane. It had no appearance of the conventional plane but in size would be of the diameter of the fuselage length of the DC-3 plane. I have fished in the general area a number of years and have observed various', type planes flying in this area, but have never observed anything of this nature before."

[Note: 1630 is 4:30 PM]

(Mrs. D)
"While on vacation near Gold Beach, Oregon, during the latter part of May 1949, and while fishing from a boat in the Rogue River in the late afternoon, my husband, Mr. D, called the attention of the group to a silver object, circular in shape, crossing the sky at a high attitude and at a high rate of speed. I could not estimate its height and its size was as large as a large passenger plane though shaped like a shiny circular disk. No sound was heard and it crossed our range of vision in two or three minutes. The day had been clear, visibility was good, and the sun was just setting. Other occupants of the party who observed the object were [names deleted; assumed to be Mrs. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C ] and my husband. There was no sound and the object travelled on a direct course."​

 

[wollery]

Actually I accused both you and Jocce of obfuscation in making false statements and in so doing misrepresenting the research and mischaracterising the evidence - and in light of that asked a question about whether either of you intended to deceive the readers of this thread, yourselves, or both.

In other words you accused us of dishonesty. You have also continually accused all of us, collectively, of bias.

On the other hand, I have shown definitively where your statements were false and misleading, such as your denial that Dr. MacCabee made a mistake, or your denial that you used the statement "the side that was underneath at the time" as an argument against the burns hypothesis, even after cautioning us against its use.

Who cares if Dr Maccabee made a small error in his calculations that did not in any way affect the outcome?

Apparently you do, because you defended him vigorously, even when his errors, and yours, were clearly demonstrated.

Have you never made an erroneous calculation?

Yes, and when I do I admit it, correct my calculation, and alter my conclusions appropriately. How about you? How about Dr. MacCabee?

And one does not need to be an “expert” in triangulation, all one needs to know is how to do it (it is basic trigonometry after all).

Absolutely, and Dr. MacCabee made an unwarranted assumption that gave the absolute best outcome for the calculations, and an erroneous calculation of area. Something an "expert" shouldn't do. Furthermore, you have shown a distinct lack of knowing how to do it, or at least a willingness to bend the language to defend the indefensible.

The whole point was that if Dr. MacCabee can make such a basic error on such a simple calculation then what other errors can he make on more complex calculations? If it was a genuine error then how can we trust other calculations that he makes where we can't see all of his working, and if it was intentional then how can we trust him to present an honest assessment in areas where we lack the knowledge to make our own assessment?

Moreover, I am not really concerned about how you may characterise my argument (or my argumentative technique)

Perhaps you should stop chiding others about their argument or argumentative techniques then. Or are you a hypocrite too?

because the research and the evidence speaks for itself.

It certainly speaks, but we disagree on what it says.

That is:

In the White Sands case (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html):

Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950

2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50

1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the following conclusions were drawn:

a) The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b) The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c) The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d) The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.​

(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit​

Remind me, what were the errors on that altitude and size?

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

Five eyewitnesses provided testimony that the object they sighted (two of them using binoculars) was circular (like a coin or pancake), with no protuberances whatsoever except for a small “fin” on the top and that moved at the speed of a jet plane. What they did not see was a GoodYear logo, fins, a gondola or engines.​

Was there, or was there not, a blimp in the Pacific North-West area in the same month as the sighting? Did the witnesses, or did they not, draw objects that resemble a blimp in general shape? Can witnesses, or can they not, be mistaken? What quality were the binoculars they used? How stable was their viewing platform?

In the Venezuelan case (http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG):

Cause: Brilliant light, no heat
Symptoms: Vomiting, swelling, skin damage,
Latency period of about a week then hospital,
Symptoms: Virulent sores, loss of hair, “truly horrible” appearance and it was hoped that they would not die.​

All from an anecdotal account which is at least mostly second hand, and which may be largely third or fourth hand.

And that section contains a misleading statement. We have no idea when they went to hospital, so saying "Latency period of about a week then hospital" is misleading, since it suggests that they went to the hospital immediately at the end of the latency period, when we have no such knowledge.

In the Battelle study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf):

More that 20% of all reports (2199 of them) were classified as UNKNOWN (could not be fitted to the pattern of any known object or phenomenon) and there was a notable trend in the data showing that the more reliable a report was, the more likely it was to be classified as UNKNOWN.​

The statistics you quote are extremely interpretive, and debatable.

 

[Jocce]

You have simply ignored the following:

No, I don't ignore it. I point out that the picture they drew resembles a blimp: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5207170&postcount=333

I also point out that it's perfectly possible to mistake a blimp for a disc shaped object seen from an angle, especially if you first see it from the front (where it presents a round profile).

You still just ignore these things.

You are simply incorrigible. You have ignored the historical evidence that demonstrates that there were no Navy blimps on the West Coast in 1949!

We have been over this so many times and I find no reason to rehash all the arguments again. Especially when you still obfuscate the issue by bringing up the navy every time someone talks about the navy reserve. Those are still two different entities.

Blimp of one kind or another still remains a plausible explanation for the Rogue river sighting.

 

[Jocce]

First:

… from the National Weather Center in Ashville, North Carolina (…) The weather records showed that during that latter part of May 23 and all day May 24 the prevailing upper altitude winds were from the west and northwest, with occasional winds from the southwest at various altitudes and times.​

From the signed witness testimony:
<etc>

Yes, as I said. They were looking at a blimp a few miles away, through 1950's quality binoculars on a warm hazy may day, sitting in a small rocking boat on a river. Doesn't sund like ideal viewing conditions to me. Should make it very hard to see any detail.