UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Rramjet]

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…

Just as I stated, you have put forward false and misleading statements… and continue to do so!

He has admitted that Dr MacCabee made an error...

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?

But we do have the tools and methodology to enable us to verify Dr Maccabee’s calculations. That is, after all, how his initial error was discovered.

I reference to White Sands (http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html):

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

Sure, here is that reminder for you then…

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.

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

Was there, or was there not, a blimp in the Pacific North-West area in the same month as the sighting?

There was a GoodYear advertising blimp in Salem at the time. There is no evidence that it flew to Rogue River. Indeed the historical evidence suggests that it did not (GoodYear ran tours only in 1947).

Did the witnesses, or did they not, draw objects that resemble a blimp in general shape?

No they did not. You are simply confusing a three dimensional technical drawing, with an erroneous two dimensional interpretation.

Can witnesses, or can they not, be mistaken?

Of course they can be mistaken. It is clear from reading the evidence that there are disparities in (for example) the distances and timing etc. But these disparities point to the independence of the eyewitnesses testimony. They were however unanimous in concluding that it was a circular object with no protuberances (and definitely no GoodYear logo!).

What quality were the binoculars they used?

Obviously, according to the witness statements, good enough so that the image “resolved” when looking through them.

How stable was their viewing platform?

It was a boat on a wide, flat section of river that was obviously large enough for five people to be comfortable in fishing from and that none indicated any potential motion to affect their view of the object.

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

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

You may be right.

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.

There was obviously a delay of some days before they felt ill enough to require hospital treatment. So…

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.​

…is an accurate reflection of the evidence in the case.

I reference to the Battelle study (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf):

The statistics you quote are extremely interpretive, and debatable.

No, it is a simple fact of the matter that 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]

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

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.

This is simply a false statement from you Jocce. I positively distinguish between the Navy and Naval Reserve. It’s all here if you care to read it (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6937291#post6937291).

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.

That is merely an unfounded assertion from you that simply goes against the evidence that it was near perfect viewing conditions (clear day, sun at their backs), that the binoculars were in good order (the object’s image resolved when they were applied) and that the five witnesses were comfortable fishing from their boat in a wide, flat section of river, and none mentioned that any potential boat motion affected their view of the object.

You still just ignore these things.

Well stated.

 

[Jocce]

This is simply a false statement from you Jocce. I positively distinguish between the Navy and Naval Reserve.

I said: "in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons"

You replied: You have ignored the historical evidence that demonstrates that there were no Navy blimps on the West Coast in 1949!

That is merely an unfounded assertion from you that simply goes against the evidence that it was near perfect viewing conditions (clear day, sun at their backs)

Proves my point that there was likely heat haze problems that was amplified when using binoculars. Hint: heat haze is a problem on clear warm days, not on cloudy.

that the binoculars were in good order (the object’s image resolved when they were applied)

They didn't see any details. The image resolved into a pancake-like shape. General shape impression is not detail.

and that the five witnesses were comfortable fishing from their boat in a wide, flat section of river, and none mentioned that any potential boat motion affected their view of the object.

We all know that using binoculars on a boat is harder than on firm ground. Denying it is just silly.

 

[Jocce]

it is a simple fact of the matter that 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.

Another simple fact of the matter is that an equal proportion of unidentified objects are found in the excellent and poor reports.

 

[Rramjet]

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

I said: "in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons"

You replied: You have ignored the historical evidence that demonstrates that there were no Navy blimps on the West Coast in 1949!

Concerning the status of operational Navy Reserve airships in 1949, from an official Navy document listing all (the sum total of) currently operational Reserve airship bases (as of May 1949):

SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
3. Aircraft Assignments (Stations)
NAS Lakehurst 6 (AIRSHIPS)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao23-52/fy-1950.pdf)​

So the Navy Reserve had 6 operational airships on the East Coast in May 1949 – but NONE anywhere else. In fact West Coast LTA Reserve cadets had to travel across the country to get operational training (they had no operational airships of their own in 1949).

Proves my point that there was likely heat haze problems that was amplified when using binoculars. Hint: heat haze is a problem on clear warm days, not on cloudy.

You are simply grasping at straws Jocce.

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

(Mr B) “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) “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."​

They didn't see any details. The image resolved into a pancake-like shape. General shape impression is not detail.

This is again a completely false statement from you Jocce (see above for details). Do you believe that such obviously false statements from you can possibly enhance your credibility in any way at all?

We all know that using binoculars on a boat is harder than on firm ground. Denying it is just silly.

Tell me Jocce: Is there anything in the eyewitness testimony that indicates to you that any movement of the boat caused them trouble in focussing on the object? Quite the contrary. Many details about the object were resolved on application of the binoculars.

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

I stated:
No, it is a simple fact of the matter that 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.”

Another simple fact of the matter is that an equal proportion of unidentified objects are found in the excellent and poor reports.

This is yet another false statement from you Jocce - and not only that, I have repeatedly pointed this out to you and I have explained to you in some detail precisely why it is a false statement:

Your statement is false because you have conflated the UNKNOWN and the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION categories.

The UNKNOWN category was reserved for cases that defied mundane explanation. That is, cases where there was sufficient reliable, descriptive detail to rule out mundane explanations.

The INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category was reserved for cases where there was insufficient reliable, descriptive detail to determine any explanation. That is, because there was insufficient reliable data, no determination of either known (a mundane explanation) or unknown (defied mundane explanation) could be made.

It is absolutely illegitimate to conflate the two categories Jocce.

It must be noted that the trend in the data showed that among the more reliable the reports, the greater the proportion of UNKNOWNS there were. 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.

 

[Jocce]

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

Concerning the status of operational Navy Reserve airships in 1949, from an official Navy document listing all (the sum total of) currently operational Reserve airship bases (as of May 1949):

Just admit that you replied with an argument about the navy when I was talking about the reserve (something everyone can clearly see). If you can't debate honestly there is not much point in continuing.

You are simply grasping at straws Jocce

No, I am just pointing out the obvious. Warm day - heat haze problems when using binoculars.

This is again a completely false statement from you Jocce (see above for details). Do you believe that such obviously false statements from you can possibly enhance your credibility in any way at all?

Sigh...
From Mr C’s record of Interview (http://brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm):

With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape

That's the only time the word "resolve" is used.

Tell me Jocce: Is there anything in the eyewitness testimony that indicates to you that any movement of the boat caused them trouble in focussing on the object? Quite the contrary. Many details about the object were resolved on application of the binoculars.

No, they barely saw any detail at all. Feel free to enumerate the details that they reported seeing.

This is yet another false statement from you Jocce - and not only that, I have repeatedly pointed this out to you and I have explained to you in some detail precisely why it is a false statement:

The categories UNKNOWN and INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION have one thing in common. They both contain unidentified objects.

Seriously, you can continue to post walls of text that are completely unrelated to my argument if you wish, but it's not very fruitful.

 

[Rramjet]

Just admit that you replied with an argument about the navy when I was talking about the reserve (something everyone can clearly see). If you can't debate honestly there is not much point in continuing.

If you believe I have been debating dishonestly, then please, be my guest, don’t continue… though I do note with interest that on the presentation of the irrefutable evidence you have switched tactics…

No, I am just pointing out the obvious. Warm day - heat haze problems when using binoculars.

Nope, I guess was wrong (above) …This is merely a restating of an unfounded assertion made in ignorance of the evidence I have presented against your contentions in this regard. For example (briefly and in part for example):

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

That's the only time the word "resolve" is used.

Fact: When observed through binoculars many details about the object resolved.

No, they barely saw any detail at all. Feel free to enumerate the details that they reported seeing.

Sure…

(Mr B) ”Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center. A triangular fin appeared to arise amidship and extended to the trailing end of the object viewed as it travelled. There were no openings visible and no sound was heard. There appeared to be no engines or motors, no landing gear, no other protruding parts other than the fin already described.”

(Mr C) ”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.”​

The categories UNKNOWN and INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION have one thing in common. They both contain unidentified objects.

This is simply yet another false assertion. For the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category, the analysts simply did not have sufficient information to determine if anything was there, let alone “objects”. You cannot have an unidentified object if no object exists Jocce.

 

[Jocce]

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

Concerning the status of operational Navy Reserve airships in 1949, from an official Navy document listing all (the sum total of) currently operational Reserve airship bases (as of May 1949):

SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
3. Aircraft Assignments (Stations)
NAS Lakehurst 6 (AIRSHIPS)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao23-52/fy-1950.pdf)​

I think I also have to point out that, apart from trying to obfuscate the issue by talking about the navy when I say navy reserve, you still try to pretend as if this document that you quote above concerns the relevant time period.

This document describes the planned organisazion on June 30, 1950. It's written on May 1, 1949 and although the military can be efficient sometimes, I doubt they had time to carry out the plan in 3 weeks.

All this has been pointed out to you several times over more than a year so I have to think that this is deliberate obfuscation attempts from your side.

 

[Jocce]

Sure…

(Mr B) ”Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center. A triangular fin appeared to arise amidship and extended to the trailing end of the object viewed as it travelled. There were no openings visible and no sound was heard. There appeared to be no engines or motors, no landing gear, no other protruding parts other than the fin already described.”

(Mr C) ”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.”

e·nu·mer·ate
verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1.
to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enumerate

This is simply yet another false assertion. For the INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION category, the analysts simply did not have sufficient information to determine if anything was there, let alone “objects”. You cannot have an unidentified object if no object exists Jocce.

Feel free to present one single case in these categories where the object is identified.

 

[Rramjet]

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

…you still try to pretend as if this document that you quote above concerns the relevant time period.

This document describes the planned organisazion on June 30, 1950. It's written on May 1, 1949 and although the military can be efficient sometimes, I doubt they had time to carry out the plan in 3 weeks.

All this has been pointed out to you several times over more than a year so I have to think that this is deliberate obfuscation attempts from your side.

No, it is actually a current assets register (and I must also correct an error I made – there was actually only 2 airships at Lakehurst in May 1949 – I was reading from the previous year’s assets register when I quoted 6). So:

From the cover letter:

"2. The activities, organisations and units listed are indicated in their ultimate status at the end of the fiscal year.”​

From the Contents page:

“SECTION V - NAVAL AIR RESERVE
1. Existing Air Stations”​

And then of course we have listed under Section V the only operational airship station:

”SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE

1. Existing Naval Air Reserve Stations

The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficient to provide facilities sufficient to support the mission assigned.

(…)

3. Aircraft Assignments (Stations)

NARTU Lakehurst 2 (AIRSHIPS)”​

Now of course many will misconstrue statement number 3 from the cover letter:

”3. This pamphlet is issued as a means of presenting to interested commands the planned size and composition of Naval Aviation. Implementation of changes in the current organization will be effected by separate correspondence in the form of specific directives.”​

But it matters not because if in fact it is a forward estimate, despite all indications otherwise (that it is a current register as of June 1949), that would mean two things:

First, that in the 1950 there was only Lakehurst planned for, and second we should actually return to the previous year’s document to see what the curreent year (1949) looked like. There we find all the same information as above except the number of airships:

”SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE

1. Existing Air Stations

The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficient to provide facilities sufficient to support the mission assigned.

(…)

3. Aircraft Assignments (Stations)

NAS Lakehurst 6 (AIRSHIPS)”
(http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao23-52/fy-1949-jun48.pdf)​

So once again the only operational airship base was Lakehurst.

Of course there is a another document, a Naval Aviation News newsletter (August 1949) that describes the status of the LTA airbases and the training facilities for the West Coast Reserves (set up in late 1949) – who had to travel to Lakehurst (across the continent) to obtain operational training (as they had no operational airships of their own) (http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1950s/1950/backissues1950.htm).

But of course we have many other sources to indicate there were no (none, zero) West Coast Airships in 1949:

“The reduction in LTA following the war left ZP-12 at NAS Lakehurst and ZP-31 at NAS Santa Ana as the only active squadrons. A detachment of ZP-31 continued at NAS Moffett Field. On November 15, 1946, ZP-12 was redesignated ZP-2 and ZP-31 became ZP-1. In the summer of 1947, ZP-1 made a home port and fleet change from NAS Santa Ana in the Pacific Fleet to NAS Weeksville in the Atlantic. The change was due to the reduction of NAS Santa Ana to a maintenance status and the elimination of the ZP overhaul mission at NAS Moffett Field.” (http://www.history.navy.mil/download/lta-09.pdf)​

“The squadron was relocated to MCAS El Toro in 1948” … ” “Santa Ana NAS was decommissioned by the Navy in 1949” … “For less than 2 years, the huge former Navy blimp airfield was evidently reused as a civilian airport.” … “The civilian use of the airfield ended in 1951, when the property was transferred to the Marine Corps, which renamed it as the Marine Corps Air Facility Santa Ana. According to The California State Military Museum, the station reopened during the Korean War. Blimp operations staged a brief resurrection when the Navy established a 2-blimp Naval Air Reserve Training Unit (NARTU) on April 1, 1951. The Marines arrived the next month establishing a helicopter air facility.” (http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/...rangeCo_SE.htm)​

“In January 1944, the last airship arrived at Moffett for assembly. Two months later, Moffett graduated its last training class for pilots and crew. And in August 1947, a blimp went down off the Cape of Mendocino. No lives were lost, but it would be the last flight for the LTA program at Moffett. That same month, the last blimp at Moffett Field was deflated.” (http://www.moffettfieldmuseum.org/history.html)​

“Blimp operations ended forever at Moffett in August 1947.” (http://www.militarymuseum.org/NASMoffettFld.html)​

And the clincher of course:

“Following the war, all blimp squadrons decommissioned except two which included Santa Ana's ZP 31 renamed ZP-1. Santa Ana also became an aircraft storage facility in November 1945. Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended. On June 6, 1949, Santa Ana decommissioned becoming an OLF. For a time, the hangars were used by advertising blimps.” (http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)​

Of course all this was pointed out at the time the case was originally presented - but of course in true UFO debunker style, the seemingly relentless drive to obfuscate and misrepresent continues, and Jocce it seems will not rest in his false assertions until every tiny detail of evidence has been either obfuscated or misrepresented. However, the evidence speaks for itself – there simply were no operational airships (Navy or Navy Reserve) on the west coast in 1949.

 

[Rramjet]

Lest we forget why I created this thread in all this obfuscating and rehashing of previously presented cases - I think it time to actually present some new evidence.

The Hudson Valley Triangle Sightings (1982 - 1995)
Video
Part 1: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbszKTB5eBc)
Part 2: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZD7cm7Duog&feature=related)

(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/hudsonvalley.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Hudsonvalley.html)

The UFO debunkers have (of course) claimed it was a hoax - some light aircraft flying in formation. And while it is true that some people obviously got together to perpetrate a hoax in that fashion, it is patently obvious that they did so well after the huge triangular UFO had been sighted (by many, many people over a wide geographical area and at many different times). It is also obvious that the hoaxers got together as a response to the UFO sightings and not a cause of them. In fact, people who had originally seen the UFO were calling to say that they had also seen the hoaxers and were able to positively identify them as light planes in formation and that such an easily identifiable hoax could not account for what they originally saw.

It does however cause one to wonder at the extent of the resources available to UFO debunkers that they would go to such lengths. So many light planes got together (covering an area the size of two football fields according to some witnesses) all in an effort to "hoax"? I doubt it. A simple hoax was of course not the true motivation. The true motivation was to actually obfuscate and misrepresent the evidence - to muddy the waters - to precipitate an argument about the case and cast doubt in the public's mind - and the lengths the UFO debunkers will go to in that regard often amazes me. However, consideration of answers to a question concerning why the UFO debunkers would go to such great lengths - casts a more sinister shadow over this case and the whole UFO phenomenon in general.

 

[SOdhner]

Lest we forget why I created this thread in all this obfuscating and rehashing of previously presented cases - I think it time to actually present some new evidence.

You still haven't addressed the concerns with all the other cases, I think it might just clutter up the place to bring in yet another new one. I had hoped to talk to you about the Delphos case, but you haven't responded to my posts about Cowgill's letter and as I said before I don't want to put the cart before the horse.


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

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

 

[Rramjet]

Being topical in consideration of current concerns being raised about the security of nuclear facilities, I thought I would add a little further evidence following my previous post:

"A report made from guards at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant would be one of the most dramatic. The gigantic UFO was seen hovering over the plant for periods of time, and moved as close as 30 feet from the reactor. Security supervisors even once considered ordering in planes to have it shot down. The object over Indian Point was described by some of the guards as 1,000 ft. long. (http://www.ufocasebook.com/Hudsonvalley.html)​

The full story can be found here (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc689.htm).

 

[RoboTimbo]

Rramjet, I'm still waiting for answers about what went wrong for you in the Delphos case? How did your version of a process of elimination fail? Or do you believe that it didn't fail? I notice that you've quietly stopped discussing Delphos or listing it with your other cases. Here are some links to posts that you haven't answered which bring into question your version of a process of elimination:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6948278#post6948278
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6966972#post6966972
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6978701#post6978701
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6982952#post6982952
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6985138#post6985138

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Wait Ramjet is saying that what the witness drew doesn't look like a blimp? Am I reading this correctly?

 

[Rramjet]

Rramjet, I'm still waiting for answers about what went wrong for you in the Delphos case? How did your version of a process of elimination fail? Or do you believe that it didn't fail? I notice that you've quietly stopped discussing Delphos or listing it with your other cases. Here are some links to posts that you haven't answered which bring into question your version of a process of elimination:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6948278#post6948278
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6966972#post6966972
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6978701#post6978701
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6982952#post6982952
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6985138#post6985138

As far as I am aware I was answering your posts and your questions HERE, HERE and HERE, until you posted THIS – whereupon I posted THIS.

If you have anything substantial to add, over and above that which has already been posted in reply to you, then please, be my guest and outline your concerns. Please be aware however that merely repeating questions I have already answered will not elicit a response from me.

 

[wollery]

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…

Just as I stated, you have put forward false and misleading statements… and continue to do so!

He has admitted that Dr MacCabee made an error...

That's just laughable. In order to accuse me of making misleading posts, you make a misleading post!

Let's look at where my post that you quoted came in the timeline of the exchanges about Dr. MacCabee:

First, I point out that Dr. MacCabee made errors and unwarranted assumptions in his maths and assessment of the White Sands case in this post.

Your response?

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

snipped... Dr. MacCabee's resume and the error filled assessment I'd referred to.

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 apparently you deny that Dr. MacCabee made any mistakes, starting with an appeal to authority and then the posting of the error filled assessment, with the statement "Did you not think I would check the veracity of your statements wollery?". That's pretty darned funny when we consider that you clearly hadn't "checked" whether I was correct or not. If you had checked you would have at least seen that he calculated the area of a square rather than the area of a circle. You could also have asked. But I pointed out the errors in his assessment a long time ago, so you should have already been aware of them.

So where does my quote about you admitting Dr. MacCabee's errors come in?

Well, I go through Dr. MacCabee's errors in this post, in response to your initial denial, and correct myself in this post.

Your response is;

Oh? Why not put them on the horizon then? Of course it is legitimate to use the analysts own figures (150,000 feet) as the basis for the calculation! That is the distance figure (from the cameras) we were provided by the analysts themselves, and that is the figure we must then use!

You're still arguing that using the altitude as a line of sight distance is perfectly valid.

Yes, the area of a circle is Pi r squared = 3.14 x 36 = 113 (so Maccabee’s 140 pixels is an obvious error). However 113 is still plenty to discern the shape. Even going on your estimates (at the lower end) 64 pixels is still good enough to determine shape!

But at least admitting that calculating the area of a circle by squaring the diameter is a mistake. And apparently, an "obvious error". It's just a shame it wasn't so obvious to you a few posts earlier, when you were accusing me of making misleading statements about Dr. MacCabee's errors!

But we still haven't come to my quote about you admitting Dr. MacCabee's mistakes. Why not?

Well, it's because that quote was lifted, out of context, from a side argument I had with Sceptic Tank. He accused you of mixing up your argument, and I defended you!

His first post is here;

Argument from authority.

The thing is, you're arguing that the calculations wouldn't be in a report if they weren't correct - yet you've also admitted that the calculations contain at least one error. Both can't be true.

I pointed out that he was wrong, and it took a few posts to make him see that he had his wires crossed. During that conversation I made my statement about you admitting a mistake by Dr. MacCabee, because by then you had admitted that using the square of the diameter was the wrong way to calculate the area of a circle (see above). However, you were still arguing that the altitude was the same as a line of sight distance.

In other words, you made a completely misleading statement, in order to make it look like I had made a false and misleading statement. Something I hadn't done, since you did, demonstrably, deny Dr. MacCabee's mistakes, and after admitting he made one mistake continued to deny his other major mistake for some time. You took a quote out of time sequence, and totally out of context, thus giving a completely erroneous impression of the course of the discussion.

My statement was neither false, nor misleading, but an accurate representation of your argument.

This inability to remember even the most basic time sequences of discussions and the arguments that you have made is starting to get very tiresome. Every time you do it I have to go back and quote several posts to demonstrate that you are wrong about things that you have said.

I seriously doubt I'll get an apology, because you haven't apologised for any of the previous occurrences. You'll probably just ignore this post and hope that it just goes away. However, it's here for all to see, as is my detailing of the argument about the "burns hypothesis", where you stated that you hadn't used a particular argument against the burns hypothesis and I showed categorically that you had. You ignored that too.

In future, you may want to actually check on these things properly, or ask for more details, before categorically denying them and ending up looking foolish or dishonest. You keep telling us how much such posts hurt our credibility. What do you think it does to your credibility that you make false or misleading statements in order to try to show that others have made false or misleading statements when they haven't?

 

[RoboTimbo]

As far as I am aware I was answering your posts and your questions HERE, HERE and HERE, until you posted THIS – whereupon I posted THIS.

If you have anything substantial to add, over and above that which has already been posted in reply to you, then please, be my guest and outline your concerns. Please be aware however that merely repeating questions I have already answered will not elicit a response from me.

It seems that you are reading the words but they aren't registering. Your posts do not answer the questions I've asked you. All I can do is keep asking the same questions until you do answer them.

"How did you eliminate "HOAX" as a plausible mundane explanation for Delphos Kansas?"

Your answer was that it couldn't be a hoax because there was a fairy ring on the ground. That's it? Really? And because some other teens hoaxed another wolf girl sighting three years after Johnson? And he couldn't have hoaxed his UFO sighting because he gained psychic powers afterwards and we know he gained those because his UFO sighting affected him. You don't think that's circular at all?

"What are your 20 questions?"

You provided no answer. Nor to any of the numerous times you've been asked.

"Who were you asking them of and who was answering them?"

You provided no answer. Nor to any of the numerous times you've been asked.

"Rramjet, is your refusal to discuss Delphos any longer a tacit admission of the fatal errors in your version of a process of elimination?"

No answer. But you have stopped presenting Delphos as a case. Shouldn't we discuss why your version of a process of elimination went so wrong?

"Which non-mundane explanations do you think are plausible?"

On the one hand, you say you will provide evidence for "aliens". On the other, you say you aren't putting forth any possible answers yourself. On the third hand, you discount any mundane hypotheses that you personally don't find "plausible".

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

No answer. If you want to discount mundane explanations that you believe to be implausible, then we need to examine the non-mundane explanations to see which of those are implausible also. Otherwise, it's a blimp.

I'm sure you will want to be as open and transparent as possible with your version of a process of elimination so that we can see how you've eliminated mundane explanations, which you so often claim. But that's moving to the realm of an extraordinary claim since it has been claimed so often without any evidence to back it.

We've seen concrete examples where your version of a process of elimination has failed. What we haven't seen is a concrete example where it has succeeded.

 

[Rramjet]

wollery – I really don’t think getting into a subjective and interpretive “He said, no I didn’t, yes you did” type argument is really helpful at this point. In fact it merely distracts from the substantial issues at hand (and I suspect this may be – at least in part – your underlying purpose).

I have accused you of making false and misleading statements, you have accused me in turn. As you state, the record is there for all to see, so I propose we leave it at that and get back to the discussing research and the evidence.

I have presented some new evidence:

The Hudson Valley Triangle Sightings (1982 - 1995)
Video
Part 1: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbszKTB5eBc)
Part 2: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZD7c...eature=related)

(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/hudsonvalley.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Hudsonvalley.html)

Indian Point Nuclear Plant
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc689.htm)​

Perhaps you would care to discuss that case?

RoboT … as much as it pains me to respond to you at this point since you are obviously ignoring my substantive replies to your questions (and ignoring the question I pose you in return), I feel I must reiterate that I am proposing no explanations of any kind for the cases I am presenting. I merely observe that they defy plausible mundane explanation.

As to how I have eliminated plausible mundane explanations in coming to that conclusion, I can inform you it is through the use of a process of elimination. If you do not understand how that process works I suggest two things: First type the term into you search engine and press Enter on your keyboard and follow the suggested links.

Second to see the process in action in regards to the Delphos UFO Landing case:

The Delphos Kansas UFO Landing (11 Feb 1971)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Kansas.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case192.htm)
(http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/10/delphos-kansas-ufo-landing-ring.html)
(http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf)​

I suggest you actually read the relevant post I linked to above. If you have any subsequent questions or concerns about my application of the process of elimination I suggest you outline the reasons why you think my application of the process is erroneous – merely claiming that it is erroneous is unfounded, and may be therefore be legitimately dismissed as an unfounded assertion.

Wait Ramjet is saying that what the witness drew doesn't look like a blimp? Am I reading this correctly?

Remembering that the object drawn was a three-dimensional representation of a (relatively flat) circular object (like a coin or a pancake) This is what the witnesses drew (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf) (The uppermost drawing represents the object crossing at right angles to our line of sight seen from below and the lower drawing represents the object (seen directly edge on) heading at an angle away from us (into the page), with the upright rear fo the "fin" actually flush with the edge of the disc):

 

[Jocce]

No, it is actually a current assets register

Why do you even bother trying to lie about this when in your next breath:

"2. The activities, organisations and units listed are indicated in their ultimate status at the end of the fiscal year.”

The fiscal year being from june 30, 1949 to july 1, 1950. So this document describes the planned cmposition of the navy on june 30 1950. All this has been explained to you before though.

1. Existing Naval Air Reserve Stations
The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficient to provide facilities sufficient to support the mission assigned.

Under this heading is described what is going to happen with the existing Naval Air Reserve Stations during the year.

3. Aircraft Assignments (Stations)

Under this heading is described the planned aircraft assignment on june 30 1950. As I said many times already, this document is irrelevant because it does not concern the correct time period.

Now of course many will misconstrue statement number 3 from the cover letter:

”3. This pamphlet is issued as a means of presenting to interested commands the planned size and composition of Naval Aviation. Implementation of changes in the current organization will be effected by separate correspondence in the form of specific directives.”

Misconstrue? It says "this is a plan" not "this is our current assets".

we should actually return to the previous year’s document to see what the curreent year (1949) looked like.

Exactly! I'm glad you finally understand this.

There we find all the same information as above except the number of airships:

”SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE

1. Existing Air Stations

The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficient to provide facilities sufficient to support the mission assigned.

(…)

3. Aircraft Assignments (Stations)

NAS Lakehurst 6 (AIRSHIPS)”
(http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao23-52/fy-1949-jun48.pdf)​

So once again the only operational airship base was Lakehurst.

You're missing a part of that quote, represented by (…). Let's have a look at what (…) hides:

2. Additional activities
It is anticipated that four additional Air Reserve activities, in varying sizes, will be established

I wonder what happened to those extra 4 stations? Oh wait...I already presented a source that can tell us that:

In 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ZP-651 was based at NAS Akron,Ohio; ZPs 751, 752 and 753 at NAS Lakehurst,N.J.; ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.; ZP-911 at NAS Squantum, Mass.; and ZPs 951 and 952 at MCAF Santa Ana, Calif.
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/2000s/2002/nd02/lighter.pdf

Interesting, that is LTA patrol squadrons set up at NAS Lakehurst plus four more stations.

To summarize.

1. We have one source saying that they will set up 4 more stations before june 30, 1949 if they can afford it.
2. We have another source saying that four stations were set up in 1949 (two on the west coast).

But of course we have many other sources

Well, we're not concerned with what they Navy did or did not do. We're talking about the Navy Reserve, remember?

Jocce it seems will not rest in his false assertions until every tiny detail of evidence has been either obfuscated or misrepresented.

I think it's pretty clear from this who is trying to obfuscate and misrepresent.

However, the evidence speaks for itself

Indeed.