Concerning the:
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(
http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
Frankly, the drawings look like and have always looked like a blimp to me.
Only if you ignore the evidence in favour of an a priori “blimp” bias…
All that scorn, all that condescending, sneering vitriol, all those aspersions about the abilities of those who were trying to get you to see the bleeding obvious - all based on what?
Based on the fact that the UFO debunkers in this thread have been conducting a scurrilous and disingenuous campaign to obfuscate the evidence concerning those drawings (and attempting to falsify both the historical records and my own statements). I do not resile from pointing that out in strong terms.
Noone has ever to my knowledge claimed that these drawing were NOT meant to represent a pancake shape so quit barking up that tree. Maybe you should pay more attention to what people actually write so you don't have to argue unecessary against what you think that they have might have written?
Perhaps the following might help with your “knowledge” then?
As a visual representation of what was seen above Rogue River that day, they are blimps.
Pretty categorical that – wouldn’t you say? Want me to quote some other statements..?
Concerning the
Tremonton, Utah, UFO Colour Film (02 July 1952)
(
http://www.nicap.org/utahdir.htm)
Video including the 1950 Montana film
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page)
However, your statement implied there was no analysis of the film and the only thing Hartmann relied upon was this observation. That is not being accurate and one might say you were being intellectually dishonest.
The
only thing that Hartmann relied upon to draw his conclusions about the case was his own speculation derived from his own observation - and it is entirely accurate and appropriate to point that out. His “scientific assessments” (being demonstrably
unscientific!) failed to convince him - and he based his conclusions on (to paraphrase) - “
Well, I saw some birds one day that I mistook for objects similar to those in the film – so they must be seagulls…”
Really? He does not constantly pan as you suggest. According to RL Baker (a UFO proponent), in UFOS: A scientific debate (p.198):
"He reports that one of the objects reversed its course and proceeded away from the rest of the group, he held the camera still and allowed this single object to pass across the field of view of the camera, picking it up later in its course. He repeated this for three passes."
Evan so Hartmann notes: “
Arguments against gulls include the following: (1) The distances and velocities cited are on the margin of acceptability. If the gulls were slightly closer, they should have been clearly identified since their angular size would exceed 3 min. of arc; if they were slightly further away, their velocity would become unacceptably high.” That is the “Goldilocks (distance from camera) argument” – even according to Hartmann is “on the margin of acceptability”.
His attempt was to see if the bird hypothesis was a reasonable explanation and you failed to mention his measurements of how he arrived at his distances.
The angular diameters of images range from 0.0016 to 0.0004 radians (5.5 to 1.5 min. of arc). Assuming a "bird-size" reflecting circle of 8 in. diameter, these results would give distances of 415 - 1,670 ft., respectively.
This is where he arrived at 2000 feet. It was not "invented" as you falsely stated. He was attempting to see if it was possible they were birds. He could not falsify this hypothesis, which means it was a perfectly valid explanation. Of course, I am sure you will proclaim that you can falsify the bird hypothesis. Feel free to do so but you need to do better than proclaim that the witness states they could not be birds.
Clearly “2000ft” was invented!
As for falsifying birds:
“
In a memorandum [USAF] dated February 11, 1953, concerning the release of the Tremonton film, it is stated that concern existed about releasing the film without the analyses. This is because of what the analyses said. " The Air Force lab analysis concludes that: a} they are reasonably sure that the brightness of the images on the film exceeds that of any bird. b} The objects are not spherical balloons. c} The objects could not be aircraft." Note that this is the Air Force analysis saying this, so previous comment on people doubting the "goodness" of this film as, say, Robertson Panel evidence should be at least modified. More quoting: "The Navy report says the objects are: a} Self-luminous or light sources. b} Could not be aircraft or balloons. c} No bird is known is [sic--replace with "to"] reflect enough light to cause the images shown on the film." And an explanation of this statement follows in the memo. One may disagree with these conclusions, but one needs to recognize that the history of the time points to both Air Force and Navy labs being in sympathy with the film showing anomalous objects. This being said, one feels that it is appropriate to disagree with these allegedly competent professionals, who unlike ourselves actually worked on the primary copy at the time, with some humility.” (
http://www.nicap.org/utah8.htm)
Quit baiting Tim and the rest with your deliberately recycled debunked nonsense and let’s see YOUR “scientific evaluation” for a change…
Oh …poor Tim! I merely pointed out that what he claimed was a “scientific analysis” was clearly not (and I’m sure Tim is big enough to look after himself) – but the two
official and independent analyses and reports (AF and Navy) are (according to you) “debunked nonsense”? Yeah right.
Like duh obv! If not you, me nor him can't come up with a mundane explanation, of course it does. Haven't you learned anything in the last year+?
If it was just “you, me (or) him” then you might have a point – but if both the AF and the Navy cannot come up with a plausible mundane explanation - even after painstaking and careful analysis – then perhaps the statement “
defies plausible mundane explanation” may be considered an accurate and appropriate representation.
