tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Right size too.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
Right size too.
Thank you tomi71. You make some insightful and pertinent points (I was amused by the Don Quixote reference … yes, I suppose that is what I AM doing, LOL) It is gratifying to know that there are at least some people out there who appreciate my efforts in this thread and I am in turn appreciative that you have taken the time to say so. Thank you.
I find it fascinating that you continually ignore my answers to you on this point to continue asserting some spurious point about …what exactly … that the Goodyear logo in 1949 was not rendered in colour? The whole contention that it was not a “colourful” logo is ludicrous. Much of science and indeed most of the methodology of the way we gain knowledge about the world rests on plausible inference. The selection of photos I presented allows us to make a plausible inference that the logo was “colourful”. That is the same blimps with the same logos are shown in B&W photos pre-1949 and in colour photos post-1949.
But even if the logo was NOT “colourful” it certainly was highly visible! For example I posted the following photo…
In reference to this photo (http://www.goodyearblimp.com/archive/)
Sure …and at Rogue River, through binoculars, the object “resolved”, so that much detail about it was able to be observed.
What was NOT observed was the overall cigar shape of a blimp, fins, gondola, noisy engines and large colourful advertising logo …what WAS observed was a disc-shaped object with silent motion, displaying variable aerial manoeuvrability in direction and speed with the ability to move at the speed of a jet plane.
First, a key term to note here is ”reasonable” in relation to questions.
Second, calling people “stupid” is a form of bullying. It is totally unnecessary. All one has to do is make a counterargument to show the original is in error.
You (and others) have accused me of “lying”, but I have NEVER deliberately set out to deceive anyone with my statements. Sure, sometimes I make mistakes, “misstatements” if you like - but where I do so it is not deliberate (as in lying), it is merely because I may have overlooked a certain detail or other - because I am just one person ands you are many and it is extraordinarily difficult for one person to keep up with every minute detail and nuance of the debate against many people. I have NEVER set out to deliberately deceive by my statements in this thread.
Sure, I have occasionally – again because of time pressure – made occasional statements “in the heat of the moment” that in hindsight could have been better researched, but considering the sheer number of statements I DO (and have made) in this thread, the number of those is (if I do say so myself) commendably insignificant.
Yeah…LOL… I have “run away” from the debate! Actually, I try to answer each and every point raised by the UFO debunkers in this thread. Occasionally I might “miss” something due to the sheer number of points I have to answer, but where that occurrence is drawn to my attention, I DO provide an answer.
Actually – you miss the whole point of the analogy as applied in this instance. It was directed toward a lonely figure trying to confront something very much larger then themselves in what might be considered, given the nature of the “enemy”, to be a futile effort.
Sure, a UFO is a UFO. I don’t KNOW what “they” are or what “they” represent. HOWEVER, given the described characteristics of UFOs I CAN make some inferences about their relation to the “natural” (mundane) laws of this world (for example physics). Simply, that certain UFO characteristics positively defy “mundane” laws and conceptions about how the world around us is supposed to behave in relation to those laws.
Why am I not surprised that “none” of you can understand the distinction? In the Tehran case two separate F-4s got both visual and radar locks on their “target”. This was NOT the case in the Campeche incident. In the Tehran case the UFO was observed independently from the ground – as well as separately by two independent F-4s. This was NOT the case in the Campeche incident. In the Tehran case the UFO was chased by the F-4s (that is they were able to put the object “on their nose” and follow it), this was NOT the case in the Campeche incident. In the Tehran incident, the UFO moved independently of the F-4s, this was NOT the case in the Campeche incident. In the Tehran case, part of the UFO “split” from the main and descended to land on the ground, while the rest kept flying, this was NOT the case in the Campeche incident. Ugh…the list of differences to show complete dissimilarity between the two cases such that “oil well fires” (or similar stationary ground lights) become a completely absurd explanation for the Tehran case could go on – but I think this should be enough to show that the Campeche case has absolutely NO bearing on the Tehran case – except to show that the explanation for Campeche does NOT – indeed cannot - apply in the Tehran case.
Where Rramjet is losing is that he hasn't demonstrated anything beyond the already well established fact that UFOs are unidentified. How was that already established? Well, the clue is in the title. Unidentified flying objects.
I am not “redefining” anything. I am merely noting that if something does not have a mundane solution, then by definition it IS “alien”. This concept becomes more concrete when we start to explore the characteristics of UFOs, which defy physics as we know it.
I am certainly NOT contending that I KNOW what UFOs are or what they represent – quite the opposite, I have consistently stated that I do NOT know. However, that does not mean I don’t have an opinion. But my opinion is not what I am arguing for here. Simply I am presenting evidence for UFOs AND “aliens”. For example the Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora and Travis Walton cases are UFO cases! By definition they are then “alien”. However, there were also “beings” apparent in those cases – so those beings also, by definition, MUST be “alien”. Now I have NO idea WHAT “alien” MEANS in this context. It could mean a number of things (including but NOT necessarily ETI). I am simply noting the fact that I have presented evidence for “aliens”. However I propose NO formal conclusions about WHAT “aliens” actually ARE – we simply don’t have the evidence to answer THAT question – but we DO have evidence that they EXIST!
Perhaps the above will help you out, but seeing as I have explained it in these (or similar) terms before – perhaps that is a forlorn hope?
The UFO debunkers in this thread continue to make unfounded assertions as if their mere statement makes them true. For example, Campeche being a possibility for “one of Rramjets best cases”. That is totally unfounded and moreover is a completely unanswerable question. It proposes a “different” universe – one where the Campeche incident could NOT be explained by “oil-well” fires. In THAT universe, who KNOWS where or what I might have been doing? I might not have even known about the case. I might not have heard of the JREF. I might not have even been interested in UFOs!
However, it IS worth noting that IF (in our alternate universe) Campeche was “unresolved”, then it could NOT have had “oil well fires” as the explanation. Given there were oil-well fires in the vicinity and given that possibility as ruled out – then it would have been an intriguing case. If it was NOT the oil-well fires, then what WAS it? But to conclude that even then I would have been interested in the case is a step too far.
It is interesting that this type of “attack” is made – perhaps we should revisit all the UFO debunker posts and assess them for “quality” of English? I am sure if that was done, then the UFO debunkers would not come up smelling of roses either. Such an “attack” is churlish. How many times must it be stated that one should attack the argument (or the ideas) rather than the arguer – indeed it is written into the Membership Agreement that one should do so.
I think Stray Cat’s post makes my point admirably, that the Logo on Goodyear blimps – no matter what the colour is highly visible! …and with all his pictures he has also proved that the “style” of the logo has remained largely unchanged over the decades.
Where Stray Cat goes off on an unfounded tangent is in the following:
Yes, these were NAVY blimps and thus these blimps naturally did not have the Goodyear logo on them – however the implication behind Stray Cat’s statement here is that a Navy blimp might have been the “culprit”. However, as has been demonstrated time and time again there simple WERE NO OPERATIONAL NAVY BLIMPS ON THE WEST COAST IN 1949! Goodyear, yes, Navy No!
To make such an assertion (even by implication) is simply to flat out IGNORE the evidence of the historical record. To ignore the evidence in UFO cases is one thing, but to ignore the official written records and history of the US Navy is at another level altogether. It is beyond rational comprehension. IMO it signals a descent into complete and utter madness.
…and that is precisely why I have been presenting the cases I have (Rogue River, Project Twinkle, Tehran, Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora, Val Johnson, Cash/Landrum, NZ Pegasus Bay, O’Hare, Yukon, etc) because in ALL these cases there is a large amount of “critical” detail contained in very GOOD, well documented reports. This is to show that there are indeed very good UFO reports that DO contain all the detail that UFO debunkers typically contend is missing from UFO reports – and thus complaints such as you have just made are not relevant to these cases.
Please define “extraordinary evidence”.
Until ANYONE can provide a definition of the term then the whole statement is simply a bunch of woo. Simply, it makes NO sense. It is NOT a rational contention.
There is NO SUCH THING as “extraordinary evidence” - Evidence is evidence. Either you have it, or you do not.
Here they are:
Curious Phenomenon in Venezuela (17 Nov 1886)
(http://bp0.blogger.com/_-qWvml8_fAg/SGccRWGaJpI/AAAAAAAAAF8/J2QyUR-1d0E/s1600-h/SciAm2.JPG)
The Rogue River Case (24 May 1949)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm)
White Sands: Twinkle, Twinkle Little Craft (April-May 1950)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html)
(http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm)
(http://www.project1947.com/gfb/twinklereport.htm)
The Trent - McMinnville UFO (11 May 1950)
(http://ncas.org/condon/text/case46.htm)
Photo 1. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent1_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo 2. (http://www.debunker.com/images2/Trent2_Full_400dpi.jpg)
Photo Analysis: (http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html)
(http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html)
The Father Gill - Papua New Guinea UFO (26-28 Jun 1959)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case67.htm)
(http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/a1998/jan/gill.html)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/gillinterview.html)
The Zamora Incident (24 Apr 1964)
(http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/zamora2.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/zamoradir.htm)
Tehran UFO Incident (19 Sep 1976)
(http://www.brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/)
(Supporting documentation and discussion)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/now_you_see.pdf)
(http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident)
Parvis Jafri interview
(http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
Jafari speaking at the National Press Club, Nov, 2007
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370) and (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/parviz-jafari-2)
MUFON Case File
(http://www.mufon.com/famous_cases/1976 Iran Part 1 MUFON Case File.pdf)
Bob Pratt
(http://www.cohenufo.org/iran.htm)
Slough:
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/narcap_radcat_textwebsite_MShough_12-8-02.pdf)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/TR6-021.htm)
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/006/appendix.htm)
Amusing enlightening UFO HUNTERS “reconstruction”
( http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/2HSFvZvzK90-ufo-hunters-parviz-jafari-case.aspx)
The Kaikoura UFO sightings (30 Dec 1978)
The following articles can be seen on Dr Maccabee’s website: (http://brumac.8k.com/)
1. Challenging the Paradigm!’
(http://brumac.8k.com/ChallengeParadigm/Challenging the Paradigm.htm)
2. New Zealand Sightings (of December 31 1978).
3. New Zealand Radar Sighting.
http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc
4. Flashing Light Film from New Zealand! (the so-called ‘squid boat!’)
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html)
5. Squid Boat
(http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html)
The Kaikoura UFO sighting continues to baffle, 30 years on
Monday, 20 October 2008, 8:46pm
Source: TV3
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/technology/14461.html)
Original footage
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q3iq4R8MgM)
Val Jonhson - Minnesota Vehicle Interference and Physical Traces Event (27 Aug. 1979)
(http://ufologie.net/htm/marshallcounty79.htm)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Johnson_incident)
The Cash/Landrum Incident (29 Dec 1980)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlandir.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/cashlan.htm)
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/Pineywoods.html)
Transcript interview
(http://www.ufocasebook.com/CashLandrum1.html)
(http://www.ufologie.net/htm/cashlandrum.htm)
JAL Flight 1628 UFO Encounter (17 Nov 1986)
(http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html)
(http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/JALalaska.htm)
Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm) (11 Dec 1996)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/indian-river-ufo/irufo-page1.html) (late Jul 1996)
O’Hare – Chicago International Airport UFO Sighting (7th Nov. 2006)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting)
NARCAP Report
(http://www.narcap.org/reports/010/TR10_Case_18a.pdf)
“just sayin…”? LOL. Yeah right, the eyewitnesses mistook a large Goodyear log for a “wrinkled” edge on a circular (like a coin) object! The object was “clear” enough for them to draw a “fin” on its back, yet even when such a detail was visible, the logo was not? You people crack me up sometimes!
The “YB-49” now? Oh yeah, THAT’S a plausible explanation! LOL.
I have had recent exhortations to “please” take the UFO debunker’s posts seriously. Then I get THIS type of bunk? Seriously..?
See the case list above.
You miss the point. It is ALL PLAUSIBLE explanations that must be ruled out – NOT “all possible” ones. The distinction is a fine one I suppose and the mind of the UFO debunker is unlikely to get it – but nevertheless it must be made.
It is the propensity of the UFO debunkers to redefine UFO as UFMO (Unidentified Flying Mundane Object) that forces UFO proponents to come up with terms such as TUFO (True UFO) – meaning that there IS no identification – not even a possible mundane explanation.
Then please explain the “beings” in the Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora, and Travis Walton cases.
Yopu could not be bothered with ANY of the post! So you simply ignore the statements of others because you have no rational reply to them. Huh.
Back to shifting the burden of proof? Again?
1. I make a claim – you (rightly) require me to provide evidence to support that claim.
2. You make a claim – I (rightly) require you to provide evidence to support that claim.
I do NOT claim that “UFO=alien” is the null hypothesis. In fact I have proposed my hypotheses a NUMBER of times:
1. All UFO reports have a mundane explanation.
Test: Here is a UFO report – does it have a mundane explanation? (see case list above)
The evidence I present FOR MY position that NOT all UFO reports have a mundane explanation is presented in the case reports. THAT IS the evidence in support of my position. I AM providing it! And I argue extensively in support of it.
My position should be clear by now. UFOs are by definition “alien”. I make NO claims about the origin of these “aliens”.
Please define “extraordinary evidence”. Of course you WILL not, because you CANNOT - so the statement “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is bankrupt, it is an irrational nonsense.
I also note with interest the phase “He has virtually none for aliens.” …Hmmm…
You (deliberately?) misinterpret the meaning of perceptual error as applied in the Rogue river case - as opposed to varying accounts of history that might have various sources for their variance.
I am talking about specific circumstances that lead to perceptual error. In the case of Rogue River it is the fact that research informs us that distance estimates are prone to error in a clear blue sky. I am then stating that IF the witness estimates vary (as they do), then that is evidence against collusion and THAT in turn adds to the veracity of the accounts.
In the case of your written “histories” (I use the term loosely), while variance in accounts might mean no collusion – we STILL cannot draw ANY conclusion about the veracity of the accounts because there are so many other factors that might be involved.. not least of which the Gospels are NOT “first hand” accounts and the large passage of time (decades at the very least) between the alleged “occurrences” and the writing. Such factors are not apparent in the Rogue River case.
Please define “extraordinary evidence”.
There is NO SUCH THING as “extraordinary evidence” - Evidence is evidence – either you have it or you do not.
You have a belief that all UFOs have (or will have) a mundane explanation. THAT IS a “belief system”!
Just because the evidence is not “convincing” to you, does not mean that it is not good evidence. You “belief system” simply gets in the way of your exploring the evidence rationally and critically.
Yet, the evidence is right there before your (and many other’s) eyes. It is not the fault of the evidence that you (and they) choose to ignore it!
Ditto and … there is plenty of evidence, you simply choose to ignore it (see case list above).
NOONE is claiming “alien origin” (whatever THAT means!). The claim is that UFOs do NOT have mundane explanations and therefore are by definition “alien”. The origin of these “aliens” is an entirely different question altogether.
Wilful obtuseness will not get you anywhere. The document titled ” The Naval Aeronautical Organisation (Fiscal year 1949)” was published in 1947 – meaning of course it is a forward estimate and NOT - as many have claimed - a representation of current assets. Similarly with the other two documents. Simply they are forward estimates and NOT current asset registers. Thus they CANNOT be used to specifically determine WHAT assets were held where.
However, the documents DO contain a section that DOES list current assets (I know this will confuse the hell out of UFO debunkers who only see things in terms of “either/or” – “black or white” (nothing can be a shade of grey).
Thus:
On page 25 of the "1949" document (YOUR preferred document) the following words appear:
SECTION V - THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
1. Existing Air stations
The existing Naval Air Stations Listed below..."
(the document goes on to list 18 existing air stations, then has a part 2 "Additional Activities")1. Existing Air stations
The existing Naval Air Stations Listed below..."
NOTE: I have bolded the relevant word in the above to make it clear. That is the list contains “existing” (extant, currently held by the Navy) airstations. We are NO LONGER talking about prospective air stations – these are what currently exist as of JUNE 1948 (when the document was published).
The document then has a part 2.
I figured you'd just gloss over this. It says:
It is anticipated that four additional Naval Air Reserve activities, in varying sizes, will be established...etc.
I did not state what part two contained for two reasons, first because it is irrelevant to the point being made, and second because I KNEW it would simply confuse the hell out of the UFO debunkers because it reverts to talking about “planned” or prospective activities.
Then there is part 3.
Then on page 26 the following (part 3) appears:
SECTION V - THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
3. Aircraft Assignment (Stations)
Assignment of Aircraft by types to Reserve Air Stations is indicated below:"
(the document goes on to list exactly as is stated above )
Okay, let us “go” with the misinterpretation for a moment.
If it was a “planned” assets register, then they “planned” to have NO blimps on the West Coast at the end of the fiscal year (June 1949). Thus even in the “planning” we have confirmation of the official history that there WERE no blimps on the West Coast in 1949!
I originally stated:
“I must be noted that under the "AIRSHIPS" column, ONLY Lakehurst has a number of airships listed (6 of them) - now I want you to read the following words very carefully
NO other air station has ANY airships listed. But given this document was produced in June 1948 - it actually has NO RELEVANCE to how many airships were at any of the bases in June 1949.
So I had already countered Jocce’s objections in anticipation!
The whole section IS TALKING [specifically
3. Aircraft Assignment (Stations)
Assignment of Aircraft by types to Reserve Air Stations is indicated below:"
(the document goes on to list exactly as is stated above )
Jocce wants to introduce confusion into the picture now by stating that even though the list of airbases was current the list of assets held at them was NOT – a confusion I was trying to avoid by not delineating Part 2. But yet, here it is nevertheless. It is CLEAR that the meaning of the authors WAS to list current assets – but of course that cannot be “definitively proved” – hence allowing the deliberate obfuscation by Jocce and others to be put forward.
Okay, let us “go” with the misinterpretation for a moment.
If it was a “planned” assets register, then they “planned” to have NO blimps on the West Coast at the end of the fiscal year (June 1949). Thus even in the “planning” we have confirmation of the official history that there WERE no blimps on the West Coast in 1949!
I originally stated:
“I must be noted that under the "AIRSHIPS" column, ONLY Lakehurst has a number of airships listed (6 of them) - now I want you to read the following words very carefully
NO other air station has ANY airships listed. But given this document was produced in June 1948 - it actually has NO RELEVANCE to how many airships were at any of the bases in June 1949.
So I had already countered Jocce’s objections in anticipation!
The USNR operated from the bases held by the USN – they did NOT have “separate bases”. They utilised existing assets. Besides, Jocce, in his belief fuelled fervour, has completely MISSWED the TITLE of Section V… That is:
“SECTION V - THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE”
The whole section IS TALKING [specifically
about the USNR!
The two section headings (1 & 3) bear requoting (because once again it seems to be confusing the hell out of the UFO debunkers
Clearly the authors are “killing two birds with one stone”. First they list NAVAL (USN) air stations – then because the list is exactly the same - can list the assets held at USNR stations – which ARE the USN stations (compare the lists if you don’t believe me).
Thus Jocce’s statement ” Could it be that the naval reserve have their own assets too? I don't know...yet. “ simply MISSES the evidence before his own eyes.
So, according to the “1950” document, they were NOT “planning” to have blimps on the West Coast (by June 1950!) at all! You have simply NOT read the documents and have NOT understood USN history. It is a matter of record that the USN West Coast blimp program WAS reinstated sometime in late 1951 or 1952 – but that is NOT 1949!
Back to a reference to the “1950” document.
INDENT]“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)
The two section headings (1 & 3) bear requoting (because once again it seems to be confusing the hell out of the UFO debunkers
SECTION V - THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
1. Existing Air stations
The existing Naval Air Stations Listed below..."
1. Existing Air stations
The existing Naval Air Stations Listed below..."
SECTION V - THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
3. Aircraft Assignment (Stations)
Assignment of Aircraft by types to Reserve Air Stations is indicated below:"
3. Aircraft Assignment (Stations)
Assignment of Aircraft by types to Reserve Air Stations is indicated below:"
Clearly the authors are “killing two birds with one stone”. First they list NAVAL (USN) air stations – then because the list is exactly the same - can list the assets held at USNR stations – which ARE the USN stations (compare the lists if you don’t believe me).
Thus Jocce’s statement ” Could it be that the naval reserve have their own assets too? I don't know...yet. “ simply MISSES the evidence before his own eyes.
I stated first in reference to the “1949” document):
“I must be noted that under the "AIRSHIPS" column, ONLY Lakehurst has a number of airships listed (6 of them) - now I want you to read the following words very carefully
NO other air station has ANY airships listed. But given this document was produced in June 1948 - it actually has NO RELEVANCE to how many airships were at any of the bases in June 1949.
For an assessment of THAT capability we must turn to the "1950" document - produced in May 1949 - (well ...it is CLOSE to the June 1949 date we are interested in...)
This time under the SAME section and in the same list (p.25) we find under the "ZP" column (changed from "airships" for space reasons I suppose), ONLY 2 airships at Lakehurst (and note carefully) NONE at ANY other station.”
NO other air station has ANY airships listed. But given this document was produced in June 1948 - it actually has NO RELEVANCE to how many airships were at any of the bases in June 1949.
For an assessment of THAT capability we must turn to the "1950" document - produced in May 1949 - (well ...it is CLOSE to the June 1949 date we are interested in...)
This time under the SAME section and in the same list (p.25) we find under the "ZP" column (changed from "airships" for space reasons I suppose), ONLY 2 airships at Lakehurst (and note carefully) NONE at ANY other station.”
So, according to the “1950” document, they were NOT “planning” to have blimps on the West Coast (by June 1950!) at all! You have simply NOT read the documents and have NOT understood USN history. It is a matter of record that the USN West Coast blimp program WAS reinstated sometime in late 1951 or 1952 – but that is NOT 1949!
It certainly does! And a Goodyear blimp is the ONLY possible candidate to be at Rogue River at the time. However, this does NOT mean that it was a likely candidate, or even a plausible candidate – it just means it was “possible” for a Goodyear blimp to have been there. However, given the eyewitness descriptions of the object – “blimp” becomes TOTALLY implausible as an explanation for the sighting.
Back to a reference to the “1950” document.
Okay… so the 1947 published (“1949a”) document had NO planned blimps for the West Coast, the 1948 published (“1949”) document had NO planned blimps for the West Coast AND the 1949 published (“1950”) document had NO “planned” blimps for the west Coast. Couple that with official USN history:
INDENT]“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)
And the conclusion is OBVIOUS (obvious that is to all except the UFO debunkers. LOL). There simply WERE NO USN OR USNR “blimps” on the West Coast in June 1949!
Sure – a Goodyear blimp! We have evidence for that – just NOT at Rogue River!
Please define what YOU mean by “aliens”.
This is an unfounded assertion. You state it as if merely stating an unfounded assertion makes it true. Unfortunately for you, this is not the case.
If it is so “awful” then why are YOU participating? YOU “make” it awful by making unfounded assertions – which means that you keep ignoring my statements in reply to those assertions – to simply repeat those assertions over and over like a broken record – and thus YOU drag the thread around in circles! The thread would progress if the UFO debunkers would simply answer my points as they are raised – and NOT continually ignore my points to simply restate their own in ignorance of mine.
I use the term “UFO debunker” because that is what the primary intention and actions of the majority of posters in this thread have been about – to debunk UFOs.
I have even made the appeal (on numerous occasions) for them to come up with a more appropriate distinguishing term (bearing in mind that UFO proponents also lay claim to “sceptic” and “scientist”, thus these cannot be utilised as distinguishing terms) but to NO avail. The UFO debunkers continually complain about my use of the term, yet have nothing better to offer! Huh.
Perhaps you would like to explain the “beings” in the Father Gill, Lonnie Zamora and Travis Walton cases then… these cases contain evidence for “aliens”, that you ignore that fact is not the fault of the evidence NOR is it the fault of the person posting that evidence.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What do you mean "again"? Did you ever stop shifting the burden of proof?
A pity all you have is anecdotes. Campeche has FLIR video evidence, though.
A pity nobody else has made a claim then. So how about getting to your evidence then?
I assume that as a proper scientist as you have CLAIMED to be that you meant to say, "CAN it have a mundane explanation?" Have you ruled out all mundane explanations?
You lie. Not misstate, not mistake. You simply lie. This has been explained to you quite patiently by a number of posters. Reread the entire thread.
You have none of any value.
Ingernet sites are not evidence.
Having an open mind and requiring evidence are not mutually exclusive.
But we're not talking about the big universe now. We're talking about the small earth.
Great debate? Lying and not checking facts before posting walls of text?
Eh...wut?
Last edited:
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
Hey, Ramjet, I just wanted to give you a quick tip of the hat and pat on the back for your amazing perseverance against all odds. I am serving up some goodies for you that I have noticed that debunkers use when they deal with what they call woo. Hope you enjoy them.
Good to ya
jakesteele
Rat Packing/Piling on – flooding the dissenter with many posts from many people as a way to either drown out the dissenting voice or make them go away so as to maintain the structural integrity and continuity of the group's cognitive closure.
Law of Occam’s Sledge Hammer – the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what
Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. I’ts true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed.
Law of Implausible Plausibility – 1.) Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2.) It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)
Law of Immaculate Perception – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.
Law of Repetitive Verbalization - Use the words "plausible, prosaic, mundane and simple" as often as possible
Law of Perpetual Simplicity – a bastardized version of Occam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the ONLY explanation. The mindset that ALL explanations must be mundane at all costs, no matter what the cost.
Law of Repetative Abuse If all else fails, use the phrase woo, CTer/Truther, etc. over and over again. If you insult you opponent often enough, hopefully s/he will be so offended that he will simply go away and leave you alone.
The Unicorn gambit: When pressed to the wall with a close ended question. Example – “Do you think, believe or know that all UFO sightings from the dawn of man, up to and including the present, are all mundane, plausible explanations?” They will sarcastically say something to this effect:
“Sure there might be a chance, about as much chance of Unicorns and Faries.
This is nothing more than a way of sarcastically saying no without have to bear the burden of proof and maintain the semblance of objectivity.
Law of Ocaam’s Broadsword – while the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what
Good to ya
jakesteele
Rat Packing/Piling on – flooding the dissenter with many posts from many people as a way to either drown out the dissenting voice or make them go away so as to maintain the structural integrity and continuity of the group's cognitive closure.
Law of Occam’s Sledge Hammer – the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what
Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. I’ts true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed.
Law of Implausible Plausibility – 1.) Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2.) It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)
Law of Immaculate Perception – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.
Law of Repetitive Verbalization - Use the words "plausible, prosaic, mundane and simple" as often as possible
Law of Perpetual Simplicity – a bastardized version of Occam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the ONLY explanation. The mindset that ALL explanations must be mundane at all costs, no matter what the cost.
Law of Repetative Abuse If all else fails, use the phrase woo, CTer/Truther, etc. over and over again. If you insult you opponent often enough, hopefully s/he will be so offended that he will simply go away and leave you alone.
The Unicorn gambit: When pressed to the wall with a close ended question. Example – “Do you think, believe or know that all UFO sightings from the dawn of man, up to and including the present, are all mundane, plausible explanations?” They will sarcastically say something to this effect:
“Sure there might be a chance, about as much chance of Unicorns and Faries.
This is nothing more than a way of sarcastically saying no without have to bear the burden of proof and maintain the semblance of objectivity.
Law of Ocaam’s Broadsword – while the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what
It is irrelevant that 4 additional activities are planned to be established between july 1 1948 and june 30 1949? You're not at all interested in what became of those? Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "nanananana"?
We've been over this before but I want to remind you that according to sources we've already discussed (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lighter-than-air+reservists-a095954316), several reserve squadrons we're established in 1949. As a coincidence they are NAS Lakehurst+4, just as planned:
ZP-751, 752, 753: NAS Lakehurst, N.J.
ZP-651: NAS Akron, Ohio
ZP-871: NAS Oakland, Calif.
ZP-911: NAS Squantum, Mass
ZP-951, 952: St. Ana, Calif.
Any comments?
Last edited:
Oh but there you are mistaken. Clearly you have not read the cases we have been discussing – otherwise you would have realised that they contain radar evidence, photographic and film evidence, physical trace evidence as WELL as eyewitness evidence.
Another CLEAR example of a UFO debunker adhering to the maxim ”Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”. There is of course an alternative explanation, but I don’t propose to sink to the UFO debunker level by contending it.
Obviously you have not been participating in this thread, or that you have not read the posts in this thread. Claims by the UFO debunkers abound! For example : “A pity nobody else has made a claim then.” IS itself a claim! Also a self-contradictory one! LOL.
You assume incorrectly then. My hypothesis was “All UFO reports have a mundane explanation.”. It is a testable hypothesis too. I don’t have to rule out ALL mundane explanations, all I have to do is rule out plausible mundane explanations. I have been able to do that successfully because to date NO plausible mundane explanations for the cases I have presented have been able to be proposed by the UFO debunkers.
You make unfounded assertions in the face of the evidence and explanations I provide to you as if merely stating the unfounded assertion will make it true. IMO this smacks of desperation. If the best you can come up with against the evidence I am presenting are crude statements such as ”You lie” then my evidence is standing up pretty well don’t you think?
The evidence I am presenting is valueless to YOU because you consistently refuse to look at it or take it into account or even debate it.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,433
Not applicable in this case. There aren't that many people responding to Rramjet, and he seems to be keeping up just fine. Also, we almost always address Rramjet's points, and he can choose which ones to address as he wishes.
Nope. Not only is this patently untrue, as evidenced by several posters admitting that "blimp" is only a possibility, it also shows a misunderstanding of Occam's razor.
There is no official story. So, umm, no.
Fail again.
1. I'm happy to admit that there may not be a plausible mundane solution. There may not even be a possible mundane solution.
2. It's better to be right, whether mundane or complex is irrelevant.
Everyone has cognitive bias. The real trick is to recognize your own bias and try to take account of it.
It was Rramjet who introduced the terms "plausible" and "mundane" to the conversation. He keeps talking about things being "implausible" or "not mundane". Are you suggesting that to respond by also talking about things being "plausible" or "mundane" is wrong?
I'm perfectly willing to entertain more complex solutions, provided you can show good reason to do so. Occam's razor applies to unfounded assumptions, and is only a general rule of thumb.
I've never called Rramjet a woo. In fact, I've never called anyone a woo, CTer/Truther. I've called his arguments stupid, but that's a different thing entirely.
Never said that either. In fact I've admitted, clearly, and for the record, that I don't know the answer to that question.
Burden of proof is on the one making a claim. All I've ever done is question Rramjet's claims.
Same as Occam's Sledgehammer.
1. See drawings
2. See drawings
3. Distant object
4. Ehh...wut?
5. Not confirmed, contradictory witness statements, etc.
Just because you can't think of a mundane explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. This is your major mistake.
Same mistake again. Something that when observed seems to defy physics doesn't necessarily have to do that. We can be mistaken.
Up close yes. Not on a distant blimp, on a heat hazy day, watching through binoculars from a rocky boat.
Your opinion is not shared by the majority of posters here. Your belifsystem just filters out any data that doesn't confirm it. Maybe start posting in the religious forum instead?
Only you, in the whole wide world, doesn't understand what is meant by that. Don't be silly, you know what we mean.
And this is where you once again state your opinion as fact. "Plausible" is based on your own imagination and previous experience. You are still saying that "Since I personally can't think of a mundane solution it must be alien".
UFO means exactly Unidentified. We don't know. Could be mundane, could be exotic.
But you don't provide any positive evidence for your claim of "aliens". You just try to provide evidence that it can't be anything mundane that you personally can think of.
No, they are unidentified things. You don't know if it's alien or mundane, neither do I. Stop redefining things to suit your argumentation.
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
No. It's not my hypothesis. Please define what YOU mean by aliens. You introduced the term, bit late to be getting squirrely about it now.
You're wrong. Deal with it.
Because your wrongness often brings hilarity.
And this is what I mean. Rramjet drags the thread around in circles, then insists that it's everyone else doing it. Father Gill again? You can't pay for comedy like this.
"UFO debunkers," man that still cracks me up every time.
We do answer your points, Rramjet. And yet there's someone who continually ignores our points so they can restate their own ignorance. HINT: it's you.So UFOs are bunk? And odd position for you to take.
"Yeah, if my insults bother you so much, why don't you come up with a better one?" Here's a thought: instead of thinking of something to call people who disagree with you, try responding to WHY they disagree with you.
Last edited:
Stray Cat
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,829
Highly visible on a highly visible blimp Rramjet.
However the witnesses were not looking at a highly visible blimp, they were looking at a reflective object that was at least a mile away at an altitude of a mile high with the sun to their backs, from a rocking fishing boat that was in the tidal section of a river estuary, two of the witnesses using binoculars of questionable quality.
Has it? I must have missed that bit, the last I saw was where the financial plans of the Navy and Navy Reserves showed that blimp operations would be continuing small scale on the West Coast and verifiable documents were provided to back up the assertion.
Yes I agree totally... the question is: Are you going to stop doing it sometime soon?
What again?
So you can pretend you don't understand the concept again for few more time wasting posts and then in another 35 pages ask again in order to keep your train crash thread going a bit longer?
Naaaaa... just look up the explanations people gave you last time, they haven't changed since then.
Last edited:
gambling_cruiser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 734
Is it only in my imagination or are rramjets walls of text getting longer and longer?
Sure tl,dr is standard procedure, but is there no length limit for a single post?
Sure tl,dr is standard procedure, but is there no length limit for a single post?
It is very very simple. To the majority of the posters here you have not been able to produce conclusive evidence that some UFO's are alien to us. Deal with it or try making a better case.
Which translates to: "all I have to do is rule out mundane explanations that I personally can think of and I have been able to do that". Can't you see that this is not really convincing to anyone else?
But you do lie. You claim f ex that USNR had no blimp activities on the west coast in 1949. You have been presented with evidence to the contrary on several occasions and yet you continue to make the claim! Look:
That looks like a lie to me when someone repeatedly makes a claim that already has been refuted.
No, it's valueless because it's not conclusive, objective evidence. How can you say that we refuse to look at or debate the evidence? We've been doing exactly that for almost 200 pages. See, another one of your lies. That we don't agree with you is another thing completely.
The irony might be lost on Rramjet so write what you really feel...
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Law of Irreducible Stupidity- coat your strawmen in the oil of ignorance and burn them.
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
Shocking as it might be...it seems this thread has hit the trifecta - Rule 0, 11, 12 breaches. As such, I've placed this thread in Moderated Status for now pending a review & culling of posts.
Posted By: Locknar
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You are correct about me not reading your wall o' links cases recently. If you have already presented your best case, why should I look at more? Why do you ignore Campeche's FLIR video, radar evidence (they seemingly locked onto two of the objects), and the eyewitness testimony of many trained military observers? Also, why do you think I said "seemingly" locked on?
No, Rramjet, you have asked others to provide possible mundane explanations, which they have done. Nobody claimed Rogue River was definitely a blimp, except when they're poking you with a stick. It could also be an airplane. It could be a Denebian slave vessel here to pick up some more children. Do you have any evidence that it is any particular thing? Otherwise, it's a UFO.
No, Rramjet, you have to rule out ALL possible mundane explanations. And you have to show that "alien" is a possible explanation. You've done neither.
No, Rramjet, you simply can't give up your UFO religion in the face of underwhelming evidence.
No, Rramjet, everyone has looked at your earlier best case evidence and found it to be not at all compelling in supporting your belief in aliens. And are you really of the belief that nobody is debating you after 172 pages?
I guess there wasn´t any debate if these cases were easily explained. So it means that you don´t have a mundane explanation. It doesn´t have to be more complicated as this.
There are UFOs and there are TUFOs (truly unidentified)
You wish that unidentfied means a not good data. Unfortunately in your case it is not so. And this is upon a good UFO research.
Bark dogs. Bark.
There are UFOs and there are TUFOs (truly unidentified)
You wish that unidentfied means a not good data. Unfortunately in your case it is not so. And this is upon a good UFO research.
Bark dogs. Bark.
- Status