Unfortunately for you it is NOT a matter of “opinion”.
The witness drawings ONLY look “blimp shaped” IF you have a confirmation bias toward “blimp”. Otherwise the drawings do NOT match the shape of the blimp in question (Goodyear K-class) at all!
Deal with it.
Well, they worked for the Ames Research Laboratory for a start! (From SR14): “An employee in the supersonic laboratory of an aeronautical laboratory and some other employees of this lab.” From (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm): Mr B “worked in the Drafting Section of the National Advisory Committee, Ames Laboratory, Moffett Field.” and Mr C was “… a mechanic who worked on a supersonic wind tunnel at Ames Laboratory.”. Mr D also stated: “I have fished in the general area a number of years and have observed various', type planes flying in this area, but have never observed anything of this nature before." It must also be remembered that Moffett Field was a USN airbase (!) and planes of all sorts flew in and out of the base regularly – including - pre-1949 USN blimps!
The point is that these sounds CAN be heard – especially if coming from a “point source” as distinctive as “2 × Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-2 radial” engines! Besides your “calculator” does not account for how different frequencies of sound can be heard over distances. Lower frequencies, such as the sounds put out by the type of engine in question travel MUCH further than higher frequencies.
(Mr B – signed testimony) “I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular and that we appeared to be looking upward at the bottom side of it. (…) As I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south, with no banking or leaning, and picked up speed (…) 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."
First: It was NOT a question, but an observation statement.
Then you have simply NOT been paying attention to this thread! There is a great deal of “argumentation” about blimps - and research into the possibility of such - in this thread! Indeed it has developed into one of the MOST argued over and researched topics IN this thread. If you have missed it then I suggest you simply scan back over the posts – if you do this I doubt that you COULD miss it! (…although, considering you seem to HAVE missed it so far…)
Typical UFO debunker – to claim something that I did NOT contend. And even THEN your assertions are unfounded! Another typical UFO debunker “trick” – to state untruths as if they were truths. Now, what IS the word I am looking for here…LOL.
You kept the negatives, right?
Incorrect.
I know the feeling. I had a UFO encounter the weekend before last. My wife, my sister and my mother were present. We all saw two objects. The first resembled a “sky blue” balloon and we only noticed it because a B737 flew directly underneath it at 2,303 metres. It was probably about 500 metres above the airplane and close to some cumulous clouds probably at about 3000 metres. It was about the apparent size of the tailfin of the plane. It was heading toward us (west) across the wind current (southerly – noted from the cloud drift direction) and we sort of thought it WAS a balloon – until it stopped dead. Then what we termed the “flasher” suddenly appeared out of nowhere at about 500 metres and headed up toward the “balloon”. This object looked as if an irregular triangular piece of broken mirror (mirrored on both sides) had been thrown into the sky and was tumbling randomly upward, catching the sun in bright scintillating irregular flashes as it “tumbled” (this description fails to capture what it exactly looked like – it was if the “mirror” had many facets glinting at once…). Anyway it rapidly rose up toward the “balloon” but did not meet it, rather it attained the same altitude but “stood off” at a distance of 100 metres or so – maintaining its “flashing” as they both paused in the sky for about 5 seconds. Then the “balloon” rose up and disappeared behind the edge of the nearest cloud. Then it poked out, then in, moving around the edge… Then the “flasher” began to move west, on basically the same heading as the “balloon” was originally on. It continued west until it encountered another cloud (a distance of about 30 degrees) and went into it. It sort of hung around that cloud – sometimes in, sometimes out until it went in and “disappeared” for good. The “balloon” was sighted again after “its” cloud dissipated further south, but this time it was very high up in the atmosphere that it just looked like a dot – and it continued up until it disappeared into the blue sky. And that was it. The whole thing took about 7 minutes. It was a bright sunny day with a few cumulous clouds forming and dissipating. So what were “they”? A weather balloon? It must have been quite sizable for the apparent size at the altitude it was (I know the altitude of the jet from Webtrak and the “balloon” was some distance above that). But if it was a “balloon”, how could it just stop dead in the obvious airflow around it – the clouds never stopped moving… and what was the “flasher”? there is simply NO explanation for THAT thing! So there you have it. Four witnesses, two UFOs. Just 10 days ago!
The point being that Mr B saw the turn and if he saw the turn he would have seen the side of the blimp (working on the premise that it was a blimp) and if he saw the side of the blimp then where is his description of the Goodyear logo, the passenger gondola, and the fins?
The point being that the witnesses drawing does NOT match the shape of a blimp.
I explained that to you and you “snipped” half the explanation out in order to merely repeat your question! This is again a case of ”Don’t bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up”. You cannot even lead this horse TO the water, let alone get him to drink!
I’ll get back to you on this point.
Here then:
Again a UFO debunker makes an unfounded assertion without providing evidence in support of that assertion. More – in order to make that assertion, he must ignore the evidence I have provided as to what heat haze IS and where it is manifest!
IF you HAVE “explained” it – then you will be able to point to where you HAVE done so. No?
I think you will find the research you are looking for here: (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm) or perhaps you simply have not read Dr Maccabee’s extensive research on the “blimp hypothesis” contained within that document? Hint…it follows the section titled “SOME ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS” and is itself titled “APPENDIX: THE BLIMP HYPOTHESIS”.
Multiple posters have asked you this question Rramjet. You responded once with quotes that did not contain the claimed information. I think it's safe to draw a conclusion at this point that you are simply unable to admit when you are wrong.
