From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:04:12 +0100 Archived: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:40:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Rogue River Case >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:07:05 -0500 >Subject: Re: Rogue River Case >>From: Bruce Maccabee brumac.nul >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 23:20:41 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Rogue River Case >>There has been a new development regarding the semi-famous Rogue >>River sighting of May 24, 1949. In recent years it has been >>suggested that the witnesses saw a blimp. Reasons for rejecting >>that explanation based on the sighting details have been >>presented in the Appendix of the article at: ><snip> >>http://brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm ><snip> >>Thanks to the effort of Steven Pyatt and with the help of the >>Goodyear blimp operations staff, the log of the only known blimp >>that could have caused the sighting has been retrieved from the >>archives and the pages showing the locations of the blimp in May >>and June of that year are presented in the Epilog of the article >>at the above web site. The log shows that the blimp was at >>Everett, Washington, about 390 miles from the sighting location >>at the time. >>Blimp R.I.P. ? >No need for that question mark, Bruce. I think we can put a fork >into that blimp. >We know the next stop, where debunkers always go when all else >has failed: >Hoax. I think the likelihood of hoax in this case is for all practical purposes zero. The mutliple witnesses included technically qualified NACA employees who reported it via NACA security, and they would have risked jobs and clearances by having anything to do with a prank. The report attracted serious attention up the line but it never escaped out of official channels. No one gained anything, or had anything to gain. The original temptations of the blimp theory are clear: the "wrinkled"-looking fabric and dirty surface; and the fact that there were Navy blimps based in hangars in Oregon in the late 1940s. But AFAIK no one has been able to make a good case for one being near Rogue Rover in May 1949. And in any case, so many of the report features are difficult for any blimp theory - not least the binocular-observed structural details and apparent "jet" speed, as Bruce has shown. I think this is an important case, well analysed by Bruce previously and now made even more interesting. This seems to be a genuine, honest-to-goodness 'unknown' involving a 'structured craft of unknown origin'. Where did it come from? Martin Shough Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp