This one will be blessedly shorter than most, but maybe interesting nevertheless. It refers to a publication by UFO Physical Trace expert, Ted Phillips, entitled
Physical Traces Associated With Unidentified Flying Objects: an interim report/ Results of processing data, 1490-2004.
Ted has about 3000 cases in his files, which he used to do his statistical analyses, such as the data allowed. The graph to the left shows the decadal distribution of the cases. It has at least one point of interest to me. As I may have mentioned somewhere in the blog previously [forgive me, 70-year-old brain], the UFO phenomenon shows a sinister [to me, anyway] pattern of first complicating itself [and becoming more concrete with CE2 cases] and then just as we gear up to get after those cases scientifically--i.e. in the labs-- the phenomenon takes strong on-the-ground evidential cases away. Roughly, and this varies slightly in different parts of the world, the "taking away" occurs near 1978. Graphs of several types of CE2s fall off the cliff. [I may have to write something more detailed on this here on the blog someday, but one thing at a time]. Ted's graph shows roughly the same effect, and I'll bet that those remaining in the 80s and 90s were poor in evidentiary content relative to the potential of 60s and 70s cases.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This second graph shows the numbers of cases as related to their time distribution across the day. Ted has to mean the time when an object was seen "on site" apparently making the trace, as nothing else would be relevant [ex. when the trace was "discovered"] so this graph represents a time distribution of a type of "close encounter". Again, maybe I've already mentioned this on the site, but Ted's distribution is
very like a fascinating distribution found by Claude Poher and tested by Jacques Vallee and V.J.Ballester-Olmos, which goes by the nick-name "The Law of the Times"---I'm not referring to the length of time that a CE2 lasts that I posted under the title "How Long Is A UFO?" but an entirely different correlation. [I'll probably need to elaborate on this thing also sometime later]. For now, the Law shows that CEs are basically a nightime phenomenon, peaking pre-midnight but having a peculiar early morning [c. 2-4AM] secondary bump in the curve. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final graph is what inspired me to post this. It's Ted's count of trace-making UFOs by shape. I hadn't seen this until recently, and, frankly, was a little shocked. As a long-time student of this obstinate business, I have become somewhat of a pessimist that whomever is behind it is willing to give out any real information even as to patterns. But look at what Ted found here. I can't read that graph as anything but a finding that if you [the UFOnauts] are going to land
and leave a trace, you're going to be flying a radially symmetrical vehicle, and almost surely a disk. Probably this doesn't impress anyone like it has me [different strokes and all that], but this says to me: PHYSICAL TECHNOLOGY and right here fully present on the planet's surface. If this was some sort of sociological or paranormal process, I'd expect at least
some significant randomness in such a distribution. That little or none exists may well mean that making a physical UFO on a radially-symmetrical plan has some advantage strong enough to force that choice even on the super-science ETs
when they really want to be physically here, rather than just projecting forces and images. Yeh, sure, I'm probably wrong, but the strength of the correlation surprised me, and it must mean something. People have said that you cannot get data out of the phenomenon. It's hard, but I believe that the pessimism is at least partly wrong.
Watson, I believe that we have a clue, afterall.
This one will be blessedly shorter than most, but maybe interesting nevertheless. It refers to a publication by UFO Physical Trace expert, Ted Phillips, entitled Physical Traces Associated With Unidentified Flying Objects: an interim report/ Results of processing data, 1490-2004.
Ted has about 3000 cases in his files, which he used to do his statistical analyses, such as the data allowed. The graph to the left shows the decadal distribution of the cases. It has at least one point of interest to me. As I may have mentioned somewhere in the blog previously [forgive me, 70-year-old brain], the UFO phenomenon shows a sinister [to me, anyway] pattern of first complicating itself [and becoming more concrete with CE2 cases] and then just as we gear up to get after those cases scientifically--i.e. in the labs-- the phenomenon takes strong on-the-ground evidential cases away. Roughly, and this varies slightly in different parts of the world, the "taking away" occurs near 1978. Graphs of several types of CE2s fall off the cliff. [I may have to write something more detailed on this here on the blog someday, but one thing at a time]. Ted's graph shows roughly the same effect, and I'll bet that those remaining in the 80s and 90s were poor in evidentiary content relative to the potential of 60s and 70s cases.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This second graph shows the numbers of cases as related to their time distribution across the day. Ted has to mean the time when an object was seen "on site" apparently making the trace, as nothing else would be relevant [ex. when the trace was "discovered"] so this graph represents a time distribution of a type of "close encounter". Again, maybe I've already mentioned this on the site, but Ted's distribution is very like a fascinating distribution found by Claude Poher and tested by Jacques Vallee and V.J.Ballester-Olmos, which goes by the nick-name "The Law of the Times"---I'm not referring to the length of time that a CE2 lasts that I posted under the title "How Long Is A UFO?" but an entirely different correlation. [I'll probably need to elaborate on this thing also sometime later]. For now, the Law shows that CEs are basically a nightime phenomenon, peaking pre-midnight but having a peculiar early morning [c. 2-4AM] secondary bump in the curve. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final graph is what inspired me to post this. It's Ted's count of trace-making UFOs by shape. I hadn't seen this until recently, and, frankly, was a little shocked. As a long-time student of this obstinate business, I have become somewhat of a pessimist that whomever is behind it is willing to give out any real information even as to patterns. But look at what Ted found here. I can't read that graph as anything but a finding that if you [the UFOnauts] are going to land and leave a trace, you're going to be flying a radially symmetrical vehicle, and almost surely a disk. Probably this doesn't impress anyone like it has me [different strokes and all that], but this says to me: PHYSICAL TECHNOLOGY and right here fully present on the planet's surface. If this was some sort of sociological or paranormal process, I'd expect at least some significant randomness in such a distribution. That little or none exists may well mean that making a physical UFO on a radially-symmetrical plan has some advantage strong enough to force that choice even on the super-science ETs when they really want to be physically here, rather than just projecting forces and images. Yeh, sure, I'm probably wrong, but the strength of the correlation surprised me, and it must mean something. People have said that you cannot get data out of the phenomenon. It's hard, but I believe that the pessimism is at least partly wrong.
Watson, I believe that we have a clue, afterall.
Wrong. Without a doubt.
ReplyDeleteThe current crop of investigators make no effort to determine whether or not traces are left, much less to reasonably assess whether reported sightings are genuine. They can't be bothered to visit the location of regular, ongoing sightings at times when UFOs can reliably be predicted to appear, so that they might witness the objects firsthand. Nor do they trouble themselves to interview people who submit reports. Cases can much more quickly and conveniently be disposed of by reading reports and, without leaving the comfort of home or office, contacting reportees by email to inform them that they have mistakenly identified conventional aircraft as UFOs, and that their reports are considered to be hoaxed.
UFO investigation has become a joke.
Professor you are an inspiration! After reading one of your blogs from not-too-long-ago with your top ten author list (on the UFO subject) I realized there were a few books I'd missed. (Duh!) So I just finished Vallee's Challenge to Science as well as Ed Ruppelts book and am in the midst of Hill's Unconventional Flying Objects. Those readings fit in nicely with seeing the info on these graphs.
ReplyDeleteI've wondered to myself if it didnt seem as if the "phenomena" has, over time, changed it's way of manifesting itself to us. For example I can't recall a recent case (or at least any significant number of them) where interference with car motors was a major finding. Maybe it's because I now reading books that were written and/or published 30 or more years ago. I could be wrong and I'm not saying it 'never' happens but the flavor of the reports from the 50s thru 70s seemed to be different. Anyway your graphs support at least some of that notion.
When will I hear about a so-call UFO "convention" that will have speakers from the sciences presenting these kind of data? About the time I think about attending a meeting I see someone on the agenda discussing any number of things (most recent thing is how ET is abducting and murdering people, complete with pseudoscientific discussion of the autopsy findings).
Thanks for presenting a forum, indeed a haven, for logic and reason (not to mention more than a little humor). Best of 2010.
To MnDoc--thank you. I'm trying to present the material as it has come to me through the greats of the past and good and trusted friends of the present in the most honest way that I can. If that helps anyone through the nearly impenetrable thickets, I am delighted. Now, to "anonymous": it's a constant surprise and distress to me that people want to pick a fight with their language on any of these things rather than just discuss the ideas/facts/opinions in a way that allows someone else the feeling that they want to discuss the topic with the individual at all. "Wrong. Without a doubt."? What an unfriendly and off-putting way to start a statement, especially on a subject where there is plenty of room for doubt about almost anything. Broad brush statements like the last line are equally non-helpful and quite untrue as far as the whole panoply of investigators are concerned. [take Chalker and Roberts in Australia; Russo and the whole Italian team; V.J.Ballester-Olmos in Spain; Svahn and Liljegren in Sweden--this can go on for quite a while]. Plus the entire post was about Ted Phillips, who was always in the field doing "old-style" witness interviews, let alone all the field trace measurements. Do the rest of us a favor and begin speaking to us as if speaking to friends, not combatants. I'm not looking for a time-wasting fight verging on name-calling, but rather a chance to explore a fascinating mystery. Disagree with my stuff all you want--just do it objectively. Excess heat destroys the possibility of creating design and leads to chaos, not only in thermodynamics but in sociology as well. I'd rather be your friend than your opponent. Who the hell needs more of the latter or less of the first?
ReplyDeleteHi MnDoc
ReplyDeleteMUFON recently investigated a substantial CE2, vehicle interference case (substantial in that the effects were documented and recorded by the investigators). The following link details the case and its subsequent investigation: www.openminds.tv/ufo-in-ny-buzzes-car-causing-electromagnetic-effects
I have had the opportunity to review the case file on this incident, and a methodical/ comprehensive investigation was conducted by experienced investigators.
Best
Lee Dines
I sincerely apologize, Professor. I should have written much more clearly. I only visit your blog because I think of you as a friend. I was responding to your belief that the pessimism is partly wrong. I believe it is.
ReplyDeleteThere are traces of UFOs to be found today in our own country, or at least salient evidence to be gathered, if today's investigators were as committed to scientific discovery as those who preceded them. Dismissing sightings out of hand may stem from investigators' feelings of despair at sifting through the mountain of reports received, but the result is that important UFO cases are being ignored right now for apparent lack of interest, and those who report them in good faith are being insulted by being openly labeled (on the internet) as hoaxers.
I share your admiration for the old-school investigators mentioned in your posts, and have read a fair share of your suggested readings. But investigators, just like the times, have changed, and, for many of us, this is a great disappointment. If you or your readers know of exceptions to what is necessarily a lay person's blanket characterization of current investigators, perhaps those exceptions can be pointed out.
Again, I am very sorry for the misunderstanding. It's entirely my fault.
To MnDoc: I'm happy to hear that MUFON has found a good CE2e case and has done a good job on it. Was it their "STAR Team" concept funded by Bigelow, I wonder? We need as much of this as we can get and I'm delighted to hear about it. One thing that would be even better though is if the good trace cases came up and were investigated not only Ted Phillips' style [but GOD bless him] but by taking a very good set of samples in to very high tech labs to see if the apparent close approximation of force has altered the crystalline structure of the stuff in the soil matrix or the ratios of the inorganic compounds in the normal samples. That would help more than a CE2e vehicle interference case, I think, as it has been shown that in the past whatever the mechanism that was used to stop the engine was not a broad beam radiating in normal space, as it never altered the electromagnetic signature of the vehicle's metal. This implies some very abnormal force projection, possibly involving a focussed action-at-a-distance. I don't know what MUFON did of course but it would be nice to pay the witness for the car, break the engine up [carefully] and look somewhat microscopically for a focussed force projection point at some vital component. If they already did that, three hundred cheers. In contrast to the difficulty of the project just described, doing the lab work on a well-sampled trace would be a lot easier. [I hope I'm not speaking Greek here, but I get the impression that this is a pretty intelligent audience--still, I don't always get the communication right, so tell me if I need to clarify something]. -------------------------------To "anonymous": thank you, I need all the friends that I can get and you're welcome to be one of them. The old-time investigators did about as well as they could, given no funding and the need to cram whatever they did into lifestyles where they had other jobs and were pursuing this as a [admittedly intense] hobby. Today's group still has the funding problem and the part-time problem. So, poor as some of this gets, I tend to give anyone who spends any time "in the field" some thanks, even if they botched the job--I don't find that most do this on purpose, just that they don't have the support or all the knowledge that they need. There are some folks worth getting a bit upset with, of course, and you can usually spot them by the size of their claims, their egos, and their self-importance. But the big culprit in all this is whatever alleged UFO organization there is associated with any of this. It is the duty of the organization [whichever one] to maintain quality control on the investigations and also the out-of-control lead investigators who regularly arise, holding greedily to the "secrets" of "their" case. It takes special leadership to have the guts to say no to any of its associates, and this has been the main failing of modern UFOlogy. A second major problem of today is that cases can be occurring all over the place and the investigators won't hear of them until its old and cold. Our "system" of early harvest of new cases is probably the most hit-and-miss that it has ever been. And lastly, if you will read the comment just above [to MnDoc} you will see why I believe that even if all of this were "cured" in terms of organized systemics, we would still be unlikely to be able to do the needed "second-level" [high-tech lab] research necessary to push some of this forward. Phyllis Budinger [bless her heart] has been one of the few technologically able lab scientists to be able to dedicate time and equipment to the task of certain types of analyses [sometimes by asking old friends to do gratis analyses]. We've been limping along on this for decades, while across the pond, the French are reinstituting a GEPAN-type program so far beyond us that it's embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteContinuing [this thing has an irritating character limit]: One last thing and I'll stop ranting and let everyone have some peace. When I look at my good UFO friends around a table, I'm looking at some very old faces, if they are even still with us at all. My seventy year old face can only work the files, not the fields. We do the best we can I think to help the field survive the 21th century. It has to be taken up by not only the young, but at least some of the young who are willing to go into the field [hopefully having prepared themselves to be effective as they do so]. UFOlogy is not easy. It is probably the most multi-disciplinary subject ever conceived. We really need to be a little more forgiving of each other and far more supportive and active. The alternative [which I'm OK with, too] is that we admit that UFOs are not the BE-ALL-END-ALL of life and we relax and let people do what they can, as happens in most hobbies. We have already made great progress in understanding pieces of this folks. Our main opponents in this are not ourselves but "them" who control the inputs we get from their lofty position upstairs.
ReplyDeleteHi Dr Swords (hope you enjoyed your vacation)
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the CE2, vehicle interference case, MUFON did dispatch "STAR" investigators, as the case was considered significant. The investigators arrived at the scene, within two days of the event and immediately began their investigation. The link (provided in my previous post), does give a concise account of the sighting and the methods employed by the investigators.
I am pleased that MUFON released the information on this case- to many organisations and individuals "hide" their files (or only publish for monetary gain). It is disconcerting, when one thinks about the countless cases that have never been published or those files that have been lost/ withheld (APRO archive). We could have the answers to many of our questions locked up in a filing cabinet!
Another frustrating aspect of the field is the "giggle factor", I mention this now, as the witness to the CE2 event (above), essentially demanded anonymity. The witness is a professional (well educated), and was not willing to be labelled a nut!. The giggle factor permeates the field and will continue to do so, unless we actively challenge those who fail to embrace critical thinking and objectivity.
Ps I'm in my mid twenties and am already feeling the strain of the field!
Best
Lee Dines
Thank you,Lee...vacation was as good as could be expected but a sad thing to leave my mom when I knew that she was having a pretty good two weeks with me there 24/7. Your information is appreciated--good info always is. This is as good a time as any to give some "ancient uncle" advice. Pursue this endlessly fascinating field, but maintain a real life outside it. UFOs are like a drug. Some of my best friends have been addicted by it to their last day. We need something to ground ourselves; it will even make us better UFOlogists, both mentally and emotionally. Keyhoe was once giving a talk and Phil Klass was in the front row. Keyhoe was reflecting on his own UFO history and said that he couldn't seem to get away from it. Klass laughed and said:" so, you're hooked!". Keyhoe looked at him intensely [the only way Keyhoe ever looked unless he'd had a drink] and said: "be careful YOU don't get hooked". On his dying day, Klass was still obsessed with UFOlogy, a subject that he claimed had no substance at all. Keyhoe I sort of understand--he was trying to build something. Klass is a bizarre mystery; he only wanted to destroy. But it shows the incredible holding power of the subject. Have a real life, my friend, and hold UFOs in perspective--they're just fine at a little distance. You and I and the friendlier members of our invisible college can learn a lot and still be real people.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Professor, for taking a second look at what must have appeared to be an unjustified tirade, and for not banning my comment at first glance. I welcome the mention of Phyllis Budinger as a straw it may be possible to grasp, and appreciate the fact that studying the vagaries of UFOs can be a thankless task.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr. Dines I would say that it's unfortunate that persons who submit reports to MUFON have no choice as to the member who looks into his case. You seem to be a very considerate man who has a sincere desire to learn what he can about this very puzzling phenomenon. Sadly, the person who "investigated" one case with which I have some familiarity adjudicated it solely on the evidence submitted with the report. This person made no effort to gather further information or speak to the witnesses, misidentified the location of the sightings, pronounced the report a "pretty bad attempt at a hoax," and went on to berate the reporting individuals for wasting his/her personal time on a falsified report. Subsequent phone calls to this investigator to politely ask why the investigation was handled in this manner received no response. The reporting persons, by the way, continue to be very concerned by the ongoing overflight of unidentified objects in the area where they live.
With all due respect to UFO investigators who seriously pursue their avocation, I would venture a guess that the giggle factor may be a deterrent to reporting UFO sightings equivalent to the insult and public humiliation one might contemplate experiencing as a result of doing just that.
Two quick thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) The decline in certain trace cases MIGHT be due to a change in investigators and investigative methods rather than an actual decline in CE2 cases.
2) It would be nice to know the make and model of the vehicles in the interference cases as there has been a shift in automotive technology in the past 20 or so years away from points and carburators and towards electronic ignition systems and fuel injection. It seems somewhat intuitive to me that the older, more mechanically driven systems would be more vulnerable to EM effects than the newer systems IF (and only IF) the interference effect is due to EM.
Again, these opinions are worth exactly what I'm being paid to offer them!
Hi Dr Swords
ReplyDeleteI certainly appreciate your advice, I can think of several others that have been "consumed" by the field. With regards to Klass, I have always considered him somewhat of an enigma (he seemed to have a personal grudge with the field).
To Anomalous, I can understand your frustration, with the investigation of the case you are familiar with. I do not know the specifics of the case, however any sighting should be investigated in a methodical manner. The witness interview is an essential component to any investigation (at times a case can be resolved during the interview or conversely it can lend substance to an anomalous event), and a case should not be categorised as a "hoax" unless there is significant doubt, about the veracity of the account. The witness could re-submit the report or contact James carrion to express their concerns.
Best
Lee Dines.
To Steve: there are "active investigator" effects [and Phillips' own changes in activity show this], but I don't think that explains the CE2 drop-off. The data in Tasmania [with Keith Roberts continuously at the helm] shows the same effect. So do some other sources {including Hynek's own post-Delphos frustrations in this country, and NIDS lack of finding them despite being very interested in doing so]. Re: vehicle interference, we've known for a while that even "they" have to do something different to stop a normal internal combustion engine than a diesel. Aime Michel knew that in the 1950's.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comments. Great blog too. Thanks, Professor.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who made a living as an auto mechanic in the 70s and a lifelong tinkerer, the car stalling reports in the UFO literature have long bothered me. I've seen precious little written about any research done in the area, and since it's a real nuts 'n bolts 'n sparks thing, that disappoints me. I did see a reference to some science or at least superficial analysis in one of Jacques Vallee's books, maybe _Dimensions_. It was found that diesel trucks often were unaffected by whatever was stopping the cars. Those cases would have been back when diesels did not rely on electronic signals and were usually of a purely mechanical nature. A diesel has no spark plugs, of course, and all the fuel systems used to be mechanical. The way you shut one down is by shutting off the fuel, so electricity was usually involved somehow but I was never a diesel mechanic.
Steve Muise correctly points out that auto ignition and fuel systems have changed a lot over the years, but in many ways they have become more robust. Since microprocessors are now used universally to control various engine functions, those systems have been "hardened" as the military might say, as well as backed up with redundancies and "fail-safe" modes. I'm sure modern cars are affected by whatever would stop a '55 Chevy, but there seems to be no data available. Damage to microcircuitry from such encounters would certainly be an interesting thing to study.
To be continued~
Stupid character limit!
ReplyDeleteWhat really bothers me most is the differences in the reports. There are common patterns, but sometimes the engine stops running while the lights stay on and the victims report cranking the engine over but getting no "fire." Other times the car just goes completely dead, only to come back to life on its own after the weird object leaves. This sometimes includes the engine starting up "all by itself." That is truly puzzling. Presumably there is some kind of field temporarily present which sucks the power from the car, or somehow impedes the flow of current. My experience with auto electrical systems and batteries in particular and especially batteries as they were in the 1950s causes me to marvel that the cars are reported to function normally after the experience. Again we have almost no data. Following up on the behavior and maintenance history of the vehicles before and after the encounters would seem to be basic research. I have no doubt that is often done, but as someone here said, it's just as likely to end up in someone's filing cabinet as to be published.
So once again we have an evolving phenomenon. It started out with reports of stalled cars that seemed to be the result of some kind of electromagnetic effect, but has changed over the years to include more complex interactions. Again, we have an area ripe for study being avoided-like-the-plague by the scientists who could at the very least begin to figure out what is going on.
Z
To Z: there is much more to say to your comment than I can manage. Maybe one day I will try to do a whole entry on it. I'll give a few hints. At the CUFOS conference in 1981 both Don Johnson and Mark Rodeghier presented papers statistically analyzing auto-stops. This was not mechanical engineering based but a good overview of the bulk phenomenon nevertheless. James McCampbell, an engineer, later published a thin but useful book called UFOlogy in which he speculated, but not randomly, about the effects of microwave radiation on both headlights and engines. It's worth reading. At the end of WW2, we found that the Japanese were experimenting with a [rather bulky crude] device to stop engines, and had some results but only at great field strengths and short range. This inspired the US high-tech labs of Los Alamos and Sandia to pursue separate programs [Los Alamos' was the better funded] to create a car-stopper. The Sandia project head, Colonel John Alexander, told me that as of the 1990s we could stop a vehicle with a powerful electromagnetic pulse, but could come nowhere near that in say 1957, when we had the "EM wave" in this country. Colorado project brought in FORD engineers Hooven and Moyer to advise of this mystery and were told that no simple radiant broadcast use of EM radiation could do the job without frying the driver. So, you see, it's again not simple. People have tried to do things; it's just that you have to really study the depth of UFO history to know about it.
ReplyDeleteWow! I had no idea. I am one of those who assume that The Government knows quite a lot about things like just what it is that caused all those cars to stop, but I would never have expected to find so much work available publicly. If not in the popular literature, publicly at least. I had not thought of a "car stopper" in terms of military usefulness. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if I recall correctly, I heard Ted Phillips on an interview show saying that the circular craft that left physical trace evidence almost always had three legs that left impressions that were consistent in size and spacing from one case to another. Also that elliptical or egg shaped craft that left traces on the ground seemed to have four landing legs, again with a lot of consistency from case to case. Interesting, and very sensible. I'm pretty sure that was Ted. He has many interesting things to say on a variety of topics.
Just when I was ready to give up on the UFO subject until the circus left town, I ran across your blog. Now it's bookmarked. Please post as much as you can stand!
Z
Z,
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly with your last comment; until I found this blog I thought the field had been taken over by charlatans and Roswell fanatics.
As for the vehicle interference cases: I had heard about diesels not being affected but wasn't sure there was enough data to conclusively show that.
I would think that as far as the vehicle interference cases the engines restarting tell me that we're probably NOT dealing with an EM effect.
To Z and Steve: I answered the way I did not to show off, but to show the need to really have studied the field in order to have a handle on even asking questions in the most helpful way [let alone stating strong opinions on things that appear to a long time student not to make much sense]. You two guys have been good at not throwing strong assertions at the rest of us. It would be nice if we all moved forward with some humility in all our statements. I am constantly humbled by the field--it is too big to be comprehended at the depth needed by anyone. I will try to do my best for you. I'll be wrong some of the time, or ignorant. We all need to come into this with eyes and minds open like kids learning. It's even more fun that way.
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion! I'm glad to see that with the retired Professor's guidance and suggestion, many are finding that not all the UFO work is being done by Charlatans, etc.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to bring over my various reports and info on the 1966 Hillsdale case, where I've spent some time. Civil Defense director Van Horn made the rather interesting choice of having two high school chemistry enthusiasts do the field work (he seemed very fond of working with young people). The report they put out 6 weeks later described high levels of Boron which they believed to be usually absent from this type of soil, as well as plants that had above normal radiation and were lacking in blue pigments. Overall radiation readings were considered above normal, most being at the .31 r/hr. I don't have much science training, so I cannot say exactly what this suggests, or how accurate or reliable the kids' report might be. Van Horn did his best to refute Hynek and the Air Force on several fronts.
Keep the great discussions going - maybe down the road share a good EM case from your files with us. Thanks professor!!
I love the photo at the top of this post. It seems like the best people in the paranormal field have excellent humor. I'm always wary of the deadly serious ones whether or not I agree with anything they have to say.
ReplyDeleteTo all: "Willy" is a local friend, in case his "coming over" remark didn't make sense to you. He's an expert on the 1966 wave and I look forward to his newest stuff. He's pushing me to publish detailed blogs on one case studies, like Levelland or Amarante [trace] or Mansfield [Coyne] for example. Maybe I'll do some of that but my intuition is to pick a "Colorado" case so we can also see how they hashed it. To SW: if we don't laugh at ourselves, we'll be the only ones not doing so. {that's a saying of the West Virginia Wiseman, Mountain William, whom I listen to regularly}.
ReplyDeleteTed has said there has been a radical decline in small craft landings and there has been for a while. MUFON's "Star Team" investagated a case about a man who was hit by a beam from a UFO. He was burned. It took the Star Team almost a week to interview the wintess in person. By that time the man had been visted by men in black and harrised by hellicopter. If the Star Team had been quicker they could have documented that. Goggle: MUFON"S 600lb Grorrlia:Commen Sense"
ReplyDeleteMUFON has problems. I also wrote about MUFON's Navada State Director( "Will Success Spoil MUFON") who wrote in MUFON Jounal, a two part article admittubg he helped staged on camera, for Mystery Quest a "possible crash UFO with parts from a rocket.
What I am saying here is they need to do more than trace cases they need to be investagating multiple sightings cases. They need to be much quicker The Star Team claim was they could be anywhere in 24 hours. They should try doing that.
Joe
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog
Dear Joseph
ReplyDeleteAlthough I certainly don't speak for Dr Swords, I do not consider this blog an appropriate place to vent your frustrations with MUFON or any of its members. I mentioned MUFON in my posts, as the vehicle interference case was related to the blog entry. I visit this blog to learn and to engage in civil and intelligent discourse, with other interested individuals, relating to the issues raised in the blog entry. If you are frustrated with MUFON then contact them.
I do however believe it is pertinent to state that MUFON interviewed the witness (to the case mentioned), via telephone for 45 minutes the day after the reported event (actually less than 24hrs as the event occurred at midnight).
Best
Lee Dines
Dear Lee, I agree with you, as you probably know [being a follower of the blog]. We are not in the accusation business if we can possibly avoid it. The blog must remain upbeat or I'll lose interest, and doubtless most of us will too. MUFON is not one thing, but a very large complicated organization; some of it works well and some doesn't--big surprise, eh? For instance, if anyone was to bash my buddy, Robert Powell, who has the title of "Director of Research" [scholarly side], I'd be summarily p_____ off. {And might temporarily lose some of my legendary objectivity and revert to locker-room mode]. Some researchers do very good work; some don't; some are in between. The journal has had its good years and has its bad ones. The symposium has lately improved the general content of the speakers, though there is no way to control what anyone will actually say once on stage. I once was at an SSE convention, where the speaker decided to talk of something miles away from the announced topic [on how clouds were talking to her] much to the embarrassment to all in earshot. S___ happens. Lets take each thing as it comes, and try to help everyone do a better job. I'll bet that anyone reading the comments of Lee Dines would believe that HE would do a good job, don't you?
ReplyDeleteProfessor, may I have your permission to post a link to a video that reinforces my belief in the likelihood that there is abundant trace evidence of UFOs begging to be evaluated, if qualified, well-equipped people were willing to take to the field to gather it?
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous: I shouldn't do this without seeing it myself, I suppose, but our system seems to require that you post the information first and I view it afterwards. So OK. I will say this: [and you'll doubtless agree that it's reasonable], if the video is in some way "off target" to the principles of this blog, I'll have to delete the post. If those ground rules are OK, go ahead.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Professor.
ReplyDeleteThis video documents a single behavior of one type of UFO that's being seen worldwide right now. The type is a shape-shifter, and this is the initial phase, after the UFO has fallen from the sky and lies at rest, on or near the ground, for a considerable period of time. Except for the possibility that evidentiary traces are being left by these objects, this is probably the least interesting of the behaviors they exhibit in videos also available on this woman's channel.
The witness has submitted reports to everyone she can think of, attempted to contact science experts, been interviewed and told by MUFON that she's filming conventional aircraft. She's begged repeatedly for someone, anyone, to come to her home to study these objects. A few curious individuals have appeared to watch or film the phenomenon and said, nope, those are definitely not planes or helicopters. But aside from a write-up by Linda Moulton-Howe, no one with any expertise germane to the weirdness has taken an interest. Viewers will note the woman's frustration, along with a touch of fear.
http://www.youtube.com/user/MOREseeingUFOsPA#p/f/18/LMd60keWws8
Hi Anonymous
ReplyDeleteAlthough its possible "there is abundant trace evidence of ufos begging to be evaluated" this video footage does nothing to support such an assertion. I have made enquiries into the investigation of this case, and the conclusions derived by the investigators(IFO'S), are supported by adequate evidence.
The investigations of cases such as Trans en Provence and Delphos, Kansas are much more enlightening (and thought provoking!), than the footage provided. Although the prevalence of such cases has unfortunately declined in recent years, we do have a rich and vibrant history of such cases (supported by competent investigations and subsequent analysis).
Best
Lee Dines
OK guys---nice job making an effort and presenting two sides of this specific incident for folks to be aware of. Now, lets drop it and let people go to the site and make up their own minds. No ongoing fighting on this site over a particular--can't waste everyone's time on that. Again thank you both.
ReplyDelete