The Physical Science of Ufology

Discussion in 'Science, Tech, & Space Exploration' started by Thomas R. Morrison, Sep 24, 2018.

  1. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Regent of Taraka

    Messages:
    665
    God this is a tedious and irrelevant discussion topic.

    You're conflating "radar visibility" and "target lock" - two totally different things. An object executing any sufficiently dramatic acceleration at any moment, instantly breaks any target lock with all modern target lock systems, because they're designed to following inertial trajectories, not non-inertial trajectories. You can see such objects on the radar screen, but you can't "tag" them or maintain a lock on them when they zig-zag. Listen to the interviews with Kevin Day and Cmdr. Fravor - they talked about this.

    There are way easier ways to defeat radar, some of which many of our stealth craft already use.

    Try explaining that to Kevin Day, the professional Navy radar operator for the Nimitz CSG, which used the most advanced radar and target locking systems on the planet. He tried to tag the objects on his radar screen and couldn't, because they moved too erratically for the target lock to hold.
     
  2. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    12,131
  3. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Honorable

    Messages:
    286
    It is important because it provides a technical, and more so, existential reason why UFOs zig zag. They zig zag to stay undetected in what almost certainly they percieve as hostile environment.

    They are complimentary. You can't lock if you can't track. They both work in essentially same way, the only difference being width of beam and the way electronics is processing info.

    Radar beams operate at a speed of light, so accelerating to hypersonic speeds can't break radar locks. Not to mention that radar doesn't see your true speed, but your angular speed which even with hypersonic movement will be low at 100-200 miles. The only factors are scan speeds and CPUs speeds, which are orders of magnitude higher than say 20 years ago.

    There is a video from F-16's head up display during Belgium ufo flap in which UFO accelerates to hypersonic speeds at least 3 times and radar never losses lock. F-16's radar only lost a lock when ufo went out of radar's mechanical gimbal limit.

    It's just pure physics. He was loosing lock because some other reason, either notching or thin layer of plasma around ufo. If ufo went straight up, that would be notching, and it would break both scan and lock.

    There is no reason known to physics why Doppler radar should fail to lock on accelerating object. Acceleration is not a factor because ufo speed is negligible relative to speed of light. Second thing, for radar, angular velocity is more important than true speed. Operator was just stressed and confused and wanted to keep story short without technicalities. Besides plasma, the only way to break lock with Doppler radar is to move target square to the beam. Acceleration explanation is non-physical.

    Modern radars are electronically, not mechanically, scanned so sweeps last on order of milliseconds, which would be sufficient for catching hypersonic movements, particularly at large distances and slow angular speeds, like in Nimitz case.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Regent of Taraka

    Messages:
    665
    Please dear god start a new thread about this. I don't buy any of your arguments for a wide variety of reasons, but I don't want to bury this thread with an endless debate about radar and targeting technologies, which most of us find to be about as interesting as watching paint dry.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Honorable

    Messages:
    286
    ??? Discussing radars and UFOs is 100% on topic of this thread which is physicality of UFOs. Radar tracks are one of first physical clues that we are observing solid objects.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Regent of Taraka

    Messages:
    665
    This thread is about the physical science of ufology, not the physicality of UFOs, which is a given since there's so much evidence that they're physical objects.

    My problem with debating all of this radar tracking and target lock stuff is that everything you're saying about radar and target locking is wrong. You should start a new thread about that tangential subject so we can straighten it all out.

    Your premise - that radar systems rely on the Doppler effect and so a UFO could go "radar invisible" by moving in a circumferential trajectory around the radar tower, isn't true. Radar systems detect any and all radar signal reflections, and they only use the Doppler effect to help determine the rate of approach and recession from the tower (and this is used in conjunction with computer processing of the changing position and vector of the target to calculate the air speed of a target).

    Next time I'm going to have to insist that you provide links to support your assertions, because this whole radar debate has been a distraction and a dead end.

    Targeting lock works by focusing a narrow beam (sometimes a laser beam) on the target. That beam has a limited width and a limited sweep rate. If an AAV moves with an angular velocity that's faster than the angular sweep capability of the beam and the computer processing software that's guiding that beam, then the target lock is lost, and the system has to go back into search mode, where the radar sweeps side-to-side to find the target again. A target zig-zagging at hypersonic speed can easily break the target lock and send the system back into search mode, over and over again, rendering our best modern targeting systems helpless to maintain a steady lock with any confidence regarding the identity of the target.

    Here are some links about how radar works and how target lock works. If you still want to argue about this, read these links and many more, then start a new thread, because this thread isn't about radar systems and target acquisition software and limitations:

    How does radar work? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)
    https://gizmodo.com/how-fighter-jets-lock-on-and-how-the-targets-know-1644871272
    Radar lock-on - Wikipedia
    ELI5 How do "Lock Ons" work in military jets. : explainlikeimfive
    Learn How Different Radar Defense Systems Work in Just 2 Minutes
    How Radar Works
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Unapologetic Rationalist & Grand Regent of Taraka

    Messages:
    665
    I like Lue Elizondo but he needs a comprehensive primer on the physics of this subject. Here's what he said in response to one important question that came up:

    "Q: Regarding how these UFOs work

    Lue: Lets say hypothetically, I mean we’re all sitting on the surface of this Earth right now, we’re all affected by gravity equally. But what if you, had some material that under certain circumstances created a field around you? And that field actually insulated yourself from the natural effects of Earth’s gravity. Now 2 things would happen, people talk about the 1st observable which is that, “Oh you float everywhere and you don’t need an engine” but something else happens. Cause remember what Einstein said: “Space AND time are together”. So if you insulate yourself from Earth’s gravity, you have to insulate yourself from ALL the effects, of Earth’s gravity to include time. And remember folks Time goes by differently here on this planet than it does even for some of our GPS satellites up there, because they are fundamentally farther away from Earth, time is relative. So if you were to have the ability to insulate yourself, to cocoon yourself from Earth’s gravity, well time itself would go by differently wouldn’t it? And all sorts of things would happen. If you had this bubble around this glass here, it would appear to be kind of weird looking too. It’d be kind of this weird low observable thing, and also it would have this ability to travel at speeds that would just not be possible for us. It would also be able to manoeuvre in ways that would look like magic. Instanenous acceleration when in reality being inside that bubble would be a walk in the park. We would all look like we’re in slow motion to whoever’s in the bubble. All sorts of things become possible now. So maybe instead of 5 different technologies to explain the 5 observables (low observability, positive lift, instantaneous acceleration, can’t remember the other 2..), these observables are all really just a manifestation of a single technology. And the ability to insulate yourself from Gravity. So, something to think about."

    Holy smokes is that answer full of errors. In fairness, that's a question for a physicist, but still - I thought the physicists around him would've explained all of this to him. Here are some corrections:

    "But what if you, had some material that under certain circumstances created a field around you? And that field actually insulated yourself from the natural effects of Earth’s gravity"

    - No that's not how it works. I assume that he's talking about a gravitational warp bubble, as described by Miguel Alcubierre, because that's the simplest description of a gravitational field propulsion system. The warp bubble doesn't insulate the craft and any occupants from the Earth's gravitational field; it only defines a region where the accelerations produced by the bubble are uniform within it, so the craft becomes capable of non-inertial motion and immune to any internal g-forces. So it can zig-zag at thousands of miles per hour and there's no sense of acceleration within the field - no g-forces.

    But the warp bubble is transparent to external gravitational fields; there's no known method even theoretically for shielding a region from a gravitational field. So the Earth's gravitational field gradient passes right through the warp bubble. This creates an interesting situation: an occupant within the field feels the downward force of the Earth's gravity, so he/she is standing comfortably, not floating around inside. But the acceleration imparted by the warp bubble is uniform within the bubble, so the craft and any occupants don't feel those accelerations at all: the craft can zig-zag side-to-side or up-and-down at any rate, and the occupant only feels the Earth's gravitational field as if they were standing still. The only change they'd feel is if the craft suddenly went up or down significantly toward or away from the Earth - then they'd feel the sudden change in the strength of the Earth's gravitational field at the suddenly changing altitude. And at a significant distance from the Earth, the occupant would feel weightless just like an astronaut at that altitude.

    "Cause remember what Einstein said: “Space AND time are together”. So if you insulate yourself from Earth’s gravity, you have to insulate yourself from ALL the effects, of Earth’s gravity to include time. And remember folks Time goes by differently here on this planet than it does even for some of our GPS satellites up there, because they are fundamentally farther away from Earth, time is relative. So if you were to have the ability to insulate yourself, to cocoon yourself from Earth’s gravity, well time itself would go by differently wouldn’t it?"

    - No, the rate of time within the field only depends on the altitude of the craft, because you can't "insulate" yourself from the external gravitational fields. It would be the same as the rate of time just outside of the field, unless you create an additional gravitational field within the craft to alter the rate of time. That's possible, but it's not an intrinsic factor of the warp propulsion bubble. And that's one of the great upsides to gravitational field propulsion - there's no intrinsic time dilation, so if you travel to a nearby star in an hour, and return to the Earth an hour later, then two hours have passed for both you and your friends back on Earth. There would be a very tiny difference between your clocks though, because time within the Earth's gravitational field passes a hair more slowly than it does in deep space. You'd need an atomic clock to detect that difference though, in the example above.

    "We would all look like we’re in slow motion to whoever’s in the bubble."

    - It is possible to produce this effect, but it's not a result of the warp field propulsion mechanism as detailed by Alcubierre. You'd have to produce a much higher and very uniform gravitational field within the craft, expressly for the purpose of time dilation, to produce that effect.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    12,131
    Here is the video back online, they took out over an hour of it...

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  9. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    12,131
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  10. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    12,131
    We cannot let this thread drop back too far, we are already half way through April heading towards May...lol

    ...
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  11. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    12,131
    EXCLUSIVE: I-Team confirms Pentagon did release UFO videos

    LAS VEGAS (KLAS) -- U.S. Navy officials issued a stunning statement a few days ago. The Navy announced it is developing new policies that will make it easier for pilots and other military personnel to file official reports about encounters with “unexplained aerial phenomena”, otherwise known as UFOs.

    What’s behind this dramatic announcement? And is it related to the UFO videos which were made public at the end of 2017?

    For the U.S. Navy to issue such a forceful statement about UFOs and the importance of investigating each incident is such an abrupt change. It stands in marked contrast to all the conflicting statements made by the Pentagon in the past 15 months -- claims that the secret study sponsored by Nevada Senator Harry Reid wasn’t really about UFOs, that it ended years ago, and that the three videos weren’t really released by the Department of Defense. Suffice to say, those Pentagon statements are simply not accurate.

    The U.S. Navy's 2004 encounter with an object dubbed the Tic Tac UFO. The 2015 incursion by multiple unknowns off the coast of Florida dubbed Gimbal. And a zippy craft aptly known as "Go Fast".

    Two of the three videos were made public in December 2017, released simultaneously by the New York Times and To The Stars Academy. The provenance of the videos has been disputed ever since.

    "The videos were released by the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense made the decision to release them," said Lue Elizondo, a former intelligence officer.

    Reporter George Knapp: "So, someone gave this the green light?"
    Lue Elizondo: "Absolutely, and it wasn't me."

    Lue Elizondo was a career intelligence officer, who for nearly a decade, directed AATIP (Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program), a secret Pentagon effort that studied and analyzed UFO cases -- encounters between unknown craft and military units. The program was initiated at the insistence of Nevada Senator Harry Reid.

    In 2017, Elizondo left the Pentagon, in part because he felt these incidents were not being given the priority they deserved. Before he left, he initiated a process to get the three videos, and many more, declassified, so the public could see them. He insisted in a June 2018 interview these encounters are not isolated incidents.

    "AATIP did find a lot of stuff," former Senator Reid said. "This wasn't just a one-off looking at the Nimitz incident. There were many incidents we looked at and we looked at them on a continuing basis."

    Pentagon spokespersons have been fuzzy about the legitimacy of the videos, and critics have pounced on the ambiguity. But the I-Team has obtained part of the paper trail. This is a DD 1910, the final step in a multi-step process, issued by the Department of Defense office of prepublication and security review.

    READ: DD 1910 form

    The request specifies the three videos: Go Fast, Gimbal and FLIR, which was the original name for the Tic Tac encounter. Some personal information has been redacted, but the document shows authorization for release was granted on Aug. 24 2017. The I-Team also acquired the Department of Defense directive which spells out how the release procedure works. The form shows the videos were released by the book.

    Senator Reid, who helped initiate the AATIP program, has confirmed there's a lot more where these came from.

    "You can't just hide your head and say these things are not happening. We have military installations where hundreds and hundreds of people who are there and see these things," Senator Reid said.

    After the I-Team obtained the paperwork, Elizondo was asked if he filed the form with the Pentagon. He said he is not authorized to comment, that it is up to the Department of Defense. It is known that the three videos -- and the pilots involved in those encounters -- were part of several closed door briefings given to Congress over the past year. High ranking navy officials joined those briefings and reported they were just as surprised as congressional staff. That ongoing effort is what led to last week's stunning announcement by naval officials. They now want to encourage pilots to report unusual encounters, without fear of damaging their careers.

    The briefings for Congress underway for the past year were arranged by a man named Chris Mellon who formerly worked for the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Department of Defense. Mellon, now with the To The Stars Academy, sent a statement to the I-Team, saying that, after senior Navy officials joined the briefings, they realized it was "indefensible" to not have a system that allows more reporting of these incidents.

    READ: Chris Mellon's full statement.

    .
     
  12. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Adept

    Messages:
    85
    How difficult will it be to prove that UAP fragments are from extraterrestrials? Keith Basterfield takes a look.

    UAP "fragments"

    In recent times, there has been much re-newed interest in the potential "fragments" from Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon; and in particular, the topic of analyses of such material.

    To The Stars Academy

    Last July, the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, launched its A.D.A.M. project which aimed to collect and analyze "materials reported to have come from advanced aerospace vehicles of unknown origin." Then followed a series of blog posts on their website discussing the project.

    In September, I wrote a blog piece about the letting of a US$35,000 contract between TTSA and EarthTech International for the analysis of several "fragments."

    At the 27 October, 2018, Centro Ufologico Nazionale UAP conference in Rome, Italy, Luis Elizondo of TTSA, showed a slide of a collection of images, which he referred to as material in the possession of TTSA, which was being analyzed.

    [​IMG]


    At the March 2019, conference of the Scientific Coalition for Ufology, held in Huntsville, Alabama, Elizondo again showed that same slide. He stated:

    " What makes this material so special? Now, in some cases, this material was told it's special. Through analysis, guess what? Not so special. But some of it is absolutely special. I won't point out which ones on that slide but there are some that are absolutely special and have been briefed to some very, very senior levels of the government, and they do remarkable and extraordinary things and they're built in such a way that to this day we still can't replicate them."

    However, to date, there have been no documents released, providing details of the analysis of these "special" materials, and it seems that the public release of any such detail, will not occur until the TTSA/History channel six part series, scheduled to commence in the US at the end of May 2019. It is uncertain, whether or not, TTSA will publish a peer reviewed article in a major materials science journal. While I, in general, support the work being undertaken by the TTSA, the apparent direction for us to learn of the analysis results is hardly a scientific one - simply entertainment.

    Lee Speigel

    On the 8 January 2019 podcast on the "Open Minds News Radio" program, one of the guests was former Huffington Post journalist, Lee Speigel. Speigel talked about UAP related materials. Thanks to researcher Joe Murgia, we have a transcript of Speigel's segment. In part, Speigal says:

    "...The number one story, may be, for me...what's still floating around is the idea that there's a lot of competition out there among UFO researchers and scientists over the analysis of alleged fragments or pieces of UFOs. This is a very big story. And even I, recently, had a unique opportunity to see and hold some reportedly, real UFO material that's being analyzed now by scientists that aren't yet ready to go public with their amazing findings. But they will. And I can say...I can say that with total certainty because I was there, in their laboratory... They're gonna release it to science and say "Here's what we've come up with. We can conclude very definitely that some of these fragments were not naturally formed and that they were manufactured by someone... They will be able to conclude that some of these fragments are not from Earth..."

    Queried by Alejandro Rojas whether or not he was talking about the TTSA, Speigel responded that no, it was not TTSA he was referring to, and not Robert Bigelow either. Unfortunately, the above, generalized statement fails to add any detail to the topic. Certainly, there was no data provided to back up the statements which Spiegel made. I understand, yet again, similar to the TTSA approach, that Spiegel and partner will report upon the analysis work of the unnamed laboratory, in a feature film to be released later in 2019.

    Joe Murgia speculated, that the individuals whom Spiegel was referring to, were Jacques Vallee, and Dr Garry Nolan.

    Dr Garry Nolan

    Professor Garry Nolan is the Rachford and Carlota A Harris Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine. He was interviewed by author and researcher, M J Banias on 29 April 2019. Their conversation mainly involved the areas of Dr Nolan's work with Dr Kit Green and their cohort of patients who had apparently sustained injuries arising from their encounters with the phenomenon; and the work Dr Nolan was undertaking with Jacques Vallee on materials analysis.

    Regarding their materials analysis work, I directed the following question to Dr Nolan, through Banias: "Is there a peer reviewed paper anywhere in the near future that the community can expect?"

    Dr Nolan gave an extended response, which I will quote in full below:

    "Yes...some initial studies showed unusual isotopic ratios and Jacques has talked about them publicly so I'm comfortable talking about that. So what we are doing right now, is I'm personally. I did the work Jacques showed, not the historical stuff Peter Sturrock for instance, here at Stanford had been involved with. Others had done this kind of work as well,and we have confirmed some of that work.

    My point is at this stage, alright as much as some of these journals that have published this stuff are good, they are not the journals that anybody is paying attention to. The journals people are paying attention to are like, Nature materials, aeronautical journals. So, we've convinced a couple of those major journals that if we put together a credible paper that looks like a credible conclusion, then they will send it out for peer review. Doesn't mean they will publish it, but will send it out for peer review, to make sure; probably get push back like I got push back in the Atacama, at the beginning, but they made it a better paper. So, that's what we will do. So yes.

    So, right now what is going on are confirmations. Taking it round to who are specialists in mass spectrometry, to say, ok, where could I have made a mistake? What could the contaminating artifacts in the information here that tell me; that are leading to me to potentially make a fool of myself?

    That's where you basically go to the experts. Sometimes you tell them what it is. Sometimes, you say, hey I've got this stuff, I'm trying to find out what it is. Does this - is this possible? Given we know what this is made of, could I get this by some strange - let's talk about some of the isotopes. I think there's magnesium in a couple of the samples of Jacques that have strange ratios. Are unexpectedly magnesium 26 more likely to bond or less able to be ionized and therefore make it look like, its got a different ratio than it actually is? And only that because that magnesium 26 is in the context of something else in the sample. Nothing to do with aliens nothing, or other wordily anything and it is only to do with the physical structure that makes what we think we're seeing, off.

    I'm really talking to other people that I know , who are out there, who are doing this kind of work; be vary careful. A couple of things that we thought were off, have very conventional explanations, and you have to go to the expert, or you will make a fool of yourself. And you will discredit anything that you're trying to do. And the people who are listening, who know what I am - who know who they are, I told this to them privately, but now I'm telling them publicly.

    That's why I am interested in the material work that Jacques brought to the table. It's because, of, all the many things things that can be done, that's reproducible. We can cut those samples into many pieces as Jacques would tolerate. Send it to people in laboratories - to confirm it. We've done that. So we're getting these validations and we're checking with the necessary experts. Then, we'll write up a simple paper that will make no claim to anything, other than the fact that here's the composition of the stuff and here's the story of how it was found. End of story.

    The hanging question there, is how did it get made? People don't play with isotopic ratios easily. Ask yourself what do people do with isotopic ratios now? What do we modify isotopes for, or what have ewe been doing with isotopes for the last 60 years? Blow stuff up...uranium and plutonium...imaging or killing ...cancer cells...

    Chemistry and physics have not caught up with why you might use titanium x versus titanium plus one neutron...what is different about the magnesium ratios in the sample that I know Hal has, and I have a sample that was given to me by Leslie. So, why would somebody do that? The cost to change isotopic ratios is considerable, especially if the providence; some of these materials which date back decades, when the ability to make those changes was so costly that why would you make a big chunk of it and throw it out in the desert?...why would you bother?...

    (Talking of the use of the word "alloys by TTSA.) "So I wrote an internal memo to TTSA at the time I was involved with them and said these aren't alloys. These, do not think of them as alloys. We need to change the conversation. You need to call them metamaterials, I'd like to lay claim to the use of that term. These are more complex, if anything, you need to call them ultramaterials because metamaterials are pretty well understood....basically that's atomic architecture...

    So, I took some of the material from Jacques to some people at Stanford, and I said - that's interesting, and you tell them a little bit about it; well I have this or that instrument, and I'll get back to you, and tell you something about this, that, the other of it...whether you've seen this in any aeronautical industry materials before. And if they come back and tell me, yes this is something from Pratt and Whitley circa 1955, I'm like, thank you, now I can go do something else..."

    Premature disclosure

    In a recent document titled "A preliminary catalogue of alleged "fragments" reportedly associated with sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena where analysis(es) was/were conducted" I offer dozens of cases where such material underwent analysis. The results vary from the mundane, to cases claiming an extraterrestrial origin had been proven.

    A classic example of the latter occurred on 4 July 1997, at a conference held in Roswell, New Mexico, when a Dr VernonClark announced the results of his tests on a sample given to Dr Roger Leir in August 1995 by an individual who stated the fragment came from the 1947 Roswell "crash."

    VernonClark announced that the sample showed significant variations from normal isotopic composition found on Earth; and that he could only conclude that the sample had been manufactured and was extraterrestrial in origin. Needless to say, UFO researchers celebrated the announcement.

    However, in subsequent weeks, VernonClark retreated from this definitive conclusion, citing that he had been misquoted. Yet his published written results were available for anyone to look at. He is quoted as saying "In retrospect, with 20-20 hindsight, I would have preferred to have more work done..."

    Twelve years on,VernonClark's results are generally accepted to have been in error, derived from poor analytical techniques.

    It seems to me, that most UFO researchers have failed to understand the complexity of the process by which analysis is undertaken. Note that Dr Garry Nolan, in his statement above, said:

    "I'm really talking to other people that I know , who are out there, who are doing this kind of work; be vary careful. A couple of things that we thought were off, have very conventional explanations, and you have to go to the expert, or you will make a fool of yourself. And you will discredit anything that you're trying to do. And the people who are listening, who know what I am - who know who they are, I told this to them privately, but now I'm telling them publicly."

    Chris Cogwell

    Christopher F Cogwell holds a PhD in chemical engineering with a focus on the study of nanomaterials. In August 2018 he posted a detailed article about the methodology which he considered necessary to be followed when conducting materials analysis. In part he stated:

    "We would want to identify if the material has come from outer space by comparing it to similar materials or samples we find on Earth. Does it show significant enough difference to cause us to believe it did not come from our planet?

    Second is there evidence that the material has been engineered or designed in some way? Does it show properties or applications that we wouldn't expect to occur naturally, or is it engineered or composed in such a way to give it specific properties?

    An third, does it show advanced techniques or knowledge with which we are unfamiliar. Are there super-heavy elements which we have yet to discover here on Earth, does it show crystal structure or solid phases that have not yet been observed by the materials science community, does it show composition and engineering which is beyond the scope of science today?"

    His article goes on to describe the types of testing which could be undertaken, and the methodology for such testing.

    He concludes:

    " As far as can be gleaned from the information available to the general public, it appears that efforts to date concerning the analysis of solids potentially occurring from some unknown civilization have focused on the first class of studies, those concerning the elements making up the material and their isotopes. However, as has been suggested by this work that is only a small portion of the entire picture needed before any definitive conclusions can be made."

    Chris Cogwell issued a warning:

    "Of particular concern to the interested public should be any study that purports to give evidence without clearly reporting in detail their methodology, potential sources of error, the accuracy of their measurements, and other information required to replicate their results."

    Publication

    Following upon the finding of any anomaly in one of these samples, the next step is to publish the results, to enable discussion among the scientific and UAP communities. Here lies a difficulty, respectable journals so far, have failed to publish such articles. So, it is of interest to note the approach taken by Dr Garry Nolan and Jacques Vallee in their joint work.

    In summary

    The words of Chris Cogwell; Dr Garry Nolan; Jacques Vallee (in private correspondence to the author) and others, urges us to take care when examining the results claimed by some UFO researchers, and even scientists such as Dr VernonClark, regarding analyses of UAP related material.

    What is needed, is a multi-pronged methodology along the lines proposed by Chris Cogwell, and a well documented chain of custody for samples. Then, if a sample does indeed indicate genuine anomalies, along the lines Cogwell suggests; and the full results; are available in an article in a peer reviewed materials science or similar journal, we may be able to claim that we do indeed have a "fragment"from the phenomenon.

    Until then, in my opinion, we need to beware of undocumented proclamations of "special" materials which do "remarkable and extraordinary things." - Keith Basterfield
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  13. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    717
    Spaceman spiff,

    I have seen many people say that it is not possible to make what we find in downed craft.
    I find it very odd that things like the magnesium bismuth layers claim not to be possible to be made here
    do they have no idea of what vacuum sputtering is ?
    anyone make an integrated circuit ?
    I am sure we can at least make that layering we see...
    anyone that claims that we can not make this on earth is not looking at the hardware that ever chip manufacture has
    as to the isotope issue
    it is lots of work to select isotopes
    so no one would do it for no reason
    then again some of this is a matter of scale
    even electrical conduction, one of the isotopes of copper is better than gold
    but it is a huge investment to do the copper thing to make it pay off...
    the culture in the USA did not invest in this enough to make it work, (so the entire idea vanished)
    but clearly some other culture might
    so if we need the best conductor, we use not gold or silver
    go look at what the silverly looking conductors you find at home are made of,
    they are plated in a few layers...
    common place even now...
    yet this seems to be not possible when looking at even history much other planets

    the expanded crystal thing is clear
    it is the other unexplaned thing
    yet it is not that hard to do
    and when someone says it is beyond out tech skills, they are telling you that.
    and it is not true at all

    if anyone has any real tech that we could not build...
    and they have some idea of how to build tings here
    I would like a conversation with them

    so far,
    every last thing I have seen,
    I know how to build.
    not that knowing how to build something helps someone at all.
    just like knowing the keys to building a nuke,
    totally useless as a person,
    yet very useful to a government

    so...
    anyone paying attention should get that any
    information is controlled here
    and I almost agree
    but poke enough holes in "this can't be from earth" reasoning and you find you get a disconnect
    there is not any thing that we can do now that was not possible 70 years ago
    we had all the tech to do all that sort of things long ago,
    but it is clear that some of this hardware is expensive....

    so...
    why don't "they" see any of this is clues ?
    guess most people will agree with the official information
    and I say from just information that I got from standard physics classes,
    that there is nothing I have run across that could not have been made earlier than 70 years ago,
    not that some of would not be very pricey...
    just saying that anyone that tells you that humans on earth could have not made it are clearly lying.
    or at the very least, someone that has never really looked at even standard physics classes.

    as some sort of a last thought,
    if you run a lab trying to figure out the found items,
    and none of your people can figure them out...
    you hired the wrong people.
    and pretty sure this is all a point of view issue
     
  14. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    717
    this topic is like selecting any topic,
    for example,
    if you hire a PHD, they will have not have any clue as to the corn I have gowning in my garden
    it grows inches a day below 60F...
    yet most are so sure of themselves that they have all the DNA figured out...
    just saying,
    most "experts" have no clue at all
    and it does not matter the topic
    experts already know "everything"
    so nothing left to do but to but make money in the gap of what they can prove and what can be done.
    and even then it seems as if you will be ignored
    just look at the geo polymer stone people
    they are making money on the topic...
    yet even now, what they do is denied by "science"
    so ask yourself, do you seek truth, or to be correct ?
    the answer turns out to be as hard as as getting payed to build a runway at an airport at a lower cost than others.
    not like most people will even look at real data much less where it leads you to...
     
  15. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    1,356
    In the Patty thread I mentioned that there actually are subject matter experts that can weigh in on the topic of an undiscovered primate.

    What exactly constitutes a UFO expert? I do know what constitutes a bullshit artist and there are many who claim the former title but are really the latter.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page