UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[nismaratwork]

i concede the point that a pilot can have other motives.

what will it take for you to concede the point that MULTIPLE military people and pilots give more credibility to the issue than a bunch of citizens whose main goal may actually be to get attention ?

A logical argument free of fallacies.

 

[Physics-Learner]

certainly not a large percentage. most of the on-ground sightings seem to revolve around missile areas. so most of NASA would be uninvolved.

but there are 100+ such people coming out with stories. to me, that is an extremely high number, such that it now becomes silly to me not to give it some credence.

hopefully the ball is rolling towards real information actually being given to us.

 

[nismaratwork]

certainly not a large percentage. most of the on-ground sightings seem to revolve around missile areas. so most of NASA would be uninvolved.

but there are 100+ such people coming out with stories. to me, that is an extremely high number, such that it now becomes silly to me not to give it some credence.

hopefully the ball is rolling towards real information actually being given to us.

Have you read the "Fatima, Miracle of the Sun" thread? 70,000 people claimed to see that. What's your take on that?... have you suddenly found religion again?

 

[jreelawg]

Is there any substantiation for the idea that a large percentage of NASA pilots, astronauts and employees are convinced that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials?

For the record, I was thinking that we were discussing the Tehran incident, which is mostly based on the narratives of two pilots.

I merely argued why using the Argumentum ad verecundiam does not hold ground, not even as an argument of autority. So replacing that by NASA people etc, seems not very relevant here.

I couldn't tell you what percentage of them believe what. Just making my point that some people are more credible than others. I do know that their are plenty of retired NASA guys who have opinions on the subject. I doubt an acting NASA employee would be likely to publicly state a belief in ET visitation. There might be laws, or at least orders preventing some pilots and astronauts from reporting everything they see in the sky.

 

[Physics-Learner]

A logical argument free of fallacies.

i need to laugh. you remind me of thomas in the bible. hopefully some day we will be able to touch the wounds of an et. i suppose that is the only way that you will be convinced.

i may need that as well, to be convinced. but my thought processes seem to be on an incremental scale, as opposed to all or nothing.

 

[nismaratwork]

I couldn't tell you what percentage of them believe what. Just making my point that some people are more credible than others. I do know that their are plenty of retired NASA guys who have opinions on the subject. I doubt an acting NASA employee would be likely to publicly state a belief in ET visitation. There might be laws, or at least orders preventing some pilots and astronauts from reporting everything they see in the sky.

You FIND people to be more credible, which is based on assumptions and mystique... that's the precise fallacy that Andre is has explained more times than I care to consider.

 

[nismaratwork]

i need to laugh. you remind me of thomas in the bible. hopefully some day we will be able to touch the wounds of an et. i suppose that is the only way that you will be convinced.

i may need that as well, to be convinced. but my thought processes seem to be on an incremental scale, as opposed to all or nothing.

Don't assume that you know what I believe based on this discussion, because belief has nothing to do with skepticism and science. That is also what Andre is trying to teach you.

 

[Physics-Learner]

when you want to know something about topic A, do you not go to someone who has knowledge about topic A ?

that seems to be basic common sense. one may certainly get multiple opinions, and still not be completely convinced of something. but not to lend more credence to someone in the know as opposed to someone who does not have such skills seems completely ridiculous to me.

 

[jreelawg]

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

[nismaratwork]

when you want to know something about topic A, do you not go to someone who has knowledge about topic A ?

that seems to be basic common sense. one may certainly get multiple opinions, and still not be completely convinced of something. but not to lend more credence to someone in the know as opposed to someone who does not have such skills seems completely ridiculous to me.

Topic A is UFO's; which of the authorities you're relying on has knowledge of that, without you presupposing that they do and closing the fallacious circle?

 

[jreelawg]

Topic A is UFO's; which of the authorities you're relying on has knowledge of that, without you presupposing that they do and closing the fallacious circle?

Which authorities am I relying on who have information about that. Or am I presupposing that they do and closing a fallacious circle?

rely |riˈlī|
verb ( -lies, -lied) [ intrans. ] ( rely on/upon)
depend on with full trust or confidence : I know I can rely on your discretion.
• be dependent on : the charity has to rely entirely on public donations.

Nobody has stated a full trust or confidence on anyone here. To some people, every question doesn't require an official fully confident and direct belief. Some people have a sliding scale of confidence, in both people, and possibilities, wether it be competing scientific hypothesis, or if it will rain next week.

Lets make a scale from 1-1000 of confidence in the hypotheses that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Maybe someone who was a 1 based on the rantings of a lunatic, turned into a 25 when they heard their friend described to them a supposed UFO they saw. Then that same person heard a group of pilots testify that they saw a UFO and things seemed consistent, then they did some research and found that some astronauts, world leaders, astronomers, military personal, also have claimed to have seen something. Maybe that person now has a level of 75 out of a thousand in confidence that extraterrestrials are visiting earth? Maybe everyone has their own level of confidence in different hypotheses. Or maybe your right, and having any confidence in anything at all is fallacious?

The knowledge I am presupposing they could potentially have is the knowledge they claim to have. Of course then I take into consideration that they may be mistaken or dishonest. I try and get an understanding of how capable this person is, how much does the testimony sound like a mistake, would it require a delusion, hallucination, or illusion to make? Does this person seem delusional, was there any obvious reason why they would be hallucinating, could an illusion actually account for it? Is this person qualified to identify things, or phenomenon which might fool a person? Then I look at them to try and figure out how trustworthy they are. Do they have any history of dishonesty? Do they change their story around a lot? Do they look like they are acting? Is there a conflict of interest? Etc.

Now you can't tell for sure if someone is lying or not, or if they made a mistake or not, but you can still take into consideration ideas and possibilities which are not absolute.

 

[nismaratwork]

Which authorities am I relying on who have information about that. Or am I presupposing that they do and closing a fallacious circle?

rely |riˈlī|
verb ( -lies, -lied) [ intrans. ] ( rely on/upon)
depend on with full trust or confidence : I know I can rely on your discretion.
• be dependent on : the charity has to rely entirely on public donations.

Nobody has stated a full trust or confidence on anyone here. To some people, every question doesn't require an official fully confident and direct belief. Some people have a sliding scale of confidence, in both people, and possibilities, wether it be competing scientific hypothesis, or if it will rain next week.

Lets make a scale from 1-1000 of confidence in the hypotheses that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Maybe someone who was a 1 based on the rantings of a lunatic, turned into a 25 when they heard their friend described to them a supposed UFO they saw. Then that same person heard a group of pilots testify that they saw a UFO and things seemed consistent, then they did some research and found that some astronauts, world leaders, astronomers, military personal, also have claimed to have seen something. Maybe that person now has a level of 75 out of a thousand in confidence that extraterrestrials are visiting earth? Maybe everyone has their own level of confidence in different hypotheses. Or maybe your right, and having any confidence in anything at all is fallacious?

The knowledge I am presupposing they could potentially have is the knowledge they claim to have. Of course then I take into consideration that they may be mistaken or dishonest. I try and get an understanding of how capable this person is, how much does the testimony sound like a mistake, would it require a delusion, hallucination, or illusion to make? Does this person seam delusional, was there any obvious reason why they would be hallucinating, could an illusion actually account for it? Is this person qualified to identify things, or phenomenon which might fool a person? Then I look at them to try and figure out how trustworthy they are. Do they have any history of dishonesty? Do they change their story around a lot? Do they look like they are acting? Etc.

Now you can't tell for sure if someone is lying or not, or if they made a mistake or not, but you can still take into consideration ideas and possibilities which are not absolute.

Are you asking questions, or sharing propoganda?... I'm not clear, nor was that post directed at you, which is why it was in response to PL.

 

[jreelawg]

Are you asking questions, or sharing propoganda?... I'm not clear, nor was that post directed at you, which is why it was in response to PL.

If you asked someone if think it was going to rain next month at 5:45 AM, Honolula beach ,Hawaii, would you get a yes or no answer? If they said maybe, would you take it as a yes and call them fallacious?

 

[nismaratwork]

If you asked someone if think it was going to rain next month at 5:45 AM, Honolula beach ,Hawaii, would you get a yes or no answer? If they said maybe, would you take it as a yes and call them fallacious?

Please try fishing elsewhere.

edit: Propaganda: "A monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi nis,

both myself and jr are attempting to tell you the same thing - some people, based upon occupation, have better probabilities of knowledge about topics.

some people have better knowledge about disarming of nuclear missiles than others do.

there are all sorts of ufo sightings reported by average joes that are proven to be deliberate hoaxes, in order to get attention.

common sense tells me that military people are not nearly as apt to promote deliberate hoaxes, in order to get attention.

that leads toward said military people having more credence.

i really think we are now beating a dead horse.

i do question your decision making. and i guess you question mine. i am happy to leave it at that.

 

[nismaratwork]

hi nis,

both myself and jr are attempting to tell you the same thing - some people, based upon occupation, have better probabilities of knowledge about topics.

some people have better knowledge about disarming of nuclear missiles than others do.

there are all sorts of ufo sightings reported by average joes that are proven to be deliberate hoaxes, in order to get attention.

common sense tells me that military people are not nearly as apt to promote deliberate hoaxes, in order to get attention.

that leads toward said military people having more credence.

i really think we are now beating a dead horse.

i do question your decision making. and i guess you question mine. i am happy to leave it at that.

The difference in this questioning is that in questioning your view, there is a long history and study of the fallacies to which you're falling. In my case, I'm arguing the "mainstream" view, and awaiting credible evidence. Your trust of these sources supposes that they are credible because of training, when in fact the opposite is often true. Pull 6 g's and you'll see some fun stuff too, never mind when you're being shot at.

If you re-read this thread, you find that you've been forced to confront a myriad of sources which describe the cognitive biases to which you're falling. In Jreelawg's case, I'm simply familiar with his views, and Modus Operandi, which is why I'm not bothering with any of that. Threads are full of this kind of thing, but you can only lead horse to water, right?

 

[jreelawg]

The difference in this questioning is that in questioning your view, there is a long history and study of the fallacies to which you're falling. In my case, I'm arguing the "mainstream" view, and awaiting credible evidence. Your trust of these sources supposes that they are credible because of training, when in fact the opposite is often true. Pull 6 g's and you'll see some fun stuff too, never mind when you're being shot at.

If you re-read this thread, you find that you've been forced to confront a myriad of sources which describe the cognitive biases to which you're falling. In Jreelawg's case, I'm simply familiar with his views, and Modus Operandi, which is why I'm not bothering with any of that. Threads are full of this kind of thing, but you can only lead horse to water, right?

I'm afraid if you don't confront your past errors, your dissonance will only get worse. I think you should stop, get someone in the logic forum to teach you about fallacies and logical reasoning. Then when things settle down, we can put this behind us and move on to other discussions.

 

[Physics-Learner]

nis,

pilots certainly have stresses on them while they are in the air.

afaik, none of the on-ground sightings had anything to do with being shot at.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm afraid if you don't confront your past errors, your dissonance will only get worse. I think you should stop, get someone in the logic forum to teach you about fallacies and logical reasoning. Then when things settle down, we can put this behind us and move on to other discussions.

To have a discussion, there needs to be mutual interest; I have no interest in you, or your views at this point in time. You're welcome to turn around what you wish, the record is there for anyone to read. If having the last word matters, go for it, but don't expect another response. I'd add, your post doesn't meet S&D guidelines... again.

@Physics-Learner: The ground sightings were not made by anyone with a speical ability to discern object at a distance. You're running over old ground, and with jreelawg active and parroting me, I'm disinclined to continue this in any form. If you go back and read Flex Gunship's posts, I suspect you'll find your points have been raised, and destroyed.

If you want to simply keep your mind at the status quo, that's your business, but it's no longer material for this thread.

 

[Physics-Learner]

no problem - we just need to agree to disagree on this one.

perhaps one day we will get more definitive information, such that we can both be better satisfied about making conclusions.

 

[nismaratwork]

no problem - we just need to agree to disagree on this one.

perhaps one day we will get more definitive information, such that we can both be better satisfied about making conclusions.

Believe me, I look forward to such a day, and have no problem agreeing to disagree.

 

[jreelawg]

To have a discussion, there needs to be mutual interest; I have no interest in you, or your views at this point in time. You're welcome to turn around what you wish, the record is there for anyone to read. If having the last word matters, go for it, but don't expect another response. I'd add, your post doesn't meet S&D guidelines... again.

@Physics-Learner: The ground sightings were not made by anyone with a speical ability to discern object at a distance. You're running over old ground, and with jreelawg active and parroting me, I'm disinclined to continue this in any form. If you go back and read Flex Gunship's posts, I suspect you'll find your points have been raised, and destroyed.

If you want to simply keep your mind at the status quo, that's your business, but it's no longer material for this thread.

First I'm fallacious. I demonstrate that I'm not. Then I'm accused of spreading propaganda.

You've been bashing and hammering people for a while now, and it so happens that the basis for your bashing happens to be in error. I know it's embarrassing to be in such a position, but I'm not going to feel sorry for you. If you knew what was best for you, you would accept your own fallibility, and concern yourself with improving your understanding rather than with protecting your ego.

 

[berkeman]

Let's not let this get personal, folks. That's not the point of the thread, and will be treated as off-topic posts if it continues...

 

[Physics-Learner]

Believe me, I look forward to such a day, and have no problem agreeing to disagree.

me, too. i certainly find it interesting.

for me, the biggest reason why et visitation seems unlikely, is the time required to travel.

but an advanced society may be so far beyond us that we would find most of our concepts simply are incorrect.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps this:

As a superior pilot one is infallible and one never makes a mistake. So if one returns from a mission unsuccessfully, one cannot possibly admit that one goofed, while being scared to hell. Hence one has to cook up a story about supernatural events that prevented a successfull mission.

Is that what you or your friends did as pilots? Have you ever known anyone who did this and admitted later it was a lie? Beyond the fact that UFO claims are not claims of the supernatural [misinformation and a misrepresentation on your part], your assertion is ludicrous on the face of it. The last thing a pilot would do is to construct some unbeliebale story about aliens or highly exotic UFOs when any of a thousand technical excuses would suffice. One would strive to invent a story that is easily believable and that won't possibly ruin one's career.

And there are probably psychological mechanisms how that pilot rewires himself to ban out the truth from memory eventually and replace that with his version.

I will remember that while reading your posts in the future.

Nismar, I am very disappointed that you would reinforce such hokum.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is that what you or your friends did as pilots? Have you ever known anyone who did this and admitted later it was a lie? Beyond the fact that UFO claims are not claims of the supernatural [misinformation and a misrepresentation on your part], your assertion is ludicrous on the face of it. The last thing a pilot would do is to construct some unbeliebale story about aliens or highly exotic UFOs when any of a thousand technical excuses would suffice. One would strive to invent a story that is easily believable and that won't possibly ruin one's career.



I will remember that while reading your posts in the future.

Nismar, I am very disappointed that you would reinforce such hokum.

:

Hokum? I'm not supporting "forgetting", just the psychological mechanism by which someone reinforces their position, including lies. I may have been unclear there... in which case, thanks for pulling me up short!

 

[lisab]

Is that what you or your friends did as pilots? Have you ever known anyone who did this and admitted later it was a lie? Beyond the fact that UFO claims are not claims of the supernatural [misinformation and a misrepresentation on your part], your assertion is ludicrous on the face of it. The last thing a pilot would do is to construct some unbeliebale story about aliens or highly exotic UFOs when any of a thousand technical excuses would suffice. One would strive to invent a story that is easily believable and that won't possibly ruin one's career.

It's unnecessary to be reproachful - you don't have to be a liar to know that people lie. It's quite believable that there was some fabrication in order to hide embarrassing screw-ups. Why do I think that? Because the pilots are human; pride and shame make humans do irrational things, sometimes.

Also there was the ejection seat issue, a long way back in this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2882050

 

[nismaratwork]

It's unnecessary to be reproachful - you don't have to be a liar to know that people lie. It's quite believable that there was some fabrication in order to hide embarrassing screw-ups. Why do I think that? Because the pilots are human; pride and shame make humans do irrational things, sometimes.

Also there was the ejection seat issue, a long way back in this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2882050

I agree, but I will say this too:

Everybody Lies.

 

[Physics-Learner]

was that meant to be funny ?

 

[nismaratwork]

was that meant to be funny ?

What I said? No. Everybody Lies.

They don't lie all of the time, or even most of the time, but everybody lies.

Give me your Trust, said the Aes Sedai
on my shoulders I support the sky
trust me to know and to do what is best
and I will take care of the rest

But Trust is the color of a dark seed growing
trust is the color of a hearts blood flowing
Trust is the color of a Souls last breath
trust is the color of Death

Give me your trust said the queen on her throne
for I bear the burden of ruling alone
Trust me to lead and to judge and to rule
and no man will think you a fool.

But trust is the sound of a grave dogs' bark
trust is the sound of betrayal in the dark
trust is the sound of a souls last breath
trust is the sound of death.

A little grim, but not entirely a bad thing to remember.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i wasnt sure if you were playing that old philosophical game. everyone lies. which means you are lying, etc.

 

[nismaratwork]

i wasnt sure if you were playing that old philosophical game. everyone lies. which means you are lying, etc.

Oooooh! No no, I'd definitely use an emoticon to indicate that one as a joke. I just mean that people lie, not that they are pathological about it. Thanks for being patient and asking for clarification, too often people don't and pages are wasted.

 

[Dotini]

Hello there, physics forum members and moderators. I'm very new here at the forum, and would firstly like to express my surprise, delight and appreciation of the quality of Ivan Seeking's many posts, the UFO napster, this thread on Leslie Kean's book, and the informed discussions taking place here. I'd like to join with you in some of these discussions, always being respectful of other members and of the forum rules. Please help me not to stray.

I'd like to relate my 1964 UFO experience for your consideration, but first will qualify myself just a bit.

I'm 62 years old, a retired Boeing technician, a multi-time champion kart racing driver (still active), a property owner in Seattle and in Kitsap County, and have a liberal arts degree from the University of Washington. I do have some formal education in the basic sciences. Since retirement from aircraft manufacturing, I've joined this and other forums seeking intellectual stimulation and continued education. Off and on since my early experience with UFO's, I've collected and read an untold number of books and articles on the subject, literally thousands. I've discarded most as useless (or worse), and have kept fewer than 100. Whatever speculation or opinions I've ever formed or rejected I'll try to keep out of my story.

My sighting:
The time was the summer of 1964, twilight of the evening. The place was our family's quasi-remote fishing cabin on the eastern bank of Hood Canal (really a fjord), Olympic Peninsula, State of Washington. The cabin is situated on top of a bulkhead, with a deck cantilevered out over the beach, offering spectacular views of the Olympic Mountains in view across the Hood Canal, and views up and down the canal limited by the fact that we are in a sort of protected bay. The canal varies from about 2.5 to 3.5 miles wide in this area. Out of sight from our property, but only a mile south past Vinland Point, was the US Navy submarine base at Bangor, currently the home of the Pacific fleet of Ohio class nuclear submarines.

The people at the cabin were myself, aged 15, my brother, aged 13, my father, a professional geologist, and my mother, a French teacher. No other people were in the vicinity of our cabin.

The sighting began when my brother noticed a light in the sky. He called our attention to it, and this is what we all saw: a softly glowing ball of light, moving slowly and silently, apparently over the water, at a position slightly to the north of us. The light was basically white, but slightly tinged orange, appeared bigger than planets or stars, but smaller than the moon. The edges of the object were fuzzy and indistinct, and not sharp.

Shortly, the object seemed to split in two, but did so such that the two objects were of a size no different that the original object. One of the objects was now of a different color. Over the next approximately 20 minutes, this process of the objects dividing was repeated several times. What resulted was approximately ten objects, all of different colors. The objects continued to move slowly, but making occasional sharp 90 degree turns. They all appeared to be more or less over the water, spreading out from north to south, making distinctive zig-zagging movements. At one point, some of the objects appeared to be over the restricted area of the sub base.

The sighting ended when the objects slowly began to merge together again, into what seemed to be the original object at its original location. At the end, the light seemed to turn off or blink out. No aircraft or patrol boats were seen before, during or after the event. The rest of the evening passed without further incident. The following morning, we returned to our Seattle home.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Amok]

Hey guys, I was reading this thread (not all 40 pages of it, most of the beginning) and I have to admit that I'm very interested in the subject of UFOs. I think that it is a shame that the discussion seems terribly polarized between those who ''want to believe'' and those absolutely do not want to. I think that completely discarding the possibility of UFOs being alien spacecraft is a bit of a lack of imagination. Have you ever though of picking a few cases that are considered the 'best' cases doing some research and then debating it in the forums? Wouldn't that at least be interesting and more enlightening that debating the general possibility of aliens getting here from the start?

My sighting:
The time was the summer of 1964, twilight of the evening. The place was our family's quasi-remote fishing cabin on the eastern bank of Hood Canal (really a fjord), Olympic Peninsula, State of Washington. The cabin is situated on top of a bulkhead, with a deck cantilevered out over the beach, offering spectacular views of the Olympic Mountains in view across the Hood Canal, and views up and down the canal limited by the fact that we are in a sort of protected bay. The canal varies from about 2.5 to 3.5 miles wide in this area. Out of sight from our property, but only a mile south past Vinland Point, was the US Navy submarine base at Bangor, currently the home of the Pacific fleet of Ohio class nuclear submarines.

The people at the cabin were myself, aged 15, my brother, aged 13, my father, a professional geologist, and my mother, a French teacher. No other people were in the vicinity of our cabin.

The sighting began when my brother noticed a light in the sky. He called our attention to it, and this is what we all saw: a softly glowing ball of light, moving slowly and silently, apparently over the water, at a position slightly to the north of us. The light was basically white, but slightly tinged orange, appeared bigger than planets or stars, but smaller than the moon. The edges of the object were fuzzy and indistinct, and not sharp.

Shortly, the object seemed to split in two, but did so such that the two objects were of a size no different that the original object. One of the objects was now of a different color. Over the next approximately 20 minutes, this process of the objects dividing was repeated several times. What resulted was approximately ten objects, all of different colors. The objects continued to move slowly, but making occasional sharp 90 degree turns. They all appeared to be more or less over the water, spreading out from north to south, making distinctive zig-zagging movements. At one point, some of the objects appeared to be over the restricted area of the sub base.

The sighting ended when the objects slowly began to merge together again, into what seemed to be the original object at its original location. At the end, the light seemed to turn off or blink out. No aircraft or patrol boats were seen before, during or after the event. The rest of the evening passed without further incident. The following morning, we returned to our Seattle home.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

How did you estimate distance to the UFO?

 

[Dotini]

How did you estimate distance to the UFO?

I know it's quite difficult to estimate distance to something of unknown size, not to mention possibly glowing with a diffuse corona. All I can say in my case is that the witnesses all agreed the objects - when spread out in a kind of undulating line from north to south - appeared to be more or less aligned over a very familiar body of water, Hood Canal, which is about 2.5 miles wide in the vicinity, widened in places with coves and bays. Due to the erratic motions, the angle of elevation might have varied anywhere between ~15 and ~45 or a little more. They were never down to the water nor directly overhead.

With regards to the possibility of (organic) alien craft, that was the conclusion my brother jumped to. However, after many years of research, I'm satisfied that, in the genteel usage of the 1886 Scientific American, "strange meteorological occurrence" or "electrical eccentricity" is greatly to be preferred for many reasons. I think the line of investigation that begins here can ultimately account for previously unexplained phenomena, and will satisfy your thirst for imaginative solutions. I apologize to the moderating staff if this is speculation or goes anywhere close to violating rules. Please advise!

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Ivan Seeking]

With regards to the possibility of (organic) alien craft, that was the conclusion my brother jumped to. However, after many years of research, I'm satisfied that, in the genteel usage of the 1886 Scientific American, "strange meteorological occurrence" or "electrical eccentricity" is greatly to be preferred for many reasons. I think the line of investigation that begins here can ultimately account for previously unexplained phenomena, and will satisfy your thirst for imaginative solutions. I apologize to the moderating staff if this is speculation or goes anywhere close to violating rules. Please advise!

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Not a theory; just an observation: While it is a bit of a stretch, the Iran '76 event might even be explained by as a natural phenomenon. I have long be intrigued by the notion that ball lighthning, or whatever it may be, might react to RADAR. This could explain a lot of confusion. This is implicity suggested by the Iran event and a few other accounts found in the military files. As with the Iran event, I noticed a few times that as reported, the moment you hit these things with RADAR, they take off in the direction of the transmitted RADAR signal. If the phenomenon is virtually massless and radio opaque at RADAR frequencies, or pehaps if some more complex interaction is in effect, it could make sense. Note that the Iran phenomenon was [allegedly] tracked on RADAR.

Again, not anything so formal as a theory or even a hypothesis, but it would be consistent with a few reports found in the military archives.

 

[Dotini]

Not a theory; just an observation: While it is a bit of a stretch, the Iran '76 event might even be explained by as a natural phenomenon. I have long be intrigued by the notion that ball lighthning, or whatever it may be, might react to RADAR. This could explain a lot of confusion. This is implicity suggested by the Iran event and a few other accounts found in the military files. As with the Iran event, I noticed a few times that as reported, the moment you hit these things with RADAR, they take off in the direction of the transmitted RADAR signal. If the phenomenon is virtually massless and radio opaque at RADAR frequencies, or pehaps if some more complex interaction is in effect, it could make sense. Note that the Iran phenomenon was [allegedly] tracked on RADAR.

Again, not anything so formal as a theory or even a hypothesis, but it would be consistent with a few reports found in the military archives.

I agree that the Iran event gives important clues, and points us in the direction of natural phenomena that we should understand. A review of the Iran '76 data presented in the UFO Napster as well as that of General Jafari in Kean's book, encourages me to think that my '64 sighting and the Iran '76 event have instructive points in common, and may have a common root cause. Very striking is the 'morphing', 'dividing' or 'fissioning' of one body from another. We need to identify what could enable an object to rapidly change shape, size, color, speed, and electromagnetic field. The ball lightning is a good start, but it lacks such required qualities as longevity, complex self-organization and replication.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Amok]

Honestly guys, how does a radar-appearing, electronics scrambling point to a natural phenomenon? I'm no expert, so could you tell me what kinds of objects appear on radar screens (what is required of the object for it to be radar active?).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Honestly guys, how does a radar-appearing, electronics scrambling point to a natural phenomenon? I'm no expert, so could you tell me what kinds of objects appear on radar screens (what is required of the object for it to be radar active?).

In order to see something on RADAR, the target must either reflect the RADAR photons, or absorb and reemit photons having the same frequency, back at the RADAR transmitter. If we are dealing with an unrecognized phenomenon, or perhaps ball lighting [which is still a mystery], we don't have a scientific model to reference, so we don't know if it would reflect RADAR or not. However, knowing that the Iran phenomenon was seen on RADAR, for example, could provide clues to a proper scientific model that describes the phenomenon.

A highly energetic electromagnetic phenomenon could produce enough radiation in the radio or microwave region of the spectrum to interfere with electronics systems. In fact, this is a common problem in industry where large currents and especially high frequencies are used, such as in switch-mode power supplies and motor controllers, for large loads. "Noise" immunity is an ongoing concern for controls engineers.

 

[Dotini]

Edit: Deleted with apologies.

 

[Amok]

That link is broken Dotini.

 

[christopherV]

I would like to add a comment mostly to the mod about a post of mine that was deleted for speculation.

electrostatic levitation is no longer speculation.

http://rsi.aip.org/resource/1/rsinak/v77/i5/p053901_s1

and was used most publicly on gravity probe-B and Robert Millikan's oil drop experiment.

I would ask you to change the definition of what you consider to be electrogravitics, to keep in line with the current thinking of the physics community.

F= K_e {q₁ q₂}/ h²

and if you use the calculated value of 500,000 c for the Earth and for simplicity assumed it to be an infinite plate, electrostatic levitation becomes not only plausible but quite real (obviously), it is however unstable and must be adjusted continuously (Earnshaw's theorem).

 

[FlexGunship]

I would ask you to change the definition of what you consider to be electrogravitics, to keep in line with the current thinking of the physics community.

F= K_e {q₁ q₂}/ h²

and if you use the calculated value of 500,000 c for the Earth and for simplicity assumed it to be an infinite plate, electrostatic levitation becomes not only plausible but quite real (obviously), it is however unstable and must be adjusted continuously (Earnshaw's theorem).

"Electrogravitic" already has a definition: Electrogravitics is a failed hypothesis proposed by Thomas Townsend Brown and Brown's subsequent extensive experimentation and demonstrations of the effect.

Do you have an alternate definition?

Where did you get that value for Earth's net electrical charge? Also, I believe that Coulomb's law is actually an approximation and is only valid for point charges. I'm confident you would need to solve this as a Gaussian surface (well, the "electrowhatsit" equivalent).

 

[christopherV]

Do you have an alternate definition?

Yes electrogravitic claims specifically involve effects produced by the Meissner and tolman effect of a rotating superconductor. All electrogravitics claims should be measured against this yard stick to separate them from electrostatic and magnetic levitation, both of which do not claim to produce gravity only counteract it's force with an opposite force.

Where did you get that value for Earth's net electrical charge?

Polk C (1969). Coroniti SC, Hughes J. ed. Relation of ELF Noise and Schumann Resonances to Thunderstorm Activity, In: Planetary Electrodynamics. Gordon & Breach. pp. 55–83.

Hill RD (Nov-Dec 1971). "Spherical capacitor hypothesis of the Earth's electric field". Pure Appl Geophys. 84 (1): 67–74. Bibcode 1971PApGe..84...67H. doi:10.1007/BF00875454.

Also, I believe that Coulomb's law is actually an approximation and is only valid for point charges.

no it works for charged plates, integral of the total area of the plate. It's how capacitors work.

The proportionality constant k_e called the Coulomb constant (sometimes called the Coulomb force constant), is related to defined properties of space and can be calculated based on knowledge of empirical measurements of the speed of light:

k_e = \frac {1} {4\pi\epsilon _0} = \frac {c^2 \mu _0} {4\pi} = c^2 \cdot 10^{-7} H \cdot m^{-1} = 8.9875517873681764 \cdot 10^9 \frac {N.m^2}{C^2}

in any classical field theory you can think of k_e as the permittivity of space in the field \epsilon _0

I don't believe what I'm saying is filled with crackpottery or anything like that, I simply want a definition that excludes serious research into the field of electrostatic levitation, so that we can discuss topics of a serious scientific nature without fear of having our post deleted because it is misunderstood.

 

[FlexGunship]

no it works for charged plates, integral of the total area of the plate. It's how capacitors work.

The formula you posted previously is for the force between two charged point particles.

 

[christopherV]

imagine that you have a test point charge q and it is hovering above an electric field of an infinitely large plate, you can through linear algebra define a "test spot" on the plate and triangulate the force in the vector of \hat{j} with the height of the charge, the radius from a point directly beneath the point to the test spot and the hyp of the q charge to the test spot. you may then integrate the plate as a summation of that "test spot", you may also reverse the process to obtain an integral of the area of the upper plate.

I'm sorry if that was not clear to you. I apologize.

 

[FlexGunship]

...

By your method the minimum "r²" component of Coulomb's law is 4.07×10¹³ m²

I'm not drawing the same conclusion are you are here:

and if you use the calculated value of 500,000 c for the Earth and for simplicity assumed it to be an infinite plate, electrostatic levitation becomes not only plausible but quite real (obviously)

One Coulomb of net charge on Earth's surface doesn't generate 109N of upward (or downward) force. Either the application of the formula is wrong. Or the value of the Earth's net electrical charge is wrong.

 

[christopherV]

By your method the minimum "r²" component of Coulomb's law is 4.07×10¹³ m²

I'm not drawing the same conclusion are you are here:


One Coulomb of net charge on Earth's surface doesn't generate 109N of upward (or downward) force. Either the application of the formula is wrong. Or the value of the Earth's net electrical charge is wrong.

http://rsi.aip.org/resource/1/rsinak/v77/i5/p053901_s1

This is crackpottery on your part and I'm assuming it's non intentional. I really wouldn't care to walk you through a full derivation of the formulas, but that is not the correct Newton force for the real earth, only if you assume the size of Earth to be infinite.

 

[christopherV]

ah here we go Sal Kahn has a full derivation at:

http://www.khanacademy.org/v/proof--advanced---field-from-infinite-plate--part-1?p=Physics

enjoy.

 

[nlsherrill]

Pardon me for not reading through all 44 pages of this thread, but who has actually read this book? I heard from multiple sources it is actually pretty good.