471 replies to this topic

[mcrom901]

psyche101, on 13 December 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Itz a puter

Itz a printer!

Or Hessdalen Phenomena

nope...

Spoiler

[DONTEATUS]

Now were talking !

[1963]

mcrom901, on 10 December 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

http://www.amsciepub...1993.77.3f.1059

Hi Microm!

To be honest buddy, i'm not quite certain what you are trying to convey with that post?
Are you saying that you agree with Persinger and Derr  that.. 'Most'..UFO sightings are luminous anomalies produced by man made activity in the earth's crust?..And that is what you think that the two veteran pilots in the Richard Haines highlighted case witnessed?

If you are...I think that you are way off the mark there my friend!
But if you are cryptically saying something else?...please make it a bit clearer , so even I can understand. ..such as the UFO phenomenon is all caused by Hydrofracking!.. and the green light given for new method of extracting gas by the British government this week means that I can expect to suffer earthquakes and UFO displays around my house soon?..


btw Microm...do you think that the USAF explanation of 'Ball Lightning' for the 1957 Levelland UFO Landings was correct?...

http://ufos.about.co...p/levelland.htm

or should it be updated to 'Natural Hydroseismicity' ?


Cheers buddy.

Edited by 1963, 17 December 2012 - 01:18 AM.

[DONTEATUS]

I`ll stick with Holiday Partys ! THats the Best HP !

[mcrom901]

1963, on 17 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Hi Microm!

To be honest buddy, i'm not quite certain what you are trying to convey with that post?

heya buddy... i was just trying to highlight other possibilities regarding the 'man made' factor i.e. since you had mentioned that certain observable features nullified the possibility of the involvement of 'humans' (whilst directly forcing the choice of nuts n bolts craft without any evidence) it was my intention to show that we can be held responsible for the manifestation of ufos through non-direct involvement

1963, on 17 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Are you saying that you agree with Persinger and Derr  that.. 'Most'..UFO sightings are luminous anomalies produced by man made activity in the earth's crust?

leaving the 'most' factor out... i think the experimental data & evidence supports the contention about 'man-made' ufos

1963, on 17 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

And that is what you think that the two veteran pilots in the Richard Haines highlighted case witnessed?

i dunno for certain, but one thing i know for sure, that natural phenomena hasn't been ruled out... plasma has been shown to display many of those 'unique' characteristics i.e. speed, movement, etc... so, is it possible that they could have observed something natural or otherworldly? you decide...

1963, on 17 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

If you are...I think that you are way off the mark there my friend!

i'm not...

1963, on 17 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

But if you are cryptically saying something else?...please make it a bit clearer , so even I can understand.

i hope i was able explain it, pls see above...

1963, on 17 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

..such as the UFO phenomenon is all caused by Hydrofracking!

"all"? nah

1963, on 17 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

.. and the green light given for new method of extracting gas by the British government this week means that I can expect to suffer earthquakes and UFO displays around my house soon?..

i hope that there are no earthquakes, but that you get to see some shiny disco balls...

1963, on 17 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

btw Microm...do you think that the USAF explanation of 'Ball Lightning' for the 1957 Levelland UFO Landings was correct?...

http://ufos.about.co...p/levelland.htm

or should it be updated to 'Natural Hydroseismicity' ?

if you mean 'conventional' ball lightning, no.... since that was one of the shortcomings of the 'plasma explanation'early on... the science was way behind & that critics were using the 'duration of ball lightning' argument to counter such explanations.... but science has progressed & newer observations have shed light on the phenomena at large... anyways, there's nothing about the levelland case which strikes me as odd... that place is close to the hot spots, marfa is there.... http://en.wikipedia....ki/Marfa_lights and it is also close to the border with new mexico *cough* roswell... but anyways, the observed ufos were in many shapes and many colours... what does that say? sounds natural to me... and about the engines going off, that has been explained off as due to the em fields generated by the plasma... so whether it was due to hydroseismicity or other factors, i dunno... but i would like science to investigate them... cigar shaped 'plasmas' have lately been seen doing weird things... i don't think there's anything et to it though...

1963, on 17 December 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Cheers buddy.

cheers mate

[1963]

mcrom901, on 17 December 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

if you mean 'conventional' ball lightning, no.... since that was one of the shortcomings of the 'plasma explanation'early on... the science was way behind & that critics were using the 'duration of ball lightning' argument to counter such explanations.... but science has progressed & newer observations have shed light on the phenomena at large... anyways, there's nothing about the levelland case which strikes me as odd... that place is close to the hot spots, marfa is there.... http://en.wikipedia....ki/Marfa_lights and it is also close to the border with new mexico *cough* roswell... but anyways, the observed ufos were in many shapes and many colours... what does that say? sounds natural to me... and about the engines going off, that has been explained off as due to the em fields generated by the plasma... so whether it was due to hydroseismicity or other factors, i dunno... but i would like science to investigate them... cigar shaped 'plasmas' have lately been seen doing weird things... i don't think there's anything et to it though...






cheers mate

Hi Microm!..Thanks for the clarification my friend.

And I have to say that I have been re-considering 'the atmospheric plasma possibility' as a viable identification source for a number of reports a lot more lately.
And though I readily admit that the theory has a goodly amount of merit,  I still have great reservations about the volume of cases in which the theory can be sensibly applied.
For instance, I would have no qualms at the theory being mooted as the probable identity of ...let's say this MUFON report....

http://mufoncms.com/...g_desc&id=31093

...or many of the 'lights in the sky' videos on YouTube...and there are many , many more cases that I have read about in which the 'AP' theory would fit like a glove. But then I believe that whilst I consider the cases in which the atmospheric phenomena can be 'safely' linked  are pretty obvious...there is a very strong possibility that the atmospheric plasma explanation would be used far too liberally!
Because of our current lack of understanding of the very nature of the phenomena [what is the typical appearance and behaviour of the manifestations ] It would be used as a 'catch-all' explanation for any anomalous sighting whether it be a feasible alternative to the extraterrestrial possibility,.. or not!...In short...I believe that the 'AP' explanation is a good and viable option ...but only in a certain type of reported sighting.

And as for The Levelland case....Are you being serious?...if so.... as I always maintain...this is only my opinion! and i'm not saying  that the multiple witnesses   'Definitely' witnessed extraterrestrial [or interdimensional] craft/crafts ....but I have to say, that it is a far more likely scenario to my mind than the atmospheric phenomena theory in this case.

Cheers buddy.

oh!..by the way Microm...The 1km long and 200m wide UFO entering the Popocatepeti volcano,that you used as a demonstration of plasma "doing weird things lately" was debunked a while back wasn't it?

http://au.ibtimes.co...tm#.UM-ux-TtTA5


..

[DONTEATUS]

Too funny 1963 ! Lots of Merry-Mints ! Have A Great Holiday !

[mcrom901]

1963, on 18 December 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

Hi Microm!..Thanks for the clarification my friend.

And I have to say that I have been re-considering 'the atmospheric plasma possibility' as a viable identification source for a number of reports a lot more lately.
And though I readily admit that the theory has a goodly amount of merit,  I still have great reservations about the volume of cases in which the theory can be sensibly applied.
For instance, I would have no qualms at the theory being mooted as the probable identity of ...let's say this MUFON report....

http://mufoncms.com/...g_desc&id=31093

...or many of the 'lights in the sky' videos on YouTube...and there are many , many more cases that I have read about in which the 'AP' theory would fit like a glove. But then I believe that whilst I consider the cases in which the atmospheric phenomena can be 'safely' linked  are pretty obvious...there is a very strong possibility that the atmospheric plasma explanation would be used far too liberally!
Because of our current lack of understanding of the very nature of the phenomena [what is the typical appearance and behaviour of the manifestations ] It would be used as a 'catch-all' explanation for any anomalous sighting whether it be a feasible alternative to the extraterrestrial possibility,.. or not!...In short...I believe that the 'AP' explanation is a good and viable option ...but only in a certain type of reported sighting.

cheers mate... i see what you mean there by saying that it would be used too liberally as a 'catch-all' explanation, but don't you think such a reservation comes from an eth bias? i.e. to say that it stems from some 'over-expectation' of the phenomena and the need for rejection of possible terrestrial causes? in any case, the reality of the existence of the plasma phenomena is clear & hard to ignore, the very fact that it 'mimics' most of the 'loosely associated' reported characteristics is a tough hurdle for ufology in general, imo... i'm very much interested in the phenomena & believe that if there is any truth to the eth, then arriving at any viable evidence would require us to eliminate all natural causes... but then the question becomes, have we finished explaining everything that is there in nature? we still have a lot to discover & i find it ironic that some folks believe that the plasma 'reality' is some sort of 'skeptical' debunking pass to downplay the conjecture of et visiting us...

1963, on 18 December 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

And as for The Levelland case....Are you being serious?...if so.... as I always maintain...this is only my opinion! and i'm not saying  that the multiple witnesses   'Definitely' witnessed extraterrestrial [or interdimensional] craft/crafts ....but I have to say, that it is a far more likely scenario to my mind than the atmospheric phenomena theory in this case.

what makes you say that? what is it that i'm missing? what is so special about that case that makes you think that the eth/idh is more viable than natural uap being responsible?

1963, on 18 December 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

oh!..by the way Microm...The 1km long and 200m wide UFO entering the Popocatepeti volcano,that you used as a demonstration of plasma "doing weird things lately" was debunked a while back wasn't it?

http://au.ibtimes.co...tm#.UM-ux-TtTA5

i won't put much stock in that... it seems folks are finding it impossible for something that big to 'crash' into a volcano without any visible aftereffects... plasma doesn't fit into such 'solid' frameworks....

[1963]

Quote

what makes you say that? what is it that i'm missing? what is so special about that case that makes you think that the eth/idh is more viable than natural uap being responsible?

Hi Microm.

Can you link me to any precedent as to 125ft UAP's landing on roads and taking off again?

anyway , you might like to take a look at this CUFOS  in depth study report by Antonio F. Rullán ...


"Given the diverse descriptions of what was observed during
this wave, the causes of the VI wave very likely include the
presence of a real, unknown phenomenon (which triggered
the start of the wave and continued its presence throughout)
plus social contagion (which explains not only the large
number of non-VI cases but could explain some of the VI
cases as well). The unknown phenomenon could be either an
unknown atmospheric phenomenon or intelligently controlled
unknown objects. Using Ockham’s razor, we reject the idea
that the explanation could include both. All the anomalous
observations listed in Table 4 do not support the unknown
atmospheric phenomenon hypothesis and tend to support the
intelligently controlled unknown object hypothesis. However,
we cannot reject either hypothesis because of the poor data
quality and weak evidence in most of the cases.
In the end, each case must stand on its own. Unfortunately, all the evidence from these cases is anecdotal, "
most of the reports came from newspaper clippings, and
few of the cases were investigated properly. While we can
conclude that an explosive and mysterious UFO wave did
hit the Southwest in November of 1957, we are not closer
to knowing what caused it and why. Nevertheless, it is very
unlikely that the wave was entirely caused by ball lightning,
imagination, or pure social contagion.

http://www.cufos.org/rullan.pdf


Cheers buddy.

[mcrom901]

1963, on 20 December 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

Hi Microm.

Can you link me to any precedent as to 125ft UAP's landing on roads and taking off again?

cheers buddy... i believe that every flap has it own unique characteristics based on the prevailing conditions; the frequency for the occurrence of certain 'features' can vary... but nonetheless, uaps have been observed getting close to the ground, hovering, and moving on... it is not much of a leap to associate their em interference to vehicle malfunction..


http://www.narcap.or..._2.4_MaxTeo.pdf

and even people..


link

1963, on 20 December 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

anyway , you might like to take a look at this CUFOS  in depth study report by Antonio F. Rullán ...

thanks for the link... though i might not agree with all the points raised by the author, at least it offers a good coverage of the points which are used in support of certain conclusions....

1963, on 20 December 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

"Given the diverse descriptions of what was observed during
this wave, the causes of the VI wave very likely include the
presence of a real, unknown phenomenon (which triggered
the start of the wave and continued its presence throughout)
plus social contagion (which explains not only the large
number of non-VI cases but could explain some of the VI
cases as well). The unknown phenomenon could be either an
unknown atmospheric phenomenon or intelligently controlled
unknown objects. Using Ockham’s razor, we reject the idea
that the explanation could include both. All the anomalous
observations listed in Table 4 do not support the unknown
atmospheric phenomenon hypothesis and tend to support the
intelligently controlled unknown object hypothesis. However,
we cannot reject either hypothesis because of the poor data
quality and weak evidence in most of the cases.
In the end, each case must stand on its own. Unfortunately, all the evidence from these cases is anecdotal, "
most of the reports came from newspaper clippings, and
few of the cases were investigated properly. While we can
conclude that an explosive and mysterious UFO wave did
hit the Southwest in November of 1957, we are not closer
to knowing what caused it and why. Nevertheless, it is very
unlikely that the wave was entirely caused by ball lightning,
imagination, or pure social contagion.

http://www.cufos.org/rullan.pdf

bolded ^^ for emphasis... let's have a look at table 4...




only points 7 & 11 somehow could support the idea that et crafts had been observed... 'two' people saw a saucer-shaped craft... were they accurate in their descriptions? was it really a craft or just only the 'shape' loosely associated? i'm not sure... but do believe that if there was anything more to it, more people would have observed them... regarding the chap who saw a 'humanoid' being, well, this is from your link...

"One VI case that could be due to social contagion was
the Canadian, Texas, case. This report supposedly occurred
on November 2, 1957, at 3:30 a.m. (before the Levelland
sightings). However, it was not reported until November 4.
It was a single-witness case that claimed that
a saucershaped craft, with a white flag, landed next to the road,
and a humanoid was standing next to the UFO. Blue Book
concluded that the witness was unreliable."

i don't think that is enough to discount the possibility of natural causes, just me 2 kopeks

[quillius]

hey Mcrom,

have you any examples of plasma appearing metalic?
also examples of any of them being attracted to people?
lastly with regards to the possible effect on peoples perception/memory....any idea what the most severe case is on record and to what extent the hallucinations occurred?

thanks.......

one last question.......what, over and above what UAPs have been seen doing would you consider intelligent behaviour? (obviously of a flying object)

[mcrom901]

quillius, on 20 December 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

hey Mcrom,

have you any examples of plasma appearing metalic?

hiya q... check the following paper...

"the laboratory experiments discussed in the first paragraph above:
by way of lightning current directed (1) through silicon disks and
(2) through pools of salt water, we generated (1) small glowing
metal spheres of relatively constant luminosity with a duration
exceeding 1 s that fell under the influence of gravity"

link

it seems to be a sub-class of the phenomena, as far as the 'luminosity' goes, imo... the word metallic can be tricky, giving way to the question that whether the observed 'shine' is a reflection or not... if the plasma formation is the source of said appearance (partial luminosity / for example: the displaying of different colours) then we have something different & our general perspective re metallic appearance becomes meaningless... but nonetheless, more work needs to be carried out... it is a controversial subject...

according to thornhill's prediction

electrons strike the surface and form more dense plasma. If sufficiently dense, the plasma layer acts like a metallic surface coating and returns a strong radar echo.

which reminds me of radar returns from the rb-47 case

quillius, on 20 December 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

also examples of any of them being attracted to people?

i guess they seem to be doing their own thing & that we sometimes get in their way... i suppose the reactions in their behaviour are due to fluctuations/disturbances in the near em fields.. could we be directly responsible? i dunno... but i think people seem to feel isolated whilst being in cars mainly... another factor regarding statistics is that if we have continuous surveillance at every point on the globe, then can we come up with an argument that whether they're attracted to us... because the very fact that people report about a sighting is only in the case of them being present there, if you know what i mean... so how do we rule out the unobserved?

quillius, on 20 December 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

lastly with regards to the possible effect on peoples perception/memory....any idea what the most severe case is on record and to what extent the hallucinations occurred?

i think that persinger's work could best describe in case of the above scenario...

http://en.wikipedia....chael_Persinger

quillius, on 20 December 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

one last question.......what, over and above what UAPs have been seen doing would you consider intelligent behaviour? (obviously of a flying object)

i can't think of any at this moment, i used to think of the erratic movements as something intelligent, but enough reasoning counter-defined that... other than that, hmmm... i'm a bit blank now, will have to think about it... cheers mate

Edited by mcrom901, 21 December 2012 - 04:24 AM.

[mcrom901]

here is an interesting read... http://ufologie.patr...lightning01.htm which tries to tie in the shortcomings re conventional 'ball lightning' / stormy weather, etc.. imho, klass wasn't way off the mark... but nonetheless, another factor which i wanted to highlight is about the 'metal' connection... the studies from new zealand had predicted that....

"The struck object must have a metallic or an oxide component, such as silicon oxide. Lightning reduces it to silicon metal, a varietx of silicon produced in the industry. Silicon vapour condenses to form silicon nanospheres, which gather together in long strings"


we covered about copper in the beginning of this thread... then we have scandium at hessdalen...

One explanation attributes the phenomenon to an incompletely understood combustion process in the air involving clouds of dust from the valley floor containing scandium.^[2]

http://www.itacomm.n.../2007_HAUGE.pdf

hmmm.... i would go as far and postulate that various 'hard evidences' are a result from similar atmospheric phenomena...

http://www.theblackv.../topic6201.html

looks natural to me... http://i140.photobuc...fo/PC120087.jpg

[quillius]

mcrom901, on 21 December 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

hiya q... check the following paper...

"the laboratory experiments discussed in the first paragraph above:
by way of lightning current directed (1) through silicon disks and
(2) through pools of salt water, we generated (1) small glowing
metal spheres of relatively constant luminosity with a duration
exceeding 1 s that fell under the influence of gravity"

link

it seems to be a sub-class of the phenomena, as far as the 'luminosity' goes, imo... the word metallic can be tricky, giving way to the question that whether the observed 'shine' is a reflection or not... if the plasma formation is the source of said appearance (partial luminosity / for example: the displaying of different colours) then we have something different & our general perspective re metallic appearance becomes meaningless... but nonetheless, more work needs to be carried out... it is a controversial subject...

according to thornhill's prediction

electrons strike the surface and form more dense plasma. If sufficiently dense, the plasma layer acts like a metallic surface coating and returns a strong radar echo.

which reminds me of radar returns from the rb-47 case

morning mcrom, I fully agree about the word metallic being tricky (nearly as tricky as intelligence )
I think this is highlighted in the thorhill wording ''acts like a metallic'......shows the fine line between 'acts' 'appears' 'is'

The particles collecting to form the sphere is interesting, although I am unsure as to how this could be sustained for a long period of time.
I have read the links but will do so a few more times so it sinks in properly.

mcrom901, on 21 December 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

i guess they seem to be doing their own thing & that we sometimes get in their way... i suppose the reactions in their behaviour are due to fluctuations/disturbances in the near em fields.. could we be directly responsible? i dunno... but i think people seem to feel isolated whilst being in cars mainly... another factor regarding statistics is that if we have continuous surveillance at every point on the globe, then can we come up with an argument that whether they're attracted to us... because the very fact that people report about a sighting is only in the case of them being present there, if you know what i mean... so how do we rule out the unobserved?

I think I need to elaborate here on my thinkning. It is in line with a previous comment I made to you a few weeks back regarding 'timing'. I think timing of reactions in behaviour holds the key to differentiating between intelligence and natural...if there is intelligent behaviour I think using probability along with timing may show this if it exists.

mcrom901, on 21 December 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

i think that persinger's work could best describe in case of the above scenario...

http://en.wikipedia....chael_Persinger

I have read his work before, I am not so sure as I still see some issues. I also feel it is difficult to reconcile my old time favourite 'pascagoula' using Persingers theories. Although that in itself opens up a number of discussions.....I would miss christmas if I started.

mcrom901, on 21 December 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

i can't think of any at this moment, i used to think of the erratic movements as something intelligent, but enough reasoning counter-defined that... other than that, hmmm... i'm a bit blank now, will have to think about it... cheers mate

this, as mentioend before, is a very interesting part of the discussion and deserves a thread of its own IMO. I just have refrained form instigating the thread due to not having the time to sustain thread...

cheers

[1963]

Hey Microm,  some mighty interesting , and informative posting there buddy.

As I believe is the case with Quillius, I too would feel a lot more confident of labelling 'some' of these convincingly-earnest UFO sightings as "natural plasma events" if there were clear examples of 'metallic-looking manifestations that sustain form and appearance for viable periods'!..But so far I haven't managed to find any.
And also realise that this must be the 'holy-grail' for proponents of the theory toward their quest of universal acceptance, and will be the goal of all involved to capture this elusive beast,...and so  maybe it will just be a matter of time before someone is lucky enough to actually catch one on film.
But until then, I personally think that the UFO's and naturally occurring plasma phenomena can only  be reasonably linked together  in the more hazy type of reported unidentified luminous-object event with no really intelligent behavioural display, and/or lacking a discernible shape  , such as the ones seen on YouTube and documented in many old reports .
I think that for a retro UFO-causation diagnosis , the RB-47 case that you mentioned is an excellent candidate for the natural-plasma theory...though I see that the scientific panel on the 1967 conference in Boulder, Colorado on the UFO's and plasma phenomena, didn't think so....

http://www.project19...chap07.html#s18


http://hozturner.blo...0&max-results=7



...but then again, that verdict was made without the benefit of the 45 years of further study that the boffins have today!.....btw Microm, do you think that I would be pushing it to moot that the extreme case of the 'Farmington Armada' could be a candidate?


Cheers buddy.