-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
UFOs: Engineering & Scientific data interpretation
- Thread starter DROBNJAK
- Start date
Free episodes:
You want to use the search string UFO trace evidence.
UFOs trace evidence - Google Search
Lots of stuff related to your question there.
And of course here.
Ted Phillips | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
UFOs trace evidence - Google Search
Lots of stuff related to your question there.
And of course here.
Ted Phillips | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio
Last edited by a moderator:
Trevor Wozny
Paranormal Novice
Unfortunately what you are looking for is a white Unicorn. Does not exist. There is a lot of information that claims to be so but remember not a shred of it has passed the illumination of scientific methodology. Sometimes an inconclusive result is just a null one. This phenomenon is a real one. No doubts. But, it lacks a super important property of reality... Repeatability. Without that, there is no chance of ever progressing past the hypothesis stage.
In regards to soil evidence, if there was any real anomaly found to be anomalous. Do you not think that more than 1 or 2 botanists out of the tens of thousands of them in academia would take notice. Yes, they would. But they do not. Reason being is that those few botanists (or armchair botanists) are wrong, insane, or more likely trying to make $$$ by selling the truth. In any given population of people, there is always a lunatic fringe. All noise no signal. This is a prime case of this.
The real scientific community is not the one that is reflected in Conspiriana. We ALL strive to make that one big discovery. We ALL had the dream of walking the red carpet for our Nobel prize acceptance speech. Scientists become scientists for this reason. There is NO drive to hide or suppress anything. The EXACT opposite is what is truly real. Budgets and grants (you know the bread and butter) are harder to find and even harder to keep. A new discovery of anything would be heralded not spirited away into darkness and suppression. Be it radar data, trace evidence, or whatever. Nothing has ever come forth and survived a critical rational eye. We scientists, are chomping at the bit for the same things you are. We probably want real evidence more than you do. We are all in this thing called life together. Whether you wear a lab coat or hoodie we all want to know the truth. Peace.
In regards to soil evidence, if there was any real anomaly found to be anomalous. Do you not think that more than 1 or 2 botanists out of the tens of thousands of them in academia would take notice. Yes, they would. But they do not. Reason being is that those few botanists (or armchair botanists) are wrong, insane, or more likely trying to make $$$ by selling the truth. In any given population of people, there is always a lunatic fringe. All noise no signal. This is a prime case of this.
The real scientific community is not the one that is reflected in Conspiriana. We ALL strive to make that one big discovery. We ALL had the dream of walking the red carpet for our Nobel prize acceptance speech. Scientists become scientists for this reason. There is NO drive to hide or suppress anything. The EXACT opposite is what is truly real. Budgets and grants (you know the bread and butter) are harder to find and even harder to keep. A new discovery of anything would be heralded not spirited away into darkness and suppression. Be it radar data, trace evidence, or whatever. Nothing has ever come forth and survived a critical rational eye. We scientists, are chomping at the bit for the same things you are. We probably want real evidence more than you do. We are all in this thing called life together. Whether you wear a lab coat or hoodie we all want to know the truth. Peace.
Last edited:
DROBNJAK
Paranormal Adept
We know we can't expect hard data, like scientist would want. But, we have to do with what we have. As Stanton Freedeman said, we are not talking about hard evidence, but an overwhelming proof.
If we accept that data is not perfect and use statistics, than there is actually an incredible amount of useful physical data out about UFOs.
My hypothesis is that an average witness does not understand engineering and physics well enough to be able to fake his report. So if an non-expert witness is correctly describing a little known physical process, his testimony might get, say, 70% relevance score, as opposed to, say 10% relevance. And when you have 3-4 witnesses observing the same physical effect, than its pretty safe to take that effect seriously.
A good example would be that some UFOs that landed, left inundations in soil. And from these inundations their wight can be calculated. Like in Zamora case, where several investigators who debriefed him, prised Zamora's character. In that case inundations were left in soil. Similar inundations were left in the Raldensham Forest incident, although craft was much 3-4 times smaller by its diameter. Cases with inundations in the soil go into dozens and from them we know that a "specific weight" of an average UFO is about twice as large as for an aeroplane that would fit into the same circle.
From their heavy weight, and not just weight, we can work out that UFOs are not using aerodynamic effects to fly, like aeroplanes do. This analysis might sound trivial, but it takes us one step further from total ignorance.
There are some physical aspects of UFOs that are not widely known to general public through media. These little known clues than can be used as a keys to prove or falsify if witness is genuine. Ray Stamford and Derrel Sims both use this technique to protect their valuable time from witnesses that can't contribute quality reports.
If we accept that data is not perfect and use statistics, than there is actually an incredible amount of useful physical data out about UFOs.
My hypothesis is that an average witness does not understand engineering and physics well enough to be able to fake his report. So if an non-expert witness is correctly describing a little known physical process, his testimony might get, say, 70% relevance score, as opposed to, say 10% relevance. And when you have 3-4 witnesses observing the same physical effect, than its pretty safe to take that effect seriously.
A good example would be that some UFOs that landed, left inundations in soil. And from these inundations their wight can be calculated. Like in Zamora case, where several investigators who debriefed him, prised Zamora's character. In that case inundations were left in soil. Similar inundations were left in the Raldensham Forest incident, although craft was much 3-4 times smaller by its diameter. Cases with inundations in the soil go into dozens and from them we know that a "specific weight" of an average UFO is about twice as large as for an aeroplane that would fit into the same circle.
From their heavy weight, and not just weight, we can work out that UFOs are not using aerodynamic effects to fly, like aeroplanes do. This analysis might sound trivial, but it takes us one step further from total ignorance.
There are some physical aspects of UFOs that are not widely known to general public through media. These little known clues than can be used as a keys to prove or falsify if witness is genuine. Ray Stamford and Derrel Sims both use this technique to protect their valuable time from witnesses that can't contribute quality reports.
Last edited: