|
Citaat:
Trouwens nog nooit van die Richard Dolan gehoord. Blijkt na opzoeking zo een fantast te zijn die al die zever geloofd en propageert. De niet believers zijn in zijn ogen natuurlijk achterlijke idioten die het licht nog niet gezien hebben. |
Citaat:
Ik denk dat prof. Kevin Knuth (1) een gezonde 'approach' heeft m.b.t. de ufo-problematiek. https://www.indy100.com/article/are-...d-ufos-8425276 ______________________________________ (1)Kevin Knuth Information Physics, Foundations of Inference and Inquiry, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, and High-Quality Bayesian Data Analysis applied to Exoplanet Detection and Characterization and Autonomous Exploration in Robotics. |
https://theconversation.com/are-we-a...ic-study-98843
Are we alone? The question is worthy of serious scientific study June 28, 2018 12.02pm BST Kevin Knuth Associate Professor of Physics, University at Albany, State University of New York https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-knuth-504540 .... UFOs, taboo for professional scientists When it comes to science, the scientific method requires hypotheses to be testable so that inferences can be verified. UFO encounters are neither controllable nor repeatable, which makes their study extremely challenging. But the real problem, in my view, is that the UFO topic is taboo. While the general public has been fascinated with UFOs for decades, our governments, scientists and media, have essentially declared that of all the UFO sightings are a result of weather phenomenon or human actions. None are actually extraterrestrial spacecraft. And no aliens have visited Earth. Essentially, we are told that the topic is nonsense. UFOs are off-limits to serious scientific study and rational discussion, which unfortunately leaves the topic in the domain of fringe and pseudoscientists, many of whom litter the field with conspiracy theories and wild speculation. I think UFO skepticism has become something of a religion with an agenda, discounting the possibility of extraterrestrials without scientific evidence, while often providing silly hypotheses describing only one or two aspects of a UFO encounter reinforcing the popular belief that there is a conspiracy. A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out. In the end, the skeptics often do science a disservice by providing a poor example of how science is to be conducted. The fact is that many of these encounters – still a very small percentage of the total – defy conventional explanation. The media amplifies the skepticism by publishing information about UFOs when it is exciting, but always with a mocking or whimsical tone and reassuring the public that it can’t possibly be true. But there are credible witnesses and encounters. Why don’t astronomers see UFOs? I am often asked by friends and colleagues, “Why don’t astronomers see UFOs?” The fact is that they do. In 1977, Peter Sturrock, a professor of space science and astrophysics at Stanford University, mailed 2,611 questionnaires about UFO sightings to members of the American Astronomical Society. He received 1,356 responses from which 62 astronomers – 4.6 percent – reported witnessing or recording inexplicable aerial phenomena. This rate is similar to the approximately 5 percent of UFO sightings that are never explained. As expected, Sturrock found that astronomers who witnessed UFOs were more likely to be night sky observers. Over 80 percent of Sturrock’s respondents were willing to study the UFO phenomenon if there was a way to do so. More than half of them felt that the topic deserves to be studied versus 20 percent who felt that it should not. The survey also revealed that younger scientists were more likely to support the study of UFOs. UFOs have been observed through telescopes. I know of one telescope sighting by an experienced amateur astronomer in which he observed an object shaped like a guitar pick moving through the telescope’s field of view. Further sightings are documented in the book “Wonders in the Sky,” in which the authors compile numerous observations of unexplained aerial phenomena made by astronomers and published in scientific journals throughout the 1700s and 1800s. Evidence from government and military officers Some of the most convincing observations have come from government officials. In 1997, the Chilean government formed the organization Comité de Estudios de Fenómenos Aéreos Anómalos, or CEFAA, to study UFOs. Last year, CEFAA released footage of a UFO taken with a helicopter-mounted Wescam infrared camera. Declassified document describing a sighting of a UFO in December 1977, in Bahia, a state in northern Brazil. Arquivo Nacional Collection The countries of Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, France, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden and the United Kingdom have been declassifying their UFO files since 2008. The French Committee for In-Depth Studies, or COMETA, was an unofficial UFO study group comprised of high-ranking scientists and military officials that studied UFOs in the late 1990s. They released the COMETA Report, which summarized their findings. They concluded that 5 percent of the encounters were reliable yet inexplicable: The best hypothesis available was that the observed craft were extraterrestrial. They also accused the United States of covering up evidence of UFOs. Iran has been concerned about spherical UFOs observed near nuclear power facilities that they call “CIA drones” which reportedly are about 30 feet in diameter, can achieve speeds up to Mach 10, and can leave the atmosphere. Such speeds are on par with the fastest experimental aircraft, but unthinkable for a sphere without lift surfaces or an obvious propulsion mechanism. 1948 Top Secret USAF UFO extraterrestrial document. United States Air Force In December 2017, The New York Times broke a story about the classified Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program, which was a $22 million program run by the former Pentagon official Luis Elizondo and aimed at studying UFOs. Elizondo resigned from running the program protesting extreme secrecy and the lack of funding and support. Following his resignation Elizondo, along with several others from the defense and intelligence community, were recruited by the To the Stars Academy of Arts & Science, which was recently founded by Tom DeLonge to study UFOs and interstellar travel. In conjunction with the launch of the academy, the Pentagon declassified and released three videos of UFO encounters taken with forward looking infrared cameras mounted on F-18 fighter jets. While there is much excitement about such disclosures, I am reminded of a quote from Retired Army Colonel John Alexander: “Disclosure has happened. … I’ve got stacks of generals, including Soviet generals, who’ve come out and said UFOs are real. My point is, how many times do senior officials need to come forward and say that this is real?” A topic worthy of serious study There is a great deal of evidence that a small percentage of these UFO sightings are unidentified structured craft exhibiting flight capabilities beyond any known human technology. While there is no single case for which there exists evidence that would stand up to scientific rigor, there are cases with simultaneous observations by multiple reliable witnesses, along with radar returns and photographic evidence revealing patterns of activity that are compelling. Declassified information from covert studies is interesting, but not scientifically helpful. This is a topic worthy of open scientific inquiry, until there is a scientific consensus based on evidence rather than prior expectation or belief. If there are indeed extraterrestrial craft visiting Earth, it would greatly benefit us to know about them, their nature and their intent. Moreover, this would present a great opportunity for mankind, promising to expand and advance our knowledge and technology, as well as reshaping our understanding of our place in the universe. - - - - - |
Metaallegeringen ...
http://ufopartisan.blogspot.com/2017...ufo-study.html   ook dit is een mysterie: (sample gevonden in 1957!) http://www.nicap.org/reports/ubatubanal.htm Below is a link to a paper written by Professor Peter Sturrock on the Ubatuba material Vallee discusses during the above presentation: In it, he writes, "it has not proved possible to identify where the material was produced." It's also important to note some, if not all, of the materials members of the To The Stars Academy have talked about have never been in the government's hands in the first place so obviously FOIAs will be of no use there. Just because TTSA is talking about something doesn't mean the United States government/military ever had it or that the TTSA organization has it. UPDATE JUNE 12: Hal Puthoff addressed the SSE/IRVA conference a few nights back and went into some detail about UFOs and metamaterials. The full transcript of his talk his here. Here's what he had to say about the materials: "So let me give you an example of, how this stuff helps people who are chasing these really difficult problems. I’m choosing one here: metamaterials for aerospace use. I’d love to talk about really fancy materials, but they’re classified. However, there’s a lot of materials that have been picked up or provided even in the public domain. I’m going to give an example because it shows exactly what the structure is for how to deal with this. This is an open source sample. It was sent anonymously to talk show host Art Bell. The fellow claimed to be in the military. He said that this sample was picked up in a crash retrieval, and so he sent it by email. So what does that mean? Chain of custody non-existent. Provenance questionable. Could be a hoax. Could be some slag off of some foundry floor or whatever. However, it was an unusual sample, so we decided to take a look at it. It was a multilayered bismuth and magnesium sample. Bismuth layers less than a human hair. Magnesium samples about ten-times the size of a human hair. Supposedly picked up in the crash retrieval of an Advanced Aerospace Vehicle. It looks like it’s been in a crash. The white lines are the bismuth; the darker areas are the magnesium separations. So the question was what about this material, so naturally we looked in all the national labs, we talked to metallurgists, we combed the entire structure of published papers. Nowhere could we find any evidence that anybody ever made one of these. Secondly, some attempts were made to try to reproduce this material, but they couldn’t get the bismuth and magnesium layers to bond. Thirdly, when we talked to people in the materials field who should know, they said we don’t know why anybody would want to make anything like this. It’s not obvious that it has any function. Well, years later, decades later actually, finally our own science moves along. We move into an area called metamaterials, and it turns out exactly this combination of materials at exactly those dimensions turn out to be an excellent microscopic waveguide for very high frequency electromagnetic radiation terahertz frequencies. So, the wavelength is 60 microns, which is a pretty small size. But it turns out because of the metamaterial aspect of this material, those bismuth layers that act as waveguides can be one twentieth the size of the wavelength, and usually when you make a waveguide it’s gotta be about the size of the wavelength. So, in fact this turned out to be a material that would propagate sub-wavelength waveguide effects. Why somebody wants to do that we still don’t know the answer to that. But anyway, it’s amazing we’ve gone through this and this is the kind of structure we go through a lot. You get a material sample with unusual characteristics to be evaluated, the method of manufacture is difficult to assess or reproduce, the purpose of the function is not readily apparent – as with our sample here, and then as our own technical knowledge moves forward we finally see a possible purpose or function comes to light. That sequence is repeated over and over in this particular area." Citaat:
|
Citaat:
|
|
Citaat:
|
Citaat:
Het Nellis Airforce Base -incident uit 1994. Zij die denken dat de filmpjes die Louis Elizondo -de projectleider van het recent uitgelekte geheim Amerikaans onderzoek naar ufo’s- vrijgaf een primeur zijn, vergissen zich. Reeds in 1994 dook er een gelijkaardig filmpje op dat naar buiten gesmokkeld werd door een radaroperator (1) bij het Amerikaanse leger. Dit filmpje werd algemeen bekend als het zogenaamde ‘Nellis-incident’. Een gekend verhaal. Gekend natuurlijk door mensen die zich de moeite doen zich te informeren. Hetgeen meer dan eens ontbreekt bij bepaalde debunkers hier op dit forum. Wees er maar zeker van dat er een heel aantal filmpjes van die aard bestaan. En dit al sedert lange tijd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_8olf3XI9Q ___________ . (1) De man werd betrapt en werd veroordeeld tot een gevangenisstraf. |
Citaat:
Dit filmpje, dat filmpje, who cares ? Iedereen wacht vol spanning en interesse op een fysiek bewijs van de beweringen, geen zever zoals "filmpjes" of "getuigenissen". Die zever serveert men ons al 70 jaar. |
Citaat:
We leven nu eenmaal in een digitale tijd met filmpjes. Niet meer in de tijd van de ganzenveer. En wanneer die filmpjes komen van de Amerikaanse overheid zelf, ja dan kan men de feiten niet meer negeren. Maar we kennen de debunkers en hun mentaliteit. Of zoals iemand terecht stelde: "The first rule of the debunkers : don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up." |
Citaat:
En aub geen beweringen, interpretaties en wazige filmpjes... die bewijzen niets en zijn slechts beweringen, interpretaties en wazige filmpjes. Dus, welke "facts" ? |
Citaat:
|
Citaat:
Net zoals bij filmpjes die vlekken laten zien die soms een beetje lijken op vliegende tuigen. Die radarregistraties en filmpjes bestaan inderdaad, tot zover de feiten. Zijn er vliegende tuigen? Misschien, zeker is het niet. Zijn die vliegende tuigen onverklaarbaar? Misschien, te weinig info. Zijn die vliegende tuigen buitenaards? : opnieuw : misschien Er is een kans van 1 op vele honderden of zelfs duizenden miljarden dat dat het geval is, veel minder kans dan een paar keer na elkaar Euromillions winnen, dat is duidelijk. Ondertussen wachten we af op 1 flinter echt, tastbaar bewijs. Al die opgeklopte sensatie over niets is onnodig tenzij je een uitgever bent van een roddelblad, Het Oosten |
Citaat:
Als een radar bevestigt wat een piloot ziet (of omgekeerd) , dan zijn dit feiten. Ook al hoort u het niet zo graag. |
Citaat:
Straf hoor. |
Citaat:
Van een (technologische) makelij in ieder geval die ons tot nu toe onbekend is. Of dit nu buitenaards is of niet, wil ik best in het midden laten. |
Citaat:
Het Brookings Report. De vraag die dikwijls -terecht- wordt gesteld: waarom zou de Amerikaanse overheid heel die ufo-affaire in de doofpot willen steken? Of: waarom geeft ze ons niet meer informatie over mogelijke buitenaardse contacten? Waarom geeft ze ons niet meer gegevens over de onderzoeken die ze naar ufo’s doet, nu dat het (nu zeker...) toch wat uitgelekt is ?? Waar zijn de materiële bewijzen?? Wil ze met opzet geen bewijzen geven? Moet ze die wel geven?? En moesten er inderdaad buitenaardse (al dan niet visuele) contacten zijn, is het dan wijs om het publiek daarover integraal in te lichten?? Deze laatste vraag werd reeds lang gesteld. Interessant in dit verband is het zogenaamde Brookings Report dat uitkwam onder de naam Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs. Het rapport werd reeds besteld in 1960 door de Amerikaanse overheid (NASA). Het moest nagaan welke de implicaties zouden zijn, indien men tot de ontdekking kwam dat er inderdaad buitenaards leven bestond (bijvoorbeeld op andere planeten) en/of dat buitenaardsen nu discreet onze aarde bezoeken. Moest men het publiek hierover nu inlichten of niet? Merk op dat men hier dus al vrij lang mee bezig is. Al 58 jaar... Het Brookings Report werd een vrij lijvig rapport. En enkele conclusies geef ik in een notendop weer (Wikipedia). While not specifically recommending a cover-up of evidence of extraterrestrial life, the report does suggest that contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life (or strong evidence of its reality) could have a disruptive effect on human societies. Moreover, it does mention the possibility that leadership might wish to withhold evidence of extraterrestrial life from the public under some conditions. En waarom? The positions of the major American religious denominations, the Christian sects, and the Eastern religions on the matter of extraterrestrial life need elucidation. Consider the following: 'The Fundamentalist (and anti-science) sects are growing apace around the world . . . For them, the discovery of other life -- rather than any other space product -- would be electrifying. . . . some scattered studies need to be made both in their home centers and churches and their missions, in relation to attitudes about space activities and extraterrestrial life.'" – page 102, n.34[3] The knowledge that life existed in other parts of the universe might lead to a greater unity of men on Earth, based on the 'oneness' of man or on the age-old assumption that any stranger is threatening. Much would depend on what, if anything, was communicated between man and the other beings . "If plant life or some subhuman intelligence were found on Mars or Venus, for example, there is on the face of it no good reason to suppose these discoveries, after the original novelty had been exploited to the fullest and worn off, would result in substantial changes in perspectives or philosophy in large parts of the American public, at least any more than, let us say, did the discovery of the coelacanth or the panda." – page 103, n.34 "If super intelligence is discovered, the results become quite unpredictable. It is possible that if the intelligence of these creatures were sufficiently superior to ours, they would choose to have little if any contact with us. On the face of it, there is no reason to believe that we might learn a great deal from them, especially if their physiology and psychology were substantially different from ours."– page 103, n.34 "It has been speculated that, of all groups, scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures, since these professions are most clearly associated with the mastery of nature, rather than with the understanding and expression of man. Advanced understanding of nature might vitiate all our theories at the very least, if not also require a culture and perhaps a brain inaccessible to Earth scientists." – page 103, n.34 Dit zijn maar enkel excerpten uit dit rapport. Diegenen die hier wat meer willen over weten, kunnen dit. Het rapport staat integraal op internet. |
Citaat:
 |
Steeds meer lekt uit…
(tot spijt van wie het benijdt) New report reveals even more freaky details about the UFO that shocked the US Navy. UFO sightings are a dime a dozen these days, and they have been for a while, but back in December the New York Times released the results of an investigation into the US military’s monitoring of UFO claims and came up with something totally wild. It was a video released by the Pentagon that shows US Navy pilots tracking the movements of a totally inexplainable aircraft. Now, a local news team from Las Vegas has obtained a military report that offers even more details on the sighting, and the story is somehow becoming even more bizarre than it already was. The report (PDF here) explains in great details how a US Navy aircraft carrier played a strange game of hide and seek with multiple Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs) that demonstrated flight characteristics that should be downright impossible to pull off. The sightings began on November 10, 2004, and lasted for several days. The objects would appear on the carrier’s radar systems for short periods, seeming to hover still, and then fly off at high speeds. Confused by exactly what was going on, the crew decided to investigate. When the object appeared again a few days later a pair of F/A-18Fs was directed to check out the strange signals. The result is the now famous video showing the “Tic-Tac” shaped UFO cruising along at incredibly high speeds and making rapid changes in altitude. In the new report, the object is described as “solid white, smooth, with no edges,” and being “uniformly colored with no nacelles, pylons, or wings.” The report says the object was estimated to be about 46 feet long. By comparison, the F/A-18 fighters that were trailing it measure around 56 feet in length, meaning that whatever it was that the Navy spotted could feasibly hold one or more human-sized individuals. The pilot said they never felt as though the object was a threat, but the report notes that the AAV seemed to react to the presence of the jets, “demonstrating an advanced acceleration, aerodynamic, and propulsion capability.” Throughout the several days of seeing the object come and go, the Navy says it may have demonstrated the ability to “cloak” and disappear to the human eye. Its rapid descent from 60,000 feet to just 50 feet before disappearing also made officials consider the possibility that it was capable of operating underwater, effortlessly moving from the air to the sea at will. Kortom, steeds meer overheidsrapporten over UFO’s of AAV (Anomalous Aerial Vehicles) worden vrijgegeven. Onze dappere debunkers zullen nu wellicht weer beweren dat het rapport ‘vals’ is of dat ‘de piloten ‘niet goed hebben geobserveerd’ of ‘verkeerd geïnterpreteerd hebben’ en nog meer van die onnozelheden. Het wordt anders eens tijd dat hun ogen opengaan. In de fout gaan is al erg genoeg voor die debunkers, maar zijn fouten niet willen toegeven, is minstens even erg! ------------------------------------------- (1)Voor wie het rapport integraal wil lezen: https://bgr.com/2018/05/24/ufo-navy-...eport-details/ Klikken op (PDF here) |
Citaat:
Gooit ze op de hoop. Wanneer komt ge af met een alien eigenlijk? Dat zou straf zijn! |
| Alle tijden zijn GMT +1. Het is nu 23:54. |
Forumsoftware: vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright ©2002 - 2020, Politics.be