Clue Up Or Shut Up!

Plato, I am glad you erm cleared that up for me. And there was I thinking Plato had come back from the dead, really?

You are right it is a good quote from a good mind. None of us here are worthy of His words so probably best thing that you "Plato-ed" it.
Nighty night.....
MDS
xx

------------------
You know it to be so
 
Mike

Sorry, that was a vague statement about 'tried and trusted methods.' What I meant was that maybe scientific investigations could be carried out at 'UFO landing sites' by using chemical and biological analysis.

These methods have all been tried before in a number of famous cases. (Most notably during the Trans-en-Provence case in France during 1981 which is still the most thorough investigation of a UFO landing site to date) However, the quantity of this sort of thorough research is sadly lacking.

The areas that you could look at would include soil analysis and a look at the possible biological effects on soil microbes or plants.

It would be possible to confirm the presence of high heat or high levels of radiation. Maybe you could find evidence of a high electromagnetic field having been present?

You might also examine how compacted the soil is compared to the surounding areas. From this the weight of any object that had landed could be calculated.

By using methods such as these in conjuction with eye witness testimony, photographs, video or radar reports then would be possible to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the sighting was geniune and that an object had landed. Research like this would contitute a step in the right direction with the added result that Ufology would soon be taken far more seriously by the scientific community as a whole. This would encourage more scientists to get involved and the 'laughter curtain' would be torn down.


Plato

In a general sense I would say that what you point out is maybe correct. However, I meant that there are some groups of witnesses whose reports may be taken more seriously. For example, a pilot who has many hours experience of looking at the sky would recognise certain things that might fool the average person. In simple terms an astronomer could tell the difference between the planet Venus or something very strange.





[This message has been edited by Spadge (edited August 18, 1999).]
 
Spadge,

as you know by now I agree with your plead for more research, there are definitly fenomena who are totally not understood and need to be looked into.
What I miss a little bit is some kind of purpose for a future investigation. Or rather a goal, in physics for example experiments are carried out to test certain hypothesis' that are first put forward. The ufo related stories are so overwhelming and erratic that any serious investigator first needs to sift through a whole lot of junk material. Then by lack of any general theory he is still at loss with the facts, who are like puzzel pieces of different puzzels.
When Newton said that we are merly building on what other have made before us, he was also addressing the flaw of the scientific method, one can't just make theories in free air, they must find their foundations in other work. That is the main reason why I think any explanation of the UFO fenomena is not really for tomorrow.

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
 
Surely we need to establish if certain cases really are caused by solid, structured and intelligently controlled craft. Some of the methods I mentioned in my last post might help here. At least this would be a starting point for formulating any hypothesis.

I'm sure that many of you would agree that some UFOs may be natural phenomena such as ball lightning or Paul Devereaux's earthlights. The 'glowing ball of light' type UFOs do appear to me to be a natural phenomenon. The Foo Fighters of World War 2 or Norway's Hessdallen UFOs certainly spring to mind here.

However, it still begs the question as to why some of these objects seem to act as if they are intelligently controlled. Nothing about this subject is ever straighfoward....

Plato quite rightly points out that "the facts are like the puzzle pieces of different puzzles."


[This message has been edited by Spadge (edited August 18, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top