posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
The article looks interesting in terms of numerical tables and techno-babble. I'd generally take some time to digest and make sense of these kinds of treatments. Teodarani and Sturrock have authored a couple of blistering examinations of the technical data recovered from UFO reports.Where my digestive system gargled and stalled is in the inclusion of the Chilbolton 'crop circle.' Cydonia is suggested as as being somehow represented in the glyph. This is intended to somehow validate the crop-circle's 'otherness.' To my mind, Cydonia is an entirely human imaginary creation based on paradeiolia and years of people believing in ancient astronauts.As Cydonia is a human construct, is it not likely that the 'crop-circle artists' drew on the mythology to design a circle that would be guaranteed to make some folk validate their beliefs? Basically, it was designed with 'give 'em what they want' in mind.The authors are overlooking 'garbage in/garbage out' by relying on pictogram crop-circles as part of their data. In the UK, many of the most famous CCs have been claimed by a handful of people who have been designing them for years. Not 'hoaxers,'but artists. Nick Redfern isn't a man who avoids leaving the possibility of mystery and even he accepts that CCs are terrestrial. In addition, the reported UFO incidents of the 50s and 60s that resulted in engine-failure (aircraft, bikes, cars)where investigated by Ford at the invitation of the Condon guys. Magnetic-fields were the chief suspect. Although we don't have enough data to rule them out, Ford's tests were unable to stall a combustion engine using magnetic-fields.
By Kandinsky, at Tuesday, July 05, 2011
K:You like conclusivity, obviously.But that's not intrinsic to UFOs it seems.One has to accept hypotheses for what they are: just hypotheses.If they lead to explanations and solutions, that's great.If they don't, c'est la vie.RR
By RRRGroup, at Tuesday, July 05, 2011
I agree about the hypotheses being just about all we have to go on...*proof* isn't likely in any of our life-times. By that, I mean *proof* one way or any other.That said, it just seems to me that using crop circles to support the existence of visiting aliens is like using cookies to support the existence of Jesus or Virgin Mary.
Yah, Kandinsky...Putting crop circles into the UFO equation always turns me off.This is part of the problem with "ufology" -- it always adds the kitchen sink to discussions, muddying the waters even more than they are from the outset.RR
Here we have two cases of alleged pattern recognition, one of "radar shielding" and heat distortion as wave energy by "hard" craft and one that is a critique of Paul Kimball's recent experience of having Swiss cheese on his sandwich and meeting someone from Switzerland.As Kandinsky opined, we are all on the spectrum as we are all hard and soft wired by imprinting to make mental notes as origami puppets whether it is the reflective frequency of color called blue or my name. When our pockets are picked by this phenomenon, my own included, at times, I think all they find are little tuffs of residual lint we find meaningful. Sigh.
By Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile