Monday, May 08, 2006

UFOs explained!! They're...uhh...Plasma-tic!

Apparently, back in 2000 the British DIS (Defence Intelligence Staff) produced a report which explains UFO sightings as natural processes, some of which admittedly are more theoretical than proven...hmmm...just like the explanations that some UFOs are from elsewhere which are more theoretical than proven.

The report, which was deemed "Eyes Only" at the time, has now been made public through the efforts of Sheffield Hallam University lecturer David Clarke, and researcher Gary Anthony.

Well, we know that there are things "up there" that we can barely explain. Years ago there were sightings from the shuttle of odd colored lights appearing atop storm clouds. Scientists began to use "eyes in the sky" to search for these elusive phenomena. We now call them sprites, and we know little more about them now than we knew then. But we know they are there.

So, my inner devil's advocate feels compelled to offer a few observations...

1) If ionospheric plasma is not well understood, isn't it possible that they are by-products of a more anomalous cause? After all, many UFO researchers have suggested that ET craft might utilize or produce plasma as a result of their propulsion or movement through the atmosphere.

2) The report includes this statement..."No evidence exists to suggest that the phenomena seen are hostile or under any type of control, other than that of natural physical forces." Fair enough. But it also states, "People who claim to have had a "close encounter" are often difficult to persuade that they did not really see what they thought they saw". It sounds to me like they really mean, "What evidence exists that suggests these objects are hostile or under some kind of control, is due to the sightees being unable to be persuaded that they did not see what they think they saw". Does anyone else see the tautological nature of these statements?

3) The report also offers this..."Local [plasma] fields of this type have been medically proven to cause responses in the temporal lobes of the human brain. These result in the observer sustaining (and later describing and retaining) his or her own vivid, but mainly incorrect, description of what is experienced." But it also states this..."The method of formation of the electrically charged plasmas... is not fully understood." Ok, lets review...we don't know how these plasmas form, but we know that they can affect the mind of the viewer. And we somehow know that the viewers description must be "mainly incorrect". If this is so, how can we trust that the scientists studying plasmas aren't "mainly incorrect" in their explanation of such plasmas? Are they immune to the effects?

So, if these theories are right, we have little to fear from these plasmas unless we fly into one. But what if the plasma, and the mind altering, are effects of interaction between ET craft and the atmosphere and humans?

Oh right..."there is no evidence to suggest"...and we come fully 'round the tautoligical circle. How comforting.

One wonders if the report was secret for so long because it was just embarassing...

[hat tip to UFO Updates]


All good points.


...Points all good. [g].
AVG Blog --
This story only proves that NO one really knows what is going on.

The quote "sightees being unable to be persuaded that they did not see what they think they saw" could explain why we have so many divorces.
Hey Paul -

What slays me is that this was a secret report...why in the world would this kind of report be "eyes only"? Looks like either disinfo pretending to be secret stuff, or that they were just reluctant to admit they looked into it at all.

Hey Alfred -

Thanks for the shout-out. I've been noticing on Updates that your "sword" has gotten a bit shorter, but the tip is as "pointed" as ever. LOL

Hey old Gary -

I couldn't agree more. The idea that the govt. has been hiding "truth" about ET and UFOs seems less likely to me every day. Much more likely to my mind is that they have data regarding "something", but they are as clueless as we are about the "truth" therein. Of course, I can certainly understand why they wouldn't want to admit the "something" if they don't know what the heck it "truth".

And...having been the victim of such marital "persuasion" (unsuccessful in the end), I can wholeheartedly agree... :)

Thanks to you all for the comments!
Uh, if they don't know how these plasmas form, I would assume that means they wouldn't know 'where to be when' to even study them. Are there any protocols given for this research? Well, actually, there are several different areas of research required to create this one report; are the original research papers on 1)plasmas, 2)natural creation of plasmas, 3)plasma effects on humans, 4)interviews/debriefings of 'sighters', and medical check ups...I'm sure there are more, but is any of the original material provided?

But then, I guess a good tautology means not having to back up your pronouncements with actual research, which I'm sure is convenient and an efficient use of taxpayer dollars, even the black ones...
The Wakizashi...
All that's been necessary.
The Katana waits.
AVG Blog --
Hey Alfred -

I imagine you wield a mean tanto when minimally provoked, as well. LOL

Hey Rick -

Actually, the report referenced is a summary...the actual reports on which it is based spans 400 pages or more. Some of the answers you seek are likely in there, but your point is still valid...the summary seems to indicate that they are flailing for answers like everyone else, even with their expensive toys.

Unfortunately, they just seem to want really badly to find a mundane terrestrial explanation, rather than following the data wherever it may lead...

Thanks for your comments!
Many institutions limit access to their online information. Making this information available will be an asset to all.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?