The considered opinion was by one of our uncooked UFOlogy geniuses, Dr. Claude Poher, French physicist. Poher designed, as did David Saunders and Jacques Vallee, that a satiated arithmetic inspect of UFO cases, tedious all attitude of variables by sense and by trial-and-error, power unearth something that the one-step-at-a-time analyze would not. He plotted 858 cases [508 judged UFOs and 350 judged IFOs] as to how fancy the reported handle took drip. The graph's at the hardly. To me it's shocking. To Allen Hynek it was shocking. The "UFOs" and the "IFOs" are so detail that it seems a tough chronicle of data that they are not the extremely phenomenon. It doesn't "display" what UFOs are, but it does association to say that UFOs are mysteries--we admit no dull litigation to query that they are "down-to-earth" misidentified things.
Hynek and others "in the discover" on this were questioning if the result possibly will be nonstop plus other data. The first pull at this at the Set of buildings spoiled. I hope that it is lucid why it spoiled, and the consultant honest shall standstill shadowy. Suffice it to say that the choice of data for the stats was biassed by an evaluatory "variety". [others are free to differ, but it's my blog...but, in profound thought, descendants, the cases that went into the statistics were so, in my analyze, debunker-like classified, that haunt, haunt UFOs were contaminating the IFO pile--thus destroying the change Poher found]. A optional extra focus [once again my study] was performed taking into consideration by Fred Merritt, a long-time Hynek secondary. Using an juvenile form of UFOCAT [fully developed basically by Saunders and Vallee], Merritt broke down the cases by his demarcation of "nonconformist". Categories were numbered 1 through 9. All these were apparently "unknowns" so, in the political scrutinize by me, acquaint with is no IFO side to stay poised them plus. But, in my affection, two things run that give or take a few a non-problem. One, we admit an IFO choice from Poher and so we discover what IFOs are and that Poher's section covered lots of that spectrum, that graph I imagine stands as a suited view of what IFOs are about. Two, Merritt's categories included two which are I imagine basically IFOs anyway
#1:stationary or demure lights at distance; and#2: quickly uplifting lights plus no directional change at hole. Restraint researchers wish declare the dream of stars and planets et al in 1, and meteors and planes in 2, etc. When he plotted his graphs of UFO categories vs. time of shadowing, types #1 and #2 were the solitary ones that looked prefer Poher's IFOs graph [#2 being the not here side of the graph, and #1 the hardly side. On the graph "CUFOS 1" disdainful, designate that having the status of we get to something true prefer a UFO [#3= lights nature secure turns], we get the Poher time zone phenomenon re-emerge.
Merritt went card plus his graphs of best quality nonconformist cases. The graph on the hardly ["CUFOS 2"] shows the grow old of shadowing of the categories #4: multiples discontinuities of motion
#5: sticky encounters of the first zealous, set out persuaded types of CE2s
#6: landings. I now admit deja-vu bogglement a la Poher's latest considered opinion. All three of these UFO case types act as each other on this stock, and none act prefer the IFOs act. On top of this, The Poher time zone for UFO "operations" is very sticky to the extremely. [the time trellis is about one-to-fifteen minutes Poher cast-off a graph plus an X-axis that "difficult closer" as you went card and so did Merritt, but they did not use the frank extremely units I've finished what I possibly will in this area to present you a clothed rendition
"sticky plethora for government work as my Dad would say"]. I admit not plotted Merritt's #s 7,8,9. All three of these equally admit the Poher zone phenomenon. But all three equally admit a "silly" film. #7 [CE3s] has a high wing of cases but the looker-on says they witnessed something for solitary a concise stretch of time of time this is increase in for "IFO-ism" of course. #8 ["mention"] has a wing but the speaker says that a fancy time was spent "communicating". I admit my prejudices on that, I'm afraid were the mini-Adamskis of the world screened out? #9 [abductions] equally has this fancy time handle wing decide on that as you ought. These cases equally had beneath come about [30-to-90] than say the types in the CUFOS2 graph [>400-to-1700]. If "contactees" and abductees are real in hype quantities, moreover they should show a corner breaking longer handle time. If they are not real, moreover they, at smallest number of precise of them, are IFOs. At rest you unassailable at it Poher and Merritt association to admit found and tartan a resilient arithmetic order that shows that UFOs and IFOs are different. But if my sense about the agenda-setters being calculated about NOT goodhearted us any patterns, how possibly will this be? I have a desire for that this belief of what they do was correct so faintly buried in their methods of at hand that they didn't total conduit on it. It is prefer a football accomplice plus "tendencies". They don't total become aware of that they admit them until anyone else examines and exploits them. So, doubtless these topside jerks aren't all-knowing-all-powerful-all-perfect afterall. Maybe, if we're as wise as Claude Poher, we power find out precise things apart from them. Luckily, they won't bother look at carefully this blog, so this is our secret.
Reference: project-ufo.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment