Yes Watson...I do believe we do....Paste the link if you don't receive the images.
http://thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com/2010/01/searching-for-trace-of-ufos.html
Be Well.
David
Searching For A Trace Of The UFOs
Ted has about 3000 cases in his files, which he used to do his statistical analyses, such as the data allowed. The graph to the left shows the decadal distribution of the cases. It has at least one point of interest to me. As I may have mentioned somewhere in the blog previously [forgive me, 70-year-old brain], the UFO phenomenon shows a sinister [to me, anyway] pattern of first complicating itself [and becoming more concrete with CE2 cases] and then just as we gear up to get after those cases scientifically--i.e. in the labs-- the phenomenon takes strong on-the-ground evidential cases away. Roughly, and this varies slightly in different parts of the world, the "taking away" occurs near 1978. Graphs of several types of CE2s fall off the cliff. [I may have to write something more detailed on this here on the blog someday, but one thing at a time]. Ted's graph shows roughly the same effect, and I'll bet that those remaining in the 80s and 90s were poor in evidentiary content relative to the potential of 60s and 70s cases.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This second graph shows the numbers of cases as related to their time distribution across the day. Ted has to mean the time when an object was seen "on site" apparently making the trace, as nothing else would be relevant [ex. when the trace was "discovered"] so this graph represents a time distribution of a type of "close encounter". Again, maybe I've already mentioned this on the site, but Ted's distribution is very like a fascinating distribution found by Claude Poher and tested by Jacques Vallee and V.J.Ballester-Olmos, which goes by the nick-name "The Law of the Times"---I'm not referring to the length of time that a CE2 lasts that I posted under the title "How Long Is A UFO?" but an entirely different correlation. [I'll probably need to elaborate on this thing also sometime later]. For now, the Law shows that CEs are basically a nightime phenomenon, peaking pre-midnight but having a peculiar early morning [c. 2-4AM] secondary bump in the curve. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final graph is what inspired me to post this. It's Ted's count of trace-making UFOs by shape. I hadn't seen this until recently, and, frankly, was a little shocked. As a long-time student of this obstinate business, I have become somewhat of a pessimist that whomever is behind it is willing to give out any real information even as to patterns. But look at what Ted found here. I can't read that graph as anything but a finding that if you [the UFOnauts] are going to land and leave a trace, you're going to be flying a radially symmetrical vehicle, and almost surely a disk. Probably this doesn't impress anyone like it has me [different strokes and all that], but this says to me: PHYSICAL TECHNOLOGY and right here fully present on the planet's surface. If this was some sort of sociological or paranormal process, I'd expect at least some significant randomness in such a distribution. That little or none exists may well mean that making a physical UFO on a radially-symmetrical plan has some advantage strong enough to force that choice even on the super-science ETs when they really want to be physically here, rather than just projecting forces and images. Yeh, sure, I'm probably wrong, but the strength of the correlation surprised me, and it must mean something. People have said that you cannot get data out of the phenomenon. It's hard, but I believe that the pessimism is at least partly wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment