Dit is ons nieuw hondje Kira, een kruising van een waterhond en een Podenko. Ze is sinds 7 februari 2024 bij ons en druk bezig ons hart te veroveren. Het is een lief, aanhankelijk hondje, dat zich op een week snel aan ons heeft aangepast. Ze is heel vinnig en nieuwsgierig, een heel ander hondje dan Noleke.
This is our new dog Kira, a cross between a water dog and a Podenko. She has been with us since February 7, 2024 and is busy winning our hearts. She is a sweet, affectionate dog who quickly adapted to us within a week. She is very quick and curious, a very different dog than Noleke.
DEAR VISITOR,
MY BLOG EXISTS NEARLY 13 YEARS AND 4 MONTH.
ON /30/09/2024 MORE THAN 2.230.520
VISITORS FROM 135 DIFFERENT NATIONS ALREADY FOUND THEIR WAY TO MY BLOG.
THAT IS AN AVERAGE OF 400GUESTS PER DAY.
THANK YOU FOR VISITING MY BLOG AND HOPE YOU ENJOY EACH TIME.
The purpose of this blog is the creation of an open, international, independent and free forum, where every UFO-researcher can publish the results of his/her research. The languagues, used for this blog, are Dutch, English and French.You can find the articles of a collegue by selecting his category. Each author stays resposable for the continue of his articles. As blogmaster I have the right to refuse an addition or an article, when it attacks other collegues or UFO-groupes.
Druk op onderstaande knop om te reageren in mijn forum
Zoeken in blog
Deze blog is opgedragen aan mijn overleden echtgenote Lucienne.
In 2012 verloor ze haar moedige strijd tegen kanker!
In 2011 startte ik deze blog, omdat ik niet mocht stoppen met mijn UFO-onderzoek.
BEDANKT!!!
Een interessant adres?
UFO'S of UAP'S, ASTRONOMIE, RUIMTEVAART, ARCHEOLOGIE, OUDHEIDKUNDE, SF-SNUFJES EN ANDERE ESOTERISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN - DE ALLERLAATSTE NIEUWTJES
UFO's of UAP'S in België en de rest van de wereld In België had je vooral BUFON of het Belgisch UFO-Netwerk, dat zich met UFO's bezighoudt. BEZOEK DUS ZEKER VOOR ALLE OBJECTIEVE INFORMATIE , enkel nog beschikbaar via Facebook en deze blog.
Verder heb je ook het Belgisch-Ufo-meldpunt en Caelestia, die prachtig, doch ZEER kritisch werk leveren, ja soms zelfs héél sceptisch...
Voor Nederland kan je de mooie site www.ufowijzer.nl bezoeken van Paul Harmans. Een mooie site met veel informatie en artikels.
MUFON of het Mutual UFO Network Inc is een Amerikaanse UFO-vereniging met afdelingen in alle USA-staten en diverse landen.
MUFON's mission is the analytical and scientific investigation of the UFO- Phenomenon for the benefit of humanity...
Je kan ook hun site bekijken onder www.mufon.com.
Ze geven een maandelijks tijdschrift uit, namelijk The MUFON UFO-Journal.
Since 02/01/2020 is Pieter ex-president (=voorzitter) of BUFON, but also ex-National Director MUFON / Flanders and the Netherlands. We work together with the French MUFON Reseau MUFON/EUROP.
ER IS EEN NIEUWE GROEPERING DIE ZICH BUFON NOEMT, MAAR DIE HEBBEN NIETS MET ONZE GROEP TE MAKEN. DEZE COLLEGA'S GEBRUIKEN DE NAAM BUFON VOOR HUN SITE... Ik wens hen veel succes met de verdere uitbouw van hun groep. Zij kunnen de naam BUFON wel geregistreerd hebben, maar het rijke verleden van BUFON kunnen ze niet wegnemen...
13-04-2024
THE PENTAGON’S NEW UAP REPORT IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED - PART III
THE PENTAGON’S NEW UAP REPORT IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED - PART III
Last month the U.S. government’s new UAP investigation office, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), submitted a report to Congress entitled, “Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena” (UAP, the new term for UFO). This new report is itself anomalous for several reasons.
SURPRISINGLY, MOST AARO CASES ARE UNEXPLAINED, 62% AS OF AUG. 30, 2022
It appears that the latest AARO figures for unexplained UAP cases work out to 62%, as of August 30, 2022, since the current AARO historical report of February 2024 gives no figures.
AARO’s 2022 Annual Report reported 510 total UAP cases, of which 171 of the 366 new post-Task Force cases were “uncharacterized and unattributed” (p. 5). This seems to be a brand new name for “unidentified” (see the UAP Reporting Directive May 2023 para. 3.B.6) though the Annual Report tries to suggest it is a more preliminary “initial” category than either “positively resolved” or “unidentified.” Unfortunately, it does not define these terms in the AARO Report.
However, AARO’s UAP Reporting Directive of May 2023 belies their effort to minimize this new “unattributed” category label, by defining in paragraph 3.B.6 that “UAP ATTRIBUTION is the assessed natural or artificial source of the phenomenon and includes solar, weather, tidal events; US government, scientific, industry, and private activities; and foreign (allied or adversary) government, scientific, industry, and private activities.” That seems to indicate that “attribution” is not some “initial” cursory impression but a thorough “assessment,” hence like the identification process that would lead to “identified” or “unidentified.”
The AARO Annual Report seems to conveniently fail to mention that when these new 171 unidentified UAP reports are added to the previous UAP Task Force’s 143 unidentified, the grand total of 314 unidentified out of 510 represents a formidable 62% unexplained/unidentified.
AARO makes no mention at all of this statistic of 62% unexplained. The reader would be required to know the AARO predecessor’s UAP Task Force stats, add the numbers, and do the calculations of percentage – which almost no one will even realize needs to be done.
AARO admits its January 2023 Annual report (for 2022) had revealed that “some” of the (171) unidentified UAP “demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities.” (AAROR p. 26, omits the “171” number given in the AARO Jan 2023 report, p. 5, and neither report says how many were “some.”)
This is the core element of any basic definition of a truly Unexplained UFO or UAP: unusual flight characteristics/performance along with unconventional shape (the definition can be traced as far back as Air Force UFO reporting directives in 1948-49). AARO does not single this out for much attention nor give exact statistics.
The 2024 AARO report avoids all mention of its predecessor UAP Task Force’s remarkable pro-UAP statistics of 99.3% Unidentified, including at least 56% involving multiple sensor systems which would eliminate sensor errors and conventional IFO explanations (stats all omitted in AAROR p. 24).
No AARO mention is made of either the 99.3% unidentified or the succeeding 62% unidentified number, the latest exact percentage (by calculation) deducible from exact AARO case numbers (see next section trying to numerically pin down AARO’s subsequent vague “majority” wording). The total caseload percentage of unexplained does not seem to be dropping much further if at all, given that AARO continues in 2023 and 2024 to repeatedly use the same vague “majority” term for the explained case fraction, conveniently without numbers. Presumably, if it had dropped significantly AARO would likely have highlighted this or at least set the record straight.
DISENTANGLING AARO’S OBSCURE STATISTICS REVEALS AN ANNUAL NEAR DOUBLING OF TOTAL UNEXPLAINED UAP (FROM 143 TO 314 TO CA. 600 CUMULATIVE TOTAL REPORTS)!
As mentioned above, AARO’s predecessor UAP Task Force had a total of 143 Unexplained UAP cases as of March 2021. This was more than doubled to a cumulative total of 314 unexplained in the first AARO Annual Report as of August 2022. Now it appears that the number may nearly double again to about 600 unexplained in 2024 (see table below). Unfortunately, due to a lack of clarity or transparency, we are forced to analyze and disentangle AARO’s obfuscated UAP statistics in order to deduce this.
Interestingly, the October 2023 AARO “Consolidated Annual Report” (or “AARO Cons” for short) to Congress on UAP, makes the Blue Book-style prediction that:
“Based on the ability to resolve cases to date, with an increase in the quality of data secured, the unidentified and purported anomalous nature of most UAP will likely resolve to ordinary phenomena and significantly reduce the amount of UAP case submissions [i.e., apparently discourage making of UAP reports].”
But each year or so, the total cumulative number of unidentified anomalous UAP reports increased from 143 to 314 to 600. That suggests that each year or so the added new reports with supposedly better “quality of data” were more unexplainable not more resolved with the better data. A later obscure statement in the AARO Cons report admits that AARO has not been able to explain away its UAP case backlog (the excuse being a “lack of data,” but perhaps really a lack of investigation?) hence the new cases with better data are not helping AARO, they’re still highly unexplainable (AARO Cons., Oct. 2023, p. 8).
Once again, history repeats itself. During Project Blue Book the Air Force repeatedly suggested that the primary problem in identifying and explaining UAP was lack of quality data, when often the reverse was true. When Blue Book sorted UAP cases into categories based on the quality of data, its ability to find conventional explanations steadily decreased as the quality of the witnesses and data increased (see table below from data in Blue Book Special Report 14).
Because there is no mention in the 2024 AARO report of even its alleged current 2024 caseload of 1,200 UAP cases – a number shared by AARO Acting Director Tim Phillips with CNN on March 6, 2024 – the next most recent stats with any kind of hint at an explained/unexplained breakdown we can find are in the previous AARO Annual Reports: the October 2023 AARO Report and the belated 2022 Annual UAP Report to Congress of January 2023 (a confusing array of dates and reports).
The January 2023 report gives the breakdown of only the new cases, with the numbers if one adds them up, 195-to-171 explained-to-unexplained or 53-47% (of the new, not of the total caseload), calling it “more than half,” language that subsequent AARO reports have blurred into the more vague single word “majority.” Both the October 2023 and 2024 AARO reports thus have similar language stating that an apparently bare “majority” of the UAP reports were explained, and some of the remaining “anomalous.”
Then the 2024 AARO report in effect adopts the bare “majority” language as the current UAP status, implying a roughly 51-49% type breakdown (possibly even the same 53-47% ratio as the previous new cases, in view of the vagueness). By implication, AARO seems to broadly apply the older reports’ fuzzy breakdown to the final UAP 2024 situational wrap-up in this current 2024 AARO report. AARO thus admits in subdued non-numerical language the surprising fact that nearly half of its UAP caseload is still unexplained today or does not “have an ordinary explanation” – thus seeming to undermine its position. (AAROR pp. 25-26; similar statement in AARO Cons., Oct 2023, p. 8) It would be helpful in the future if AARO would clarify the data and present the actual numbers.
Presumably, the current 2024 numbers are close to this implied 51-49% split of Explained-Unexplained, or AARO would have said differently and given us the exact figures in the AARO report. (The AARO official website does not help, it gives UAP Reporting Trends from cases 1996 to November 20, 2023, including percentages of shapes (“morphology”) of UAP but for some reason gives no numbers of total cases or percentages of cases resolved or explained – much more important numbers insofar as rating AARO’s mission performance and assessing the level of UAP activity being encountered by DoD and the IC.)
In any case, if applied to the current UAP total then there may be close to 600 Unexplained in the 1,200 UAP reports total in March 2024 (and this does not account for AARO sweeping away Insufficient Data cases as if fully explained as Blue Book did in the past, which might push the 600 Unexplained still higher depending on the definition of Insufficient Data being applied consistently). If so, then this represents almost a doubling of the 314 unexplained cases from August 2022 (a figure AARO also omits). And that 314 unexplained was a more-than doubling from the previous 143 unexplained.
If the stats were much better than this from AARO’s viewpoint, they would likely have said so. AARO had plenty of room – and months of time remaining before the report was due to Congress – to provide explicit numbers in its historical report.
Why are we forced to resort to guessing games on nuances of AARO’s language? Why doesn’t AARO release the statistics openly and transparently?
In still another revealing statistical admission worded in non-numerical language, AARO admits, as mentioned above, that “A small percentage of cases have potentially anomalous characteristics or concerning characteristics.” (AAROR p. 26)
What exactly is that “small percentage” numerically, what exactly do they mean by “small” and are they understating and minimizing it in various ways? What is a “concerning” characteristic? A national security threat? A danger to air safety?
Is this “small percentage” the same category for which AARO then-Director Kirkpatrick gave CNN some UAP stats in October 2023 not found in the formal AARO Cons Annual Report just then released? Kirkpatrick said that 2-4% of the cases are “truly anomalous and require further investigation” (he had also previously given that same ambiguous figure to the media). Why the uncertainty of 2% or 4%? That is a double-factor uncertainty. Is there a “moderately” anomalous category below “truly anomalous” at AARO and what percentage of Unexplained or Total UAP cases might fall into that category?
The AARO 2022 Annual Report uses an interesting new term, “unknown morphologies” (= unknown shapes?), and says such “interesting signatures” are found “only in a very small percentage” of cases – as if stressing the “very small” number makes it better, as in old Air Force Project Blue Book debunker fashion that it was just a little ways to go to be completely explained away (AARO Jan 2023, p.8). How can a shape be “unknown”? Either one sees a shape or not.
It all adds up to a profound mystery that AARO seems to be deliberately obscuring if not obfuscating.
AARO IS PLAYING THE SAME GAMES WITH DATA AS OLD UFO PROJECT BLUE BOOK – FLOODING ITS FILES WITH INSUFFICIENT DATA CASES
It appears that AARO has adopted the old Air Force Project Blue Book’s strategy of flooding their case files with Insufficient Data cases wrongly claimed to be explained. But if there are insufficient data to explain a UFO case or cases, then they are by definition unexplained. However, as Hynek taught, these don’t rate as “officially” Unexplained either, because that requires fully Sufficient Data and must go through IFO screening investigation. “Insufficient Data” does not identify an object or its cause, it says there is not enough data to do so. This AARO policy of caseload dilution with Insufficient Data reverses its predecessor UAP Task Force’s smart approach of selecting higher quality “focused” UAP cases with an emphasis on multi-sensor incidents (80 of the initial 144 UAPTF cases or 56%) which yielded only one IFO out of 144.
And unlike Blue Book, AARO does not even bother to give a breakdown of the status of the current 1,200 UAP cases on file that AARO’s new Acting Director Tim Phillips told the media about but strangely are not mentioned in AARO’s Historical Report. Perhaps AARO doesn’t want anyone to focus on numbers – specific numbers involving the alleged “assessed” UAP identifications instead of vague generalities.
Where are the UAP cases with data so that scientists can independently verify AARO’s conclusions, which is the core of the scientific process?
If the government favors transparency as it claims, why is it that not even redacted UAP case files are being released? Why is it that after the Navy Go Fast, FLIR, and Gimbal videos were confirmed to be unclassified other videos of precisely the same kind, obtained over US training ranges, are still being withheld? I know this to be the case because I’ve seen one of the unreleased videos and raised this issue directly with DoD. I initially got a polite reply and an assurance the matter would be reviewed, but months have passed and I’ve heard nothing further. Unsurprisingly, nothing further has occurred. And why is it that Customs and Border Patrol official IR videos can be released without damage to national security, but not similar DoD videos? I’m confident that with over 1,000 new cases there must be others like “Gimbal”, “Flir” and “Go Fast” that have not been released.
AARO appears to be the “New Blue Book,” trying to “get rid” of UAP just like the old Air Force Project Blue Book in its heyday of the 1960s strived to “get rid” of UFOs by every trick in the (blue) book (Hynek UFO Report, ch. 3). In sum, with great irony, AARO seems to repeat some of the same methodological errors and mistakes that undermined the credibility of the historical UAP investigation it is reporting. These appear to include:
misuse or obfuscation of objective statistics;
mislabeling or treating Insufficient Data cases as fully solved (when by definition “insufficient” means insufficient data to positively solve);
floating bogus stories of UFO witness mistakes to distract from the real issues;
flooding case files with poor data + insufficient data + Identified “IFO” cases to drown out and conceal the genuine Unexplained UFO cases, etc.
AARO’s methodology for UAP case handling is murky (confusing and inconsistent use of language, undefined terminology, etc), making it necessary to piece together hints from across multiple AARO reports, rather than just the latest 63-page report. No copies of formal AARO Analytic Division UAP case handling procedure and methodology documents have been released either; perhaps because there aren’t any.
“INSUFFICIENT DATA” DOES NOT MEAN “IDENTIFIED” – IT MEANS INSUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY A UAP POSITIVELY
How often is “insufficient data” actually a result of insufficient investigation? Sweeping investigatory failures under the carpet was a routine practice of AARO’s forerunner, the USAF Project Blue Book of the 1950s-60s. Blue Book’s standard trick as exposed by its own chief scientific consultant, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, was to make it appear the Air Force had disposed of 90-95% of its UFO caseload not with actual data, but by flooding its case files with 60% or more Insufficient Data cases and casually applying convenient but implausible and unsupported explanations. The Air Force has released or leaked to the press bogus UFO “explanations” such as stars that were not visible, moon-as-UFO when the moon had not even risen yet, the pilot was “possibly drunk,” etc (See Clark, “Debunking,” UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 379-400).
This happened time and time again, often leaving witnesses embarrassed or understandably angry. So much so that in one case in 1966, Rep. Gerald Ford blasted the Air Force and sought Congressional hearings after sightings by police of fast high-flying objects in the Dexter, Michigan, area were dismissed by the Air Force as “swamp gas.” A mismatch between proffered Air Force explanations and the data submitted by witnesses was a recurring issue.
It appears that some 60% of Blue Book’s cases were in reality Insufficient Data (not just Blue Book’s understated 20% category labeled “Insufficient Data”) – because there was simply not enough info to go beyond guessing at “possible” or “probable” explanations to achieve certainty. The remaining 40% of Sufficient Data cases broke down into approximately 10%—30%, identified—unidentified. The unidentified were therefore a surprising 70-75% Unexplained Unknowns in the total Sufficient Data cases (30/40 = 75%, all numbers here are rounded).
As indicated above, Blue Book went further and tried to conceal this statistical shell game by carving out a much smaller 20% category they called “Insufficient Data” – a misdirect that obscured the fact that Blue Book did not sufficiently investigate the other 40% of the total cases and that the total Insufficient Data should have been stated as about 60%. These Possible/Probables were treated as fully explained IFOs instead of as Insufficient-Data. (See Hynek UFO Report, 1977, p. 259, etc.)
AARO TRIES TO GLOSS OVER SENSOR TRACKING OF UAP
AARO tries to brush aside sensor tracking of UAP on the flimsy grounds of sensor “aberrations” and “artifacts” (AAROR p. 12; media reports call them “glitches”; previous AARO reports call them sensor “errors”). This is untenable if multiple sensors track the same UAP, like infrared and radar such as in the ATFLIR sensor pod videos by the Navy F/A-18s that most everyone concerned with the UAP issue has seen by now (probably at least 50 million video views to date).
In fact, AARO seems to ignore its own data showing they have reduced the problem of “Ambiguous Sensor Contact” with UAP in its caseload from 23% to 9% from April to November 2023 – it’s on AARO’s website but not mentioned in AARO’s report. (The earlier AARO annual report did show a 5% Ambiguous Sensor Contact figure as of Aug. 2022 based mostly on the Navy UAP Task Force’s work, before the April 2023 worsening increase under AARO to 23%.)
That 9% “Ambiguous Sensor Contact” figure means the other 91% of AARO’s current case files of sensor trackings of UAP are good data and are not “ambiguous.” This would appear to undermine attempts at downplaying or dismissing sensor trackings of UAP as must be due to some sort of speculative sensor “artifacts.” Cases involving multiple sensors can overcome sensor error so that any sensor that has an error is corrected by the other sensors that do not. Sensors operating at different frequencies on different bands of the electromagnetic spectrum will not all be fooled by electronic spoofing at the same time.
AARO withholds its multiple-sensor case numbers – unlike its predecessor UAP Task Force that reported it had 56% of all cases as multiple-sensor cases including two or more sensors tracking the same UAP at the same time by “radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation” (UAPTF June 2021, pp. 3-4). No wonder UAPTF had 99.3% Unexplained cases – good data and no terrestrial explanations.
AARO then complains about the lack of data regarding “speed, altitude, and size of reported UAP” (AAROR, p. 27), even though many of its cases have measurement data from multiple sensors (e.g., radar-infrared-optical F/A-18 cases). The complaint harkens back to Air Force Project Blue Book’s similarly unsupported complaint over the alleged lack of measured “speed, altitude, size” data on UFOs (The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, the ex-Blue Book Chief Ruppelt’s 1956 book, pp. 116-7, 149, 201, 212, 224, etc.). Meanwhile, Blue Book buried any mention of tracking data resident in Blue Book files from missile tracking cameras, radar-visual cases, and from an Army UAP tracking network specially set up around the top secret “Site B” nuclear weapons stockpile depot at Killeen Base, Camp Hood, Texas (see section, below, with sample chart illustrating some of the Army UAP tracking).
In AARO’s boasted “thorough” and “complete” reporting of past UAP investigations (AAROR p. 12), there is no mention of the existence of the AF’s special AF-Army-Navy/Marine multiple-sensor UFO tracking networks set up at multiple sites in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War in 1968-70. Declassified military histories reveal over 500 “UFO” trackings on radar, optical, laser-ranging, nightscope, telescope, and infrared sensor systems, with 99% Unexplained (Declassified military histories: “Sensor Networks to Track UFOs in the Vietnam War,” UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 1050-1054).
AARO’s highly selective treatment of the Condon Report also from the AF’s UFO contract study at the University of Colorado, managed to studiously avoid the widely reported criticism that the Condon Report’s negative conclusions were contradicted by the embarrassing unmentioned fact that 34% of its own UAP cases remained Unexplained after investigation – as numerous scientists have pointed out in criticism of the Condon Report’s anti-UFO conclusions. (Someone in effect slipped up and put an easy list of the “Sightings, Unexplained” in the back Index of the published Condon Report, in 1969, where about 26 such Unexplained cases are listed, in addition to listing another 4 radar cases, 1 airglow photometer case, 3 numbered cases missed, and an uncertain number–about two–of the 14 unexplained Prairie Network-confirmed cases not overlapping with the preceding, totaling some 36 out of a grand total of about 106, or about 34%. Different tallies of the obfuscated Condon Report case numbers come up with slightly different numbers. See for example: W. Smith,Journal of UFO Studies,CUFOS, 1996). AARO fails to mention that 14 of the Condon study’s Unexplained UFO cases were backed up by photos taken by the astronomical meteor-tracking cameras of the Smithsonian’s Prairie Network system, an unprecedented scientific development.
There is also no mention of Dr. Condon’s obvious, non-scientific bias, which may have been the reason he was selected by the Air Force to chair the eponymous Commission. In late January 1967, while the Condon Committee’s investigation was ongoing, Dr. Condon tipped his hand, telling an audience at a lecture that UFOs are “nonsense” but “I’m not supposed to reach that conclusion for another year.” Once again, serious issues well-known to any UAP researcher are not included in the AARO report.
Likewise, AARO seems unaware of the new Over the Horizon – Forward Scatter (OTH-FS) radars turned over to NORAD for operational duty in March 1968 which immediately began tracking UAP. This was revealed in the House Science & Astronautics UFO Symposium hearings on July 29, 1968, and published, but despite being open source history it never made it into AARO’s “complete” and “thorough” history (“NORAD” in Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, p. 811b).
NO MENTION OF THE SCIENTIST SIGHTINGS OF UAP OR INSTRUMENTATION CASES
No mention is made by AARO that many scientists, including government scientists, astronomers, physicists, and others have personally seen UFOs, some obtaining instrument data and photos. AARO never mentions unclassified instrument tracking of UAP in the Blue Book files and other Air Force declassified records (AARO can’t claim that released sensor data is “classified”).
No mention that 14 Unexplained UFO cases in the hostile Air Force University of Colorado “scientific study of UFOs” were photographed and confirmed by the Smithsonian Prairie Network scientific meteor-tracking cameras (another 6 caught on meteor cameras were IFOs). The Colorado study tried to bury it in its infamous Condon Report, but it’s identifiable if one looks at and studies the summary data table with skewed and misleading definitions.
It appears AARO didn’t look. Another scientist UAP instrument detection by airglow scanning photometer is also an Unexplained UFO in the Condon Report, which concealed the fact that an embarrassing 34% of its cases ended up Unexplained (as mentioned above).
The Air Force set up UAP tracking networks in South Vietnam with multiple sensor systems during the war in 1968-70, as revealed in many declassified military histories (mentioned before). But AARO seems ignorant of it.
Army UAP Tracking Network Record AARO Missed Finding in the Blue Book Files, March 6-8, 1949 (Site B Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, Killeen Base, Camp Hood, Texas). Later cases included triangulations of speed, size, and altitude data on UAP.
DOES AARO ADMIT SOME “NON-EMPIRICAL” EVIDENCE OF EXTRATERRESTRIALS?
AARO’s two key conclusions, as presented at the top of its report’s Executive Summary, state:
AARO found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology.
…
AARO has found no empirical evidence for claims that the USG and private companies have been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology.
(AAROR Exec Summary p. 7, underlining added.)
If there is not a blanket AARO denial saying “no evidence” of extraterrestrial UAP sightings, but only a more limited, qualified denial stating “no empirical evidence” (physical evidence) of reverse-engineering extraterrestrial tech, then what non-empirical evidence does AARO have? Empirical means physical evidence and reality of objects and events, not human records of such, which records are presumably non-empirical evidence.
Is this an innocent ambiguity or an inadvertent admission that AARO hasnon-empirical evidence, such as documentary records or witness testimony, of reverse-engineering efforts on recovered extraterrestrial technology?
Interestingly, AARO claims to have “conducted approximately 30 interviews” of “approximately 30 people” (pp. 6, 11), and quite specifically “As of September 17, 2023, AARO interviewed approximately 30 individuals” who claimed knowledge of hidden government extraterrestrial technology and evidence (AAROR, p. 28). Don’t they know exactly how many people they interviewed, was it 30 or not?
AARO is quick to stress that “It is important to note that none of the interviewees had firsthand knowledge of these programs” (p. 9).
But this seems to be contradicted later when AARO explains that “Priority is given to those interviewees who claimed first-hand knowledge… Interviewees relaying second or third-hand knowledge are lower in priority, but AARO has and will continue to schedule interviews with them, nonetheless.” (AAROR, p. 28) AARO thus makes it seem they are reluctant to “continue to schedule interviews” with “secondhand or thirdhand” witnesses because they are so occupied with high-priority firsthand witnesses.
AARO FAILS TO DEFINE WHAT EVIDENCE IT WOULD ACCEPT FOR EXTRATERRESTRIAL UAP
AARO also fails to define what evidence is required to establish extraterrestrial intelligence visiting Earth. Would multiple sensors tracking an object from high altitude or space that stops and starts with accelerations of >1000 g’s be at least a starting definition of evidence for non-human or extraterrestrial intelligence? (See Robert Powell/SCU critique of AAROR.) Likewise, AARO complains more broadly that it needs “Sufficient Data” in UAP cases, then never explains exactly what is considered “sufficient” (AARO Cons Report Oct 2023, p. 8).
Does it require direct communication with extraterrestrial intelligence to satisfy AARO’s unstated but seemingly shifting definition of “evidence” (see below)? What if the ETs simply refuse to communicate; do we just pretend to ignore them until they do? Is that a responsible operational defense posture or intelligence collection and analysis policy?
What radio signals have been received from UAP in the reports AARO has collected? AARO’s briefing slides to Congress and on its website state that it has cases of UAP-transmitted radio signals in the 1-3 and 8-12 GHz frequency bands (completely separate and different from UAP radar beams at 1-8 GHz, also listed). This has been briefed to Congress and listed in AARO Reporting Trends slides of “Typically-Reported UAP Characteristics” – but is never mentioned in the AARO Report.
Are these UAP Radio Signals a communication? What analysis of these signals has been undertaken? Has Congress been informed of the findings? The AARO Report also ignores a long history back to 1950 of UAP transmitting radio signals and radar beams and even replying to IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) interrogation signals transmitted to the UAP by ground-based US radar stations (see “UFO IFF” and “NORAD National Alert” articles in Clark’s UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 814-824, 1155-6).
Does extraterrestrial evidence require beyond-terrestrial technological capabilities (the “extra” in “extraterrestrial”)? Does sensor data suffice or must physical samples be obtained? What about AARO’s October 2023 Consolidated Annual UAP Report which mentions “some cases” of UAP with “high-speed travel and unusual maneuverability” (p.2), and “very small percentage” with “high-speed travel and unusual morphologies” (p. 8), none of which are mentioned in AARO’s current historical report (unless it’s in the classified version).
The earlier UAP Task Force reported that 15% of its reports were of “unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics” including “demonstrating UAP acceleration or a degree of signature management” (the latter meaning the UAP’s apparent use of electromagnetic signature reduction as a means of “camouflage” for purposes of lowering detectability, effectively a form of stealth) in mid-flight. Taken together, these terms evidently convey, at minimum, the UAP’s ability to “remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion” (UAPTF June 2021, p. 5).
In October 2023 the AARO then-director Sean Kirkpatrick told CNN that about 2% to 4% of his cases were “truly anomalous” – possibly referring to his just-released report’s reference to “unknown morphologies” (meaning “unknown shapes”) and “interesting signatures” not otherwise defined in the report.
These are tantalizing and provocative admissions by AARO and its predecessor, but what do they mean in terms of meeting AARO’s unspoken requirements for “evidence”?
AARO’s report displays a constant shifting of ill-defined goalposts for what it deems to be “evidence,” etc. First, there is plain “evidence” then “empirical evidence,” then there is “convincing evidence” (is “empirical evidence” not quite “convincing”?). AARO refers to “verifiable information” as if to contrast it with “empirical evidence” (AAROR, p. 35) thus raising the question, is “empirical evidence” not empirically “verifiable information” by itself? And AARO speaks of “actionable data” as conveniently undefined and not distinguished from other types of data or “evidence.” And beyond that, there are “actionable, researchable data.”
The common denominator in these shifting vague pseudo-definitions of what is required for UAP evidence is that they seem intended to ensure genuine anomalies are minimized in favor of prosaic explanations, no matter how implausible.
NOTHING BY AARO ON THE GOVERNMENT “STIGMA” PUT ON THE UAP SUBJECT; NO DISCUSSION, NO HISTORY, DESPITE ITS CRITICAL IMPORTANCE
AARO does not even mention the word “stigma” anywhere in this report, except buried in a passing reference to the UAP Task Force helping “destigmatize” reporting of UAP though not the subject of UAP (AAROR, p. 24).
This is despite the historical importance of the “stigma” deliberately attached to the UFO subject by the US government – principally by the Air Force – that is widely cited by the media and witnesses testifying before Congress. The critical importance of stigma and the problems it has created in hampering and crippling UAP research and investigation are undeniable.
As AARO’s predecessor UAP Task Force stated in its “Preliminary Report to Congress” submitted in June of 2021 (p. 4):
“Narratives from aviators in the operational community and analysts from the military and IC describe disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it with colleagues…. [T]hese stigmas have … reputational risk [that] may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the [UAP] topic.”
The “stigma” attached to the UFO topic as applied by the government appears to have included abuses that AARO was legally required to investigate in its Historical Report – but did not. Specifically, the Historical Report was required to:
“(ii) include a compilation and itemization of the key historical record of the involvement of the intelligence community with unidentified anomalous phenomena [UAP], including— …
“(III) any efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide incorrect unclassified or classified information about unidentified anomalous phenomena [UAP] or related activities.” [NDAA FY23 Sec. 6802(j)(1)(B); 50 U.S. Code § 3373(j)(1)(B)]
As mentioned above, AARO failed to compile, itemize, and report on US intelligence agency abuses of UAP witnesses and others. The one tiny item dismissive of vague public perceptions of the Air Force’s UFO “debunker” abuse (AAROR, p. 38) does not document its long history as was required by law in NDAA FY23 and 50 U.S. Code § 3373 cited above.
AARO made no effort to compile the history of the Intelligence Community’s efforts to “obfuscate” or “hide” UAP information through excessive secrecy, as noted before.
Air Force Intelligence “efforts to … obfuscate [and] manipulate public opinion” on UFOs since the 1950s are primarily what caused the harsh stigma attached to the entire UFO subject in society. But this anti-UFO stigma is not investigated or historically documented by AARO – or even mentioned – contrary to its legal obligation.
This is despite the public admission by former USAF OSI officer Richard Doty that his official assignments included spying on US civilian UAP researchers and breaking into a private home, spreading disinformation about UAP, misinforming two US Senators, and spreading fake UFO documents including some so-called “MJ-12” documents that turned out to be a hoax (Doty radio interview Feb. 27, 2005; see Rojas, “Open Letter,” posting May 6, 2014, OpenMinds). Much more evidence could be cited of similar stigma-inducing covert government actions besides the public debunking and shaming of innocent UAP witnesses and civilian investigators (see “Debunking and Debunkery,” Clark, UFO Encyclopedia, 2018, pp. 379-400).
AARO’S NON-DISCLOSURE OF NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS (NDAS)
The AARO report states that it asked DoD and IC organizations to review their files for any NDAs related to UAP and none were reported (AAROR, pp. 7, 30). Had AARO actually reviewed AFOSI NDAs themselves, rather than delegating the task, they might have reached a different conclusion.
For example, I was informed by a former member of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Investigation Program (AATIP / AAWSAP) that when he requested the opportunity to interview the two F-16 pilots involved in the famous Stephenville, TX, 2008 UAP case, both pilots replied that they could not discuss the matter because they had signed USAF NDAs. It ought to be possible to run this to the ground either by contacting the pilots or searching AFOSI records.
In another instance, a former USAF Air Traffic controller told me she and her colleagues signed OSI NDAs after reporting a black triangular UAP hovering over a nuclear weapons storage facility at Barksdale AFB. Subsequently, AFOSI officers asked them to sign NDAs, explaining that they had seen a highly classified US weapons system they were not cleared for (the secret weapons program ruse again). The witnesses assumed that was a cover story, as they could not imagine a test aircraft being sent to hover over a nuclear weapons storage facility, but they felt compelled to sign the NDAs for fear of retaliation if they did not. This case also suggests that in searching for pertinent USAF NDAs, it may be necessary to review NDAs of the type alleging uncleared military personnel had been exposed to US advanced technology programs outside their clearance level or access authorization and not merely search for some sort of “UAP NDA.”
In the Bentwaters, Rendlesham Forest, UK, case in December 1980-January 1981, there are indications that secondary witnesses and civilian investigators were pressured to sign secrecy agreements (see Col. Charles Halt’s 2016 book, pp, 400, 439).
IS AARO A SCIENCE PROJECT OR AN INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION?
Why is AARO, a component of the Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense (DoD), suddenly changing the rules of the game and importing purely academic, scientific standards for the interpretation of intelligence data? Is it because this allows the government to ignore important and valid but inconvenient information?
AARO claims its “methodology applies both the scientific method and intelligence analysis tradecraft” (AAROR, p. 6). But it seems the scientific methodology is set off against the intelligence methodology to discredit any observation of UAP that exceeds present-day scientific understanding, on the tacit grounds that observations by military personnel on this issue, and seemingly this issue alone, are not credible. Meanwhile, the intelligence tradecraft that would investigate a foreign adversary’s possible futuristic development of science seems to be shunted aside. Thus AARO uses a limited academic form of today’s science to deny as “not credible” the observed and measured UAP performance that may represent an advanced technology, possibly extraterrestrial, although we know 21st century science will inevitably be followed by a 31st century science. Neither the law enforcement nor intelligence communities have the luxury of limiting themselves to dismissing human reporting in favor of purely scientific standards of evidence.
It sometimes feels as though AARO is approaching the old unscientific Air Force Project Blue Book policy, long ago exposed by Blue Book scientific consultant Dr. Hynek, of declaring “It Can’t Be: Therefore it Isn’t” when dealing with tough unexplainable UFO cases (The Hynek UFO Report, 1977, ch. 3).
Hence, AARO’s Dr. Kirkpatrick claims there is no “credible” information of craft demonstrating capabilities that defy our current scientific understanding: “AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics” (DoD News Briefing, Apr. 19, 2023). This, despite the testimony of Navy squadron Cmdr. Dave Fravor and his colleagues were involved in the Nimitz incident, backed by dramatic radar-infrared-electro-optical data recordings. AARO does not even mention the Nimitz case or its investigation anywhere in its “complete”, “thorough”, and “accurate” Historical UAP Report.
Cmdr. Fravor and his wingman and their crew all saw and reported the same wingless white “Tic Tac” shaped craft in conditions of ideal visibility and their accounts of its mind-boggling capabilities were corroborated by radar operators serving on two different platforms
Later that day another F/A-18 witnessed and filmed the UAP, yet it seems as if AARO is denying this undeniable event, suggesting it did not even happen just because it exceeds today’s academic scientific understanding. Multiple accounts by all three pilots and their weapons systems operators, and multiple radar operators and technicians agree that craft they observed demonstrated almost-instantaneous high g acceleration; achieved hypersonic speed without a sonic boom; showed no evidence of friction or plasma or obvious propulsion, despite the extreme velocities it achieved (estimated peak 90,000 mph in 12 miles going from 0 to 90,000 mph to 0, all in 0.78 seconds, at 5,000 g’s acceleration). The estimated 47-foot wingless white “Tic Tac” shaped craft also thus seemed to survive g forces far greater than any aircraft, rocket, or missile of that size built by man. The tough Navy squadron commander of the Black Aces could not find a terrestrial explanation for what he and his colleagues observed and he has made that clear in sworn testimony to Congress. Is this not relevant?
What aspect of this case should be thrown out as “not credible” and why? Why are we even bothering to ask pilots to report UAP if we do not deem them credible? Why is this case not viewed as compelling, albeit not absolutely conclusive, evidence of the presence in Earth’s atmosphere of vehicles that are so far advanced we cannot understand or replicate their performance? What evidence would AARO accept – and is AARO going to employ an unspoken rule of today’s academic science that does not see a science of tomorrow, and therefore arbitrarily says it must not have happened, because we don’t understand what was reported?
Aside from not liking the implications, is there any reason to doubt the fully consistent account of so many accomplished aviators and sailors operating with high-tech sensors? Our military could not function as effectively as it does if its personnel were not competent and reliable. When assessing the UAP issue, senior policymakers deserve candid views of intelligence and military personnel, not views limited by unrealistically high scientific standards imported from Academia. After all, AARO is a joint IC/DoD operation, not a science project.
CONCLUSION
As documented above, AARO has not complied with statutory orders from Congress for a detailed history of UAP sightings as recorded in USG’s historical records, instead providing a limited history of flawed US Government investigations of UAP.
There was no examination of the impact of “stigma” on the UFO subject, witnesses, and persons interested in it, aggressively implemented by the Air Force and supported by the AF-instigated CIA Robertson Panel, despite the legal requirement for AARO to document the history of intelligence agency manipulation of public opinion and other abuses.
Yet, as AARO itself acknowledged in its first report to Congress the “stigma” surrounding this topic has been a central problem in terms of getting government personnel or scientists to report or study UAP. (AARO Jan. 2023, p. 2) To summarize:
The AARO report is beset with basic errors of fact and science (for instance, despite AARO insinuations, Apollo moon landings cannot be seen by the naked eye from Earth, Manhattan Project buildings cannot fly in the air as UFOs, etc.).
The report makes unsupported claims about secret government projects causing civilian UAP sightings while ignoring the military’s own sightings of UAP that the military knew were not our own.
AARO never defines what evidence they would accept for extraterrestrial visitation or even UAP existence, to help avoid repeating past failures of UAP investigations. It seems AARO’s unstated definition of “evidence” is a fluid goalpost.
There are massive gaps in AARO’s review of important US government documents, records, and programs, and patterns of excessive UAP secrecy. The report focuses on prior government UAP investigations without even acknowledging they were more of an effort to delegitimize the topic than investigate it.
The powerful effects of the stigma that resulted are neve
Ant-like alien creature seen in Perseverance Mars rover image
Ant-like alien creature seen in Perseverance Mars rover image
Over the years, many strange and often unexplained objects have been found on the planet Mars. Some objects are so bizarre that one wonders if they are real or just illusions.
One such strange object can be seen in one of the latest photos taken by the Perseverance rover and uploaded by Neville Thompson on his GigaPan page.
The intended object resembles some kind of ant with distinct features such as its body structure, head, prominent eyes, mouth, and legs clearly visible in the sepia-toned image provided below.
Now, it may be that it is just another strange rock, but one must still wonder whether indeed that is the case or if it is indeed a large alien creature crawling across the surface of Mars.
0
1
2
3
4
5
- Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen) Categorie:ALIEN LIFE, UFO- CRASHES, ABDUCTIONS, MEN IN BLACK, ed ( FR. , NL; E )
Exploring the Unexplained: Top 3 Impossible UFO Cases with Scientist Robert Powell
Exploring the Unexplained: Top 3 Impossible UFO Cases with Scientist Robert Powell
In the realm of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), few cases have perplexed and intrigued both the public and experts as much as the ones involving seemingly impossible maneuvers and speeds. Scientist Robert Powell, a seasoned researcher with decades of experience in the semiconductor industry and an avid investigator of UFO phenomena, sheds light on three such encounters. These instances not only challenge our understanding of physics but also hint at the existence of technology far beyond our current capabilities.
1. The Stephenville Sighting (2008)
One of the most compelling cases occurred near Stephenville, Texas, where numerous witnesses, including local law enforcement, reported seeing an unusually large object in the sky. This object displayed extraordinary agility and speed, moving at velocities calculated to be as much as 1,900 miles per hour without any accompanying sonic booms – a feat that remains unexplained by conventional aircraft technology. Radar data corroborated these observations, showing an object executing movements that would require G-forces far beyond the tolerance of human pilots. Powell’s analysis, supported by radar and eyewitness accounts, underscores the case’s strangeness and its challenge to current aerospace technology.
2. The Aguadilla Incident (2013)
This case involved an unidentified object captured on thermal imaging cameras by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. The video footage shows the object traveling at high speed across the screen and even splitting into two separate objects without any noticeable change in velocity or trajectory. Skeptics have proposed theories such as balloons or small unmanned aerial vehicles, but the object’s ability to maintain coherence in high winds and perform maneuvers like splitting in two challenges these explanations. Powell points out the technical limitations of such theories and emphasizes the calculated speeds and behaviors that align more closely with a technologically advanced, unknown aerial vehicle.
3. The Nimitz Encounter (2004)
Arguably one of the most famous UFO encounters, involving the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, showcases multiple radar contacts with high-speed aerial objects that defied known aviation technology. Fighter pilots witnessed a “Tic Tac”-shaped object that could hover over the sea and then accelerate to supersonic speeds within seconds, far outpacing the capabilities of the pursuing jets. The encounter was thoroughly documented through both radar data and multiple pilot testimonies. The object’s ability to perform extreme accelerations, estimated to be several thousand G-forces, suggests technology that is not only unknown but far beyond current engineering paradigms.
VIDEO:
Chris Lehto – Top 3 Impossible UFO Cases – with Scientist Robert Powell
These cases, thoroughly investigated by experts like Robert Powell, challenge the conventional understanding of what is possible in terms of speed, acceleration, and aerodynamics. Each case offers a glimpse into the potential existence of advanced technology controlled by intelligence beyond human capabilities. While these encounters remain unexplained, they encourage a continued and open-minded investigation into the unknown, pushing the boundaries of current science and technology. Powell’s analysis emphasizes the need for a scientific approach to studying these phenomena, one that could potentially reveal new understandings of physics and technology.
Unexplained anomaly near Antarctica moving North causing 80 foot waves
Unexplained anomaly near Antarctica moving North causing 80 foot waves
The huge anomaly, showed up on Ventusky.com ocean monitoring system, does appear to originate from the Antarctica area deep down in the the southern hemisphere on April 9th the day after the eclipse of 2024 around 2 pm. and on April 11th it suddenly disappears off the map.
This thing which is the size of Texas traveled down here between South America and Antarctica and then up through the the Atlantic Ocean implying that there is a very large field of waves measuring about 80 foot.
Speculation runs rampant regarding the nature of this anomaly. Could it be the aftermath of a meteor impact in the ocean, or perhaps the result of an undocumented seismic event?
Another theory posits the involvement of an Unidentified Submerged Object (USO), a colossal underwater craft. This hypothesis suggests that the anomaly may not be a rogue wave but rather a massive object emitting signals mimicking the characteristics of an 80-foot wave.
Notably, the absence of any tsunami warnings along the trajectory of this peculiar object adds to the mystery.
Once again, the presence of an inexplicable energy form hints at the existence of a large underwater object lurking within the depths of the southern hemisphere of our planet.
Unveiling UFO Secrets: Dr. Steven Greer's Perspective
Unveiling UFO Secrets: Dr. Steven Greer's Perspective
As we delve into the mysteries surrounding unidentified flying objects (UFOs), Dr. Steven Greer sheds light on the concealed truths that lie within the shadows of secrecy. Back in October 1954, a groundbreaking discovery took place, unbeknownst to the public eye. Despite skepticism from contemporary engineers, classified documents revealed humanity's mastery of gravity control, a feat achieved through a deeply classified project.
Imagine, in 1954, humanity had already unlocked the secrets of gravity—a revelation still deemed far-fetched by modern science. Yet, this monumental achievement was shrouded in secrecy. Why did we opt for conventional highways over futuristic skyways after attaining such groundbreaking technology? What does this say about the hidden agendas of our governments and the potential evolution of our world?
The secrecy surrounding UFO technology stems from its revolutionary nature. These objects defy conventional propulsion systems; they operate without jets, rockets, or nuclear power plants, emitting no discernible heat signature. Instead, they harness a new physics—electromagnetic propulsion, reminiscent of Nikola Tesla's discoveries in the early 20th century.
Revealing such advanced technologies would disrupt established economic systems, rendering traditional energy sources obsolete and transforming our world into one powered by clean, free energy from the Zero Point Energy field. While this prospect promises an end to pollution and poverty within two decades, it threatens the status quo upheld by vested interests worth trillions of dollars.
Furthermore, the narrative surrounding UFOs has been manipulated to instill fear in the public, paving the way for centralized control under the guise of protecting against a common extraterrestrial threat. However, Dr. Greer exposes these fabrications, highlighting the psychological toll of harboring monumental secrets and questioning the true motivations behind keeping transformative technologies under wraps.
Contrary to popular belief, advanced extraterrestrial civilizations have shown concern for humanity's well-being, as evidenced by their intervention to prevent nuclear catastrophe. Rather than hostile intentions, their actions suggest a desire for peaceful coexistence within a broader cosmic community.
Dr. Greer's efforts to disclose the truth to the highest levels of government mark a pivotal moment in human history. Yet, skepticism and controversy surround this journey towards disclosure. As we on the brink of major revelations, it becomes imperative to navigate the balance between skepticism and undeniable evidence, preparing ourselves for the potential revelation of extraterrestrial life and technology.
Everyone knows that solar energy is free and almost limitless here on Earth. The same is true for spacecraft operating in the inner Solar System. But in space, the Sun can do more than provide electrical energy; it also emits an unending stream of solar wind.
Solar sails can harness that wind and provide propulsion for spacecraft. NASA is about to test a new solar sail design that can make solar sails even more effective.
Solar pressure pervades the entire Solar System. It weakens with distance, but it’s present. It affects all spacecraft, including satellites. It affects longer-duration spaceflights dramatically. A spacecraft on a mission to Mars can be forced off course by thousands of kilometres during its voyage by solar pressure. The pressure also affects a spacecraft’s orientation, and they’re designed to deal with it.
Though it’s a hindrance, solar pressure can be used to our advantage.
A few solar sail spacecraft have been launched and tested, beginning with Japan’s Ikaros spacecraft in 2010. Ikaros proved that radiation pressure from the Sun in the form of photons can be used to control a spacecraft. The most recent solar sail spacecraft is the Planetary Society’s LightSail 2, launched in 2019. LightSail 2 was a successful mission that lasted over three years.
Solar sail spacecraft have some advantages over other spacecraft. Their propulsion systems are extremely lightweight and never run out of fuel. Solar sail spacecraft can perform missions more cheaply than other spacecraft and can last longer, though they have limitations.
The solar sail concept is now proven to work, but the technology needs to advance for it to be truly effective. A critical part of a solar sail spacecraft is its booms. Booms support the sail material; the lighter and stronger they are, the more effective the spacecraft will be. Though solar sails are much lighter than other spacecraft, the weight of the booms is still a hindrance.
NASA is about to launch a new solar sail design with a better support structure. Called the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System (ACS3), it’s stiffer and lighter than previous boom designs. It’s made of carbon fibre and flexible polymers.
Though solar sails have many advantages, they also have a critical drawback. They’re launched as small packages that must be unfurled before they start working. This operation can be fraught with difficulties and induces stress in the poor ground crew, who have to wait and watch to see if it’s successful.
ACS3 will launch with a twelve-unit (12U) CubeSat built by NanoAvionics. The primary goal is to demonstrate boom deployment, but the ACS3 team also hopes the mission will prove that their solar sail spacecraft works.
To change direction, the spacecraft angles its sails. If boom deployment is successful, the ACS3 team hopes to perform some maneuvers with the spacecraft, angling the sails and changing the spacecraft’s orbit. The goal is to build larger sails that can generate more thrust.
The ACS3 boom design is made to overcome a problem with booms: they’re either heavy and slim or light and bulky.
“Booms have tended to be either heavy and metallic or made of lightweight composite with a bulky design – neither of which work well for today’s small spacecraft,” said NASA’s Keats Wilkie. Wilke is the ACS3 principal investigator at Langley Research Center. “Solar sails need very large, stable, and lightweight booms that can fold down compactly. This sail’s booms are tube-shaped and can be squashed flat and rolled like a tape measure into a small package while offering all the advantages of composite materials, like less bending and flexing during temperature changes.”
ACS3 will be launched on an Electron rocket from Rocket Lab’s launch complex in New Zealand. It’ll head for a Sun-synchronous orbit 1,000 km (600 miles) above Earth. Once it arrives, the spacecraft will unroll its booms and deploy its sail. It’ll take about 25 minutes to deploy the sail, with a photon-gathering area of 80 square meters, or about 860 square feet. That’s much larger than Light Sail 2, which had a sail area of 32 square meters or about 340 square feet.
As it deploys itself, cameras on the spacecraft will watch and monitor the shape and symmetry. The data from the maneuvers will feed into future sail designs.
“Seven meters of the deployable booms can roll up into a shape that fits in your hand,” said Alan Rhodes, the mission’s lead systems engineer at NASA’s Ames Research Center. “The hope is that the new technologies verified on this spacecraft will inspire others to use them in ways we haven’t even considered.”
ACS3 is part of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology program. The program aims to deploy small missions that demonstrate unique capabilities rapidly. With unique composite and carbon fibre booms, the ACS3 system has the potential to support sails as large as 2,000 square meters, or about 21,500 square feet. That’s about half the area of a soccer field. (Or, as our UK friends mistakenly call it, a football field.)
With large sails, the types of missions they can power change. While solar sails have been small demonstration models so far, the system can potentially power some serious scientific missions.
“The Sun will continue burning for billions of years, so we have a limitless source of propulsion. Instead of launching massive fuel tanks for future missions, we can launch larger sails that use “fuel” already available,” said Rhodes. “We will demonstrate a system that uses this abundant resource to take those next giant steps in exploration and science.”
Solar sail spacecraft don’t have the instantaneous thrust that chemical or electrical propulsion systems do. But the thrust is constant and never really wavers. They can do things other spacecraft struggle to do, such as taking up unique positions that allow them to study the Sun. They can serve as early warning systems for coronal mass ejections and solar storms, which pose hazards.
The new composite booms also have other applications. Since they’re so lightweight, strong, and compact, they could serve as the structural framework for lunar and Mars habitats. They could also be used to support other structures, like communication systems. If the system works, who knows what other applications it may serve?
“This technology sparks the imagination, reimagining the whole idea of sailing and applying it to space travel,” said Rudy Aquilina, project manager of the solar sail mission at NASA Ames. “Demonstrating the abilities of solar sails and lightweight, composite booms is the next step in using this technology to inspire future missions.”
Could Life Exist in Water Droplet Worlds in Venus’ Atmosphere?
It’s a measure of human ingenuity and curiosity that scientists debate the possibility of life on Venus. They established long ago that Venus’ surface is absolutely hostile to life. But didn’t scientists find a biomarker in the planet’s clouds? Could life exist there, never touching the planet’s sweltering surface?
It seems to depend on who you ask.
We’ll start with phosphine.
Phosphine is a biomarker, and in 2020, researchers reported the detection of phosphine in Venus’ atmosphere. There should be no phosphine because phosphorous should be oxidized in the planet’s atmosphere. According to the paper, no abiotic source could explain the quantity found, about 20 ppb.
Subsequently, the detection was challenged. When others tried to find it, they couldn’t. Also, the original paper’s authors informed everyone of an error in their data processing that could’ve affected the conclusions. Those authors examined the issue again and mostly stood by their original detection.
At this point, the phosphine issue seems unsettled. But if it is present in Venus’ atmosphere and is biological in nature, where could it be coming from? Venus’s surface is out of the question.
That leaves Venus’ cloud-filled atmosphere as the only abode of life. While the idea might seem ridiculous at first glance, researchers have dug into the idea and generated some interesting results.
In a new paper, researchers examine the idea of microscopic life that lives and reproduces in water droplets in Venus’s clouds. The title is “Necessary Conditions for Earthly Life Floating in the Venusian Atmosphere.” The lead author is Jennifer Abreu from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Lehman College, City University of New York. The paper is currently in pre-print.
“It has long been known that the surface of Venus is too harsh an environment for life,” the authors write. “Contrariwise, it has long been speculated that the clouds of Venus offer a favourable habitat for life but regulated to be domiciled at an essentially fixed altitude.” So, if life existed in the clouds, it wouldn’t be spread throughout. Only certain altitudes appear to have what’s needed for life to survive.
The type of life the authors envision aligns with other thinking about Venusian atmospheric life. “The archetype living thing <being> the spherical hydrogen gasbag isopycnic organism,” they state. (Isopycnic means constant density; the other terms are self-explanatory.)
Here’s how the authors think it could work.
Venus is shrouded in clouds so thick we can only see the surface with radar. The clouds reach all the way around the globe. The cloud base is about 47 km (29 miles) from the surface, where the temperature is about 100 C (212 F.) At equatorial and mid-latitudes, they extend up to a 74 km (46 miles) altitude, and at the poles, they extend up to about 65 km (40 miles.)
The clouds can be subdivided into three layers based on the size of aerosol particles: the upper layer from 56.5 to 70 km altitude, the middle layer from 50.5 to 56.5 km, and the lower layer from 47.5 to 50.5 km. The smallest droplets can float in all three layers. But the largest droplets, which the authors call type 3 droplets with a radius of 4 µm, are only present in the middle and lower layers.
“It has long been suspected that the cloud decks of Venus offer an aqueous habitat where microorganisms can grow and flourish,” the authors write. Everything life needs is there: “Carbon dioxide, sulfuric acid compounds, and ultraviolet (UV) light could give microbes food and energy.”
Because of temperature, life in Venus’ clouds would be restricted to a specific altitude range. At 50 km, the temperature is between 60 and 90 degrees Celsius (140 and 194 degrees Fahrenheit). The pressure at that altitude is about 1 Earth atmosphere.
There’s a precedent for life existing in the clouds. It happens here on Earth, where scientists have observed bacteria, pollen, and even algae at altitudes as high as 15 km (9.3 miles.) There’s even evidence of bacteria growing in droplets in a super-cooled cloud high in the Alps. The understanding is that these organisms were carried aloft by wind, evaporation, eruptions, or even meteor impacts. But there’s an important difference between Earth’s and Venus’ clouds.
Earth’s clouds are transient. They form and dissolve constantly. But Venus’ clouds are long-lasting. They’re a stable environment compared to Earth’s clouds. In Earth’s clouds, aerosol particles are sustained for only a few days, while in Venus’ clouds, the particles can be sustained for much longer periods of time.
Add it all up, and you get stable cloud environments where aerosol particles can sustain themselves in an environment where energy and nutrients are available. The researchers say that though eventually aerosol particles and the life within them will fall to the surface, they have time to reproduce before that happens.
There are five steps in Venus’s proposed cloud lifecycle:
Dormant desiccated spores (black blobs) partially populate the lower haze layer of the atmosphere.
Updrafts transport them up to the habitable layer. The spores could travel up to the clouds via gravity waves.
Shortly after reaching the (middle and lower cloud) habitable layer, the spores act as cloud condensation nuclei, and more and more water gathers into a single droplet. Once the spores are surrounded by liquid with the necessary chemicals, they germinate and become metabolically active.
Metabolically active microbes (dashed blobs) grow and divide within liquid droplets (shown as solid circles in the figure). The liquid droplets continue to grow by coagulation.
Eventually, the droplets are large enough to settle out of the atmosphere gravitationally; higher temperatures and droplet evaporation trigger cell division and sporulation. The spores are smaller than the microbes and resist further downward sedimentation. They remain suspended in the lower haze layer (a depot of hibernating microbial life) to restart the cycle.
In this new work, the researchers focus on time.
“One of the key assumptions of the aerial life cycle put forward in Seager et al. 2021 is the timescale on which droplets would persist in the habitable layer to empower replication,” the authors write. “It is this that we now turn to study.”
The authors used E. Coli generation times under optimal conditions in their work. In aerobic and nutrient-rich conditions, E. Coli can reproduce in 20 minutes. So, the E. Coli population will double three times in one hour. Bacteria must reproduce faster than they fall to the surface to sustain itself. They need to form a colony.
The researchers calculated that to sustain itself, the time it takes for bacteria to fall from the habitable part of the atmosphere to the inhabitable has to be longer than half an Earth day. As droplet size increases, the droplets would begin to sink. “As the droplet size approaches 100 µm, the droplets would start sinking to the lower haze layers,” they explain. However, their detailed calculations show that reproduction outpaces the fallout rate.
According to the team’s work, a population of bacteria could sustain itself in Venus’ clouds.
There are, obviously, still some questions. How certain are we that nutrients are available? Is there enough energy? Are there updrafts that can loft spores into the right layer of the atmosphere?
But the real big question is how was this all set in motion?
“An optimist might even imagine that the microbial life actually arose in a good-natured surface habitat, perhaps in a primitive ocean, before the planet suffered a runaway greenhouse, and the microbes lofted into the clouds,” the authors write. If that’s the case, this unique situation arose billions of years ago. Is there any other possibility? Could life have originated in the clouds?
Much scientific investigation into Venus, phosphine, clouds, and life relies on scant evidence. Few are willing to go out on a limb and proclaim that Venus can and does support life. We need more evidence.
For that, we have to wait for missions like the Venus Life Finder Mission. It’s a private mission being developed by Rocket Lab and a team from MIT. Who knows what VLF and other missions like DAVINCI and VERITAS will find? Stronger evidence of phosphine? Better data on Venus’ atmospheric layers and the conditions in them?
Did An Ancient Icy Impactor Create the Martian Moons?
The Martian moons Phobos and Deimos are oddballs. While other Solar System moons are round, Mars’ moons are misshapen and lumpy like potatoes. They’re more like asteroids or other small bodies than moons.
Because of their odd shapes and unusual compositions, scientists are still puzzling over their origins.
Two main hypotheses attempt to explain Phobos and Deimos. One says they’re captured asteroids, and the other says they are debris from an ancient impactor that collided with Mars. Earth’s moon was likely formed by an ancient collision when a planetesimal slammed into Earth, so there’s precedent for the impact hypothesis. There’s also precedent for the captured object scenario because scientists think some other Solar System moons, like Neptune’s moon Triton, are captured objects.
Phobos and Deimos have lots in common with carbonaceous C-type asteroids. They’re the most plentiful type of asteroid in the Solar System, making up about 75% of the asteroid population. The moons’ compositions and albedos support the captured asteroid theory. But their orbits are circular and close to Mars’ equator. Captured objects should have much more eccentric orbits.
The moons are less dense than silicate, the most abundant material in Mars’ crust. That fact works against the impact theory. A powerful impact would’ve blasted material from Mars into space, forming a disk of material rotating around the planet. Phobos and Deimos would’ve formed from that material. If they result from an ancient planetesimal impact, they should contain more Martian silica.
Here’s the problem in a nutshell. The captured asteroid theory can explain the moons’ observed physical characteristics but not their orbits. The impact theory can explain their orbits but not their compositions.
In research presented at the 55th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, three researchers proposed a different origin story for Phobos and Deimos. They suggest that an impactor is responsible for creating the moons, but the impactor was icy.
The research is titled “THE ICY ORIGINS OF THE MARTIAN MOONS.” The first author is Courteney Monchinski from the Earth-Life Science Institute at the Tokyo Institute of Technology.
If a rocky impactor slammed into Mars, it would’ve created a massive debris disk around the planet. Previous researchers have examined the idea using simulations and found that an impact could’ve created the moons. But the disk created by the impact would’ve been far more massive than Phobos and Deimos combined. The simulations showed that there would’ve been a third, much more massive moon created within Phobos’ orbit that would’ve fallen back down to Mars. But there’s no strong evidence of something that massive striking Mars.
Other impact studies used basaltic impactors. But those showed that the temperature in the debris disk would’ve been so high it would’ve melted the disk material and destroyed ancient chondritic materials. Since the pair of moons appear to contain those materials, a basaltic impactor is ruled out.
According to the research presented at the conference, an icy impactor can explain Phobos and Deimos’ origins. There are three reasons for that.
The extra disk mass created by a rocky impactor would not be present. Instead, much of the mass in the impactor would’ve been vapourized on impact and escaped the system rather than persisting in the disk and being taken up by the formation of moons. There would’ve been no large third moon and no need to explain how it fell back to Mars.
The second reason concerns the composition of the moons. With abundant water ice in the collision, the temperature in the debris disk would’ve been lower. That would’ve preserved the carbonaceous materials in Phobos and Deimos today. It also can help explain their density and possible porosity. An icy impactor could’ve also delivered water to Mars, and we know Mars was wetter in its past.
The third reason concerns Deimos’ orbit. It’s not synchronous with Mars, and an icy impactor can explain that. With more water ice in the disk, there would’ve been a viscous interaction between the disk’s dust and vapour that extended the disk, allowing Deimos to occupy its orbit.
The researchers used Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic (SPH) simulations to test the icy impactor idea. They simulated giant impactors with varying quantities of water ice and watched as disks formed around Mars and moons formed in the disk.
They first found that an impactor with any amount of water ice produced a more massive debris disk. It could be because an impactor containing water ice would be larger, though less massive, than one without any ice. That allowed more material to spray from the planet into the disk. It could also be because the water ice absorbs some of the impact energy when it vapourizes. That would cool the disk temperature, lowering the velocities of particles in the disk and making them less likely to escape.
Varying the ice content in the impactor also affected the makeup of the disk. Different amounts of ice lead to disks with different amounts of Martian rock and impactor rock in the disk.
The temperature in the disk is a critical part of this. Different amounts of water ice in the impactor change the disk temperature and what types of materials in the disk would melt. Impactors with more than 30% ice create disk temperatures too low to melt silicates. Perhaps more tellingly, impactors with more than 70% ice result in a disk temperature too low to alter or destroy chondritic material, which both Phobos and Deimos are expected to contain.
According to the researchers, an icy impactor can also explain other features. “The existence of water in the impact-generated disk also suggests that water may condense, accounting for the possible water-ice content of the moons,” they write.
Ultimately, the researchers say an icy impactor with 70% to 90% water ice mantles can explain the pair of moons.
“The best case for reproducing the moons’ proposed compositions are the 70% and 90% water-ice mantle impactor cases, as they allow for low disk temperatures and more chances for chondritic materials to survive,” they explain.
Unfortunately, that may not be realistic. “In our current solar system, an object with around 70% or 90% water-ice content is not exactly realistic, as the object with the highest amount of water content in our current solar system, Ganymede, is only about 50% water,” they write.
But could things have been different in the past? Samples from asteroid Ryugu suggest that its parent body could’ve been up to 90% water. That number is based on the types of minerals in Ryugu. But unfortunately, scientists don’t now for sure. Ryugu’s parent body could have contained as little as 20% water.
But it’s at least plausible that early in the Solar System’s life, an impactor with 70% water ice could have existed. If so, then the icy impactor scenario could be a robust theory to explain the origins of Phobos and Deimos.
“This impactor would have come from the outer solar system around the time of giant planet instability,” the authors write. During that time, outer Solar System bodies were perturbed and sent flying into the inner Solar System. But in this case, the impact’s timing needs to be constrained by Phobos’ and Deimos’ formation ages.
Scientists need more evidence to deepen their understanding of Mars and its moons. Japan’s Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) mission will provide that. MMX’s mission is to return a sample of Phobos to Earth. The goal is to determine if it is a captured asteroid or the result of an impact.
Unfortunately, JAXA just delayed MMX’s launch. It was scheduled to launch in September 2024 but has been delayed until 2026. That means we won’t get samples until 2031 instead of 2029.
JAXA has completed successful sample return missions, so they have the expertise to bring a piece of Phobos back to Earth. If scientists can determine how Phobos and Deimos formed, it’ll be part of a much larger, detailed picture of how the Solar System formed.
It’ll be worth it if we have to wait a couple extra years.
Watch a Satellite Reaction Wheel Melt in a Simulated Orbital Re-Entry
Most satellites share the same fate at the end of their lives. Their orbits decay, and eventually, they plunge through the atmosphere toward Earth. Most satellites are destroyed during their rapid descent, but not always
Heavy pieces of the satellite, like reaction wheels, can survive and strike the Earth. Engineers are trying to change that.
Satellite debris can strike Earth and is a potential hazard, though the chances of debris striking anything other than ocean or barren land are low. Expired satellites usually just re-enter the atmosphere and burn up. But there are a lot of satellites, and their number keeps growing.
In February 2024, the ESA’s European Remote Sensing 2 (ERS2) satellite fell to Earth. The ESA tracked the satellite and concluded that it posed no problem. “The odds of a piece of satellite falling on someone’s head is estimated at one in a billion,” ESA space debris system engineer Benjamin Bastida Virgili said.
That would be fine if ERS 2 was an isolated incident. But, according to the ESA, an object about as massive as ERS 2 reenters Earth’s atmosphere every one to two weeks. The statistics may show there’s no threat to people, but statistics are great until you’re one of them.
The risk of being struck by chunks of a satellite isn’t zero. In 1997, a piece of mesh from a Delta II rocket struck someone’s shoulder in Oklahoma. It was a light piece of debris, so the person was okay. But it was an instructive event.
The heaviest parts of satellites, like reaction wheels, can be hazardous because they may not be destroyed during re-entry. Reaction wheels provide three-axis control for satellites without the need for rockets. They give satellites fine pointing accuracy and are useful for rotating satellites in very small amounts.
Reaction wheels can be quite massive. The Hubble Space Telescope has four reaction wheels weighing 45 kg (100 lbs) each. Other satellites don’t have such massive wheels, but the Hubble’s hefty wheels indicate the extent of the hazard. ESA engineers are designing reaction wheels that will break up during re-entry to reduce the hazard of one striking Earth.
As part of the design process, they’re testing their wheels in a plasma wind tunnel at the University of Stuttgart Institute of Space Systems. The heated plasma in the tunnel moves at several km/sec, mimicking the friction a satellite is exposed to when it plunges through Earth’s atmosphere. The wheel is rotated inside the tunnel as if tumbling through the atmosphere.
At a recent Space Mechanisms Workshop at ESA’s ESTEC technical center in the Netherlands, engineers showed a clip of the blow-torch effect that the atmosphere has on falling debris.
“Space mechanisms cover everything that enables movement aboard a satellite, from deployment devices to reaction wheels,” explains workshop co-organizer Geert Smet.
“But these mechanisms often use materials such as steel or titanium that are more likely to survive reentry into the atmosphere. This is a problem because our current regulations say reentering satellites should present less than one in 10,000 risks of harming people or property on the ground or even one in 100 000 for large satellite constellations. ESA’s Clean Space group is reacting by D4D—devising methods to make total disintegration of a mission more likely, including mechanisms.”
The effort to make satellites disintegrate completely goes back a few years. The ESA program Design for Demise (D4D) is helping satellite manufacturers comply with the Space Debris Mitigation (SDM) requirements. It’s aimed at eliminating debris falling to Earth, removing debris already in orbit, and designing satellites that don’t linger in orbit after their missions have ended.
At the recent workshop, the ESA revealed more of its plans for active debris removal. There’s a push to develop dedicated spacecraft that can attach themselves to derelict satellites and force them into reentry. This will help remove dead satellites from the congested Low Earth Orbit.
“The idea behind this event is to present the mechanisms community with the latest research on space debris to see how they might contribute to the work going on,” said Kobyé Bodjona, Mechanisms Engineer at the ESA. “It’s important because large system integrators—the big companies that lead satellite projects—are going to need systems that are fully compliant with debris mitigation regulations. And the need is becoming urgent as more and more satellites are placed in space.”
Martian Mysteries: Exploring the Phobos Incident, Monoliths, and Ancient Ruins
Martian Mysteries: Exploring the Phobos Incident, Monoliths, and Ancient Ruins
The Allure of Mars and Its Moon, Phobos
The intrigue surrounding Mars and its moons has captivated scientists and space enthusiasts for decades. Mars, with its stark, reddish landscape, and its moon Phobos, named after the Greek god of fear, present a fascinating study in celestial phenomena and potential extraterrestrial mysteries.
The Phobos Incident
One of the most intriguing events in the exploration of space is the Phobos incident involving the Soviet Union’s Phobos 2 mission in 1989. This mission was primarily aimed at exploring Mars and its moon but ended in mystery. Phobos 2 operated successfully until it approached Phobos, at which point it suddenly ceased transmission and lost contact with Earth. The last data sent by Phobos 2 included images that showed a strange shadow cast on Phobos’s surface. This led to widespread speculation about the cause, ranging from technical failures to extraterrestrial interference.
Mysterious Structures: The Phobos Monolith
Adding to the enigmatic nature of Phobos is the presence of the so-called Phobos Monolith—a large, irregularly shaped object that stands out against the barren, cratered surface of the moon. This monolith, and others like it, have sparked debates about their origin, with some suggesting they might be natural formations, while others speculate about ancient alien technologies.
The presence of the monolith was popularized by American astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who mentioned it in the context of human space exploration and the curiosity it generates among the public and scientific community. Its origins, whether natural or artificial, remain a subject of debate and fascination.
Ancient Ruins on Mars?
The surface of Mars itself offers further mysteries. High-resolution images from various Mars orbiters have revealed formations that resemble structures, such as the infamous “Face on Mars” in the Cydonia region. These images often show what appear to be pyramidal structures and rectilinear shapes that some interpret as remnants of ancient civilizations.
Critics argue that these formations are simply the result of pareidolia—where the human brain interprets random images as significant patterns. However, the consistent flow of new data and images from Mars continues to fuel speculation and theories about past life and civilizations on the red planet.
Theoretical Connections to Earth
Some theorists draw parallels between the formations on Mars and ancient Earth structures, such as the pyramids of Egypt. They speculate about a forgotten era of solar system-wide civilization that utilized advanced technology, potentially for energy generation through the manipulation of cosmic forces, such as the hypothetical “zero-point energy.”
These theories extend into broader propositions of an “electric universe” where celestial bodies are interconnected through vast electric currents, influencing the formation and evolution of planets and moons through electrical rather than purely gravitational forces.
VIDEO:
The Why Files – Martian Mysteries | The Phobos Incident, Monoliths, and Ancient Ruins
The mysteries of Phobos, Mars, and their anomalous features continue to be a significant focus for scientific inquiry. Missions continue to be planned and executed, such as Japan’s upcoming probe to Phobos, aiming to gather more data and, potentially, to bring samples back to Earth. Each mission brings with it the hope of solving some of these persistent mysteries or, at the very least, providing new data to refine our understanding of Mars and its moons.
As we continue to explore these celestial neighbors, the combination of scientific data and imaginative theorization keeps our quest for knowledge about Mars and its features as vibrant and compelling as ever. Whether future missions will confirm or debunk the lingering mysteries of Mars remains one of the most tantalizing questions in space exploration today.
0
1
2
3
4
5
- Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen) Categorie:Ruins, strange artifacts on other planets, moons, ed ( Fr, EN, NL )
11-04-2024
Netflix viewers are hooked on eerie new series which may tell us truth about alien life
Netflix viewers are hooked on eerie new series which may tell us truth about alien life
One episode focuses on mysterious blobs that fell from the sky in Oakville, Washington
Anish Vij
If you love ghost stories, UFO sightings and terrifying disappearances, then this Netflix show is for you.
Currently placed in the 'UK Top 10' is an eight-part docuseries that will make you more aware of events that can't be explained.
Each episode follows the people who lived to tell the tale.
Netflix have released a new docuseries on bizarre cases
(Netflix)
The stories vary from one extreme to another, with 'alien abductions' onto a number of drownings in Georgia, US.
The new Netflix series gives us an insight into the US Government's investigation of more than 650 unidentified objects and lights, along with the regular people who said they witnessed such moments.
Episode seven, in particular, seems to be catching everyone's attention as the story follows a bizarre incident in Oakville,Washingtonin 1994, when a 'jelly-fish-like' substance supposedly fell from the sky.
Viewers were stunned by the tale, as one person tweeted: "Watching Files of the Unexplained on Netflix and they’re on about jellyfish blobs falling out of the sky.. dreams please be kind tonight."
Another added: "This might sound like the plot of a great horror movie, but it has a basis in reality, and that's terrifying."
Other viewers seem to be hooked on the new series, as a third commented: "Now watching: Files of the Unexplained on Netflix .. y’all .. this is wild like wtf really be going on?!"
Files of the Unexplained is currently in Netflix's 'Top 10'
(Netflix)
A fourth penned: "Me, watching a show called Files of the Unexplained, still being surprised when each episode ends with the mystery still being unexplained: (shocked emoji)."
"Highly recommend Files of the Unexplained, new show that came out on Netflix today," a fifth said.
Meanwhile, some weren't so convinced, as one person added: "Files of the Unexplained may be one of the worst shows I’ve watched in a while.
"Do better. There are so many better unexplained things you could make a series from."
Why did a bunch of blobs fall from the sky in 1994?
(Netflix)
A second questioned: "I know a lot of stuff on Netflix is just Netflix good and not actual good but that new show Files of the Unexplained has an episode on the Yuba County Five that will mess with your head. What the hell caused what happened to them?"
"Come with me while we dive into bad conspiracy TV with Files of the Unexplained on Netflix," joked a third.
EXCLUSIVE - New witness of 1973 alien abduction in Mississippi featured in new Netflix doc claims she saw the 5ft creatures with 'pincer-like' claws that performed 'examinations' on two fishermen
Maria Blair said she saw the famed UFO abduction and being that was 'not a man'
Two men had said eerie beings abducted and examined them 'like any doctor'
The men made international news with their bizarre 'alien' encounter tale in 1973
A new witness to a bizarre 'alienabduction' in 1973 that is at the center of a new Netflix show has spoken out for the first time.
During a video interview, She recalled seeing five-foot tall aliens emerge from an oval-shaped UFO with flashing blue lights over over the Pascagoula River, scoop up the fisherman and carry them off into the night sky.
When the craft returned, she claimed the beings each man by the arm who were slumped over and unconscious.
Maria Blair has kept what she saw that October a secret for decades due to fears she would be ridiculed - but gave a video testimony in 2023 that has been shared with DailyMail.com.
While the case is decades old, it has been brought back to life in Netflix's top-ranking new docu-series 'Files Of The Unexplained,' sparking new interest into what may have happened on that night in the Mississippi marsh.
Mississippi resident Maria Blair claimed she saw a UFO on the night of October 11 and witnessed the beings load and unload to the two men onto the craft, she said in an October 2023 interview shared with DailyMail.com
Two Mississippi fishermen, Charles Hickson (left, above) and Calvin Parker (right), told local sheriffs, reporters, and even the US Air Force, that they witnessed an oval-shaped craft hovering over the Pascagoula River on the night of October 11th, 1973
As UFO's blue lights flashed and it descended closer to the marshland below, three, five-foot grey 'wrinkled-skin creatures' with 'pincer-like' claws (illustrated above) seized the two men — subjecting to them to examination, according to Parker, 'just like any doctor would'
The first episode of the Netflix series focuses on the experiences of Calvin Parker when he was aged 19, after he maintained that he fought off an 'alien' by '[getting] her round her skinny-a** neck'.
Blair is just now coming forward to tell her part of the story.
'They left twice, when they brought Calvin and Charlie [Hickson] back,' she said, 'when they brought them back from the spaceship.'
'That's when they got back in the craft,' Blair said, 'and it took off — straight up.'
Parker and Charles Hickson made international news following their claims.
As Hickson described the the scene to police in a 1973 video, the UFO flashed its blue lights as it descended into the marsh, revealing three, five-foot gray, 'wrinkled-skin' creatures with 'pincer'-like claws who seized the two men.
Parker then chimed in, saying a large floating eye scanned their frozen bodies for about 30 minutes: 'They gave a thorough, I mean a thorough, examination to me just like any doctor would.'
Blair, who has only spoken about her experience on October 11, explained in her interview that she and her now deceased husband, Jerry, saw the entire thing unfold over the marsh.
Maria Blair and her husband Jerry Blair (above) were newlyweds in 1973. They had only been married for about a year when they say they witnessed the Pascagoula 'alien' abduction from a distance across the river
Blair, who witnessed the events from about 350 to 400 feet away on the opposing side of the Pascagoula River, said that the younger man, Calvin Parker, appeared to be more afraid in the moment. Decades later, Parker and Blair got to meet in person (above)
'I'm watching from my car, and I'm seeing the lights, the blue lights flashing,' said Blair, who was then waiting with her husband for a boat set to take him to an oil rig out in the Gulf of Mexico.
'That's when Calvin [Parker] said he'd seen the blue lights.'
Blair estimated she saw the UFO's flashing blue lights for about 35 to 40 minutes in total that night - the same testimony given to police by Parker and Hickson.
'You're surprised when you look in the sky and you see a blue light. It really calls your attention to it,' Hickson told Jackson County Sheriff's in a taped interview the night of the incident.
'It come right down above the bayou,' He said, 'two-three feet above the ground.'
Philip Mantle, along with St. Bonaventure University assistant professor and biologist Irena Scott, spent roughly five years delving back into the 'Pascagoula Alien Abduction' case for their book, 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' (pictured) in 2023
Blair too witnessed that key moment, she said: 'The door opened [...] bright white light come through, very bright [...] and I'm seeing the three 'UFO guys' come out, 'aliens' or whatever they are.'
UFO researchers Philip Mantle and Dr Irene Scott interviewed Blair on two separate occasions, first in 2019 and again four years later - saying she has stuck to her story.
But the Mississippi woman has not shared details with the sheriff department or US military that spoke with the two men decades ago.
Parker and Hickson's story also made international news and both men were featured on TV several times, so it is not clear if Blair may have taken some of the fishermen's details during her recent interviews.
'We were sitting at the dock waiting to go out,' Blair told Mantle. 'She [Maria] said, 'Did you see that?' I said, 'I did hear a big splash.'' I thought it was a blimp or something,' he continued, 'but she said it was something else.'
Dr. Scott, a professor at St. Bonaventure University in Ohio, learned that Blair observed the UFO 'going back and forth across the sky' in a way not possible of an airplane.'
'I told my husband, there's something wrong with that plane,' she continued, 'it's like he doesn't know where he wants to go.'
Blair claimed she had an up-close encounter with one of the beings: 'Something come up out of the water and it was like a person, and I told [Jerry], 'There's somebody out there.''
She was very sure it was not a fish.
Mantle, who published a new book with Dr. Scott on the case last September, 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt,' said that he first located the couple via an anonymous comment made by their youngest daughter on a YouTube video.
The Blairs had not sought out fame, money or journalistic attention, said UFO researchers Philip Mantle, who supplied the new on-camera interview to DailyMail.com,
'They didn't step forward, as some people suggest,' Mantle told DailyMail.com.
In 2018, a local Fox affiliate had interviewed Calvin Parker about his alleged abduction by the three bizarre creatures with their 'robotic slit-mouths' and 'crab-like pincers,' and the clip reminded Tracee Blair of her parents' story. Above, Hickson on another local news segment
Files Of The Unexplained explores, in the words of the docu-series' creators, 'eight haunting encounters that may make you start second-guessing everything you have ever known'
'It was just this stray comment on YouTube from their youngest daughter, Tracee.'
The Blair's eldest daughter, Angela Maria, also shared her own memories of the shocking story to Mantle, emphasizing that the tale remained a tightly held bit of family lore for decades.
'My mother has always wondered what happened to those two guys and if they were still in the area,' she wrote to Mantle.
'She's only told my grandparents (who have passed), myself, my sister, and my ex-father-in-law this story, because she was always scared they'd [i.e. the pincer-clawed 'alien' beings] come back for her.'
The Jackson County Sheriff's department and former US Air Force UFO investigator, astronomer J. Allen Hynek, also investigated the abduction case in the mid-1970s.
Photographs of the men's injuries, taken by an engineering professor and UFO enthusiast in 1973, amount to 'physical evidence' debunking the skeptics' claims that this bizarre encounter was all in the two fishermen's heads — at least, according to the UFO researcher who supplied the historic images to DailyMail.com
After interviewing Hickson and Park separately, the sheriffs then strategically left the two together alone in an interrogation room where they were secretly taped - hoping that the two fishermen would privately try to 'get their story straight.'
Instead, the two men could be heard on the secret police tape too busy coping and processing their sheer terror.
'I got to get home and get to bed or get some nerve pills or see the doctor or something,' Parker can be heard saying on the tape. 'I can't stand it. I'm about to go half crazy.'
'I know,' Hickson replied as they tried to settle down. 'You can't believe it. You can't make people believe it.'
Both men later passed polygraph exams.
'We did everything we knew to try to break their stories,' as Jackson County Sheriff's Capt. Glenn Ryder told the Washington Post in 1975.
'If they were lying to me, they should be in Hollywood.'
Calvin Parker had only been 18 or 19 at the time of the alleged abduction at the hands of the three wrinkled, grey beings.
Parker passed away last year, August 24, 2023, but not before re-telling his story one last time to the filmmakers behind Netflix's 'Files Of The Unexplained.'
'He was ill at that point,' Mantle told DailyMail.com via phone. 'They were very compassionate and knew of his illness by the time they went to interview him.'
'It wasn't a 'mickey take' or anything like that,' he said, 'although there are a few funny parts, because that's the way it is with stories like this.'
0
1
2
3
4
5
- Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen) Categorie:ALIEN LIFE, UFO- CRASHES, ABDUCTIONS, MEN IN BLACK, ed ( FR. , NL; E )
UAP spotted over Portugal
UAP spotted over Portugal
An unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) was captured by an astrophotographer in Gandra, municipality of Esposende, on Sunday, and is being investigated by the Aerospace Phenomena Research Center (CIFA).
According to Vítor Moreira, president of CIFA, reported in NM, "The strange flying object was filmed for a minute, always with an indescribable shape, in a completely clear sky, suggesting its evolution over itself, perhaps derived from the atmospheric currents at that time".
CIFA preliminarily assigns two likely explanation scenarios, including the "strong hypothesis that it was a bag pulled by the wind or even a meteorological balloon".
As for the investigation, the centre reports that it is "ongoing", "expecting more details to be provided soon that will help clarify the bizarre occurrence, finding a plausible and rationally justified explanation".
"As soon as the investigations are finalised, we will report the situation of interest", he concluded.
Possible cigar-shaped UFO filmed during solar eclipse over Texas
Possible cigar-shaped UFO filmed during solar eclipse over Texas
A video recently emerged allegedly showing a strange fast moving cigar-shaped object resembling a UFO during the solar eclipse in Arlington, Texas, on April 8, just prior to 10 pm, before swiftly disappearing into the clouds.
While some speculate it could be an extraterrestrial vessel, others argue it might be the shadow cast of a plane flying above the clouds during the eclipse.
However, the footage casts doubt on this explanation, as the purported shadow not only emerges above the clouds but also vanishes behind them before reappearing, after which the object swiftly disappears into the clouds.
Furthermore, if it indeed was the shadow of a plane, wouldn't we also expect to see the shadows of the wings, rather than solely the fuselage?
Roswell Reimagined: Inside the Story of PD’s UFO-Inspired Patches with Ross Coulthart
Roswell Reimagined: Inside the Story of PD’s UFO-Inspired Patches with Ross Coulthart
In an engaging conversation with NewsNation’s Ross Coulthart, Roswell Police Chief Lance Bateman unveiled a new chapter in the city’s storied connection with UFO folklore. This small New Mexico town, synonymous with the 1947 UFO incident, continues to embrace its extraterrestrial heritage, this time through an innovative redesign of the Roswell Police Department’s uniform patches. The design features a flying saucer emitting a beam that forms the letter “R,” encircled by the motto “Protect and serve those that land here,” playfully acknowledging the city’s unique place in UFO culture.
Chief Bateman, who assumed his role in June of the previous year, initiated the patch redesign as part of a broader effort to engage with the community and update the department’s image. The process was democratic and creative, with officers contributing designs and ultimately voting for their favorite. This participatory approach not only fostered a sense of camaraderie within the force but also highlighted Roswell’s embrace of its identity as a hub for UFO enthusiasts and researchers.
Roswell’s connection to UFOs isn’t just a matter of local lore but a significant tourist draw and a point of cultural identity. Chief Bateman notes that the alien theme, while a more recent addition to the city’s identity, has become a crucial part of its allure. The new patches serve not just as a symbol of the police force’s role in the community but also as a nod to the city’s unique history and its open-minded approach to the mysteries of the universe.
The conversation also touched upon the original 1947 incident, which remains shrouded in mystery and speculation. Despite various explanations from the U.S. Air Force over the years, the true nature of what happened near Roswell continues to intrigue both the public and those in law enforcement like Chief Bateman. The police chief’s personal connection to the area, through his father’s military service at Walker Air Force Base, adds another layer to his perspectives on the local lore.
Chief Bateman’s approachable demeanor and open-mindedness about UFOs and the broader questions they pose about life beyond Earth reflect a larger curiosity and sense of wonder that characterizes the Roswell community. The new patches symbolize more than a mere uniform accessory; they represent Roswell’s unique position at the intersection of law enforcement, community identity, and the enduring human fascination with the unknown.
Ross Coulthart’s interview with Chief Bateman not only sheds light on the thought process behind the new patches but also encapsulates the broader implications of Roswell’s association with UFOs. It’s a story of community, identity, and the playful human spirit that dares to imagine what might lie beyond our skies. As Roswell continues to navigate its legacy as the site of one of the most famous UFO incidents in history, its police force’s new patches stand as a testament to the city’s embrace of its past and its openness to the mysteries of the future.
UFOs travelled to Earth 'through extra dimensions experts are trying to unlock'
UFOs travelled to Earth 'through extra dimensions experts are trying to unlock'
Harvard professor and astrophysicist Avi Loeb says aliens could have been using the 'curled dimensions' scientists are trying to blast open so they can understand how the universe was created
UFOs may be travelling through the hidden dimensions scientists are trying to expose, a leading astrophysicist has claimed.
Harvard professor Avi Loeb believes aliens are travelling through “curled dimensions” detectable only through the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), CERN’s particle boosting accelerator.
The world’s largest particle collider, the LHC blasts protons travelling almost at the speed of light against other protons to create massive particle, similar to the Big Bang, in efforts to further understand matter and how the universe was created.
Loeb believes aliens have been using these 'extra spatial dimensions' for billions of years
(Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
CERN scientists have used the LHC to try to detect six “extra spatial” dimensions, looking for particular particles as evidence that the dimensions exist, reports MailOnline.
In a new documentary, Loeb claimed extraterrestrials may have been developing dimension-hopping technology for billions of years and using theoretical quantum gravity engineering to travel through these hidden dimensions.
Loeb explained: “Quantum mechanics was discovered exactly a century ago. And all the most sophisticated technologies we currently employ, such as the Internet, artificial intelligence, and so forth, rely on our understanding of quantum mechanics.
“But the process of learning is incomplete - there are several major puzzles in modern physics.
“Within the mainstream of theoretical physics for the past decades, the prevailing paradigm is that it is possible to unify quantum mechanics and gravity unless you work with extra-spatial dimensions.
“We see only three of them in our daily life. But the idea is that the others are curled. And we can't really detect them unless we shoot particles that have exceptionally high energies that will probe these tiny scales.
“Of course, if there are extra dimensions, then the reality that we are familiar with extends into them. And then one can imagine life in more than three spatial dimensions. It will be far more diverse and interesting.”
The scientist added by travelling through these extra-spacial dimensions, aliens reduce the risk of collision.
CERN’s LHC was first used in 2008, and is found on the French-Swiss border.
Man who disappeared in 1991 reappeared 30 years later with no memor
Man who disappeared in 1991 reappeared 30 years later with no memory
Throughout the world, numerous individuals have vanished over time, seemingly vanishing without a trace, only to resurface, sometimes after decades, in equally mysterious and intriguing circumstances.
The mysterious disappearance of Vasile Gorgos in 1991, a sixty-three-year-old farmer from Romania is such a case.
Gorgos, known for his routine trips to sell his cattle, vanished without a trace, leaving his family and authorities perplexed.
Despite extensive searches and efforts by the police, no leads emerged, and Gorgos was presumed to have met a tragic fate. His family mourned his loss, resigned to the idea that they would never see him again.
Fast forward thirty years, and against all odds, Vasile Gorgos returned, appearing at his family's doorstep dressed in the same clothes he wore when he vanished. However, what stunned everyone even more was Gorgos's complete lack of memory regarding his disappearance and the passage of time.
The reappearance of Gorgos, unchanged in appearance and attire after three decades, remains a baffling mystery, leaving questions unanswered and sparking speculation about the mysteries of memory and time.
Measuring the Atmospheres of Other Worlds to See if There are Enough Nutrients for Life
Life on Earth depends on six critical elements: Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous, and Sulfur. These elements are referred to asCHNOPS, and along with several trace micronutrients and liquid water, they’re what life needs.
Scientists are getting a handle on detecting exoplanets that might be warm enough to have liquid water on their surfaces, habitability’s most basic signal. But now, they’re looking to up their game by finding CHNOPS in exoplanet atmospheres.
We’re only at the beginning of understanding how exoplanets could support life. To grow our understanding, we need to understand the availability of CHNOPS in planetary atmospheres.
At our current technological level, we’re just beginning to examine exoplanet atmospheres. The JWST is our main tool for the task, and it’s good at it. But the JWST is busy with other tasks. In 2029, the ESA will launch ARIEL, the Atmospheric Remote-sensing Infrared Exoplanet Large survey. ARIEL will be solely focused on exoplanet atmospheres.
In anticipation of that telescope’s mission, Herbort and his co-researchers are preparing for the results and what they mean for habitability. “The detailed understanding of the planets itself becomes important for interpreting observations, especially for the detection of biosignatures,” they write. In particular, they’re scrutinizing the idea of aerial biospheres. “We aim to understand the presence of these nutrients within atmospheres that show the presence of water cloud condensates, potentially allowing the existence of aerial biospheres.”
Our sister planet Venus has an unsurvivable surface. The extreme heat and pressure make the planet’s surface uninhabitable by any measure we can determine. But some scientists have proposed that life could exist in Venus’ atmosphere, based largely on the detection of phosphine, a possible indicator of life. This is an example of what an aerial biosphere might look like.
“This concept of aerial biospheres enlarges the possibilities of potential habitability from the presence of liquid water on the surface to all planets with liquid water clouds,” the authors explain.
The authors examined the idea of aerial biospheres and how the detection of CHNOPS plays into them. They introduced the concept of nutrient availability levels in exoplanet atmospheres. In their framework, the presence of water is required regardless of other nutrient availability. “We considered any atmosphere without water condensates as uninhabitable,” they write, a nod to water’s primacy. The researchers assigned different levels of habitability based on the presence and amounts of the CHNOPS nutrients.
To explore their framework of nutrient availability, the researchers turned to simulations. The simulated atmospheres held different levels of nutrients, and the researchers applied their concept of nutrient availability. Their results aim to understand not habitability but the chemical potential for habitability. A planet’s atmosphere can be altered drastically by life, and this research aims to understand the atmospheric potential for life.
“Our approach does not directly aim for the understanding of biosignatures and atmospheres of planets, which are inhabited, but for the conditions in which pre-biotic chemistry can occur,” they write. In their work, the minimum atmospheric concentration for a nutrient to be available is 10?9, or one ppb (part per billion.)
“We find that for most atmospheres at ( p gas, T gas) points, where liquid water is stable, CNS-bearing molecules are present at concentrations above 10?9,” they write. They also found that carbon is generally present in every simulated atmosphere and that sulphur availability increases with surface temperature. With lower surface temperatures, nitrogen (N2, NH3) is present in increasing amounts. But with higher surface temperatures, nitrogen can become depleted.
Phosphorus is a different matter. “The limiting element of the CHNOPS elements is phosphorus, which is mostly bound in the planetary crust,” they write. The authors point out that, at past times in Earth’s atmosphere, phosphorus scarcity limited the biosphere.
An aerial biosphere is an interesting idea. But it’s not the main thrust of scientists’ efforts to detect exoplanet atmospheres. Surface life is their holy grail. It should be no surprise that it still comes down to liquid water, all things considered. “Similar to previous work, our models suggest that the limiting factor for habitability at the surface of a planet is the presence of liquid water,” the authors write. In their work, when surface water was available, CNS was available in the lower atmosphere near the surface.
But surface water plays several roles in atmospheric chemistry. It can bond with some nutrients in some circumstances, making them unavailable, and in other circumstances, it can make them available.
“If water is available at the surface, the elements not present in the gas phase are stored in the crust condensates,” the authors write. Chemical weathering can then make them available as nutrients. “This provides a pathway to overcome the lack of atmospheric phosphorus and metals, which are used in enzymes that drive many biological processes.”
This complicates matters on worlds covered by oceans. Pre-biotic molecules might not be available if there’s no opportunity for water and rock to interact with the atmosphere. “If indeed it can be shown that life can form in a water ocean without any exposed land, this constraint becomes weaker, and the potential for the surface habitability becomes mainly a question of water stability,” the authors write.
Some of the models are surprising because of atmospheric liquid water. “Many of the models show the presence of a liquid water zone in the atmospheres, which is detached from the surface. These regions could be of interest for the formation of life in forms of aerial biospheres,” Herbort and his colleagues write.
If there’s one thing that research like this shows, planetary atmospheres are extraordinarily complex and can change dramatically over time, sometimes because of life itself. This research makes some sense in trying to understand it all. Emphasizing the complexity is the fact that the researchers didn’t include stellar radiation in their work. Including that would’ve made the effort unwieldy.
The habitability issue is complicated, confounded by our lack of answers to foundational questions. Does a planet’s crust have to be in contact with water and the atmosphere for the CHNOPS nutrients to be available? Earth has a temporary aerial biosphere. Can aerial biospheres be an important part of exoplanet habitability?
But beyond all the simulations and models, as powerful as they are, what scientists need most is more data. When ARIEL launches, scientists will have much more data to work with. Research like this will help scientists understand what ARIEL finds.
Testing a Probe that Could Drill into an Ice World
I remember reading about an audacious mission to endeavour to drill through the surface ice of Europa, drop in a submersible and explore the depths below. Now that concept may be taking a step closer to reality with researchers working on technology to do just that. Worlds like Europa are high on the list for exploration due to their potential to harbour life. If technology like the SLUSH probe (Search for Life Using Submersible Head) work then we are well on the way to realising that dream.
The search for life has always been something to captivate the mind. Think about the diversity of life on Earth and it is easy to see why we typically envisage creatures that rely upon sunlight, food and drink. But on Earth, life has found a way in the most inhospitable of environments, even at the very bottom of the ocean. The Mariana’s Trench is deeper than Mount Everest is tall and anything that lives there has to cope with cold water, crushingly high pressure and no sunlight. Seems quite alien but even here, life thrives such as the deep-sea crustacean Hirondellea Gigas – catchy name.
Europa, one of the moon’s of Jupiter has an ice crust but this covers over a global ocean of liquid water. The conditions deep down in the ocean of Europa might not be so very different from those at the bottom of the Mariana’s Trench so it is here that a glimmer of hope exists to find other life in the Solar System. Should it exist, getting to it is the tricky bit. It’s not just on Europa but Enceladus and even Mars may have water underneath ice shelves. Layers of ice up to a kilometre thick might exist so technology like SLUSH has been developed to overcome.
The technology is not too new though since melt probes like SLUSH have been tested before. The idea is beautifully simple. The thermo-mechanical probe uses a drilling mechanism to break through the ice and then the heat probe to partially melt the ice chips, forming slush to enable their transportation to behind the probe as it descends.
The probe, which looks rather like a light sabre, is then able to transmit data from the subsurface water back to the lander. A tether system is used for the data transmission using conductive microfilaments and an optical fibre cable. Intriguingly and perhaps even cunningly, should the fibre cable break (which is a possibility due to tidal stresses from the ice) then the microfilaments will work as an antenna. They can then be tuned into by the lander to resume data transmission. The tether is coiled up and housed inside spools which are left behind in the ice as the spool is emptied. I must confess my immediate thought here was ‘litter’! I accept we have to leave probes in order to explore but surely we can do it without leaving litter behind! However there is a reason for this too. As the spools are deployed, they act as receivers and transmitters to allow the radio frequencies to travel through the ice.
The company working on the device is Honeybee Robotics have created prototypes. The first was stand alone, had no data transmission capability and demonstrated the drilling and slushing technology in an ice tower in Honeybee’s walk in freezer. While this was underway, the tether communication technology was being tested too with the first version called the Salmon Probe. This was taken to Devon Island in the Arctic where the unspooling method is being put through its paces. The first attempts back in 2022 saw the probe achieving depths of 1.8m!
A further probe was developed called the Dolphin probe and this was capable of getting to depths of about 100m but sea ice limitations meant it could only get to a depth of 2m! Thus far, all probes have performed well. Honeybee are now working on the Narwhal Probe which will have more measuring equipment on board, a deployable tether and spool and will be far more like the finished product. If all goes to plan it will profile the ice on Devon Island to a depth of 100m. This is still quite short of the kilometre thick ice expected but it is most definitely fantastic progress toward exploring the cold watery depths of alien worlds.
A Neutron Star Merged with a Surprisingly Light Black Hole
Galactic collisions, meteor impacts and even stellar mergers are not uncommon events. neutron stars colliding with black holes however are a little more rare, in fact, until now, we have never observed one. The fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing detected gravitational waves from a collision between a black hole and neutron star 650 million light years away. The black hole was tiny though with a mass between 2.5 to 4.5 times that of the Sun.
Neutron stars and black holes have something in common; they are both the remains of a massive star that has reached the end of its life. During the main part of a stars life the inward pull of gravity is balanced by the outward push of the thermonuclear pressure that makes the star shine. The thermonuclear pressure overcomes gravity for low mass stars like the Sun but for more massive stars, gravity wins. The core collapses compressing it into either a neutron star or a black hole (depending on the progenitor star mass) and explodes as a supernova – in the blink of an eye.
In May 2023, as a result of the fourth observing session of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory-Virgo Gravitational Wave Interferometer and Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector) network, gravitational waves were picked up from a merger event. The signal came from an object 1.2 times the mass of the Sun and another slightly more massive object. Further analysis revealed the likelihood that one was a neutron star and the other a low mass black hole. The latter falls into the so called ‘mass gap’, more massive than the most massive neutron star and less massive than the least massive black hole.
Interactions between objects can generate gravitational waves. Before they were detected back in 2015, stellar mass black holes were typically found through X-ray observations. Neutron stars on the other hand, were usually found with radio observations. Between the two, was the mass gap with objects lacking between three and five solar masses.
It has been the subject of debate among scientists with the odd object found which fell within the gap, fuelling debate about its existence. The gap has generally been considered to separate the neutron stars from the black holes and items in this mass group have been scarce. This gravitational wave discovery suggests maybe objects in this gap are not so rare after-all.
One of the challenges of detecting mass gap objects and mergers between them is the sensitivity of detectors. The LIGO team at the University of British Columbia researchers are working hard to improve the coatings used in mirror production. Enhanced performance on future LIGO detectors will further enhance detection capabilities. It’s not just optical equipment that is being developed, infrastructure changes are also being addressed including data analysis software too. Improving sensitivity in all aspects of the gravity wave network is sure to yield results in future runs. However for now, the rest of the first half of the observing run needs analysing with 80 more candidate signals to study.
Beste bezoeker, Heb je zelf al ooit een vreemde waarneming gedaan, laat dit dan even weten via email aan Frederick Delaere opwww.ufomeldpunt.be. Deze onderzoekers behandelen jouw melding in volledige anonimiteit en met alle respect voor jouw privacy. Ze zijn kritisch, objectief maar open minded aangelegd en zullen jou steeds een verklaring geven voor jouw waarneming! DUS AARZEL NIET, ALS JE EEN ANTWOORD OP JOUW VRAGEN WENST, CONTACTEER FREDERICK. BIJ VOORBAAT DANK...
Druk op onderstaande knop om je bestand , jouw artikel naar mij te verzenden. INDIEN HET DE MOEITE WAARD IS, PLAATS IK HET OP DE BLOG ONDER DIVERSEN MET JOUW NAAM...
Druk op onderstaande knop om een berichtje achter te laten in mijn gastenboek
Alvast bedankt voor al jouw bezoekjes en jouw reacties. Nog een prettige dag verder!!!
Over mijzelf
Ik ben Pieter, en gebruik soms ook wel de schuilnaam Peter2011.
Ik ben een man en woon in Linter (België) en mijn beroep is Ik ben op rust..
Ik ben geboren op 18/10/1950 en ben nu dus 74 jaar jong.
Mijn hobby's zijn: Ufologie en andere esoterische onderwerpen.
Op deze blog vind je onder artikels, werk van mezelf. Mijn dank gaat ook naar André, Ingrid, Oliver, Paul, Vincent, Georges Filer en MUFON voor de bijdragen voor de verschillende categorieën...
Veel leesplezier en geef je mening over deze blog.