An anti simplistic-debunking argument

Initiate
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:16 pm

PostSun Jan 19, 2014 3:58 pm » by jeremyjr


Debunking is done in a lot of times in a simplistic way, for obvious reasons: simple facts are easier to "explain".

I had some arguments with a "top" MUFON "analyst/debunker" regarding one of my recordings, between emails I had a little insight that can be seen as a very strong anti-simplistic debunking argument, and it is the following:

- Any axially symmetric object that is seen moving through the atmosphere and in a consistent way it moves along its axis can NOT be a balloon.

This fact is actually a little more general and can be stated as follows:

- Any elongated object, not necessarily symmetric that is seen moving through the atmosphere and in a consistent way it moves along its longer axis can NOT be a balloon.

This statement, with its necessary physical and mathematical justifications could be published as an interesting note in a physics or mathematics journal.

Even when this looks very simple and maybe trivial it is not, for example this "top" analyst was unaware of it and was missing it all the time.

This last one for example applies to elliptic objects that always move along their longer axis, I have several recordings of these elliptic objects that move in that way, this implies that they are not balloons.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2316
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:46 am

PostSun Jan 19, 2014 4:39 pm » by Cosmine


Yes Jeremyr, mufon/cia...will always debonk.... if you give them your footage.... it's their own.... not yours anymore ...

Roger Marsh
UFO Examiner
Pennsylvania Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) State Director John Ventre was a guest on Visions Radio April 16, 2011, to counter statements made by Joedy Cooks on a recent show.
Cooks - identified as a Bigfoot researcher - made some rather wild statements - seemingly as fact - that MUFON intimidated witnesses, destroyed evidence, and was controlled by the CIA.

 
"MUFON, I would not trust MUFON if they sat and told me aliens exist, okay," Cooks stated on the show. "Now MUFON, their sole purpose, is to lie to you about the truth and stop any information being released. And especially their STAR team."
Ventre's guest spot can be heard at this link. Cooks was offered an opportunity to appear on the show with Ventre, but refused. 
Ventre says on the show - now available by podcast - that in fact MUFON field investigators are trained to make people comfortable as they collect information on UFO cases. Many reports can be explained as something natural or manmade, Ventre explained, "but it's the 7 percent of cases that can't be explained" that we're interested in.
Ventre addressed all of Mr. Cooks' statements.
As far as CIA infiltration, Ventre points out that MUFON International Director Clifford Clifts "grows and sells Christmas trees" for a living. As far as destroying "evidence", which Cooks says he has on video tape, Ventre says that it's the stuff of urban legends. MUFON had a policy where all field investigator reports were copied and sent to headquarters, and that they were stored in a rented storage area. MUFON decided to leave the original files with field investigators and no longer store copies of these files. And that was what was thrown away.


http://ufodigest.ca/article/mufon-penns ... erning-cia
Image
Cosmine's cohost...:M8


Upload to Disclose.tv




Vocasti! :twisted:

Initiate
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:16 pm

PostWed Jan 22, 2014 2:42 am » by jeremyjr


This is a little "experiment" that validates the previous statement that can be expressed as follows:

Any axially symmetric object that is seen moving through the atmosphere and in a consistent way it moves along its axis then is NOT a balloon.


Upload to Disclose.tv



And this is part #2 of this series of "anti simplistic-debunking" arguments, this part actually is a little more general and is an illustration of this general intuitive balloon "flying pattern".

"If you have a balloon, that is not "loaded" meaning that its surface material is uniform, then when that balloon is "pushed" by a wind flow it will "tend" to present to the wind a "face" of maximal area."

This apparently simple principle is very powerful when analyzing some objects flying pattern.


Upload to Disclose.tv


Initiate
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:16 pm

PostWed Jan 22, 2014 1:34 pm » by jeremyjr


The last days have brought to my attention something that is really important: There is a completely and deep lack of understanding even on top specialists of the concept of being "adrift" or uncontrolled fly in the wind and by simple logic of its negative: a controlled flying pattern. Improving that understanding is really important. Postings like this try to correct that.

Initiate
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:16 pm

PostWed Jan 22, 2014 2:50 pm » by jeremyjr


There are several physics arguments that justify the "balloons flying patterns". This is a general statement that is trying to make that flying patter more precisely understood:

a) If you have a balloon, that is not "loaded" meaning that its surface material is uniform, so that when it float any position of the balloon is almost an equilibrium position, then when that balloon is "pushed" by a wind flow then the balloon will "tend" to present to the wind a "face" of maximal area.

This statement is a general case of the one considered in the first video post of this thread:

b) Any axially symmetric object that is seen moving through the atmosphere and in a consistent way it moves along its axis is very likely NOT to be a balloon.

I give MUFON three theoretical justifications for the validity of this, but also, no theoretical consideration will be valid without having observations confirming directly or indirectly your claim, the video posts in here actually are a fully confirmation of my claim.

For people that can follow physics and mathematical arguments these are the three theoretical justifications for the validaty of the general claim a), remember that claim b) is actually a particular case of a), so proving a) will imply the validity of b):

1- Speed gradient justification:
When an object float in a fluid, the "natural" tendency is that the speed difference between the object and the fluid will tend to be zero, asymptotically, then which is the object position respect to the flow that will tend to minimize faster the speed difference between the object and the fluid? If you think about that for a moment then the answer will be clear: it is the position of the object that offer maximal "resistance" to the fluid movement, but that position is the one that offer a face of "maximal" area to the flow, or equivalently it is the position of the object that offers maximal drag when the object is the one moving. That is an stable "equilibrium" position.

2- Minimizing drag argument: Drag is defined as the forced exerted on each point of the object surface that have a component along the direction of the flow, when the object is being "pushed" by the flow all areas on the object perpendicular to the flow will have zero component of the drag force, so to minimize drag on this conditions the object will have to position itself in such a way that the longitudinal component of the drag force is minimized and that is obtained when a "maximal face" is presented to the fluid. This argument confuse many people, even top specialists, and the reason is that some people consciously or unconscionably always think as if the object is the one moving, but in this case the object is being "pushed" by the flow and the situation is different.

3- Pressure gradient argument: When an object is moving in a fluid a pressure difference is created between the "front" and the "back" of the object, there is a natural tendency for this pressure difference to be minimized as soon as possible, that difference will be minimized faster when the force exerted by this pressure difference is maximal, but that force is directly proportional to the exposed surface, again "maximal area exposed".

Remember that these are "statistical" tendencies, so "tumbling" is also part of this analysis.

So, we have three different arguments that justify the claim and also we have plenty of observational data that validates such claim.

The effect of this claim have been seen by anybody in a boat in a smooth water current, what happen to the boat when it is left unattended for just a moment? It will tend to "drift" and get perpendicular to the current because that is a "maximal" face.

Initiate
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:16 pm

PostWed Jan 22, 2014 9:24 pm » by jeremyjr


We can call this the "MUFON principle":

Any object floating in an air current always "tend" to present to the wind flow a section of maximal drag.

Do I have to mention that there is a high level of irony on that name?

Initiate
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:16 pm

PostFri Jan 24, 2014 4:40 pm » by jeremyjr


The main claim here have been posted as a "problem" in a very well known public physics forum:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=734272

I added this to physics forum:

This problem general claim is an extension of one more simple claim, that the professional people mentioned before were denying and I then "extended" to a more general case. This is the more restricted claim:

An elongated homogeneous axially symmetric balloon will never float in a wind current consistently pointing its axis in the direction of the wind speed.

This is clearly a particular case of the more general problem claim, because a section of maximal drag for such elongated balloon will be a position with its axis perpendicular to the wind flow. There is plenty of evidence supporting this more restricted claim, you just have to observe balloons in fly to realize that. But these professional people were forcefully denying that, even on the face of evidence. I want to confirm, even in more restricted conditions the general case on this problem main claim. Of course I wan to prove, by using an impartial arbiter, that all these people are wrong or that I am wrong.

Let me add here that even when this statement looks very simple and innocuous it have very important implications, for example in surveillance and that was actually the genesis of this "dispute", if these people that are claiming the opposing view are in charge of the security of a very sensitive installation and they see an elongated balloon above or close to the installation moving consistently along its axis these people will dismiss it as a "normal" balloon, but if my claim holds, and I believe that it will, these people should be fired from their position as security consultants for their lack of physical intuition and insight.



  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook