The Plasma Hypothesis for UFOs/UAP (Ball Lightning)

[lost_shaman]

[Mod Edit: The following discussion was split off from another thread]

As many know, I don't think there is anything to UFOs because I have never seen one in all my years of astronomical experience and there has never been a UFO event that was monitored by scientific instruments that could not be explained as something else. That being said, I am open to the possibility that I might need to change my position if GOOD SOLID VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE can be produced. So far, nothing of the sort has been done to my satisfaction. Lots of mysteries (that could have more mundane solutions than ET) but nothing conclusive.

Hey Tim,

Not to quibble over a trifling matter but there have been many UFO events that were monitored by scientific instruments that originally could not be explained or only have hypothetical explanations to this day. Currently over the last two decades there has been reported a small but nonetheless preponderance of evidence that most of the previously unexplained 'UFO' reports observed by both laypersons and scientific instruments seem to be energetic and highly organized atmospheric plasmas. For instance the Hessdalen phenomena that has been scientifically studied for over 25 years now shows that at least 95% of all observations that were deemed 'unknown' originally show/or fit the profile of atmospheric plasmas, and more significantly before this conclusion much more than 5% of these phenomena had prompted researchers to suggest hypotheses such as covert military craft or even the ETH which the preponderance of evidence now shows these were also just highly organized atmospheric plasmas that have high strangeness values.

http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My take is that the "UFO" Phenomena should be taken seriously despite the fact that "more mundane solutions than ET" are available. Clearly "E.T." isn't the only hypothesis and the data available shows the light spectrum involved in many sightings is consistent with plasmas.

It's very likely due to variations in regional distribution that many laypersons are likely seeing these plasmas, and they may be assuming that they are seeing "E.T." spacecraft, even while self proclaimed 'trained' observers such as Tim have never seen these atmospheric plasmas and are likely therefore dismissing them completely in error because no "E.T. Spacecraft" are observed but neither are atmospheric plasmas observed. e.g. Several people failed to observe Einstein's relativity correctly but once it was accurately observed it was shown not to be falsified.

The same should be true here. A failure to observe atmospheric plasmas does not mean atmospheric plasmas do not exist or can not be observed. The fact that some scientists have observed them falsifies the idea that they do not exist and the failure to observe one for yourself is and of itself is not a falsification. See the MOD's 2006 'Condign' report.

[astrophotographer]

Not to quibble over a trifling matter but there have been many UFO events that were monitored by scientific instruments that originally could not be explained or only have hypothetical explanations to this day. Currently over the last two decades there has been reported a small but nonetheless preponderance of evidence that most of the previously unexplained 'UFO' reports observed by both laypersons and scientific instruments seem to be energetic and highly organized atmospheric plasmas. For instance the Hessdalen phenomena that has been scientifically studied for over 25 years now shows that at least 95% of all observations that were deemed 'unknown' originally show/or fit the profile of atmospheric plasmas, and more significantly before this conclusion much more than 5% of these phenomena had prompted researchers to suggest hypotheses such as covert military craft or even the ETH which the preponderance of evidence now shows these were also just highly organized atmospheric plasmas that have high strangeness values.

The "Hessdalen lights" really are not much in the way of UFOs though. They are just balls of light and, despite decades of observation, really can not be predicted or resolved as to what they are. Exactly what scientific measurements have been presented to the scientific community? As best I can tell, not much and papers on the lights usually can be found in UFO journals or places like the Society for Scientific exploration. If they had presented their papers in some scientific journals with credibility, then the credibility of their work might rise. I am unaware of their work appearing in such journals.
Meanwhile, the lights really do not compare to the standard UFO reports that describe actual craft that have lights or maneuver rapidly across the sky. It is these kind of UFOs I am describing. If you want to talk about "earth lights", "spook lights" or whatever, go right ahead.

[lost_shaman]

The "Hessdalen lights" really are not much in the way of UFOs though. They are just balls of light and, despite decades of observation, really can not be predicted or resolved as to what they are. Exactly what scientific measurements have been presented to the scientific community? As best I can tell, not much and papers on the lights usually can be found in UFO journals or places like the Society for Scientific exploration. If they had presented their papers in some scientific journals with credibility, then the credibility of their work might rise. I am unaware of their work appearing in such journals.
Meanwhile, the lights really do not compare to the standard UFO reports that describe actual craft that have lights or maneuver rapidly across the sky. It is these kind of UFOs I am describing. If you want to talk about "earth lights", "spook lights" or whatever, go right ahead.

I think you are being premature and possibly ill-informed in dismissing the Hessdalen phenomena. Let me make make several points...

First, it seems endemic to " scientific journals with credibility" that they simply do not touch the 'UFO' issue at all even if plasmas are the explanation. That of course is subject to future change.

Second, the Hessdalen Phenomena do in-fact compare to standard UFO reports in that roughly the same small percentage appear as daylight non-luminous observations and that some small percentage are observed traversing the sky at extreme speeds and some erratically or at very slow speeds and some are stationary and some exhibit all these traits.

Third, the description of "craft" by the reporting observers is simply the opinion of the reporting observers. The same is generally true for observers of actual aircraft at night where the observers are only seeing the aircrafts lights not the actual aircraft itself. It's not unreasonable to assume people reporting Hessdalen Phenomena (atmospheric plasmas) might also assume these "lights" that sometimes assume formations are "crafts" during the night time observations and therefore report them as such considering that the people studying the phenomena also at one point proposed an ETH hypothesis themselves to explain the observations that had the higher strangeness values.

Fourth, the MOD's 'Condign' report "UAP in the U.K. Air Defense Region" 2000, comes to the same conclusion in detail and describes why people are reporting "kind of UFOs (you are) describing" as being atmospheric plasmas that must undoubtedly be related to the Hessdalen Phenomena that are also atmospheric plasmas.

[astrophotographer]

I think you are being premature and possibly ill-informed in dismissing the Hessdalen phenomena. Let me make make several points...

I am just not impressed with what has been presented regarding the lights themselves (as well as plasmas). I discussed this with AD via PM and mentioned a report I read some time ago about some of the lights being debunked by an italian group. I did not bother to go any further but he pursued and sent me this link, which is what I remembered reading:

http://www.itacomm.net/ph/rebuttal.pdf

Now this does not debunk the lights themselves but shows the level of research going on with the "lights". This is why I expect something to appear in a credible scientific journal and not the International UFO reporter (which has published articles that were bogus in the past and got past their "peer review") to give it some credence. You have to be careful about scientists who are on the "fringe" claiming they are studying something exotic. Sometimes they are but sometimes they are blinded by their own desires/beliefs/expectations (whatever). A case in point was "cold fusion" about twenty years ago. What came of that? Apparently, the work on that failed muster (unless you want to believe in electric company cabals/government conspiracies). The scientists who presented their data in a news conference (skipping the peer review and not presenting it in a credible scientific journal) were blinded by their excitement and desires.

[lost_shaman]

I am just not impressed with what has been presented regarding the lights themselves (as well as plasmas). I discussed this with AD via PM and mentioned a report I read some time ago about some of the lights being debunked by an italian group. I did not bother to go any further but he pursued and sent me this link, which is what I remembered reading:

http://www.itacomm.net/ph/rebuttal.pdf

Now this does not debunk the lights themselves but shows the level of research going on with the "lights". This is why I expect something to appear in a credible scientific journal and not the International UFO reporter (which has published articles that were bogus in the past and got past their "peer review") to give it some credence.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding the level of research? The paper you've pointed out is specific to one observation.

Also the MOD report that I mentioned cites numerous articles from many diverse peer reviewed journals in developing and supporting its conclusions. None of these happen to be the International UFO reporter.

[astrophotographer]

I'm not sure what your point is regarding the level of research? The paper you've pointed out is specific to one observation.

Also the MOD report that I mentioned cites numerous articles from many diverse peer reviewed journals in developing and supporting its conclusions. None of these happen to be the International UFO reporter.

I thought we were discussing research regarding the Hessdalen lights. If this is the level of research being conducted on the matter, it just reinforces my doubts on the type of data being obtained. Like UFOs, the lights have been studied for decades and nothing has come out of these studies.

As for the Condign report, I see nothing there that contains scientific instruments obtaining data regarding "UAP", which was my original statement.

If you want to start another thread about plasmas, Hessdalen lights, Condign, feel free to do so. I am not going to waste any more time on the matter and it is not the subject of this thread.

[lost_shaman]

I thought we were discussing research regarding the Hessdalen lights. If this is the level of research being conducted on the matter, it just reinforces my doubts on the type of data being obtained. Like UFOs, the lights have been studied for decades and nothing has come out of these studies.

I just used Hessdalen originally as a 'for instance' example. You brought up the research, and you only cited one paper that does not represent a "level" of research IMO. It represents an argument over one specific observation in August of 2002. This does not negate the fact that subsequent research shows the phenomena can be distinguished from other sources by its spectrographic signature that shows it to be atmospheric plasma.

On that note you are wrong in the idea that "nothing has come out of these studies". The studies have produced something substantial by explaining what the phenomena is but not only that they seem to show that this phenomena also likely explains many if not a majority of what people report as 'UFOs'!

As for the Condign report, I see nothing there that contains scientific instruments obtaining data regarding "UAP", which was my original statement.

I don't see your point here. The report was not designed to obtain new data but analyse data that existed based on existing scientific knowledge. Your reason for ignoring it seems strange or misguided.

What scientific instruments do you assume would be used to obtain data regarding "UAP" that are not specifically mentioned in the MOD report?

The MOD's Condign report also mentions Hessdalen and the bulk of research there compliments the Condign report. The two are consistent with one another even though the Condign report (2000) was classified until 2006!

[ryguy]

On that note you are wrong in the idea that "nothing has come out of these studies". The studies have produced something substantial by explaining what the phenomena is but not only that they seem to show that this phenomena also likely explains many if not a majority of what people report as 'UFOs'!

Would you mind taking some time to link to any of the results of those studies show what you suggest above. I'd be interesting in reading those conclusions, but in all honestly I'm not sure where to look for those results - is it linked earlier in this thread?

I don't see your point here. The report was not designed to obtain new data but analyse data that existed based on existing scientific knowledge. Your reason for ignoring it seems strange or misguided.

Does the report at least refer to data that comes from instrumental data (the existing data you refer to outside of the report)? I'd like to see examples of that from the Condign report that you imply Tim ignored? I'd like to read that - it sounds like it would be interesting.

What scientific instruments do you assume would be used to obtain data regarding "UAP" that are not specifically mentioned in the MOD report?

Could you quote where the MOD report cited measured data regarding "UAP" - or have you already earlier in this thread?

Thanks,
-Ryan

[astrophotographer]

I don't see your point here. The report was not designed to obtain new data but analyse data that existed based on existing scientific knowledge. Your reason for ignoring it seems strange or misguided.

What scientific instruments do you assume would be used to obtain data regarding "UAP" that are not specifically mentioned in the MOD report?

The MOD's Condign report also mentions Hessdalen and the bulk of research there compliments the Condign report. The two are consistent with one another even though the Condign report (2000) was classified until 2006!

My original statement was,

As many know, I don't think there is anything to UFOs because I have never seen one in all my years of astronomical experience and there has never been a UFO event that was monitored by scientific instruments that could not be explained as something else.

You responded by first directing me towards the study of the Hessdalen lights as a case of scientific studies being done on the lights. I have yet to see any papers describing what they have concluded, which is why I don't think the project has accomplished much. Now you brought up Condign as having evidence but I don't see it in the report. Where are the scientific instruments monitoring UFOs? Condign really presented very little. It suggested plasmas but also suggested the standard statements about possible explanations. The evidence consisted mostly of anecdotal acounts and not scientific measurements.

Like I stated previiously, if you want to start a new thread on these topics, feel free to do so and we can discuss the particulars there. I think we have derailed this partcular thread enough and really do not feel a need to discuss it further.

[Access Denied]

Like I stated previiously, if you want to start a new thread on these topics, feel free to do so and we can discuss the particulars there. I think we have derailed this partcular thread enough and really do not feel a need to discuss it further.

Yes, I went ahead and split this off into a separate thread but by no means should you feel obligated to discuss it any further as a result.

While I was at it I thought I’d throw this article I read recently from the latest eSkeptic newsletter into the mix…

The Case Against Ball Lightning
by Steuart Campbell
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-12-23#feature

Ball lightning (BL) is popularly described as a slowly-moving luminous ball not more than twelve inches (30 cm) in diameter occasionally seen at ground level during a thunderstorm. Scientists usually understand it as an electrical discharge phenomenon somehow associated with normal lightning.

The existence of BL is controversial with opinions and explanations changing over time. While many theories have been advanced to explain it, none of them account for all the reported characteristics, Further, it has not been created in laboratory conditions with all these characteristics, and reliable accounts of it are rare and often suspect. Because of perceptual and memory problems, anecdotal evidence is of doubtful value. There is no photograph, film or video recording that can be accepted unreservedly as showing BL. Many forget the null hypothesis, which has explained many postulated phenomena, such as phlogiston and the ether, that turn out to be nonexistent. The null hypothesis may also explains BL, which could be a chimera, a pseudo-phenomenon.

Check out the rest of the article at the above link but here’s one part I found interesting and relevant to the discussion at hand…

Many alleged pictures of BL are deliberate fakes. They appear to include the picture produced in 1966 by a former Canadian Air Force pilot, which misled the American editor of Aviation Week and Space Technology, who used it on the cover of his skeptical books on UFOs (Campbell 1988c).

Although it is fairly easy to take a photograph, or to fake one, which many mistakenly interpret as showing BL, it should be less easy to produce a film or video sequence that could fool anyone. However, in 1973 a film appeared that was claimed to show BL traveling slowly across the horizon near Aylesbury (England). It shows a bright ball of light moving on a steady horizontal course for twenty-three seconds until it suddenly vanishes. Because it was reported initially as a UFO, the film has been shown many times at UFO conferences and has featured in a BBC TV program about UFOs. But it was also thought that it showed BL. Later it was demonstrated that the ‘ball’ was burning fuel being dumped from a damaged US fighter-bomber; the aircraft itself, nearly four miles (6 km) away, was not visible beside the fireball and too far away to be heard (Campbell 1991).

Lately I find myself increasingly skeptical of the plasma hypothesis in general and the UAP report commissioned by the UK MOD in particular… like the oft cited investigation into the Hessdalen Lights, I don’t find the science of sufficient rigor to support it.

Anyway, LS, since you started this discussion, please pay particular attention to the direct questions posed to you by Ryan in his last post.

[lost_shaman]

Would you mind taking some time to link to any of the results of those studies show what you suggest above. I'd be interesting in reading those conclusions, but in all honestly I'm not sure where to look for those results - is it linked earlier in this thread?

Hey Ryan,

As you can see here from the paper linked to below that by 2001 the data showed the vast majority of phenomena in Hessdalen where plasmas. The theoretical mechanism that explains the plasmas was not clear, I believe that may still be the case to date.

http://www.itacomm.net/ph/embla2001/embla2001_e.pdf

The http://www.itacomm.net site lists many other papers under the articles section. Also see the Project Hessdalen site.

Does the report at least refer to data that comes from instrumental data (the existing data you refer to outside of the report)? I'd like to see examples of that from the Condign report that you imply Tim ignored? I'd like to read that - it sounds like it would be interesting.

Could you quote where the MOD report cited measured data regarding "UAP" - or have you already earlier in this thread?

Thanks,
-Ryan

[/quote]

See Vol. 2 working paper 5, and Vol. 3. Radar is discussed in-depth and some Radar data is offered (including references to Radar data and other instrumental data from the research done at Hessdalen).

From vol. 2 working paper 5 the report states, "In the 1960's, Preston Air Traffic radar had unexplained detections and, over various years, occasionally made UAP detections. More recently, RAF Neatishead, RAF Waddington Airfield Approach Radar and the CAA radar at Claxby, apparently had simultaneous detections. In all these cases the electron density of the target must have been high enough for the RF in use to produce reflections.

[snip]

On one event a triangular (visual) formation was tracked on radar with an acceleration from 100 to 980kts in two seconds and an altitude change from 7000 to 3000ft in 1 second."

While the report does not comprehensively list these events where it has data and the data itself it does show that some Radar data was available to the authors of the report.

[lost_shaman]

Lately I find myself increasingly skeptical of the plasma hypothesis in general and the UAP report commissioned by the UK MOD in particular… like the oft cited investigation into the Hessdalen Lights, I don’t find the science of sufficient rigor to support it.

I have to note that on the BAUT forum you stated three weeks ago (AD - Dec. 19, 2009) that you had not looked at the Hessdalen Phenomena and didn't feel any "need to". Clearly your statement here on RU is in conflict with what you said on BAUT three weeks ago.

I have a hard time believing that you've looked at the science in order to conclude here on RU that the science is not of "sufficient rigor" unless you were not being truthful on the BAUT forum!

Can you rectify the two specific statements you've made and also address the science where you can propose more rigorous methods that you think would produce better data?

[Access Denied]

I have to note that on the BAUT forum you stated three weeks ago (AD - Dec. 19, 2009) that you had not looked at the Hessdalen Phenomena and didn't feel any "need to".

No, I didn’t and why was that? Read what I wrote again very carefully and what I was responding to. I don't appreciate being misquoted and for your sake, I hope it wasn't deliberate.

Clearly your statement here on RU is in conflict with what you said on BAUT three weeks ago.

No, it isn’t.

I have a hard time believing that you've looked at the science in order to conclude here on RU that the science is not of "sufficient rigor" unless you were not being truthful on the BAUT forum!

How sure are you about that? I don't appreciate being called a liar and for your sake, I hope you realize where you made your mistake.

Can you rectify the two specific statements you've made and also address the science where you can propose more rigorous methods that you think would produce better data?

Yes, I can and please read the paper Tim posted a link to earlier in this thread very carefully and let me know if you still have any questions when you’re done.

[lost_shaman]

lost_shaman wrote:
I have to note that on the BAUT forum you stated three weeks ago (AD - Dec. 19, 2009) that you had not looked at the Hessdalen Phenomena and didn't feel any "need to".

No, I didn’t and why was that? Read what I wrote again very carefully and what I was responding to. I don't appreciate being misquoted and for your sake, I hope it wasn't deliberate.

Clearly your statement here on RU is in conflict with what you said on BAUT three weeks ago.

No, it isn’t.

I have a hard time believing that you've looked at the science in order to conclude here on RU that the science is not of "sufficient rigor" unless you were not being truthful on the BAUT forum!

How sure are you about that? I don't appreciate being called a liar and for your sake, I hope you realize where you made your mistake.

AD,

I am sorry for failing to note in my post that I was simply paraphrasing not actually quoting your words. I did link to your post so your exact wording was available.

As for the "mistake" you think I've made I don't see it. I can only go on what you've said and I won't paraphrase just so everyone is clear.

Quoting mid-sentence from this thread what I feel is relevant... "...the UAP report commissioned by the UK MOD in particular… like the oft cited investigation into the Hessdalen Lights, I don’t find the science of sufficient rigor to support it."

Note what you said that is underlined.

Can you rectify the two specific statements you've made and also address the science where you can propose more rigorous methods that you think would produce better data?

Yes, I can and please read the paper Tim posted a link to earlier in this thread very carefully and let me know if you still have any questions when you’re done.

I'm familiar with the Leone paper and also the subsequent rebuttals from both sides. Leone himself did not call the "scientific rigor" of the investigation in general into question only one specific observation out of many!

Are you by chance familiar with the subsequent rebuttals?

Even if Leone (2002) is correct, do you believe that all the research done in Hessdalen to date is falsified and can not be replicated?

[Access Denied]

I'm familiar with the Leone paper and also the subsequent rebuttals from both sides. Leone himself did not call the "scientific rigor" of the investigation in general into question only one specific observation out of many!

I strongly disagree…

“It has been the intent of this paper to show that the August 2002 optical survey in Hessdalen was lacking both in the methodology of data collection and in the evaluation of the evidence. Notwithstanding this, the subject of the luminous phenomena observed in the Hessdalen valley deserve further attention (see section 2). However, a continued effort into this subject is not likely to get reliable results unless a program of collection of eyewitness testimony and of intensive scientific surveillance for appearance of the alleged luminous phenomenon is set up. The information recorded during the 1984 field mission is suggestive but not conclusive, and the researchers in the field of anomalous aerial phenomena need better phenomenological foundations. These foundations require a careful attention to both the methodology of collection of eyewitness testimony and the issue of “objective” evidence.”

Not exactly subtle… more like “ouch”.

Are you by chance familiar with the subsequent rebuttals?

No, I’m not and I don’t see any reason why I need to be. The fact of the matter is they “identified” car headlights as anomalous phenomenoa despite being told at the time that’s what they were and they went ahead and wrote up a “scientific” paper on it anyway. That leaves me with little to no confidence in the integrity of the researchers involved…

Even if Leone (2002) is correct, do you believe that all the research done in Hessdalen to date is falsified and can not be replicated?

Well, if there’s actually anything to it, I await for a peer reviewed paper documenting it to be published with bated breath…