Claim: Finding of potentially chemiluminescent compound in soil proves aliens landed

ParanoidSkeptic2

Active Member
In 1971, Delphos Kansas, a 16 year old farm boy claimed to have seen a hovering aircraft. The only evidence left was an alleged glowing ring where the UFO had been.

46 years later, in 2017, the daily express reported the findings of Dr. Frauk (who has stated that he had a great interest in the UFO phenomena). He was able to get a sample whilst in Nottingham university.

According to his findings, placing water on the soil was like placing it on glass. He was unable to fully identify the compound within it but said that it is "a highly water-soluble organic compound which is potentially chemiluminescent”.

He came up with 3 possible conclusions. Either it’s a hoax, the ring was a fairy ring or it was an alien craft.

He rejected the former two theories and concluded that the alien craft one makes the most sense.

This was his conclusion on the findings:

"The hovering object of presently unknown origin appears to have contained within its periphery an aqueous solution of an unstable compound whose likely sole function would be light emission.

"Some of the solution was deposited into the ground while the object positioned itself under a tree (to possibly avoid observation from the air).

"Once enough of this solution was deposited, the object departed after which the Johnson family approached the ring area."
Content from External Source
Scientific journals rejected his findings because it was, apparently, an inappropriate subject matter despite the fact that he posses physical and chemical evidence.

I’ve looked into Dr Faruk however I couldn’t find much, I was only able to find the book he published in 2014. In addition to that, he’s a chemist who got his B.Sc and Ph.D at Queen Mary college (London based university).

I managed to find an article which details Faruk’s investigation as well has his attempt to get his findings published. In it, he even spoke to Seth Shostak from SETI to discuss his findings. He was rejected.

But yeah, aside from a published book, there really is not much to Dr. Faruk’s investigation of the incident. To me it seems like a leap in logic to assume because some compound like that was found, it must have been aliens. I’m not a chemist but one would think that there are more coherent explanations that don’t require such an extraordinary claim.

Whilst I think that what he found may have been a compound, I think it’s unjustified to say that it must have been aliens. Faruk makes somewhat of a false trilemma, saying that it must be one of the three options, and because the two don’t show much evidence, it must mean the third assumption is correct. Although, aside from eye witness reports, there isn’t evidence to conclude that alien spaceship is more favourable.

I have a feeling like confirmation bias may have clouded Dr. Faruk’s judgement.

That’s my analysis from a logical perspective, however, when it comes to science, physics and chemistry, I’m not sure how to analyse this.

what do you guys think?

sources:
Daily Express article
De Void article
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ParanoidSkeptic2

Active Member
After a bit more research I found this interesting note


On November 2, 1971, a Delphos Kansas kid reported a UFO landed and left a glowing ring on the ground. He called his family, who saw the UFO in the distance, and the glowing ring. They took photos of the ring.

When the authorities got there, the white ring was on the ground, but it was no longer glowing. The ring was still there many years later. Tests show the ring is strongly hydrophobic and is organic in nature, with a high level of zinc compounds. The UFO was reported to behave like a fire balloon.

A neighbor says that a galvanized iron chicken feeder used to stand where the ring is, and that the ring is where chicken droppings accumulated for years. The zinc would have come from the galvanizing coating. Other objects in the photos are brighter than the glow of the ring, indicating that the light came from a camera flash, not a glow. The family turned the case in to the National Enquirer UFO contest, and won the 1971 prize (a possible motive for faking the case?).
Content from External Source
Source

What do you guys think? The question for me still remains, if this explanation is more possible, why would a Doctor with a Ph.D risk his reputation to assume that aliens have landed?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
According to his findings, placing water on the soil was like placing it on glassy.
What does "glassy" mean?


He came up with 3 possible conclusions. Either it’s a hoax, the ring was a fairy ring or it was an alien craft.

He rejected the former two theories and concluded that the alien craft one makes the most sense.
How did he reject the first two, and the "something else as yet unknown" conclusion?
 

ParanoidSkeptic2

Active Member
What does "glassy" mean?

Sorry, was meant to say glass. Basically it was like putting water on glass, it apparently didn’t soak up into the dirtiest floate off it

He wrote: "Placing water onto the affected soil was very like placing it onto a glass surface, with the water spontaneously forming into droplets sitting on the surface."
Content from External Source
How did he reject the first two, and the "something else as yet unknown" conclusion?
Within the article his reasoning is explained

Dr Faruk concluded there were three possible explanations - a hoax, the ring was in fact a fairy ring - a natuarlly occurring ring of toadstools, or a genuine alien space ship had been seen.

He said a hoax was unlikely due to the unusual characteristics of the compound, and its elongation towards the wind direction on the night.

He also ruled out a fungal ring, claiming the "water-soluble alkali metal salt of an organic carboxylic acid" found in the compound would not be produced by a fungi.

This, he said meant the conclusion of a genuine UFO sighting was the most favourable.
Content from External Source
 

DavidB66

Active Member
Me no chemist, but can the same substance have a 'profound water repellant nature' and be 'highly water soluble'? (both terms used in the press report).
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Me no chemist, but can the same substance have a 'profound water repellant nature' and be 'highly water soluble'? (both terms used in the press report).
these pic s are of the soil 27 years later, where Faruk did his tests 6 years after the "sighting". but i imagine the "water soluble part" is this stuff marked vs all the soil that didnt dissolve (which is basically what most garden soil does when you stick it in a jar of water and stir it good).

1598918337568.png

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf

ps. if you ever find bird poop on soil, scoop it up and save it. then you can buy his book to see what his samples looked like and wait 6 years then shake up your bird poop soil sample. or you can save it for 27 years and see if it looks like the above test tubes. :)


add: apparently different degrees of water repellant soil is a fairly common thing (although you'd probably need the original bird poop layer to get the beaded-water-on-glass effect, which as far as i could find only happened on site)


In addition to water repellence, the soil particles can also become covered in a waxy coating.

This occurs when uncomposted organic matter sits on the soil and, as it breaks down, the soil particles are coated with an oily, waxy residue that prevents water penetrating.

Content from External Source
https://www.handyman.net.au/how-treat-water-repellent-soil
 

ParanoidSkeptic2

Active Member
these pic s are of the soil 27 years later, where Faruk did his tests 6 years after the "sighting". but i imagine the "water soluble part" is this stuff marked vs all the soil that didnt dissolve (which is basically what most garden soil does when you stick it in a jar of water and stir it good).

1598918337568.png

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf

ps. if you ever find bird poop on soil, scoop it up and save it. then you can buy his book to see what his samples looked like and wait 6 years then shake up your bird poop soil sample. or you can save it for 27 years and see if it looks like the above test tubes. :)


add: apparently different degrees of water repellant soil is a fairly common thing (although you'd probably need the original bird poop layer to get the beaded-water-on-glass effect, which as far as i could find only happened on site)


In addition to water repellence, the soil particles can also become covered in a waxy coating.

This occurs when uncomposted organic matter sits on the soil and, as it breaks down, the soil particles are coated with an oily, waxy residue that prevents water penetrating.

Content from External Source
https://www.handyman.net.au/how-treat-water-repellent-soil

So, this has a natural explanation (with all the chicken droppings and all) that doesn't require stuff like UFOs, Occam's razor also favours the non-paranormal explanation.

There's no evidence to suggest a UFO (aside from eye witness accounts which are far from solid, empirical evidence).

It makes me wonder why people prefer to spread bunk instead of thinking more critically about it. Is it confirmation bias? They want to believe in something so much that they'll draw any flawed conclusions from evidence that doesn't support it?

Saddens me if I'm honest :/
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
So, this has a natural explanation

i don't know. the 1999 chemical analysis says there would be uric acid traces if bird manure, but i couldnt find any source to tell me when and if uric acid degrades or turns into some other compound after 27 years. and obviously i didnt buy Faruk's book so i dont know what his analysis (done in 1977) showed.. basically i dont know enough about chemistry to see if the claim of evidence ..that isnt presented in this thread.. shows natural phenomenon or not.

the lady who did the 1999 analysis said
9.) Finally, others have countered that the release represents the products of “well seasoned barnyard soil”. If this were the case there should be much higher concentrations of elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium present. Also there should be evidence of significant amounts of other components such as urea, uric acid, and ammonium components, which are typical of animal waste and its decomposition products. These are not detected. Only the fulvic acid predominates.
Content from External Source
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf

and another guy somewhere (i didnt care enough to save all the links) said there was fungus in the sample but not enough fungus. and that fungus typically spreads but this ring didnt spread in 6 years. although how he knows that i dont know since Faruk didnt get his samples from the ring, he used samples collected 2 months after the "ufo" that some university saved.

Usually MB examines specific claims of evidence. But i couldnt find Faruks evidence free online.
The only evidence i could find is those soil samples analyzed 27 years after the "ufo". and i couldnt find chicken manure chemical breakdowns anywhere.. although they sell it as fertilizer so that info might be somewhere online. looks like a big business item. some sites are calling it "chicken litter".

i did though discover chicken feeders can look like ufos.. so that will be a new option when looking at ufo photos :)
1598991239171.png
 

ParanoidSkeptic2

Active Member
, but i couldnt find any source to tell me when and if uric acid degrades or turns into some other compound after 27 years.

All I found was that uric acid degrades into urea.

Uric acid formation by xanthine occurs via hypoxanthine by the action of xanthine oxidase [29]. In most mammals, uric acid is converted into allantoin by uricase and later into urea
Content from External Source
Source

Urea degrades into cyanate and ammounium ions.

The reaction by which urea decomposes has been studied extensively over the past century. In aqueous solution, urea decomposition yields cyanate and ammonium ions, (NH2)2CO → CNO− + NH4+. An elimination mechanism appears to be operative.
Content from External Source
Source

Cyanate degrades into carbon dioxide and ammonia.

Cyanate ion further readily undergoes conversion to CO2 and ammonia
Content from External Source
Source

Ammonia decomposes into Nitrogen and Hydrogen

In this chemical reaction, two molecules of ammonia (NH3) are decomposed, or broken down, into one molecule of nitrogen (N2) and three molecules of hydrogen (H2).
Content from External Source
Source

And Nitrogen is soaked up into plants, crops and the likes.

Nitrogen is continuously recycled through plant and animal waste residues and soil organic matter. Nitrogen is removed from the soil by crops, gaseous loss, runoff, erosion and leaching.
Content from External Source
Source

I couldn't find the length of time it would take for this degradtion/decompsition process to take place and, again, I'm no chemist but still some food for thought.

i did though discover chicken feeders can look like ufos.. so that will be a new option when looking at ufo photos :)

Chicken feeders do look like UFOs haha, if I were to make any speculations it'd be that the family saw the ring, saw the chicken feeder and either the UFO assumption came out of frivolous logic or it was done as a hoax for publicity.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
of course today with a quick new search i found some more informative accounts. ex: it was 32 days they took the samples used by everyone. and the boy won a 5,000$ prize in the National Enquirer ufo contest that was going on (first prize was 50k, so the national enquirer wasnt too impressed)

note 32 days would be Dec. 4th

The object in question was estimated to be about 9 feet in diameter, the ring was a foot wide, and the outer diameter of the entire ring was about 8 feet.

The preliminary investigation by Ted Phillips of Sedalia, Missouri, had been carried out 32 days after Ronald Johnson allegedly had the experience and there had been considerable precipitation. The inside of the ring was very muddy as was the terrain outside of it. However, the ring itself was dry down to 1 foot, whereas the soil outside the ring was wet down to 8 inches. A truly interesting set of circumstances and evidence.

When Phillips first saw the ring, it was distinguished by the fact that it was still covered with snow, while in all the surrounding area the snow had melted. His report states: "Although the surrounding area was extremely moist, we found that if the snow was removed from any part of the ring, the soil directly beneath the snow was dry and light brown in color�this was in contrast with the black moist soil in the ring center and around the ring.�

Ted Phillips returned to the site on August 8, 1972, in the company of APRO Research Director Dr. James Harder. They found that the ring seemed to be "widening" and that differences between ring soil and the surrounding soil were becoming less pronounced compared with samples taken by Phillips during his earlier visit.
......

"The whitish filaments collected on Dec. 4th were fungal in origin, and there is no evidence that this whitish substance was the same as the material that covered the ground earlier and gave rise to the light. However, the fungal mycelium can also give a hydrophobic water-rejecting reaction, so there has been some confusion. However, even the parts of the soil that were not obviously connected with the fungal growth were hydrophobic. Thus it would appear that the hydrophobicity and the fungus were not necessarily connected. A series of soil cultures that I made in Berkeley showed a great deal of scatter in the amounts of bacteria and fungus, but generally there were, by my colleagues' estimates, about ten times the usual ratio of fungus to bacteria in the samples taken in August 1972. One inference is that the UFO produced some differential sterilization that favored fungus over bacteria, or that there was some substrate laid down that favored fungus.
Content from External Source
http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=1233

and a bit about luminescent fungus.
It is a fungus mycelial (mycelium) growth in which the fungus, originating at a central spot, spreads outward in an ever-widening ring. In 1971 the Ron Johnson UFO Delphos Case (Kansas), the Gram-positive rod-shaped Nocardia bacterium was detected in the soil. e ring-forming fungus Armillaria has chemical properties that produce calcium oxalate as a byproduct of their metabolism
Content from External Source
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337927180_Close_Encounters_of_the_Fungal_Kind
 
Top