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:
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
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:
Scientific journals rejected his findings because it was, apparently, an inappropriate subject matter despite the fact that he posses physical and chemical evidence.
"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."
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: