ParaNet BBS/ballufo
From KB42
ParaNet BBS/ballufo
| File Name: | ballufo.txt |
|---|---|
| Author: | Unknown |
| Date: | Unknown |
| Posting BBS: | Unknown |
| BBS Main Page: | ParaNet Main Page |
| Key Words: | ParaNet, UFO, Ufology |
(10017) Sun 6 Jun 93 9:36p
By: Jim Speiser
To: All
Re: Ball Lightning
St: 10997>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few weeks ago, someone stated that they sincerely doubted a phenomenon
could exist for so long without leaving any physical evidence behind.
So I went to the library and checked out a book on Ball Lightning. Stop me
when this begins to sound familiar.
______________________
A direct discussion between opponents in this long controversy took place
during a meeting of the French Academy of Sciences in 1890. A large number
of luminous globes resembling ball lightning appeared in a tornado which was
the subject of a report to the Academy. The glowing spheres entered
dwellings through chimneys, bored circular holes in windows, and generally
displayed the highly unusual behavior ascribed to ball lightning. Following
the presentation of this communication a member of the Academy commented
that the extraordinary properties attributed to ball lightning should be
considered with reservations since it seemed the observers were suffering
from optical illusions. In the heated discussion which followed the
observations which had been made by uneducated peasants were declared of no
value; whereupon the former Emperor of Brazil, a foreign member of the
Academy attending the meeting, remarked that he too had seen ball lightning.
[...]
The alternate identities possible in specific cases of ball lightning supply
an effective argument against its existence. A leading investigator in
high-voltage research has commented that in many years of panoramic
photography and observation of storms he has never seen ball lightning. In
addition, his direct discussions with supposed witnesses of ball lightning
always showed that the observations could be explained in terms of some
reasonable alternative. The recurrence of such arguments exphasizes [sic]
the importance of detailed and well recorded observations of ball lightning
in nature.
The collection and evaluation of observations has thus long been a major
aspect of ball lightning studies. Such collections attempt to fill the role
in this difficult problem which duplication of laboratory experiments
ordinarily fulfills in science. In some instances observations by reliable
witnesses have led to the reversal of a skeptical opinion on the reality of
ball lightning originally based on questionable reports and the absence of
convincing theoretical explanations. A notable exception is that of
Humphreys, a leading American meteorologist. In initial editions of his
book on atmospheric physics, Humphreys stated that the number and excellence
of ball lightning observations exclude the view that it is an optical
illusion. Consideration of 280 reports which he collected by personal
inquiry caused him to reverse his opinion completely, and in the final
edition of his work the traditional negative view is forcefully expressed.
Humphreys decided that each observation could be conclusively explained by
one of the alternatives mentioned previously or by "fixed and moving brush
discharges."
Humphreys did not publish the complete collection of his reports. While
there may indeed have been many doubtful cases, recent surveys containing
hundreds of observations include numerous examples of ball lightning
exhibiting the unmistakable characteristics associated with it and not with
the reasonable alternatives....Some observations were rather simply
dismissed by Humphreys as optical illusions involving a persistent image,
such as that reported by Loeb of typcial ball lightning which descended to
earth, bounced up, and disappeared as lightning flashed and thunder sounded.
Three decades after Humphreys' report Loeb reaverred his observation of ball
lightning. In some incidents the possibility that St. Elmo's Fire or
retention of a bright image by the eye were involved was specifically
rejected by witnesses.
[...]
One of the most frequent criticisms of the observations which are an
essential basis of our knowledge of ball lightning is that only people
completely lacking in scientific training have seen these mysterious globes
or, even further, that no professional observers of the weather and no
authoritative investigators of thunderstorm electricity have ever seen ball
lightning. This opinion, strongly reminiscent of the debate in the French
Academy over three-quarters of a century ago, is completely incorrect. In
addition to the report by Loeb (who would certainly be considered a
qualified Electrician according to the meaning of the term in Franklin's
time) the appearance of ball lightning was observed from a distance of
thirty meters by a scientist form a German laboratory for atmospheric
electricity and another by a staff member of the Tokyo Central
Meteorological Observatory. Other incidents have been viewed by a
meteorological observer, physicists, a chemist, a paleontologist, the
director of a meteorological observatory, and several geologists.
Astronomers, among those in all scientific fields, have witnessed and
reported the largest number.
In rare cases of the occurence of ball lightning the observer obtained a
photograph which recorded the object he was viewing. As in other aspects of
ball lightning studies the evidence provided by such photographs is often
given inadequate consideration...
The information at hand has led most meteorologists to disagree with the
skeptical opinions on the reality of ball lightning which were expressed by
the leading authorities Humphreys, Malan, and Schonland. There is no doubt,
on the other hand, that many scientists, perhaps a majority of those in
other fields, hold the negative view apparently as a result of the
unavailabiity of the data on ball lightning as well as intuitive skepticism.
THE DATA FROM OBSERVATIONS ARE OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO SCIENTIFIC STUDY
LEADING TO A MORE SATISFACTORY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PHENOMENON. [Emphasis
added.]
___________________________
Singer, Stanley, "The Nature of Ball Lightning," pp 18-22
New York: Plenum Press, 1971
SBN 306-30494-5
* OLX 2.1 TD * "Live long and prosper, Spock" "I shall do neither"
--- GrayQWKMail 2.0
* Origin: ParaNet Zeta-Reticuli 1:114/37.0 (FIDO) (9:1012/100)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10997) Thu 10 Jun 93 6:50p
By: Jacques Poulet
To: Jim Speiser
Re: Ball Lightning
St: 10017<>11923
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realy liked this excerpt. It accurately describe the current state of
UFOlogy.
Jacques
---
* Origin: ParaNet EPSILON(sm), CHUCARA (Deux-Montagnes,Qc) (9:1012/7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11923) Tue 15 Jun 93 4:48p
By: Stuart H. Ferguson
To: All
Re: Re: Ball Lightning
St: <10997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shf@well.sf.ca.us (Stuart H. Ferguson)
Date: 15 Jun 93 07:26:12 GMT
Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Message-ID: <C8nJBp.Htz@well.sf.ca.us>
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.skeptic
+-- Jim Speiser writes about ball lightning:
| A few weeks ago, someone stated that they sincerely doubted a phenomenon
| could exist for so long without leaving any physical evidence behind.
[ ... ]
| The information at hand has led most meteorologists to disagree with the
| skeptical opinions on the reality of ball lightning which were expressed by
| the leading authorities Humphreys, Malan, and Schonland. There is no doubt,
| on the other hand, that many scientists, perhaps a majority of those in
| other fields, hold the negative view apparently as a result of the
| unavailabiity of the data on ball lightning as well as intuitive skepticism.
| THE DATA FROM OBSERVATIONS ARE OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO SCIENTIFIC STUDY
| LEADING TO A MORE SATISFACTORY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PHENOMENON. [Emphasis
| added.]
In the interests of equal time, let me point to another reference which
shows the unreliability of anecdotal evidence. "Eugenics Revisited," by
John Horgan, Scientific American, June 1993, pp 122-131. As I was
reading this article, some of the proponents of Nature side of the
"Nature vs. Nurture" debate began to sound strangely familiar.
[...]
No research in behaviorial genetics has been more eagerly
embraced by the press than the identical-twin studies done at
the University of Minnesota. [They studied identical twins
raised seprately and estimated heriability of traits based on
their similarities ...]
The Minnesota group has reported finding a strong genetic
contribution to practically all the traits it has examined.
Whereas most previous studies have estimated the heritiabilitiy
of intelligence as roughly 50 percent, [the Minnesota group]
arrived at a figure of 70 percent. [...]
The researchers have buttressed their statistical findings
with anecdotes about "eerie," "bewitching" and "remarkable"
parallels between reunited twins. One case involved Oskar, who
was raised a Nazi in Czechoslovakia, and Jack, who was raised as
a Jew in Trinidad. Both were reportedly wearing shirts with
epaulets when they were reunited by the Minnesota group in 1979.
They also both flushed the toilet before as well as after using
it and enjoyed deliberately sneezing to startle people in
elevators.
Some other celebrated cases involved two British women who
wore seven rings and named their firstborn sons Richard Andrew
and Andrew Richard; two men who had both been named Tim, named
their pet dogs Toy, married women named Linda, divorced them and
remarried women named Betty; and two men who had become
firefighters and drank Budweiser beer.
Other twin researchers say the significance of these
coincidences has been greatly exaggerated. Richard J. Rose of
Indiana University [points out] that "if you bring together
strangers who were born on the same day in the same country, and
ask them to find similarities between them, you may find a lot
of seemingly astounding coincidences."
[...]
In his investigations of other twin studies, [Leon J.] Kamin
has shown that identical twins supposedly raised apart are often
raised by members of their family or by unrelated families in
the same neighborhood; some twins had extensive contact with
each other while growing up. Kamin notes that the same may be
true of some Minnesota twins. He notes, for example, that some
news accounts suggested that Oskar and Jack and the two British
women wearing seven rings were reunited for the first time when
they arrived in Minnesota to be studied by Bouchard. Actually,
both pairs of twins had met previously. Kamin has repetedly
asked the Minnesota group for detailed case histories of its
twins to determine whether it has underestimated contact and
similarities in upbringing. "They've never responded," he says.
[...]
This is an excellent article for showing how difficult it is to do good
science around controversial cultural issues. Anecdotal evidence is
largely a retorical technique which does not belong in the toolkit of
the honest scientist.
| * OLX 2.1 TD * "Live long and prosper, Spock" "I shall do neither"
"... for I have killed my captain." Spock -- Amok Time.
--
Stuart Ferguson (shf@well.sf.ca.us)
Prepare to Surge to Sublight Speed!
--- ConfMail V4.00
* Origin: Paranet(sm) - The world's leading UFO Investigative News Network
(1:30163/150)
