Saturday, February 2, 2008

UFO Hunters is an Abomination unto Nuggan

So in another grand display of pop pseudo-science, the History Channel and/or SciFi has launched a new series entitled "UFO Hunters."  I caught an episode tonight on the History Channel.  However, it's advertised on SciFi, so who knows who's responsible. It got so ridiculous, I had to take notes.

They were investigating the Maury Island Incident.  The story goes that 2 weeks before Roswell, a number of doughnut-shaped craft were flying and one was starting to have trouble.  It ejected some molten slag-like material which landed on some guy's boat, killing his dog, and breaking his son's arm.  It then recovered, and the UFO's flew off.  Some time later, 2 Air Force intelligence officers come to investigate, get the material from the boat guy, and on their way back, their B-25 crashed.

The fisherman or whatever was very specific about where he was, so they go to see if they can find some of this slag.  They had a search area of about 6000 sq. ft.  They had one guy scuba diving, and he picks up some sand samples, and a few rocks, one of which somewhat fit the description of the supposed slag.  I thought it looked like igneous rock myself.  

Then they went to the plane crash site.  They got some soil samples, some pieces of wreckage, and went home.

The official story was that an engine fire brought down the plane.  The left wing came off before the crash.  The 2 survivors said that there was a fire that spread so fast that it was impossible to think of putting it out.  They spent most of the show trying to "prove" that the unidentified material caused the plane to crash. 

So the samples come back to the lab.  They're examined.  What I thought looked like igneous rock was....igneous rock (and I ain't no geologist neither).  The soil samples showed evidence of a hot fire.  The fuselage pieces showed evidence of a hot fire.  

So their "evidence" led one of them to make a wild-assed claim that the plane's fuel couldn't create a fire that hot.  Um...did he not watch 2 towers fall down because of a fire caused by kerosene (err...I mean "jet fuel")?  

Then, they start theorizing about the cause of the crash, making the "slag" culpable of course.  They showed that a strong magnet could interfere with a relay.  Then they showed that an overloaded circuit would burn up.  Then they showed that some unidentified material that they simply identified as "slag" would burn at 4000 degrees, and that would melt an aluminum (melts at 1200 degrees) fuselage.  So if the slag was highly magnetic, it could have tripped a relay that overloaded a circuit, that ignited the slag that melted through the fuselage.  Now that thar' am sum gud siense.  

Memorable quotes (as best as they can be remembered):  

(At the plane crash site) "Right under our feet could be the very first physical evidence of UFO's"

- Bill Birnes, J.D.  Publisher of UFO Magazine since 1986.  

You know, I think I'd have found a new occupation after the first 20 years of no evidence, much less the lack of evidence since the craze started in 1947 or so.

"There is no evidence of extraterrestrial involvement, but nothing that disproves it either."  

-Ted Acworth, Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering Design, obviously not understanding how science works, or trying desperately to keep a job.  

You know Ted, my personal theory is that it was a dragon in need of some Imodium, but couldn't quite make it to the little dragon's room.  Do you have any evidence that disproves that?  I seriously hope that you were forced to say that, because a Columbia and Stanford-educated and MIT employed professor such as yourself should know better. That, or I'm really glad I didn't get into MIT.

As an aside, please pardon the weird spacing. The text doesn't seem to wrap correctly, so I put in some hard returns.

No comments: