Sunday, February 14, 2010
Because my lifestyle will be changing shortly
[going to WVA temporarily, but semi-permanently, to be with my Mother
day-to-day as she makes a life transition to a new living environment], this
blog is going to change alongside that shift. Due to the fact that I won't have
my library/resource room handy, I'll not be able to be very "smart"
anymore--most of my brains are in hardcopy afterall. So, I don't know how this
is going to proceed. But I hope to keep it up in some form. Because there is
little time in this current mode [fly out is Feb.27], I thought that I better
at least put out the "Law of the Times", because, even if its
significance is still in doubt, and therefore very debatable, it is a finding
of great intrigue to me, and I think that it should be to all interested in
The Law of the Times is firstly a product of the statistical interests of Claude Poher [upper left] and secondly of the collaborative interests of Jacques Vallee [upper right]. It caught the early interest of Vicente-Juan Ballester-Olmos [lower right, talking to Hynek], who checked the findings of Poher and Vallee with his own Spanish data. Later, Ted Phillips [lower left] published a graph which also seems to show the phenomenon. I view these four [Poher/Vallee used two independent sets of data] findings to be pretty robust, and I believe the overall finding to be sound. What they all were studying were Close Encounters---this is important---this was not a study of any old UFO case set; this was study of very "concrete" close encounters of the "landing" variety. These cases, therefore, leave very little room for confusion, alternative hypothesizing, ordinary mistakes. The cases are either extremely anomalous or they are lies. In the briefest terms, what these graphs are about is a determination of WHEN during the "day" such close encounters took place. The results are rather stunning. The first, solid smack-in-the-face finding is that these types of cases occur almost always at night. [not 100%, but overwhelmingly.] Cases occurring in daytime scatter about like a background to the real statistical action. The second finding was weirder yet and harder to interpret.
This is my redrawn graph showing the night-time peak vs. the day-time lull. The graphs, in FSR [vol. 21/ #3/4], are not numbered on the vertical axis, but reading the whole text indicates that the night-time "jump" is many times more powerful than the background. [I just looked up my "unofficial" Poher manuscript, and it seems to indicate that there is a six times increase of night-time observation even on mixed UFO cases--close encounters of the second kind seem to be much higher]. My graph shows two other things: a bifurcated peak, with its secondary peak at about two or three in the morning; and a yellow line. The yellow line shows what a good scholar Poher was/is. He went to the trouble of looking at sociological statistics to find when people in France [his stat sets were from French "landings"] were out and about, and, therefore, noting the "potential" for any humans to see an encounter at all. Note that in the graph [don't take my yellow line too seriously; it's there to illustrate the general relationship, not to be part of a college thesis], the potential human witnesses bottoms out at the time that this secondary bump of reports occurs--exactly NOT what you'd expect to happen if UFO close encounters were a random process.
This is the checking done by Ballester-Olmos [in case anyone does not realize this, V.-J. is the leading UFO authority in Spain, and has been for 30 years]. Ballester graphs his own independent CE2 set and comes up with a generally good match with the two Poher-Vallee sets. The night-time dominance is there, as is the idea that during the early morning hours a secondary rising-up occurs. [don't know the primary source of Ballester's publication, but I got this graph from the newsletter, DATA-NET].
In 1971, or so, Ted Phillips published a
time-of-day graph for his landings [where an actual observation by witnesses of
the object which made the trace was possible]. I don't believe that this graph
was made with any knowledge of the "Law". Yet it does seem to show
the Law [night-time dominance and an early morning secondary peak]. These four
independent sets impress me. I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I doubt it.
Because Jacques Vallee is a creative man, he wondered what would happen if he synthesized the two graphs that he and Poher knew [the actual time distribution of close encounters--the blue line to the left--and the "opportunity to see" graph--the yellow line in Poher's graph above]. The result of that mathematical synthesis is shaped like the red dashed line in the accompanying graph. [How "high" the curve would be in actual vertical reach is not known--i.e. you cannot put numbers on it without making some assumption as to what the "efficiencies of reporting" would be for UFO cases of the CE2-Trace kind]. What the synthesis said to Jacques was that there seemed to be a "deficit" of unreported close-encounters, shown as an orange area above. If one made the assumption that one was dealing with a constant rate of reporting, and that the curve was generally symmetric, then the peak of that curve would be over the secondary observed peak at the 2-to-3AM area. AND it would be quite high. [higher than I've drawn it to fit it into the graph space]. [again the point is not academic accuracy for our purposes, but to show the qualitative situation]. Due to this apparent evidence of a severe deficit in reporting even the most spectacular encounters, Vallee assumed that a mind-bogglingly huge number of these must be occurring all the time. This seems to be one of the data-oriented reasons that he rejected the extraterrestrial hypothesis. The question is, of course, still open as to what these curves really signify.I have a few thoughts of my own, but since they are somewhere between All-The-Way-Fool and Out Proctor, you may want to get the trash can ready.
You can interpret the curves and the
"deficit" the way Jacques does, that's an honorable idea. It is, I
think, just one interpretation. Can one, therefore, think about the
"deficit" in more ways. Guess#1: the ufonauts are performing these
close encounters with human observers in mind, but are somewhat botching the
job, and the humans are responding differently at different times, or missing
the experiences entirely. I don't like this guess much because it makes the
ufonauts more sociologically incompetent than I think they are. [remember
folks, that I think that the evidence is overwhelming that the phenomenon is
not Sci-fy explorer-dirt samplers, but rather some kind of sophisticated
display aimed at the observers]. Guess#2: The ufonauts are performing events
with human observers in mind, but for some reason is selectively blocking
observer memories during the time-deficit period. I don't like this guess at
all. Remember that these numbers refer to CE2-trace/landing cases not humanoid
cases [primarily] nor "abductions". Plus, why would the blocking
change pace/percentage from one moment/hour to the next--as the
"bump" requires it to do? Guess#3: The ufonauts are performing these
events with us in mind, but it is us that is weird between midnight and 4AM,
and we cause them statistical troubles no matter how overt they try to ram
their CEs down our throats. Well, I'm willing to admit that we're weird, and
maybe not easy to control on anything, but even if this would have something to
do with the curve, it tells us only about ourselves and not about UFOs. But I
don't think it's much of an answer anyway. These cases are very concrete
experiences. They should be well within the order of stimuli which would affect
almost the entirety of our species [grossly] the same way. Guess#4: In the 1AM
to 5am period the UFO agency is presenting close encounters which are not
primarily or at least singly concerned with the human species, but are
nevertheless aimed at some class of potential observers. Hmmmmm. Out Proctor?
Guess#5: The ufonauts are not concerned with us at any times, and our presence
is just accidental, and the curve is just what it is. Well, OK, in the sense
that you can't directly argue with the possibility, but all my other study on
the display nature of UFO cases says that this is wrong. I have an
All-the-Way-Fool idea that shouldn't be viewed as anything more than that, but
I like it anyway.
When I look at the bifurcated curve, and when I add my bias that I believe that these guys know almost exactly what they're doing, I'm tempted to see two independent curves. There would be an earlier curve peaking at 10-to-11PM, and a later curve peaking at 2-to-3AM. If so, they would indicate two different "agendas". For me, this would not be shocking, as those of you who have read the blog know, I think that it is likely that we have more than one type of super-civilization possible [see the entries on What Will They Be Like? for the differing philosophies of these types]. I could easily fit an agenda of one civilization type being "run" [by mutual agreement] in a separate "time-slot", for non-interference reasons, with a second agenda running later, into my hypothesis of differing philosophies of cultures. If that were true, we might have our first defensible hint that more than one supertech culture was on the scene. The idea that one of these civilizations might see Earth as residence to a type of intelligence other than our own, and more interesting to learn about/contact, is a thought I will keep in interest.
Whatever guess that you want to buy into, or construct on your own, I believe that The Law Of The Times is one of the most provocative findings in our research history. At the absolute least, the mystery that the vast majority of these CE2s happen at night should set your imaginations reeling. And then, going beyond to the curve--what explains it? What respectable assumptions might we make? And how "good" are these critters at what they are doing? And, far beyond that, are we the only game in town? Might it be the greatest of ironies, that what the ETs were most interested in were the folkloric entities that Jacques wants THEM to be? Well, all in speculation, my friends--but based on some pretty sound stuff from some of our finest.