Ted Phillips + Center for Physical Trace Research

[isaackoi]

I found it a bit amusing that this part of the forum (entitled "UFO/ET Physical Evidence") has not had any posts at all in the several months since the new MUFON forum was launched.

Anyway, to break the ice I thought I'd post something relating to Ted Phillips, the Director of The Center for Physical Trace Research ("CPTR").

Ted Phillips used to have a website outlining his work in relation to physical trace evidence of UFOs, but the content of that website unfortunately appears now appears to have been replaced with the message below:

www.ufophysical.com

This website has been removed due to confidentiality
Thank you for understanding

I've raised a ghost of parts of that website using the Wayback Machine:

web.archive.org/web/20080419123058/http://ufophysical.com/

It included the following outline of the work done by Ted Phillips:

Over the past 38 years, specialized research into Close Encounters of the Second Kind has resulted in a wealth of reports in every major country of the world. CPTR files contain 3,189 trace/landing cases from 91 countries. I believe physical traces present us with the most direct approach to resolving the mystery of UFOs.

Traces remain as visible evidence long after the reported UFO has gone. If UFOs are not available for study in the laboratory, the residue is. Alleged UFO landing sites may be photographed, measured, sampled, and subjected to laboratory analysis. These sites have the potential to reveal data relating to size, configuration, and perhaps the method of propulsion of these unidentified devices. The traces are UFO fingerprints, and it becomes obvious that various types of objects leave behind individual signatures. A number of these UFO generated effects have remained visible for months, even years after the UFO event.

Physical trace landing events push us to the edge of what we can or should believe. They are incredible, but the witnesses remain credible, the residue unexplained. They seem to represent a visit, however brief, by something unknown.

The Center for Physical Research was established in 1998 to act as a central repository for such reports. The goal is to investigate, research, initiate analysis of the resulting effects in laboratories, and present the data to interested researchers and the public.

I've embedded below a couple of videos of Ted discussing his work, put on the Internet by MUFON-LA:





All the best,

Isaac

[mo]

Ill read through and give my opinion. Thanks for the post.

[jeffdanielk]

I agree that physical trace evidence is much better than just eyewitness reports or photos. It can be studied scientifically.
But we must remember that, at best, this kind of trace evidence can only prove that something was there. It can't prove what it was or where it came from. It can't prove it was extraterrestial.

[Deleted]

It can point to space faring craft if you rule out conventional aircraft which is an indicator of ET.

[jeffdanielk]

Phillip's idea is an example of what is sometimes called the "listing fallacy". We can not make a list of man-made aircrafts, rule each of them out, and conclude that unknown craft was extraterrestial. This is not valid method because we don't know what kinds of aircrafts the military or foreign countries might be developing. Just because we can not identify it as a known airplane, that does not mean that it couldn't be a new experimental top secret military vehicle.

[Deleted]

Well of course as you can see by my screen name I am a skeptic but I do have to concede that there are indicators that point to ET. If the craft are not aircraft designed for air travel but more like space craft that happen to venture in our planets atmosphere. They seem to have the control of gravity, of course these could be secret craft but the more you go back the more unlikely this is the case. You can't completely discount what people observe. The occupants of these craft do not appear to be human and differ is some ways. What is the behavior of these craft and the occupants? Some of the behavior would be a little risky and uncharacteristic of secret technology that we or someone else on earth was testing.

[easynow]

Link - web.archive.org/web/20080419123058/http://ufophysical.com/




Here are some websites I've found for this topic ...


UFO Physical Traces Around The World
www.noufors.com/ufo_physical_traces_around_the_world.html

UFO Physical Traces in Canada
www.noufors.com/ufo_physical_traces.html

Physical Trace Cases - UFO Evidence
www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm

UFOs: Physical Trace Cases
www.ufocasebook.com/physicaltracefiles.html

Ted Phillips' Physical Trace Catalogue
www.ufocasebook.com/physicaltracecases.html

Top Physical Trace Cases
www.angelfire.com/mo/cptr/topcases.html
www.angelfire.com/mo/cptr/main.html

A Catalog of Australian Physical Trace Cases
www.project1947.com/kbcat/kbtrace0505.htm

When UFOs Land
www.karenlyster.com/ufoland.html

Physical Trace Cases From France
www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ufo_briefingdocument/1981.htm




UFOs Are Real (1979) -- Physical Traces

[easynow]

Apparently the Physical Trace Research website will never be back online.

Marvelous

[drobnjak]

Nov 23, 2011 17:25:33 GMT -5 jeffdanielk said:

Phillip's idea is an example of what is sometimes called the "listing fallacy". We can not make a list of man-made aircrafts, rule each of them out, and conclude that unknown craft was extraterrestial. This is not valid method because we don't know what kinds of aircrafts the military or foreign countries might be developing. Just because we can not identify it as a known airplane, that does not mean that it couldn't be a new experimental top secret military vehicle.

That is not true and it is itself a fallacy.

We know what aircraft military is developing. Whole our civilization, including military is limited by budget and the state of technology & science. So anything that military is developing has to fit within these limitations.

In other words, whatever military is making it will have wings or rotor-blades and jet or rocket engine. X-planes are now around number 50 and all of them fit into this same general shape: wings and reactive engines.

When Ted Philips had shown trace evidence, he had shown scorched rings in grass, from 10 to 30ft in diameter. None of X-planes could land vertically on a rough grass field leave ring shaped brunt out grass and depart vertically afterwards.

Nothing that US or any other military had ever shown did in a slightest share physics with UFOs.

Without in any way diminishing Ted Philips' work, there are lot more sources for physical evidence. Lets not forget that physicality includes fields as much as it includes tangible objects. Here is a list of UFO scientific papers, written by engineers and scientist which give birds eye view of physics behind UFOs: bit.ly/ufos_and_science/