UFO landing soil can’t absorb water.



by NetOne613

11 Comments

  1. UFO effected soil from the Delphos, Kansas 1971 landing compared to normal soil is unable to absorb water demonstrated in the video..

    Lab results: [https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf](https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/Budinger/UT001.pdf)

    Ted Philips research: [https://web.archive.org/web/20240326005512/https://cufos.org/PDFs/books/Physical_Traces.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20240326005512/https://cufos.org/PDFs/books/Physical_Traces.pdf)

    Source clip Watch – Ufo are real (1979): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMGUIEk6xzA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMGUIEk6xzA)

  2. Hydrophobic soil is not an unknown phenomena. It’s when dirt gets so dry, it repels water penetration. If there’s a decent oil concentration in the soil, that oil will form a barrier when water is introduced. If the soil is completely devoid of water, it’s completely logical to assume it will float and repel water.

  3. Remember that reporting bias is represented on maps like this. Number of people = greater chance to see = greater chance someone will report. Same with military sensors vs civilian eyeballs and cameras. And then there is likely UAP concentration around certain areas of their interest–possibly nuclear though that falls under a high level of observation area. Possibly water, though that is where were built and people spend time. In fact it could be said that everywhere is just as likely to see a UAP until we for sure know better. In fact some of the most interesting sightings and more happened at odd hours or in ‘wild’ areas. See: Travis Walton story for instance. Would be interesting if we could find other data points that would help filter out the bias

  4. Pschconaut_curry98 on

    People see hydrophobic soil and first thought is oh shit that’s some alien shiii for sure 🤣🤣🤣