Friday, December 7, 2007

Further Speculations on the Nature of UFOs

French astrophysicist, computer scientist and UFO researcher Jacques Vallee first formulated the hypothesis that UFOs represented projections from the human mind-brain. Vallee's thesis rested on the premise that humans are not really aware of what they are doing. This leaves open the possibility that each human is the unwitting 'author' of a UFO event. This is why the conceivable “meta-cosmic” origin of UFOs needs to be understood.

I first began to take this seriously after publishing a 1980 paper on a UFO report submitted to me, or what I then called 'transient optical phenomenon of the atmosphere'. I was enticed, in the wake of this, to look more closely at the total frequency of such sightings around the world. When I discovered there were an average of 10,000 each year, I realized these could not all be 'intelligent craft from other planets'. It was incredible, in my estimation, to have 10,000 (or more) interstellar craft from maybe a thousand other planets, visiting us each and every year!

The problem with the projection hypothesis resides in ascertaining where the underlying energy originates. Clearly, UFOs are not merely 'images' or mass hallucinations, but manifestations of light, heat and even electromagnetic waves (since they also show up on radar screens). The question: How can projections - ostensibly of the human mind-brain, become endowed with substantial physical energy that registers on detectors? In order for this to be possible, the brain must possess the capacity of an enormously powerful transducer.

Consider: the brain is a three pound repository of chemical and electrical energy. The latter, for example, can be measured on a special device known as an EEG (electro-encephalogram) which can pick up the telltale brainwaves. But how can this low-level electric energy be converted into the enormous energy that appears to emanate from typical UFOs? Somehow a dramatic amplification of the low-level energy occurs, coupled with a change in the form of the energy. (For example, from electrical to heat or to light).

Presently, there is only one way for this to occur. It has to do with very tiny structures within the brain’s neurons called “microtubules” and how they function in conjunction with a newly discovered form of matter called bosons. Some have conjectured that a Bose-Einstein condensate forms in brain microtubules when particles called Goldstone Bosons become locked into a single coherent state. In this situation, an amplification of energy occurs in the brain's electrical system. This becomes convertible to other forms. Now, imagine an "alien" brain thousands of years more advanced than our own, and perhaps using 99% of its potential as opposed to barely 2%.

In this respect, it is conceivable that the alien brain's microtubules might act as a kind of electro-magnetic waveguide.. The Goldstone bosons undergo a phase transition (change of state) in the brain.

They then propagate outward from the brain as powerfully amplified electromagnetic (EM) waves, but driven by the nonlocal quantum potential first described by David Bohm. Certain calculations using the Planck length (10^-33 cm) suggest that ample energy exists to explain the apparent energetic UFOs that appear as luminous discs, or leave radiating patches on the ground.

So what exactly what might the UFOs be? Ultimately, pure zero-point energy emanating from a brain that is integrated with the "vehicle" denoted "UFO". That is, energy, but not constrained or limited by the sort of mechanical-chemical constraints and laws to which cosmic energy is naturally subject. This energy, calculated using the energy-time uncertainty relation, is virtual energy. For example, all cosmic energy is constrained to obey the law of conservation of mass-energy. Whatever quantity of energy appears (say in a nuclear fusion or fission reaction) cannot exceed the value of whatever mass difference made it available, multiplied by the speed of light squared. Virtual energy, by contrast, can violate this principle for limited durations of time (at least in the cosmic realm), but leave enduring effects in its wake.

Further, cosmic energy is subject to degradation (entropy increases) since it is used again and again. Not so with zero-point energy. If UFOs are governed by prosaic energy-mass, they would degrade in quality over time. The observed energy density, say as photons contributing to their brightness, would diminish (due to photon wavelengths being lengthened toward longer (low energy) regions of the spectrum. A zero-point or virtual energy source does the opposite, maybe even brightening over time.

In addition, while ordinary mass-energy is interwoven in the 4-dimensional space-time continuum, zero-point energy is hyperdimensional. (See Bohm;s point on this as related to his “implicate order” in his book, ‘Wholeness and The Implicate Order’, p. 191) In this regard, the 4-D space-time continuum arises as a construct from the essential interchangeability of mass and energy through Einstein's famous equation: m = E/c2. This is the core concept of Near-Reality energy. By contrast, hyperdiemsional or “far reality” energy is derived from the quantum potential and the Dirac Ether - and is essentially infinite[1], for any scale size approaching the Planck Length LP. This means that the mass-energy link (defined by the Einstein equation) is not a necessary condition of virtual energy.

The preceding features are important facets of UFO behavior to grasp. One of the most interesting is the apparent deformation of shape that UFOs undergo, including disappearance. Thus, a highly elongated UFO is observed to progressively contract until it becomes a point, then vanishes. In the context of Near-reality predicated on prosaic mass-energy and 4D space-time, this simply does not compute. Certainly, in the same frame of reference, clocks and measuring yards remain constant and not slow down, or shrink.


UFOs clearly are not in our frame of reference, though they appear to be. In fact, UFOs cannot exist in what we call space-time. As emanations of metacosmic or Dirac (zero-point) energy, the UFO shares the hyperdimensionality peculiar to certain D-branes, for example. The specific dimensionality depends on a number of factors, including: the Bose-Einstein condensate which gave rise to it, and the consciousness on which that is contingent.

In a subsequent post I intend to get into these D-branes in much more detail.

A relevant question is: How can a UFO be visible if it is 5- dimensional, say? This is possible through interpenetration of the mutual dimensional planes: applicable to the UFO, and to our normal 4-D cosmos. Below I make use of an analogy that first appeared in the classic book by E.A. Abbott: 'Flatland - A Romance of Many Dimensions'.

Assume you’re a denizen of a two-dimensional world, confined to the plane of that world. How would you be aware of contact with a hyper-dimensional entity? Imagine a 3-D ellipsoidal disk (like a UFO) as an example, which is 'hyperdimensional' compared to a 2-D plane (like a sheet of paper). To enable detection, the disk must progressively intersect the plane. The observer sees a mystifying object suddenly grow to vast size, then contract and finally disappear! (See the diagram below - where the horizontal line is a 1D infinite object, intersected by an elliptical 2D object, which might be the 'cross-section' of the UFO)

(O)
----------- A

----( )----- B

------------- C

In the changing situation A to C, the interpenetration is such that the dimensions of the intruder appear to contract or shrink. But this is only a consequence of its departure from our own (linear, in this case) dimensionality. This is precisely analogous to the case of UFOs regularly observed to 'shrink' or contract.

The phenomenal velocities of many UFOs are also explainable using zero-point, hyperdimensional energy. In many UFO sightings, a common feature I call 'skipping' manifests. The UFO appears to be at one location, say over a building, and in the next instant far displaced, without having traversed the intervening distance. It appears to have simply jumped or 'skipped' the intervening space from A to B. This sort of quantized displacement is another example of hyperdimensional influence, since no normal macroscopic object exhibits quantum jumps in transport. However, a nonlocal and hyperdimensional agent can, because it possesses an inherent ability to 'fold space', e.g. a D- brane-space..

Again, I reiterate that I am not discounting that a small proportion of UFOs could be genuine, nuts and bolts extra-terrestrial artifacts. But this percentage is so low that not more than 2 or 3 sightings per decade (out of 100,000 plus), fall in this category, if that many.

31 comments:

John said...

Did you ever hear of occams razor?
What a load of wordy crap.
You might as well be talking of fairys and elves.
Pathetic.
John Hyatt

Al said...

John's comment appears to derive from fear.

I found the article intriguing.

John said...

What does "fear" have to do with it?
Are you sure you're intrigued, or just out of your league?

Copernicus said...

John wrote:

"Did you ever hear of occams razor?"


Actually, I have. The "Razor" - compliments of William of Ockham, is a most useful adjunct when one is proposing or formulating HYPOTHESES. Such as a hypothesis for the inception or triggering of a solar flare via stressed magnetic fields.

However, the title of the article clearly states: SPECULATIONS on the UFO.

When I entertain speculations, I am under no compunction or obligation to impose any economy of method such as would be apropos for a HYPOTHESIS.

For those who may not know, Ockham's Razor says that the hypothesis which makes the fewest ad hoc assumptions is the one to be preferred.

Again, highly useful (but not absolute!) in separating wheat from chaff in the scientific realm of competing hypotheses - but not to in ordinary ruminations or simple speculations.



"What a load of wordy crap."

Why the need to be so belligerent and acerbic? You know it IS possible to object without being objectionable. I do it all the time.

If you can summon reasons as to why you regard the article as a "load of crap" I would be most interested in seeing them, minus the emotional piffle and knee-jerk reactions.

John said...

Dear Sir,
To begin with, we shall start with your conclusions.
This, after having gone through (alien brains that produce ufos through zero point energy in vast amounts, with new theorys of space and time) and (and new theorys of statistics) and still the conclusion is....
Illusion.
Wait, it gets better.
Two or three actual alien contacts every 10 years!
Out of thousands of observations every year!
I hesitate to characterize any of your endeavors as I have no idea what you are trying to say, therefore I would rather be succinct and say you have no idea what you are talking about and as such should not waste the time of those trying to understand the role of intelligence in the universe.
My criticisms are not meant to offend, only to inform.
I have neither the time nor energy to explain what you have got wrong.
Suffice to say, however , that you are not following the scientific method.
Nor the logical method.
Nor common sense.
So put that in your hat and mull on it.

Michael said...

"Now, imagine an "alien" brain thousands of years more advanced than our own, and perhaps using 99% of its potential as opposed to barely 2%."

Where does this percentage come from? I've heard it all my life, and I refuse to accept we only use two percent, ten percent, or whichever. Look at an MRI. We use our entire brains.

Some more backwardly than others.

Copernicus said...

John wrote:

"To begin with, we shall start with your conclusions.
This, after having gone through (alien brains that produce ufos through zero point energy in vast amounts, with new theorys of space and time) and (and new theorys of statistics) and still the conclusion is....
Illusion.
Wait, it gets better.
Two or three actual alien contacts every 10 years!
Out of thousands of observations every year!
I hesitate to characterize any of your endeavors as I have no idea what you are trying to say, therefore I would rather be succinct and say you have no idea what you are talking about and as such should not waste the time of those trying to understand the role of intelligence in the universe.
My criticisms are not meant to offend, only to inform.
I have neither the time nor energy to explain what you have got wrong.
Suffice to say, however , that you are not following the scientific method.
Nor the logical method.
Nor common sense.
So put that in your hat and mull on it."

You know, you've just proven to me you're an idiot. It's that simple.

As I noted already, it is not incumbent upon to me follow the "scientific method" since I am not providing a scientific paper. (Though I have on the general topic of UFOs, and it was published in the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, June, 1980).

What I was offering was a speculative piece, but it is clear you don't know the difference! As for "logic" - I don't know what you are talking about. In so far as all the speculative marks were hit, the logic holds up to that extent.

I am elated you have "neither the time nor the energy" to say exactly what i "got wrong" because I am certain you'd mess that up too. Better to take your pathetic "marbles" as they are and go home.

Next time, don't bother to read what you don't understand.

Copernicus said...

Michael wrote:

"Where does this percentage come from? I've heard it all my life, and I refuse to accept we only use two percent, ten percent, or whichever. Look at an MRI. We use our entire brains."


Well, FYI, an MRI will not give the specific detailed information needed to parse percentages of brain activity. What will is positron emission tomography (PET) scans. There have been reams of work done on this and I am not about to spoon feed you here. Suffice it to say if you know how to use google, you ought to be able to figure it out for yourself.

What those PET scans show is that differential regions of the brain "light up" and to different degrees. Hence, not "all" the brain is used at one time. The "1-2%" figure is a kind of normative standard cited in most words in neuro-psychology or neurobiology. E.g. check out Hobson's: 'The Chemistry of Conscious Brain States'.

Michael said...

From what I gather, PET scans are used to map the brain, highlighting regions where there is more blood, more glucose, directed. Not where memories are being stored, or where unconscious processes are taking place, nor any sort of astral projections.

Snopes on the 10 percent myth:

"One reason this myth has endured is that it has been adopted by psychics and other paranormal pushers to explain psychic powers. On more than one occasion I've heard psychics tell their audiences, "We only use ten percent of our minds. If scientists don't know what we do with the other
ninety percent, it must be used for psychic powers!"

further:

"Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another. "


I really take less issue with your blog, as it's speculative. I'm all for that. But let's not parade speculation for reality, and pull words out of thin air, couching them in academic furniture.

Copernicus said...

Michael wrote:

"I really take less issue with your blog, as it's speculative. I'm all for that. But let's not parade speculation for reality, and pull words out of thin air, couching them in academic furniture."

Ok, let's try to get straight we have an issue of semantics here. Of course, when I (and others, e.g. Hobson) say "use 1%" of the brain I am NOT referring to other regions being dead air, or dead space! Obviously a lot is going on!

What Hobson was alluding to, as well as Daniel Dennett in his book, 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' is HIGHER COGNITIVE or abstraction functions. This is so obvious it scarcely seems worth arguing over but the fact you miss my thrust completely shows it is.

Let us take an example, a human playing a computer at chess. I warrant the average human chess player will not use more than 1%, 2% of his higher cognitive functions at most, in such a game. The fact that most high level computer chess programs beat most human players is evidence of this - even when the human players have played thousands of games.

Take something outside of games, just solving a basic abtract puzzle or geometry puzzle. WHY is it the MAJORITY of GRE test takers score below the 40% level in the GRE math section. Even when they've exposed to dozens of math courses and have graduated with declared "math" degrees. Well, one answer is they haven't mastered the subject as they believed. Another one, also plausible, is that during that test they were only using a minor fraction of their neurons.

At one university where I taught a lot of work was done in neural networks and I'd often ask the prof questions as it was a source of curiosity - though I was in space physics. One thing I recall asking is whether the "1% use of the brain" was myth or fact. He replied by saying it was "more fact" than fiction, but - as brain redundancy can factor into brain function, it is perhaps better not to be too dogmatic about proportions of the brain utilized.

So be it. But that doesn't mean the 1% claim is necessarily fictious or off base irrespective of what lamo psychics say or posit.

Copernicus said...

Michael wrote:

"Snopes on the 10 percent myth:"

Well, pardon me if I take the words of researcher J. Allan Hobson more than "Snopes". Snopes can say or assert whatever, but I will take the words of researchers in the field every time.

Re: "speculation" - most of this blog is NOT speculation! It is based on hard fact. The UFO piece for which we are commenting on IS speculation and I made that abundantly clear - and no one is trying to pass it off as "fact".

A side remark on the use of "1% of the brain" even if off somewhat, does not undermine the thrust and intent of an article already predicated on *speculation*.

Copernicus said...

"Let us take an example, a human playing a computer at chess. I warrant the average human chess player will not use more than 1%, 2% of his higher cognitive functions at most, in such a game."

This brings up an analogy the prof in neural networks broached to me, using chess. The 1-2% threshold would correspond to a player (who's been playing at least five years in assorted venues) seeing five moves ahead. A 10% usage would translate into seeing at least eight moves ahead for the same player. A 20% usage would correspond to 10 moves ahead, and a 50% usage would be 15 moves ahead.

Arguably, 100% use of higher cortical function would translate to seeing 30 moves ahead, rendering this player almost unbeatable versus any other humans, excpeting perhaps grandmasters or chess genuises like Boris Spassky. It would also put the player nearly on a par to contend with 'Big Blue' the IBM wizard chess program.

John said...

Let's see, I am too know what the gobbledygook is, even before I read it?
And what I really meant was, "I wouldn't waste my time or energy trying to explain what you have wrong".
However your education has bent you, I see you didn't give up superciliousness.
And you do have a penchant for a degree of hubris which certainly could not be based on anything of yours that I have read.
AND BLAH BLAH BLAH
You see where this gets us?
No where.
So you just take your marbles and go home, because, when it comes to marbles, I could beat you any day.
John Hyatt

Copernicus said...

John wrote:

"So you just take your marbles and go home, because, when it comes to marbles, I could beat you any day."

Yeppers, Johnno, and that is literally about all you could beat me at (given I haven't played marbles since I was four).

Seems like al's comment earlier - that your reactions "derive from fear" is spot on. As we know we fear what don't understand. You don't even make an effort. Fine, then don't bother to return.

Adios, or ciao!

Whatever.

If you DO return I expect you to give full reasoning as to HOW and WHY yhou think I am so far off. Begging off by dismissive remarks won't do, neither will making excuses that you lack "time or energy".

All that shows is you are good for drive-by potshots but not much more.

Adios.

harleyman said...

John wrote: “And you do have a penchant for a degree of hubris which certainly could not be based on anything of yours that I have read.
AND BLAH BLAH BLAH”





Hey, moron, this just goes to show how limited your reading ability is. Ever heard of casting pearls before swine? That is about what Copernicus has done for the likes of you.

You wouldn’t know a UFO if it bit you in the ass. Hell, you wouldn’t know which direction the Sun was rising unless it had a voice and told you.



Now, haul your ass out of here and go watch cartoons –unless you have something insightful to contribute.



What a jag –off.

janidebar said...

harleyman, you're so right!

I find the articles on this blog absolutely fascinating and well written! I cannot imagine how anyone could hate them so much as John H. indicates he does.

But if one detests them that much, why hang around? If I hated the blog that much I'd simply ignore it. Why bother to read something if it violates your temperament and sensibilities so much?

Seems like the guy has a green monster (envy) issue to me.

John said...

Hello Humans,
I am not the green monster I have been made out to be, nor the a-hole or some such I have been called.
I do not hate the author.
I have no vested interest in demeaning or chastising anyone.
I just happened to run across this meandering mostly mysterious magnum opus and applied my hitherto unknown skills of de-bunkum to its wonderous conclusions.
Yes, there are Aliens, ETs,EBEs, and a plethora of unknowns and unknowables, but that doesn't mean we can easily explain the phenomena by the authors methods or by postulating a bunch of unconnected hypotheses.
Anyone who could come up with that much meaningless prattle is Big in my book.
But wrong.
John Hyatt

Michael said...

John is my hero.

Michael said...

John is my hero.

Caleb Shay said...

John wrote:

"I just happened to run across this meandering mostly mysterious magnum opus and applied my hitherto unknown skills of de-bunkum to its wonderous conclusions."

Unknown skills is right! You don't even have the rudimentary skills of a mental masturbator. Well, ok, maybe a part time one but that's about all I see. In all your lame remarks not one was back up by logic or reasoning, simply pooh-poohing what was written then fobbing off by saying you didn't have the time or energy to address anything in detail. Sorry, cupcake, but that line doesn't work.

Either you know what the hell you are talking about (or "debunking") or you don't. In this case you don't. You are simply an ignoramus who fancies he knows more than he does and thinks he has the smarts to take on Copernicus. (Like Copernicus' brother, Pastor Mike)



"Yes, there are Aliens, ETs,EBEs, and a plethora of unknowns and unknowables, but that doesn't mean we can easily explain the phenomena by the authors methods or by postulating a bunch of unconnected hypotheses."

And here you confirm again what Copernicus already noted, that you are an idiot.

The use of hypotheses is only germane if Copernicus were presenting a scientific paper for which the hypothesis provided the basis. He already noted up front, he was NOT giving or offering a scientific paper, only SPECULATION.

Can't you read or are you a born retard? If it is only speculation there is no obligation to form or present any coherent hypothesis.

What Copernicus gave in light of noting it was speculative, was spot on and met the standards required.

As before, you haven't advanced any discussion only shown you're an illiterate or semi-literate net moron.

Now, go read and learn, and after you have try to come back and write something compelling.

If you are going to "debunk" then follow a logical, rational procedure. Don't just come here and babble about perceived deficiencies when you can't explain WHY they are deficiciencies - given the speculative basis.

Caleb Shay said...

Michael wrote:

"John is my hero"

Then your standards for intellectual hero worship are so low you are a congenital moron. Like John.

Caleb Shay said...

John wrote:

"Anyone who could come up with that much meaningless prattle is Big in my book.
But wrong"

Again, you're an idiot. If the piece is speculation there is no litmus test for "right" or "wrong" because no scientific objective truth is being proposed. Why is this so difficult to process into that dense noggin?

It may be "meaningless prattle" to you but so is advanced differential calculus "meaningless prattle" to a retard or toddler.

You get my drift?

If you find the content so meaningless and too much prattle keep your netwise ass out of this blog. As janidebar advised.

How hard can that be?

Michael said...

It's less worthwhile to consider your ideas when a disagreement results in us all being deemed "idiots" and "moronic" for having another perspective. Just a big troll fest here.

harleyman said...

John wrote:

“Yes, there are Aliens, ETs,EBEs, and a plethora of unknowns and unknowables, but that doesn't mean we can easily explain the phenomena by the authors methods or by postulating a bunch of unconnected hypotheses.”

What a stupid ass dickhead! Copernicus didn’t claim to have any defined method! He said he was speculating. DO you know what speculating means? Do you have a dictionary? If one is speculating it means no “methods” are needed. Methods are only applicable if one is proposing some kind of scientific inquiry where a method or methods are needed to find the answers.

Copernicus made no such claim that he had the final answers, that his were the only correct ones, or that there was a method he and he alone had. This is also why he made no formal hypotheses because they weren’t needed.

Again, you wouldn’t know an alien or UFO if one bit you in the ass. You are almost as bad as Pastor Mike, the only difference being maybe your IQ is higher by two points!

Caleb Shay said...

Michael wrote:

"It's less worthwhile to consider your ideas when a disagreement results in us all being deemed "idiots" and "moronic" for having another perspective."

No one faults you (or "John") for having another perspective. BUT when that includes harsh criticism of the author, and supercilious putdown language without any coherent argument to back up the slam-dunk criticisms- then HE and YOU (for praising him) become the 'trolls' and you become ripe for attack.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own pov here. But when you come down hard on somedone to the extent of asserting, like John Hyatt did, that the blog entry isn't worth anything and violates numerous standards (without explaining himself) then he is no more than a troll. And merits what trolls get as we have seen.

Express your own perspective by all means. But if that includes negative or harsh appraisals of the content, you had better be able to back it up or we will be all over your sorry net asses like flies on shit.

Caleb Shay said...

Michael spieled:

"Just a big troll fest here."

No it was fine until you and your compadre "John Hyatt" waltzed in, pissing on this and that and using this blog as your personal urinal.

If you don't want to be harshly attacked, then don't attack, it's that simple.

If neither of you don't like the content, or object to the articles, stay AWAY! We don't want your type here.

John said...

I expect a higher standard from those who "speculate".
That's all.
The world is full of Charlatans and morons, and we need "information" rather than "speculation".
You can speculate till the cows come home and you've lost your marbles and all the little kids are laughing at you and calling you names.
Don't despair, Copernicus, just think of all of your wonderful friends who have had a chance to speak out.
Bye Y'all, have a nice holiday season and keep looking uuup!

Caleb Shay said...

John wrote....a bunch of insipid, idiotic bunkum.

Hey John, talk about being a day late and dollar short! You are more like a full deck short!
Copernicus already noted at least THREE times he was speculating. Can't you and the other imbeciles tell the difference?

Do we have to keep repeating it over and over again? How dumb can you be?

If you don't like his speculations, then take YOUR marbles (what few you have left in that small cranium of yours) and go home and stay out of here, where more adventurous and dicriminating minds abide.

You are a waste of space, physical and mental.

Now - vamonos. You're almost as bad as Pastor Mike.

MORON!

Caleb Shay said...

Another thing, idiot, there is MORE than ample information on this blog IF you are prepared to look for it.

But then maybe you are too blind or stupid to find it.

Now, go back to your kindergarten and play marbles with the other retards.

John said...

By the way Copernicus, I was not including you in "charlatans and morons", only your pernicious "hangers on".
Have a nice day.

Copernicus said...

John,

It is clear you have some serious objections to speculation on the UFO phenomenon - though that is about all that can be provided, given we have very limited information which isolates signal from noise.

I spent more than 38 years investigating UFO reports and have only found 2 I consider truly unidentified out of more than 550 sent to me. The information from those, based on the data covered in the reports, is very meager.

In such an environment, speculation is the best one can do.

If that is not good enough, may I suggest you find another blog more to your liking.

As to my "pernicious followers" etc. I cannot control what they say - nor do I want to emulate some other bloggers who censor posts.

My best advice to you, for what it's worth, is to look for greener pastures wherein your informational needs and priorities are more likely to be met- since obviously I am unable to provide them.