With the War on Terror and various other news issues taking up all of the limelight as of late, one of my old passions, UFO's Real and Imagined, has been at a low heartbeat. This blog is meant to be a small crash cart in an otherwise quiet area of investigation.

Friday, August 26, 2005

More Radiation at a Distance 

Upon further reading of Intruders, another incident was reported near the Davis home. During the summer of 1983, “Martha Elkins”, a neighbor of both the Davis’ and the Lloyd’s, was awakened by a loud roaring sound outside. Fearing that a plane was about to crash into her house, she immediately got up and ran to her window. While Ms. Elkins didn't see anything of note outside at the time, she did notice that a nearby clock radio began flashing and a nightlight flickered. Obviously, she experienced a power upset similar to the one at the Lloyd home.

Curiously, only the clock radios on the bedroom side of the house were affected, while the rest of the clocks in the home were normal. This is important.

There are a few interesting details to derive from this event:

  1. The field of influence of the UFO, if one did cause these effects, has a defined boundary.
  2. Assuming perhaps a hundred foot long house, a field in discussion with a circular ground footprint, and that the UFO was local to the Lloyd home only at that moment, the field of the UFO may be as little as fifty feet in diameter.
  3. If the event occurred at the same time as the Davis and Lloyd events, a good mapping of the three homes would further define a larger footprint, including an approximate center point at the Davis home and a circumference passing through the Elkins home.

I’m having quite a bit of geeky fun with this!



Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Radiation At a Distance 

In Budd Hopkin’s book, Intruders, he notes on page 35 of my copy that certain physiological effects of a particular abduction seem to be those of radiation exposure. The symptoms described by Kathy Davis at her home include such things as nausea, dizziness, hair loss, etc. Also, the grass and other plants in the area of a reported UFO landing exhibited certain anomalous changes hinting at some sort of radioactive event.

Likewise a certain distance [currently unknown, but I have contacted Mr. Hopkins for this info.] from the Davis house, their neighbors, the Lloyds, experienced some electrical upsets and witnessed a flashing of light outside. The witness information is timed coincident with the period of time of the events at the Davis home.

This is of interest of me for a couple of reasons:

  1. The event has an off-site witness, showing some credibility that the event wasn’t isolated and that it was grounded in reality.
  2. More importantly to me as an engineer looking to characterize and eventually develop similar technology, the possibility of radiation during the event and a distance of action as two pieces of data gives me something to compute.

I’ll be very glad when Mr. Hopkins gets back to me.



Friday, August 19, 2005

Cast Iron Saucers 

Here's a thought: Some of the material reportedly recovered by Jesse Marcel from the Roswell debris field was very resilient. There were structural segments that couldn't be burned or cut, and there was even a sheet of what we would now call memory metal that could be wadded up like so much trash and it would return to flat. No wrinkles.

I occurred to me that this sort of stuff might just be what one would require for long service life structures for UFO's. Certainly, if a UFO is propelled and maneuvered by means of fields that actively negate or control inertial, then it might be tempting to think that fatigue would be removed as well. No inertia, no harmful vibrational responses or induced forces, so no fatigue, right? For that matter, an artificially inertialless craft could be made of something as crude as cast iron and function for a time. Strictly speaking, this would be true, if we're talking of something analogous to airframe stress. But I'm considering another possibility.

What if the field itself was to interact with the materials themselves, and by nature of perhaps very high-energy fields might interact a lot. If the materials were not up to the task, they would be shredded in short order by repeated internal stresses. An idea I received today from another ufological partner in crime was that proper materials might even be biased in a particular way to aid in the control of the fields. This is an avenue that needs pursuit.

I've come to three conclusions from this:
  1. The type of material for a working prototype may not in itself have to be exotic at all.
  2. If common materials are used, we shouldn't expect the prototype to last very long.
  3. A whole different branch of UFO technological research may hinge on the question of internal fatigue induced by fields.


Thursday, August 18, 2005

The List of 58 - Day Three 

I think I will take on Fact #5:

It exhibits light emission and absorption.

In Pauls Hill's book, Unconventional Flying Objects, he takes on the visual effects of UFO's and puts an understandable face onto what people see. In a nutshell, the glows and flows of light often reported during UFO encounters would be a plasma induced by the propulsion fields exerted by the craft. In other words, despite some thoughts to the contrary, the plasma is an artifact of the propulsion mode, not the propulsion mode itself.

This is borne out by some characteristic behaviors seen from the plasmas themselves. For example, during manuvering of the UFO, it is not uncommon to see the shape of the glow to bend or stretch. The degree of this depends largely on the direction of motion of the object, the orientation to the Earth, and the speed of the manuever. This is different from rocket propulsion, where the rocket exhaust vectors straight out of the nozzle, whether manuevering is changing or not.

Interestingly, another lighting effect that leads to the conclusion that fields are propelling the craft is frequent reports of a luminescent UFO stretching in length during acceleration. Rather what is happening is that the plasma sheath surrounding the entire UFO increases in magnitude on one end as the field increases in power to accelerate the system. Under Mr. Hill's logic, these plasma sheaths are very commonly confused with being the substance of the UFO's themselves, not the effect of propulsion.

Here's a parting thought on the appearance and luminosity of UFO's: Sceptics often refer to "out-of-focus" or "fuzzy" UFO photography as suspicion of hoaxerism. What is well known about plasmas, however, is that their absorption properties result iin light scattering. This is most pronounced during the day, when the visible emmitted light is lensed through the plasma medium, making objects behind the plasma blurry, if not entirely invisible. This is a scientific knowledge of a concrete kind, reproduced in photography of plasma systems in many applications.


Tuesday, August 16, 2005

The List of 58 - Day One 

UFO UpDates is going ballistic on poor Bob Renaud and his demand for ufological “facts”, though with the attitude he's been copping, he should not be at all surprised. For me, I’ve had my own response to him there, and now I’m back here to address a first set of “facts”. Consider this a raw beginning for the actual, final List of 58:

  1. In most cases involving a craft there is direct evidence, i.e., eye witnesses.
  2. The craft occupies space.
  3. It moves as time passes.
  4. It emits thermal effects.
  5. It exhibits light emission and absorption.
  6. It effects the atmosphere.
  7. It can be photographed.
  8. It has left residual after-effects, i.e., forensic evidence etc.
  9. It has caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.
  10. It has been tracked by radar.

(My great thanks to Mr. Frank Warren from the UFO UpDates List for these facts.)



Monday, August 15, 2005

The 58 Challenge 

Bob Renaud on the UFO Updates mailing list has issued an intriguing challenge to Ufology:

On Tuesday, June 24, 1947, Kenneth Arnold sighted nine disk- shaped objects
while flying near Mount Rainier, Washington. Today, Monday, August 15, 2005, is
58 years, 1 month, and 22 days - or if you wish, 21,237 days - later. Ergo, the
'modern era' of Ufology is approaching its sixth decade. My question: ignoring
contactees, abductees, Magonia, Phil Klass, etcetera, what 58 scientific facts -
one for each year - about UFOs and aliens are known on 15 August 2005 that were
not known on 24 June 1947? I'm not referring to opinions, hypotheses,
assumptions, extrapolations, anecdotal evidence or wild-arsed guesses, but to
cold, hard, indisputable facts...So, who has a list of 58 facts?

I’ve decided to take him up on this. Of course, such “facts” will be disputable by some, but that’s just good science. Many of the facts we hold as keystones to scientific theory in many areas are subject to revision. For those in the Ufological community, we bear a higher standard for “facts” from the world purely as a cultural phenomenon.

So be it.

After having more than a year off of this blog, I welcome this challenge as red meat to get it going again.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?