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, October 21, 2005

New Questions Born of the Old 

On the UFOUpdates mailing list, there has been some discussion of how to “get the message out” regarding Ufology. Of course, we’ve been trying to tell non-ufologists what we are looking into for years, so this is not a new question. Of course, it periodically becomes a rediscovered one, and we are staring the beast in the face once again.

Truly, how do we inform the public of why we investigate and why it should be important to them? One would think you would be able to just tell people by word of mouth, or with media, but there is a certain difficulty along those routes. An atmosphere of official ridicule was established long ago. Even open acknowledgement of this manufactured climate of scorn is itself laughed at and deemed lunacy. How annoying!

I perceive a bit of wear and tear in this engineered mockery, so I think that this is a really good time to readdress the question. Here's my take for what it's worth:

I think there is continued value in tracking trends, patterns, and empirical characteristics of UFO's and related phenomena. If Ufology can continue to build the clearinghouse of data on the subject, that's all to the good. If we can find a way to inform people in a serious, credible, and digestible way, that's all to the better. So we keep pulling together sighting reports and publishing, but go the extra mile in simply and unabashedly telling others that the clearinghouse exists.

That's a hurdle I've personally had to make, and recently it is like a switch has been flipped for me. I tell people I'm a Ufologist, a second career. No matter their reaction, my confidence, finally after many years of internal apprehension, is unshaken. That would be the "assuming a serious lack of funding approach".

To tackle the "assuming unlimited funding" approach, I can only speak for myself. I am interested and generally engaged upon many of the discussed aspects of our field. However, being just a single human with many other pragmatic things tugging at me, I have to narrowly restrict what aspect I act upon. Being an engineer, the restriction is obvious.

If UFO's are craft of some sort, technological and physical, what makes them work?

I devote myself to that. With the limited funds I have, I have some plans that have an unpleasantly long timeline. If I won the Powerball (i.e., unlimited funding) I would devote myself to building and testing apparatus for study of those things that interest me.

Unlimited funding? Do what interests you, see where it properly fits in with others' interests, then publicize the findings, produce products for sale, and generally move down an R&D path to perpetuate new learning to complete the loop.

If Ufology could produce at least one physical and practical benefit for the rest of the world, then the rest of the world will begin to care. The rest of world may even begin to understand why we think Ufology is important.


Monday, October 17, 2005

A Handy Definition 

In a recent comment to UFO Glow the term "Stochastic" was used to describe the normal excitation colors in nature, such as that by lightning energizing the atmosphere. For the casual readers of this blog, I thought it might be a term worthy of definition. (I confess that I had to look it up myself.)

From Wikipedia: "An example of a stochastic process in the natural world is pressure in a gas. Even though each molecule is moving deterministically, a collection of them is unpredictable (this is an example of chaos arising from order). A large enough set of molecules will exhibit stochastic characteristics, such as filling the container, exerting equal pressure, diffusing along concentration gradients, etc."

So, in short, stochastic systems are random collections of non-random elements. Speficially, in the case of the atmosphere surrounding a UFO, if the propulsion mode wasn't field-like, the distinct colors and color boundaries would not be in evidence. The plasma colors are NOT typically stochastic for UFO reports.



Friday, October 14, 2005

More Glow 

In reference to the colors of UFO plasmas, it is to be noted that Paul Hill made some interesting commentary on the subject.

Often reported is an object glowing red orange on the bottom surface, with a silver-blue plume of sorts below or around that feature. The yellow-red or orange ionization spectra are of a lower energy, affecting the oxygen in the atmosphere. Continuing on from there, the atmospheric nitrogen present is ionized at a higher energy, issuing its characteristic colors. Now, I have some speculation on this.

Assuming that the forces required and employed for UFO propulsion are field-like, and not rocket-like, it would make sense that there are two distinct balancing factors to complete a fair equation of the system.
  1. The high-power propulsive and maneuvering field would be diffuse locally around the object, emitting its blue glow basically uniformly.
  2. The reaction forces on the object would serve to support and translate the object, but due to the energy losses in doing so, the glow at the boundary of the object would be markedly red-orange in spectra.

I realize that this may not be enough to properly describe the system. Allow me to paraphrase:

As a UFO pushes against the gravity environment around it to move around, the propulsive field is at a high energy, so it glows blue. However, since we are making the wise assumption that the UFO is a real object in this universe, and thus beholden to real physics, it is well understood that not all of that expended energy is going to be returned as force to hold the UFO in the sky. The atmosphere will absorb some of that energy, somewhat as heating, and somewhat as the light emission from the plasma. There is certainly a reaction involved, though, and the plasma effects from that manifest themselves to our eyes as a noticeably red-orange bloom on the UFO underside. A telling part of this whole sequence of events is that the colors are strictly separated and distinct. This is a field effect. Since the field is not causing a combustion plume such as rocketry produces, there is not a general trailing of burning matter to obscure view. The propulsive fields themselves are directly acting on the environment, diffusely pushing against the air and local objects, and much more locally at the surface of the UFO.

For some people, this may be mind blowing. This illustrates how a field-propulsive craft would fit the bill for UFO operation, and even begins to hint at the energy levels and interactions involved.



Tuesday, October 11, 2005

UFO Glow 

One of Paul Hill's major points in UFO sighting history is an apparent use of cyclical field energies in propulsion and manuvering. The energies would be locally quite enormous to produce the operational antics that have been reported, and those energies must follow the laws of conservation. In doing so, a great deal of that energy must be dissapated into the atmosphere, which would produce an impressive amount of ionization.

In line with that, consider that many reports tell of blue glowing UFO's. What is interesting about that is that the main component of our atmosphere, nitrogen, is easily ionized.

And it gives off a brilliant blue.

This is an entirely logical and predictable circumstance to ufological study, and it even hints at the energies involved in the fields assumed to do the work. Nitrogen ionization is not the only thing going on, either. Often reported, too, are red and yellow hues. Once again, it it is predictable (but fascinating!) that oxygen ionization produces plasmas of these colors. As we build the scientific butresses of Ufology, and begin to develop the technology ourselves, this is the kind of seed data we will need to continue to find.

For reference here are some links to elemental data:




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