Unconventional_Flying_Objects_part1

PAUL R. HILL UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS a scientific analysis K Hampton Roads PUBLISHINGCOMPANY, JNC. Copyright © 1995 by Julie M. Hill All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this work in any form whatsoever, without permission in writing from the publisher, except for brief passages in connection with a review. Publisher’s note: To preserve the authenticity of the manuscript, we have used the author’s original sketches and drawings whenever possible. All other drawings are computer-generated. Thanks to Robert M. Wood, Ph.D., for his invaluable assistance in bringing this book to fruition. Cover design by Jonathan and Matthew Friedman For information write: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc. 134 Burgess Lane Charlottesville, VA 22902 Or call: (804) 296-2772 FAX: (804) 296-5096 If you are unable to order this book from your local bookseller, you may order directly from the publisher. Quantity discounts for organizations are available. Call 1-800-766-8009, toll-free. ISBN 1-57174-027-9 10 98765432 1 Printed on acid-free paper in Canada Contents Foreword by Robert M. Wood………………… 7 Introduction……………………………. 10 I. Physical Properties and Effects…………… 31 II. Performance……………………………. 40 III. Illumination …………………………… 53 IV. How Hot is UFO Radiation?………………… 70 V. Energetic Particle Ejection as Propulsion Possibility 83 VI Transmission of Forces …………………… 92 VII. Direct Evidence of Force Field Propulsion … 98 VIII Force Field Evaluation: Which Type?……….109 IX. The Saucer Hum and the Cyclic Field……… 119 X. Propulsion Oddities……………………… 131 XI Saucer Dynamics ………………………… 145 XII. Silent Subsonic Operation ………………… 174 XIII. Silent Supersonic Operation ……………… 181 XIV. The Aerodynamic Heating of UFOs ……………208 XV. High-Acceleration Loading On Occupants … 219 XVI. UFO Artifacts…………………………….225 XVII. The Humanoid Occupants……………………..245 XVIII. Time Requirements for Interstellar Travel . . . 262 XIX. UFO Operational Capabilities……………….280 XX. Summary and Conclusions…………………….311 Appendix 1. Analysis of the Sound (Hum) and Vibrations……………………………339 Appendix 2. A Comparison of Level and Ballistic Trajectories…………………….350 Appendix 3. UFO Aerodynamics: Incompressible Potential Flow Theory …………………………….. 357 Appendix 4. Compressible Gas Dynamics With Force Field ……………………………… 370 Appendix 5. Interstellar Travel Theory………………. 383 Appendix 6. Propulsion Equations……………………. 399 Appendix 7. Analyses of UFO Fields………………….. 406 Author’s Technical Biography and Credentials………… 413 Works Cited ……………………………………… 421 Index of Names and Places………………………….. 425 General Index…………………………………….. 427 UNCONDITIONAL FLYING,OBJECTS a scientific analysis “Paul Hill has done a masterful job ferreting out the basic science and technology behind the elusive UFO characteristics and demonstrating they are just advanced and exotic extensions of our own technologies. Perhaps this book will help bring solid consideration for making all that is known about extraterrestrial craft publicly available. ” —Edgar Mitchell, Sc.D., Apollo 14 Astronaut FOREWORD Nearly 30 years ago I met Paul Hill in his office at NASA—Langley. For different reasons, we had both begun examining the evidence of unidentified flying ob- jects, trying to understand how they would operate if the current sightings were indeed factual reports. This research was in addition to our normal aerospace jobs. After Paul retired from NASA in 1970, I continued to work at McDonnell Douglas, retiring in 1993, and am now focusing my attention on the very important UFO phenomenon. During this 30-year period, I have closely followed the developments in this field, talking with some of its most prominent researchers. I would say that Paul Hill’s analysis of the key issue of how UFOs op- erate was far ahead of its time in both its science and his scientific attitude. In Unconventional Flying Objects, Paul Hill peripherally mentions his role at NASA, noting an attitude of toler- ance for his interest in the UFO phenomenon, but he is careful not to mislead his reader into believing, even by inference, that NASA had an interest in UFOs. He was able to establish himself as an informal “clearing house” for UFO information passing through this government agency. As a result, he was exposed to a wide variety of direct reports, which provided him with ample data to begin his analysis. Paul Hill worked on this book for many years, com- pleting it in 1975. Although the book relies on sighting reports from the 1950s through the mid-1970s, the mate- rial is far from outdated; rather, many of these cases have become classics in the field of UFO reporting, only amplified by sightings in the years to follow. These early reports reveal excellent clues about the underlying sci- ence and technology of UFOs. Reports since this period would add very few new dimensions to Hill’s documen- -7- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS tation. His material even includes early reports of hu- manoid occupants and communication with them—pre- dating more recent abduction claims—and comments on other current inquiries such as the value and limitations of hypnotic regression. Hill’s approach was 20 years ahead of its time. He never became trapped in the endless speculation about the reality of UFOs; he accepted the reports at face value and let his analysis of the observed phenomenon speak for itself. And his methodology was impeccable. He took the reported observations and then directly evaluated alternative hypotheses, exploring all relevant avenues of inquiry. His comprehensive breakdowns include size, color, halos, clouds, wakes, jitter, heat, maneuvers, per- formance, sound, solidity, landing, weight, nests and rings, propulsion, propulsive forces, force fields, radiation, merging systems, occupants, collecting, interference, weaponry, and artifacts. Hill’s attitude about the sacrosanct laws of physics is strictly deductive: the laws should be changed to reflect the data instead of vice versa. This unbiased approach gives a new understanding of classic UFO cases, leading to more comprehensive understanding of them, such as the now-famous 195/^RB-47 case over the Gulf of Mex- ico. More generally, Hill’s scientific interpretations of the sightings are especially coherent. For example, his own 1962 sighting reveals two objects rotating around each other 200-feet apart with a period of one second yields 123g, a classic calculation. Hill uses his detailed knowl- edge of dynamics to perform many calculations relating observed motion and the forces that might cause them. The book also includes cases with “before its time” calculations of how the objects could travel both subson- ically and supersonically and make no noise. And the arguments supporting a gravity field are excellent, and are extremely cogent, consistent with a 1994 paper by Haisch and Puthoff showing that the control of gravity and inertia are now technically feasible. Although written in technically precise language, the book can easily be understood by laymen with non-tech- nical backgrounds, because Hill sticks to the central prin- -8- Foreword ciples of flight, dynamics, and electricity, using them to embrace the remarkable set of anomalous reports he has compiled from many sources. The information unfolds like a mystery story unraveling its plot. The case histo- ries are clearly written and easy to follow, and have the advantage of getting to the main point without wasting time on irrelevant details. Calculations are simple, under- standable, and checkable throughout—one of the neces- sary conditions for good technical work, often missing in UFO literature. Sketches are simple and focus on the point in question, as if Hill were drawing them on the blackboard in his office for the visiting reader. The author’s Introduction is extremely helpful in guid- ing the reader through this interesting volume. Paul Hill’s Unconventional Flying Objects: a Scientific Analysis is an excellent reference guide for the researcher, a wake-up call for the skeptic, a model for the case investigator, a review of fundamental principles for the engineer or scientist, and a great mystery story for all trying to understand how the UFOs can really work. Hill’s con- clusion is that UFOs “obey, not defy, the laws of phys- ics,” lending credibility to sighting reports. Robert M. Wood, Ph.D. in Physics, Cornell University 1953 Aeronautical Engineer, 1953-1961, and Research and Development Manager, 1961-1993: McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Huntington Beach, CA jul>> n} 1^7 £8^7 Site, 6, list- ^-^ -9- Introduction The sighting of what has been taken to be unconven- tional vehicle-like objects in our skies has created great interest, surprise, and, for some, a welcome diversion to the daily routine. Others react with incredulity, even open hostility. Opinions have been sharply divided, and, as is so often the case when facts are in short supply, emotions have ruled. All must realize the tremendous potential sociological, technological, and historical impact that contact with beings from another world would cre- ate if such were established. Through the decades of the 1950s and 1960s, the believers were in the minority but, as if to make up for their lack of numbers, were very outspoken and argumentative. There was no lack of oppo- sition after the U.S. Air Force threw down the gauntlet. Both the believers and the nonbelievers have insisted on proof without avail, until it is now widely accepted that the proof concept does not apply, since not one of the objects has been captured and therefore none can be subjected to laboratory tests in the scientific tradition. On the other hand, proof of nonexistence is even more re- mote. About the best that the challengers have come up with is that the phenomena as reported seem to defy the laws of physics as we understand them. They say that for this reason the reports cannot be believed. A major intent of this book is to show that UFOs obey, not defy, the laws of physics. One reason for the tide of opinion now running in favor of the believers, if the Gallup Poll’s 51-percent figure can be so interpreted, is probably the well-known Condon Study and its recommendations which resulted in the retirement of the U.S. Air Force from their limited investigations of unconventional objects. Project Blue Book was closed. What looked at the time like a case-closed -10- Introduction verdict of guilty against unconventional object sightings and all they might signify, in retrospect looks more like the demise of their main opposition by public institution. Also, partly because of the outspoken opposition to the existence of unconventional objects in our skies by U.S. government institutions and sponsored studies, a scientific protest of sorts developed. Important and dis- tinguished men of science such as Dr. James E. McDon- ald, atmospheric physicist; Dr. J. Allen Hynek, astronomer and for years Project Blue Book consultant; Prof. James A. Harder of the University of California, Director of Research for the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization; and others stepped forward to demand more impartial studies in order to determine what the sightings really meant. At last the UFO witness, long the butt of ridicule from all sides, had some of the heavy guns of science on his side for a change. A common opinion among such scientists, as set forth by Dr. Hynek in The UFO Experience, is that a computer- ized study of UFO reports is required to sort fact from fiction and to establish a bona fide pattern of observations. They feel that such a study will establish to a higher degree of probability the objective existence, or nonexist- ence, of what the witnesses say they have observed. One of the outstanding UFO students to take the computer study approach is Dr. David Saunders, co-author of UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong. He made a good start on such a study while an investigator on Condon’s study project, but he was destined not to finish it owing to his separation from the project. Fortunately, work on cataloging UFO phenomena into categories and patterns was started long ago by collectors and analysts of unconventional object reports. Notable among these are the numerous works by Coral and Jim Lorenzen, Jacques and Janine Vallee, Frank Edwards, and the National Investigating Committee for Aerial Phenom- ena (NICAP) under the direction of Maj. Donald Key hoe. Naturally, different data catalogs emphasize different features. Sporadically over a period of 25 years and during a final two-year period of concentrated effort and analysis, I have evolved my own brief catalog of UFO -11 – UNCONVENTIONALFLYING objects phenomena, summarized and substantiated in these pages. The items of this summary list of phenomena, comprising the highly repeating and therefore most be- lievable aspects of the unconventional objects, will be called the UFO pattern. The UFO pattern, together with the more detailed information used in its compilation, forms the basis of this inquiry into possible scientific explanations. A review at this point of the bewildering array of data which constitutes the pattern should allow all readers to start on a more common footing. With regard to configurations, bear in mind that only highly repeating shapes are given. The UFO Pattern: A Condensed Statement of Repeated Observations CONFIGURATIONS, the highly repeating shapes. Saucer i Domed saucer (most common) ■” f Lenticular saucer, or disk Sometimes with low dome Flat-topped straw hat Double hat Conical hat (giant) Sphere Saturn Elipsoidal (egg or football) hovering———————– underway—– Cylindrical (giant cigar) Dirigible (large) Figure i-1. Note: (1) Shine marks show typical nighttime air glow. (2) Dash-dot vertical centerline is saucer axis of symmetry. (3) Giant cigars have plumes also. – 12 – Introduction SIZE The size range is tremendous, varying from something like 8 inches for a lenticular “foo-fighter” of World War II to well upwards of a thousand feet in length for the giant cylindrical shapes. Dirigible configurations range in the hundreds of feet, possibly larger. Saucers, spheres, and ellipsoidal configurations ordinarily range in the 1- to 30-meter size, and Saturn-like vehicles, so named be- cause of their central rim, are frequently in the 5- to 15-meter range. Sufficient estimates of conical-hat saucers have not been made to suggest a range in size, but one was reliably estimated to be of the order of 200 meters in diameter. Obviously statistical studies are needed to further define the range of UFO sizes. COLOR In daylight, unconventional objects range from a brightly polished silver color to a dull aluminum appearance. Flat- bottomed saucers are often darker underneath in a central circular area or in an annular ring near the rim. At night, there are two variations: (a) The unconventional objects carry running lights in many patterns. Sometimes they blink, making the object look like a Christmas tree or a the- ater marquee. (b) They are solidly lighted in red, orange, amber, yellow, blue or blue-violet, and brilliant white, singly or in combinations. The solid colors re- semble neon lighting. HALOS The nighttime neon-like, solid-color luminescence ema- nates from an envelope of air around the objects like a halo, rather than from the vehicle directly. This halo tends to obscure the vehicle, making the edges indistinct, as we will explore further. Around saucers and Satums, the halo is most concen- -13- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS trated near the rim, more extensive below than above. (See shine marks on sketches.) A unique cone of illuminating air is sometimes present below a saucer, giving it an ice-cream-cone appearance. CLOUDS The big cylindrical objects are sometimes surrounded with a white cloud, giving rise to the name “great cloud cigar.” This phenomenon is less frequent with other con- figurations. WAKES Dirigible and cylindrical objects carry plume-like wakes when accelerating rapidly or moving at high speeds, grey to straw-colored in daylight, flame-colored at night. They can move slowly (100 mph) without generating the plume. JITTER Unconventional objects at times seem to vibrate heavily. If the object is also moving slowly, the movement seems jerky or jittery. It is difficult to know whether the jitter is an actual motion or an optical effect. For this reason, the phenomenon is listed with other appearance factors. HEAT No one complains that being near an unconventional object is like being near a hot stove. Heat radiations (infrared, etc.) from their surfaces or from the surround- ing halos and wakes is missing except for mild sensa- tions of warmth. This observation carries the strong implication that the surfaces, halos, and wakes are not very hot (i.e., nothing is at a red heat). MANEUVERS Hovering. Hovering at any altitude is common. UFOs also hover very close to the ground for substantial pe- -14- Introduction riods, sometimes giving the distinct impression that they are doing so instead of landing. (In other words, hover- ing seems to serve the same purpose as landing.) Falling leaf or UFO-rock. This maneuver is similar to the motion of a coin falling in water. It most often occurs just before the UFO begins to hover. Silver-dollar wobble. To duplicate this motion, give a coin a slow spin on a flat surface. This motion occurs at the end of a rapid descent as the UFO initiates hovering. Acute-angle turn. This is another dazzling but com- mon maneuver. The UFO decelerates rapidly to a stop at the point of the turn and accelerates rapidly in the new direction. (It requires acute observation to note the stop.) The right-angle turn (90 degrees) is a special case of the acute-angle turn. Sudden reversal of direction. This maneuver surprises the witness because it isn’t in the repertoire of Earth vehicles. It is actually an extreme acute-angle turn (180 degrees). Bank-and-turn. The motions are in every way compa- rable to the motions of conventional aircraft—a familiar one at last! Straight-away speed run. This maneuver also can be similar to the corresponding maneuver of conventional craft, but can be different in that it is just as apt to be vertical as horizontal or any angle in between. Tilt to maneuver. While not actually a maneuver, this observation, which I have confirmed, is important. UFOs tilt to perform all maneuvers. For example, they sit level to hover, tilt forward to move forward, tilt backward to stop, bank to turn, etc. PERFORMANCE Speed. Speeds to about 9,000 miles per hour have been measured by radar at 60,000 feet altitude at Goose Bay, Labrador; by radar near 18,000 feet altitude over the Gulf of Mexico; and eyeballed between landmarks at about this speed and 3,500 feet altitude over Hampton Roads, Virginia. -15- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS Acceleration. The literature on unconventional objects is filled with adjectives of superlative degree to describe accelerations, but there are no numbers. Here my sight- ings and calculations can help; they place minimum val- ues of observed accelerations at the order of 100 times Earth-surface gravity on two occasions, once for spheres and once for a big dirigible. (This is an order of mag- nitude more than Earth vehicles of comparable size, but far less than some small tube-launched or gun-launched missiles.) Some reported sudden disappearances are quite likely cases of extreme acceleration, which may be beyond the comprehension of the testifying witness and even the case investigator. The major report pattern is either that they disappear with “lightning speed” or “incredible swiftness” or that they move off slowly. Altitude. A half-dozen sightings of unconventional ob- jects by orbiting astronauts place operating altitudes at near 200 nautical miles. This figure would seem to qual- ify these objects as space-worthy, non-atmospheric phe- nomena, possibly spacecraft. SOUND Hum, buzz, or whine. These are the characteristic sounds of the UFO at close quarters. The sound rises in both pitch and intensity seconds before and during take- off from hovering or landed condition. Sometimes mov- ing UFOs make a slight swish-of-air sound. At other times, the observer is greeted with absolute silence. Unconventional objects seldom create a roar or boom, even when moving at supersonic speed. SOLIDITY Unconventional objects have solid surfaces. This charac- teristic is attested to by those who have touched them, rapped on them, and listened to the thud or the whine of ricocheting bullets from rifle and point-blank pistol fire. -16- Introduction LANDING The main pattern is that UFOs let down retractable landing gear before landing. The gear leaves well-defined prints in the contacted surfaces. WEIGHT Landing gear imprints are defined well enough to make weight estimates possible. The weight estimates indicate that modest-sized unconventional objects weigh tons. NESTS AND RINGS Saucers landing without use of gear in reeds or soft terrain leave “saucer nests.” Low-hovering saucers sometimes swirl down “grass rings.” Hovering saucers at times form chemically and phys- ically altered annular rings in the earth itself. These are called “saucer rings.” Hovering saucers at times leave evidence of charred roots or wilted plants. PROPULSION Unconventional objects have “no visible means of sup- port.” They have no externally visible engines, power plant, or other visible means of locomotion or propul- sion. As one witness put it, “So whatever made it go, I don’t know,” Pattern-wise, jet propulsion is absent (see Section XII). PROPULSIVE FORCES Assuming unconventional objects don’t neutralize their nertial mass, the accelerations displayed place the pro- pulsive forces at high values, too high to be accounted for by any aerodynamic principle. -17- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS FORCE FIELDS Analysis of direct physical evidence shows that uncon- ventional objects employ force fields. Invisible forces bend down or even break tree branches; bump or slow automobiles, sometimes spinning them out of control or even tipping them over; and stop people by force and even knock them down, among other observations. RADIATION Unconventional objects are highly radioactive (see Sec- tion IV). MERGING SYSTEMS Spheres and saucers have on numerous occasions been seen to separate from the large cylinders and dirigibles and re-merge with them. The small objects move with the large object as a swarm, or dart away at high speed in different directions, some swiftly returning. OCCUPANTS Occupants have been seen to disembark from and to re-board unconventional objects. On occasion, one or two occupants are seen. On other occasions, several occupants seem to work as a team or crew. COLLECTING Unconventional objects and their occupants engage in collecting things such as plants, minerals, and water, both manually and by automated processes such as suc- tion hoses. INTERFERENCE Unconventional objects interrupt all electric circuitry, burn out batteries, and stop gasoline engines, but they don’t affect diesel engines. -18- Introduction WEAPONRY Unconventional objects employ heat beams, paralyzing beams, and force beams as tools and weapons, generally applied in moderation. ARTIFACTS Artifacts are hard to obtain, and even more difficult to prove bona fide. The most outstanding artifact is a fine white filament, left in the wake of unconventional vehicles, known as angel hair. It may be gathered by witnesses but disappears by sublimation, a direct change from the solid to the gaseous state of matter. OVER AND UNDER WATER Unconventional objects have been observed submerging into and emerging from bodies of water, as well as floating on the surface, often enough to form a pattern. HABITS UFOs at times appear in much greater numbers than usual. The resulting increase in the rate of UFO sightings and reports is called a flap. A flap may be confined to a single continent or may be worldwide. Flaps occur on a cyclic basis with two years being one of the periods. UFOs appear to have preferred observational habits. Among preferred snooping sites are defense installations, hydroelectric installations, dams, and lakes. They also give preference to lone individuals or small groups and to isolated cars. They are sometimes attracted by blinking light signals. UFOs are most often observed at dusk or early eve- ning. They are frequently seen traveling or maneuvering over water, just off shore. They sometimes return to a given area within minutes or hours or return the follow- ing day, as though they had not concluded their obser- vations. Individuals may be taken aboard for examination. In – 19- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS some cases, the person remembers the experience; in others, recall appears possible under hypnosis. This UFO pattern—represented by this brief outline— contains the essentials of existing UFO data. This pattern in its entirety is all we have on which to base an understanding of the unconventional objects. Having briefly reviewed the pattern, one can see what all the fuss has been about. If all this is true, the old dead universe many astronomers believed in is gone; the new live universe they now accept is verified, with exobiology assuming major importance; new viewpoints are given to old mythologies; religions are affected; ideas about space-travel difficulties are shattered; interest in exploration beyond the solar system is heightened; all natural sciences are given tremendous impetus; emotional involvements will be heightened; dogma of all types will be shattered. With the entire twentieth century being a period of scientific revolution, the establishment of uncon- ventional objects as fact would add much to the revolu- tions, perhaps a quantum jump as some have suggested. Be all that as it may, the process of acceptance takes time. Anyone who has read Dr. Thomas S. Kuhn’s fas- cinating book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, must know that the acceptance of the UFO has to be the gradual process that it is turning out to be because it is man’s nature, and scientific history, that old ideas are discarded only after new ideas are firmly established. It often takes new generations to squarely face new facts. Dr. Kuhn says: No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others. Instead, normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies (p. 24). Let us assume that crises are a necessary precondition for the emergence of new theories and ask how scientists respond to their existence. Part of the answer, as obvious as it is important, -20- Introduction can first be discovered by noting what scientists never do when confronted by severe and even prolonged anomalies. Though they may begin to lose faith and then to consider alternatives, they never renounce the paradigm that led them to the crisis. They do not, that is, treat anomalies as counter instances, though in the vocabulary of philosophy of science that is what they are (P-77). New facts and theories have to form a neat, logical package before they can be accepted, and justifiably so; otherwise technological chaos would reign. Therein lies the problem. Some degree of technological sense has to be made of the unconventional object, even to make “seeing believing.” Otherwise, we are still apt to be in mythology, or dealing with the occult. If there be any doubt about this, look how members of occult groups have grabbed the ball and are sprinting with it. They have now been joined by a few parapsychologists who do little better. A prominent parapsychologist, in attempt- ing to link the mind with UFOs, has suggested they are projected here by vast mental powers. Objective I seek the answers to unconventional objects in the physical sciences. Indeed, the main questions posed by the UFOs can best be formulated and asked in terms of the engineering sciences. As an example, I support the questioning viewpoint of Dr. Bruce Rogers, expressed in his article in the December 1973 UFO Investigator, entitled “UFOs: Their Performance Characteristics.” After giving various speed and acceleration performance examples, in- cluding the case of the 9000-mph UFO in Goose Bay, Labrador, he duly asks why they don’t burn up when moving at such speeds in the earth’s atmosphere, and how the occupants can stand the high accelerations. Con- tinuing the engineering science view, he questions how the vast power needed to drive them can be packaged in the limited space available, pointing out that an atomic power plant would never fit. Dr. Rogers con- cludes, “There is much that is mystifying about UFOs, -21 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS and woefully little information about them. But, there is one thing about which there can be no doubt. Whoever builds and operates these vehicles possess a technology incredibly advanced beyond anything known on our planet.” UFOs are indeed a technological challenge, and serious work to explain them in terms of the physical sciences is long overdue. Professor James Harder is one of the prominent scientists who have repeatedly expressed this view for a number of years. In the APRO Bulletin for March/April 1973, he said: Who among UFO investigators has not wished for a clear, closeup, detailed photograph of a UFO? And what would it prove? Surely it would help settle the question, still on some agendas, of whether UFOs actually exist.. . however, is it not time to go beyond that issue to a host of scientific problems and questions that are raised once one has accepted the fact of UFO existence? It seems to me that we should be well into a second phase of UFO investigations in which the object is not so much to prove the existence of UFOs as to try and understand more about them. The main objective of the analyses in this book is to present what can be explained of the UFO pattern in terms of today’s scientific principles. If much of the pattern can be so explained, those crying “defying the laws of physics” will be discredited, making the UFO more under- standable and therefore more acceptable. For the reasons stated by Dr. Kuhn, a lot of scientific sense has to be made of the UFO enigma to make UFOs acceptable. In simple terms, pieces of the jigsaw puzzle have to be fitted into place to the point where the casual observer can see the picture forming. Then the clever bystander, always present, can suggest a piece here and there to aid the progress as well as to correct misfits, for teamwork is essential in the end. But a start must be made. Early Beginnings I made my beginning analysis of unconventional object maneuvers in the 1950s. This work was no doubt stim- -22- Introduction ulated by my sighting of unconventional objects on July 16, 1952. My sighting was made at the peak of the flap for that year, tightly sandwiched between the July 14 Pan American Airways sighting in my own neighbor- hood and the great Washington D.C. flap on July 19, 1952. My sighting was investigated by Project Blue Book, classified as unknown, and given first public mention by Major Edward Ruppelt on pages 157-58 in his Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. My background of flight experiments with rocket-sup- ported platforms was pertinent to the understanding of the control of unconventional objects, that is, to the understanding of how they maneuver. It enabled me to correlate their tilt-to-control maneuvers fifteen years be- fore that idea came to a member of the Condon Project. In his book, Dr. David Saunders says, “… information might be gleaned from a careful analysis of the relation (if any) between attitude changes (tilting) of a single UFO and changes in its direction, or speed of flight. Questions along these lines were a part of my UFO reporting questionnaire that the project never got around to using” (p. 232). While I did not invent the idea of flying platforms, I built the first ones capable of flight testing and capable of testing flight maneuvers. They were of the type which tilt-to-control, the thrust remaining coincident with the axis of symmetry. I did not realize until after I had experienced the superb controllability of my device that unconventional objects might be controlled on the same principles. If this thought was correct, I had a nearly perfect piece of equipment for simulating their maneu- vers. Another encouraging aspect was that saucer UFOs even looked like a flying platform. I was soon doing the pendulum-rock and falling leaf, the sudden reversals, banking-to-turn, and the silver-dol- lar wobble, surely the first UFO maneuver flight simu- lations. I did them as much because they came naturally and I enjoyed doing them, as for any other reason. Although some data about some of them, such as the falling leaf and sudden reversals, was common even then, data about others, such as the bank-to-tum, was in -23- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS short supply and the experiments were almost ahead of the data. But as the data rolled in through the 1950s, the correctness of the UFO maneuver simulations became more and more evident. By the time I saw the Tremonton, Utah, movies of maneuvering disks (see Sec- tion XI) in slow and stop motion, in which I could make out the circular planforms and the edge-on fadeouts as well as the elliptic in-between on banking turns, I was totally convinced that the analysis of UFO maneuvers as presented in Section XI is the correct one. I was prevented from making any pronouncements about this application of my work by official National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) policy. That policy was that flying saucers are nonexistent. The NACA Director, Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, made a public pronouncement to that effect at about that time, and I had been instructed by my superior in official channels that my name could not be used in connection with my sighting or in any way that would implicate the NACA with these objects. NACA research officials were all sci- entists with management training in which the necessity for unambiguous policy had been emphasized. Clearly, I was destined to remain as unidentified as the flying objects. When the name of the organization was changed from NACA to NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the same officials remained in charge, and one could notice no change in policy. The only difference was that individuals were going into space; when astronauts sighted unknowns in space, a grounded official couldn’t rationally contradict them. But they could shut them off the air (APRO Bulletin, February 1976). Rationale and Disciplines in the Analyses The rationale used in the analyses is primarily simple logic, and the usual fitting of evidence to theory in what has come to be accepted as the “scientific method.” Perhaps the previous paragraphs regarding the fitting of flight maneuver data to a control theory is a fair exam- ple, although we are not usually so fortunate as to have laboratory simulations. -24- Introduction In some cases, a process of elimination is used, a process suggested by that fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes, whose admonition was to first eliminate the impossible, for it is in the remaining possibilities, how- ever improbable, that the answers are to be found. Since “impossible” is a dangerous word to associate with un- conventional objects, the concepts eliminated are those which do not fit the data, or the UFO pattern. Section V presents an example. All the known particles of mod- ern physics, together with their antiparticles (with the possible exception of the four neutrinos) are eliminated as propulsion possibilities in the following sense. A beam of high speed particles shot out from the UFO cannot be a realistic basis for their propulsion because such beams would have gross effects, such as gross heating or lasting radioactivity, not evident in the UFO pattern. On the other hand, it is well known that any process of elimination, however well based, is circumstantial ev- idence of the weakest character with respect to the pos- itive identification of a single result. Fortunately, while I was eliminating all known forms of propulsion possibil- ities except acceleration fields, I uncovered a substantial body of direct evidence that UFOs use and direct accel- eration fields in the proper direction for propulsion. This is nearly the same as saying they direct force fields; this trait is so listed in the UFO pattern outline and sup- ported by the data of Section VI. The next consideration is whether the field is electric, magnetic, gravitational in nature, or something else. But the unconventional object can be explained by no one phenomenon such as magnetic-field propulsion or gravitational propulsion; nor can it be explained by any one technology. A multi-disciplinary approach is a min- imum requirement. In considering the correctness of a group of theories resulting from a broad approach, one needs a yardstick which will enable the viewer to stand back and take the measure of the picture forming as the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are fitted together. A good yardstick was found in UFOs and Diamagnetism. Accord- ing to the author, Eugene Burt, a leading physicist wrote the following statement in criticism of Burt’s theory: -25- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS I see little point in a debate on a particular, essentially ad hoc hypothesis. What counts in the structure of scientific concepts and theories is not the workability of an hypothesis concerning a particular phenomenon but the entire network or matrix of ideas including this particular phenomenon and everything else with which it is connected. The test of correctness it not a single line of logic but the internal consistency of the whole network— one must be able to traverse the network in any direction and have things hang together without contradictions (p. 117). This masterful statement applies to UFO theory as well as to all branches of organized knowledge. I am trying to conform to it. What’s a Good Name? While an appropriate name for unconventional objects is beyond the scope of this book, I thought I should point out that UFO is not a reasonable name or acro- nym, and explain what I mean when I use it. One to two hundred years ago, science was called natural philosophy, and scientists were known as natural philosophers, or naturalists. When a field naturalist made a discovery, he first identified the find as something new or a variant of organized knowledge. He then classified it, and gave it a descriptive name. Now when we dis- cover an unconventional object, we identify it as “un- identified” and name it the same! On the first page of The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, we find whom to thank for this contradiction. Major Edward Ruppelt says, “UFO is the official term that I created to replace the words flying saucers.” One suspects that a field naturalist would have done considerably better, as naming was their specialty. Ruppelt scored a complete miss on two out of three words: unidentified and flying. It is assumed that anyone with a good dictionary can see why unidentified is a misnomer. As to flying, the atmosphere has no more than nuisance value to the unconventional craft, which, unlike aircraft, use the atmosphere neither for support -26- Introduction nor for locomotion. Unconventional objects, or craft, don’t fly. They are vectored along trajectories. Even the word object is almost totally undescriptive, except that it correctly indicates something solid, and not a mere plasma, light, mirage, or other form of natural phenomena. Borrowing the adjective unconventional from Coral Lorenzen’s usage, I use unconventional object until a more descriptive name appears or is accepted. Since UFO is shorter and so well known, this acronym is used with the understanding that the U stands for unconventional. UO would be more accurate, but I do not propose it, prefer- ring to leave naming to people with the proper talent. The term saucer is used to refer to a craft that moves through the atmosphere without an obvious means of sup- port or propulsion, a form of unconventional object as we have described it. A saucer is characteristically shaped like two saucers placed lip-to-lip and may have a rounded dome or cupola on top. Alternatively, it may be shaped like a straw hat or a single inverted saucer or bowl. Saucers are characteristically surrounded by an ionized at- mosphere, or plasma, that gives them nighttime illumina- tion in red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or white, and often gives them a mist-shrouded appearance. They are silent except for a hum or buzz noticeable to near observers. The acronym UFO is a wider generic term than saucer. It refers also to unconventional objects of other shapes as well: spherical, Saturn-shaped, egg-shaped (ellipsoidal), dirigible-shaped, and cigar-shaped. Specifically, UFOs are vehicles capable of operation both in space and in the earth’s atmosphere. At no time does the term UFO refer to a UFO report or to a misidentified object or natural phenomenon. Data Sources There is now a lot of good UFO data, thanks to the private organizations whose people have encouraged UFO reporting and have investigated, filed, and cata- loged the data, published it in bulletin and book form, and are continuing to do so. In writing this analysis, I -27- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS have placed major reliance on these sources; I could have done nothing without them. The bulletins to which I refer are the APRO Bulletin, published by the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization of Tucson, Arizona, and the UFO Investigator, published by the National In- vestigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena of Kensing- ton, Maryland. Many complaints have been noted about the lack of hard UFO data. It has been the nature of UFO data to be primarily in anecdotal form. Still, some measurements and many good estimates have been made of the UFO phenomena which have been parametrically classified. While there is admittedly a shortage of hard data, I do not subscribe to the complaints. It is my experience that exploratory research is usually done with a modicum of good data, and UFO research simply fits the rule. I believe that the problem is less with the data than the data readers. As Professor of Philosophy Emerson Shideler said, we need “to be readier to accept phenom- ena as reported” (APRO Bulletin, November/December 1971). That is the data. On occasion I knowingly use data that some have rejected as false, but those who have rejected it are usually those who reject all data not ex- plainable as natural phenomena. The first step in this analysis is to accept the data that fits a consistent pattern. There are hard data shortages in the measurement of gravitational and magnetic fields near UFOs and in the measurement of electromagnetic wave characteristics from the lower gamma wave frequency through x-ray, ultravi- olet, visible, and even radio frequencies. Insofar as the understanding of UFOs is concerned, more high acceler- ation data would definitely help. However, there is al- ready enough speed data to show that in our atmosphere UFOs have speeds that cannot be matched by aircraft or rockets. Organization of the Analysis The analysis is broken into sections, each covering a general topic. To some degree the order of the topics is determined by which questions can be most firmly an- -28- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS have placed major reliance on these sources; I could have done nothing without them. The bulletins to which I refer are the APRO Bulletin, published by the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization of Tucson, Arizona, and the UFO Investigator, published by the National In- vestigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena of Kensing- ton, Maryland. Many complaints have been noted about the lack of hard UFO data. It has been the nature of UFO data to be primarily in anecdotal form. Still, some measurements and many good estimates have been made of the UFO phenomena which have been parametrically classified. While there is admittedly a shortage of hard data, I do not subscribe to the complaints. It is my experience that exploratory research is usually done with a modicum of good data, and UFO research simply fits the rule. I believe that the problem is less with the data than the data readers. As Professor of Philosophy Emerson Shideler said, we need “to be readier to accept phenom- ena as reported” (APRO Bulletin, November/December 1971). That is the data. On occasion I knowingly use data that some have rejected as false, but those who have rejected it are usually those who reject all data not ex- plainable as natural phenomena. The first step in this analysis is to accept the data that fits a consistent pattern. There are hard data shortages in the measurement of gravitational and magnetic fields near UFOs and in the measurement of electromagnetic wave characteristics from the lower gamma wave frequency through x-ray, ultravi- olet, visible, and even radio frequencies. Insofar as the understanding of UFOs is concerned, more high acceler- ation data would definitely help. However, there is al- ready enough speed data to show that in our atmosphere UFOs have speeds that cannot be matched by aircraft or rockets. Organization of the Analysis The analysis is broken into sections, each covering a general topic. To some degree the order of the topics is determined by which questions can be most firmly an- -28- Introduction swered. UFO theories or explanations can be considered either as possible or plausible explanations, or as real explanations. I have ordered the topics as I have so that the first dozen or so sections should entertain theory with a high probability of being the real explanation. (I never was one who lacked the courage of my convic- tions.) The remaining sections, beginning with supersonic aerodynamics, present what should be at least good pos- sibilities. This unusual ordering presumably has the psy- chological advantage of seeking areas of agreement between author and reader early in the book. Section XVIII, on interstellar travel time, however, is straight, bona fide science, and can hardly be wrong unless the entire twentieth-century physics is wrong. It therefore does not necessarily follow that explanations offered in the second half are less real. Groundwork and technical considerations come into the ordering also. Section I is a simple presentation with the aim of making the reader realize that the UFO is a solid, down- to-earth object or machine, not some nebulous natural phenomenon. Section II treats UFO speed and acceleration perfor- mance because performance has been such a point of public concern. I have never seen UFO acceleration data. Accelerations are invariably described by adjectives, mainly superlatives bordering on or including the infi- nite. While these descriptions are sensational, they are bad science. I therefore take the liberty of boring the reader with two formulas useful in the calculation of acceleration, and illustrate the procedure to obtain what may be the first acceleration data. At least the data is new, for it is taken from my own sightings, which happen to suit. With some preliminaries out of the way, Section III begins to hammer out an explanation of the most com- monly observed UFO phenomenon, their glowing halo. A hundred years ago this illuminating ion sheath around a UFO would have been the same total mystery to science that it is today to the casual observer. But with today’s quantum-mechanical principles, the explanation is a piece of cake. The A and B of quantum mechanics is -29- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS explained, if not the C to Z, as it pertains to molecular ionization. Section IV substantiates Section III by showing radio- activity in the x-ray range to be the obvious cause of the ion sheath. Section V eliminates high speed ejected particles as a possible means of UFO propulsion. From there, the analysis progresses toward the field explanation of UFO propulsion in an order that is self- explanatory. -30- Section I Physical Properties and Effects A. Introductory Statement Physical evidence exists that UFOs are real, solid, mas- sive, machine-like vehicles, as evidenced, for example, by their retractable landing gear and the deep impressions made by the landing gear in various solid-earth surfaces. Sighting records show, however, that they often do not land, but on close approach to the earth hover a few feet above its surface. If they stay any length of time, the plant roots and soil humus below the UFO are apt to be scorched and chemically altered, as may be tree branches and trunks on the side facing the UFO. Light-weight green plants, such as grass, are more apt to be only wilted or unaffected. People are not immune. They sometimes receive ultra- violet eye and skin burns resembling sunburn. Very close observers have received burns ranging from flesh burns to injuries with all the symptoms of radiation poisoning. B. Evidence of Weight and Massiveness EXAMPLE I-Bl. In Flying Saucers Over Spain, UFO student Antonio Rebera gives an interesting account of the landing of a saucer on February 6, 1966, at Aluche, Spain, a suburb of Madrid with new apartment buildings interspersed with open spaces. The saucer landed in an open space, perhaps larger than a city block. From the street border- ing the clear area, witness Jose Louis Jordan watched a luminous, fiery disk approach, hover momentarily, and -31 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS land at about 8:00 P.M. During its approach, it lowered a tripod landing gear which it sat down on. The saucer was shaped like two big rimmed pie pans placed rim- to-rim and was estimated to be 10 to 12 meters in diameter. In a few minutes it rose, the landing gear disappearing as it did so. Sr. Jordan was overcome by the experience. Instinctively he tried to locate other witnesses, but he was too late. The vehicle had gone, but it had left impressive evidence of its visit. Pressed into the hard Spanish soil were three neat footprints of the landing gear, arranged in an equilateral triangle of 6 meters (19.7 feet), imprint to imprint. The prints were rectangular with rounded corners and each had a raised X-mark of half-round cross section on the bottom. The dimensions were given in centimeters. Figure 1-1. The prints were therefore about 6 by 12 inches in plan and nearly 5 inches deep, although one was shallower. The raised X-print looked something like the traction markings on a tire tread. Hundreds of Madrillenos came to witness the UFO tracks. They had clearly been made by a heavy or massive vehicle in a vertical landing, as the prints were clear-cut. EXAMPLE I-B2 Near Gault, Ontario, on July, 30, 1957, 15-year-old Ted Stevens stood and watched a round, silver-colored object hover for 40 minutes before it landed in a corn-stubble field about 300 yards distant, according UFO, The Whole Story, by Coral and Jim Lorenzen. A burned circle and -32- A Scientific Analysis two impressions in the ground remained as evidence of the landing. Investigators of the incident were hard put to explain the impressions as the ground was nearly rock-hard, and the prints were pressed into the ground, not dug. The consensus of all who studied the evidence was that something very heavy had rested there. EXAMPLE I-B3 On a late afternoon (5:50 P.M.) of April 1964, police patrolman Lonnie Zamora of Socorro, New Mexico, drove his patrol car off the highway and followed a desert trail to investigate a roar and flash of blue flame near a dynamite shack. This story is detailed in Flying Saucers: The Startling Evidence of the Invasion From Outer Space, by Coral Lorenzen (pp. 218-21). As Zamora approached the area where the shack was located, he caught a glimpse of a white vehicle standing on end (which he first took to be a car) with two small individuals standing by it dressed in what looked like white mechanics’ uniforms. One of the figures appeared to turn and look toward him. Zamora called fellow officer Sergeant Chavez for assistance. He then drove up and across the next mesa, where he stopped and got out. Taking three steps toward the gully ahead, he could again see the vehicle, which was not a car but a cylin- drical object standing on end. Suddenly there was a roar from the object as it kicked up dust. Zamora threw himself to the ground and, looking up, saw the vehicle rising on a very shallow, slanted trajectory. He got up and started to run, but hit the car, knocking off his glasses. The roar ceased, giving way to a high-pitched whine as the object cleared the dynamite shack by only about 20 feet. Sergeant Chavez soon arrived, and the two went down to the gully to inspect the area. A mesquite bush at the center of the landing site was still burning. There were four 8xl2-inch wedge-shaped depressions, 3 to 4 inches deep. The ground was very uneven, and the arrangement of the marks “indicated self-leveling gear.” Jacques Vallee, a scientific conservative, also investi- -33- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS gated this landing. In Challenge to Science, he says, “The investigation also revealed that the craft was not built by amateurs; it had landed on uneven terrain, firmly set on four legs of unequal length in such a way as to put the center of gravity in the best position” (p. 35). EXAMPLE I-B4 According to Flying Saucers: Serious Business (pp. 58-59) and other sources, Marius Dewilde, who lived about a mile from Quaroble, France, went to bed at 10:15 P.M. on September 10, 1954. A few minutes later he got up and went to see why his dog was howling. Outside, his dog came crawling up to him, and he switched on his flashlight to look around. He could make out, some distance from the house, a large dark object on the railroad. Only 20 feet away, in the beam of his light, he saw two humanoid figures about S1/^ feet tall and wear- ing shiny helmets similar to those worn by divers. As- sociating the figures with the object on the tracks, Dewilde ran to interpose himself between the figures and the tracks. At that time a bright beam from the object stopped him. He told police, “I could only stand there as if paralyzed. I could not move my arms or legs. I could not yell. I was helpless when that light was on me.” He saw an opening appear in the dark object, and shortly thereafter it left by rising straight up. The incident was investigated by the French Air Force and Department of Territorial Security. Where Dewilde said the object rested, five deep indentations were pressed into the wooden crossties. Experts who examined the indentations and the crosstie material estimated the weight of the object to be 30 tons. Dewilde described the object as approximately football-shaped, roughly 6 meters long by 3 meters high. In all of these instances, the objects were clearly very heavy to have left such impressive prints. In the last case, we have what should be a reliable minimum weight estimate of 30 tons because the crumbling strength of various woods is well known. -34- A Scientific Analysis For the three centuries since Newton’s time it has been known that each pound of weight is due to the acceleration of gravity acting on each unit of mass. Thus we must conclude that UFOs are both heavy and mas- sive, at least when landed. While this is a simple con- cept, it is too important to pass over lightly. When this concept is taken at face value, it can be immediately deduced that each of the UFOs which made the prints, being heavy and massive, required a lot of thrust to lift off and even more to accelerate. The strong implication is that their invisible power plants and thrust generators are powerful ones. Since we are fortunate enough to have estimated di- mensions from the Quaroble case, let us check on the mass density to get a comparison with Earthcraft. If we make the logical assumption that the UFO shape was ellipsoidal with the 6 meters being the axial length 1 and 3 meters the cross-diameter d, the volume is given by = 9n = 28.27 cubic meters Assuming short tons, of 2000 Ib./ton, 30 tons converts to 27,200 kilograms of mass. To get mass density, we divide mass by volume and get 965 kilograms per cubic meter. Since water has a mass density of 1000 kg per cubic meter, the Quaroble UFO was about 96 percent as dense as water, very close to the density of a submarine. It is several times more dense than a jet aircraft. This density, if representative, could explain the ob- served underwater operation and the apparent multi- phibious nature of the UFO. It’s particularly important that we take note that an object of this density, equipped with a retractable landing gear, is a very sub- stantial “flying” machine made to land on land and having properties consistent with operation from water surfaces or even underwater. In some cases, saucer UFOs land in swampy areas by simply making a belly landing. Such a landing distrib- -35- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS utes the load and leaves a shallow, saucer-like depres- sion, sometimes with swirled-down reeds or grass, that is called a saucer-nest. Flying Saucers: Here and Now presents a photo of such a nest (Edwards 32-35). According to the July/August 1974 APRO Bulletin, APRO has adopted as one of its goals the analysis of ground traces left by UFOs to determine their weight. The technique will involve the taking of core samples and penetrometer readings at the site, together with lab- oratory analysis in Tucson. The soil bearing strength will be carefully measured and the UFO weight computed from this data and the dimensions of the impressions. This realistic program should furnish needed data. The landed data shows that UFOs are massive while landed. In Section VII we shall encoimter impressive evi- dence that UFOs use high thrust while in flight, which is highly inconsistent with the assumption made by some UFO investigators that UFOs reduce mass to zero. With no mass they would not need and could not use high thrust. In Section II, where we will address performance, we shall see that observed accelerations are high, but not so high as to require an escalation of hypothesis to zero mass, or even to mass control for their explanation. In other words, all can be explained by ordinary mass den- sities and excellent thrusting capability. In this view, UFOs are very good machines, without miracles. For those interested in the theory on which some have based their mass-control ideas, let me add that it is an interpretation of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, and other “metric” theories of gravitation. Einstein re- lated the property of local inertial mass to the mass of the universe, as Mach did before him and others since. The property of local inertial mass depends on the action of all the mass and gravity of the universe. The inter- preters reason logically that if there were a perfect grav- ity shield surrounding local matter its inertial mass would be zero. Physicists have hunted for a gravity shield for over half a century and have determined in the laboratory to high precision that no matter forms a gravity shield to the slightest measurable degree. Astronomers have been in -36- A Scientific Analysis agreement with this result because they know that dur- ing a solar eclipse, if the interposition of the mass of the moon between the sun and the earth had any shield- ing effect, the earth’s orbit would be perturbed. It is not. The acceptance of twentieth-century science at face value is at experimental odds with basing mass control on the shielding possibility. I sometimes wonder about the possibility of an alternate idea. Possibly inertial mass could be reduced, if not by shielding, by the superpo- sition of a negative gravity field of antigravitons on the normal gravity field of gravitons to cancel the effect of the two fields, one against the other. I do not, however, seriously propose this, particularly for the UFO scout ships such as saucers, spheres, ellipsoids, etc., for which available data provides strong evidence of massiveness. For the big dirigible and cigar UFOs, which are pre- sumably the interstellar starships, I know of no landing data or other strong direct evidence of great massiveness and the possibility remains open that these large vehicles may have an artificially reduced mass. This possible dis- tinction between the scouts and the starships was sug- gested to me by Dr. James Harder. He also suggested a theoretical means for the reduction of the mass of inter- stellar vehicles based on the quark theory of matter. This theory is discussed in Section XIX. C. Evidence of Solidity and Hardness We have just provided evidence of solidity, for who ever heard of a massive object, weighing in the range of several tons, that didn’t have solid surfaces? Also, it is certain that the landing gear of the UFOs in the examples cited were of harder material than the earth or crossties on which they rested. The principle that “the indenter is harder than the indent” underlies hardness testing, although it is not usually the direct basis for the laboratory testing of material hardness. The direct basis is simply the depth of the dent made by a small hard object under a prescribed loading. Other evidence of solidity and hardness is given by the sound of bullets striking UFOs. UFOs have been shot -37- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS at hundreds of times. On many occasions, the bullets have been heard to impact. On other occasions, the distinctive whine of ricochets has been heard. For brev- ity, only one example is given here. Another example is given in Section VII. EXAMPLE I-Cl On May 13, 1967, at 1:45 a.m., Michael Campeadore was driving nearing St. George, Utah, when he heard a loud humming sound (Lorenzen, UFOs Over the Americas, 46). It was so unusual that he put on his brakes and jumped out of his car. It was then that he noticed a huge object, about 40 to 50 feet in diameter, hovering 25 to 35 feet above his car. Thoroughly frightened, he loaded an ammunition clip into his 0.25 caliber pistol and squeezed off point-blank shots. He heard the bullets hit and ricochet as if they had struck metal. The ricochet of bullets in this and similar cases indicate that the UFO shell is composed of a hard material, or at least presents a hard surface, for if it did not the bullets would penetrate rather than glance off in a ricochet. EXAMPLE I-C2 Two eleven-year-old San Diego, California, boys sneaked up on a UFO in a darkened vacant lot and rapped on it with a flashlight. They too performed a useful experiment, demonstrating solidity. Their case was one of those seriously studied by The National Enquirer UFO panel in their “best evidence short of conclusive proof” contest (UFO Investigator, February 1974). When struck with the flashlight, the UFO flared up red, began to whine, and took off—as, meanwhile, so did the boys. D. Conclusion We have examined, briefly, the available types of data pertaining primarily to the structural properties of the UFO. This data includes the properties of weight, mass, solidity, hardness, and density. The UFO properties in -38- A Scientific Analysis each case are not unlike the corresponding properties of Earth vehicles. The lone point on mass density placed that particular vehicle more or less in the range of a loaded rocket system, or a submarine, and heavier than a jet aircraft. These down-to-earth physical properties—that is, the similarity of the physical properties of unconventional machines to those of Earth machines—tend to confirm that the investigation and study of the UFO by means of the physical sciences is the correct approach. The variable-geometry property of their retractable and adjust- able landing gear also confirms that, structurally, here are ordinary machines as we know them. On the one hand, as machines, they seem to very much belong to our universe. On the other hand, they are unexplainable in terms of natural phenomena such as ball lightning, air plasmas, and the like, even though they show all the characteristics of being surrounded with a plasma. The latter point will be discussed in great detail in Section III. In the following section, we briefly discuss the uncon- ventional machine’s fabulous performance. -39- Section II Performance A. Performance as an Aid to Identification Anything, to be surely classed as a UFO, must meet one of two criteria. Either it has to be seen from a sufficiently short distance to be certain that its configu- ration is not that of any conventional craft, or its speed, acceleration, or maneuver performance has to be such that no airplane, helicopter, missile, or balloon could possibly account for it. For example, if something goes faster than an airplane, and the same craft slows to a hovering condition, it is a UFO. Even if it goes only 500 mph and also hovers, it is probably a UFO because helicopters can’t go 500 mph. These statements say that range-of-speed capability is more important in the iden- tification of an unconventional object than high speed itself. These criteria tend to eliminate from serious con- sideration as UFOs meteors as well as objects which are only seen moving slowly at high altitude, especially bal- loons. It need not eliminate unidentified (usually non- orbiting) objects seen in space by astronomical telescopes, of which there have been a fair number of sightings. These have to be natural objects or spacecraft. Several of the half-dozen or more unidentifieds sighted in space by U.S. astronauts pass the performance criteria; maneuvering in space, or going in a westward orbit as was the green object seen by Gordon Cooper near Perth, Australia, is evidence of superior performance sufficient enough to iden- tify them as unconventional (space) craft, or UFOs. The best and surest way to determine aircraft and UFO speeds is with radar. This is usually military-base or airport radar, unless the craft is being observed at a missile range, in which case there should be special radars coupled to path-plotting chart boards, giving a -40- A Scientific Analysis permanent record. Radars are instruments made to mea- sure how position in space varies with time. From this data, speed is readily obtained, and if the data is re- corded, the acceleration performance can be computed. The radar is a reliable instrument. Radar is sufficiently reliable to entrust to it and its operators the lives of the public traveling by commercial airline and the lives of all military plane crews and passengers as well. Theadolites, which provide position in space by optical triangulation, give satisfactory data, but besides being relatively rare instruments, they require 3 crews of 2 each for their operation and are therefore usually in a non-ready status. Speed and acceleration are the performance parameters discussed in this section. Maneuver performance is discussed in Section XI, following the laying of more groundwork. B. Speed Nearly everyone knows that speed is the trademark of the UFO. The only question is, have their speeds actually been measured, and so definitely known? The answer is em- phatically yes. Two of the best sources of speed data are Maj. Edward J. Ruppelt’s Report on Unidentified Flying Objects and Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe’s Flying Saucers From Outer Space because they present the early speed data measured by Air Force radar before such data was clas- sified by JANAP (Joint Army, Navy, Air Force Publica- tion) 146 and AFR (Air Force Regulation prohibiting data release) 200-2. EXAMPLE II-B1 Only one example of speed will be given, one involv- ing multiple radar measurement with visual confirmation. This report is old but still valid. It was released to Keyhoe by the Air Force’s UFO public relations officer, Al Chop, before JANAP 146 was issued (Keyhoe, 161-65). The bomber heading was not given. Just before dawn on December 6, 1952, on a bright — 41 — UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS moonlit night, a B-29 bomber was cruising at 18,000 feet over the Gulf of Mexico, 100 miles south of the Louisi- ana coast. Approaching the end of a night practice flight to Florida, radar operator Lt. Coleman was watching the main radarscope looking for the coastline. At 5:25 am., a fast-moving target appeared on the scope, approaching from ahead, or 12 o’clock. Coleman was amazed because it moved 13 nautical miles between sweeps of the radar. Grabbing his stopwatch, he timed it and computed the speed at 5,240 mph. He reported this to Captain Harter, who replied, “That’s impossible. Recalibrate your set.” As Coleman recalibrated his set, 4 other blips came on the screen at 12 o’clock, approaching the B-29. Cole- man reported that the radar was in order. The 4 un- knowns appeared not only on Coleman’s scope, but also on the captain’s scope and on the navigator’s scope. As one of the 4 objects came by, Master Sergeant Bailey, assisting Coleman, sprang to the right waist blister and peered out. To his astonishment, he saw a blue-lit object streak by, far enough to the side that he could follow its annular motion. By this time, a second group of blips appeared on all three scopes, also coming in from 12 o’clock, but their courses missed the bomber by miles. This group also traveled at over 5,000 mph. At 5:31, all seemed clear. For a minute the tense airmen relaxed. Then a third group appeared, also coming in from 12 o’clock. Lt. Cole- man used the stopwatch while Sgt. Bailey computed the speed to be over 5,000 mph. This time the navigator beat Bailey to the waist blister and watched two of the machines streak by, mere blurs of blue-white light at that speed. Capt. Harter studied his scope. Forty miles behind, a group of 5 cut across his path and, turning, headed straight for the bomber. But they slowed and fell in behind, pacing the bomber for about 10 seconds while the captain held his breath. This group then turned aside and picked up speed again. All watched their scopes while the 5 targets ap- proached a huge machine that made a half-inch spot on the scope. Amazed, they watched the 5 smaller blips merge with the large one. The big machine swiftly ac- -42- A Scientific Analysis celerated. Coleman called Capt. Harter. “We clocked it,” said Coleman. “You won’t believe this. It was making over 9,000 mph.” “I believe it, all right,” replied Harter. “That’s just what I figured.” Here we have not only accurate, instrumented speed data, but an elegant mother-ship story from the Air Force’s own people and equipment. No part of the radar data indicates that the sightings could be explained by meteors or meteoroids. Specifically, the following points are inconsistent with meteoroid travel. 1. Five thousand mph is too slow for meteoroids. 2. Several course changes were made. 3. The objects were observed coming head-on and following. 4. Two instances of acceleration (speed increases) were noted. 5. Meteors don’t rendezvous. The objects could not have been conventional craft, for the following reasons: 1. Conventional craft don’t cruise at 5,000 mph in level flight at 18,000 feet altitude. If they did, they would burn up. 2. U.S. rocket planes of that time period used only boost-glide trajectories, heading westward toward Edwards Air Base, Muroc, California, far to the west and over land. 3. Conventional craft don’t make a blue streak. In this case, the blue light tends to confirm the sighting of unconventional objects, as this is their characteristic color at high-power operation (further explanation in Section III). -43 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS C. Acceleration DATA In the early 1950s, I studied the UFO pattern and noticed their propensity for visiting defense installations, flight over water, evening visits, and return appearances. Within a 20-mile radius of the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, where I was employed, were lo- cated over a dozen defense installations, and we were almost surrounded by water. On July 16, 1952, after the Pan American pilots made headlines in the local paper by reporting disks passing below their airliner near Hampton, I thought, “This is the night. They may be back.” Accordingly, expecting conformance to the pattern, at 5 minutes to 8 P.M., just at twilight, a companion and I arrived at the Hampton Roads waterfront, parked, and started to watch the skies for UFOs. At 8:00, I said to my companion, “Td give a thousand dollars for a good look at a UFO.” No sooner were the words spoken than here they came, up over the southern horizon, slightly east of a collision course with the observers. We kept an eye on them as they approached, getting out of the car to do so. They came in side by side at about 500 mph, at what was learned later by triangulation to be 15,000 to 18,000 feet altitude. From all angles they looked like amber traffic lights a couple of blocks away, which would make them spheres about 13 to 20 feet in diam- eter. They slowed into a left turn to pass directly over our heads toward the west. They practically came to a stop as they approached. It was then that they started their strange jitter, a surprising phenomenon. First one leaped a little way ahead of the other as fast as or faster than the eye could follow—you couldn’t be sure. Then the other seemed to jump ahead. They kept up these odd mincing steps for a few seconds as they passed over- head, while we craned our necks. Then, after passing zenith, they made an astounding maneuver. Maintaining their spacing of about 200 feet, they revolved in a hor- izontal circle, about a common center, at a rate of at -44- A Scientific Analysis least once per second. After a few revolutions, and with- out a pause, they switched their revolutions into a ver- tical plane, keeping up the same amazing rate. Awe-stricken, I reached my hand out to the car for support saying, “Nothing can do that. Those are really saucers.” That was halfway into a 3-minute sighting. Up to that point I had just been a fascinated spectator. Now they had convinced me. At that moment, I realized that here were visitors from another world. There is a lot of truth in the old saying, “It’s different when it happens to you.” It was within my line of business to know that no Earthcraft could remotely approach those maneuvers. Within seconds of the circling maneuver, an identical sphere came in from the Atlantic Ocean on an ascending course over lower Chesapeake Bay and joined the others, falling in below. For a few seconds they seemed to float along, then began accelerating slowly toward the south as a fourth amber sphere came in from the James River to build the group up to a formation of four as they headed south. I thought, “A-ha, the circling maneuver was a rendezvous signal.” The sphere that came in from the Atlantic had evi- dently cruised northward, just offshore. This was learned in a visit to Norfolk, Virginia, looking for additional data. One of the Norfolk papers carried an article about it. A Virginia Beach bus driver was going north along the coast when a lone passenger had come forward a few minutes before 8:00 P.M. and tapped him on the shoulder, calling his attention to a strange, orange or amber fiery-looking sphere out over the water. The driver was sufficiently impressed to stop the bus, and together they watched the fiery sphere cruising north- ward parallel to shore, just above the water’s surface. This was obviously the first object that answered the rendezvous signal. My instant impression was that these vehicles were surveying the East Coast. If they had good resolving power, perhaps I was in their survey. It was subsequently learned that a ferryboat load of passengers, docked at Old Point and waiting to make the overnight trip to Washington, had witnessed the entire -45 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS event, among them the President of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Corporation. The next morn- ing the Newport News Daily Press carried a two-inch banner headline, FLYING SAUCERS OVER HAMPTON ROADS. The detailed report had been made to the Press by an Air Force captain, a fighter pilot. Our observations agreed even to the estimated 500 mph speed. However, one thing puzzled me. The Press article said that aircraft spotters who had been on duty reported nothing. Deter- mined to check this out, I got a list of spotters on duty the night in question and visited them individually in their homes. They all said they saw the UFOs and knew that they were not aircraft. The head spotter said that he had been instructed by the Richmond Filter Center, operated by the Air Force, to report aircraft, and no nonsense, and so had said nothing. However, they gave me the data needed for triangulation to obtain altitude. Reporting the incident to my NACA boss next morn- ing was a mistake. “What had you been drinking?” were his first, and almost his last, words. Knowing my duty was to report to Air Force Intelligence, I went to the local ATIC Office. The desk officer and his secretary listened to my story, then he reported to his chief. I caught the gist of their conversation: “Are you sure he saw the saucers?” asked the chief. “Yes, I know he saw them. Do you want to interview him?” “No, you go ahead.” I signed a statement written by the secretary. The intelligence officer complained that I should have run to a phone and called Tactical Air Command Headquarters so that they could have tried an intercept. With a few Yes Sir’s, I left. At the time, I already had a growing aversion to the Air Force’s attempted intercepts, but why discuss policy at the bottom of the totem pole? ACCELERATION DEFINITIONS AND IMPORTANCE Acceleration is the change in velocity per second. While many can estimate speed just by watching, few if any can so estimate acceleration. It has to be computed, an easy -46- A Scientific Analysis task in certain simple cases which we shall review. For extremely high-performance vehicles such as rock- ets and UFOs, the most convenient unit of acceleration is Earth (surface) gravity. Thus, acceleration is given in multiples of Earth gravity, commonly called g’s, or just g. At 10 g, for example, the acceleration is 10 times that of a freely falling body near the Earth’s surface. This usage avoids the confusing basic units such as meters per second per second. Because of the shortage of acceleration data, and be- cause of the importance of such data to UFO locomotion theory, I present the two most common methods of estimation in the hope that this information will result in new data. The first method applies to turning trajec- tories, the second to straight-line trajectories. ACCELERATION IN A TURNING TRAJECTORY For our purposes we can think of any portion of a curved path, or trajectory, as a segment of a circle having a radius, r, normal to the path. Any object mov- ing along this portion of the curved path has an accel- eration, a, also normal to the path and pointed along r toward the center of curvature. The formula to compete this acceleration requires the following four symbols. The use of British or metric units of measure makes no difference in the result. Symbols British Metric r, radius of curvature of path feet meters V, velocity of object ft/sec m/sec g, Earth gravity 32.2 ft/sec2 9.8 m/sec2 a, acceleration of object multiples of Earth g or g’s Then for any curved trajectory, the magnitude of the turning acceleration is computed by the square of veloc- ity divided by radius times gravity: r8 (2-1) -47- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS Using this formula, we can compute the approximate acceleration of the circling spheres estimated to have a turning radius of 100 feet. Since they circled steadily about once per second, their velocity was: V = circumference of circle 2rcr time per revolution t (2X3.14X100) -1 628 — and their acceleration was approximately: YL 4628X6281- (100X32.2) Considering probable errors, this figure should be rounded off to the order of 100 g. ACCELERATION IN A STRAIGHT-LINE TRAJECTORY The computation of the acceleration in a straight line from a standing start (hovering) requires the introduction of one new symbol, s, the distance traveled in the time t. Assuming that the acceleration is constant, acceleration is computed by: 2s a = ~5 in g units, or g’s (2-2) g‘ Also, with constant acceleration from a standing start, the velocity reached in the time t is given by: V = — consistent units (2-3) We can approximate the acceleration and speed of the big dirigible-type UFO that I observed (detailed in Sec- tion XII) going a measured 5 miles in about 4 seconds, assuming its acceleration to be constant, and that it started from rest instead of the estimated initial speed of 100 mph: 2s (2)(5X5,280) ______ . . , (32.2X4X4) ‘ 102 8 -48- A Scientific Analysis The velocity reached was: V = — = £2X5X^2802 = 13 200 f / t 4 ‘ = 9z000mph This speed just happens to equal the speed measured by B-29 radar in the earlier example. To take initial velocity Vj into account in the compu- tation of acceleration requires the use of the following formula: For the initial speed of 100 mph, we substitute for V1 its equivalent of 147 ft/sec, and the other numbers as before. The equation gives the acceleration of the big dirigible at just 100 g. CONCLUSION Such acceleration performance is an order of magni- tude beyond the capability (10 g) of Earth-type aircraft, and is well beyond large missile performance. However, the small World War II tube-launched antitank Bazooka missile had a linear acceleration of several hundred g, and the acceleration of cannon-launched missiles runs into the thousands of g’s. For example, the U.S. Army’s cannon-launched guided projectile (CLGP) has to with- stand cannon-launch environments of over 7,000 g and is designed to withstand 9,000 g (Aviation Week & S.T., October 13, 1975). This vehicle has wings and tail, and maneuvers as needed to strike tank targets up to 8 kilometers distant. Critical to its functioning was the development and packaging of its gyroscope, delicate optics, and electronics to withstand the g forces. The building of small missiles containing computers, guidance, instrumentation, and telemeters to withstand 100 g loadings has been within the state-of-the-art for over two decades. Remarks to the effect that observed UFO accelerations would crush all known materials are very poorly founded. -49- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS D. Optical Effects of High Acceleration “In nature … discontinuities do not take place. ” —Dr. Joseph G. Coffin, mathematical physicist (Vector Analysis, 96) In general, I disagree with the occasional description of some UFO maneuvers as instantaneous. Sudden is the proper word. I hold with the scientific community that all physical occurrences require a finite time. The quote by Dr. Coffin, above, makes the same point. This is not quibbling over a small difference in time. It is a basically important point of physics. Thus, while we are wearing our science caps we will be wary of the chap who says that a UFO left instantly when the phrase “so quickly I didn’t see it go” would serve as well and not smudge up our science caps. Generally speaking, I have faith in the UFO witness, particularly when the sighting is from close up. What follows is not a criticism of the witness, but some com- ments on the limitations of his observations due to the visual-mental reaction time required. Everyone who has watched a magician perform should realize that such limitations exist. The validity of this viewpoint in explaining the appar- ent disappearance of even large objects will be illustrated by an incident that occurred at the Wallops Island (re- search vehicle) test range. We were doing a research model flight test for one of the military services, utilizing one of our high acceleration vehicle systems to drive the research model to the required supersonic speed. This particular branch of the services had their own missile test range and experienced cameramen. Although it was against our usual regulations, their management prevailed on us to allow them to utilize their own movie tracking crew in addition to ours to assure good camera cover- age. The model launch was in the 15 to 20 g range, increasing as the rocket weight decreased. During count- down, which comes over loudspeakers, all cameras were ready and running, all eyes on the vehicle. On the count -50- A Scientific Analysis of zero, the visiting cameramen did not see the vehicle leave! They reacted rapidly and panned up the smoke trail as rapidly as they could, but their cameras never caught a glimpse of the model-rocket system. Their pre- vious experience in tracking lower acceleration vehicles had left them totally unprepared to follow a really high performance vehicle. Our highly selected and highly trained camera crew got their usual fine movies only because they knew from experience how to lead the action, and the incredible panning rates required. On the highest performance vehicles it is common for visitors with a professional interest in the flight to not see the vehicle launch, even though they know when and where it is going. If they glance up the smoke trail quickly enough, they are apt to get a glimpse of it as it disappears from sight. We are speaking of vehicles with a minimum length of 20 feet. “What happened?” is a not untypical reaction and question. “Good flight,” the usual answer. “I didn’t see a thing; it was too fast. How could you tell it was a good flight?” “I was in the radar chart room. If you step into the chart room you can watch the radar read-out automati- cally plot the vehicle trajectory.” Anyone who has watched aerial objects moving away in daylight knows how easy it is to lose sight of the object, and how troublesome to get one’s eyes back on it. When UFOs are said to disappear, the witness may be right, but I believe the impression is explained by a combination of visual acuity and witness reaction time. Of course, at night all such reports are without merit. The UFO has to but blink out all its lights to give the im- pression it disappeared, even though it has not moved. The instant disappearance reports are one of the rea- sons that many in the scientific community have brushed UFOs aside for “defying the laws of physics.” The right angle turn and sudden reversal of direction are two others. The latter, easily explained, will be discussed in the section on saucer maneuvers. We will address the right angle turn now. -51 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS At the Langley Research Center, I became a sort of clearing house for local UFO sightings. We had good reports because they were made by scientist- and engi- neer-types who had volunteered for aircraft spotting duty. An instrument scientist from the Instrument Re- search Division related to me his sighting of a UFO making a right angle turn. While on night spotter duty, he saw what looked like a meteor descending vertically at extreme speed from high altitude. Before reaching the ground, however, it came abruptly to a stop, and with- out hesitation accelerated horizontally to a high velocity. It was then that he realized it couldn’t be a meteor. It had followed a very rapid square-cornered trajectory which is sometimes part of the UFO pattern. This UFO was going fast near the corner, but decelerated rapidly to a stop at the corner. Then, without noticeable hesita- tion, it accelerated rapidly in a horizontal direction. Thus it actually came to a stop at the corner, however briefly. This is the point that technically untrained observers would very likely have missed. No laws of physics have been violated or even threatened. (Note that this maneu- ver would be perfect for the avoidance of radar surveil- lance.) It is my conclusion, to borrow a phrase used fre- quently by Dr. T. Allen Hynek, that no UFO maneuver requires an escalation of hypothesis beyond well-controlled high acceleration for its explanation. In other words, high thrust-to-weight ratio and thrust-vector control explain them. These are ordinary engineering concepts of this century, and will be treated in detail in Section XI. Fortunately, the usual UFO disappearance report is that it took off at tremendous speed and disappeared in seconds, a description which should strain no one’s sen- sibilities as it is in strict conformance with this century’s science. -52- Section III Illumination “UFOs are largely confined to a silver color in the daytime and a kaleidoscope of colors at night.” —Coral and Jim Lorenzen A. General Statement and Summary of Coverage UFO illumination is a difficult subject because of the large variety and detail of the nighttime colors displayed and the detailed quantum physics involved. There are two main types of UFO lighting: (1) the ordinary run- ning lights and spotlight beams, and (2) the sheath of illumination surrounding the UFO. The ordinary UFO spotlight beams are obviously used to light terrain and objects at night. However, some luminous beams may be weapons, having as a purpose the projection of heat, the disruption of electric and electronic equipment, and even the temporary paralysis of individuals. The running lights are at least as complicated as those of cars, boats, and aircraft, and perhaps as superficial, and no more will be said about them. However, in this section the sheath of illumination surrounding a UFO at night will be pursued in as much detail as possible, as it doubtless has some basic connection with UFO operation—not a cause, but an effect. There is really no secret as to what this illuminated and illuminating sheath of atmosphere around the UFO is. It is a sheath of ionized and excited air molecules often called a plasma. It has all the many characteristics of ionized and excited air molecules, and has no char- acteristics not attributable to ionized and excited air mol- -53- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS ecules with expected contaminants; thus the illumination is tied to an air plasma. I am not suggesting anything original, as it has been suggested by many that such is the case. Indeed, any physicist who has made a study of UFOs must know they are characteristically sur- rounded by an air plasma. The terms ionized and excited will be explained shortly. The phenomenon of ionized and excited atmospheric molecules around a UFO also ties together a number of related mysteries about the UFO. It accounts for the general nighttime appearance of the UFO: the many ob- served colors, the fiery, neon-like look, the self-illuminat- ing character, the fuzzy, indefinite or even indiscernible outline, yet an appearance of solidity behind the light. It also accounts for the general lack of heat radiation despite the fact that they sometimes look fiery or even like a flaming ball of fire, and even the ultraviolet burns sometimes received by close viewers of UFOs with a blue plasma. In the daytime the same plasma is present, but usually invisible. Morning and evening, it is partly visible. Giant cigars and dirigibles are exceptions, for they can lay down a plasma wake or cloud visible in the daytime. The ion sheath also accounts for some daytime UFO characteristics such as a shimmering haze, nebulosity of the atmosphere or even smoke-like effects sometimes observed when high contaminant concentrations and chemical actions may be presumed to be present. While there remain many unknown details about the quantum mechanics and spectral behavior of the plasma sheath, there is really only one important secret and that is the exact nature of its cause. Several possibilities enter the arena, and these will be reviewed later, when we narrow the cause down to a power-plant-connected, ion- izing, wave-type radiation from the UFO. Finally, since we will find that the UFO is radioactive, radiating intense radiations of x-ray frequencies, the most likely single candidate for the ionizing radiations of im- portance are those in the x-ray bracket. Particulate radi- ation, other than the electrons supplied by the atmosphere in the ionization process, we will see, are almost ruled out. -54- A Scientific Analysis Among the minor unsolved mysteries of the plasma sheath is the following question: bearing in mind that two or more spectral colors combine to form a color which may be a surprise to all but the color experts, is the observer really seeing the color he thinks he is seeing? This subject is not treated in detail, but a sug- gestion is made for resolving the problem experimentally. B. Sample Data on Colors and Illumination EXAMPLE III-B1 Near Ponta Poran, in southern Brazil, on December 21, 1957, a party of Brazilians were driving a jeep along a country road about 6:30 P.M. on a cloudy evening (Lorenzen, UFO: The Whole Story, 148-50). Two near- spherical UFOs were seen following a horizontal course, but they oscillated from side to side with a wobbling motion. One of them stopped, then dived at the Jeep while the other one circled overhead. While they maneu- vered, their illumination was intense, coming mainly from a bright silvery glow surrounding the lower hemi- sphere, which gave the vehicles an aspect of brilliance although their outlines seemed obscured by this very illumination. The vehicles appeared to be twins. Each one intermittently sent a brilliant beam of light at the Jeep, which, however, had no effect on the motor, and the driver kept going the best he could. When he hes- itated, one would shine a beam of light on the road ahead and the other would hover over the illuminated spot as if to land. When it finally did land, the illumina- tion intensity died down and the outline became clear. It was an oblate, or flattened spheroid about 15 feet in diameter and was surrounded by a flat ring at the equator which seemed to rotate. The upper hemisphere, or hemispheroid, was a fiery red, as was the ring, and, again, the bottom was lighted by a silvery glow. There were no other features, such as doors or windows, visible. There also was no heat, odor, or perceptible noise. The vehicles were excellent examples of the classic Saturn-type UFO. -55- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS EXAMPLE III-B2 On the night of February 18, 1968, at Vashon Island, Washington, three young men drove to a gravel pit near which a saucer had been seen earlier (Lorenzen, UFO: The Whole Story, 163). It was still there but had moved directly over a pond within the pit. One of the young men, Joseph Frabush, described the object as lens-shaped, made of shiny metal, and about 30 feet in diameter. The lighting was a blue-white glow. Frabush had difficulty describing the light, but insisted that the vehicle was lighted by a reflected light rather than light generated by the vehicle (surface) itself, even though there were no lighting sources in the area. Of course the source was the atmosphere, and the light was reflected by the shiny surface. An unusual part of this story relates to a strange bit of residual physical evidence. When the UFO left, the pond was found fro- zen over, although air temperatures had been above freezing for days. EXAMPLE III-B3 Near Madrid, Spain, eyewitness Antonio Pardo and his family saw a UFO in the daylight, just as the sun was setting (Ribera and Farriols, 86). Photographs were taken, and the shape was clearly that of two pie pans lip-to-lip, the configuration we have categorized as a double-hat saucer. In a letter to writer Antonio Ribera, which I have translated, witness Antonio Pardo said, “The color was orange . . . All the witnesses could appreciate a uniform brilliance all around the periphery, as if it were a neon lamp. We are sure that if it had been seen at night we would have seen it with its own light. Even in daylight the luminous contrast was evident.” EXAMPLE III-B4 In another observation documented, three fighter bombers took off from the deck of a carrier off the coast -56- A Scientific Analysis of Korea on an early morning flight to bomb a truck convoy in the Yalu River valley (Lorenzen, Flying Saucers, 30). As the sun came up they were flying northward over the valley at 10,000 feet. The lead pilot was startled to see two large shadows moving at high speed along the ground, coming from the northwest. He looked up and saw that two huge UFOs were causing the shadows. His radar showed that they were moving at a relative velocity of 1,000 to 1,200 mph when they suddenly stopped, assuming the velocity of the planes at a dis- tance of a mile and a half. They seemed to begin a jittering or fibrillating motion. The pilot’s reaction was to shoot. He readied his guns and gun cameras, but the radar went haywire. The screen bloomed, becoming very bright, and he realized the radar had been jammed. He called the carrier, but each frequency that he tried was successively jammed by a buzzing a moment after he turned it on. All the while, the objects were jittering out ahead, maintaining the speed of the planes. The pilot used reference points on the windshield and the previously determined range to determine their size. They were between 600 and 700 feet in diameter! They were shaped like conical hats with oblong ports in the crown, through which copper-green lights shone. The objects had a shiny, silvery appearance with a reddish glow surrounding them. Above the ports was a shim- mering red ring, encircling the top portion. The bottom was black except near the periphery, which glowed red. The black part never jittered. ^ 650 ft. Figure HI-1. -57- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS The objects then began maneuvering around the flight squadron, circling above and below. At this time all six men in the three planes experienced a feeling of warmth in the airplanes and a high-frequency vibration. After the flight, they found that all the gun camera film had been exposed or fogged, and that the luminous paint used on the instrument dials had become extremely bright; the paint had been rejuvenated. In this account, we have not only the red glowing atmospheric illumination, which was strong enough to be seen in the morning daylight, but a very strong sugges- tion of the reason for it. A radiation from the UFO energetic enough to activate luminous paint and to pen- etrate camera cases could excite nearby atmospheric mol- ecules to radiate colors, as will be discussed. EXAMPLE III-B5 On the night of April 20, 1969, near Browntown, Wisconsin, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Phillips witnessed a spectacular light phenomenon (APRO Bulletin, May-June 1969, p. 8). They stopped their car to observe. As the light approached, it looked like a luminous yellow-orange cone, point down. However, when it hovered near their car they could see that it was actually shaped like a kettle drum, with a diffuse, axisymmetric cone of light below. As this UFO started to move slowly, parallel with the road, the Phillips paced it with their car. As the UFO moved along, its color changed to an orange-red, then to a bright red. Meanwhile, as it moved, the inten- sity of the glowing cone diminished to the point where its actual shape was well-defined. Since the Phillips at first mistook the luminosity for the shape of the UFO, I wonder how many others fall into the same trap but never see the real shape well- defined. Similar circumstances could easily account for the nighttime reports of ice-cream-cone UFOs, for exam- ple. We shall return to the conical light phenomenon later, for it tells us that UFOs are capable of focusing their powerful ionizing radiations, in this case into an axisymmetric cone. -58- A Scientific Analysis EXAMPLE III-B6 We shall finally consider a case in which a UFO lit up with the blue-white appearance of an electric arc. This sighting occurred at 7:00 p.m., November 2, 1971, on a farm near Delphos, Kansas (APRO Bulletins, No- vember-December 1971 and March-April 1972). Sixteen- year-old Ronald Johnson was tending his sheep when he heard a rumbling noise and went to investigate. As he approached the back side of the barn, he saw a saucer- type UFO hovering what he thought to be one foot above ground level. The UFO then lit up like an electric arc, having the blue-white appearance of an electric welding arc. This “arc flash,” as it was described, began at the bottom and almost instantly enveloped the entire object. He stood and watched the lighted object for about 4 minutes before it took off. As it did so, the rumbling sound changed to a high pitch. Meanwhile, Ronald underwent a partial and temporary loss of vision, and afterward he suffered from the symptoms of a mild ultraviolet eyeburn. Ronald called his parents, who came out in time to see the brightly lit UFO disappearing in the distance. Examination of the spot where the saucer had hovered showed an annular ring, known as a “saucer ring,” in which the ground had been chemically altered, obviously by radiations from the saucer. Ronald was quoted as saying that the UFO also displayed orange and red colors, but no details were given on that aspect. This case is only one of many in which blue-lit UFOs have caused skin or eye burns resembling electric arc burns, according to the doctors of patients who required treatment. This fact doesn’t mean that the ionized atmo- sphere is an electric arc, although it radiates like one. Rather, it means that ionized atmospheric nitrogen radi- ates very strongly in the ultraviolet frequencies, whatever the cause of the ionization. -59- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS C. Ionization and Quantum Light Processes At low altitudes, atmospheric gas molecules such as nitrogen and oxygen consist of two atoms each, like dumbbells, held together by a sharing of their outer electrons. The electrons of such molecules, unless dis- turbed by a collision with an energetic particle or pho- ton, remain in their lowest energy state, called the ground state. Above the various electron ground-state energy levels are numerous energy-level vacancies. When a sufficiently energetic wave (photon) or particle gener- ated by the UFO collides with a molecular electron in the surrounding atmosphere, the electron is impelled past all energy-level vacancies and outside the molecule. The electron becomes a free entity, rattling around between molecules. The molecule that lost the electron is said to be ionized; it is a positive ion. If the freed electron attaches to a neutral molecule, a negative ion is formed. If a free electron enters a positive ion, it usually enters one of the normally vacant energy levels and gives off a light quanta (photon) having an energy equal to that given up by the electron. Thus a relatively fast electron would give off a relatively energetic photon, say in the ultraviolet, or blue range. This electron, occupying what is normally an energy- level vacancy, is in an unstable state. It can’t remain because it is attracted toward lower states by the central positive charges. The molecule containing the unstable electron is said to be excited. The electron may cascade down through successively lower energy levels until it arrives at the unfilled ground state, successively giving off light quanta with energies just equal to each change of energy level by the electron. These emissions from the excited molecule depend strongly on the atomic structure and energy-level vacancies of the particular element in- volved, but are modified by molecular spin. In excited atoms, the energy transitions are distinct, as is the atomic spectral lines. In excited molecules, on the con- tory, the temper<it\ne-depei\deT\t eneigy oi the x^h^ “dumbbells” is enough to make the spectra appear to be a continuum, having peaks at high energy concentrations -60- A Scientific Analysis and valleys in the frequency regions in between, where fewer photons are emitted. Finally, the energy the electron imparts to each photon determines its wavelength and color. Air molecules can radiate in a kaleidoscope of colors, any color of the spectrum. The following equation, in slightly different form, was first used by Einstein in 1905 to explain the photoelectric effect. It is basic to all light phenomena. Let E – energy of light photon in electron volts, eV. One eV is the energy delivered to an electron which moves through a 1-volt drop in electric potential. X – wavelength of light photon in Angstroms, A. One Angstrom = 10’10 meters. Then X equals 12,400 divided by E, or This equation gives us the following color chart con- necting photon energy, wavelength, and color. > means greater than; < means less than. Color Chart Photon Energy, Corresponding eV Resulting X, A Color > 3.26 < 3800 ultraviolet 3.26 – 2.58 3800 – 4800 blue 2.58 – 2.21 4800 – 5600 green 2.21 – 2.10 5600 – 5900 yellow 2.07 – 2.00 6000 – 6200 orange 1.97 – 1.65 6300 – 7500 red < 1.65 > 7500 infrared The following notes should be made concerning this chart: 1. All UFO colors stem from energetic, ionizing radiation or radiations, generated by the UFO, which ionize the air. -61 – UNCONVENTIONALFLYING OBJECTS 2. Of all the visible colors, red and orange corre- spond to the least energy, according to this chart. They are also the two most common colors associated with UFO low-power opera- tion, such as hovering or low-power maneuvers. The electrons have been given the ionization energy, but not much more, and cascade down in small energy drops corresponding to red or orange. This is statistically probable, as there are more small drops available than big ones. 3. According to the color chart, blue requires a relatively high activation energy. Blue, white, and blue-white are the common colors at high- power operation. The blue of the high-power maneuver or high-speed operation corresponds to the strong radiation peaks of nitrogen which will be discussed next. A blend of all the colors tends to white; but with the blues predominat- ing, the blend gives a blue-white, as in an electric arc. D. Physical Data Figures HI-2 and IH-3 show the relative spectral radiance of nitrogen and air, over a very large range of wavelength, when excited by a 10 keV electron beam. The visible spectrum runs from about 3800 to 7500 angstroms, and the colors that can be activated by the ionization are spotted on the figures. It should be perfectly clear that air can radiate in any or all colors. The bulk of the emissions seem to come from the N2 1st negative, Gayden green, and N2 1st positive spectral series of nitrogen, and the individual color peaks are very clear of Figure III-2. Still, as we can judge by comparing it to Figure IH-3, atmo- spheric oxygen adds radiance in the green, yellow, orange, and particularly red. Excited in this gross manner that excites all emissions at once, it appears to the eye as blue-white. More sophisticated equipment could excite a single color. In fact, the peak for the usually-used nitrogen -62- A Scientific Analysis laser line at 3371 Angstroms is clearly visible in both figures. This is not a hint that UFOs use lasers to control the colors, but UFOs do radiate invisible wave energy with ionizing capability, and there is no reason to think that this radiation does not have distinctive frequency components and energy levels. The UFO colors constitute evidence that they do. OPTICAL INFARED CHARACTERISTICS WAVE LENGTH IN ANGSTROMS Figure 111-2. Relative spectral radiance of nitrogen at 22 Torr (closely approximating one millimeter of mercury) excited by 10 keV electrons. The effective spectral slit width was 18A and the total scanning time approximately 90 minutes. Below 3200A the relative intensity is less certain. * One Torr approximates one millimeter of mercury. -63- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS OPTICAL INFARED CHARACTERISTICS WAVE LENGTH IN ANGSTROMS Figure ill-3. Relative spectral radiance of air at 22 Torr excited by 10 keV electrons. The effective spectral slit width was 18A and the total scanning time approximately 90 minutes. Below 3200A the relative intensity is less certain. The implications of all this are clear. UFOs excite different spectral peaks and colors, or different color combinations, as we saw in the Ponta Poran incident (Example III-B1), depending on the type of UFO and its operating condition. In particular, the illumination comes directly from the air and not from the vehicle surface, as the witnesses in several of the preceding examples so well pointed out. E. Brightness The ionization energy has two components, energy level and amount. So far we have discussed the colors in terms of energy level only, in units of electron volts -64- A Scientific Analysis per event and per photon generated. We have said noth- ing about either the amount of activation energy per unit area, per second (power per unit area) that the UFO emits in the form of ionizing radiation or the resulting number of photons generated in the ion relaxation pro- cess. If events are occurring well below ion-saturation levels, the number of ions created per unit volume per second and the equivalent number relaxing and giving off photons should be proportional to the activation power per unit area. Hence the light intensity, which is proportional to the number of photons passing a given area per second, is also proportional to the ion-activatio- nal power the UFO emits. When a hovering UFO starts to maneuver, it neces- sarily increases thrust (lift) and power. In such a circum- stance, the UFO is generally observed to brighten rather than change color, as the witnesses observed in Example III-B1. This brightness would be the result of an increase in the activation power that the UFO puts out, exactly as just explained, while the energy levels of individual events stay fixed. This concept is simply standard quan- tum mechanics, which explains the changes in brightness as well as the color of the air surrounding a UFO at night. The brightness change together with the UFO power change clearly show that the UFO radiation causing the brightness is an integral part of the power system. On the other hand, the observed atmospheric colors are a by-product of the power plant radiation quite dependent on the properties of the atmosphere. The colors would probably be quite different on any other planet, and would be characteristic of that planet’s atmosphere. F. The Fuzzy or Invisible UFO Outline The quantum mechanical explanation for the indistinct or invisible outline of the UFO at night is particularly straightforward. In excited molecules, the downward drop of the electron through various energy levels is a reversible process. When two molecules each have an electron in an unstable upper energy level u, that drop -65- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS to a lower level 1, they each give off a photon with an energy equal to the difference in the energy levels u and 1. If the photon from the first molecule properly encoun- ters the second, it puts the electron right back from level 1 to level u, the reverse of the relaxation process. This is why the spectroscopist says that the absorption spec- trum of a gas is equal to its emission spectrum. Any wavelength which a gas emits it can, and does, absorb. Since the excited air emits in the visible wavelengths, it absorbs in the same wavelengths, and there is a critical distance of a few feet of plasma that will absorb the passing light. In other words, beyond a few feet of thickness a plasma is essentially opaque to light of its own emission frequencies. At night, when the witness must see the UFO by its own light, it follows that if the plasma is fully devel- oped (saturated with ions) the plasma can completely obscure the UFO, for the critical distance is small. In the more general case where the UFO is operating at a lower radiation, the witness can see the UFO surface directly ahead, looking normal to the surface through the least amount of plasma. The light reflected from that surface reaches his eye. But when he looks for the outline, he must look obliquely through a greater thick- ness of plasma. The light from the edge will be partly or all absorbed, making the edge indistinct or invisible. This is why the witness says, “I’m sure the object was solid, but I couldn’t see its shape.” If the UFO radiation dies down as the witness watches, the entire UFO be- comes visible because the actual plasma thickness be- comes less than critical. The opaqueness of various plasmas to passing radia- tion has many counterparts in modern technology. The principle is used in the furnace design of steam turbine- electric power plants which are designed to heat the boiler tubes by gas radiation. The designer makes the plasma thickness “seen” by the boiler tubes a little greater than the critical plasma thickness, so a maximum of radiated energy reaches the tubes. A greater thickness would do no good, as the radiation can pass no further. Another example can be seen in vehicles re-entering the -66- A Scientific Analysis earth’s atmosphere from orbit or from a lunar trip. While the plasma sheath is at a maximum, there is a complete radio communications blackout, for even the radio fre- quencies can’t pass through the critical plasma thickness. That some are hot and some are cold makes no differ- ence. The degree of ionization and excitation is what counts. Figure ill-4. Effect of plasma thickness on visibility. The absorption characteristics of the plasma can also partly account for a daytime hazy or smoky appearance of the atmosphere around the UFO. When the surround- ing illumination is brighter than the plasma, the plasma absorption may be greater than its emission, making it look darker, or hazy, as in Ray Hawks’ sighting in Section IX (Lorenzen, UFO, The Whole Story, 224). If it looks very dark or smoky, the UFO primary radiation is probably inducing chemical reactions of the atmospheric impurities, perhaps, for example, smog. Atmospheric im- purities could be very important in the interpretation of UFO data because, as is well known, impurities in a gas can make ionization linger. Figure III-5 is a photo of a pertinent experiment. The Langley Research Center of NASA has developed a tech- nique for ionizing the air in a supersonic wind tunnel in order to photograph a test model by ion light. It is a simple way to study the air flow and shockwave system. The photo is that of a small model under test. The N2 1st negative blue peaks of nitrogen are activated -67- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS by shooting a stream of electrons crosswise and up- stream of the model. These are the same ions which give the UFO its blue color at high power. The light color (blue in the original photo) around the model is a zone of compressed, ionized air created by the surrounding supersonic shock envelope under study. It is by this light that we see the model, while this photo is almost full-size, making it size favorable for seeing because the plasma depths are small, still the edges are indistinct. This is particularly true, in this instance, with regard to the windshield, which is obscured by a local concentra- tion of plasma which doesn’t pass reflected light from the windshield. The analogy with the UFO is very close and essentially obvious. Figure 111-5. Graphic illustration of indistinct outline. Supersonic wind-tunnel model under test, photographed by N2 ion-plasma light. G. A Word of Caution on Color At present, we don’t know for certain, when we see a given UFO color such as yellow or green, whether we -68- A Scientific Analysis are looking at a single color of narrow frequency band, or at two or more colors spread over a wide range of frequencies, giving the same effect on the eye. The the- ory of colors due to mixed light frequencies is compli- cated and is beyond the scope of this book. However, photographing UFOs with tri-color cameras would seem to be a good way to get a reading on the real spectral colors being emitted. These cameras take 3 pictures in 3 colors by the use of filters—an old but effective method, invented by Grassmann in 1853. Astronomers are now using tri-color photography to determine the real colors radiated by emission nebulas (Miller 39). Emission spec- tral lines are identified. Spectrographic grating attach- ments for ordinary cameras have been tried, and apparently failed due to insufficient light intensity from the UFO (Saunders and Harkins). Spectrometers, used to get spectral energy distributions, are very elaborate for field use. The following section, on radiation data and analyses, is also pertinent to pinpointing the exact radiation cause of atmospheric ionization. -69- Section IV How Hot Is UFO Radiation? A. The Radiation Questions From ionization, heating, and vibration data, we have gotten some pretty definite indications that UFOs are radiating energy. The following questions are now being asked. Of what energy level is the radiation? What is its intensity? From the observed data what can be judged regarding its basic type? That is, is the UFO radiating high energy waves, or high energy, ionizing particles? Do these facts, whatever they are, give us useful information about the propulsion system? Can we answer these questions now, or must we await field investigations with expensive scientific equipment com- bined with lots of good luck? The answers to these questions can be roughly given now; more refined answers will require more data. An important connection between these answers and the power plant system will be discussed in Section V. B. David and Goliath, and Other Radiation Data EXAMPLE IV-B1 In spite of several proposals and a few plans, the scientific world at large has produced essentially no mea- sured, documented, and published UFO data. By con- trast, David took his trusty Geiger counter and, without thought of budget money for field investigations or elab- orate data gathering programs, went looking for Goliath. The event was the UFO reported in the vicinity of Lexington, Alabama, beginning December 27, 1972. David -70- A Scientific Analysis wets APRO Field Investigator Bill Rogers. His agile efforts were reported in the APRO Bulletin for January-February 1973 On January 30, at 6:30 P.M., Bill Rogers arrived in Lexington. Actually, he had an excellent field plan. He and two companions in one car and three other individ- uals in three other cars went in different directions and kept in touch by radio. Rogers had received three alert calls by 9:00 p.M.., but each time he had been too late to witness anything. Heading back on highway 101, Rog- ers decided to visit the new garbage dump, which had been the location of a UFO in prior reports. At about a mile from the dump, he spotted a yellowish-orange-to- white light moving slowly, just above tree-top level and about a mile to his right. He got out of the car with his companions, and they studied the object with binoc- ulars. After about a minute, the object moved up about 40 feet, and they could see that it had a shape between a sphere and an egg (ellipsoidal). It then descended as if going to land. The trio piled into the car and headed toward the UFO while Rogers checked his Geiger counter. They could see it as they rounded a sharp curve where the dump starts; they stopped the car in a skid, but by the time they all jumped out the object had descended behind a hill. The glow was still visible, how- ever. A second later it came up, and the Geiger counter showed a reading of 400 volts and 250 milliroentgens. Then it went back down behind the hill and the counter reading returned to normal. This sequence was repeated several times with the same readings being obtained each time it rose. Rogers pointed a flashlight beam at the object. The object fluttered a little and descended again. The fifth time the object went down, its glow went out as if a light had been turned off. The men attempted to reach the spot by car, but they could not. They therefore called it a night. EXAMPLE IV-B2 The APRO Bulletin of July-August 1969 reported that near Bogota, Colombia, on the July 4, 1969, a farm – 71 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS family witnessed a UFO shaped like an egg standing on end (ellipsoidal). Mauricio Gnecco, age 13, sent signals in imitation Morse code with his flashlight, whereupon the UFO approached the house and hovered between two tall trees located 150 feet from the farmhouse. There it remained about 5 seconds. It was 4-6 feet tall, yellow- orange in color, with an arc of light around it. It made no sound as it hovered before 11 witnesses. The UFO then flew over a nearby hill and was obscured from view. Mr. Arcesio Bermudez, who was the only one unafraid, took the flashlight from Mauricio and ran after the UFO. He later said that he approached to within about 20 feet of the UFO, which was landed on its two legs. He called to the other male adult, Louis Carbajal, “Louis, come here. Look at this Martian.” He claimed he saw a person inside. Mauricio and Andres Franco, also 13, watched the UFO from the top of a nearby hill. They said that it blinked on and off. Finally it left, rising high in the sky and disappearing toward Bogota. Within two days Arcesio Bermudez was taken very ill. His temperature dropped to 95 degrees F. Within a few days he had black vomits (from prior internal bleeding), and diarrhea with blood flow. He died in Bogota on July 12, at 11:45 P.M., just 8 days after his prolonged close encounter with the UFO. At 10:00 A.M. on July 12, he had been attended by Dr. Louis Borda, and at 7:30 P.M. by Dr. Cesar Esmeral. They ascribed death to gas- troenteritis which has various causes, among them severe radiation poisoning. The Colombia Institute of Nuclear Affairs said that Bermudez’s illness was characterized by symptoms similar to those caused by a lethal dose of gamma rays. None of the other witnesses, all of whom were much less exposed, were affected. EXAMPLE IV-B3 According the Lorenzens (UFO, The Whole Story, 291), a radiation case occurred in the courtyard of a hospital at Mendoza, Argentina, in August 1967. One of the nurses watched as a saucer, described as having a mush- -72- A Scientific Analysis room shape, came in for a landing nearby in the court- yard. (From other stories, I have concluded that a short, thick stem below a saucer is an adjustable-length landing gear.) The saucer glowed such a brilliant red that she had to cover her eyes with her hand, and a buzzing noise accompanied the landing. A few minutes elapsed before she ventured to look again; when she did, she saw the saucer flashing red and blue lights and flying away. A medical examination of the 46-year-old woman was made. Although she was in good condition, a sci- entist of the Argentine Atomic Energy Commission said she had been exposed to radiation. The radiation from the saucer also had apparently been strong enough to affect the ground, for there was a burned-looking grey spot at the place where she indicated the saucer had sat down. EXAMPLE IV-B4 The Lorenzens also report that Steve Michalak, age 52, an amateur prospector from Winnipeg, Manitoba, had a close encounter with a landed saucer with serious results to his health (UFOs Over the Americas 38-41). On May 20, 1967, Michalak was on one of his prospecting trips near Falcon Lake. He was taking rock samples when, at 12:15 P.M., he noticed two red glowing objects moving at high speed and very low altitude. One of the objects sat down nearby, while the other hovered, then left. Michalak was concealed by brush, so he sat and sketched the machine while he watched it. On the ground it looked like stainless steel, but it was radiating heat in rainbow colors. In 20-30 minutes a door opened and he could hear a high-pitched sound like a motor running. He thought he heard voices, and tried commu- nicating in English, Russian, Italian, Polish, and German, but to no avail. The door merely closed, and the motor sound could no longer be heard. He reached out his gloved hand and touched the machine, with the result that his rubberized glove melted enough to slip off. The machine then began to turn counterclockwise and took off, as Michalak felt a hot air – 73 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS blast or other force pushing him to his left. He was left with his clothes on fire, minor burns on his face, and second- and third-degree burns on his chest in a perfect checkerboard pattern. Michalak was hospitalized, and the case was published in the APRO Bulletin. Dr. Horace C. Dudley is APRO’s advisor in radiation physics. He was Chief of the Radioisotope Laboratory, United States Naval Hospital, St. Albans, New York, from 1952 through 1962. Portions of his opinion on the case follow: “Mrs. Michalak’s description of her husband’s nau- sea and vomiting followed by diarrhea and loss of weight and the drop in the lymphocyte count is a classical picture of severe whole body radiation with x-rays or gamma rays. I would guess that Mr. Michalak received on the order of 100-200 roentgens. It is very fortunate that this dose of radiation lasted only a very short time or he would certainly have received a lethal dose.” EXAMPLE IV-B5 The son of the sheriff of Price County, Wisconsin, had received a new set of bow and arrows. According to the Lorenzens (UFO, The Whole Story, 226), he and another boy went out to try the bow and arrows at 4:30 p.m. on November 3, 1960. In the area of a gravel pit, they heard a high-pitched humming sound and felt the air become warm. Looking around for the noise source, they saw an aluminum-colored object on a hill where they had just been. The boys ran toward it to get a better look, but it rose into the sky and disappeared. The boys felt the ground where the object had sat down and found it quite warm. Drawings made by the boys showed a domed saucer, and questioning by an APRO investigator revealed its diameter to be 20-25 feet. A check of the vicinity with a Geiger counter showed no abnormal radioactivity. EXAMPLE IV-B6 Ruppelt reported a well-documented case in which scoutmaster named Desvgers encountered a big saucer -74- A Scientific Analysis hovering over a palmetto thicket (Ruppelt 176-86). When Desvgers noticed the object over his head, he struck at it with his machete, and for his trouble received in his face a ball of flame which also singed his arms, burned his nostrils, burned holes in his cap, and rendered him unconscious. Ruppelt considered this an important incident and in- vestigated personally. He sent samples of the soil below where Desvgers said the saucer hovered to be tested by the Air Force Materials Laboratory at Wright Patterson. He also sent the machete. The only evidential findings of the entire investigation besides the burns, attested to by an examining doctor, were the following: • The Materials Laboratory found the roots of the grass to be charred, but not the above-ground foliage. The soil had to be heated to 300 de- grees F. to duplicate the charring. (How could Desvgers have done this without burning the grass?) • Regarding the machete, “No knife was ever tested for so many things . . . They found nothing, just a plain unmagnetized, unradioac- tive, unheated, common, everyday knife.” • Ruppelt said, “We checked the area with a Geiger counter, not expecting to find anything. We didn’t.” C. Radiation Analysis WAVE OR PARTICLE? OF WHAT MINIMUM ENERGY? According to modern physics, the energy radiating from a UFO has to be carried by energetic waves or energetic particles. For reinforcement, I quote from Ele- mentary Modern Physics (Weidner and Sells 23): “Waves and particles play such an important role in physics because they represent the only two modes of energy transport. We can transport energy from one point in space to a second point only by sending a particle from the first to the second site, or by sending a wave from the first to the second site.” -75- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS We don’t have a measurement for Rogers’ distance from the UFO when he took the readings (Example IV-B1), but recalling that he saw the UFO from about a mile away, then drove a little closer, let us assume for the purpose of discussion that he got to within a kilometer (0.62 mile). Charged particles have a limited range in the atmosphere because they collide frequently with atomic electrons and finally give up all their energy. Neutral particles could hardly be the energy carriers because they cannot activate (ionize the gas in) an ordinary counter. The following table gives the range of typical charged particles in sea-level atmosphere (Weidner and Sells 321). Kinetic Energy,
Millions of
eV RANGE IN AIR, METERS
Alpha Proton Electron
Particle 1 0.005 0.02 3 3.14 5 1.035 0.34 20.0 10 1.107 1.17 41.0 At an energy of 10 million eV, computation shows, the electron is moving at 99.88 percent of light speed. Actually, for UFO radiation this table extends to too high an energy level in the last row, and even in the second, as we shall see. But even if 10 million volt electrons were radiated, they would be absorbed by the atmo- sphere in 41 meters, and wouldn’t work the counter at 1,000 meters, or even at 100 meters. Photons (waves), on the other hand, do not have what could be called a range limit in air. They have absorp- tion coefficients, and attenuation, meaning that a certain percentage of the photons are scattered or absorbed in a given distance, then in the next equal distance the same percentage is scattered or absorbed, and so on, in an exponential-type decay. Theoretically, some get to the target. Those that do get to the target on an unwavering straight line arrive with all their initial energy, and can therefore actuate the counter and give a reading. From -76- A Scientific Analysis the Geiger counter reading and the other data, we ten- tatively conclude that the ellipsoidal UFO radiated potent wave-type, ionizing radiation into the surrounding atmo- sphere. In Elementary Modern Physics (Weidner and Sells 324), the following statement is made in a discussion about gas-filled counters, of which the Geiger counter is the most common type: “Recall that the energy required to produce one ion pair in a gas is typically 25 to 40 eV.” In other words, it takes a minimum of about 25 eV to ionize a gas in the ordinary conditions of a counter. But 25 eV just happens to approximate the energy level that divides the ultraviolet and the x-ray wave lengths on the electromagnetic spectrum. The indication, therefore, is that the UFO-radiated waves have an energy level in the x-ray range, or even higher, although we have not yet discussed the upper energy-level limit. In general, the Geiger counter cannot give the wave energy, for it is not a wave analyzer, but it gives radiation exposure dose rate. However, it seems worth mentioning at this point that the examples in which radiation sickness was sub- stantiated by the statements of radiation experts also substantiates that both the ellipsoidal and saucer UFOs radiate in the x-ray energy range or possibly higher, in the range of gamma rays. RADIATION EXPOSURE: DOSE AND DOSE RATE To understand what the Geiger counter reading means, we must define the unit of its measurement, the roentgen. The roentgen is a measure of x-ray or gamma ray exposure dose. One roentgen is the exposure to 86 ergs of x-ray or gamma ray energy. A Geiger counter reading of 250 milliroentgen means the exposure dose at that place is 250 milliroentgen in an hour’s time, or a quarter roentgen per hour. The Radiation Health and Safety Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1968 set the safe exposure limit at 0.5 milliroentgens, or 0.0005 roent- gen per hour, to determine safe standards for manufac- tured products. The UFO radiation of 250 milliroentgen measured repeatedly by Bill Rogers was 500 times the -77- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS legal safe limit where he was standing. That reading clearly establishes that UFO as radioactive. The exposure dose rate would be even higher close to the UFO, and it’s worthwhile to discuss that point further at this junc- ture. We have already decided that the counter was prob- ably worked by x-ray or gamma ray photons, because the distance was probably beyond the range of charged particles. The attenuation of photons can be thought of as the consequence of two factors—an inverse square geometrical factor and the attenuation (scattering and absorption) of the atmosphere. I do not have complete data for scattering in the three-dimensional case and will therefore leave the accurate computation of distance ef- fects to the radiation experts. However, an extremely crude and overly conservative (it underestimates the ra- diation) approximation can be made by considering the inverse square effect only. For example, if the counter were 1,000 meters from the UFO when the quarter roent- gen reading was taken, then, by the inverse square, the exposure dose at 6 meters would be 7,000 roentgen per hour. In the Bogota example cited, 6 meters is about the distance Bermudez said he stood from the ellipsoidal UFO. If he had stood for 10 minutes at this exposure rate, his exposure dose would have been over 1,100 roentgen. This would be lethal, as full-body exposure to 800 roentgen is considered lethal, and half that, or 400 roentgen, is lethal about 50 percent of the time. Bermudez was just too close. At 200 feet instead of 20 feet he would have been exposed to less than one per- cent as much radiation, and would have been relatively safe. Given Rogers’ actual distance from the UFO at the time of measurement and some detail on the counter used, radiation experts can calculate the radiation inten- sity as it varied with distance from the UFO, taking everything into consideration. Their figures will doubtless come out larger than those given here. -78- A Scientific Analysis UPPER LIMIT OF RADIATION ENERGY In examples IV-B5 and IV-B6, there was no indication of residual radioactivity after the UFOs had left, accord- ing to the Geiger counter readings taken. These two accounts are typical in showing no residual radioactivity of the ground or anything else in the vicinity. There have been cases in which residual radioactivity was pres- ent, but such cases are extremely rare, and outside the norm. For UFOs to leave the ground radioactive they would have to emit radiation capable of initiating nu- clear reactions in the soil and rocks, forming unstable isotopes which would continue to emit secondary radia- tions. The initiation of nuclear reactions could be caused by the emission of gamma rays with an energy of about three million electron volts or higher. Therefore UFOs do not radiate photons with an energy greater than three million electron volts. This energy level is into the lower gamma ray spectrum, but, on a logarithmic scale, is not far above the top of the x-ray band. THE MOST PROBABLE PHOTON FREQUENCY RANGE There is a very general phenomenon of nature known as resonance which usually means that some recipient of vibratory energy responds well to a particular vibrational frequency and, conversely, if agitated will have a vibra- tional output of that frequency. The organ pipe is tuned to its note and the radio receiver to the incoming electro- magnetic wave frequency. Size is important to resonant frequency. Going down in size, the frequency gets higher. On the molecular level, rotating (dumbbell) molecules of oxygen and nitrogen gas are in tune with infrared frequen- cies. Individual electrons in the outer shell are more in time with visible and ultraviolet light frequencies. Oxygen and nitrogen both have two inner electrons, the K-shell electrons, that have vibrational frequencies corresponding to x-rays. They are very apt to become involved in x-ray reactions provided the passing x-rays are of the appropri- ate frequencies. In keeping with their small shell dimen- sion, the frequency should be high, of the order of 1017 -79- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS (100,000,000,000,000,000) to 1018 cycles per second. X-rays run from about 1016 to 1020 cycles per second. To see that the most probable interaction frequency range is somewhat limited, consider the practice of tak- ing x-ray photographs with high frequency or hard x- rays. Such rays readily penetrate organic matter composed mainly of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and ox- ygen, but penetrate calcium-rich bone with difficulty, being stopped by ejecting K-shell electrons from the cal- cium atoms. Thus the hard x-rays are more resonant with the K electrons of the heavier atom and pass by the very N and O atoms we are interested in, and the H atoms as well, which phenomenon may have some interest from the viewpoint of moisture in the atmo- sphere. This truth is verified by a glance at the devel- oped x-ray film. On the high-frequency side of resonance, there is a gradual fading of reaction probability, but on the low side there is a sharper cut off corresponding to the energy required to eject a K electron. This energy corre- sponds to a frequency of about 1.2xl017 cycles per sec- ond for nitrogen and more like 1.6xl017 cycles per second for oxygen. (The K x-ray spectral lines for nitro- gen and oxygen, caused by an electron dropping from the outer shell to the K shell, should have frequencies of about % of the approximate ionization frequencies given here.) Of course, the x-rays have more than ample energy to eject outer-shell electrons, but they are not well tuned to do so. The greater probability is that the ultraviolet radiations get involved when an outer-shell electron drops down to fill a K-shell vacancy, leaving another vacancy which, when filled, causes the emission of ul- traviolet or visible light. The ultraviolet light is then propagated from molecule to molecule, as is the visible light. The ultraviolet light can cause repeated ionizations. One can tell from this description that I do not think ultraviolet waves emanating from the UFO could be a primary cause of ionization, by ejecting outer-shell elec- trons. How could they be when even a piece of paper or a window pane stops ultraviolet light? The highest- -80- A Scientific Analysis probability route is K-shell electron ejection by soft-to- medium x-rays, and the subsequent relaxation process which emits a K x-ray photon, an ultraviolet photon, and perhaps several visible photons. Since most of the initial x-ray photon energy is used up in ejecting the K elec- tron, there is a low-energy electron product from the reaction. In attaching to a molecule, it could give off a color, possibly even red. A less probable route is the ejection of outer-shell electrons by the x-rays. This would liberate high-energy electrons which would ionize any molecules they struck. I have no faith in the probability of microwaves influencing the ionization process as has been suggested (McCampbell). The air ionization experiments by micro- wave energy done in the laboratory under low-pressure conditions such as 0.01 millimeters of pressure are not valid at sea-level pressures. At sea-level, the molecules are so closely spaced that they can’t resonate at micro- wave frequencies. Even if they could, with the millions of microwave receivers in existence the UFO would be emitting such a quantity of microwaves that it would be one of the easiest objects in the world to track, not one of the hardest. CONCLUSION AND COMMENT From the analysis in this section, I conclude that UFOs radiate between 25 electron volts, which is the bottom of the x-ray band, and 3 million electron volts, which is into the lower end of the gamma ray spectrum. This radiation readily accounts for the radiation sickness reported in various cases, because the radiation data taken by Bill Rogers indicates not only that the radiation is a type to cause trouble, but that it has adequate intensity to be very serious. It is furthermore noted that x-rays or mild gamma rays are quite adequate to cause the ion-sheath so uni- versally seen surrounding the UFO. Conversely, the ex- istence of the ionized air around the UFO lends weight to the concept of high-intensity x-ray type radiations from the UFO. X-rays would also penetrate a few inches -81 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS of soil, giving up their energy to plant-root depths. Soil being a thermal insulator, the heat would escape slowly and the temperature would build up with time below a low-hovering UFO. Most ground heating data is from saucer-type UFOs, and these are the ones known to focus their ionizing radiations downward with consider- able accuracy, because of the observed saucer ion cones and saucer ring data. By way of review, we further note that the visible colors come from the ionized atmosphere surrounding the UFO, not from the UFO, except by reflection from the UFO surface, as noted by Frabush (Example III-B2). The same is true for the intense ultraviolet that gives the skin burns when the telltale strong blue of strong nitrogen ionization is present. Putting this information altogether, we can see the beginning of a UFO theory matrix which hangs together when criss-crossed from several directions, as indicated in the introduction. -82- Section V Energetic Particle Ejection as a Propulsion Possibility A. A 34-Particle Universe Any scientific examination of the UFO puzzle must answer this question: Are UFOs propelled by the ejection of any of the elementary particles of matter? Since some types of elementary particles can pass through the atmo- sphere at high velocities without being noticed, a suffi- cient number of them could impart a high thrust to the UFO and still comply with the well-known UFO charac- teristic—no visible means of support. Therefore, the ques- tion must be taken seriously. Offhand, it looks like they could be, but the real question is, are they? This question is related to the question of jet propul- sion, in that mass is being ejected in both cases, but in jet propulsion streams of gas—either atoms or mole- cules—are ejected, not elementary particles. Elementary particles, such as electrons, protons, neutrons, and pions are the building blocks of atoms. Astronomers have determined by spectroscopy that the known universe is composed of the same elements and particles as the solar system, and, insofar as can be determined, they follow the same rules of chemistry and quantum mechanics everywhere. Physicists therefore con- sider particles to have a universal nature. To be system- atic and thorough, we refer to Table V-l, A 34-Particle Universe. This table and all particle physics used in this section can be found in Elementary Modern Physics (Weid- ner and Sells). The 34-particle universe concept was de- veloped in 1953 by M. Gell-Mann, and has since been successfully used to predict nuclear reactions. It includes all the known (discovered) particles except the “reso- -83- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS nance particles” that have decomposition times of about 10’31 seconds (ie, the reciprocal of 10 followed by 31 zeros) and would not make it through the UFO skin, if that were the route followed, before decomposing into a shower of particles as given in the table. We are there- fore being quite complete in examining the 34 particles. We shall include also, however, the compound particles found in cosmic rays and used in nuclear reaction re- search, the deuteron or heavy hydrogen atomic nucleus and the alpha particle or helium nucleus. These both carry a positive charge. Note that in the particle columns the antiparticles (particles of antimatter) get equal billing with the particle and must be counted to come out to 34. -84- A Scientific Analysis Table V-l A 34-Particle Universe Name Particle Anti-
Particle Elec..
Charge Rest
Mass Rest
Energy
MeV Mean
Life, Sec Principal
Decay
Mode Baryon Family Hyperons: omega £2′ Q+ -1 3272 1672 1.1×1010 B + n xi -1 2586 1321 1.7×1 O’10 AO+ w”
A n 0 0 2573 1315 2.9×10-10 A n sigma r E+ -1 2343 1197 1.7×10-10 n + n £° E° 0 2334 1192 IO14 A° * 6 E+ f 1 2327 1190 8.1×10-11 p + n° lambda A0 x° 0 2183 1115 2.5×10-10 p + n’ Nucleons: neutron n° n° 0 1839 939.5 1.0×103 p+e-+v„ proton P+ P 1 1836 938.3 oo Meson Family kaon K° K° 0 974 498 8.7×10-11 n++ it 5.3×1 O’9 jc^e’+v. K+ KT 1 966 494 1.2x1O10 / + % pion #NAME? n’ 1 273 140 2.6×10-8 rc’ #NAME? -1 273 140 2.6×10-8 U + vu
1 1- K° Tt^(self) 0 264 135 1.8×10’16 Y + Y Lepton Family muon #NAME? -1 207 106 2.2×10-6 e’+u +u
e H electron e’ #NAME? -1 1 0.51 OO p’neutrino vu Vu 0 0 0 oo e’neutrino Ve Ve 0 0 0 oo Photon Y° Y°(self) 0 0 0 oo -85- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS B. The Charged Particles As a superscript to each particle symbol in Table V-l, there is either a plus sign (+), a minus sign (-), or a zero (0), indicating the particle carries a unit positive charge, a unit negative charge, or no charge. We first consider the charged particles, carrying a plus or a minus. To obtain high thrust with particle ejection with a reasonable number of particles requires that each one be energetic, so that it will carry as much momentum as possible. The thrust is simply equal to the momentum of each particle (mass times velocity) times the number of particles ejected per second. The following reasons rule out the use of charged, energetic particles for UFO propulsion: (1) My experience with the effect of high-energy charged particles penetrating metal and plastic simula- tions of space structures is limited to electron stream bombardment, the accelerating electric potential (a vari- able) being several million eV supplied by a van de Graff electrostatic generator. The electron beam cut the structures to shreds in a few hours. The electron is the lightest of the charged particles; heavier particles such as protons, deutrons, or alpha particles would have the same result in less time. The point is, with no particle apertures in general evidence, how would charged particles get through the shell without cutting their way? (2) Consider the UFO in Example I-B2, whose weight was estimated as 30 tons, or 27,216 kg. Assume the UFO accelerates protons to 1 GeV, one billion electron volts. This gives them a velocity of 0.875 c, where c is the velocity of light, or 2.623 x 108 meters/sec. At this speed the relativistic mass of each proton is 18.8176 x 10’31 kg, which is more than double its rest mass of 9.10908 x 10‘31 kg. The number of particles per second required to support the UFO in hovering flight is: -86- A Scientific Analysis , UFO weight in Newtons J|Q / gg^ —    . ■ , II ‘ (mass of proton)(velocity of proton) _ (27,216 kg)(9.8 Newtons per kg) (18.817 x 10’31 kg)(2.623 x 108 m/sec) = 5.403 x 1026 protons/sec Each proton carries a charge of 1.6 x 10’19 coulombs. The beam current is: Beam current = (5.403 x 1026)(1.60 x 10’19) = 86 million amperes There is no way for an electrically isolated UFO to neutralize this fantastic current. Bolts of lightning would have to continually pass between the UFO and the ground, and of course this is not observed. Considering that an electric welding machine can be plugged into a 110-volt circuit and not blow a 30-ampere fuse, can you imagine the brightness of a charged particle beam of 86 million amperes? It’s out of the question. (3) Charged particles would have a big air drag, and would create high downward and outward air currents at ground level, just as a heavy helicopter does. No such winds are in evidence. (4) If accelerated to over three million electron volts, a charged particle beam would leave the ground radio- active. This is not observed. (5) The beam energy can get out of hand. We will see in subsection D (Photons), what can happen. A beam of charged antiparticles would increase the hazard of high-beam energy by adding possible annihilation reac- tions. -87- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS C. The Neutral Particles Atomic nuclei are shielded from charged particles both by the surrounding electrons and by their own electric charge. Neither of these defenses is valid against the neutral particles, which are therefore prone to strike the nucleus and initiate nuclear reactions. Neutral particles also have a greater penetration capability than charged particles of equal weight and velocity and would there- fore penetrate further into the ground. MESONS In the meson family, the kaon (K°) and pion (k°) are both emissaries of the strong nuclear force. On high-en- ergy impacts with the nuclei of various elements of the earth, excited nuclei and radioactive decay would surely occur in various reactions and on a big scale. The re- sidual radioactivity would give a strong Geiger counter reading, but this is not observed. The antiparticle of K° would surely have a similar effect. The ground below a hovering UFO would probably also absorb enough ki- netic and radioactive energy in depth to remain warm for days. Neither effect is noted. THE BARYON FAMILY The xi zero, sigma zero, and lambda zero hyperons are all products of high-energy particle collisions in high- energy particle experiments. They have much more rest energy than the ordinary atomic components such as neutrons, protons, and pions into which they decay with high-energy releases. If a hovering UFO used a high-en- ergy stream of these particles, the ground would be both radioactive and heated in depth. A beam of high-energy neutrons would have the same effect, as is well known. The comments that were made about the mesons apply here as well. -88- A Scientific Analysis LEPTONS, THE LIGHT PARTICLES The electron was eliminated in the discussion of charged particles. In this family the four neutrinos will remain candi- dates for the propulsion system until a later section, as they would have none of the misfit features listed in this section. For example, they would not cause radioac- tivity, ionization, or excessive heating because their ab- sorption is so small. They should thus go unnoticed, there being no direct way to observe their use. There are, however, ways to notice that they are not being used, as we shall discover. D. Photons Although photons have the aspects of electromagnetic waves, they may also be considered as particles, as in Table V-l. I hope this discussion of photon rocketry for near-earth application will enliven what I fear is other- wise a dull technical section. A photon rocket is one which gets its thrust from an intense beam of photons. There is no restriction on wavelength. A photon rocket is really unsuitable for near-earth operation at near-earth speeds, because of the excessive energy in the photon beam. The beam-energy problem is two-pronged; the UFO would have to gener- ate it, and it also has to be dissipated. The basic difference between a chemical rocket and a photon rocket lies in the difference between the chemical rocket’s jet velocity and the photon beam’s light velocity. A chemical rocket has a jet velocity on the order of 3xl03 (3,000) meters per second, while the photon-beam velocity is 3xl08 meters per second, or 100,000 times faster. This results in very high mass economy for the photon rocket, but gives very bad energy economy at near-earth speeds. For a valid comparison of the two, we consider the chemical rocket to be an ideal one, with all its chemical energy converted to jet kinetic energy, which is nearly the case for space rockets. Then we consider a chemical and a photon rocket of equal thrust, -89- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS and therefore equal momentum per second in the jet and photon beam. Then the ratio of the relativistic energy in the photon beam (E=mc2) to the kinetic energy in the rocket jet (% mv2) is just twice the ratio of light speed to chemical-jet speed. Using the velocity ratio of 100,000, the energy ratio is therefore 200,000. To put these statements into understandable form, con- sider the UFO in Section I which had an estimated weight of 60,000 pounds. The energy of its beam would be roughly 2,000 times greater than the jet energy of a Saturn class rocket with a thrust of 6 million pounds. Those big rockets require many tons of water per second on the concrete jet deflectors to keep the deflectors from eroding away by scouring and vaporizing. The photon beam energy of this saucer (if it were propelled in such a ridiculous manner) would have enough energy to va- porize 118 thousand tons of water per second! (You read it right.) Furthermore, such a vehicle hovering over water would just about do it, too, for a photon rocket beam can correctly be thought of as pure energy in wave form ready to be delivered upon contact with matter. If such a UFO hovered over water, vast clouds of condensed vapor would obscure everything. When the UFO hovered low over land, this beam would vaporize the ground so fast the UFO would have no place to land. Never mind the takeoff. From what? Of course, this is William Markowitz’s, argument turned around. He said the heat would disintegrate the UFO; therefore they don’t exist. A very clever argument, but he shot down a straw UFO, a Markowitz design. UFOs don’t use photon rocketry, at least near the ground where we get a good look at them. No one sees lakes dried up, with water vapor condensing vast clouds, or great vaporized holes in the ground. UFOs are much too efficient for all that. The UFO engineers do not use a propulsion system totally out of keeping with the surroundings of their use, one which destroys the sur- roundings. -90- A Scientific Analysis E. Conclusion We have effectively eliminated all particles (except the neutrino) as possibilities for the near-earth propulsion of UFOs, because their characteristics do not fit the ob- served operational facts. One thing that was perhaps not sufficiently emphasized in the discussions is the fact that, for any and all particle propulsion, as the particle speed approaches light speed the particle beam energy ap- proaches the same prodigious energy as is characteristic of the photon beam, and the impact of its dissipation on the surroundings would be great. In eliminating particle propulsion, little if anything has been lost. At UFO speeds that are measured in thou- sands of miles per hour, the energetic particles have speeds that are far too high for efficient propulsion. In fact, the efficiency, which is about equal to the ratio of UFO speed to particle speed, is near zero for low-speed operation. This is tantamount to a poor system. -91 – Section VI Transmission of Forces A. The Possibilities In order to discuss the invisible propulsive force sys- tem utilized by UFOs, we will first list all of the ways known to the engineering sciences for the transmission of forces. As long as UFOs retain mass, and extensive evidence in Section I indicates that they do, they must be propelled by a force which in engineering terms is called thrust. The ways in which forces can be transmit- ted may be put into 6 somewhat arbitrary categories: Direct mechanical action mechanisms, such as push- ing or pulling with a tow bar, wheel, screw propeller, etc. UFOs obviously don’t use this method. Pressures and pressure gradients in adjacent fluids. This includes buoyancy, explosive forces, aerodynamic lift, and other fluid-dynamic forces. Rocketry, the reaction force from the high-speed ejec- tion of propellants. High-speed particle ejection. This could be classed under rocketry. However, the rocket is a heat engine, while particle acceleration is normally accomplished with force fields and the speeds are characteristically much higher than rocket exhausts. Friction. Such forces are generally adverse to propulsion. Force fields. The field (gradient) applies a force on all objects in the field which are affected by the field. -92- A Scientific Analysis (1) Electric field. Applies a force on all electrically charged bodies. (2) Magnetic field. Applies a force on all magnetic bodies, such as iron or nickel, bodies having a magnetic permeability other than that of air. If the field moves relative to (across) a conductor of electricity, it applies a voltage to the conduc- tor. If a current flows in the conductor, the magnetic field applies a force to it. (3) Gravitational field. A centrally directed accelera- tion field. Applies an attractive force on all matter, whether in the form of mass or energy. According to Joseph Weber, if negative mass exists it is accelerated and attracted exactly as ordinary matter. . (4) Repulsive force field. An outwardly directed ac- celeration field. Applies a repulsive force on all matter. There are two possibilities: (a) A field other than antigravitational as yet undiscovered except as a UFO phenomena. (b) Negative gravity, a field the same as that which presumably emanates from negative gravitational mass, i.e., an antigravitational field. According to Weber, it is still an unsettled question as to whether antiparticles have nega- tive gravitational mass. They can’t be tested by a gravitational field, as they will be attracted whether positive or negative. Negative mass and antigravity are not inconsistent with metric gravitational field theory (general relativity) and are inconsistent with quantum-field theory. In quantum-field theory, the quantum of gravita- tional field energy is the graviton, and the quantum of antigravitational field energy is the antigraviton. If these exist, they are zero-rest- mass quanta which travel at the speed of light and have an infinite range of action, as do photons and neutrinos. -93- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS B. Discussion The possibilities are discussed in the order just pre- sented. MECHANICAL If the transmission of forces were by mechanical de- vices, the devices themselves would be visible. UFOs have no visible mechanical propulsive devices. PRESSURES Aerodynamic forces could not support a hovering UFO. The required down drafts of air are definitely not present. Also, in level flight the saucer UFOs are clearly observed to tilt the leading edge down as required by repulsive force field propulsion, not up as would be required for aerodynamic lift (Section XI). UFO accelera- tions and forces are too high to be accounted for by aerodynamic forces, the magnitude of which is limited by the dynamic pressures of the air flow. UFOs are not aircraft, for they do not utilize aerodynamic forces. For the UFO machine, atmospheric forces have only nuisance value. They move it smoothly out of their path to permit the attainment of high supersonic speeds within the at- mosphere (Section XIII). ROCKETRY Observations about why UFOs cannot be propelled by rocketry are given in detail in Section XII. Briefly, here we will say that the reason is the lack of rocket or other jet noises. For example, one witness said, “If it had just made some ordinary noise—like a car, or a train, or a jet—it wouldn’t have been so bad, but that eerie light and lack of sound just got to me. It was like watching a ghost or something” (Lorenzen, UFOs Over the Ameri- cas, 35). -94- A Scientific Analysis HIGH-SPEED PARTICLE PROPULSION High-speed particle propulsion was treated in detail in Section V and was eliminated as a possibility except for the neutrinos, which are dealt with in Section VIII. UFOs are not propelled by the ejection of high speed particles in the ordinary sense of the phrase. For one thing, many particles would leave the ground radioactive, which does not happen. The only qualifier to these statements is that, according to quantum-field theory, fields may be considered to consist of particle-like field quanta (anti- gravitons, for example), and only in this sense is it proper to think of the UFO as being propelled by particles. Field quanta are sometimes called “virtual particles” to distinguish them from all others and to avoid any confusion. FRICTION This force was included for the sake of completeness and is sometimes important, as in human propulsion and automobile propulsion, to keep feet and wheels from slipping. It doesn’t apply to UFO propulsion except in the usual negative, or obstructive sense—air-friction drag, for example. FORCE FIELDS, OR ACCELERATION FIELDS The names force fields and acceleration fields are inter- changeable. Here we probably have pay dirt. Fortunately so, for we have almost eliminated all the other possibil- ities by virtue of their being inconsistent with observed facts. In contrast, force field propulsion will be found to be consistent with all reported observations that fit a general UFO pattern, no matter which type of UFO. What we are doing is paying strict attention to the observed evidence, and not prejudging by our current knowledge as to how difficult it might be, or even how possible or impossible it might seem by our standards. We strictly prescribe to fit observation. One of the general observations about UFOs is the -95- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS lack of visible external components easily recognizable as part of the propulsion system. Force field equipment could be located within the shell of the UFO, which the field would penetrate nondestructively while the field generators remain hidden within. Force fields appear to have a mysterious quality which used to be called “action at a distance,” the transmission of forces through space without an evident means of doing so. This quality adds to the awe that the observer feels, and the aura of mystery surrounding the UFO. However, instead of thinking in terms of action at a distance, we now think in terms of field-energy distribu- tion, with the field forces being proportional to the slope, or gradient, of the field energy. To technical people this removes the mystery. Einstein worked hard to popularize this concept. Magnetic separation process specialists and inventors vie with each other to obtain the highest mag- netic flux (energy) gradients in their processes. To get a mental picture of force field action, think of the force field energy as the elevation of all points on the surface of Mount Fujiyama, chosen only because it’s easy to picture. Then the steepness of the slope is the field energy gradient. The field force is the tendency for a toboggan to slide straight down the snow-covered slope when properly oriented to do so. Each of these state- ments is in essence literally true for gravitational energy, and is a correct analogy for other fields such as mag- netic and electric. The potential strengths of fields can be enormous, much greater than one might think. To get an idea, consider the electric charges in a copper penny weighing 3.1 gm. The positive charge of its protons is 130,000 coulombs as is the negative charge of all its electrons. This is the amount of charge that runs through a 100- watt 110-volt light bulb in 40 hours. A 200,000-ton su- pertanker is in an insulated dry dock. It is not possible to separate all the positive charge from the negative charge in the penny, but suppose that it were, and that the electrons could charge the tanker while the positive protons were suddenly removed to a 200-kilometer alti- tude. The amazing force between two such charges sep- -96- A Scientific Analysis arated by a distance of 200 km (124 miles) would be a little more than twice the weight of the loaded tanker and a 4500-ton vehicle would be given a 100-g acceler- ation! The elementary calculations can be found in Phys- ics, Part II (Halliday and Resnick 652-53). The reason that no such electric forces are realized in practice is that electron fields are so strong that we have not learned how to separate electrons from protons on a massive scale; our condensers only slightly unbalance the known electric fields. It may be beneficial to summarize one more point about the use of fields for propulsive purposes. The point is that electric and gravitational field types propa- gate at the speed of light. Nuclear fields do not move that fast. The use of a field that moves at the speed of light could have great significance in long-range high- speed travel because of the field’s increased range of action. Speed-of-light fields are said to have an infinite range of action, a point of importance in interstellar drives. The high-speed field has a better chance to main- tain the important balance of action-equals-reaction over a greater range of distances and speeds, a balance of great importance to the well-known energy-conservative nature of the fields with which we are familiar. If ve- hicle propulsion can be accomplished by an energy- conservative field link, it is surely the best possible form of propulsion. UFOs apparently at least approximate this operating mode. With this concept before us, it is logical to predict that at some future time man will also use field-propulsion for advanced locomotion on free trajec- tories. We are now ready to examine the positive evidence that UFOs utilize a force or acceleration field as their means of propulsion. Actually there is quite massive evidence that they do, as we shall see in the next section. Then we shall be in a much better position than our present situation, of only having eliminated the other possibilities. -97- Section VII Direct Evidence of Force Field Propulsion A. The Reasoning In Section VI, we arrived at force field propulsion by a process of elimination. Other methods were not in conformity with the observations. In this section we shall try the shoe on the other foot, and we will see that things happen in the world of UFOs that only a force field action can explain. B. The Evidence EXAMPLE VII-B1. MAN KNOCKED DOWN Mr. Reidar Salvesen, of Norway, was driving his car on the main road to Jaeren at 4:00 p.m. on October 29, 1970. It was twilight time, and he had just turned on his headlights when he was blinded by the approach of a bright light; he stopped the car. The following account is taken from APRO Bulletin (January-February 1971): … he opened the car door to have a look and saw a bright ball of fire which slowly drifted toward the car and stopped … Salvesen then got out of the car, whereupon the light was gone but a disk-shaped object was hovering above his car. He esti- mated its altitude to be about 10 meters . . . All around the circumference was a belt that shimmered a yellow color, but the material of the object was steel blue in color… Suddenly, with no warning, Salvesen was knocked to the ground. He felt no pain, and held out his right hand to break his fall, At the same instant he heard the sound of breaking glass. Rising to his feet, he noted that the object was leaving at a high rate of speed and that the pulverized windshield of his car was inside as if a blow from without had broken it. -98- A Scientific Analysis Comment: Salvesen’s story “hangs together” and will be shown to be very important to UFO theory. That the UFO force field knocked him down and the windshield inward as it took off (probably with a slight tilt and a sudden increase in thrust) is fairly obvious. EXAMPLE VII-B2. TREE BRANCHES BROKEN There have been several accounts of tree branches bending down beneath slow-moving, low-flying UFOs. The following account of branches being broken off will serve as an example (Lorenzen, UFO, The Whole Story, 90). Private Jerome Scanlon was stationed at a Nike base in Maryland, 17 miles from Washington, D.C. At 5:30 A.M. on September 29, 1958, he was walking from the sentry post to his barracks to sound reveille when he heard a humming noise above him. Looking up, he saw an object shaped like a bullet with a tapered aft end, but truncated to form a blunt base; that is, it looked like what is commonly called a streamlined or boat-tailed bullet. It was about the size of a medium-sized plane, and was moving slowly away from him at about 300 feet altitude and making about 30 mph. He said it moved over trees, breaking branches in its path. “Ex- haust flames” issued from the rear, and its luminous green skin lit up the surrounding terrain with a weird glow. It came in for a landing about a mile and a half away. Scanlon encountered a friend, Riney Farris, who had also seen the object shortly, after Scanlon did. Together they went and inspected the traversed area where the object had landed. In addition to the path of broken branches, they found a half-mile strip of scorched earth and vegetation as evidence. Note: There is an “optimum” UFO speed for maxi- mizing the bending and breaking of tree branches, de- pending on the diameter of the UFO force field and the natural period of swaying of the tree branches. If one bends a tree branch down and lets go, it swings up in about half its natural period. Assuming the UFO is low -99- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS and the diameter of the force field is about the same as the UFO, maximum bending occurs at the speed at which the UFO moves one diameter in the time for one swing of the branch, or, what is the same thing, in half its natural period of vibration. If the object were 45 feet long (used instead of diam- eter), and the branches’ half-period of vibration was about one second, then the speed for maximum bending and breaking would be 30 mph as observed, because 30 mph is a movement of 45 feet in one second. This relationship gives approximately what in engineering is called a sudden load whose deflection is twice the steady load value that would apply if the UFO were stopped, or barely moving. At higher speeds than that described, the branch hasn’t time to achieve maximum bending before the load is relieved by the UFO’s passing. EXAMPLE VII-B3. UFO PARTS TREE BRANCHES WITHOUT TOUCHING The following account of trees and bushes being de- flected aside without the UFO touching them is direct evidence of force field action. Additionally, in this case riflemen standing near a dark UFO couldn’t register a bullet impact (APRO Bulletin, September-October 1972). This could be construed in the same manner. Mr. Bennie Smit of Braeside Farm, near Fort Beaufort, South Africa, had close contact with a UFO at 9:00 A.M. on June 26, 1972. He said that one of his laborers led him to see a ball of fire, and “sure enough, there was a fiery ball hovering at tree top height. It was about two and a half feet across, with flames shooting out . . . When I first looked it was a big red ball, but now it was green and it suddenly changed to a yellowish white.” Smit went for his rifle and called the police. He returned and fired eight shots at the object. He was sure his eighth shot hit, for he heard a thud. It moved up and down and disappeared behind the trees. Soon after the police arrived, “We saw a round black shiny object -100- A Scientific Analysis about two and a half feet in diameter emerge from behind a tree . . . Shots had no effect and when any- body approached it it shied away behind the bushes.” Smit then moved into the thick bush, looking for it. Suddenly he saw it about 20 yards away. He fired two quick shots, but with a loud whirring noise it veered off over the tree tops, cutting a pathway through the foliage. “Smit said that the trees and bushes parted for the UFO as it sped away. He was adamant that no air blast caused this, so it appears that some type of force field may be associated with the object.” The account also mentioned that although the UFO had looked like a ball of fire and had been very close to the foliage, nothing was burned. This is further evi- dence that the plasma around a UFO may be quite cool. It only looks like fire because excited molecules give off light whether hot or cold. Either there were two UFOs or, as seems more prob- able, it just changed color one more time, to black. It is worth a passing thought that the dark daytime color might be associated with an increase in its force field, so that the bullets couldn’t get through. This would also cause the nearby branches to deflect more noticeably. EXAMPLE VII-B4. UFO KNOCKS TRUCK OVER The following is an excerpt from the Lorenzens’ UFO, The Whole Story (p. 228), reporting an incident that took place on the Andean Highway of Venezuela in January ######## A truck approached Pisani’s jeep from behind and the driver sounded the horn to pass, so Pisani pulled his vehicle to the extreme right of the road, which was very narrow, and the truck passed and continued on ahead. Pisani took no special note of the truck until a few minutes later like a bolt from the blue, he said a brilliant, metallic, disk-shaped object which looked like polished blue steel swooped down out of the sky at incredible speed and crossed perilously close over the front of the truck. The results of this maneuver were astounding to Pisani, and the disk, after passing over the truck, rose again and was lost to sight… in seconds. When it rose in the air above the hood of -101 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS the truck, the truck also rose a few feet in the air and overturned in the direction taken by the object, falling into a sand bank at the side of the road with its 4 wheels upturned. Comment: An A-B-C analysis of the above events is in order: A. The italicized phrase indicates that the saucer did a pull-up, and that it tilted backward either to perform this maneuver or to deliberately knock the truck over. See the stopping illustra- tion in Part B of Section XI. B. The horizontal force field component knocked the truck over. C. In the flipping-over action, the ground reaction forces on two wheels threw the vehicle a few feet in the air. EXAMPLE VII-B5. UFO TOUCHES OR BUMPS PICKUP TRUCK According to Mrs. Rick (Donna) Bouchard of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, she, her husband Rick, and their three children left Embrum, Ontario, at 10:30 P.M., November 8, 1973, to go back to Ottawa (APRO Bulletin, January- February 1974). They were in the cab of their pickup, with Rick driving. They had gone about 2^ miles down highway 417 when Rick saw some lights in his rearview mirror. He asked Donna to look in her rearview mirror and tell him what she saw. The lights were at hydro-pole height, 40 feet, and because the lights were spinning she could not make out what it was. Suddenly it dove at the back of the truck. Rick got the truck up to 100 mph, but the object stayed right behind. It wobbled like a saucer on a table top, and the lights around the bottom spun around the object. The object backed off once during the chase, going up to hydro-pole height and over the bush that ran along the highway. It was gone only a matter of seconds when it came down at the truck at a “fantastic speed,” as if it were coming down a steep hill, then stayed right behind into the outskirts of Ottawa. It even followed the -102- A Scientific Analysis pickup right under the Anderson Road overpass, lighting up the highway as it did so. The underpass is approx- imately 15 feet high by 50 feet wide. At one point during the chase the object seemed to touch the truck, but there remained no evidence to prove it. This report invites the following comments. Because of the lights rotating around the bottom and its limited height, the craft was probably a UFO of the saucer type. If such a vehicle, in the 10- to 30-ton class physically touched or bumped a pickup, there would remain evi- dence of dents or other marks. However, the vehicle could have touched the truck with its force field without leaving a trace, because a force field pushes within the material contacted, and not against the surface as in all ordinary types of push. Thus a force field push is char- acteristically nondamaging. Here we have a new appli- cation of “the soft touch.” Perhaps “gentle push” would be a better phrase. It could be mentioned in passing that a force field, with its gentle push, whatever its detailed nature, is an ideal agent for imparting acceleration to the occupants of a space vehicle undergoing high acceleration. With the pushing directly against each internal cell of the body, none of the structure or internal organs of the body tend to get crushed or even strained. In fact, it is easy to prove that if a uniform field gradient provides the total acceleration to a passenger, the passenger undergoes no stress whatever. He wouldn’t feel a thing, even that he was accelerating. Let us now picture an experiment that Rick might have performed. Suppose that just after Rick felt the object touch the truck (or sense that it did touch, however he sensed it) he had lightened his foot pressure on the throt- tle while glancing at the speedometer. What would have happened then would have given a lot of additional in- formation on the force field, particularly on the degree of focusing or the angles of the lines of force. He might have found himself getting a free ride toward Ottawa. In a similar case, a following UFO accelerated a car to 85 mph after the driver, Mrs. Louise Smith, had removed her foot from the accelerator (APRO Bulletin, October 1976). -103- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS FIGURE VII-1. Field direction lines give force directions. Force equals maximum energy gradient in both magnitude and direction. Lines intercepting truck give it a push—down and ahead. Field is focused by UFO. Divergent field gives more push. EXAMPLE VII-B6. SAUCER ROCKS CAR Most saucers which pace cars seem content to follow along behind, as in Example VII-B5. This is fortunate, for when one moves too close alongside, over the front, or even directly over head, the car’s steering can be affected or other instabilities can be introduced. Cars without power steering have been turned 180 degrees on a dry pavement by a UFO crossing over the front end. The front wheels on the old cars turned in the direction of any substantial side load on the car because the castoring forces on the front wheels tended to jerk the steering wheel out of the driver’s hands. This situation doesn’t happen on a modern car with power steering unless the motor cuts out, turning off the hydraulic steering power. This instance is an intermediate case where the saucer was directly over the car for a few seconds, resulting in unstable car motions (Lorenzen, UFOs Over the Americas, 26). At Hillsboro, Kansas, the night of March 21, 1967, was cloudy and dark, making any unusual lights very notice- -104- A Scientific Analysis able. Mary Beth Neufeld saw a light about a mile west of town near U.S. Route 66. It seemed unusual and out of place. Mary Beth and several friends drove over to investigate. However, it seemed to be a case of who was investigating whom, for, as they approached the light, the light also approached them. They saw that it looked like an upside-down cup on a saucer. Obviously, it was a domed saucer. The UFO, directly overhead, paced the car. “The car began to rock real bad,” they said, “and the engine stopped.” Within a few seconds the saucer sped away. They were able to start the car again, and they went into Hillsboro to report the events to author- ities. The car rock was probably caused by the center of the force field moving from side to side of the center of the car, or vice versa. This could be caused by the saucer rocking, or by the tense driver doing a zigzag with the same effect. EXAMPLE VII-B7. SAUCER DISLODGES ROOF TILES At 9:30 P.M. on an evening in February 1959, the people of two Greek villages, Digeliotica and Agiou Apostolou, heard a humming noise coming from the direction of the sea (Lorenzen, UFO, The Whole Story, 97). Running out of their homes, many people saw a lumi- nous disk circling over the villages. The disk circled low overhead for about 10 minutes, while the radios failed to operate and the current in one house failed com- pletely. When people in the street saw the disk fly low over the house of the priest, Papa Costas, there was a loud noise or clatter and the whole house seemed to shake, making Papa Costas inside think there was an earthquake. When he rushed out, people on the street told him the disk had just flown over his house as it circled about. Inspection of the house revealed that many of the roof tiles had been displaced, and others were on the ground. His first thought seemed to be that the disk had struck the roof, but by the time he talked to re- porters he said that a low-flying disk had somehow dislodged some of the tile on his roof. -105- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS Papa Costas probably realized that the disk didn’t actually strike his roof. For one thing, the witnesses merely said it flew over. For another, if his house had actually been struck it would have been a disaster area. Tile would have been shattered, not merely displaced. The mystery was how? What happened was that the tile got the “gentle”—but effective—push of the UFO force field as the disk banked overhead. The field force direction was suffi- ciently aligned with the sloping tile to dislodge the looser ones. This theory supposes that the tile was dislodged on one side of the roof, as the field force could hardly align with both sides simultaneously. EXAMPLE VII-B8. THE ROCK-THROWING EXPERIMENT For years, I’ve thought that an ideal experiment for in- vestigating the field strength of a hovering UFO would be to hold a stick under the UFO to feel the down-force. Or to pick up a rock and toss it under to observe the change in trajectory. At last the account of an observer who per- formed the rock-throwing experiment has been found. On February 14, 1967, at 7 A.M., a farmer in Miller County, Missouri, was heading for his barn, located 100 feet east of his house (Lorenzen, Encounters With UFO Occupants, 190). It was a clear morning just before sun- rise, and the ground was partially lighted. Through some trees he saw a lighted object about 335 feet away, in the field east of the barn. He placed inside the barn the bucket of feed he was carrying and headed for the object. He could see that the object was a disk about 15 feet in diameter and 6 feet thick, flattened on the bottom and rounded on the top. A central shaft about IV2 feet in diameter and 2V2 feet long protruded from the bottom to the ground. The surface of the object was smooth, grey-green in color with a silken sheen, and was unin- terrupted except by a ring of oblong ports about 6 to 8 inches long and spaced a foot apart around the lower circumference. Bright lights emanated from the ports. The – 106- A Scientific Analysis lights changed color, covering all the colors of the rain- bow spectrum. He could see 10 or 12 smaller objects about 2 feet tall moving about beneath and around the larger object. The farmer’s sketch of the objects or “humanoids” re- sembled a peanut with a proboscis-like protrusion near the top, indicated wide-set eyes, and what looked like a visor. They had slender arms which moved rapidly, and although these objects moved about rapidly no legs or feet were observed. As the farmer approached the object, the smaller ob- jects started to move behind the central shaft and into it, entering the craft. The last small object entered when the farmer was still about 80 feet away. As the farmer reached a fence gate about 70 feet beyond the barn, the idea for an experiment apparently entered his mind, for later he said, “As I came through the first gate I picked up two rocks, pretty good size one of them was. I got up to about 30 feet of it and it was sitting there kind of rocking slightly and I thought, boy, here goes. Tm going to knock a hole in that thing and see what the hell it is. I cut down on it and the rock stopped along about 15 feet from it and just hit the ground. The next rock I thought I would throw on top of it and it just hit ‘something’ and bounced.” The farmer told the APRO field investigator, “I thought I was going right up to it; I got up to about here [about 15 feet from the object] and there it was. I just walked up against a wall [an invisible wall]; I couldn’t see it at all; there was just a pressure [holding him back].” As he stood there about 15 feet from the object, it started to rock, and oscillated about 6 times before it took off. “When it took off it just rocked back [tilted] and moved real fast to the left of that ridge,” he told the field investigator, pointing to a nearby hill, “and the shaft was pulled up into it as it took off.” This highly evidential account has many points in agreement with the UFO pattern, and probably represents accurate data. UFO data-pattern correlation is my way of -107- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS separating UFO fact from UFO fiction. The UFO de- scribed is a typical “mushroom saucer.” The retractable central column is frequently seen, although less fre- quently than multi-legged landing gear. I offer the following comments on this experiment. The first rock falling about 15 feet short of the UFO is con- sistent with the farmer feeling the invisible wall of force at the same distance. What the rock and the farmer ran into, the wall of force, was the propulsive force field energy gradient discussed in Section VI. The field force is the field energy gradient. Such a field force is reminiscent of the thin force shields of science fiction, but quite dif- ferent in that the field energy gradient must have been about 15 feet thick in this case. That the force field was turned on at the time is corroborated by the saucer’s “kind of rocking slightly” as the farmer flung his first stone. The saucer crew was prepared for Earthman antics. Probably because the first rock was deflected down- ward and fell short, the farmer raised the trajectory of the second one. That the second rock bounced on the force field shows that the field exhibited the energy-con- servative nature of a mechanical spring; i.e., the rock “sprang” back. This is exactly what static-field theory indicates it should do because static fields conserve en- ergy. Any energy the field absorbs from the rock it must give back on the rebound. We all should acknowledge that the farmer, the field investigator, and the Lorenzens deserve a great deal of credit for the excellent data about this incident. -108- Section VIII Force Field Evaluation: Which Type? A. Field Types and Newton’s Law In evaluating the force fields to determine which type is used, we shall examine the static-field types: the elec- tric field, the magnetic field, and the repulsive force field. The first two are well known, but the third is not. As we have mentioned, the latter may be thought of as a negative gravity field, or a field with similar properties as yet undiscovered. Negative gravity is the field that theory indicates is associated with negative matter and possibly with some antiparticles. This field repels all matter. The electromagnetic field is not a static field; it travels at light velocity. It might be utilized in deep space to obtain speeds near the speed of light, because at high speeds the electromagnetic drive would seem an effective one. However, for near-earth applications which we are discussing, the electromagnetic field was eliminated in Section V as not being at all in keeping with the ob- served UFO facts. It was treated there as a photon beam. We now quote Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest physicists of all time: To every action [force] there is an equal and opposite reaction [force]. If object A exerts a force F on object B, there is a reaction force of -F back on object A. No exceptions to Newton’s (third) law have ever been found. The UFO is object A, or, more specif- ically, the UFO field generators will be collectively taken as object A. The reaction force -F on the field generators is the force that drives the UFO. This force on the generators is called the reaction force to be consistent with rocket terminology and other usage in which the same phrase occurs. Object B is not quite as specific as -109- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS object A and may vary from case to case. Object B is collectively all objects caught in the field on which the field pushes with the combined force F, and which we can think of as applying a force base against which the UFO pushes for propulsion. Clearly we have a force field with its stresses acting as intermediary between the force on the field generators on one side, and on the force-base objects on the other, everything in balance and Newton’s followers happily smiling. Newton’s laws, with little modification, work on a broader base today than ever before, still forming one of the cornerstones of modern particle physics. B. The UFO Game We now ask two definitive questions: (1) What objects (B) does the action force affect? (The answer comes from the case data.) (2) Is the observed action force result possible with this type of field? Question (1) focuses attention. Question (2) is the key that unlocks the mystery of the type of force field used by the UFO. Question (2) is also definitive for certain particle force actions—neutrinos, for example—by substi- tuting the word particle for field. The importance of cor- relating UFO data with (2) has not previously been appreciated. In each data case considered, we assume in turn the presence and use of the three field types—electric, mag- netic, and repulsive force field—and ask: Could this field accomplish what actually happened? The correct field should work every time. It can’t be hit or miss. This is the UFO Game, and the rules have now been stated. We play the game with examples presented in Section VII. Other UFO students may wish to apply the methodology to their own examples. -110- A Scientific Analysis Game 1 Example VII-B1 has two actions. The Norwegian was knocked down without being hurt, and the windshield was knocked inward. They will be treated separately. ROUND 1 (EXAMPLE VII-B1) (1) On what object does the action take effect? On the Norwegian. He was knocked down. (2a) Could an electric field knock him down? No, because standing on the ground he carried no electric charge. (2b) Could a moving magnetic field do it? Conceivably, but with the high eddy currents in his body necessary to produce the force he probably would have been stunned. Doesn’tfit well. (2c) Could a repulsive force field knock him down? Yes. It repels all matter. Then why wasn’t he hurt? Because the field pushes on every cell in his body and is scarcely felt if the body is free to move. It is a soft push. ROUND 2 (EXAMPLE VII-B1, continued) (1) On what object did the field action take place? On the windshield. It collapsed inward. (2a) Could an electric field collapse it? No. A glass windshield cannot carry an appreciable electric charge. (2b) Could a magnetic field collapse it? Absolutely not. Magnetic fields affect magnetically suscep- tible materials and conductors. Glass is neither. This test couldn’t be more definitive if performed in a laboratory with a captive UFO! (2c) Could a repulsive force field do it? Yes, if strong or sudden, or both. The windshield is supported around the edges, but not elsewhere, and a sudden push could shatter it. -111 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS ROUND 3 (EXAMPLE VII-B2) (1) On what did a force field act? On tree branches. They were broken. (2a) Could an electric field break them? Not a chance. A tree is perfectly grounded. It won’t hold a charge. (2b) Could a magnetic field break them? Probably not. A stationary magnetic field would of course do nothing. For a moving magnetic field, the shape of tree branches is poor for setting up eddy currents. If the magnetic field cycled at the frequency of a saucer hum (see Section IX), the result could be no greater than a high-frequency shaking of the tree leaves, if that. (2c) Could a repulsive force field break them? Yes, particularly because the UFO moved slowly, as already explained. If a UFO has a weight per unit planform area of a hundred pounds per square foot or more, this should bend the branches and break a few. ROUND 4 (EXAMPLE VII-B3) (1) What object and action? The branches of bush and trees parted as the UFO left. (2a) Could an electric field do it? No, they are all grounded. (2b) Magnetic field? No. At least in my limited experiments, magnets won’t move a twig. (2c) Repulsive force field? Yes. A divergent field with horizontal components would accomplish it—that is, a field not highly focused in the down- ward direction. ROUND 5 (EXAMPLE VII-B3, continued) (1) The bullets had no effect. They didn’t seem to -112- A Scientific Analysis strike. This could be due to bad marksmanship by ner- vous people. The bullets are therefore disqualified from the game. ROUND 5 OVER AGAIN (EXAMPLE VIII-B4) (1) Object? Hie truck was tipped over. (2a) Could an electric field tip it over? No. (2b) Magnetic field? Yes. The truck is built of magnetic materials. (2c) Repulsive force field? Yes, it pushes on all ordinary materials. ROUND 6 (EXAMPLE VII-B5) (1) UFO bumps truck. (2a) Could an electric field do it? No. (2b) Magnetic field? Yes. It’s made of magnetic materials. Could it bump truck without marring it? Yes, it certainly could. (2c) Repulsive force field? Yes. Without marring? Yes. ROUND 7 (EXAMPLE VII-B6) (1) On what was the action? A car was rocked by a over-flying UFO. (2a) Electric field? No. (2b) Magnetic field? Yes. -113 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS (2c) Repulsive force field? Yes. ROUND 8 (EXAMPLE VII-B7) (1) On what was the action? Rooftiles were dislodged. (2a) Could an electric field do it? No. (2b) Magnetic field? No. Tiles are neither magnetic nor conductors. (2c) Repulsive force field? Yes, it has all of the qualifications. SCORE SHEET Round Electric Magnetic Repulsive
Force । Action 1 No Maybe Yes Man knocked down 2 No No Yes Windshield collapsed 3 No No Yes Tree branches broken 4 No ■ No Yes Tree branches parted 5 No Yes Yes Truck tipped over 6 No Yes Yes Truck bumped 7 No Yes Yes Car rocked 8 No No Yes Tile dislodged Score Zero 50% 100% The magnetic backers may have enough to cling to by their fingernails. Otherwise, the scores speak for themselves. The repulsive force field is the only consis- tent winner. This UFO game does not indicate that magnetic fields are not present, or even used in UFOs. UFOs surely utilize electric currents, each one of which always has an associ- ated magnetic field. Besides, there have been several indi- -114- A Scientific Analysis cations that UFOs have a magnetic field, or signature. According to the APRO Bulletin of March-April 1974, there is a group of Southern California scientists who have designed instrumentation to measure the magnetic field of a UFO as it passes. This is called its signature. Along with other UFO students, I am waiting to hear detailed results from that magnetic research program. Game 1 does say that the UFO does not get a direct propulsive force from either a static magnetic field, or a static electric field. The field the UFOs do use cause a lot of things to happen that the magnetic and electric fields could not cause. Many years ago several self-styled UFO experts said that UFOs propel themselves by generating a strong static magnetic field which pushes against the earth’s magnetic field. The public seems not to have forgotten this. Clearly this could not be true for at least two reasons besides those cited in the game. One reason is that the earth’s magnetic field runs parallel to the earth’s surface only in the equatorial regions. If we think of the magnetic field in terms of the field lines and follow along a field line going north in the northern hemi- sphere, we find that the line loses altitude rapidly and plunges into the earth on an incline. This effect is called the magnetic dip. The dip occurs in the southern hemi- sphere also. The force between the UFO, treated as a strong magnet, and the earth-field lines can only be perpendicular to those field lines. This relationship wouldn’t be entirely perfect as the earth-field lines would sag under a heavy load, but the dip would remain. The UFO would be like a toboggan pointed down an icy hill. This is a good analogy because the force between the toboggan and the ice surface is also normal. The UFO, attempting to hover, slides down the field line until it strikes the earth. It can’t hover. The second reason: If the UFO turns on more mag- netic repulsion, it can stop the fall, but with more force only by gaining more velocity toward the pole. Thus we would have a sort of super-Sargasso Sea at each pole— the graveyards of derelict UFOs. Actually, there is the possibility of a sensible magnetic -115- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS propulsion system for UFOs if one wishes to classify a magnetically propelled ion jet in this manner. This method could also be called ion propulsion or magneto- jet propulsion, as it would accelerate the ionized air sheath around the UFO, utilizing it as a reaction fluid. The scheme would be based on magnetic reactions sim- ilar to those in an electric motor, but more exactly it would be a linear motor rather than a rotary one. In the magneto jet, a current is passed through the ionized air in a direction perpendicular to the desired thrust and the magnetic field. Anyone interested in the detail of such a scheme, or a very similar one in which the electric current is passed through salt sea water, need only refer to the literature on the propulsion of submarines for deep-sea exploration, where it has already been used. Up to this point, such an ion drive has been classified in my mind, and in Section VI, as a form of jet pro- pulsion, even though magnetic fields be used as a means to an end. It is included here because it uses a strong magnetic field. However, the question is not how suit- able such a system would be, but do UFOs use it? The answer is simple. The UFO uses nothing as unsophisti- cated as an ion jet; it doesn’t fit the UFO pattern. Anyone knocked down by the exhaust, or jet stream, would know what hit him. That is, besides the sand and gravel he would be picking from his skin. Fast jet streams from departing UFOs are completely foreign to the observations. This propulsion scheme also has a close kinship with aerodynamics. There is absolutely no evi- dence that UFOs use the atmosphere to obtain any kind of acceleration forces, propulsion or otherwise. Enough background has now been laid to play an- other game with a UFO and the three force fields. Let the UFO be hovering over bare ground at a place where there are no iron or nickel deposits. Game 2 (1) On what object is the field pushing? It’s pushing on the ground with a force equal to the weight of the UFO. -116- A Scientific Analysis (2a) Could an electric field do it? No. The ground is neutral. (2b) Could a magnetic field do it? No. It has nothing to push on except a magnetic field of the earth, and it would slide to the north in our hemisphere. It couldn’t do a “UFO-rock ” toward the south. (2c) Could a repulsive force field do it? Yes. It has the properties of negative gravity. End of game. C. The Neutrino as a Propulsion Possibility We now return to reconsider the neutrino beam as a propulsive method. In Section V, which treated energetic particles as propulsion possibilities, the neutrino was left in the running because it was the only energetic particle that didn’t leave the ground radioactive or have other unobserved effects. Also, a sufficiently powerful neutrino beam would give the UFO the needed thrust. But the neutrino must pass the UFO Game test. We play the game with the neutrino as the single entry, in abbrevi- ated format. Game 3 Could the neutrino beam: (1) Knock a man down? (2) Break a windshield? (3) Break tree branches? (4) Deflect bushes, tree limbs? (5) Tip a truck over? (6) Bump a pickup truck (7) Rock a car? (8) Dislodge roof tile? Score, No No No No No No No No Zero -117- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS The neutrino beam is no better than the electric field at meeting the test of observed facts. It cannot account for UFO propulsion. D. Conclusions 1. The UFO game is an effective rationale for the evaluation of possible UFO propulsion methods. 2. The neutrino has been eliminated as a propulsion possibility, along with all other known particles. 3. UFOs are propelled by a force akin to gravity, but of an opposite nature. In quantum termi- nology, the field can be represented by anti- gravitons. It should be noted that none of these conclusions were premeditated or preconceived, but simply resulted from the application of the rationale given. -118- Section IX The Saucer Hum and the Cyclic Field A. Preliminary Statement Saucers emit a characteristic noise generally referred to as a hum, buzz, or whine. According to close-proximity observers, the hum of a hovering saucer increases in intensity and pitch during the last couple of seconds before takeoff. Conversely, on starting to hover after moving, or on other power reductions, the hum de- creases. This strongly suggests that the hum is power- plant connected. In fact, the data quite clearly shows that the force field cycles at the hum frequency. By way off review, recall that during night sightings the saucer characteristically also brightens just before and during takeoff. This is actually an increase in air ioniza- tion due in turn to an increase in the UFO radiation causing it. These effects are also tied in with an increase in cycling rate as the power plant is readied for and accomplishes the increase of thrust at takeoff. B. Typical Evidence EXAMPLE IX-B1 On August 11, 1960, at 3:10 P.M. on a cloudy afternoon, Ray Hawks of Boulder, Colorado, had an important sight- ng of what was clearly a saucer repair job (Lorenzen, UFO, The Whole Story, 224). That part of the story will be told later where the data fits. Hawks said that just a few seconds after the operation was over the saucer hum increased in intensity until it reached a very high pitch, whereupon the disk appeared to be surrounded by a shimmering field. Then the disk elevated and disappeared back into the clouds from whence it came. -119- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS EXAMPLE IX-B2 According to a UPI story dated January 13, 1966, a Mobile, Alabama, high school student was driving home at 3:15 p.m. His car stalled on the highway when he encountered a silver ball about 15-20 feet in diameter. About 10 inches outside the ball there was a flat ring encircling it, about 8 inches in width. He said, “I was about 15 feet away from it. It was hovering about 5 feet above the highway . . . The thing was making a whin- ing sound, increasing in intensity. Then it moved around and over the car and was gone. My car started then.” EXAMPLE IX-B3 A man, his wife, and two children were seated in their car in a drive-in theater (Edwards, Flying Saucers: Serious Business, 27). The children said that they heard bees. The parents attributed it to the children’s imagina- tion, but soon the father heard a buzzing also. Looking up, he saw a disk with lights on the rim approach and go by at an altitude of about 100 feet. The noise sub- sided as the saucer receded. The mother didn’t hear anything. However, some other people in the theater described the noise as sounding like hornets. One man heard a sound like a paper clip caught in a vacuum cleaner. EXAMPLE IX-B4 Two young Swedish men saw a light coming from a pine woods (Lorenzen, UFOs Over the Americas, 60). They went to investigate and found its source to be a disk- shaped object about 5 meters in diameter and a meter thick, resting on a three-legged landing gear. Following the men’s encounter with several diminutive occupants which was a real brawl, the saucer took off. “But most remarkable of all was the sound the object made—a thin, high, intense sound you felt rather than heard. When the object left we were shaken by powerful, extremely rapid vibrations that quite paralyzed us.” The medical team -120- A Scientific Analysis which examined the men physically and mentally con- cluded that the men “had actually encountered a field force of enormous strength.” A sidelight may be of interest. The occupants ceased combat and the saucer took off when one of the men broke away, ran to the car, and blew the horn. They seemed afraid of the noise. EXAMPLE IX-B5 Mr. and Mrs. Hatchett and daughter Valerie were heading west in their pickup near Manford, Oklahoma, at 12:20 a.m. when they noticed a bright light getting closer (APRO Bulletin, September-October 1973). When the object turned to an intercept course with the pickup, they stopped. The object also stopped, opposite the pickup just beyond the fence on the south side of the road and about 200 feet above the ground. The air seemed charged and oppressive as the giant object hov- ered there. The whole of it emitted a white light. Mr. Hatchett estimated the size as about equal to a 707 jetliner, but the lighting was intense and so ionized that they could discern no detail of its shape. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hatchett heard, or felt, or both, an intense and penetrating humming sound, and otherwise they sensed a stillness. EXAMPLE IX-B6 A forestry lookout named Russel Hill in an isolated area about 40 miles southwest of Calgary, Canada, spot- ted greenish-colored UFOs on four occasions in Septem- ber 1967 (Hall 34). These UFOs decommissioned his lighting system and two-way radio. When Hill got a good look at one, he described it as a saucer about 75 feet in diameter. On one occasion, Hill heard a strange pulsing sound as a green light swept the cabin. On another occasion, a hovering craft cast a garish green light into the cabin as a throbbing hum shook the cabin walls. -121 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS EXAMPLE IX-B7 The general manager and the chief engineer of a St. Louis broadcasting station went fishing on the Lake of the Ozarks (Edwards, Flying Saucers: Serious Business, 175). In a fog, 300 or 400 yards from shore, their out- board motor died. They heard a humming noise, and when the fog parted briefly they saw a saucer hovering about 5 feet above the water, only 100 feet away. Di- rectly beneath it the water was dancing in thousands of sharp-pointed waves. The men paddled for shore—with their hats. Comment: The force field was vibrating the water. C. Discussion Accounts IX-B1 and IX-B2 introduce the hum and the whine. The whine is, of course, a higher frequency sound than the hum. Both accounts, as do a great many others, indicate a buildup of the sound and its frequency as part of some preparation for takeoff. Interestingly enough, here at last is something a UFO can’t do “in- stantly”—something that takes some time. It takes them a couple of seconds or more to “get their hum up” from a hum to a whine. The noise description certainly re- minds one of a vacuum cleaner or a turbine engine, and indeed we are tempted to think of the time involved as being the time to build up the rpm of rotating ma- chinery. Also there is evidence that both saucers and saturn UFOs utilize rotating machinery, as we shall see. Nevertheless, it is more sophisticated to think of the change in noise pattern simply in terms of an increase in cycling rate, as this allows for the possibility that the root cause may be from the cycling of nonmoving equip- ment as in, for analogy, the electric transformer, in which vibration and sound is caused by the cycling of field forces. Example IX-B4, about the two Swedes, brought up the critical point that the noise is felt as much as heard. Example IX-B5 corroborates this, as do many others. This “feeling” the noise indicates that a vibrational force of – 122- A Scientific Analysis exactly the same frequency as the sound is at work. Example IX-B6 shows that the vibrational force shakes inanimate objects, such as cabin walls, as well. In Exam- ple IX-B7, a vibrational force set the water to dancing in thousands of sharp pointed waves. In my experience with intense sound pressures, low- frequency sound vibrations are felt as a shaking of the body, predominately in the abdominal regions, but high- frequency sound is not felt as a shaking, although it is painful to the ears. This leads me think that people who feel the whine, or even the hum, are getting some form of direct input or effect from a pulsating or vibrating force field, rather than feeling vibrations just from the air. The existence of a considerable body of data to indi- cate that the UFO force field is of a cyclic nature was pointed out to me by Dr. Robert M. Wood in his visit to me at the Langley Research Center in October 1967. By a coincidence, Dr. R.M. Wood is the son of Professor K.D. Wood, from whose text I first studied—’Practical Aerodynamics. In 1967 Dr. Wood was Deputy Director for Research and Development for Douglas Aircraft’s Ad- vance Systems & Technology Division. He is now an APRO consultant. From the weight of the evidence—the vibrations felt by people, vibrating objects like street signs, and smooth water set to dancing—I have con- cluded that Dr. Wood was right; the UFO field and its forces are cyclic. When the musicians tell us the pitch of the hum, we will know its frequency, for the relationship is well known. One witness already volunteered the information that the hum rose an octave when a UFO took off. That means the frequency doubled. D. Reader Question: Can You Define Cyclic Field More Clearly? The term cyclic field means that the strength of the field varies with time in a periodic or repetitious man- ner. The field is not just a static field, but consists of the sum of a large, number of waves that are sent out -123- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS from the UFO. In this concept, new waves add to the strength, replenishing field energy losses. The vibrations felt are due to the passing of the field waves, which are also due to the variation of field strength with time. One of the simplest wave forms we can imagine for the variation of field strength at any point in space is a square wave superimposed on a steady-state value of field strength as shown in Figure IX-1. <0 c 0 0 one cycle period time Figure IX-1. Square Wave Ripple The frequency is the reciprocal of the cycle period shown, and vice versa. Another simple representation for field strength varia- tion is the saw-tooth wave, shown in Figure IX-2. Figure IX-2. Saw-Tooth Waves Field decay curve The curved top of the enlarged sketch of a single tooth represents a decay in field strength, which at the beginning of the next cycle is replenished by a pulse of strength Ah, coming out from the field generators. Figures IX-1 and IX-2 represent time views of the wave system at a given point in space. In Figure IX-3, we look at the space distribution of field strength at a given point in time. In this schematic the height of the – 124- A Scientific Analysis curve again represents field strength, but the horizontal distance, or abscissae x is the distance from the field generators to any point below the UFO. Figure IX-3. Spacial Distribution of Field Strength #NAME? —— present -.-.-. future The field waves are close together in a time diagram, but far apart in space because of the high velocity T of the wave. For this reason, we see only one wave in this space diagram. The solid curve gives the present field- strength distribution. The dashed curve shows what the strength was before the wave passed, and the dash-dot curve what it will be after it passes. The height between the two curves is the cyclic decay being replenished by the field wave. Even if the wave front is not vertical, it goes by any one place as a sudden, high-velocity front. The field-strength curve is intentionally not shown to vary inversely as the square of the distance from the UFO because of force-field focusing by the UFO. We shall study this point later. Instead, the field strength varies inversely with the beam cross-sectional area. If the force field beam were cylindrical, these curves would be quite flat with distance. The air-motion analysis which follows is made for the case of a cylindrical force field beam. E. The Cause of the Hum I thought it important to analyze the effect of a cyclic force field on the atmosphere and on various solid bod- ies. Accordingly, a mathematical analysis was made of the effect of an oscillating force field on the interaction -125- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS between the atmosphere and solid bodies, and is pre- sented in Appendix 1. The general results are presented here. The simplest result is that sound waves are created at the interface between the lower surface of the UFO and the atmosphere, and travel out through the atmo- sphere. This nicely accounts for the hum as a basically aerodynamic phenomenon. Sound waves are created for any force field wave shape, but to be specific, consider the square wave ripple represented in Figures IX-1 and IX-4. One cycle is complete in the time 2b. Figure IX-4. Square Wave Force Field Ripple This force field may be considered to have a constant or steady component plus a square wave component responsible for the hum, and other vibrations. Let the square wave component have a cyclic period of 2b, and an amplitude of kg, where g is earth gravity and k is a dimension less constant, giving acceleration magnitude in g’s. The analysis shows that the corresponding sound wave pressure at the lower surface of a saucer, for example, varies with time as shown in the Figure IX-5 at time 6b (solid curve). o Sound pressure cycle is completed in time 2b. Figure IX-5. Variation of Sound Pressure at Saucer Surface – 126- A Scientific Analysis The dotted line shows how the curve grows with an increase of time of 2b. The rest of the curve stands still, as it represents past history. The sound waves extend themselves below the saucer at the speed of sound a, traveling the distance ab in the time b. Figure IX-6 shows soimd pressure versus distance x from the lower surface of the saucer for two values of time t, where x is expressed in multiples of the distance ab. 5 6 7 8 9 x t = 7b t = 8b #NAME? Figure IX-6. Sound Pressures Below UFO This is a “moving picture,” shown in stop-motion at two instants of time, t = 7b, and t – 8b. A single curve may be pictured as moving to the right with increasing time like a side-winding rattler. At any one place, x, the pressure oscillates continuously between zero and a neg- ative maximum. The analysis made also shows that if we could find an object below the UFO that is large and sufficiently rigid to call stationary, then sound pressures like those in Figures IX-5 and IX-6, but with positive pressures instead of negative pressures, would result at the air-ob- ject interface. A heavy bridge beam spanning below the UFO, or even a rocky earth surface, might answer this description, but most objects would not. Clearly, such rigid surfaces would generate sound waves, but 180 de- grees out of phase with the waves from the UFO sur- face. In order to investigate what might happen at the surface of and within an ordinary flexible body, an anal- ysis was made of a body assumed to be fixed or sta- tionary at its lower end and subjected to the cyclic field. To be specific, suppose that a cylindrical body has a height of 2cb, where c is the velocity of sound in the body, and that the bottom is well supported. Then the – 127- LINCONVENTIONALFLYING OBJECTS motion of the top surface due to the cyclic forces within the body and the internal waves set up is shown in Figure IX-7. 10 12 t in multiples of b ^ /Amotion of this surface 2cb support Figure IX-7. Motion of Top of Supported Body The internal waves traverse the column 4 times before the motion is repeated. In this case, it takes the time 2b to traverse once, or 8b for a complete cycle. The free end has an interesting double-beat motion—twice up, twice down. If the height is cb there is a single beat, 3cb a triple beat, 4cb a quadruple beat, etc. The vibrating motion shown in Figure IX-7 will act on the air like the membrane of a drum, or like the vibration of a speaker diaphragm. Thus individual objects below a UFO are potential sound sources. This will be seen to explain a lot of things. The cases treated with the square wave ripple were also solved for a cosine (nt/b) ripple with similar results, but representable by sine and cosine waves of sound pressure and physical vibrations, compared to the straight line segment representations in the sketches for the square wave ripple. Thus the shape of the force field ripple is not too important to the results. Conclusion and Discussion 1. It has already been noted that the air-saucer inter- face appears responsible for the hum. If this theory is correct, the hum is an external acoustics effects, not an internal hum or whine coming out through the shell structure. 2. The vibrations set up within restrained bodies some- where below the UFO also account for the important -128- A Scientific Analysis observation that the sound can be felt as well as heard. A person standing on the ground is a pretty fair ap- proximation to a cylinder supported at the bottom. It also accounts for the vibration of inanimate objects as when “a throbbing [interference of wave patterns] hum shook the cabin walls.” 3. We now consider the case in which the buzzing noise was heard in the drive-in theater. The automobiles parked in rows would react with vibrations traversing the bodies, acting as individual sound sources. The UFO was putting out a lot of power and part of it was generating sound. With the multiple sound sources at near the same frequencies, the soundwave interference patterns would be interpreted by the ear as a buzz, for just the same reason that a swarm of bees or hornets make a buzz—there are many sources. A loose-part jin- gling on one of the cars reminded the occupant of a paper clip caught in a vacuum cleaner. 4. Many people have concluded that UFOs use ultra- sonic vibrations as a weapon. Maybe they do. “All” that it would require would be a beamed force field with a sizeable cyclic component of the field of appropriate frequency. For this special application possibly it would be entirely cyclic with no net force. Perhaps the regular UFO power plant can assume the weapon function by raising the cyclic field frequency to ultrasonic values. Mr. Robert Barrow wrote an interesting article pertain- ing to the possible use of ultrasonic (US), vibrations as a UFO weapon (APRO Bulletin, March-April 1971). Mr. Barrow is an ultrasonic medical technician. He says, in part: Significantly … I must acknowledge that the upcoming theories do possess a possible hinderance to their workability. And that is that ultrasound requires a medium through which to travel. In medicine, a clear jelly or even a layer of mineral oil is applied as a go-between, connecting sound-transmitting ap- paratus and the body area to be treated… This insures an easy, compatible flow of vibrations to the involved area. -129- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS Theoretically, then, US must have a medium before it can disperse forcefully enough for its characteristics to be felt. But how could a UFO, for whatever reason, emit sound waves without a similar medium? This question is a serious drawback to the whole UFO-US theory. According to the cyclic field sound theory developed in Appendix 1 and presented here in Part E, the US transmission question need not be a critical one, for, besides the air path between the UFO and effected body for US waves, energy is transported across space by the cyclic field, and sound, at cyclic field frequency, is gen- erated at the body surfaces. No jelly is required for its transmission. Sound is generated at the interface between two mediums having different stiffness (compressibility modulus, or Young’s modulus) i.e., a different ability to resist the accelerations of the cyclic field. In the human body, that interface is the skin. As is well known, if the frequency is ultrasonic the destruction of body cells and burns can result. 5. One negative finding was made. The air column below a UFO—saucer, for example—does not oscillate at its natural frequency, like a pipe organ. If it did, ob- servers would report a note that lowered in tone as the UFO increased altitude at takeoff. This is not observed. The tone, or pitch, rises as the UFO takes off, showing that the field cyclic frequency is increasing as the power builds up. In general, the UFO maintains more than enough hov- ering altitude to prevent the possible coincidence of the cyclic (hum) frequency with the natural frequency of the air column. If it didn’t, quite a racket or roar might be set up. Indeed, such a roar was reported by Lonnie Zamora when the landed UFO at Socorra, New Mexico, and took off at a very shallow angle. In this and a few similar cases, the roar may be a low-altitude resonance of the force field and air column which ceases with an increase in altitude. Note that this is more the exception than the rule. -130- Section X Propulsion Oddities Although UFOs, like vagrants, have in general been noted to have “no visible means of support,” a few close observations have revealed otherwise. The observers in- volved have seen the UFO mechanism from which I have concluded the force field emerges, in effect, the part which is to the UFO what the drive wheels are to the automobile—a power-focusing or driving link in the system. In the case of the saucer, it comprises a bladed mechanism located in the annular area just within and below the rim. Besides the direct observations, there are numerous observations a little less direct, but just as evidential, leading to the same conclusion. First we will look at some of the direct observational data along with some supporting observations. Then we will address the strong indirect evidence. A. Where the Force Field Emerges EXAMPLE X-Al. MECHANISM REPAIRED We now refer back to the sighting by Ray Hawks, of Boulder, Colorado, of a saucer repair, mentioned in Ex- ample IX-B1. Hawks was operating a tractor-shovel loader when he noticed a strange craft drop out of the cloud cover and descend vertically until it hovered at a couple hundred feet altitude. He described the craft as being like two convex disks joined together at the rim in typical saucer configuration, its depth being about one fifth of its diameter. It was dull aluminum in color, and around its perimeter, a little way in from the edge, was a series of shiny metal plates with a small radial gap between each, which he could see on the under surface -131 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS as it descended and on the upper surface as the saucer wobbled in coming to rest. One of the plates was giving off a bright blue smoke which oozed around the edges. The saucer hum was intermittent. The smoking plate began to tilt until one end, and then the whole plate, was taken inside, leaving an elon- gated hole where the plate had been. Immediately an- other plate was worked into place from within, and Hawks heard a click as it came into place. Then the hum increased in intensity and the craft ascended into the cloud cover from which it came. Hawks did not say that the blades rotated. EXAMPLE X-A2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION On March 2, 1965, John Reeves, a retired longshore- man who lives a mile west of Weeki Wachee Springs, Florida, left his trailer park about 1:15 P.M. and walked through the nearby woods (Steiger and Whitenour 119- 22). He saw something that looked like the roof of a trailer. Curious about why a trailer should be parked out in this part of the woods, he walked toward it. When he got within about 300 feet, he saw it again. In giving his account he said, “I noticed right away it was a flying saucer. Some sort of space ship.” He approached the saucer, using bushes for cover, until he was within 100 feet. He stopped there to watch when suddenly he saw a humanoid on his left who approached to within about 15 feet of Reeves. Spotting Reeves, the humanoid watched him for a couple of minutes before pointing some form of apparatus at Reeves which gave out a flash of light. Reeves thought his picture had been taken. This action with the appa- ratus was repeated. Then the humanoid went to the vehicle and entered it through an opening in the bottom center, as Reeves lay down on the ground to better see what was going on. It was a saucer about 20 to 30 feet in diameter and about 6 feet thick. It stood on a four-legged gear, about 4 feet above ground level. In the outer rim there were blades that were about 36 inches long by 8 or 10 inches -132- A Scientific Analysis wide. Reeves could see into the ship through the gaps in the blades. Soon the blades opened and closed, vene- tian-blind style. The rim system containing the blades began to rotate in a clockwise direction, picking up speed until the vehicle lifted. A whistling noise increased in intensity as it rose. The landing gear swung or ro- tated outward, then slid or injected into the saucer. It went straight up, and in 10 or 12 seconds was out of sight. The humanoid was about 5 feet tall and wore a silver-grey suit with a glass helmet. He was dark-com- plected, with wide-set eyes and eyebrows, normal nose and mouth, and a somewhat pointed chin. Beneath the helmet he wore a head covering over the top and sides of his head. Footprints left by the humanoid were 11 inches long, about 4 inches wide at the ball and heel, and 21^ inches wide at the middle, or instep. Photo- graphs of the prints show that the ball and heel marks are round in planform, giving a dumbbell-print impres- sion, and also show that the sole and heel marks left a distinct waffle-grid pattern. Researchers estimated that the humanoid, although only 5 feet tall, weighed about 250 pounds to leave such prints. The landing gear prints were round, about 6 inches in diameter, and about an inch deep. Photos of both footprints and gear prints are reproduced in Steiger and Whitenour’s book. Besides his detailed description of the vehicle, Reeves had a comment: “But the funny thing about it was there was no exhaust or nothin’ coming out of it.. .so what- ever made it go, I don’t know.” EXAMPLE X-A3. TYPICAL RED-GLOWING RIM On July 28, 1952, at 12:11 A.M., UFO student August C. Roberts mounted the Civil Defense Sky watch Tower in Jersey City and with George Conger saw a glowing saucer-shaped vehicle which he studied with binoculars and also photographed (Stair and Gauvin 104). The part of the story of interest to us was the color change. There was a reddish brown dot in the center, and the rim was -133- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS TWO TERRORIZED BY ‘FLYING SAUCER’ Lawrence jumped into the bushes. The saucer hovered over the car, rocking as it did so. amf after half an hour moved slow- ly away to the west Photos show Kukla Green, lightest here and Mrs. I awrence and a mysterious object based on Anton Kukla and Mrs. Audrey I.aw- W. on a rock-hunting tour near Carnar- , Western Australia, said thev were ter- zed mt half an hour by a fluorescent tn flying saucer, which glowed with a ;ht reddish orange color. The object All hiunid the rar and KtAH and MtL ‘ Figure X-1 also reddish brown. When the saucer speeded up, the rim turned a bright glowing red. -134- A Scientific Analysis This story is just a reminder that among observers who differentiate between one part of the saucer and another, it is generally the bottom rim area that glows orange or red. Clearly showing the same thing is the sketch in the clipping presented as Figure X-l (next page), bearing a note from my secretary Agnes Dunkley to the effect that I should combine UFO watching with rock hunting. Clearly, Dr. Kukla was very impressed. Another red-rim account is the impressive incident con- densed in the following paragraph. On August 1, 1966, at Rushville, Indiana, several girls were playing outside at 7:45 P.M. Donna Glosser first noticed the UFO hovering over a tree half a block away. It was described as round, with an angular diameter four times that of the moon, and of a bright, silvery color. Although the outline was fuzzy, it appeared to be a solid object, and it rocked a little as it hovered. (It was therefore a saucer, not a sphere.) When Donna called to her friends to look at it, the object turned a reddish orange color, mainly on the “outer edge of the bottom,” and crossed to the other side of the road so fast it seemed to jump. This UFO was also witnessed by adults (Lorenzen, UFOs Over the Americas, 109). For a description of an orange rim, see Example III- 3B. EXAMPLE X-A4. THE SATURN’S RING. The following sighting is an excellent example of a typical Saturn-type UFO. The account provides evidence that UFOs with configurations other than the saucer also “do business in the rim” (Lorenzen, UFO, The Whole Story, 151-53). On February 24, 1958, at 3:05 A.M., three men were traveling in a car in the state of Bahia, Brazil. Their car began missing and coughing, and came to a complete stop. As they could not locate the cause of the trouble, they decided to sleep on the side of the road until morning. Soon they noticed a huge luminous object over- head. It glowed with a strange light, between a silver and a blue (silver-blue is fully ionized). At first it was -135- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS only a light, but as it got closer they could discern a solid object behind the glow. The object was two hemi- spheres, one above the other in normal orientation, but between them was a luminous disk spinning at high speed. The disk was the source of the brilliant glow sur- rounding the entire object. The “disk” is of course better described as the Saturn ring. The object came silently toward the car; when it was about 240 feet from the observers and about 90 feet above the ground, the three men were able to clearly discern its contours. The bottom was slightly smaller than the top hemisphere and slightly flattened. (The reader is encouraged to see the Trinidad Island photos in Lorenzen’s Flying Saucers: The Startling Evidence of the Invasion from Outer Space, plates 3A-3D.) The luminosity spread in a curtain of luminosity between the UFO and the ground below (excellent evidence that the UFO is focusing energy in a downward-directed beam). By this time the men were out of the car, but the frightened driver got back in. The other two decided to investigate and walked toward the strange object. As they approached the illuminated area, which was about twice the size of the UFO diameter of 60-75 feet, the object took off in a vertical climb (demonstrating more concern for the safety of the men than the men them- selves showed). It stopped at an altitude of about 600 feet and made a tight circle in the sky, its luminous focus on the ground tracing a larger circle than the object itself was tracing in the sky. Clearly, we note in passing, the UFO was banking to turn in a curvilinear path; this will be discussed in Section XI. The UFO stopped again, and one of the men, Dr. Pereira, noted that the Saturn ring was notched like a cogwheel whose indentations appeared to be oblique in relation to the edge of the ring. The object began to move again, in a series of high- speed maneuvers, sometimes moving vertically, some- times horizontally, in different directions, and sometimes in tight circles about the car. These maneuvers were described in terms such as “moving faster than light- ning” and “becoming a dot in the sky in a split second.” -136- A Scientific Analysis These obvious exaggerations simply show that this one- UFO circus act was performed with accelerations which were beyond the comprehension of the observers, and in conformity with our discussion in Section II. Then the object did a dead-leaf descent, stopping 9-12 feet from the ground. When the observers again tried to approach it, the UFO left at high speed. It had stayed one and a half hours. The car then started without difficulty. While these accounts quite clearly show a correlation between the location of certain UFO mechanisms and concentrations of ion illumination, comment is withheld until after the data on “saucer rings” has been presented in the following paragraphs. B. Saucer Rings EXAMPLE X-Bl. CHEMICALLY ALTERED RINGS Chemically altered rings are annular traces on the ground where a concentration of UFO radiation, of ion- izing strength, has induced chemical changes to take place, at the same time drying the ground to a crystal- line-powder form which will not absorb moisture. Often, as in this example, the ground remains phosphorescent for several days, meaning, of course, that the ring glows in the dark with some characteristic color. The explana- tion of the color glow is very similar to the explanation of the colors radiated by the atmosphere ionized by (the same) UFO radiation, namely, the light quanta generated by electrons dropping to lower energy levels; but in phosphorescent chemicals the process is a slow one. We refer back to the sighting first mentioned in Ex- ample III-B6. On the evening of November 2, 1971, about 7:00 p.m., on a farm near Delphos, Kansas, Ronald John- son, 16, saw a saucer either hovering extremely low or landed (APRO Bulletin, November-December 1971 and March-April 1972). It was “really bright—like a welder.” He watched it for about 5 minutes before it took off, and he suffered with eyeburn for a couple of days as a result. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, who came out at Ronald’s call in time to see the UFO in the process of -137- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS leaving, went with Ronald to the spot where the UFO was sighted by Ronald and found a glowing, phosphorescent, annular-ring-shaped area on the ground. They noted that portions of adjacent trees were also glowing. The soil in the ring was dried out, while inside and outside of the ring the soil remained muddy. Thirty-two days later the soil of the ring was still so dry that snow melted very slowly, thus showing the location of the ring. Figure X-2, a photograph taken from the November-December 1971 Bulletin, shows the position of the ring relative to the tree. It is clear that the UFO could not have been of larger diameter than the ring. Clearly the location of the saucer ring relative to the low-hovering UFO which caused it corresponds to the annular location of the bladed mecha- nisms described in Examples X-Al and X-A2. The altered crystalline grain or oxide powder nature of the soil remains, perhaps indefinitely, but the phos- phorescence lasted only four days. Investigator Clarence D. Tull revealed that one of the strangest (or most inexplicable) of all UFO phenomena was also observed in this sighting—the UFO jitter. Ronald said that the base of the object seemed stationary, but that the upper portion of the object was (or seemed to be) moving or vibrating from side to side, or possibly up and down. I inserted the “seemed to be” because I maintain that the UFO jitter is more apt to be an optical phenomenon than a vibrating-mass phenomenon. It may also be a valid clue to the nature of force field generation. EXAMPLE X-B2. GRASS RINGS Figure X-3 shows what I am calling a grass ring. At 11:30 A.M. on September 1, 1974, Mr. Edwin Fuhr spotted a symmetrical (round) bun-shaped UFO hovering only a foot off the ground. He was riding his swather, cutting the rape (seed) crop which is the tall grass shown in the photo. He dismounted and approached on foot to within about 15 feet of the object, where he could notice that the grass beneath the object was being swirled down. The UFO was also turning, but which direction was not specified. In a couple of minutes he returned -138- A Scientific Analysis to the swather, at which time he noted four more similar UFOs, all hovering low. In about 15 minutes they all left at once, on vertical trajectories. Where each had hovered the grass was swirled down, in a clockwise direction, in an annular area, leaving the grass in the center standing upright. Figure X-2. The ring described in the Kansas landing case. Figure X-3. Edwin Fuhr indicates where one of the objects hovered. – 139- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS EXAMPLE X-B3. PRESSURE RINGS Pressure rings, or Camrose rings, are the markings on the ground found near Camrose, Alberta, Canada (Lorenzen, UFOs Over the Americas, 30-31). Although no UFO was seen making one, 3 out of 4 local farmers had previously reported UFOs in the area, according to APRO Investigator W.K. Allen. Briefly, the rings were annular bands or imprints pressed into the turf. The rings were about 6 inches wide, varying from 33 to 36 feet in diameter. Another feature was that where the pasture had considerable slope, the ring there imprinted was elliptical, with the long axis in the direction of maximum slope. The turf was very firm, as Investigator Allen was unable to make an imprint on it with his heel, which he estimated gave a test pressure of 3500 pounds per square foot. Since the rings had an area of about 50 square feet, this suggests a UFO weight in excess of 175,000 pounds. Allen supposed that a UFO might have impacted the ground to have left such an impression. This supposition, however, is contradicted by the evi- dence of the elliptic ring which must have been made by a hovering UFO, perhaps in leaving, when the thrust is greater than the weight. Also, large-diameter circular landing gear fits no UFO pattern. My conclusion is that the rings were directly imprinted on the soil by an annular force field having a narrow focus. This concept fits this specific data as well as the saucer and Saturn UFO pattern of annular force fields. While the predominant feature of these rings was the depression of the ground level, the expected chemical action was also present, as evidenced by the imprinted bands turning an off-white color. Exactly where we find the force field we also find the evidence of energetic waves capable of ionization and consequent chemical ac- tion. In this correlation lies the importance of the Camrose rings. -140- A Scientific Analysis C. Discussion The fact that a saucer ring on sloping ground was elliptical in shape with the long axis running uphill shows that it was pressed into the ground by the an- nular-shaped circular force field from a UFO hovering in a horizontal attitude. We therefore conclude that they were all made the same way, by force field impressions. If we judge the focusing of a saucer force field by the Delphos, Kansas, ring or the Camrose rings, which are narrow, then we conclude that the focus can be sharp, but it does not follow that this is always true, as will be demonstrated by an example shortly. The narrow saucer ring consisting of chemically al- tered earth indicates that a hard wave radiation accompanies the force field and that the hard wave radiation can have the same degree of focusing as the force field. My first reaction was that perhaps the force field waves and the hard wave radiation occurring in the same place were one and the same phenomenon. This would be a neat explanation if it were true, for then we would know that the ion field about a UFO always occurs wherever the force field is above the minimum intensity required for ionization. Following a little homework on this matter, I concluded that such an explanation is oversimplified and untrue. The conclusion is based on a calculation of energy transfer from the force field wave front to a molecular electron. The cal- culation shows that the energy transfer fails by orders of magnitude to account for molecular ionization, i.e., projecting the electron outside the molecule. While the wave front may give a strong push, it passes too quickly to impart enough impulse and momentum to dislodge the electron. It seems we will therefore have to be satisfied with the idea that the propulsive waves and the ionizing waves are two separate entities that (more or less) go out together. The hard waves could be ordinary electro- magnetic (EM) waves of x-ray strength, as concluded in the study of UFO radiation discussed in Section IV. The hard waves could provide some form of supporting -141 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS wave mechanics for the generation of force field waves, or simply be a by-product of the force field generation. The dual-wave picture, based on the ring evidence that both wave types are pointed in the same direction, nevertheless indicates that we should expect atmospheric ionization to be greatest where the force field is strong- est. This is consistent with observation. Thus it becomes evident why the red and orange ionization that is char- acteristic of low-power operation is so often observed to be concentrated under the rim of the vehicle where the force field apparently emerges. The Saturn UFO cited in Example X-A3 provides an example in which a parallel observation can be made, concerning high-power operation. That vehicle was doing high-powered maneuvers, and the notched ring was cited as the source of the illumination. This probably just meant that the illumination, or ionization, was strongest near the ring. Either the observer’s citation of the ring as the source of the illumination, or my interpretation of his observation, can be taken to single out the ring as the source of the force field and hard radiation, giving a consistent picture of the force field coming from an annular area in both the Saturn and saucer UFOs, and a consistent picture of the ion-illumination showing where the radiations are concentrated, as well as a strong suggestion as to whence they are emanating. Detailed observations of saucer and Saturn UFO con- struction are meager, but the data available indicates that the saucer’s ring of plates and the Saturn’s notched ring are located where the field action is greatest, and below which saucer rings are created. If the plates in Example X-Al were not handling a lot of power, one wouldn’t have been smoking. It seems evident that these compo- nents have something to do with processing the force field, perhaps focusing it, but just what they do and how is still a mystery. We now return to Example X-A3 to discuss the cur- tain of light extending from the ring to the illuminated focus on the ground, which had a diameter of nearly two UFO diameters. As most readers will realize, it is not just an electromagnetic beam, as from a search light. -142 – A Scientific Analysis It is a column of ionized air, probably activated by x-ray photons accompanying the force field. Its importance to UFO theory is that it demonstrates, by specific example, how very adequately UFOs can focus their field power. Without the ability to focus the force field, the field would have little value to a UFO. Suppose that their propulsive field had spherical symmetry. That is, suppose that it had equal strength in all directions. Then the UFO could descend to earth on a radial vertical path, or leave earth in a radial direction, but it could not maneuver or even travel horizontally. UFOs must and can point their force field in any desired direction, an ability which requires both focusing and the ability to point the beam. Anything that is focused can be repre- sented by an arrow showing the direction in which it is pointed. If the length of the arrow also represents the resulting beam strength, the arrow is called a vector. It is very proper to represent the UFO force field by such a pointing arrow, or vector. The UFO then has control by pointing the vector. In modern missile terminology this is called “thrust-vector control,” and I assure the reader that all UFOs use it, as will be made clear in the Section XI. At this point, however, we are just es- tablishing the prerequisite that UFOs do focus the field. The best example demonstrating a broad range of focusing capability has been saved until last. It is taken from Jacques and Janine Vallee’s Challenge To Science (40), which presents sketches presented in Figure X-4. The observer noted that the object had the shape of a hemi- sphere, or inverted bowl, and that as it hovered what he at first thought to be jets were in reality formed by a luminous cone (a), that opened up under the object like an umbrella (b), giving the impression that it was “rising, on luminous flames.” Of course, the reader now knows it is rising above cold plasma, not flames. The object then tilted, base toward the viewer after takeoff (c), and while the object was going away the plasma zone was shaped as (d). -143 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS Figure X-4. UFO Focusing Sequence, (a) As first seen, (b) Umbrella focus, (c) Facing away, (d) Leaving. This amazing sequence indicates that this UFO (ap- proximately a saucer) could: 1. Sharply focus, resulting in a plasma cone (a); 2. Broadly focus, as in (b), the umbrella act; 3. Could exhibit a plasma zone shaped like an inverted gas flame (d), suggesting that the plasma is swept inward by the axially symmet- ric air flow about the vehicle; and 4. Point the focused field in any direction it chooses (by vehicle tilting). This UFO indeed demonstrated versatility. For a per- fect verification of the last instance in the sequence, see Photograph 1 in Hynek’s The UFO Experience, which shows position (d) in Figure X-4 exactly. A sharp eye can even see that the plasma in the photo is swept a little to the left, indicating that the domed saucer shown has a component of motion to the right. – 144- Section XI Saucer Dynamics A. Data The UFO Experience (Hynek 100-08) gives one of the best available descriptions of the important UFO chase across Ohio and into Pennsylvania on the morning of April 17, 1966. Officers Dale Spaur and Wilber Neff, who were in one police car, and Officer Wayne Huston, who was in a second, described the appearance and actions of the saucer-type UFO after engaging in the chase. The chase was mostly pre-dawn, and the plasma cone, as well as the saucer dome, were plainly visible. Officer Huston said it was shaped something like an ice cream cone. Figure XI-1 shows three schematics of the officers’ descriptions and sketches. STARTING Figure XI-1 The officers said that the vehicle tilted “forward” to start and “backward” to stop. At low speed the cone was symmetric, like the kettledrum case, but at high speed they reported that the cone was swept backward, thus confirming (one more time) that the cone was a plasma, and the UFO a saucer. -145- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS B. Mechanics “Flying” saucers, whether disks, lenticular-shaped ve- hicles, inverted bowls, straw hats, conical hats, or what- have-you, have an axis of symmetry normal to the plane of the saucer or disk and, of course, passing through the center of it. Suppose, utilizing as evidence the saucer cones and other symmetrically ionized regions as well as the saucer ring data from Section X, we make the totally natural assumption that the propulsive force field is ax- ially symmetric also. In strict conformity with the laws of mechanics, then, the action of the force field can be determined by replacing it with a force vector, which is an arrow with a length equal to the force (to an arbi- trary scale), drawn on the axis of symmetry and pointing upward to the center of the disk. In Figure XI-2 this force vector is labeled thrust. The UFO weight is another vector quantity to be drawn pointed straight downward from the center of gravity, assumed to be at the geometric center. According to the physicist d’Alembert, there is an “inertia force,” equal and opposite to the product of vehicle mass and acceleration, which resists acceleration. Using this convention, d’Alembert’s principle states that if all applicable force arrows are joined end-to-end with the head of one touching the tail of another (vector addition), the arrows form a closed geometrical figure. This means that the vector summation is zero, and all the forces are in perfect balance. This principle is illustrated in Figure XI-2, which refers to the same three levels of flight that is addressed in Figure XI-1. STARTING Figure XI-2. STOPPING -146- A Scientific Analysis In the starting and stopping diagrams, the speed is low and the aerodynamic forces neglected. The only ad- vantage of force diagrams, as applied to the UFO, is that they are simple in concept and educational. For example, we see in the center diagram why the UFO cannot use the atmosphere for flight like a bird or an aircraft. The aerodynamic “lift” points downward! The saucer disk is tilted the wrong way for positive lift. We can also learn from the center diagram, which has no inertia force because the acceleration is zero, that a slight saucer tilt is necessary to overcome the small drag and maintain velocity. The UFO force diagram is practically useless in solving for the actual values of the forces, however, because we do not know the UFO weight. The system I have used many years for the analysis of test missiles, flying platforms, spacecraft, and uncon- ventional craft (UFOs) is to divide each force vector by the weight of the craft, transforming each to an acceler- ation vector in g units. Not only does this method overcome the problem of not knowing the weight, but for vehicles on a level flight path the diagram becomes a highly useful acceleration-performance diagram giving numerical results for all quantities. Instead of the weight vector, we now have a unit vector pointing straight downward from the UFO center, signifying the 1 g ac- celeration of earth gravity. The thrust becomes thrusting acceleration in g units, pointing upward along the axis of symmetry, and the inertia force is replaced by an acceleration vector pointing in the opposite sense. The 1-2-3 procedure is simple: 1. Draw UFO schematic at an arbitrary tilt angle; put in centerline, 4 2. Draw in a unit vertical vector pointing down- ward from the center. 3. For horizontal acceleration, draw horizontal line from (bottom) tip of unit vector to the 4 / put- ting the arrow head tip-to-tip with the head of the unit vector. The horizontal acceleration is – 147- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS the length and direction of this vector, in g’s. The length on the 4 is the UFO thrust in g’s and is in the proper direction. Figure XI-3 shows a typical example with UFO accel- erating horizontally, tilted 30 degrees from the horizontal. Figure XI-3. Of course, the UFO uses a lot of thrust just to hover, but in this case for an increase in thrust of only 15 percent the UFO can accelerate almost like a drag racer, at 0.577 g. If it tilts 45 degrees it beats the racer with an horizontal acceleration of 1 g, at a thrust increase of 41.4 percent. Thus a UFO can go somewhere quickly without much more thrust than used to hover. The more extreme accelerations generally involve an upward-slop- ing trajectory. C. Sudden Reversals Consider the case of a saucer traveling from left to right at a speed of 100 mph in level flight. Let it be tilted 84.3 degrees with respect to the horizontal, as shown in Figure XI-4. Initial velocity Final velocity 100 mph – 100 aph Figure XI-4. Saucer Making 10 g Reversal. – 148- A Scientific Analysis The horizontal acceleration, Ah, is Ah = -tan 84.3 x 1g = -10 x lg = -10g or ten times Earth gravity. The minus value merely in- dicates that acceleration is opposite to initial velocity, or the vehicle is slowing down. If we take g as 32.17 ft/sec2, 10 g is 321.7 ft/sec2. The vehicle comes to a stop in 146.7/321.7 – 0.456 seconds. The vehicle decelerates smoothly through the stopped position, remaining stopped no time whatever. In another 0.456 seconds, it is back up to a velocity of 100 mph going in the opposite direction. The elapsed time of 0.912 second is a bit short for the observer. In less than a second, before he fully realizes what is going on, the vehicle has gone from 100 mph in one direction to 100 mph in the opposite direction! In the same ex- ample, the time involved from 10 mph to the right, to 10 mph to the left is less than one tenth of a second. This is less than the time it takes our thoughts to follow what happens. Who can blame the observer for calling this an instant reversal, particularly since the instant of time at which zero velocity occurred was a true instant, a point in time with zero duration, dividing the forward velocity from the reverse? Yet no law of mechanics, that branch of physics dealing with force, mass, acceleration, and velocity, has been violated. The reversal of direction catches the observer by surprise because Earth vehicles—wagons, bicycles, and motorcycles, cars, airplanes, and even helicopters—char- acteristically make U-turns to reverse direction. The ob- server is then surprised and mystified by the sudden, silent, and swift doubling back over the same course and realizes something unusual, or at least unfamiliar to him, has occurred. The sudden reversal, a maneuver becoming an increasingly familiar part of the UFO pattern, is ex- plainable in a straightforward manner by the standard laws of mechanics, or physics if you prefer. -149- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS D. Bank-To-Turn Maneuvers It is evident that UFOs’ bank-to-turn-when-circling ma- neuvers suit their purpose, as we can see in the follow- ing sightings. EXAMPLE XI-D1 The first is a sighting by the scientists of the Aero- nautical Division of the General Mills Corporation, as reported by Major Edward Ruppelt. One reason for se- lecting this example is that I had a working relationship with the same people when the Applied Materials and Physics Division of the Langley Research Center con- tracted with General Mills to build the world’s largest balloon, which we used as a rocket-launch platform at altitudes in excess of 100,000 feet. They related this and other sightings to me at that time (1965). I also liked the way the General Mills scientists stood up to Ruppelt, head of Project Bluebook, when he visited them in Min- neapolis on January 14, 1952, in the middle of a cold wave and blizzard. Having directed the launching and tracking of all the Skyhook balloons prior to Ruppelt’s visit, they were familiar with the appearance of their balloons in all weather conditions, altitudes, and lighting. They knew meteorology, aerodynamics, and astronomy, and they also were very familiar with UFOs. As Ruppelt put it, the thing that made the General Mills scientists so sure that UFOs existed was that they had seen so many of them. Ruppelt said, “Every time I suggested some natural explanation for UFOs I just about found myself in a fresh snowdrift.” In a daylight sighting on January 16, 1951, two people from General Mills and four from Artesia, New Mexico, were watching a Skyhook balloon from the Artesia air- port. After watching the balloon for about an hour, one of them spotted two tiny specks on the northwest hori- zon. The group watched the specks move in quickly, and in a few seconds they could see that they were two round, dull-white objects flying in close formation. The two objects headed almost straight toward the balloon -150- A Scientific Analysis and then circled it. To circle the balloon, the UFOs tipped on edge in a steep banking maneuver, and the observers saw that the objects were disk-shaped. This excellent opportunity to determine the size of the saucers by comparison with the known balloon size resulted an estimate of 60 feet in diameter. EXAMPLE XI-D2 The second sighting to be offered in evidence of banked turns is the famous one usually referred to as the Tremonton, Utah, film. The film was shot by Navy Chief Photographer, Warrant Officer Delbert Newhouse in July 1952 (Ruppelt 220). The Newhouses were on a cross-country trip; when they passed near Tremonton on a bright sunshiny day, they happened to see a group of about a dozen objects milling around in the sky. They stopped the car and got out for a good look, and Newhouse reported his immediate impression of the ob- jects as flying disks. It should be pointed out that New- house, with 2000 hours flying time as an aerial photographer during his 21 years with the Navy, was in effect a professional aerial observer, a unique qualifica- tion for making the sighting. Realizing that in all his experiences he had never seen anything like this, he turned the turret on his movie camera to a 3-inch telephoto lens and filmed the spec- tacle in color. In good movie style, he held the camera steady while the disks did tight circling and other man- euvers in his field of view. Then, when one left the group he stopped the camera in front of it, letting it fly through the field of view to get its angular velocity. In short, he did a perfect job. When Ruppelt received the film, he ran it 20 to 30 times, then called in fighter pilots for their opinions. After watching the objects circle and dart about the cloudless sky, their unanimous and unqualified comment was that no airplane could do what the UFOs were clearly doing. The film had already been studied by Navy analysts, who concluded that the disks were neither airplanes nor birds, but were intelligently controlled vehicles! -151 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS I had the good fortune to see the Tremonton film way back in the 1950s. I saw it repeatedly at normal speed, slow motion, forward, backward, and stop motion, just as we studied Wallops Island movies of the research vehicles in flight. My conclusions were similar to those of the other analysts, but contained an additional, third, point: 1. The vehicle maneuvers could not be replicated by earth vehicles. The film was good evidence of the existence of saucers. 2. The maneuvers indicated impressive propulsion capability in terms of accelerations and energy expended. They appeared to use energy as though there were no allocations for tomorrow, zipping around in a playful manner like cavort- ing lambs. 3. They banked to turn. What Ruppelt took to be fading in and out I was sure was the presen- tation of broadside and edge views due to banking. In stop motion, one could see the elliptic in-between in some frames. I had already concluded, back in 1952-53, from anal- ysis and experiments on flying platforms, that saucers and other UFOs bank to turn. Now, here, in 1956, was the visual evidence on film. From these examples, we can see that, in addition to doubling back on their tracks in a reversal of direction, UFOs also engage in circling and general curvilinear maneuvers. They bank to turn like an airplane, except they use a field force in place of an aerodynamic force. Otherwise, the mechanics are similar. Everyone who has ridden airplanes knows that when they bank (one wing tip up, the other down) they turn. The force that turns them is the horizontal component of lift, at right angles to the flight path. In our triangular acceleration diagrams, it is the horizontal component of acceleration which makes them turn. The acceleration -152- A Scientific Analysis diagrams we have already used solves the problem for both the airplane and the UFO for any level flight turn. Figure XI-1 illustrates this principle for the case of a 60-degree banking turn. Airplane accelerations Saucer accelerations Figure XI-5. Sixty-degree banking turns. The diagrams were constructed by drawing a 1 g vertical vector to the scale of 1 inch equals 1 g, then a horizontal line to the bottom of the 1 g vector, and a line inclined at the bank angle drawn to the top of the 1g vector completes the triangle of accelerations. As most pilots and engineers know, a level flight 60-degree bank- ing turn must be made by “pulling” a 2g lifting accel- eration (which is defined as being along a line of symmetry which tilts with the ship). As the diagram shows, this gives a 1g vertical acceleration to counteract gravity, and a horizontal acceleration of /3g or 1.732 g expressed as a decimal fraction. This number is the tangent of 60 degrees, while 2 is the secant of 60 de- grees. These trigonometric relations, which are derived from the triangle of accelerations, hold for any bank angle except 90 degrees where the triangle disappears and the turning acceleration cannot be obtained. Using 0 for bank angle, the horizontal acceleration Ah and the total or lifting acceleration At are given by Ah = g tangent 0 and Aj = g secant 0 -153- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS These relations are summarized for a few angles in the following table: HORIZONTAL BANKING TURN ACCELERATIONS, g UNITS. bank angle,
6 degrees 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 85 vertical
acceler. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lifting
acceler. «
sec 6 1 1.0154 1.0642 1.1547 13054 15560 2 2.9238 5.7588 11.474 horizontal
acceler. –
tan 0 0 0.1763 3640 0.5773 3391 1.1918 1.7321 2.7475 5.6713 11.43 Simply substituting tilt angle for bank angle, this above table is also valid for low speed rectilinear (straight line) flight, as in reversals. As an illustration of the use of turning accelerations, let us find the turning radius for a UFO with a level flight velocity of 1,000 ft/sec banking at 80 degrees. Utilizing equation (1) from Section II-C in transposed form and taking g – 32.17 ft/sec2 the turning radius is r = v2 AhS (1000)2 (5.6713X32.17) = 5481 feet If we have a photo of a UFO that is known to be in a level flight turning maneuver, the turning accelera- tion, Ah, can be estimated from the apparent bank angle and the above table or, if the angle can be obtained precisely, by Ah – tan 6. However, there are problems. One problem with most UFO photographs is that the horizontal (or vertical) reference is not accurately known, or is even nonexistent. In the latter case we may be reduced to assuming one edge of the camera was held level to within perhaps 10 degrees, etc. Another problem is that the saucer has not obliged us with an edge-on view from which the angle can be measured. We may be estimating the angle merely by appearances and can- not expect to be closer than, say, the nearest 10 degrees. -154- A Scientific Analysis Within the limitations just stated, the UFO literature contains many photos from which turning performance can be estimated. For example, UFO, The Whole Story contains four pages of UFOs at various tilt angles (Lorenzen 152+). If we assume these UFOs are in level flight, or in level flight turns, then within the limitations expressed in the preceding paragraph, we can estimate the horizontal, or turning accelerations as follows: 1. The first photo presents an edge-on view of a saucer tilted at 50 10 degrees, and from the above table Ah= 1.2 ± 0.1g. 2. The second photo has two saucers, one tilted about 60 degrees and the other about 80 de- grees, to within 10 degrees. The corresponding accelerations are Ah= 1.7 ±0.2 g and Ah = 5.7 ± about 1.0 g 3. On the third page the UFO appears to be banked at 90 degrees, a vertical bank. This is the one case for which the system does not work. 4. The last photo is so far from an edge view that we judge the bank angle from appearances, which includes ellipticity. It looks like 40 de- grees, giving a ballpark Ah of 0.8 g, which may be grossly in error. All of this discussion indicates that at moderate accel- erations airplane and UFO turning performances are much alike, following the same laws of mechanics. The difference between the two is often one of degrees, based on differences in force-to-weight capabilities, structural limitations, and occupant limitations. A passenger jet plane can pull only about 4 g before structural damage -155- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS begins to occur. Acrobatic and fighter planes are de- signed to withstand 10 g without structural damage, but at about this point the pilot blacks out, so 10 g amounts to a practical limit for aircraft. In Section II-C, a UFO turning acceleration of 122 g was estimated from visual observation, illustrating well the superior maneuver capa- bility of the UFO, compared to aircraft. The point is, the g’s they can utilize is, at the minimum, of an order of magnitude greater than that available to aircraft. E. UFO Takeoff Dynamics EXAMPLE XI-EI At 5:00 P.M. on August 24, 1967, Ron Hydes was on his motorcycle on the highway from Melbourne to Sidney when he was blinded by a brilliant light coming from overhead (Lorenzen, UFO, The Whole Story, 179-81). Stop- ping, Hydes dismounted and wiped his eyes. He saw a typical saucer-shaped vehicle hovering 3 to 4 feet above ground level about 100 feet to the left of the road. The saucer was silvery on top, showing a cupola, and was darker underneath. He also spotted two humanoids ap- proaching him, about 5 feet tall and dressed in shiny, metallic-colored coveralls and dark yet transparent helmets. Hydes panicked, jumped on his bike, and took off down the highway at fall throttle, making about 100 mph. The UFO was soon after him. Hydes realized this when he heard it hum as it passed over his head at an altitude of 100 to 200 feet, and then preceded him down the highway a couple hundred feet in front. Not liking the situation, Hydes slowed down as did the saucer, and the both came to a stop. However, in a moment or two the saucer tilted appreciably (base toward Hyde) and left rapidly on a flight path or trajectory making an angle of about 45 degrees with the horizontal. EXAMPLE XI-E2 In Example X-B2 (with the grass rings) Mr. Edwin Fuhr encountered 5 UFOs hovering at only one foot -156- A Scientific Analysis above ground level, and swirling down the grass in an annular pattern. They all took off simultaneously on vertical trajectories. Steep trajectories, as steep as in Example XI-EI or even steeper, are commonly used by UFOs in takeoff from low-elevation hovering conditions. Indeed, the most common is that of Example XI-E2, a vertical trajectory obtained by increasing the lifting g to some value higher than the 1 g used to hover, without any tilt of the UFO. There seems to be a logical reason for this, for if the UFO is hovering within a foot or two of the earth as they sometimes do and the UFO is relatively flat on the bottom like a saucer, it would need to acquire some altitude before tilting appreciably to avoid striking the ground. They can of course choose their takeoff g, AR and given sufficient ground clearance they can choose the tilt angle, 0, to accelerate in any vertical angular direction, B, that they please. £ is measured with respect to the horizontal, and 0 is zero when the plane of the saucer is horizontal. Clearly, for takeoff with 0-0, B- 90 degrees, a vertical acceleration, for there is no horizontal acceleration when 0=0. For any combination of lifting acceleration, Ap and 0, the assumption will be made that both Aj and 0 are quickly adjusted and maintained at constant values during takeoff. Then B is not only the acceleration direction, but the constant angle the flight path makes with the horizontal as well. Takeoff dynamics is represented graphically in Figure Figure XI-6. Takeoff Dynamics. -157- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS In sketch (a) of Figure XI-6, we see the triangle of accelerations at the moment of takeoff with the saucer tilted at angle 0. We also see the lifting acceleration, Ap with its two components, Ah and Ay. In sketch (b) we subtract earth’s 1 g from Ay, giving the vector Ay net as shown. Ay net and Ah are now the components of the resultant vector OP drawn in to intersect the tip of Ay net, and making the angle B with the horizontal. The vector OP gives the vehicle acceleration in magnitude and direction. The angle fi also gives the (straight line) flight-path direction, and continues to do so as long as all parameters such as 0 , Al, and earth g may be considered constants. While solutions may be obtained by drawing sketches to scale, a simpler and more accurate method for those familiar with the definitions of trigonometry is illustrated. From sketch (a): A = A- cos6 V 1 and Ah – Aj sin0 From sketch (b): tan p = A net V Ah Ay – 1 A^cos 0-1 A, sin 0 A 1 For example, if A1 – 10, and 0-30 degrees, tan p = 10 cos 30-1 10 sin 30 8.667- 1 5 1.533 P = 56.87 degrees The following table gives the flight-path angle for a range of values of 0 and Ap -158- A Scientific Analysis TRAJECTORY ANGLE, B, DEGREES Lift-Off Acceleration, Ai, in g’s 1 6 K =
90-0 2 3 5 10 20 0 90 90 90 90 90 90 10 70.29 75.08 77.52 78.9 79.48 80 20 52.12 60.57 65.19 67.84 68.97 70 30 36.21 46.81 53.1 56.87 58.5 60 40 28.02 33.95 41.37 46.02 48.09 50 50 10.56 22 30.03 35.32 37.73 40 I 60 0 10.89 19.11 24.79 27.46 30 ! A column of K defined as 90 minus 0 is also given. This is the inclination of the axis of symmetry, or thrust axis, from the horizontal. Now we compare the high-g values of C with K and find them nearly equal. This means that at high-g takeoff, where earth gravity lowers B only slightly, the UFO goes almost in the direction its axis of symmetry is pointed. F. Optimum Trajectory Theory UFOs are often seen traveling on a level trajectory. At other times they take off with extreme acceleration on a steep trajectory. In the latter case, while the UFO usually goes out of sight in seconds so that its destination is actually unknown, it is my hypothesis that it is on a highly efficient ballistic arc which takes it economically from the starting point A to some destination B which is either out of sight beyond the horizon or a space point or orbit destination. As is well known, the most efficient ballistic arc is obtained with the highest possible acceleration, adjusting the accelerating time to obtain the velocity required for the mission; that is, according to how far away destina- -159- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS tion B may be or to whatever near-earth point in space B may be located. The UFO vehicles seem exactly suited to the high acceleration requirements of the most efficient ballistic arc. In fact, they are sometimes accused of the impulsive attainment of velocity which would give the ideal ballistic arc. Appendix 2 gives a brief study of level-path and ballistic-path travel for ranges which are small compared to planet diameter. Impulse is the product of thrust and time. It is shown that the minimum impulse requirement to go from point A to point B by level trajectory is obtained by accelerating at 1 g for half of the trip and decelerating at 1 g for the other half. This requires that the UFO tilt its thrust axis 45 degrees. For the assump- tions made, such as neglecting air drag, see Appendix 2. This result applies for any planetary or lunar value of g as long as local g is used. Again, an acceleration of one earth g is greater than that of a drag racer, so even for level trajectories the high values of acceleration and corresponding high speeds are compatible with econ- omy and time saving and with general UFO observa- tions. The total impulse per unit mass imparted to a vehicle in order to accomplish a mission is known in rocket parlance as ideal velocity, V.. The mission energy cost is proportional to V.. Letting g be local gravity, and d the trip distance, the level-path trip requirement in terms of V. is proportional to the square root of g times d: Vj- 2/T/gd (A2-7a) This equation shows a tendency for the longer, faster trip to be most economical. Of course the UFO may introduce a constant velocity mid-trip, possibly limiting speed for observational rea- sons. The trip is then a little off-optimum energy-wise and time-wise. In comparison with the ballistic trajectory this is then “the scenic low route.” The most economic ballistic-arc trip has a very high acceleration, giving, as nearly as possible, an impulsive -160- A Scientific Analysis start and stop. For short trips of a few hundred miles or less, where g may be considered to have a constant magnitude and direction, the optimum trajectory path angle is fi = 45 degrees. From an inspection of the trajectory-path-angle table, the thrust angle inclination is a little greater than the path angle. The cost of the ideal ballistic trajectory in terms of ViZ from point A to point B, at distance d and at the same elevation as A, meeting the requirement that the UFO will come to a soft landing or hovering condition at fi, is shown to be: Vj= 2/gd (A2-8a) Comparing this result with equation (A2-7a) we can see that the optimum short-range horizontal flight re- quires more impulse than the equivalent best ballistic arc by a factor of /2. The time in transit on the level trajectory is also greater than the time on a ballistic arc by the same factor, /T (see Appendix 2). Thus we see that the mechanistically oriented high-arc route (with peak altitude tending to be about one fourth of d) requires both less impulse and less time than the less spectacular, scenic low route. It should therefore not surprise us too much that the UFO most often takes off “like a scalded cat” on a steep trajectory. Such a trajec- tory is the beet trajectory to go from one place to another when the vehicle is neither earth- nor atmo- sphere-bound. Irrespective of path optimization, it is clear that when the destination B is a space point having an altitude greater than the range (distance along the earth’s surface) a trajectory arc having an elevation angle 6 somewhere between 45 and 90 degrees is needed to reach it. Thus a desire to go to a high-elevation point in space could well account for the very high-angle trajectories. This comment sees particularly applicable to a UFO traveling on a highly energetic vertical trajectory. In summary, it may be said that the most economical UFO travel is at very high acceleration and speed. What may look like an extravagant use of energy is actually -161 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS economical because the thrust duration is shortened more than the acceleration is raised, and time is saved besides. The high-arc trajectory is more economical and quicker to destination than a low-altitude, level-path trajectory. G. Platform Experiments In 1951 I had lunch on numerous occasions with old friend Dr. Charles Zimmerman, a stability and control scientist-engineer recently returned to the Langley Re- search Center from employment in industry where he had designed and supervised the construction and tests of a circular-wing airplane. However, the thing that in- terested me more was the invention by Zimmerman of the idea or principle that a man could balance and fly with a thrust vector (lifting force) attached to his feet. By tilting his feet he should achieve both balance and control of his motion in space. From the triangle of accelerations as discussed earlier, it was clear that control of motion would be achievable if the balance charac- teristics were favorable. Intrigued with the idea, I soon started investigating. I first built a model that looked like a flying coat hanger. It was supported in flight by an air jet which served as the thrust vector, and controlled in angular attitudes by auxiliary jets. This I flew around my office by remote control. Next, I rigged up a simple simulator involving man in the proper way. I placed a bowling ball on the floor and a piece of plywood on the ball, and stood on it—a three-dimensional rolla-rolla, although I had never heard of such a device at that time. Although it was difficult to balance, I practiced nights in the winter of ’51 until I could watch a TV program while on the ball. I knew I was ready for a serious test. I had at my disposal a vast supply of 200 psi com- pressed air which I normally used to operate a super- sonic wind tunnel used to test ram jet engines prior to their free-flight testing. I had the shops build a super- sonic nozzle with a l^-inch-diameter throat. This was bolted to a 19×29-inch piece of plywood to which the -162- A Scientific Analysis feet would be fastened with cleats and rollerskate straps. A borrowed parachute harness, an overhead safety line, and two lengths of over-age fire hose donated by the Langley Fire Department to connect the nozzle to the air supply completed the equipment. The experiments were carried out first indoors, then outdoors in free flight to the extent limited by the length of the air hoses. Figure XI-7 shows the outdoor rig with me posing comfortably (with overcoat and gloves) as I hover in mid-air for this photo, which, on declassification of the results in 1955, was published July 9, 1955, on the cover of the Illustrated London News accompanied by the following caption and text: A MODERN MERCURY: STANDING MOTIONLESS IN MID-AIR, ABLE TO FLY OFF IN ANY DIRECTION AT A SLIGHT INCLINATION OF HIS BODY, A PILOT TESTS NEW U.S. VERTICAL TAKEOFF DEVICE OR JET PLAT- FORM. One of the most intriguing developments arising from the intensive modern research into vertical takeoff methods is that of directional control of wingless aircraft by means of weight- shifting. The man in the photograph above is standing on a “jet-platform,” in effect a kind of aerial ski attached to his feet; a jet of air from an attached hose provides lift, and to hover in mid-air he has only to remain stationary. To move away he inclines his body in the required directions… Perhaps the reader begins to see some similarities between the platform and the UFO. Figure XI-8, a movie frame, shows me taking off on the indoor rig. The air-jet is visible for the first few seconds while the moisture is being blown from the air hoses. The safety lines immediately become slack after takeoff, so the flight is free. Another frame, Figure XI-9, shows the executions of lateral translations with sudden reversals, analogous to those of the UFO as described in Section XI-C. However, the motion pattern here is exactly the equivalent of the UFO motion variously described as a pendulum motion, the falling leaf, or the UFO rock. With these experiments I soon began to realize that I -163- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS probably had the first valid dynamic simulation of a UFO—that the UFO, the platform, and similar thrust-vec- tor-controlled devices operate with the same balance of forces and triangles of acceleration that we have ad- dressed in this section. The pendulum motion was a case in point for simulation study. It dissipated energy in lateral motion and gave a fine, or vernier, yet quick- acting control of altitude, always tending to reduce it. It gently lowered altitude. This probably explained why UFOs so often approach the hover altitude while rocking. They are using the rocking motion to lower altitude while maintaining a small excess of thrust until they are satisfied with their position. The silver-dollar wobble was also tried. This was the saucer motion observed by Ray Hawks of Boulder, Col- orado, for example, when a silvery disk dropped out of the cloud cover and descended nearby, doing the wobble as it stabilized its altitude in hovering. The wobble was found to dissipate energy by an almost unnoticeable circular motion and served as a vernier altitude control also. The effects of both the rock and the wobble may also be explained on a force basis. The effective lift force is the product of lift and the cosine of the tilt angle, 0. The effective reduction of lift therefore varies as 1 – cos0. In the rock, 1 – cos0 varies with time, and a time average is effective. In fact, 1 – cos0 passes through zero twice per rocking cycle. In the wobble, on the other hand, 0 and 1 – cos© can be constant at its maximum value. The wobble is therefore the stronger control. Apparently the rock and the wobble both give a finer, faster control of altitude than can be obtained by an adjustment of UFO thrust by a buildup or decrease of force field intensity. The field intensity change, by all evidence such as the buildup of the hum, requires sec- onds to accomplish, whereas a wobble or rock can be initiated in a fraction of a second. The reader may wonder, “Why the problem?” To discuss this very briefly, consider the helicopter. When within one rotor diameter of the ground, the helicopter encounters extra aerodynamic lift which gives -164- A Scientific Analysis it a ground-effects altitude stability. For each power set- ting and wind velocity, there is a corresponding hovering altitude. The rocket platform and UFO are not so lucky. The only aerodynamic effects they experience are miscel- laneous disturbances and they must continuously jockey thrust or introduce other artificial control. At least that is my experience with the platforms. Within a very small distance of ground level, say a meter, saucer-like ma- chines behave as though they possess a degree of alti- tude stability, but clearly don’t have it at higher altitudes. The platform was connected with saucers in another way. The U.S. Air Force was interested in building a saucer-shaped aircraft for experimental purposes, seem- ingly with the philosophy of “If you can’t beat them, join them.” They teamed up with the Royal Canadian Air Force and AVRO of Canada to build it. An artist’s sketch of the AVRO-disk can be found in Edwards’ Ftying Saucers: Serious Business. Two pilots were selected to fly the disk. They were Col. David Henderson, USAF, and Wing Comdr. Paul Hartman, RCAF. The photo pre- sented as Figure XI-10 shows Henderson and Hartman as they arrived at the Wallops Island rocket research vehicle base to try their skill at platform flying. They did all right. In fact, Henderson was unusual. He was the first to ever fly the platform for considerable time with his eyes closed, seeming to defy the usual need for a visual reference. Later I heard that the AVRO-disk was plagued with developmental problems, including being underpowered, and was abandoned. Figure XI-11 shows me making indoor tests of what was called a rotor-supported platform. The platform was circular, and the 7-foot-diameter rotor which supported it was powered by tiny air jets at the rotor tips. To simulate forward speed, I flew it outdoors in a hurri- cane. The fly-ability was good. Figure XI-12 shows a saucer-like platform built for the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research by Hiller Helicop- ters. It was also rotor-supported, the rotors being en- closed by a circular housing, or venturi, which became the visible body of the machine. I was consultant to this -165- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS project. In fact, test pilot Phil A. Johnston, shown in the photo, as well as project engineer Robertson, flew my jet-supported and rotor-supported platforms during the design phases of their project. We now come to the last of the saucer-like vehicles we shall consider. Figure XI-13 is an artist’s conception of my proposal to the NASA Apollo Management for a rocket-powered lunar flyer for lunar exploration. It was to be kinesthetically controlled by body motions in a manner already familiar to the reader. For this applica- tion this type of control has the great advantage of simplicity and reduced weight, since the only moving parts are the throttle and throttle valves. Like a saucer, this is a true space vehicle—light, handy, fast, and eco- nomical because of the bare-bones design and the low value of lunar gravity. However, the Manned Spaceflight Center elected to use a wheeled vehicle, and they didn’t have room for both types on board. -166- A Scientific Analysis Figure XI-7. Author hovering on thrust-vector in balance with gravity. – 167- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS Figure XI-8. Air jet visible as author blasts off. -168- A Scientific Analysis Figure XI-9. Author doing the UFO-rock. -169- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS Figure XI-10. AVRO-disk pilots arrive at Wallops Island for disc flight training, January 14, 1954. Left to right: John C. Palmer, Wallops Island; Lt.Col. David Henderson, USAF; Wing Comdr. Paul Hartman, RCAF; Paul R. Hill, LAL; and Thomas L. Kennedy, LAL. -170- A Scientific Analysis Figure XI-11. Author making rotor-supported platform test. – 171 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS Figure XI-12. Office of Naval Research gets in on the action. Phil Johnston, pilot. -172- A Scientific Analysis Figure XI-13. Artist’s conception of lunar rocket platform. – 173 – Section XII Silent Subsonic Operation High-performance conventional vehicles such as racing cars, jet planes, and rocket-powered vehicles are noted for being noisy, especially during the high-powered ac- celerating phase of their travel. In contrast, the silent operation of UFOs is, in general, one of the unusual properties they have in common. Their silence is partic- ularly remarkable or surprising during the high-accelera- tion and supersonic phases of their trajectories. Because of the difference in the nature of the phenomena in- volved at subsonic and supersonic speeds, the subject of silent operation has been broken into two phases: Silent Subsonic Operation, to be treated herewith, and Silent Supersonic operation, to be treated in the next section. By way of illustration, we shall consider the data and some operational theory for the big dirigible and cigar- shaped UFOs. A. Data EXAMPLE XII-A1 The data will partly consist of my own observations during a stormy afternoon in Hampton, Virginia, in 1962. The time was about 4:00 p.m. and the storm was clear- ing. A heavy cloud layer with a bottom at about 3000 to 4000 feet altitude lay over the lower end of Chesa- peake Bay and over Hampton Roads, which is the body of water where the famous battle between the Merrimac and the Monitor took place during the Civil War. The rain had stopped, and the air beneath the cloud cover was clean and clear. I was heading west on Chesapeake Avenue, which is on the north shore of Hampton Roads, -174- A Scientific Analysis and was near the intersection with La Salle Avenue. Although I was a front seat passenger in an old Dodge sedan, I had a practically unobstructed view of the southern Bay and entire Roads area, which I was scan- ning to inspect the cloud formation. Looking back over the southern end of Chesapeake Bay, I was surprised to see a fat aluminum- or metallic- colored “fuselage” nearly the size of a small freighter, but shaped more like a dirigible, approaching from the rear. It was at an altitude of about 1000 feet and was following a path about parallel to the ship channel and parallel to Chesapeake Avenue. It was moving slowly, possibly 100 mph or a little more. When it was first seen it was a couple of miles back over the Bay in a front-to quartering view by which one could tell it was round in cross-section. I kept staring at this unusual object as it approached. It took about a minute to reach Fort Wool, which marks the beginning of the Roads. Its shape was clearly visible in good lighting, with its bright surface contrasting the darker cloud cover, and there was ample time to study it in changing perspective. Puzzled, I asked the driver to look for a wing or other appendages to this strange vehicle. It looked like a big, pointed-nose dirigible, but had not even a tail surface as an appendage. The puzzling thing was that the big dirigibles had disappeared from the scene many years before; in fact, the big dirigible hanger at Langley Field had even been torn down. Had this been the Blimp, I could have read GOODYEAR, but it was much longer. The driver didn’t take time to look, as there was some traffic. Soon after passing the area of Fort Wool and Fort Monroe, and when it was about opposite La Salle Ave- nue, it began to accelerate very rapidly and at the same time to emit a straw-yellow, or pale flame-colored wake or plume, short at first but growing in length as the speed increased until it was nearly as long as the object. Also, when it started to accelerate it changed from a level path to an upward slanting path, making an angle of about 5 degrees with the horizontal. It passed us going at an astounding speed. It disappeared into the -175- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS cloud layer opposite the Newport News coal-loading docks in what I estimated to be four seconds after the time it began to accelerate. The accelerating distance was measured by the car odometer to be 5 miles. As discussed in Section II-C, if the acceleration was uniform, to cover 5 miles in 4 seconds with a 100 mph start means an acceleration of 100 times earth gravity and a speed at disappearance into the cloud layer of 8900 mph. But just as astounding as the performance figures was the silent operation. Not a sound was heard. This was surely a sophisticated performance, to make the understatement of the year. EXAMPLE XII-A2 The second detailed example is of a spectacular UFO sighting from a ship at sea. The data is taken from an independent account of one of the passengers (Lorenzen, Flying Saucers, The Startling Evidence, 18) and extracts from the ship’s log (Edwards 12). On the night of June 30, 1947, the coastal steamer Landovery Castle was passing the Straights of Madagascar, off Kenya, en route from Mombassa to Cape Town, South Africa. The sighting occurred about 11:00 P.M. on a moonless, star-studded night. Mrs. A.M. King, who made the independent report, was in the bow with a lady companion when her attention was attracted to something approaching the ship very rapidly. A passen- ger strolling at the stern also became aware of an un- usual blackness, blotting out many stars, that seemed to be getting larger, or approaching. He pointed this out to a deck officer who agreed and called a superior to the deck. Altogether, the events were witnessed by 9 passen- gers and 3 ship’s officers. By the time the object was alongside, it had slowed to the speed of the ship, and followed alongside, but standing off. As it arrived it beamed a powerful search- light down on the water, and the object could quite clearly be seen in the light reflected from the water. Mrs. King described it as a gigantic cigar-shaped ve- hicle made of steel, about four times as long as the -176- A Scientific Analysis Landovery Castle and four times as high, about 50 yards to one side of the vessel and maintaining a height of 20 feet above the surface of the water. The ship’s officers reported in the log that it was a gigantic dirigible-shaped craft about twice the size of the Landovery Castle, pacing them at a half mile off the starboard side. The latter estimate put the length at roughly 1000 feet. The log said that it was made of such a polished, reflecting material that it not only reflected the light from the water, but also the stars. It stayed alongside several minutes, making no discernable sound. Mrs. King’s account furnished the following additional valuable information. Just before the object left, it cut off the searchlight. “Fierce flames” issued from the rear, shooting out a distance of half its length as it gained speed, soundlessly disappearing in seconds. It seemed to Mrs. King that there must be something like a huge furnace inside, but she thought it strange that she could not hear the flames. B. Discussion These two accounts of large dirigible-like vehicles with fiery-looking wakes, which witnesses and rocket-thinking commentators alike have described as flaming exhausts, are by no means unique. The encounter of Eastern Air- lines pilots Chiles and Whitted with such a vehicle in July 1948 while piloting a DC-3 near Montgomery, Ala- bama, is a famous and classic example of the same thing (Lorenzen, UFO, The Whole Story, 34). Chiles and Whitted reported that their plane was rocked by the “blast” as the object passed them, slanting upward and disappear- ing in seconds. They also reported that they heard noth- ing. Of course, everyone is inclined to describe things in familiar terms, and now that the first steps have been made in space travel from earth utilizing rocketry, people are strongly inclined to be thinking in terms of rockets. The fact that witnesses report gigantic, silent “exhausts” is just one of the reasons that some members of the scientific community, who are obviously also “rocket- -177- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS thinkers,” cry “defying the laws of physics,” and accord- ingly refuse to believe such reports. They all know that a large rocket taking off nearby makes an ear-splitting, body-shaking noise, and even a military turbojet engine with afterburner on makes a thunderous noise that can be heard for miles. In my opinion, if the scoffer would reserve his scorn and disbelief for the jet-propulsion explanation rather than for the sighting he would then be correct. Here again we come to a place where the repulsive- force field together with the accompanying ionizing ra- diations come to the rescue of the witnesses’ stories. Fields are nearly silent. Of course, for high forward acceleration the field is directed and sharply focused toward the rear, making all parts of the jigsaw puzzle fit together: the ionized flame-like wake, the surprising silence, the high acceleration performance, and even the fact that the plume grows in length with increasing speed which is uncharacteristic of a rocket. The vehicles’ upward slant during acceleration described by Chiles and Whitted as well as by me probably has the significance that the force field is more effective when directed to intersect and push against a portion of the earth as well as the earth’s atmosphere. Even the witness on the ship was surprised at the silent operation. Mrs. King knew that large flames make distinctive sounds. Of course, the answer is that no flames shot out or she would have heard them. Various accounts of dirigible-shaped UFOs have erroneously re- ported large “rocket exhausts,” yet no sound was heard. The UFO that I witnessed was of a size comparable to the Saturn (Apollo) rocket system and if the wake had been a rocket exhaust the roar could have been heard in North Carolina. All turbojet and rocket exhausts roar (in the atmosphere). The turbojet roars partly because of combustion cham- ber noise and also because of the interaction of the high-speed jet with the surrounding atmosphere at the velocity discontinuity called the jet boundary. At the jet boundary high-energy vortices and turbulence produce screaming and roaring. Rocket jets roar for the same -178- A Scientific Analysis reasons, but louder because rocket jets are faster and more energetic. Rocket jets are also supersonic, and, never being perfectly expanded to atmospheric pressure, the jets are criss-crossed with shock waves converting kinetic energy to sound energy. From all this we may conclude that no silent UFO shoots out a propulsive jet. In the relatively silent world of UFOs that is a broad statement. To think that a dirigible UFO wake is a flame is also erroneous. A flame is defined as a gaseous exothermal (heat producing) reaction. That means a flame is hot, and radiates enough energy in the infrared and visible spectrum to be readily noticed nearby. Yet numerous UFO close encounters fail to demonstrate appreciable or even noticeable heat radiation, even when a UFO “flames up” on coming to rest as in Example VII-B1. And had the giant luminous wake, estimated to be 500 feet long, seen from the Landovery Castle been high-temperature gas the witnesses should have felt and reported radiant en- ergy. But they did not. All the confusion has resulted from the fact that, hot or cold, an ionized plasma looks like a flame. The flame- colored appearance is due to the electrons of excited molecules dropping to lower vacant energy levels and emitting photons of visible light. This process is substan- tially independent of whether the gas is hot or cold, and, by the same token, substantially independent of how it was ionized, i.e., by chemical reaction (flame) or by hard radiation (UFO). The flame-like (in appearance) wake of the dirigible- shaped UFO is just the air which has flown smoothly over the body and is flowing smoothly and silently into the wake. The air gets a shove backward by the tremen- dously strong propulsive force field, but there is no jet boundary or velocity discontinuity as in jet propulsion (because the field was a gradient, not a discontinuity) and therefore no noise. However, the propulsion system radiation ionizes the air that passes into the force field cone and makes it visible. Note how parallel this is to the saucer cone, as in Figure X-4, for example. Aerodynamicists have a name for smooth, silent, loss- -179- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS free flow. They call it potential flow. Subsonic flow of air over a dirigible whose axis is aligned with the airstream is an excellent approximation to potential flow. This was first demonstrated early in this century by a German scientist, G. Fuhrmann, who compared wind tunnel ex- periments on dirigible models with potential flow theory and found excellent correlation. The wake that I saw (Example XII-A1) was axially symmetric and plume-shaped, growing in length with speed as would be expected from a relatively long ion- relaxation time. Its appearance is shown in Figure XII-1, together with rocket jets for comparison: uro jet shape controlled by diffusion at jet boundary ROCKETS Low altitude, correct nozzle expansion ratio- Righ altitude, nozzle underexpande jet shape controlled by internal shock wares Figure XII-1. Dirigible-UFO Plume and Rocket Jets -180- Section XIII Silent Supersonic Operation “It was shaped like … a streamlined fat cigar. There was a red light on the front. The leading edge glowed red.” —Capt. Laurence Coyne, Army helicopter pilot. A. Supersonic Aerodynamics Silent operation at supersonic speed is a more in- volved subject than we have dealt with in other sections and, to be meaningful, will have to be convincing to technical specialists. In order to establish the position that shock-free airflow about bodies moving through the atmosphere at supersonic speed should be possible with sufficiently advanced technology, the discussion will have to involve quantitative analysis. If this sounds like an apology, it is, but I will try to address the general reader to the extent possible. It is assumed that the reader has a nodding acquaintance with elementary al- gebraic representations; more complex analysis is put in the appendices. Most of the energy loss at supersonic speed arises from what is called the bow shock wave (pronounced like the bow of a ship, from which the name is derived). In the central section this shock wave is shaped like the bow of the vehicle. It then extends outward and back- ward into a huge cone, so big that it often reaches the human ear and is recognized as a sonic boom. The elimination of the shock system is the heart of the problem. To have silent supersonic flight requires what the aerodynamicist calls potential flow—a loss-free flow, – 181 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS with no energy dissipated as shock or sound waves or in any other form. In the simplest case of potential flow, for low and medium subsonic speeds, the air is not much compressed and the applicable theory is called constant-density flow theory. Strangely, even paradoxi- cally, constant-density potential flow theory is adequate to study the flow field in a region ahead of and around the UFO at supersonic speed because, as I soon discov- ered, the use of a force field to control the airflow can eliminate air compression as the air approaches the body. In subsonic flow the pressure impulses from the ve- hicle travel ahead at sonic speed, letting the air know that the vehicle is coming. The air, feeling the pressure build up, is slowed accordingly, and even obligingly begins to move aside to let the vehicle pass in a phe- noinenon called streamline flow. The problem at super- sonic speed is basically one of information. When the vehicle is advancing faster than the speed of sound, the air out front does not receive the incremental pressure signal to slow down, move aside, as in subsonic flow. The first signal the air receives is when it slams into the bow shock, suddenly converting the flow in the near vicinity of the nose to subsonic flow. Then, behind the shock wave, the air receives the pressure messages from the body, and obligingly moves around it. By now the reader may have guessed the basic an- swer. The signal that the supersonic vehicle is coming will be given by a force field having a probable action velocity equal to the speed of light. There can then be no signal-speed problem as is normally the case. The air will be asked to slow down and move aside at all velocities, no matter how fast. At this point a long story could be made short by stating, or claiming, that for all streamlined bodies the proper use of a force field to signal the air and persuade it to slow gradually would eliminate the shock system. What follows is a series of arguments to back up this statement. Additionally, it will be shown that if the force field is adjusted to give constant pressure and density around the entire body, potential loss-free flow will re- sult and there can be no shockwaves anywhere in the – 182 – A Scientific Analysis flow field. In the meantime, the reader will doubtless assimilate something of the nature of force field con- trolled airflows, as compared to conventional airflows, Perhaps because of his wind tunnel experience, the aerodynamicist uses a convention which in practice is normally contrary to the facts. He considers that a ve- hicle which moves with a velocity Vo is really standing still, and the undisturbed airstream is approaching the vehicle at the velocity V . In the discussions of aerody- namic theory which follow, this convention will be used. B. Relation Between Pressure, Kinetic, and Field Energies In ordinary, incompressible aerodynamic theory, the air approaching the vehicle is slowed down by the rise in air pressure encountered as it comes closer to the nose. The slowing may be seen as the direct result of the pressure gradient, which is the rise in pressure across unit volume of air, and this pressure rise or difference constitutes a force retarding the air. I have long held the belief that a force field could provide an equivalent force to retard the air by properly adjusting the field energy gradients to replace the aerodynamic forces. Thus, while the pressure gradient signalling system fails at supersonic speed, the force field system would not. We digress to define stagnation point. For a symmet- rical body of revolution, like a dirigible, cigar, ellipsoid, or football-shaped vehicle, whose long axis is aligned with the airstream, air coming in along the axis extended and slowing due to the rising pressure comes to a complete stop when it reaches the intersection of the axis with the body surface. For this reason that point is called the stagnation point. It is very instructive to examine the problem in an- other way—that is, to apply the principle of energy conservation to the approaching airstream. In constant- density aerodynamic theory, the ratio of pressure to den- sity, p/p represents the pressure energy per unit mass of air. The kinetic energy per unit mass of air is half -183 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS the square of the velocity, V2/2. Applying the conserva- tion principle, for every incremental increase in pressure energy there is an equal incremental decrease in kinetic energy, or, symbolically, for each increase in p/p there is an equal decrease in V2/2. This is true for large changes as well as small. The change in pressure energy to free-stream pressure energy, po/p, and the change in kinetic energy to free-stream kinetic energy, V2 / 2, the increase in pressure energy equals the decrease in kinetic energy, symbolically stated: P-Po Vo V2 P 2 2 (13-1) At the stagnation point where V = 0, this becomes V2 . o Ps = Po + PT (13-1 a) which means that the stagnation pressure is equal to the free-stream atmospheric pressure plus a term called free- stream dynamic pressure because it is convertible to pressure in conventional aerodynamics. Such pressures can run high. Before comparing force field theory to ordinary aero- dynamic theory, let me mention that I was prepared to employ, if necessary, shaped or focused force fields for use in airflow control, just as is necessary for force field propulsion theory. However, when I reviewed the re- quirements for flow control, it became evident that spherically symmetrical fields should do the job. Accord- ingly, spherically symmetrical fields are all that are con- sidered. Other field shapes are obtainable by using a distribution of spherically symmetrical fields, or field cen- ters. If cp1 and cp2 represent the field energies of 2 separate spherical fields, by superposition the total field energy is cp – cpj + cp2, which is nonspherical. For the moment we shall consider only a single spherical in- verse-square force field. The fields considered are repul- sive and attractive force fields which act on the air because the air has mass, but if the reader prefers to think of the field as an electrical field which acts on an -184- A Scientific Analysis electrified atmosphere, any other combination, the theory is the same. Let us now review the nature of a spherically sym- metric repulsive force field. The field potential energy at any point P in the field, cpp equals the amount of energy necessary to bring unit mass from far away (infinity) to the point P. Owing to the symmetry of the field, the path followed doesn’t matter, or the energy, <Pp, depends only on the location of P. The field potential energy varies inversely with the radial distance of P from the field center and may be represented symbolically by tPp – K/rp. Here K is a field-energy constant and rp is the distance of P from the field center. The slope or gradient of cp with respect to r is the field force on unit mass (of anything) and is equal to F = -K/r2, or the force varies inversely with the square of the distance to the field center, the minus sign signifying repulsion. Earlier we discussed the equivalence of pressure field and force field by relating pressure gradient to field force (now more neatly stated as the equivalence of pressure-energy gradient to field-energy gradient in con- trolling airflow). We now consider their equivalence on a total energy basis, which is closely related. In pres- sure-field-controlled aerodynamics, an increase in pressure energy is accompanied by an equal decrease in kinetic energy. In force-field-controlled aerodynamics, an increase in field energy as the air approaches the field center is accompanied by an equal decrease in kinetic energy, assuming for the moment that air pressure remains con- stant. Ahead of the body where the flow is supersonic, the pressure signals are not coming through, and the equiv- alence of force field energy change to kinetic energy change (as just stated) satisfies energy conservation. For simplicity of ideas, consider for the moment a single repulsive force field centered at r = 0, and of potential energy cp – K/r. At a great distance away (r very large) the value of cp may be taken as zero, but its value may be large at small values of r. Because of the zero value of cp at great distance, the increase of cp from far to near is the near value minus the far value (minus zero) or -185- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS just K/r. To comply with energy conservation, this in- crease in K/r is equated to the decrease in kinetic en- ergy giving K_ V2 r ~ 2 2 (13-2) Note the similarity of this equation to equation 13-1 for the pressure controlled case. At the stagnation point V – 0 and r – rs, or (13-2a) rs 2 gives the value of K needed to stop the air at the stagnation point. With this value of K the field absorbs all the kinetic energy; there is no energy left for a pressure rise, our first result. Air arrives at the stagna- tion point at atmospheric pressure. For complete real-body cases the energy distribution needed would be more complex, and cp would be rep- resented by a group of K/r terms, some positive, some negative, but all zero at large r’s. Equation (13-2) is then written vo V2 <p=y-y (13-3) at the stagnation point = 12 (13-3a) 2 and again there is no energy available for a pressure rise. These equations are important to field-control theory and are used repeatedly. From equations (13-2) and (13-3) it is seen that K/r and cp have the dimensions of velocity squared, while inverse square force terms represented by -K/r2 for re- pulsion force per unit mass and K/r2 for attraction have units of acceleration. It is therefore perfectly proper to think of these fields as acceleration fields, and I often use the terms acceleration field and force field interchange- ably. The possible kinship of this theory with warped- gravity theory also becomes apparent. -186- A Scientific Analysis C. Corroboration A nice corroboration of these basic ideas was obtained when I reviewed some old textbooks on fluid mechanics and aerodynamics, such as Tietjens’ Fundamentals of Hydro and Aeromechanics and Kaufmann’s Fluid Mechanics. Apparently as far back as Euler, whose differential equa- tions of fluid motion form the basis of theoretical fluid mechanics, the equations of fluid motion were set up containing what they called a body force F per unit mass of fluid, that is due to the direct action of conser- vative force field. Presumably they had the gravitational field of the earth in mind, but no mention is made of this until they come to hydraulic applications, and the equations allow for the inclusion of an inverse-square repulsive force field as well as any other. On page 118 of Fundamentals of Hydro and Aeromechan- ics, for example, Tietjens could have been discussing the UFO problem when he said, “We postulate the existence of a force function, cp, for the body force, F, so that F equals gradient of cp.” Tietjens then integrates Euler’s differential equations of motion along a streamline to obtain the following steady-state, constant-density result, derived originally by Daniel Bernoulli in 1738 and named after him: The subscripts, o, refer to initial values, which in our case are free-stream values. The symbols are the same as we have been using except that P stands for the ratio of pressure to density, p/p, or the pressure energy per unit mass of fluid. Across the centuries, the message to us from Daniel Bernoulli in the form of equation (13-4) is that pressure energy and field potential energy, P and cp, can be interchanged on a one-to-one basis. They may be used together as shown, or if either one is zero the other can take over. This is the corroboration. The hydraulic application, for which Bernoulli is best known, is made by letting cp in (13-4) equal gz, where -187- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS g is the acceleration of gravity and z is an elevation above an arbitrary datum. Then gz is the gravitational energy of the water at elevation z. Letting P = p/p, making a few algebraic manipulations, and representing free-stream dynamic pressure by its standard symbol ^ gives the following nondimensional form of the equation, handier for applications. V o % vJ/2 (13-4a) In the field air-control theory for the UFO we repre- sent complex field shapes by summing the individual potentials ^ + <p2 + cp3 etc. due to a number of ele- mentary spherical fields whose individual centers have a spacial distribution and whose individual strength coeffi- cients are Ky K2, K3, etc. Then, with Tj being the dis- tance from field center (1) to any point in the airstream, r2 the distance from field center (2) to the same point in the stream, etc., we have for that airstream point (ellipses mean and so on): ? = ^ + <P2 + <P3 + ■ • • (13-4b) where E is mathematical language meaning “the sum of.” With this symbology and meaning, equation (13-4a) becomes P__Po+ SK/r _ 1 % vJ/2 (13-4c) The first term is the fraction of free-stream kinetic energy existing as local kinetic energy, the second term, called “delta p over q,” is the fraction of the same energy stored by any pressure rise, and the third term is the fractional energy stored by the field as field en- ergy- -188- A Scientific Analysis With a perfect field design the field absorbs the whole reduction of kinetic energy so that the pressure every- where remains at po and the second term of (13-4c) drops out. Equation (13-4c) then gives us a powerful and sweeping method for specifying the field distribution and therefore the field design for constant-pressure, constant- density airflow. Letting p – po, and rearranging, <P = (13-5) While this equation is general, specific consideration will only be given to UFOS which are bodies of revo- lution such as dirigibles, ellipsoids, and spheres. How to obtain V for equation (13-5) will be discussed in what follows. D. Significance of Acceleration-Field Flow Control Now for the surprise! With flow at constant pressure the density must be constant. But it is shown in Appen- dix 3 that for constant-density potential flow over a given body shape there is only one possible flow pattern. This means that for many UFO shapes we already know V/VQ from incompressible flow theory, often thought of as subsonic theory. If UFOs use this method of flow control, nullifying the pressure field around the entire body by equivalent acceleration-field energy, then the supersonic flow over a UFO is cast in the same mold as our old and well-known friend the subsonic flow field for the same body shape. While the streamlines and V/Vo are the same, supersonic values of Vo result in V also being supersonic over much of the flowfield. All this means there is a great store of conventional potential flow theory to draw on for establishing V/Vo, the re- quired cp, and the EK/r to do the job. The design of the field cp = EK/r gets into detailed design involving considerable mathematics and is discussed in Appendix – 189- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS 3. The methodology for such a design is given there and illustrated. If UFOs faithfully follow this idealized system, there is no room for doubt about the elimination of supersonic shockwaves. The essence of a shockwave is an abrupt increase in pressure, density, and temperature. In a con- stant-pressure, compression-free zone there is no shockwave. In fact, such a UFO would create no pres- sure waves at all, either of compression or expansion. This is more than can be said for aircraft, even at subsonic speed. Instead, the UFO sends out its force field (acceleration field) which would be interpreted by stationary objects as a wave of force. There is another interesting point about acceleration- field flow control. Drops of moisture or rain, dust, in- sects, or other low-velocity objects of any kind would follow the streamline paths around a high-speed UFO rather than smash into it. Particles on the central stream- line which reaches the stagnation point are brought smoothly to a stop without impact. Theoretically, a fly on this central streamline could put his feet forward and land on the nose, but he couldn’t stick because the field is insistent that everything moves along on schedule. If the UFO compromised the plan and used only a single repulsive field center to eliminate or reduce the intensity of a bow shock, then particles in the airstream would no longer follow the streamlines but would fly off to the side on a hyperbolic path, just as a high-speed electron does when it approaches an isolated proton. These aspects may have practical significance relative to surface erosion. Even with sand in the air, the UFO surfaces would not be sandblasted. The air-control field is a conservative field. It stores air kinetic energy as the air approaches and slows, but passes the energy back in other areas as it speeds the flow up again. Finally, the air leaves with the same velocity it had initially, and, in theory, at no cost to the UFO. The action is slightly similar to a mass being stopped by a spring, and rebounding with its initial velocity. The remainder of this section will be devoted mainly to some possible practical variations of the method that -190- A Scientific Analysis has been described and to the illustration of results for specific cases. The question should also be asked: Is an altogether different method for airflow control possible? E. Slender Nose Investigation, Simplest Possible Field Control In my first investigation of an alternate variation of airflow control, I attempted to solve the problem in reverse: to shape the body and aerodynamics to fit the simplest flow-control field. Could a nose shape be de- signed for which a single spherical repulsive field would eliminate the bow shockwave? It seemed to me that a slender nose would be the best, and this coincided with some slender-nosed dirigible sightings, including mine, so this seemed a good choice. Consider two equivalent flows over the same nose shape, one controlled by a pressure field (p-po)/qo of equation (13-4c) with LK/r = 0, and the other controlled by a single force field of energy distribution (K/r)/ V^/2 with p-po = 0. Solving (13-4c) for V/Vo for the two cases, first for pressure control, gives vo % (13-4d) and for the single repulsive field X= V 1 ~ (K/r) Vo vJ/2 (13-4s) If the velocity ratio computed by (13-4e) corresponds to that of conventional theory, (13-4d), the force field is doing a perfect job and the pressure difference p-po has been nulled to zero. Conversely, if the velocity ratios are not equal, p is not equal to po. This simple velocity-ratio comparison test, which I dubbed the “velocity match,” was my first step in the dark in the investigation of the field-control problem. -191 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBjECTS Equation (13-4d) is usually used to find the pressure variation from the velocity ratio and was introduced here to clarify ideas. Actually, the nose shape and its con- stant-density (subsonic) V/V^, is developed from conven- tional potential-flow theory derived for the purpose discussed in Appendix 3. The nose shape developed and three streamlines are shown to scale in Figure XIII-1. The nose is a body of revolution about its axis of symmetry, and of course the flow around it is three-dimensional. The top and bottom streamlines are mirror images and together form a typ- ical 3-D streamtube of air with axial symmetry. The air within a streamtube is trapped, and no flow crosses its boundary. The other streamline lies on the axis of sym- metry ahead of the nose, which at the stagnation point branches out into the body contour, the longitudinal elements of which are also streamlines. The line source referred to on the figure (one of the tricks of conventional aerodynamics) has a length, T, and runs along the nose centerline from the point 0.0 to the point 1.0 of the horizontal axis. Note that the front end of the line source is the center of the coordinate system, and lies 0.01 T behind the point of the nose. In the comparisons to follow, T will have a length of 50 ft., corresponding to a big dirigible UFO. The field center will also be located at the coordinate center, 0.0, now 1/2 foot behind the point of the nose. For super- sonic flow with force field control, the free-stream air speed is taken as 2000 ft/sec, and the field- strength constant, K in equation (13-4e), is K – 1,640,000 ft3/sec2 to make the supersonic and subsonic velocity ratios match over the widest area. The V/VQ for incompressible (subsonic) flow is taken from equation (A3-16) of Appen- dix 3. The resulting velocity ratios along the streamlines are shown in Figure XIII-2, which is a plot of V/Vo against axial distance in feet from the coordinate center. For con- ventional flow calculations, the solid line gives V/V^ along the axis, and the dashed line the values along the other streamlines (streamtube). The circle and triangle symbols give the matching force-field-controlled values of V/V . -192- A Scientific Analysis Distance froa coordinate center, fraction of source length, x/ Fig* 15- 1 Slender Nose and Streanline Configuration Figure Xill-1. Slender Nose and Streamline Configuration. Fig* 1J-2 Flow-velocity matchlng’on streamlines ahead of 50 foot nose. Velocity 2,000 feet per second. Figure XIII-2. Flow-velocity matching on streamlines ahead of 50-foot nose. Velocity 2,000 feet per second. – 193 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS In general, the match is impressive. For stations ahead of the stagnation point (at the ^-foot station) the match looks nearly perfect. In the entire flowfield there is just one appreciable discrepancy. Owing to the arbitrary choice of K the force field appears to bring the flow to rest 4 inches ahead of the nose, forming a tiny dead-air region. (If such should actually happen this region would probably be highly ionized, looking like a neon light.) The purpose of this simple control is to prevent the bow shockwave in the region ahead of the nose. This it certainly does, as indicated by the flow-match. Matching flow velocities also mean the streamlines for the two cases are the same. Behind the nose station on the stream tube, the force field velocity ratios fall progressively, but very slightly, below the values for conventional flow. This is explain- able in that by placing p-po equal to zero in equation (13-4c) we have assumed the pressures to remain con- stant. Where the small discrepancy begins, at the side of the body, the pressure is beginning to fall below atmo- spheric pressure as the air speeds up again. This was to be expected. To make the flow velocities match every- where would require the addition of more field centers on the nose axis, and could easily be done for this case with the methods I have now developed. But the results of this first investigation were so favorable, meeting the objective, that we shall “let well enough alone” and rest the case. While this simple example demonstrates the accelera- tion-field elimination of a bow shockwave, perhaps it is just as important to realize that matching velocity ratios also give substantiation to the general theorem (devel- oped and first presented here) that UFOs which maintain constant-pressure flow at supersonic speeds are sur- rounded by a subsonic flow-pattern of streamlines, and subsonic velocity ratios. Naturally such a flow is shock- free. This is the broad viewpoint. -194- A Scientific Analysis F. Airflow Over a Spherical UFO THE PROBLEM: AERODYNAMICS OF THE SPHERE The sphere is a bluff aerodynamic body, not a body that could be called streamlined. All streamlined bodies have tapered afterbodies with a length of several diam- eters. The sphere, with its length equal to its breadth, has a blunt afterbody. As a result, the airflow separates from the afterbody, creating a broad turbulent wake at all speeds. This gives it a high drag even at subsonic speed. At supersonic speeds, its blunt shape gives it an exceptionally strong bow shockwave, and it also carries a strong stern shockwave, or trailing shock, originating about where the flow separation takes place. At subsonic speeds, the speed of the local airflow alongside where its width equals the diameter (the sphere’s equator, taking the stagnation point as the north pole) is half again that of flight speed, giving it a negative pressure around that circumference of -1.25 qo compared to a positive pressure at the stagnation point of +1.0 qo. This is a severe pressure distribution. In short, the sphere has bad conventional aerodynamics and offers the UFO -a challenge to improve the aerodynamics as well as eliminate the shockwaves. THE SOLUTION The spherical UFO can solve its flow problems by generating the necessary acceleration fields. The field generators must be physically located within the UFO to meet the requirement of rotational symmetry about the sphere diameter aligned with the airstream. This diame- ter will be called the axis of rotational symmetry. Fore- and-aft symmetry is also observed, meaning that all systems and fields in the rear half are mirror images of systems and fields in the front half. Ideally, the field generating systems would be located just within the spherical shell, with capacity distributed and strength adjusted to give the required field. In theory the field generators could be distributed along the axis of sym- -195- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS metry to meet symmetry requirements, but this location might have practical drawbacks. The field requirement given by the value of cp from equation (13-5) is perfectly general, applying to the sphere as well as any other shape. The equations needed to give velocity ratio, V/V^ anywhere in the sphere’s flowfield are derived from potential flow theory and given as equations (A3-6a, 6b, and 6c) of Appendix 3. The resulting velocity ratios and the required values of acceleration field potential cp computed from equation (13-5) are given in Table A3-1 for the nine typical flowfield points illustrated in Figure A3-2 (see Appendix 3). It is more convenient and general to give cp in its nondimensional form cp/^/zj, and cp is so given in the last column of Table A3-1. The nine points serve for illustration, but a few more are needed to ade- quately describe the field. If the field generators meet requirements at an adequate number of points in the flowfield they have accomplished the task. Appendix 3, part C, describes the mathematical proce- dure for laying out a system of spherical field centers on the axis of symmetry, each of proper strength. This may be considered as a mathematical equivalent to a real distribution of field generators within the shell, just as in aerodynamic theory the distribution of sources and sinks on the axis of symmetry are mathematical equiva- lents to the real thing. (No one would think air really flows from an aerodynamic source.) This field layout has nine field centers to exactly satisfy the field strengths specified at the nine illustrative points of Figure A3-2. Part C also gives the values of the nine strength coeffi- cients to illustrate procedure. Five are positive and four negative. Part E of Appendix 3 presents the equation (A3-9) describing the streamlines for the resulting con- trolled flow over a sphere at supersonic speed. Figure XIII-3(a) shows the computed streamlines for the flow over a sphere at supersonic speeds with accel- eration-field (force field) control. The corresponding fig- ure (b) shows the bow and trailing shockwaves, flow separation, and resulting broad turbulent wake normally encountered by a sphere in supersonic flight (Russian -196- A Scientific Analysis manned space capsule re-entering, or cannonball). The mechanism of flow separation is that the higher pressure in the aft region leaks forward toward lower pressures in that part of the boundary layer close to the body where the flow is subsonic and the resulting steep pressure rise stalls the low-speed boundary layer air. The stalled air piles up in the flow-separation phenomenon, creating a large dead-air region which becomes a turbulent wake. (a) UFO With Airflow Control. No shockwave system; Streamlines, drawn to scale, are speed-variant; No separated-flow region; Small turbulent wake; Very low drag. (b) Space Capsule or Cannonball. Strong shockwave system; Streamlines vary with speed; Flow separates on stern, causing Large turbulent wake; Very high drag. Figure XIII-3. Flow over spherical bodies at supersonic speed with and without acceleration-field airflow control. It is now no secret why the constant-pressure flow over the UFO cures the stalling of the air in the bound- ary layer and the flow separation. The unfavorable rising pressure region is eliminated and the constant-pressure control has changed the bluff body into a streamlined body as if by magic. The base of an artillery shell – 197- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS creates a turbulent wake which in part accounts for its noisy passing. Spherical UFOs are not reported to make this noise. The acceleration-field air control accelerates the air around the body in a subsonic pattern at all speeds. Mach-1 no longer has any significance with this control. The body is surrounded by a potential flow at all speeds. The field strengths required vary exactly as V2/2. That is why cp is presented as <p/(^/2). No adjustment of field strength is required for the changes in air density with altitude because accelerations remain imchanged. A grain of sand or a small insect will follow the streamline path of Figure 13-3(a). They will not centri- fuge out of the air path as in pressure-controlled flow (windshield wipers not needed). To imagine that the air and insect are hurled around like a roller coaster on a track is misleading, for if the insect is small enough that it doesn’t feel the difference in acceleration between one part of its body and another it won’t feel anything. It is on a free-fall path like a satellite in orbit. The particular streamline paths of Figure 13-3(a) are the natural paths, for if the field is adjusted to encour- age some other paths constant-density air won’t fit in the streamtubes and must be compressed and expanded in different parts of the flow, causing changes in air pressure to occur, and shifts in the streamlines. (Such a flow is then partly pressure-controlled and free-fall tra- jectories no longer coincide with the streamlines.) The changes in air pressure re-introduce the possibility of a shockwave somewhere in the flow. Such flows must be inspected for shockwaves on an individual basis. In the following discussions of the flow over ellipsoi- dal bodies of revolution, we will consider a case with very large changes of pressure in the flow. G. Aerodynamic Control for Ellipsoidal UFOs GEOMETRY The ellipsoidal UFO is one which looks roughly like an egg or a football. The ellipsoid has three axes, a – 198- A Scientific Analysis major axis and two minor axes at right angles, which are equal. An ellipsoid may be generated by revolving an ellipse about its major axis, which is the axis of rotational symmetry. According to most UFO reports, ellipsoidal UFOs travel with the long axis pointed into the wind. The ellipticity depends on the ratio of the long to the short axes. When the ellipticity is zero, the axes are equal, and this member of the family is a sphere. THEORETICAL FORCE FIELD ARRANGEMENTS As for the sphere, the energy distribution centers for the surrounding acceleration field might be located just within the shell, and would have fore and aft symmetry as well as rotational symmetry about the long axis. How- ever, as with the sphere, we introduce a conceptual equivalent with spherical field centers on the axis of rotational symmetry as in Figure XIII-4. In general, more field centers than the three illustrated are needed to obtain an approximation to constant-pressure flow, but this simple diagram serves as an aid in discussing some of the physical principles involved. Field centers (1) and (3) are equal repulsive centers and center (2) is negative, or an attractive center. Clearly, we assume the UFO builders have appropriate field technology. Figure XIII-4. Simplified field arrangement for ellipsoidal UFO. The three fields provide the following air-control func- tions: No. (1), repulsive force field a. Stops flow at forward stagnation point -199- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS b. Slows all oncoming air c. Turns air outward to go around body d. Returns energy to leaving air e. Strongly tends to lower pressure at vehicle sides (adverse effect) No. (2), attraction force field a. Turns air around body b. Maintains air pressure in central region, counter- acting the opposite effects of (1) and (3) c. Maintains flow density, limiting velocity increases No. (3), repulsive force field a. Slows air near stern b. Turns air parallel to body axis c. Maintains stern pressure near po d. Speeds air to free-stream velocity as it leaves In principle, this field arrangement seems an ideal one. With a few more positive and negative field centers, the ideal constant-pressure field control could be installed in a straightforward manner. But what if the UFO designers could not supply negative force fields? Or suppose they placed a premium on having the air-control field exert no acceleration forces on the passengers. Let us suppose that both these stipulations are in force. The first stipu- lation means we are reduced to the use of the two equal positive fields. These two alone can probably eliminate the bow shockwave, but without negative fields the pres- sure will go very low alongside the ellipsoid and our analysis is grossly complicated by the occurrence of com- pressible flow. The second stipulation is easy to meet by proper design, which distributes the field sources uniformly just within the shell, so that the field potential at the shell is constant. With the shell potential constant, borrowing from electric- potential theory which is exactly the same, the force po- tential everywhere in the UFO would be constant and the force on passengers and internal equipment would be zero. (This follows from the fact that accelerations are the field potential gradient, which is zero.) -200- A Scientific Analysis For our two equivalent spherical fields centered on the axis of symmetry (a fictitious but highly useful mathe- matical construction) the specification of a constant-poten- tial shell is the simple statement K K cp = —+ —= constant rl r2 (13-6) where the two K’s are equal, r1 is the distance from the first field center to any point on the shell, and r2 is the distance from the second field center to the same point on the shell. This equation specifies the shell shape (not an exact ellipsoid). For the shape specified, the equation can be used to determine the value of cp anywhere in the flowfield by letting ^ and r2 be the radii to any point in question. This is necessary for flow study. HOW TO LAY OUT A CONSTANT-SURFACE-POTENTIAL UFO A constant-potential UFO surface of revolution corre- sponding to a pair of force field centers on axis can be laid out utilizing equation (13-6) and a compass in a 1-2-3 procedure as follows: (1) Lay out a longitudinal centerline and cross it with an axis D-D having, to some scale, a length equal to the desired UFO diameter. Lay out two force field cen- ters on the longitudinal axis, equidistant from the axis D-D. The distance chosen determines the ellipticity. Com- pute rD by the Pythagorean theorem. For example, let semi-diameter = 4 meters, field centers at ±3 meters. / 2 2 ■p = y 3 + 4 = 5 meters Figure XIII-5. -201 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS (2) Choose a nominal surface half potential, say cps/2 – 10. Then since cps/2 = K/rD, r D s K = — = (5)(10) = 50 Now compute the stagnation radius: 50 50 = — + ——–= 20 rs (rs + 6) Z from which rs – 3.405, and the major axis length is L = 2r + 6 = 12.81 meters s (3) Choose a series of a half-step at either end, 12, 13, r – K/cp 14, 14.5, and = 50/cp: equally spaced potentials with such as 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, compute r for each from cp 5.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14.5 r 9.09 8.33 7.14 6.25 5.55 5.00 4.55 4.17 3.85 3.50 3.45 Draw a series of partial circles using these radii and both field centers as centers. Label each arc with its value of cp, as 10, and 10 for the two circles drawn with a radius of 5. These two intersect where cp = 20. Where circles 10+1 and 10-1 intersect gives cp = 11+ 9 – 20, 12+ 8 – 20, etc. Clearly the intersections are on the desired equipotential surface. The resulting constant potential surface is shown in Figure XIII-6. It is not a true ellipsoid because the sum of the focal radii is not constant. However, it does look like some small ellipsoidal-class UFOs that have been reported hovering with the long axis in a vertical attitude. Hovering in this manner seems to indicate that the propulsive field is oriented toward one end, and that the vehicle would convert its attitude by nearly 90 de- grees for high-speed horizontal flight. -202 – A Scientific Analysis Figure Xlll-6. Constant-Potential-Surface Layout Data: Construction arcs are drawn from focal points (force field centers). Paired numbers give the potential of construct- ing arcs. Paired numbers add to 20, the nominal surface potential. COMPRESSIBLE FLOW AROUND ELLIPSOIDAL UFOs The energy equation for compressible (variable-density) flow for force field control is derived from first princi- ples in Appendix 4 and is given by equation (A4-10). This equation corresponds to the Bernoulli equation for constant-density flow. If the force field were left on -203- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS when a UFO came to a stop, the force field would pump a low atmospheric pressure in its vicinity, lowest at the surface where cp is highest. The corresponding value of pressure ratio without airflow will be called the static pressure ratio; it may be obtained by putting V/Vo = 0 in equation (A4-10), or by using equation (A4-5), which was derived for the purpose. For a con- stant potential UFO surface, the normal value of cp corre- sponds to V^ / 2 [equation (13-3)] and cq in equation (A4-5) is the speed of sound in undisturbed air which is approximately 1116 ft/sec. Some typical values of cps and the corresponding static pressure ratios, ps/po, at the surface are here given: Static Pressure Ratios at UFO Surface Vo, ft/sec
1500 <Ps = V* / 2 Ps/Po (Eq. A4-5)
1,125,000 0.2082 2000 2,000,000 0.02 74 The pressure ratios away from the surface are also obtained by the same equation using the K/r’s. The ram-pressure effects in front of the UFO traveling at supersonic speeds keep the pressure ratio near 1.0, but for reasons explained in Appendix 4, parts C and D, the pressure ratios gradually fall toward the sides to values close to the static-pressure ratios. As the air moves to the side in a streamline path, the pressure ratio at some point becomes equal to the static-pressure ratio and a comparison of equations (A4-10) and (A4-5) shows that where this happens the local velocity is ex- actly back to the free-stream velocity, Vo. Thus we see that the force field does not prevent the air from moving by the vehicle at supersonic speeds. If the flow alongside were slow (as claimed by magnetic-field-flow-control ad- vocates and others) there would be a gigantic blockage of the airflow. -204- A Scientific Analysis EXAMINATION FOR SHOCKWAVES Flow around the sides at the mid-body offers no problem with respect to shockwaves. The reason can be tied to a divergence of the Mach lines as shown at points a in Figure XIII-7. (Note: A Mach line represents a weak pressure wave traveling at sound speed in a supersonic flow, and swept back at an angle which makes the component of supersonic velocity normal to the wave equal Mach 1.) The divergence of Mach lines is accepted in aeronau- tical circles as a sign of shock-free flow. To judge a flow by the Mach lines, just remember that the faster the flow the more the Mach line is inclined or swept back, so that a flow which is speeding up tends to be stable according to this criterion. Conversely, converging Mach lines as at b indicate trouble. If the flow at b is going -205- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS against a pressure buildup, each Mach line represents a small compression, and by converging they form a trail- ing shockwave. Without aid from the propulsive force field the flow around a constant-surface-potential ellip- soid or sphere would probably shock at b. Figure XIII-7(b) shows the effect of the propulsive force field. When the flow comes into the domain of the propulsive field, it is strongly accelerated and the con- verging compression lines at b are changed to non- converging expansion lines as at c. The result is that a trailing shockwave is avoided if the propulsive force field is strong enough. The ellipsoidal UFO of Figure XIII-4 should be entirely free of shockwaves at supersonic speed without aid from the propulsive force field. This is because air-control field No. 2 can be adjusted to make the mid-body pressure equal to freestream pressure. Then the flow is slowed at the stern by force field No. 3 without encountering any compression. The Mach lines then have no pressure in- crements to sum. In fact, this field configuration gives a rough approximation to the constant-pressure field dis- cussed earlier as the ideal situation. With both air-control and power plant fields operating, this UFO should have exceptionally stable shock-free flow in all parts of the flowfield. H. Exact Compressible-Flow Equations with Field Control Finally, we briefly reconsider the case where the flow- control, for one reason or another, fails to yield the ideal constant-pressure flow with the subsonic-flow pattern and known velocity ratios. It is still possible to compute the velocities and flow paths, as well as the fluid properties of pressure, density, and temperature throughout the flowfield by numerical methods. However, the conven- tional differential equations for compressible flow must be extended to include the proper force field terms. This I have done. In Appendix 4, part C, are developed the complete differential equations for the acceleration-controlled air- -206- A Scientific Analysis flow about any body of revolution which moves with its axis of symmetry aligned with the airflow (goes the way it is pointed). Technically, the flow analyzed is ax- isymmetric, compressible, potential flow in a space with an arbitrary acceleration field. The theory contains three systems of equations (continuity, gas law, and energy) which are combined into a single equation suitable for solution by standard, but advanced, numerical methods and computer technology. The methods are similar to those necessary when no acceleration field is present. Postscript: Is There a Possible Alternate to Acceleration Fields? It is reasonable to ask if there is a possible alternate to acceleration-field control of airflow for silent super- sonic operation. If UFOs had the incredible ability to de-mass matter in their vicinity, including air, the answer would have to be yes, for if the UFO could neutralize the mass of the surrounding air the speed of sound would be raised to a high value while at the same time the deviations from atmospheric pressure due to air dy- namics would be negligible, and the air would follow the well-known subsonic, shock-free flow pattern illustrated elsewhere in this Section. However, there is next to nothing in this century’s science to indicate such a possibility. Speculation about zero mass is encouraged by reports that automobiles, animals, and even humans have been floated above ground level by UFOs. But such levitations could be accomplished by a counterfield to the earth gravity field and do not constitute convincing evidence that mass is controlled. -207- Section XIV The Aerodynamic Heating of UFOs A. The Problem as Seen by Earth Technicians For many years technical people have been astounded by and often incredulous of reports of UFO speeds of 5000 miles per hour or more, as reported in Section II. How could they travel at such speeds without burning up, or even showing severe signs of heating? Perhaps today, with the accumulated experience of projects Mer- cury, Gemini, Apollo, and the Shuttle they may be less inclined to be surprised and skeptical. Still, surfaces of the Shuttle reach a blinding-white heat, of the order of 1300 degrees centigrade or 2300 degrees Fahrenheit, while UFOs apparently do not. Why is this? Of course the aerodynamic technician’s and material expert’s viewpoints are colored by experience. The flight technologies needed for the projects mentioned above took years of intensive research and development. Earth vehicle aerodynamic heating problems were first encoun- tered in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Beginning about 1945, the Langley Research Center set up and operated a secret flight-research missile base at Wallops Island. When the vehicle speeds reached Mach numbers between 3 and 4 some of them began disintegrating in flight, not only because the construction materials were weakened by the heat, but (as I discovered) they were actually catching on fire and burning up. The first laboratory studies on the vehicle ignition problem (not the fuel, the vehicle) were reported in High Temperature Oxidation and Ignition of Metals (Hill, Adamson, et al). The problem at those and higher speeds was overcome by the use of more heat-resistant materials. In Section XIII, the reader was introduced to the con- -208- A Scientific Analysis cept of the aerodynamic stagnation point as that point on a nose, or leading edge, where the air is brought to a complete stop. It is at the stagnation point that the heating is characteristically the greatest because it is there that the most kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy by the process of compression. The air-tempera- ture ratio at the stagnation point in degrees absolute, either Kelvin or Rankine, is given closely by a simple energy relation: one plus two tenths of the Mach number squared (Equation A4-llf in Appendix 4). Suppose the atmospheric temperature is 70 degrees Fahrenheit or 70 plus 460 equals 530 degrees Rankine. Then according to the above relation at the following Mach numbers stag- nation temperatures in degrees Rankine (R), Fahrenheit (F), and centigrade (C) are given in the following table: Table XIV-1. Typical Stagnation Temperatures Mach no. 1 2 3 5 7 Ts, R 636 954 1484 3180 5724 Ts, F 176 494 1024 2720 5264 Ts, C 80 257 551 1493 2907 The values for Mach 7 are a little too high because the stagnation-temperature energy relation cited makes no allowance for the energy required to dissociate molecules of air into atoms as happens at this temperature. Still, the trend toward extremely hot air at high Mach num- bers is clearly shown by the table. The nose (and leading edges if there are any) of a supersonic vehicle operating within the atmosphere is normally heated by both radiation and convection, while the rest of the vehicle is heated only by convection, sometimes referred to as air-friction heating. The heat transfer is proportional to the difference in the effective boundary layer temperature and the temperature of the vehicle surface. (The other factors are lumped into a heat-transfer coefficient.) Not wishing to make this a course in heat transfer, it will just be said that the rise in effective turbulent boundary layer temperature is -209- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS about 88 percent of the rise in stagnation temperatures listed in the table, so it can be seen that the boundary layer surrounding the vehicle is extremely hot at high Mach numbers also. The factor just given is called the boundary layer recovery factor. So severe can the heating be that in 1955 it was generally believed impossible to put a man in earth orbit without having him be burned up on re-entry. These ideas were so firmly fixed at the time that the man who was to become the first Director of the Manned Space- flight Center, Dr. Robert Gilruth, said, “Anyone who thinks a man can be put into orbit just doesn’t under- stand the problems.” Needless to say, he changed his mind following advances in heat-shield technology. UFOs, on the other hand, can come in from a high- speed flight and be relatively cool. Witnesses can tell if a nearby vehicle is hot by the heat radiated to their faces and hands. My first graphic experience with radi- ation heating was when, as a boy, I went to see an oil well fire and found I could not approach within a couple hundred yards without discomfort from radiant heating. Much later, in studies related to the heat pro- tection of hypersonic vehicles, I witnessed the wind tun- nel test of a 4×4-inch piece of graphite plate electrically heated to incandescence at a temperature something above 3000 F. The test was observed through a tunnel window of quartz plate mounted in a rim of asbestos, about a foot from the graphite. Even though the super- sonic tunnel air was cold, in a few seconds after the graphite specimen was up to temperature the asbestos window mounting began to melt and run down the tunnel wall! The skin of the observers, viewing through dark glasses at a distance of about 10 feet from the specimen, felt uncomfortably hot. This observer backed up. This information can be interpreted and extrapolated as follows. If the plate were 4×4 feet in dimension, the radiated energy would seem severe at 12 times the ob- server distance of 10 feet, or 120 feet. If the dimension were 40 feet, corresponding to an ordinary or big UFO, the radiation would seem severe at 1200 feet distance, -210- A Scientific Analysis etc., the distance at which a given rate of radiant heating can be felt being proportional to the size. This extrapolation simply means that if UFOs were thermally very hot, the close observer would be driven away by radiant heating. Yet in Example III-B1, the Saturn-type UFOs near Ponta Poran, Brazil, which had been traveling cross-country and stopped to pace and maneuver around a jeep, were reported by the witnesses to be without heat, odor, or perceptible noise. In the similar case of Example X-A4, in which a Saturn-type UFO in Bahia, Brazil, maneuvered at extreme speed and acceleration about the witnesses and approached to within 300 feet, no radiated heat was mentioned. Even when a UFO looks like a ball of fire it is still not hot, as was pointed out in Section III. The fiery look is an illusion due to ionization of the surrounding air. One of the hottest UFOs yet reported was the one encountered by the Canadian prospector Michalak (Exam- ple IV-B4). The saucer was seen flying at high speed before it landed nearby. It “was radiating heat in rain- bow colors,” but was not hot enough to prevent Michalak from approaching and touching it with his rubberized glove. The glove promptly melted enough to slip off the surface; however, this is not the intensity of heat to be expected from supersonic aerodynamic heating. The aero- nautical engineer is puzzled as to why UFOs traveling continuously at Mach numbers of 4 or 5 do not generate temperatures sufficiently high to be destructive to known materials. Commentators often begin to speculate about supermaterials capable of withstanding the rigors of UFO flight. The facts are, however, that UFO surfaces are not reported to be even red-hot. This is in contrast to high- speed Earth vehicles, such as missiles, for which red heats are common. UFOs somehow prevent the high aero- dynamic heating rates, instead of permitting a heating problem, then surviving it with heat-resistant materials. A few UFO investigators have realized this. Notable among them was the Brazilian investigator Dr. Olavo T. Fontes, who wrote the chapter on Physical Evidence in Flying Saucers: The Startling Evidence of the Invasion From -211 – UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS Outer Space, for he came into convincing evidence that a particular UFO was made of magnesium, one of the least heat-resistant of all the metals. B. The Force Field Control of Aerodynamic Heating As a prerequisite for reading this subsection, the reader should become somewhat familiar with the con- cepts of supersonic airflow control by means of force fields as set forth generally in Section XIII, especially the subsection on Aerodynamic Control for Ellipsoidal UFOs. The part on compressible flow is pertinent. Since the control for the prevention of aerodynamic heating is essentially identical to the control for the prevention of shockwave drag, there seems little point in repeating the control descriptions and theory here. The technical reader who studied Section XIII and Appendix 4 doubtless re- alizes that the hypothesized control system could prevent the heating problem as well as the shockwave problem. It is easy to imagine how a force field which absorbs the free-stream kinetic energy from the air as it ap- proaches and comes close to the vehicle, then passes it back as it leaves, would resolve both the heating and the drag. I would like to emphasize again, as I did in Section XIII, that because of the wide variations in design pos- sibilities I don’t pretend to know just how the UFO controls the airflow. What I have attempted to do is to show possibilities and to present a theory with sufficient breadth to have a chance of including the real solution. I am also trying to undermine the concept that UFOs “defy the laws of physics,” and replace it with the more constructive idea that we still have much to learn about those laws and their applications. In treating the force field control of aerodynamic heat- ing, we shall consider only two points on the UFO surface as being sufficiently representative. One is the stagnation point and vicinity. The other is a typical point on the side of the UFO which can be taken as repre- sentative of the remainder of the UFO surface. With the force field control system we have visualized, the stag- -212- A Scientific Analysis nation point and vicinity, which is normally the most severely heated part of a supersonic vehicle, gets no heating at all. The field brings the air to rest at the stagnation point without any compression (equation Al- lO) and since it is the energy of compression that causes stagnation heating, there is no heating. This is also ver- ified by the flowfield thermal analysis of Appendix 4 and equation A4-llg. Another way to look at stagnation point heating is that it is caused by the conversion of the kinetic energy of the air into thermal and pressure energy. Since the force field absorbs the kinetic energy along the stagnation point streamline, there is no energy left to heat the air or the vehicle. This statement also holds approximately for streamlines adjacent to the stag- nation streamline and hence the no-heating result applies to the general vicinity of the nose near the stagnation point. This concludes the stagnation heating discussion. In discussing the heating of a typical point on the side of a UFO we emphasize the same class of ellipsoi- dal UFO that was emphasized in Section XIII, the ones having a force field potential energy that is constant over the surface. These are the ones that would generate the control field near the vehicle surface without putting unwarranted forces on interior components or passengers, in close analogy with electric theory. When the force field strength is adjusted according to flight speed to stop the air at the stagnation point the force field pumps the air alongside to relatively low pressures. Typical values of the pressure ratios are given in the table in Section XIII for two flight speeds. While the pressure ratios in the table are what was called static pressure ratios, they also represent the pressure ratios under dynamic-flow conditions exactly at the point on the side where the velocity re-achieves freestream veloc- ity as a result of the partial vacuum. The static temper- ature ratios corresponding to these pressure ratios will now be obtained from equation A4-llc of Appendix 4, but the reader is reminded that the vehicle is not cooled by the static temperatures but by the difference in the boundary layer temperature and the wall temperature. The static temperature is the temperature outside the -213- UNCONVENTIONAL FLYING OBJECTS boundary layer, while the boundary layer temperature is the effective air temperature where the air meets the wall. To obtain the boundary layer temperature, we use a typical turbulent boundary-layer recovery factor of 0.88, which means that the boundary layer recovers 88 percent of the drop in static temperature. The table from Section XIII is here extended to give the static temperature ratio, T t/T^ and the boundary layer temperature ratio, Tb/To, for constant surface po- tential airflow control at a point on the sidewall. Again, the temperature ratios are in degrees absolute, either Rankine or Kelvin. Table 14-2. Typical Pressure and Temperature Ratios on a Sidewall Vo, ft/sec
1500 P/Po Tst/To ^tAo ^b’
0.2082 0.6387 0.9566 47 2000 0.0274 0.3577 0.9229 29 The first column gives both flight speed and local speed just outside the boundary layer, since they are the same. The last column gives the boundary layer temper- ature in degrees Fahrenheit on a day when the ambient atmosphere is 70°F or 530°R. The faster the UFO goes, the lower the boundary layer temperature to whatever speed the UFO can maintain the force field strength needed. At a vehicle velocity of 2000 ft/sec, the temper- ature is below freezing. C. Cooling: A Fallout From the Heating Problem When I read Frabush’s account of the UFO in the gravel pit (Example III-B2), I was completely baffled by the strange occurrence of the pond being frozen over when the UFO left. However, as I wrote the word freezing in the last paragraph, I was reminded of the incident and realized that I had a valid possible explanation for the phenomenon. It could be accounted for if a UFO should leave its air-control force field active while hovering. -214- A Scientific Analysis Consider the physical situation surrounding a UFO which has left its air-control force field turned on after it stopped. In that event the air pressure ratios are very low. These were termed static pressure ratios in Section XIII-G, and the equation governing these ratios in the entire space around the UFO is equation A4-5, in Ap- pendix 4. The corresponding static temperature ratios are also low, and can be obtained from equation A4-llc. The high-speed boundary layer discussed above is nonexistent and heat transfer is governed by the static temperatures and air convection. The term convection just means that the air is moving, either due to a breeze blowing or to thermal draughts. I favor the breeze hypoth- esis because the atmosphere is practically never dead calm. The atmosphere around a UFO under the influence of a continuous force field with an approximate inverse first power energy distribution has strange yet simple prop- erties. Any unit mass or unit volume of air experiences no net force because (in this static case) the field forces are exactly counterbalanced by air-pressure-gradient forces. Any slight additional force on the air can move it. It follows at once that a breeze can move air into and out of the zone without appreciable impedance, and the refrigerator is at work! It is the adiabatic expansion to low temperature of the air going into the zone that is responsible, just as it is the adiabatic expansion of the freon going into the freezing coils of a refrigerator that is responsible there. In case the reader is wondering why the propulsive force field does not generally act in the same manner, it is because the propulsive field is generally focused, not continuous. Of the two field types, the propulsive field may be thought of as being long-range and narrow, and the airflow-control field as short-range, continuous, and having components which are uniformly distributed with respect to direction. In this particular case, the UFO was described by Frabush as being a lenticular-shaped saucer, and, as we noted in Section X, the saucer is very adept at adjusting the field focus from narrow to wide and vice versa. It may be possible that with a very wide focus a contin- -215-