RR0/rr0.org

<!--#include virtual="/header-start.html" -->
<title>Flight and Propulsion (Ufology, by James M. McCampbell)</title>
<meta content="https://www.nicap.org/ufology/ufochap7.htm" name="url"/>
<!--#include virtual="/header-end.html" -->
<p class="exergue">What constitutes proof? <span class="source">- Edward J. Ruppelt</span></p>
<p>UFOs have unusual and distinctive flight characteristics. This aspect of the subject has been investigated
  extensively for many years, usually with an emphasis upon documentation. Numerous cases have been cited to illustrate
  each feature of UFO flight. (1) Let it suffice here to consider a composite, hypothetical sighting that includes the
  prominent flight patterns so that the maximum space can be devoted to analysis.</p>
<h2>A Hypothetical Sighting</h2>
<p>During a mid afternoon on a clear day, John Doe saw a silvery disc in the sky traveling with an undulating motion at
  an altitude he estimated to be 10,000 ft. Even though going four times faster than a jet, no sound was heard. After
  several abrupt changes in direction, it stopped suddenly, remaining stationary for about 10 minutes, except for a
  slight wobble on its axis. It next came down toward the witness to an altitude of about l00 ft from where it descended
  like a falling leaf to hover about 1 meter above the ground. When approached by the witness, it rose slowly to the
  level of the treetops, then zoomed out of sight with fantastic speed. John Doe said that he had never seen anything
  like it in his life.</p>
<h2>Hovering</h2>
<p>A favorite posture of UFOs is to hang nearly motionless in the sky or at very low altitude without any indication of
  how this stunt is achieved. Obviously, the objects do not depend upon aerodynamic lift as do conventional, fixed-wing
  aircraft. Neither are they suspended from large, rotating blades like helicopters. The absence of blasts of air or
  billows of smoke rules out jet engines and rockets. Nearly every investigator has the impression that UFOs are somehow
  defeating gravity, and obviously, they are.</p>
<p>A simple, scientific fact can be of help here. A hovering UFO does not defeat gravity entirely. If it did, it would
  not hover; instead, it would float upward in the atmosphere. Consider an idealized, disc-shaped UFO that is 10 meters
  in diameter and 2 meters thick, having a volume of 5,540 cubic feet and weighing 30 tons. On a calm day, no lateral
  forces are required to maintain its horizontal position. The UFO balances in the air vertically between a buoyant
  force upward, equal to the weight of air it displaces, and an equal force downward, presumably furnished by gravity.
  The magnitude of the buoyant force, amounting to the volume of the UFO times the density of displaced air, is easily
  calculated to be about 425 pounds weight at sea level. In other words, a downward force of about 425 lbs is required
  to prevent the UFO from rising. A hovering UFO, therefore, defeats gravity almost, but not quite, completely. In this
  example, the reduction in effective weight and mass is about 99.3%.</p>
<h2>Descent and Ascent</h2>
<p>One can best appreciate the problem of descent from the pilot's point of view. After bringing the craft to a dead
  stop about 50 ft above the selected landing spot, he must next lose altitude. Recall that he has just achieved a
  delicate balance of forces. The descent could be accomplished by adjusting this balance to allow a stronger reaction
  with gravity. But it is doubtful that this method would be wise, because completing the maneuver would be
  unnecessarily complicated and possibly hazardous. Upon approaching the ground, it would not be adequate merely to
  return the control to its former position, since the vehicle would still be in motion downward. The control setting
  would first have to be reversed sharply to act as a brake then, upon stopping the downward motion, reset to the
  original position. If the pilot wished to complete the descent close to the ground, within 1 meter or less as is
  commonly observed, he would be in danger of overshooting the mark and crashing. A safer control method would be much
  preferred.</p>
<p>At the beginning of descent, a force from the hovering UFO is acting vertically upward to counteract the weight
  acting downward. Without modifying this lifting force, the pilot could simply tilt the craft slightly to one side by a
  small amount, say, the angle A. The force holding the craft in the air would then point in a direction making an angle
  A with the vertical, but the effective weight would continue to act straight down. The consequences of this
  arrangement are twofold. Firstly, a force would gradually build up to the small value of F sin A and push the craft
  gently in the direction of the tilt. Secondly, the force holding the craft in the air would be gradually reduced to
  the value of F cos A, being only slightly less than the original value. Subject to these forces, therefore, the craft
  would sink slowly as it moved sideways in the direction of tilt. The control lever would be brought back quickly to
  neutral. This maneuver would then be repeated on the opposite side, with additional loss of altitude accompanying a
  lateral slip in the new direction. By continuing this sequence, first to one side then to the other, the craft could
  be brought down to the desired altitude under perfect control until the control lever was left in its neutral
  position. There would be no hazard of overshoot, since the original, balanced forces were never changed. The common
  manner of UFO descent, called "falling leaf" or "pendulum," seems to be entirely explicable as a preferred method of
  control.</p>
<p>Again from the perspective of the pilot, consider how best to take off in a craft that is a virtual bomb, that is,
  capable of fantastic performance. There is obviously no hazard of overshooting in ascent, but the pilot must be
  mindful of obstructions such as trees, telephone lines, and buildings. As the control system used in descent is of no
  value whatever in ascent, the pilot must adjust the balance of forces on his craft. Recall that the idealized craft
  above had an effective weight of 425 lbs while hovering. By further defeating gravity and reducing this weight, the
  pilot can allow the buoyant force to dominate, causing the craft to rise gently as it floats upward in the atmosphere.
  Upon reaching a safe altitude, the pilot is free to fly to his next destination. Almost every observed departure of
  landed UFOs includes this two-stage maneuver, namely, a cautious rise of 50 to 100 ft followed by a spectacular
  blast-off. A case in point involved an Australian postmaster and a mail carrier who together watched a dome-shaped
  object in a field for 10 minutes before approaching to within 200 meters. The object then rose, hovered, and shot off
  at immense speed. (2)</p>
<h2>Acceleration and Relativity</h2>
<p>One of the most prominent but puzzling features of UFOs is their ability to change speed and direction of flight much
  more quickly than is possible for an airplane. Instead of making long, sweeping curves as a jetliner is compelled to
  do, they make sudden, nearly right-angle turns. Their general flight pattern is erratic or jerky, resembling the
  flight of hummingbirds, that dart hither and yon, hover temporarily, suddenly change altitude, and then zoom out of
  sight with astonishing swiftness. This manner may be not only characteristic of UFOs but essential to their mode of
  flight. At any rate, something very fundamental is suggested by it.</p>
<p>By technical analysis, it has been ostensibly shown that the lift-off of a UFO would require as much energy as the
  detonation of an atomic bomb, with accompanying temperatures of 85,0000C and intense deposits of radioactivity. As
  neither of these conditions prevails, the conclusion was drawn that UFOs could not be spacecraft controlled by
  extraterrestrial beings, because they did not obey the laws of physics. One further aspect was also explored:</p>
<p>Let us now consider the possibility that the laws of physics are not valid. One idea frequently suggested is that
  extraterrestrial beings have discovered gravity shields. This, however, would not solve the problem of propulsion
  because inertia would remain; reaction would still be needed to obtain acceleration. (3,=)</p>
<p>Of course, the fundamental problem in understanding UFOs is that their peculiar flight pattern involves enormous
  accelerations for which adequate forces are not in evidence. The resolution of this dilemma appears to lie in the
  physical property of inertia.</p>
<p>If the UFO pilots are extra-terrestrial, and extra-intelligent as nearly everyone supposes, then they must certainly
  be familiar with the Theory of Relativity. By some semantic accident, this mathematical description of nature is still
  referred to as a "theory," whereas all the weaker descriptions that it has supplanted are known as "laws of nature."
  Relativity has become indispensable to every branch of the physical sciences, and its basic truth is verified daily in
  the operation of cyclotrons and linear accelerators, nuclear reactors in submarines, surface ships, and central power
  stations, and thankfully only on occasion, in the explosion of nuclear weapons. As the mathematical corner stone for
  describing gravitational fields in astronomy and cos- mology, it is consistent with all observations to date. (5) Of
  all the theories in the physical sciences, none is more trustworthy. With this major, advance over Newtonian
  mechanics, Einstein recognized the inseparable relationship between gravitation and inertia, and "transformed the
  general principle of relativity from an epistemological postulate into a law of exact science." (6) According to the
  Principle of Equivalence, enunciated by Einstein, it is not possible to distinguish inertial forces from gravitational
  forces. In layman's language,</p>
<blockquote>
  <p>The validity of this principle will be evident to any aviator; for in an airplane it is impossible to separate the
    effects of inertia from those of gravitation. The physical sensation of pulling out of a dive is exactly the same as
    that produced by executing a steeply banked turn at high speed. (7)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To put this point in another perspective, inertial mass and gravitational mass cannot be distinguished; the property
  of matter that reacts to accelerations is the same as that which responds to gravitational fields. This identity is
  evidenced by two objects of different mass that, being otherwise identical, fall at the same rate when released in a
  gravitational field. The most recent experiments have established this fact to the extraordinary accuracy of 1 part in
  1012.8 One may be quite assured in reckoning that gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical. Now to the
  bearing of these matters upon UFOs. If, as has been suggested, UFOs nullify the effect of gravity upon their mass, it
  must follow that they will nullify their inertial behavior also. Perhaps reference to a "gravity shield" is
  unfortunate because it presupposes a method which is not known. Nevertheless, a "gravity shield" must also function as
  an "inertial shield."</p>
<p>Consider a UFO having a certain mass while resting on its landing gear. By activating its so-called "shield," it
  reduces its effective mass respecting gravity to a very small fraction of its former value, permitting neutral
  buoyancy in the atmosphere, or to even lesser values approaching arbitrarily close to zero. What kind of performance
  could be expected from such a virtually mass less vehicle? Very modest forces exerted upon it would produce extremely
  high accelerations. It could easily zoom out of sight in seconds as is often reported. Or it could accelerate so fast
  that the human eye could not follow, creating the illusion that it had disappeared instantly, like "turning off a
  light," or that it had slipped through a crack in some ill-conceived, special dimension. The eye cannot follow objects
  accelerating faster than about 20g, that is, 20 times earth's gravity. In the sixties, a popular toy was a
  multi-stage, plastic rocket powered by water from the garden hose and by entrapped air at the prevailing hydrant
  pressure. It was impossible to observe the departure of the second stage when it fired at about 20g. Similarly, the
  squashed appearance of a tennis ball against a racket and its initial rebound can be detected only with high-speed
  photography. While the ultimate truth on this topic may be far beyond the present level of comprehension, one need not
  appeal to the occult and mystical to explain the sudden disappearance of UFOs. By applying a suitable and possibly
  small force in the direction of flight, a "shielded" UFO of small effective mass could be brought to a very abrupt
  stop. Applying the force transversely would produce astonishingly sharp, nearly right-angle turns. Never mind the poor
  blokes inside - they would also be protected - by the "inertial shield."</p>
<p>The flight patterns so typical of UFOs are thoroughly consistent with, and even demand, a great reduction of their
  inertial, mass. And these characteristics occur in conjunction with a corresponding reduction of their response to
  gravity. One must conclude that the full range of UFO performance is internally consistent and in complete accord with
  General Relativity, which teaches that inertial mass and gravitational mass are exactly the same thing. This finding
  is all the more remarkable since few, if any, of the witnesses were theoretical physicists.</p>
<h2>Undulation</h2>
<p>Even in horizontal flight, UFOs display an odd habit that nags the rational mind, namely, bobbing up and down in a
  sinusoidal path. In the previous discussion on hovering it became clear that the true weight of a UFO at rest on the
  ground is greatly reduced while in flight, and it is along this line of reasoning that some progress may be made.
  First consider a UFO hovering at an altitude comparable to that of commercial jet traffic say, 10 kilometers. The
  forces acting upon it must be in balance, as at sea level. But at this point another variable has been introduced: its
  altitude and corresponding atmospheric pressure. Since the atmosphere is more rarified at higher altitudes, the weight
  of a given volume of air is substantially less at high altitude than at sea level. Referring to the previous example,
  a volume of air weighing 425 lbs at sea level would weigh about 146 lbs at 10 kilometers, or only 32 lbs at 20
  kilometers. Consequently, a UFO in buoyant equilibrium with the atmosphere at some altitude must have an effective
  weight substantially less than when hovering at sea level. The curious and somewhat startling implication here is that
  the extent to which a UFO defeats gravity must be dependent upon its altitude. Furthermore, by diminishing its
  effective mass to balance the reduced force of buoyancy at high altitude, the UFO cannot escape a parallel reduction
  in its mass insofar as inertial forces are concerned. It must be concluded that the inertial mass of a UFO diminishes
  with its altitude, approaching zero toward the limits of the earth's atmosphere, where buoyant forces are no longer
  significant. Flight characteristics that betray the lack of mass should be progressively more pronounced at high
  altitudes. It is especially significant to discover that the effective mass of UFOs may become vanishingly small,
  since the forces required to propel them through space under these conditions may be extremely small. This realization
  demands a thorough investigation of all possible means of propulsion, even though the forces available from them would
  appear, under ordinary circumstances, to be much too weak.</p>
<p>Now consider a UFO in horizontal flight with its effective mass being very small, depending upon the altitude. All
  the vertical forces are in balance, with gravity acting downward upon the effective mass. If the UFO should fly over a
  local area in which the strength of gravity were somewhat greater, it would temporarily experience an increase in the
  downward force. It would naturally respond by a displacement downward, a slight loss of altitude. Conversely, it would
  move slightly upward in passing over a zone of relatively weak gravity. The gravitational strength near the surface of
  the earth is nearly constant. It is slightly less at sea than on the continents, and the earth's rotation causes a
  small change that is dependent upon latitude; for example, the value of the acceleration of gravity at Fort Egbert,
  Alaska, is 982.183 cm/secs-squared, compared to 978.331 cin/secs-squared, at Bahia, Brazil. (9) Superimposed upon
  these global scale variations, however, are minor, local changes reflecting the density of underlying, geological
  structures, a fact that has been successfully exploited in geophysical prospecting. While these local changes are very
  small, usually less than 0.3%, they are probably strong enough to modify the flight path of a passing UFO and to
  produce the bobbing effect.</p>
<p>An alternative explanation for the undulatory motion has been implied in rare instances where the witness thought
  that the UFO was following the profile of the terrain, that is, maintaining a constant altitude above the ground in
  hilly country. An automatic control system based upon the reflection of radar-like signals from the ground would be
  capable of such performance and would be a considerable convenience to a busy pilot.</p>
<h2>Speed and Shock Waves</h2>
<p>A pilot and co-pilot for Mohawk Airlines spotted an interesting UFO one summer day in 1955 while cruising in their
  DC-3 at 3,000 ft near Utica, New York. An object passed at "great speed" 500 ft above their airplane. It was 150 ft
  wide, "light gray, almost round, with a center line . . ." At least four windows were observed emitting a bright
  blue-green light which seemed to change color as the object receded. It was also observed from two other aircraft. In
  addition, it was seen traveling east on airway Victor-2 from the control tower at Albany and by radar at Boston. Based
  upon the travel time between Utica and Boston, it must have been flying between 4,500 and 4,800 mph. And even at that
  speed, it did not produce a sonic boom. This sighting was not considered by the University of Colorado researchers to
  be due to anomalous propagation of radar signals; it was thought that it "must certainly be classed as an unknown
  pending further study, which it certainly deserves" but didn't get. (10) The literature abounds with examples of UFOs
  flying at unusually high speeds and, as in this example, being tracked on radar. Many of them were measured at speeds
  greater than the world record for airplanes at the time. And some substantially out-performed even experimental,
  rocket-powered aircraft, as was shown in an analysis of 81 radar cases, spanning the period 1941 through 1962. (11) In
  1952, for example, the highest speed recorded was about 1,200 mph, whereas in August of that year a UFO was tracked by
  an Air Defense Command radar at 4,000 mph. During a famous display over Washington, D.C., the previous month, radars
  operated both by the Air Force and the CAA tracked UFOs "on the order of 7500 mph," and some of these events were
  coordinated with visual sightings. Four months later, several objects over the Gulf of Mexico were tracked on radar
  aboard a B-29 in bursts of speed between 5,240 and 9,000 mph at an altitude of 18,000 ft.</p>
<p>With the development of large rockets in the space program, man has achieved speeds of about 18,000 mph while
  orbiting earth above the atmosphere, and naturally the UFOs have followed right along. This problem has been
  officially studied, and among a large number of sightings by astronauts all but three objects were ostensibly
  explained. A daytime observation of an object having angular extension and protrusions was especially puzzling. (12)
  In November 1969, American astronauts were reported on television to be followed by a strange object enroute to the
  moon while their booster was 4,000 miles away. (13) Considerable evidence suggests that observation of UFOs within the
  space program has been more frequent and significant than has been officially acknowledged. (14) At any rate, UFOs are
  clearly capable of speeds in the atmosphere far in excess of jets and rocket powered airplanes.</p>
<p>When ordinary aircraft fly at the speed of sound or faster, they send out an ear-splitting shock wave, called sonic
  boom, that is capable of breaking window glass and cracking plaster walls. But no such effect has been observed from
  UFOs that fly silently even at speeds many times that of sound. After years of development at untold cost, the United
  States is now abandoning plans for a supersonic transport because of the sonic effect upon the environment, and it is
  leaving the global competition for marketing such planes to the joint British-French Concorde and the Russian TU- 144.
  The technological achievement represented by UFOs in supersonic flight should certainly inspire awe and envy. It not
  only offers a means of avoiding sonic booms, but it implies a vast improvement in efficiency, since all the energy in
  sonic booms is a total waste. UFOs obviously suppress the formation of shock waves. Details are not available, but
  several points are clear. The presence of an approaching UFO must be "telegraphed" ahead to the gas molecules in the
  air. While yet some distance away, a small force must be exerted by the UFO to begin moving air molecules out of the
  way, becoming stronger as it comes nearer. After passage of the UFO, the air closes in behind. By such means, the UFO
  could slip through the atmosphere with little expenditure of energy, and no shock wave would be created on its leading
  edges. Apparently, the plasma on the surface of UFOs, or the radiant energy that stimulates it, is responsible. In
  1968, Northrup Corporation was reportedly experimenting with electromagnetic fields to modify the air stream around
  supersonic aircraft to prevent shock waves. (15) Because the nose cone of an intercontinental ballistic missile
  generates a surrounding plasma upon reentering the atmosphere, the interaction between ICBMs and plasmas has been
  extensively researched, although the results are mostly classified. In a paper presented in 1968 to the Congressional
  Committee on Science and Astronautics, a scientist emphasized the extent of this literature. One reference alone
  abstracted over 800 publications on the subject. (16) He concluded that</p>
<p>......there is a body of technology which I have studied and which leads me to believe that an entirely new approach
  to high speed air and space propulsion could be developed using the interactions between magnetic and electric fields
  with electrically conducting fluids adjacent to the vehicles to produce thrust or lift and reduce or eliminate such
  other hypersonic flight ptoblems as drag, sonic boom, heating, etc. (17)</p>
<h2>Wobble and Spin</h2>
<p>As the entire vehicle or some major portion is sometimes observed to be spinning, several questions naturally arise.
  What is the purpose? Does the spinning have anything to do with the propulsion method? Do the rotating parts produce
  sound? Is the spinning limited to one or more specific types of vehicles? And so on. The only circumstance in which
  spinning has not been observed is when UFOs are resting on their landing gear. They sometimes start spinning as they
  lift off the grounds, (18) with a gradual increase in the rate of rotation. (19) No measure of the rate of spin is
  furnished in the data, but at least one witness indicated that it was rapid. Objects were seen to be spinning while
  hovering, (21) during a car chase for 13 kilometers, (22) and in various speeds of descent toward the ground. (23)
  Most frequently it was reported that the entire object was spinning, and this was not limited to a particular type of
  craft, UFOs in the shapes of spheres, ovals, discs, and tops being included. Alternately, it was sometimes only a
  major component of the craft that was spinning, and this varied greatly in nature: an outer disc below a cabin, (24) a
  dome on top, (25) and the peripheral portion of a disc.(26) None of these instances can be correlated with a
  particular type of vehicle.</p>
<p>It is easy to imagine that rotation of the entire vehicle, or a major component, would be used to achieve stability
  in the air, that is, to maintain the axis of rotation in a constant direction due to the angular momentum. And this
  supposition is justified from the knowledge that disc-shaped aircraft are inherently unstable. In the early 1950s,
  millions of dollars were spent in developing a disc-shaped craft, the VZ-9V Avrocar, which was naively in tended to be
  a real flying saucer. Designed to carry two men, it was 18 ft in diameter by 3.25 ft thick. Lift was obtained from a
  5-ft-diameter turbomotor driven by three jet engines. It never got out of "ground effect" and it did "not in any
  instance have static aerodynamic stability." (27)</p>
<p>It is unthinkable that the passengers within a UFO would be subjected to the same rotation as the outer surface of
  the craft; hence, one must postulate a decoupling of the interior from the exterior portions. This is not to say that
  windows in the walls of a vehicle could not be party to the rotation. The pilot, in this situation, would have to stop
  the rotation in order to look out the window, as was implied in an incident in Wyoming. One night a rancher saw a
  shooting star come to a sudden stop in mid-air on his side of a mountain. It was rotating with a single window
  periodically facing toward him. Upon signaling the object with his headlamps, the rotation ceased with the window in
  his direction. After the resumption of spinning, the object maneu- vered, then departed. (28) Not much clarity can be
  brought to this odd aspect of aerial behavior, but in summary, it can be said that UFOs sometimes spin at a moderate
  to rapid rate, either some prominent part or in toto. They have been seen to spin during all phases of flight but
  never while resting on the ground, a feature that is common to all types of UFOs. The rarity of these observations
  suggests that it is not a necessary adjunct to flight, but that it is used at the discretion of the pilot.</p>
<h2>Evidences of Power</h2>
<p>While the method of propulsion still remains a mystery, the literature conveys some impressions that are obviously
  related to it. Witnesses often experience a strong gust of air, either hot or cold, as the UFO sweeps past, descends,
  or takes off. (29) These gusts can be quite strong (at least one person was knocked off his feet). (30) Such currents
  would be expected from any large object moving swiftly through the air, but something else may be involved. The UFOs
  may exert a force directly on the air causing the reported gusts. Such a coupling is suggested by the behavior of
  vegetation under UFOs in flight-treetops that were spinning wildly, (31) violently moving plants, (32) and grass and
  plants that fluttered wildly. (33) Coconut palms were bent double under two UFOs that were taking off. (34) Loose
  materials are also effected: one UFO kicked up a small sand storm upon landing in a desert. (35) low-flying UFO
  appeared to suck up snow as it passed overhead, (36) and snow swirled under another one. (37) The earth appeared to
  have been dug up at two landing sites, (38) while loose leaves were scattered from another. (39) Even waves of sea
  water peaked up toward a UFO hovering 15 meters above the surface. (40)</p>
<p>A car was pulled and rocked as a UFO hovering low above it left the scene. (41) While this motion could have been the
  result of a strong gust, none was mentioned in the report and some kind of direct, physical action on vehicles has
  been noted. A truck passed a government employee in Venezuela as a brilliant disc swooped close to its hood. The truck
  was lifted nearly 1 meter above the road and it was overturned in a sand bank. (42) Apparently the same experience
  befell a juvenile driver in Minnesota as he lost consciousness in the presence of a UFO. His truck was later
  discovered in a ditch facing the opposite direction. (43) Not only can a UFO apparently lift trucks off the road, it
  seems to impart a torque, or turning force to them, as confirmed by the spinning and swirling of other objects. The
  human body is not immune to this force, for a resident of Teheran testified that "I was standing with both hands on
  the bar of my balcony, looking with astonishment at this strange object, when I suddenly felt as though I were being
  drawn up toward the object by a magnet." (44) After being warned by a UFO pilot not to approach too closely, another
  witness inadvertently exposed his shoulder under the edge of a hovering craft. His arm was violently thrown up under
  the machine, then back down against his body. Although he could still move the arm after this accident, he had lost
  feeling in it. (45) A Frenchman remained outside the hazardous zone, although his horse did not. He was leading his
  mare with a bridle when a UFO took off from the. side of the road and flew overhead. The mare rose about 3 meters into
  the air and the witness had to release the bridle. After falling back to the ground, the animal could not move for
  about 10 minutes. (46)</p>
<p>It is abundantly clear that a strange, hitherto unrecognized. force prevails within a cylindrical zone having the
  same diameter as the UFO and extending from it to the ground. This force acts vertically upward upon various objects,
  imparting to them a rotation. As no stones or dry sticks seem to have been affected, the force apparently couples
  selectively to certain objects, presumably on the basis of their composition. Electrical conductivity is one feature
  common to the responsive items, namely, the human body, horse flesh, metals, and water. Snow and leaves would qualify
  if wet. If not wet, they would be blown around like desert sand. A direct coupling to the air would be possible
  through its content of water vapor and oxygen. Why the direction of this force should be upward is quite puzzling,
  since in more normal experience, jet exhausts batter downward. Yet, if the UFOs are defeating gravity by some means,
  it appears that they are sharing that achievement with objects in the region directly below them. These data should
  vastly encourage those theoreticians who see, in their equations, a statement of gravity damping by electromagnetic
  radiation. (47)</p>
<p>Still further evidence left on the ground by UFOs suggests exposure to intense heat in an unusual manner. The roots
  of grass were charred below a UFO hovering at low altitude, but the blades were not damaged. This odd effect was
  duplicated in an Air Force laboratory only by placing samples of living sod in a pan and heating from below to about
  300 degrees F. The principal investigator of this incident felt that the only way such an effect could be produced by
  a UFO from above was by induction heating from a "powerful, alternating magnetic field." (48) The merit of this
  concept will become clear presently. Heating is extremely common near UFOs. A deputy sheriff in Florida and a dozen
  other people felt their clothes burning them as one of six UFOs came close to a patrol car. (49) The clothes of a
  Belgian gardener were partially burned when he approached a landed UFO. (50) A heat wave filled a car in Louisiana,
  setting fire to, and completely destroying a 1956 Ford. (51) Trees were burned on two occasions. (52) A haystack was
  set ablaze by a passing UFO which also desiccated a small pond. (53) Evaporation of water was also noted on a rainy
  day when the trees, grass, and even ground were found to be completely dry where a recently departed UFO had hovered.
  (54) This preferential heating and evaporation of water is typical of microwaves, since water molecules absorb
  microwave energy very efficiently. As emission of microwaves from UFOs is encountered in several other contexts, it is
  hardly surprising here, and it almost certainly explains the charring of the grass roots without burning the blades.
  Many objects at landing sites were reportedly "calcined," that is, they had apparently been raised to high temperature
  with the resulting loss of volatile constituents. Examples include the ground itself, (55) insects, (56) a pole, (57)
  trees, (58) and matches. (59) As if this evidence were not enough, the record furnishes two instances in which UFOs
  taking off from bituminous highways set fire to the surface, which continued to burn for up to 15 minutes. (60) If the
  surface had been superficially heated to the kindling temperature, the volatile constituents would have been ignited
  but quickly consumed. Prolonged burning requires that the pavement, and probably the substratum, be heated in depth so
  that heat diffusing upward can maintain the temperature of the surface high enough to continue the supply of
  combustible gases. Such heating suggests bulk absorption of electromagnetic radiation of very high frequency.</p>
<p>One further detail of experience by witnesses seems to furnish helpful clues. A Libyan farmer saw an egg-shaped craft
  with a transparent upper half come to rest on a six-wheeled landing gear. Six men in yellowish coveralls could be seen
  on board. When the witness touched part of the craft, he suffered a strong electrical shock. One of the occupants
  motioned for him to stay away, and he watched for 20 minutes longer as they worked with instruments. (61) Similarly, a
  13-year-old boy received a shock when he tried to touch an antenna on one of two small UFOs that he saw landing at
  Hamilton, Canada. (62) A prospector, also in Canada, watched a landed UFO for 30 minutes before seeing a door open.
  Upon approaching it he heard voices and tried to communicate, first in English then in several other languages. His
  rubber-coated glove was burned when he touched the craft. (63) Even though he later suffered burns when the UFO took
  off, there was no indication that the surface of the UFO was hot. The burning of his glove may have been some kind of
  electrical effect. The portions of the UFOs that were touched by the first two witnesses certainly carried electrical
  potentials relative to the ground. Some idea of the strength is afforded by the fact that neither of them was burned
  or killed. They would not have fared so well if the UFO had held a large, static charge at very high voltage, for its
  discharge to ground through the witnesses would have been grim. Also, the potentials could not have been very great or
  the electrified portions would have arched over to the portions in contact with the ground. At least modest voltages
  are implied, but it cannot be established whether they were static or alternating.</p>
<h2>Microwave Propulsion</h2>
<p>Within a variety of contexts in the preceding sections and chapters, the emanation of microwave energy from UFOs has
  been adduced. These references should be summarized here and examined together to improve the overall perspective of
  this point. Electromagnetic energy in the range of about 300 to 3,000 MHz, or higher, seemed to be responsible
  for:</p>
<p>a) stimulating colored halos around UFOs, largely from the noble gases in the atmosphere,<br> b) producing a
  dazzling, white plasma on the surface of UFOs, akin' to ball lightning,<br> c) inducing chemical changes that were
  detected as odors,<br> d) turning off automobile headlights by increasing the resistance of their tungsten
  filaments,<br> e) stopping internal combustion engines by increasing resistance of the distributor points and<br>
  suppressing the current in the primary windings,<br> f) precipitating wild gyrations of compasses and magnetic
  speedometers and rattling metallic<br> road signs,<br> g) heating of automobile batteries through the direct
  absorption of energy in the acid,<br> h) interfering with radio (and television) reception and transmission by
  inducing extraneous<br> voltages in the coil of the tuned circuit, or restricting the emission of electrons from<br>
  tungsten cathodes,<br> i) disrupting transmission of electrical power by induced operation of isolation relays,<br> j)
  desiccating a small pond and drying of grass, bushes, and the ground by resonant<br> absorption in water
  molecules,<br> k) charring or calcining grass roots, insects, and wooden objects at landing sites,<br> l) heating
  bituminous highways in depth and igniting the volatilized gases,<br> m) heating the human body internally,<br> n)
  causing people to feel electrical shocks, and<br> o) inducing temporary paralysis in the witnesses.</p>
<p>In addition, medical experiments have shown that, when pulsed at a low audio frequency this energy was capable of p)
  stimulating the auditory nerve directly with the sensation of hearing a humming, or buzzing, sound.</p>
<p>While this evidence is so broad that the loss of a few points would hardly damage the argument, it is all
  circumstantial. Proof of the suspected radiation would be at hand only through direct, instrumental measurements by
  qualified personnel. But one despairs of the direct experimental approach in view of the difficulties in assembling
  the complex and expensive equipment, finding a UFO in the field, and staying in its vicinity long enough to make the
  measurements. Perhaps, the following episode can fill the present void.</p>
<p>A famous sighting in the fall of 1957was made from an Air Force B-47 on a training mission over the Gulf of Mexico
  and the South-Central states. It came to the attention of the Condon Committee rather by accident and was investigated
  as Case No. 5. This UFO was seen by the pilot to be "as big as a barn" with a "steady, red glow" and it flew at speeds
  far greater than airplanes. It paced the aircraft through numerous changes of speed and seemed to jump instantly from
  one location to another. Visual sightings were coordinated with radar fixes from the air and the ground. The object
  emitted electromagnetic energy of about 2,800 MHz with "startling intensity." After the crew members had been
  interrogated upon completion of the flight, the "security lid" came down on the incident and no records could be
  found, not even in Project Blue Book. (64)</p>
<p>More successful research was reported by an enterprising private investigator to the 136th Meeting of the American
  Association for the Advancement of Science at Boston in December 1969. As the entire episode is very intricate, only
  highlights of special importance are reviewed here. The aircraft, equipped for electronic countermeasures missions,
  was returning from a flight over the Gulf of Mexico when it first encountered the UFO near Meridian, Mississippi. The
  UFO played tag with the aircraft at various speeds greater than 500 mph and literally flew circles around it. The
  contact lasted for 1.5 hours as the plane flew across Mississippi, Louisiana, northern Texas, and making a large loop
  near Ft. Worth before turning northward into Oklahoma. Upon losing contact near Oklahoma City, the B-47 proceeded to
  its home field, Forbes AFB in northeastern Kansas. The B-47 was released from its assigned mission to chase the UFO,
  and the FAA cleared other jet traffic from the area. Observation of the UFO was confirmed through at least five
  independent physical channels, namely, visually from the cockpit, navigation radar onboard, two airborne electronic
  counter- measure receivers, and military ground control radar. Electronic equipment on the aircraft of primary
  interest here was monitor no.2, operated by an Air Force officer named McClure. It consisted of an ALA-6DF passive
  receiver with back-to-back antennas in a housing on the belly of the plane having spin rates of 150 to 300 rpm in
  scanning the azimuth. Incoming signals were displayed on an APR-9 radar receiver and fed into an ALA-5 pulse analyzer.
  An official report by the Wing Intelligence Officer at Forbes AFB in reference to the UFO said:</p>
<p>......intercepted at approximately Meridian, Mississippi, a signal with the following characteristics; frequency
  2995MC to 3000 MC; pulse width of 2.0 microseconds; pulse repetition frequency of 600 cps; sweep rate of 4 rpm;
  vertical polarity ....Signal moved rapidly up the DF scope indicating a rapidly moving signal source; i.e., an
  airborne source. . . -</p>
<p>These signal characteristics were confirmed on monitor no. 1, but nothing was detected on monitor no.3 which was
  scanning lower frequency ranges. (65)</p>
<p>This UFO was, in fact, pouring forth large amounts of electromagnetic radiation in a very narrow range of the
  microwave region, and it was pulsed at a low audio rate!</p>
<p>McClure recalled that the signal characteristics bore a strong similarity to ground-based sets such as the CPS-6B
  that were widely used at that time. But it is untenable to assert that somebody installed a large search radar in a
  barn-sized machine and flew circles around a B-47. Nor was the UFO merely utilizing its own radar to keep an eye on
  the airplane. It was previously shown that radiant energy produced colored halos and plasmas around UFOs which changed
  in accordance with their accelerations, that is, the application of power. Hence, the conclusion from this B-47
  incident is inescapable. The flood of microwave energy from the UFO was an essential, integral part of a propulsion
  system that is common to all UFOs. This system by some unknown means is capable of diminishing or nullifying
  gravitational and inertial forces; it also furnishes the requisite thrust for acceleration, and moves air out of the
  flight path to minimize drag and, above sonic velocities, to eliminate shock waves.</p>
<p>It would be helpful if the total amount of energy radiated by this UFO could be estimated, but unfortunately no
  quantitative data on this point is included in the report. Suitable information, however, can be gleaned from a few
  other reports. Two peasant farmers in Brazil, upon hearing a strange hum, saw two aluminum discs about 10 ft in
  diameter that were hovering close to the ground at a distance of 200 meters. (66) If the humming sound were induced
  within their heads by pulses of microwave energy, as suggested by the word "strange," then the irradiation to which
  they were exposed must have been as high as the threshold for that effect, known to be 0.333 milliwatts per square
  centimeter. (67) Since the UFOs were hovering instead of resting on the ground, their power systems must have been in
  operation. In the absence of better information, energy emission from them is assumed to have been equal in all
  directions. The report contains no indication that a concentrated beam was directed toward the witnesses. Finally, the
  degradation of intensity over the distance of 200 meters from the UFOs to the witnesses can be closely approximated by
  the inverse square law. All the necessary factors are present, or assumed, to calculate the total energy emanating
  from the UFOs that passes through an imaginary sphere of 200-m radius. The resulting value is 1.6 megawatts. To put
  this amount into some perspective, the maximum energy that may be broadcast by a local radio station is limited by the
  Federal Communications Commission to 0.5 megawatt. Put another way, diesel locomotives up to 2,000 hp are most popular
  for express freight service in North America. The electrical power equivalent of this rating is about 1.5 megawatts.
  Thus the two UFOs in a state of hovering were generating and emitting several times the amount of energy that is
  broadcast by the most powerful radio stations, or an amount comparable to the power of a diesel locomotive. Of course
  this estimate pertains only to the minimum value, and it would not be valid at all if the humming sound were detected
  by normal hearing. At least it illustrates a point of view that, upon broad application to many sightings, should
  yield fairly reliable results.</p>
<h2>Limits of Theory</h2>
<p>Previous discussions have shown that the propulsion system in UFOs relies upon unknown mechanisms to reduce their
  effective mass with a twofold advantage, furnishing lift through nullifying gravity and achieving enormous
  accelerations with only moderate forces. While this performance is compatible with well-established theory, it is
  greatly in advance of current technology. It does not appear to be so far distant that a well-organized and adequately
  funded research program would not make it available to humanity. Even though daily experience impresses everyone with
  the persistence and strength of gravity, it is actually extremely weak in comparison to the other fields in nature.
  Overcoming it should not be too troublesome if one could only discover how. As electromagnetic fields have an energy
  density, they are influenced by gravity, but the effect is very small. Otherwise, electrical and magnetic fields
  interpenetrate gravitational fields without the slightest influence one way or the other. A major theoretical
  difficulty is encountered in the observation that UFOs are defeating gravity by an electromagnetic field. Neither in
  the laboratory nor in nature has any such gross interaction ever been observed. It has long been suspected in
  theoretical circles, however, that all natural fields are related and that they interact in some way. This
  relationship is part of a problem known as unified field theory in which some impressive advances have been made but
  completely satisfying solutions are still wanting. Very advanced mathematical concepts have been used to describe a
  gravitational field from which electromagnetic fields can be derived, although the latter do not appear explicitly in
  the original form. Unfortunately, the trail of elucidating the performance of UFOs ends here. Their behavior, however,
  represents some new empirical data that, upon examination from a theoretical perspective, may produce the mutual
  benefits of improving the theory and understanding UFOs.(68)</p>
<p>Footnotes</p>
<p>1. Hall, Richard, H., The UFO Evidence, National Investigation Committee on Aerial<br> Phenomena, 3535 University
  Blvd., West, Suite 23, Kensington, Maryland 20795, May 1964.<br> 2. Case 484.<br> 3. The context requires this
  language to mean that the inertial behavior would remain unchanged.<br> 4. Markowitz, William, "The Physics and
  Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects," Science,<br> Vol.157, p.1277, 15 September 1967.<br> 5. Nordtvedt,
  Kenneth L. Jr., "Gravitation Theory; Empirical Status From Solar System<br> Experiments," Science, Vol. 178, p. 1157,
  December 15 1972.<br> 6. Born, Max, et al, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, p.313, Revised Edition, Dover, 1962.<br>
  7. Barnett, Lincoln, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p.71, Times Inc., 1948.<br> 8. Nordtvedt, Kenneth L., Jr.,
  "Gravitation Theory; Empirical Status From Solar System<br> Experiments," Science, Vol.178, 15 December 1972.<br> 9.
  Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, p.2016, Chemical Rubber Company, 1937.<br> 10. Condon, Edward U., Scientific Study
  of Unidentified Flying Objects, p.143,<br> Dutton, 1969.<br> 11. Hall, Richard H., The UFO Evidence, p. 81, National
  Investigations Committee on<br> Aerial Phenomena, May 1964.<br> 12. Roach, Franklin E., "Visual Observations Made By
  U.S. Astronauts," Chapter 6 of<br> Condon, Edward U., Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, Dutton,
  1969.<br> 13. Personal communication.<br> 14. Binder, Otto 0., "Secret Messages From UFOs," Saga, date unknown.<br>
  15. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 88, p. 21, 1968.<br> 16. Literature Search No. S41, interactions of Spacecraft
  and Other Moving Bodies<br> with Natural Plasmas, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 1965.<br> 17. Friedman, Stanton T.,
  Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects, Hearings Before<br> the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of
  Representatives, Hon. J.<br> Edward Roush presiding, p.217, July 29,. 1968. Also see a more readily available,<br>
  popular version that, having lost some of the technical detail, is bland and stale in<br> comparison to the original.
  Fuller, John G., Aliens In the Skies, The Scientific Rebuttal<br> To the Condon Committee Report, Putnam, 1969.<br>
  18. Cases 72, 223, 288, and 515.<br> 19. Case 93.<br> 20. Case 106.<br> 21. CaseS4O.<br> 22. Case 499.<br> 23. Cases
  228, 321, 414, and 469.<br> 24. Case 469.<br> 25. Case5l2.<br> 27. Case 397.<br> 27. Berliner, Don, "The U.F.O. From
  The Designer's Viewpoint," Air Progress, p.36,<br> October, 1967 from Greif, R.K. and Tolhurst, W.H., NASA Technical
  Note D-1432,<br> Ames Research Center, 1963.<br> 28. Case 88.<br> 29. Cases 81, 96, 148, 348, 521, 529, and 557.<br>
  30. Case 375.<br> 31. Case 62.<br> 32. Case 391.<br> 33. Case 398.<br> 34. Case 442.<br> 35. Case 129.<br> 36. Case
  388.<br> 37. Case 819.<br> 38. Cases 194 and 358.<br> 39. Case 332.<br> 40. Case 464.<br> 41. Case 832.<br> 42. Case
  514.<br> 43. Case 720.<br> 44. Case 211.<br> 45. Leslie, Desmond, and Adamski,George, Flying Saucers Have Landed.
  p.208,<br> British Book Center, 1953.<br> 46. Case 272.<br> 47. Peres, A., "Motion and Radiation of Pole Particles,"
  p.361, in Recent Developments<br> In General Relativity, Polish Scientific Publishers, 1962.<br> 48. Case 97, original
  source.<br> 49. Case 378.<br> 50. Case 340.<br> 51. Case 417<br> 52. Cases 264 and 265.<br> 53. Case 262.<br> 54. Case
  292.<br> 55. Case 230.<br> 56. Case 533.<br> 57. Case 627.<br> 58. Case 634.<br> 59. Case 836.<br> 60. Cases 702 and
  836.<br> 61. Case 303.<br> 62. Case 745.<br> 63. Case 944.<br> 64. Condon, Edward U., Scientific Study of Unidentified
  Flying Objects, p.260 ff,<br> Dutton, 1969.<br> 65. McDonald, James E., "Science in Default; Twenty-two Years of
  Inadequate UFO<br> Investigations," Chapter 5 of Sagan, Carl, and Page, Thornton, Editors, UFOs, A<br> Scientific
  Debate, Cornell, 1972.<br> 66. Bowen, Charles, Editor, "The Humanoids," p. 36, Flying Saucer Review, London, 1968.<br>
  67. Copson, David A., Microwave Hearing, p.410, AVI Publishing Co., 1962.<br> 68. Bergmann, Peter G. and Komar, Arthur
  B., "Status Report on the Quantization of<br> the Gravitational Field," p.31, in Recent Developments in General
  Relativity, Polish<br> Scientific Publishers, 1962.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/footer.html" -->