This article covers characteristics, speed, rotation, wobble, radiation, maneuvres, sounds, landing traces etc. The article aims to help the reader make some “technological sense” out of certain aspects of the UFO pattern. Some of the concepts are technical, but I’ve attempted to present them in a language which nearly everyone should understand.
Enhanced image of Belgium UFO.
Shapes and sizes of UFOs, as reported by eye-witnesses, change over time. Since the mid-1970’s a growing percentage of UFO reports has been of dark/black triangles and chevrons, some incredibly large and reported all over the world (note: triangle-shaped UFOs have been reported at least as far back as the 1950’s and are not a recent phenomena). In recent years the objects reported near the ground or landing are mostly smaller ones up to 5-m (15-ft.) sphere/half-sphere/ovoid/triangular, down to beach ball sized spherical objects, in contrast to the majority of larger objects like the 5-10-m. (15-35-ft.) discs and ovals in earlier decades.
Propulsion: UFO researchers including, H Oberth, L Cramp, J Harder, J Campbell, C Poher and P Hill, through a process if elimination of alternatives, speculated on UFO propulsion by accepting a hypothetical gravity-like ‘force field’ which could be repulsive as well as attractive i.e. artificial gravity fields, or what is popularly referred to as “anti-gravity.”
Indeed, witness reports describe that these fields bend and break tree branches, bump or slow automobiles spinning them out of control or tipping them over, stop people by force or knock them down. Under close analysis, the subtleties of these interactions combine to point unequivocally to a repulsive force field surrounding the craft. There is no jet propulsion and no ejection propellant of any kind, like those used to give thrust to a rocket. UFOs do not create any significant downdraft of air; unlike a helicopter or Vertical Take Off and Landing aircraft when they hover. UFOs also do not create any significant air-disturbance (turbulence and noise) when they move. Close range eye-witnesses will typically use terms like “floated” or “glided”, or “drifted” to describe how a UFO moved smoothly and swiftly through the air. Apparently, UFOs use the atmosphere neither for support nor for locomotion (unlike balloons, airplanes, helicopters, birds etc). UFOs don’t use aerodynamic lift designs such as those used on ordinary aircraft wings (See diagram).
The middle word “flying” in the U.F.O. acronym is an unsuitable term. UFOs don’t “fly”, they are vectored along trajectories. In this instance the term ‘vectored’ means changing the UFO’s direction by altering the airflow control force field (ACFF).
NASA aeronautical engineer Paul R. Hill in his book “Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis” explains how UFOs may utilise acceleration-type (i.e. gravity-like) force fields in several ways: externally for propulsion and airflow-control (shock-wave suppression and drag reduction) and inside the vehicle for acceleration neutralization during manoeuvres (so UFO occupants can withstand the tremendous accelerations, which would certainly kill a human pilot). Of the first two field types, the UFO propulsive force field (PFF) may be thought as being long-range, narrow and focused. Whereas, the UFO airflow-control force field (ACFF) may be thought as short-range, continuous and having components which are uniformly distributed with respect to direction.
In his book, Hill – who was a famous aerodynamicist in his day, provides calculations and possible arrangement of force field generators within spherical and oval UFOs, which would produce the necessary effects, including the ability of UFOs to travel supersonically without generating a sonic boom. Manipulation of the surrounding air/water by the ACFF would, even at supersonic speeds, result in a constant-pressure, constant-density flow around the UFO, in which the UFO is surrounded by a subsonic flow-pattern of streamlines, and subsonic velocity ratios (hence no shock wave, i.e. sonic boom). This minimizes friction and heating issues. An additional benefit of the ACFF is that drops of rain, dust, insects, or other objects would follow streamline paths around the UFO rather than impact it.
Effectively, the ACFF creates a “protective shield” around the UFO, much like an incandescent light bulb. Imagine the UFO is the filament and the bulb is the air-control field around it, which protects the UFO and keeps the surrounding medium (air/water) from coming in touch with it.
The Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) case of a farmer in Miller County, Missouri 14-Feb-1967, who threw rocks at a UFO and they bounced off an invisible barrier is one such case which seems to confirm this. Another case occurred during the Korean War in 1951 (see link).
UFO ACFF DIAGRAM
Could the “aura-like” glow of the air (i.e. “plasma sheath”) around many UFOs be due to the ionization of surrounding air by the electromagnetic (EM) radiation accompanying the UFO “airflow-control” force field (ACFF) used for shockwave suppression and drag reduction (resistance experienced by a body moving through a fluid medium, especially by an aircraft when travelling through the air).? The ACFF apparently creates an envelope of lower atmospheric density (vacuum) around the UFO, by pushing the surrounding medium (air/water) away from the skin of the UFO.
UFOs seem to switch off their ACFF when they hover near the ground or land, which eliminates the “plasma sheath” and allows details of the UFO to be seen.
UFOs observed to travel continuously at Mach 4 or 5 (4939.2 k/ph or 6174 k/ph) do not appear to generate temperatures sufficiently high to be destructive to known materials. In other words, UFOs appear to prevent high aerodynamic heating rates rather than permitting a heating problem to arise. It appears they do not require heat-resistant materials such as the NASA Space Shuttle, whose surface temperatures can reach 1300°C. The resolution of this potential problem may derive from the fact that the force-field control that results in the prevention of shockwave drag, mentioned earlier, is also effective in preventing aerodynamic heating. In effect, the airflow approaches then springs away from the craft, depositing no energy in the process.
Merging/Splitting: UFOs have been reported “splitting” into smaller objects, in a soundless “explosion” with bright light (e.g. Rendlesham forest Dec-1980, or Puerto Rico 28-Dec-1988).
The following statement comes from a MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) Event Report.
We were outside sitting on the porch at 8:45 p.m. smoking a cigarette. It’s been my habit for the last few weeks to check for a particular star as it comes into view over the treetops around that time every night. I look for it every night because it’s always the brightest star in view over my house. I saw it in its usual spot, but then I noticed another, brighter star that was twinkling through the trees a little to the east of my star. As I focused on it, I realized that it wasn’t twinkling … it was flashing. My husband was out with me and I called his attention to it. I asked him if it was the space station (which I thought MY star was) but as we watched it, it flashed brighter with multicoloured lights. Red, blue, green, yellow, orange. We got up and walked out into the yard, thinking to see it better through the trees.
It hovered the whole time … but would raise and lower a little bit, but randomly. It wasn’t a trick of the eye, though. We noticed at the same time. Then I saw it split into two lights, twinkling different colours. The second, new one rose up from the first only slightly and hovered a few seconds, before merging back into the first. That’s when I went in to get the camera.
I called my friend in Carl Junction to ask if she could see it from her house. I told her which direction, she went outside and almost immediately spotted it. She described to me exactly what I was seeing … the flashing, multicoloured lights, the slight rising and falling … it was like nothing any of us have ever seen before. She also started filming from her vantage point. I filmed … I don’t know … 30 minutes or so over the course of an hour, and got several very clear still shots. This object followed a track across the sky — but slower than all the rest of the stars, I think. I have no idea what this object is … it could very well be the space station. But I would like a very thorough explanation and demonstration as to why this thing broke apart, merged, and flashed so many different colours for so long. It was like nothing I’d ever seen before.
The Marfa Merging Lights link (Unrelated to the above testimony): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfCJvh6kwcQ
Note: Could the Marfa lights be related to ball lightning or other ‘earthlight’ Phenomena such as put forward by the Tectonic Strain Theory (TST)? https://occultusregnum.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/the-tectonic-strain-theory-tst/
Rotation/Spin: UFOs with a round cross-section (e.g. spheres, disks, ovals, cones, cylinders) are often reported to exhibit a rotating motion. Many discoid UFOs have luminous “portholes” (“windows”, “vents”) arranged in a circular band around their circumference often give the illusion of rotation, by blinking multi-colours in sequence, or a single colour in which each light will individually pulse brighter periodically. Witnesses often describe them as “chase lights” or “lights on a theater marquee”.
Note: Rotation of “lights” at the rim of saucers is practically always reported to be counter-clockwise i.e. left to right as seen from the side. A few UFOs have been reported to have two rotating sections, which counter-rotate. UFOs are almost never reported to rotate in their entirety, despite the popular myth. Examples: Waterbury CT 1987, America West Airlines Flight 564 May-1995, Newport CA 2009, Puerto Rico 1990, Redlands, CA USA 1968, Blenheim, New Zealand 1959, Bexley, UK 1955.
Some have suggested that the rotating components of UFOs may be for gyroscopic stabilisation. Others suspect it is connected to the propulsion system and to that effect are intrigued by the parallels with recent scientific literature on gravity effects of rotating superconductors and the subject of field effects caused by moving matter known as “Gravitomagnetism”.
Some discoid UFOs (e.g. saucers, Saturn-shaped etc) have been reported to have a rotating outer rim, which is described as spinning (or “vibrating”) independently from the central part, or cupola, which remains stationary.
Wobble: When hovering or moving slowly, some spherical UFOs (e.g. saucers, Saturns) exhibit a “wobble” in a sinusoidal path, an undulating “rocking” motion, like a gyroscope or a top (other expressions used by witnesses: “like a boat at anchor on water” or “tipping right and left”), similar to that of a spinning coin as it is winding down and closely approaching a flat surface.
There is some evidence which suggests that the UFO gravity-like force field has a cyclic component, i.e. periodically attracts and repels matter. Also, in several cases of round, hovering, UFOs (discoid, spherical and egg shaped) the gravity-like force field seems to prevail within a cylindrical zone having about the same diameter as the UFO and extending from it down to the ground. This force field acts upon objects underneath the UFO, and also seems to be imparting them a rotation (a torque or turning force) as suggested by the spinning.
Note: Could the gravity-like force field be responsible for some crop circles?
The swirling of loose materials (plants, sand, snowflakes etc) has been reported rising towards hovering UFOs suggesting an anti-gravity effect. The same effect has also been reported over bodies of water, such as seas and lakes (see diagram).
UFOs’ non-propellant propulsion and associated phenomena seem to defy our Physics theories. Both Classical Mechanics (Newton’s gravity) and General Relativity (Einstein’s theory of gravitation), require the existence of “negative mass” (or energy) for antigravity to be possible. However, the Standard Model of particle physics does not permit negative mass. To overcome these objections, other UFO researchers (e.g. physicists Friedman, Meesen, Petit, Warmkessel), attempt to explain UFO propulsion based solely on the currently established physics theories; in particular on “Magneto Hydrodynamics” (MHD), i.e. ionize the ambient air into plasma and then work with magnetic fields.
Test vehicles have been built around MHD principles, including the EM submarine model tested by Dr S. Way of UCSB in 1965, the submarine Yamato 1 of Japan in 1992 or the proposed “Wingless Electromagnetic Air Vehicle” – WEAV by Dr S. Roy of the University of Florida in 2008. Although UFOs would become more acceptable, if more of the UFO pattern could be explained in terms of today’s scientific principles, IMHO and MHD-type methods simply don’t conform to the UFO evidence (e.g. it doesn’t account for the direct gravity effects).
But all is not lost yet. As mentioned in the “Rotation/Spin” section above, there is new but yet unconfirmed scientific research in the field of gravity effects of rotating superconductors and “Gravitomagnetism”. Anomalous gravity effects have been reported e.g. in Mar-2006 Austrian physicist M.Tajmar and others in an experiment funded by ESA (European Space Agency), reported generation of a toroidal (doughnut-shaped) gravitational field in a rotating accelerated superconducting Niobium ring.