Time Travel: An Impossibility?


Theory and Evidence.

It is a widely held belief that each of us travels in time every day at the speed of one second per second and that it is a rate of progress that never alters, and is a universal and immutable fact. However, it is a presumption based on ignorance. Time can and does indeed change. A young child, for example, experiences time at a different rate to that of an adult. This subjective time appears to depend on where and when you are. Einstein’s theory of relativity shows us that real, physical, measurable, time acts in the same way.
According to the relativistic theory, if we take two perfectly synchronised clocks and put one close to a massive object, such as a planet, and the other a greater distance from the planet, the nearest clock will tick slower because the massive gravity distorts the flow of space-time. The resultant effect is known as the “twin paradox”. If one twin moves to a higher altitude than his sibling, he will age much faster. This effect has been confirmed in several classical experiments.
Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity however only allows for time travel into the future and not the past, and it is currently unknown as to whether the laws of physics would allow a time traveller to visit our yesteryears. He did not envisage a time machine such as the TARDIS however, but saw black holes as a method to transport us through time and space. The major drawback to this was that a simple stationary black hole wouldn’t do, because at its heart there is what is termed a ‘singularity’ where space-time ceases to exist. Anything that falls into the singularity would be crushed out of existence.
In the 1960s a brilliant New Zealand mathematician, Roy Kerr, came up with a solution to the problem. If the black hole was rotating he theorised that it would still form a singularity, but in the form of a ring. Anything falling through the ring would emerge, unscathed, in another time and place. For many relativists this was a step too far, and they set out to disprove Kerr’s equations. They failed. There was nothing in Einstein’s mathematical statements to preclude time travel, given the right technology employed to manipulate a black hole.

rotating black hole

It goes without saying that we do not currently possess such a technology, but a type III human civilisation might well have the capacity to create such a device. If humanity manages to survive for another 100,000 to a million years we will have reached a type III status and have the technological sophistication that would allow us to build a device capable of transporting us through space-time. But what would such a device look like?
American theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku came up with a description of a time machine which consists of two chambers, both containing two parallel metal plates. Between each plate an intense images (13)electrical field is created which would rip the fabric of spacetime, thus creating a wormhole that would link the two chambers. Since time runs slow for a moving object – according to Einstein’s special theory of relativity – one of the chambers is then sent out on an incredibly fast journey and returned. At either end of the wormhole time would pass at different rates. Anyone falling into one end of the hole would instantaneously be hurled into a past or future time when they emerged from the other end.

The Grandfather Paradox

This is a classic contradiction, and one which has occupied the minds of serious relativist scientists. Some have proposed that there must be a law in nature which prevents time travel and the grandfather_paradoxparadoxes that could ensue because of it. One such incongruity is the “Grandfather Paradox”. If a person travels back in time and kills his grandfather how then could he have been born in order to make the journey into the past? Sceptics see this an assault on common sense, so they argue that there must be a natural law that prevents it. This is the selfsame argument that was aimed at space flight and journeying to the Moon, to name but a few other so-called impossibilities. To discover what might exist in nature to prevent such apparent inconsistencies we need to delve into the world of quantum physics, and the “multiverse” theory.
A multiverse (aka meta-universe) is a theoretical group of universes that comprise all of reality. In an open multiverse, which is infinite, duplication is possible, even limitless identical copies of a given person. This would resolve the paradox. Having killed his grandfather the murderer would travel forward in time, but up a different branch of the multiverse in which he was never born; to a different reality where there is no paradox, because in an adjacent, alternate reality the grandfather is alive, thus allowing for the killer to be born and travel back in time to commit the murder. Each of these parallel worlds may be just as real as our own, all with an alternative history created by every decision ever made. They branch out like the limbs of a tree in every direction.
Another concern for time travellers would be spatial displacement, of which the ghostly legions of Roman soldiers witnessed in York, England, are a prime example. They seem to be walking partially embedded in the ground. This is possibly due to the fact that the ground level during their time, was lower than it is in ours. The same phenomenon is also witnessed when they appear to walk through solid objects such as walls and closed doors, that did not exist in their time. It would seem that the further through time you travel, either backwards or forwards, the worse this displacement becomes. The unwary time traveller could well end up in the middle of a mountain or the bottom of an ocean that didn’t exist in their timeline.
As you can no doubt appreciate, any physical time machine could not, therefore, travel whilst remaining on the ground. They would have to be well away from the surface in order to safely navigate temporally. Travelling through a wormhole in the vast emptiness of space would seem the most logical solution to the problem. Having exited the wormhole’s event horizon into the past, they simply continue on their short journey to the required target.
One would suppose that if future scientists have overcome the problems of time travel they may have visited our present timeline, and those before. Could what we term as “UFOs” actually be time machines and not extraterrestrial spacecraft? If so, what evidence is there to support such a conclusion? It may come as a surprise to many that some potential evidence does exist and can be found in ancient historical records, cave paintings and drawings, as well as archaeological deposits.

Historical Records, Paintings and Artefacts.

Tellingly, ancient historical records seem to show that, apart from a few basic kinds, UFOs have changed little in their appearances and capabilities. If the extraterrestrial hypothesis is to be believed then this should not be the case. We  should see a progressive change in their technology if they inhabit the same timeline as us. If, however, UFOs come from many different future eras and each one is capable of journeying to any point in time in our past we would see the same basic types from one historical era to another. There would be no trace of any technological advancement, as seems to be the case. Written documents of strange objects in the sky are numerous and date back centuries before the first flying machines were ever built and, like their modern-day counterparts, UFOs were a worldwide phenomenon. Descriptions of these curious anomalies bear a striking resemblance to present day UFOs. One of the earliest sightings dates back to ancient Egypt, circa 1504 BCE, and was written during the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose III. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the events that took place in Guadalajara, Mexico, on June 10, 2004. Even the Bible contains accounts of strange encounters with UFO-like objects, specifically the stories in Ezekiel, and Exodus. Similar stories can also be found in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana ancient Sanskrit texts, dating back to 4,000 BCE.
One of the most extraordinary cave paintings of apparent unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) niaux-cave-paintingscomes from Niaux, in the French Pyrenees. It shows two domed UFOs side by side, one of which is apparently giving off a trail of sparks, as is reported in many contemporary sightings. It is estimated that this drawing is around 14,000 years old .This is not an isolated example. There are literally hundreds of images like these throughout the world from disparate cultures, so we cannot simply dismiss them out of hand. Have ancient artists depicted what may be some of the earliest temporal sojourns of the same time travellers we see today in our skies?

Geological Evidence

The Red Mountain fossilised shoe print was discovered by a retired school teacher in Urumqi City, red mountain shoeprintChina, in 1997. It is believed to have been laid down some 200 million years ago. It is clearly the impression of a shoe with a leather sole. By any normal definition this is utterly impossible as, according to anthropological studies, it has been determined that the most modern humans came onto the scene around 200, 000 years ago. Nor is this the only footprint to have been discovered that predates humanity by millions of years. Some prints, particularly the barefooted variety, are that of modern humans (see link): http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/footprints.htm
It has been postulated that lost human super civilisations may be responsible for these artefacts that span the aeons of time. Whilst it is true that written and physical evidence exists that some advanced human civilisations may have preceded ours, those societies would have existed no more than 100, 000 years ago. The age given for some of these anomalous footprints is 260,000,000 years. This is around the time when the very first reptiles began to appear.
 One of the most incredible finds by far comes from a rock that dates back 500 million years. It was meisterdiscovered within a block of Utah shale. Beneath the shoe cast a squashed trilobite, a small prehistoric marine arthropod, was discovered. It had apparently been crushed by the individual who had walked over it. Trilobites became extinct long before the emergence of even the most primitive ancestors of mankind walked the Earth.
In 1987 palaeontologist Jerry MacDonald found a variety of fossilised tracks laid down in the Permian strata. Among them was the undeniable print of a naked human foot. The Permian strata dates from 290 to 248 million years ago – once again, long before the emergence of man.
Whilst the foregoing anomalies are highly problematic and difficult to come to terms with, especially within the scientific community, there are yet other artifacts that are even more intractable. A short list of these finds follows.
• In 1901 STRAND magazine published an article on the discovery of a coin, dated 1397, found inside a 300 million-year-old coal seam.
• A gold chain, complete with cast, was accidentally discovered in a lump of coal millions of years old when it was dropped before being put onto the fire by a woman from Illinois, USA.
• The discovery of aluminium alloy screws, dated as being 100 million-years-old were also discovered, and the list goes on.
Several books have been written by author and researcher Michael Cremo cataloguing aberrant discoveries made over the last 200 years. He has documented them with eye-witness accounts, original newspaper articles and unaltered photographs. Many of these artifacts are currently gathering dust in the basements of some of the world’s most illustrious natural history museums.
There are several possible answers to this enigma:
• That we have, and still are, being visited by extraterrestrials.
• That our understanding and the history and origins of mankind is completely wrong, and there have been many advanced human societies that had once existed over tens of hundreds of millions of years, but eventually died out.
• Or that we have been visited by time travellers surveying our prehistoric past, leaving behind unintentional evidence of their temporal sojourns.

ET or Future Man?

Since the publication of Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory in 1905, he has always been credited with the concept of time being the “fourth dimension” However, in 1885 the visionary author and science fiction writer H. G. Wells’ book “The Time Machine” was published in which he wrote, “There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space, except that our consciousness moves along it”, thus pre-dating Einstein’s concept by some 10 years.
Grey_Alien4This iconic figure with its bulbous head and spindly body, is what ufologists term as a “Grey alien”, which they believe comes from the Pleiades star system. Compare that with an artist’s depiction of how Wells thought a future man might look after 1,000,000 years of evolutionary changes in his 1893 article “The Man of the Year Million”. There are some interesting and thought provoking similarities.
Might Wells have been closer to the truth, regarding the Greys’ terrestrial origins? Anatomically, they are as close to humans as it is possible to get. Moreover, they even speak the same languages as man-year-millionwe do. They even appear to act and think as we do. For some ufologists and scientists this flies in the face of reason. A truly alien species, they believe, would be nothing like us anatomically, or culturally, because their evolutionary paths would be entirely different to that of our own. If we apply the time travel hypothesis, however, these apparent inconsistencies suddenly make some kind of sense.
Currently, the UFO fraternity are buzzing about time travel, due in no small part to the revelations of James Penniston. For those not in the know, Penniston was an Air Force Staff Sergeant at a joint USAF/RAF base at Bentwaters in the UK. He, and others, encountered a triangular craft outside the base in Rendlesham Forest on December 26 1980. Penniston was the only member of the team to actually touch the object which contained strange symbols. Sometime in 1993 he underwent a regression hypnotherapy session in which he revealed receiving telepathic communication from the landed craft which informed him that the occupants were from Earth’s future, and that they were gathering genetic material to help them survive. The Rendlesham Forest Incident has become one of the best documented UFO sightings in the history of ufology, surpassing that of the Roswell Incident.
Though science isn’t perfect, its exponential growth over the last hundred years or so has made what was once considered unachievable possible. The aspiration of powered flight was believed to be unattainable not so very long ago. However, in that short space of time we have not only attained it but have travelled to the Moon and back, and have even sent spacecraft out beyond the confines of our solar system. Given another million years of evolution who’s to say what can or cannot be achieved? It may well be that we are perhaps witnessing the future fruits and attainments of our progenitors’ scientific accomplishments as they traverse the barriers of space and time, leaving in their wake tantalising clues of their temporal journeys. The evidence certainly seems to hint at it.

09/07/16 update:


© David Calvert 2015

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.



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.
image_2Shapes 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). 



Could the “aura-like” glow of the air (i.e. “plasma sheath”) around many UFOs be due to the images (9)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.

gravity effects1

Theoretical frameworks include work by Sakharov, Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (Zero-Point-Field and polarisable vacuum) and by Burkhard Heim (newscientist).
Radiation: When airborne, UFOs emit invisible electromagnetic (EM) wave energy with ionizing capability. There is some evidence and theory indicating that the EM radiation is about coincident with the UFO’s “gravity-like” force fields, i.e. gravity-like waves (used for propulsion and airflow control) and ionizing EM waves go together, the latter being some form of support for the generation of force field waves, or simply a side-effect (i.e. propulsive waves may have an electromagnetic component). 
Hill estimated UFO primary radiation to be in a range between the bottom of X-ray band and the lower end of Gamma-ray band. (Wikipedia: Electromagnetic spectrum and Ionizing radiation) These X-rays or mild gamma-rays are quite adequate to create the universally seen “ion sheath” aroundimages (11) UFOs. Conversely, the existence of the ionized air around UFOs lends weight to the idea of high-intensity EM radiation from the UFO. X-rays would also penetrate a few inches 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. Much ground heating data is from saucer-type UFOs, which are known to focus their force fields and accompanying ionizing radiation downward with considerable accuracy, because of the observed saucer “ion cones” (See enhanced insert).
Mild Gamma-rays are suspected for symptoms similar to radiation sickness in witnesses who have closely approached UFOs. However, lasting radioactivity, which would indicate the presence of particle radiation, has not been found at landing sites.
It should be noted that radiation has been suspected to be associated with UFO sightings since the early 1950s. The classic 1955 book “Report on UFOs” by Edward J. Ruppelt, who served as head of the United States Air Force’s UFO Project “Blue Book” between 1951-1953 and later research engineer at Northrop Aircraft Company, mentions grass roots charring and skin burn of a Florida scoutmaster in 1952.
Physiological effects on human witnesses who came close to a UFO, include a sense of “static” (hair stood on end) or prickling sensation and in some cases a heating / burning sensation, vibration , and temporary paralysis (attributed to shock/fear, but I think more study is needed since animals are reportedly also affected). After-effects of close encounters may include sunburned-like skin and eye irritation (e.g. conjunctivitis), extreme dryness of the nasal area and of the throat, nausea, vomiting, headaches, and general weakness. There have been a few cases of people and animals that stood directly under a UFO who experienced symptoms similar to radiation-sickness. People who have stared at glowing UFOs at close range have suffered “welder burn”-type eye damage, temporary loss of vision and even lasting eye damage (note: UV?). Occasionally odours have been reported, described as “ozone-like”, “foul stench”, “pungent”, “sulphuric stink”, etc. Accidents have occurred. Further reading: “A catalogue of UFO-related human physiological effects” (1996) by John Schuessler and UFO cases involving injury/death by Geoff Dittman.
Plasmas can interact strongly with electromagnetic radiation, “Plasma Stealth” is a proposed process that uses ionized gas (plasma) to reduce the radar cross section (RCS) of an aircraft. This radar screenmay explain why sometimes UFOs are seen visually, but not tracked on radar. Often, UFOs have a very strong magnetic field. Also, in several cases, light (e.g. from car headlights or beaming spotlights) are reported to “bend” in front of the UFO, an effect which some suggest is related with the most controversial aspect of UFO reports: the apparent ability to disappear / “blink out” or seem to “implode” (diminish in angular size) [miniature-scale “gravitational lensing”-type phenomenon?]. Given the tremendous amount of energy UFOs seem to be expending, their power source is a big mystery. Many ideas have been proposed, including that UFOs are storing energy in a very concentrated form, or converting gravity to usable energy (H.Oberth 1950s), or utilising ambient energy (speculations about being able to tap the so-called Zero-Point-Energy), or utilize remote transmission of power (wireless energy transfer).
Interference: Electromagnetic (EM) effects that are observed include: interruption of electrical circuitry and radio communications, magnetic and gyro compasses gyrate and wobble, batteries are burned out. Car gasoline engines stop (but oddly, diesels are apparently unaffected). More: 56 aircraft pilot UFO sightings involved EM-effects and strong magnetic fields. The absence of heat near a UFO, with only mild sensation of warmth, suggests there is not much infra-red radiation. The surface of the UFO is not very hot; nothing is at a red heat. A “corona”, i.e. luminous plasma (ionized air) is produced around specific areas of the UFO, probably created by the intense EM radiation (radiant ionization).
Further research on magnetic fields and automobile ignition systems.
A strong magnetic field might saturate the ignition coil and reduce voltage to the spark plugs. Joe Kirk Thomas, while employed as an EM interference engineer, did some experiments which led him to believe that “interference with automotive ignition systems could occur at magnetic field levels (at the point of interference) of 0.1 Tesla / 1000 Gauss and frequency of 100 Hz.” (MUFON Journal, Sep-1987, Oct-1989) Under this scenario, automobiles with diesel engines are immune to being stalled by the proximity of a UFO, because diesel engines do not utilize a high voltage ignition system.
Another idea, suggested by J.McCampbell: Once ionised to form a plasma, air loses its normal insulating properties and will conduct electricity at lower voltages (commonly referred to as the insulator ‘breakdown voltage’) and thus short-circuits the high-voltage part of the ignition. Note: Could this be related to the tingling sensations, of hair standing up on end and other physiological effects reported by witnesses when in close proximity to UFOs?.
Illumination / Colours, luminosity and lights: (note: this is a complex subject and much of what follows is speculation and conjecture).
Though a few UFOs appear totally dark and unlit (no light in the visible spectrum), the most common aspect of UFO sightings made at night, or twilight, is that the UFO appeared to be a source of light, rather than just reflecting light from elsewhere. In fact, about two thirds of all UFO reports are of distant lights moving in the night sky.
As suggested in the previous sections on UFO Radiation and Propulsion , many of the UFO “lights” are thought to be luminous ionization of air, resulting from energetic EM radiation emitted by the UFOs in relation with the UFO gravity-like force fields (used for airflow-control, propulsion etc). The overall shape of UFO luminosity depends on the shape of the UFO and its current operating condition and manoeuvres, so a UFO’s outline as seen by external observer can change (e.g. a disk at night may appear as a luminous ice cream-cone, teardrop, oval or sphere). UFO glow can vary from faint (“like phosphorescence”), to soft (“like a neon light”), to intense (“like huge car headlights”), to extremely bright (“like welder’s arc”).

Continue reading

Reflections of Monte Carlo

The Monaco UFOs

Case file #116121

Witness Statement.

“During a trip to Monaco last year with my mother, we took some pictures while touring the palace grounds and surrounding areas. Upon inspection, we noticed some strange lights in the pictures. I was using the ‘sports’ mode in my camera then and it captured a series of pictures in one click. The lights in the pictures could be seen in different angles and at different times. We stayed at the Fairmont Hotel then and the hotel manager suggested that we send the pictures to the press which were later published on their Facebook page (link: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150507695743831.378183.119207753830&type=3). We have many more of these pictures. We also showed these pictures while in Monaco to the police and they were equally puzzled. One of them pointed out that they could have been caused by the street lights (?!). It has been a year since we took these pictures but have yet to receive a decent explanation. Any input is much appreciated”


lens flares 1

Image #1

Having looked at the images in detail I was able to ascertain  that the light anomaly in this photo is caused by lens flare.

Flare is particularly caused by a very bright light source in an image – which produces the visible artifacts witnessed in image one. Lenses with large numbers of elements such as zooms tend to exhibit greater lens flare, as they contain multiple surfaces at which unwanted internal light scattering occurs.

The spatial distribution of the lens flare typically manifests as several starbursts, rings, or circles in a row across the image or view. Lens flare patterns typically spread widely across the scene and change location with the camera’s movement relative to light sources, as appears to be the case in images 1 and 2.

lens flare 2

Image #2

In image 3, the spatial distribution of the flare would suggest that the bright light source on the left of the archway is the cause for it.

lens flare 3

Image #3

The colouration of the flares being different to the primary light source is due to chromatic aberration. Anti reflective lens coatings are meant to reduce the reflection levels of unwanted flare effects. However, they cannot eliminate it entirely. Lens flares often appear as hues of yellow, green, blue-gray, red, and violet and can appear quite ethereal in dramatic photos such as in this case.

You will also note that not only is the colour of the flare the same in all the pictures above, but that it also has the same shape. This is due to the shape of the camera’s diaphragm – which are often polygonal. It is the shape of the internal diaphragm which determines how the flare will appear in the photo.

If you look closely at the comparison image below of a known lens flare you will see the remarkable similarities.

monte carlo ufo comparison image

Based off the evidence, I have no hesitation in declaring the Monaco photos as a lens flare phenomenon.

© David Calvert 2013

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.


MUFON case file #113711

rockwall ufo3

Witness Statement.

On my way home from work I saw four objects in the sky. At first I thought it was meteors,  but then I noticed they were staying in place. From the time I saw them to the time I got home it took me two minutes to grab my camera and take some pictures. They were right above and moved at the same pace for about 3 minutes. Two of them changed positions and then left slowly until I couldn’t see them anymore.”

Analysis Report.

After analysing the 7 images it quickly became apparent to me that the four objects mentioned by the witness are  most likely high altitude military jet contrails. That they are military jets is apparent by their V formation flight pattern. Commercial aircraft do not fly in formation patterns, other than at air show displays. However, there was something else on the photos that caught my attention; a faint elliptical anomaly with a small companion object on which the jets appeared to be converging. I thought it unusual that the witness made no mention of these in her statement.

Following clarification work by me on the following image  I began to suspect that the dark anomaly was perhaps a smudge on the camera lens – like that of a fingerprint.

Rockwall ufo1 .

The above image also shows one of the jet contrails partially occluding and intersecting the anomaly suggesting it is in front of it, thereby invalidating the smudge theory. However, I was able to determine that this was merely an illusion created by the ‘albedo effect’, wherein the bright light reflected from the contrail was washing out and overpowering the darker material making it look as though it were in front of it.

Further work carried out on images clearly shows the blurred, elliptical object has altered its orientation some 90 degrees to the right. The reason for this is quite simple … the photographer turned the camera to take two ‘portrait’ shots. In all the other images they are ‘landscape’.

rockwall ufo5

In the next shot  the anomaly has returned to its original ‘landscape’ orientation, thus lending weight to the idea that it is something on the camera lens and not a distant object. Seen in negative and with the auto levels fix on I could now make out that the single dark smudge was actually two white overlapping orbs, highly reminiscent of many confirmed dust particle orbs captured on camera. In this instance they are not airborne but are adhering to the lens, as my previous analysis has shown.

rockwall ufo4

Conclusion: High altitude military aircraft photographed through a lens with particulate matter adhering to its surface. As for the small companion object mentioned earlier I have no answer.

© David Calvert 2012

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.

Lake Ontario ‘UFO’.

When Is a UFO Not a UFO?

MUFON Case file: 43681

I chanced upon this case whilst researching for another, and found it very intriguing. I set about analysing the image above to determine the truth of it. The location where the photo was taken is currently undergoing a UFO flap with sightings almost on a daily basis.  What is more, there has been a recent upsurge in sightings of rectangular UFOs worldwide, and it is not uncommon to witness them over, large bodies of water and also in the midst of storms. What I discovered about this particular event was very interesting, and is a timely lesson on the nature of evidence and inference. All is not as it seems.

lake ufo 1


Witness Statement

(edited for brevity)

We were watching a line of storms move across the lake. Some of the storms were producing waterspouts and I wanted to get pictures of them [see image below].

It was about 8 am and I took my camera and went outside. I saw what I thought was a ship. We don’t see ships that large as we are not on the shipping lanes. I thought lake ufo2perhaps the ship was there because it was trying to avoid the storms, but it eventually turned and went into the worst of them. I took pictures of it and tried to get an angle that would show the storms in background. I just thought it would make a great picture. When I went back in my husband asked me if I got pictures of the ship, and remarked on how amazing it was on how the sunlight reflected on it. The light seemed to be reflecting on all sides. It was just glowing. I thought it was strange the way it looked and when I looked at the pictures on my computer they really looked strange. We were facing north and sun would be on our right. The whole object was illuminated and showed  no signs of being effected by the rough water or storms. It also looked very square, which didn’t make sense for a ship or barge. It was travelling east-north east and then turned north and just disappeared. Maybe it got just too far away. I am not sure. I hope I am not wasting your time and will include photos that I can. Thank you …

Image Analysis.

By converting the original close up image to negative I was able to remove the glare from the object, and by doing so could discern more detail. As you can see from thisxxxxxxx9-24-12-WOLCOTT-NEW-YORK-MUFON-43681-PIC-1 image the object appears structured and is rectangular in shape. You will also note that it appears to be hovering  just above the water. Note also the faint central line intersecting the rectangle. At this point I recalled the wintnesses’ statement of how the object glowed. An idea began to formulate in my mind. Could this be a mirage of some kind?

by Jeanette Cain

What is a mirage? A mirage is a misleading appearance. Most mirages occur on the seas or in the deserts. What will cause a mirage? A reflection. What causes reflection? Light. We seldom consider light as anything magical or wonderful, but light allows us the ability to see many good things and, often, many bad things.

Mirages, also called illusions, are caused by a reflection of some distance object which allows you to think that it is close by. In physics, it is known as an optical illusion. The more common type of mirage is called inferior mirage. It happens when a refraction of light passes through the atmosphere layers with varying qualities. Distance objects may seem to be raised above or below their normal locality. These objects may be seen as irregular and fantastic shapes.

Superior mirages are spectacular events, but much less common than the inferior mirage. These occur mainly over the horizon of the sea when distant objects are sketched, or drawn, upside down n the sky. Sometimes there is an erect image of the same object which will be above the upside-down image. This is characteristic of cold areas and conditions with a strong change of temperature where the warmer layers of air rise above the cooler layers. This involves a complicated action of wave fronts of light as the pass through the layers.

 Image of superior mirage.

superior mirage

I began to wonder what kind of vessels plied the lake waters and came across a particular type of barge, which I strongly suspected was the most likely candidate for the mirage (see inset).

lake barge insert

Bear in mind that a mirage is not always an exact duplicate of what is creating it. They are invariably distorted. You will recall my mentioning that the image appears to be hovering just above the water line. This is a common factor in many mirages, such as the one below.

An Iceberg in the Sky!


Evidence-based Conclusion:   The image is most likely a ‘Superior’ mirage of a lake barge reflected against the dark background of the storm. The intersecting white line across the barge’s hull may well be the boundary line between the barge itself and its ‘superior’ image.

Update:   Having sent this case to the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomenon (ASSAP), I’m pleased to announce that their independent study has confirmed my conclusion that the object is indeed a mirage.

© David Calvert 2012

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.

Earth Angel


A Photographic Analysis by David Calvert.

Jessica R. West Testimony.

“This is a genuine photo of a girl who is an Earthangel. You can see her wings and the photo has been verified. She used to babysit for one of  FB friends – with Hunter Para Normal Australia, Chris Connor and Amanda Leach.”

Analyst’s note:  This testimony is somewhat confusing. When J.R. West says “the photo has been verified” does she mean it has been analysed and found to be authentic, in so far as it has not been tampered with? Or, that what we are seeing has been proven to be what she terms an “Earth angel” through analytical technique? My assumption is that she is referring to the former explanation, as any  self-respecting analyst could identify  this image for what it truly is.

Original Image

angel wings1

Angel Wings.

Camera Artifact.

anel wings2It is not distinguishable on the original image, but in negative  the so-called “wings” are nothing of the sort. The left and right “wing”, as you can clearly see pointed out by the red lines,  are  in front of the subject and not behind her. They’re creating a shadow effect across her head and right shoulder.

The black, radial lines point out  a faint circular formation within the right “wing”.  This circular formation is, in fact, a snow droplet on the camera lens. The  dark shadow emanating from it may well be due to melting or may be the result of a temperature variance between the glass lens and the droplet – a kind of fogging. As seen in the original image this fogging appears white due to the reflected light from the flash.

Compare these images with the one below.

earth angelThey look remarkably similar, don’t they? That’s because the same natural processes that made this picture went into making the above.

I do not intend to labour the point on the “Angel Wings” image other than to say that there is nothing paranormal going on in the picture that can’t be accounted for in natural terms. I urge the reader to read my “Ghost Hug” blog, because the exact same principles that went to make up that image also apply here.

Evidence-based Conclusion:

Camera artifact phenomenon created by atmospheric conditions..

© David Calvert 2012

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.

The Sekhmet Anomalies

The Sekhmet ‘Energy Streams’



David Calvert

Brief Historical Background of Sekhmet.

In Egyptian mythology Sekhmet was originally the warrior goddess, as well as a goddess of healing for Upper Egypt. She is depicted as a lioness, the fiercest hunter know to the ancient Egyptians. It was said that her breath created the desert. She was seen as the protector of the Pharaohs and led them in warfare. Her main cult centre was in Memphis.

godess sekhmet in Louvre. France

Sekhmet Statue/Louvre,France

John D Riley’s Testimony.

“Amazing confirmation that took place during the most intense Journey of my life…”

“Many have been asking so here is a response I posted to someone explaining the event: “Hours before this encounter a fellow traveller came to me and we had an interesting conversation. This was his second time in Egypt and the second time we travelled together. He was commenting on how others were getting interesting pics in the temples and how in the two years he has never even got a single orb. He had the same camera as last year and I looked at him and noticed he was in a very negative space. After a conversation he felt lighter and I wished him that something that he could not explain would happen to him on this journey. Hours later after we left the temple he came up to me with a very puzzled look on his face. He asked if he could show me something and I said yes. He told me he was watching sekhmet prayerme in the other chamber when I activated the energy device and decided to go into the Sekhmet chamber to take pictures and he then showed me these photo’s; I looked in awe and asked him repeatedly if these were taken during the activation of the device and he said yes, yes, yes! I saw the photo’s minutes after while we were walking through the temple and I will guarantee you they are untouched and genuine. Needless to say my friend was shifted greatly after this experience and had an expansive trip beyond anything he could have imagined. What allowed this to happen is he allowed a 1 percent possibility that there are great mysteries that are happening and all we have to do is allow ourselves to shift just a fraction to open this up to us. I was so grateful for this event and my friend allowed me to transfer these photos and use them. There 30 others that will attest to this experience as they all saw the pics on the bus as we drove back to the hotel. What I do I do as a gift to others. You are invited anytime to visit my research facilities in Santa Monica. Actually my good friend Greg Roach posted a similar comment 4 years ago about one of my videos thinking it was done in post. I invited him to experience and since then we have had 3 amazing trips to Egypt together. Sometimes you never know what lies ahead. All we have to do is allow possibilities…1 percent!


The technology I was guided to bring is of ancient understanding. It is called “The Beacon” a Zero Point (Unified) energy field I was guided to return to this planet as a life agreement. I have been in honor and humility as I travel the globe to sacred sites as the activations slowly return the knowledge of what we really are.”

Sekhmet  Images & John’s Attendant Notes.

After arriving to the temple after the most intense Mystery School Journey I was guided to activate the Zero Point Field to stabilise the grid energy. After confirmation I transcended into another realm and before me a portal opened up and 3 guardians appeared. They each reached down and placed Mana containers in my hands and offered me to absorb them into me. That night I went before the 3 guardians again …

sekhmet streamers2

 John’s attendant image notes.

 “Continuous flow of energy. Notice the colour variations.”

“The confirmation of the energy streams as we are in the other chamber activating the Portal. These photo’s were taken at the exact time the portal was opened.”

Analysis of Above Image.

What causes the variation in light colour in the above image is the two different materials from which the light is reflected. Note how the reflected light from the hand has a flesh tone to it. I conducted a simple experiment to test this hypothesis. I stood a red-jacketed book on a sheet of A4 paper and shone a small torch at it from an angle. The reflected beam onto the paper took on the same colour as the book face I did the same with green and yellow jacketed books and the same thing occurred.

A further question arises: What is the source of the light? The image below of an adjacent chamber perhaps gives us a clue. However, as we can clearly see in the above image the light source appears to be directly overhead and not coming from the rear wall.

Chamber Light Source Image.

sekhmet light source

One of the members of the group, William Henry (leader of the tour), contacted me regarding this. What he had to say more or less confirmed my suspicion.

Response from William Henry

concerning my query as to

the lighting in Sekhmet’s


Hi David,

I can’t recall exact details about the light source in the Sekhmet chapel. It seems to me that the chamber is not lit. When the door is closed there is total darkness, except for a possible skylight…sekhmet streamers1

By now you will have naturally asked yourselves why the light appears ribbon-like and wavy. Surely, it would be a straight, solid column?

 The Ribbon-Like Appearance:

I suspect the skylight is not a simple opening, as shown in the Chamber Light Source Image above, but is probably a grid of some description. Light passing through such a grid would naturally appear as separate columns or ribbons.

shafts of light long exposure

The Waveform Pattern Light Trail:

Though there are no EXIF details accompanying Sekhment images, one can see that a flash was used by the way the shadows closely surround objects in the foreground – not to mention the presence of orbs! If the photo had a long exposure, combined with flash (like in ‘night mode’), then a light source just outside the frame could definitely show up as a trail like this. the fact that the light reaches the edge of the image frame suggests this is the case. Clearly, the statue itself is not the light source. The fact that the trails are not parallel suggests that the camera moved in  a relatively complicated way after the flash went off. Usually you see a fairly straightforward light trail indicating that the photographer simply lowered the camera in a straight line, wrongly believing the shutter to be closed.

The motion blur in the below image is irrefutable confirmation of the camera being moved whilst the shutter was still open.

sekhmet motion blur

Sekhmet #4

The Presence of Orbs:

sekhmet streamers1 - Copy

 For more information on orbs and light trails go to http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/htmlfiles/Photos.html


To the uninitiated these photographs look very impressive. The location itself evokes in the human psyche an air of mystery and wonder. Our expectations and mindsets further colour whatever interpretations we place on such apparent anomalies. In learning how to interpret such imagery one has to put aside their personal expectations and beliefs and approach it with an unbiased mind. This, I hope, I have done to the best of my ability.

The science of photographic analysis, like so many other scientific disciplines, requires that all theories and findings need to be replicated before they are accepted. To this end, I enlisted the aid of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP). Their independent analysis corroborated my initial suspicions that the anomalies in this case have a mundane explanation. Orbs and light streaks are relatively common occurrences in photographs and share certain identifiable characteristics, as in this case. For example; of all the orbs in these images not one is partially occluded by an individual or object, as is possible with a genuine subtle ‘energy plasma’ sphere. In such a confined chamber filled with people one would expect it to happen. This, along with their internal structure patterns, led me to conclude that they are dust particles captured within the camera’s field of view and illuminated by the flash.

There is also further evidence in these images supporting the theory that the sun is the lights source. The angle of incidence (the arrival of a beam of light or particles at a surface) changes slightly on the statue suggesting the light source is moving. Without EXIF details this is difficult to prove, however.

Conclusion:  Camera artefacts.

© David Calvert 2012

Hessdalen-esque Electroforms Appear Over Leeds, UK.

The Lynne Eastwood Sighting.

David Calvert

Part # 1



It is not my intention to go into any great depth concerning several orb images taken by Lynne, just prior to her ‘filament’ images, as they have a prosaic explanation which rules out any paranormal explanation. However, I have chosen the best one to illustrate my point concerning their non-paranormal origins.

Brief Analysis.


The larger, brighter orbs that appear in this image, including their smaller counterparts, are caused by water droplets on and near the camera lens. They appear to glow because they are being illuminated by the full moon, visible in the top right quadrant of the picture. Their blurred appearance is because they are outside the camera’s depth of field i.e. out of focus.

The rainbow-like anomaly in the right lower quadrant is being generated by the house and street lighting which is just out of frame. Clearly, there was a very light rainfall in progress when this image was taken. This assumption is corroborated in Pt. #2 evidence. Their spherical appearance is due to the raindrop having reached terminal velocity on its earthward journey. Lynne also pointed out two unusual light sources adjacent to the houses. Initially I took them to be lens reflections, but on closer examination I’m not so sure.

Conclusion: Orbs created by natural environmental conditions.


 Historical Background

Since the 1930s, possibly earlier, unusual lights have been reported at Hessdalen, Norway. From December 1981 to the summer of 1984 lights were observed about 15-20 times per week. Since then activity has decreased to 10-20 times per year. The Hessdalen light is more often seen as a white or yellow bright light of unknown origin standing or hovering above ground level. Sometimes it can be seen for more than an hour. There are several other types of unexplained lights witnessed in the Hessdalen Valley. Scientific research of the lights began in 1983 and was initiated by Dr. Erling Strand and given the nickname “Project Hessdalen”. In 1998, the Hessdalen AMS automated scientific research station was built in the valley. It registers and records the appearance of lights, such as the one below.

Hessdalen 1


 Lynne Eastwood’s Testimony.

“On the 14th September 2011, at 4 a.m., I was awoken from my sleep and felt compelled to go look out of my back dining room window. Goodness knows why or how, but I just had the feeling that was telling me to go look out, and so I did. On doing so I saw a very beautiful sky. It was so beautiful that I went and got my camera to snap some shots of what I could see to show my friends. The camera I used was a basic Samsung D1070/10.2 mp/Zoom 6.18.9 mm. 

The flash was off when I took the photos – a full moon affording me the light I needed. As I snapped off the shots I noticed what I thought to be a ‘shooting star’ against the clear background sky. The clouds were receding by now. Without hesitation I made a wish and began photographing it. It was only later, as I viewed the photos, that I noticed that the ‘shooting star’ had changed shape several times. Based in Leeds, West Yorkshire, I had never seen such an unusual sky at such an early hour.”

hessdalen4‘shooting star’. This pic has been lightened and annotated by me for greater clarification.  Please note that the following images are now completely devoid of water droplets – inline with Lynne’s testimony that the clouds were receding. No clouds, no rain. The white arrow  points  out the object in question. At this level of zoom it appears nothing more than an amorphous white smudge. The blue arrow points out an anomalous blue point of light, whereas the green arrows point out anomalous green light sources.

Sequence # 1 This is taken from the same image above and magnified to show definite shape to object. Clearly, this is no ‘shooting star’. The former ‘amorphous white smudge’ appears to have a worm-like or filament-like structure to it.


Sequence # 2 The ‘S’ filament is now in a vertical position, indicating movement.

hessdalen 5

 Sequence # 3


Note the faint and bright areas in the ‘filament’. These could suggest a single light source’s movement captured in the frame, leaving behind a ghost image of its erratic flight path in its wake.

Sequence # 4


The ‘filament’ now resembles a long ribbon of light as it streaks erratically through the sky. Highly reminiscent of a light phenomenon captured at Hessdalen, Norway (see below).

hessdalen8Image Comparison

Note the fainter and brighter areas within the ‘ribbon’ and the erratic flight path. They are incredibly similar to those in the above image.


As there was no EXIF data supplied with the photos it is impossible to say for certain what the shutter speed actually was at the time the images were taken. However, if the minimum shutter speed ( 8 secs. )was used when Lynne took her pics one would expect to see blurring of the entire images, but if you look closely at her first shot there is no evidence of this. If the snap was taken at 1/1500 th of a second this would imply that the object was travelling, albeit erratically, at an incredible speed, leaving in its wake a trail of light.

The Hessdalen lights were split into three groups. However, I will deal only with the first two of the group as they have greater relevance to this case:

  1. Small and strong white or blue flashes which could show up anywhere in the sky.
  2. Yellow or yellow-white lights, just over house rooftops, or on the ground. They can be stationary for more than an hour, move slowly around, and sometimes show large accelerations and speeds. They could also appear higher up in the sky.  They mostly travel on a north/south course.

There are commonalities between the Eastwood  images to the Hessdalen phenomenon. They are as follows:

  • In an email Lynne sent to me she said the object was stationary when she first saw it, but then began to move.
  • Blue flashes. In pic 4 for example the blue arrow indicates a blue anomalous point of light.
  • In the same pic can also be seen 2 green points of light
  • The erratic movements of the main object in pic  8, suggesting it is travelling at a high rate of speed.
  •  The majority of the  anomalies appear high in the sky.

hessdalen7This is how one of the green lights appears under higher magnification and with the auto levels fix on. It is much brighter than its surrounds. Might this be a light flash, similar to those also reported at Hessdalen?

Might all these similarities be purely coincidental? It’s possible, but unlikely. For me, there are just too many commonalities for this to be sheer coincidence.

I initially took the two lights below to be reflections from the adjacent houses. However, their shape and relative positions preclude such an interpretation.

It is worth  noting that the Hessdalen lights have been seen to take on various shapes, from ‘bullet-shaped’ to ‘inverted Christmas tree’ shapes.

CONCLUSION: Electroform phenomenon of unknown origin or cause

© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.




David Calvert

The Milky Way galaxy

It is estimated that within our galaxy alone there are approximately four hundred thousand million stars, and where there are stars there may be planets similar to that of our home world. It is in these vast reaches of space that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence is being conducted.

It is generally accepted within the scientific mainstream that intelligent life does not exist within the confines of our Solar System because of the data received from probes sent out to our neighbouring worlds. But what if that data was flawed or, worse still, falsified in order to maintain that belief? Could intelligent life be much closer to home than we think, or are led to believe? Thanks to Joseph P. Skipper, et al, truths are emerging into the public domain that there may well indeed be intelligent life in our Solar System, and that they occupy our distant planetary neighbour Mars.

Skipper was an insurance investigator with an interest in space exploration and decades of investigative experience behind him. It was after viewing an official science data strip that his ‘suspicion meter’ started rising. He knew that what he was looking at was not any kind of natural geology, but evidence of life on the supposedly dead and inhospitable planet. ‘If no natural geological explanation fits’, he contends, ‘then one logically has to consider seriously that these anomalies are forms created by life of some kind.’ If this is true then why has NASA failed to report such a startling discovery to the media? The answer to that question may lie in a report prepared for NASA by the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, on November 30, 1960 and titled, Proposed Studies On The Peaceful Space Activities For Human Affairs.


brookingOn page 215 of the document it names the Moon, Mars or Venus as possible candidates where artefacts left by life forms may be discovered. It goes on to say, ‘Anthropological files contain many examples of societies sure in their place in the universe, which had disintegrated when they had to associate with previously unfamiliar societies espousing different ideas and different life ways: others that survived such an experience usually did so by paying the price of changes in values and attitudes and behaviour.’ It then suggests two areas of study, the first dealing with the emotional and intellectual consequences of discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life, the second dealing with the behaviour of peoples and their leaders when confronted with such a discovery. Questions arising from these studies, it suggests, would include: ‘how might such information, under what circumstances, be presented to or withheld from the public for what ends?’ Tellingly, on page 225 this sentence appears: ‘It has been speculated that of all groups, scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures’.


Sixteen years later the McDaniel report was published. It is a scathing indictment of NASA’s handling of the scientific Mars data. In his Executive Summary, McDaniel McDaniel Reportwrites of the extensive analysis of the 1976 Viking Mars mission photographs of the Cydonia region, carried out by independent investigators who concluded that the photographs appeared to be evidence that some landforms could be artificial. To date, NASA still insists that there is no credible evidence of artificiality. ‘NASA has regularly sent false and misleading statements regarding the  landforms to members of Congress and their constituents.’ writes McDaniel. ‘Furthermore, they have condoned efforts to unfairly ridicule and discredit independent researchers, and have insisted that there is a “scientific consensus” that the landforms are natural – despitethe fact that the only real scientific study of the landforms indicates a clear possibility that they are artificial.’

Clearly, the Brooking Report was instrumental in NASA’s decision making in order to avoid political change and the devastating effect it would have upon the scientists themselves. Such a discovery, after all, would put at risk their own cherished theories and funding. What is more, NASA’s behaviour regarding the Martian objects is in direct conflict of their policy that a ‘verified discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence should be shared promptly with all humanity.’

Admiral Inman NSAWhat may come as a real eye opener to many is that the real control of the Mars exploration does not rest with NASA but with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and its partners. It was discovered that  Navy Admiral, “Bobby” Inman a famous and skilled ‘super spook’, was chairing the JPL oversight committee in secret. When this was discovered a high-ranking NASA official ousted him. Under the ‘super spooks’ control however the Mars exploration programme had been effectively hijacked and had become subservient to a possible military agenda for, perhaps, the acquirement of extraterrestrial technology.

Let’s not forget Operation Paperclip, at the closing of WWII, when the Soviets and Western allied forces became involved in a race to seize top ranking German scientists and their rocket technology documents.


Mars. The Living PlanetMars appears red to us because its surface is largely composed of red iron oxide dust, commonly referred to as rust. Its atmospheric composition – so we have been led to believe – is 95% carbon dioxide, 2.7% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and 0.7% oxygen, carbon monoxide, and water vapour. Its atmosphere is therefore poisonous to human life. Prior to January 10, 2004, NASA had released images showing an orange or red sky. The images had been doctored to give the appearance of a lifeless and dead planet. In reality the first colour image from Mars, taken by Viking Lander I in 1976, showed a beautiful blue sky. The landscape of brown and reddish soil was littered with rocks with patches of green on them. The world never got to see these images because according to the men who worked at the Viking Image Formatting and Processing section of JPL they were ordered to destroy the Mars blue sky negative and to falsely redden the images to make it look like there was no life, no green algae or lichen. The book, Mars The Living Planet, by Barry Digregorio, Dr. Gilbert Levin, and Dr. Pat Straat, tells of how the tests carried out by Viking Lander were rigged to deny life.


Over twenty years ago Viking principal investigator, Norman Horowitz, stated that ‘liquid water does not exist on the surface of Mars … Without liquid water life as we know it cannot exist.’ Thus he established the paradigm of a barren Mars today. Mars’ atmospheric pressure on average is about six millibars. Its average temperature is about -60° C. Because of the low atmospheric pressure and low surface temperature water can only exist as ice or vapour. However, at certain times and locations on the planet, when the air pressure and temperature are high enough, it is theoretically possible for liquid water to exist, but its evaporation rate would be so great that it would quickly vaporise.

From the above and other scientific data we are indoctrinated into believing Mars is a hard frozen wilderness. Its temperature is not only cold enough to freeze water. 3-5 times over but also cold enough to freeze CO2 as snow right out of the atmosphere. And yet there are images that refute these scientific tenets and suggest that the Martian atmospheric temperature conditions are not nearly as bad and hostile to life as officially promoted by NASA, JPL, et al.

Water is a prerequisite for life and it is perhaps telling that in images of standing liquid water on Mars there is also prima-facie evidence of civilisation around these bodies of water, despite attempts to hide it beneath layers of image tampering techniques, as shown in Skipper’s second report image at www.marsanomalyresearch.com.


The reflections in the water and the surrounding rectangular structures surrounding the ‘reservoir’ become more distinct when one inverts the colours. To counter the argument that Skipper is himself responsible for the image tampering, he has provided documentation at the end of each report so one can check behind him to confirm and validate that the official NASA science data is as he received it. You will require a graphics software programme such as PhotoShop, however, to analyze the images.


As one might imagine, where there is water there should be biological life too. There are many images showing what appears to be vegetation, only on a vast scale in comparison to what we see on Earth. NASA dismisses these as ‘geological structures’ or ‘rock formations’. When shown similar images the late Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction writer and father of global communications, likened them to Earth’s Banyan trees and repeatedly supported the idea that some of the images can only be reasonably interpreted in terms of vegetation.



Our only natural satellite, the Moon, has come under similar suspicion of photographic tampering as the images on Skipper’s site show quite clearly. Vast towers and rectangular forms have been subjected to smudge tampering techniques. However, early imaging techniques were not as sophisticated as today’s and some of these forms can clearly be seen poking through and, in some instances, left out completely. If they are merely geological forms then why have the powers that be gone to such lengths to hide them?

Moon structure


In the 1970s satellite imaging resolution limits available to the military were equal to, if not better than, those being released today. Are we to believe that up-to-date and state-of-the-art Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) and Mars Orbital Camera (MOC) satellite imaging systems are inferior to those of some forty years ago and that there have been no significant technological advancements in this area over that period of time? It is unreasonable to assume that JPL, with its heavy military connections and funding and at a cost of billions of dollars, would do such a thing. Certainly, much of the image tampering has been done at closer resolutions than is being admitted to. The question still remains; why would they go to such great expense and trouble to hide the evidence? And what do the images contain that they are so afraid to show us?


Truth, as defined in the Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary, is ‘That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.’ and scientific method as ‘The totality of principles and processes regarded as characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation …’ But where is the truth in planetary exploration? Has it become subservient to the military industrial complex with its own secret agendas, of which President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address in 1961? And what regard is there for scientific principle as elitist scientists embroil themselves in this web of intrigue?

Truth, it would seem, has become the first casualty in this war of fact and falsehood. But the truth, whatever it may ultimately prove to be, is out there for those who wish to seek it: a grass roots movement that is gathering momentum and members thanks to the likes of Joseph P. Skipper and others.

New facts have come to light since I first wrote this blog which suggest that more recent pictures, which purportedly show surface water, skeletal remains, and living creatures, on the Martian surface. The following links below show a few images of said anomalies. Were they taken on Mars or somewhere much closer? .If the latter case is true then some of the above images are questionable.





© David Calvert 2011

Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.