BeforetheBigBang Redux 2011

Gravity http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/ http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:52:48 +0200 http://www.blog.ca en 1.0 http://www.blog.ca http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/ The Demetabolization of Humanity: If Not Now, When? http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/12/16/the-demetabolization-of-humanity-if-not-now-when-12314130/ Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:02:28 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>The Demetabolization of Humanity: If Not Now, When? December 22, 2010 2039 AD BRIEFING, PART I Zeta Reticuli is a planetary system including two stars both of which are about 1 billion years older than the Earth’s sun (Adams, 2024). Zeti Reticuli is 39.2 light years from Earth and Zeta I is approximately one-eighth of a light year from Zeta II (Njatcha, 2018). The Zetan Founders evolved on a planet orbiting Zeta I Reticuli and populated a Zeta II Reticulan planet with a genetically altered version – to accommodate different environmental conditions – of their species (Zetapedia, 2039). Subsequently, on Earth the Founders attempted to genetically modify a native species of simians to approximate the Founders’ appearance and abilities in the context of yet another divergent environment (Meek, 2025).[1] As shown in many artistic renderings as well as written and oral traditions, Humanity has a long record of punctuated periods of involvement with the Founders (Von Daniken, 1970). Yet, consistent with Human behavior, all such involvement was officially denied and actively concealed by Human authorities (Wagner, 2029). During the summer of 1947, two Zeta Reticulan I Ovoid-Class extraterrestrial lenticular-shaped aerodyne craft collided while on an observance-only mission over the atomic testing grounds in the State of New Mexico, USA,[2] Earth (Green, 2017). Radar film and tower logs from American Holloman Air Force Base reflected the merger of three objects prior to collision and subsequent crashes with the third object believed to be an unrecovered test balloon (Majestic Twelve, 1952). The two Ovoid-Class craft experienced non-planned ground contact at two dispersed sites in New Mexico. [3] Four Zeta Reticulan I bodies were recovered, two of which were unevacuated in a damaged escape cylinder and two of which were found several yards from a second albeit evacuated cylinder (Majestic Twelve, 1952). One of the four – an evacuated body – was nonmetabolic and badly decomposed as a result of exposure and assumed predatory action. A second – the second evacuated body – became nonmetabolic within the first hour of the American Army Air Force recovery operation (Briefing Document, 1952). The two unevacuated bodies became nonmetabolic due to undetermined causes (Hetrick, 2025). All of the bodies were inadvertently cremated prior to autopsies (Cardene, 2025). Years of intensive Human study of the retrieved components of the two Ovoid-Class craft seeded numerous Human technological advances. Within decades of the recovery, the reverse engineering of recovered components led to the fruition, as examples, of fiber optics, integrated circuits, lasers, Kevlar and accelerated particle beam devices (Corso, 1997). In 2021, Human scientists at the Furey Institute,[4] Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, fully replicated [5] a functioning Ovoid-Class power source (Jefferson, 2022). The newly named Noorbaksh reactor was fueled with Element 114 [6] in a closed system. Fueling was the initial step in the provision of amplified Gravity-S waves and Magnetic-S waves allowing Villonian travel (a.k.a. “accelerated light” travel) (Umar, 2027). The Noorbaksh reactor bombarded Element 114 with hydrogen protons using a microparticle accelerator. The hydrogen protons fused into the Element 114 nucleus creating the misnamed “radioactive”[7] form of Element 115 [8] (“R-115”). The almost simultaneous decay of R-115 [9] produced one particle of a type of anti-matter known as Sigma-Hydrogen as well as a large number of tachyons. The flux of newly produced Sigma-Hydrogen particles and tachyons were channeled through an evacuated tuned tube and further contained within a flowing stream of higgs-boson particles where they were reacted with condensed dark matter in a Cannonian Annihilation Reaction (Ibric, 2024). The generation of the Subquarkian-Gravity-S-Magnetic-S Waves theoretically allowed the craft to “fall” through space and time to its targeted (a.k.a. “attracted”) position at velocities of up to 1,000 times the speed of light (“1000-c”). [10] However, the inefficiencies of the Human constructed “Model H.U. 23” restricted Villonian travel to speeds of under 12-c.[11] With the Human National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s first successful interplanetary flight in the Schiavelli Program (the first manned extra-Earth program after the suspension of the Apollo Program),[12] overt and nonconcealable [13] Zeta Reticulan contact was initiated in compliance with Zeta Reticulan Containment Policy: Earth (Pyramid 0099742.7760.04, 2039). [TO BE CONTINUED.] [1] Human reproductive capacity, however, is significantly greater than is the Founders’ (Massengale, 2026). [2] “USA” and “America” are interchangeable names for the most powerful political entity on Earth during this time frame. [3] Subsequent to this SNAFU, Zeta Reticulan regulations were adjusted to prohibit Zeta Reticulan Graduate Students from engaging in unaccompanied field studies of inhabited planets (Pyramid 3301003.0020.54, 1947). [4] Dr. R. Furey was one of Earth’s two leading and farsighted UFOlogists in the second decade of the 21st Century (Vaideeswaran, 2024). [5] Funding was provided by Dr. K.M. stDarr’s donation of the patent to the Guinness Device. [6] “Mickleonium.” [7] Radioactive decay is conventionally described as the emission of ionizing particles and radiation (Wikipedia, 2039). As is well known, the technical term for the R-115 process is “Kehlerian Enahanced Restabilization.” [8] “Afuapeionium.” [9] Persuant to the “Island of Stability” properties of Element 114 (Nova scienceNOW, 2039). [10] Einsteinian distortions are irrelevant in Villonian travel (Coleman, 2027). [11] This technology is dated by Galactic standards. [12] See: “The Unending Book of Unending Homework Problems” by S. Benigni. [13] For culturally idiosyncratic reasons, it was necessary to establish the Zetan base on the “White House lawn” despite the intrinsically poor meteorological conditions (Bates, 1940). References Adams, N. (2024). Look it up yourself! Harrisburg University: Yet Another Project Press. Bates, H. (1940, October), Farewell to the master. Astounding Science Fiction Magazine. Benigni, S. (2020). The unending book of unending homework problems. Beijing: AndyouthoughtIwasaniceguyPress. Briefing Document. (1952). Operation majestic 12 prepared for president-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Project Operations Group, White House.) Washington, DC: White House. Cardene, L. (2025). But couldn’t you do it another way? Antarctica: HeadachePress. Coleman, N. (2027). Ganja. Scranton: Inyourface Publishing. Corso, P. (1997). The day after roswell. New York: Pocket Books. Green, A. (2017). Oh my god! Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Greys (2039). In Zetapedia. Retrieved April 24, 2039, from http://zeta.en.zetapedia.org/wiki/greys Hetrick, G. (2025). I’ll get back to you. Las Vegas: Onthegopress. Ibric, P. (2024). And then we
. Kansas: Talktalktalktalk Press. Island of Stability. (September, 2006). Nova scienceNOW. Retrieved April 24, 2039, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3313/02.html Jefferson, J. (2022). One quick question. Bawlamer Publications: Maryland. Majestic Twelve. (1952). First annual report. (Project Operations Group, White House.) Washington, DC: White House. Massengale, R. (2026). The lone star. Chicago: Playboy Press. Meek, P. (2025). The point is: was cartman right? Tahiti: South Park Press. Njatcha, C. (2018). Flying saucers and science. New Jersey: Hummmm Books. Pyramid 0099742.7760.04. (2039). Containment policy: Earth ( J. Turner, Trans.) Akenhaten: Central Office of Records. (Original work published 18,496 BCE) Pyramid 3301003.0020.54. (2039). Graduate student restrictions ( D. Runyon, Trans.) Akenhaten: Central Office of Records. (Original work published 1947) Radioactive Decay. (April 24, 2039.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2039, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay Umar, A. (2027.) Success! Success! Retrieved April 23, 2039 from http://www.boblazar.com. Vaideeswaran, P. (2024). !!!!!. Mumbai: ModernCity-Dog Billionaire Press. Von Daniken, E. (1970). Chariots of the gods? New York: Bantam Books, Inc. Wagner, J. (2029). Piece it together. Kalamazoo: Paperwork Press. </p> 12314130 2011-12-16 17:02:28 2011-12-16 17:02:28 open open the-demetabolization-of-humanity-if-not-now-when-12314130 publish 0 0 post 0 sci-fi Dominican Republic http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/11/13/dominican-republic-12161006/ Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:14:05 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Legal Options For Marriage in the Dominican Republic The following information is for the guidance ONLY of civilian American citizens contemplating marriage in the Dominican Republic. American Diplomatic and Consular Officers DO NOT have the legal authority to perform marriages. Marriages CANNOT be performed within the Embassy or within an American Consular Office in the Dominican Republic. General Requirements for Foreigners to Marry in the Dominican Republic In order to get married in the Dominican Republic, a man and a woman must be of a certain minimum age (16 for men, 15 for women), be legally eligible to marry, and be entering into the marriage contract of their own free will. Failure to comply with any of these basic criteria could mean that Dominican authorities will decline to register the marriage as legal. Additionally, foreigners who wish to get married in the Dominican Republic must comply with the following requirements and present the following documentation: 1. The original passport and copies of the passport bio-page; 2. Copies of last entries stamps; 3. Proof of Dominican residence (if not a resident of the Dominican Republic, an additional fee applies and tourist card must be presented); 4. Sworn declaration before a notary public, of being single and eligible to marry; the sworn declaration then needs to be legalized at the Offices of Procuraduría General de La República. If the Sworn declaration is done before a U.S. notary, it then needs to be legalized at the closest Dominican Consulate in the U.S. (In the past, the U.S. Embassy allowed American citizens to swear such an affidavit of eligibility to marry before a U.S. consular officer. The Embassy discontinued this practice several years ago, however, because local officials were interpreting these documents as meaning that the Embassy had actually verified the content of the citizens’ statements, when in fact the consular officer was merely attesting to the fact that the individual in question had made the statement. Americans needing to comply with this requirement should instead present themselves to a Dominican notary –as specified above-.) 5. Copy of foreign birth certificate and a legal translation of the certificate; central authorities in both the United States and the Dominican Republic now authenticate their own public documents, such as birth, death or marriage certificates, with a certificate of apostille (name of the authentication stamp). You can get your document apostille at the office of Vital Records in your state, or visit www.italiamerica.org/vital_records.htm. 6. If divorced, copy of the divorce certificate and legal translation of the certificate; 7. 2 witnesses (not family). Additionally, Dominican law requires that notice of the intended marriage must be published prior to the ceremony. Fees Celebration of marriages at the Civil Registry Office “Oficialia Civil”: • Both the bride and groom are foreigners not residents of the Dominican Republic - RD $10,000.00 • One is a foreigner not resident of the Dominican Republic - RD $5,000.00 • Both the bride and groom are foreigners residents of the Dominican Republic - RD $1,000.00 Celebration of marriages outside the Civil Registry Office (if the Civil Registry Officer goes somewhere else than the “Oficialia Civil” to celebrate the marriage): • Both the bride and groom are foreigners not residents of the Dominican Republic - RD $15,000.00 • One is a foreigner not resident of the Dominican Republic - RD $8,000.00 • Both the bride and groom are foreigners residents of the Dominican Republic - RD $3,000.00 **For updated information on the fees, visit the Junta Central Electoral´s oficial fee webpage (information available only in Spanish) Types of Marriages Marriages in the Dominican Republic fall generally into one of two categories: “Civil” marriages are those in which the parties themselves register the marriage with the Dominican government. The person officiating at the wedding ceremony is a government official, usually a Notary Public. It is the couple’s choice whether or not to hold a separate religious ceremony. “Canonical” marriages are those performed by a Roman Catholic priest. Following the ceremony, the church takes responsibility for registering the marriage with the appropriate Dominican government offices. Marriages in religious denominations other than Roman Catholicism are fully legal and permitted. However, only the Roman Catholic Church has the ability to register marriages on the couple’s behalf. In the case of wedding ceremonies in other denominations, both members of the couple must present themselves to the governmental registrar’s office to legalize the marriage. Details on this procedure follow below in the section under “Civil Marriages”. Civil Marriages Marriage in the Dominican Republic is a civil contract between a man and a woman who have freely agreed to marry and have the capacity to do so. In order to get married in the Dominican Republic, a man and woman must meet the following conditions: 1. The parties must express their free will to marry; 2. Men between 16 and 18 years old, or women between 15 and 18 years old may get married without the consent of their parents. Any required consent must be in writing and notarized, unless the person required to give this consent does so while attending the wedding ceremony; and 3. A man younger than 16 and a woman younger than 15 may not get married, even with their parents’ consent, although a judge may grant an exception for significant reasons. 4. No person may be married before a prior marriage is dissolved. A divorced woman cannot get married until 10 months after her divorce has become final, unless her intended husband is the same person she has divorced. The government official performing the civil ceremony has the authority, at the time of the ceremony, to waive any of the above requirements. Such a waiver must be made in writing and outline the basis of the waiver. The official performing the ceremony does so in the presence of the parties and witnesses. During the ceremony, the official asks the parties and witnesses whether either of the parties has been married previously, to each other or to other people. The party who has been married previously must supply the date of that marriage and the name of the person who officiated. The Marriage Certificate includes the complete names of the spouses, the evidence of their written consent, a declaration they have been united in matrimony and the date of the celebration and the signatures of the Officer, the spouses and the witnesses. After the celebration the marriage is registered in the appropriate civil registries. Civil marriage is dissolved by the death of one of the spouses or by divorce. Canonical Marriages A Canonical marriage performed by a Roman Catholic priest has the same legal effect as a civil marriage. As was stated in the introductory section above, however, there is a procedural difference, insofar as the priest in a Canonical marriage is responsible for transmitting the registration documents to the appropriate Dominican government office(s). Even if a civil ceremony has taken place prior to the Canonical ceremony, the officiating priest must still send a copy of the marriage certificate to the government registry. Matrimonial Property Laws Dominican law presumes that the parties in a marriage enjoy Community Property rights. However, if the parties choose to enter into a different type of agreement, this is permitted. Dominican law outlines a number of systems from which the parties may choose. The spouses may also amend any one of these systems or create one of their own, provided that the final agreement is in keeping with Dominican legal principles. When the parties opt for a system other than Community Property (such as Separate Property, outlined beginning on page 4 below), they must put this in writing and have it approved by a Dominican government official. Community Property Systems 1. Legal Community: This is the most common community property system in effect in the Dominican Republic. The following three features are present and essential: 1. The existence of three types of properties -- common property, property owned by the wife, and property owned by the husband. Under legal community systems, all movable property and its earnings, as well as real estate property acquired during the marriage, are common property. 2. The power of the husband over the administration/management of the estate, which cannot be ignored or restrained through any clause or matrimonial agreement; and 3. The existence of guarantees for the woman against bad management of the property by the husband. These guarantees may include, among others, judicial division of the property and/or liens against any real estate owned by the husband. With regard to point (1) above, it is worth noting that “common property” is further sub-divided into “ordinary property” and “reserved property.” Ordinary property enters the marriage having belonged to one spouse or the other but, based on the marriage, becomes the property of both parties. Reserved property, on the other hand, is property that resulted from the personal work of the woman or from savings that arose from such work. Following the marriage, reserved property generally continues to be administered/managed by the woman, but legally it is the common property of both parties. 2. Reduced to the Earnings: Under this system, the composition of the common property varies, based on the respective debts (both present and future) of the spouses. Additionally, the value of their respective movable property (both present and future) is excluded from the common property. 3. Universal Community: All properties, present and future, are common property. The spouses equally agree under this system that only their present or future property will be common property. Note: It is possible for the spouses to reject any of the community property systems described above and instead choose their own system. However, it is important to note that doing this will not automatically grant the wife rights to administer her property or to receive its earnings. Property the wife brought into the marriage is considered as awarded to the husband for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the marriage. The spouses may, however, include in their property agreement a clause authorizing the wife to receive a part of her annual earnings for her personal living expenses and needs. Separate Property Systems Separate Property systems do not provide for common property, but rather for property owned by each one of the spouses and over which each one has administration/management, disposition and enjoyment rights. Nonetheless, the wife does not have the right to dispose of her properties without the consentof the husband or a judicial authorization. This system requires the spouses to contribute to the maintenance of their home. Furthermore, movable goods individually owned by each of the spouses are intertwined in reality and must be liquidated in the event the marriage is dissolved. A wife's property can be subjected to claims of creditors for her debts arising before and during her marriage, as well as debts related to the maintenance of a marital home incurred by either spouse, or in case of the insolvency of her husband. The husband, for his part, is responsible for his debts arising before or during the marriage and for the debts contracted by the wife when acting as representative of the marriage. One variation of the separation of property system is the dowry system. The dowry system is a system of separation in which the woman, instead of contributing some or all of her income to the couple's obligations, hands over some or all of her property to her husband, who has the administration and legal enjoyment of it. The wife possesses, in addition to the dowry property, property that is not affected by the home-related obligations, also called "paraphernalia." This type of property is enjoyed by the wife but cannot be disposed of without the consent of the husband or judicial authorization. </p> 12161006 2011-11-13 19:14:05 2011-11-13 19:14:05 open open dominican-republic-12161006 publish 0 0 post 0 UFO Harrisburg http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/10/13/harrisburg-12010585/ Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:47:01 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>> Complicating the matter is that there is currently no board at > the Harrisburg Authority. The state Supreme Court on May 27 > voided the authority's board because the City Council had > appointed its members, not the mayor. > > A majority of council members recently rejected several of Mayor > Linda Thompson's appointees because they weren't the ones who > were selected by the council. > > In addition, the mayor has had at least three members of her > cabinet resign since she took office in January, the most recent > departure being her chief of staff last week.</p> 12010585 2011-10-13 17:47:01 2011-10-13 17:47:01 open open harrisburg-12010585 publish 0 0 post 0 Harrisburg USAF Academy Physics Text http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/09/12/usaf-academy-physics-text-11826420/ Mon, 12 Sep 2011 01:06:18 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>INTRODUCTORY SPACE SCIENCE – VOLUME II CHAPTER XXXIII UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS – USAF UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY It has been known for some time that during the late 1960′s and early 1970′s the U.S. Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs had some material on UFOs in its curriculum. The chapter of the textbook “Introductory Space Science” for the class Physics 370 has been posted on CUFONSM for quite a while. This file contains expanded coverage, including a newspaper article from the “Lemoore Advance, A letter of reply from the A.F. Academy transmitting copies of the two versions of Chapter 33, Chapter 33 as it was in use from 1968 – 1970, and the revised Chapter 33 placed in use for the Fall Quarter, 1970. (Posted 14 MAY 1992) — Jim Klotz, CUFONSM SYSOP ================================================== from the Lemoore, CA Advance, October 8, 1970 —————————————————————————- AIR ACADEMY TEXT BOOK URGES MORE STUDY OF UFO SIGHTINGS by TED HUBBARD Students at the U.S. Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs are being taught to stop scoffing at the mention of UFO’s or “flying saucers” and to keep an open mind on the subject. This was made clear last Thursday in an interview given by Major Stewart Kilpatrick, deputy Director of Public Information of the Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, to the Lemoore Advance in a lengthy and exclusive phone interview. The “National Enquirer,” a country-wide journal, which claims the “largest circulation of any weekly paper in America,” headlined this following statement, “Air Force Academy Textbook Warns Cadets That UFO’s May Be Spacecraft Operated by Aliens From Other Worlds,” in its Oct. 11 issue. “Because so many of our readers are interested personally in aircraft, The Advance sought to verify what appeared to be exaggerated claims and somewhat on the unbelievable side. This despite the reported sightings of some strange craft over Lemoore by several witnesses a few weeks ago. Major Kilpatrick, as second ranking officer in public affairs at the Air Academy, is in a position to speak authoritatively for the Air Force. He admitted at once that Plebes are taught from a text entitled “Introductory Space Science, Volume II” and an entire Chapter 33 deals entirely with UFO considerations. He quoted from page 455, that “50,000 virtually reliable people have reported sighting unidentified flying objects.” “This leads us with the unpleasant possibility of alien visitors to our planet,” the 14-page chapter continues, “or at least alien controlled UFO’s.” According to the Academy text book: “If such beings are visiting the earth, two questions arise: (1) Why haven’t they attempted to contact us officially, and (2) Why haven’t there been accidents which would have revealed their presence? “Why no contact? That question is very easy to answer in any of several ways: (1) We may be the object of intensive sociological and psychological study. In such studies you usually avoid disturbing the test subjects’ environment. (2) You do not contact a colony of ants – and humans may seem that way any aliens (variation: a zoo is fun to visit, but you don’t `contact’ the lizards). (3) Such contact may have already taken place secretly, and may have taken piece on a different plane of awareness – and we are not yet sensitive to communications on such a plane.” In releasing this interview in The Lemoore Advance we are well aware that many readers will certainly “raise an eyebrow or two.” But Major Kilpatrick insisted the above chapter in the text is not a fairy story. At the end he seemed to go along with the recommendations of the physics text book which advises Air Force officers as follows: “The best thing to do is to keep an open and skeptical mind – and not take an extreme position on any side of the question.” “Introductory Space Science” closes the chapter with the wish expressed that renewed extensive investigation be given to the possibility of UFO’s. This will require expenditure of a considerable sum of government funds, it explained, and in the present public attitude of scorn and ridicule whenever “UFO’s” are mentioned, such possibility seems almost hopeless the chapter laments. As most people know, the Dr. Eugene U. Condon investigation was closed down by the Pentagon and no present official scientific investigation is now operating in this field. In 1966 we talked with six different Air Force pilots at Travis Air Force Base, who claimed to have seen UFO’s but stated they did not dare report them for fear of extreme ridicule. At least in 1970 this Air Force attitude seems to have changed as indicated by Major Kilpatrick interview with The Advance. Lemoore’s representative at the Colorado Springs Academy is Steve (Moon) Mullens, former basketball star on the Tiger team, and alumnus of Lemoore High. We are asking him his opinion of his science text’s presentation of the so called UFO’s. ============================================== DEPARTMENT Of THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY USAF ACADEMY, COLORADO 80840 REPLY TO ATTN OF: OI 4 NOV 1970 In reference to your recent inquiry to the Air Force Academy concerning Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO’s), the following facts are provided for your information. The subject of UFO’s is examined briefly at the end of an Academy elective course, Physics 370, which usually attracts approximately 20 students per semester. The UFO subject falls under the course objective of discussing all observable or reported physical phenomena occurring from the surface of the sun to the surface of the planets. When the UFO subject was first included in the course, the subject served, from an academic point of view, to illustrate that when contradictory data are available, the best course is to keep an open mind and search for further data. The subject remains an excellent vehicle to discuss the implications and applications of many basic physical laws to “observed” phenomena. The source of recent news media stories concerning the study of UFO’s at the Air Force Academy was an out-of-date chapter in the course text entitled “Introductory Space Science”, a two-volume, 470-page unpublished work printed in a spiral notebook by the Academy for classroom use. The last chapter in the second volume was a 14-page chapter entitled “Unidentified Flying Objects”. When this chapter was written and printed in 1968, the Air Force was still collecting reports of UFO sightings under Project Blue Book and sponsoring the investigation of UFO’s by Dr. E. U. Condon of the University of Colorado. The Condon report was completed in early 1969 with the general conclusion that nothing has come from the study of UFO’s in the past two decades that has added to scientific knowledge and that further extensive study of UFO’s probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced. “MAN’S FLIGHT THROUGH LIFE IS SUSTAINED BY THE POWER OF KNOWLEDGE” —————————————————————————- Based on the conclusions of the Condon report and its own twenty-year UFO experience, the Air Force terminated Project Blue Book in December 1969 with this final statement, “As a result of investigating UFO reports since 1948, the conclusions of Project Blue Book are (1) no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security; (2) there has been no evidence submitted or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as ‘unidentified’ represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present-day scientific knowledge; and (3) there has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as ‘unidentified’ are extraterrestrial vehicles.” In light of these developments, the in-class content of the course was changed to present orally the conclusions of the Condon report and the reasons why the Air Force cancelled Project Blue Book. It was considered uneconomical to reprint the entire second volume for such a limited number of students until the fall of 1970. Beginning with the 1970 fall semester, a revised updated chapter entitled ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” has been substituted for the old chapter so that the text now follows the oral in-class presentation on this subject. For your further information we are enclosing a copy of (1) the old Chapter 33, which is no longer being used and (2) a copy of the new, current Chapter 33 now being used by students of Physics 370 beginning with this fall 1970 semester, I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning the study and treatment of UFO’s at the Air Force Academy, Sincerely /s/ James F Sunderman James F Sunderman, Colonel, USAF 2 Atchs Director of Information 1. Old Chapter 33 2. Updated Chapter 33 ======================================================= (Chapter 33 of “Introductory Space Science” Physics 370 1968 – 1970 ————————————————————————— INTRODUCTORY SPACE SCIENCE – VOLUME II DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS – USAF Edited by: Major Donald G. Carpenter Co-Editor: Lt. Colonel Edward R. Therkelson CHAPTER XXXIII UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS What is an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO)? Well, according to United States Air Force Regulation 80-17 (dated 19 September 1966), a UFO is “Any aerial Phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears to be out of the ordinary to the observer.” This is a very broad definition which applies equally well to one individual seeing his first noctilucent cloud at twilight as it does to another individual seeing his first helicopter. However, at present most people consider the term UFO to mean an object which behaves in a strange or erratic manner while moving through the Earth’s atmosphere. That strange phenomenon has evoked strong emotions and great curiosity among a large segment of our world’s population. The average person is interested because he loves a mystery, the professional military man is involved because of the possible threat to national security, and some scientists are interested because of the basic curiosity that led them into becoming researchers. The literature on UFO’s is so vast, and the stories so many and varied, that we can only present a sketchy outline of the subject in this chapter. That outline includes description classifications, operational domains (temporal and spatial), some theories as to the nature of the UFO phenomenon, human reactions, attempts to attack the problem scientifically, and some tentative conclusions. If you wish to read further in this area, the references provide an excellent starting point. 33.1 DESCRIPTORS One of the greatest problems you encounter when attempting to catalog UFO sightings, is selection of a system for cataloging. No effective system has yet been devised, although a number of different systems have been proposed. The net result is that almost all UFO data are either treated in the form of individual cases, or in the forms of inadequate classification systems. However, these systems do tend to have some common factors, and a collection of these factors is as follows: a. Size b. Shape (disc, ellipse, football, etc.) c. Luminosity d. Color e. Number of UFO’s Behavior: a. Location (altitude, direction, etc.) b. Patterns of paths (straight line, climbing, zig-zagging, etc.) 455 —————————————————————————- c. Flight Characteristics (wobbling, fluttering, etc.) d. Periodicity of sightings e. Time duration f. Curiosity or inquisitiveness g. Avoidance h. Hostility Associated Effects: a. Electro-Magnetic (compass, radio, ignition systems, etc.) b. Radiation (burns, induced radioactivity, etc.) c. Ground disturbance (dust stirred up, leaves moved, standing wave d. Sound (none, hissing, humming, roaring, thunderclaps, etc.) e. Vibration (weak, strong, slow, fast) f. Smell (ozone or other odor) g. Flame (how much, where, when, color) h. Smoke or cloud (amount, color, persistence) i. Debris (type, amount, color, persistence) j. Inhibition of voluntary movement by observers k. Sighting of “creatures” or “beings” After Effects: a. Burned areas or animals b. Depressed or flattened areas c. Dead or missing animals d. Mentally disturbed people e. Missing items 456 —————————————————————————- We make no attempt here to present available data in terms of the foregoing descriptors. 33.2 OPERATIONAL DOMAINS – TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL What we will do here is to present evidence that UFO’s are a global phenomenon which may have persisted for many thousands of years. During this discussion, please remember that the more ancient the reports the less sophisticated the observer. Not only were the ancient observers lacking the terminology necessary to describe complex devices (such as present day helicopters) but they were also lacking the concepts necessary to understand the true nature of such things as television, spaceships, rockets, nuclear weapons and radiation effects. To some, the most advanced technological concept was a war chariot with knife blades attached to the wheels. By the same token, the very lack of accurate terminology and descriptions leaves the more ancient reports open to considerable misinterpretation, and it may well be that present evaluations of individual reports are completely wrong. Nevertheless, let us start with an intriguing story in one of the oldest chronicles of India
the Book of Dzyan. The book is a group of “story-teller” legends which were finally gathered in manuscript form when man learned to write. One of the stories is of a small group of beings who supposedly came to Earth many thousands of years ago in a metal craft which orbited the Earth several times before landing. As told in the Book “These beings lived to themselves and were revered by the humans among whom they had settled. But eventually differences arose among them and they divided their numbers, several of the men and women and some children settled in another city, where they were promptly installed as rulers by the awe-stricken populace. “Separation did not bring peace to these people and finally their anger reached a point where the ruler of the original city took with him a small number of his warriors and they rose into the air in a huge shining metal vessel. While they were many leagues from the city of their enemies, they launched a great shining lance that rode on a beam of light. It burst apart in the city of their enemies with a great ball of flame that shot up to the heavens, almost to the stars. All those who were in the city were horribly burned and even those who were not in the city – but nearby – were burned also. Those who looked upon the lance and the ball of fire were blinded forever afterward. Those who entered the city on foot became ill and died. Even the dust of the city was poisoned, as were the rivers that flowed through it. Men dared not go near it, and it gradually crumbled into dust and was forgotten by men.” “When the leader saw what he had done to his own people he retired to his palace and refused to see anyone. Then he gathered about him those warriors who remained, and their wives and children, and they entered their vessels and rose one by one into the sky and sailed away. Nor did they return.” Could this foregoing legend really be an account of an extraterrestrial colonization, complete with guided missile, nuclear warhead and radiation effects? It is difficult to assess the validity of that explanation
 just as it is difficult to explain why 457 —————————————————————————- Greek, Roman and Nordic Mythology all discuss wars and contacts among their “Gods.” (Even the Bible records conflict between the legions of God and Satan.) Could it be that each group recorded their parochial view of what was actually a global conflict among alien colonists or visitors? Or is it that man has led such a violent existence that he tends to expect conflict and violence among even his gods? Evidence of perhaps an even earlier possible contact was uncovered by Tschi Pen Lao of the University of Peking. He discovered astonishing carvings in granite on a mountain in Hunan Province and on an island in Lake Tungting. These carvings have been evaluated as 47,000 years old, and they show people with large trunks (breathing apparatus?
or “elephant” heads shown on human bodies? Remember, the Egyptians often represented their gods as animal heads on human bodies.) Only 8,000 years ago, rocks were sculpted in the Tassili plateau of Sahara, depicting what appeared to be human beings but with strange round heads (helmets? or “sun” heads on human bodies?) And even more recently, in the Bible, Genesis (6:4) tells of angels from the sky mating with women of Earth, who bore them children. Genesis 19:3 tells of Lot meeting two angels in the desert and his later feeding them at his house. The Bible also tells a rather unusual story of Ezekiel who witnessed what has been interpreted by some to have been a spacecraft or aircraft landing near the Chebar River in Chaldea (593 B.C.). Even the Irish have recorded strange visitations. In the Speculum Regali in Konungs Skuggsa (and other accounts of the era about 956 A.D.) are numerous stories of “demonships” in the skies. In one case a rope from one such ship became entangled with part of a church. A man from the ship climbed down the rope to free it, but was seized by the townspeople. The bishop made the people release the man, who climbed back to the ship, where the crew cut the rope and the ship rose and sailed out of sight. In all of his actions, the climbing man appeared as if he were swimming in water. Stories such as this makes one wonder if the legends of the “little people” of Ireland were based upon imagination alone. About the same time, in Lyons (France) three men and a women supposedly descended from an airship or spaceship and were captured by a mob. These foreigners admitted to being wizards, and were killed. (No mention is made of the methods employed to extract the admissions.) Many documented UFO sightings occurred throughout the Middle Ages, including an especially startling one of a UFO over London on 16 December 1742. However, we do not have room to include any more of the Middle Ages sightings. Instead, two “more-recent” sightings are contained in this section to bring us up to modern times. In a sworn statement dated 21 April 1897, a prosperous and prominent farmer named Alexander Hamilton (Le Roy, Kansas, U.S.A.) told of an attack upon his cattle at about 10:30 p.m. the previous Monday. He, his son, and his tenant grabbed axes and ran some 700 feet from the house to the cow lot where a great cigar-shaped ship about 300 feet long floated some 30 feet above the cattle. It had a carriage underneath which was brightly lighted within (dirigible and gondola?) and which had numerous windows. Inside were six strange looking beings jabbering in a foreign 458 —————————————————————————- language. These beings suddenly became aware of Hamilton and the others. They immediately turned a searchlight on the farmer, and also turned on some power which sped up a turbine wheel (about 30 ft. diameter) located under the craft. The ship rose, taking with it a two-year old heifer which was roped about the neck by a cable of one-half inch thick, red material. The next day a neighbor, Link Thomas, found the animal’s hide, legs and head in his field. He was mystified at how the remains got to where they were because of the lack of tracks in the soft soil. Alexander Hamilton’s sworn statement was accompanied by an affidavit as to his veracity. The affidavit was signed by ten of the local leading citizens. On the evening of 4 November 1957 at Fort Itaipu, Brazil, two sentries noted a “new star” in the sky. The “star” grew in size and within seconds stopped over the fort. It drifted slowly downward, was as large as a big aircraft, and was surround by a strong orange glow. A distinct humming sound was heard, and then the heat struck. One sentry collapsed almost immediately, the other managed to slide to shelter under the heavy cannons where his loud cries awoke the garrison. While the troops were scrambling towards their battle stations, complete electrical failure occurred. There was panic until the lights came back on but a number of men still managed to see an orange glow leaving the area at high speed. Both sentries were found badly burned
one unconscious and the other incoherent, suffering from deep shock. Thus, UFO sightings not only appear to extend back to 47,000 years through time but also are global in nature. One has the feeling that this phenomenon deserves some sort of valid scientific investigation, even if it is a low level effort. 33.3 SOME THEORIES AS TO THE NATURE OF THE UFO PHENOMENON There are very few cohesive theories as to the nature of UFO’s. Those theories that have been advanced can be collected in five groups: a. Mysticism b. Hoaxes, and rantings due to unstable personalities c. Secret Weapons d. Natural Phenomena e. Alien visitors Mysticism It is believed by some cults that the mission of UFO’s and their crews is a spiritual one, and that all materialistic efforts to determine the UFO’s nature are doomed to failure. 459 —————————————————————————- Hoaxes and Rantings due to Unstable Personalities Some have suggested that all UFO reports were the results of pranks and hoaxes, or were made by people with unstable personalities. This attitude was particularly prevalent during the time period when the Air Force investigation was being operated under the code name of Project Grudge. A few airlines even went as far as to ground every pilot who reported seeing a “flying saucer.” The only way for the pilot to regain flight status was to undergo a psychiatric examination. There was a noticeable decline in pilot reports during this time interval, and a few interpreted this decline to prove that UFO’s were either hoaxes or the result of unstable personalities. It is of interest that NICAP (The National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) even today still receives reports from commercial pilots who neglect to notify either the Air Force or their own airline. There are a number of cases which indicate that not all reports fall in the hoax category. We will examine one such case now. It is the Socorro, New Mexico sighting made by police Sergeant Lonnie Zamora. Sergeant Zamora was patrolling the streets of Socorro on 24 April 1964 when he saw a shiny object drift down into an area of gullies on the edge of town. He also heard a loud roaring noise which sounded as if an old dynamite shed located out that way had exploded. He immediately radioed police headquarters, and drove out toward the shed. Zamora was forced to stop about 150 yards away from a deep gully in which there appeared to be an overturned car. He radioed that he was investigating a possible wreck, and then worked his car up onto the mesa and over toward the edge of the gully. He parked short, and when he walked the final few feet to the edge, he was amazed to see that it was not a car but instead was a weird eggshaped object about fifteen feet long, white in color and resting on short, metal legs. Beside it, unaware of his presence were two humanoids dressed in silvery coveralls. They seemed to be working on a portion of the underside of the object. Zamora was still standing there, surprised, when they suddenly noticed him and dove out of sight around the object. Zamora also headed the other way, back toward his car. He glanced back at the object just as a bright blue flame shot down from the underside. Within seconds the eggshaped thing rose out of the gully with “an ear-splitting roar.” The object was out of sight over the nearby mountains almost immediately, and Sergeant Zamora was moving the opposite direction almost as fast when he met Sergeant Sam Chavez who was responding to Zamora’s earlier radio calls. Together they investigated the gully and found the bushes charred and still smoking where the blue flame had jetted down on them. About the charred area were four deep marks where the metal legs had been. Each mark was three and one half inches deep, and was circular in shape. The sand in the gully was very hard packed so no sign of the humanoids’ footprints could be found. An official investigation was launched that same day, and all data obtained supported the stories of Zamora and Chavez. It is rather difficult to label this episode a hoax, and it is also doubtful that both Zamora and Chavez shared portions of the same hallucination. Secret Weapons A few individuals have proposed that UFO’s are actually advanced weapon systems, and that their natures must not be revealed. Very few people accept this as a credible suggestion. 460 —————————————————————————- Natural Phenomena It has also been suggested that at least some, and possibly all, of the UFO cases were just misinterpreted manifestations of natural phenomena. Undoubtedly this suggestion has some merit. People have reported, as UFO’s, objects which were conclusively proven to be balloons (weather and skyhook), the planet Venus, man-made artificial satellites, normal aircraft, unusual cloud formations, and lights from ceilometers (equipment projecting light beams on cloud bases to determine the height of the aircraft visual ceiling). It is also suspected that people have reported mirages, optical illusions, swamp gas and ball lightning (a poorly-understood discharge of electrical energy in a spheroidal or ellipsoidal shape
some charges have lasted for up to fifteen minutes but the ball is usually no bigger than a large orange.) But it is difficult to tell a swamp dweller that the strange, fast-moving light he saw in the sky was swamp gas; and it is just as difficult to tell a farmer that a bright UFO in the sky is the same ball lightning that he has seen rolling along his fence wires in dry weather. Thus accidental misidentification of what might well be natural phenomena breeds mistrust and disbelief; it leads to the hasty conclusion that the truth is deliberately not being told. One last suggestion of interest has been made, that the UFO’s were plasmoids from space
concentrated blobs of solar wind that succeeded in reaching the surface of the Earth. Somehow this last suggestion does not seem to be very plausible; perhaps because it ignores such things as penetration of Earth’s magnetic field. Alien Visitors The most stimulating theory for us is that the UFO’s are material objects which are either “Manned” or remote-controlled by beings who are alien to this planet. There is some evidence supporting this viewpoint. In addition to police Sergeant Lonnie Zamora’s experience, let us consider the case of Barney and Betty Hill. On a trip through New England they lost two hours on the night of 19 September 1961 without even realizing it. However, after that night both Barney and Betty began developing psychological problems which eventually grew sufficiently severe that they submitted themselves to psychiatric examination and treatment. During the course of treatment hypnotherapy was used, and it yielded remarkably detailed and similar stories from both Barney and Betty. Essentially they had been hypnotically kidnapped, taken aboard a UFO, submitted to two-hour physicals, and released with posthypnotic suggestions to forget the entire incident. The evidence is rather strong that this is what the Hills, even in their subconscious, believe happened to them. And it is of particular importance that after the “posthypnotic block” was removed, both of the Hills ceased having their psychological problems. The Hill’s description of the aliens was similar to descriptions provided in other cases, but this particular type of alien appears to be in the minority. The most commonly described alien is about three and one-half feet tall, has a round head (helmet?), arms reaching to or below his knees, and is wearing a silvery space suit or coveralls. Other aliens appear to be essentially the same as Earthmen, while still others have particularly wide (wrap around) eyes and mouths with very thin lips. And there is a rare group reported as about four feet tall, weight of around 461 —————————————————————————- 35 pounds, and covered with thick hair or fur (clothing?). Members of this last group are described as being extremely strong. If such beings are visiting Earth, two questions arise: 1) why haven’t there been any accidents which have revealed their presence, and 2) why haven’t they attempted to contact us officially? The answer to the first question may exist partially in Sergeant Lonnie Zamora’s experience, and may exist partially in the Tunguska meteor discussed in Chapter XXIX. In that chapter it was suggested that the Tunguska meteor was actually a comet which exploded in the atmosphere, the ices melted and the dust spread out. Hence, no debris! However, it has also been suggested that the Tunguska meteor was actually an alien spacecraft that entered the atmosphere to rapidly, suffered mechanical failure, and lost its power supply and/or weapons in a nuclear explosion. While that hypothesis may seem far fetched, sample of tree rings from around the world reveal that, immediately after the Tunguska meteor explosion, the level of radioactivity in the world rose sharply for a short period of time. It is difficult to find a natural explanation for that increase in radioactivity, although the suggestion has been advanced that enough of the meteor’s great kinetic energy was converted into heat (by atmospheric friction) that a fusion reaction occurred. This still leaves us with no answer to the second question: why no contact? That question is very easy to answer in several ways: 1) we may be the object of intensive sociological and psychological study. In such studies you usually avoid disturbing the test subjects’ environment; 2) you do not “contact” a colony of ants, and humans may seem that way to any aliens (variation: a zoo is fun to visit, but you don’t “contact” the lizards); 3) such contact may have already taken place secretly; and 4) such contact may have already taken place on a different plane of awareness and we are not yet sensitive to communications on such a plane. These are just a few of the reasons. You may add to the list as you desire. 33.4 HUMAN FEAR AND HOSTILITY Besides the foregoing reasons, contacting humans is downright dangerous. Think about that for a moment! On the microscopic level our bodies reject and fight (through production antibodies) any alien material; this process helps us fight off disease but it also sometimes results in allergic reactions to innocuous materials. On the macroscopic (psychological and sociological) level we are antagonistic to beings that are “different”. For proof of that, just watch how an odd child is treated by other children, or how a minority group is socially deprived, or how the Arabs feel about the Israelis (Chinese vs. Japanese, Turks vs. Greeks, etc.) In case you are hesitant to extend that concept to the treatment of aliens let me point out that in very ancient times, possible extraterrestrials may have been treated as Gods but in the last two thousand years, the evidence is that any possible aliens have been ripped apart by mobs, shot and shot at, physically assaulted, and in general treated with fear and aggression. In Ireland about 1,000 A.D., supposed airships were treated as “demon-ships.” In Lyons, France, “admitted” space travelers were killed. More recently, on 24 July 1957 Russian anti-aircraft batteries on the Kouril Islands opened fire on UFO’s. Although all Soviet anti-aircraft batteries on the Islands were in action, no hits were made. The UFO’s were luminous and moved very fast. We too have fired on UFO’s. About ten o’clock one morning, a radar site near a fighter base 462 —————————————————————————- picked up a UFO doing 700 mph. The UFO then slowed to 100 mph, and two F-86′s were scrambled to intercept. Eventually one F-86 closed on the UFO at about 3,000 feet altitude. The UFO began to accelerate away but the pilot still managed to get within 500 yards of the target for a short period of time. It was definitely saucer-shaped. As the pilot pushed the F-86 at top speed, the UFO began to pull away. When the range reached 1,000 yards, the pilot armed his guns and fired in an attempt to down the saucer. He failed, and the UFO pulled away rapidly, vanishing in the distance. This same basic situation may have happened on a more personal level. On Sunday evening 21 August 1955, eight adults and three children were on the Sutton Farm (one-half mile from Kelly, Kentucky) when, according to them, one of the children saw a brightly glowing UFO settle behind the barn, out of sight from where he stood. Other witnesses on nearby farms also saw the object. However, the Suttons dismissed it as a “shooting star,” and did not investigate. Approximately thirty minutes later (at 8 p.m.), the family dogs began barking so two of the men went to the back door and looked out. Approximately 50 feet away and coming toward them was a creature wearing a glowing silvery suit. It was about three and one-half feet tall with a large round head and very long arms. It had large webbed hands which were equipped with claws. The two Suttons grabbed a twelve gauge shotgun and a 22 caliber pistol, and fired at close range. They could hear the pellets and bullet ricochet as if off of metal. The creature was knocked down, but jumped up and scrambled away. The Suttons retreated into the house, turned off all inside lights, and turned on the porch-light. At that moment, one of the women who was peeking out of the dining room window discovered that a creature with some sort of helmet and wide slit eyes was peeking back at her. She screamed, the men rushed in and started shooting. The creature was knocked backwards but again scrambled away without apparent harm. More shooting occurred (a total of about 50 rounds) over the next 20 minutes and the creatures finally left (perhaps feeling unwelcome?) After about a two hour wait (for safety), the Suttons left too. By the time the police got there, the aliens were gone but the Suttons would not move back to the farm. They sold it and departed. This reported incident does bear out the contention though that humans are dangerous. At no time in the story did the supposed aliens shoot back, although one is left with the impression that the described creatures were having fun scaring humans. 33.5 ATTEMPTS AT SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES In any scientific endeavor, the first step is to acquire data, the second step to classify the data, and the third step to form hypothesis. The hypothesis are tested by repeating the entire process, with each cycle resulting in an increase in understanding (we hope). The UFO phenomenon does not yield readily to this approach because the data taken so far exhibits both excessive variety and vagueness. The vagueness is caused in part by the lack of preparation of the observer
very few people leave their house knowing that they are going to see a UFO that evening. Photographs are overexposed or underexposed, and rarely in color. Hardly anyone carries around a radiation counter or magnetometer. And, in addition to this, there is a very high level of “noise” in the data. The noise consists of mistaken reports of known natural phenomena, hoaxes, reports by unstable individuals and mistaken removal of data regarding possible unnatural or unknown natural phenomena (by 463 —————————————————————————- > Figure 33-1. UFO: Distance of observer versus estimated diameter, for UFO’s which are lower than tree height. overzealous individuals who are trying to eliminate all data due to known natural phenomena). In addition, those data, which do appear to be valid, exhibit an excessive amount of variety relative to the statistical samples which are available. This has led to very clumsy classification systems, which in turn provide quite unfertile ground for formulation of hypothesis. One hypothesis which looked promising for a time was that of ORTHOTENY (i.e., UFO sightings fall on “great circle” routes). At first, plots of sightings seemed to verify the concept of orthoteny but recent use of computers has revealed that even random numbers yield “great circle” plots as neatly as do UFO sightings. There is one solid advance that has been made though. Jacques and Janine Vallee have taken a particular type of UFO – namely those that are lower than tree-top level when sighted – and plotted the UFO’s estimated diameter versus the estimated distance from the observer. The result yields an average diameter of 5 meters with a very characteristic drop for short viewing distances, and rise for long viewing distances. This behavior at the extremes of the curve is well known to astronomers and psychologists as the “moon illusion.” The illusion only occurs when the object being viewed is a real, physical object. Because this implies that the observers have viewed a real object, it permits us to accept also their statement that these particular UFO’s had a rotational axis of symmetry. 464 —————————————————————————- Another, less solid, advance made by the Vallee’s was their plotting of the total number of sightings per week versus the date. They did this for the time span from 1947 to 1962, and then attempted to match the peaks of the curve (every 2 years 2 months) to the times of Earth-Mars conjunction (every 2 years 1.4 months). The match was very good between 1950 and 1956 but was poor outside those limits. Also, the peaks were not only at the times of Earth-Mars conjunction but also roughly at the first harmonic (very loosely, every 13 months). This raises the question why should UFO’s only visit Earth when Mars is in conjunction and when it is on the opposite side of the sun. Obviously, the conjunction periodicity of Mars is not the final answer. As it happens, there is an interesting possibility to consider. Suppose Jupiter’s conjunctions were used; they are every 13.1 months. That would satisfy the observed periods nicely, except for every even data peak being of different magnitude from every odd data peak. Perhaps a combination of Martian, Jovian, and Saturnian (and even other planetary) conjunctions will be necessary to match the frequency plot
 if it can be matched (Figure 33-2). > Figure 33-2. Cycles of activity, mathematically corrected for long term “Strong Trends”. which are lower than tree height. 465 —————————————————————————- Further data correlation is quite difficult. There are a large number of different saucer shapes but this may mean little. For example, look at the number of different types of aircraft which are in use in the U.S. Air Force alone. It is obvious that intensive scientific study is needed in this area; no such study has yet been undertaken at the necessary levels of intensity and support. One thing that must be guarded against in any such study is the trap of implicitly assuming that our knowledge of Physics (or any other branch of science) is complete. An example of one such trap is selecting a group of physical laws which we now accept as valid, and assume that they will never be superseded. Five such laws might be: 1) Every action must have an opposite and equal reaction. 2) Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force proportional to the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance. 3) Energy, mass and momentum are conserved. 4) No material body can have a speed as great as c, the speed of light in free space. 5) The maximum energy, E, which can be obtained from a body at rest is E=mc2, where m is the rest mass of the body. Laws numbered 1 and 3 seem fairly safe, but let us hesitate and take another look. Actually, law number 3 is only valid (now) from a relativistic viewpoint; and for that matter so are laws 4 and 5. But relativity completely revised these physical concepts after 1915, before then Newtonian mechanics were supreme. We should also note that general relativity has not yet been verified. Thus we have the peculiar situation of five laws which appear to deny the possibility of intelligent alien control of UFO’s, yet three of the laws are recent in concept and may not even be valid. Also, law number 2 has not yet been tested under conditions of large relative speeds or accelerations. We should not deny the possibility of alien control of UFO’s on the basis of preconceived notions not established as related or relevant to the UFO’s. 33.6 CONCLUSION From available information, the UFO phenomenon appears to have been global in nature for almost 50,000 years. The majority of known witnesses have been reliable people who have seen easily-explained natural phenomena, and there appears to be no overall positive correlation with population density. The entire phenomenon could be psychological in nature but that is quite doubtful. However, psychological factors probably do enter the data picture as “noise.” The phenomenon could also be entirely due to known and unknown phenomena (with some psychological “noise” added in) but that too is questionable in view of some of the available data. This leaves us with the unpleasant possibility of alien visitors to our planet, or at least of alien controlled UFO’s. However, the data are not well correlated, and 466 —————————————————————————- what questionable data there are suggest the existence of at least three and maybe four different groups of aliens (possibly at different stages of development). This too is difficult to accept. It implies the existence of intelligent life on a majority of the planets in our solar system, or a surprisingly strong interest in Earth by members of other solar systems. A solution to the UFO problem may be obtained by the long and diligent effort of a large group of well financed and competent scientists, unfortunately there is no evidence suggesting that such an effort is going to be made. However, even if such an effort were made, there is no guarantee of success because of the isolated and sporadic nature of the sightings. Also, there may be nothing to find, and that would mean a long search with no proof at the end. The best thing to do is to keep an open and skeptical mind, and not take an extreme position on any side of the question. REFERENCES 33-1. Davison, L. Flying saucers: AN Analysis of the Air Force Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14. (Third Edition) Ramsey, New Jersey: Ramsey-Wallace Corp., July 1966 33-2. Edwards, F. Flying Saucers – Serious Business. New York: Bantam Press, 1966 33-3. Fuller, J. “Flying Saucer Fiasco” Look. 14 May 1968, 58. 33-4. ______. The Interrupted Journey, New York: Dial Press, 1966. 33-5. Hall, R. (editor). The UFO Evidence. Washington, D.C.: National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, May, 1964. 33-6. Jung, C. Flying Saucers; A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies. Translated by R.F. Hull. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959. 33-7. Kehoe, D. The Flying Saucer Conspiracy. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1955. 33-8. ____. Flying Saucers: Top Secret. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1960. 33-9. Lorenzen, C. The Great Flying Saucer Hoax. New York: William Frederick Press, 1962. 33-10. Markowitz, W. “The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects,” Science. 15 September 1967, 1274. 33-11. Menzel, D. and L. Boyd. The World of Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1963. 33-12. Michel, A. Flying Saucers and the Straight Line Mystery. New York: Criterion Books, 1958. 467 —————————————————————————- 33-13. Ruppelt, E. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1956. 33-14. Tacker, L. Flying Saucers and the U.S. Air Force. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1960. 33-15. Terry, D. “No Swamp Gas for Him, Thank You,” St. Louis Dispatch, 2 June 1966, 4F. 33-16. Vallee, J. Anatomy of a Phenomenon: Unidentified Objects in Space – A Scientific Appraisal. Chicago: Henry Regenry, 1965. 33-17. Vallee, J. and J. Vallee. Flying Saucers a Challenge to Science. New York: Henry Regenry, 1966. 33-18. Whitney, D. Flying Saucers. New York: Cowles Communications, 1967. 468 ================================================= (Chapter 33 of “Introductory Space Science” Physics 370 Fall Quarter 1970) 33.1 Introduction In this text, an attempt has been made to discuss all observable phenomena from the surface of the sun to the surface of the planets, particularly the planet Earth. It must be admitted, however, that some phenomena have been overlooked and that others are not presently explainable. In this latter category we find “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.” This is a very broad, all-inclusive subject since the “unidentified” depends on the experience and education of the observer–to an aborigine, an airplane may be “unidentified” while to the meteorologist even such rare phenomena as noctilucent clouds and ball lightning may be “identifiable.” Thus sightings of “unidentified aerial phenomena” must be reported completely and investigated carefully to determine if they are indeed “unidentifiable.” There have been thousands of reports of “unidentified aerial phenomena” in the past quarter century and a number of these reports are still listed as “unidentifiable.” This may be due to poor reporting, incomplete investigation, or to deficiencies in our understanding of the atmosphere and the universe at large. The possibility that our scientific knowledge could be increased by study of these phenomena has led several organizations to explore the subject further. The popular literature uses the more restrictive term “Unidentified Flying Objects” instead of the general “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.” Although there is insufficient evidence that the phenomena are real physical “objects” or indeed that they are “flying”, we will adopt the popular terminology to avoid confusion. Consequently we will define an “Unidentified Flying Object” (UFO) as any reported aerial phenomenon or object which is unknown or appears out of the ordinary to the observer. While there are purported UFO reports dating from ancient times, the subject of UFOs really was thrust upon the American public shortly after World War II when Kenneth Arnold on 24 June 1947 reported seeing nine “saucer like” objects near Mount Rainier. This was the first in a series of UFO reports which has continued to the present. The newly organized U.S. Air Force was assigned the mission of determining if the UFOs represented a threat to the national security. The investigation was conducted under Project Sign, later Project Grudge, and finally Project Blue Book which ended on 17 December 1969. Because of a rash of UFO reports in 1952 and fears that military communications channels could be clogged by enemy instigated UFO reports, a special scientific panel chaired by the late Dr. H, P. Robertson was established under government sponsorship in January 1953 to study the UFO problem. The panel concluded that there was no evidence in the available data that UFOs were a threat to national security. These scientists recommended that a campaign be conducted to produce better public understanding of the situation and also to remove the aura of mystery surrounding the subject. This latter goal has not yet been completely achieved. FALL SEMESTER 1970 —————————————————————————- After this, Project Blue Book continued to receive and evaluate UFO reports, but the conclusions reached were not always accepted by “UFO-logists” and the general public. The Air Force was often accused of trying to cover up the UFO problem and of withholding information allegedly indicating that UFOs are extraterrestrial. Consequently, a panel headed by Dr. Brian O’Brien was empowered to review Project Blue Book in 1966. While this commission reaffirmed that there was no apparent security threat posed by the existence of unexplained UFO reports, it suggested that a detailed study of some of the reports might produce something of scientific value. The commission recommended that a few selected universities be engaged to provide scientific teams for prompt investigation of selected UFO sightings. Consequently, in 1966, the U.S. Air Force sponsored a $500,000 investigation led by Dr. Edward U. Condon of the University of Colorado to make a scientific investigation of UFOs, not necessarily to identify UFOs but only to determine if there is scientific merit in the study of them. 33.2 Hypotheses to Explain UFOs In any scientific investigation, we establish an hypothesis or hypotheses, collect data, analyze the data in light of our hypotheses and then refute or confirm our hypotheses or conclude that we have insufficient data to do either. Approximately 6% of the UFO reports collected by Project Blue Book are officially listed as “unexplained.” If we propose to “explain” these remaining cases we must first set up a list of possible explanations. There is always the danger in this procedure that the true explanation for a particular event is not contained in the given set of a priori hypo-theses. With this note of caution before us, we adopt a set of hypotheses proposed by Dr. James McDonald of the University of Arizona: 1. Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds. 2. Hallucinations, mass hysteria, rumor phenomena. 3. Advanced terrestrial technologies. 4. Lay misinterpretations of well understood physical phenomena. 5. Poorly understood physical phenomena. 6. Poorly understood psychological phenomena. 7. Extraterrestrial visitation. 8. Messengers of salvation and occult truth. Let us examine each of these in light of the data collected over the past twenty-plus years. 2 —————————————————————————- 1. Hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds. There is no question that some UFO reports are hoaxes, fabrications, and frauds perpetrated by persons playing pranks with candles in plastic cleaning bags, persons faking photographs, persons seeking notoriety or recognition, and practical jokers. The UFO literature is replete with examples of all types. However, confirmed hoaxes are only a small percentage of the total number of UFO reports. Most reports are by reliable witnesses and show no evidence of fabrication or fraud. 2. Hallucinations, mass hysteria, rumor phenomena. There is evidence that UFO reports occur in waves and that a rash of sightings in a localized area may be due to increased public sensitivity to an initial report. Some reports received at these times may indeed be inspired by the increased attention to UFOs and not true sightings at all. However, the large number of multi-observer reports from independent observers, and reports from military personnel, airline pilots, policemen, scientists and other qualified witnesses makes it unlikely that many UFO reports are the results of hallucinations, mass hysteria, and rumor phenomena. Psychologists and sociologists are unable to estimate what portion of UFO reports may be due to such causes but analysis of the credentials of witnesses in most reports would indicate that the number must be small. 3. Advanced terrestrial technologies (e.g. test vehicles, satellites, reentry phenomena, secret weapons). The noted space scientist Arthur C. Clarke has observed that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear indistinguishable from magic. Thus advanced terrestrial technologies are certainly the cause of some reports. The reported characteristics of UFOs do not appear to have changed markedly over the years while man has made great technological progress. Thus while some current UFO reports may be attributable to space vehicle reentries or satellite launches, the reports in the forties and early fifties cannot be attributed to these causes. Similarly, advanced weapon systems in the development and test stages (secret weapons) now would give rise to a different type of UFO report from those of earlier eras. The variety and world-wide distribution of UFO reports make it unlikely that the reports are due to sightings of products of an advanced terrestrial technology. 4. Lay misinterpretations of well-understood physical phenomena (e.g. meteorological, astronomical, optical). From our definition of UFOs it is obvious that a large number of reports will fall in this category. Misidentification of aircraft landing lights, blinking and flashing lights during aerial refueling operations, weather balloons, meteors, movements of the planets Venus and Jupiter, searchlight reflections on low cloud ceilings and lens flares in photographs are a few possibilities. The reader can undoubtedly suggest others and find still more in the UFO literature. In his article, “The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Object Dr. William Markowitz discusses the UFO problem in light of the currently accepted physical laws. In particular, he considers the following five basic laws: 3 —————————————————————————- a. Every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. b, Every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them. c. Momentum and mass-energy are conserved. d. No material body can travel at c, the speed of light in free space. e. The maximum energy which can be obtained from a body at rest is governed by Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2 To date these laws have enabled physicists to predict and control many phenomena for practical purposes. They can also be valuable in analyzing UFO reports. The details in most UFO reports do not cause any conflict with these laws and lead us to conclude that UFOs may well just be misidentified ordinary phenomena. However, some reports seem at variance with one or more of these laws, leading us to question either the reliability of the UFO reports or the reliability of our physical laws. Since our physical laws are more firmly established both in theory and by experiment, the validity of the physical law is usually a more acceptable alternative to the scientist. We must realize, however, that any physical law may be subject to change with the discovery of new evidence. 5. Poorly understood physical phenomena (e.g. rare atmospheric electrical effects, cloud phenomena, plasmas of natural or technological origin). Attempting to explain UFO reports by some poorly understood phenomenon is risky at best, and probably is impossible until the phenomenon is better understood. Lenticular clouds as explanations for certain UFO reports may be on firm grounds, but attempts to explain UFOs in terms of mirages, ball lightning (a sphere-shaped plasma blob usually associated with electrical storms) , atmospheric inversion layers, or anomalous propagation of radar signals are much less tenable. Some UFO reports may be explainable by these phenomena, but it is impossible to make positive identifications based on our present limited understanding of the phenomena. Consequently, all such explanations should be considered only tentative. There may be still other atmospheric phenomena which are observed so rarely that they remain uninvestigated and unnamed. 6. Poorly understood psychological phenomena. Psychologists are the first to admit that there are many aspects of psychic phenomena that have not been adequately explored. Few data are available to determine how these phenomena may relate to the UFO problem, but we must at least allow for the possibility that there may be some effects. 4 —————————————————————————- 7. Extraterrestrial visitation. Dr. Condon states in the summary of Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects that convincing and unequivocal evidence of extraterrestrial visitation would be the greatest single scientific discovery in the history of mankind. While this may be a slight exaggeration, it at least points out why this hypothesis adds so much excitement and controversy to the UFO problem. Despite numerous UFO reports concerning purported space vehicles and alien visitors, there remains doubt as to the veracity of these reports. Such reports do, however, contain a number of strange elements that are verifiable. One would prefer hard evidence in the form of a tail fin, a jettisoned propulsion unit, a crashed UFO, several good photographs, etc. Such physical evidence does not seem to exist, despite stories to the contrary. Several scientists have concluded that the priori probability of extraterrestrial visitation appears to be exceedingly low in terms of present scientific knowledge. Although no conclusive proof as to the validity of this hypothesis can be drawn from the evidence at hand, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that on the basis of present knowledge, the least Likely explanation of UFOs is the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations by intelligent beings. 8. Messengers of salvation and occult truth. Certain cults have adopted the belief that the mission of UFOs is spiritual and that all Physical efforts to determine the nature of UFOs must necessarily fail. While such may be the case, evidence to support it is clearly lacking. Further discussion of this hypothesis is beyond the scope of this text. 33.3 Conclusion Having presented the arguments for each of the hypotheses, possible conclusions are now considered. It is apparent that no single hypothesis can account for all UFO reports. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 are obviously valid and, as a group, account for a large number of UFO reports. However, the evidence is insufficient to conclude that all UFO reports can be attributed to these causes. Hypothesis 8 is unlikely to yield to any form of scientific analysis, so we eliminate it from further consideration. If hypotheses 5, 6, and 7 are scientifically the most interesting since they offer the possibility of new knowledge about ourselves and our environment. As indicated above, hypotheses 5 and 6 require additional research on poorly understood phenomena before conclusions can be reached as to their bearing on the UFO problem. At this time, there appears to be insufficient evidence available to either confirm or refute hypothesis 7. One additional note of caution must be included at this point. In most of this chapter, we have discussed primarily the scientific implications of the UFO question. However, the Lorenzens contend that UFOs are primarily an emotional problem, secondly a political problem, and only incidentally, a scientific problem. They feel that when the emotional and political problems have been resolved, the entire UFO problem will yield to scientific investigation. 5 —————————————————————————- Is such scientific investigation likely to be conducted? At least one major scientific study has been made. Dr. Condon and his University of Colorado Project ended their Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects in late 1968 with the general conclusion that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past two decades that has added to scientific know-ledge and that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced. This conclusion and the entire report were endorsed by a select panel from the National Academy of Sciences. Based on the conclusions of the Condon report and its own twenty-year UFO experience, the Air Force terminated Project Blue Book in December 1969 with this final statement, “As a result of investigating UFO reports since 1948, the conclusions of Project Blue Book are (1) no UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security; (2) there has been no evidence submitted or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as ‘unidentified’ represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present-day scientific knowledge; and (3) there has been no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as ‘unidentified’ are extraterrestrial vehicles.” Consequently there is presently no official government agency investigating UFO reports. Dr. McDonald and several private UFO investigative agencies have decried alleged inadequacies of the Condon report and Project Blue Book and urge that the entire subject be re-investigated. Specifically, Project Blue Book, during its existence, was criticized for superficial investigation of UFO reports, low level of scientific competence among its personnel, and unreasonable explanations concerning specific UFO reports. Criticisms of the Condor report include the contention that the conclusions reached are not supported by the bulk of the evidence in the report itself and that the firing of two staff members for “incompetence” before the completion of the final report raises questions concerning the objectivity and completeness of the study. While some of the criticism may possibly be justified, it is unlikely that any new official scientific studies will be forthcoming, primarily because the conclusions of the Condon report have been so widely accepted. The UFO problem must now compete on its scientific merit with all the other pressing scientific problems facing mankind. To receive attention from scientists and the requisite economic support, the potential rewards from UFO research must be shown to be commensurate with the resources expended. Although the Condon committee cautioned that nothing worthwhile was likely to result from such research, it suggested that all of the agencies of the federal government and private foundations should be willing to consider UFO research proposals along with the others submitted to them on an open minded, unprejudiced basis. 6 ————————————————————————— REFERENCES 1. Air Force Regulation 80-17, Unidentified Flying Objects, 19 Sept 66, (Rescinded 25 March 1970), 2. Binder, Otto , What We Really Know About Flying Saucers, Greenwich, Conn: Fawcett Publications, 1967, 3, Condon, Edward U., Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, New York: Bantam Rooks, 1967. 4. Lorenzen, Carol and Jim, UFO’s-The W@ole Story. New York: Signet Books, 1969. 5. Markowitz, William, “The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects,” Science, Vol. 157 pp. 1274-1279, 15 Sept 67. 6. McDonald, James E., Unidentified Flying Objects-Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times., Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Subcommittee, NICAP, 1967. 7. McDonald, James E., “UFO’s–An International Scientific Problem,” speech presented 12 Mar 68 at the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute, Astronautics Symposium, Montreal, Canada. 8. OASD(PA) News Release No. 1077-69, Project “Blue Book” Terminated. 9. Saunders, D.R. and R.R. Harkins, UFO’s? Yes, Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong, New York: Signet Books, 1968. </p> 11826420 2011-09-12 01:06:18 2011-09-12 01:06:18 open open usaf-academy-physics-text-11826420 publish 0 0 post 0 UFO skeptics http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/08/10/skeptics-11644888/ Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:13:14 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>A Skeptic's definition of a UFO "A UFO is an unidentified flying object which has been identified as a possible or actual alien spacecraft. Such objects include meteors, disintegrating satellites, flocks of birds, aircraft, lights, weather balloons, and just about anything within the visible band of electromagnetism. So far, however, nothing has been positively identified as an alien spacecraft in a way required by common sense and science. That is, there has been no recurring identical UFO experience and there is no physical evidence in support of either a UFO flyby or landing". Well it looks like the Skeptics have there own ideas about UFOs. So skeptics only believe in this: "A UFO is an unidentified flying object which has been identified as a possible or actual alien spacecraft. Ok, a nice statement on what you folks are looking for, and what to address the idea of alien spacecraft.... or should I say possible or actual identified alien spacecraft. How limited are these minds? When I was at the 2011 UFO Conference in Phoenix in February... I ran into James McGahee, retired United States Air Force pilot, who is also an amateur astronomer and was the main skeptic with the Rendlesham Forest Incident... I was getting ready to speak at the conference, and I ran into James McGahee at the restaurant just outside of the main convention hall. I said hello to him, and introduced myself, and I said I been wanting to meet him for quite awhile. With a very puzzling look on his face, he said; why is that? I told him we had a lot in common... More puzzling look from James... He said how that? Well I said, James we are much alike, we are both skeptics with this UFO stuff. He said then your going to retract the Rendlesham Forest Incident??? I said of course not, in the skeptics sense of the word, I told him, that Rendlesham is not about UFOs. It has never has been.... He was silent....... he stood there with a deer like stare, gazing at me..... I said I am going to reserve a seat up front at the conference when I speak in a few seconds. When I present the Rendlesham Forest Incident, I will call on you at the mike stand. I want you to do your very best on debunking this incident.... Put it to bed, once and for all. You may ask all the questions you want... I would really appreciate it.... Well, that time went and gone, and of course no James McGahee.... The reason is that the Rendlesham Forest Incident, never was about UFOs.. And UFOs is what approach he was prepared to use in his can skeptics approach, which I have reprinted above. For it was about a craft-of-unknown-origin. Well, this throws a whole new look at things....... A craft which we the witnesses on the first night, knew is was clearly from our future. By the communication and from the separate hypnosis sessions. For it was us!! Of course us active duty guys who bound by orders and such, never talked about it. Well for at least for thirteen more years. Another skeptic, Ian Ridpath.... Well after years and years of telling the world what 160 Air Force Security Force Members seen on two nights, was a lighthouse... John Burroughs and I ask Ian to meet us last December so we can show him our exact actions and route we took... for the forest looked as it did back then, with the regrowth of trees..... He declined of course.... What I am saying that we have no problem going toe-to-toe with any skeptics.... But, they all have declined..... Why would those skeptics want to do this, you should ask yourself, for the burden of proof lays with us, not them.... You would think they would jump at the opportunity to take care of Rendlesham.... Another question from those skeptics.... if this was Top Secret, how can you talk about it? Very good question and is asked often and answered as much...... Upon out processing with the Air Force, I was required to sign a "I will not discuss or reveille document" It had all kinds of Top Secret and Classified stuff on there. Such as Single Operational Integrated Plans, contingency plans, nuclear weapons information, and a host of other classified material that I was exposed to during my time serving in the last twenty years... But, jumping out, which not what was there, but, what was not, that is what was jumping at me.... The most mysterious and amazing thing that ever happen to me, was missing. The Rendlesham Forest Incident. So I had my personnel people send off a message to the Air Force Information Office, at the Pentagon.... I was told to come back to CBPO the next day. Well I returned, and was sitting with my separations NCO. He began to read me a paper note that he was holding... and said, The Pentagons response is, Nothing of a defense significance happen at RAF Bentwaters on the dates in question, so therefore, nothing is classified about it.. Well, I was just blown away.... something I had to guard and hold very close to my vest for the last thirteen years, is no longer of defense significance..... and not classified.... No frickin way that could happen, for I knew the gravity of what had happen, and so all the others too, and this was the most gutting experience, which defied all conventional explanation. A one-of-kind event which would out way what we as the human race, will look at things from this point on..... But for me, it opened up the door for me to seek answers, which I have often thought about.... The symbols and the effect of my contact, have always kept me in awe... So nothing was said in 1993. But the longer, I was out, the more I began dreaming at night. Some horrifying and so terrible I never could tell no one. Not even my loved ones, but none were of Rendlesham... So in 1994 the nightmares became worse and I was getting less and less sleep.... For I knew this was PTSD, and I needed treatment. The Veterans Administration would not treat me for PTSD, but it would cost me... Most of it was operational things like aircraft crashes, and my time in the period of the Gulf War. Things like that.... So out of my own pocket, I found an excellent therapist who was well trained in all aspects of mental health and traumatic events... After a couple of initial visits, Sharon (the therapist) was very concern about the nightmares, she said the easiest way to address these issues is transgressional hypnosis... Taking back to the events and moving forward.... Sounded very good and I agreed. To record it was standard procedure, so she could go back for further questions and other things. And when I was transgressed to Ten years old then brought forward. Our hopes was to address some old experiences of a traumatic nature that I have experienced. The last thing that I thought would ever come out, would be The Rendlesham Incident, and the blocks that were put in-place by the United States...... Upon this being discovered, a second hypnosis was done the following day... And then the rest is history... (see note on time-line and codes) I would like to turn the tables on the skeptics, I will ask them a few questions, then I will give them some facts, and then some points to ponder. So who do the skeptics work for? What is there job? What do they want for an end result? Have you ever made any money off of these cases, do you receive any funding from the British or American governments? Those questions should get things started. But, the irony is that it goes pretty much like this. When we get close to sharing something significant with mankind these psy-ops agents and disinformation agents come crashing down on us like ten tonnes of bricks attempting to silence us for good. Sad thing about it all is that people rather believe the disinformation because its exaggerated and so way out than the real truth. Heading these disinformation campaigns are mostly so called "Top UFO Researchers" and self proclaimed ET "Guru’s" who pretend to know everything about extraterrestrials and UFOs. As another friend, and researcher said to me recently. "You know you are getting close, when they distort the truth and out right lie about you.... It is then you know you are getting somewhere " One final question? After thirty years you need to remember, that when you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything. So that is why the account has not changed. There are factors which mitigate variable points... but, these are natural and is because of awareness.... It has only came to my attention today, that there was a remarkable important event that happened in 1993. Nick Pope did a documentary on it in 2006. Of course, John and I both believe with very high certainly that we both believe the Cosford UFO in 1993 was associated with the one witnessed in 1980 at Rendlesham by us. A continuance of a time line, which was altered in 1980. An event that started in 1980 and will end in 2015... no it is not gloom and doom stuff, just the sequence of events that were initiated back in 1980. It reinforces the Time Travel impressions, and the hypnosis sessions that both John and I did independently of each other, some five year apart, and unknown to each other, only till recently in the last few months and finally talking after 29 years earnestly... RAF Cosford and RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge, the similarities are so overwhelming they are not by chance... they are related... the beams being sent down to the ground, the triangular crafts, verified by radar, verified by military trained observers....... And the list goes on and on..... One final thought to the what ifs and this is for those skeptics, please think about this; The two incidents are related with triangular craft being in charge of the British airspace for a unknown period of time... Both incidents are of no defense significance to the Ministry of Defense, even though they have determined they are unexplainable... Oh my, I do think the MOD has a serious security issues here... A point to ponder..... Time is all about, what is relative, and what view point you are watching from.... lets look at it from theirs. But, maybe,....... just maybe....., to them......... for them, the time difference on the crafts clock had only a few dozen minutes go by from being at Rendlesham to being at RAF Cosford.... And for the rest of us, some thirteen years has passed... after all time is relative, is it not? Just a what if for the skeptics..... and remember, Rendlesham and RAF Cosford are not about UFOs...... They are about time travel..... One additional thought for the skeptics and all who read this.... During my 1994 hypnosis, where it describes "them" as being "us" from the future (50,000 years in the future). The one thing I say with clarity, for they left this clear in my mind, and this was done through the craft, which has activated communication... The statement is simple: "that even in the future, we are still alone, and we are still waiting, for first contact....." 　 　</p> 11644888 2011-08-10 16:13:14 2011-08-10 16:13:14 open open skeptics-11644888 publish 0 0 post 0 UFO Leonard Stringfield, Dr. J.Allen Hynek, Linda Moulton Howe http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/07/13/leonard-stringfield-dr-j-allen-hynek-linda-moulton-howe-11476911/ Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:55:58 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Question For Unit 9 Early pioneers Discuss the works of all three researchers Leonard Stringfield, Dr. J.Allen Hynek, Linda Moulton Howe, in the context of the early years. What were their qualifications. in your short essay, explain interested them in this field and how did they get involved? They have different areas of expertise.Explain how these areas compliment each other. They were the early pioneers. Leonard Stringfield Qualifications: Stringfield was an executive with DuBois Chemicals and retired in 1981 as Director of Public Relations and Marketing Services. In 1954 he began publishing a monthly UFO newsletter and consequently became a significant hub of collected UFO information. He remained an active UFOlogist until his death in 1994 Why Interested/Involved: Mr Stringfield had a sighting of three brilliantly white teardrop-shaped objects from the window of a C-46 as he was flown to Iwo Jima in August of 1945. At a fundamental level, Mr. Stringfield was puzzled by the purpose of the probes. Expertise: His expertise was largely self-developed and revolved around his communication abilities. J. Allen Hynek Qualifications: Dr. Hynek received a B.S. in 1931 from the University of Chicago. He earned his Ph.D. in 1935 at Yerkes Observatory. Why Interested/Involved: Initially, Dr. Hynek was hired by the USAF to assist in UFO investigations and essentially played the role of a debunker. Subsequent to his more than two decades of service for the USAF, Dr. Hynek was intrigued by the credibility of some reports and by an informal polling of fellow astronomers who, in turned out, had a higher rate of UFO observance than the general public (5 out of 44 polled, or about 11%). Expertise: Rigorous scientific training. Advanced degree and experience in astronomy. Long time employment by a hub of UFO information. Linda Moulton Howe Qualifications: B.A. in English Literature from the University of Colorado, Boulder. Masters Degree in Communications from Stanford University. Why Interested/Involved: Her interest was spiked when she worked on an animal mutilation (Ms. Moulton Howe was raised in Idaho) documentary in 1979 (“A Strange Harvest”). Her work on this project compelled her to investigate, among other concerns, the UFO phenomenon. At a basic level, she is interested in the question of whether or not aliens are here to help us or harm us. Expertise: She has worked for decades as a reporter and film-maker. Most significantly, all three of these pioneers have made prodigious contributions to the body of UFO research. Ms. Moulton Howe’s journalistic professionalism helps to protect the credibility of her publications. Dr. Hynek’s academic and experiential scientific background strongly buttress his work. Mr. Stringfield’s willingness to reach out to many in the very early years of UFOlogy laid the groundwork for the field’s development. This cross-disciplined participation in UFOlogy helps to increase the avenues of inquiry. By Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire Saved at: paolaweek9 </p> 11476911 2011-07-13 19:55:58 2011-07-13 19:55:58 open open leonard-stringfield-dr-j-allen-hynek-linda-moulton-howe-11476911 publish 0 0 post 0 Paola Richard S. Ewell spoke these prophetic words to General Lee in May of 1861. http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/06/21/richard-s-ewell-spoke-these-prophetic-words-to-general-lee-in-may-of-11350028/ Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:25:02 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Richard S. Ewell, general in Lee’s army, spoke these prophetic words to General Lee in May of 1861. “There is one West Pointer, I think in Missouri, little known, and whom I hope the northern people will not find out. I mean Sam Grant. I knew him well at the Academy and in Mexico. I should fear him more than any of their officers I have yet heard of. He is not a man of genius, but he is clear-headed, quick and daring.” Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire</p> 11350028 2011-06-21 03:25:02 2011-06-21 03:25:02 open open richard-s-ewell-spoke-these-prophetic-words-to-general-lee-in-may-of-11350028 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis J. Sheehan Esquire Jackson http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/06/15/jackson-11322498/ Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:18:12 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit. Never fight against heavy odds if you can hurl your own force on only a part of your enemy and crush it. A small army may thus destroy a large one, and repeated victory will make you invincible.</p> 11322498 2011-06-15 20:18:12 2011-06-15 20:18:12 open open jackson-11322498 publish 0 0 post 0 Kynisca rome http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/02/08/rome-10545320/ Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:36:00 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>test</p> 10545320 2011-02-08 16:36:00 2011-02-08 16:36:00 open open rome-10545320 publish 0 0 post 0 Helen Notting Hill 003.w Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2011/01/08/notting-hill-003-w-louis-j-sheehan-esquire-10329387/ Sat, 08 Jan 2011 15:18:36 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>The Case of the First Mystery Novelist By PAUL COLLINS Reader, never mind whether the butler did it. Here’s a real mystery for you: Who wrote the first detective novel? For years, the usual suspect was Wilkie Collins, who made the great leap from Poe’s short stories to the Victorian triple-decker novel with “The Moonstone,” published in 1868. Across the Channel, there was Émile Gaboriau and his Monsieur Lecoq, who made his first appearance a few years earlier in “L’Affaire Lerouge,” though Arthur Conan Doyle later had Sherlock Holmes declare Lecoq “a miserable bungler.” In 1975, however, the novelist and critic Julian Symons revealed in The Times of London a veritable hidden panel in the library of detective literature: a third novel that predates them both. It was “The Notting Hill Mystery,” an anonymous eight-part serial that ran in Once a Week magazine starting on Nov. 29, 1862. But the book itself presented something of a mystery. “It is unnecessary for us to state by what means the following papers came into our hands. . . . ,” the editors of Once a Week declared. And that was just the problem. Symons pointed out that nobody knew who the author — identified by the pseudonym Charles Felix when the novel was released in book form in 1865 — really was. But reader, I know whodunit. First, the murders. “The Notting Hill Mystery” begins in London, where the wife of Baron R** dies after sleepwalking into his home laboratory and drinking a bottle of acid. It looks like a tragic accident, until a private investigator, Ralph Henderson, notices that the baron took out five life insurance policies on Madame R**, worth a staggering £25,000. Hired by an insurance company, Henderson descends into a maze of intrigue that is perfectly and deliriously Victorian: there’s a diabolical mesmerist, kidnapping by gypsies, mysterious carnival girls, slow-poisoners and a rich uncle’s will. Oh, and murder . . . or rather, three murders. “The Notting Hill Mystery,” published with illustrations by George Du Maurier (the grandfather of Daphne), was extraordinarily innovative. It is presented as Henderson’s own findings — diary entries, family letters, depositions of servant girls, even a chemical analyst’s report. Its crime-scene map and reproduced “evidence” were ideas that wouldn’t gain currency again until the 1920s. The book is both utterly of its time and utterly ahead of it. Symons, writing in 1975, admitted it “quite bowled me over.” Victorian reviewers felt the same way. The Guardian found it “very ingeniously put together,” and The Evening Herald hailed its genius, declaring, “The book in its own line stands alone.” The one mixed appraisal shows a reviewer grappling for the first time with just what a detective novel is. “The Notting Hill Mystery,” according to The London Review, was “a carefully prepared chaos, in which the reader, as in the game called solitaire, is compelled to pick out his own way to the elucidation of the proposed puzzle.” Charles Felix quickly issued a Christmas gift book called “Barefooted Birdie” and the unremarkable novel “Velvet Lawn.” Another novel appeared so briefly that the British Library now holds one of only four known copies. And with that, the inventor of the detective novel vanished like the killer in a locked-room mystery. Until now. After months of investigating with the dogged tenacity of Ralph Henderson pursuing Baron R**, I was no closer than Symons in discovering the solution. Even an 1868 “Handbook of Fictitious Names” didn’t help: Felix is listed, but next to his pseudonym is nothing but a mockingly empty pair of brackets. More mysteriously, correspondence with the man is entirely missing from the archive of Saunders, Otley & Company, his book publisher. Every detective tale needs a red herring, and I had mine: What if I pursued the author of “Velvet Lawn” instead? I found that just one other work, an earlier and unpublished one, shared the same title. It was written by . . . Benjamin Disraeli. The novelist and prime minister was an intriguing suspect: authors are loath to leave good titles unused, and Saunders, Otley published some of Disraeli’s books. His political career also gave him good reason for a pseudonym. Yet the mystery’s style didn’t match his, and it’s unmentioned in his copious correspondence. I had a motive, but no smoking gun or fingerprints: Disraeli wasn’t my man. I’d almost given up when I stumbled upon a Literary Gossip column in The Manchester Times for May 14, 1864. The sole identification of Charles Felix had lain there for 146 years, hidden in this single sentence: “It is understood that ‘Velvet Lawn,’ by Charles Felix, the new novel announced by Messrs. Saunders, Otley & Co., is by Mr. Charles Warren Adams, now the sole representative of that firm.” The author was hiding in plain sight: There was no publisher correspondence with Charles Felix because he didn’t need to write to himself. A traveler and journalist once best known for a fractious elopement with a relative of Samuel Coleridge, the publisher Charles Warren Adams (1833–1903) bears other hints of his authorship. There’s his law school training, which underlies the novel’s evidentiary process, and a previous book on parlor games — The London Review’s puzzle comparison struck closer than its reviewer realized. Adams was also notably religious, which points to an unexpected characteristic of the first detective novel: it’s profoundly moral. It asks not just how evil exists, but what is to be done about it. Detective novels, like sermons, can offer gratifyingly simple answers to those questions, or thoughtful and troubling ones. In some the miscreant is identified and hauled off in cuffs, perhaps after a final demonic rant: Bah! And it could have worked. . . . Adams offers no such comfort. “The Notting Hill Mystery” ends not in triumph, but in anguish. Its solution is ingenious and utterly mad, leaving its investigator to wonder, pondering the evidence: “Is that chain one of purely accidental coincidences, or does it point with terrible certainty to a series of crimes, in their nature and execution too horrible to contemplate?” We never get an answer. Adams himself had little more closure: Saunders, Otley soon went bust, and after a desultory series of projects he became the editor for an antivivisection society. He died in 1903 without ever taking credit for the immensely popular genre he had pioneered. “The Notting Hill Mystery” has languished in obscurity ever since, but thanks to the British Library’s new program to digitize 19th-century novels for print on demand, it’s once again available in an exact copy of its original edition. We may never know whether the Baron R** did it. But as for the identity of the first detective novelist, the case may finally be closed. Paul Collins is the author of “The Murder of the Century: The Gilded Age Crime That Scandalized a City and Sparked the Tabloid Wars,” to be published in June. </p> 10329388 2011-01-08 15:18:36 2011-01-08 15:18:36 open open notting-hill-003-w-louis-j-sheehan-esquire-10329387 publish 0 0 post 0 Mollie