• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Daniel Fry - Contactee?


blowfish

Whittingham
EM drive an end to ufology?

I'd love to see it work, but it still probably doesn't.

Top of the wiki page:



So to take it as read that this thing works in a total contravention of conservation of momentum... I wouldn't hold my breath.

Again, I'd be happy as hell if the thing worked. But nobody has demonstrated that it does, and even if it does provide thrust, it might be as simple as energy leakage driving it.



RF resonant cavity thruster - Wikipedia
The best person to discuss this topic is a NASA rocket scientist and Dr Brandenburg instead of Wiki references.
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
I've seen something similar to this and it actually works from equations of Special Relativity. One professor of physics, in his spare time, is doing that with energy, rather than mass. He's simply using capacitors to oscillate energy, but the effects are so small that they are beyond the reach of even the most accurate instruments.
You’re thinking of the Woodward effect, which uses transient mass fluctuations in a harmonic oscillator to produce, in theory anyway, reactionless propulsion:

Woodward effect - Wikipedia

That’s completely different from a gravitational field propulsion effect though. Woodward’s concept is a very simple, mechanical one – if you have an oscillating spring between two masses, and you can vary the masses in sync with the oscillating spring (the mass in the rear is heavier when the spring is pushing, and the mass in the front is heavier when the spring is pulling) then the device moves a little bit forward with each cycle. Since this could be driven at very high frequencies, even a small “inch worm” effect would add up to produce significant motion. Experimentally, his work on this remains unproven.

We are not really talking about one weird effect here and another solitary effect there. We are talking about a stream of thousands of cases where THE SAME EFFECTS keep on repeating.
I was responding to the two cases you cited: one where there was an alleged crescent-shaped region of magnetization, and the other involving a crescent-shaped area of torn grass etc. Single cases like that typically aren’t useful analytically.

The chart with the car engines stalling out at various distances is another matter altogether, because it involves so many unrelated reports. That seems to be telling us something. If we had the numerical values that he used to make the chart, we could do a statistical analysis to determine the sigma of the data set.

Like a clockwork, thousands of these craft are emitting a powerful oscillating EM fields and they produce fuzzy color-changing plasma few inches from the skin of the craft. And these effect stay constant even if different alien species were observed.

Strong alternating EM field is the most well established technical fact in a whole of ufology. One just needs to follow the link in my signature to meet with dozens of technical papers written on subject, by highly qualified academics and engineers.
Let’s say for the sake of argument, that the glowing field around many of these objects is indeed a signature of a “powerful, oscillating EM field” as you say, and not produced by some other method of ionization like high temperature or a static electrical field (which also produce a glowing corona in the atmosphere).

That still tells us essentially nothing about the field propulsion mechanism. All it tells us is that there’s a source of energy. Most of our technology is based on electromagnetic energy, but none of our technology produces anything like the propulsion characteristics of these objects.

Understanding >how< to manipulate energy to produce a reactionless field propulsion effect is a question for physics. Without a high level of proficiency in physics, no amount of observational data is going to yield a sufficient level of understanding to replicate these types of effects. That’s my position anyway.

You seem to think that physicists can’t figure out the method of gravitational field propulsion that these objects appear to employ, simply because they haven’t already done so. I think that’s silly.

Think of it this way – consider the ufo sighting just like any other observation. We’ve observed the Sun every day since the dawn of time. Many, many efforts were made for thousands of years to explain and replicate the phenomenon of solar luminosity. But that didn’t mean that physics would *never* figure it out. We just didn’t have a sufficient understanding of physics at the nuclear scale to properly model the Sun until we properly understood the process of nuclear fusion. And now we replicate that process every time we detonate a hydrogen bomb.

The same will happen with the far more elusive observation of ufos.

Because gravity is so immeasurably weak, any "big idea" theoretical approach starting from existing knowledge is doomed to failure from the day one. Practically, there is nothing to "hook" on. The best proof that that approach leads nowhere is a "graveyard" of approximately 4,000 gravitational papers, published over the span of 50 years, at Gravity Research Foundation's site. Please, see for yourself here WINNERS BY YEAR And they have 3 Nobel prize winners among the contributors.
I responded to that last part above, but you also state here that we can’t make any “big idea” theoretical progress because gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. But that makes no sense – general relativity has explained every gravitational effect, even the incredibly subtle ones like light bending around the Sun and the gravitomagnetic field of the Earth and even the very recently detected gravitational radiation. And that same theory has opened up the door to a compelling warp field propulsion concept, and the very clever “swimming in spacetime” effect discovered by MIT’s Jack Wisdom.

So theoretical physics is definitely the way to pioneer toward a gravitational field propulsion system. Everything else amounts to whistling in the wind.

Anomalous EM thrust and a direct link between EM fields and gravity had been confirmed by 4 significant scientific institutions in US, China, Germany etc.

Practically, the anomalous thrust from the above EM Drive explains why UFOs produce strong alternating EM fields. If you want, EM Drive just ads up one more proof that UFOs had been real all the time.

More or less, EM Drive is the end of ufology.
No, not even close. Scientists love surprises, and love to see old conventions overturned by experiment – that’s why people get into theoretical physics in the first place: to make advancements.

But the “EM Drive” appears to be experimental error. It has a modest “grey box” possibility of being something else, which is why some scientists are pursuing it further. And that’s good. But the reported forces are so small, and the device has so much going on with heat and electrical currents and soforth, that it’s almost certainly noise being mistaken for a signal, which is commonplace in experimental research. Martin Tajmar made a similar mistake about "an anomalous gravitomagnetic effect" in a cryonic cylinder, about 13 years ago; it happens all the time. The tell-tale signs of this are classic: the predicted magnitude of force doesn’t correspond with the measured force, and varies from lab to lab. And there’s as yet no theoretically viable explanatory model for its alleged performance.

With enough rigorous experimental effort, somebody will succeed in explaining the EM Drive. It would be great if it’s something significant, but Vegas money is 100:1 in favor of experimental error – thermal effects, induction effects…something trivial. After all, it's just a funny-shaped microwave oven.

For the curious, the way EM Drive works is when two EM waves are out of a phase by 180 degrees the sum of EM fields is zero. Because EM fields are zero EM wave doesn't reflect off the conductive (metallic) cavity walls, but passes through them. As two canceled waves leave the cavity they carry away energy & momentum with themselves. That creates, at least, momentum imbalance, which than manifests as a force and movement.
No, that’s not what’s happening. I calculated the total photon momentum of the energy supplied to the device, assuming conversion efficiency of 100%, and it fell short by about seven orders of magnitude iirc. In that situation it would be more efficient to point a laser out the back of your craft to try to push yourself forward – but that’s a horribly ineffective way to produce thrust, and you could certainly never exceed the speed of light itself that way.

If I had to place a bet on a gravitation theory, it seems to me, from everything that I read so far is that gravity is simply a density of quantum foam (aka. space-time). Mater squeezes out quantum foam from inside of the dense object and that creates a region of a denser quantum foam (aka. space-time) near the object. That's why when one lifts up atomic clock it starts ticking faster, because quantum foam's density becomes lower.
Hal Puthoff tried to model gravity that way, and it was deemed a failure.

And over the last decade or so, the Casimir force has been successfully explained as a van der Waals effect in the relativistic regime, using quantum electrodynamics. Which means that we now have zero experimental evidence that vacuum fluctuations are real/physical. Now it looks like they’re simply a calculational tool in perturbation theory - a convenient short-cut to modeling the real phenomenon quantum electrodynamically, and there’s no “quantum foam” after all. I found this to be very disappointing because it was interesting to think of empty space as a broiling sea of energy, but the argument is clear and convincing. If there really are vacuum fluctuations in free space, then we have no experimental evidence of their existence. Here’s one of the papers that we covered on this subject for the Physics Frontiers podcast that we just recorded last weekend, written by a physics professor at MIT named Robert Jaffe – have a look:

[hep-th/0503158] The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum

On a completely separate note, I just finished reading "Millennial Hospitality" by a nuclear physicist Charles Hall. His observations of of alien craft technology are very similar, if not identical, to Daniel Fry's.

Charles Hall as well worked in Nelis AFB, very similar and close to where Daniel Fry worked.
Thanks for the tip; I look forward to seeing what he has to say.

On the subject of Chinese Academic research papers a element which must be taken into account with a number of claims in advances discoveries and in technology. 80% of China’s clinical trial data are fraudulent, investigation finds | The BMJ and is not the only state which grants and fraud seem to muddy the institutions. BBC News - Chinese academia ghost-writing 'widespread' It seems Dr Fry could of been muddy the interviews later on as he had some visitors of the human kind and no doubt was on the watched list and remember it was the Cold War.
Yeah it’s frustrating that the review standards for academic papers among the Eastern nations is so uneven. The Russians for example have the best research team in the world for superheavy element research, but some other Russian scientists publish crap. The same appears to be true with China; they just landed a probe on the Moon and gave us the best images we’ve ever seen of its surface, but they also seem to fall for every shiny new fad in experimental physics, like the Tampere experiment. So I only trust Western review papers, and even then, take the long view rather than jumping to conclusions.

I’m unclear about what you’re saying about Daniel Fry here though. He stated that he had to muddy his early editions a bit because he required approval from military security to publish an account of events that happened at White Sands, a top secret military research base. I gather that’s why he left out the details about the gravitational field propulsion mechanism until the 1973(?) edition of The White Sands Incident. Or it could’ve just been the most scientifically prescient hoax in the history of ufology. I’m sorta waiting for someone to figure out a viable gravitational propulsion mechanism, so I can compare it to his descriptions, before I make up my mind about it.

The best person to discuss this topic is a NASA rocket scientist and Dr Brandenburg instead of Wiki references.
I’ve been meaning to listen to his interview on American Antigravity called “John Brandenburg on Poynting Vector Antigravity,” because that’s *exactly* the propulsion principle that Daniel Fry described in his book. There’s only one known vector force that acts perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic field components of an oscillating EM field – the Poynting vector. If there’s a connection between the Poynting vector and gravity, then we’d finally have the grand unified theory that everyone’s been looking for over the last century.

But his theory about a nuclear blast on Mars looks like complete rubbish, so I’m dubious about his more sensational claims. It’s not entirely common, but scientists do come along from time to time who try to branch out beyond their specialty and fall flat on their faces.
 
Last edited:

blowfish

Whittingham
I’ve been meaning to listen to his interview on American Antigravity called “John Brandenburg on Poynting Vector Antigravity,” because that’s *exactly* the propulsion principle that Daniel Fry described in his book. There’s only one known vector force that acts perpendicular to the electrical and magnetic field components of an oscillating EM field – the Poynting vector. If there’s a connection between the Poynting vector and gravity, then we’d finally have the grand unified theory that everyone’s been looking for over the last century.

But his theory about a nuclear blast on Mars looks like complete rubbish, so I’m dubious about his more sensational claims. It’s not entirely common, but scientists do come along from time to time who try to branch out beyond their specialty and fall flat on their faces.
It would not surprise anyone like many great scientist who worked for any Government Space Program had to sign some sort of security act so all should keep an open mind. This also goes for all contactees and ufo science researchers. Dr Brandenburg is top notch Rocket Scientist and let's not forgetting its he would have had discussions with fellow scientist who might be less forth coming but share details so keep an open mind . Just off topic did Dr Fry discuss any data about deep cavern systems and use of technologies from the contactees?

Also on Mars http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n9/full/ngeo3008.html , https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n9/pdf/ngeo3023.pdf . getting more interesting life underwater , An Active Subglacial Water System in West Antarctica Mapped from Space | Science , http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n9/full/ngeo3001.html , Impact crater formation in icy layered terrains on Mars and An Active Subglacial Water System in West Antarctica Mapped from Space | Science
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
The best person to discuss this topic is a NASA rocket scientist and Dr Brandenburg instead of Wiki references.
The thing about science is that it's open source. Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy, anyone can just go look for themselves.

I have talked to some folks as I said. That was their answer.

Besides, Brandenburg I do not hold in high esteem regarding his views. The Mars war stuff is widely discounted. The timeframes don't even match up. Mars was warm and wet billions of years ago. That's billions with a 'b.' There is no explanation for having it in the atmosphere more than three billion years later.

Well, except one, of course. The one most scientists point to: volcanoes. You know, the biggest one in the solar system right there?

(Also the explanation for the volcanic glass that he says is also the result of a gigantic nuclear blast).

Oh, and this is the same dude that says this is evidence of past life on Mars:

 

blowfish

Whittingham
Science is not open source as many folks aren't able to purchase subscriptions to all the journals ( wiki anyone can put their six pence in) therefore it's still a club of wealthy to some and those images are your interpretations from a human's perspective. The same as Dr.Brandenburg's but hey he is a rocket scientist who has worked for NASA. Also he is a author of sci-fiction and we can't knock him on that;)
 
Last edited:

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
I was responding to the two cases you cited: one where there was an alleged crescent-shaped region of magnetization, and the other involving a crescent-shaped area of torn grass etc. Single cases like that typically aren’t useful analytically.
It's not a single case. There are hundreds of cases with these same symptoms. Each one of 448 cases with stalled car engines fits into this group. If one has oscillating electric field, from Maxwell's equations, one automatically has oscillating magnetic field and subsequently eddie currents that heat up car bodies.

Lets say that there is this aboriginal from Papua New Guinea, with loin cloth around his belt and all like that, who got himself a PhD in physics via an online university. If one day a diesel jeep turned up in his village and all of his fellow tribesman couldn't tell that jeep from a boar, this hypothetical aboriginal physicist would 99% be able to understand how jeep works just from his knowledge of physics and external observations.

As well, good data costs big money. Ray Stanford quoted that cost of running his mobile UFO observation lab was $2.0million. Luckily he had a rich patron, who didn't mind the cost and even personally shared the workload. But if one went to some official funding body and asked $2.0million for UFO research, I don't think he would get a penny. Even so, how would one be able to predict where UFOs will turn up, so he can be ready with all the delicate equipment and ready to start recording?

In ufo forensics we just don't have luxury of laboratory quality data. Lab quality data comes with a huge price tag and there are no UFO research grants forthcoming. What we have is consistent repeatable physical background in thousands of cases. There are quite few other cases where car's body got hot, like Betty & Bernie Hill (Stanton Freedman), Cash-Landrum incident etc. So we can confidently say that there was strong oscillating magnetic field.

So, data-wise, we have to stick it out.

I think that UFO cases are packed full with extremely valuable data, even though data is not precisely measured. Essentially, we shouldn't throw baby out with a water.

There are consistent repeatable trends: alternating EM fields, plasma, dripping of liquid metals, radiation poisoning, headaches, microwaves, electric circuit disruption, low speed turbine sounds, levitating bullet repelling spacesuits, levitating spacesuits without backpacks (w/o big power source), lifting of objects under the spacecraft, RGB pulsating lights, rotating hulls etc. These data consistencies should be able to help somebody figure out more. One goes into MUFON's 40,000 cases strong database and pulls out all of these, one by one.

For example, why are there dripping liquid metals? Stanford University's physics prof. Peter Sturrock's book "The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence", chapter "Physical Traces", subchapter "Liquid Metal Technology" describes 5 such cases. One of his co-workers, an expert in nuclear reactor cooling systems, suggested that UFOs must land from time to time to get rid of sludge that forms in hot liquid metal cooling system.

And there is one exactly such case, above, where UFO landed and pilot told to farmer's wife that he needs to drop off this metallic residue so his craft can continue flying.

And than comes famous Bob White case where UFO discharges incandescent radioactive piece of liquid metal sludge that gets taken to Los Alamo's Lab for analysis and two Los Alamo's Lab material science experts come out and say that material was superconducting and contained isotopes from outside Solar system.






These are phenomenal cross-confirmations.

How such level of detail can be of no interest to scientists? Do scientists expect answers just to fall into their lap? One can easily work that one backwards. Liquid metals are used only for two things: strong heat source cooling and as hot cathodes carrying large currents (that will keep them melted).

OK, the way I select cases, is through trick questions. MUFON investigators are doing the same. If witness mentions some little known things, that are nearly never reported in media, than I take the whole case very seriously. That Italian case triggered positively multiple of these gotchas, so I took it of it as very credible.

Now it looks like they’re simply a calculational tool in perturbation theory - a convenient short-cut to modeling the real phenomenon quantum electrodynamically, and there’s no “quantum foam” after all. I found this to be very disappointing because it was interesting to think of empty space as a broiling sea of energy, but the argument is clear and convincing. If there really are vacuum fluctuations in free space, then we have no experimental evidence of their existence. Here’s one of the papers that we covered on this subject for the Physics Frontiers podcast that we just recorded last weekend, written by a physics professor at MIT named Robert Jaffe – have a look:
Just couple of days ago I was listening to Fermilab's physicist Dr. Don Lincoln who said that quantum foam is theoretically and experimentally confirmed by QED, here:
Video published in 2014. Now, there are so many papers published, one can't follow all of them. Maybe he missed something. But it's a bit confusing.

But his theory about a nuclear blast on Mars looks like complete rubbish, so I’m dubious about his more sensational claims. It’s not entirely common, but scientists do come along from time to time who try to branch out beyond their specialty and fall flat on their faces.
Well, maybe he's trying to rise some capital for experiments and for traveling to all physics symposiums, to promote his Pointing vector theory. He works as a lecturer at some marginal university, most likely for pennies.

The chart with the car engines stalling out at various distances is another matter altogether, because it involves so many unrelated reports. That seems to be telling us something. If we had the numerical values that he used to make the chart, we could do a statistical analysis to determine the sigma of the data set.
Maybe one can just normalize graph's values, by eyeballing and than get relative value for sigma that way?

You seem to think that physicists can’t figure out the method of gravitational field propulsion that these objects appear to employ, simply because they haven’t already done so. I think that’s silly.
Its blatantly obvious that physics are stuck with gravity. More than 100 years passed and they are unable to quantize gravity. 4,000 white papers are rotting on the GravityResearchFoundation's site with no with no progress since 100 years old General Relativity. But, by analyzing UFOs, just for kicks, we might work it out before them. Just imagine look on their faces if ufologists stole a show right in front of all these arrogant know-alls ;-)

There is an urban legend, doing rounds on Internet, that it took Western scientists 65 years, after first reports came in, to "discover" panda bear. Although pandas were there all the time and reported by Chinese farmers. Highly regarded members of French Academy of Science laughed off reports about black-and-white bears that spent whole days eating tall grass. They said "everybody knows that" all bears are carnivorous.

So theoretical physics is definitely the way to pioneer toward a gravitational field propulsion system. Everything else amounts to whistling in the wind.
Of course. But physics is not yet final. We just discovered Higgs bozon recently. Its worth looking into UFOs, as a physicist, one part for fun and another part because we might stumble upon something.

Understanding >how< to manipulate energy to produce a reactionless field propulsion effect is a question for physics. Without a high level of proficiency in physics, no amount of observational data is going to yield a sufficient level of understanding to replicate these types of effects. That’s my position anyway.
In no way I am saying that ufology is the only chance we have to work out artificial gravity. It simply good fun, even for people with deep understanding of physics.

But, lets say that history played out differently and that Eddington discovered anomalous movement of background stars during eclipse of the Sun, before Einstein or anybody else came up with Special Relativity. Effect was there all the time and it was quite measurable even with 19th century technology. Sometimes theory leads, sometimes experiment. Those 4,000 futile papers that are sitting at GravitationResearchFoundation.com prove that gravity is hard on theorists, not to mention 100+ years of attempts to quantize gravity, made zero progress so far.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


The biggest thing in a search for AG propulsion might not be the craft itself, but the alien spacesuits. Charles Hall has a huge amount of information about hovering spacesuit in his Millennial Hospitality books. Basically, same as UFO crafts, spacesuits are surrounded by few inches of fluorescent glow and when observed from close distance one can see vapor trails from radioactive decay particles coming out and spacesuits disrupt car engines and radios.

Practically all the effect that Daniel Fry mentioned about spacecraft's skin, including the mysterious repulsive field, are present with spacesuits. And again there are at least dozen cases on files, all with same descriptions.

Alien spacesuits take that observation to the extreme. I can refer to at least a dozen of credible cases where aliens were observed moving at up to 100mph, when donning these suits. All the while hovering few inches above the ground and steering the suits like skiers do, by leaning forward etc. And always, these space suits are no more than apparently light and relatively thin, flexible overalls.

These spacesuits provide ability for low speed hover, without having any significant energy source. So far I never read a case where spacesuit had a backpack. Although there is enough room inside 20ft UFO for a small 1,500 MW nuclear reactor (like NERVA ones that Stanton Freedman designed ;-), aliens definitely don't war nuclear reactors strapped to their backs, when hovering about.

The fact that such a thin and light spacesuit material, probably supported by some kind of battery, can produce AG hover, tells us one super important thing about AG: AG needs relatively speaking a small amount of energy.

Spacesuit cases are quite abundant, and spacesuit technology is always constant even when alien spices are different:

- Kelly Khahill Australia case. Aliens cross 100m in 2-3 seconds, about 100mph.

- Crash in desert, not far from Roswell, but much later, observed by two boys who were just playing there. They said aliens were moving fast around seriously damaged craft, but they were stumbling and wavering as if they were injured.

- UK soldier from NATO UFO clean up squad, as reported by Richard Hill. He said that aliens are nasty and that they move fast, like in a blink of an eye (same as in Khahill case).

- UK fireman who took photo of his daughter picking flowers. Alien in a spacesuit turned up in the background levitating above ground.

- Kentucky UFO & Shotgun Rampage case. A fast moving hovering alien, in a silvery spacesuit, appeared as multiple aliens because it moved so fast.

- Nordic case, where two forest workers were approached by UFO and than a hovering alien in a spacesuit. One of workers tried to catch alien's leg, and alien than left.

- A guy who hiked in a forest only to accidentally stumble on a small alien in a Michelin Tyre-Man type suit. Guy took a photo.

- A South American guy whose car broke down. While he was fixing his car, two aliens joined him and took him into the bush to show him their craft. Two aliens didn't pace about, but he noticed they were slightly hovering and their shoes were reeling mud and water.

- MUFON UFO Journal #285 Janurary 1992
article: "Brazil Still UFO Hot Spot", pg.6
URL: Mufon UFO Journal | Unidentified Flying Object | Ufology
witness: Hermelindo from village Vargem Grande, Brazil

"... as he (Hermelindo) started running, four cables with hooks on them came down from the UFO. At the same time a small being in gray clothes also came down and grabbed Hermelindo. The being was much smaller and they began fighting. Hermelindo was much bigger and he managed to get the creature in a bear hug - he said it was hard as steel - but almost instantly the creature gave a "tremor." This startled Hermelindo, who relaxed his grip. In an instant the creature put one of the hooks on Hermelindo's left ancle and he was quickly yanked up toward the UFO with his head and his arm and other leg flailing."

- MUFON UFO Journal #292 August 1992, pg.18,
article: Looking Back by Bob Gribble,
URL: Mufon UFO Journal | Alien Abduction | Ufology

"10:30am August 1967, village Saint-Flour, France ... One of the small beings was bending over and seemed to be busying himself with something on the ground, while another, holding an object which reflected the sun like a mirror, waved his hands and seemed to be making signs to his companions. At this point Francois called out: "Are you coming th play with us?" At that moment the being, who did not seem seem interested in the children, realized they were being watched. Their first being flew up vertical and dived head first into the top of the sphere. The second followed him/her in the same manner and the third one, after standing up, did the same. The fourth being rose off the ground, came down again and caught up with the sphere whick, during this time, had begun to rise by describing small circles and had reached a height of about 15 meters (50 feet). The fourth being than disappears into the sphere in the same manner as the other three. "
- MUFON UFO Journal #259 Nov.1989 ,pg.23
article:
URL: Mufon Ufo Journal | Ufology | North American X 15
 
Last edited:

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
It's not a single case. There are hundreds of cases with these same symptoms. Each one of 448 cases with stalled car engines fits into this group.
I have no idea why you’re arguing this point. You cited one case with a crescent-shaped magnetization pattern in the soil, and a different case where the soil was torn up in a crescent shape. Those are both single cases. That’s what I was talking about – individual anomalies aren’t generally useful.

I already pointed out that the stalled car engines is a different matter altogether – as a sum of unrelated incident reports, it carries real significance. But the meaning of that significance is far from obvious – any number of physical environmental factors could stall a car engine; an AC magnetic field is only one possibility that we know of. A strong electrostatic field is another possibility. Ionized atmospheric molecules is another. The unknown nature of the ufo propulsion field itself is another possible explanation, and one for which we have no definitive theoretical model, but one which may affect the vacuum permittivity in the area, among other novel possibilities.

Without a substantial understanding of physics, one cannot identify these kinds of factors, and discern between them to make effective use of forensic analysis. And even then, we can only begin to understand the physics that we already know about – and these things are clearly operating beyond that domain.

In ufo forensics we just don't have luxury of laboratory quality data. What we have is consistent repeatable physical background. There are quite few other cases where car's body got hot, like Betty & Bernie Hill (Stanton Freedman), Cash-Landrum incident etc. So we can confidently say that there was strong oscillating magnetic field.
You cited two cases where a car got hot, but those are very different cases – are there more? How many more? Because the Cash-Landrum incident reeks of top secret military experimentation, and it seems very clear from the account that the car was heated by the jet of flames shooting out from the bottom of the object – there’s no reason to believe that electrical induction played any part in the car heating in that case.

There are consistent repeatable trends: alternating EM fields, plasma, dripping of liquid metals, radiation poisoning, headaches, microwaves, electric circuit disruption, low speed turbine sounds, levitating bullet repelling spacesuits, levitating spacesuits without backpacks (w/o big power source), lifting of objects under the spacecraft, RGB pulsating lights, rotating hulls etc. These data consistencies should be able to help somebody figure out more. One goes into MUFON's 40,000 cases strong database and pulls out all of these, one by one.
I support any effort to drudge through that mess to tease out useful information – but make no mistake: that’s a titanic and quite possibly fruitless task. How can you discern between alien technology, and military technology, and hoaxes, and erroneously reporting? And if you could do so, why would we assume that different craft originating from ostensibly many different space-faring species with huge disparities in scientific and technological sophistication, would be using the same form of field propulsion mechanism? Or perhaps they employ wide variations in the application of the same fundamental propulsion principle, making an accurate forensic analysis impossible.

It’s one thing to back-engineer the technological capabilities of a civilization at the same level of scientific understanding as our own. And in most cases it’s easy to back-engineer the technology of civilizations less advanced than our own (though we’re still scratching our heads over the pyramids, and some other ancient artifacts). But trying to forward-engineer the technology of a species eons ahead of us, using a messy amalgam of unofficial and official reports riddled with errors, oversights and disinformation…that’s like trying to chart a course to China without a map, using a kite, a mirror, and a broken compass.

For example, why are there dripping liquid metals? Peter Sturrock, Stanford university physicist, devoted a big chapter just to UFOs dripping liquid metals. One of his co-workers, an expert in nuclear reactor cooling systems, suggested that UFOs must land from time to time to get rid of sludge that forms in hot liquid metal cooling system. And there is one exactly such case, where UFO landed and pilot told to farmer that he needs to drop off this metallic residue so his craft can continue flying.

That's phenomenal cross-confirmation. One can easily work that one backwards. Liquid metals are used only for two things: strong heat source cooling and carrying large currents (that will keep them melted).
You can really only think of two things that liquid metal could be used for? How about a thermometer? Or energy storage? Or illumination? Or what about gravitomagnetism (most theoretical proposals involving gravitomagnetism involve dense fluids moving at high speeds through pipes)? Or how about stuff we haven’t even dreamed of yet because we have no idea how to build a working ufo?

You could drive yourself crazy trying to make sense of this stuff, without having so much as an inkling of how these craft operate. It would be like traveling back in time and showing a thousand random people around the world your iPhone for a few seconds, and then expecting them to figure out how to make one based on their reports.

Like I said – I’m all for the effort. But don’t kid yourself – it’s a Herculean undertaking fraught with pitfalls and dead-ends. Scientific progress happens from the inside - it’s like an evolutionary process. And the ufo experience has already provided the one crucial factor that we need to make further progress: the knowledge that an interstellar field propulsion mechanism is possible.

As well, good data costs big money. Ray Stanford quoted that cost of running his mobile UFO observation lab was $2.0million. Luckily he had a rich patron, who didn't mind the cost and even personally shared the workload. But if one went to some official funding body and asked $2.0million for UFO research, I don't think he would get a penny. Even so, how would one be able to predict where UFOs will turn up, so he can be ready with all the delicate equipment and ready to start recording?
I have two very good ideas about this, actually:

1.) A passive radar system for the whole country, with an interactive display on a dedicated website. Perhaps such a thing could be crowd-funded – imagine if any geek knucklehead with a ufo fetish, such as myself, could spend $50-$100 on a passive radar kit with the software to automatically update the online server. In time, we could cover the whole country from multiple locations to attain high-precision tracking and profiling. The central program on the server would have an algorithm to display any object moving at supersonic speed, or executing hairpin maneuvers, as a red dot. And all the tracking would be saved for future reference and analysis.

2.) Now add in the mobile app – any object triggering the detection algorithm in a given area, would send an alert to your mobile phone, or to Chris’ mobile ufo observatory, and bingo: you could observe and record a ufo in your area with whatever instrumentation you had handy. Heck – there’s a wide array of sensors on a smartphone, perhaps the mobile app could make recordings from key on-board components so we could pick up various fields in the immediate vicinity of a sighting. I’m just spit-balling here, but I think it’s high time we exploit the cellular communications age to our advantage.

Just couple of days ago I was listening to Fermilab's physicist Dr. Don Lincoln who said that quantum foam is theoretically and experimentally confirmed by QED, here:
Video published in 2014. Now, there are so many papers published, one can't follow all of them. Maybe he missed something. But it's a bit confusing.
He’s not alone in that belief – all of my favorite physicists have talked about vacuum fluctuations as a real phenomenon in empty space; Richard Feynman, Steven Weinberg, Leonard Susskind, Frank Wilczek, and on and on. It’s such a prevalent view that it’s hard to find physicists who don’t ascribe physicality to vacuum fluctuations. But alas, it looks like they’re just a computational tool, as described in that excellent little Jaffe paper I linked above. Here’s a quote from that paper, which torpedoes the examples that Dr. Lincoln cited as evidence of “quantum foam”

“The object of this paper is to point out that the Casimir effect gives no more (or less) support for the ‘reality’ of the vacuum energy of fluctuating quantum fields than any other one-loop effect in quantum electrodynamics, like the vacuum polarization contribution to the Lamb shift, for example. The Casimir force can be calculated without reference to vacuum fluctuations, and like all other observable effects in QED, it vanishes as the fine structure constant, , goes to zero.” – Jaffe, 2005

Slowly but surely, this interpretation is gaining advocates in academic circles, like the Physics Stack Exchange. Have a look at these threads:

Are vacuum fluctuations really happening all the time?

Human Verification

If this disappoints you, then you’re not alone. I loved the idea of vacuum fluctuations in free space, and in my more hopeful moments, imagined they could somehow be exploited as some kind of interstellar medium to interact with in a propulsive manner. But the latest papers on this are very convincing – there’s no evidence of vacuum fluctuations in free space. Here’s a 2017 paper that employs a simple theoretical toy model to replicate the Casimir effect without any vacuum fluctuations:

[1702.03291] Is zero-point energy physical? A toy model for Casimir-like effect

Well, maybe he's trying to rise some capital for experiments and for traveling to all physics symposiums, to promote his Pointing vector theory. He works as a lecturer at some marginal university, most likely for pennies.
I listened to Brandenburg’s interview on the America Antigravity website about his Poynting vector gravity idea, and I was very disheartened by what I heard. He never actually explained it, for starters – instead he said a mishmash of sophomore physics mixed in with extravagant claims that venture deep into woo territory. Here’s the other thing – he claimed they had experimental success with it – a proof of principle. Okay, then where is it? Show me. Publish a paper about your setup and your data. If they could actually get a detectable signal, we should’ve heard about it by now, in some form that’s far more credible than an American Antigravity interview.

Maybe one can just normalize graph's values, by eyeballing and than get relative value for sigma that way?
No, that’s no way to perform a statistical analysis – you need the numbers, not estimations of the numbers. Because estimations bring in a second (and totally indeterminate) error factor. So you could only get the sigma of the estimation of the data, not the data itself. Isn’t there a data table somewhere that shows the inputs he used to make that chart?

Its blatantly obvious that physics are stuck with gravity. More than 100 years passed and they are unable to quantize gravity. 4,000 white papers are rotting on the GravityResearchFoundation's site with no with no progress since 100 years old General Relativity. But, by analyzing UFOs, just for kicks, we might work it out before them. Just imagine look on their faces if ufologists stole a show right in front of all these arrogant know-alls ;-)
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a ufologist to come up with the theory that supersedes general relativity, lol. That would be hilarious though.

Honestly I think that Caltech’s Dr. Carver Mead has already done it, with his theory called G4v (for “four-vector-potential gravitation”). It’s expressed in the same mathematical language as quantum field theory, and it’s actually based on Einstein’s own early work on gravitation. There’s a lecture on YouTube that he gave about it – it’s amazing, and pretty easy to understand (he’s a great instructor, and a super nice guy). I'm waiting on a full formal exposition of his theory, but he's already worked out the key derivations and goes over some of them in his video. Here it is if you're interested:


Of course. But physics is not yet final. We just discovered Higgs bozon recently. Its worth looking into UFOs, as a physicist, one part for fun and another part because we might stumble upon something.
I think you’d be surprised by the number of scientists who take a casual interest in this stuff, off the record. It’s a fun subject, and a great puzzle. Plus, like you said – there’s always a chance that some key clue to crack open the whole puzzle will appear somewhere in this noisy data set. And frankly most of the really good scientists in the world are very open-minded people who are, at heart, explorers. But for every one of them, there are about 1,000,000 shitty scientists and wannabes who think that acting snobby and stubborn makes them seem like experts, and of course, they’re *all* online, lol.

The fact that such a thin and light spacesuit material, probably supported by some kind of battery, can produce AG hover, tells us one super important thing about AG: AG needs relatively speaking a small amount of energy.
Whoa…those are some seriously bizarre reports 0.o I had no idea that there were reports like that. Of course everyone’s heard of abduction cases, but bipedal creatures in spacesuits, romping around the woods and wrangling with people…I have no idea what to make of that stuff.

Scientifically, and skeptically, I default to Sagan’s rule: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But on the other hand, it’s unreasonable to expect an average person having a bizarre chance encounter, to somehow manage to collect any scientifically compelling evidence.

I like your line of thinking here though, if we set aside skepticism and take such reports at face value to see where it leads. But I’m hung up on this part: these spacesuits could be utilizing magnetoplasmadynamics instead of gravity control – the plasma seems to suggest this. Which may mean that many of these craft are using the same plasmadynamic effects to navigate our atmosphere. But then we have many other cases where a ufo hovers without glowing. So we may be observing a combination of both effects…and the prospect of untangling which evidence is related to plasma dynamics, and which relates to an unknown method of gravity control…is enough to make a guy’s head ache… ~:/
 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
I have no idea why you’re arguing this point. You cited one case with a crescent-shaped magnetization pattern in the soil, and a different case where the soil was torn up in a crescent shape. Those are both single cases. That’s what I was talking about – individual anomalies aren’t generally useful.
OK, you are right. I was desperate to increase number of cases with that half-crescent thing. I only have 2 so far.

My limit to start taking side effect seriously is 4-6 cases. Usually, in this forum, if I am referring to some effect, I have about 4-6 repetitions by uncorrelated witnesses. I know that pro mathematician will want 30 samples, but that pro mathematician would consistently loose against pro poker player who would act on maybe just 3-4 samples. Important thing is context, not just number of samples.

I have few of these where I only have one or two confirmations. Some of them smoothly blend in with EM side effects, because of all the consequences of electrodynamics. But some of these under-confirmed ones, are extremely interesting. Like only 2 cases I have of aliens in spacesuit, wrestling with humans. Interestingly, aliens, who are usually described as significantly physically weaker than humans, choose to start strongly vibrating spacesuit and got out of a clinch that way. Unfortunately, one of these 2 cases comes from an middle-aged witness going through usual 45+ life crisis. Which makes it 1 case, I suppose.

You cited two cases where a car got hot, but those are very different cases – are there more? How many more? Because the Cash-Landrum incident reeks of top secret military experimentation, and it seems very clear from the account that the car was heated by the jet of flames shooting out from the bottom of the object – there’s no reason to believe that electrical induction played any part in the car heating in that case.
I am pretty sure that there are more of these "hot car body" cases, because alternating E field is well established and it would produce alternating B field. There are few cases where UFOs hovered directly above the roof of a car and appeared to be trying to lift the vehicle (Australia, USA etc.). But generally, people who are experiencing this, are so scared for their life, that they want to stay inside car for protection. So they never get out of the car and touch the car's body.

I support any effort to drudge through that mess to tease out useful information – but make no mistake: that’s a titanic and quite possibly fruitless task. How can you discern between alien technology, and military technology, and hoaxes, and erroneously reporting? And if you could do so, why would we assume that different craft originating from ostensibly many different space-faring species with huge disparities in scientific and technological sophistication, would be using the same form of field propulsion mechanism?
Answer is quite simple: statistics. I listen carefully to any rubbish, but as soon as witness mentions something that I can fit on the backdrop of modern science, I put that on a top shelf. If I hear another witness observe the same thing, I drop it one shelf down. Finally, after an effect gets mentioned many times, effect by itself reaches the shelf which is at my eye-level.

Digital hoaxes are quite easy, I've done lots of 3D and Photoshop, so I can tell most of stuff of the hip. Another thing with hoaxes, they tend to be over-dramatized, they aim for sensation. Dripping of small amounts of hot metal sludge or burnt up plant roots (because antennae ends heat up in EM field) is boring. More something is boring, more it is usefull to science ;-). Boring stuff immediately goes to the "top shelf" ;-).

Military stuff again, if they reversed UFOs, than the side effects will be similar to alien UFOs: plasma, EM etc. We want to put that propulsion into public domain. It can create whole new industrial revolution, save us from asteroids, earth-form planet Mars, doing some business with aliens etc. Russians and Chinese can't make propulsion even if they knew how, because they just don't have the kind of money that US, EU and Japan can put together. At a best, Russia and China can just make some toy stuff.

Of course, aliens would be all different to each other and have different technology. And actually that difference in tech is quite visible in witness testimonies. It appears that some aliens have whole crafts made of nano-materials, while other are more on the level of steam engines, with lots of pipework etc. But, nano-materials or steam pipes, the very source of AG would be the same set of physics laws, more specifically fields. That's why EM fields are constantly present, even with their spacesuits. As you said, data is all over the place, but if one really puts his head to it, there seems to be a 3rd field. I think that Daniel Fry talked about a field that was pulled out of atomic nuclei, over the edge of the outer electrons?

Its all about stripping it down to the bones, and than putting it back together and than having a serious look at what in front of your eyes. And possibly doing some experiments, like Claude Poher, Director of French government sponsored UFO research program called GEPAN who was paid for 10-20 years to chase UFOs as his day-job. If just Ray Stanford would release his data ;-(.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a ufologist to come up with the theory that supersedes general relativity, lol. That would be hilarious though.
;-)))


I think you’d be surprised by the number of scientists who take a casual interest in this stuff, off the record. It’s a fun subject, and a great puzzle. Plus, like you said – there’s always a chance that some key clue to crack open the whole puzzle will appear somewhere in this noisy data set.
BINGO! You hit onto something great there. Whole idea is to bring more scientists to see this data. Its just a question of packaging. One should offer it to the as a fun puzzle to solve, with some benefit of potential stumbling on something mega big.

Though, big problem is ever growing number of hoaxers. I almost completely study only the pre-Photoshop cases. Trick questions and "insider" knowledge of highly technical UFO data are needed to filter out mickey-takers. Practically, more you reveal to scientists about good data that is out there, as a side effect, more you are teaching hoaxers how to make better hoaxes.

I like your line of thinking here though, if we set aside skepticism and take such reports at face value to see where it leads.
Well said. It should be just one hell of interesting puzzle, with potentially huge pay-off.

99% of people who want to study this seriously are completely unaware of the presence of publicly available engineering grade data.

Honestly I think that Caltech’s Dr. Carver Mead has already done it ...
I watched it, but it was over my head. It sounded to me as a small side effect. Could you imagine this effect being able to lift 20ton craft with less than, say 1,500MW of energy?

In a MUFON Case #74282 there was an electrical engineer with a good understanding of plasma. From a thickness of plasma he calculated that a rare double-bell UFO was spending about 150..160MW of power just to produce plasma and hover, without moving. So 'normal' single-bell lenticular ufo would spend 70..80MW. And during cold-war NERVA project pocket fusion reactors were made, that can fit in a back of a lorry, that can do 1,500MW. These are just high-side overestimated ball park figures, just so we don't wander aimlessly. From spacesuits we know that not much power is needed to create AG.

1.) A passive radar system for the whole country, with an interactive display on a dedicated website. ... P
That's great idea.

I think an old-timer, maybe from NICAP, was begging for funds for passive radar. That would be a great research tool. But they are really complicated to design.

Scientifically, and skeptically, I default to Sagan’s rule: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Sure, that's great strategy if you want to arrive a dinner last, when all the deserts are gone. To have a dim chance of being first, you need to start ahead of everybody else.

But I’m hung up on this part: these spacesuits could be utilizing magnetoplasmadynamics instead of gravity control – the plasma seems to suggest this. Which may mean that many of these craft are using the same plasmadynamic effects to navigate our atmosphere. But then we have many other cases where a UFO hovers without glowing. So we may be observing a combination of both effects…and the prospect of untangling which evidence is related to plasma dynamics, and which relates to an unknown method of gravity control…is enough to make a guy’s head ache.
Yeah, spacesuits are the key to the puzzle, just because they need to strip them down to essential AG components and one energy source.

Nuclear physicist Charles Hall, according to his story, spent about 2 years in a company of aliens. And he had 100s of opportunities to watch these spacesuits, many times just from 1ft away. In short:

- spacesuits are somewhat uncomfortable for aliens to wear,
- spacesuits can vary power. More plasma glow, higher suit can hover.
- spacesuits repel bullets and rocks,
- they interrupt car engines and radios, even cause people to become dizzy,
- they glow white, with about few inches of haze around them,
- come in tow parts, torso and trousers. Top contains power source.
- alien children hover 3ft up, adults hover on average about 9" and maximum to 1ft.
- there are no space-time warp and time dilation effects. Like bluish fringes. Or, like if there was a space-time bubble alien's movement and talk would appear either too fast or too slow. But everything appears normal, their body movements are the same speed as when they don't war the suit.
- adults average about 30mph in a spacesuit, but up to 100mph maximum,
- when one is at about 3ft (1m) from a hovering spacesuit vapor trails from radioactive decay particles become visible. This observation is unique to Charles Hall, because he wasn't panicking.
- spacesuits offer very weak AG capability, because aliens were never observed making violent turns or huge accelerations, like crafts do,
- from other cases, suits appear to be taut as if pressurized on inside,
- from other cases, when hit with projectiles spacesuits produce sound like metal bucket,
- there are at least 3-5 other cases with suits with exactly the above characteristics,

The second case being Kelly Cahill, Australian abduction. Without digging deep into 40,000 records of MUFON's database, of a top of my head, total count I am aware of is in the previous post.

It would be interesting as a hell if you read Charles Hall's books and compared his notes with Daniel Fry's. My impression is that they are talking about the same physics. Again, in short, Charles Hall believes there's 3rd field and he offers a set of 6 differential equations as opposed to usual Maxwell's 4.

The main problem with Mr. Hall is that he has fantastic memory, so he goes into too much of unimportant everyday details. One needs to "fast read" his book, just scan the page and if it doesn't contain, easy to spot words "Tall White" or "Teacher" just skip the page. That way you can just extract relevant parts in a nick of a time.

Charles Hall had opportunity to see a broken down UFO while it was repaired by technicians, from about 100..200yds. Basically, there were two hulls, the inner and the outer. Gap between the hulls was filled with some black box generators and coils made of transparent optical cables. Coils were plentiful and went trough that gap all the way around the craft.

To a very small, but possibly important, degree these optical cable coils tie in with Daniel Fry's description of the craft. At one point Fry was shown a city, craft was flying over, through a metallic door that suddenly turned transparent (we can do that, I think?). Now, one might wander, why did UFO designers had chosen the door as a window, since, in this universe and the next, it would be much easier to bring the necessary power cables to just any other place on hull, but the door's hatch? Well, if there were coils wound up around the whole craft, than the door is the only place on the whole hull where these coils must bypass an opening. That bypassed opening, in turn, creates instability in the field and it is PITA for field uniformity. What I mean, if coils went through the door, than coils would make door useless as window, when door itself was made transparent. To a small degree, that choice of location for transparency, suggests that maybe Fry's craft used coils around the hull.

Almost certainly it's not mechanical reaction from magnetoplasmadynamics effect, by itself. Than neither spacecraft, nor spacesuits, would work in the vacuum of the outer space. Plus they would need to carry gas on-board and a lots of it to cross a typical 5-15 light years gap between the stars. Lots of people are mentioning magnetoplasadynamics, but it just won't work in in vacuum. Unless! plasma somehow creates AG field inside itself, which is another matter all-together ... Personally, I think plasma is an side effect or it plays minor role, just while they are inside planet's atmosphere and some primary field provokes plasma.

Yes, sometimes there is no plasma around UFOs, but plasma has four state and the first state is invisible. So there can be plasma, but we simply can't see it.

As we talked before, there are strong effects from yet undefined field, if you remember "UFOs and Water Cases". I am far more inclined towards the idea of 5th field, than anything else that is on text books.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Saying all that, there is this excellent video showing UFO ejecting plasma and than being "pulled" (?) towards the plasma it ejected:

pls, look at time 275
OR simply ad ?t=275 to the end of the URL

UFOs squirting hot stuff is nothing new. In the famous Stan Michalak Monitoba,
Falcon Lake, Canada, May 1967
incident some hot substance ejected from UFO, right in a middle of nowhere, burned a grid on a pure man's chest:



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And here is a solid proof that an imaginative, out-of-the-box thinking, physicist can reverse engineer anything:

Jean-Pierre Petit about the secret American MHD technology

... and the Petit's white paper, "to-die-for", that goes with video:
Dropbox - ufo.paper.Dr J.P.Petit.The-MHD-Adventures-The-Silence-Barrier.pdf

This plasma physicist Jean-Pierre Petit would make an excellent guest for your show ;-) He's quite unconventional and he leads a group of French scientist who study UFOs. They refused my application to join them ;-)

Enjoy ;-)

P.S.
When one extracts all this repetitive engineering information from thousands of UFO cases, its really hard to believe that aliens just aren't real. It far more likely that they've been around for longer and they know more than we do, or have stronger accelerators, or better nano-materials etc.

I constantly keep thinking about the amount of work that Dr. Mark Rodeghier had put into extracting these 448 car cases and painstakingly doing all the checks and analysis required to keep up the credibility. It must had taken him at least a whole year for these 90 pages. And yet, he's practically unknown. One almost feels obliged to continue from where he stopped.

If you ever wanted to do a "quick & dirty" check of how many times some physical effect repeated itself in testimonies, go to this site, they are all listed on one page so one can easily search it with "Ctrl-F" keyboard shortcut:

Large Number of UFO cases:

url.UFO Çizimleri - Cases #1
url.UFO Çizimleri - Cases #2
url.UFO Çizimleri - UFO Gallery

Of course there are bigger databases, like MUFON's with 40,000 incidents, and Alan Haynek's CUFOS with 70,000 cases. But that's mostly after we go into retirement ;-).
 
Last edited:

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Weren't Hall and Kahill's accounts both pretty soundly debunked?

And I'm now thinking Michelak's was a hoax now, too. The shirt and the burns on his body don't seem to match.
 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
OK, I read Charles Hall thread you gave me. I don't see where you conclusion "totally debunked" comes from? Lots of people expressed their personal opinions that it's "load of BS". Not one of them invested any effort to bring in any facts to support their "load of BS" opinion.

If you care to dig around google, you'll find that 3 unnamed servicemen confirmed that they served with Charles Hall in Nellis AFB exactly at a time when he served and they described him as a person and they confirmed that there were strange sightings similar to what he described.

Exactly as I described "debunkers": just lazy, vapid and ignorant. Type of guys who think that comic books are literature ;-)
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
You have to admit it’s a pretty tall tale he tells, with him the star of the show (strange for a weatherman) and absolutely zero evidence except his word.
 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
Its very tall tale. But saying "I think is BS" doesn't bring it down in the slightest. That's Donald Trump's level or reasoning. Its simply rule of a mob vs open-mindedness.

We are here to be open-minded, take it at its face value and check if it fits into any of our scientific knowledge.

On the end of the day, he's nuclear physicist and professional. Professionals are typically above average loyal and trustworthy people. By publishing story like that only reward one gets is constant abuse and name calling. That in itself proves he has courage and feels to have a civic duty towards his fellows.

I mean, if you want to criticize, you are more than welcome. But put some fresh and useful input, like find some contradictions, dig up some facts, provide some measurements etc. Not just "bunch of other guys think its all BS".

We already know that.

And frankly, couldn't care less, unless they have some new better data.
 
Last edited:

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Its very tall tale. But saying "I think is BS" doesn't bring it down in the slightest. That's Donald Trump's level or reasoning. Its simply rule of a mob vs open-mindedness.

We are here to be open-minded, take it at its face value and check if it fits into any of our scientific knowledge.

On the end of the day, he's nuclear physicist and professional. Professionals are typically above average loyal and trustworthy people. By publishing story like that only reward one gets is constant abuse and name calling. That in itself proves he has courage and feels to have a civic duty towards his fellows.
I’m not here to be open minded.

I’m here to be rational in finding answers for my experiences.
 

Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
Bringing the thread back to it's original subject, Daniel Fry: Here's Ray's personal knowledge of Fry and his take on the LA contact scene around Fry... Except from ...and my dog sings Chopin (working title for the Ray Stanford autobiographical interview)

[Chris:] (in bold) Tell us about Daniel Frye. A not-well-known but very interesting character [chuckles].

[Ray Stanford:] In the summer of ’56. When I was in Prescott, I took a job there from a little old lady Ric [George Hunt Williamson] knew---she was so sweet, she said I could stay at her place. I got a job at the Havasupai County News, but I didn’t stay very long. You see, I was a thin 119 pound, 5’ 6” weakling with a job consisting of pouring lead into a template to make the old lead plates they used to print the paper. I had to breathe those fumes. I knew I had to get out of that hazardous job, so I decided to go on to Los Angeles.

I knew Dan Fry’s organization (called UNDERSTANDING) had various people as speakers on UFO-related subjects, because I had some copies of their publication. So, I took a bus to Los Angeles and checked into a hotel in downtown Los Angeles with all of $30 in my pocket. I called a very nice man with UNDERSTANDING, named Ralph Huffman, who had been mentioned in the organization’s publication. He said he would make arrangements for me to start talking to the various Understanding groups so I could make a little money to support myself out there. In the meantime I had also called a lady and her husband who operated what they called the New Age Publishing Company in Los Angeles. [chuckles] There’s another story to be told , about Lee Crandall and his contact with a Venusian flying a spaceship made of magnetized dove feathers! [Laughter].

Magnetized dove feathers? [Laughter] You've got to be kidding!

That’s right!

[Laughter] You gotta to admit, the guy’s original. What was the New Age Publishing Company?

I think they were the one’s that originally published Dan Fye’s [books] The White Sands Incident and Alan’s Message to Men of Earth and [that] idiotic book called The Venusians by Lee Crandall. A pink rose decorates every chapter’s beginning, and also the book’s front! Then I learned from the nice old couple that ran the publishing house, about their experience in the desert with Lee Crandall. [chuckles] Lee had told them that his Venusian friend ‘Brother Bocco’ [Laughs] -- It sounds more like a chocolate drink or something – let him take a photo of him and it was in the book. Brother Bocco (the ‘Venusian’) looked to me more like someone Crandall might have been picked up by while visiting Pershing Square, a legendary gay hang-out in Los Angeles.

. . . or he was an Italian monk from Venus.

Judging from his photo in the book, Lee looked as gay and effeminate as they come and ‘Brother Boco looked as gay as they come too, but looked more like he would take the masculine role . The old couple from New Age Publishing had published (in the Crandall book), photos of hand prints and footprints of Brother Bocco that Lee had given them. Seeing those photos, I asked the lady publisher, “Did Lee Crandall or a close friend of his attended a medical school?” She said “Yes! That’s amazing! You must be psychic!” I said, “No, I’m not being psychic on this, that’s not a live person’s hand. I’ve been in the cadaver room at a medical school and those hands are flaccid. Those hand and foot prints are the hands of a cadaver (dead body). They’re not anybody’s live hands.” She replied, “Oh no, they are Brother Bocco’s”. I said, “Oh no they’re not! How do you think I could predict that either Lee or his friend attended a medical school?”

The publishers told me, they’d ‘gone to the desert.’ Lee had told them he was expecting a contact from Brother Boco. . . so they asked if they could go with him and went out there and stayed for hours out in the California desert and nothing showed up. Pretty soon Lee said ‘I’ve got to go behind the hill to go to the bathroom.’ He went behind the hill and when he came back he said he had ‘made contact’, that Brother Boco had landed his spaceship there. He said the spaceship couldn’t land where the other two were because they’re ‘vibration wasn’t high enough’ . . . Lee’s spine [was being] ‘crystallized’ by their energy . . .

. . . his spine had been crystalized? [laughs]

Lee told them that the Venusian’s objective was to totally crystallize his (Lee’s) spine! [chuckles] Anyway Crandall told them “Brother Boco said he’s sorry he couldn’t meet with you but he left you a souvenir. He took a spare piece off the space ship for me to give to you. So here’s a piece of the space ship.” And the publisher lady said ‘So, Ray, we have a piece of a space ship!’ I pretended to be in great awe. And she said, ‘Oh yes, let me go get it out of the safe.’ She came out and so help me God, Chris, she (with a straight face) handed me what smelled exactly like a bar of Ivory soap, with white chicken feathers mashed all into the surface of it!

[Laughter]

Isn’t this amazing? [chuckles] He [had told the couple] it was made out of magnetized dove feathers and that there might be ‘a little manna’ in there, “...you know manna is the ambrosia that flows on Venus, that they drink out of fountains...” Frankly I suspect the Venusian fountains to be phallus-shaped.

[Laughter]

It was so absurd it was incredible. But the kind lady publisher arranged for me to lodge with a sweet old lady, a school-teacher in Los Angeles. That’s where I first lived when I was in Los Angeles in 1956. I got to know how completely fruity, nutty and loony the California scene was . . .

. . . it still is, Ray. There’s lots of fruits and nuts out in LA, believe me [Laughter]

I was so shocked! Here’s this kid from Texas who has maintained the straight life, the normal life [laughs], and, Oh my God!

. . . a rude awakening. Well, Ric had you in training, I guess. He was getting you ready . . .

He tried to give me a little conditioning . . . Yes, back in the days when I was talking about (and misinterpreting) my own UFO experiences in terms of contact experiences, I lectured for Understanding: an organization founded by Daniel W. Frye, the notorious “contactee”. I had a talk one night in 1958 at one of the Understanding [group] meetings there in the Los Angeles area. At the time Frye was married to a real nice lady by the name of Alma.

The day of the talk (while Dan was at Crescent Engineering where he worked) Alma began to tell Rex and I that she was quite concerned about Dan’s peculiar behavior. I said, “what do you mean?” She then told me that when they had been to one of the so-called “Spacecraft Conventions” [at Giant Rock] of George W. Van Tassal the famous contactee and channel of alleged “space beings.” At one point Dan suddenly told her that he had to go around the other side of this hill to “take a leak” as the restrooms were “too busy and too full.” So he took off. She said she “thought it was odd,” that he had carried with him “ . . . a good-sized box. What’s he carrying this box around there for—to take a leak?”


Kind of reminds me of the George Adamski “out in the desert”-with-his box story you mentioned earlier . . .

She said that he was “quite awhile” and she began to wonder what had happened to him. He took an inordinate amount of time to come back from the other side of the hill and he said not a word to her that anything unusual had happened. Nothing! About a week or so after they got back from that convention he received a processed movie film from Kodak. So he told her he wanted to see this film privately and he would show it to her later. He went into this room and closed himself off with the projector and looked at it. He didn’t say a word when he came out. She said “That was odd.” A few days later he said, “Alma, you know that film that I got the other day, I forgot to tell you, when I went around the hill . . .” (to go take a leak or whatever it was that he said) . . .”I actually saw a space ship over there and took a movie of it.”

. . . uh right and he just happened to forget to tell her . . .

He took into the room to look at it privately and didn’t even ask her to come in and see it. He said, “This is pretty good film but I want to warn you, we’re going to be showing this (at various Understanding) meetings (around California) [and] when you run that projector, you have to run this film (16mm film) at maximum speed, as fast as the projector will run . . . “ She said “why is that?” And he said “It’s a danger to the film unless you run it at maximum speed—a projector can tear up this film if you run it at normal speed.” He said “Believe me, I’m an engineer. The safest speed is the fastest speed.” Which is an absolute lie in reality. She said, “I find that very puzzling, Ray. Why would he say this?” In my mind it would endanger the film more if you ran it at high-speed.”

“You’re quite right Alma. Do you have this film here?” She said, “Yes, I was hoping you’d be willing to take a look at it.” You bet I was willing to take a look at it! “Tell you what we’re gonna do Alma, we’re going to run at the slowest speed possible. We’re even going to stop frame it. I believe that Dan is hoodwinking you. There’s something that can be seen and noticed easily when it’s run slowly that indicates it’s a fake! I believe he went behind the mountain and faked it. He didn’t want to tell you anything had happened until he saw whether the film came out good or not.” Alma] said, “That’s what I was afraid of.”

We put up the screen and set up the projector and we ran the film. I have in my files one frame from the film. What he had filmed was a model that he made with a round metal hood from a lamp—a lampshade or something. He had made a conical thing out of tissue paper. Black and white tissue paper. When we slowed this thing down you could see the tissue paper vibrating from the wind. You could actually see it vibrating. He had bobbled this thing in front of the camera and all of a sudden---it was on a thin wire or nylon fishing leader—it slips. The thing slipped down--out of his hand and he grabbed it. You can see (for several frames) the entire line clearly where it’s going up past the top of the model, and up to his hand (which you can’t see because it’s out of the picture). If you ran it at 54 frames per second (or whatever its fastest speed was) [instead of the normal 24 frames per second] you wouldn’t see it.

Alma watched and said, “Ray, this is clearly a fake!” I said, “You bet it is! Can you see that line?” She said, “Yes, I can see it clearly.” So I told her, “Alma, we’re going to have some fun tonight! I’m going to give my talk and show my slides and film. Then I’m going to announce an exciting sighting that was filmed by Dan Frye. And then we’re going to run this thing as slow as we can run it, and maybe we’ll even stop-frame it.” [chuckles]

I was up front and Rex was on the projector. He was trained on what he was supposed to do and turned it on to its slowest speed. Dan Frye is sitting over there at his book table and I can see the beads of sweat pop out on his forehead. All of a sudden, he jumps up and he says, “STOP! You can’t run it at that speed! You’ve got to run it at 54 frames per second or you’ll damage it!” I said, “Well Dan, that’s surprising. We can see the film far better--see what’s in it--if we run it at a slow speed.” He said, “You’ll destroy it if you do that.” And I said, “You may be an engineer but you’ve got it mixed up.“ So we ran it. His forehead broke out into a cold sweat and I said, “Just sit down over there Dan, your film will not be harmed I guarantee it.”

Take a chill pill, Dan-o . . .

Oh God was he shaken up! [Laughs] We ran this thing and all of a sudden everybody saw the thing slip down and his hand obviously yank it up---for multiple frames—and everybody gasped. I said, “Let’s freeze frame that and run it again. Ahh, a very interesting phenomenon coming out of the top of this object.” [Laughter]

I said, “Look at the side of the object—look at that vibration. It must be A STRANGE MAGNETIC pulse!” I pointed it out with my pointer the paper vibrating. Oh man! {Laughs] Dan was SO shook! So anyway, when my presentation was over, two supporters named Harry and Margaret walked up to Dan at his book table. And they said, “Dan, you know, if we didn’t know you so well, we’d swear that is a faked film that had a piece of fishing leader or some kind of line coming out of the top. We saw the thing had tissue paper on the sides.” And Dan says, “Well I don’t really know what it was I saw there. I don’t know how big it was . . .”

Earlier when we had dinner at Dan and Alma’s before the talk and I said, “Dan, tell us about that film you got at Giant Rock.” When Dan starts lying, his shoulders start jerking upward in a shrug, like he’s shrugging off his lying. I asked him “How big was this object?” His shoulders started going and he said “Could have been forty feet in diameter, it could have been ten inches, I just have no idea.” I said, “You’ve got two eyes in your head Dan, you have binocular vision. It was a clear day. You mean you couldn’t tell if it was ten inches or 40 feet?” He said, “That’s right. There’s no way to know scientifically. You just can’t tell.” His shoulders were going up and down. I almost broke out laughing. It was funny! He got him fixed real well because his people saw clearly [it was a faked film].

So you were a young rabble-rouser.

Oh yeah. I became the most hated person in the contactee field. I exposed Dan Fry with him right in the room! I believe in calling a spade a spade! I exposed Adamski. Well, he confessed to us. They [the contactees] didn’t like me. I was just reading recently a book published by a guy with the unlikely name of Carol Honey. In his book he talked about how the Stanford twins were so hated by everybody. They were considered to be enemies of the great truth of the “space brothers” because they had attacked Adamski and Frye. All I can say is I’m proud of that fact! [end of excerpt]
 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
You just made my day, Chris.
That's just a tittle tattle ;-))))))))))))))))

Ehhhh, somebody said this and somebody else said that. Buy me a drink, and I'll say anything you want. That whole story is UFO ;-) )

One can say: "Just a another character assassination". Anybody could had came out of a woodwork and invented the whole story. How many witnesses signed testimony under the oath?

Do you have a signed affidavit from Fry's ex-wife? How do you know somebody didn't just invent the whole story?

One thing can't be faked. Daniel Fry made scientific prediction that was correct. That blows off the water all the cheap tittle tattle. Even the most ignorant person on Earth can do character assassination. But making a correct scientific prediction can't be done by being lucky.
 
Last edited:


Top