• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Why do UFOs have lights?

Forums New posts
0uterj0in

0uterj0in

Reality Support Tech
In the witness accounts they don't seem to function like searchlights. Usually it just seems to be the kind of incidental detail we expect from any arial phenomenon, man-made or otherwise. But from a functional perspective it is very odd.

If the purpose of their lights is to alert others to their presence, then we can fairly expect UFOs in general to be more easily detectable. On the contrary, the sightings are ephemeral and elusive. So if the objective is to make contact, then the UFOs are failing miserably.

But since we can occasionally see them, then UFOs are also failing at remaining hidden. (Presuming that technology advanced enough to travel through/around spacetime should also enable perfect stealth.)

If the objective is to just go about their mysterious business without regard to whether we can see them or not, then what exactly are the lights for? Are they for communication? Are they external effects of internal propulsion?
 
0uterj0in said:
In the witness accounts they don't seem to function like searchlights. Usually it just seems to be the kind of incidental detail we expect from any arial phenomenon, man-made or otherwise. But from a functional perspective it is very odd...
Just a heads up for you, 0uterj0in, but this has been asked in these here forums a couple of times already this year :D ... and I think I may have been the first to posit the question (??) since it was bugging me at the time, and still hasn't been answered sufficiently for me ... yet.

So ... you might like to do a search on the UFO forum to see the answers ... but I don't remember them being that illuminating.

Maybe its just one of those questions that will be continually asked until we start to get a handle on what the ufos, disc shaped, triangular shaped and otherwise, are.

So I probably wouldn't hold your breath on that one :cool:

p.s however , i don't believe that they are part of the propulsion system but thats just a gut thing (for me) no evidence for it at all of course ...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Quoting from the book "Unconventional Flying Objects" by NASA aeronautical engineer Paul R. Hill:
"The phenomenon of ionized and excited atmospheric molecules around a UFO also ties together a number of related mysteries about the UFO. It accounts for the general nighttime appearance of the UFO: the many observed colors, the fiery, neon-like look, the self-illuminating character, the fuzzy, indefinite or even indiscernible outline, yet an appearance of solidity behind the light. In the daytime the same plasma is present, but usually invisible. Morning and evening, it is partly visible. The ion sheath also accounts for some daytime UFO characteristics such as a shimmering haze, nebulosity of the atmosphere or even smoke-like effects sometimes observed. The absorption characteristics of the plasma can also partly account for the daytime hazy or smoky appearance of the atmosphere around the UFO. When the surrounding illumination is brighter than the plasma, the plasma absorption may be greater than its emission, making it look darker or hazy."​
You can read more at: ufo overview ufo physics
 
For anyone interested in the possible propulsion of an UFO, here are a couple of links on the MHD (Magnetohydrodynamics).
This type of propulsion already exists on submarine and torpedoes. It isn't so far fetch to use the same technology in the air as explained in the different books and websites I have read.
This propulsion needs ionized the air around the craft which would create a orange light around the craft hence the "light" seen around most UFO's. It would also allow a craft to move at mach 12 without creating an sonic bang.
2 of the most common features notices with UFOs...

Document sans-titre
MHD Prospects
There is also this scientific comic book, which explains how MHD works very simply
http://www.savoir-sans-frontieres.com/JPP/telechargeables/English/THE_SILENCE_BARRIER.pdf
 
Because the FAA makes all aircraft in our skies be markered with lights.
 
As far as I know, our law concerning aircraft lights is fairly strict. UFO sightings(looked at overall) seem to indicate either that there are different laws operating side by side or that their(who's?) law is very different to the law that we know.

Perhaps the actual lights on these craft are providing some sort of information(in a general way) about what the purpose is of a particular vehicle(according to their law).
 
To quote british UFO researcher "Isaac Koi" post in another forum some months ago:
During the last few years, I’ve often voiced concern about the amount of time and effort which is completely wasted within ufology. So many people seem to be content to start from scratch, ignoring the vast amount which has already been written about ufo reports. The rate of progress within ufology is slow (or possibly even non-existent). This will never change unless the amount of reinvention of the wheel within ufology is reduced.​
Of all the material I've come across sofar, the subject of UFO lights is best covered by Paul Hill. Also interesting is the work by James McCampbell (extracts of both book are available online)

MHD propulsion is often proposed, usually by Stanton Friedman (whose material on this subject in 2008 is unchanged from his 1968 UFO hearings before a US Congress committee) however it simply doesn't conform to the UFO evidence.

Hence why notable people, from Prof. Herman Oberth (German rocketry pioneer and teacher of Werner von Braun) to Paul R. Hill and most others with a technical training, leaned towards some sort of "anti-gravity" propulsion.
 
dhatz said:
To quote british UFO researcher "Isaac Koi" post in another forum some months ago:
During the last few years, I’ve often voiced concern about the amount of time and effort which is completely wasted within ufology. So many people seem to be content to start from scratch, ignoring the vast amount which has already been written about ufo reports. The rate of progress within ufology is slow (or possibly even non-existent). This will never change unless the amount of reinvention of the wheel within ufology is reduced.
​
Of all the material I've come across sofar, the subject of UFO lights is best covered by Paul Hill. Also interesting is the work by James McCampbell (extracts of both book are available online)

MHD propulsion is often proposed, usually by Stanton Friedman (whose material on this subject in 2008 is unchanged from his 1968 UFO hearings before a US Congress committee) however it simply doesn't conform to the UFO evidence.

Hence why notable people, from Prof. Herman Oberth (German rocketry pioneer and teacher of Werner von Braun) to Paul R. Hill and most others with a technical training, leaned towards some sort of "anti-gravity" propulsion.
Click to expand...

yes your post is very good. I agree with your ideas. I never heard of Prof Herman Oberth , i probably need to google it.
 
So, Dhatz, are you saying that the wide variety of different coloured lights in various combinations(that have apparently been observed) are all due to the effects of propulsion systems? If not then can you explain a little?
 
Thankyou for the links; I missed them the first time.

In my first post in this thread I should have put "running lights" instead of "actual lights" according to the terminology at the link.

However, if my idea about certain colours indicating certain types of business(so to speak) were correct then those particular lights should probably be called something other than "running lights", strictly speaking.:)
 
This thread has reminded me of something that I have been unable to account for concerning a conventional aircraft(probably a C130).

It had three vivid blue lights which were visible from below(in a row) and at right angles to the length of the plane.

Some time before I saw this there was an air force bloke(on TV) talking to a news reporter about lights on planes(re UFOs). Basically, he said, as far as I remember, that they don't do blue running lights. Perhaps the policy changed or he lied or those blue lights are not called running lights:question:

Can anybody shed any light on this?

EDIT: Perhaps my memory's rubbish although I did ask someone who was ex-RAF; he knew squat about what I described.
 
How about -

1. To See?
2. To Identify itself or purpose?
3. To Indicate an intention/signal?
4. To Communicate?
5. To Attract?

Why do bicycles have bells?
 
Planes need lights to see other planes. Even with sophisticated technology such as radar, and laser optic detection.

This makes you wonder where the windows are on an Alien Space Craft.

With that said, I know for a fact that if aliens have on tenth the problem with bad drivers in space, that we do on earth, they're going to need lights and more with all that traffic up there.
 
Tommy Allison said:
Planes need lights to see other planes. Even with sophisticated technology such as radar, and laser optic detection.

This makes you wonder where the windows are on an Alien Space Craft.

With that said, I know for a fact that if aliens have on tenth the problem with bad drivers in space, that we do on earth, they're going to need lights and more with all that traffic up there.
Click to expand...

How do we know they are from space?
 
Back
Top