Friday, May 24, 2013

SHAKE,RATTLE, & ROLL: Can UFOs Project Force, part two?

Let's give this a second look.

My first glance at this particular pile of cases [always remembering that they're only cases that I happen to have folders for in my own files and that more cases exist elsewhere] in the previous blog encouraged me to state that it looks as if we have good evidence that UFOs can project attractive and repulsive forces. I.E, "pulls" AND "pushes". Today I'm going to stand by half of that assertion.

Reasoning process, such as it is: I did a "Hynek" style Strangeness/ Credibility graph for these 49 incidents, and It leads me to a slightly different viewpoint.

To begin with, though, I think that I should remind everyone that there is nothing "scientific" about such a graph. We almost never can be overly confident in the Credibility rating of a case [because the information has passed through witnesses' brains, witnesses' language, writer's brains, and writer's language before it gets to our own brain and our own formulations.] I personally try to rough these things out by going more strongly for those cases with investigations by people who I know something about. Some persons try to make a robotic thing about single witness vs high credentialed single witness vs multiple witness vs independent multiple witness, and though those delineations have SOME statistical relationship to good reports, slavishly following that mantra is foolish. Each case is its own "beast".

Also, my take on "Strangeness" is different from my colleagues. Most of them seem to want to escalate strangeness in a more or less Hynekian way, according to the categories of Close Encounters et al. While I understand the lure of this, it is also pretty foolish when you actually give it some thought. ANY high credibility case which contains elements in it which are beyond the technological capabilities of 21st century engineering/science IS AS HIGH A STRANGENESS AS YOU GET. When one is at the point of complete impossibility for current human capability, what's the use for UFOlogy's sake, of claiming that one completely impossible thing is stranger than another? When you actually search your soul on this, you come to the conclusion that you are separating infinities on nothing but emotional "WOW!" grounds.

Well, not me, I hope. But my own graphing still has plenty of "just-my-intuitions" in it, and I can see where others would put their case ratings elsewhere. But... the above is my array.

What I was looking for was a way to {maybe} better sift the 49 case pile. Although this graphing exercise doesn't give one scientific data, as said, it DOES force you to discipline yourself a little more while trying to evaluate things. Tremendous cases like #31 "The Coyne Helicopter Lift" {above} are still going to end up in the top righthand corner of the Hynek graph in the realm of "golden" foundational incidents. Coyne is joined there by #19 [Plattville's carlift], #8 [Herman's trucklift], and 5 others. These eight incidents form the groundwork for whatever "conclusions" I might feel defensible.

There are seven other cases which I then judge to be close in quality to these cornerstones. These are the cases similar in credibility but perhaps slightly less clear in strangeness. Still, these 15 cases constitute a formidable base.

The above case is Plattville, one of the Anchor cases.

Along with the 15 anchors, there were, I guessed, eight more pretty strong cases in the highly strange areas which had good provenance. And I added in four more "on-the-reasonable-margin" incidents to constitute 12 further incidents to support the 15 anchors. 27 cases to seriously look at, and leaving 22 of the original 49 behind as "maybe but who knows?"

The above case is Herman, MN, one of the anchors.

So what does one see when one looks at the sifted pile? Of the 14 power cases, there are six carlifts and three trucklifts. These are mostly lifts which are completely off the ground, and with no direct contact by an offending UFO. The other five incidents are the Helicopter lift, a car shaking, a pulling of a car and motorbike at the same time, a pulling on a man, and a holding back of a boat.

The supplementary cases have three carlifts, a car pivot [which almost had to have a lift therein], three car shakes, three human lifts, one horse lift, and a man knocked down.

Above is case #29, a carlift which I upgraded just since yesterday when I found a bit more investigative information by APRO.

When I wrap my head around these cases, what I see are almost entirely attraction forces. These things emphasize "pulling up" and "grabbing tight". There is only one case in this lot which is a projection of a repulsive force [the knockdown case], and interestingly it is the only case wherein the investigators had some stated reservations about the witness.

So.... my statement from the previous blogpost is now this: Using cases of this sort of physical interference on material things' motions, we have strong evidence that UFOs can project ATTRACTIVE forces capable of lifting mass and holding objects [while other influences like shaking could be impressed upon them]. There is little or no evidence in this particular type of UFO case for the use of repulsive or delivered punch/blow type of force.

Time for absurd speculations: these cases make me wonder about a lot of UFOlogical things. They make me wonder about "electromagnetic vehicle stops" and UFO-related EM effects in general. We could speculate upon anti-gravity fields of course, but one wonders if ET could have mastered magnetic lasers --- or whatever the analogy of that concept would be. But autos don't show evidence of being swathed in high density magnetic fields. But what if those fields could be collimated so narrowly to act as a surgical instrument? And ... what if, just like their sawed off lightbeam technology, they can operate a collimated magnetic projection the same way? A "tractor beam" without antigravity? And no "stray force" to damage incidental humans in the cars?

Maybe. But the lifts of humans and our French horse give us some further problems. Do we have to go antigravity for those? Can diamagnetic forces in non-metallic substances do? Could they be strong enough to lift, but not to physiologically hurt? If our friends upstairs have found such controllable force projections, EITHER magnetic or antigravitational, would the same "trick" to hold a boat or a car work just fine to hold a human. Is the so-called "paralysis beam" just a variety of the car-hold-and-shake?

All this is musings, a little more than purely idle I hope, since we at least looked at the cases. The data-driven bottomline can get us this far, though: UFOs, regardless of their external appearances, and with no visible beams whatever, can hold and lift material things by some sort of force "at-a-distance".

That's plenty strange enough for me.

Till the next time the drawers open, have days full of wonder, friends.


  1. Good morning Prof. Do you remember the Val Johnson case with the damaged vehicle? The baffled expert for Ford went on to comment about the damaged windshield as, '[...]inward and outward forces acting almost simultaneously.' Fascinating comments like that can only make us stroke our chins and invoke Clarke's Third Law.

    When I try to conceptualise these incidents in my imagination, I think of coring ice, but instead of ice our speculative force is 'coring' a defined region of time and space. Within the boundaries of that force, mechanical parts are stopped - frozen. As the 'core' is drawn outwards towards the source of the force, it remains static. Horse notwithstanding, I guess that then leads to questions of what force can do that without having knock-on effects to biological material?

    On that point, I'm tangentially reminded of one of your posts last year; the one about mysterious falls. In that context, we were wondering why apples (for example) might be moved by wind vortices and yet no twigs or branches?In the vehicle context, if some kind of magnetic technology was in use, one would imagine particulate dust to be flying around and/or for metal objects in the vehicles to be drawn in the direction of the force. Also, one wonders what a magnetic force of that power might do to our circulatory systems?

    Over the past couple of years, it's been interesting to follow developments and ideas relating to 'tractor beam' technology. We've seen microscopic applications like 'optical tweezers' and yet they only manipulate materials at the molecular level. I wonder if we might one day use something capable of moving greater masses?

    In that light, we could call on Clarke and consider how such a future technology might seem to us now? However, it also makes me wonder why any intelligence would engage their technology to make nuisances of themselves by taunting drivers? That question alone might lead us to consider that these reported incidents were unintentional/incidental and, by extension, that the 'force beam' was not focused on the objects. On the other hand, let's say they were deliberate, what motive could explain that?! Of course, none of us can answer that last question without overshooting the quiet suburbs of 'Proctor' by a few miles.

    1. Deep waters.

      I have for some time been imagining that some {completely non-understandable by me] space-region-isolation technology is in operation here in these sorts of incidents. I've occasionally vaguely hinted in this blog that the UFOs seem somehow partly "here" and partly "there" coincidentally. Some "here" manifestation presents itself, while other expected manifestation seems missing. [rapid "leaving the scene" without massive air displacement could be one such indication; any non-inertial movements could be another; OZ effects and "reality shifts" could be a third]. Sometimes it seems as though the UFO was "looking" at us from a "window" in space. Sometimes it seems like some "forces" come through that "window" but not all [ex. Light but not Gravity]. Sometimes it seems that we are included in the partially-present "bubble", but not close-by locations. If space-limiting technology was possible, then observationally sawed-off force beams would be [speculatively] easy. "Projected" forces of any kind would be via "shaping" the space-controlled region. It probably need not be said that my speculations here are worth less than the price of a Farmer's Market Tomato [and doubtless less satisfying].

      The question of "why bother doing it?" actually doesn't bother me at all. My imagination is plenty wild enough to invent all manner of semi-crazed ideas, but more importantly, my life experiences have cautioned me not to try to translate my own ideas into the heads of somebody else. Jerry Clark is constantly warning us not to "invent personalities", and thereby thought and decision processes to other humans; how less should we do that for ETs? But, risking it for a moment [with humility], this whole thing seems [as I've said ad nauseum] like a culturally-covert display, but maintained by individually-overt incidents. The one impact of this [and here I'm being very mildly Valleean] is that our minds are being thoroughly albeit softly seeded with the idea "We are here. We are very much more advanced than you. We can do things that you can't even yet imagine. Yet we're not killing you, nor are we taking your planet. What we ARE doing is waiting and watching. What are you going to turn into: a livable neighbor, or a painful irritant? Expect appropriate consequences once you really get out here."

      And if so, why the never-ending non-duplicating variety? My only thoughts on this have been, and at least they've been consistent for a long time, are that the agents behind the phenomenon want minimal interference with our unique development [maybe for their own possible good; maybe for some spiritual. philanthropic reason], and that absolutely refusing to allow "convincing pattern regularities" is the way to stay covertly out of the "Truth-Determining" science textbooks.

  2. Alien’s mechanic & bio crafts have same abilities
    Filter(glowing edges) has been applied to original frame
    On the night of 17 Oct 2005, my video(15 frames) showed a flexible capsule shape UFO shoot a large light beam downward to alighted a team 8(?)of small visitors on my roof( see the attached picture). This peculiar beam light does not looked like the ordinary parallel laser beam. It’s diameter from large to small (the large side is on the UFO), could this light beam more concentrated than other?
    The light beam discharge form Sphere or other shape of biological UFO, it has same capability with the light beam which from the flying saucer. They could be visible or invisible. These conclusions are basing on those pictures that I taken from year 2005 and 2007’s encounters. I did not feel any heat from those beam lights. The Light beam from UFO could be An illuminator for alien‘s search and indicator light; Anti-gravitation for Levitate objects; Warning sign to those ufos whom landing on the earth illegally; An weapon for several types of simple form’s space life.

    1. Information which apparently no one else has nor even suspects.

      Caveat Emptor, fellow travelers.

  3. Most people complaint about my UFO photos too blurry and keep asking me to post alien’s photos, here are my answers:
    Why most UFO photos are blurry? :

  4. Prof I've mentioned before my proneness to phases of weird spatial distortion or time seeming to stop or slow down and my young daughter having to judge whether it was safe to cross the road.

    The interesting thing about such experiences's they tend to make you realise there may be other equally valid explanations for why matter seems solid other than the Higgs Field theory.

    For instance if time wasn't as we're normally conditioned to think a unidirectional arrow but in fact flows normally unperceived by us in all directions and at a bewildering array of speeds then one of the reasons why a cube inch of lead might seem so much more solid than a cube of water might be because lead's actually a denser/slower form of time/space than water because that's one of the things people tend to forget about the Higgs field theory's it doesn't render us once and for all permanently solid but rather constantly has to adjust so if we're a film director jumping off a bridge the water functions as it normally does according to human perspective except for a split second when it suddenly seems briefly solider than steel before immediately reverting back to normal wateriness.

    My point being if there's more to time/space than we currently think then someone who knew how to manipulate it could easily reproduce not just all the UFO tricks but even the ghostly paranormal type ones such as apports deja vue Roman soldiers marching through Liverpool/London etc.

    For instance someone in command of such technology wouldn't have to move from wherever they were hanging in the sky but'd merely have to dilate the space between themselves and any potentially hostile approaching jets so they'd simultaneously be disappearing off into the infinite distance but also not moving an inch at all.

    They could make people think they'd lost hours or days of time but what'd've really happened was they'd simply contracted time in such a way the person bypassed the intervening hours and merely thought they'd lost their memory.

    Similarly they wouldn't necessarily need to kill a car's engine to stop it but isolate or place or temporarily convert some crucial component of it to a much slower moving region or quality of time.

    Ditto making a car swerve by slightly altering the rate of time on one or other of its sides.

    Of course some'd argue you wouldn't need to do that at all merely induce people to cognitively experience the illusion time and space were plastic.

    Well maybe but consider this.

    When my daughter used to take me walkies one time we were crossing a patch of grass when she suddenly bolted in the road right in front of an oncoming car.

    Without thinking I simply reached across into the middle of the road and yanked her back producing from her one of the most bloodcurdlingest shrieks I've ever heard and I've heard quite a few deeply bloodcurdling shrieks in my time some of them actually emitted by me.

    While I was comforting her it suddenly hit me 'ang on a mo' I'm still right back here on the grass about six or more feet behind the railings and there's something like another six foot or more of paving before you hit the kerb and then there's something like yet another six foot of actual road before you reach the spot where I yanked her back from that's got'o be something like twen'y feet! How the hell could I've reached her from here?

    If you google map winifred street liverpool uk and pull back a little onto wavertree road you can still see the patch of grass and trees and the footpath we used. The railings're hidden by the trees but the point where I was standing was actually a little further back from where the trees start.

    I know I'm prone to visual distortions but that's got'o to be twen'y feet hasn't it?

  5. just one question , if its hasnt been asked and answered before. Do you plan to put all those case files into a publicly accesible database ?

    1. I would happily put every piece of UFO information that I have into a publicly accessible depository. There are many, ridiculous no doubt, problems in accomplishing that.

      1). I'm old. No energy. I'm not going to waste what little creative steam that I have standing around scanning my last years away.
      2). Since I can't do it, someone else must. This costs money. I don't have it. And this requires someone to come to my files {I am not going to ship them out}.
      3). Every file needs, morally and legally, enough reading to determine whether personal names and identifying information need be redacted. That's BIG time.

      People think that this sort of thing is a no-brainer. Believe me, if you don't have money and if you do have morals, this is a REAL effort. Mark Rodeghier and I have talked dozens of times about scanning the CUFOS case files. It is a practical nightmare. I have not noticed anyone volunteering to step up with either money nor time commitment. Until that happens, I'll do what little I can to spread good UFO information at my apparently inadequate pace --- but it's all that's possible for one old man standing alone.

    2. Prof, I Understand that just the scanning alone would be a huge manpower job ($). your response urges me to ask however, if you can give insight into whether most/many archives of the likes of yours (i know they are unique, particularly the Sanderson materials,but making the question a public one) have been taken care of by , at least, private arrangements, until if or when they are made publicly available?
      Tim Brigham

    3. I can't answer for other archives. This is what I know:

      1). My own collection/archives: If I can find a younger researcher whom I trust/respect, then I will give my archives to that person. If I cannot, the unique UFO elements of my archive will go to the CUFOS collection, which, however, is itself in limbo regarding such "final plans". Non-UFOlogical elements of my archive might be donated somewhere like the WMU archives if they will take them. I plan to retrofit a downtown house in "green" sustainable ways. The choosing of that property has not yet occurred but my preference is a large structure capable of swallowing my entire collection. If THAT happens, this "beaconhouse project" will contain an unusual library which I hope to link to WMU as an interlibrary loan facility, and a visitable reading room. The end vision here will perhaps be determined by the success and size of the beaconhouse project. On my passing, that library would remain with the co-op community.

      2). Mark and I have talked endlessly about scanning CUFOS. If he could get a donor/funder he is ready to act. This would at least universalize the information in widestread electronic form. But he is not going to go broke doing this himself. Regarding the sticky wicket of redacting witness information: this could be solved by admitting only known responsible UFO researchers to the "clean" data. If this happened, I would piggyback my collection onto the project if that was possible. Regarding redaction, I might even be willing to spend some time doing that for my own files, thus allowing more universality there. These thoughts preserve the data, but not necessarily the original resource materials [i.e. papers and tapes].

      3). John Reed of the SSE is trying to find and get permission to scan-copy everything in the anomalies world. He has the scanning power but materials must be shipped out to his people. I will not do that. However, due to his and other efforts [by AFU and associates] many older journals/newsletters have been scanned. This is useful but does not get to primary files. Yet.

      4). priceless files such as the original APRO files have fallen into Black Holes due to the malfeasance of intellectual criminals and hoarding assholes. Probably these are pragmatically lost if not entirely physically so. But to cast the resource issue in a better light, we, if we can preserve collections of CUFOS, my own, Barry Greenwood's, Jerry Clark's, etc etc [I can name several other crucial ones] we can preserve plenty of powerful resources for the researchers of the future even with the loss of APRO, Dick Hall's, and the disorganized scatter of early MUFON state files.

      Again... I am ignorant of much of the knowledge that you'd like to know about this.

  6. Thanks for the thoughtful response Prof!
    Traveling between Rhine Institute (open ears to any comments offered) and SSE, with still my presentation to finish.

    1. ... mine's finished but still doesn't make any sense, so you are in better potential shape than I am.



Blog Archive