UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Paul R. Hill’s Unconventional Flying Objects

Mr. Hill’s ionization and quantum measurements of UFOs are outlined in this extract from his book, entitled above:


The book’s excerpt is presented by Orbwatch.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Why no UFO observations by (truly) famous people?


Sure, there have been UFO sightings by contemporaneous celebrities (Jackie Gleason, Arthur Godfrey, John Lennon) and politicians (Jimmy Carter, former Senator Richard Russell of Georgia) and one in the 1490s by Christopher Columbus, but no others by the historically gifted and greats of civilization.


Famous writers would certainly have noted any strange apparitions they experienced; that’s what writers do.

But nothing from Aeschylus, Sophocles, Chaucer, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Poe, Verne, Ambrose Bierce, John Updike…you get the litany.


Some artists have placed UFOs into their paintings – medieval and Renaissance artists…


but none of the great painters of later eras (Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso, et al.) and none at all in the contemporary art field have depicted a UFO sighting, other than a fictional one.


And no musician has ever indicated they saw something strange in the skies: Monteverdi, Beethovan, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bernstein, et al.


No renown mathematician or scientist (except for Halley of comet fame) has seen a UFO either.


Why is it always persons on the fringe of society who experience UFOs?

(Yes, we know that we’ve posited ufologists have never seen a UFO either, but that fringe conglomeration is another matter.)


One clue to the UFO enigma may be who sees the things, and who doesn’t.


This isn’t a matter of perceptive anomalies necessarily. We think it’s something deeper, more profound perhaps, but not trans- cendental since UFO observers are, by and large, a common lot – not in the same league as the cultural icons named above.


There comes a time when the old investigative paradigms have to be jettisoned, since they haven’t worked, obviously, and a new approach proffered, no matter how painful that might be to the egos of those who’ve invested much of their lives in the study of UFOs, or how hurtful it might be for UFO observers to recognize that they are not members of the cultural elite but are only a select segment of the hoi polloi.


Tuesday, April 10, 2007

The 1967 Stefan Michalak-Falcon Lake UFO Episode


Again, a primary UFO sighting, according to some ufologists, was the May 20th, 1967 incident at Falcon Lake in Manitoba, Canada, recounted by Stefan Michalak.

For an excellent analysis of the event, by bona fide ufologist Chris Rutkowski, go to this site:


As usual there are discrepancies and reportorial mysteries in the affair, as is always the case with UFO stories.

Rutkowski believes the incident to be genuine, and Michalak, whom Rutkowski knew personally, to be an honest man.

Something happened at Falcon Lake, and that something happened to Stefan Michalak, but was the occurrence a real UFO event?

We draw your attention to some of the things that don’t add up:

Michalak’s citation of the area where he encountered the UFO, after not locating it for investigators initially (adequately explained by Rutkowski we think), did not allow for an object of the size described by Michalak to arrive or depart as he indicated without some damage to the flora of the site.

Michalak did try to capitalize, unsuccessfully as it turned out, on the incident.

Michalak’s denial of drinking before (or during) the event is disputed.

And the burns suffered by Michalak, on his upper torso, as pictured here….


supposedly coming from a grating system on the UFO, in the form of a blast, show specific markings, not a diffuse burning that would occur if, indeed, a spewing forth of chemicals or anything else would have emanated as indicated by Michalak.

Moreover, the burns would have been greater, cause more visible damage, to the upper part of Michalak’s chest if the blast came from a grate on the UFO in the location that Michalak drew. (See illustration above.)

Michalak fell upon or bumped up against something hot; he wasn’t burned by a blast of toxic substances, from a vehicle hovering above him.

Like the Trents, and most other UFO witnesses, the accounts and the evidence always have elements that preclude a clear designation of what really happened.

The truth of UFO accounts, everyone of them, is marred by such glitches.

This is why we scoff at UFO accounts, but have to admit that UFO sightings occur; the evidence is overwhelming.

But it’s the nature of UFOs that remain unexplained, and accounts, like that of Stefan Michalak, at Falcon Lake, in 1967, don’t help decipher the UFO mystery.

Monday, April 09, 2007

An Ur-universe produces UFOs?


David Benford, professor of plasma physics and astrophysics at the University of California, Irvine, presents an interesting hypothesis in “What We Believe But Cannot Prove” edited by John Brockman [Harper Perennial, NY, 2006, Page 226].

Professor Benford’s suggestion is that evolution may have created a panoply of universes, with intelligence, and “Our universe may have arisen from selection for intelligences that can make fresh universes…and [an] Ur-universe that had intelligence could make others,” thus selection would be amenable to forming new life, and “Once life-forms realized this, they could make smart universes” whereby if that “did occur, then we are an inevitable consequence of the universe mirroring intelligences who came before, in some earlier universe…”

Now if we take Mac Tonnies’ Earth-centric notion of crypto-terrestrials and rework it with Dr. Benford’s Ur-universe of intelligences that may have ordained life here and/or pre-existed on (or about) this planet, we might have a working hypothesis for the presence of UFOs, an hypothesis that doesn’t rankle the scientific community or those who don’t see any tangible evidence for Tonnies’ parallel civilization.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

The 1957 RB-47 UFO sighting: explained


The July 17th, 1957 sighting of a UFO or UFOs is touted by some ufologists as one of the best, or the best, evidence for the reality of UFOs.

A full account of the episode may be found at http://www.ufologie.net/htm/rb47.htm

And here some excerpts from the text found at the above web-site:

[The radar on the RB-47] detected electromagnetic signals that were actually emitted by an object itself.

the signal moved up the scope, as it would if the scope was 180° out of alignment.

it had moved up the scope on the right-hand side of the aircraft, it then crossed the path of the RB-47 and proceeded to move down the scope on the left-hand side. In other words, whatever was emitting the signal flew a ring around the RB-47

the pilot, Lewis Chase, saw a light coming in from the left, at approximately the same altitude as the RB-47. At first he thought it was another plane, but it was only a single white light, It then blinked out at a point to the right front of the aircraft.

At 4:39, Chase spotted a huge light to the right front of the RB-47

At 4:40, McClure reported two signals, at 40° and 70°. Chase and McCoid reported seeing red lights at those locations.

At 4:48 AM, radar station Utah requested the position of the signals that McClure was receiving, and they immediately confirmed that their radar had detected the objects at the same location.

As the RB-47 attempted to pursue, the object appeared to stop suddenly. Chase could see that they were gaining on it, and they over shot it. At 4:52 it blinked out, and simultaneously vanished from McClure's scope and the ground radar!

the object suddenly blinked on again, simultaneously reappearing on McClure's scope and the ground radar at 4:52! They began to close to within 5 miles of the object, when it suddenly dropped to 15,000 feet and then blinked out again, once again vanishing from the scopes and ground radar.

it finally faded as they neared Oklahoma City

As one can see, the UFO was not a tangible object visually, but a light source.

Radar on the plane and ground saw the “object(s)” as tangible.

There are other cases similar to the RB-47 episode – the Coyne helicopter incident of 1973 and the 1976 Tehran sighting.

Such sightings, and the RB-47 sighting in particular, are evidence of nothing; well almost nothing.

They are merely (and we use the word “merely” explicitly here) quantum manifestations – not at the usual infinitesimal level but at a macro-cosmic level, as we are argue elsewhere.

The electromagnetic manifestations of the RB-47 incident mimic Dirac’s studies of the electromagnetic radiation light, which produces particle and wave results to observers, which can be measured with radar and other instruments.

And specifically Max Born’s 1926experiments with quantum mechanical probability provide the clue as to what the RB-47 crew experienced:

“The probability amplitude for an electron in the state n to scatter in the direction m provides its own intensity wave…and the absolute value…turns out to be a physical probability of the associated particle’s presence.”

What the RB-47 crew saw and measured (eliciting changes in the light because of the effect of measurement/observation of quantum artifacts) was a quantum manifestation that, for us, represents most if not all “lights-in-the-sky” sightings.

For ufologists to posit the extraterrestrial hypothesis, sometimes subliminally (Clark, Hall, Sparks, et al.) but usually overtly (Friedman) rather than explore the quantum possibilities shows that ufologists are not familiar with what physicists are thinking, especially how quantum may be a reality at local and non-local levels, and manifesting in ways that can be experienced optically rather than only theoretically.

[See Kaku, Susskind, and Greene]

As for flying saucers – the “nuts-and-bolts” sightings, we’ll continue to deal with those as mostly misidentification of secret and not-so-secret military aircraft, or the fabrications of persons seeking to validate their humdrum existences.