• 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!

Solid light beams (Bill Chalker, Michael Swords, and Ray Stanford)

Free episodes:

Although this is more an overall analysis of the energy from the craft it's very detailed http://www.hyper.net/ufo/physics.html

"To the degree that the engineering characteristics of UFOs can be estimated by empirical observation, in this reviewer's opinion the above-referenced, recently-published book by Paul Hill provides the most reliable, concise summary of engineering-type data available.1 The data were compiled over decades of research by a Chief Scientist-Manager at NASA Langley Research Center2 who acted as an informal clearinghouse for UFO-related data. The strength of the compilation lies in its thoughtful separation of wheat from chaff, and the analysis of the former into coherent patterns, including detailed calculations. Perhaps surprising to the casually interested, under careful examination the observations, rather than defying the laws of physics as naive interpretation might suggest, instead appear to be solidly commensurate with them, as the following discussion shows.

Paul_Hill2.jpg
One of the most consistently-observed characteristics of UFO flight is a ubiquitous pattern in which they tilt to perform all maneuvers. Specifically, they sit level to hover, tilt forward to move forward, tilt backward to stop, bank to turn, and descend by "falling-leaf" or "silver-dollar-wobble" motions. Detailed analysis by Hill shows that such motion is inconsistent with aerodynamic requirements, but totally consistent with some form of repulsive force-field propulsion. Not satisfied with paper analyses alone, Hill arranged to have various forms of jet-supported and rotor-supported circular flying platforms built and tested. Hill himself acted as test pilot in early, originally-classified, versions, and found the above motions the most economical for control purposes. Pictures of these platforms are included in the text.

In an effort to examine the force-field propulsion hypothesis yet further, Hill analyzed a number of cases involving near-field interactions with an apparent craft in which some form of force was in evidence. These include examples in which a person or vehicle was affected, tree branches were parted or broken, roof tiles were dislodged, objects were deflected and ground or water were disturbed. Under close analysis the subtleties of these interactions combine to point unequivocally to a repulsive force field surrounding the craft, while discriminating against propulsion mechanisms involving jet action, pure electric or magnetic effects, or the emission of energetic particles or radiation (although the latter may accompany the propulsive mechanism as a secondary effect). Further detailed investigation indicates that the particular form of force field propulsion that satisfied observational constraints is what Hill labels a directed acceleration field; that is, a field that is, in general, gravitational-like in nature, and, in particular, gravity-canceling.3 Such a field acts on all masses in its sphere of influence as does a gravitational field. Corollary to this conclusion is that observed accelerations ~100g relative to the environment could be sustained without on-board high-g forces.

heleshawflow.jpg
One of the consequences of the above identification of field propulsion type by Hill is his conclusion, supported by detailed calculation, computer simulation and wind-tunnel studies, that supersonic flight through the atmosphere without sonic booms is easily engineered. Manipulation of the acceleration-type force field would, even at supersonic speeds, result in a constant-pressure, compression-free zone without shockwave in which the vehicle is surrounded by a subsonic flow-pattern of streamlines, and subsonic velocity ratios. An additional benefit of such field control is that drops of moisture, rain, dust, insects, or other low-velocity objects would follow streamline paths around the craft rather than impact it.

Another puzzle resolved by Hill's analysis is that craft observed to travel continuously at Mach 4 or 5 do not appear to generate temperatures sufficiently high to be destructive to known materials. In other words, UFOs appear to prevent high aerodynamic heating rates rather than permitting a heating problem to arise, then surviving it with heat-resistant materials as is the case of the NASA Space Shuttle, whose surface temperatures can reach 1300°C. The resolution of this potential problem is shown by Hill to derive from the fact that the force-field control that results in the prevention of shockwave drag as discussed above is also effective in preventing aerodynamic heating. In effect the airflow approaches, then springs away from the craft, depositing no energy in the process.

A further example of the type of correlation that emerges from Hill's analytical approach is provided by an analysis of the economy of various flight-path profiles. It is shown that high-angle, high-acceleration departures on ballistic-arc trajectories with high-speed coast segments are more efficient than, for example, intermediate-level, horizontal-path trips, both in terms of required impulse-per-unit-mass and time-of-flight parameters. This he correlates with the observation that UFO departures are of the dramatically high-angle, high-acceleration type.

Also of interest is Hill's analysis of the spectra and intensity of an apparent plasma sheath surrounding such craft, the details of which correlate with what one would expect in terms of it being a secondary effect associated with the propulsion system; for example, a blue shift and intensity increase during a "power-up" phase, and the opposite during hover and landing maneuvers. An additional fine point that emerges from this analysis is resolution of the paradox that observation on a direct line-of-sight to a near part of the craft can reveal a metallic-like structure while the attempt to observe the outline of the craft, necessarily by an oblique line-of-sight, results in an indistinct blur. Analysis shows this to be a reasonable outcome of an expected re-absorption of reflected light by the surrounding plasma in the longer-length path associated with the more oblique view.

Another typical nugget of information is found in Hill's discussion of the results of the analysis of a possible UFO artifact, the famous Ubatuba magnesium fragments, claimed to have originated from an exploded unidentified craft near Ubatuba, Brazil. Laboratory analysis of the samples found the magnesium to be not only of exceptional purity, and anomalous in its trace composition of other elements, but 6.7% denser than ordinary pure magnesium, a figure well beyond the experimental error of the measurement. Hill's calculation shows that this observation can be accounted for by assuming that the sample contained only the pure isotope Mg-26, rather than the naturally-occurring distribution among isotopes Mg-24, Mg-25, and Mg-26. Since the only isotope separation on a significant scale in terrestrial manufacture is that of uranium, such a result must be considered at least anomalous, and possibly as evidence for extraterrestrial manufacture. (editor's note: a recent analysis of the "Ubatuba magnesium" can be found in Composition Analysis of the Brazil Magnesium by Peter Sturrock, JSE, 15, 69-95, 2001)

Additional calculations concerning the parameters of interstellar travel (including relativistic effects), and the energetics of such travel, have been performed and are included in tabular and graphical form. The wealth of material in these sections, along with discussion of the broad implications of this material, reveal the dedication and thoroughness of Hill's approach to his self-assigned task.

In the final analysis, one must conclude that Hill has assembled as good a case as can be made on the basis of presently available data that the observation of some "unconventional flying objects" is compatible with the presence of engineered platforms weighing in at something around 30 tons, which are capable of 100-g accelerations and 9000-mph speeds in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important for the technical reader, however, is Hill's supporting argumentation, based on solid analysis, that these platforms, although exhibiting the application of physics and engineering principles clearly beyond our present-day capabilities, do not appear to defy these principles in any fundamental way. "

H.E. Puthoff, Ph.D.
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 W. Braker Lane, Ste. 300
Austin, TX 78759

Excellent post, among so many from you, Heidi. Everyone interested in ufos should read your extracts from the site you linked (linked again below) and follow up by reading the material at all the links Dimitris Hatzopoulos provides. That reading should include reading the sources named in the footnotes to Hal Puthoff's review of Paul Hill's book posted at Hatzopoulos's site and of course include the whole of Hill's book. There are other books available concerning how physical scientists have interpreted the manifest physical characteristics of obviously physical ufos, including Chris Lambright's X-Descending.

Not to learn from these sources is to approach naively -- indeed with wilfull ignorance -- the discussion of the questions 'what are ufos?' and 'what do their expertly witnessed visible operations demonstrate in terms of their physicality and their manipulations of physics as our species understands physics?'.

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/physics.html

 
The seemingly solid beam or cone of light is one of those recurrently observed aspects of the UFO experience, like missing time, feelings of unnaturally quiet surroundings etc. I wish we could find a way of compiling a list of these, as there are so few constants in general and the ones we have are especially intriguing.

Paul Hill's book identifies a 'ufo pattern' comprising a lengthy list of ufo phenomena witnesssed in his own sightings, those of his colleagues at NASA, and of course many reported in the data accumulated by several generations of civilian ufo researchers and organizations.

Unconventional Flying Objects: A Former NASA Scientist Explains How UFOs Really Work: Paul R. Hill, Robert Wood, Don Donderi: 9781571747136: Amazon.com: Books

The first review at amazon suffices for a good characterization of the book and includes a number of extracts. See the numerous samples from the book provided at the amazon link.
 
This is interesting content here as it brings together a number of threads and instructive as well, as buried in the middle of the discussion is Corso and Buff Ledge - both known hoaxed material. However, these stories repeat online unchallenged and worm their way back into ufo discussion over and over again as that's the way ufology rolls.

This reminds me of your own story Burnt: ? "In an effort to examine the force-field propulsion hypothesis yet further, Hill analyzed a number of cases involving near-field interactions with an apparent craft in which some form of force was in evidence. These include examples in which a person or vehicle was affected, tree branches were parted or broken, roof tiles were dislodged, objects were deflected and ground or water were disturbed. Under close analysis the subtleties of these interactions combine to point unequivocally to a repulsive force field surrounding the craft, while discriminating against propulsion mechanisms involving jet action, pure electric or magnetic effects, or the emission of energetic particles or radiation (although the latter may accompany the propulsive mechanism as a secondary effect)." From above on Paul Hill's observations.
 


Here's a blog with Rich Reynolds on a serious note, lol. UFO Conjecture(s): Solid light and the Burkes Flat UFO of 1966


Date: April 4th, 1966

Location: Burkes Flat, Victoria, Australia

At about 8:00 p.m., Ron Sullivan, was travelling on a straight sealed section of the Dunolly-St.Arnaud road, near Bourkes Flat, in central country Victoria. Ahead in a pasture off to his right, Sullivan observed an unusual light. He first took it to be a tractor, engaged in night plowing, but as he drew closer, Sullivan began to see a most unusual light display, located at ground level. The following things happened quickly as he drew closer to the scene, and then passed it. He was paying attention to both the light display in the pasture on his right and the road when he observed the following sequence of light display in the strange phenomenon in the pasture.

Initially, as he approached, Sullivan saw a white phosphorous type of light on the ground that appeared to be about 15' in diameter. It opened up and there was another white oval on top of it, about 30' in height, coming down making the shape of a cone, with a 15' bottom diameter and 20' top diameter. And in that cone were tubes of colored lights, all the lights as you see as you look through the spectrum, all the colors of the rainbow red, blue, indigo & purple. Travelling up and down, or they seem to be, from the small oval to the bigger oval at the top. They were going up and down in shafts. Then gradually the top seemed to come to meet the bottom, They seemed to close in, making a transition of one light oval, similar to first view, everything then just disappeared. The last thing Sullivan saw of the light display was just a spot on the ground, a light spot, become smaller and smaller, to nothing. Meanwhile, as he was driving, he observed that his car headlight beams suddenly appeared to be pointing in a direction off to the right in the direction of the strange light display and also seemed to be, bending back on an axis with the object in the pasture. As he got closer, the angle of bending of his cars headlight beams became more acute.

He thought his car must have been heading off the road to the right, and immediately compensated by turning it to the left. He found he was now heading directly towards a tree on the left hand side of the road. He turned the car to the right to regain the direction of travel along the straight section of road, thoroughly confused and leaving behind the display in the pasture.

He had his car lights checked and found them to be working properly. Later in Maryborough he found that a young man from Carnegie, Gary Taylor, was killed in a car accident at Burkes Flat on the night of April 6th, two nights later. Sullivan reported his experience to police. At the accident site, it was determined that Taylors car had collided with the same tree that Sullivan almost collided with 2 nights earlier. Directly opposite the tree in the pasture, about 70 yards from the roadway, coincident with where Sullivan saw the strange light display, a shallow depression was found in the plowed earth. It was a little over 3' in diameter and only a few inches in depth. The depression was cleanly scooped out of the sandy soil with no apparent debris around it. There were no human or animal tracks around the area. The property owner indicated the depression had not been there when he had finished plowing. There appeared to be no explanation for the depression or the light display."

What's interesting is that the car's headlights bend towards the craft lights.
 
The above story happened two days before this "big" story: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread859625/pg1
This story also relates a theme that the saucer turned on it's side to fly away. https://youtu.be/1ih31ehCarM
Can I share a feature that makes me feel like these collected stories remind me of my own story? I've been thinking a bit about the nature of discontinuous reality. There are three different stories collected here: one of my big faves - Westall, the rainbow and bending headlights and the death. I would also throw in a fourth incident - the ground scoop.

Now as I've been deconstructing my own story I'm having to ask just how well can I connect the sighting with the burn marks the following spring? I mean sure there's a direct bearing with my narrative and it is continuous with it, but can I validate it? Did I see the effects on the shingles and the burnt tree that night - no I did not.

So, I'm curious to know just what evidence there is to connect these four entirely isolated incidents aside from the narrative that is being rewritten by us, by the participants, ufologists etc.? Are these not entirely disconnected events being connected together as some kind of interrelated, even causal, series of incidents.
 
Can I share a feature that makes me feel like these collected stories remind me of my own story? I've been thinking a bit about the nature of discontinuous reality. There are three different stories collected here: one of my big faves - Westall, the rainbow and bending headlights and the death. I would also throw in a fourth incident - the ground scoop.

Now as I've been deconstructing my own story I'm having to ask just how well can I connect the sighting with the burn marks the following spring? I mean sure there's a direct bearing with my narrative and it is continuous with it, but can I validate it? Did I see the effects on the shingles and the burnt tree that night - no I did not.

So, I'm curious to know just what evidence there is to connect these four entirely isolated incidents aside from the narrative that is being rewritten by us, by the participants, ufologists etc.? Are these not entirely disconnected events being connected together as some kind of interrelated, even causal, series of incidents.
What your left with on a story is the boldest of the facts. All the filler is either common sense/critical thinking or imagination/emotion. The best cases leave little filler. For your own personal story I think the only evidence these many years later would be of mass sightings at the time you saw your craft, but even then there's little left to go on. But just like a murder case you may find replication to the type of killing in a neighboring town and fairly connect dots. So also with craft description and light beams, etc. What I think is fascinating on these cases is that when you step back and look at the descriptions of the light beams, the way the craft turns sideways to fly away, the description of three black circles under the craft indicating a power source area, etc...you start to see a collection very much interrelated. That, for me, lends credibility. Obviously in the above cases, we'll never know why that guy died in that same spot, hell, could've been a squirrel running in the road.:confused:
Actually, I think I should have read that better, lol, pays not to be interrupted when replying, sorry. Hill's cases I would need to see what those cases were. I suspect I need to buy the book,lol. But I will say, since listening to hours of Stanford, I'm seeing where's there's tons of similarities in the energy the craft displays, both in light beams and in the energy around the craft. So I'm guessing Hill went along those lines.
 
Last edited:
But I will say, since listening to hours of Stanford, I'm seeing where's there's tons of similarities in the energy the craft displays, both in light beams and in the energy around the craft. So I'm guessing Hill went along those lines.
Hill, like Stanford, is theorizing based on selections of evidence. It would be just as easy to collect "evidence" of UFO's in supposed photos and witness evidence that runs contrary to both theory sets. While both offer unique and personalized visions of how UFO's operate they remain theories, even thought experiments, Hill's being a much better educated set of interpretations. It's hard to make a general theory that could answer anything more than a mere subset of UFO events.

With all due respect to Chris, what makes Stanford improbable IMHO is the sheer accumulated mass of supposedly personally captured photographic evidence. What other examples do we have of this outside of Walters and Meier, and look at where they currently stand? If these are rare events at best how is it possible for him to accumulate so many materials?

Hill offers something different, specifically in that there's a substantial posthumous publication to back up his ideas. If only there were more like him that brought forward their own detailed science to the task so that we could hold a series of theories together and use these to make better progress. Hill's book is one of few examinations of the physics of the UFO and just how out of date now are his own ideas? Hill was an interesting character in the history of aerodynamics using his long standing UFO interests to contribute to lunar landers and building better bombs.

He was also a very strong proponent of psi skills and the ETH. But there are so many pieces of the puzzle that point against the ETH that his own text now stands only as a possible interpretation of some impossible crafts. For his own theories to ring true we are faced with the incredible improbability of multitudes of races and species probing a wide array of humans and collecting endless amounts of soil samples.
 
Hill, like Stanford, is theorizing based on selections of evidence. It would be just as easy to collect "evidence" of UFO's in supposed photos and witness evidence that runs contrary to both theory sets. While both offer unique and personalized visions of how UFO's operate they remain theories, even thought experiments, Hill's being a much better educated set of interpretations. It's hard to make a general theory that could answer anything more than a mere subset of UFO events.

Of course these are "just" theories. It's one peg on the board, a starting place from one aspect of the phenomena. We won't wake up tomorrow having solved the riddle. I think the point of this thread is to gain a knowledge on what is being worked on with the data collections so far. It's been asked often here and elsewhere, what's being done with the data so far? I found this article http://pesn.com/2008/02/24/9500473_UFO_Propulsion_books/ the other day, kinda cracked me up. This guy looked through all patents on UFO's and found 260 on propulsion alone. This tells me that what I already know, scientist won't openly look at this phenomena, but people will. This isn't a first for science to be last:( Granted, I haven't a clue on how good these patents are.
The truth is I'm not really that interested in the folklore of Ufology, the study of the mind in relation to it's ability to comprehend what it see's versus what it "thinks" it sees. I do believe there is a percentage that hallucinate or mistake the identity but I'm not the person receiving those calls so I rely on their stats. At least in the form of using this as a starting point. I don't think it's incumbent on those of us who follow this subject to be masters of all the elements versus selective in a few aspects. Reminds me of the author, Frank Fushino whose mission is to place UFO's and Pilots in their exact locations both by official records and newspapers and other reporting groups like MUFON. He's not recording abductions or studying light beams but his work is fascinating and fruitful it turns out. But as an example, do I disregard his work because I haven't read a detailed exam of each witness? Some people would, yes. But for me it might best be explained as a numbers game. Kind of like reading of a mass sighting, dozens of witnesses. If science wants to be busy playing it safe then all we have is each other. But so to, if science is willing to stick their bony necks out there and play with ideas based off perceived ideas they see in film, god bless their merry little selves. An example is Myrabo going from an acorn shaped craft to a disk shaped craft. And as I previously stated, the tilting of the disk up on end as it fly's. That's an inspiration to me to capture this stuff for that reason alone. LOL, Youtube can play with themselves, I want the science! I'm still trying to type in different search questions to see if there's anything out there we might find fun to look at.:)
Btw, these theories have a foundation on what we think people are seeing and what we think are in photos and videos. From there we go. Not all that different from knowing we breathe but not knowing what we breathed. Eventually we found out.
 
Last edited:
Of course these are "just" theories. It's one peg on the board, a starting place from one aspect of the phenomena. We won't wake up tomorrow having solved the riddle. I think the point of this thread is to gain a knowledge on what is being worked on with the data collections so far. It's been asked often here and elsewhere, what's being done with the data so far? I found this article http://pesn.com/2008/02/24/9500473_UFO_Propulsion_books/ the other day, kinda cracked me up. This guy looked through all patents on UFO's and found 260 on propulsion alone. This tells me that what I already know, scientist won't openly look at this phenomena, but people will. This isn't a first for science to be last:( Granted, I haven't a clue on how good these patents are.
The truth is I'm not really that interested in the folklore of Ufology, the study of the mind in relation to it's ability to comprehend what it see's versus what it "thinks" it sees. I do believe there is a percentage that hallucinate or mistake the identity but I'm not the person receiving those calls so I rely on their stats. At least in the form of using this as a starting point. I don't think it's incumbent on those of us who follow this subject to be masters of all the elements versus selective in a few aspects. Reminds me of the author, Frank Fushino whose mission is to place UFO's and Pilots in their exact locations both by official records and newspapers and other reporting groups like MUFON. He's not recording abductions or studying light beams but his work is fascinating and fruitful it turns out. But as an example, do I disregard his work because I haven't read a detailed exam of each witness? Some people would, yes. But for me it might best be explained as a numbers game. Kind of like reading of a mass sighting, dozens of witnesses. If science wants to be busy playing it safe then all we have is each other. But so to, if science is willing to stick their bony necks out there and play with ideas based off perceived ideas they see in film, god bless their merry little selves. An example is Myrabo going from an acorn shaped craft to a disk shaped craft. And as I previously stated, the tilting of the disk up on end as it fly's. That's an inspiration to me to capture this stuff for that reason alone. LOL, Youtube can play with themselves, I want the science! I'm still trying to type in different search questions to see if there's anything out there we might find fun to look at.:)
Btw, these theories have a foundation on what we think people are seeing and what we think are in photos and videos. From there we go. Not all that different from knowing we breathe but not knowing what we breathed. Eventually we found out.
I understand your position and we know that it would be great for science to do science in this field, and certainly these cases where some precision is being applied to singular events we then can see some theories developing. I also understand how Ufology has broken itself into camps: abductees & contactees, scientific inquiry and physical evidence, sociology and witness study, ancient aliens etc. The constant in all three though is a human being and as such that makes the whole thing tricky business (folklore) as it's often very difficult to do much confirmation of what someone said they saw or experienced, as that is already a primarily internal event in terms of how we experience reality. When internal experience gets external confirmation I suppose that is the moment that some real inquiry can begin, though oftentimes we connect dots that are disconnected to begin with and force a narrative (i.e. ETH). For me the sociological inquiry that looks for actual physical evidence that can be truly connected is in short supply, the rarest of the rare.

So I agree that these niche studies and theoretical contemplations have a lot of value, though too often they begin from the perspective of the ETH with the implication of a physical craft flying through the galaxies. Consequently we work to apply contemporary physics to such inquiries, so convinced we are that this paradigm is the one to begin from. Of course if it turns out that paradigm is subterfuge or misguided analysis on our part; then, these nice ideas only served to make better bombs and more aerodynamic objects, getting our scientific inspiration from our observations and dreams as always.

Where science has had great difficulty, even in the radar events & pilot sightings, is the ephemerality of the event, the inconsistency in reporting by simultaneous witnesses and our utter inexplicability as to postulating a cause. I thnk that as soon as we settle ourselves on the ETH we create a chain of thinking that comes with its own set of closed doors analysis.

Hill's book continues to sit on my shelf partially read for that reason; whereas, a contactee or abductee scenario text tells me something concrete about the person and about extended elements that include pre&post observations of the witness, impact on culture etc.. So while the initial stimulus may not be entirely known i can come to know something about the witness and which parts of their story is about extrapolation and effect or feedback. I just assume the UFO is real, but have no clue what it is, so let's see how it operates in our culture and its interaction with people, and the environment where possibly provable.

At the end of the day thinking about these objects as weather, or as non-sentient intelligence like birds or insects, may be just as viable if not moreso, given what we know about them. Most of the scripts for these experiences are not found on radar or in speculations of craft (excluding human experiments), but in the way our minds work and in possibly more speculative thinking: the physics of information, the simultanaeity of time and unknown upper atmosphere light phenomena i.e. sky critters.

At the end of the day sky critters are starting to make much more sense than the ETH as it seems to be more tied to the narrative we made up in the first place. In fact is not the ETH just another name for human folklore?
 
Looking at various explanations to light beams, this is a laser version Tractor beam built from rings of laser light - physics-math - 19 October 2012 - New Scientist

I'm wondering whether the quantum processes evidently being manipulated in this research can account for a specific phenomenon reported in a ufo case or two discussed in another Paracast thread recently in which the headlight beams of a car being driven in the vicinity of a landed ufo were diverted toward the location of the ufo. I can't remember where that case was described. Can anyone link to it? The phenomenon described seems likely to involve quantum entanglement rather than an intentional action by the occupants/pilot of the ufo.
 
I'm wondering whether the quantum processes evidently being manipulated in this research can account for a specific phenomenon reported in a ufo case or two discussed in another Paracast thread recently in which the headlight beams of a car being driven in the vicinity of a landed ufo were diverted toward the location of the ufo. I can't remember where that case was described. Can anyone link to it? The phenomenon described seems likely to involve quantum entanglement rather than an intentional action by the occupants/pilot of the ufo.
That story is just at the top of this page, really cool one.
 
There you are, beams like that had been caught on video. Search for Carlos Diaz, Mexico, ufo etc.


There is a British soldier, on this forum, who served in Afghanistan and who had seen an UFO shoot a beam like that into a ground.

As well, famously, in the Rendelsham Forest, UK case, UFO shot a beam like that just few inches in a front of a group leader Col. Holt.

As well, pls. search for Coyne, Mansfield, Ohio case. UFO shot a green solid light beam at a helicopter. It appeared beam was not a weapon, but just used for inspection.

As well, the next generation or radars will be like that. They will have such a short wavelenghts that they will almost emit light. Spec for these new radars will enable radar to scan a face of the opposing pilot form 50km (35miles) away and identify him from database ;-)
 
Last edited:
There you are, beams like that had been caught on video. Search for Carlos Diaz, Mexico, ufo etc.


There is a British soldier, on this forum, who served in Afghanistan and who had seen an UFO shoot a beam like that into a ground.

As well, famously, in the Rendelsham Forest, UK case, UFO shot a beam like that just few inches in a front of a group leader Col. Holt.

As well, pls. search for Coyne, Mansfield, Ohio case. UFO shot a green solid light beam at a helicopter. It appeared beam was not a weapon, but just used for inspection.

As well, the next generation or radars will be like that. They will have such a short wavelenghts that they will almost emit light. Spec for these new radars will enable radar to scan a face of the opposing pilot form 50km (35miles) away and identify him from database ;-)

RADAR is an interesting invention. Few people realize that advanced radar systems can already identify the make of an aircraft by comparing it to a database. It's interesting ( but not unexpected ) that they would be looking to increase the resolution to enable facial recognition. The higher the frequency the greater the resolution. Of course, once you get into the visible light spectrum, you no longer need radar for such a system as it can simply use naturally reflected light. But then you also get into problems with penetration caused by weather ( clouds ). For those interested, here's a good page on RADAR basics: Radar Basics
 
Last edited:
Back
Top