56 Pilot Sightings Involving Electromagnetic Effects.

Interesting study by NASA scientist Richard Haines on UFO encounters and electromagnetic effects on aircraft.

There are a quite a few E.M. interference cases out there - the RB-47 incident, the Tehran incident and the Coyne incident to name some of the more infamous ones.

Heres what he had to say about the subject:

FIFTY-SIX AIRCRAFT PILOT SIGHTlNGS INVOLVING
ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS
Richard F. Haines, Ph.D.

"Reports of anomalous aerial objects (AAO) appearing in the atmosphere continue to be made by pilots of almost every airline and air force of the world in addition to private and experimental test pilots.
This paper presents a review of 56 reports of AAO in which electromagnetic effects (E-M) take place on-board the aircraft when the phenomenon is located nearby but not before it appeared or after it had departed.
Reported E-M effects included radio interference or total failure, radar contact with and without simultaneous visual contact, magnetic and/or gyro-compass deviations, automatic direction finder failure or interference, engine stopping or interruption, dimming cabin lights, transponder failure, and military aircraft weapon system failure.
We're not dealing with mental projections or hallucinations on the part of the witness but with a real physical phenomenon."

Dr. Richard Haines, Psychologist specializing in pilot and astronaut "human factors" research for the Ames NASA Research Center in California-Chief of the Space Human Factors Office.

Link:
www.nicap.org...

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

A fly by just occurred:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder if any effects were noticed.

I was aware of freezing motor reports from Spielberg to Lyne
to Henry Steven's book with the Nazi gardener report to the FBI.


[edit on 6/2/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


T+L, thanks for the reply -could be wrong but the object in that particular incident looked to be a missile.
There are some more interesting EM cases here:
www.ufoevidence.org...
Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Bariloch UFO Incident:

Article published in the daily newspaper 'Le Courier de l'Ouest', France, 3rd August, 1995:

SAN CARLOS DE BARILOCHE (Argentina).

A "flying saucer" of "white color", moving "at high speed while defying the laws of physics" disturbed, in the night from Monday to yesterday, the traffic of the airport of San Carlos de Bariloche, 1.800 kilometers in the South-west of Buenos Aires.


Avoid the collision

It all begun whereas a flight coming from Buenos Aires with 102 passengers finished its approach maneuvers to land on the strip of Bariloche.

"The pilot had to make an desperate maneuver not to enter in collision with a UFO", claim several members of the Argentinean Air Forces. According to an officer "at the same time, an interruption of power occurred in all the city and the measuring devices of the airport went crazy."


White light

"At the time when I started the descent, I suddenly saw opposite a white light which came directly at us at full speed, before stopping suddenly at a hundred meters... After a moment, the saucer changed color, two green lights appearing at the ends with an orange gleam in the center, which ignited intermittently", the pilot adds.

At the time when I started my last approach, the lights of the landing strip suddenly went off. I had to go up, still accompanied by the UFO which went up at a supernatural speed," the pilot adds. " When the light came back on the ground and that I started again my descent, the UFO then disappeared at full speed," the pilot concludes.

www.ufologie.net...

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Haines can do nice statistics, but where are the actual cases documented? McCampbell's famous attitude toward cases was 'assume they are ALL authentic...".

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim if you ever actualy addressed any of the more puzzling cases then maybe you'd be taken more seriously (by me anyway).

I've always liked this quote:

“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?

There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence.

Of course they do not constitute irrefutable proof. However, to state there is no evidence suggestive of intelligent extraterrestrial life simply belies the facts. Decades in duration and global in nature, there are too many hard sensor data-points and millions of eyewitnesses to ignore. We certainly can debate the significance of specific data and question whether or not it establishes a causal relationship between the observations and extraterrestrial life. However, it is only through ignorance or pomposity that one can say no evidence exists.”
John B. Alexander,Ph.D.
Advisory board for the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS)

Which one is it Jim,
ignorance or pomposity?

Originally posted by karl 12
Which one is it Jim,
ignorance or pomposity?

I love you too, Karl.

You can tell you've scored points in the debate, when after you discuss 'a classic case' and offer a plausible, well-researched prosaic explanation for it, the only counter-argument you get is, "Yes, but what about THIS one??"

The corpus of several decades of ground-breaking investigations of famous cases in on my home page. Which of those offerred solutions do you reject, and why? I'd be happy to discuss.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by karl 12
Which one is it Jim,
ignorance or pomposity?

I love you too, Karl.

I was actualy referring to the quote made by John B. Alexander -did you bother to read it?

Of course I could be wrong but it seems to me you're often more concerned with posting vague remarks and petty character assasinations rather than actualy addressing any of the (quite valid) points raised.

I'm not suggesting you're more concerned with ego than reality but it would be nice to have objective, constructive discussion about the subject matter once in a while.

That said, I'm also fully aware that the term 'prosaic explanation' often gets perverted by certain individuals who end up just lazily shoehorning in a preconceived debunk onto events whilst wilfully ignoring any contradictory facts which may get in the way.

Some of the techniques employed are listed here.


As for electromagnetic effects ,I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the nature of the objects involved in the mentioned incidents:


The Coyne incident, Mansfield, Ohio, 1973


The 1976 Tehran, F-4 Phantom Chases UFO Case


The RB-47 UFO Encounter | 1957


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

The Coyote Canyon Incident-UFO

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION

1. On 2 Sept 80, SOURCE related on 8 Aug 80, three Security Policemen
assigned to 1608 SPS, KAFB, NM, on duty inside the Manzano Weapons Storage
Area sighted an unidentified light in the air that traveled from North to
South over the Coyote Canyon area of the Department of Defense Restricted
Test Range on KAFB, NM. The Security Policemen identified as: SSGT
STEPHEN FERENZ, Area Supervisor, ATC MARTIN W. RIST and AMN ANTHONY D.
FRAZIER, were later interviewed separately by SOURCE and all three
related the same statement; at approximately 2350 hrs., while on duty in
Charlie Sector, East Side of Manzano, the three observed a very bright
light in the sky approximately 3 miles North-North East of their position.
The light traveled with great speed and stopped suddenly in the sky over
Coyote Canyon.

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION

1. On 13 Aug 80, 1960 COMMSq Maintenance Officer reported Radar Approach
Control equipment and scanner radar inoperative due to high frequency
jamming from an unknown cause. Total blackout of entire radar approach
system to include Albuquerque Airport was in effect between 1630-2215 hrs.
Radar Approach Control back up system also were inoperative.

2. On 13 Aug 80, Defense Nuclear Agency Radio Frequency Monitors
determined, by vector analysis, the interference was being sent from an
area (V-90 degrees or due East). On DAF map coordinates E-28.6. The area
was located NW of Coyote Canyon Test area....

www.cufon.org...

ah...the mysteries/beyond of life waiting to be discovered.

I'd just like to jump in here to state that I'd like to see Jim Oberg respond directly to the points raised herein.

I experienced a similar interaction with Jim in another thread, that he's now apparently abandoned without directly addressing the points there raised.

I also have noticed a pattern (the statistics have been acquired from info at ATS, documented threads Jim...) wherein Jim Oberg routinely advertises his own webpage, as opposed to engaging in moderated debate here at ATS.

Jim, you've stepped into a forum of research and debate here.
Please, in the interest of ATS, and the quality research that goes on here, answer these points directly. I'm quite certain that site advertisement and self promotion are no-no's here, so if you've got some evidence (or even a line of reasoning) that you would like so share, please do so in context of the thread, within the thread itself. Linking to external sites should be limited to (IMHO) to citing sources, in the purposes of debate.

Thanks very much in advance for your cooperation in this regard.

-WFA

Originally posted by JimOberg
Haines can do nice statistics, but where are the actual cases documented? McCampbell's famous attitude toward cases was 'assume they are ALL authentic...".

I believe that the answer to this question can in fact be found in the NICAP report's bibliography.

For the posterity of this thread, and to assist future researchers, that bibliography is here:

"REFERENCES

Haines, R.F., 1990. Advanced Aerial Devices Reported During the Korean War. Los Altos, CA: LDA Press.

Hall, R.H. (Ed.), 1964. The UFO Evidence. Washington, D.C.: National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, May. See Especially sections 3, 5 and 8.

Johnson, D.A., 1983. The effects of position and distance in UFO ignition-interference cases. Journal of UFO Studies, Vol. III, Pp. 1-8.

Johnson, D.A., 1988. Size, distance and duration parameters of the ignition-interference effect. Proceedings of the Second CUFOS Conference, Chicago, IL, Pp. 123-152, September 25-27.

Klass, P., 1968. UFOs - Identified. New York: Random House.

McCampbell, J., 1973. Ufology: New Insights from Science and Common Sense. Jacmac Co., Belmont, CA.

McCampbell, J., 1991. Personal communication including his technical notes from research carried out in 1984.

Menzel, D.H., and Boyd, L.G., 1963. The World of Flying Saucers. New York: Doubleday & Co. Pp. 172-197.

National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), 1980, Washington National radar/visual sightings. Pp. 388-389 In R.D. Story (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of UFOs. New York: Doubleday & Co.

Persinger, M.A., 1976. Transient geophysical bases for ostensible UFO related phenomena and associated verbal behavior? Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 43, Pp. 215-221.

Persinger, M.A., Possible infrequent geophysical sources of close UFO encounters: Expected physical and behavioral-biological effects, 1979. Ch. 13 in R. F. Haines (Ed.), UFO Phenomena and the Behavioral Scientist . Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press.

Rodeghier, M., 1988. A summary of vehicle interference reports and a description of a possible natural phenomenon causing some events. Proceedings of the Second CUFOS Conference. Chicago, Illinois, Pg. 153-168, September 25-27.

Ruppelt, E.J., 1956. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. New York: Doubleday & Co.

Shanklin, H.A., 1955. The flying saucers I've seen. Flying. Pg. 307- 308, September.

Sharp, A., 1977. More ghosts in the machine: Examining the statistics. MUFOB, new series, Vol. 8, Pg. 5-7.

Smith, P.J., 1980. Power failures and UFOs. Pg. 272-273 In R.D. Story (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of UFOs. New York: Doubleday & Co.

Smith, W., Personal communication, September 1991.

Stacy, D., (December 1987-January 1988). When pilots see UFOs. Air and Space. Vol. 2, No. 5, Pg. 96-103.

Wichnan, H., 1971. A scientist in the cockpit: the case history and analysis of a UFO sighting. Space Life Sciences, Vol. 3, Pg. 165-170.

Wilkins, H.T., 1954. Flying Saucers on the Attack. New York: Citadel Press.

Zeidman, J., 1979. A Helicopter-UFO Encounter over Ohio. Evanston, IL: Center for UFO Studies. Pg. 122, March.

Zigel, F., 1968. Observations of UFO from airplanes. Section 6 in F. Zigel (Ed.), Unidentified Flying Objects in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Vol 1, unpublished manuscript.

Source: MUFON 1992 UFO Symposium Proceedings, pages 101-129.

This web page was created by Francis Ridge for the NICAP web site. The paper was the work of Dr. Richard Haines and scannable copies of the Proceedings were generously made available by John Schuessler."

Source: www.nicap.org...

-WFA

WFA, nice work on the bibliography there -I didn't realise the man was that prolific.

Heres another very interesting document citing UFOs and electromagnetic effects from the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait.

U.S. Embassy Document

A stunning declassified document: This is a cable from the US Embassy in Kuwait discussing the details and particulars of several quite spectacular UFO sightings and incidents in Kuwait in 1979, including the traditionnal unexplained shutdown of electrical equipment which worked fine again after the UFO's departure.

The report proves that there are similarities between UFO events over Noth America and different places of the globe, and that in Kuwait, the governement like most government do, took interest in the events and investigated them, eliminating prosaic explanations like spy planes, but remaining reluctant to name the UFO "extra terrestrial crafts."

REFERENCES:

Title: UFO SIGHTINGS CAUSE SECURITY CONCERN IN KUWAIT
To: Secretary of State, various American Embassies, Secretary of Defense, and other agencies and officals
Author: American Embassy, Kuwait
Date: January 29 1979
Length: 2 page
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
CC: None

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6342648696a8.jpg[/atsimg]

Link

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by karl 12

As for electromagnetic effects ,I'd be interested to hear any definitive opinions you may have as to the nature of the objects involved in the incidents below (or just even just
why you don't agree with any of the comments made by the people or documents posted above):

Links:

The Coyne incident, Mansfield, Ohio, 1973:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The 1976 Tehran, F-4 Phantom Chases UFO Case:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The RB-47 UFO Encounter | 1957:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Document:
www.nicap.org...

I tend to focus my investigations in areas of my professional expertise. I report on those results in detail on my home page (and get slammed for providing links to my home page!).

I find it a common trick among evaders to abandon a subject under discussion and jump to another case, or another case, any case, and ask about THAT one. That's an effective and unanswerable gambit, since it's an infinite list...

If there are still questions about the points I'm trying to make, by all means, repeat them if I've overlooked them or got distracted from them.

But if your point is that you won't accept any prosaic explanation for any UFO report until ALL reports are explained, I'm sorry, I don't play in rigged games.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I tend to focus my investigations in areas of my professional expertise. I report on those results in detail on my home page (and get slammed for providing links to my home page!).

So you cherrypick which cases to 'debunk' and abjectly refuse to discuss or debate the more inexplicable or puzzling incidents?

Real objective approach Jim.

Originally posted by JimOberg
I find it a common trick among evaders to abandon a subject under discussion and jump to another case, or another case, any case, and ask about THAT one. That's an effective and unanswerable gambit, since it's an infinite list...

I think you may be engaging in a little psychological projection here as you are probably one of the most evasive and ambiguous posters ever to grace these discussion boards.

And even after all your rhetoric, you still haven't addressed a single incident involved with the thread subject - it would all be quite amusing if it wasn't so predictable.

Perhaps you should take a long, honest look at this comparative list and decide which category you're actualy in:

True skeptics / open-minded skeptics

*Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own

*Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

*Seeks open inquiry and investigation of both sides

*Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions

*Weighs evidence on all sides

*Asks exploratory questions about new things to try to understand them

*Acknowledges valid convincing evidence

*Possesses solid sharp common sense

*Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence







Pseudo-skeptics / closed-minded skeptics

*Automatically dismisses and denies all claims that contradict materialism and orthodoxy

*Is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo

*Ignores anything that doesn't fit their a priori beliefs and assumptions

*Scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration

*Has a know-it-all-attitude, never asks questions about things they don't understand, never admits that they don't know something

*Insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation

*Is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about

*Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments

*Is unable to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by JimOberg
I tend to focus my investigations in areas of my professional expertise. I report on those results in detail on my home page (and get slammed for providing links to my home page!).

So you cherrypick which cases to 'debunk' and abjectly refuse to discuss or debate the more inexplicable or puzzling incidents.

Real objective approach Jim.

Well, commenting authoritatively on subjects well beyond their areas of personal experience and expertise does indeed seem to be the more common style around here. I can understand how the opposite approach would astonish you.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Well, commenting authoritatively on subjects well beyond their areas of personal experience and expertise does indeed seem to be the more common style around here. I can understand how the opposite approach would astonish you.

Then why exactly are you here commenting on this case?

Or should I say, abjectly refusing to comment on it, yet still participating in a forum thread dedicated to commenting on it?

-WFA

Originally posted by JimOberg
(and get slammed for providing links to my home page!).

I'd just like to be clear here Jim, I'm not slamming you.
These are the forum rules.

We are here to debate cases on topic.
Personal site advertisement is against ATS policy.

If you've got an argument to make, you can just as easily do it here as direct people to your personal homepage.

Please present that argument here, in context to the thread's topic.

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Personal site advertisement is against ATS policy.

But linking to supportive evidence and research is not, as moderators have explained several times...

My experience related to these questions deals with several specific cases I investigated where Russian pilots reported EM effects that turned out to be spurious since the original visual stimulus was a distant rocket or space event.

So it does happen that when confronted with unusual visual apparitions, pilots can -- because they have -- report apparent EM effects that are either coincidental or entirely misperceived.

When you collect all those stories together, you may have nothing more than a bagful of ghosts.

The question of pilot misperception of UFO-related stimuli is also something I've spent a lot of time looking at, and my results -- which coincide with Hynek's -- are contrary to the easy-guess view that pilots must be primo observers of UFOs and must be among the highest reliability. My research (on my home page, sorry...) gives numerous examples of this NOT being the case.

It's also why the NTSB rates pilot reports of witnessing other aviation accidents with high skepticism -- because the pilots automatically try to assess what caused the views, and create a model explanation that subsequently selectively edits their raw perceptions.

This is a common problem with evaluating UFO reports, and not recognizing it -- or denying it -- is one more reason that amatuer UFO investigations have been in such a sorry state for so very long.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Personal site advertisement is against ATS policy.

But linking to supportive evidence and research is not, as moderators have explained several times...

I have yet to see you do this. I'm requesting moderator attention in this thread.

When I first joined this site, I ran a personal webpage, and used it in the manner you are doing right now.

I was warned repeatedly for doing so, and I stopped.

I see no difference here.

If you have a point to make, do so, and cite supporting evidence.
Generalizing is generalizing, no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.

-WFA