Electromagnetic Effects Associated with Unidentified Flying Objects.

The question must be asked, how often are the EM effects observed after a UFO has been noticed? Could it be a consequence of an observant witness seeking to catalog all other potentially relevant factors? Or even, how often could there be an unrelated coincidence? What fraction of these stories might be like that?

As an example, this is from the Haines database. If we find a plausible prosaic stimulus for the visual observation, what does that do for the additional report of EM effects?

www.narcap.org...
Case 49 score : 24
June 18, 1982 21:57 [assume Beijing time, GMT + 8] Hence, GMT 13:57 [1310 to 1453]
Gong Heui area, Hubei, China (44°20 N / 114°31 E)
Jeo: Northwestern Manchuria, Sunset, 20:16 beijing time, sun azimuth 309 degrees

In Northern China on June 18, 1982, many sightings were reported from Heilongjiang Province, between 21:10 and 22:53.

One of the most interesting case is that reported by five Chinese Air Force pilots on patrol over north China’s military frontier. At about 21:57 the jet fighter’s electrical systems malfunctioned ; communications and navigation systems failed.

Suddenly the pilots encountered and UFO of a milky yellowish-green luminous color, about the size of the full moon. The object grew larger and picked up speed, at which point it looked « as big as a mountain of mist ». Then black spots were seen in the interior of the phenomenon.

One pilot stated in his report : « When I first saw the object, it flew toward me at a high rate of speed as it whirled rapidly. While it was rotating it generated rings of light. In the center of the light ring was fire. In ten seconds the center of the ring exploded, then the body of the object expanded rapidly

The planes were forced to return to base because of the equipment failures. The other four pilots also prepared reports. It is not known if gun-camera film was taken.

After 30 seconds, the beam of light disappeared completely and replaced by a yellow sphere with clear edges. This sphere climbed rapidly and increased its size and brightness………The instruments returned to normal when the pilot went down to 500 meters altitude.

At 22:01, One of the pilot arrived to his first turn at Cong Huei. Then after he flew for 3 mn toward his second step when his radio began to jam: big noises resounded in the receiver, as if rain clouds and thunderstorm were in front of him, and the voice of the control tower operator became less audible. The radio compass instead of giving the direction of the tracking station direction gave a direction 30° on his right.

He climbed to 6,000 then 7,000 meters, then he flew horizontally but the unusual noises continued to be heard in the receivers and the radio compass was still indicating a wrong direction 30° on the right.

The pilot saw a bright object above the horizon. Very quickly this object became a beam of yellow light like a car headlight. This beam of light was directed vertically toward the ground, in the same direction indicated by the radio compass.

Sources :
Beyond Top Secret, Timothy Good, 1996
L’empire du Milieu Troublй par les Ovnis », Shi Bo, 1993

reply to post by karl 12


Some interesting further reading

A device to generate excited and/or ionized particles in plasma with a generator to generate an electromagnetic wave and at least one plasma zone, in which the excited and/or ionized particles are formed by the electromagnetic wave. The plasma zone is formed in an interior chamber of a conductor for the electromagnetic wave

www.freepatentsonline.com...

JimOberg
As an example, this is from the Haines database. If we find a plausible prosaic stimulus for the visual observation, what does that do for the additional report of EM effects?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My point is that I propose a prosaic explanation for the observed UFO [it has typical features of a space launch and in fact there was one visible from this region at the time reported], and ask, what then do the reported "EM effects" therefore imply? Why can't they be typical random radio and nav equipment 'funnies'? Without knowing how OFTEN exactly the same symptoms occur WITHOUT a 'UFO' perception, how can anyone argue for a cause-and-effect connection when they DO occur together?

Interesting EM UFO case taken from the British Royal Air Force’s Provost and Security Service official files:

Without doubt the most unusual, official UFO report I ever came across during my time spent digging through the files of the National Archive at Kew, England, surfaced in 1999. It concerns an incident that dated from 1966 and that originated with the British Royal Air Force’s Provost and Security Services – an arm of the RAF that until 1998 had its headquarters at a British RAF base named Rudloe Manor, and that was, for many years, the central hub for classified, official UFO investigations.

In a painstakingly-detailed report, one Corporal R.A. Rickwood, of the P&SS Special Investigation Section, related to his superiors the facts. In fact, so profoundly weird and intriguing is the file,


Excerpt:


The object had again appeared at Montford Bridge but this time it was much lower in the sky and on the north side of the road. On this occasion she could see rays of light shooting from the object which had again appeared to keep station with her car until she arrived home. At one time during the journey the object travelled near her and the rays seemed to come towards the right hand side of her car.

“She felt a bump against that side as if they had struck it. At this moment she felt as if she had received an electric shock and had felt a severe pain in her neck. The left-hand side headlight of the car also went out..


UFO Trauma in a Secret File

Really intriguing one taken from 'The Hynek UFO Report' involving a dull red, elongated egg shaped UFO (with purple waves coursing through its extremities) and severe radio and television interference.

He first sighted the object in a due westerly direction, at an elevation of about twenty degrees, but at an undetermined distance. It resembled an elongated egg (see sketch), about 156 feet in length [derived from the boy’s statement that the object was slightly larger, top to bottom, than his hand spread (7.5 inches) at arm’s length (27 inches) when at a distance of about 80 feet]. The object was about twice as long as it was thick.

Despite its brightness, the object had a dull red color with purple waves coursing through its extremities. It emitted a sound which was described as similar to the hum of a large transformer, but higher in pitch; or similar to, but vastly greater in volume from, a whip swishing through the air.

The object came toward him, its first approach lasting about ten seconds. It flew directly toward his house, on a steadily declining altitude of approach, and passed over his front yard at an altitude of about eight to ten feet. It then veered gradually to the northeast. Oddly enough, he could hear the object only while he could see it. Even odder, the boy was puzzled at his inability to see the object from the rear, when this should have been possible..


EMIE:



In addition to the disturbance of the animals, it was reported that the radio, which had had very clear reception until then, was completely blocked by intense static. The static on the radio was not evident before 10:00 P.M. nor after 10:15 P.M., which seems to indicate that some electrical or magnetic disturbance was present in the immediate area during that time. The witness further stated that each time the object passed overhead he could hear a very sharp cracking noise which he compared with the spark gap of an automobile spark plug, but of greater volume and intensity. He was emphatic that this noise was not that of a sonic boom, which he had heard many times previously. When his parents arrived home at approximately 11:00 P.M. the incident was over; but the family pets were still whimpering and shaking and hiding under the furniture.

Two neighbors living in the area were questioned separately and admitted that at “about that time,” they also experienced severe radio and television interference. They would not, however, give any details nor did they give the reporting officer permission to use their names.

The Case of the Whimpering Dogs

originally posted by: Havick007
reply to post by karl 12

 

Some interesting further reading

A device to generate excited and/or ionized particles in plasma with a generator to generate an electromagnetic wave and at least one plasma zone, in which the excited and/or ionized particles are formed by the electromagnetic wave. The plasma zone is formed in an interior chamber of a conductor for the electromagnetic wave

www.freepatentsonline.com...

Did you even read the patent? I know it's fun to do keyword searches and then splat the result up as if searching for "plasma" and "EM" would always net you something germane.

It doesn't.

The patent is describing a way to generate more free radicals in a plasma etcher for integrated circuits.

It's got both jack AND # to do with UFOs.

Read your links. Don't do unvetted keyword searches thinking you'll find nuggets of gold with every cool bunch of sciency words.

originally posted by: JimOberg


www.abovetopsecret.com...

My point is that I propose a prosaic explanation for the observed UFO [it has typical features of a space launch and in fact there was one visible from this region at the time reported], and ask, what then do the reported "EM effects" therefore imply? Why can't they be typical random radio and nav equipment 'funnies'? Without knowing how OFTEN exactly the same symptoms occur WITHOUT a 'UFO' perception, how can anyone argue for a cause-and-effect connection when they DO occur together?

Anything is possible Jim. But the real question when considering the explanations offered from a person always proposing a prosaic one should be: "Have you ever seen a flying saucer up close that had no apparent means of propulsion?"

That would change one's perspective.

I had a rather huge experience with the effects of EMF, on a military aircraft back in the 70's. I did a post on it in 2012
Here. There was no permanent damage to the aircraft electronics, but it was scary.

I had a somewhat similar experience in a P3 in Pennsylvania a few years later that got hit by lightening on approach to Willow Grove. Again, we had the St. Elmo's fire (green glow in cabin with static electricity), but the only real effect there were the CRT screens going whitewash for a few seconds and the pilots complaining about radio static and magnetic compass anomalies. Again, no permanent damage of any kind to the aircraft or electronics. The static made your hair stand on end and your skin got really itchy.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
....
Anything is possible Jim. But the real question when considering the explanations offered from a person always proposing a prosaic one should be: "Have you ever seen a flying saucer up close that had no apparent means of propulsion?"

.
That would change one's perspective.

Given that >90% of people who think that are mistaken, how is that a firm foundation for logical deductions? Once you involve your own ego-defense in an interpretation of a personal experience, the odds of ever accepting a different explanation drop spectacularly. That's why the NTSB does NOT like to use pilots as witnesses to aviation accidents, they tend to reach conclusions and then subconsciously edit perceptions and memories to confirm their assessments, as all humans do. For reliable raw observations, better somebody who does not know the technology so intimately.

a reply to: JimOberg

Given that >90% of people who think that are mistaken...

What's this based off of?

Yes, 90+% of UFO sightings can be explained, but the previous user was talking about someone seeing a "flying saucer up close with no visible means of propulsion". Those sightings are usually the remaining 5-10% that are unexplained—they're what convince some researchers that there's a genuine UFO phenomenon beyond misidentifications and hoaxes. The 90% of explainable sightings are usually distant lights in the sky, hardly what most would consider convincing in the first place.

a reply to: thesearchfortruth

OK, give me another range of probabilities as you see it.

a reply to: JimOberg

I don't believe there are any such statistics on this kind of a sighting.

My point is simply that you can't say the majority of low-quality "lights in the sky" type sightings invalidate the high-quality close encounter type of sighting. They're two different phenomena.

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth
a reply to: JimOberg



I don't believe there are any such statistics on this kind of a sighting.



My point is simply that you can't say the majority of low-quality "lights in the sky" type sightings invalidate the high-quality close encounter type of sighting. They're two different phenomena.

We're veering off topic, but I might suggest that it's YOU who's making the convenient assumptions here. I base my view on a special category of "close-up" reports actually generated by distant fireball swarms, as put forward here --
www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth

Yes, 90+% of UFO sightings can be explained

Good to see you mate and there's some info in this post about official statistics on unexplained report percentages - seems it could be a lot less than that.

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth

but the previous user was talking about someone seeing a "flying saucer up close with no visible means of propulsion".

Here's a close range pilot one that's always freaked me out - 3 objects with no visible means of propulsion / confirmed radar visual (electromagnetic interference effects as well).

Pilot drawing

link

a reply to: JimOberg

Don't see how you can talk of logical deductions and raw observations when you abjectly refuse to address some of the more fascinating cases Jimbo.


Post


Veering off topic, using big words (and ego defense) is all well and good but do you actually come on these threads to openly discuss the subject of unidentified flying objects or just do it to advertise your homepage?

originally posted by: Elzon1

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That Iran incident is one of the most interesting cases to me, including the electromagnetic effects, but I don't understand that comment. You can turn a jammer on to shut down communications and to restore communications you simply turn the jammer off. A nuclear EMP is different but nobody has suggested this was a nuclear event.

No not a nuclear event, just an EMP event on a scale that would "normally" be nuclear in nature. From what I can remember about the case is that ALL electronic instruments ceased to function (due to the pilot trying to launch a missile at the craft) and were later turned back on so to speak.

Normally EMP fries everything. In this case everything seemed fried but was later "un-fried".

With the capabilities these craft have I think it shows we are missing something fundamental about our understanding of electromagnetism. I will give you a hint. How would one create an artificial quantum field so as to surround a macro object in it?

Remember, quantum mechanics works on macro objects just like it works on micro objects. Some people think the math only suggests that micro objects can exhibit quantum properties, but reality states otherwise

This electromagnetic effect, is very interesting, our electrical systems generally rely on a negative charge in circuit going to an area of lesser negativity i.e.. the positive end of the circuit, which makes a flow of electrons go around said circuit . If the whole area where this is going on is flooded out with free electrons, their would be no areas of lesser or higher potential to maintain a circuit, so the circuit would stop. So somehow these craft, to have this effect must have a lot of electrons around them, enough to flood out our circuits. So they they work on electrons somehow.

a reply to: JimOberg

Ive seen lots of percentages thrown around as well, who knows whats true or not, perhaps most the cases could have been dismissed out of hand, but are included as part of the statistics anyway.

I dont see any problem with the fireball swarm explanation, its nice to mark a case like the Yukon off the books and try to learn what went wrong in that sighting. But it really does come down to individual sightings, nothing is hidden in the numbers then.

For EMF type effects, Ive always like the Levelland Texas case, or the Hudson Valley sighting over the Indian reactor.

a reply to: JimOberg
First of all I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea what the minority of high-quality UFO sightings represent, and I don't claim them as evidence of ET visitation, I just contend that there's some unknown phenomenon at work that deserves some more research.

As you've pointed out, there are cases where witnesses have either greatly embellished their stories or grossly misidentified explainable objects. I agree with you on the point that witnesses are not always reliable observers, however they can be. In your re-entry case, for instance, you note that half the witnesses reliably observed the sighting. Another important fact is the incredible diversity of different "ships" the witnesses claim to have seen. There's a silver one, a black one with spikes, etc....If a researcher were reviewing this data, he/she would see that a great number of people agreed on a re-entry, and he/she would also see that the rest of the reports all disagreed with one another. It would be fairly easy to determine what the "UFO" actually looked like, even without the satellite reentry data we now have.

Similarly in the UFO phenomenon throughout history, observers agree on certain patterns. Disc shaped, triangle shaped and cigar shaped craft are examples—there are also patterns in their behavior, effects (such as Electro-Magnetism) etc.... If these craft don't exist, how come witnesses don't misidentify them in all different ways, as was the case in the satellite case you linked? Why would these patterns of observations be repeated so often, irrespective of the time period, region of the planet, or cultural background of the observer?

It's fairly easy to dismiss a single case on its own as the result of an unreliable witness, and if these cases were isolated it would be understandable, but they aren't isolated. I think if we were to consider all of these cases together, they would represent evidence of something (again, what exactly I don't know).

a reply to: anonentity


When their is a case where some anomaly has definitely happened. Do the witnesses all report the same thing? as far as reasonable witnesses can report the same thing. Or do they all agree that this is what they have seen,? and then do their own individual reports. Any electronic anomaly that floods the area with free electrons would tend to cause electrical effects on the nervous system. These would cause visual auditory changes to the observed reality.

a reply to: thesearchfortruth

Thanks for the comments. Any progress towards understanding this fascinating subject will rely on careful records kept by legions of dedicated volunteers over many decades, and I am grateful to them for the records that I've used. If we can agree on investigative methodologies, and better define ALL potentially crucial elements of useful reports, we can all hope that future researchers can use such data and such speculations for greater insight. I need to make clear I am NOT claiming to have solved the puzzle. To the contrary, I've identified a number of valuable insights that some of the reports have made possible, so it's worth looking farther.

originally posted by: thesearchfortruth
a reply to: JimOberg
First of all I'm not assuming anything. I have no idea what the minority of high-quality UFO sightings represent, and I don't claim them as evidence of ET visitation,I j ust contend that there's some unknown phenomenon at work that deserves some more research.

As you've pointed out, there are cases where witnesses have either greatly embellished their stories or grossly misidentified explainable objects. I agree with you on the point that witnesses are not always reliable observers, however they can be. In your re-entry case, for instance, you note that half the witnesses reliably observed the sighting. Another important fact is the incredible diversity of different "ships" the witnesses claim to have seen. There's a silver one, a black one with spikes, etc....If a researcher were reviewing this data, he/she would see that a great number of people agreed on a re-entry, and he/she would also see that the rest of the reports all disagreed with one another. It would be fairly easy to determine what the "UFO" actually looked like, even without the satellite reentry data we now have.

Similarly in the UFO phenomenon throughout history, observers agree on certain patterns. Disc shaped, triangle shaped and cigar shaped craft are examples—there are also patterns in their behavior, effects (such as Electro-Magnetism) etc.... If these craft don't exist, how come witnesses don't misidentify them in all different ways, as was the case in the satellite case you linked? Why would these patterns of observations be repeated so often, irrespective of the time period, region of the planet, or cultural background of the observer?

It's fairly easy to dismiss a single case on its own as the result of an unreliable witness, and if these cases were isolated it would be understandable, but they aren't isolated. I think if we were to consider all of these cases together, they would represent evidence of something (again, what exactly I don't know).

Why is the ET possibility not possible for those UFO reports/ sightings that as you say .."I just contend that there's some unknown phenomenon at work that deserves some more research". On what grounds of authority do you present that the ET possibility is NOT possible. Until as you say further research is done then how can we come to a premature conclusion that the ET possibility is NOT possible??