A couple of weeks ago I posted Part 1 of my response to an essay on the UFO Iconoclast blog entitled, The Myth of Man-Made Flying Saucers. That essay listed seven operational and design characteristics of some UFOs that, for the essay writers, defied the notion that humans could be responsible for any technology behind them. These characteristics were:
* The ability to morph appearance (including shape, density and size) often assuming craft configurations that are not even aerodynamic
* Changing state by exhibiting a defined material structure and then appearing as engineered light or plasma-like
* Seamlessly splitting from one craft into multiple craft often creating formations
* Appearing in one part of the sky and in a literal instant appearing in a completely different part of the horizon
* Hovering silently and then moving at tremendous speed- without leaving a plume or contrail or without emitting a sonic boom
* Dodging advanced fighter jet intercepts and playing cat and mouse with the very military that should know of their existence
* Exhibiting flight maneuvers requiring G-forces that surpass the levels of human tolerance and endurance
* Displaying no rivets, bolts, welds, fittings, joints, seams (or intake and exhaust features) that are common and essential to all air and spacecraft in all history
In Part 1 I discussed the first four, explaining the logical disconnects with assuming such characteristics could not be explained in non-ET terms. In this post, I’ll breifly touch on the remainder:
* Hovering silently and then moving at tremendous speed- without leaving a plume or contrail or without emitting a sonic boom
* Dodging advanced fighter jet intercepts and playing cat and mouse with the very military that should know of their existence
* Exhibiting flight maneuvers requiring G-forces that surpass the levels of human tolerance and endurance
* Displaying no rivets, bolts, welds, fittings, joints, seams (or intake and exhaust features) that are common and essential to all air and spacecraft in all history
Some of what I said in Part 1 could apply to the first three of the remainder. In fact, everything listed here could be explained as tricks on the eye, the plasma technology suggestion offered by a commenter to Part 1, and “radar ghosting,” a known technique used by military and intelligence insiders who have sought to perptuate the belief in alien craft. This technique is discussed in Mark Pilkington’s recent book, Mirage Men: An Adventure into Paranoia, Espionage, Psychological Warfare, and UFOs. But I want to add a few other thoughts about them.
First, if a “craft” moves with a tremendous speed to create a sonic boom but does not, that suggests the craft is either (a) not physical, or (b) manipulates the physical forces that would produce the sonic boom. The former argues against an ET craft in my view, at least if we define an ET as a life form subject to physical laws that govern a corporeal embodied being. That leaves the inter-dimensional option, which could dovetail with the second alternative above — the manipulation or defeat of certain physical forces. But does that point to ET? Actually, no. It is epistemologically disingenuous to say it does. Why? Because that conclusion requires that we know with certainty that humans have never achieved a technology that could defeat or bend or “cancel” gravity so that speeds can be achieved for physical craft and there is no sonic boom (or a high degree of certainty — and suspicion is *not* certainty).
We do not have that certainty. As I noted in Part 1, several serious researchers have constructed a good circumstantial case that such technology has existed and does exist, and it is human. I speak here of Joseph Farrel and W.A. Harbinson’s work. (Note that Farrell’s research is not noted anywhere in the UFO Iconoclast essay). I could add Nick Cook’s work investigating anti-gravity and Thomas Valone.
Frankly, any scientist who does serious work in this area was not the first to think of the ideas, equations, problems, possibilities, and techniques that occupy their thoughts. They are standing on the shoulders of others. Some of those others are part of the historical record involving attempts to produce man-made saucers and similar craft back to at least the 1940s. The great unknown is whether or not this research proved successful within the secret operations of the military industrial complex. If it did, we would have our explanation. We just don’t know. But here is the critical point for the current discussion: WHY should this possibility be taken off the table — especially when its reality would account for the very things that supposedly cannot be explained by human efforts? In other words, the UFO Iconoclast list for why UFOs cannot be man-made could be explained by man-made technology if the research we know to have existed in its infancy in the 1940s was pursued and became successful. The list does not rule out humans. It invites the question of whether humans succeeded. There’s no coherent reason to conclude that the list makes the man-made option no longer worth considering.
Second, if “gravity overcoming” technlogy was achieved, the descripotions of the second and third items in the list would be expected and normal. In other words, the description does not compel an alien source. Rather, it compels us to ask anew whether known human research was pursued to success.
Third, the last point is very weak. Even the modicum of aviation design reading I’ve done informs me that these sorts of items were known obstacles or weaknesses to the kinds of human “gravity overcoming” technology that was begun. Put another way, the humans working on this technological pursuit were well aware that new designs that largely eliminated these normal design features had to be re-designed. Further, both Farrell’s works and Harbinson Projeckt UFO discuss certain technologies that allowed air intake through the “skin” of craft. The point: these are known issues to the humans involved, and designs are literally on the books for these sorts of re-designs. The only question is whether they succeeded.
Bottom line: Instead of taking the human answer off the table, given what we know human scientists were working on since the 1940s (questions, goals, and strategies for overcoming gravity or its effects), the UFO Iconoclast list should pique our curiosity as to whether they found solutions. The kinds of technologies that would produce these effects are *not* beyond the human MIND. That much is quite verifiable. The only question is whether they are still beyond human ACHIEVEMENT.
In Part 3 I will revisit the original UFO Iconoclast post for more discussion.
