Unexplained Flying Vehicles
©Peter Thomson 1999/2002
The development of ideas for the charged sheath vortex started with some simple experiments, and I later applied it to the development of tornados.
It was only later that I considered how it might apply to a containment vessel for fusion power, and for a flying vehicle.
That work in turn reminded me of an exercise –supposedly hypothetical – with several students, analysing unexplained sightings of flying vehicles. This is what I wrote at that time:
Unexplained Flying Vehicles
My interest in flying vehicles started at an early age when I stood with my mother at our dining room window and watched asilvery horizontal line low in the western sky. The object slowly moveddown toward the horizon, leaving behind a trail that looked like black smoke.The line shrank and disappeared.
As I watched the smoke trail for several minutes, it started to blow out, but in different directions along its length. The way the trail blew out indicated high altitude winds, and an object appearing at high altitude low on the horizon implied the short silvery line we observed was very long. The silvery line might have been several aircraft flyingwing-tip to wing-tip in formation, the central one laying a smoke trail,possibly part of a flying display - I don't know.
I am working on the hypothesis that most observations of unidentified flying vehicles are hoaxes, balloons, or like mine, possibly aircraft in an unexpected attitude or situation. But I am also assuming thata small and unknown proportion are of unidentified flying vehicles.
Is there any information in those reports that can suggest whether they are real or imaginary vehicles, and if real suggest how they work?
The first characteristic of reports I am rejecting is any report of size or distance. Unless you can identify precisely what you are looking at, you cannot estimate either size or distance. By definition you don't know what its surface features are.
You can measure apparent angular size, such as comparing the size of an unknown object with a known object at a known distance. You can also estimate the distance of an unknown object if it passes in front of or behind a known object, but only if it actually obscures the knownobject. Passing nearby is not sufficient. Neither can you tell how far infront or how far behind it is.
My father worked for a time as an aircraft crash investigator. He told me that frequently untrained observers would report that an aircraft went down in flames, when in reality the aircraft flew into the ground and exploded. These observers often reported lots of little details accurately, but constructed their own 'story' of the events in which the little details were out of sequence.
Far more accurate were the individual details recorded by military personnel who knew they were going to be asked for a reporton what they observed.
So in analysing the data I have looked at the individual details of a report rather than the overall story.
I have paid more attention to military reports, where the personnel involved may have believed that what they were observing were their own sides secret developments - in which case their debriefing maybe checked by someone who knew what they have actually observed - orthey may think they are seeing secret developments by 'the other side'. Inwhich case again I would expect them to report as accurately and objectivelyas possible what they see.
I have also paid more attention when, what might be insignificantdetails are collaborated by independent observers from a different locationwho are not aware of each others reports.
My analysis led to a small list of significant features:
- A bright blue white light from the front of the vehicle.
- A single anular bulge round a vehicle, or two anular bulges round a longer vehicle.
- Non aerodynamic shape
- Can hover, or travel at high velocity faster than sound, or match speed of aircraft.
- Faster than sound does not produce sonic boom.
- Able to accelerate and change direction with great rapidity.
- Only intermittently detected by radar.
- Failure of electrical equipment nearby.
My hypothesis is that if such a vehicle exists, a single propulsion mechanism should be possible that is highly efficient and displays all these features as essential components of its functioning. This mechanism needs to be based on simple physics - with no factor X that answers everything and explains nothing.
The corollary of this is that if I can devise such a mechanism, then these unknown flying vehicles are real!
I think I have devised exactly the mechanism suggested in that much earlier study. Many of the features described in ‘ufo’ reports were consistent, but had no logical explanation in the text books of propulsion systems and aircraft design. The idea of the aerospike as a mechanism for achieving aerodynamic properties for non-aerodynamic vehicles is now well understood. The fission vortex engine provides the specific reasons for the design structures and mechanisms described, and predicts most of the side effects reported from ‘ufos’
The only conclusion that I can come to is that somebody is already flying such vehicles, and alas, I have not made the dramatic breakthrough that I thought, or invented a new power generation system.
However, my next line of research was perhaps the most puzzling.
In trying to deduce what systems might be able to demonstrate fission within a charged sheath vortex, I was following up the possibilityof introducing heavier atomic nuclei such as mercury, and using the charged sheath vortex to compress this until fission took place.
This seemed a reasonable hypothesis, so I started searchingthe literature to see if anyone had considered this within conventional research, or whether anything anomalous had been reported when working with mercury or mercury vapour in conditions where a charged sheath might develop.
The searches revealed no results from fusion research, a few references that might be anomalous results from moving positive charge within mercury.
What did appear were some ancient Indo/European stories translated from Sanskrit.
I could dismiss stories of flying people and chariots as being the stuff of story tellers and legends, but it was the incidental detail that caught my attention. Detail that made coherent sense if thevehicles described were powered by a charged sheath fission engine. Too manytechnologically consistent details for the stories to have been createdby an agricultural culture moving out of the stone age!
These flying vehicles are described as being powered by a vortex of mercury. In order for the mercury vortex to work it needs an iron box. If you open the iron box, radiation from the contents of thebox will burn your skin, like bad sunburn. These vehicles fly with a musical hum. They don’t have a powerful rear exhaust, and they only fly within the atmosphere. There are other vehicles that fly with a powerful rear exhaust, and a roar like thunder that can be used to fly into space. The stories make a very clear distinction between the capabilities of these two types of vehicles.
We also learn that over time this knowledge was lost, and the mercury vortex ceased to work when the contents of the iron box no longer burnt.
The stories also describe complete flying cities,which if this technology were real would not be a problem. What makes me guess that the technology was real is the way the story describes the way the inhabitants of the city behaved after their city was shot down in a battle.Not as people with their roots in agriculture would behave, but as we might expect people whose only experience of life is a modern technological civilisation might behave on losing their technology.
Unfortunately the weapons described in these stories could also be made using fission power from a charged sheath vortex. When you know how the technology works it is very difficult to see these writings as pure stories from the distant past. There is simply too much consistent and working technology in them. These stories can only be fragments of history from the distant past. Twisted, altered, misremembered, but still enough technology remains in these accounts to say with a lot of certainty, we are not the first technological civilisation on this planet.
Such a civilisation may have been very local, nota world-wide global civilisation like our own. Somewhere it must have left its traces. Many of those traces may remain on the continental shelf exposed for the duration of the ice age and now submerged, but there is another vast depository of technological activity on this planet – the ice fields of Greenland and Antarctica that have collected the atmospheric dust year by year sincethe last ice age started. The ice that formed at the time of the Roman empire stores the lead and copper dust of its smelters and mines, but what of themany centuries and millennia before that?
This information is copyright Peter Thomson 2001-2004 -2020