Saturday, April 26, 2014

Cars Stalled by UFOs - Part Two


I have long been under the impression that in many UFO EM cases in which car engines stalled, the car spontaneously started when the UFO departed. I then noticed in a couple of cases that it was reported that the car was restarted, which is not the same as it just restarting up on its own. I had suggested that we might want to revisit these cases of EM effects to see what we might learn from them.

Using various sources including my files, Project Blue Book, Dick Hall’s The UFO Evidence, Mark Rodeghier’s UFO Reports Involving Vehicle Interference (because, frankly, I wasn’t all that interested in UFO interference with radio stations, TV sets, and other such manifestations of EM effects) and The Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (known as the Condon Committee), I was able to learn some interesting things.

The first reported instance of a UFO (described as a globular light) causing any sort of EM effect was on May 19, 1909. A motorcyclist said that his headlight failed as the light passed overhead. When it was gone, the motorcycle light came back on.

The first case in which an engine was stalled was from California in the spring of 1944 or 1945. According to the APRO Bulletin of Jan/Feb 1968, two school teachers were driving in the mountains when their car engine stalled. They spotted a cigar-shaped craft hanging motionless in the air. After watching it for a while, the driver turned the key to start the engine, but it wouldn’t start. When the object left, the driver tried again, but the car still would not start. After several minutes a tow truck driver stopped to help but could find no reason for the engine to quit or why it wouldn’t start when it started by itself.

The first case in which the car had to be started after the UFO disappeared was reported on September 13, 1952 from Frametown, West Virginia, which is part of the Flatwoods Monster case. A couple said they were traveling with their daughter when they saw a bright light and their car stalled. They did see a creature, which is irrelevant to us here. When the UFO took off, apparently after recovering the creature, the car could then be restarted.

From then on, it seemed that the rule was that the car, if stalled, had to be restarted. According to an analysis of the cases, it seems that in only five to six percent of the reports that involved a stalled engine did the car start without an action taken by the driver.

I will note here that there were a number of cases in which it wasn’t clear if the car had to be restarted or if it restarted on its own. In those reports, it was noted only that once the UFO was gone, the “car acted normally.” That could mean almost anything, including that the engine started spontaneously or that the driver started it.

The other thing to be noted is that I found many cases in which the radios filled with static and the headlights dimmed or faded out completely, but the engine didn’t stall. In some of them the engine began to run roughly or sputtered, but never stopped. In these reports once the UFO was gone, the engine smoothed out and the lights and the radio began to operate properly as well.

Rodeghier reported that for a long time that it was only the gasoline engines that stalled but diesel engines seemed to be immune. Rodeghier wrote, “For example, a UFO passed over two tractors in Forli, Italy, on November 14, 1954, one tractor with a diesel engine the other with an internal combustion engine. The engine of the diesel tractor continued to operate, but the other tractor’s engine stopped and could not be started until the UFO had vanished.”

The Condon Committee, without much apparent enthusiasm, attempted to study EM effects. They looked at one case that had happened while their investigation was in progress. They found discrepancies in the witness story, didn’t like that it was single witness, and found no evidence that the car had been subjected to a powerful magnetic field. They concluded that, “Because of the vagueness of the witness’ description of the ‘object,’ the wide inconsistencies in his estimates of its size and distance, the fact that no one else observed the alleged event, and the fact that the car body did not show evidence of exposure to strong magnetic fields, more detailed investigation of this event as a source of evidence related to electro-magnetic effect on automobiles did not seem warranted.”

They eventually concluded the claims of interference with engines were the most puzzling. “The claim is frequently made, sometimes in reports that are impressive because they involve multiple independent witnesses. Witnesses seem certain that the function of their cars was affected by the unidentified object, which sometimes reportedly was not seen until after the malfunction was noted. No satisfactory explanation for such effects, if indeed they occurred, is apparent.”

Or, in other words, this is truly puzzling, but we’re just not sure that such things happen. We investigated one case of a single witness, and we just don’t like it because he was unable to estimate the size and distance to the UFO with any sort of reliability. And while we know about Levelland (as noted in their index with but a single reference to it), we just don’t think these things happen and therefore we reject them.

What I learned here is that very few of the cases in which the car stalled, did the engine seem to restart spontaneously. The number of so low, that I wonder if, as has been suggested by others elsewhere, that those reports are in error. That the driver, without realizing it, did something to cause the car to restart. There seems to be no mechanical, chemical, or electrical reason for the engine to start without an action by the driver. Nearly everyone agrees with this from the scientists of the Condon Committee to mechanics and automobile engineers. Once the circuit is interrupted, the car will not start unless someone does something.

37 comments:

Larry said...

Kevin: one of the technologies that is being adopted worldwide for reducing fuel consumption in autos is so-called stop-start cycling. When the car stops for more that a few seconds (such as at a stop light) the engine turns off. As soon as the driver presses the accelerator pedal, the engine restarts. In places where this is implemented (e.g., Europe) it eliminates the fuel consumed during idling.

When a multicylinder engine is stopped, one of the cylinders will end up in position to execute the power stroke of a four-stroke engine cycle. With modern electronic control of engines, it is trivially easy to keep track of where the crankshaft stopped in the cycle, to apply a shot of fuel from the injector, and to apply a spark to the correct cylinder (since most auto engines these days have one coil per spark plug). Some auto makers are experimenting with this means of restarting an engine, instead of a starter motor, although I don't know if it has made it into production or not.

It occurs to me a similar process could occur in engines supposedly stopped by UFOs, IF (and it's a big if) the departure of the UFO created either a spark or some other ignition source in ALL of the cylinders of the stopped motor. This would bypass the usual points and rotor ignition system, which can only supply spark to one cylinder at a time. I don't know what such an ignition source could be, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand.

Don Maor said...

As I said previously, it should not suprise us the spontaneus restart of a car after a UFO close encounter. Even if Kevin is correct in saying that the quantity of such cases is small compared to all EM cases, this is again, not enough to say that such cases are errors of perception by the witnesses.

The ability of some UFOs to intentionally deactivate or activate human technology at will is shown by the work of Hastings regarding UFO and nuclear facilities.

KRandle said...

Larry -

We have many technologies that allow for the restart of the engine without turning a key. But all of them require some action by the driver. In the example you cite, the driver touches the accelerator and the car starts.

My own car allows me to start it from inside the house. I don't need to be near the car to start it, but I must take some action to do so.

Don -

You can make your own analysis of the data available. It is clear that in the vast majority of the cases it was reported that when the UFO left the area, then the car could be restarted. In very few was it reported that the car started spontaneously. It's the numbers that show this.

All I'm saying here is that it is possible that the cars didn't restart spontaneously, but the drivers did something to start them. It could be that the drivers are accurately reporting exactly what happened, that the cars did restart spontaneously. I really don't have the answer here.

The point I was making was that although I had thought that in most of these cases the cars did start spontaneous, that was not accurate. In the majority, the driver took some action to restart them (such as the car that they pushed down hill that started when they popped the clutch, something that those of us old enough to remember was the way to start a car if the battery was dead).

David Rudiak said...

It could conceivably be the case that UFOs might deliberately stall vehicles. Similarly, they might deliberately restart them in some way. I suggested maybe they could give them a push-start. If the car was in gear and the ignition key still on, that would be a simple way to do it. But I don't know off-hand of an example where a witness reported the car being jerked forward and the engine restarting.

Or maybe they deliberately EM pulse the primary ignition wire with the intent of generating a high-voltage spark in the secondaries and perhaps igniting a cylinder already primed with a gas/air mixture. (But, as pointed out, there are problems with that idea as well, such as rapid loss of compression in the cylinder.)

I think the much more important point is the large number of reports where witnesses report their car (or some other internal combustion engine) stalling or misfiring in conjunction with sighting of a UFO. Exactly how this might work is obviously a matter of heated debate here and elsewhere, but it has been reported so often and for so long from all over the world that there seems little question that it happens. (Unless you are a hard-core skeptic, in which case 10,000 such cases would not convince you.)

Don Maor said...

I agree that the most important thing is the malfunctioning by car engines caused by UFO proximity. This clearly points to the physical reality of UFOs. The difference of effect on gasoline motors versus diesel motors also impressively suggests an EM effect in action.

Nevertheless, the issue of intentionality (or not) should be kept in mind. For example, a UFO accidentally gets close to a car and then the engine of the car fails. Nothing happens except for the obvious: the car stops. But what would happen if the UFO accidentally gets closer to a helicopter? The engine fails and then Kaboom!

Therefore, if UFOs are intelligently controlled, the following questions beg answer: Are UFOs aware of the technology used by human vehicles? Can theirs technology remotely (at some distance) know how our technological devices work? Can theirs technology affect human technology by accident? Can theirs technology affect human technology intentionally?

One might also suggest the following correspondence:

intentional interference = extremely advanced technology inside the UFO
not intentional interference = possibly comparable technology inside the UFO

Regards,

Chuck Finley said...

Kevin -

Why did you ignore the first published examination of this reported vehicular interference effect -

http://www.nicap.org/bios/mccampbell.htm

Graham said...

Don - There is a problem with what you have said. Stories of cars stopping mysteriously actually predate 1947 by a number of years.

In R.V Jone's book "Most Secret War" he recounts a story he heard in the 1930's that supposedly originated in Germany.

The story (As I remember it) is that the witness was driving along a road and their cars engine suddenly stopped. Shortly after this a soldier appeared and told the witness that they would be unable to start their car until the soldier instructed them to do so. After an unspecified period of time the solder would instruct the witness to start their car and the engine would start on the first go.

Jones claimed that after the war it was discovered that the German state broadcaster had planned to establish a television network and had mapped out possible transmitter locations.

When testing which locations would provide the best coverage it was discovered that emissions from engine ignition systems drowned out the test signals. So it was arranged that during the tests the army would stop all traffic in the test area until the measurments were completed.

Jones then went on to speculate that a witness or someone retelling the story omitted the part where the soldier came out and ordered the car to stop and turn the engine off, thus creating the 'engine stopping' story.

Whether true or not, the idea does seem to (as stated earlier) predate the 1947 Arnold siting.

starman said...

Don, remember the Coyne case? The chopper was "pulled" by the UFO but there was no engine stopping or "kaboom." ETs advanced enough to get here would know all about our technology--it would be unwise to come here en masse not knowing what they might face--and their actions are intentional.

KRandle said...

Don -

Engine failures on helicopters are not rare and we practiced for that frequently. There is something called a free wheeling clutch that disengages the rotot from the engine so that the rotor continues to spin. As the helicopter falls, air pressure keeps the rotor spinning so that, as you approach the ground, you can slow the descent and set the aircraft down gently. I had an engine failure at 2000 feet and was able to land without damage to the aircraft. No Kaboom.

Chuck -

No reason, I just made a quick survey... thanks for publishing the references.

Don Maor said...

to Graham: I don't know where are you going with your story. Your story seems not to be related with UFOs. On the other hand, everyone here knows that there are UFO cases predating Arnold's Case. So what?

to Starman: Yes, I think that there should exist some degree of control, responsibility or intentionality in the behavior of UFOs getting close to humans. Of course, we can not make generalizations. There have been cases of irresponsible UFOs, in which damage to people has indeed ocurred (e.g. Cash Landrum.).

To Kevin: Thanks for the clarification. However, your example absolutely does not affect the principle on which is based my warning. There maybe still be big problems with helicopters with engine failure, if lights also fail in night time, if stabilizing systems also fail, or if the helicopter is flying over the sea, or over dense woods, rocky mountains, etc. Your example seems to be only a subterfuge.

KRandle said...

Don -

Do you wish to argue simply to hear your own voice? Do you not understand that I am a rated helicopter pilot with nearly 1200 hours of combat flight time and nearly 2000 hours of total time?

What stabilization system do you refer to?

The procedures for an autorotation (meaning the engine has failed) are practiced routinely. If you are over trees, you shoot the autorotation to the tops of the trees so that you settle into them gently... not the best of situations but one that can be overcome.

If you are over the ocean, you shoot to the surface of the ocean and then unass the aircraft as quickly as you can... and with your life jacket.

If the lights fail, or the instrucments fail, you look outside the cockpit.

I simplified the explanation because I didn't think we needed to discuss, at length, the various emergency procedures for various types of failures of the helicopter. I was attempting to point out that if the engine quit, the pilot had emergency options... and they covered the various scenarios you mention.

Just how is my explanation about helicopter emergency procedures subterfuge? On what do you base that? Where did you train to be a helicopter pilot or are you just making it up as you go along?

If I say the grass is green, would you then suggest that not all grass was green, that grass can turn brown, or mention that blue grass suggests that some grass is not green?

David Rudiak said...

Regarding intentionality, one of the clearest examples of intentionality was the 1976 Tehran UFO incident where two two F-4 Phantom interceptors had their communications and other instrumentation knocked out when they came within 25 miles of the UFO and one had its weapons system deactivated when the pilot prepared to fire a missile. Systems were all restored when the F-4s turned away and ceased pursuit. One UFO pursued the second F-4 as it went to land, with the control tower reporting its electronics knocked out as the UFO passed, though the rest of the airport was unaffected, again a sign of intentionality, with only certain targets affected. On the other hand, a commercial airliner landing at the time reported it also lost its communications, perhaps an unintentional byproduct of the other targeted interference. Various high Iranian military officers were of the opinion the UFO was using high-power EM weapons to jam the F-4 instrumentation.

Robert Hastings has documented a number of incidents at our nuclear missile sites of our missiles being knocked offline by UFOs, again an example of deliberate targeting.

The November 1957 car stalling wave starting in Levelland, Texas, also seems to have a hint of intentionality to it. In most UFO close encounter cases, car stalling is not reported. In Levelland, at least, numerous such stallings were reported by anyone getting close to the egg-shaped UFO.

Many of these waves and major incidents seem to be demonstrations of various technological capabilities, perhaps sending an indirect message to authorities of technological superiority that best not be challenged.

Lance said...

Rudiak, in typical believer fashion, reports the 1976 incident as though there is no dispute in the breathless narrative he relates. Not that many folks here will be interested but there is considerable dispute of the facts.

Additionally, saying that Hastings documents anything is to enter into the world of the credulous believer buff.

Lance

Steve Sawyer said...

@Lance:

Don't you have anything better to do with your time and energy than be the ever-persistent and obvious debunker and pseudo-skeptic over here?

Why not stick to "safe" terrritory, like that "other" blog whose commenters are generally of like, CSIcopian, self-satisfied, and blindered "mind"?

Don't you guys have anything more productive to do than simply complain in the rain of your own frustrato tears of faux scientism about other people's blogs and their respective commenters?

I mean, come on: it's obvious, old, and risible by now. A moldering chestnut.

Acting the silly agent provocateur, or surrogate for those of like mind, is so very unbecoming, embarrassing, and just plain silly. You make yourself, and others, so very transparent.

Remember the boy who stated the obvious: the Emperor wears no clothes.

Steve Sawyer said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
KRandle said...

All -

As usual, we have slipped off the rails... no more about Iranian jets, nuclear missiles, and the like. If you have something relevant to say, please say it. Posts that don't relate to this topic will be removed.

Don Maor said...

Kevin,

In a nutshell: You reached the conclusion that tales of spontaneous starts in car engines were probably errors of perception or expression by witnesses. I warned you that your conclusion maybe a little premature and unwarranted. That is all.

I appreciate your teachings about helicopter driving ability and applaud all the strategies planned by military personnel in order to avoid accidents. All of this does not deny the principles of my argumentation.

Don Maor said...

I forgot to respond these questions from Kevin:

Kevin asked "Just how is my explanation about helicopter emergency procedures subterfuge? On what do you base that? Where did you train to be a helicopter pilot or are you just making it up as you go along?"

Response:

I am not a pilot.

It is a subterfuge because it is just an excuse to not to accept the warning, if I can call it so.

Kevin, please see the very basics of it: I was telling that a flying vehicle may have problems if a UFO approaches it or disturb it Then you come up with a class on why military helicopter are so safe, etc. You frankly give the impression that helicopters accidents never occur, that all pilots are as cool as you were, or that all helicopters are military. Not one of the previous is true, off course.

KRandle said...

Don -

I "wondered" if the tales of spontaneous car starts were errors by the drivers, not that they were. I noted that nearly everyone with expert knowledge suggested that such things were impossible. I noted that I had thought the idea much more widespread and was surprised to see that in many cases the drivers took action to restart their cars.

I took excpetion to your unfounded statement that if a UFO approached a helicopter and the engine quit, then that was it. I merely noted that there were emergency procedures to follow and having an engine quit, for whatever reason, was not unheard of. I mentioned that the pilot would enter autorotation.

I don't know why you wish to take this to an extreme and I don't know why you mentioned helicopters as opposed to airplanes because many airplanes have the glide ratio of a rock.

You wrote that if a UFO got close to a UFO then the engine fails then kaboom. I said not necessarily... that the helicopter could be landed safely. Your statement was not based on fact but on your own speculation. My was based on experience.

There was no subterfuge... I merely stated a fact... if a helicopter's engine fails, that is not the end... sling the main rotor and you're in deeply, but the engine quitting is an inconvenience, if you have the altitude to work with. I objected to your conclusion that if the engine failed, kaboom. You are in error.

Don Maor said...

All right Kevin. I got it. You were wondering about the possibility of errors of perception. As was shown, intentionality on part of UFOs may complicate conclusions in this sense.

Also. Not always will be kaboom and not always be the end. Again I appreciate this teaching and I probably should have known better.

Nevertheless, let's agree that a stall of the helicopter's engine is an undesirable event that may be problematic, dangerous, or very dangerous, if the helicopter is flying at very high altitude, flying over the cold sea or enemy's sea or enemy's territory, or over a place where landing is impossible or undesirable. If we add problems with instruments and lights, the undesirability grows up.

William Strathman said...

b"h

Just a note on helo engines. If I'm not mistaken, after a turbine is started (via the igniter) there is no electrical input that maintains the combustion - it is self-sustaining as long as there is fuel, air and high-speed rotation of the turbine shaft. At least such was the case for J79's of the F-4s that I was a technician for. If so, then no electrical field would shut down a turbojet such as in F-4s, or the turbines in Hueys and most all modern helos. So turbine powered helos, such as Coyne's Huey, would not of necessity lose power, in contrast to internal combustion engines that require continuous sparking in the cylinders to ignite fuel.

Anthony Mugan said...

It could be useful if one or more of the larger organisations in the field could fund an experimental programme to see if this whole question can get locked down.

David Rudiak said...

Leonard Stringfield related a personal UFO encounter while flying on a C-46 en route to Japan at wars end. Three bright UFOs flew nearby and the planes two engines simultaneously started misfiring and dying. Preparations were made to ditch the plane, but the UFOs departed the area and both engines started operating normally again. This got Stringfield going in the UFO business.

Don't know offhand of other UFO-related internal combustion airplane engine stalling cases (where the aircraft had ignition systems), but they are probably out there.

Besides interfering with ignition in some way, another way to kill an engine is to interfere with the fuel pump, which again would probably involve interfering with the electrical power supply (unless the fuel pump is mechanical rather than electrical). On car stalling cases, usually people report other parts of the car's electrical system also failing or being interfered with, including headlights and interior lights, radio, and dashboard lights. Perhaps fuel pumps are more exposed than the ignition system itself, and thus more vulnerable to EM interference. Also, they are low voltage, like the various lights, radio, etc., which also seem susceptible to such interference.

William Strathman said...

b"h

On page 18 of the following link is an FAA diagram of a DC-3 (C-47) fuel system.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_ch14.pdf

The two main pumps (12 and 13) are mechanical, driven by the engines. I suspect that many or most aircraft of that era (e.g. C-46) were also equipped with mechanical main pumps. They probably had boost pumps which would be electrical, but they would not be the main pump used for flight. This FAA document also mentions that many high-wing GA aircraft use gravity feed. Valentich was flying a high-wing Cessna, so it was probably gravity feed, though I don't know. If so, his reported engine problems probably weren't related to electrical interference of the fuel pump.

In any case, it would probably be good to review all incidents of engine failure to determine what kind of fuel pump was used.

One other note on the F-4 systems failure in the 1976 incident. I was a radar tech for F-4s and also had a turn up license (i.e. able to operate the engines on the ground). A few years ago Martin Shough asked me to look at his analysis of the 1976 incident. One of the first things that came to my mind as former ground support personnel was whether or not during the electrical system failures any circuit breakers popped and had to be reset. The F-4 has several rather large panels of dozens of circuit breakers. There's no report in anything I've ever read on the '76 incident that says the aircrew reset circuit breakers. If they did not, then the intermittant system failure is quite unusual. Even if a CB did pop and was reset, it still seems quite unusual that certain systems would fail, e.g. the fire-control system. I suggested to Shough that he try to contact a friend of Bruce Maccabbee who was an F-4 tech rep in Tehran at the time.

By your leave Kevin, a final note: one of those F-4 radar operators got a radar Lock on the object and the velocity difference (i.e. closure rate) between the object and the F-4 was registered on the scope display. As I recall, the max range for a radar lock was 50 miles, but was usually made in the 20-30 mile range. So the lock on was of some nearby object. To me, the registered closure rate on the scope says an awful lot.

albertguitar.com said...

As I recall, automobiles had mechanical fuel pumps well into the 60's.

"An engine restarting itself" is a rather inaccurate statement; I'd prefer "an engine being restarted by some unexplainable influence". The result of that influence might be obvious, such as pressing a starter switch. HOW that switch was pressed is the unexplainable influence. There are other ways to start a gas-power IC engine. Mechanically rotating the engine is one. As I pointed out earlier, GM tried the starterless engine and failed. Also, even (modern) diesels and gas turbines have electrically operated fuel valves. I'm inclined to believe that a totally mechanical diesel (or gas turbine) would not be influenced by UFO interference. As long as there's fuel, they run.


I'm inclined subscribe to the simplest explanation: inaccurate reporting, or mistaken witnesses.

Those who imbue UFOs with magic powers are wasting their time with physics and EM what not. Why not just say "they pushed the button, but we don't know how"?

That said, I don't mean to discredit the information that we all (or most of us) seem to agree on: There are as yet unexplainable effects happening during some UFO encounters. Interference with electrical systems is one of them. Whether or not these are intentional effects remains to be seen.

Taking ICBMs "off-line" has never been explained, and will probably remain classified for a long time. IF we had the design information for the launch system, we MIGHT be able to point to certain circuits, or other elements that will duplicate those reported effects. Again, are these intentional, or just a 'normal' result of UFO proximity?

I gotta go...

Don Maor said...

Hello albert:

Who are the ones that imbue UFOs with magical powers? Proponents of paraufology?

albertguitar.com said...

@Don

I mean in Arthur C. Clarkes sense of the word 'magic'.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that super-advanced technologies exist.

I'm not willing to ascribe all unexplainable phenomena to them.

Are there technologies that can remotely push a button, or turn a crank? It's possible, and perhaps, likely. That's what I mean by 'magic'.

I gotta go...

albertguitar.com said...

@William

I'm guessing that turbine engines are normally stopped by shutting off the fuel supply. Today, this must be done by electrically operated valves.

Outside electrical interference _might_ disrupt such a system. The problem is this: modern aircraft have wedded computerized avionics to the relatively simple electrical systems of old. Even motor-actuators have computers in them! This makes modern aircraft much more susceptible to electrical interference.

I might point out that military research in the field of EM interference must be classified, because without computers, we have no military.

I gotta go...

David Rudiak said...

Went through Keith Basterfield’s “Catalog of Australian UFO Vehicle Interference Cases” looking for any that resembled self-starting cases:

http://www.project1947.com/kbcat/kbvehint0505.htm

I came up with 5 or 6 (below and second post) #6 is clearly the person jump-starting the car in gear while it was still rolling. In #3 and #5, the car may still have been rolling and maybe jump-started. In #1 and #2, witnesses reported a sense of total loss of control over the car (a few other cases in the catalog cite this as well, but with no self-start) with no sensation of slowing down (or speeding up in #1). In #2, the witness reported the car self-starting after receiving messages and voices in her head. In #1, the car “instantly” stopped from around 60 mph and “instantly” went back to the same speed after the UFO departed (after first shining a light at him). In these I speculate the UFO field propulsion enveloped the car leaving the drivers with no sensation of acceleration or deceleration. A jerkless jump-start might get the engine going again. (Again, pure speculation!)

Case #4 was an auto mechanic who got out of his car after the engine stopped and electrical systems went out and he tried to fix it, including swapping the battery, but that didn’t work either. He couldn’t find anything wrong. Another oddity was that his magnetic flashlight/torch would no longer stick to the car. Then a UFO approached and passed over his head. Suddenly the engine started up on its own while he was touching the fan belt (but then stopped again) Then the headlights and radio came on by themselves as well. A jump-start hardly seems likely here with him standing outside the car in front of it. In fact, it is hard to think of any explanation other than someone turning the ignition key to engage the electrical system and starter motor, but the man was outside looking under the hood in his story.

1) 30 Oct 1967 Boyup Brook WA 2130hrs
A man traveling at ninety five to one hundred km/h... (~60 mph) became aware of a lighted object approaching him from the air. Almost immediately the car stopped dead and all the electrical system, lights, motor and radio went dead. There was no feeling of deceleration at all, but the car came to an instant stop. When the car stopped he noticed that he was immersed in a beam of light which seemed to come from a tube, which in turn issued from the object. ...The object itself was some ten metres in diameter and about thirty metres up in the air. The tube came out of it at a forty-five degree angle and focussed right on the driver... [When the object rapidly departed] The reporter then stated that the vehicle was then doing the same speed as before it all began, i.e. ninety five to one hundred km/h. However, there had been no feeling of acceleration from stop to that speed....

2) 25 Jul 1972 Frankston Vic 2115hrs
...close encounter with a large iridescent blue object... on Jul 3 1972 ... estimated ...5 to 6 metres high and 30 metres across... On the latter date she was travelling home when at the same time and about the same location... The road was lit up by a blue light, and she accelerated the car. Suddenly the engine cut out as if turned off with the key. Thinking it had stalled, she turned the ignition key but this had no affect. The car slowed to a halt at the side of the road and stopped all by itself. During this period turning the steering wheel did not alter the direction of travel, pumping the brake was to no avail and putting the gears through all their positions did nothing. However, the lights remained on at all times. She maintained there were no unusual road bumps as the car came to a halt. There was no feeling of the road being under the wheels. All sounds "drained" out of the air and there was an eerie silence. Then she felt she was receiving a message and a voice appeared to be inside her head. As the impressions ceased the engine started itself, the outside blue light went out and the object was gone.

David Rudiak said...

part 2 of 2:

3) 2 May 1973 Kalyan SA 1930hrs
...Driving at fifty-five km/h (~35 mph)... he watched the light. There was no change in size or brightness yet he had the feeling the object flew over the truck, as it rose in elevation as viewed against the windscreen. The truck's engine stopped and the lights went out leaving him rolling in darkness. Neither the red ignition light nor the green oil light came on. He instinctively braked slowly and after four to five seconds whilst the truck was still rolling, the lights and engine came back on by themselves. [perhaps jump started while in gear?]

4) 17 Sep 1976 Wingen NSW 0330hrs
Auto mechanic... Suddenly his car started to slow down and the lights went out. He pulled the car up and tried to restart the engine. No ignition, dash or headlights were operating. He noted the speedometer varying from zero to forty km/h even though the vehicle was stationary. He checked under the bonnet but found nothing amiss. He grabbed his torch, but it wouldn't work. It also wouldn't stick to the car even though it was magnetic. He fitted new batteries but it still didn't work. He then noticed a bright light on his left heading his way. It became brighter and after two minutes it was seen clearly as a roundish object only some four metres off the ground. It passed directly over his car and gave out a slight amount of heat. No sound or any distinguishing features were noted. Its speed was forty km/h and it passed off into the distance. As he touched the fan belt the engine started itself. It just as quickly stopped. Then the headlights and radio came on by themselves. Finally he drove off with all systems operating.


5) 22 Apr 1977 Adelaide SA 2345hrs
A woman was returning home when suddenly she saw a bright light ahead of the car. It became bigger and brighter as if approaching. The headlights of the car and the radio went off, then the two red ignition and oil lights came on indicating the motor had stalled. After a few seconds all systems came back on. [not clear if engine fully stopped or possibly jump started while car rolling] A magnetic signature check revealed nothing of significance.

6) 2 Jul 1977 Sandfly Tas Ca. 2300hrs
An eighteen year old man and his sister were driving at fifty km/h (30 mph) when the man noticed a reflection in the middle of his outside rear vision mirror, of a very bright red light. It seemed near the ground 250 metres away. The light may have followed the car. ...Soon after the light was seen the car's engine seemed to lose power for fifteen to twenty seconds as if the ignition had been turned off. The driver let the clutch out, selected first gear and coasted down a slight decline and clutch started the engine. The light had by now gone. Later on going up an incline the same thing happened again. However, it did not quite stop and he used the ignition to restart it. [Clear jump starting case]

jmgk said...

Just wanted to say I enjoy the increased frequency of posts and updates on your site. Keep up the great and interesting work!

albertguitar.com said...

@David

Cases 3,5, and 6 seem to be 'standard'(!) UFO-related electrical system anomalies.

Case 4 would also be included, except for the engine starting by itself.

Cases 1 & 2 are a problem. Since there are no 'uninvolved' witnesses to any of these cases, I have to say I think some of the sensations experienced by those folks may have been not have been physical, but psychological in nature.

I gotta go...

Don Maor said...

@Albert
Albeit your conclusions regarding cases #1 and #2 are conservative, they are not necessarily correct.

If the intention of the UFO is to influence the car, we can expect it to mess with the car electric and electronic devices, car energy supply, car inertia, car position, and ultimately, the mind of the human driver.

albertguitar.com said...

@Don

I appreciate your comment.

'Intention' is really the point (aside from the obvious "OMG it's a UFO!").

Is it the intention of the UFO controller to control physical/mental processes, or is it just a side effect* of the UFOs proximity?

I lean towards the latter.

I gotta go...

*Perhaps determined empirically, which raises the question: Are these encounters experimental?

haints said...

What about the possibility that the engine never actually stalls, but that time changes for the human observer? When time is frozen, the engine would appear to have stopped, and when time resumes, the engine would appear to be running.

albertguitar.com said...

@haints

'Time' doesn't change for the human observer, but his perception of events may change. This comes under the 'psychological' heading.

We can only experience time by counting events, but we can be amazingly inaccurate when trying to estimate the passage of time.

I gotta go...

Lynda T said...

I was very young when IT happened to me. It was probably about 1960, we were on our way to my grandmother's. I was in the front seat, middle section. Back in the old days when a 3 or 4 year old wasn't strapped down. The part about the car I remember is that the car radio was very scratchy and the car was acting funny and then shut down. There was a bright light overhead. I don't remember the part about the car being started or starting up. I remember a lot more, not that part. I know I never went back to her house after that night.