tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post9064395684002763284..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Cars Stalled by UFOs - Part TwoKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-28359834884644535022016-06-14T09:41:43.355-07:002016-06-14T09:41:43.355-07:00Egads! You need an edit function on here!
WERE an...Egads! You need an edit function on here!<br />WERE and NOT where. TWICE!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13180334825605259129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77128261925767272072016-06-02T23:54:27.992-07:002016-06-02T23:54:27.992-07:00I too have studied Dr. Rodegheir's book and pu...I too have studied Dr. Rodegheir's book and puzzled at the "self-start"<br />engines and also wondered whether the reports of being able to be<br />restarted later where misinterpreted as "self-starts". I noticed in <br />some of the cases where the car died and then "restarted" by itself<br />that it was not reported whether the car was still moving when it died.<br />I assumed that many where and at a time that most cars where standard<br />transmissions. The UFO appears, the car dies while moving, the UFO goes away, while the<br />car is still rolling and "voila" the car restarts. No mystery there. <br />The mystery is why the head lights died to begin with and I know the answer<br />to that question with definitive finality. No, I won't tell yet because<br />I am writing a book on ufo propulsion that I should have written eighteen<br />years ago. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13180334825605259129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70489537269509256402014-05-14T18:45:50.349-07:002014-05-14T18:45:50.349-07:00I was very young when IT happened to me. It was pr...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65723903030323512322014-05-08T10:09:11.264-07:002014-05-08T10:09:11.264-07:00@haints
'Time' doesn't change for the...@haints<br /><br />'Time' doesn't change for the human observer, but his perception of events may change. This comes under the 'psychological' heading.<br /><br />We can only experience time by counting events, but we can be amazingly inaccurate when trying to estimate the passage of time.<br /><br />I gotta go... alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-45622779853758385002014-05-04T11:41:27.138-07:002014-05-04T11:41:27.138-07:00What about the possibility that the engine never a...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.haintshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619704032068100338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73764552796023903282014-05-01T10:43:52.064-07:002014-05-01T10:43:52.064-07:00@Don
I appreciate your comment.
'Intention&#...@Don<br /><br />I appreciate your comment.<br /><br />'Intention' is really the point (aside from the obvious "OMG it's a UFO!").<br /><br />Is it the intention of the UFO controller to control physical/mental processes, or is it just a side effect* of the UFOs proximity?<br /><br />I lean towards the latter.<br /><br />I gotta go...<br /><br />*Perhaps determined empirically, which raises the question: Are these encounters experimental?alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32919767435238237742014-05-01T08:36:20.131-07:002014-05-01T08:36:20.131-07:00@Albert
Albeit your conclusions regarding cases #1...@Albert<br />Albeit your conclusions regarding cases #1 and #2 are conservative, they are not necessarily correct.<br /><br />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.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-37589504965492129032014-05-01T07:09:02.705-07:002014-05-01T07:09:02.705-07:00@David
Cases 3,5, and 6 seem to be 'standard&...@David<br /><br />Cases 3,5, and 6 seem to be 'standard'(!) UFO-related electrical system anomalies.<br /><br />Case 4 would also be included, except for the engine starting by itself.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I gotta go... alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17120752623685474362014-04-30T12:42:45.481-07:002014-04-30T12:42:45.481-07:00Just wanted to say I enjoy the increased frequency...Just wanted to say I enjoy the increased frequency of posts and updates on your site. Keep up the great and interesting work!jmgkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04451598189367033789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62862792550582073472014-04-30T10:15:17.472-07:002014-04-30T10:15:17.472-07:00part 2 of 2:
3) 2 May 1973 Kalyan SA 1930hrs
......part 2 of 2:<br /><br />3) 2 May 1973 Kalyan SA 1930hrs<br />...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 <i>after four to five seconds whilst the truck was still rolling, the lights and engine came back on by themselves.</i> [perhaps jump started while in gear?]<br /><br />4) 17 Sep 1976 Wingen NSW 0330hrs <br />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. <i>As he touched the fan belt the engine started itself. It just as quickly stopped. Then the headlights and radio came on by themselves.</i> Finally he drove off with all systems operating. <br /><br /><br />5) 22 Apr 1977 Adelaide SA 2345hrs<br />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 <i>the two red ignition and oil lights came on indicating the motor had stalled. After a few seconds all systems came back on.</i> [not clear if engine fully stopped or possibly jump started while car rolling] A magnetic signature check revealed nothing of significance. <br /><br />6) 2 Jul 1977 Sandfly Tas Ca. 2300hrs<br />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]David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-3453119805413135082014-04-30T10:12:51.329-07:002014-04-30T10:12:51.329-07:00Went through Keith Basterfield’s “Catalog of Austr...Went through Keith Basterfield’s “Catalog of Australian UFO Vehicle Interference Cases” looking for any that resembled self-starting cases:<br /><br />http://www.project1947.com/kbcat/kbvehint0505.htm<br /><br />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!)<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />1) 30 Oct 1967 Boyup Brook WA 2130hrs<br />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. <i>There was no feeling of deceleration at all, but the car came to an instant stop.</i> 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] <i>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.</i>... <br /><br />2) 25 Jul 1972 Frankston Vic 2115hrs<br />...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 <i>the engine started itself</i>, the outside blue light went out and the object was gone.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-68992018531564221652014-04-30T08:42:07.491-07:002014-04-30T08:42:07.491-07:00@William
I'm guessing that turbine engines ar...@William<br /><br />I'm guessing that turbine engines are normally stopped by shutting off the fuel supply. Today, this must be done by electrically operated valves.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />I might point out that military research in the field of EM interference must be classified, because without computers, we have no military.<br /><br />I gotta go...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-25585345530885557362014-04-30T08:23:57.532-07:002014-04-30T08:23:57.532-07:00@Don
I mean in Arthur C. Clarkes sense of the wor...@Don<br /><br />I mean in Arthur C. Clarkes sense of the word 'magic'. <br /><br />I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that super-advanced technologies exist. <br /><br />I'm not willing to ascribe all unexplainable phenomena to them. <br /><br />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'.<br /><br />I gotta go...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31908122705871324042014-04-30T06:17:48.011-07:002014-04-30T06:17:48.011-07:00Hello albert:
Who are the ones that imbue UFOs wi...Hello albert:<br /><br />Who are the ones that imbue UFOs with magical powers? Proponents of paraufology?Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-4757104310983379912014-04-29T09:45:25.992-07:002014-04-29T09:45:25.992-07:00As I recall, automobiles had mechanical fuel pumps...As I recall, automobiles had mechanical fuel pumps well into the 60's.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br /><br />I'm inclined subscribe to the simplest explanation: inaccurate reporting, or mistaken witnesses.<br /><br />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"?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />I gotta go...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1122842775079566122014-04-29T04:24:41.231-07:002014-04-29T04:24:41.231-07:00b"h
On page 18 of the following link is an F...b"h<br /><br />On page 18 of the following link is an FAA diagram of a DC-3 (C-47) fuel system. <br /><br />https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_ch14.pdf<br /><br />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. <br /><br />In any case, it would probably be good to review all incidents of engine failure to determine what kind of fuel pump was used.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />By your leave Kevin, a final note: one of those F-4 radar operators got a radar <i>Lock</i> 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.William Strathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641055950393700958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19169156076205032192014-04-28T16:34:32.595-07:002014-04-28T16:34:32.595-07:00Leonard Stringfield related a personal UFO encount...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-26758869729156587282014-04-28T09:05:21.525-07:002014-04-28T09:05:21.525-07:00It could be useful if one or more of the larger or...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.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33458269326831225602014-04-28T04:14:13.928-07:002014-04-28T04:14:13.928-07:00b"h
Just a note on helo engines. If I'm ...b"h<br /><br />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.William Strathmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01641055950393700958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80714464667677292442014-04-27T21:17:47.065-07:002014-04-27T21:17:47.065-07:00All right Kevin. I got it. You were wondering abou...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.<br /><br />Also. Not always will be kaboom and not always be the end. Again I appreciate this teaching and I probably should have known better.<br /><br />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.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-45195747374488482002014-04-27T20:01:20.927-07:002014-04-27T20:01:20.927-07:00Don -
I "wondered" if the tales of spon...Don -<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29953163934062740292014-04-27T19:43:20.946-07:002014-04-27T19:43:20.946-07:00I forgot to respond these questions from Kevin:
K...I forgot to respond these questions from Kevin:<br /><br />Kevin asked <i>"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?"</i><br /><br />Response:<br /><br />I am not a pilot.<br /><br />It is a subterfuge because it is just an excuse to not to accept the warning, if I can call it so.<br /><br />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.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76605094900995468262014-04-27T19:19:27.934-07:002014-04-27T19:19:27.934-07:00Kevin,
In a nutshell: You reached the conclusion...Kevin, <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-67947673078729190492014-04-27T18:12:57.546-07:002014-04-27T18:12:57.546-07:00All -
As usual, we have slipped off the rails... ...All -<br /><br />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.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22110001836980448452014-04-27T17:56:52.181-07:002014-04-27T17:56:52.181-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.com