[This asp webpage works properly only on NT servers and with Windows 98+ browsers] |
Mimicry may be the Objective of ETI Triangular and Diamond-shaped Probes
by Bruce Cornet, Ph.D.
|
Table of Contents
Please be patient. 30 gifs, jpegs, and wav
files (2.4 megs) downloading. |
A nagging question has remained unanswered for the past eight years, ever since Cornet became involved in studying the Pine Bush phenomenon: Why all the performances? By performance I mean the deliberate presentation of information in the form of craft behavior, AOP lighting, and changing patterns and intensity of lighting.
Over that eight years considerable data were presented to and recorded by Cornet. From those data certain characteristics of the performances remained constant or nearly so:
Times of performances (dusk to Midnight).
Places of performances (AOP came to observers).
Stealth in appearance (i.e. low observable).
Flaring of headlights during initial approach to the camera.
Strobes that resembled the colors and positions of navigation lights on conventional aircraft.
Aspects of flight patterns that resembled the aerodynamic performances of conventional aircraft.
sounds that resembled the sounds of conventional aircraft.
However, other characteristics of the performances are at odds with what is typical for conventional aircraft or what is aerodynamically possible for aircraft dependent on wings and/or air/thrust for flight. All the characteristics listed below have been documented on Cornet's various web pages.
Ability of craft to travel at air speeds well below the stall speed of all conventional fixed-wing jets and propeller-driven aircraft.
Ability of craft to stop in midair, make sharp right angle turns while moving, and to fly sideways and even backwards.
Ability of craft to do stunts which would be difficult for even the best human pilots to perform, and suicidal to make at night and below 1,000 feet altitude over wooded areas, such as rolling over and flying upside down.
Ability of craft to unfold and fold up its wings, and to fly without wings.
Ability of craft to cut all sound and to produce harmonic sounds rather than sounds typical of turbine or propeller-driven aircraft.
Ability of craft to travel at supersonic speeds without making a sonic boom or creating any noise or significant air turbulence.
Some aircraft of human design can hover and travel at slow speeds, but they are usually very noisy (e.g. helicopters and jump jets).
Aside from the unusual shapes of these craft, which range from triangles to diamond and boomerang shapes, they all had the characteristic of blending in with the night background. In other words, the surfaces of the craft were stealth or low observable, and reflected minimal or no light from the various navigation lights and strobes that they carried, even when headlights flared or strobes flashed so brightly that their intensity would illuminate major portions of the airframe of a conventional jetliner.
During Cornet's encounters craft would present him with considerable recordable data, some of which was very similar to that of conventional aircraft, while other data conflicted with what is known about the lighting, shapes, and flight characteristics of conventional aircraft. Only on rare occasions would his instruments and/or cameras be interfered with or disabled, and that was usually only temporary.
So why the mix of data types? Why wave a red flag in front of cameras and put on performances if these were all military aircraft?
 |
Take for example The Performance on 29 April 1993 in front of the Sightings camera crew. Between 8:41 pm and 10:09 pm eight craft were videotaped and/or photographed, six of which flew in the air while two acted as observation craft near or on the ground. Two craft, one triangular-shaped and the other diamond-shaped, flew deliberate patterns in front of the cameras, making right angle turns, flying sideways, and turning on batteries of plasma lights. For the U.S. Airforce to have conducted this performance with conventional aircraft, the cost to the tax payers is estimated to have been at least $50,000, and perhaps as high as $100,000 when the number of aircraft, pilots and crew time, ground crew, fuel, pre-maintenance, and planning are taken into consideration. If the U.S. military was responsible, the question must be asked: WHAT WAS THE OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE? To get on National Television?
Therefore, when Cornet and Hartwell went to West Searsville Rd. on 4 May 2000, what is the probability that military intelligence was aware of their presence, and ordered two aircraft to go out and give them a visit? Do you actually think the military would be that interested in any civilian to be waiting for the opportunity to buzz Cornet and associates?
If you think that Cornet has once again misidentified conventional aircraft under the delusion that he could elicit or evoke such a response, the data presented below must first be studied before any judgement or conclusion can be rendered.
But one could argue that Dr. Greer and his CSETI group were visited by two military helicopters the night before. Couldn't that be an indication that the military was watching and interested in what Greer was doing? Yes, of course it could. So why couldn't what Cornet and Hartwell saw be classified the same way?
Confused? You should be. But to get through this quagmire of uncertainty, you first need to study the data, and then consider my interpretation based on facts, not speculation.
Location: West Searsville Rd. just south of dog-leg bend at entrance to new housing development on hill. Panoramic view below shows landscape looking to the east. West Searsville Rd. is visible in the foreground (middle of picture). Pictures taken from house on hill top.
|
|
Two craft (AOP) were spotted that evening between 11:14 pm and 11:30 pm. One flew directly over the location where Cornet and Hartwell parked their van. Their location and the approximate flight paths of the craft are indicated on the composite satellite image below:
|
The first AOP was spotted to the east at 11:14 pm. It brightened two lights to the extent that an aura or halo was created around them.
|
The craft was so low to the ground that its lights were partially blocked by tree branches in the foreground. The tree branches are highlighted in the image below, illuminated by the bright lights.
|
Animation with sound mouse-over.
|
As the first craft approached the observers, it turned down the intensity of its headlights just before turning south. As it flew south additional lights came on along its side, giving the craft the appearance of a Boeing 747 with its several rows of windows up front. But no Boeing 747 landed at Stewart airport that night, and no commercial aircraft was scheduled to land within the hour of the sighting.
The second craft flew directly towards and over Cornet and Hartwell at 11:30 pm. At first Cornet thought it was a conventional jetliner, but noted differences in its lights. As the craft flew over them, it turned on beams of light coming from two bright lights at the outboard margins of its fuselage. These lights are positioned just inside the outermost running lights, and are not landing lights. Landing lights on conventional aircraft are positioned much closer to the midline so that the pilot and copilot can have the runway in front of them illuminated. Landing lights positioned out at the wingtips are illogical and impractical, because they leave the runway directly in front of the aircraft dark. Bright lights at the lateral extremities are a distinct characteristic of anomalous craft witnessed in the Pine Bush area. Therefore, the lights on the Manta Ray are called HEADLIGHTS, not landing lights.
The Manta Ray Reveals Rotating Headlights
Comparison of Manta Ray lights for September 1992 and May 2000 sightings indicate similar shape and pattern of lights.
|
Typically, conventional aircraft are made partly visible by their navigation lights and strobes.
|
Comparison of Manta Ray lights to those of a conventional jetliner indicates significant differences even though there is general similarity (possibly indicating deliberate mimicry).
Mimicry: Zool. The superficial resemblance which some animals exhibit to other animals or to the natural objects among which they live, thereby securing concealment, protection, or the like (Webster, 1961).
|
Strobes on conventional jetliners and non-stealth aircraft are bright enough to reflect off of portions of the fuselage. The belly strobe on the jetliner above (left) reflects off of the engine pods, while the strobe on the Manta Ray does not, indicating either shielding and/or the absence of protruding engine pods.
Strobes reflect off of engine pods on conventional jetliners.
|
Identification of lights and reflections using an overlay of Boeing 767 with September 1 jetliner (from above images).
|
The sound produced by the Manta Ray could easily pass for that of jet engine(s) to the untrained ear, but there are significant differences when compared to sounds recorded for conventional jets. These differences include:
Absence of white noise. Conventional jet engines produce white noise between 2 Kilohertz and 10 Kilohertz.
Multiple independent frequencies or bundles of distinct frequencies, most of which are less than two Kilohertz. Conventional jet engines produce a continuous gradation of frequencies up to and above two Kilohertz, with some embedded individual frequencies.
Reversed Doppler effect. Conventional jetliners produce a normal Doppler effect of increasing frequencies as the jetliner approaches the mic, and decreasing frequencies as the jetliner moves away from the mic. The exact opposite occurs (can occur) for the Manta Ray.
Spectrogram segments combined (audio resampled at lower rate to conserve download size; high frequencies and noise muted).
 |
|
Combining the first two spectrograms to show decreasing suite of frequencies, and evidence for a reversed Doppler.
|
Original unaltered sound with static noise, which is present on the audio tract only when the craft was directly overhead (implication?):
 |
Spectrogram of mouse-over sound file displayed below. Note how frequencies bottom out as craft passed overhead.
|
Reversed Doppler effect indicated by rising frequencies after craft passed mic.
|
Perhaps the most obvious example of mimicry that Cornet has witnessed and recorded on film is the Boeing 707 look-a-like that followed him home from work one day at dusk on 24 September 1992. Three months earlier he witnessed either the same craft or a similar one unfold wings and turn on sound. That sighting before a small group of skywatchers might have been dismissed by skeptics had they not jumped in their cars and chased the AOP for two miles before catching up to it. Conventional fixed-wing aircraft cannot fly at highway speeds for motor vehicles, and they cannot fly without conventional engines. The Boeing 707 look-a-like had no visible engine pods on its wings or fuselage. It was solid black, and had no visible windows - even up front where the flight deck would be situated.
Perhaps the most important feature of triangular or angular craft is their blacker-than-black surface, which makes them very low observable if they turn off their lights. Harv Howard talks about this feature in his article, Estimate of the Situation 2000: The Black Triangles. Such craft are rarely seen during the day, because they would stand out against a light blue sky - more so than conventional aluminum-sided aircraft, which tend to blend in with the sky.
So, why then would these craft attempt to mimic the patterns of conventional aircraft navigation lights when all they would have to do is turn off their lights to become invisible at night? Why would these craft put on performances before selected individuals, such as before four police officers in Illinois recently (5 January 2000)? These sightings are the subject of a documentary being produced by Termite Arts Productions for the Discovery channel (scheduled air time: 6 November at 9:00 pm EST).
In some cases these craft came back time after time when Cornet went out into the field to study them. He got the impression that they were giving him information and/or attempting to communicate in ways that would be familiar to Cornet. He also got the impression that they wanted feed-back and were using him for quality control, as it were. In other words, the intelligence behind these performances were trying to mimic conventional aircraft, and wanted to find out if Cornet could be fooled. And yet during each performance the craft would present information that made them distinct from conventional aircraft. Perhaps this information was intentional, or perhaps the intelligence wanted to know what it was about those features that made Cornet suspicious. And then again, perhaps that intelligence was testing his abilities to identify their craft as distinct from conventional aircraft.
After all, if NASA were successful in sending either manned probes or probes with artificial intelligence to distant star systems and discovered a planet with intelligent life on it, wouldn't it make sense for the engineers of the probe to give it the capability of mimicry, so that it could observe the life on that planet without attracting attention?
And if the probe attempted to make contact with intelligent beings on that planet, wouldn't it make sense to communicate in ways that would be non-threatening? Communication might require various experiments in order to find common ground and an understanding of how the intelligent life on that planet thinks and communicates. What is "logical" and "natural" to humans may not be logical or natural to other life forms.
Now think of this problem in reverse: How would ETI communicate with humans? See: If Here, How Would ETI Communicate?
Because information about AOP is limited in most cases to human observation, and because human observation is fallible, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence has been governed not by facts or evidence as much as it has been by belief.
Belief: 1. The state or habit of mind of one who believes; faith; confidence; trust; as to be without belief in God. 2. A conviction or persuasion of truth, intellectual assent; as claims unworthy of belief. 3. The thing believed; specif., a tenet, or the body of tenets; doctine; creed.
Skeptics tend to be ruled by beliefs or tenets that prevent them from accepting something if it doesn't follow their rules or fit nicely into their concept of how things should be. They usually have set their goal posts higher than normal for accepting evidence which challenges their beliefs. Many UFOlogists are called "true believers" by skeptics, because they have set their goal posts lower according to skeptics, and therefore their beliefs take on a measure of faith.
Unfortunately, both camps or polarities (skeptics and true believers) base their conclusions on inadequate evidence. A witness will say, "I saw this," while the skeptic will say, "No you didn't." Even if what the witness saw and describes is accurate, it is insufficient to prove the existence or presence of ETI. In order to do that, much more data are needed.
If ETI is here observing and studying us, they have undoubtedly figured out our Achille's Heal, or weakness in logic and thinking, which includes arrogance. If the problem of solving whether or not what people call UFOs are truly from other worlds is only as far away as designing and building equipment and using instruments to collect better data, why haven't more people, especially the skeptics, pushed for and supported any project that can obtain better data? Either the problem is one of ignorance or one of intentional avoidance. I can educate and instruct believers and skeptics in the scientific method and show them how to build instrument platforms that will collect adequate data, but their reaction seems to be tainted by fear: Fear that such a project will not be successful, or fear that it will be successful.
If ETI is here observing and studying us, they know how to fool us. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. After eight years studying Anomalistic Observational Phenomena (AOP), and collecting tens of thousands of pieces of valid data (over 124 recorded sightings), I conclude:
There is strong evidence that whoever has been putting on the performances for my cameras has selected me for study.
There is strong evidence that whoever has been putting on the performances for my cameras has been testing my logic and thinking process.
There is strong evidence that whoever has been putting on the performances for my cameras has deliberately tried to educate me.
Because they could make their craft invisible at night simply by turning off their lights, or make their lights and sounds resemble those of conventional aircraft (mimicry), there is no doubt that if they wanted to be low observable, they could be so and no one would suspect their presence.
So why haven't more humans been smart enough to figure these facts out? Why do those who have the money and who can fund projects such as SETV, refuse to do so? What are they afraid of? What are you afraid of?
Support the Search for Extraterrestrial Visitation.
