Mimicry may be the Objective of ETI Triangular and Diamond-shaped Probes

by Bruce Cornet, Ph.D.

Mouse over image activates sound.

To listen the audio, You need to upgrade to a browser that support the <embed> tag!

Table of Contents

Introduction

Data

First Craft

Second Craft

Sound Profiles

Discussion

Conclusion

Companion website

(If Here, How Would ETI Communicate?)


AD: We are the leading the world in providing best passguide ceh and realtests - gmat sample questions - certification prep solutions. Our incredible offers for certkiller - act test - certification and examsheets sat study guide are accessible at reasonable prices; our lsat braindumps is very rare in IT world.
[8.16.13-16]


Introduction

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:

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.

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.  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?

performs.jpg (7132 bytes)

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, planning and preparation 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.

Cornet and Hartwell went to West Searsville Rd. to observe AOP activity, because Dr. Steven Greer had scheduled a week long field expedition and course for the Pine Bush area.  Cornet wanted to have first hand knowledge of any AOP activity when Greer's CSETI group was in the field (oddly, no record of a field report is available on the CSETI website, and the Pine Bush expedition is no longer listed as having occurred).  No information is available from those who participated in Greer's course, because he had all participants sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA): Unusual for someone who supposedly wants to get the truth out.

Unfortunately, Cornet chose the wrong date, and later learned that CSETI had been at the (Volk) County Line Farm the night before on 3 May.  He also learned from local skywatchers that the CSETI group had an encounter with two military helicopters on that night.

If Greer and his CSETI group were visited by two military helicopters on the night of 3 May, 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.

 

images/back.gif (2236 bytes)                                                                                                                                    images/next.gif (2215 bytes)

Send mail to bcornet@direcway.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright 2000 Sirius Onion Works.

This page was last edited 08/16/2013