FT over Richmond, Virginia
New Video Data Gives First Indication of a Steath Body Form
by Bruce Cornet, Ph.D.
Table of Contents
Doppler Effect Analyzed
On 8 August 2002 Carl Lynch videotaped what he initially thought was a conventional jetliner flying low over Chesterfield County, VA. Upon further analysis of the video and audio recordings, this aircraft turns out to be identical to the Pine Bush FT (Flying Triangle) recorded by Cornet on 25 January 1997 near Pine Bush, NY. Due to higher quality digital images, Lynch was able to capture information about the dorsal shape of this craft, which places it into a new category of previously unknown stealth aircraft. The sound it produced turns out to be synthetic, and reveals the reversed-Doppler effect characteristic of gravity-warping propulsion.
Lynch is one of the few people who has had consistent sightings of anomalous aircraft in the area of his residence near the shoreline of Swift Creek Reservoir (Woodlake), VA. He has created a website where visitors can download *.rm and *.mpg files for viewing: http://www.mysterymachinesoverva.com/. Whether this phenomenon has targeted him (as it seems to have done to Cornet in the early 1990's) or whether he has been fortuitously in the right place at the right time is uncertain. Time will tell.
A summary of his sightings this year is given below:
On 8 January 2002 he videotaped an unusual set of lights in the form of a hexagon.
On 7 March 2002 he videotaped a pair of lights (a white and a pulsing red light) do a vertical U-turn (recovering close to the ground), which would require an airplane or helicopter to do an outside loop and then fly upside down.
On 1 April 2002 he videotaped a small white light descending rapidly from a triangular set of white lights.
On 18 June 2002 he videotaped a fuzzy pair of lights, the right one of which changed color from yellow to red after a part of the left light moved over to the right light.
On 7 July 2002 he videotaped a set of five to seven asymmetrical multicolored lights (one of which was bright yellow) as a beam of light emerged from one of the forward lights and illuminated the ground.
Then on 9 July 2002 he videotaped nine multicolored lights in positions impossible for a conventional airframe.
All of these anomalous craft were flying below 1,500 feet, the minimum FAA-approved altitude for commercial and military aircraft, which is why they caught his attention.
Lynch shot his video using a Sony DCR TRV520, zoom = 25X (Optical) + 450X (Digital), Hi8mm plus Digital 8 recording. There are two settings for night shot mode: Regular night shot mode and Super night shot mode.
The flight path of the FT is shown below. Chesterfield Airport is located six miles to the east.
However, four miles further east-northeast is the United States Defense General Supply Center, and the USN, USMC, and USCG Reserve Training Center. A little futher east is the sprawling Dupont Industrial Park (Spruance Plant). No landing strips are located at those facilities, however, but none would be needed if the FT could hover and land like a helicopter. Lynch's sighting is in keeping with NIDS high degree correlation of FTs in hypothesized flight paths between Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) and Air Mobility Command (AMC) bases.
Comparison of Unidentified Triangular or Deltoid Aircraft Location Patterns in Three Independent UFO Databases: NIDS, MUFON and Larry Hatch (http://126.96.36.199/pdf/triangularcraftdatabases.pdf).
Hypothesis: The Illinois Flying Triangle is A Department of Defense, Not An ET Craft (http://188.8.131.52/pdf/illinois_trianglehypothesis.pdf).
The graphic below gives a sequential history of the FT as it passed over Lynch. The apparent turn or drift of the FT to the right is artificial, caused by the rotation of the camcorder counterclockwise as he rotated clockwise to follow the craft. The FT flew straight, and did not turn. In the upper left and lower right are images (inserts) of what appears to be an identical FT captured on video by Cornet on 25 january 1997 near Montgomery, NY.
Note that the pair of large nose lights appear to be vertically positioned, one above the other on a short narrow nose like that on the F117. When one compares these videos (8 August 2002 and 25 January 1997) with the pattern of lights on a DC-9, for example, it becomes apparent that mimicry and camouflage are being attempted by the pattern and type of navigation lights on the FT. A detailed comparison between the 25 January FT and a DC-9 shows/reveals the similarities and differences: http://bcornet.homestead.com/files/FTDC9/DC9comp.htm.
Mimicry for the sake of camouflage? Why would the military go to the trouble?
Note also that one of the small white lights behind the "central" red light appears to move or change position in the sequence of frames below (arrows). Either this light is not fixed, or some field affect around the craft is creating the illusion that this light is shifting position.
There is a faint indication above the wing of an angled stealth body that stretches out to near the tips of the wings, unlike the body on the F117, which is more centrally located above the wings. The low light reflectivity of the body indicates the same type of flat angled sides as on the F117, designed to scatter and deflect radar signals from being reflected back to the monitoring source. Those angles are also what reduce visibility in the optical digital images.
The sound recorded by Lynch for this FT in unremarkable, or similar to that produced by commercial jetliners flying above 1,500 feet. But when analyzed on a frequency spectrogram, it stands out as extremely anomalous and unlike the sounds produced by a conventional jet engine. The difference is the same for all the FTs recorded by Cornet near Pine Bush, NY.
Listen to the sound by playing the recording below from one sound tract on Lynch's video.
The spectrogram below (linked to a larger version) shows this sound to be comprised of at least 15 separate frequency bands, which when grouped together produce a jet-like sound. Carl Lynch says the word, "What?" almost exactly when the FT is flying over him, giving a landmark for interpreting frequency changes. Note that all frequencies decrease in pitch as the FT approaches the microphone. After the FT passes Lynch, the frequencies flatten out, and then at about 22 seconds on the right they uniformly begin to ascend in pitch. I will explain the reason for this below after showing you what a normal Doppler effect looks like for a conventional jetliner. The pattern in the spectrogram below I have named the Reversed-Doppler Effect. It is typical of this type of FT, and has been recorded numerous times (see Weird Sound and The Performance).
The sound produced by the FT is either 1) synthetic, meaning that it is deliberately created as a means of disguise, or 2) it is an effect produced by a unique propulsion system that combines unknown technology (e.g. a gravity reducing engine) with conventional technology (e.g. jet propulsion).
Doppler Effect Analyzed
Using the same Sony DCR TRV520 camcorder, Lynch recorded the sounds of a Boeing 737 on landing approach to the Richmond International Airport on 22 August 2002. Listen to/play the sound below and compare it to the sound produced by the FT. By doing this you will quickly hear the differences, and realize that the sounds produced by the FT are not normal.
A video frame showing the Boeing 737 is shown below. Its identity is distinguished by the small engines on the wings.
The frequency spectrogram below (linked to a larger version) is quite different from that for the FT. The most apparent difference is the amount of white noise produced by the jet engines. The range of frequency is much greater, extending from 100 Hz up to over 5 kHz, while the range of frequency for the FT extends from 150 Hz up to only 2.5 kHz. The lack of white noise in the FT spectrogram could be to either 1) filtering and suppression for stealth objectives, or 2) limitations of the speakers projecting the sound (if synthetic), which cannot reproduce the high frequencies of white noise due to the materials and specifications with which they were constructed.
Frequency spectrogram of a Boeing 737 on landing approach.
When the brightest sounds on the spectrograms are graphed and compared between the Boeing 737 and FT, and both are compared to a normal Doppler effect, the influence of the engines for both aircraft become apparent.
The jet engines on the Boeing 737 produce the sound that is heard. They also produce a partial vacuum in front of the fans, which have the effect of stretching the air. As the air is stretched, the pitch falls, accounting for the slight drop in pitch for the sound as the jetliner is approaching the microphone. The engines mix the air with fuel and burn it, causing the air to expand. That expansion or thrust behind the engines causes the air to become compressed, accounting for the slight rise or stabilization of pitch as the jetliner moves away from the microphone.
The sound coming from the FT behaves quite differently. As the FT approaches the microphone, the sound falls in pitch. As it moves away from the microphone the sound stabilizes and then begins to rise. The shift in pitch is almost the exact opposite of that for the conventional jetliner. The only way to account for or explain such a reversal is if the jet engine effect observed for the Boeing 737 is magnified by several orders of magnitude. But if the sound of the jet engines were also magnified to the same degree, the noise would be deafening. Instead, the decibel level coming from the FT is much lower than that for the Boeing 737. Something must be stretching the air/space in front of the FT and compressing the air/space behind it which does not use combustion and expanding hot gases for propulsion.
In order to explain the Reversed Doppler Effect, I propose a gravity warping engine, which stretches space in front of the craft (like stretching an elastic band) while compressing space behind the craft. The effect is temporary. The FT moves forward, because it is both pulled and pushed as the space/volume behind the craft tries to move forward in order to correct the inbalance in front of the craft. With it comes the craft caught up in the gravity warp. If the FT did not produce a synthetic sound, all you would hear is a faint rush of air as that air moves without resistance around the vehicle. A sonic boom is not formed when the FT travels at Mach speed, because air does not form a shock wave at the nose of the craft. The two plasma lights at the nose of the craft (one above the other) are intensified in order to ionize the air (see image below), causing the air molecules to repel one another rather than bunch up.
As the FT increases its speed to higher Mach levels, its apparent shape becomes more and more distorted by gravity warping. An outside observer would think that the craft was becoming forshortened, but this may only be an illusion. Cornet captured an FT on film as it buzzed the helicopter he was in on 10 May 1994. Its speed was later calculated to be at least Mach 6 or 7. No sonic boom occurred. The helicopter was bounced by a small shockwave behind the craft, which blurs the lights at the rear of the craft furthest away from the camera (blurred because those lights are viewed through the shock wave).
The shape of the gravity field around the craft, if it could be mapped, might have the shape of a torus or donut, with flow lines wrapping backwards around the craft, and then converging forward towards a central point on the blunt tail of the craft. Special effects images of vortices in the television series Sliders illustrate this shape and flow pattern nicely. The yellowish white lights at the back of the craft could be part of a steering and control mechanism.
There have been several different types of Flying Triangles witnessed in the skies over various countries during the last 30 years or more. The Belgian FTs may be the best remembered incident involving military chase fighters. FTs come in different sizes, but they all have stealth characteristics. Attempts have been made to indict the U.S. Airforce and military as the source of these aircraft: Hypothesis: The Illinois Flying Triangle is A Department of Defense, Not An ET Craft (http://184.108.40.206/pdf/illinois_trianglehypothesis.pdf), and
Investigation Casts Light on the Mysterious Flying Black Triangle (http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/black_triangle_020805.html).
DARRYL BARKER PRODUCTIONS, however, gives a different interpretation:
"the flying triangle mystery is not solved" (http://dbarkertv.com/) and
Illinois UFO, January 5, 2000 (http://dbarkertv.com/UPDATE.htm).
The evidence I have presented here and on various other web pages reveals these undeniable facts:
A Flying Triangle having a wingspan of about 100 feet exists. It is not the F117A Nighthawk stealth fighter, which has a wingspan of only 43 feet. It is not the Stealth Bomber, which has an even larger wingspan. It is an intermediate-sized Flying Triangle.
It has been recorded and videotaped over Orange County, NY, over Monmouth County, NJ, and over Chesterfield County, VA, by the author and by Carl Lynch.
Its nighttime navigation lights are similar enough to those of the DC-9 (wingspan 89-93 feet) that it could easily be mistaken for that jetliner.
The jet-like sound it produces is either synthetic and intended as a form of camouflage, or it is altered by the propulsion system in such a way that it appears synthetic and violates Doppler's law.
It has been photographed making right angle turns.
It has been videotaped doing barrel rolls at night below 1,000 feet altitude and then flying sideways and up-side-down: A Continuing History of Sightings of Triangular-shaped Craft in the Wallkill River Valley of New York State (http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/b_cornet/Vol_3/index.html).
It has put on a performance at night before the Sightings TV show camera crew: The Performance (http://www.abcfield.force9.co.uk/bcornet/index.htm).
If this is not a new type of stealth aircraft the U.S. Airforce has been slowly introducing to the world in a most unusual manner (i.e. performing over public lands near rural towns and major cities before unsecured cameras), then whose is it? Are the recent stories about Boeing doing research on anti-gravity a prelude to the disclosure of something bigger?
Anti-gravity propulsion comes out of the closet
Or can we take this disclosure at face value and say that the science underpinning anti-gravity projects has not yet been engineered into hardware? For me there is not enough evidence or data yet available to decide whether the FT described on this page is ours or someone else's. And if it is someone else's, what is it doing flying around in our airspace with impunity?
This website was constructed on 30 August 2002.
Last updated on 09/19/2007.
Copyright Bruce Cornet 2002.
Copyright Carl Lynch 2002.