ufo radiation | Unidentified Flying Objects | Forum

A A A
Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
ufo radiation
June 1, 2019
8:57 am
Avatar
kregg
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 7
Member Since:
May 23, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

What is the source of radiation found at ufo landing sites?

June 16, 2019
2:20 am
Avatar
Scott
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 7
Member Since:
June 16, 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Great question, kregg. Other than minor traces in some cases such as Jim Penniston's encounter - area - 1980/12 Rendelsham Forrest. I'm not aware of a huge radiation reading of what I consider genuine UAP/UFO landings where humans were contacted near by the landing site.. But am aware that when many of the craft begin to power-up Humans must not be near the craft.

February 16, 2020
8:47 am
Avatar
Dozzermozzer
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
February 16, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Are you sure about that?

April 16, 2020
5:49 pm
Avatar
Jasper Stanley Davis
New York
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 10
Member Since:
April 16, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think it has something to do with the fuel that they use to rise, fall, accelerate and decelerate. 

May 3, 2020
9:44 pm
Avatar
Guy
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 124
Member Since:
May 3, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Below is an excerpt from the book "Incident at Exeter" on that topic, if that helps. Most landing incidents I've heard about haven't left burns or radiation, but evidently some do. I have almost no useful estimate as to the percentage of landings that incur burn/radiation effects, though.

----------

Fuller, John G. 1966. Incident at Exeter. New York, N.Y.: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

(p. 31)
On November 8, 1964, at Montreal, Canada, a Mr.
Nelson Lebel sighted a round, luminous craft hovering
above the trees some 2,000 feet from his house. Later,
the area was searched by a retired Canadian army offi-
cer, Lebel, and representatives of a Montreal news-
paper. A circular depression was found, with grass and
foliage scorched around it. Above the site, investigators
found branches of trees broken and blackened.
On November 30, 1964, at Terryville, Connecticut, a
medical officer saw an unknown flying object with a
blinding white light descend toward a nearby woods.
When he drove into a clearing where the UFO had land-
ed, the craft took off, rushing over the top of his car. It
disappeared at "faster than jet speed," leaving a burned
area and definite landing marks.
On December 21, 1964, at Staunton, Virginia, a gun-
shop owner saw a huge UFO, shaped like an inverted top,
land briefly near Route 250. Later, Geiger counter
checks by two Dupont Company engineers showed the
landing spot to be highly radioactive.

----------

May 9, 2020
6:23 pm
Avatar
Guy
Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 124
Member Since:
May 3, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Jasper Stanley Davis said
I think it has something to do with the fuel that they use to rise, fall, accelerate and decelerate. 

  

From what I understand, UFOs don't use anything that humans would consider "fuel." I always assumed they used some sort of anti-gravity, or a propulsion system operating in a higher dimension, or some sort of invisible waves like electromagnetic waves or sound, or something like zero point energy: some kind of propulsion that is super exotic, makes no sound, and leaves no residue.

The following video from YouTube is very thought-provoking, and makes me tend to believe this professor hit the nail on the head...

Tic Tac UFO is a US Navy project - Prof Simon
Jul 1, 2019
Professor Simon Holland

He discovered a patent by the U.S. Navy dated April 28, 2016 for a tic-tac shaped "hybrid aerospace underwater craft" that uses an *extremely* exotic means of propulsion: "a device that engineers the fabric of our reality" so that the intended trajectory of the craft is not affected by the normal laws of physics. After the patent office rejected that patent on the grounds that no known device can alter the laws of physics, the Navy submitted further documentation that claimed the Navy is in fact capable of building such a device, whereupon the patent office awarded the patent! 

Whew! To me this explains so many things at once. For one, people are always reporting UFOs that behave "in a manner that defied physics", so this *exactly* explains why. For another, it is exactly the type of extremely exotic propulsion device that I always assumed must be possible, since it would make no sound and not require much or any fuel to be carried. It would also explain why UFOs can function so well even underwater. It also confirms that science in the military sector is  advanced *way* beyond public sector technology. Altogether this sounds like a major finding to me.

To get back to the main topic, though, the OP's question is still profound. How or why would one of those very exotic propulsion methods, including this physics-altering device, leave radioactivity behind? I had always assumed that the reason was that the radiation emitted for propulsion (say x-rays or gamma rays) caused radioactivity in any matter it encountered, just as our bodies become more radioactive when we get x-rays at the dentist. Another possibility now, though, is that the alteration of physics when rocks or plants or animals are hit is that atomic structures are rearranged so that they become unstable. This is awfully strange, since it suggests the nuclei of atoms are being altered, maybe even fused, as a result of propulsion but there do exist radioactive isotopes of gases such as radon and xenon, so even lower numbered elements are affected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....s_of_xenon

I think the OP's question can't be answered unless we know at least something about the propulsion systems of UFOs, but with this new patent discovery, we might just know that now.

By the way, I don't like using the word "UFO" because the UFOs of interest are those that seemingly defy the laws of physics--the UFOs that, although we can't identify them, are obviously orders of magnitude more advanced than any craft on earth, even to ignorant observers, and obviously can't be birds, balloons, helicopters, drones, or the planet Venus. I came up with my own term to describe this type of UFO, which I call a "seeming physics-defier", or SPD. I plan to use that term more often, including in this forum, since I like to be as accurate as possible in my terminology, and that acronym will allow me to do so. I think if the government had gotten away from that stupid "UFO" acronym decades ago we would be better off now, since we would at least have a predefined subcategory of UFO and wouldn't need to waste time on allowing the Air Force to claim that swamp gas or satellites were making 90-degree turns at thousands of miles an hour.

August 14, 2020
7:01 am
Avatar
Thunderstrike
New Member
Members
Level 0
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
August 14, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
You're absolutely right!!
But I do not agree with you that "u.f.o.'s" use some kind of propulsion to move.
From our technical point of view, people think that everything that moves should need some
sort of an engine that uses some kind of fuel to burn to put a machine in motion.
Yes, also the mixer they use in their kitchen, because the electricity that is used to drive the
motor of that thing is generated in a plant where they burn fuel like coal or split uranium atoms.
But that is just classic "box thinking", so what happens if we start to think outside the box?
What if the u.f.o.'s don't burn fuel at all, because there is simply no engine??
When there is no engine, it opens the option to think there is also no propulsion involved, so what
about the possibility that what we see as motion, is acutaly movement trough time?
That would account for the spectacular acrobatics, the incredible "speeds" and not be affected by inertia.
It would also explain why they can "move" at the same "speed" under water as they do in the air and
suddenly appear and disappear in the blink of an eye.
In this case, it is possible that whatever those "u.f.o.'s" are made of, is some kind of material that can
be manipulated at an atomic level to do whatever the "pilot" wants it to do, using just the energy that
is enclosed in every atom, which never runs out.
Think about it, every atom we know of is constructed of protons, neutrons electrons and so on, but
I think we have to dig a little deeper to understand where the energy is coming from.
I think that what we know as solid matter, is nothing more than the outer skins of atoms (the electrons)
repelling each other.
As we know, electrons have a negative electric or magnetic charge and they move around an atom at
incredible speeds and never slow down.
Now picture an ordinary fan.
When the fan is off, it is easy to put your hand between the blades of that fan, but when the fan is in
motion, it is a lot more difficult to put your hand between the blades.
The faster the blades turn, the more the blades would seem to look and "feel" like an solid object and
that is why we have the illusion that when fan blades turn at say the speed of light, it is a solid object
that we just can pick up with our hands.
Just like we have the illusion that we also are made of solid matter, where everybody knows that atoms
are just particles together in a lot of empty space.
But .... for a better understanding of what is going on, we need to know what a particle like an electron is
made of.
And here is where the story of the big bang and the relativity theory of my hero Dr. Albert Einstein are
coming into view.
Dr. Albert Einsteins relativity theory E=MC² states, that when two objects approach each other with
100 Mph, they would collide with a force equal of 200 Mph.
E=Energy, M=matter and C=light speed.
So, when two fotons collide with each other at light speed, they collide with light speed squared and
become entangled, so the formula could also be read as M=EC²
That means that those two fotons would attract and repel each other at the same time and keep
each other "prisoner" if you forgive me the term.
This is also known as the string theory and for a more visual aid to this, picture the chinese ying-yang sign.
Beware, this is not at an atomic level, but at an particle level and the chinese did this already using a
powerful l.a.s.e.r. Create solid matter with a laser

Now about the "radiation" that is apperently coming from the "u.f.o.'s".
It seems to me that it is not radiation at all, but merely a side effect, created by the manipulation of
whatever those "u.f.o.'s" are made of.
It could be an explanation for the molecular changes they detected in weed wherever they found
crop circles and the other residues they found on alleged landing sites.
Note that is is possible to change the molecular structure of matter by extremely strong magnetic force.
Just think of what a material can do if all the particles of that material could be manipulated to behave
as just one single energy field.
One particular good example is the story of the philadelphia experiment, where the uss Eldridge
completely disappeared and at the same time appeared at Norfolk, Virginia over 200 miles away.
In this experiment there was an external force applied, made of a battery of generators that produced
a combination of pulsating and non pulsating magnetic fields.
But when we are ready to utilize the energy that is stored in all matter, we are also ready for
interstellar travel.

And I agree also that the term u.f.o. should not be used for things like flying saucers, because
once we identify something as a flying saucer, it is not an u.f.o. anymore (UNidentified Flying Object)
Here's a nutcracker for the philosophers ..... If an u.f.o. is IDENTIFIED as unidentified, is that
thing still an u.f.o.?
What a boeing 747 is for us, is a u.f.o. for people that have never seen an airplane before in their life.
In this case, your idea to describe the "u.f.o.'s" as "seeming physics-defier" is not good enough for me.
They only seem te defier the physics that we know of, so when we know the secret,
"seeming physics-defier" is not valid anymore.
Just because that we do not know about some physics laws, does not mean they don't exist.
"seeming physics-defier" sounds like that they violate our laws and understanding of physics, but they
just do, wich implicates that there are other physic laws that we don't know of ..... yet.
If those laws where not there, those things they can do would not work, simple as that.

But I do fully agree with you that N.A.S.A., the airforce, the C.I.A. and the shadow organisations
that deny their own existence should stop lying trough their teeth about this phenomena.
For what????
Just to prevent russia to have their own "u.f.o." and become a unbeatable enemy?
Have they forgot that Uri Gagarin was the first human in space?
America and Russia should work together on this instead of spending their energy in developing weapons
of mass destruction, because once we as a species found the way to travel trough time as the "aliens"
do, those weapons are pretty useless.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Most Users Ever Online: 341
Currently Online: Dustin
Guest(s) 68
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
greeney2: 10399
bionic: 9871
Lashmar: 5290
tigger: 4577
rath: 4298
DIss0n80r: 4162
sandra: 3859
frrostedman: 3816
Wing-Zero: 3279
Tairaa: 2843
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 25756
Moderators: 0
Admins: 2
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 31
Topics: 9864
Posts: 126490
Newest Members:
Colin, elisecoen, leschrapid, Gene Aquamarine, Water Pedia, xman3209, Sandy13, Brian K, koyi, Oh Two
Administrators: John Greenewald: 694, blackvault: 1777