Plasma Laser Hologram as a possible UFO sighting Explanation

Skeptic_Jim

New Member
I want to present a theory as a possible explanation for what the pilots claim to visually see in the tic tac incident.

Has anyone investigated plasma laser hologram tech as a possible explanation of the tic tac incident or any other “fast moving” ufo sightings? I envision a land, sea surface vessel, submersible vessel, or aircraft mounted version of the technology described in this link:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-navy-laser-creates-plasma-ufos/amp/

Another explanation for the slow moving sightings, like the large triangles for example, is helium blimps in the shape of triangles, discs, spheres, or whatever. For this explanation, I was inspired by other interviews and podcasts describing inflatable tanks used to deceive our adversaries in WW2. Of course the plasma laser tech could possibly project these slow moving images as well, but maybe whoever is behind these incidents is using a combination of both techniques?

I’m not sure what the motivations by our government, perhaps other governments, or private entities would be to perpetuate these hoaxes, but these explanations could be responsible for some of the sightings.

I would love to hear someone smarter than me investigate these theories as possible explanations or debunk them all together.

Thank you,

Jim
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Plasma holograms can only create light, heat, and sound. They can create something that can fool a missile (until the missiles get upgraded), but they can't create something that looks like a solid craft, or something that would show up on radar, or something that would look realistic in IR. It's essentially a fancy decoy flare.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNoOiXkXmYQ


There's some discussion on the state of the art technology (from a few years ago, but little has changed) here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-bleen-3d-clear-air-hologram-indigogo-hoax.5196/
 

Granite

New Member
I want to present a theory as a possible explanation for what the pilots claim to visually see in the tic tac incident.

Has anyone investigated plasma laser hologram tech as a possible explanation of the tic tac incident or any other “fast moving” ufo sightings? I envision a land, sea surface vessel, submersible vessel, or aircraft mounted version of the technology described in this link:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-navy-laser-creates-plasma-ufos/amp/

Another explanation for the slow moving sightings, like the large triangles for example, is helium blimps in the shape of triangles, discs, spheres, or whatever. For this explanation, I was inspired by other interviews and podcasts describing inflatable tanks used to deceive our adversaries in WW2. Of course the plasma laser tech could possibly project these slow moving images as well, but maybe whoever is behind these incidents is using a combination of both techniques?

I’m not sure what the motivations by our government, perhaps other governments, or private entities would be to perpetuate these hoaxes, but these explanations could be responsible for some of the sightings.

I would love to hear someone smarter than me investigate these theories as possible explanations or debunk them all together.

Thank you,

Jim
Jim you are remarkably correct, possibly in both your postulates. It took me years to get to that conclusion, where, if you don’t mind me asking, did you read about that?

The source I found was Emmanuel Dehlinger’s Ovnis Armee The military unmasked.

It’s an online book by a neurologist in French, with part of it translated into English. In it, he goes over the technology used and how they are able to pull off these holograms - all using the scientific method.

The last I checked though, the site was down due to the site not upgrading to https. I tried to find a browser that would open the site to no avail. I didn’t try very hard though. This was written I believe in 2001 - so the technology has been there for quite some time.

Just in the last few years we have seen the non-military based community finally obtain the technology - which is essentially lasers creating a plasma at a distance, then scanning quickly back and forth to write an image in the sky.

I’ll see if I can find that site somewhere else, maybe the internet archive has it.

I can’t believe it, it’s on archive:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180819035744/https://www.ovnis-armee.org/ufos_military_unmasked.htm

Good luck!
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Wouldn't such projected plasma displays have a very distinct spectrum based on the emission lines of the atoms in the atmosphere, and if so that would be quite a fingerprint? Of course, the average rando with a camphone in the middle of New Mexico isn't going to be able to perform spectral analysis, but I would expect certain colours to be tell-tale signs of at least the possibility of such generation.
 

Domzh

Active Member
well they were able to recreate relatively large plasma balls, when they conducted studies on ball lightning. iirc the goal was to recreate plasma balls that "live" on their own.

iirc they didnt use lasers but microwaves to create the initial ball.

I will search for the sources and post them when i have found them.

I was on the plasma track as well but the "laser induced plasma" tech doesnt seem anywhere near the state to create 30 feet plasma balls possibly at multiple thousand feet of distance in 2021, let alone in 2004.

But I agree, looking for a non-solid solution for the tic tac could be an interesting path to investigate.

i also believe its important we dont attribute observed behavior on radar to the actual object.

i believe the parallax (smaller but higher and nearer than expected) solution could also come into play, when we find an explanation for "losing sight of it in a haze".

Slaight described "heatwaves" around the object. Could maybe also be condensation / vapor / mist.

Maybe an artificially created, tic tac shaped cloud around another object for cloaking purposes.

just some ideas for further exploration.

PS: remember, the only report of AATIP/AAWSAP that is still classified is report #35 regarding "Current state of the art of high energy beam (weapons / techniques / .. paraphrasing)"
 

Granite

New Member
well they were able to recreate relatively large plasma balls, when they conducted studies on ball lightning. iirc the goal was to recreate plasma balls that "live" on their own.

iirc they didnt use lasers but microwaves to create the initial ball.

I will search for the sources and post them when i have found them.

I was on the plasma track as well but the "laser induced plasma" tech doesnt seem anywhere near the state to create 30 feet plasma balls possibly at multiple thousand feet of distance in 2021, let alone in 2004.

But I agree, looking for a non-solid solution for the tic tac could be an interesting path to investigate.

i also believe its important we dont attribute observed behavior on radar to the actual object.

i believe the parallax (smaller but higher and nearer than expected) solution could also come into play, when we find an explanation for "losing sight of it in a haze".

Slaight described "heatwaves" around the object. Could maybe also be condensation / vapor / mist.

Maybe an artificially created, tic tac shaped cloud around another object for cloaking purposes.

just some ideas for further exploration.

PS: remember, the only report of AATIP/AAWSAP that is still classified is report #35 regarding "Current state of the art of high energy beam (weapons / techniques / .. paraphrasing)"
That’s some serious info there - you really know your sht. So did you read dehlinger’s appraisal of the technology? I think it was available as far back as the 70’s.

My curiosity stems from a group citing of one of these military “shows” in April of 97. Close enough to touch it - but we panicked and ran. It was the triangle type aurora tr3b with 3 red and 4 amber lights going along the side. There was distinct symptoms of various technologies in use.

I had two upper left quadrant of vision flashes - which is textbook indicia of microwave beaming directly at the head.

The triangle made a very low humming that was barely audible - possible microwave or plasma.

We studied this thing at eye level hovering silently for several minutes as it inched towards us, panning this search light that was so weird, you could see the light on top of the triangle, but no beam, only the area it would light up in front of it. When the ship and beam got close enough that it was going to contact us, we both ran from it, but I had the most unnatural terror of god feeling that wasn’t making my knees shake uncontrollably. Sheer terror, and I feel that looking back, it was artificial. We suddenly got flashed the second time with microwave and found each other perfectly calm and facing each other - the ship had departed and could be seen maybe a mile or so away. Some time was unaccounted for, and we both smelled distinctly like hospital on our arms and in the immediate air (ozone ?).

Anyways this was at a college in Utah and the guy who took us to this was the son of a military guy at dugway proving ground nearby. The next morning he excitedly asked “did you see something?” I was traumatized but played it off like it was cool to see some weird sht that previous night. Only me and my friend saw it super close up, the rest of the group saw it hovering at maybe 100 yards and then again at a mile away.

It took me years to find that article by dehlinger, and it provided much needed closure to the event. I don’t recommend anyone get involved in these mock up ufo experiments - you’ll just be an expendable rat to test out their tech on. It’s sick and it should be banned.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
I had two upper left quadrant of vision flashes - which is textbook indicia of microwave beaming directly at the head.

The triangle made a very low humming that was barely audible - possible microwave or plasma.

Plasma is not very easily controllable though. Plasma is ionised gas (atoms) and have a charge. To manipulate a plasma, you need an magnetic field. I find it hard to believe the physics, is you have plasma balls being controlled without visible magnets, coils and whatnot.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
PS: remember, the only report of AATIP/AAWSAP that is still classified is report #35 regarding "Current state of the art of high energy beam (weapons / techniques / .. paraphrasing)"

Where is that report?
In the FOIA file dump there are 37 Defense Intelligence Reference Documents, DIRD #35 is about Quantum Computing:

1651673140450.png

Or are your referring to DIRD #23, which is not classified?

1651672789093.png
 

Domzh

Active Member
not sure anymore. its been a while. there was a list of all the released reports and it stated there were 35 but only 34 got released.

the title seems to match though but its also weird that the initial index claimed 35 reports and now there are 37.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
not sure anymore. its been a while. there was a list of all the released reports and it stated there were 35 but only 34 got released.

the title seems to match though but its also weird that the initial index claimed 35 reports and now there are 37.
Based on this comment, when the "initial index" was compiled, the series was still expanding, as #35 was planned but not yet released. Clearly, that "initial index" wasn't the final index.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
according to a 2019 foia they conducted 35 reports in total?
Per your link (bold by me):

Virginia-headquartered Directed Technologies, Inc., which has been receiving government contracts since 1985, appears to have provided a report so legitimate on high energy laser weapon development that AATIP published two versions, one of which was classified Secret with instructions not to release it to foreign nationals. This is the only one of the 38 studies that is classified in any way. All of the others are simply labeled “For Official Use Only.”
Content from External Source
www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26056/heres-the-list-of-studies-the-militarys-secretive-ufo-program-funded-some-were-junk

So maybe there is/was a classified version of one of the files.

Probably getting off topic here, there's a thread about the files here:
www.metabunk.org/threads/pentagon-releases-1500-pages-of-ufo-documents-including-other-paranormal-stuff.
 

Granite

New Member
Having obeyed all micks rules, yet still my posts are getting deleted, I’ll try one last time.

First, someone questioned my claim regarding upper quadrant flashes of light from RF (I used the term microwave) energy directed at skull - this has been known for decades:

https://moscow.sci-hub.st/3474/ce0ba5df57f1605397b55f6aec94ac9c/ruttan1990.pdf

Albert Budden states:
If the brain of the subject is exposed to an [alternating] magnetic field whose frequency varies from 10 to 100 Hz and whose power varies from 200 to 1,000 G, the subject will see flashes of light [...] in the top left corner of his visual field."


Next someone questioned corn stalks being bent from RF energy (microwaves). Here is the support:


Microwaves:

bullet
Research by Dr Levengood (of BLT Research Team), an American biophysicist, corroborated by the analyses of Ken Larsen, a British biologist, has shown that the way in which the stalks (wheat, rapeseed…) are flattened without being broken or damaged [p. 25…] is typical of a UHF microwave effect. Thus one can see stalks of rapeseed curving at 90 degrees, the flowers of which are still intact, although those same rapeseed stalks break easily when one attempts to bend them over by hand [p. 151]. The new position taken up by the plant becomes fixed. It continues to grow horizontally [p. 3 and 158] and breaks if one tries to return it to the upright position.

Alright I was gonna post about how the plasma and maser works, but let’s see if this will get censored too,

I’m up for changing my position - let’s debate the facts and sources. I see no reason to memoryhole my posts if they obey the rules unless mick is either not who he says he is, or is merely another person that can’t imagine ever being wrong. As to the latter, if this is the case mick - is there any evidence that you would accept to explain ufos besides whatever your current preconception is (which I don’t even know what your position is because you refuse to even debate or refute what I’ve claimed).

Here’s to hoping I’m wrong about mick and this site.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Having obeyed all micks rules, yet still my posts are getting deleted, I’ll try one last time.

First, someone questioned my claim regarding upper quadrant flashes of light from RF (I used the term microwave) energy directed at skull - this has been known for decades:

https://moscow.sci-hub.st/3474/ce0ba5df57f1605397b55f6aec94ac9c/ruttan1990.pdf

Albert Budden states:
If the brain of the subject is exposed to an [alternating] magnetic field whose frequency varies from 10 to 100 Hz and whose power varies from 200 to 1,000 G, the subject will see flashes of light [...] in the top left corner of his visual field."
i dont see that quote in your link. and i dont see Albert Budden listed as an link paper author.

what is the source of your Albert Budden quote? what is the source of your "microwaves" quote?

(and your posts weren't deleted the convo was moved to Rambles. )
 

Mauro

Active Member
Having obeyed all micks rules, yet still my posts are getting deleted, I’ll try one last time.

First, someone questioned my claim regarding upper quadrant flashes of light from RF (I used the term microwave) energy directed at skull - this has been known for decades:

https://moscow.sci-hub.st/3474/ce0ba5df57f1605397b55f6aec94ac9c/ruttan1990.pdf

Albert Budden states:
If the brain of the subject is exposed to an [alternating] magnetic field whose frequency varies from 10 to 100 Hz and whose power varies from 200 to 1,000 G, the subject will see flashes of light [...] in the top left corner of his visual field."
What are we talking about? About microwaves, or lasers, or low-frequency magnetic fields, or RF (radio frequencies) or what? Are we taking about small fields in the order of one milligauss (as in the article by Ruttan and al.) or fields hundred of thousand of times stronger as in the quote from Budden? It's just a big confusion with no clear claims.

About the Ruttan and al. article: you're reading ways too much into it. It does not say people saw flashes of light, and the subjects were kept in a state of sensorial deprivation which by itself produces (as the article says)
enhanced vestibular, depersonalization and imagining experiences

Indeed, what the article found was that
Subjects exposed to the magnetic fields displayed enhanced vestibular, depersonalization and imagining experiences compared to sham-field controls.

So, at best, the article shows magnetic fields can enhance the effect of sensorial deprivation, which may well be, after all transcranial magnetic stimulation [wikipedia] is a known and respectable field of study. This does not mean one can be made to see flashes by exposing him to any kind of 'microwave' or 'magnetic' raygun, and most surely it does not make 'seeing upper quadrant flashes' a 'textbook' example of microwaves exposure as was claimed.


About Albert Budden: @deirdre already pointed out the quote is unsourced. Anyway, I've never heard of him, so I just googled it and this is how google presents him to me:
His reliability looks about zero to me, so, whatever he said, I don't take it to be the proof of anything at all.




Next someone questioned corn stalks being bent from RF energy (microwaves). Here is the support:


Microwaves:

bullet
Research by Dr Levengood (of BLT Research Team), an American biophysicist, corroborated by the analyses of Ken Larsen, a British biologist, has shown that the way in which the stalks (wheat, rapeseed…) are flattened without being broken or damaged [p. 25…] is typical of a UHF microwave effect. Thus one can see stalks of rapeseed curving at 90 degrees, the flowers of which are still intact, although those same rapeseed stalks break easily when one attempts to bend them over by hand [p. 151]. The new position taken up by the plant becomes fixed. It continues to grow horizontally [p. 3 and 158] and breaks if one tries to return it to the upright position.
Dr. Levengood being of BLT Research Team (a group of crop circles enthusiasts, it seems) is not a good credential from my point of view, just the opposite. But I'd really love to know how Dr. Levengood (et al.) came to the conclusion that stalks being flattened is 'typical of a UHF microwave effect'. Did he make experiments, or does he have a theory on how microwave could possibly do this, did he publish anything in a peer-reviewed journal about this astounding and never-heard-of possible application of microwaves, which I'm sure could have a lot of practical uses and help make some good money, possibly revolutionizing a lot of physics on the way? C'mon, you can just make a crop circle by yourself just by trampling on a field with the help of some ropes and some planks, there are countless videos and websites explaining the details, no need for fancy microwave physics, just regular human beings having fun in a funny way (provided they had it worked out with the farmer, of course!!).
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Next someone questioned corn stalks being bent from RF energy (microwaves). Here is the support:


Microwaves:
bullet
Research by Dr Levengood (of BLT Research Team), an American biophysicist, corroborated by the analyses of Ken Larsen, a British biologist, has shown that the way in which the stalks (wheat, rapeseed…) are flattened without being broken or damaged [p. 25…] is typical of a UHF microwave effect. Thus one can see stalks of rapeseed curving at 90 degrees, the flowers of which are still intact, although those same rapeseed stalks break easily when one attempts to bend them over by hand [p. 151]. The new position taken up by the plant becomes fixed. It continues to grow horizontally [p. 3 and 158] and breaks if one tries to return it to the upright position.
Where did this quote come from? I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I can't find any reference to the bending of plants being "typical of a UFH microwave effect".

This guy proposed that some use parts of a microwave and a car battery to heat the corn stalks so they'll bend, but it requires the artist to literally drag a car battery and cannibalized microwave around the field with them.

Taylor proposes that crop circle makers are now using GPS to accurately position the intricate patterns as well as a device called a magnetron, made using parts from a microwave oven and powered with a 12-volt battery flatten corn crops.

He explains that the same radiation waves that heat food within a microwave cause crop stalks to fall over and cool in a horizontal position. Taylor has recreated the method using a magnetron developed by his team at the University of Oregon.

He has also discovered that construction lines, accuracy markers commonly used in architecture are also used to design crop circles.

While Taylor uses empirical research to dispel the ideas of UFOs and other farfetched conspiracies, farmers remain none too pleased about the continuing tradition of crop circles popping up mysteriously on their acres every summer.
Content from External Source
www.christianpost.com/news/crop-circles-made-with-gps-and-microwaves-physicist-says.html?msclkid=70761b43cfa911ecb4a8212b818562bf

And here is Dr Levengood, although this is from the HuffPuff, so....:

Biophysicist W. C. Levengood examined the plant cellular abnormalities and concluded, "Spinning plasma energies hit these plants probably right after flowering, but the formations were not visible until a few weeks later. That means something knows how to interact spinning plasmas with plants at different times from seed to adult growth to create the eventual patterns I have studied."
Plasma is a gaseous state of matter with positively charged ions and negatively charged electrons. Glowing polar auroras are common Earth plasmas.
Content from External Source
www.huffpost.com/entry/crop-circles-more-complex_n_919611?msclkid=70778acbcfa911ecbea0558040179b33

So "spinning plasma energy" not UFH microwaves in this quote, but plasma is very hot (bold by me):

Plasma temperature, commonly measured in kelvin or electronvolts, is a measure of the thermal kinetic energy per particle. High temperatures are usually needed to sustain ionization, which is a defining feature of a plasma. The degree of plasma ionization is determined by the electron temperature relative to the ionization energy (and more weakly by the density). In thermal equilibrium, the relationship is given by the Saha equation. At low temperatures, ions and electrons tend to recombine into bound states—atoms[33]—and the plasma will eventually become a gas.
Content from External Source
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)?msclkid=bc3dbc6dcfab11ecb8ac165189d1608c

And we still have the issue of where all this plasma energy is coming from. An aircraft? A satellite? And it seems like a massive amount of energy to "beam" down for a cop circle. To what end?

I found NASA testing alfalfa with microwaves, but not making crop circles:

"Nobody has accomplished 2.4 GHz sustained microwave plant-illumination experiments before, to the best of our knowledge," he said. Skiles chose to test alfalfa because it is an important crop that animals and people eat. Alfalfa also is representative of a broad class of economically important plants, he added.

Skiles said he is planning additional, longer experiments to test a variety of plants under various conditions. "Long-duration mixes of plant species experiments as well as testing single plant species for response to microwaves under stressful conditions, including plants from a desert ecosystem, will be future tests," he said.
Content from External Source
www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_55AR.html?msclkid=e665d51ecfa511eca1e824a493de430f
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Having obeyed all micks rules, yet still my posts are getting deleted, I’ll try one last time.

Must be a conspiracy!

Next someone questioned corn stalks being bent from RF energy (microwaves). Here is the support:

Microwaves:

bullet
Research by Dr Levengood (of BLT Research Team), an American biophysicist, corroborated by the analyses of Ken Larsen, a British biologist, has shown that the way in which the stalks (wheat, rapeseed…) are flattened without being broken or damaged [p. 25…] is typical of a UHF microwave effect. Thus one can see stalks of rapeseed curving at 90 degrees, the flowers of which are still intact, although those same rapeseed stalks break easily when one attempts to bend them over by hand [p. 151]. The new position taken up by the plant becomes fixed. It continues to grow horizontally [p. 3 and 158] and breaks if one tries to return it to the upright position.

The only place I can find that text is on the only-works-with-JavaScript https://textarchive.ru/c-2075849.html , where the highly informative paragraph before that one contains "Many hypotheses have been examined, including that of extraterrestrials because UFOs have often been observed in the vicinity.". So I don't think we're referring to a reliable source here. The fact that both one American and one Brit believe some woo-woo doesn't make it a "corroborated". The fact that repeated crop-circle artists have admitted to making some of the patterns that have undergone analysis by "scientists" such as yours, which they had concluded, and corroborated, were made by woo-woo space-rays, shows that such conclusions and corroborations are worse than useless. (And on the telly program I remember where they interviewed the artists, they also interviewed plant scientists who showed us under the microscope that the bends in the stalks were not special or strange, but mundalely indistinguishable from being bent underfoot, contradicting the claims above). Details are now sketchy, the telly program was 3 decades ago.

It could even have been these guys: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswsfx
audio: https://open.live.bbc.co.uk/mediase...nondrm-download/proto/https/vpid/p06l2q4s.mp3 )
Lede:
In 1991 a mystery was solved when two English men claimed responsibility for the creation of crop circles. The huge patterns had been appearing on farmland across England for years and had scientists puzzled, with explanations ranging from whirlwinds to UFOs. Despite this admission of guilt, many people still refused to accept this simple explanation. So what is the truth about crop circles? Claire Bowes has been speaking to John Lundberg who knew Doug Bower one of the men who came forward in 1991.
Content from External Source
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
"Nobody has accomplished 2.4 GHz sustained microwave plant-illumination experiments before, to the best of our knowledge," he said.
Content from External Source

Yebbut radiation-enhanced mutations have been experimented with in plant breeding since the early 1900s:
developing and implementing technologies that, through the use of gamma irradiation and X-rays, can induce the mutation of plants and thereby considerably speed up the breeding process.
Content from External Source
-- https://www.iaea.org/topics/mutation-breeding
Mutation induction, [...] has been an important tool for plant breeders for more than 70 years to increase the genetic diversity of plants and derive new mutant lines with improved characteristics.
Content from External Source
-- https://www.iaea.org/topics/mutation-induction
So this is an old field of study, to the best of my knowledge. Of course, anyone familiar with Einstein's Nobel Prize will know why the outcomes of the experiments started the 30s (namely great successes) will be vastly different from the outcomes of the above (you don't quote any, nor would the null hypothesis expect anything significant).
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Albert Budden states:
If the brain of the subject is exposed to an [alternating] magnetic field whose frequency varies from 10 to 100 Hz and whose power varies from 200 to 1,000 G, the subject will see flashes of light [...] in the top left corner of his visual field."


Next someone questioned corn stalks being bent from RF energy (microwaves). Here is the support:


Microwaves:
bullet
Research by Dr Levengood (of BLT Research Team), an American biophysicist, corroborated by the analyses of Ken Larsen, a British biologist, has shown that the way in which the stalks (wheat, rapeseed…) are flattened without being broken or damaged [p. 25…] is typical of a UHF microwave effect. Thus one can see stalks of rapeseed curving at 90 degrees, the flowers of which are still intact, although those same rapeseed stalks break easily when one attempts to bend them over by hand [p. 151]. The new position taken up by the plant becomes fixed. It continues to grow horizontally [p. 3 and 158] and breaks if one tries to return it to the upright position.
Straight copy&paste from https://www.ovnis-armee.org/5_crop_circles.htm , it looks like

When you want us to know something, quote it using EX tags (second button group on the website edite, click the 3 dots and then use the square&arrow button) and provide a link to where you found it (do both!). This procedure is explained in the Link Policy, available via the "Info" menu on the site navbar, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/metabunks-link-policy.5158/ , look under the "Links" heading. Follow the link there ("Quote relevant excerpts using EX tags")to learn more about EX tags.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Senior Member.
Next someone questioned corn stalks being bent from RF energy (microwaves). Here is the support:

Microwaves:

bullet
Research by Dr Levengood (of BLT Research Team), an American biophysicist, corroborated by the analyses of Ken Larsen, a British biologist, has shown that the way in which the stalks (wheat, rapeseed…) are flattened without being broken or damaged [p. 25…] is typical of a UHF microwave effect. Thus one can see stalks of rapeseed curving at 90 degrees, the flowers of which are still intact, although those same rapeseed stalks break easily when one attempts to bend them over by hand [p. 151]. The new position taken up by the plant becomes fixed. It continues to grow horizontally [p. 3 and 158] and breaks if one tries to return it to the upright position.

I just had a hilarious case of convulsive laughter, after skimming through the link's pages. Sorry.

In all seriousness, what you are bringing forth as "reference material" is a bit weak, to say the least.
 

Domzh

Active Member
I just had a hilarious case of convulsive laughter, after skimming through the link's pages. Sorry.

In all seriousness, what you are bringing forth as "reference material" is a bit weak, to say the least.
we should discuss the matter without ridiculing / mocking but explain why we think a specific source or argument is lacking.

otherwise we will argue like ufologists - just coming from a different POV but still make it extremely hard for someone else to adjust their view because ego comes into play

ps: this is not only related to your comment but the majority of comments in this thread
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
So this is an old field of study, to the best of my knowledge.

I didn't explain myself very well in looking at the post. I included it as an example of some actual research I found while searching for "Microwaves bending crop stalks".

When you want us to know something, quote it using EX tags (second button group on the website edite, click the 3 dots and then use the square&arrow button) and provide a link to where you found it (do both!).
If you're a less sophisticated user, such as myself, you can also just literally type EX inside of brackets [ ] at the beginning of your quote. Then follow your quote with /EX inside of brackets [ ] to offset it as external content, followed by your source.

So your copy and pasted quote looks like this with the EX and /EX in [ ] added.
1652126213586.png
Then add the source after the /EX in [ ] and it will look like this when you post:

Plasma is superheated matter – so hot that the electrons are ripped away from the atoms forming an ionized gas.
Content from External Source
www.psfc.mit.edu/vision/what_is_plasma?msclkid=bc3e17a2cfab11ecbb9bd6a9bbda305f

You can also click the "preview" button at the top of the post box to see if it's working.

Took my slow mind a while to figure this out.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
we should discuss the matter without ridiculing / mocking but explain why we think a specific source or argument is lacking.

otherwise we will argue like ufologists - just coming from a different POV but still make it extremely hard for someone else to adjust their view because ego comes into play

ps: this is not only related to your comment but the majority of comments in this thread

One problem is that with old reference materials, there's no opportunity to work out what common ground can be used as a starting point for a discussion. That particular source uses the existence of crop circles to support existence of UFOs, and UFOs as support for woo-woo-generated crop circles. WIth logic as circular as that, how are we supposed to give it any respect? Plus there's the whole hoaxers-admitted-it's-a-hoax thing that they refuse to acknowledge. You can't have a sensible argument with a determination to remain ignorant as strong as that.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
we should discuss the matter without ridiculing / mocking but explain why we think a specific source or argument is lacking.

otherwise we will argue like ufologists - just coming from a different POV but still make it extremely hard for someone else to adjust their view because ego comes into play

ps: this is not only related to your comment but the majority of comments in this thread

Ok, you are right. Sorry.

I just remember the Robbert vd Broeke case so well, as featured on that website.
 

Domzh

Active Member
@FatPhil I understand fully what you mean, but theres a thin line between skepticism and cynicism. I myself have a strong tendency to be a cynic or argue in bad faith when it comes to topics that I believe are somewhat ridiculous.

It is ok if we analyze an external discussion (reddit for exp) but imo its different when someone invests some time and effort to seek an honest discussion on metabunk and tries to back his views with sources.

I have to remind myself often that there are different levels when it comes to understanding what a valid source is. It takes some time and guidance for some to learn how they can validate or qualify their sources and check them for plausibility.

If we cant resist our impulses and mix in some cynical comments, then this often leads to big obstacles for the other party to change their view because we meet them from a somewhat elitist level and trigger ego defense mechanisms.

Thats not a problem if the other person is one of these religious believers that doesnt want to learn about truth, new insights and facts but its sad if they are just misinformed and kinda lost in the rabbit hole filled with misinformation, camouflaged as legit sources.

Its easier to identify and point it out in others way of arguing than my own though :)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Straight copy&paste from https://www.ovnis-armee.org/5_crop_circles.htm , it looks like
ah. and that's where albert budden is too. (bold added by me)

Article:
It is likely that these geometric designs are due to the firing of an aerial military microwave cannon, piloted by computer. The arguments supporting this view are as follows:

Why Microwaves:


Research by Dr Levengood (of BLT Research Team), an American biophysicist, corroborated by the analyses of Ken Larsen, a British biologist, has shown that the way in which the stalks (wheat, rapeseed…) are flattened without being broken or damaged [p. 25…] is typical of a UHF microwave effect. Thus one can see stalks of rapeseed curving at 90 degrees, the flowers of which are still intact, although those same rapeseed stalks break easily when one attempts to bend them over by hand [p. 151]. The new position taken up by the plant becomes fixed. It continues to grow horizontally [p. 3 and 158] and breaks if one tries to return it to the upright position [p. 140].



Phenomena of electromagnetic origin have been observed at the locations: irregular compass behaviour [p. 172], disturbance of electrical apparatus [p. 44, 60 and 172-173], disturbance of radio frequencies, luminous flashes [p. 34, 52, 65 and 95], cracking sounds [p. 52, 63, 66 and 172-173], animals obviously unwell [p. 65 and 81], dowsing effects [p. 177-178], etc. Numerous positive effects (spontaneous cures, feelings of peace…) or negative effects (temporary paralysis, mental confusion, loss of memory, terror…) have also been observed in humans [LP98]. Let us remember that certain effects could also be explained by a reaction of fertilisers or pesticides subjected to microwave radiation, a reaction which could release toxic gases [LP98, who mentions organic phosphates]. The appearances of luminous flashes and the cracking sounds are not inevitably objective phenomena and they could be only feelings induced in the brain of the witness by an electromagnetic field. Albert Budden gives an example of such magnetophosphenes: "If the brain of the subject is exposed to an [alternating] magnetic field whose frequency varies from 10 to 100 Hz and whose power varies from 200 to 1,000 G, the subject will see flashes of light [...] in the top left corner of his visual field." [AB98 p. 59-60, citing research by L. Ruttan, M. Persinger and S. Koren].
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
This is from a Navy Budget document I found a while back.

As you can see dated Feb 2004, and mentions a Smart Target program which provides a realistic visual, infrared and radio frequency simulation of threat systems . Note the area it was to be used in ie Southern Californaia Offshore range and San Clemente Island

That area should ring a bell for you . ie it's where the Tic Tac event happened in 2004

See below

1652152636570.png
 

Domzh

Active Member
its not in line at all

one is talking about targets FOR the navy (but couldnt find anything about it online with various search terms) the other is talking about an anti missile system
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
its not in line at all

one is talking about targets FOR the navy (but couldnt find anything about it online with various search terms) the other is talking about an anti missile system

So one is creating fake possible targets, and the other's creating fake possible targets. Totally different, got it.
 

Domzh

Active Member
So one is creating fake possible targets, and the other's creating fake possible targets. Totally different, got it.
have you ever seen plasma induced by laser? would you label this as a (quote) "realistic visual simulation of threat systems"?
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
have you ever seen plasma induced by laser? would you label this as a (quote) "realistic visual simulation of threat systems"?

I am not the adversary that they are trying to fool, what I think about them is irrelevant.
 

Domzh

Active Member
I am not the adversary that they are trying to fool, what I think about them is irrelevant.
Post number 30 is about targets for their own forces. Hence why I said these two posts / findings dont really align at all.

The plasma thing is intended as a missile decoy for adversaries, basically like flare decoys but somewhat more advantageous
 
Last edited:
Top