• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Foo Fighters

eburacum said:
The Foo Fighter phenomenon is just about the only type of sighting where the 'ball lightning/plasma sphere' explanation seems to be the best one. The planes of World War II and just after were large objects that flew at unusual heights and speeds; this might have caused electrostatic phenomena which rarely occur in modern flight, so isn't seen very often in the present day.
Click to expand...
I have often wondered about this myself.
 
Many were described as "silver balls" alone or in clusters, and thought to be a Nazi Wunderwaffe. Like the "Go Fast" video, no visible means of propulsion. Others were described as balls of fire --could be ball lightning / plasma spheres (though some might argue plasma spheres could appear metallic).
 
Nick Cook found evidence that the foo fighters were anti aircraft weapons, and even determined the facility responsible -- the Institut fur Elektrophysik Hermann Goering, Landsberg-am-Lech, Bavaria. It operated tests at an airfield at Pensing into gas, aircraft, pilotless aircraft, and radio communication. It might be that someone is trying to duplicate that technology, perhaps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carl Grove said:
Nick Cook found evidence that the foo fighters were anti aircraft weapons, and even determined the facility responsible -- the Institut fur Elektrophysik Hermann Goering, Landsberg-am-Lech, Bavaria. It operated tests at an airfield at Pensing into gas, aircraft, pilotless aircraft, and radio communication. It might be that someone is trying to duplicate that technology, perhaps.
Click to expand...


Carl Grove,

My 'schtick' is the study of Luminous-Orbs, whose appearance and behavior incidentally fit the described appearance and transit behaviors identically with those of foo-fighters, as derived from the hundreds of pilot reports re; the subject.

Regarding Nick Cook, his 'Foo-Fighter' information is considered controversial by some, and by others to be just plain faulty.[1] However all that may be, myself being an engineer, and having participated in the design of remote controlled aerocraft for various interdiction programs during the early 1980s, the notion that the German technology was able to remotely guide 15,24cm/6" diameter glowing-plasma-ensheathed spheres, sans any control surfaces, remotely controlled, at high altitude, without radio antennae and capable of receiving guidance control signals through the plasma, seems a bit far fetched, don'tcha think? If there were German controllers, they would have had to be located close to the spheres (generally there were typically 7 or 8 present simultaneously) to be able to see where to guide the small volleyball sized spheres. The Germans weren't using psionics, miniature digital electronics did not yet exist nor microcontrollers and the spheres were physically too small for a Human pilot to fit inside, so the spheres had to be remotely long-wave radio controlled devices. If that is not enough to convince one, remember, that the average sensitive radio receiver using the valves/vacuum-tubes that were available in the 1940s ~ 1943, and requisite B+ power-supplies for those, were bulky, large, heavy and very power-hungry.[2][3] Try stuffing one of those into a 15cm diameter sphere, and have it radiate brighter light than a landing-light and enable it to zig-zag about as though it does so without the effects of inertia and with greater speed and agility than demonstrated by the observing military aircraft were capable of.

In any case, the objects depicted in the photograph do not appear similar Foo-Figher descriptions and the apparent depicted geometry are not consistent with foo-fighter spheres, and the one outstanding salient feature noted by all observers of these objects, concerns the glow, and none of them have **EVER** been noted to glow black. It is my opinion that what ever is trailing the jet, is not a foo-fighter, or a BOL, or a NLP, or a Luminous-Orb.

The navigational capability of German technology is clearly illustrated by the problems that Werner von Braun demonstrated with his autonomous caged-gyroscopes that he and his colleagues invented to remotely guide his V2 rockets. That was the best available and Germany laid their hopes on that functional technology to turn the tide of the war for them. The Germans were actively working to develop control strategies that could be used to guide pilots to US bomber flight streams, but were complicated, not very precsion and not too useful. Certainly was not miniaturized with the requisite control/feedback required for precision in and around fighter aircraft positioning demonstrated by the Foo-Fighter 'orbs'.[3]

plutronus
1) https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=50624&start=96
2) FUG-16 Z Radio - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FuG_16_Z_radio_Messerchmitt_Bf_109_G-6_2.JPG
3) German Radio Navigation Strategies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams
 
Last edited by a moderator:
plutronus said:
Carl Grove,

My 'schtick' is the study of Luminous-Orbs, whose appearance and behavior incidentally fit the described appearance and transit behaviors identically with those of foo-fighters, as derived from the hundreds of pilot reports re; the subject.

Regarding Nick Cook, his 'Foo-Fighter' information is considered controversial by some, and by others to be just plain faulty.[1] However all that may be, myself being an engineer, and having participated in the design of remote controlled aerocraft for various interdiction programs during the early 1980s, the notion that the German technology was able to remotely guide 15,24cm/6" diameter glowing-plasma-ensheathed spheres, sans any control surfaces, remotely controlled, at high altitude, without radio antennae and capable of receiving guidance control signals through the plasma, seems a bit far fetched, don'tcha think? If there were German controllers, they would have had to be located close to the spheres (generally there were typically 7 or 8 present simultaneously) to be able to see where to guide the small volleyball sized spheres. The Germans weren't using psionics, miniature digital electronics did not yet exist nor microcontrollers and the spheres were physically too small for a Human pilot to fit inside, so the spheres had to be remotely long-wave radio controlled devices. If that is not enough to convince one, remember, that the average sensitive radio receiver using the valves/vacuum-tubes that were available in the 1940s ~ 1943, and requisite B+ power-supplies for those, were bulky, large, heavy and very power-hungry.[2][3] Try stuffing one of those into a 15cm diameter sphere, and have it radiate brighter light than a landing-light and enable it to zig-zag about as though it does so without the effects of inertia and with greater speed and agility than demonstrated by the observing military aircraft were capable of.

In any case, the objects depicted in the photograph do not appear similar Foo-Figher descriptions and the apparent depicted geometry are not consistent with foo-fighter spheres, and the one outstanding salient feature noted by all observers of these objects, concerns the glow, and none of them have **EVER** been noted to glow black. It is my opinion that what ever is trailing the jet, is not a foo-fighter, or a BOL, or a NLP, or a Luminous-Orb.

The navigational capability of German technology is clearly illustrated by the problems that Werner von Braun demonstrated with his autonomous caged-gyroscopes that he and his colleagues invented to remotely guide his V2 rockets. That was the best available and Germany laid their hopes on that functional technology to turn the tide of the war for them. The Germans were actively working to develop control strategies that could be used to guide pilots to US bomber flight streams, but were complicated, not very precsion and not too useful. Certainly was not miniaturized with the requisite control/feedback required for precision in and around fighter aircraft positioning demonstrated by the Foo-Fighter 'orbs'.[3]

plutronus
1) https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=50624&start=96
2) FUG-16 Z Radio - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FuG_16_Z_radio_Messerchmitt_Bf_109_G-6_2.JPG
3) German Radio Navigation Strategies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams
Click to expand...
I think that the guidance of the foo fighters was said to be controlled by infrared detectors to home in on the heat generated by the aircraft engines, and a kind of electronic countermeasure used to cause the engine to misfire. However, the latter obviously wasn't too effective.
 
Hi Carl,

While it is true that German engineers were developing heat seekers for missile guidance, they did not deploy anything that was functional by the end of their war. In fact the first military to do so was the US Army, with the AIM-9 which was only functional for around 15 seconds of flight due to its battery life being a thermal battery, which was then and remains so today, the common method of supplying electrical power for motors, actuators and attendent guidance electronics. Its another obvious inconsistency compared with reported Foo-Fighter behavior, as the objects were reported to loiter for tens of minutes, and at other times as long as 45 minutes before 'disappearing'. In addition to German engineers having solved antigravity, they also must have solved the power-problem also. The Foo-Fighter didn't just fall out of the sky either. Also, remember the date was pre-integrated semiconductor period and there were no portable digital computers of any kind anywhere small enough to fit inside an aircraft, let alone a 15cm/6inch sphere, crammed with antigravity and power-supply gear.

Another aspect to consider is that the 'Cook' heat-seekers would have simply followed aircraft engine heat, which unlike jets, are located at the front of the aircraft, while the Foo-Fighters were frequently observed a few centimeters/inches adjacent to the pilot's cockpit or adjacent to the wing-tips of the fighter aircraft or at the tail-end of the aircraft. In any case these objects moved where ever they deemed rather than the bang-bang guidance of the primitive vacuum tube amplified PbCds sensors available at the time, and most of those were only capable of tracking to around 15º, although capable of 'windowing' 270º due to surrounding hardware heat. In other words, the structure of the seeker was blinding the receiver with self-generated noise.

Here is a rational logical question for Nick Cook; if the Germans had such technology, why did Germany lose the war? Why did those Foo-Fighters hang around obsevering instead of shooting down enemy aircraft?

Just another faulty explanation guess. No one I know understands what these objects, and I know all the investigators, and I'm one of them, collectively we have few clues. A fellow investigator, Dr. Earling-Strand (Proj Hessdalen), who visits with me at my home when in the US, has a few theories as derived from his instrumented field studies. None of us know what they are. Erling has some fascinating data, but how do those things work? Dr. Harley Rutledge (Dept Chair of Physics, Mo.edu), shared a long mm catadioptic lens photo with me as one of these objects 'disintegrated', depicting light 'pulsing' behaviors that replicate Dorothy Izzats photos of 10mm dia luminous-orbs/foo-fighters in a crop-circle in the UK. Her photos were color. I've seen disc-orbs (10m diameter ionized spheres surrounding a disc) which exhibited similar motions and color changing pulsings near Stephenville, Tx. I have dozens of similar photos including a few given me by Dr. Bruce Cornet. I saw a luminous-orb from a distance of about one foot. It was one foot over my head, one foot from my face, in daylight. It was stationary, absolutely motionless. It resembled descriptions of ball-lightening (which I believe is an alien mimicry strategy for hiding from us) until it changed and spoke to me telepathically, or something akin to that function. What are these things?

plutronus
 
aliengabes said:
Who would try to duplicate this technology?
Click to expand...

aliengabes,

Perhaps you did not see my previous questions regarding your sighting and your reported telephone artifacts that you experienced that you mentioned in the other thread that the board administration locked. I'd like to hear your answers to those questions.

Re; who would try to duplicate the technology...probably anyone who has the capability to manufacture weapon systems and could.

Thanks for sharing.

plutronus
 
feinman said:
Many were described as "silver balls" alone or in clusters, and thought to be a Nazi Wunderwaffe. Like the "Go Fast" video, no visible means of propulsion. Others were described as balls of fire --could be ball lightning / plasma spheres (though some might argue plasma spheres could appear metallic).
Click to expand...

feinman,

It seems obvious that the glowing spheres likely have an underlying structure and that simply disabling the ionozation energy would likely reveal that structure, possibly being a metalic appearance sphere. I've seen unedited (edited versions of same video have appeared on TV) video of a silver or possibly aluminum metalic appearance volley-ball sized sphere creating crop-circles, zipping around over the fields. It was easy to imagine a microwave beam being manipulated, changing its focal point, as the crop-circle was being formed below, only the 'beam' remained invisible, likely being microwave. I attended a Dr. Leavengood lecture at an SSE conference in San Diego a few years ago; at that time, he was promoting the theory that cropcircles were being caused by an heretofore unknown natural atmospheric microwave source. That was before he met Dorothy Izzat in the UK.

As YOU likely know there have been studies where microwave generators were successfully used to create crop-circle like botanical node-steaming.

It is fascinating to note that the alien disc craft will not stray within 12km radius of operating airport RADARs. I suspect that behavior may be due to the amount of microwave structure hardware employed inside these craft. The Roswell boomerang apparently (from my book research) strayed into a Phillips Lab MASER beam test. One can easily see the ionization field in almost every photo of disc photos once one realizes that they are looking through an ionized field in order to see the craft's hull. That is why so many of the photos are blurry!! Its not because of crappy photography or hoaxes, but rather its an artifact of the field generation for operation of the craft. The bottom geometry may well designed for microwave beam manipulation just as Dr. Hill has suggested. I'd sure like to look around inside one of those craft. Interestingly, the same day the craft material was purportedly transported to Wright-Patterson, in an adjacent bldg, the military instituted the "Directed Energy Weapon Directorate"...what a coincidence?

plutronus
 
^Completely agree. Many of these objects create ionized fields around themselves, probably as a propulsion by-product. The objects I saw had ionization fields around them, too. I think all of the crop circles with complex geometry are made by people; the real crop circles are like the Tully Saucer nests.
 
Tonight when I am home, I'll describe my sighting again, and the corroborating sighting I discovered not long ago.
 
feinman said:
^Completely agree. Many of these objects create ionized fields around themselves, probably as a propulsion by-product. The objects I saw had ionization fields around them, too. I think all of the crop circles with complex geometry are made by people; the real crop circles are like the Tully Saucer nests.
Click to expand...

feinman,

For myself, the boat is still out re; authenticity of phenomenon caused crop-circles, although I have heard some very curious stories from people who were present during the creation of a circle in the UK. There is a significant difference between the manner in which crop-circle plants are 'bent-over' in suspected authentic BOL/Foo-Fighter/NLP/Luminous-Orb/Corpse-Candles/Willo'Wisps/Hessdalen-Lights created circles in comparison with known hoaxed circles . Aside from that, people who point to those amazingly large and complex sophisticated so-called 'crop-circle' patterns that have been photographed from airplanes extending dozens of acres of land as being too large and too complicated to have been perpetrated by teams of people using planks and "all of it over-night" could well be easily duped. Many of the modern farming tractors, are tantamount to being completely robotic equipment, operatorless autonmous machines, that drive through the fields navigated by a USB drive stored computer generated 'farming task' template, while precisely constrained, guided by RTK Differential GPS receivers. The tractor has no operator inside, although there have been a few lawsuits as result of tractors running over people who were in the path of the template. Those monstrous crop-circle patterns could very easily be created using those robotic tractor systems that all the big farma are now using.

I've written previously about this possible explanation five years ago as well as posting screen-grabs of the 'task' template software, photos of the John Deere & Shen Siu robotic tractor systems, the RTTK GPS guidance antennae, etc.

plutronus
 
Yes, I am familiar with the differences between stalks bent while being exposed to microwave radiation vs. those manually crushed into position. I'm open to the possibility some of the simple forms could be created by "orbs" and there have been witnesses or some circumstantial evidence. The automated mowers make a lot of sense for the complex yantra, mandala- like or even Qabbalistic forms. I think you are right.
 
Bill Chalker:
https://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-1966-tully-flying-saucer-nest.html

Tully%2BPedley%2Bnest%2B1.jpg
 
feinman said:
Tonight when I am home, I'll describe my sighting again, and the corroborating sighting I discovered not long ago.
Click to expand...
Tonight or this weekend. Sometimes I don't feel like thinking about it. Maybe after some coffee.
 
I am generally disturbed by the large leaps made in this thread. But I'll just step back and observe.

However, there is this:

"ball-lightening (which I believe is an alien mimicry strategy for hiding from us)"

Just. No. Lots of terms that are left undefined are bandied about in this thread. Ball lightning is moderately examined by a small group of specialist scientists. There are dozens of possible explanations, another one came up recently, but none are so extraordinary as to invoke alien cloaking. It seems many of the BOL phenomena may feasibly be natural, but, like other examples of atmospheric phenomena, we haven't been able to capture/contain them for study.
 
Sharon Hill said:
I am generally disturbed by the large leaps made in this thread. But I'll just step back and observe.

However, there is this:

>>"ball-lightening (which I believe is an alien mimicry strategy for hiding from us)"

Just. No. Lots of terms that are left undefined are bandied about in this thread. Ball lightning is moderately examined by a small group of specialist scientists. There are dozens of possible explanations, another one came up recently, but none are so extraordinary as to invoke alien cloaking. It seems many of the BOL phenomena may feasibly be natural, but, like other examples of atmospheric phenomena, we haven't been able to capture/contain them for study.
Click to expand...

Hello Sharon Hill,

> Lots of terms that are left undefined are bandied about in this thread.
To which terms do you refer? Things like ROM, RAM? or RTK, MASER, etc? All vintage technology which can easily be 'googled'; I try to leave enough crumbs to enable the curious to come up speed wrt my posts.

>but none are so extraordinary as to invoke alien cloaking.
This presumes that the object was in fact ball-lightening, irregardless of the entire sequence of described exhibited behaviors that suggest otherwise. However the URL that you cited:

https://www.sciencealert.com/russia...nce-behind-ball-lightning-as-bubbles-of-light

I must admit that this is a new and interesting speculation and one that I had not read before, and I've read much on the subject over the years, long before I became interested in Near Earth ET Studies. Although based in what I know about physics and chemistry, the description doesn't seem to match many of the reported characteristics seen in authentic ball-lightening events.

"Luminous-Orbs" (for my convenience, and is my name for a suspected alien object class), in my opinion are just as mysterious and interesting as are ball-lightening and while the two objects do seem to share similarities, they are not the same type material objects but are often confused as being one and the same by the unindoctrinated.

Authentic 'Ball-Lightening', apparently, is a form of natural electrically based phenomena but which are not intelligent, whereas, Luminous-Orbs, are in my and other ET scientist opinion, and are suspected to be likely an alien 'mecha' (for lack of a better definition) and do exhibit intelligent behaviors including consciousness and demonstrated functionality akin to 'telepathy'. Coincidentally, luminous-orbs frequently present themselves in scenarios that could be explained-away as being ball-lightening, and it is in that vantage that I cite the behavior as being "mimicry'. These objects seem to purposely appear to be something other than what they are, which seems to be a form of hiding-in-plain-sight. This behavior is also seen in other alien mecha exhibitions.

Sharon, my interest is not to educate everyone about what is already suspected and-or known within the Near Earth ET Studies community, but rather to find and engage in cogent conversation with folks who are also further along the ET-presence learning curve, hopefully to find and learn something new. I've moved on from attempting to hold debates with skeptics, and as I've stated before, I will not debate the subject for the sake of proving something contested as experience has illustrated that it can not be accomplished. So, I skip over'm.

Best Regards,

plutronus
 
Last edited:
feinman said:
Tonight or this weekend. Sometimes I don't feel like thinking about it. Maybe after some coffee.
Click to expand...

feinman,

I'm looking forward to reading your sighting. If you don't feel comfortable doing so at this time, I'll understand. Personally, I like JD & 7, (not meaning bandie anything around) but my doctor instructed me to drink otherwise, so for me, these days its a great big ice cold ice tea that turns my crank...with no shuga! Just plain ol' black tea for me!

plutronus
 
I think I'll be recharged enough to post my experience tonight. I didi post it here long ago, but now there is more.

Plutronus, I'd love to hear more about your experience! The orb hovering over your head.. You were communicated with?
 
plutronus said:
Hello Sharon Hill,

> Lots of terms that are left undefined are bandied about in this thread.
To which terms do you refer? Things like ROM, RAM? or RTK, MASER, etc? All vintage technology which can easily be 'googled'; I try to leave enough crumbs to enable the curious to come up speed wrt my posts.

>but none are so extraordinary as to invoke alien cloaking.
This presumes that the object was in fact ball-lightening, irregardless of the entire sequence of described exhibited behaviors that suggest otherwise. However the URL that you cited:

https://www.sciencealert.com/russia...nce-behind-ball-lightning-as-bubbles-of-light

I must admit that this is a new and interesting speculation and one that I had not read before, and I've read much on the subject over the years, long before I became interested in Near Earth ET Studies. Although based in what I know about physics and chemistry, the description doesn't seem to match many of the reported characteristics seen in authentic ball-lightening events.

"Luminous-Orbs" (for my convenience, and is my name for a suspected alien object class), in my opinion are just as mysterious and interesting as are ball-lightening and while the two objects do seem to share similarities, they are not the same type material objects but are often confused as being one and the same by the unindoctrinated.

Authentic 'Ball-Lightening', apparently, is a form of natural electrically based phenomena but which are not intelligent, whereas, Luminous-Orbs, are in my and other ET scientist opinion, and are suspected to be likely an alien 'mecha' (for lack of a better definition) and do exhibit intelligent behaviors including consciousness and demonstrated functionality akin to 'telepathy'. Coincidentally, luminous-orbs frequently present themselves in scenarios that could be explained-away as being ball-lightening, and it is in that vantage that I cite the behavior as being "mimicry'. These objects seem to purposely appear to be something other than what they are, which seems to be a form of hiding-in-plain-sight. This behavior is also seen in other alien mecha exhibitions.

Sharon, my interest is not to educate everyone about what is already suspected and-or known within the Near Earth ET Studies community, but rather to find and engage in cogent conversation with folks who are also further along the ET-presence learning curve, hopefully to find and learn something new. I've moved on from attempting to hold debates with skeptics, and as I've stated before, I will not debate the subject for the sake of proving something contested as experience has illustrated that it can not be accomplished. So, I skip over'm.

Best Regards,

plutronus
Click to expand...

I was referring to the mash up of "BOL/Foo-Fighter/NLP/Luminous-Orb/Corpse-Candles/Willo'Wisps/Hessdalen-Lights". These are particular things so unless context is provided in how you distinguish them, it's confusing.

I'd prefer less assumptions - I'm not a "skeptic" and I'm not going to debate either; I don't have an argument to push and there are no solid positions to defend. I was trying to make sense out what sounded like a lot of sciencey mumbo jumbo and pretentious talk. You seem to be infusing descriptions with explanations, though. I see this often done with UAP claims which taint the claims. Until the luminous orbs (which sound exactly like general "BOLs", thus my frustration) are objectively demonstrated to be "alien 'mecha' " (Exactly who "suspects" this is "likely"?), I'll stick with "Gee, that's weird."

But I admit, if you aren't trying to educate, then you're doing just fine for your purposes.

P.S. It's "lightning".
 
plutronus said:
feinman,

I'm looking forward to reading your sighting. If you don't feel comfortable doing so at this time, I'll understand. Personally, I like JD & 7, (not meaning bandie anything around) but my doctor instructed me to drink otherwise, so for me, these days its a great big ice cold ice tea that turns my crank...with no shuga! Just plain ol' black tea for me!

plutronus
Click to expand...
It's here now:
https://tinyurl.com/y5hsoblv
 
A natural explanation for foo-fighters. From Jason Colavito's enewsletter • Vol. 24 • Issue 6 • February 4, 2024 • The article he refers to is posted below the newsletter extract.

Meanwhile, a new study concludes that the so-called foo-fighters of World War II were a type of aerial plasma that behaves similarly to living organisms, even though it is not alive, because of its attraction to electromagnetic radiation. The plasma globs were drawn to airplanes, leading to sightings. The plasma is related to the phenomenon of ball lighting and may well be responsible for some UFO sightings today. I have long suspected something like this, so it is not terribly surprising to me, but ufologists immediately tried to make a fascinating scientific question into an outrageous one by suggesting plasma is alive and acting consciously, despite no evidence of this and the obvious problem that plasma bubbles dissipate fairly quickly. Even mayflies last longer. Won’t it be weirdly ironic that the guy who claimed the most anomalous UFOs were actually giant flying jellyfish-like sky creatures might have been closer to the truth than the whole crack team of U.S. government researchers?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________--

In the 1940s, Allied pilots during the Second World War reported being hounded by fast-moving blobs, which they dubbed “foo fighters”.

Shaped like clouds, donuts, balls and spheres, and often glowing or translucent, the strange entities have fuelled conspiracy theories that Earth was being visited by advanced civilisations.

Now a paper suggests the phenomena are in fact plasmas, or ionised gases, which are drawn to the electrical charge of aircraft, spacecraft and satellites.

Experts from the universities of California, Arizona and the Harvard-Smithsonian argue that the strange properties of plasmas make them appear to behave like living organisms, even though they are not alive.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...-two-foo-fighter-ufos-really-were/ar-BB1hG3gB
 
Last edited:
With thousands of aircraft many with 4 1000 plus hp engines swinging big props
with the tips close to the speed of sound churning through mucky, dusty sooty
air I would be very surprised if it didn't generate all sorts of interesting effects.
Osprey operating in dusty conditions.

1707072649687.png
 
Last edited:
RaM said:
With thousands of aircraft many with 4 1000 plus hp engines swinging big props
with the tips close to the speed of sound churning through mucky, dusty sooty
air I would be very surprised if it didn't generate all sorts of interesting effects.
Click to expand...
My thoughts too. Never before or since in human history had we put literally hundreds of four-engined flying machines in such tight formations.
 
ramonmercado said:
A natural explanation for foo-fighters. From Jason Colavito's enewsletter • Vol. 24 • Issue 6 • February 4, 2024 • The article he refers to is posted below the newsletter extract.

Meanwhile, a new study concludes that the so-called foo-fighters of World War II were a type of aerial plasma that behaves similarly to living organisms, even though it is not alive, because of its attraction to electromagnetic radiation. The plasma globs were drawn to airplanes, leading to sightings. The plasma is related to the phenomenon of ball lighting and may well be responsible for some UFO sightings today. I have long suspected something like this, so it is not terribly surprising to me, but ufologists immediately tried to make a fascinating scientific question into an outrageous one by suggesting plasma is alive and acting consciously, despite no evidence of this and the obvious problem that plasma bubbles dissipate fairly quickly. Even mayflies last longer. Won’t it be weirdly ironic that the guy who claimed the most anomalous UFOs were actually giant flying jellyfish-like sky creatures might have been closer to the truth than the whole crack team of U.S. government researchers?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________--

In the 1940s, Allied pilots during the Second World War reported being hounded by fast-moving blobs, which they dubbed “foo fighters”.

Shaped like clouds, donuts, balls and spheres, and often glowing or translucent, the strange entities have fuelled conspiracy theories that Earth was being visited by advanced civilisations.

Now a paper suggests the phenomena are in fact plasmas, or ionised gases, which are drawn to the electrical charge of aircraft, spacecraft and satellites.

Experts from the universities of California, Arizona and the Harvard-Smithsonian argue that the strange properties of plasmas make them appear to behave like living organisms, even though they are not alive.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/tech...-two-foo-fighter-ufos-really-were/ar-BB1hG3gB
Click to expand...
So are they still seen today? My Dad’s dad saw some while in the RAF. If they are natural are they still about or do modern planes not have what attracts them?
 
This paper is co-authored by Rhawn Joseph, a well-known fringe 'scientist' who produces a lot of tosh. I thought something was unusual when it started talking about sightings of plasma from the ISS (which were almost certainly ice particles), and about Buzz Aldrin's (completely explained sighting) from Apollo 11. If Aldrin has explained this sighting in a satisfactory manner, why even mention it?

Here's the Wikipedia page about the Journal of Cosmology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology
edited by Rudolf Schild, another co-author of this paper.

The paper was published in the Journal of Modern Physics, another predatory publisher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing
https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/list-of-all-scirp-predatory-publications

In short, the idea is nonsense.
 
Looking at the MSN article it seems a lot less like a study and more like a guess. I hope the actual paper will provide better arguments, and preferably an attempt the replicate the phenomenon. Why are we not seeing these plasma balls swarming all over the airplanes we have today?
 
I've read the actual paper, and it is full of over-intepretations.

The one event I find interesting is a 'streak' that was filmed by the ISS from a distance, flying above the top of the atmosphere. This one probably was a plasma bolt- but a perfectly familiar one, caused by a large meteor or bolide entering the atmosphere somewhere above the Earth. From the vantage point of the ISS, 400km high, you can see about a quarter of the Earth's surface; this should allow you to see a fairly large number of meteors, far more than you would see from the surface.

A bolide is a much more likely explanation than a 'living plasma'.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top