Friday, April 18, 2008

Greg Bishop poses a question I bet you've never considered before:

Why Don't UFOs Stall Airplane Engines?

Greg assumes for sake of argument that the force that repeatedly stalls cars must be electromagnetic -- but that's not necessarily the case. Marc Davenport, in "Visitors from Time," suggests that UFOs bend the spacetime in their immediate vicinity, thus accounting for all manner of strangeness ranging from "missing time" to perceived changes in color.





Davenport also argues that the kind of vehicle shut-downs immortalized in "Close Encounters" are inconsistent with EM effects, noting that a field powerful enough to disable a car engine would permanently cripple the afflicted car. Consequently, documented cases of car engines spontaneously starting up once the UFO has left the vicinity would seem to be due to some other phenomenon -- possibly in keeping with "anti-gravity."

The speculative upshot of Davenport's book is that UFOs could be literal time machines, perhaps from our own future.

10 comments:

kcotae said...

Who says they haven't? Many airplane crashes are unexplainable.
Also it may be a little different for jet engines...

Tony F. said...

I'm just trying to think of who in the world would be qualified enough to comment substantially on this subject. Someone with a degree in electrical engineering, who would be fluent with both automotive and aerospace mechanics perhaps? And then, on top of that, they'd have to be well-versed in UFO case studies, so they could recognize patterns of mechanical and electrical behavior during a ufological phenomenon.

I would just add that, if UFOs are craft being piloted by beings from another planet, dimension, or time, then the technology they're using would have to be evolved to the point where they wouldn't just leave an EM effect like exhaust gas wherever they went. They would probably have the ability to contain, and then release, that effect whenever they wanted. Perhaps even direct it at certain points. Hence the whole "Close Encounters" scene where Neary gets stranded next to the train tracks (my favorite scene in all of film).

Mac said...

Also it may be a little different for jet engines...

Well, yeah, but *why* is it "a little different"? That's sort of the whole point.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps "they" can selectively stall whatever engines they choose to.

W.M. Bear said...

Knowing that pilots are some of the biggest tricksters, pranksters, and tall-tale-tellers in the world, I discount virtually all pilot stories of UFO encounters. Thus, I have to laugh at the credulity of UFO researchers who regard these accounts (and others "military observers" who, in general, share the same relish for tall tales). As far as I'm concerned, THIS is the real reason why airplane engines haven't stalled....

Mac said...

WMB--

Knowing that pilots are some of the biggest tricksters, pranksters, and tall-tale-tellers in the world, I discount virtually all pilot stories of UFO encounters.

This has to qualify as one of the most incredibly stupid things I've ever heard re. the UFO controversy. It's the sort of silly (and bogus) generalization I'd expect from Michael Shermer or perhaps the late Philip Klass -- except I suspect that that even professional would-be debunkers would know enough about the phenomenon to avoid making such embarrassing blunders.

Mac said...

Perhaps "they" can selectively stall whatever engines they choose to.

That would certainly come in handy for abductions. Although it's worth noting that Betty and Barney Hill reported something more akin to hypnosis as opposed to anomalous effects on their car.

Anonymous said...

"That would certainly come in handy for abductions. Although it's worth noting that Betty and Barney Hill reported something more akin to hypnosis as opposed to anomalous effects on their car."

Were there any engine stalling effects reported in the Hill case? I don't recall any.

I was thinking more about the multiple incidents of car stalling reported in the 1957(?) Levelland, Texas cases. Very weird series of similar incidents involving car stalling effects. When the ufos departed, the cars started up again. No permanent damage to electrical systems.

I guess my point, without being previously explict, was that one of the patterns over the last 60 years is the number of what appear to be selective cases of car stalling incidents.

This would suggest in those incidents where cars were temporarily disabled, and then followed by some fairly dramatic ufo "display" almost immediately afterward, that it seems to imply a deliberate action, perhaps showing some intent, thus intelligence.

So, I'm guessing car stalling may be a selective option being exercised, due to the majority of close encounter cases involving transport by car that do not involve stalling cars. One of the more obvious patterns to be recognized, or signals within the noise.

Anonymous said...

As for Davenport's "time machine" speculations, if such were even possible, such technology would also have to be programmed to move in not just time, but also space, simultaneously, as the earth, solar system, and galaxy are moving a somewhat differential speeds of thousands of miles per second.

In other words, without the pre-programmed space travel equations and travel tech added in, if you were to turn on a time machine, even if for only a minute or so, from either the past or future (or present), you would not return to the same physical 3D location. You'd find yourself in the vacuum of space (where no one would hear you scream) thousands of miles away from where you "started."

So, any actual time machine would also have to incorporate a "space ship," just to return to the same physical point in both space and time. Hmmm...maybe Davenport _is_ on to something. Or not.

Anonymous said...

Check the comments following the post over at ufomystic.com--there's some interesting speculation about this question.