Notes taken by Richard Hall (NICAP) at a Meeting
Held on xx/xx/xx at University of Colorado
CU MEETING RE: E-M EFFECTS & INSTRUMENTATION PLANS
Meeting convened at 9:30 a.m., broke for lunch, and resumed
Thereafter, lasting a total of 3 hrs. 45 min. Main panelists were two
representatives of Ford Motor Company, F.J. Hooven (Special
Consultant to General Manager) and David F. Moyer (Advanced
Manufacturing Engineering Manager). Others: Dr. E. U. Condon, Dr.
Joseph Rush (in charge of CU project plans for optical
instrumentation), Prof. Berndt Matthias (speaker on ball lightning
earlier in week, prof. at Univ. of California, San Diego); Bob Low,
& others.
Following account will follow the general flow of conversation rather
than putting it in logical order.
One of first points from Ford reps was that more data is needed in
E-M cases regarding the type of car and type of transmission. One or
two skeptics present occasionally interjected that maybe some
of the headlight failures were only illusions caused by a brilliant
light source drowning out the headlights. One cited the vagueness of
many reports. RH said he would check back through NICAP's E-M cases
and try to dig out some of the details they need; said in some cases
headlights were observed out by others outside the car and couldn't
be explained as illusions.
Question was asked, what is the greatest distance known with any
reliability in which E-M effects were reported. RH said greater than
might be expected; that we first tried to relate E-M effects with
closeness, but that also reported at fairly great distances. Some
figures to be obtained from NICAP reports.
After a disgression [sic] on oxygen deprivation, gasses, etc. that
might cause failures, Hooven was asked to imagine anything that might
stop a car electrically (he felt that electrical interference of some
kind was far more reasonable than stray gasses, etc.) Hooven replied
that he couldn't conceive of anything that would stop a car,
especially the low impedance headlight Circuits; somewhat easier to
rationalize motor failures (high voltage circuits). The reversible
process (motors restarting by themselves as sometimes reported) are
especially difficult to account for. Most domestic headlight now use
circuit breakers rather than fuses (this is one point for
investigators to determine).
Matthias raised the possibility of effects of ultrasonics, that they
might temporarily disrupt circuit breakers. Moyer said circuit
breakers were well-protected, energies required would cause fire,
etc., and have other obvious effects. Fact that European automobiles
had been affected (Michel's cases) was mentioned.
Condon inquired about information on tests actually made on cars to
see what did affect then, (jokingly terming this approach
experimentation, not related to real science). Someone suggested
there may be Civil Defense data telling effects of radiation on cars,
since CD cars would have to operate in radioactive, areas. Question
was asked about possible effects of strong radar on cars. It was
agreed to try to obtain sash this type of data as background.
The Antarctic magnetometer case was mentioned; Condon asked if any
other magnetometer cases; RH said he wasn't aware of any. Condon said
not surprising since so few magnetometers in existence. Man from ESSA
or HCAR said about 150 sites existed; said he knew of no odd readings
obtained. RH cited parallel of "no radar," "no Smithsonian photos,"
and raised question of whether such unusual data might be
rationalized or ignored. Got some support on this from others
present. Brief discussion on attempts to match up UFO reports near
magnetometer sites, then check back through records for odd readings.
Idea died out.
Hooven said he and Moyer had been toying with idea of a tape
recording device with telemetry for magnetic/electric readings which
might be circulated to police agencies. Discussion on value of police
officers as witnesses ensued, with skepticism voiced by some. Condon
said state police probably better in general. (Low had previously
expressed his preference for pilots, FAA types, willingness to let
NICAP develop police net).
Some discussion on magnitude of a stationary (static) magnetic field
required to stall auto engines. General agreement that it would have
to be very large, about 20,000 Gauss (far beyond normal experience).
Discussion of constructing huge magnet and running car through field.
Considered impractical. Moyer said huge magnet would saturate the
hood of car, then go inside, eventually producing flux in the coil
such that couldn't get any spark. Condon asked about data on
sensations an individual might have in such a field. (Wadsworth, who
made basic presentation of types of E-M cases reported, had mentioned
"numbness" and "paralysis" cases). Matthias cited personal experience
of painful effects on fillings in his teeth while he was moving in a
large magnetic field.
Question of more experimentation raised. Condon said no definite
decisions had been reached. Considering cameras, diffraction
gratings, and now E-M sensors had been suggested. Condon said any
field equipment would have to be cheap and foolproof. Amateur
interest could be exploited, and perhaps even some devices could be
marketed. Discussion ensued re: distribution of devices to NICAP, the
general public, ... and some problems of mass distribution (such
as a flood of poor information).
Dr. Rush said he would ask Sky & Telescope, Scientific American and
other similar mags to cooperate, publicize and help distribute.
Condon asked RH the chances of getting to the site and recording
something while a sighting was still in progress; how often did our
personnel arrive in time to see something. RH estimated that in
recent years perhaps 12 times a year (e.g., recurring sightings in
Exeter; Ft. Smith, Ark; LA Subc. where members have seen a UFO
reported to them...) Condon and Rush both found this greatly
encouraging, though RH later had doubts about his own estimate.
After some skeptical remarks by one of the CU panelists to the effect
that, "how did we know the E-M reports were not mistaken observations
to begin with," Hooven and Condon both took the position there was no
point to the present meeting at all if we made that assumption.
Hooven disputed the position that, "if we can't explain it, it
couldn't happen." He cited some examples from the history of science
to make his point, and envisioned scientists of 200 years ago looking
at the marvels of today, unable to understand the many new principles
and inventions evolved since their time. (It was particularly
pleasing to have Condon express the positive approach at this point).
Since a debate had been going on about what types of instrumentation
should be developed, and whether they should be distributed
selectively or generally, RH suggested development of a gadget to put
on cars such that if an E-M case occurred data would be obtained
regardless of the type of witness, and not requiring his knowledge of
the mechanism. In the process, RH used the unfortunate phrase of
making the gadget "standard equipment" on cars, bringing a loud groan
from the Ford people and throwing the discussion off the track
momentarily. RH quickly amended this to mean distribution to a large
sample of car-owners, for example, all NICAP members. Condon picked
up the idea, labeling it the "black box," and seeing certain
advantages to it. The device would be used in certain specified ways,
following rules A, B & C without introduction of error by the
witness, and would tend to offset the weaknesses of general
distribution as stated strongly by Matthias.
Question was raised about frequency of day vs. night E-M cases, and
RH could not answer. Said NICAP could follow-up on older cases and
try to obtain some of missing data. Also want to study older cases to
find any containing ranging information. RH said many definitely
included this information.
Low again raised question of possible Ford experimentation to
determine actual effects on autos by magnetic fields, etc. Hooven
suggested a study of battery and headlights alone, but Condon
objected on the grounds that they would want the more complete
environment, (i.e, total auto) to be sure nothing was overlooked.
Anti-gravity was briefly mentioned as a possible real cause behind
E-M cases; a system which might have E-M side effects. (The
extraterrestrial hypothesis obviously was being taken seriously).
AFTERNOON SESSION
Began by summing up morning session; realization that so far they had
been dealing basically with NICAP raw material, few other sources. At
one point during a discussion of the present rate of reports RH had
said NICAP was getting 100 a week) Condon asked Low, "How many are we
receiving from the Air Force, about 10 a week?" Low replied that
right now they were receiving "more than 10 a week."
Dr. Rush sunned up his ideas and present plans on quantitative
measurement. Agreed they would equip NICAP teams, at least, and
circulate gear as widely as possible as long as objective use factor
taken into account. Perhaps put some fancier gear in select
locations. RH said NICAP had considered a kit from time to time
(compass, diffraction grating & other simple devices) & Rush has
similar plans for Colorado investigators.
More discussion on logistics and range of distribution, from very
popular to highly selective. Condon said they would study the range
of possibilities further, and asked members to do so and make
recommendations.
Hooven raised possibility of querying Ford dealers (6000) re: UFO
reports in general and E-M effects in particular. Or (fewer) regional
representatives. Rush summed up by saying that a "coordinated variety
of instrumentation" was the biggest need. Low emphasized that a
little good data would be infinitely superior to droves of mediocre
data.
At this point, discussion came down to believability of occupant
reports, communication attempts; have any radio signals been
reported? It was agreed that some of these would provide ultimate
proof, but obvious problems with kooks, etc., inhibit attempts in
these areas.
Main conclusions were that data gathering needs improving and
specific means would be worked out to accomplish this; dissemination
problems for devices need to be ironed out; Ford will work on ideas
and designs for instrumentation.
NOTES
Low at one point made the statement that in 1953 a "private company"
(presumably a reference to RAND) had spent $600,000 on a UFO study,
and it was worthless.
Toward the end of the meeting, Hooven mentioned a photo in Feb. issue
of Sky &. Telescope, pg. 12, showing an unexplained object in front
of the sun, and a follow-up letter in March issue. Discussion about
whether it was a UFO, a revival of the Planet Vulcan, or what. Some
argument that it couldn't have been a satellite, but disputed by Low
who mentioned the many classified payloads in orbit.
CHECK-LIST FOR E-M CASES
(Evolved by RH from meeting notes)
- Year, make and style of car.
- Headlights -- fused or circuit breakers?
- Were all cars in area of sighting affected, or selective effect?
- If headlights reported out, was this observed from outside car?
- Ranging data.
- Day or night? (Lighting conditions)
- Sequence of various effects.
- Any effect on battery?
- ... to be enlarged ...
R.H.
|