[Ray Stanford and I will be on The Paracast podcast Sunday, October 4th rebutting the recent story that claims the pivotal 1964 "Socorro/Zamora Incident" was a hoax perpetrated by college students. Ray wrote what I consider to be the finest book ever written about a single UFO case—Socorro—and he, along with Alan Hynek, investigated the case in '64. Ray's book Socorro Saucer in a Pentagon Pantry is a truly important book and Ray's work is head and shoulders above anyone else in the private sector—Christopher O'Brien]
 

CONCERNING PHYSICAL STUDIES OF ANOMALOUS AERIAL OBJECTS (AAOs)

By Ray Stanford, Founder & Director, Organization for Physical UFO Science, College Park, Maryland, USA

Recently, some internet discussions concerning my project's UFO studies with electronic and optical instruments have been appearing. Those postings, and some responses to them by a couple of persons who have received them, make it advisable to clarify a few things. So please read the following if you would like a brief first-hand glimpse at a few of the project's accomplishments.

In 1964, I founded Project Starlight International, which by 1974 had become far more heavily involved in pursuit of UFO-related hard data recording than any other non-government operation. Since the name subsequently was usurped by a notorious 'free energy' and 'UFO disclosure' promoter, my very much on-going project has recently been renamed Organization for Physical UFO Science.

Our quiet, decades-long approach to acquiring reliable UFO data bears no resemblance to anything that has been paraded before the media as UFO research. In fact, my recently re-worked and very much expanded PowerPoint presentation titled "Anomalous Aerial Objects (AAOs): Examining the Physical Properties with the Instruments and Methods of Science,” presents scientific evidence that should excite any scientist interested in physical theory, regardless of his or her previous perspective concerning anomalous aerial objects (AAOs), as UFOs are called in the presentation.

A lot of theory wagons seem to be trying to hitch to a star, but that star usually is highly speculative, and the theory wagon often seems mistakenly placed ahead of any scientific-evidence horse, however diaphanous. Hypotheses concerning UFO propulsion physics should have good, well-documented physical evidence, repeated evidence, and irrefutable evidence on which to reside if they are to be acceptable in any important journal of science. 

The most visible, often-heard 'UFO research' organizations, regardless of how membership-large on a world-scale they claim to be, appear to have had their 'research' programs formatted in the 1950s! They evidently are more dedicated to membership numbers and media responses than to hard science. Old-fashioned report mongers "train" (their stock-in-trade term) "field investigators,” instead of equipping educated (better than "trained", any day) teams to facilitate recording of the objects, per se (instead of reports) with instruments, whether by automatic detection and recording, or, preferably when practical, with experienced instrument operators on-site. Of course, that does not mean after the objects are gone. For physical science's sake, it means putting 'instruments-to-objects' while the objects are there and with those instruments operating in well-documented contexts. 

It might embarrass a report-oriented UFO establishment to acknowledge that a truly event-capturing scientific operation has come up with better evidence than they've ever seen or would be comfortable to see coming from others who seek scientific hard data in preference to the glare of TV lights and network notoriety as, however dubiously, "UFO experts.”

The project and I have advocated and practiced the active-instruments approach for over four decades. For evidence of that, someone could read my "A TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH TO UFOs, A Status Report on Project Starlight International", in CUFOs' publication INTERNATIONAL UFO REPORTER, Volume 2, Number 8, August 1977, pages 5 through 7. 

If that publication is not easily accessible, you can see a 1975 photo of, and read about, our automatic recording extreme low-frequency (ELF) magnetometer and its specifications at http://www.nicap.org/madar/psi-rmi.htm. Hey, you 21st century high-tech, solid-state geeks, don't laugh. It has a very successful field record (some of which you can read about below) and still works nicely.  :)

For a poor-quality 1975 photo that explains the components and potential uses of our 'UFO/VECTOR" video and laser multi-purpose experiment console, just click on  http://www.nicap.org/madar/psi-mpic.htm . Better photos are below, however.  At time of design and assembly, the UFO/VECTOR unit was surely the most sophisticated instrument ever put into operation in non-government UFO research. It probably still is. Although we never got to document UFO light bending using it [You can read below that we now have recorded far better evidence of such, than UFO/VECTOR might ever have supplied.], at our 400-acre lab site, we did manage to get the well-documented photo shown in the collage below, of my sweeping the UFO/VECTOR laser across a UFO's path, with the laser actually striking the anomalous aerial object, or else some protective 'defense perimeter' around it. The object was photographed from our three widely separated camera stations. The laser 'strike' happened on December 10, 1975, at 21:12 hours, local time, during an eight-second photographic exposure on Tri-X film, of the object's passage approximately parallel to our horizon. The object at first hovered for 10 minutes, then headed approximately toward us (See inset photo, lower right.), and finally turned away, taking the course recorded in the photo below. Within a few minutes after the sighting began, I contacted Bergstrom Air Force Base command post by telephone, and they told us that they were aware of the hovering object but could not identify it. The air force base -- the former location of which, since the base's close-down, has become Austin International Airport -- was in Austin, Texas, northwest of which was our 400-acre lab site, and, in town, our executive offices.

Only upon being told by the Bergstrom AFB command post, that the object was not identifiable as an aircraft, did I try to aim the laser in the object's direction. The photo image of the laser strike suggests to some the possibility that the object might have actually detected the laser beam sweeping in its direction and created some type of protective-diffusive effect around it. Why that possible interpretation? It's because the reflection where the beam struck the AAO seems more spread-out than would be expected from the narrow beam, even if it were hitting a spherical, mirror-like surface. Perhaps the object deliberately exuded some light-diffusive material, such as water vapor, to scatter any laser light arriving in its vicinity.

Have a look for yourself, but please don't reproduce the image without specific permission from me:

Admittedly that photo has nothing to offer physics concerning UFO propulsion. We would only begin to record very important propulsion-diagnostic film in late 1977, but I present the photo collage here just to show that my project was very seriously active at instrumented UFO studies back then, and as a token of the exciting fun we were occasionally having over two years before evidence caused us to go into very serious and rather quiet, multi-decade field-work and results analysis. All serious science aside for a moment, it amuses me to think that the photo might qualify for the Guiness Book of World Records, because it is well-documented, was evidently a world's first, and may still be a 'world's only' non-government photo of a laser striking what the project and even the Bergstrom USAF command post realized was a flying object that neither facility could identify. Our goal has never been Guiness, however.

To some of you, the photo may prove I'm a very foolish risk taker. My response is, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Then, too, the project was thinking ahead. That's why during UFO/VECTOR use, our crew always wore white jumpsuits and the UFO/VECTOR operator (in that historic case, me), and those immediately around him, wore green laser goggles.  :) 

The photo below shows part of the Optical Equipment Facility (Housed in a small, roll-back-roof building.) and the UFO/VECTOR unit, in better light. That's John Palin (no kin of the famous moose killer) using the UFO/VECTOR joystick to aim the system by watching the sky image provided by the video camera while looking at a video monitor. In the background at camera station # 1, Al Moulton talks via protected, underground lines, to the other two camera stations, each about 800 feet apart. That's me at lower-right, checking on the eight-channel chart recorder.

Our Electronic Equipment Facility was located about 1,000 feet away, to the north-east, on the 400-acre site:

Such practice-what-you-preach approach to instrumented UFO research across more than forty years has resulted in our having evidence better than I would ever have imagined possible when I began the instrumented UFO tracking-recording project in 1964, inspired by my investigation of the April 24, 1964, Socorro, New Mexico, close encounter of the third kind case -- the case that also seemed to finally cause J. Allen Hynek to take UFOs very seriously.

Below is Dr. Hynek's letter to me on Northwestern University Department of Astronomy stationery, mentioning the recent visit (in 1976, by himself, his wife Mimi, and two others) to our Project Starlight International facilities, and providing a statement intended for use by me in promoting my 211-page, 1976, book on the Socorro case:

Hynek also donated a copy of my book to the NASA Johnson Spacefilght Center's technical library. [Documentation of that fact is in my files.] Here are cover images of the Socorro book, as published in the USA, the UK, and in Spain, just in case a reader still thinks of me as an 'unknown' in UFOlogy. The British edition (middle, green cover) sold 90,000 copies.

Actually, Hynek made several visits to our project in Austin.  On one occasion, he brought along two well-known, space flight-experienced astronauts to discuss our physical research on UFOs.  Both astronauts expressed great enthusiasm upon learning of our use of the recording gravimeter. In fact, both of the astronauts told me that our most scientifically interesting results would be obtained through use of that specific instrument. Intriguingly, there was no equivocation about it. They were positive we would, and we did, as you will read below.

One might like to know why both the astronauts would happen to know that.  :-)

As to the unprecedented, unpublished, instrument-recorded, and often propulsion-diagnostic evidence we are now working with all these years later, to those of you who are objective, open-minded physicists or engineers, a lot of it should pretty much speak for itself when it is published in proper contexts.  I confess to being fairly confident after consultation with several Ph.D. physicists, that the evidence in-hand should eventually, if not initially, effect the complexion of mainstream theoretical physics.

If interested enough to read on, let me share with you some facts about a few of the many instrument-documented cases that will be published in due time.

Let's quickly look at only four examples. The first three of the four UFO events involve films simultaneously recorded with well-documented electronic evidences, including time-correlated ELF magnetometer recordings of 'signal' strengths well above any background 'noise': The three incidents are all in July of 1978, the year of the sighting wave that the late Richard Hall described as, "Perhaps the largest worldwide wave of all time..." (Richard H. Hall in Volume II THE UFO EVIDENCE A Thirty-Year Report, Scarecrow Press, 2001,page 348, ISBN 0-8108-3881-8).

Below you see our mobile lab with its custom 80-gallon gasoline tank (in case the situation was in too remote a location to obtain gas), being loaded up before the July, 1978, trip to west Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, during which three of the successful data-recording encounters mentioned below occurred.  A White Sands scientist had provided us a tip (after his sister had seen me on The Phil Donahue Show, showing our UFO monitoring equipment) that UFOs were "plaguing" government facilities out there, so we quickly packed up and headed for White Sands. The scientist said intelligence at the facility had issued a directive asking that recipients use "...any and every means at your disposal..." to gain 'intelligence' concerning the objects and their possible mission(s) in the White Sands area.

Event (1), west of Plains, Texas, provided a Super 8 mm movie filmed in broad daylight on the afternoon of July 19, 1978, showing two identical UFOs, either of which would with visual instantaneity suddenly reverse direction (a full 180 degrees), each time coincident with an ~ 2-second (instrument documented) magnetic pulse so intense as to (during the same ~ 2 seconds) virtually obliterate the WWVB time signal from Fort Collins, Colorado, which was below our horizon.

Event (2), at the north edge of the White Sands Proving Ground, near Oscura Peak, on July 19-20, 1978, mostly in the' midnight hour', enabled still photos of two identical very red ellipsoidal objects with a separated-from-object and equally red corona surrounding each. The corona was absent for about a 40 degrees arc, in the travel direction. The two objects' identical, visible-light spectra were photographed, although the results are of low-resolution. Each object's spectrum was single-line in the near-IR red, but very importantly, with line splitting! The phenomenon evokes thoughts of the Zeeman effect (considering the strong ELF magnetic field recorded). Also, considering each object's corona, the Stark effect might have been causing line-splitting. Google those two effects, if you don't know what they are, and would like to learn about them.

In that July 19-20 ('midnight hour') case, the two identical UFOs were repeatedly close enough to us and our instruments, that their turn-related sound effects (between which we could hear no object-related sound) were also recorded. Those visually instantaneous 180 and 90-degree turns show direct correlation with high-magnitude ~ 7 second ELF magnetic pulses far stronger than what precedes or follows them. In short, the visually instantaneous turns occur squarely in the middle of each ~ 7-second  jump in magnitude (as contrasts with the ~ 2-second pulse in the first case) of the ELF waves recorded on the magnetic record. 

Let's look at an analog graph of two of the ~ 7 second turn-associated changes in recorded ELF magnetic phenomena during those visually instantaneous turns. Study the analog graphs if you find them interesting, but please don't reproduce anything you see below without specific permission from me:

Each little square represents one second of time, flowing left-to-right. If the 'signal' looks noisy to you, that perception is accurate, and much of the complexity in what we see recorded is surely due to the fact that in this event there were TWO absolutely identical objects traveling very near each other. Both turns represented here were visually instantaneous (by a single object, not by both of them simultaneously) and of 180 degrees each.  The two UFOs were travelling along side-by-side, when one of the two was suddenly going in the opposite direction!  Then, ~ 100 seconds later (by count of squares on the analog graph), the other object instantly reversed its travel direction, too. I would therefore guess that the magnitude of the magnetic effect required to reverse an object's travel direction is responsible for the large wave(s) we see associated with each turn, being picked up by our sensor in a way that displays the smaller pulses within each object's field as though they are modulations of the larger, turn-related pulse(s). 

The purple-shaded square in each box is there to point out a somewhat ramp-shaped area during which one might guess that an ~ 5 second period is being used to stabilize the magnetoplasmadynamic (MPD) flow around the particular object that has just come out of a plasma-chaos period necessitated by flux differentials required to execute the reversal of direction. That interpretation of temporary plasma chaos (with attendant noisy shock waves) is bolstered by the fact that it was only in association with the ~ 7 seconds of strong magnetic flux, related to each turn, that we could hear (and succeeded in recording) the incredible earth and soft-tissue shaking noise reminiscent of the deep, 'throaty' rumble one heard in the movie Close Encounters of The Third Kind, while the 'Mother Ship' was capturing the little boy, pulling him through the pet's access door.

At all other times, we heard no sound from either of the two identical objects. The time-lag it took the turn-related rumble to reach us, was used as a basis for calculating object distance. Using the calculated distance in context of the arc each object subtended in our photos, we were able to determine the objects' approximate size fairly accurately. Surrounded by the deep red, rapidly pulsing corona described above, the objects were of ellipsoidal shape (resembling the shape of the UFO that had landed at Socorro over fourteen years before), and of about the same size, i.e., about 18 to 20 feet long.

For ~ 35 minutes, we were able to observe enough of  the two UFOs' repeated actions in the Oscura Peak area of White Sands, that we were forced to a conclusion as to what was transpiring.  This is not the place to discuss our little lab crew's unanimous conclusion about what we were seeing, however. 

Similar to what happened in the first case, WWVB reception from beyond our horizon at Fort Collins, Colorado, dropped dramatically during those much-stronger, turn-related magnetic pulses.

We also had the recording gravimeter operating that night and during the next event to be described, with very significant results. I offer two "Right on!"s and a couple of 'high-fives' for those two NASA flight-experienced astronauts' whose predictions to me proved absolutely correct.

Event (3), at the Skull Valley Overlook in the Prescott National Forest of northern Arizona, afforded a Super 8 mm movie filmed in broad daylight of both a huge 'carrier' and shuttles of several types, on July 27, 1978.  On several occasions during filming, shuttle objects zipped up close enough to our mobile lab crew and equipment that some details of the shuttles' structure were recorded on color movie film. In probably the closest approach by a shuttle (as judged by object clarity), one can see something quite intriguing inside the disc's transparent dome'. It is truly sunlit-and-shadowed, and the UFO qualifies as one of the late Allen Hynek's "daylight discs.”  One also sees 'emitters' at certain points around the object's flange, and some seemingly propulsion-related phenomena in the air around it.  But the particular set of strange phenomena I have in mind will surely require a far better knowledge of physics than have I, if proper interpretation of those effects is to be had. 

Just as in case (2), above, in the July 27, 1978, UFO event, both ELF magnetic and seemingly gravity-like waves were recorded, with time correlation. In both cases, the gravity or gravity-like signal detected and recorded by the gravimeter shows a highly remarkable correlation with the simultaneous ELF magnetic signal recorded. [Dr. Einstein, wherever you are, I hope you're listening.]

It is important to note that specific parameters of the gravimeter output demonstrate that it is not due to magnetic induction (In the first place, the entire system is magnetically shielded.) resulting from the strong ELF magnetic field being recorded simultaneously, nor was 'channel cross-talk' involved in any way. (Details of how so are available.) Both facts have been verified by the maker of the gravimeter, as well as, independently, by both a mechanical engineer and an electronics engineer. Each of the three told us that the gravimeter sensor output in both cases appears to be the result of an actual pulsed value of g (acceleration due to gravity) impinging the sensor. In short, we evidently have recorded a bona-fide gravity, or gravity-like, pulses originating from anomalous aerial objects (AAOs or UFOs). It is not an artifact.

As in each of the above cases, real color emulsion film was also used in all of the most scientifically important optical records from our other UFO encounters.  Exceptions are the December 29, 2006, and the December 1, 2007, daylight events, during which my Canon camera had an electrical intermittent, so I had borrowed a digital camera.

Event (4) might interest physicists even more than the first three. The 12-04-80 Tizayuca (The multi-object encounter is called "Tizayuca" because that's the name attached to the non-directional radio beacon the flight crew told me were flying over when the sighting began.) daylight color movie from Braniff Flight 56, Mexico, D.F., to San Antonio, Texas, records a gigantic elongated UFO and smaller 'shuttles' of the classic discoid, deltoid, and wing-shaped varieties. They all were filmed with excellent in-frame reference objects i.e., clouds and mountains, while we were climbing through 12,000 feet, in a fairly steep ascent to cruise altitude. Our aircraft was still within the northern perimeter of the Mexico D.F. Traffic Control Area and, in fact, in a flight-restricted MMR 100 zone. (Flight data are not a guess, since they came directly from the flight crew, immediately after the encounter.)

An odd, possibly ELF-related, phenomenon associated with that aerial encounter, was that I was amnesic concerning much of what was seen and filmed during approximately the last half of the encounter, until memory slowly began coming back when I had time to study the film carefully, frame-by-frame!  A similar thing has happened in at least one other of our daylight, movie-documented, multi-witness encounters of a huge 'carrier object' and associated shuttles.

But, back to the Tizayuca encounter: With mountain tops to the west being recorded in-frame, the image-height of the specific mountain directly (i.e., vertically in the film plane) under the ‘ carrier’, throughout the film, repeatedly ‘shrinks’ (optically, of course) vertically from full height to almost nothing during 5 film frames (at 54 frames/second).  After every 5-frame ‘shrink’, 15 frames are required for it to return to full height!  The steady repetition of 5-to-15-frame shrink-rise-cycle, occurring throughout the hundreds of frames exposed while our airliner was steeply climbing, eliminates mirage as an explanation. Other horizon mountain images are visible at various distances outward from the one mountain that is just below the huge 'carrier', and they optically shrink from 'normal' in direct proportion to their proximity (in the photo plane) to the huge 'carrier'. 

So, you see that we have quantitative data there (and in other parameters measurable in the film frames). For example, changes in the background light-intensity distribution pattern, and even in color of background of light passing through the area around the huge 'carrier', shown direct correlation with the pulsed mountain image's vertical shrink and rise. The subtle but easily visible color changes in the light should be carefully analyzed in an attempt to learn whether the color changes are due to the film-documented light-focusing effect alone, or whether we might be seeing evidence of Doppler shift as backlighting passes through the field of the huge UFO located at intermediate distance, relative to the horizon mountain tops sticking through a cloud layer extending to the horizon.

IMPORTANT REFRACTION-RELATED DATA that should interest any physicist reading this: The horizon mountain just below the 'carrier' (as viewed in the film plane, where the 'carrier' proves by motion-parallax to be closer than the horizon mountain), as filmed at 54 movie frames per second, optically shrinks (in the vertical dimension) at a rate of ~ 86.4 arc minutes (approximately three visual diameters of the moon) per second!  By contrast, the optical rise (in the vertical dimension, of course) occurs at only one-third the 'shrink' rate, or at ~ 28.8 arc minutes (about the arc covered by an average moon-view in earth's sky) per second. This remarkable optical phenomenon does not just occur for a few movie frames. In fact, it becomes evident the moment clouds at intermediate distance, which our airliner was passing and climbing above, cease blocking the western horizon so that the film captures the mountains on that western horizon. The phenomenon then continues for hundreds of frames, all the way through the movie.

Incidentally, I have learned from an atmospheric physicist that the above-described light bend rate is vastly more extreme than any that could occur in the atmosphere due to purely natural conditions.

I might mention for you physicists, that it's interesting that the mountain-down-mountain-up phenomenon beneath the huge, elongated 'carrier' (with some wonderful, huge deltoid objects milling around each other at some distance off the 'carrier's' south end) is within the very narrow, extremely low-frequency range of waves of change in acceleration due to gravity that were recorded in two of the aforementioned July, 1978, UFO encounters (in New Mexico and Arizona), wherein the gravimeter sensor was deployed.

So, in case someone hasn't realized it, we have here well-documented optical and electronic evidence of gravity or gravity-like waves associated with UFOs, and in very much the same frequency-ballpark.

During that 12-04-80 Tizayuca, Mexico, Braniff Flight 56 daylight movie, which was filmed in highly polarized light (explanation available), several of the shuttle type smaller objects repeatedly generate what seem to be pretty nice sets of alternately light and dark rings that may be due to Faraday rotation of backlight passing through an object's magnetic field under appropriate ion-state conditions across the field of passage. 

However the most wonderful set of rings seemingly due to Faraday rotation of backlighting yet found in the movie, clearly reveals that at the moment a biconvex disc took off at incredible speed, 21 absolutely beautiful concentric light-and-dark rings were generated!  The ring thickness increases in mathematical precision, with distance from the disc generating them, in what looks just like the same kind of way in which waves propagate our from where a pebble has been dropped in water.

A little more description on that seems advisable though: The pebble you drop (with its plane of symmetry parallel to the water surface upon striking it) into the smooth water is eight-sided (In an earlier release concerning this, I mistakenly 'remembered' it as six-sided.), with the result that the first few radial waves are octagonal.  As the radial waves propagate, they quickly transform into concentric circles.

That is exactly the case with the twenty-one expanding-with-distance concentric rings generated by the little (as compared to the huge 'carrier' object or 'mothership) domed disc off the north end of the 'parent' object. So spectacularly perfect and beautiful is that particular ring array that on one very pretty electronic PowerPoint slide of it, I declare, "There are times when we dream...and times when dreams come true!"

If it should happen that those rings are not due to Faraday rotation, then one might justifiably feel they could be due to something even more interesting and scientifically significant. I could say a lot more about exotic seeming field effects, both in that movie and upon electronic technology during the 12-04-80 event, per se, but must leave that to the coming in-depth publication and evidence analysis.

By the way, any of you TV-talking head skeptics out there can forget any idea of 'explaining' those beautiful filmed rings as Newtonian rings. Such a pseudo-explanation is utterly ridiculous because they're on the original film, per se. Then too, the images from the film used in my PowerPoint presentation of the movie evidences, were made with no glass on either side of the movie film, the filmed images being projected directly onto the wonderful old Cibachrome color photo paper, with which no intermediate negative is required.

Those 21 concentric rings are exactly in-plane with the plane of radial symmetry of the emitting discoid object.  The disc's plane of radial symmetry is tilted well out-of-parallel with the photo plane as to its vertical component, but also well out of the horizontal photo-plane component.

Now, please allow me to say something about one person's comment concerning videos and digital photo dangers. Well taken, but remember that I'm not talking about electronic (neither analog nor digital) movies or digital still photos.  As stated earlier, keep in mind that our really important movie and photo evidence is on good, old-fashioned color film emulsion.

Considering the scientific implications of that 12-04-80 'mountain dance' beneath the 'carrier' filmed from our steeply climbing airliner and our comparable gravimeter recordings, I beg to differ with anyone's insistence that my project's evidence couldn't make it into mainstream physical science journals.  Of course, presentation must be done only with an at-face-value approach, and with no UFO 'gee whiz it's an alien spaceship' kind of declaration. Publication can be accomplished, with a world-class physicist (or two) who has (have) not spoiled an otherwise good reputation with 'mainstream physics' by personal behavior unacceptable to 'the establishment'.  

Still not enough evidence, you think?  Well, say that only, if you then dare, after having seen it published or, in the interim, after seeing my PowerPoint presentation of over 425 electronic slides.

Keep in mind that I've not breathed a hint at some of the better -- far better -- evidence than what was just mentioned, and it's not only of great significance to theoretical physics, but to the future of aerospace science. I'm age 71, and am betting the rest of my life on it, spending twelve to eighteen hours of most every day organizing the evidence for meaningful presentation.

And look, please let no reader get the silly impression that UFOs have ever followed me or the project field crew around. Absolutely not. There are several factors which have contributed to our success, but that absolutely is not one of them. Persistence has been very important, of course, but another strong factor is that some of my project crew, some members of my family (my wife and two of my three children), and I, learned to cognitively brain-detect the strong ELF magnetic 'signature' of UFO presence, at times nearly as reliably as our automatic recording magnetometer-gravimeter when an ELF signal rises above the turn-on threshold level.

Those of us who have learned to recognize it, call that brain sensation of UFO-generated ELF detection "UFOria", and the phenomenon does indeed make one feel euphoric (i.e., a feeling of happiness, confidence, or well-being)!

Because the ability of the human nervous system to detect magnetic ELF has been clinically demonstrated, I don't think it would be wise for anyone to laugh very openly. The many 'hits' we've recorded in taking instruments out cannot realistically be attributed to chance, alone.

Visual-image recognition helps, too.

If any one of you doubts the latter, come to D.C. for the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History's exhibit opening sometime in the first quarter of next year (2010), that will feature my new dinosaur taxon (a new genus and, thus, of course, a new species), which also happens to be the only nodosaur hatchling ever found anywhere, and Maryland's first (and only, to-date) articulated dinosaur find.  I discovered it while searching out some of the smallest dinosaur tracks and trackways ever discovered anywhere, and unknown to science until I found them in streambeds here within the D.C. Capital Beltway. Some of the tracks may also be in the exhibit.

Perhaps it may be appropriate to close with a sentiment of Marcel Proust:

"The real act of discovery consists not in finding new lands, but in seeing with new eyes."

Whomever you are, thanks for taking time to read the above.

Ray Stanford