Saturday, February 4, 2012

SIGNALS OF A HOAX: UFOS AND RADIO CONTROL

radio.jpg

Like CGI, RC has forever blurred what is real and what is not in the world of UFOs. Radio Control (or Remote Control) is more prevalent and accessible today than ever before. And in recent years there have been astounding advances in such remote signal technology. Its cost is no longer prohibitive. CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) has today made our ability to trust any UFO video on sites such as YouTube very difficult. In the same way, because of RC, we cannot be certain that UFO sightings made today are ‘real’ or not. RC vehicles likely account for many UFO sightings, whether they are intended as hoaxes or whether they are simply misidentified as extraterrestrial vehicles when seen in flight.

Regular readers know that I am not a skeptic and that I am convinced of the reality of the visiting alien. But I am also a critical thinker and know that the compulsion to hoax is often a dynamic that is ignored to the detriment of UFO proponents. We have to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. We must be aware of emerging technologies that may impact on the veracity or truth of reported UFO sightings. Just as Kodak and Polaroid ignored the digital revolution, the UFO research community was slow to realize the enormity of the use of CGI and Photoshop imagery in purported UFO films and photos. Similarly, we are now in danger of ignoring the potentially enormous role that RC technology increasingly plays in ‘things UFO’ and how hoaxes are made.

KIDS ON RC

front.jpg

Rather than focus on expert RC engineers and industry professionals and their incredible capabilities, I have opted to highlight amateur attempts at UFO radio controlled flight. All of these filmed “UFO experiments” are ‘homemade’ or are done by small operations, teenagers or younger people. These short video clips may provide insight into the true nature of many historic UFO sightings and footage. Perhaps found within these films are the solutions to past UFO mysteries and to those that will no doubt be encountered in the future:

Amateur’s Flying Saucer Could Fool Anyone from a Distance
(Simply awesome, especially the first minute):

Stunning 12 Second Clip of a Fake Flying Saucer
(Appears like a tailless circular craft zipping impossibly through the clouds)

Saudi Teen Creates UFO More Convincing than CGI
(Advance/begin at :51 seconds and compare to similar ‘genuine’ UFO footage)

Balloon RC that Could be an Answer to Socorro
(Note footage from 1:39 if Zamora’s red insignia were emblazoned on its side)

The Solution to the “Flying Humanoids” Phenomenon Revealed
(May help to explain recent films of ‘Unidentified Flying Humans’)

RCs and UFOs

cloud.jpg

Advances in radio signal and digital technology (combined with advances in ‘craft’ flight stabilization) have enabled even the average kid to do this:

http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x6/gallery/videos/

Note about one quarter of the way through this brief video of an RC that it is capable of silent hovering and of extreme vertical takeoff like a shotgun (and like many UFOs are purported to be able to do.)

Today’s RC capabilities are indeed amazing, but even the technologies beginnings were impressive. The first known public use of remote radio control technology was in demonstrating the maneuvering of a small boat at a distance by Tesla in 1898. During WWII (and after with the advent of the transistor) such technology was further perfected for military, aerial and industrial applications. But by the early 1950s, “remote control” model vehicles and hobbyist aircraft (often self-built) were in the hands of many high school and college age males with a geek sense. By the 1960s (as recounted by a mid-1960s alum of New Mexico Tech) students in Socorro had constructed an unidentified aerial ‘vehicle’ controlled by radio signals that jammed operations at White Sands!

From that period on, RC was perfected by hobbyists and hoaxers while ignored by UFO “investigators” as a possible solution to some sightings.

Today there are whole ‘underground’ online communities that bring together RC hobbyists with a special interest in fake UFOs (such as forum.xufo.net, a Dutch ‘multi-copter’ enthusiasts site.) When the angle and light is just right, the “RC UFOs” are indistinguishable from the “real UFOS.” They may cause us to have to reevaluate film and photos from the past and to be far more vigilant in the future.

16 comments:

  1. No way man...like I got telepathetic messages from one of those videos. It told me to eat breakfast. How do you splain that, huh?

    Another great article, of course.

    I did a series of pics using 3D Studio (Autodesk) many years ago that look very real.

    The information your article presents is why I don't think ANY picture or video should be taken seriously without eyewitness testimony from differsnt sources...and even then with suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bravo. For a long time I've suspected UFO videos and photos were pranks perpetrated by youngsters and others with time, money, and some technical expertise on their hands.

    But, nobody in Ufology wants to hear that because it violates most of their belief systems as well as shows them to be willing dupes of immature practical jokes. I can think of one blogger who gives these purile hijinks a daily forum and generally defends them as genuine.

    Never bought into the images, even the grand daddy ones from way back in the day, and never will. UFO images are just way too easy to hoax by a number of different means (even I can think of a couple of non-tech ways to do it). Let's not even go into the proliferation of military unmanned surveillance vehicles (drones) now populating the world's skies that are likely being presented as alien technology as well.

    These days, the signal is very close to being completely drowned out by the noise, and it's getting exponentially harder to capture it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Bob & Purrlgurrl-

    I appreciate your comments. But I think that Purrll is correct:

    "Nobody in Ufology wants to hear that because it violates most of their belief systems as well as shows them to be willing dupes of immature practical jokes."

    This is true as evidenced by the lack of response to this piece. Most of my articles get picked up by dozens of other sites- not so apparently this one. This is because it is a story that most "UFO people" do not wish to hear.

    AJB

    ReplyDelete
  4. Purrlgurrl, you are hearing and reading into what you want to hear and read, and don't make broad sweeping comments like "nobody in Ufology wants to hear" because obviously the article writer isn't NOBODY. Neither am I for that matter. The author never suggested that ALL UFOs are hoaxes, he's just being balanced and rational like MOST clear minded, aware, and discerning human beings are, and many of those type are indeed "Ufologists".

    It appears that Purrlgurrl would rather remain in her closed paradygm and ignore numerous well documented cased on all fronts. She's probably never truly studied one case in depth because if she had, she would have come out with at the very least, an open mind, unless she's unreasonable, then there's little anyone can do to prove anything to her as she will NEVER bother to listen. With words like "I'll NEVER" well, then why even both looking? What are you doing at all and in the first place??

    And Anthony,you really don't have a clue man. there's plenty of us who can see rationally and clearly, I consider myself a ufologist i guess, I think this article is highly relevant and true. Discernment is needed. But I've also seen numerous objects with my own very eyes (with the help of binos) who's performance could not even be close to conventional physics or explained simply by CGI, or even RC. Many of the ones reported certainly are, not all of them, not even close.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know about you guys, but I don't know anyone who'd be fooled by those toys, which really aren't all that much different from stuff that's been around since the 50s.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I apologize but I am skeptical at your take on ufo hoaxes related to RC. Since you believe that aliens visit our earth would you care to show us some evidence about that? Snap, you have just discarded videos and pictures which are the common evidence used by ufo believers, whats left then? testimonies, witnesses? Oh snap again, those are widely unreliable.. People lie, people interpret events wrongly or ignorantly.. So whats left as evidence of the little green or gray aliens? Nothing. Mind you there are loads of evidence pointing to their probable existence, but unfortunately its scientific evidence and science also tell us that aliens would have 1) a hard time coming to earth 2) little interest in doing so. But keep going with your beliefs or should I say faith?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's funny to me that people really don't want to be shaken out of their cult like belief that all videos and photos of purported UFOs are truly of ET technology.

    It might be fun to believe that, but even if it were absolutely true (still completely unproven at this point) you'd still have to go to work or school on Monday or to the unemployment office (the way the economy is these days).

    I just don't accept photo and video images as real because the hoax factor is far too high (Twas brillig - did you read my full post before you started your rant?). I NEVER said that I don't accept that there are real UFOs. I've had an experience myself.

    By the way, you proved my point entirely with your post.

    The new FAA legislation passed today (Feb. 7) allows for almost unfettered access to US skies for both military and commercial drones, from the size of hummingbirds up to 737s. It takes effect in three years. Want to bet how many photos and videos of these start to show up online presented as "bonafide" ET technology after that happens?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Christopher-

    These videos were simply representative of the technology- which today goes far beyond the 50s.

    These are however "toys" and perhaps I should have featured some professional RC model maker and military RC drones. But my intention was to feature resourceful amateurs (who are far more common in our neighborhoods, etc.)

    Now imagine if the multi-copter featured in the last video in the article was equipped with a 10 foot circular shiny metallic sheet mounted on its top, with programmable LED lights and strobes on the rim of the "saucer." High in the air at night- most would think its remarkable shape and maneuvering was not of earth!

    In other words, you can "change up" the size and configuration of these vehicles with relative ease and add all kinds of 'special effects.'

    And note in the first video as the saucer spins, there is a metallic fabric around the rim that undulates as the model spins. From a distance, at night, and equipped w/ LEDs, this could very easily appear as a "morphing" UFO.

    Anonymous-

    My intention was not to "discard" all photographs and films of the phenomenon. Rather my intention was to impress upon folks that there exists a large group of folks out there that use RC to fool us. We must take another look at old images and be ever aware in the future that such technology exists so we won't get fooled again.

    I do fear that one day advances in technologies like CGI and RC will one day make it impossible to distinguish real from fake. We will no longer be able to tell genuine documents, films, footage and sightings from hoaxes or deception. And this will not only impact the world of Ufology, but many aspects of life including law and crime; historical accounts of events, etc.

    AJB

    ReplyDelete
  9. I know nuts and bolts types aren't going to want to hear this but this is all inevitable. We were going to get to the point where technology would eventaully allow all sorts of exotic machinery to be floating around out there and here we are now. We continue to hear a lot of stories about voice to skull technology and the rest of it that have been going around since the 1970s at least without any real evidence, but the technology isn't inconceivable, at least. There is however a much deeper and stranger parallel to the UFO phenomenon that is much harder to simulate- Synchronicity, high weirdness, etc- that have been the calling card of the real UFOnauts for several thousand years now. It's all recorded in the ancient Mysteries, or in oral traditions. It's why folks like Jacques Vallee, John Keel and Allen Greenfield turned away from the ETH.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Christopher-

    A bit off topic, but...

    I am of the idea that ET means both extraterrestrial and extra-temporal. That is, there exists sentient creatures technologically advanced to us. They dwell on other worlds (extraterrestrial) and travel through time (extra-temporal.)

    "Nuts and bolts" and "ultra-dimensional" do not have to automatically "negate" each other- indeed both are correct. The phenomenon manifests as both physical and para-physical.

    In order for the craft to traverse the cosmos it must also traverse dimension. It must be able to change and transform its very material structure to do this- and then return to its original, physical configuration upon entering our physical dimension.

    This ties in directly to morphing UFOs and my research on morphing metals. If galactic flight exists, matter must not be immutable. It must be able to change state- and then "remember" its original form. Our linear thinking makes it very difficult to imagine such "malleable matter."

    Though they are amazingly adaptive, at their essence, ET are corporeal and fallible (as evidenced by Roswell.)

    AJB

    ReplyDelete
  11. I misspoke- I meant ETH, not nuts and bolts. I think the transdimensional stuff is sexy but probably part of the ever-shifting masquerade this phenomenon has taken on over the years. I do think the craft can basically cloak itself, using a version of technology DARPA folks are playing around with today.

    ReplyDelete
  12. PurrGurrl,

    purrlgurrl said...

    "It's funny to me that people really don't want to be shaken out of their cult like belief that all videos and photos of purported UFOs are truly of ET technology."

    This is a ridiculous, untrue and unreasonable statement, once AGAIN, you read what you wanted to read.

    I never once stated that ALL videos and photos are of ET origin. I have no cult-like belief that I can identify, I have an open discerning mind. A healthy and open minded consideration to anything I read, see and experience.

    As I said, I have my own experiences, those which HAPPEN to correlate with thousands of other people's. I can only tell you that those experiences defied EVERYTHING i know about newtonian physics and thermodynamics.

    If you translate your words, you are essentially asserting that EVERYONE hoaxes just because it's possible to hoax. I would suggest THAT unreasonable behavior on your part IS cult like. Since nobody is honest in purr gurrl's world, at least in regards to the subject of Ufology and providing evidences for it. That is a disturbing notion. Really? Nobody is honest? The reality is quite different despite your belief, and of course there is fraud, hoaxing etc. but there are plenty of real events that come directly from NASA. I mean what would it take?

    Nothing is black and white.

    Ultimately your comments show you have some deep issues regarding trust that you need to work on. Stop pointing the finger and look in the mirror.

    Finally, I did nothing to prove your point whatsoever, you are full of it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Check this out for the latest RC, computer-controlled _squadrons_ of
    ornithopters and consider how, with each having custom mico-processor controlled multi-color LED rigs what could be done!

    From: Wired.com / Danger Room blog:

    http://tinyurl.com/7p886h5

    ReplyDelete
  14. You all say more about radio controls and I am also searching the details about. Really the given information are nice to sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @twas brillig

    > Purrlgurrl would rather remain in her closed paradygm

    What a load of dogmatic rhetoric.

    If the evidence is not compelling, that’s necessarily a flaw in the person? It can never be that the evidence is just not good enough?

    I guess so, because later you say:

    > Ultimately your comments show you have some deep issues regarding trust that you need to work on. Stop pointing the finger and look in the mirror.

    That’s cheap stuff, pal.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Christopher Knowles

    > I don't know anyone who'd be fooled by those toys

    You’re just not looking.

    Local TV and newspapers frequently publish UFO sightings; viewers and readers often write in with the causes. Biggest culprits: birds, chinese lanterns, kites with LEDs, and RC devices.

    Some UFO/RC sightings from my files:

    UFO mystery solved: reader reveals truth as 27,000 log on to watch Geelong footage
    http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2010/04/24/166911_news.html

    U-F-No: Tracy "blue lights in the sky" mystery solved
    http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=73431

    Invention sparks UFO calls
    http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/stcharles/article_191a273d-5277-547f-9647-2131185689a8.html

    Mysterious Blue Light UFO Over Centreville Identified
    http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/virginia/video-mysterious-blue-light-ufo-over-centreville-identified-111510

    ReplyDelete