Homepage The Computer Inside You Other Writings
essays and commentary
Prev book’s homepage  --|--  table of contents  --|--  entire book in a single web page Next

8.2 The UFO according to Hill

Aeronautical engineer Paul Hill (1909–1990) presents a detailed technical evaluation of UFOs in his book Unconventional Flying Objects.[89] His experience with UFOs included two different sightings that he had. Both sightings were made in Hampton, Virginia. The first sighting was on July 16, 1952:

In the early 1950s, I studied the UFO pattern and noticed their propensity for visiting defense installations, flight over water, evening visits, and return appearances. ... Accordingly, expecting conformance to the pattern, at 5 minutes to 8 P.M., just at twilight, a companion and I arrived at the Hampton Roads waterfront, parked, and started to watch the skies for UFOs. ... They came in side by side at about 500 mph [about 800 kilometers per hour], at what was learned later by triangulation to be 15,000 to 18,000 feet altitude [about 4500 to 5500 meters]. From all angles they looked like amber traffic lights a couple of blocks away, which would make them spheres about 13 to 20 feet [about 4 to 6 meters] in diameter. ... Then, after passing zenith, they made an astounding maneuver. Maintaining their spacing of about 200 feet [about 60 meters], they revolved in a horizontal circle, about a common center, at a rate of at least once per second.[90]

Hill computes the acceleration of the revolving UFOs at about 122 g’s.[91] Hill’s second sighting, made in 1962, was of a single large dirigible-shaped UFO maneuvering over Chesapeake Bay, which he saw while he was riding as a passenger in a car:

... I was surprised to see a fat aluminum- or metallic-colored “fuselage” nearly the size of a small freighter, but shaped more like a dirigible, approaching from the rear. It was at an altitude of about 1000 feet [about 300 meters] .... It was moving slowly, possibly 100 mph [160 kilometers per hour] ... It looked like a big, pointed-nose dirigible, but had not even a tail surface as an appendage. ... Soon ... it began to accelerate very rapidly and at the same time to emit a straw-yellow, or pale flame-colored wake or plume, short at first but growing in length as the speed increased until it was nearly as long as the object. Also, when it started to accelerate it changed from a level path to an upward slanting path, making an angle of about 5 degrees with the horizontal. It passed us going at an astounding speed. It disappeared into the cloud layer ... in what I estimated to be four seconds after the time it began to accelerate. The accelerating distance was measured by the car odometer to be 5 miles [8 kilometers].[92],[93],[94]

Hill computes the acceleration of this dirigible-shaped UFO at about 100 g’s. Its velocity, when he last saw it, was about 9,000 mph (about 14,500 kilometers per hour, which is about 4 kilometers per second).[95] Although an acceleration of 100 g’s would kill a man, intelligent-particle beings have no physical body to crush, and would be safe.

Assuming that a UFO is composed of p-common particles, an acceleration of 100 g’s is not necessarily destructive to that UFO’s p-common content. And Hill points out that the US military has self-guiding cannon shells that contain electronics, sensors, and maneuverable flight surfaces. These cannon shells are subjected to more than 7,000 g’s at launch, and are designed to survive 9,000 g’s.[96]

Based on the observation that UFOs tilt to move—which implies a single thrust vector—and based on the various reported effects of UFOs including the bending down and breaking of tree branches when a UFO flies too closely over them, Hill concludes that the UFO moves by means of a directed force field that repels all physical matter, in the same way that gravity attracts all physical matter.[97],[98] This anti-gravity force field is unknown to 20th-century physics.

Although a physical UFO, in theory, could, in effect, be infused with bions, and those bions could use the learned-program move statement to move that UFO about, there are two reasons that work against this explanation:

  1. The move statement moves p-common particles directly. Thus, if a physical UFO were being moved about by the move statement, there would be none of the reported outside reactionary effects, such as the reported downward bending of tree branches under a UFO.

  2. As explained in section 7.6, bions cannot be directly programmed by any civilization. Thus, how would those bions infusing the physical UFO be programmed to move that craft as desired by the craft’s occupants? Alternatively, suggesting that the occupants themselves are moving the physical UFO avoids this second reason, but not the first.

Given the above considerations, it seems most likely that the normal motive force for the physical UFO is the directed force field described by Hill, and not the learned-program move statement. However, although not normally moving the UFO themselves, the intelligent-particle beings in the craft may play an indirect role: For example, assuming they are the Caretakers, then perhaps they use the learned program that they have for materializing p-common objects (section 9.4), to materialize whatever exotic p-common fuel is needed to run whatever engine creates the directed force field.


[89] Hill, Paul. Unconventional Flying Objects: a scientific analysis. Hampton Roads Publishing, Charlottesville VA, 1995. (Hill’s book, although completed in 1975, was not published until 1995, five years after his death.)

[90] Ibid., pp. 44–45.

[91] Ibid., p. 48.

[92] Ibid., pp. 175–176.

[93] According to Hill’s analysis (Ibid., pp. 53–82, 179–180), the plume emitted by this dirigible-shaped UFO is the result of the ionization of the air that moves into the wake of the vehicle. This ionization is caused by soft x-rays, presumably emitted as a consequence of the UFO’s propulsion system. The plume—although it looks like a flame—is not a flame: there is no burning, and the plume is not hot. The plume lengthens as the vehicle moves faster thru the air, because there is a relaxation time for the ionization.

According to Hill, this emission of soft x-rays—primarily in the direction of the vehicle’s thrust vector—is a common feature of UFOs, and this accounts for the reported instances of radiation sickness in those persons who get too close to the outside of a UFO for too long. The ionization plume is not normally visible during daylight, but is visible under low-light conditions. For example, a saucer-shaped UFO hovering at night can appear cone-shaped: the cone under the saucer is the ionized air beneath the saucer (Ibid., pp. 144–145). In general, the ionization around a UFO tends to interfere with the ability to clearly see the surface of that UFO.

[94] According to Hill, he heard no noise from this dirigible-shaped UFO, even though it was moving—when he last saw it—at supersonic speed. According to Hill’s analysis (Ibid., pp. 181–218), as the UFO moves at supersonic speeds thru the atmosphere, both the lack of a sonic boom and the apparent lack of any significant heating of the UFO are due to the same cause: the same type of force field used to move the craft is also used to move the air smoothly around the craft.

[95] Ibid., pp. 48–49.

[96] Ibid., p. 49.

[97] Ibid., pp. 98–118.

[98] According to Hill’s analysis (Ibid., pp. 219–224), this same type of force field can be directed into the craft, opposite to the thrust vector, so as to more or less cancel the acceleration force on the presumed passenger area of the craft. What this means is that the presumed passenger area and its occupants would be more or less free from experiencing any acceleration, even though the craft may in fact be accelerating at a high rate. This canceling method also works when the craft is decelerating, since presumably the craft is decelerated by simply reversing the thrust vector, in which case the vector of the force field directed into the craft should also be reversed so that it remains opposite to the thrust vector.

Prev Next