UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 29

Re: New Russian Book 'Proves' War-Industry Origin

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 09:04:40 -0400
Fwd Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 18:01:12 -0400
Subject: Re: New Russian Book 'Proves' War-Industry Origin

 >From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@privat.dk>
 >To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:31:56 +0200
 >Subject: New Russian Book 'Proves' War-Industry Origin Of UFOs

 >The link to the text below refers to the book's own site.


 >The author, Pavel Poluyan, has just been interviewed on
 >PRAVDA.ru. The link and the first part is available at the end
 >of this mail.



 >Liquidation of the UFO

 >In the book "Liquidation of the UFO", the Krasnoyarsk researcher
 >Pavel Poluyan nominates and specifically proves a version of
 >war- industry origin of "flying discs", based on the thorough
 >analysis of the problem of the UFOs. Pavel Poluyan proves that
 >the explanation of their flight doesn't need any exotic theory.
 >The author of the book explains the principle, which is used by
 >"flying discs" to create the carrying capacity: the difference
 >f forces of any resistance, which occurs in uneven oscillation
 >of cup-like and ellipsoidal forms in gaseous medium. This is the
 >aerodynamic effect. It is shown, that during the UW frequences
 >of vibration and overless amplitudes there are oscillation of
 >difference of forces of any air resistance enough for upward
 >flight and movement.

 >The author points out, that the repulsive power of induction,
 >which occurs in the metal-plastic body of "flying discs" as a
 >result of highfrequences variable electromagnetic fild, is used
 >to create such a "motive vibration". On the basis of the stated
 >principle the author explains the featurs UFO, the air
 >luminescence around the vibrating body, the electric devices
 >behaviour near the working system, etc.

 >Pavel Poluyan maintains that "flying discs" were created at the
 >end of the 40s within the framework of military project as a
 >great secret in the USA, and that numerous UFO incidents in the
 >United States that years were connected with the process of the
 >system's examination and its usage for military purposes. Using
 >the information stated in the book of Dr. B.Maccabee (Bruce
 >Maccabee, Ph.D. "UFO FBI Connection. The Secret History of the
 >Government's Cover-Up", 2000, Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul,
 >Minnesota 55164-0383, USA.) the Krasnoyarsk scientist analyses
 >the elements of company misinformation, which conducted secret
 >service of the USA and is freele or not published by mass-media.


Seems as if the writer is a semi-idiot. Naturally I appreciate
his reference to my book . About a year ago it was translated
into Russian and I guess this is the sole result:
misinterpretation. Of course, I hope one result of his use of my
book is that it gets the publicity it deserves and a zillion
copies are sold. (Be much better than the few thousand so far).
However, it is dismaying to find that what he claims is found in
my book is opposite to what I wrote. As they say, perhaps it was
all in the translation?

Poluyan claims that evidence in my book points toward a secret
project of the US military to develop a circular flying craft.
He then goes on to describe a propulsion mechanism, discovered
by the Americans, which allows circular craft to fly. His
suggested propulsion mechanism sounds "a bit far out" and
deserves its own separate discussion. I wish to stay with his
claim that my book has evidence to show that the saucers were a
secret project of the USA.

In that very book there is reference to a letter from General
George Schulgen to J Edgar Hoover that specifically addresses
the claim that American secret aircraft were causing saucer
sightings. Schulgen was the Director of the Intelligence
Requirements Branch of Air Force Intelligence. On July 9, 1947,
during the height of the 1947 flap of sightings, Schulgen asked
the FBI to investigate sightings on the off chance that
communist subversion might be involved with at least some
sightings (with the intent to establish mass hysteria).

Hoover agreed but demanded providing the FBI had full access to
all discs recovered (LOL - no access to the Roswell object.

A bit over a month later an FBI agent was discussing the
situation with a Army AF Col (Garrett) who suggested that
perhaps the saucers were some tippy top secret development of
the USA. This suggestion was reported back to Hoover who
requested a specific statement from General Schulgen as to
whether or not secret US aircraft were causing sightings. In
early Sept. Hoover received a letter from Schulgen stating that
a complete search of secret projects revealed "no project with
the characteristics similar to those which have been associated
with the flying discs."

This is on page 17 of the above mentioned book. It was a letter
from the top level of the AF to the Director of the FBI. I
should point out that LOWER LEVEL Army Air Corps officers who
were not privy to the top level letter, did occasionally
speculate that there was some secret project of the US
government. However, no document of which I am aware, and I have
read hundreds/thousands identifies any aircraft project that
could result in aircraft with the characteristics attributed to
saucers, one of the most bizarre being "the ability to quickly
disappear by high speed or by complete disintegration" (item f
on page 24)


 >On-line PRAVDA


 >Pravda.RU:Top Stories:More in detail


 >14:20 2002-06-27



 >** Question. Pavel, in your book, you try to prove that there
 >are no extraterrestrials at all, while "flying saucers" are
 >secret devices made in the USA in the late 1940s for
 >reconnaissance and diversion. Is this not too bold?

 >Answer. You mean that extraterrestrials are gentle people, while
 >the Americans should be offended? You know, during George Bush's
 >visit to Moscow, RenTV showed the film UFO: life behind barbed
 >wire, where people in uniform, generals and colonels of the
 >Russian army, told about their observations and about the state
 >program of spying on "flying saucers" over USSR territory. The
 >generals pointed to Americans: they are said to possess secret
 >technology that is dangerous for the whole of mankind. That was
 >at the time of the US president's, when US analyst services
 >monitored all publications of the Russian mass media. In your
 >view, why was this done?

 >Q. Do you mean that the Americans were provoked while hinting
 >that it was time to disclose UFO secrets?

 >Answer. Recently, PRAVDA.Ru published an interview with Stephen
 >Bassett, who is running for the US Congress. The Disclosure2003
 >campaign accuses Bush Senior of taking the decision to classify
 >UFO documents while he was director of the FBI.

He was director of the CIA.

 >You should admit
 >that a strange political question has risen around these
 >notorious "flying saucers."

 >Q. How do you think this can be understood?

 >A. I will start in a roundabout way. 55 years ago, June 1947,
 >the so-called Roswell incident took place in the US: a "flying
 >saucer" crashed. The US military stated that it was a secret
 >balloon had fallen, while journalists put forward the UFO
 >version, because, at that time, in the US, "flying saucers" were
 >often observed.

Actually it was the Air Force that put forth the "UFO version."
Then the AF retracted.

 >Therefore, since that time, the myth of
 >extraterrestrials has been alive.

The AF did not put forth the claim that saucers were ET.

 >Unfortunately, the truth is more prosaic: in the 1940s, the US
 >actively tested secret flying devices that often wrecked. And it
 >is obvious that these were namely tests, because different
 >devices with different types of engines were seen. Look at least
 >into the Bruce Maccabee book, (UFO-FBI CONNECTION. The Secret
 >History of the Government's Cover-Up): there are different
 >declassified reports from government institutions. There is also
 >evidence that the "flying saucers" of the 1940s had nozzles,
 >vertical trimmers, and flew in a zigzag way, so an inversion
 >rack could be seen after them.


 >Let us logically think: if the "flying saucers" are not
 >hallucinations and not natural phenomena but artificial devices,
 >there are only two variants: they were produced either on the
 >Earth or somewhere else.

I agree.

 >UFOs seriously differ from aircraft and
 >helicopters: they have no wings, they are silent, and they have
 >some luminescence around them. Therefore, the extraterrestrial
 >version is the most logical.

Let's hear it for logic.

 >However, this explanation is too
 >impossible, too fantastic; however, it sounds very romantic.

Ooops. Now we have ventured beyond logic into belief!

 >the other hand, in the 20th century, technological change
 >brought many surprises to mankind: let us take the nuclear bomb.
 >Who knows what else could have been born in secret laboratories,
 >for astronomical sums were invested in the arms race.

 >Q. Following your thought, in the middle of the 20th century,
 >did scientists discovered the secret of anti- gravitation?

 >A. The most laughable thing is that to explain how "flying
 >saucers" fly, no exotic theories are needed about some unknown
 >anti-gravitational fields. The secret of these unusual devices
 >is in the cunning use of a special aerodynamic effect, which was
 >known already at the beginning of the era of aircraft

 >As a child, you most likely played with an opened umbrella:
 >while moving it abruptly towards you, you could feel the
 >resistance of the air mass. People already played these games in
 >the early 20th century, when the first planes started. In some
 >old chronicles, you could see among other flying "shelves" an
 >odd device: a huge umbrella with an engine and pilot. The
 >umbrella moved sometimes up, sometimes down, the device became
 >airborne and again returned to the ground. That was the ancestor
 >of "flying saucers." Here, the effect of repulsion from
 >surroundings is at work. In this way, birds and butterflies fly.
 >However, a human being cannot repulse from air; Icarus could
 >only be in myths. While, in a more thick surroundings, for
 >example in water, people can repulse while swimming. More
 >interesting than a small bird is how a dragonfly flys: it can
 >simply hang in the air while minutely moving its wings.
 >Therefore, if a human being was equipped with huge wings to
 >repulse air very quickly, he could try to compensate for gravity
 >with the whole sum of repulsing impulses. However, you hardly
 >could imagine plane wings trembling in a dragonfly way. It is
 >much easier to imagine a kind of umbrella with which we catch
 >air. An umbrella in the form of a saucer.

He describes the way certain types of jellyfish move in the
water. However, these jellyfish hava already achieved neutral
bouyancy and hence their undulating motion can propel them.
Won't work in the atmosphere where there is no neutral bouyancy
(unless attached to a helium balloon).

 >There is no miracle in the parachute. Physically, the essence of
 >the process is that the great square of the canopy, while slowly
 >moving down, meets frontal resistance, which compensates for
 >gravity's pull on the parachute jumper. The form is also very
 >important: the hollow surface has the biggest strength factor,
 >while the surface bent towards the movement, a smooth form, has
 >a smaller strength factor. Therefore, it is clear why the first
">flying saucers" had such a form: flat from below and smooth
 >rom above. These "flying saucers" can fly without anti-
 >gravitation; they simply lean against the air. For example, a
">flying disc" is built like an almond.

 >A "flying saucer" is a kind of hard parachute, which, through
 >irregular microamplitude movements, not only cancels the
 >acceleration of gravety, but also overcomes gravitaty. It is not
 >by chance that a "flying saucer" in air is similar to a medusa
 >in water, which also uses the difference of forces while moving
 >up and down.

This is the jellyfish I was referring to, which already is
"floating" in the water.

 >Any engineer can make calculations and, after solving a
 >differential equation, understand that the a "saucer" can fly.
 >According to the calculations, to lift a real flying device, the
 >pusher corpse

I presume this was a "pusher body" (not a corpse!).

 >must vibrate with ultrasonic frequency. The lowest
 >level is 10 kilohertz; if the shear upwards within one vibration
 >is 1 mm, the speed of the strictly vertical lifting is 10 meters
 >a second.

Whether or not this could be made to work with modern day
lightweight materials and "ultrasonic" transducers based on the
new high strength magnets I do not know. However, such
materials were not available 55 years ago.

 >Q. Pavel, this is not journalism; this is a real working scheme,
 >an invention. And you openly tell about it.

 >A. All rights were already reserved, though "top secret." Many
 >specialists from different spheres know about it, though they
 >prefer to keep silent. However, it is very important to tell
 >people about it: they should not be afraid of UFOs.

 >Really, people could become panic-stricken while seeing in the
 >sky a luminous ellipsoid silently moving with great speed. It is
 >clear why the extraterrestrial myth appeared. In some degree, US
 >military could have been justified. A top secret plan was
 >necessary to protect the new creations from Soviet spies.
 >According to some information, initial design of such flying
 >devices was stolen by the Americans from captive German
 >engineers. British pilots saw small UFOs over German territory,
 >which seemed to emerge towards the attacking bombers.

Reference to the "fireballs" reported by both sides in WWII.

 > Later, the
 >myth was spread, so it lost its mystery. Nobody wanted to be
 >responsible for misinformation. Soviet engineers in their turn
 >understood that the "flying saucers" existed, so it was by then
 >a common military secret.


SO did they make circular craft? And, if not why not, if it was
so straightforward?


May I take note of the fact that this book is getting "great
press." Why is it that when some one with some credibility
proposes a wacky UFO theory that does _not_ involve ET, it gets
"great press" while the continual flow of sightings and
suggested ET explanations are ignored by the press?

I am reminded of the "Buggy UFO Hypothesis" (BUH, my
terminology) that was proposed in a scientific magazine, Applied
Optics, in December, 1978. Two entymologists proposed that many
UFO sightings were caused by swarms of insects caught in a high
electric field in the atmosphere. The article made national news
as a possible/probable explanation. They cited the book about
sghtings in Utah (The Utah UFO Display) as their source for

They did experiments in which they impaled beetles on high
voltage probes and photographed in the dark to detect the corona
from the insect's antenna (I bet that was a shocking experience
for the bug). Then they argued that because one tiny bug could
be seen glowing in the dark millions flying together in the
electric field of a thunderstorm, for example, could cause a
large glow and appear to be a large glowing object.


They were wrong, of course. But the press certainly loved it.
Even Walter Cronkite devoted some time of the evening news to
this "buggy UFO Hypothesis". (For those of you who remember

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com