Unconventional Flying Objects
by Paul R. Hill
{1995 Hampton Roads}

I would like to give a short critique of Hill's book which might be of interest to some readers. I think I am in a unique and qualified position to do so, since I have done a similar study since 1988 (and also have a MS in physics). The basis of his approach is that he assumes that the UFO observations are accurate AND that all presently known physics is correct. He is forced to speculate, however, one additional physics concept. He theorizes the existence of a field (or beam of 'force exchange' particles) that repels all matter (momentum is conserved). It turns out that this one assumption takes care of essentially all physics defying observations. It explains the apparently reactionless propulsion, lack of sonic boom, lack of overheating at high velocities, high accelerations, lack of stress under high acceleration, and reduces the energy requirements for said propulsion. His book is not pseudo-science. The speculation that he does make is minimal, but required, to conform to the observations.

It should be emphasized that the radiation was theorized as a by-product and was not a tool in any of the critical functions of the craft. (e.g. Air flow control and general propulsion were both theorized to be controlled by the repulsive field, not the radiation, thus arguments as to the disastrous affects of the calculated radiation requirements for either task did not apply. In fact, Hill himself mentioned the disastrous effects of propulsion by emission of radiation.)

Some of his discussion, though, was perhaps peripheral, or overspeculative. His discussion of manoeuvring was all based on the simple idea that the source of propulsion was rigidly attached to the craft (which deserved about one page of discussion). I suppose though that his experiments with hovering platforms probably amplified this aspect of the phenomena. His discussion of saucer hum seemed overspeculative and peripheral as did the chapter on occupants (His guesses at their motivations are, of course, speculative.)

His chapter on interstellar travel gives an ideal bare-bones mass-to-fuel ratio to achieve near-light velocities (assuming perfect mass to energy conversion). He uses relativity correctly to show in one example that a ship could travel 20 light years in one year (ship time!). His analysis is ideal, and considering practicalities (Life support, actual amount of equipment to be transported, that half the mass has to be contained anti-matter). It actually doesn't appear to be feasible (possible at an extreme limit, but not really feasible). He resuggests an idea that they could absorb energy from gravitational fields, but this idea doesn't work at all. If energy is conserved, then the gravitational field strength would have to decrease, but the gravitational field directly correlates to the mass creating it, thus the mass would have to decrease. (Which particles are removed from the mass? and how?)

Overall, however, it was an interesting book from an interesting perspective. I highly recommend the book to anyone interested in the UFO phenomena. It is a rational and organized approach to the subject.

Now, for those who might be interested, since I was using similar initial parameters in my investigation, did my conclusions concur? The answer is no.

I found that the phenomena defy accepted physical theory at the most fundamental level. I contend as Hill does, that these are physical objects that do not break the actual laws of physics, but I also contend that we are ignorant of these laws.

I do not agree with Hill's proposed force field due to the energy conservation problems.

Hill also completely misses one of the most important aspects of the phenomenon, which is their ability to disappear. He glosses over it by claiming that the UFO's simply accelerate out of the picture so quickly that the witnesses fail to notice. He neglects, however, cases where the disappearance is more strongly suggested , Bentwaters 1980, Belgium triangular 1991, (Though these postdate his work. However, "disappearance" was considered a characteristic in the Schulgen memo.). The disappearance is at variance with accepted physics.

The pseudo-skeptics are right about the interstellar travel problems. Such travel really is prohibitive unless the speed-of-light restriction can be overcome (as discussed above). Since the UFO's are here, however, the observations are at variance with accepted physics. (This assumes, of course, that they are actually from another star system, which still remains a speculation.)

The power requirements, though another case of 'possible at an extreme limit' (matter/anti-matter), probably suggests a fundamental contradiction as well.

The fact that these observations do not conform to known physics is not the problem as one might imagine. Many have been suckered into this argument, that the observations have to comply to accepted physics before they can be accepted. This is untenable. If that had always been the criterion then physics would not have advanced one iota. The observations must be validated using other criteria, after which the physics must conform to these new observations, not vice versa.