Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis

This book doesn't really need another 5 star review. But it deserves one, so here I go. This book is utterly unique within the UFO literature in that it is the only pro-UFO book that actually does the math. The late author was a NASA engineer who saw enough evidence for UFOs (including personal observations) to take their existence as a given. So the books spends little time arguing for their reality but simply goes on to ask, "Okay, how do they work?" He makes a convincing case that the observed motion of UFOs, their lack of a sonic boom, and the fact that they experience bullet like accelerations without crushing their occupants, can all be explained in a parsimonious fashion if you assume one thing -- that they utilize a focused repulsive force that acts against all (not just charged) matter, i.e., some sort of "anti-gravity". He also shows that the observed color changes are consistent with the assumption that creating this force creates a plasma as a side effect.Now it must be said that the author gives no convincing explanation of *how* such a repulsive force can be generated. And, contrary to what one review here says, scientists have not discovered any "fifth force" that is capable of creating anything equivalent to anti-gravity. It is the $64 billion question how such a force could be generated -- nothing in contemporary physics suggests it could be a practical possibility. For a hard core skeptic I suppose that's sufficient reason to ditch the whole book. But I can hardly criticize a NASA engineer for failing to discover some physical principal that has eluded Einstein, Bohr, Schroedinger, Dirac, Feynman, Weinberg, Witten, or brainiac-of-your-choice. The important thing about this book is that it shows that UFOs don't involve half a dozen inexplicable phenomena, rather the mysteries can be reduced to *one* inexplicable phenomenon. And since aliens might have evolved a million or 100 million years before ourselves, they've had plenty of time to discover some physics we don't know about. After all, the read head on my hard drive uses quantum mechanical phenomena that would have baffled the brightest minds of only 120 years ago.

I read this book after considerable UFO research on the web. I work as an aerospace engineer for DOD and I find his technical explanation and knowledge of this phenomena to be right on the money. I was especially interested of his force field theory that will be the object of research for future propulsion studies. A must read.

Paul Hill spent almost his entire career with NASA directing research projects. His credentials are impressive. NASA's official stance on UFOs was, "They don't exist." Hill says he saw one, reported it to his then boss, and was told to forget it and do his job. He did the latter but not the former. His book, written after he retired, reviews well-documented and investigated events from around the world. Since many of the people reporting the events are not hillbillys or crackpots but credible professionals, his approach is, "Assuming that these people are not loonies but are telling the truth about what they saw, how could these phenomena be explained using our present level of scientific knowledge?"He takes one event at a time, and examining the reports and hard evidence where it exists, eliminates various suggested explanations if they don't fit. He doesn't answer all the possible questions that one can pose, but he does conclude that nothing the objects do violates any of our accepted scientific principles or the laws of physics. The propulsion system that he says fills the bill is a "focused force field". Although we admittedly haven't the foggiest notion of how to develop a focused force field, the scientific principle is sound. Gravity is a force field. We have electrical and magnetic force fields.Hill also delves into advanced--but accepted--theoretical physics to explain how interstellar travel would be possible without exceeding the speed of light. The bulk of the book is written for a lay audience. Any normally intelligent, reasonably well educated person can follow it. He includes several appendices, however, which are crammed with mathematics far too arcane for me to digest.It's a fascinating book, light enough to be enjoyed, but too heavy to skim. In the way that some people go to church "just in case", this work should be read, "just in case". I heartily recommend it.

Consider that many paleontologists find that the best place to go fossil hunting is in a museum. The reason is of course, that many field collectors from the past have stored incredible fossil finds in museum archives, while having little or no time to evaluate the data and draw conclusions. What could this possibly have to do with Paul Hill's fabulous book? Mr. Hill did what real sceintists should do...he sorted through historical UFO data (including his own sighting) and looked for mechanisms and the patterns inherent to that data. By applying his own form of "back engineering" to these UFO cases, he sought to determine the power source(s), electromagnetic byproducts of those sources and other important aerodynamic components intrinsic to UFO flight characteristics. The results of his back engineering provide incredible information from "seemingly" insignificant details, much in the same way that Sherlock Holmes deduced Watsons' whereabouts by the mud on his shoes. Other physical scientists take note: All that UFO researches have asked of you for years was to look at the data, much as the late Dr. Hynek suggested. Finally, Paul Hill has done it. I know there are other scientists (personally) who are continuing to investigate using the same stringent scientific methods used by Paul Hill. I applaud you, as do all meaningful UFO researchers. For Mr. Hill, I would say that it was too bad the climate of yellow journalism did not allow the release of this important work before his death. The press in this country is veneer. But, over time, veneer peels up to reveal the oak. Take heed, read Unconventional Flying Objects. Think.

I have read and reread Paul Hill's fascinating analysis of the UFO phenomenon. I was and remain very impressed and relieved. Triggered by his own personal sightings and the persistence of UFO reports, Paul Hill applied his unique engineering expertise to maximium advantage in attempting to account for possible means of explanation for what he and others regard as a "hard reality." I found the methods he employed to open-mindedly investigate this phenomenon highly commendable. If others with like credentials took a similar outlook and made a sincere effort to understand, public knowledge (and I dare to say science itself) would by now be more highly advanced. The book was published posthumously twenty years after his death. Having read many of the better researched books on the subject of UFOs, I was left even more impressed with his nearly unique contributions. In 1952 as a youth I too had sightings that left an indelible impression-- in the first instance I watched the motionless suspension of three large disks for twenty minutes, and in the other instance saw a small object make a right angle "evasive" turn from a pursuing Sabre jet. Of course I never forgot those; for me they were unaccountable realities. Thoughout most of my adult life such capabilities have been generally regarded as "impossible" being "in defiance of the laws of physics," etc. Until reading this book, I had long regretted that people with appropriate technical backgrounds failed to approach the subject seriously and regarded it as of trivial consequence and unworthy of investigation. Not until reading his noteworthy effort to apply science to account for and "reverse engineer" the commonly reported flight and other characteristics of UFOs did I feel that justice was being done to the phenomenon and to its many reputable observers.I am not an engineer or scientist, but I do have high regard for the scientific approach to knowledge. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who would like to get some sense of assurance as to scientifically grounded hypotheses that offer good potential explanations. His method of relating commonalities crossing a great many independent observations is another enlightening aspect of his research. His work can teach a great deal, perhaps most significantly-- how reason and known science have explanatory power in this realm of study, and the virtue of an open-minded approach.