This brings into question why the aliens might be interested in invading our airspace. By doing this, they might eventually be shot down, which could be disastrous. Instead of keeping earthlings trapped in earth orbit, they may give us the technology for interstel- lar flight. In order not to risk such an event, it would be far easier to monitor the earth and its technology from a distance. Earthlings have been monitoring each other from earth orbit for decades with little risk. Friedman’s logic about why the aliens are monitoring us fails the common sense test.
If we dismiss these two theories, then that means the aliens monitoring earth for some other reason. Is it just for the sake of study- ing us? If that is the case, why even allow themselves to be seen and why would they invade the airspace of these vital facilities? There is no reason for UFOs to interfere with nuclear facilities if they are simply monitoring our progress.
What about those reactors?
In addition to Nuclear weapons, there is a belief that UFOs are also interested in our nuclear reactors. Jan Harzan states:
Currently there are 65 active nuclear power plants in the United States with 104 reactors across 31 states and nearly every one of these plants across the United States has experienced a UFO encounter.6
This seems to be a bit of cherry picking by Harzan. Exactly what is defined as a UFO encounter? Is a UFO encounter defined as some nocturnal light reported by a single individual? If that is the case, I bet I can find a significant number of UFO encounters in the area of Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. That does not mean they are interested in watching the Yankees play. The real evidence would be to provide real UFO reports that can be verified to have interfered with nuclear reactor operations.
Harzan also ignores the hundred or so nuclear reactors operated by the US Navy. I was stationed on three submarines (see Google earth image to near left showing Groton, Ct sub base with eight submarines, and their reactors, moored to the piers) and at one land based facility (see Google earth image to far left of the West Milton, NY facility, which had four operating reactors at the time I was stationed there in 1979). I never saw a UFO hover over, interfere with, or suck energy from any operating or shut down reactor. I also worked with a great number of other personnel, who had operated reactors on ships, land facilities, and subma- rines. None of them have repeated such a story either. I am sure MUFON can find UFO reports over navy bases that they can try and link to nuclear vessels stationed there but that kind of conclusion is one based more on wishful thinking than a careful examination of the evidence.
Despite these implied claims of Harzan, we still must consider the possibility that UFOs are attracted to nuclear reactors. This brings us to ask the question of why UFOs would be so interested in visiting our nuclear reactors? Some UFOlogists have an interesting theory regarding this.
Nuclear attraction 2
Nuclear reactors emit radiation just like nuclear weapons but at reduced levels. The reaction is controlled and the design does not allow for an actual nuclear explosion to occur (contrary to the claims of some UFOlogists). Nuclear reactors can still be dan- gerous if they are not run properly. It appears that UFOlogists feel that UFOs have an interest in these plants for the same reason they have interests in nuclear weapons.
In the Hanger one episode, UFO hot spots, John Ventre proposed the theory that the they were either monitoring our development of nuclear reactors or trying to recharge their systems using the radiation emitted from the reactor. Based on what I have read, these theories appear to represent the general beliefs of many UFOlogists.
The idea that UFOs are monitoring the development of nuclear technology by hovering over nuclear reactors is a questionable one. The concept of how nuclear reactors operate can be found quite easily in textbooks and the internet. Each reactor has its own unique technology but they all operate in similar fashion. The repeated hovering over nuclear reactors will not improve their knowledge about our technology. They would be better off hacking into the network systems where all the information about this technology is stored. If the aliens are as advanced as UFOlogists say they are, nuclear reactors and hacking into networks are child’s play.
The second reason proposed by Ventre was that, somehow, UFOs recharge themselves by hovering over reactors. This implies that UFOs consume energy and need to recharge/refuel. If they are interested in electricity, they can obtain that anywhere and do not have to hover near a reactor. Hovering near a reactor implies that there is some sort of energy being emitted by reactors that can be useful. The only energy that leaks outside a reactor are the gamma rays, neutrons, and neutrinos/anti-neutrinos that make it past the shielding of the reactor containment facility. About the only one of these that might be a source for energy are the neutrinos/ anti-neutrinos. Neutrons and gamma rays are shielded such that the levels outside the reactor facility are very small. Neutrinos/ anti-neutrinos can not be shielded as they do not readily interact with matter. Are UFOs recharging their fuel cells by using these particles? Why don’t they have their own nuclear reactors in space that they can recharge from or simply use the neutrinos coming from the sun? Again, we are left trying to reason how aliens might think. Based on what we know, It seems totally illogical that they would “suck” neutrinos/anti-neutrinos from a reactor in order to fuel their vessels when other sources are more readily available or they could create their own particles for use by building a small reactor on an asteroid far away or inside their own spacecraft.
There seems to be no good reason for UFOs to hover over reactors. The evidence to support the idea that they desire to do so is more a case of selecting evidence to fit the theory and ignoring evidence that negates it.
In the Summer 2002 edition of the International UFO Reporter, Donald Johnson tried to make the case that UFOs do appear near nuclear facilities more than they appear in other locations. At first glance, it appears that he had made a strong case using statis- tics.
Johnson began by selecting counties that include nuclear facilities and then selecting counties, with similar populations, that did not contain nuclear facilities. He then took the UFOCAT database to compare the number of UFOs seen in each group. Close exami- nation of this methodology demonstrates that there may be flaws that skewed the results.
The first flaw appears to be the data itself. He used UFOCAT as his source of data. UFOCAT is a database compiled by the Center of UFO studies and contains thousands of UFO reports that date back to 1947 and before. The problem with the data is that the de- gree of investigation for these cases varies. Some of them appear to be just UFO reports that never were investigated at all! Other cases in the database, according to Allan Hendry, have explanations offered for them. If there are IFOs in this database, it tends to invalidate the analysis. In 1980, Hendry felt that UFOCAT was a great tool for reference but a poor tool for statistical analysis:
UFOCAT cannot generally be used as a statistical tool, then, since it violates the three precepts set out at the beginning of this chapter (random sampling, validity of the individual entries, uniformity of data being compared).7
Another of Hendry’s problems with UFOCAT was that some of the sources found in the database are from newspaper clippings, UFO Periodicals, and books written by UFO authors with questionable source material. Johnson seems to be perfectly willing to accept these reports with little or no skepticism. In his article, he chose to provide us with a sample of what he considered to be a compel- ling UFO report:
On April 26, 1986, during the Chemobyl nuclear power plant disaster, technicians reported that they observed a fiery sphere, similar in color to brass, within 1,000 feet of the damaged Unit 4 reactor at the height of the fire, about three hours after the initial explosion. Two bright red rays shot out from the UFO and were directed at the reactor. It hovered in the area for about three minutes, then the rays van- ished and the UFO moved slowly away to the northwest. Radiation levels taken just before the UFO appeared read 3,000 milliroentgens/ hour, and after the rays the readings showed 800 milliroentgens/hour. Apparently the UFO had brought down the radiation level.8
His source for this report is a book written about “Soviet UFOs” with no verification. It appears to be the same story as told on Rense. com, which completely ignores all sorts of facts about nuclear power plants and what actually occurred that night. Three hours after the initial explosion, the firefighters were still combating fires at the building. They received no assistance from this UFO and nobody reported seeing it in 1986. Additionally, the radiation levels quoted are not supported by any data. It is known that the radiation detectors at the plant were not designed to detect such high levels! The only ones capable of doing so, were damaged in the explosion. When radiation levels were measured, the values measured were not in milliroentgens an hour but thousands of roentgens per hour! 9 Johnson’s source is nothing more than rumor and gossip reported years after the event. If this is the kind of case files he is using for his database, then any statistical analysis using such data, is worthless.
I also disagreed with Johnson’s decision to remove any US counties with military bases that “might have held nuclear weapons at one time”10 from his control group. The reduction of the number of military bases in the control group is going to skew the results because there is going to be less military airborne activity in these counties. One must assume that a great number of these UFO reports are probably IFOs, as suggested by Allan Hendry. Therefore, the reduction of military air bases in the control group is going to reduce the number of military aircraft flying over that county, which means that fewer UFO reports will be filed. The end result will be that there will probably be less UFO reports in the non-nuclear category.
Another flaw in this study appears to be the categorizing of UFO reports by county. How can we be certain that a UFO was actually located in a specific county? Just because an observer is in one county does not mean the UFO seen was in the same county. It could have been in a nearby county. This is going to produce inaccuracies in the statistics.
While Johnson’s work is promoted by some as proof that UFOs are attracted by anything nuclear, the study has flaws that skew the results. As a result, the conclusions drawn from this analysis are baseless.
The Nuclear facility and UFO myth?
There is no question that there are UFO sightings around atomic energy plants/facilities found in various government files. This may have a lot to do with that they are constantly guarded twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Since IFOs generate UFO reports at the same general rate amongst various observers 11, then one would expect that they should have more UFO reports than your local shopping mall. As always, it is important to point out that the “U” in UFO means “Unidentified” and not “alien”.
There is also no doubt that there is a concern expressed by government agencies about such reports and the information is passed on through appropriate channels. Considering the nature of these facilities, to not report this information to superiors, would be negligent. It is up to the authorities to determine if these UFO reports are a threat. To date, there is no documentation that demon- strates that any governmental organization considers UFOs a serious threat to the security of any nuclear facility.
Reports of weapons or reactor anomalies when UFOs are reportedly seen are usually nothing more than rumor. That makes the UFO-Nuclear connection tenuous at best and a myth at worst. Until better evidence is presented, the theory that UFOs are attracted by nuclear facilities is unproven.
Quelle: SUNlite 5/2014