spartan45

Line two of my post had a typing error. It should read Around 2h11m40s into the 4h30m52s video we are told orbital sunset is about to occur.

A youtube video: NASAs space crew 10 arrives at ISS (16March2025), see ref below, helps to highlight the black daytime sky of space. Around 20h11m40s into the 4h30m52s video we are told orbital sunset is about to occur. Orbital night time occurs later and the stars can be seen. This helps to illustrate that the cameras on the ISS cannot see the stars in daylight but apparently the very same cameras can see the stars during orbital night time. They even appear to detect a UFO! From 2:20:03 to 2:20:48 (45sec) of the youtube video (as per the Ref below) a UFO appears in middle of screen below right wing of the Crew Dragon Endeavour spacecraft, heading straight up, which actually means it was moving towards the Earth because as mentioned at 2h21m04s, the ISS cameras were upside down, so the Earth was above. The UFO leaves top of screen at about 2:20:48. Ref: LIVE! NASA SpaceX Crew 10 ISS Docking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL1LuAqZjwQ

I do believe our brains are quantum computers. The article in the link though did not lead me to this conclusion. Evidence that made me believe our brains are quantum computers has both surprised and baffled me.

The Principle of the Conservation of Energy is that Energy can never be created nor destroyed. Energy can only be transferred from one form to another. Therefore Kinetic energy gained = Gravitational potential energy lost to point O, (the point bisecting the stars halfway), Kinetic energy lost = Gravitational potential energy gained on the outbound journey. Therefore the speed of the asteroid at the end is the same as at the beginning of the transit, (3x104 m/s). Thank you for posting such a thoughtful, interesting question.

All Alone in the Night - Time-lapse footage of the Earth as seen from the ISS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0fTKAqZ5g The 2m29s youtube video above shows a night time star field filmed by the ISS cameras, however, it seems the video is cut as Sunrise occurs, In videos of the changeover the sudden break or camera view change makes it difficult to evaluate if the cameras used for night are the same as those for day or if the cameras simply have a day/night mode. If anyone knows how the ISS cameras cope with the day/night change over I’d like to know. Shielding from the bright light sources does not seem help astronauts or visual spectrum cameras see the stars in daylight, that’s why I’m wondering if the Hubble may have to depend on its ultra-violet spectrum capabilities for daylight viewing, although this idea is purely based on the fact that I’ve only seen star fields pictured in daylight by the Hubble or other devices capable of using the ultra-violet spectrum.

200 M results of 17th July 2023, however, the figures given in my post of 11th August 2022 with early August 2022 at over 4 Billion results were correct. Could it be that once google had satisfied curiosity about what was being written about itself, results fell?

Thank you for joining the ‘discussion’ with an excellent, hard hitting, to the seat of the fire, thought: The trouble here is that even when the cameras on the ISS have a clear view of the black daytime sky with no bright object or reflecting surface in view no stars are seen. If the reason for this is that bright reflected sunlight from objects or nearby surfaces not in camera view are hitting the camera lens then a lens collar tube / hood could be deployed. I suspect this is not done because it would not make any difference. In the visual spectrum it seems to me the daytime sky in space is black and star-less as seen on cameras and reported by what seems to me most astronauts. I would like to see an experiment done on one of the space tourist flights using a hand held camcorder similar to the Sony DCR-DVD handycam ’NightShot’, super ’SteadyShot’, 20x optical zoom, the ability to disable auto for manual infinity focus, demonstrated on a post earlier of this topic. A matt black rubber hood collar fitted to the camcorder lens pressed up against the spacecraft window glass might work, but has probably already been tried.. It may be necessary to try visual spectrum cameras adapted to see in the ultra-violet spectrum. Ebay has lots of ‘full spectrum cameras’ advertised that are normal cameras adapted to detect the full spectrum including of course, ultra-violet. The ultra-violet telescope deployed on the Moon by the Apollo 16 astronauts to see stars in daylight under the shade of the Lunar Module and the ultra-violet telescope on the Chang’e 3 Moon Lander platform that can only observe the stars from the Moon during the 14 days of daylight using its solar panels prove that stars can be seen in daylight in the ultra-violet spectrum, while the Apollo astronauts and their visual spectrum cameras appeared unable to see them. I asked the Hubble Space telescope, public relations officer by email; Can the Hubble ST see stars in daylight using the normal human visual light spectrum range, or does it have to resort to using the ultra-violet spectrum, (non-human light spectrum range), to see stars in daylight? The answer I received simply informed me Hubble observes the stars 24/7, which I already knew, but I wanted to find out exactly how it overcomes the black, star-less daytime high altitude/space daylight sky. I could get no further clarity. I’ve been fascinated by the black, star-less, daylight sky above the atmosphere for over a decade and it is very mysterious, especially when it seems to me, astronauts, professional astrophysicists and astronomers, appear uncomfortable with this topic. My curiosity remains. Thanks MichaelBrooks once again for your input.

Peter Cox - She Wants Magic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X5pVvpeFX0 I like this 2022 song because I think it has a magical quality about it, which resonates with my view on modern day science discoveries.

I am not sure a magnetic field is necessary to protect a planet’s atmosphere. Venus is subject to a stronger Solar Wind and has no magnetic field so the Solar Wind might be expected to have swept away its atmosphere and yet it is far denser than that of Earth. That said, the closer proximity to the Sun may have allowed a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus to create a very thick atmosphere easily able to deflect the stronger Solar Wind. With respect to Mars; I wouldn’t be surprised if a comet scarred the Martian surface and took much of the atmosphere with it – not the solar wind. In fact the Solar wind appears to help protect the Solar system from dangerous highly energetic cosmic Rays from outside the Solar system.

Asking the question ‘Is google getting smarter?’ gave result numbers increasing from about 78 million before June 2022 to 4.4 billion in August 2022:- 78 million 7th February 2020 (scienceforums top result) 132 million 25th June 2022 (scienceforums 3rd top result) 3.91 billion 28th July 2022 (scienceforums 4th top result) 4.0 billion 2nd August 2022 (scienceforums 3rd top result) 4.4 billion 11th August 2022 (scienceforums 5th top result) Asking a variety of other questions has not shown any such increases in result numbers. Could this be the A.I. advancing to a whole new level of intelligence by acquiring a curiosity about itself? Personally, I think it is and hopefully, this is a positive development.

Great question Thanks for posting it. I believe the concept you propose of a matter universe having an antimatter counterpart is possible. The best evidence I could come up with is below: In 1928, British physicist Paul Dirac (1902-1984) wrote down an equation that combined quantum theory and special relativity to describe the behaviour of an electron moving at a relativistic speed. Just as the equation x2 = 4 can have two possible solutions (x = 2 or x = −2), so Dirac's equation could have two solutions, one for an electron with positive energy, and one for an electron with negative energy. The energy released in matter – antimatter annihilation is extreme (enough to power a starship?). REF https://home.cern/science/physics/antimatter In 1930 Wolfgang Pauli proposed when Beta particle is emitted by a radioactive nucleus the unaccounted for energy released is carried away by an unaccounted for particle. In 1956 the neutrino / antimatter neutrino was discovered to be the unaccounted particle while observing the decay of Thorium. REF: https://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Neutrino_Discovery.htm#:~:text=When%20in%201956%2C%20two%20Am%C3%A9ricans,it%20was%20considered%20%22undetectable%22.&text=Reines%20and%20Cowan%20started%20their,at%20Hanford%20in%20Washington%20State. In September 1995, Prof. Walter Oelert and an international team from Jülich IKP-KFA, Erlangen-Nuernberg University, GSI Darmstadt and Genoa University succeeded for the first time in synthesising atoms of antimatter from their constituent antiparticles. REF https://home.cern/news/press-release/cern/first-atoms-antimatter-produced-cern I hope this is useful.

Suppression by UK mainstream media of a story reported by the New York Post? Whenever the UK mainstream media could report a perceived negative story about President Donald Trump when he was in office, it seemed to me the story would be highlighted immediately on all channels and ‘Fact Checkers’ were nowhere in sight. Now we have a story from a New York Post journalist that has not been mentioned, (to my knowledge), on any mainstream media outlet in the UK. Could this be an example of a mainstream hidden agenda? (I am a UK citizen which is why I’ve focused on the UK media). To be fair, it might just be the timing is not right in these strange times. REF: Suppression of Hunter Biden emails ‘all about getting rid of Donald Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xbV0oPZuRo

I’m not sure it is practical to patent an idea, (especially if it is thought to have no commercial value), because in the UK it seems the cost of £200 (or more) per year to keep the patent valid (to have the concept accredited to your name) is not worth it. I think perhaps emails to a university and/or a screen shot of the post is probably the way to go.

Apologies – I overlooked it! But having read it I am far from convinced because it simply gives an opinion as to what would happen to the ozone layer with no proof (Extract 1). When it states Venus has no magnetic field, it does not mention the thick atmosphere there (Extract2). Extract 1: ‘The magnetic field protects the Earth from highly charged particl.es (solar wind) from the sun. Without the magnetic field, most of the ozone gas, which protects the earth from harmful UV radiation, would be depleted away from the atmosphere’.(http://www.actforlibraries.org/importance-of-earths-magnetic-field) Extract 2: ‘Planet Venus, which has a core similar to Earth, lacks a magnetic field, supposedly due to its slow period of rotation (243 days)’. (http://www.actforlibraries.org/importance-of-earths-magnetic-field ) It is my view that that because the ozone layer exists in the lower level of the stratosphere so has 25 Km of the stratosphere and the 245Km of ionosphere above to protect it, that it is well protected against the solar wind. See below: Extract from: (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs) What is Stratospheric Ozone? 90% of the planet's ozone is in the "ozone layer" which exists in the lower level (20-25 kilometres above sea level) of the stratosphere. The stratosphere is the region of the atmosphere which exists between 10 and 50 kilometres above the surface of the earth. Solar wavelengths in the ultraviolet range (180-240 nanometers) are absorbed by and break apart oxygen molecules (which are made of two oxygen atoms). Some of the resulting unattached pairs of oxygen atoms then recombine into triplets to form ozone. A different range of wavelengths of ultraviolet (290-300 nm) are strongly absorbed by ozone, which breaks down as a result and reforms into molecular oxygen again. REF: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/research/ozone-uv/ozone-concerns I too first learned about how the Earth's magnetic shield was vital for life in Physics class many years ago. I no longer have that view because of the thick atmosphere of Venus (which has no magnetic field and is closer to the Sun) and other things that have come to light. Extract (from editage): ‘Earth’s magnetic field protects the planet’s atmosphere from the solar wind, which consists of charged particles released by the sun’s magnetic field’. Again, I’m not sure I agree with the opinion above. It seems whenever an article is published involving ‘Earth’s magnetic shield’ or Venus’ lack of one the words similar to ‘mystery’ ‘theory’ ‘strange’ etc. is used. Extract from: Venus' missing water is a planetary mystery (nbcnews): The water in Venus' atmosphere is gone with the wind, new detections suggest. This absence is strange, because astronomers think Venus and Earth likely began with similar amounts of water since they are about the same size and formed at the same time. REF: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna28507783 Below is a recent article (extract) from NASA, stating both Mars & Earth are exposed to the full force of the Sun, making no reference to the ‘Earth’s magnetic shield.’ Extract (nasa.gov 😞 Heat and Dust Help Launch Martian Water into Space, Scientists Find (Nov 13, 2020) “Everything that makes it up to the higher part of the atmosphere is destroyed, on Mars or on Earth,” Stone said, “because this is the part of the atmosphere that is exposed to the full force of the Sun.” REF https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/heat-and-dust-help-launch-martian-water-into-space-scientists-find To sum up, I could be wrong about Earth’s magnetic shield not being vital to the protection of the ozone layer and the atmosphere, but then, I remember main steam science stating for years there was no water on the Moon. Now ask google ‘who discovered water on moon?’ to find India’s first ever space probe discovered water on the Moon in 2008!

I have been unable to find any reference to the idea that the Solar wind can harm the Ozone layer. Ask Google ‘what protects the ozone layer’ Answers = reduce CFCs. Ask Google ‘Effects of the solar wind’ Notice how the top result from NASA Science uses the term ‘magnetic protection’ but imho this is actually referring to the disruption caused by the Sun’s magnetic field and has nothing to do with protecting the Ozone layer, or the stripping of our atmosphere. Extract from NASA SCIENCE: ‘In some cases it can also set off space weather storms that disrupt everything from our satellites in space, to ship communications on our oceans, to power grids on land’. Nicky Fox is the division director for heliophysics at NASA Headquarters. She explains in more detail how the solar wind disrupts our magnetosphere: “As the wind flows toward Earth, it carries with it the Sun’s magnetic field. It moves very fast, then smacks right into Earth’s magnetic field. The blow causes a shock to our magnetic protection, which can result in turbulence.” REF: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/effects-of-the-solar-wind To be fair, there is a very recent article (new a few hours ago) which imho seems to promote the idea of a magnetic field protecting water ice from the Solar wind. Extract below: Ancient magnetic fields on the Moon could be protecting precious ice Fields in permanently shadowed craters may shield ice from solar wind 17 MAR 2022 12:50 PM REF: https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-magnetic-fields-moon-could-be-protecting-precious-ice

I think perhaps most people have been led to believe that the Earth’s Magnetic field is important for protection against the Sun’s radiation. As far as I can tell, the magnetic field neither protects the atmosphere from the solar wind or life from the Sun’s radiation. The Guardian against dangerous UV rays from the Sun is the Ozone layer, while the whole atmosphere protects against the highly energetic cosmic rays from outside the Solar system. With respect to Mars; I wouldn’t be surprised if a comet scarred the Martian surface and took much of the atmosphere with it – not the solar wind. In fact the Solar wind appears to help protect the Solar system from dangerous highly energetic cosmic Rays from outside the Solar system. Extract from a study: South At­lantic Anoma­ly does not cause ad­di­tion­al ra­di­a­tion ex­po­sure at flight al­ti­tudes Deutsches Zentrumfür Luft- und RaumfahrtGerman Aerospace Center 14. April 2021 At present, the Sun is very active – a surface covered with sunspots, frequent ejections of matter and a stronger solar wind blowing towards Earth. In the meantime, however, radiation exposure at aircraft cruising altitudes has reduced. This interesting phenomenon has now been confirmed by researchers at the German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt; DLR) using the Falcon research aircraft. Solar activity nearing a maximum The solar wind itself does not contribute to the radiation field at cruising altitudes, since the particles from the Sun are generally too low in energy to penetrate deeply enough into the atmosphere. High-energy cosmic rays, however, interact with air molecules in the upper layers of the atmosphere, high above the usual flight corridors, which are at an altitude of about 10 kilometres. "These interactions produce secondary particles, and using our detectors we can observe their interaction with matter," adds Meier. In May 2013, the DLR Falcon flew over Bavaria and southern Norway. REF: https://www.dlr.de/content/en/articles/news/2021/02/20210414_dlr-measurement-campaign-on-non-stop-flight-to-the-falkland-islands.html Venus does not have a Magnetic field and yet has an extremely thick atmosphere. Could we live in its upper atmosphere? Extract from Wikipedia: Unlike Earth, Venus lacks a magnetic field. It’s speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases. Despite the harsh conditions on the surface, the atmospheric pressure and temperature at about 50 km to 65 km above the surface of the planet is nearly the same as that of the Earth, making its upper atmosphere the most Earth-like area in the Solar System, even more so than the surface of Mars. Due to the similarity in pressure and temperature and the fact that breathable air (21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen) is a lifting gas on Venus in the same way that helium is a lifting gas on Earth, the upper atmosphere has been proposed as a location for both exploration and colonization. REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#:~:text=Venus%20is%20known%20not%20to,carried%20by%20the%20solar%20wind

I have found the problem is with my browser 'google chrome'. So I have swapped to 'Mozilla Firefox' browser to make comments and posts on this forum. I hope this comment helps others who may have encountered this problem.

The symmetry of Lagrange points around the orbits of solar system planets seems good evidence that once a gravity field has propagated at the speed of light the static gravity field then in place results in instant speed for gravity having to be used in all calculations. Ref: Ask google, bing, etc ‘What speed of gravity is used in space probe trajectory calculations’ and look for this forum among the top results.

The diagram above, (drawn using information from the ‘How Does The James Webb Space Telescope Work’ video after 22mins in and Wikipedia referenced below), showing the five Lagrange points. L1 & L2 are relatively stable points in space where gravitational and centrifugal forces are well balanced enabling satellites to be placed in what is known as ‘Halo’ orbits around them. L3, opposite, L4 600 forward and L5 600 behind Earth in its orbit are relatively unstable Lagrange point’s not suitable placing satellites in Halo orbits. The Lagrange points illustrated can found in all such planetary orbits. How Does the James Webb Space Telescope Work? - Smarter Every Day (1 Oct 2021) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P8fKd0IVOs James Webb Halo orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_orbit A very recent text book (I can’t remember its title) suggested the Moon may have been formed by a planet which had been at a Lagrange point in the Sun-Earth orbit. The planet’s orbit became unstable and it hit the Earth with a slow glancing blow, debris left by the collision became the Moon.

Here is a list of satellites orbiting Lagrange point 2 (L2). There are also others at L1. The Herschel Space Observatory was a space observatory built and operated by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the largest infrared telescope ever launched until the James Webb space telescope. The observatory was carried into orbit by a Ariane 5 in May 2009, reaching the second Lagrange point (L2) of the Earth–Sun system, 1,500,000 kilometres (930,000 mi) from Earth, about August 2009 and active till 2013.The observatory sifted through star-forming clouds—the "slow cookers" of star ingredients—to trace the path by which potentially life-forming molecules, such as water, form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_Space_Observatory Gaia, is a European Space Agency (ESA) space observatory orbiting sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point arrived 19 Dec 2013 measuring the positions, distances and motions of stars with unprecedented precision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft) At L2 Gaia assumed a Lissajous orbit instead of a Halo orbit. Lissajous orbits include components in this plane and perpendicular to it, and follow a Lissajous curv. Halo orbits also include components perpendicular to the plane, but they are periodic, while Lissajous orbits are usually not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_orbit The Russian Space Observatory called Spectrum-X-Gamma SRG. SXG (Spektr-RG) completed a 100 day cruise to L2 on 21 October 2019 where it entered an orbit around the Sun; circling the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point about 1 million miles from Earth. One of its tasks is to enable study of galaxy clusters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spektr-RG

The video I found referenced below is good at explaining that Gravity is curvature of space-time, a concept only realised relatively recently. Ref: ‘The REAL source of Gravity might SURPRISE you’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5PfjsPdBzg The video below is a nice musical summary of the secret of the stars and gravity: Ref: Symphony of Science - Secret of the Stars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI

No, this is not so. Gravity is difficult to understand, although we have equations to calculate gravitational force, one such equation below: Earth’s gravity field at 0km altitude: F = GME r2 F= Gravitational force The symbol G denotes the universal gravitational constant, ( it has the same value anywhere in the universe), this was first measured (1798) by Henry Cavendish: its value found experimentally to be G=6.67430x10-11 N m2/Kg2 . ME = Earth’s Mass of 5.9726x1024kg r = Earth’s radius 6.371x106m. F = (6.67430x10-11Nm2/kg2) (5.9726x1024kg) F = 3.98629x1014 (6.371x106m)2 4.05896x1013 F = 9.821 m/s2 Moon’s gravity field at 0km altitude: F = GMM r2 F= Gravitational force The symbol G denotes the universal gravitational constant, (it has the same value anywhere in the universe), this was first measured (1798) by Henry Cavendish: its value found experimentally to be G=6.67430x10-11 N m2/Kg2. MM = Moon’s Mass of 7.3242x1022kg r = Moon’s radius 1.7371x106m. F = (6.67430x10-11Nm2/kg2) (7.3242x1022kg) F = 4.88839x1012 (1.7371x106m)2 3.01752x1012 F = 1.62 m/s2 These figures show that on the Moon, gravity is only about 1/6th compared to the gravity on the Earth, just as the astronauts experienced. There are other such equations for calculating planetary and satellite orbital properties, gravity time dilation effect, and more, but unfortunately being able to calculate gravitational force does not explain how it works. Experimentally we appear to have proven that gravity propagates at the speed of light, I find it counter intuitive that just like electric and magnetic static fields, gravity also moves instantly in a static field; (ask google – ‘What speed of gravity is used in space probe trajectory calculations’ – and look for this forum amongst the top results). Gravity is interesting.

To examine the possible effect of the solar wind on the Earth and its satellites: Diagram shows the Earth’s magnetic field interacting with the solar wind creating ‘bow shock’. Bow shocks are described as similar to the waves that form at the bow of a ship and occur around all magnetic planets. This diagram was inspired after visiting the DTU Space research into Mars’ magnetic field web pages – very interesting reading. The diagram shows the Moon and Earth orbital velocity could be reduced by the solar wind. Indeed the best evidence of this probably comes from the Echo 1, Echo 2, and Pageos balloon satellites. Echo 1 mass = 66kg, r = 15.25m, Alt = 1,600km, re-entry 8years, decay 175km/year (1,400Km/8yrs) Echo 2 mass = 68kg, r = 20.5m, Alt = 1,200km, re-entry 5 years, decay 200km/year (1,000Km/5yrs) Pageos mass = 57kg, r = 15.25m, Alt = 4,000km, re-entry 9 years, decay 422km/year (3,800Km/9yrs) (Decay rate assumes re-entry occurs below 200km) The figures above show how quickly the satellite orbits decayed. It is well documented how the solar wind pushed these balloon satellites around during their life in space. Pageos had a near polar orbit unlike Echo 1 and 2 and this may be the reason the Pageos orbit decayed the quickest. Using the data from the balloon satellite Echo 1 (highest density) I wanted to very roughly estimate the possible effect of the solar wind on the Moon’s orbit around Earth: Volume of sphere Echo 1 = 4πr3 = 14856m3 Density Echo 1 = m = 66kg = 4.443x10-3kg/m3 3 V 14856m3 Raise by one line the 3 and the V 14856m3 to make sense of above, I couldn't get the page format to work! Assuming that density is directly proportional to orbital decay of balloon satellite Echo 1 then if we divide Echo 1 density by Moon density and multiply the result by the annual orbit decay of Echo 1 the result is a very shaky approximation of orbital decay of Echo 1 if it had the same density as the Moon. The result is 0.232metres orbital decay per year: ρ Echo 1 4.443x10-3kg/m3 x decay per year of 175,000m = 0.232m at Moon’s density ρ Moon 3344kg/m3 The next step is to make yet another shaky assumption that orbital decay due to solar wind effect is proportional to orbital velocity: Velocity Echo 1 at 700km = 7.5km/s. Velocity of Moon at 378,000km = 1 km/s Extra drag at 7.5 times the velocity of Moon’s orbit and a higher magnetic field strength nearer Earth on Echo1 annual rate of decay of Moon’s orbit due to solar wind is less by 0.232m /7.5 = 0.031m. Now multiply 0.031m orbital decay by 0.61 of magnetic field strength due to Moon’s much higher orbit than Echo 1: = 0.019m. This shaky estimation 1.9cm annual orbital decay of the Moon due to the solar wind is too small to measure against the tidal pull due to Earth’s spin which in-fact results in the Moon’s annual orbital distance being measured as increasing by 3.8cm per year. The solar wind effect on Earth’s orbit is negligible considering Earth-Sun distance.

With reference to the 7News UFO video posted above by Autodidactocrat. At 46minutes into the 7NEWS video there is an account of the 6 April 1966, students and a teacher from Westall High School, UFO incident. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO Could this be about people from afar, who were in need of a home, somewhere to blend in and raise a family? Below is a youtube video I found which nearly halfway along, nicely tells the story of people from afar, having to look for another home. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8HY7bR1P0

There are many examples of military engagements with UFOs but below, in my opinion, are condensed extracts from some of the more interesting UFO incidents with military forces: Condensed extract from History.com: In May 1951, one year into the Korean War, soldiers saw a strange sight up in the hills—like “a jack-o-lantern come wafting down across the mountain.” “We further noticed that this object would get right into...the center of an airburst of artillery and yet remain unharmed,” Suddenly, the object turned. And whereas at first, it had glowed orange, now it was a pulsating blue-green brilliant light. He asked his company commander for permission to fire at the object with armor-piercing bullets from an M-I rifle. As the bullets hit the body of the craft, he recalled, they made a metallic “ding.” The object started behaving still more erratically, shunting from side to side as its lights flashed on and off. “We were attacked,” he said, “swept by some form of a ray that was emitted in pulses, in waves that you could visually see only when it was aiming directly at you. That is to say, like a searchlight sweeps around and the segments of light...you would see it coming at you.” He remembered a burning, tingling sensation sweeping over his body, as if he were being penetrated. The men rushed into underground bunkers and peeped through the windows, watching as the craft hovered above them and then shot off, at a 45-degree angle. “It's that quick,” he said. “It was there and was gone.” Three days after the incident, the entire company of men was evacuated by ambulance, with special roads cut to haul out those too weak to walk. When they finally received medical treatment, they were found to have dysentery and an extremely high white-blood-cell count. In the wake of the Korean War, which ended in July 1953, dozens of men have reported seeing similar unidentified flying objects over the course of the 37-month conflict. The craft often resembled flying saucers. According to unofficial reports, as many as 42 were corroborated by additional witness reports—an average of more than one a month in just over three years. Ref: https://www.history.com/news/korean-war-us-army-ufo-attack-illness Here is a condensed extract from Reuters about two U.S. fighter planes scrambled and ordered to shoot down a UFO over the English countryside in 1957, made public in 2008: One pilot said he was seconds away from firing 24 rockets at the object, which moved erratically and gave a radar reading like “a flying aircraft carrier.” The pilot, Torres, now 77 said it spent periods motionless in the sky before reaching estimated speeds of more than 7,600 mph. After the alert, a shadowy figure told Torres he must never talk about the incident and he duly kept silent for more than 30 years. In a written account, Torres described how he scrambled his F-86 D Sabre jet in calm weather from the Royal Air Force base at Manston, Kent in May 1957. “I was only a lieutenant and very much aware of the gravity of the situation. I felt very much like a one-legged man in an ***-kicking contest,” he said. “The order came to fire a salvo of rockets at the UFO. The authentication was valid and I selected 24 rockets. “I had a lock-on that had the proportions of a flying aircraft carrier,” he added. “The larger the airplane, the easier the lock-on. This blip almost locked itself.” At the last moment, the object disappeared from the radar screen and the high-speed chase was called off. He returned to base and was debriefed the next day by an unnamed man. “He threatened me with a national security breach if I breathed a word about it to anyone,” he said. The files blame other UFO sightings on weather balloons, clouds or normal aircraft. Torres said he had been waiting 50 years for an explanation. Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-ufo-idUSTRE49L53Z20081022 A recent TV UFO show about an incident on June 15 1968 during the Vietnam War- DMZ (Demilitarized Zone between N and S Vietnam) – this is briefly the storyline as I recall it: Patrol Boat PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) 12 near Qua Viet has just started its patrol and at 0030hrs PCF 12 receives a radio message: PCF 19 reports it is under attack by two ‘helicopters’. PCF 12 races towards PCF 19 reported position and sees two unidentified flying objects hovering over PCF 19. There is a flash and PCF 19 is destroyed. The UFOs zip away out of sight, but then return and PCF 12 opens up with their main guns but come under intense return gun fire so, retreat still firing as they race at high speed down river towards open water. At about 0320hrs Phantom F4 jets are dispatched to aid PCF 12. The UFOs again zip off, however the jets detect them and give chase. They fire missiles at the UFOs but UFOs seem to have some form of glowing force-field around and just disappear. The F4 jets then return to base. The Royal Australian Ship HMAS Hobart which had been at sea in the area was later hit by a missile out of nowhere allegedly at about the same time the F4 jets had got back to their airbase. Seemingly the bullets fired at PCF 12 were found to be from their own gun and the missile that struck the Hobart was from one of the F4 jets. Could it be the UFOs were able to redirect the bullets towards their users and ‘capture the missile’ to redirect it at a target sometime later? Ref: New: UFO Conspiracy: Hunt For The Truth: Special on TV of UFO reports. Ref: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ufos-during-wartime_n_7046472 The account referenced below seems to give a different take on the Hobart attack. Ref: http://www.gunplot.net/main/content/hmas-hobart-attacked-vietnam-1968 U.S. NEWS