Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 19-09-2010, 07:40 PM   #21
not amused
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: I'm English FFS
Posts: 1,648
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

great thread, I am impressed with the very early reports, they back up my thoughts on how we have advanced, my simple belief is 5 types of hybrid experiments were put on the 5 continents and the visitors return to check how their experiment is progressing, it does seem that when there are a lot of reports mankinds technology takes a leap forward, then it falls backwards until they return again, simple thought.
__________________
Ooh, so that’s why we’re over there. Here I thought it was a rude act of terrorism, or was it for the oil? Or for mama Hussein secret Falafel rest I’ve been ashklashf…Gosh, that hard to keep track.

Last edited by not amused; 20-09-2010 at 08:08 AM.
not amused is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2010, 05:17 PM   #22
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by not amused View Post
great thread, I am impressed with the very early reports, they back up my thoughts on how we have advanced, my simple belief is 5 types of hybrid experiments were put on the 5 continents and the visitors return to check how their experiment is progressing, it does seem that when there are a lot of reports mankinds technology takes a leap forward, then it falls backwards until they return again, simple thought.
Cheers for the input, on what you said above, i would say why not , why is it that any notion of possible hybrid experiments by intelligent and advanced ETs is mocked.We know so little of this universe as it is.
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2010, 05:19 PM   #23
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

1880 very descriptive UFO sighting;

It took place in May of 1880 when there were no airplanes, helicopters or any flying machines. This was taken from the book Anatomy of a Phenomenon by Jaques Vallee 1965.





__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2010, 05:21 PM   #24
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

1897: ARKANSAS DEPUTIES MEET SOME ALIENS;

One of the strangest close encounters of the "airship era" took place 101 years ago, on May 6, 1897, near Blue Ouachita Mountain, just northwest of Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Constable John J. Sumpter Jr. and Deputy Sheriff John McLemore of Garland County left Hot Springs on horseback to investigate reports of cattle rustling. They rode north on what is now Highway 7 to Jessieville. Here is their story in their own words:

"While riding northwest from this city (Hot Springs) on the night of May 6, 1897, we noticed a brilliant light high in the heavens. Suddenly it disappeared and we said nothing about it, as we were looking for parties (suspects--J.T.) and did not want to make any noise."

"After riding four or five miles around through the hills, we again saw the light, which appeared to be much nearer the earth. We stopped our horses and watched it coming down, until all at once it disappeared behind another hill. We rode on about half a mile further, when our horses refused to go farther."

"Almost a hundred yards distant we saw two persons moving around with lights. Drawing our Winchesters--for we were now thoroughly aroused as to the importance of the situation--we demanded, 'Who is that, and what are you doing?'"

"A man with a long dark beard came forth with a lantern in his hand, and on being informed who we were, proceeded to tell us that he and two others--a young man and a woman--were traveling through the country in an airship."

"We could plainly distinguish the outlines of the vessel, which was cigar-shaped and almost sixty feet long, and looking just like the cuts (woodcuts instead of photographs were used in newspapers prior to 1900--J.T.) that have appeared in the papers recently."

"It was dark and raining and the young man was filling a big sack with water about thirty yards away, and the woman was particular to keep back in the dark. She was holding an umbrella over her head. The man with the whiskers invited us to take a ride, saying that he could take us where it was not raining."

"We told him we preferred to get wet."

"Asking the man why the brilliant light was turned on and off so much, he replied that the light was so powerful that it consumed a great deal of his motive power. He said he would like to stop off in Hot Springs for a few days and take the hot baths, but his time was limited and he could not.

He said they were going to wind up at Nashville, Tennessee, after thoroughly seeing the country. Being in a hurry, we left, and upon our return, about forty minutes later, nothing was to be seen. We did not hear or see the airship when it departed." (See the Helena, Ark. Weekly World for May 13, 1897. Reprinted in OPERATION TROJAN HORSE by John A. Keel, Manor Books, New York, N.Y. 1970, page 72.)

(Editor's Comment: According to Martin Walker, author of THE PRESIDENT WE DESERVE, James Eldridge Cassidy, President Clinton's maternal grandfather, was born in this area of Arkansas in 1898, a year after the Sumpter/ McLemore encounter. It would be interesting to find out if either Sumpter or McLemore is related to the Cassidy or Eldridge families. James E. Cassidy, a grocery store owner, died in 1957.)


source link; http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/v03/rnd03_19.shtml
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-09-2010, 05:30 PM   #25
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

This happened in 1897 in Kansas.
It doesn't sound like the cattle mutilations of today, but it shows an apparent interest in cattle.





__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 09:38 PM   #26
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default The Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO Incident;

The Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO Incident,


Hynek Classification: CE1/RV ; http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Hynek_Classification_System



mage courtesy of http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Blue...-UFO-Debunking



http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...b6fc5eb8b9.jpg


The Lakenheath, England UFO Incident is one of the best cases in ufology, it has multiple radar contacts as well visual reports. In the late night and early morning hours of August 13th and 14th, 1956 something extraordinary happened in the skies over southeastern England. It is also interesting because Lakenheath AFB was also a US nuclear bomber base. This incident is best described by the four separate events that occurred over a time span of 5 hours and had the object traveling at speeds between 80 mph and up to 10,800 mph potentially. A British fighter jet, the de Havilland DH.112 Venom , was subsequently launched to intercept this unknown aircraft, with another launched after the first pilot called for assistance. The ensuing chase, which at times had the UFO right behind the jets' tail left the pilot shaken and the British and American investigators scrambling for answers to what the Venoms were chasing that night.



Picture of actual officer drawings on the radar panel courtesy of the Lakenheath Collaboration http://www.geocities.com/parcellular/ufo/L-contents.htm

I need to note that this case is very poorly put together by researchers thus far, with information all over the place, some information non-existent anymore, conflicting reports, and the certain names of individuals present, especially the pilots is questionable as sources are scarce with this information.

There is conflicting reports from the British side and the USAF Blue Books side of the story. This case has also recently been heavily investigated by a collaborative British research team known as the Lakenheath Collaboration.

The only thing known for sure is that there were multiple radar hits from multiple stations of unknown objects traveling at extreme speeds, ground visuals, a C-47 that got a close visual, as well a British fighter jet that did get a radar and visual lock on one of the objects. This case,despite the poorly ordered information is still one of the best and hardest to explain cases in ufology. Many people do not know of this case and they should in my opinion.

Also let me say that I intentionally have not covered the Washington D.C. sightings of July,1952(as many know I am covering three of the top cases of each decade starting with the 40's). I did not cover these because the case has already been extensively covered here on ATS. You can find good information about the case here at NICAPhttp://www.nicap.org/wnsdir.htm and on this thread by ATS member Gazrok.http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/...php?tid=133876


Chapter Summary
1. The Radar Contacts
2. The Chase
3. Alternate Explanations and Official Conclusions
4. My Conclusions

1.The Radar Contacts

Important Information

The Players: British and American military personal that I could find...

Flight Lieutenant Freddie Wimbledon: Supervisor at Neatishead RAF Fighter Command that night, responsible for sending the intercept orders.

Lakenheath air traffic supervisor, USAF officer, Sgt. Forrest Perkins

Lakenheath air traffic controller S.Stg. Thomas Emerick

Lakenheath assistant air traffic controller A/3C James M. Kastner

Intelligence Specialist A/1C Ronald R Erikson

Intelligence Specialist A/2C Richard T. Lynch

Intelligence Specialist A/2C Gene O. Godfrey

Intelligence Specialist A/2C Philip R. Fowler

Pilot of Venom One: Dave Chambers

Pilot of Venom Two: Ian Frazer-Kerr

Navigator of Venom One: John Brady

Navigator of Venom Two: Ivan Logan

It should be noted that there were many reported civilian witness reports that night but none have been able to be confirmed as true.

The Places: Lakenworth(US nuclear bomber base) and Bentwaters Air Force bases in England, which in 1956 were on loan to the United States by the Royal Air Force. Radar contact was made from three separate sources(Lakenheath, Bentwaters, and Venom aircraft) with multiple radar configurations.

Bentwaters AFB
- Radar stations: GCA (Ground Control Approach), AN/MPN-1,1 A

Lakenheath AFB
-Radar stations: RATCC(Radar Air Traffic Control Center), CPS-4, CPS-5

Venom aircraft with AI (Aircraft Interceptor) radar

There were times when there was both an aircraft hit AND a ground hit. Also there were times when there was a visual conformation AND radar conformation.

It is also important to note that all original time is Greenwich Mean Time ZULU (zero). I have translated the 24 hour numbers into the more commonly civilian use of 12 hour numbers for ease of understanding.



The Types of Radar Available At Time of Incident:

TS-ID
CPS-5
CPN-4
MTI
Aircraft radar was AI, or "Aircraft Interceptor"

Helpful radar link: Radar

This is detailed about the various types: Radar Types

Weather Conditions

Clear sky until 3AM, with an unlimited ceiling. Visibility between 1:00AM and 4:00AM was 10 nautical miles with no storm systems in the region. All aircraft were accounted for and identified by radar. Wind direction between 12:00AM and 6:00AM was as follows:
-(Velocity in degrees) Surface:230 deg at 15 knots
-6,000 feet: 290 deg at 24 knots
-10,000 feet: 290 deg at 35 knots
-16,000 feet: 290 deg at 45 knots
-20,000 feet: 290 deg at 53 knots
-30,000 feet: 290 deg at 62 knots
-50,000 feet: 290 deg at 75 knots
All weather, radar, personal, and location information courtesy of the Lakenheath Collaboration

Detailed Contact Information

First Contact
The first URE, or unidentified radar echo, came at around 9:30 PM on the Bentwaters Air Force Base radar. The contact was about 25-30 miles east, southeast. The contact remained until it was lost about 15-20 miles to the west, northwest of Bentwaters.

The object stayed on a constant azimuth heading of 285 degrees and was moving at an estimated speed of between 4,000 and 10,800 mph (Mach 7.5 - 15), the speed varies as there is discrepancy in the radar operators calculation of speed in regards to the transit time between distances in between the 2 second radar sweeps.

The operator said that "the size of the blip was that of a normal aircraft, but diminished in size and intensity to the vanishing point before crossing the entire screen."A T-33 "Shooting Star" trainer from the 512th Fighter Interceptor Squadron manned by 1st Lieutenants Charles Metz and navigator Andrew Rowe, who were already in the air returning from a training mission, were diverted to investigate but found nothing and returned home.

Second Contact
About 5 minutes later at around 9:35PM a group of 12-15 UREs was picked up about 8 miles southwest of Bentwaters, the echos "appeared as normal targets" and "normal checks were made to determine possible malfunctions of the radar failed to show any malfunctions." The UFOs appeared to move as a group to the northeast at speeds varying between 80 and 125 mph. A 6-7 mile area was covered on the scope, while the echos "faded considerably" after a distance of 14 miles NE of Bentwaters they were still tracked to a point 40 miles NE of Bentwaters where they merged into a single echo "several times larger than a B-36 return under similar conditions."


This single echo remained stationary for 10-15 minutes at this location 40 miles NE of Bentwaters for 10-15 minutes, then proceeded to move NE for 5-6 miles, stopped again for 3-5 minutes, and finally moved out of range (range was 50 miles) of the radar at 9:55PM. The apparent average speed for the merged object was calculated at between 290-700 mph (58 miles in 5-12 minutes).





Image of reconstruction of a vintage radar room circa 1956 courtesy of drdavidclarke.co.uk http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/Laken.htm

Third Contact
At 10:00PM yet another contact was picked up about 30 miles east of Bentwaters and tracked to a point about 25 miles west of the station for 16 seconds. The radar operator figured the speed to be "in excess of 4,000 mph" but given the distance covered divided by time it appears the speed was more like 12,000 mph, or around Mach 17. All of the returns appeared normal except for the last, which was slightly weaker than the others. The URE disappeared when it moved out of range;




Fourth Contact
At 10:55PM radar contact occurred again, the URE was 30 miles east of Bentwaters moving west at an apparent speed of between 2,000-4,000 mph. The URE disappeared 2 miles East of the station and "immediately" appeared on scope 3 miles west of the station. It then disappeared entirely 30 miles west of the station. It is interesting to note that this URE appeared to be on the same course as the third contact and depending on the radar operators definition of "immediately" (as in blinked off and back on in the same sweep) then the speed would have been around 18,000 mph, or around Mach 25. The official Blue Book report estimated the speed lower, at 12,000 mph.

Now at this point in this ongoing anomalous saga someone at Bentwaters called an operator at Lakenheath radar station and asked "if they had any 4,000 mph targets". The caller from Bentwaters also stated the control tower at Bentwaters had reported seeing a " bright light passing over the field from east to west at terrific speed at around 4,000 feet altitude." Now at this same time a pilot of a C-47 flying over the station at 4,000 feet reported "a bright light passed under his craft moving east to west at terrific speed."

Accordingly the Lakenheath radar supervisor had all controllers start scanning the scopes using MTI, or a moving target indicator, which eliminated all ground clutter, or ground returns.The operators soon discovered a stationary echo about 20-25 miles southwest of Lakenheath. It is interesting to note that the radars should not have picked up the target because it was not moving, but they did. Here is an interesting note on why they may have still picked up a stationary target:
A vibrating or rapidly rotating target will show up on MTI radar even if it is not otherwise in motion.

www.nicap.org...

It then began moving once again in an instantaneous acceleration in velocity to 400-600 mph in a north, northeast direction. Local Air Force command was notified and kept appraised of the developing situation, which included the URE making several linear direction changes at around 600 mph with no speed change apparent in the directional changes. The changes varied between 8 and 20 miles in length with stationary episodes of 180-360 seconds (3-6 minutes) in between. It is also note worthy that there were several observations at Lakenheath at this time, including multiple site radar AND visual conformations of the objects instant acceleration and abrupt stops. At about 11:50PM the RAF (Royal Air Force) scrambled a de Havilland "Venom" fighter jet to investigate.

Helpful Link
Gordon Thayer NICAP Report ; http://www.nicap.org/laken.htm

source; http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread479324/pg1
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2010, 02:16 PM   #27
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica 1

Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica 1971;

quote;
"Abstract-An unusual image was photographically recorded by an official mapping aircraft of the Costa Rican government at 08:25 am (EDT) on September 4, 1971 while flying at 10,000 feet altitude over a body of water known as Lago de Cote. None of the flight crew or photographers saw the object. Second generation negative and positive black and white transparencies were obtained and analyzed by the authors".

Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica - with R. Haines;
http://www.scientificexploration.org...3_2_haines.pdf

Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica: New Evidence - with R. Haines;
http://www.scientificexploration.org...4_1_haines.pdf







photo from http://www.nicap.org/costarica1dir.htm



Costa Rica Photo - Photo Full Version;






LINK; http://www.nicap.org/docs/costaricaphoto-BU.htm



Here is a description of that sighting.

10-25-1986

On October 25, 1986, at about 9:00 A.M., in clear weather, Joaquin U.A., a forty-year-old farm manager, and Ronald-Alberto L.A., a twenty-three year-old farmer, saw an object above the surface of the lake.

Interviewed two weeks later at the site by Ricardo and Carlos Vilchez, they drew pictures of what they had seen and gave a detailed description of the events.

First they saw, about 1,800 feet away, a row or post-like cylinders reaching about three feet above the surface of the lake, which was quiet and flat as a mirror.
Then they again saw a series of objects sticking out about three feet above the water and three feet apart.
By then they had driven their tractor much closer to the lake, and they could clearly observe the cylinders, which were of a dark hue, either gray or coffee-colored.
After five or ten minutes the objects disappeared, the emerged portions tilting together as if they were attached to a single submerged structure, and the whole thing disappeared with much turmoil and waves.

This reference: Confrontations, by Jacques Vallee, p. 52, © 1990

Original reference: February 1979 edition of “Notiziario UFO”, journal of Italy’s Centro Ufologico Nazionale.

LINK; http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=619


Very interesting quote on this object;

60GCAT: What about other technologies that can help us analyze evidence better than we could, say, 10 years ago?

Vallee: Digital enhancement of photographs is very useful. In my book, Confrontations, I mention the photograph that I brought back from Costa Rica, which was unusual because the object was over a lake [Lago de Cote], so there was a uniform black background. Everything is known about the aircraft that took the photo. At the time the picture was taken [in 1971], nobody on the plane had seen the object. It was only after the film was developed that the object was discovered. The camera used was exceptional: It produced a very large negative--ten inches, very detailed. You can see cows in the field. The time is known; the latitude, longitude and attitude of the aircraft is known. So we spent a lot of time analyzing that photograph, without being able to find any obvious natural answer to the object. It seems to be a very large, solid thing.

I obtained the negative from the government of Costa Rica--if you don't have the negative, analysis is a waste of time. I also obtained the negative of the picture taken before and the picture after, all uncut. I took negatives to a friend of mine in France who works for a firm that digitally analyzes satellite photographs. They digitized the entire thing, and then analyzed it to the extent that they could, and could not find an explanation for the object.


link; http://www.thejinn.net/jacques_vallee_interview.htm
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.

Last edited by jamesc; 15-10-2010 at 02:17 PM.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2010, 03:12 PM   #28
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default THE CONCLUSION OF THE NASA LAWSUIT/PA UFO case of

THE CONCLUSION OF THE NASA LAWSUIT
Concerning the Kecksburg, PA UFO case of 1965';

By Leslie Kean;
INTRODUCTION;

On December 9, 1965, an object landed near the small town of Kecksburg, PA. Moments earlier,
a fireball was observed in the sky across several U.S. states and Canada.
Four witnesses provided independent, corroborated descriptions of the object and its location in
the Kecksburg woods. Dozens of others – including fire fighters, newspaper reporters, and a
radio news director at WHJB (who was on the scene taping interviews) – describe the large
military presence at the crash site and the cordoning off of the area. Some observed the retrieval
of an object that was transported by an army truck. Many witnesses signed statements for
investigator Stan Gordon of Greensburg, PA, who has been working on the case since it began.

At the scene, officials told residents a meteor crashed. But the next day, both local authorities
and the U.S. government declared nothing fell that night and nothing was found. Project Blue
Book Book - the official Air Force investigation into UFOs terminated in 1970 - says that no
space debris entered our atmosphere that day. Data from the U.S. Space Command and the
Russian Space Agency indicates that whatever came down that day was not a Russian satellite or
space probe.

In 2002, I was asked to spearhead a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) initiative sponsored by
SCI FI Channel, which attempted to acquire government documents on the Kecksburg case. The
next year, I ended up as the plaintiff in a federal, FOIA lawsuit filed against NASA in

Washington, DC. After previously promising to conduct an expedited search for files related to
the 1965 Kecksburg UFO crash case, NASA had stonewalled and was withholding documents,

leaving no recourse but this one. A settlement four years later, in October, 2007, required NASA
to provide hundreds of new documents and pay my attorney’s legal fees. NASA’s resulting
search, monitored by the court, was completed in August, 2009.

For a more detailed article - including background on the 1965 Kecksburg UFO case; why we
focused on NASA during this FOIA initiative; and the interesting twists and turns of the lawsuit -
please see my MUFON paper of July, 2008 “The Struggle for Government Openness” at

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/mufon_4.pdf. That paper was written before any of the
documents were received after the settlement (others had been released previously at various
stages), and it covers events up to the arrival of these NASA documents in the summer of 2008

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This paper completes the story, describing what we received (and didn’t receive) and offering
final comments on the whole process.


I. THE SEARCH THROUGH NASA’S INVENTORY TO SELECT DOCUMENTS
Nov. ’07 – Jan. ‘08
Two notebooks totaling 689 pages of SF-135 forms (inventory lists of files) were sent to me in
late Nov. 2007. NASA marked the files it intended to locate and send, asking me to note any
additional files I wanted, pertaining to the terms of the settlement agreement. I studied these
detailed lists carefully and made numerous additional selections which were responsive to the
search terms but had been overlooked by NASA. In late January I sent a five- page list to NASA

specifying these additional requested files, covering a broad range of relevant topics.
I also asked for a new search for the files in form 68A2062 – “NASA Fragology Files” – which,
as we were previously told, had been missing since 1987. The SF 135 for these files should have
been included in the notebooks but was not. The two boxes of fragology files from 1962 to 1967
are described as “reports of space objects’ recovery, [and] analysis of fragments to determine
national ownership and vehicle origin.” They would therefore be of special interest to the
Kecksburg case (see MUFON paper for more details).


Other SF 135s that should have been included in the notebooks were not. (We knew this because
we had previously worked with a professional archival research firm which had acquired some
that should have been included.) For example, the form for two boxes "pertaining to
NASA/DOD Liason, 1966-74” were not included. Box 1 included Orbital Debris; Policies &
Procedures; Box 2 included DOD Army, DOD Air Force. Both of these were of interest to us.

II. NASA’s SEARCH
Feb. ’08 – July ‘08
NASA received my list in January, 2008 and began searching for the documents initially selected
by the agency and the additional ones selected by me.
In May, 2008, NASA informed me that three new searches had been conducted for the two
missing boxes of fragology files, which were unsuccessful. In addition, NASA Headquarters was
searched, but that too failed to locate anything.


In June, NASA informed me that 291 boxes had been searched so far, but no files were found
pertinent to the 1965 event. Most of the documents so far were related to "fragments," "debris,"
and some correspondence.
3
In



After reviewing the documents, I noted the following:

1. There was nothing at all related to Kecksburg here or in the many hundreds of pages released.

by NASA at earlier stages.
2. The documents included news stories and reports about other fireball meteors around the same
time, but none on Kecksburg.

3. There were no policy or procedure manuals included, which were requested, related to rules or
laws governing the collection of space debris from private property.

4. There were 20 boxes missing which we had requested, including four pertaining to
NASA/DOD relationships and agreements.

5. Also missing were many attachments, appendices and photos, which were referred to in the
files as being enclosed or attached, but weren’t.

6. Missing also were a lengthy series of letters written to NASA from citizens about UFO
sightings and questions, some occurring in 1965. NASA sent form-letter replies to each person
then forwarded copies of these letters to the Air Force’s Project Blue Book. NASA sent me
copies of both its reply to the citizen and each cover letter sent by the agency to Blue Book

saying that the enclosed letter was being forwarded. However, none of these letters from citizens,
referenced as enclosed, were in the files. It is quite possible that interested citizens could have
written NASA about the fireball seen widely that night, or the landing of something in
Kecksburg.

To illustrate the complexity and detail of my attempts to acquire missing documents, and to
address other issues, here is one email which I wrote to my NASA contact for the search, Judi
Hollingsworth, in July 7, 2008:

You wrote re Accession number 67A1866 that 7 boxes were checked out by Paul Willis,
a NASA employee now retired, on 12/4/96, and that they are now missing, apparently
never returned. I am particularly interested in two files from these missing boxes:

Agreements: NASA/DOD from Box 1; and DOD-NASA Relationships from Box 3. This
group of files covers the time period June '65 - May '66, which is very relevant to my
search about the Dec. '65 incident in Kecksburg.


It is interesting to note that Paul Willis was the recipient of the letter from the National
Records Center stating that the fragology files (68A2062) have been missing since
1987. The letter to him is dated 3/28/96, in response to his inquiry requesting the files.

His middle initial is M. (Paul M. Willis), and he was Headquarters Records/Forms
Manager for NASA. His phone at the time was 358-0621.
Would it be possible to conduct a further search for these missing boxes, retrieved by Mr.
Willis and not returned, by tracking down Mr. Willis? It would also be interesting to find
out if he conducted a further search for the fragology files at the time, or if he may know
anything more about their whereabouts




I was told that since Mr. Willis was no longer a government employee, it was beyond what is
required by the FOIA or the settlement agreement to try to find him and see what he may or may
not know.

III. FURTHER SEARCH
Sept. ’08 – June ‘09
The settlement stipulation allowed me to request a further search for more documents, possibly
in new locations, under certain requirements and conditions (see the settlement at
http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/show_case_doc.pdf).

In September, 2008, I requested a
further search for additional responsive documents, all for very specific reasons which arose
during my study of the documents already received.
I requested the following, covering the period 1965-1967, and included detailed explanations as
to why these requests were made and what I was seeking:

A. Specific agencies and referencing methods:
Goddard Space Flight Center
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory's (SAO) Project Moonwatch
National Aeronautics and Space Council (NASC)
General Dynamics/Astronautics (GD/A)
Space Tracking and Data Acquisition Network
Bureau of the Budget
"Space Fragment Disposal Act of 1963"

B. Documents on State Dept. liaisons, such as to the State Dept. Office of Outer Space
Affairs


C. A search of SF 135 accession #90-0663, which had been missing from the original
notebooks, containing:
NASA/DOD documents, 1966-74.
Box 1 includes Orbital Debris; Policies and Proceedures
Box 2 includes DOD files, including DOD Airforce (sic).

D. A new search for six key boxes that were missing, of particular interest and greatest
relevance to our search:
67A1866 Box 1: Agreements: NASA/DOD
Box 3: DOD-NASA Relationships
Box 4: International Contacts
International Space Cooperation
68A 2878 - Box 2 and 3, Jan. 65-Dec. 65
70A 4099 - Box 7, NASA - DOD 1964-66
74-637 - Box 1, NASA/DOD Relationships

This final search was completed in June, 2009, taking almost nine months. I received four more
files, which, like all the others, were irrelevant to the Kecksburg incident. None of the missing
boxes were located. I was informed that Box 7 – NASA-DOD 1964-66 had been destroyed.

To put this in perspective, however, over 300 boxes were searched, plus hundreds of pages
released along with more from State Department. More had been released during the court
process before the settlement. So the missing files constituted only a tiny fraction of the
total. The fragology files stand out as potentially the most important missing boxes, which we
had been told were missing before we began.

The documents I received concerned, by and large, the recovery and analysis of fragments and
space debris here and abroad; orbital debris; policy formulations for above; discussions of
hazards and liability due to falling space debris; clarification of NASA’s role in relation to other
government agencies and its role overseas; some Project Moon Dust documents; Gemini and
Apollo missions; correspondence and meeting files. Files from the State Department included
UFO cases and reports of sightings.


These documents shed light on the history of the time, but
overall, that’s as far as they went.
In August, 2009, we filed the joint motion for dismissal in federal court, as there was nothing
more we could do; the search was completed. The post-settlement phase had lasted almost two
years.
6
IV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE STILL UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
The lengthy process of the NASA lawsuit highlights the problems inherent to the Freedom of
Information Act for the average citizen, and shows that much of our history is not available to
public researchers.

When we sent our first FOIA request to NASA with a list of five specific
search items, the agency replied that it had no documents responsive to our request. This simply
wasn’t true, as was shown later. It was only through the pressure of our appeal and then a federal
lawsuit that hundreds of documents – responsive to our initial request and therefore rightfully
ours under the law – were provided.


Judge Emmet Sullivan’s admonishing of NASA in federal court in 2007 highlights this problem
and is well worth reading (see my paper at http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/mufon_4.pdf for
excerpts).

It was very clear he sympathized with our side, and at various points he wondered out
loud if he would be forced to implement the last resort: a FOIA trial, something which has never
occurred before.

Exasperated, he repeatedly asked the attorneys on both sides what they thought
he should do. He declared at one point that “heads should role” at NASA, and he called NASA’s
case a “ball of yarn,” stating that he sensed my frustration, because he felt it too.


Even though we did receive documents eventually, we discovered that NASA’s historical
records have been inventoried in a cursory, seemingly arbitrary way. In general, FOIA offices
are overwhelmed, understaffed and unable to responsibly and accurately respond to requests.


And, of course, we had no way of monitoring any of the searches NASA told us it conducted for
us – whether all files were actually searched and all relevant documents pulled. We were simply
required to accept what we were told, as is anyone who makes a FOIA request.

And, not being
allowed access to the boxes NASA was searching, we also have to recognize that someone not
familiar with all the complex details of the Kecksburg incident might overlook a file that has
something very relevant in it, but which we may not have thought to include in our list of search
terms.

Historical archival research needs to be conducted by those who know the minutiae of the
subject being investigated, but in this case, that wasn’t possible.
That being said, I want to be clear that I am in no way blaming any of the NASA search team for
the problems we faced - problems stemming from haphazard filing in the 1960’s, or misplaced
files later on. Judi Hollingsworth, my contact at NASA during the search, was consistently
professional and cooperative, and I believe she conducted the best search she could.


In fact, Ms.
Hollingsworth told me she would have been delighted if she had been able to find something on
Kecksburg, and I have no reason not to believe her (she had nothing to do with the legal
process).

She too was operating within the limits of the system, and the restrictions inherent to it.
While highlighting the need for reform of FOIA procedures, this effort also accomplished
something unprecedented on the positive side. Even though we did not solve the Kecksburg
mystery, a FOIA lawsuit concerning a UFO case was settled in federal court in favor of the
plaintiff - an historic development. (see CFi press release “Landmark court settlement requires
NASA to release documents on mysterious UFO case”

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/NASA-release.pdf). Judge Sullivan was continuously
supportive of the public’s right to information; the fact that this involved an unidentified object
was not at the forefront, nor did it seem to prejudice him in any way. After our settlement, John
Podesta commented: “Leslie Kean's victory is a triumph for open government and the spirit of
inquiry." Our attorney Lee Helfrich pointed out that “It is unprecedented to have achieved
success at forcing an agency to do this kind of extensive historical search under the FOIA
without Congressional intervention.”

Actually, this was Helfrich’s victory, not mine, since she
was responsible for all the remarkably complex legal work which is what swayed the court.
The fact that no Kecksburg documents were released from NASA could mean many things.

They
could be accessible, but filed under some obscure search term or code name, that we didn’t
include or couldn’t have known. Maybe some additional SF 135 Forms listing an inventory of
relevant files were not included in the initial notebooks, so we never pointed NASA to the right
place.

Or, files related to the Kecksburg incident could be stored somewhere else in NASA’s
massive bureaucracy beyond the offices we approached. They could be classified, or otherwise
inaccessible to the employees conducting this search. They could have been destroyed, or even
lost; maybe checked out by someone, such as NASA employee Paul Willis, and never returned.

Without additional, very extensive work, we’ll never know the answers, and even with the work,
we still might never know.
However, there are still many stones left unturned for future research. Since NASA was
responsible for collecting and analyzing space debris at this time, and also had a great interest in
fireball meteors, it seems highly unlikely that the agency has absolutely nothing in its files about
the Kecksburg incident (for more background on this and the role of other agencies see IUR,

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/kecksburg2.pdf and
http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/kecksburgletters.pdf).
It’s worth noting that NASA sent no news articles or clippings about this fireball that was seen
over at least four states; was noted by astronomers; and was considered to be a spectacular
meteor when it occurred. Seen by thousands, it was covered in major papers all over North
America - in Boston, Toronto, Ohio, San Jose, for example - and of course throughout
Pennsylvania. NASA did send newspaper stories about other meteors and fireballs and related
events around this time, but not this one. Yet,


I suspect this was a bigger, more widely reported
story than the ones I was sent. The story of the brilliant orange fireball was widely distributed
through UPI and the Associated Press – even picked up by the New York Times – and also made
it into the Times of London. Why were none of these news stories in NASA’s files, even though
clippings of much lesser, but similar, events were?

We also now know for sure that the missing fragology files will never be found, since four new
searches were conducted on our behalf. We have to accept that they were destroyed in 1987, as
NASA says, despite the handwritten notation on one SF 135, previously released through the
FOIA, that the files were still at the Federal Records Center in 1994.

Other files we requested
remain missing or destroyed as well. We learned for the first time that important files were
checked out by a NASA employee – one who wanted also to get the fragology files and was
perhaps the first to learn they were missing - and when he didn’t return them, no one followed up
to request that he bring them back.

Why were these files not returned, and what happened to
them? Despite our concern about this, NASAwas unwilling to attempt to answer this question by
finding this former employee and inquiring about the files.
In summary, we’ll never know whether any documents in the missing or destroyed boxes might
have shed light on the Kecksburg incident, even if only by providing a small lead that could open
doors for researchers.


It only takes one page to change everything.
However, some documents did reveal interesting bits of information, even if not about
Kecksburg. For example, a one page “memo for record” was prepared by Richard Schullherr, a
NASA engineer whose responsibilities included fragology (he was custodian of the fragology
files) and who was a liaison to Project Moon Dust, the federal program involving the retrieval of
space debris and objects of unknown origin. Dated January 18, 1969, the memo records a visit
Schulherr made to the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) of the Air Force Systems Command
at Wright Patterson AFB.


The purpose was to identify some space debris which had been sent to
NASA, and to “re-establish personal liaison with newly assigned FTD Moondust personnel”
headed by Lt. Robert McGill.
Schulherr also met with Col. Richard Bagnard of Project Blue Book. Since both Project
Moondust and Blue Book were FTD projects based at Wright Patterson, this memo confirms the
fact that were two Air Force projects that had some responsibility for the collection and/or
analysis of objects fallen from space.


Shullherr states that Bagnard “was particularly interested in the potential of decaying space
objects being reported as UFO’s.” His notes on his continuing conversation with Bagnard are
fascinating. “I advised him that all UFO reports to NASA were referred to the AF. The
observable phenomena of reentry were easily recognized and our response in general was to
identify the particular decay. When a particular decay could not be identified with an
observation, we stated that it was a meteorite or a satellite which was not of sufficient
importance to warrant tracking by NASA or NORAD.”


This practice of conveniently stating that the phenomenon was a meteorite or satellite, when in
fact it was unidentified, relates back to one of the Project Blue Book files, dated December 10,
1965, written the day after the Kecksburg incident.

This “memo for the record” states that Major
Howard from the Pentagon called Major Quintanilla, the head of Blue Book, to ask what he
could tell the public about the “meteor” seen over Pennsylvania. Quintanilla replied that a team
had been out to search for a fallen object, but had been unsuccessful.

“Major Quintanilla said that
it was Ok to call it a meteor that entered the atmosphere. He said that investigation is still under
way. There was no space debris which entered the atmosphere on 9 December 1965.”

It seemed
to be an unwritten government policy that objects would be publicly explained as meteors or
whatever worked best, even before it was actually determined what they were, and before
investigations were complete.
Another document sent by NASA lays out the four “international commitments” of NASA in
1964; one of them is “investigation of extra-terrestrial life.” It’s a little curious that
“investigation of” is used here instead of “search for,” as if we know there is something there to
investigate.

This is probably simply a semantic oddity that was later changed. NASA’s
disinterest in studying physical evidence related to UFO sightings and landings – to explore
whether these objects could possibly be probes from outer space – would suggest that this goal
did not last very long.


So many questions remain unanswered about the Kecksburg incident, many of them not
involving NASA, but still important, as discussed in my referenced 2005/2006 papers in IUR,
and as have been highlighted by Stan Gordon for many years. I attempted to locate the still
unfound report on the event, written and filed at the 662nd radar squadron headquarters in
Oakdale, PA after its team returned from a search for the object.


This should have been with the
Project Blue Book files, but wasn’t; its author provided us with a detailed affidavit to assist our
efforts to find it. I also received contradictory reports from members of the 662nd radar squadron
who were on the scene that night, when I interviewed them by telephone.
I am still convinced that something came down in Kecksburg and that the object was not Cosmos
96, or any other Russian object.

It also seems highly unlikely that it was a secret American
capsule of some sort, as stated by NASA’s chief scientist for orbital debris Nicholas Johnson (see
http://www.freedomofinfo.org/news/cosmos-96.pdf). Extensive research has been conducted for
decades, and Gordon has followed numerous leads towards determining what this object may
have been.

So far, no conclusive determination has been made.
In one instance, NASA came out with an unexpected statement that momentarily turned the
lawsuit on its head.

In 2005, a NASA staffer – this time, not an expert scientist like Johnson, but
a media spokesman - contradicted the statement of the renowned Johnson through bizarre
comments provided to the press which was covering the 40th anniversary of the incident.

NASA
spokesperson David Steitz told an AP reporter that “the ‘UFO’ [Kecksburg object] was a Russian
satellite, but government records documenting it have been lost” (“NASA under pressure over
UFO,” Dec. 9, 2005, http://www.freedomofinfo.org/campaign.html).
10
Steitz



Steitz said that NASA experts studied fragments from the object, but records of what they found
were lost in the 1990s. "As a rule, we don't track UFOs. What we could do, and what we
apparently did as experts in spacecraft in the 1960s, was to take a look at whatever it was and
give our expert opinion," he said.

"We did that. We boxed (the case) up, and that was the end of
it. Unfortunately, the documents supporting those findings were misplaced."
Naturally, our team was stunned by this announcement. We had a lawsuit in federal court
because NASA had never given any answers to questions about the Kecksburg object, and now,
suddenly, the agency was saying it was a Russian satellite - even when NASA’s own leading
expert checked the records and said it couldn’t possibly be any satellite from any country! Steitz
was never willing to reply to my many requests for further information about this statement, such
as where the information came from, since he said the documents about it were lost.

Without the
documents, how would he know? (This contradiction with Johnson and the lack of a source for
Steitz’s claim has not been followed up by any other journalist, and could be an interesting
story.)

In another vein, we were also hoping to learn what authorization government agencies such as
NASA had at the time to enter private property for the purpose of seizing or investigating a
fallen object, but we did not receive answers to this question either. No policy directives or
procedures were provided, yet NASA must have its own policies on this issue, and somewhere
they must have been spelled out in 1965.

Through the historical documents we did receive, the Kecksburg lawsuit added to our general
body of knowledge of that time period even while raising new questions and unresolved
contradictions about the Kecksburg case. Most importantly, it illustrates what we’re up against as
citizens advocating for greater government openness, and justifies a re-examination of what
access we as a people within a democracy actually have under the FOIA.
Special thanks to Larry Landsman, then an executive at SCI FI Channel, for launching this FOIA
initiative and pulling the team together; attorney Lee Helfrich for brilliantly handling all the
many rounds of litigation and extensive legal briefs, way beyond the call of duty; and researcher
Stan Gordon for spending over forty years investigating the case and providing me with
extensive information, assisting every step of the way.
Leslie Kean
November, 2009


link;http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/NAS...conclusion.pdf
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2010, 03:17 PM   #29
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

Following on from the last post on this NASA law suite here is a finale conclusion made by a NASA Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Nicholas L. Johnson, who is recognized internationally as an authority on orbital debris and foreign space systems;


The Cosmos 96 question is settled once and for all;

Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Nicholas L. Johnson, who is recognized internationally as an authority on orbital debris and foreign space systems, has determined that Cosmos 96, the Russian Venera probe that has been considered a possible explanation for the Kecksburg object for decades, did not land in Pennsylvania on the afternoon of December 9, 1965. Furthermore, he states that no other man-made object from any country came down that day.

Debris from Cosmos 96 has been a leading contender as an explanation for the Kecksburg object, due to the fact that it came down early that morning over Canada. Perhaps part ended up in Pennsylvania later, the theory went. The Air Force stated at the time that no space debris entered the atmosphere that day, and that all aircraft and missiles were accounted for.

Johnson examined the orbital data for Cosmos 96 and was able to calculate when it would have passed over Pennsylvania if it had been in orbit that day. The time, when it traveled from north to south, was at approximately 6:20 am. The Kecksburg object came down at 4:45 p.m. “I can tell you categorically, that there is no way that any debris from Cosmos 96 could have landed in Pennsylvania anywhere around 4:45 p.m.,” said Johnson in an interview on October 10, 2003. “That’s an absolute. Orbital mechanics is very strict.”

The US Space Command reported in 1991 that Cosmos 96 crashed in Canada at 3:18 a.m. Johnson does not have information about the time of demise of Cosmos 96, but he did confirm that it was over Canada at this time.
One part of Cosmos 96 could not have stayed in orbit until 4:45 p.m. after the object came apart hours earlier, as some had speculated.

Even more intriguing, Johnson’s data shows that no man-made object from any country entered our atmosphere and landed in Pennsylvania on the afternoon of December 9. Cosmos 96 was the only catalogued object that came down at all that day. He says that anything not catalogued would have been so small that it would not have survived reentry. “I cannot absolutely confirm that it was not some completely unreported event, but the chances of that are virtually nil,” said Johnson. “You can’t launch something without somebody seeing it. By 1965 the US and Soviets were both reporting their launches.”

The possibility of a US reconnaissance satellite dropping a large film canister on that day has also been ruled out. These capsules were dropped following secret missions over the Soviet Union. Data on these flights was recently declassified. By checking launch and retrieval times, these capsules can also been eliminated as a possible explanation for what landed in Kecksburg.
In 1965, unlike today, the US government did not have the technical means of detecting natural bodies, such as a meteor, suddenly coming into the earth’s atmosphere. The only record we would have of such an event would be witness reports.


Previously, both Johnson and another renowned expert, Phillip S. Clark of London’s Molniya Space Consultancy who has studied the Soviet and Chinese space programs for more than 20 years, had just about eliminated Cosmos 96 as a possibility, assuming witness reports are accurate. The capsule was only 3 feet in diameter – much smaller than the object reported by Kecksburg witnesses. Clark also pointed out that the Cosmos capsule could not have made turns or descended slowly at an angle, as witnesses reported.

Now, the Cosmos 96 explanation is no longer a question, and we have fewer options left to explain this mystery. As Dr. Peter Sturrock, emeritus professor of applied physics at Stanford University, says in his book The UFO Enigma, “In principle, we can prove a hypothesis not only by finding strong evidence in its favor, but also by finding strong evidence against every other possibility.”
Leslie Kean
The Coalition for Freedom of Information
October, 2003;

link; http://www.freedomofinfo.org/foi/NAS...conclusion.pdf
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2010, 06:16 PM   #30
weeme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Darkest Africa
Posts: 405
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Thumbs up

Excellent thread! Thanks for posting and all your hard work.
__________________
"It's important to maintain our sense of humor, to allow ourselves to dream and to enjoy each day that we
are given. Sometimes freedom feels as if it will be temporary for some and never coming for others but the
gift of this moment is surely lost for those in government who are blinded by the need to control and own
our destiny."
Colin Andrews.
weeme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2010, 01:28 PM   #31
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

The 1990 Greifsweld (Germany) “Plasma” UFO’s,




mufon report;
The "Greifswald Lights"

Example for a Class B UFO report;

by Illobrand von Ludwiger;

On August 24, 1990, many independent witnesses observed formations of luminous spheres in the sky near the city of Greifswald, located close to the coast of the Baltic Sea. Many eyewitness reports backed up by videos and photographs make this case one of the best documented sightings in Europe.

Although the degree of strangeness in this case is not very high, no scientific explanation has been found to date. Some skeptics have tried to reduce the characteristics of this phenomenon to known one. But, so far, no one has successfully explained all the data observed and documented. The skeptics seem to be satisfied with any possible explanation. But from a scientific point of view a possibility is only the starting point for gathering evidence and the search for confirmation. In the ”Greifswald case” no convincing explanations for any hypothesis could be found.

Many sightings of what appeared to be groups of luminous spheres were reported in the early days of of August 1990 from the coast of the Baltic Sea between the cities of Rostock, Greifswald and the Isle of Ruegen and Usedom. These lights displayed unusual behavior contrary to airplanes, balloons, luminous ammunition and atmospherical phenomena. The movements of these lights appeared inconsistent with known objects, their acceleration seemed too rapid and abrupt.


The report concluded as follows:

The characteristics of the phenomena make it impossible to explain the appearance by military maneuvers. If the smaller objects were ammunition flying to the bright objects acting as a target, then the smaller objects would have exploded inside this group or flown through it. No one can explain, how one can stop a body in the air to zero speed without losing height. Until today nobody has come forward and claimed being the creator of these phenomena. Although different possibilities were considered, not one of them could account for all the different details reported, and nobody has been able to reproduce light formations like those observed near Greifswald.


Please follow this link to the full report:

http://www.mufon-ces.org/text/english/greifswald.htm

Here is a map from the MUFON report illustrating the location of the objects as verified from several viewing points:





Plasma UFO's~ Greifswald, East Germany Date: August 24, 1990;




UFO Greifswald Lights - August 24, 1990 Germany




enhanced picture of 2 groups of the objects:



the original, unenhanced version of that picture:




similar phenomena that was observed in Russia several years later.

UFO Over St Petersburg, Russia 19th February 1997;

__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2010, 02:34 PM   #32
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

US Air Force photographers on RB-36 took close-up shots of Ufo;



#A 1956 MILITARY AIRCRAFT -
UFO CLOSE ENCOUNTER
By Richard F. Haines and Franklin Carter

The UFO report described in this article comes from a former member of the U.S Air Force, Jimmie Lloyd, then a Lieutenant (he retired as a Lt Col). We write about this sighting because it involved a highly-trained crew of military personnel, because the UFO was allegedly spotted on radar and pictures were taken in daylight, and because this report never was recorded in the Project Blue Book records, even though it certainly should have been.

It thus becomes another example of what Allen Hynek, former scientific advisor to Blue Book, often noted about the best reports being sent to some other location and bypassing the official reporting procedures. The witness contacted one of us (FC) several years ago after a radio talk-show appearance. In the fall of 1998 one of us (RH) conducted a personal interview with Lt. Col. Lloyd.

This UFO event occurred sometime in the fall or winter of 1956. A U.S. Convair Air Force RB-36H (Peacemaker) airplane (1) of the 718th Squadron, 28th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing, based at Ellsworth AFB, Rapid City, South Dakota, had taken off before noon with a nominal crew of 22 men (17 regular flight crew and a five-man relief crew).


The commander was Lt. C. Lenny Marquis. Their mission was training in the use of various air-to-ground camera and other military surveillance equipment. At the time of this sighting, America was finally getting over the aftermath of the Korean War while facing a growing Cold War with the Soviet Union. The mission of the crew was critical in this effort.

The Air Force's Strategic Air Command operated 10 wings of B-36 bombers at this time, with about 30 aircraft in each one. Type RB-36H was the photo reconnaissance version of the B-36H. As the photos accompanying this article show, this was a huge aircraft powered by six 28- cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-4360 piston-pusher engines mounted on the trailing edge of each wing, and two pairs of J-47-GE- 19 turbojet engines mounted outboard of them.

The huge, 10-engine heavy bomber climbed to about 40,000 feet in clear air. The time was shortly after noon. Figure 1 shows this huge bomber in flight (nicknamed "the Aluminum Cloud") as seen from below with its 230-foot wing span.

According to the main eyewitness, Lloyd, the airplane


Figure 1. RB-36 in flight (USAF)

was cruising in straight and level flight near its top speed of 423 mph at cruise altitude. Its six retractable and remotely controlled gun turrets (2) were in the stowed position. Details of its huge, high-resolution camera are found elsewhere. (3) Suddenly the left scanner (observer) in the aft compartment saw a metallic disc about 100 feet in diameter fly toward the airplane from the left-hand side and take up a fixed position off the left wing less than 300 feet away. (4) He reported it over the intercom system and soon the visitor's arrival was known by everyone on board. Many men rushed to the nearest porthole on the left side of the fuselage and began taking 35mrn photographs of the disc using their standard- issue cameras. (5)

The length-to-height ratio of the UFO was about 8:1, and a low dome, about one-third the length of the object, was located at the center of the top surface, which was only


Figure 2. Main cockpit windows. (USAF)


Figure 3. Nose of a B-36 seen from left side. (USAF)



slightly curved. The dome had three round openings or light sources approximately as shown in Figure 4. Its surface was perfectly smooth and was without seams, markings, any visible means of propulsion or other aerodynamic details.

The object seemed to have an almost flat or slightly concave bottom surface. Its vertical sides were populated by many separate round sources of light, each of a different color. Their spacing was approximately as shown in Figure 4. The surface of both the main body and raised dome appeared a "light golden" hue.

After five to eight minutes, the UFO suddenly accelerated horizontally in parallel with the B-36 and then rose at about 30 degrees above the local horizontal without pitching up or down. (The duration of the UFO's visible acceleration lasted approximately one to two seconds at the most.) All of the peripheral bluish lights became much brighter and definitely greenish as the object accelerated out of sight in several seconds.


It did not appear to rotate about its vertical axis nor did it appear to wobble or undulate in flight. In addition, no buffeting or unusual noises were felt or heard by Lloyd during this sighting. Flying at nearly 423 mph, the UFO and airplane would have traveled a distance of about 55 miles during this eight-minute period.


Figure 4. Approximate side view outline of UFO seen from the RB-36.

Lloyd was serving as a substitute navigator in the nose of the aircraft during this flight. He recalled that they were somewhere in northern South Dakota and probably near the North Dakota state line during the sighting. At this time he held five specialty ratings (primary, photographic, radar, weather, and electronic countermeasures).

The radio operator used a preassigned frequency on his single sideband radio to contact ground authorities about the UFO while the sighting was ongoing. Lloyd told us that ground radar was able to detect the UFO as well as the airplane.

Later he wrote an account and stated, "When we got on the ground, we had to turn in all of our logs, equipment, photographs, everything, to an intelligence unit called 'Reci Tech' [Reconnaissance Technology] which was the central processing unit for the whole wing. We were debriefed by Intel officers, reminded that we all held top-secret clearances, and that we couldn't reveal any of this information for a period of 12 years.


Then, several weeks later, we were debriefed again by some officers from higher headquarters who reminded us also of the same 12-year period, and in fact, when I was discharged back in 1960 from the active Air Force into the active reserves, I was also reminded again of the 12-year period to not reveal any of this information."

It is clear that Air Force officials wanted to keep this sighting completely under wraps. And in this they were successful, since this report cannot be found in Project Blue Book files, the UFOCAT database of CUFOS, or those of Larry Hatch or Dominique Weinstein.

DISCUSSION

This rather typical high-altitude close encounter by a military airplane involved a single, three-dimensional, symmetrical aerial object that was "witnessed and photographed by many highly qualified airmen and officers. It is instructive to apply our knowledge of terrestrial aircraft design to this object to try to better understand its most likely physical characteristics, We begin with its weight.

Airframe weight. Terrestrial aircraft typically employ a standardized construction involving smooth sheet metal attached to ribs and longitudinal spars (generally referred to as a "monocoque" construction). This particular construction design yields an almost linear relationship between an aircraft's total "wetted" or outer surface area and its structural weight (with no engines, fuel tanks, interior fittings, or cargo included). (6)

An approximate surface area of 15,000 sq. ft. approximates the present UFO. This results in an estimated air frame weight of about 110,000 pounds if its construction is similar to an aircraft. Without knowing its interior components, of course, it isn't possible to estimate its gross weight. If gross weight were known, one could better estimate the total horsepower required to propel the object at 423 mph. As a comparison, the gross weight of the RB-36H was 357,500 pounds.

Wake turbulence. When aircraft, whether conventional or disc-shaped, travel through the air they typically produce invisible air turbulence behind them. Vortex zones initially spread out one to two seconds after leaving a wing's edge and tip. For the next two to three seconds the vortex effect remains together (i.e., retains its compactness), but loses 60-80% of its capacity to roll another aircraft passing through it.


A downwash effect persists, however. It also maintains an almost constant volume (see the parallel lines behind the UFO in Figure 5). After about five or six seconds, the turbulent area begins to break apart into separate cross-trail pillows. At a point some three to five minutes behind the object there is almost no coherent rolling moment remaining. (7) their useful information on wake vortices is found elsewhere.

(8) It can also be shown that if this UFO were moving through the local airmass with zero pitch angle, i.e., with zero angle of attack, no wake vortex should be formed behind it. This is indeed supported by the fact that no air turbulence was recalled by Lloyd onboard the aircraft.

The white condensation trails sometimes seen behind jet aircraft flying at high altitudes are produced by rapid heating of moist air from the heated engine exhaust. These contrails provide useful insights about the highly unstable zones behind an aircraft, so it would be educational to view the photographs that were taken to see if condensation trails were present. (Of course, it would be just as important to obtain characteristics of the UFO from the photo.)

Furthermore, the fact that the UFO was able to fly much faster than the RB-36H and climbed without changing pitch angle suggests some type of gyroscopic attitude-stabilization system.




Figure 5. Plan view of UFO next to B-36 (relative to
probable wake turbulence from the disc's edges).

Strouhal shedding number. This dimensionless number (S) represents "aperiodic" air flowing alternately over the top and then the bottom surface of a symmetrical solid while it travels through the air. In essence, S represents an unsteady shedding of a Von Karman vortex street (a stream of air). (9) For aircraft with a high Reynolds (10) number, S is approximately 0.21 (used here). The present UFO was approximated by a 12.5-foot diameter cylinder with its longitudinal dimension moving perpendicular to the direction of travel. Thus:



According to this calculation, one would expect a vortex street flowing, alternately, first over the upper surface and then the lower surface of the UFO approximately 10 times a second. Whether this effect could result in some kind of visible phenomenon or an audible noise remains to be seen. However, UFO investigators are urged to seek such data in other such cases.

Aerodynamic drag and structural considerations.
The total frontal area relative to the local air mass of a 100- foot diameter disk having the cross-sectional shape shown in Figure 5 would be about 1,250 square feet at zero pitch angle (i.e., minimal silhouette). Of course, drag would increase, relative to the air mass, if its angle of attack increased.

If the UFO was constructed using a terrestrial-based monocoque construction it would undergo various bending moments as a function of g loading (constant earth gravitation effect plus accelerative forces) during turning. On the other hand, if the means of propulsion of the UFO incorporated a mechanism where each micro-element (perhaps at the molecular level) is integrally involved in propulsion and properly coordinated in the same vector and acceleration level, then the UFO's entire body would act as a single point mass. The implications of moving a point mass simplify some of the consequences while making others more complex.

The paucity of data in this case prevents us from saying much more about the possible physical characteristics of this UFO. Interested readers are urged to write to us in care of CUFOS.

Table 1.

Other Reported UFO Sightings in North and South Dakota, Fall & Winter 1956
September 22, 1956 1950L* Williston, ND
Amateur astronomer sighted "dull metallic" elliptical object the size of a small plane, which oscillated side-to-side as it moved 150 mph above the Missouri River. Williston Plains Register, September 22, 1956.

November 16, 1956 morning Lemmon, ND
Phones and automatic railroad block signal system failed to operate as glowing red object about three feet in diameter flew over the railroad yards. Mobridge Tribune, November 22, 1956.

November 25, 1956 0430L Hot Springs, SD
Police radio picked up transmissions made by a jet interceptor from the 54th ighter-Interceptor Squadron at Ellsworth AFB that made three passes at a brilliantly lit UFO bobbing up and down in the sky. On the third pass the pilot reported that the object registered on his radar. It was also rumored that a blip was picked up on ground radar by the 740th Aircraft Control and Warning Squadron. Rapid City Daily Journal and Pierre Capitol Journal, November 26, 1956; Richard H. Hall, The UFO Evidence (Washington, D.C.: NICAP, 1964), p.22, 79

November 25, 1956 1030L Rapid City, SD
A sheriff and deputy observed a stationary UFO for 30 minutes. The object was green, but a flashing red light and an upward-shining bright white light appeared at intervals. Rapid CityDaily Journat November 26,1956.

December 1, 1956 0720L Valley City, ND
Round, reddish object caused interference with police radio. USAF Project Blue Book file.

December 2, 1956 0500L Belvidere, SD
Two red objects. USAF Project Blue Book file.

*L=local time
Editor's note: Many different UFO reports were reported in newspapers in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota in November 1956, resulting in a remarkable mini-flap. The NICAP file in the CUFOS archives contains many clippings; see also Loren Gross, The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse: UFOs: A History, 1956, November-December (Fremont, Calif.: The Author, 1994).

REFERENCES

1. "Convair B-36" description in air-recon.com Encyclopedia, Aerospace Publishing, Ltd., 1997-2000 (194.205.16. 17/ency/B/B-36.asp); and "Convair RB-36H 'Peacemaker,"' in USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB, Archives Gallery; Leonard Bridgman, ed., Jane's All the World's Aircraft (London: Jane's Publishing, 1957- 1958); Wayne Wachsmuth, B-36 Peacemaker in Detail and Scale (Carrollton, Tex.: Squadron/Signal, 1997).

2. Each turret had twin 20-mm cannons. Two more 20-mm cannons were mounted in the nose and two more in the radar-controlled tail turret This reconnaissance version of the B-36 with guns was referred to as 'Tetherweight II."

3. "RB-36 Reconnaissance Camera;" in USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB, Cold War History Gallery.

4. The witness said later (October 5, 1998, to author RH) that "the entire object would have been covered by my closed fist held and viewed at arm's length." This would make the UFO subtend an angle from the nose of the airplane of almost 10 degrees of arc. A 100-foot-long object subtending 10 degrees of arc would lie 567 feet from the observer, close enough to the witness's estimate.

5. Haine 35mm format cameras were used. Everyone also had a pair of binoculars and a standard UFO reporting form developed for Project Blue Book.

6. Brian E. Smith, NASA Ames Research Center, personal communication, April 12, 2000.

7. Vernon J. Rossow, NASA Ames Research Center, personal communication, October 10, 1998.

8. John H. Olsen, Amold Goldberg, and Milton Rogers, eds., Aircraft Wake Turbulence and Its Detection (New York: Plenum, 1971).

9. James W. Daily, and Donald R. F. Harlman, Fluid Dynamics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1966), p. 381.

10. The dimensionless Reynolds number is important in analyzing any type of flow where there is shear. It is defined for a vehicle moving through a fluid medium as scale velocity times scale length divided by kinematic viscosity. A critical velocity range above which a fluid flow becomes turbulent, below which it remains viscous, and in which it may be either, depends on several factors, including temperature.

Source: CUFOS IUR (International UFO Reporter), Spring 2000, Volume 25, Number 1.




This web page was created by Francis Ridge for the NICAP web site. The author is Dr. Richard Haines, http://www.nicap.org/bio-haines.htm and permission to use the material was given by both the author and Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS. For a list of other great papers published in the IUR, please click on bibdat-IURhttp://www.nicap.org/bibdat-IUR.htm
Case Directory http://www.nicap.org/IURhaines1956dir.htm
NICAP Home Pagehttp://www.nicap.org/index.htm
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2010, 03:02 PM   #33
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

Yukon UFO "Mothership" Incident: December 11th, 1996;






Courtesy:http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/2205fox3image1mj.htm

Hynek Classification: CE1; http://tinwiki.org/wiki/Hynek_Classification_System

quote;
This case involves over 30 eyewitnesses and plenty of documentation of what appears to be a massive UFO that appeared over the Klondike Highway in the Yukon Territory of Canada on December 11th, 1996. This incident took place in three separate towns along the 134 mile length of the Klondike Highway in Yukon Territory, Canada.

The reported size of the semi-spherical UFO is over a mile in diameter, or bigger than a football stadium. Again, there were over 30 witnesses(22 interviewed so far) to this unbelievable event which all concurred on the size of the craft, as well the shape, and all other important facts. courtesy and thanks to the site ufobc.ca and the investigator Martin Jasek, for extensively documenting this case in the way ALL UFO cases should be done.




Chapter Summary
1. Fox Lake
2. Pelly Crossing
3. Carmack Village
4. The Investigation
5. Alternate Explanations, Official Conclusion, and My Conclusions

(All images courtesy ofhttp://www.ufobc.ca/ and Martin Jasek)



Map showing location of sightings courtesy of http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm


1. Fox Lake;



This region probably contains the best testimony. It consists of 6 witness reports of a saucer-like UFO ranging in size from just under to just over a mile in diameter. The witnesses requested anonymity so they are referred to as “FOX” with a number. This whole Fox Lake incident starts at about 8 PM local time with the first witness “FOX1” driving on Klondike Highway along Fox Lake when he notices a light illuminating a long smooth surface. This witness also states that he saw a group of “rectangular lights moving over a hill to the east”.
Some sketches of what FOX1 saw:




(Investigators Interpretation)



(Investigators Interpretation);




(Graphic Representation);

Witnesses FOX2 and FOX3 were traveling along the highway(in two separate vehicles) about a half hour later (8:30 PM) and witnessed a huge UFO hovering over the frozen Fox Lake, obviously they immediately stopped their vehicles to further investigate the anomaly. Within minutes the UFO was almost directly over FOX2, the UFOs size was enormous. The UFO continued to drift towards and eventually behind the hill where it disappeared from view. Here are the witness drawings:






(Witness drawing, notice the size of the UFO compared to the lake);





(Witness drawing of motion of lights under craft)

Near the same time that FOX 2 and 3 were observing this event FOX 4 and 5 (same vehicle) saw it as well from the southern end of the lake. They stated they saw many rows of lights slowly moving across the lake. They also stated that because they had a 2 year old child in the back seat they feared for the safety the child so continued about their way rather quickly.

(Stated object was 500-750 meters in length, this is in accordance with reports of the diameter of the craft);

(Witness comparison of UFO size to frames of reference)

A few minutes later, when FOX4 and FOX5 were passing the Fox Lake campground, they passed by two vehicles that were pulled over with two men outside looking up at the sky. They turned around and pulled over to talk to them. It was FOX2 and FOX3 carrying on a lively discussion, "What the ‘heck’ was that?" After a few minutes FOX4 and FOX5 left and eventually stopped at Braeburn Lodge about 34 km (21 miles) further up the highway. FOX4 walked into the lodge and said to Steve Watson, the lodge owner "Steve, I really need a coffee!" Steve replied "Oh, you must have seen what FOX1 saw?" In fact FOX4 recalled seeing FOX1 leaving Braeburn Lodge just as they got there.


On the sixth Fox Lake witness:
There was also a 6th witness to the Fox Lake sighting but it is unclear what time she had driven through the area. FOX6 was driving in the vicinity of Fox Lake when she noticed a glow on her dashboard that could not be accounted for by the interior illumination of her vehicle. She leaned forward to look up through her windshield and observed a large arrangement of multi colored lights. The interior lights in her car started to go dim and the music from her tape deck slowed down.





(Witnesses known as “PEL”)

Around 8:30-9:00 PM, 2 hours drive north the town of Pelly Crossing were seeing this massive UFO as well. “PEL1”( Don Trudeau) was outside just northeast of Pelly when he saw a large row of lights come over the hill. When PEL1 pointed his flashlight at the craft the UFO accelerated speed directly towards him, until PEL1 covered the light with his hand, at which point the UFO came to a rest about 300 meters from him.

Again there was no sound at all coming from the object. A beam of light emanating from the bottom of the UFO swooped the ground once directly underneath the object. Was it a search beam? Looking for him? The UFO then drifted slowly to the right.

There were other beams emanating from the craft as well; a greenish phosphorescent color beam shone horizontally out the front (right); two beams at the back (left) rotated slowly to a horizontal position. All the beams could be seen clearly as there were ice crystals in the air. PEL1 turned away from the UFO momentarily and ran across a small clearing. When he turned back to look at it, it was gone.[

To be continued...............
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2010, 02:31 PM   #34
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

(Graphic depicting witness statements and sketches)


(Sketch by PEL1 witness (Don Trudeau) );




(PEL1 Sketch)

Around the same time as PEL1 saw the UFO PEL2 and 3 saw it as well as they were traveling north just south of Pelly. They saw “left to right moving rectangular lights”:

They pulled over at a gravel pit just south of the Village to get a better look and got out of their vehicle. PEL2 noticed that the Big Dipper was just above the row of lights and compared the length of the lights to the width of the Big Dipper. They were about the same length; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22eventsum.htm

Because the witnesses noted the Big Dipper size relative to the UFOs light size it is possible to estimate the size of the craft. Here are the witness sketches:




(PEL2);




(PEL3)

The other witnesses of the Pelly Crossing Incident were from four women taking a short break from classes at a small college. The reported rows of lights traveling towards them with a slight northern vector. They reported the object as huge with no sound, here is their sketches:




The UFO then disappeared over the hills as it continued on its northerly course.


3. Carmack Village





The Carmack sighting was witnessed by two different groups of people comprising 9 total witnesses. The first group spotted the object while driving in their pick-up truck south of Carmack. When the four men in the truck spotted the object they pulled over in a landfill to better observe the UFO, which was moving noiselessly northeast, then curved around them to the south where it proceeded to “vanish” from view near a microwave tower in the hills.

At one point the UFO was partially obscured behind a nearby hill and one witness recalls the UFO slowly reappearing on the other side of it. He remembers waiting a long time for the last light to reappear from behind the hill; that’s how slow and large the object was! The object took up about a 60 to 90 degree horizontal chunk of the sky.




(Witness sketch);





(Witness Sketch)

The second group that spotted the craft was a family of four that spotted the craft outside their home window. They stated that the UFO made no noise as it silently crossed the tree line moving northwest to northeast. The UFO eventually seemed to ‘blink off’ and was not seen again by the family after this. Here is an interesting perspective on the sighting:

With the UFO sighting occurring just two weeks prior to Christmas, the three children thought that it was Santa Claus and his reindeer in the sky.http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22eventsum.htm

LOL, just goes to show you how the young human mind works.




(Witness Sketch);




(Sketch by the 6 year old boy who witnessed the UFO)

How Big Is BIG???

Even with the lack of humans’ ability to accurately judge objects size at distances over 30 feet a method called triangulation can be used based on known reference points to very accurately judge a objects size. Luckily in this case the UFO was against MANY reference points seen by MANY witnesses. Based on this principle we can estimate the range of possible sizes of the UFO according to various witness statements and perspectives.

Given the information known by witnesses it has been calculated that the range of sizes for the UFO is the following:

Anywhere between .3 miles to 1.3 miles in total size!

Obviously given either end of the spectrum the UFO was ENORMOUS by any stretch.

Detailed Information On Calculations;


This case has been heavily investigated only by local UFO researchers (namely Martin Jesek) and documented by NICAP,http://nicap.org/ NOUFOS,http://www.noufors.com/ufos.html and MUFON.http://www.mufon.com/ This area is not a heavily populated region and the sightings happened relatively late at night. While some witnesses did contact local radio stations and describe the event the others had to be tracked down. Even after witnesses were found most wanted to remain anonymous(the reason for the odd witness names ), with some not talking at all apparently.

• FAQs About Case http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22faqs.htm

Detailed Witness Accounts;
• FOX 1; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22fox1.htm
• FOX 2/3 Testimony; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22fox2and3.htm
• Fox 3 Detailed; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22fox3.htm
• FOX 4/5; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22fox4and5.htm
• FOX 6; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22fox6.htm
• PEL 1; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22pel1.htm
• PEL 2/3; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22pel2and3.htm
• PEL 4,5,6, and 7; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22pel4to7.htm
• Carmack 1,2,3, and 4; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22crm1to4.htm
• Carmack 5,6,7,8, and 9; http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22crm5to9.htm


Timeline

• 7:00 PM - UFO witnessed by 3 Carmack witnesses. Moving initially NNW then changing to NNE.
• 7:45 to 8:15- UFO witnessed in Fox Lake.
• 8:23 PM- UFO in Fox Late witnessed by multiple witnesses moving NNW.
• 8:30 PM- Sighting by two witnesses stopped in the road at Fox Lake, object moving west to east.
• 8:30 PM- UFO seen in Pelly by many witnessed moving in various directions.
• 8:50 PM- UFO seen by witness in Pelly moving various directions.
• *Evening- UFO seen by family in Carmack going NNW.
• *Evening- “FOX6” also saw the UFO, the exact time is unknown.

*Exact time unknown*

-There are reports from other towns and other witnesses that still need to be substantiated if possible.
- Total time of sighting appears to be from 7:00-10:00 PM.


The investigation is still ongoing but given the shear number of witnesses and reluctance for many to be made public it is (in my humble opinion) unlikely this case is a hoax.




(FOX 3 showing investigator angular size)

Interesting piece of information:

There is also some evidence to suggest that this "sighting event" encompassed an even larger area as UFO reports were heard on CBC North radio the very next day mentioning sightings in the communities of Dawson, Mayo and Watson Lake. No witnesses from these additional communities have thus far come forward or been identified. http://www.ufocasebook.com/klondikehighway1996.html


Unfortunately this case is not to wide known throughout many people, so it has not received the necessary attention that this monster case truly deserves in my opinion.


And for those who prefer videos, here is a documentary from 2007:

5. Alternate Explanations, Official Conclusions, and My Conclusion

Alternate Explanations

There a limited alternate explanations currently available to this case. Of course it is possible that the sighting could have been some type of rare magnetosphere phenomena, a mirage, or something else that is currently unknown to science, or possibly an experimental government craft (although I know of none that would fit this description). These are all low probability in my opinion however. No blimps were known to be in the area, so unless this was an experimental blimp this is unlikely.

Official Conclusions

This case is still pending official review to my knowledge and therefore lacks any official explanations.

My Conclusions


In all honesty this is likely one of the top cases I have ever researched. The shear number of witnesses and the description of the massive UFO makes it hard to believe this was a misidentification of a prosaic event or hoax. Also the numerous other sightings in this region give credence to truly unknown activity going on. Another important thing to note is the commonality between witnesses spread out over 134 miles in their description of this UFO. Given that I think it is beyond highly unlikely that this is a hoax. Also the common dual nature of physical description(ie; shape and overall material look) and light pattern description of the UFO over 20 plus confirmed witnesses gives this case attributes that few have. So given the evidence currently known I would have to say it is far more likely that this UFO was a physical (and likely non-human made) object rather than a mirage, aurora, or hoax. But it could be anything in the long run, you never know for sure—although I personally think this case is extremely legit, I can’t rule anything out until further investigation is conducted. I would have to say I am about 98% sure that this was a TRUE UFO, was mechanical, and does not match any known or theorized human made craft or natural events. This case truly deserves MUCH more attention than it has received, so I hope that it gets it sometime soon.


(All images courtesy of ufobc.ca) and Martin Jasek http://www.ufobc.ca/




Sources and Related Threads

Sources
ufobac.ca http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/index.htm

nicap.org http://www.nicap.org/961211yukondir.htm

MUFON Journal ( Feb,2000) http://www.nicap.org/articles/MUJ_GiantUFOYukon.pdf

ufocasebook.com http://www.ufocasebook.com/klondikehighway1996.html

ufoevidence.com http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/Cas...sp?section=CE1

noufors.com http://www.noufors.com/ufos.html

Related Threads
APTN To Broadcast Giant Yukon UFO Documentary - Today Jan 24! http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread264222/pg1

Best UFO cases - Experts' short lists http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335287/pg1

Know any Big UFOs? http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread359169/pg1



http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...82711822393043
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2010, 11:12 AM   #35
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

tony dodd - military confrontations -
the strange case of foxtrot 94

Author: Tony Dodd.

This story concerns a series of incidents that occurred in 1970 and 1971 in and around the Lincolnshire area. One such incident led to the crash of a lightning jet fighter aircraft, call sign Foxtrot 94, from RAF Binbrook and the mysterious disappearance of it's pilot. It appears that at least two other aircraft were lost in other incidents.

It involved the alleged setting up of secret observation posts around Britain, including at least four in Lincolnshire which were manned throughout the Autumn, Winter and Spring of 1970 and 1971. This culminated in a number of sightings of Unidentified Flying objects, including one in broad daylight on the Lincolnshire coast, a few miles from Cleeththorpes.

The incident involved the appearance of a huge UFO, claimed to be up to 180 feet long, accompanied by numerous glass ball type objects that spent several hours hovering over the RAF bombing range at Donna Nook in full view of several airmen, before vanishing over the North Sea.

Reports of what were seen in the incident correspond closely with information from other sightings and from a controversial transcript between the pilot of the doomed lightning, Foxtrot 94 and his ground controllers.

The source of the information requested that his identity be kept secret and those of his sources. He maintains that some authorities have been prepared to go to great lengths to keep quiet the official reports on the incidents he has disclosed.

Information was passed to him at a number of pre-arranged locations, including a wind swept platform at York railway station and a lay-by on the A1.

He claims that one contact who knew the full story about Foxtrot 94 was killed in a car accident in Germany. The German Police maintained he had been drinking, but our information was that the man was a total abstainer.

The source claims that in 1970-1971 a major operation was undertaken to get to the bottom of the UFO mystery once and for all. It involved largely British and American forces and much of it's activity was centred on the United Kingdom and the North Atlantic area. The operation was code named 'Arneid'.
The informant claims that fresh information has emerged of a year long operation by the British Air forces to finally solve the riddle of the UFOs pilots claim to have seen since the end of World War two.


The informant also stated that he was one of the aircraft accident investigators who were sent to RAF Binbrook to inspect the wreckage of the intact Lightning, Foxtrot 94, which had been ditched in the sea after a close encounter with a UFO. He also stated that the recovered aircraft had been taken to Binbrook where it was kept under shrouds and armed guards mounted around it.

The investigators who were from farnborough were only allowed a brief look at the aircraft before being ordered off the base. The investigators were puzzled when they inspected the aircraft because they saw that all the instruments had been removed and a different ejector seat fitted.

Now the source of the information has provided a lot more information about what he claimed was going on over the North Sea in the early 1970s. Attempts have been made to verify this information but this has not been possible.

the fatal flight of foxtrot 94

Saxa Vord was one of a chain of British Radar stations who's task was to scan the skies and guard against intrusion from unidentified aircraft approaching over the North sea or the sensitive 'Iceland Gap'. The year was 1970 when the cold war was at it's height with Russian aircraft making regular flights into the North Atlantic to test the reaction from Nato fighters.

At 8.17pm. on the night of September, 8th. 1970, a radar operator at Saxa Vord picked up a contact of an unidentified aircraft over the North Sea between the Shetlands and Norway. The contact was monitored for several minutes at a steady speed of 630 mph. At 37,000 feet altitude on a South Westerly heading. The contact was then seen to turn 30 degrees to head due South with it's speed increasing to 900mph. And it's altitude lifting to 44, 000 feet.

In accordance with normal procedure Saxa Vord flashed a message to the quick reaction flight at RAF Leuchers on the East coast of Scotland. Two Lightning interceptors were scrambled within minutes and headed out across the north sea. So far it had been a routine scramble, but it was then that the Radar plotters on the Shetland Isles saw something on their screens that left them amazed. The contact which had been traveling at a speed consistent with Russian warplanes had turned through 180 degrees and within seconds had disappeared from their screens. Later they calculated the speed of the object at 17, 400mph.

During the next hour the mystery contact reappeared several times and each time the lightnings were sent to investigate, but each time the object turned and disappeared again.

By this time two F4 Phantoms of the US Air Force had scrambled from Keflavik in Iceland and with their sophisticated Radar were able to track the intruder themselves. As they attempted to close on the object they found that they had no more success than the Lightnings.

The cat and mouse games were now causing alarm to NATO commanders. The alert had reached such a level that the contact was being monitored by the Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station at Fylingdales, also with a second BMEWS in Greenland. The North American Air Defence Network at Cheyenne Mountain and the US Detection and tracking center at Colorado Springs also became involved.

During this time the Lightnings and the Phantoms made repeated attempts to get close to the object, but as they approached it disappeared off the Radar screens. Eventually the Lightnings were ordered back to base whilst the Phantoms continued to patrol.

At 9.30pm. the radar controllers picked up the object again. This time it's speed was decelerating to 1, 300mph. Which was almost at the limit of the Lightnings and Phantoms. It was holding an altitude of 18,000 feet and heading Southwest, off the Northern tip of Denmark.

Two more Lightnings were scrambled from RAF Leuchars to patrol northeast of Aberdeen and a further two from RAF Coltishall in Norfolk.The contact was now within these two lines of fighters. While this was taking place the RAF were informed that the Strategic Air command HQ at Omaha, Nebraska, was ordering it's B52 bombers into the air.

This order can only have come from the highest level. What had started as a routine sighting of a Russian aircraft had now reached the White house and presumably President Richard Nixon.

At this time NORAD was informed that a US pilot of great experience was presently on an exchange visit with the RAF at Binbrook, the North Lincolnshire fighter base near Grimsby. Enquiries were made and it was discovered that the pilot was on station and by coincidence 'Flight available'. At 9.45pm. a request was made from the highest level within NORAD through strike command's UK Headquarters at high Wycombe for RAF Binbrook to send Captain William Schaffner to join the Lightnings search for the mystery object.

By this time four Lightnings, two Phantoms and three tankers were already airborne and were joined by a Shackleton from Kinloss which was ordered to patrol on a North South heading at 3000 feet, 10 miles from the East Coast.

Binbrook's QRA Lightnings were being held in reserve but it was decided to send out one more aircraft flown by Captain Schaffner. The Americans wanted one of their own men present when the object was eventually cornered.

Captain was sitting in the crew room of 5 squadron when the call came from High Wycombe. Schaffner was still in his flying suit, after returning earlier that evening from a training sortie in one of the squadron's aircraft. When the call came Schaffner ran out of the building across the runway towards two Lightnings which were standing virtually ready for flight. One XS894 was in the process of having it's fuel tanks topped up.

Schaffner climbed the ladder into the aircraft and hauled himself into the cockpit. He waved aside the ground crews who were expecting to carry out pre-flight checks, ordered the refueling to stop and failed to sign the regulation form stating that he was happy with the aircraft.

The aircraft was armed with two Red Top air -to- air missiles, one was armed, the other a dummy. The aircraft's guns had enough 30mm. cannon shells for a six-second burst. One of the men on the ground crew at the time was Brian Mann of Grimsby, who was driving one of the fuel bowsers. He remembers XS894 being refueled at a rate of 150 gallons per minute. When suddenly the aircraft started. He said, "

The windows of the tanker almost went in. I took off the hoses and got out of the way". Mr. Mann remembered Captain Schaffner disregarding the ground marshal, who was the eyes and ears of the pilot on the ground, as he swung the Lightning round.

At 10.06pm. the aircraft blasted off Binbrook's runway into the night sky. Those on the ground saw it disappear with a sheet of flame from it's twin tail pipes as it headed out over the North Sea.

By now the mystery contact had lead to five Lightnings, two Phantoms, three tankers and a Shackleton being scrambled and was being tracked by by radar controllers at Staxton Wold, which stands on high ground overlooking Scarborough. The contact was flying parallel to the east coast 90 miles east of Whitby, at a speed of 530 mph. And at an altitude of 6,100feet.

What follows is drawn from information given to the Grimsby Evening Telegraph newspaper who broke the story and was reported as being an official transcript of the conversation between Captain Schaffner and the radar station at Staxton Wold.

SCHAFFNER: I have visual contact, repeat visual contact. Over.

STAXTON; Can you identify aircraft type.

SCHAFFNER: Negative, nothing recognizable, no clear outlines. There is bluish light. Hell that's bright….very bright.

STAXTON: Are your instruments functioning 94. Check compass. Over.

SCHAFFNER: Affirmative, GCI I'm along side of it now, maybe 600 feet off my…It's Conical shape, jeeze that's bright, it hurts my eyes to look at it for more Than a few seconds.

STAXTON: How close are you now?.

SCHAFFNER: About 400 feet he's still in my three o'clock. Hey wait…there's something Else. It's like a large soccer ball…it's like made of glass.

STAXTON: Is it part of the object or independent over.

SCHAFFNER: Negative, nothing.

STAXTON: Can you asses the rate…..?.

SCHAFFNER: Contact in descent, gentle. Am going with it…50 no about 70…it's Levelled out again.

STAXTON: Is the ball object still with it. Over.

SCHAFFNER: Affirmative it's not actually connected…maybe magnetic attraction to The conical shape. There's a haze of light ye'ow …it's within that haze. Wait a second it's turning…coming straight for me…shit I'm taking
Evasive action…a few…I can hardly…

STAXTON: Come in 94 are you receiving over, come in.


As the controller lost contact with Captain Schaffner, a radar operator who had been tracking the Lightning and the mystery object watched in amazement. The two blips on the screen representing the aircraft and it's quarry, slowly merged into one. Decellerating rapidly from 500mph. Until they became stationary 6000 feet above the North Sea.

Two and a half minutes after the blip came to a halt it started accelerating rapidly to 600mph. And climbed to 9000 feet, heading South towards Staxton.

Shortly afterwards, the single blip separated into two. One maintaining it's southerly heading, somewhat erratically, at about 600mph. And descending slowly, the other turning 180 degrees to head North Westerly and vanishing at a speed calculated to be around 20,400mph.

link; http://www.crowdedskies.com/tony_dodd_foxtrot94.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some useful links and information on this case;
Some "reports" (very short) chronologically, matches the other reports: Dec 20th,http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=651 1992, Dec 21st, 1992,http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=652 Dec 24th, 1992. http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=654

[IMG]Go Back Report # 651 12-20-1992 // NEED CASE // Case #0651 Larry Hatch’s Text: Confidential Military source: 3 UFOs on radar: Dive into sea: Time: None Witness’s name: None UFOCAT PRN – NONE UFOCAT URN – NONE UFO Magazine (UK), Vol. 12, #4, p. 22 UFOCAT URN – NONE *U* UFO Computer Database by Larry Hatch, # 15558 © 2002 Iceland Langeness UFO Location (UFOCAT) Latitude 64-30-00 N, Longitude 13-30-00 W (D-M-S)[/IMG]



[IMG]12-21-1992 // NEED CASE // Case #0652 Larry Hatch’s Text: Fast flashing submarine breaks nets: Glowing ball overhead:>>S Time: None Witness’s name: ‘Fishermen’ UFOCAT PRN – NONE UFOCAT URN – NONE Miscellaneous journals (See *U* UFO Computer Database, references) UFOCAT URN – NONE *U* UFO Computer Database by Larry Hatch, # 15558 © 2002 Iceland (Off Northeast coast) UFO Location (UFOCAT) Latitude 66-00-00 N, Longitude 13-05-00 W (D-M-S)[/IMG]





12-24-1992 // NEED CASE // Case #0654

Larry Hatch’s Text:
NATO ships and subs search for large undersea craft: Russian submarine??

Time: None
Witness’s name: None

UFOCAT PRN – NONE
UFOCAT URN – NONE Miscellaneous journals (See *U* UFO Computer Database, references)
UFOCAT URN – NONE *U* UFO Computer Database by Larry Hatch, # 15565 © 2002

Iceland
Off Langeness

UFO Location (UFOCAT) Latitude 64-35-00 N, Longitude 13-00-00 W (D-M-S)

links for radar reports provided at top;
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.

Last edited by jamesc; 28-10-2010 at 11:13 AM.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 02:55 PM   #36
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

The 1952 Sighting Wave;
Radar-Visual Sightings Establish UFOs;
As A Serious Mystery;



By Richard Hall
(Revised version adapted from the Journal of UFO History for the NICAP web site.)


Map of sightings, courtesy of Larry Hatch's *U* Database at http://www.larryhatch.net/YDAY52.html
http://www.nicap.org/waves/1952map.htm





Created Dec 15, 2005, updated: 30 Oct 2010

Fran Ridge:
This is a 54-page comprehensive and qualitative effort and it will take many months, if not years, to get active links to cases all in place. Sixty additional case links were added on July 7. With the help of William Wise (Project Blue Book Archive), and Dan Wilson (digging out the cases from my checklist), the task was much easier. But without Brad Sparks' Comprehensive Catalog of Project Blue Book Unknowns, the entire project would have been impossible. Sparks also provided several historic entries.

And our thanks go to Jean Waskiewicz who created the online NICAP DBase (NSID) that helped make it possible to link from the cases to the reports themselves. Others who provided information are also noted with their contributions. (Items on the Chop clearance list are coded "CCL"). But none of this would be complete without the story behind the wave of 1952, as told by none other than Richard Hall.

On March 2, 1950, a Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) meeting focused on establishing goals for a minimum air defense by 1952. The followoing month at a USAF Commanders Conference at Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico, planners familiarized commanders with the thinking behind the plan of minimum defense as welll as with its contents. Referred to as the Blue Book Plan, it stipulated that a minimum air defense could be in place by mid-1952.

It was estimated that July 1, 1952, as the critical date when the Soviets would pose a dangerous threat. General Charles Cabell expected the Soviets to have between 45 and 90 atom bombs and 70 to 135 Tu-4 bombers (copied B-29s) by that time. Was there a nuclear connection between this threat and the massive UFO sighting wave of 1952 and the events over Washington in July?

Richard Hall:
The summer 1952 UFO sighting wave was one of the largest of all time, and arguably the most significant of all time in terms of the credible reports and hardcore scientific data obtained. Electromagnetic (EM) effects and physical trace evidence were more prominent in other waves, but 1952 (and 1953) featured recurring radar detection of UFOs, often from both ground and airborne radar, visual sightings by jet interceptor pilots sent up to pursue the mysterious objects, and cat-and-mouse chases in which the UFOs seemed to toy with the interceptors. Further,

Air Force investigators who plotted the sightings noticed that they were concentrated around strategic military bases, and this clearly posed a threat to national security since their origin was unknown. Senior generals in the Air Force concluded that UFOs were interplanetary in origin, and broadly hinted this belief in LIFE magazine for April 1952.


The 1952 UFO Sighting Chronology

All 1952 Sightings By Monthhttp://www.nicap.org/waves/1952sightingsbymonth.htm

NARA-PBB1-45 - January Sightings http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page....e=NARA-PBB1-45

1952; London, Ont., Canada
Astronomer observed elliptical UFO with 2 bright body lights. [UFOE, VI]

January, 1952; Weston, Wyoming (BBU)
10:30 p.m. 38-year old rancher saw a "shooting star" suddenly stop in mid-air between him and a mountain, spinning clockwise, with one red window periodically facing the observer, went down toward the Little Powder River, come up again. He turned his car to send light signals, object seemed to respond by stopping its red window to face witness. Spinning resumed, object rose and came down. Similar object arrived, then both went into the deep valley out of sight. (Vallée Magonia 88)

January 3,1952, SECRET Memo http://www.nicap.org/waves/garland.htm


Brig. Gen. William M. Garland, Assistant for the Production of Intelligence, wrote a memorandum for General Samford with the title (SECRET) "Contemplated Action to Determine the Nature and Origin of the Phenomena Connected with the Reports of Unusual Flying Objects." (Courtesy, Joel Carpenter)

Jan. 9, 1952; Kerrville, Texas
Cat 3. Odd "roaring" interference on radio as UFO circled town.

Jan. 16, 1952; Artesia, New Mexico (BBU 1037)
A motionless dull-white, round object 5/3 larger than balloon.
http://www.nicap.org/fairchild520120dir.htm

Jan. 20, 1952; Fairchild AFB, Wash. (BBU)
Two Air Force master sergeants, intelligence specialists, reported a bluish-white spherical object with a long blue tail that flew beneath a solid overcast.
http://www.nicap.org/mitchel520121dir.htm

Jan. 21, 1952; Mitchel AFB, N.Y.
A Navy TBM torpedo bomber pilot chased a dome-shaped circular white object that accelerated and pulled away from him.
http://www.nicap.org/520122nenana_dir.htm


Jan. 22, 1952; Nenana, Alaska (BBU)
12:20 am.(AHST) Ground radar outpost and three airborne radar sets on F-94 interceptors tracked a distinct unexplainable target. USAF Lt. A. L. B. a CPS-6B radar operator at ADC radar site F-2, Murphy Dome AFS (about 19 miles WNW of Fairbanks), Alaska, tracked an inbound or outbound target at 210° azimuth at about 1,500 to 2,400 mph, and after 10-12 radar sweeps 12 secs each, urgently called twice (at 12:25 and 12:26 a.m.) for interception, and 2 USAF F-94 jets were scrambled [possibly multiple reversals of UFO direction in this time interval].

At 12:52-53 a.m., unidentified target was tracked inbound at 210° azimuth heading N at 45 miles range for about 1 min, first F-94 at 30,000 ft was vectored on 180° heading to attempt intercept at 20 miles projected range of target to radar site, but target reversed course over an 8-mile radius of turn (roughly 5 gs) and headed outbound at 1,500+ mph heading S and away from radar site and F-94. Pilot Lt. C. E. G. and radar observer Capt. V. D. R. on first F-94 tracked two targets, one strong one faint on.


F-94 circled for an hour before getting another target at 12 o'clock low, dropped to 25,000 ft with 100-knot closure rate, no visual contact, had to pull up at 200 yards distance to avoid collision, F-94 released to return to base at 2:13 a.m. Pilot Capt. R. time also obtained radar lock on to a target at 12 o'clock high at 17,000 yards range for 2-3 mins. (BB Status Rpt 7; McDonald files; Jan Aldrich; FUFOR Index; cf. Ruppelt)

Jan. 22 [21?], 1952; SE of Mitchell AFB, New York (BBU)
9:50 am. (EST). USN TBM 3W bomber chased a a white circular domed-disc which shot away and climbed out of sight. (GRUDGE Rpt; Project 1947)

http://www.nicap.org/waves/note520129.htm

Jan. 29th, 1952 Briefing mentioned in Grudge Status Report No.3
Brig. Gen. William M. Garland, Assistant for (Intelligence) Production, and his staff at the Directorate of Intelligence, HQ USAF, were briefed on the status of the Project Grudge UFO Study.

At this meeting Gen. Garland introduced a revolutionary new intelligence policy and methodology which emphasized the use of instrumentation for intelligence collection, including to detect and track UFO's (which would eventually be the basis for terminating Project BLUE BOOK as an intelligence function, converting it to a PR psych war propaganda function beginning in July 1952 over a 6-month transition period).

As an interim last-chance measure to prove whether anecdotal sightings had any value, Gen. Garland approves of Ruppelt's publicity plan to draw in UFO reports from the public so that triangulations might be obtained, and this leads to Garland secretly backing the LIFE magazine article (plan backfires and is blamed for July 1952 flap).

On the same date, Jan. 29, Gen. Garland gave the welcoming address to the SECRET compartmented MIT Project BEACON HILL in Cambridge, Mass., where he gave the marching orders to the assembled scientists to study ways AF intelligence methodology can be revolutionized through use of technology. (Later Gen. Garland sent Ruppelt and Col. Sanford H. Kirkland of ATIC, and Lt. Col. William A. Adams of AFOIN, to brief BEACON HILL on UFO's on March 26 and in April 1952, respectively). (Credit Joel Carpenter for BEACON HILL.) (Brad Sparks)

http://www.nicap.org/wonsan520129dir.htm

Ruppelt Discovers AF Intelligence Has More UFO files
On this trip to the Pentagon to brief Gen. Garland, Ruppelt visits the offices of AF Intelligence (AFOIN) having collections of UFO files and discovers they have more complete files than does ATIC in Dayton, and he arranges to have copies made of the various missing files made for him at Project Grudge at ATIC (though multiple visits were required to obtain the copies and Ruppelt probably did not succeed in getting everything).

These AFOIN offices with UFO files include the Technical Capabilities Branch (TCB) of the Evaluation Division (AFOIN-TCB or AFOIV-TC) and the Collection Control Branch of the Collection Division (AFOIN-CC or AFOIC-CC). (Brad Sparks)


Jan. 29, 1952; Wonsan, Korea (BBU)
11:00 pm. 30 miles SW of Wonsan, USAF crew of B-29 flying at above 20,000 ft and 148 knots (170 mph) ground speed saw an orange luminous rotating and pulsating 3 ft sphere [or disc?], with blue flame halo, follow the B 29 at a distance of about 600 ft at the 8 o'clock position advancing forward to 9 o'clock then falling back to 8 o'clock [at one point almost withdrawing from view then returning?]. (LIFE Incident 9; Project 1947; Loren Gross)
http://www.nicap.org/wonsan520129dir.htm


Jan. 29-30, 1952; Sunchon, South Korea (BBU)
11:24 p.m. USAF crew of B-29 at 20,000 ft and 125 knots (144 mph) ground speed saw an orange sphere follow the B-29 at their level or slightly below [sun like in brightness and 600 ft away?]. (LIFE Incident 9; Project 1947; Loren Gross)

Jan. 31, 1952 - AFOIN-C/CC-2 To Be Revised
The 1951 directive, "Reporting Information on Unidentified Flying Objects", which outlined reporting procedures for Project Grudge, was inadequate and was to be revised for Project Blue Book (Pg. 59 of Project Grudge Report No. 3, 31 Jan 1952). The new one requested that all reports be made by wire to ATIC, ADC, and V/TC, and that this wire report be followed up by an AF Form 112 direct to ATIC and V/TC. (V/TC = AFOIN or AF Intelligence, Evaluation Division, Technical Capabilities Branch, which had been tasked by Gen. Cabell in 1950 to conduct field investigations of UFO cases independent of AMC/ATIC Project GRUDGE, and which TC Branch now had Capt. Dewey Fournet assigned) (Francis Ridge)

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page....e=NARA-PBB1-46


NARA-PBB1-46 - February Sightings

Feb. 1, 1952; 10 miles W of Terre Haute, Indiana (BBU)
9:30 p.m. Military aircraft pilot saw a close group of moving lights changing color from blue to green to yellow. (Project 1947; BB files??)

Feb. 2, 1952; E. of Pusan, South Korea (BBU)
10:30 am. Radar track of 767 mph unidentified target. 2nd track from position 35°30' N, 129°40' E, at 10:40 of 1,257 mph unidentified target. (Jan Aldrich)

http://www.nicap.org/520202skorea_dir.htm


Feb. 2, 1952; E of South Korea (BBU)
7:35 p.m. USS Philippine Sea heading S 180° at 13 knots (15 mph) tracked approaching radar target from the N 0° azimuth at 25 miles, veered off in a wide left turn to the E radius about 12 miles (when visual observers spotted exhaust trails), reversing course on radar away from the aircraft carrier accelerating from 600 mph to 1800 mph at 52,000 ft altitude, split into 2 targets 5-12 miles apart on a slightly zigzag wavy course headed due N 0° to disappearance at about 110 miles. Visual observers sighted 3 exhaust flames at 30° azimuth [?]. (Hynek UFO Rpt pp. 126-8)

http://www.nicap.org/pitts520211dir.htm

Feb. 11, 1952; Pittsburgh, Penna. (BBU 1052)
3 a.m. USAF Capt. G. P. Arns and Maj. R. J. Gedson flying a Beech AT-11 trainer saw a yellow orange comet-shaped object pulsing flame for 1-2 secs in straight and level flight. (Berliner)

http://www.nicap.org/balt520212dir.htm


Feb. 12, 1952; Bet. Friendship Airfield and Baltimore, Maryland (BBU)
9:30 p.m. USAF MATS C-47 pilot and copilot saw a bright white object move slowly then speed away. Then at 10 p.m. they saw 10 miles S of Baltimore a similar object. (GRUDGE/BB Rpt; FUFOR Index)

http://www.nicap.org/520213granite_dir.htm


Feb. 13, 1952; Granite City, Illinois (BBU)
10:30 p.m. The 3903rd Radar Bomb Scoring Group observed an unusual radar return while attempting to score a bomb run. It was assumed at the time that the "target" was an aircraft pacing the bomber on its attack run, but the unusual target reached a speed of 1090 MPH. (McDonald list; BB Rpt 6) adar. (McDonald list; BB Rpt 6)

February 1952, Fournet Becomes AF Intelligence "Project Monitor"
Maj. Dewey J. J. Fournet in the AF Intelligence (AFOIN) Evaluation Division's Technical Capabilities Branch (TCB) replaces Lt Col Milton D. Willis as UFO investigation officer for AFOIN (in the June 1952 reorganization many assets in the Evaluation Division are transferred to the new Topical Intelligence Division, headed by Col. William A. Adams, including Fournet who is assigned to the Division's Current Intelligence Branch, headed by Col. Weldon H. Smith). Fournet also assigned as "Project Monitor" for ATIC Project Grudge in the wake of widespread publicity on the Korean UFO sightings. (Brad Sparks)

http://www.nicap.org/520216pusan_dir.htm

Feb. 16, 1952; About 60 miles E. of Pusan, Korea (BBU)
2:40 and 3:50 p.m. USMC GCI Sq 3 at Yongil (36° N, 129° E) CPS-5 radar tracking of unidentified target traveling at 4,320 knots (5,000 mph). 2nd track at 3:50 at position 36°30' N, 129°30' E (a few miles off the coast of South Korea) of large target equivalent of 6-8 jet aircraft, traveling 1,380 knots (1,600 mph) target heading 170°, faded momentarily, then continued on 120° heading until lost. Visual sighting of contrail in direction of radar track. (Jan Aldrich; McDonald files; FUFOR Index, Dan Wilson)

http://www.nicap.org/roswell520217dir.htm

Feb. 17, 1952; 25 miles SE of Roswell, New Mexico (BBU)
1:45 a.m. (MST). USAF crew of B-29 bomber saw 3 ft [?] greenish-blue ball of fire flying straight at 15,000 ft. (Project 1947)

http://www.nicap.org/waves/ericksenlett.htm

February 19, 1952; Letter to Col.John G. Ericksen
Col. Ericksen, , Chief of the Technical Capabilities Branch, received this letter from: Albert E. Lombard, Jr. Chief, Research Division, Directorate of Research and Development. Re: Declassification of Project TWINKLE denied because Green Fireballs considered man-made.
.
Feb. 20, 1952; Greenfield, Mass.
Congregational Minister saw three very bright silver objects, apparently spherical, traveling in a perfect V. [VII)

http://www.nicap.org/mtdiablo520220dir.htm

Feb. 20, 1952; Mt. Diablo, Calif. (BBU)
11:30 p.m. USAF pilot Montgomery and copilot of B-25 bomber saw bright yellow light on collision course climb and accelerate. (Project 1947; FUFOR Index)

Feb. 21, 1952; Sen. Russell letter to SAF
Washington, D.C. Sen. Richard B. Russell, Armed Services Committee, letter to Secretary of Air Force requesting an official report on recent UFO sightings by combat airmen in the Far East.

http://www.nicap.org/antung520224dir.htm


Feb. 23 [24?], 1952; Sinuiju [Antung?], North Korea (BBU 1061)
10:15 [11:15?] p.m. USAF 345th Bomber Sq Captain/B-29 navigator saw a bluish cylinder, 3x long as wide, with a tail and rapid pulsations, come in high and fast, make several turns and level out under B-29 which was evading mild antiaircraft fire. (Berliner; FUFOR Index)

http://www.nicap.org/albany520226dir.htm

Feb. 26, 1952; New Albany, New York (CIRVIS Report)
UFO over aircraft near New Albany probably a meteor.

Feb. 27, 1952; Ft. Stockton, Texas (BBU)
B-29 and radar. (McDonald list; BB Rpt 5)

NARA-PBB1-47 - March Sightings

http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page....e=NARA-PBB1-47

March 3, 1952- Dr. Walther Riedel Convinced
Formerly a German rocket scientist at Peenemunde, said: "I'm convinced saucers have an out-of-world basis." (Life Magazine, Apr. 7, 1952 issue)

March 4, 1952; 15 miles W of Ashiya AFB, Japan (BBU)
10:35 a.m. USAF C-54 crew with 53rd Troop Carrier Sq saw a bright orange oval object at 10,000 ft. (Project 1947; FUFOR Index)

March 7, 1952; Bet. Claremore and Tulsa, Okla.(BBU)
1 a.m. USAF copilot of C-54 transport saw a bright light pass from right to left, lose altitude and blink out 3 times. (Project 1947; FUFOR Index)

March 10, 1952; Oakland, Calif.
An engineering metals inspector watched two dark wing (or hemisphere) shaped objects pass overhead, swaying back and forth like a pendulum. (NICAP report.)

March 14, 1952; near Hawaii
Navy Secretary Dan Kimball was flying to Hawaii when two disc-shaped craft streaked in toward his Navy executive plane. "Their speed was amazing," he told Keyhoe later, in Washington. "My pilots estimated it between fifteen hundred and two thousand miles an hour. The objects circled us twice and then took off, heading east." Note that Adm Arthur Radford was a witness in a second plane. (Sparks: McDonald pinned down the date of the Kimball sighting to March 14.)

March 15, 1952; Sandia Mtns. [Kirtland AFB?], New Mexico (BBU)
4:30 p.m. (MST). (McDonald list; BB Rpt 7)

Mid-March 1952, AF Initiates TOP SECRET UFO Project
AF Intelligence (AFOIN) Assistant for (Intelligence) Production Brig. Gen. William M. Garland initiates a TOP SECRET compartmented project (to be designed and built by AF R&D) to establish a global instrumented UFO detection and tracking system that would obviate the need for non-technical anecdotal UFO sighting reports, eventually resulting in approval of an official AF policy to deemphasize or reject anecdotal UFO reports (July 28, 1952). (Brad Sparks)

March 19, 1952; Ruppelt Briefs ADC
Ruppelt: "I briefed General Benjamin W. Chidlaw, then the Commanding General of the Air Defense Command, and his staff, telling them about our plan. They agreed with it in principle and suggested that I work out the details with the Director of Intelligence for the ADC, Brigadier W. M. Burgess. General Burgess designated Major Verne Sadowski of his staff to be the ADC liaison officer with New Grudge."


March 20, 1952; Centreville, Maryland. (BBU 1074)
10:42 p.m. WW1/WW2 veteran A. D. Hutchinson and son saw a dull orange-yellow saucer-shaped light fly straight and level very fast. (Berliner) (This link/version may or may not be the right case, but appears to be).

March 22, 1952; 20 miles S of Yakima, Wash. (BBU 1076)
6:05 p.m. USAF pilot and radar operator of F-94 jet interceptor made 2 sightings of a stationary red fireball that increased in brightness then faded over 45 secs. Note: Project Blue Book Status Report #7 (May 31, 1952) says target was also tracked by ground radar at 78 knots (90 mph) at 22,500 ft and 25,000 ft altitude. (Berliner)

March 24, 1952; 60 miles W of Pt. Conception, Calif. (BBU 1077)
8:45 a.m. [p.m.?] B-29 navigator and radar operator tracked unidentified target on airborne radar at about 3,000 mph. (Berliner; Shough)

March 25, 1952. Project BLUE BOOK Named
Grudge was upgraded to a separate organization, the Aerial Phenomena Group, and the name was changed to Project Blue Book. According to Ruppelt this change was made because of the steadily increasing number of reports we [the Air Force] were receiving. (Ruppelt, p. 131.)

March 26 [?], 1952; Ft. Stockton, Texas (BBU 1079)
2:10 am. SW of Pecos, NW of Stockton, Texas and Arizona [8:30 and 10:13 p.m. ?] USAF pilots of 4 B-50D's [McClelland and 3 others] saw red and green running lights moving at high speed. 2nd sighting over Arizona at 10:13? Airborne radar scope photo. (Berliner; cf. Weinstein; FUFOR Index) (Fran Ridge: No longer an unknown)

March 26, 1952; Long Beach, California
Cat 3. Two yellowish discs passed by slowly, "as they passed the radio was agitated twice".

March 26, 1952, Ruppelt and Col. Kirkland Brief BEACON HILL
Gen. Garland sends ATIC Technical Anaysis Division Chief, Col. Sanford H. Kirkland, and Project Blue Book Chief, Lt. Edward J. Ruppelt, to brief MIT's Project BEACON HILL on UFO's. (Brad Sparks)

March 29, 1952; 20 miles N of Misawa AFB, Japan (BBU 1082)
11:20 a.m. Lt. David C. Brigham, pilot of AT-6 trainer, saw a small, very thin, shiny metallic disc fly alongside the AT-6, then make a pass at an F-84 jet fighter, flip on edge, flutter 20 ft from the F-84's fuselage and flip in the slipstream. (Berliner; FUFOR Index)

March 29, 1952; Butler, Missouri
Chairman of Industrial Commission of Missouri saw cylinder-shaped, silver UFO, [UFOE, VII]

March 29, 1952; Elizabethville, Belgian Congo. (BBU)
Two fiery discs were seen over uranium mines gliding in curves, changing orientation many times thus appearing as plates, ovals and lines. Discs suddenly hovered then took off in a zigzag to the NE. Commander Pierre of Elizabethville airfield took off in a fighter aircraft in pursuit and came within 120 meters (400 ft) of one disc. (McDonald files; Jan Aldrich)

March 29 [April 24?], 1952; Glen Burnie, Maryland. (BBU)
10:45 p.m. Donald F. Stewart [Steward?] and George Tyler III saw 50 ft flat silver disc with cupola/dome to one side, a porthole and hatch on the dome, neon-like lighting around the edges [strangely pulsating?], approaching car from ahead to the NE about 60° elevation, then hovered and "wavered slightly" for 3 [2?] mins several hundred feet off the ground, whirring sound like a vacuum cleaner, car engine died while object hovered. Witness got out of car with Thompson submachine gun considering whether to shoot the disc, companion urged him not to.

Object suddenly turned up on edge seeming to "roll across the sky" faster than a jet to the SW disappearing about 3-1/2 miles away. Witness claimed car wires "magnetized" and paint cracked. Secy. AF Finletter interest, AFOSI investigation. Hoax? (Hynek UFO Rpt pp. 196-8; Jan Aldrich; FUFOR Index; Loren Gross Jan-May 52 pg. 25)


March 30, 1952, Editorial Page of Boston Traveler Magazine
"Have You Heard", by Bill Schofield. This was a bargain day in the flying saucer department, and you get two stories for the price of one -- the first from a resident of western Massachusetts and the second from Navy Sec. Dan Kimball.


NARA-PBB1-48 - April 1-15 Sightings
NARA-PBB1-49 - April 16-30
NARA-PBB1-50 - More April Sightings

ADC in near frenzied state
By the spring of 1952, Air Defense Command was in a near-frenzied state over the potential of a Soviet sneak attack. Its eyes and ears, the Lashup radar network and the GOC, had proven discouragingly unreliable, and, lacking credible intelligence on Soviet capabilities and intentions, it had no real basis for assessing the nature of the threat. (see report linked above). Little more than two weeks later, the worst possibility seemed to have come true. (See April 17)

April 2, 1952; Lake Meade, Nevada
9:00 am. While on a fishing trip to Lake Meade with his wife and a friend, a man observed a UFO. It was silver in color, very large and at a tremendous altitude. It was described as a B-36 without wings. Not a BB unknown.

April 2, 1952, Ruppelt & Col. Kirkland Brief CSI-Los Angeles
On the eve of the release of the bombshell LIFE magazine article, Ruppelt and his boss, ATIC Technical Analysis Division Chief Col. Sanford H. Kirkland, give an extraordinary briefing, technically unclassified but in fact quasi-classified, to a group of aerospace engineers organized as Civilian Saucer Investigations, in Los Angeles, along with LIFE magazine reporters who give them advance copies of the article in exchange. (See extremely rare and revealing Transcript obtained by Project 1947.) (Brad Sparks)

To be continued;..............................
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010, 05:31 PM   #37
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

Sept. of 1952, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Afternoon. Radar detected a 700 m.p.h. target near Kirtland AFB which slowed to 100 m.p.h.. Two F-86's were scrambled. One fired on the UFO. Report ordered destroyed. Exact date unknown. (Ruppelt)

Sept. 1, 1952; Atlanta, Georgia (BBU)
9:43 p.m. Mrs. William Davis and 9 others saw a light, similar to the evening star, move up and down for a long period of time. (Berliner)

Sept. 1, 1952; Marietta, Georgia (BBU 2022)
10:30 p.m. Mr. Bowman (ex-artillery officer) and 24 others saw a red, white, and blue-green object which spun and shot off sparks. An unidentified witness using binoculars saw 2 large objects shaped like spinning tops with red, blue and green colors, fly side by side, leaving a sparkling trail for 30 mins. 15-30 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 1, 1952; Marietta, Georgia (BBU)
10:50 p.m. Ex AAF B-25 gunner saw 2 large white disc-shaped objects with green vapor trails fly in trail formation, merge, fly away very fast. (Berliner)

Sept. 1, 1952; Yaak, Montana (BBU 2023)
4:45 a.m. Visual sighting by 2 USAF enlisted men, radar tracking by 3 men using FPS-3 radar set. 2 small, varicolored lights became black silhouettes [of "dark, cigar-shaped object"?] at dawn, flew erratically. 1 hours. (Berliner; cf. Ruppelt p. 194)

Sept. 2, 1952; Tokyo, Japan (BBU)
Beginning at 2015 hours unidentified flying objects were picked up by the GCA unit at Haneda AFB and later contacted by GCI at Shiroi AFB. When first observed the target was 9 miles north of Haneda traveling at 40 to 60 mph on a heading of 90 degrees. During the next hour sightings were made on radar of targets ranging in number from 1 to 3. The targets produced a clearly visible echo on the PPI scope and about the size caused by a C-124 aircraft. (McDonald list)

Sept. 2, 1952; Chicago, Illinois (BBU 2025)
3 a.m. Radar controller Turason (GCA) at Midway Airport tracked 40 targets flying in miscellaneous directions, up to 175 mph, 2 targets seemed to fly in formation with DC-6 airliner. 8 hours total. (Dan Wilson, Berliner)

Sept. 3, 1952; Tucson, Ariz. (BBU)
9 a.m. Civilian pilots McCraven and Thomas saw a shiny, dark ellipse make three broad, curving sweeps. 1.5 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 6, 1952; Lake Charles AFB, Louisiana (BBU 2045)
1:30 a.m. T/Sgt. J. E. Wilson and 2 enlisted men saw a bright star-like light move about the sky. 2 hrs. (Berliner)

Sept. 6, 1952; Tucson, Ariz. (BBU 2048)
4:55 p.m. Ex-Congresswoman Mrs. Isabella King and Bill McClain saw an orange teardrop-shaped object whirl on its vertical axis, descend very fast, stop, retrace its path upwards, while whirling in the opposite direction. 1.5 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 7, 1952; San Antonio, Texas (BBU 2049)
10:30 p.m. Chemist J. W. Gibson and others saw an orange object or light (color temperature 2,000° F.) explode into view. 3-20 secs. (Berliner)

Sept. 7, 1952; San Antonio, Texas (BBU 2052) (NARA)

Sept. 9, 1952; Rabat, French Morocco (BBU 2062)
9 p.m. USAF Intelligence civilian illustrator E. J. Colisimo saw a disc with lights along part of its circumference, fly twice as fast as a T-33 jet trainer, in a slightly curved path. 5 secs. (Berliner)

Sept. 9, 1952; Portland, Oregon
Two oval objects observed in searchlight beam. [UFOE, XII]

Sept. 12, 1952; Allen, Maryland (BBU 2077)
9:30 p.m. GOC observers Mr. and Mrs. David Kolb using binoculars saw a white light with red trim and streamers fly NE. 35 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 13, 1952; Near Allentown, Penna. (BBU 2085)
7:40 p.m. Private pilot W. A. Hobler, flying a Beech Bonanza at 10,000 ft from Allentown to the Caldwell-Bright Omni station, saw a 3 ft object, shaped like a fat football, flaming orange-red color, at his 11 o'clock high position about 450-600 ft away descend at a 30° angle on a collision course, Hobler made a sharp climb to avoid it, object then pulled up in a 65° climb in front of Hobler's airplane, Hobler made a rapid 180° right turn but lost the object traveling at about 700 mph. 15 secs. ? (Berliner; NARCAP)

Sept. 14, 1952. Santa Barbara, Calif. (BBU 2086)
8:40 p.m. USAF C-54 transport pilot Tarbutton saw a blue white light travel straight and level, then fly up. 30 secs. (Berliner)

Sept. 14, 1952; North Atlantic between Ireland and Iceland. (BBU 2087)
Military personnel from several countries aboard ships in the NATO Operation MAINBRACE exercise. Sightings include a blue-green triangle flying 1,500 mph and 3 objects in triangular formation giving off white light exhaust at 1,500 mph. (Berliner)

Sept. 14, 1952; White Lake, South Dakota (BBU 2089)
7 p.m. GOC observer L. W. Barnes, using binoculars saw a red, cigar-shaped object, with three puffs behind it, fly W, then S, then was gone. 30-40 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 14, 1952; Olmstead AFB, Penna. (BBU 2093)
Time not known. Pilot of Flying Tiger Airlines airplane N67977 saw a blue light fly very fast on a collision course with the airliner. Note: the summary card attached to the file showed completely different information. (Berliner)

Sept. 14, 1952; El Paso, Texas. (BBU 2092) (NARA)

Sept. 14-15, 1952; Ciudad Jaurez, Mexico (BBU)
11:30 p.m. - 1:20 a.m. Consulting engineer R. J. Portis and 3 others saw 6 groups of 12-15 luminous spheres or discs, which flew in formations varying from arcs to inverted-Y's, very fast. 1 hr. 50 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 16, 1952; Portand, ME (BBU 2099)
6:22 p.m. Crew of U.S. Navy P2V Neptune patrol plane saw a group of 5 lights in circular formation at the same time a long, thin blip was tracked on radar. Note: Possible USAF KC-97 airplanes involved in a refueling operation. 20 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 16, 1952; Warner-Robbins AFB, Georgia (BBU 2100)
7:30 p.m. 3 USAF officers and 2 civilians saw white lights fly abreast at 100 mph. 15 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 16, 1952; Belle Glade, Florida. Circular object with row of lights on underside passed low overhead; cattle bolted. [UFOE, XII]

Sept. 17, 1952; Tucson, Ariz. (BBU 2105)
11:40 a.m. Mr. and Mrs. Ted Hollingsworth saw 2 groups of 3 large, flat, shiny objects fly in tight formations, the first group slow, the second faster. 2 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 19, 1952; Denmark and Norway
Spherical UFO photographed from U. S. Navy aircraft carrier participating in "Operation Mainbrace," NATO maneuvers. [UFOE, XII]

Sept. 20 [19? 21?], 1952; Topcliffe RAF Station, Yorkshire, England, UK. (BBU)
10:53 a.m. [4:14 p.m.?] Operation MAINBRACE Meteor jet fighter (flown by Flight Lt. John W. Kilburn and Flight Lt. Cybulski ?) was descending to land at 5,000 ft when they saw a slow-moving circular silver [or white?] object about 5 miles behind them at about 15,000 ft following a similar course then swinging like a "falling sycamore leaf" or pendulum and began descending.

As the Meteor turned towards Dishforth the object followed, then stopped falling leaf motion and descent, began rotation on its axis, suddenly accelerated at "incredible speed" faster than a meteor to the W then turned to SE [and disappeared]. Ground ? observers included Flying Officer Paris, Master Signaller Thompson, Higgins ? and 5 other aircrew [on the ground?]. (Jan Aldrich; Ruppelt pp. 195-6; 15-20 secs + ( NICAP; FUFOR Index)

Sept. 21?, 1952; North Sea near England, UK. (BBU)
Operation MAINBRACE sighting by 6 British pilots in a formation of Meteor jets who pursued shiny spherical object but lost it in 1-2 mins then it reappeared following one of the jets which turned to pursue but the object outmaneuvered the jet. Several mins. (Ruppelt p. 196; BB files??; FUFOR Index ?)

Sept. 22, 1952; Fairfax County, Va.
Police observed 3-4 UFOs maneuvering erratically. [UFOE, VII]

Sept. 23, 1952; Gander Lake, Newfoundland, Canada (BBU 2119)
No time shown. Pepperrell AFB operations officer and 7 other campers saw bright white light, which reflected on the lake, fly straight and level at 100 mph. 10 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 24, 1952; Charleston, West Virginia (BBU 2124)
3:30 p.m. Crew of USAF B-29 bomber saw a lot of bright, metallic particles or flashes, up to 3 ft in length, stream past the B-29. 15 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 24, 1952; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (BBU)
7:45 p.m. USN crew of TBM-18 chased an orange light with greenish tail. (Weinstein)

Sept. 26, 1952; 400 miles NNW of Azores Islands (BBU 2126) [CCL Item # 22]
11:16 p.m. Pilot, copilot, engineer and aircraft commander of USAF C-124 transport plane saw 2 distinct green lights to the right and slightly above the C-124, at one time seemed to turn toward it, the lights alternated leading each other. 1 hr + (Berliner)

Sept. 27, 1952; Hempstead, Texas (BBU)
2 USAF T-33 pilots saw a white-silver circular flat disc flying erratically at 600-700 mph. (Weinstein)

Sept. 27, 1952; Inyokern, Calif. (BBU 2128)
10 p.m. 2 couples, using a 5x telescope saw a large, round object, which went through the color spectrum every 2 secs, fly straight and level. 15 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 28, 1952; Tsushima Island, Japan (BBU) (McDonald list)

Sept. 28, 1952; Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada (BBU) (McDonald list)

Sept. 29, 1952. Rochester, England, UK [?]. (BBU 2136)
3:55 p.m. Witnesses unknown, but report came via the Rochester Police Dept., of 2 flat objects hovering then speeding away. 3 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 29 [?], 1952. Aurora [Denver?], Colo. (BBU)
3:15 p.m. USAF T/Sgt. B. R. Hughes saw 5-6 circular objects, bright white but not shiny, circle in trail formation. [Same as Denver Sept. 30 case?] 5-6 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 29, 1952; Southern Pines, North Carolina (BBU 2140)
8:15 p.m. U.S. Army Res. 1st Lt. C. H. Stevens and 2 others saw a green ellipse. with a long tail, orbiting. 15 mins. (Berliner)

Sept. 30, 1952; Edwards AFB, California
Aviation photographer, others, observed two discs alternately hovering and darting around. [UFOE, VI]

Sept. 30, 1952; Denver, Colo. (BBU 2138) Same as Sept. 29 Aurora case?] (NARA)

NARA-PBB1-84 - October 1-15 Sightings
NARA-PBB1-85 - October 16-31 Sightings

Oct. 1, 1952; Shaw AFB, South Carolina (BBU 2142)
6:57 p.m. USAF 1st Lt. T. J. Pointek, pilot of RF-80 recon jet, saw a bright white light fly straight, then vertical, then hover, then make abrupt turn during attempted intercept. 23 mins. (Berliner)


2143 Oct. 1, 1952. Pascagoula, Mississippi. 7:40 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. C. C. McLean and another heard a loud blast and saw a round, milky-white object, shaped like a powder puff, hover for 5-10 mins then fly away very fast in an arc. 22 mins. (Berliner)

Oct. 1, 1952; Pascagoula, Mississippi (BBU 2143)
7:40 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. C. C. McLean and another heard a loud blast and saw a round, milky-white object, shaped like a powder puff, hover for 5-10 mins then fly away very fast in an arc. 22 mins (Berliner)

Oct. 7, 1952; Alamogordo, New Mexico (BBU 2150)
8:30 p.m. USAF Lt. Bagnell saw a pale blue oval, with its long axis vertical, fly straight and level covering 30° of sky. 4-5 secs. (Berliner)

Oct. 10, 1952; Otis AFB, Mass. (BBU 2155)
6:30 p.m. USAF S/Sgt and 2 other enlisted men saw a blinking white light move like a pendulum then shoot straight up. 20 mins. (Berliner)

Oct. 11, 1952; Newport News, Va.
Ground Observer Corps spotter saw disc-shaped UFO with "dome". [UFOE, XII]

Oct. 12, 1952l Palo Alto, Calif.
V-formation of six apparent discs. [UFOE, V]

Oct. 13, 1952; Oshima, Japan
Air Force pilot and engineer saw round object in cloud formation; object became elliptical in appearance, sped away disappearing in seconds. [UFOE, III]

Oct. 15, 1952; Ashiya, Japan (BBU)
11:00 p.m., 15 October and at 2:00 a.m., 16 October, unidentified objects were sighted on GCA radar scopes at Ashiya Air Base. The objects presented targets similar to light planes traveling from north to south at 50-70 mph at altitudes from 200 to 500 feet. The objects appeared at a distance of two miles or less north or west of the runways. As many as as five targets appeared at one time. The objects were observed with radar set AN/MPN-1 (GCA) on both the two and ten mile precision scopes. (McDonald list)

Oct. 17, 1952; Taos, New Mexico (BBU 2171)
9:15 p.m. 4 USAF officers saw a round, bright blue light move from N to NE at an elevation of 45° then burn out. 2-3 secs. (Berliner)

Oct. 17, 1952; Killeen, Texas (BBU 2172)
10:15 p.m. Ministers Greenwalt and Kluck saw 10 lights, or a rectangle of lights, move more or less straight and level. 5 secs. (Berliner)

Oct. 17, 1952; Tierra Amarilla AFS, New Mexico (BBU 2173)
11 p.m. Military witness [at USAF radar site] saw a white streamer move at an estimated 3,000 mph in an arc. No further details in files. 20 secs. (Berliner)

Oct. 19, 1952; San Antonio, Texas (BBU 2177)
1:30 p.m. Ex-USAF aircrewman Woolsey saw 3 circular aluminum objects, one olive-drab colored on the side, fly in a rough V-formation. One object flipped slowly, another stopped. 3-4 mins. (Berliner)

Oct. 19, 1952; (Pacific) 500 miles S of Hawaii (BBU 2175)
6:58 p.m. Crew of USAF C-50 transport plane saw a 100 ft diameter round yellow light, with a red glowing edge, fly at 300-400 knots (350-450 mph). 20 secs. (Berliner)

Oct. 21, 1952; Knoxville, Tenn. (BBU 2179)
No time given. Witnesses at airport weather station saw 6 white lights fly in a loose formation, make a shallow dive at a weather balloon. 1-2 mins. (Berliner)

Oct. 21, 1952; Nr. Gloucestershire, England
RAF Meteor encounters UFO which was tracked by ground radar. 'They were circular and appeared to be stationary. But as we continued to climb they did in fact change position arid to make sure of that we very carefully checked and these things moved across to the right-hand side somewhere. The higher we got, [the more] they lost this circular effect [which appeared] when looking at them from underneath. As they came down to your level they lost the circular effect and took on a ""flat plate" appearance.' (Ridge/Aldrich)

Oct. 24, 1952; Elberton [Elberta?], Alabama (BBU 2184)
8:26 p.m. USAF Lt. Rau and Capt. Marcinko, flying a Beech T-11 trainer, saw an object, shaped like a plate, with a brilliant front and vague trail, fly with its concave surface forward. 5 secs. (Berliner; FUFOR Index)

FBI Memo dated Oct 27, 1952: Newhouse film "extremely credible".

Oct. 27, 1952; Gaillac, France
Hundreds of citizens saw 16 UFOs in formation surrounding a cigar-shaped object. "Angel's hair" fell. [UFOE, VIII]

Oct. 29, 1952; Erding Air Depot, Germany (BBU 2196)
7:50 a.m. USAF S/Sgt. Anderson and A/2c Max Handy saw a round object, silhouetted against a cloud, fly straight, level and smooth at 400 mph. 20 secs. (Berliner)

Oct. 29, 1952; Hempstead, Long Island, New York (BBU) [CCL Item #5]
2 a.m. 2 USAF F-94 jet fighter crews saw a white luminous object maneuvering at high speed, tracked on airborne radar. (Weinstein; BB files??)

Oct. 29, 1952; Richmond, Virginia
Venezuelan Airlines pilot watched luminous UFO speed past plane. [UFOE, V]. Rivas Case (AL)

Oct. 31, 1952; 4 miles S of Fayetteville, Georgia (BBU 2200)
7:40 p.m. USAF Lt. James Allen saw an orange, blimp-shaped object, 80 ft long 20 ft wide, appear to the N at treetop level about 600 ft away, traveling towards him about 60-70 mph, cross over his car (when his radio faded out) at about 500 ft height. He got out of the car and watched object linger overhead about 20 secs, then point its nose at 45° angle, accelerate and climb to disappearance in 30 40 secs to the E and slightly to right of the full moon (96° azimuth 35° elevation) at tremendous speed.1 min. (Hynek UFO Rpt pp. 191-2)

NARA-PBB1-86 - November 1-15 Sightings
NARA-PBB1-87 - November 16-30 Sightings

Nov. 3, 1952; Laredo AFB, Texas (BBU 2202)
6:29 p.m. 2 control tower operators, including Lemaster, saw a long, elliptical, white-grey light fly very fast, pause, and then increase speed. 3-4 secs. (Berliner)

Nov. [Dec.?] 4, 1952; Congaree AFB, Columbia, South Carolina (BBU)
(McDonald list)

Nov. 4, 1952; W Hokkaido, Japan (BBU)
(FUFOR Index)

Nov. 4, 1952; Caribou, Maine (BBU)
5:30 p.m. USAF pilot of T-6 saw a slow moving light of varying colors, stop and move. (Project 1947)

Nov. 4, 1952; Vineland, New Jersey (BBU 2206)
5:40 p.m. Housewife Mrs. Sprague saw 2 groups of 2-3 whirling discs of light fly toward the SE. 30 secs. (Berliner)

Nov. 8, 1952; Tierra Amarilla AFS, New Mexico (BBU)
At 6:05 p.m. MST, an unidentified radar target first appeared at 143 degrees and 45 miles from the radar station of the 767th AC&W Squadron heading outbound to a point 100 miles from the station. The object was traveling at an estimated speed of 600 to 1500 mph and an estimated altitude of 40,000 feet. The object then returned on the reciprocal heading to a point 65 miles from the station. The object then stopped and hovered for approximately 2 minutes and then proceeded outbound to a point 100 miles from the station. At this point radar contact was lost. The radar was an FPS-3 radar. The object was under radar surveillance for approximately 10 minutes. (McDonald list, FUFOR Index, Dan Wilson)

Nov. 12, 1952; Los Alamos, New Mexico (BBU 2219)
10:23 p.m. AESS security inspector saw 4 red-white-green lights fly slowly over a prohibited area. 15 mins. (Berliner)

Nov. 13, 1952; Ophiem, Montana (BBU 2220)
2:20 a.m. Crew of USAF 779th AC&W station tracked an unidentified target on FPS-3 radar at 158,000 ft altitude (30 miles) and 240 mph. 1 hr 28 min. (Berliner)

Nov. 13, 1952; Glasgow, Montana (BBU 2220)
2:43 a.m. U.S. Weather Bureau observer Earl Oksendahl saw 5 oval-shaped objects, with lights all around them, fly in a V-formation for about 20 secs. Each object seemed to be changing position vertically by climbing or diving as if to hold formation. Formation came from the NW, made a 90° turn overhead, and flew away to the SW. 20 secs +. (Berliner)

Nov. 15, 1952; Near Pyongyang, North Korea (BBU)
USAF pilot flying T-6 aircraft was circled 3 times by a 10 ft silvery sphere. (Weinstein)

Nov. 15, 1952; Wichita, Kansas (BBU 2224)
7:02 a.m. USAF Maj. R. L. Wallander, Capt. Belleman, A/3c Phipps saw an orange object (a blue streak?) varied in shape, as it made jerky upward sweeps with 10-15 sec pauses. 3-5 mins. (Berliner)

Nov. 15, 1952; Wichita, Texas (BBU)
8:25 p.m. USAF B 47 crew and passengers saw an elliptical blue-white object with orange or red tail, moving erratically. (BB Status Rpt?) [Same case as above??]

Nov. 16, 1952; Nr. Landrum, S. C.
Hundreds of people saw a huge disc, watched through binoculars by air-traffic controller. (UFOE)

Nov. 20, 1952; Salton Sea, Calif. 8:05 p.m. (BBU)
USAF pilot of B-50 saw a stationary light change color from white to red to green, then move SW. (Project 1947)

Nov. 24, 1952; Annandale, Virginia (BBU 2246)
6:30 p.m. L. L. Brettner saw a round, glowing object fly very fast, make right angle turns and reverse course. 1 hr. (Berliner)

Nov. 25, 1952; White Sands, New Mexico (BBU)
(McDonald list)

Nov. 25, 26, 1952; Panama Canal, Panama [CCL Item # 41]
6:06 P.M. to 11:47 p.m. Two objects traveling at an estimated speed of 275 mph were detected by radar attached to antiaircraft guns. The objects remained over the Canal Zone for 5 1/2 hours. Three Air Force bombers and a Navy patrol plane were sent up but were unable to catch the elusive objects. Maneuvering from 1000 feet to 28,000 feet in altitude. [NARA-PBB92-585; UFOE, VIII].

Nov. 26, 1952; Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada (BBU)
2:30 a.m. F-94 chased maneuverable disc that changed color from white [orange?] to red, as it climbed and turned. (McDonald list; NICAP; Project 1947)

Nov. 27, 1952; Albuquerque, New Mexico [S of Prescott, Ariz. ?] (BBU 2249)
12:10 p.m. Pilot and crew chief of USAF B-26 bomber saw a series of 20 ft black smoke bursts (4-3-3-4-3), similar to antiaircraft fire. 20 min. (Berliner)

Nov. 30, 1952; Washington, D.C (BBU 2253)
12:30 a.m. Radar 1 operators [?] at Washington National Airport. Radar trackings similar to those of July 26, 1952. Military witness(es) [?]. (Berliner)

NARA-PBB1-88 - December 1-15 Sightings
NARA-PBB1-89 - December 16-31 Sightings

December 2, 1952; CIA Memo
Chadwell Gives Director of CIA His Opinion. CIA knows what UFOs are NOT and is concerned.


Dec. 4, 1952; Colorado Springs, Colo. (BBU)
(McDonald list)

Dec. 4, 1952; Congaree AFB, South Carolina
At 8:42 a.m. EST, an object was sighted on an AN/MPS-5 radar set. The object was approx. 100 miles NE of Congaree AFB and traveling at 6000 mph on a southern course. The object stopped for one minute and then came directly back in the path it was moving, according to a statement by A/1C Clarence W. Ives. The length of the observation was 5 minutes. (Dan Wilson)

Dec. 4, 1952; Laredo, Texas (BBU) [CCL Item #1]
8:46-8:53 p.m. USAF pilot Lt. Robert Arnold flying T-28 trainer aircraft at 6,000 ft saw a bright bluish-white glowing object below him rapidly climbing to his level, showing no navigation lights. Arnold tightened his left turn to keep object in view, object suddenly climbed to 9,000 ft in several secs then dropped down to his altitude again headed E to 6 miles SE of AFB where it stopped and hovered.

Arnold pursued on SE heading but after 2 secs object suddenly headed towards him on collision course at high speed, wavering slightly at about 300 ft as if determining which side to pass the aircraft then heading off Arnold's left wing at 150 ft distance, at which point he could see object as a blurred reddish bluish haze smaller than his T-28, all of which happened too fast for evasive action.

Arnold in fear turned off running lights, spiraled down to 1,500 ft while keeping object in sight as object continued to head towards him in a dive then pulled up and climbed out of sight. 7 mins. (NARCAP)

Dec. 5, 1952; Lackland AFB, Texas (BBU)
8:48 p.m. USAF pilot of T-28 saw a blue light maneuver in a counterclockwise orbit then climb. (Project 1947)

Dec. 6, 1952; About 89 miles S of Louisiana in Gulf of Mexico (BBU) [CCL Item #8]
5:24-5:35 a.m. (CST). USAF crew of B-29 bomber at 20,000 ft tracked on radar 4 high speed targets on 120° heading at 5,000+ mph, followed by more targets moving SE. At 5:35 several (5?) blips merged into an arc about 30 miles away at 320° relative bearing and moved off the scope at 9,000+ mph. 11 mins. (McDonald; cf. Condon Rpt pp. 148-150; etc.)

Dec. 6, 1952; Angoon, Alaska (BBU)
9:15 a.m. (AHST). Air National Guard pilot saw 2 shiny spheres connected by a solid rod heading S. (BB Status Rpt)

Dec. 8, 1952; Ladd AFB, Alaska (BBU 2266)
8:16 p.m. Pilot 1st Lt. D. Dickman and radar operator 1st Lt. T. Davies in USAF F-94 jet interceptor (s/n 49-2522) saw a white, oval light which changed to red at higher altitude, fly straight and level for 2 mins on 240° course, then climb at phenomenal speed on an erratic flight path. After landing object could still be seen moving erratically, no noise, for 3 mins then took up 160° heading gaining speed while descending, becoming brighter red. 10 mins. (Berliner; cf. Hynek-CUFOS re-eval; Jan Aldrich)

Dec 8, 1952; Chicago, Illinois
Aircraft paced by row of unidentified lights. [UFOE, V]. Thorpe/Plowe (M)

Dec. 9, 1952; About 10 miles S of Madison, Wisc. (BBU 2267)
5:45 p.m. Capt. Bridges and 1st Lt. Johnson in USAF T-33 jet trainer saw 4 bright lights, in diamond formation, fly at 400 mph heading 130° or about SW at about 8,000 ft. They followed objects at 450 mph until passing (overtaking) them near 10 miles NE of Janesville, Wisc. (at 42°47' N, 88° 55' W) at 5:50 p.m., at which time they radioed the ADC 755th AC&W radar site "Soapberry," which could not detect objects, only the T-33.

Objects continued on 90° E heading and T-33 followed until breaking off due to low fuel at 5:55 about 10 miles W of Racine, Wisc. (at 42°45' N, 88° 0' W). No silhouette visible even when objects seen against Milwaukee city lights. 10 mins. (Berliner; cf. Hynek-CUFOS re-eval; Jan Aldrich)

Dec. 10, 1952; Pope AFB, South Carolina (BBU)
From 9:20 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. EST, a bright circular object was observed on a PPI scope of a CPS/5D radar. It was also observed on height finding radars. The blip was detected at 155 degrees azimuth at 8,000 feet altitude.The blip was also observed on search radar and height finding radar at the 728th AC&W Squadron, Fort Bragg, N.C. The object showed a slight circular movement. An F-51 aircraft was directed to investigate. The pilot saw nothing unusual. (McDonald list)

Dec. 10, 1952; Hungnam, Korea (BBU)
USN pilot flying aircraft in near-collision with orange fireball. (Weinstein; BB files??)

Dec. 10, 1952; Odessa-Hanford, Wash. (BBU)
7:15-7:30 p.m. (PST). F-94 crew spotted a light while flying at 26,000-27,000 ft and approached to identify it. Object appeared large, round and white with reddish light coming from two "windows," came at F-94 on collision course, F-94 banked to avoid impact, radar contact and/or lockon made multiple times on airborne ARC-33 radar. 15 mins. (Ruppelt p. 43; NARCAP)

Dec. 12, 1952
Brad Sparks:
Top CIA officials (Chadwell, Robertson, Durant) visited ATIC Project BLUE BOOK to obtain the withheld UFO investigation reports that Ruppelt indicated in phone conversation with CIA missile intelligence officer Frederick C. Durant III on Dec. 9 were being held back from CIA by orders of his boss ATIC Technical Analysis Division Chief, Col. Donald L. Bower, evidently acting at the behest of the AF Intelligence leaders, Gen. Garland and Dr. Stefan Possony. In other words an AF coverup to help conceal evidence of UFO reality from the CIA.

Col. Bower was blocking Ruppelt's planned visit to CIA in Washington, DC, to prevent him from delivering these reports showing them to be sensational cases (movie film, theodolite triangulation, landing case with burn injuries) but IFO's and not UFO Unknowns or best of the best, as the AF had falsely claimed in the briefing given to CIA on Nov. 25. Ruppelt's investigative reports would have undone too soon the false pro-UFO impression the AF had given to CIA -- the false "UFO" reports were intended to be revealed as IFO's at the CIA Robertson Panel to embarrass the CIA to stay out of AF business, and not sooner.

Col. Bower himself had given the deliberately misleading AF briefing to CIA on Nov. 25, falsely promising CIA the AF's "full cooperation," and bringing along the lower-ranking pro-ETH advocate Maj. Fournet whose participation was calculated to reinforce pro-ETH conclusions on the CIA. The AF briefing convinced the leaders of CIA/OSI (Office of Scientific Intelligence) that UFO's were extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Ruppelt gave the CIA team led by Dr. H. Marshall Chadwell (director of CIA/OSI and now convinced of the ET origin of UFO's) dozens of additional "best UFO" reports to study but in fact they were all IFO cases designed to blow up in CIA faces at the Robertson Panel. Ruppelt completely withheld from CIA, and concealed the existence of, his special file of more than 63 Best Unexplained UFO cases, no doubt by direct orders of Col. Bower, whose name keeps popping up in the story of devious AF coverups on UFO's in 1952. (Brad Sparks)

Dec. 14, 1952; Charlottesville, Virginia (BBU)
11:45 a.m. (EST). Aeronautical engineer former test pilot saw a light orange elliptical shaped object, hovering then move NE at extreme speed, 1,000+ mph estimated. Object gave off discharge that changed brightness when object moved; debris lofted in the air apparently by the object. (Hynek-CUFOS re-eval; Jan Aldrich)

Dec. 15/16, 1952; Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada (BBU) [CCL Item #7]
7:15 PM. Two Air Force crews got a momentary radar lock on a strange object. One pilot had seen similar object before, on November 26, 1952. Visual contact was made by two aircraft, a T-33 and an F-94, of an unidentified aerial object after being vectored to the target by Ground Control Appoach (GCA). We had been seeking further details on this case and Dan Wilson located files in the Project Blue Book Archive (See below). This was a USAF Intelligence Report and was item #7 on the official clearance list of sightings to Major Donald Keyhoe from Al Chop, Air Force Press Desk. (Fran Ridge)

Dec. 15, 1952; Honshu, Japan (BBU)
8:54 p.m. local time. An unidentified track appeared on the Early Warning Ground Radar Site #24. It was a large blip and estimated to be more than one target. The estimated speed of the target was 1320 mph. The radar being used was the AN/TPS-1C. The target was seen on the first, second and fourth sweeps of the antenna. The antenna speed was 2 rpm. (Dan Wilson, McDonald list)

Dec. 15, 1952; Greensboro [Hurstville?], North Carolina (BBU)
9:15 a.m. USAF pilot of RF-80 saw a bright circular or spherical silvery object, losing and gaining altitude. (Project 1947)

Dec. 17, 1952, San Diego, Cal. (BBU)
Four members of the U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory at San Diego, observed two or more objects described as cigar or disc shaped that emanated bright light in smooth flight. The speed of the objects was described as being from the speed of a present day jet aircraft to 1500 miles per hour. One witness said he saw later five of six of these things orbiting in a small area.

Dec. 18, 1952; Itazuke AFB, Japan
8:28 a.m. local time. Five plots were observed on an AN/MPS-5 radar scope with an average speed 710 knots. The course from initial plot was 270 degrees varying to 312 degrees. The target size was approximately that made by a B-29 type aircraft. Successive tracks indicated an increase of speed ranging from 300 knots on initial pickup to an estimated 1040 knots on the 4th pickup. The length of the observation was 9 minutes. (Dan Wilson)

Dec. 18, 1952; Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Cat 9. Radar-visual (NICAP source)

Dec. 18, 1952
Brad Sparks:
Dr. H. Marshall Chadwell, director of the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI), notifies the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, that the Robertson Panel was being postponed (indefinitely or to at least March 1953 or later) in order to give the AF contractor Battelle Memorial Institute enough time to complete its statistical study of all of Blue Book's UFO case files. In meeting with Chadwell at Blue Book on Dec. 12 Battelle's Dr. Howard Cross had pleaded with CIA to postpone the Robertson Panel so Battelle would have time to finish its study and Chadwell and Robertson agreed to do so. (But within days, evidently after getting pressure from the AF, the DCI overruled the postponement and put it back on the fast track for the AF-manipulated rush to judgment.) (Brad Sparks)

Dec. 19, 1952; Anderson AFB, Guam (BBU)
6:50 [8:50?] a.m. USAF crew of B-17 bomber and ground witnesses saw a silvery cylindrical object. (BB Status Rpt)

Dec 22, 1952
Brad Sparks:
Ruppelt found out the CIA Robertson Panel was back on again after being shelved the previous two weeks. Apparently under pressure from the AF which was setting a trap to embarrass the CIA with sensational IFO cases dressed up as "best" Unknown UFO cases, the CIA Director, Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, reversed CIA/OSI's decision to postpone the Panel meeting till March 1953 or later. DCI Smith ordered the Robertson Panel to be carried out immediately (as the AF had ordered through the IAC).

Thus a rush-to-judgment Panel would have no time to reflect on the AF trickery involved in the IFO's-as-UFO's deception and would just react in dismissive skepticism that there was no scientific evidence for UFO reality, and hence no reason for CIA to intrude into the AF's jurisdiction over air intelligence matters such as unidentified aerial threats (UFO's). Ruppelt called ADC (Air Defense Command) to say that he would not be able to conduct the ADC UFO briefing tour as previously scheduled, due to the CIA meeting now tentatively set in early Jan. 1953 (he confirmed the call by teletype Dec 23). (Brad Sparks)

Dec. 22, 1952; Larson AFB, Moses Lake, Wash. [??] (BBU)
7:30 p.m. Instrument technician stopped his car to watch a hat-shaped glowing object rising vertically in odd spurts right and left, then level off at high speed, glowing white with a red side when rotated, and halfway through a roll no light, then held stationary in the sky with jumpy movements, S of Jupiter (which was to the SSE at about 151° azimuth 53° elevation). 15 mins. (Battelle Unknown No. 6)

Dec. 24, 1952; Camp Carson, Colo. (BBU)
(McDonald list)

Dec. 24, 1952; Dallas, Texas
At 12:15 p.m. CST, an object was observed on an AN/APG-41 gun laying radar and AN/APS-23 navigation radar on an airborne B-36 aircraft at 40 miles east to 80 miles NE of Dallas, Texas. The target was detected on both north and south headings at 40,000 feet and on a descent to 15,000 feet. The target was tracked at a distance of 2000 to 4000 yards. The AN/APS-23 presentation of the phenomenon was similar to recent release of PPI photographs of sightings made over Washington D.C. The AN/APG-41 radar was instrumented with an 0/15 camera.

Film was taken, although not clear, it does indicated the presence and trackability of the phenomenon. The Air Intelligence Information Report on this incident states, "Its behavior of attempting to remain 2000 to 4000 yards in front of the B-36 during descent from 40,000 to 15,000 feet was unexplainable, and seemed to indicate that something intelligent was guiding it." The total length of observation was 30 minutes. The operator of the AN/APS-23 radar said on several occasions he detected other targets and they were very sharp. (Dan Wilson, BB Files)

Dec. 28, 1952; Marysville, Calif. (BBU 2302)
Civilian witness(es). Case missing. (NARA)

Dec. 28, 1952; Albuquerque, New Mexico (BBU)
11:09 [9:16?] p.m. Military pilot saw an elongated cigar like object the size of a medium bomber traveling E to W. 12 secs. (BB Status Rpt; FUFOR Index)

Dec. 29 [28?], 1952; Chitose AFB [Misawa AFB? Hokkaido?], Japan (BBU) [CCL Item#13]
7:30 [7:39? 7:48?] p.m. USAF crews of B-26 (Ashley and Wood) and F-84G (Col. Howard Blakeslee) saw object emitting 3 beams of light and tracked on airborne radar. 7 mins. (Weinstein; FUFOR Index)

Dec. 29, 1952; 35 miles W of Amarillo near Vega, Texas and ESE of Tucumcari, New Mexico (BBU)
9:05 p.m. (CST). USAF Capt. William T. Bowley and Capt. Herbert T. Lange, both of Perrin AFB, Texas, piloting a B-26 on a training flight headed W at 257° at 6,000 ft altitude and 250 knots (300 mph) saw a extremely large and intense bright round bluish-white light with frequent green tints, no trail or exhaust or aerodynamic features, about 3x the size of a C-54 (or about 350 ft) at a distance of possibly 40 miles at their 11 o'clock position paralleling their course at about the same altitude 6,000 ft heading forward but closing with the B-26. After 5 mins object suddenly climbed vertically 7,000 ft in 5 secs [1,400 ft/sec average, or peak velocity about 2,000 mph at about 17 g's] to disappear in thin broken overcast clouds at 13,000 ft and causing the clouds to glow as if lit by searchlight.

Bowley radioed the CAA controller in Tucumcari, N.Mex. Shortly after, the object reappeared under the clouds, the CAA controller was told to look for it but couldn't see it [probably because he was told to look in the wrong direction, to the SW, or it was obscured by clouds], after 2 mins it climbed to the W and disappeared. 7-10 mins. (Jan Aldrich)

Dec. 30, 1952; Terrigal, New South Wales, Australia (BBU)
12 noon. RAAF Wing Commander Tomkins and wife and child [Alexander?] saw an extremely brilliant carbon-arc bright object to the E about 7.5° elevation in very slow level flight to the left or N for about 1 min over about 8° of arc, estimated at about 2,000 ft height and 2 miles away. Object suddenly turned E and departed away from the observers at high speed disappearing in about 20 secs. 1 min 20 secs. (Jan Aldrich; FUFOR Index)

Dec. 31, 1952; NE of Ramey AFB, Puerto Rico. (BBU)
4:50 [4:45?] a.m. USAF crew of RB-36 saw a large red orange ball of light pass the plane. (Weinstein; FUFOR Index

Winter of 1952-1953; Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada
11:00 PM+- A target appeared on the radar screen. It was located about ninety miles out and approaching from the north at an approximate speed of ninety mph. The radar in use was not equipped with any method of measuring altitude, so the height of the target could not be determined. The fact that the target was approaching from due north (0 degrees on the radar screen) was very unusual since no military or civilian airfields were located in that direction. Its slow speed of travel was equally strange. Most aircraft that approached Goose Bay from a northerly direction were flights coming in from Thule, Greenland. where the United States was building an air base and radar site. The azimuth direction of such flights, as displayed on the radar screen, was about 045 degrees. (RADCAT)

Turning Point in UFO History - Richard Hall http://www.nicap.org/waves/turnpoint.htm

The summer 1952 UFO sighting wave was one of the largest of all time, and arguably the most significant of all time in terms of the credible reports and hardcore scientific data obtained. Electromagnetic (EM) effects and physical trace evidence were more prominent in other waves, but 1952 (and 1953) featured recurring radar detection of UFOs, often from both ground and airborne radar, visual sightings by jet interceptor pilots sent up to pursue the mysterious objects, and cat-and-mouse chases in which the UFOs seemed to toy with the interceptors.

Other References:
1. Edward J. Ruppelt - Summer of the Saucers - 1952, Intro, XIII (Mike Hall & Wendy Connors)


Back to NICAP Chronology Home Page http://www.nicap.org/chrono.htm

Back to NICAP Home http://www.nicap.org/
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2010, 05:40 PM   #38
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

UFOs over DC in 1952, RESTRICTED AIR SPACE, Jets Scrambled;





It started with a National Airlines crew sighting on July 13th, about 60 miles SW of the city, and then continued for a week, with more sightings and radar returns each day for the next week, through the 20th.

It started again on the 25th, this time with Air Route Traffic Control radar picking up numerous UFOs (and multiple such incidents that day), and another National Airlines crew sighting. This continued this time for 4 more days, through the 29th.

You can view an excellent timeline of events here…(complete with sources)
http://www.project1947.com/fig/1952d.htm

The following is an excerpt from the Washington Post for July 28th:




Two other radar screens in the area picked up the objects.An employee of the National Airport control tower said the radar scope there picked up very weak "blips" of the objects. The tower radar's for "short range" and is not so powerful as that at the center. Radar at Andrews Air Force Base also registered the objects from about seven miles south of the base.

A traffic control center spokesman said the nature of the signals on the radar screen ruled out any possibility they were from clouds or any other "weather" disturbance.

"The returns we received from the unidentified objects were similar and analogous to targets representing aircraft in flight," he said.

The objects, "flying saucer or what have you, appeared on the radar scope at the airport center at 9:08 PM. Varying from 4 to 12 in number, the objects appeared on the screen until 3:00 AM., when they disappeared.

AT 11:25 PM., two F-94 jet fighters fro Air Defense Command squadron, at New CAstle Delaware, capable of 600 hundred mph speeds, took off to investigate the objects.

Airline, civil and military pilots described the objects as looking like the lit end of a cigarette or a cluster of orange and red lights.

One jet pilot observed 4 lights in the vicinity of Andrews Air Force Base, but was not able to over-take them, and they disappeared in about two minutes.

The same pilot observed a steady white light in the vicinity of Mt Vernon at 11:49 PM. The light, about 5 miles from him, faded in a minute. The lights were also observed in the Beltsville, MD., vicinity. At 1:40 AM two-other F-94 jet fighters took off and scanned the area until 2:20 AM., but did not make any sightings.


Ed Ruppelt himself (head of Project Bluebook at the time, now a UFOlogist and author whose gone on record that Bluebook was a coverup) was actually likely involved somewhat in this case, as the paper points out.


he same source reported an expert from the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton Ohio, was here last week investigating the objects sighted July 19.

The expert has been identified as Capt. E. J. Ruppelt. Reached by telephone at his home in Dayton yesterday, Ruppelt said he could make no comment on his activity in Washington.

Capt. Ruppelt confirmed he was in Washington last week but said he had not come here to investigate the mysterious objects. He recalled he did make an investigation after hearing of the objects, but could not say what he investigated.


Here is the transcript of the tower conversation from the Washington National air controllers to the Andrews AFB controllers…http://ufocasebook.com/washingtondc1952.html



Washington: Andrews Tower, do you read? Did you have an airplane in sight west-northwest or east of your airport moving east-bound?

Andrews: No, but we just got a call from the center. We're looking for it.

Washington: We've got a big target showing up on our scope. He's just coming in on the west edge of your airport-the northwest edge of it eastbound. He'll be passing right through the northern portion of your field on an east heading. He's about a quarter of a mile from the northwest runway-right over the edge of your northwest runway now.

Andrews: What happened to your target now?

Washington: He's still eastbound. He went directly over Andrews Fields and is now five miles east.

Andrews: Where did he come from?

Washington: We picked him up ourselves at about seven miles east, slightly southeast, and we have been tracking him ever since then. The Center has been tracking him farther than that.

Andrews: Was he waving his course?

Washington: Holding steady course, due east heading.

Andrews: This is Andrews. Our radar tracking says he's got a big fat target out here northeast of Andrews. He says he's got two more south of the field.

Washington: Yes, well the center has about four or five around the Andrews Range station. The Center is working a National Airlines - the center is working him and vectoring him around his target. He went around Andrews. He saw one of them - looks like a meteor. (Garbled)..Went by him..or something. He said he's got one about three miles off his right wing right now. There are so many targets around here it is hard to tell as they are not moving very fast.

Andrews: What about his altitude?

Washington: Well, must be over 8,000 feet as we don't have him in radar any more.


From controllers at Washington National:http://www.subversiveelement.com/UFOWashingtonDC.html




In the control tower at Washington National Airport, Ed Nugent saw seven pale violet blips on his radar screen. What were they? Not planes -- at least not any planes that were supposed to be there.

He summoned his boss, Harry G. Barnes, the head of National's air traffic controllers. "Here's a fleet of flying saucers for you," Nugent said, half-joking.

Upstairs, in the tower's glass-enclosed top floor, controller Joe Zacko saw a strange blip streaking across his radar screen. It wasn't a bird. It wasn't a plane. What was it? He looked out the window and spotted a bright light hovering in the sky. He turned to his partner, Howard Cocklin, who was sitting three feet away.

"Look at that bright light," Zacko said. "If you believe in flying saucers, that could sure be one."

And then the light took off, zooming away at an incredible speed.

"Did you see that?" Cocklin remembers saying. "What the hell was that?"

It was Saturday night, July 19, 1952 -- 50 years ago this weekend -- one of the most famous dates in the bizarre history of UFOs. Before the night was over, a pilot reported seeing unexplained objects, radar at two local Air Force bases -- Andrews and Bolling -- picked up the UFOs, and two Air Force F-94 jets streaked over Washington, searching for flying saucers.

Then, a week later, it happened all over again --more UFOs on the radar screen, more jets scrambled over Washington. Across America, the story of jets chasing UFOs over the White House knocked the Korean War and the presidential campaign off the front pages of newspapers.


Other Headlines included such papers as the New York Daily News “Jets Chase D.C. Sky Ghosts”, or the Washington Daily News’ “Aerial Whatzits buzz D.C. Again!”, the Washington Post’s “Radar Spots Air Mystery Objects Here”, or the Washington Daily News’ “Air Force ‘Saucer’ Expert Will Probe Sightings Here”. (referring to an unwitting Ruppelt), or the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s “Saucers Swarm Over Capital”.

Here’s some info about the second incident, and the jets scrambled…


The controllers called for interceptors, and about 11 p.m. the Air Force dispatched F-94s to search the sky over Washington. When the first jets arrived, the blips disappeared from National's radar screens and the F-94 pilots saw nothing unusual. But when they returned to New Castle, the blips returned to the radar screens.

About 1:30 a.m., the jets soared back over Washington. This time, pilots saw several strange lights. One pilot gave chase but he couldn't catch the streaking light.

"I tried to make contact with the bogies below 1,000 feet," pilot William Patterson told investigators. "I was at my maximum speed but . . . I ceased chasing them because I saw no chance of overtaking them."




The “official” explanation given at the time was “temperature inversions” on radar. The press accepted it and let the story die. The radar operators knew better, and plainly stated that they were well aware of such things and how they appeared on radar. Also, nevermind the fact that the objects were also sighted visually by pilots (both civilian and military), and the blips confirmed by numerous radar tracking stations, and even photographed! Even Bluebook eventually dismissed the temperature inversion explanation, and the sightings remain listed in the “unknown” category.


Its hard to believe how the press can be so gullible to accept something like that.And also for the White House to make idiots out of the radar operators.
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2010, 05:44 PM   #39
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

The Kinross Incident;

The Kinross Incident
quote;

"In 1953, a UFO was detected on radar near Kinross AFB, Michigan. A Northrop F-89C Scorpion (assigned to the 433rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Traux Field, Madison WI) was scrambled from Kinross AFB and sent to intercept and identify this target. Radar controllers watched as the F-89 closed in on the UFO, and then sat stunned in amazement as the two blips merged on the screen, and the UFO left. The F-89 and it’s two man crew (Pilot First Lieutenant Felix E. Moncla, Jr, and Radar Observer Second Lieutenant Robert L. Wilson) were never found, even after a thorough search of the area"






F-89C Scorpion;

The Air Force description of the crash is as follows (from their Accident Report, sent via FOIA to CUFON)

quotes;
"Aircraft took off at 2322 Zebra 23 Nov 53 on an active Air Defense Mission to intercept an unknown aircraft approximately 160 miles Northwest of Kinross Air Force Base. The aircraft was under radar control throughout the interception. At approximately 2352 Zebra the last radio contact was made by the radar station controlling the interception.

" At approximately 2355 Zebra the unknown aircraft and the F-89 merged together on the radar scope. Shortly thereafter the IFF signal disappeared from the radar scope. No further contact was established with the F-89. < Approximately 16 characters followed by one whole line (of approx. 83 characters including spaces) excised > An extensive aerial search has revealed no trace of the aircraft. The aircraft and its crew is still missing;"


"First, the account given is that the UFO was a Canadian airliner, a DC-3 to be exact".

"However, they then later (in a separate page from the official report, sent along with the Air Accident Report) assert that the UFO was now identified as an RCAF C-47" :


"The unknown aircraft being intercepted was a Royal Canadian Air Force Dakota (C-47), Serial No. VC-912, flying from Winnipeg to Sudbury, Canada. At the time of interception, it was crossing Northern lake Superior from west to east at 7,000 feet."

"The pilot and radar observer were assigned to the 433rd Fighter-interceptor Squadron, Truax AFB, Wisconsin. They were on temporary duty at Kinross AFB, Michigan, while the base’s regularly assigned personnel were firing gunnery at Yuma, Arizona. The pilot had a total of 811:00 hours of which 121:40 hours were in F-89 type aircraft. He had 101:00 instrument hours and 91:50 hours night time. The radar observer had a total of 206:45 hours of which 11:30 hours were at night."

"Search for the missing aircraft was conducted by both USAF and RCAF aircraft without success. Although 80 per cent area coverage was reported, heavy snows precluded effective land search. All civilian reports of seeing or hearing the aircraft were investigated with negative results".


"The full reports can be read here: (they also include a detailed account of the search effort) http://www.cufon.org/kinross/Kinross_acc_rept.htm




"However, when contacted by NICAP (National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena), the RCAF (Royal Canadian Air Force) denies they had any such plane intercepted by the USAF (United States Air Force)."

"Royal Canadian Air Force letter denying involvement, to NICAP".


"Thank you for your letter of April 4 requesting information regarding an 'Unidentified Flying Object' on November 23, 1953.
"A check of Royal Canadian Air Force records has revealed no report of an incident involving an RCAF aircraft in the Lake Superior area on the above date." (Flight Lt. C. F. Page, for Chief of the Air Staff, RCAF, to Jon Mikulich, 4-14-61).


So the USAF claims the UFO as an RCAF plane, even identifying a specific craft, but the RCAF flatly denies any such incident in the area. Also, the USAF fails to acknowledge just how such an identification was made, since there is no radio confirmation of this. While it is conceivable that the F-89 crashed, and for any variety of reasons, it is indeed strange that this crash happened at the exact moment of the blips merging on the radar screen. Also, it’s even more strange that such an exhaustive search effort would fail to turn up the missing plane and/or men, or even signs of a crash, such as debris, oil slick, etc.

Here is a map showing the locations involved. However, please read the following text, as it corrects the map somewhat. I could not locate a corrected map.


Map of the incident.

quote;
"Note that the map shown…. ((above) shows the
correct and incorrect) location for the site where the F-89 disappeared over
Lake Superior. It seems that an earlier investigator misread the
geographical coordinates for this site "48 00 N 86 49 W" as "45
00 N 86 49 W". The coordinates "4800N 8649W" appear in telexes
and the RCAF Search and Rescue Report that are in the USAF
Accident Report files from the incident".

"This location over
Canadian waters of Lake Superior is also the location where
433rd FIS Base Commander Lt. Col. Harry Shoup is pointing to in
a photograph that was published in the Madison, Wisconsin
newspaper the day after the F-89 was lost over Lake Superior".

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/.../m06-012.shtml



According to Appendix A of the Report, the weather wasn’t exceptionally hazardous…

quote;
"The weather conditions existing over eastern Lake Superior at the time contact was lost with the missing F89, was forecast to be the following. A generally solid deck of Stratocumulus base from 2-3000 and top at 6-7000 feet. A broken Altostratus layer, base 10,000 to 14-15000 feet. The visibility was generally 10-12 miles falling to 1-2 miles in isolated snow showers. The freezing level was at the surface to the west, rising to 800 - 1000 feet in the east."

"Analysis of the Sault Ste Marie Radio Sonde Run for 2100Z (1600E) indicates that moderate to heavy icing could occur from the cloud base to 7000 feet. The air was quite stable and rime ice should have predominated. No turbulence or other hazard would have been encountered. The winds were light south-easterly at the surface shifting to west aloft".

APPENDIX "A" TO 976-3 (SC&T/AT4) DATED 18 DEC 53
quote;
"Regardless of what happened this night, there are still a lot of mysteries to be solved regarding this incident".

"The Air Force suggestion is that the pilot suffered vertigo and crashed into the lake. One has to wonder how likely this is, when flying on instruments though, as official records state he was. Why did the USAF claim an RCAF plane as the UFO, when the RCAF states it wasn’t there? Perhaps the most curious question is why no acknowledgement of the radio conversations for the incident? Surely, if such an identification (of an RCAF plane) was made, or if the pilot had trouble, the radio conversation would have conveyed this and been released to put the incident to rest"?

"The following is from a radar operator during the incident (allegedly)"

quote;
"....I'd like to fill in the gaps in the UFO "anomoly" incident over Lake Superior in 1953. I was stationed in Battle Creek Michigan at a radar AC&W (Air Craft Control and Warning) and was on duty when the incident took place. When we were notified of the "bogey" to the north of us, we increased our radar range. We spotted the target, which was stationary (suddenly a plane seems more unlikely, if this account is correct and legit), by a bright blip on the screen over the east end of the lake. Two F-89"C" interceptors were heading west from Kinross AFB. One of the F-89's had to abort the flight because of mechanical problems.

quote;
"The pilot, aborting, asked the other pilot if he wanted to return home or wait for another wingman. He (Moncla) said "Negative" to both and continued to intercept. I was watching it unfold and was able to monitor the transmissions from the aircraft to his ground controller. The transmission was something like this":

"The first report from the pilot "No Joy" (No Contact) On the scope he was closing in on the bogey. As he got closer he announced (slight static) "I have an eyeball on the target, am going in for a closer look." (more static) Each time he transmitted the static became more and more unintelligable, the static louder each time he transmitted. As his aircraft converged with the target, there came steadier and louder static each time he transmitted until they merged. Then all was silent".

"From my position the now merged blip started northwest for a short time and then disappeared. The strangest thing about the incident was the closer he got to the bogey, the fewer words were heard due to the increase in static. The static was present only when he transmitted. A word here and there was heard - as the targets merged there was a long blast of static. His last transmission???"

http://www.subversiveelement.com/UFO_BattleCreek.html



1. If a plane malfunction, where's the radio transcript of it? Surely he would have mayday'ed....?

2. Surely the USAF would have much rather had it be a malfunction and crash than "unknown". So obviously no such mayday reported.

3. If the radio wasn't working, and the UFO was really the Canadian plane the USAF states, then surely the Canadian plane would have an idea what happened (given when and where the plane vanished from radar, and it's proximity to it....assuming of course, the USAF claim is legit). Why deny being in the area and off course? Unless of course, the Canadian plane WAS on course, and NOT in the area, just as they claim to be the case.

4. And after all these years and the activity in the area, still no wreckage or bodies turned up?

Indeed, the information regarding the plane needs to be considered, however if you check the link given:


link; http://www.cufon.org/kinross/Kinross_acc_rept.htm
(Scroll down to Distribution B)
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 07:28 AM   #40
jamesc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default The case for roswell part i.

THE CASE FOR ROSWELL PART I.

This is the first part to take a systematic approach to showing what many believe happened, and why the Air Force story doesn’t hold water…

PART I: The Air Force Report: Case Closed. How Mogul can NOT be the culprit.

PART II: The Debris Analysis. I-Beams or Balsa Wood with flowery tape? He-said, she-said?

PART III: (Forthcoming, separate post) The Timeline of Events. What happened, when, and where.

More parts to follow…

Roswell, NM. The incident long cited as THE UFO case of all time. Certainly, the name is synonymous with the incident. There’s been a lot said both for and against the crash being either an alien craft (or two) or a top secret balloon experiment. One thing that is undeniable, is that a crash of SOMETHING did occur. At least this much is even admitted by the military. So the question is of course, WHAT crashed?

First, we have the last official version of the explanation from the Air Force. This was in July, 1994, and can be seen here:http://www.af.mil/lib/roswell/index.asp Frustrated with the publicity still surrounding Roswell, the Air Force releases another “last word” report on the incident.

This is one of the first claims:
The "unusual" military activities in the New Mexico desert were high altitude research balloon launch and recovery operations. Reports of military units that always seemed to arrive shortly after the crash of a flying saucer to retrieve the saucer and "crew," were actually accurate descriptions of Air Force personnel engaged in anthropomorphic dummy recovery operations


Going into more detail, they clarify and reiterate that a Mogul balloon is what crashed. The following, is actually from a well-known skeptic site, illustrating the purpose of Mogul.
http://www.csicop.org/si/9507/roswell.html

Its classified purpose was to try to develop a way to monitor possible Soviet nuclear detonations with the use of low-frequency acoustic microphones placed at high altitudes. No other means of monitoring the nuclear activities of a closed country like the USSR was yet available, and the project was given a high priority. One of the NYU tasks was the development of constant-level balloons for placing the acoustic microphones aloft. After some preliminary flights in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, in April 1947, which failed due to high winds, the project moved to New Mexico.

In June and early July 1947, numerous NYU balloon flights were launched from Alamogordo Army Air Field in New Mexico. Some of these flights consisted of very long trains containing up to two dozen neoprene sounding balloons, having a total length of more than 600 feet.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see where anthropomorphic dummies come into play in such an experiment. So, right off the bat, we’re faced with an apparent lie. The USAF is using two completely different and unrelated experiments to explain the Roswell incident. Indeed, the tests involving anthropomorphic dummies were years later:


The Roswell Report: Case Closed, which deals almost exclusively with claims of alien bodies. The report’s primary discovery was that actual military activities in New Mexico during the 1950s closely resembled the reports of spacecraft crashes that emerged decades later. One of these activities, Project High Dive, involved lifelike anthropomorphic dummies loaded with sensors mounted in cages that were dropped out of the sky and later collected by caravans of military trucks and equipment.

Some landed near Roswell, with witnesses transforming the cages into escape capsules from a mother ship, and the dummies, clothed in flight suits, into aliens. UFO author Kevin Randle notes that in 1954 there was one kind of alien reported—short humanoids in space suits. [17] That year marked the start of Project High Dive.

Perhaps the Air Force should have checked their calendars, as the Roswell crash occurred in 1947, YEARS before the early 50’s. Indeed, this was project High Dive, not Mogul. Likewise, in all my years of looking into Roswell, this is the first I’ve heard of “escape capsules”, an obvious attempt at establishing an air of ridicule to the accounts.

Not to mention, they briefly include the notes of a prominent UFO researcher, but then fail to mention that the anthropomorphic dummies were regular human-sized, which of course would then destroy the “short humanoids in space suits”note. Now the apparent lie has become an obvious one. You can’t just stick the two different tests from different decades together and use that as a viable explanation. It doesn’t wash.

There are other problems with the Mogul cover story of course. For this, we’ll look at the items used in Mogul.


Sure looks like a “flying disc” to me! How about you?

Personally, I’m no expert on crashed debris, but I’d sure like to know how plausible it is that the highest ranking intelligence officer at the base, Major Jesse Marcel, would mistake balsa wood and tin foil for the remains of an unidentified craft, wouldn’t you? I’m sure you or I would easily be able to make that identification, so I feel pretty confident in assuming that he could easily discern this as well.

And yet, Marcel stated it quite differently.
Major Jesse Marcel, intelligence officer of the 509th Bomb Group based at Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF), inspected the site shortly after Brazel reported the debris to the Chaves County sheriff in Roswell. Marcel described a big field: debris ". . . about as far as you could see—three quarters [of a] mile long and two hundred to three hundred feet wide."

It was "scattered all over—just like you’d explode something above the ground and [it would] just fall to the ground." The shortest pieces were "four or five inches. It was [as if it were from] something of some greater area that had been together."

http://www.cufos.org/ros4.html (which incidentally, has some excellent info for how it couldn’t be a Mogul balloon, as well.)

So, when did the balloon coverup go into motion? The answer is, almost immediately. Before any mention of Mogul (this wouldn’t be till years later), the military stuck with a basic weather balloon story. After getting in hot water over the official press release issued (that the US Army Air Force had retrieved the wreckage of a “crashed disc”(words of the press release, not an inference), Army brass reacted quickly to do damage control. A retraction of the story was released, and the press was fed the coverup story. Here’s the now infamous picture of Ramey (along with Chief of Staff Dubose, not Marcel, as many sometimes assume) with the balloon debris.



While the staging contributes greatly to the effectiveness of the coverup, Ramey could not have known at the time, that eventually, technology would enable us to read portions of the memo he’s holding in this photo (in the red box).
http://www.ufocasebook.com/rameymemo.html



The message turns out to be a telegram from Gen. Ramey to the Pentagon and Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg, the acting AAF Chief of Staff at the time. Ramey is providing Vandenberg an update on the very fluid situation in-the-field at Roswell.

The first paragraph describes what had been found. Ramey starts by acknowledging "THAT A 'DISK' IS NEXT NEW FIND." He then adds that "THE VICTIMS OF THE WRECK" and something else (possibly just "A WRECK") had also been found near the recovery "OPERATION AT THE 'RANCH'." At the end it states that "YOU" (i.e. Gen. Vandenberg) had ordered the "victims" and/or the wreckage "FORWARDED" to "FORT WORTH, TEX."

So, while photographers are snapping pictures that will eventually keep the story buried for years, they unwittingly capture evidence of what really happened away from public eyes…

Additionally, there is the testimony (as a sworn affidavit) of the other man in the photo other than the General, that proves to be an interesting read…
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/dubose.html
1) My name is Thomas Jefferson Dubose

(2) My address is: XXXXXXXXXX

(3) I retired from the U.S. Air force in 1959 with the rank of Brigadier General.

(4) In July 1947, I was stationed at Fort Worth Army Air Field [later Carswell Air Force Base] in Fort Worth, Texas. I served as Chief of Staff to Major General Roger Ramey, Commander, Eight Air Force. I had the rank of Colonel.

(5) In early July, I received a phone call from Maj. Gen. Clements McMullen, Deputy Commander, Strategic Air Command. He asked what we knew about the object which had been recovered outside Roswell, New Mexico, as reported in the press. I called Col. William Blanchard, Commander of the Roswell Army Air Field and directed him to send the material in a sealed container to me at Fort Worth. I so informed Maj. Gen. McMullen.

(6) After the plane from Roswell arrived with the material, I asked the Base Commander, Col. Al Clark, to take possession of the material and to personally transport it in a B-26 to Maj. Gen. McMullen in Washington, D.C. I notified Maj. Gen. McMullen, and he told me he would send the material by personal courier on his plane to Benjamin Chidlaw, Commanding General of the Air Material Command at Wright Field [later Wright Patterson AFB]. The entire operation was conducted under the strictest secrecy.

(7) The material shown in the photographs taken in Maj. Gen. Ramey's office was a weather balloon. The weather balloon explanation for the material was a cover story to divert the attention of the press.

(8) I have not been paid or given anything of value to make this statement, which is the truth to the best of my recollection.

Signed: T. J. Dubose
Date: 9/16/91

Signature witnessed by:
Linda R. Split
Notary Public, State of Florida

Here is the separate pic of Marcel with the debris in Fort Worth.



There is a lot of talk about conflicting stories of material being switched, as stated by Marcel, etc. and this is usually seized upon by skeptics.
When Marcel arrived at Carswell, Brigadier General Roger Ramey, Commander of the 8th Air Force took full charge of the case. The debris from Brazel's field was taken into Ramey's office, and photographed.

The photographer was James Bond Johnson. Marcel was in one photo with the real debris. Ramey took Marcel into another office, and upon their return to Ramey's office, some new and different material was spread on the floor. Marcel, under orders, stated that this debris was from a weather balloon. After more photos were taken, Ramey sent Marcel back to Roswell, along with a stern warning not to disclose anything he had seen at Carswell.

It was then reported that General Ramey recognized the remains as part of a weather balloon. Brigadier General Thomas DuBose, the chief of staff of the Eighth Air Force, after many years of silence would state:
"[It] was a cover story. The whole balloon part of it. That was the part of the story we were told to give to the public and news and that was it."

I’ve shown the two photos as regardless of any of that disagreement, we’ve got sworn testimony by Dubose that the balloon story was a coverup that he had full knowledge of.

In the next part, I’ll go into the accounts of the debris as told by witnesses, and I’ll examine what’s been said on this from both skeptics and believers, to allow the reader to judge for themselves which version they think is more plausible. [TO BE CONTINUED]
__________________
"What if the alien encounter phenomenon were subtle in the sense that it may manifest in the physical world but derives from a source which by its very nature could not provide the kind of hard evidence that would satisfy skeptics for whom reality is limited to the material? What if we were to acknowledge that the phenomenon is beyond our present framework of knowledge?"- Dr John Mack.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.