Why the skeptics fear UFOs; AKA The debunkers have something to hide

  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
In summary: The debunkers have a motive- to protect their world view- and this is usually because they don't want to admit that they might be wrong about something.4) The debunkers are usually pretty lazy, and attack people simply because they can.
  • #71
Originally posted by russ_watters
My point is simply that we can deduce nothing about this report from its circulation.

I don't mean to imply that the circulation implies ET significance, but it does establish that defense intelligence considered the report credible; therefore we can't dismiss this as just another wild claim. I think that the only reasonable position is to consider that this event may have happened much [or exactly] as described.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Should we go on to the next case?
 
  • #73
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Should we go on to the next case?
Yes please.
 
  • #74
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't mean to imply that the circulation implies ET significance, but it does establish that defense intelligence considered the report credible; therefore we can't dismiss this as just another wild claim. I think that the only reasonable position is to consider that this event may have happened much [or exactly] as described.
No, it says nothing at all about credibility unless we know the criteria for transmitting these messages. If the criteria is transmitting every message about UFOs for example, then there is nothing inherrently special about transmitting it.
 
  • #75
Originally posted by russ_watters
No, it says nothing at all about credibility unless we know the criteria for transmitting these messages. If the criteria is transmitting every message about UFOs for example, then there is nothing inherrently special about transmitting it.

Well, to support your position I guess you would need to produce more reports that were directed to the white house.

EDIT: I can say that I have read a lot of this stuff, and most UFO reports seem to remain internal to the department involved. I guess in either case my fall back position would be that it says right on the report that the sources are of high credibility. This comes as the highest rating offered for selection by the reporting officer.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking In order to account for this report by means of technology [the human kind], it seems that we must assume the existence of a super technology that has existed at least [in this instance] since 1976.
All the technologies to do the individual things this thing did existed in 1976. What I'm suggesting is the unproven, yes, but not impossible combination, of all those separate technologies into a single craft.
the only things known [in Jane’s Book of Planes] that could pace or evade an F4 in full pursuit was another F4 or later model [I’m not sure what the latest generation was in 1976], a Russian Mig, a few spy planes, and missiles.
First, let me correct the name of the aircraft I saw at Miramar: it was the Harrier Jump Jet, not the Aardvark. The Harrier is capable of 730 mph. The F4 may be faster, but there is, in fact, nothing in you summary to the effect that the F4 was ever going at its top speed.

The Harrier can hover for one and a half minutes. (This is very taxing and consumes a tremendous amount of fuel, but it can be done). This, in fact, is what I saw the one at Miramar do. They made a special point to demonstrate its hovering capabilities. The main problem with this scenario is that the first flight of a Harrier did not take place till 1978. In 76 it was only in development. What this means, though, is that a craft that could both hover and fly at jet speeds was, in fact, being worked on by the British in 1976 The hypothesized existence of some other, top secret, craft with this same capability isn't the stretch it seems at first.
This all lends strongly I think to my position that the events in Iran do not represent a technology.
This all being:
1.) They heavily redact things they don't want seen.

2.) UFOs are not classified as a matter of National Security.

3.) The Soviet example shows what a government can suppress if it wants.

Correct?

However, when you say these events "do not represent a technology", it seems all you can say is "not a US technology." Your case against the Gov. being hiding its own secrets holds water, but what about the Soviet, or some other government's secrets it isn't aware of? As I said to Russ, not knowing what evryones reactions to the report were leaves us very much in the dark about important aspects of the thing.
This does ignore the possibility that the government conspires to perpetuate the UFO myth in order to mask secret super-technology
This came up on a recent UFO show on TV. There was in fact a specific policy adopted by the CIA in one instance for sure to refrain from negating any UFO reports in order to obfuscate that famous spy plane (the one that later got downed over the Soviet Union...)
Again, no craft is seen.
Actually, I'm curious why you have put it in these words twice now. The lights were of course seen, and at night can you ever really see anything about a craft other than the lights? Why do you say "No craft was seen?"
Proximity to the phenomenon, within 25 NM it seems, can interfere with avionics systems, and at some lesser range, weapons systems.
Here I'm wondering exactly what kind of emp is needed to effect this. I was going to order a book once on how to build a big Tesla Coil but there was a little wrning that they should not be operated in the vicinity of airports because they can cause interference with the communications systems of passenger jets. I was living in downtown San Diego at the time in the flight path of a lot of airport traffic, so I didn't bother to order the book. Likewise, the Tesla coil which is on display in the Science Museum in Balboa Park (also downtown) is only discharged one time, once every ten minutes, to prevent it from causing more interference than that. I do not believe we are limited to choices between something natural and ET. This isn't a multiple choice test. What we have is a report we can either explain if we can find the right piece of info, or not be able to explain. It is fallacious to say if it isn't explainable it must be ET. As for the very interesting maneuvers of the secondary crafts this is why I keep bringing up the blinding function of the spectacular light show:

"The actual size of the object could not be determined due to its intense brilliance. Blue, green, orange, and red strobe lights are seen arranged in a rectangle and flashing so quickly that all could be seen at once."

For me, the test of whether or not we have to abandon any possible terrestrial cause is this: if we gave these descriptions to David Copperfield along with a large budget and access to a reasonable amount of military hardware, would he be able to put it all together in such a way as to fool the Iranian Air force?

You must remember that the man who developed the plane dazzling mirrors for the military in WWII was a magician, they do employ such people, and I'm sure the soviets would as well.
 
  • #77
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
All the technologies to do the individual things this thing did existed in 1976.

I don't think this is true. If it actually happened, the separation and rejoining I think makes this impossible to explain with known technology. However, we must allow for variations on the story due to observer error and bias. Edit: Also, we can't forget the apparent failure of avionics and onboard weapons systems. I doubt that directed EM weapons of such strenth were or are possible to the extent indicated in this report.

However, when you say these events "do not represent a technology", it seems all you can say is "not a US technology." Your case against the Gov. being hiding its own secrets holds water, but what about the Soviet, or some other government's secrets it isn't aware of? As I said to Russ, not knowing what evryones reactions to the report were leaves us very much in the dark about important aspects of the thing.

If we or anyone else had technology like this it would be matter of national security. It is important to realize that this has been 27 years ago now. In this amount of time, most classified technology is not only known but declassified.

Actually, I'm curious why you have put it in these words twice now. The lights were of course seen, and at night can you ever really see anything about a craft other than the lights? Why do you say "No craft was seen?"

Well, it is easy to read this and to think that a craft must have been present due to the implied intelligence. The rectangular lights strengthen this impression, but in fact he never reported any structured vehicle.

Here I'm wondering exactly what kind of emp is needed to effect this.

Interference with radio is not so impressive - though somewhat so at 25NM. But the internal systems are protected by a big metal box - the plane. I can effectively shield electronics that are sitting right next to tesla coil by putting it in a metal box. Also, becuase of this shielding, these and most any metal plane can take direct hits by lighting with no effects. It happens to airliners quite frequently. To effect systems some 25 miles distant is really, really impressive.

I do not believe we are limited to choices between something natural and ET. This isn't a multiple choice test.

More heads yield more ideas, however there are a finite number of potential explanations.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
It will take me a little time to write summaries of some other arhieved military events, so why don't we look at Rendlesham now?
Remember the Rendlesham special is tonight on the Sci Fi channel. I want to see what if they bring anything new to the table. The links are posted above, and there are a couple of links at the bottom of the list that are not PDF files [see one below].

Here is a good link for a summary of events.
http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa030998.htm

See also the bottom of this linked page for more information and links. The first link given earlier [a pdf file] is the original report from Lt. Col. Halt - the Deputy Base commander.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't think this is true. If it actually happened, the separation and rejoining I think makes this impossible to explain with known technology.
The reason it is impossible for you to explain the appearance of one craft coming out of the other is because you don't know how it was done. I can't explain one David Copperfield trick. Nor can I explain any but the simplest of David Blaine's tricks.

Start off imagining two helicopters sitting on a jumbo jet. Add a spectacular system of red, orange, blue, and yellow strobe lights.

What does ET need with strobe lights?

If us or anyone else had technology like this, it would be matter of national security.
Only if we could trace it to, and pin it on someone else. If it can't be it's a "UFO" which is not a matter of National Security.
Well, it is easy to read this and to think that a craft must have been present due to the implied intelligence. The rectangular lights strengthen this impression, but in fact he never reported any structured vehicle.
"The object was so brilliant that it could be seen from 70 miles away." "The actual size of the object could not be determined due to its intense brilliance."
So, the fact he did not report a structured craft is really immaterial, of no signifigance whatever. Just imagine any building the size of a jumbo jet covered with strobe lights flashing in several colors so quickly all could be seen at once. The building would be invisible.
Also, becuase of this shielding, these and most any metal plane can take direct hits by lighting with no effects.
It strikes me as highly unlikely, then, that the F4s systems were hit with an EMP. If the EMP from a direct hit by lightning can't knock out a metal planes electronics, the size of the EMP that could would have to have knocked out the electronics of that whole city. The alternative (i know nothing about jet controls or systems) could be that the electronics that were effected are, in fact, vulnerable due to being to some kind of sensors on the exterior of the plane, through which the EMP could travel to the electronics.
More heads yield more ideas, however there are a finite number of potential explanations.
The immagination of a Zooby is limitless.
 
  • #80
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The immagination of a Zooby is limitless.

that reminds me, your cat is becoming a real pain in the butt.

In the Rendlesham case, one element of the story that strikes me is that first we hear about a typical glowing orb that does a few strange things, and then it burst. After this, we hear of a close encounter with what seems to be an alien craft. There is a lot to this story so it may take a bit to put things together. Also, in spite of my efforts here let their be no doubt, many people point to this event as strong evidence of ET and a cover up. The way I have tried to get out of this event and avoid ET, and then still accept the reports is to assume that this burst of light [EM energy] produced hallucinations that account for the rest of the story.

Question: With Persinger's work and similar efforts, is there any indication that one can have false memories induced by EM without any having any actual hallucinations?
 
Last edited:
  • #81
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
that reminds me, your cat is becoming a real pain in the butt. I call him: "Mini-me".
Question: With Persinger's work and similar efforts, is there any indication that one can have false memories induced by EM without any having any actual hallucinations?
Actually, I'm not aware of any link between false memories and strong EM stimulation. Has Persinger demonstrated this as well? (I've only read about the OBEs and visual hallucinations.)

False memories don't require any hallucinations. They arise from following a train of thought while in a deeply hypnotized state. All that needs to be implanted in the mind is the verbal outline of the story. Details are filled in (created for the first time, actually) during recall, according to the person's understanding of how and what makes sence. The original train of the story can be implanted by someone else, can come from the persons own imagination with no outer involvement, or be a misinterpretation of external events happening while the trance is in progress.
 
  • #82
I will do my best to keep this story straight.

First we have the physical evidence:

1). First, we have RADAR data showing an unknown object entering the area. For a short time we also have data that showed an uncorrelated target at the proper location.


2). Next, we have the radiation levels at one of the claimed "landing sites". This was the site inspected by Col Halt and his crew. Measurements made on the trees and on the soil at the spot where the UFO touched down measured as high as 0.1 mr/hr [milliroentgens per hour]. The background levels measured 0.015 mr/hr. [see p 8of 39 in the PDF #1 file]
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart1.pdf [Broken]

Quick definitions (Roentgen)

• noun: German physicist who discovered x-rays and developed roentgenography (1845-1923)
• noun: a unit of radiation exposure; the dose of ionizing radiation that will produce 1 electrostatic unit of electricity in 1 cc of dry air

The highest levels were reportedly measured at the center of the landing site, next at the three impressions made in the soil, and then on the surrounding trees; being strongest on the side of the trees facing the UFO.

3). Also, physical impressions were found in the soil that agreed with the earlier observations at the landing site.

4). Finally, we have three rolls of fogged film from three separate cameras.

We also have multiple eyewitnesses acting in a professional capacity that corroborate the story. We have official reports that show that some event did take place. Also, we have civilian witnesses that further support the claims of the military eyewitnesses. Also, in light of the second landing site realized on the program tonight, the originator of the lighthouse explanation now offers no explanations.

Any comments or objections so far?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
Also, these are two quotes [found in the Napster] from one of Britain’s highest ranking military officials [retired].

" I have no doubt that something landed at this U.S. Air Force base [Bentwaters] and I have no doubt that it has got the people concerned into a considerable state. The Ministry of Defense has doggedly stuck to it's normal line, that nothing of defense interest took place. Either large numbers of people , including the commanding general at Bentwaters,were hallucinating, and for an American Air Force nuclear base , this is extremely dangerous - or what they say did happen.
In either of these circumstances, there can be only one answer - that it was of extreme defense interest to the U.K."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have frequently been asked why a person of my background—a former Chief of the Defense Staff, a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee—why I think there is a cover-up [of] the facts about UFOs. I believe governments fear that if they did disclose those facts, people would panic. I don’t believe that at all. There is a serious possibility that we are being visited by people from outer space. It behooves us to find out who they are, where they come from, and what they want."

Admiral Lord Hill-Norton;
Former chief of the British Defense Staff

Clearly serious people take this subject seriously.
 
  • #84
Next, we have the radiation levels at one of the claimed "landing sites". This was the site inspected by Col Halt and his crew. Measurements made on the trees and on the soil at the spot where the UFO touched down measured as high as 0.1 mr/hr [milliroentgens per hour]. The background levels measured 0.015 mr/hr.
As I read this, a number of questions occurred to me:
- who took the radiation measurements?
- what instruments did they use?
- what controls did they take (e.g. radiation measurements in similar sites nearby that didn't have the depressions (etc), using the same equipment, ...)?
- what were the actual data?

Then I read the PDF file, and it seems the writer of the hand-written note (p10) had much the same questions, and also some possible answers.

Here's what's written on that page (some words may not be correct; the handwriting isn't all that easy for me to follow):
"[intro skipped] 0.01 would be the general level of background radiation, so the 0.1 reading is about 10 times what would be normal.

However, military radiation detectors are geared for high-level readings, so low-level readings may be difficult to record accurately, as the scale will be small at the bottom of the meter.* We don't have details of what instrument was used. It is just possible to have such an event. A university lab might well have some radioactive source with a very short half life, and could use it so as to give readings, which would not be recorded a few days later. The level of radiation of 0.1 is completely harmless. [signature]
*Especially if the needle was fluctuating"

The base commander's own words, on the radiation, are as follows:
"The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgens were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the centre of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05 - .07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions."

The other reference to radiation seems to indicate that the natural background radiation of the area was not known, nor checked. There was also: "I assume that this is per hour"

If we wanted to look into this seriously, there are a number of 'first steps' that I'd suggest (not comprehensive):
- gather data on the original data gatherers and gathering
- re-visit the site to find the current radiation levels
- take samples from the area for detailed analysis (if there were 'un-natural' radioactive materials that generated 0.1 mr/hour there 23 years ago, there'd likely be unmistakable traces left today)

If we're limited to the documents that Ivan's presented, I'd suggest 'null hypothesis entirely consistent with limited data'.
 
  • #85
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, to support your position I guess you would need to produce more reports that were directed to the white house.
Or you: again, the burden of proof is on you here to convince me that there is something to this report (if you want to).
 
  • #86
Originally posted by russ_watters
Or you: again, the burden of proof is on you here to convince me that there is something to this report (if you want to).

I don't argue that this report must be true, but there is no reason that I can see, other than the apparent strangeness [this is where I would say high strangeness] of this episode, to dismiss the report. I have no other evidence or documents to offer for this. Finally, heck, I gave up trying to convince you of anything last May!


Note to readers: We are talking about Iran '76 here, not Bentwaters. The current discussion otherwise is about Bentwaters.

EDIT: Actually, Russ, I don't agree. I have an official report from the NSA. The burden of proof is with you to show why we should ignore this evidence. The defense of this document is found on page two - the evaluation made by the Intelligence officer who filed the report. He states that this information is of high credibility. It was his job to make this determination.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
Well, I do have a bit more information on Iran - Two videos. I have not verified any additional claims made but I still post FYI. It is claimed that satellite data supports the initial report. Two commanding officers involved are interviewed.

Then, there are two videos about Bentwaters.

To view the videos about these events go to:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/videos.html [Broken]

For Iran, see the 14th selection from the top, 1st and 2nd options from the left.

For Bentwaters, see the 7th from the top, 1st and 2nd from the left.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
Here are some eyewitness comments that I think further support my suggestion that indeed, just as suggested by Lord Hill-Norton, the personnel at Bentwaters may have been hallucinating. These comments are taken from a number of interviews with 4 officers that approached one or another of the UFOs at close range. Again, this all took place over three nights. First, before addressing the potential hallucinations, we have a few interesting details of the object as viewed by Halt:

“The object was bright like the sun…but with a black center”

“Something like molten metal was dripping…like out of a crucible”

“A beam of light hit the ground right in front of us.…like a LASER beam”

“Then it exploded [without a sound] into 5 white lights that disappeared”

Halt also believes that another person present, Larry Warren, Airman 1st class, was permanently affected by the experience. Halt thinks this was caused by the debriefing where he believes sodium pentothal was used on the soldier, but perhaps these alleged mental affects could relate to the direct contact made with the UFO. Warren experienced what could be considered a dramatic hallucination. Like Halt, Warren said that he saw a ball of light that exploded without a sound. However, unlike Halt who was about 100 yards distant from the UFO at the time of the "explosion of light", Warren was very close to the UFO. Immediately after the burst of light, Warren thinks he saw alien beings of some kind in a structured craft.

Another Airman 1st Class - Edward Cabansag- claims also to have seen a number of glowing orbs acting and interacting strangely. In one interview, Cabansag claims that a glowing orb approached him and silently exploded “into” a structured craft. I thought that he was present with Warren, but it seems that he was present with Penniston on the first night.

So then we have Technical Sgt. Jim Penniston who also approached one of the UFOs at close range [I think on night number one]. He was taking notes the entire time. He produced a notebook that he claims is from that night. As he reads his own observations from 1980, he has what appears to be a spontaneous emotional reaction – he becomes tearful and wants to stop the interview for a moment. At this point the notes indicate that he was within about 10 meters of the object and his writing becomes illegible. This seemed to provoke the emotional response. AFter this we see his notes again and the detailed description of the UFO, his writing is again legible. This suggests to me that the detailed description of the UFO may have been written later; perhaps after the UFO has disappeared. I don’t mean to say that he is lying, rather that his memories of the events do not agree exactly with the actual events. In other words, perhaps when he approached the UFO he began to hallucinate. His exact actions and recall from this moment on are IMO highly suspect. He may have inadvertently filled in memory gaps with false information, or information from other experiences, or memories formed during a hallucination. If he did write these descriptions down immdiately after his contact with the UFO, he may not even realize now that this is the case.

Finally, not discussed thus far is Staff Sgt. Monroe Nevels. Nevels was the radiation and photography expert on site. He took the radiation measurements and confirms the results in the interview.

Of course, it may have happened just as the witnesses claim, or they could all be lying. We might consider a secret super technology, or some kind of mind control experiments to be the cause. Again, in spite of all of the accusations of secrets and conspiracies, the information released does not seem to be considered sensitive information - we are reading the report! Also, no one is being arrested for telling their story. Is it possible that everyone is telling the truth to the best of their knowledge?

EDIT: Additional names and details are included. A few corrections are made.
 
Last edited:
  • #89
Final note: The Sci-Fi channel hired a scientist to measure the radiation on site. As reported, no elevated radiation levels were measured. When they first began the show, Halt asks if the geiger counter measures in "mr", the reply is I think "tens per second". I was not familiar with this unit of measure.

Edit: Also, here is a memo that discusses the film and RADAR. The existence of the film is confirmed; the RADAR is denied. Penniston claims verbal confirmation of RADAR at the time. I thought that I had docs to support this claim but I haven't found them yet. If I do I will post.

See p17/35
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/ufo/ufofilepart2.pdf [Broken]



Comments or objections?

Next case?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
The Lakenheath Radar/Visual UFO Case

I will assume for the moment that someone is still reading.

Not to be confused with the Bentwaters case above, These events took place in England on August 13-14, 1956. This case also took place around Bentwaters. The source for this is ultimately project Bluebook - the USAF's official investigation into UFOs. All data can be confirmed through official reports. Here is a brief excerpt from the report:

According to the Bluebook report on the Lakenheath incident, the Bentwaters GCA radar, at 22:55Z, picked up a URE 30 mi. east (of Bentwaters) moving to the west at an apparent speed of "2000 to 4000 mph." In the map shown at right, the track of the URE appears identical with No. 3 except for the vanishing point. This URE then "disappeared on scope 2 mi. east of station and immediately appeared on scope 3 mi. west of station ... it disappeared 30 mi. west of station on scope." If the word "immediately" means that the URE was picked up on the same PPI sweep, after 180 deg. rotation from east to west, it would imply that the apparent motion covered 5 mi. in 1 sec, an inferred speed of some 18,000 mph. At this rate the URE would have covered the 60 mi. track in about 12 sec (6 PPI sweeps). As pointed out, this may have been URE No. 3 from the Bentwaters Bluebook report, which is estimated at 12,000 mph, although the reported times are different .

A complete accounting and some discussion is found at the link.

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/laken.htm
 
  • #91
One more comment on the Bentwaters 1980 case: After an hour long conversation with Col. Halt [now retired], my guess would be that he doesn't think much of my suggested explanation.

Also, after double checking it also would seem that Sgt. Penniston was in touch with and in the view of other security personell the entire time. Also, Cabanasag was present with Penniston.
 
  • #92
Radar/visual: Greenwich; Summer 1956

For the complete report please see:

http://912a-87.umd.edu/condon/text/case02.htm [Broken]

This is the Bluebook file [EDIT: I should say the Condon report on the Bluebook case file] on the Lakenheath case above. I almost got these confused - they are the same case.
Abstract:

At least one UFO was tracked by air traffic control radar (GCA) at two USAF-RAF stations, with apparently corresponding visual sightings of round, white rapidly moving objects which changed directions abruptly. Interception by RAF fighter aircraft was attempted; one aircraft was vectored to the UFO by GCA radar and the pilot reported airborne radar contact and radar gunlock., The UFO appeared to circle around behind the aircraft and followed it in spite of the pilot's evasive maneuvers. Contact was broken when the aircraft returned to base, low on fuel. The preponderance of evidence indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO in this case. The weather was generally clear with good visibility. Background:

The existence of this very interesting radar-visual case was first brought to the attention of the project staff in winter 1968 by the receipt of an unsolicited letter from one of the principal witnesses, a retired USAF non-commissioned officer who was the Watch Supervisor at the GCA station on the night in question. This letter is rather well written, it forms the most coherent account of this UFO case, it is reproduced below in its entirety.

Reference your UFO Study: you probably already have this item in your file, but, in case you don't, I will briefly outline it and you can contact me for full details if you want them.


[[372]]



I retired (20 years service)...from the USAF. I have placed my name, rank, and serial number at the top of the page if you want to check on my authenticity. I was an Air Traffic Controller throughout my service career and utilized radar the last 16 years in the control of Air Traffic. I won't bother listing the types and locations, although I could supply all this if needed.

In 1956,...(I can't remember the exact date or month), I was on duty as Watch Supervisor at... [GCA A] in the Radar Air Traffic Control Center. It was the 5:00 p.m. to midnight shift. I had either four or five other controllers on my shift. I was sitting at the Supervisor's Coordinating desk and received a call on the direct line (actually I'm not sure which line it was). Anyway, it was... [GCA B] calling and the radar operator asked me if we had any targets on our scopes traveling at 4,000 mph. They said they had watched a target on their scopes proceed from a point 30 or 40 miles east...to a point 40 miles west of...[GCA B]. The target passed directly over... [GCA B] RAF Station (also an USAF Station). He said the tower reported seeing it go by and it just appeared to be a blurry light. A C-47 flying over the base at 5,000 feet altitude also reported seeing it as a blurred light that passed under his aircraft. No report as to actual distance below the aircraft. I immediately had all controllers start scanning the radar scopes. I had each scope set on a different range-from 10 miles to 200 miles radius of... [GCA A]. At this time I did not contact anyone by telephone is I was rather skeptical of this report. We were using


[[373]]



full MTI on our radar, which eliminated entirely all ground returns and stationary targets. There was very little or no traffic or targets on the scopes, as I recall. However one controller noticed a stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles southwest. This was unusual as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless it was moving at a speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could detect no movement at all. We watched this target on all the different scopes for several minutes and I called the GCA Unit at ... [A] to see if they had this target on their scopes also. They confirmed the target was on their scope in the same geographical location. As we watched, the stationary target started moving at a speed of 400 to 600 mph in a north, northeast direction until it reached a point about 20 miles north northwest of ... [A]. There was no slow start or build-up to this speed--it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped.

I called and reported all the facts to this point, including... GCA's initial report, to the ...Command Post... ...I also hooked in my local AFB Commanding Officer and my Unit (AFCS Communications Squadron) Commander on my switchboard. And there could have been others hooked in also that I was not aware of. I repeated all the facts known to this point and continued to give a detailed report on the target's movements and location. The target made several changes in location,


[[374]]


always in a straight line, always at about 600 mph and always from a standing or stationary point to his next stop at constant speed--no build-up in speed at all--these changes in location varied from 8 miles to 20 miles in length--no set pattern at any time. Time spent stationary between movements also varied from 3 or 4 minutes to 5 or 6 minutes (possibly even longer as I was busy answering questions--listening to theories, guesses, etc. that the conference line people were saying). This continued for some time. After I imagine about 30 to 45 minutes, it was decided to scramble two RAF interceptors to investigate. This was done I believe by Air Force calling the RAF and, after hearing what the score was, they scrambled one aircraft. (The second got off after as I will mention later.)

The interceptor aircraft took off from an RAF Station...and approached... [A] from the southwest. Radio and radar contact was established with the RAF intercept aircraft at a point about 30 to 35 miles southwest...[and] inbound to...[A]. On initial contact we gave the interceptor pilot all the background information on the UFO, his (the interceptor's) present distance and bearing from... [A], the UFO's (which was stationary at the time) distance and bearing from... [A]. We explained we did not know the altitude of the UFO but we could assume his altitude was above 15,000 feet and below 20,000 feet, due to the operational


[[375]]

characteristics of the radar (CPS-5 type radar, I believe). Also we mentioned the report from the C-47 over . . . that relayed the story about the light which passed below him. His altitude was 5,000 feet.

We immediately issued headings to the interceptor to guide him to the UFO. The UFO remained stationary throughout. This vectoring of the intercept aircraft continued. We continually gave the intercept aircraft his heading to the UFO and his distance from the UFO at approximately 1 to 2 mile intervals. Shortly after we told the intercept aircraft he was one-half mile from the UFO and it was twelve-o'clock from his position, he said, "Roger, ...I've got my guns locked on him." Then he paused and said, "Where did he go? Do you still have him?" We replied, "Roger, it appeared he got behind you and he's still there." [There were now two targets; one behind the other, same speed, very close, but two separate distinct targets.]

The first movement by the UFO was so swift (circling behind the interceptor); I missed it entirely, but it was seen by the other controllers. However, the fact that this had occurred was confirmed by the pilot of the interceptor. The pilot of the interceptor told us he would try to shake the UFO and would try it again. He tried everything--he climbed, dived, circled, etc. but the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close, but we always had two distinct targets. [Note: Target resolution on our radar at the range they were from the antenna (about 10 to 30 miles, all in the southerly sectors from... [A])


[[376]]


would be between 200 and 600 feet probably. Closer than that we would have got one target from both aircraft and UFO. Most specifications say 500 feet is the minimum, but I believe it varies and 200 to 600 feet is closer to the truth and, in addition, the tuning of the equipment, atmospheric conditions, etc., also help determine this figure.]

The interceptor pilot continued to try and shake the UFO for about ten minutes (approximate -- it seemed longer both to him and us). He continued to comment occasionally and we could tell from the tonal quality he was getting worried, excited and also pretty scared.

He finally said, "I'm returning to Station, ...[A]. Let me know if he follows me. I'm getting low on petrol." The target (UFO) followed him only a short distance, as he headed south southwest, and the UFO stopped and remained stationary. We advised the interceptor that the UFO target had stopped following and was now stationary about 10 miles south of...[A] He rogered this message and almost immediately the second interceptor called us on the same frequency. We replied and told him we would advise him when we had a radar target, so we could establish radar contact with his aircraft. (He was not on radar at this time, probably had just taken off and was too low for us to pick him up, or too far away--we had most of the scopes on short range, so we could watch the UFO closely on the smaller range.) The number two interceptor called the number one interceptor by name (Tom, Frank--whatever his name was) and asked him, "Did you see anything?" Number one replied,


[[377]]


"I saw something, but I'll be damned if I know what it was."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
Somewhere over the US: Dec, 1954

This report is difficult to read and it is six pages long. In short, we have multiple eyewitnesses - pilots and airmen in several military transport or other [e.g. an RB47] aircrafts - who confirm RADAR contact by multiple land stations; in addition to the RADAR on the aircraft mentioned. An unknown, bright object moves at sufficiently high speeds to outpace at least one fighter jet that was scrambled for intercept. The object is seen to hover, and to fly in "highly erratic" zig zag patterns that seem to defy conventional explanations. It was finally lost when the UFO climbed too high to be intercepted, and then disappeared from view.

Please see pages 9-14 of 26 in this NSA file:
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo31.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
Panama Canal: March 10th, 1968

Two UFOs are tracked on RADAR by multiple ground stations. Ufo tracking is "handed off" from one station to the next. The report continues for several pages with the most significant details listed below:

1). One jet was sent to investigate but no object was seen.

2). "An attempt was made by members of the Radar Site, Falmenco Island, to observe the objects by searchlights. When the light touched the objects, they traveled from an altitude of two thousand feet to ten thousand feet in in five to ten seconds. This was such a rapid movement, that the Track Radar, which was locked on target, broke the track lock and was unable to keep up with the ascent of the objects."

3). Balloons were ruled out.

4). The objects moved away from two USAF jet aircraft that approached. The UFOs were said to avoid the jets; according to the Radar opertators. EDIT: "The UFO moved a few miles away from the jets and then stopped." The pilots of the jets never saw the UFO.

5). A pilot on an incoming DC 6 reported seeing a UFO that appeared larger than the aircraft [presumably the commercial airliner]

6). The two UFOs flew while separated by only 100 yards distance.

7). Another incoming commercial flight reported a negative sighting of the UFO even thought Radar showed the object only 100 yards from the plane.

8). False Radar returns due to clouds and other weather conditions are ruled out.


please see pages 17 through 21 of 26: http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo31.pdf


EDIT: note that I have edited my response on 12/14 to Russ's post of 12/13.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #95
UFO's over Washington DC, 1952

I don't have the official files for this, but the event is so well known and documented that I will post general references.

EDIT: Here is the Condon Report on this. See this section:

Washington, D.C. (see Appendix L) 19-20 and 26-27 July 1952.
Weather: mostly clear, a few scattered clouds, visibility 10 to 15 mi., temperature 76° to 87°F, dewpoint 61° to 72°F, surface winds from SE, light, near surface, from 300° to 320° aloft, light. Radio refractive index profiles are shown in Figs. 13, 14, and 15, in Md., at an elevation of 88 m. (289 ft.) above sea level. There are a tremendous number of reports of UFOs observed on these two nights. In most instances visual observers, especially in scrambled aircraft, were unable to see targets indicated on ground radar, or to make airborne radar contact. Ground radar observers were often able to find a return in the general area of reported visual contacts, especially in the case of ground visual reports where only an azimuth was given. A few excerpts from typical reports during these incidents are given below:

Control tower operator, Andrews AFB, 0100 to 0500 EST, 20 July 1952:

An airman became excited during the conversation and suddenly yelled "there goes one." I saw a falling star go from overhead a short distance south and burn out. About two minutes later (the airman) said, "There's another one...

[[227]]

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

Here:
http://912a-87.umd.edu/condon/text/s3chap05.htm [Broken]




http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A31625-2002Jul19&notFound=true

http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/aliens/UFOWashington.htm

http://www.rense.com/general8/flew.htm


See this link for a photograph of the UFOs.
http://www.subversiveelement.com/UFOWashingtonDC.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
Case 21. Colorado Springs, Colo., 13 May 1967

Case 21. Colorado Springs, Colo., 13 May 1967, 1540 LST (1640 MDT). Weather: overcast, cold, scattered showers and snow showers (graupel) in area, winds northerly about 30 mph., gusts to 40 mph., visibility air -- more than 15 mi. (Colorado Springs airport is not horizon-limited; visibilities of 100 mi. are routinely reported on clear days). This is a radar-only case, and is of particular interest because the UFO could not be seen, when there was every indication that it should have been seen.(See Section IV).

From the time the UFO was first picked up on radar to the time the Braniff flight touched down on runway 35, the UFO track behaved like a ghost echo, perhaps a ground return being reflected from the aircraft. This is indicated by the fact that the UFO blip appeared at about twice the range of the Braniff blip, and on the same azimuth, although the elevation angle appears to have been different. When Braniff touched down, however, the situation changed radically. The UFO blip pulled to the right (east) and passed over the airport at an indicated height of about 200 ft. As pointed out by the FAA, this is precisely the correct procedure for an overtaking aircraft, or one which is practicing an ILS approach but does not actually intend to touch down. Although the UFO track passed within 1.5 mi. of the control tower, and the personnel there were alerted to the situation, the UFO was not visible, even through binoculars. A continental Airlines flight, which was monitored 3-4 mi. behind the UFO at first contact, and was flying in the same direction, never saw it either.

Both the PAR and ASR radar transmitting antennas are located to the east of runway 35, and they are about 1,000 ft. apart on a SW-NE line. A ghost echo seems to be ruled out by at least the following considerations:

[[258]]

A ghost echo, either direct or indirect, normally will not be indicated at a height of 200 ft. while the ghost-producer is on the ground, as was the case here;

A direct ghost is always at the same azimuth as the moving target, and an indirect ghost is on the same azimuth as the fixed reflector involved. (See Section VI Chapter 5). If an indirect ghost were involved here, the ghost echo would thus have always appeared well to the east of Braniff, not at the same azimuth.
The radar flight characteristics of the UFO in this case were all compatible with the hypothesis that the unknown was a century-series jet (F100, F104, etc.), yet nothing was ever seen or heard.

This must remain as one of the most puzzling radar cases on record, and no conclusion is possible at this time. It seems inconceivable that an anomalous propagation echo would behave in the manner described, particularly with respect to the reported altitude changes, even if AP had been likely at the time. In view of the meteorological situation, it would seem that AP was rather unlikely. Besides, what is the probability that an AP return would appear only once, and at that time appear to execute a perfect practice ILS approach?


http://912a-87.umd.edu/condon/text/s3chap05.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
Back to Bentwaters 1980 for a moment

Please see also "The Marfa mystery lights of Texas":
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7371

EARTHQUAKE LIGHTS OBSERVED IN CANADA

Fireballs a few metres in diameter often popped out of the ground in a repetitive manner at distances of up to only a few metres away from the observers. Others were seen several hundred metres up in the sky, stationary or moving. Some observers described dripping luminescent droplets, rapidly disappearing a few metres under the stationary fireballs.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074g14.htm


Quote from Col Halt:
“Something like molten metal was dripping…like out of a crucible” [from the sunlike floating orb]
 
Last edited:
  • #98
Case 5: South Central; Fall 1957

Abstract:

The crew of a B-47 aircraft described an encounter with a large ball of light which was also displayed for a sustained time for both airborne radar monitoring receivers and on ground radar units. The encounter had occurred ten years prior to this study. Project Blue Book had no record of it. Attempts to locate any records of the event, in an effort to learn the identity of the encountered phenomenon, failed to produce any information. The phenomenon remains unidentified.

Background:

At a project-sponsored conference for air base UFO officers, held in Boulder in June 1967, one of the officers revealed that he personally had experienced a puzzling UFO encounter some ten years previously. According to the officer, a Major at the time of the encounter, he was piloting a B-47 on a gunnery and electronic counter-measures training mission from an AFB. The mission had taken the crew over the gulf of Mexico, and back over South Central United States where they encountered a glowing source of both visual and 2,800 mHz. electromagnetic radiation of startling intensity, which, during part of the encounter, held a constant position relative to the B-47 for an extended period. Ground flight control radar also received a return from the "object," and reported its range to the B-47 crew, at a position in agreement with radar and visual observations from the aircraft.

According to the officer, upon return to the AFB electronic counter-measures, graphic data, and radar scope pictures which had been taken during the flight were removed from the plane by Intelligence personnel. He recalled that an Intelligence questionnaire regarding the experience had later been completed by the B-47 crew; however, the "security lid"

[[397]]

shut off further information regarding the encounter. The crew learned nothing more regarding the incident, and the pilot occasionally had wondered about the identity of the phenomena encountered ever since his experience...

... After the UFO had held the two o'clock position and ten-mile range through various test changes in aircraft speed, the number two monitoring officer informed the pilot that the target was starting to move up-scope. It moved to a position dead ahead of the plane, holding a ten-mile range, and again became visible to the eye as a huge, steady, red glow. The pilot went to maximum speed. The target appeared to stop, and as the plane got close to it and flew over it, the target disappeared from visual observation, from monitor number two, and from ground radar. (The operator of monitor number two also recalled the B-47 navigator's having this target on his radar, and the target's disappearing from his radar scope at the same time). The pilot began to turn back. About half way around the turn, the target reappeared on both the monitor and ground radar scopes and visually at an estimated altitude of 15,000 ft. The pilot received permission from Ground Control to change altitude, and dove the plane at the target, which appeared stationary. As the plane approached to an estimated distance of five miles the target vanished again from both visual observation and radar. Limited fuel caused the pilot to abandon the chase at this point and head for his base. As the pilot leveled off at 20,000 ft. a target again appeared on number two monitor, this time behind the B-47. The officer operating the number two monitoring unit, however, believes that he may have been picking up the ground radar signal at this point. The signal faded out as the B-47 continued flight.

The co-pilot and number two monitoring officer were most impressed by the sudden disappearance of the target and its reappearance at a new location. As they recalled the event, the target could be tracked part of the time on the radar monitoring screen, as described above, but, at least once, disappeared from the right side of the plane, appeared on their left, then suddenly on their right again, with no "trail" on the radar scope to indicate movement of the target between successive positions...

http://912a-87.umd.edu/condon/text/case05.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #99
Los Angeles; 1942

One potentially major WWII UFO event is inappropriately called The Battle of Los Angeles. I have a little bit of knowledge of this event since my dad was there. The newspaper reports are widely available and the only real question is at what, if anything, did the civil defenses of Los Angeles fire over 1400 anti-aircraft rounds in 1942. The following link provides mostly factual information. Please ignore any introductory hype. The reports that follow are directly from the local papers of the time. Next, a link to Bruce Maccabee's analysis of the photos is given.

http://www.rense.com/ufo/battleofLA.htm

http://www.rense.com/general28/histla.htm

Maccabee's analysis:
http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BattleofLA.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
If this subject is all nonsense, then why do so many people spend so much time and energy trying to disprove it.

Because the debunkers are the Men In Black? Actually, there are books claiming that Men in Black really do exist. I of course always remain agnostic, until I acquire some tangible proof.

Here is a good ufo site: http://www.disclosureproject.com/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #101
Mansfield, Ohio; 1973

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPOSITION FORM
AR 340-15: the proponent agency is The Adjutant General's Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Office Symbol ) Subject
)
) Near Midair Collision with UFO Report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Commandor Flight Operations Off DATE 23 Nov 73 Cmt 1
83D USARCOM USAR Flight Facility
ATTN: AHRCCG Cleveland Hopkins Airport
Columbus Support Facility Cleveland, Ohio 44135


1. On 18 October 1973 at 2305 hours in the vicinity of Mansfield, Ohio,Army Helicopter 68-15444 assigned to Cleveland USARFFAC encountered a near midair collision with a unidentified flying object. Four crewmembers assigned to the Cleveland USARFFAC for flying proficiency were on AFTP status when this incident occurred. The flight crew assigned was CPT Lawrence J. Coyne, Pilot in Command,1LT Arrigo Jozzi, Copilot, SSG Robert Yanacsek, Crew Chief, SSG John Healey,Flight Medio,All the above personnel are member of the 316th MED DET(HEL AMB). a tenant reserve unit of the Cleveland USARFFAC.

2. The reported incident happened as follows: Army Helicopter 68-15444 was returning from Columbus, Ohio to Cleveland, Ohio and at 2305 hours east, south east of Mansfield Airport in the vicinity of Mansfield, Ohio while flying at an altitude of 2500 feet and on a heading of 030 degrees, SSG Yanacsek observed a red light on the east horizon,90 drgrees to the flight path of the helicopter. Approximately 30 seconds later, SSG Yanacsek indicated the object was converging on the helicopter at the same altitude at a airspeed in excess of 600 knots and on a midair collision heading.

Cpt Coyne observed the converging object, took over the controls of the aircraft and initiated a power descent from 2500 feet to 1700 feet to avoid impact with the object. A radio call was initiated to Mansfield Tower who acknowledged the helicopter and was asked by CPT Coyne if there were any high performance aircraft flying in the vicinity of Mansfield Airport however there was no response received from the tower. The crew expected impact from the object instead, the object was observed to hesistate momontarily over the helicopter and then slowly continued on a westerly course accelerating at a high rate of speed, clear west of Mansfield Airport then turn 45 degree heading to the Northwest. Cpt Coyne indicated the altimeter read a 1000 fpm olimp and read 3500 feet with the collective in the full down position. The aircraft was returned to 2500 feet by CPT Coyne and flown back to Cleveland, Ohio. The flight plan was closed and the FAA Flight Service Station notified of the incident. The FSS told CPT Coyne to report the incident to the FAA GADO office a Cleveland Hopkins Airport Mr. Porter, 83d USARCOM was notified of the incident at 1530 hours on 19 Oct 73.

3. This report has been read and attested to by the crewmembers of the aircraft with signatures acknowledgeing this report.

Lawrence J. Coyne Arrigo Jozzi
_______________________ _____________________

Robert Yanacsek John Healey
_______________________ ______________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DA FORM 2496
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa081098.htm

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/coyne.htm

The FOIA document for this event:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/foia_007.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #102
We have seen the alien and he is us.
 
  • #103
Hessdalen Project

6. Hessdalen Project

Strand summarized the design and operation of the Hessdalen Project. Hessdalen is a valley in central Norway, 120 kilometers south of Trondheim. The valley is 12 kilometers long and a maximum of 5 kilometers wide. The hills to the west and to the east rise to about 1,000 meters above sea level. Most people in the valley live at a height of about 800 meters.

In December 1981 the inhabitants of the Hessdalen valley began to report seeing strange lights. They were sometimes visible three or four times a day. There were hundreds of reports during the period 1981 to 1985, but the phenomenon began to decrease during 1984, and since 1985 there have been comparatively few sightings. Most observations were on winter nights: there were comparatively few during the summer or during the day.

Witnesses reported observations that seemed to fit into three different categories:

Type 1: A yellow "bullet," with the sharp end pointing down.
Type 2: A strong blue-white light, sometimes flashing, always moving.
Type 3: A pattern comprising many light sources with different colors that moved as if they were physically connected.

In 1983, a small group with five participants set up "Project Hessdalen." They received assistance from the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, the University of Oslo, and the University of Bergen. They carried out field work in the Hessdalen valley from January 21, 1984 to February 26, 1984, when up to 19 investigators were in the field at the same time. The project then involved three stations with observers and their cameras, some cameras fitted with gratings to obtain spectroscopic information. At the principal station, observers used the following equipment: cameras, some fitted with gratings; an infrared viewer; a spectrum analyzer; a seismograph; a magnetometer; radar equipment; a laser; and a Geiger counter.

Lights that were recorded to be below the contours of the mountains must have originated in the Hessdalen region, but lights that were recorded to be above the crest line may have originated at a great distance. Without triangulation or other information, it is impossible to determine the distances of the lights. However, some of the events that were seen as lights were tracked also by radar. If taken at face value, the radar measurements would imply speeds up to 30,000 kilometers per hour. (However, see Appendix 4.)

During a period of four days, unknown lights were seen on 10 occasions, and the flux-gate magnetometer registered 21 pulsations, of which 4 appear to correspond with the observations of lights, suggesting an association between some of the unknown lights and magnetic disturbances. The gratings on the cameras were intended to obtain spectroscopic data: the spectra appear to be continuous, with no indication of either emission lines or absorption lines.

Observations continue to be reported from the Hessdalen valley; the rate is now about 20 reports per year. An automatic measurement station, for installation in Hessdalen, is now being developed and prepared at Ostfold College (Norway), which is the present base of Project Hessdalen. This station will include a CCD-type camera in the visible region. The output from the CCD-camera will be fed automatically to a computer which will trigger a video recorder. This automatic station will hopefully prove to be but a first step in the development of a network of stations.

As a result of this presentation, the panel concluded that there would be merit to designing and deploying a not-too-complicated set of instruments. These should be operated according to a strict protocol in regions where the probability of significant sightings appears to be reasonably high. It is recommended that, as a first step, a set of two separate video recorders be equipped with identical wide-angle objectives and installed on two distant fixed tripods to help eliminate the possibility that some of the apparent motions detected by video recorders are due to the operators' hand movements or ground vibrations. It would also be useful to set up two identical cameras, one of which is fitted with a grating. However, experience so far at Hessdalen indicates that a grating may not be adequate for obtaining spectroscopic information. In view of the great importance of spectroscopic data, it would be highly desirable that special equipment be developed and deployed for obtaining high-resolution spectroscopic data from transient moving sources. This may be a nontrivial problem.

If it proves possible to obtain useful results from a small system, such as suggested above, one may be able to make the case for the design and implementation of a permanent surveillance network. This should be designed as a multi-purpose system so that costs and data can both be shared. This could resemble the Eurociel project that was studied in Europe in the 1980s at the request of GEPAN/SEPRA. (See Appendix 1.)

The panel notes that in cases that involve repeated, semi-regular sightings of lights (such as are said to occur at Hessdalen in Norway and at Marfa in Texas), it is difficult to understand why no rational explanation has been discovered, and it would seem that a small investment in equipment and time should produce useful results.

From:
Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the
Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York
September 29 – October 4, 1997

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/toc.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #104
A recent article on the Mansfield Ohio case; two posts above

UFO still puzzles 30 years later
Soldiers encountered something strange in 'Coyne Incident'

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/stories/20031018/localnews/476885.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
THE BLUEBOOK "UNKNOWNS"

The following files (6) are from the work of Don Berliner, who compiled a listing of the Project Bluebook "unknowns" .
CONTENTS
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six (Conclusion)
Bluebook Part 1
THE BLUE BOOK UNKNOWNS
The unexplained UFO reports from the files of the U.S. Air Force's Project Blue Book UFO investigations.

Compiled by Don Berliner, for the Fund for UFO Research

the conclusions or views expressed in this publication are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Fund for UFO Research, Inc.

THE UNEXPLAINED UFO CASES FROM THE PROJECT BLUE BOOK FILES

In January, 1974, I visited the U.S. Air Force Archives at Maxwell AFB, Montgomery, Ala., to review the files of Project Blue Book as the first step toward writing a book on the subject.

In a full week, I read all the "unexplained" cases in the original files and made extensive notes, including the names and other identifying information on all witnesses where given. The cooperation of the staff of the Archives was excellent, and no restrictions were placed on my work.

A few months later, the files were withdrawn from public view so they could be prepared for transfer to the National Archives in Washington, D.C. This process involved making a xerox copy of almost 30 file drawers of material, blacking out the names and other identifiers of all witnesses, and then microfilming the censored xerox copy. The microfilm has been available to the public at the National Archives since 1976. The original Project Blue Book files remain under lock and key at the Archives.

On almost every page of the 12,000+ case files, there are big black marks where information that could be used to cross-check Project Blue Book's controversial work has been censored.

This includes the names of witnesses to widely-publicized cases, and even names in newspaper clippings!

As it was perfectly legal for me to copy witness' names when I visited the Air Force Archives, those names can be found in this report of 585 (less 13 missing) unexplained cases. And since the Privacy Act, which motivated the Air Force to censor the files in the first place, does not apply to reporters or anyone else outside the Government, they can be used as the reader pleases.

Inasmuch as the book I planned to write has never progressed beyond the manuscript stage, I see no reason to keep this information under wraps any longer. Perhaps it will encourage others to re-investigate cases and make the results known.

"Unidentified" says a great deal...and it says almost nothing.

Probably the most controversial aspect of the entire Air Force investigation of UFOs was its handling of individual cases.

The means by.which one case was determined to be "identified" and another "unidentified" has no doubt fueled more arguments about Project Blue Book than anything else it did.

For many years, Blue Book's most vocal opponents have insisted that the standards by which cases were allegedly explained were grossly unscientific. Blue Book's goal, according to those who held it low esteem, was to attach some explanation to every case, regardless of logic or common sense. Examples of Blue Book saying a violently maneuvering disc was an aircraft, or of blaming a puzzling radar tracking on a supposedly malfunctioning radar set which it never bothered to check out, are numerous in the popular UFO literature.

And they are even more numerous in the files of Project Blue Book. The urgency with which Blue Book officials tagged answers onto cases without having done the proper investigation is obvious, though not proven. But if the Air Force was so eager to label cases "identified", despite the lack of supporting evidence, then those few cases which it labeled "unidentified" presumably withstood every attempt to apply every other kind of label. And so it may be that those cases are truly unidentifiable in familiar terms.

Indeed, the Air Force defines "unidentifiable" cases as those which "apparently contain all pertinent data necessary to suggest a valid hypothesis concerning the lack of explanation of the report, but the description of the object or its motion cannot be correlated with any known object or phenomenon."

To meet such criteria, a report must obviously come from a reputable source, and it must not bear any resemblance to airplanes, balloons, helicopters, spacecraft , birds, clouds, stars, planets, meteors, comets, electrical phenomena, or anything else known to frequent the air, the sky, or nearby space.

Unfortunately, the Air Force failed to stick to its own rules. Some of the "unidentifiable" cases most certainly can be correlated with known objects or phenomena. But most of them cannot. Moreover, many of the so-called "identified" cases cannot honestly be so correlated. But we are primarily concerned here with those cases which Project Blue Book openly admits it tried to explain and failed.

For the complete text and the list of USAF's "Bluebook Unknowns" please see this link:

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/unknowns.htm

Obviously many of these cases could not and cannot be investigated. This list is presented only for completeness.
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
996
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
990
Replies
13
Views
894
Replies
705
Views
133K
Replies
1
Views
850
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
905
Replies
16
Views
2K
Back
Top