Originally posted by zoobyshoe
In what discipline is this a term? Aeronautics? Military? My concern is that if it is a UFOlogist term, like "close encounters of the third kind" it is already coming from a perspective that takes ET Discs as a reasonable alternative to think about. We're not there yet.
We must be able to arrive at some reasonable minimun for visibility with the unaided human eye at 70 miles. We may have to stipulate reasonable levels of fog and haze
and background lighting. You will need to go to this part and get info that can be used to form a useful idea as to how bright it looked at 70 miles. Was it stopping people it their tracks at this distance to look, or did a remote military person who heard the reports go out and look for 10 minutes before he saw a speck he thought might be what they were talking about?
Whoooooops!Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I should point out that reports of this kind, sightings and even some interactions with aircraft go back to WWII.
Ok, in that case I don't think it's useful to describe this crafts characteristics. Describing what was reported is sufficient. The "high strangeness" is gratuitous editorializing.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Its a UFO word but not an ET word. "Seemingly inexplicable", "strange", whatever, it was meant to be subjective really.
A light being visible at 70 miles must have some signifigance as data. Is a helicopter searchlight visible at 70 miles under similar weather conditions? Car headlamp?You really have all of the information available...I think. It is bugging me that it seems that I have another source for this with some additional comments...this may have been lost two computers ago. I will see if Maccabee [UFO buff, optical physicist] has done anything here. I have a couple of books of his that I have only skimmed through.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Whoooooops!
Nothing is going to get you tied up in knots better than creating a mix-and-match UFO encounter from bits and pieces of different reports. You will begin not to be able to separate them in your mind. You start to assume that similar sounding things are in fact the same. You begin to have confidence that one thing supports the other, when, in fact, none at all have been definitely explained as anything.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.
Originally posted by radagast
I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
A light being visible at 70 miles must have some signifigance as data. Is a helicopter searchlight visible at 70 miles under similar weather conditions? Car headlamp?
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Like radagast, I'm confused by what you said.
Here's how the Webster's defines ad hominem:adj[NL, lit., to the person] (1598) 1: an appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
So it is confusing to hear you apparently referring to the ad hominem argument as the "reasonable" one.
Io no capito. How does this make ad hominem arguments reasonable?Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The effort is to discredit the subject and the claimants by insisting that they either saw ET or nothing; therefore it was nothing.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Io no capito. How does this make ad hominem arguments reasonable?
Originally posted by radagast
Dismissing all ideas of UFOs/ETs/etc., what exactly do you mean by the above statement?
I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?
Actually, no. I have an impression of what your "clarifications" mean, but no idea how your original statement constitutes a point of origin for them.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Sorry, I had missed this. Now I see where I created the confusion. Like I said, my intent is clarified above.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Actually, no. I have an impression of what your "clarifications" mean, but no idea how your original statement constitutes a point of origin for them.
As long as you're not asserting that an ad hominem argument is a reasonable one...
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
What this calls to mind is the light blinding devices developed during WWII.
This is why I pointed out the possible intentional nature of the blinding strobe light show - to prevent all this from being seen.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that no craft was ever seen No propulsion system is observed.
I just remembered the Aardvark. I saw one at the Miramar Airshow here in San Diego a few years ago. It can both hover and fly like a jet.The first object paced an F14 in full pursuit
The second object paced an F14 undergoing evasive maneuvers.
I don't follow your logic here at all. Please explain, in tiny little steps.Finally, and this is a new point, the fact that this report exists [and many like it] argues against government cover ups.
Actually, where I would start is far more basic. I don't accept the validity of the report itself. Ivan has said that its source and circulation are evidence of its validity. I disagree. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say about it.Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Here's a place to start...
...all these agencies agreed that the "top brass" mentioned in the distribution list were routinely informed of every item of interest which comes out of the sensitive Middle East area.
The quote you post demonstrates that this incident was considered by these government agencies to be something of "interest" that happened in the Middle East. The routing may not have been specifically established for this report, but the fact this report was put through this routing demonstrates it was considered to be of "interest". These "top brass" are, at least, looking at it and scratching their heads wondering, "Is this of potential importance?"Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan has said that its source and circulation are evidence of its validity. I disagree. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say about it.
Speaking for myself, the fact the military termed it a UFO simply means they couldn't identify it. Nothing more.It says in another link that under some circumstances, any radar contact that can't be specifically identified is classified as a ufo. That follows logically of course, though to the general public (Ivan excluded), the term "ufo" has a special meaning, which is unfortunate.
Without knowing what each person who saw the report said in response not much more can be said about the fact it was circulated than that there was, at least, some wonder in high circles if it had any signifiganceI have yet to find any actual government analysis of the communication. Still looking though.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is why I pointed out the possible intentional nature of the blinding strobe light show - to prevent all this from being seen.
I just remembered the Aardvark. I saw one at the Miramar Airshow here in San Diego a few years ago. It can both hover and fly like a jet.
There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and
There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.
With the termination of Project Blue Book, the Air Force regulation establishing and controlling the program for investigating and analyzing UFOs was rescinded. Documentation regarding the former Blue Book investigation was permanently transferred to the Modern Military Branch, National Archives and Records Service, and is available for public review and analysis.
Since the termination of Project Blue Book, nothing has occurred that would support a resumption of UFO investigations by the Air Force. Given the current environment of steadily decreasing defense budgets, it is unlikely the Air Force would become involved in such a costly project in the foreseeable future.
There are a number of universities and professional scientific organizations that have considered UFO phenomena during periodic meetings and seminars. A list of private organizations interested in aerial phenomena may be found in "Encyclopedia of Associations," published by Gale Research. Interest in and timely review of UFO reports by private groups ensures that sound evidence is not overlooked by the scientific community. Persons wishing to report UFO sightings should be advised to contact local law enforcement agencies.
Again, I'd like to hear a clarification of this by someone who would know (NSA or military). If the criteria was simply that (for example) every contact not specifically identified as benign gets reported in this way, then there is nothing special at all implied by the circulation of this one.Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The quote you post demonstrates that this incident was considered by these government agencies to be something of "interest" that happened in the Middle East. The routing may not have been specifically established for this report, but the fact this report was put through this routing demonstrates it was considered to be of "interest". These "top brass" are, at least, looking at it and scratching their heads wondering, "Is this of potential importance?"
Originally posted by russ_watters
My point is simply that we can deduce nothing about this report from its circulation.
Yes please.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Should we go on to the next case?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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 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.
This all being:This all lends strongly I think to my position that the events in Iran do not represent a 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...)This does ignore the possibility that the government conspires to perpetuate the UFO myth in order to mask secret super-technology
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?"Again, no craft is seen.
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:Proximity to the phenomenon, within 25 NM it seems, can interfere with avionics systems, and at some lesser range, weapons systems.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
All the technologies to do the individual things this thing did existed in 1976.
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.
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?"
Here I'm wondering exactly what kind of emp is needed to effect this.
I do not believe we are limited to choices between something natural and ET. This isn't a multiple choice test.
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.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.
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.If us or anyone else had technology like this, it would be matter of national security.
"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."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.
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.Also, becuase of this shielding, these and most any metal plane can take direct hits by lighting with no effects.
The immagination of a Zooby is limitless.More heads yield more ideas, however there are a finite number of potential explanations.
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
The immagination of a Zooby is limitless.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
that reminds me, your cat is becoming a real pain in the butt. I call him: "Mini-me".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.)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?
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.
" 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."
As I read this, a number of questions occurred to me: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.
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).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.
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).
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 .
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."
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]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
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.
“Something like molten metal was dripping…like out of a crucible” [from the sunlike floating orb]
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...
If this subject is all nonsense, then why do so many people spend so much time and energy trying to disprove it.
