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

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Radar/visual: Greenwich; Summer 1956

For the complete report please see:

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

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."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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




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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Carlos Hernandez]

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/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Loren Booda]

We have seen the alien and he is us.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

JAL Flight 1628: 1986

Many cases do not support my suggestion that "UFOs" are a natural phenomenon. Perhaps the secret super technology hypothesis can account for some of the sightings that follow.

JAL Flight 1628: 1986

Dateline:02/07/00

November 17, 1986
Over northeastern Alaska


It was just a routine flight. Well, not exactly routine... It was a special Japan Air Lines 747 cargo flight to carry a load of French wine from Paris to Tokyo. The flight plan would carry flight 1628 from Paris to Reykjavik, Iceland, across the North Atlantic and Greenland, then across Canada to Anchorage, Alaska, and finally across the Pacific to Tokyo. The crew consisted of veteran Captain Kenju Terauchi, co-pilot Takanori Tamefuji, and flight engineer Yoshio Tsukuba.

On November 16, 1986, laden with wine, JAL1628 took off from Paris and flew the first leg of the trip, to Reykjavik. The next day, they continued, flying over Greenland and then across northern Canada without event.

Just after they crossed into Alaska, at 5:09 PM local time, Anchorage Air Traffic Control contacted them on the radio to report initial radar contact. The Anchorage flight controller asked them to turn 15 degrees to the left and head for a point known as Talkeetna on a heading of 215 degrees. They were at 35,000 feet and traveling at a ground speed of about 600 mph.

At about 5:11 PM local time, Captain Terauchi noticed the lights of some sort of aircraft about 2000 feet below and 30 degrees to the left front of them. He decided that the aircraft was probably an American jet fighter from nearby Eielson or Elmendorf Air Force Bases patrolling Alaskan airspace, so he ignored them at first. However, after a few minutes, he noticed that the lights were keeping pace with his own aircraft, which would be an unusual thing for patrolling jets to do.

It was about seven or so minutes since we began paying attention to the lights (when), most unexpectedly, two spaceships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights. The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face.

Terauchi said that it was his impression that the two objects he had seen below them minutes before had suddenly jumped in from of him. The craft, one above the other, kept pace with the 747 for several minutes, moving in unison with an odd rocking motion. After about seven minutes, they changed to a side-by-side arrangement. Terauchi said that the "amber and whitish" lights were like flames coming out of multiple rocket exhaust ports arranged in two rectangular rows on the craft. He felt that they fired in a particular sequence to stabilize the craft, much like the small maneuvering thrusters on the Space Shuttle. He also reported seeing sparks like a fire when using gasoline or carbon fuel.

Co-pilot Tamefuji described the lights as "Christmas assorted" lights with a "salmon" color. He said: I remember red or orange, and white landing light, just like a landing light. And weak green, ah, blinking. He also described the lights as pulsating slowly. They became stronger, became weaker., became stronger, became weaker, different from strobe lights. The lights were "swinging" in unison as if there were "very good formation flight...close" of two aircraft side by side. He described the appearance of the lights as similar to seeing "night flight head-on traffic", where it is only possible to see the lights on an approaching aircraft and "we can not see the total shape." He said, I'm sure I saw something. It was clear enough to make me believe that there was an oncoming aircraft.

Flight engineer Tsukuba, who sat behind the copilot, did not have as good a view of the lights. He first saw them "through the L1 window at the 11 o'clock position" and he saw "clusters of lights undulating". These clusters were "made of two parts...shaped like windows of an airplane". He emphasized that "the lights in front of us were different from town lights." He described the colors as white or amber.

Tamefuji decided to call Anchorage Air Traffic Control, and for the next thirty minutes the 747 and AARTCC were in constant contact regarding the UFO.

During this time, Captain Terauchi asked Tskububa to hand him a camera so that he could attempt to take a photograph of the lights. However, Terauchi was unfamiliar with the camera and could not get it to operate. Tsukuba also could not get his camera to operate due to problems with the auto-focus and finally gave up trying to take a photo.

At this point they began experiencing some radio interference and were asked by Anchorage to change frequencies. Terauchi later said that Anchorage kept asking him about clouds in the immediate area: They asked us several times if there were clouds near our altitude. We saw thin and spotty clouds near the mountain below us, no clouds in mid-to-upper air, and the air current was steady.

Soon after the exchanges about clouds, the objects flew off to the left. Terauchi said later: There was a pale white flat light in the direction where the ships flew away, moving in a line along with us, in the same direction and same speed and at the same altitude as we were.

Terauchi decided to see whether they could see anything on the 747's own radar:

I thought it would be impossible to find anything on an aircraft radar if a large ground radar did not show anything, but I judged the distance of the object visually and it was not very far. I set the digital weather radar distance to 20 (nautical) miles, radar angle to horizon (i.e., no depression angle). There it was on the screen. A large green and round object had appeared at 7 or 8 miles (13 km to 15 km) away, where the direction of the object was. We reported to Anchorage center that our radar caught the object within 7 or 8 miles in the 10 o'clock position. We asked them if they could catch it on ground radar but it did not seem they could catch it at all

At 5:25:45, after spending two minutes looking, the military radar at Elmendorf Regional Operational Control Center also picked up something. The ROCC radar controller reported back to the AARTCC that he was getting some "surge primary return." By this he meant an occasional radar echo unaccompanied by a transponder signal...

See the following link for the complete text and other links.

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa020700a.htm

http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/Jal1628.html

http://ufos.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.qtm.net/%7Egeibdan/a2000/jan/k2.htm

http://ufos.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.vandra.clara.net/parvati/caus8606.txt

 

[Loren Booda]

...and the wine was later found turned to Perrier.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Kinross AFB, Michigan: November 23, 1953

Missing F-89 Case

03-July-1999
The 23 November 1953 "Kinross Case," wherein a US Air Force F-89C jet fighter was scrambled from Kinross AFB Michigan on an "active air defense mission" to intercept an "unknown aircraft" and disappeared with two crew members aboard, is considered by many to be one of the "UFO classics." Controversy remains over what the "unknown aircraft," which was the target of the interception, was. USAF records presented here indicate that it was a Canadian aircraft. Canadian officials have denied that any of their aircraft was the target of an interception mission by the USAF on the date in question. The USAF seems to have changed its story over the years about just what Canadian aircraft was being intercepted and has been silent on the method by which they identified the aircraft. (See the UFO Evidence (Ref. Below) for an official Canadian statement)

It is the occurrence of the radar trace of the "unknown aircraft" and the F-89 appearing to "merge" on the Ground Control radar screen shortly after (voice) radio and IFF contact with the F-89 were lost that has made this case loom large in UFO circles. Some print references have the remaining single "blip" moving rapidly off the radar screens, but the USAF records presented here indicate that the "unknown aircraft" continued on its original course.

The weather, although stable as far as flight is concerned, was winter. Even if the crew survived a hypothetical crash, their chances for survival would be considerably diminished by the freezing temperatures, especially if they went into the water. Snow on the ground certainly hampered the search activities.

Whatever the case, no trace of the F-89 or either of the crewmembers were ever located even though an extensive search was mounted in the days immediately after the F-89 went missing.

All the print references (below) give the last known position of the F-89C as 'at 8000 feet altitude, 70 miles off Keweenaw Point, 160 (or 150) miles northwest of Soo Locks,' probably indicating a single source of information. This location is indeed over Lake Superior.

However, the USAF Aircraft Accident Report material we have indicates on two different documents the last reported position as ": AT COORDINATES 45 DEGREES 00 MINUTES NORTH - 86 DEGREES 49 MINUTES WEST." This position is not over Lake Superior, but is over Lake Michigan. All of Lake Superior is north of 46 degrees north latitude. This seems a considerable discrepancy of about 180 miles. The Canadian search plan quotes the other pilots as saying that if Moncla was in trouble, he would have steered 150 deg (roughly SE) as his "homing" path. This jibes with the point in Lake Superior. The search patterns as depicted in the USAF records also jibe with the Lake Superior area. The point in Lake Michigan is due south of the point in Lake Superior... could the 45 deg N latitude be a typo which should be 47 degrees? See Map with above points plotted.

Click here to view the USAF Aircraft Accident Report

the report continues...

Please see the following links.
http://www.cufon.org/kinross/Kinross_acc_rept.htm

http://www.cufon.org/kinross/kinross_missing.htm

To my knowledge, this is the only example of a gravestone that relates an UFO to the cause of death. Although this is not significant, it is an unusual bit of trivia.
http://www.nuforc.org/mancla.html

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Mantell Case: January 7, 1948

Captain Edward J. Ruppelt:
On January 7 all of the late papers in the U.S. carried headlines similar to those in the Louisville Courier: "F-51 and Capt. Mantell Destroyed Chasing Flying Saucer." This was Volume I of"The Classics," the Mantell Incident.

At one-fifteen on that afternoon the control tower operators at Godman AFB, outside Louisville, Kentucky, received a telephone call from the Kentucky State Highway Patrol. The patrol wanted to know if Godman Tower knew anything about any unusual aircraft in the vicinity. Several people from Maysville, Kentucky, a small town 80 miles east of Louisville, had reported seeing a strange aircraft. Godman knew that they had nothing in the vicinity so they called Flight Service at Wright-Patterson AFB. In a few minutes Flight Service called back. Their air Traffic control board showed no flights in the area. About twenty minutes later the state police called again. This time people from the towns of Owensboro and Irvington, Kentucky, west of Louisville, were reporting a strange craft. The report from these two towns was a little more complete. The towns people had described the object to the state police as being "circular, about 250 to 300 feet in diameter," and moving westward at a "pretty good clip." Godman Tower checked Flight Service again. Nothing. All this time the tower operators had been looking for the reported object. They theorized that since the UFO had had to pass north of Godman to get from Maysville to Owensboro it might come back.

At one forty-five they saw it, or something like it. Later, in his official report, the assistant tower operator said that he had seen the object for several minutes before he called his chiefs attention to it. He said that he had been reluctant to "make a flying saucer report." As soon as the two men in the tower had assured themselves that the UFO they saw was not an airplane or a weather balloon, they called Flight Operations. They wanted the operations officer to see the UFO. Before long word of the sighting had gotten around to key personnel on the base, and several officers, besides the base operations officer and the base intelligence officer, were in the tower. All of them looked at the UFO through the tower's 6 x 50 binoculars and decided they couldn't identify it. About this time Colonel Hix, the base commander, arrived. He looked and he wasbaffled. At two-thirty, they reported, they were discussing what should be done when four F-51's came into view, approaching the base from the south.

The tower called the flight leader, Captain Mantell, and asked him to take a look at the object and try to identify it. One F-51 in the flight was running low on fuel, so he asked permission to go on to his base. Mantell took his two remaining wing men, made a turn, and started after the UFO The people in Godman Tower were directing him as none of the pilots could see the object at this time. They gave Mantell an initial heading toward the south and the flight was last seen heading in the general direction of the UFO.

By the time the F-51's had climbed to 10,000 feet, the two wing men later reported, Mantell had pulled out ahead of them and they could just barely see him. At two forty-five Mantell called the tower and said, "I see something above and ahead of me and I'm still climbing." All the people in the tower heard Mantell say this and they heard one of the wing men call back and ask, "What the hell are we looking for?" The tower immediately called Mantell and asked him for a description of what he saw. Odd as it may seem, no one can remember exactly what he answered. Saucer historians have credited him with saying, "I've sighted the thing. It looks metallic and it's tremendous in size... Now it's starting to climb." Then in a few seconds he is supposed to have called and said, "It's above me and I'm gaining on it. I'm going to 20,000 feet." Everyone in the tower agreed on this one last bit of the transmission, "I'm going to 20,000 feet," but didn't agree on the first part, about the UFO's being metallic and tremendous.

The two wing men were now at 15,000 feet and trying frantically to call Mantell. He had climbed far above them by this time and was out of sight. Since none of them had any oxygen they were worried about Mantell. Their calls were not answered. Mantell never talked to anyone again. The two wing men leveled off at 15,000 feet, made another fruitless effort to call Mantell, and started to come back down. As they passed Godman Tower on their way to their base, one of them said something to the effect that all he had seen was a reflection on his canopy.

When they landed at their base, Standiford Field, just north of Godman, one pilot had his F-51 refueled and serviced with oxygen, and took off to search the area again. He didn't see anything.

At three-fifty the tower lost sight of the UFO. A few minutes later they got word that Mantell had crashed and was dead.

The report continues...

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/mantell1.htm

The Mantell Case Directory
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/mantelldir.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Nicholas Roerich: 1929

I contacted the Roerich Museum in New York and confirmed the following quote. The curator’s assistant, being very familiar with this excerpt then added that Roerich’s wife was also on this expedition. In her diary she comments that this must have been a craft with people from somewhere else; then she suggests the existence of life on other planets. [Ivan]

On August fifth [1929] - something remarkable! We were in our camp in the Kukunor district not far from the Humboldt Chain. In the morning about half-past nine some of our caravaneers noticed a remarkably big black eagle flying over us. Seven of us began to watch this unusual bird. At this same moment another of our caravaneers remarked, ‘There is something far above the bird’. And he shouted in his astonishment. We all saw, in a direction from north to south, something big and shiny reflecting the sun, like a huge oval moving at great speed. Crossing our camp the thing changed in its direction from south to southwest. And we saw how it disappeared in the intense blue sky. We even had time to take our field glasses and saw quite distinctly an oval form with shiny surface, one side of which was brilliant from the sun.

-----Nicholas Roerich, Altai-Himalaya

 

[xeguy]

I've skimmed this thread and don't understand why I am supposed to be convinced of UFOs. All these articles that have been posted read like novellas. They generally fall into two different categories:

1. Those that can be explained without invoking UFOs.

2. Those that can't be explained.

Most fall into the first category. Any which fall into the second category neither support or discount UFO involvement. I want tangible proof. It might be fun to believe that these events were the result of ETs (I watched some X-Files when it was on too), but thinking logically, there is no scientific proof. The whole UFO and related pseudoscientific theories rely too much on trying to make "skeptics" prove a negative. Maybe the Philadelphia Expt. sent a naval vessel through time and space and made contact with the Lizard-people (amazing for 1940s era technology), or maybe it was part of degaussing experiment.

Conspiracies and cover-ups are great because it's impossible to disprove them to any devotee's satisfaction. Plus, any "evidence" in favor of one can be manufactured with a bit of imagination and a liberal interpretation of factual events.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by xeguy
I've skimmed this thread and don't understand why I am supposed to be convinced of UFOs.

If you read the entire thread you will see that your comments are completely out of context.

Also, feel free to explain these case one at a time...with tangible proof.

 

[xeguy]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If you read the entire thread you will see that your comments are completely out of context.

Also, feel free to explain these case one at a time...with tangible proof.

Sure, if I had extended amounts of time and thought anything I would say would change your mind...

For example, you can read about the Los Angeles incident in many places which don't resort to the need for UFOs piloted by ETs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by xeguy
Sure, if I had extended amounts of time and thought anything I would say would change your mind...

For example, you can read about the Los Angeles incident in many places which don't resort to the need for UFOs piloted by ETs.

If you read the thread you will see that no ET hypothesis is asserted. It seems your mind is made up before even reading what I have to say.

Thanks for the demo!

 

[mouseonmoon]

obviously ; the Debunkers have scurred off to their " Bunkers"!

(you know who you are!)

not a response! not a new thread!--in days-that makes any sense!

ergo: UFO's EXIST!

=====
i would like to suggest that "you"
(whoever yu are)
start a new thread- on TOPIC!

IF you have any 'valid' response!

InOWs: Debunk this!-name it !

yu 'know' what you're talkin' about...?
or do you?

i'm so tired of of of of 'looney toones'...

so tired of Skeptics...who _seriously-
haven't done their homework...

Those who 'scoff' at the mere mention of ...

start a new thread! prove to me ( an unbiased bystander-
Baloon Skeptic Society President!)

that:
UFO's do NOT EXIT!

peace! and well being to All Flatlanders!

I'm serious!

<<edit: Ok , i admit it sounds like I'm asking 'you' to prove a negative--not so...i'm asking debunkers to show that there are ,in fact, no UFOs in spite of the continuous UFO reports daily...for over 50 years!...UFOs exist-and there's no need to assume ET is behind it all...they are simply "unidentified"--lets 'identify' 'em!...they don't have to be "Flying Saucers"...something is going on-and it's not all in the minds of 'moonshiners'...

 

[xeguy]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If you read the thread you will see that no ET hypothesis is asserted. It seems your mind is made up before even reading what I have to say.

Thanks for the demo!

I see no definitive proof of anything on either side.

Glad to help!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by xeguy
I see no definitive proof of anything on either side.

Neither do I. That's why it bothers me so much.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A good example of internet debunking.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13065

Thanks for bringing this to our attention Julian Solos.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Spauer/Neff, Portage County UFO Chase

If this incident seems familiar to you, just maybe you saw the motion picture, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". Investigated by NICAP's William Weitzel, this report, also known as the Spauer/Neff Case, was the basis for the UFO "chase" in this film. This case involves police witnesses, confrontation, light beam, brilliant illumination, light engulfment, sound, cat and mouse chase, with rapid upward departure. Special thanks go out to Mark Rodeghier of CUFOS for providing the documentation and to Loy Pressley for converting them into text so I could make the web pages.

Richard Hall:
One of the most dramatic encounters by police officers with an apparently structured, low-level UFO occurred in the early morning of April 17, 1966. Officers of the Portage County, Ohio, Sheriff's Department first saw the object rise up from near ground level, bathing them in light, near Ravenna, Ohio, about 5:00 A.M. Ordered by the sergeant to pursue the object, they chased it for eighty-five miles across the border into Pennsylvania, as it seemed to play a cat-and-mouse game with them. Along the route, police officers from other jurisdictions saw the object and joined in the chase.

Deputy Sheriff Dale Spaur and Mounted Deputy Wilbur 'Barney’ Neff had left their scout car to investigate an apparently abandoned automobile on Route 224. Spaur described the sighting in these words:

“I always look behind me so no one can come up behind me. And when I looked in this wooded area behind us, I saw this thing. At this time it was coming up . . . to about tree top level. I'd say about one hundred feet. it started moving toward us... As it came over the trees, I looked at Barney and he was still watching the car . . and he didn't say nothing and the thing kept getting brighter and the area started to get light. .. . I told him to look over his shoulder, and he did.

"He just stood there with his mouth open for a minute, as bright as it was, and he looked down. And I started looking down and I looked at my hands and my clothes weren't burning or anything, when it stopped right over on top of us. The only thing, the only sound in the whole area was a hum . . . like a transformer being loaded or an overloaded transformer when it changes. . . .

"I was petrified, and, uh, so I moved my right foot, and everything seemed to work all right. And evidently he made the same decision I did, to get something between me and it, or us and it, or whatever you would say. So we both went for the car, we got in the car and we sat there...[continued]

For the complete report and copies of the police records:
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/portagedir.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Bethune/Gandor Encounter

AIR INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION REPORT

Dir/Int, Hq NEAC IR-4-51 page 2 of 2 pages

1. The following described unidentifed aircraft/object was sighted off the coast of Newfoundland by MATS Navy C-54 crew.

a. Originally sighted as a single, heavy, yellowish light, similar in appearance to that of a city. As object approached observing aircraft, it grew very bright and large, and appeared to be simi-circular in shape. Near aircraft, it did a 180 degree turn and was last seen as a small ball disappearing over the horizon. The speed was "terrific" and the size "tremendous" to quote observers. The difference in size between the time it was first seen and last seen as a small ball going over the horizon was described as tremendous, at least 100 times larger.

b. Sighted at 0055Z on 10 February 1951 and remained visible for approximately 7 or 8 minutes.

c. Visually observered from MATS Navy C-54 #56501 of VR-1 Squadron based at Patuxent, Maryland, flying at 10,000 feet altitude, 182 knots air speed, 225 degrees true course.

d. Observing aircraft was at 4950N 5030W at the time of observation. Object appeared over the water's surface at approximately a 45 degree downward angle from the observing aircraft and was making good a true course of approximately 125 degrees. Upon approaching observing aircraft, it executed a sudden turn approximating 180 degrees and disappeared very rapidly over the horizon.

e. Object sighted by 5 crew members, listed below, of the above aircraft, who are all experienced North Atlantic fliers. Gander Traffic Control reports no other aircraft known to be in the vicinity at time of sighting. All 5 observers agree on facts as stated, but there has been no confirmation from other sources. Believe C-3 appropriate.

Lt Fred W. Kingdon - 173390 (First to see object)
Lt A. L. Jones - 391096
Lt G. E. Bethune - 299055
Lt N. G. S. Koger - 305875
Lt J. M. Mayer - 283836

f. Weather clear, visibility from 15 miles to unlimited, no other weather information available.

g. No unusual meteorological activity known to exist and having any influence on the sighting. This object could not have been a comet as the object was below and between the aircraft and ocean.

h. No physical evidence available.

i. No interception action taken.

2. The above information was forwared from this Headquarters to Headquarters, USAF by ** on 10 February 1951 by ******, NEAC E* **** *** ** 0215.


For the complete details see:
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/candir.htm