You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Proof UFOs are Not for Idiots
- Thread starter Rif
- Start date
Yes and the line that the Airforce and some debukers use is; "the UFO don't exhibit any techological superior characteristics" well in 1950 for an aircraft to go 150,000 feet at great speeds seems to me to indicate some type of advancment in technology.
So my real question is: If you skew the evidence toward your belief system is it real science? That is what has been done.
By the way this new evidence has been brought forth by Dr. Bruce Maccabee a great researcher in the UFO field. Who also has proven many UFO vidio cases as fakes.
To me that is a real scientist.
rif
So my real question is: If you skew the evidence toward your belief system is it real science? That is what has been done.
By the way this new evidence has been brought forth by Dr. Bruce Maccabee a great researcher in the UFO field. Who also has proven many UFO vidio cases as fakes.
To me that is a real scientist.
rif
One of the posts from BatM discusses how many times people have been fooled and instruments have been fooled. This is true and if you go to any credible UFO site you will see time and time again those explanations first put forth when they fit. But although many say UFO researchers are prejudice I find many are more bent on finding natural explantion because they don't have the time or the money to research the mundane case. What we are left with usually are real UFO's.
Now as far as the Aroura this is a rediculus explanation for 50 years of radar returnes and intercepts and such. I won't even answer that challenge. To use the debunkers term. There isn't any proof the Aroura exist.
rif
Now as far as the Aroura this is a rediculus explanation for 50 years of radar returnes and intercepts and such. I won't even answer that challenge. To use the debunkers term. There isn't any proof the Aroura exist.
rif
Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Well not to rock the boat, or UFO, but there is plenty of evidence that UFOs are real, and not so unknown, it does alarm me that there is still a question , exspecaillay from scientist, or a phisicist.
Plenty of evidence? Like what? Does that evidence really prove that there are UFOs?
Will optical illusions and the like account for over 5,000 years of sightings, particularly ones which describe metalic objects? It's interesting that everyone talks about Kenneth Arnold and his "modern" wave of UFO's, but no one talks about the great "Airship Invation" which took place in America in the 1800's, or the story that there were people on these great flying airships. Everyone loves to think the phenomenon is new, and it's a cult started after World War II. No one seems to want to admit that the idea of giant ships floating in the sky carrying passengers on them is many thousands of years old.
Originally posted by Xevious
Will optical illusions and the like account for over 5,000 years of sightings, particularly ones which describe metalic objects?
In a word, yes. Optical illusions, myths, psychological disorders, electromagnetic phenomena, and so on. Aren't these a more likely possibility than unnamed aliens?
You have made a claim now. You now bear a burdon of proof. Make your case and validate your opinion. Cite cases, and which specific phenomenon can account for those specific cases. Give good examples.
It would have been one thing, BatM to say that this or this or this CAN account for it. But, now you have given specific examples of phenomenon which you state DO account for what is observed. You have now taken a position, and are no longer simply saying wether or not the alien hypothesis is proveable or not.
It would have been one thing, BatM to say that this or this or this CAN account for it. But, now you have given specific examples of phenomenon which you state DO account for what is observed. You have now taken a position, and are no longer simply saying wether or not the alien hypothesis is proveable or not.
Okay. I've seen strange phenomena in the sky from time to time. However, I live near an airport and, so, I was quickly able to determine that the "strange phenomena in the sky" was simply an airplane viewed from a strange angle with strange lights. It was an optical illusion.
Actually, I do not have a burden of proof here. I said that there are many possibilities that can account for 5000 years of "sightings" that you claimed. My claim need be no more specific than yours. Since yours is the more "extraordinary" claim, then you need to provide the more "extraordinary" proof that the sightings were not explainable by more mundane things.
:m:
Actually, I do not have a burden of proof here. I said that there are many possibilities that can account for 5000 years of "sightings" that you claimed. My claim need be no more specific than yours. Since yours is the more "extraordinary" claim, then you need to provide the more "extraordinary" proof that the sightings were not explainable by more mundane things.
:m:
I did not say CAN these other phenomenon explain UFO's, I asked WILL they explain UFO sightings. You said yes, they would. You said UFO sightings WILL be explained by natural phenomenon. I think you do have a burdon of proof,or didn't communicate well your idea.
If you think that all UFO sightings can be accounted for by natural phenomenon, then that is an OK opinion. I admit that burdon of proof is still in the lap of believers, and it always will be. The issue is what standards of evidence are required. That is a subject I brought up in another thread, and it seemed no one wanted to touch it.
BTW - the idea that UFO's are a New Age way to find Angels or demons is ludicrus considering how old the phenomenon is.
If you think that all UFO sightings can be accounted for by natural phenomenon, then that is an OK opinion. I admit that burdon of proof is still in the lap of believers, and it always will be. The issue is what standards of evidence are required. That is a subject I brought up in another thread, and it seemed no one wanted to touch it.
BTW - the idea that UFO's are a New Age way to find Angels or demons is ludicrus considering how old the phenomenon is.
Last edited:
That's a very funny way of thinking, considering that many things in observational science can be interprited a variety of ways. Look, you aren't going to get to capture a UFO and put it in the lab anytime soon. All you have is what you can observe, after the fact. Your standards of evidence are skewed for that reason. You must consider the NATURE of the phenomenon in order to come up with reasonable standards before you can judge it, and that is something I am not sure you have done considering how vague your standards are. Many UFO believers think there is solid evidence that cannot be interprited any other way, but I've noticed when those subjects come up here on the forums, skeptics tend to dissappear, or not comment. This is how I look at it, and you are free to point out any flaws you see.
UFO Sightings
In order to obtain anything meaningful from an observation, one must somehow record it. That would mean a sketch, description, or photograph of the object, as well as information on location and time of day. A sighting should be cross-referenced with local airports to be sure that no known aircraft were supposed to be in that vincinety. You can cross-reference with the military as well, but they may not answer you. This is I admit a problem with the investigating of UFO's, which skews the the thinking of skeptics. Since the military cannot tell you if it is a classified aircraft, you cannot eliminate that possibility from the probable causes. Since military aircraft cannot be ruled out, the skeptic will argue that it COULD be a military aircraft. That possibility however, can be eliminated if one takes into account the behavior of the object. The laws of aerodynamics are known, and many behaviors attributed to UFO's defy anything we know about aircraft. One must also consider the source of the original observer. If they can be proven an unreliable witness so be it. Many people do not trust the general public as a whole, but I've worked with the public for some time. Most people are honest enough.
Out of time, more to come.
UFO Sightings
In order to obtain anything meaningful from an observation, one must somehow record it. That would mean a sketch, description, or photograph of the object, as well as information on location and time of day. A sighting should be cross-referenced with local airports to be sure that no known aircraft were supposed to be in that vincinety. You can cross-reference with the military as well, but they may not answer you. This is I admit a problem with the investigating of UFO's, which skews the the thinking of skeptics. Since the military cannot tell you if it is a classified aircraft, you cannot eliminate that possibility from the probable causes. Since military aircraft cannot be ruled out, the skeptic will argue that it COULD be a military aircraft. That possibility however, can be eliminated if one takes into account the behavior of the object. The laws of aerodynamics are known, and many behaviors attributed to UFO's defy anything we know about aircraft. One must also consider the source of the original observer. If they can be proven an unreliable witness so be it. Many people do not trust the general public as a whole, but I've worked with the public for some time. Most people are honest enough.
Out of time, more to come.
Got ununpentium???
No seriously, I do believe that there are some very intelligent people out there that are researching UFO's, Maybe they are not in it for the Martians, but rather want to link the unexplained phenomena to Atmospheric disturbances like Blue lightning etc...
But like Q said, they might have good credentials and know their math, but that doesn't stop them from being a crackpot, which is exactly why we also should keep questioning the validity of the oldskool theory of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity...
No seriously, I do believe that there are some very intelligent people out there that are researching UFO's, Maybe they are not in it for the Martians, but rather want to link the unexplained phenomena to Atmospheric disturbances like Blue lightning etc...
But like Q said, they might have good credentials and know their math, but that doesn't stop them from being a crackpot, which is exactly why we also should keep questioning the validity of the oldskool theory of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity...
Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Registered Senior Member
Well so far we have looked at the points that such crafts are using a energy that can be used by humans and that it has a shape that is area effective relatvant to gravity and structual demnsions, we have looked at the given base of mathical formular that define alien math, at least pi, universal shape, and other events of the craft or effective the design of the craft. this has given us a lot of information about the craft alien or human.
looking at the craft again to gain deeper insight to its function and how to obtain such a craft use such a craft ect.....
what else we can assmenle is that the craft is not design for the saftey of the passanger, this demonstrates that the craft is not universal in traveling nor galaxtic, this leaves only several options open, one the craft was brought here by a lartge craft that travels long space distance, two the craft is from a near by star or solar system within the same are of are galaxy, plainly are star cluster, of which they would have just stumbled to find earth for the most part. and three they are human inorgin in the first place. the fourth option is that the craft was designed for a exstremly small passanger, where here it seems very unlike that it was designed for a exstremmly small passanger given that the reports define the ocupants/passangers as to large to meet the safty mark.
However be it if the craft does carry passangers of alien orgin under the given report size group, then the builders of the craft that designed the craft for the space travel where thinking of other mechanical operations of the craft and its preformance rather than the occupants and the saftey of the occupants that where to travel the medium of space. lets look at this point, because after all that form of concept is not much different than what goes on, on earth. it would seem after all that they are remarkably simular to us or the organization of practice so prvailant on earth.
if there is a alien in side that ship and we say that the builders thought of the safty reqiurments for the biological life functions of the occupants that were top travel the medium of space, then wee can come up with a very good average of the size of the alien, if they did not think of the occupant then we will be left to guess work. andy way lets look at some facts, the safty requirement of space per human is 2000 ft diameter, ball, under tight condtions some 30 ft.wide by 90 ft in height under breif containment 4 sq. ft. by 7 ft height. this are the defintions of confinemt for humans, these factor include air supply vrs CO2, physical motion, i.e exersie for maintaining the body, and for gathering food resouces and mental shapness ect..... these factors are minium, when such fators reach the 30x90 platform such events as air condtioning, water piping ect... come in to great effect on the area.
looking at the report that such crafts them selfs(without notice to reports of alien size) are roughly about 30 ft in diameter, we have to take into account that one much of the crafts appears to have a ring around the craft that limits placing a squaring or cubic factor, therfore we see that the habitat area is less than 30 ft. sq. in fact it would look as if the habitat area is less than or near to one/third of the total diameter that accounts for about 10ft. of habitat area, in addtion it also appears that the craft has apparatus/machine parts that would comsume a portion of that one third of habitat space, in addtion to that the strutural design of the crafts aslo limits heights in comparison to width, this means that the occupant has less than 1,000 cubit ft in which to maintain life function ,scientific exspermints ect.... In general we can see that already the area of habitat space is less than what is needed for humans, this defines that such a creature would be about one/third the size of a human, or any humans with a shoulder width of 18 inches avg. this would define that the alien was 6 inches in witdth at the shoulders, and two ft tall.
Basically your average stick man or lamp post. in general this means that the craft does not appear to be one that would be used by some one that was intreseted in the safty of the occupant, in long term space travel or plainly remote traveling, however other circumstances could exist such as sustaining by the use of a elecrtic field or energy source. regardless the craft would not be designed for the physical structure of a human or a biological life form larger than stated above (6 inchs x 6inchs by 2 ft.).
this actually prescribes the craft as one that was carrried by a large base ship that travels the greater distances,or brief flight as a navy fighter piolet, or personal glider or personal aircraft.
In general it seem very human to me in design, along with its circular shape ect..... i would say that for brief flight it is better on the body than current air planes and fighter planes, at high speed it would have simular effects to a fighter piolet, however it has some dimnsional pluse incomparison. (this does not include whatever g force shild they use ect.. just area design).
here we can see that we have a choice either the ship is alien and has a base ship, or it is planily human.
DWAYNE D.L.RABON
looking at the craft again to gain deeper insight to its function and how to obtain such a craft use such a craft ect.....
what else we can assmenle is that the craft is not design for the saftey of the passanger, this demonstrates that the craft is not universal in traveling nor galaxtic, this leaves only several options open, one the craft was brought here by a lartge craft that travels long space distance, two the craft is from a near by star or solar system within the same are of are galaxy, plainly are star cluster, of which they would have just stumbled to find earth for the most part. and three they are human inorgin in the first place. the fourth option is that the craft was designed for a exstremly small passanger, where here it seems very unlike that it was designed for a exstremmly small passanger given that the reports define the ocupants/passangers as to large to meet the safty mark.
However be it if the craft does carry passangers of alien orgin under the given report size group, then the builders of the craft that designed the craft for the space travel where thinking of other mechanical operations of the craft and its preformance rather than the occupants and the saftey of the occupants that where to travel the medium of space. lets look at this point, because after all that form of concept is not much different than what goes on, on earth. it would seem after all that they are remarkably simular to us or the organization of practice so prvailant on earth.
if there is a alien in side that ship and we say that the builders thought of the safty reqiurments for the biological life functions of the occupants that were top travel the medium of space, then wee can come up with a very good average of the size of the alien, if they did not think of the occupant then we will be left to guess work. andy way lets look at some facts, the safty requirement of space per human is 2000 ft diameter, ball, under tight condtions some 30 ft.wide by 90 ft in height under breif containment 4 sq. ft. by 7 ft height. this are the defintions of confinemt for humans, these factor include air supply vrs CO2, physical motion, i.e exersie for maintaining the body, and for gathering food resouces and mental shapness ect..... these factors are minium, when such fators reach the 30x90 platform such events as air condtioning, water piping ect... come in to great effect on the area.
looking at the report that such crafts them selfs(without notice to reports of alien size) are roughly about 30 ft in diameter, we have to take into account that one much of the crafts appears to have a ring around the craft that limits placing a squaring or cubic factor, therfore we see that the habitat area is less than 30 ft. sq. in fact it would look as if the habitat area is less than or near to one/third of the total diameter that accounts for about 10ft. of habitat area, in addtion it also appears that the craft has apparatus/machine parts that would comsume a portion of that one third of habitat space, in addtion to that the strutural design of the crafts aslo limits heights in comparison to width, this means that the occupant has less than 1,000 cubit ft in which to maintain life function ,scientific exspermints ect.... In general we can see that already the area of habitat space is less than what is needed for humans, this defines that such a creature would be about one/third the size of a human, or any humans with a shoulder width of 18 inches avg. this would define that the alien was 6 inches in witdth at the shoulders, and two ft tall.
Basically your average stick man or lamp post. in general this means that the craft does not appear to be one that would be used by some one that was intreseted in the safty of the occupant, in long term space travel or plainly remote traveling, however other circumstances could exist such as sustaining by the use of a elecrtic field or energy source. regardless the craft would not be designed for the physical structure of a human or a biological life form larger than stated above (6 inchs x 6inchs by 2 ft.).
this actually prescribes the craft as one that was carrried by a large base ship that travels the greater distances,or brief flight as a navy fighter piolet, or personal glider or personal aircraft.
In general it seem very human to me in design, along with its circular shape ect..... i would say that for brief flight it is better on the body than current air planes and fighter planes, at high speed it would have simular effects to a fighter piolet, however it has some dimnsional pluse incomparison. (this does not include whatever g force shild they use ect.. just area design).
here we can see that we have a choice either the ship is alien and has a base ship, or it is planily human.
DWAYNE D.L.RABON
Don't you know that alien spaships are MUCH bigger inside than outside? Actually the engine room itself resides in hyperspace, how would they else be able to surf the superluminal waves? Now the glow you see around the ship when they fly is no hot exhaust but etherturbulence.
It is sad when all the burden of proof is put on the researecher into the UFO phenon. and the explanations by skepptics and debunkers need not be proven. Everything can be explained should be proven or not. One of the reasons Hyneck decided there was something to UFOs is that he found the greater the qualifications of the person making the sighting the greater the chance the sighting could not be explained.
If that is true then we can also say that although many sightings were made by plain folk that an easy explanation by the skepptic could also be wrong.
This is why explanation without investagation has left the UFO problem still making fools out of all,I mean all, of the skepptics. At least if you do any of your own investagtions into the sightings and the stupic debunkers explanations and don't just worship at the alter of the debunking conformist.
rif
If that is true then we can also say that although many sightings were made by plain folk that an easy explanation by the skepptic could also be wrong.
This is why explanation without investagation has left the UFO problem still making fools out of all,I mean all, of the skepptics. At least if you do any of your own investagtions into the sightings and the stupic debunkers explanations and don't just worship at the alter of the debunking conformist.
rif
Let's take a look at some of these object with the only on site measurements by scientist ever done. We are taking 1950 now:
In December, 1948 a new and strange phenomenon began to be observed repeatedly in
the southwestern United States in areas where Top Secret nuclear weapon research was
being carried out. Particular areas were around Los Alamos, New Mexico, Sandia Base near
Albuquerque, New Mexico, the White Sands Proving Ground in NM and, eventually around the
nuclear weapon storage site called Killeen Base at Fort Hood, Texas.
This phenomenon consisted of (generally) bright green lights moving (generally)
horizontally through the night sky and then dropping downward slightly and
going out. These became to be known as "green fireballs." After these had been observed
many times in late 1948 and early 1949 Dr. Lincoln La Paz, a famous meteoricist (a scientist)
who studies meteor and meteorites), declared that they weren't normal meteors. He told
the Air Force and the FBI that if these weren't special devices resulting from our own (United
States) secret research, then they could be Russian and in any event were a potential threat
to our "vital installations" (FBI terminology) where nuclear weapon research was carried out.
These fireballs were observed repeatedly throughout 1949 and Air Force scientists
wanted to know what they were. (Also observed were objects which Dr. La Paz called the "disc
variation"...but it almost seems that the Air Force scientists really didn't want to know
what THEY were!) Finally, in 1950, they succeeded in setting up an observation program to
scientifically record the fireballs. It is at this point that our present story begins, but,
before leaving the fireballs behind, let me just point out that they are STILL a mystery!
In the spring of 1950 a $20,000, half-year contract was signed with the Land-Air
Corporation which operated the phototheodolites at White Sands. Land-Air was to set up a 24
hour watch at a location in New Mexico to be specified by the Air Force and the phototheodolite
operators at White Sands were to film any unusual objects which happened to fly past. The
name of this project was Twinkle.
The investigation began on March 24, 1950. By this time there had been many sightings
in the southwest according to the sighting catalogue compiled by Lt. Col. Rees of the 17th
District Office of Special Investigations at Kirtland, AFB, many of them around Holloman Air
Force Base. His catalogue shows the following data for New Mexico in 1949: the area of Sandia
Base (Albuquerque) - 17 sightings, mostly in the latter half of the year; Los Alamos area - 26
sightings spread throughout the year; Vaughn area - none; Holloman AFB/Alamogordo/White Sands
area - 12; other areas in southwest New Mexico- 20; total - 75. For the same areas in the
first three months of 1950 there were: Sandia - 6 (all in February); Los Alamos - 7; Vaughn
- 1; Holloman AFB/Alamogordo/White Sands - 6; others - 6; total - 26. With all these
sightings, the scientists were quite confident that they could “catch” a fireball or a saucer.
On February 21 an observation post, manned by two people, was set up at Holloman with a
theodolite, telescope and camera. The post was manned only from sunrise to sunset. The
observers saw nothing unusual during a month of operation. Then the scientists decided to
begin a constant 24 hour watch on the first of April that would last for six months, with Land-
Air personnel operating cinetheodolites (theodolites with movie cameras) and with Holloman AFB
personnel manning spectrographic cameras and radio frequency receivers. Thus began Project
Twinkle with the high hopes of solving the fireball/saucer mystery.
...........................................................................................
SIGHTINGS BY OBSERVERS OF SUPERIOR RELIABILITY
or
TWINKLE, TWINKLE LITTLE CRAFT
Dr. Anthony Mirarchi was not the average scientist. He knew about the fireball
sightings in the southwest and he was skeptical, all right, but he was also skeptical of the
glib explanations that had been offered. Before deciding what the fireballs and "disc
variation" might be he wanted more data. In early 1950 he was the Chief of the Air
Composition Branch at Geophysical Research Division (GRD) at the Air Force Cambridge Research
Laboratory (AFCRL) in Cambridge, Mass. Twinkle began as Dr. Mirarchi’s project. However,
he retired from AFCRL in October, 1950, so he did not write the final report. That duty
fell to the next project director, Dr. Louis Elterman. This final report has an important
place in UFO history. Had Mirarchi written the report the history of early UFO research
might be different. However, as you will see, Elterman did write it and, in doing so, left
out the important information you are about to read. (Dr. Elterman and the project's final
report are discussed below.)
Dr. Mirarchi visited Holloman Air Force Base in late May, 1950, and requested a brief
report on sightings which had occurred on April 27 and May 24. Fortunately for “the truth,”
this brief report to Mirarchi survived in the National Archives microfilm record where it was
found in the late 1970’s, long after the Twinkle report had had its...intended?... debunking
effect on the green fireball disc sightings! The report reads as follows (see also
copies from the Archives microfilm below):
“ 1. Per request of Dr. A. O. Mirarchi, during a recent visit to this base, the
following information is submitted.
2. Sightings were made on 27 April and 24 May 1950 of aerial phenomena during
morning daylight hours at this station. The sightings were made by Land-Air, Inc.,
personnel while engaged in tracking regular projects with Askania Phototheodolites.
It has been reported that objects are sighted in some number; as many as eight have
been visible at one time. The individuals making these sightings are professional
observers. Therefore I would rate their reliability superior. In both cases photos
were taken with Askanias.
3. The Holloman AF Base Data Reduction Unit analyzed the 27 April pictures and
made a report, a copy of which I am enclosing with the film for your information.
It was believed that triangulation could be effected from pictures taken on 24 May
because pictures were taken from two stations. The films were rapidly processed
and examined by Data Reduction. However, it was determined that sightings were made
on two different objects and triangulation could not be effected. A report from Data
Reduction and the films from the sighting are enclosed.
4. There is nothing further to report at this time.”
The writer of this cover letter is not known (no signature). It might have been the
Lt. Alpert mentioned below. The Data Reduction report attached to the letter reads as
follows:
“Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950"
2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50
1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following
information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being
recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the
following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.
(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit
Enter Dr. Louis Elterman, a well known atmospheric physicist. Elterman was known
for using powerful searchlights to study the upper atmosphere (density, dust loading, etc.).
He also wrote a report on ball lightning for Project Grudge, the second Air Force project to
collect and analyze flying saucer sightings, so he obviously knew the official opinion of
the Air Force on flying saucers, namely that there weren't/aren't any. (The Project
Grudge personnel did not look favorably on saucer reports.) A year and a half after the
above sightings, in November, 1951, Dr. Elterman, who was at that time the Director of Project
Twinkle, and who worked at the Atmospheric Physics Laboratory (APL) of the Geophysical Research
Division (GRD) of the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory (AFCRL), wrote the final report
on Project Twinkle. According to Dr. Elterman’s report, Project Twinkle was a dismal failure:
“no information was gained.” He recommended it be discontinued. His recommendation was
accepted.
But, was it a failure? Was there really no information gained? Notice that the
above document says that as many as 8 objects were sighted at one time on May 24, 1950. This
statement is confirmed in an FBI report entitled "Information Concerning Phenomena in New
Mexico," written on August 23, 1950. According to the report, "On May 24, 1950, personnel
of Land-Air, Incorporated, sighted eight to ten objects of aerial phenomena." Isn't the fact
of the sighting "information?” Of course it is. Then, why did Elterman write "no information
was gained?" Let us look more carefully at Elterman and his Project Twinkle report.
According to Dr. Elterman, before Twinkle began there had been “an abnormal number of
reports” from Vaughn, New Mexico, so it was decided to place a lookout post there. Why this
place was chosen is a mystery to me. It is about 120 air miles from Los Alamos, about 90 from
Sandia Base and nearly 150 from Alamogordo/Holloman AFB. I have listed above the sighting
statistics for the various New Mexico areas, being careful to list the sightings around Vaughn
separately. Note that Vaughn had only 1 sighting in the whole previous year. So why did they
“waste” a lookout post at Vaughn? Why didn’t they put one at Los Alamos or at White Sands?
Did they think that they could triangulate over a very large baseline distance with the lookout
post at Holloman AFB or were they actually trying to avoid sightings? These are questions
which must forever remain unanswered. (Note: Elterman was not responsible for this poor
choice of location since he did not become the Project director until about 7 months after
athe project started.)
Anyway, it was a mistake. After Project Twinkle began the sighting rate dropped
precipitously. The Project Blue Book sighting list shows 1 sighting in April, 1 in May and 1
in August in the Holloman area. There were also fewer sightings in the other areas. In fact,
for the period from April 1 to October 1 covered by the first Land Air contract there were
only about 8 sightings in the whole of New Mexico as compared with the roughly 30 sightings
during the previous 6 months.
The effect of this sudden decrease in sighting rate is reflected in the Twinkle Final
Report which says that there were very few observations. However, of more importance is what
is not reflected in the report, that is, what is ignored or covered up (?) in the
report, namely the fact that Twinkle was successful.
To demonstrate that Dr. Elterman "ignored information" or was just plain dishonest, I
quote here one part of the report verbatim. Commenting on the “first contractual period, 1
April 1950 to 15 September 1950” Dr. Elterman wrote:
“Some photographic activity occurred on 27 April and 24 May, but simultaneous
sightings by both cameras were not made, so that no information was gained.
On 30 August 1950, during a Bell aircraft missile launching, aerial phenomena were
observed over Holloman Air Force Base by several individuals; however, neither Land-Air
nor Project personnel were notified and, therefore, no results were acquired. On 31
August 1950, the phenomena were again observed after a V-2 launching. Although much film
was expended, proper triangulation was not effected, so that again no information was
acquired.”
During the second contractual period, 1 October 1950 to 31 March 1951 there were no
sightings. It was as if the phenomenon had reacted to the setting up of observation posts by
moving elsewhere. There were continuing sightings in other parts of the country and even a few
in the other parts of New Mexico, but none near Holloman AFB. The lack of sightings was enough
to end the contract. After the contract ended there were discussions about what to do with the
data and whether or not to continue observations at at some low level of effort. It was
decided in the late spring of 1951 not to continue the special effort. Elterman, writing in
November, 1951, recommended “no further expenditure” of time and effort...and there was none.
But, what about the sightings during the first half of the contract, the sightings at
Holloman Air Force base in April, May and August, 1950? Even Elterman admits that things
were seen!
According to Eltermann, no information was gained, to which I respond,
WHAT?
What do you mean, Dr. Elterman, Sir?
Oh, Great and Exalted Guru of the Upper Atmosphere,
isn't the fact that something unusual was sighted by experienced observers "information"?
Something WAS up in the sky...
something that was sufficiently unusual as to attract attention.
Was Elterman justified in making such a comment?
No! Certainly information “is gained” when a number of qualified obervers
simultaneously view unidentified objects from various locations. And more information is
gained if some of these observers film these objects through cinetheodolite telescopes.
There is useful information even if a “proper triangulation” is not accomplished. And
there is even more information gained if a proper triangulation is accomplished...and one
was accomplished, only Eltermann didn’t mention it!
Farther on in the report Dr. Elterman indicates a serious deficiency in the operational
plan for Project Twinkle. The project scientists knew that they might have some film to
analyze, but according Elterman there were insufficient funds built into the contract to
analyze the film. After a discussion with Mr. Warren Kott, who was in charge of the Land-Air
operations, Elterman estimated that it would take 30 man-days to analyze the film and do a
time correlation study which “would assure that these records did not contain significant
material.” According to Elterman, “no provisions are contained in the contract” for this
analysis.
One reads this previous statment with some astonishment. They set up a
photographically instrumented search for unknown objects and then failed to provide
for the film analysis if they were lucky enough to get film. What sort of a scientific
project is that? Did they want to succeed or did they want to fail?
Furthermore, Elterman’s statement that a time correlation study should be done to
assure that the records contained no significant material sounds as if Elterman
had already concluded that there was no worthwhile evidence in the film. Does this sound
like an unbiased investigation?
Near the end of the report Elterman supported his statement that “no information was
gained” by offering explanations for the sightings: “Many of the sightings are attributable to
natural phenomena such as flights of birds, planets, meteors and possibly cloudiness.” Note
that he wrote "many." He did not write "all." What about the sightings that were NOT
attributable to birds, planets, meteors and cloudiness?
The typical scientist reading the Project Twinkle Final Report would assume Elterman
was telling the truth, that there was "no information gained" and that all the sightings were
misidentifications. The typical reader would accept Dr. Elterman’s opinion as the final word
on the subject. Only the perceptive person would realize that he had not actually proven his
statement to be true, even though he presumably had access to the photographic evidence which
would prove it, if it were true.
Compare the above letter/report to Dr. Mirarchi with the first paragraph of Elterman’s
statement where he says “...simultaneous sightings by both cameras were not made so that no
information was gained.” It seems that Elterman got his information on these sightings from
this report to Dr. Mirarchi. Yet he did not even give a hint of the existence of the most
important result of Project Twinkle, the April 27 triangulation which yielded information on
altitude and size. Could it be that he didn’t know about the Data Reduction Unit report? Or
did he know and choose to purposely ignore or withhold the information? Was this part of
a "cover up" or simply the "ostrich effect" kicking in (if you stick your head deep enough
into the sand the problem will go away)?
Capt. Edward Ruppelt, who was the director of Project Blue book during 1952 and 1953,
in his landmark 1955 book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, described the
April 27 event in more detail. A guided missile had just been tracked and the cinethodolite
crews were starting to unload their cameras when someone spotted objects moving through the
sky. The camera stations were linked by a telephone network, so that crew alerted the others.
Unfortunately all but one camera had been unloaded and the UFOs had departed before the other
cameras could be reloaded. According to Ruppelt, “The photos from the one station showed only
a smudgy dark object. About all the film proved was that something was in the air and,
whatever it was, it was moving.” Evidently Ruppelt didn’t know that a triangulation had been
accomplished. But at least Ruppelt did not claim that "no information was gained."
Ruppelt also discussed the May 24 event and its failure at triangulation due to the
fact that the two cameras were looking at different objects. Ruppelt wrote that in February,
1951, when he first learned of these sightings (this was about 9 months before he became the
director of Project Grudge and over a year before the name was changed to Blue Book), “The
records at AMC [the Air Materiel Command headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base]
didn’t contain the analysis of these films but they did mention the Data Reduction Group at
White Sands. So, when I later took over the UFO investigation I made several calls in an
effort to run down the actual film and analysis.” Unfortunately, he was not successful even
though he did manage to contact, through a “major who was very cooperative,” two men who had
analyzed what was either the May 24, or the August 31, film or both (see Elterman’s
statement above regarding the August 31 sighting). Ruppelt writes as follows:
“(the major’s) report.... was what I had expected - nothing concrete except that the
UFOs were unknowns. He did say that by putting a correction factor in the data gathered
by the two cameras they were able to arrive at a rough estimate of speed, altitude and
size. The UFO was ‘higher than 40,000 feet, traveling over 2,000 miles per hour, and it
was over 300 feet in diameter.’ He cautioned me that these figures were only estimates,
based on the possibly erroneous correction factor; therefore they weren’t proof of
anything - except that something was in the air.”
Obviously Ruppelt underplayed the importance of this report by suggesting that the films
didn’t prove anything. My response to this is
So what, if the size, distance and speed estimates might be wrong....
something was there, obviously large, fast and unusual or the camera crews wouldn’t have
bothered to film it!
The conclussion do not represent what was measured and of no supprise to me What was measured and observed were way beyond anything that we or the soviests had. This was the only team ever sent out to investagate an on going UFO problem, not after the fact. As far as I'm concerned this warented futher research by any standards.
Credit should be given to Dr. Bruce Macabee for this report. So let's be objective about this. Here were craft flying at a great rate of speed at 150, 000 feet over our most sensitive bases. Not worthy of futhur study. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in my home town Brooklyn. Any answer that may include "well this doesn't show they were aliens" I answer with "That even makes it more imperative that we should have investagated. Unless we did and knew the answers and at all cost kept it secret. This is what I believe and I beleive. And I quote
Bernard Haisch
Palo Alto, California
I now have three completely independent examples of individuals whom I trust reporting to me that individuals they trust have admitted to handling alien artifacts in "our" possession in the course of secret official duties. (The special access level in the one case for which I know it is R, a not widely known SCI level whose existence was finally verified for me by someone who himself had a very high access level, though short of that one, as being "reserved for someone at the very top." I do not know, however, whether it is specifically reserved or designated for this topic.) And in yet a fourth case, I am one tantalizing step removed -- again via a trusted intermediary -- from a former head of an intelligence agency who had dealings with a special access program reporting decades-long extraterrestrial reverse engineering efforts.
Could such things possibly be true? While I am intrigued by what I have learned over the years, I can't be absolutely certain. It is interesting that from the clandestine intelligence world perspective the scientific community, for all of its technical and theoretical sophistication, is viewed as remarkably naive in certain respects. We scientists tend to think that we know better than anyone else what is possible and what is impossible, and that we of all people could surely not be kept in the dark for very long. Over the course of time I have learned how it would indeed be possible to maintain decades-long secrecy on this topic and why this might be justified, concepts I myself once dismissed.
I know most skepptics will dismiss even a scientist with this mans creditials as soon as they stand up and say; the king has no clothes.
Finally I don't ask that those with open minds beleive that there are aliens visiting earth, only that, this topic desearve a research grant and investagation by scienitist without the scorn and redicule that has followed it for decades.
rif
In December, 1948 a new and strange phenomenon began to be observed repeatedly in
the southwestern United States in areas where Top Secret nuclear weapon research was
being carried out. Particular areas were around Los Alamos, New Mexico, Sandia Base near
Albuquerque, New Mexico, the White Sands Proving Ground in NM and, eventually around the
nuclear weapon storage site called Killeen Base at Fort Hood, Texas.
This phenomenon consisted of (generally) bright green lights moving (generally)
horizontally through the night sky and then dropping downward slightly and
going out. These became to be known as "green fireballs." After these had been observed
many times in late 1948 and early 1949 Dr. Lincoln La Paz, a famous meteoricist (a scientist)
who studies meteor and meteorites), declared that they weren't normal meteors. He told
the Air Force and the FBI that if these weren't special devices resulting from our own (United
States) secret research, then they could be Russian and in any event were a potential threat
to our "vital installations" (FBI terminology) where nuclear weapon research was carried out.
These fireballs were observed repeatedly throughout 1949 and Air Force scientists
wanted to know what they were. (Also observed were objects which Dr. La Paz called the "disc
variation"...but it almost seems that the Air Force scientists really didn't want to know
what THEY were!) Finally, in 1950, they succeeded in setting up an observation program to
scientifically record the fireballs. It is at this point that our present story begins, but,
before leaving the fireballs behind, let me just point out that they are STILL a mystery!
In the spring of 1950 a $20,000, half-year contract was signed with the Land-Air
Corporation which operated the phototheodolites at White Sands. Land-Air was to set up a 24
hour watch at a location in New Mexico to be specified by the Air Force and the phototheodolite
operators at White Sands were to film any unusual objects which happened to fly past. The
name of this project was Twinkle.
The investigation began on March 24, 1950. By this time there had been many sightings
in the southwest according to the sighting catalogue compiled by Lt. Col. Rees of the 17th
District Office of Special Investigations at Kirtland, AFB, many of them around Holloman Air
Force Base. His catalogue shows the following data for New Mexico in 1949: the area of Sandia
Base (Albuquerque) - 17 sightings, mostly in the latter half of the year; Los Alamos area - 26
sightings spread throughout the year; Vaughn area - none; Holloman AFB/Alamogordo/White Sands
area - 12; other areas in southwest New Mexico- 20; total - 75. For the same areas in the
first three months of 1950 there were: Sandia - 6 (all in February); Los Alamos - 7; Vaughn
- 1; Holloman AFB/Alamogordo/White Sands - 6; others - 6; total - 26. With all these
sightings, the scientists were quite confident that they could “catch” a fireball or a saucer.
On February 21 an observation post, manned by two people, was set up at Holloman with a
theodolite, telescope and camera. The post was manned only from sunrise to sunset. The
observers saw nothing unusual during a month of operation. Then the scientists decided to
begin a constant 24 hour watch on the first of April that would last for six months, with Land-
Air personnel operating cinetheodolites (theodolites with movie cameras) and with Holloman AFB
personnel manning spectrographic cameras and radio frequency receivers. Thus began Project
Twinkle with the high hopes of solving the fireball/saucer mystery.
...........................................................................................
SIGHTINGS BY OBSERVERS OF SUPERIOR RELIABILITY
or
TWINKLE, TWINKLE LITTLE CRAFT
Dr. Anthony Mirarchi was not the average scientist. He knew about the fireball
sightings in the southwest and he was skeptical, all right, but he was also skeptical of the
glib explanations that had been offered. Before deciding what the fireballs and "disc
variation" might be he wanted more data. In early 1950 he was the Chief of the Air
Composition Branch at Geophysical Research Division (GRD) at the Air Force Cambridge Research
Laboratory (AFCRL) in Cambridge, Mass. Twinkle began as Dr. Mirarchi’s project. However,
he retired from AFCRL in October, 1950, so he did not write the final report. That duty
fell to the next project director, Dr. Louis Elterman. This final report has an important
place in UFO history. Had Mirarchi written the report the history of early UFO research
might be different. However, as you will see, Elterman did write it and, in doing so, left
out the important information you are about to read. (Dr. Elterman and the project's final
report are discussed below.)
Dr. Mirarchi visited Holloman Air Force Base in late May, 1950, and requested a brief
report on sightings which had occurred on April 27 and May 24. Fortunately for “the truth,”
this brief report to Mirarchi survived in the National Archives microfilm record where it was
found in the late 1970’s, long after the Twinkle report had had its...intended?... debunking
effect on the green fireball disc sightings! The report reads as follows (see also
copies from the Archives microfilm below):
“ 1. Per request of Dr. A. O. Mirarchi, during a recent visit to this base, the
following information is submitted.
2. Sightings were made on 27 April and 24 May 1950 of aerial phenomena during
morning daylight hours at this station. The sightings were made by Land-Air, Inc.,
personnel while engaged in tracking regular projects with Askania Phototheodolites.
It has been reported that objects are sighted in some number; as many as eight have
been visible at one time. The individuals making these sightings are professional
observers. Therefore I would rate their reliability superior. In both cases photos
were taken with Askanias.
3. The Holloman AF Base Data Reduction Unit analyzed the 27 April pictures and
made a report, a copy of which I am enclosing with the film for your information.
It was believed that triangulation could be effected from pictures taken on 24 May
because pictures were taken from two stations. The films were rapidly processed
and examined by Data Reduction. However, it was determined that sightings were made
on two different objects and triangulation could not be effected. A report from Data
Reduction and the films from the sighting are enclosed.
4. There is nothing further to report at this time.”
The writer of this cover letter is not known (no signature). It might have been the
Lt. Alpert mentioned below. The Data Reduction report attached to the letter reads as
follows:
“Objects observed following MX776A test of 27 April 1950"
2nd Lt. (name censored) EHOSIR 15 May 50
1. According to conversation between Col. Baynes and Capt. Bryant, the following
information is submitted directly to Lt. Albert.
2. Film from station P10 was read, resulting in azimuth and elevation angles being
recorded on four objects. In addition, size of image on film was recorded.
3. From this information, together with a single azimuth angle from station M7, the
following conclusions were drawn:
a). The objects were at an altitude of approximately 150,000 ft.
b). The objects were over the Holloman range between the base and Tularosa Peak.
c). The objects were approximately 30 feet in diameter
d). The objects were traveling at an undeterminable, yet high speed.
(signed)
Wilbur L. Mitchell
Mathematician
Data Reduction Unit
Enter Dr. Louis Elterman, a well known atmospheric physicist. Elterman was known
for using powerful searchlights to study the upper atmosphere (density, dust loading, etc.).
He also wrote a report on ball lightning for Project Grudge, the second Air Force project to
collect and analyze flying saucer sightings, so he obviously knew the official opinion of
the Air Force on flying saucers, namely that there weren't/aren't any. (The Project
Grudge personnel did not look favorably on saucer reports.) A year and a half after the
above sightings, in November, 1951, Dr. Elterman, who was at that time the Director of Project
Twinkle, and who worked at the Atmospheric Physics Laboratory (APL) of the Geophysical Research
Division (GRD) of the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory (AFCRL), wrote the final report
on Project Twinkle. According to Dr. Elterman’s report, Project Twinkle was a dismal failure:
“no information was gained.” He recommended it be discontinued. His recommendation was
accepted.
But, was it a failure? Was there really no information gained? Notice that the
above document says that as many as 8 objects were sighted at one time on May 24, 1950. This
statement is confirmed in an FBI report entitled "Information Concerning Phenomena in New
Mexico," written on August 23, 1950. According to the report, "On May 24, 1950, personnel
of Land-Air, Incorporated, sighted eight to ten objects of aerial phenomena." Isn't the fact
of the sighting "information?” Of course it is. Then, why did Elterman write "no information
was gained?" Let us look more carefully at Elterman and his Project Twinkle report.
According to Dr. Elterman, before Twinkle began there had been “an abnormal number of
reports” from Vaughn, New Mexico, so it was decided to place a lookout post there. Why this
place was chosen is a mystery to me. It is about 120 air miles from Los Alamos, about 90 from
Sandia Base and nearly 150 from Alamogordo/Holloman AFB. I have listed above the sighting
statistics for the various New Mexico areas, being careful to list the sightings around Vaughn
separately. Note that Vaughn had only 1 sighting in the whole previous year. So why did they
“waste” a lookout post at Vaughn? Why didn’t they put one at Los Alamos or at White Sands?
Did they think that they could triangulate over a very large baseline distance with the lookout
post at Holloman AFB or were they actually trying to avoid sightings? These are questions
which must forever remain unanswered. (Note: Elterman was not responsible for this poor
choice of location since he did not become the Project director until about 7 months after
athe project started.)
Anyway, it was a mistake. After Project Twinkle began the sighting rate dropped
precipitously. The Project Blue Book sighting list shows 1 sighting in April, 1 in May and 1
in August in the Holloman area. There were also fewer sightings in the other areas. In fact,
for the period from April 1 to October 1 covered by the first Land Air contract there were
only about 8 sightings in the whole of New Mexico as compared with the roughly 30 sightings
during the previous 6 months.
The effect of this sudden decrease in sighting rate is reflected in the Twinkle Final
Report which says that there were very few observations. However, of more importance is what
is not reflected in the report, that is, what is ignored or covered up (?) in the
report, namely the fact that Twinkle was successful.
To demonstrate that Dr. Elterman "ignored information" or was just plain dishonest, I
quote here one part of the report verbatim. Commenting on the “first contractual period, 1
April 1950 to 15 September 1950” Dr. Elterman wrote:
“Some photographic activity occurred on 27 April and 24 May, but simultaneous
sightings by both cameras were not made, so that no information was gained.
On 30 August 1950, during a Bell aircraft missile launching, aerial phenomena were
observed over Holloman Air Force Base by several individuals; however, neither Land-Air
nor Project personnel were notified and, therefore, no results were acquired. On 31
August 1950, the phenomena were again observed after a V-2 launching. Although much film
was expended, proper triangulation was not effected, so that again no information was
acquired.”
During the second contractual period, 1 October 1950 to 31 March 1951 there were no
sightings. It was as if the phenomenon had reacted to the setting up of observation posts by
moving elsewhere. There were continuing sightings in other parts of the country and even a few
in the other parts of New Mexico, but none near Holloman AFB. The lack of sightings was enough
to end the contract. After the contract ended there were discussions about what to do with the
data and whether or not to continue observations at at some low level of effort. It was
decided in the late spring of 1951 not to continue the special effort. Elterman, writing in
November, 1951, recommended “no further expenditure” of time and effort...and there was none.
But, what about the sightings during the first half of the contract, the sightings at
Holloman Air Force base in April, May and August, 1950? Even Elterman admits that things
were seen!
According to Eltermann, no information was gained, to which I respond,
WHAT?
What do you mean, Dr. Elterman, Sir?
Oh, Great and Exalted Guru of the Upper Atmosphere,
isn't the fact that something unusual was sighted by experienced observers "information"?
Something WAS up in the sky...
something that was sufficiently unusual as to attract attention.
Was Elterman justified in making such a comment?
No! Certainly information “is gained” when a number of qualified obervers
simultaneously view unidentified objects from various locations. And more information is
gained if some of these observers film these objects through cinetheodolite telescopes.
There is useful information even if a “proper triangulation” is not accomplished. And
there is even more information gained if a proper triangulation is accomplished...and one
was accomplished, only Eltermann didn’t mention it!
Farther on in the report Dr. Elterman indicates a serious deficiency in the operational
plan for Project Twinkle. The project scientists knew that they might have some film to
analyze, but according Elterman there were insufficient funds built into the contract to
analyze the film. After a discussion with Mr. Warren Kott, who was in charge of the Land-Air
operations, Elterman estimated that it would take 30 man-days to analyze the film and do a
time correlation study which “would assure that these records did not contain significant
material.” According to Elterman, “no provisions are contained in the contract” for this
analysis.
One reads this previous statment with some astonishment. They set up a
photographically instrumented search for unknown objects and then failed to provide
for the film analysis if they were lucky enough to get film. What sort of a scientific
project is that? Did they want to succeed or did they want to fail?
Furthermore, Elterman’s statement that a time correlation study should be done to
assure that the records contained no significant material sounds as if Elterman
had already concluded that there was no worthwhile evidence in the film. Does this sound
like an unbiased investigation?
Near the end of the report Elterman supported his statement that “no information was
gained” by offering explanations for the sightings: “Many of the sightings are attributable to
natural phenomena such as flights of birds, planets, meteors and possibly cloudiness.” Note
that he wrote "many." He did not write "all." What about the sightings that were NOT
attributable to birds, planets, meteors and cloudiness?
The typical scientist reading the Project Twinkle Final Report would assume Elterman
was telling the truth, that there was "no information gained" and that all the sightings were
misidentifications. The typical reader would accept Dr. Elterman’s opinion as the final word
on the subject. Only the perceptive person would realize that he had not actually proven his
statement to be true, even though he presumably had access to the photographic evidence which
would prove it, if it were true.
Compare the above letter/report to Dr. Mirarchi with the first paragraph of Elterman’s
statement where he says “...simultaneous sightings by both cameras were not made so that no
information was gained.” It seems that Elterman got his information on these sightings from
this report to Dr. Mirarchi. Yet he did not even give a hint of the existence of the most
important result of Project Twinkle, the April 27 triangulation which yielded information on
altitude and size. Could it be that he didn’t know about the Data Reduction Unit report? Or
did he know and choose to purposely ignore or withhold the information? Was this part of
a "cover up" or simply the "ostrich effect" kicking in (if you stick your head deep enough
into the sand the problem will go away)?
Capt. Edward Ruppelt, who was the director of Project Blue book during 1952 and 1953,
in his landmark 1955 book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, described the
April 27 event in more detail. A guided missile had just been tracked and the cinethodolite
crews were starting to unload their cameras when someone spotted objects moving through the
sky. The camera stations were linked by a telephone network, so that crew alerted the others.
Unfortunately all but one camera had been unloaded and the UFOs had departed before the other
cameras could be reloaded. According to Ruppelt, “The photos from the one station showed only
a smudgy dark object. About all the film proved was that something was in the air and,
whatever it was, it was moving.” Evidently Ruppelt didn’t know that a triangulation had been
accomplished. But at least Ruppelt did not claim that "no information was gained."
Ruppelt also discussed the May 24 event and its failure at triangulation due to the
fact that the two cameras were looking at different objects. Ruppelt wrote that in February,
1951, when he first learned of these sightings (this was about 9 months before he became the
director of Project Grudge and over a year before the name was changed to Blue Book), “The
records at AMC [the Air Materiel Command headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base]
didn’t contain the analysis of these films but they did mention the Data Reduction Group at
White Sands. So, when I later took over the UFO investigation I made several calls in an
effort to run down the actual film and analysis.” Unfortunately, he was not successful even
though he did manage to contact, through a “major who was very cooperative,” two men who had
analyzed what was either the May 24, or the August 31, film or both (see Elterman’s
statement above regarding the August 31 sighting). Ruppelt writes as follows:
“(the major’s) report.... was what I had expected - nothing concrete except that the
UFOs were unknowns. He did say that by putting a correction factor in the data gathered
by the two cameras they were able to arrive at a rough estimate of speed, altitude and
size. The UFO was ‘higher than 40,000 feet, traveling over 2,000 miles per hour, and it
was over 300 feet in diameter.’ He cautioned me that these figures were only estimates,
based on the possibly erroneous correction factor; therefore they weren’t proof of
anything - except that something was in the air.”
Obviously Ruppelt underplayed the importance of this report by suggesting that the films
didn’t prove anything. My response to this is
So what, if the size, distance and speed estimates might be wrong....
something was there, obviously large, fast and unusual or the camera crews wouldn’t have
bothered to film it!
The conclussion do not represent what was measured and of no supprise to me What was measured and observed were way beyond anything that we or the soviests had. This was the only team ever sent out to investagate an on going UFO problem, not after the fact. As far as I'm concerned this warented futher research by any standards.
Credit should be given to Dr. Bruce Macabee for this report. So let's be objective about this. Here were craft flying at a great rate of speed at 150, 000 feet over our most sensitive bases. Not worthy of futhur study. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in my home town Brooklyn. Any answer that may include "well this doesn't show they were aliens" I answer with "That even makes it more imperative that we should have investagated. Unless we did and knew the answers and at all cost kept it secret. This is what I believe and I beleive. And I quote
Bernard Haisch
Palo Alto, California
I now have three completely independent examples of individuals whom I trust reporting to me that individuals they trust have admitted to handling alien artifacts in "our" possession in the course of secret official duties. (The special access level in the one case for which I know it is R, a not widely known SCI level whose existence was finally verified for me by someone who himself had a very high access level, though short of that one, as being "reserved for someone at the very top." I do not know, however, whether it is specifically reserved or designated for this topic.) And in yet a fourth case, I am one tantalizing step removed -- again via a trusted intermediary -- from a former head of an intelligence agency who had dealings with a special access program reporting decades-long extraterrestrial reverse engineering efforts.
Could such things possibly be true? While I am intrigued by what I have learned over the years, I can't be absolutely certain. It is interesting that from the clandestine intelligence world perspective the scientific community, for all of its technical and theoretical sophistication, is viewed as remarkably naive in certain respects. We scientists tend to think that we know better than anyone else what is possible and what is impossible, and that we of all people could surely not be kept in the dark for very long. Over the course of time I have learned how it would indeed be possible to maintain decades-long secrecy on this topic and why this might be justified, concepts I myself once dismissed.
I know most skepptics will dismiss even a scientist with this mans creditials as soon as they stand up and say; the king has no clothes.
Finally I don't ask that those with open minds beleive that there are aliens visiting earth, only that, this topic desearve a research grant and investagation by scienitist without the scorn and redicule that has followed it for decades.
rif
Finally I don't ask that those with open minds beleive that there are aliens visiting earth, only that, this topic desearve a research grant and investagation by scienitist without the scorn and redicule that has followed it for decades.
As far as private investors are concerned, they can give away all their monies. No one would care.
But if one slim dime were taken from the public trough and given to these cranks and nutters, it would be a travesty of immense proportion.
As far as private investors are concerned, they can give away all their monies. No one would care.
But if one slim dime were taken from the public trough and given to these cranks and nutters, it would be a travesty of immense proportion.
Of course your theroy discounts Kennith Arnold who measured the speed of these opject as going over a thousand miles an hour. The problem with your theroy is it leaves out many sightings of airfoils that could outpace all of fastest planes, turn on a dime shoot stright up, and hover at a whim. In fact the Washington DC case the flying disk seem to know the minute the jets were approcaching long before the Jets were in range. It the Japanise had this type of technology were is it now. Some of the airtraffic contollers also not only saw the crafts on the radar screen but also in the skys.
To investagate this Phenon. we need to take the best cases and see what could possibly account for it. My take is advanced techology way beyond anything known. Some say the if it's aliens it dosen't make sense because they don't behave the way they should. I think that's even stronger evidence that it is most likely alien. You can't say one minute" well aliens would most likely not look at all like us" and then say "well if they are aliens why are they not behaving the way we would".
Something is in our skies, somthing is continuing to be seen, photographed, videoed, and on radar and has never been caught by our fastest jets even though many times they have been chased. Even the idea that every time they are chased they exhibit behavior which indicates they don't want to be caught
and that they can easily avoid being shot down speeks volumes if you read between the line.
rif
To investagate this Phenon. we need to take the best cases and see what could possibly account for it. My take is advanced techology way beyond anything known. Some say the if it's aliens it dosen't make sense because they don't behave the way they should. I think that's even stronger evidence that it is most likely alien. You can't say one minute" well aliens would most likely not look at all like us" and then say "well if they are aliens why are they not behaving the way we would".
Something is in our skies, somthing is continuing to be seen, photographed, videoed, and on radar and has never been caught by our fastest jets even though many times they have been chased. Even the idea that every time they are chased they exhibit behavior which indicates they don't want to be caught
and that they can easily avoid being shot down speeks volumes if you read between the line.
rif