Bolivia "Crashed UFO" [1979] Prosaic Explanation Found?

Another classic "unexplainable crash-retrieval story, part of established UFO lore, may be a fallen satellite.

badufos.blogspot.com...

When will researchers catch on?

a reply to: JimOberg

Hardly one of the greats, but interesting information all the same. Thanks for that.

I have a question however, why would you end your post with the words "when will researchers catch on"?
What message would you be trying to send with that?
Much respect and all that but...what's your motive?

a reply to: Jonjonj


Many of us have caught on to exactly what Jim's about and posting links to a site that promotes the same tired old billy bs merchants such as Ridpath and Clarke should give you a clue.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: JimOberg

Hardly one of the greats, but interesting information all the same. Thanks for that.

I have a question however, why would you end your post with the words "when will researchers catch on"?
What message would you be trying to send with that?
Much respect and all that but...what's your motive?

I want to sharpen the filters to raise the quality of what gets into the unexplained hopper.

originally posted by: FireMoon

Many of us have caught on to exactly what Jim's about and posting links to a site that promotes the same tired old billy bs merchants such as Ridpath and Clarke should give you a clue.

Come on, stop throwing out excuses for not confronting research results. Try to focus on why the proposed prosaic explanation of this story is not credible.

I would love for someone to write a history of Moon Dust. Theres gotta be some good stories buried in the archives.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: JimOberg

Hardly one of the greats, but interesting information all the same. Thanks for that.

I have a question however, why would you end your post with the words "when will researchers catch on"?
What message would you be trying to send with that?
Much respect and all that but...what's your motive?

I want to sharpen the filters to raise the quality of what gets into the unexplained hopper.

THIS ^^^^

Anyone interested in UFOs or unexplained topics should positively welcome skeptics and debunkers.

If junk like this gets labelled "UFO" then it dilutes the whole field.

99% of sightings can be easily explained. If everyone sharpened up their research skills like the person who solved this then we could probably raise that to 99.9%.

THEN it would be a lot easier to get to the possibly interesting 0.01%.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: JimOberg

Hardly one of the greats, but interesting information all the same. Thanks for that.

I have a question however, why would you end your post with the words "when will researchers catch on"?
What message would you be trying to send with that?
Much respect and all that but...what's your motive?

I want to sharpen the filters to raise the quality of what gets into the unexplained hopper.

THIS ^^^^


99% of sightings can be easily explained. If everyone sharpened up their research skills like the person who solved this then we could probably raise that to 99.9%.

THEN it would be a lot easier to get to the possibly interesting 0.01%.

Some of us would prefer your golden 99.9% to be more like 90%, because we do not dismiss things so quickly.

I also read the small debunking page, that mentions a satellite falling to ground, but completely skates over the mention of the silent aircraft...

More mysterious yet, is the presence of a “silent aircraft” with three lights that appeared later the same evening, hovering above the explosion area. What was the craft doing? Who contracted it to be there and why?

The slightest chance that something can be easily explained turns into 100% tried and tested debunk, job done.

If you want to prove every aspect of a case, rather that just spouting false, then you have a long way to go yet my friend.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Another classic "unexplainable crash-retrieval story, part of established UFO lore, may be a fallen satellite.

badufos.blogspot.com...

When will researchers catch on?

from your link:

.“in the area where they’ve been found, there were no signs of the impact and it looks as though the spheres landed smoothly.” How did the spheres negotiate a smooth landing? Certainly they are not terrestrial space debris [emphasis added]. More mysterious yet, is the presence of a “silent aircraft” with three lights that appeared later the same evening, hovering above the explosion area.

This is what I hate about debunkings like this. It never addresses all the strangeness around the sighting...

1. no signs of impact - explain that if it's a fallen debris from a satellite....
2. Smooth landing
3. Silent HOVERING aircraft in Bolivia in 1979....

Though I do not consider this case to be that "big"...I don't like it how they ignore loose ends.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

And this is what I hate about people that won't accept rational thought.

Smooth landing? Does this battered tank look like it landed smoothly?


There were two big round metal tanks found. The satellite had two big round metal tanks on board.

Some people are just wilfully blind.

And this is why ufology is a joke.

THROW OUT the easily explainable stuff and you might just find something interesting in the handful that cannot be easily explained.

Say you want to find an old "wheat penny". Would you throw every coin, washer and bottle top you find into a barrel and then sift through them? Or would you at least chuck out the obvious junk first before you start examining every cent?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: FireMoon

Many of us have caught on to exactly what Jim's about and posting links to a site that promotes the same tired old billy bs merchants such as Ridpath and Clarke should give you a clue.

Come on, stop throwing out excuses for not confronting research results. Try to focus on why the proposed prosaic explanation of this story is not credible.

Because Jim old Bean, the source of the "explanation" has zero credibility and gives links to people who are proven at best to be, "stretchers of the actualities". You worked for NASA Jim so maybe you could give us all a list of the 80 cms in diameter "satellites", that have been launched and brought back to Earth under a "controlled soft landing" either by NASA or some other agency and why they would land them in Bolivia?

originally posted by: FireMoon "Come on, stop throwing out excuses for not confronting research results. Try to focus on why the proposed prosaic explanation of this story is not credible. "
Because Jim old Bean, the source of the "explanation" has zero credibility and gives links to people who are proven at best to be, "stretchers of the actualities". You worked for NASA Jim so maybe you could give us all a list of the 80 cms in diameter "satellites", that have been launched and brought back to Earth under a "controlled soft landing" either by NASA or some other agency and why they would land them in Bolivia?

Glad to oblige [see link].

We all appreciate your eagerness to step forward and claim the Clueless-of-the-Month T-shirt.

I take that back. Most folks are genuinely and innocently unaware of this. This phenomenon of spherical space objects slowing by air drag to a few hundred ft/sec at most and reaching the ground 'softly', has been documented for decades, but I guess you just avoided any references that might have told you about it.

Well, now you know.

www.eclipsetours.com...

a reply to: Rob48

I was quoting from the OP's source. Take to them buddy.

Still it doesn't look all that battered...considering from where it fell...

It's cracked and bent a bit. I'll give you that.


Anyway...This is the first time I've heard about this case...and I doesn't look like "alien" tech to me. Not that I know how alien tech looks like.

My point was over debunking methods that choose to explain only certain aspects of a story or sighting. Like the above case...there still remains the issue of a "hovering aircraft" sighting over the crash site...if indeed that part of the story is true. As I said...first time I've heard of this case.

edit:

also, comment on the part of the story where it mentions there was no sign of impact ? Did the balls parachute down or what ? Wouldn't it make some sort of crater ?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
also, comment on the part of the story where it mentions there was no sign of impact ? Did the balls parachute down or what ? Wouldn't it make some sort of crater ?

Please read my link in the previous post, you will see dozens of examples of how this is exactly what really happens, contrary to your expectations -- which may be more Hollywood than real-world. This happens to all of us, it's why we have to keep realizing how much we think we know really ain't so.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: FireMoon "Come on, stop throwing out excuses for not confronting research results. Try to focus on why the proposed prosaic explanation of this story is not credible. "
Because Jim old Bean, the source of the "explanation" has zero credibility and gives links to people who are proven at best to be, "stretchers of the actualities". You worked for NASA Jim so maybe you could give us all a list of the 80 cms in diameter "satellites", that have been launched and brought back to Earth under a "controlled soft landing" either by NASA or some other agency and why they would land them in Bolivia?

Glad to oblige [see link].

We all appreciate your eagerness to step forward and claim the Clueless-of-the-Month T-shirt.

I take that back. Most folks are genuinely and innocently unaware of this. This phenomenon of spherical space objects slowing by air drag to a few hundred ft/sec at most and reaching the ground 'softly', has been documented for decades, but I guess you just avoided any references that might have told you about it.

Well, now you know.

www.eclipsetours.com...

Jim try breaking the brainwashing/programming you went through as a lackey of the government and answer a straight question for a change. Whose project was this that crashed in Bolivia? No-one doubts that stuff is shot up all the time and some of it comes back down to earth. Given you claim to be the bloke who worked for NASA surely you should know exactly what crashed in Bolivia or be able to give a reasoned guess based on who else was doing what back then? Was it French, something that strayed off course from the Central American testing grounds?

if someone had posted a link to a site that shows picture with zero provenance and zero explanation as to where it supposedly originates from, you'd be moaning like your usual whiny self about "How can you trust sites like this?" You really are going to have to take on board the novel concept that, outside of the military and government institutions other people have informed opinions not based on "tell them as little as possible and obfuscate at every opportunity", or you might as well quit posting on this site.

originally posted by: FireMoon

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: FireMoon "Come on, stop throwing out excuses for not confronting research results. Try to focus on why the proposed prosaic explanation of this story is not credible. "
Because Jim old Bean, the source of the "explanation" has zero credibility and gives links to people who are proven at best to be, "stretchers of the actualities". You worked for NASA Jim so maybe you could give us all a list of the 80 cms in diameter "satellites", that have been launched and brought back to Earth under a "controlled soft landing" either by NASA or some other agency and why they would land them in Bolivia?

Glad to oblige [see link].

We all appreciate your eagerness to step forward and claim the Clueless-of-the-Month T-shirt.

I take that back. Most folks are genuinely and innocently unaware of this. This phenomenon of spherical space objects slowing by air drag to a few hundred ft/sec at most and reaching the ground 'softly', has been documented for decades, but I guess you just avoided any references that might have told you about it.

Well, now you know.

www.eclipsetours.com...

Jim try breaking the brainwashing/programming you went through as a lackey of the government and answer a straight question for a change. Whose project was this that crashed in Bolivia?

Did you actually bother reading the link, and clicking through to the source? it tells you exactly who launched it, when, where and on what rocket.

Westar 3 lifted off from Cape Canaveral on 1979 August 10 at 00:20 UTC, aboard Delta 149, the second stage of which was left in a rapidly decaying orbit. It was assigned the international designation 1979-072B, and the USSTRATCOM (U.S. Strategic Command) catalogue number 11490. USSTRATCOM's satellite catalog and the RAE (Royal Aerospace Establishment) Table of Earth Satellites agree that 1979-072B decayed on the same day it was launched.

1979-072B was a model DSV-3P-4 Delta second stage. It was about 6.2 m long and 1.5 m in diameter, and its empty mass was about 950 kg. It contained two helium pressurant spheres, made of titanium, similar in size to the pair that fell in Bolivia. The spheres of some earlier and later model Delta second stages are known to have survived re-entry and been recovered. The orbit of 1979-072B passed very close to the site of both sphere discoveries in the early hours of 1979 August 10 UTC. If it was re-entering at that time, as seems reasonably likely based on the orbital analysis, then it could account for the fireball sightings and both spheres.

More about Westar here: en.wikipedia.org...

It was Western Union, not Little Green Men.

originally posted by: FireMoon
Jim try breaking the brainwashing/programming you went through as a lackey of the government and answer a straight question for a change. Whose project was this that crashed in Bolivia? No-one doubts that stuff is shot up all the time and some of it comes back down to earth. Given you claim to be the bloke who worked for NASA surely you should know exactly what crashed in Bolivia or be able to give a reasoned guess based on who else was doing what back then? Was it French, something that strayed off course from the Central American testing grounds?

Could somebody else who actually read the link at the top of the thread, where exactly this information is provided, assist our brother in comprehending written English? Jeez loo-weeeez, FM, stop campaigning so hard for that T-shirt, give somebody else an outside chance, will ya?

ADD: Rob48 has stepped up and done it, hat tip!

What French "central American testing ground" are you TALKING about?

originally posted by: JimOberg

What French "central American testing ground" are you TALKING about?

Kourou, perhaps (not that it's central America)?

One of my family helped build and launch a satellite from there a few years ago...