It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former Engineer at Vandenburg A.F.B. comes clean about past ufo sightings

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

Vandenburg was always something of a hotspot IMHO.




posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: alldaylong

Uhhhhhhhhhh . . .

How old are you?

You seem rather demanding that others be perfect in their recall in order to be credible . . . to . . . drum roll . . .

you.

Guess what . . . humans are inherently imperfect without being useless.

Sheesh.

Perhaps you could THINK! a LOT better.




I see you are using the old trick of using " Personal Insults " when an argument is lost because of flaws found in " Reports " such as this.

Thankfully i don't stoop to that level.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: data5091

The report sounds like a load of cobblers.

The Bluesteak Missile was a British built missile and from what i gather it was never used by The U.S.



I suggest that he may have been confusing the BLUESTREAK (which was, as you point out, a British ballistic missile) with the BLUE SCOUT, which was a USAF version of NASA's Scout sounding rocket and which was, in fact, launched from VAFB in the 1960's. The 73 year old witness seems to have had a "senior moment".


The " Blue Scout " had it's final launch in 1962.

This chap states he began working at Vandenberg in 1965.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Most interesting is that he debunks a rather famous sighting:


A comment on the film, “Out of the Blue”, where it describes an incident at VAFB where a UFO supposedly shot lasers at, and disrupted, what appeared to be a Titan Delta flight; I was at VAFB at the time of the first Titan augmented flights and no such incident happened that I was aware of.


Link in OP post.


THAT'S what's most interesting to you?

Figures.

Actually, that famous case took place in 1964.

This guy wasn't there until the following year.

No debunk this time.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: schuyler
Most interesting is that he debunks a rather famous sighting:


A comment on the film, “Out of the Blue”, where it describes an incident at VAFB where a UFO supposedly shot lasers at, and disrupted, what appeared to be a Titan Delta flight; I was at VAFB at the time of the first Titan augmented flights and no such incident happened that I was aware of.


Link in OP post.


THAT'S what's most interesting to you?

Figures.

Actually, that famous case took place in 1964.

This guy wasn't there until the following year.

No debunk this time.


Thanks. But what have you got, Urantia? After all is said and done here, just what have you got that's in any way interesting? Any conclusive proof of anything? Any grand revelations? Anything nailed down here?

All you've got is an old man saying he saw some UFOs decades ago.

Figures.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Actually, I was slightly trying to speak "your language" to begin with.

BTW, if I were to get into personal insults, I'd be a lot harsher and more intense at it.

Your post came across as immature. But, giving the benefit of the skeptical doubt, I asked how old you were.

You sounded like you were looking down a long haughty nose at the OP. If you were doing so from 50+ years of life, it would be one thing. From 25, something else. From 15, something else.

edit on 20/7/2016 by BO XIAN because: added

edit on 20/7/2016 by BO XIAN because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Now, now.

Be kinder.

Old men that saw UFO's need love, too.

So, it's nothing very new.

It's not as though the oligarchy has been producing a massive sea change of information that's very reliable, either!



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Apparently there are more inconsistencies in the report, regarding places and missiles, as reported in a reply on the Nuforc homepage.

Cheers!



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Agnost

was this what you were trying to post?


Regarding the second report we featured last week, about alleged UFO-related events on, or near, Vandenberg AFB, north of Los Angeles, several people contacted our Center about some of the information provided in that report. Several people questioned whether the USAF SR-71 can fly at 3,500 miles per hour, and still others commented that they were unable to find information about a single-stage missile, call “Blue streak.” For the benefit of visitors to our site, we copy “in toto” the comments from one reader. At this time, we take no definitive position with regard to the report, except to convey our gratitude to the gentleman who submitted it, who seemed to us to be quite sincere in his description of the events described. We welcome additional comments from readers, particularly from those who may have been stationed at Vandenberg AFB, or who are personally familiar with some of the technical issues addressed by the report.


I appreciated Mr. Davenports followup on this. I will post additonal updates or information on this if they become available.
edit on 23pm31pm5091 by data5091 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: data5091

Hi Data,

no, the reader reaction just below that comment:



Hi Peter, Upon more research, a few more details of this report got my attention that just don't seem to add up--reasons given with citations. Now, it's not my intention to de-bunk any witness out of hand. However, I'm concerned this subject gets ridiculed when claims appear to be on shaky ground. Honestly, I'm unsure about the reasons for this level of inaccuracy--it's only for your consideration. Hopefully in the future I'll be able to supply analyses which help support/augment the witness, as what I did for sighting S122278. Best regards, ((name deleted))

“I have witnessed several incidents, while launching Atlas D missiles from South Vandenberg (Point Arguello), LF04 & LF05.”

Launch facility 04 (LF-04) is located on the far north end of Vandenberg AFB. It was used to launch the Minuteman IA, Minuteman II, Minuteman III.

Launch facility 05 (LF-05) is also located on the far north end of Vandenberg AFB. It was used to launch the Minuteman IA, Minuteman II, Minuteman III, and Peacekeeper.

Atlas D and Atlas F were launched from Complex 576A-576G, all on the north half of the base. Those launch sites located south near Point Arguello are PALC-C, SLC-5, SLC-6, and SLC-8, None of these sites appear to have been involved in Thor or Atlas launches.

“At the time, the launch films were classified as Secret. If they still exist, they would likely be held wherever SAC stored such data, after turning the base over to NASA.“

Vandenberg AFB is currently active, and was never “turned over to NASA”. In fact, the opposite is true. In 1972, Vandenberg was selected as the West Coast Space Shuttle launch and landing site. Due to technical problems and the Challenger disaster in 1986, this resulted in the official termination of the Shuttle program at Vandenberg on 26 December 1989.

“A comment on the film, “Out of the Blue”, where it describes an incident at VAFB where a UFO supposedly shot lasers at, and disrupted, what appeared to be a Titan Delta flight; I was at VAFB at the time of the first Titan augmented flights and no such incident happened that I was aware of.”

So I just watched the documentary. The incident in question happened in 1964. It involved a tracking site in Big Sur,124 miles north, while filming an Atlas missile launch at Vandenberg.

One last observation regarding “Duration: 30 minutes (each)” If each incident was observed for 30 minutes, was the UFO still following the missile? Did it stay in the launch area, or follow the missile into space? At around 3 minutes, an ICBM would be in space (apogee) and very far downrange.


Source

So, it appears that apart from getting the Blue Streak wrong, he also got the other missiles and launch places wrong; he says that he started to work there in 1965, and the Big Sur incident was in 1964. Moreover the durations of the observations also don't seem to check out. Then again, I'm not a rocket scientist, but this reader's comments seem to make sense.

Should somebody have valuable input on this, maybe also notify Mr. Davenport, as he is looking for additional information:

We welcome additional comments from readers, particularly from those who may have been stationed at Vandenberg AFB, or who are personally familiar with some of the technical issues addressed by the report.


Cheers



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

The SR-71 wasn't capable of anywhere near 3,500 mph. The top speed of the SR-71 was Mach 3.3, with extremely rare flights hitting Mach 3.5. That converts to about 2,200 mph for Mach 3.3, with a top speed of 2,300 mph at Mach 3.5.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: schuyler

On the west coast, Vandenberg missile tests are visible for more than a few seconds. They cause quite a stir.


Does any one know if one blew up just after launch during 1965?



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Quite a few according to this...

Vandenberg launch failures



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Quite a few according to this...

Vandenberg launch failures

98 failed launches in 1965? How can we be sure these are all the failures and not all the actual launches?



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

to be deleted
edit on 22-8-2016 by spiritualarchitect because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

to be deleted
edit on 22-8-2016 by spiritualarchitect because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

how does one delete a post?

edit on 22-8-2016 by spiritualarchitect because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2016 by spiritualarchitect because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Quite a few according to this...

Vandenberg launch failures

98 failed launches in 1965? How can we be sure these are all the failures and not all the actual launches?

Well, go head-on, check it out.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I am looking for a night time air burst event, not something that came back down. But this is interesting:

"On September 2, 1965, a space launch version of the Thor lifted off from SLC-1, a pad not far from where the RAF Thors had been launched. The vehicle was a Thor Agena D, one of a long series of vehicles that would launch military payloads from Vandenberg and compile an enviable success record while doing so. It seemed like it would be a routine launch, except that the wind blowing out of the west was unusually strong. The surface winds were not a problem for the vehicle; Thors in that configuration had absurdly high ground winds capabilities, on the order of 70 knots (130 km/h). The winds aloft caused some concern, but the launch proceeded.

The mission was to fly a launch azimuth of 172 degrees. This required the booster to fly close to the shore immediately after launch and hug the coast of California during much of the trajectory. But soon after liftoff the rocket headed too far to the east, eventually reaching some 1,100 feet (335 meters) from the nominal trajectory. The vehicle crossed the abort lines but the Missile Flight Control Officer failed to send the destruct signal. When at last he did blow the errant vehicle the results were catastrophic, and almost tragic.

The debris fell in a trailer park on the base, impacting one mobile home, occupied by a pregnant lady and two small children. The kids were at one end of the trailer and lady at the other. A large section of the rocket literally cut the trailer neatly in half, not even damaging the white picket fence surrounding the dwelling. Fortunately neither the children nor their mother was hurt physically, although legend has it the woman went into premature labor and delivered her third child some five weeks early."



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Wow, scary stuff indeed. Lucky them. The launch debris only cut their home in two, sparing the people inside and the 'white picket fence'.




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join