1864/1865 crash in Montana

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:20 AM
link   
After a few hours of researching the 1864 Montana crash, using the following sources:

1. www.rense.com...
2. www.iuser.iwarp.com...
3. www.ufologie.net...
4. www.rense.com...

I was able to plot a 41 mile square perimeter encompassing the Montana crash area. For those interested you can load the data I accumulated into Google Earth by opening the following kmz.

Please don't upload the contents to the Google Earth Community.

If anyone has anything else to add I'd appreciate the input.




posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   
47°59'7.00"N
112°21'23.62"W

GE pic

Around this area based on those gps data.


[edit on 16-4-2007 by WhiteWash]



posted on May, 25 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   
WhiteWash, you were close, but the correct longitude and latitude are listed below:

  1. Cadotte Creek (47° 5'56.16"N, 112°24'2.87"W)
  2. Cadotte Pass (47° 5'58.20"N, 112°23'37.20"W)
  3. Possible crash location (47° 5'58.20"N, 112°22'39.00"W)

I noticed in your screen-cap that you were looking at Dan Ahren's cad10.jpg from Rense. If you take a peek at it again, you'll notice that the coordinates are specified in DM not DMS (IE/ 47°5.97'N not 47°59'7.00"N and 112°23.62'W not 112°21'23.62"W ).

When I first saw it, I wasn't sure which was correct either, the difference was a piddle 60 miles, so to prove that it was DM and not DMS I took the cad10.jpg and overlayed it on the terrain in Google Earth to match the contour lines with the terrain elevation. Check it out. Open up the kmz that I linked above, expand out the Rense.com data element in the tree-view, and then click on the Rense.com topographical map checkbox.

Remember, though, what you're looking at is simply Dan Ahren's interpretation of the 1865 article and his guess at where the crash occurred.

When I was investigating I didn't take anything for granted. I started from scratch. Since I still have my notes I'll include them to better explain my thinking and to air to some of my doubts.

The first part of the news-clipping reads,


"Mr. Lumley states that about the middle of last September, he was engaged in trapping in the mountains about seventy-five to one hundred miles (1) above (2) the Great Falls of the Upper Missouri ..."


This establishes a radius of approximately 75 to 100 miles and is the first indicator that the crash site is north of Great Falls city. Unfortunately there's a problem with this. The terrain is all flats in a 75 to 100 mile arc north of the city. Also the author appears to contradict himself, when in the same sentence he writes,


... and in the neighborhood of what is known as Cadotte Pass (3).


A number of historical sites suggest that Cadotte's Pass "is three and one-half miles south-southeast of the [pass] Lewis [and Clark] crossed and two miles north-northwest of Rogers Pass, where U.S. Highway 200 goes over the Continental Divide." All of these locations are south of Great Falls city. Note that since this data comes from historical societies it helps rule out that Cadotte Pass was renamed and/or mislabeled some years later by an uninformed city councilman.


[edit on 25-5-2007 by Xtraeme]



posted on May, 25 2007 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Topozone and Placenames give a more precise location, they claim the longitude & latitude of Cadotte Pass is 47° 5'58.20"N, 112°23'37.20"W.

Even though this data strongly corroborates that the Cadotte Pass is where we would expect it to be, I still have one or two misgivings about the pass in the 1865 article being the same as the one referenced on all these websites.

During my research I discovered a lithograph that had the following description, "The United States Pacific Railroad Survey party approaches Cadotte's Pass through the Continental Divide of the Rocky Mountains in Montana, September 23, 1853." If you look at the terrain in the painting and compare it to an easterly view (rendered, photo) and a westerly view (rendered) of Cadotte Pass you'll likely agree they look nothing alike.

It's the background. It's completely wrong.

If this is a painting of the men heading towards Cadotte Pass there should be mountains with white tops & green tree cover lining the horizon. Instead we see an arid wasteland. The only way I can conceivably believe that this is the same location is if the artist is drawing the men traveling from Cadotte Pass into the eastern flats towards Great Falls city. Or, that the men are riding from Great Falls towards the Rockies, but due to the artists error in perspective the mountains are rendered disproportionate to the foreground objects.

This might explain why the author of the 1865 article wrote, "above the Great Falls." By today's standards it's incorrect, but back then, who knows, Cadotte Pass could have been above the city to the west & through the flats.

So if this isn't the same Cadotte Pass, the "real one" still has to be approximately within a 75 to 100 mile radius from Great Falls city in the Rocky Mountains somewhere along the Continental Divide. This, unfortunately, encompasses a rather large area. If the Cadotte Pass of today isn't the Cadotte Pass of the past the crash could have been as far northwest as 48°10'48.75" N, 113°13'47.03"W or as far southeast as 46°02'13.28" N, 111°25'49.17"W. In other words to find it you'd have to search approximately 4,000 square miles of territory. To get a better sense of how much ground this covers open up the kmz, expand Total Possible Search Area and double click Perimeter of the Total Possible Search Area.

Lucky for us this is a painting, meaning probably a recollection of the journey not an accurate rendition of the survey party traversing the countryside. So putting my skepticism aside, I accept that Cadotte Pass is where Topozone says it is and that the author meant for us to use the Great Falls as the first reference point even though it's above Cadotte Pass.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Xtraeme]



posted on May, 25 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
The next thing to figure out in (3) is what was meant by "... in the neighborhood of what is known as Cadotte Pass."

"In the neighborhood" is a relative phrase that requires context for it to have meaning. If a person talks with a friend who lives two hours away and says "I'm in the neighborhood," he probably means several minutes to an hour away.

Put another way "in the neighborhood of" means a unit of distance or time smaller than the order of magnitude being used to bound it.

So for example if a person says an event happened in the neighborhood of the 1860's, the person is relating that the scale is years because the order of magnitude bounding it is measured in decades. By saying this the person also loosely restricts the time period to the range between 1851 and 1879, and implies an implicit bias for the years that fall after 1860 and between 1860 to 1869.

This also holds true for spatial relationships.

If a person who lives in Russia calls a friend in the US and says, "I'm in the neighborhood," he conveys that he's in the States because the spacial order of magnitude bounding the distance is countries. This example is particularly relevant because it demonstrates how the expression can be ambiguous. The friend in the US after hearing this is left to wonder, does my friend mean he's "in the neighborhood of my town or state" or does he mean in the "US but far enough away that we won't be able to see each other in person?"

Bearing this in mind re-read the first sentence.

"Mr. Lumley states that about the middle of last September, he was engaged in trapping in the mountains about seventy-five to one hundred miles (1) above (2) the Great Falls of the Upper Missouri (3) and in the neighborhood of (4) what is known as Cadotte Pass (5)."


Since this is an article from the 19th century (meaning travel by boat, foot, and horse) and the author gives several broad scales of distance (IE/ the geographic territory is described as Upper Missouri, the location is painted incorrectly as above the Great Falls and the distance to the pass is a rough 75-100 miles to Cadotte Pass), it's probably fair to say that "in the neighborhood" means within a days trip of Cadotte Pass. Since Lumley is cited as trapping in the mountains it's also implied that he's moving on foot. According to this site "the average pace of overland travel by an Indian band [is about] 25 miles per day." Recall that the author had earlier said Lumley was "75 to 100 miles away from Great Falls." This in and of itself suggests an error margin of approximately 25 miles. Expressed in time this would equal a days journey.

So putting all this together, it can be said that:

  1. Cadotte Pass is ~60 miles, in a straight line, from Great Falls. Navigating by foot around impassable terrain adds 15 miles to the journey, putting the total distance traveled smack at 75 miles.
  2. With a range of 75-100 miles suggests that Lumley was up to 25 miles, or a days trip out, from Cadotte Pass
  3. Based on the following two observations this gives an approximate search radius of 25 miles centered on Cadotte Pass or 1809 square miles! Thankfully half this area is in the flats and since Lumley said the object crashed in the mountains we can restrict the search to the Rockies (~981 square miles). To view the search perimeter open up the kmz and double-click 25 mile radius around Cadotte's Pass and Probable search perimeter of the 1865 crash.

The rest of the article is largely self-explanatory, but there are some details worth niggling over.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Xtraeme]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
WhiteWash, you were close, but the correct longitude and latitude are listed below:

  1. Cadotte Creek (47° 5'56.16"N, 112°24'2.87"W)
  2. Cadotte Pass (47° 5'58.20"N, 112°23'37.20"W)
  3. Possible crash location (47° 5'58.20"N, 112°22'39.00"W)

I noticed in your screen-cap that you were looking at Dan Ahren's cad10.jpg from Rense. If you take a peek at it again, you'll notice that the coordinates are specified in DM not DMS (IE/ 47°5.97'N not 47°59'7.00"N and 112°23.62'W not 112°21'23.62"W ).

When I first saw it, I wasn't sure which was correct either, the difference was a piddle 60 miles, so to prove that it was DM and not DMS I took the cad10.jpg and overlayed it on the terrain in Google Earth to match the contour lines with the terrain elevation. Check it out. Open up the kmz that I linked above, expand out the Rense.com data element in the tree-view, and then click on the Rense.com topographical map checkbox.

Remember, though, what you're looking at is simply Dan Ahren's interpretation of the 1865 article and his guess at where the crash occurred.

When I was investigating I tried to not take anything for granted. I started from scratch. Since I still have my notes I'll include them to better explain my thinking and to air to some of my doubts.

The first part of the news-clipping reads,


"Mr. Lumley states that about the middle of last September, he was engaged in trapping in the mountains about seventy-five to one hundred miles (1) above (2) the Great Falls of the Upper Missouri ..."


This establishes a radius of approximately 75 to 100 miles and is the first indicator that the crash site is north of Great Falls city. Unfortunately there's a problem with this. The terrain is all flats in a 75 to 100 mile arc north of the city. Also the author appears to contradict himself, when in the same sentence he writes,


... and in the neighborhood of what is known as Cadotte Pass (3).


A number of historical sites suggest that Cadotte's Pass "is three and one-half miles south-southeast of the [pass] Lewis [and Clark] crossed and two miles north-northwest of Rogers Pass, where U.S. Highway 200 goes over the Continental Divide." All of these locations are south of Great Falls city. Note that since this data comes from historical societies it helps rule out that Cadotte Pass was renamed and/or mislabeled some years later by an uninformed city councilman.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Boy, sounds like a meteorite. As for the hieroglyphics, these could have been the crystal structure of an iron meteorite (and let's not forget that these "hieroglyphs" are pure hearsay). The glass could have been tektite material (associated with meteorite blasts). The aerial description also sounds like a meteor that broke up in the air, i.e. a bolide.

If there were indeed hieroglyphics on it, why didn't anyone go back to investigate it more thoroughly? Was this a government cover-up, too, by the Lincoln/Johnson administration?

This is a prime example of UFO wannabelievers grasping at straws. And don't get me wrong; I'm not a debunker, but a critical thinking UFO hobbyist. Many here would likely label me a skeptic, but I'm only skeptical of less-than-compelling cases, which this one is.

I came upon this thread because of a citation of this incident as a "pre-flying saucer" case of a UFO. Turns out it is purdee much an IFO -- a bolide. Citing such cases as pre-Arnold UFO sightings is specious to the extreme.



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Back in 69, I went camping in that general are. It is pretty wild and naturally scenic.



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
It's nice to see this thread come back to life after all these years.



Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Boy, sounds like a meteorite.

I don't think many people would argue otherwise. All the details fit in line with a bolide.


As for the hieroglyphics, these could have been the crystal structure of an iron meteorite (and let's not forget that these "hieroglyphs" are pure hearsay).

Well the whole thing is hearsay, right? There were no samples taken. No photographs. Then again back in mid 1860's everything was related by word of mouth. So I'm not sure why we would dismiss one part of the story and accept another. But I would largely agree that it's very easy to imagine a trapper in that era mistaking the crystalline structure for writing:



Now imagine if it also had compounds like chrysolite or other more exotic materials. It would look surreal.


However I'm willing to be equally skeptical of my own initial skepticism. I'm still not sure how I would account for the "...divided into compartments..." We're also both taking some liberties with his testimony by ignoring that the reporter detailed, "[Mr. Lumley] is confident that the hieroglyphics are the work of human hands, and that the stone itself, although but a fragment of an immense body, must have been used for some purpose by animated beings."


If there were indeed hieroglyphics on it, why didn't anyone go back to investigate it more thoroughly? Was this a government cover-up, too, by the Lincoln/Johnson administration?

I'm not sure if you're serious with this question or not. It's hard to imagine a no-name trapper out in the middle of the American frontier having the ear of Lincoln or Johnson.

Actually my initial interest in this report was it that seemed likely the fragments are probably still out there just hidden under new vegetation and tree cover. To me it's kind of exciting to think that we might be able to find a non-terrestrial rock reported by a trapper from back in the 1860's, here, in the modern day.
edit on 5-7-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I've been to Montana and the area round Missoula and Lolo. It has beatiful scenery and as said above is wild. If I had time I would've made some camping in the wildnerness, not too deep though, lots of bears.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Hello Xtraeme,

Yes, I was being facetious/sarcastic about the Lincoln/Johnson administration cover-up of this. I am, however, surprised that no one back then pursued this matter. Seems anything with hieroglyphs would have whetted the appetite of museum curators and other gentleman naturalists/archeologists. I understand that there were other things going on at the time, and Montana was even more rugged and quite undeveloped back then, so it would be hard to make the trip; none the less, I would have expected some interested party to search for it..

I don't know what to make of the compartmentalization remark either besides that it was a broken up meteor -- or at least a pile of broken up rock..

One other thought on the hieroglyphs: if it truly were a bolide, then it may well have blasted into fragments and what this trapper took for parts of the "space ship" (or whatever he described it as), may have been country rock broken up by the blast and the "hieroglyphics" may have been Indian petroglyphs.

Then again the old trapper coot may just have been angling for free drinks at the saloon...

Kudos on providing a picture of the crystalline structure of a nickel/iron meteorites, i.e. Widmanstätten pattern.

I'm glad to see you were heartened by the resuscitation of this thread. Being fairly new to ATS, I wasn't sure how kosher it is to reply to long-dormant threads, particularly if one doesn't have new information to add, but rather is just commenting on the topic.

Also, I'll thank you here for your reply to my technical questions in your UFO repository thread. Didn't want to just post a "thank you" there, without adding anything else of worth. Seems that would be against posting etiquette.
edit on 7-7-2011 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Even if this was just a large meteorite, wouldn't that be awesome to locate? A UFO would be even better, I admit...



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I took "above the great falls" to mean high altitude possibly above the tree line. Bear tooth pass for instance has snow in June and there is nothing but scrub brush in many areas above 10,000 feet. Geode crystallization is very alien looking. Often looks like a plain rock on the outside with very structured crystals in the hollow center. I could see someone thinking that a Geode was from a distant civilization.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
A century after the 1908 Tunguska explosion, flattened trees still cover the Siberian landscape.

And flattened trees still cover Cadotte Pass:



Cadotte Pass: Google Earth Coordinates
edit on 27-12-2012 by MrTux because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
8

log in

join