The Unsolved UFO Mystery of April 18,1962

page: 2
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Albeit, my expertise is in the medical field, I am an amateur pilot. Family members are aircraft mechanics and I grew up around aircraft and have knowledge of general aviation.

I recall information from various sources. Here is what I remember.
The U2 was not an easy aircraft to fly. A pilot had to maintain a constant speed at certain air densities. (altitude). Too fast and the wings suffered damage, too slow at altitude and the U2 would stall. The main mission was to fly level and take photo's.
The U2 was a Sub-Sonic aircraft. There are private Jets today that can fly well over a hundred MPH faster than the U2 can. Again, the wings were not designed for that type of flight. The Body was taken from the Lockheed F-104 “Starfighter” (One of my favs when I was a kid)
The first group (series) of U2's were not painted and had bare (Silver) airframes. Other than a large wing area, the U2 was a relatively small plane.
Landing a U2 takes skill and is a group effort. A chase “car” and "plane" must be used to give the pilot information. The older models I think had wing tip gear that “fell free” after take-off. Later models had retractable skids, then gear. (Why you need eye on the ground when landing.) It is also hard to see in that cockpit and the pilot has a spacesuit on as well. It's Not like flying a Cessana I tell ya.

Specifications: Lockheed Martin U-2S model
(Note: the airframe remained a constant during the first upgrades and only the powerplant was changed)

Length: 62.99ft (19.20m)
Width: 104.99ft (32.00m)
Height: 15.75ft (4.80m)
Performance:
Max Speed: 475mph (764kmh; 413kts)
Max Range: 7,000miles (11,265km)
Ceiling: 84,974ft (25,900m; 16.1miles)

So, can a U2 look yellow or give off colors?

Next time you see an airliner at altitude that has a bare aluminum frame, you will see it possibly “reflecting light” but does not look like it is the emitting source during its flight path.

Can a U2 fly around like what was described that day in 1962?

No. The U2's of that era were Sub-sonic aircraft and are relatively slow, even the newer versions are slow.
It also could not land “Fully” and take off again as described. It could do a “touch and go” however . . . But:
To do that, it would have to have flown to that landing site in that amount of time and at 460 to 480 mph, I do not think that to be possible. The flight path of that object also went against winds and jet stream.
Another factor is that the U2 was made to perform at High altitude. At lower altitudes, the air density would not allow the pilot to push his aircraft too much.
It is not a one man job landing that plane.

Conclusion: It was Not a Lockheed U2.

So, could it be another type of aircraft?

This was not an aircraft that I know of. We can speculate from one end of the spectrum to the other however, until more facts come to light.
However, this does sound like a non-airbreathing craft of some sort.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by NYCMedic]




posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


thanks ZiggyStar60 for the great info and your post sent me searching to see if there was a Nuclear power plant in Utah and from what i understand so far is that there are none in the State as of yet.

www.nucleartourist.com...

now something i did find out during this search is that Utah has many uranium mines and power plants from other states are dumping their spent fuel there somewhere. i could be wrong on that one...not sure

historytogo.utah.gov...


i have been searching trying to find out exactly where this close by power plant is and looking at google searches and maps i can't seem to locate where Eureka does in fact get their power from. maybe some one will know


edit to add that just North of Eureka Utah there are missile silos. are they Nuclear missiles ? that i don't know.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NYCMedic
 



So, can a U2 look yellow or give off colors?

Next time you see an airliner at altitude that has a bare aluminum frame, you will see it possibly “reflecting light” but does not look like it is the emitting source during its flight path.

Can a U2 fly around like what was described that day in 1962?

No. The U2's of that era were Sub-sonic aircraft and are relatively slow, even the newer versions are slow.
It also could not land “Fully” and take off again as described. It could do a “touch and go” however . . . But:
To do that, it would have to have flown to that landing site in that amount of time and at 460 to 480 mph, I do not think that to be possible. The flight path of that object also went against winds and jet stream.
Another factor is that the U2 was made to perform at High altitude. At lower altitudes, the air density would not allow the pilot to push his aircraft too much.
It is not a one man job landing that plane.

Conclusion: It was Not a Lockheed U2.

So, could it be another type of aircraft?


thanks NYCMedic


good post and i am going to have to agree with what you have said here.

that U2 plane could not have landed without help and if it was our plane why would we be chasing it with jet fighters ? doesn't make sense i tell ya


also this object was reported to be flying at 4500 mph at some point during it's adventure around the country and you have stated the U2 was a subsonic aircraft so i think we can rule this aircraft as , not a possible explanation.

so i wonder why...the Air Force told people it was a U2 or a balloon ?

a cover story is the only logical assumption.



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I thought about this case and wondered if there was any technology on the drawing boards at the time that could come close to what was observed. I was surprised to find project Navaho which could do the flying part.

Here is a link to an article about Navaho.www.astronautix.com...

Check it out. This project was mature enough to produce a flight article capable of the range needed. It was a Mach 3 airbreathing missile and had a manned version that was considered.

It is theoretically possible that a Navaho type missile could have been launched from a ship near Cuba, or maybe from Guantanamo Bay. Then it could have flown up the coast, turned left and crossed the country. I doubt that it could have landed and taken off again, since it used ramjet technology and so it could not restart the ramjet from a standstill. Still it is an intriguing idea.

Also note that the Soviets had a similar cruise missile system and they had a recon version of it. Hmmmm. That could explain the flight path and the explosion at the end of the line. Still does not explain the landing and relaunch though.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
www.ufocasebook.com...

I have a problem with some of the witness accounts. One (or Some) saw windows on this object. Even if this thing did have portals, they would be hard to see. That aspect is very questionable in my opinion.
UFO's have been improving (so to speak) with current earthly technology.
In other words, people have described UFO's (and taken photo's) to look like something from that era in time. A 1950's UFO looks like a 1950's UFO. Most (if not all) of these were fake.
However, this event in 1962 did happen, had many witnesses, and was tracked.

The Gasping sound. I recall something with regard to this. Some experimental aircraft that used VTOL propulsion made the "gasp" sound when downward or lateral corrections were engaging. But this really may not fit the scenario for what this “UFO” was capable of doing.
But that would explain "Windows". Those may have been attitude correction jet ports instead. That is still a stretch however.

Silver with yellow/orange flame. Here is a big clue. Albeit, I am still trying to get an accurate idea of what people say this thing was shaped like, I will use the artist rendition as a guide.
It was long and slender, like a rocket.
A metal skinned rocket in flight, (Solid or liquid engine) can reflect the light emitted from its combustion engine. Ergo, Silver front with yellow back. Many say they saw a fireball in the back, the news clip shows a fireball, some saw an object in the fireball . . . etc.
You see a rocket in flight from the back, you see a fireball, but not the rocket. The exhaust can appear larger than the rocket and this bright light source is far more visible.
The total lack of comments about witnesses seeing a “contrail” disturbs me. Capt. Herman Shields stated there was no exhaust or trail. A non air breathing rocket can do that.

Touch and go near a power plant.
Objects may appear to land and take-off when seen from certain vantage points. They also may appear to hover, but they are not. They are just coming at you and appear to be either slowing or hovering. So, this thing may not have “landed and taken off”. This does not diminish the event however.
This object was going in a few directions and may never have altered its speed. It possibly just seemed it was. This is interesting because this does prove the object was going all over the place. Something a falling rock just will never do. If it did alter its speed and altitude, then we have a real conundrum with regard to explaining it as a terrestrial object made during that time period.
Shutting down photo electric cells in a couple of locations because it was so bright. Horizon from ground level is about 21 miles. Capt. Herman Shields stated the object illuminated the ground like daylight for 20 square miles as seen from his aircraft.
A rocket or shuttle launch can do that.
First off, I think the Power plant in Eureka, Utah is (and was) a Coal fired plant. So people who say the object landed for a “nuclear refuel” are way way off the mark.
The only thing that comes to mind is Electro-Magnetic interference with regard to the power plant shut down. 2 men stated their trucks engine sputtered and headlights dimmed when the object was overhead. EM may very well do this as well. Just speculation however.

Fireball
Some witnesses (who were under the explosion) claim they saw white sparks emanating from the explosion. A nuke blast does not do that. Initially, reports of a nuclear type explosion were made. If it was a “nuclear type explosion”, there would be no witnesses alive to say it happened overhead. It exploded violently, I will grant that. The nuclear type explosion is News hype and eye witness exaggeration. It exploded and loud sounds were heard . . . that's a spectacular enough event for me.
What this thing was, I have no idea as of yet. I'll work on it.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by NYCMedic]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   


This political and military atmosphere, coupled with the fear that the Americans might invade Cuba, led Khrushchev to agree to supply surface-to-air missiles and surface-to-surface cruise missiles (for coastal defense) to Cuba in April 1962. He followed this with a decision, in May 1962, to install nuclear missiles (under Soviet control) in Cuba. By late July, more than sixty Soviet ships had arrived in Cuba, some carrying military material.
en.wikipedia.org...


I gave this a lot of thought, with research behind it.
It is cliamed this Object began its flight from Cuba.

I have a theory

Picture a wayward missile. Remember, or look up video on early missile tests that went hay-wire. There were a lot back in those days.

Some witnesses stated the object began to dim and oscillate just before it blew up. White sparks were seen. This fits an out of control missile.
This explains: Speed, fireball in back, long and slender silver object, oscillate before breaking up and exploding.

As explained earlier, an object can appear to slow or hover depending on the vantage point. This thing may have altered altitude and was out of control, so witnesses may have thought it was “hovering” when in fact it was coming at them or moving away. If it dipped behind a hill or mountain (At night) it could look like it landed and had taken off again.

Witnesses accounts, albeit a good source, can be exaggerated. I fly and have some hours of night time flight. I was also in the service and we used flares for search and rescue. Under certain conditions, it does not take too much light to illuminate a large area. Can a Rocket produce enough light to warrant the accounts stated . . . you bet ya.
View some night launches from Cape Kennedy and you will see what I mean.

Gasping sounds.
Sounds can be altered in various ways under various circumstances. Listen to the sounds made by a “in distress” rocket. Some may describe it as a low pitched wooosh. Sound bouncing off hills, air temp and density . . . it could very well reach the listener as a “Gasping” sound.

Why the Hush-Hush from the Government?
Would you let a population who are currently building bomb shelters in their backyards and kids being taught in school to “Duck & Cover” that a Russian Rocket flew up the coast, made a left at New York and flew across the United States.
I think not.
In October of 1962, we had the Cuban Missile crisis.

You think . . . just maybe . . . this event really pissed off the US government?
If Russian rocket parts were recoverable, would you keep it a secret?
Was it an embarrassment for the US?
The answer is "Yes"!

Conclusion:
The most plausible explanation was some Cuban moron or morons let lose one of the first Soviet rockets delivered for training. It most likely did not have a warhead and that did not help its flight characteristics any.
Its target settings . . . New York City.
No warhead (1 to 2 tons) made the rocket fly poorly, made it fly longer, and with it continuously trying to correct itself as it expending fuel. Once near New York, for some reason it kept on going. Maybe it was programmed to head to a secondary site. Maybe after it went to New York, it guidance system shut down and it just went were it went. Who knows.
It became dimmer, oscillated and broke up with a bang and a shower of sparks. Much like many Rocket explosions.

This was the 1962 trigger for us almost having WWIII.

That is my explanation after giving this much thought.

Peace.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by NYCMedic]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I was not aware of the fact that meteorites can completely change direction...



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


As for your question on missile silos and whether or not they are nuclear. Take it from this old retired USAF guy. If it's a missile and it's in a silo, then it's a nuke. As far as I know, we never went to the trouble of putting conventional missiles in silos.

As for Eureka, its a very hilly area, not a good place to land an aircraft. I also couldn't find a power plant site on Google Earth, but then we're talking about something from over 40 years ago--could be long gone. But, there are many old gold and silver mines from the 1800s. I know I have an active imagination, but I suddenly think of buried treasure.

By the way, kudos to the excellent analysis.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


If this was an alien craft and if indeed the jets destroyed it, doesn't that mean that they must have had an idea of what was inside the UFO? I mean suppose it had a mini nuclear power plant (just as an idea) would they have blown it up? Somehow this gives me the idea that the military already knew about these "tubes" and the risk posed by destroying them.

Interesting story!



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
why would Fighter Jets be chasing after meteors or balloons ?


Because people in general don't make good whitenesses...


Let’s start by looking at some instructive examples involving the planet Venus, the biggest UFO culprit of all, popularly known as the “evening star” (although it can also appear in the morning sky as the “morning star”). As amateur astronomers know, Venus is the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon and can dazzle the eye, sometimes appearing cross-shaped. Back in 1967, there was a famous case in which two policemen in Devon, England, reported Venus as a UFO shaped like a “flying cross” and chased it in their car at speeds up to 90 mile/h.

Source: www.ianridpath.com...

If the scenario like the above can happen with a 'stationary' object, it doesn't take much of a stretch of imagination to see how one inexperienced pilot could make a similar mistake!

What about the 'windows'? Well, read this (from the same source as above):


In The UFO Handbook, Allan Hendry describes an apparent close encounter of the third kind stimulated by Venus. A woman reported that a very bright object in the southwest had made a slow, jerky descent over a period of an hour one evening. As she stared at it, she became convinced that she could see occupants with rounded silvery heads looking out of the object’s windows. The UFO turned up again on subsequent nights, exactly where Venus should be.


Again, from the above passage, it's pretty clear how confused people can get when they see something in the sky they do not understand!


What about the flight path then? I think you answered that question yourself:


Originally posted by easynow
some of the witnesses stating the object traveled west while others stated the object traveled east. witnesses of the event included commercial Pilots, Military Personel, Police officers and civilians and the descriptions of the UFO varied.


So some people saying it's going one way, and others saying the other... I think we can say that that speaks for itself.

What about it landing/taking off? If only I had a penny for every time I hear someone say "I saw that fireball land"! I'd be rich! See this page for an explanation why people *think* that they see objects like this one land: www.meteorobs.org...

As for taking off... the whiteness probably saw another meteor moving 'up and away' from the horizon, and confused it with the first... who knows! People make bad whitenesses!

Radars can malfunction and cause false 'targets'... it certainly wouldn't be the first time!

Everything else just sounds like a description of a fireball/meteor, and the confusion that goes along with it matches reports that almost always accompany bright meteors.

The only thing that does seem strange is the timing. 32 minutes does not make sense for a meteor! I think it's likely that someone made an error in the time... if there's one thing that whitenesses are good at, it's making mistakes...



[edit on 12-1-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 




Originally posted by easynow
why would Fighter Jets be chasing after meteors or balloons ?





Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Because people in general don't make good whitenesses...


now come on C.H.U.D., i would have expected something better than that from you to explain why Jets did in fact chase this object.

using the method of discrediting witnesses here is not going to suffice for most of us and your assumptions seem somewhat ridiculous when considering the over all picture here.

just assuming the pilots that saw this object were inexperienced is quite a stretch and is an unjustified assumption imo.

if you want to rationalize this case in this way for your own personal beliefs then great but i think your way off base in your analysis

i do appreciate your input but ...that dog don't hunt for me, sorry










[edit on 12-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
First, kudos to your work!


Second: Threads like this make me sad, that my idea of Starting an ATS Case Book didn't get much support, well that's an understatement, you could say nearly none.

Only with topics like this we can reach the next level. We need to sort out all the hypothetical way-out-there stuff (like the alien peeping through the window after he missed one of the 30.000 mile wide gfl spaceships next to saturn to fly back to nibiru). Then we need to put stuff together, to get the big picture.

If we made this, more serious folks will jump in. Skeptical folks. Many people don't get that skeptics aren't "against" them, they seek the same or they wouldn't post here. But they have higher demand, they want high-profile evidence.

I know that sensationalism is what keeps this board alive and its owners some pocket money, but a forum for dedicated research is a must.

Dedicated (booooring) research stands in fundamental conflict with the interest of the masses (sensationalism) and therefore with the board owners, but either we get a forum dedicated to serious UFO discussion, or we continue running in circles for entertainment purpose only.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


It is personal opinion, yes, but backed up by real examples, and facts.

I'm not discrediting anyone, just saying people make bad whitenesses, and there is plenty of hard evidence to support this.

So, if people don't make bad whitenesses, then how do you account for police chasing Venus, or the lady who thought she saw windows/aliens when looking at Venus? Are you saying people are never wrong?

Are you going to ignore all of that (again... and again, and again)?

It's amazing how quick people are to ditch perfectly valid science and common sense when it conflicts with their (erroneous) beliefs!

As for the pilots - they are pilots, and not astronomers... even astronomers can make bad whitenesses... so what hope do they have


I know you want to believe that there are some real 'air-tight' cases out there, but as long as it's people reporting them, it just ain't going to happen.

If the real deal does happen, and thousands see it, then you/we will know... but until then we have squat...



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 



I'm not discrediting anyone, just saying people make bad whitenesses


umm...if you are saying people are bad witnesses most of the time as implied by your post you are in fact trying to discredit the witness testimony.

the sugar coating you put on that statement melted off as soon as i read it.



Are you saying people are never wrong?


no, i never said witnesses were never wrong but to melt every bad witness testimony into every UFO case is borderline of ridiculous.



It's amazing how quick people are to ditch perfectly valid science and common sense when it conflicts with their (erroneous) beliefs!


no whats amazing is how quick some people ditch the facts when they don't validate their science conceptualizations.


As for the pilots - they are pilots, and not astronomers... even astronomers can make bad whitenesses... so what hope do they have


see... your making illogical assumptions again. not everyone is wrong all the time and from what i am deriving from your post is, you are making that unfounded leap.


I know you want to believe that there are some real 'air-tight' cases out there, but as long as it's people reporting them, it just ain't going to happen.


how do you know what i want to believe ? you can read minds


i never said this was an "air tight case" and until further investigation is conducted nobody knows if it is or not...not even you




If the real deal does happen, and thousands see it, then you/we will know... but until then we have squat...


more assumptions i see...

you don't know what the real deal is or would look like...it may have already happened with this case...it may not have.

there are too many unknowns when contemplating this subject and to just assume a real alien ufo will be in the context of your understanding or anyone else's is imo foolish.









[edit on 12-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Well, CHUD has a point and so does EASYNOW.
By looking at this event objectively was the only way I could uncover what this most likely was.
(Which was a lot more dangerous than a alien fly-by)

I wish to add to my above posted analysis.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Many “alien type” UFO sightings, people see many other things. Examples: It was “glowing”, It landed and made a impression on the ground, there were two or more . . . so on and etc.

This event had one thing in common told by just about everyone . . . a Fireball.
Fireball (Fire) means this was a Rocket from a more down to earth source.

www.abytheliberal.com...

I looked at US sub launched missiles deployed at that time. My thinking was they took the 600kt warhead out of a Polaris and replaced it with a reconnaissance equipment package. The idea was to do a flyover of Cuba and take snap shots. The re-entry vehicle would drop by parachute over the North East Atlantic. That is how they recovered the photographs back in those days.
1) The Cubans had a rudimentary warning system, and if they did notice it, that meant Soviet interference.
2) After the Gary Powers incident of 1960, this was a tested (Albeit primitive) method of surveillance.
3) This may explain the “Windows” that were seen.

I ruled this scenario out.
Even if the US Government was that Ballsy and stupid, the range of the early Polaris was only 1000 miles. They did not go further until about 1965. The method had a low success rate during testing. The Polaris was not the issue, it was the recovery part that was the big problem.

So knocking this out, I looked at a land based ICBM launched from Cuba. They had the range, fit the speed parameters and eye witness accounts of this event.



The missile was over 30 m long, 3.0 m in diameter and had a launch weight of 141 tons. The maximum range was 11,000 km with a heavy warhead of 5-6 MT and 13,000 km with a light warhead of 3 MT, with CEP of 2.7 km.
www.historymania.com...


I still do not believe the witnesses who claim they saw “windows”. Some Rockets have markings and they possible saw that and said “Look! Windows!”.

I can picture witnesses waving at “Aliens” as a Soviet ICBM flies over their heads. Worth a giggle or two.

Peace.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by NYCMedic]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NYCMedic
 


thanks NYCMedic and your theory is something to consider but more than one witness stated the object landed and took off again.

i cannot just dismiss this part of the story because witnesses can sometimes be wrong and if this was a true event i don't see how any missile could have done that.

i am not saying your theory is wrong but i am having a difficult time believing a Missile could change directions and change altitudes and then disappear off the radar screen at ten thousand feet.

if the witness testimony has any credibility then the object changed directions quite a few times...just noting that.

also note that Air Defense Command tracked this object for more than an hour according to the report...just noting that.

these things have to be considered imo. thanks again and i will contemplate your theory some more



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
umm...if you are saying people are bad witnesses most of the time as implied by your post you are in fact trying to discredit the witness testimony.


Well yeah, I guess if you want to put it bluntly, then basically the vast majority of people make bad witnesses. I hate the word 'discredit' when used in such a blanket statement though... I'm sure the vast majority of whitenesses relay reports in good faith, and to discredit them somehow implies (at least to me), that they were intending to embellish or falsify, and that's certainly not what I'm trying to say here.



Originally posted by easynow
no, i never said witnesses were never wrong but to melt every bad witness testimony into every UFO case is borderline of ridiculous.


You might not have said it, but at the same time you don't question the validity of the statements in question. Don't you think that at least a small dose of skepticism is in order when it comes to cases/statements like this?

Lets, say just for simplicities sake that 1000 people saw this event, and perhaps 10 out of those 1000 report seeing a UFO, with the vast majority realizing that it was a meteor (and not thinking anything too much of it, apart from perhaps "wow - that was cool" and then go back to whatever they were doing before). Who are you going to believe? ...the 990 who would say it was a meteor, or the 10 that say it wasn't, bearing in mind that meteors are well known for their powers to fool our eyes?

But, the majority are silent since they saw nothing worthy of reporting, so it doesn't take a genius to work out that those shouting "UFO" are going to make the most noise, and that you could probably expect to find more erroneous reports than accurate reports from the public in general.

And before you accuse me of making assumptions again, I'm not. Time and time again this has been shown to be the case, with emergency services switchboards jammed with confused people reporting that they "saw a plane on fire" or "it crashed just over in the next field", when in fact it later turned out to be a meteor. Do you want me to dig out links?



Originally posted by easynow
no whats amazing is how quick some people ditch the facts when they don't validate their science conceptualizations.


If that was directed at me... I think you'll find I didn't ditch any facts. If I did, show me where?

What I did do, is call in to question the validity of the whiteness statements in this case. Statements are not necessarily facts - they are 'hearsay'.



Originally posted by easynow
see... your making illogical assumptions again. not everyone is wrong all the time and from what i am deriving from your post is, you are making that unfounded leap.


Yes, it was an assumption, but it was far from illogical. So you think it's more likely the case than not, that this pilot was an experienced astronomer?!



Originally posted by easynow
how do you know what i want to believe ? you can read minds



No, but I'm perfectly capable of observing behavior, and the threads and posts that you author here say allot about you... So, if you're not looking for the proof that "UFOs are real", what exactly are you doing here on the ATS Aliens & UFOs forum?



Originally posted by easynow
i never said this was an "air tight case" and until further investigation is conducted nobody knows if it is or not...not even you



And I never said you did...


Originally posted by easynow
more assumptions i see...

you don't know what the real deal is or would look like...it may have already happened with this case...it may not have.

there are too many unknowns when contemplating this subject and to just assume a real alien ufo will be in the context of your understanding or anyone else's is imo foolish.


Well a certain degree of logic has to apply, or else what is the point, we may as well just all give up and go home - theres nothing more that we can do if we have to throw logic out of the _

How can you find something if you don't know what you're looking for?

Edit to add: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that I think this was a meteor with 100% certainty, but it does have many of the hallmarks associated with a meteor, and I'm just pointing out how many of the reports can be explained.

NYCMedic also has a very plausible theory IMHO. It would certainly go some ways to explaining the timing and 'discrepancies' in the reported flight path/trajectory.


[edit on 12-1-2009 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
A very interesting case.. Never heard of it before.. Thanks for posting.

That drawing of the craft is very close to what a friend said she once saw.. She described it as been like a long train with windows all down the side.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


ok, in an effort to move on past this unnecessary dialogue exchange i will say your input is appreciated and your point is taken and noted that the vast majority of people make bad witnesses.

of course this doesn't mean i agree with you



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by thesexynortherner
 


your welcome and many people have not heard about this incident. i was amazed to find that this had not been discussed here on ATS already since it is a very interesting UFO sighting.

i don't doubt your friend did see something similar because cigar shaped UFO's have been seen for decades by many people.

an amazing event that took place in Nuremberg Germany in 1561 involved cylindrical and orb shaped UFO's. another supposed event with a cylindrical object was when Russian Mig Fighter Jets were scrambled to intercept a UFO. one of the most interesting sightings with a cigar shaped object that involved a passenger Jet was America West Flight 564 , and it was at 39,000 feet near Bovina, Texas when it encountered the 3-400 ft. UFO.


and according to one of the documents posted here on ATS from Clifford Stone say's the Military was aware of these cigar shaped objects being spotted back in the 40's

www.abovetopsecret.com...


so my opinion is that this type of UFO has been seen by many people and there has to be a reason for that. i believe the reason is because they actually do exist and that's why i don't doubt your friend seen one also.

thanks for your reply







[edit on 12-1-2009 by easynow]





new topics
top topics
 
48
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join