Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Unsolved UFO Mystery of April 18,1962

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
fantastic thread , star and flag, thank you for the patience it took to put it together. more input on my part to come...




posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
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



Well the main point of my post was that the vast majority of people make bad witnesses, and you just agreed with that, so I don't see how you could not agree with me, but never mind... as long as there is consensus that this is a very real possibility in a case like this.

Anyway, I want as much as anyone here to get to the bottom of this case, but please don't sweep the message that I bring under the carpet...

It's curious that the official explanation was a meteor (correct me if I'm wrong), since the military would have been well aware that that a meteor could not possibly have lasted that length of time. They would also have been well aware of the point I made above, and could have used this INFO...

If it was indeed a rocket as NYCMedic suggested, then that might explain allot of things including the time frame/trajectory... perhaps the government was frightened that a missile going haywire like that would startle the public, especially at a time when nuclear missiles was on everyones mind. So the missile became a meteor as part of a cover-up to protect national security interests.

I think that sounds plausible?



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 



and you just agreed with that


No , i did not agree

what i agree to is that if someone else wants to use "people in general make bad witnesses " in deciding what they think about this case then that is ok. i meant your point is taken so that others could or might consider it.

personally i won't entertain the idea much but i don't want to stop anyone from discussing that point just because i don't agree with it.

so i was taking and noting your opinion for the general community here, not for me. sorry if you misunderstood, it is my fault for not being clear about it.


but please don't sweep the message that I bring under the carpet


i am not sweeping it under the carpet because i will agree that there is some truth to it but as i have said before you can't drag other incidents into every discussion and just assume the same thing happened here.


If it was indeed a rocket as NYCMedic suggested, then that might explain allot of things including the time frame/trajectory... perhaps the government was frightened that a missile going haywire like that would startle the public, especially at a time when nuclear missiles was on everyones mind. So the missile became a meteor as part of a cover-up to protect national security interests.

I think that sounds plausible?



it does sound plausible if you go around the witness hurdles instead of jumping over them like we should do. that means if you ignore some of the parts of this story then yea you can make any scenario work.

i purposely interjected the Cuban missile crisis into the conversation in order to explore the possibility's of this ufo being something man made but i will caution everyone not to jump to any final conclusions just because it makes more sense than a UFO being the explanation. there is an argument for both possibility's imo.















[edit on 13-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeBarna
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.


thanks JoeBarna for clearing that up for me and i thought that would be the case with underground missiles but i wasn't completely sure.

i also looked on Google Earth for a power plant nearby with no success yet and i will definitely agree with you that it would not be a good place to land a plane or anything like that. after viewing the surrounding terrain i also thought there might be some buried treasure there. it just looks like a mining town and you just know there is some Gold in them there hills


i am going to keep trying to figure out where the nearest power plant may have been even though you are correct it's been 40 years ago and could be long gone. i am hoping someone from that area will chime in and let us know. we shall see

thanks again for looking for it ,and i haven't given up on it yet.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

A spokesman for the North American Air Defense Command in Colorado Springs. Colorado, Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Rolph, told reporters that the first observers, in the Oneida, New York, area, had seen a glowing red ball heading to the west. It was at great altitude, made no sound, and disappeared in seconds.


-Were did the info regarding flight path from Cuba go to? There is a gap someplace. Please post it as I can't find it. Thanks.

-This thing was up there at that time. (Flame, glowing red ball)




Radar picked up the object, and operators watched it as it streaked into the Midwest. The Air Defense Command alerted a number of bases, including Nellis in Las Vegas. Reports indicate that fighters were scrambled from Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix.


It is now tracked on radar. It is descending.



In Nephi, Utah, according to the Las Vegas Sun, witnesses reported the glowing red object flew overhead. When it was gone, there was a rumbling like that of jet engines.


"Rumbling" is now heard after it passes. It is still descending.


Then, according to the reports, the UFO came down near Eureka, Utah, interrupting electrical service from a power plant close to the landing site. It took off a few minutes later, continuing to the west. It was seen over Reno, Nevada, apparently made a sweeping turn to the south, and then disappeared from the radar screens east of Las Vegas.


According to reports. I really question this.
One thing I do know.
When I looked at that power plant (a few Photo's), I saw it was right next to a big lake.
You see a reflection of a bright moving object off water with a large complex right on the shoreline.
The object may look like it is headed for it, land, and take off again.
Of course the tree you are standing near is blocking the light emitting object or you are too focused on just what you want to see.
(Just an example)
Conclusion: Reflection at night of a bright flying object off lake.


The Clark County, Nevada, sheriff's office was swamped with phone calls about the explosion. Witnesses said the object was traveling almost horizontally northeast of Las Vegas until the final explosion from the direction of Mesquite, Nevada.


A Rocket that explodes can simply drop off the radar. Nothing big enough to send back a return. That was also 1962 with vacuum tube technology.
That explains the fireworks type shower of "Sparks" that were described after it went Boom.

Look, I am not trying to be a pain. I think you found something far more important than a Alien UFO sighting here.
Somebody screwed up BIG TIME with a ICBM. I am almost certain about this now. And the Government is tight as a clam about it - to this very day.

EDIT: Also, as this thing hit denser air (descended), it became more erratic. It broke up and exploded.

Peace

[edit on 12-1-2009 by NYCMedic]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NYCMedic
 


the info about the UFO originating from somewhere over Cuba is in the video posted in the Op. it was mentioned somewhere in the text of one of the books or articles about this incident but for the life of me i can't seem to find it again. it only mentioned that it originated from over Cuba and there is no data to dissect written anywhere that i know of.

if you watch the video you will see that George Knapp talks about a recently uncovered Air Force document that supposedly states the object originated from over Cuba. i am guessing that Kevin Randle is the one that uncovered the document since he has been the one investigating this case.

i wish i had a copy of that document for us to examine.

did i try to get a copy of it ? yes i did try

did i get the document ? No

people that i contacted told me that this case was discussed at the UFO Crash Retrieval Conference of 2008 and the presentation done by Kevin Randle was available on DVD and supposedly the documents are shown and discussed in the video. i don't know if that's true or not because i have not seen it yet.

i wanted an actual copy of the document for us to see and i tried to find an email address for Mr. Randle but could not find it anywhere on the web.

here is the link to the presentation he did at the conference.

shop.paranormalmatrix.tv...

i am assuming that since this supposed document has somewhat recently been uncovered it would not be anywhere online yet. part of that reason may also be contributed to the fact people make money in the UFO business and if i had the document then why would i need to buy the DVD ?

i also tried to search for Norad radar records from that day but quickly found that to be a dead end.

i hope that answers your question.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
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!


thanks QueenofWeird for your reply,

that's an interesting viewpoint you have brought up. would the Military risk blowing up something without knowing what the consequences would be ?

something to think about for sure



and just to clear this up...we don't know for a fact that the Jets destroyed this object. it was reported that it blew up somehow because a Giant flash was seen before it disappeared off the Radar at ten thousand feet.

the object supposedly lit up more than once so i don't know if the last time it did that before disappearing off the radar was actually an indication of it being destroyed either by the fighter jets chasing it or it self destructed.

it may have just disappeared and was not destroyed. who knows



an object sighted over Oneida, New York, was headed to the west. There were reports from Kansas and Colorado, and indications of something near the ground outside of Eureka, Utah. Something bright enough to later light up the streets of Reno, Nevada, like the noonday sun, and then turn toward Las Vegas, far to the south and hack to the east. It flared brightly and disappeared from the Nellis Air Force Base radar scopes at ten thousand feet.


you can read the story in my signature below.


thanks again



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I went looking myself. The official records are listed on a site, meaning "here is the URL for this time and date" with regard to this event.
Click the URL and page is not there nor is it cached. One page has three pictures of radar images, but the 3 images "can't be found".
I would question the pics anyway without documentation.

Lets just "speculate" that this object, traveling from East to West was a Rocket. Where do you think, from the existing data, did it originate?

As we "Speculate", can we rule out space junk falling to Earth? (Meaning we prove the thing was powered and going in other directions, with documentation)

Do you wish to seek assistance from another part of the board? Like Government cover ups . . . etc.

Unless we find "proof" of the claim it started out over Cuba, (And other proof) it will be written off by many as "Cold War panic".

I'll help in trying to give you info. I still have an open mind on this.
Peace.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NYCMedic
 


yea i already know those documents are unavailable. why i don't know.

here is another webpage stating the UFO did land and was on the Ground for 42 minutes.


Though it may be debatable whether the above cases of electrical transmission failure were merely coincidences with UFO activity, an incident on April 18,1962, involving a UFO that had been tracked from New York, through Kansas to Eureka, Utah, was well documented. The Air Force spokesman admitted that the object had landed, and during the 42 minutes that it was on the ground near the power station there was no power, but it was restored when the UFO left. The object was pursued by jet interceptors summoned from Phoenix and Stead Field in Reno until it exploded over the Mesquite Range in Nevada in a brilliant glare that was visible over five states.(67)


www.nicap.org...

and here is where it is mentioned that the UFO originated from somewhere over Cuba.


The master index showed no sighting in Utah on April 18, but did list a meteor on April 19. (Later notes in the file itself confirm the April 18 date.) The Project Record Card claimed: "Object came in over Cuba and apparently landed in rough terrain West of Eureka, Utah. Bright enough to trip photo electric cell which controlled city street lights." They also note, "Multiple rpts. Attempted recovery by Col. Friend and Dr. Hynek." They finish by noting the explanation is "Astro, probably meteor."


www.ufocasebook.com...

this information cannot be ignored just to make a theory work.






[edit on 13-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I like NYCMedic's missile theory with a small addition. The Bay of Pigs attempted invasion of Cuba commenced on 17 April 1962 after several days of air strikes on Cuba. About five months later the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. That crisis was over the delivery of ballistic missiles and warheads to Cuba from the USSR.

The Cuban government was well aware that this invasion was coming (which is part of the reason it was such a dismal failure).

It is not much of a stretch to imagine that some time prior to this Cuba had been screaming to Moscow for help. The USSR had, like the USA, been working on cruise missiles since the end of WWII. Perhaps a few "proof of concept" trials had already taken place to deliver and install missiles in Cuba and as part of the threat and counter threat was a boast that they (Cuba) could hit NYC with a missile. A big threat!

Actually hitting NYC with even a conventional weapon would have brought the wrath of US regular forces down upon Castro. And whatever else you may think of Castro he was no fool. I don't think he would have dared do that.

The invasion started on the 17th. It was not going well on that first day. There was pressure for US regular forces to help.

What better way to discourage that without risking the calamity of all out retaliation by overflying NYC with a missile sans warhead.

Once it had achieved that goal it just flew on until it ran out of juice. Some of the witness descriptions do seem to indicate an engine spluttering on min fuel. A simple reliable self destruct mechanism would be such that when it could no longer fly and maintain altitude (the engine stopped) it simply blew up.

I can imagine the call from Moscow to Fidel; "You did what now?... Let me get this straight. You just dropped one of our shiny, brand new, just out of the box, super secret, cruise missiles into the middle of the US...Yeah thanks Fidel, you...How do you know they didn't find the pieces?...Oh they said they didn't. Where?...Oh I see because the US Air Force they didn't issue a press release saying they just found a Soviet Missile in Nevada after it did a cross continental tour of the United States you are confortable with this. Happy Easter you arse clown... click"



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
A brief note on my post above. I'm sure some will point out that cruise missiles did not appear till well after this event.

In fact the US (with post war German assistance) put a lot more effort into trying to develop cruise missiles rather than ballistic missiles immediately after WWII because it was thought to be easier than a ballistic missile. (turns out they were wrong) They did have a working model in the V1. (only it's guidance system was rubbish. ie it didn't have one.)

Think about a V1++ on steroids (big with a big jet engine) set for 10,000 feet just faffing about at night. Many of the contradictory reports on direction may have been this thing bouncing around with nowhere in particular to go.

This might even account for the "landing". It skims the ground at some point and as some witnesses said seemed to shoot back up. ie "He was driving through town and watched the glowing orange ball. He saw it close to the ground, but then saw it take off again."

Can't account for the town's power failure though, but you can't have everything.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
here is the Blue Book Documents that are available online.

www.footnote.com...

www.footnote.com...:%201950%20and%20After|8659322

www.cufos.org...

this project note indicates the object originated from the direction of Cuba




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


Great thread, these older cases are the best, in my opinion.

One thing I do not understand (probably just a language problem) is the expression "Object came in over Cuba".

How many interpretations can that sentence have? Why did they say "came in over Cuba" and not "came from Cuba" or "came from the direction of Cuba"?

And just "came in"? What meaning could those words have?

Is this some type of common military talk or is this really an unusual way of saying things?

And I know that when talking about US places, the name is followed by the name of the state, but could this Cuba be another Cuba?

Or am I just confused with an unfamiliar sentence?



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Thanks ArMaP


and yes, i agree the older cases are the best to investigate.

"the object came in over Cuba" is just a simple way of saying we don't really know exactly where over Cuba it originated but but we know it came from that direction.

*** this doesn't mean that Norad did not know the exact location.***

it may have been purposely put on the documents that way so the exact location was not revealed to the public. or they did not have the data to be more specific about it's origin when they made the document.

and no it's not just military talk,

"just came in" is another brief or short way of saying we are unsure how it happened. there is no other way to describe an unknown event.



and to answer your question about Cuba:

there are no states named Cuba but i believe there is a place in Miami , Florida called little Cuba or little Havana , because so many Cubans have moved there.

so we are in fact talking about the Island of Cuba south of Key West Florida.

i was in Key West Florida years ago and there is a place marked there that say's "you are 90 miles from Cuba"

that's how close the United States is to Cuba

thanks again and i hope that answers your questions my friend






edit to make things clear

[edit on 13-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
This is why I "first" looked at a Polaris Sub-launch. I had to rule that out.
Because the path could of started South of Cuba, and the Reconnaissance Package would be picked up off the North East coast.
They did not have the Tech we do today. The "Film" was shot, the package separated, descended either by Parachute and picked up, or a Drogue chute to be hooked by a plane in mid-flight.
It was not a Polaris. I do not know any other US "Sub-based" missiles of that time that could last as long as this Object did, including the medium range Polaris.
As mentioned by another poster, cruise missiles were around well before this event. But the witness accounts, the trajectory . . . just do not fit the profile of a cruise missile. This was seen and acted more like a Heavy ICBM.
One thing I will say I know nothing about are Old Soviet Sub-based missiles. It does not even have to be a Sub. It could have been launched from a Surface ship, if indeed it "Flew over Cuba" first. There was a lot of military activity around southern Cuba at that time.

With regard to the Photoelectric sensors, that is a clue to the possible Blackouts. I will look into it and see if they have any connection to power outage reports.

The part where this object landed, and took off again disrupting power. Either this happened and we are back to the proverbial drawing board, or it is mis-information so the truth of a ICBM flying around the USA never comes to light.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NYCMedic
 


thanks NYCmedic but i am more open to speculate on it being a Russian missile or craft of some type then for it to have been a U.S. recon mission using a ICBM. why would they need to do that when it's obvious the U2 was doing that job already ? doesn't sound plausible at all imo.

i am no expert on Russian missile technology either but it would have to be a craft that could travel at least 4000 miles and go from 10,000 ft. or more and then lower it's altitude to 500-1000 ft. and back to 10,000 where it disappeared. all this while making turns and possibly landing at one point.

and of course you would also have to answer why the power station had a disruption.



[edit on 13-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Just to clarify my theory; I think the witness descriptions fit a supersonic cruise missile far better than an ICBM. In particular the fact that the thing seems to have been at an almost constant altitude of 10,000 feet for much of its flight.

My theory is that it is a Soviet weapon launched from Cuba. Probably by the Cubans but it may have been launched by the Soviet's based in Cuba.

The theory has a few hurdles but is does account for almost all the witness descriptions.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
It could have been a Snark test gone awry as well. If you look into the test history of the Snark, you'll see that some of the birds ended up in some very strange places. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly (rare) one was recently found in the jungles of South America after vanishing on a test flight in 1957.

Although it's service life as an intercontinental cruise missile was short, there were definitely plans for recon versions of the Snark. It's not a stretch to think one was launched from Florida to do an overflight of Cuba, back up to the U.S. for recovery, and then control was lost, hence the "coming up from Cuba" thing. The interceptors would have been launched to destroy it before it possibly crashed into a populated area.The Air Force would understandably be reluctant to publicize such an incident.

Just my 2 cents...



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin
 



Just to clarify my theory; I think the witness descriptions fit a supersonic cruise missile far better than an ICBM. In particular the fact that the thing seems to have been at an almost constant altitude of 10,000 feet for much of its flight.

My theory is that it is a Soviet weapon launched from Cuba. Probably by the Cubans but it may have been launched by the Soviet's based in Cuba.

The theory has a few hurdles but is does account for almost all the witness descriptions.


thanks for your input on this TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin,

good to have many opinions on this since it is a very complicated mystery.

since we don't have the radar data to examine there is no way to know if the object was at the 10,000 ft. altitude for much of the flight. so far we only know that it was high above Oneida New York and 10,000 ft. when it supposedly disappeared in Nevada. the altitude during the rest of the flight is unknown so far.

would it make more sense that if it was spotted lower out West, the object may have decreased altitude gradually while it made it's way to the West ?

here are some quotes from the witnesses about how the UFO acted.


The object approached them rapidly and passed directly overhead. Robinson said that he thought it was no higher than five hundred feet. It was a flaming object, and he thought he could see a series of square windows on the craft almost hidden in the glow of it



Evans thought that it was a jet aircraft.



As it reached them, the object seemed to slow, as if taking a look at the truck.



In Utah it neared the ground, landed, and took off not on April 19 as claimed by the air force, but on April 18. It was close enough to the ground that people in the center of Utah got a good look at it. It maneuvered while close to the ground, slowing down and speeding up



They interviewed a dozen witnesses, some of whom described the object and who said it was close to the ground



As the object passed over Robinson [Utah), it slowed down in [the] air, and after, [a] gasping sound was heard, the object spurted ahead again. After this procedure was repeated three or four times, the object arched over and began descending to earth after which the object turned bluish color and then burned out or went dark. After the object began to slow down it began to wobble or "flshtail" in its path



wouldn't a Missile that was having major problems close to the ground either crash or just fall out of the sky ? some of the witness descriptions i quoted above stated that the object looked as if it slowed down enough to take a look at them.

i would think a Missile acting like that could not even continue to stay in the air. so the question is...how fast does a supersonic missile have to fly in order to stay in the air ?





[edit on 13-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by EBJet
It could have been a Snark test gone awry as well. If you look into the test history of the Snark, you'll see that some of the birds ended up in some very strange places. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly (rare) one was recently found in the jungles of South America after vanishing on a test flight in 1957.

Although it's service life as an intercontinental cruise missile was short, there were definitely plans for recon versions of the Snark. It's not a stretch to think one was launched from Florida to do an overflight of Cuba, back up to the U.S. for recovery, and then control was lost, hence the "coming up from Cuba" thing. The interceptors would have been launched to destroy it before it possibly crashed into a populated area.The Air Force would understandably be reluctant to publicize such an incident.

Just my 2 cents...


Thanks EBJet and that's a good suggestion,

this dootlebug looking snark does meet all the qualifications of the range and flight time.


Operational
range 5,497 nmiles (10,180 km)

One of the more advanced features of the Snark was its ability to fly missions of up to 11 hours and return for a landing



In January 1958 the Strategic Air Command began accepting delivery of operational missiles to Patrick AFB in Florida for training and in 1959 the 702nd Strategic Missile Wing was formed. Multiple launch failures led to the Atlantic Ocean off Cape Canaveral being described as "Snark infested waters."

On 27 May 1959, Presque Isle AFB in Maine, the only Snark base, received its first operational missile. Ten months later, on March 18, 1960, a Snark officially went on alert status. Thirty are known to have been deployed."[3]

The 702nd was not declared fully operational until February 1961. In March 1961, President Kennedy declared the Snark "obsolete and of marginal military value" and on 25 June 1961 the 702nd was deactivated.


en.wikipedia.org...

if i was going to entertain any man made craft being the explanation i think this one would be the one to consider. so far anyway


still many hurdles to overcome with this missile theory since the object was reported to be on the ground for 42 minutes and then taking off again.



Though it may be debatable whether the above cases of electrical transmission failure were merely coincidences with UFO activity, an incident on April 18,1962, involving a UFO that had been tracked from New York, through Kansas to Eureka, Utah, was well documented. The Air Force spokesman admitted that the object had landed, and during the 42 minutes that it was on the ground near the power station there was no power, but it was restored when the UFO left. The object was pursued by jet interceptors summoned from Phoenix and Stead Field in Reno until it exploded over the Mesquite Range in Nevada in a brilliant glare that was visible over five states.(67)


www.nicap.org...






top topics



 
48
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join