The Unsolved UFO Mystery of April 18,1962

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
One of the best threads of it type I have read here. All very helpful contributions.

I like the Snark for this. Perhaps even a Soviet version.

With regard altitudes I tend to completely discount altitude estimation by ground based eyewitnesses at night. No matter how qualified. It is not physically possible to estimate the altitude of a light in the night sky without knowing the dimensions and/or distance to target.

The air crew observations on the other hand are very reliable because they can compare their alt to observation to horizon. And if memory serves they were all quite consistent at about 10,000 feet.

It is the consistency of altitude is one of the factors that negates the meteorite hypothesis. And certainly as the flight decayed through fuel starvation or system failure it became erratic.

As for landing I can't find any witness statements that saw it stationary on the ground. It did disappear near the ground then reappear later so the landing may simply be an artifact of erratic flight.




posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I remember the Snark from my earlier days and even had a Orange Revell Model of it. Not long ago, I saw a special on it. One thing I remember clearly was the test area was near the Ocean.
So many Snarks crashed in it they said it was "Snark infested waters".
I had thought about it during my research of this and ruled it out from the get go, not even considering it.
But I looked it up for you all and here is the info.



The jet engined 20.5 m long unmanned aircraft had a top speed of 650 mph (1,046 km/h) and a maximum range of 5,500 nautical miles (10,200 km). The complex stellar navigation guidance system gave a claimed CEP of 8,000 ft (2.4 km).

The design was also notoriously unreliable with the majority of test missiles suffering mechanical failure thousands of miles before reaching the target. The reduced operating altitude, from 150,000 to 55,000 ft (46 to 17 km), and the inability to perform evasive manoeuvres were also limiting factors.

The Snark was an air-breathing design, launched from a light platform by two rocket booster engines. It switched to an internal jet engine for the remainder of its flight. The jet was a Pratt and Whitney J57, the first 10,000 lbf (44 kN) thrust design, also used in the early B-52 and the F-100. Lacking a horizontal tail, the missile used elevons as its primary flight control surfaces, and flew an unusual nose high aspect during level flight.


Subsonic air breather which does not have the range and altitude. So no Rocket exhuast to be seen, rumble to be heard.

What the Soviets had at the time as far as Cruise missiles and Sub-launched vehicles . . . I do not know. But it would have to be a Rocket engine, not a Turbo-jet for it do what was described.

So there is no confusion, my assumption was an R-7 "Type" Soviet ICBM.
I just mentioned the Polaris info because of that Cuban origin flight path. I needed to rule that out, which I think I did.

The Cuban thing could be miss information as well. It may be worth seeing how many miles from the crash site to the nearest Soviet border - going towards Europe. The R-7 had a 10,000 mile range if I remember right.
So we assume that it came over the North Atlantic. Albeit, A Soviet launch would be over the pole.

Rockets can do wierd things. Look up failed test launch Vids and the Shuttle accident (The solid rocket boosters after the explosion)
Keep in mind the object was high over NY, made no sound. It was up there.
Then it was heard later, but only after it past by.
Then it decended more, was heard, and so on.

We still don't know what the hell this was. Arrrg!

Tired . . . later . . . good-night.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by NYCMedic]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
...i was trying to piece together the Flight path of the UFO from the witnesses descriptions and according to the way they said it traveled while it was over Utah and Nevada , you will see by these maps the object took quite an extraordinary and puzzling path.





the pilot of the C-119 said he saw the object just west of Lavan Utah.


I was flying a C-119 aircraft from the left seat [captain's seat]. We were approximately two miles west of La Van, Utah flying at 8500 feet



just to the north of Lavan Utah witnesses in Nephi said the object was traveling to the north west.


the witnesses in Utah universally claim the object was traveling from the southeast to the northwest


Those who did see the object confirmed the direction. It was moving from southeast to northwest


here's a map showing the location of Lavan, where the pilot saw the object and note that the city of Nephi is just North of there and the witnesses said the object was moving in the direction of Eureka.


From Nephi, the object traveled to the northwest, toward Eureka




hmm...if the object came in from the East how did it wind up in Lavan heading Northwest ? must have made another turn ?





more direction quotes...

It took off toward the west, heading into Nevada. He watched it until it faded from sight over Nevada



Sheriff's deputy Walter Bun, who led the search and rescue unit, moved the unit into the Spring Mountain area in jeeps to search for wreckage.


here's a Map showing the direction of the object and the area where these people searched for it, wich was in the Spring Mountain Area.








The object was reported in Reno, Nevada and witnesses said it was traveling east.


The Los Angeles Times reported that the object was seen over Reno and traveling to the east.



But in Reno there was an added complication. A witness there, Homer Raycraft, said that he saw a "big fireball traveling due east." He claimed that the object disappeared behind a mountain range and then there was a big flash


here's a Map showing the possible flight path of the UFO and this is based on the reports of where the object was actually seen. not just the super giant flare that was seen in many states at one time.





An Air Force Defense Command alert reported the object was tracked and traced over New York, Kansas, Utah, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona and California


this UFO was all over the place and after looking at the Super strange flight path it took...

who's gonna believe this was a ICBM or any kind of Missile ?





me thinks Kevin Randle is correct.....


Something extremely extraordinary happened on the night of April 18, 1962. The air force offered a series of explanations ignoring the facts. But the witnesses who were there know the truth. They saw something from outer space, and it was not a meteor. It was a craft from another world.









[edit on 14-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

An Air Force Defense Command alert reported the object was tracked and traced over New York, Kansas, Utah, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona and California





mucho loco missile ?

[edit on 14-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
All I can say buddy is: Holy*$#@!
If there was "a few" reports of this thing going all over the place. I could write some of them off.
This thing is messing with my head.


I have to admit, an ICBM hitting denser air would make it fly erratic.
It would also break up . . . but that is a fast series of events.
This thing went sight-seeing!

Back to the drawing board.
Thank you for your hard work, good job!



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NYCMedic
 


thanks


i was trying to figure out how New Mexico fit into the picture and after rethinking about the flight path,(scenario 1) i would say that after it went thru Kansas it may have dipped down to that State and that might explain why it was spotted later traveling North West in Nephi Utah.

either that or it didn't blow up after it went over Nellis Air Force base in Arizona.

i think scenario 1 is the more likely flight path. of course i am just guessing.




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
What was the state of Russian recon aircraft in the early 1960s?

I always presumed it was rubbish, being from a NATO country
, but this is interesting:

Tupolev Tu-123

en.wikipedia.org...

Tsybin RSR

en.wikipedia.org...

Yakovlev Yak-33

en.wikipedia.org...

There would be quite a few reasons to cover it up. Not least that it risked nuclear war.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jackphotohobby
 


thanks jackphotohobby for the info,

after rethinking the the distance this UFO traveled , i would guess it was near the 5-6000 + range and it is reported to have gone over ten different states in 32 minutes. the supposed Russian drone you linked to, does not have the distance capability that would be needed to explain this.


NORAD had tracked object which had covered 10 states in 32 minutes but changed course over Utah



I do not believe Hynek even considered the possibility that a 32-minute event could be explained by a bolide.


nicap.org...



also in order for a man made craft to be the explanation here, it would have to be one that could land in very rough mountainous terrain and take off again.


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.


nicap.org...

not saying there is no craft capable of all this but it seems unlikely imo.

thanks again



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I am good with US aviation, but not so good with the Soviets. We have to look at "Non-air breathing" engines on what ever this was. Jet turbines jut do not fit this. They still to this day have problems with Ramjets, so that leaves "Rocket power". It is most likely liquid not solid propulsion, albeit, it can be a hybrid of the two.
Most classic UFO sightings depart from what was seen here. This is why I fail to give in to that theory. This thing looked and sounded like a Rocket.

For a fact, an out of control rocket flying around in "dense air", which is what 10,000 feet is would destroy the rocket a lot faster than this Object was claimed to do. So I am at a loss still.

We can speculate that this "vehicle"descended from an extremely high , if not sub-orbital altitude . . . and engaged a rocket motor. It then performed the "grand tour" under power. While we speculate, this thing would have to have some sort of lifting body. This means it needs wings of some sort. This rules out the R-7 ICBM.

The R-7 would fit into this nicely, if it were not for that wild ride. Think of a large Atlas rocket doing that and you will see it torque in half at some point and go Boom. That is what a lot of people saw. But large Rockets, controlled or not, do not behave like that. This thing flew around.

Now, an X-15 of the time could do this ONLY if it had the fuel. That means external pods of extra fuel, launching it with a B-52, going to 180, 000 to 200,000 feet, cut the engine and pray it re-lights, and then fly like hell hoping the airframe does not melt when flying below 60,000 feet. Landing is a one time thing in all Rocket planes that I know of. It is like the space shuttle landing and taking off again. Just can't happen.

The craft was described as Silver in front. If a "Rocket-plane" of that time period got that hot, it would have never made it past the Mississippi River.
To make a long story short, I still have no clue what this thing was. But it was not a Russian Turbo-jet powered craft.

Now, it "could" of been one of ours. If the US was dicking around with something (X craft) to do a Fly over of Cuba, it would then try to go to a lake bed landing site out west. (Murad?) But we have to rule out that "Buck Rogers" Landing at the power plant.

This case is one of the most facinating UFO cases I have ever seen.
It wants to be explained, yet throws a curveball, slider and then Fastball at you for strike three.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NYCMedic
 




This case is one of the most facinating UFO cases I have ever seen.
It wants to be explained, yet throws a curveball, slider and then Fastball at you for strike three.


i agree NYCMedic, it's quite a puzzling UFO case with no simple answer to explain everything in just one good fastball !

here's another very interesting twist...


It appears that the US Army dropped 203 pounds of deadly VX nerve agent from a plane at Dugway Proving Ground on April 18, 1962. A pinhead-size drop of the nerve agent VX on one's skin, weighing seven-millionths of a pound, can be lethal.

This area, Dugway Proving Ground, is approximately 30 miles NW of where a UFO came down near Eureka, Utah, on April 18, 1962.


nicap.org...


not sure if this would have anything to do with the flight of the UFO but it sure is kinda odd that they dumped all this Nerve agent on the same day ?

maybe some kind of anti- Alien bug spray ?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Could it be more than one object?

That would explain the contradictory witness' accounts



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Could it be more than one object?

That would explain the contradictory witness' accounts


i guess anythings possible ArMaP but based on what information we have it is my opinion that we are talking about 1 object.

the object's probable flight path that i displayed in the Maps i posted above, would also explain the conflicting reports.



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. (9) 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.



there were two different reports of two different objects(April 18 and one April 19) but after the investigators discovered one of the reports was logged in Zulu time it became clear that it was in fact the same UFO.



How do we know that the object seen in Las Vegas is the same one that was reported in Utah and over Reno? It looked as if we had two sightings: one over Las Vegas on April 18, and one over Utah on April 19. With two sightings, there isn't all that much unusual to explain. A meteor fell near Eureka, Utah, and something else tracked on radar near Las Vegas.

But I knew that wasn't quite right. I had talked to a man, who wishes to remain anonymous, who was in Eureka, Utah, on the night the "meteor" fell. 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. It knocked out the lights all over Eureka, before climbing out again. Something that a meteor could not do.

He was close enough to the object to see an oval shape and to hear a quiet whirring noise. It took off toward the west, heading into Nevada. He watched it until it faded from sight over Nevada. (51)

The point here is that there was a witness who had seen the object come down near Eureka as had others. But unlike them, he had seen it lift off again, streaking toward the west. It suggested that the object hadn't ended its flight in Utah. Linked to the reports in Nevada, it suggested that a single object was responsible for all the sightings.

The air force, which had received all the findings, initially did the same thing, linking the reports. Officers at Stead Air Force Base, Nellis Air Force Base, and NORAD all drew that conclusion. The reports from Utah and Reno claim the sighting was made about fifteen minutes after the hour (Utah, on Mountain Standard Time, reported the incident at 8:15. Reno, on Pacific Standard Time, reported it at 7:15). (52)

The Nellis radar case, according to the official air force file, listed the time of the sighting as sixteen minutes after the events in Utah, but the official spokesman at Nellis said the Air Defense Command was alerted by the fire trail that was seen at approximately 7:20 P.M., Pacific Standard Time, or within minutes of the reports from Utah. (53)

More importantly, fighters were scrambled from Luke Air Force Base in Phoenix after the radar sightings. (54) Other documents included in the Project Blue Book files suggested that fighters had also been scrambled from Nellis.

Another point must be made. The reports, as filed in Project Blue Book, were deceptively dated. The Utah case had the time logged in "Zulu," or Greenwich Mean Time, which means it was advanced at that time of the year by six hours. Add six hours to the 8:15 time, and you advance it to early morning the next day. A quick glance at the file shows the Utah case dated April 19, and the Las Vegas case logged in local time as April 18. On paper it looks as if they take place on separate days when, in reality, they happened within minutes of each other on the same day.


i am having problems posting the direct link to Kevin Randles report so i have copied it here ...

easynowsufoblog.blogspot.com...

you can find his webpage with the same report in this link...
nicap.org...

books.google.com...




[edit on 15-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Some I had forgotten, there are several Cubas in the US, but as I said before, the name is usually followed by the state name, so I guess Cuba, in this case, is the Republic of Cuba.


Cuba, Alabama
Cuba, Illinois
Cuba, Indiana
Cuba, Kansas
Cuba, Missouri
Cuba, New Mexico
Cuba (town), New York
Cuba (village), New York, in the town of Cuba
Cuba City, Wisconsin
Cuba Township, Minnesota
Cuba Township, Lake County, Illinois

Source



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Some I had forgotten, there are several Cubas in the US, but as I said before, the name is usually followed by the state name, so I guess Cuba, in this case, is the Republic of Cuba.


Cuba (town), New York
Cuba (village), New York, in the town of Cuba

Source


Good one. It never entered my mind.

Cuba New York seems to be directly below this Objects flight path.

We had a problem with missing flight data.
From Cuba to New York . . . unless Cuba "is" in New York.



Edit: Image

[edit on 15-1-2009 by NYCMedic]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   


i am sure if it was Cuba New York it would be reflected on this document ?



The video in the Op is saying the object came in from Cuba and the recently uncovered Air Force documents supposedly state this.









[edit on 15-1-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Lets not forget that the majority of an ICBM's flight is unpowered, the rocket burning out well before it reaches its apogee, leaving it to coast through its ballistic arc.

They certainly don't fly around for 30+ minutes under power. A three stage Minuteman III on a 5000 mile flight of 25 minutes (from launch until RV impact) is under power for about 7 minutes.

No way it was ANY kind of rocket/ICBM



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Good investigative work there ArMaP


that is very interesting and i was surprised to see that many Cuba's in America.

i do find it a bit strange that Cuba New York is right in the flight path of the UFO.

if the UFO was first spotted in Oneida , New York and was traveling towards New Mexico...............Cuba New York seems to be right in the flight path.





so i guess the question is...would they have left out an important detail like that on the Blue Book document ?

and if Kevin Randle does in fact have a U.S. Air Force Intelligence report stating the object originated from somewhere over Cuba.



would they have left that important detail out ? on a top secret intelligence report ?

i am assuming it does not say Cuba New York on that report because i would seriously doubt George Knapp or Kevin Randle would hide that fact.

so most likely it does not say anything about New York on that document either.

But like i said ArMaP, good work and keep digg'in my friend



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
A lot of people keep mentioning that this thing landed. Then use that to negate a strong hypothesis based on a lot of other evidence.

If you look carefully at the evidence there is none (that the thing landed) but for the fact that it disappeared near the ground and then reappeared. To make the leap from that to "it landed and took off again" is very poor use of deductive reasoning.

I live very near the busiest GA airport in the southern hemisphere. I have seen some very strange but explicable illusions. I once saw an aeroplane (a water bomber) disappear behind near trees on the horizon into the smoke of a bush fire only to see it instantaneously emerge travelling in the opposite direction nearly a mile away. My son was gob smacked. There was no mystery as demonstrated about an hour later when two absolutely identical water bombers flew overhead making a return run.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
EBJet you beat me to the punch on the ICBM theory. They are called ICBM's because they are "ballistic" i.e. they don't fly. They are pushed up by brute force of a rocket and then fall down.

If it was of terrestrial origin it could only be a form of cruise missile or aircraft.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWorldReallyIsThatBorin
 




If you look carefully at the evidence there is none (that the thing landed)


what about this ?


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.


www.nicap.org...



To make the leap from that to "it landed and took off again" is very poor use of deductive reasoning.



yea but just because you experienced something strange when you seen those planes in the smoke doesn't mean these witnesses didn't see what they reported.

isn't comparing a different situation to this one " poor deductive reasoning "


why is it that the witnesses cannot be correct when they say it landed ?

to just assume they didn't see it land because you seen something strange is in my opinion an injustice to this investigation.

don't take that personally..i am just rebutting your post





top topics
 
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join