It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Repeated UFO Activity Over Savannah River H-Bomb Plant

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Greetings Forumerions,

A recent debate over the image re the UFOs over the Capitol Building circa 1952 precipitated some quick research which inadvertently uncovered UFO activity at and or near the "Savannah River H-Bomb Plant" in the same year.

Although, I am/was cognizant of the early "UFO reports" at or near sensitive military installations which were under the administration of the (former) Atomic Energy Commission e.g., Hanover, Los Alamos, Sandia, Oak Ridge etc., the Savannah River site was/is new to me.

Part of the compendium of newspaper and Air Force reports reads as follows:


A "shapeless incandescent flash of light" was reported over the Atomic Energy Commission's billion-dollar H-bomb plant early today. . . . One man described it as a "Flying Saucer."


The multitude of repeated UFO activity at these types of locations has gone on since the birth of modern day Ufology, and a pattern has been established right up to current times.

These events took place in 1952, and for those who are interested in the"history of Ufology" I believe you'll find these reports very compelling; for those who prefer "only" current events, you may wish to skip over this thread.

I look forward to any salient, pithy and constructive input.

The rest of the story . . .


Cheers,
Frank




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Hi Frank, I trust you're well.
I've read a few stories like this, mostly in Timothy Good's book, Need to Know. Very good accounts, but a bit wild on speculation. But anyway...
I think we can safely say that UFO sightings have been increasing hugely since the advent of the atom bomb, and while the bomb was under development, i.e. foo fighters, 'battle of Los Angeles' and so forth.

Sightings like this are interesting because these sort of installations would have pretty secretive places, that not many people would have known about at the time. Which leads me to wonder why UFOs would be drawn to them.
Some would have it that these UFOs were soviet spy aircraft snooping on american nuclear development, but I find this fairly...impossible. This was only 1952, when jet aeroplanes were just becoming standard.

So then that leaves extraterrestrial craft... Why would these be so interested in nuclear technology? Perhaps they understand the implications of nuclear technology and thier aim is to make sure we don't do anything really stupid, a la Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Admittedly these bombs were nowhere near as powerful as the H-bombs under development, but if we started throwing H-bombs around, I can imagine that as external viewers, one would be concerned about the nature of those with massive nuclear arsenals.

Edit to say: Sorry, wasn't really pithy was it?


[edit on 24/4/2009 by purehughness]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by purehughness
Some would have it that these UFOs were soviet spy aircraft snooping on american nuclear development, but I find this fairly...impossible. This was only 1952, when jet aeroplanes were just becoming standard.


Would not the argument that the Aurora or some quite unbelievable technology is flying today (and responsible for many UFO sightings) be equally applicable to the 50s? Maybe jet power was just becoming familiar to the general public, but the USA and USSR didn't begin their 'black ops' just recently. It's surely been going on for decades. Jet powered 'Auroras' could easily have been used by the Soviets. I bet the USA had some.

WG3



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I see where you're coming from, and it could be going on, but a 'shapeless, incandescent light'? In the source, it's stated as being like a lightbulb hovering over the installation.
Does that sound like anything similar to reports of Aurora? I just reckon it goes a lot deeper than Black Ops.

[edit on 24/4/2009 by purehughness]



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Good Day purehughness,


Originally posted by purehughness
Hi Frank, I trust you're well.
I've read a few stories like this, mostly in Timothy Good's book, Need to Know. Very good accounts, but a bit wild on speculation. But anyway...
I think we can safely say that UFO sightings have been increasing hugely since the advent of the atom bomb, and while the bomb was under development, i.e. foo fighters, 'battle of Los Angeles' and so forth.


Define wild; we're in a forum where the discussion of reptilian beings, clandestine government ops and alien abduction is common place. ;-)


Sightings like this are interesting because these sort of installations would have pretty secretive places, that not many people would have known about at the time. Which leads me to wonder why UFOs would be drawn to them.
Some would have it that these UFOs were soviet spy aircraft snooping on american nuclear development, but I find this fairly...impossible. This was only 1952, when jet aeroplanes were just becoming standard.


These were reasonable assumptions, considering the alternative from a conventional perspective; however, as it was then and is now, neither the US or the (former) Soviets had/have anything in their respective inventories that exhibit the flight characteristics of these objects.


So then that leaves extraterrestrial craft... Why would these be so interested in nuclear technology? Perhaps they understand the implications of nuclear technology and thier aim is to make sure we don't do anything really stupid, a la Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Admittedly these bombs were nowhere near as powerful as the H-bombs under development, but if we started throwing H-bombs around, I can imagine that as external viewers, one would be concerned about the nature of those with massive nuclear arsenals.


"If" our visitors are like us; if they are societal, and come with our traits e.g., emotions etc., then perhaps we can use "human" explication to deduce their intent; however, I believe there isn't enough data on the table to make that assumption with any certainty


Edit to say: Sorry, wasn't really pithy was it?


[edit on 24/4/2009 by purehughness]


It was pithy enough--thanks for the input!

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Frank Warren
 
Griefswald, Indian Point, Malmstrom AFB. Although similar incidents have been reported at other sites, these particularly feature multiple witnesses from different perspectives i.e. not all military. It's intriguing that they intimate or describe physical characteristics...not just mysterious lights. We can only speculate and such speculation often wonders that such craft aren't ours, so who/what are they? What do they want?

Nuclear ICBMs being allegedly deactivated would send a rather powerful message to the leaders of the respective nation. Your best weapons can be rendered inactive. Maybe there is also reassurance in the act itself? Moreover, perhaps it's feasible that technology doesn't necessarily follow the same path. Is nuclear technology distinct to Earth? Have 'they' simply been studying the technology to replicate it? Maybe it's similar to the invention of Miner's Lamps. Several designs were made but it was the Davy and Geordie Lamps that offered the most safety (flawed as they were).

I don't understand why some people believe that ET intelligence will protect us from ourselves and that they will forbid the use of nuclear weapons. What evidence implies benevolence? Certainly, from our Earthbound perspective, there are few, if any, precedents of benign intervention in our history. All political 'acts of kindness' towards peoples and nations feature clear rewards and incentives.

It's an area ripe for speculation, but as you point out, there isn't enough information to draw conclusions. We don't know for sure that ET has visited so ET-based explanations must remain on shaky ground.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Good Day Kandinsky!

You raise some very good and salient points.


Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Frank Warren
 
Griefswald, Indian Point, Malmstrom AFB. Although similar incidents have been reported at other sites, these particularly feature multiple witnesses from different perspectives i.e. not all military. It's intriguing that they intimate or describe physical characteristics...not just mysterious lights. We can only speculate and such speculation often wonders that such craft aren't ours, so who/what are they? What do they want?


Key point: "We can only speculate"; I might add, from limited data.


Nuclear ICBMs being allegedly deactivated would send a rather powerful message to the leaders of the respective nation. Your best weapons can be rendered inactive. Maybe there is also reassurance in the act itself? Moreover, perhaps it's feasible that technology doesn't necessarily follow the same path. Is nuclear technology distinct to Earth? Have 'they' simply been studying the technology to replicate it? Maybe it's similar to the invention of Miner's Lamps. Several designs were made but it was the Davy and Geordie Lamps that offered the most safety (flawed as they were).


Methinks the average person assumes "technological advancement" (for human kind) proceeds in a linear fashion . . . I would argue against that, particularly in a capitalist dominated society; for example we had electric cars that could travel 200 miles per charge over 100 years ago; one can only imagine where that technology would be today had ICE cars not become the prevalent mode of transportation.


I don't understand why some people believe that ET intelligence will protect us from ourselves and that they will forbid the use of nuclear weapons. What evidence implies benevolence? Certainly, from our Earthbound perspective, there are few, if any, precedents of benign intervention in our history. All political 'acts of kindness' towards peoples and nations feature clear rewards and incentives.


I have often argued that one "can't deduce 'alien intent' from human explication."


It's an area ripe for speculation, but as you point out, there isn't enough information to draw conclusions. We don't know for sure that ET has visited so ET-based explanations must remain on shaky ground.


Even if one is of the mindset that "ET has and continues to visit, " the questions you posit, and the points made--are still valid.

Cheers,
Frank



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join