The Mantell UFO Incident, page 2

reply to post by jkrog08

---

To whom is that quote that there are people in there from? I have heard about this case before, and that is the first time I have heard that one. There is a problem about quotes being attributed to people who have never said them. The Bermuda Triangle case of the test flight aircraft disappearing is a good example. Many sources claim the pilot stated how strange the outside looked. Finally, PBS' Nova found the actual people who were there when the aircraft disappeared and found out no such statements were uttered.

The major problem with ufology is every case has to be an ET craft (or other paranormal explanation). There can never be a rational reason or explanation to what happened. The case is gone into detail, and it has been found to be caused by human error and a pilot chasing a balloon. This is a tragic situation, but it is not something that was caused by ET.

reply to post by kidflash2008

---

Quoted from my OP

Now here is the interesting part that I mentioned above, this is a statement from USAF officer Richard Miller:

Richard T. Miller, who was in the Operations Room of Scott Air Force Base in Belleville, Illinois also made several profound statements regarding the crash. He was monitoring the radio talk between Mantell and Godman tower, and heard this statement very clearly. "My God, I see people in this thing!" Miller added that on the morning after the crash, at a briefing, investigators had stated that Mantell died "pursuing an intelligently controlled unidentified flying object." In conclusion, Miller made this statement, "that evening, Air Technical Intelligence Center officers from Wright-Patterson AFB arrived and ordered all personnel to turn over any materials relating to the crash. "Then, after we had turned it over to them, they said they had already completed the investigation." "I was no longer a skeptic. I had been up to that time. Now I wondered why the Government had gone to all of the trouble of covering it up, to keep it away from the press and the public."

Very interesting indeed, I see no reason for an officer of the USAF to lie about something like that. Is it true that Mantell actually saw “people in there”, he was the only one at that altitude as his other companions turned back at 22,500 feet. We all know what happened next.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was in my OP, the statement came from a air tower controller from the USAF in Illinois. Why would he lie about that?

One source out of many I researched that state that: www.ufologie.net...


The "Mantell directory" from USAF Project Bluebook is a good source too, you can find that link in one of my OPs.


[edit on 5/16/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by jkrog08

---

The balloon was over 80,000 feet in the air. He did not come close to it, so how could he of seen any people? It also has been shown that he blacked out from lack of oxygen during his climb. This is a tragic case as I noted, but the ET part of it has been shown to be a balloon.

Sometimes balloons are mistaken as UFOs, especially one that was as high as this one was reported.

There seems to be many cases like this one that keep coming up for discussion as Major Randle points out. I do agree with others it is good to review such cases, I think the ones that are solved can help either solve similar cases or be used to rule out such solutions.

This case has been logically explained to me. If others want to think ET, that is OK, as this is the forum to show ones evidence.

reply to post by jkrog08

---

I should also state the Major Kevin Randle is also a top notch researcher. He wants to get to the bottom of the phenomena, and is not afraid to state a case has been solved. I have a few books of his that go into detail on such cases and shows the type of research he has done.

Also, I never stated any officer or enlisted personnel would lie about what they heard. As the pilot flew higher, he received less oxygen and could have hallucinated seeing people.

I do think you have done some great research in this case, however I think this is one that is solved.

KidFlash,
I respect alot of your posts, and I am skeptical about this and many other topics discussed here, However, in order to truely deny ignorance we must hold skeptics to their own standards, and not allow them to make any wild assumptions that they cannot validate with evidence and facts.

Believing it doesnt make it so.

referring to the remark about "People inside" you first said:

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by jkrog08

---

To whom is that quote that there are people in there from? I have heard about this case before, and that is the first time I have heard that one. There is a problem about quotes being attributed to people who have never said them. The Bermuda Triangle case of the test flight aircraft disappearing is a good example. Many sources claim the pilot stated how strange the outside looked. Finally, PBS' Nova found the actual people who were there when the aircraft disappeared and found out no such statements were uttered.

assuming the quote wasn't actually reported by a real witness.

Then when the quote's source was shown, and he was a legitimate officer who had no reason to lie. you disregard it and say

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by jkrog08

---

Also, I never stated any officer or enlisted personnel would lie about what they heard. As the pilot flew higher, he received less oxygen and could have hallucinated seeing people.

.

Aren't you assuming alot?
Did the plane have an oxygen supply?
If it did, aren't you simply making a wild leap to supprt your author's ballon THEORY?






Inspire thinking.
Spread random knowledge.
Feed the mind.

reply to post by kidflash2008

---

I appreciate your compliment. But I do not think this case can be chalked up as another balloon. If you will link me to the source that said it was at 80,000 feet I would be glad. This contrary to the 30,000 feet mark reported by multiple officers, including the pilots. Also an object at 80,000 feet would be so small that it is unlikely that 100s of witnesses, both civilian and military would even notice it. Also don't you think the bases would have been alerted to the presence of the balloon so something like this did not happen? Also I am curious to know that how an object at 80,000 feet can change direction from southeast to west, then stay stationary for over an hour AND then be seen in Columbia BEFORE being seen in Nashville which as I pointed out is 50 miles north. This balloon would have to of quickly changed direction again to southwest, THEN change yet again to northeast to be spotted in Nashville at the time said. This is just not possible with a balloon. What I am leaning towards is that there were two objects, one a Skyhook and one a UFO. Also if you are to believe this story from Major Randell then you must excuse the numerous changes made between 1947 to present in the USAFs' story.

1. You must believe that the USAF made a very embarrassing mistake saying it was Venus at first.
2. Then you must believe that they made a mistake by saying the balloon was launched from Clinton County, Ohio.
3. Then we must believe that the third time they got it right and it was really launched from Fort Ripley in Minnesota.
4. We also must be forced to believe that the earlier statements from the USAF themselves saying this was a genuine UFO was erroneously made.
5. Then we must believe that ALL the military personal who reported this as being a shape other than Skyhook with lights on it (not on Skyhook) were mistaken.
6.Then we must believe that Captain Mantell was an idiot and chased a balloon to his death.
7. Now we are to believe that the balloon was at 80,000 feet, not 25-30,000 as the USAF previously stated.

I mean how many excuses are we to believe??


With all those events happening it is much more likely IMO that what was seen was truly a UFO and the military/government is covering it up.

reply to post by Ninja-san

---

Yes, A LOT of assumptions and trust must be put forth to take the USAF explanation at face value. Considering they haven't even changed their official conclusion on the crash.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

---

What?

Could you explain in more detail please?

reply to post by sharps

---

Well I think Skyfloating might have done a thread on that one, in his thead here. If that is not it let me know and I will see what I can do.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

---

What?

Could you explain in more detail please?

There is a clue one has to consider: an aircraft might lose control being
next to a UFO.
Spielberg in "Close Encounters..." had a truck stall near a UFO.
In the Battle of LA cannon shells were rejected.

The electric forces of nature are the strongest and apparently
the UFO controls them as Tesla has suggested.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

---

Oh okay, yes I am aware of the EM interference commonly reported with UFOs. It is interesting to note that some reports say that Mantells body had "small holes" in it or that he wasn't in the plane at all. But those are unsubstantiated so I omitted them. It is possible that his plane was inadvertently disabled due to proximity with the UFOs propulsion field. But I think more than likely his craft stalled out due to the extreme altitude.

reply to post by jkrog08

---

Yeah flying next to a UFO won't help matters, nor will flying
after a high altitude balloon.

Perhaps the rivets in the plane punctured his body.
In some UFO conscious descriptions the plane started to be
torn appart in flight.

Basically the official reports are unconscious to what a UFO is, does,
came from, originated from Tesla and just about anything the Illuminati say
we should know in a report goes in.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

---

Perhaps the rivets in the plane punctured his body.
In some UFO conscious descriptions the plane started to be
torn apart in flight.

Agreed, that is a plausible scenario. The question becomes if that happened is was it intentional or accidental by the alien craft( if that was what it was)?


But like I stated in my OP I think this possibly is a case of a primitive aircraft trying to preform with an advanced interstellar spacecraft, IT JUST IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 10 days ago with 65 member flags

Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 18 days ago with 60 member flags

UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 13 days ago with 31 member flags

The Edge of Reality - Updated Report on the Illinois Police UFO case, January 5th, 2000.
  Posted 6 days ago with 28 member flags

The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 4 days ago with 27 member flags

Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 2 days ago with 23 member flags

1/28/2012 craft in sky From Puerto Rico - Need help getting more info!!
  Posted 8 days ago with 21 member flags

UFO above Wadden Sea
  Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: