The Mantell UFO Incident

page: 2
101
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
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.




posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I have read tons about this incident, but I starred and flagged this anyway because of the obvious amount of research the OP did.
Old cases like this need to be rehashed from time to time to see if anything new has developed.
I think the OP did a great job here.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
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]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
They completely ignore the effect of what being close to a UFO
does that even Spielberg knows.

Mechanical engines freeze from eddy currents or skin effects.

This voluminous report perhaps is nothing but a cop out to
let the Illuminati have their Tesla craft.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Let me state also that in no way am I bashing opinions in opposition to the UFO theory. I am simply reluctant to say that "the case is closed", as it is FAR from closed.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


What?

Could you explain in more detail please?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Let me state also that in no way am I bashing opinions in opposition to the UFO theory. I am simply reluctant to say that "the case is closed", as it is FAR from closed.


I agree with your statement.
I am what you would consider a skeptic, but I am not afraid to admit that "I don't know" when I don't have all the answers.

I do not know that Mantell saw an alien craft, or what he chased, but I dso not believe it was a skyhook weather ballon, or venus.

Fact is, I don't know what he was chasing and I may never know.
This case has intrigued me for years.
It's one of the most interesting UFO cases of all and still is not explained.

the Skyhook theory doesn't hold weight for a number of reasons.

Experienced Pilot.
Skyhook was a known project ( certainly not to visually different than any other weather ballon).
last and most important:
There wasnt a ballon in that area at that time.
the closest one was spotted 25 minutes from the incident, over 50 miles away.


We don't have evidence that he chased an alien spaceship, but we do have evidence that he wasn't chasing a Skyhook ballon.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Thanks to the OP for this thread. In the UK this is not a widely known case. There's a lot of work gone into this and I for one really appreciate it. You've also made considered retorts and defence thank you.

If you're looking for another case please please please take a look at the recent UK 'UFO hits wind turbine' case, I'd love to read your report on that one!

S&F



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
WOW this is awesome! Nice information and very nicely done. I will have to read all this in full .S&F! When I read it I will revisit this thread.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Thank you all for your compliments. I see I have done what I wanted to by posting this so I am happy.



To Ninjasan:

Yes this case is far from closed and a lot of the reports dont add up. Are you referring to the balloon sighting in Ohio(that was 25 miles away)?

This is a classic USAF cover-up it appears, weather baloon and all. But it could be a true explanation, truth is like you said "we may never know".



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
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.



new topics
 
101
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join