Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Mantell UFO Incident

page: 4
103
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Wow.

This is the second time today that I find a great post. Thank you.

As a skeptic - I am always impressed when a poster shows clarity, research, belief and tries to educate the reader.

Likewise the topic is interesting and thought provoking.

Whilst I might not be conviced by the post, it leaves you thinking and wondering about the circumstances.

This type of thread is what ATS is all about and any poster should look at this as a great example before posting - if you have an argument to make - at least make it in a comprehensive and compelling way.

As a skeptic I'll not necessarily believe it but I'll take it very seriously when you present information, context and as many facts as you have.

For only the second or third time - I am giving a post a star and flag etc..

Many thanks.

askbaby - skeptic




posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Nothing else to say but fantastic laid out thread my friend, you have covered everything. I haven't read all what you have written as I dont have time but I wil do later I assure you. I do believe this was the first time where ground control gave the order to persue a UFO (alien craft) and shoot it down.

Bad mistake resulting in unnecessary death.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 

"We now know, based on the files released by the Air Force, by the statements of those involved, research by Robert Todd, Jerry Clark and a dozen others, that Mantell climbed too high and blacked out due to oxygen starvation. His aircraft, trimmed to climb, continued upward to about 30,000 feet where the torque of the engine and the thin air conspired to pull the aircraft over, into a power dive. The aircraft was seen to begin to break up at about 20,000 feet. Mantell died in the crash. "

Well look at the photo's in the original post and then tell us that the *aircraft had broken up "?

The photos quite clearly show the fuselage, in amazingly good order, for something which weighed over 9000 lbs having hit the ground in a "power dive" I'd love to know quite how the engine cowling hardly has a dent in it, when you'd expect, in the normal run of things, to see the nose section squashed to about 2-4 feet long?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
One of the odd things to happen with Thomas Mantell was:

I had never heard of this man until I began dating my husband. He said during a UFO conversation that his mother's friend was killed chasing a UFO. I had never heard that and was full of questions!

His mother was a close friend of the family in Louisville, KY. and when Mantell was lying in state at the funeral home, the Air Force upper level personel walked in to pay their respects.

They also asked the family to keep quiet about the entire incident. I have no idea what was discussed, but the family kept their promise on details.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Yea the relative intact form of the aircraft raised some questions as to if the crash was a result of a simple stall. Some have speculated that the craft was forced down by some type of force field, likely EM in nature, although force fields using the strong and weak forces are not to be ruled out by an super-advanced species.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Ninja-san
 


An excellent question on my replies. Although I try to get a point across, I sometimes make misstatements. Let me try to clear up a few of the statements I made:

I was correct in stating I never implied anyone was lying. I just wanted to know where the quote was from. The problem in this field is that there are many quotes that have never been verified.

The pilot may have stated what was attributed to him, but that could of been due to the lack of oxygen. If you read the full report on the incident, there is a conclusion that the pilot had climbed too high and the stress on the aircraft caused the crash.

Again here is his blog on the Mantell case:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

Here is another blog by Kevin Randle on another case:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

Here is the blog on the experiments done by Unsolved Histories:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Thank you, I agree that to totally believe the USAF is like swallowing a handful of cyanide. It is poisonous to the mind. It is what creates sheeple. You must look at all the facts, not just blindly believe what some "Major in the Air Force" says,lol.


I take that as a crack towards me! I am thick skinned enough to take it. I do want to correct you that Major Kevin Randle is with the US Army Reserve and has served in Iraq. He has a lot of very intelligent books out there and is also critical of most of the military explanations given. Just read his takes on what the Air Force investigator tried to get him to state on his research of Roswell. I have several books of his and he goes beyond the usual research and tries to find the documents to show the small bits of pieces to make the whole story.

He also is not afraid to solve a case and has done so with several cases in the past. He calls a hoax a hoax, and is not afraid to take the flak for that. I look for a researcher that is not afraid to tell us the whole truth instead of being biased one way or another. The idea is to get at the truth, no matter what it is. And that means to the UFO community that there may be many cases that are explainable by down to earth reasons.

While I am skeptical of some cases, there are many out there that are excellent ones that hold up. You have brought many of those to light in your thread on abductions. To me, cases like Roswell, the Hills, and several others show that this is a true phenomena.

The objective of this site is to deny ignorance. I hope to think I am making some intelligent arguments for the case that flying saucers and aliens are visiting us.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


All I was saying was your claim that "this case is closed" is not valid. There is simply to much counter evidence to that claim.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


I totally agree with you on getting the truth out no matter the cost. The "crack" was not really directed all the way towards you, but yes somewhat. I was saying to be careful of who all you believe, especially when they work for the military-the very source of the alleged cover up.

Since you mentioned the Majors' take on Roswell would you care to link the book for all our viewers and myself?


EDIT to add: Thanks for the compliment on my other threads.


[edit on 5/17/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ET_MAN
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


Let's hope everyone is not as naive as Kidflash.

It always seems to be a balloon doesn't it? It appears that is always the answer, nothing but a balloon, illusion or delusion.



Normally I do not respond to these types of remarks, but I must ask ET_MAN if he has read all of my threads and OPs? I do not attribute all the cases to weather balloons and am one who actually believes a disk crashed in Roswell. I also believe Betty and Barney Hill were abducted, and that there have been many really good cases of sightings of flying saucers. I also cite Colonel Gordon Cooper for his sightings of a formation of metallic disks.

This is one of the few cases where it could be a balloon. We cannot rule it out when it may be the answer. Seeing a balloon in flight from a distance may confuse some pilots. Col Cooper saw his fleet up close and was able to tell they were made of medal and were not ours or the Soviets.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


You don't need to defend yourself here flash. All are welcome and I for one appreciate Ufologist (armature or pro) who present all the facts and take into account all possibilities. So do not think that this is a flaming session on you.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Here is some of the titles of Kevin Randle's books:

Roswell Revisited (2007) a good look at what has been learned from Roswell since his earlier books. A must for both the skeptic and believer

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242596051&sr=8-1

One of my favorites is:

The Randle Report: UFOs in the 90s (1998) writes about some good cases and a few hoaxes.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242596051&sr=8-9

A History of UFO Crashes: Documented Proof of UFO Visits to Earth (1994) an older book that is hard to get now. It can be found in most libraries, and much of the information is still relevant. I am hoping he does an update, as new evidence suggests the Aurora Texas crash of 1897 happened.

Scientific Ufology (2000) an interesting look at researching UFOs

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_28?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242596364&sr=8-28

Those are some of his books available.

I also recommend "Captured" by Kathleen Marsden and Stanton Friedman on the Hill abduction.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Here is one person's take on the Mantell case.

See Mantell section




Clements said that he was unable to make radio contact with Mantell, because of the strong electric field near the saucer, so Mantell continued the pursuit, within the colonel’s view. Mantell’s plane flew into tiny pieces and Mantell with it. There was no evidence or sighting of any weapons use. The two officers who were arguing with me had to eat crow, for there was a superior officer having direct personal knowledge of flying saucers, in a famous incident, to corroborate my argument. 1 thanked Clements for his honesty. The two other officers didn’t call him crazy.


My theory is that Mantell’s plane, at 500 mph., entered the saucer’s electric field, which gravitationally neutralized the front of the plane. As soon as his plane lost its charge, the front and rear of the plane shredded together and apart in every direction, due to the sudden effects of momentum and inertia. The Pentagon’s order to cease and desist was heard by Clements, but not by Mantell, and must have been intended to avoid such an incident, based on prior knowledge by Pentagon personnel as to what could happen.


ED: I see where this is counter to other opinions or accounts.

[edit on 5/17/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Very well written with plenty of sources and great info. Star and Flag good Sir. All threads should be written this way, well thought out and plenty of good info. Once again, nicely done.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Well it wasn't Venus, no record of baloons,

Why would he keep going knowing he would run out of oxygen.

I think I know.





[edit on 023131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]


This video has a bogus bit of audio in it. The CT audio that begins around the 1 minute mark has nothing to do with this sighting.

The audio: "One great big bright shiny star... That's what it appears like from the tower now." has nothing to do with the Mantell incident of 1948. It is in actuality Control Tower chatter from a UFO incident which took place on the night of October 7, 1965 at Edwards Air Force Base.

Videos like this, mixing up data from UFO incidents completely unrelated and years apart, have no foundation and credibility. Just a head's up to keep your critical thinking cap on.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
until we know the truth ... our theories are the only truth to what happens... just like the concept of what the oposite sex is thinking when they see you for the first time... you may be suprised



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Ninja-san
 


An excellent question on my replies. Although I try to get a point across, I sometimes make misstatements. Let me try to clear up a few of the statements I made:

I was correct in stating I never implied anyone was lying. I just wanted to know where the quote was from. The problem in this field is that there are many quotes that have never been verified.

The pilot may have stated what was attributed to him, but that could of been due to the lack of oxygen. If you read the full report on the incident, there is a conclusion that the pilot had climbed too high and the stress on the aircraft caused the crash.

Again here is his blog on the Mantell case:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

Here is another blog by Kevin Randle on another case:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

Here is the blog on the experiments done by Unsolved Histories:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...


The Mustang p-51 did in fact have an on board oxygen system.
books.google.com... hl=en&ei=HGcRSt-sH4ia8wSe7KGiBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8
(edited to add link)
Although the report assumes mantell experienced Hypoxia, this doesnt seen to be the case if we look at the fact that he had an onboard oxygen system to prevent this from happenning.
if you look at some of the early reports they tend to include that the P-51 did not have a pressurized cockpit, which is true, and may have caused people to ignore the factthat the plane had an on board O2 system.

It takes a big leap of faith to go from a very experienced pilot, leader, and veteran who had full tanks to a careless, operator who didn't use the oxy system and hallucinated.

Im just looking at the facts and applying a bit of logic, as bets I can.
I just don't see the reported facts adding up... it takes more assumptions to believe the official story of a ballon than the reports of a UFO.


[edit on 18-5-2009 by Ninja-san]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I'm not sure I understand. Is the suggestion that Mantell was shot down by the UFO?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RivenNight
 


That is one, or rather he was caught in the crafts propulsion or force field which was likely EM in nature. But more than likely he blacked out from Hypoxia from chasing the UFO, which was at an altitude to high for the primitive planes at the time.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
After I looked into this case a while back, I came away with the Skyhook explanation (here is a link to my research on it)...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can't wait to read your post more thoroughly....but kudos on making an exemplary post.






top topics



 
103
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join