The Mantell UFO Incident

reply to post by Outlawstar


I think the late 40s-early 50s period was a real golden age for UFO sightings. We only surpassed the speed of sound in 1947 (about 750 mph), so when pilots and radar operators are clocking UFOs at 1500-2000 mph+, that really is significant.

On Mantell, it's hard to imagine 3 USAF pilots and a handful of tower observers not recognizing a weather balloon.


[edit on 31-5-2009 by fls13]

Looks like your thread made some heads turn

Memorial Day tribute missing in action for those lost in UFO quest.

One member of Mantell's flight was low on fuel and proceeded to land at Godman, while Mantell and two wingmen gave chase to the object. The wingmen elected to let the object go somewhere around 20,000 feet, but despite not having oxygen on board, Mantell risked his life to continue to close with the object. It was a gamble he would lose. Mantell's F-51 crashed at 3:18 PM, according to his wrist watch.

"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!" — Above Top Secret Forum"

The ensuing investigation by the Air Technical Intelligence Center officers from Wright-Patterson AFB was cursory. They demanded all evidence be turned over and then declared the investigation complete.

Nice !!

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Well that is certainly some great news, that is all I ever wanted for any of these thread is to get the information out. It looks like someone took notice of this.

reply to post by jkrog08


I have just finished reading Major Donald Keyhoe's book "The Flying Saucers Are Real". He went to Godman Field to investigate this case and found some very good information. I do not believe it was a Skyhook balloon as some have explained this away as. Maj Keyhoe does note that the other pilots went to look for the object and it was gone. A balloon would of still been there, and if it did explode, there would be evidence of the instruments on the ground and traces of the balloon.

I do believe Captain Mantell died in an accident and the Mothership did not act aggressively toward him.

The book may be old, but it has some great cases in it that were investigated by the author.

reply to post by kidflash2008


Capt. Ruppelt re-investigated this case and wrote about it at length in his book, which is online over at nicap.org. He said the intelligence officer at Godwin screwed up by rushing to the media with the Venus story.

I think maybe it's become a bit of an urban legend that Venus is responsible for a significant number of UFO sightings. I can't imagine anyone mistaking Venus for anything other than a star. The Skyhook balloon explanation is more reasonable but hardly a sure thing for the reasons you mentioned.

Yea, a detailed investigation quickly points out many inconsistencies and impossibilities with the official story. This was no weather balloon, nor Venus(that was the first theory put forth, then it was changed for obvious reasons). I too think that what happened was likely a result of Mantells craft getting in a interference field given off by the propulsion system of the craft. This is one of the top 5 cases in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by jkrog08
Yea, a detailed investigation quickly points out many inconsistencies and impossibilities with the official story. This was no weather balloon, nor Venus(that was the first theory put forth, then it was changed for obvious reasons). I too think that what happened was likely a result of Mantells craft getting in a interference field given off by the propulsion system of the craft. This is one of the top 5 cases in my humble opinion.

Top 5 for sure.

Multiple ground witnesses-civilian, police and military +
Air to air witnesses- multiple experienced military pilots +
Radar confirmation

Essentially what you got from the 52 DC sightings as well. I do believe the part of the story that Mantell outran his oxygen and blacked out causing the crash.

reply to post by fls13

Multiple ground witnesses-civilian, police and military +
Air to air witnesses- multiple experienced military pilots +
Radar confirmation

All that plus the death of the investigating pilot.

The electromagnetic forces saucer theory might have to be upgraded
to strong currents.

While reading a book with various material on Tesla technology
or what people thought was Tesla technology, I came across a big
why not.

Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature By Thomas Valone
/q57zok

The 1934 announcement of the 'death beam' was analyzed as
a power station. Some have suggested various uses for strong
focused electropulsive voltages.

Beams are suggested for sideways saucer motion and must always be
on to some degree binging in charge.

Where does this charge stop.
This same technique was to power the air worldwide.
Are there large ionosphere to ground currents right around the craft.

Associated with the same equipment was the pronouncement
of making Radium, a task involving perhaps millions of volts and
high current.

If saucers are involved with Tesla 'mechanics' or electricity then
close up forces are truly unknown.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Yea that is surely possible for an explanation to the crafts propulsion system.

Originally posted by jkrog08

All that plus the death of the investigating pilot.

It's absolutely tragic it happened, but it does bring the case a level of attention it would not be getting 60+ years after.

Here are some pictures of weather balloons seen at various altitudes and magnifications...

Here is a pic as see through a telescope...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c14f9396855.jpg[/atsimg]

Courtesy: www.wired.com...
(That one caused quite stir in Arizona not to long ago, you remember?)

Here is one seen from a camera on zoom.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9f7c6949aa8.jpg[/atsimg]

Courtesy: www.geocities.com...



Here is one as seen from the ground....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a0ce9718590.gif[/atsimg]
Courtesy:www.srh.noaa.gov...

Another member u2u'd me asking for images of weather balloons in flight at different altitudes, so I thought I would post the information here as well.

Just think about how boring and recognizable a balloon is.
The only people saying a UFO is a balloon are people that were not there.
That goes for just about anything in a list of Project Blue Book explanations.
They were not there.
Plus they can't divulge or know anything else for reasons known only to the
Air Force.
Apparently a new force is at work to hide the technology.

reply to post by jkrog08


Good job! I figured you'd know. Those are some damn compelling pictures and if I were a passenger at 25K feet and saw something like that it would get my attention. But experienced pilots with thousands of hours in the air are a different story.

One small comment Ruppelt made in his book was that he thought reports from commercial pilots were better than military pilots because the commercial guys got a lot more time in the air and had many years of experience behind them.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

Apparently a new force is at work to hide the technology.

I agree with that, man rumors one what or who it is.



Reply to fls:

The last pic should be moving, go to the sight for the motion views.

Giving this great thread another bump for all intended purposes Great threads should be continuelly bumped to teh top, to encourage more posting and help members to learn what quality threads should look like

reply to post by JacKatMtn

One member of Mantell's flight was low on fuel and proceeded to land at Godman, while Mantell and

Google: mantell ufo crash clements

Clements gazed straight ahead and saw a "bright shining object that looked like a star." He and Mantell started after it.

www.project1947.com...
under It Looked Like a Star

As usual Jkrog, another outstanding job of pulling together lots of good evidence surrounding a famous UFO case! Star and flag! Great work!

I wasn't sure what this was until I researched the evidence you provided.

As I said in another thread, I give you the benefit of the doubt. I assume you have no sinister motives to hide the truth by providing an incorrect link to the testimony of Lt Paul I Orner,

Originally posted by jkrog08
Here are some more links to notable witness accounts:
• Statement by Lt. Paul Orner

But in spite of the fact that your link was incorrect I managed to find his statement here:

www.bluebookarchive.org...

This object appeared stationary

OK what was that about speeds and direction changes a weather balloon couldn't make? Sounds like a weather balloon would appear. While the balloon is moving , due to it's high altitude it could appear relatively stationary for short periods of observation, even if it was moving at 100mph or more,

I was unable to tell if it was an object radiating its own light, or giving off reflected light

again this is very consistent with your posted photographs of weather balloons on page 6 of this thread.

Through binoculars it partially appeared as a parachute does with bright sun shining on top of the silk but there also seemed to be some red light around the lower of it

This description is a nearly perfect match for what a skyhook balloon looks like. This is what really convinced me that in fact, he's giving a description of a balloon, and probably a skyhook balloon!!! So thanks for solving this case for me, or at least letting me know that there was testimony by Orner which I managed to find despite your link not linking to it.

The reason I'm poking fun at you about the broken link is because part of the story was that air force investigators collected evidence and determined the investigation was already complete. This infers some type of conspiracy, and I was jokingly trying to similarly point out the possibility of a conspiracy with your broken link when I'm sure that in fact there's no conspiracy on your part. Likewise, I'm not convinced of any conspiracy on the part of air force investigators based on the comments provided.

As for the reasons you gave why you think a balloon is not confirmed, let's look at those:

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by kidflash2008

 

I wouldn't say the case is closed and explained as a Skyhook balloon. I don't know if you read the OP but there is some major contradictions to that story.

1. The reported fact that Mantell was heard saying "My God, I see people in there". Now was there any people in the Skyhook balloon? No there was not.

What altitude was he at when he saw people in there (and are we really sure he even really said that?). If it was above 15,000 feet one could say his brain is not receiving the amount of oxygen it normally does. We also have prima facie evidence that his judgment was impaired in that he didn't turn back or stop his ascent above 20,000 feet like the other pilots did. Oxygen-starved brains can play tricks.

2. The changing colors, speed, and direction of the craft is not consistent with a balloon of any kind.

the changing colors could be consistent. You can get both reflection and refraction at different angles causing a variety of colors to appear through prismatic effects. In fact look at your own post of weather balloon pictures here: www.abovetopsecret.com... first photo, see the reddish "light" projecting out the right side? Actually if you look closely at that, you'll see various colors, almost like a prismatic effect of reflection. So thanks for providing the photographic evidence to show how a balloon CAN show different colors. It's also not hard to imagine that the colors can change as the angle of the sun with respect to the balloon changes, and the breeze can slightly distort the balloon's shape, etc. See enlargement below of your photo:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/27ae5fdb7961.jpg[/atsimg]

3. The "object" was spotted in Columbia, Tennessee (where I live) BEFORE it was spotted in Nashville which is 50 miles north. That is not possible.

The balloons are at what, 80.000-100,000 feet? How far away can they be spotted? Why is this not possible? An object at that altitude could be spotted by a more distant observer before a closer observer simply from the fact that the more distant observer could have looked up and seen it first. In fact to the closer observer it would be more directly overhead so it might be actually harder to spot for that reason than seeing an object not as far above the horizon.

4. There is no way that Mantell would have confused this object with a balloon, Skyhook was not classified, only the origin and flight path was.

Then how do you explain the "parachute" statement by Orner?

5. A member of Project Skyhook stated that no balloon could have came from Clinton County, Ohio because they weren't launched from there until 1952.

6. Fort Ripley in Minnesota is the only place the balloon could have came from. Yes it is possible that the balloon launched from there the day prior was responsible for some of the sightings, but it ca not account for numerous other reports such as: 180 MPH speed, changing colors, changing direction rapidly, and being seen in Columbia, TN BEFORE being seen in Nashville, TN.

How did they measure the 180mph speed? The jet stream can travel that fast. I really don't see any inconsistencies with a balloon in these observations, but perhaps if you can be more specific about which speed measurement or direction changes proves it's not a balloon, I might be convinced otherwise.

But the skyhook maps you posted links to (sort of, indirectly) like this one: www.ufocentral.org...
clearly show that the balloons could and did change directions. look at one that traveled southwest for a while then made a turn and started heading south. Those southwesterly headings on that map seem like they could be consistent with the sighting.


[edit on 10-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by ArbitrageurHow did they measure the 180mph speed? The jet stream can travel that fast. I really don't see any inconsistencies with a balloon in these observations, but perhaps if you can be more specific about which speed measurement or direction changes proves it's not a balloon, I might be convinced otherwise.

P-51 Mustangs top out at about 400 MPH and Mantell reported to ground that the object was going about half his speed. Upper atmosphere jet streams top out at about 250 MPH, so yes it's absolutely possible that they were chasing a weather balloon.

The thing with the balloons, in this and other cases, is these are aviation pros. You would think they'd recognize weather balloons the same way professional drivers recognize traffic signs.

The quote about Mantell seeing people may or may not have happened, but when the air gets thin, people do hallucinate. It's a compelling and tragic case.

Originally posted by fls13
P-51 Mustangs top out at about 400 MPH and Mantell reported to ground that the object was going about half his speed. Upper atmosphere jet streams top out at about 250 MPH, so yes it's absolutely possible that they were chasing a weather balloon.

The thing with the balloons, in this and other cases, is these are aviation pros. You would think they'd recognize weather balloons the same way professional drivers recognize traffic signs.

The quote about Mantell seeing people may or may not have happened, but when the air gets thin, people do hallucinate. It's a compelling and tragic case.

That's true, you would think pilots would know a balloon when they saw it. And if it looked as picture perfect as the balloon photo in the OP, then surely they WOULD recognize it, but of course that's not what it normally looks like when it's at 100,000 feet from a ground observer. In one of the page 6 photos jkrog posted, it looks like a large dot, at altitude. I think we have to imagine the possibility of lighting conditions where the reflectivity off certain parts is so bright that it obscures the image of other parts of the balloon, such that the appearance to an observer under 30,000 feet could become distorted to the point where it no longer looks like a ballon to the naked eye. Once you accept that possibility, it is no longer so hard to accept a pilot might have some difficulty identifying it.

I also think that photographers trying to take a picture of a skyhook balloon where the lighting conditions are bad may not publish those photos (they were probably trying to get a GOOD picture of the balloon, so why publish a bad picture of it?) so it may be a little harder to find those, but there may be some out there, glad to see Jkrog found some where it's not so obvious it's a balloon.

But looking at it through binoculars and saying it looks like a parachute, sure seems like a description closely fitting a skyhook balloon.