The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 80 times


reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 09:21 PM by jkrog08
reply to post by Erasurehead


Thanks, this is a GREAT case and hopefully this, with the others and myself have presented so far (I would see ATS members internos's, Skyfloating's threads for additional UFO threads, and zorgon or mikesingh's for Mars/Moon threads, but there are MANY others like easynow and more)will be able to garner much more public awareness of the subject. I always welcome ANY observations, if you have any.



[edit on 6/22/2009 by jkrog08]


reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 09:54 PM by easynow
reply to post by jkrog08



no apologies needed jkrog08, this thread is way better than mine. you have presented twice if not more resources and a very good summery in you own words. i am very glad you created this thread



the Robertson Panel ridiculously 'debunked' all of their top cases



imo there were so many ufo reports they needed to "unclog" the info channels so the real important ones would stand out. in a way i don't blame them,knowing about potential attacks on our country from earthy enemies needed to be at the top of the list.

For example, case histories involving radar or radar and visual sightings were selected for Dr. Alvarez while reports of Green Fireball phenomena, nocturnal lights, and suggested programs of investigation were routed to Dr. Page. Following these remarks, the motion pictures of the sightings at Tremonton, Utah (2 July 1952) and Great Falls, Montana (15 August 1950) were shown. The meeting adjourned at 1200.


www.cufon.org...
www.ufodigest.com...


i wonder how many ufo reports there actually was that year ? i am sure many did not even get reported.

www.nicap.org...



reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 10:22 PM by jkrog08
reply to post by easynow


I wouldn't be so quick to side with the Robertson Panel(or "the Panel" as it is called in the field) easynow. Do you know that they were presented over twenty three HUNDRED cases, they only looked at about 26, while Blue Book deemed about 200-500 "best cases". Of those all there was NO possible logical explanation other than ET craft, or at least unknown origin (ET is so loosely used,lol). The Panel spent only 12 HOURS on ALL the cases, coming to the conclusion that the majority could be ruled out by common phenomena, and the rest could be rule out by "further research" (Durant Report). 12 hours, I mean WTF??? They also said that they believed the public was "waisting the military's time by the reports coming in"(Durant Report) and that it "was their duty to debunk the phenomina". so you tell me if you go into a project with the clear mindset to debunk everything, what are you going to do? Curiouslly they said they though the public should have "all access to all reports", but when anyone tried to get any of the films or more serious reports with the accompanying research the Pentagon turned it down. That is why Captain Edward Ruppelt quit Blue Book, because he saw that the US government was engaging in a MASSIVE active cover-up. Again, 12 hours on all the cases? The Panel blatantly disregarded all the scientific an proven research conducted by the USAF and US Navy. It was ridiculous and a shame. Cold War or no Cold War, this information needed to get out, now the US government is so far in over its head they do not know what to do IMO. It is BS and extremely sad IMHO. Dr. Donald Menzell was a joke IMO, he 'debunked' cases like "Chiles-Whitted", this and many others without ANY scientific backing, at least Dr. Condon used SOME science and he even disagreed with the Panel. The CIA ran Robertson Panel has been exposed by members within it and others, it was a complete JOKE, just like the Warren Commission, which was also CIA backed.


Anyways, I was not lashing out at you, just expressing my feeling from many, many, many hours of research on the Robertson Panel and US government. I really appreciate your kind words about my thread and your understanding about the confliction. I am glad you are a member on this site my friend. We need many more like you.

[edit on 6/22/2009 by jkrog08]


reply posted on 22-6-2009 @ 11:08 PM by jkrog08
reply to post by SLAYER69


My God, to be honest I have NEVER SEEN those pics(except the DC one)! WELL DONE. (I doubt you would have posted them w/o checking for hoaxes first!). WOW, I am going to have to check those out ASAP, thank you for that my friend!

EDIT to add:Well apparently internos has debunked that New York photo, I will have to look into that and the others still...www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks to easynow for pointing this out to me.



[edit on 6/22/2009 by jkrog08]


reply posted on 23-6-2009 @ 01:11 AM by Arbitrageur
What an outstanding presentation of all the facts concerning a UFO sighting, perhaps the best I have ever seen! Great job!

I have a couple of questions/comments on the facts of the case though.

Originally posted by jkrog08

• There is no flapping or fluttering in any of the detailed analysis of the film. If the objects were birds, even at 10,000 feet you would still be able to see the characteristic ‘wing flapping’, which was not seen at all.
• It was also the opinion of the experts that the objects were self-luminous because there was no blinking while passing through 60 degrees of arc. This means that what Newhouse saw could not have possibly been birds because birds are not self-luminous !


Flapping- of course this would be visible if the birds were close. But what would really help is to see a flock of seagulls filmed under similar conditions and at a similar distance. I have seen analysis of films where if the birds are far enough away, the flapping motion is not evident at this resolution. So let me see a film of seagulls filmed at 10000 feet filmed in similar conditions with similar equipment and let me see the flapping motion? (or lack thereof as the case might be). Surely they must have some evidence to make this statement "even at 10,000 feet you would still be able to see the characteristic ‘wing flapping’" , where is it? If they don't have any evidence to back up this claim, but they are just speculating, then you can't give it much weight. The reference photos of birds posted don't look like Seagulls, nor do they look like they are at a height of 10000 feet, nor does anyone really know the true distance of the objects filmed, they could be further than 10,000 feet away.

"there was no blinking while passing through 60 degrees of arc." I am not self luminous and I can film myself passing through 60 degrees of arc without blinking, so this reasoning makes no sense to me at all. Either they didn't adequately explain what they meant, or they have no idea what they are talking about, I'm not sure which. If anyone has any idea what they really meant by that please enlighten me.

Anyway I agree with your conclusion they are definitely unidentified is accurate. I think they COULD be birds (and that seems like the most likely explanation to me, I see nothing in the evidence or analysis to dispute it with some exceptions, as noted above), but there's not enough evidence to prove that they were birds, so I think they have to remain unidentified.


reply posted on 23-6-2009 @ 01:28 AM by reject
reply to post by jkrog08


nowadays, something like this would be dismissed as chinese lanterns...I'm telling you people, we should pull together and ban chinese lanterns

somebody stabilize the video, please...stat!


reply posted on 23-6-2009 @ 01:48 AM by mikesingh
reply to post by jkrog08


Well researched J! This was a very interesting case. The conclusions from Project Blue Book were:

> The film apparently records the motions of ten unknown aerial objects all alike in observed characteristics of movement and size.

> The exact nature of the objects cannot be determined. It can be however deduced that they are non-spherical in shape and similar to bright metal in reflectance or else variably self luminous by some means.

> There is apparently coordination in movement. They seem to move in formations which are probably three dimensional in arrangement. The largest angular size of the entire group is in the order of 6 to 8 degrees of arc.

> The movement of these objects suggests flight paths consisting of skew curves in space.

> It would be extremely difficult to imitate this photography for fraudulent purposes.

So here’s another case that’s beyond any logical explanation. The analysis was inconclusive, pointing to a true account of an actual UFO sighting!

Cheers!



reply posted on 23-6-2009 @ 03:50 AM by amyfriend
reply to post by SLAYER69


Wow!!!

these are new to me!


thats a very spooky ship in the NY photo...

with you and other great minds here,,the team could make the best documentary movie on the evidence and truth of UFO's.

double huggs!!!


reply posted on 23-6-2009 @ 04:28 AM by Heliocentric
Originally posted by mikesingh
It would be extremely difficult to imitate this photography for fraudulent purposes.


Agreed. And why do we even feel inclined to speculate in those terms?

Because, if you suspect that Navy Officer Delbert Newhouse made this all up, motive would be one of the basic factors to consider.
In this case, I see no motive. There's nothing to gain on it. Rather, there's a motive to keep quiet about it, just as pilots apparently often chose not to file UFO sightings for career reasons.
Would he even had reported this sighting had he not filmed it? I can imagine Newhouse stepping into his superior's office, saying "Guess what sir? I saw a whole fleet of flying saucers the other day. Too bad I didn't bring my camera. By the way, how's my promotion coming along?"

This happened 57 years ago, and I'm appauled to see what baby-steps UFO research has taken since.
During these 57 years, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings have taken place, some by hundreds of witnesses at once, and some by witnesses with extremely good credentials. Presidents, scientists, astronomers, pilots, priests, militaries, you name it. The UFOs have been caught on film, photograph and on radar, and physical traces have in some cases been left behind. You could make a never ending thread with UFO incidents that cannot be explained rationally, and incidents such as the Belgian UFO wave in 89-91 (documented by the Belgian Air Force, with multiple sightings of black triangles by F-16 pilots and corroborated by radar observations) and the Mexican Air Force UFO observations in 2004 (unidentified objects flying in formation, filmed with infra-red camera and observed on radar) should serve as proof that the UFO phenomenon is real. And if no single incident would do the trick, then the mass of observations should serve as an alarm bell that something is going on.

Originally posted by mikesingh
So here’s another case that’s beyond any logical explanation. The analysis was inconclusive, pointing to a true account of an actual UFO sighting!


So, now that we have strong enough indicators - based on evidence - that the UFO phenomenon is really taking place, what are we going to do about it?


reply posted on 23-6-2009 @ 05:58 AM by reugen
reply to post by SLAYER69


Looks a lot like the German Messershmitt "Komet" or Me-163 that was built and used at the end of the war, 1944-1945.





Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



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