Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet

page: 6
83
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Good points, and that is the true definition of "UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT". It is somewhat of a problem sometimes because even though it seems more likely that these UFOs are indeed from other planets (based on abduction accounts and logic really) there is still an unknown factor. Many people automatically put aliens and UFOs together, that is a HUGE fallacy. I have problems sometimes when writing threads on how I should word my annotations of the UFO case, I mean I try to maintain a neutral approach and not speculate on exactly what these craft or objects are, but sometimes it seems too obvious that in the most likely scenario they are alien piloted. Of course your statement about UFOs being possible "projections onto our reality from our consciousness" is a widely growing theory, and is used in the "Tangent Universe Theory". To be honest in my own opinion I think out of the non-hoax or misidentified UFOs that about 60% are ours and 40% are 'theirs'.




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Thank you for sharing your knowlege with everyone.
Appreciated



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AKNOWLEGE_ME
 


Not a problem, thanks for your kind words. I hope you enjoyed it and learned from it. There will be more to come.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMythLives
***snip***
Also you still believe they were birds?


Yes I do.



I highly doubt birds can move backwards, the only time a bird can do that is if it is gliding backwards on the wind, but after a few feet they bird needs to start flapping again, also while it is gliding it does not stay in a straight line, it drops. The videos show the objects reversing in a straight line.


If they are on a thermal - yes they can move backwards and forwards again without flapping any wings.

Just consider hang gliders.
Whatever they can do birds can do better.



The objects also have a stand still effect, while some birds can pull of this amazing illusion, seagulls cannot even come close, do to their weight and physical size.


Do not fall in the trap of "stating facts" this way.

I have seen numerous seagulls hover in mid air. Are you telling me that you never saw seagulls hover by the side of a ferry while being fed by someone with bread or crumbs?
Seagulls are some of the most amazing birds when it comes to flight. And you will often see them doing maneuvres that seems to be part of some fun they have.



Eagles however, can pull this off quite well. Some airplanes can even stop still, or look as if they are standing still, its an illusion. However, that illusion has its limitations and if that video shows birds standing still for that long in that type of illusion, then damn thats the best I have ever seen it done. Quite simply that just does not happen.


And if this particular illusionary bird is on a course away from you or towards you into a thermal at low speed you would see it as standing still.
If the birds in the video are flying circles/ovals it stands to reason that they will fly towards you or away from you at certain parts of the circle/oval.
So yes - it simply does happen.



I personally believe it is not alien in any shape or form. I respect your opinion I really do, but I think you are wrong.


I might be wrong. But I just happen to believe that the alternative so clarly presented in OP is "wronger".




Also, jkrog08 is just defending his belief in Aliens and so on. Theirs no reason to get all up-tight. Just listen to his opinion and cunduct yourself in a reasonable and respectful manner for instance:

Jkrog08, while I disagree with you, that does not mean I do not respect your opinion, however I was wondering if you could explain your opinion to me in regards to________________. and fill in the blank yourself.



Jkrog08, while I disagree with you, that does not mean I do not respect your opinion, however I was wondering if you could explain your opinion to me in regards to leaving out the probable while focusing on "facts" that are based on an assumption which the witness says he has no way of making?
In other words - is there a reason why an investigation that concludes a natural cause is dismissed as useless while investigations that states that their findings are based on assumptions that cannot be verified are hailed as proof of objects that "must be alien craft or secret experimental planes"?

Even the PRO UFO analysis circles around birds but dismisses them because they cling to the unverifiable assumption.




There are kind ways to go about things and bully ways. Choose the kind way mate.


I'll do my very best.

As you might have guessed I am perhaps more forthright than is good when one is expected to agree with stars and flags.

I really hate it when just a murmour of disagreement is met with a stone wall of tsk tsk.

Even the fact that somebody starred my post is attacked as if it is inappropriate.
Can we only agree on and star posts that support UFOs and aliens?
If this is the case - where do we actually discuss matters and try finding the true unexplainable?

I'm ranting - I'm annoyed at the "true believers" - I'm sorry.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
To be honest in my own opinion I think out of the non-hoax or misidentified UFOs that about 60% are ours and 40% are 'theirs'.


I'm thinking that the percentages of the truly "weird" is probably much lower than that. Of the several hundred or thousand UFO sightings a year, I'd say that there might be only one or two, if that many, that fit into the category of truly anomalous. That is, they're not hoaxes, hallucinations, or military black projects.

This doesn't take into account, of course, the sightings of ghosts, cryptoanimals like Bigfoot and lake monsters, alien abductions, angel and demon interactions, time slips, and other Fortean happenings, which may not immediately seem to be related, but might be if a notion of greater spacetime permeability is considered.

That's what makes the problem so tough to tackle. Logically, ven finding out that one UFO is an alien spacecraft, for instance, doesn't mean any other UFO is an alien spacecraft. One UFO could be aliens. Another UFO could be human time travelers. Or whatever.

The older I get, the stranger reality proves itself to be.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMythLives
The objects also have a stand still effect, while some birds can pull of this amazing illusion, seagulls cannot even come close, do to their weight and physical size.

Seagulls can stay on the same place without flapping their wings if the conditions are right, and there is no need of a real strong wind for that, a 40km/h wind is enough, I have seen them doing just that many, many times.

Even last weak I saw a seagull soaring at some 20km/h, stop abruptly when it saw something on the ground, and it landed in a vertical movement like it was a helicopter. It only moved its wings to stop the forward movement, the whole vertical landing manoeuvre was made without flapping its wings once.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
As I have said before, this OP and thread is the best presentation of evidence regarding a valid UFO case I have ever seen. So I want to separate the excellence of the work done on this post by jkrog, from the material facts in this case, 2 different issues.

Just because some experts came to a certain conclusion, doesn't necessarily mean they were right. However, I think it's something that has to be considered when forming your own opinion based on your own analysis.


Originally posted by HolgerTheDane

Originally posted by TheMythLives
***snip***
Also you still believe they were birds?

Yes I do.


I highly doubt birds can move backwards, the only time a bird can do that is if it is gliding backwards on the wind, but after a few feet they bird needs to start flapping again, also while it is gliding it does not stay in a straight line, it drops. The videos show the objects reversing in a straight line.
If they are on a thermal - yes they can move backwards and forwards again without flapping any wings.

I would go a step further and say no thermal required. How do you know the objects moved "backward"? If you see an object going back and forth in a straight line, is that because it's moving backwards and forwards, or because it's flying in circles in a plane that looks like a line from your perspective? If you can't tell which orientation is "forwards" then there's no way to tell when it's "backwards".


Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by TheMythLives
The objects also have a stand still effect, while some birds can pull of this amazing illusion, seagulls cannot even come close, do to their weight and physical size.

Seagulls can stay on the same place without flapping their wings if the conditions are right, and there is no need of a real strong wind for that, a 40km/h wind is enough, I have seen them doing just that many, many times.


good point, and moreover, if the object is flying in a straight line away from the observer, wouldn't it appear to "hover" even if that's not what it's doing? Even the expert officials in this case are capable of making a huge number of faulty assumptions. One such conclusion is that the objects MUST be self luminous because they travel a certain number of degrees of arc without blinking out. As soon as I read that expert conclusion I know we are dealing with an expert who cannot be trusted to make valid statements. Anyone could film non-luminous objects through any degree of arc you want with the same equipment used for this film without the objects blinking out. And I can similarly disprove many other expert conclusions, such as any assumption that they know how far away the objects are...they don't. OK maybe they can give a range like out further than a few yards and less than 50,000 feet, or shrink the range down a little bit, but the objects could just as easily have been going 27 mph, 270 mph, or 2700 mph if they were different distances away.

Virtually none of the reasons they give for saying the objects can't possibly be birds make any sense to me at all. It appears that each and every statement these experts make showing they can't be birds, show that they in fact can be birds.

Now am I saying that I know they are birds? No, I don't. I don't know what they are. They could be flying saucers flown by aliens from Zeta Reticuli. Or they could be seagulls, or something else. We don't know, and that's why this is such an interesting case.

Given the assumption that the simplest explanation is usually the best one, I'm having a hard time leaning toward the aliens theory as being the simplest one, as much as I would like to find real evidence of that. So I guess that leaves me leaning more toward a simpler explanation, like birds.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
One thing this case made think of was the possibility that there was a US organisation(s) that were promoting the existence of UFOs while other organisation(s) were debunking them.

In this case, Newhouse could be working for any of those supposed sides of the question or for none, being caught as a simple pawn.

But that is maybe better for a new thread, I do not want to spoil this one.

 

On topic, I know that it was a military investigation, but why didn't I saw any interview with Newhouse's wife, after all she was the original witness (unless it was presented and I missed it
), did anyone know if there is such a thing?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Good question, I looked but never found an interview. Probably was one of those things that was overlooked, remember this UFO thing was new at the time and the military was running around like a "chicken with its head cut off" in a lot of these cases because they too were clueless but shocked. You can look on www.bluebookarchives.org... if you want, they have all the papers, but I did not see an interview transcript and they usually have them.

As far as the "pro-UFO" vs "debunkers", I don't think so, well in an official military sense. As I said this was a new phenomena and the USAF was seriously trying to find out what was going on. Now a lot of the investigative personal ended up believing without a doubt that some of these cases were genuine UFOs from outer space. There are reports on government and military opinions and probabilities of origin(See ATIC "Estimate of The Situation", 1949). However there were a few higher ups and especially the newly formed CIA that wanted to debunk this issue because even though the USAF thought a fair amount were from ET origin they saw no threat present and with the escalating Cold War the CIA did not want the military's time taken up by civilians reporting these things and the ensuing research. So they did go on a public mission to debunk the phenomena, which the Robertson Panel did successfully to an extent, for a while anyways.

Here are some good government reports that you may or may not have already read regarding speculation on UFO origin and threat:

www.project1947.com... ~This one is real good, it is the ATICs highly disputed "estimate of the situation" regarding the USAF and UFOs, suggest you read this first.

cufon.org...
www.ncas.org...
www.ncas.org...
ufologie.net...
www.ncas.org...
www.cufos.org...
www.cufon.org...


[edit on 6/30/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 6/30/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

I think maybe 2% of UFO sightings are hoaxes but the other 98% are of things people really saw but cannot explain, and I gave the benefit of the doubt to the people in this case.

I haven't read this book, just the summary on this link
UFO obsession
but this article summarizes some claims from the book which seem highly credible to me:


In CIA memos marked 'secret' and seen by The Observer, top officials consider exploiting the UFO craze. 'I suggest that we discuss the possible offensive or defensive utilisation of these phenomena for psychological warfare purposes,' wrote CIA director Walter Smith in 1952. 'Shortly after that meeting the CIA sent a delegation to Britain to discuss UFOs. It is hard to imagine that they did not discuss the psychological warfare aspects of it with their British counterparts,' Clarke said.

So, clearly Armap's statement should not be dismissed too lightly as a real possibility.
But in a statement that sounds to me like claiming "the sky is blue", the book also concludes:


...the widespread belief in UFOs that began in the 1950s and lasted until the present day should be seen as a social phenomenon.


I would attribute the latter as the more likely of the two phenomenon to taint the witnesses' and investigators' perspectives in that they were not less affected by this social phenomenon than anyone else, meaning I don't think anyone was lying or hoaxing in this case, they were just victims of the same hysteria sweeping the land and some of their perspectives may be understandably biased accordingly. These Utah objects really are UFOs, nobody knows for sure what they are, but given that uncertainty, it takes some kind of social phenomenon to make people jump to the least likely conclusion instead of jumping to the most likely conclusion to explain it.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



In CIA memos marked 'secret' and seen by The Observer, top officials consider exploiting the UFO craze. 'I suggest that we discuss the possible offensive or defensive utilisation of these phenomena for psychological warfare purposes,'


Sounds a lot like premlinary plans for the so called Project Bluebeam.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
not a seagull squadron, for sure.
type " ufo fleet" on youtube and you will find similar formations and similar movements ( i mean there's always one or two ufos circling around the formation )
That's an awesome amount of research that you've done. I'm impressed and admirative. Nice to count you as a friend !



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MattMulder
 


Thank you, and yes I highly doubt it was seagulls myself. UFO fleets are always interesting,m although most now days turn out to be mundane or CGI.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Correction of statement in OP


I stated in the OP that the speed of 664 mph was supersonic at 10,000 feet. That was incorrect in wording, actually that speed would be considered transonic under almost all circumstances. Just wanted to clear that up.


home.iae.nl...



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

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


"Looks a lot like"?

To me it's an overstatement, but I guess it's subjective.

Taken from Wikipedia (on the history of Me-163):

"Five Me 163s were originally brought to the United States in 1945, receiving the Foreign Equipment numbers FE-495 and FE-500 to 503 ... On 12 April 1946, it was flown aboard a cargo aircraft to the U.S. Army Air Forces facility at Muroc dry lake in California for flight testing."

So there were only 5 of them, and they went to California, which is pretty far away from Utah.

If the Tremonton UFOs were some kind of experimental craft developed from it, how many of them would they build, and how many would they send up at once? One or two, or a whole fleet?

And were is the documentation of this craft?

And if these UFOs were experimental crafts with rocket engines, where are the contrails?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

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


"Looks a lot like"?

To me it's an overstatement, but I guess it's subjective.

Taken from Wikipedia (on the history of Me-163):

"Five Me 163s were originally brought to the United States in 1945, receiving the Foreign Equipment numbers FE-495 and FE-500 to 503 ... On 12 April 1946, it was flown aboard a cargo aircraft to the U.S. Army Air Forces facility at Muroc dry lake in California for flight testing."

So there were only 5 of them, and they went to California, which is pretty far away from Utah.

If the Tremonton UFOs were some kind of experimental craft developed from it, how many of them would they build, and how many would they send up at once? One or two, or a whole fleet?

And were is the documentation of this craft?

And if these UFOs were experimental crafts with rocket engines, where are the contrails?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Bumping this thread back up, hopefully some more members/viewers will see this great, but rarely discussed case.


This is one of the best investigations of a UFO event IMHO, the man hours by official agencies is staggering, as is their conclusions.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I've been looking for some good, additional info on this case. Great job to the original OP...



As for BlueBook, the big shift started in '53, soon after it started. Ruppelt was temporarily reassigned and came back to a staff reduction. In '54, Hardin was brought in (a fervent non-believer), and in '55, the doctrine changed to simply reducing the number of unknown cases to a minimum.

The Robertson Panel of '53 started the shift....but by '55, it was a total whitewash.... Friend took over in '58, and tried to turn it around, but had too much opposition to do so (and too little funding). In 68' (or thereabouts), Hynek weighed in on how askew it was from the mission, and after the Condon Committee's report, the whole project was axed.



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
SLAYER69
, the 1929 pic I accept as genuine. The 1950 'Rod' thing may also be but without refrence points I reserve judgement.
I do question the '52 DC image though. The building is lit, birds flying just above and behind might look like that, Infact Ive seen Sydney Harbour bridge lit like that just on dark and pidgeons flying overhead appeared just like that. Not saying that explains it, since Ive read the case an it was apparently witnessed by many.

I once read an account of such a 'fleet' of unidentified craft being fired apon by military during the blitz (ww2) is this particular case familiar to anyone? I have long since forgotten the link or where I read it.

Edit: Found it 1942

en.wikipedia.org...

www.rense.com...

[edit on 7-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Oct, 7 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   


You might want to see this too from the History Channel

UFO and The White House Part II of XII President Truman

edit on 7-10-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join