The Kecksburg UFO Crash: December 9th, 1965

Originally posted by desklamp3
Great post -- nice comprehensive work.

Agreed on the question posted above, why not disclose now? If it was, say, the Venus probe, both sides know it, so what's the downside?

You really should read Jim Oberg's post, he's one of the best contributors on ATS in my opinion. Here's what he said on page 1:

Originally posted by JimOberg
Personally, I had wondered if the AF claim was a diversion to camouflage their recovery of the actual satellite. After all, it was against international law to recover and then retain objects launched by other nations – the ‘originating state’ had full legal ownership. Far better (I mused) to avoid a fuss by just never admitting possession – and far MORE valuable from an intelligence point of view if the ‘other side’ never realized that you had discovered some of its technical secrets.

I'm not sure if there's a good time to disclose a violation of international law. Maybe it's better to leave that skeleton in the closet, if that is what happened. I can certainly understand an incentive to understand the technological capabilities of one's enemy so the theory at least seems somewhat plausible.

Here's Unsolved Mysteries take on the Kecksburg crash. Features witness testimony, professional analysis, and chronology of events. Episode starts at 60:01

Link:

Unsolved Mysteries UFO Kecksburg PA, Crash

Google Video Link

History Channel Doc.

Part 1



Part 2




Part 3



Part 4










[edit on 10-9-2009 by NightVision]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arby, with respect, Jim Oberg's post links to two sites
1) His own homepage
2) His own articles on MSNBC

While I appreciate his perspective on these cases, and the research he's put into them, citing oneself is hardly objective.

I will give props to Jim for actually framing his argument here within the thread itself (as opposed to his usual "This is bunk, check out my site for details" posts that I see throughout ATS UFO threads...

However, if we're really going to evaluate this case, let's do so.

Are we talking about this Venus Probe:



"The 1V Venus project was scaled back. Instead of carrying a landing capsule with telemetry capability, a simplified 1VA vehicle would take measurements along its path, impact the planet, and deposit a spherical pennant on the surface. It would carry a complement of scientific experiments similar to 1M, but without a camera."

Please note this probe was designed as an impactor, NOT a lander...


The probe was then was scrapped to become this probe:



Because if so, it shouldn't have landed intact on Earth.

"The 1VA vehicle used as much as possible of the 1M design. The cylindrical body topped by a dome was 1.05 meter in diameter and 2.035 meters tall, weighing 643.5 kilograms (1400 pounds). The body contained radio systems, telemetry tape recorder, the program timing unit and silver-zinc batteries charged by two square meters of solar cells (panels were 1.6 ×1 meters). It was sealed and pressurized with nitrogen to 1.2 atmospheres, with circulating fans to distribute heat. As on Sputnik-3 and Luna-3, motorized shutters on the back varied radiation of heat into space, stabilizing the temperature to around 30° C.

The radio telemetry system onboard the probe was built by Riazanskii's design bureau. A parabolic antenna over 2 meters in diameter could transmit on a 8-cm and/or 32-cm band. It's reflector was a fine copper net (invisible in many photographs), which would open shortly before planetary encounter. Cross-shaped semi-directional antennas were mounted on the back of the solar panels, for low-bandwidth (probably 1 bit/sec) telemetry during flight on 922.8 MHz and telecommand reception. An omni-directional antenna was located at the end of a 2.4-meter boom, used during near-earth operation on a wavelength of 1.6 meters. Telecommands were sent on 770 MHz at 1/6 bit per second. The spacecraft's control system repeated commands and awaited an acknowledgement signal before execution. "

This probe (if recovered) should have yielded some data on it's scientific instrument payload, no? Data that would surely now be declassified...

"The onboard scientific experiments on the first Mars/Venus probes have never been precisely described, at least in known Western literature. Experiments that operated in deep space are well known, but the experiments designed for planetary encounter are more uncertain. "
www.mentallandscape.com...

Further, we know what happened to both probes:
"The first 1VA probe was stranded in orbit on February 4 1961, when the escape stage failed. The 6483 kilogram fully fueled escape stage and probe were designated Sputnik-7. Its remains landed in Siberia, where the pennant was recovered."

"On February 12, Venera-1 was launched to Venus from the 6475 kilogram Sputnik-8 (after this, orbital escape stages were not classified as named satellites). This was the first successful launch-from-orbit maneuver and the first probe launched to another planet. It was planned to pass within 2,000-60,000 km of Venus. During the flight, recorded telemetry data would be transmitted every 24 hours during 90-minute sessions.

On course to Venus, the sun locator in the system of constant solar orientation soon overheated and failed. The station was commanded to enter spin stabilization mode. The motorized thermal shutters also malfunctioned. Two scientific telemetry sessions were successfully carried out on the 12th, at a distance of 30,000 km and at 170,000 km. To save power, it did not attempt radio contact again for five days, and science data was successfully downloaded in a third telemetry session on the 17th, from a distance of 1,900,000 km. No further radio contacts succeeded, although the Jodrell Bank radio telescope in England assisted in trying to contact the probe until June of that year. It is estimated to have passed within 100,000 km of Venus that May. "

Source for both quotes:
www.mentallandscape.com...

So pardon my asking, but what Venus probe exactly was it that supposedly landed in Pennslyvania?

Certainly is wasn't Venera 1 (landed in Siberia) or Venera 2 (lost in space far from Earth...)

Perhaps I'm just confused here on the probe in question???

-WFA

[edit on 10-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

Ok, so it's a meteor. Where is it now? With all of these witnesses and even a smoke trail...Surly SOMEONE would be able to track it.

Same thing with Rosewell. "Don't worry everyone. It was just a weather balloon"
OK...may I SEE the weather balloon please?

If all these incidents are nothing more then "natural accidents", why take the item away, hide it, and cause extreme suspicion?

That is why (when it comes to UFO crashes) I will never believe the government's explanation.

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


How about this designation for Kosmos-96:

USSR Nov 23 1965- Launched 3MV-4 #6 apparatus to Venus. The fault of third stage of booster. Title as “Kosmos-96”.

www.videocosmos.com...

That sounds like it. And the photo shows a probe with solar panels etc but if the third stage failed, I'm not sure the probe or the panels would have ever been deployed, my guess would be probably not. If that's the case the object that fell could have contained the probe, but may not have looked like the photo of the probe.

As far as I know, you need pretty good heat shielding even for a Venus impact probe, if you want to get data back in the atmosphere of Venus which is quite hellish.



[edit on 10-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


This is true, but the heat shields were developed during later Venera missions.

Here is a reference chart by date of the Venera missions:
en.wikipedia.org...

As for Cosmos 96, have you read this report:
www.freedomofinfo.org...

[Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Nicholas L. Johnson, who is recognized internationally as an authority on orbital debris and foreign space systems, has determined that Cosmos 96, the Russian Venera probe that has been considered a possible explanation for the Kecksburg object for decades, did not land in Pennsylvania on the afternoon of December 9, 1965. Furthermore, he states that no other man-made object from any country came down that day.]

[Johnson examined the orbital data for Cosmos 96 and was able to calculate when it would have passed over Pennsylvania if it had been in orbit that day. The time, when it traveled from north to south, was at approximately 6:20 am. The Kecksburg object came down at 4:45 p.m. “I can tell you categorically, that there is no way that any debris from Cosmos 96 could have landed in Pennsylvania anywhere around 4:45 p.m.,” said Johnson in an interview on October 10, 2003. “That’s an absolute. Orbital mechanics is very strict.”]

[The US Space Command reported in 1991 that Cosmos 96 crashed in Canada at 3:18 a.m. Johnson does not have information about the time of demise of Cosmos 96, but he did confirm that it was over Canada at this time.]

The above report was supplied by:
Leslie Kean
The Coalition for Freedom of Information
October, 2003

I'd like to see Oberg's trajectory data as it relates to this study.

Jim? Would you mind posting your trajectory calculations here in the thread?

-WFA

[edit on 10-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Also, due to translation errors, you can find that mission under Cosmos 96, as opposed to Kosmos 96. Same mission, just a different spelling in Russian

-WFA

It seems that the Cosmos 96 did separate upon reaching orbit, at least the orbiter platform separated from the Rocket system:

"This mission was intended as a Venus lander, presumably similar in design to the Venera 3 which had launched a week earlier. The spacecraft attained Earth orbit and the main rocket body (65-094B) separated from the orbiting launch platform. It is believed an explosion (perhaps during ignition for insertion of the spacecraft into a Venus transfer orbit) damaged the platform, resulting in at least six additional fragments (designated 65-094C - H). The damaged spacecraft remained in orbit for 16 days and reentered the Earth's atmosphere on 9 December 1965. "
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

This official NASA source also goes on to provide evidence against the Kecksburg event being caused by Cosmos 96:

"Investigations of photographs and sightings of the fireball indicated its path through the atmosphere was probably too steep to be consistent with a spacecraft re-entering from Earth orbit and was more likely a meteor in a prograde orbit from the vicinity of the asteroid belt, and probably ended its flight over western Lake Erie. U.S. Air Force tracking data on Cosmos 96 also indicate the spacecraft orbit decayed earlier than 21:43 UT on 9 December."

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I'd like to see Oberg's trajectory data as it relates to this study.

Jim? Would you mind posting your trajectory calculations here in the thread?

Maybe we should both re-read Jim Oberg's post on page 1, but I got the impression his conclusion was that probably nothing fell in Kecksburg that night. He was commenting on the Kosmos-96 as a possibility but it didn't strike me at all he's trying to prove that case.

I don't know whether they found anything in Kecksburg or not. Officials say they didn't. Assume for a moment that they did recover Kosmos-96. They have to come up with a cover-up to hide the fact that they recovered Kosmos-96. What kind of a coverup would it be if they provided trajectory headings leading right to Kecksburg? So if the Kosmos theory has any credibility at all, I wouldn't expect the coverup to miss a simple thing like a trajectory. One could assume if the officials found something and lied and said they didn't, that they could also somehow lie about trajectories?

Now what would really kill the Kosmos theory completely is if they followed the trajectory though Canada and someone had photos of it burning up in the atmosphere, or found some pieces of Kosmos-96, Then we could put that theory to bed.

To me it is basically like this;

Dr. Nicholas Johnson, the chief orbital debris scientist of NASA stated that WITHOUT A DOUBT no man-made craft crashed that day in any area close to Kecksbug. So for me this should automatically rule out Cosmos or any other KNOWN space/aircraft. I also highly doubt that Dr. Johnson was taking part in disinformation about a 44 year old crashed Russian probe that failed to leave the orbit of Earth. Furthermore, how can that even explain the "hieroglyphic-like writing" observed on the craft? This was not and is not the only time such 'writing' as been observed on a downed UFO, Roswell had the same thing, as well the Falcon Lake incident, as well many other cases like Kalahari. Now if one is to use logic here, based just on the available evidence with other crash incidents, as well 'whistle blower' statements about an alien 'symbolic language' then in my opinion the UE explanation becomes very strong, considering any other alternatives. I am NOT saying it was for sure alien, only that it is a very strong possibility in my opinion. I, in no way think that this object was Cosmos...

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar

"Investigations of photographs and sightings of the fireball indicated its path through the atmosphere was probably too steep to be consistent with a spacecraft re-entering from Earth orbit and was more likely a meteor in a prograde orbit from the vicinity of the asteroid belt, and probably ended its flight over western Lake Erie. U.S. Air Force tracking data on Cosmos 96 also indicate the spacecraft orbit decayed earlier than 21:43 UT on 9 December."

Yes that's right but there's nothing that rules out a meteor falling from the sky the same day as Cosmos-96 right? At least that's what some claim and it could happen.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


WHOA.........My friend, I MUST disagree with you on this statement:

Officials say they didn't. Assume for a moment that they did recover Kosmos-96. They have to come up with a cover-up to hide the fact that they recovered Kosmos-96.

Number one.......It is CERTAIN that SOMETHING crashed in Kecksburg on December 9th, 1965 at around 4:50PM EST. At first the USAF stated officially that it was only a meteor. 40 years later NASA stated officially that what was recovered AT KECKSBURG was debris from Kosmos 96. BUT.........Their own man, and the chief scientist for orbital mechanics stated that was impossible. So currently the newest and only official explanation out there is NASAs "Cosmos Explanation". I think that there were some HUGE mishaps in the attempted cover-up here, first the USAF states it was a meteor, THEN NASA reverses that 40 years later saying it was Cosmos, okay that is fine and all well--UNTIL there OWN scientist says that is impossible. Add that with the fact that they "lost" two boxes of records and have been stonewalling the lawsuit and what do you get? Any logical conclusion would lead to the fact that we are STILL not being told what happened at Kecksburg.

Originally posted by jkrog08
To me it is basically like this;

Dr. Nicholas Johnson, the chief orbital debris scientist of NASA stated that WITHOUT A DOUBT no man-made craft crashed that day in any area close to Kecksbug. So for me this should automatically rule out Cosmos or any other KNOWN space/aircraft. I also highly doubt that Dr. Johnson was taking part in disinformation about a 44 year old crashed Russian probe that failed to leave the orbit of Earth.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he was part of a coverup. You're probably right and he probably wasn't. But one reason I'm not as sure as you are, is that after officials admitted they lied to us for 50 years about the weather balloon story at Roswell, you have to forgive me for wondering what else they could be lying about and not assuming everything we hear is the untarnished truth. And from what I know of this case, recovering Kosmos-96 could have significantly more defense significance than that stupid project Mogul they felt they had to lie about at Roswell.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by rygi23
Another story that will always be he-said-she-said. A point I'm not seeing addressed...If you believe the witnesses as I do then it (whatever it was) fell from space and didn't obliterate and incinerate into fine pieces. It's exterior had almost no damage at all. So much for the theory of anything manmade, including what we build for space.

Apparently you didn't read Jim Oberg's post on page 1:

Originally posted by JimOberg
In early December, 1965, a Soviet spacecraft of very high interest was about to fall out of orbit. It was the entry capsule of a Venus probe, whose engine had failed during launch, trapping it in low Earth orbit. That spacecraft would contain the very latest Soviet hardware for heat shielding, hi-G structural strength, guidance, navigation instrumentation, and computer/communications systems, since the same factories that
built space probes also were involved in building military missile and warhead systems.

See that about the very latest Soviet hardware for heat shielding? If it's a probe designed to withstand Venus, that's a very severe environment so I imagine it would be very, very tough and capable of surviving re-entry to the earth.

So that's a possibility and some witnesses claimed the object even had the same acorn shape as that probe. Are you still sure it couldn't be man-made?

I don't think top secret man-made technology from '65 would be kept secret for 44 years either. And I'd like to see an official article on the probe that was due to fall out of the sky. I'd do realize that it's very plausible though.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You do not think Roswell was really Mogul do you? All that was is the same as Kecksburg IMHO. A lie to cover another lie and so on until you finally get to the truth. People always ask "how can the government keep a secret that big?" It is simple and ingenious really. You lie to everyone, you tell one person one lie, another person (higher up) another lie, and so on. Until only a few know the truth. So when government agencies say "it was so and so that crashed", that is really what they know. I doubt if NASA even knows the truth on what crashed, maybe one or two guys do, but that would be it.

Star and Flag!

The video of the UFO hunters refers to an 2008 incident in Needles California and not to the 1965 incident in Kecksburg Pennsylvania.

The most interesting aspects of the Kecksburg story for me are:

1. object that does not display of being of intelligent control. it simply drops.
2. resembles a vehicle that could be manufactured to withstand an impact.
3. a big soviet satellite a "Venera" type, which stands for probes send to Venus by the Soviets, reportedly crashed the day before but in a different location, still in the same hemisphere. reportedly: the Cosmos 96/Venera-type spacecraft was (supposedly) responsible for a fireball which was seen over southwestern Ontario, Canada and at least eight states from Michigan to New York at 4:43 p.m. EST (21:43 UT) on 9 December 1965

From the NASA data center:

Cosmos 96 NSSDC ID: 1965-094A Description This mission was intended as a Venus lander, presumably similar in design to the Venera 3 which had launched a week earlier. The spacecraft attained Earth orbit and the main rocket body (65-094B) separated from the orbiting launch platform. It is believed an explosion (perhaps during ignition for insertion of the spacecraft into a Venus transfer orbit) damaged the platform, resulting in at least six additional fragments (designated 65-094C - H). The damaged spacecraft remained in orbit for 16 days and reentered the Earth's atmosphere on 9 December 1965. The Great Lakes Fireball and Kecksburg Incident There is some speculation that the reentry of the Cosmos 96/Venera-type spacecraft was responsible for a fireball which was seen over southwestern Ontario, Canada and at least eight states from Michigan to New York at 4:43 p.m. EST (21:43 UT) on 9 December 1965. Investigations of photographs and sightings of the fireball indicated its path through the atmosphere was probably too steep to be consistent with a spacecraft re-entering from Earth orbit and was more likely a meteor in a prograde orbit from the vicinity of the asteroid belt, and probably ended its flight over western Lake Erie. U.S. Air Force tracking data on Cosmos 96 also indicate the spacecraft orbit decayed earlier than 21:43 UT on 9 December. Other unconfirmed reports state the fireball subsequently landed in Pennsylvania southeast of Pittsburgh near the town of Kecksburg (40.2 N, 79.5 W) at 4:46 p.m. EST (although it should be noted that estimating the impact point of fireballs from eyewitness accounts is notoriously inaccurate). Uncertainties in the orbital information and reentry coordinates and time make it difficult to determine definitively if the fireball could have been the Cosmos 96 spacecraft. Cosmos Nomenclature After failing to leave Earth orbit, this spacecraft was designated Cosmos 96. Beginning in 1962, the name Cosmos was given to Soviet spacecraft which remained in Earth orbit, regardless of whether that was their intended final destination. The designation of this mission as an intended planetary probe is based on evidence from Soviet and non-Soviet sources and historical documents. Typically Soviet planetary missions were initially put into an Earth parking orbit as a launch platform with a rocket engine and attached probe. The probes were then launched toward their targets with an engine burn with a duration of roughly 4 minutes. If the engine misfired or the burn was not completed, the probes would be left in Earth orbit and given a Cosmos designation.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

4. another object, probably a meteorite chose the same night to make its appearance:

The Federal Aviation Administration had received 23 reports from aircraft pilots, the first starting at 4:44 p.m. A seismograph 25 miles southwest of Detroit had recorded the shock waves created by the fireball as it passed through the atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...

UFOs rarely seen do this, OR it was a part of the original Kosmos 96 spacecraft reentering.

So, what we have here is from witness testimonies a vehicle that bares unknown markings, seems constructed in a way to withstand an impact, displays no intelligent flight characteristics, (simply drops) and appeared at the time period, and the roughly the same area where a Soviet spacecraft, a heavy one designed for entry in the inhospitable environment of planet Venus, failed to leave earth orbit and some of its pieces were still dropping before and after the mysterious Kecksburg fireball was sighted, a witness hearing screams near it and the army doing a retrieval mission.

IMO An alien or black project drop ship with a disguised flight path to appear as a piece of debris from the Venera/Kosmos 96 soviet spacecraft, which btw the army would too seem interested to acquire since it was a Soviet type of space machinery that was the first piece of machinery successfully landing on another planet, able to successfully reach Venus at the time and also transmit data.

Indeed very strange incident.

Tinfoil conclusion: Alien commando mission? But from whom do you have to hide if you are an alien? Another alien perhaps?

[edit on 10-9-2009 by spacebot]

reply to post by spacebot


Thanks for the very detailed post.

But...There were reports of intelligent descent, in fact that was one of the main parts of the incident. The witnesses seeing the object appear to "attempt to control its flight"..

You may have missed it, I accidentally posted the thread without adding a whole 10,000 count OP..lol

Here is some relevant quotes pertaining to the intelligent maneuvers made:

Most witnesses thought they were observing a plane going down in flames. But in Kecksburg, where the objects arrived suddenly and made its spectacular landing, the earliest reported eyewitness, a seven year old boy playing outside with his sister, declared that it looked like "a star on fire." The children's mother later described, "a column of blue smoke rising through the trees, "from the woods about a mile away where the object landed, and another "brilliant object," hanging above the tree line and to the left of the smoke column. She described this second objects at resembling a "four-pointed star."

There were other witnesses in different parts of the village who independently saw the object go down into the woods, and at that time, they heard no sound, but momentarily after it happened, they saw the dust rise and a blue column of smoke go up, and in a matter of minutes it dissipated. When they saw this thing coming in, by the descriptions, they were not just seeing a fireball or bright meteor. Some of them had seen this thing pass very close over their heads, it was slow moving, it was gliding in. . It appears to have been a controlled reentry vehicle of some type. . It appears that it was purposely trying not to hit the edge of the ridges, to guide itself around those ridges, and was trying to gain altitude.

Apparently, it did not gain enough over the last ride when it crashed. Not long after the crash, members from the local volunteer fire companies were combing the woods, searching for what was still assumed to be a downed airplane. The state police also arrived, to coordinate the search as well as keep order, as radio and TV news reports of the mysterious, no longer assumed to be a mere airplane, had drawn crowds of curious onlookers to the site for a glimpse of whatever it was. A state police fire marshal, accompanied by an unidentified man carrying a Geiger counter descended into the woods.

Upon their return a few minutes later, the state police fire marshal ordered the woods sealed off. John Murphy, news director of the Greensburg radio station WHJB, was one of the first people on the scene. Murphy knew the fire marshal well, but when he attempted to get information from him as to what he had seen in the woods, received the reply, "I'm not sure. You better get your information from the army."

www.ufodigest.com...

Some more witness reports...

Report By Doug Yurchey

It was a warm December night in 1965. I was 14 years old and my cousin John was 12 years old as we left my house to sneak a few cigarettes down the alley. We lived in the suburban community of Bridgeville; 12 miles southwest of downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We came to this lithographic building which had a loading dock in the back. It was the perfect place to sit and smoke in secret. We knew we had to leave soon. The time was getting late into the evening. But, before we made our way back to my house:

Something pierced the night's sky over my left shoulder. Our heads turned to the left and our eyes could not help but notice a bright ball of light! Both John and I were stunned. Our mouths dropped. The object was about the size of a full moon and it trailed sparks or little bits of light. The odd thing about it was the thing did not fall straight down. The UFO went laterally; sideways; almost up! Whatever this was...it could not have been a meteor. A shooting star (or space debris) falls down. A natural object does not move horizontally. Meteors do not go up.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Also, the UFO hunters video was only part one, the Kecksburg incident is later, in part three or four.

reply to post by jkrog08

Well let me first agree that there's an equally good chance that we were lied to about Kecksburg as there is a chance we were lied to about Roswell.

And the lies have to be told to many people including some officials because otherwise it's too hard to keep the truth a secret.

With Roswell, I paid attention to description of the debris, that there was "too much of it" to be a weather balloon, (Mogul was way bigger than the weather balloon),
the piece of wreckage Jessie Marcel Sr showed his son might be consistent with a piece of Mogul (certainly more consistent with that than with a flying disk), so all the evidence seems consistent with Mogul. Then when I found out that there's no nurse by the name of Naomi Maria Self and Glenn Denniss was called on that, his story fell apart and along with it any belief I had that it might be anything besides Mogul. So yes Mogul seems to me like it's consistent with the evidence the witnesses described.

BTW I just read this:

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
As for Cosmos 96, have you read this report:
www.freedomofinfo.org...

And it says

US space command reported in 1991 that Cosmo 96 crashed in Canada at 3:18 am. Johnson does not have information about the time of demise of Cosmos 96, but he did confirm it was over Canada at this time

Also, he only states that Cosmos 96 did not land in PA on the afternoon of Dec 9, 1965. But he calculated it was over Pennsylvania in the morning. Again I see no impossibility of the Cosmos 96 and a meteor coming to earth at different times on the same day. Maybe once people saw the meteor they went looking for something and found Cosmos which had crashed earlier and they didn't even know it until they went looking for something?

So since this guy can't really say where Cosmos 96 came down, and he said it passed over PA that same day just at an earlier time, it seems to me we could accept he's telling the truth, that he's correct, and it could still be Cosmos 96 that they found in the woods. I don't agree that can be ruled out based on his statement, unless you assume that the meteor and Cosmos were one in the same, and I'm not making that assumption. I think it's entirely possible a meteor and a Russian probe could both fall the same day at different times. If that happened, Johnson could be completely telling the truth and it could still be Kosmos-96, right?

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Some day when I will have the time I will research the sighting about the
bell or die glocke. I think that this is the same object, and the americans
continued to develop that program. The symbols are supposed to be from
old german barbaric rituals I think, very old. I have red somewhere that
they sometimes wrote that symbols on their wonder weapons.
The eyewitneses will be able to recognize rune like symbols from warnings or some other writings in english or russian.

[edit on 10/9/09 by defiler]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


It is my postulate that the fireball was the UFO that crashed in Kecksburg. The Cosmos was likely not observed during its re-entry, as the time frame does not match witness pictures and statements. While Cosmos 96 did likely crash in Canada, something else crashed in PA. That was what was seen, the Kecksburg object, not Cosmos in my opinion. What we have here is likely an event similar to the Mantell Incident IMHO, where we have two objects, one mundane and one not. In that case we had a Skyhook and a UFO IMO, which can be seen given the reports available. I do not believe the fireball seen was due to Cosmos, as regardless of what Dr. Johnson knew at the time, the exact position of Cosmos was known, and as he said, orbital mechanics is very strict and absolute. So the fireball, which even by the "debunkers" explanation would have landed in Michigan could not have been Cosmos, which landed in Canada, according to orbital mechanics.

I will be back on later, I have to watch the Titans game...


PS: We will discuss Roswell in another thread...