It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Kecksburg UFO Crash: December 9th, 1965

page: 7
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I managed to do a quick screen capture of the search list for Dec. 9th 1965 at newspaperarchive.com

Doesn't look like there is much there, but I thought I'd post the image anyway...




Perhaps another ATS user with access there can provide further search info...

-WFA




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Shouldn't you be researching for December the 10th?

I think it would appear on the next day on the news. Not the exact day.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
I think that it seems unlikely, but possible that Cosmos crashed in the morning and was only discovered later on after a meteor drew attention to the area. But that still does not explain many things:

8.)Lets assume that the meteor crashed in Kecksburg about ten hours after Cosmos crashed in the same spot. What are the odds of that? They must be astronomical to say the least.

Also to say that Cosmos did crash in Kecksburg, rather than Canada would mean that some major errors were made by the tops in the field. As well as some very odd orbital mechanics taking place there. Also there is the fact that the theory of a Cosmos crash in Kecksburg does not fit at all with what was tracked by officials, who were tracking the failed probe, AS WELL the rocket booster.


All the discrepancies you noted with the Cosmos-96 theory I agree with, except #8. And I've only stated that Cosmos is a possibility I haven't eliminated. You correctly point out lots of problems with the theory.

Regarding #8, in my interpretation of the evidence, I don't assume they both came down in the same spot. If the 4:45pm object was a meteor, it could have come down 100 miles away, or not at all, but since people thought it was close they could have started looking for a crashed object and found the Cosmos which came down earlier.

Also I would not interpret possible intentional misdirection as errors. An attempt to recover Cosmos-96 (with no intention to return it to the USSR) would be illegal. Therefore to assume that everything officials would publish about related recovery efforts would be completely true and would show them to be guilty of an illegal activity, does not seem like a the most likely assumption if you believe it's possible any part of Cosmos was recovered from anywhere, even from Canada.

Speaking of assuming what officials are saying is true, if you want to believe that's the case, don't you have to give some weight to the NASA assertion that it WAS Cosmos-96 that was recovered?

But all of the other discrepancies with the Cosmos interpretation you pointed out, are very valid.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The validity NASAs statement on Cosmos being the object that crashed is destroyed by their own Chief scientist IMHO. Dr. Nick Johnson, who was recently awarded a medal from the DoD for the tracking of a stray sat. If it was not for his statement then I would be more inclined to believe NASAs story. As far as the "100 miles off" on the meteor, sure it is possible, but that still has many holes in it, if we are to believe the postulate that Cosmos was discovered by accident.

As far as believing the official reports, it is not really about that to an extent. It is more about the orbital mechanics and logic behind making the assumption of a cover-up to avoid an international incident. The theories just do not fit IMHO, well at least not yet.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 

People say that Johnson rules it out but he really doesn't. He says it could have come down in Canada at 3:18 or PA at 6:20am, and he's not sure where it came down (I find that last part odd, don't you?). The only thing he disputes is any relation between the 4:45pm object and Cosmos-96, and I have no reason to doubt him about that.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, very odd....Although I am still curious about the other 7 issues with that theory.


I really have no idea what crashed, the reported writing on the craft, as well the intact form is really what makes me think it was not Cosmos...



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


However, let me say that your Cosmos theory is better than the majority of others put forth so far. I am just not a fan of trying to 'force an explanation' by connecting a whole bunch of unlikely scenarios. I hope you did not take my post the wrong wrong way my friend.


[edit on 9/21/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
An intrepid ATS researcher provided me with the search results I mentioned above.

I can only assume that since this info came to me through U2U, that this individual prefers to remain anonymous. I'll let them comment here if they so choose


I don't have time right now to actually go through the results, but I thought I'd post the info here for those of you who might...



-WFA

Info below, here is the link (downloads as a .pdf. It's a server you can trust.) Information in the .pdf is organized well and contains links to actual articles, as if you were actually using a search engine... Below is just the raw data from a copy/paste)

Link to .pdf

Winnipeg Free Press - December 10, 1965, Winnipeg, Manitoba
WINNIPEG FREE PRESS FRIDAY DECEMBER 10 1965 Discrimination At U Of M Charged
Discrimination against...not at a fire they're sleeping MINNIE ANDERSON V On December 9 ions
at the St Boniface tal Minnie aged 78...2 Rusticana 642 St Mary's Rd Winnipeg Funeral service p.m
December 11 in the Miami United Church with Rev J officiating...
Refine by:
Date: Friday, December 10, 1965
City: Winnipeg
State: Manitoba
Winnipeg Free Press - December 13, 1965, Winnipeg, Manitoba
WINNIPEG FREE PRESS MONDAY DECEMBER 13 1965 an 10 linn or Ibc JOHN On
Saturday...13 1965 an 10 linn or Ibc JOHN On Saturday December 11 1965 at the Carman
Memorial Hospital John aged 77...Carman Prayers will be said at the family residence Tuesday
December U at p.m Mass will be said Wednesday De- cember...
Refine by:
Date: Monday, December 13, 1965
City: Winnipeg
State: Manitoba
Wisconsin State Journal - December 27, 1965, Madison, Wisconsin
the debt as provided by Jaw Dated this day of December FAMILY FINANCE CORPORATION OF
Plaintiff By Attorney llf Monona Ave...or as thereafter as the mutter can be heard Dated December
I 1565 By the Court CARL FLOM County H Ally...as soon thereafter is the matter can be heard
Dated December 25 1965 By the JSt CARl FLOM County Judge John...
Refine by:
Date: Monday, December 27, 1965
City: Madison
State: Wisconsin
Gleaner, The - February 1, 1966, Kingston, Kingston
Mary Application No 55897 Date of Provisional Order Approval 17th December 1965 Insertion in
Jamaica Gazette may be entered 7 weeks...Teacher Application No Date of Provisional Order of
Approval 22nd December One weekly Insertions Gleaner Period to the Daily within which...
Refine by:
Date: Tuesday, February 01, 1966
City: Kingston
State: Kingston
Winnipeg Free Press - December 9, 1966, Winnipeg, Manitoba
WINNIPEG FREE PRESS FRIDAY DECEMBER 9 1966 OBITUARIES BIRTH NOTICES
PATTERNS Indian Act Tyra Says...Tyra Says Chief nny an d DEATHS MAUD HENDERSON On
December 8th at the Winnipeg General DEATHS DEATHS THOMAS KWICZAK On...8th at the
Winnipeg General DEATHS DEATHS THOMAS KWICZAK On December 5 1966 at the
Winnipeg General Hospital PERCY D MAINMAN...
Refine by:
Date: Friday, December 09, 1966
City: Winnipeg
State: Manitoba
Winnipeg Free Press - December 11, 1965, Winnipeg, Manitoba
FREE SATURDAY DECEMBER 11 OBITUARIES BIRTH NOTICES PATTERNS Shastri
Reluctant To Confer By...01 per Insertion per ISc WILLIAMINA MINNIE KNIGHT ATKINSON
On December 10 1005 at the family residence 320 Aberdeen Ave William...in 1919 and ROBERT I
CLAGUE DEATHS MARGARET FERGUSSON On December 8 1965 at the Victoria Hospital
Mrs Marg DEATHS DEATHS...
Refine by:
Date: Saturday, December 11, 1965
City: Winnipeg
State: Manitoba
Gleaner, The - November 26, 1965, Kingston, Kingston
and Prints 2 Registered 2 PJD Parcels 12 noon Wednesday December 1 IMS Per Parcel Mail to
Canada Ordinary Letters and...Ordinary Letters and prints g -Z Parcels 12 noon Friday December
3 IMS Per SANTA ROSAr Letter Mail States of America...United states of America Nassau
Bermuda Mexico Virgin Philippines Puerto Canada Ordinary and Prints UK Registered pjs U noon
November rr...3 IMS Per SANTA ROSAr Letter Mail States of America Canada Nassau muda
Mexico China Japan Nicaragua Parcel Mail to Uni-...
Refine by:
Date: Friday, November 26, 1965
City: Kingston
State: Kingston
Gleaner, The - June 10, 1965, Kingston, Kingston
1965 Interest will be paid on 15th June and loth December The fint payment of interest at the rate
of 3d...of 3d per of stock will be made on 15th December 1965 The stock will be repaid at par on
15th...1965 The stock will be repaid at par on 15th December 1973 or on or at any time after 15th
December...
Refine by:
Date: Thursday, June 10, 1965
City: Kingston
State: Kingston
Winnipeg Free Press - January 3, 1966, Winnipeg, Manitoba
in linn per per IBc BRIAN S ADDISON Accidentally on December 31 1965 at Portage la Prairie
Manitoba Mr Brian Addison...Conly officiating Interment in Garry Memorial J BOWMAN v On
December the at the Winnipeg General Hospital J Morley Bowman t...in Aberdeen Leatherdale
Home Ph WH Scotland and came to Canada in 1904 In 1915 he served CATHERINE LOUISE
CARD overseas...Ros nyk was born in Austria and had lived in Canada for 65 yean Besides her
husband Nicholas she leaves to...The late Mr was born in Austria He came to Canada 60 years ago
and for 14 years he was employed...
Refine by:
Date: Monday, January 03, 1966
City: Winnipeg
State: Manitoba
Gleaner, The - November 23, 1965, Kingston, Kingston
chester Road Mandeville on or j before the dav nf December I First Herbert Ho i 1965 after which
date the...PUBLIC AUCTION Our Auction Rooms 25 Duke Street FRIDAY 10th December 1965
at 11 aum sharp Under of Sale Contained la...and Mervyn JOHN w Dominica Solicitor for the
Executor j CANADA DRY CROWNS ALL 8 DELICIOUS FLAVOURS AND WINK Your
Voice...Letters Surface Air Mail UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CANADA WEST INDIAN 1 BARBADOS DOMINICA GRENADA MONTSERRAT f November
1965...
Refine by:
Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1965
City: Kingston
State: Kingston




[edit on 19-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I have to say a wonderful thread here guys.

Just one point that has not been fully brought forward is this. To reach orbital velocity at all take a speed of about 17,000MPH so anything dropping out of orbit would be traveling just a bit slower.

Eyewitnesses say it was going as slowly as a light aircraft. That is a big discrepancy I think. Also anything that is traveling at reentry speed and hitting the ground would leave a big hole and unless totally solid there would be very little left of it. So if this where the Russian Venus Probe you would not be handing back or picking up much of anything. If it where a meteorite then Kecksburg might not be on the map anymore.

For these reasons I don’t think it was either but I am sure you will let me know why I am wrong.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
S & F

Hey jkrog08, that's just WONDROUS post!
I feel so glad to see such a post, with serious and elaborated search!
Congratullations, really amasing one!

Assuming the it was a Soviet warhead re-entry vehicle (dummy or live), in my humble opnion, the so-called hieroglyphic-like writing could be just the cyrillic alphabet - disposed or not - in a strange manner.

I live in Bulgaria and we do use the cyrillic alphabet, and to give an idea of the sane I write down the alphabet:

у е и ш щ к с д з ц ч м в н т г ж о а я ь ю й ъ э ф х п р л б

So, if you put some letter together in a bizare fashion they may be taken as hieroglyphic-like writing:

я
жгщ
лзцчу
йъфэьн
шбы

Eventhough, I think Americans were well aware of how cyrillic alphabet looked like, we cannot dismiss that they may misunderstood the writting.

Of course, this is just my humble opnion on the fact.

Thank you for sharing all this info!

M.Dux



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
I have to say a wonderful thread here guys.

Just one point that has not been fully brought forward is this. To reach orbital velocity at all take a speed of about 17,000MPH so anything dropping out of orbit would be traveling just a bit slower.

Eyewitnesses say it was going as slowly as a light aircraft. That is a big discrepancy I think. Also anything that is traveling at reentry speed and hitting the ground would leave a big hole and unless totally solid there would be very little left of it. So if this where the Russian Venus Probe you would not be handing back or picking up much of anything. If it where a meteorite then Kecksburg might not be on the map anymore.

For these reasons I don’t think it was either but I am sure you will let me know why I am wrong.

I think it is wrong to assume a witness report is accurate regarding an apparent size or speed of an object in the air, even if the witness is telling the truth. Witnesses have demonstrated an inability to judge distance and speed of an object in the sky with no reference point. Is the object close and traveling very slowly, or is the object very distant, much larger and traveling at an incredibly high rate of speed? Those two events can appear identical to an observer so why should we believe any ground observer who says they know how fast an unknown object in the sky is traveling? The answer is, that in most cases we shouldn't.

Also your speed estimate at 17000 mph sounds right for a high altitude, but the object will slow down as it descends right? Smaller objects do slow down, only large objects don't slow down in the atmosphere:

www.popsci.com...

Using some Newtonian mechanics, we can show that large enough rocks (on the order of 10 meters in diameter or more) will experience very little change in velocity due to air friction, and will impact Earth at velocities close to their original 11,000 m/s, with huge kinetic energies and the ability to form large impact craters. But, by the same mechanics, a pea-sized object will be slowed dramatically to a speed approaching its terminal velocity -- maybe to a final speed of a couple of hundred meters per second at best.


They give the math in that link on how to calculate how much an object will slow down, so if you know the object's mass and diameter you can crunch the numbers. Also take into account if the object partially burned up in the atmosphere, it will slow down even more than the initial mass calculation would suggest, as mass is lost.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Excellent Idea Arby!!!!

We know the weight:
Cosmos 96 (USSR) 23-Nov-65 SL-6/A-2-e 2,120 (960) Venus probe, failed to leave Earth orbit.

Source:
www.braeunig.us...

and we also know the insertion angle (I believe I posted it earlier... I'll look when I get more time...)

Nice thought Arby! Math rocks!


-WFA



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dear Arbitrageur

Yes I do know that eye witness accounts can be inaccurate, however most nations on earth send people to jail and even execute based on just such accounts on occasion. So it would seam that they are believed at least sometimes.

Now at least we have a few eyewitness accounts that say both on the back of the flat bed truck and in the forest that this object was the size of a VW beetle.

So if it were a Russian probe like the photos that we have seen in this thread with a velocity that started at 17,000MPH or just a little less even with the slowing that would have incurred by the atmosphere it would still be traveling at ballistic speed. Which is sill quite fast there would be just a mess in a big hole in the forest floor. You certainly would not be able to distinguish any writing just a mess of fragments. All accounts say that this thing was whole and relatively undamaged in that they could make out a shape.

If it were a meteorite that size then at least a good portion of the trees would have been knocked down.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


I didn't say to necessarily disbelieve everything the eyewitness said, just the part about saying how fast the object moved in the sky, or how big or how far away it was, people make statements like that but they have no frame of reference to do so.

Now statements like "size of VW on a truck" have more credibility because people KNOW how big the truck is so I would put a lot more faith in their estimates of the size of an object on the back of a truck, than I would put in their estimates about speed distance or size of an object in the sky.

As for witness testimony being used to convict people, I find it alarming how many people imprisoned by witness testimony are freed years later when DNA evidence proves their innocence, once again showing the unreliability of witness testimony.

www.courant.com...

The biggest cause of wrongful convictions in this summary is eyewitness testimony:


www.innocenceproject.org...
www.innocenceproject.org...


While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound.



In case after case, DNA has proven what scientists already know — that eyewitness identification is frequently inaccurate. In the wrongful convictions caused by eyewitness misidentification, the circumstances varied, but judges and juries all relied on testimony that could have been more accurate if reforms proven by science had been implemented.


Actually the wrongful convictions in court are starting to open our eyes to just how unreliable eyewitness testimony really is.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


Post starred.

Was just about to raise this same question.

Unless something very light hit the ground it sounds like a partially controlled landing as otherwise surely there would be an impact crater ?

So options -

1. The Russians were building probes from tin foil and balsa wood.
2. A meteorite the shape of a kite with the density of a bath sponge hit the ground.
3. Everyone at the time was deluded and/or lied.
4. Something hit the ground and the truth is yet to be told about what it is.

Occam's razor / will never be proven / adds to weight of evidence / move on to any disclosure thread.

Great thread op BTW.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dear Arbitrageur

Sorry but I have been thinking as has been know.

About the eyewitness testimony, if as you suggest that the object was possibly much bigger and traveling much faster, making the object a lot further away, then where is the very big hole in the ground that would support that???

So either it was VW size and passed close at relatively slow speed as the eyewitness state or we are looking for a Tunguska type event???

So we seam to come back to the point that something hit the ground in Kecksburg.

If it were the Russian Probe traveling at the sort of speed one would expect from a reentry of such a thing it would at very best be totally mangled certainly more like a aircraft crash with bits everywhere spread over a large area.

Or as I said a meteorite that if that sort of size would make a very big hole. This the authorities would have left in place for the boffins to inspect anyway.

It is also stated that there were two civilians with perhaps gigacounters that were very quick to respond to the event. So either these guys are everywhere or they where looking for something that may be in that area. This indeed may point to the Russian Probe or anything else really but it hits me as strange that they were there so quickly.

To me this is certainly a mystery but I think we can rule out a meteorite. Russian Probe or something else are still in as the authorities would for sure have reason to tell porkys about either.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 


Dear chunder

Thanks for that and for sure I am going with your number (4).

For me it is a shame the Russian Probe was coming down in the same sort of time frame and the man from NASA deigning that it could be that doesn’t help. Simply because he could be telling an untruth to help Uncle Sam.

The problem is that there so many reasons for them to tell an untruth.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MAC269
 


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you assume the object that came down in Kecksburg did so at 4:45pm, that may be true, but I am not automatically assuming that's true. It seems to me just as likely that an object could have come down in Kecksburg at 6:20am, and they only discovered it after seeing the 4:45pm fireball whatever that was, in which case it certainly could have been a Russian satellite recovered in Kecksburg. These are not conclusions but possibilities that the data doesn't rule out.


The fireball could have been a separate event (like maybe a meteor) that landed over 100 miles from Kecksburg. And the overwhelmingly vast majority of meteorites don't leave any craters in the ground.

Maybe the ground was soft in the ravine, from my experience in hiking through the woods, ravines tend to collect large amounts of leaves blown into them by the wind which can result in a spongy, almost padded-like soil condition when there are deep layers of decomposing leaves.

I don't know what happened that day, all I'm saying is that some people are ruling out possibilities that shouldn't be ruled out, I'm trying to keep an open mind.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dear Arbitrageur

Yes I did read that bit of yours about the two landing possibility in the same area on the same day.

Lightning does strike the same place twice despite the oldwife’s tale that it doesn’t but that is because that area attracts lighting a physical property of the area in question.

Two totally different objects from space sticking the same area on the same day, I think the possibility is so remote that it is not worth considering.

An object solid the size of a VW beetle would weigh about 5 tons many be more, traveling at ballistic speed would leave a big hole.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
Two totally different objects from space sticking the same area on the same day, I think the possibility is so remote that it is not worth considering.
You are entitled to that belief and others share it. However I didn't say they landed in the same spot.

Over a million objects enter the earths atmosphere every day. I see no reason why 2 of them couldn't fall within a few hundred miles of each other, but you're under no obligation to agree with my assessment of the odds.


Originally posted by JimOberg
In the end, the same-day fall of the super-secret Soviet Venus capsule, and the bright meteor, must have been coincidences. That happens, too.


I agree with Jim Oberg, coincidences CAN happen. Remember I'm not claiming I know what happened that day, I don't. But an open minded researcher wouldn't rule out a simple coincidence as impossible.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join