It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


USAF "force fit" debunks.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:38 AM

SS Danfjord -January 21st,1956.

This UFO report was obtained from the logbook of the civilian Danish ship SS Danfjord by ONI Officers.
It was sent to the Director of the Office of Naval intelligence per ONI instruction 3820.19B and 3820.17C.

The report indicates that the Second Mate had a night sighting of a UFO when about 210 miles SE of Bermuda.
The object baffled the second mate because at first it looked like a falling star but then it stopped falling,changed direction and changed its appearance.

Second Mates full report at link.

Bluebook Explanation: Meteor

Blue Book UFO Reports by Ships at Sea (pdf)

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:32 AM
looool.... buddy they should make a comedy out of these..... i bet they are scripts in gold........

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by mcrom901
looool.... buddy they should make a comedy out of these..... i bet they are scripts in gold........

Mcrom, you're not wrong - after a while some of these USAF force fit debunks do become quite funny.

Whats even more amusing is that many UFO cynics just blindly accept them without a second look because that is what they want to believe.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:25 PM
It must be said that these explanations hold as much water as the moon holds small blue men who dance the fandango in the sea of tranquility every thursday , secretly moved by the music of Fatboy Slim and Beyonce .
In otherwords, bs.
You would have thought that this sort of blatancy would have to be explained properly nowadays but I fear that the powers controling this info havent evolved as fast as we have.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:22 PM
Excellent thread Karl, some great cases discussed.

It beggars belief some of the explanations given, it seems to me that we really are treated like small children a lot of the time, and it annoys the hell out of me that if there is a cover up (and I believe that there is), why do these people doing the covering/de-bunking consider themselves to be superior than any of us, and solely entitled to the truth!

Either all mankind is deserving of the truth.......or nobody is!

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by Argyll

Argyll, thanks for the reply -some of the USAF explantions certainly do beggar belief and need serious reappraisal - I think my favourite one is how the US Government expects people to believe you can get a sunburnt face from the planet Venus.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
It must be said that these explanations hold as much water as the moon holds small blue men who dance the fandango in the sea of tranquility every thursday,secretly moved by the music of Fatboy Slim and Beyonce.

TrueBrit -beautifully put.

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 05:28 PM
Dr Hyneck on Bluebook debunking methods and keeping hot reports away from the public:

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 06:15 PM
Possibly one of the silliest Bluebook explanations on record.

The Minot B-52 UFO incident -found at 16:10

Google Video Link


posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 02:46 PM
The Selfridge AFB UFO incident, Michigan, March 3, 1950:

A strong case of multiple radar detection of a UFO took place on March 3, 1950 near the US Air Force base of Selfridge in Michigan

Original report by Lieutenant Francis E. Parker, USAF:


On the night of March 9, [3] 1950, our radar station was in operation monitoring night flying by units of the 56th Fighter Interceptor Group, Selfridge AFB, Mich. I came on duty approximately at sundown, relieved 1st Lt. Mattson at the PPI scope (of the AM/CPS-5 Radar Sight), and established contact with the F-80s already airborne. Lt. Mattson, Sgt. McCarthy, and Cpl. Melton, who made up the rest of our crew for this night, mentioned to me at this time that an aircraft had been picked up intermittently on the HRI scope of the ANC/CPS-4 height finder radar at 45,000 feet; and over.

I know the highest assigned altitude of the F-80s was 24,000 feet; the target was not at that time visible on either radar scope, so I attributed the report of the high-flying aircraft to interference, crew inexperience, or both. Over the next fifteen minutes the rest of the crew, mentioned above, repeatedly reported this high-flying target at apparently rapidly changing altitudes without my being able to turn around rapidly enough from my monitoring of the F-80s in the area to observe for myself. Finally, however, I saw this target which was a very narrow and clear-cut presentation on the NRI scope. It was at approximately 47,000 feet about seventy (70) miles out, and the indication was definitely not that of a cloud or atmospheric phenomenon.

The Air Force was really impressed by this observation, which led the Air Adjunct General, Headquarters Continental Air Command, Mitchell Air Force Base, New York, to send the following letter, classified "secret," to the Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, USAF, Washington, D.C.:


Attached for your information are two narrative reports concerning radar sightings of an unidentified flying object.

2. The fact that the object was sighted on the scopes of two radars is considered worthy of special note.

3. Comment of technical experts, this headquarters, was solicited and is quoted in part for your consideration.

a. ..Further, the magnitude of velocity and accelerations of the three dimensional movements of the "objects" reported are beyond the capability of known behavior of lighter than air vehicles in controlled flight.

b. Also substantiating this unlikelihood is the fact that the "object" was reported as remaining stationary in free space for a mean period of two minutes.

c. Further validity is lent to the contention of the reports by statements that first indications, which were at high altitudes, were observed on the CPS-4 height-finder before being observed on the CPS-5 surveillance radar set..

In summary, no known electronic phenomena, nor combinations of several electronic phenomena could conceivably produce all of the observations covered by the attached reports.

4. The frequency of reports of this nature has recently increased; instructions have therefore been directed to all radar installations within this command to report scope sightings of unusual objects.

S/ Neal J. O' Brien,
Col., USAF, Air Adjutant General,
for the Commanding General


USAF/Project Bluebook Conclusion:

"Probable balloon."

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 09:42 PM

Originally posted by karl 12
Argyll, thanks for the reply -some of the USAF explantions certainly do beggar belief and need serious reappraisal - I think my favourite one is how the US Government expects people to believe you can get a sunburnt face from the planet Venus.

Karl, there is no suntan like a Cytherean suntan.

In all seriousness, how do you reappraise many of these cases? Since the Air Force was desperate to debunk these cases, they are bound to have left out important details. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Would we be looking to explain these cases or simply show that the Air Force is wrong and these suppose knowns are genuine unknowns?

[edit on 22-2-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 10:46 PM
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

If you haven't seen the information on the Belgium Triangle case, there was a post filled with information including radar returns showing 2km movements in a couple of seconds.

UFO Flight Characteristics ~ Right Angle Turns

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Would we be looking to explain these cases or simply show that the Air Force is wrong and these suppose knowns are genuine unknowns?

DR, thanks for the reply and you're right about that Venusian suntan (how on earth did they expect anyone would believe that one?)

I think, apart from the 30% unexplained rate from 'government sponsered' investigations into the UFO subject, we'd be looking to show that many of these 'officially accepted' explanations are just plain wrong (or completely contrived) - I also think it's now pretty obvious to everyone with an objective awareness of Project Bluebook's methods that many of their 'evaluations' require serious reconsideration... so it's probably best if they were placed firmly back in the 'actual unknown' category - if only for the intellectual honesty of future research.

As with UFO cases like the Portage County incident or the Levelland case where prominent scientists have completely debunked the USAF explanations (yet have been completely ignored) maybe it would be best to set the record straight - I also tend to agree with Ronald Story from the AIAA when he says that "it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations".

"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."
"From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."

Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980


posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:10 AM
The Fort Monmouth UFO Case - September 10th, 1951.


..Twenty-five minutes later the pilot of a T-33 jet trainer, carrying an Air Force major as passenger and flying at 20,000 feet over Point Pleasant, New Jersey, spotted a dull silver, disk-like object far below him. He described it as 30 to 50 feet in diameter and as descending toward Sandy Hook from an altitude from a mile or so. He banked the T-33 over started down after it. As he shot down, he reported, the object stopped its descent, hovered, then sped south, making a 120-degree turn, and vanished out to sea.
The Fort Monmouth Incident then switched back to the radar group. At 3:15 PM, they got an excited, almost frantic call from headquarters, to pick up a target high and to the north - which was where the first "faster-than-a-jet" object had vanished - and to pick it up in a hurry. They got a fix on it and reported that it was traveling slowly at 93,000 feet. They also could see it visually as a silver speck.
What flies 18 miles above the Earth?
The next morning two radar sets picked up another target that couldn't be tracked automatically. It would climb, level off, climb again, go into a dive. When it climbed it went almost straight up.
The two-day session ended that afternoon when the radar tracked another unidentified slow-moving object and tracked it for several minutes.

USAF explanation:

Weather balloon.


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:11 PM
The Flatwood's monster case, West Virginia - September 12, 1952 (thread).

Flatwoods Documents (pdf)

Footnote Document Viewer

USAF Explanation:


posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by karl 12


What was it that you think was happening with these force-fit explanations? What as the Air Force trying to do? Was it as simple as trying to cover-up UFO sightings or were they desperate to maintain an illusion?

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

DR, I think it's pretty apparent the USAF were 'lying through their teeth' when claiming Project Bluebook was a sincere, comprehensive or objective investigation into the UFO subject - government documents also exist which state that UFO reports that were a threat to national security weren't even part of the Bluebook system (pdf).

As to why they did this, I have no idea - what's your take on it and do you think exposing these USAF explanations for the ridiculous debunks they quite clearly are is in any way worthwhile or important?

I'd also be interested to hear your opinions on why you think the U.S. Government states in USAF Fact Sheet 95-03 that it has discontinued UFO investigations when documents exist which show the Pentagon still takes a great deal of interest in the subject (link).


posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:00 PM
What annoys me the most is that all these contrived explanations have added a lot of weight to those who think that every UFO is explainable, and thus the whole subject can be dismissed.... and those who believe otherwise can be ridiculed.

When you actually start delving in to how governments have treated the UFO phenomenon oner the last 60years, how they've lied about their interest and involvement, how they've deliberately encouraged an air of derision, disbelief, and ridicule to prevail... it makes one want to scream in frustration.

Just one more reason to NEVER forgive those who have deliberately added to the cover-up

Great thread Karl

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Dagar
..When you actually start delving in to how governments have treated the UFO phenomenon oner the last 60years, how they've lied about their interest and involvement, how they've deliberately encouraged an air of derision, disbelief, and ridicule to prevail... it makes one want to scream in frustration.

Dagar, thanks for the reply matey and I couldn't agree more with your comments there - I think the 'ridicule factor' has probably done more to discourage objective analysis of the UFO subject than anything else and Terry Hansen makes some very interesting comments below about the Robertson panel, conditioned responses and propaganda dissemination techniques.

As for Project Bluebook, I think the paragraph below and the comments in this post just about sum things up:

Don't Judge a Book by Its Cover

Judging from the Air Force's press notices, Project Blue Book had the UFO problem well in hand. But in reality, for almost all of its nearly 20-year existence, it was a low-priority operation headed by a lower-ranking officer. A well-funded but highly classified project (even now its name is not known) handled sensitive UFO cases. The staff for Project Blue Book was small and, according to astronomer J. Allen Hynek (Project Blue Book's scientific adviser), less than hardworking. Nonetheless, the Air Force regularly assured reporters, who then uncritically passed the line to newspaper readers, that thorough, scientific investigations had proved the nonexistence of UFOs. In a 1968 letter to the project, Hynek leveled several charges against Project Blue Book: It lacked the trained personnel necessary for the job, had conducted "virtually no dialogue" with the "outside scientific world," and employed statistical methods that were "nothing less than a travesty."



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by karl 12

Easynow,thanks for posting that one -the dustbin lid explanation is an absolute winner (are they being serious?)

10-4, i think so and obviously part of a dis-info campaign.

Found this other classic bovine dung explanation from Goose Bay, Labrador, 1948:

LOL very interesting "bovine" case thanks

Summer 1948; Goose Bay, Labrador

Major Edwin A. Jerome, USAF (Ret.) reported the following information to NICAP in 1961. Major Jerome was a Command Pilot, Air Provost Marshal for about 8 years, and also served as an Intelligence Officer and CID Investigator.

"My only real contact with the UFO problem was way back in the summer of 1948 while stationed at Goose Bay, Labrador. There an incident happened which is worthy of note. It seems that a high-ranking inspection team was visiting the radar facilities of this base whose mission at the time was to serve as a prime refueling and servicing air base for all military and civilian aircraft plying the north Atlantic air routes. GCA [Ground Control Approach radar] was a critical part of this picture, thus these high-ranking officers RCAF & USAF up to the rank of General as I recall.

"While inspecting the USAF radar shack, the operator noted a high-speed target on his scope going from NE to SW. Upon computation of the speed it was found to be about 9000 mph. This incident caused much consternation in the shack since obviously this was no time for levity or miscalculations in the presence of an inspecting party. The poor airman technician was brought to task for his apparent miscalculation. Again the target appeared and this time the inspectors were actually shown the apparition on the radar screen. The only reaction to this was that obviously the American equipment was way off calibration.

"The party then proceeded to the Canadian side to inspect the RCA"' GCA facility Upon their arrival the OIC related his most unbelievable target they had just seen. The inspecting officers were appalled that such a coincidence should happen. I was part of the meager intelligence reporting machinery at the base and I was called in to make an immediate urgent intelligence report on the incident. The prevailing theory at the time was that it was a meteor. I personally discounted this since upon interviewing the radar observers on both sides of the base they stated that it maintained an altitude of 60,000 feet and a speed of approximately 9000 mph.

To make this story more incredible the very next day both radars again reported an object hovering over the base at about 10 mph, at 45,000 feet.
The "official" story on this was that they were probably some type of "high-flying sea gulls".

sea gulls ?... yea right LOL

there were alot of UFO reports coming out of Goose Bay, Labrador during that time period (late 40's - early to mid 50's +) maybe one day i will get a chance to compile all of them but for now i think i can add the Bethune-Gander incident as a "force fit" debunk" to your thread here since it was listed as a Aurora display despite multiple witness describing a craft that almost collided with them , paced the airplane and then took off at a high rate of speed.

Gandor Case Synopsis - February 10, 1951, Off Newfoundland, Canada

On February 10, a US Navy flight, Atlantic/Continental Air Transport Squadron one, located at USN Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland, was out of Keflavik, Iceland at 49-50 degrees north latitude and 50-03 degrees west longitude about 150 kilometers [90 miles] west of Gander, Newfoundland out over the Atlantic Ocean. The aircraft was probably bound for Gander to refuel judging by its position and course of 230 degrees true, though the report does not mention this. US Naval Reserve Lieutenant Graham Bethune, copilot of Flight 125, was occupying the captain¹s seat on the left side of the cockpit in the passenger plane when he first sighted a huge object [at least] 300 feet in diameter on a near collision course with their aircraft.

The copilot stated in his official report, "...I observed a glow of light below the horizon about 1,000 to 1,500 feet [330-470 meters] above the water. We both [the pilot as well] observed its course and motion for about 4 or 5 minutes before calling it to the attention of the other crew members. ...Suddenly its angle of attack changed. Its altitude and size increased as though its speed was in excess of 1,000 miles [1,670 kilometers] per hour. It closed in so fast that the first feeling was we would collide in mid air. At this time its angle changed and the color changed. It then [appeared] definitely circular and reddish orange on its perimeter. It reversed its course and tripled its speed until it was last seen disappearing over the horizon."

The copilot¹s report goes on to say that the object came within five miles of their aircraft which was borne out by radar evidence of the encounter because the object had been tracked by DEW Line Ground Radar at the base in Goose Bay, Labrador.

Years later Bethune was able to retrieve the reports from the National Archives and confirmed that the UFO they encountered that night had traveled 10,000 feet straight up in a fraction of a second and was tracked on radar at 1,800 miles per hour, well exceeding the 500 miles-per-hour capacity of the most advanced man-made craft at that time.

Bethune noted that his onboard magnetic compasses were spinning wildly while the mystery craft was nearby.

We had 31 people on board and a psychiatrist ­ we all witnessed it," he said, before adding to raucous applause: "I will testify under oath before Congress that everything I have said is true.

Weather clear, visibility from 15 miles to unlimited, no other weather information available. No unusual meteorological activity known to exist and having any in-fluence on the sighting. This object could not have been a comet as the object was below and between the aircraft and ocean.
blue book links...

US Naval Reserve Lieutenant Graham Bethune

Pdf Files

Mr. Bethunes testimony at the Disclosure Project Conference...

[edit on 12-5-2010 by easynow]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:45 AM
reply to post by easynow

Easynow -bloody marvellous post mate and that's a very interesting 'water UFO' case with EM effects as well.

You're not wrong about the other 'bovine dung' explantions - high flying seagulls?

Next thing you know the USAF will be saying they were moths!


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in