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 CONCLUSION OF THE NASA LAWSUIT: Concerning the Kecksburg, PA UFO case of 1965

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't know what, if anything fell in Kecksburg, and therefore I'm unable to rule out anything, including an ET craft. In terms of looking at likelihoods, it does seem to make sense to look for common explanations first, but that doesn't mean the common explanations are always right.

As for your incredulity about what you hear being the truth, I agree that when the military lied to us for 50 years about Roswell being a weather balloon, and admitted they lied, it's hard to believe anything the military says.


You mean when they changed their first lie, the so called weather balloon story, into a second lie, the so called secret Mogul balloon story?
Come on, you also must know by now that regarding the UFO/ET matter the military never ever tells the truth, so far.

You can read more about government agencies UFO Lies here.

Government UFO Lies An Illustrated Lecture MUFON 2005 by Stanton T. Friedman May 2005

www.v-j-enterprises.com...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But I also find it prudent to apply some skepticism about eyewitness testimony made years after the fact. Even eyewitness testimony a few minutes or hours after something happens is full of errors in observation and accuracy, but the longer after the event the testimony is, the greater the errors become, and that's true even when the eyewitness isn't lying.


The military and government agencies are masters in hiding the truth by using disinformation, intimidating and discrediting the witnesses as good as possible, so therefore it becomes really difficult to know what is true or not.
Therefore where those photographs so important, because they could proof the real identity of the object, but see how some emissary government agencies handled that problem and what they normally doin cases like this .


John Murphy's Object in the Woods a reporter and news director for the local radio station WHJB, John Murphy, arrived on the scene of the event before authorities had arrived, in response to several calls to the station from alarmed citizens. He took several photographs and conducted interviews with witnesses.

His former wife Bonnie Milslagle later reported that all but one roll of the film were confiscated by military personnel.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Then I have a question about that supposedly crashed super-secret Venus capsule.

Suppose for one moment that it was some sort of super-secret Soviet Venus capsule that also came down that day, do you think it is really possible that when it came down from out space then, force itself true the atmosphere and smashed with great force into the ground of those woods it really could be despite it had to sustain an immense heat still could be so undamaged that any guy from the street could still recognize it as some sort of Russian super-secret Soviet Venus capsule with even intact outside Russian markings on it?


Here is my answer to your question

Look at this photograph of a space capsule which crashed to Earth, and tell me if you think it's still recognizable:

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

It's still recognizable to me even with the damage it incurred from hitting hard ground. Now look at the terrain in Kecksburg, with the possibility of leaves to cushion the impact, etc, the space capsule could have sustained even less damage than this one, right? Is that so hard to believe? (If it was a space capsule that is, I'm not sure if it was).


I must admit that that is interesting to see, but you must not forget the following.


Following separation, the SRC continued on a ballistic trajectory to its entry inter¬face with the Earth’s atmosphere. Entry occurred on time and at the nominal location to support a landing as designed in the UTTR.

Operation of the space¬craft appeared nominal until the expected deployment of the drogue parachute at approximately 108,000 ft (33 km) altitude. No drogue or parachute was observed, and the SRC impacted the desert floor at 9:58:52 MDT.


www.nasa.gov...

So, it was besides the fact that the parachutes don’t opened, a very well controlled entry, and its heat shield did work perfectly well, so that satellite didn’t burnt so much up as it would happen with an unexpected and therefore uncontrolled incoming satellite in my opinion.

But I am certainly no specialist in that kind of stuff.



[edit on 16/11/09 by spacevisitor]




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I was a witness to the bolide. December 9, 1965 in the early evening I was pumping gas into the rear of a car at a Sohio gas station on Cliffton Blvd in Rocky River Ohio. I was looking down at the bumper when I saw a really bright reflection that actually gave off heat. I turned and looked and saw this brilliant white-blue light streaming South West, breaking off pieces, with a luminecent tail. It disappeared behind buildings/trees. Looked like what what you see in fireball videos today. No turns, just a strait fast shot over the horizon and breaking up as it traveled. The 2 customers in the station were amazed, as well as the boss and myself, who could not stop talking about it the rest of the night. The next day, in the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, headlines: "Tri-State Meteor observed by thousands" and subtitles, "May have crashed in Pennsylvania.." or something like that. From my perspective, this was a big metor, however I certainly was never near where it landed.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by charlyv]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by JimOberg
Thanks -- Wikipedia says 'NASA released a statement'. Good enough for you?

Pardon me for pestering, but I'd like to see the original statement, and not what some volunteer Wikipedia enthusiast SAYS the statement said. It quotes an AP article that quotes a NASA guy named "Dave Steitz" -- let me chase that down.


Well, you can find information about it all over the place, do you think they all sucked that out of there thumb?


We're not as far apart as you may have thought.

I finally satisfied myself that the reports of a falling object was inconsistent with Kosmos-96 and any debris associated with it. I agree with Nick Johnson.


Nick Johnson said the following;


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.


So if I am correct, the object that came down in Kecksburg and was transported by an army truck could not have been that Russian satellite?

He also stated;


Furthermore, he states that no other man-made object from any country came down that day.


I suppose they didn’t transported a meteor by that army truck, so all indications point out now to the real possibility that what those Kecksburg witnesses thought they saw was in fact really an Alien craft or such.


Originally posted by JimOberg
I don't agree with Kean, who has a lot of effort invested in the reported object (or objects -- many reports are unreconcilably at variance) being 'real' rather than a folklorogenic reflex based on the mass fervor and apparent visitation to the area by military personnel in response to the press reports.


Well, that is why I mentioned the following to Arbitrageur;


The military and government agencies are masters in hiding the truth by using disinformation, intimidating and discrediting the witnesses as good as possible.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Nick Johnson said the following;


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.


So if I am correct, the object that came down in Kecksburg and was transported by an army truck could not have been that Russian satellite?


The key word there is "afternoon". If you study what Nick Johnson said about the orbital trajectory, he indicated that the Russian satellite could have come down in Pennsylvania hours earlier that day, but he was sure it would have had to be the morning, and not the afternoon.

So one possibility that I don't think can be ruled out is, if the satellite fell earlier that day unnoticed, then everyone saw the meteor and started looking around and found the satellite. A bit of a stretch but not any more than any other explanation I've heard for what happened that day, since any explanation stretches the facts.

One other piece of evidence that's conspicuously missing: They claim that the satellite actually fell in Canada that morning, yet I haven't been able to find any mention of any recovery efforts or debris retrieved from Canada. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however it's still noteworthy.

Is it possible that the satellite really didn't come down in Canada but in PA that day? Nick Johnson can't rule that out can he? You only think he does if you don't notice the word "afternoon" in that statement, but that's a key word.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The key word there is "afternoon". If you study what Nick Johnson said about the orbital trajectory, he indicated that the Russian satellite could have come down in Pennsylvania hours earlier that day, but he was sure it would have had to be the morning, and not the afternoon.

So one possibility that I don't think can be ruled out is, if the satellite fell earlier that day unnoticed, then everyone saw the meteor and started looking around and found the satellite. A bit of a stretch but not any more than any other explanation I've heard for what happened that day, since any explanation stretches the facts.

One other piece of evidence that's conspicuously missing: They claim that the satellite actually fell in Canada that morning, yet I haven't been able to find any mention of any recovery efforts or debris retrieved from Canada. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however it's still noteworthy.

Is it possible that the satellite really didn't come down in Canada but in PA that day? Nick Johnson can't rule that out can he? You only think he does if you don't notice the word "afternoon" in that statement, but that's a key word.


Well Arbitrageur, I respect your view and opinion about it all, but see no reason for any further discussion about this because we never come to the bottom of it all and we will never get to see the true information about it.

I have my thoughts about it and you have yours and there is nothing wrong with that.

But anyway, thanks for the discussions we had about it.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So if I am correct, the object that came down in Kecksburg and was transported by an army truck could not have been that Russian satellite?


You are slipping stuff-that-is-yet-to-be-proved into the question. Your question forces the assumption that something did come down in Kecksburg.

Restricting outselves to what can be proven, we can say that the object that caused the Tri-State Ontario fireball was not the Russian satellite, or any other manmade object.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Well, that is why I mentioned the following to Arbitrageur;


The military and government agencies are masters in hiding the truth by using disinformation, intimidating and discrediting the witnesses as good as possible.



This is a formula for excluding any eyewitness testimony YOU do not like.

This characteristic of eyewitness testimony regarding exciting and spectacular events has been demonstrated to occur in situations well before, and beyond the range of, any purported 'secret gummint witness intimidation program'. It cannot be waved off through some disregard-it-all blanket conspiracy theory.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So if I am correct, the object that came down in Kecksburg and was transported by an army truck could not have been that Russian satellite?


You are slipping stuff-that-is-yet-to-be-proved into the question. Your question forces the assumption that something did come down in Kecksburg.

Restricting outselves to what can be proven, we can say that the object that caused the Tri-State Ontario fireball was not the Russian satellite, or any other manmade object.


Right, so that left us still with two possibilities in my opinion.

One.
A meteor, which was widely seen at that time and was studied extensively by scientists where under those two astronomers.

www.debunker.com...

That must have been really a very interesting meteor indeed then, besides the fact that they even did not could find it back then.

Because in that NASA Journal article is stated;


Douglas and Lee carried on more extensive investigation of visual sightings, audible phenomena and meteorite search (“The Fireball of December 9, 1965—Part II”) To date no meteorites have been found.


adsabs.harvard.edu...

Two.
A real solid object, because John Murphy had taken photographs of some sort of object which was confirmed by WHJB office manager Mabel Mazza because she described one of the pictures.


"It was very dark and it was with a lot of trees around and everything. And I don't know how far away from the site he was.
But I did see a picture of a sort of a cone-like thing.
It's the only time I ever saw it.


Hmmm, a sort of a cone-like thing, so there was in fact an object and it was photographed.
Then, why would John Murphy received unexpected visitation at the WHJB radio station from two men in black suits identifying themselves as government officials who confiscated all but one roll of the film of his photographs?

So, at the end, could it be because that photographs where in fact the proof beyond any doubt that it was an Alien craft of some sort?

Because I don’t think they would go over there to confiscated photographs of trees and bushes and such.




[edit on 16/11/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
...so that left us still with two possibilities in my opinion.


Forcing a false dilemma -- limiting the possible range of options -- is a classic technique of argumentative deception. When used, it is often an indicator to an experienced observer that the user is attempting a trick.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Bob Young, who has extensively investigated the Kecksburg story, asked me to share this commentary:




Kean's latest piece is just regurgitating the same old junk, really. No new specifics. As Robert [Sheaffer] points out, she neglects to mention even in passing that astronomers long ago anylised pix and determined it was a meteor, even determining its probably orbital path (out to the asteroid belt, source of many bright rocky fireballs).

I love how she mentions the member of the AF 662nd Radar Squadron about a possible written report, but never mentions that he said that they didn't find anything, supporting the Blue Book and official version! And the News Director for the local radio station; she doesn't mention that he reported the only military he saw at the scene were three guys in the
back seat of a state police car.

By the way, these three AF men were from a radar site near the Pittsburgh airport, the closest AF "base", which is exactly what AF Regulation 200-2 prescribed for investigating UFO reports in 1965.

The reason for the "witness" accounts of the acorn is that UFO invistigators had a soviet artist's version of Kosmos-96 and were showing it around. Never remembered is that for almost 10 years some of the first self-described witnesses reported it looked like a 17-foot long rocket. What did they know, Russian rockets looked like rockets after they
reentered, burned up and reached the ground, didn't they?

Instead we'll see years worth of meaningless articles like this pointing out new "revelations" when gov'm'nt spokesmen say seemingly conflicting things about something which happened decades ago.

YAWN.

Bob Young



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Let me see if I have this straight.
At present, regardless of court proceedings, we have no idea what the military or NASA thought of this incident as the files covering this time period are missing.
Hours before the alleged sightings of the object in question we have a meteor tracked in the near-to-same location.
We have people suggesting that the Venus capsule could have possibly still been recognizable to witnesses despite entering the atmosphere at tremendous speed because leaves may have cushioned the landing.
We then have people saying it wasn't the Venus capsule, apparently backtracking from a prewritten response that they had tried to link people to instead of just arguing it in this medium.
And in the end we have people discrediting the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of people and siding with the idea that this was the meteor afterall and that they must have been... I don't know... displaced from this spacetime continuum for about twelve hours so they could have forgotten that they saw the object in the late evening hours rather than much earlier in the day as it coincides with the meteor traverse?

Hmmm...

I wonder where those files went to.


Edit to add -
I really am having a pretty good laugh at the prospect of leaves cushioning the landing of an object entering earth's atmosphere.
I mean, if I get shot point blank with a .45 hollow-point, I can keep this in mind. Maybe a layer of leaves on the forehead will provide a barrier against an object moving a few thousand MPH.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by JayinAR]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
A meteor, which was widely seen at that time and was studied extensively by scientists where under those two astronomers.

www.debunker.com...

That must have been really a very interesting meteor indeed then, besides the fact that they even did not could find it back then.

Because in that NASA Journal article is stated;


Douglas and Lee carried on more extensive investigation of visual sightings, audible phenomena and meteorite search (“The Fireball of December 9, 1965—Part II”) To date no meteorites have been found.


Why would you say "That must have been really a very interesting meteor indeed then"? While to some extent all meteors are interesting to me, I'm not aware of anything exceptional about that particular meteor except the association with the Kecksburg story. As the Will Rogers saying goes, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you; it's what you think you know that ain't so." You seem to imply that someone might have been able to find the meteor and I'm suggesting that what we know about meteors does not suggest we should have necessarily found the meteor. I covered this in the main thread on Kecksburg so you may want to read that, and there's a lot of other good information about the case there.

But I'll repost a bit here about a meteor (asteroid) in 2008 we actually tracked coming in from outer space, and it has something in common with the Dec 9 1965 meteor...both experienced explosions at altitude, which is not uncommon at all for meteorites (Even Tunguska was apparently a much more massive explosion at altitude, though the exact composition of ice to rock ratio of the impactor has been debated).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

www.nasa.gov...

Where's the crater? Most people would walk right past that object without giving it a second glance. They only found it because they had teams of people specifically searching for it. This is a very well documented story, I suggest reading it, you can learn a lot about impacts from it:

Meteorites Found in Africa From First Predicted Asteroid Hit


Remember in October 2008 when Asteroid 2008 TC3 hit the scene – literally? This was the first asteroid that was predicted –and predicted correctly — to impact the Earth. Luckily, it wasn't big enough to cause any problems, and its path was over a remote area in Africa. It streaked into the skies over northern Sudan in the early morning of October 7, 2008, and then exploded at a high 37 km above the Nubian Desert, before the atmosphere could slow it down. It was believed that the asteroid likely had completely disintegrated into dust. But meteor astronomer Peter Jenniskens thought there might be a chance to recover some of the remains of this truck-sized asteroid. And he was right.



Fifteen fresh-looking meteorites with a total mass of 563 g were recovered by 45 students and staff of the University of Khartoum during a field campaign on December 5-8, 2008. A second search on December 25-30 with 72 participants raised the total to 47 meteorites and 3.95 kg. Masses range from 1.5 g to 283 g, spread for 29km along the approach path in a manner expected for debris from 2008 TC3


This was a truck sized asteroid and most meteors are far smaller than that, including some that make huge fireballs in the sky.


Did you see that? The largest piece found from a truck-sized rock was only 283 grams, barely over half a pound, a pretty small rock for such a large impactor.

Now look at the terrain in the area under the fireball in 1965 and compare that to the barren wasteland terrain in Africa under the 2008 meteor and you'll see why it was possible to find fragments of the explosion in Africa, but it may be extremely difficult to find any such fragments from the 1965 explosion.

So, don't conclude too much from the fact that they never found any fragments of the fireball associated with the Kecksburg incident, now that you see how difficult that might be.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by spacevisitor
...so that left us still with two possibilities in my opinion.


Forcing a false dilemma -- limiting the possible range of options -- is a classic technique of argumentative deception. When used, it is often an indicator to an experienced observer that the user is attempting a trick.


Well, I advise you as an experienced observer then, to read your own statement again.

Jim Oberg on the “NASA lawsuit over Kecksburg UFO Documents”
January 7, 2008

First you come with information about a meteor.


The Air Force explanation of “meteors” refers to the explanation of professional astronomers who observed, photographed, and analyzed the path of the real meteor that DID enter the atmosphere that day.

There is nothing trumped-up or imaginary about the meteor, that was seen over a wide area, including western Pennsylvania.


Then immediately after the meteor information you come with information about that the fact that the USAF had a program to recover space satellite debris after entry into the atmosphere, particularly Soviet satellite debris.


History background: The USAF had a program to recover space satellite debris after entry into the atmosphere, particularly Soviet satellite debris. In the 1970-2 period, I personally read such classified reports of recoveries when I was a young lieutenant serving at the AF Weapons Lab at Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico.


Then immediately after that you come all sorts of information about that Soviet spacecraft of very high interest which was about to fall out of orbit.


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.
Previous acquisitions of Soviet space probes (such as the ‘moon probe’ that was secretly ‘borrowed’ overnight from a touring exhibit in Mexico in 1959) had provided valuable information.


Then you come with information how entirely likely it is that in such cases an alert message would have gone out to all military units to be on the lookout, in that period, for stuff falling out of the sky.


So it’s entirely likely an alert message would have gone out to all military units to be on the lookout, in this period, for stuff falling out of the sky. This had paid off before.
There was an AF radar site in Ohio, with skeleton staffing. Apparently, when they read the papers (or heard radio accounts) about people in the Kecksburg area seeing a flaming object fall nearby, after other folks had seen a fireball crossing Lake Erie, it would have been worth sending a few enlisted men over to look around.

For all I know, they identified themselves as ‘NASA’ – military personnel in mufti had done this regularly in the 1960’s, especially overseas, for convenient cover – and found nothing.


That they found nothing contradicts the witness accounts that say that they went down into the woods that December day in 1965, before the military arrived, and came across upon a large metallic acorn shaped object partially buried in the ground and being hauled away on a flatbed, which you claim to be competitive tall-tale-telling.


The later stories of things crashing in the woods and being hauled away on flatbeds seem
to have sprung from local competitive tall-tale-telling.


That is what I call a classic technique of argumentative deception?


[edit on 17/11/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Then the following you said in your statement.


The acorn appearance of some descriptions – others describe a Hollywood-style winged
space plane – intrigued me because that, in fact, is what the Venus entry probe DOES sort
of look like.

But then I learned that the description only originated some years later, when
TV reporters and UFO buffs showed the witnesses photographs of the Venus probe – and
some responded, “Yeah, THAT’S what I saw…” Sure.


It was also on the military channel provided by Arbitrageur, where some artist drawings of different objects were showed to some witnesses, and look to all is said in that video.
Don’t forget it is a video of the military channel.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The other thing you may want to consider is these eyewitnesses stating the object looks like a Russian satellite:



If it really looked like an acorn then why didn't they object and say: "no, it didn't look like any of those, it looked like an acorn"?


So in that military channel video they spoke of 5 options, meteorite, a soviet space probe, an SR71 engine, an experiment military airplane, or unlike as it may seems, an Alien spacecraft.

Look what Arbitrageur also said about possible remains of meteors here.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm suggesting that what we know about meteors does not suggest we should have necessarily found the meteor. I covered this in the main thread on Kecksburg so you may want to read that, and there's a lot of other good information about the case there.

But I'll repost a bit here about a meteor (asteroid) in 2008 we actually tracked coming in from outer space, and it has something in common with the Dec 9 1965 meteor...both experienced explosions at altitude, which is not uncommon at all for meteorites (Even Tunguska was apparently a much more massive explosion at altitude, though the exact composition of ice to rock ratio of the impactor has been debated).

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Arbitrageur



www.nasa.gov...

Where's the crater? Most people would walk right past that object without giving it a second glance. They only found it because they had teams of people specifically searching for it. This is a very well documented story, I suggest reading it, you can learn a lot about impacts from it:

Meteorites Found in Africa From First Predicted Asteroid Hit


Remember in October 2008 when Asteroid 2008 TC3 hit the scene – literally? This was the first asteroid that was predicted –and predicted correctly — to impact the Earth. Luckily, it wasn't big enough to cause any problems, and its path was over a remote area in Africa.

It streaked into the skies over northern Sudan in the early morning of October 7, 2008, and then exploded at a high 37 km above the Nubian Desert, before the atmosphere could slow it down. It was believed that the asteroid likely had completely disintegrated into dust. But meteor astronomer Peter Jenniskens thought there might be a chance to recover some of the remains of this truck-sized asteroid. And he was right.



Fifteen fresh-looking meteorites with a total mass of 563 g were recovered by 45 students and staff of the University of Khartoum during a field campaign on December 5-8, 2008. A second search on December 25-30 with 72 participants raised the total to 47 meteorites and 3.95 kg. Masses range from 1.5 g to 283 g, spread for 29km along the approach path in a manner expected for debris from 2008 TC3


This was a truck sized asteroid and most meteors are far smaller than that, including some that make huge fireballs in the sky.


Did you see that? The largest piece found from a truck-sized rock was only 283 grams, barely over half a pound, a pretty small rock for such a large impactor.

Now look at the terrain in the area under the fireball in 1965 and compare that to the barren wasteland terrain in Africa under the 2008 meteor and you'll see why it was possible to find fragments of the explosion in Africa, but it may be extremely difficult to find any such fragments from the 1965 explosion.

So, don't conclude too much from the fact that they never found any fragments of the fireball associated with the Kecksburg incident, now that you see how difficult that might be.
.

So at the end of this all, and looking at the witness testimonies about it there must have been an object.

Whether it was a soviet space probe, an SR71 engine, an experiment military airplane, an Alien spacecraft, the military would never confirm that because that is what they usually do in UFO/ET cases.

[edit on 17/11/09 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 17/11/09 by spacevisitor]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Yes, there were other alternatives to what was found in the woods, and the Columbia shuttle crash in 2003 provides a lesson. The seven-person vehicle disintegrated over NE Texas. Search teams over the next few weeks found nine bodies.

Seven were from the shuttle. One other was a hunter, missing for years, who apparently died of natural causes and never came home. The ninth was apparently a murder victim dumped in the deep woods 'where he could never be found', the killer(s) apparently thought.

The latter two were only found because of the accident of a large search for something else.

You send dozens of eager searchers out into the woods of Pennsylvania, and do you assume that there never was any strange hardware out there, stuff they might stumble across and decide must have been from the fireball crash that had been seen -- and grossly misunderstood the location of?

Of course, in that case one might assume the false junk would be put on display. But maybe whoever first misidentified it and snatched it would be too embarrassed later.

Not likely, but hardly impossible.



[edit on 17-11-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Bob Young, who has extensively investigated the Kecksburg story, asked me to share this commentary:


Do you mean perhaps Robert Young, the writer of this article in which he tried to debunk the case?

An article debunking the Kecksburg claim was published as far back as the Spring, 1991 issue of The Skeptical Inquirer magazine (Vol. 15 no. 3): "Old-Solved Mysteries: The Kecksburg Incident" by Robert Young. ( Purchase back issue for $6.25. ).

www.debunker.com...



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by JimOberg
Bob Young, who has extensively investigated the Kecksburg story, asked me to share this commentary:


Do you mean perhaps Robert Young, the writer of this article in which he tried to debunk the case?



It is the same person, but your characterization of his article shows extreme closed-mindedness.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
www.foxnews.com...

The bottom line: No smoking gun documents were released, Kean notes, but many provocative questions and unresolved contradictions were raised by what was received, as well as by the fact that many files were missing or destroyed.

I am convinced that something came down and landed in Kecksburg," Kean told SPACE.com.

Kean thinks that a UFO connection of the extra-Earth type "is a possibility that has to be considered. It can't be ruled out," she said.

Other potentials, Kean added, "include a very secret U.S. project or another nation's hardware. But both of these explanations are unlikely."



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Hi, Kecksburg fans.

I have a conclusion, here:

Even with the **Freedom of Information** argument, the fact that
not much was found does not surprise me. It even could be "lost" AGAIN.

NASA could not find their A55 h0le in the bottom of their pants !
Hey ! They "lose" thousands pounds of films in a restaurant !

Blue skies.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Evade ?????????? That was an NFL like "Evasion" welcome to the forums Barry Sanders..............

Just my 2 cents after reading it all.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join