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.

 

US Coastguard report - UFOs over Lake Erie.

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


So....


You didnt read "all" that was posted by OP (which was not even allot), what... 5 minutes worth of reading?

"when you get a chance"? It took you longer to read and respond to comments than it would have to actually read the post and have something of substance to add (maybe). :down:

Good thread Karl, This is one that I had never heard of before.
Interesting indeed...

and Mufon.. withholding the picture(s)? wth?
not surprising I guess. :down:

this "astronomer" who said it was misidentified planets, should have his telescopes and equipment taken away... forever.. and him locked up.
Thanks man, well done, s&f.


[edit on 9-1-2010 by Ahmose]




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahmose
 


Since you asked...

Actually, I did read all that was posted by the OP in his first post, and I have just read everything else he posted.

Having done so, certainly raises questions as to weather all the sightings were of Venus/another planet, but more investigation would be needed, and it would be nice to see some photos before commenting on what is essentially "hearsay".

One thing which is not made clear is which witness reports refer to the "triangles darting around"... as far as I can see only the Bakers reported this, although it says other witnesses "saw the triangles" it does not say what they saw?

There is also no mention of "triangles" in the coastguard report, which is a bit strange, and seeing as they were able to observe the larger object in binoculars and not identify it, it sounds like your typical celestial-body sighting combined with scintillation at least for that part of it. They are coastguards after all, and not astronomers.

Perhaps they did see something more unusual (not necessarily ET related though), but it's hard to prove either way IMO without more info. I would not comment any further without more info.

Interesting case Karl, thanks for posting!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


would someone please post purported photographs...


[edit on 9-1-2010 by reject]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by karl 12
 


would someone please post purported photographs...


[edit on 9-1-2010 by reject]


G'day reject

I'm just dropping in from AthenaCD's gay alien thread.

Karl 12 stated the photos haven't been released.

OK....gotta get back....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by karl 12
 


would someone please post purported photographs...


[edit on 9-1-2010 by reject]
I'm just dropping in from AthenaCD's gay alien thread
oookaaay






[edit on 9-1-2010 by reject]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


You posted a thread about this case last year too...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostwords
reply to post by karl 12
 


You posted a thread about this case last year too...

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Yes, the incident was briefly mentioned in the third post down - I found the official Coastguard document at this link, its well worth a look:

Twelve Government Documents That Take UFOs Seriously

Also, I'd not heard about the 'misidentified planet debunk' when I posted that account - given the eyewitness testimony, do you think this explanation is a plausible one?

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



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Having done so, certainly raises questions as to weather all the sightings were of Venus/another planet, but more investigation would be needed, and it would be nice to see some photos before commenting on what is essentially "hearsay".


Well I agree it would be nice to see the photographs - I've emailed MUFON and sent Mark Easter a U2U to see if they can shed any light on the subject -not had much luck getting replies from MUFON in the past though:

Mark Easter - MUFON PR

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I was getting lost in the reptilians & the faces in the forest & the aliens in the dust videos....



Maybe...maybe not - its easily done mate.

There are quite a lot of credible UFO incidents out there though - Jerry Cohen has put together some of the more interesting ones (including the Coastguard case) at the link below:



CLASSIC UFO CASES

The UFO mystery is firmly grounded in hundreds of "classic" cases, well-documented reports that have stood the test of time and thorough investigation. These reports generally include many or most of the following features: multiple witnesses, a physical evidence component, typical UFO configuration, extraordinary performance, no apparent conventional or mundane explanation, and documentation of witness testimony and supporting evidence. The following examples, presented in chronological order, will be supplemented from time to time in this space. For more information, see references at the end of each case summary.

Note the following recurring features: geometrical shape (usually discoidal or elliptical), structural features such as portholes or legs, shiny metallic-appearing surface in daytime, luminosity and/or bright illumination of the environment at night, body lights, light beams, hovering and swift darting motions both horizontally and vertically, physical traces or effects.

www.cohenufo.org...



Then of course there is always Jkrog's absolutely wonderful compilation thread:

The ATS UFO/Alien Chronological Thread Directory

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Good stuff. Thanks for trying.

In the meantime, one possible explanation has occurred to me...

It was said that the planets could not be the cause of the sightings since they would have been hidden behind the mountains, but, what if there was a "temperature inversion layer" above the mountains?

This can mean that air becomes reflective, and there is a possibility that what was hidden behind the mountain, may have been visible because the temperature inversion layer was reflecting a distorted image of the planet/s back to the observers.

Since such "temperature inversion layers" are unstable, it might explain the smaller triangular objects appearing to dart around, although there could well be another separate explanation for them.

A "temperature inversion layer" is also something that is not unheard of over mountainous terrain, since big slabs of rock soak up heat from the sun during the day, and then release it at night, meaning the atmosphere above a mountain range can be very unsettled, and subject to "temperature inversion layers".

Anyway, it's just a hunch, and may not be the cause, but I think it's a possible avenue of investigation that might be worth following if it has not been already.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by C.H.U.D.]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
It was said that the planets could not be the cause of the sightings since they would have been hidden behind the mountains, but, what if there was a "temperature inversion layer" above the mountains?

This can mean that air becomes reflective, and there is a possibility that what was hidden behind the mountain, may have been visible because the temperature inversion layer was reflecting a distorted image of the planet/s back to the observers.




CHUD, I know Jupiter is big but I think its a bit of a stretch to attribute a multiple witnessed 'huge, gunmetal gray football-shaped object' hovering 500 yards offshore about 20 feet above the ice of Lake Erie to a planet which is 500 million miles away (superior mirage temperature inversion or not)

This theory also fails to explain (or chooses not to address) other aspects of the case like the object cracking the ice, the multi-coloured light display directly over the water and pretty much all of witness testimony contained within the government document.





Ice

Meanwhile, back at the lake, the large ship was nearly directly on the ice. Henry Baker continued to listen to Powers and Knaub tell their base, “you should be advised that the object is now shining lights all over the lake and it’s turning different colors.” The ice made cracking noises so loud that Powers and Knaub had to yell in order to be heard. Suddenly the triangles were back, returning one by one into the large object. The ice boomed louder and louder, then all the lights went off, the ice stopped making noise, and everything became “dead silent.” After another 30 minutes, the object could not be seen. The witnesses could only assume it had gone below the surface. On the morning of the 5th, unusually huge pieces of broken ice were seen where the object had been.

keyholepublishing.com...








Coloured Lights


These objects had red,green ,white and yellow lights on them that strobed intermittently.They also had the ability to stop and hover in mid-flight.
files.abovetopsecret.com...




The object began to put on a light show as it sat on the ice. There were colors of red, blue, and yellow coming from the end of the object. At one point, the smaller objects reemerged and hovered over the larger UFO, before reentering it.
ufos.about.com...








Planets

We even took some calculations as to the location of the planets at the times that witnesses were seeing the objects over the lake. From our determination, we can state that the objects that were seen over the Lake were not Venus and Jupiter. The witnesses that evening knew where the planets were. The subject who reported the objects was travelling EAST and was facing east when the objects were seen to her left, the northern portion of the sky, near the residence.

www.ufoera.com...




Just for the record heres some more information about your temperature inversion/planet theory - the 'astronomical mirage hypothesis' was also used to try and debunk the West Lothian incident but as yet has not been accepted into any scientific textbooks (see 3:20)



Cheers.

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



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 



I know Jupiter is big but I think its a bit of a stretch to attribute a multiple witnessed 'huge, gunmetal gray football-shaped object' hovering 500 yards offshore about 20 feet above the ice of Lake Erie to a planet which is 500 million miles away (superior mirage temperature inversion or not)


I don't see it as much of a stretch at all...

The lower on the horizon the celestial object is, the larger it will tend to appear. The Moon illusion does not apply to the Moon alone, but all other celestial objects. If anything, such a big (and by the sound of it bright) apparition of a planet stands a good chance of fooling the brain into thinking that the object is closer than it actually is.

Our brain's are naturally hardwired to do this, and on the ground, when a light is big and bright, it usually means it's close, but celestial objects can sometimes be much brighter than people think, and so unwilling to accept the idea that what they saw was a celestial object.

In fact, if you look at UFO cases like this one, one of the similarities they all seem to share is that there was one or more relatively bright celestial bodies low on the horizon at the time. Also, the witnesses crutialy almost never make mention that they saw (and therefore excluded) the celestial bodies, which should in many of the cases have been visible at the time, which IMO suggests that misidentification of a celestial object was the probable cause.

I agree, perhaps planets can be excluded in this particular case, but without reading those witness testimonies, I'm not sure, and the website only speaks in very generalized terms about who said what and exactly what was said.


This theory also fails to explain (or chooses not to address) other aspects of the case like the object cracking the ice,


Is it conceivable that this was a subjective description made by two people who may have been new to the job (it was only the coastguards who reported the cracking ice if I recall?), or that coastguards spend all their time hanging around listening to and studying the relative rate of "ice cracking"?

I submit that the coastguards might just have been, so en-awed thinking they were seeing a UFO, that the adrenalin was pumping and their senses were picking up every little crack in the ice and making it seem more than usual.

Or it might just have been by pure coincidence that the conditions were right for there to be lots of "ice cracking" at the time.

Either way, there are too many possibilities here to definitively say that the "ice cracking" was evidence of something unusual IMHO.



the multi-coloured light display directly over the water


Could have been caused by scintillation, which is actually connected with unstable air.


The primary cause of such small-scale fluctuations is turbulent mixing of air with different temperatures.


just as you'd expect with a a mountain range.


and pretty much all of witness testimony contained within the government document.


Specifically, what?

As far as I can see most of what you posted there can be explained by different individual interpretations of seeing the same phenomena.

Without having looked into it much further, and going on what we have been discussing here, it seems more than possible to me that Lake Eerie has some unusual geographic features that make unusual atmospheric conditions more likely. The name alone suggest that people have been seeing strange things in that area for a long time, which would fit IMHO.

Case closed? No... but I do think this case is not as straight forward as many would assume, and this particular spate of sightings might have been due to some unrelated (natural) phenomena that happened to have occurred at the same time.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


You don't think the 'temperature inverted astronomical mirage hypothesis' is a bit of a stretch?

I'd have to politely disagree with you there.


I would agree with your comments that "perhaps the planets can be excluded in this particular case" though.

As you say there have been quite a few strange UFO reports over Lake Erie down the years -you may have missed it but on the first page of this thread ( fifth post down ) theres an interesting UFO report from 1966 involving an unidentified object being confirmed on radar and witnessed by several Police Officers displaying some very unusual flight characteristics:




SHERIFFS WATCH HIGH-PERFORMANCE DISCS, ALSO TRACKED ON RADAR

March 14-20, 1966: Southeastern Michigan

From about 3:50 a.m. on March 14 and for 2-1/2 hours thereafter, Washtenaw County sheriffs and police in neighboring jurisdictions reported disc-shaped objects moving at fantastic speeds and making sharp turns, diving and climbing, and hovering. At one point, four UFOs in straight-line formation were observed. Selfridge AFB confirmed tracking UFOs over Lake Erie at 4:56 a.m.

CLASSIC UFO CASES




Theres also this very interesting UFO case which occurred over the northern shore of the lake in 1959:

Airliners Paced By Three UFOs: The Killian Case, Nr. Williamsport, Pennsylvania, February 24, 1959

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Witness Interview - UFO Coastguard incident:



On March 26, 1988, two civilian witnesses to the Eastlake UFOs
(W1 and her husband W2) who were on the beach with the Coast Guard March 4, 1988 were interviewed. The following is a partial transcript of that interview, conducted by Dale Wedge (DW) and Rick Dell'Aquila (RD).
Several other witnesses have also been interviewed and photographic
evidence has been obtained. To date, however , the Coast Guard has
refused further information or interviews of its personnel concerning
the UFO sighting that night near the CEI electric power plant. The
investigation continues.


RD ...Please tell us what happened in your own words.


W1 We were coming home (on March 4, 1988) and I saw something over the lake...and it wasn't moving and I had my husband go down the street and I said, "Go down to the beach because I'm telling you there is
something out there." He kept laughing at me. I said I was serious and
we went down there. We got out of the car and walked to the beach. I
had left the kids in the car and you could see it. It looked almost
like the shape of a blimp and had lights on both sides. One end was
brighter and the other end was a little bit dimmer, but one end flashed.
It wasn't a constant light that was on. It seemed to rock a little
bit -you could just see it rocking back and forth. It hovered and
didn't make any noise. The ice was cracking really bad and the ice down
here doesn't crack like that. It was making like--it was rumbling and
cracking it was real, real loud. There were no animals barking or
nothing. Around here we have a lot of dogs and that was surprising
because you always hear the dogs out. There were no animals -just the
real loud noise out of the lake. We were standing on the beach and my
husband and I were looking at this thing. It started to turn and I
thought -you know how you get really eerie feelings? I said to myself
there is something up there. You could see it was a ship or something
because you could see there was a gray line like a football kind of
thing in the middle, but you couldn't really see it. You could just see
it was there. Do you understand what I'm saying?


RD We are going to ask you to draw a sketch in a while.


W1 You could see the whole thing, but not real well. You could see
there was a middle to it. We stayed and we watched it for a
while...(interview interrupted by phone call).


DW Okay, we are back on. We had a phone call interruption.


W1 ...Okay, we sat down at the beach and while we were watching this
I had the kids in the car and I was getting kind of "weirded-out" you
know, because you hear about these things, but you never really believe
it until you see them. It started to turn toward us. It was coming in
closer to land and because my kids were in the car, I didn't want to
stay down at the beach, beacuse you never know whats going to happen or if it was going to come down to get us or whatever.


RD In other words, you were concerned for your safety?


W1 Yeah, because it was coming closer to us. You could see...it
seemed like it knew we were there. We were the only ones down there at
the time and I was getting really nervous. I told my husband, "You
know, we've got two kids in the car. Let's get them home and safe so we
don't have to worry about anything." He said okay, so we got the kids
back to the house and I put them in their room and I locked the door
beacuse I had a real eerie feeling, you know after we left there. We
were down there a while looking at it and we came home to watch it from
our living room.


RD When you say "we"--who else was there with you?


W1 My husband and my kids. So I was looking at it from here and I
said to my husband, "Well, maybe I'm nuts, I don't know, but let's call
Sue," who lives across the street, "and see if she sees the same thing
that we do." So I did, I called her and her and her son went outside
and they saw the same thing and we kept hearing this noise at the lake
and that really scared us because, like I said, the lake doesn't make
noises like that. We watched it most of the evening and when it started
to come down, we all got real curious and we all went back down. Sue
drove down to the beach and she saw it with her son and her husband
thinks she's totally "cracked-up." (Laughter.) But they all did.
Everybody thinks, you know, we didn't see what we did. So now we get
down there and the thing's starting to land. You could see like red
and blue lights and they said they were planets and gasses and nonsense
like that, but they were actual lights starting to flutter. But before
this, while it was still in the sky, there were like little triangle
"planes", about, there were, we counted about five--we weren't sure if
there were five or six, but we counted five of them that were running
back and forth. They were going up and down, like hovering. They
didn't make any noise, but they were going REALLY fast across the sky
and by this time the Coast Guard was down there. I had called the Coast
Guard, I would say at least twelve times and they kept telling me,
"Well, your crazy and nothing's wrong...(Phone call interrruption).


DW Pause for phone call.


DW Okay, we're back on.


W1 So now what had happened was these planes were like, looked like
they had come out of it, because they came out of nowhere. We saw them
come out...I don't know if it was on the side or on the front of it, but
you could tell they came out of it because they were real little. They
looked like little yellow triangles. They were real bright and went
super, super fast.


They went up and down like this, instead of, you know how a plane goes
this way? Well, they were going up and down and like diagonally at it
and they were hovering around it and then they started shooting out
toward the lake and this time the Coast Guard saw all this because
that's when they sent their people out when these little planes started
appearing. And when they g ot down here, they saw these things and
they were coming real close to the coastline. That's when these kids
were getting scared.


RD When you say "kids," do you mean Coast Guard personnel?


W1 Yeah, they were young boys. They were real scared and we got
REALLY scared because we were right down on the beach there and we
figured the coastline that would be it. We were afraid they would attack
their truck, because their truck had lights on it. So we told them,
"Turn off your lights." Because the more they kept coming closer and
closer to the lights of the truck, because the truck was parked on the
hill. There's like a little hill over there. They could see the lights,
because they seemed to be coming at the lights. And so we had them shut
their lights off because we were scared. You never know what was going
to go on. We didn't know what was in these ships or planes or whatever
they were because we couldn't tell, but I've never seen a yellow
triangle fly around the sky.


RD It was yellow?


W 1 Yeah. Bright, REAL BRIGHT. It looked like a light. That's what
it looked like. It looked like a bright light. You know how a car
light you'd have? It looked just like that, but it glowed. It was
yellow.



Followed on at link...

www.skepticfiles.org...


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



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Thanks for your reply karl.


You don't think the 'temperature inverted astronomical mirage hypothesis' is a bit of a stretch?

I'd have to politely disagree with you there.


Why is it a bit of a stretch?

How about this evidnce which shows that inversion layers do actually occur in that area?


I would agree with your comments that "perhaps the planets can be excluded in this particular case" though.


I'm certainly open to other possibilities, but the more I look into it, the more I think that planets were responsible for the sightings that night.



As you say there have been quite a few strange UFO reports over Lake Erie down the years -you may have missed it but on the first page of this thread ( fifth post down ) theres an interesting UFO report from 1966 involving an unidentified object being confirmed on radar and witnessed by several Police Officers displaying some very unusual flight characteristics:


Yes, thanks karl, I noticed that report.

It's notable that both your suggestion, and the sources' suggestion that there is firm evidence, that the UFO observed was also observed on radar, are based on an assumption.

From your source:

Called Selfridge Air Base and they stated that they also had some objects [presumably on radar] over Lake Erie and were unable to get any ID from the objects.

Source: CLASSIC UFO CASES

So firstly we don't know for sure if they were caught on radar, and secondly, just because something was "seen" on radar, does not mean there was an object there. Radar can pick up all sorts of stuff, from atmospheric phenomena to swarms of insects, as well as showing something there when there is nothing there ("ghosts" or "false returns"), and it is not uncommon.

Keep in mind this was also back in 1966, and radar is still buggy today, although probably no where near as much, but I am no expert.

So, that a UFO happened to be picked up on radar, on one day out of several days over which this prolonged sighting spanned, is hardly unusual.

This brings up a rather interesting question - If the object/objects was caught on radar on one day, and not the others, why not?

I would suggest that it is because no UFO was captured on radar in the first place, or at least not one connected to the sightings in question.

Going back to the 1988 sighting, there is also a glaring inconsistency.

First of all from your source:

When the ufologist asked if the skeptics would be willing to better consider the case, pointing out, among other things, that Venus could not be seen because it was hidden by the mountains which border the location, the skeptics ended the discussion

Source: ufologie.net

Also from your source:

The witnesses that evening knew where the planets were.

Source: ufoera.com

So one source says the planets were hidden behind the mountain, and the other says all the witnesses knew where the planets were. So all the witnesses knew the planets were hidden behind the mountains? I don't buy it!

I'd say your sources stink to high hell, but we're supposed to be polite on here so I'll just say that they are untrustworthy to say the least.

So, I would have to say that, given the lack of any real evidence for anything other than a misidentification under unusual conditions, that remains the most likely conclusion in this case, and as far as I can tell in at least one other case as well.

Thanks again for the post. I'll keep an eye on this thread to see if any more evidence turns up... or should I say, if any reliable evidence turns up



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


CHUD, thanks for your reply -I'm sorry to hear you don't buy the eye-witness reports and the fact that the witnesses state they didn't see planets (yet knew where they were) doesn't impress you very much.

Posting a link about temperature inversions is all well and good but I honestly think this case is very far from explained.

Heres further testimony from one of the eyewitnesses who discusses the 'planet theory'.




RD You're aware that the newspaper accouunts are that it was the planets?


W2 Planets, right. No that's BULL****, because I went and stood out on the lake and looked up at them and I saw the thing moving. You could see it pivoting like this (gesturing in a rocking motion like a teeter-totter). When it got way out over the lake, that thing just started spinning around, it was all different kinds of lights... The interview continued and more sketches were made by W1. In being asked to draw the small objects, she drew a triangle.


RD When it landed on the ice, did it seem like it went under the
surface of the water, or did it rest on the ice for a period of time.


W1 I don't know. Sue saw it too from her back yard. You could see it sit down though. It didn't look like it sunk. We went down the next
day to see if we could see anything. All you could see was ice broken
everywhere. Huge, huge chunks of ice...

Link




As you say there may be a discrepency at one of the links but I found it interesting that in the full quote of the text you pasted from the MUFON Director Report it states the witness was facing (and the object was coming from) the East - of course the people could just have a good understanding of the night sky over their own homes but whatever the case I don't think its a good enough reason to discount all the other testimony and information found on the reports.




After the sighting, Dell'Aquila and Wedge went out to the sight and did sight these planets in the western sky. We even took some calculatiions as to the location of the planets at the times that witnesses were seeing the objects over the lake. From our determination, we can state that the objects that were seen over the Lake were not Venus and Jupiter. The witnesses that evening knew where the planets were. The subject who reported the objects was travelling EAST and was facing east when the objects were seen to her left, the northern portion of the sky, near the residence.




As it mentions in this paragraph below -as well as the government documents, the importance of the photographic evidence is crucial in this case as it is said to completely debunk the planet inversion theory - it's just a great shame that noone seems to know why MUFON is not releasing the images.




Investigation forms were then completed, and the photograph taken on the same night in a location several miles to the southeast was shown to the witnesses. They confirmed that the triangular object shown in the photograph was identical to the triangular objects they had observed on the same night. Clearly, these witnesses, the Coast Guard, other independent witnesses who have been interviewed, and the photographic evidence all confirm that the Venus/Jupiter hypothesis offered by the skeptical "experts" as the ultimate solution to this case has no merit or validity.

Link


Cheers.

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



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


"spontanieous gas emissions" - some of us dont need the word to know the definition.
Great thread Karl!!



posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggyproductions05
 



Ziggyproductions -its certainly an interesting one bud.


MUFON State Director Richard Dell'Aquila makes some observations about the case below and brings up a good point about some of the witnesses being separated by several miles but all reporting the same thing.



I would now like to direct the focus of the debate to those aspects of the case on which we can find some agreement.



1. The report of the Coast Guard was made by on-duty personnel dispatched to the sighting area. It can be presumed that these are competent individuals without apparent motive to falsify a report that would cause them embarassment or worse.



2. The report, taken at face value, contains features which suggest something other than a conventional aircraft or meteorological/astronomical origin for the report.



3. Positions have been advanced by the scientific "experts" which do not adequately address ALL the features of the report, when taken at face value.


4. The primary Coast Guard report is supported by civilian reports of the phenomena observed within the same time-frame on the same night by witnesses who did not and do not know each other and who were separated by several miles from each other at the time of observation.


5. These reports are also supported by photographic evidence.



Significantly, at no time did the Coast Guard personnel believe they were watching a star or planet of some sort, although this argument was much later advanced as the solution. The Coast Guard personnel refused to speculate further with regard to the true nature of the UFOs they observed that night. They were frightened and behaved in a defensive manner, hardly a reasonbable response to ordinary astronomical objects.

Link


Cheers.

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



posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Another eye-witness describes flight characteristics and photographs of the object:



The following is a transcript of an interview of the photographer of a bright triangular object on March 4, 1988 near the East Lake Erie UFO sighting area.

The witness has an above average understanding of astronomy, describing various stars, constellations, citing information on up-coming meteor showers, and noting that Venus and Jupiter (which were in apparent close proximity in the sky that night) were observed through the tall trees on the western edge of his property.



DW Did this object, or whatever, make any sound? What alerted you to the fact it was there?


W3 Well, I just lifted my head and it was so bright that it caught my attention out of my peripheral vision.


DW How long did it last? How long did the entire sighting last?


W3 About two minutes.


DW What was it doing? Can you give us a description?


W3 When I first saw it, it was going real slow...


DW From which direction to which direction?


W3 East to West. It started in the East and it was going slow and then it sped up and disappeared behind the trees...when it sped up it went faster than a jet. When it first started it was slower than a jet, then it went faster than a jet. It sped up and I couldn't even get a picture of it because it was going too fast.


DW It went down behind some trees?


W3 It was just going in a straight line and there were trees in the
way so I couldn't see it any more.






Photographs:


W3 It was like a triangle shape, but had little tails, like, coming out of the ends.


RD You mentioned the object had a glow, which you diagrammed here on the left-hand side of it. Could you draw an arrow on the page to show which direction it was moving?


W3 It was moving in this direction [away from the observed glow]


RD What brand name camera did you use? (Information on the camera and film used by the witness was taken, an Argus 20, Kodak 110 color film, no special developing process used)

The interview continued.

RD (Referring to a streak of light across the triangular object on the photograph) Did you see this blue streak with the naked eye or was this something that surprised you...


W3 It was something that surprised me when I saw the picture. In the picture you can see part of the little fin I was talking about that it has on it...where it comes down and like curves out.


RD What was the sky like that night?


W3 Perfectly clear. Not even a little layer of clouds.


RD You mentioned you were out looking at some planets. What planets did you notice in the sky?


W3 Well, Venus and Jupiter were set behind the trees. They were nowhere near where we were looking.


Link


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



posted on Mar, 14 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Karl here is site that describes same things going on in MN.
I would wish we could organize or get intouch with some one who is actually covering this area too. I am going to attempt to try an work on this. scroll down toward s the bottom.

I posted this because I was speaking of this thread and because of the many sightings in the upper mid west all the way accorss from Quebec to Alberta onto Alaska above and below the boaders is a hot area for sightings.

So basically i am just commenting on this post here listed below

****Thses orbs were posted in a different thread
Ohio Man captures UFO Footage over lake Eire
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by poedxsoldiervet

NSG 52 says:
I was just telling someone about these orbs or what ever they may be
I realize this comment is only speculation Karl 12, but I cant help thinking these thoughts because of the video you just posted. On Lake Erie.
Ok its been over 60 years now that our government has been screwing around with research on UFO's privately and secretly ok and I really believe they killed some of them off UFO's I mean but not our ufo's meaning the ones up on our moon those guys our ours they belong to our galaxy but the other ones that are from different galaxies could be causing some type of war it's so hard to pin point anything but if in fact there are UFO's I believe that there lots of them out there from different galaxies and I will bet they do not all get along just like our own world and its past wars.

Look these are the types of orbs or whatever that I have seen and so have others. They are seen over a reservation in upper MN. I myself have seen em myself but because they are not close up I never or no one else ever thinks much of it . I Have slept most of one summer out side under the stars up at my boyfriends mothers property , that’s what people do up there in the summer they are always outside at night.
So these are not uncommon at all to us up there in MN rez. Just seems the reason why no one makes a big deal about it. For one thing no one has any equipment to video anything up there. The thing is finding someone who even cares. Native people for one believe that these things exist they probably wish we would just leave em alone and quit prying into there space disturbing there universes and so forth. I did find this today which I was surprised to actually find is a site that covers Wisconsin and MN. So I posted it for ya all to view.

realted website covering MN and Wi UFO sightings.
minnesotaskywatch.com...://spacepub.com/users/data/sightings/min/min.htm

Karl I had to edit this because of a possibel mix up in posts actually it's not a mix up I just am commenting on several posts realating to this area.
NOt ment to confuse anyone and the fact that MN and WI have these types of sightings. Hope this helps clear up the confusion.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

[edit on 14-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]




top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join