The Minot AFB B-52 UFO Incident.

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lowneck
Hope I'm not duplicating any previous posts with this link I've just found to superb recent work by Thomas Tulien

www.minotb52ufo.com...


Lowneck, many thanks for posting that link my friend, haven't had time to go through all of the article yet but Captain Brad Runyon's witness sketch of the object is certainly a very interesting one!





Will post back when time allows but I think it's got to be said that the USAF explanation for this incident (twinkling stars) has got to be one of the most contrived and intellectualy dishonest ones yet.
All the best mate.




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 

karl,

Glad the link's been a useful addition to your thread.

Having read through the new material, I found it a bit unfortunate that French physicist Claude Poher spoiled his otherwise good analysis by bringing in his cranky theory of 'universons'.

Here
is a bid more from De Void on this case, which IMHO is now looking like one of the most impressive of all time.

all the best



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lowneck
reply to post by karl 12
 


Here is a bid more from De Void on this case, which IMHO is now looking like one of the most impressive of all time.

all the best


Lowneck, many thanks for some very interesting reading matey -it certainly is an extremely impressive UFO case (in my opinion anyway) and the Sign Project realy does deserve a medal.


Found myself nodding in agreement at this snippet.




...Blue Book’s faulty reconstruction of this event would be scandalous had it been instigated by anything other than UFOs



Cheers!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 

karl,

Here's a bit more from De Void about Bill Smith, now a professor, not only continuing to speak up about his experiences at Minot, but using them in the classroom. A most impressive guy.

devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com...

Looking forward to more excellent karl12 threads in 2012.

all the best for the New Year



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


No that is an animation from the Peter Jennings ABC doco Ufo's = Seeing is believing from 2005, I watched it last night


That said good links
edit on 1-1-2012 by mobtek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I think that Jim Jones Communist Cult hired former engineers/military and built their own craft. They were getting Russian help and were trying to get US military nuclear warheads.

Jim Jones....Klu Klux Klan...Communists....

en.wikipedia.org...

They envisioned a "New World", and did more than use words to get their goal. They had CIA/DOD help and were doing things the other half of the country and world didn't like. Even though he had the KKK's help, he was intelligent and knew he needed other races help to accomplish his goal.

Just how many nuclear warheads did Jim Jones get....and where are they now? Who's got the things he had built?

That mass "suicide" was to hide what they had built/gotten. That's my theory on the "UFOs" over nuclear assets and nuclear weapon storage facilities accessed conspiracy.

Jim Jones. Resulted in 1 dead US Congressman. The world may never know. But I've got a theory....another Cult now has them and they've been laying low for the time being until the time is right.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lowneck
reply to post by karl 12
 

karl,

Here's a bit more from De Void about Bill Smith, now a professor, not only continuing to speak up about his experiences at Minot, but using them in the classroom. A most impressive guy.

devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com...

Looking forward to more excellent karl12 threads in 2012.

all the best for the New Year



Lowneck, a happy New Year to you too my friend and thanks for the link about U.S. Air Force staff sergeant Bill Smith -he certainly seems like a sincere, genuine chap (to me anyway) and I'd say he's being quite courageous when it comes to sharing his UFO experiences at Minot AFB, especialy when he was ordered at the time "never to discuss the incident outside the chain of command" - hats off to him.


I also found this part of the article about Tom Tulien's analysis being wilfully ignored by the corporate media and UFO cynics quite relevant as well - not to mention painfully predictable.



Last summer, in what was unquestionably the most ignored UFO development of the year, Minnesota researcher Tom Tulien produced a thoroughly stunning analysis of that event, as part of an ongoing Sign Oral History Project investigation. The story got no media, but the record remains accessible online for the benefit of those who insist there’s no UFO material worth studying..


Cheers mate.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mobtek
No that is an animation from the Peter Jennings ABC doco Ufo's = Seeing is believing from 2005, I watched it last night


That said good links


Mobtek, thanks for the reply and yes that image is taken from the Peter Jennings UFO documentary you mention - it's shown in the first part of the thread here although I think I could have made a better job of explaining it when posting the image.
Cheers.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Article from Robert Hastings, 26th January 2012:


“UFO Buzzes ICBM Launch Capsule at Minot AFB:
The Commander’s Control Panel ‘Lit Up’
Indicating Missiles Away!”

link



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Details of other UFO activity reported at Minot Air Force Base:

Nuclear Connection Project



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Just curious, but you seem to have a good handle on the threads that you post, and when you post something like the post above....is it because you just have all this stuff sitting on your hard drive when you made the thread in the first place, and just post bits and pieces to bump your own threads?

Honestly, you could have the majority of your self indulgent thread bumps in your original thread post?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Figured I would post this picture which shows you the lay out of launch sites and the AFB. just remeber this map covers a few states and even Canada to the north.





So we have something on radar around a site? Which site and which state? There are no sites at the Minot AFB. they are all miles and miles away. So did some body see a light in the sky that could of been in the next state over?

Im just trying to make you think of how big of an area they are talkingabout when they say launch sites. And how little the AFB is. And how far away the AFB is from a launch site itself.

Also another problem is there are no men at a launch site. Missile launch command centers are 5 miles from the launch sites. And neither a launch site or missile launch center is at the AFB.
edit on 6-5-2012 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by gameisupman
 


Gameisupman, if the posting of ongoing research in specific threads bothers you that much then just ignore it - I also posted in these threads tonight and I suppose the main reason is to try and garner more attention for many of the truly interesting (and unexplained) UFO cases as they seem to receive little or no post traffic from armchair debunkers or UFO cynics.


UFOs Over Edwards Air Force Base

*Above BlueBook* - Ohio UFO Chase , Portage County April 17, 1966

UFO Crash Event: Shag Harbor, 1967


Do you have any thoughts on what the unknown object involved in the 1968 Minot Air Force base incident actually was by the way?

Cheers.





reply to post by JBA2848
 


JBA2848, there's a good link here posted by Lowneck earlier on in the thread which shows maps of the base and observation points by witnesses.


Example


Cheers.
edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by gameisupman

Honestly, you could have the majority of your self indulgent thread bumps in your original thread post?


Whoa. It's unfair to label karl12's threads and his periodic updating of them as "self-indulgent", in my opinion. He certainly doesn't need me to defend him, but there IS another way to look at it:

-often he's updating them because of new or newly-found information.
-many of his threads deal with UFO cases that are decades old, of the high-strangeness / high-credibility type, and which have still not been properly (or even AT ALL) addressed by skeptics and debunkers.
-given the high number of deniers around here -- debunkers "masquerading as skeptics", as someone recently described it -- periodic bumps of well-documented threads discussing the most bewildering and convincing UFO cases is not just a good idea, but a necessity.

We DO want people to be as informed as possible with respect to this topic, don't we? Any true skeptic should want that. This 'skeptical believer' wants that, and so do several others who think along the same lines. In my opinion, there should be more threads of this type... and yes, they should be bumped regularly ;-)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Agree with every word.

IMHO karl's a better scientist than most members of the US National Academy of Sciences. But I don't believe in karl's aliens.

Cheers.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 



...I also posted in these threads tonight and I suppose the main reason is to try and garner more attention for many of the truly interesting (and unexplained) UFO cases as they seem to receive little or no post traffic from armchair debunkers or UFO cynics.


Maybe those "armchair debunkers" as you like to broadly paint them in order to belittle their posts and make yourself feel all high and mighty (but ultimately makes you look like a stereotypical ufo enthusiast) don't see the serious added value exploring things like this that are so old, and new information isn't worth it's salt other than to feed some dough eyed believers religious like fantasy about UFOS and their part in "bringing the truth" to us "infidels".

But I do understand your desire to explore old crap that can't really be looked into any more, and things uncovered don't prove or disprove anything, allowing you to continue your fantastical beliefs. Makes sense. If you wasted your time with more modern sightings (where, if this stuff was true one would expect some SERIOUS evidence by now) you would be depressed and give up, because the modern state of "ufology" is a joke. By living in the past you are trying to distance yourself from this joke any way you can.

The chances of you finding anything of any substance, other than internet rumors that feed nothing but further wild speculation, then I will eat my hat. But until then, your hiding from the modern truth and the current sad state of Ufology by hiding in the past while simultaneously making your self feel important by constantly bumbling your threads with outdated, irrelevant information that you probably had when you wrote the OP....but you wanted to get the most mileage out of every one of your threads. I get that personality trait, I really do. I have it myself. The only difference is I realize I have it and that helps me keep it in check.

What do I think happened? Well, mr. I hate "armchair debunkers" how many people have you talked to in person about these events and how many times have you been on base? Your in danger of becoming your own worst enemy....the "armchair debunker", lol. But you keep surfing the internet to find old articles from the 50s, 60s, 70s and keep right on posting them....cause that's not armchair at all is it, that's serious investigation that not anyone with half a brain can do....oh wait.....

How many phone calls have you made to the living people mentioned in those documents. And after those phone calls, how deflated were you hopes of something amazing when they blew you off and said there no truth in the article your reading, and that it happened "this way" which was perfectly explainable, but not esciting enough for the folks writing the "investigations"?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by gameisupman
Maybe those "armchair debunkers" as you like to broadly paint them in order to belittle their posts and make yourself feel all high and mighty (but ultimately makes you look like a stereotypical ufo enthusiast) don't see the serious added value exploring things like this that are so old, and new information isn't worth it's salt other than to feed some dough eyed believers religious like fantasy about UFOS.... But I do understand your desire to explore old crap that can't really be looked into any more... allowing you to continue your fantastical beliefs. Makes sense. If you wasted your time with more modern sightings... you would be depressed and give up, because the modern state of "ufology" is a joke. By living in the past you are trying to distance yourself from this joke any way you can...[etc]


Wow. See what happens to a "true denier" in the face of actual evidence, much of it decades old, regarding a case which has resisted debunking for 40 years? (Sure, let's pretend Menzel and Klass didn't try... haha.) But isn't it interesting that a skeptic would get so angry by mere presentation of evidence? Let's think about this.

We all understand the UFO witness / believer's routine frustration with debunkers. It makes perfect sense within the big picture of the UFO phenomenon, where witnesses have been ridiculed by so-called 'skeptics' for decades. (Though no true skeptic thinks the UFO phenomenon is 100% ridiculous -- perhaps 95%! -- and no true skeptic would be ridiculing anyone who gives weight to this particular case. It's an impressive, multi-witness radar-visual one, and even a skeptic should admit "not so easy to dismiss.")

But for a skeptic to get as nasty as 'gameisupman' has gotten here.... what explains that? It's not as if UFO believers have been poking and prodding the skeptics for two generations now, with the apparent weight of "science" and skepticism on their side. It's been the other direction. So that doesn't explain it.

I think maybe what we see here is evidence of why some individuals literally CANNOT allow themselves to even admit the possibility of "real" UFOs. Maybe the above poster is being forced to question his religious beliefs? Maybe it's just scary? Maybe the possibility of real UFOs challenges the very natural assumptions we've all mostly carried -- that this is "our planet", we're top dog, are in complete control of our destiny, and its. (Not new ideas, i know.)

But TRULY accepting even the possibility of UFOs (and i say this with no sarcasm) forces one to deal with some difficult issues. So I try not to be too hard on 'skeptics' with SUCH extreme reactions to evidence, as above. A nerve has been hit. And let's face it, even respectable, mainstream science itself is not immune to this bias against confronting our human assumptions. Because we all remember the following (most telling!) part of the Trick Memo, no? (For newer members, this was written by the Project Coordinator of the Condon Report -- science's supposed "final word" on the UFO topic -- in a memo summarizing (among other things) why several science team members didn't think U. Colorado should accept the USAF contract.) Here it is:

"[The scientists'] argument runs like this: in order to undertake such a project one has to approach it objectively. That is, one has to admit the possibility that such things as UFOs exist. It is not respectable to give serious consideration to such possibility. Believers, in other words, remain outcasts. Branscomb suggested that one would have to go so far as to consider the possibility that saucers, if some of the observations are verified, behave according to a set of physical laws unknown to us. The simple fact of admitting these possibilities puts us beyond the pale, and we would lose more in prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly gain...."

Pretty enlightening, no? These were very smart,'"skeptical" men -- our best and brightest, the scientists, advocates of truth, right? Yet behind closed doors (the memo was leaked, not supposed to be public) these scientists were admitting they couldn't even be objective about this issue... couldn't even TRULY consider the most obvious hypothesis as legitimate. (Have to "go so far as to consider the possibility...."?)

Beyond what that all says about the Condon Report's objectivity -- any positive UFO findings in that scientific atmosphere would be impressive, right, and yet there they are, in the BODY of the report, ignored in Condon's conclusions -- the point is, if our best and brightest scientists can't be reliably objective about UFOs, can't bring themselves to actually consider the ET hypothesis a valid one, then what can we really expect of the casual ATS skeptic?

UFOs challenge world-views. (Again, not a new observation!) But it's rare to see the effects erupt so forcefully, like above. So go easy on 'gameisupman'. He's dealing with some tough stuff!



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

So go easy on 'gameisupman'. He's dealing with some tough stuff!


TeaAndStrumpets, appreciate the very thoughtful and intelligent post(s) and I'll certainly try.


His posts are reminiscent of those authored by Mainlinethis and Ignorethefacts though (link,link).

Even if it isn't the same poster using a different handle then the attempts at derailing objective discussion by using the same emotive, subjective (and oftentimes insulting) language do look a bit familiar - especially when coupled with the innate fear of actually addressing the incidents themselves.

Other than that I've no idea why 'Gameisupman' has gotten so nasty or what his agenda might be - hopefully he can address the subject matter and speculate on what the object involved in the 1968 Minot Air force Base incident actually was.

Cheers.






Originally posted by Lowneck

IMHO karl's a better scientist than most members of the US National Academy of Sciences. But I don't believe in karl's aliens.



Woah there Lowneck, I'm in no way a trained scientist but thanks for those very kind words - I do suspect some UFO cases involve objects that are 'not us' but I don't think I've ever subscribed to any specific explanation about origin - Ivan T Sanderson does a good job here of exploring different options and I'd certainly say that the world's oceans play a big role in the mystery but other than that, 'I don't know'.

As British Ambassador Gordon Creighton mentions in this interview, "Unquestionably, something very extraordinary is going on and unquestionably it's a very bewildering mystery".


Cheers!



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I am new to ATS, and the list, but have been following this discussion over the past year. I am also the principal researcher and creator of the minotb52ufo site. I generally don't participate on public list-serves but definitely appreciate the level of discussion by members on this particular list. I would add, regarding recent comments, that all UFO cases are essentially historical, which is the study of individual cases after the fact that can only tell us some UFOs defy conventional explanations. In my humble opinion, aside from the story, this case is unique in the respect that it includes quantifiable data sets in the form of radarscope photographs that can be (have been) examined by physical scientists. It also includes a remarkable amount of documentation, as well as personal communications, that allow insight into the process of the investigation and attitudes of the responsible officials. Not many cases provide as much multiple and independent ways to reconstruct the events, or, much less, the ability to examine hypothetically the performance characteristics of the UFO.

Kind regards...



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by minotb52ufo

In my humble opinion, aside from the story, this case is unique in the respect that it includes quantifiable data sets in the form of radarscope photographs that can be (have been) examined by physical scientists. It also includes a remarkable amount of documentation, as well as personal communications, that allow insight into the process of the investigation and attitudes of the responsible officials..



Minotb52ufo, sterling job on the website mate and I'm sure many folks here truly appreciate your efforts (and thoroughness) when it comes to examining this extremely puzzling UFO case - I'd also tend to agree with comments in the Herald Tribune article about the 'thoroughly stunning analysis being the most ignored UFO development of the year'.

Have just been reading through the radar report by Martin Shough and we certainly need more investigative analysis like this conducted in UFO research.




Minot AFB 1968


With sightings of luminous objects being reported by Air Force security teams around the Strategic Air Command missile silos near Minot Air Force Base, Minnesota, an inbound B-52 was asked to keep a look out. A ground radar painted an unknown target near the plane. Shortly thereafter the B-52's bomb/nav radar detected unusual echoes. Probably in late 2004 I was first asked by the principal investigators to advise on the unusual type of radar involved and assist in interpretation of the 'scope photographs. As so often, the extant technical data and documentary records proved to be both voluminous and frustrating. A steep and engrossing learning curve led, several years later, to the completion of this report - a small part of the larger ongoing project to fully document what remains a genuine, if inconclusive, mystery.


link


Cheers.





top topics
 
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join