It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


UFO filmed over Fernald Nuclear Facility - Nov, 1994.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:02 AM
Thank you for this, this is why I love ATS I'm always finding things that I never even came close to finding before. MUCH appreciated.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:16 AM
Yet another poor quality video of a light which could be anything. I was hoping to see something a little more compelling. I should've known better. And what's with the annoying echo?

Disappointing but thanks for the info anyway Karl.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

Maybe...maybe not, thanks for the post - I think Ignorethefacts makes some fair points on this thread...although you may be right about his commentary getting a little colourful (and emotional) of late.
There's a question on that thread which I'd be very interested to hear the answer to - let's hope he responds to it.


G'day karl 12

OK.....I see your question to Ignore The Facts.

I would be genuinely interesting to know his thoughts in that regard.

At Ignore The Facts:

There is no sarcasm intended here.....just genuine interest in what you think

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:13 AM
Just a question really (and I apologize if this point has already been raised and I missed it) : Since when are security camera's handheld? All of the footage that I can see was taken using handheld cameras. This smells like a hoax to me.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:34 AM

something weird has been happening with my posts. Please disregard.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by mckyle]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:02 PM
IgnoreTheFacts has yet to provide evidence that he spoke to the security guards in question at the Fernald Nuclear Facility leading him to make the statement degrading their abilities while on the job. Are you going to provide evidence to back up such statements, or are you just grabbing at straws to somehow make yourself appear knowing more than the rest of us?

""And yes, I added to this thread. Read my few posts again. I might not have been what YOU wanted to hear, but I added to it. Did your family member work at Fernald? Have you ever met anybody who works there? Have you been there? ""

You added nothing but conjecture based upon unproven statements to draw into question the reliability of the witness's involved in this incident. You added personal opinions that are not fact based in an attempt to encompass a large majority of UFO sightings over the years without evidence or analysis to be able to do so. You added nothing to this debate that would prove or disprove this incident. FIN.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:17 PM

First of all, because I am consistent with my postings you call me parrot-like? Who am I parroting?!? I'm consistent, the same as everyone else on here with their opinions. I guess we are all parroting ourselves. I look forward to reading your posts from now on to make sure you never say the same thing more than once.

It's called conviction. We all have it. It's called consistency. We all have it. You want me to change my mind on every thread I post in so as not to sound like a parrot? I would expect you to do the same. You post wishy-washy statements in almost every thread your in, too timid to commit to anything...afraid you will be too polarizing I guess, but I'm not running around calling you a parrot just because your consistent am I?

When consistancy is assuming a stance on something simply for the sake of it, no, it's not really a good thing at all. There are some who do try to take a logical edge to most conversations, and then we have the debunkers, whose sole purpose is to use any method to prove their belief that UFOs are nothing but mistaken identity or hoaxes. And your modus operandi is often thinly veiled attacks at people's intelligence, their reliability or how "stupid" and insulting the case is to the "ufo community," as if you are a member of it. I've lost count of the "this is the reason it's laughable!.." as if you care. I'm certain laughable is exactly where you want it. I lose a few IQ points trying to read through all your lol's in your posts. You use a condenscending tone and borderline rude attitude in almost all your responses. I've seen you make a few valid points and halfway decent observations, but usually won't "have your back," since you decide to deliver your observations with the graceful tact of an anvil falling on a jellyfish.

I am not wishy-washy, obviously you don't actually read anything I say. I do believe in the UFO phenomena, but I am also very quick to call out what I consider to be ridiculous leaps of logic, speak out against things like crop circles (which I think are all bunk), and try to maintain an unbiased slant on new cases. I don't go into it assuming it has to be real, or fake. I actually read the case, and then make a decision based on the data on hand.

I've called out what I think is hogwash on many occasions, and will continue to do so. But I firmly believe in UFOs, and think there are many cases which people like you (i.e. dyed-in-the-wool debunker) won't touch, because it's difficult to be rude and "lol" at cases which have very solid foundations.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by treesdancing

That is a good point as I worked as a security guard and none of the cameras were hand held. I should have noticed this one myself when viewing the lights in the sky in the video. The camera is obviously hand held. Add to it the silly reverb in the narration and this is a case that is not so good.

However, it should still be brought up so we can spot these problems and call this one out. Good research means taking out the trash, too.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by kidflash2008
That is a good point as I worked as a security guard and none of the cameras were hand held.

Kidflash, that is a good point -here's what I could find about references to the footage and handheld/fixed cameras from the full report about the incident:

He advised that the UFO had been videotaped by a guard at the guardshack on NOVEMBER 24, 1994 (two weeks after the CLERMONT COUNTY RECORDING). He said that the situation was perceived as a security matter, and that the FAA was contacted and advised of the event.
He said I should make an FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) appeal with DOE (Department of Energy) to acquire the report on the incident.

Enclosed as an attachment was a large 11 x 17" sheet of paper bearing seven poor quality black & white images taken from a video camcorder. The date and time of the recording is tagged onto the video, and the information indicates the date as November 23, 1994 (the informant had earlier stated November 24) and the time listed is 5:48 a.m

I had contacted Mr. DALLAS at Fernald Security and announced the nature of my call. According to Mr. Dallas, Lt. Disney was unavailable until Wednesday, June 4. Dallas knew of the UFO sighting but was unsure of a report filed on the incident. Dallas said, "The guys on third shift made a claim and a videotape of a UFO sighting."
When asked whether or not the information would be retained with Fernald or Firmco, Mr. Dallas said, "It's all the same," adding that the records would be accessible to the public. "If they kept anything, whether it be videotape or written reports, you would be able to get that."

Days later I finally contacted Lieutenant Disney, who also confirmed hearing of the UFO sighting and to have seen photos. Disney said that he had heard stories of a "ball or something in the sky" that was photographed, but didn't know what had become of the material. He said he had seen the photos "floating around" from time to time.

Disney wasn't sure how available this information would be. The cameras used by the security staff are fixed cameras, but are moveable and remotely controlled from a monitor room.The information is recorded by means of a time-lapse recording system. When asked, he responded that the guards "do not use video camcorders and do not bring camcorders to work with them."

Regarding the videotape, she didn’t know if the Fernald security systems embed a date and time stamp onto their video recordings, but said she would find out for me. She said that the Fire & Safety people retain a personal camcorder at all times, and they may be the ones who recorded the video

Dave Matthews, supervisor of the Hamilton County Communications Center, confirmed that the call was received and also furnished an ‘incident advisory’ which states the time and nature of the call, plus the name of the two officers that handled the report. A notation on the log states: ‘strange sphere with strange lights sighted over Fernald.


It certainly sounds a messy one and as Mr Young's investigation report is the only one available maybe no more light will be shed on the incident - it could have been idle gossip but I was interested to see that, as well as the official police dispatch report and other potential sheriff and security guard witnesses, there may also have been witnesses within the fire department:

Inside the store, three passersby responded eagerly when asked for directions to Fernald. The clerk commented, "Just follow the glow."

This was greeted by some laughter and more jokes until I had humorously added, "Well, actually, we're looking for UFOs anyway."

"You may want to talk to some people at the Fire Department, I've heard they saw them," came the sober response. Although the clerk offered no specific details , he knew of information that could be acquired through the fire department.


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

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Some reason long ago UFOs and nuclear anything started to go hand in hand, and rumors have spread. Why? Most probably because someone made a giant leap of logic to connect Roswell and nuclear weapons... from that point, everyone and their mom started seeing UFOs next to nuclear facilities because they wanted to see that.

I think that's the most dismal, lazy abuse of 'reason' I've ever come across - have you ever actualy read any of the reports or acquainted yourself with any of the witness testimony/radar information?

Does having this kind of flippantly dismissive attitude mean you can just hide behind vague generalizations and not be responsible enough to take each case on its own merits?

Here are some interesting incidents - objectively speaking do you honestly believe these people are just imagining things or 'seeing what they want to see'?

The Minot AFB B-52 UFO Incident.

The SAC Base UFO Flyovers - Oct/Nov, 1975.

UFO reports from Nuclear/Atomic Sites.

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

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by mckyle
Hey mate,

Yes that's the Royce I mean
He's a good guy, and I hope he comes back to Ufology after he has recharged his batteries. He is sorely needed.

As for Kenny, he contributed so much to Ufology: the Trumbull County UFO incident is a great one! As are many others.

I think you said something along the lines that this was not the best UFO case out there. I agree - but then again - how many 'great ones' are there?? Very few, if you use the scientific standard as a yard stick.

Hey matey, thanks for the reply and I agree about the Trumbull case -Ohio's had far more than its fair share of very strange UFO incidents down the years and that's certainly one of them.

As for your other comments, I don't realy want to get into a discussion about ITF's subjective input but your right about the general state of ufology not being too good.

I'd say there are quite few very interesting cases out there and it's said that about 30 percent of incidents from various 'government sponsered' studies remain unexplained - there's a relevant statement here by the AIAA where they refer to the findings of the Condon Committee:

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

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

Although debunkers rarely address this hardcore of truly puzzling UFO cases it is worth pointing out that many of the official USAF 'explanations' are also extremely dubious - Dr James Mcdonald makes a good point in the thread below and I think many of the Bluebook evaluations realy do need serious reappraisal.

USAF "force fit" debunks.


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

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:20 PM
This case is by far not the best I have seen -obviously as the usual suspects like clockwork have attempted their pathetic hero debunker tactics- however, it should be taken on the same level as every other case and given as much merit until it is explained and examined. It's not silly to think that this incident might well have been covered up by the NRC to avoid bad press at a time when nuclear power needed all the good press it could muster.

It's not hard to believe after seeing the literally THOUSANDS of classified documents obtained through FOIA requests over the years, that the original video probably was taken and edited, then only certain parts of it made available to the public. This is a nuclear facility which is supposed to have some of the highest security in North America. Letting on that the security might somehow be lacking at one these places would have raised more questions than answers.

It's a very "untidy" case and probably one that will stay unsolved.

reply to post by karl 12

Of course not Karl, did you actually think these pseudo-skeptics avoid those threads just because they don't catch them before they drift off the the front page of the forum?
As I've stated many times in the past these people avoid those topics because they have a snowballs chance in hell of explaining them away as they do with your average kiddie you-tube UFO threads.

I had check who you were replying to because I couldn't see that members post as they are on my ignore list, obviously for a good reason

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:33 PM
strange, is there any more footage from another angle perhaps?

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:17 AM
Will be interesting to see if the operation of the new particle accelerator will attract any UFO activity.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in