The Michigan 1966 UFO Flap - Was it Swamp gas?

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
House Committee on Foreign Affairs representative Cornelius E. Gallagher discusses the Michigan 'swamp gas' case with President Johnson’s Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara:







McNamara: There is no indication that they are anything but illusions.

Gallagher: Including the Michigan reports?

McNamara: Yes, sir.

Gallagher: What about the photographs, Mr. Secretary?

McNamara: The photographs are of natural phenomena that can be explained more readily and more realistically as other than foreign objects. The explanation of the objects photographed in Michigan is an illustration. It was marsh gas that caused a refraction of light and indicated that a physical object was present when it was not. (The official Air Force explanation was that the photos were of Venus. McNamara probably failed to read that AF explanation)

Gallagher: There are witnesses that say that it was something other than marsh gases and the marsh gas theory was on someone who was not there.

McNamara: I am relying on an outside investigator (Hr. Hynek- who was Air Force, not an outsider) with scientific objectivity and some experience in these matters.

Gallagher: Does the Air Force accept this over the so-called witness report?

McNamara: I believe so.

Gallagher: What is your explanation as to this?

McNamara: It varies. The condition of the viewer and the physical circumstances in the environment at the time generally create optical illusions.


Presidential UFO




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Another newspaper article about the Michigan case sourced by Realtvufos describing how Hillsdale County Civil Defense Director William Van Horn issued a 24 page report challenging the USAF's 'conclusion' that the sightings were caused by swamp gas.

He states the Air Force investigation was "a very incomplete and merely token sort of an act" and Dr Hynek only spent 3 hours investigating the Hillsdale sightings, he also mentions that wind and temperature readings proved that swamp gas could not form under the given climatic conditions..



‘Swamp Gas’ Challenged In UFO Report”, 16 May 1966 (Rome News-Tribune, Georgia)


Hillsdale County Civil Defense director William Van Horn issued a 24-page report challenging Dr. J. Allen Hynek’s conclusion that swamp gas caused UFO sightings in Hillsdale, Michigan in March 1966, the Rome News-Tribune reports


Newspaper Article



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Who cares? This old crap you keep bringing to the table is supposed to do what? Convince us that "they are here"? Seriously. Great, I like a story as much as the next person, and I also understand the what goes in in the mind of an ignorant person that thinks posting crap like this "shuts debunkers up" and what not. But seriously, posting crap that can only be discussed from useless type written stories and no further way to look into it doesn't do this subject any good.

Why don't you focus on the huge amounts of evidence that has happened since the 90s on up? Hmmmm, I wonder, lol.....



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Well, a truly fascinating thread, karl 12, and one that does ATS justice. No name calling or arrogant put downs, just an interesting forum sharing stories and views. Nice one.
edit on 12-1-2012 by Thunda because: (no reason given)


Edit: Oh, seems MainLineThis has changed all that whilst I was typing. Knew it was too good to be true.......
edit on 12-1-2012 by Thunda because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MainLineThis
 



Originally posted by MainLineThis
Who cares?

Alot of people on ATS appreciate Karls threads actually.

Originally posted by MainLineThis
This old crap you keep bringing to the table is supposed to do what?

It's supposed to be discussed.And it's supposed to be read by interested people, I guess.

Originally posted by MainLineThis
I like a story as much as the next person,

Obviously. Personal preferences can vary though.
I like his threads, I usually have never heard the stories before and I like the way they're presented.
I will have a look at your work now. The expectations are high.
Oh...I see.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I was 13 when this happened. We lived in Kokomo, Indiana. We were watching the news, Channel 13, out of Indianapolis. Frank Edwards was telling of the saucer sightings in his broadcast. My parents were very concerned about this. There is a SAC base just north of us, then called Bunker Hill. B-58 Hustlers constantly taking off. No one believed in the swamp gas theory.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The Topic

The Michigan 1966 UFO Flap - Was it Swamp gas?,



Please carry the discussion forward and keep your responses focused On-Topic .. and Not fellow Members



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MainLineThis
Why don't you focus on the huge amounts of evidence that has happened since the 90s on up? Hmmmm, I wonder, lol.....
Are you trying to suggest that there is nothing to discuss since the 90s?

The fact is that even if there was nothing to discuss from a later period (not entirely true), it isn't a reason to not discuss older evidence. That's what the forum is for.... Why are you visiting a forum for discussion of UFOs and aliens but seemingly objecting to people discussing it?

Do you have any opinion on the Michigan "swamp gas". I'd be interested in your opinion as to why they said something as stupid as swamp gas was a reasonable explanation. It's almost as if they wanted us to think it was aliens as even that seems more plausible than "swamp gas".

Constructive comments not designed to insult half the members who frequent the UFO and aliens Forum are welcome.
edit on 12/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
I'd be interested in your opinion as to why they said something as stupid as swamp gas was a reasonable explanation.


Hyneck's paycheck depended on it.




It's almost as if they wanted us to think it was aliens as even that seems more plausible than "swamp gas".


Yep same goes for the several official Roswell explanations we have been given so far, each more ridiculous than the last. Plausible deniability through stupidity?



Constructive comments not designed to insult half the members who frequent the UFO and aliens Forum are welcome.



Well that counts him out then.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 
Howdy amigo, LIFE magazine covered the Frank Mannor incident and the article's amusing and interesting. It sorta captures human nature and reactions to the unknown in all its majesty.

We have the writer being tongue-in-cheek and cautious. We have Mannor being described according to class and the way others reacted by calling him a nut. Then we have the locals gathering to see a UFO and even some guy playing a fiddle to attract the UFO. By the end, we have Hynek saying nothing much and Mannor's wife considering murder!

All in all - typical variations in how we react to weirdness.

If we cut out the crap, there were several witnesses to at least one white and red UFO and two eye-witnesses to an object described as 'rough and pitted all over like coral rock.'

It's conceivable that the sighting was somehow hoaxed by a military interest and yet I have problems with that idea. Frank and his son made the claim that they'd seen the object pretty close up and solid - it then disappeared. I think it would be an awkward proposition for the USAF or someone else to commit to this type of exercise and the potential for failure would be sky-high. They could have used a technical means to get the dogs barking, but wouldn't be assured that anyone would bother going into the marsh/swamp to check it out. This would be a level of orchestration with not even the guarantee that a dog-owner would glance out the _

Anyway, I've snipped parts of the article...






I enjoy the cases where witnesses describe the surface of UFOs as there aren't many of them about. I took the one below from one of the Grudge reports and can't recall which one. It's probably from an early report judging from the date of the sighting...



(If anyone wants a pdf of the LIFE magazine, pm me and we'll sort something out)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Was it swamp gas ?

No .... Police officers don't chase swamp gas





This case is an important part of UFO history so thanks for the thread
edit on 14-1-2012 by easynow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 
Just to add that the image of a 'dirty' saucer is from Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14. The pdf is available at UFOCasebook here (page 86).

Easynow pointed me towards a Maccabee article about the sighting Rogue River Saucer sighting.

@ Derpif - The saucer photo in the LIFE article turned out to be a hoax. The photographer (T. Fogel) admitted making it from plastic aircraft parts and hanging it from wire. Kevin Randle adds the details at his blog with UFO Photo Hoaxes...

ETA: Hynek's statement




He hated the experience! From the hysteria of press and people to his vilification for 'swamp/marsh gas,' Michigan left a bad taste in his mouth...

edit on 15-1-2012 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


The sheer amount of hoaxes in this field is still absolutely mindblowing to me.
And it didn't get any better over time.
Anyway, thank you for digging this information up and of course for the interesting link



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by derpif
The sheer amount of hoaxes in this field is still absolutely mindblowing to me.
And it didn't get any better over time.
Anyway, thank you for digging this information up and of course for the interesting link
As a disclaimer, I might be having another one of my thick moments again. However, is there anything specifically about this case or in this thread that made you mention hoaxes?

Hynek was quite clear that he did not think that this case was a hoax. I don't understand why you mention hoaxes. Were you just mentioning hoaxes on the thread to drop the word in?

I might have missed something as I often do, so apologies in advance if I have.

P.S. It didn't have anything to do with Nazis either.
edit on 15/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Thanks for the additional information.

Position change alert.


Originally posted by Pimander
Do you have any opinion on the Michigan "swamp gas". I'd be interested in your opinion as to why they said something as stupid as swamp gas was a reasonable explanation. It's almost as if they wanted us to think it was aliens as even that seems more plausible than "swamp gas".

In the light of the Hynek Evening Post article you posted, it looks as if my hint that the "swamp gas" explanation may have been calculated deception/manipulation was off the mark. In fact, thanks to the press, it looks as though the explanation I called, "as stupid as swamp gas," was accepted by most people as credible. Hynek's employers were probably delighted at the outcome as they were trying to keep a lid on the public perception of UFOs, in the late 60s.

It's amazing how, even highly suspect, theories are reported by the press as fact when a well known scientist is the source.
edit on 15/1/12 by Pimander because: To subtly manipulate the perception of UFO researchers.

edit on 15/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)
edit on 15/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join