What evidence, besides shaky eyewitness accounts, is there these craft ever reached such high speeds? People are very poor observers.

Why do you consider it shaky eyewitness testimony? Could you please divulge exactly what it was about the witnesses which causes you to believe their accounts were not accurate? Or are you using a generalization - since it's a UFO, it automatically becomes shaky evidence?

Especially considering several of the witnesses were police officers. Trained observers, moreso than your average witness.

I think witnesses could tell the difference between 53 mph (top speed of known blimps) or we'll say heck, 80mph.. because it was a super-secret stealth blimp with super technology behind it! One of the police officers who saw this flying by the road, called in because he thought a plane was about to crash or was in trouble. Others reported it moving much, MUCH quicker than your average blimp.. stealth or otherwise.

The size, silence and speed of these objects imo, is what pretty much nullifies the theory it was any governments secret tech. Black projects typically are not flown over public land as well, for obvious reasons. There is a reason they have huge amounts of uninhabited land to test these sorts of things. Maybe a pilot took it for a joy ride? Huge, silent craft moving at those speeds... we don't even begin to have the science behind the tech that would be necessary to make it a reality.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
...yet each one of them describes something significantly different than the others...So either the fundamental configuration of the object changes, or the object is appearing differently to each officer due to their individual perceptions.

Actually, Blue, there does appear to be a not-uncommon phenomena where some observers see an object markedly different than what other witnesses see.

I've even read of UFO events where some observers can see the object, while others don't see anything. This isn't too unusual for humans: the early Americans actually couldn't see the European ships off shore, until they landed and made physical "contact."

You refer to each observer's "individual perceptions." Rather than jumping to the conclusion you make, that it's "a big problem," we need to accept that this may indeed be an effect during some sightings, and ask ourselves why this happens. Are some people more predisposed to viewing paranormal events? Is there some kind of connection between these craft and the brains of their witnesses?

Look at the cars driven by the infamous Men in Black. While we think of the classic Cadillac car as their vehicle of choice, in England they were observed driving Jaguars. And during the West Virgina strangeness leading up the Mothman sightings, there was a series of incidents where they drove Volkswagen Beetles. And their clothing? To me, it's as likely that their appearance was as subjective to each viewer, as that they actually had shiny black suits without a single wrinkle or crease in them.

And when Betty and Barney Hill saw their UFO, one of the crewmen appeared to be wearing a Nazi swastika armband. Were the occupants really Nazis, or did the Hills perhaps view the object and its crew through the subjective experiences of their lives (and as an interracial couple, the only creatures scarier to them than aliens were Nazis).

After seventy-plus years of ever-stranger observations, we should be ready to start accepting the more challenging possibilities.

BTW: A "Stealth Blimp" as an answer to this event? Not bloody likely.

And when Betty and Barney Hill saw their UFO, one of the crewmen appeared to be wearing a Nazi swastika armband.

Is this just shoe-horned into the account by the "Nazi UFO" group?

What about the fact that they had green skin and were 5 ft tall?

Are you suggesting that aliens have been recruited by the Nazis?

Are you suggesting that aliens have been recruited by the Nazis?

Not at all.

I'm suggesting that what they saw were not Nazis, but something that terrified them, something that represented to them an evil, oppressive force. They simply couldn't factor in the reality they were witnessing, so either their brains camouflaged what they were seeing with elements that were familiar to them, or the entities themselves reached into their conscious (and perhaps subconscious) to pull out that image for them.

There are other instances where UFO events are involved with objects that the observers "expected" to see. Irving T. Sanderson, the paranormal researcher who helped school a younger John Keel, once witnessed a UFO over the Ohio River morph before his eyes into a small Cessna airplane. Keel was there, and saw the same thing.

Interestingly, their wives were both there, and saw nothing. No UFO, not even the Cessna, which was in plain sight.

This is relevant to the current discussion by offering an explanation of how multiple police officers were able to observe the same object in different locations, separated by only a short distance and a brief interval of time, yet come up with distinctly unique facets of the same triangular-shaped craft.

Originally posted by fleabit

Why do you consider it shaky eyewitness testimony? Could you please divulge exactly what it was about the witnesses which causes you to believe their accounts were not accurate? Or are you using a generalization - since it's a UFO, it automatically becomes shaky evidence?

Eyewitness testimony has always been unreliable, that's why you get conflicting accounts of the same event. I have no doubt the truck driver and the officers saw a big triangular object moving through the air. But remember, the officer didn't actually see the object move at high speed. That part is a guess based on observations (perceived time and distance) we know to be unreliable. In my opinion a good part of the UFO mystery has been created by researchers that take such observations at face value and present it as the truth. Good researchers put a disclaimer on things that can't be verified and offer possible scientific explanations why an observation might be wrong.

i believe these guys i think what they saw was real wheather it was ufo or super secret airforce test flight of some radar deflecting plane its legit

What's most interesting is the amount of government agencies which have accessed the report.

I kick myself every time I hear about this case. I lived in Belleville IL , which is in St Clair county, smack dab in the middle of all this for 20 years and had just moved to Maryland 2 months before this happened. It's cases like this though that have me convinced we are being visited.

Originally posted by TemplarScribe

After seventy-plus years of ever-stranger observations, we should be ready to start accepting the more challenging possibilities.

Well said, currently compiling a post along those same lines.

Eyewitness testimony has always been unreliable, that's why you get conflicting accounts of the same event. I have no doubt the truck driver and the officers saw a big triangular object moving through the air. But remember, the officer didn't actually see the object move at high speed. That part is a guess based on observations (perceived time and distance) we know to be unreliable. In my opinion a good part of the UFO mystery has been created by researchers that take such observations at face value and present it as the truth. Good researchers put a disclaimer on things that can't be verified and offer possible scientific explanations why an observation might be wrong.

Ok, let's say Officer Martin miscalculated. Quite possible. He estimated that once it sped up, it was going 80 to 100 mph. Much faster than any conventional blimp, but maybe we have stealth blimps that can knock out that speed. But maybe it was going slower. Of course, he was a police officer - part of their job is estimating how fast something is going. They do this on a daily basis. But.. mabye he was wrong.

But then there was Officer Barton, who DID see the object accelerate so quickly, he could barely track the movement with his eye. I'd say that was a lot faster than 100 mph, and much faster than any blimp could go. So, yes.. an officer did see it moving at high speeds.

Of course, they saw it do other things.. like pivoting in place without changing altitude to change directions. A very un-blimp-like thing to do.

Saying they were "shaky" witnesses because humans are unreliable as witnesses is ridiculous imo, especially when an object moves so fast, the eye could not track the movement. That is pretty clear-cut.. do you agree? I personally don't feel we have any secret tech that allows a craft that is 75' wide and 45' long to move silently, accelerate at those speeds, and maneuvar as it did. I don't think people understand the technology required for that. NO one has that on this planet, not yet. The amount of energy required to keep something silent, yet aloft, and then accelerate as it did would be mind-boggling.

If by "shaky" you mean they were lying, ok.. not much I can say about that.

In the first vid at 11.14 you see the shape of the craft.
About a month ago I saw an aircraft flying low altitude directly above and past me. It had the exactly same shape - triangular and similar edges in the back, just without the lights. When it was past me i could see it being flat.
At that time i thought it might be some drone, like the beast of kandahar. It was so close, about 100 meters above, i could see its grey color despite it being in the night sky. It had no lights at all and it was absolutely silent.
I never found my interpretation conclusive, however. If it was a regular triangular aircraft, it would be American. I dont know whether these cross Switzerland - i would guess, usually they do not. It was so low altitude, that it just doesnt make sense - surely these would fly high altitude except for takeoff and landing. Moreover, it was right over the city - because of the regular approach of the helicopters from the nearby hospital (about 1km) its propably prohibited to fly low. Also, it was silent, even if the aircraft would have been as quite as a car, i should have heard it due its close proximity. It had no position lights on, respectively no lights at all.
I really dont know what it was. The only rational explanation is onewing aircraft on a strange, probably prohibited flight manoveur. Just felt the urge to share - without the intentions to discuss it any further.