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.
Originally posted by FireMoon
Here's the actual description of the St Louis incident, so the re-entering junk passed within 300 feet of the aircraft?
www.nicap.org...
This is one of those cases you either take the word of a known liar Klass,, against that of someone who probably does know what they're talking about.
Originally posted by cripmeister
Originally posted by FireMoon
Here's the actual description of the St Louis incident, so the re-entering junk passed within 300 feet of the aircraft?
www.nicap.org...
This is one of those cases you either take the word of a known liar Klass,, against that of someone who probably does know what they're talking about.
That link is in my OP, you should read it
Originally posted by JimOberg
Yet reentries and launches are documented. We can look back on when and more-or-less where they occurred and the direction they were traveling.
When we do so -- and I've got to point out that top-grade pro-UFO researchers have RARELY bothered to do so -- we can see patterns of similarities of eyewitness reports from witnesses, including pilots. And repeatable patterns of misinterpretation.
...I sincerely believe this is a major advance in understanding UFO reports. I am saddened by the closed-minded refusal of belief, of ridicule, of denial, that most [not all] posters have reacted with.
It's really the first time we've EVER had experimental calibration of real-world witness [including pilot] reactions to specific types of apparitions.
Assuming that, from our analysis, several definite areas productive of reports can be selected, we recommend that one or two of theses areas be set up as experimental areas. This area, or areas, should have observation posts with complete visual skywatch, with radar and photographic coverage, plus all other instruments necessary or helpful in obtaining positive and reliable data on everything in the air over the area. A very complete record of the weather should also be kept during the time of the experiment. Coverage should be so complete that any object in the air could be tracked, and information as to its altitude, velocity, size, shape, color, time of day, etc. could be recorded. All balloon releases or known balloon paths, aircraft flights, and flights of rockets in the test area should be known to those in charge of the experiment. Many different types of aerial activity should be secretly and purposefully scheduled within the area.
We recognize that this proposed experiment would amount to a large- scale military maneuver, or operation, and that it would require extensive preparation and fine coordination, plus maximum security. Although it would be a major operation, and expensive, there are many extra benefits to be derived besides the data on unidentified aerial objects. The question of just what would be accomplished by the proposed experiment occurs. Just how could the problem of these unidentified objects be solved? From this test area, during the time of the experiment, it can be assumed that there would be a steady flow of reports from ordinary civilian observers, in addition to those by military or other official observers. It should be possible by such a controlled experiment to prove the identity of all objects reported, or to determine positively that there were objects present of unknown identity. Any hoaxes under a set-up such as this could almost certainly be exposed, perhaps not publicly, but at least to the military.