FBI Memo: "Military authorities are seriously considering the possibility of interplanetary ships"

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The following is taken from a memo dated October 27, 1952, written by Alan H. Belmont, then head of the Domestic Intelligence Division of the FBI:



Alan H. Belmont

The "creditable and unexplainable" sighting referenced is the now-famous Newhouse UFO incident, which produced the footage below.



What interests me most in this memo is the quality of language used by Belmont, which is based on information received from Colonel C.M. Young, Executive Officer to Major General John A. Samford, Director of Air Force Intelligence. For instance, the possibility of interplanetary ships is not only being considered - it is being "seriously" considered.

The memo goes on to point out that a small percentage of reports investigated by the Air Force are "extremely creditable" and "unexplainable". The Newhouse case is included in this group of extremely creditable reports, and it is noted that conventional explanations have been "completely ruled out" and that the Air Force is "at a complete loss to explain this most recent creditable sighting".

Here's the document in its entirety:




Just thought I would throw this out there for your consideration as an example of internal government correspondence regarding UFOs circa 1952.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Its always fun to read such things.
But it does not surprise me, that there were some people who was considering the possibility.

But the problem with Ufology, is that, when you see something unexplained, it could be tourists from outer space, but it could as well (99% more likely) be some nature phenomenon.

Such as, you know ball lightning, they are pretty rare. So, when you see that, what will you call it? A ufo or a nature phenomenon, such as ball lightning.

And yes, I do know what UFO stands for. But I also know that when 95% people say 'UFO' they hope/mean something intelligent from outer space.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
They are Aliens! I've seen them with my own eyes!!!!





I honestly don't think all of them are atmospheric phenomenon or optical illusions especially with how they behave.

90 degree angled turns, zooming to 4000mph from a stop. stopping instantly, and just plain reacting around other aircraft...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Considering something is not the same as making one's mind up about any given topic.

And that's a problem with things like this, is there seems to be an insinuation that once something's been decided it should never change under any circumstances.

And this was before Project Blue book, which concluded, perhaps wrongly, that there isn't anything worthwhile to investigate.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Interesting that, contemporary to the report you quote Duncan Sandys, the then aviation minister of Grt Britain was saying something very similar.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I'd point out that, as far as I know, this report emanated from Winston Churchill's own private papers not from the MOD.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I dont really understand how people havent even gotten past the idea that there are aliens. We are not in the 1950's anymore guys. There is no doubt anymore.

Of course, ATS is filled with people who dont believe in them. So I dont get why people insist on trying to convince others here in these forums. Why do you care what others believe? Its completely irrelevant.

Just a piece of advice: do your research, find out what you believe, but dont post it on ATS unless you are into mascocism.


Have a good day



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Thanks for the link, FireMoon. The incident you cite is a virtual carbon copy of countless other pilot sightings wherein a metallic, disc shaped object or objects are reported to approach close to an aircraft, pace it for a while, execute some fancy maneuvers and then zip off at a speed and/or angle that leaves the witness(es) completely befuddled.

Aviation Safety in America: A Previously Neglected Factor by Richard Haines features a bunch of diagrams showing reported UFO (or UAP in his terminology) trajectories reported by pilots in the cases he has investigated.






posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ypperst
Its always fun to read such things.
But it does not surprise me, that there were some people who was considering the possibility.

But the problem with Ufology, is that, when you see something unexplained, it could be tourists from outer space, but it could as well (99% more likely) be some nature phenomenon.

Such as, you know ball lightning, they are pretty rare. So, when you see that, what will you call it? A ufo or a nature phenomenon, such as ball lightning.

And yes, I do know what UFO stands for. But I also know that when 95% people say 'UFO' they hope/mean something intelligent from outer space.


It is utterly amazing how you can sit in front of your computer and debunk the deliberations of top US military officials that had mounds of info at their disposal. Not to mention that they would have every reason to down-play what they already knew to interested but unworthy parties such as the FBI.

You have done the debunker's work, using a few words that--evidently sufficient for you--simply negates the whole business from day one right up to the present. But it seems to me to fall a bit short of the facts--oh, but you didn't use any, did you?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


NO, it says "SOME military authorities are"

Big difference.


There are always a few 'out there' experts. No telling what else they believe. It doesn't make a different. There are "some" regular folk who believe in interplanetary ships. Big deal. Doesn't change anything.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
It has become my opinion, that there lies the very besst informaton from which to begn to try to understand (yeah right!) ....this phenomenon......
From the years 1947 or so to 1955-60 we have a battery of loyal normal men who have experience with the phenomena from the beginning, Keyhoe,Ruppelt,Stringfield, and a few others.....
Discountng the books by prolific phenomena writers who made a lvng doing so.....
But there excists a core volume of work from that era, which is n my opinion, entirely trustworthy information.
And i dont beleve the facts stated are questioned as to veracity....considering the hunourable service of these men, and the great peril which they placed their carreers by trying to educate the public about UFOs.
These reports,from suh men...
Guy Hottel FBI.....etc
They all are the last clear evidence we have with which to really understand the phenomena whch continues to this day.......and the writer himself has experienced so can attest to the truth of this older but far more reliable info.
CONTELPRO, Disninformatzia, all that security entails long ago buried the flying saucer truth so deeply the very best connot find it.....
But this old stuff has the ring of reality,,,,,,,,
Another lttle explored phenomena involved with this is FIREBALLS......



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
The following is taken from a memo dated October 27, 1952, written by Alan H. Belmont, then head of the Domestic Intelligence Division of the FBI:



Alan H. Belmont

The "creditable and unexplainable" sighting referenced is the now-famous Newhouse UFO incident, which produced the footage below.



What interests me most in this memo is the quality of language used by Belmont, which is based on information received from Colonel C.M. Young, Executive Officer to Major General John A. Samford, Director of Air Force Intelligence. For instance, the possibility of interplanetary ships is not only being considered - it is being "seriously" considered.

The memo goes on to point out that a small percentage of reports investigated by the Air Force are "extremely creditable" and "unexplainable". The Newhouse case is included in this group of extremely creditable reports, and it is noted that conventional explanations have been "completely ruled out" and that the Air Force is "at a complete loss to explain this most recent creditable sighting".

Here's the document in its entirety:




Just thought I would throw this out there for your consideration as an example of internal government correspondence regarding UFOs circa 1952.



The Objects looks very similar to my video. So, i believe that they are real objects (maybe foo fighters...)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Absolutely interesting.
Thanks.
S&F.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ypperst
 


Everything seen as a UFO, could be seen as something natural, simply because of what UFO stands for. Even the historical record doesn't help anymore since we now know that much of the analysis done was a simple debunk, like the 'Swamp gas' scenario. This case is one of the early ones, and was never properly 'debunked' by the Robertson panel, one of the most arrogant pieces of deceit as played out by its members. They had no technical data on the camera/ film used regarding how the film reacted to bright light, as there was none available, there was no data on the albedo of birds, or much anything else, it was just their presumed opinion.

They never contradicted the blue book reports, but just made their own conclusions from their own opinions, a terrible way to go about their business, but everybody was expected to take their word for it.

As for the film clip here, it's hard to make out much, but it ain't ball lightening for instance, that is something I have seen, so that's one piece of nature out of the way, for me at least. Balloons and birdies were discounted by the filmer and the original investigators, when the film was pristine, so that's out of the way for me too. What is there left, swamp gas? I don't think so. That's where the Robertson panel were wrong, they should have erred on the side of caution and said yes, these films are anomalous and proceeded in that manner, but they didn't.
edit on 16-8-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
The following is taken from a memo dated October 27, 1952, written by Alan H. Belmont, then head of the Domestic Intelligence Division of the FBI:




I would expect someone would consider the possibility...
...but what did they conclude?

I mean, we have people today considering the possibility of UFOs being alien craft, but that consideration does not automatically make UFOs alien craft.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


I can go along with that. The Russians were seeing similar things, much of it first hand seen by the military, and much of this was not knowledge in the West,until after the end of the cold war.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ypperst
 





but it could as well (99% more likely) be some nature phenomenon.


Actually I believe its more likely ships of our own..pretty sure our government is at least 30 more years advance then what we think. so in the 50s tech would be close to that of the 80s and so forth.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

I would expect someone would consider the possibility...
...but what did they conclude?



Good question. It's likely that they didn't really conclude anything. There were a variety of opinions on the phenomenon within the military and intelligence communities at this time, and it seems that the decision made by the policy makers was to publicly downplay any evidence of a threat to national security.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
Good question. It's likely that they didn't really conclude anything. There were a variety of opinions on the phenomenon within the military and intelligence communities at this time, and it seems that the decision made by the policy makers was to publicly downplay any evidence of a threat to national security.
Interesting thread. They had something that was unknown. If you make a list of all possibilities, irrespective of the estimated probabilities, lots of stuff can end up on the list.

The word "interplanetary" is particularly revealing, and to me suggests a possibility of intelligence from Mars or Venus, which in 1952, I don't think had been ruled out yet. Eventually, it became apparent that if there was other life in our solar system, it was much more likely to be of the nature of the extremophiles found on Earth, meaning single-celled and not intelligent.

After that revelation, if the military was still considering the possibility that there are intelligently controlled craft not from Earth, I expect the terminology would be more appropriately stated as something like "interstellar" rather than "interplanetary".

I remember seeing another thread on ATS about some other military insights into the UFO phenomenon...I think it was a few years later than the OP story, and basically the gist was, the military didn't have a clue what the unexplained objects were, after they explained what the sightings they knew how to explain. They were pretty open-minded about the possibilities, privately at least, though as you suggest, they tried to downplay the threat publicly. I wish I could find that thread, but I'm not even quite sure what search terms to enter and I've tried to re-locate it without success. If anyone can post a link to that thread here, I think it would be appropriate, as I think the topics are related.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The word "interplanetary" is particularly revealing, and to me suggests a possibility of intelligence from Mars or Venus, which in 1952, I don't think had been ruled out yet. Eventually, it became apparent that if there was other life in our solar system, it was much more likely to be of the nature of the extremophiles found on Earth, meaning single-celled and not intelligent.


Quite right. The term at that point was typically "interplanetary", and I believe Mars and Venus were still on the table. There were even some correlations made (by whom I can't recall) between changes the proximity of Earth and Mars and the variations in the number of UFO reports.

I think Donald Keyhoe may have mentioned the possibility of Martian UFOs when he was interviewed by Mike Wallace. If you haven't seen this interview, it's definitely worth a gander if only for it's historical significance.



edit on 17-8-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
If anyone is interested in learning more about early official speculation regarding the possible extraterrestrial origin of some UFOs, I highly recommend reading Michael Swords' excellent historical work on Project Sign and the Estimate of the Situation.


ABSTRACT Upon becoming aware of the explosion of reports of anomalous aerial phe­nomena over the United States in the summer of 1947, the U.S. Air Force became alarmed and instituted emergency studies of the “flying disks.” Quickly this task was delegated to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base’s intelligence division, and in January 1948 became a formal project, Sign. Sign investigated the phenomenon for seven months and decided that it was best explained by the extraterrestrial (spacecraft) hypothesis (ETH). An Esti­mate was produced for the Pentagon giving reasons for this.

Elements of very high rank in the Pentagon would not accept this, and their refusal led to a major debate on the ETH, which resulted in the ultimate breakup of the Project Sign team and the destruction of all (with perhaps one exception) copies of the document.

This early confrontation set the tone for USAF behavior toward UFOs for the next two years and, after a brief respite in the era of Capt. Edward Ruppelt, until the complete cessation of the formal USAF project on the phenomenon in 1969.


And if you like that, you should read UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry by Michael Swords et al.


Read an excerpt here.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join