Project Identification: Ufology's Red-Headed Stepchild

reply to post by The GUT
If red, orange or white balls of fire was the lingo for balls of plasma at the time (WW2) then they may have been one and the same. There is even a report of a B29 hitting one of them:

It was even reported that the gunner on a B-29 aircraft actually hit one with gunfire, and far from shrugging off the assault, it broke up into a number of large pieces which fell on buildings below, setting fire to them.

Foo-Fighters: Mystery Files

reply to post by littled16


Hey now!
That sounds like a direct hit for the plasma theory!
Thanks for that!

It just seems to me that a ball of plasma (only plasma) shouldn't be able to fly, right?

It's like freakin' magic.

reply to post by JayinAR
Hope it helps you with your theory Jay. I don't think enough attention is paid to the old Foo Fighter stories, or how they might relate to the more modern "balls of plasma" stories of the decades since, or the fact that most of them have been described as seeming to be under some sort of intelligent control.

Hi All,

Great post. I stumbled upon the existence of Project Identification some time last year. It took me a while to get a copy. Since then, I've been sporadically trawling the web, and elsewhere, for related information. That's what brought me here. To save any of you good folk having to duplicate that effort, you can find additional information in these three posts (link to a Reddit dedicated to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). I hope you will find it of interest (one of the links is to the first chapter of the book).

On the plasma theory, here's a link to a plasma-centric explanation of the unidentified aerial phenomena reported in Hessdalen, Norway.

Hope some of that positively contributes to your discussion.

Originally posted by lupinthewhite
Hi All,

Great post. I stumbled upon the existence of Project Identification some time last year. It took me a while to get a copy. Since then, I've been sporadically trawling the web, and elsewhere, for related information. That's what brought me here. To save any of you good folk having to duplicate that effort, you can find additional information in these three posts (link to a Reddit dedicated to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). I hope you will find it of interest (one of the links is to the first chapter of the book).

On the plasma theory, here's a link to a plasma-centric explanation of the unidentified aerial phenomena reported in Hessdalen, Norway.

Hope some of that positively contributes to your discussion.

Thanks for the links, lupinthewhite, they are definitely helpful. Here's a quote from a mod by the name of "dute" that I found interesting:

I asked Charles Holt and Nick Pope if they had read this book. Neither recalled having heard of it.

In their debate, John Alexander and Richard Dolan were asked about it by a caller and neither of them recalled it in detail - Dolan of course had read it, but only remembered that their investigation had been "pretty good".

So thanks again tools. I think this is a phenomenal resource, and I'm glad to see it percolating through Reddit.

www.reddit.com...

Other great quotes by various members there--some from those who have read the book. :uP:

Still checking links…back with more.

Yep, littled16, we're gonna have to deal with plasma one way or another in this mystery. Even one of the most reported phenomena in history makes its appearance, the Fiery Globe:

…Some "Foo Fighter" reports from the Pacific theatre of war were somewhat different in nature to the mainstream reports in as much as one was described as "resembling a large burning sphere which, although it followed some aircraft, mostly "just hung in the sky".
gaizy.hubpages.com...

reply to post by The GUT
As I recall through my reading over the years there were a variety of these "balls". Some "bobbed and weaved" around the fighter planes almost "toying" with them and in some cases the planes flew THROUGH the balls, and of course the report of the one that a plane hit one that broke apart and fell to earth catching things on fire. I find it interesting that while the balls are very similar in appearance they may be structurally different.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by RothchildRancor

 

Hey man! Nice to see ya!
I've been wondering about your screen name. Is that a spin off of the Carter Puterschmidt Rancor? (Sorry, had to ask)

I would tend to disagree, but only for ONE reason. There IS evidence suggesting "out of this world" influence.

LOTS AND LOTS of it, actually.

We have speculative evidence, only that.

-CIA and Air force Intelligence documents and statements of Classified information about extra-terrestrial encounters

-Civilian accounts

-Video and photos of lights and craft in the sky that defy known air and space craft physics

and many others that point to extra-terrestrial influence but is not definitive.
Nothing that you can air on the news and the world will unite in the belief that "they" are here!

Personally, if you ask me we have more than enough evidence to prove they are here, but as far as a survey says kind of thing or a common acceptance clause of whether or not it can be accepted as without a doubt fact,
we do not know for sure!

Like I said, I believe they are swirling about our planet, but we are talking definitive proof like a close up video of aliens moving out and about or touching down on the white house lawn.

I saw a ufo when I was a kid and wish I could ask an alien about that type of craft and it's pilot(s) and crew for answers behind the phenomenon.

reply to post by The GUT

GUT,

Great thread, many thanks for the links and all the hard work.

I’ve been studying Rutledge’s book on and off for about two years. I’d place him at number two as a science-based UFO researcher, behind the great Jim McDonald but slightly ahead of Allen Hynek.

He was the first to show that scientists can go into the field and observe UFOs under controlled conditions just as astronomers can observe celestial objects. That undermines the sceptibunkers’ position, that’s why they never mention Rutledge.

But Greg Little’s piece on Rutledge’s work is very misleading.

Rutledge believed his study was evidence of advanced ET technology visiting this planet, what he called ‘the UFO intelligence’ not behaving as humans would and sometimes engaged in mimicry. See Rutledge, page 252.

Rutledge’s study therefore strongly supports McDonald’s ET probe theory. If Ed Condon had not committed his foul deeds, both McDonald and Rutledge would now be regarded as heroes of twentieth century science.

Originally posted by Lowneck
reply to post by The GUT

 

GUT,

Great thread, many thanks for the links and all the hard work.

I’ve been studying Rutledge’s book on and off for about two years. I’d place him at number two as a science-based UFO researcher, behind the great Jim McDonald but slightly ahead of Allen Hynek.

He was the first to show that scientists can go into the field and observe UFOs under controlled conditions just as astronomers can observe celestial objects. That undermines the sceptibunkers’ position, that’s why they never mention Rutledge.

But Greg Little’s piece on Rutledge’s work is very misleading.

Rutledge believed his study was evidence of advanced ET technology visiting this planet, what he called ‘the UFO intelligence’ not behaving as humans would and sometimes engaged in mimicry. See Rutledge, page 252.

Rutledge’s study therefore strongly supports McDonald’s ET probe theory. If Ed Condon had not committed his foul deeds, both McDonald and Rutledge would now be regarded as heroes of twentieth century science.

Lowneck, we need you! Interesting that you rate from McDonald thru Rutledge thru Hynek. Not to mention that Rutledge has been somewhat misjudged on what he was trying to convey. I got that impression as well.

However--and maybe in spite off--I continue to have a real fascination for the evidence that suggests EM plasmas as worthy of attention. That certainly doesn't negate ET, but does give us some areas that can be--hopefully--scientifically measured and somewhat "debriefed."

Thank you, brother, I look forward to interactions with you here and on other threads.

Originally posted by lupinthewhite
Hi All,

Great post. I stumbled upon the existence of Project Identification some time last year. It took me a while to get a copy. Since then, I've been sporadically trawling the web, and elsewhere, for related information. That's what brought me here. To save any of you good folk having to duplicate that effort, you can find additional information in these three posts (link to a Reddit dedicated to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). I hope you will find it of interest (one of the links is to the first chapter of the book).

On the plasma theory, here's a link to a plasma-centric explanation of the unidentified aerial phenomena reported in Hessdalen, Norway.

Hope some of that positively contributes to your discussion.

The links you have provided are certainly very interesting and does much to help put Project Identification in somewhat of a focus;. The following link you have provided does give an explanation of sorts for a phenomena that gets brought up here quite often without much credible discussion: Sky Flashes.

www.scribd.com...

I'll be digging into--and quoting--lupinthewhite's links a little later.

Originally posted by Lowneck reply to post by The GUT GUT, ... Rutledge’s study...strongly supports McDonald’s ET probe theory. If Ed Condon had not committed his foul deeds, both McDonald and Rutledge would now be regarded as heroes of twentieth century science.

Couldn't agree more. Oh, and, The Gut: glad to help.

From lupinthewhite's first link, contributor timmy242's information not only adds to the discussion, but provides detail that corrects an earlier statement of mine as regards Hynek's leanings at the time of Project Identification.

Contrary to my statement, it seems that Hynek hadn't yet incorporated the "dimensional" aspect into his overview of possibilities. Which might better explain why Hynek showed little interest in the Piedmont flap.

I do have it! I haven't finished reading but so far it does present some interesting information. Much like Hessdalen, There is an interesting anecdote about Dr. Hynek coming to observe the research over the course of a couple days and him not being very impressed. This at a time when he had already distanced himself from the Michigan "swamp gas" sighting and had fully embraced the reality of these phenomena. Was he being overly proprietary with another scientist studying "his" subject? Who knows, but it does make for some interesting speculation. I'll post a review in time, but my wife is shortly expecting and my time is precious.

www.reddit.com...

reply to post by littled16
A YOUTUBE video shows apparent ufo's during a tornado. I know, stuff flying is common during a tornado, but, objects appear to maintain formation in this video. What if they're causing it?- www.youtube.com...

reply to post by goingrepublican
I'm not sure exactly what those are, and I'm not really any good with analyzing video. I think there's a good chance they are something else that maybe are showing up on the video as unidentifiable as I've seen many photos and videos with similar objects that turned out to be something else entirely upon analysis, but it would be cool if they weren't. Hopefully someone will come along with a little expertise with video footage to give us a more professional opinion. Thanks for the link goingrepublican!

ETA: I've never really considered that UFOs might be able to affect the weather as more than a passing thought. Maybe it's a good idea to give it some more thought.

Originally posted by goingrepublican
reply to post by littled16

 

A YOUTUBE video shows apparent ufo's during a tornado. I know, stuff flying is common during a tornado, but, objects appear to maintain formation in this video. What if they're causing it?- www.youtube.com...

Yeah, I have to agree with littled16, that is very interesting footage, but it's hard to make out context especially in the way it's edited. UFOS, spotter planes? It's hard to tell.

Believe me though: I'm all about some spheres that behave intelligently. Just can't tell much in this case.

Thanks for sharing, though, and I do look forward to your future contribution on these boards.

reply to post by The GUT


It almost like the craft alive, like the way it moves reflects it mood. It could dance around and around as if it were just being silly or happy.Others, like when the disc is in view, it almost like "I see you". Make you wonder if they could plug their minds into the craft, and literally become it in some case. Behavior wise anyways. Just wondering if it requires a spike like the Matrix. Thats probably why they look so supernatural, as well as what kind of video game joystick would you need to fly one can almost go in any direction it wants.

Ether that, or the orbs are super beings, and their from a Saturday morning cartoon.

Originally posted by The GUT

More on Project Identification including some fascinating news reports from the time can be found here:

Project Identification

Really great thread Gutster and that's a corker of a link you've gone and posted there.

Couldn't find the full book online but Chapter 1 dealing with the Piedmont sightings is available on Slideshare -Chapter 2 dealing with the observations during initial field investigations is also linked below.


Project Identification: The First Scientific Field Study of UFO Phenomena

Project Identification Ch2


Walt Andrus also gives his personal evaluation on the Piedmont sightings on page 3 of this journal and it really does look to be a very intriguing UFO flap that I'd never really looked into before so many thanks for posting this thread!

Originally posted by The GUT

I think many of us share the same thought basic thoughts about the enigma. That being that there are three very possible explanations though we will vary in how we personally rank them:

1.) The phenomena stems from some deep subconscious mechanisms Possibly for complex societal reasons.

2.) We are indeed being visited by intelligent beings from deep space.

3.) Some variation of the extra-inter-ultra dimensional concept.

My ordering these last few years is 3, 2, 1.

3, 2, 1 for me as well mate (although let's not forget the CTH ) -Professor Swords has also posted some good stuff about UFO balls of light (or BOLs as he calls them) at the Big Study and his most recent one is the most relevant as it also discusses the various hypotheses:


I've Seen THE[?] LIGHT[s]?


Also can't help thinking of these two cases when it comes to the subject of intelligently controlled 'light UFOs' and maybe the object from 1956 actually is alive and frollicking about in the sky.

1, 2

Cheers.

reply to post by karl 12

Hey thanks, karl 12, and thanks for the excellent links too!

Might just have to order Spiritual Encounters with Unusual Light Phenomena: Lightforms by Mark Fox

What really fascinates me about the sort of reports in the book above, is the recurring consistency encountered in many such instances; colors, pulsation, etc.

Really enjoyed the threads too. Truly exceptional cases and well put-together accounts:

Military Aircraft pursue UFO over Palmar Dam

UFO Skeptic Pilot Witnesses UFO Near Aircraft

And speaking of Flaps; What was the last major flap? Wouldn't it be exciting to live in an area where it was happening? My neck would be sore every morning!