It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fascinating old documentary about UFOs

page: 1

log in

+6 more 
posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 10:28 AM
If, people have not seen this before then I suggest you watch it. If you are wearing headphones it is a bit of a pain as the audio is on one channel only, it plays back fine through a TV though. What does surprise me is that, it seems to have had the approval of the USAF etc and yet its' conclusions are probably not what you'd expect at all. It contains an analysis of a couple of classic films taken in the 50s and actually features interviews with the witnesses themselves.

I will leave further discussion of the content till after others have had a chance to view it as I have no wish to pre-empt people's thoughts on what is said. This I will say, there a couple of facts pertaining to the time length of the "Mantell incident" that , till I watched this documentary, i did not know.

I am also not sure where this film fits into the whole "propaganda" surrounding the subject and maybe, its' content is why it seems to be not even a footnote in the canon of Ufology. In some ways, it might well be the most important UFO documentary ever made. Anyway, I hope people enjoy it, as an "old lag" at this whole game I have to say, I learned a few things about a couple of incidents that genuinely surprised me. I have no idea if this has bene posted before, I did a couple of searches and nothing came up. Be that as it may, I believe this film deserves a thread of its' own.

edit on 15-11-2016 by FireMoon because: granny

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 10:37 AM
If you have faster than light spaceship it might as well have a time travel device built in so you can arrive at your destination instantaneously.

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:14 AM
I remember some of this stuff from my younger days...
There was an inference by Ruppelt( from his book , I believe,) that the wreck of the aircraft Mantell was flying was burned full of tiny holes....
Though it been decades, I still ponder the veracity of his inference...
Guys like Ruppelt, don't seem to come along so often these days...
edit on 15-11-2016 by Snippythehorse because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 11:53 AM
The "true" story, yeah right. They were quick to state that and the first incident, Kenneth Arnolds sighting.

People should be aware that the incident really began in Roswell and all the "flap" that followed, including the Utah films and the Washington "Flap", too, were what needed to be explained, explained away, more like.

Sorry, officials speaking through official channels and being framed by Hollywood...

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 12:57 PM
At any rate it's an hour and five minutes of entertainment at the very least, I'm game.
Good find FireMoon.

"credible observers of incredible things"

edit on 15-11-2016 by Plotus because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 02:32 PM
I watched this movie twice in the past few years and it is good for its age in a documentary type of way.

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 07:14 PM

originally posted by: intrptr

The "true" story, yeah right. They were quick to state that and the first incident, Kenneth Arnolds sighting.

People should be aware that the incident really began in Roswell and all the "flap" that followed, including the Utah films and the Washington "Flap", too, were what needed to be explained, explained away, more like.

Sorry, officials speaking through official channels and being framed by Hollywood...

Intrptr old bean, are you thinking that the sequence that started with Roswell was the result of the UFO people trying to recover their bodies and survivors from Roswell?

posted on Nov, 15 2016 @ 08:41 PM
I noticed that there are two version of the film one another 30 odd minutes longer than the one i posted originally. My apologies, this is the film I originally saw via my TV YouTube channel.

posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 01:07 AM
a reply to: FireMoon

Hola mate, great doco and there's more info below about the main character (Pentagon's All Chop) and how 'he slowly changed from UFO skeptic to UFO believer'.


edit on 16-11-2016 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:04 AM

originally posted by: Snippythehorse

originally posted by: intrptr

The "true" story, yeah right. They were quick to state that and the first incident, Kenneth Arnolds sighting.

People should be aware that the incident really began in Roswell and all the "flap" that followed, including the Utah films and the Washington "Flap", too, were what needed to be explained, explained away, more like.

Sorry, officials speaking through official channels and being framed by Hollywood...

Intrptr old bean, are you thinking that the sequence that started with Roswell was the result of the UFO people trying to recover their bodies and survivors from Roswell?

Just wondering, have you ever heard that from me before?

posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 03:18 PM
I think, in the light of this film that we have to seriously look at the "Captain Mantell Crash" again. Taken from the film itself..

January 7th 1948 14;00 approx Kentucky State police report to Fort Knox military that they have sighted an unusual aircraft or object, flying through the air, circular in appearance approximately 2-300 feet in diameter and moving Westward. Provo Marshall at Fort Knox called Godman Airbase.
13;50 object spotted south of the airfield from the Godman control tower some 35 minutes after the "object" was first reported.
A B29 and an A26 were both on photo missions in the area.
Object seen by the tower controller, lieutenant Cowan and Operations Officer through binoculars. Operations Officer puts in second call to the commanding officer Colonel Hicks. Hicks arrives during the phone call at approximately 14;20
Aprrox 14;30 flight of four F51s arrives over the field.
Hicks orders the F51s to be contracted to ascertain who the leader of the flight was. Captain Mantell
Mantell ordered to change course to 210 degrees and investigate the "unknown object".
lieutenant Hendricks requests to land and refuel and take on oxygen, permission granted.
Both wingmen refuelled and took off again this time carrying oxygen
14;45 Mantell calls the Tower "I see it, above and ahead of me, I'n still climbing"...
Moments later one of the wingmen calls in.. "What the hell are we looking for?"
Seconds later Mantell.."Mantell to tower, the object is directly ahead of me and above me, now moving at half my speed"
"Mantell to tower it appears to be a metallic object of tremendous size"
The object was also in view of all the tower personnel.
"Mantewll to tower, I'm trying to close in for a better look, I'll go to 20,000 feet"
Shortly after Hammond, one of Mantell's wingmen calls Mantell "Level off captain, till I regain visual contact"
Mantell is silent no reply
Moments later Hammond makes anther transmission. Manbtell seems to have disappeared and climbed beyond his wingman's view
15;25; the remaining wingman breaks off and returns to base
The object visible throughout the chase from the Tower, disappears from view at approximately 15;50. F51s first lost to view object disappears behind a cloud.
At 17;50 they are advised that; Mantell had crashed 5 miles south west of Franklyn Kentucky the crash had occurred at approximately 16;45 Mantell is killed in the crash
Tower controller's statement.. "It looked silver or metallic"
Intelligence officer's statement..."It appeared to be a bright silver object"
Executive Officer's statement..."It was circular in shape"
AACS statement...." A small white object in the sky"
Operation's Officer's statement..."It appeared round and white"
The Commanding Officer's statement..."It could be seen plainly with the naked eye"
Some present had no memory of Mantell informing the tower that he was "Moving in for a better look".

Firstly a few smaller points. it's generally accepted the chasing pilots were flying P51s the film says they were the later variant F51s.
The film says that, the wingman over the radio said. "What the hell are we chasing?". Now, this can be interpreted in two ways. it could be what the hell, why are we bothering it's not worth it?. Or it could be "What the hell are we chasing?; this is weird". It would seem that we will never know the answer to that particular question.

The huge and significant difference to the narrative you will find between nearly all accounts is the timeline. Legend has it that Mantell's watch was found in the wreckage having stopped at 15;18 hours the point of impact. This film completely contradicts that stating that, Mantell did not crash until 16;45.

Even if that is inaccurate and Mantell did crash at 15;18, then he had been silent over the radio for the best part of half an hour by then. So, if we accept the logical conclusion that, Mantell had passed out due to hypoxia at approximately 14;50, his plane continued to fly itself for another thirty minutes before hitting the ground nose first? If the film is correct about its' timing and given the input by the air force on this film why wouldn't it be? Mantell "vanished" for nearly 2 hours.

To my mind this simply does not compute. If the air force had wanted to put a lid on it why did they then pass the information to the film maker in this form? Why give the crash as occurring at 16;45 instead of 15;18 when, to do so, really does raise a whole load of very awkward questions? If we accept that, the crash did actually occur at 15;18, it still leaves almost 30 minutes between Mantell blacking out and crashing, which is weird in itself, let alone he went "missing" for nearly 2 hours.

Furthermore, the descriptions of the tower personnel in the film do not tally with what even the skeptics claim was seen. The Base commander is classically meant to have described the following and it is usually in quotes. "very white," and "about one fourth the size of the full moon ... Through binoculars it appeared to have a red border at the bottom. in the film his statement was supposedly. "It could be seen plainly with the naked eye". So, which is correct or are both correct and the maker of this film was not given the full statements?

Whatever the true facts might be, this film means that, we have to view the Mantell crash in a wholly different light. No matter how you view it Mantell was out of contract with the base for almost 30 mins before he crashed or, according to this film almost 2 hours. One thing I do know for sure, the narrative that I have seen in several places that, Mantell passed out, slumped over his controls and went into a nose dive almost immediately, does not fit any of the known time lines. One has to assume that Mantell, a vastly experienced pilot with over 2000 hours logged including combat missions, would never have ignored radio traffic directly aimed at him. One has to assume that, by shortly after 14;50 that day, he was unable to do so.

In other words, nearly 70 years after the incident occurred, we still are no nearer knowing exactly what happened and the correct timeline for those events we think we know about. In fact, according to the film's timeline, one of the wingmen did not break off his own search till 15;25 seven minutes after Mantell had supposedly according to most people crashed and yet, he saw no sign of the incident?

posted on Nov, 16 2016 @ 04:35 PM
Thanks for showing me this. I laughed at the bit when they were all stood around the scope and the camera went round each mans eyes, it certainly added to the suspense. The film certainly lends credence to the fact they exist. Such an innocent age and untainted minds.

edit on 16-11-2016 by chaztekno because: sp

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:14 PM
I've been reading up on hypoxia to see if that might give some clue as to timelines and the such like and it still tends to throw up more questions than answers.

I think we have to assume the following. That by 14;50 Mantell had already reached the point of hypoxia intoxication whereby, he could no longer perform basic tasks, hence his failure to reply to the control tower's radio messages. Given he was flying a F51 that had zero electronic management systems or auto pilot, by 14;50 he was no longer actually in control of his aircraft. He was in reality, sitting in 9000lbs+ of non flying metal which was only going one place, and that was down. In short, he should have crashed by 15;00 at the latest.

Maybe it was that, his radio quit on him, for whatever reason however that would have been a sudden catastrophic failure and surely an experienced pilot such as Mantell would have realised that. No radio, no oxygen, and at 20,000ft he would be lucky to stay conscious for 10 minutes let alone, fly an aircraft?. See to my mind that brings us back to Mantell, was already suffering pretty advanced hypoxia symptoms to believe he could go on. One is overcome with a sense of all is well and that, you are flying better than you ever have before. The reality is, you have already pretty much, lost control of your plane and are heading for one thing, a crash.

Planes such as the F51 and the Spitfire were feisty beasts, one wrong movement with the stick and you could find yourself in deep trouble, let alone being in effect, unable to function on even the most basic level. The moment he lost total control the plane really should have started its' descent, if that was at 14;50 then to crash nose down into the ground almost thirty minutes later, simply makes no sense.
edit on 17-11-2016 by FireMoon because: punctuation

posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 12:12 PM
If Mantell's bogey looked "very white" could possibly signify that the bogey was in it's high power bluish-white plasma phase.

posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 06:17 PM
Hmm, not my cup of tea.

I'd rather watch a good Timothy Good "you tube" video (pun intended) as opposed to an old video with very little.

Jut my 2 cents.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 06:30 PM
Completely and totally enjoyed this film.

People interested in disclosure and/or misdirection (mirage men etc) should pay attention to it.
I think this was the militaries first toe dip into trying it out on the public.

posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 08:51 PM
The doco mentions Life magazine putting out an article on UFOs during Al Chops time working the PID. It got the Airforce back in the game of investigating sightings and the eventual establishment of the silly blue book.

Life magazine also held and tampered supposedly with the JFK Zapruder film....

They were naughty methinks, somehow involved with filtering and controlling certain conspiracies on behalf of the govt....when the govt were actually involved and looped into the phenomena that is.

ANYHOO below linked is the original article


What are the flying saucers, the luminous fuselages, the foo fighters and the green fireballs? The answer – if any answer at this time is possible – lies in the field of logic rather than of evidence. What the things are may be adduced partially by reviewing what they are not.

THEY ARE NOT PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENA. Although the Air Force cheerily wrote off its 34 unexplained incidents with this pat theory, the explanation does not hold up. There is no evidence, beyond textbook speculation, for such a supposition, and there is the direct evidence already cited against it. To doubt the observers is to doubt the ability of every human being to know a hawk from a handsaw.

THEY ARE NOT THE PRODUCT OF U.S. RESEARCH. LIFE investigated this possibility to exhaustion. Not fully satisfied by the public denials of President Truman, Secretary Johnson and others, the investigators put the question directly to Gordon Dean, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. He said: "There's nothing in our shop that could account for these things, and there's nothing going on that I know of that could explain them". Still unconvinced, LIFE checked the whereabouts and present business of every scientist who might have anything to do with the development of superaircraft. All were accounted for in other ways. Careful feelers through the business and labor world encountered no submerged projects of the immensity necessary to build a fleet of flying disks. And there is still the conclusive fact: U.S. science has at its command no source of power that could put a flying machine through such paces as the saucers perform.

THEY ARE NOT A RUSSIAN DEVELOPMENT. It is inconceivable that the Russians would risk the loss of such a precious military weapon by flying a saucer over enemy territory. No man-made machine is foolproof; sooner or later one would crash in the U.S. and the secret would be out. Nor is there any reason to believe that Russian science, even with German help, has moved beyond not only the practical but the THEORETICAL horizons of U.S. research.

THEY ARE NOT DISTORTIONS OF THE ATMOSPHERE RESULTING FROM ATOMIC ACTIVITY. To quote the answer David Lilienthal, former AEC commissioner, once made to that suggestion: "I can't prevent anyone from saying foolish things". Nor are they aberrations of the northern lights. Magnetic disturbances cannot account for them and neither can a notion (recently fathered by Dr. Urner Liddel, the Navy physicist) that they are "vertical mirages" – reflections from a vertical (instead of a horizontal) layer of heated air.

THEY ARE NOT SKYHOOK BALLOONS. This was the original Liddel explanation, and in a few instances it may have been correct. But not many. They could scarcely be "fireflies in the cockpit," as one Air Force colonel suggested, since most of the observers were not in a cockpit when they saw their saucers. And it is hard to believe that saucers could be the reflections of automobile headlights on clouds, when they are seen in daylight under cloudless skies. These being the dead-end alleys of negative evidence, is there hope of an explanation on the open avenues of scientific theory? The answer is yes.
edit on 19-11-2016 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:13 PM
a reply to: FireMoon

Eh up firemoon, Ha! Not seen that archived documentary

Enjoyed that blast from the past with old al chop, aye does make one wonder is this whole TDL affair just a modern day spin on there stance "look we have nothing to hide and you know just as much as we know we've had our top men on this and the reports show nothing of significant defence threats to our security and if we find any more info we'll let you know" BLAH blah.
I reckon a lot of damadge has been done with the e mail leaks and the upcoming direction that trump may take on uap's. Doubt he gives it any time " all bunkum " I can hear him now...... so the saga continues. so slow though.

And ya know TDL's pa's will be all over the relevant ATS threads authored by yourself and the other elite posters in this field digging for info to add to his own theory's. Plagiarism I think the word is.

Nice one though.
edit on 22/11/2016 by stealthyaroura because: (no reason given)


log in