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.


Highly Dubious USAF UFO Explanations.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2020 @ 12:21 PM
a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Some good advice there mate and more wise words here from Keith Basterfield about recording UFO research for posterity and the preservation of archived material.

Also another possible candidate below from France, 1956 (sourced by Easynow).

UFO Sighted by Pilots and Tracked On Ground Radar - February 18, 1956 - Paris, France

Feb. 18, 1956; Paris, France

Large UFO tracked on radar at Orly Airport, observed by airline pilot as red light source. (UFOE, V). Three observers in same aircraft, enroute from Marseille, France to Montelimar, France:

1/Lt Stanford G. Hahn, 1/Lt Robeson S. Moise, A/1c Allen L. Starkey

In the night from February 17 to 18, 1956, at 10:50 P.M., an echo corresponding to an object of a size twice higher than that of the largest planes then in service appeared on the radar of the international civilian airport of Orly, close to Paris. No plane was supposed to be there at this time. The radar technicians initially restricted themselves to following the manoeuvers of the object, manoeuvers which were completely different from all that they had been able to observe up to now.

Its speeds varied from total immobility to a speed of 1500 miles per hour.


PARIS. -- "It was certainly not a weather balloon", declared to the press Mr. Michel Desavoye, the Air France pilot who, alerted by the control tower of Orly, last Saturday, saw in the Parisian sky a red twinkling light whose origin remains mysterious.

36 years old, Mr. Desavoye has navigated on all the air lines of the world for five years as pilot of Air France. Here his account:

"I had taken off from Orly at 11:55 p.m. on board a DC-3 freight transport bound for London. I have been in charge of this daily service, outward and return, for one month. A few minutes after takeoff, the control tower of Orly reported to me an unidentified apparatus detected by radar moving towards Le Bourget, and who was to be on my flightpath. Mr. Baupetuy, my radio operator, and myself, then saw a little on our right and appreciably at the same height than us a red flashing light. We were at approximately 1.500 meters at the height of Orgival. Wanting to avoid the obstacle, I changed course.

"There, the light then disappeared suddenly. I resumed my flightpath. The radar reported to me that the "apparatus" was now above me. But this time I did not see anything."

"I am unable to give you an explanation of this phenomenon, adds Mr. Desavoye, but I never saw anything similar. All that I can affirm to you, is that it was in no case a plane, for we would have seen its position lights. The night was very black and I could not see from where this light came, which appeared in any event twice larger than position lights normally are."


Bluebook debunk:


Object Tracked on Radar - Multiple Witnesses

Blue Book File Card says it was probably Venus

Report Card

NICAP link


edit on 18-12-2020 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2020 @ 02:12 PM

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: M5xaz

'a very strange egg-shaped object 'with no wings, tail, or fuselage'

Well reality is sometimes stranger than fiction mate (even if it is Mork from Ork).

Hope you watch this and you may be surprised just how many very similar reports there actually were during that very short timeframe (I know I was).


I have seen the gun camera videos of the US Navy of the TicTac/egg-shaped UFO .

Quite aware that it is quite real.

Just wanted to add some levity.

OP - Thank you for your work !

edit on 18-12-2020 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2020 @ 02:35 PM
Yo Karl...

I've searched for a Popular Mechanics story I read about in the 60's, back in my youth...and I can't seem to find it on the Internet --- It's about an instance about a USAF pilot that was chased and followed by a "10 foot tall bipedal alien," across the sand dunes at White Sands, New Mexico. He hid behind a sand dune...while the alien bypassed him.

They had an artist's illustration of the "alien," that looked like to me that the creature was wearing a large helmet --- Somewhat similar in shape of the purported helmeted alien that I took a picture of --- back in 1972.

I would greatly appreciate if you could research this White Sands close encounter of the third kind.

P.s. --- I'm back with the UFO Casebook forum...and I hope to see you back there again --- In case ATS folds.

Thanks for everything...

posted on Dec, 18 2020 @ 02:40 PM
a reply to: Erno86

My grandfather had a collection of Popular Mechanics that ran back to the 40s. Unfortunately a tropical climate is not good for the preservation of such items. About 15 years ago we gave up and tossed them all.

Over very many summer vacations spent at his house in Kona (up until 1970), I read all of them I think. I don't recall reading that (sounds more like something from Argosy) but to this day I remember what the acronym LASER means.

edit on 12/18/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2020 @ 03:22 PM

originally posted by: M5xaz

I have seen the gun camera videos of the US Navy of the TicTac/egg-shaped UFO .

No worries M5xaz and there's most probably a whole archived collection of gun camera UFO film somewhere - certainly plenty of accounts involving missing gun camera footage anyway.

Military aircraft gun cameras have filmed thousands of UFOs, according to pilot reports; however, not one frame of gun camera film has ever been released..

Missing Gun Camera UFO Footage?

Really does make a person wonder what else might be stashed away in classified government UFO archives and below is a relevant quote from John F. Schuessler concerning satellite tracking capability.

"There is no doubt in my mind that today if not many times over the past fifty years we have had the surveillance capabilities to completely monitor the activities of certain UFO flights –and know exactly when they’re going, where they’re going, how they’re going, where they appear form and leave to, all the characteristics about them – we have radar based devices that will not only show the distance, direction and azimuth of an object and all that but will also how shape. We have devices the army has developed for tracking projectiles – they check the acoustic wave and when something crosses over they can immediately track that data and go back to the source. That’s how they track where a mortar is or a howitzer. We can use that same technology – and its portable – for tracking UFOs.

I don’t believe any of these things fly over our country today without being known and if somebody wanted the UFO mystery to completely disappear they could in five minutes release enough data to show exactly what’s going on and is not going on."

An Interview with John F. Schuessler, Executive Director of MUFON (Mutual UFO Network)

Researcher Paul Dean also makes some really interesting comments in this interview about extremely impressive satellite tracking capabilities even back in the 1970s so when it comes to UFOs there's probably lots (and lots) of information that we're all completely unaware of.

Talking of Paul Dean he did a really good job of exposing NORAD's contradictory claims that they have 'no present activity in investigating UFOs' or that 'no formal documentation' is created by them so hats off to him.

NORAD And The UFO Smokescreen'


posted on Dec, 19 2020 @ 07:06 AM
Tim Printy invites folks who might be open to seeing documentation supporting a contrary view to visit here:

My take on project Blue Book can best be found on Page 14 of SUNlite 9-6

Additionally, since SUNlite 4-5, I have been examining the Blue Book Unknowns and have offered potential explanations for all of those cases. I only had to change one back to unidentified when somebody presented evidence that my conclusions were wrong because the BB file did not have an accurate position for the aircraft.

Lastly, I have now reviewed the Blue Book files for the years 1953-1961 and have published the results starting in SUNlite 10-1. I have reclassified cases that I thought were BB mistakes. It varies from year to year but the reclassification rate runs somewhere around 20% (+/-5%). Many of the reclassifications were originally classified as "Insufficient data".

Contrary to the general statements about Blue Book made by various UFO proponents/historians, I have actually looked at the files (which can be very tedious, which is why nobody seems to be trying this) and found many of the claims about Blue Book overexaggerated.

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 01:28 PM
I'm still perplexed an mystified about why the Close Encounter of the Third Kind between the purported 10 foot tall alien and the USAF soldier, that occurred one night on the sand dunes at the White Sands Missile Range, had not been studied by the likes of J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallee.

Did the USAF do a quick coverup on the event, or did Hynek or Vallee had not been aware of what happened that night the close encounter reportedly happened?

posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 02:21 PM
a reply to: JimOberg

Is that a word? Isn't "exaggerated" sufficient?
edit on 12/20/2020 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 07:31 AM
Thanks for all the interesting links, Karl!

Some BB conclusions are very remarkable indeed. I studied the 1965 Edwards Air Force Base incident, both the Blue Book file (better readable transcript here) and a transcript of the tapes.

The BB conclusion were:
* `Astro (stars, planets) and balloon’ for the visual observations.
* `Other(Returns due to atmospheric conditions)’ for the radar observations.

According to the BB report, just one confirmed balloon was in the area and it was released at 1200Z, while the incidents started 3,5 hrs earlier at 0833Z.
The BB report states the earlier objects observed behaved somewhat similar to this late and only balloon, except the balloon did not carry a green light and showed more lateral movement (instead of vertical). How, then, could these earlier objects be stars or planets..?

It was said by those who saw the earlier activity to be representative of what they had seen. There were two exceptions in that it flashed only white/red, showing no green, and that it displayed more lateral movement. Generally, however, it behaved as the others had. This object turned out to be the 1200Z (0500 PDT) weather balloon released from Edwards. Although this was the only balloon release during the period under study. I think it may be significant that these objects behaved somewhat like balloons.

The conclusion that these objects `behaved somewhat like balloons’ should already falsify the claim that they were stars or planets.

The `stars and planets’ claim is definitely falsified by the tape transcripts, from which we get a better impression of the reported movements by the objects that were observed during the 3,5 hrs prior to the balloon arrival:

“I have another red light and, uh, green light combination in sight moving very rapidly over the field at this time.”
“They watched 'em for 30 minutes and they didn't move at all and then all of a sudden, boom.”
“the red light has stopped and they all appear to be gaining altitude rapidly.”
“they were swiftly moving and seemed to be in the area for some time and then just quickly moved straight up.”
“And then it turned a little bit more westerly and gained a tremendous amount of altitude.”

When a scrambled jet is doing its intercept:

“They are converging. He seems to be maybe just a little bit south of it. A left turn, left turn. Low left turn. He's low and left. That thing is rising.”
“Search high. Search high. Search high.”
“Search very high. That thing is rising.”
“It's rising rapidly.”
“It looks like it's right above him from the tower now.”
“It, it looks almost directly above him and rising.”

Maybe the Earth’s rotation sped up that night..?

posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 09:28 AM
a reply to: Erno86

Yo mate, never heard of that one but looks like White Sands has certainly had it's fair share of UFO activity over the years - below is an interesting quote from Ruppelt taken from an article about the late Terry Hansen's (great) book 'The Missing Times'.

By the late 1940s, UFOs were a major news story and a public-relations hot potato for government authorities. Following a massive wave of UFO activity in 1952, the CIA decided it was time to suppress public interest in the subject via a covert, mass-media program of "training and debunking." The Missing Times provides solid evidence that this program was carried out, often with the silent cooperation of national news organizations. It is likely still being carried out today.

"UFOs were seen more frequently around areas vital to the defense of the United States. The Los Alamos-Albuquerque area, Oak Ridge, and White Sands Proving Ground rated high. Port areas, Strategic Air Command bases, and industrial areas ranked next."

Edward J. Ruppelt, Head of Project Blue Book (1956)


Don't know if you're familiar with his work but there's a good presentation by Hansen below dealing with UFOs, CIA deception strategies, precision propaganda and the cultivation of 'pseudo environments'.

Corporate media collusion also gets brought up and when it comes to CIA propaganda assets and anti UFO reporting bias then there's some interesting info about how major news outlets like CBS, NYT etc. helped to support BS UFO explanations like Michigan's swamp gas case and organize anti UFO documentaries.

Also, when it comes to the Condon study, looks like not only was it being stage managed by the CIA but WW2 deception wizard Dr R V Jones also played an important behind the scenes role in planning.

Also some interesting comments here about your organisation Jim.

I earlier mentioned journalist Terry Hansen’s excellent book, The Missing Times: News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-up, which I highly recommend to anyone wishing to better understand how the type of information contained in my own book could have been successfully kept from the American people—scientists and laypersons alike—for so long.

Regarding CSICOP [now CSI], Hansen examines the possibility that the skeptical organization was infiltrated early on by a small but determined group of U.S. government-affiliated operatives, whose true motives have far more to do with disinformation than skepticism. He writes, “[The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] is an organization of people who oppose what they contend is pseudo-science...CSICOP, contrary to its impressive-sounding title, does not sponsor scientific research. On the contrary, it’s main function has been to oppose scientific research, especially in areas such as psychic phenomena and UFOs, two topics that, coincidentally or not, have been of demonstrated interest to the U.S. intelligence community over the decades. Instead, CSICOP devotes nearly all of its resources to influencing the American public via the mass media.”

Hansen continues, “CSICOP can accurately be described as a propaganda organization because it does not take anything approaching an objective position regarding UFOs. The organization’s stance is militantly anti-UFO research and it works hard to see that the news media broadcast its views whenever possible. When the subject of UFOs surfaces, either in the news media or any other public forum, CSICOP members turn out rapidly to add their own spin to whatever is being said. Through its “Council for Media Integrity” CSICOP maintains close ties with the editorial staffs of such influential science publications as Scientific American, Nature, and New Scientist. Consequently, it’s not too hard to understand why balanced UFO articles seldom appear in those [magazines].

Full Article

The 'Council for Media Integrity' - who named that one?
edit on 21-12-2020 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 10:52 AM

originally posted by: JimOberg

Many of the reclassifications were originally classified as "Insufficient data".

Didn't the Battelle scientists keep the insufficient data evaluations in a completely separate category Jim?

In summary, the UNKNOWNS were 21.5% of the 3201 cases which were evaluated.(not 3%) They were completely separate and distinct from the 9.3% listed as Insufficient Information, despite the lie told by Quarles


Also, I really don't know what scientific training you possess but (at least back then) it looks like all the scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute arrived at a very different conclusion.

In late 1952, Project Blue Book director, Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, ordered a study of all the cases in the files for 1947-1952, under a contract with the Battelle Memorial Institute. The data were supplied by the Air Force, while the conclusions were those of the Battelle scientists. The Air Force issued the final report as "Project Blue Book Special Report No. 14." It was released in 1955, accompanied by an Air Force news release. Although the Air Force stated their own conclusion that there was nothing to warrant interest or concern, this was contrary to the conclusions of the Battelle study. The Battelle scientists had stated that of almost 2,000 reports that were deemed to have sufficient information to permit analysis, 22.8% were judged to be "unexplained," and another 31.3% were judged to be "doubtfully" explained. In total, therefore, 54% of the sightings were said to lack convincing explanations.


Considering you used to work there guarding UFO documents what's your opinion on the Bluebook explanation for the object over Kirtland Air Force base's runway Jim?

"We will never know whether UFO reports represent genuinely new empirical observations if we continue the type of logical fallacy illustrated by the Air Force analysis of a radar-visual UFO report from Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1957"

Dr J. Allen Hynek

Here's what Dr James E. McDonald had to say about the evaluation - I suppose his training as an atmospherical physicist does count for something.

"Immediately upon reading it, I became quite curious about it; more candidly, I became quite suspicious about it. For, as you will note on reading it for yourself, it purports to explain an incident in terms of an hypothesis with some glaringly improbable assumptions, and makes a key assertion that is hard to regard as factual"

PDF File

Also, some similar type object descriptions around the same time causing EM effects on motor vehicles in Levelland (no overexageration) - are you buying the electrical storm debunk or do you disagree with the government's own evaluation?

In fact, are you buying all the debunks listed on the previous page?

edit on 21-12-2020 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 10:56 AM
I posted a message from Tim Printy, take it up with him.

posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 10:59 AM
a reply to: karl 12

If you care to use Dr James E. McDonald as your 'gold standard', did you note that his work thoroughly demolished Gordon Cooper's tale of a 'UFO landing' at Edwards AFB in May 1957? How can both their opposite claims be true?

posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 11:05 AM
a reply to: JimOberg

I'll concede, if you will, that McDonald could indeed by spectacularly wrong, once and awhile, as on p. 17 of

where he totally overlooked the prosaic causes of the greatest Soviet 'UFO flap' in history in 1967, and naively became a supporter of a Moscow coverup of a major military treaty violation.

See also p. 113 where Hynek, Haines, and Vallee [and NICAP] declared the Soviet reports were true UFOs....

It happens to the best of us, right?
edit on 21-12-2020 by JimOberg because: add culprits...

posted on Dec, 21 2020 @ 04:00 PM

originally posted by: Guest101

Some BB conclusions are very remarkable indeed.

Good to see you mate and yes that certainly is one way of putting it.

originally posted by: Guest101

“I have another red light and, uh, green light combination in sight moving very rapidly over the field at this time.”

“They watched 'em for 30 minutes and they didn't move at all and then all of a sudden, boom.”

“the red light has stopped and they all appear to be gaining altitude rapidly.”

“they were swiftly moving and seemed to be in the area for some time and then just quickly moved straight up.”

“And then it turned a little bit more westerly and gained a tremendous amount of altitude.”

Great breakdown and thanks for the links, would dearly love to see the gun camera footage and don't think this case would have been classified for 30 years for no good reason - there's also plenty of data still being officially withheld by the U.S. Government.

Apparently the case was so infamous that, in USAF circles, it was simply referred to as 'The Incident' and although the links are now gone did manage to save a copy of Captain Clark's letter where he states the UFO 'appeared to move right out into space'.

originally posted by: Guest101

Maybe the Earth’s rotation sped up that night..?

I actually wouldn't put it past them to use that one.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 01:30 PM
a reply to: JimOberg

Pretty evasive stuff there Jim - have lost count of how many times I've asked you about specific UFO cases over the years.. only for you to try and change the subject.

Well one more time here goes.

What's your opinion on the Bluebook explanation for the object over Kirtland Air Force base?

Are you buying the USAF's 'electrical storm' debunk for Levelland around the same time?

Are you buying all the debunks listed on the previous page?

originally posted by: JimOberg

If you care to use Dr James E. McDonald as your 'gold standard'

I'm using plenty of scientists and the government's own documentation Jim - what are you using?

The story, which is unmasked by the governments’ own documents, explains much that is new, or at least not commonly known, about the seriousness with which the military and intelligence communities approached the UFO problem internally.

UFOs And Government

I'm also using the government's own figures - what are your thoughts on the Secretary of the Air Force lying to (and the USAF attempting to mislead) the American public?

This was a good report, but the Air Force deliberately tried to mislead the public. The report actually showed that 21.5% of the sightings were unknowns.

Bluebook Lies / Vid

Certain factors really don't seem to support the 'small residue' assumption but despite all the BS explanations which are never addressed, the missing hot reports which are never discussed and the official unexplained report percentages which are wilfully ignored it might be a moot point anyway.

Bluebook Chief Colonel Robert Friend once said that during his tenure there were 'classified intelligence channels for reporting UFO's that completely bypassed Bluebook' and government documents also exist which state that 'UFO reports that were a threat to national security weren't even part of the Bluebook system' (link).

Another important aspect of the cover-up is the October 20, 1969, statement by USAF Brigadier General Carroll Bolender, while reviewing Project Blue Book, with which he had no previous connection: “Moreover reports of UFOs which could effect national security are made in accordance with JANAP 146 and Air Force Manual 55-11 and are not part of the Blue Book System.” Two paragraphs later he noted “However, as already stated, reports of UFOs which could affect national security would continue to be handled through the standard Air Force procedures designed for this purpose.” I spoke with Bolender and it was clear that he understood the distinction between civilian reports and ones which could effect national security. Clearly the sightings of most interest are the ones that could effect national security. Blue Book wasn’t even on the distribution list for sightings reported under JANAP 146 or AF Manual 55-11. I well remember the frustration expressed by Blue Book Scientific consultant Dr. J. Allen Hynek when I told him about the Bolender memo at a West Coast MUFON Symposium in 1979. He felt very used.

But if they weren’t part of Project Blue Book, where were the important cases documented? Why haven’t we been told about them? Why does the USAF always respond to queries about UFOs by referring to Blue Book and the fact that it was announced as being closed in December, 1969?


posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 02:12 PM
a reply to: karl 12

Going back to the "10 foot tall alien," purportedly chasing that USAF guy in the light of the full moon, across the sand dunes at White Sands Test Range, New Mexico:

Whether true or just a hoax cooked-up by some CIA spook over at Langley, Virginia ---- That was the most scariest story, along with the artist's illustrated rendition of the alien that I have ever read. This alien or robot...was covered almost completely (save for the legs and feet) by --- what looked like --- an inverted U-shape suit of armor, with mean bad-ass looking eyes, nose and mouth to boot --- That was chasing this USAF guy down...who reportedly escaped his wrath, by hiding behind a sand dune, while the alien passed closely by in the light of the full moon.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 07:01 PM
a reply to: karl 12

I'm perfectly comfortable acknowledging there are 'unexplained ' cases. Exactly what that proves, I'm less certain.

With so many classic 'unexplained' cases, why do you hassle me on my proposed explanations of SOME cases? You have so many 'good' others, what would it hurt to acknowledge a few really were 'IFOs'?

Like ALL the astronauts-in-space stories, every one. Like worldwide missile launches and satellite reentries [like the Oct 24 Hawaii 'mother ship' freak-out]. Like Jimmy Carter's 'UFO'? How would it hurt the case for some extraordinary causes, to concede these WERE explainable?

posted on Dec, 23 2020 @ 01:56 PM
And to anyone to what the artist's illustration of the "10 foot tall alien's" two eye sockets were shaped like --- Spherical, very large and menacing looking. pics
edit on 23-12-2020 by Erno86 because: added a word

edit on 23-12-2020 by Erno86 because: spelling

posted on Dec, 24 2020 @ 12:09 PM

originally posted by: Erno86

Going back to the "10 foot tall alien," purportedly chasing that USAF guy in the light of the full moon, across the sand dunes at White Sands Test Range, New Mexico

Well had a look and couldn't find much mate - did come up with the Daniel Fry case and the Lovette-Cunningham incident but the credibility factor is pretty much non existent on either one.

originally posted by: Erno86

Whether true or just a hoax cooked-up by some CIA spook over at Langley, Virginia..

Could well be the case and am sure counter-intel isn't above inserting a few crazy sounding tales to detract from the more serious UFO incidents (I know that's what I'd do).

Funny you should bring up the CIA though as they do seem to pop up in the background of some of the more infamous UFO studies (and debunkers).

Looks like the scientists were just 'following their lead' in the much touted impartial and objective Robertson Panel..

The Robertson Panel, as it came to be known,, was hampered by men of Page's mindset and thrown off by the highly selective presentation of UFO cases by the CIA, charged one of the attending Air Force officers. "We were double-crossed," commented a Blue Book member. "The CIA (didn't) want to prepare the public - they're trying to bury the subject. Those agents ran the whole show and the scientists followed their lead.

They were also involved in Condon's research but he was ordered never to admit during a SECRET clearance level meeting.

Turns out arch debunker Donald Menzel was also CIA (and NSA).

Another typical Government UFO LIE was uttered by Dr. Donald Menzel, a professor of Astronomy at Harvard. However, I had discovered in his papers at the Harvard Archives after receiving the required permission from three different people to view them, that he had a TOP SECRET Ultra clearance with the CIA and a very long history of work for the National Security Agency, the CIA, and many other companies. He said in Physics Today “All the non-explained sightings are from poor observers.”


Donald was also mentor to Phillip Klass (electrical engineer and one of the founders of CSICOP) and did find it curious that he used to boast about citing both Bobby Ray Inman and Daniel O. Graham as references.

Admiral Bobby R. Inman (USN Ret.)—the former Director of the National Security Agency, who also held Deputy Director positions at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency—and Lt. General Daniel O. Graham (USA Ret.), the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

link / 22:30

Apparently both Menzel and Klass also had close connections (and a strong influence upon) Dr Condon (vid) so it really does make a person wonder.


new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in