4705 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 28 November 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

I know he did.  He always has an "explanation" like that, doesn't he?  He can make just about anything sound plausible enough, except that they were never able to identify any submarines.  LOL

LOL, yes, he does, but he is in the right circles to find out this sort of thing, and he did come through with a launch location.

Quote

Oberg explained that the launches were made from the Eastern US Test Range

TheMacGuffin, on 28 November 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

I doubt that anyone is ever going to know.

I agree. Liability is liability.

[TheMacGuffin]

I don't think that's a UFO either.

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 28 November 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

If you can read Spanish, the official report is here, dated November 19, 1976.  Whatever this thing was, it hung arounf far too long to be a "missile" anyway.

http://www.planetabe...arias191176.htm

Got me. My Spanish is non-existent.

TheMacGuffin, on 28 November 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

I don't think that's a UFO either.

Of course not.

USO!!




You would not see the missile, just this bit:

Edited by psyche101, 28 November 2012 - 07:22 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

When Oberg (or whoever) mentions the Eastern Test Range, he's talking about this area.  It's not near the Canary Islands or even the North Atlantic Ocean.  I don't think it has anything at all to do with this particular UFO case, although there have been some interesting UFO reports from that area, including Patrick Air Force Base.




Following the last SNARK launch in December 1960 and the last MERCURY mission in May 1963, half a dozen range stations were retired. The Mayaguez station was deactivated in August 1961, and the East Island Annex was inactive after 1963. The range's annexes in the Dominican Republic were given to the Dominican Government on 6 November 1962. Project FRESH LOOK eliminated the MOD II radar network in 1965. The range station on San Salvador was placed in caretaker status in March 1965, and it was officially closed on 31 January 1970. Range property on St. Lucia was either transferred to the Government of St. Lucia or eliminated by early December 1967. Apart from the airfield, all Mayaguana facilities were abandoned on 16 June 1970. The Missile Guidance Annex on Fernando de Noronha was returned to Brazil on 14 January 1969.

The APOLLO Lunar Landing program and the POSEIDON and MINUTEMAN III Research, Development, Test and Evaluation programs were completed in the early 1970s. Their termination prompted Project RESIZE. Under RESIZE, the AN-TPQ-18 radars on Grand Bahama Island and Ascension were transferred to the Pacific, and the range's MISTRAM and UDOP systems were deactivated. Grand Turk's command/destruct system was retired. The range's station on Eleuthera was transferred to the U.S. Navy on 1 July 1971. The radar and telemetry systems at Station 13 (Pretoria, South Africa) were mothballed in December 1969, and the property was returned to the Republic of South Africa on 8 January 1996.


http://www.google.co...4Z2QO6126fL_9_w

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 28 November 2012 - 07:34 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

psyche101, on 28 November 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

Got me. My Spanish is non-existent.




Of course not.

USO!!

You would not see the missile, just this bit:

They didn't see any missile at all, at least not from the Eastern Test Range, and certainly not a Poseidon test since those had already been completed by then.

Oberg or the Russian colonel or whoever got this one all jumbled up.

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 28 November 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

They didn't see any missile at all, at least not from the Eastern Test Range, and certainly not a Poseidon test since those had already been completed by then.

Oberg or the Russian colonel or whoever got this one all jumbled up.

I don't know, two sources say the same thing, I do not know why they would be wrong at this stage. Test dates are listed in the article, and the Spanish source agrees that the dates match. I remember EOT trying to say that a Russin ICBM was in fact over Israel, and that clearly was not the case, but that distance puts the testing grounds within the ranges of the missile, as the testing range is a very large area.

[zoser]

booNyzarC, on 28 November 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

This case has become convoluted over the years, growing with each retelling, and with the introduction of memory regression therapy

Why does that surprise you?  Careers are at stake when ever a UFO is reported by the military; years ago probably even lives were at stake.

It's no surprise to me whatsoever that much of the disclosure from these cases has occurred during people's retirement from service.

[zoser]

TheMacGuffin, on 28 November 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

I think I mentioned before that there's more to this case than most people know.  It wasn't just one UFO and it wasn't only at Rendlesham.

The lighthouse is just a very hasty cover story that doesn't account for anything.  It's just good enough for government work and those who are incurious enough to go along with any kind of "explanation" that sounds plausible.

Putting it succinctly it gives those who need it a fire exit.  Many cannot handle the truth because they are not psychologically or mentally up to it.  I believe this to be the truth.

[synchronomy]

psyche101, on 28 November 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

Thanks, but still not understanding what the "agenda" is. I think that is an old line that has been pushed around the block one too many times, and I mean no disrespect to you in that. These things have been reported and confirmed for over 60 years, so this is not a threat, nobody has demanded arial rights to UFO's so sovereignty is not challenged, it seems to me that science is the authority here. Tesla seemed to think we can draw free energy from the air, and transmit it wirelessly. In fact he demonstrated so much. This seems to be the most likely usage, and in that case territorial mattered are superfluous. Nobody tells an arial plasma where to go or how to form. It strikes me that taking on the responsibility of "stopping a UFO" is akin to stopping a bolt of lighting? That takes it out of the military hands, unless a threat is perceived. It's more the bag of Meteorology and astrophysics from what I can tell, and these are the guys making the headway.

I must say, they do seem to be doing a far superior job as opposed to the military silliness of the 50's. Some of the claims I read make me think Gomer Pyle was a real recruit. I am stunned that the CIA maintains funding. From what I have read, that organisation seems to be the biggest waste of funding in military history. These days, we actually get some answers.

Mate, I gotta say, I remain unconvinced about some global Governmental conspiracy, when you and I discussed it, you came up with some ideas, and I appreciate that, but I felt the ideas left pretty much all of my questions unanswered. The US has no jurisdiction outside of US soil. Global conspiracy do not work. It contravenes what we see when Governments work together today.

The term Swamp Gas came from Hynek too, not the military. And his usage was valid. It did show him though that the public, who largely rely on the media, want a media type headline. Not the boring old prosaic. Big lesson for J Allen that day. With 6 billion people around, and many very conversant with modern technology, we see less UFO's and the tales are toned down. No more Venusians and Martians these days. Co-incidence?

Excellent post.
You've given me a lot to think about and no doubt I'll be chewing on it all day.
Perhaps my use of the word "agenda" isn't the best choice.  No doubt it has been influenced by my career working with government, police, military, and private sector firms in the same or similar capacity, that being summarizing the spending of public funds to ensure it "fits" or to "justify use" within the laws and by-laws authorizing their use as such.  Which it did.  It was a frequent term I heard from higher-ups..."Make sure it fits the agenda"
There were times due to unforeseen circumstances, emergencies, errors, or downright stupidity or improper decisions that big bucks were committed to, which in hindsight could have and/or should have been spent in more effective and efficient ways.
If you perceive I am writing that with a bit of polish, glitter, and smokescreening...you are correct.  Lets leave it at that.  In most cases I was bound, and still am, to ND agreements.
I don't mean to imply that I had access to information pertaining to "UFO" type subjects...lol...not at all.  It's just that the reports to the public and the entire chain of information and events leading to the final report are subject to FOI legislation...so the final reporting and facts must remain unaltered.  I often had "secret" clearance.  I always laugh when whistle blowers say that.  They imply often that it gave them access to any file where they worked, and it doesn't work that way at all.  Everything I experienced had to be accessed on a "need to know" basis.  Often requiring jumping through hoops to back it up.
I suppose my experience wrt this work has led me to highly doubt the testimonies of many Disclosure Project witnesses and other "whistleblower" folks such as Bob Lazer.  He is a classic example and in future generations if you look up bovine feces in the dictionary his picture will be there.
Maybe when I use the term "agenda", it would be more appropriate say "prime directive".
In referring to "sovereignty"...maybe "our territories and airspace"
I don't really like the term "conspiracy" because by very definition it implies illegal activity.
As far as a "global" initiative to cover-up the ETH or just UFO's, its just perceived as such because all the militaries and governments of various countries have the same/similar "prime directive".
I do not believe their is any cooperation between governments worldwide in this regard, just that they all have objective to attain the same goals.

[zoser]

Vancouver Island - 1981


Best Flying Saucer Photo Ever?

Mrs. Hannah McRoberts (aged 25) of Campbell River, BC, was with her family at a rest-area some thirty miles to the north of Kelsey Bay on the east coast of Vancouver Island, from October 8 to 15, 1981.

During this five-day period she says she took a number of pictures of her family and of the local scenery, using her 35 mm Mamiya camera with a 50-55 mm lens, 125 speed, and ASA 100 film.
At one point during the holiday they observed that one of the mountain peaks was surmounted by a cloud somewhat suggestive, as they described it, of "a volcano issuing steam," so Mrs. McRoberts snapped that as well.

None of the party noticed anything else in the air at the time, and the presence of the UFO was therefore only discovered by them when the prints and negatives came back to them after processing.

The resulting photograph shows an object to the right of and above the peak and the plume of cloud. This photo came to the attention of Mr. David A. C. Powell of Vancouver, who is on the staff of the McMillan Planetarium in that city, who in turn contacted Bill Allan, and provided him with an enlargement, and also got in contact the APRO of Tucson, Arizona, the respected American UFO investigation group who claim now to be the oldest in the world.

After many examinations of the photo, the negative was finally delivered to Richard F. Haines, Editor of the Journal of Scientific Exploration for analysis.

Haines determined that what Hannah had captured unwittingly in her photo of the mountain was a genuine airborne object and not the result of emulsion deformity or optical illusion of the camera's inner mechanisms.

From Report: Abstract--This report reviews various investigative activities and analyses surrounding a photograph of a purported unidentified flying object (UFO) taken on October 8, 1981, at about 11:00 AM, local time on Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

The evidence consisted of a single frame of 35 mm colour film which showed a sharply focused disc-like object against a clear blue sky with wooded mountain peak nearby.

Analyses of the original negative included micro-densitometry, computer enhancements, and other measurements intent upon showing a support thread, atmospheric disturbance, or other evidences of a hoax.

These analyses suggest that the disc was a three dimensional object located at a distance of at least 30 feet from the camera; the object's surface albedo was diffuse and of lower luminance than a sunlit cloud. Extensive interviews with the photographer (who never saw the aerial object), her husband, and daughter and site survey tended to support the entire narrative account.
The identity of the disc object remains unidentified.

The family was on their way to visit her sister at Holberg, located at the northwest tip of Vancouver Island. Mrs. D.M. was an outgoing, pleasant person with a casual interest in UFOs. Inspection of their home did not indicate any interest at all in the occult, the psychic realm, or related subjects.
Mr. D.M. worked at the lumber mill in Campbell River.

Neither person claimed to have read any books specifically on UFOs, but had seen the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." The husband was an avid science fiction fan in earlier years.
A battery of optical tests were performed on the negative to determine the physicality as well as the possible size and distance of the UFO from the camera. This included visits to the site of the photograph.

When asked what they had done immediately after noticing the disc on the photograph (some 18 days later on October 26, 1981), Mrs. D.M. replied, "Well, we didn't know what to do. Eventually we showed it to our neighbours and Mr. and Mrs. M. Sr. (husband's parents)."

Mrs. D.M. phoned the Canadian Forces Base at Comox in mid-November 1981 concerning their possible interest in seeing the photograph. She ". . . just wanted to see if they were interested in it and if they knew anything about what the object could be."

An Air Force representative (allegedly) said they were not interested in viewing it, but did take her name and address. It was not until the summer of 1982 that the family travelled to Vancouver, B.C. bringing one 4" x 5" colour print with them.

They visited the Vancouver Planetarium and spoke with the Director, David Dodge, who called in David Powell who was interested in UFO phenomena. The couple were persuaded to lend the original negative to them to make enlarged copies.

The negatives were delivered to Mr. Powell in June 1982, and were returned to Mr. and Mrs. D.M. on January 28, 1983. These dates may be significant since they suggest that the photographer was willing to wait a long time before pursuing an explanation for the disc-like image on her photograph.

If this event had been a deliberate hoax, it is more likely that some overt action to capitalize on it might have been taken soon after the disc had been discovered, and not almost a year later. Of course this is not a conclusive argument to support this contention.

The author found the photographer and her husband to be middle-class, hard-working people. Their property was well kept. Nothing could be found which pointed to a deliberate hoax. Both displayed genuine puzzlement about the origin of the disc on the photograph. Mr. and Mrs. D.M. were not defensive nor did they ever attempt to cover up anything as far as could be determined.

[synchronomy]

zoser, on 28 November 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Vancouver Island - 1981


Best Flying Saucer Photo Ever?

Nice case zoser.
I like the ones without wild claims, books being written, or even news media reporting.
I going to poke around for more info but I have a feeling that what you have presented is the bulk of what's available.
It would have been better if they had also witnessed the object's motion, instead of only noticing it later in the picture.
Sure looks like the classic flying saucer.
...and it's not bugs or some secret military aircraft that I know of.
It looks small, but who's to say ET's wouldn't use small drones at times...heck we do that already.

[zoser]

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Nice case zoser.
I like the ones without wild claims, books being written, or even news media reporting.
I going to poke around for more info but I have a feeling that what you have presented is the bulk of what's available.
It would have been better if they had also witnessed the object's motion, instead of only noticing it later in the picture.
Sure looks like the classic flying saucer.
...and it's not bugs or some secret military aircraft that I know of.
It looks small, but who's to say ET's wouldn't use small drones at times...heck we do that already.

I like them too.  Seemingly innocent people who have other motives than UFO hunting that just happen to be in the right place at the right time.  

Wait until tomorrow; I have a cracking case lined up that is sure to cause some intense controversy.

Just finishing off a bit of research on it.  Off to bed now.  Make sure you are here at around 5pm GMT tomorrow.

Z

[Matt Vinyl]

zoser, on 27 November 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

Well done for wading through the thread!  Your more than welcome.  It would be great to hear more about your father's experiences.

Thanks Zoser, appreciated! I will endeavour to get around to creating a dedicated thread to it shortly.

[psyche101]

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Excellent post.
You've given me a lot to think about and no doubt I'll be chewing on it all day.

Thank you for the kind words, I consider you thorough in your pursuit, so I very much appreciate your comment.

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Perhaps my use of the word "agenda" isn't the best choice.  No doubt it has been influenced by my career working with government, police, military, and private sector firms in the same or similar capacity, that being summarizing the spending of public funds to ensure it "fits" or to "justify use" within the laws and by-laws authorizing their use as such.  Which it did.  It was a frequent term I heard from higher-ups..."Make sure it fits the agenda"

Ahh, so we would be talking multiple agendas? That would make sense to me. Make sure it fits the current agenda. That could be project specific, or even in some cases, a personal view in order to have an efficient system.

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

There were times due to unforeseen circumstances, emergencies, errors, or downright stupidity or improper decisions that big bucks were committed to, which in hindsight could have and/or should have been spent in more effective and efficient ways.
If you perceive I am writing that with a bit of polish, glitter, and smokescreening...you are correct.  Lets leave it at that.  In most cases I was bound, and still am, to ND agreements.
I don't mean to imply that I had access to information pertaining to "UFO" type subjects...lol...not at all.  It's just that the reports to the public and the entire chain of information and events leading to the final report are subject to FOI legislation...so the final reporting and facts must remain unaltered.  I often had "secret" clearance.  I always laugh when whistle blowers say that.  They imply often that it gave them access to any file where they worked, and it doesn't work that way at all.  Everything I experienced had to be accessed on a "need to know" basis.  Often requiring jumping through hoops to back it up.

I have seen that many projects are indeed a waste of funds. But I suppose in some cases we have to waste funds to find out we are wasting our time. But I honestly always thought the CIA should have been shut down after MKULTRA. LSD, Electroshock therapy, even outright poisoning, the CIA appears to be nothing more than barbaric thugs, which would explain how funding is maintained. I have been shocked by some of what I have read, and consider the CIA at the same level of Japanese Soldiers who would torture POW's with Bamboo. The PsyOps experiments are just plain stupid I feel. Men who stare at Goats. I have no idea who would even be stupid enough to sign away funding, let alone achieve it on such pipe dreams. Might as well fund an expedition to find the Hollow Earth entrance, or seek out Alices Wonderland. I normally have a healthy respect for authority, but I have little tolerance for wastage, corporate silliness and continued failure. They certainly have some connections high up. If it was a group that worked for my company, their results by now would have well and truly shut the division down.
IMHO.

I laugh too at the "secret clearance" tag. I am just a garden variety sparky and I have had to sign NDA's for Government projects that I have worked on. No UFO's in my line of work LOL.

My little sister was in a respectable position in the RAAF, she was employed as CISCOM. And being a sensitive communications position, I suspect she overheard some very secretive discussions, she even raised the flag on Australia Day and had lunch with the PM at the time, who was a good PM, not like what we currently have. I have asked her about the subject of ET, and she finds the suggestion more mirthful than anything. She says she knows that is a more of a PITA than a concern. In fact she had quite a giggle at the suggestion.

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

I suppose my experience wrt this work has led me to highly doubt the testimonies of many Disclosure Project witnesses and other "whistleblower" folks such as Bob Lazer.  He is a classic example and in future generations if you look up bovine feces in the dictionary his picture will be there.

I could not agree more. Amazing that people still give him the time of day, the discovery of element 115 in my opinion showed him to be the horses behind that he is.

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Maybe when I use the term "agenda", it would be more appropriate say "prime directive".

Indeed, I see what you mean now, and than you for taking the time to extrapolate. I agree that the prime directive is defence, and any instance that may threaten such would bring defence forces to the party.

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

In referring to "sovereignty"...maybe "our territories and airspace"

But it has never been threatened. People claim to see UFO's on a very regular basis, and any claims of harm such as Cash Landrum or the famous Thomas Mantel case do not seem to be direct interference, and the damage is always assumed.

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

I don't really like the term "conspiracy" because by very definition it implies illegal activity.

Agreed. And a lack of IQ ponts.

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

As far as a "global" initiative to cover-up the ETH or just UFO's, its just perceived as such because all the militaries and governments of various countries have the same/similar "prime directive".
I do not believe their is any cooperation between governments worldwide in this regard, just that they all have objective to attain the same goals.

I surely agree that the facade is merely an illusion. It's the objective to obtain the same goals that puts them at odds. I would cite the Cold War as an example, and the US and Russia were insistent that each other knew of any major development as a fear tactic. Information was deliberately leaked to create tension and the illusion of superiority. If one country had an Alliance with ET, they would want others to know that they have a powerful ally, not hide them from the public because "we can't handle the truth." Whilst that line works well in A Few Good Men, with regards to the public, it's so cheesy that the only place it should reside is in a movie. It just does not work in real life.

Cheers mate, thanks for the conversation.

[psyche101]

synchronomy, on 28 November 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

It looks small, but who's to say ET's wouldn't use small drones at times...heck we do that already.

If it is a genuine craft, I would say it would more likely be a drone due to the clear dome on top. It actually looks rather like a CCTV housing. But overall, it looks like a frisbee with a clear dome stuck on top of it. Sort of like this one.




or this one




Which thrown in the air looks similar to me......










??????????????