Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 1 votes

The RB-47 UFO Incident


  • Please log in to reply
160 replies to this topic

#16    PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Few things do more harm than the belief that life should be Dramatic.

Posted 10 June 2012 - 08:52 PM

If this is the one (sorry, I'm not going to sit thru another overproduced 'revelation') where a radar signal from the UFO passed from behind to in front of the plane (implying it was in flight and moving faster than the plane), there's a pretty simple explanation for that. I worked with that direction finder in my Air Force days and if the 'polarity' switch is in the wrong position - 'vertical' when the radar signal is horizontally polarized and vice versa - then the clock position of the emitting site will be 180 degrees out of position: a site which is at one o'clock will show up as being at seven o'clock and as you pass by will move up-scope, eventually disappearing at twelve o'clock as the actual site is left behind.

IIRC, Philip Klass did discover that the relay the polarity switch controlled had failed.


#17    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,320 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 11 June 2012 - 12:49 PM

Assuming your point is valid PFP, that is only part of the phenomenon.  There were visuals too.  How do you
'debunk' those?


#18    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2012 - 09:32 PM

One of the classic unsolved UFO cases that also lasted an unusually long time.

And this UFO was also unusual in that it was giving off some kind of signal.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#19    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,072 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 11 June 2012 - 09:38 PM

Dont you just love de-bunkers and Skeptics ? All the believers rally round ! Theres a conspricey afoot ! I just know it !
You cant have Big-Government without it !
And E.T  ? Well there just like in the movies ! All around us every where man ! There Out there man !

This is a Work in Progress!

#20    PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Few things do more harm than the belief that life should be Dramatic.

Posted 11 June 2012 - 10:02 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 11 June 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Assuming your point is valid PFP, that is only part of the phenomenon.  There were visuals too.  How do you
'debunk' those?

Not trying to debunk the whole thing, just pointing out there's a simple explanation for one part of it.


#21    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:11 PM

The Air Force took this case really seriously, and part of the investigation was handled outside of normal Blue Book procedures, possibly by the National Security Agency
(NSA), classified codeword Top Secret or under Signals Intelligence (SIGINT).   These records are still classified today.

Every UFO researcher knows that it is VERY, VERY difficult to get records classified at this high level, although we all know that plenty of such UFO records exist somewhere.

The signal geing given off by the UFO was not from any other known aircraft or ground insyallation because they checked all that at the time.  It was and remains unknown.

http://webcache.goog...lient=firefox-a

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#22    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:40 PM

It is an old case, quite an old case, and the particulars have ben rather shaky. I think UFOlogy relies on old tales with little information to retain the "mysterious" moniker. Advanced alien spacecraft transmitting on local S band huh? Nobody ever thought this was a bit strange?

In any case, the details whilst deep, have been unearthed by none other than Tim Printy. He has broken the incident up into 4 events for the sake of clarity, and raised some very serious questions. The article is several pages long, obviously too long to post here, but here, for anyone wanting to know ALL the facts on this case, please follow THIS LINK to a well set out and detailed report on the incident.

Teaser (for those game enough to click the link)


Quote

After landing, the crew was debriefed by the intelligence officer Piwetz. It was his report that added a lot to the RB-47 case file. However, there are portions of his report that appear to be erroneous based on what the air crew would later
state to interviewers:
1. The “up-scope” incident was stated to have occurred near Meridian, MS, when, by all accounts, it occurred near the coast.
2. The report stated both pilot and copilot saw two UFOs simultaneously, when they only reported one.
3. It was stated the plane was near Mineral Wells, Texas at 1055Z, when it was not possible for the plane to reach that location.

Piwetz was convinced the UFO was emitting the signals and stated so in his report. However, this conclusion would be considered somewhat hasty since he seemed to have little data to work with other than notes by McClure and only partial recordings (starting at 1048Z) of the events described.




I should be most interested to see replies to the above-mentioned rebuttal.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#23    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:38 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 11 June 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

It is an old case, quite an old case, and the particulars have ben rather shaky. I think UFOlogy relies on old tales with little information to retain the "mysterious" moniker. Advanced alien spacecraft transmitting on local S band huh? Nobody ever thought this was a bit strange?


Except that in its Secret report, Blue Book was not able to identify the signal from the UFO, and Air Technicall Intelligence Center could not find any known S-band radars that had these characteristics.  They listed it as an unknown, and as we know, Blue Book was especially eager to find "explanations" for all UFOs, but they failed to do so in this case.

http://www.fold3.com/image/#6961897

All of the original Blue Book records are here, and Major Lewis Chase was definite the the signal was from an aurbone object and the UFO was not a conventional aitcraft.  It was tracked from the ground as well, and could not have been a civilian or military plane since it did not respond to IFF.

http://www.nicap.org...RB47_report.htm

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 12 June 2012 - 12:55 AM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#24    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 June 2012 - 12:47 AM

Air Defense Command also investigated this incident and in October 1957 reported that was unable to identify the UFO, so it was just listed as unknown.


http://www.fold3.com/image/#6961942


Indeed, this UFO followed the RB-47, and continued emitting the same signal, which was definitely from an airborne source which they also saw visually from time to time.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html

I can't explain the actions of the UFO, of course, but there have been some similar events over the years.   As for the airliners reported in the case, there were actually two of them and they nearly collided, but this was near El Paso, Texas, not Dallas, and had nothing to do with the RB-37 and its UFO.

Blue Book did not even learn about this incident until several months later, and it seems it was investigated by Air Defense Command, Air Force Intellligence and (probably) other agencies before some of the reports were sent on to Blue Book.  I don't think we have the complete record for this incident even today.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 12 June 2012 - 01:21 AM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#25    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 12 June 2012 - 02:20 AM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 12 June 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

Except that in its Secret report,Blue Book was not able to identify the signal from the UFO, and Air Technicall Intelligence Center could not find any known S-band radars that had these characteristics.  They listed it as an unknown, and as we know, Blue Book was especially eager to find "explanations" for all UFOs, but they failed to do so in this case.

http://www.fold3.com/image/#6961897

All of the original Blue Book records are here, and Major Lewis Chase was definite the the signal was from an aurbone object and the UFO was not a conventional aitcraft.  It was tracked from the ground as well, and could not have been a civilian or military plane since it did not respond to IFF.

http://www.nicap.org...RB47_report.htm

I would think it is very possible for the signal to remain ambiguous, as there were experimental RADAR units, as well as pretty much every type of S Band unit one could imagine in the immediate vicinity:



Quote



There were other ground radars in and are listed in the table on page 9. I am not even sure this table is complete since the  military and civilian ASRs might have existed at some airports not listed.  

The WSR radars seems to be complete but I may have missed some locations. It appears one might be able to classify the area of Eastern Texas and Oklahoma as an “S-band minefield”!

Airborne Radar
The most common airborne radar that operated in the same frequency range of interest  was the AN/APS-20. The “B” version is listed in the table.  It was found on several aircraft.  Some of these were quite common in 1957.

Another less common airborne S-band radar was the AN/APS-82. It was essentially experimental in 1957 and was fitted on top of the E-1B tracer aircraft (the predecessor of the E-2 Hawkeye aircraft).  
It operated at a frequency between 2850-2910 MHZ.  The first flight of the prototype was not until December 1956.  

The same radar was mounted on a WV-2E in  August 1956, which was designated EC-121L.


From the Printy Link:


Quote



In a later letter to Klass, McClure continued to describe this incident just as an “up-scope” signal with no “down-scope” component:

I was working the S band when we left the gunnery range and was confronted with a signal moving up scope. I checked it out as to being a spurious response or image and looked for other beams without success. I called the pilots and asked if it was possible we were turning. The front end said negative so I dropped the signal and leisurely changed to L band to work then when I was alerted, I returned in haste to my original freq-whatever it was-......

This description is similar to the one he gave in an even later letter to Klass

I doubt that it was any thing but a happenstance that the signal went up scope at the onset. I know that no other signal acted that way and when I first came back to the signal it was still moving strangely as it hung about 70 degrees for a while.
After that I am sure we were turning so much that it would have made it move funny.

Once again, McClure seems to be convinced that it was only an “up-scope” signal near the Gulf coast.
What this indicates to me is that we have some memory issues here. He is confusing all the events as one, which is where we probably get this “down scope” business after the up-scope readings

We have an ambiguous signal in an S band minefield, with several experimental types being tested, a craft that disappears on cue, conflicting testimonies and the incident relies on a verbal confirmation. I just do not think there is much more to this than a desperate hope? It honestly sounds like some confusion, nothing tangible exists, only stories. It just looks like more UFO padding to be quite honest.

Didn't Blue Book receive a rather belated invitation (mid November) to investigate the event? Considering they were experimenting with RADAR types at the time, it seems somewhat likely that Blue Book was kept away in case they actually did find a good explanation for this case, and perhaps that investigation could have breached security protocols? That certainly does not seem far fetched to me anyway.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#26    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 12 June 2012 - 02:22 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 11 June 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Assuming your point is valid PFP, that is only part of the phenomenon.  There were visuals too.  How do you
'debunk' those?

Those "visuals" disappeared entirely. That indicates natural phenomena.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#27    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,072 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 12 June 2012 - 02:37 AM

But ? But ? what about the  Facts ? THe people that saw them-thar Aliens flying those disc,saucers,ect Cigars all thru the 50`s and 60`s  and On ,And On ! Do they not account for at least a "Waz-up ?"

This is a Work in Progress!

#28    Slave2Fate

Slave2Fate

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,414 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 12 June 2012 - 02:56 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 12 June 2012 - 02:22 AM, said:

Those "visuals" disappeared entirely. That indicates natural phenomena.

Unless you invoke the ever popular 'do-anything exotic alien technology'. Nothing like using an unverified, unsupported ambiguous hypothesis to explain an unknown.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#29    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 June 2012 - 02:59 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 12 June 2012 - 02:22 AM, said:

Those "visuals" disappeared entirely. That indicates natural phenomena.

In fact, the "light" seemed to blink on and off several times over two hours, as it followed them and they followed it.


"As the RB47E approached Jackson, Mississippi for the 2nd part of its planned exercise to perform ECM runs against known ground radar units (about 150 miles from Gulfport), the command pilot spotted what he first thinks are landing lights of another jet coming in very fast. The pilot tells the crew; "Looks as though we may have to take evasive maneuvers." Before he can do anything else, the light is upon them, changes direction and flashes directly across their flight path. Both pilots see this occur. Then, taking them totally by surprise, the light simply blinks out.


In an interview with James McDonald, the pilot stated it didn't take off. It just disappeared in front of them. Just before it blinked off, the object had jumped from an 11 o'clock position to a 2 o'clock position in the blink of an eye, as witnessed by both pilots. Neither the movement or the blinking out is technologically possible for our planes, even today. (I believe scientists may have recently moved sub-atomic particles similar to this but not whole planes, and remember, this is back in 1957, more than fifty years ago.)


Pilot and co-pilot immediately begin talking about what had just happened. One of the ELINT operators remembered he got a signal at 2,995-3000 mhz, and set his #2 monitor to scan at 3,000 mhz. On his first scan, the operator got a strong 3,000 mhz signal from their two o'clock position; the bearing on which the luminous object had blinked out moments earlier. The operator of monitor #1 then tuned his equipment to the same frequency and got the same return. He saw it too."



I admit that I don't have a clue how the UFO was doing all this, or why.  I can only guess about that, but it did act like it was playing tag--or perhaps demonstrating its superiority.  


http://cohenufo.org/RB47UFOhunters.htm



Whatever the signal really was, it was definitely coming from the air, not the ground, and from the same locations where they saw the UFO.



Edited by TheMcGuffin, 12 June 2012 - 03:11 AM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#30    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 12 June 2012 - 03:09 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 12 June 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

But ? But ? what about the  Facts ? THe people that saw them-thar Aliens flying those disc,saucers,ect Cigars all thru the 50`s and 60`s  and On ,And On ! Do they not account for at least a "Waz-up ?"

It definitely gets a wazzup, but not a conclusion :D

Posted Image

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users