The Portage County UFO incident ~ Ohio,1966.

[karl 12]

Thanks for the replies -this certainly is a very interesting UFO case and the official explanation seems to be a very weak one.

There's a good (free) E-book below which mentions the Portage County case and covers other Ohio UFO incidents from around the same dates - it also states that the Police radio dispatcher instructed Sheriff Spaur to shoot at the UFO:

Regional Encounters - the FC files. A century of UFO sightings and Close encounters in the Mid West. - Francis Ridge (pdf).

There are also these files taken from Major Donald Keyhoe's UFO Archives which go into further detail about new witnesses, Major Quintanilla, the 1966 US Congressional hearings on UFOs and a missing photograph of the object

Ohio Sheriff's Sighting Instrumental in 1966 Hearings (pdf)

April 1966 Ravena Case Revisited - New Interviews Reported (pdf).

Cheers.

[skyeagle409]

Very interesting UFO incident from Ohio in which multiple police officers witness and chase a UFO (Project Blue Book Record 10073) - the case was also the model for the scene in Steven Spielberg's film 'Close Encounters of the Third kind'.

Officer sketch of the object:

Officer descriptions of the object:

Thanks, Karl.

I remembered that case some time ago. It is very interesting, but I have to add that there have been other similar cases from around the world as well. The Belgian incidents are prime examples.

[karl 12]

Above Bluebook UFO Government Conspiracy - The Portage County Incident.

Part One:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mjg_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Two:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mkw_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Three:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mk7_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Four:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mie_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Five:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mgn_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Serious questions raised about the 'new evidence' presented by Michael Nelson at MUFON Conference when James Carrion was in charge in 2007:

The Portage County UFO chase is a great case--one of the best in ufology, in my opinion. Unfortunately, beware of this man Nelson; he does the case a grave injustice. Not only is his supposed "new" information on the case suspect, but his own credentials are as well. An extensive background investigation of him revealed many disquieting details..

Moreover, many of the facts of the Portage County case as Nelson relates them don't square with the crackerjack account of the case written at the time by William Weitzel, chief NICAP investigator of the incident (see, for example, Dell's FLYING SAUCERS, UFO REPORTS, October 1967, for Weitzel's report). And Nelson never even interviewed Weitzel or Richard Hall, former NICAP deputy director, both of whom live in the Washington, D.C. area.

Link

[karl 12]

Thanks, Karl.

I remembered that case some time ago. It is very interesting, but I have to add that there have been other similar cases from around the world as well. The Belgian incidents are prime examples.

SkyEagle, you're not wrong about this being a truly interesting one - there's some more info below about the case dealing with Chief Gerald Buchert, Major Hector Quintanilla and Dr. J. Allen Hynek's involvement - there's also a link to Florida Governor Haydon Burns airplane sighting eight days later.

The UFO phenomenon was already decades old in 1966, but this sighting was one of the most dramatic -- and seemingly credible, coming from police officers -- ever reported..

Link

Cheers.

[karl 12]

News article about the case from the Beaver Country Times - April 25th, 1966.

Full Article

[Manananggal]

I spend time here and there cruising the paranormal sites, well actually it's an obsession kind of but one I've little time to indulge in recently; so I've actually read tons of articles about little known ufo incidents over the years and I'd still never heard of this one. Don't have lots of time to discuss the details but I just wanted to encourage the poster to keep finding gems and sharing them. I love stuff like this and I am reading it off and on throughout my busy day. Thanks =~) I think Sweetpumper was befuddled cus you just laid it out without beginning a discussion, kind of an offering to see what discussion would be started, while SP was hoping for a laying out of the story ALONG WITH a kickoff of the discussion. People just have different preferences, nothing to get snappy about. Different types of people like different types of threads but I'm appreciating it.

[karl 12]

Manananggal, thanks for the reply - this is quite an old thread but you do make a fair point about there being too much text in the OP and not enough personal observation - it certainly is an interesting case though and the object description sounds like a very strange one:

"They said the craft they chased was about 50 feet across and 15 to 20 feet high with a large dome on its top and an antenna jutted out from the rear of the dome"

Link

I also realy do wonder what happened to the photograph taken by Police Chief Gerald Buchert which the USAF told him not to release:

Police Chief Gerald Buchert of Mantua photographed the object from in front of his home.The Air Force told him not to release the photo, but The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the photo showed an object that was like two saucers put together, with a light upper saucer upside down over a dark lower saucer. The picture was only seen by a reporter and Mr. Weitzel, NICAP investigator, who was not convinced, but it was never available for analysis

Link

Cheers.

[karl 12]

Good article about missing evidence in the Portage County case.

Lost Evidence Case: Persecution of Cops Who Said They Didn’t Chase Venus.

The Sheriff of Portage County, Pennsylvania, was ordered to hide evidence that would have cleared the names of two deputies the media would falsely hype as “cops chasing Venus through three counties.”

But sometimes, you learn as much from what’s missing, as from what’s left out in the open.

And so it was with the missing evidence of Portage, evidence which, by its absence, not only reveals what happened, but shows who was really in charge in 1966 and long after. Who was in charge of the lost, suppressed, and planted evidence of this last infamous case can only have been a group with very high secret clearance and power… enough power to give the orders to the County Sheriff to hide conclusive evidence that it was not Venus the officers chased, but a radar-verifiable, “trace leaving” UFO. And more: to not just deny, but to give out false accounts and inject the lie that the officers were not really there or at least close by when the UFO actually landed. (The Officers were allowed to tell all but there was no evidence except their testimony and since Venus was in that place in the sky it was the pronounced verdict by PBB. There was no planted evidence just absence of evidence)

The County Sheriff of Portage, PA, was even instructed to hide evidence including soil samples of the actual landing site from the officer, the public, and even Project Blue Book…their own USAF’s home team.

Those high-clearance officials coordinated the marginalizing of officers reports which then deverted attention off of who owned the “official looking car”(their car) right next to where the “UFO” had landed . The officers weren’t fired outright but that report lead to dead end careers and harassment and ultimately family problems. Who except the UFO folks followed it anyway.

The County Sheriff of Portage, PA, was even instructed to hide all the evidence as reported by sworn officers of the law --sightings, to radar, to a witnessed UFO landing-- from the investigators in Project Blue Book, the USAF’s home team. Were those high-clearance officials who coordinated first the silencing, then harassment and firing of the local law enforcement convinced that UFOs were so unimportant…that they didn’t want to bother Project Blue Book with the evidence?

Link

[booNyzarC]

Above Bluebook UFO Government Conspiracy - The Portage County Incident.

Part One:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mjg_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Two:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mkw_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Three:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mk7_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Four:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mie_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Five:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x91mgn_above-bluebook-ufo-government-consp_tech

Another great thread and another great case Karl. Many thanks!

These videos were really good, although the ads are pretty annoying. I had no idea that these additional details had come to light. Trace evidence even. Very interesting!

[Dundee]

Hi Karl,

Look who I found

Check the post count...1 I am a newB

Cheers

Dundee

[karl 12]

Another great thread and another great case Karl. Many thanks!

These videos were really good, although the ads are pretty annoying.

BooNyzarC,thanks for the reply bud - to my mind this is an extremely interesting UFO case although, as it mentions in the post on the second page, "serious questions raised about the 'new evidence' presented by Michael Nelson at MUFON Conference when James Carrion was in charge in 2007".

The Portage County UFO chase is a great case--one of the best in ufology, in my opinion. Unfortunately, beware of this man Nelson; he does the case a grave injustice. Not only is his supposed "new" information on the case suspect, but his own credentials are as well. An extensive background investigation of him revealed many disquieting details..

Moreover, many of the facts of the Portage County case as Nelson relates them don't square with the crackerjack account of the case written at the time by William Weitzel, chief NICAP investigator of the incident (see, for example, Dell's FLYING SAUCERS, UFO REPORTS, October 1967, for Weitzel's report). And Nelson never even interviewed Weitzel or Richard Hall, former NICAP deputy director, both of whom live in the Washington, D.C. area.

link

There are a lot of unanswered questions about Carrion's motives regarding Michael Nelson and here's what MUFON had to say about the man in 2007:

"Impressive, too was Michael Nelson’s talk on new information in the April 1966 Portage County, Ohio, Police-UFO chasecase. In 1985 Nelson, then a Portage County deputy sheriff, happened upon a set of unusual “cold” case files while cleaning outthe Sheriff’s Office, and was allowed to keep them. It was not until 1998 that Nelson, now a professional archaeologist nearing hisPh.D, actually sat down and began to review these files, which dealt with an in-house investigation of officers Spaur and Neff’s en-counter with the extraordinary, and Mike Nelson got hooked. As someone who had never given UFOs any consideration, what animated Nelson perhaps more than the subject matter (he would still consider himself an open-minded UFO-skeptic), was the in-justice done particularly to these two Ohio peace officers in the aftermath of their experience. Nelson’s new information fills insome details and raises some new questions and possibilities, particularly when a piece of material found at the initial site of theUFO’s appearance is fully analyzed and reported in his forthcoming book."

PDF File

I suppose the question is, if what Rob Swiatek says is correct and CUFOS (and everyone else) saw right through Michael Nelson then why didn't James Carrion?

By the way, Nelson approached the Center for UFO Studies with his information in 2007 and they saw right through him, refused to have anything to do with him, in fact. He was shown the door.

Rob Swiatek

Cheers.

[karl 12]

Hi Karl,

Look who I found

Check the post count...1 I am a newB

Cheers

Dundee

Hey Dundee, how the Dickens are you?

I'm honoured about the first post and think you'll have a whale of a time around on these boards - as for UFOs, there are two great videos below which feature the police eye-witness testimony from the case - Police Deputy Spaur certainly sounds pretty spooked.

Cheers!

Edited November 25, 2010 by karl 12

[karl 12]

Similar police case from same area ten days earlier:

April 7, 1966; Mansfield, OH Time not reported. Two sheriffs deputies while on patrol chased a bright round object at high speed, seeing it or a similar object five times. The UFO alternately hovered and sped up, the last time departing vertically upward. (NICAP notes.) [Compare to April 17, 1966, Ravenna, Ohio, sheriffs deputies case.]

link

[karl 12]

Two other similar police UFO reports from the same area seven years later:

The Great UFO Wave: October, 1973

Greenfield, Ohio - Two police officers chased separate unidentified objects more than five miles last night. Patrolman Mike Conklin said the one he chased was about "100 feet in diameter and glowed with a bright white light. It had a red area on top of it, as if it was overheated, and made a dull humming sound that increased in frequency as the object increased in speed."

Conklin said he was able to drive his cruiser to within 100-feet of the object. "There were about 20 people out there looking at it at the time I was, so I know I'm not crazy," he added.

Sgt. Hugh Oyer said the object he chased also was white in color with a yellow glow at one end. "I never believed in UFOs until tonight," Oyer said.

"Some guy tried to tell me it was a star, but no star I've ever seen made a humming sound or jumped up and down or was so near the ground."

The Cincinnati Post, page 1 October 17, 1973

link

Oct. 10, 1973; Near Dayton, OHIO

8:00 p.m. At least 15 sightings of unidentified flying objects "covered with red, green and blue lights" zooming about at tree-top level, were reported in Southwestern Ohio Wednesday night. The UFOs, sighted in the Dayton-Cincinnati area, were all classified "unofficial" by Wright-Patterson Air Force Base officials. None were detected on radar because they apparently were flying too low. The first sighting was reported shortly after 8 p.m. by a New Lebanon Township officer. "He didn't want to say he saw it, but he said it," Montgomery County Sheriff's deputy Michael Sullivan reported. "The officer said it was oblong and covered with lights. It appeared stationary in the sky about tree top level for several minutes until he tried to shine his cruiser spot light on it," Sullivan said. "It then zoomed toward him and then shot straight up in the air... after he turned out his light... and disappeared." Sullivan said the UFO sightings lasted from a fleeting moment to 12 minutes. "They would be behind the trees and come up and fly away... as if you startled it or something," he said. "No balloon, helicopter or kite can move that fast or has that many lights attached or can go so quickly in a straight-up direction," he said. A spokesman at Wright-Patterson, whose UFO center was discontinued several years ago, said there would be no attempt to investigate the sightings unless there was an "imminent danger." Sullivan said his officers 'certainly can't chase them."

UPI, The Columbus Dispatch, October 11, 1973

link

[karl 12]

The photograph taken by Police Chief Buchert that the Air Force told him not to release:

Chief Buchert's photo, digitally enhanced by Paul Hynek

link

[quillius]

Hey Psyche, hope you found me ok

anyhow in response to your questions regarding aspects of this case that I feel do not point towards plasma (with what we know/have observed to date)

1- The cone description, we are not talking a ball of light (as in Hess) but an object projecting light. The light created the cone shape however the object had more of a saucer shape. (similar to that of the photo, although no correlation has been made to say its the same object)

2- The increased illumination, (Hessdalen observations have so far been that when a plasma is increasing in size or brightness this is actually by further clusters being created around the nucleus). (from what I have understood anyway)

3- the tilting of object when moving, the torch description works quite well here , rather than a ball of light illuminating the ground, its an object projecting light.

4- the light is projected downwards and not all over the object.

5- The descriptions of features on the object such as this 'They said the craft they chased was about 50 feet across and 15 to 20 feet high with a large dome on its top and an antenna jutted out from the rear of the dome"

6- and finally the apparent cat and mouse manouvers (ok I appreciate this is opinion based as was Spaurs comment on it being intelligently controlled), apparently on four occasions it went away and waited for them to catch up, on one occasion it was because they were in a traffic jam, so if it was working on the 'attraction' 'repulsion' elements, why just this particular cop car!??

There are others but I am sure this is a good start. I would also like to add some other aspects of the case that I find very suspicous, such as the way in which the air force handled the witnesses and dismissed it as venus.the radar hit reported on the radio heard by four officers that was later said to have never happened, strange that the air traffic controller was visited at home one month later to sign a statement saying no radar hit found...actually just as I was typing that sentence I thought wasnt it 30 days that the request could be made then after that they could be destroyed??? if so quite coincidental that the statement saying no hits on RADAR happened exactly 30 days after...nearly as coincidental as the object apparently zooming up out of sight just as reports of jets being scrambled came in....of course no evidence of this ever being said on the radio or that jets were in fact scrambled, although why would teh officers lie about these bits???

I appreciate the last chunk of text includes a lot of speculation on my behalf so be gentle

[DONTEATUS]

Just a thought?

1966 two Police cars Flying down the road at nite at what Speed`s ? Well At best 100 mph or so and Little E.T in His potentially Faster than Light Ship Letting them track it?

Close enough to see a shape and some detail ,allbeit sketchy at best.

These pranksters must really know how to throttle back those babys ?

I mean even a few hundred milse per hr,would be less than a tenth of a precent of there flying speeds? maybe even one-one thousanth?

Wow Lots of Great post from everyone In here Makes one proud of all the Great Peep`s Ive meet in here ! Keep it Alive !

Remember Mid needs are healing prayers ,He`s doing Great by the Way~

[psyche101]

Hey Psyche, hope you found me ok

anyhow in response to your questions regarding aspects of this case that I feel do not point towards plasma (with what we know/have observed to date)

1- The cone description, we are not talking a ball of light (as in Hess) but an object projecting light. The light created the cone shape however the object had more of a saucer shape. (similar to that of the photo, although no correlation has been made to say its the same object)

2- The increased illumination, (Hessdalen observations have so far been that when a plasma is increasing in size or brightness this is actually by further clusters being created around the nucleus). (from what I have understood anyway)

3- the tilting of object when moving, the torch description works quite well here , rather than a ball of light illuminating the ground, its an object projecting light.

4- the light is projected downwards and not all over the object.

5- The descriptions of features on the object such as this 'They said the craft they chased was about 50 feet across and 15 to 20 feet high with a large dome on its top and an antenna jutted out from the rear of the dome"

6- and finally the apparent cat and mouse manouvers (ok I appreciate this is opinion based as was Spaurs comment on it being intelligently controlled), apparently on four occasions it went away and waited for them to catch up, on one occasion it was because they were in a traffic jam, so if it was working on the 'attraction' 'repulsion' elements, why just this particular cop car!??

There are others but I am sure this is a good start. I would also like to add some other aspects of the case that I find very suspicous, such as the way in which the air force handled the witnesses and dismissed it as venus.the radar hit reported on the radio heard by four officers that was later said to have never happened, strange that the air traffic controller was visited at home one month later to sign a statement saying no radar hit found...actually just as I was typing that sentence I thought wasnt it 30 days that the request could be made then after that they could be destroyed??? if so quite coincidental that the statement saying no hits on RADAR happened exactly 30 days after...nearly as coincidental as the object apparently zooming up out of sight just as reports of jets being scrambled came in....of course no evidence of this ever being said on the radio or that jets were in fact scrambled, although why would teh officers lie about these bits???

I appreciate the last chunk of text includes a lot of speculation on my behalf so be gentle

I do think the aspects described above can indeed be found at the Hessdalen Project site, as per the comparisons I have offered in the BE thread, but like I said there, you will not get an "exact replica" such would be akin to searching for identical snowflakes.

With the "dismissal" by the Air Force, this one was an initial report that helped get the Condon Committee off the ground. What I think needs be taken into account, but rarely is be ego. We have to remember, these men had a division created for them, and their job was to debunk such cases. The more they could explain, the better the job they did - right? So whilst the explanations are lack lustre, and hard to reconcile, I do feel this is more due to human emotion than any nefarious activity. People looking for Gold Stars if you know what I mean. I do believe the case is an excellent one, and some information may be cleared up, but a complete resolution would be difficult to achieve, and would probably only ignite controversy.

With the RADAR returns, from what I read of your suspicions above, the ATC must have a record to say "no hits" so perhaps it was indeed requested, and lies gathering dust some place. And it is not necessary the officers lied about jets, they may simply have taken commercial craft to be USAF craft, as both occupied the airspace.

I think that UFOLogy might be making a mountain out of a molehill? For sure this for me stays one of the most fascinating, and plausible sightings of all time, but the closer I look, again, the less I see ET here, but simply more about ourselves to learn.

My biggest bugbear with the ETH is that it is 100% imagination. Nobody has even seen other life, and we have only our pool of one to go by. With this limited data, and considering the vast distances to overcome, presuming ET is I feel immensely premature.

Why do we point at ET instead of earth, cosmic rays or other?

[bmk1245]

The photograph taken by Police Chief Buchert that the Air Force told him not to release:

Chief Buchert's photo, digitally enhanced by Paul Hynek

link

Can anybody point me out how much I have to squint/turn my head to see "the lighter top "saucer" was upside down" (from OPs link)? All I can see is black cucumber/banana with "glow" around it.

Another thing, sheriff deputy D.Spaur described light below object as

A BRILLIANT beam of light from the object lit the area. Spaur said, "It was so bright, even with the sun coming out, it stood out. Its lines were very distinct," he said as he used the bell of a flashlight to describe the object.

(from the same link)

Something similar - cone of "light"(?) - is seen in the "enhanced" photo below "saucer", but this "beam of light" somehow is darker than background

And the last one: some amazing thingy flies before G.Buchert's eyes, yet he takes only ONE photo, although he had time to find camera, adjust settings... Only ONE photo

G.Buchert's photo plus "enhancements" are quite fishy, I must say.

[lost_shaman]

I do think the aspects described above can indeed be found at the Hessdalen Project site, as per the comparisons I have offered in the BE thread, but like I said there, you will not get an "exact replica" such would be akin to searching for identical snowflakes.

Hey psyche,

I agree that "exigo visio" is not needed to 'prove', nor that lack there-of evidence to discount such a strange and diverse phenomena as that is found in Hessdalen specifically and across the globe generally.

[psyche101]

Hey psyche,

I agree that "exigo visio" is not needed to 'prove', nor that lack there-of evidence to discount such a strange and diverse phenomena as that is found in Hessdalen specifically and across the globe generally.

Agreed mate

Hessdalen itself exposes enough diversity to confirm this.

[quillius]

I do think the aspects described above can indeed be found at the Hessdalen Project site, as per the comparisons I have offered in the BE thread, but like I said there, you will not get an "exact replica" such would be akin to searching for identical snowflakes.

With the "dismissal" by the Air Force, this one was an initial report that helped get the Condon Committee off the ground. What I think needs be taken into account, but rarely is be ego. We have to remember, these men had a division created for them, and their job was to debunk such cases. The more they could explain, the better the job they did - right? So whilst the explanations are lack lustre, and hard to reconcile, I do feel this is more due to human emotion than any nefarious activity. People looking for Gold Stars if you know what I mean. I do believe the case is an excellent one, and some information may be cleared up, but a complete resolution would be difficult to achieve, and would probably only ignite controversy.

With the RADAR returns, from what I read of your suspicions above, the ATC must have a record to say "no hits" so perhaps it was indeed requested, and lies gathering dust some place. And it is not necessary the officers lied about jets, they may simply have taken commercial craft to be USAF craft, as both occupied the airspace.

I think that UFOLogy might be making a mountain out of a molehill? For sure this for me stays one of the most fascinating, and plausible sightings of all time, but the closer I look, again, the less I see ET here, but simply more about ourselves to learn.

My biggest bugbear with the ETH is that it is 100% imagination. Nobody has even seen other life, and we have only our pool of one to go by. With this limited data, and considering the vast distances to overcome, presuming ET is I feel immensely premature.

Why do we point at ET instead of earth, cosmic rays or other?

Hello Psyche, I agree that no exact match can be found on this diverse natural phenomena, however that doesnt answer the 5 points I have put forward. Hessdalen and other similar phenomena generally have a common denominator...they are balls of light/ or loght arrays of some formation. Here we are talking about an object, an object that then emitted light in a cone shape, I have looked at your samples given at BE thread but they are not even close in my opinion. The closet you have is the beam going through the roof and the other case that said it lasted 1-2 hours....1-2 hours????quite a big difference there dont you think, I would take the account with a huge pinch of salt as their range is not precise in any way.

So I must ask again what aspects of this case make it point to plasma and how do they reconcile with above points I initially raised?

AS for their job to debunk, why this job to start with? surely understanding said phenomena is better than burying head in sand which in effect is what they were instructed to do.

If they had a record saying no hits why go to the trouble of visiting traffic controller at home to get a written statement. when the record would give out the same information? And why did he wish to remain anonymous? (its not because he saw what happened to the two officers being hounded for years as we are talking just 30 days after the said event so the repercussions were yet to be understood.

Also the officers mistaking the aircraft I am not entirely sure this is the case, reading their statements again they describe both types of craft commercial and fighter jets. I know this proves nothing but I dont think you can dismiss this either at this stage.

As for why ET? I am not saying ET, the case is fascinating though and could be plasma, I just dont see it yet and havent been convinced otherwise.

In closing though, I do agree to your bolded part above

[psyche101]

Hello Psyche, I agree that no exact match can be found on this diverse natural phenomena, however that doesnt answer the 5 points I have put forward. Hessdalen and other similar phenomena generally have a common denominator...they are balls of light/ or loght arrays of some formation. Here we are talking about an object, an object that then emitted light in a cone shape, I have looked at your samples given at BE thread but they are not even close in my opinion. The closet you have is the beam going through the roof and the other case that said it lasted 1-2 hours....1-2 hours????quite a big difference there dont you think, I would take the account with a huge pinch of salt as their range is not precise in any way.

So I must ask again what aspects of this case make it point to plasma and how do they reconcile with above points I initially raised?

AS for their job to debunk, why this job to start with? surely understanding said phenomena is better than burying head in sand which in effect is what they were instructed to do.

If they had a record saying no hits why go to the trouble of visiting traffic controller at home to get a written statement. when the record would give out the same information? And why did he wish to remain anonymous? (its not because he saw what happened to the two officers being hounded for years as we are talking just 30 days after the said event so the repercussions were yet to be understood.

Also the officers mistaking the aircraft I am not entirely sure this is the case, reading their statements again they describe both types of craft commercial and fighter jets. I know this proves nothing but I dont think you can dismiss this either at this stage.

As for why ET? I am not saying ET, the case is fascinating though and could be plasma, I just dont see it yet and havent been convinced otherwise.

In closing though, I do agree to your bolded part above

Gidday mate

I don't know

From the Hessdalen Project

It hovered down almost to the ground where it stopped for a while. Suddenly it put on a very strong light and we could see the snow shining in the light. I still looked at it through the binoculars and in a split second “it turned off” the light without moving and everything became dark.

There could be a lot of flashes on one location, then one single flash, then flashes all over the hillside. Some flashes were above the horizon, but they were more difficult to see, because the sky was not complete dark. It was difficult to find a pattern of the flashes during our 2 hours of observation (1 hour each night).

The metallic zones induced by reactor fast neutrons in GaAs were studied. The samples were irradiated at 300 to 310 K and the electroreflectance spectrum of the samples was measured before irradiation and after several irradiation periods. After irradiation up to a fast-neutron fluence of about 7×106n/cm2 a new electroreflectance peak at 1.33 eV was observed. The appearance of this peak can be explained with a metal-like plasma resonance suggested by McNichols, Hayes, and Ginell.

LINK

Above we have metallic resonance, intensity, and duration.

What I am seeing here is enough corroboration to make a connection worth investigating. It seems to me better than a drone as an explanation, and I do not see ET as a viable alternative due to the structure of the belief in ET. Whilst it may not be plasma, but I feel it is best bet at this stage, and agin, investigation is showing best bet to be under our feet, not from the heavens. This is a trend that most ignore. But overall, we just do not have enough information.

Why would it only chase that car? I would have to know more about the car - what Police Radio did it have, and what frequencies did said radio operate on? Model of car, modifications to car etc.

Why this job to start with? Right place, right time? It sure would test any investigator, and if one came up smelling roses, it would be one heck of a positive start. If a new investigative body was just formed, if in charge, I feel I too would set the hardest challenge I can to test the new unit.

I would think they would go to the ATC for valid confirmation of their records, and I think many people do not say much because they honestly do not know what they saw, and do not want to be labelled a kook, or have their story turned into ET, as is common with the media. Considering the treatment the officers got, it seems this mindset was commonplace at the time.

Cheers

[quillius]

Gidday mate

I don't know

From the Hessdalen Project

Above we have metallic resonance, intensity, and duration.

What I am seeing here is enough corroboration to make a connection worth investigating. It seems to me better than a drone as an explanation, and I do not see ET as a viable alternative due to the structure of the belief in ET. Whilst it may not be plasma, but I feel it is best bet at this stage, and agin, investigation is showing best bet to be under our feet, not from the heavens. This is a trend that most ignore. But overall, we just do not have enough information.

Why would it only chase that car? I would have to know more about the car - what Police Radio did it have, and what frequencies did said radio operate on? Model of car, modifications to car etc.

Why this job to start with? Right place, right time? It sure would test any investigator, and if one came up smelling roses, it would be one heck of a positive start. If a new investigative body was just formed, if in charge, I feel I too would set the hardest challenge I can to test the new unit.

I would think they would go to the ATC for valid confirmation of their records, and I think many people do not say much because they honestly do not know what they saw, and do not want to be labelled a kook, or have their story turned into ET, as is common with the media. Considering the treatment the officers got, it seems this mindset was commonplace at the time.

Cheers

Hey Psyche, Gidday

I am not sure why you posted that first example as it was not the one from the BE thread as discussed. This was the actual observation you posted:

Date: 12.01.2010 Time: in the night Place: Hessdalen

Observer: Kjetil Folde and Jannika Grimbe

During the night between the 11. and 12. of January did Jannika and Kjetil see a big light outside their bedroom. In binoculars it looked like a big Christmas tree in different colours, most blue and green. The phenomenon moved extremely slowly toward the north west. It burned out after 1 to 2 hours.Ref. Kjetil Folde.

So as you can see they state 1-2 hours, how can that be taken seriously with such a range of time observed...if the officers for example had said they stood observing the object from 1-2 hours-what would you have doen to those statements?

Ok you say we have metallic resonance, intensity and duration

I argue where do we have intensity increase without clusters? where do we have a metallic object with defined features with cone shaped beam, that changes angle with movement? I wont debate duration although the above example is clearly lacking in confirming duration, however I know other cases confirm duration of plasma.

In addition how and where can plasma account for the points I initially made:

1- The cone description, we are not talking a ball of light (as in Hess) but an object projecting light. The light created the cone shape however the object had more of a saucer shape. (similar to that of the photo, although no correlation has been made to say its the same object)

2- The increased illumination, (Hessdalen observations have so far been that when a plasma is increasing in size or brightness this is actually by further clusters being created around the nucleus). (from what I have understood anyway)

3- the tilting of object when moving, the torch description works quite well here , rather than a ball of light illuminating the ground, its an object projecting light.

4- the light is projected downwards and not all over the object. I know there as examples of a leakage path create a beam but this is froma ball of light not similar IMO.

5- The descriptions of features on the object such as this 'They said the craft they chased was about 50 feet across and 15 to 20 feet high with a large dome on its top and an antenna jutted out from the rear of the dome"

6- and finally the apparent cat and mouse manouvers (ok I appreciate this is opinion based as was Spaurs comment on it being intelligently controlled), apparently on four occasions it went away and waited for them to catch up, on one occasion it was because they were in a traffic jam, so if it was working on the 'attraction' 'repulsion' elements, why just this particular cop car!??

As for why that car? well I obviously cant provide you with the requested detail, at the same time though you cant say why that car, even if you knew the said detail would you be able to answer? I am not sure you would.

What I mean by why the job in the first place, I meant why a team to 'debunk' instead of 'investigate' surely that shows true bias and is deemed worthless on the face of it. In response to your suggestion (about why this 'case' in particular) that they would be given a test...hardly passed it with flying colours did they?

Finally the ATC signature on seeing nothing still doesnt make sense, why remain anonymous if he is claiming to have seen nothing? shouldnt it be the opposite if he was signing to confirm that he had a radar hit, then maybe at a stretch I could understand a certain reluctance to include name...this was not the case though so not sure on your point here.

As for the treatment of officers, should the AF had conducted a better investigation and if the sighting had not been labelled so ridiculously as venus maybe they would ot had suffered to the extent they did.

[McKenna]

Very interesting UFO incident from Ohio in which multiple police officers witness and chase a UFO (Project Blue Book Record 10073) - the case was also the model for the scene in Steven Spielberg's film 'Close Encounters of the Third kind'.

Let's play the game catch that UFO if you can

Officer sketch of the object:

Officer descriptions of the object: