Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
karl 12

Police debate whether to fire on UFO,

90 posts in this topic

As it states in this FBI law enforcement bulletin "a great many times police officers have figured in UFO sightings directly" and the case below is a very interesting example involving close range sightings, separately located witnesses, electromagnetic interference effects and an object performing 'aerial gymnastics'- it even states in the report by Dr James Mcdonald that the police officers 'had their pistols drawn and were debating whether to fire' on the unknown object.

Red Bluff Police UFO Encounter - August, 1960:

17f6ff3f20f9.gif

Aug. 13, 1960..Red Bluff, CA: California Highway Patrol Officers Charles A. Carson and Stanley Scott were on patrol when they sighted what they thought was an airliner about to crash. When the UFO had descended to about 100 or 200 feet altitude it suddenly reversed direction and climbed to 500 ft. Description: round or oblong surrounded by a glow (color not mentioned) and having definite red lights at each end. They continued to watch the UFO as it performed "unbelievable" aerial feats. The local RADAR operator confirmed the UFO at this time but denied it the next day. Other Tehema County Sheriffs' officers also saw this UFO and another similar one that same night.

NICAP Case Directory

UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times? - Dr James Edward McDonald

Object description - Police teletype report:

"At this time it was clearly visible to both of us. It was surrounded by a glow making the round or oblong object visible. At each end, or each side of the object, there were definite red lights. At times about five white lights were visible between the red lights.As we watched the object moved again and performed feats that were actually unbelievable."

Object emits red beam / EM effects:

The local radar base confirmed a UFO at this time (but denied it next day). "We made several attempts to ... get closer to it, but the object seemed to be aware of us and we were more successful remaining motionless and allow it to approach us, which it did on several occasions." Each time it did so, they experienced strong radio interference as the UFO emitted a red beam of light that swept the area and illuminated the ground. "The object was capable of moving in any direction. Up and down, back and forth .. it moved at high (extremely) speeds and several times we watched it change directions or reverse itself while moving at unbelievable speeds."

Second object / Separately located witnesses:

..When they had reached the Vina Plains Fire Station, the object was approached by a second object that came from the south.

The second object moved near to the first and both stopped and hovered for some time, occasionally emitting red beams. After a time, both objects vanished below the eastern horizon. They had observed the first object for a total of about two hours and fifteen minutes.

When they returned to the Tehama County Sheriff's Office, they found that the object had also been seen by Deputies Fry and Montgomery, as well as by the night jailer. All described the same thing.

USAF explanation:

"refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeuse".

Other links:

http://lightsinthetexassky.blogspot.com/2010/08/red-bluff-ufo-encounters-then-and-now.html

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

http://www.greatdreams.com/red-bluff-ca-may-2007.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified?

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified? Especially if it is airborne?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified?

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified? Especially if it is airborne?

I agree Aqua. Typical humanity, if we cannot identify it, shoot it. Thats a real good first response. I am sure our 9mm's were a real scare to "them", LOL. My fellow humans never cease to amaze me !:rolleyes:

Edited by Robbie333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the UFO was hovereing around Exeter, NH in 1965, one of the witnesses kept telling the cops to shoot at it, but they wisely refrained from doing so.

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

In general, I just don't think it's a good idea to shoot at these things, since they might react in a very unpleasant way.

This Exeter case should also get an award for one of the most absurd "explantions" ever offered for a UFO--fire balloons! The fact that this did not match what the witnesses described in any way did not stop the "explainers" from slapping some kind of "explanation" on it. In this case, they would have done better to say nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified?

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified? Especially if it is airborne?

I was going to write the EXACT same thing, as I was shaking my head after reading yet another case where people's instinct is to shoot at unidentified craft..... but then a few seconds later, I remembered, the human race is a DUMB primative one....

present company excluded of course *wink*

Thanks for posting Karl!

USAF explanation:

Quote

"refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeuse".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Edited by Paxus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified?

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified? Especially if it is airborne?

Cops are human :P when faced with something they don't know or understand pull out the stinger right and be ready to use it. After all there is the second amendment that allows many to pull guns on things they get scared of.

Ok back to the ufo thing they saw, maybe they thought something would beam down :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USAF explanation:

Quote

"refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeuse".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

WOW! Typical.. What gets me is people believe this crap. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cops are human :P when faced with something they don't know or understand pull out the stinger right and be ready to use it. After all there is the second amendment that allows many to pull guns on things they get scared of.

Ok back to the ufo thing they saw, maybe they thought something would beam down :unsure2:

How many times do we hear that old saying ! Shoot First and Ask questions Later ! I would bet that If ET comes to Earth and Parks over Central Park and some really Cool Lights start to Blink on and a Death Ray starts up !

Oh! Strike that last thought ! THat was another movie I remember !

Well We should think before we Shoot ! Right? :innocent:

post-68971-0-41671200-1299958848_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Aqua. Typical humanity, if we cannot identify it, shoot it. Thats a real good first response. I am sure our 9mm's were a real scare to "them", LOL. My fellow humans never cease to amaze me !:rolleyes:

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing...you see something you cannot figure out what it is...so your first thought is to shoot at it? Good grief. That cops wife should be really careful when she gets up in the middle of the night to go use the bathroom, otherwise he may not be able to recognize her in the dark and start blasting away first response. I can understand being scared if a ufo is nearby, but unless the ufo starts shooting I just don't understand that urge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times do we hear that old saying ! Shoot First and Ask questions Later ! I would bet that If ET comes to Earth and Parks over Central Park and some really Cool Lights start to Blink on and a Death Ray starts up !

Oh! Strike that last thought ! THat was another movie I remember !

Well We should think before we Shoot ! Right? :innocent:

We could all hope for that but hey I meet this sexy little thing last night and I didn't tarp the load so :blush: Kidding I was here stuck with my gf that bugs me to know end (joking) with a bucket of KFC. Now if I hadn't ordered kfc I might have shot the guy knocking on my door at 10 pm :alien:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified?

What kind of idiot policeman needs to debate whether to shoot at a target that they have not identified? Especially if it is airborne?

well if they had gotten eaten by aliens without shooting everybody would still be calling them idiots.

It's like they just can't win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the records, I was trying to emphasize how unlikely the report is, due to the far more unlikely event that police would debate whether to shoot it or not. They, after all, specifically trained in gun control in high stress situations.

It is more difficult for me to believe that a group of cops were deliberating whether to shoot an unidentified flying object that had not posed any danger to anything than to believe that someone merely made up the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the records, I was trying to emphasize how unlikely the report is, due to the far more unlikely event that police would debate whether to shoot it or not. They, after all, specifically trained in gun control in high stress situations.

It is more difficult for me to believe that a group of cops were deliberating whether to shoot an unidentified flying object that had not posed any danger to anything than to believe that someone merely made up the story.

Yes they are well trained Aqua,its the ones that just pull the trigger that worry me !

We have many deaths every year here over this very question. The responce from the police is always going to back the Men In Blue!

JUst Imagine If the perp, is Nine feet tall and holding a Plasma Gun and got nasty Green Teeth,and wants to Eat you?

Then I would say Shoot! :wacko:

post-68971-0-52213000-1299990268_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say: "Kid, take that mask off, put the watergun down, and go home, before I call your parents."

If he still tries to eat me, then I tackle him. Shooting is probably not even going to be a consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Should I shoot the UFO , or should I not shoot the UFO....

barney_fife.jpg

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, says alot about the human race, dont you think? :unsure:

I think it was just another one of those stories we hear, but never can be proven.

laUFO_enhanced_and_framed.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies and it looks like there was quite a UFO flap going on over Northern California in August 1960..

An intensive concentration of UFO sightings occurred over a six day period in northern California. Dozens of witnesses, including at least 14 police officers, reported typical disc, elliptical and cigar-shaped UFOs.

The state police sighting of a highly maneuverable ellipse, which shone red beams of light toward the ground the night of August 13, was reported on the front page of state newspapers and on the newswires.

Chronology of Main Cases:

Aug. 13-14

Hollywood. 10:30 p.m. Red elliptical UFO passed overhead, hovering once.

Willow Creek. After 11:00 p.m. Circular red UFO approached, circled, dove, climbed away.

Red Bluff. 11:50 p.m.- 2:05 a.m. State policemen reported reddish elliptical UFO which made "unbelievable" maneuvers. [see Section I.] Second UFO reported during latter part of sighting.

Aug. 16-17

Corning. 8:30 p.m. Two cigar-shaped objects flashing red and white lights passed from E to NE.

Eureka. 9:30 p.m. Group of 6-8 white and red lights maneuvering information. Air Force explanation: aircraft refueling mission.

Corning. About 9:50 p.m. Boomerang-shaped UFO passed from SW to NW, twice emitting bursts of white light.

Mineral. About 11:00 p.m. Dozens of witnesses, including Tehama County police officers, watched six brightly lighted objects "dipping and diving and moving at simply unbelievable speed" in the southern sky. Objects alternately hovered, speedily changed position.

Concord and Pleasant Hill. 11:40 p.m. to 12:15 a.m. Circular UFO flashing red and blue lights maneuvered over area, hovering, moving up and down, side to side.

Near Healdsburg and Santa Rosa. Early A.M. Deputy Sheriff observed "flattened ball, dull red and crimson on the edges," hovering and moving slowly about 5 degrees above horizon.

Aug. 17-18

Roseville. Night. Two oblong lighted objects bobbed around in sky for an hour; witnesses included police captain and sergeant.

Folsom. UFO with two bright white lights on front, red lights at rear, maneuvered over area off and on for two hours at night; whining noise "like spinning top" heard.

Dunsmuir. 12:10 a.m. Oblong reddish UFO with associated smaller yellow light descended, then rose and sped away. High-pitched sound "like rushing wind" heard.

Redlands. 1:45 a.m. Oval-shaped UFO with dome and row of red lights on edge, maneuvering slowly in sky.

August 18

Honeydew (Humboldt Co.) 9:54 p.m. The postmaster watched a delta-shaped object, clearly visible for more than 2 minutes. UFO approached, made sharp turn and moved away. Red glow visible on front, lights on inside of V.

link

Thanks for posting Karl!

USAF explanation:

Quote

"refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeuse".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Paxus, it sure is quite a funny one mate and there are plenty more examples here - apparently in the Red Bluff case the three celestial objects weren't even in the sky at the time...so they changed the explanation to 'Capella'.

The Bluebook explanation that came out after a few days attributed this very detailed, close range sighting of a large object, seen by two experienced officers to "refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeuse".

NICAP referred the question to one of their astronomical advisors, who found that none of these three celestial objects were even in the California skies at that time. Bluebook then changed the explanation to read Mars and Capella. Capella, the only one of those celestial bodies that was even in the sky at 2300, was nowhere near the location of the sighted object, and could not, of course, give the impression of the various movements clearly described by the officers.

link

Cheers. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more difficult for me to believe that a group of cops were deliberating whether to shoot an unidentified flying object that had not posed any danger to anything than to believe that someone merely made up the story.

Hey Aquatus, your certainly entitled to your opinion and who knows, maybe your right and all the witnesses concocted the whole thing.

I'd be interested to know if you clicked on the first link in the first paragraph of the first post regarding the FBI police officer UFO bulletin - there's also some intriguing reports listed there but I realise they may sound a little outlandish to certain individuals.

This NICAP evidence report (which also covers the Red Bluff incident) is also quite a fascinating read for someone with a genuine interest in the UFO phenomenon.

f14d1ad21bed.jpg
A synthesis is presented of data concerning Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) reported during the past 20 years through governmental, press and private channels. The serious evidence is clarified and analyzed. The data are reported by categories of specially trained observers and studied by patterns of appearance, performance and periodic recurrence.

The UFO Evidence - published by NICAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USAF explanation:

Quote

"refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeuse".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is just insane! How do they come up with this rubbish?!

If I was USAF I would have been like.... Big silver Cylinder, red lights on each end and white lights down the middle.... hmmmm.... Airship!!!!! Bingo....

But they come out with "refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeuse"..... WTF?!

I was away to post and say, this was most likely an Airship.... Until I read that the USAF said that, now I think they where covering it up. I'm guessing that back then the Military etc thought it would be easier to fool the public by using scientific answers to shut them up. Now the general public has become more intelligent they don't get away with these idiotic statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That is just insane! How do they come up with this rubbish?!

Coffey, that's nothing mate - the USAF explanation for this object was the planet Venus.

The Portage County Police UFO Incident - Object:

portage.gif

"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"

There seems to be so many of these highly dubious USAF 'debunks' out there that it's not even funny anymore - perhaps Dr James Mcdonald had it right all along:

"As a result of several trips to project Bluebook,I´ve had an opportunity to examine quite carefully and in detail the types of reports that are made by Bluebook personnel.In most cases, I have found that theres almost no correlation between so-called "evaluations and explanations" that are made by Bluebook and the facts of the case...

There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of this problem,years ago,yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Bluebook investigators and their consultants."

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, says alot about the human race, dont you think? :unsure:

I think it was just another one of those stories we hear, but never can be proven.

You know, Hazzard, that Battle of Los Angeles in 1942 could almost be the prototype for thousands of UFO cases that came later.

It has it all: radar and visual reports of Something in the sky--probably as many eye witnesses as there have ever been in a UFO case. They all saw Something, but they don't know what it is.

There are authentic pictures of Something publsihed in all the newspapers, but no one knows what it is.

We know for a fact that the military fired on The Thing, not just once or twice but thousands of times, evidently without effect.

There are a few government documents and public statements about The Thing, but they all seem confused and uncertain about what it was. As usual with UFIO cases, we get the feeling that the complete records of this case may well still be classified, but it does not seem like we have the full story.

Maybe we never will. So all I can say is that I don't know what is was, where it came from or what it was doing here, and if anyone else does they certainly aren't telling. It definitely makes for a good UFO case, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coffey, that's nothing mate - the USAF explanation for this object was the planet Venus.

There seems to be so many of these highly dubious USAF 'debunks' out there that it's not even funny anymore - perhaps Dr James Mcdonald had it right all along:

Cheers.

Hahaha that is really lame. Why do they even bother saying anything. They just make it worse. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha that is really lame. Why do they even bother saying anything. They just make it worse. lol

You're not wrong there mate - many of the 'official' government UFO explanations are spurious, contrived or just plain ridiculous and I think many UFO cynics just blindly accept them without a second look because that is what they want to believe.

Here's what one of the officers had to say about the USAF 'explanation' for the Red Bluff incident:

... I have been told we saw Northern lights, a weather balloon, and now refractions.

… I served 4 years with the Air Force, I believe I am familiar with the Northern lights, also weather balloons. Officer Scott served as a paratrooper during the Korean Conflict. Both of us are aware of the tricks light can play on the eyes during darkness.

We were aware of this at the time. Our observations and estimations of speed, size, etc. came from aligning the object with fixed objects on the horizon. I agree we find it difficult to believe what we were watching, but no one will ever convince us that we were witnessing a refraction of light.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

karl 12 If ET were to fly into some of the Hood`s we have in all our major cities It would be a all out Free Shoot !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Edit. :no:

Edited by karl 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.