Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

SETI Institute chief offers his views on UFOs and alien visitors


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

A quick shout to astrobeing - your answers and points are absolutely spot on - and it's great to have someone here who actually knows the area...  My life is a bit on the busy side at the moment so I'm struggling to find time to battle the you-know-what from Earl and others.  So I really appreciate it when I call back in to UM, and find the stuff I was going to do or say is already being done.  Thanks!

I grew up reading UFO books (which I still have) and watching "In Search Of...". I was certain that by the futuristic year of 2024 we'd have the UFO phenomenon all figured out (not to mention Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster). Back then everyone involved in UFO investigation was optimistic that we'd have it solved very soon. If aliens were flying around in spaceships (and occasionally crashing them) then surely after eighty years we'd have incontrovertible proof that they were extraterrestrial.

I never guessed that decades later the topic would be going in circles and I would be looking at the same damn UFO stories (many of which had been debunked) recycled with fake details added by anonymous people sometimes just to make money. It's very disappointing to me.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, astrobeing said:

I grew up reading UFO books (which I still have) and watching "In Search Of...". I was certain that by the futuristic year of 2024 we'd have the UFO phenomenon all figured out (not to mention Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster). Back then everyone involved in UFO investigation was optimistic that we'd have it solved very soon. If aliens were flying around in spaceships (and occasionally crashing them) then surely after eighty years we'd have incontrovertible proof that they were extraterrestrial.

I never guessed that decades later the topic would be going in circles and I would be looking at the same damn UFO stories (many of which had been debunked) recycled with fake details added by anonymous people sometimes just to make money. It's very disappointing to me.

Same here. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/2/2024 at 12:48 PM, astrobeing said:

This is not stated in any report. The report I quoted stated that there was glass in the window. You're lying. Again.

And it's utterly ridiculous to think that a government office would only have a screen covering a window even during summer. I lived in the Northeast for three years and every summer we had powerful storms with heavy rain and strong winds. I can only imagine how much rain would blast through a bug screen right on the Atlantic coast! Not to mention the office would be chilly 50F when people came into work most of the summer.

So yes I do get it and you don't.

The picture wasn't taken from inside the building.

Edit:  Actually it appears as though it was.

  •  Photo by Shell R. Alpert, a United States Coast Guard photographer at the Salem, Mass., air station at 9:35 A.M. on July 16, 1952, through a window screen.
  • -  Official Coast Guard photo 5554.

project-blue-book-investigating-ufo.jpg?width=828&quality=70

Edited by joc
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2024 at 10:28 PM, ChrLzs said:

My life is a bit on the busy side at the moment so I'm struggling to find time to battle the you-know-what from Earl and others.  So I really appreciate it when I call back in to UM, and find the stuff I was going to do or say is already being done.  Thanks!

find time to battle??  Don't worry about it... The likes of Earl and others will always be here for our entertainment= so, no rush. 😉

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2024 at 12:16 AM, ChrLzs said:

BTW, I think there's a bit more yet to be uncovered in this story, and I might be back later to try to pin this location down and find out exactly where this was taken.  Are they really power station smokestacks or the alleged Salem Coastguard incinerator...

I'm pretty sure it was the Harbor Power Plant...unless this picture is labeled incorrectly.

salemharborplant.png.1f5292afab3b0372a600155d81db0d6b.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2024 at 1:48 PM, astrobeing said:

This is not stated in any report. The report I quoted stated that there was glass in the window. You're lying. Again.

And it's utterly ridiculous to think that a government office would only have a screen covering a window even during summer. I lived in the Northeast for three years and every summer we had powerful storms with heavy rain and strong winds. I can only imagine how much rain would blast through a bug screen right on the Atlantic coast! Not to mention the office would be chilly 50F when people came into work most of the summer.

So yes I do get it and you don't.

please astro, don't call me a liar.  Ut us un the original thread I ran in here years ago. 
Now, there are some 60 witnesses which PROVES it is not a reflection. It also proves you are a liar

Done with you. I'm not taking this crap from you

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2024 at 1:51 PM, astrobeing said:

You definitely don't know Winter Island in the real world. The Willows neighborhood is north of Winter Island. The power plant is west of Winter Island. North and west are perpendicular to each other.

 

I never said the Willows were in the direction of the power plant. quit  lying.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joc said:

The picture wasn't taken from inside the building.

Edit:  Actually it appears as though it was.

  •  Photo by Shell R. Alpert, a United States Coast Guard photographer at the Salem, Mass., air station at 9:35 A.M. on July 16, 1952, through a window screen.
  • -  Official Coast Guard photo 5554.

project-blue-book-investigating-ufo.jpg?width=828&quality=70

The photo here is a better version than what I put up; good find, bud.

 

 "Official Coast Guard photo 5554" - like that is supposed to mean anything to those that think the photo is fake. Like ChrLZs lol. Y'all, appease me and try solving this:


Assuming the illuminated objects are "reflections", what specifically are those objects and how high in the room must they be? 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, joc said:

I'm pretty sure it was the Harbor Power Plant...unless this picture is labeled incorrectly.

salemharborplant.png.1f5292afab3b0372a600155d81db0d6b.png

 

Yah, it is the same power plant.

the 3rd unit and its smoke stack was added in the sixties some time. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small request.  If Earl raises any issues that are worthy of merit (you never know, even the incredibly unlikely might just happen....), can someone quote him or PM me?  I've had enough of his deliberate 'tactics', and he's staying on ignore.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, joc said:

I'm pretty sure it was the Harbor Power Plant...unless this picture is labeled incorrectly...

I'm going to have to differ...  Look closely at the stacks in the old picture and note that they are close to the same height and are darker at the top, and there's a lighter mid section, then darker again.  The stacks in the newer pic don't match that and the stacks look unpainted.  Plus the topmost platforms don't seem to match.  The two stacks similar height might be explainable by perspective, eg a camera location over the other side, and much closer to the 'shorter' one... but that would require a fair bit of juggling to find a position that would make them match height like that, given what appears to be a very large difference..

Problem is, we're talking about many, many years ago, so things have likely been demolished/rebuilt.  The old Coast Guard Air station closed down in 1970, I believe, so it's likely gone now - indeed I had a quick look around on Google maps and streetview, and I couldn't locate any useful landmarks that are still there from the older photo, so either I'm missing something.. or we would have to go digging through archival photos.

Given astro's and my earlier comments about the simple fact that the objects cannot possibly be in the sky in that old image anyway, it seems a bit of a waste of time analysing details of a picture that we know must be being misrepresented.  Someone's been up to no good in this case.  And some others are gullible enough to bite, and even to make up stories in the false belief that it will help their case.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

please astro, don't call me a liar.  Ut us un the original thread I ran in here years ago. 
Now, there are some 60 witnesses which PROVES it is not a reflection. It also proves you are a liar

Done with you. I'm not taking this crap from you

Please link to that "original thread [YOU] ran in here years ago."

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Please link to that "original thread [YOU] ran in here years ago."

You're on a public forum, Earl, not just talking to GD.  And (as seems to be a habit) you are making some wild claims.  So, CITE the thread.  I'm particularly interested in these 'some 60 witnesses'.  Let's see the statements that match this sighting and that back up the 60 number.

I have you on ignore, but others can quote you and frankly, I've had enough - if you have just tried to misinform us, then I'll be reporting you.  Equally, and to be fair, if you can back up your claim with a decent cite (or even a half decent one..) I'll humbly apologise.  So ... start pedalling that bike of yours and let's see which way those pedals go.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Placeholder.  This is where Earl, on an earlier thread, made certain claims:

I'll be back later to look at those claims, especially the number of witnesses, and the actual claims they made.  If any.

Note that if you try to follow that topic, the posts about this case are very sporadic through the rather long trainwreck of a thread... 

Now Earl .... there seems to be an .. er .. inconsistency, shall we say?, with the no. of witnesses.

So, would you like to take a few moments to adjust/retract your claims?  Think carefully, and don't forget, you were asked to CITE....

 

:D :D 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Placeholder.  This is where Earl, on an earlier thread, made certain claims:

I'll be back later to look at those claims, especially the number of witnesses, and the actual claims they made.  If any.

Note that if you try to follow that topic, the posts about this case are very sporadic through the rather long trainwreck of a thread... 

Now Earl .... there seems to be an .. er .. inconsistency, shall we say?, with the no. of witnesses.

So, would you like to take a few moments to adjust/retract your claims?  Think carefully, and don't forget, you were asked to CITE....

 

:D :D 

 

But, but, ChrLzs, that is a thread run by Hazzard late last year.   

That can't be the "original thread [EOT] ran in here years ago."

Maybe it's another typographical error by them.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I'm going to have to differ...  Look closely at the stacks in the old picture and note that they are close to the same height and are darker at the top, and there's a lighter mid section, then darker again.  The stacks in the newer pic don't match that and the stacks look unpainted.  Plus the topmost platforms don't seem to match.  The two stacks similar height might be explainable by perspective, eg a camera location over the other side, and much closer to the 'shorter' one... but that would require a fair bit of juggling to find a position that would make them match height like that, given what appears to be a very large difference..

Problem is, we're talking about many, many years ago, so things have likely been demolished/rebuilt.  The old Coast Guard Air station closed down in 1970, I believe, so it's likely gone now - indeed I had a quick look around on Google maps and streetview, and I couldn't locate any useful landmarks that are still there from the older photo, so either I'm missing something.. or we would have to go digging through archival photos.

Given astro's and my earlier comments about the simple fact that the objects cannot possibly be in the sky in that old image anyway, it seems a bit of a waste of time analysing details of a picture that we know must be being misrepresented.  Someone's been up to no good in this case.  And some others are gullible enough to bite, and even to make up stories in the false belief that it will help their case.

I am going by the windows of the building itself, plus that "shoot" that slants down from the top. The stacks could have been updated. 

Now, the windows "inside" are another issue.  I joined the Navy in 1977.  I remember the barracks windows very well. These were not new barracks either.  We had to clean all of the windows inside.  I remember listening to Heart's 'Barracuda' while wiping down the windows with newspapers.  I don't remember if the windows had screens but I'm pretty sure they did because we didn't have AC. Once we were forced to close all of the windows and do PT while wearing our foul weather uniform.  So the windows were mostly open.  But the windows themselves had crank handles and they weren't all that easy to open and close.  This was in July in San Diego and we couldn't even March some days because of excessive heat.  But Navy...Coastguard...I'm guessing they all used pretty much the same kinds of windows.

All that to say that it's a lot cooler in Massachusetts and...at 9:35am when the picture was taken, it was pretty dark, which could very well be that it was a stormy morning...in which case, the windows would have been closed.

Edited by joc
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to this...  I've just spent a little while virtually driving around the Winter Island area, in the region where I think (I'll check a bit deeper later) the Coast Guard Air Station was..  And.. it's not making sense...  First up, Hazzard is right, in that this:

winterisland1.jpg.50c93348612935c65d5944bbdb63abc4.jpg

definitely appears to be this (taken from a different angle, but note window design, conveyor belt ramp):

winterisland2.jpg.65392f9173599226bc04c17800c41759.jpg

And yet THIS, appears to be the view from where the Coast Guard Station was:

winterisland3.jpg.8a3d44749f8fbeeb5c04ecbf6a33fa46.jpg

????? - look how distant the power station is!  The perspective seems all wrong, even taking into account differing fields of view.  Anyway, if anyone has more details on exactly where the Coast Guard Station was on Winter Island, please let me know, so I can take this further...  I do have some other stuff to look at, but it's quite confusing....

Back later...

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2024 at 1:46 AM, Golden Duck said:

Please link to that "original thread [YOU] ran in here years ago."

later this pm

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2024 at 11:22 AM, astrobeing said:

This is a photo of the garbage incinerator that existed at the Coast Guard base. It was across the parking lot from the photo lab in which the photo was taken. That's what it shows.

Now watch Earl ignore this information and reiterate his false details about this photo that don't exist in any report.

https://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/articles/articlehtml/thephotographerstale.html

Hi astro,

Earl and Joc are correct here. Shell Alpert's photo definitely shows the Salem Harbor power station. The first unit in the plant went online in November 1951, with the second unit online in late 1952 (source).

image.jpeg.23d50fe29c7f1d9a8c52f3cdab092ccc.jpeg

 

On 4/30/2024 at 11:22 AM, astrobeing said:

It was taken with a 4x5 camera with a 135mm lens, the equivalent of a 33mm lens on a 35mm camera. That is nearly a wide angle lens yet we're supposed to believe that this "power plant" which was over 600 feet away (across 400 feet of water) is filling an eighth of the frame.

A 4x5 camera with a 135mm lens actually has the about the same horizontal angle of view as a 35mm film camera with a 40 mm lens. The exposed area of a 4x5 film sheet is about 95x120 mm. Plug those values, along with the 135mm focal length, into any angle of view calculator (or do the trigonometry) and you'll get a horizontal angle of view of about 48 degrees.

Here's a June 1952 aerial view of CGAS Salem from my collection, taken only about a month before Shell Alpert shot his UFO photo:

image.jpeg.0a8645f81a263ae420e8af6a84c3f542.jpeg

Starting at upper left and moving clockwise around the central hangar, an earlier 1947 photo set labels the four topmost buildings as the barracks (still standing today), the administration building, a second administration building (housing the photo lab), and the sickbay. There are six cars parked outside the photo lab building. Might even be the same six cars that are in Alpert's photo if everyone parked at the same building each day.

Starting with a current Google Earth photo of the island, I've marked the locations of the admin building and photo lab building in blue, the parked cars in red, and the original power station location in orange.*  I've then added the camera's 48 deg field of view oriented approximately how Alpert was facing. I split the field of view into four 12 deg quadrants. 

image.thumb.jpeg.1711340f12325e7fdaa398577d4ff047.jpeg

Everything lines up very nicely with Alpert's photo. The power station should take up about a quarter of the horizontal field of view, which it does. Alpert's photo catches the overhanging roof of the photo lab building and the corner of the administration building, while the parked cars run from about the center of the frame to the right edge.

Alpert took his photo on July 16, 1952 at about 9:35 am EDT (source). At that time the sun would have been at an azimuth of 102 deg, putting it almost directly behind Alpert's camera, and about 44 deg above the horizon (source: heavens-above.com). The weather that day was very hot. Temperature at about 9:30 am was already 86 deg F (30 deg C) and the sky was partly cloudy (source). On such a hot day, the glass windows would have very likely been open, with the photo being shot through the window screen only (as referenced in the reports).

* Note: I determined the original power station location using a 2013 Salem Planning Board presentation on the proposed Footprint power station. This report is no longer available online, but the original building's footprint is still visible in current Google Earth overhead imagery. The new Footprint station was built farther to the southwest.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2024 at 11:07 AM, astrobeing said:

You never explained why the over 200 feet of water that separates the power plant the the Coast Guard base (it's called "Cat Cove") is not visible in this photo of lights reflecting off windows.

Cat Cove is visible in the photo. I've tinted the water blue in this copy:

image.jpeg.0b3e9f1f89983c71088d0c653aafef94.jpeg

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks, Pericynthion, those posts clarify several issues and are very much appreciated.

May I ask if you have an opinion on the key elements of this event, which seem to me to be:

- there is no sign of any reflection, specular or otherwise, on the vehicles, which strongly suggests the 'things' were not in the sky

- the blown out nature of the 'things', in conjunction with Alpert's comments that suggest their appearance and brightness depended on his angle of view, changing as he changed his viewing location ..

My opinion is that it may be either light reflections in window (but surely they would have worked that out..?), or possibly a hoax by taking multiple exposures of, say, a street lamp at night, to 'enhance' the base image..  Alpert was the person who developed the film, so he could have swapped another image for the one he was seen to take by the other 'witness'.  That other witness seemed to be rather reluctant to verify anything, saying he might have maybe seen a single 'flash' of light..

Sadly, the reports are unclear on whether the negative still exists, some saying it was destroyed, others saying it was returned to the Coast Guard, but no-one saying they have/had it.

I also have my doubts about the camera settings.  High sun, light high altitude clouds.. and he shot at 1/50 and f4.7 on 200 ISO? - it must have been a dense flyscreen!

 

Anyway, thanks very much for your input - always greatly appreciated.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2024 at 9:20 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

please astro, don't call me a liar.  Ut us un the original thread I ran in here years ago. 
Now, there are some 60 witnesses which PROVES it is not a reflection. It also proves you are a liar

Done with you. I'm not taking this crap from you

You lie and tell people not to call you liar then you call people who post facts liars, then when you can't back up your claims and are humiliated looking ridiculous you tantrum out, what a weird world your mind is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2024 at 1:52 PM, astrobeing said:

I grew up reading UFO books (which I still have) and watching "In Search Of...". I was certain that by the futuristic year of 2024 we'd have the UFO phenomenon all figured out (not to mention Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster). Back then everyone involved in UFO investigation was optimistic that we'd have it solved very soon. If aliens were flying around in spaceships (and occasionally crashing them) then surely after eighty years we'd have incontrovertible proof that they were extraterrestrial.

I never guessed that decades later the topic would be going in circles and I would be looking at the same damn UFO stories (many of which had been debunked) recycled with fake details added by anonymous people sometimes just to make money. It's very disappointing to me.

I have most "in search of" saved on my comp, bored one day I tried to track down that one case on the UFO episode that alleged happened in mellen Wisconsin

baker ufo

more baker

I only posted a couple links, most versions are basically the same tale but my OCD picks up the differences,

So this is a case with no shock zero evidence past anecdotal and to me boils down to an entire family lied or something that they didn't recognize landed in the road near their home,  so which is it? I lie, Then done but if not a lie what was it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2024 at 6:16 PM, joc said:

I'm pretty sure it was the Harbor Power Plant...unless this picture is labeled incorrectly.

salemharborplant.png.1f5292afab3b0372a600155d81db0d6b.png

But that is across over two hundred feet of water which is nowhere to be found in the photo. Even more confusing is that the photo was taken with a near wide angle lens yet the supposed power plant fills up an eighth of the frame.

Now if someone could show that the Coast Guard photo lab was not on Winter Island and was actually across a parking lot from the power plant then this all would make sense, but everything I've found has shown that it was in a building on Winter Island.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.