*listen* to a mass UFO reporting to a 911 Dispatch live Raw Audio

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Phage

I'm leaning towards electronic countermeasures spoofing radar.

Coulda been, except for the eyewitnesses...Kinda hard to see spoofing radar, isn't it???

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: carewemust

Could it be that the Naval Air Station was responsible for much of the UFO activity?

Sure it could be. It could have been natural phenomena, or something else…..

If you were looking at the air station, you'd have to look at what they had tech wise in 94 that would have that pattern of behaviour in flight.

So the naval air station would send aircraft to investigate their own hardware???

Phage asked why would ET be involved in this, well IF these objects were real and doing what was said then the craft clean up crew would need a good cleanser to get the human pilot off the walls of a craft if it was moving distances in the sweep of a scope and stopping dead.

Also IF it was stopping dead after sudden blasts of speed then when has that tech ever been seen over our skies on any sort of semi regular test flight status.

So IF what was seen was real then its not piloted by humans and the size and speed let alone the airborne braking system make it rather fancy tech that has not been seen doing the usual test flights.

As seen I've used IF a lot, I has no idea IF it was real but just saying why it would have to be something other than ours.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Phage

I'm leaning towards electronic countermeasures spoofing radar.

Coulda been, except for the eyewitnesses...Kinda hard to see spoofing radar, isn't it???

But but but they must have been all hallucinating or seeing the planet Venus.

.....or swamp gas.

a reply to: zazzafrazz
Posting to come back to after work.

Just like to say incredible links to videos and documentation.

I would like to start by saying my scientific knowledge is as poor as everyone else who comments on these forums..basing my opinions on this limited knowledge. I believe the radar picked up strong signals from the objects.. suggesting they had reflective properties to allow the radar to see them. To me, this suggests that the argument for electrical disturbances or propogation is weak at best.

These objects were seen by multiple witnessing identifying the same key characteristics and movement patterns. The lights could be attributed to the ionising of partials in the atmosphere during the northern lights but does not explain the size and separation of these objects.

The links for the radar locations of these objects is very compelling and I thankyou all who dig deep to find these sources so people such as my self can enjoy and have unbiased opinions without creating self fulfilling prophecies.

I would like to finally add is the "phage" person on this website just to discredit every post. ..His posts and justifications seem to be that of either a religious man or a trolley. ..He will find a reason why something is not to be..going beyond the realms of logic

Thank you all

a reply to: Mclaneinc

Well could it be a UAS then? Now we are just beginning to see the product of UAS in the media, but I wonder how long they were being tested prior to deployment/exposure? And that is just the Predator and Global Hawk. Now they are making mention of a UAS fighter type......... Could they not be testing systems that are way beyond what the public has knowledge of?

We can safely assume the answer is a resounding Yes!

It is undeniably fun to speculate and do guess work on what these could have been, but let's make sure we call it that mmmmk?

Also consider the source of the Radar data and the expertise of the person reporting it. It is a weather radar, and a weather observer.....they are not trained or experienced (nor is the equipment sufficient) to give expert advice on any solid object on thier displays. Why no reports from Air Traffic Control? Why not solicit information from an ATC facility? Why would you choose to call a weather facility to verify such reports and not a control facility? Either way my point is to consider the source when it comes to this specific instance.

So as I am not as infamous as our beloved Phage, I will ask.....

What indications do you get from this scenario that ET was involved?

Thanks for posting. This must be one of the best corroborated visual to radar eyewitness accounts out there. I believe the the weather radar incident is separate from the Strumball County event.

originally posted by: AtcGod
a reply to: Mclaneinc


Also consider the source of the Radar data and the expertise of the person reporting it. It is a weather radar, and a weather observer.....they are not trained or experienced (nor is the equipment sufficient) to give expert advice on any solid object on thier displays. Why no reports from Air Traffic Control? Why not solicit information from an ATC facility? Why would you choose to call a weather facility to verify such reports and not a control facility? Either way my point is to consider the source when it comes to this specific instance.

All good questions that can be answered. First I do believe weather radar can track planes/objects under the right conditions (clear cold night with no cloud cover such as that night). Not sure of what kind of radar was used or if he adjusting some settings, but the operator did say planes would show up as a pinpoint on the radar while these showed as half a thumbnail. Also, this would confirm that they were not planes either way and something else showed up. Something that had symmetrical characteristics and could elevate 1,000's of feet in seconds, which is nothing conventional craft can do nor any any known drone either. Not to mention what weather or atmospheric phenomena would perform in such a way for over 24 minutes? He is a trained weather observer and he said it definitely was not weather or atmospheric. IS not not good enough to eliminate that explanation?

We don't know his qualifications and/or experience right now to say he's not trained to give advice on solid objects.
From his interviews, he seemed very knowledgeable and conscientious enough to recreate the readings knowing they will not be saved. It does appear he knew what he was talking about and what he saw was something extraordinary. Maybe a second objective opinion is need to either confirm or deny his findings. However, there was real-time corroboration of visual and radar confirmation of whatever it was. Something very interesting occurred. Again including eyewitness accounts.

a reply to: rossacus

would like to finally add is the "phage" person on this website just to discredit every post. ..His posts and justifications seem to be that of either a religious man or a trolley. ..He will find a reason why something is not to be..going beyond the realms of logic

A Zazz thread will never be a bash Phage thread. Discuss the topic not him. Capiche?

thankyou all who dig deep to find these sources so people such as my self can enjoy and have unbiased opinions without creating self fulfilling prophecies.

You're welcome, but I don't actually know what you mean.."Self fulfilling prophecies" in regards to this recording….

I would like to start by saying my scientific knowledge is as poor as everyone else who comments on these forums

We have doctors of Astrophysics, pilots, weather specialists and scholars in certain fields on ATS as we'll a hobbyists like yourself.

I believe the radar picked up strong signals from the objects.. suggesting they had reflective properties to allow the radar to see them. To me, this suggests that the argument for electrical disturbances or propogation is weak at best.

OK. fair point but not absolute.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: carewemust

Could it be that the Naval Air Station was responsible for much of the UFO activity?

Sure it could be. It could have been natural phenomena, or something else…..

If you were looking at the air station, you'd have to look at what they had tech wise in 94 that would have that pattern of behaviour in flight.

So the naval air station would send aircraft to investigate their own hardware???

Can you reask the question, I'm not sure what why you are asking this, one of us is misunderstanding the other.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Phage

I'm leaning towards electronic countermeasures spoofing radar.

Coulda been, except for the eyewitnesses...Kinda hard to see spoofing radar, isn't it???

But but but they must have been all hallucinating or seeing the planet Venus.

.....or swamp gas.

Not one poster in this thread has mentioned hallucinations, swamp gas or Venus. Contribute something valuable not just anything for the sake of it.

originally posted by: Mclaneinc
Phage asked why would ET be involved in this, well IF these objects were real and doing what was said then the craft clean up crew would need a good cleanser to get the human pilot off the walls of a craft if it was moving distances in the sweep of a scope and stopping dead.

Good point. If the lights and returns were craft that is.

Some callers said 'cylindrical lights that split apart" I hope a expert can tell us if is this a pattern of the phenomena thats some posters have mentioned.

I believe Phage was swaying towards natural phenomena not a craft ours nor "theirs".

Thanks for posting.

originally posted by: AtcGod
a reply to: Mclaneinc
Why no reports from Air Traffic Control? Why not solicit information from an ATC facility? Why would you choose to call a weather facility to verify such reports and not a control facility? Either way my point is to consider the source when it comes to this specific instance.

He was a dispatcher, who knows, maybe he didn't have a code of conduct on who to call for UFOS in his county? He went with gut maybe?

That said, the weather operator DID say that if its a UFO it must be reported to "……." I couldn't hear it well, maybe some else can decipher.

a reply to: NYCUltra

Not to mention what weather or atmospheric phenomena would perform in such a way for over 24 minutes? He is a trained weather observer and he said it definitely was not weather or atmospheric. IS not not good enough to eliminate that explanation?

No he doesn't eliminate it himself. He does qualify at one point, that there are reported Northern lights that could be related.

The Ionosphere activity is 80km up so, this activity was at 8-12km hmmm. That is outa of my league.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Funnily enough I posted in Isaakois thread on it from '08 just 2 days ago.

I wish Project Condign were funny, but the mysterious author of the report has no funny in him whatsoever, far as I can tell at this point.

So, I agree with Nick.

If you are interested there is a great Nova documentary screening at Netflix called At The Edge of Space. Upper-atmospheric lightning, for instance, wasn't intentionally photographed until 1994, the same year that this went down in Michigan. Which is to say that scientists are just learning about this stuff. Project Condign wasn't ahead of its time, but just in time.

It's a post-postmodern UFO study for understanding post-modern UFOs.


ETA: I'd also like to put up a link for member IssacKoi's thread on Project Condign, as it is presently the best, most informative source of information on the report (UAP/UKADR) that is available on the web short of the report itself.

Project Condign - A valuable official report

Thanks again,

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: NYCUltra

No he doesn't eliminate it himself. He does qualify at one point, that there are reported Northern lights that could be related.

The Ionosphere activity is 80km up so, this activity was at 8-12km hmmm. That is outa of my league.

You are right, I was thinking more in terms of it was something he has never seen before and couldn't explain. He threw a lot of possibilities out there, just trying to figure it out. I'm not sure how the Northern lights would appear on radar or why they would appear as points of light in the sky.

Just insert the word "magic" inside the video adress like that: ...youmagictube......
and you can download anything from youtube ...voilà!
I think this trick is there since youtube itself

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I did not mean any offense to phage...just highlighting that he has a similar response on all the blogs...nothing personal.

With regards to self fulfilling prophecy I meant that when you actively search for something you are looking for particular answers based on your current beliefs and will find documents to reinforce these. Self fulfilling prophecy is the wrong term for this context so I apologise. That's why I am grateful for all the in depth sourcing so I can formulate my own opinion without bias on a particular subject

With regards to my statement on limited knowledge I was referring to previous posts.not the collective membership on this forum...I have no doubt there are qualified members..just previous posts were opinion based with no justifications for conclusions drawn

a reply to: rossacus
I am new to forums and felt compelled to join this site because of interesting articles and different perspectives, plus it helps refine the search for amazing articles.

I know you are all established members so I mean you no offense. I don't agree with somepeoples style of disagreeing and fell into the trap myself. My bad

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I guess your sarcasm meter fails.