Massachusetts UFO Flap - April, 1966.

"I observed what seem to be a large plate hovering over the school,"

Police Officer Mahan

As so often happens when looking into the UFO subject for certain trends, patterns, characteristics etc. you do come across certain cases (or flaps) you've never heard of before.

For some bizarre reason there does appear to be quite a number of close range UFO sightings over schools so whilst looking into relevant police reports did see this very strange one from the 22nd of April, 1966 in Beverly, Massachusetts.

Turns out over that over a twelve day period lots of other very strange UFO reports started coming in from the general area also involving multiple witnesses (including police officers).



• Close range UFO sighting directly over a school - 22nd of April, 1966 in Beverly Massachusetts.


Excerpts:

A completely baffling case involving nine witnesses took place on April 22, 1966, in Beverly, Mass..

The women crossed the field to get a better look. They could see flashing lights on the edge of the craft changing colors from red to green and blue. Brenda waved her arms at the object and it immediately stopped circling and moved across the field towards the women. They were horrified. In her statement, Barbara said:

"It started to come towards us... I started to run. Brenda called, 'Look up! It is directly over us!' I looked up and saw a round object... like the bottom of a plate. It was solid, grayish white... I felt this thing was going to come down on top of me. It was like a giant mushroom."


• Police:

The police arrived to find a small crowd of people standing outside watching the closest object moving up and down above the school. Jokingly, Officers Bossie and Mahan asked the group, "Where's the airplane?" When the witnesses pointed to the thing, then at high altitude and looking like a star, the officers laughed.

Then, suddenly, the disc turned bright red and dropped to a position directly over the school building. At this point, the officers became visibly shaken. Mahan stated, "I observed what seem to be a large plate hovering over the school.

It had three lights - red, green, and blue - but no noise... This object hovered... The lights were flashing..." Bossie said, "It hovered and then began gliding. Some of the people got on the ground and were real scared!"


• Source:

"UFOS: Interplanetary visitors", book by Ramond E. Fowler, 1974, pp. 130-137.

link 1 / 2

• Research documents (PDF file)

On the nights of 19th and 20th April there were also at least six UFO reports 50 miles away in Sharon - a NICAP investigation ended up logging eighteen down the eastern seaboard.


• Police witnesses, April 19th - video and radio interview (rare vid so please download if poss).

Documentary spotlighting a close-range UFO sighting made in April 1966 by four Sharon, Massachusetts police officers (one of whom went on to become Chief) - along with a family of three people. All were near enough to witness a "football-shaped," unidentified low-hovering object with red and white flashing lights, windows and "mullions" (window dividers).

Article:

REMEMBER WHEN: UFOs seen over Sharon in 1966?

The UFO hovered, moved up and down and back and forth over a small area. It was silent while hovering, but gave off a high-pitched hissing sound when it moved.


• Discs:

At 11:45 p.m. in Quincy, Mass., about 30 miles northeast of Bellingham, there were sightings of disc-shaped objects with red lights hovering and then `swinging like a 'pendulum'.


A report, prepared by Massachusetts NICAP Subcommittee Chairman Raymond Fowler, logs 18 sightings of UFOs between April 11 and 23 along the eastern Massachusetts shore from Danvers, north of Boston, to Attleboro, near the Connecticut border. The large majority of sightings occurred over city residential areas, and the predominant shape of the reported objects was oval. Virtually all had body lights; several gave off high-pitched humming noises.

link

Interesting that Raymond mentions reports of UFOs making 'high-pitched humming noises' between April 11th and 23rd as over in Portage County on the 17th police officers also chased this strange humming object over 86 miles into Pennsylvania.

• There's also this one from Massachusetts on the 24th of April involving an object with a 'transparent bubble' on top (and circular red blinking lights) which banged against a house - power outages also reported.

UFO Scares Hub Girl, 11, ‘Rocked Bed’ ”

“An 11-year-old Dorchester girl was terrified by a UFO early Sunday morning (24 April 1966) which she said banged against the house and rocked her bed. Judy Kalnicki of 1284 Dorchester ave., an honor student in the sixth grade at the Mather School, woke up screaming for her mother, Mrs. Jean Kalnicki, who has six other children. Then the youngster sat down and sketched the ‘flying oval.’


TWO BLACKOUTS

The mysterious flying object was spotted twice by the Kalnicki family, and two blackouts of electric power occurred almost simultaneously in the Dorchester area. Police also received calls that UFO’s were spotted off Boston’s Logan Airport, over South Boston and near Waltham’s Waverly sq.

Shortly after 4 a.m. Judy was awakened and saw ‘this thing’ outside her third-floor bedroom window.

‘It was so close I could almost touch it,’ Judy said. ‘It banged against the house as we watched it. I was sitting on my bed, and it rocked the bed back and forth. Then the lights in the house went out.


BIG AS AUTO

Judy said the ‘thing’ was oval in shape and ‘about the size of my brother’s car, a 1955 Lincoln.’

‘It had a bubble on top that seemed to be round, with red lights around the edge,’ Judy explained. ‘It seemed to be made partly of silvery gray metal with no doors.

‘I always used to say that there was no such thing as a flying saucer. I thought those people who said they saw them were making it up. Now that I saw one myself I never want to see one again.’

Mrs. Kalnicki said she had spotted the UFO shortly before midnight when it floated across Dorchester ave. and hovered outside her apartment windows.

The mother said it had sort of a transparent bubble top that was illuminated with a yellow light and circular red blinking lights.

link

a reply to: karl 12


Thank you for posting this!

S&F. Love the quote to start the thread. Nice one 🤙🤙🤙

Thanks for the posts guys - lots of similar reports from the month before in Michigan so this could just be a continuation.

"It would swing back and forth like a pendulum, then shoot upward at tremendous speed, hover and then come down just as fast."

Washtenaw County deputies B. Bushroe

link

The annual NICAP chronology from April, 66 really does make for some interesting reading - also a bit ironic that they were holding the US Congressional UFO hearings in the same month.

This is a 34-page chronology (increased from 11-pages) of UFO incidents and events for 1966, the beginning of the "Mother of All UFO Waves", which lasted throughout 1966 and 1967. 

link

The complete NUFORC report list is linked below and looks like humming disc shaped objects are still being reported - theres also a few UFO reports involving the ocean and this weird one from Crane's Beach on the 17th April, 1966.


• NUFORC Reports - Mass



• Crane Beach:

NICAP Massachusetts Investigating Subcommittee

The following report concerns the sighting of September 17, 1966 by Mr. and Mrs. R. M. (address deleted) Road, Ipswich, Mass. My interview was held last night, October 6, 1966, at which time I spent two hours with both parties who gave me the following story and filled out the attached forms. The witnesses appeared to be serious, Intelligent and curious people who had seen something unusual and wanted some confirmation that they hadn't been seeing things.

The object first sighted was an elongated, cigar shape object standing on end on the beach near the water's edge. It glowed with a golden, white light, sometimes dim and then bright enough to see the sand around the base. It appeared to tilt to about a 60°angle from the vertical at times but they never did observe it leaving the area. It just appeared to disappear as it became light outside. One feature of this object was what appeared to be a dotted line effect extending from the middle to the ground at about a 45° angle. The description indicated what might be considered a ladder leaning against the object. The height of the object from the house appeared to be about 6" which would relate to something +/- 500 feet tall at that distance. This object was observed for over one hour.

During the observation period, two bright lights were observed above the beach moving toward the vertical light. These spots were about the size of peas and moved with a skipping motion, sometimes fast, sometimes slowly. They came together at the top of the vertical object, but as they joined, there appeared to be three lights instead of the original two. These lights then left the large object from time to time, ranging low over the water, disappearing at times behind the hills at Crane's Beach. One object, elliptical in shape, dark except for a faint glow that revealed its outline, moved low over the water toward the house. It moved to within one-quarter mile of the house and disappeared behind a small island in front of the house. Mr. and Mrs. M. never did see the object leave, but they didn't go out to the island the next day to investigate nor did they go to Crane's Beach to look for tracks.

Mrs. M. did call the Coast Guard the next day to see if there were helicopters flying that morning looking for the cruiser that had disappeared that week. The answer to her question was that nothing was flying at that time.

Link / Master List

Cheers.

originally posted by: karl 12
For some bizarre reason there does appear to be quite a number of close range UFO sightings over schools so whilst looking into relevant police reports did see this very strange one from the 22nd of April, 1966 in Beverly, Massachusetts.

This is a case the Condon report looked at. I noticed you posted a video by Hynek in the BAASS/AATIP thread criticizing the Condon report, but I didn't reply there since it was going a little off-topic, but I can reply here since this is an example of a Condon report case we can discuss.

In fact this is said to be one of the better cases potentially where no explanation other than extraterrestrial hypothesis could explain witness accounts (a claim which I challenge, but let's review the claim, from your link 2 source:

From the 1968 Condon report, pp72-73

While the current cases investigated did not yield impressive residual evidence, even in the narrative content, to support an hypothesis that an alien vehicle was physically present, narratives of past events, such as the 1966 incident at Beverly, Mass. (Case 6), would fit no other explanation if the testimony of witnesses is taken at face value.

I don't really accept that an alien vehicle is the only possible explanation even if the witness accounts were completely accurate.

But my bigger issue is that what probably nobody really realized back then was just how stupendously large witness misperceptions can be. It was only through a bit of luck that we began to realize this with the Yukon case, which is still promoted on this youtube channel as the largest alien mothership ever seen 3-4 football fields in length seen at close range in a close encounter, which blocked out the stars, created electromagnetic interference, hovered silently, etc etc.



So if you took all those witness accounts at face value, you might say that's even better evidence of an alien spacecraft encounter. I mean look at the size of that thing and how close they got, and 30 witnesses, how much better evidence could we ask for?

There's also this old case in Kiev where people saw structured craft, but we know what it was and there were no structured craft:


Also numerous other cases where sightings of space debris re-entering the atmosphere have been confirmed and misinterpreted.

Regarding Hynek's perspective, he thought that either such a close encounter really had to have happened as witnesses described, or all the multiple witnesses must have gone temporarily insane. Perhaps back when Hynek wrote something to that effect in "The UFO experience", it seemed like a reasonable assertion, but it is one which we now know to be untrue.

We now know the Yukon UFO was not a close encounter despite witnesses thinking it was, and we know this is a common misperception to think distant objects are closer than they actually are, perhaps especially with nocturnal lights. We now know what they saw was the re-entry of a rocket booster over 200 kilometers away, which contrary to witness descriptions, did not actually block out the stars, did not hover, and did not create electromagnetic interference, etc.

So the only conclusion is that Hynek's seemingly reasonable expectation that so many witnesses can't possibly be so wrong, was not a scientifically founded belief. The science is showing us that ordinary people can have misperceptions far greater than Hynek or anybody else at the time realized.

As to the Condon conclusion that he doubted anything of scientific value could be gained by further study of UFOs, well I think we accidentally did learn something of scientific value in the Yukon case, that witness reliability is far lower than anybody could have possibly imagined.

But taking this particular case in Mass. in 1966, I don't really see where Hynek was going with his objection, maybe you can explain it. Even if the witness accounts were accurate, where do you go from here? We have nothing else to go on, from a scientific perspective, so the investigation was at a dead end.

Hynek started his own UFO investigation firm, CUFOS, did he do any better than the Condon report in addressing this case? I also think Hynek may have overlooked that Condon didn't expect any scientists to take his word or the committee's word as the final word and they could continue investigating as they wished, which Hynek certainly did through his CUFOS organization.

This is an interesting UFO report and you did a great job finding some good links to information about the topic, they were very informative. But there are some things that make you wonder when you read them, like, there were actually more witnesses to the UFO, but they didn't think it was that interesting. If it was anything like the three women said, how could the other witnesses possibly think that wasn't interesting, and just ignore it and drive off? See the bottom of page 407 and the top of page 408 from the Condon report (also reproduced in your link to documentation in the OP):



Note in particular at the top of page 408: "Some youngsters leaving the school grounds were told about the UFOs by the observers. The observers said the youngsters watched for a while, then left--apparently unimpressed."

So the UFO observers are pointing out to other people what the Condon report says may be the best evidence of an "alien vehicle" if eyewitness accounts are taken at face value, but those same eyewitnesses say they pointed out the UFO to other people who just left, apparently unimpressed. If it was impressive wouldn't they have stayed and watched it? So that's not exactly a great endorsement for the alleged high strangeness of this case, that even the people who saw it and pointed out to others just saw the others leave as if they weren't impressed. (cont'd next post)

a reply to: karl 12
I don't know what they saw, we'll probably never know, which is why I don't necessarily disagree with Condon's conclusion that we won't gain anything of scientific value by studying this or similar cases further. Witness statements have little scientific value and there's really nowhere else to go with this except to say they don't know what it was the 3 adult women and the 11 year old girl saw. I don't see what more they could have done. I don't see what more Hynek did except make false statements that multiple witnesses can't perceive things as wrongly as happened in cases like Yukon and Kiev. Of course Hynek didn't know it was false then, but, now we know, it's false.

I took a couple of screenshots of the video you posted interviewing the four policemen, note the UFO descriptions in the screenshots at 1m11s and 12m20s:


Similar to a star, only brighter. Then what could be scintillation effects are described. Can such a description rule out Jupiter which was apparently relatively bright at the time?

Again the object descriptions in writing don't immediately rule out Jupiter., a "white beacon like light" with scintillation effects or a "locomotive headlight".

If instead of reading the written descriptions, you listen to the interview, then they describe something which sounds inconsistent with Jupiter, however, listen to what the policeman says at time index 12m42s
"so many things went on after that, we heard and read so much....."
Memories can be distorted this way and he admits some uncertainty about it. When you see things and read about related things the things you read about can become entangled with your own memories so accounts closest to the time of the incident are probably more accurate than later recollections which may be subject to error, confabulation or other distortion, and they are certainly old memories by the time those cops appeared in the interview, though I didn't catch an exact date of that interview, I only gathered it was long ago from what the cops say.

You said that interview of the 4 policemen was about the case on the 19th, but for the case on the 22nd, the Condon report thought the cops saw Jupiter. They had no idea what the three woman and the 11 year old girl saw, Jupiter didn't fit their sighting, which was a "close encounter". But Yukon was a "close encounter" too according to witnesses, but it wasn't.

If this happened today someone would have some video from their smartphone, which might tell us something useful, but from witness accounts alone, the scientific value is relatively small.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

This is a case the Condon report looked at.

Yes mate and did think Patrick Gross made some fair points (as do you).

The Condon Report about this case.


A very slick formulation indeed, it lets the reader think that maybe the testimony of the witness should not be taken at face value but should be considered as erroneous or fabricated, which is precisely what the Condon Committee should have been able to determine. They tried, but could not.

The author did not feel particularly embarrassed to explain that the policement reported an extraordinary object flying over the high school where the three girls saw it as automobile-sized and to consider that "apparently" it was the planet Jupiter.

Here again, the report admits that they had not done any "psychological testing" on the child, three women and two policemen that reported the event, suggesting that they may be liars that set up a conspiracy or have had hallucinations, the report does not recognize the existence or the value of Ray Fowler's own conclusion on that aspect.

Also, the hesitations in dismissing as "probably Jupiter" or as a sheer collective lies or independant but corroborative hallucinations says a lot about the Condon team's own psychology: the need to call upon two different dismissal reason, as any psychologist would see, is a clear indication of the embarrassment of the investigators.

All in all, Condon did not use this case as an indication that there may be something real behind UFO reports, but adopted the line of reasoning that because there are UFOs reported, they should have been better investigated, as if they were investigated, they would turn out mundane, which is why they should not be investigated.

Also further input from Dr James E McDonald, Dr Jacques Vallee and the French GEPAN study towards the bottom of the page.

GEPAN concentrates on the logical twists used by the Condon Report, indicating how dubious GEPAN was about the scientific value of the Condon Report analysis and interpretations.

Link

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I noticed you posted a video by Hynek in the BAASS/AATIP thread criticizing the Condon report, but I didn't reply there since it was going a little off-topic

Fair enough, it's not off topic on this thread so here's the video where Dr Hynek describes how the Condon report was a 'travesty on science'; that Dr Condon never investigated even one case and that Dr Condon wrote the summary whilst completely neglecting the contents of the report.

Historic Film Stock

The Amazing World of Kreskin (1972-1975) Show No. 43

Video Link

Stanford University astrophysicist Peter Sturrock also did some good work exposing the 'huge disconnecton' between Condon’s conclusions and the actual reports of the scientists who conducted the research and how many of his final summaries were 'variously misleading, false or inaccurate'.

Don't know if you have a scientific background but would you say a 30% unexplained rate (50% if you read the Craig Papers) is acceptable or does the conclusion not reflect the content?

The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study. From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations...

Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I don't really accept that an alien vehicle is the only possible explanation even if the witness accounts were completely accurate.

No neither do I and as it mentions in this vid 'the defining of UFOs as "alien" is inherently contradictory, presumptuous and unscientific'.

Suppose it also prejudices other hypotheses, opens up the door to the wilful ignoramus and detracts from serious study of 'unidentified' flying objects.

Regarding this case on the 22nd of April I can't really get over how close range the object actually was.

At one early stage of the sighting, one of the discs moved rapidly over the three women, hovering above one of them at an altitude of only a few tens of feet.

I understand misindents of scintillating planets, satellites etc. do occur but when it comes to a 'solid, disc-like, automobile-sized object' hovering 20-30 feet directly overhead then I'm just left scratching my head (along with everybody else I suppose).

"I felt this thing was going to come down on top of me. It was like a giant mushroom."

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Some youngsters leaving the school grounds were told about the UFOs by the observers. The observers said the youngsters watched for a while, then left--apparently unimpressed."

Good find and I initially overlooked that part when writing the thread (big pdf file) - certainly an interesting footnote to the whole case and assuming they did witness the object at close range then you would imagine it would of made more an impression (like it did on the police officers).

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I don't know what they saw, we'll probably never know

Agreed.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

..which is why I don't necessarily disagree with Condon's conclusion that we won't gain anything of scientific value by studying this or similar cases further.

'This or similar cases' or all cases?

Condon stated in his conclusion (which he actually wrote before reading his own report) that:

'further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby'

And suppose it's worth pointing out that when the USAF sponsored Condon it wasn't for a scientific review of the UFO subject (although it may have been sold as one) - the actual contract was simply to answer two (and only two) questions:

• Were UFOs a threat to National Security?

• Will the further study of UFOs contribute anything to scientific knowledge?

Personally would have to say yes to both and think research by folks like Rutledge, Salisbury, Tulien, Mcdonald, Phillips, Swords etc. is rather important (it's a very real mystery and we need scientists investigating it).

Also thought the book mentioned in this thread is an important one if a person wants to know what governments were actually saying about the UFO subject behind the scenes in their own internal documentation.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

You said that interview of the 4 policemen was about the case on the 19th

Yes the posted vid contains police testimony from the April 19th incident and I have no idea what that object was either (do you?).

Yet another very close range sighting and apparently it was 'so low you could see the oval shape of the object' and the officers thought they were going to 'look in the window and see something extraordinary' because they were 'that close'.

The object is described as hovering and soaring with no wings, tails or propellers and about the size of an automobile (sounds familiar).

They state they were dumbfounded and the sight was 'actually unbelievable' - the UFO was reported to have a red light in front and a red light to the rear of it with what appeared to be illuminated white lights the whole length of it ('it looked like a long strip of glass and you could see the curvature of the glass').

Also found it interesting that Intelligence officers from Hanscom AFB ordered Police Chief Albert Horan to 'say no more on this and future incidents' and to start a separate non public log.


• Radio interview - WNEW New York:

Track24: Sharon, MA. 04.18.1966.

News report with interview of Police Sergeant Bernard Coffey who observed an egg-shaped UFO that rotated and had windows. 10:15

Wendy Connors Audio Archive - Cops & Saucers Law Enforcement And UFO's 1957 1981 Guide

Police Chief Coffey also mentions similar type descriptions from Mansfield and think it's relevant to bring up other similar type descriptions from Michigan in the previous month as it's said the public furore created by the resulting swamp gas debunk forced the USAF to employ Condon.


Vid


Cheers.

originally posted by: karl 12

REMEMBER WHEN: UFOs seen over Sharon in 1966?

An observation.... I’m reminded of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction incident and their description of the craft they encountered, a similarity when it comes to red lights on the sides and a row of widows. For B&B, they saw occupants at the windows.

The red light on both sides, perhaps the aliens version of aircraft anti-collision lights. For earthly aircraft, on both wingtips, the color of the anti-collision lights are both white. Or the purposes of the lights are used to transmit light wavelengths to control, mesmerize, freeze earthlings. Simple example...a deer freezing in its tracks and auto headlights effect.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Good call mate, here's another similar example from Red Bluff, California in August, 1960 (replete with a highly dubious USAF explanation).

Like in the Mass case, police witnesses also describe red lights on either end and state the object's flight characteristics were 'actually unbelievable'.

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 aerial feats that were actually unbelievable.

The Red Bluff Police UFO Incident - August, 1960.

Cheers.

originally posted by: karl 12

Turns out over that over a twelve day period lots of other very strange UFO reports started coming in from the general area also involving multiple witnesses (including police officers).

Absolutely fascinating thread, Karl, and an equally intriguing counter-analysis by Arby (it seems folks are distracted, so allow me to award some stars to the replies).

I suppose the Top 3 school sightings are generally regarded to be Westall (1966), Broad Haven (1977) and, of course, Ariel (1994).

The Australian Westall case occurred on 6th April 1966, preceding Massachusetts by a couple of weeks, but a recent explanation for Westall is that the witnesses saw a high altitude balloon from the HIBAL program that was monitoring radiation levels following the Maralinga nuclear tests.

The HIBAL program was a joint US-Australian initiative to monitor atmospheric radiation levels using large silver balloons equipped with sensors between 1960 and 1969.

Documents held by the National Archives and former Department of Supply indicate one test balloon launched from Mildura may have been blown off course and came down in Clayton South in a paddock near Westall High School, alarming and baffling hundreds of eyewitnesses, including teachers and students.

From a report by the Herald Sun in 2014.

Can you see where I'm going with this? As a joint US/Australian program, could HIBAL have had anything to do with the Massachusetts sightings? Perhaps not, but food for thought.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

Absolutely fascinating thread, Karl, and an equally intriguing counter-analysis by Arby

Well thank you kindly Sir and yes Arby certainly raises some important points - any thoughts on what the object the officers are describing in the video actually was?

The NUFORC Massachusetts link also contains a number of UFO reports involving the ocean so there may well be a cheeky USO connection.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

The Australian Westall case occurred on 6th April 1966, preceding Massachusetts by a couple of weeks.

Yes, have a lot of respect for Keith and really do applaud his efforts in digging through old records (even though he didn't find any for the balloon) - some relevant remarks here in the comments section but would be nice to try and keep discussion on UFOs in Massachusetts and neighbouring counties (or at least counties on the same continent lol).

Don't know how long ATS has left but there's a good recent(ish) relevant thread here.


Teacher Andrew Greenwood's Actual 1967 Audio Testimony On The 1966 Westall UFO Sighting


Regarding the previous posts and the rash of police sightings the month before in Michigan, did see police officers there also reported UFOs with 'lights on either end'.

Officer Robert Hartwell of the Dexter Police Department saw a luminous object buzz his car. Robert Taylor, Dexter Police Chief, and Patrolman N.G. Lee came to the farm in response to Mrs. Mannor's call and heard the noise. Taylor said he watched an object in the field from Frank Mannor's home on a knoll overlooking the area. It appeared as a pulsating red, glowing object. Through binoculars he saw "a light on each end of the thing.

Police Officer Nel Scheider's sketch in this animated sequence also looks a bit freaky and would dearly love to know what the object witnessed by Frank Manor and his son actually was.

He said it appeared to be brown, with a "quilted'' effect on the surface. It was flat on the bottom and cone-shaped toward the top, with two small lights on the outer edges emitting a glowing blue-green color that intensified and turned red at times. When it became brightly lit, the entire object was light yellow, with the light running horizontally between the two outer running lights.

• Sketch

• Newsclipping

Cheers!

originally posted by: karl 12

One more to add below.....I have no other info, other than what was already printed above and below the picture.

Source Link: www.project1947.com...

So here we have multiple sightings now with the same red lights configuration. There’s has to be a connection imo... as for the lights, I’ve mentioned in a previous post on this thread, of what I thought they could be hypothetically.

One step further to add to the hypothetical, is that they are also used below the earth’s surface in tunnels and cavernous spaces. Perhaps in the mix of other’s, serving in some sort of UFO traffic function. Also, perhaps those with the same type of lights configuration are from the same species-race of aliens??




The Red Light district....

originally posted by: karl 12
Don't know if you have a scientific background but would you say a 30% unexplained rate (50% if you read the Craig Papers) is acceptable or does the conclusion not reflect the content?...

'This or similar cases' or all cases?

This case or similar cases which I think you will find many of the Condon unsolved cases have similar problems. whether the unsolved cases are 30%, 50%, 60% or whatever they are, I didn't see any answer to my questions so I'm going to re-ask them, what do you expect them to do with an unsolved case like on the 22nd? How do you expect to get anything of scientific value from that case or similar cases? Please answer my questions, and if you do, you may find that you have at least partially answered some of your own questions by doing so.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But taking this particular case in Mass. in 1966, I don't really see where Hynek was going with his objection, maybe you can explain it. Even if the witness accounts were accurate, where do you go from here? We have nothing else to go on, from a scientific perspective, so the investigation was at a dead end.

Hynek started his own UFO investigation firm, CUFOS, did he do any better than the Condon report in addressing this case? I also think Hynek may have overlooked that Condon didn't expect any scientists to take his word or the committee's word as the final word and they could continue investigating as they wished, which Hynek certainly did through his CUFOS organization.

Regarding this case on the 22nd of April I can't really get over how close range the object actually was.

I just gave you an example of a case where witnesses said they had a close encounter, but we know they didn't. What I can't get over is how you can do so much research on UFOs and say what you did as if you think a UFO witness has any credibility when they report the size, distance or speed of a UFO, unless they give you some means to calibrate what they are saying, which I didn't see any such calibration in this case in the 22nd from the 3 women and 11 year old girl.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

No need to be a dick mate.