The Mantell UFO Incident

reply to post by Gazrok


Thanks, I will look over your research. Although some new information came to light since 2005 that might point to a non-Skyhook explanation. Let me know what you think when your done taking a look!

Great thread, jkrog08!

I think we should have a read-only page with a compilation of the best cases, including those (like this one) that were considered as unsolved by the first people who officially investigated them.

I have not the time to read the whole thread, but I will be back with some questions, if they were not answered in the pages after the first one, the only page I read up to this moment.

This was at least a golden content contribution.

reply to post by ArMaP

Great thread, jkrog08!

Thank you

I think we should have a read-only page with a compilation of the best cases, including those (like this one) that were considered as unsolved by the first people who officially investigated them.

I agree, like a compilation forum (read only) of the best cases presented in the most detailed and neutral manner.

I have not the time to read the whole thread, but I will be back with some questions, if they were not answered in the pages after the first one, the only page I read up to this moment.

I look forward to it friend.

This was at least a golden content contribution.

Again, thank you! I look forward to your "Simply stunning insight" as well.


[edit on 5/19/2009 by jkrog08]

The only problem with this post is that is does not add significantly to what we know about this subject.

I hope that those who might not be aware that there are many extremely reliable sightings of this type will be inspired to take the subject more seriously.

reply to post by l_e_cox


That is one of the reason I think posts like this should be put in a kind of ATS encyclopedia (the TinWIKI could be a possibility, but I think it should be "read-only") to easily point people to the information available, both people that have been studying UFOs for a long time, those that are new to UFO investigation and all people with some kind of interest in the subject.

reply to post by l_e_cox


This thread was designed to enlighten people in detail on a well known UFO case, it wasn't really meant to "bring anything new", there really isn't anything "new" note worthy to mention right now. In fact this thread did bring up some information about the case that many people didn't know, and it changed some minds on what happened. This was written on an approach more designed to educate, rather than to "reveal".

reply to post by jkrog08

Then again, anytime a thread like this brings subjects to the attention of members who may be new to a particular case, it's pretty cool.




(Just my personal opinion, nothing more.)

reply to post by Majic


Thanks Majic, your pretty cool yourself.

When ufo’s spotted overhead cars, driver’s report problem occurs with the car’s engine. Likely reason for that is that the engines’ electrical circuit gets effected by the force field that these ufo’s seems to generate.
So I would think that the type of propeller plane which Mantell flew would be affected in a similar way

Would perhaps a propeller driven plane be less shielded and thus possible more likely be influenced
by an ufo electromagnetic force field than a than a modern day jet craft?

But on the other hand I would also think that an advanced ET craft would be equipped with advanced censors which automatically would detect a plane like Mantell’s and instantly move the craft to secure distance so its force field would not interfere with the plane.

reply to post by kaare_03

When ufo’s spotted overhead cars, driver’s report problem occurs with the car’s engine. Likely reason for that is that the engines’ electrical circuit gets effected by the force field that these ufo’s seems to generate.
So I would think that the type of propeller plane which Mantell flew would be affected in a similar way

Yea you would think so anyways. It seems very likely because at the time they didn't have EM shielding.

Would perhaps a propeller driven plane be less shielded and thus possible more likely be influenced
by an ufo electromagnetic force field than a than a modern day jet craft?

Like I said above, yes I think it is possible that the EM interference could have been responsible for the crash, but I don't know for sure. Modern day craft do have some type of EM shield to protect them from basic EM interference.

But on the other hand I would also think that an advanced ET craft would be equipped with advanced censors which automatically would detect a plane like Mantell’s and instantly move the craft to secure distance so its force field would not interfere with the plane.

Maybe, maybe not. But then again one must ask "do they even care"? Also maybe it was a defense mechanism or they didn't know that their field would affect the craft as such.

My opinion ufos..

There is military hardware, some of which is used to create theatricals called abductions and cattle mutilations... in order to demonize "aliens".

Why demonize aliens?

Read this interview with Dr Carol Rosen, Dr Carol Rosin was the first woman corporate manager of Fairchild Industries and was spokesperson for Wernher Von Braun in the last years of his life. Text Link - Voice Testimony

Excerpt:

"He said the strategy that was being used to educate the public and decision makers was to use scare tactics That was how we identify an enemy. The strategy that Wernher Von Braun taught me was that first the Russians are going to be considered to be the enemy. In fact, in 1974, they were the enemy, the identified enemy. We were told that they had "killer satellites". We were told that they were coming to get us and control us-that they were "Commies." Then terrorists would be identified, and that was soon to follow. We heard a lot about terrorism. Then we were going to identify third-world country "crazies." We now call them Nations of Concern. But he said that would be the third enemy against whom we would build space-based weapons. The next enemy was asteroids. Now, at this point he kind of chuckled the first time he said it. Asteroids- against asteroids we are going to build space-based weapons. And the funniest one of all was what he called aliens, extraterrestrials. That would be the final scare."

Google "Black Budget alien replica Vehicles" or read Dr Steven Greer's most recent book. see Disclosureproject.org

Then there are the entities whose hardware they copied, some may not come just from another place, some may be US, from the future...

Peace

Some questions about this case:

1. When an aeroplane gets too high and the pilot passes out because of the lack of oxygen, does the pilot recover when the aeroplane looses altitude and returns to levels with more oxygen?

2. How long does it take for an aeroplane to fall from 30000 feet?

3. Is it normal for an aeroplane (a fighter) to break while falling? This was an aeroplane capable of speeds of more than 400 mph.

4. When not under pilot control, does an aeroplane just fall or does the shape of the wings sustain somewhat the fall? They are design to do just that.

5. If some people heard an explosion before the aeroplane hit the ground, why does it look almost complete? Shouldn't there be many pieces scattered around the area?

6. Is it normal for an aeroplane, specially one made for speed, to "belly flop" when falling without control? I do not know much about aeroplanes, but could it be that the pilot was trying to use the belly of the aeroplane to reduce the speed, using it as an aerobrake?

7. I don't remember seeing it, but was there an autopsy, and what was the result?

Maybe not the best questions, but these were the things that "jumped" to me while reading the case.

great write up, best explanation of this incident I have seen. Good job mate

reply to post by ArMaP


Well you certainly ask some good questions. I am not an expert in aeronautics by any means so I had to look this information up. I hope it helps!

1. When an aeroplane gets too high and the pilot passes out because of the lack of oxygen, does the pilot recover when the aeroplane looses altitude and returns to levels with more oxygen?

A person suffering from serious symptoms of altitude sickness has a relatively short period of time of useful consciousness in which corrective action can be taken. The following is a correlation of approximate altitude to the amount of time that a person will have useful consciousness:

20,000 ft / 6,100 m = 5-12 minutes (peak of Mount McKinley or Mount Kilimanjaro)
25,000 ft / 7,620 m = 3-5 minutes;
29,000 ft / 8,840 m = 1-2 minutes; (peak of Mount Everest)
40,000 ft / 12,200 m = 9-15 seconds (represents the oxygen that was in a person's system before the exposure)

en.wikipedia.org...

A list of the most common indications (symptoms) of hypoxia pilots may or may not recognize:
1 an increased breathing rate
2 lightheadedness or dizziness.
3 tingling or false warm sensations in appendages
4 sweating
5 reduced field of view, tunnel vision
6 blue coloring of skin, fingernails and lips
8 behavior changes
9 inability to warm extremities
Recovery from hypoxia Recovery from mild hypoxia can be rapid, usually within 15 to 20 seconds, after oxygen is administered you will witness a remarkable change. Dizziness from head and body motion may occur during the recovery making piloting a craft more difficult. A pilot recovering from moderate to severe hypoxia is usually quite fatigued and can suffer from a degradation in mental and physical performance for many hours.

www.mhoxygen.com...
So in severe cases he wouldn’t wake up in time. Plus the G-forces from an uncontrolled decent may make him unable to respond.

2. How long does it take for an aeroplane to fall from 30000 feet?

Very hard question to answer and it involves math and aerodynamics, as well as understanding of gravity. The terminal velocity for a P-51 Mustang with a drag coefficient of 0.03(that is what I entered) is about 209 meters per second(682 feet per second). So with some simple math we can deduce that a likely answer to your question would be about 43 seconds. Also keep in mind since I could not know the exact specifications needed I had to estimate on some of the variables.
www.calctool.org...

3. Is it normal for an aeroplane (a fighter) to break while falling? This was an aeroplane capable of speeds of more than 400 mph.

Without a pilot controlling the craft(as we think is the case since he was likely blacked out) he could not utilize his flaps to increase drag and thus slow down.

4. When not under pilot control, does an aeroplane just fall or does the shape of the wings sustain somewhat the fall? They are design to do just that.

That depends on the angle of flight, if the craft is in a good position for an unpowered glide then it will glide(to an extent, remember these things are heavy) while it decrease altitude . The Mustang stalled out at that altitude and thus lost power, and the angular position Mantell had the craft in (a strong upwards angle) would cause I rather rapid, uncontrolled fall.

5. If some people heard an explosion before the aeroplane hit the ground, why does it look almost complete? Shouldn't there be many pieces scattered around the area?

If the plane exploded completely or in a true explosion sense then yes. But the “explosion” could have been a result of the structural integrity of the plane breaking up in some parts, while staying intact in the other, more solid parts. Also in my OP I have a quote from a Captian who asks the very same thing as you and says that it is not consistant with what should have happened.

6. Is it normal for an aeroplane, specially one made for speed, to "belly flop" when falling without control? I do not know much about aeroplanes, but could it be that the pilot was trying to use the belly of the aeroplane to reduce the speed, using it as an aerobrake?

That could happen, again it depends on the angle the craft was in when power was lost. But a belly flop from a unpowered craft is unusual. It made some experts think his plane was “pushed” down by some force.

7. I don't remember seeing it, but was there an autopsy, and what was the result?

There isn’t one available. However it has been reported that he was “impaled on the control stick”. Some other explanations for COD(cause of death) could be High Altitude Cerebral Edema or High Altitude Pulmonary Edema. However the evisceration sounds more plausible. There are a lot of interesting things in this case not explained, I left them out because there isn’t enough information to present them. But I knew someone would ask the good questions, so I knew these things would get discussed anyways. Oh, sorry for taking so long to reply but I have been busy. So again VERY GOOD QUESTIONS and I hope I answered them well enough.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 5/22/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 5/22/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by jkrog08


Thanks for the answers.

I asked about the time to recover because, being an asthmatic, I have once delayed my going to the hospital for so long that my fingernails started to look blue, and the doctor said that I should never wait so long before going to the hospital.

Begin from a different cause, it takes me some 30 minutes before I can start breathing normally again, so although I could compare the symptoms I could not compare the recovery.

reply to post by ArMaP


So what is your take on what happened? Also there was another incident that happened about nine months later in Fargo, ND, the pilot didn't die but there was a 27 minute engagement with a unknown craft. I just made a thread about it, I don't know if you already know about the incident or not but I sure hope all these pilots weren't chasing weather balloons! If they were it is amazing we won WW2,lol.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 5/23/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by jkrog08


I don't have any idea of what happened, but I don't think a pilot with so many flying hours would mistake a far away balloon for a closer object, so whatever it was I don't think it was a balloon.

What happened to the aeroplane also sounds strange, but not being familiar with plane crashes I do not really know how to interpret the images and information about the crash.

reply to post by jkrog08


There are many cases where the pilots get a very close look at a craft near their plane. Those obviously would not be explainable as being a balloon. Only the cases where a pilot sees an object from a distance can the balloon be one possible explanation. If the object does acrobatic moves, I doubt it would be a balloon.

Col Gordon Cooper wrote about seeing a formation of metallic disks up close in his book "Leap of Faith". The man went through a very rigorous training to become an astronaut, so he was more than fit when he saw the objects (along with some other pilots). He also knew they were not ours or the Soviets at the time (1950s), and they definitely were artificially made.

The Skyhook balloon theory may explain a few cases, but not all of them. I think most can rule out any type of balloon theory, but some cannot. I don't think it is wise to deride a possible sighting being a balloon as some of them may be explainable as such.

reply to post by kidflash2008


I agree, here is another great case that IMO is unexplainanble.....www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow, I just heard of the Mantell incident while reading Jim Marrs great book ALIEN AGENDA, the case piqued my interest due to a simple gut feeling that there was something to it.

And so I came on ATS to search up a good thread and lo and behold I find a GREAT one, brilliantly put together and balanced.

One interesting thing for me is if he really did say "there are people in that thing" did he actually mean people, as in humans in which case it would imply it was one of our own secret black budget projects, and thus maybe he was "shot" down, in case he revealed something significant about the craft..........hmmmm, just conjecture, but either way this is certainly one of the more intersting UFO cases, and one that wont be easily swept under the rug.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Outlawstar]