The Mantell UFO Incident

reply to post by spacevisitor
Yes, if you believe the pilots speed estimate, you should rule out the balloon.

However, I can't conceive of any reason why we should trust any witnesses estimate of the size, distance, or velocity of an unidentified object unless they have some reference points, like if it flew in-between some buildings. In fact, we should not. Even trained observers can only estimate speed and distance if the object is known...this object was not a known object.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Yes, if you believe the pilots speed estimate, you should rule out the balloon.

However, I can't conceive of any reason why we should trust any witnesses estimate of the size, distance, or velocity of an unidentified object. In fact, we should not. Even trained observers can only estimate speed and distance if the object is known...this object was not a known object.

Oke, suppose we cannot trust any witnesses estimate of the size, distance, or velocity of an unidentified object, but what about the describing of the “object” self.
Do you think they fit with the "looks" of a Skyhook balloon?

Originally posted by jkrog08
On the day of January 7th, 1948 at approximately 1:20 PM due to several witnesses on the ground in Owensboro,Irvington, and Maysville (which was only 80 miles East) Kentucky making calls to the Kentucky State Police of a large, circular, metallic object of 250-300 feet in diameter following a westbound path” and the crafts near proximity to the Gold Reserve at Fort Knox the state police notified Godman Airfield, which was the airfield serving Fort Knox.

At around 1:45 PM Sgt. Quinton Blackwell and two other witnesses saw an object from where he was at inside the Fort Knox Airfield Control Tower.
They also stated the object was changing from reddish color to white in some pattern.

Base Commander Colonel Guy Hix reported a very large, white, umbrella shaped object about one fourth the size of the Moon (from his perspective, not literally!).”

He also stated that “through the binoculars it appeared to have a red or pink border at the bottom and remained stationary for seemingly one and one half hours.”

"National Guard 869 from Godman Tower. We have an object out south of Godman here that we are unable to identify, and we would like to know if you have gas enough; and if so could you take a look for us if you will."

"Roger, I have the gas and I will take a look for you if you give me the correct heading.”
"The object is directly ahead of and above me now, moving at about half my speed... It appears to be a metallic object or possibly reflection of Sun from a metallic object, and it is of tremendous size... I'm still climbing... I'm trying to close in for a better look."

And then what to say about this quite remarkable statement from Richard T. Miller.

Originally posted by jkrog08
Now here is the interesting part that I mentioned above, this is a statement from USAF officer Richard Miller:

Richard T. Miller, who was in the Operations Room of Scott Air Force Base in Belleville, Illinois also made several profound statements regarding the crash.

He was monitoring the radio talk between Mantell and Godman tower, and heard this statement very clearly.

My God, I see people in this thing!

Miller added that on the morning after the crash, at a briefing, investigators had stated that Mantell died "pursuing an intelligently controlled unidentified flying object."

In conclusion, Miller made this statement, "that evening, Air Technical Intelligence Center officers from Wright-Patterson AFB arrived and ordered all personnel to turn over any materials relating to the crash.

"Then, after we had turned it over to them, they said they had already completed the investigation."

"I was no longer a skeptic. I had been up to that time.

Now I wondered why the Government had gone to all of the trouble of covering it up, to keep it away from the press and the public."

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Oke, suppose we cannot trust any witnesses estimate of the size, distance, or velocity of an unidentified object, but what about the describing of the “object” self.
Do you think they fit with the "looks" of a Skyhook balloon?

Yes, those descriptions all sound like a balloon. You forgot to include the description by the guy looking through binoculars who said it looks like an umbrella, that also sounds like a balloon.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
And then what to say about this quite remarkable statement from Richard T. Miller.

Originally posted by jkrog08
Now here is the interesting part that I mentioned above, this is a statement from USAF officer Richard Miller:

Miller added that on the morning after the crash, at a briefing, investigators had stated that Mantell died "pursuing an intelligently controlled unidentified flying object."

where have I heard people say that before, "intelligently controlled object"...oh yeah, right here:

UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!
I got 500 witnesses in that thread looking at the same thing I am telling me they're intelligently controlled, when I see absolutely no sign of intelligent control whatsoever. And they have something else in common with the Mantell case, they're also balloons. I don't know why people think balloons look like they're intelligently controlled but it brings to mind Feynman's speech about how irrational we humans are:

Richard Feynman on Flying Saucers

"I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." Well when you got 500 people in that thread, plus a few more in the Mantell case looking at balloons and saying they're intelligently controlled, it's hard to argue with Feynman about people being irrational.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by UFO Partisan

 

You're giving the pilot's speed estimate way more credibility than I am.
I don't think he knew the altitude, distance or speed accurately.

Witnesses in the Godwin AFB tower provided roughly the same estimate of the speed. The "UFO" was moving at a good clip but certainly within the speed a high altitude wind could move a balloon.

Here is, a P-51 dashboard. As you can see the oxygen system has a pressure and a flow gauge in clear view. The pilot can tell how much oxygen he has by the pressure and how much is flowing. Mantels oxygen situation would have been no mystery to him. And naturaly there is an altimeter as well.

Virtual Cockpit


Also the pilots microphone is built into the air mask so its a safe bet that Mantel had his mask on.


Oxygen Masks

Originally posted by UFO Partisan

. . . but from my sense of it, with a pilot death involved, no one was chomping at the bit to "take credit" for launching the weather balloon that caused this incident, hence a lot of lost records.

This from Captain Edward Ruppelt, who headed up the USAF Project Blue Book and conducted the final investigation into the Ruppelt crash.

www.nicap.org...

Oh but how absolutely convenient. Lets put the ball in the publics court i.e. how would you feel if it had been you that launched the thing? Oh I see what you mean Captain.

It would have been not much effort at all to find out where the balloon was launched from.

reply to post by spacevisitor


Very interesting post there Spacevisitor and I don't know if you've seen it but NICAP have just released this free E-book about the incident:

The Mantell Incident: An Anatomy of an Investigation,


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53770bc6751a.jpg[/atsimg]

The Mantell Incident: An Anatomy of an Investigation, is more than a diary of what happened each day. It includes transcripts of discovered documents and "lost" press releases, as well as actual copies of important documents. The report includes analyses by numerous researchers of specific issues. The Report would not be complete without the analytical expertise of independent researcher, Brad Sparks, who wrote the very detailed analysis based on all the evidence collected.

link

Cheers.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Oke, suppose we cannot trust any witnesses estimate of the size, distance, or velocity of an unidentified object, but what about the describing of the “object” self.
Do you think they fit with the "looks" of a Skyhook balloon?

Yes, those descriptions all sound like a balloon. You forgot to include the description by the guy looking through binoculars who said it looks like an umbrella, that also sounds like a balloon.

Yes I forgot that description, so I finally correct it.

But did you notice that the same guy also stated that through the binoculars “your umbrella shaped balloon” remained stationary for seemingly one and one half hours?

it appeared to have a red or pink border at the bottom and remained stationary for seemingly one and one half hours.”

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor
And then what to say about this quite remarkable statement from Richard T. Miller.

Miller added that on the morning after the crash, at a briefing, investigators had stated that Mantell died "pursuing an intelligently controlled unidentified flying object."

where have I heard people say that before, "intelligently controlled object"...oh yeah, right here:

UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!!
I got 500 witnesses in that thread looking at the same thing I am telling me they're intelligently controlled, when I see absolutely no sign of intelligent control whatsoever. And they have something else in common with the Mantell case, they're also balloons. I don't know why people think balloons look like they're intelligently controlled but it brings to mind Feynman's speech about how irrational we humans are:

It’s obvious that you have something with balloons, but that’s oke, but I wonder why you speak so belittling about that term "intelligently controlled object".
Because do you not know then that that description is as old as the phenomenon itself and is in the mean time accepted as beeing very valid by many investigators in this field.

Or is it so that you think that all those UFOs/UAPs are really nothing more than balloons or clouds?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Richard Feynman on Flying Saucers
"I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence."

Well when you got 500 people in that thread, plus a few more in the Mantell case looking at balloons and saying they're intelligently controlled, it's hard to argue with Feynman about people being irrational.

Well, I listen to what serious people say about this matter rather than listen to comedians as you obviously seem to do.

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Yes I forgot that description, so I finally correct it.

But did you notice that the same guy also stated that through the binoculars “your umbrella shaped balloon” remained stationary for seemingly one and one half hours?

Yes. There are a number of possible explanations for that. One could be, it was stationary. Another is, it could have been moving toward the observer where the motion is difficult to perceive. There's an ATS thread showing a "UFO" which appears to be stationary, if fact the posters say it's impossible for it to be a plane because it hovers motionless. But it's a plane moving at normal plane speeds, the motion just isn't visible because of the direction of the motion and the viewing angle.

it appeared to have a red or pink border at the bottom and remained stationary for seemingly one and one half hours.”

Scroll back to my post on page 6 and see the red edge on the skyhook balloon, enlarged from jkrog's post above mine on page 6. www.abovetopsecret.com...

It’s obvious that you have something with balloons, but that’s oke, but I wonder why you speak so belittling about that term "intelligently controlled object".
Because do you not know then that that description is as old as the phenomenon itself and is in the mean time accepted as beeing very valid by many investigators in this field.

Actually I'm belittling most witness testimony regarding distance, speed and size of the object. It is from inferences of those that people make determinations about whether the object is intelligently controlled. If it's a UFO none of the estimates are credible, and most scientists would agree. Not everything the witness says should be discounted, but much of witness testimony is unreliable.

Neil Tyson describes why eyewitness testimony is unreliable in this video:
I basically agree with him. You should listen to what he has to say.

And even the esteemed Dr. Hynek who came to believe some UFOs have a non-earthly origin said:
www.burlingtonnews.net...

Even the astronomer turned Pro-UFO supporter, Dr. J. Allen Hynek wrote:

...it is obvious that it would usually be impossible for observers to make reliable estimates of the speed, distance, or size of such stimulus objects. It is not possible to estimate accurately the distance of small bright objects viewed against a clear sky, unless the object is identified first...It must be concluded, therefore, that most of the statements of speed, distance, altitude, and size are entirely unreliable and should be disregarded. This is doubly true of observations made at night. (Steiger 228)

Dr Hynek is correct, and we should listen to him.

Or is it so that you think that all those UFOs/UAPs are really nothing more than balloons or clouds?

No, in some cases there is no object at all, like the video of the object in my oldfield thread. But some objects are unexplained, I don't know what they are. I haven't got a clue what caused the 1974 sighting in Iran, but it certainly doesn't sound like a balloon or cloud. We have lots of clues in the Mantell case though.

Well, I listen to what serious people say about this matter rather than listen to comedians as you obviously seem to do.

Richard Feynman isn't a comedian, he was a famous quantum physicist (one of the best known scientists in the world) and a very serious person.

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Very interesting post there Spacevisitor and I don't know if you've seen it but NICAP have just released this free E-book about the incident:

Hi karl 12, yes I did notice that, it was one of the reasons for why I did post the link to all those other also very interesting online books.

www.nicap.org...

But thanks for mentioning it again.

It’s still a very interesting case, and I found this video about it.

the mantell UFO incident

I am a sceptic and this case and a couple of other examples, leaves me
puzzled. Some of the accounts on this site beggar belief and yet, the Mantell's,
Waltons and Zamorra information implies a 'down-to-earth' Ufo-interaction.

I'd like to thank the OP for a level-headed posting and without bias, jkrog08 has
shown a strange event that even today, I believe hasn't been fully explained.

Chasing Venus is an easy way-out of all this and as a sceptic, I can see this
COULD be true... and yet, I don't think it IS true.
Thanks again.

reply to post by Arbitrageur
Many understand problems with eyewitness recount. However it has been the great effort of the government and others from the beginning of the UFO thing to so discredit eyewitness testimony that this effort is now cleary seen by many as part of the coverup.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Yes I forgot that description, so I finally correct it.

But did you notice that the same guy also stated that through the binoculars “your umbrella shaped balloon” remained stationary for seemingly one and one half hours?

Yes. There are a number of possible explanations for that. One could be, it was stationary. Another is, it could have been moving toward the observer where the motion is difficult to perceive. There's an ATS thread showing a "UFO" which appears to be stationary, if fact the posters say it's impossible for it to be a plane because it hovers motionless. But it's a plane moving at normal plane speeds, the motion just isn't visible because of the direction of the motion and the viewing angle.

I cannot imagine that a very large balloon as it was described could be stationary for one half hours, because that is quite a lot of time.
I know that effect because I see often planes coming towards me, but it take only a few minutes until I see it move in some direction, so again, I wonder if it could have been caused because of that, because again one half hours is quite a lot of time.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor

it appeared to have a red or pink border at the bottom and remained stationary for seemingly one and one half hours.”

Scroll back to my post on page 6 and see the red edge on the skyhook balloon, enlarged from jkrog's post above mine on page 6. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I did look to that picture again, but because I am colorblind [I am not joking here] I am not able to see the colors as you seem to see them, so I ask my wife to look at it and she said that she see indeed some faint pinkish color, but no red.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Neil Tyson describes why eyewitness testimony is unreliable in this video:

I basically agree with him. You should listen to what he has to say.

First, I did check him out and see that he is an American astrophysicist and science communicator.

Then I watched that whole video and listen to what he said and did come to the conclusion that I basically disagree with him.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

And even the esteemed Dr. Hynek who came to believe some UFOs have a non-earthly origin said:
www.burlingtonnews.net...

Even the astronomer turned Pro-UFO supporter, Dr. J. Allen Hynek wrote:
...it is obvious that it would usually be impossible for observers to make reliable estimates of the speed, distance, or size of such stimulus objects. It is not possible to estimate accurately the distance of small bright objects viewed against a clear sky, unless the object is identified first...It must be concluded, therefore, that most of the statements of speed, distance, altitude, and size are entirely unreliable and should be disregarded. This is doubly true of observations made at night. (Steiger 228)

Dr Hynek is correct, and we should listen to him.

If you agree with what Hynek say there, how on Earth then can you believe that explanation from Professor Moore regarding his so called Roswell Mogul balloon’s trajectory which he completely made up out of two different other balloons flights, as stated here?

Moore remembers that they had lost radar contact with the balloon while the balloon was being tracked with a theodolite.

Flight #4 did not make it into the NYU records because,
"Only those flights in which an attempt was made to control the altitude of the balloon are included in the summary. Excluded are flights made to test special gear and launchings which were not successful"
(HQ USAF Attachment 32/Appendix 13 p. 27). The lack of any record (other than Crary's journal entry) indirectly verifies some of Moore's memory of the flight having problems being tracked and that no useful data was obtained from the flight. The theodolite measurements would only be used for mapping the ground track of the flight as stated in the NYU records,

"The flights made in the early part of this program were tracked optically with theodolites. Coupled with the height data, theodolite readings provided a fairly reliable horizontal locus of the balloon"
(HQ USAF Attachment 32/Appendix 13 p. 13). The theodolite measurements would not provide enough information to make an analysis of the flight. Vertical measurement would have been made via radiosonde or RADAR. Professor Moore recalls that the initial flight from Alamogordo did not use a radiosonde:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/960d3b138005.jpg[/atsimg]

Once the balloon train reached the upper troposphere, new wind systems began to take control of the balloon flight.

The balloon train now took a shift of direction to the northwest as it passed through the Tropopause (the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere).

These are the same winds experienced by flight #5 the next day.

However, unlike flight #5, Moore figures that flight #4 continued its ascent to levels higher than that reached by flight #5.

Again, the early launch time plays a key role such that the balloon flight would not experience too much loss of lift by balloons bursting from solar heating.

In flight #5, the flight moved northwesterly until it began to lose lift.

However, just before descending the flight did manage to reach the lower levels of the stratosphere and shift towards the WSW for a short period.

This is the same wind direction experienced by flight #6 a few days later.

Therefore, when Dr. Moore shows the flight making a turn towards the WSW, he is not arriving at this value arbitrarily.

The reason that flight #5 did take this course was because the flight stayed at levels lower than that flight #4 apparently achieved.

Again, all of these values are consistent with information from flights 5 and 6. Flight #4 now traveled WSW for almost three hours in Moore's estimate.

Compared to flight #5, flight #4 spent an extra two hours in the upper atmosphere.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Or is it so that you think that all those UFOs/UAPs are really nothing more than balloons or clouds?

No, in some cases there is no object at all, like the video of the object in my oldfield thread. But some objects are unexplained, I don't know what they are. I haven't got a clue what caused the 1974 sighting in Iran, but it certainly doesn't sound like a balloon or cloud. We have lots of clues in the Mantell case though.

Well, I listen to what serious people say about this matter rather than listen to comedians as you obviously seem to do.

Richard Feynman isn't a comedian, he was a famous quantum physicist (one of the best known scientists in the world) and a very serious person.

In that case it’s even worse, because it shows so clear to me that the scientific community has regarding its view and opinion about the UFO/UAP/ET subject not changed one bit since the time from scientists like Richard Feynman back in 1964 until the scientists like Neil Tyson in 2007.

Great thread... Nicely put together. Had a easy time reading and following all the information.

One thing that I thought was wired was how one of the explanations tried to debunk it by saying that he was chasing a balloon that was at 80,000 ft. If clearly states in the repot and many believed it was at 30,000 ft. How likely it that their estimate will be off by about 50,000 ft.

And I am not sure about this but can you see an object flying at 80,000 ft from ground? If you cannot see it how were people able to see the flying abject from the ground?

Srry if made any mistake typed all this on my phone haha

reply to post by spacevisitor


I know that effect because I see often planes coming towards me, but it take only a few minutes until I see it move in some direction, so again, I wonder if it could have been caused because of that, because again one half hours is quite a lot of time.


Let's run with that.... let say the object stayed on a dead ahead trajectory for an hour and a half. Now you tell me how chuffin big it must have been to do that and visible for that length of time.?

lets move on to 1952 and the two Brit Pilots who saw a UFO from their Vampire Jet. in the interview these two very down to earth characters when considering chasing said object remark. "We were aware that those who had chased one of these objects in the past had been vapourised".....

Now vapourised is a very specific word. Not killed, but vapourised, i suspect that word was chosen very carefully after due consideration by those RAF guys as a hint to those who picked up on it. In 1952 the only case that comes to mind would be Mantell's unfortunate death. in the headlong rush to talk about Skyhook balloons this has been conveniently , for the sceptics, over looked. Several reports say there was not one single drop of blood in Mantell's cockpit, I can find no reference to his body being seen by any of his relatives just body bag being removed from the crash.. Now what we do have, is the assumption that his body was in the wreckage because it is reported his watch had stopped at the moment of the crash. The strange thing is that, although this information is forthcoming, information about the state of Mantell's body itself, is almost impossible to find.


Duesler the crash investigator has claimed the statement issued by the authorities and attributed to him was simply made up and the words were not his.

Duesler's statement

Note how Duesler avoids any mention of Mantell's body. the only information seems to be that Harry Booker the county coroner examined the body, the detail is always missing. I know this incident happened before William Petersen invented forensic science but statements such as;. "He probably passed out due to lack of oxygen" simply don't cut it....

Mantell died in the line of duty in peace time and it would seem that no-one thought it might well be worth determining the exact cause of his death by means of a proper and full autopsy performed by someone with the requisite qualifications. Rather, they just wanted the bloke buried post haste with the minimum of fuss and questions.

The only alleged description of Mantell's body again comes from Duesler who is said to have claimed he was told . The body had not one single puncture or penetration mark yet it was if his bones had been completely pulverised, that is, as if his bones had been vapourised?

That's completely ignoring the fact that. Given how the P51 was built its'w eight was all in its nose , so to belly flop not nose dive into the ground again suggests there needs to be a far deeper investigation into exactly what happened.

I would suggest that, the words of those two RAF officers tell you something. That something being that, even in British Airforce mess's the talk was that *Chasing UFOs could be fatal" and that the fatality was not due to passing out due to lack of oxygen.

I remember this case very well.
It has been written about and talked about since the day it happened.
here is some testimony from an unlikely Canadian source, Wilburt B Smith of all people, Canada top ufo researcher and contactee....who was in the highest ufo circles of goverment both US and Can.


www.disclose.tv...

Notte what he says about the binding forces of atoms being reduced near UFOs when they are running certain combinations of fields.....
Also the body of Mantell was charred beyond recognition from the heat effect of getting too near a UFO/
This and other fatalities we caused ourselves through our ignorance of their primary drive forces.
Capt Mantell was one of my boyhood heroes.....may he rest in peace....

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by jkrog08

 

The balloon was over 80,000 feet in the air. He did not come close to it, so how could he of seen any people? It also has been shown that he blacked out from lack of oxygen during his climb. This is a tragic case as I noted, but the ET part of it has been shown to be a balloon.

Sometimes balloons are mistaken as UFOs, especially one that was as high as this one was reported.

There seems to be many cases like this one that keep coming up for discussion as Major Randle points out. I do agree with others it is good to review such cases, I think the ones that are solved can help either solve similar cases or be used to rule out such solutions.

This case has been logically explained to me. If others want to think ET, that is OK, as this is the forum to show ones evidence.

And sometimes people believ those explnanations as well It doesnt have to be alien to be a ufo, didnt you know that? if its unidentified, and is in the air, then its a ufo...sheesh!!