The Red Bluff Police UFO Incident - August, 1960.

Extremely similar UFO report from Southern England including almost identical object description (also emitting beams of light) described in this documentary film with Nick Pope.

I've read numerous UFO reports over the years and while some can be dismissed as having more mundane origins there have been others which seemed far more genuine. I placed the 1952 sighting over the Gulf of Mexico at the top of the genuine list until reading this thread, the evidence presented here is very compelling.
The USAF's official explanation is also proof that drugs are not good for you

What amazes me is....after all these years....and all the documented sightings and actual Military files discovered after the Freedom of Information act....a particular agency still has all of you talking about finding real proof....rather than talking about E.T. as a reality that already has been proved.

This is a TRIBUTE....and you have to give them their dues...to the people who work in this agency.
Split Infinity

Originally posted by Microwaved
I've read numerous UFO reports over the years and while some can be dismissed as having more mundane origins there have been others which seemed far more genuine. I placed the 1952 sighting over the Gulf of Mexico at the top of the genuine list until reading this thread, the evidence presented here is very compelling.
The USAF's official explanation is also proof that drugs are not good for you

Hey my friend thanks for the reply and I certainly agree about some UFO incidents being extremely difficult to dismiss, there are a few cases listed in this post which have had me completely baffled over the years and I also found it revealing that the APRO bulletin team described the Red Bluff case as 'one of the most interesting we have ever encountered' yet it seems not many folks have even heard of it, let alone want to discuss it.

Palrolmen Chase UAO Two Hours

The detailed story is one of the most interesting we have ever encountered..

APRO Bulletin - September, 1960 [pdf]

Cheers.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
What amazes me is....after all these years....and all the documented sightings and actual Military files discovered after the Freedom of Information act....a particular agency still has all of you talking about finding real proof....rather than talking about E.T. as a reality that already has been proved.

What specifically in the report brings you to the conclusion that extraterrestrials were responsible? Are you absolutely sure that it COULD NOT BE ANYTHING ELSE?

reply to post by Blue Shift


A person would have to be either brave or very foolish, to take a potshot at a foofighter.

My fear is that if I did take a potshot at a foofighter, the ET's would kidnap and bushwack me; leaving me stranded on some lonely alien planet with no hope of rescue.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
What amazes me is....after all these years....and all the documented sightings and actual Military files discovered after the Freedom of Information act....a particular agency still has all of you talking about finding real proof....rather than talking about E.T. as a reality that already has been proved.

What specifically in the report brings you to the conclusion that extraterrestrials were responsible? Are you absolutely sure that it COULD NOT BE ANYTHING ELSE?

Blueshift, you make a fair point there mate and I don't think anyone knows for sure what the objects involved in the Red Bluff case (and many other equaly strange UFO reports) actualy are - I don't know if you've heard it but I thought this was a relevant quote from atmospherical physicist Dr James E. Mcdonald about 'actual unknown' unidentified reports and deductive reasoning:


Audio quote - Dr James E. Mcdonald


Cheers.

Originally posted by Microwaved
..I placed the 1952 sighting over the Gulf of Mexico at the top of the genuine list until reading this thread, the evidence presented here is very compelling.

Microwaved, thanks for the reply mate and I certainly agree this case is a very compelling one - as for the 1952 Gulf of Mexico incident it seems the year was a pretty big one for credible UFO reports, here's what NICAP's Richard Hall had to say about it:

"The summer 1952 UFO sighting wave was one of the largest of all time, and arguably the most significant of all time in terms of the credible reports and hardcore scientific data obtained. Electromagnetic (EM) effects and physical trace evidence were more prominent in other waves, but 1952 (and 1953) featured recurring radar detection of UFOs, often from both ground and airborne radar, visual sightings by jet interceptor pilots sent up to pursue the mysterious objects, and cat-and-mouse chases in which the UFOs seemed to toy with the interceptors. Further, Air Force investigators who plotted the sightings noticed that they were concentrated around strategic military bases, and this clearly posed a threat to national security since their origin was unknown".

Richard Hall

link

Cheers.

Newspaper article regarding the 1968 U.S. Congressional UFO Hearings describes Red Bluff case:


“House Science Committee Seriously Studies UFOs”, 30 July 1968

Originally posted by Erno86
A person would have to be either brave or very foolish, to take a potshot at a foofighter.

Here's another example of policemen firing their weapons at UFOs -like the Red Bluff case, this object was also emitting a beam of light.

The colonel's handwritten report to Orion, dated May 12, 1979, goes into still further details. The colonel reveals, for instance, that the sergeant walked towards the cliff armed with a rifle. "When he arrived to the place where he couldn't advance further (the edge of the cliff), the sergeant yelled toward the sea; not obtaining a response he made a series of shots towards the luminous object, states the second report. "Suddenly, this object moved extremely fast in the direction of the rocky cliff, arriving at a distance no more than 50 meters from the place where the police were." At that point continues the report, "the whole area became illuminated like at daytime."

Bizarre Police UFO/USO Case from Tocopilla, Chile, 1971

Well it has to be a craft of Extraterrestrial origin as l'm pretty sure we don't have this kind of Technology yet to move in such ways as well as withstand the great amount of G-Forces experienced during their "Ariel Gymnastics". I'm also sure the government gave a little visit to the people in the radar base which is why they denied it later. however i must say that the explaination the USAF gave was horrible, why would police mistace an object moving in all directions at high speeds with a laser shooting out for a "Refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeuse".

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Well it has to be a craft of Extraterrestrial origin as l'm pretty sure we don't have this kind of Technology yet to move in such ways as well as withstand the great amount of G-Forces experienced during their "Ariel Gymnastics". I'm also sure the government gave a little visit to the people in the radar base which is why they denied it later. however i must say that the explaination the USAF gave was horrible, why would police mistace an object moving in all directions at high speeds with a laser shooting out for a "Refraction of the planet Mars and the two bright stars Aldebaran and Betelgeuse".

Extraterrestrialentity, have to say you make some good points there mate and I don't think the object's flight characteristics as reported by the officers are even obtainable today - let alone over 50 years ago.

Also agree the denial of the USAF radar tracking of the object smells a bit fishy, especially as they'd earlier confirmed the tracking of the object to two newspapers over a two day period - the official radar confirmation aspect of the case even ended up on the front page.

And yes, the USAF 'explanation' for this incident is so typical of many other 'official debunks' around that time and shows complete contempt for objective analysis and intellectual honesty - it's been said before but I wonder just how stupid the USAF think people actually are?

Cheers.



Here's another newspaper article where the Red Bluff case is mentioned by Professor Dr. Robert Brown:

link

Comprehensive chapter on the Red Bluff case taken from the book 'UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry' by Michael Swords and Robert Powell.


Clicky

reply to post by karl 12


Interesting case, yet another thread well supplied with information by karl. Now I have what to read at work.

reply to post by ImpactoR


Thanks for the reply mate, there's also some relevant reading at the link below from researcher Jerry Cohen where Dr James Mcdonald discusses this case - the scientist also points out that it's not the first time the USAF have issued completely bullsh*t UFO explanations.

McDonald: When you see these cases, when you look at examples like Red Bluff, California (August 13, 1960), when two California highway patrolmen were, as one of them put to me, within easy pistol range of the object, which was about the size of an airplane fuselage, had no wings, and 6' lights on it, and was interfering with radio transmissions so they could not call back to the radio dispatcher for more cars, and all they had was 44 pistols with armor-piercing shells.

Officer Carson said they had the guns out and were going to shoot; there was nothing else to do. . . . And this is explained as Aldeberan and Capella . . . a twinkling and an inversion. And (if) you look at the radiosonde sensors . . . I have. There was no inversion in the first place. You look at the star charts and the stars weren’t even in the sky.

Now, if that was the only time it happened it would not be so surprising or distressing, but that is what has happened over and over again.

link

Cheers.

reply to post by Microwaved


There is a Bigfoot saying that holds true.

Extraterrestrials have already been discovered, we are just waiting for academia to catch up.

reply to post by spiritualarchitect


Spiritualarchitect, I don't know about the Bigfoot saying mate but here's some more information on this case and the subsequent explanation from the USAF - Jim Mcdonald's opinions are also included.

Flying Saucer Review Volume 6: The Phenomenon.

Debunkers within the USAF and without have been driven-to-stupidity trying to explain this one away. For a change, Allen Hynek in his debunking stage does not seem to have been involved with such travesties of reason, as he was intensely involved with satellite tracking and wasn't on task much at Blue Book. But that didn't stop BB from offering foolish astronomical "explanations". They decided that the patrolmen had seen two stars [red ones] under amazing atmospheric conditions [flying around at a few hundred feet looking like a 150 foot long football with beams at both ends]. Yep. That's it, alright. NICAP got Walt Webb to look at this brilliance, and on top of the mere fact of its absurdity, Walt found that the stars charged with the offense were not even above the horizon.

Blue Book heard of Webb's analysis and quickly changed their explanation to Mars [ah, yes, Red] which was split apart for the two ends apparently, and the white-blue star Capella [for the middle?] The fact that Capella wasn't in that area of the sky did not deter them from their duty to explain. Later Donald Menzel showed his equally brain-dead approach to UFOs by returning to a variation of the first USAF story, with the same "inadequate" relationship to any of the facts of the case.

Red Bluff stands un-dented by the debunkers, and a monument to their shame when one reads the crap that they were willing to print about it. By the way, a little-featured part of the case was the high-strangeness element of the big beams seeming to have "ends" on them, in violation of normal light behavior.

Below, I've appended Jim McDonald's views on the case from his talk to Congressman Roush's committee many years later. Of course the majority of the information above was not known to FSR at the time.

Link

Cheers.

Some great research on the case from SaturdayNightUforia:


Red Bluff : 1960

No don't shoot at ufos, Bigfoot or the big black cats

Im a shooter type, but not at those ya see, I do hogs and coyotes,,,but shoot at the dirt under their feet is the funnest thing

a reply to: Blue Shift

originally posted by: GBP/JPY

No don't shoot at ufos, Bigfoot or the big black cats

Some sound advice there mate.

Bumping this very old thread because Preston Dennett goes into some pretty specific details about the Red Bluff case.

See 16:00