5 UFO Sightings

[Torngarsuk]

How? What can we compare it too?
That's the main problem, we would love to dig deeper and find out exactly what a phenomenom is. But there are 2 major stumbling blocks:
1. We can only dig deeper with methods known to work on phenomenom that is known to us.

So, right off the bat we have a problem at least from my perspective. As a pilot, I expect sightings to be physical objects that are intelligently controlled. In other words, aircraft and maybe the occasional spacecraft. If I don't consider the possibility of advanced craft, then I am stuck waiting for "official" announcements. What fun is that? I am reminded of a story, I read some time ago involving the F117A Stealth fighter.

The F117A came to us via an ultra-secret secret project that started in 1975. First flight was in mid 1981 and a distorted photo was released by the Pentagon in late 1988 as I recall. However, there was a man operating outside the cloak of government imposed secrecy who took multiple daylight images of this unusual black UFO before the distorted photo was released! Interestingly, he was not current on U.S. military aircraft, but figured if he could observe it and photograph it during daylight hours, then it must be a known aircraft. At any rate, when the fuzzy Pentagon photo came out, he realized he had something special and shortly thereafter his images were published.

Hopefully, my memory of this event is clear and if you have heard of this please point me towards the magazine that published the story as time has erased that detail and I would like to read it again.

The take away, for me at least, was the following:

a. Some observers witnesses and photograph unusual aerial objects without becoming hysterical. (See "Excitedness effect" - Condon Report for the skeptics take on this)
b. Some observers see unusual aerial objects without thinking ET has arrived.
c. Some observers DO NOT come forward with their stories until someone else has come forward first. (Condon Report wants us to discount reports made in this manner)
d. Sometimes people see what they say they saw. (Condon Report wants us to believe it is a balloon, swamp gas, Venus, and one of my favorites a mirage! LOL)

If this man's UFO photos were released today, or during the time of the Condon Report, or Project Blue Book, I have no doubt that in the absence of U.S. Air Force corroboration he would have faced scorn and ridicule. Tell me I'm wrong!

One other item: Much has been made at least in this thread about the "windows" of the Zond IV fireball.

The Condon Report notes this feature in 3 out of 78 ZOND IV reports filed. Hmm...Sounds more like a spurious detail than anything else.

[Gillianren]

As a pilot, I expect sightings to be physical objects that are intelligently controlled.

There's your first mistake. Many, many sightings can be explained by things not intelligently controlled. Arguably, quite a lot of them aren't even physical objects, though of course Venus is, just not one terribly handy to people sighting it.

[Torngarsuk]

There's your first mistake. Many, many sightings can be explained by things not intelligently controlled. Arguably, quite a lot of them aren't even physical objects, though of course Venus is, just not one terribly handy to people sighting it.

Mistake? In phrasing yes.

The correct wording should be: "As a pilot, I expect aerial sightings to be physical objects that are intelligently controlled."

Sorry for the confusion.

I'll go out on a limb here, just for fun, and say the vast majority of pilots expect aerial sightings to be physical objects that are intelligently controlled. Quick, someone do a poll.

Honestly, if I thought there was an excellent chance I was going to share the airspace on a regular basis with uncontrolled objects...Yikes, I guess I would have to stay on the ground!

[astrophotographer]

You seem to have all the answers astrophotographer. Why do you spend time trying to debunk UFO sightings? Were you a believer at one time?

Not to get personal on this but I accepted a lot of things at face value when I was younger. I loved watching the "Ancient astronaut" shows in the early 70s. As time passed and my astronomical experience showed me how people misinterpreted these things, I developed a more skeptical attitude. When I became involved in a UFO discssion group long ago as a skeptic, I was told not to discuss things I knew nothing about. I love a challenge and read tons of books on both sides of the fence on the subject. I have a pretty good size library on the subject.

Just to point out what I was trying to emphasize was that pilots have felt they were on a collision course with a bright meteor in the past. Randles mentions one case of British airliner in her book (We are rearranging the house right now and I can not locate the book but when I do, I will try and give you the details) and Klass points out a case of June 1969 over St. Louis in his book. The Klass description was photographed by a ground observer (it is on the cover of my copy) so there is no doubt it was a meteor. He wrote the following about it in his Skeptics UFO newsletter 46:


The flight crew of American Airlines’ eastbound flight #112, flying at 39,000 ft. on June 5, 1969, around 6 p.m., had a similar encounter with a squadron of four UFOs coming out of the east which appeared to be on a near-collision course. The brightness of the four objects was also assumed to be a reflection of the sun off metal objects. This “squadron of UFOs” also was reported by the flight crew of an eastbound United Airlines jetliner, flying at 37,000 ft., eight miles behind American, and also by an eastbound Air National Guard fighter pilot, flying at 41,000 ft., four miles behind United. The military pilot reported that the squadron of UFOs appeared to execute a climbing maneuver—seemingly to prevent a mid-air collision.

This 1969 incident would have become a classic “unexplained multiple-pilot UFO case” but for an alert newspaper photographer in Peoria, Ill., named Alan Harkrader, who managed to take a picture of the UFOs. Harkrader’s photo (see below) showed that the squadron of UFOs was really a fragmenting meteor- fireball. When a meteor enters the atmosphere at a speed of roughly 10,000 miles per hour, it electrifies (ionizes) the air and creates a long, luminous teardrop-shaped object. Meteor fragments generate similar luminous tails. (Harkrader’s photo shows only two objects, but he told me that while winding the film in the hope of getting a second shot, another fragment broke off and fell into trail. The incident occurred in broad daylight but Harkrader stopped-down the lens aperture to enhance contrast.) Analysis of Harkrader’s photo, which showed a nearby electric power line, plus numerous reports from ground observers, enabled the Smithsonian Center for Short-Lived Phenomena to determine the approximate trajectory of the fireball. Despite the fact that two senior airline flight crews and a military pilot believed that they had nearly collided with the squadron of UFOs near St. Louis, the Smithsonian scientists determined that the fireball trajectory was approximately 125 MILES NORTH OF ST. LOUIS.

THIS ST. LOUIS UFO CASE SHOWS THAT EVEN EXPERIENCED PILOTS WHO BRIEFLY SEE SOMETHING WHICH IS UNFAMILIAR CAN HAVE FLAWED RECOLLECTIONS OF WHAT THEY OBSERVED.

[astrophotographer]

The Condon Report notes this feature in 3 out of 78 ZOND IV reports filed. Hmm...Sounds more like a spurious detail than anything else.

It does not matter that it was one report out of 78. It demonstrates that there are people who do misperceive such events as a "cigar with windows". The three witness reports I gave for the November 1999 fireball demonstrates this does happen. I can also site several rocket re-entries that produced similar reports.

[astrophotographer]

So, right off the bat we have a problem at least from my perspective. As a pilot, I expect sightings to be physical objects that are intelligently controlled. In other words, aircraft and maybe the occasional spacecraft.

Why do you expect it to be? I can see at the moment you are flying your craft, you want to avoid any potential hazards but does that expectation continue after the fact? If a birght fireball causes you to swerve your craft to avoid it, do you continue to believe that you may have seen a spacecraft or some "intelligent" object?

[vonmazur]

Actually the fires were on the sea, oil rig burning off excess gas....I think they debunked this on TV, but due to CRS syndrome, I cannot say where or when...

Dale

[eburacum45]

Chiles and Whitted could not claim to have seen every possible (type of meteor)

I see no evidence where they claim to have seen every possible...

Good. Then your claim that "These guys had seen meteors many times during their careers. This was no meteor." is nothing more than a pair of causally unconnected sentences, then?

Do you claim that they were sufficiently familiar with all types of meteor that they could not have made that mistake? Are you prepared to continue defending that claim, by, for instance, describing when and where they had both seen a bolide disintegrate into a string of apparently connected lights? If not, you cannot claim 'it was no meteor'.

Of course it is totally impossible to estimate the distance of an unknown object unless you know the size (or the size of something behind it).

ATC has called out unknown objects to me many times. Since I fly without TCAS, I very much appreciate their efforts.
As a pilot, your are required to make judgements continuously. It is not necessary, well at least it hasn't been necessary so far for me to know the exact distance or the exact size of a target before taking a prudent course of action.

So do you agree or disagree that the distance to an unknown object of unknown size cannot be estimated without reference to other objects of known size? If you agree, then you will understand that avoiding an object of unknown size and distance is the 'prudent course of action', whether the object is 700 feet away or 70 miles.

[Strange]

The correct wording should be: "As a pilot, I expect aerial sightings to be physical objects that are intelligently controlled."

And isn't that part of the problem. Perhaps people will tend to interpret unknown (or misperceeived) sightings in terms they are familiar with: a pilot is likely to think "craft"; an astronomer is likely to think "meteor"; a religious person might think "angel"; etc.

The trouble is, pilots are often cited as "expert" witness - after all they spend a lot of time up in the air, they are highly trained, etc. But that just means their perceptions may be distorted in a particular direction.

[eburacum45]

With all due respect, the National Enquirer? Is this the level of scientific inquiry you want to hang your hat on?

The Tornado pilot's account did not come from the National Enquirer, but from Tim Good's book, quoted by Jim Oberg (one-time member of this forum, as it happens)

Here's quite a detailed report on it
http://www.ufonet.nl/nieuws/tornado/index2.html
From the transcription

637C:"To avoid a collision course [unintelligible] with 637 about a minute ago, we've broken starboard to avoid it."
==snip==
Dutch Mil:"603, you have any indication about the distance?"
603:"It's almost impossible to say because of the uh, the apparent size of it. It looks absolutely enormous and passing about, ooh, a mile or two miles ahead of us. But, uh, it's very difficult to judge."
Dutch Mil:"Roger."
637C:"And Dutch, 637 Charlie, possibly it's a B-2? It's difficult to tell the range but it got pretty close to us."

[NEOWatcher]

So, right off the bat we have a problem at least from my perspective...

Yes; and that problem is you taking my statement out of context.
I said 2 problems. Your example has a picture that can be analyzed.

Besides that; your example was about someone publishing a picture. I see no evidence that those pictures lead to any kind of investigation or insights based on the picture. It was after the fact that the two were linked.
Besides, there were many people outside the "cloak of government" that were already speculating on advances like that. In other words, working with known information.

If I don't consider the possibility of advanced craft, then I am stuck waiting for "official" announcements. What fun is that?

Fun? You're putting amusement over security?

As a pilot, I expect sightings to be physical objects that are intelligently controlled. In other words, aircraft and maybe the occasional spacecraft.

Yes; assumptions are necessary for collision avoidence, and trying to identify what it is during that avoidence is an advantage. But; once you're safe, the identification has nothing to do with piloting.

[Torngarsuk]

I can see at the moment you are flying your craft, you want to avoid any potential hazards but does that expectation continue after the fact?

I'm not sure I understand your question here, but I will take a shot. Yes, that expectation continues after the fact. I'll give you an example. On a clear summer day, what pilots call "severe clear" I was operating a single engine airplane near a controlled airport that did not have radar. I had been cleared to transition the airspace by the tower. A minute or so into this, another aircraft was cleared through the same airspace, at my altitude, but in the opposite direction. ATC advised me of the traffic and I reported we (the co-pilot and I) were looking. Neither of us actually saw the traffic at that time. Rather than bore you with the details of what we were doing, suffice to say we were doing pilot stuff as well as scanning the sky for that traffic. 30-45 seconds go by and ATC calls again with the same traffic advisory. I still don't see it, so I report, "were looking". Another 30-45 seconds go by, ATC calls a final time. Keep in mind that between calls, ATC is calling the other guy to see if he sees me. Each time the other pilot reports "no joy", in other words he doesn't see me. On that final call, I, but not my co-pilot detect what I later describe as a subtle change in the tone of the controller's voice advising me of the opposite direction traffic. At this point, I do a quick scan (no joy) and within a few seconds request an altitude change, which is immediately approved. I initiate a descent, and go back to the myriad other tasks at hand. A few seconds after that, a small craft flashes directly over my head. We missed each other by 300 feet. I report to the controller that the traffic is no longer a factor. My co-pilot never saw it.

The take away for me was that it is quite a bit more difficult to see something coming head on as opposed to an oblique angle. I avoided the hazard and yes I do have expectation that should the situation present itself again, I will avoid the hazard again. Hopefully, in a more timely manner.

If a birght fireball causes you to swerve your craft to avoid it, do you continue to believe that you may have seen a spacecraft or some "intelligent" object?

From reading threads on this forum, I see a lot of people advocating the simplest answer. The simplest answer, is an intelligent object. I have seen craft that I could not identify, because they were at the limit of what I could resolve. I never once felt they were anything but intelligently controlled. At the same time, I never felt they were controlled by ET. So to answer your question directly, I would most likely believe it was an intelligently controlled aircraft in distress. Aviation history is replete with accounts of aircraft going down in flames. If I took action, to avoid it, then most likely I would know what it was.

Maybe that is not the answer you were looking for, but on a daily basis pilots are not worried about stuff from space hitting their aircraft.

[Torngarsuk]

Good. Then your claim that "These guys had seen meteors many times during their careers. This was no meteor." is nothing more than a pair of causally unconnected sentences, then?

Hold up there. They reported they had seen meteors many times during their careers, not me. As I stated in a previous post, I have never met these gentlemen.

As for the phrase "This was no meteor": Re-read what came before that phrase. I could have just as easily said this was not the Goodyear blimp. Since no one is making the extraordinary claim that the pilots banked to avoid a Goodyear blimp some 50-100 miles in the distance, I didn't feel it necessary to rule the blimp out as a possible answer.

Do you claim that they were sufficiently familiar with all types of meteor that they could not have made that mistake?

What you are suggesting sounds nonsensical to me. How could anyone be familiar with all types of meteors. You stated in post #25:

Meteors are a very variable phenomenon. Chiles and Whitted could not claim to have seen every possible combination of size, velocity and entry angle, and every possible way in which a meteor could disintegrate. In order to claim that they would probably need thousands of years of flying experience, not decades.

I would like to meet the man or woman that has seen every possible combination of size, velocity, and entry angle, and every possible way in which a meteor could disintegrate.

Do I think they made a mistake? At the end of the day, they survived the encounter whatever it was.
I accept the word of these gentlemen at face value. I am not prepared to accuse them of lying, incompetence, or anything else at this time.

As I have previously stated, I would like to read more about this case before I jump to any conclusions. I suspect, although I am not ready to make the claim so don't ask me, that it may not be possible to get a satisfactory answer.

So do you agree or disagree that the distance to an unknown object of unknown size cannot be estimated without reference to other objects of known size? If you agree, then you will understand that avoiding an object of unknown size and distance is the 'prudent course of action', whether the object is 700 feet away or 70 miles.

I do recall hearing about and seeing some sort of contraption attached to the front of a B-2 stealth bomber, which at the time was said to increase the radar signature of the plane supposedly to assist controllers in tracking the plane. It was said that without the contraption, the B-2 would appear to be the size of a small bird. At this time, I do not know the degree of precision that can be achieved with modern tracking equipment.

Visually speaking, I would say most people can not accurately judge distance. I know when I first started out, I would call the tower and say I was 6 miles south of the field and they would correct me saying something like: "Radar contact 5.8 miles south of the field." As you gain experience, it becomes easier to judge those distances.

On the other hand, I once saw a UFO at long range apparently hovering near the interstate, as I was driving to Montgomery, Alabama. It was a clear day, and it was roughly the size of an eraser on a pencil held at arms length, when I initially spotted it. How far away was I when I initially saw it? Hard to say but I would guess 15-20 miles.

Was it Venus? Note: I have not specified that I saw Venus, so that must be it, right?

Perhaps people will tend to interpret unknown (or misperceeived) sightings in terms they are familiar with: a pilot is likely to think "craft"; an astronomer is likely to think "meteor"; a religious person might think "angel"; etc.

You are getting out of my expertise. A psychologist would probably have some ideas on this topic. I am not going to be of much help on this as I tend to believe the professionals. For example, when my doctor says I need to lower my cholesterol, I tend to believe him.

The trouble is, pilots are often cited as "expert" witness - after all they spend a lot of time up in the air, they are highly trained, etc. But that just means their perceptions may be distorted in a particular direction.

So, if an astronomer reports some new find, I should discount his statement because his perception is probably just distorted in a particular direction. That doesn't ring true to me.

Here is a question. What do you do if an astronomer claims he saw a UFO? Do you claim he saw an airplane?

The Tornado pilot's account did not come from the National Enquirer, but from Tim Good's book, quoted by Jim Oberg (one-time member of this forum, as it happens)

Here's quite a detailed report on it
http://www.ufonet.nl/nieuws/tornado/index2.html
From the transcription

Oh, ok. The link you gave in post #26 took me to a site referencing the National Enquirer.

I'll check out the new link ASAP.

[Torngarsuk]

Yes; and that problem is you taking my statement out of context.
I said 2 problems.

I didn't feel the need to address the 2nd problem as I happen to agree with you, but to be clear, in the absence of information a sighting is gone, we can't go back and verify what was seen.

We can speculate, but we can not be absolutely certain.

Your example has a picture that can be analyzed.

Bingo! That is why I used that example.

Besides that; your example was about someone publishing a picture. I see no evidence that those pictures lead to any kind of investigation or insights based on the picture.

Correct, it did not lead to an investigation. The photographer was not familiar enough with the topic to recognize he was looking at something unusual.

The insights, at least the ones I listed, are not based on the picture. They are based on the case taken as a whole and compared to aspects of various cases as published in the Condon Report.

Which insights did you not understand?

It was after the fact that the two were linked.

It had to be that way or I would have chosen another case.

If he didn't have the pictures, people would have said he saw Venus, or swamp gas or some other such nonsense.

The fact that he had the pictures along with government corroboration prevented him from becoming the object of scorn and ridicule.

It is a fact that the U.S. military has used various explanations (also known as lies) to hide the operations of secret aircraft.

If he had come forward with nothing but a story...well you know how that works.

Besides, there were many people outside the "cloak of government" that were already speculating on advances like that. In other words, working with known information.

What people were speculating on is irrelevant. In point of fact, one company came out with a plastic model kit based on the speculation.

They got the color right, but that is all.

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/TES...LTH%20PAGE.htm

Fun? You're putting amusement over security?

Not at all.

The fun is in the speculation, not in the actual revealing of secrets that put lives in danger.

On the other hand, look at the Mantell UFO encounter to see an example of how secrets get people killed.

I will leave it to the readers to decide whether preserving that secret was worth it.

Yes; assumptions are necessary for collision avoidence, and trying to identify what it is during that avoidence is an advantage. But; once you're safe, the identification has nothing to do with piloting.

I think we are in agreement here and we have come full circle.

Once the piloting is done, let the speculation begin.

[eburacum45]

Do you claim that they were sufficiently familiar with all types of meteor that they could not have made that mistake?

What you are suggesting sounds nonsensical to me. How could anyone be familiar with all types of meteors.

With respect, this is your suggestion, not mine. I am very well aware that they cannot have seen all types of meteors. Therefore your claim 'This was no meteor' cannot logically follow from your observation that they had seen meteors many times during their careers. As this is the 'Proving Grounds' section of the forum, are you prepared to accept that it may have been a meteor, or back up that claim?

Incidentally, note that I am not claiming that it definitely was a meteor, although that looks increasingly likely.

[eburacum45]

I am not prepared to accuse them of lying, incompetence, or anything else at this time.

Failing to correctly identify a relatively rare kind of fireball is not lying, nor is it incompetence. Like the Tornado pilot, Chiles and Whitted took avoiding action to avoid an apparently possible collision. They did their job correctly.

[astrophotographer]

From reading threads on this forum, I see a lot of people advocating the simplest answer. The simplest answer, is an intelligent object.

No you misunderstand. What is considered is what could be the MOST LIKELY source and not "the simplest". There is evidence in the case of Chiles-Whitted that it could have been a bright fireball. We have case studies showing pilots seeing fireballs and re-entering space debris as craft of some kind and attempting to avoid it. The duration is not too long and the pilots description (as well as the one passenger who claims to have seen it) seem to be consistent with a bright fireball. There really is nothing that positively rules out the fireball explanation. Since there is no evidence that such a craft they described existed it is most likely that the source of the report was a bright fireball. The least likely explanation is they did see a "rocket ship" from another world (since none existed here on earth in 1948). Until better evidence is presented (and I doubt there will be any forthcoming for this case), then one can say it was probably a meteor.

[Torngarsuk]

Do you claim that they were sufficiently familiar with all types of meteor that they could not have made that mistake?

What you are suggesting sounds nonsensical to me. How could anyone be familiar with all types of meteors.

With respect, this is your suggestion, not mine.

No sir. You are now doing what you accused me of doing in Post# 41

Let's review the context. In Post # 24

Chiles sees an object to the right front of the plane. So far so good. He points it out to Whitted and speculates it is some new army jet. They continue to watch, but in just a few seconds the object now appears to be on a collison course with the DC-3. They bank hard to the left and the object goes by them at an apparent distance of 700 feet. They are buffeted by turbulence. Whitted looks back and observes the UFO as it goes up in a steep climb.

These guys had seen meteors many times during their careers. This was no meteor.

This description of the event, correct or not, does not lend itself to a meteor explanation, unless of course someone asserts that a meteor some 50-100 miles away can cause turbulence that would buffet an airliner.

Regardless, in Post #25 you said:

Chiles and Whitted could not claim to have seen every possible combination of size, velocity and entry angle, and every possible way in which a meteor could disintegrate. In order to claim that they would probably need thousands of years of flying experience, not decades.

I now see that your focus was on the last two sentences of my post and did not include the paragraph that came before it.

At that point, you have my statement out of the proper context.

When I initially read Post #25, it seemed to me that YOU were asserting that I had claimed that Chiles and Whitted had claimed...(I'm truncating here)

I did not challenge the logic of your statement, but I did respond to it in Post #30, wherein you can see evidence that I agree with you.

To your statement (partially truncated):

Chiles and Whitted could not claim to have seen every possible...

I responded.

I see no evidence where they claim to have seen every possible...

If Chiles and Whitted did not claim it, then I can't either.

One other thing, before I deal with Post #45.

In Post #27, astrophotographer informs us that the "turbulence" entered the story some time later.

After several paragraphs, I replied: "As a pilot I place a lot of weight on the turbulence detail, if that detail is fabricated, I am deeply concerned."

Translation: Meteor explanations are back on the table.

Now to Post #45

I am very well aware that they cannot have seen all types of meteors.

As I suspected.

Therefore your claim 'This was no meteor' cannot logically follow from your observation that they had seen meteors many times during their careers. As this is the 'Proving Grounds' section of the forum, are you prepared to accept that it may have been a meteor, or back up that claim?

Hopefuly the foregoing has cleared this up.

Incidentally, note that I am not claiming that it definitely was a meteor, although that looks increasingly likely.

I don't know about "increasingly likely". I may be onto some testimony (not new) that you may find compelling in the other direction, or maybe not. Stay tuned.

Failing to correctly identify a relatively rare kind of fireball is not lying, nor is it incompetence. Like the Tornado pilot, Chiles and Whitted took avoiding action to avoid an apparently possible collision. They did their job correctly.

We are in agreement here.

Regarding the Tornado pilot: In Post #26 you gave us this:

Pilots are trained to take evasive action if they think something might hit them, for obvious reasons. Here's an experienced pilot taking evasive action to avoid a distant fireball.
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~psmith/pilot-ufos.html

"The accompanying Tornado pilot was so convinced that they were on collision course with the lights -- apparently nine were seen -- that he 'broke away' and took 'violent evasive action'. The formation of UFOs continued 'straight on course and shot off ahead at speed -- they were nearly supersonic."

There were a couple airliners whose crew witnessed this fireball. One Captain, who previously experienced a re-entry, stated that this one looked different.

Regardless of how it looked, neither airliner took evasive action as far as we can tell.

Yet, the Tornado pilot took "violent evasive action"'.

I think there are several possible answers here.

1. The Tornado pilot(s) in all likelihood did not have the flight experience of the airline pilots.
2. The Tornado is a Mach 2+ interceptor. Even at cruise speed, he is faster than the airliners, and at least 4x faster than Chiles and Whitted. My point is if the Tornado is going to take evasive action, he must react much quicker than Chiles-Whitted.
3. As an interceptor, the Tornado is not nearly as nimble as you might imagine. Again, more time
pressure to react.

I keep pointing to experience because I still feel like Chiles and Whitted are getting the short end of the stick here.
Chuck Yeager said experience was the thing that kept him alive when so many of his test pilot buddies were killed.
We should not be discounting it.

Earlier I teased some new information.
I'm still checking on it, but it appears there were several military personnel that witnessed what Chiles-Whitted reported.
The problem is they saw the object 30 minutes to 1 hour before Chiles-Whitted.

My question is this. What would be the max flight time for a fireball type phenomenon?

Is 30 minutes to an hour out of the question? I'm thinking it is, but correct me if I am wrong.

[Torngarsuk]

No you misunderstand. What is considered is what could be the MOST LIKELY source and not "the simplest".

Understood.

There is evidence in the case of Chiles-Whitted that it could have been a bright fireball.

Agreed. 3 reports out of 78. In my estimation barely significant, but present nonetheless.

We have case studies showing pilots seeing fireballs and re-entering space debris as craft of some kind and attempting to avoid it.

But at the same time, we have pilots observing that same phenomenon and not attempting to avoid it.

The duration is not too long and the pilots description (as well as the one passenger who claims to have seen it) seem to be consistent with a bright fireball.

By carefully emphasizing certain data points, I see how you can draw this conclusion.
I'm forced to look at the totality of the data.
The passenger really didn't see much from what I have read as the duration of his observation was much shorter than the pilots. I can agree his account seems like a fireball. The pilots on the other hand described a craft. I have already addressed the Condon Report information. Turning back to the Gorizont/Proton UFO case. While there are some similarities, there are differences as well. For example, where are the windows? Where is the canopy/cockpit area Chiles described? Where is the probe like feature sticking out the front? I will agree it seems to be consistent with a fireball with the proviso that it is consistent provided we ignore certain data.

There really is nothing that positively rules out the fireball explanation.

That is what I am now trying to figure out. I'm looking for documents that predate the ones you linked to earlier.
I think we all know that memories become selective as we move forward from the actual time of the event. The interview you referenced was a week or so after the fact. I'll keep digging.

Since there is no evidence that such a craft they described existed it is most likely that the source of the report was a bright fireball.

I disagree. The Project Sign investigators did not believe it was a meteor. They had reasons for believing what they believed, regardless of what you or I think of their explanation. Eventually they were forced to change their report and call it a fireball. It is said, this incident was so contentious that it led to the closure of Project Sign.

The least likely explanation is they did see a "rocket ship" from another world (since none existed here on earth in 1948).

Why does it always have to be from another world? How about a V-2?

Until better evidence is presented (and I doubt there will be any forthcoming for this case), then one can say it was probably a meteor.

Looking at the record, one can say quite a few things.

A lot of information was classified coming out of WW2. I do know, the U.S. was very much interested in space. I'm wondering if a V-2 rocket launch could have been observed by ground personnel and later by Chiles-Whitted.

How about some other aircraft, possibly in distress, or using an afterburner.

By employing science by proclamation as was done in this case, the powers that be, effectively short circuited the whole investigative process. In fact, I am surprised that the original weather balloon explanation failed to gain traction. It seems like the government was either indifferent or maybe it was a cover-up. Given that the Cold War was under way one could argue the Most Likely reason for the changing explanations is a cover-up.

[captain swoop]

At the end of the day there is no evidence that we are being visited by Spaceships from a different planet.
Call me when someone has some.

[astrophotographer]

That is what I am now trying to figure out. I'm looking for documents that predate the ones you linked to earlier.
I think we all know that memories become selective as we move forward from the actual time of the event. The interview you referenced was a week or so after the fact. I'll keep digging.

I am already ahead of you on this. The original news reports mentioned the turbulence. This is something Chiles and Whitted would later deny mentioning. The reports I cited came from their personal reports where they could not be misquoted (this does happen in the press). When Dr. MacDonald interviewed them, he asked about the turbulence question and they again stated there was no turbulence.

I disagree. The Project Sign investigators did not believe it was a meteor. They had reasons for believing what they believed, regardless of what you or I think of their explanation. Eventually they were forced to change their report and call it a fireball. It is said, this incident was so contentious that it led to the closure of Project Sign.

None of the original sign investigators was an astronomer and there was nothing to draw upon. When Hynek looked at it, he suspected it was a possible fireball. The incident DID NOT close down Sign.

Why does it always have to be from another world? How about a V-2?.

No V-2s being launched at night in the area. V-2s were only being operated out of New Mexico. One might suggest it was a soviet rocket but that is something of a stretch from what we know now.

Looking at the record, one can say quite a few things.

A lot of information was classified coming out of WW2. I do know, the U.S. was very much interested in space. I'm wondering if a V-2 rocket launch could have been observed by ground personnel and later by Chiles-Whitted.

How about some other aircraft, possibly in distress, or using an afterburner..

However, there were no jets using "afterburners" in 1948 that I am aware of and certainly not airborne in the vicinity (as Sign probably would track them down).

By employing science by proclamation as was done in this case, the powers that be, effectively short circuited the whole investigative process. In fact, I am surprised that the original weather balloon explanation failed to gain traction. It seems like the government was either indifferent or maybe it was a cover-up. Given that the Cold War was under way one could argue the Most Likely reason for the changing explanations is a cover-up.

I am not sure where the weather balloon line came from. Are you now discussing Roswell?

[eburacum45]

I keep pointing to experience because I still feel like Chiles and Whitted are getting the short end of the stick here.
Chuck Yeager said experience was the thing that kept him alive when so many of his test pilot buddies were killed.
We should not be discounting it.

Absolutely not. A key feature of experience must be the ability to respond to entirely new situations; if this was a rare type of linear, disintegrating fireball they had not seen before, then taking avoiding action was an entirely appropriate response; so was reporting it. If there were objects in the sky that might pose a collision risk, not reporting them would be negligent.

The feature that screams 'meteor' to me is the strange ' burning magnesium' colour of the lights seen 'inside' the 'craft'. Burning magnesium flares inside the ship? That certainly isn't any Earthly ship, and it seems doubtful that extraterrestrials would be burning magnesium on board. What were they doing in there- welding?

I'm still checking on it, but it appears there were several military personnel that witnessed what Chiles-Whitted reported.
The problem is they saw the object 30 minutes to 1 hour before Chiles-Whitted.

Walter Massey, a ground crew member at Robins AFB saw something similar on that day; he gave the time as an hour earlier. Another aircraft crew, Perry Mansfield and C Kingsley, saw 'an unusual meteor' at an approximate time of 0230, maybe 15 minutes before Chiles-Whitted (but that depends on how accurately they remembered the incident, or alternately how approximate 'approximate' was in this context).

Massey may have misremembered the time by an hour for some reason, if he really did see anything and wasn't just 'jumping on the bandwagon'. But a bright fireball of this kind should have been seen by a number of people, if it was a fireball, so I tend to think he did see something, if not necessarily at the time he remembers.

[dirty_g]

wasn't the same object (or at least a very similar object) reported a week or month before? So either it's a UFO flying about the place checking out on the planet or a meteor shower with many meteors which look similar (being made from the same celestial body) coming down to Earth or it's some kind of weird test craft. Ho hum. Glad the OP has generated a good bit of debate, been a great read.

[astrophotographer]

wasn't the same object (or at least a very similar object) reported a week or month before? So either it's a UFO flying about the place checking out on the planet or a meteor shower with many meteors which look similar (being made from the same celestial body) coming down to Earth or it's some kind of weird test craft. Ho hum. Glad the OP has generated a good bit of debate, been a great read.

I am unaware of a similar report of this kind. Perhaps you can present more information.
BTW, July and August are usually full of many meteor showers. Starting in late June (Ophiuchid/sagittarid radiants) and ending around mid-August (Kappa Cygnids), there are quite a few meteor showers (In addition to those mentioned there are the multiple Aquarid radiants, the Alpha Capricornids, and Perseids) that have been known to produce fireballs. Of course, it could just as easily have been a sporadic meteor (no meteor shower) like the November 1999 fireball apparently was. Two fireballs over a week is not unusual.

[dirty_g]

I am unaware of a similar report of this kind. Perhaps you can present more information.

It's on the cracked.com report. Quoting the end of the report "Then, strangest of all, they found out that the same object (right down to the two rows of windows) was spotted in the Netherlands. Well, they probably just heard about the Chiles-Whitted sighting and wanted to jump on the bandwagon, right? Only if they had a time machine: it was reported a month earlier. What the hell?"

[eburacum45]

I would only recognise this earlier sighting as being the same object if it included the bizarre magnesium lighting, so without full details I would have to reserve judgement.

[dirty_g]

Well it was similar (according to the report), but yes without a photograph to verify if they were similar or indeed the same we cannot be sure. It is a strange coincidence that about three meteors all with the same window effect on them were spotted in a short period of time.

[astrophotographer]

Well it was similar (according to the report), but yes without a photograph to verify if they were similar or indeed the same we cannot be sure. It is a strange coincidence that about three meteors all with the same window effect on them were spotted in a short period of time.

The source of this information was from the Ruppelt's book. The Hague reported does mention windows but none of the other reports from that time did. The possibility that two bright fireballs could produce this effect in two diferent places around the world is not unlikely. I suggest you go through the NUFORC database and wade through that quagmire. I have and a lot of reports made of meteors, stars, and satellites tend to repeat themselves with the same descriptions by very excited people who think they saw a genuine UFO.

[dirty_g]

The source of this information was from the Ruppelt's book. The Hague reported does mention windows but none of the other reports from that time did. The possibility that two bright fireballs could produce this effect in two diferent places around the world is not unlikely. I suggest you go through the NUFORC database and wade through that quagmire. I have and a lot of reports made of meteors, stars, and satellites tend to repeat themselves with the same descriptions by very excited people who think they saw a genuine UFO.

Was not saying that it is not possible to happen but seems strange to me, but I see your point. I've seen fireballs before (not many mind you). My main question here is this..... People have reported these objects in detail enough to presume they were close enough to see actual detail on them. You guys say, in laymans terms, "It's not uncommon for meteors to look like this". Fine not a problem. I therefore come back again to the point then that they must of been pretty close in order to see these things in a detail, as they can see individual patterns (the appearance of windows) on the meteor. So if it was that close and a meteor surely it would be falling downwards and not seem to be travelling more or less in a straight line horizontally. If they saw such detail on a meteor that was about 30 -100 miles plus away I would of thought its a pretty big if not utterly huge meteor (one big enough in fact to cause local if not global destruction). So therefore by my admittedly simple deduction it was not far away as they saw such detail on it. So why at a close range was it not in a falling motion if it was a meteor. On videos of metoers on youtube (and there are plenty) they always fall to earth when they get close, they don't travel in a straight line and then shoot off elsewhere out of sight.

[pepiboy32]

Venus is one of the biggest IFOs on the list and is continuously misidentified by various people including so-called "trained observers". Carter's sighting is a good one. I list several others here.

regarding the carter incident, why do you assume that his recollection of,`location in the sky´, `approximate time of observation´ and´`apparent angular size´ is reliable when (as it says in the article) he got the date so badly wrong?