Here's one where even the Air Force noted the "coincidence" or
I guess I missed something. What does a UFO seen on 2 April
have to do with a test that wasn't conducted until 20 days later?
In a message dated 5/12/2005 10:27:52
AM Pacific Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:
Here's one where even the Air Force noted the "coincidence" or
Brad: I thought you were going to yank the Herman Russell
sighting which seems to be an exploded Skyhook balloon not 50-75 flying
saucers. The other sightings are clearly a meteor fireball, where
even though distance and speed are hard to judge, some did estimate
150,000 feet altitude and 6,000 mph speed which are in the ballpark for
fireballs. Just because some witnesses didn't think it could be a
meteor is irrelevant. Many witnesses did think it was a meteor and said
so, and astronomers reportedly thought so too.
Project 10073 Record Card for report for April
2, 1952, from 6 miles SW of Lometa, Texas, says object appeared to be
headed southwest but turned to 180 degrees, and was tracked on radar.
Must have been some meteor. At this time in 1952 I do not think that
radars had the capability to track meteors. Meteors travel from 15 to
70 kilometers per second. Perhaps the object was something else.
Object seen at Brownwood, Texas, is given the
time of 2000 hours CST (200 GMT) April 2, 1952, while the other reports
are given the time of around 2040 CST April 2, 1952.
Card for Waco says object was coming from the southwest and
disappeared to the northeast.
How could an exploded skyhook balloon be seen
for a total of 3 minutes and 30 seconds?The pieces should be well
scattered in the wind and not be visible for much more that a few
seconds. Even Project Blue Book evaluated this sightings as an unknown,
and do not think for one minute that they would not have jumped on any
explanation for the sighting as they have done so many times. The
object was seen north northwest of Temple, Texas, which puts it in the
direction of Exercise Longhorn. This does not prove a thing but it does
Another Blue Book Unknown was recorded at
Duncanville,Texas, near Dallas, on April 4, 1952. Object tracked on
radar at 2160 MPH.
B: The fragments of polyethylene are as light as a feather
and easy to be
lofted by wind and thermals. I do think for more than one
minute that BB's
evaluations of what was or was not Unknown is not terribly
reliable or meaningful
of much of anything, though if BB actually investigated a case (BB
investigate this one) and still came up with Unknown then it
carries some weight.
Sometimes they dumped Insufficient Info cases into the
I want to know what's real about UFO's not what fits a partisan
Having 16 year as a meteorological tech. I have to comment
Dispersion by the wind, is an assumption not an explanation.
What was the
wind at the level that the balloon exploded? If you don't
assumption is as good as another.
Of course, most of my experiences with balloons indicate that they
don't explode. That is somewhere on the balloon there is a
weak spot cause
by an abrasion or in manufacturing or handling and the balloon
I was in met support at Fort Sill for years, the East Range was
with balloons and radiosonde instruments. Many, many had the
attached, the material ripped open or the whole balloon with a
hole in it.
When you find one with just the neck of the balloon attached to a
instrument/parachute then you know it exploded.
If Skyhook polyethylene balloons,
rather than rubber meteorological balloons, do shatter at high
altitudes sometimes then we must deal with such events as occasionally
causing sightings such as at Temple, TX, and not ignore reality.
If Skyhooks NEVER shatter and cannot possibly shatter and that can be
proven then that's another matter. I want real UFO data with
IFO's excluded. Poor UFO cases should be set aside in a special
category for further investigation and not allowed to contaminate a
genuine UFO database. It is a sign of good judgment to recognize
what is a good case and what is a poor case. It drives scientists
up the wall when they see amateurs with their special pleading arguing
for extremist partisan positions on every two-bit pet case.
April 4, 1952
"Duncanville (Red Star) is located near Dallas, Texas. Unusual
target tracked northwest of Duncanville at 70 nautical miles from radar
station. No direction of flight given. This would put the object about
200 miles from Fort Hood southwest of Waco. Exercise Longhorn was still
in progress at Fort Hood and areas toward Waco."
????????? I am confused. Doesn't the document at the link describe
an object detected 70 miles NW of Duncanville, or almost exactly the
opposite direction from Fort Hood and Waco?
In a message dated 5/13/2005 7:56:25 PM
Pacific Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
And also the implication is that the target moved radially outward
still farther away in the same direction to 260 nautical miles distance.
At 06:18 AM 5/14/2005 -0400, Brad wrote:
If Skyhook polyethylene balloons, rather than rubber
meteorological balloons, do shatter at high altitudes sometimes then we
must deal with such events as occasionally causing sightings such as at
Temple, TX, and not ignore reality. If Skyhooks NEVER shatter and
cannot possibly shatter and that can be proven then that's another
matter. I want real UFO data with IFO's excluded. Poor UFO
cases should be set aside in a special category for further
investigation and not allowed to contaminate a genuine UFO
database. It is a sign of good judgment to recognize what is a
good case and what is a poor case. It drives scientists up the
wall when they see amateurs with their special pleading arguing for
extremist partisan positions on every two-bit pet case.
I think we all agree on that. Right now the problem may be we are
getting so many cases in front of us, I (for one) haven't the time to
really study them. You guys are all doing a great job. Dan has found
some real good cases and I have found many while in search of other
information and cases. The files are piling up and many are incomplete.
It is healthy to hash these things out. IFO cases and weak UFO cases
will be put aside.
I'm not sure, but I think two finds were posted that were not
related and somebody might have construed that the implication was that
they were. I have just been posting preliminary information as I find
it. For example, I posted these separately with no connection intended:
Anyway, bear with us. It is NOT what we talk about that will
become permanent records on the NICAP site. What is important is how
they go down. And I need all the help I can get on that, too