Thursday, June 06, 2024

Moon Dust Documents Online

 Back in 1969, the Condon Committee declared that there was nothing of scientific value that could be learned by further study of flying saucers. The Air Force closed Project Blue Book and the implication was that the government was no longer investigating UFOs.

Dr. Edward Condon, who had the conclusions of the
investigation before it had even started.


Although unknown in 1969, the real point of the Condon Committee study was to remove public interest in flying saucers and allow the Air Force to close its unclassified investigation. This is a somewhat simplistic way of looking at the situation, but it was a direct outcome of the conclusions drawn by the committee. You can read more about this in my book, cleverly entitled, Project Moon Dust which was rewritten and revised in 2022. I have also addressed Moon Dust on this blog several times and you can read some of that here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/04/coast-to-coast-am-moon-dust-controversy.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2024/03/aaro-and-project-moon-dust.html

Anyway, the conclusions drawn by Condon were not true and we learned in 1984 that there was something called Moon Dust that had a UFO component. The best information I have is that Moon Dust began in October 1957 after the Soviet launch of Sputnik. The purpose was to recover returning space debris of foreign manufacture and unknown origin. That unknown origin was off-world craft. How do I know… I found Moon Dust reports in the Blue Book files and there have been several Moon Dust responses launched to investigate UFO sightings that involved some sort of debris recovery.

Oh, I should note that Moon Dust continued until the mid-1980s when the name was compromised inadvertently by the State Department. At that point the name was changed and FOIA requests were met with the statement that the new name was properly classified, which made learning more about Moon Dust nearly impossible.

This brief background is to note that many Moon Dust documents are now available on line. I have published some in various books, as has other researchers. I updated my book on Moon Dust, which provides a more comprehensive look at the material. You can now review many of these original Moon Dust documents here:

https://www.governmentattic.org/54docs/ProjMoondust1967-1972.pdf

Before we leave this discussion, I should point out that the first link above suggests there was no Project Moon Dust but that Moon Dust was the code name for attempts to recover returning space debris. In other words, when there was some sort of UFO incident, and investigation would be conducted, an officer at the nearest base would be assigned as the project officer and reports would be written using the code word Moon Dust. However, there was no on-going project. It was activated as needed. When the code words Moon Dust were compromised, they were changed to something else. I believe all this becomes clear in the links provided above.

One further note. Type Moon Dust into the search engine on this blog and you’ll find additional articles that show the evolution of research into Moon Dust. I suppose, at some point, I should consolidate all that information into a single, cohesive article, which I might do at some point. Just not right now.

And one other point. There is a document that I found in the Blue Book files that provided a date for the beginning of Moon Dust. I wasn’t able to make a copy of it, given the microfilm reader I was using at the time, but I wrote down the specifics. Our research would benefit from finding that document again. To assist in the search, you can read about that here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2020/02/project-moon-dust-little-help.html

The final point here is that research never seems to end and there are many rabbit holes for us to go down. Anyway, one of the best contributions to our understanding of Moon Dust might by finding that document again. The best clue I have is that I was doing research in the November 1957 UFO sightings, and was looking through the administrative documents from that period. That specific message might be in one of the case files from Blue Book, or in the administrative documents that file boxes and boxes

Monday, May 27, 2024

Car Stalling and a Bungled Project Blue Book Investigation

Here’s a journey that began similarly to the chasing footnotes that I sometimes do on this blog. I was looking at a Project Blue Book report that suggested two men observed an Unidentified object on March 29, 1952. The close approach of the UFO stalled their car but when the object shot off into the distance, they were able to restart it.

According to the Blue Book file, those two men whose names were redacted were George Tyler (though in the in the Blue Book index he’s identified as Taylor) and Donald Stewart. A somewhat comprehensive report was prepared for General John Ackerman, the Deputy Director of Air Force Intelligence and the incident was given a top priority.

The "Dear General" letter from the Blue Book files.


Page 2 of the letter.


Page 3 with the redacted signature block.


Tyler and Stewart were driving toward Baltimore when they heard a roaring noise overhead. They saw a disk-shaped object that the driver, apparently Stewart, said was pancake shaped. The object dived toward them at high speed and stopped about 200 feet overhead. The UFO was fifty feet in diameter and according to the report that started this investigation had “a bubble-like aperture, and that its edges were a pale green luminescence and a luminous after trail [that] pulsated.”

The important point here is that as the UFO hovered over the car for about two minutes, the car engine stalled. According to one of the witnesses, probably Stewart, there was another car that was also stalled. Either Tyler or Stewart shouted at the witnesses but they rolled up their windows and locked their doors. When the UFO suddenly disappeared flying toward Annapolis, those other witnesses were able to drive off. At that point, Tyler and Stewart were able to start their car.

According to this report, the Air Force investigation revealed that there were other witnesses who heard the strange noises that night, but none had gone outside to identify the cause.

That investigation also led to other witnesses who knew the driver whose background was shady. Some believed him and others thought that he made up the story and there were indications that Tyler hadn’t seen anything.

This was, according to that original source, the first Project Blue Book case in which a stalled car was reported. That seemed to suggest that the story was a hoax, though there were independent reports of UFOs acting in a similar fashion to the one described by Stewart on other occasions. That is the vertical, high-speed dive toward the ground that stopped abruptly.

The first thing to be done, because this was a case reported to Project Blue Book, was to check that file. The investigation was detailed in a long letter written on April 24, 1952. It began with “Dear General,” and mentioned that it was about Flying Saucers. It listed a witness but the name was redacted effectively enough that I can’t be sure which witness this was. Information in another report in the file suggests that redacted name was Stewart.

According to the letter, the sighting was made late on Saturday, 19 April 1952 (which we know is incorrect and there was a parenthetical statement correcting the date to 29 March 1952, which is also incorrect). Later information suggested the true date was March 15, 1952. That’s based on a newspaper article that appeared in the Baltimore American on March 16. I’m not sure why this wasn’t picked up by Blue Book because Ed Ruppelt, the chief of Blue Book, subscribed to a clipping service that allegedly provided him with all the newspaper articles about UFOs that were being published in the United States.

That letter continued laying out the initially reported details of the sighting. It said:

He [the driver, Stewart] heard a roaring sound overhead like a huge vacuum cleaner gone wild. Looking out he saw overhead a great disk “high” shaped like a pancake. Suddenly it turned on edge and with great speed it plummeted down till it reached about 200 ft. over the car. The disk, seen from its ends, had a large bubble with an aperture like porthole. Witness was too frightened to observe any faces. The edges were ‘pale green luminescence and a luminous aftertrail [sic] pulsated”. The object hovered about two minutes over the automobile which in the meantime had become immobilized. Suddenly the disk took off in a rapid flight “toward Gibson Island or Annapolis”. Opposite a yellow automobile proceeding toward Annapolis was similarly immobilized. Witness shouted at the occupants, a young man and woman who closed their windows and appeared to lock their doors, but a minute or so later started their engine and took off. Witness interviewed by Lou Corbin, a radio station (WFBR) announcer. Corbin is a reserve CIC officer and up to date in keeping the story. Corbin first phoned a technical friend at Glen L. Martin’s and received an impression that he took the story seriously but did not give any logical explanation. Corbin intends to go over the car engine with a Geiger counter because the car now gives off a “rough rattle and a garage mechanic said that the metal appears magnetized.

With that, the writer of the letter, whose name had been redacted as well, turned to recommendations. It was simply that Corbin be present when the witness was interviewed because he “can be trusted to keep any investigation a secret.” I’m not sure why that ability would be important and why it meant that Corbin should be included in the investigation. Corbin, I believe is a retired colonel, which might explain that.

In a- later longer report written by Special Agent Boyce Royal, we do learn more about this aspect of the investigation. The name of the man who conducted the examination of the car was redacted but a Routing and Record sheet suggests that it was Royal.

An engineer employed in the Engineering Department Radioactive Detection Division, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, who was interviewed on May 10, 1952, provided additional information:

… during the latter part of April 1952 he examined the automobile described in the above paragraph [that is Stewart’s car] with a geiger [sic] counter and could detect no radioactive reaction. He also stated that he examined the engine and all working parts of the automobile and was unable to detect any unusual defects or characteristics. He stated that the automobile had been repainted and that he was inclined to disbelieve the incident as it was related to him.

It must be noted that there is inaccurate information in that paragraph. According to the information available, “There was no indication in the records that the car had been repainted. Mr. [name redacted, but probably Stewart] stated that the car was still the same green color; however, he could not state as to whether it had been recently repainted.”

There was the mention of other witnesses, all with their names redacted. Working from the newspaper article, the first witnesses listed are George Mason and his son John.  The street address was redacted but the city is the one where they lived and the mention of the Stony Creek Bridge is another match. According to the report, “Witnesses claim to have seen a great airborne disk about 50 ft. in diameter between 10 and 11 p.m. Saturday April 19, ‘over Stoney Creek Bridge’. Disk had luminescence edges and gave off an unsteady luminous green exhaust. Disk was seen about 200 ft. in the air and took off with the speed exceeding that of a jet plane toward Annapolis.” 

However, the date of the sighting is wrong. Both Mason and his son are mentioned in the March 16 newspaper article. That proves that the date of their sighting was not April 19 and that would complicate the investigation.

I’m not sure of the importance of those other witnesses listed after the Masons because, those sightings are reported to have happened on April 19. But we’ve seen that the whole case was originally dated April 19 and then March 29. Both of those dates are wrong for the Tyler and Stewart sighting and for the Mason and son sighting. These other sightings might have happened on April 19 and were appended here because the object seemed to be the same size, and maneuvered as the craft did in the other sightings.

In that same report provided by Royal, there is an interview with a retired colonel whose name is redacted but I suspect it might be Corbin. The problem here is that this unidentified colonel told Royal:

Col. [redated] informed the writer that he had attempted to locate [name reacted] and [name redacted, but are probably Mason and son] but had been unable to contact them. He stated that there was no street designed Yacht Club Road at Riviera Beach, Maryland, and that the nearest approximation of that name was Club Road. He further stated that there was only one residence on Club Road and that residence was presently occupied by a Mr. [name redacted] whom he was unable to contact.

Again, I’m not sure the relevance of this information. I will say that the address as given in the newspaper certainly could be inaccurate. The information seems to identify Mason and son, but the colonel (Corbin?) didn’t speak with them. Royal wrote that the interview with Corbin had taken place on May 13, which would have given the colonel plenty of time to find the men. I suspect that since he was not part of the official investigation, he made one or two attempts of contact the witnesses but simply didn’t care enough to waste any more time.

The last paragraph in “Dear General” letter said, “[Redated name], police say have had many similar incidents reported, but laugh them off. A news post telephone operator refused to be interested in Stewart’s story [Air Force censors missed this reference to one of the witnesses], said he had heard a ‘dozen similar’ incidents on Saturday evening and dismissed them all as halucinations [sic].”

This was the same response that law enforcement officers in Levelland made when the first sightings were reported there in November 1957. There were so many reports by dozens of witnesses that the sheriff along with members of the Texas Department of Public Safety eventually decided they should go out to look. They did encounter the object that was causing all the reports and there are suggestions that the sheriff got close enough that his car was stalled.

In a “Memo for Record of Baltimore Sighting,” dated May 11, there is more information. We learn something about the behind the scenes maneuvering when it comes to UFOs.  This report said that, “At 1700 hrs Lt Ruppelt [at the time the Chief of Project Blue Book] delivered a copy of the info to Col Free. [Lieutenant Colonel Free was, at that time assigned to OSI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.] Lt Ruppelt requested to accompany an investigator to interrogate the source but was unable to do so due to OSI policy.”

It seems strange that the officer whose job was to investigation UFOs would be denied permission to be present when the witnesses were interviewed… or should I say “Interrogated?” Interrogation is a much stronger word than interviewed and I wonder if the writer of the memo was aware of the difference. And it is strange that a man, probably Corbin, was allowed to participate in the investigation when the man officially charged with UFO investigation was denied permission to do so.

Anyway, Ruppelt was in contact with S/A Springer, who told Ruppelt that they had failed to locate the source though I’m not sure which source they meant. The theory was that he had taken off for the weekend and they would wait until Monday before trying to meet with him.

The Report of Investigation dated May 12, does take the investigation in a slightly different direction. Once again, the Air Force didn’t manage to redact all the names, and it seems, based on the report, that Stewart [name redacted except the “RT” of Stewart] and Tyler [fully exposed], “had observed unconventional type craft on 29 March 1952…”

Just one of the documents where a witness name is fully exposed. In
nearly every Blue Book file, you can find the names of the witnesses


Farther down, the document said, “[Redacted, but I believe on the size of the redaction and the context of the sentence, that this was Tyler] interviewed and confirmed the statement given by [name redacted but appeared to be Stewart based on the final “T” being in the clear], however, upon reinterview, Tyler admitted that he had not been with [redacted, but name begins STE] at time of the alleged sighting, and had not seen any such aircraft; advised that [redacted but obviously Stewart] had asked him to tell that story and that he had done so.”

On the second page of that report, it was noted that “FBI, Baltimore Field Office records reflect [name redacted but ends with a “T”] fired from employment… for placing a decal bearing Communist insignia on a truck belonging to firm by whom he was employed.”

Following all that, was a ten-page report that covered, in more detail, much that had been reported before. This is where the file becomes confusing. The redacting of the names of witnesses including those who had seen nothing but heard strange noises, and character witnesses, along with many dates of many sightings and interviews, makes it difficult to understand exactly what is being claimed.

On page three, we learn that Corbin was not a reserve CIC officer, “…however, he related that he had been an intelligence officer with the staff of General George S. Patton in Europe and that he presently holds an inactive commission as a lieutenant colonel…”

There is another document, supplied by Barry Greenwood that is not part of the Blue Book file. The Baltimore American reported on March 16, 1952, that a “hissing” flying saucer had been sighted. The first paragraph said:

A hissing, phosphorescent “flying saucer,” which “stood on edge and rolled across the sky” was reported passing “directly over the Stoney Creek bridge” at 10.55 p.m. Saturday (March 15, 1952) by two men, George Mason and his son John, 22, of Yacht Club road, Riviera Beach.

And here is where some of the confusion comes in. They were obviously not Tyler or Stewart. The next paragraph said;

A second report of the same object, or of a similar object at the same time, was phoned to the Sunday American later by Donald Stewart… and George Tyler… who said they were driving on the Ritchie highway when they observed the “saucer.”

This article means that the date on the file is wrong and that many of those other sightings reported have nothing to do with this sighting except that it suggests something unusual in the area on those other dates.

In the longer report, it was mentioned that [name redacted] Drawbridge Operator, Curtis Bay Bridge, was interviewed on 11 May 1952 and advised that [redacted] 1600 hours to 2400 hours shift. [Redacted] stated that he was on duty on the evening of 29th of March 1952 and that he had not observed, nor ever observed, any unconventional aircraft. [Redacted] further advised that he did not make a report to the Anne Arundale Police Department of such an incident.”

This testimony would be relevant if the sighting had been made on March 15, but as seen, that date is wrong. In fact, it seems that most of the negative interviews asked about the sighting using the incorrect March 29 date.

In paragraph 21 of the long report, there is an interview with a sixteen-year-old boy that casts some doubt on Stewart’s credibility. The boy said that he had been in the area on March 29 late at night, waiting for a bus. Stewart apparently offered him a ride and then told the boy about the UFO. Stewart asked the boy “to affirm that the report because he feared that no one would believe his story. [Redacted] advised that he called the newspapers, the Sun and the Post, to find out if anyone else reported the incident. He was told that there had been several reports made. Although the boy believed the story at that time, in May, when he was reinterviewed, he believed Stewart had made it up. Given the nature of the boy’s tale, it seems he would be the George Tyler and Donald Stewart would have been the driver.

There is one feature that wasn’t pursued. In the “Dear General” letter, there is a line that said, “Witness was too frightened to observe any faces.” What does that mean? Did the witness see shapes inside the porthole on the bubble? There is no follow up on this rather intriguing comment.

And there wasn’t much about the electromagnetic component of the case. Just the reference to the stalled car and the mechanic’s claim that the metal looked as if it had been magnetized. I’m not sure how you can look at a piece of metal and tell if it has been magnetized. There are simple tests to prove it, but looking at it isn’t one of them.

In Royal’s report, there is a comment made after the discussion with the retired colonel (Corbin?) who mentioned other possible witnesses, though the date mentioned is April 19. Paragraph 14, which follows, noted, “Attempts by the writer [Royal] to interview individuals named in the preceding paragraph met with negative results.”

I’m not sure if that means he was unable to locate and interview those witnesses or if he did find them and they had nothing to say. Of course, it doesn’t really matter since the date of that sighting does not match that of the original report. It also said, “…that he had included this information in his letter to General ACKERMAN only as miscellaneous data.”

On the Project Card for this case and in the Index of the Project Blue Book files, the case is labeled a hoax. That might be the result of Tyler (if I have guessed right about him being Stewart’s passenger) saying that he had been induced to support the tale but then recanting. And I might go along with that, except there was the independent sighting by the Masons, the Air Force got the date of the sighting wrong, and much of the testimony taken was irrelevant because of that wrong date.

In other words, we have a botched investigation, multiple reliable independent witnesses, statements that suggest many other witnesses having called the newspapers while still others called law enforcement and were ignored, and finally the interaction with the environment, meaning the stalling of the car engines. Given the information in the Project Blue Book files, this was not a hoax. It does suggest some of those off-world performances that AARO (All-domain Resolution Office) and others are looking for, but it doesn’t necessarily get us there.

What we really learn from this sighting is that the Air Force attempted a comprehensive investigation that led them to a conclusion of hoax. While that wasn’t the attitude of the Ruppelt era Project Blue Book, it certainly reflects the attitude that developed months later. I suppose the correct conclusion should be “Insufficient Data for a Scientific Analysis.” There is quite a bit of data in the file, but most of it is irrelevant. Had they gotten the date of the sighting correct, and used that date in their investigation, we might be able to reach a solid conclusion. In the end, this is another case that went off the rails and no one forced it back on them. It was another missed opportunity.

I want to thank both Robert Powell and Barry Greenwood for their assistance with this investigation. 

Sunday, May 26, 2024

Spitsbergen Crash/Retrieval and David Grusch

Few days ago, I got an email asking about a tale told by a retired Air Force officer, who claimed he had seen a classified message about a flying saucer crash on the island of Spitsbergen. My correspondent wanted to know if the story was true. I told him, absolutely. I believed the officer had seen the message and that it had been classified. It was at the lowest level of classification, but it was classified, and was about a flying saucer crash on the island.

You can see where the classified marking has been redacted
and the documents is now unclassified.


This tale, which has been around for more than half a century, got me to thinking. Could this be one of those twelve crashes that David Grusch had talked about last year? There is documentation for it and it has been reported in many UFO books and articles. It would be simple for some of those unnamed sources of Grusch’s to  have had heard the tale but hadn’t bothered to dig into it.

The initial tale, as it appeared in the Project Blue Book files, claimed that July 9, 1952, a Berlin newspaper, Saarbrucker Zeitung, reported that the Norwegian Air Force had recovered a flying saucer on Spitsbergen Island. According to the article, a translation of which is in the Air Force files, Norwegian Air Force Captain Olaf Larsen, happened to look down, then entered a dive and “On the white snowy landscape, the crusty surface of which had an icy glitter, there was a metallic, glittering circular disc of between 40- and 50-meters diameter, which was even brighter than the icy snow... While circling for 60 minutes, the jet pilots could neither detect any sign of life nor determine the origin or type of vehicle.”

Document from the Blue Book file giving the basics of the case.


Others, in five “flying boats” landed near the “bluish steel disc.” According to the article, “‘Undoubtedly one of the infamous flying saucers,’ claimed Dr. Norsel, a Norwegian rocket specialist...”

According to the report, the object had a diameter of 48.88 meters with slanting sides and was unmanned. It was made of an unknown metal compound. “After ignition, 46 automatic jets, located at equal distances on the outer ring, rotate around a plexiglass center ball that contains measuring and control devices for remote control, fired.”

The real problem here is that the article reports that the “measuring instruments (gauges) had Russian symbols... [and it] has sufficient room for high explosive bombs and possibly nuclear bombs.”

Finally, in what would make those who believe the Nazis had a flying saucer at the end of the Second World War happy, the report claimed, “After hearing of the description of the disc, the German V-weapon designer Riedel stated: ‘That’s a typical V-7 on whose serial production I have worked myself.’”

The article was signed only with the initials, J.M.M. Ole Jonny Braenne, a Scandinavian researcher tried to find the writer of that original report but was unable to do it. In an article published in the International UFO Reporter, Braenne wrote, “The author of the article... has proven untraceable. Newspaper archives have no useful information on the matter.”

This seems, then, to be the first appearance of the story of the Spitzbergen crash in any of its various editions. The important point here is that they, meaning either the journalists or the witnesses, weren’t talking about an interplanetary or interstellar craft, but something that had been created by the Soviets using technology stolen from the Germans after the Second World War. This is more of a story of an experimental craft that went astray than something from off-world..

Air Force officers, meaning here, I suspect, the Air Attache in the United States embassy, sent a teletype message reporting on what the newspaper said and requested additional information. None appears in the Blue Book files, but the case is labeled as a hoax by them. According to other sources, however, the Norwegian Air Force told the attaché that the story was definitely false.




Another of the Air Force documents that show an
interest in this case.

Here is where we connect with the tale and the question that was posed to me bit all that long ago. An Air Force officer who was on duty in one of the Air Force communications centers told researchers that he’d seen a classified report about the Spitsbergen Island crash come through the center. This was used to prove that the government was hiding something about UFOs in general and crashes in particular. However, the Blue Book files have been declassified for decades and we have copies of those classified reports. The officer was right. There had been classified messages, but other, additional information in the Blue Book files suggested the case was a hoax.

Two years later, the story surfaced in another German newspaper, Hessische Nachrichten, on July 26, 1954. This time, the Norwegian General Staff is involved and was alleged to be preparing a report based on their examination of the crashed flying saucer. The chairman of the board was identified as Colonel Gernod Darnhyl.”

Darnhyl was quoted as saying, “A misunderstanding developed, some time ago, when it was stated that the flying disc was probably of Soviet origin. It has - this we must state emphatically - not been built by any country on earth. The materials are completely unknown to all experts, either not to be found on Earth, or processed by physical or chemical processes unknown to us.”

That wasn’t all Darnhyl said. He promised to release the information and then said that he thought, “within the next twelve months, a solution to these technical problems will be found, or, at least, science will be on the right track towards solving the UFO problem... Scientific results will only be released subsequent to a UFO conference in London or Washington.”

If nothing else, this provided some names including the writer of the article Swen Thygesen and a timeline for the release of information. We know, of course, that neither the information was released nor the UFO conferences held. It has been more than fifty years. Worse still Braenne reported that he had been unable to find a trace of the writer.

The story now switched to South America, which means that South American newspapers began printing articles, and moved the crash to Heligoland. According to an article from Verdens Gang on December 19, 1954, a story from the Uruguayan newspaper El National reported that Hans Larsen Loberg, who, it was claimed, had won a prize in physics in Hungary was now involved. Loberg said that this concerned the same saucer that had been reported to have crashed on Spitsbergen but that it had crashed on a small island that had been a German submarine base during the Second World War.

Loberg said that there had been no Russian writing in the craft, that it had a diameter of 91 feet and a thickness in the middle of 70 feet. Once inside, they found the food pills and heavy water reported in other crashes, books that they thought might be navigational aides, and seven bodies of the crew, burned beyond recognition. The bodies, according to Loberg were between 25 and 30 years of age, were all just over a meter and a half in height and all had perfect teeth. They did not explain how bodies, burned beyond recognition would be determined to be so young. I will note that much of this description smacks of the Aztec tale.

As I mentioned, we see that Frank Edwards, in his book, Flying Saucers - Serious Business gets into this and reports the tale came from the Stuttgarter Tageblatt. Edwards commented that “The story vanished from the newswires as though it had been launched into space... until at last the silence was broken by a spokesman for the government of Norway... the account I [Edwards] quote is typical of the innumerable papers which carried the story:

Oslo, Norway, September 4, 1955: - Only now a board of inquiry of the Norwegian General Staff is preparing publication of a report on the examination of the remains of a U.F.O. crashed near Spitzbergen (sic), presumably early in 1952. Chairman of the Board, Colonel Gernod Darnbyl (sic), during an instruction for Air Force officers stated: “The crashing of the Spitzbergen disc was highly important. Although out present scientific knowledge does not permit us to solve all the riddles, I am confident that these remains from Spitzbergen will be of the utmost importance in this respect. Some time ago a misunderstanding was caused by saying the disc probably was of Soviet origin. It has - this we wish to state emphatically - not been built by any country on earth. The materials used in its construction are completely unknown to all experts who participated in the investigation.

This is basically the same article that had been circulating earlier, and still no one had confirmation of any of it. Edwards wrote, “Therefore Norway, in 1955, was discussing with two of the leading exponents of UFO deception the proposed release of this information which would have exposed the falsity of both the U.S. and British official positions!... It is not difficult to conclude that the Norwegians never released the full report because of the advice they received from two of Norway’s best customers.”

Or, in other words, both the US and UK pressured the Norwegians through the threat of economic sanctions to keep their full report under wraps. Edwards never seems to consider the possibility that the story isn’t true. After all, he had the newspaper clipping about it... Or did he?

We go back to Braenne who reported, “Several authors have used Stuttgarter Tageblatt as the source for their Spitsbergen story. It is, in fact, a nonexistent newspaper. [No researchers] have ever found any trace of either such a paper or such an article published on, or around, the date given...”

So where did this article come from? Braenne has an answer for that question. He wrote in his International UFO Reporter article, that he had learned that a Dutch magazine UFO-Gids published, with minor changes, the article that had appeared in Hessische Nachricten. UFO-Gids lists Stuttgarts Dagblad as the September 5, 1955 source. According to Braenne. “Evidently someone tried to Germanize Stuttsgarts Dagblad and did not investigate his source.”

Edwards apparently used a translation from one of those earlier sources without checking. Edwards did suggest he had tried to learn something more about this, reporting in his book, “In 1964 when I wrote to a member of the Norwegian Board of Inquiry which had investigated the Spitzbergen case, I received, after four months, a cryptic reply: ‘I regret that it is impossible for me to respond to your questions at this time.’”

Edwards, caught up in the paranoia of the UFO field, believes that the reply is more of the cover up. It might just be that there was no other reply that could be made if the case was not real. But Edwards doesn’t identify his source on this, so we are left wondering about the legitimacy of this claim... If there was no Spitsbergen crash, then there was no Board of Inquiry and therefore no board member for Edwards to question.

Ryan Wood reported, in his just updated Majic Eyes Only, “In 1985, the British researcher Philip Mantle investigated the case and was informed by the Norwegian Government that nothing even remotely resembling the Spitsbergen crash had ever occurred. ‘The whole story seems utterly unfounded,’ Mantle was told by Arild Isseg, the head of the Information Division, Norwegian Royal Ministry of Defense.

“Furthermore, several of those people cited in both newspaper articles and official intelligence summaries of newspaper articles on the Spitsbergen story simply did not exist.”

When all is said and done, there seems to be no evidence that the crash took place and the origin of the story seems to be a newspaper that made up the details. I don’t know if the editors of the newspaper trusted their reporters to get the story right, or maybe those editors just made it up to fill space and invented a name or added initials to give it a note of authenticity.

The problem here is the same one that has faced UFO research from the beginning. Each time a case is exposed as a hoax, another person comes along with inside knowledge that they claim will prove the case. No evidence is ever presented, but they still swear by the information.

I don’t know if this is one of Grusch’s UFO crash reports or not. I would hope that he would have done enough research to learn the truth about this case. I just mention this because we’re still working in the dark about that statement that there have been a dozen crashes. Like so much else in the UFO field, this is just one of the many hoaxes and the real irony is the Air Force got it right, but few believed them. 

Saturday, May 18, 2024

Recent Interviews including a Discussion of Crash/Retrieval

For those interested, I have been hosting my old radio show/podcast recently, as my personal situation changed radically. I have also been interviewed on other shows. Following are links to those shows and if there is some duplication here, well, these things happen.

Of course, the theme in these shows are UFOs, what’s happening with the official investigations, discussions of some of the older cases that provide evidence of something off-world flying around our atmosphere. Those who are paying attention, you’ll find some of my views have changed over time. That simply means that new evidence has been found, witnesses who once seemed credible are found to invented their tales and are no longer credible, and outright hoaxes have been exposed. 

Many of you will probably be interested in the last interview. Ryan Wood and I talked about some of the more famous UFO crashes including that in Aurora, Texas and Shag Harbour. The two are at opposite ends of the UFO crash/retrieval spectrum.

Ryan Wood hosting a crash
conference in Las Vegas.


So, here are the links to the most recent shows. Some are audio only and with others I have provided both the audio and video versions.

From Into the Paranormal, hosted by Jeremy Scott:

Ep. #683: TRUTH UNDER FIRE w/ Kevin Randle

And following are both my shows and interviews with others, and the X-Zone shows where I was the guest. The links do provide a hint about the content of the show and if I was the host or guest.

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/rob-mcconnell-interviews-lt-col-kevin-randle-phd-retired-ufos-uaps-ufo-crashes-and-more--59436871

I talk with Robert Powell on video:

https://rumble.com/v4q4ll5-a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-robert-powell.html

And the audio version:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-interviews-robert-powell-ufos-a-scientist-explains-what-we-know--59526848

Robert Powell


And with Steve Bassett, first on video and then audio:

https://rumble.com/v4rknk0-a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-interviews-stephen-bassett-disclo.html?mref=yqkns&mc=7zk0c

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-interviews-robert-powell-ufos-a-scientist-explains-what-we-know--59526848

And back being interviewed by Rob McConnell on a variety of UFO related topics:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/rob-mcconnell-interviews-lt-col-kevin-randle-phd-retired-the-beginning-of-modern-ufos--59764236

I interview Paul Hynek about his father’s take on UFOs and on his investigations into them. First is the video version.

https://rumble.com/v4u50mx-a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-interviews-paul-hynek-ufo-investi.html

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-interviews-paul-hynek-allen-hynek-ufo-investigations--59946412

Here is the video of that interview with Ryan. As I said, we talked about several UFO crash/retrievals.

https://rumble.com/v4vmful-a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-interviews-ryan-s.-wood-majic-eye.html

The audio version can be heard here.

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-interviews-ryan-s-wood-majic-eyes-only--60063432

Each of the programs above will be of interest to those studying UFOs. The discussion with Ryan Wood was of particular interest to me because it dealt with UFO crash/retrievals. But, as I say, there should be something for everyone in the links above. 


Monday, May 13, 2024

Dr. Bruce Maccabee Passes at 82

Dr. Bruce Maccabee was a retired physicist who spent his working life at the U.S. Naval Weapons Center. He is best known outside his work environment for his research into the nature of UFOs including an in-depth examination in the Kenneth Arnold UFO sighting that sparked the public interest in flying saucers and flying discs. He used his training to examine the McMinnville UFO pictures, the New Zealand film, the Meier contact claims and the Gulf Breeze photos and other sightings with a photographic component.

Dr. Bruce Maccabee. Photo by Randle


He worked with Dr. J. Allen Hynek, was active in the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and was a leader in the Fund for UFO Research (FUF0R).

He was sought out for his expertise and provided a briefing paper for John Gibbons, President Bill Clinton’s science advisor. He participated in the Smithsonian UFO debate in 1980 and appeared on numerous radio and television programs.

I had the privilege of interviewing on my radio show/podcast. You can read a short synopsis of that interview and listen to it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/search?q=Bruce+Maccabee

The link to the that interview is embedded in the article.

Like so many others, he requested UFO files from various governmental offices and organizations resulting in the release of many documents including what was once the FBI’s secret UFO file. He also examined the University of Colorado’s UFO investigation, conducted by Edward Condon and sponsored by the Air Force. He concluded that Condon was less than candid about the results of that investigation. Evidence obtained later, including correspondence between the committee and the Air Force proved that this scientific investigation was not very scientific and Condon himself had been less than candid.

He published more than a hundred papers, articles and monographs on the topic. He was well respected in the UFO community. He had just turned 82 when he died. 

Thursday, May 09, 2024

Three Sightings of a Pennsylvania Tic-Tac

I search many websites, podcast, magazines and even on-line conferences, government hearings and panel discussions about UFOs looking for reports that are interesting, informative and suggest that there are some strange things going on out there. I try to separate the good from the bad to provide a mostly unbiased assessment. One of the better sites is Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone website. It is a compendium of many things paranormal.  

Stan Gordon


This observation is underscored by several interesting cases I found there. At the top of the list was one from April 22 of this year in which there was also a photograph. That, of course made it interesting, although the photograph doesn’t provide much in the way of visual evidence.

According to the available information, the witness was outside at 3:35 p.m. when he spotted something that he couldn’t identify. The object was low over a populated area.

Unlike so many others, he grabbed his cell phone and took a single picture just before the UFO vanished behind some trees.

The UFO was a silver-white cylinder that had no visible wings or tail. It looked like an elongated tic-tac to me as I studied the picture. And, you can see the picture, as well as other information about this sighting and the other two here:

A Third Low Level Wingless Cylindrical UFO/UAP Has Been Reported in Daylight During April 2024 in Southwest Pennsylvania – Stan Gordon's UFO Anomalies Zone

The witness said that it appeared more reflective than something with an internal glow. To the witness, it looked streamlined with a rounded front.

The witness said that he was familiar with the normal air traffic that flies over his area. The UFO was flying at a height of one to two thousand feet, moved in a smooth manner and made no noise. 

He did say that it was impossible to estimate the distance to the object and that he said that while it was near the clouds it looked large but when he first saw it, away from the clouds, it looked to be of moderate size. He said that it seemed to be gliding rather than flying, and moved in a straight line from north to south.

In the world today, UFO sightings come with all sorts of interesting, additional information. The witness said that he called a friend who had a FlightAware app on his cell. The friend said there was nothing in the area, except something moving south to north at an altitude much higher than that used by commercial aviation… which, of course, doesn’t rule out some sort military aircraft.

This is another astounding aspect of the world today. With the right app, you can get a look at where all the aircraft flying around the United States at any given moment, but I digress.

Gordon reported that Ron Lanham of Wild & Weird West Virginia, conducted a photo analysis. Lanham said that he could find no visible flight control surfaces or vapor trails. He also said that it didn’t appear to have the shape of a conventional aircraft and that it looked solid in the picture frame. I’m not sure what equipment Lanham used to make his analysis, but it is always good to get a second and third opinion.

Here good the good part. Gordon reported that this was not the only such sighting in April in Pennsylvania. On April 8th, while traveling by car in the North Huntingdon area, the witnesses said she spotted something strange at 11:30 a.m. The driver described a large, smooth, white cylindrical-shaped object. It was flying at a relative low level.

The driver called her passenger’s attention to the UFO. She said that the object did not look flat or rounded to her but skinny, with a round front end but seemed flat in the rear. There were no signs of propulsion, wings, lights or markings that she could see.

The passenger had the better view of the object than the driver who had to focus on the road. They both had the impression that the object was more tic-tac shaped than cigar shaped as it climbed higher until it disappeared into the clouds. The sighting was estimated to have lasted for only a few seconds.

I will note here that the estimate of a few seconds is probably inaccurate given that most people are unable to accurately gauge the passing of time in such circumstances. I will also note that if the time estimate is good, then they didn’t have a chance to get a good look at the UFO. It would have been nice of the passenger, who got the better look had been able to use her cell phone to take a picture.

And finally, on April 14 of this year, near Pittsburgh, the witness saw a bright, metallic, cigar-shaped object in fast flight. She said that it was sleek, shiny and narrow. Both ends of the UFO were rounded and the craft was wingless. There was no sound associated with the object.

She thought it was flying about 200 feet above the ground, flying in a straight line in high winds. She lost sight of it as it was blocked from view by trees. Again, more information is available at Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone website which you can find at:

https://www.stangordon.info/wp/ 

Monday, May 06, 2024

AARO Pilot's Sighting Report

In the last few weeks, I seem to have been stuck with reading about what is happening with the various investigations in Washington, and with reports from those agencies telling us, basically, there is nothing alien in what they found. Sean Kirkpatrick later explained that. He also said, as have others, that there are cases that are unresolved, meaning there is no terrestrial explanation for the report, but nothing in those unresolved cases that takes us off-world.

Now, we have something new from AARO, which, given the nature of that investigation, again explained by Kirkpatrick, is not surprising. In the report, released publicly at the end of April, in a case from January 26 of last year, a military pilot reported that while on the Eglin Air Force Base training range, his* on-board radar displayed four unidentified objects flying between 16,000 and 18,000 feet. The pilot only saw one object which he described as rounded and somewhat cone shaped. Not only was there a radar display but what was described as Electro-optical and infrared sensor data suggesting something real outside the cockpit of the jet.

The pilot said the object was gray with a paneled surface and orange-red coloring in the center. It was about 12 feet in diameter and might have been hovering or moving relatively slowly. He said there was a rounded bottom and that there was a cone top, like that on the Apollo Spacecraft. He said there was blurry air underneath that seemed to be some kind of a heat signature.

Pilot's illustration of UFO courtesy of AARO.


As the pilot closed to within 4,000 feet, his radar malfunctioned. Examination by technicians found that a circuit breaker had tripped. I found that interesting, but maintenance records showed that same circuit breaker had tripped three other times. That suggests the problem was not the close approach of the UFO. Other, contradictory information, apparently left out of the report suggested that was not the only electronic failure on the aircraft during the close approach of the UFO.

AARO’s investigation suggested the object was lighter-than-air, possibly a weather balloon (where have we heard that before), a large mylar balloon or a commercial, outdoor helium lighting balloon.

They also concluded that blurry air that suggested a propulsion system could have been, and I stress that, could have been, a visual misperception due to environmental conditions. Or, in other words, it was something in the atmosphere causing the trouble, but nothing emitted by the object.

Both the intelligence assessment and the science and technology assessment in the AARO report reached the same conclusion. They independently identified object being like some form of balloon. Of course, since these were high-level investigations by highly trained and respected experts, we can accept that as being accurate.

Florida Republican Congressional representative, Matt Gaetz, said that he had attempted for months to gather more information about the sighting once he learned about it officially. He pointed out that the radar data showed four objects flying a diamond formation with equidistant separation. He also noted that the sighting took place over the Eglin ranges which are relatively free of airborne clutter. These facts suggest something other than a balloon. I suppose you could say that a cluster of balloons, tethered to one another could hold a relatively stable formation, but I find that difficult to believe.

Gaetz said that not only had the radar failed, but the infrared camera also failed. The pilot took still photographs of the UFO. This was one of those facts left out of the report that took us away from balloons and faulty radar circuits and into a new arena. It also suggests that AARO is engaged in identification even if that identification is somewhat shaky.

As I noted earlier, the object was said to be virtually stationary, but the winds at the altitude of the UFO were blowing at 80 knots. This and other facts suggest the Pentagon has resorted to the decades old policy of offering explanations for mysterious sightings without worrying about the contradictory evidence. I think here of the Levelland sightings of November 1957, which were resolved as ball lightning ignoring the facts that ball lightning is very short-lived and was much smaller than the UFO reported by dozens of witnesses in that case.  These reports including testimony that car engines had stalled, the headlights dimmed and the radios were filled with static. There was also a report of a large, circular burned area on a ranch near Levelland.  The UFO was described as huge and was glowing bright red. For those interested in more information about Levelland, the book is called Levelland in a comprehensive examination of the case.. Or you can take a look at some of the related articles published here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/03/one-of-best-cases-levelland-texas.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2020/10/coast-to-coast-levelland-ufo-landings.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-levelland-sightings-and-condon.html

This provides a good look at Levelland and each of the articles does contain references to other reports about the case if you wish to dive deeper (which is now how we say, “Examine it further.”

One other point that is relevant. Kirkpatrick has said that the mission of AARO  was to determine the nature of UAP and not hunt for aliens. He also said that the craft reported were secret military vehicles, which has been a way to dodge questions by invoking national security. Independent research has not borne this out. In reality, it is just another way to conceal the evidence.

While I approve of seeing one of the AARO reports, and John Greenewald for publishing it on his Black Vault website, I, and many others reject the conclusion that is based on several assumptions, an overlooking of contradictory evidence, and then suggesting a “moderate” rating. While this suggests a solution, the meaning of “moderate” suggests they don’t have much confidence in it. I suppose they hope that no one will make careful examination of the facts.

*I have used the generic pronoun of he, assuming, based on statistics, that the pilot in question was male, realizing there is a chance the pilot was female. The report used the group pronoun “they” which is confusing in a report where there was a single pilot. I wondered, if at some future date, someone interested in UFOs would come across the AARO report and lose time trying to learn the identifies of the other witnesses because common sense has taken hold then and we eventually stopped using group pronouns for single individuals.