Monday, June 15, 2015

May 13, 1978: Kerman, California

(Blogger's Note: I attributed an article in the International UFO Reporter to Dr. Swords. The article has no byline on it and my attribution was in error. Dr. Swords did make a reference to the case in the September 2011 IUR, but it is only the name of the case in a table about "skin burn" cases. I have updated this article so that the attribution is proper. It does appear in the IUR in 1978 but the article is unattributed.) 

Dr. Michael Swords has suggested in an article in the IUR, "Can UFOs Cause physiological Effects, Part 2 (September 2011) that there are cases that demonstrate there are side effects to UFO sightings that can be investigate (which I mention here only because it was in that article I found the reference to Kerman). While there is not a bit of metal to take into the laboratory in this case, there are the physical reactions of the witness, police officer Manuel Amparano, who was a veteran of five years on the force. Had the situation developed differently, there was research that could have been conducted, but wasn’t.

According to the information available, including that in the APRO Bulletin of August 1978, Amparano was on late night-early morning patrol when he spotted, what he thought was a fire in the distance. He thought it might be youngsters setting palm trees on fire, but as he neared an intersection, saw that it was something else.

According to an article in the September 1978 issue of the IUR, “…at 3:32 a.m. … he observed a reddish glow ahead of him… he drove to the site and pulled off the road by a cotton field near railroad tracks in time to see an unusual source of illumination… up in the southern sky.”

Coral Lorenzen reported that “The object was hovering, was a ‘silver aluminum, round’ craft which the witness approached fairly close.”

Amparano later said that the oval-shaped object was twice as wide as it was high and that it was a bright crimson, about half as large as the full moon. He said that it was about one hundred to one hundred fifty feet off the ground and that it was twenty-five to fifty feet in diameter. He was close enough to it and it was large enough that there was no question that it wasn’t some sort of conventional craft.

As it hovered overhead, it glowed with an intensity that did not hurt his eyes. He watched it out of the side window of the car for about four minutes until a bright blue beam shot out of the craft that Amparano described like that of a flash from a camera. The UFO then climbed out silently toward the southeast, and finally disappeared straight up in seconds.

Although he felt a slight tingling, he thought it was the results of the cold night. He drove back to the station. There he met several fellow officers and the police chaplain, who mentioned that he looked as if he had been sunburned. According to Swords, the sunburn lasted for about four hours before fading.

The IUR article noted that at 7:00 p.m. that night, Amparano went to the hospital for treatment of second and third degree burns to his face, neck and arms. The trip to the hospital was documented in various hospital records and because of the injury, he applied for, or his boss, the chief of police applied for, worker’s compensation. That too was documented.

It would seem that something that large, that bright and that close to the ground would have been seen by someone else. Although it was very early in the morning, there were others who said they had seen the same thing. Lorenzen reported:

… Lisa Harrison’s husband had driven his cement-mixer truck to Los Angeles for an overnight job and she wasn’t able to sleep, so she was watching the late show on television. She was sitting next to the living room window of her apartment in Kerman… Suddenly, at 3:30 A.M., she heard a strange loud whirring noise and the house began to vibrate. She took three quick steps to the front door to see what was happening. Looking toward the northwest, she saw two lights moving towards the South at tree-top level. The leading light was white and the rear light was reddish, but “not like the red lights on airplanes.” She described the lights as large, but couldn’t estimate how large. Mrs. Harrison ran back into the house after the object went out of sight behind some houses to the south.
Harrison isn’t the only other witness to be found. Amparano, on his way back to the station, had stopped at a parking lot near Highway 145 and Interstate 80 for a few minutes. There he found Phil Mahler, who was delivering newspapers for the Fresno Bee. Mahler said that he had seen what he called “a reddish ball in the sky.”

There were still other, somewhat ambiguous reports. According to something referred to as the “a Seattle-based phenomenon research center,” an astronomer in Fresno reported a “reddish ball” close to the ground.

At about the same time someone called the Fire Department to report a fire that was in a direct line from where Amparano saw the UFO. The Fire Department said that they found no evidence of a fire.

After Amparano’s sighting was reported Ken Westbrook, Jr. who had been raking hay at the Gilory Farm west of Kerman said that he had seen a glowing “orange ball,” at treetop level. He watched it for some thirty to forty seconds as it “just kind of drifted around a little bit.”

At the station, Amparano called the Air Guard, the Fresno Airport and the weather bureau, wondering if they had anything on their radar scopes, or if there had been any other reports. While he was making the telephone calls, police officers A. J. Byington and Bob Muller, saw the burn marks on his face. They then discovered that Amparano had been burned through his shirt as well. At that point, they all returned to the cotton field, but there was nothing there to be seen.

According to other sources, it was at 5:00 p.m. that evening that Amparano woke and was feeling sick. That was when he went to the Fresno Community Hospital emergency room. There his burns were noted and listed as coming from an unknown source. It was also noted his blood pressure was high and later, a private doctor said that he suffered from “high intensity fluorescent pipe light or a gamma ray.”

What is important here is that these injuries, regardless of source, were documented by the hospital authorities, and there was that worker’s compensation claim that was also filed which further corroborated the injuries.

At this point Police Chief James Van Cleaf decided that he wanted nothing about the sighting to be released to the press or to UFO researchers. He told Amparano not to talk to them. According to Lorenzen:

A reporter went to the Amparano home after learning the identity of the officer, but was told that Amparano wasn’t available for an interview. Mrs. Amparano said that Chief Van Cleaf had told her husband not to talk to anyone about the incident, least of all out-of-town reporters. She thought that her husband would be willing to talk – he had nothing to hide – but only if the Chief said it was all right. But Van Cleaf was adamant – no interviews.
This order also seemed to apply to members of other law enforcement agencies. On June 26, 1978, according to a sheriff’s department memorandum that was sent to Amparano, “Saw the article and was impressed with your [sighting] … one of our sgts. (mike soderberg) experienced much the same thing as you did… no burns however… no one really knows at this point what really exists out there in space!!!”

While interesting, it’s not clear if the sighting was at the same time and exactly what Soderberg saw, other than it was similar. This could be further corroboration of the sighting, but at this point no one has followed up on it.

In July 2014, Jason Marzek, writing for Fringe Republic, contacted Amparano, who responded to him. In that email, Amparano wrote:

The UFO… was behind the trees lining the west side of Del Norte Avenue and near the ground hovering midway below the tree tops which gave the impression the tree was on fire… The UFO was first sighted at Trinity and Shaw Avenues by a Fresno County resident who called the North Central Fire Department Kerman Station and reported a grass fire in a field…The fire men arrived on the scene and found no evidence of a fire… A short time later Thomas Addis was working in a vineyard… when he observed a fire ball moving at tree top level… Also five Kerman Police Personnel observed my physical appearance when I reported for duty and confirmed that I was not sunburned prior to going on patrol. Officers A. J. Byington, Bob Muller, Bill McKinney, Jon Crouch and Chaplin Tom Johnson were with me inside a well light police station. Fresno Community Doctors, Allen Mau and T. T. Shigyo reported that officer had a sun burnt condition when examined at community hospital. Dr. Shigyo said that microwaves can burn the flesh through clothing without damaging the cloth. Chief Van Cleaf requested workman compensation for on the job injury.
This case becomes important because it has multiple chains of evidence. There was the physical effect which was the burns suffered by Amparano and documented by the hospital records, and observed by his fellow police officers. There were additional witnesses to the red object in the sky at about the time that Amparano made his sighting which creates another chain of testimony.

Had the chief of police reacted with a more open response, some of that additional testimony might have been documented as well. Tests could have been conducted on the police car which might have yielded some interesting results. Unfortunately, as has happened all too often, the chief was probably afraid of adverse publicity and his response was to limit access to the witnesses.

Here the opportunity was lost to gather additional evidence. This might have yielded something of scientific importance. It might not have been related to alien visitation but some sort of rare natural phenomenon. Whatever the case, the opportunity for a proper investigation was missed.

66 comments:

ufodebunker said...

Sounds like Amparano saw the UFO and correctly assumed that others saw it. And in effort to collect workman's compensation decided to pull out his sun lamp twice. Once right after the sighting and later during the day before he showed up in the emergency room. What the UFO was no one knows but I doubt he got zapped by a blue beam....interesting story tho!

Best Regards

KRandle said...

If you read the story carefully, you would have noticed that Amparano did not apply for worker's compensation himself, but that his boss, the sheriff did. This sort of nonsense gives the debunkers a bad name. There is no evidence of fraud in the story, just a report about an observation and an obvious injury to the police officer.

Tim Printy said...

I discussed this case in SUNlite 2-1 (p.5) and SUNlite 2-4 (p.9). Something nobody seems to have figured out is the direction he reported looking in (in his original report) was towards Vandenberg AFB. According to the Astronautix website, at 10:34 GMT (3:34 AM PDT), an Atlas rocket was launched carrying the NAVSTAR2 satellite. This does not explain his sunburn but it does appear to explain his visual sighting since he reported that his reddish ball was seen in the southern sky at 3:32 AM. If his UFO was not the rocket, why didn't he notice the rocket as well?

Jim Bender said...

Wheu debunker thought you would say BALL lighting. hahha

Maybe it was a combination of a low flying vandenburg satellite and swamp gas

ufodebunker said...

Kevin:

I believe Amperano knew that his boss was sympathetic to the view that UFOs were craft from outer space. So he assumed his boss would OK the workmen's comp when he claimed he was zaped. I did read the article carefully but sorry it didn't come across that way.

Best Regards

ufodebunker said...

Neither Amparano or his boss filed an incident report when filing for workman's comp. If they Amperano would have been denied workman's comp. That would suggest the boss was a true believer or a co-hoaxer.

Best Regards

jlmet said...

Kevin,

Do you have contact address (email or postal)? I'd like to send you a newspaper article concerning a UFO sighting that I don't believe has ever been widely distributed. Sorry if I missed an obvious link somewhere.

Thanks

CommanderCronus said...

Sounds similar to the plot of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. In that movie, you have a character played by Richard Dreyfus who, while on the job late at night, sees a spectacular craft fly overhead and experiences burns to his body as evidence of the encounter. Here's what's notable about this:

Close Encounters was released in December of 1977. That was a time before VCRs and pay-per-view, and I do remember that big releases would have a much longer run at theaters than they do today. The point is, Close Encounters of the Third Kind would have been playing in a nearby theater at the time of this sighting. In addition, the first season of Project UFO - a television series drama about a pair of Air Force Blue Book investigators who go around the country chasing UFOs - was being aired at the time. Also being aired on television was In Search Of, a documentary series starring Leonard Nimoy which focused paranormal subject matter, including UFOs.

These facts don't debunk the sighting by themselves, and I do believe in coincidence.
That said, one has to admit that the cultural influences in favor of UFO experiences were at an all-time peak at that very month in 1978.

I suspect the truth behind this case may involve a combination of these factors:

1. A suggestive entertainment media that popularized UFO sightings.

2. A number of witnesses who were spooked by a legitimate sighting of something peculiar in the sky, and/or

3. A deliberate hoax inspired by factors 1 and possibly 2.

Neal Foy said...

Tim Printy, in his usual Phil Klass style, ignores the relevant facts and inserts a ridiculous "explanation". Vandenberg is approximately 145 miles south and slightly west of Kerman. There is at least one mountain range between the two. How could the officer have seen the bright ball that is largest at the surface when a rocket is launched? It would also depend on weather conditions at the time. At that distance it isn't difficult to imagine the officer would be distracted by what he reported he saw and miss a tiny glow or trail in the sky. Of course I wasn't there but Printy wasn't there either.

Tim Printy said...

I am not going to argue endlessly about this but night launches of rockets are quite spectacular. They can be seen from distances of several hundred miles under good conditions. I used to watch night time rocket launches from my home in Jacksonville when I was a boy (in the 1970s) at a similar distance. They were quite easy to see. I am also not sure where you get the idea that a mountain range would interfere with observations of a rocket, which after a few minutes is much higher than any mountain range. Blue Book contains several examples of rocket launches seen from places like Nevada, Arizona, and northern California. These locations were much further away than Kerman.

Neal Foy said...

I've seen a shuttle night launch from the VIP area, it's quite spectacular. When the shuttle is 100 miles down range it's just a dot in the sky. The mountain range would hide the big ball of light from someone far away. The ball of light from an Atlas is much smaller than that of the shuttle with two huge SRBs and it's own larger than the Atlas engines. You choose to ignore his sighting of a metallic craft and his burns. Or are you going to say the Atlas rocket caused that as well? He reported the craft in the southern part of the sky, that might be South East to South West. If he was looking at the object he might well have missed a small dot in another part of the sky.

BTW Printy, you also say the 8:00-8:30 1997 sightings in Phoenix were a flight of conventional aircraft. Do you have any pilot reports, flight logs, radar tracks, or even fueling records to back up that ridiculous claim. Phil Klass would be proud.

Anthony Mugan said...

Is the idea that this would be an example of a case that might have been worth more thoroughly investigating at the time...if so I agree.

It would have been nice to know if the apparent other witness sightings were actually well correlated in time and direction. The large discrepancies in apparent angular size and estimates (however unreliable these usually are) of altitude and size might have been better resolved. We might have been able to comment on the idea of the rocket launch misidentification with some basis of evidence rather than speculating and of course the physical effects could have been followed up etc.

As it wasn't it all seems a bit pointless at this stage.

If you want cases with really useful amounts of data you need to look at cases such as Ellsworth (1953), USS Gyatt (1964), Trans-en-Provence (1981) or, more recently, Stephenville (2008) to give a few examples. These are illustrative examples of perhaps just a few dozen cases that actually do seem to me to represent a serious 'challenge to the analyst' (to coin a phrase).

Coming out of the slides fiasco it may be helpful to focus in on a core dataset of seriously challenging cases, subject those to intense scrutiny and see which survive. A good indicator would be when the debate veers away from discussion of hard evidence into personal abuse - at that point I generally think the side of the debate that resorts to diatribes have clearly run out of arguments of substance.

Anyway - just a thought

Brian Bell said...

Shades of Cash-Landrum....burns and all. Although I recognize most here reject Cash-Landrum altogether.

Third degree burns would be hard to reproduce on your own without a lot of distress and only on half your exposed body. At least the medical evidence proves he had those.

I doubt he could have mistaken an Atlas rocket at 40,000 feet as a silver disk at 500 feet...unless he was fabricating the entire story...given the burns that's in question anyway.

Is he still alive? Did he die of cancer or other rare disease?

KRandle said...

Geez People -

I sometimes wonder about reading comprehension... he was alive as of July 2014, as noted in the article.

And what about statements such as "I believe.." "His boss sympathetic to." This is speculation, unless you have something more solid than a guess.

Tim -

I understand your frustration with having to revisit cases you believe have a natural or man-made solution, but open discussion does help us all understand the reports. That was why I put this up... some thought it very good... and it is not
unprecedented in UFO research.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

I second Anthony Mugan's excellent suggestions above:

"Coming out of the slides fiasco it may be helpful to focus in on a core dataset of seriously challenging cases, subject those to intense scrutiny and see which survive. A good indicator would be when the debate veers away from discussion of hard evidence into personal abuse - at that point I generally think the side of the debate that resorts to diatribes have clearly run out of arguments of substance."

and

"If you want cases with really useful amounts of data you need to look at cases such as Ellsworth (1953), USS Gyatt (1964), Trans-en-Provence (1981) or, more recently, Stephenville (2008) to give a few examples. These are illustrative examples of perhaps just a few dozen cases that actually do seem to me to represent a serious 'challenge to the analyst' (to coin a phrase)."


David Rudiak said...

(Part 1 of 2)
I grew up in Las Vegas, about 300 miles almost due east of Vandenberg, and saw my share of launches from there. We never saw anything discrete like a ball of light, but rather a pale, diffuse, flickering light above the mountain tops maybe a few degrees wide that lasted several minutes. When the rocket was staging, there would be a temporary pause in the flickering. I wouldn't swear to it after all these years, but I also don't remember the flickering light being reddish, but more, whitish, bluish and greenish.

Vandenberg is about 150 miles SSW of Kerman, so launches there would be brighter than Las Vegas with even more diffuse lighting. I can see how the flickering light might be confused as a fire near the southern horizon, but Amparano reported a very discrete object. And where did the "crimson" or red light come from, reported by Amparano and other witnesses? Rocket flames are mostly blue-white hot (except at the tail end where they would cool down to reddish hot).

Blue beam shooting out? Nothing remotely like that from a Vandenberg launch that I ever saw.

Finally, Amparano reported the object moving to the SOUTHEAST before quickly disappearing straight up. Printy says this was a polar orbital launch, where Vandenberg usually launches to the south or SSE over the Pacific. (Specifically, in this case, at an orbital inclination of 64 degrees, called the "coast-hugger" route.) They can't launch to the SE itself because that would take it directly over Los Angeles, a big no-no.

What Amparano should have seen initially if he was viewing a rocket launch was something initially a little W of S moving moving very slowly up and to the E, appearing mostly S and staying low to the horizon as it arced over into low earth orbit, fading out a little W of S. Amparano would never see the missile appearing to be in the SW direction and shooting rapidly up.

Printy also notes that a Fresno Bee article the following year has Amparano saying when he tried to shine his spotlight on it, the object made a "square turn" and headed to the SW. In email with Printy, Printy writes that Amparano kept saying the object first headed to the NW and hovered. Printy quibbles:

"I pointed out to him that he never mentioned the northwest direction or 'hovering' in the 1979 Fresno Bee article. Perhaps he meant that the UFO rose in an upward direction (NW direction?), stopped (hovered), and then headed southeast. That description is fairly consistent with a sighting of a distant rocket launch."

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite2_4.pdf

In Printy SkeptoSpeak, fairly INCONSISTENT has been converted into "fairly consistent". A distant rocket launch starting to the SSW headed to the SSE might appear to "hover" as it gained altitude and moved downrange, but would NEVER appear to be headed to the NW, no way, no how.

As for Amparano's "sunburn", Printy doesn't explain that, saying simply it must have been caused by something else, maybe California Spring sun?

David Rudiak said...

(Part 2 of 2)
Then there was the Lisa Harrison report at about the same time (although Printy places it an hour before) of the two lights, red and white, first seen to the NW, then moving S and disappearing behind some houses to her S. I don't see how a missile launch at Vandenberg, no matter what her location in Kerman, could possibly explain this motion. Again, Vandenberg is to the SSW, so how could she see the lights start to the NORTHWEST, then move S and disappear to the S? Unless she really first saw the light to the "SW" and it was misreported as "NW", I don't see how this is possible if she was seeing the missile launch. Also nothing in this report about a diffuse, flickering light, what I remember so vividly about the Vandenberg launches I witnessed. Harrison reported only two very discrete lights, one red and one white. Printy dismisses this report, saying there is no evidence she saw the same object as Amparano, which misses the point, I think.

Another witness Printy mentions working in a field 8 miles west of Kerman saw a UFO to the NORTHEAST between 3:00 & 4:00. While admitting the directions didn't match, Printy dismisses this report's relation to Amparano as "tenuous". The more important point, I think, is that multiple witnesses were reporting UFOs in the exact same area in the same time frame, with details INCONSISTENT with the Vandenberg launch.

It is possible SOME of the reports, namely those of something like a distant fire, being linked to the Vandenberg launch, but not ALL of these reports can be so explained, nor Amparano's burns.

albert said...

I third "...Anthony Mugan's excellent suggestions above..."
.
...

Neal Foy said...

David,
Thanks for your post. It answered most of the questions I had. But one remains, did you ever see a launch the hugged the horizon for any period of time? Most of the witnesses said they saw the glow near the horizon for an extended period.

While I do agree with Anthony Mugan's suggestions it would be naive to think that we could have a case that would really challenge the analysts. Certain people are unwilling to say that they don't know what happened. Some seem compelled to come up with a mundane explanation for every case.

For me, I wouldn't for a second suggest that the Kerman case involved an alien space ship that zapped a police officer. I'm perfectly content to say I don't know what it was.

zoamchomsky said...

TP appears to be spot on as usual by simply searching for a real-world stimulus for the "UFO" report--a rocket launch.

Given that, it's perfectly reasonable to ascribe what's known as a "small group scare" scenario to the events that followed through the day, consisting of and complicated by confabulation, hoaxing and/or conversion disorder, suggestion by honest--but loaded--questioning and its confirmation.

Think of a "small group scare" as a mini-flap, an isolated, temporary expression of the "UFO" myth; and every culturally supplied "UFO" narrative motif this particular group of people believes about "UFOs" is suddenly summoned forth and projected onto the reported misperception and an alternate fantastic narrative of a series mundane events is created: a "UFO" REPORT.

And then all involved honestly believe and repeat this "UFO" narrative for the rest of their lives! Their brush with a "cosmic mystery," that was nothing but the product of their imaginings inside of the "UFO" social delusion.

I hope that furthers our understanding of this case and many others.

David Rudiak said...

Neil Foy wrote,
Thanks for your post. It answered most of the questions I had. But one remains, did you ever see a launch the hugged the horizon for any period of time? Most of the witnesses said they saw the glow near the horizon for an extended period.

Neil,

What I remember were launches in the late '50s and early 60's. I don't remember any moving south, as in a polar launch, but always being close to the western horizon, thus likely westward launches out over the Pacific. None of these, I believe, were orbital flights, but suborbital tests of ballistic missiles. The flickering was never more than a few degrees about the mountain tops west of Las Vegas, as the missiles arc over to suborbital flight, get more distant, and follow the Earth's curvature, all of which drop the angular elevation. Intuitively the thinking is that rockets only go "up", but they only go so far "up" and "up" isn't all that high angle-wise when it is 300 and more miles away.

For me, I wouldn't for a second suggest that the Kerman case involved an alien space ship that zapped a police officer. I'm perfectly content to say I don't know what it was.

It does have similarities to other cases with regard to the "sunburn". E.g., it reminds me of the 1957 James Stokes case of an oval object passing over the highway in N.M., stalling cars, and feeling a wave of heat as it passed. He was described as seeming to have something like a heat rash or sunburn on his face afterward.

The Kerman case seems different in that Amparano doesn't appear to have reported feeling any heat.

CommanderCronus said...

It just so happens that I have a relative who was a deputy sheriff at the time, in the adjacent county. I also remember him mentioning something back then about a police officer who saw a UFO. I'll check back with him this weekend and inquire about any recollections he may have.

CommanderCronus(aka Flatwoods)

John's Space said...

It is an interesting case and I agree that it was unfortunate that the chief placed a gag order on the officer. It seem to me that this is likely to be an alien spacecraft. If we only had one or a few reports of this quality then if would be more reasonable to assume that there is some "normal" explanation that we missed. But, this fits in to a pattern of events which reduces then likelihood that they are all mundane events. This is strengthened by the fact that it was reported by a police officer who is a trained observer and is responsible for official duties of a serious nature. The burns are additional evidence that something physical happened.

Brian Bell said...

Not certain why some conclude that if it did happen then it must be an alien space craft - the other possibility is that it was a US military test project or operational vehicle. Just because it's saucer shaped and odd looking doesn't mean it wasn't one of ours.

Neal Foy said...

Thanks David,

The report was that the object was seen near the horizon for at least a few minutes then moved to the SE and went straight up and disappeared. That doesn't fit with any orbital flight I'm aware of. When I worked for a NASA contractor one of my jobs was to review and catalog all the NASA films we had. This ranged from Mercury to Apollo-Soyuz, quite a few launches in those films and none went straight up. More of an angled flight upward.

This case reminded me of something I read many years ago, a police officer encountered a UFO and hit it with his searchlight, it immediately responded with a beam that struck the officer who later died. This could be just urban legend of course.

zoamchomsky said...

The rocket launch identification of the "object" is easily spot on I say because from southern California, typical nighttime Vandenberg launches first appear as a red fireball that then forms a plume of spent gases appearing as a horizontal ellipsoid in the western sky over the Pacific; and that ellipsoid ends with the flash of first-stage separation after which the rising rocket, a point of light, appears to fall into the southwest.

I've seen it myself. However unusual it appears, if you know what you're seeing, it's merely a rocket launch. But it's easy to see how it could be misperceived as some extraordinary and so frightening thing. The beginning of a "UFO" report....

>> Night and twilight launches provide a variety of interesting phenomena to photograph. They include:

•Fireball effect
•Flame detail
•Exhaust plumes
•Flashing spent rocket motors
•Launch aftermath
•Missile trajectory

When viewed from long distances, the initial portion of many night launches resemble fireballs....<<

http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbphoto.htm

zoamchomsky said...

”Certain people are unwilling to say that they don't know what happened. Some seem compelled to come up with a mundane explanation for every case. ... I'm perfectly content to say I don't know what it was.”

And that is your right, but it's the same as having no opinion—withdrawing from debate, self excluded and disengaged--when engagement and an opinion is what is being called for because a claim is being made.

The claim is that this case is an example of a “UFO” report that has verifiable substance to investigate. But, in fact, it falls far short of that, it’s just another “UFO” story: A misperception and scare by one that quickly spreads to his immediate associates and then his community. And in the absence of further exotic stimuli, development stalls, and it resolves itself into inconsequentiality.

And instead of framing this as a debate between equally viable narratives without resolution, there’s a real-world method by which to positively resolve such a claim: Veracious evidence must be presented to show the claim is true.

Otherwise, it’s not.

David Rudiak said...

zoamchomsky said...

The rocket launch identification of the "object" is easily spot on I say because from southern California, typical nighttime Vandenberg launches first appear as a red fireball that then forms a plume of spent gases appearing as a horizontal ellipsoid in the western sky over the Pacific; and that ellipsoid ends with the flash of first-stage separation after which the rising rocket, a point of light, appears to fall into the southwest.

Comparing apples and oranges. A launch from Vandenberg headed SSE, or more-or-less parallel to the southern California/Baja coast, will look VERY different viewed from southern California than a launch seen NORTH of Vandenberg, as in Kerman.

Kerman: Further away (~150 miles initially), missile first seen about 10 deg W of South, with missile continuously moving further away as it heads south, growing dimmer, staying close to horizon (because moving away and following Earth's curvature), and moving SLOWLY eastward along 64 deg orbital inclination track (or 154 deg azimuth) probably fading out at 400-500 miles distance maybe 15 deg W of South. Maybe moving at an average of 5 deg/min sideways from SSW to SSE while visible. It's never more than a dot or tiny, barely resolvable vertical streak at the closest distances (flame trail probably no more than 2-3 minutes of arc, not half diameter of moon (15' of arc) and horizontal saucer shape as in policeman report.

Southern California (say Los Angeles): 125 miles away initially and Vandenberg due NW of L.A. Missile seen traveling much more rapidly and sideways to south and actually gets slightly closer to L.A. as it passes west (about 100 ground miles). It might actually get as high as 30-40 deg above the horizon, because places like L.A. and San Diego are much closer to the trajectory path, which is horizontal to them, from N to S. Angular motion is much faster because of very different perspective, maybe more like 30 deg./min average.

The question isn't what some southern Californian might see, but what would be seen from the ACTUAL sighting reports location at Kerman. If various witnesses report seeing some actual extended fireball or discrete object to the NW or NE of them, they aren't reporting the missile launch but something else, since the missile could ONLY be seen to the south.

John's Space said...

I'm fairly sure that the craft described does seem to represent U.S. military technology of the 1978 time period. So I think we can safely rule this out.

starman said...

Brian Bell, a military test would take place in a restricted area not where it would disturb civilians and get someone to call the police. Also, what "operational vehicle" looks and behaves like the Kerman object? 1978 was a long time ago. If the craft proved feasible, it would be known by now. If it didn't the government could at least take responsibilty and clear up the mystery.

Brian Bell said...

@John and Starman -

Well...that's because you presume our military doesn't have this technology...or that if they do they would only operate over military air space, which by the way, no operational vehicle currently known does anyway. Just because you think "we" would know about it doesn't mean we do or that they want you to. Do you honestly believe all our military tech is "known" to the public??

albert said...

@David,

Assuming the object was "overhead", and the size and distance estimates are accurate, the smallest it would appear to be (25ft wide, 150ft high) is 9.5 degrees; the largest (50ft wide, 100ft high) is 28 degrees. Is this correct?
.
...

Neal Foy said...

@ Brian Bell,

Isn't this another debunker double standard? On one hand the government can't hold any alien related secrets on the other they can hold secrets on operational aircraft. Take the alleged TR-3B for instance, has anyone ever filed a FOIA request on that? If so what was the answer, was national security cited? Did they say they had no information at all. Given the quirks of FOIA that could be an honest answer if the program is being run by a contractor who is exempt for the most part from FOIA.

Getting back to Kerman there seems to be a time difference between the police officers report and the rocket launch. It's only two minutes but it could be important if the times are correct. Another investigation error?

Brian Bell said...

@Neal Foy -

Black budget projects are not open to FOIA that's why they are special access. Besides...the TR3B was not it's real name...just hypothesized.

No double standard applied here - but it does seem you think governments are 100% open with their military tech...which is completely and utterly incorrect.

Neal Foy said...

Brian,
Exactly the opposite, I think the military and other government agencies can hold almost any secret they want to.

David Rudiak said...

albert said...

@David,

Assuming the object was "overhead", and the size and distance estimates are accurate, the smallest it would appear to be (25ft wide, 150ft high) is 9.5 degrees; the largest (50ft wide, 100ft high) is 28 degrees. Is this correct?

Albert,

Didn't doublecheck with my slide rule for decimal points, but those numbers would be right if he was right underneath. However, Amparano said he saw the object off in the distance and compared the angular size to less than full moon, or less than half a degree. However, he did describe an obviously extended object, not a point of light or small streak, bright, but not bright enough to hurt his eyes, and also suddenly taking off at an extreme rate of speed to SE. That is NOT a description of a missile launch to south 150 miles and more away, barely visible, not extended in size, and no sudden, rapid movements to a direction the missile could not reach given its true trajectory, which would produce only a very slow movement slightly to the east, but always in the southern sky.

albert said...

@David,
There is a huge difference between 0.25 degrees (~"half a full moon") and 9.5 to 28 degrees. A disc-like object of even half-moon size would definitely show a height/width difference, but where did those numbers (25-50ft diameter, 100 to 150ft distance) come from? He can't have it both ways. Any unknown object of 0.25 deg apparent angular diameter cannot be evaluated in terms of size and distance with any degree of accuracy, without instruments.
.

...

zoamchomsky said...

David;

It's already been stated that nighttime Vandenberg launches are regularly seen from Fresno (Kerman) and most of the central valley, southern California and even Arizona. A search on Vandenberg and Fresno produces news and information pages on nighttime launches seen from the central valley. So let's not pretend that Vandenberg launches cannot be seen from Fresno. And we're not describing the missile itself but its brilliantly glowing exhaust as it rises from Vandenberg—not far from Fresno--and its gaseous exhaust plume that stretches a hundred or more miles across and into the upper atmosphere above the Pacific southwest of all of California.

Vandenberg is on Point Conception which begins the central coast about 150 miles north of Los Angeles, which makes Vandenberg equal distance between Fresno and LA, Los Angeles being even farther east than Fresno. And the sequence of launch events described--ball of fire, horizontal ellipsoid exhaust plum, first-stage separation flash and its crown of gases--all occur in the first few minutes, so it makes little difference that Fresno is north of Vandenberg even for a southerly trajectory.

And given nearly the exact time in the morning that day, looking south, and the witness describing a sequence of events that matches the typical visual launch sequence of events, there can be little doubt that he was seeing the Vandenberg launch.

Or as has already been suggested from the start, how is it that his “UFO” looked so much like a Vandenberg launch and he only reported seeing ONE? Since we know for fact that the launch occurred at that time in the southern sky, why didn’t he report seeing TWO nearly identical “UFOs” there and then?

The doppelganger “UFO” objection—yet another application of the Null hypothesis—is skeptical gold!

Now to Sword’s larger claim about this case. Someone has said that the witness’s boss was sympathetic to the idea of a “UFO” reality. So let’s assume he was some sort of believer. It’s worth considering that the witness was accommodating that belief for his own purposes, ingratiating himself, gas-lighting, or practical joking. So—being at least partly aware of standard “UFO” narrative tropes accumulated by 1978, the Falcon Lake hoax is one--he decided to get a nice sunburn that day as “evidence” of the reality of his mysterious early morning experience!

And since he couldn’t possibly have been burned by a distant missile launch, a reasonable conclusion is that this part of his “UFO” story—certainly nothing otherworldly, a common sunburn, nor can it be evidence of anything extraordinary—must have been hoaxed. A common sunburn, exhibited half a day later is certainly more likely than hysterical conversion disorder, which is a possible reaction to a genuine “UFO” scare, an honest misperception of a mundane event.

The later Cash-Landrum hoax is exposed partly by the fact that Vickie first claimed that “nothing happened to me but my eyes is burned” and then later posed for photos showing what were most probably self-inflicted acid or heat-lamp burns to her arms. By her own words Vickie was not burned after her “UFO” event, but showed localized burns from being uniformly irradiated for tabloid photos months later!

Similarly, why wasn’t the witness in this case burned on the morning immediately after his “UFO” event, not half a day later? And why not uniformly burned if he was “radiated” by a spacecraft from another world, not just his face and arms?

So you see, David, there’s simply very little doubt about the real-world, completely mundane scenario that accompanies the entirely stereotypical, even hackneyed, fantastic and fantasy “UFO” narrative that’s been manufactured for this event.

There is no set of logical statements about the world that ends with an otherworldly conclusion.

There’s one set of data accumulated over the last century but only one most plausible history that describes it, any other history, including the “least likely” ETH, is fictive.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...

The folly of pretending that the reliability of UFO witness testimony as to movement, size, distance, color, brightness etc is 100% is one of the dull repeated idiocies of UFO "research".

In his excellent new book, "How UFOs Conquered the World: The History of a Modern Myth", David Clarke revisits a famous experiment that leaves no doubt whatsoever that witnesses get just about everything wrong when they report about the lights they see in the sky.

That the UFO faithful ignore this clear data is just another sad example of the biased, blind, will to believe that is actually behind almost all UFO tales.

The above discussion of apparent size (in degrees with decimals to make the fake accuracy look better!) is more of the kind of pretend science that UFO believers prattle on about ceaselessly. Just as they opine on how secret government programs would operate in their UFO world, etc. Soon someone will pop in to muse about how the saucer engines work as well!

What we have:

On the night of a missile launch, at the time of the launch, in the direction of the launch but in these parts UFO blindness is too strong to allow that maybe it was a goddamn missile launch!


Lance

ufodebunker said...

The blue beam he claims to be zapped by is akin to those who claim to have been abducted out of their bedrooms...total BS!

Best Regards!

Daniel Transit said...

Not sure what you're meaning there, ufodebunker.

Ending your post with 'Best Regards!' looks like BS to me, and I suspect those 'who claim to have been abducted out of their bedrooms' wouldn't feel they had been bestowed with 'Best Regards!' by your statement - far from it.

As far as being hit by beams or rays of light, reports of this are fairly common in UFO literature going back to the 1950s (including contactees' Buck Nelson and Carl Anderson accounts). There are also retrospective reports going back to earlier decades.

Rays of light can be found in science fiction art pre-1947, as well as pre-20th century art (most, if not all of this religiously-associated).

Neal Foy said...

Kevin wrote:
As it hovered overhead, it glowed with an intensity that did not hurt his eyes. He watched it out of the side window of the car for about four minutes until a bright blue beam shot out of the craft that Amparano described like that of a flash from a camera. The UFO then climbed out silently toward the southeast, and finally disappeared straight up in seconds.

Although he felt a slight tingling, he thought it was the results of the cold night. He drove back to the station. There he met several fellow officers and the police chaplain, who mentioned that he looked as if he had been sunburned. According to Swords, the sunburn lasted for about four hours before fading.

Zoam wrote:
Similarly, why wasn’t the witness in this case burned on the morning immediately after his “UFO” event, not half a day later? And why not uniformly burned if he was “radiated” by a spacecraft from another world, not just his face and arms?

Zoam, As You can readily see, the officer was burned that morning and not a half a day later as you claim. He was also looking out of the car window which explains why the burns were only on his upper body. You not only falsely accuse the officer of hoaxing the burns you also pick on a little old lady in another case and accuse her of fraud too. Damn man, have you no shame? The story of the Chief being a "believer" came from none other than ufodebunker.

No one is disputing that the launch could have been seen from Kerman. The question is what would have been seen, the mountain range would block the view of the large ball of light on the surface. Just in case you don't know that large ball is largely the light from the rocket engines being diffused by and reflected from the plume of steam at the pad. Rockets launch over water under the pad to dissipate the heat so it doesn't damage the pad.

What remains is a small light and trail nothing like what any witness described. Of course that means nothing to you because you say the officer was lying anyway. As for your mini flap theory, only two of the witnesses, the police officer and the man he met at the parking lot had any contact with each other prior to making a report.

Brian Bell said...

Well....since Kevin said this guy is still most likely alive...why not go interview him? Size, shape, degrees, etc. are just guestimations at this point.

ufodebunker said...

Daniel:

Seems to me anyone who claims to have been abducted by aliens often from their bedroom could substantiate it by installing video cameras. Ever see a video?

Best Regards

Lance said...

Kevin says:

"Swords wrote that at 7:00 p.m. that night, Amparano went to the hospital for treatment of second and third degree burns to his face, neck and arms. "

Uh, the ACTUAL emergency room report ONLY mentions first degree burns..in fact, mild first degree burns.

Where did the second and third degree burns come from?

There is a mention of third degree burns on the workman's comp form presumedly filled out by the sheriff not by a doctor.

Somebody felt the need to UFO this up!

The sheer disingenuousness of how Swords and other UFO faithful report this is par for the course in UFO discussion by believers. Always increase the OOGA BOOGA!.

Sure this is a great UFO case in the sense that it is a great example of how UFO nuts misrepresent facts and willfully ignore prosaic realities that interfere with their UFO fantasy world.

Lance


KRandle said...

Lance -

While you often make good and interesting points, I wonder if you could make them without the snarky comments.

Second, it seems, based on what you wrote, that the sheriff upgraded the burns to third degree which means that the UFO folks didn't UFO this up. I won't speculate on the reason the sheriff did this. Nor do I believe that Swords was disingenuous in his reporting since there is evidence that the burns were reported as third degree (and for the record, I do not believe that Amparano suffered third degree burns).

ufodebunker -

This is not a discussion about alien abduction but a case in which there was an apparent injury. However, if you were familiar with the literature, you would know that attempts to video tape an abduction have been made... they have failed for reasons that I do not find persuasive, but the attempts have been made.

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

That's fine. So where did mention of second degree burns come from and how come Swords doesn't mention first degree burns at all?
Either he did a terrible job reviewing the material (first degree burns and mild first degree burns reported in at least two documents, no mention of third degree by any medical source and no mention at all of second degree anywhere that I can see) or he UFOed it up...

Sounds like a familiar UFO "research" methodology.

I suggest more snarkiness against the UFO way of doing things serves a better purpose that whatever Swords is doing.

Lance

albert said...

Regarding Amparanos testimony. As I mentioned before, his estimates don't jive. For that reason alone, I'd walk away. Don't need the rocket launches, burns, or anything else.

One thing did catch my interest:

"Acute radiodermatitis occurs when an "erythema dose" of ionizing radiation is given to the skin, after which visible erythema appears up to 24 hours after.[3]:39 Radiation dermatitis generally manifests within a few weeks after the start of radiotherapy.[4]:143 Acute radiodermatitis, while presenting as red patches, may sometimes also present with desquamation or blistering.[7] Erythema may occur at a dose of 2 Gy radiation or greater."
- from wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_burn)

There is _much_ more detail in the article, especially the effects of ionizing radiation. Scary stuff.

This is yet another case with too little data, contradictory data, and an incompetent investigation. Why is no one interested in Robert Hastings work, Stephenville, or the Phoenix lights?

@Lance,
Your 'snarkiness' isn't necessary for like-minded folks, but it alienates everyone else. I understand your frustration. This UFO business is more frustrating than politics, if that's even possible:)

Rule No. 2 for UFO encounters: Don't expose yourself to the light. (was: Don't get out of the car.)
.
...

Jeanne Ruppert said...

I've skimmed through Kevin's essay and all the comments and can't find a link to Swords's article on this case. I also can't seem to locate it through google. Does anyone have a link to it? Thanks.

Jeanne Ruppert said...

I also want to second all of albert's comments in his most recent post and especially the suggestion embedded in this pointed question:

"Why is no one interested in Robert Hastings work, Stephenville, or the Phoenix lights?"

Anthony Mugan said...

Yes, I also agree with the main thrust of both Albert's and, in part, with Lance.
This case has insufficient data, and what there is contains inconsistencies. I don't think we can draw any conclusions with confidence.
It is an example of a case that should have been more thoroughly investigated at the time, but it wasn't.
If we are going to construct a case for the ETH then step one ( after considering if such a hypothesis is in principle allowable by the laws of physics, which I think is pretty clear) is to put together a dataset of events in which every known conventional explanation can be ruled out. Not many cases have enough data to allow that, but a few dozen do. It is important to note that this step in no way establishes the ETH, but would suggest that there is a gap in our understanding.
Step 2 would then be to construct testable hypotheses based on specific theories of what characteristics we should observe ( e,g, relativistic effects of statistical correlations if UFO reports and CE4 events, just as examples) and to test the predictions of models against the data.
Step 2 may add to or reduce plausibility of the ETH depending on the results but to finish it off we need a decisive test, something that will nail it once and for all. That would have to be something physical or indisputable documentary evidence I suspect.

I guess we just need to get on with it and ignore all the noise as best we can.

cda said...

Anthony:

"That would have to be something physical or indisputable documentary evidence I suspect."

How right you are. The only way to finally prove the existence of unicorns is to produce a real one. The same would apply to fairies, pink elephants, the Yeti and bigfoot. Indisputable documentation? Yes, provided there was no evidence of forgery. (e.g. MJ-12). But most of all, there needs to be, probably, more than one unicorn, fairy, etc. And there needs to be plentiful documentation to go with it - particularly if the physical evidence is historic. We would need to know the scientific authority (and the scientists' names) that pronounced it genuine.

That is why the infamous Ramey memo, if it is indeed the historic revelation some people say it is, MUST be accompanied by other similar documentation to have any real value to science. It is inconceivable that only one such official document exists on such a scientifically significant subject as ETs visiting our planet.

Ah, but it's all still top secret; so we are told again and again. Sure!

David Rudiak said...

"There is a huge difference between 0.25 degrees (~"half a full moon") and 9.5 to 28 degrees. A disc-like object of even half-moon size would definitely show a height/width difference, but where did those numbers (25-50ft diameter, 100 to 150ft distance) come from? He can't have it both ways. Any unknown object of 0.25 deg apparent angular diameter cannot be evaluated in terms of size and distance with any degree of accuracy, without instruments."

You can have it both ways since one is an absolute size estimate; the other an an angular size estimate. The angular size depends on the distance to the object.

Here is a new website with a wealth of information on the case, including a detailed statement from Amparano about location of witnesses and police officers who witnessed his physical condition just before and after the encounter:

http://fringerepublic.com/kerman-ufo-burning-061401/

Amparano was at the south edge of town near surrounding fields at California (runs E/W) and del Norte (runs N/S). If you read the statement, he was facing WEST and the UFO was just south of California and the railroad tracks parallelling California, hovering over a cotton field, stated to now be an almond orchard. Looking on Google Earth, the only such orchard was 1/2 to 1 mile from Amparano's position. Thus a 25 ft object at 1 mile would be about half moon size. 100 ft off the ground would be about a degree or near the ground, as stated elsewhere.

1/2 mile directly north of him on del Norte was Lisa Harrison, who saw her two lights on a large object coming out of the NORTHWEST and headed SE (also stated as south in other accounts). 3 miles NORTHWEST of Amparano was Thomas Addis, who before Amparano's sighting saw a fireball approaching out of the NORTHWEST and headed SE towards town. 4 miles directly north of Addis and before his sighting was the location of where a possible fire was called in to the north central station, which also requested assistance from the town of Biola, about 4 miles NNE of town and 5 miles E of the reported fire location.

(And over in Fresno to the East, was an astronomer report of an orange-yellow object descending out of the SW to the NE, making a turn to the S, then another turn to the West before coming to the ground.)

Absolutely none of this in description of sighting direction, description of object or description of motion in any way corresponds to what would actually be seen of a rocket launch at Vandenberg far to the SOUTH, in a completely different part of the sky.

Lance said...

I see that David is rudiaking the case up for folks.

"he drove to the site and pulled off the road by a cotton field near railroad tracks in time to see an unusual source of illumination… up in the southern sky.”

But when we say the southern sky, we mean the western sky, right David?

Let's give David a few more days and I think he can move it up to the Northern sky using his fabulous flying saucer "science", the same kind of stuff that makes UFO's so respected in the scientific world.

Again, a missile launch at the exact time of the sighting in the exact direction of the sighting, with the exact characteristics of the sighting but UFO "science" says, "One thing I know for sure: it am not a missile!

Lance

The Professor said...

Well, I wish that I hadn't decided to spend a happy moment reading this crapfest. My name is Michael Swords and I write regularly about UFOs and other anomalies. I thought that this was about the Kerman case but it seems to be almost as much about myself, thus this grudging post.

I MAY have written about the officer having third degree burns some place [IUR? my Blog?] but I can't find it. The quotes attributed to me are, as far as I can tell, all from an IUR article that I did not write. This includes the statement about third degree burns. I have no idea who wrote the IUR piece. Allan Hendry would be one guess for that period of time.

IF I ever wrote that piece of "information" down it was in recording data as it was presented to my reading of all the information in my files. To those who insist upon smearing the names of persons working FAR harder on this than they, well, cram it up your ass --- I'm not an overly-civilized person when it comes to unproductive cheap shots. Such "clarifications" can be made without making things personal.

I don't usually read this sort of blog post as I've found that it often degrades into this exact sort of wasted time listening to ....censored... manufactured by easychair criticizers who have done no bulk work to earn their personal-smearing comments. And to Kevin, I will understand if you got those quotes from the IUR article, but I wasn't even writing for IUR at the time. If I repeated that stuff in my "150" or so CE2p case study articles later in IUR, I don't see it. I also don't see it from my blog entries. There's been so much of that though that something could have slipped by me.

Blessedly, this will be my last post here --- another hour lost in an already old 70+ year life.

Mike {"The Professor" from the blog The Biggest Study}

Lance said...

Kevin, can you provide an exact quote of what you cite above that Swords wrote?

Thanks,

Lance

albert said...

@David,
I stand by my original post. The math is correct. It is impossible for a person to even estimate the size of an unknown object 1/2 to 1 miles away, or determine the distance without some reference.
.
So it was either right over his head, or a mile(or so) away. Show me a quote where he says it moved to his position.
.
"...You can have it both ways since one is an absolute size estimate; the other an an angular size estimate. The angular size depends on the distance to the object..."
.
The angular size can always be estimated. All you need is an arm and a thumb:) The distance estimates given are 100 to 150 feet. Where do these come from? If it was that close, he could have counted the rivets, and burns could not be discounted out of hand. At 1/2 to 1 mile, burns are highly unlikely, as he would had to have been specifically and very accurately targeted.
.
And I'm not even considering rocket launches.
...

Jeanne Ruppert said...

Michael Swords, I have to applaud, in particular, this sentence from your post:

“To those who insist upon smearing the names of persons working FAR harder on this than they, well, cram it up your ass --- I'm not an overly-civilized person when it comes to unproductive cheap shots. Such "clarifications" can be made without making things personal.”

Your own extensive, productive, and very civilized contributions to the field of ufo and other anomalies research speak for themselves, to those who actually read them. I, like innumerable others, am immensely grateful for all your work.

Lance said...

Apparently the attribution to Michael Swords was incorrect. And I apologize to Mr. Swords for making fun of the silly claims made in that attribution and blaming him for them. Those claims apparently were written by another UFO author.

The claims themselves still appear to be completely bogus.

Lance

Neal Foy said...

New information has been posted on the Fringe Republic website. Mr. Amparano has made statements that would rule out a rocket launch as a possibility.

http://fringerepublic.com/kerman-ufo-burning-061401/

marine63 said...

I retired officer Manuel Amparano never reported or said, any of the comments that I have read on this blog. I never did report a silver object, I reported an object the color of the setting sun. I also never said, that the object was up in the sky as some of you people are stating. It was reported as below tree top level which made it appear a tree was on fire. There is no known atlas rocket that can hover behind a tree and not make any noise. The report of my encounter mentions that I felt a tingling sensation as I viewed the unknown object. You people got it all wrong read the true reports that were printed by some news media.

marine63 said...

1978 Kerman UFO media reports. Phenomena Research, discription of ufo, orange-reddish glow like a fire, May 24, 1978. Kerman news, saw a reddish glow thought it was a tree on fire, May 24, 1978. International UFO Reporter 9/78 vol.3,no9. saw reddish glow. February 23, 1979, Fresno bee, saw large fire color of setting sun thought tree was on fire.

marine63 said...

Albert said,I referred to the ufo as the size less than a full moon, bogus information as nothing of the sort was ever reported in the media or police reports. Lance said, sheriff filled out comp report, I was a Kerman police officer not a Fresno County Deputy Sheriff and no sheriff filled out my workmans comp, bogus information again. It appears someone is spreading false information about the kerman ufo. Please obtain the correct information before you make a false comment. I have copies of all the known news reports and nothing compares with what you people are discussing.

marine63 said...

I, Manuel Amparano, have never given an interview to a Coral Lorenzen about the Kerman UFO sighting. I also never told Madera County Deputy Sheriff Pete Escobedo that I saw a silver object in the sky. Escobedo contacted myself at the Kerman Police station to report a similar reddish object going down in the mountain community of Oakhurst during the same time period. Escobedo gave me a UFO report to fill out for his department and I was ordered by Chief Van Cleaf not to give Escobedo any information about the Kerman UFO. I still have the blank report from Escobedo in my possession in case anyone wants a blank copy with his business card attached. Also, the UFO was near the ground below tree top level and did not rise upward until my patrol vehicle headlights lit it up. Reporters were writing their own stories at the time as I was not allowed to talk to them. I also viewed the UFO through the front wind shield and not out of my side window as has been written. I only viewed the UFO through my side window as it moved toward my left as it left flying upward like a fighter jet as it leaves the airport.

marine63 said...

On the night of the sighting, police officers from fourteen police departments were on night shift duty. There was not one rocket launch sighting reported by any of the police departments to the media. There were no reports from security officers working through out the county or reports from citizens working out doors that night. The truck drivers on freeway ninety nine did not report any rocket sighting on that night. The conclusion is, that that alleged rocket launch was not seen by anyone residing in Fresno County. The 1978 Fresno Bee newspaper has no mention of any sightings days after the launch. The paper can be viewed at the Fresno County Main Library. The television stations and local radio stations made no mention of a rocket launch. I guess if a debunker says we saw it, we must have seen it right?
Submitted by:M.J. Amparano