Foo Fighter (UFO) Film from World War II

 

Here is the information about the Foo Fighter film that was taken in 1944 as a Soviet fighter attempts to (or actually does) shoot down a Nazi bomber. I found the information at the National UFO Reporting Center.

Following is the information as reported there. I found it interesting but I also wonder if the orb is not a tracer round from another aircraft not see on the film. If nothing else, it is an interesting piece of film:

I [the original poster and not me] stumbled across this video on YouTube while watching old WW2 dog-fights and lo and behold, I found a video where there is clearly 2 Foo-Fighters that are clearly visible in this video. There's no way in hell this is fake while this plane was using a 16MM gun camera but for some reason nobody ever saw them on this video. Most every Ufologist talks about Foo-Fighters and there's plenty of WW2 pilots that said they saw them but other than some blurry pics, and believe me I've searched, I've never seen such definitive proof than this video. Before I send the video I need to tell you some things to observe because I've studied this video to death. When you see the first craft enter the screen from the front and go under and to the left of the BF-110 watch the pilots reaction. You can clearly see his tracer rounds and his plane deviate to the left while he's watching it go by. BTW, that's 3:44 seconds into the video. When you see the next craft, it comes from the top right-hand corner of the screen and goes in front of the bombers then almost does a 90 degree turn to the left and goes right by the BF-110 on his left side. If you look when it enters the screen at the top right-hand corner you will see that pilot's tracers rounds go from hitting the bomber to his tracers flying wildly up and to right and he wasn't shooting at the craft, it’s because the nose of the plane goes up because he saw that craft and when the craft does a hard left turn, the exact thing happens again. The nose of the plane turns left and his tracer rounds do the same. BTW, that's 4:14 seconds into the video.

I'm figuring, depending on the month that this happened somewhere around Estonia or Bucharest where the Russians where advancing on the Germans because the dogfight was going on over one of the seas which was either the Baltic or the Black sea. And if you watch the beginning, there were flack guns shooting at the bombers but when the BF-110 got behind them the flack guns refrained from firing. But that's just a rough guess.

You can find the video on YouTube. The link starts the video just before the object appears:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZyJbSIFJn8&t=254s

As I say, this was posted to the NUFORC website. I thought it of interest to those who visit here. I will note that the information is as it was found with only a few minor changes… a hyphen in right-hand and left-hand and the duplication of one word was deleted.

Kingman UFO Crash and Michael Schratt

Christopher Mellon’s email chain that mentioned the Kingman UFO crash retrieval set many wheels in motion. I have been of the opinion for a long time that the crash is based on a single witness. David Rudiak and I have been researching the case which has taken us down several rabbit holes. One of them was an interview with Michael Schratt. He was talking about Harry Drew, who, apparently was the Kingman resident expert on the crash.

Michael Schratt

Learning this, I thought Schratt would be a good guest for the radio show/podcast version of A Different Perspective. I sent him a note, mentioning my interest in Kingman and we agreed on a show on September 18. Before we started the recording, I mentioned we would be talking about Kingman but he said he wanted to talk about Len Stringfield’s crash/retrieval research.

Well, we did both.

My main interest at that time was a long report that had been written by Ray Fowler about Kingman. I had been surprised that the file included a long interview with the original witness, Arthur Stansel. While those who wrote about the Kingman crash, and I include myself in that group, quoted for the first part of the Stansel interview, we ignored the second part. This was called, “A Man Who Made Contact.”

Here Stansel said that he had been part of a group of five who studied many things paranormal. He talked about astral projection and how he had contacted alien beings around our section of the galaxy. I did a post about that which you can find here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-kingman-ufo-crash-connumdrum.html

To me, this was somewhat problematic. Yes, Stansel had an impressive CV, but this side trip into weirdness seemed to negate some of that. I bring this up because, after Mellon’s email chain, there were several television reports about it including one conducted by a TV station in Phoenix. The reporter there had the Fowler file. I recognized the drawing that accompanied that file. I wanted to know if the reporter had seen the second part of the interview. I have never received a reply, which is not surprising. Local television news has no concept of follow up investigation. Once the initial story is reported, they have no interest in doing any more research.

I mention all this because Schratt had a copy of the Fowler file, which he received from Harry Drew who was the curator of the museum in Kingman where the file is housed. I pressed Schratt on this point because I thought it important. Had Harry Drew edited the file before putting it into the museum’s collection. Schratt didn’t think he, Drew, would do that, but it was clear to me that he, Schratt, didn’t have both parts of the interview.

Kingman, Arizona. Photo by Kevin Randle

We talked about Kingman for the first two segments of the show and then turned to the work that Len Stringfield had done. We agreed about that. We both understood that many of the cases cited in Len Stringfield’s Status Reports were single witness. We knew that he gathered the stories, published them, hoping that someone else would take an interest and follow up. Stringfield wasn’t endorsing all the reports, he was providing the information he had been given. You can listen to or watch the discussion here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-michael-schratt-kingman-ufo-crash-crashes--62038779

https://youtu.be/FjYQlUIGmlw

But, as I say, the important part of the interview, at least to me, was the discussion of Kingman. On this, I’m the glass is half empty guy. To me, at the moment, the Kingman tale is reduced to a single witness and that is Arthur Stansel. David, and Michael Schratt seem to be the glass if half full guys.

We are still following the leads. David has uncovered a great deal of information, much of it from newspaper articles, that suggest several strange incidents around Kingman in the early 1950s. I’m not sure where all this is going but it is certainly creating a very complex tale that might completely implode at the end of the trail… or it might not.   

Rob Swiatek, EM Effects and a UFO Photo

 

Over the last week, as I prepared for my radio show/podcast and my segment on Coast-to-Coast AM, I came across several interesting UFO cases. These came from my interview with Rob Swiatek, searching for additional content and interest in cases with multiple chains of evidence.

Oddly, the first thing I found came from Stan Gorden’s UFO Anomalies Zone that had multiple witnesses, photographs and possible EM Effects. Unfortunately, the photographs aren’t very good and the two witnesses, who didn’t know one another, had the opportunity to discuss the sighting before Gordon arrived on the scene. According to Gordon’s report, the witness (who he identified as John and pointed out that John was not his real name) said that he was near Smithfield, Pennsylvania, when his car stalled as if it had been turned off.

John saw a large, black object that he described as a cylinder or pipe-shaped object that was hovering about 300 feet over him. After a few moments, it moved off until it was partially hidden by some tree branches, where it hovered again. He wanted to get a picture and got out of his car for a better perspective.

He walked out into a field for that better view but now the UFO was about a mile distant. It hovered for a few seconds and then moved again. He took a few pictures with his iPhone but the photos only showed a dark, distant object.

Gordon, who learned of the case almost as it happened, drove out immediately to investigate. He spoke to the first witness, John, who wasn’t the only one there. Another car had stopped behind the first. Gordon interviewed John and was told that the second witness (Joe, which was not his real name either) also had car trouble. Gordon confirmed that with Joe, who had also seen a large object, but his view was partially obstructed by the trees.

When Gordon arrived, he learned that the two witnesses had compared notes, which was unfortunate. They agreed on the description. Gordon examined the cars but found no unusual magnetic effects. John said that as the car stalled, the radio was filled with static, but it was working fine when Gordon checked it later.

The men had attempted to start their cars after the UFO was gone but failed. Joe had called for a tow truck. Gordon suggested they try again and both cars then started with little trouble.

The ultimate description of the UFO was a dark gray object that resembled a piece of pipe. John said there seemed to be some stuff inside the end but he couldn’t make out what it was. Joe said that he saw the UFO hovering over the John’s car as he stalled.

John said that the object was about ten to fifteen feet across and about thirty feet long. There was a haze around the craft that partially obscured his view. He said that it was a pale green haze, and that he could only see one end of the UFO.

Gordon obtained copies of the photographs to attempt to enhance them but that process hasn’t been completed. He did have an illustration made that the first witness said was a good drawing of what he had seen.

This sighting is interesting because there were two witnesses who were slightly independent, meaning they didn’t know one another at the time. There are photographs of the UFO, but those aren’t as sharp and clear as we would like. And there was the interaction with the environment, which is the electromagnetic effect. You can read Gordon’s full report here:

https://www.stangordon.info/wp/2024/09/08/two-vehicles-stall-on-pennsylvania-highway-as-cylindrical-ufo-passes-low-overhead-july-2-2024/

Also, during the show, Rob mentioned a photograph that had been taken by an airline passenger. According to the report that was filed with MUFON and is part of their Case Management System, the woman, riding in the first-class section, looked out the window when she saw a black trail of black smoke, she estimated was about 10,000 below them. She thought it was strange and it would be a good idea to snap a picture of it because she believed the plane was having serious engine problems. If there was  an accident,  she would have able to supply some photographic evidence.

She said she was on the left side of the plane and since it was so close, she believed the pilots had to be aware of it as well as other passengers. She said that it took her a bit to grab her phone, but she tried her best to get a clear picture.

The picture reminded me of a classic photograph taken in South America in the 1950s of a cigar-shaped craft that was also had a long smoke tail. Her picture follows:

Florida UFO picture.

The analysis of the picture didn’t reveal any sort of control surfaces. The smoke was thought to be a normal type of contrail. The analysis suggested the object was only about 400 feet below the airliner. The MUFON Field Investigator’s conclusion was that the object was not an aircraft.

Rob also talked about a case from Florida in which the witness was startled by a loud, metallic, ripping sound. She reported seeing a triangular-shaped UFO, seeming to parallel the highway. The object sheered the top off a tree and seemed to stall traffic. She said that she got out of her car and spoke to other witnesses who manifested some rather severe injuries. She didn’t think to get the names of any of those witnesses, and searches later for the damaged tree were unsuccessful. You can listen to our discussion here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/kevin-randle-interviews-robert-swiatek-current-ufo-sightings--61353158

When I interviewed Robert Sheaffer a couple of weeks earlier, I had asked him what he wanted in the way of evidence of off-world visitors. He suggested a case with multiple, independent witnesses and some form of other evidence such as good photographs. Ideally, and I add this myself, that radar data was available as well, not to mention an interaction with the environment. These cases fit that requirement… almost. In the Florida case, the woman said that everyone was shook up by the encounter, so no one thought to take pictures or get the addresses of the other witnesses. If they could have found the damaged tree, it would have added an important element to the case. You might say, “Close, but no cigar.”

The Stan Gordon report is the same. Two, what I think of as semi-independent witnesses, whose cars had stalled were involved. There are photographs, but by the time the first witness (John) got his cell phone into action, the object was too far away for there to be any detail in the pictures. A missed bet.

And, as I say, the witnesses, had the opportunity to discuss the sighting before Gordon arrived, meaning they aren’t all that independent. But the elements are there no matter how compromised. Oh, I don’t mean to suggest that the case rises to the level of good evidence, but the elements are there. They just needed to be refined.

Rob and I finished the show with a discussion of the statistics about UFO sightings in the last few years. They reveal some interesting trends. For those interested, You can listen that the last segment and look at those charts that he mention, which follow here.

There was a great deal of information included in the interview that I haven’t mentioned here. For those who enjoy a discussion of multiple events and observations about the current state of UFO investigation, this is a show you don’t want to miss.

David Rudiak, Kingman UFO Crash and Other Rabbit Holes

In the second interview inspired by Christopher Mellon’s “leaked” email that mentioned the Kingman UFO crash of 1973, I talked with David Rudiak about some of the rabbit holes he had gone down in his research of Kingman. While searching newspaper files about the case, he found people disappearing out of jail cells and others disappearing in an ambulance being followed by the sheriff. You can hear the interview here:

https://rumble.com/v5cztz8-a-different-perspective-with-kevin-randle-david-rudiak-the-kingman-ufo-cras.html

What David found, was information on three UFO crashes in the Kingman area in a short period of time, including the one revealed by Arthur Stansel. You can read my longer analysis of the Stansel’s tale here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-kingman-ufo-crash-connumdrum.html

According to Rudiak, the newspapers in the area do report on some of these events and he created web pages for those interested in following up on these tales. You can see them here:

http://www.roswellproof.com/kingman_main.html

http://www.roswellproof.com/Kingman_1950_Newspapers.html

There were mass sightings in the Kingman area, and by area, I mean southern Nevada and western California as well. There were many sightings of strange craft there starting in 1950. You can read more about this here:

http://www.roswellproof.com/UFO_CalNev_1950.html

Kingman, Arizona, photo by Kevin Randle

Our discussion showed how an investigation can be conducted from home using the incredible resources of the Internet. An investigation in the past might have required trips to libraries and towns and the searches of newspaper morgues. Today, many of those resources are available online.

Let me say here that on site investigations can result in a better understanding of the event and sometimes reveal a solution that no amount of online research can provide. But a great deal can be learned on line.

I will note here the importance of this particular research. As mentioned, it was Mellon who started this latest research with the email that suggested the May 1953 Kingman crash was something real. But the evidence (including research I had conducted years ago) does not hold up. Stansel, who originated the tale is not the credible source he has been made out to be. If Mellon and his pals were truly on the inside, you would expect them to know this. Apparently, they do not.

Read the Kingman UFO Conundrum, linked above for a good overview. There will be more to follow on this story and how it affects the latest UFO, or should I say UAP, fad.