Maury Island and National Geographic

The other night I was doing what I call a “video lap.” This is sitting with the remote in one hand and checking out the programming on the stations. I found, on the National Geographic channel a documentary on “Mysterious Islands,” which might or might not by the precise title. It was a bout islands that have something mysterious having happened there.

What caught my attention was a mention of Maury Island. As we all know, meaning those of us have been around the UFO field for a long time, the Maury Island sighting was described by Captain Edward Ruppelt, one-time chief of Project Blue Book, as “the dirtiest hoax in UFO history,” or something like that.

Captain Edward Ruppelt

Naturally, I stopped on that channel, fearing what I was going to see. Now, I understand that those reporting on these sightings, often don’t have the time to take a long, hard look at a case and can’t get beyond the surface. Or, they find what they want to find based on the bias of the documentary and quit their research.

Yes, they provided a look at the surface, suggested that this was an important UFO case that resulted in the recovery of metallic debris from a damaged UFO, and ultimately ended with the death of two Army Air Forces officers. Only mentioned briefly was the fact that one of the participants later said that it was a hoax. It was clear from the context that we could dismiss this claim.

Rather than go through all this again, I have written about it at length in Crash: When UFOs Fall from the Sky. I had the time to do complete research, had the chance to talk with those who had investigated the case in the past, and reviewed many documents relating to the sighting. What that means, simply, is that I did the sort of deep research that those now reporting on Maury Island, didn’t do. I did post a long article on this blog and you can read it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2010/07/maury-island-ufo-crash.html

Yes, I periodically review cases such as this to learn if there is anything new to learn about it. I have found nothing today that would change my mind. I still believe it to be a hoax. To me, that seems to underline the truth. But we still must deal with new documentaries that don’t provide a complete picture. This is one of those cases that should be reduced to nothing more than a footnote. 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability Meeting November 13

Yes, I sat through the two hours and fifteen minutes (there about) of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability meeting about what is going on in the world of UAP. In the opening remarks by Nancy Mace, we are told that UAP demand attention (with which I think we all agree). Quoting a Colonel Carl, she said that there were non-humans interacting with us and that high-ranking people knew it. That is a somewhat provocative statement with which to open the hearing. You can watch the hearing here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT2iWKZr0qA

Robert Garcia told us that the Main Stream Media is taking the matter seriously, or more seriously than in the past. He also noted that the hearings were about getting at the truth.

There were those on the committee who told us other things that we all knew. We were told that the allegations by David Grusch have not been verified. Although Garcia didn’t elaborate, he was referring to the claim that there had been twelve crash retrievals. We are told that some of the committee members, maybe all of them, want more legislation for the study of UAP and we all know how well congressional legislation has been in helping us get at the truth in the past.

I noticed that we get some history, or rather a mention of history when Jared Moskowitz said that investigations went back to 1945, which is probably a reference to the Foo Fighters of the Second World War.

Once all the members had a chance to make statements, the emphasis switched to the witnesses that were retired Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, Lue Elizondo, Michael Shellenberger and Michael Gold. They were asked, in turn they thought of the UAP situation and all suggested something outside of our technological abilities existed, but not that it was necessarily from alien visitation.

Swearing in of the witnesses. From left to right Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet,
Lue Elizondo, Michael Shellenberger and Michael Gold.

Gallaudet said that while serving in the Navy, in a large-scale exercise, he received an email about the intrusion of unknown craft that seemed to be a danger to that exercise, specifically, the aviation assets that were being employed. The email, from a higher authority, wondered if there was some secret project, to which he knew nothing that might account for these intrusions and if they continued, they would cancel the exercise. Gallaudet said that the next day, the email was gone and in the after-action briefings, that concern was never mentioned… And, now, as far as I know, based on the testimony, there are no copies of the email offered in evidence.

I hadn’t expected much in this hearing, but Lue Elizondo did make several comments that were interesting. He said that UAP were real and that the US was in possession of UAP material, though he didn’t specify what that material might be, and that some foreign nations also had access to some form of alien material.

Once they got beyond the opening statements which seemed to include most of the free world, each member in attendance was given five minutes to ask questions or to pontificate. Here is where I thought we might get into the nuts and bolts of the situation but that somehow evaded us.

In the questions address to Gallaudet, especially those about the intrusions during the exercise, we learned nothing new. His answers to some of those questions was that he was prohibited from talking about specifics in a public forum. He would answer them in a closed session.

We had a similar experience with Elizondo. He mentioned that those answers he could give were in his book, which had been in review by officials in the Pentagon for more than year before it was published. He said there were crash retrievals, but he would only talk about them in a closed session.

Later in the hearings, Elizondo would mention bodies. He said bodies were collected before he was born. I believe this is a vague reference to the Roswell case, which is from July 1947. But he would also say that he couldn’t talk about retrievals in an open session.

Shellenberger, who was the source of the information about Immaculate Constellation, said that he trusted his sources on that information, but he wouldn’t reveal them. He said that were either still in he government or had been in the government, but not in which agencies they have worked. He also said that his sources had told him that the government was sitting on piles of information about UAP, including high resolution photographs and other material. But he wouldn’t say who these sources were, only that they were credible, based on his knowledge of who they were and his checking out their backgrounds.

Gold provided a good answer on why some of this information has been hidden. It could expose weaknesses in our capability to respond to the threats. That would be information that our adversaries in the world would want to have.

Update: Shellenberger had provided a document about Immaculate Constellation to the committee members prior to the beginning of the session. Thanks to Nancy Mace, you can read that document here:

https://mace.house.gov/immaculateconstellation 

There is one point that I should make and here is probably the best place. There was a discussion that military personnel had been injured by UFOs and that those people were being compensated for those injuries. Once again, no names were offered, but I thought immediately of John Burroughs who had been injured during the Rendlesham Forest events of December 1980.

I also know of others who claimed they were injured by UFOs, including Betty Cash and Vickie Landrum, coincidentally during their sighting of a glowing, diamond-shaped object also in December 1980. Neither of the women were compensated by the government.

This provides a short rundown on what went on in those two hours and fifteen minutes of hearing. When one committee member said that those on the committee who wanted additional information and didn’t know where to begin to look for it (and I sympathize with them on that point), he was told that the information could be discussed in a closed session.

My problem was that we learned nothing new, there were no sources named or documents presented, other than one that was so heavily redacted that it was useless*, and all the information was second hand at best. I have said before and I’ll say it again, Don Schmitt, Tom Carey and I have talked to the men and women who had first-hand knowledge. We can name names and have taped, both audio and video, of these witnesses.

There were some positives that came out of the hearing. I mean, here was a hearing about UAP with suggestions of an off-world presence, observed technology that was beyond our means to create, an interest in the topic by the Main Stream Media that was not wrapped in ridicule, and a suggestion that an unbiased, scientific investigation was needed.  

The members of the committee seemed to be interested in the topic and were searching for answers rather than attempting to misrepresent the situation and taking the discussion into areas that have nothing to do with the problem. All the witnesses, who were under oath, when asked, answered that they believed, based on their person experiences that the answer was alien visitation or that they didn’t know what the answer might be. There didn’t seem to be anyone who ridiculed the idea that we have been visited alien creatures.

There was a suggestion that the stigma be removed from reporting of UAP because, to solve the problem, the information must be received by those who can use it. If people are afraid to report what they have seen or experienced, then no research can be conducted and we solve no problems.

In reality, this hearing was what I expected, long on suggestion but short on evidence. Too many times, the answer to a specific question was that the witness couldn’t talk about it in an open hearing, or that his sources would not be revealed. There was nothing that we, on the outside, could do to learn more, no real cases that we could study because we don’t have the necessary information, and a little too much speculation. I can’t say that I was disappointed in the hearing because I didn’t expect it to reveal very much.

Or, as my good friend from Operation Iraqi Freedom would say after many staff meetings, “There is two hours and fifteen minutes that I won’t get back.”

*Stan Friedman used to show a heavily redacted report that contained only one or two words per page. When the whole document was eventually released, we learned it had little to do with UFO research and a great deal to do with intelligence collections methods. 

Immaculate Constellation, Moon Dust, and Sean Kirkpatrick

 

There have been several interesting developments recently into what the officials insist are UAP reports and what we still think of as UFOs. All this provides us, indirectly, with additional information about Immaculate Constellation and ongoing covert investigations.

According to Matthew Phelan, the Senior Science Reporter for the Daily Mail, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, who was until recently the man in charge of AARO, revealed what he described as a new government program to recover alleged alien technology in the event of a shoot down. I believe he mentioned shoot down in reference to the Chinese balloon that flew over a great deal of North America recently. I don’t think he was referring to shooting down an alien spacecraft, though in the 1950s, there were orders to do just that.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick at a poorly attended Senate Hearing. He is sitting
with his back to the camera.

Anyway, the retrieval program’s protocols covered what he called UAP recoveries that ranged from balloons to alien technology. This, it was claimed, is the first time that a government official acknowledged any UFO retrieval program, even if that retrieval program referred to terrestrially manufactured objects. He suggested the retrieval program began early in 2023.

But there was a program called Moon Dust that began in 1957, according to documents recovered by Robert Todd, Cliff Stone and me, that had, as one of its missions, and I quote, “to collect and analyze raw intelligence reports from the field of fallen space debris and objects of unknown origin.” Unknown origin certainly could refer to craft from off world.

The late Cliff  Stone.

I found this information in an official US Air Force Message, #54322 and dated December 23, 1957. Although it doesn’t mention Moon Dust specifically, it is clear from the document that it is describing Moon Dust and the Moon Dust mission involving UFO information.

Kirkpatrick said, “AARO is Congressionally directed to come up with not just standard reporting procedures, but also mitigation and response procedures in the event of a shoot down or a collection of any sort of UAP.”

But, as earlier documentation proves, that sort of mandate had already been put into place and despite Air Force original denials that no program known as Moon Dust existed, the documentation proved otherwise. And for those who claim that its mission was directed at recovering what was then Soviet debris, the mention of unknown origin suggests otherwise. You can read more about Moon Dust in my book, Project Moon Dust and here:

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

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2024/06/moon-dust-documents-online.html

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

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2018/04/moon-dust-and-4602nd-aiss.html

I should point out here, that I can demonstrate the UFO connection to Moon Dust. While examining the Project Blue Book files several years ago, I found reference to Moon Dust cases. The cases are not very impressive, but are important because they are labeled “Moon Dust” and reinforce the theory that Moon Dust had a UFO component. You can read about that here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/11/project-moon-dust-revisited.html

I want to acknowledge that the Air Force, when asked about Moon Dust by US Senator Jeff Bingaman from New Mexico, the Air Force response was that no such program existed. When documents, with a clear and established provenance were provided, the Air Force amended the statement claimed that it did exist, but had never been deployed. That was not true as other documents proved. There was an added note that the name Moon Dust had been changed and it was properly classified. That was in 1985. From that point on, there had been no inadvertent disclosures about this program.

There is another, important point. There no evidence that this program under whatever the new name it had been given, had been terminated. We can’t use FOIA because we don’t know the name in use after Moon Dust, and Immaculate Constellation didn’t begin until years after this other long ongoing program was discovered. Immaculate Constellation is not a follow-on project, but a new one invented by those now charged with UAP research.

But you have to wonder if this new program doesn’t have a secondary purpose and that is to disguise what had been learned under Moon Dust and that follow-on project. You don’t look for another program if you have been told that this is something that began in 2023.

While these government officials who have just been tasked with dealing with UAP, who have tried to sever this new investigation from the history of UFO research, and seem to be disinterested in that earlier history, aren’t attempting to sidetrack legitimate questions about alien visitation. They’re looking at it as a new phenomenon rather than something that it over eighty years old. They don’t need to worry about the massive stacks of evidence that was accumulated prior to 2017 when the Leslie Kean and Ralph Fromental story was published by the New York Times. That earlier information is hidden behind a thick national security wall and what we are allowed to see now just doesn’t have the impact of some of those earlier UFO events.

(Note: There is additional information on this blog. Use a keyword in the search engine to bring up that information.)

Immaculate Constellation - My Analysis

 

Last night, on my normal UFO segment on Coast-to-Coast AM, I mentioned something called Immaculate Constellation, which, according to a whistleblower, who is never identified, is a top-secret archive of UFO, well, UAP images. According to the whistleblower, the military and intelligence community are operating a database of videos and images taken from "infrared (IR), forward-looking infrared (FLIR), full motion video (FMV), and still photography of UAPs.

The whistleblower alleged that the Department of Defense created Immaculate Constellation under what's known as an Unacknowledged Special Access Program (USAP) in 2017 after The New York Times reported on an informal Pentagon UAP program known as AATIP.

Reporter Michael Shellenberger of Public said on "Joe Rogan Experience" that in the whistleblower's report, the Pentagon is "illegally" hiding information about this program from Congress.

The whistleblower said that simply printing the name "Immaculate Constellation" could trigger government surveillance of whoever publishes the name using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as probable cause. They won't comment on it, but talking about it will put you in the danger zone. I guess that means I am now in the “Danger Zone,” which sounds like a good name for a podcast or a rock band. BTW: Agents, if you come for me, please don’t crash through the door. I’ll happily open it for you.

DoD spokeswoman Sue Gough, who has been called on many times as UFO and UAP questions are asked, denied on Wednesday, any knowledge of a special access program known as Immaculate Constellation. I’m not sure that this is relevant because if it was a special access program which would also suggest a need to know and she might not have been in the loop. Would a spokeswoman, or spokesman for that matter, be read into every highly classified program? If they are not then they have plausible deniability, meaning that she can say such things as having no knowledge of a program and be telling the truth. Doesn’t mean the program doesn’t exist, only that she doesn’t know about it.

I am reminded that when the Moon Dust was inadvertently revealed in 1986, the Air Force denied that such a program existed. When shown official documents with the name Moon Dust on them, a higher-ranking Air Force officer said Moon Dust did exist but had not been used. Other documents refuted that claim as well. For more precise information on this see:

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

The point is that the first officer, Lieutenant Colonel John E. Madison, of the Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Liaison, wrote, “There is no agency, nor has there ever been, at Fort Belvoir, Viriginia, which would deal with UFOs or have any information about the incident in Roswell. In addition, there is no Project Moon Dust or Operation Blue Fly. Those missions have never existed.”

Most of what Madison wrote was the truth. There may well not have been any agency at Fort Belvoir that dealt with UFOs or Roswell, which, course, doesn’t mean that such agencies might not exist at other installations. And he is accurate in saying there is no Project Moon Dust because Moon Dust was the code words dealing with UFO material.

So, Madison wasn’t lying, he just didn’t have access to all the information he needed to properly answer the questions put to him. However, when the documents were presented and properly vetted, meaning the source of the documents was legitimate, Colonel George M. Mattingley, Jr., wrote, “…Upon further review of the case (which was aided by the several attachments to Mr. Stone’s letter), we wish to amend the statements contained in the previous response…”

Cliff Stone

The point is that even people at the highest levels aren’t read into all programs and a denial by Gough that she had no knowledge of such a program doesn’t mean there is no such program.

The real problem here is that Shellenberger has not identified his source. Years ago, decades really, we were presented with documents suggesting a cover up of the Roswell UFO crash. These papers, known as MJ-12, appeared at the home of a UFO researcher. Well, photographic film arrived and when developed, revealed the existence of a special group known as MJ-12 to exploit and direct the recovery of the Roswell UFO.

The trouble with these documents was that we didn’t know who had sent them. We didn’t know where they originated. Finally, we didn’t have the originals which could have been tested. What good would it do to test the paper on which they were printed? We all know that it was photographic paper.

Investigation into the information provided by the MJ-12 documents suggested they had been created in 1984 rather than 1952 as alleged on the documents. In 1984, there was a believe that the Del Rio UFO crash, which in the MJ-12 documents, is mentioned as El Indio-Guerrero crash. But there is no evidence and the lone witness changed so much about it over the years, that it is clear that it was invented. You can read one analysis of the case here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2011/08/absense-of-evidence.html

The point is that originally the MJ-12 documents caused a stir not only in the UFO community but among the news media and those interested in UFOs. Investigation revealed the flaws and the major flaw was we didn’t know the original source. Without that, we were left with an interesting aside into the possibility of a cover up. Eventually, nearly everyone agreed that the documents were a hoax and that was underscored by the lack of the original source.

That’s where we are with Immaculate Constellation. We have no source and we don’t even have copies of documents suggesting there is something to the claims. At least, MJ-12 had documents, which led to the revelation that it was a hoax. For an in depth analysis see Case MJ-12: Updated.

I’ll note here that for years Stan Friedman held up several documents that related to UFOs that were nearly all redacted. There were only one or two words on a page that could be read. This was proof of the cover up. However, we now have the unredacted versions of those documents and realize that the missing information had nothing to do with UFOs but with intelligence collection methods in certain parts of the world. That information would have been of value to our competitors in the world and was rightly redacted. This merely shows that sometimes, we over react to government secrecy.

We can look to whistleblower David Grusch. He talked of high-level, important people who told him about UFO crashes, but he supplied no names. I can deduce some of those names and while they had once held important posts in the government or were respected scientists, that didn’t say anything about Grusch’s sources other than we have the names. Didn’t prove what they had told Grush, or that Grush overheard, was accurate information, only that they might have said it.

I point all this out because we now have more information about an important government program hidden from the public which, supposedly hides information about UFOs or rather UAP. But we have no way of vetting the information. We have no way of finding corroboration. We just must believe the stories told by this unidentified source. And I ask, “Why?”

Here's something else that hasn’t been considered and that is that this collection of UFO images might not have a thing to do with alien visitation, but is, instead, images of terrestrial craft that have been flying around various locations in the US. It might be that the images are held in secrecy because revelation of them might provide information of intelligence value to our competitors. In other word, national security might have raised its ugly head.

I could go on about other great stories circulating or circulated in the UFO field that intrigued and excited people inside and outside the UFO community that blew up when we finally were able to get to the sources.

Right now, I can’t verify that Immaculate Constellation exists, but then I can’t reject the tale either because the evidence to do that doesn’t yet exist. I can only caution against drawing any concrete conclusions now because we simply don’t have enough information to just either way to justify any conclusion.

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.