Thursday, October 8, 2015

A "Saucerized" Satellite Re-Entry in Georgia

On June 29, 2015 at 1:28 AM, a man (identified only as C.J.) and his wife were driving near Wadley, Georgia, when a "Large metallic object with fluid oil slick body spurting sparks from the rear flies dirctly over Our truck" (sic).  The man, who is a US Army NCO on active duty, reported to the National UFO Reporting Center that
At precisely 01:28am 29 June 2015 on HWY 1 south heading north approximately 7-8 miles south of a gas station at 10525 HWY 1 south, Wadley, GA, 30477. Our radio began to get real static so I turned it down when my wife noticed a very large object flying left to right coming toward us. I looked up to the left and hit my brakes stopping our truck to the side of the road. The object appeared to be approximately 250 meters in length 60 meters height and was approximately flying 200 feet in altitude and was spurting sparks from the rear of the object. The sparks were jetting out about 50-80 meters in a pattern of controlling thrust.

My wife and I had a very good look at the object closer than anyone else on that highway considering there was no vehicles in sight. The object had a dim glow of a orange around it, vague but noticeable. The objects exterior was metallic but appeared to look like oil on water effect to it and appeared to be fluid like movement over the metallic body of the object.

My wife and I watched in disbelief in what we were witnessing as it moved left to right the object decreased in altitude as it was over the highway then began to increase in altitude after it crossed the highway right overhead of us. We watched as it increased in altitude and penetrated some clouds and accelerated out of sight through the cloud cover quickly.

A rendering of the reported object, from the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC)
They do not say who did the drawing (presumably the witness), or wrote the symbols.

But satellite orbit guru Ted Molczan thought that this sounded like it might be a possible satellite re-entry, and he went to work. He found that the time of the event matched almost perfectly with the known re-entry of  1973-084D / 6939, the final rocket stage of the launch of Cosmos 606. This event was widely witnessed, giving rise to 169 reports in the database of the American Meteor Society

 A second rendering of the object, from the NUFORC, with symbols written across the bottom.

Molczan writes,
The witness stated that the sighting was at "precisely 01:28 am." Based on the trajectory analysis, I doubt they would have spotted the re-entry much before 01:29:30 EDT, when it was near culmination, 34 deg above the NW horizon. I estimate that they would have lost sight of it about 01:30:30 EDT. The time discrepancy is not large. If the witness were to insist that 01:28 is correct, and claim that this proved the re-entry was not their UFO, then he would need to explain how he failed to see the re-entry when it passed a minute or two after the UFO, directly in front of him as he resumed his drive north. The satellite imagery, taken within minutes of the sighting, reveals that the sky was fairly clear.

The reported sighting duration of 4-5 min is quite a bit longer than the 1 min. that I estimate the re-entry was in view, but the discrepancy is not unusual for events of this type.
Molczan's reconstruction of the re-entry event, as the observers would have seen it in their truck.

The NUFORC added Molczan's explanation to its listing of this incident. The witness, however, "states unambiguously that he believes that what he witnessed with his family was not a re-entering satellite."

In fact, according to the Crop Circles Research Foundation, this witness (known as C.J.),
was unconsciously compelled to write down symbols consisting of lines and squares from left to right, on the back of the Motel 6 full page receipt....It has been independently confirmed both by myself and another researcher (Dr. Horace Drew) that C.J.’s symbols are in fact a message written in binary code that can be translated via a standard ASCII table."
C.J.'s ASCII Binary Code channeled after his UFO sighting.

Where have we seen this before? Oh yes, hundreds of 'insider' comments about Penniston's amazing Rendle-sham notebook, a few postings back.

For those interested in researching other reported UFO incidents that might be caused by satellite reentries, Molczan has created a dedicated web page listing all known visually-observed natural re-entries of earth satellites, which will be updated as necessary: http://satobs.org/reentry/Visually_Observed_Natural_Re-entries_latest_draft.pdf

Reports of UFOs can be compared to this list to see if the incident was caused by a satellite falling out of orbit. Of course, if the incident was caused by a brilliant meteor fireball, it will not be on this list.

45 comments:

  1. From Dave Wood @ VORTEX Facebook group;

    "Thanks for another example of "what they described" compared with "what they actually saw". These are useful as templates for showing just how much witness descriptions can deviate from factual accuracy and provides a useful guide for the majority of cases where there is no "what they actually saw" input."

    ReplyDelete
  2. there's the rub, they would need to see both the reentry AND the UFO. Also, for the amount of time they watched it, this is incredibly detailed. As an artist, drawing something from memory is very difficult. I encourage those that see unknown objects (some on a regular basis) to write down everything as quickly as possible, take photos, sketch the object... all details of time and location (which is a plus for these observers having a time and location)....the longer you wait the more the memory is flawed. Also more than one viewer, no collaboration... each writes their own version and sketch. The funny thing is if you had anything else odd shown, these people are either incredibly talented or gifted with photographic memory of some sort, or...they would not have such detail. I have heard, "I remember it so well as it was so frightening and unexpected!" (studies have shown that the opposite effect is true, we mis remember more when we are shocked and emotional).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "drawing something from memory is very difficult."

      Not when we've been bombarded by the imaginary "flying saucer" image for decades; and given the opportunity, all one entirely predisposed victim of the "flying saucer" myth has to do is confabulate the fine details of his fleeting ambiguous visual experience.

      Believing is Seeing.

      Decades of belief finally find expression in an observation of a rocket booster reentry. It's Zond IV all over again. The "UFO" Doppelganger nullification is skeptics' gold!

      What this guy most probably saw:

      http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Image-of-ATV-Reentry.jpg

      Delete
    2. And those who doubt that this guy is not darkly steeped in "flying saucer" mythology should read his report in its entirety for its overload of stereotypical "UFO" narrative tropes:

      Radio interference; physical discomfort; electronic and mechanical malfunction of vehicle; a pitted windshield; and the suggestion of missing time no less! Further physical discomfort and vehicle malfunction in the day that followed; and his appeal to his military "authority" and military secrecy.

      Then there's the irrational, evangelical misreporting of his experience to others and irrational arrogant egotism of making a wildly fantastic "UFO" report out of a mundane event--as if finally he's so special, he's witnessed a real "flying saucer." He's witnessed the "reality." He knows!

      http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/120/S120196.html

      Even though there's no basis for belief. Call it "UFO" True-Believer Syndrome.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome

      Delete
    3. Not a bad theory based on the information that you were able to get based solely on the report. However, there is a great deal of information that is included on this report that the witnesses did not want released to the public for reasons of the ACTIVE DUTY NCO's maintaining confidential to protect his career and his family. I can tell you they did see the 're-entry satellite when they arrived at the gas station. They did quick scetches and notes at the gas station and even spoke with the attendant there about what they witnessed. Also they viewed this unknown object for 4-5 minutes and only saw what time it was (01:28) when the obseverved object had vanished from view.
      With this said you have done a wonderful job investigating this incident based solely on the report itself. But the last few words of the initial report indicates there is a lot more to this. And as I said before, the family must keep that information from the public and their confidentiality.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. http://cropcirclesresearchfoundation.org/imperative-for-planetary-survival/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My, don't we pick up some interesting comments on this BadUFOs Blog! So the witness C.J. is now telepathically receiving, and writing down, ASCII binary code from the UFO.

      Where have we seen this before? Oh yes, hundreds of 'insider' comments about Penniston's amazing Rendle-sham notebook, a few postings back.
      http://badufos.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-rendle-sham-case-phony-and-phonier.html

      Delete
    2. Interesting. Ted told Peter Davenport to update the NUFORC web site around September 27, which Peter did right away. Then, on October 3, Linda Moulton Howe publishes a new version of the story told by the witness, complete with the ASCII code. This should set off warning bells but, since Linda Moulton Howe is such a reliable source, Mr. Sanders would rather believe the newer version of events.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is it common for US (soldiers) people to mix feet and metres? Not being one to use feet, I'd have a hard time visualising what one foot would mean and thereby translate it to an observation of something. I'm just wondering if that would be a factor in misjudging the size, distance and speed of something midair...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it common for US soldiers to be so stupid as to allow a GPS to take them on a road that was off the beaten track? I find it hard to believe that he would have deviated from the interstate to go up route 1 unless he had plans to go that way. Saying that his GPS took him that way indicates he was very dumb and had no idea where he was going. My guess is he had planned to make a stop that morning in Augusta or somewhere in that region before proceeding west.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow! Why in the world would you call a active duty military veteran "stupid" based on your own arrogant opinions with no clear evidence? As a veteran my self I'm very offended by this. I have been in the military for 19 years and I have not yet made the rank of sergeant first class. It's not easy to get promoted that high in the senior enlisted ranks. That comment is extremely disrespectful and totally uncalled for. Statment like that keep those from sharing experiences out of fear of ridicule and insults. It more harm than good. But maybe that's the goal here! Force others to believe your opinions and insult anyone feels different from your own arrogant beliefs. I'm not saying I believe everything, but I certainly wouldn't insult others who feel differently. If you don't have answers, how hard is it to ask others and find logic from those with experience to fill in the blanks.

    I'm Infantry and we use meters to judge distance, size and altitude. Artillery, Forwad observers and a few others use meters as well. Some use feet like air defence and a few others. It's common to use what your best at judging these things. To me, this makes sense he would use meters. Pilots would use feet. Would you insult pilots as well? All I'm trying to say is there is not enough information here to draw accurate conclusions of one's opinion. And if a investigating reporter is directly communicating with the witness than there may be answers to some of these questions. I will close my comments with this: If I, would have a hard time drawing from memory, that does not mean everyone in the world would too. If I am not familiar driving accross ga, I would also trust my GPS to get me there taking the fastest route as well. If I had the true guts to report something I could not explain, I would not want others calling me names and insulting me either. Especially veterans of our armed services who have stood up and is willing to fight for our freedom of speech some take advantage of. So please be respectful and by all means please be polite to one another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I served 23 years (retired E-8 USN submarines), so I have every right to criticize somebody, who can't seem to figure out what road to drive. As a 20 year old driving to my next duty station, I certainly could read a map and follow the road signs. This is a bunch of nonsense that the guy blindly followed his GPS.

      Delete
    2. As for the rest of the story, the guy has been changing it to fit new information that indicated he probably saw a space debris re-entry. Just because an individual is active duty or served in the US military does not give you the right to lie or make up stories. I had plenty of enlisted people try and tell me fake stories to conceal things they did not want me to discover as a supervisor. The first thing I told them was not to BS me because I had been there and knew better. This altering of his story is typical of what I encountered in my years as a senior enlisted.

      Delete
    3. Well as a retired E-8, you should know better than to say disrespectful things to others without legitimate warrant to do so. And for God sakes NAVY would not have the slightest clue how Army conducts their business. I don't know when you retired, but common sense tells us all that in this day and age most of us use GPS systems. It's called technology Tim. No one pulls out road maps and picks and chooses roads while handling multiple road maps anymore. For one it's hazardous and for two it's much easier punching in a city and state and click go! You speak of him changing his story, yet you give no specifics on what in the world you mean. From what I gather they submitted the basics of their incident providing all the basic who, what, when, and where. In fact they were calling it an unknown object. You speak of lies. What lies are you even referring to? Can you even provide any proof or evidence to support that they are lying? Are you clearly thinking through your thoughts before posting them Tim? Or are you so blind with negative and disbelief that you do not have the ability to consider all possibilities. This could have been many things. Being a retired E-8 I would assume you pay attention to detail. However, if you scroll to the bottom of this blog, you will read to keep things civil and respectful. Insults, name calling and false accusations are not keeping a civil intelligent conversation respectful. I'm sure you can find a blog that is nothing but disrespectful arguing if you look hard enough. But from what I read this is not appropriate here. So please stop insulting and attacking those who are not present to defend them selves in order to bully others into your beliefs.

      Delete
    4. Michael, let's avoid personal attacks, and stick to a factual discussion. Tim explained that it was decades ago he was pulling out maps. If you post more of this stuff, I'll have to block you from commenting.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. So, from what I can tell, people now blindly follow the GPS. If it tells them to drive into a lake, it was the GPS that told them to do so. Any person that has lived in Georgia knows the quickest way to get to Atlanta from the Savannah area is to follow I-16. His deviation from that route indicates it was a planned deviation or he was not very bright. I find it hard to believe that an Army NCO, who would be responsible for navigating his personnel on land, would not have looked at a map prior to his trip to recognize the basic route. That is my point in all of this. As for his story, it has changed. He never mentioned seeing the space debris re-entry but then, after the explanation was presented, he then mentions he saw that too. Strange that the UFO and space debris followed the same trajectory. It is also interesting that the individual gave a description that matches many of the UFO reports caused by space debris in the past (See ZOND IV as an example but I can give many). Finally, he then reports that he received a 'secret message' from the UFO. This was missing from his previous report, where he only had car trouble and headaches. Like JP of Rendlesham fame, he altered/improved his story to make it better. If he were telling his story to the police, they would begin questioning his honesty. This is what I am doing here. BTW, he can defend himself anytime. He is the one who made his report public and then ran to LMH with his story about a binary code. That makes his story subject to open scrutiny.

      Delete
    7. @ Michael Fontus

      Please don't confuse me with Tim Printy: I was the one who asked about feet/meters, and I don't believe I did so with anything other than polite curiousity and confusion. I did not call anyone stupid; that was Tim.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ok I get your opinion on the subject. But your ignoring too many other possibilities leaving your theory with too many gaps and holes in it. For instance, let's he was familiar with the ga area. Would you drive straight through Atlanta or would you avoid driving straight through Atlanta. If your familiar then you know Atlanta traffic is crazy so one may try to avoid it, thus hoping GPS takes you around instead of through. Perhaps he was not at all familiar with ga and has only been stationed there for a short time, maybe there was a reason he thought he needed to go that way and out of mistake he got side tracked with his family. These things happen daily. So it's too early and lack of information to sum up he was not to smart to navigating his family that way. Family not soldiers. This is all I'm trying to say. I have opinions too but I don't have enough to stick to anything yet. Also what I noticed is that when the report was given or typed up to NUFORC Mr. Davenport asked the witness if they thought it was space debris. The witness said no. This report is also on MUFON as well. Why is no one asking if it was aircraft, or crop duster, or blimp leaving Atlanta? I know it's easy to chop it up as space debris, but NASA was saying they did not know what it was, then said it was not a meteor, then said it was a rocket booster, then said it was a satellite. To be honest with you NASA is not always honest about what happens. Oh and by the way, could this have been a chase vehicle tracking that space debris to collect foreign equipment? Where is the space debris? I see no pictures. It's good business to collect foreign satellites and study design. Then politely returning it. I'm unsure of the code stuff. But maybe it was left out intentionally by the witness. Perhaps afraid of ridicule or insults. I'm not seeing indications of the story changing here. And highly doubt they ran to LMH. Investigating journalists as highly renounced as she is sought after the story, and I'm quite sure she can read BS when she hears it.
    As for Mr. Sheaffer (your friend) he did a remarkable job tracking the space debris along its flight path. But as a fellow skeptic on many subjects, in order to draw conclusions of opinions, all possibilities must be explored and explained in order to hold weight to your theory. Otherwise, the theory would get picked appart by the believers and theories stomped in the mud. When it turns to insults then it's obvious that the theory is not holding weight and its a last ditch effort to hang on. I'm trying to help here. More study is needed here before conclusions are drawn. Hold your heads up and continue to study all possibilities before concluding this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you stating that the debris should have made it to the ground? Not likely. Most debris burns up in the atmosphere and what survives usually is small. There are some cases there is debris but it is rare. BTW, going up route 1 is not a way to bypass Atlanta for his trip. He would still have to go through Atlanta on I-20 or make a big detour on a small road. Had he continued on I-16, he would have been an Atlanta well before rush hour. It only takes 3.5 hours to go into Atlanta and there is a big bypass that goes around the city. The argument you are making fails the smell test. Again, he had a reason to go up US 1 and it had nothing to do with a broken GPS (unless, as I stated, he is not very bright). BTW, it was Ted Molczan who identified the source of the report and not Robert. It is the most likely source for the report. We have no report of a UFO other than this gentleman but we do have multiple reports of the space debris (reported as a meteor by the AMS by some). Either the alien spaceship decided to appear at the same time as the space debris or the witness simply mistook the event as a UFO, which is a common occurrence if you took the time to read Molczan's summary of such events (link is in Mr. Sheaffer's article). BTW, where did you get the statement that NASA even commented on this? The American Meteor Society collects meteor reports and, often, space debris reentries get caught up because the events are a bit similar (reentries last a lot longer). However, they are not NASA. Perhaps you can provide us with a report by NASA and why you don't trust them.

      Delete
  10. Ok I get your opinion on the subject. But your ignoring too many other possibilities leaving your theory with too many gaps and holes in it. For instance, let's he was familiar with the ga area. Would you drive straight through Atlanta or would you avoid driving straight through Atlanta. If your familiar then you know Atlanta traffic is crazy so one may try to avoid it, thus hoping GPS takes you around instead of through. Perhaps he was not at all familiar with ga and has only been stationed there for a short time, maybe there was a reason he thought he needed to go that way and out of mistake he got side tracked with his family. These things happen daily. So it's too early and lack of information to sum up he was not to smart to navigating his family that way. Family not soldiers. This is all I'm trying to say. I have opinions too but I don't have enough to stick to anything yet. Also what I noticed is that when the report was given or typed up to NUFORC Mr. Davenport asked the witness if they thought it was space debris. The witness said no. This report is also on MUFON as well. Why is no one asking if it was aircraft, or crop duster, or blimp leaving Atlanta? I know it's easy to chop it up as space debris, but NASA was saying they did not know what it was, then said it was not a meteor, then said it was a rocket booster, then said it was a satellite. To be honest with you NASA is not always honest about what happens. Oh and by the way, could this have been a chase vehicle tracking that space debris to collect foreign equipment? Where is the space debris? I see no pictures. It's good business to collect foreign satellites and study design. Then politely returning it. I'm unsure of the code stuff. But maybe it was left out intentionally by the witness. Perhaps afraid of ridicule or insults. I'm not seeing indications of the story changing here. And highly doubt they ran to LMH. Investigating journalists as highly renounced as she is sought after the story, and I'm quite sure she can read BS when she hears it.
    As for Mr. Sheaffer (your friend) he did a remarkable job tracking the space debris along its flight path. But as a fellow skeptic on many subjects, in order to draw conclusions of opinions, all possibilities must be explored and explained in order to hold weight to your theory. Otherwise, the theory would get picked appart by the believers and theories stomped in the mud. When it turns to insults then it's obvious that the theory is not holding weight and its a last ditch effort to hang on. I'm trying to help here. More study is needed here before conclusions are drawn. Hold your heads up and continue to study all possibilities before concluding this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. How close does one have to be to incoming space debris to read the symbols on it? What are the symbols on 1973-084D / 6939?

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is another great question? Could the Russian or another country's written language be mis-identified as the symbols? I just googled space junk 're-entry on that date and was reading multiple sources. There are many theories and few video and photographs of the event. This is what leads me to believe nothing yet until all the facts have come to the surface. This could have been multiple things. TOP secret government aircraft sent out to pace and retrieve a foreign spy satellite, could have been mis-identified foreign satellite 're-entry, a crazy crop duster starting his shift early, a blimp leaving Atlanta, the real thing, or just a bit of delirium from driving. We don't know enough yet to draw intelligent conclusions on this case. What we do know is that the 're-entry of the object seen from everywhere was moving too slow to be classified as a meteor. And family witnessed something they could not explain. It does not appear they want recognition. It appears as though they felt it should be reported. I read news reports from Google on NASA statements Tim. I am having a bit of trouble on the size of it in comparison to the space debris 're-entry. And 4-5 minutes viewing is far too slow to be the 're-entry, so I'm having trouble there as well. Yet it had to be close enough to see symbols or language, so I'm having trouble with that as well. I'm not familiar with ga area and I have been there as well. So if I'm traveling with my family at night and all the distractions that could come with that I too could get disoriented. So I would not attack someone's intelligence based solely on that. Thats a bit too far fetched of an opinion. It sounds as though your familiar with ga roadways, but keep in mind not everyone is. That would not mean someone is not intelligent or stupid. It simply is just a lack of preparing well enough, not familiar with the roadway/route, or distracted. I'm not ready to chop this up as made up. The information is there, and there are far too many other possibilities to determine what it would be. And I would not discredit a senior NCO just like would not discredit a pilot. They are trained observers and witnessed something they cannot explain. And Mr. Printy as you were once a senior NCO and witnessed something you could not explain but it affected you so, would you report it? Would you want others to dismiss your claims and attack your intelligence? Or would you like assistance in helping you figure out what you witnessed? Would you hide the information from everyone or come forward? I'm just putting myself in another man's shoes. This helps me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Have you ever read reports associated with space debris re-entries? This is a good one for starters: http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap02.htm#S3
    I suggest you read about Dr. Hartmann's "airship effect" as well as the "excitedness effect". Both apply here. The symbols were simply perceived by the witnesses as being there (just like the individual in the Zond IV case saw rivets in the craft). There never was any actual writing. The Blue Book file is extensive and can be found at the Fold 3 website. This sketch is rather interesting:
    https://www.fold3.com/image/6960252?terms=March%2525203%2525201968

    Meanwhile, here is the distribution of witnesses, who saw the re-entry at the same time frame the UFO was seen: http://www.amsmeteors.org/members/imo_view/event/2015/1420
    Here is a video of the event from an all-sky camera:
    http://fireballs.ndc.nasa.gov/special/ev_20150629_053013A_07A.wmv
    BTW, the USAF apparently identified this the day it happened:
    http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/skywatchers-mystified-by-overnight-fireball-over-g/nmndq/
    The same article quotes an astronomer who, after seeing the video, stated it looked like space debris.
    Isn't it strange that all these witnesses to the space debris re-entry missed the UFO as well? Isn't it possible that the witness in this situation was very similar to the witnesses of Zond IV, who stated that what they saw was a spaceship with windows instead of re-entering space debris?

    ReplyDelete
  15. More data: Aerospace.org tracks space debris and presented this information after the debris had re-entered. http://www.aerospace.org/cords/reentry-predictions/upcoming-reentries-2-2/1973-084d/
    Note that they also identified the re-entry as being in the southeast at the time of the sighting.
    Plenty of videos and pics here of the event. NASA also identified it that day as Space junk based on their videos from the meteor tracking stations:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3144890/Mystery-fireball-seen-southeastern-yesterday-SPACE-JUNK-says-Nasa.html

    Isn't it interesting that the meteor cameras recorded the re-entering space debris but failed to record this UFO chasing it?
    Remember, facts are things that can be proven. We can prove the witness made the observation. That is a fact. However, we can not prove that the witness' statements are accurate. We can only compare the descriptions with others who saw the same event and determine what probably was seen. However, there are some facts that you appear to be ignoring:
    It is a fact that there was space junk re-entering at the time of the sighting that was seen by hundreds of people.
    It is a fact that this space debris was recorded by multiple individuals included meteor all sky cameras.
    It is also a fact that none of these witnesses, videos, or pics reported/recorded any UFO chasing the space debris or a UFO prior to that event.
    These facts tell us that the most likely source of the UFO sighting was the re-entering space debris. Unless we can have facts (remember facts are things that can be proven) that disprove this explanation, then this is probable explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just noticed the last part of Fontus' posting. The two items I did not respond to was how would I deal with such an event and that the individual involved was a trained observer.
      As an amateur astronomer, I have seen a lot of strange things at night and they can be confusing at times. Had I reported every event I saw as a discovery of some kind, I would be considered an over eager amateur astronomer. I think in the past 40 years, I must have thought I discovered about a dozen comets and a few novae. Each time, after careful observation/research, I discovered I was glad I did not jump to conclusions. Faint nebulae or an already known comet I was not aware of usually were the culprits. In one instance, the bright star Gamma Cygni produced an internal reflection on my telephoto lens that looked like a comet. My novae turned out to be geosynchronous satellites that became bright enough to see visually. I never submitted any of these embarrassing "discoveries" to the IAU because I WAS careful. If I saw something unusual, I would take the time to research the event and see if it was something I was not familiar with. I would go to some of the astronomy forums (or other forums) and ask questions hoping for an answer. The last place I would run to would be to an organization that is known for exaggerations (see Hanger one) and poor investigations (see Gulf Breeze, Roswell, AZ ufo event of 1997, etc. etc.)
      The trained observer line is a tried and true tactic used by UFO aficionados. It is a myth. Pilots aren't much better at identifying unusual events than the average person on the street. This has been shown time and time again. In the case of Space Junk, British fighter pilots (the best of the best?) mistook space debris for a stealth aircraft of some kind back in November 1990. See:
      http://www.dutchdailynews.com/raf-ufo-netherlands/
      Both Hynek and Hendry noted the problems with "expert witnesses" and concluded that there really was no such thing. Depending on who you talk to, 75-95% of UFO reports can be explained. With such a large number of mistakes in these reports, can you really trust what a witness states they saw without more information? "I know what I saw" is incorrect. It should read "I know what I think I saw".

      Delete
    2. To Tim Printy and Michael Fontus, just for the record as you noted MUFON did get that report (6/29/15-"CJ," then on LMH site & podcast). CMS No. 67817. Colorado FI Jack Lindsey completed the investigation, I assisted a bit on the Georgia end. Jack's conclusion which I 100% supported was that unquestionably what was witnessed was the rocket-body reentry. The witness did not see the reentry, but also, did not claim to see the UFO AND the reentry. We found no support for any missing time, or any of the other material ("code") presented, though obviously we didn't *Disprove anything w/r/t that. So, IFO-Manmade Phenom. As for the rest of the "contact encounter" claimed, we drew no conclusion other than no support for it identified, and that the rocket-body reentry was what appeared in the sky at that time, place, and direction of view. Investigation can be difficult but we do sometimes get it right. -R. Howard, State Director Georgia MUFON.

      Delete
  16. Fontus says, "This could have been multiple things."

    So maybe the credulous C.J. should have exercised the same caution in his observations and reflections, his actions and pronouncements.

    Instead he mindlessly jumped to the hackneyed "flying saucer" identity and broadcast his attention-seeking "UFO" cartoon of a report--incorporating every silly device he's heard in flying-saucer fairy tales on late-night radio for the last twenty years--to anyone who would listen, including the NUFORC!

    And then--completely after the fact--he added Jim Penniston's utterly laughable "psychic communications with ET presented in binary code" dramatic device.

    And maybe that's why "stupid" might be a completely accurate description of C.J.'s behavior--before, during and after his imaginary "flying saucer" event was positively identified as a mundane rocket-booster reentry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zoam, I appreciate your skeptical insights, but please do not label people. Just point out that this is not logical.

      Delete
  17. I like the idea that aliens can telepathically communicate directly into a human brain, and then encode their message in binary ASCII. Those aliens, don't want to make it too easy on themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does the inability of aliens to harness Unicode imply that their technology cannot go beyond the 8th bit? Perhaps we have overestimated their superiority.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  18. You might like to know that Jim Penniston has announced he will be releasing his research in the very near future. Obviously in the way of a book. As far as the binary codes go. LMH seems to like binary codes, after all she was the one who very first wrote about Jim's binary to begin with ;) I am just noting the above info you have all posted, so thought I would throw in the latest re binary codes!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also Dr Drew one of the research people we see above is also on Jim Penniston research team and can be seen on his formal web site for those who may not be aware.

    ReplyDelete
  20. http://www.therendleshamforestincident.com/The_Decoded_Binary_Code.php

    Red Collie (Dr Horrace Drew )

    ReplyDelete
  21. I need to make a correction, re the RFI binary . It appears Dr Horrace Drew is now a "past" researcher and clearly no longer part of the official research team. I guess this must have transpired virtually over night or when Jim got wind of the latest Binary hoopla above with Dr Drew and co and LMH ;) I see it has now changed on their formal web site.

    ReplyDelete
  22. When we send out into the vastness of space how to communicate with our planet and the basics of our make up in the 70's has it dawned on anyone that we have given other intelligent life our preferred method of communication. If we were visiting another solar system and found a foreign satellite, decipher it, and discovered that alien preferred method of communication, would we NOT use it to communicate with them. I'm sorry but that is purely common sense to use it.

    Considering that the actual sighting occurred on 29 June and took place roughly 1:20- 1:28am and this case was not reported until 4 July, leads me to believe that careful consideration was used prior to making the report.

    And if one does not have a camera available or video available at night, how else would would one depict what they saw? They would do so with illustrations or in "zoamchomsky's" flamboyant words "cartons". This is what any proper investigators would ask for. This is how to depict the most accurate information with the absence of photographs and video.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Tim, sorry for the late reply. It's been a bussy week. I did however go through the reports you suggested and totally see where you draw your conclusions from. There are similarities, but I still read or see nothing definitive that screams out this is what it was. I draw this conclusion because no two people are alike, not everyone would react the same way, and not everyone thinks alike. If we did this discussion or any other's would need to take place. I'm speaking for myself when I say "I would need to hear more about it to draw a conclusion". I'm not going to be completely closed off to this yet. If it was a legitimate report, our higher secret government would be praising one another on a easy job well done, without having to deny anything. If it was not and was a mistaking identity then there would be no harm done. This is why I'm not going to draw any conclusions just yet. I am interested in what more comes of this.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Got to admit, those are nice drawings for a UFO report.

    ReplyDelete

Keep your comments relevant, and keep them civil! That means no personal attacks will be allowed, by anyone, on anyone. Commenters are welcome to disagree with me, or with other comments, but state your arguments using logic, and with a civil tone. Comments in violation of these rules will be deleted, and offenders banned.

Comments should be in English, although quotes from foreign-language sources are fine as long as they're relevant, and you explain them. Anonymous postings are not permitted. If you don't want to use your real name, then make up a name for yourself, and use it consistently.