View Single Post
Old 12th May 2011, 10:31 PM   #38
Access Denied
Critical Thinker
 
Access Denied's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
Fine, so the official explanation said he was observing Venus.
Actually, that was the initial explanation, subsequently changed to unidentified… for reasons I would suggest should be become more clear given the nature of the alternative explanation.

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
I have researched the Mantell incident in more detail. NICAP published a comprehensive repot on this case and came to conclusion that Mantell had not seen or was chasing the planet Venus, but that he had seen a new experimental balloon at high altitude.
Actually, Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt (head of Project BLUE BOOK at the time), working with Dr. J. Allen Hynek (the consultant to Project SIGN who rejected the Venus explanation at the time), was the one who first suggested that explanation in 1952. The position of NICAP (like Vallée) throughout it’s history was that the government was covering up evidence of ET visitation so I’m not surprised if you were lead to believe the following by consulting their material…

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
The Airforce were embarrased by the initial explanation of Venus, and later changed it to the Skyhook description of events. This again reinforced my point.
See above, the official explanation was never changed to Skyhook… it remained listed as Unidentified by the Air Force at the close of Project BLUE BOOK in 1969. In fact, even the Condon Report (that mercifully got the Air Force out of the UFO business) had this to say about the balloon explanation…

“This explanation, though plausible, is not a certain identification.”

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
The attitude seemed to be any explanation however improbable was good enough, but in this case the Venus explanation was ridiculed by the more probable explanation of Skyhook.
Ridiculed by who, UFOlogists? I don’t know about you but I have to admit some of the witness descriptions do sound vaguely like a misidentified celestial object…

Mantell UFO incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantell_UFO_incident

Quote:
Base commander Colonel Guy Hix reported an object he described as "very white," and "about one fourth the size of the full moon ... Through binoculars it appeared to have a red border at the bottom ... It remained stationary, seemingly, for one and a half hours." Observers at Clinton County Army Air Field in Ohio described the object "as having the appearance of a flaming red cone trailing a gaseous green mist" and observed the object for around 35 minutes.
Can you say Catch 22?

AD
__________________
Men go and come but Earth abides.
Access Denied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top