Tag Archives: Report

Kecksburg UFO Case Report Author, Responds to Skeptics

Bookmark and Sharevar addthis_config = {“data_track_clickback”:true};

Film Bucket Return Capsule Used in Corona Satellites

Editor’s Note: Recently we published a report on The Kecksburg UFO Incident, researched and written by Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross. Dr. Gross’ thesis is that the mystery object that fell at Kecksburg on Thursday, December 9, 1965 was in fact a top secret satellite, under the Corona Program. Well known skeptic Robert Sheaffer took issue with Dr. Gross’ hypothesis, arguing that the object was merely a meteor. Here below is Dr Gross’ rejoinder—FW

     I thoroughly enjoyed reading Mr. Sheaffer’s Thursday, September 14, 2017 review of my article recently published by Frank Warren in The UFO Chronicles.com. Mr. Sheaffer’s review was titled: Another Nonsensical “Explanation” for the Kecksburg Incident. My article was entitled: Closing the Kecksburg UFO Case Opened Another Mystery. Most of Mr. Sheaffer’s critique targeted the second part of my so-called “loopy ‘explanation.’”

During his critique, Mr. Sheaffer seems to have made an attempt to mislead his readers by failing to mention that the bulk of the material

Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross
Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross
The UFO Chronicles
© 9-15-17

he critiqued was lifted out of context from my article’s “Prediction” section. The “Prediction” section was a subsection I included in my article under the heading: “Applying the Scientific Method to the Kecksburg UFO Riddle.”

As many quality researchers understand, such predictions allow a scientist to be specific about how to demonstrate that a hypothesis is accurate. My stated hypothesis was: A Corona Satellite was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on December 9, 1965. Due to an anomaly of sorts, its recovery vehicle separated from the satellite earlier than planned. Thus, this Corona recovery vehicle in conjunction with its film bucket is a highly viable candidate for the object that landed in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania on that same date.

Once a hypothesis and a prediction are developed, a true scientist does not change them even if the results of the experiment show that they are wrong. An incorrect prediction is not a failure. It merely indicates that the experiment demonstrated new facts that were previously unknown. Experimental information by nature is imperfect. Scientific results usually contain errors. One of my research goals has always involved minimizing errors. Thanks to Mr. Sheaffer’s own recent research, I now have even more information to possibly conduct an ancillary study related to the Kecksbrug UFO mystery.

Although the Corona Satellite project was technically declassified around 1995, the contents of some satellites are currently classified—even as I write. Such contents may be classified because of the nature of the nuclear materials they enclosed. Furthermore, NASA has not yet provided a detailed description of the nuclear experiment on board Satellite KH-4A 1027 (NASA has provided detailed descriptions of nuclear experiments on board other Corona Satellites).

A NASA document that I obtained in 2017 stated that: There were no data collections returned (for United States Air Force Photo Surveillance Satellite KH-4A 1027). That NASA statement seems to contradict the statement Mr. Sheaffer recently proved in his brilliant critique whereby one of his sources indicated: The condition of the air recovered capsule was normal. Thus, I will probably investigate the capsule condition issue more. Thanks to Mr. Shaeffer, I now have some potentially valuable bits of new information to help me ferret out the true answer.

In closing, it seems as if Mr. Sheaffer may have missed or at least misread the sentence in my article that read: disinformation has been an integral part of the secret Corona program. Therefore, it is quite possible that even a witty gentleman such as Mr. Sheaffer may have been duped via disinformation. Since disinformation is a variable that figured heavily into my Kecksburg UFO research, I do not accept my recent findings as wrong—at least not yet. Disinformation is an area that must be investigated thoroughly in the Kecksburg UFO case. If it eventually turns out that Mr. Sheaffer was indeed hoodwinked by disinformation, it may help for him to remember that science is a process of becoming less wrong over time.

The UFO Chronicles.com article (Closing the Kecksburg UFO Case Opened Another Mystery) was based upon a whitepaper report that I developed and wrote. The title of that report is: KECKSBURG UFO WHITEPAPER REPORT: Closing the Kecksburg UFO Case Opened a New Mystery. The full whitepaper report is available on my website at: bobwenzelgross.com.

Read more »

Read More

Skeptic Robert Sheaffer Critiques Recent ‘Kecksburg UFO Incident’ Report

Bookmark and Sharevar addthis_config = {“data_track_clickback”:true};

 Great Lakes Fireball
The train of the Great Lakes Fireball, seen across at least six states and Ontario, that started the Kecksburg ‘UFO crash’ story. Photo taken 9 December 1965 4:43 p.m. E.S.T. by Richard Champine of Royal Oak, Michigan. Location: 2 miles east of Pontiac, Michigan, approx. 45 seconds after event.

Another Nonsensical “Explanation” for the Kecksburg Incident

     The so-called “UFO Crash” at Kecksburg, Pennsylvania on December 9, 1965 has become a UFO legend as a ‘second Roswell.’ In reality, there is no mystery at all. The supposed “UFO” was simply the Great Lakes Fireball of December 9, 1965, reported by many observers over a wide area and written about by astronomers.

[…]

By Robert Sheaffer
badufos.blogspot.com
8-15-17

Now there is a brand new theory to explain Kecksburg, by Bob Wenzel Gross, a “semi-retired researcher and writer with a forthcoming non-fiction memoir entitled: In Pursuit of Anomalies: How Great Music and Real UFOs Can Save the Human Race. Dr. Gross has worked as a researcher, field investigator, scientist, writer, lecturer, educator, administrator, change agent, turnaround specialist, and professional musician.” Published in Frank Warren’s UFO Chronicles, Gross’ account is very long-winded, and you can mostly ignore Part 1 – it’s just Gross showing what a clever guy he is ….

Read more »

Read More

Closing the Kecksburg UFO Case Opened Another Mystery – Pt II

Film bucket with strobe light
Figure 2. A black and white photograph of a film bucket with strobe light (Courtesy of the National Reconnaissance Office).

Applying the Scientific Method to the Kecksburg Riddle

Observation:

     As mentioned earlier, in 1965 I heard the Kecksburg UFO story unfold on live radio. The radio announcers broadcasting the news about the object were sincere. Then, in 1987, I heard two eyewitnesses, who testified in a public forum, describe what landed at Kecksburg in 1965. I could sense by the sincerity in their voices, that these men had genuinely experienced something rare. As a resident of Pennsylvania from 1948 to 1992, I had the good fortune to speak with other Pennsylvanians who had experienced occurrences related

Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross
*Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross
The UFO Chronicles
© 8-29-17

to the Kecksburg object. One such witness observed the bright object fly, slow, stop, and turn in the sky above him. Another witness claimed he had watched as the United States Army replaced trees the object had either damaged or closely passed over during its landing. Again, these two witnesses were males. Both men were extremely sincere when describing their experiences. They could also accurately recount their emotions and psychological states during their UFO-related encounters.

Early Research:

I started to aggressively dig into the Kecksburg case in 2012 after being asked to prepare a brief talk on the event. However, the ingredients for this mystery were in the mix long before December 9, 1965. On October 24, 1957, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) birthed a spy satellite program code named Corona. Corona reconnaissance satellites changed the concept of unmanned covert intelligence collecting. The 1950s and 1960s were decades when it was extremely difficult to gather top-secret information about strategic military systems operated by the Soviet Union, Communist China, and their allies.

By December 8, 1957 members of the CIA were busy building components for this highly classified project. In August 1960, the United States was poised and set to launch a reconnaissance satellite. The Corona reconnaissance satellite program enjoyed a lengthy period of development and success. The United States Government, however, did not acknowledge its use of space satellite imagery for intelligence missions until 1978 (Order et al. 1998).

The Corona surveillance satellites were launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Each Corona satellite system employed a Thor-Agena rocket combination. The Thor-Agena arrangement incorporated a multi-stage rocket with a Thor first stage and an Agena second stage (Order et al. 1998). The Thor rocket alone has a maximum speed of about three miles per second—additional boosters could be used to increase the amount of lift off thrust.

From June 1959 to January 1968, the Corona program employed the Thor-Agena system to launch military reconnaissance satellites operated by the CIA. In total, there were approximately 144 Corona satellites launched. However, only about 102 returned with usable photographs.

Figure 1. Components of a Corona SRV showing ablative forebody and film bucket assembly (Courtesy of the National Reconnaissance Office).

Corona satellites employed Satellite Recovery Vehicles (SRVs). These recovery vehicles were essentially space capsules with nosecone-like forebodies featuring heatshields made from a type of a composite metal that, to a degree, burned away during reentry. Enclosed within the SRV’s protective heat shielded forebody was perhaps the most valuable part of the SRV. It was a gold-plated capsule designed to be recovered by parachute. This prized retrievable canister was called a film bucket (Figure 1).

All Corona satellites used gleaming acorn shaped film buckets as part of their reentry vehicles. The buckets returned exposed surveillance film to Earth for expert assessment. These shiny bullet-like buckets were designed to be snagged by specially equipped cargo aircraft during a parachute descent through the atmosphere. The film buckets were designed to float in the ocean for a while—just in case the planes couldn’t snag them. To make a floating film bucket easier for a recovery plane to spot from the air, engineers fitted the film buckets with strobe lights (Figure 2, above top).

Hypothesize:

A Corona Satellite was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on December 9, 1965. Due to an anomaly of sorts, its recovery vehicle separated from the satellite earlier than planned. Thus, this Corona recovery vehicle in conjunction with its film bucket is a highly viable candidate for the object that landed in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania on that same date.

Prediction:

On December 9, 1965, a dual panoramic camera system, strategically packed inside a cigar-shaped Corona satellite, was placed on top of a Thor augmented Delta-Agena D rocket. The rocket system was equipped with a Thor first stage and an Agena upper stage. This top secret satellite was scheduled to be launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base that day. Missiles and payload were ready and waiting to be hurled into space.

Although the Corona program had been classified as top secret since 1963, this particular spacecraft, Satellite KH-4A 1027, was especially secret. Modifications to the overall satellite’s system allowed a second recovery vehicle to be added to the spacecraft. It is reasonable to think that one of the SRVs had a potent nuclear experiment packed on board.

Documentation about this nuclear experiment has been lacking by design. However, it is clear that this experiment was intended to study Earth’s magnetosphere. The experiment was developed by the Phillips Laboratory in conjunction with the US Air Force. The experiment was enclosed inside a recovery capsule. Thus, the experiment would have been stowed carefully inside the film bucket of one of the satellite’s two SRV’s. For practicality and functionality, the front recovery vehicle (SRV-1) probably contained the nuclear test.

The National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) has not yet supplied sufficient details about the true nature of this nuclear emulsion experiment. From the onset, disinformation has been an integral part of the Corona program (Norman 2017). Therefore, based on continual research, I can confidently surmise that the magnetosphere study may have encompassed at least three possible sorts of nuclear trials. I ranked these proposed experiments by danger levels. The danger levels take into account both physical and political safety considerations.

A rather low-danger-level nuclear experiment may have involved a cosmic ray study to detect radioactively charged particles trapped in an emulsion by energy generated through cosmic radiation. The radiation would interact with the emulsion. Such emulsions are made of gelatin and silver salt molecules that act when charged particles pass through. The molecules are excited by the passage for a period of time and can be converted to metallic silver. A satisfactory approach to this kind of test involves exposing the emulsion to high cosmic radiation long enough to capture particles (Stratopedia 2017).

A moderate-danger-level nuclear experiment may have involved studying organisms’ sensitivity to radiation in microgravity. As a result, such experiments may have involved placing by-products of nuclear fission in the recovery capsule along with a living animal. In this case, the animal may have been a primate (Popular Mechanics 2010).

An extremely high-danger-level nuclear experiment may have involved atmospheric tests of a nuclear explosive device. In the 1960s, the United States wanted to find out what happened when nuclear weapons are detonated in space. Regardless of the potentially great danger related to physical damage, the political damage associated with testing any nuclear device in space would have been astronomical.

Nuclear explosive devices generate heat, light, X-rays, gamma rays, and subatomic particles. More importantly, the resulting shock wave would expand in all directions since there is essentially no atmosphere at extreme heights. A moving electron is affected by a magnetic field, so scientists needed to know how electrons flow along the Earth’s magnetic field lines and drop into the upper atmosphere.

When nuclear explosive devices are detonated, electrons undergo incredible acceleration. Thus, they create an extremely powerful magnetic field. This is called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The pulse can affect the flow of electricity on Earth hundreds of miles away.

Electrons from such a blast would linger in space for months. Trapped by Earth’s magnetic field, an artificial radiation belt would be formed above Earth’s surface. As a result, attempted high altitude nuclear device tests ought to use only small amounts of explosive materials. Currently, explosion energies related to such tests are classified (Pait 2012). Satellite KH-4A 1027’s nuclear experiment may have been a covert attempt at atmospheric testing.

Regrettably, placing any one of the above mentioned experiments on board a Corona spacecraft would have created an attitude (orientation) problem. Thus, at some point after liftoff, an anomalous variable of sorts probably triggered a series of unpredictable issues that made controlling the orientation of the spacecraft problematic. Following is my statement of likelihood related to what happened to United States Air Force Photo Surveillance Satellite KH-4A 1027 that afternoon in California:

Corona satellite systems were known for weight variance issues. Such issues can cause angular problems during a spacecraft’s flight. Therefore, sometime after launch, problems developed with controlling the orientation of the spacecraft. A slight velocity-related angular error resulted in a decidedly misbehaving liftoff. This angular error caused the spacecraft to stray outside of its allowable launch azimuth. The rocket’s behavior indicated to its controllers that the satellite might not achieve the intended orbit (Day et al. 1998). The ground command controllers were desperate to find the root of the spacecraft’s attitude dilemma.

Consequently, instead of heading south, the rocket system headed for a launch trajectory that would cut a northeasterly path across the United States. Any azimuth angles far north or east would send the spacecraft over habitable areas. Such a path would adversely affect safety, termination, vehicle separation, and political considerations.

Normally, such a problematic launch would be aborted by a range safety officer who would send a destruct signal to destroy the missile. Defective range safety equipment may have figured into the complication. More likely; however, range safety controllers were concerned about destroying a missile transporting a nuclear experiment—especially if the rocket was directly over the launch pad, a railroad train passing through the area, or a populated section of California.

As a sidebar, in 1962, nuclear weapon launch failures from Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean—another United States satellite launch site—caused serious contamination to the island and surrounding areas. Various alleged test launch failures in 1962 scattered radioactive debris over Johnston Island contaminating it, the lagoon, and a nearby island (Nautilus Institute 2005).

In an attempt to regain control of Satellite KH-4A 1027’s orientation, the foreword recovery vehicle (SRV-1) was separated from the spacecraft. The separation was done at some time before the engine burn that would have injected the satellite into orbit. This action was followed by placing the aft recovery vehicle (SRV-2) into a passive mode for the time being. Fortunately, jettisoning SRV-1 resolved the Corona satellite’s attitude problem for the time being.

Due to the conditions described above, Corona spacecraft KH-4A 1027 was in all probability placed into a less desirable, not-so-camera-friendly orbit. The satellite remained in that orbit for two days. For that reason, the spacecraft was operating for two days before its SRV-2 could be safely coaxed back to Earth. Thus, after just two days of operation, SRV-2 reentered Earth’s atmosphere and its film bucket was recovered in the air by a designated Air Force recovery team. The quality of the exposed film in the recovered bucket would indicate if the satellite’s cameras operated satisfactorily.

A Thor rocket alone, without the assistance of other boosters, travels at a speed of about 11,505 mph. Technically, at that speed, it would take less than fifteen minutes for something launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to reach Kecksburg, Pennsylvania. As it sped through the atmosphere, SRV-1’s ablative forebody would glow and melted away due to the resultant extreme heat. Chunks of melting hot matter could fall to Earth and started grass fires. The vehicle’s high speed would cause sonic booms (MUFON 2009).

At around 4:47 P.M. Eastern Time on December 9th, SRV-1 was maneuvering in the air above Western Pennsylvania. Its cold gas spin components hissed as it flew above the tree tops (Gordon 2001). Just before landing, four explosive charges on board SRV-1 were fired. The charges were used in conjunction with ejection pistons to eject the recovery vehicle’s parachute system cover. Detonating the four charges simultaneously created a star-like effect in the sky.

Consequently, the routine of jettisoning a two-parachute deceleration system was put into motion (Clausen and Miller 2012). Under normal conditions, the first decelerator parachute would slow the reentry of the thermal-shielded vehicle and pull out the main parachute—thus separating the film bucket from the forebody. In this case; however, the film bucket started to eject from the reentry vehicle’s forebody at an altitude much lower than usual. Therefore, the bucket was only partially detached from the forebody when the bucket/forebody combination collided with the trees below. Fortunately, the flexible branches and small tree trunks slowed the decent without much damage to the vehicle.

The shiny film bucket with a scorched forebody connected to its front end, creased the forest’s supple topsoil. Upon hitting the dirt, the payload forged through an old creek bed. When the object came to a complete stop, the seared orange forebody looked as if it was a proper extension of the shiny gold film bucket (Gordon 2015). At that point, the object would look like a true anomaly—a large golden acorn with a protuberance resembling a burnt orange trashcan on its front (Robinson 2017).

The exposed film bucket almost certainly had identification marks etched into its base. These marks would have been made by launch preparers who utilized symbols found in the Phillips Laboratory emblem to label the bucket (Mulcahy 2012). The Phillips’ emblem combines a Zia symbol with stars (Bass et al. 1995). Thus, it was not a fluke that the identification symbols engraved on the bucket included straight lines, circles, broken lines, and stars (Gordon 2015).

Almost as soon as it stopped moving, the film bucket’s recovery aids would have started working. The radio frequency beacon began broadcasting a signal and the strobe light on top of the capsule started flashing. Anyone hunting for the device would know exactly where to find it.

Several media outlets from Western Pennsylvania picked up on this as a UFO story. Media hosts from the powerful KDKA-Radio and KDKA-TV stations began broadcasting information about the suspected UFO incident in and around the Pittsburgh Area. It wasn’t long before police cars and at least one firetruck arrived at the landing site.

Alerted by the news media’s announcements, droves of idle people in KDKA’s listening and viewing area launched spontaneous expeditions to Kecksburg. Throngs of thrill- seekers set out for the woodlands. Several of them beat the crowds to what appeared to be the UFO landing spot in hopes of getting unobstructed glimpses, and maybe a few photographs, of the unusual object.

Then, within a relatively short period of time, at least a hundred uniformed individuals, representing various branches of the military, joined the police to rope-off part of the forest. The authorities present started warning visitors to stay away from the area because there was a risk that radiation might be leaking from the object (Farrell 2004). Soon, individuals wearing radiation protection suits and operating Geiger counters wandered into the woods searching for traces of radiation. Other similarly-suited people carried a large box—a box likely lined with lead to transport radioactive materials (Ventre and Eichler 2015). Such precautions would be required to safely retrieve Phillips Laboratory’s nuclear experiment.

Armed guards were eventually posted on the roads. Then, in an orderly military fashion, a secure perimeter was set-up around a rather large zone of woodsy Pennsylvania. As the evening progressed, the Air Force began to set up a command center at a local fire station.

Understandably, Dr. Eric Walker was called to the Kecksburg site to assess the danger of the immediate situation and recommend actions regarding nuclear waste management and disposal. In 1965, Dr. Walker was the President of Penn State University and served as an expert in Nuclear Science, Nuclear Engineering, and Nuclear Waste Materials. An abandoned airport in nearby Latrobe, PA would have been used to accommodate Dr. Walker’s flight from University Park to Kecksburg (Farrell 2004). As expected, Dr. Walker advised the local command center officials to move the Pennsylvania space debris (now contaminated with radioactivity after incurring landing-related damage) to Wright Paterson Air Force Base in Ohio where it would eventually be buried.

Two large trucks were summoned to Kecksburg. A United States Army star was displayed on at least one of the trucks. Late that night, the small truck convoy left the area. A flatbed truck hauled away the bullet-shaped SRV and film bucket under a tarp (Gordon 2017). Another truck carried boxed nuclear experiment parts. At least two different sized objects were transported away from the site. The large acorn arrived at Lockbourne Air Force Base near Columbus, Ohio on the morning of Friday December 10, 1965. On Saturday, December 11, 1965 it reached its destination at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.

Testing the Hypothesis with New Specific Relevant Data From the Literature:

In 1963, a late modification to the Corona system added a second film bucket and recovery vehicle to these spy satellites. Although the film recovery mechanism was commonly referred to as a bucket, it clearly resembled a copper kettle with a rounded bottom. These buckets were gold plated and shaped like a big acorn (Figure 3). They were beautiful. But, they were designed primarily to be functional—the buckets returned exposed surveillance film to Earth.

With two recovery vehicles positioned inside each satellite (Figure 4), the filming capacity for a given mission increased. Satellites sporting two film buckets could eject the first bucket to Earth, while the second bucket was deactivated and stored passively in orbit (Ruffner 1995).

The second bucket could begin filling immediately thereafter, or filming could be delayed for days. Furthermore, to keep the Soviet Union or Communist China unsure about the true purpose of the Corona program, some satellite missions included classified scientific experiments in one bucket while the other bucket was intended solely for film (Aga 2013). However, adding a second recovery vehicle and film bucket to an already complicated satellite system required a major, as well as sensitive, redesign of Corona’s command and control mechanisms (Day et al. 1998).

Figure 3 A Film Bucket Return Capsule Used in Corona Satellites
Figure 3. A film bucket return capsule used in Corona satellites (Courtesy of the National Reconnaissance Office).

The KH-4A camera system was the first to use multiple film buckets and was referred to as the J-1 model. If all went well during separation and reentry, the gleaming film bucket was recovered by well-trained team members of a select fleet of Air Force cargo planes. Corona satellites flew in low Earth orbits to optimize the resolution of the camera systems employed.

Corona J-1 System Payload
Figure 4. A Corona J-1 system payload featuring two tandem Satellite Recovery Vehicles (Courtesy of the National Reconnaissance Office).

The J-l model carried two reentry vehicles and two panoramic cameras. Thus, by design, one Corona satellite housed two SRVs. Each SRV had a shimmering film canister enclosed. Of the 52 J-1 satellites launched between 1963 and 1969, only 94 of the 104 SRVs were recovered—ten were lost (Intellipedia 2014).

The hull of the J-1 model satellite held the two SRVs in tandem. Each SRV had a forebody that was a capsule-like ablative heat shield which also functioned as a nose cone. Tucked away inside the ablative forebody was the mirror-like golden film bucket. The buckets were made of consecutive layers of metal and plastic and were plated with gold to provide a protective smooth finish (Clausen and Miller 2012).

A film bucket, two parachutes, a retro rocket, pistons with explosive charges, and stabilization jets were all carefully stuffed into each SRV’s ablative forebody. The stabilization jets used a cold gas spin mechanism that employed specialized nozzles and a tank filled with three gases (Central Intelligence Agency 1976). The stabilization jets in combination with the retro rocket could steer the vehicle and alter its speed. If by chance a film bucket was not air-recovered, a radiofrequency beacon and flashing strobe light were built into each gold plated capsule to provide location information (Clausen and Miller 2012).

These buckets were designed to be precisely attached to the inside of the ablative forebody. Ablative heat shields were constructed of experimental materials designed to absorb and dissipate extreme hotness by melting or wearing away the heat shield of an SRV speeding through the atmosphere. The ablative process involved melting and vaporization. Molten materials carried the energy caused by aerodynamic heating away from the forebody (Sutton 2006). The film bucket’s thin gold coating helped to protect its contents in case the heat shield failed (Neufeld 2014). For the most part, the glimmering buckets carried precious cargos. The buckets were originally designed to bring back exposed film taken of faraway places of interest, but sometimes the buckets hid scientific and quasi-scientific experiments.

A big, shiny, goldish-yellow colored acorn was reported by individuals who were lucky enough to make it into the woods that December day in 1965. Other witnesses would eventually come forward twenty-two years later and maintain that the object was big, metal, and shiny gold and burnt orange in color. It had no rivets, portals, seams, or visible openings.

Some of these now mature observers saw an arcing bright light coming off of the object. At least one onlooker recalled seeing a distinct raised gold band around the thing’s base—it seemed to serve as a bumper. Odd symbols were etched or maybe welded into the band. For the most part, combinations of circles, stars, straight lines, dots, and broken lines made up the band’s geometric markings (Farrell 2004).

The SRV’s burnt forebody, shiny film bucket, and remnants of the Phillips’ nuclear experiment were trucked to Wright Patterson AFB. Overall, the mysterious cargo looked to be about the size of a Volkswagen (VW) Beetle automobile. In 1965, VW Beetles were about 5 feet wide and 13 feet long. At Wright Patterson, the Corona SRV components were deposited in a landfill which served as a burial site for radioactive waste materials (Engineering Science 1982).

New Relevant Evidence

1. Tucked away inside the ablative forebody was a film bucket made of consecutive layers of metal and plastic and plated with gold (Clausen & Edward 2012).

2. With two recovery vehicles positioned inside each satellite the filming capacity for a given mission increased enormously. J-1 model satellites sporting two film buckets could eject the first bucket to Earth, while the second bucket was deactivated and stored passively in orbit. (Ruffner 1995).

3. Each SRV had a forebody that was a capsule-like ablative heat shield which also functioned as a nose cone. Tucked away inside the ablative forebody was a mirror-like golden film bucket. The buckets were made of consecutive layers of metal and plastic and were plated with gold to provide a protective smooth finish (Clausen & Edward 2012).

4. There was a Nuclear Emulsion Experiment on board Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. Nuclear emulsion experiments involved performing scientific procedures concerning radioactivity and cosmic radiation, as well as the effect of radiation on various materials and tissues. The Phillips Laboratory was conducting the nuclear emulsion experiment on board this satellite. Phillips conducted experiments related to studying radiation contamination and the magnetosphere (National Aeronautics Space Administration 2017c).

5. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) reported this about an intended 17 day mission: Erratic attitude necessitated recovery of this KH-4A type spacecraft after just two days of operation. All the cameras operated satisfactorily (National Aeronautics Space Administration 2017a)

6. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) also reported the following: There was 1 experiment returned. There was no data collections returned (National Aeronautics Space Administration 2017b).

7. Its gold-plated sides gleamed brightly in the light streaming in through the recovery doors. We also took notice that the top was scorched and in some areas, handwriting was visible, probably from the launch preparers. The homing beacon was still broadcasting its signal and the strobe lights on top of the capsule were still blinking (Mulcahy 2012). The Philips Laboratory emblem combines a Zia symbol with stars (Bass et al. 1995). The identification symbols engraved on the bucket were zigzag lines, straight lines, circles and other shapes (Robinson 2017).

8. The stabilization jets in combination with the retro rocket, under certain conditions, could steer the vehicle and alter its descent speed. This SRV’s stabilization jets used a cold gas spin mechanism that employed specialized nozzles and a tank filled with three gases (Central Intelligence Agency 1976).

9. Also, if by chance a film bucket is not air-recovered, a radiofrequency beacon and flashing strobe light were included in the gold plated capsule to provide location information (Clausen & Edward 2012).

10. A radiofrequency beacon and flashing strobe light were included in the gold plated capsule to provide location information (Clausen & Edward 2012). Some Pennsylvania residents saw the object moving slowly in the sky; others saw smoke and brilliant bluish-white lights like an electric arc when it first crashed (Kean 2005).

11. Explosive charges were used in conjunction with ejection pistons to eject the recovery vehicle’s parachute system cover. As a result, a two- parachute system was jettisoned (Clausen & Edward 2012). Detonating the four charges would create a star-like effect in the sky.

12. In 1965 Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio maintained a landfill which served as a burial site for radioactive waste materials (Engineering Science 1982).

13. The Tribune Review said it would not run the MUFON Kecksburg UFO story because it would hurt the Kecksburg Fire Department fund raiser (UAMN TV 2017).

14. Penn State University has a history of supporting and leading in the fields of nuclear science, nuclear engineering, and nuclear waste management and disposal. Penn State developed its own nuclear reactor on campus. Penn State’s entry into the field of nuclear science is due to the efforts of Dr. Eric Walker—President of Penn State University from 1956 to 1970 (Vincenti and Dornsife 2005).

Early Accurate Supporting Statements

1. He described the object as bronze colored and shaped like an acorn with a lightly blunt backend (Robinson 2017)

2. There, maybe a quarter-mile into the woods, laid this thing—burnt orange, maybe 10 feet long, shaped like an acorn, he said (Gibb 2003).

3. It reportedly dropped hot debris that started grass fires in Michigan and Ohio (MUFON 2009). Several witnesses were in a position to see the object without obstruction and noticed a rounded protuberance at the front of the object (Gordon 2015).

4. After a short period of time, individuals wearing radiation protection suits showed up. They were operating Geiger counters and wandered into the woods searching for something. Other similarly dressed people were walking around the area carrying a large box. (Ventre and Eichler 2015).

5. All the cameras operated satisfactorily (National Aeronautics Space Administration 2017a). These capsules were dropped following secret missions and sometimes they fell where they were not supposed to. No secret mission could have led to the reentry of a capsule that day (Kean 2005).

6. Individuals wearing radiation protection suits showed up. They were operating Geiger counters and wandered into the woods searching for something. Other similarly dressed people were walking around the area carrying a large box (Ventre and Eichler 2015). On December 11, 1965, the SRV-1 ablative forebody, shiny film bucket, and its radioactive nuclear experiment remains were returned to Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio by the Army. Thus, the SRV-1 film bucket was not recovered by the special Corona Air Force Recovery Team.

7. On the back of the object was the raised up area that the witness called the “bumper area” that he related to the cupule part of an acorn. It was on this raised structure that he saw what looked like symbols. He recalled seeing among those symbols zig-zag lines, stars and circles (Gordon 2015).

8. Another eyewitness described the object as “sort of acorn-shaped” with a raised area around the back and brownish-greyish in color with fire coming out of the back of it. There was a rounded part on the very tip of the object, and it seemed to be covered in some kind of vapor which enveloped it as it flew by. Only a mere 200feet in the air and hissing as it passed (Robinson 2017).

9. Witnesses also said, “It glowed green in the sky; it was a burnt orange color on the ground; the site may be radioactive; there was an arcing blue light coming from the woods; it looked like Egyptian hieroglyphics were welded on a bead in different designs around the base; and that four guys in NASA moon suits took a four to five foot box into the area” (Ventre and Eichler 2015).

10. Many people say that the military, including members of the Army and Air Force, began to arrive in the area around the village of Kecksburg within a few hours after the reported landing (Gordon 2017). It was giving off flashes of bright arcing light (Ventre and Eichler 2015).

11. And, during the final moments of the event when the reentry vehicle landed in Kecksburg, an eyewitness remarked about seeing a “four star” object (Ventre and Eichler 2015).

12. A few days after the incident had taken place, a truck driver using the pseudonym Myron was delivering special bricks to Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. Myron’s firm had ordered 6,500 double-glazed bricks which he claimed “were for building a double-walled shield around a recovered radioactive object.” He first noticed the “bell-shaped” object whilst he was unloading the bricks; he said it was resting on stilts with large parachute-like screens covering it up. The shape was silhouetted by floodlights and he managed to get a closer look through a small opening in the tent (Robinson 2017).

13. Are we looking for truth (UAMN TV 2017)?

14. Over the years, a series of researchers questioned Dr. Eric Walker about his involvement in UFO phenomena including his presence at the site of a crashed of an alleged UFO in Kecksburg, PA in December 1965 (Cameron 1991). Dr. Eric Walker, the president of Penn State University at the time, admitted to visiting the Kecksburg crash site on December 9, 1965 (Rudiak 1991).

Conclusion:

Corona satellite KH-4A 1027 was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 1:07 P.M. Pacific Time on December 9, 1965. Due to acute issues with controlling the spacecraft’s orientation in flight, recovery vehicle SRV-1, containing a golden film bucket that concealed a nuclear experiment from the Phillips Laboratory, was separated from the main body of the satellite prior to it achieving orbit. SRV-1 and its film bucket crash landed at Kecksburg, Pennsylvania on December 9, 1965—the day of the launch.

NASA described a Phillips Laboratory nuclear experiment on board Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. The United States Army returned the crashed ablative forebody and golden film bucket that housed the experiment, along with related radioactive materials, to the Air Force at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) on December 11, 1965. However, NASA failed to report the date when that nuclear experiment was given back. Nevertheless, the nuclear experiment was returned by the Army—not recovered by the Air Force. Furthermore, no data was collected from the magnetosphere-related test (National Aeronautics Space Administration 2017c). The information gathering component of the test was damaged when the bucket made contact with trees prior to landing. The objects were transported to Dayton, Ohio because WPAFB maintained a burial site and landfill for radioactive materials there (Engineering Science 1982). Two days after launch, SRV-2, which contained a film bucket with exposed film from the mission, was recalled from its orbit and recovered by one of the several US Air Force Corona Special Recovery Teams.

Therefore, after reviewing the currently existing literature, I conclude that my hypothesis is true: Corona Satellite (KH-4A 1027) was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on December 9, 1965. One of the satellite’s recovery vehicles (SRV-1) separated early from the satellite due to an attitude problem. So, this recovery vehicle is a highly viable candidate for the object that landed at Kecksburg on that same date. SRV-1’s ablative forebody in combination with its golden film bucket made up the mysterious object that crash landed at Kecksburg in1965. In closing, the Kecksburg UFO was neither a manmade space probe with unique reentry control capabilities, nor a deep space probe from a planet other than Earth.

* Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross is a semi-retired researcher and writer with a forthcoming non-fiction memoir entitled: In Pursuit of Anomalies: How Great Music and Real UFOs Can Save the Human Race. Dr. Gross has worked as a researcher, field investigator, scientist, writer, lecturer, educator, administrator, change agent, turnaround specialist, and professional musician.

Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross is an artist who works with music by nature—and he is a scientist out of necessity. Dr. Gross holds a Doctorate from Penn State University where his solid approach to advanced research resulted in PSU’s Graduate School awarding his dissertation an excellent rating. Moreover, he has 40 years’ experience as an educator at all levels of instruction and has been an adjunct professor at Penn State University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, New Mexico State University, and South Texas College. Email: rwgross98@hotmail.com.

Reference List


[Aga, B]. 2013. Secret Satellite. [Video File 52:16]. April 26. Available on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmX4FRptpk&t=1431s.

Bass, J. N., U. DasGupta, C.A. Hein, J.M. Griffin, et al. 1995. Radiation Belt Analysis and Modeling. Bedford, Massachusetts: RADEX, Inc.

Cameron, G. 1991. May 30, 1991 Interview Henry Victorian and Dr. Walker – Topic December 9, 1965 crash at Kecksburg PA. The President UFO Website (August 6). Available on line at http://www.presidentialufo.com/dr-eric-walker/224-may-30-1991-interview-henry-victorian-and-dr-walker-topic-december-9-1965-crash-at-kecksburg-pa.

Central Intelligence Agency. 1976. Corona Program History Volume IV Recovery from Orbit. April 22. Available online at https://filearkive.com/document/image/CIARDP89B00980R0005001000018_full-0.html.

Clausen, I. and E. A. Miller. 2012. INTELLIGENCE REVOLUTION 1960: Retrieving the Corona Imagery That Helped Win the Cold War. Chantilly, Virginia: National Reconnaissance Office Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance.

Day, D.A., J.M. Logsdon & B. Latell. 1998. Eye in the Sky: The Story of the CORONA Spy Satellites. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Engineering Science . 1982. Installation Restoration Program Phase 1: Records Search Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Atlanta, Georgia: Engineering-Science.

Farrell, J. 2004. Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons and the Cold War Allied Legend. Kempton, Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press.

Gangi, S. (2011). Differentiating Instruction using Multiple Intelligences in the
Elementary School Classroom: A Literature Review. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin.

Gibb, T. 2003. People in Kecksburg want to resolve what fell from the sky in 1965. Westmoreland County (July 31). Available on line at http://old.post gazette.com/neigh_westmoreland/20030309kecksburgwestmor1p1.asp.

Gordon, S. 2001. Kecksburg – Response, Review & Update. UFO UpDate (April 23). Available online at http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2001/jan/m29-002.shtml.

Gordon, S. 2015. Kecksburg UFO Witness Says Object Was Not GE Mark 2 Reentry Vehicle . Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone (November 26). Available on line at http://www.stangordon.info/wp/news-events/page/2/.

Gordon, S. 2017. Kecksburg incidents and updates. Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone (April 26). Available online at http://www.stangordon.info/wp/kecksburg/.

Intellipedia. 2014. Corona (satellite) From Intellipedia. August 2.
Available online at http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/intellipedia/intellipedia-corona.pdf.

Kean, L. 2005. Forty Years of Secrecy: NASA, the Military, and the 1965 Kecksburg Crash. International UFO Reporter 30(1): 9. MUFON. 2009. Kecksburg Crash – 1965 (August 22). Available on line at http://www.mufon.com/kecksburg-crash—1965.html.

M u l c a h y, R.D., Jr. (Ed.). 2012. Corona Star Catchers: The Air Force Aerial Recovery Aircrews of the 6593d Test Squadron (Special), 1958-1972. Chantilly, Virginia: National Reconnaissance Office Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mission and Spacecraft Library. 2016. Search for Corona Program. December 3. Available on line at http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/Programs/corona.html.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. 2017a. NSSDACA Master Catalog Search for Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. April 22, 2016. Available online at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1965-102A.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. 2017b. NSSDACA Master Catalog Search for Experiments on Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. April 22, 2016. Available on line at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentSearch.do?spacecraft=KH-4A 1027.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. 2017c. NSSDACA Master Catalog Search for Experiments on Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. October 21, 2016. Available on line at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentSearch.do?spacecraft=KH-4A %201027.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. 2017d. NSSDACA Master Catalog Search for Experiments on Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. August 8, 2017. Available on line at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do?id=1965-102A-01.

National Reconnaissance Office. 2017. Declassified Records: Index, Declassified Collection of CORONA, ARGON, and LANYARD Photographs. April 25. Available online at http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/CAL-Photos.html.

Nautilus Institute. 2005. Cleaning up Johnston Atoll. August 2. Available online at http://nautilus.org/apsnet/cleaning-up-johnston-atoll/.

Neufeld, M.J. 2014. Milestones of Space: Eleven Iconic Objects from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Washington, D.C.: Zenith Press.

Norman, J. 2017. The Corona Satellite Series: America’s First Imagining Satellite Program
(June 1959 – May 31, 1972). Historyofinformation.com (August 25). Available online at http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=3144.

Order, F.C.E., J.C. Fitzpatrick, P.E. Worthman. 1998. The Corona Story. Chantilly, Virginia: National Reconnaissance Office.

Plait, P. 2012. The 50th Anniversary of Starfish Prime: The nuke that shook the world. Discover Magazine. Bad Astronomy (August 17). Available on line at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/09/the-50th-anniversary-of-starfish-prime-the-nuke-that-shook-the-world/#.WZnxFCh95PY.

Popular Mechanics. 2010. A Brief History of Animals in Space. August 15. Available online at http://www.popularmechanics.co.za/science/a-brief-history-of-animals-in-space/.

Robinson, J.P. 2017. The Remarkable Kecksburg UFO Incident. J.P. Robinson: Author, Truth Seeker and Free Thinker (April 29). Available on line at http://www.jp-robinson.com/single-post/The-Remarkable-Kecksburg-UFO-Incident.

Rudiak, D. 2001. Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 – Rudiak. UFO UpDates (August 6). Available on line at http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2001/jun/m09-022.shtml.

Ruffner, K.C. 1995. Corona: America’s First Satellite Program. Washington, D.C.: History Staff Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency.

Stratopedia. 2017. Nuclear Emulsion. August 17. Available on line at http://stratocat.com.ar/stratopedia/427.htm.

Sutton, G.W. 2006. The Initial Development of Ablation Heat Protection: An Historical Perspective. Space Chronicle: JBIS, Vol. 59, Suppl. 1.

[UAMN TV]. (2017, June 30.). The Kecksburg UFO Crash Has Finally Been Solved. [Video File 43:57]. August 3, 2017. Available on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2skQUyIR5I&t=3157s&index=17&list=PLgj8f8ImJ0vlUTTY1kLZ2W26Rpxw9JWA9.

Ventre, J. and O. Eichler. 2015. Has A Top 5 UFO Case Been Solved?
Was the Kecksburg UFO A GE Mark 2 Reentry Vehicle. Fade To Black (April 23). Available online at http://jimmychurchradio.com/has-a-top-5-ufo-case-been-solved/.

Vincenti, J.T. and W.P. Dornsife. 2005. TEACHING ABOUT NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT. Unpublished paper. Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Read more »

Read More

Closing the Kecksburg UFO Case Opened Another Mystery – Pt 1

Closing the Kecksburg UFO Case Opened Another Mystery

Introduction to the Kecksburg Mystery

     It was Thursday, December 9, 1965. Something odd in the sky caught the attention of thousands of people as it pierced the Earth’s atmosphere. Observers who looked toward the sky that day were treated to an anomaly. Individuals from Canada, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania experienced a unique object in the heavens—and on the ground— that embodied phenomenal qualities. Following is a synthesis of several eyewitnesses’ statements about what they saw:
Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross

Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross
The UFO Chronicles
© 8-29-17

The projectile was brilliant. At times, this fireball glowed intensely, and gave off tints of color, as it shot across the sky. The airborne anomaly was afire and southeasterly bound. Its tail was a display of flames that left traces of smoke hanging among the clouds (Gordon 2001). The smoke outlined a dynamic, irregular trajectory.

The object didn’t maneuver like an ordinary meteor or piece of space junk. To the contrary, this red-hot contraption slowed, stopped, stood still, and changed course on its sinuous way to Kecksburg. Unquestionably, the brilliant object qualified as a UFO because of its unique appearance and strange movements.

It made weird noises too. This thing boomed and blasted at times, and it hissed as well. In addition, as this peculiarity flew above Pennsylvania readying itself to land, it seemed to morph. By the end of its journey, the oddity had changed shape—from a blazing ball to a fiery four-pointed star (Ventre and Eichler 2015). Over a densely wooded section of Kecksburg, Pennsylvania, the quirky craft glided from above the treetops to the forest floor in a controlled manner.

Alerted by the local news media’s announcements about the potential UFO crash, masses of people started for Kecksburg. The crowds that amassed were hoping to see a wrecked aerial phenomenon. At one point, a police spokesman appeared and stated to the gathering that an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) had indeed landed in the woods (Farrell 2004).

Although it broke a few trees on its way to the ground, the objet touched down almost completely undamaged. It came to a halt after plowing through the woodland’s rich soil. At the end of a mud furrow, the anomaly was partially buried and reclining on its side. Grounded and motionless, the thing had a shape like a large acorn. This particular huge acorn, however, was shiny, seamless, and the color of honey.

The big acorn was giving off flashes of bright arcing light (Ventre and Eichler 2015). In addition, the golden, smooth metallic object had a protuberance on its front. The protuberance resembled a burnt orange trashcan (Robinson 2017). The craft had a raised band around its base. The band was marked with an arrangement of unfamiliar symbols.

Local citizens, police, members of the media, and some Air Force investigators gathered at the landing site (Farrell 2004). Within a short period of time, uniformed individuals representing various branches of the military joined up with members of the local police force to rope-off part of the forest. The scene was busy. Even the then President of The Pennsylvania State University, Dr. Eric Walker, joined the others at the Kecksburg crash site (Camron 1991).

Soon individuals wearing radiation protection suits showed up. They operated Geiger counters and wandered into the woods searching for something. Other similarly dressed people were walking around the area carrying a large box. (Ventre and Eichler 2015).

Later that night, a small convoy of trucks (at least one truck was displaying an Army insignia) entered the area. A flatbed semi-trailer truck left carrying an object covered by a tarp. The item underneath the tarp was acorn-shaped and about the size of a VW Beetle (Gordon 2017). Regardless, by the next day (Friday, December 10, 1965), local newspapers were reporting that searchers had failed to find any suspicious objects in the woods . . . .

My Kecksburg Backstory

For more than fifty years, Kecksburg, Pennsylvania was famous. It was the site of one of the most important Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) events in modern history. As time would have it, the incident continues to impact my life. After more than five decades, the Kecksburg case remains special to me for the following four reasons:

Reason One: Early in my life, I heard the Kecksburg UFO incident unfold in front of me through the medium of live radio. I vividly remember it as if the riddle started to develop yesterday. The 1965 Kecksburg mystery had an impact on how I conducted the rest of my life.

It was Thursday, December 9, 1965 and the Pittsburgh Area was progressing toward evening. I was at the Blessed Sacrament Church in Natrona Heights, Pennsylvania. I wasn’t alone. I was with my twin brother, Rick.

But, unlike Rick, I wasn’t inside the church. I was in the church’s parking lot—seated in the front bench seat of my parents’ 1965 Chevrolet Impala. As I recall, our mother had ordered us both to the church to confess our sins to a priest before Sunday’s mass. I had made my confession with haste. But Rick was still inside the confessional bragging to the priest about his recent blameworthy accomplishments. Freed of my wrongdoings, I sat in the great car alone and prepared to listen to a radio station of my choice.

If Rick would have made his confession first, I would have had to suffer through his ritual as the lucky driver of the trendy family car. He’d open the hood and unscrew the wing nut on top of the big engine’s air filter and carefully remove the unpopular particle absorbing device. Then he’d tuck the bulky silencer away in the trunk. Next, he would jump into the driver’s seat; start the engine; and pump the accelerator—revving the engine anywhere from 3 to 30 times.

But, this month I was the first twin to make it to the car. Thus, instead of gunning the engine, I quietly dialed through several stations on the analog car radio hunting for my standard target—Pittsburgh’s channel KDKA. As KDKA’s signal began to emerge out of the radio’s background noise, an announcer was in the midst of broadcasting a breaking news bulletin. The broadcaster reported that an incident was unfolding near Kecksburg, Pennsylvania. It seemed as if a bright aerial anomaly—a genuine UFO — had been observed falling near there. Reports were being received by KDKA indicating that people may have seen the object crash land.

Kecksburg was about an hour away from the church parking lot where I sat. When my brother finally dashed out of the church and jumped into the car, I told him all about the subject of the recent radio broadcast. We decided to go to where the action was. So, I quickly drove us to our home which was a couple of miles away. When we arrived, we begged our parents for permission to drive to the alleged crash site. It didn’t work.

Because of our past driving records, my parents could not, with straight faces, permit my brother or me to make the 53 mile trek to Kecksburg. Sadly, I thought for sure that the Kecksburg case had ended for me then and there. I was wrong.

Later, in 1966, I graduated from Har-Brack High School and started attending Duquesne University in Pittsburg where I received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1970. Soon after that, I started teaching music in the Cambria County public schools. At the same time, I enrolled in graduate school at Indiana University of Pennsylvania where I received a Master of Education Degree in 1974. By 1975, I had enrolled at Penn State University to study filmmaking. In 1977, I was accepted into one of Penn State’s doctoral programs where I studied acoustics, aesthetics, and research design, among other subjects.

As a young professional music educator, I taught in Pennsylvania’s public schools and held concurrent adjunct positions at Penn State University and Indiana University of Pennsylvania. In 1980, I co-wrote a children’s musical play about a supernatural being known as a goblin. This musical theatre work was entered in a national competition sponsored by the Open Court Publishing Company. Open Court awarded the musical play second prize. More importantly, writing a musical about the supernatural provided me with firsthand knowledge related to the popularity of rare and mysterious experiences. Furthermore, the second place award involved a summer studying musical play writing at Illinois Wesleyan University.

By 1984, I had earned a Doctor of Education Degree from Penn State University—a highly rated research facility. My thorough approach to advanced research was a direct result of The Pennsylvania State University Graduate School awarding an excellent rating to my dissertation. Soon, I acquired a reputation as a researcher, scientist, writer, lecturer, and educator who began his professional career as a musician. Thus, I was an artist who worked with music by nature. However, out of necessity, I was a scientist.

In 1985, mostly because of the success of the earlier kid’s goblin musicale, I decided to write another children’s musical play. During the mid-1980s, popular topics for children’s stories included extra-terrestrials, spaceships, and battles in outer space. The films E.T., Star Wars, and Star Trek were extremely popular. Accordingly, planning a musical play with a UFO-related plot seemed in order. Therefore, in preparation for writing this second musical play, I decided to learn as much about the UFO phenomenon as I could.

Reason Two: I may have been the first professed researcher of unexplained phenomena to hear eyewitnesses to the Kecksburg incident volunteer live public testimonies. In 1987, to gain a sufficient depth and breadth of knowledge about UFOs for my upcoming children’s musical, I attended a UFO data-gathering event known as National UFO Information Week. The event was jointly sponsored by the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) of Seguin, Texas and a Pennsylvania clearinghouse for UFO sightings.

It was almost twenty-two years after the strange event had happened at Kecksburg. To my knowledge, no eyewitnesses had yet come forward to offer details about that occurrence. While National UFO Information Week was allegedly designed as an effort to make all UFO sightings public, the event could also serve as a platform for latent Kecksburg eyewitnesses.

The UFO affair was held in a shopping mall in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. This mall featured an enclosed shopping area that accommodated several stores. The main floor of the galleria was designed in the shape of a large cross. A huge courtyard was at the center of this comfortable indoor market. The courtyard was more packed that day than on a typical Saturday in August. Pedestrians and shoppers were all over the place.

On that specific Saturday, my personal mission was to get an intense exposure to UFO culture. Therefore, I spent a considerable amount of time looking into the UFO-related exhibits on display and I courteously engaged professed UFO witnesses in stimulating conversations about the behavior and appearance of the odd objects they had seen in the sky. During other times, I strolled along the mall’s walkways—reflecting and briefly talking with passersby, shoppers, or pedestrians who were visiting the unique gathering.

During one of my meanders that day, I recall my breath and heart rate increasing as I overheard an alleged eyewitness describe a UFO that landed near Greensburg in 1965. As it turned out, he was describing what had happened in Kecksburg. That was the first time I had experienced anybody offer precise details about the Kecksburg incident in a public gathering. The experience literally took my breath away. Following is what happened:

I was walking around the mall in an area that was rather far away from the UFO exhibits. While roaming around that space’s walkways, I noticed people naturally gathering into clusters. In each assembled cluster, people were freely talking about UFO-related topics. Eventually, I wandered upon one sizeable group of people who had gathered themselves into a formation that roughly resembled two Socratic circles. One small circle had formed inside a larger circle and a solo speaker was standing in the middle of the smaller circle. As I recall, the smaller inner ring was made up of at least ten people, while the larger outer ring held twenty or more individuals. I wedged into the outer ring.

After elbowing my way through the crowd and squeezing myself into the larger circle, I used my listening skills to focus on what the speaker in the center of the two concentric circles was saying. Since most of the people around me were taller than I was, I couldn’t get a real clear look at the presenter at first. But, I could tell this speaker’s voice belonged to a male. From what I could see, he appeared to be moderately built, about 5 feet 7 inches tall, and had brownish colored hair. However, I didn’t know if the speaker was a formal presenter sponsored by MUFON, or if he was an impromptu speaker who had actually experienced a close UFO encounter.

This speaker said that the thing he saw on the ground that day was a big piece of metal and was sort of burnt orange in color. It was partially buried in the mud after tearing a trench into the dirt while landing. In addition, this object was giving off very bright sparks or flashes of light.
At that point in his testimony, I wasn’t really sure about where this speaker’s UFO experience had taken place. Then suddenly, another male speaker spoke up. This second speaker was standing in front of me and off to my left. He was part of the smaller (or inner) Socratic ring. Since I was standing in the larger (or outer) Socratic ring at that time, I could hear him and see him clearly. He was about 6 feet tall, dark haired, and had a moderate build.

The second speaker interrupted the first speaker by shouting: That was us! After the initial interruption, he went on to say that the bright flashes the first speaker described were probably from the flashbulbs on the cameras he and his friends were using to take photographs that evening. He went on to say that he and some of his friends had driven to Kecksburg that December—twenty-two years ago—shortly after hearing about the UFO through the media.

Supposedly, he and his friends had flashbulb-equipped cameras with them when they ventured into the woods at around sundown. While wandering among the trees, he and his group came upon a rather large, smooth, shiny, acorn-shaped object. He said it was the color of honey. The thing was resting at the end of a mud furrow.

Allegedly, the second speaker and his group took several snapshots of the unidentifiable object before leaving the woods. The second speaker also maintained that the bright bursts of light the first speaker saw were probably from their flash cameras. Additionally, the second speaker maintained that he and his buddies were on the opposite side of the object from where the first speaker was standing.

Next, a third man in the crowd (who was standing outside of both Socratic circles and off to my right) spoke out. He asked the second speaker if he had reported his alleged UFO incident to anyone. The second speaker said: No. As a result, the third male speaker hurriedly approached the second speaker. The two men talked briefly, and then walked off together toward the area of the mall where UFO artifacts were being exhibited.

At that point, I recall becoming ecstatic when I realized I had just heard two potential genuine eyewitnesses to the Kecksburg incident give live verbal testimonies about the famous episode. Again, to my knowledge, no eyewitnesses had come forward since 1965 to testify about the Kecksburg case. Thus, on August 15, 1987, I may have been the first individual—who was admittedly researching unexplained phenomena—to hear living testimonies about the Kecksburg incident.

Hearing the above mentioned real-life verifications, confirmed in my mind at least, that Pennsylvania was a bona fide UFO hotspot. As a curious UFO researcher who lived and worked in Pennsylvania from 1948 to 1992, I’ve spoken with several people who have allegedly experienced UFOs while living in that eastern state.

Between late 1989 and early 1990, my career as a professional music educator began to pick up. I was publishing articles in professional journals and lecturing at state and national music education conferences. My attendance at events related to the UFO phenomenon declined. The children’s musical play that I had been writing fell to the wayside.

Reason Three: The Kecksburg event was the first UFO incident that I prepared and presented a formal talk about. That talk consequently led to speaking engagements with an established lecture circuit. The circuit was based in Texas and included established UFO researchers such as: Stanton T. Friedman, Travis Walton, and Noe Torres.

Because of the Great Recession of 2007, I was forced into semi-retirement during the summer of 2010. As a result, I moved to McAllen, Texas because of its strong economy and burgeoning arts scene. However, severe underemployed drew me back into my favorite kind of work—research. Fortunately, my employment situation afforded me sufficient time to revive some stimulating research I had put on the proverbial back burner decades ago. For several years, I’d been enamored with how humans grappled with mysteries.

Regardless, by 2011, I was really getting bored. So, I joined an organization known as the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON). I contacted MUFON’s Texas State Director and asked for information about any active UFO researchers in my area that might be able to use my assistance. I was put into contact with Mr. Noe Torres, the director of MUFON in South Texas. I emailed Noe a brief history of my UFO studies including my personal research regarding the Kecksburg crash. Mr. Torres responded and claimed he had been fascinated by the Kecksburg case for years. In fact, he had written about the Kecksburg crash and recovery in a couple of the UFO books he had published.

Since I had been essentially working on this case since 1965, my new MUFON director acquaintance encouraged me to give a brief overview about the Kecksburg happening at an upcoming presentation he was scheduled to give for a public library in Alamo, Texas. Thus, in 2012, I began conducting research for my impending Keckburg talk. I reviewed my existing files on Kecksburg and I initiated additional research that uncovered more recently de-classified information on the topic. I found lots of information related to the Kecksburg mystery by searching the internet.

From that point on, I served as a participant in a Southern Texas UFO lecture circuit. I was introduced to several respected UFO researchers and countless sincere eyewitnesses—some of which possessed hard evidence. Noe’s initial encouragement caused me to return to researching and lecturing about UFOs and anomalies in general.

Prior to my 2012 Texas research spurt, I had served as the multimedia assessment specialist for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Arts Education Consensus Project in Washington, DC. That project lasted from 1992 to 1998. As the project’s assessment specialist, I was introduced to the work of Dr. Howard Gardner. Dr. Gardner, a psychologist from Harvard University, developed the theory of multiple intelligences (MI). His MI theory explained how people perceive the world through each of their intelligences. In 1999, Dr. Gardner wrote about the possibility of expanding his multiple intelligence theory to include existential intelligence.

People with a strong existential intelligence have the capacity to think about why things exist and if there is intelligent life throughout the Universe. Also, they need the freedom to ponder, conceptualize, and hypothesize, as well as analyze and think about questions that do not have clear answers. Individuals with a strong existential intelligence also wonder about how variables interact, and evaluate how concepts relate to one another (Gangi 2011). I have a strong existential intelligence.

A March 2013 phone call led to a rejuvenated correspondence with Dr. Howard Gardner. I initiated a probe about starting up an independent research project related to existential intelligence. Through phone calls and emails, I proposed launching a scientific study to investigate how encounters with unexplained phenomena might shape the human brain. Dr. Gardner provided valuable guidance about such a study. Thus, almost immediately I initiated an independent research project that explored potential links among existential intelligence, aesthetic experiences, anomalies, and the paranormal.

Through the process of conducting research for this independent study, I was introduced to neuroaesthetics. Neuroaesthetics is a relatively new subfield of neuroscience that merges neuroscience with observed aesthetics. Since my preferred career path at that time—educational administration— had abandoned me during the recession, I felt I had nothing to lose by chasing a research topic that captured my curiosity.

Reason Four: On or about June 1, 2016, I declared that the Kecksburg case would be my inaugural attempt at unraveling an established (fifty year old) UFO mystery. I gathered and analyzing new relevant data from the existing literature. Thus, I closed the Kecksburg case, once and for all, by applying scientific methodology to aggressive research. I strongly believe I solved the Kecksburg enigma—beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Several months earlier, in 2015, I had reviewed an article published by MUFON. The article addressed the Kecksburg case. The authors of the piece mentioned that a December 9, 1965 launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California of a Thor Agena-D rocket took two days to recover after an erratic attitude (Ventre and Eichler 2015). That was essentially all they wrote about Corona satellites.

The authors of the MUFON-recognized article essentially dismissed the Corona satellite launched on December 9, 1965 as a candidate for the Kecksburg UFO. As an aggressive researcher, I found it troubling that MUFON-associated researchers fundamentally ignored a spacecraft launched from California (on the same day as the Pennsylvania incident) as a Kecksburg UFO contender. Then and there, I decided to carry out my own research study related to the Kecksburg event.

* Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross is a semi-retired researcher and writer with a forthcoming non-fiction memoir entitled: In Pursuit of Anomalies: How Great Music and Real UFOs Can Save the Human Race. Dr. Gross has worked as a researcher, field investigator, scientist, writer, lecturer, educator, administrator, change agent, turnaround specialist, and professional musician.

Dr. Bob Wenzel Gross is an artist who works with music by nature—and he is a scientist out of necessity. Dr. Gross holds a Doctorate from Penn State University where his solid approach to advanced research resulted in PSU’s Graduate School awarding his dissertation an excellent rating. Moreover, he has 40 years’ experience as an educator at all levels of instruction and has been an adjunct professor at Penn State University, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, New Mexico State University, and South Texas College. Email: rwgross98@hotmail.com.

Reference List


[Aga, B]. 2013. Secret Satellite. [Video File 52:16]. April 26. Available on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmX4FRptpk&t=1431s.

Bass, J. N., U. DasGupta, C.A. Hein, J.M. Griffin, et al. 1995. Radiation Belt Analysis and Modeling. Bedford, Massachusetts: RADEX, Inc.

Cameron, G. 1991. May 30, 1991 Interview Henry Victorian and Dr. Walker – Topic December 9, 1965 crash at Kecksburg PA. The President UFO Website (August 6). Available on line at http://www.presidentialufo.com/dr-eric-walker/224-may-30-1991-interview-henry-victorian-and-dr-walker-topic-december-9-1965-crash-at-kecksburg-pa.

Central Intelligence Agency. 1976. Corona Program History Volume IV Recovery from Orbit. April 22. Available online at https://filearkive.com/document/image/CIARDP89B00980R0005001000018_full-0.html.

Clausen, I. and E. A. Miller. 2012. INTELLIGENCE REVOLUTION 1960: Retrieving the Corona Imagery That Helped Win the Cold War. Chantilly, Virginia: National Reconnaissance Office Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance.

Day, D.A., J.M. Logsdon & B. Latell. 1998. Eye in the Sky: The Story of the CORONA Spy Satellites. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Engineering Science . 1982. Installation Restoration Program Phase 1: Records Search Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Atlanta, Georgia: Engineering-Science.

Farrell, J. 2004. Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons and the Cold War Allied Legend. Kempton, Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press.

Gangi, S. (2011). Differentiating Instruction using Multiple Intelligences in the
Elementary School Classroom: A Literature Review. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin.

Gibb, T. 2003. People in Kecksburg want to resolve what fell from the sky in 1965. Westmoreland County (July 31). Available on line at http://old.post gazette.com/neigh_westmoreland/20030309kecksburgwestmor1p1.asp.

Gordon, S. 2001. Kecksburg – Response, Review & Update. UFO UpDate (April 23). Available online at http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2001/jan/m29-002.shtml.

Gordon, S. 2015. Kecksburg UFO Witness Says Object Was Not GE Mark 2 Reentry Vehicle . Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone (November 26). Available on line at http://www.stangordon.info/wp/news-events/page/2/.

Gordon, S. 2017. Kecksburg incidents and updates. Stan Gordon’s UFO Anomalies Zone (April 26). Available online at http://www.stangordon.info/wp/kecksburg/.

Intellipedia. 2014. Corona (satellite) From Intellipedia. August 2.
Available online at http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/intellipedia/intellipedia-corona.pdf.

Kean, L. 2005. Forty Years of Secrecy: NASA, the Military, and the 1965 Kecksburg Crash. International UFO Reporter 30(1): 9. MUFON. 2009. Kecksburg Crash – 1965 (August 22). Available on line at http://www.mufon.com/kecksburg-crash—1965.html.

M u l c a h y, R.D., Jr. (Ed.). 2012. Corona Star Catchers: The Air Force Aerial Recovery Aircrews of the 6593d Test Squadron (Special), 1958-1972. Chantilly, Virginia: National Reconnaissance Office Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mission and Spacecraft Library. 2016. Search for Corona Program. December 3. Available on line at http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/Programs/corona.html.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. 2017a. NSSDACA Master Catalog Search for Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. April 22, 2016. Available online at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1965-102A.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. 2017b. NSSDACA Master Catalog Search for Experiments on Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. April 22, 2016. Available on line at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentSearch.do?spacecraft=KH-4A 1027.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. 2017c. NSSDACA Master Catalog Search for Experiments on Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. October 21, 2016. Available on line at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentSearch.do?spacecraft=KH-4A %201027.

National Aeronautics Space Administration Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. 2017d. NSSDACA Master Catalog Search for Experiments on Spacecraft KH-4A 1027. August 8, 2017. Available on line at https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do?id=1965-102A-01.

National Reconnaissance Office. 2017. Declassified Records: Index, Declassified Collection of CORONA, ARGON, and LANYARD Photographs. April 25. Available online at http://www.nro.gov/foia/declass/CAL-Photos.html.

Nautilus Institute. 2005. Cleaning up Johnston Atoll. August 2. Available online at http://nautilus.org/apsnet/cleaning-up-johnston-atoll/.

Neufeld, M.J. 2014. Milestones of Space: Eleven Iconic Objects from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Washington, D.C.: Zenith Press.

Norman, J. 2017. The Corona Satellite Series: America’s First Imagining Satellite Program
(June 1959 – May 31, 1972). Historyofinformation.com (August 25). Available online at http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=3144.

Order, F.C.E., J.C. Fitzpatrick, P.E. Worthman. 1998. The Corona Story. Chantilly, Virginia: National Reconnaissance Office.

Plait, P. 2012. The 50th Anniversary of Starfish Prime: The nuke that shook the world. Discover Magazine. Bad Astronomy (August 17). Available on line at http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/09/the-50th-anniversary-of-starfish-prime-the-nuke-that-shook-the-world/#.WZnxFCh95PY.

Popular Mechanics. 2010. A Brief History of Animals in Space. August 15. Available online at http://www.popularmechanics.co.za/science/a-brief-history-of-animals-in-space/.

Robinson, J.P. 2017. The Remarkable Kecksburg UFO Incident. J.P. Robinson: Author, Truth Seeker and Free Thinker (April 29). Available on line at http://www.jp-robinson.com/single-post/The-Remarkable-Kecksburg-UFO-Incident.

Rudiak, D. 2001. Re: Dr. Eric Walker & MJ-12 – Rudiak. UFO UpDates (August 6). Available on line at http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2001/jun/m09-022.shtml.

Ruffner, K.C. 1995. Corona: America’s First Satellite Program. Washington, D.C.: History Staff Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency.

Stratopedia. 2017. Nuclear Emulsion. August 17. Available on line at http://stratocat.com.ar/stratopedia/427.htm.

Sutton, G.W. 2006. The Initial Development of Ablation Heat Protection: An Historical Perspective. Space Chronicle: JBIS, Vol. 59, Suppl. 1.

[UAMN TV]. (2017, June 30.). The Kecksburg UFO Crash Has Finally Been Solved. [Video File 43:57]. August 3, 2017. Available on line at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2skQUyIR5I&t=3157s&index=17&list=PLgj8f8ImJ0vlUTTY1kLZ2W26Rpxw9JWA9.

Ventre, J. and O. Eichler. 2015. Has A Top 5 UFO Case Been Solved?
Was the Kecksburg UFO A GE Mark 2 Reentry Vehicle. Fade To Black (April 23). Available online at http://jimmychurchradio.com/has-a-top-5-ufo-case-been-solved/.

Vincenti, J.T. and W.P. Dornsife. 2005. TEACHING ABOUT NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL AN IMPORTANT SUBJECT. Unpublished paper. Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Read more »

Read More

Disc-Shaped UFOs Reported Over Lafayette County, Louisiana

Disc-Shaped UFOs Reported Over Lafayette County, Louisiana 5-27-17

     A Louisiana witness at Lafayette County reported watching two, disc-shaped objects with binoculars that disappeared into a dark cloud, according to testimony in Case 84059 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.

The witness was outside looking at clouds at 5 p.m. on May 27, 2017, at a 45-degree angle to the north using binoculars.

“And as soon as I got the focus, there they were – two UFOs,” the


By Roger Marsh
OpenMinds.tv
6-12-17

witness stated. “One on top the other and in close proximity to each other. The one underneath the other was moving left to right from side-to-side in a straight pattern, while the other one hovered above it.”

The witness had a feeling the objects were trying to communicate.

“I kind of got the feeling the bottom one was using the craft to wave at me, as to say, ‘Hey, here we are!’ As it was moving side-to-side as in someone would move their hand to wave.”

The witness described the objects.

“These were both saucer-shaped and were a black or dark gray color and both had lights in the front that pulsated back and forth like the Knight Rider car, but only much slower. The color of the lights from my perspective was red on the left, blue in the middle and either yellow or white on the right. I couldn’t make out the size because I couldn’t see them with the naked eye, only through the binoculars. I was using a Redfield brand that was 10 x 50. But they were clear as day to see the shape, color and what they were doing.”

Read more »

Read More

THE PHOENIX LIGHTS: THE (ORIGINAL) REAL INVESTIGATION | 20th Anniversary of The Phoenix Lights



THE PHOENIX LIGHTS, THE (ORIGINAL) REAL INVESTIGATION | 20th Anniversary of The Phoenix Lights

     In the May issue of the MUFON UFO Journal, there appeared a very misleading article by Bill Hamilton on the Phoenix Lights of March 13, 1997. That article represented a biased judgment of events and incorrect facts. Now, with these facts in mind, I am presenting the true information of the still ongoing investigation.

At about 8:30 p.m. Thursday, the 13th of March, Peter Davenport at the UFO Reporting Center in Seattle, WA, started receiving calls, first from the northwest part of Arizona, of a formation of lights moving south toward Prescott, AZ. These lights formed a basic triangle with as many as six or seven lights per side with two red lights trailing.

Richard Motzer
By Richard Motzer
Field Investigator for Arizona MUFON
© July, 1997 / 2017

The real time line for this event is somewhere around 8:00 p.m. MST. As the calls kept flowing in, the description changed as to how many lights were involved. Some even said there were no lights at all, but they could see a black mass blocking out the stars as it passed between the viewer and the sky. The general description was of a “V,” but it also resembled a crown with lights that formed an upward triangle. These lights were not like aircraft landing lights but more like stars. This description would change as the objects moved into the Phoenix area. The only consistent properties of the object(s) would be that there were no sound and very slow movement. However, if there was only one object, it could not have covered that distance in such a short time. This is a real “Catch-22,” but may be the key to the solution. I know of three V formations that night and there may be more.

As the readers may know, all of this was broadcast worldwide at 11:00 PST on Art Bell’s Coast-to-Coast talk radio program. I knew it would be a very busy day for me the next morning, so I retired. I was involved with the videos of this event even before it happened. I received a call from Tom Taylor, our state director for MUFON, that a person in Paradise Valley had been taping lights west of the TV towers on South Mountain for over two years, suggesting that I make contact with her to view the footage. I did so and set the next Wednesday, the 12th at 9:00 a.m., for her to come to my home to view the tapes. Due to the death of Mr. Taylor’s mother, I changed the meeting date to the 14th, Friday, the day after the events of the 13th. While talking to her on the phone, I discussed the idea that she might be seeing flares from the Gila Bend Gunnery Range. She felt this was not the case, so we met Friday around 10:15 a.m. Even before her arrival, the news media were at my house getting my reaction to the events of the night before. I had only seen one video, the formation shot by Chuck Rairden from Apache Junction. I told them that in a few minutes I would have a second video for all of us to see, because this lady had caught the event, too. The news programs broke the story with their 4:30 p.m. edition. From that time on, the phones never stopped ringing and the news people kept coming.

I started to collect all the videos I could find and interviewed other witnesses. The first videos I obtained were of lights that appeared to be over the city of Phoenix and it was those videos that made the news programs. It would be some days later before I could obtain the only video of five lights flying to the south taken at 56th Street and Carefree Highway. I have been involved in the collection of data, returning calls, and doing the interviews, which now number over seventy witnesses, of which I found 53 to be credible. The real investigating doesn’t start until the last reports come in. One of the best investigation tools was a two-hour talk show I did with Bill Strauss on KTAR radio. Mr. Strauss is a very fair talk show host and allows the callers to tell their stories.

It was during that show that I realized that the people who saw the V formations flying overhead out-numbered the people who saw the lights near the Estrella Mountains by a very high ratio. The V formation lights looked like stars with the brightness of Sirius, whereas the lights over the Estrella Mountains appeared as super bright landing lights. This was very puzzling, because I had the video of the flying V formation where the lights are barely noticeable. So, why did 98% of the sightings pertain to the V formation? Four things are responsible for this:

1. People were outside looking to the northwest to see the Hale-Bopp Comet.

2. The best time to view Hale-Bopp was between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m. MST.

3. It was in motion flying toward them.

4. The altitude didn’t matter as long as you were outside. You had to be at a higher elevation and have a clear view to the southwest to see the lights above and behind the Estrellas.

We will come back to the V formation again. Now we needed to find out why we had seven videos of the Estrella lights, but only a few witnesses.

At this point, all of the TV stations were running the same video clips. People were being confused and thought the videos showed the V formation, which they didn’t, but instead showed the lights to be over the city of Phoenix and that is what I mistakenly thought, too.

I don’t know how many times I looked at those tapes and couldn’t find the common thread. I received a call from a family far to the west of Phoenix where they, too, had taped the lights the night of the 13th and many other times. I made the long drive out to 222nd Avenue and Jackrabbit Blvd to view the tape. The tape did not impress me but the people did. They said that the lights appear between 8:00 and 10:00 pm were always in the same place and would drift laterally. They also said that a lot of helicopter and fighter aircraft traffic was observed at times when these lights appeared. The highest activity was in the mid-part of the month and the most common days were Monday through Thursday. The other key item was that a large area of Bureau of Land Management land had been cordoned off in the direction of the lights. The woman’s future son-in-law could see the land below the lights being illuminated like daylight. This was one of the keys, but I couldn’t see how it would fit into the puzzle at that time.

The next key was the person who taped both the Estrella lights and the V formation. He had some airline pilots, “off the record,” mark on the map the location and estimated elevation of the Estrella lights. Since I could not talk to them directly, I simply noted this on my map.

The final key to the solution was also the biggest mystery. Why did all videos of 3-13-97 at 10:00 p.m. have a different number of lights, different order of starting and decay, and shapes?

It was really dependent upon the observation point of the witness in the Phoenix area and, most important, how high their viewing point was. It turned out that the lights were not over Phoenix, but near the Estrella Mountains to the southwest. This determination was made after viewing all the video tapes and going to all but one of the sites and shooting 35mm film in daylight. Using the point marked by the pilot, I drew a line from each of the sites where the Estrella lights were taped. On the Rairden tape there are nine lights, but only eight lights on the Moon Valley footage. I re-ran the Moon Valley footage and just in the early part you see a light form briefly which then goes out, but did it really? No, something must have blocked it out, but it was still there in the Rairden footage. As the lights drifted downward, some lights were blocked out by the many small peaks making up the Estrella range.

In the videos that I acquired, there were two people who had been recording these Estrella lights for months. What I wanted to find was footage where a tripod was used and the zoom lens was left in one spot. To my surprise there were several clips that met these specifications. What I did next was to mark at the end of each segment the ground position on a monitor and the ending position of each light. When I ran the editor video deck in reverse, I could see each light rise in altitude and drift to the right or to the left. In all the video clips the results were the same. Just before each light went out, there was an increase in the descent of each light.

So what did this prove? Going back to the first newscasts, they ended by saying the Army National Guard said that just before 10:00 p.m. on March 13, 1997, they shot off target flares for training. We had dismissed this at first because the witnesses felt certain these lights were in front of South Mountain and over the city. This caused the early confusion of the V formation with these lights. The flares are very bright even at a distance of 50 miles and will overload a camcorder chip. They also have a parachute attached to them. As the flare is positioned and ignites, the heat from the flare heats the air above, which is trapped in its parachute, causing it to slow down its descent. Toward its final phase, before extinguishing, the heat output decreases and the flare will start to fall faster. It will also have a lateral motion due to its delivery system, either hindered by the prevailing winds or accelerated. All the videos that I tested for that night or other nights showed this feature. Even the control tower people at Sky Harbor Airport said they saw smoke emanating from the flares. Let’s quickly review the evidence for the case for flares behind the Estrellas:

1. These events have been going on for some time, three months or more.

2. The color is bright amber.

3. Smoke was seen by some.

4. The on to off time of each light is very consistent.

5. The general time lines and dates are repeated (for that night they occurred at 8:30, 9:25, and 10:00 pm)

6. Mostly week nights.7. The Gila Bend Gunnery Range hours match the time line.

8. All drop vertically and move in a lateral direction consistent with flares.

9. All video tapes that have the complete cycle, that is, from start to finish, show this.

10. Two videos, shot at close range, seem to show smoke flowing around them.

11. On one of the tapes, the person asks if they are flares.

12. The Army National Guard said they shot-off these flares.

13. Six news programs announced that the military said they were flares and two reports were from military pilots who located them at the Gila Bend Gunnery Range behind the Estrella Mountains.

Due to the multitude of events that night and the confusion of these lights with the V formation, I didn’t concentrate on this event. In fact, if these nine flares hadn’t been fired off that night, the real big story—the one that needs to be solved—would not have made the TV news. The reason is that there is only one video, so far, that has been brought forward, and even though it was shot with a Sony Hi 8, the lights can barely be seen. I had to stretch the light scale in Adobe Premier for it to be used on the first Strange Universe show.

Flares, then, appear to be the answer for the lights near the Estrella Mountains. Journal readers may have seen these videos on the national TV news coverage. However, they cannot be the answer for the V formation.

What was this V formation seen by so many across the state of Arizona the evening of the 13th? If you use the 42 second video clip to make a judgment, you will see the last light on the western side move to the rear and maintain its alignment. If you drew lines through the points to make a five-point V, the sides appear to be slightly bowed to the outside. You hear no sound but only the person taking the video and his comments. The night was hazy at that location so no stars appear in this video clip.

Luke AFB floated four stories about the V formation:

1. It was a flight of Blue Angels coming from Nellis AFB in Nevada. (Linda M. Howe said that a formation of five was also seen over Las Vegas heading southwest. The Blue Angels were not due for another day.)

2. It was a squadron of A 10s on a night training mission heading back to Tucson.

3. None of ours!

4. A private plane with a skilled pilot flying between restricted air corridors with a string of lights a mile long. I like that one myself — yeah, right!

The question is why did Luke AFB change their stories? The Army National Guard didn’t.

Even though the V formation may or may not prove to be a real UFO after a thorough investigation, the other so-called “sightings of the decade” may well fade into history.

As Paul Harvey says, “Now you know the rest of the story.” In the meantime, the real investigation is still going on …

Please see the map which shows the directions in which the witnesses were observing the flares beyond the Estrella Mountains. Thomas R. Taylor, State Director for Arizona, supports this investigation and preliminary report.

* Special Thanks To Clifford Clift, MUFON International Director, and especially to Richard Motzer for his excellent field work and report.

Read more »

Read More

Air Force / National Guard Investigation/Report of UFO Landing | UFO CHRONICLE – 1966

Evaluation of Landing Site at Gwinner, N.D.– Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab (AFSC) (pg 1) 10-26-1966 Evaluation of Landing Site at Gwinner, N.D.– Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab (AFSC) (pg 2) 10-26-1966

     Brig Gen Homer G. Goebel, Lt Col Thomas E. Marking, Capt Edward A. Skroch and MSgt Everett E. Brust arrived at the scene of the reported sighting. At the point where the observer said the object landed, three (3) impressions were found in a summerfallowed field. The impressions were ball-shaped, 10″ in diameter and 7″ inches deep, in the form of a isosceles triangle, 26’X21’6″X21’6″.
North Dakota Air National Guard (NDANG)
9-25-1966

– click and or right click on image(s) to enlarge –
UFO Report (Gwinner, North Dakota) (Pg 1) - North Dakota Air National Guard (NDANG) 9-25-1966 UFO Report (Gwinner, North Dakota) (Pg 2) - North Dakota Air National Guard (NDANG) 9-25-1966

UFO Report (Gwinner, North Dakota) (Pg 3) - North Dakota Air National Guard (NDANG) 9-25-1966 UFO Report (Gwinner, North Dakota) (Pg 4) - North Dakota Air National Guard (NDANG) 9-25-1966

UFO Landing Site Photo at Gwinner, N.D. (pg 1) 10-26-1966 UFO Landing Site Photo at Gwinner, N.D. (pg 2) 10-26-1966

UFO Landing Site Photo at Gwinner, N.D. (pg 4) 10-26-1966 UFO Landing Site Photo at Gwinner, N.D. (pg 3)

Read more »

Read More

Disclosing Classified Info to the Press — With Permission

Disclosing Classified Info to the Press — With Permission

     Intelligence officials disclosed classified information to members of the press on at least three occasions in 2013, according to a National Security Agency report to Congress that was released last week under the Freedom of Information Act.
By Steven Aftergood
Secrecy News
1-4-17

See Congressional Notification — Authorized Disclosures of Classified Information to Media Personnel, NSA memorandum to the staff director, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, December 13, 2013.

The specific information that NSA gave to the unnamed reporters was not declassified. But the disclosures were not “leaks,” or unauthorized disclosures. They were, instead, authorized disclosures. For their part, the reporters agreed not to disseminate the information further.

Read more »

Read More

CIA Document Discloses Possible UFO Sighting in Barcelona

CIA Document Discloses Possible UFO Sighting in Barcelona
– click and or right click to enlarge –

     May 21, 1952. Barcelona was making preparations for the International Eucharistic Conference to such an extent that the La Vanguardia Española discussed the arrival of the archbishop of
By Inexplicata
8-19-16

Ottawa as though he were a special guest. The possibility of some afternoon rain showers that Wednesday was in the forecast. Journalist Valentín García was among those who looked at the sky that day, but it seems he saw more than just a storm warning.

This is what a document declassified by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) attests. It forms part of a series of documents disclosed last February, a considerable part of them related to the likelihood of unidentified flying object sightings.

Valentín García, as the CIA reports, was crossing Avenida de Jose Antonio – the modern Gran Via de les Cortes Catalanes – on the way to his newsroom when he saw something strange – too strange – up in the sky. “I saw a strange object flying at high speed from the Prat Airport, some 2000 meters over the ground, leaving a broad plume of smoke in his wake,” the journalist told the news agency. García even made some inquiries about the object and ascertained that it was not an aircraft of which the El Prat and Sabadell Airports were aware. He also noted that there were differences with the so-called flying saucers because it did not emit “flashes or light, nor did it spin on an axis.”

The reporter was not alone in seeing that craft, according to what is presented in the CIA’s declassified pages. “My colleagues at the office saw the smoke, but not the object,” said one document. A curious item of information is that when it was already over Badalona, the craft or whatever it was stopped expelling the eye-catching smoke and “vanished for a few seconds, reappearing once again kilometers later, issuing smoke. Telephones started ringing at the paper’s newsroom, with people claiming having seen the same smoking vehicle that Valentín García mentioned.

There is something more, although all we have is a reference in the CIA papers. A photograph is known to exist, but unfortunately, it appears to remain classified because it does not appear in the raft of documents released on 21 February. It was taken by Francisco Andreu and according to the note, [the object] “presented a diagonal stripe.” Oddly, it is said that the photo was taken on 17 May, even though the information is from the 21st of that month. Clerical error?

What is indeed certain is that this incident, whose existence is known thanks to a journalist in contact with the CIA, caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence services.

Read more »

Read More

Disc-Shaped UFO Reported Near Woodbine, Georgia

Disc-Shaped UFO Reported Near Woodbine, Georgia

     A Georgia witness at Woodbine reported watching a silver disc UFO hovering under 30 feet off the ground along the Satilla River near I-95, according to testimony in Case 78596 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.

The witness was driving northbound along I-95 just past the Woodbine exit near the Satilla River at 4:30 p.m. on August 20, 2016, when the incident occurred.


By Alejandro Rojas
openminds.tv
8-29-16

“I saw a huge silver, highly polished disc hovering over the marsh next to the treeline about 20-30 feet off the ground,” the witness stated. “The object seemed to be as big as a minivan.” …

Read more »

Read More