Hi all,
In a previous post (click here) I postulated a novel hypothesis as an explanation for the 6 April 1966 Westall case. Since then, I have spent time seeking to disprove the hypothesis myself, as have others. HIBAL flight 292 was at the centre of the conjecture.
Counter argument:
One counter argument put forward, was that perhaps the reason why the Bureau of Meteorology HIBAL files, do not contain a list of actual balloon launches for April 1966, and the success/failure status of each flight, was that perhaps April 1966 was a month of failures, i.e. there were no successful flights, and therefore flight 292 could not have made its way to Westall.
In order to check on this possibility of no successful flights in April 1966, I went searching in contemporary newspapers.
Newspapers:
I first looked through microfiche copies of the "Adelaide Advertiser" and the Adelaide "Sunday Mail." There were no articles in either paper, during April 1966, concerning HIBAL flights.
I then checked through a physical copy of the Mildura based "Sunraysia Daily" for April 1966, held in the State Library of South Australia. This was because the HIBAL program mainly launched balloons from Mildura. I thought that if any paper would contain details of flights, the "Sunraysia Daily" would. I located two, April 1966, articles about HIBAL. These were:
Article one:
(Sunraysia Daily, Thursday 21 April 1966, page 3.)
"Balloon launch delayed.
Plans for the launch of another super balloon, from Mildura airport today have been dropped because of an approaching front.
Conditions earlier yesterday suggested the weather would be suitable today for the sending of a balloon of 242 foot diameter to a height of 120,000 feet.
But tests with weather balloons yesterday afternoon showed that winds at the high levels would swing the balloon too close to Swan Hill at the time its payload should be released and that the increasing northerlies could swing it south - well outside the allowable impact zone.
An effort would be made to launch the big balloon as soon as conditions improve.
The Balloon Launching Crew had success on Tuesday with a balloon which went to 105,000 feet and dropped its payload on Til Til station property, north of Balranald and about 100 miles north-north-east of Mildura. The flight was a success in all respects."
Article two:
(Sunraysia Daily, Thursday 28 April 1966, page 1.)
"Giant Hibal balloon in successful flight.
A super giant Project Hibal balloon was sent aloft from Mildura Aerodrome for a successful six and a half hour flight yesterday.
It was the biggest balloon ever launched in Australia to complete a successful flight, and followed in the shadow of failure to launch a similar balloon here in February.
The balloon was sent aloft to gather atmospheric data for the United States Atomic Energy Commission.
The huge balloon - 242 feet in diameter was launched from Mildura Airport by the Hibal crew at 7.30 yesterday morning. It climbed gradually and reached the required height of 120,000 feet.
Hibal officials expected the balloon to land about 90 miles east of Mildura.
But it was caught by winds estimated at 80 knots and landed some 250 miles east of Mildura, 15 miles south-west of Narrandera.
The payload parachuted to earth from the burst balloon at 2pm.
The Hibal recovery crew travelled to the spot where the payload landed and returned with the equipment late last night.
The launching of the balloon was scheduled for 6.45am but because of the size of the huge balloon, an extra hour was involved in preparing it for launching, compared to the smaller balloons.
The balloon was sent to Mildura from America.
A similar Project Hibal balloon was successfully launched from the airport about the middle of February this year, but burst prematurely at 31,000 feet.
It was believed that a freak wind jet was responsible for this failure."
Flight details:
The Bureau of Meteorology HIBAL file has a memo on it, which gives the dates of the proposed launches for April 1966. These dates were:
1. April 5th - flight 292 - 90,000 feet.
2. April 13th - flight 293 - 80,000 feet.
3. April 19th - flight 294 - 105,000 feet.
4. April 21st - flight 295 - 120,000 feet.
There is also mention of an additional non HIBAL April flight to 120,000 feet.
The Bureau file has no memo on it which gives the dates of the actual flights, however I have now confirmed the following:
1. Flight 292 -?????
2. Flight 293 - Confirmed by the log book of one of the HIBAL chase aircraft pilots, to me. Successful.
3. Flight 294 - Confirmed in the "Sunraysia Daily' of 21 April 1966. Successful to 105,00 feet.
4. Flight 295 - Rescheduled from April 21st to April 27th as stated in the "Sunraysia Daily" of 21 and 28 April. Successful to 120,000 feet.
I found no information on the additional non-HIBAL flight to 120,000 feet.
So, the idea that there were no successful HIBAL flights in April 1966, is proved incorrect.
Flight 292:
What about flight 292? The one the HIBAL hypothesis suggests caused the Westall event? None of the papers I consulted contains any articles on this flight. We are none the wiser as to its status.
Weather:
There is however, one interesting piece of information I gathered from the "Daily." Shane Ryan from Canberra, asked me if I knew the direction of the wind on 5 April 1966 at Mildura. This date was the scheduled launch date for flight 292. When Shane asked me, I did not. I do now.
The "Daily" for 5 April 1966 (page 1) provides the forecast for Mildura, the site of the HIBAL launches. The surface wind direction was from the north to north-west, meaning that near the surface the HIBAL balloon would have travelled south to south-east, the direction in which Westall lies from Mildura. Now, of course, as we have no details of the upper wind direction, this piece of information has minimal value.
However, it is interesting to note that the "Daily" article of 21 April 1966 speaks of delaying a launch because the high altitude winds were from the north, potentially driving the balloon south - "well outside the allowable impact zone."
The 27 April 1966 HIBAL launch landed 250 miles east of Mildura, after high altitude winds also drove it outside the predicted impact zone.
In summary:
Despite a search of a local Mildura newspaper which carried regular articles on HIBAL since 1960, no record of flight 292 was located. The mystery continues.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Monday, May 26, 2014
Near collision 2014 - unknown object - Perth - the official report released
Hi all,
Background:
In two previous blog posts, (click here and here) I reported that eagle-eyed Melbourne researcher, Paul Dean, had spotted an interesting Australian Transport Safety Bureau preliminary report. This report concerned a near collision between an "unknown object," and a De Havilland DHC-8 aircraft, registration VH-XFX, near Perth international airport on 19 March 2014.
FOI requests:
In jointly researching the incident, Paul Dean submitted an FOI request to Air Services Australia, asking for a copy of radar coverage around the time of the incident. Paul received the relevant radar data. Paul kindly sent me a copy of the data, and at run time 0106 the DHC-8 aircraft appears on the screen, and it, and surrounding commercial aircraft can be followed, until they land at Perth. The data was examined by an experienced air traffic controller, who advised that the data was a compilation of both primary and secondary radar, but that no "unknown object" appeared on the screen.
Meanwhile, with Paul's concurrence, I simultaneously submitted an FOI request to the Department of Defence, seeking a copy of any primary radar coverage from RAAF Perth, around the time of the incident. This FOI request was refused, on the grounds, that as the relevant radar tape had been re-used, in line with standing orders, and there was no such "document" that they could provide to me. I had been hoping that primary, as opposed to secondary radar, would show the "unknown object." Memo for next time is that one needs to submit an FOI request to the DOD immediately after an incident. This of course assumes that you hear about it right away. This was not the case with this particular incident.
Final ATSB report:
The four page ATSB report was released today. Here are excerpts from the report:
"...the crew sighted a bright strobe light directly in front of the aircraft...the light appeared to track towards the aircraft and the crew realised that the light was on an unknown object, possibly an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)..."
It passed the aircraft at extremely close range.
"The pilot reported that the object was cylindrical in shape and grey in colour. It was at about 3,700ft AMSL and in controlled airspace. The crew did not receive a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) alert. The airspace below 3,500ft AMSL was military restricted airspace and the Australian Defence Force was not operating UAVs and was not aware of any UAV operating in the area at the time of the incident. The ATSB was not able to confirm the details of the object or identify any UAV operator in the area at that time."
A UAP?
A cylindrical shaped, grey coloured, object, caused an aircraft pilot to take action, to avoid a perceived collision, near Perth, Western Australia on 19 March 2014. The ATSB report suggested it was "possibly" a UAV. However, there is no confirmatory evidence that this is the definitive answer. I believe, therefore, that in my opinion, the object fits the definition of UAP.
Background:
In two previous blog posts, (click here and here) I reported that eagle-eyed Melbourne researcher, Paul Dean, had spotted an interesting Australian Transport Safety Bureau preliminary report. This report concerned a near collision between an "unknown object," and a De Havilland DHC-8 aircraft, registration VH-XFX, near Perth international airport on 19 March 2014.
FOI requests:
In jointly researching the incident, Paul Dean submitted an FOI request to Air Services Australia, asking for a copy of radar coverage around the time of the incident. Paul received the relevant radar data. Paul kindly sent me a copy of the data, and at run time 0106 the DHC-8 aircraft appears on the screen, and it, and surrounding commercial aircraft can be followed, until they land at Perth. The data was examined by an experienced air traffic controller, who advised that the data was a compilation of both primary and secondary radar, but that no "unknown object" appeared on the screen.
Meanwhile, with Paul's concurrence, I simultaneously submitted an FOI request to the Department of Defence, seeking a copy of any primary radar coverage from RAAF Perth, around the time of the incident. This FOI request was refused, on the grounds, that as the relevant radar tape had been re-used, in line with standing orders, and there was no such "document" that they could provide to me. I had been hoping that primary, as opposed to secondary radar, would show the "unknown object." Memo for next time is that one needs to submit an FOI request to the DOD immediately after an incident. This of course assumes that you hear about it right away. This was not the case with this particular incident.
Final ATSB report:
The four page ATSB report was released today. Here are excerpts from the report:
"...the crew sighted a bright strobe light directly in front of the aircraft...the light appeared to track towards the aircraft and the crew realised that the light was on an unknown object, possibly an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)..."
It passed the aircraft at extremely close range.
"The pilot reported that the object was cylindrical in shape and grey in colour. It was at about 3,700ft AMSL and in controlled airspace. The crew did not receive a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) alert. The airspace below 3,500ft AMSL was military restricted airspace and the Australian Defence Force was not operating UAVs and was not aware of any UAV operating in the area at the time of the incident. The ATSB was not able to confirm the details of the object or identify any UAV operator in the area at that time."
A UAP?
A cylindrical shaped, grey coloured, object, caused an aircraft pilot to take action, to avoid a perceived collision, near Perth, Western Australia on 19 March 2014. The ATSB report suggested it was "possibly" a UAV. However, there is no confirmatory evidence that this is the definitive answer. I believe, therefore, that in my opinion, the object fits the definition of UAP.
Monday, May 19, 2014
"The Petrov Story"
Hi all,
As I have mentioned before on this blog, I read a large range of books. At the moment, I am reading a book titled "The Petrov Story" by Michael Bialoguski. 1989. Mandarin Australia. Melbourne. First published in 1955. (For more on Bialoguski click here.)
Most Australians will have heard of the defection of Soviet diplomat and secret agent, Vladimir Petrov in 1954. The year 1954, here in Australia, as with many European countries, saw large numbers of reports of "flying saucers." There are numerous newspaper accounts available in the TROVE digitised newspaper collection in the National Library of Australia.
You wouldn't expect to find a mention of our topic of interest in such a serious tome as this book. However, on page 147, in a section concerning an individual named Platkais, described as a member of the Soviet embassy in Australia, author Bialoguski writes:
"From this story Platkais moved on to flying saucers; there was no doubt, he inferred, that flying saucers existed, and that many of those that had been reported were, of Russian origin.
I might not have taken this seriously, but for the fact that, as he was about to elaborate, Petrov gave him a disapproving stare. Much to my disappointment Platkais stopped and changed the subject."
As I have mentioned before on this blog, I read a large range of books. At the moment, I am reading a book titled "The Petrov Story" by Michael Bialoguski. 1989. Mandarin Australia. Melbourne. First published in 1955. (For more on Bialoguski click here.)
Most Australians will have heard of the defection of Soviet diplomat and secret agent, Vladimir Petrov in 1954. The year 1954, here in Australia, as with many European countries, saw large numbers of reports of "flying saucers." There are numerous newspaper accounts available in the TROVE digitised newspaper collection in the National Library of Australia.
You wouldn't expect to find a mention of our topic of interest in such a serious tome as this book. However, on page 147, in a section concerning an individual named Platkais, described as a member of the Soviet embassy in Australia, author Bialoguski writes:
"From this story Platkais moved on to flying saucers; there was no doubt, he inferred, that flying saucers existed, and that many of those that had been reported were, of Russian origin.
I might not have taken this seriously, but for the fact that, as he was about to elaborate, Petrov gave him a disapproving stare. Much to my disappointment Platkais stopped and changed the subject."
Friday, May 16, 2014
New book alert - Pope, Burroughs, Penniston
Hi all,
Introduction:
Yet another of a long line of books about the United Kingdom's 1980 Rendlesham Forest affair.
Previous books include:
Butler, B; Street, D; & Randles, J. 1984. "Skycrash."
Randles, J. 1991. "From Out of the Blue."
Randles, J. 1998. "UFO Crash Landing."
Bruni, G. 2000. "You Can't Tell the People."
This one is titled "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest: The Inside Story of the World's Best-Documented UFO Incident." 2014. The authors are Nick Pope, with John Burroughs and Jim Penniston. Pope is an English UFO researcher, while Burroughs and Penniston are Rendlesham witnesses. The publisher is Thomas Dunne Books. New York. ISBN 978-1-250-03810-4. There is a good index, but the book lacks a listing of the names, ranks etc. of the individuals written about in the book. With so many individuals being written about, I suspect many new readers will quickly lapse into confusion about who was who, and where they fitted into the scheme of things.
Here in one place are the detailed accounts of two of the central witnesses who say they were involved in a close encounter with "something" which left them deeply affected. Nick Pope provides details of official investigations ( or cover-up according to how you read it). For someone new to our subject, this book does provide a good overview of the events. However, for those already versed in the case, there are, in my opinion, some troubling aspects with the book.
A starting point:
The book makes some debatable claims, starting with: "Simply put, the Rendlesham Forest incident is by far the best-documented and most compelling UFO incident ever to have taken place." (p.xvi.) Some readers might disagree with this suggestion, citing Tehran (1976;) Socorro (1964;) the JAL case (1986;) or the Belgium flap of 1989/1990. I would suggest that the documentation on some of these cases is equal to, or exceeds that of, Rendlesham.
Another quote is "What follows is the inside story of a UFO incident that's bigger than Roswell..." (p.xix.) I would respectfully suggest that Roswell proponents will totally disagree with this statement. The Roswell saga proponents will say that there is more witness testimony; wider evidence of a cover-up, and with Roswell you can throw in stories of"alien bodies."
A third example is, "Ufologists ( as they label themselves) fall into two broad camps: true believers and die-hard debunkers." (p.89.) Researchers such as Eddie Bullard would disagree with this statement, having described a much broader ranger of views within the UFO research community. A question which arises in my mind is, which camp does UFO researcher and author Nick Pope, put himself in? A true believer or a die-hard debunker?
"Facts" not confirmed or sourced:
On several occasions the authors fail to provide a source for their statements. One example of this is the talk of "missing time" for Burroughs and Penniston. "The fact is our watches were behind and the shift commander said we were missing for 45 min." (p.10.) This "shift commander" is not named at this point, and I can find no evidence in the book that the shift commander was ever interviewed by Pope, and if so, did the shift commander confirm this 45 minutes? It was only 9 pages later that there is mention of a shift commander named Captain Mike Verrano. Again there seems to be no confirmation by Verrano that there was a loss of time to Burroughs and Penniston.
Another example is "...Staff Sergent Coffey recalls "My blotter was pulled and classified SECRET by the Base Commander" (p.146.) Yet I cannot find, in the book, a citation for this interview, e.g. Pope/Coffey 21 Aug 2010; or Burroughs/Coffey 27 Dec 1980 etc. There is no follow up comment as to how this piece of information was obtained.
Confusion:
The book contains numerous occasions when the authors qualify the information they provide, with statements, in the first 26 pages, such as:
"While there's some confusion over the exact time..." (p.3.)
"There's confusion about who arrived first." (p.5.)
In relation to floodlights which were ordered to be brought in, and why they malfunctioned: "There's confusion about this." (p.24,) with differing witnesses offering different accounts.
Regarding Halt's tape recording made at the time" "...as is the case with almost every aspect of this extraordinary story, there's controversy here..." (p.26.) Halt in 1999 referred to holding 4-5 hours of tape recordings, compared with the 18 minutes in the public domain.
By "confusion," I take it to mean that different people have provided different versions about a specific aspect of the events. In my opinion, the authors needed to detail and analyse these differences, for us, in order to reconcile the varying accounts, where possible.
By "controversy" I take it to mean that different people hold different interpretations of aspects of the events.
Incomplete information:
It appears that some pieces of information are missing, such as "Somebody in the control tower checked the radar...The key piece of information that came back was that a "bogey"...had been tracked around fifteen minutes previously..." (p.4.) There seems to be no specific source cited for this piece of critical information that there was radar confirmation of the event. There was apparently an anonymous "somebody" involved.
From what is provided in examples such as this, I cannot tell whether the information is simply not known after an investigation; or whether no one had conducted an investigation at all.
Accuracy:
I'd like to pick one specific aspect of the case, in order to demonstrate a difficulty I have in bold statements that the authors make. The specific aspect relates to whether or not, the medical records of Burroughs and Penniston are held in the classified-records section of the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
On page 253, Burroughs himself states "I was shocked...my medical records were classified..."
On page 256, the authors write: "We know that military medical records for John Burroughs and Jim Penniston are lodged in a classified-records section."
Yet, on page 224, in a section written by Mississippi attorney Pat Frascogna, there is "Evidently, John's records are classified..."
Yet again, on page xviii, "Burroughs's and Penniston's medical records appear to be held by a little-known classified-records section in the Department of Veterans Affairs."
Note the use of the differing words, "were classified;" "are lodged;" "Evidently," and "appear." Which, if any is correct? What is the original source of this information? The Frascogna quote comes from Burroughs; which states that a US Senator, Kyl, "...told him they felt my records could be located in the VA classified-records section..." (p.253.)
My reading of this aspect, is that Senator Kyl's "could" has been translated into "were classified;" "are lodged;" "Evidently;" and "appear" depending on who is telling the story.
There is no mention, that I could find, which tells me that anyone other than Burroughs checked with Senator Kyl to directly confirm that "could" is the correct interpretation.
Overall:
For the reasons I outline above, I was disappointed with this book. Time and time again there were pieces of information, which had no sources cited; facts given that were not independently checked with the person that they attributed to, and it felt to me, that Pope, particularly, had failed in these areas.
Extraterrestrial?
Perhaps the most important issue for the ETH proponents of this case, is exactly what the two witnesses to the "close encounter" believe they experienced. ETH proponents have always lead us to believe that the case was a classic UFO. However:
"...in one sense Penniston is as cynical about aliens as he is about police cars, light houses...he talks about alien visitations not in terms of what was being covered up but in terms of it being the cover story..." (p.119.)
"Burroughs, too, talks about aliens in terms of a cover story: "I believe the alien part was planted by both governments at the beginning, to cover up what was really going on, both by people who know what they were doing and people who did not." (p.119.)
If the two central witnesses do not believe it was an extraterrestrial visitation, why should we?
Introduction:
Yet another of a long line of books about the United Kingdom's 1980 Rendlesham Forest affair.
Previous books include:
Butler, B; Street, D; & Randles, J. 1984. "Skycrash."
Randles, J. 1991. "From Out of the Blue."
Randles, J. 1998. "UFO Crash Landing."
Bruni, G. 2000. "You Can't Tell the People."
This one is titled "Encounter in Rendlesham Forest: The Inside Story of the World's Best-Documented UFO Incident." 2014. The authors are Nick Pope, with John Burroughs and Jim Penniston. Pope is an English UFO researcher, while Burroughs and Penniston are Rendlesham witnesses. The publisher is Thomas Dunne Books. New York. ISBN 978-1-250-03810-4. There is a good index, but the book lacks a listing of the names, ranks etc. of the individuals written about in the book. With so many individuals being written about, I suspect many new readers will quickly lapse into confusion about who was who, and where they fitted into the scheme of things.
Here in one place are the detailed accounts of two of the central witnesses who say they were involved in a close encounter with "something" which left them deeply affected. Nick Pope provides details of official investigations ( or cover-up according to how you read it). For someone new to our subject, this book does provide a good overview of the events. However, for those already versed in the case, there are, in my opinion, some troubling aspects with the book.
A starting point:
The book makes some debatable claims, starting with: "Simply put, the Rendlesham Forest incident is by far the best-documented and most compelling UFO incident ever to have taken place." (p.xvi.) Some readers might disagree with this suggestion, citing Tehran (1976;) Socorro (1964;) the JAL case (1986;) or the Belgium flap of 1989/1990. I would suggest that the documentation on some of these cases is equal to, or exceeds that of, Rendlesham.
Another quote is "What follows is the inside story of a UFO incident that's bigger than Roswell..." (p.xix.) I would respectfully suggest that Roswell proponents will totally disagree with this statement. The Roswell saga proponents will say that there is more witness testimony; wider evidence of a cover-up, and with Roswell you can throw in stories of"alien bodies."
A third example is, "Ufologists ( as they label themselves) fall into two broad camps: true believers and die-hard debunkers." (p.89.) Researchers such as Eddie Bullard would disagree with this statement, having described a much broader ranger of views within the UFO research community. A question which arises in my mind is, which camp does UFO researcher and author Nick Pope, put himself in? A true believer or a die-hard debunker?
"Facts" not confirmed or sourced:
On several occasions the authors fail to provide a source for their statements. One example of this is the talk of "missing time" for Burroughs and Penniston. "The fact is our watches were behind and the shift commander said we were missing for 45 min." (p.10.) This "shift commander" is not named at this point, and I can find no evidence in the book that the shift commander was ever interviewed by Pope, and if so, did the shift commander confirm this 45 minutes? It was only 9 pages later that there is mention of a shift commander named Captain Mike Verrano. Again there seems to be no confirmation by Verrano that there was a loss of time to Burroughs and Penniston.
Another example is "...Staff Sergent Coffey recalls "My blotter was pulled and classified SECRET by the Base Commander" (p.146.) Yet I cannot find, in the book, a citation for this interview, e.g. Pope/Coffey 21 Aug 2010; or Burroughs/Coffey 27 Dec 1980 etc. There is no follow up comment as to how this piece of information was obtained.
Confusion:
The book contains numerous occasions when the authors qualify the information they provide, with statements, in the first 26 pages, such as:
"While there's some confusion over the exact time..." (p.3.)
"There's confusion about who arrived first." (p.5.)
In relation to floodlights which were ordered to be brought in, and why they malfunctioned: "There's confusion about this." (p.24,) with differing witnesses offering different accounts.
Regarding Halt's tape recording made at the time" "...as is the case with almost every aspect of this extraordinary story, there's controversy here..." (p.26.) Halt in 1999 referred to holding 4-5 hours of tape recordings, compared with the 18 minutes in the public domain.
By "confusion," I take it to mean that different people have provided different versions about a specific aspect of the events. In my opinion, the authors needed to detail and analyse these differences, for us, in order to reconcile the varying accounts, where possible.
By "controversy" I take it to mean that different people hold different interpretations of aspects of the events.
Incomplete information:
It appears that some pieces of information are missing, such as "Somebody in the control tower checked the radar...The key piece of information that came back was that a "bogey"...had been tracked around fifteen minutes previously..." (p.4.) There seems to be no specific source cited for this piece of critical information that there was radar confirmation of the event. There was apparently an anonymous "somebody" involved.
From what is provided in examples such as this, I cannot tell whether the information is simply not known after an investigation; or whether no one had conducted an investigation at all.
Accuracy:
I'd like to pick one specific aspect of the case, in order to demonstrate a difficulty I have in bold statements that the authors make. The specific aspect relates to whether or not, the medical records of Burroughs and Penniston are held in the classified-records section of the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
On page 253, Burroughs himself states "I was shocked...my medical records were classified..."
On page 256, the authors write: "We know that military medical records for John Burroughs and Jim Penniston are lodged in a classified-records section."
Yet, on page 224, in a section written by Mississippi attorney Pat Frascogna, there is "Evidently, John's records are classified..."
Yet again, on page xviii, "Burroughs's and Penniston's medical records appear to be held by a little-known classified-records section in the Department of Veterans Affairs."
Note the use of the differing words, "were classified;" "are lodged;" "Evidently," and "appear." Which, if any is correct? What is the original source of this information? The Frascogna quote comes from Burroughs; which states that a US Senator, Kyl, "...told him they felt my records could be located in the VA classified-records section..." (p.253.)
My reading of this aspect, is that Senator Kyl's "could" has been translated into "were classified;" "are lodged;" "Evidently;" and "appear" depending on who is telling the story.
There is no mention, that I could find, which tells me that anyone other than Burroughs checked with Senator Kyl to directly confirm that "could" is the correct interpretation.
Overall:
For the reasons I outline above, I was disappointed with this book. Time and time again there were pieces of information, which had no sources cited; facts given that were not independently checked with the person that they attributed to, and it felt to me, that Pope, particularly, had failed in these areas.
Extraterrestrial?
Perhaps the most important issue for the ETH proponents of this case, is exactly what the two witnesses to the "close encounter" believe they experienced. ETH proponents have always lead us to believe that the case was a classic UFO. However:
"...in one sense Penniston is as cynical about aliens as he is about police cars, light houses...he talks about alien visitations not in terms of what was being covered up but in terms of it being the cover story..." (p.119.)
"Burroughs, too, talks about aliens in terms of a cover story: "I believe the alien part was planted by both governments at the beginning, to cover up what was really going on, both by people who know what they were doing and people who did not." (p.119.)
If the two central witnesses do not believe it was an extraterrestrial visitation, why should we?
Saturday, April 26, 2014
An unusual account set in southern California, and one from New South Wales
Hi all,
Background:
From time to time, I come across intriguing accounts, about which I would like to know more. Over the years there have been numerous such stories. Some, I have been able to enlarge upon, while others remain in fragmentary pieces, which I have never been able to put together. In this post I would like to share details of two such accounts, and ask for any blog readers who might be able to throw more light on either of them, to do so.
Southern California:
Back in October 2011, I interviewed an Adelaide man who recounted an observation of a UAP over Canberra, ACT, at around the time of the Valentich disappearance.
During our conversation, he advised me that at one time he had related his story to a well know Australian engineer and motor car racing identity (name on file, I will refer to him as Mr. P.)
My informant said that Mr P had told him the following. Back in the 1960's Mr P was driving test cars for Ford in southern California. The car had previously crashed, killing two test drivers. Mr P drove another one of these cars and also crashed. Mr P survived the crash and some part of his recovery process was undertaken at Edwards Air Force Base. There, Mr P related, he saw (1) an unusual metal, and (2) an object the size of an orange which could hover by itself.
Fact checking:
1. A search of the Internet confirmed that Mr P had indeed been involved as a test driver for the Ford J-car program in the aftermath of Ken Miles' fatal Bridgehampton accident.
2. Another website provided details of Miles' accident which took place at the Riverside International Raceway in southern California in August 1966. The site confirmed that there had been two fatal accidents in five months in the Ford program.
3. Edwards Air Force Base is indeed in southern California.
4. However, I could not locate any Internet account concerning Mr P being injured in a Ford J car crash; nor of him being hospitalised at Edwards Air Force Base. There was also nothing about an unusual metal, or a hovering orange object.
5. I did locate an Australian website created by Mr P's family, to honour his work. I forwarded an email to the site, recounting the details I was aware of, and asked them if they had ever come across this story? I never received a reply.
Crash retrieval in New South Wales?
A friend of mine in Tasmania has recently spoken to a man about an incident reported to have happened about 20-30 miles outside of Moree, New South Wales, Australia, in about 1963-1964.
The account is of an incident which happened to the informant's father. At about 2 am farmers in the area reported a bright light which lit up the area. There was a reported ground trace found, and the area was said to have been cordoned off by the police and the military.
Background:
From time to time, I come across intriguing accounts, about which I would like to know more. Over the years there have been numerous such stories. Some, I have been able to enlarge upon, while others remain in fragmentary pieces, which I have never been able to put together. In this post I would like to share details of two such accounts, and ask for any blog readers who might be able to throw more light on either of them, to do so.
Southern California:
Back in October 2011, I interviewed an Adelaide man who recounted an observation of a UAP over Canberra, ACT, at around the time of the Valentich disappearance.
During our conversation, he advised me that at one time he had related his story to a well know Australian engineer and motor car racing identity (name on file, I will refer to him as Mr. P.)
My informant said that Mr P had told him the following. Back in the 1960's Mr P was driving test cars for Ford in southern California. The car had previously crashed, killing two test drivers. Mr P drove another one of these cars and also crashed. Mr P survived the crash and some part of his recovery process was undertaken at Edwards Air Force Base. There, Mr P related, he saw (1) an unusual metal, and (2) an object the size of an orange which could hover by itself.
Fact checking:
1. A search of the Internet confirmed that Mr P had indeed been involved as a test driver for the Ford J-car program in the aftermath of Ken Miles' fatal Bridgehampton accident.
2. Another website provided details of Miles' accident which took place at the Riverside International Raceway in southern California in August 1966. The site confirmed that there had been two fatal accidents in five months in the Ford program.
3. Edwards Air Force Base is indeed in southern California.
4. However, I could not locate any Internet account concerning Mr P being injured in a Ford J car crash; nor of him being hospitalised at Edwards Air Force Base. There was also nothing about an unusual metal, or a hovering orange object.
5. I did locate an Australian website created by Mr P's family, to honour his work. I forwarded an email to the site, recounting the details I was aware of, and asked them if they had ever come across this story? I never received a reply.
Crash retrieval in New South Wales?
A friend of mine in Tasmania has recently spoken to a man about an incident reported to have happened about 20-30 miles outside of Moree, New South Wales, Australia, in about 1963-1964.
The account is of an incident which happened to the informant's father. At about 2 am farmers in the area reported a bright light which lit up the area. There was a reported ground trace found, and the area was said to have been cordoned off by the police and the military.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Westall - read the original documentation yourself
Hi all,
Original documentation:
I have become aware, through reading recent comments on social media, that many people, including individuals who were present on site at Westall High School on 6 April 1966, have never had the opportunity to carefully read all of the original documentation which exists on the event.
Certainly, almost no-one has had the opportunity to hear the audio interview between US UAP researcher Professor James E McDonald, and Westall teacher Andrew Greenwood, recorded in Melbourne in June 1967.
I have therefore arranged with John Stepkowski of the Project 1947 website, for that site to host a document which provides the text of all the relevant newspaper articles; UAP magazine articles, plus comprehensive summary notes of the 1967 McDonald/Greenwood interview.
I would ask that, whatever perspective you hold on the Westall event, that you take half an hour to carefully read through this documentation and let the facts contained in it, inform your views.
The material may be viewed at:
http://www.project1947.com/kbcat/kbwestall.htm
Relevant HIBAL documents:
I have been challenged by one correspondent to produce any official documents to back up my claim that the Australian Government was concerned at the possible liability which might have arisen from HIBAL program balloons landing in an "inhabited area."
One such document is to be found on National Archives of Australia file series A1838, control symbol 694/7/23 part 2. This file originated with the former Australian government Department of External Affairs.
Another correspondent asked me to post an official document which showed that there were other balloons flying from Mildura, which were not part of the US Atomic Energy Commission air sampling program. Again, from the same file series as the two documents above, here is a chart which clearly shows proposed balloon launches in March/April 1966 (remember Westall was 6 April 1966) by the US Government Office of Naval Research/NASA.
I am conducting further research on these "special balloon launches" to determine if they had any relevance to the Westall incident.
Last point:
To those who do not favour my line of argument that the authorities knew that the Westall object was coming, because they were tracking the HIBAL balloon, parachute and payload which caused the incident. If it was a "UFO" how did the authorities react so quickly? How did they know that the "UFO" was coming down at Westall? I have never read an explanation of this from any pro-UFO supporter. I would certainly like to hear what they have to say on this point.
Original documentation:
I have become aware, through reading recent comments on social media, that many people, including individuals who were present on site at Westall High School on 6 April 1966, have never had the opportunity to carefully read all of the original documentation which exists on the event.
Certainly, almost no-one has had the opportunity to hear the audio interview between US UAP researcher Professor James E McDonald, and Westall teacher Andrew Greenwood, recorded in Melbourne in June 1967.
I have therefore arranged with John Stepkowski of the Project 1947 website, for that site to host a document which provides the text of all the relevant newspaper articles; UAP magazine articles, plus comprehensive summary notes of the 1967 McDonald/Greenwood interview.
I would ask that, whatever perspective you hold on the Westall event, that you take half an hour to carefully read through this documentation and let the facts contained in it, inform your views.
The material may be viewed at:
http://www.project1947.com/kbcat/kbwestall.htm
Relevant HIBAL documents:
I have been challenged by one correspondent to produce any official documents to back up my claim that the Australian Government was concerned at the possible liability which might have arisen from HIBAL program balloons landing in an "inhabited area."
One such document is to be found on National Archives of Australia file series A1838, control symbol 694/7/23 part 2. This file originated with the former Australian government Department of External Affairs.
Another correspondent asked me to post an official document which showed that there were other balloons flying from Mildura, which were not part of the US Atomic Energy Commission air sampling program. Again, from the same file series as the two documents above, here is a chart which clearly shows proposed balloon launches in March/April 1966 (remember Westall was 6 April 1966) by the US Government Office of Naval Research/NASA.
I am conducting further research on these "special balloon launches" to determine if they had any relevance to the Westall incident.
Last point:
To those who do not favour my line of argument that the authorities knew that the Westall object was coming, because they were tracking the HIBAL balloon, parachute and payload which caused the incident. If it was a "UFO" how did the authorities react so quickly? How did they know that the "UFO" was coming down at Westall? I have never read an explanation of this from any pro-UFO supporter. I would certainly like to hear what they have to say on this point.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Westall - HIBAL - further information you may not know
Hi all,
I want to add some further information in support of the hypothesis that the 6 April 1966 incident at Westall High School was due to the recovery of a HIBAL payload and its associated 12 metre diameter parachute (for previous post, click here,) and the subsequent desire by authorities to "hush" the event up.
Memories:
Most of the modern day accounts of the Westall incident, draw upon the 40 plus year old memories of people who are alive today, and were in their early teens when the event occurred. Much of this material has been documented, and discussed only post 2005, on social media sites ( e.g. see here, and here.) In my opinion, while such sites have allowed people who were former students at Westall High School, to come forward and share their recollections; they are simply that; 40 plus year old memories of "something which happened." I understand that not one individual has been able to come forward with say, a 1966 diary entry, where we can all read their 1966 account of what they saw that day. We are relying on their memories.
Here then lies my first issue, the 40 year plus old memories. General public opinion suggests that memories are like a video recording of the event, i.e. you can play it back in your mind at any time and the results will be consistent, accurate and the same time after time. However, this is not what modern scientific research has found.
"Important, surprising and impactful public events sometimes produce flashbulb memories. These are vivid and long lived recollections of the personal circumstances associated with learning about such events...Subsequent researchers have used a test-retest design to assess the accuracy and stability of these memories over fairly long delays...This line of work has demonstrated that memory reports collected months or years after the flash-bulb eliciting event sometimes differ from ones collected days or weeks after the event." (Lee, PJ and Brown, NR. 2003. "Delay Related Changes in Personal Memories for September 11, 2001." Applied Cognitive Psychology. 17:1007-1015.)
A 1992 piece by Neisser, U and Harsch, N (in Winograd, E and Neisser, U (eds.) "Affect and Accuracy in Recall: Studies of "Flashbulb Memories". 1992. pp9-31) titled "Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger" is of particular relevance. Here, accounts of the space shuttle Challenger disaster from the day following the event, were compared to memories of the event after some 2 and a half years. Only 7% of the participants were able to recall the information accurately. 68% recalled memories containing varying amounts of accurate and inaccurate details. Despite this issue, participants were highly confident that they had in fact accurately recalled the incident. This study was based on such simple questions as where they were when they found out, and what they were doing at that time?
Numerous other pieces of research have shown the fallibility of human memory. "An accumulation of data refutes the necessity of a uniquely accurate memory process, instead showing that FBMs often include errors." (Talarico, JM and Rubin, DC. 2007. "Flashbulb memories Are Special After All; in Phenomenology, Not Accuracy." Applied Cognitive Psychology. 21:556-578.
In summary, I have serious doubts about the accuracy of many of the accounts collected and discussed in social media forums post 2005, about the Westall incident.
What do I think is accurate?
I think that instead of relying on old, often inaccurate memories, we should take a closer look at the documentation which exists from 1966. I have been able, with the kind assistance of Westall researcher Shane Ryan, and "Westall 66" documentary film maker Rosie Jones to compile a listing of such documentation. This includes local newspaper accounts from 1966; a one page report form filled in for the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society (VFSRS) in 1966, and a student's written account from 1966.
1. The VFSRS report form is in the name of 12 year old student, Joy Tighe. In it, she states that she saw "Circular 2 UFOs." "Round on top Flat on Bottom." She describes the trace as "Flattened waist high grass for 10 yards diameter."
Under the HIBAL hypothesis, I would suggest that Joy saw the HIBAL 12 metre diameter parachute and the associated (but separated by a distance) attached payload. Note that Joy says there were two UFOs not the one (or three) suggested by post 2005 accounts.
2. The "Dandenong Journal" dated 14 April 1966 page 1, states that the shape was "a round humped object with a flat base..." Under the HIBAL hypothesis I would suggest that this refers to the 12 metre diameter parachute. The colour given in the Journal piece was grey or silver grey. I have not yet been able to determine the colour of HIBAL payload parachutes.
Regarding the ground trace (described by post 2005 reports as varying in number between one and several, and recollected, if my memory serves me correctly, in seven different locations by post 2005 accounts), VFSRS researcher Judith Magee is quoted in the Journal as seeing "a couple of circular patches where the grass had been flattened." However, the Journal then goes on to say "Mrs Magee said strong winds had been blowing during the week, and these could have caused the grass to be flattened."
If the ground trace, described in some post 2005 accounts as neat, circular shapes similar to crop circles, was in fact caused by high winds, then this aspect of the Westall incident needs no other explanation from the HIBAL hypothesis. I will add, that there is no 1966 account of the Westall UFO making the ground trace. Its association with the UFO appears to be one of inference, i.e. other UFOs have left ground markings, e.g. 19 January 1966 Tully "saucer nest."
Andrew Greenwood:
The Dandenong Journal dated 21 April 1966 cites an interview with Westall teacher Andrew Greenwood and has him describing what he saw as "Like a thin beam of light, about half the length of a light aircraft. It was silvery-grey and seemed to 'thicken' at times." Greenwood is cited as saying the object he saw was never stationary and seemed to move from side to side and up and down. This is so unlike what student Joy Tighe reported that one wonders if she and Greenwood were describing the same object, or two separate things. Could Greenwood have been looking at the deflating HIBAL balloon itself, as opposed to Tighe's sighting of the parachute and payload?
Regarding the departure of the object, post 2005 accounts have it departing at speed. What did Greenwood say in 1966? The Journal cites him as saying that after about 20 minutes, he "looked away and when he looked back it had disappeared." He did not say he saw the object departing at high speed. Interestingly, in a 1967 interview with Professor James E McDonald, Greenwood says that he lost sight of it as it vanished by accelerating away. So, only one year after the event, Greenwood himself may well have been the source of much later accounts of the object accelerating away. This may well be an example of a flashbulb memory being faulty, after some time has elapsed.
Clayton Calendar:
In a newsletter style publication "The Clayton Calendar" published somewhere between April and July 1966, a student wrote about his own observation of the Westall object. He describes what he saw, not as a domed object but like a very thin, silver object. Its departure motion was described as moving into the distance, gradually gaining height. Again this is so at odds with student Tighe's description, that one wonders what this 1966 student was actually observing? Note his description is identical to Greenwood's. Again, could this student have been looking at the actual deflating HIBAL balloon?
So, there we have three original accounts from 1966. This is all we have to go on if we believe that post 2005 accounts may be inaccurate, as modern psychological studies would suggest.
Back to HIBAL:
I would argue that the original 1966 documentation, sparse as it is, as much supports the HIBAL hypothesis as it does the UFO hypothesis. Of particular importance, in my mind, is the inability of UFO researchers to demonstrate that there was any link at all between UFO and "ground marking." Recall that it was VFSRS researcher Magee who commented that the mark may have simply been due to high winds.
Other important questions:
One additional point to mention is that no UFO researcher, myself included, has been able to locate even one single piece of official documentation from any Australian government UFO, or other, file, that relates the Westall incident as a UFO landing. The HIBAL hypothesis would suggest this is because the Westall incident was not UFO related. The UFO hypothesis suggests there was a major "cover up" of the event, and this is why there is no "paper trail."
A second point, is that some Westall witnesses, post 2005, commented upon the speed with which the authorities were on the scene, almost as if they knew the object was going to be there. The HIBAL hypothesis has a simple answer to this, the authorities knew that a parachute and payload dropped from a balloon was on its way because they were tracking it from a chase aircraft. A chase aircraft followed every flight. Recall that multiple light aircraft were said to be in the general area of the Westall object. It is known that some light aircraft were doing circuits from Moorabbin airport at that time which may account for most of the aircraft reported, leaving one to be a HIBAL chase aircraft.
A third point is that I know of no Australian UFO incident where it has been proven that the authorities tried to silence witnesses. Westall witnesses in 1966 documentation describe being told to keep quiet about the incident. The HIBAL hypothesis would point out that Department of External files I found in the National Archives of Australia show that authorities were deeply concerned about the possibility of a HIBAL project balloon and associated 200kg payload doing some damage on the ground, or indeed hitting an aircraft. Thus the hypothesis suggests the authorities would try and keep the fact that a 200kg payload nearly descended onto a school yard, as quiet as possible. One HIBAL flight in August 1966 landed on a chicken farm near Bendigo according to two former Department of Supply HIBAL personnel, whom I interviewed.
In summary:
Although I have the highest regard for the individuals who have come forward on social media sites to describe, often in quite confident terms, their recollections from 40 plus years ago, I would suggest that we cannot place confidence in their memories of the 1966 Westall event. Instead, in trying to work out what happened way back then, we need to better analyse the original 1966 documentation which is available to us.
This is why, I would like to see us analyse and debate non-UFO explanations for the 1966 Westall incident, along with those who propose a UFO explanation.
I want to add some further information in support of the hypothesis that the 6 April 1966 incident at Westall High School was due to the recovery of a HIBAL payload and its associated 12 metre diameter parachute (for previous post, click here,) and the subsequent desire by authorities to "hush" the event up.
Memories:
Most of the modern day accounts of the Westall incident, draw upon the 40 plus year old memories of people who are alive today, and were in their early teens when the event occurred. Much of this material has been documented, and discussed only post 2005, on social media sites ( e.g. see here, and here.) In my opinion, while such sites have allowed people who were former students at Westall High School, to come forward and share their recollections; they are simply that; 40 plus year old memories of "something which happened." I understand that not one individual has been able to come forward with say, a 1966 diary entry, where we can all read their 1966 account of what they saw that day. We are relying on their memories.
Here then lies my first issue, the 40 year plus old memories. General public opinion suggests that memories are like a video recording of the event, i.e. you can play it back in your mind at any time and the results will be consistent, accurate and the same time after time. However, this is not what modern scientific research has found.
"Important, surprising and impactful public events sometimes produce flashbulb memories. These are vivid and long lived recollections of the personal circumstances associated with learning about such events...Subsequent researchers have used a test-retest design to assess the accuracy and stability of these memories over fairly long delays...This line of work has demonstrated that memory reports collected months or years after the flash-bulb eliciting event sometimes differ from ones collected days or weeks after the event." (Lee, PJ and Brown, NR. 2003. "Delay Related Changes in Personal Memories for September 11, 2001." Applied Cognitive Psychology. 17:1007-1015.)
A 1992 piece by Neisser, U and Harsch, N (in Winograd, E and Neisser, U (eds.) "Affect and Accuracy in Recall: Studies of "Flashbulb Memories". 1992. pp9-31) titled "Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger" is of particular relevance. Here, accounts of the space shuttle Challenger disaster from the day following the event, were compared to memories of the event after some 2 and a half years. Only 7% of the participants were able to recall the information accurately. 68% recalled memories containing varying amounts of accurate and inaccurate details. Despite this issue, participants were highly confident that they had in fact accurately recalled the incident. This study was based on such simple questions as where they were when they found out, and what they were doing at that time?
Numerous other pieces of research have shown the fallibility of human memory. "An accumulation of data refutes the necessity of a uniquely accurate memory process, instead showing that FBMs often include errors." (Talarico, JM and Rubin, DC. 2007. "Flashbulb memories Are Special After All; in Phenomenology, Not Accuracy." Applied Cognitive Psychology. 21:556-578.
In summary, I have serious doubts about the accuracy of many of the accounts collected and discussed in social media forums post 2005, about the Westall incident.
What do I think is accurate?
I think that instead of relying on old, often inaccurate memories, we should take a closer look at the documentation which exists from 1966. I have been able, with the kind assistance of Westall researcher Shane Ryan, and "Westall 66" documentary film maker Rosie Jones to compile a listing of such documentation. This includes local newspaper accounts from 1966; a one page report form filled in for the Victorian Flying Saucer Research Society (VFSRS) in 1966, and a student's written account from 1966.
1. The VFSRS report form is in the name of 12 year old student, Joy Tighe. In it, she states that she saw "Circular 2 UFOs." "Round on top Flat on Bottom." She describes the trace as "Flattened waist high grass for 10 yards diameter."
Under the HIBAL hypothesis, I would suggest that Joy saw the HIBAL 12 metre diameter parachute and the associated (but separated by a distance) attached payload. Note that Joy says there were two UFOs not the one (or three) suggested by post 2005 accounts.
2. The "Dandenong Journal" dated 14 April 1966 page 1, states that the shape was "a round humped object with a flat base..." Under the HIBAL hypothesis I would suggest that this refers to the 12 metre diameter parachute. The colour given in the Journal piece was grey or silver grey. I have not yet been able to determine the colour of HIBAL payload parachutes.
Regarding the ground trace (described by post 2005 reports as varying in number between one and several, and recollected, if my memory serves me correctly, in seven different locations by post 2005 accounts), VFSRS researcher Judith Magee is quoted in the Journal as seeing "a couple of circular patches where the grass had been flattened." However, the Journal then goes on to say "Mrs Magee said strong winds had been blowing during the week, and these could have caused the grass to be flattened."
If the ground trace, described in some post 2005 accounts as neat, circular shapes similar to crop circles, was in fact caused by high winds, then this aspect of the Westall incident needs no other explanation from the HIBAL hypothesis. I will add, that there is no 1966 account of the Westall UFO making the ground trace. Its association with the UFO appears to be one of inference, i.e. other UFOs have left ground markings, e.g. 19 January 1966 Tully "saucer nest."
Andrew Greenwood:
The Dandenong Journal dated 21 April 1966 cites an interview with Westall teacher Andrew Greenwood and has him describing what he saw as "Like a thin beam of light, about half the length of a light aircraft. It was silvery-grey and seemed to 'thicken' at times." Greenwood is cited as saying the object he saw was never stationary and seemed to move from side to side and up and down. This is so unlike what student Joy Tighe reported that one wonders if she and Greenwood were describing the same object, or two separate things. Could Greenwood have been looking at the deflating HIBAL balloon itself, as opposed to Tighe's sighting of the parachute and payload?
Regarding the departure of the object, post 2005 accounts have it departing at speed. What did Greenwood say in 1966? The Journal cites him as saying that after about 20 minutes, he "looked away and when he looked back it had disappeared." He did not say he saw the object departing at high speed. Interestingly, in a 1967 interview with Professor James E McDonald, Greenwood says that he lost sight of it as it vanished by accelerating away. So, only one year after the event, Greenwood himself may well have been the source of much later accounts of the object accelerating away. This may well be an example of a flashbulb memory being faulty, after some time has elapsed.
Clayton Calendar:
In a newsletter style publication "The Clayton Calendar" published somewhere between April and July 1966, a student wrote about his own observation of the Westall object. He describes what he saw, not as a domed object but like a very thin, silver object. Its departure motion was described as moving into the distance, gradually gaining height. Again this is so at odds with student Tighe's description, that one wonders what this 1966 student was actually observing? Note his description is identical to Greenwood's. Again, could this student have been looking at the actual deflating HIBAL balloon?
So, there we have three original accounts from 1966. This is all we have to go on if we believe that post 2005 accounts may be inaccurate, as modern psychological studies would suggest.
Back to HIBAL:
I would argue that the original 1966 documentation, sparse as it is, as much supports the HIBAL hypothesis as it does the UFO hypothesis. Of particular importance, in my mind, is the inability of UFO researchers to demonstrate that there was any link at all between UFO and "ground marking." Recall that it was VFSRS researcher Magee who commented that the mark may have simply been due to high winds.
Other important questions:
One additional point to mention is that no UFO researcher, myself included, has been able to locate even one single piece of official documentation from any Australian government UFO, or other, file, that relates the Westall incident as a UFO landing. The HIBAL hypothesis would suggest this is because the Westall incident was not UFO related. The UFO hypothesis suggests there was a major "cover up" of the event, and this is why there is no "paper trail."
A second point, is that some Westall witnesses, post 2005, commented upon the speed with which the authorities were on the scene, almost as if they knew the object was going to be there. The HIBAL hypothesis has a simple answer to this, the authorities knew that a parachute and payload dropped from a balloon was on its way because they were tracking it from a chase aircraft. A chase aircraft followed every flight. Recall that multiple light aircraft were said to be in the general area of the Westall object. It is known that some light aircraft were doing circuits from Moorabbin airport at that time which may account for most of the aircraft reported, leaving one to be a HIBAL chase aircraft.
A third point is that I know of no Australian UFO incident where it has been proven that the authorities tried to silence witnesses. Westall witnesses in 1966 documentation describe being told to keep quiet about the incident. The HIBAL hypothesis would point out that Department of External files I found in the National Archives of Australia show that authorities were deeply concerned about the possibility of a HIBAL project balloon and associated 200kg payload doing some damage on the ground, or indeed hitting an aircraft. Thus the hypothesis suggests the authorities would try and keep the fact that a 200kg payload nearly descended onto a school yard, as quiet as possible. One HIBAL flight in August 1966 landed on a chicken farm near Bendigo according to two former Department of Supply HIBAL personnel, whom I interviewed.
In summary:
Although I have the highest regard for the individuals who have come forward on social media sites to describe, often in quite confident terms, their recollections from 40 plus years ago, I would suggest that we cannot place confidence in their memories of the 1966 Westall event. Instead, in trying to work out what happened way back then, we need to better analyse the original 1966 documentation which is available to us.
This is why, I would like to see us analyse and debate non-UFO explanations for the 1966 Westall incident, along with those who propose a UFO explanation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
To the Stars Academy The other day, I was re-reading the list of team members of the To The Stars Academy (TTSA) , to refresh my memory ...
-
Background Some interesting individuals come and go in the field of UAP research. One of these, is an American woman named Valerie Jean R... -
Hi all, Introduction: The disappearance of Australian pilot Frederick Valentich, on 21 October 1978, over Bass Strait, Australia, has al...