With the approaching 25th anniversary of the Rendlesham Incident, I thought I might profer another case that, when it comes right down to it, can only be argued reasonably by those of a skeptical nature, as a fabrication. And as with Rendlesham, you have the US Government military caught in a tangled web of deceit.

In 1964 the Officer-in-Charge of Photo-optical Instrumentation, 1369th Photographic Squadron at Vandenherg Air Force Base, Robert Jacobs, took part in the filming of an Atlas rocket test launch that was part of a series of missile test. During the filming of this particular launch, unbeknowst to Jacobs, he apparently captured on film a UFO which apparently fired several beams of light at the rocket, causing it to fall from the sky. A simulated video rendition of this sequence of events, from the film "Out of the Blue" can be found here.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/Disclosure...rt%20jacobs.wmv

The Major Mansmann Robert Jacobs speaks of was the Chief Science Officer at Vandenberg Air Force base at the time, Florenz J. Mansmann. He has confirmed Jacobs version of the account.

http://rense.com/general69/icbm.htm

There has been much written regarding this encounter, but this collection will provide a much more detailed overview of the case.

http://www.nicap.org/bigsurdir.htm

You will also find an interview with Robert Jacobs archived here:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/Disclosure...obertJacobs.mp3

This is a case where the Skeptics only reasonable argument is that both these men have fabricated this incident. Yet it has been shown that it was the US Government who denied Robert Jacobs served in the Military and initially denied that any unusual events took place during this series of test.

As with the Ariel School sighting in South Africa I posted on the Forum awhile back, the main argument against the 60 some odd schoolchildrens stories was that they were all fabricating the encounter for some reason. Yet nobody in either of these cases seems to have had motive other than that of telling the truth. They have certainly NOT become wealthy because of their exposure. The same could be said of Lt Col. Charles Halt, who at Rendlesham experienced the following.

Transcript of Halt Recording at Rendlesham

Is everybody, at the end of the day, if the Skeptic can't come up with an "scientific" explanation, lying? Do they just shrug and selectively erase these documented encounters from consideration? I am curious?

I have dozens more stories just like this if the Skeptics in the crowd need further bones to chew on. Trust me......

~Cowbell

I remember the story about the Vandenbergh incident. I had asked my dad about it, since he had numerous TDYs there and worked intensively on the missle/rocket programs. However, this particular incident took place before he joined the service so he only knew what had been known publicly.

It's like mommy and daddy knocking a gun out of a child's hand.

I remember hearing this. It is not the first time a UFO has been filmed on/near/or around one of our spacecraft. And plenty of pilots/witnesses to swear by it, not to mention photographic proof.

Sigh.

:ship: :banghead: :sofahide:

Thanks Cowbell.

I much agree with you. Great examples.

I have long thought that the Vandenberg case was absolutely true.

Dear Cowbell,

Am extremely curious about your take, opinions, feelings about this one:

http://www.alien-ufos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11166

He/it seems to have some features not that common to all such stories. Seems to be a slight escalation of something, to me.

Wondering about your thoughts and feelings on it.

Thanks in advance.

Here are two other cases that mimic the Big Sur account. No "beams" were fired, but I find it safe to assume the objects felt no threat from the balloons. Again, these case's can only be argued reasonably by skeptics as fabrications on the part of the General Mills scientists and military personal. I find it hard to believe in the era of "Duck and Cover" paranoia, civilian scientists and soldiers would take the risk of hoaxing these stories.

Jan. 22, 1951 (also given as Feb. 14, 1951)
50 miles SE [ESE?] of Holloman AFB, Alamogordo, N.M. 10 a.m.

--Primary witnesses were pilots Capt. Ernest W. Spradley of Aerial Photo Lab and Capt. James E. Cocker of All-Weather Flying Division, Air Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Also a General Mills Aeronautical lab project engineer Mr. McAleese [sp?] and an airman, were flying in a C-47 heading E [ESE?] at about 10,000-12,000 ft and tracking a large Project GOPHER plastic balloon at about 50,000-60,000 ft when they saw a bright star-like object seemingly next to the pear-shaped balloon or above and to the side. As they approached and flew under the balloon they noticed the object descend to the balloon's level and grow larger in apparent size until about 1/4 to 1/2 the 70 ft balloon, when it appeared to be round and flat like a dime, milky white or silvery in color with a clear outline. According to Spradley, "We were following the balloon when I noticed a strange object in the sky. It was flat and looked like a dime. It was a milky color. It wasn't doing anything, just hovering near the balloon. Said Cocker: "I saw something I never saw before. It was perfectly round, but I don't know what it was. In a way it looked like a star without a twinkle although it appeared a perfectly clear silver color. It appeared to hover next to the balloon and then it separated. Cocker and McAleese left the cockpit, went to the astrodome to observe the object. After 3-5 mins they saw the object separate from the balloon and head W at high speed, after about 1 min it emitted a series of 3 bright flashes like photo flashes at 1 sec intervals and disappeared from sight. Naval officers at Whites Sands Proving Ground had no explanation for the object, though one suggested "it might have been some kind of reflector." However, he couldn't explain the 3 bright flashes that Cocker said he saw.""

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Balloon_UFO_Sightings.html

"Bank-To-Turn Manoeuvers"

It is evident that UFOs' bank-to-turn-when-circling manoeuvers suit their purpose, as we can see in the following sightings.

EXAMPLE XI-D1

The first is a sighting by the scientists of the Aeronautical Division of the General Mills Corporation, as reported by Major Edward Ruppelt. One reason for selecting this example is that I had a working relationship with the same people when the Applied Materials and Physics Division of the Langley Research Center contracted with General Mills to build the world's largest balloon, which we used as a rocket-launch platform at altitudes in excess of 100,000 feet. They related this and other sightings to me at that time (1965). I also liked the way the General Mills scientists stood up to Ruppelt, head of Project Bluebook, when he visited them in Minneapolis on January 14, 1952, in the middle of a cold wave and blizzard. Having directed the launching and tracking of all the Skyhook balloons prior to Ruppelt's visit, they were familiar with the appearance of their balloons in all weather conditions, altitudes, and lighting. They knew meteorology, aerodynamics, and astronomy, and they also were very familiar with UFOs. As Ruppelt put it, the thing that made the General Mills scientists so sure that UFOs existed was that they had seen so many of them. Ruppelt said, "Every time I suggested some natural explanation for UFOs I just about found myself in a fresh snowdrift."

In a daylight sighting on January 16, 1951, two people from General Mills and four from Artesia, New Mexico, were watching a Skyhook balloon from the Artesia airport. After watching the balloon for about an hour, one of them spotted two tiny specks on the northwest horizon. The group watched the specks move in quickly, and in a few seconds they could see that they were two round, dull-white objects flying in close formation. The two objects headed almost straight toward the balloon and then circled it. To circle the balloon, the UFOs tipped on edge in a steep banking manoeuver, and the observers saw that the objects were disk-shaped. This excellent opportunity to determine the size of the saucers by comparison with the known balloon size resulted an estimate of 60 feet in diameter."

Source:

"Unconventional Flying Objects - A Scientific Analysis", p. 150, book by Paul R. Hill, Hampton Road Publishing, ISBN 1-57174-027-9, 1995.

http://ufologie.net/htm/ruppeltwhoiswho.htm

These two separate incidents occurred within weeks if not days of each other with entirely different personal involved in each case. It really starts to stretch the imagination that every single man was a liar. Do these cases help support the account of Robert Jacobs at Big Sur in 1964?

~Cowbell

Aslans.....I have been pondering this and will have some thoughts to share in that thread soon. I will say I am in agreement as far some sort of recent (last few years) escalation goes. However, I am not impressed by profiteering.

BTW- have you seen any Skeptics lately :confused:



~CC

Not sure what you're asking about Skeptics. He? and like minded tend to cluster about me as bees after a bear but I don't always keep them straight. Especially when all their names seem to be some variation on the word skeptic! LOL.

Sorry. . . . let me see . . .

Just scanned a couple of the more rabidly contested threads' recent section of posts and didn't see that screenname.

I would love to be able for at least some of us hereon do some brainstorming on such issues. I don't know that we need to bother with a bonafide Delphi technique but routine brainstorming maybe followed by a Nominal Group Process could REALLY do a lot toward filtering out some clarified themes and trends.

That's why I set up this thread:

http://www.alien-ufos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11151

about what do we minimally know/believe about all this.

As I try and ponder what has escalated more specifically, I think it has seemed along the following lines. But I'd greatly appreciate your insights on that, too.

1. Higher ranked leakers and leaders and past leaders are saying more 'vulnerable' things, bolder things.

2. More and varied and some new details are proffered by more folks.

3. More dramatic details about ET's etc. are shared.

4. Seemingly a higher quantity of higher quality experiencers or leakers are speaking up.

5. More stories seem out from supposedly more official/former/unofficial employees working in the area around ET's, the technologies or the bureaucracies involved.

. . . not sure what else.

What do you think?

Thanks Cow that was interesting

It's an interesting and provacative case, but in my opinion, isn't explicit in anything it's trying to imply. UFO doesn't mean extraterrestrial craft, it means it's an unidentified flying object, and to prove anything of the Vandenberg case with testimony alone may be compelling and possibly genuine, but there's nothing else to go by. The mysterious CIA agents, as if they are MIB, take the videotape of this incident and it's never heard from again. I don't know... maybe it happened or maybe not, but the lack of evidence doesn't prove a conspiracy.

Sounds like a fair analysis.It`s nice to have input from different perspectives

I find them interesting myself things that make you go Hmmm

What is it exactly that you are skeptical of, "joyless" one?

This thread isn't about trying to prove anything other than when you present compelling stories that simply can't be reasonably argued as anything other than what they are presented to be, skeptics tend to be noticebly silent or rationlize their position with gobbledygook such as that posted above. You did not comment on the other two cases, cases which seem to support Robert Jacobs account. Why not? Rather than admitting that yes, there does seem to be a pattern associated with this kind of sighting, you simply cherry pick that which you wish to comment on. How predictable.


The objects in all three cases were described as Flying Disc, quite large, demonstrating manuevers that most would describe as unknown to terrestrial aircraft, seemingly under intelligent control. While you are willing to admit that UFO's exist, you are quite confident as to what they are not. My question is how you come to such conclusion? Or is it simply a guess or possibly just wishful thinking. I would very much like to hear any plausible scientific hypothesis -anyone- is brave enough to put forward to explain what else these objects could have been, other than intelligently controlled craft not originating from this planet.

No, what I find -I- am willing to admit, is that yes, there is pattern here, intelligently controlled pattern. At Malmstrom AFB in March of 1967, the object didn't even wait for the missiles to leave their silo's before disabling them.

"Minuteman Missile Shutdown"



The captions reads "The Air Technical Intelligence Center is responsible for the prevention of technological surprise".

The above image can be found on pg.3 in ch. 9 of the "Air Force Intelligence Manual" AFM-200-3. Probably just an inside joke.

Is that the best ya got Kiku? Anyone else?

Didn't think so.....

~Cowbell

Nice account of the Vandenberg launch UFO, from Jacobs himself. Good link, CosCow, nice thread here, too. I am happy to recall that the first time I ever heard of this incident, I was sitting at The Little A'Le'Inn in Rachel, Nevada, on a Halloween day in the late 90s, drinking Diet Coke with Chuck Clark. He said there had once been a great UFO film catch during a launch at Vandenberg and that MIBbys had shown up and taken away the film.

But I can't prove that I was in Rachel that day, that I helped judge the Halloween costume contest at the Inn that night. All the witnesses to my presence there have either disappeared, fled in terror or been driven hopelessly insane. Not even LydaRose can prove it. Oh sure, I phoned her from Las Vegas the day before and said I was going up to Rachel to stay the next night. I knew something was wrong when I passed the famed Black Mailbox and it had been painted white. Chuck Clark said they had done that so that people wouldn't recognize the mailbox. They no longer wanted people to congregate there, looking for the portal. Now I can't even prove there was a Black Mailbox. Nobody can!

My own existance cannot, will not and shall not be proven...not by photographic evidence, DNA analysis or sworn testimony by the certified ghost of James Jesus Angleton.

Yeah, I judged that costume contest that night...and we picked for the winner a cute little old lady who was dressed as a hard-bitten miner. CosCow, if I fail to make it home from this Gosh-forsaken trip to Sedona, could you tell everybody that I-----

*silence....*

end tape

I've commented before on witness testimonies, and said that although sometimes compelling, they're not proof. It certainly helps make the case into a relatively valid one, but it isn't proof. I'm not saying supposed witnesses to these things are lying, and may very well believe what they witnessed to be genuine. However, it's very foolish to solely rely on witnesses alone for a claim so extraordinary that extraterrestrial craft flew around and diverted a missile or airplane. It could be true, but it's not likely to be. As the late Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Witness testimony is very interesting and provacative, but it's not evidence, and rather unreliable.



I'm not cherry picking anything - as I've explained, I consider witness testimony, but I also consider the evidence or lack thereof. This case has no real evidence, and I'm sorry to say it's a tough sell. Operating under circular reasoning that the lack of evidence points to conspiracy is just downright laughable, such as that the CIA/MIB took the only videotape. I don't know if it happened or not, but I'm not going to believe it did because there's just nothing convincing that says opposite.




That's a strawman example of my logic, so it's quite incorrect. I believe anything and everything is possible. However, I need reason and evidence to believe the things I do, and the Vandenberg incident at the most says a UFO disrupted a missile. The things you're pointing as evidence such as "patterns" and "demonstrating maneuvers" is anecdotal and uninspiring, especially if you want to convince me advanced EBEs came to Earth to disrupt military activity. I honestly don't know what happened, and it'd be foolish and hypocritical of me to pretend I do. As far as I know, gnomes in conjuction with a demonic being visited Vandenberg and indirectly distracted a missile. There's nothing to study or observe except testimony. To me, I feel you believe in this as proof of alien visitation and intervention because you want to.



That's amusing, considering you're the one with the burden of proof. You may be able to convince a few UFO enthusiasts, but was it really that hard?

Of course in this particular incident, Jacobs never claimed to have seen anything. What he did claim is that he was shown a piece of film, presented to him in the office of the Chief Science Officer of the base at the time, in the presence of two Intelligence officers. This superior of Jacobs confirmed his story. The other two cases were visual sightings.




The problem here is simple, as I've stated before. It can be only one of two things- either they exist or they do not. If they do not, then you are correct and they are figments of the imagination or fabrication. And many, many people are mentally ill. However, if they do exist, the skeptic MUST factor in two components in their quest for "evidence" they will accept. The first component would be an intelligence vastly superior to our own, who simply may not want to leave such "evidence" laying around. The second component would be Government agencies who definitely would not want to leave such evidence laying around. These two components obviously would have different motivations for not wanting disclosure. I will go out on a limb and predict that neither one of these components really cares what you want.



Of course, if you had read the story rather than skimmed it, you would realize that the film of the launch never disappeared into a CIA black hole. The claim is that the portion depicting an object flying into view, the segment that both Jacobs and Mansmann were shown in that office with the intelligence agents, was excised from the final product. Mansmann stated he saw the film four separate times, one of them being with Jacobs and the others. It was never seen again.



How many people have to report the same basic thing before you will become "inspired" or is this even possible? If your basic requirement of proof is that a flying saucer crashes into your front yard and ET pops out saying "take me to your leader", don't hold yer breath. And if so, I promise I won't waste any more of mine debating with you.




In essence, anything is possible. Since I am somewhat of an atheist, I am skeptical of your "demon" hypothesis. Based on experience, I can get on board with your "gnome" theory however. And I think they did it on purpose.



Not much choice in my case I'm afraid. They don't care much what I want either.



The only burden I bear in this thread, is simply to demonstrate how scientifically minded, evidence demanding skeptics waffle and flip flop when confronted with the hard reality of UFO history. And your right...it wasn't really that hard.

~Cowbell

... Right, testimony. Just testimony.






No, there are literally countless possibilities. You happen to believe in one based not on the evidence on this incident, but what you want to believe.



That's circular reasoning because you're suggesting automatically that it did happen, and the lack of evidence proves a conspiracy. There is no evidence, although you can claim there was all you want. It doesn't mean anything. For all I know, there was no videotape. As far as I can spectate, the MIB story is just a convenient excuse to both suggest evidence existed, and that it was taken away because it proved something. This is pretty lame and a common theme in these stories, not including the fact that about countless videos and photographs of supposed UFO activity are easily available anyway.



I knew that much, but whatever, you're not making a point. However, thanks for pointing that out anyway, because it shows what nonsense you're suggesting. The MIB figures didn't just take it away, they went to some editing room and altered the footage. Perhaps those enigmatic CIA agents took a course in video editing during high school.





There's nothing to debate except your flawed logic and your persistent ignorance of what I'm telling you. Anything and everything is possible. However, if you want to prove something, you can't rely on testimony and anecdotal stories, you need some form of physical evidence that suggests something. We don't know things with an infallible certainty, but the things we do know are based on evidence and theoretical explanation. Can you prove with absolute certainty that an EBE-operated UFO disrupted a military exercise? No, you cannot, but you can certainly suggest the valid possibility if the mysterious videotape existed and apparently showed