6 ms·
Air Force Jet Was Scrambled to Intercept a UFO–Then Disappeared (2020)
- rmason 5y agoI'm not a big UFO buff but when someone told me about this incident in passing yesterday I had to examine further. I am astounded that nobody has tried to find the wreckage of this jet. They found the wreckage of the Edmund Fitzgerald with a mini sub and that was in 730 feet of water. Why hasn't someone like National Geographic or the Discovery Channel sponsored an expedition to find and film this plane's wreckage and get answers?
- Narretz 5y agoThe Edmund Fitzgerald was 200m long. A jet crashing on the water surface would leave little contiguous parts in one place.
- userbinator 5y agoLook at the attempts to find MH370, a much bigger plane, for comparison.
- emteycz 5y agoOr photos of downed jets now. They're completely flat. Crashing into water must've spread it all around.
- rmason 5y agoExcept they don't know where it crashed. Here they have a much smaller area to search. I'm fairly certain in 1953 that even the U.S. military lacked the advanced sonar that's available to the average person to use from a boat in 2022.
- zeusk 5y agoThey still don't have any certain idea or majority of wreckage from MH370, the 1950s fighter is way down the list of missing things.
- INTPenis 5y agoThis was the early days of jet planes so I think the simplest explanation is human or technical error. Rather than a covert attack, or aliens.
- Mordisquitos 5y agoDon't rule out the complexest explanation: alien error.
- pmarreck 5y agothe convergence of the 2 dots followed by the only one left taking off seems extremely peculiar, though. That plus the obvious evidence of multiple different explanations promulgated by authorities strongly suggests some sort of coverup
- jeffbee 5y agoSmall plane wrecks are not easy to find. When people were searching for Steve Fossett in the Sierra Nevada of California in 2007 they found a number of other wrecked aircraft that nobody even knew were up there. Planes disappear.
- pengaru 5y agoIt seems plausible that one day someone will find it. Lake Superior should be far easier to search than say the Atlantic and presumably the freshwater will be kinder to the airframe than the salty sea.
- boxofbonez 5y agoWikipedia article for the pilot indicates remains of the jet could have been found in 1968: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Moncla#Reports_of_parts_found_in_1968 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Moncla#Reports_of_parts_...
- emmelaich 5y ago> https://notice.aenetworks.com/ https://notice.aenetworks.com/ > This content is not available in your area. I'm in Australia. Don't think I've ever had this problem with history.com before.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- technerder 5y agoRunning into the same thing here in Canada
- phyrex 5y agoWorks for me, also in Canada
- notRobot 5y agoNot available in my current location either. I hate what the internet has become.
- throwaway48375 5y agohttps://archive.ph/qcxbZ https://archive.ph/qcxbZ
- dylan_b 5y agohttps://archive.ph/qcxbZ https://archive.ph/qcxbZ
- erdos4d 5y agoIf there is a radar operator here, I want to know if it is at all realistic for an attack on an aircraft to result in it simply disappearing from the scope. Wouldn't the falling debris of the plane still show up for several minutes until it fell below what the radar could see? If this is so, doesn't this story imply the larger object had to have "eaten" the smaller one (the plane, I am assuming)?
- QuarterReptile 5y agoI've mostly just operated marine commercial navigation radars, but having said that, I wouldn't expect the return to be very good. You would still have reflected energy, but it would be much closer to noise, so it would have to be much closer to be automatically detected, or even to be detectable on screen by my own observation. A tracker assigned to it certainly wouldn't maintain itself.
- WJW 5y agoThe radar cross section of any falling debris would not necessarily be big enough for a radar to detect, especially with 1953 tech on a stormy night. Also, two blips "merging" on a radar scope is a common occurrence when two targets are closer together than the pulse length. This article tries really hard to make this a UFO mystery, but jets fell out of the sky pretty regularly in 1953, especially in storms and at night. Radar technology was also not anywhere near what we have today and even with modern technology we can still just outright lose a plane. MH370 still hasn't been found for example. (I'm not a radar operator per se but I did study weapons engineering at the NL naval college and spent several years of my military career specifying specs for advanced naval radar systems)
- jhpaul 5y agoI am not a radar operator. My understanding is that radar reflections are related to the size, shape, and texture of an object. A normal plane will be a large blob on the return, while, for example, a B2 stealth bomber is designed with special materials and angles to appear around the size of a large bird. So an intact jet fighter will show up as a big dot, while falling debris might look like many small dots, or be too small for the resolution of the radar display. There's also numerous sources of interference and background noise, including from weather. So on a stormy night it might not be apparent what is debris vs water. The article is really more of an advertisement for a TV show than journalism and doesn't give a very clear account, but it sound plausible that two dots converging and disappearing from radar could represent an in-air collision. And if over the great lakes during a storm, investigators would be looking underwater for hundreds of pieces of non-magnetic aluminum spread over many square miles.
- thrdbndndn 5y agoShouldn't the date be the date of when the article was written (i.e. 2020)?
- ianai 5y agoIn this use that particular practice is confusing. I thought this was something that happened in 2020 from the title but it’s not.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kul 5y agoLq
- geocrasher 5y agoThe only thing disappearing without a trace in this story is a logical analysis of the known facts ;)
- notananthem 5y agoUFOs by definition aren't real
- darepublic 5y agoI knew about this story since I was a kid reading UFO books in the library. It terrified me. I felt like surely it was more likely that the jet was sucked up into a mothership type UFO then the more mundane explanation, that it crashed in bad weather.
- Ancalagon 5y agoIt’s too bad I give history channel as much trust as about as far as I can throw them nowadays
- alhirzel 5y agoMy friends found a hydrazine bottle washed up on shore of Lake Superior. We are still trying to figure out what it could have been from.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoThat's Erie.
- ta988 5y agoChemistry labs, companies that want to get rid of expensive to dispose of chemicals? A lab I worked for was caught decades ago (before my time) because bottles of chemicals were found in a rogue landfill with the name of the lab on them that allowed to track the origin. Turns out the chemical waste company didn't do the job it was paid for.
- jaequery 5y agoIf UFOs exists and all these stories later gets confirmed in an official statement, how would that make you feel?
- dvh 5y agoThat people don't understand mathematical induction and it's ramifications.
- MrJohz 5y agoConfused, and probably mistrustful of whatever organisation confirms their existence. The problem with UFOs is not the aliens part, and only to a certain extent the government conspiracy part - it's mainly the absurdity of the central claim: that aliens pop in on earth every so often to probe random people, blow up the occasional aircraft, and appear as shining lights in the sky every so often. Well, why? Why would doing any of that make any sense to an alien species that must (with our best understanding of our local interstellar geography) travel several light years just to get here? It's like if Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas, and decides "huh, okay, we've got to this place, but let's not actually interact with the locals or claim any of the resources, or really do anything that would make this trip worthwhile; we'll just float just off the coastline and stare at them through our telescopes for several decades instead".
- pmarreck 5y ago"Observation of the latest potentially space-faring budding intelligent species in the universe" might be a thing. Plus, possibly taking away the knives from the children: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-air-force-personnel-ufos-deactivated-nukes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-air-force-personnel-ufos-dea...
- MrJohz 5y agoThese are creatures that can travel between stars, potentially better galaxies, and back again for research, which implies at the very least FTL travel (and moreover, FTL travel that leaves no emissions or traces that we can detect), yet they let themselves get seen by random Joes who happen to get their cameras out? And they turn some nukes off, but leave the rest?