On the morning of September 12th, west coast observers were treated to an interesting sky display that generated UFO reports and a lot of media attention. This event demonstrated, once again, that UFO organizations do not appear to be interested in solving UFO cases. Instead, they choose to promote UFO mysteries.
Around 6:00 AM, on the 12th of September, observers in California, Or- egon, Washington, and Nevada reported seeing a large comet-like ob- ject in the sky that was visible for several minutes. This image of object (see image to the left) taken from the south facing camera of Kneeland airport in northern California demonstrates how prominent it was to the observers.1 The most likely source of the event was something launched from Vanden- berg AFB but there were no launches that morning. Another source that was considered was that it was a meteor. However, meteors do not last that long and their debris trails/ion trains usually do not appear like this. When I saw the images, I thought that it was a venting rocket booster that was in orbit. However, Ted Molczan assured me that there was no booster that could have produced the display. For 24 hours, I was stumped until I read one news report involving a statement by the US Navy.
KTVN-TV of Reno, Nevada reported that the US Navy had stated that they had launched three Trident Missiles before 6AM on the
12th . I directed this report towards Molczan, who seemed to think this was plau-
sible. My concern had to do with the Trident Missile being a solid rocket design and
this appeared to be a liquid fueled rocket. Molczan then directed me towards a similar
incident that had been recorded from La Palma, in the Canary islands, the year before.3
In that case, an astrophotographer had recorded a similar cloud rising over the ocean
in the west. This turned out to be a Trident missile launch from a submarine in the
Atlantic. The images from the September 12th event bear a remarkable similarity to
that event. I then remembered photographing a night launch of a Polaris A-3 missile
back in August of 1986. It too had a cloud that existed after launch that resembled an
Ion trail left by a bright meteor (see image to the right). Both of these events indicated
to me that it was possible that the cloud that was seen was caused by a submarine launched missile.
Ted Molczan then sent me a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) he discovered that read4:
NAVAREA XII 309/2014 (GEN)
(Cancelled by NAVAREA XII 323/2014)
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS 110800Z TO 180001Z SEP IN AREAS:
A. BOUND BY
34-24N 124-45W, 34-38N 123-00W, 35-00N 123-00W, 35-20N 124-45W.
34-30N 34-54N AND 127-54W 129-06W.
C. BOUND BY
34-06N 134-30W, 34-12N 131-18W, 34-48N 131-18W, 34-36N 134-30W.
D. BOUND BY
29-12N 161-30W, 30-06N 157-24W, 31-24N 157-48W, 30-18N 161-48W.
E. BOUND BY
15-54N 165-00E, 18-00N 169-00E,
18-42N 168-30E, 17-00N 164-36E. 2. CANCEL THIS MSG 180101Z SEP 14. ( 060940Z SEP 2014 )
These boundaries include an area about 200 miles SSW of San Francisco and another area that was between Kwajalein and Wake island. It appears these were the launch sites and the impact areas.
Comparing data collection and evaluation
There were three sources of observational data that I examined when I was looking at this case. The Mutual UFO Network (MUFON)5
and National UFO reporting center (NUFORC) both had a collection of UFO reports/stories. Unfortunately, the data in these re-
ports were pretty much worthless. All one has to do is compare these reports to the ones filed to the American Meteor Society for the same event!7 The two UFO reporting centers could not be evaluated because they just contained what the witnesses thought they saw. Meanwhile, the AMS database set contained details that could be quantified and evaluated. The AMS used that data to give us a location for where the object was seen. It was most interesting that the bulk of observations pointed towards the launch area identified by the NOTAM provided by Molczan.
Another item revealed by the AMS data is the fact that some observers just got their directions mixed up. This indicates the inherent problem with iso- lated UFO reports. Individual witnesses might get their directions wrong. It is only when one gets a collection of individual sightings from different locations does it become clear where the observed object was probably located.
The AMS provided enough information to confirm the probable source of the sighting. Meanwhile, MUFON and NUFORC failed to do the same. In fact, their data was so bad, that Jason McClellan, of Open Minds and “Hang- er one” fame, concluded that “experts” were perplexed by this event and implied that this UFO was something that could not be explained.8 Appar- ently, UFOlogists and their organizations were more interested in promot-
MUFON fails again
MUFON claims to be interested in examining UFOs scientifically but when it came to this case, they decided to promote other items and never mention what their investigators (assuming there was an investigation) concluded. Either their investigators were “perplexed” as McClellan indicated or they did not want to let everyone know that this event had a reasonable explanation. This means they are guilty of incompetence or a cover-up. In either case, MUFON failed to live up to their standard of performing “The Scientific study of UFOs for the benefit of humanity”. If they can not be open and honest about an IFO, how can one trust them to be honest and open about UFOs?
Quelle: SUNlite 6/2014