Sunday, August 28, 2011

DATA-NET: Traces in the Field.

Another "entry" courtesy of DATA-NET: I've decided to use the picture of the old "Ham Radio" type system used at Mitchell AFB, NY as the "signature" for these things. Mitchell was the base which received many of the early UFO reports by citizens, particularly in the NYC area, and was the early USAF ADC center ... so it has a little UFO connection. But "our" Hams were spread all across the globe 20 years after this picture, but I wouldn't have put it past the USAF to have been listening in somewhere. The reports described below were in DATA-NET newsletters of the December 1969-January 1970 era.

A case which I don't believe that I've written about yet on the blog, but which intrigues me, is the Quincy, IL "carlift". [I MAY repeat cases from earlier blog entries, but will try not to do so unless there's a good reason --- It is hard to remember whether some case has already appeared and I don't believe that the "Search" function here is infallible]. Anyway: Quincy, IL , November 30, 1969.

I have earlier written a thumbnail of this case for Fran Ridge's NICAP site, and include it above. Does DATA-NET differ from the information that I have in my original file?? As you can read: a family of three was driving near Quincy when they found their car paced by an object. This object did so for two minutes, then made a sharp "90-degree" turn, crossed the road, made a downward swoop at the car, and apparently lifted it about 10" off the road, the car settling back down with a "Thump". DATA-NET differs from my original file in saying that the over-head passage was at about 50', and that the object was a "disk" rather than an "equilateral triangle with rounded sides". It also differs in that Walt Andrus claimed that several similar cases had been reported, which I doubt. ONE spectacular "slow-lifting" very close encounter had recently taken place in Plattville, IL, but "several" is probably stretching it. Nevertheless, such "mass displacement" cases were the most fascinating things to Jim McDonald, who was constantly looking for the "scientific/physical" in the UFO phenomenon.

This case above was not in DATA-NET but in my own files back in Michigan, wherefrom I wrote it up for Fran's NICAP. As you can read it is a pretty spectacular set of traces. I've placed it above because DATA-NET had another case from the same Chapeau, Quebec//Pembroke, Ontario location four months later. In fact, the DATA-NET article mentioned that Chapeau/Pembroke had three other UFO cases in between.

The incident(s) in DATA-NET were from September 2nd, 1969. This time a waitress [named] watched a flashing red-&-white light flying about while she was getting home from her shift at 4:30am. Upstairs in her room, she then saw a small craft exit from the larger light. The smaller craft flew into the yard and proceeded to go from window to window of the building as if searching the insides. Naturally, she was terrified and went into the interior corridor, where she spent the next two hours.

Meanwhile, two other people [named] reported witnessing a similar object around the same time. This was a small lightform, green-silver in color, with an antenna-like thing protruding from its side, and making a whirring noise. They said that this lightform came to within six feet of them, and it had itself come from a larger red flashing object in the sky. The "Pembroke Peeping Tom", I suppose.

The next case that I just feel that I MUST have mentioned at some earlier point in this blog, was the Van Horne, IA CE2trace. But....

Above is another thumbnail from the NICAP site. I guess in something that is as complicated as UFO studies, one shouldn't have "favorites", but this is one of mine. If I was forced to "go to War for the defense of UFOs" with 100 cases, this would be one of them. The reason: a terrific credibility context and plenty of "trace" of the physicalness of the event. Since several people are, in one significant way or another, involved, Van Horne is my favorite CE2t. [all the responsible parties are named].

You can read the thumbnail [hopefully]. The "standard-issue" disk rising from the soybean field and leaving a destroyed area in the farmer's crop upon inspection by him the next morning, is not the most elaborate of UFO tales, but one of the most believable. Although we were just too early to do the proper laboratory testing in this case, at least several researchers did investigate it literally in the field. If anyone asks me why I believe that some UFOs are not simply products of our minds, two of the first words I'll utter are "Van Horne".

Above is a very poor quality [but still neat] picture of the farm owner and, I believe it's his daughter, who was one of the two witnesses of the UFO lift-off, in the patch of dehydrated soy crop. It gives some dimension to the trace.

About two months later there began a series of UFO events in the [somewhat] nearby town of Elkader, Ia. Essentially all of these were in farming country and witnessed by farming people. And a number of them resulted in traces being left behind. The Elkader mini-flap is a happening almost unknown in UFOlogy today. But DATA-NET had several notations about it.

September 7th: child saw object take off from farm field; it left trace found next day;
September 8th: Another daytime "landing" seen; trace found five feet from previous one;
September 9th: another landing seen; farming families are named;
September 10th: two more marks found in pasture;
September 11th: children saw UFO hovering over power pole; it just disappeared;

Sometime around here, the news was leaking out that a series of UFO sightings were occurring in this area and the UFO community finally got the word. Walt Andrus apparently showed up to look into it from his roost in Illinois, and Ted Phillips showed up from Missouri. Ted drug Allen Hynek and Fred Beckman down from Chicago to walk the fields with him. They were there in the week prior to the 26th of September to see the traces and talk to the farming families involved. As they did, they discovered that another incident had occurred on those farms back on the 6th of August. There were eight witnesses to that object, which did not land nor leave a trace. Hynek et al then apparently went back to their homes. So, of course, the UFOs struck again.

September 26th: UFO seen maneuvering near the power pole; picture attempted;
September 27th: object seen taking off from ground; once in air, just disappears.

The news reporters stated that all the landing traces appeared to be three depressions in a perfect triangle, the leg distances about 60" apart. The whole landing area of a 6-foot diameter circle is also clearly visible. It was not stated what the general landing area was formed by, so I'll assume that, since the pod-points were depressions, the general circles were due to effects on the plants [i.e. dehydrations or something like that].

The Elkader swan-song was on December 7th. Then, a private pilot from Elkader and his passenger [husband and wife, named] saw an airborne pulsating light while flying over nearby Monona. He pursued the object at 300 feet [estimation for the object; he was at 1500]. The object was traveling at 150mph. The object had about the relative size of a marble held at arm's length and looked like a pure white globe. It pulsed at one beat per second. Its changes of flight indicated to the witnesses that "it was definitely under intelligent control". The pilot returned to the Elkader airport, told of the sighting, and then with two other persons [named] again took off to attempt to re-encounter the thing. They did not. But they did encounter another odd lighted object, which would extinguish its light whenever a plane would be coming near it, and then reappear later.

Meanwhile, somewhere in Chicago, J.Allen Hynek was scratching his beard and thinking of starting the Center for UFO Studies.

Well...yes...thank you for all your nice thoughts at my wonderful write-up of the Elkader mystery. It was surely one of the best write-ups of these matters ever written... of course it might have been the ONLY one. Hmmmm...that puts a bit of a damper on things. It's readable at least... sort of.


  1. It's good to see cases with physical evidence. So much of the discussion is weighted towards consciousness and the reciprocity of the witness/UFO experience. Commentators have buried the possibility of physical explanations and have been dancing on the grave. Their certainty is buttressed by the allegation that any other views are necessarily unimaginative or dogmatic.

    If the Elkader reports occurred as described, and didn't involve hoaxery, it's difficult to apply other suppositions than 'solid technological object.'

    We could contact living witnesses and ask them if there was a 'transformative effect?' Was there a sense of telepathic interaction that set them on a spiritual road to artistic creativity? Was there 'missing time?' Did they get the sense that it was a plasma lifeform communicating by reflecting an internal construct of advanced technology yielded from the percipient's consciousness? Did they go on to join Greenpeace and march in anti-nuclear demos?

    If none of these effects were experienced, just maybe the witnesses saw something extraordinary in its own right? What if they saw a solid craft and the physical traces were from that craft? Could it be that simple?

    The metaphysical, esoteric ideas are valuable and worth exploring. It's impossible not to 'go there' after any time spent on the subject/s. I don't rule them out until more or different evidence becomes available. New theories in science open even more avenues. I consider them all.

    Amidst all these complex possibilities, the one possibility that is the first to be dismissed is that the witness saw what they saw. "I saw a disc-shaped object, it hummed as it went past and then shot off." To this, half of ufology would interpret it as the witness saw a cultural cypher, spiritual event or a control mechanism. What if the witnesses saw just a disc?

    I apologise if this seems 'ranty,' the level of certainty people allow themselves has annoyed me recently. What is the difference between a debunker, like Klass, and a UFO advocate if they both refuse to believe the witness and tell them what they really did see?

  2. I appreciate your viewing point, and it is similar to my own, as probably everyone knows by now [i.e. most UFOs are non-terrestrial physical technology; a small percentage of them are probably paranormal expressions by folkloric agencies; and a VERY small number of them are a scatter of things like ultra-dimensional penetration accidents [i.e. a weird sort of "natural" occurrence], or demonic stuff --- maybe none at all of the latter].

    I dislike Occam's Razor as it is usually not at all applicable to a complex subject, but Occam's Razor for the guy who just says he watched a disk whisk by is "he saw a disk whisk by".

    On the other hand, if persons of a Valleean frame of mind want to support their hypothesis in any way at all, they better do some serious statistical studies following up on UFO witnesses several years after their experiences, and do them with good control groups. Otherwise that view is merely hand-waving.

  3. Am finally beginning to catching up with your wonderful blog and am happy you've started it up again.

    Have found this recent series of entries from the summer of 1969 most interesting as this was precisely when I witnessed something inexplicable in upstate NY (North Lake) outside of Tannersville,
    hence my interest in the subject all these years.

    I've always said I can only describe what I saw and what it wasn't. What it was, remains unidentified.