Saturday, January 31, 2015

Air Force To Invesigate UFO Sightings Near Government Installations | UFO CHRONICLE – 1957

Retired Police Officer Reports Boomerang-Shaped UFO

Police Officer Reports Boomerang-Shaped UFO 1-24-15
By Roger Marsh

    A retired police officer reported watching a low flying boomerang-shaped UFO that moved over Daubenberger Road in Turlock, CA, about 7 p.m. on January 24, 2015, according to testimony in Case 62855 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.

The witness and his wife were driving home at the time of the incident.

“It is foggy tonight, but saw three white lights in a backwards triangle, possibly a boomerang shape,” the witness stated. “Difficult to see in the fog/haze layer, about 100-200 feet above my truck moving slowly at first, then speeding up and quickly disappearing into the fog.”

The witness said the object was heading northbound over houses going towards a cornfield north of Tuolumne Road.

“No sound. My wife was riding in the passenger seat, but was looking down at her phone when I pointed it out. She did not see it before it disappeared into the fog/haze bank.”

The witness provided his professional background.

“I am a retired police officer and veteran USAF aircraft crew chief and veteran Army intelligence. It did not appear to look like any aircraft I am familiar with. It was very strange.”

Huge UFO Flies Over Missouri Home

Huge UFO Flies Over Missouri Home

By Roger Marsh

      A Missouri witness at Independence reported a huge UFO with “no sound under 500 feet flying directly overhead,” according to testimony in Case 62928 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.

The case was reported directly to the Missouri MUFON Assistant State Director Margie Kay who filed the report.

The witness was moving toward a vehicle parked on the home driveway when the object was first seen.

“I noticed a very large object flying directly overhead from the west (Kansas City) to east (Independence),” the witness stated. “It was flying extremely low as if about to land nearby, but there is no airport or highway to land near us.”

The object had some unusual features.

“It had absolutely no sound whatsoever, but was the size of a 747 airplane. There were four bright, unwavering, large white lights on it, but no red or green navigation lights or strobe. It had large, flat wings and a rounded body, but no tail.”

The witness estimated the object’s size and distance.

“It would take my entire hand to cover it up at arm’s length. I estimate the distance to be about 500 – 1,000 feet from the ground. It flew directly over our house and continued on in a westerly direction until we could no longer see it. The total time we watched this object was approximately two minutes, so it was flying very slowly. I saw no emissions and heard no engines.” . . .

Diamond-Shaped UFOs Over New York State

Diamond-Shaped UFOs Over New York State

By Cheryl Costa

     The old saying goes “Diamond are a girl’s best friend” but the question is, what’s with the Diamond UFOs over New York?

It was a little after 9 p.m. on September 27th, 2014 Hank, a Buffalo, NY resident went outside for a cigarette. While gazing at the crystal clear southern sky he observed a diamond UFO traversing the sky.

“As I was watching the object slowly move from east to west, suddenly it stopped and appeared to hover. Then object’s five orange-ish tint lights dimmed briefly and the diamond UFO just winked out and wasn’t seen again.”

In another sighting on Long Island in the town of Commack, NY, a resident was watching television when he noticed a bright light out of his living room window. He tells us that he went outside to his porch to get a better look and saw a bright diamond UFO traveling from North to South. . . .

Friday, January 30, 2015

Volcano Cam Captures UFO During Eruption | VIDEO

Volcano Cam Captures UFO During Eruption - January 2015

By Jason McClellan

      A video shows a bizarre horse-shaped UFO near an erupting volcano in Mexico.

The Colima volcano in Mexico, located approximately 300 miles west of Mexico City, has erupted several times in recent weeks. These incredible eruptions have been captured on video by a webcam hosted by Webcams de Mexico.

According to the Daily Mail, a horse-shaped UFO appears in one of these videos. “The dark object appeared to have two legs and was seen hovering into view out of nowhere,” the media outlet describes. It continues, “The enigmatic ‘equine’ vanished moments later.”

UFOs Over Wimbledon | VIDEO

UFOs Over Wimbledon 1-30-15

By Louisa Clarence-Smith

      A series of extraordinary videos and photographs of UFOs have been shot in the skies over Wimbledon in recent weeks.

Camilla Noble, 33, of Caroline Road, has been filming and photographing what she believes to be flashing spaceships from her bedroom window for the past month.

She contacted the Wimbledon Guardian this morning about the sightings, and her mother has since confirmed that she witnessed one of the strange occurrences.

New Web-Site of Air Force UFO Files Shut Down—Black Vault Issues Statement

New Web-Site of Air Force UFO Files Shut Down—Black Vault Issues Statement

John Greenewald By John Greenewald
The Black Vault

     January 29th, 2015 – It is with great frustration to announce, that, and their subsidiary Fold3, has laid down a claim to copyright on the Project Blue Book material – which has long been labeled as “public domain” by the National Archives & Records Administration (NARA). is claiming ownership to the digital version of this material – despite me having records that Fold3 doesn’t even have in their archive and I received under the FOIA starting back in 1996. They simply claimed it was 100% theirs and I was forced to remove it.

Because of my attempt with properly crediting Fold3 with a DIRECT LINK to their site as partial credit for some of the material, they used that show of proper credit by me to issue a copyright claim under the Digital Copyright Millennium Act (DCMA). Anyone who knows anything about the law can attest; you are “guilty until proven innocent” so this was the beginning of the end. I never hid from Fold3 as a source, and even brought them up in some media interviews I did take part in, which were all cut out. No one cared about that part of the story – this new archive was what they wanted to report on because it was simple, straight forward, easy and free. And people loved it.

Based on an evidence-less claim I was forced to remove the entire site. That’s right, there was ZERO evidence submitted to my web hosting provider of ownership or copyright or license, but rather, they simply placed the accusation which is all it takes.

In good faith, I took the site down in hopes a compromise could be reached. They already had credit given on the front page of the site for some of the material, and that link alone resulted in a 12%+ increase in their entire statistics since they posted records in 2007, and my link multiplied their weekly hits by 10x, yes ten times, in only 5 days (statistics are posted on their page, so I am not guessing on those statistics but rather took notes).

I stated there was much more information here than is cited to Fold3, but they didn’t care. I offered giving them a full 100% “share of voice” banner ad to advertise Fold3 (in addition to the link already driving them traffic), or to sell ads with no profit share to me, and they didn’t care. I asked if they would work with me on any capacity, because CLEARLY interest was being generated by my audience (and obviously not by theirs) but they didn’t care.

In the end – they offered I become a member of their affiliate program – and offer a link to them in exchange for a portion of sales generated. ie: You have to sign up with them, pay a membership, and they give me a percentage. I quickly declined.

This is public record material, and it should remain so. To lay ‘exclusive’ claim to it in the digital world, when both sites (my site and theirs) offer it for free – is ludicrous and a waste of time and money for everyone.

But at the end of the day, I am proud to have brought attention to information that although has been available for quite some time – the public at large never knew it existed. I will let Google Trends prove my point. Here is the popularity of Project Blue Book, since 2005, and a graph relating to people searching for information on it.

Google Trends Project Blue Book

See that spike? Yes, The Black Vault did that… and I am proud to be the one who caused such an uproar of interest by the public and the media (despite some erroneous facts in the reporting).

Did some media outlets misreport? Yes, and if this page was still up, there was a message on the front page setting the record straight.

But, call it corporate greed, a legal loophole, or a grey area in the copyright law, all of that is gone in the name of getting your personal information, and your credit card, by a corporation that has a wallet much thicker than mine. I’ll let you decide what the right label is to put on this entire mess.

Does all of this upset you? Me too! And I invite you to express your thoughts to, Fold3, and anyone else you’d like to express your disappointment:

355 South 520 West
Suite 250
Lindon, UT 84042
Ph 1-800-613-0181

Ancestry Inc. Corporate Headquarters
360 West 4800 North
Provo, UT 84604
Ph 801-705-7000
Fx 801-705-7001

In 18+ years, I’ve never seen anything like this, and it is a sad day for the world of public domain, public information, public record and the idea of “Freedom of Information”.

I have vowed from day 1, never to fall into the pit of desire of placing a price tag on PUBLIC information. It’s a shame I am very much alone in that belief.

The Socorro UFO Case – Two More 'Smoking Guns'

Socorro UFO- Lonnie Zamora Hitting The Dirt

Ray Stanford By Ray Stanford
The UFO Chronicles
There was absolutely nothing to keep Zamora from very clearly discerning the red 'insignia' because he observed it it with his glasses on and from, first, only 50 feet, and, finally, about 35 feet. I know the distances accurately because I paced the distances off at Hynek's request, when Zamora showed Hynek and me his closest positions.

     Before I get into the two additional 'smoking guns' confirming that the red 'insignia' Zamora saw was actually an inverted V with three lines across it, please allow me to address another matter on which there have been consistent lies or distortions: WHERE ZAMORA 'HIT THE DIRT' in a prone position. Most all accounts say that Zamora didn't 'hit the dirt' until he was well on the north side of his patrol car, with the car between him and the object hovering about twenty feet above the ravine bottom. THAT IS NOT ONLY FALSE BUT ILLOGICAL.

Above is my personally water-colored (but here in B & W, except for the red 'insignia') version of the illustration on page 25 of the hard-cover edition of my Socorro book, with the CORRECT version of the red 'insignia' replacing the fake version Captain Richard T. Holder convinced Zamora to describe.

THAT is where Zamora 'hit the dirt' in a prone position, as he had been trained to in the Army, in case of explosion. The perspective is a little distorted, because it makes Zamora look a bit too close to his patrol car. Actually, his feet were about 15 feet from the car, AND ONLY ABOUT 35 feet from the mysterious object.

Notice that the red 'insignia' is rendered somewhat larger than the one shown in my book. That's because when the original drawing was done, we were under the impression that the size Zamora described after talking with Captain holder was correct, describing the 'insignia' as 12 to 18 inches across. THAT WAS FALSE, and conceivably had been changed to further enable recognition of 'copycat' hoaxes.

Zamora's original description of the size of the red 'insignia' was approximately TWICE that large, at 2 to 3 feet across. Being red on a whitish-looking background and 2 to 3 feet across, it was unmistakably clear to Zamora. And let no one lie to you. ZAMORA WAS WEARING HIS GLASSES, just as shown in my illustration. They didn't get knocked off until, when running back up the slope WHILE LOOKING BACK OVER HIS SHOULDER AT THE OBJECT WITH HIS GLASSES ON, he resultantly didn't realize how close the car was and bumped into the back end, knocking off his glasses.

Now, let me explain how wrong and illogical the claim that Zamora 'hit the dirt' after running around the car and while a considerable distance north of it. As illustrated above, HE HAD ALREADY HIT THE DIRT, but then, realizing the thing was not exploding, he got up and ran to then get the patrol car between himself and the object, which by that point had cut off the noise and was not nearly so threatening. There was no reason to then reduce his view of the object by throwing himself on the ground wherein the car would be blocking any view from such a disadvantageous position.

Now, as to the two additional 'smoking guys' that point to the inverted V with three lines cross it, as what Zamora actually saw:

What I am about to show you will neither be found in the National Archive, nor on Project Blue Book files as now available at The Black Vault website. I suspect that Blue Book would never have knowingly let anything out contradicting the fake red 'insignia' as presented (albeit sometimes a bit contradictorily) with help of Army Captain Holder's (and Zamora at Holder's suggestion) help. It was probably also encouraged (or at least surely approved) by FBI agent Arthur Byrnes, Jr., who constantly hovered over the long nocturnal interview with Holder and Zamora, lasting until about 1:00 am.

The two hand-written documents seen below are evidently telephone notes taken at Blue Book, reporting what seems to have been a result of Hynek's interview with New Mexico State Police Sergeant Sam Chavez earlier on the evening of Tuesday, April 28, 1964, before Zamora came off police duty and Hynek got to interview him. I had arrived in Socorro before Zamora got off duty, and while Hynek was still talking behind closed doors with Sergeant Chavez.

We have MUFON Ohio State SECTION Director Rob Mercer to thank for copies of the hand-written documents that follow. Mercer has thoroughly checked them out, verifying the background of their source, a U.S. Air force Project Blue Book officer whose name and official photo are in my possession, but who for now shall remain unnamed for protection of his privacy.

What you see below are among a large group of documents that Rob Mercer acquired from the retired Air Force officer, but because the two you see below were kept out of the Blue Book records at the National Archive and reveal what the first responder to the Socorro site after Zamora's police call WAS TOLD BY ZAMORA ABOUT THE RED 'INSIGNIA', they are of cardinal importance. They confirm the subsequent cover-up of how the red 'insignia' really looked, and they give us a highly credible description. (It's a description confirmed by every lawman in Socorro to whom I spoke. See Appendix A, An Obfuscated Red 'Insignia'?, pages 206-211 in the hard cover edition of my Socorro book.)

The description was provided by Sergeant Sam Chavez based on what Zamora told him immediately after his arrival at the site. The description was provided to Hynek only four days later, matching precisely what Socorro policemen told me on that same day and the next one.

Therefore, I must point out that Chavez's description, as provided us in these hitherto undisclosed blue book documents, is quite evidently ACCURATE, unlike the drawing in the notoriously forgetful Hynek's September 7, 1964 letter to Project Blue Book, where he seems a bit unsure just how to place the three lines relative to the inverted V, which Chavez has described to him over four months earlier, on the evening of April 28.

The first image you see below contains the initial Blue Book telephone notes, written rapidly and in the cursive, while the second image below appears to be a follow-up version of the phone notes, unquestionably written by the same Blue Book staffer, but this time it is very neat and in mostly block-letter hand printing. Those typed notes in the black areas are by me.

Image 1:

Initial Blue Book Telephone Notes Re Socorro - Red Marking

Notice that word "first" modifying the word sighting, in the second line. Note that it is REMOVED in the second, more neatly written version below, seemingly because it referred to the La Madera, N.M., landed-object claim (not credible, in my opinion), and absolutely NOT to a second Socorro sighting. The writer wisely wanted to make sure things would not be misinterpreted.

Image 2: The red type is by me.

Initial Blue Book Telephone Notes Re Socorro - Red Marking (2)

The note at the bottom is about Hynek's call on his way home to Chicago, following our 1;00 pm press conference in Socorro's El Rio Motel, as described in detail in my Socorro book, pages 64 - 72. (Hynek told me after reading that in the book that I had given him what he had coming to him for his intellectually dishonest antics at the press conference.) Hynek's call was at 2305 hours (11:05 pm), so although the call was before midnight on the 28th, the note was not written until the next day, April 29, 1964.

When you combine those two notes providing Sergeant Chavez' account of Zamora's description of the red 'insignia', with the statement from Richard T. Holder, Jr (Captain Holder's eldest son) about the cover-up, and with Hynek's September 7, 1964 letter, it strongly suggests (since the two above notes were kept out of Blue Book files) that the USAF was involved in the red 'insignia' cover-up instituted by a U.S. Army White Sands up-range officer.

But if you are one of those skeptics who still accuse me of making up the red 'insignia' cover-up story, and still don't accept what I was to only person to expose about the Socorro case, despite evidence strong enough to stand up in court, then I suggest you go back to your Ouija Board class of revelations, have a cup of tea, and seek more tea-leaf-reading confirmation of your messages from the Ouija Board.

Fortunately, most researchers prefer a higher class of evidence.

There is more interesting and exciting Socorro evidence waiting in the wings. I hope to be able to share more of it soon.

So Australian Pilots are Reporting UFO Incidents!

Paul Dean By Paul Dean
The UFO Chronicles

      As of 1995, the two government agencies responsible for air safety are Airservices Australia (ASA) and the Civil Aviation Safey Authority (CASA). Of the two, ASA describes itself as “…a government owned corporation providing safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible services to the aviation industry.” It has responsibility for airspace management and air traffic control, aeronautical information, aviation communication, radio navigation, etc. Indeed, ASA is one of the agencies that pilots can report a UFO event should that sort of extraordinary situation arise.

On the 30th of May, 2012, researcher Keith Basterfield submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Airservices Australia for:
“any documents held by Air Services Australia, on the subject of “unidentified flying objects.”
On the 18th of June, Keith was furnished with internal ASA material containing a number of media enquiries to ASA, enquiries to ASA from the general public, etc. The only significant material given to him was a 2004 “Event Report” involving a Qantas flight and an “unidentified object”. This material can be viewed on Keith’s blog site here:

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena - scientific research

This was all ASA, apparently, had on unidentified flying objects.

Unfortunately it seems Keith was misinformed.

In May, 2014 I found out, through a source within Airservices Australia, that any pilot UFO sighting reports would be kept in the “Electronically Submitted Incident Report” (ESIR) database. Furthermore, in September 2014 I consulted the Operations branch of ASA regarding the validity of this information, and was told that the ESIR database would indeed be the final resting place for UFO reports by pilots, and, furthermore, the ESIR database was being superseded by a new system called the Corporate Integrated Reporting and Risk Information System (CIRRIS).

On the 24th of November, 2014 I submitted a formidable FOI request to ASA specifically asking for:
“….any incidences where flight crews have reported any:

1) Unusual, Unknown, or Unidentifiable Aircraft or Objects;
2) Suspected Drones/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles;
3) Meteoric Events, fireballs and the like;
4) Especially unusual weather phenomenon;

which are held on ESIR or CIRRIS database(s).
After receiving an acknowledgment reply on the 25th of November, I waited for what I thought would be the usual “no material responsive to your request can be found” type nonsense. However, on the 10th of December, 2014 I was pleasantly surprised when I received quite the opposite:
“Dear Mr. Dean,

Please find attached an FOI access decision, table of documents and documents being released under the access decision re your request dated 25 November 2014.

Freedom of Information &
Privacy Contact Officer/Legal Inquiries Coordinator
Office of Legal Counsel
Airservices Australia”
Contained with this email were 3 attachments. One was the usual “Access Decision” which all FOI requests end with; one was a “Table of Documents” which is a list of any material being furnished; and the final PDF was the one that contained the smoke and fire… Dryly titled “Documents Being Released Under The Access Decision” this PDF was a full 3 pages, and in tiny font size at that, of tabulated pilot reports of UFO events over Australia. Below is an image of the “Table of Documents” page:

Scehdule of Documents (Paul Dean FOIA)

The first thing that jumped out was the fact that some of these reports date back to 2007. So Keith Basterfield’s FOI request to ASA in 2012 failed to secure any of this material. Either ASA had done a very bad job with his very reasonable FOI request, or, someone at ASA simply didn’t want so much material coming out at that time. Infamous American FOI Act user and abuser Robert Todd, who filed approximately seven thousand FOI requests in just a 19 year period once said:
“Either we are dealing with morons at these government FOI and information branches, or, they are not morons and they are deliberately hiding the material I have asked for, and am entitled to, as an American citizen.”
Whatever the truth of the matter, we now have, for those who are interested in real data and real cases - rather than the pathetic “UFO theatre” that goes on in this caper – actual reports from pilots to Airservices Australia. The only problem is, I cannot understand half of it, and I am waiting on advice from people who can. Until then, here are some of the better cases in absolute raw form:
Case ATS‐0126807, which occurred on the 26th of January, 2014, above Adelaide, states:
“At 2315Z TGW484, inbound on the ALEXI 05V STAR reported having traffic at 12 o'clock, 5NM. AAE reported there was no observed traffic in that vicinity. TGW484 then requested a turn onto heading 210. TGW484 then reported the traffic in their right, 3 o'clock 2.5 NM "visual", and were turning back for the VSA. TGW484 then asked if AAE had the traffic on radar, 3' o'clock at 4NM. AAE replied they had an A320 past the 3 o'clock at 6.8NM. AAE confirmed whether that was the traffic they had reported, which TGW reported they were not sure, they had had traffic showing 2.5 NM same level. Shortly after JST774 following TGW reported TCAS showing something at BATIP, "hovering" at A020, which then disappeared.”
Case ATS‐0075593, which is listed as occurring on the 10th of April, 2009, in the region of “TOPS”, wherever that is, states:
“ANO332 tracking DN‐KU on descent, reported an airprox with an unknown aircraft approximately opposite direction, at approximately A090. Subsequent questioning of the crew elicited that the aircraft was observed approximately 3‐4 NM east of the flight planned track and followed on TCAS, but there was no RA, nor was the aircraft sighted. Weather conditions were VMC. ANO332 reported unable to raise the aircraft on VHF.ATS surveillance is not available in this part of the airspace so the report was unable to be corroborated by ATC. No flights matching the aircraft were known to the ATS system.
Case ATS‐0105506, which occurred on the 25th of April, 2010 in the Canberra region states:
“Unidentified (upside down pyramid shaped) object drifting close to final rwy 35. First spotted at approximately 400ft AGL on the Western edge of Mt Jerrabomberra. Initially drifted West, towards final for rwy 35, before climbing and drifting to the Northeast. Two aircraft (QFA814 and VOZ259) were diverted through noise abatement areas (Southwest of YSCB) to avoid the object.”
Another one, ATS‐0098025, 26th September, 2012:
“TGW581 reported a red cylindrical object passing the aircraft in the opposite direction when climbing through FL200 approximately 20 nm miles south of Sydney.”
And so they go on. For three pages. All of this is completely raw data: No internal ASA opinions, no emotive statements by the pilots, no conclusions; just the actual tabulated entries on ASA databases, and little else. Even a cursory look at a not insignificant number of these entries tells me that the offending “UFOs” are nothing more than lanterns or model aircraft. But some are not. Right now, I am trying to have these cases – which admittedly come with limited data – put “into English” by the contacts I have to gain a clearer picture of what was actually happening in the skies to cause the pilots to submit such reports, some of which I suspect may have been made quite urgently.

Aside from having this bundle of material analysed by my contacts, I have submitted a further FOI request to Airservices Australia for more details on some of the better looking cases. Specifically, on the 20th of January – just a few days ago – I have asked ASA to provide me with any documents (internal emails, investigation notes, pilot statements, messages, minutes of meetings, etc) which relate to some of these pilot submissions, and I will not be satisfied until the trickle becomes a deluge. Which brings me to another point: It occurred to me, when submitting a bunch of other FOI requests to other agencies last week, I seem to be the only one doing this in Australia. Why so? Why am I doing all the heavy lifting in relation to governmental enquiry and correspondence with those that may hold some keys? If Airservices Australia can furnish me with three pages of pilot UFO reports alone, imagine what the Defence Department’s Directorate of Aviation and Air Force Safety (DDAAFS) databases may hold? What might the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB) Accident and Incident Notifications files tell us? I would encourage other researchers out there to get acquainted, preferably sooner than later, with the current state of possible governmental UFO material, and attempt some correspondence with these agencies. The next “Halt Memo” may be sitting somewhere, and I don’t have to be the one to find it.

“UAP [UFOs] Maneuverability Makes … Drones Look Archaic”

Drones vs UFOs

The new scapegoats?

By Billy Cox
De Void

     The quadcopter drone that crashed into the White House lawn on Monday may have been innocuous, but at some point there’s going to be a disaster — and everybody sees it coming. The global skies are getting more cluttered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) morphing into increasingly bizarre and complex designs, and regulators can’t scramble fast enough to keep up with the galloping technologies, many of which now employ stealth configurations.

In November, The Washington Post reviewed FAA records and discovered pilots had reported “a surge” of near-miss incidents since June 1, where drones came within a few feet or seconds of colliding with conventional aircraft. In an environment where the odds of potentially catastrophic encounters are accelerating, could an unintended consequence be getting more critical eyes on UFOs?

Drone Survival Guide
Since 1999, the nonprofit National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena has been studying The Great Taboo — preferring the less loaded acronym UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena) — from flight-safety perspectives. NARCAP’s concerns aren’t so much over mid-air collisions — UAP apparently don’t obey the laws of traditional aerodynamics and are agile enough to turn on a dime — as they are about pilot reaction. NARCAP researchers scoured FAA cases dating back to the 1950s and discovered the biggest danger was a tendency by pilots to overcorrect when confronted by the often abrupt approach of UAP. No fatalities on file, yet, but a few injuries here and there, and certainly a potential for disaster anytime a pilot attempts a sudden evasive maneuver.

Inject drones into that lengthy FAA track record and things get dicey real quick. In a 2013 report titled “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: Can We Tell Them Apart?,” NARCAP’s Richard Haines and Wayne Reed drew distinctions between UAP and UAV. To mention a few, drones can be pretty noisy; UAP are largely mute. Unlike UAV, most drones have range, altitude and speed limitations. UAP maneuverability makes even the most sophisticated drones look archaic. “Unless something basic has been overlooked in this overview,” states the report, “it seems reasonable to assert that none of the UAV that are reviewed here are able to disappear suddenly from sight, execute instantaneous ninety degree (or other angles) turns, accelerate at extremely high speeds, hover in complete silence or perform small, constant radius somersaults or corkscrew flight around a single point, suddenly change shape or size (without changing their orientation or distance from the viewer) — all of which UAP have been reported to be able to do.”

NARCAP published yet another example just this month, from Australian researchers Keith Basterfield and Paul Dean. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), described it as “a near collision with an unknown object involving a De Havilland DHC-8, VH-XFX near Perth Airport, Western Australia on 19 March 2014,” and filed it under the “serious incident” category. The charter turboprop had 53 passengers aboard that clear morning when it was confronted by an “unknown object” that, according to the crew, was coming head-on and sported “a bright strobe light” up front that “appeared to track” toward the DHC-8. The pilot had to bank the avoid the collision with the bogey, which passed within 65 feet horizontally and 100 feet vertically.

A strobing light amid clean skies was weird enough, but the ATSB report, which also said the object left no radar tracks, logged it as “cylindrical in shape and grey in colour.” But get this: The DHC-8 was traveling at 3,700 feet; at the moment of the encounter, according to the ATSB, the area below 3,500 feet was restricted military airspace. Upon being interviewed by Paul Dean, the chief pilot said the object was shaped like a cigarette, only “it was green, military green, in colour.”

The pilot informed Dean nobody told him to shut up about what he saw. But after that interview, which was conducted through the airline, Dean’s access to the pilot, and to the safety officer he hoped to question, went dark. “No more emails, no more return calls,” Dean writes. “It was like they'd either had enough of the case, or, were told not to keep discussing it.

“I wonder of course, if it was a missile or rocket, where the body of it is,” he continues. “If it was a UAV then we have to wonder what type?! I looked and looked and no UAVs are pencil-like, all green-grey, or have a strobe at the front. It's weird. Whatever it was it nearly took that plane out.”

Just one more thing we'll likely never figure out. But what if drone technology -- military or otherwise -- begins to seriously imperil our skyways? Might authorities start chatting up UFOs as a cover for their mistakes?