About Those Radioactive Anthill Isotopes At The `Roswell' Crash Site - The 2015 Follow Up

In the last few days I decided to simply follow up, via the internet, in any way that I could, on the `citizen sleuth' (Frank Kimbler) who seemed to be able to figure out a way to prove or disprove the idea that the Roswell Crashed UFO Saucer was from Earth - or from some other part of the Universe. Now, this man is not totally unfamiliar to UDCC readers - and is a featured link in the left hand sidebar (part of my Real UFO Blogging) ... but, since then, there have been a few strange twists and turns... evidently... of course... since UDCCs 7/18/2011 coverage Shown Here of his amazing initial efforts seemingly PROVED the craft was made off planet. Seriously... and shown... supposedly by the image below: (his claim is he has found bits of the craft and at the link you can see them - below the graph shows the out of position nature of the sample Frank Kimbler had tested AH-1.)

Source Of Image

====================================================

So, strange twists and turns you ask? (Nothing is strange when the name Bigelow is involved.) Indeed... with the Proverbial LOST SAMPLE on its way to a lab for examination 

“This UFO evidence stuff is an interesting game to play. Seems to be a great deal like cat and mouse, cloak and dagger and chess all wrapped in one,” Kimbler added, stating that he will not ship any other samples to anyone. He further stated he or trusted colleagues will personally supervise every step of debris analysis from here forward.

.....Lines of communication opened between Frank Kimbler, Frank Purcell and various interested parties following the publication of the related Open Minds article and my posting Purcell's subsequent analysis. I happen to exchange emails with this group of interested parties, resulting in my notification of the lost metal fragment and the information contained in this post. 

Kimbler wrote to me on September 3:

"The debunkers will say I never placed it in the box, the conspiracy folks will say the government got it.

Here is what I would like to see happen. CNN or some other big news agency to follow this analysis. Full public disclosure of the process, good science. It makes no difference to me if the material is a beer can fragment or ET metal, it's all part of the story... to get an answer."

(sent by Fed Ex..... find that story written 9/3/2011 at Jack Brewers Fine UFO Blog) ... this was the first I had heard that portion of the tale. In the comment section Jack indicated in July 2014 that he hadn't communicated with Kimbler about the analysis.

===============================

And, then I found this:

In August 2014 an overview of Frank Kimbler's continuing efforts were highlighted at this Post On The Website Altered Dimensions which DID have details of FK's adventures AGAIN into the field to gather more `evidence' with AGAIN more `hits' of unusual pieces of `metal'. Indeed the above article included a great review too of FK's situation.

But, evidently IF FK is to be believed... then he went into the Roswell Debris field once again in March 2012 and found what is pictured below... a picture from the above link.

Link To Picture

----------------------------------

Then in April 2014 he found TWO more very unusual pieces of `something' one described as an `I-Beam'. See that picture at the above link.... He continues searching.

------------------------------------------

But, a review would not be complete unless one provides a video, right?

So, this is FK talking to a reporter at a UFO conference in 2014. He seems totally honest in his evaluation of who could have taken the sample... however, he's fallen a bit to the `they are leaking a bit of info at a time up until disclosure' `beliefs' of the UFO Disclosure dog and pony show. (Which he would be surrounded by at a conference.)

159 Views Since July 2014

================================================

============================

So, it was certainly good to know that our citizen sleuth was still walking the talk out in the field. It was good to know that he is now smarter when it comes to the handling of sensitive materials. It was good to know that any UFO show would make sure to have something as believable as this man and this methodology.

But, it was more than typical that YEARS later nothing harder in evidence seems to have occurred beyond the initial finding. Which compels me to ask..... Is Frank hiding something?

===================================

REAL UFO BLOGGING

MY KINDLE BOOKS CONTAIN THE BEST OF MY REAL UFO BLOGGING POSTS

please click the above to read some samples

The Censored Morphing Helicopter Picture RE-Surfaces

So, the photographer of the `morphing helicopter' picture has re-contacted me directly (and not through our comments here anonymously) ... and has RE-sent me the photos I saw in the Original MUFON report BEFORE it somehow vanished from the database... (I grabbed it off the `latest 20 MUFON reports' - it vanished from the larger searchable database.) It's almost like a small window of opportunity exists for real UFO bloggers to get a possible bit of uncensored material.
---
Anyway.... the photographer has asked for anonymity .... which is cool.... and as I said, IF it wasn't for the photographers ORIGINAL MUFON report -- that indicated that what he saw was a morphing helicopter... the picture is easily dismissible as a bird or who knows what..... and IF I am right about the `immediate Helicopter UFO phenomena' ... this is PERHAPS the first caught on camera. 

Here's How I Covered This Last Week

the above link includes the original MUFON report and report link - now inoperative.

Anyway, here's the pictures that he got back to me with.

Haverhill Mass. 2013 Event

Pic One

normal

I've enlarged the original above

=======================================

WTH right?

My Question back to the photographer - DID IT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT AS YOU WERE TAKING THE PICTURE? Were you aware of anything anomalous at the time? Did it continue to fly away or what happened?

(Update, 7AM, 11/12)

His answer is below:

The only thing I noticed was that it got farther away quicker than normal.  As the first picture shows, it was rather close (Even with me zooming all of the way in).  The second picture I took about 5 seconds later, but the object was really far away.  (I was still zoomed all of the way in).  It never came back around again. 

For a geographical reference, my house is inside what I call the "golden triangle" of military bases.  Pease Air National Guard base to the north, Fort Devens to the west, and Otis ANG base to the south.  This all plays into what I saw somehow. 

The object did continue to fly away, and I never saw it again.  Apart from the object itself, there was nothing else anomalous.

I hope this answered your questions.

=================================

My final question which I will update later today if he answers again would be - any SOUND anomalies,... did the sound fade as quickly as the helicopter?
(Final Update 11AM)
The sound?  Hard to say.  From what I remember, the sound was gone after I took the last picture.  Although, it was so far away that I can't say that it had no sound whatsoever.  From my point of view, the sound and the object were gone after the picture was taken.

Thanks to the submitter and WAY TO BE AWARE!

===========================

UDCC - the uncensored UFO blog.

what IS MUFON afraid of?

Proof Of Total Jadedness (WRITTEN MARCH 4TH -2013)

Hey Clockers - in my rooting around I found this post that I simply choose not to bring to you this March. It had to do with the previous post about my contact and two hour discussion with a man who was attempting to contact ET perhaps. http://ufodisclosurecountdownclock.blogspot.com/2013/03/do-ets-use-modulated-gravity-waves-to.html - and when my `breaking news' was met with total silence by the so called alternative news sources --- I wrote the post below:
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
As of this morning, 65 folks had come to UDCC `specifically' to see the post of yesterday - and perhaps another hundred or so saw the post by coming simply to the home front page. This despite the maximum level of `promoting' that I do (about 5 minutes worth to a dozen or so websites). And, NONE of the websites even used the post. 

Am I to assume they had a `hotter' story than a KNOWN `alternative' individual, an old citizen sleuth codger at that, who claims to be have a device that may allow the FIRST non-governmental attempt to `communicate' with ET's? - Yeah, right.

So, the question becomes - is this how jaded the folks that bring to you the `alternative' views about the anomalous have become? And, my answer to that is `obviously'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================
Then again,..... could it be that the `population' of people who come of `UFO sites have this kind of `belief levels' of various components associated with UFOlogy? 2003 Website Poll About UFO's Demons and More. More importantly, do you either need to have SEEN or to know a seer to even participate in such a poll? Could the slippery slope of `UFO' be more steep? Are lights in the sky `UFO's? Over half thinking that demons could be involved masquerading as aliens? (Modulated Gravity Waves.... Give me a break) ------ Therefore is it any wonder that such a website would become..... Stagnant? (That said, I do LIKE the way the actual webmaster is ORB focused. Or was focused.) Oh, need a bit more proof - here's that multi hundred page document (now in sidebar) - all basically Ignored By The MSM - nonetheless, an interesting read (I may dig into a post about page 362.)
=======================================
===========================================

Thanks For Being A Clocker - Please Investigate This Website

Does Mormon Church Microfilm Yield 152 Year Old NYC `UFO' Sighting?

Well, I certainly have to hand it to this citizen sleuth and perhaps their imagination to `produce' this theory of a UFO near a huge fire on March 29th, 1861....... Got your attention with that, right? The very nebulous proof comes from the writing on the bottom of a page that is a baptism register of a church in 1858.

It's a MUFON report that almost has to speak for itself - enjoy:
-------------------------
1861 UFO Over NYC - MUFON Report
====================================
the attachment is an 1858 baptism register from st. peters church in jersey city nj down near exchange place which i was looking thru for my family to see when they arrived in jersey city from ireland. i was looking at this on a roll of microfilm in a mormon library in caldwell nj. this is not fake. look at the note at the bottom on the attached page of the baptism register in pdf format. it reads like this : 
"Mr. Healey told me today that Mrs. T. Richard Kinder was looking out her garrit window (in nyc) on the nite of March 29,1861 in the direction of the church of the transfiguration at about 12 oclock. The nite was clear and dark with no moon when she saw a luminous cross in the sky with light eminating from around the head as it moved directionally across the sky. She awoke her husband Richard and he saw it also." 
notice just before the story begins, they drew a diagram of the cross in the sky on the paper. they drew a second diagram at the top of the next page also. the church of the transfiguration is in chinatown nyc on mott street. so mrs. kinder was in nyc on baxter street (1 block west of mott street) looking east. baxter st. at the time was the famous slum called 5 points which is the background for the martin scorscese film "gangs of ny". 
in 1861, there were no airplanes, no tall buildings but churches, no television, no reality shows to make you famous, and so i believe the woman and her husband saw something sincerely and told a priest thinking it was a vision from god. 
the light emanating from the head of the cross was obviously a cockpits light and the cross was a craft. btw, a garrit window is like an attic window in todays cape cod type homes. 
i researched the newspapers for nyc the following day to see if this could be corraberated. 
i found a very interesting story that on canal street about 6 blocks away from baxter street a warehouse, a book bindery and a LABOROATORY went on fire and the entire city block burned to the ground the same evening as the cross in the sky. 
my theory is this: the cross was a type aircraft. the fire illuminated the belly of this metallic aircraft and so its fusilage glowed like a cross as the flames from the fire lit it up from below otherwise it never would have beeen noticed. remember according to the witness it was dark and clear with no moon. i also wonder what was in the laboratory that burned down.
=====================================================================

Now, here's the PDF file that is the `source' of this story to begin with - the file of the baptism register - `Scribbled' UFO Description - it is almost unreadable.
======================================
The `funny' thing about the above report is that I also ran across a scribbled `FBI' memo supposedly written write after the Roswell incident with all kinds of info about the aliens. Like two days later. Perhaps I'll bring that `proof' tomorrow.
======================================
UFO blogging you simply do not find elsewhere - UDCC.
======================================
Please check out my E-Books - All 2.99 or less:
Important UFO Sightings Of The 2000s - The 2006 O'Hare UFO Airport Incident (The Heavy Stuff) 

The MythRepresentation Of UFOlogy 

Important UFO Sightings Of The 2000s - The 2008 Stephenville UFO Events (The Heavy Stuff) 

Shaman Lujan Matus Has Answers 

The Slippery Slope Of Now And Real - The Phenomenology Of Actualization 

The Ultimate 9-11-2001 Anomaly (Best of The Heavy Stuff) 

Beyond The Great Beyond 

Unspeakable - Chemtrails And Economic Collapse (Best of The Heavy Stuff) 

Going To The Light At Death - The New Theories (The Heavy Stuff)

Denver UFO Catfight - Citizens Say `It's Bugs', TV Station Says `Tis not'

Good morning Clockers - got a firm grip on your hot cocoa or coffee today? Get ready to take some long sips while you consider my packaged update of the November Denver UFO (kinda has a ring to it, don't you think?). And, as we left you last......... the citizens were planning their own stake out of the TV video location to see for themselves whether the Denver UFO had legs (or wings) to stand upon.

For those late to the Denver UFO party scene - a Denver TV station earlier this month ran a Story on November 8th about an UFO that was brought to their attention by a man who was not identified in the report. The man claimed that for several months he had been going to a particular location in Denver between noon and 1 PM and simply setting up his camera and running the video tape. Within the captures of the tape, the man claimed that on many days a week that from a particular intersection in Denver an UFO would come out of the ground and fly around Denver's skies - so fast - that it could only be seen if you slowed down the tape. WAY slooooowwwww dowwwnnnnn. And that then, you could also see the UFO go back into the ground near the same location that it emerged from prior to it's air flight.

Yeah, quite a claim.

So, the TV station sends it's own crew to the same spot at the time the man suggested and guess what - yeah, you guessed it - UFO seen doing exactly as the man suggested. TV station brings on multiple experts to assure us all that this is not normal crafts and isn't birds or a bug. Then, simply declares the video finding a UFO. (Picking great photo stills from the video that even look like the classic saucer UFO.)
--------------------
Enough for the background - on to the real controversy - the counter report by `citizens' - ............ indeed, at least TWO groups of `citizens'. You see, not only did the citizen sleuth show up - the `professional' citizen sleuth - in the form of a professional `paranormal' research society investigative team showed up. Everyone armed with their video cameras and preconceived ideas and possible agendas. 

Indeed, on the face of it - as an outside observer - it appeared to UDCC that each group was simply determined to show how inadequate of a job the MSM TV station had done; suspecting them to be doing it simply for ratings during the ratings sweeps. And, with that - let's turn to the counter view of the `follow up' proving event.

So, on the following Saturday and even other times - folks from the social/news site Reddit show up at the location with cameras running. Here is the thread on Reddit talking about the findings - Reddit Denver UFO Comments - if you read this link - you will find some of the following among the 167 comments. 

1. As opposed to what the TV station said - the place had tons of bugs that could have entered the video panorama. (the original reporter had made some quip about the station not turning bugs into a UFO story). Oh, pictures of the bugs was offered as proof. Denver BUG UFO `Moneyshot'. As was this video of the area of the shooting - where you can hear the citizen sleuths meet up with other citizen sleuths. Video Of Field - With UFO Videographers Talking in background - seen by all of 267 folks and offering no proof of anything - the only comment says - `I was promised flies'.
2. One of the other groups was the paranormal investigators - Rocky Mountain Paranormal. Who was going to issue their own report - Paranormal Denver Report on Denver UFO. (We'll get to this in a moment.)
3. That some folks see a `thruster' in the original video when the craft turns - which others call a reflection - and that their was confusion that CNN sent a crew to cover this when it was CNN who simply ran the original Denver TV UFO report. Yes, stuff as basic as this can be misunderstood. It's also of interest that CNN ran the story about the FOX TV station that did the story first - was that to make Fox look stupid?
4. This comment about sums up the general Reddit view:

dontblamethehorse 14 points 7 days ago*

There was good evidence in the original video that it was flies. Then you have a bunch of people go out there and film, reporting that there are tons of flies in the area. Then you get a guy who catches those flies on camera, showing them flying across the frame... Similar to the original video, where an insect flies right near the lens. Then an insect actually lands on the lens.

What is more plausible?

There is some type of craft that has been taking off and landing from a residential area on a daily/weekly basis at the same time for months, but only one man filming from a field has seen it. Despite confirming it wasn't bugs or birds or anything else identifiable, the investigative reporter didn't see fit to look into further by changing locations, trying to get closer, or visiting the place it appeared to be taking off from to find out what it was. Instead, they drop it and say they will follow up in the future when they have time. UFOs can wait.

A bunch of people go out to debunk it, and in fact find the field in question has flies everywhere. They setup cameras, and see flies while viewing the footage. One even lands directly on someone's camera, and look nearly identical to the original video. Nothing else weird is spotted. This is all a coincidence though, because the craft does in fact exist. It just didn't come out today.

Or...

It was a guy filming flies. The reason they didn't attempt to find the landing site or do any follow up investigation - something you'd imagine they'd be quite eager to do - is because they knew it was flies, and that there was no actual story.

The people who went out to debunk the story saw flies that looked almost identical to the original video because the original video was in fact flies.

5. More YouTube video from on-site - Citizen Sleuth Denver UFO Video - he didn't see anything but perhaps you will. Oh, the entire gig was `watched over' by a local cop the entire time.

6. Now, Reddit did offer up compelling folks saying the general consensus was full of crap:

[–]YouMirinBrah 0 points 7 days ago*

You're ignorant of the facts and it is impacting your ability to make an accurate assessment.

The man said the "object" appears two or three days out of a week. You go out for ONE day, and somehow, you're able to conclusively say without any doubt in your mind that it was "unlikely" anything but a fly in the original film.

If you're done playing scientist you might want to read up on what it takes to scientifically come to a conclusion that has at least a moderate degree of certainty and then come back to us.

For the record I think it could very easily be misidentification.

EDIT 1 - Also, I hope that smoking gun "money shot" is some kind of joke. That in NO WAY at ANY point looks like the "object" in the two original videos. You're have to be seriously deluded to think that it in any way says anything other than an insect landed on his camera lens.

==================

The thread died this death 5 days ago - despite the TV station responding itself to the claim that it was bugs as you can see in the video below:

Oh, this was the conclusion of the Paranormal group - in addition to lots of bugs gathered:

After close examination of the videos of the reported “UFO’s” from the FOX News broadcast it appears that the objects in question are a combination of native insects and birds. 

We guided to this conclusion by using the principle or Occams Razor which states that given multiple answers (all things being equal) the simpler explanation is usually the correct one. The explanation being a native bird/insect or an Extraterrestrial visitor in their spaceship that was not noticed by anyone but a person who was trying to find a UFO seems to have an obvious answer. 

====================================

And, believe it or not - the Paranormal Group made such a fuss about the TV station not using a bug expert in their original TV newscast that - you guessed it - the TV station brought in a (very lame) bug expert who declared the object in the original video to NOT BE BUGS; - but it might be a `military drone, a remote controlled toy or even bugs' - as they repeated what they had heard from the public and then tried to disprove. It's a bit hard to get thru the laughter at the end of the follow up report.
=====================
And, finally, perhaps the most interesting aspect of the whole story - if true - was tackled by - again, a citizen sleuth who tried to figure out in print for everyone just `how fast' something would have to be going to be `faster than sight' as an Unidentified Flying Object. I provide his analysis - he is called Cubbybearblu in his comment name at this link - he uses all kinds of ways in his considerations including how our brains work when it comes to perceptions - are you ready for how fast he says this object may be going? 10,000 MPH to 75,000 MPH.
===============================
===============================
Yet, despite all this above analysis - I didn't hear or read even ONE person - other than myself at UDCC - bridge the gap about this object being less than a `material object' in our ordinary way of thinking about phenomena. That is IF this is an anomalous phenomena.

Which, if you followed all the data above to it's logical conclusion - hasn't been proven in any manner. It also hasn't been proven to be bugs - as we avoid the elephant in the room - what comes out of the ground at 10K+ MPH that isn't fully a material object?

A subject much too far down the slippery slope for any real discussion. Next thing you know, some TV producer will want to call it a Fairy. 
======================================
======================================
You can share this on Facebook via the share button below if you wish.
======================================
MY KINDLE AUTHOR PAGE
THE UDCC BOOK VAULT


There’s no single, simple answer, of course. The “invisibility speed” would depend on the ambient light level, the relative size of the object in one’s visual field, the relative direction of motion, the presence of other sensory cues such as whooshes or flashes, the direction of your visual attention, and a host of other factors. You can’t see a speeding rifle bullet, for example, but you can see a much larger military jet moving at the same speed. This treatment here, in the bulletin of a medical research institute, gives a good overview of the problem. 

It isn’t hard to come up with a seat-of-the-pants estimate, though. The binocular field of view of a person with normal vision is about 120 degrees. Let’s imagine an airplane-sized object that speeds straight across this binocular field of view, with a closest approach of one mile. How quickly must it get across to be effectively invisible? 
There’s no single, simple answer, of course. The “invisibility speed” would depend on the ambient light level, the relative size of the object in one’s visual field, the relative direction of motion, the presence of other sensory cues such as whooshes or flashes, the direction of your visual attention, and a host of other factors. You can’t see a speeding rifle bullet, for example, but you can see a much larger military jet moving at the same speed. This treatment here, in the bulletin of a medical research institute, gives a good overview of the problem. 

It isn’t hard to come up with a seat-of-the-pants estimate, though. The binocular field of view of a person with normal vision is about 120 degrees. Let’s imagine an airplane-sized object that speeds straight across this binocular field of view, with a closest approach of one mile. How quickly must it get across to be effectively invisible? 

The human visual system starts to lose its ability to distinguish stimuli — even under optimal conditions — when they are separated by less than about 1/50th of a second. That isn’t strictly relevant to this problem; the question here is whether you can detect a single novel stimulus moving against an ordinary background. But the 1/50 sec figure gives us a rough idea of the effective “refresh rate” of the human visual system, and I think we can all agree that just about anything crossing our visual field in 1/50 sec. would be invisible, unless it is highly luminous against a dark background. In bright daylight even a much slower object — even at airplane scale, at an easy, one-mile viewing distance — could still be unnoticeable to most or all viewers if it is not luminous. Human eyes frequently dart around (saccade) for about 1/5 sec at a time, during which the visual feed is interrupted; also our eyes blink a lot, for intervals that can be even longer. These interruptions are effectively random, so they wouldn’t blind everyone at once. Also, like other mammals we have a visual system that is highly sensitive to moving objects, even if we can’t perceive them with sharp resolution. But surely the effective FOV-crossing limit is higher than 1/50 sec. 

What’s the upper limit on this transit time? I think that if I were staring out onto a clear, sunlit expanse of ground or water, an airplane-sized object speeding across my binocular visual field a mile away would have to cross in well under a second, to go unnoticed. Let’s say 1/2 second. (Count ‘one-mississippi’ but stop halfway — it’s a longer interval than it might seem.) I’m pretty sure that an object of that size, moving that fast, at that distance, would still be perceptible to a significant fraction of onlookers. I’d bet that even a 1/4 sec transit would be noticed by some people, especially if they’re expecting to see something. But let’s stick with 1/2 sec to be (I think) conservative. What speed does that represent? 

If you work out the simple trigonometry of it, you come up with a figure just shy of 25,000 mph — which is faster than low-earth-orbit satellites move. It’s also faster than a simple, earth-technology aircraft could move through the lower atmosphere without quickly burning up. And again, I believe that’s conservative. The real speed for effective invisibility of a large object before a multitude of onlookers could be double or triple that figure. 

At closer ranges, the same object would be larger and in that sense more perceptible, but also would spend less time crossing people’s fields of view, so it could well have a lower invisibility-speed. Clearly invisibility-speed is neither static nor simply linearly varying with distance. But even if you were to halve the distance and assume a halved invisibility-speed, you’d be talking about something that has to move at more than 10,000 mph. 

These calculations are relevant and It s no toy!
The human visual system starts to lose its ability to distinguish stimuli — even under optimal conditions — when they are separated by less than about 1/50th of a second. That isn’t strictly relevant to this problem; the question here is whether you can detect a single novel stimulus moving against an ordinary background. But the 1/50 sec figure gives us a rough idea of the effective “refresh rate” of the human visual system, and I think we can all agree that just about anything crossing our visual field in 1/50 sec. would be invisible, unless it is highly luminous against a dark background. In bright daylight even a much slower object — even at airplane scale, at an easy, one-mile viewing distance — could still be unnoticeable to most or all viewers if it is not luminous. Human eyes frequently dart around (saccade) for about 1/5 sec at a time, during which the visual feed is interrupted; also our eyes blink a lot, for intervals that can be even longer. These interruptions are effectively random, so they wouldn’t blind everyone at once. Also, like other mammals we have a visual system that is highly sensitive to moving objects, even if we can’t perceive them with sharp resolution. But surely the effective FOV-crossing limit is higher than 1/50 sec. 

What’s the upper limit on this transit time? I think that if I were staring out onto a clear, sunlit expanse of ground or water, an airplane-sized object speeding across my binocular visual field a mile away would have to cross in well under a second, to go unnoticed. Let’s say 1/2 second. (Count ‘one-mississippi’ but stop halfway — it’s a longer interval than it might seem.) I’m pretty sure that an object of that size, moving that fast, at that distance, would still be perceptible to a significant fraction of onlookers. I’d bet that even a 1/4 sec transit would be noticed by some people, especially if they’re expecting to see something. But let’s stick with 1/2 sec to be (I think) conservative. What speed does that represent? 

If you work out the simple trigonometry of it, you come up with a figure just shy of 25,000 mph — which is faster than low-earth-orbit satellites move. It’s also faster than a simple, earth-technology aircraft could move through the lower atmosphere without quickly burning up. And again, I believe that’s conservative. The real speed for effective invisibility of a large object before a multitude of onlookers could be double or triple that figure. 

At closer ranges, the same object would be larger and in that sense more perceptible, but also would spend less time crossing people’s fields of view, so it could well have a lower invisibility-speed. Clearly invisibility-speed is neither static nor simply linearly varying with distance. But even if you were to halve the distance and assume a halved invisibility-speed, you’d be talking about something that has to move at more than 10,000 mph. 

These calculations are relevant and It s no toy!

Lou20764's YouTube Channel - 206 UFO Videos, And Counting

As Clockers know, UDCC routinely features Orb Callers and the citizen sleuths that are almost ritually uncovering the anomalous phenomena in our collective skies. Today's feature will be Lou20764 of YouTube - who in a little over 8 months has routinely used IR equipment to scan the skies and `finds' one anomaly after another. I'll feature one of his latest that have shown up on the big boys of UFO Videos lately and has over 25K views in less than two weeks and a 9/1 positive to negative ratio of voted opinion.

The video, shot in the daytime shows - literally - groups of objects seemingly entering the atmosphere. These videos are all shot in Australia.

link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5n6C7cqgMRk
=======================================================
Here's his channel with over 200 UFO Videos. And, here is (I think) some coverage of the above guy Story Link.
==========================================
OVER 100 FREE books were downloaded off my author page yesterday - and ONE of them is still free today on my Author Page - indeed, it's my BESTSELLER about the 2006 UFO Incident at the Chicago O'Hare Airport. Please check out my books today. Thanks.
==========================================
Did you know that you can `compare' your TV plan with Direct TV's and even completely change your service via the internet - without even talking with a rep? How convenient is THAT? IF saving money is an upcoming new years resolution - this is a great place to start.

Are `UFO's' This Easy To Find?

Between the Orb Caller phenomena and the Citizen Sleuth phenomena - unidentified air objects/entities are seemingly being `outed' more and more via today's video technology. In today's offering, at first glance at least, is one from the citizen sleuth department - UK style. Seems this guy, with over 300 vids, is outing the relentless Chemtrails above his head and their association with VERY fast anomalous craft. He `out's' this phenomena in much the same way that others have been doing - by looking FRAME by FRAME at segments of video. 

Are folks like him catching a REAL phenomena? Or, are these nothing more than glitches in the software or recording? The below video has all of THREE views and was uploaded yesterday. As I said, this guy has HUNDREDS of videos and most with no more than a dozen or so views. A warrior in that regard.
link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzAU7hAhytI
==========================================================
And, if you have more time today - check out what this guy claims to have found via various sound checking equipment - Which He Says Has Been Present For 20 Years.
=======================================
Canary in a coalmine?
=======================================
UDCC digs out the original content.
=======================================
BTW, here's a GREAT weekend read from Lon Stricklers website called Phantom's and Monsters - it's about the first described UFO Account In America (by white men) it happened in 1638 or so....... lots of details.
========================================
Updated my `news' blog today too - from the headlines of Reddit.Com - Even ParaNormal News.
========================================
Man who runs the National Air Service in the UK says there ARE objects that do not conform to normal flight patterns - find out how often Here. (Also provided at the link as a interview.) Think UFO's with this one.
========================================
And, if you are ready to head down into the slippery slope of societies breakdown Read Here About Decapitated Heads That Rolled Into Bogs And Were Preserved For Scientists To Find And Tell Us Such - with nearly a complete brain.
=========================================
Oh, at the above link is a link to one of my books on Kindle - that is FREE today. Continued thanks to those purchasing my books of late - especially the Lujan Matus readers.
=========================================
some of my other Kindle Books are below:


====================================================
PLEASE SHARE THIS POST VIA THE FACEBOOK SHARE BUTTON BELOW

Do NASA Photos Suggest Evidences of Life on Saturn’s Moon Enceladus?

As some Clockers may remember, a citizen sleuth was featured in a link here within the last two years, who was using radioactive isotopes from Within Anthills to prove that Roswell was a real alien event. It made for a real interesting read and certainly something that should have been more than internet fodder. But, when you have a worthless mainstream media, what does one expect, right?


And, this morning in my search for good content for Clockers to read on their Sunday day of leisure - I came across BOODLES of stuff - both recent and a bit older. Indeed, I will bring you some of the other links to you for your consumption. But, I found nothing with as much of a detailed analysis, using official government info (NASA Pictures), to provide citizen sleuth like findings such as this Amazing Blog Posting. 


The post suggests that NASA has altered some photos of a small moon of Saturn of only 300 miles in diameter - that may have biological life in the vacuum of space atmosphere surrounding it. Life with a bio-luminescence like in our deep oceans. That SWARMS to feeding sources? Something that looks like the below picture - just one of a DOZEN that the guy uses to prove his conjectural ideas.

https://bruceleeeowe.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/08-215-objects-3.jpg?w=630&h=472

================================================

So, I ask you Clockers - do you have the time to dig enough and educate yourself in a manner like this man (comfortable with all the science he uses to accuse NASA of photo manipulation) to be able to feel comfortable with this theory? Will NASA go to any length to please the powers that be and who control the purse strings to keep the idea of life other than on Earth a SECRET?

Is this simply NOT glamorous enough of a LIFE finding? 

And, once we'd open up the vacuum of space for life - the slippery slope is only one way for sure.

==================================

There were over 200 FREE downloaded copies of my latest UFO book over the last five days - Much Appreciated. And, while all of the chapters are previous POSTS - IF you read it, please provide a review of the `book' at Kindle. Thanks.

The 14% UFO Myth And Other UFOlogy Essays
==============================================================

t.)

Book Description (The 14% UFO Myth)

Publication Date: July 9, 2012

UFO book author, UFO blogger and esoteric writer H. R. Phillips brings seven powerful chapters that look deeply into the phenomena of UFOs. Phillips starts by EXPLODING the often repeated statement by the mainstream media that one in seven Americans has seen a UFO. The myth falls easily as Phillips uses his market research knowledge to dig deeper for the actual research that has prompted the media to so widely use the 1 in 7 claim. Not only that, Phillips provides a real estimate for what the real number might actually be for UFO sightings.

But, much more is examined in this Kindle book - including an analysis of NUFORC (National UFO Reporting Center) data covering decades of citizen reports of UFOs. Additionally, Phillips provides his first person description of his own personal close-up UFO experience in 1991 and how it changed his actions and thoughts. And, don't miss Phillips providing his best guesses as to what the UFO phenomena actually seen in human perception might be. (And, what the alien abduction phenomena isn'

=====================================================

Important UFO Sightings Of The 2000s - The 2006 O'Hare UFO Airport Incident (The Heavy Stuff)
(MY MOST POPULAR UFO BOOK - JUST 99 CENTS)
====================================================================================


Did you know that July 2nd was World UFO Day? Me neither.
=====================================
Jack Brewer continues his fine blogging work on the UFO phenomena - with this weekend worthy free time read - of - Examining The Tainted Well Of UFO Land.
=====================================
And for today's most world reaching post - do you think it might be important to understand where the world most populous country and up and coming country stands on the complexity of UFO's? Thought So.
======================================
BTW, little on/in  the latest MUFON reports today of interest  - BUT - I do have very interesting material I've received from Ken Pfeifer of an old case with military pilot photos - expect that soon. It's in the bin. IF you are new to UDCC please bookmark and return soon - http://ufodisclosurecountdownclock.blogspot.com!


========================================
THE NUMBER ONE SELLING PRODUCT ON AMAZON!


three versions that start from 79 bucks - The Kindle.