LOGIN | REGISTER  Unregistered
SEARCH  
   
 

Strange Days: UFO Files

 

Classic UFO case cracked

Famous 1950s sighting of "jellyfish-shaped" mothership finally explained

FT258

A classic UFO sighting by civilian pilots has been explained following a “cold case” investi­gation more than 50 years since it made headlines across the world. One evening in June 1954, Captain James Howard was flying a BOAC Stratocruiser from New York to London when he and his flight crew spotted a shape-changing, black “jellyfish-shaped” object hovering low on the horizon above the Labrador coast. As crew and passengers watched in amazement, they saw a number of other dark blob-like objects arranged on either side of the “mothership”. As a fighter aircraft reached the scene, these smaller UFOs appeared to enter the larger object, which shrank and disapp­eared. On landing in London, Capt. Howard was interviewed live on BBC TV and became convinced the UFOs were being “intelligently handled”. Even the infamous Colorado UFO project failed to crack the case and suggested it was a rare natural phenomenon – “so rare that it apparently has never been reported before or since”.

But Scottish UFO investigator Martin Shough has unearthed primary evidence, including the crews’ statements and weather data, to solve the mystery. Through a process of elimination, Shough concludes there can be little doubt the crew and passengers saw an unusual mirage. And far from being rare, he discovered this sighting was just one of “an unrecognised class of very similar mirage observations from aircraft”. His definitive study proves it is poss­ible to resolve even the most perplexing UFO reports with enough time and effort. It also shows there is valuable scientific data lurking within the noise that constitutes the UFO enigma.

Bookmark this post with:


 

10 Comments

Unusual mirage. And far from being rare. Not Unusual then?

This guy is a joke, any idea to fit his own explanation will do. Once again our super ufo sleuths find the answer to ufo sightings and encounters. Totally over riding the actual witnesses to the sightings, I will stop believing there is more to ufos when sceptics stop brain washing the public with theories that don't fit the facts.
Paul

By Paulilf on 6 February, 2010, 9:25am

The previous commentator is a joke

I'll start taking people like Paulilf seriously when they debate the material presented, and not the author of the article. I somehow doubt that Paulilf actually read the article, or if he did, if he is capable of understanding it, let alone rationally challenge it's content.

By ufojoe on 6 February, 2010, 2:53pm

The Danger of Leaping to Conclusions Martin Shough, Himself, Doesn't Make

Andy Roberts and Dr David Clarke: 'Martin Shough has...solve[d] the mystery...His definitive study proves it is possible to resolve even the most perplexing UFO reports with enough time and effort.'

Martin Shough: 'Whilst the evidence is not conclusive...'

But maybe I read something completely different from Roberts, Clark and ufojoe.

But here's Shough again: 'Capt. HOWARD [said] these flak-like objects "flashed into sight suddenly" which can be interpreted as expressly contradicting much later accounts in which they were first intermittently "glimpsed" or "become aware of" through gaps in low cloud.'

Martin Shough's interpretation may well be correct, but I think the problem here is he's a verbally biased person honestly attempting to understand the meaning of Captain Howard who, to me, was clearly a person with a very strong visual bias.

My understanding of Captain Howard, therefore, is when he uses the term "flashed into sight suddenly" he doesn't mean the blobs suddenly appeared and thereafter stayed permanently in view, but that he first became aware of them as a sequence of sudden, intermittent images flashed through breaks on the cloud, an interpretation entirely consistent with the later 'they were first intermittently "glimpsed" or "become aware of" through gaps in low cloud.'

alanborky

By eddyblog on 6 February, 2010, 8:15pm

Is it this is the truth because we say it is.

Could another theory be that the pilot and some of the crew and some passengers actually saw what the pilot says they saw? Structured objects under some kind of intelligent control.
First hand accounts from the actual witness's to the sighting should not be disregarded. Captain Howard states that it was no illusion.
The article says a swarm of attendant objects. Six is not a swarm, they had 18 minutes to observe these objects, not a few fleeting seconds. The co pilot Lee Boyd contacted ground control and told them, we are not alone. We know was the reply from ground control.
Putting forward theories 58 years later is a good exercise. But to say the case has been cracked by pushing what is after all only a theory is wrong. Then expecting people to except the theory as the truth is a joke.
Paul.

By Paulilf on 6 February, 2010, 9:23pm

heracy

theories are just that. theories. Untill there are hard fast facts, anyone can say anything about any flippin ufo sighting they please. I agree with Paulilf.

By h3r4ty1 on 7 February, 2010, 8:54am

Not conclusive?

'Eddyblog' claims "solved the mystery" is not the same as Shough's "not conclusive."
But how much evidence - particularly about a 50 year old case - is needed before *everyone* will be satisfied that the case is, indeed, cracked?
Some people like Eddyblog will never, ever be satisfied by any rational explanation for a UFO report, so its pointless trying to convince the committed believer, be it in aliens, god or whatever.
However, most rational people who take the trouble to read Martin Shough's definitive study in depth will conclude, as Martin does, that the most likely explanation is that Captain Howard and his crew saw an unusual mirage.
No one can ever prove 100% that is what they saw. But in no other field of science is 100% proof required before a "most probable" theory is accepted as the right one on the balance of probabilities.
Dr David Clarke

By daveclarke292 on 7 February, 2010, 9:43am

Hardly a Theory

An unproven (and unproveable) hypothesis, resulting in hypebole. "Most rational people who read...will conclude...that the most likely expalnation..." is hardly science.

By Reverend_Bubba_X on 11 February, 2010, 2:44am

martin1

I don't have too much faith in "scientists"

By martin1 on 12 February, 2010, 12:20pm

Not all the Story!?

Hi.
A very interesting article. I certainly have not got the references but through much reading of this encounter over
the years I am sure the following also occured / happened and maybe the author chose not to mention.

1. The small objects were observed by witnesses to enter the larger object from left right top and bottom. The group of objects hade some lateral movement, un-miragelike.

2. The flight was held in a holding pattern for no given reason for a long period of time before the encounter and

was only allowed to proceed through the area of the encounter because of fuel considerations. The captain on a

personal view felt sure this had been because the powers that be knew something strange was in the vicinity.

3. The small objects entered the large object and the large object departed as soon as the intercepting fighter

first made contact with the airliner, this sort of action has been noted in other airliner, ufo, interceptor

encounters. Almost like they know what is happening.

4. The UF objects sighted were observed from the ground! sometime earlier ( Whilst the aircraft was being held in

the holding pattern) and to the south west of the Aircrafts encounter.



Of the cases offered as support for similiar observations, to me only cases 4 and 5 are viable.

In case 1 there is alot horizontal displacement between the two sightings and if this phenomenon is so rare having2

in different areas of the sky is quick sccession ..wow! Also some vertical displacement is mentioned in other

reports of this encounter the first observation being at the same altitude as the aircraft and the second being

higher.


In case 2 the UFo approached them at terrific speed from the left and eventually shot off in the direction they were flying!


In case 3 quite similiar but my impression from the report is that there was alot of movement by the objects from a distance to alot nearer. The apparent elevation changing somewhat. Not mirage like.



In 6 The author uses the old "its Venus" excuse to dismiss a highly illuminating UFO in this case. Maybe the

indistinct large objects could be "Swamp Gas"!!! These are highly trained pilots for petes sake.

By Xxeno on 16 February, 2010, 8:46am

Baab

Not cracked...
The debunkers are just getting more and more constipated.

By jphallberg on 3 March, 2010, 6:12pm

You need to register to post comments. Existing members can log in below to comment, otherwise click here to join.



 
  MORE STRANGE DAYS
 

MYTH BUSTERS

 

STRANGE DEATHS

 

CRYPTOZOOLOGY

 

GHOSTWATCH

 

SCIENCE

 

ARCHAEOLOGY

 

UFO FILES

 

OBITUARIES

 

MISC

 

MEDICAL BAG

 
 
 
UFO Files - classic case cracked
EMAIL TO A FRIEND   PRINT THIS
 
 
 

SPONSORED LINKS

Company Website | Media Information | Contact Us | Privacy Notice | Subs Info | Dennis Communications
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
Our Other Websites: Maxim | The First Post | Auto Express | Bizarre | Custom PC | Evo | IT Pro | MacUser | Men's Fitness | Micro Mart | PC Pro | bit-tech | Know Your Mobile | Octane | Expert Reviews | Channel Pro | Kontraband | PokerPlayer | Know Your Cell | iMOTOR | Know Your Mobile India | iGizmo | Monkey | Digital SLR Photography | Den of Geek | The Week | Computer Shopper | Dennis Communications | Magazines | Mobile Phone Deals | Discount Vouchers