The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Monday, August 22, 2011

Wanaque Wonders in 1749 England


On page 432 of Jacques Vallee’s and Chris Aubeck’s book, Wonders in the Sky [Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, NY, 2010] is this:

15 September 1749, Rutland, England – Watering Intruder

An object created a sprout that roared, took water from a river [Welland], shot light beams to the ground, and broke rocks….

This 18th Century account mimics what happened at Wanaque Reservoir, New Jersey in 1966, and recounted recently, again, by Anthony Bragalia at The Bragalia Files (http://bragalia.blogspot.com).

There are other early accounts in the Vallee/Aubeck book about such water-gathering by UFO-like objects.

And Mr. Bragalia provides fairly current sightings where water-gathering and light beams take place during UFO sightings by credible witnesses.

The 1966 Ann Arbor/Dexter/Hillsdale “swamp gas” sightings also involved what seemed to be water-gathering, as the witnesses indicated in interviews at the time.

This seems to be a clue of some kind, that may be essential to an explanation of what UFOs are and their purpose.

This aspect of the phenomenon has gotten short shrift by UFO researchers, except for Bragalia and a few others.

It should be grist for investigation, perhaps….

RR

15 Comments:

  • I'll bite..on my morning rounds on the internet..I don't think it can be grist in a meaningful way inasmuch as you are referring to atmospheric convection that begins to shear at the water surface, whether it is naturally occurring or induced. Is there a observable cascade of water falling back down from the alleged object? What were the atmospheric conditions at the time? How long did the event last? Were there observable precursors to a non tornadic water spout on the water surface such as a light colored disk on the water surface? Were there any terrestrial lights or other refracting light sources that were interpenetrating the moisture laden atmosphere to create a morphing appearance rather than a consistent appearance of a solid object? The issue is that unless a event is measurable in a significant way, we are always back to square one. Anthony might check with meteorologists if he can obtain the records for the weather conditions on that day to eliminate a false positive to this theory.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 22, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Yes, exactly -- the atmospherics must be known, along with any other data or information which might fill in the blanks or provide clues to what actually occurred.

    That might not be able to be done with the Vallee/Aubeck sightings of long ago, but it could be done for Wanaque and the other recent sightings that Anthony provides in his post at his blog.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 22, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Lloyd Mallan was an amateur astronomer (referred to extensively in my Wanaque articles) who conducted interviews of many of those who had these sightings. Mallan took into account weather and atmospheric conditions. All of the witnesses that he spoke to (or that I have contacted) agree that the UFO they witnessed bore no relationship whatsoever to any type of temperature inversion, reflection, etc. Weather and atmosphere played no causal role in the Wanaque sightings of 1966.

    AJB

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 22, 2011  

  • I know that rapid progress has been made in extracting hydrogen from various sources, and if you look at this event as witnessing an extraction of water by pulling a water column upward, this seems to be a very inefficient methodology that takes ( one would think) a significant amount of energy to accomplish. Then there is energy expended in the conversion process. So, how long this event took might be of interest as one would think, it would take an enormous volume of water to break even if the return is diminished by the process itself. If this is an effect that is convective by the nature of the propulsion system, this would seem to create drag on the craft without a purpose, like flying into a crosswind. I remain, for the moment, also dissuaded by the "photograph" whose clear delineations, given the camera capabilities of the time..look painted on..

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • BTW..if it were my investigation, I would find out what distance the object was off shore in relation to where the observer was, get the same model of camera, the same film, suspend an arc or similar light above the water at a distance gauged by the observer and see if you can replicate the image..If you can..( which is a lot of effort) you might gain some more circumstantial evidence..or lose it.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • I feel the very same as you, Bruce, about that photograph, and have expressed my view with Tony Bragalia several times, but he won't relent, and believes the photo to be authentic.

    As for the water-gathering, you make a point, but perhaps only some kind of extraction from the water is taking place, a element or addition to the water, while the water and its quantitative heft is eschewed by the gatherers.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • Bruce;

    The scenario you suggest for proving the photo real or not is something that only a real UFO researcher would do.

    And such a creature does not exist, if they ever did.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • That was my thinking as far as an extraction process, however I did not consider the process requiring an internal processing by bringing into the craft the added weight of the medium, which then requires a permeable metal or membrane or a opening, all of which is even more of an energy drag. It might be done during the lift itself while the medium cascades back, that is why I asked about the cascade effect ( if it could be observed). More importantly, lifting the medium seems a waste of energy as submergence would seem to be more energy efficient as well as stealthy ( as a side effect) inasmuch as our own experiments with extraction does not require lifting water.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Yes, submersion is more efficient and may explain why UFOs enter the seas, and have gotten the attention of the world's navies.

    I was thinking that an advanced, scientifically adept civilization could extract minerals et cetera on the fly, without having to "load" the water (or anything else) in situ.

    But that's only a bizarre conjecture on my part, as usual.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • I have thought for some time that researchers have been barking up the wrong tree. If there is a mystery to be had. The U.S Navy has the most probable body of circumstantial evidence and is more than likely be in the driver's seat. On the empirical side, it could be we are a way station or a refueling staging location in the extraction of hydrogen, and we ourselves are of no consequence to them whatsoever we are simply the local monkeys.
    I have gone so far in my own writing to suggest a cetacean type of extraterrestrial..as part of a speculative range based on cymatics, sound imaging, pictographic languages etc.
    Of course, it's all idle speculation.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • Yes, it is speculation but not idle, on your part anyway.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • Bruce:

    Your questions about the circumstances surrounding the taking of the photograph are well founded- but the photographer, Sgt. Ben Thompson, is dead.

    Thankfully, Lloyd Mallan asked Thompson in his 1966 interview of him about the action of the object on the water. Thompson reveals much:

    “You mean," I again interrupted him, "that the water would move like a wave, or a quick tide?"

    "No. The water was pulled up. It was sucked upward. But not off its bed. The flying object would just raise a whole big area of water - I don't know - for maybe two-hundred and fifty feet. As far as I could see. The object would just pull at the water and I could plainly see the water rising. And when this thing flew away from the area, the water would just settle right down again."

    Now he became somewhat excited. "And that object just pulled the trees right together. The tops of the trees came right together. Each tree just mingled in with the other one. They came together just as smoothly as could be. It wasn't a violent motion. It didn't break the trees or anything like that. It would be just like somebody took a big rope and circled around four or five hundred trees and then ran it through a chain-block and started pulling those trees together. And they'd come together nice and slow. Well, that's the way those trees acted when the flying object passed over them."

    "How high would you estimate that it pulled up the water?"

    "Oh, I would say that from where I was standing - while I was looking into this light - that it pulled the water up a good two or three feet. The reservoir was low at the time and I could see the water rise plainly. As long as I was looking into this light from the flying object, I was all right. But if I just moved my head away from the light for one minute, I couldn't see a thing. Not a single thing. Because I was blinded."

    AJB

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • In terms of convection and the description of the effect on trees ( being pulled toward an axis) while it sounds as if there was no structural damage to the trees, was there any later effects on these trees, long term ( growth, withering, lifespan, etc)that would indicate short or long term heat damage? Loose ground fall or cover may have been moved and or effected in a circular pattern..any evidence of this, and have you been on site?

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Tuesday, August 23, 2011  

  • Gosford NSW Australia
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTRSxzMgqs4

    By Blogger David From AU, at Friday, August 26, 2011  

  • Thanks David from AU!

    I had never heard of this story before…but it is Wanaque-like.

    Strange that there were no photos taken of the Gosford sighting though….

    AJB

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, August 27, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home