From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:07:58 +0100
Fwd Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 02:03:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Saucer Error Error


> From: clark@mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 23:32:38 PST
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Saucer Error Error

> > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> > From: Mark Cashman <mcashman@ix.netcom.com>
> > Subject: re: UFO UpDate: Re: Saucer Error Error
> > Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 14:25:36 -0800

> >>  From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> >>  From: wlmss@peg.apc.org [Lawrie Williams]
> >>  Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:06:25 +1000 (GMT+1000)
> >>  To: updates@globalserve.net
> >>  Subject: Saucer Error Error

> >>  The wreck was said to be peppered with fine holes caused by
> >>  flying into the wash from the ufo's propulsion system. That must
> >>  have been a pretty dangerous piece of folkloric hardware. I have
> >>  speculated that the accident actually occurred when Mantell
> >>  "grounded" his craft with the UFO by firing a wire-guided missile
> >>  at it, as in Project Moby Dick. But then I have to remind myself
> >>  that it was really only a weather balloon.

> >Actually, Lawrie, I wonder where you obtained this information, since none
> >of it, so far as I know, has ever been documented by any official researchers.

> >There were no recordings of Mantell's conversations with the tower, but the
> >Air Force records of the conversations, according to Ruppelt, who did the
> >most complete and close to the event investigation still extant, mentions
> >nothing of any of the material you raise.

> >Officially, and unsurprisingly, Mantell's death is attributed to his lack of
> >oxygen, when he attempted to rise to the extremely high altitude of
> >a skyhook balloon. While there remains some question about this
> >explanation, in light of the ancillary accounts, there is nothing inherently
> >implausible about the cause of death, regardless of the nature of the object.
> >As for the wreckage of the aircraft, there was apparently
> >nothing surprising about the nature of the wreckage to the crash
> >investigators, and the photos / sketches of the crash site do not show
> >anything unusual.

> >I don't recall any reference which claimed the aircraft skin was peppered
> >with small holes.

> >Perhaps you could provide a reference for this?

> Hi, Mark, Lawrie, and list,

> Mark is absolutely correct.  Nearly everything Lawrie writes here
> is false.  I am not, of course, accusing him of making it up
> himself, just of passing on some of the vast legendry surrounding
> this non-UFO case.

> The Mantell case is complicated by the appearance of what
> apparently was a UFO over southwestern Ohio several hours after
> the crash. The object Mantell died chasing, however, was a
> Skyhook balloon launched from Camp Ripley, Minnesota. As Mark
> indicates, there was nothing unusual about the condition of the
> crashed F-51. The Air Force didn't help matters, though, by its
> initial, and absurd, identification of the object as Venus.

> Cheers,

> Jerry Clark

Hello Jerry, Errol and List,

I sincerely hope that the Mantle, F-51 crash is not going to
become a thread on this list. If ever there was a case explained,
it is this one.

The evidence is so overwhelming in favour of a skyhook balloon
sighting and a pilot foolish enough to climb to altitudes well
above the boundries of caution "without oxygen" that pursuing it
further is just perpetuating a legend seeking a status that it
once enjoyed. There are plenty of other good solid cases out
there deserving of attention that need looking into.

Let's move along.

Don Ledger