Kecksburg object identified?

[Sand]

As those who have received the latest MUFON Journal might have seen, a new solution has been proposed for the Kecksburg UFO – that it was the crash landing of a spy satellite Mark 2 reentry vehicle. It is the theory of Owen Eichler, who witnessed the object on Dec 9, 1965 as it passed through the sky 17 miles from Kecksburg. Eichler has spent 10 years looking into the Mark 2 RV idea, and has recently been working with MUFON PA state director John Ventre.

An interview with Eichler and Ventre begins at the 12:55 mark.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

As those who have received the latest MUFON Journal might have seen, a new solution has been proposed for the Kecksburg UFO – that it was the crash landing of a spy satellite Mark 2 reentry vehicle. It is the theory of Owen Eichler, who witnessed the object on Dec 9, 1965 as it passed through the sky 17 miles from Kecksburg. Eichler has spent 10 years looking into the Mark 2 RV idea, and has recently been working with MUFON PA state director John Ventre.

An interview with Eichler and Ventre begins at the 12:55 mark.

I watched John Ventre explain the hypothesis. Makes sense. I think most of us level headed people, while utilizing common sense, will say no matter what the object was - it was something man made and not a "flying saucer" from another world.

 

[Sand]

Yes, I think it’s the best explanation I’ve heard.

One bit that surprised me is the idea that the acorn-shaped Mark 2 reentry capsule could maneuver in the atmosphere, and even rise in altitude. This is not something I ever realized a wingless capsule plunging into the atmosphere at over 17,000 mph could do. It’s said the Kecksburg Mark 2 was steered to make a large turn to avoid Cleveland.

Quoting from the MUFON article:
“When in controlled level flight in the atmosphere, the blunt end of the vehicle encountering the forward oncoming atmosphere can be tilted by use of the trajectory control system to change the leading edge of the vehicle thereby changing/steering the path of the vehicle. The vehicle then in effect can rise or fall or turn left or right.”

I wondered if Wade, who knows our space program well, had ever heard that there are reentry capsules which can make such maneuvers.

 

[Standanista]

It seems a strong candidate.

 

[IsaacKoi]

Unfortunately, the GE Mark 2 explanation simply doesn't work.

Nothing launched on relevant single-stage Thor rocket launched on 7 December 1965 relied upon in the MUFON article could have reached Kecksburg or remained airborne until the Kecksburg incident on 9 December 1965.

The range of the sub-orbital single stage Thor rocket is FAR less than the distance from the launch site to Keckburg - a fact already noted by several UFO skeptics as well as believers.

In short, it couldn't have stayed up long enough to explain the Kecksburg incident.

 

[Sand]

The range of the sub-orbital single stage Thor rocket is FAR less than the distance from the launch site to Keckburg - a fact already noted by several UFO skeptics as well as believers.

Interesting. Do you have a good reference that establishes a sub-orbital Thor was used for the December 7 launch? (which eliminates the idea of the Mark 2 coming down December 9). I’ve only found quotes of people saying it, but haven’t found a good source to confirm it.

Referring to the Anti-Satellite Program, the MUFON article cites a description of the program, “Program 437 used Thor missiles and added booster engines to achieve orbital flights”. The article then goes on to say, “Could it stay in orbit for over 39 hours? The answer is yes: it could take two hours to three days to come down from low earth orbit.” Clearly implying it was a Thor launch capable of placing the Mark 2 in orbit.

On the other hand, while I’ve only looked into it minimally, I’ve still not found a solid basis for the idea that the acorn-shaped Mark 2 reentry capsule could make the maneuvers and controlled landing that it is contended it made, whether by the Coanda effect or any other means. This is another criticism I’ve seen people make of the Mark 2 explanation.

 

[Randall]

I feel obligated to interject here: In my dealings with the Skeptics on Kecksburg, they claimed that the whole story is spun out of some really tenuous anecdotal evidence. I don't recall clearly enough to provide the details right now, but basically it all hinged on an interview done for a local paper that got spun into a UFO story and propagated much like the papers propagated early airship stories, and along the way a few people jumped on the bandwagon to get their 5 minutes of fame, but ultimately, when you drill down into it, there's nothing substantial there. For example, it's not like the Cash/Landrum incident, which is by far, better substantiated.

That being said, I'm not convinced nothing happened at this point either. It's just that before going into all the exotic explanations, including recovered rocket parts, maybe consider the possibility that it never even had that much substance in the first place. I remember thinking the skeptics were just being dismissive at first, but then I dug around to see if they had a legitimate point, and I think that if you do the same, you might have a few more doubts about the case yourself.

 

[Sand]

Owen Eichler, the one who researched and is proposing the Mark 2 explanation, is someone who says he saw the Kecksburg object in the sky shortly before it crashed. Is he proposing a prosaic explanation for something he basically is lying about seeing? That’s another way to look at it.

 

[IsaacKoi]

Do you have a good reference that establishes a sub-orbital Thor was used for the December 7 launch? (which eliminates the idea of the Mark 2 coming down December 9). I’ve only found quotes of people saying it, but haven’t found a good source to confirm it.

I've posted quite a few relevant references to various documents, books and websites in a lengthy post on another forum. I'm reluctant to post a link to another forum here in case that is considered rude, but the main references include:

(1) A statement of the range of the Thor rockets used in the Program 437 launches (of which the 7 December launch was one) as being "in Dr Wayne Austerman’s history of the project, entitled “Program 437 – The Air Force’s antisatellite system”, i.e. on page 43 of the 128 page PDF version freely available online at the link below:
TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL

(2) An email from a former Launch Control Officer on the Program 437 crew confirming that the Program 437 used a single-stage rocket without thrust augmentation:
Atomic Years | Johnston Memories

The main (and rather basic) point is the 7 December launch was for a entirely different type of project than the 9 December launch mentioned in the MUFON article. The 7 December was a sub-orbital project involving launching nuclear weapons or cameras to the vicinity of a passing satellite without going into orbit, whereas the 9 December launch was part of the Corona surveillance satellite project.

 

[Vimana]

I like to look at the shapes, and while it may not fit a lot of the timeline in some folks views, its clear this is really close to what they saw.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Yes, I think it’s the best explanation I’ve heard.

One bit that surprised me is the idea that the acorn-shaped Mark 2 reentry capsule could maneuver in the atmosphere, and even rise in altitude. This is not something I ever realized a wingless capsule plunging into the atmosphere at over 17,000 mph could do. It’s said the Kecksburg Mark 2 was steered to make a large turn to avoid Cleveland.

Quoting from the MUFON article:
“When in controlled level flight in the atmosphere, the blunt end of the vehicle encountering the forward oncoming atmosphere can be tilted by use of the trajectory control system to change the leading edge of the vehicle thereby changing/steering the path of the vehicle. The vehicle then in effect can rise or fall or turn left or right.”

I wondered if Wade, who knows our space program well, had ever heard that there are reentry capsules which can make such maneuvers.

I'd like to see a computer animated program that shows/explains what happened. I know it will make even more sense to me if I could see what they're talking about.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Interesting. Do you have a good reference that establishes a sub-orbital Thor was used for the December 7 launch? (which eliminates the idea of the Mark 2 coming down December 9). I’ve only found quotes of people saying it, but haven’t found a good source to confirm it.

Referring to the Anti-Satellite Program, the MUFON article cites a description of the program, “Program 437 used Thor missiles and added booster engines to achieve orbital flights”. The article then goes on to say, “Could it stay in orbit for over 39 hours? The answer is yes: it could take two hours to three days to come down from low earth orbit.” Clearly implying it was a Thor launch capable of placing the Mark 2 in orbit.

On the other hand, while I’ve only looked into it minimally, I’ve still not found a solid basis for the idea that the acorn-shaped Mark 2 reentry capsule could make the maneuvers and controlled landing that it is contended it made, whether by the Coanda effect or any other means. This is another criticism I’ve seen people make of the Mark 2 explanation.

Just noticed "Phish" in your avatar. While I don't listen to them, Mike Gordon does rule (I'm a bassist)

 

[DROBNJAK]

As those who have received the latest MUFON Journal might have seen, a new solution has been proposed for the Kecksburg UFO – that it was the crash landing of a spy satellite Mark 2 reentry vehicle. It is the theory of Owen Eichler, who witnessed the object on Dec 9, 1965 as it passed through the sky 17 miles from Kecksburg. Eichler has spent 10 years looking into the Mark 2 RV idea, and has recently been working with MUFON PA state director John Ventre.

An interview with Eichler and Ventre begins at the 12:55 mark.

Although this angle is based on very qualified opinion and good research, it can be criticized on several major points:

1) There was no parachute? There was not retro firing rockets?

The method of maneuvering the blunt edge vehicle with internal weights, that these two gentlemen describe, was later used by all the Apollo re-entry command modules as well. But with Apollo maneuvering with internal weights was used high up in the atmosphere and closer to the Earth 3 parachutes were deployed all the way to the touch-down on water.

Although it is impossible to exactly say without proper calculations, the weights shown in the Mark 2 RV look too small to produce 180° turns at very slow speeds near the ground. Slower the speed, heavier the weights need to be. The weights shown in technical illustration are very small and they would had been effective only at higher speeds at higher altitudes.

Landing on water is hard, never mind landing on ground. To land on ground, RV needs to be slowed down much more than for landing on sea. Russian command modules that land on soil, apply both parachutes and retro firing rockets when few feet above the ground. Mark 2 RV never fired any retro-rockets to slow down.

2) Once canister with films was ejected, Mark 2 RV main vehicle was totally disposable.

There is no reason to salvage Mark 2 RV main body, most likely it would be dumped into either Pacific or Atlantic. Mark 2 RV main body would be falling too fast and least probably it would be aimed near the populated area, particularly with nuclear power source on board.

It is clear from the design that Mark 2 RV that it was disposable. It was firing the film canister in the opposite direction to that of the movement of the main body. That means that film canister would be slowed down relative to the RV and the Earth and touch the ground behind the RV. Perfect if you want to fly the RV all the way to ocean, while canister drops anywhere over the land.

3) Copper as heat shield? Crazy idea.

Copper's melting point is 1,085 °C. Assuming that Mark 2 RV was coming back from lower Earth's orbit, same as Space Shuttle, than heat on the shield would be similar at about 1,649 °C. That means both that copper shield would either completely melt away before reaching ground, or it would heavily deform causing unpredictable aerodynamic behavior.

Furthermore, copper is one of the best heat conducting metals and, because of that, it's frequently used as a heat sink on PC motherboards. Because of that copper shield would make interior of Mark 2 RV extremely hot. Exactly opposite of what heat shield would need to do and keep the interior cool.

4) NASA employee took a photo and lost his pension.



Allegedly, this is one of several Polaroid photos taken by one of the two NASA employees who attended the scene. There is a video on YouTube where this NASA employee talks about how he lost his pension scheme and how he now lives in poverty, because he broke his secrecy oath by going public about this incident.

Anyway, here is a full article for those who want more information:

Show Notes, John Ventre & Owen Eichler, Kecksburg UFO Solved? – Podcast UFO

 

[marduk]

Although this angle is based on very qualified opinion and good research, it can be criticized on several major points:

1) There was no parachute? There was not retro firing rockets?

The method of maneuvering the blunt edge vehicle with internal weights, that these two gentlemen describe, was later used by all the Apollo re-entry command modules as well. But with Apollo maneuvering with internal weights was used high up in the atmosphere and closer to the Earth 3 parachutes were deployed all the way to the touch-down on water.

Although it is impossible to exactly say without proper calculations, the weights shown in the Mark 2 RV look too small to produce 180° turns at very slow speeds near the ground. Slower the speed, heavier the weights need to be. The weights shown in technical illustration are very small and they would had been effective only at higher speeds at higher altitudes.

Landing on water is hard, never mind landing on ground. To land on ground, RV needs to be slowed down much more than for landing on sea. Russian command modules that land on soil, apply both parachutes and retro firing rockets when few feet above the ground. Mark 2 RV never fired any retro-rockets to slow down.

2) Once canister with films was ejected, Mark 2 RV main vehicle was totally disposable.

There is no reason to salvage Mark 2 RV main body, most likely it would be dumped into either Pacific or Atlantic. Mark 2 RV main body would be falling too fast and least probably it would be aimed near the populated area, particularly with nuclear power source on board.

It is clear from the design that Mark 2 RV that it was disposable. It was firing the film canister in the opposite direction to that of the movement of the main body. That means that film canister would be slowed down relative to the RV and the Earth and touch the ground behind the RV. Perfect if you want to fly the RV all the way to ocean, while canister drops anywhere over the land.

3) Copper as heat shield? Crazy idea.

Copper's melting point is 1,085 °C. Assuming that Mark 2 RV was coming back from lower Earth's orbit, same as Space Shuttle, than heat on the shield would be similar at about 1,649 °C. That means both that copper shield would either completely melt away before reaching ground, or it would heavily deform causing unpredictable aerodynamic behavior.

Furthermore, copper is one of the best heat conducting metals and, because of that, it's frequently used as a heat sink on PC motherboards. Because of that copper shield would make interior of Mark 2 RV extremely hot. Exactly opposite of what heat shield would need to do and keep the interior cool.

4) NASA employee took a photo and lost his pension.



Allegedly, this is one of several Polaroid photos taken by one of the two NASA employees who attended the scene. There is a video on YouTube where this NASA employee talks about how he lost his pension scheme and how he now lives in poverty, because he broke his secrecy oath by going public about this incident.

Anyway, here is a full article for those who want more information:

Show Notes, John Ventre & Owen Eichler, Kecksburg UFO Solved? – Podcast UFO

I'm pretty sure that photo was of the mock-up for Unsolved Mysteries made in 1990.

Kecksburg UFO Witness Says Object Was Not GE Mark 2 Reentry Vehicle » Stan Gordon's UFO Anomalies Zone

 

[marduk]

Here's the mark 2 recovery vehicle:

Maybe it could have been that.

But my money is on this thing, that was supposed to have come down earlier the same day but in Canada... and was never recovered. I could very much see a story being spun on that one so the US could recover a Soviet vehicle.

 

[Han]

RE this photo:

and this one:

being of the same object

I think you are correct. They are one and the same.

in this image:

The truck on the left of picture has a chain on the bumper/grill area and it looks extremely rusty:

Almost like it has been sat outside for a long time.

I would not expect an active US army vehicle to be rusty (as in one they are/were still using), but it wouldn't suprise me if it belonged to a 'collector' or 'prop' company who had purchased it as 'army surplus' and then rented it to the TV company for their 'reconstruction'.

I think you can see the truck on the right of picture in this TV 'reconstruction':

Skip to 11:45 to see the convoy.

However the 'polaroid' photo is too blurry for me to make out the number plate/ markings / numbers to compare them, but maybe there is a better quality version/scan out there? or maybe somebody who has expertise in 'photoshop' could de-blur it to make it legible (like with the mummy hoax and Remy memo?)

It is also a shame that you cant quite see the flatbed markings/number plate in this pic:

I was wondering what the white bit at the bottom was...
Now I think it is a scan of a polaroid and that is the white border.

Would be interesting to see more photos if there are any.

 

[marduk]

RE this photo:

and this one:

being of the same object

I think you are correct. They are one and the same.

in this image:

The truck on the left of picture has a chain on the bumper/grill area and it looks extremely rusty:

Almost like it has been sat outside for a long time.

I would not expect an active US army vehicle to be rusty (as in one they are/were still using), but it wouldn't suprise me if it belonged to a 'collector' or 'prop' company who had purchased it as 'army surplus' and then rented it to the TV company for their 'reconstruction'.

I think you can see the truck on the right of picture in this TV 'reconstruction':

Skip to 11:45 to see the convoy.

However the 'polaroid' photo is too blurry for me to make out the number plate/ markings / numbers to compare them, but maybe there is a better quality version/scan out there? or maybe somebody who has expertise in 'photoshop' could de-blur it to make it legible (like with the mummy hoax and Remy memo?)

It is also a shame that you cant quite see the flatbed markings/number plate in this pic:

I was wondering what the white bit at the bottom was...
Now I think it is a scan of a polaroid and that is the white border.

Would be interesting to see more photos if there are any.

That looks to be like the exact same truck. The lettering on it's left hand side looks to be at least the same shape, and even the orange lights on top of the wheel wells are the exact same. In the video, it looks like '65038' to me.

Attaching a still from the Unsolved Mysteries clip.


For sure it looks like the second digit is a 5 in the 'polaroid' photo, and the first could be a 6. The rest look at least the same shape as the video.

 

[Han]

I think the left hand truck is a "GMC" (General Motor Company) - "CCKW" series

GMC CCKW 2½-ton 6x6 truck - Wikipedia


But I cannot find a match for the one on the right, for some reason the headlights are bothering me and are making me suspicious about the age of the vehicle in question (as in they look like 1970s/80s era rather than 1960s. I am just going with my gut so I could be totally wrong.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Show Notes, John Ventre & Owen Eichler, Kecksburg UFO Solved? – Podcast UFO

John Ventre has no credibility whatever.

 

[DROBNJAK]

OK, @Gene Steinberg , because you met and interviewed so many of Ufology grandees. What is your list of the most credible people?