.jpg)
Witness sighting on January 21 near Kelton, PA. Google maps.
Related Articles
Three Pennsylvania UFO sightings on January 21 and 22 describe odd lights and shapes in the sky, according to testimony from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) database.
Two of the cases involve red/yellow or orange flickering lights. A third object was described as having a green tint.
Earlier in the week, PA MUFON Chief Investigator Bob Gardner points out that there were many eastcoast reports of "falling balls of lights" that were the result of the Coma Berenicid meteor event on January 18 and 19.
The following are the unedited and as yet uninvestigated reports filed with MUFON. Please keep in mind that most UFO reports can be explained as something natural or manmade. If Pennsylvania MUFON Director John Ventre investigates and reports back on these cases, I will release an update.
PA, January 22, 2010 - red and yellow flickering circles. there were 4. 3 of them in a triangle shape. MUFON Case # 21596.
I was sitting at the dinner table with my husband, uncle and aunt. I was looking over my uncles shoulder at what I thought was a REALLY low plane. I realized it was not a plane! By now everyone turned around to see what I was looking at, and once we realized we ALL saw it, we ran outside to look.
It was three red/yellow fickering lights (in a triangle shape) following what really did appear to be an airplane. We then noticed another one (this one was bigger) coming up behind the others. I was able to run inside and take a few pictures of these. I switched my camera to video mode and with the naked eye it looked as though they 3 in the triangle faded out.
On film you can actually see them fade, then shoot off. These 3 were now gone, and the one that was following them continued to go in the same path. It was the craziest thing any of us have ever seen! We just kept saying how it was unbelievable. My aunt is a real skeptic and even she can't explain what it was. I called 2 local news staions, and nobody else had reported anything.
I was checking the internet to see if anyone else had reported seeing it and came across a YouTube video about a reporting in 2008 in Bucks County, PA. I see that you had looked into a sighting in Altoona, Pa and it looked JUST like what we saw! I hope you guys have info. about what this was and can let me know!(Like I said, I do have video and pictures, but have been advised not to just send them to people over the internet.)
PA, January 21, 2010 - An orange object flying on a SSE to a NNW flight path while traveling rt 347. MUFON Case # 21584.
I was traveling on rt 347 south bound when i noticed a orange flickering object flying from sse on a nnw direction.at first i thought it was a star but after stopping the vehicle i noticed it was moving a rate faster than a prop plane but slower than a jet I could not tell how hi it was or how big. I do not believe it was aircraft due to the color.avoca airport is not far away and I am used to seeing different types of aircraft.It was much different than any aircraft in the area.I only observed it for a short duration due to the fact that
the road is on a mountain pass and no place to pull off the road.
PA, January 21, 2010 - Ultra-bright object high altitude, intense fluorescent-like light with slight green tint. Too intense to be reflected sunlight or aircraft approach lights. MUFON Case # 21582.
** Ultra-bright object high altitude, intense fluorescent-like light with slight green tint. Too intense to be reflected sunlight or aircraft approach lights **
Taveling to a school campus for an evening class SW down state 796 from Jennersville, PA toward the village of Kelton, PA. Noticed object at high altitude to the SE. Appeared to be stationary, however I was traveling at 50 mph so the object could have been as well.
Had the appearance of a luminous tear drop shape with a metallic, non-luminous extension from the point of the tear drop. Had the appearance of a very, very bright fluorescent light with a pale green tint and blurred edges.
At first I considered it might be an aircraft or a balloon reflecting the waning sunlight, but it was too intense. Would have to have been a parabolic mirror or something similar to focus that much light. Too intense to be aircraft approach lights, which would appear to be less stark with all the ambient light in the sky. Turned SE onto Pennocks Bridge Rd driving strait toward the object, which I could see just below the roofline of my car.
By the time I had traveled 1/2 mile down the road toward a bend in the road, the object abruptly vanished. I looked around to see whether I had lost track of it, or it had moved. There was plenty of light in the sky (not yet dusk) and it was nowhere to be seen. No contrail, no object with perhaps the light facing another direction.
There is no possibility that I missed it, the light was simply too intense. Perhaps someone was perpetrating a prank and hung a mercury vapor lamp on a balloon, however the sky was clear (only a few stratus clouds) and there were no other objects in the area. The only thing I noticed was a pair of short, vertical black smoke contrails to the W that I had not previously seen. However, these were in a different part of the sky from where the object was last seen.
Comments
"PA, January 21, 2010 - Ultra-bright object high altitude" was very likely an iridium flare. Has all the characteristics. The "PA, January 21, 2010 - An orange object flying"...these damned things are all over the place. Chinese lanterns?
MUFON Case # 21584. Chinese lanterns have a tendency to flicker as well. The witness thought it was moving about as fast as a prop engine plane , but not as fast as a jet. If it was this fast it was not a lantern. I wish people when they see stuff would watch the object to see if it is being moved by the wind or not. Also this person was driving and did not pull over to view it out of the car. Did it have a sound? We will never know.
*The Orange star like objects that I have seen NEVER flickered! Never never ever! They were very solid stead lit and were not controlled by the wind. They moved so smooth and when ding a 90d turn or reverse directions they don't even slow down. Amazing! All of them were completely silent. As many as I've seen, if someone reports them with any blinking or flickering lights on them........A Red Flag Go's Up For Me! No Way! They don't have blinking lights. This is were Alison Kruse loses me! Sorry my dear, after about 80 of these I know better.
MUFON Case # 21584, # 21582. Both of these cases were reported from people while driving. Neither one of them stopped and got of their car. Bad reporting.
The color Green is a very important clue in representing a seperate entity with certain abilities and is explained or what purpose it had within bringing up our guest from the darkness of night when My book comes out next month or some time near to that date . The color green and the number three for which our plane passed through just passed the Northern coast of Egypt at 36000 feet
Well for one thing these UFOnic images seem to not want to be touched by human hands for want of not creating a path for My feet to walk upon . I guess thats what Crop Circle formations are for and since I have been out of loop for so long Human contact can be quite dicy for these UFOs but the overiding body seems to have Parents of its own to concider within all of this decision making and what products to put out for our enjoyment and understanding
A world that is dieing and not yet alive
Ari B Gordon? Please don't take this the wrong way but I am having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say. I can almost tie some of the things together but for the most part you relate some very interesting but unfortunately (when held together) they appear non sequitur. Can you try to be a little more direct when writing your posts? Once again, I find what you write fascinating, I just wish I could make a little more sense out of it. Please help? Thank you.
CH - My wife and I saw exactly the type of orange objects you describe. No blinking, no flickering, equally spaced and moving with what can only be described as determination. People make the statement about "why didn't you take a picture, you had a camera phone?" It takes about five seconds for me to pull it off my belt, hit the camera button and wait for it to boot. Add to that the three or four seconds (minimal) to get over the "what the *$#% is THAT" and you're way into the event.
Hi AL,
You & your wife saw some of those orange objects I described. That's great! The darn things are showing up everywhere & a lot! Getting a picture of them, it's not that easy. My digital camera will not even pick them up. My 35mm Minolta is okay, but it of course will only do stills. My JVC digital cam-recorder has a very difficult time sensing them enough to pick them up most of the time. My Sony Handy Cam is the best of all of them, but still leaves a lot to be desired. Once with my nephew present, I tried filming one. Strangely it would not record it. It was brighter than the stars in the back ground, but it only picked up the stars that time! I have managed to get a few of them filmed. Try not to worry about others saying why didn't you get a picture? Even when you're waiting for them to show up, it's still very difficult to get good footage. Better than average equipment is needed. Most people are just expressing their ignorance, because they have no experience.
AL,
Getting pictures, Continued.....
I noticed with my Sony & JVC if I use the night mode, it hinders with my filming. I think it's the distance. Also using night vision equipment will cause blooming effect with lit objects. Like a distant jet at night it can cause all of the lights to be encompassed or engulfed in the brightest light of the jet. This makes all the other lights invisible with a strobing effect, due to the blinking lights that were engulfed into the blooming effect of night vision. If you watch a lot of Alison Kruse videos you will see this. (www.youtube.com/user/seeingUFOsPA) She likes to video things because of how they look with night vision! Just stupidly filming, not putting the camera down & getting a good visual first. Just listen to her talking to what shes filming, it's sickening. Roger Marsh actually lives about 22 miles from the town she lives near. I Googled it. I think Roger feels the same about her, or else he'd surely be over there investigating.
C.H. - When I became aware of Alison's seeingufospa website I went there hoping to see something leaning a bit towards conclusive. I was disappointed. The videos I watched all seemed to tell me what I was seeing, that this "craft" had "windows" and "exhaust ports". For the most part (and believe me I tried to see what she was telling me I was seeing) all I saw were blurry images of distant lights. I had no idea she was using the devices you mentioned and the effects such would have on gathering images (I read up a little on my own after reading your posts).
C.H.-- "Bad reporting." Perhaps these observers are not UFO "reporters" but regular citizens. If one does not realize until after observing something that it was unexplainable (not an aircraft, balloon, flare), that person is not likely to interrupt their travels or schedule to make a formal "observation" or necessarily take a photo. Try to put things in perspective of the observers. Had they been out looking for UFOs or were UFO enthusiasts, their response would likely have been different. Furthermore, the veracity of their claim would also likely be in question in the case as well.
AL: Iridium flares are a good idea for an apparently stationary bright object. However, how does one explain the metallic extension from the rear of the object (case 21582)? My first thought would be that the observer is seeing an aircraft approaching from an oblique angle. The lights would be too bright for landing approach lights and I do not believe there are any sizable airports in the vicinity of the report, if the report location is accurate.
TSC: I explain the metallic extension as an optical illusion or something similar. If the object was giving off such a great amount of light how could the observer pick out that kind of detail? Added to that they were in a moving car?
TSG, sorry you don't like that I thought the witness(s)did a bad reporting effort. If they would have just stopped the car & got out to look. Then I would have had a completely different point of view. I've tried to observe objects such as planes etc from a moving vehicle. You have to watch the road & try to see what a light is doing or not doing. You also can't hear, well enough to know if the object was silent or not. If they would have only stopped & got out of their car. Now they can only wonder if it was a UFO. A picture doesn't matter, only a personal sighting makes one truly know UFOs are real. That's how you get past the believe system. A little common sense goes a long way. If regular citizen means moron then okay. People seem to be getting so stupid these days, now the average citizen is as smart as a moron in the old days. It must be all the MSG, Aspartame, Fluoridated water and the rest of poisons people ingest. A hint, those who look for UFOs usually see the most.
TSG, was one of these your sighting? I just want you to understand. If someone sees something odd, upon further investigation may find at first it looked odd at that angle or whatever. So if you see something while driving & try to observe it closely, it is very dangerous for everyone! If it's really that note worthy to report, pull over & get out of the car for a good look etc. You may suddenly realize OMG! Dang it really is a UFO, plus see pretty good detail! Then again you may realize, oh it's an airplane or helicopter etc. At least the time was taken to try to see what it was. Not just see something & think that seemed odd, then later report it to MUFON. This gives Debunkers a field day! Once again Ufology gets a black eye. We all can make mistakes so we have to watch things closely. I've seen things that I firstly wrote off as one of our aircraft, but as it came towards me I saw I was wrong! It was a UFO! We must look to see what it is & do less assuming. Well wishes to you!
Hi AL, there was a link that I wanted to post. It was about Alison Kruse seeingufospa. The link is no longer availble for public viewing, it says; "This video is private." Here they are maybe you can figure out how to view them?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLd6zzQs3w4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLd6zzQs3w4
AL on the
AL, I didn't mention this earlier about the the orange star like crafts. When they come perfectly over my head at a low altitude, there is a difference in color. I most always look at them with 10x50 binoculars. When they are about 1,800 feet above me looking at them with binoculars, the bottom view of them, straight above. The center bottom belly of the craft is (The only abrupt change of color is in the very center of the bottom of the craft, only visible from underneath them, up close and or binoculars) almost black orange red spot directly in the center, then out from this point the orange shade is very dark….and gets a little lighter color of orange the farther out from the center of the bottom. Still very orange on the outer edges, darkening towards the center to a pin point of black. No flickering or changing of how these objects are lit. They always stay a constant light. Also close views from the sides of them with binoculars, the bottom is slightly darker than the top.
C.H.: In Case 21582, the fact that the object was observed while the observer was not moving, but waiting for a min or so stopped at an intersection, is in the official MUFON report. There is other data in the report as well which estimates size and distance. To state bluntly that non-luminous structural features could not be observed on a brightly luminous object is absurd. Try looking sometime at a commercial halogen security lamp. It is bright, causes some photobleaching of the retina, but you can still see the housing of the lamp. It is not an anomalous light floating on the side of a building that makes one wonder what it could be. It can plainly be identified as a lamp. Just so you are aware, the online version of the case you read is not the official report submitted to MUFON case investigators. Also, the observer was not an "average citizen" which you unfortunately equate with a moron, but a scientist. MUFON rates observers with a "credibility score" that has held up over time.
Hi TSG,
I never said anything about a brightly luminous object or about if a structure could be seen due to the bright light. You are thinking of somebody else, not my post. I've personally seen brightly luminous objects. I know that structures can be at times seen. The light can help light up the structure. I have witnessed it. I actually have a nice picture of a brightly luminous UFO. Taken on March 28th, 2009. Roger writes; reports here are unedited reports to MUFON. One of my best friends is also a MUFON investigator. It is my wish that everyone have their own personal sighting. So they will know the truth first hand. The government isn't going to tell us. My equation to morons was more of a hint that could also point as to why. Yes meanly put(sorry), but what is put into our food & what effects it is causing. It really is causing a dumbing down effect on our society. I urge everyone to do their own research. Where do you live? Are you a sky watcher? Happy you're posting here.
TSG, Case 21582, You stated this:
"the fact that the object was observed while the observer was not moving, but waiting for a min or so stopped at an intersection, is in the official MUFON report."
**I read the report, the witness doesn't not state anything about waiting for a minute or so at an intersection. This is not in the report. Lets not embellish this report to try to help it's credibility.
*The witness wrote: "Turned SE onto Pennocks Bridge Rd driving strait toward the object, which I could see just below the roofline of my car."
**The witness didn't write in the report about stopping, but wrote of turning. We can assume what the witness did, but the witness doesn't write about stopping.
*Now I've seen these objects disappear, I don't doubt others also seeing this.
***However I still conclude if the witness would have stopped the car. Then simply got out of the car to carefully & correctly observe, we all might know a lot more. So you say this person is a scientist?
TSG,
Roger Marsh wrote this above the witnesses reports:
The following are the unedited and as yet uninvestigated reports filed with MUFON. Please keep in mind that most UFO reports can be explained as something natural or manmade. If Pennsylvania MUFON Director John Ventre investigates and reports back on these cases, I will release an update.
TSG,
So you say there is more to this report? I've also read it on the MUFON website. It is the same report as I read above.
Is it your report?
TSG:
I made the blunt statement that non-luminous structural features could not be observed on a brightly luminous object, not C.H. Stand by it, too. Why? Because most of the details in the report lead me to believe that the individual saw an iridium flare. If more conclusive information is presented I may change my opinion but as of now I believe that any structure observed was a misinterpretation on the part of the observer.
AL,
TSG is claiming Case 21582, that the report above is not the Official Report to MUFON. I have filled out UFO reports to MUFON. The only stuff we don't see here is name, address and personal information. Now if other information is told to an investigator that is different. However the reports here are Official MUFON reports that have yet to be investigated. So I am getting the distinct impression TSG is embellishing this sighting report. Why? I'm not really sure. Perhaps it is his sighting report? So TSG is taking it very personal? TSG hasn't answered that question yet as to if this report is his/her's.
Talk to you later AL, you have a nice day! :)
I see Al My comments will make more sence to some for when My book comes out this Month it is called 'My Experiance at 36000 Feet and The UFO Enigma Solved' out as an e-book and in paper back for one such as I who had to from memory to view this particular experiance with no digital photography of 1991 and to finnally feel confident in surrmising the details of all that We study I can finnally say I have solved the Mystery of the Sphynk of the Giza Plataue . Well that might be another book if all goes well for the one above who is like Me in thought and splendor to make these decisions as quick as possible !?! lots of Love to You all out there
Ari Ben Gordon: Thanks, I will keep an eye out for your publication.
C.H.: I don't think I ever filled out a MUFON report. I filled out reports to NIDS and NUFORC, but never MUFON. I wish I had since now that I've been posting here for a while and I've read more about how they operate I think they would appreciate hearing about it. Peter Davenport for some reason claimed that I didn't leave contact information which I did. NIDS contacted me almost immediately and wanted to send someone out to interview us, but to be honest I was uncomfortable with that. For some reason I had the feeling they were going to ask me for cash(!). Maybe that feeling was caused by some sort of ET mind control....if it was then they know my weakness, make me think that reporting a sighting is going to lead to some sore of monetary soliciation!!
MUFON has initial sighting reports (those quick jots your read on the internet) and investigation reports. Investigation reports consist of: Observer/contactee interview, collection of observer/contactee materials (audio/visual recordings, physical materials), and collection of supporting data (contacting radar towers, meteorological data, physical measurements of the sight) -- i.e., an investigation. The comments above were not embellishment but in the official MUFON report. What you see is not all the information. Initial reports are often spontaneous, more like blog entries and not detailed or thought out. More comes out in the interview. Why do you people continue to make tacit assumptions.
Iridium flares do not occur below cloud cover. When you have a complete could cover in a part of the sky where the object was observed, it could not be reflection from an orbiting satellite. The density of cloud cover negates that possibility, particularly when the observer reported that the object was beneath the cloud cover.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!