UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2010 > Oct > Oct 18

Re: Manhattan UFOs

From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:18:31 -0700
Archived: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:27:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Manhattan UFOs

>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: Manhattan UFOs

>>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:29:12 -0400 (EDT)
>>Subject: Re: Manhattan UFOs

>>>From: Joe Merrell <joe.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:05:38 -0700
>>>Subject: Manhattan UFOs

>>>These objects were spotted over Manhattan yesterday (10/13/10):



>>>Many reports refer to a single object (mainstream press
>>>reports), though multiple objects seem to have been present - as
>>>can be seen clearly in the linked videos.

>>UFO? NYC kids say no, mysterious floating orbs were escaped
>>balloons from teacher's engagement party


>Surely there are a few ufologists in the NYC area, perhaps MUFON
>investigators? I wonder how long one must wait to hear what they
>find while investigating the various balloon hypotheses. Surely
>they've noticed apparent discrepancies such as:

>1. The sightings in Manhattan were reported to be going on as
>early as 9:30 in the morning. The inadvertent balloon release at
>the grade school was said to have occurred around 1 pm. So
>unless the morning sightings were all hallucinations, the 1 pm
>balloon release hypothesis can't exlain it.

>2. One witness saw some 50 dots moving around in the sky, in the
>morning. Another reported "hundreds" of them. But only 12 were
>inadvertently released, and those in a single cluster,
>apparently tied together, since the school mom had brought four
>clusters of a dozen each in her car or van - one cluster
>escaped, as a cluster. So the numbers also don't fit the balloon
>hypothesis. 12 versus 50 or more.

>3. Most of the videos I viewed showed between 3 and 8 white
>individual dots or orbs. But if it was a tied cluster that
>escaped, they would not be expected to come untied while
>drifting upwards and along with the breezes. One video did show
>a tight cluster of orbs, but less than twelve. So obviously the
>chronology of the various sightings and videos needs checking -
>the cluster should come before the individually moving orbs if
>there's a chance for the same balloons to have been involved in

>4. Three video segments in the pasted-together video each showed
>three orbs; in two of the segments the orbs were separated from
>each other by a few or by many orb-diameters, while in the third
>segment they were very close to each other, practically
>touching. In what order were these footage segments taken? It
>would be extremely improbable for three definitely separated
>balloons drifting within the mildly turbulent daytime air to
>come together, rather than to continue dispersing.

>5. The one segment of the three orbs very close together by
>itself would shoot down the balloon hypothesis, assuming
>balloons had been released from ground level individually either
>dozens of feet away or miles away from the witnesses. Dispersion
>would have occured as always, if they were balloons released
>within the Earth's turbulent boundary layer. So a ufologist
>should instead investigate if three balloons had been released
>in a tied cluster, with that cluster finally coming untied
>somehow just before the video footage commenced of the three
>together, and with the other two video segments taken slightly
>later after the three orbs had dispersed a bit.

>6. Several witnesses reported that the orbs hovered over the
>same area in Manhattan for 2 =BD hours. But the wind was reported
>to be between 5-10 mph, which would have carried balloons some
>20 miles. If so, this rules out all the one-time-release balloon

>7. One report had it that there were balloon releases going on
>in Times Square (of yellow balloons), but a reported check on
>this found that nothing of relevance had been going on in Times
>Square. Was there anything to this report, and would the wind
>direction have been right?

>8. Concerning the retired AF officer whose recent book predicted
>major UFO events over major cities on Oct. 13th, 2010: The
>balloon hypothesis has to invoke a rare coincidence, while the
>UFO/alien hypothesis can easily explain it if the history of UFO
>deception is recalled. Or was it a failed prediction, occurring
>only over NYC?

>Hopefully there are some NYC ufologists, perhaps newly generated
>ones, who are looking into these matters and who will report
>their findings. Or is the fear of balloon ridicule just too
>strong? If ufologists cannot deal with a major UFO event
>involving multiple witnesses and multiple pieces of video
>footage, what can they deal with?

Hi, Jim & List,

Jim is absolutely correct in his preliminary evaluation of the
factors and other variables he notes, that this case begs for a
greater degree of investigation and analysis than it is most
probably going to get. His list of points and questions is a
kind of exemplar of what all serious UFO researchers should bear
in mind--don't take at face value or from initial press reports
that just because a woman lost a cluster of balloons a little
after 1 pm, that that accounts for all aspects of this apparent
series of sightings, assuming Jim's reporting is correct that
other incidents at differing times occurred on the same day.

Of course, the mainstream media will quickly move on to new
sensations and exploit other stories as required by the 24-hour
news cycle, superficial reporting, and generic dismissal of
these kinds of incidents as always being of prosaic, explainable
nature, but as Jim cogently points out, the timeframes, nature
of the objects observed (and where, when, and of what varying
kinds of object groupings) would suggest at the very least that
more than one thing occurred here, and it would be useful and
productive if some MUFON or other UFO researcher of some depth
of experience and investigatory acumen were to look at the whole
picture that Jim's post presents, and the discrepencies among
the elements of the incidents coincidentally involved.

It would also be much appreciated if Jim might notate or cite
the sources of his 8-point summary of questions and generally
not known about or reported early sightings, such as the 9:30 am
or later (and prior to 1 or 1:30 pm) sighting(s) and the reports
he apparently found of some witnesses reporting far more than a
dozen objects in the sky, and the strange length of reported
hover time without obvious, wind-borne dispersal, as one would
expect in even a very light breeze over a relatively shorter
period of time. If anyone were to try and pursue these
discrepencies, it's necessary for citations or links to these
other reports being provided, however. Jim?

I myself was guilty of this rush to judgement, when I posted two
links to media references about this incident, one to the NY
Post, the other to Fox News, both of which basically concluded
that a teacher going to an engagement party at a New York school
who lost a cluster of 12 silver and white party balloons, and
which were entangled by their attached strings for at least a
little while (as photos in some reports showed the balloons
remained in a cluster for some unknown period while rising up
into the sky), was the responsible party and single source of
the incident. The details Jim mentions weren't included in
either of those links I noted, nor most others. It was like,
whoa, case solved! Party balloons! On to the next story...but it
now seems there may have been more to this story, as Jim notes

The case or incidents may still have a prosaic, or natural
explanation related to misidentification or other man-made or
astronomical objects being misperceived under the all too
general catch-all of "UFOs," and the implied baggage that term
normally carries as indicating something other than its' actual
definition, unidentified or unknown, not alien craft, but the
real question and story is just what other things might have
been going on in parallel and how best to determine the answers
to Jim's points and questions. The only point I would dispute is
No.8, where Jim confusingly (at least to me) says:

"Concerning the retired AF officer whose recent book predicted
major UFO events over major cities on Oct. 13th, 2010: The
balloon hypothesis has to invoke a rare coincidence, while the
UFO/alien hypothesis can easily explain it if the history of UFO
deception is recalled. Or was it a failed prediction, occurring
only over NYC?"

The prediction of UFOs over all major cities on Oct. 13th by the
long-retired USAF officer referred to, Stanley Fulham, and his
recent re-issue (3rd edition) of his book, "Challenges of
Change," which is based on info that was "channeled" through an
allegedly psychic third-party, is absurd and ridiculous.

I talked to the Fulham's publisher, Randy Kitchur, a few weeks
ago, when this issue first surfaced on UpDates, and pointed out
to Kitchur the very elementary mistake Fulham made in claiming
our atmosphere was currently composed of 9% carbon dioxide, and
that global warming would raise it to 22% within our lifetimes
(in actual fact, the trace gas CO2 amounts to only 0.0387% of
our atmosphere, so the guy is off by only, what, a factor of
over 230 or so?), which is completely wrong. This is just simple
mathematics, based on the well-established, known fact that the
percentage of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is, as of 2009,
approximately 387 parts per million, or as noted, 0.0387%, not
9% by volume. See:



Kitchur, who's also Fulham's agent, website designer, and online
content provider/interviewer/rep for the author totally agreed,
and then corrected these figures (leaving the original
statements by the author in place), but in an indirect and
somewhat misleading way. He also said the Fulham, in his
estimation, had paid his psychic source around $100,000 over the
years for the series of "revelations" from the "alien council"
of "Transcendors" included in the author's book, which also,
believe it or not, includes credulous references to the "Akashic
Records", MJ-12 origins and involvement, a secret cabal of
scientists and techs working in the Himalayan Mountains for Al-
Qaeda, and who've developed WMD's and "dirty [nuclear or
radiation] bombs," and many, many other old and discredited
myths and hoaxed data sources combined into a bizarre and malign
melange of fantabulous and extraordinary goofiness.

I kid you not. Go to the website involved, and read up on this
miasmic goo of confabulation, delusion, fraudulent pyschic
channelers, and igenerally ncredible silliness at:


As David Letterman's old catch-phrase would suggest, the book
and interviews with the author at the link above represent some
kind of "nightmarish carnival of mayhem" and absurdity, and the
only benefit of reading it would be to see the strange depth to
which one man's gullibility and delusions have descended to,
like some crazy bad SciFi novel by some Philip K. Dick wannabe--
only the author seems to think it's all real. Go figure.

Essentially, if he can't even get basic, known facts like the %
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and his editor, Kitchur,
inserted "corrections" that appear in parenthetical yellow text
alongside Fulham's false statements, which is an interest- ing
new development, resulting apparently from the conver- sation I
had with Kitchur), and makes predictions like a massive UFO
global display over all major cities on Oct. 13th, (and which
was also a complete bust), perhaps these two facts will tell you
all you need to know about the matter, but, in turn, I think Jim
Deardorff's points1 - 7 do conversely present a valid basis for
further investigation and analysis of the recent NYC sightings.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.