Debunked: Holloman AFB documentary alleged footage of UFO landing

[john.phil]

There is a claim that a documentary filmed at Holloman AFB was granted permission to release footage of an alien craft coming to land at the base. The claim that the supposedly released footage at Holloman AFB represents 8 seconds of an actual alien craft landing is made here:

[03:04] "(...) So, they want you to know that Holloman happened and they allowed them to use this 8 seconds of the film, but the rest of the film, the classified part, was pulled"



The footage is fully debunked here (scroll to 13:49 to skip straight to the conclusion):



Based on the findings of the debunking video linked above, the Holloman AFB UFO footage shown in the documentary was determined to be just an aircraft coming to land (UFO on the left, F-4 Phantom overlay for comparison on the right-hand side):

 

[Ann K]

My cynic's take on this:

Nice debunk, very convincing. But it isn't explained as a "debunk", though. The narrator sees the match with the plane, but just can't bring himself to say "question solved". Instead he says "this isn't from the UFO film", thus keeping alive a supposed mystery, probably to give himself the opportunity to continue providing woo for his 1500 followers. (In the case of "YouTube scientists", I am not sure how many are in it for the money and how many simply want to feed their egos.)

 

[Duke]

There is a claim that a documentary filmed at Holloman AFB was granted permission to release footage of an alien craft coming to land at the base. The claim that the supposedly released footage at Holloman AFB represents 8 seconds of an actual alien craft landing is made here:

[03:04] "(...) So, they want you to know that Holloman happened and they allowed them to use this 8 seconds of the film, but the rest of the film, the classified part, was pulled"



The footage is fully debunked here (scroll to 13:49 to skip straight to the conclusion):



Based on the findings of the debunking video linked above, the Holloman AFB UFO footage shown in the documentary was determined to be just an aircraft coming to land (UFO on the left, F-4 Phantom overlay for comparison on the right-hand side):

View attachment 66163

Over my career, I spent a great deal of time TDY (temporary duty....USAF speak for a business trip) at Holloman. I first heard the UFO landing story there in the early 1980s, when there were still a number of people there who were at Holloman/in Alamogordo when the alleged event took place. The locals certainly believed it occurred.

One particularly individual, a well respected senior engineer from a test organization on base, was very vocal about it. Years later, he appeared on a James Fox UFO documentary telling the story.

 

[deirdre]

thus keeping alive a supposed mystery,

it is still a mystery.the story anyway that a ufo supposedly landed.

What was debunked was the claim that that is footage proof. i think he debunked it quite nicely.

 

[Ann K]

it is still a mystery.the story anyway that a ufo supposedly landed.

What was debunked was the claim that that is footage proof. i think he debunked it quite nicely.

It is "still a mystery" in much the same way that Atlantis and the Loch Ness Monster are still a mystery. There is no amount of proof sufficient to please all the conspiracy nuts, if they can just say "but THAT'S something else, not the thing I was talking about".

 

[deirdre]

It is "still a mystery" in much the same way that Atlantis and the Loch Ness Monster are still a mystery. There is no amount of proof sufficient to please all the conspiracy nuts, if they can just say "but THAT'S something else, not the thing I was talking about".

you can't call them 'nuts' on MB.

but it IS something else, not the thing the story is about.

Someday ill have my friends come on MB to verify my story about when we smoked a joint with Bigfoot and you can get upset that you can't actually debunk me and that some people will choose to believe us. ie. you'll never kill every story in the world, people like stories. what you can do is debunk the

Article:

claim of evidence

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

.

 

[deirdre]

It is "still a mystery" in much the same way that Atlantis and the Loch Ness Monster are still a mystery. There is no amount of proof sufficient to please all the conspiracy nuts, if they can just say "but THAT'S something else, not the thing I was talking about".

ps the whole internet seems to be saying it was a training film called "when they land". (,and there's a fake photo attached to that too). But, imo, after 5-6 years straight of non-stop UFO threads on MB...if noone brought this up before now, it probably isnt believed by many in the space.


and what's super suspicious is this is 4 days (mostly quoted date) before that Socorro thread encounter. Socorro is right across the field from the afb. One might be forgiven for thinking thata if a ufo and aliens landed 4 days prior they might have better things to do than continue their moon program activities.

In 1995, a colleague of Moore's who ran the Skyhook Balloon program at Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, Bernard "Duke" Gildenberg, learned from Capt. James McAndrew, the AF's point man on Roswell, that on April 24, 1964, there were special tests being conducted at the north end of the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) involving a helicopter used to carry a Lunar Surveyor around for some tests. A portion of the WSMR Range Log obtained by McAndrew appears below. Surveyor was a three-legged, unmanned probe, which was used to learn about the moon before the Apollo program got there.

 

[Ann K]

Socorro is right across the field from the afb.

I had to laugh at that. "The field", as you call it, sounds as if they are neighbors, but the distance is well over a hundred miles with a restricted military base, a mountain range, and the Rio Grande river in between. (I lived at White Sands Missile Range for several years, and it is a good deal larger than the state of Delaware, for comparison.)

 

[deirdre]

I had to laugh at that. "The field", as you call it, sounds as if they are neighbors, but the distance is well over a hundred miles with a restricted military base, a mountain range, and the Rio Grande river in between. (I lived at White Sands Missile Range for several years, and it is a good deal larger than the state of Delaware, for comparison.)

in the scale of the United States where ufos could land and aliens come out...they are neighbors.

 

[deirdre]

(I lived at White Sands Missile Range for several years,

is that why they do their testing 80 miles away..because people live on the south end? or do people live all over the testing zone?

 

[NorCal Dave]

ps the whole internet seems to be saying it was a training film called "when they land". (,and there's a fake photo attached to that too). But, imo, after 5-6 years straight of non-stop UFO threads on MB...if noone brought this up before now, it probably isnt believed by many in the space.


and what's super suspicious is this is 4 days (mostly quoted date) before that Socorro thread encounter. Socorro is right across the field from the afb. One might be forgiven for thinking thata if a ufo and aliens landed 4 days prior they might have better things to do than continue their moon program activities.

View attachment 66182

That's weird, this thread started today, and I never responded to it, yet I'm being quoted? Maybe I did in an alternate universe .

 

[Mendel]

That's weird, this thread started today, and I never responded to it, yet I'm being quoted? Maybe I did in an alternate universe .

That's because @deirdre linked two reports (Holloman and Socorro) as if they were both legitimate, valid UFO sightings, and not both pretty much debunked, and otherwise unrelated except for the date and the state they occurred in.

 

[deirdre]

because @deirdre linked two reports (Holloman and Socorro) as if they were both legitimate

no i didnt. you think i think aliens talking to humans is legitimate? lol.

what did you
0:33
see mr shuttle?

i saw footage of three
disc shaped crafts one of the craft
landed and two of them went away

why did it land?

it appeared to be in trouble
because it oscillated all the way down
to the ground however it did land on
three pods
a sliding door open
a ramp was extended and out came three
aliens

0:52
what did they look like?

well they were
human sized they had odd gray complexion
and a pronounced nose they wore tight
fitting jumpsuits thin headdresses that
appeared to be communication devices and
their hands in their hands they held a
translator i was told
a holloman base commander another air
force officers went out to meet him

you actually saw these aliens on the film?
1:14
yes

Source: https://youtu.be/sq5nnrdOwqs?t=33

 

[taurusclover21]

It is "still a mystery" in much the same way that Atlantis and the Loch Ness Monster are still a mystery. There is no amount of proof sufficient to please all the conspiracy nuts, if they can just say "but THAT'S something else, not the thing I was talking about".

A conspiracy theory is impossible to disprove because it just morphs to integrate any evidence it encounters; its purpose is not the gathering of knowledge, but the defense of a belief.

 

[Mendel]

no i didnt. you think i think aliens talking to humans is legitimate? lol.

You brought Socorro into it even though it's an unrelated report.
They would only be related if both reports were true sightings.
I've phrased this with "as if", as a hypothetical, which leaves open what I think you think—it's irrelevant. The Socorro report is off topic, and you should not have mentioned it.

Instead, you're trying to make this personal somehow by focusing on what you think I think you thought, which I expect everyone recognizes as going even more off topic.

(This is my final word on this.)

 

[deirdre]

You brought Socorro into it even though it's an unrelated report.
They would only be related if both reports were true sightings.
I've phrased this with "as if", as a hypothetical,

it's already been established that i can neither speak nor understand MB english. so i concede, the coincidence of Holloman providing an explanation for Sorocco means the Holloman landing must have occured.

 

[Slow Joe]

no i didnt. you think i think aliens talking to humans is legitimate? lol.

what did you
0:33
see mr shuttle?

i saw footage of three
disc shaped crafts one of the craft
landed and two of them went away

why did it land?

it appeared to be in trouble
because it oscillated all the way down
to the ground however it did land on
three pods
a sliding door open
a ramp was extended and out came three
aliens

0:52
what did they look like?

well they were
human sized they had odd gray complexion
and a pronounced nose they wore tight
fitting jumpsuits thin headdresses that
appeared to be communication devices and
their hands in their hands they held a
translator i was told
a holloman base commander another air
force officers went out to meet him

you actually saw these aliens on the film?
1:14
yes

Wow. How can that guy just lie like that on TV?
It's fascinating.
Do you think he actually believes what he is saying?
I wonder how his mind works. He seems to be trying really hard to look natural.
Throughout my life, I have encountered two types of liars—those who lie for money, and those who lie for their ego.
I wonder which one this guy is.
Fascinating.

 

[deirdre]

Do you think he actually believes what he is saying?

i think he was punked by his military comrades and what they showed him was the training film "what if they land". I have no proof such a training film existed of course, just a few people online saying they saw the training film. so it's basically a "who do you choose to believe" scenario.

 

[Ann K]

is that why they do their testing 80 miles away..because people live on the south end? or do people live all over the testing zone?

No, it's empty land. They had a reserve area, an extension to the north that was forty miles square where a couple of ranchers lived, but when they occasionally wanted to use it they would give the ranchers TDY pay ("temporary duty" pay) to leave for a few days. (Presumably the army promised to pay them for any cows killed in the process.)

 

[deirdre]

now im getting all these Air Force produced training films popping up on my Youtube. (yes that is the Pearly Gates). Haven't seen any with aliens yet, will let y'all know if i do.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm baffled as to why anyone would think that an extremely blurry film of a fuzzy blob was a 'UFO' in the first place.

 

[Riverman63]

I'm baffled as to why anyone would think that an extremely blurry film of a fuzzy blob was a 'UFO' in the first place.

Because they want to believe it to be a UFO, as the famous poster states..

 

[deirdre]

I'm baffled as to why anyone would think that an extremely blurry film of a fuzzy blob was a 'UFO' in the first place.

did you mean to post this in the Atlas F(test 103) thread? noone has ever seen the alleged Holloman film, we just have stories of 3-5 guys who said they've seen it or think they saw it back in the 1960s.

 

[JMartJr]

I'm baffled as to why anyone would think that an extremely blurry film of a fuzzy blob was a 'UFO' in the first place.

That is an observation that covers a fairly substantial number of UFO cases! The difficulty for UFO proponents is that the clear pictures look a lot like hubcaps or pan lids, even if debunkers can't prove which exact hubcap it is, or have "tells" left by the computer generated imagery -- they look fishy to the casual observer. The rest are fuzzy blobs that don't look like anything, and so are decent Rorschach analogs, allowing the viewer to see what they want to see, especially if you attach an amazing story of the UFO doing physics-defying things just after the video ends or between shots with the still camera.

Clear pictures of actual Real UFOs (tm) don't exist: if it is a clear picture, you can see what it is.

 

[Ben Harris]

A conspiracy theory is impossible to disprove because it just morphs to integrate any evidence it encounters; its purpose is not the gathering of knowledge, but the defense of a belief.

This is why onus of proof belongs, squarely, with the proponent.