Thoughts on Brush Creek, CA 1953 | Unidentified Flying Objects | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Thoughts on Brush Creek, CA 1953
January 21, 2014
9:14 am
Avatar
segdumgirl
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
January 16, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I was just rereading that old case from the fifties.
I'm sure you know the one:
Two miners repeatedly saw a saucer. One witnessed it landed on a sandbar while the occupant took a pail of water from the creek. Running back to board the ufo, handing the water to someone inside, climbing aboard and taking off through the dense forest. Having seen the craft on May 20 and the following June 20th, everyone was hoping to see it again the next 20th. A huge crowd awaited, but were disappointed when it was a no-show. The press went on to have quite a field day with the story and the case is officially listed in Blue Book as a hoax (of course).

I don't know how most people think of this case, but I think there was really something to it.

The main thing is the fact they were miners. You have to know how miners are. I am an avid rock collector and have done a little prospecting for personal samples, and a bit of mining and gold panning also. Miners don't want people to know where their claim is usually. If you're on something good, the last thing you want are others taking what you worked so hard to find. I like the testimony of the district ranger for the Plumas Natl. Forest. He said that the witnesses, Black and Van Allen, had been mining the area for 3 summers-tunneling into the mountain like 50 feet, they didn't seem to be drinkers, and they were mining for "fissionable material". Would you want to draw the Sheriff's attention to yourself if you don't even have a proper legal claim? Maybe, things were a lot more lax than today.
Regarding the ore they were mining, I noticed that the July UP newspaper stories changed the uranium to gold or titanium. Why?
The owner of the Brush Creek store said the miners had a good reputation, so we have that too. I don't see any money angle to their faking this story and the only thing they got for it all was nationwide ridicule.
Well, at least that's what I think.

January 22, 2014
9:18 pm
Avatar
Taeko
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 169
Member Since:
November 17, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
116713sp_Permalink sp_Print

These old UFO cases can be interesting to look into. Often there is something to them. But in this one I have to agree with Blue Book. RV does not produce an ET craft or anything, and the miners are not even contactees. They may have been trying for some publicity that might lead to some financial backing for their prospecting.

Some times these reports are from real contactees, but they have a lot of fake stuff as well. George and Billy come to mind. They are real contactees and Orthon and Semjase are space aliens if I target them, but they are not from Venus or the Pleiades. But all those interesting photographs are fakes.

When you can go out and see the universe, who wants to go look at a Russian submarine? (Melvin C. Riley, US Army Remote Viewer)

January 23, 2014
5:54 am
Avatar
segdumgirl
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3
Member Since:
January 16, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
116718sp_Permalink sp_Print

By RV, you mean remote viewing right? I just call it "seeing".
Some sources say there were landing traces and footprints although I don't believe there were any photos of these. I don't think you have to be a contactee to just witness something something like this. If it is true, the being sighted wanted nothing to do with contact. Just taking a water sample to check for possible contamination from the mining operation perhaps. There are miles and miles of other, more remote places along that river to just grab some water undetected.
It's interesting to hear how others view the same case though.

January 23, 2014
8:52 pm
Avatar
Taeko
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 169
Member Since:
November 17, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
116723sp_Permalink sp_Print

Brush Creek is an important case so don't let a remote viewer put you off from it. How it works is unexplained, but it was developed to find accurate technical details of military targets. It can be used to find submarines, missing persons and fugitives when their location is unknown. Although they deny it, I have intelligence that the army recalled some of their viewers to find the location of Osama bin Ladin when all else failed.

When you can go out and see the universe, who wants to go look at a Russian submarine? (Melvin C. Riley, US Army Remote Viewer)

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
39 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10153

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 23408

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 32

Topics: 8417

Posts: 121481

Newest Members:

oxihilyz, nbdy, Mark, Valarie Meadows, Victor Lafortune, Mario, Jason Boyle, David, Paula Foltz, DebbyeThompson

Administrators: John Greenewald: 481, blackvault: 1777