I suspect that the UFO that was seen over that three weeks was a test vehicle related to the Apollo program and I suspect it had something to do with how the astronauts actually got off the moon. I think it’s very likely that there was more technology involved in getting our astronauts off the moon than what we’ve been told. (I happen to believe that we did go to the moon and that the moon footage was faked for various cold war secrecy reasons.)
I think perhaps the photographs were deliberately released through Flying Saucer Review. I think the fact that the child photographer was the son of two Boeing employees essentially means the photos came from Boeing. No way would two married Boeing space propulsion scientists risk both their jobs by allowing a child to release photographs of potentially highly classified U.S. military hardware. I guarantee you they would have first cleared the photographs through their Boeing superiors before allowing their son to release them to a UFO magazine.
However, I seriously doubt any normal person in 1968 would have had the slightest inclination to approach a boss or department head about some UFO photos or anything having to do with UFOs. It’s absurd. Nobody would do that today, let alone some people working for the American space program in 1968. So, if the photographs are real, we have to assume they were released with Boeing’s approval or the approval of one of the intelligence agencies involved with Boeing at the time. Well, I don’t believe that Boeing didn’t have UFO-like technology at the time.
As implied by the 1966 sighting report, they probably had already tested something that resembled a flying saucer. And based on my own 2010 sighting of ten flying “spheres,” witnessed while I was standing 300 yards from Boeing airfield, I’ve become fairly convinced that Boeing has been building “UFOs” for some time. Your admission of having been shown a secret video by a Boeing-employee friend of strange things being flight-tested at Boeing is further evidence.
Regarding the curious statement under photo A, the obvious implication is that Boeing did not have anything like the technology of the UFO that was sighted over the Kent plant. However, I think there’s also a more subtly implied meaning in the phrase “When will Boeing scientists be allowed to investigate?” Without overtly saying it, the sentence implies that Boeing would need permission from someone to investigate this UFO technology, but that permission has not been given.
Also, the article essentially states that whatever the UFOs were, they displayed a super-science far beyond our own therefore they must be piloted by interplanetary intelligences. Maybe this is a stretch, but I feel there is a subtle crash/recovery/cover-up meme woven into this article. It implies that the UFO sighted over the area was extraterrestrial, and that Boeing did not have permission or clearance to inspect the hardware. But how could Boeing, or anyone, possibly have inspected such hardware unless it was already in our government’s possession somehow?
So, while not overtly stating it, I think the article is subtly, implicitly slanted toward the idea of a crash/recovery/cover-up. Quite frankly, whenever crash/recovery stories pop up, I immediately smell counterintelligence obfuscation of secret man-made technology. So, I feel there is evidence that the article is pushing an E.T. explanation, while also implying that nothing like the sighted object was every built or operated at the Boeing plant. Why would they need to make that point, unless they actually had operated something at the facility which they didn’t want people to find out about?
(Please don’t get me wrong – I do not think all UFO sightings represent man-made hardware. I think a lot of the nuts-and-bolts sightings probably do represent something man-made. However, I also accept the “ultra-terrestrial” theory as explanation for many UFO sightings and encounters throughout history.)
Finally, I think it’s interesting that this FSR issue (Flying Saucer Review Special Issue No. 2) was published in June of 1969 – a month before Apollo 11 and the moon landing. At the time of the sightings over the Boeing Space Research plant in 1968, Boeing would have been furiously working on Apollo/moon-landing hardware, which took place just eight months later in July of 1969. I would think prep and construction for the upcoming moon-landing were the only things being worked on at the Kent plant at the time or it was their highest priority, at least. The timing of the article is indicative of preemptive perception management.
These sightings took place eight months before the moon landing, over a facility that was actively working on hardware for the moon-landing. It is very plausible that someone would have put two and two together and begun questioning a link between the sightings and the moon-landing. If that happened, it could have revealed details of our space technology. So, I think a few weeks before the moon landing was scheduled to happen, this story was planted linking the Seattle sightings of 1968 to “science fiction creatures” (science fiction to most of the public, that is to say). After planting this story, few people would have connected this UFO sighting case with the very mundane lunar mission technology that we were shown in 69.
I suspect they probably muzzled local news coverage of the sightings in November of 1968, but still needed to plant a cover story before Apollo 11 in case anything ever did come out. That would also explain why there are so few details about this case online. If my theory is correct, this is probably still highly classified.
Anyway, that’s what I made of the article. I would be very interested to know whether you find any validity to my theory.
By the way – just out of curiosity, can you tell me whether anything you were shown in the video by your Boeing friend resembled white flying spheres or balls like the objects I witnessed in 2010? I understand if you feel reluctant to describe what was in the video, but I would greatly appreciate it if you could confirm anything like that. Just personal curiosity.