Board Logo
« USOs in Norway »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Oct 20th, 2017, 05:36am


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1  Notify Send Topic Print
 thread  Author  Topic: USOs in Norway  (Read 3358 times)
AlR
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 92
xx USOs in Norway
« Thread started on: Jun 21st, 2008, 5:40pm »

USOs have been seen many times in Norway from before World War II. The most stirring case occurred in November 1972 in the Sogne fjord.

In the late 1990s a still unidentified USO was seen for several days just outside Aalesund (Ålesund).

The following excerpt is taken from the UFO Evidence.org web site:

"Observations of Unidentified Submarine Objects in Norway

By Ole Jonny Brænne, UFO-Norway

(Part of article)

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1713.htm

1972-1990

Beetween November 12 and 22, 1972, an extensive search was conducted in the 1300-meter-deep Sogne fjord. Thirty Navy vessels, plus NATO forces, participated. The excitement began when the military received a report of a U-boat. The next day, the thirteenth, two witnesses watched an "aircraftlike object" maneuver along the fjord. The same night four other witnesses observed a "bright object" on the water. On November 20, at 1 p.m., a U-boat was seen near Kyrkjebø just as it headed away from Mårenlandet toward the fjord's southern end. Fifteen minutes later it was seen by five police officers at Kvamsøy, a small island about 50 kilometers north of Kyrkjebø. Here frigates dropped mines on the object. If these were two observations of the same object, we have a speed of 200 kph - a speed of which no known submarine is capable.

On the night of november 21, four witnesses sighted four "rockets" shooting up from the water at Hermansverk. The rockets were silent and resembled small red balls of light. On the afternoon of the next day, an antisubmarine missile was fired at the intruders. The water's depth at the site was only 25 meters, and the shock waves of the explosion were so powerful as to throw small boats onto land 10 kilometers away. Any conventional submarine would have been severely damaged and forced to surface; yet this vessel escaped apparently unscatched.

At the same time other odd events were occurring. Aircraft experienced unexplained electronic problems. Yellow and green objects were seen flying along a mountainside. Navy vessels registered sonar contact with something in deep water. Surveilance craft encountered unidentified "helicopters" which executed breakneck maneuvers in fierce storms."

Sincerely,

Al R, Norway



User IP Logged

AlR
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 92
xx Re: USOs in Norway
« Reply #1 on: Jun 26th, 2008, 10:38pm »

Strange Damage to Shipwrecked Norwegian Fishing Boat

On 20 September 2007, Palmer Ove Hustadrem, 61, was reported missing after his boat, ”Steinar” sank on Buagrunnen, outside Bud, near Molde, Norway. The boat was found some weeks later. Hustadrem has still not been found. The fisherman was a very experienced man.

A few days after the boat was found, the Ankill Commission, which investigated this case, said that it was too early to draw any conclusions about what caused the boat to sink.

The former MRF (a Møre & Romsdal ferry company) veteran Kåre Sandøy was of the clear opinion that the boat would have had to have been rammed by a submarine. This was later ruled out by the Ankill Commission, which concluded that the damage to the boat was most likely caused when it hit the bottom of the sea. But, in my opinion, if one looks at the photo of the damaged boat, one clearly sees that this massive crash damage cannot have been caused by a slowly sinking boat hitting the bottom of the sea.

The only question then is: What crashed with the boat? Personally, I think that anyone concerned about this case, should focus on the width of the damage to the boat. That fact is really striking!

I have often seen crashed boats here in Norway, but never any boat with damage like this. In my opinion, what crashed with the boat would have had to have been moving slightly below the surface of the sea.

The final report by the Ankill Commission concluded that Hustadrem’s fishing net had been hooked with something at the bottom of the sea and the boat had been dragged under the sea. They concluded that the damage to the boat had occurred when it hit the bottom of the sea. Many experienced Norwegian fishermen and sailors strongly disagree with this conclusion! They are convinced that what crashed with the boat would have had to have moved slightly below the surface of the sea.

Romsdals Budstikke (Molde newspaper) links to this case (with photographs):

http://www.rbnett.no/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/LOKALNYTT/710030007/1005

http://www.rbnett.no/article/20080115/LOKALNYTT/503789720

Sincerely,

Al R, Norway
« Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2008, 12:28am by AlR » User IP Logged

bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1659
xx Re: USOs in Norway
« Reply #2 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 11:11am »

on Jun 21st, 2008, 5:40pm, AlR wrote:
Thirty Navy vessels, plus NATO forces, participated. The excitement began when the military received a report of a U-boat.

On the night of november 21, four witnesses sighted four "rockets" shooting up from the water at Hermansverk. The rockets were silent and resembled small red xxxxx of light. On the afternoon of the next day, an antisubmarine missile was fired at the intruders. The water's depth at the site was only 25 meters, and the shock waves of the explosion were so powerful as to throw small boats onto land 10 kilometers away. Any conventional submarine would have been severely damaged and forced to surface; yet this vessel escaped apparently unscatched.


Interesting stories Al.

My question here is: why try to blow up an unknown thing in the water that had done nothing threatening? This is a fearful and unprovoked response.

If all of you would like to know why these objects do not identify themselves to us, this would be a pretty good reason: We are a bunch of violence prone buffoons.

Humans...... embarassed

Bonehead
User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
creolelady
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 11053
xx Re: USOs in Norway
« Reply #3 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 12:10pm »

So true Bonehead, sadly so true.
User IP Logged

User Image
"We are not human beings on a spiritual journey, we are spiritual beings on a human journey." Stephen Covey
AlR
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 92
xx Re: USOs in Norway
« Reply #4 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 11:13pm »

on Jun 27th, 2008, 11:11am, bonehead wrote:
Interesting stories Al.

My question here is: why try to blow up an unknown thing in the water that had done nothing threatening? This is a fearful and unprovoked response.

If all of you would like to know why these objects do not identify themselves to us, this would be a pretty good reason: We are a bunch of violence prone buffoons.

Humans...... embarassed

Bonehead


Remember, this occurred during the Cold War and Soviet nuclear missile submarines were all over the place, need I say more?

And, they didn’t bomb the suspected submarine because they tried to damage it. The Royal Norwegian Navy only tried to bring it to the surface! Had they brought up a Soviet submarine - I’m convinced that the Soviets would have been treated to the finest Norwegian cuisine.

The clue to this story about an undeniably unknown, both flying and submerged object, is the fact that the mouth of the Sogne fjord was totally sealed off. No object could ever have escaped the fjord by sea. According to many people, not only ufologists, the unknown object would have had to have escaped by air!

Al R, Norway
« Last Edit: Jun 30th, 2008, 7:12pm by AlR » User IP Logged

Erno86
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3027
xx Re: USOs in Norway
« Reply #5 on: Mar 25th, 2015, 2:59pm »

"High Speed USO"

"Sonar radar reported an unknown submerged object that was moving at over '150 knots {170-plus miles per hour}' as it maneuvered down to depths of 27,000 feet."



http://www.waterufo.net/item.php?id=174
« Last Edit: Mar 25th, 2015, 3:08pm by Erno86 » User IP Logged

"It would be unsatisfactory, in my opinion, if a world without matter were possible."

Albert Einstein
ohrdruf
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 91
xx Re: USOs in Norway
« Reply #6 on: Apr 7th, 2015, 12:10pm »

Clear similarities exist between this Norwegian sighting, and the one (or two) intruder submarines pursued in the Golfo Nuevo, Argentina between 31 January and 20 February 1960.

Two books have appeared over recent years written by Argentine naval officers who were present. The first was "Operación Golfo Nuevo-Una Ficción inspirada en Hechos Reales" (Inst.Publs.Navales del Centro Naval, Buenos Aires 2002). The author, Capt. (ret'd) Jorge Schwarz, commanded the State Yacht "Aviso" and the frigate "Piedrabuena" and was second in command at the Ushaia naval base.

Schwarz' purpose in his book was to use the actual details of the 20-day hunt within the small gulf and, suiting the purposes of the present Argentine Government, to invent as its protagonist a Russian submarine which had become bottled-in and hid from its pursuers using the water layers.

Because the purpose of the Argentine Government in 1960 had been to expel, and not capture or destroy the intruder(s), they broadcast on all frequencies the news that they had intentionally left the 9-mile wide entrance to the gulf undefended in the hope that the intruders would leave of their own accord.


The second book is "Testimonios de Tiempos Difíciles 1955-1979", Chapter 3 "Submarino desconocido en Golfo Nuevo", p.47-106, published by Editorial Dunken, Buenos Aires 2011.

The author is Capt. (ret'd) Benjamin Cosentino who at all material times was acting as anti-submarine adviser to the Tactical Officer Commanding, Capt Mario Lanzarini, commander of destroyers, Argentine Sea Fleet aboard the frigate "Hercules".

To suit the present Argentine Government, which wants no U-boats on its coasts ever,. Cosentino concluded without the least shred of evidence that the WWII German Type XXI U-boats contacted frequently during the 20-day hunt were actually unarmed Zulu V Russian fisheries and seabed exploration submarines which had become entrapped in Golfo Nuevo and "hid in the shallows to avoid detection".

At Easter 2013 I interviewed Sr Cosentino at the Naval Centre in Buenos Aires and asked him a number of questions about the way in which he said the U-boats and their pursuers had operated. At this he did not want to discuss the matter and would only talk about Chapter 4 of his book (the Beagle Channel dispute).

It is clear that the true facts admitted by Argentina in 1960 have been wilfully distorted nowadays to present a falsified account for history.

In the next part of this reply, for the purposes of this comparison, I provide details of the various attacks made on the U-boats in those almost land-locked waters.
User IP Logged

ohrdruf
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 91
xx Re: USOs in Norway
« Reply #7 on: Apr 8th, 2015, 1:12pm »

PART TWO

THE GEOGRAPHY

Golfo Nuevo is an almost enclosed body of water within the Valdez Peninsula on the coast of Argentina just above 43°S. It is a roundish bay no more that 35 miles, nor less than 25 miles across at any point, and from coastal shallows it shelves deeply to a maximum depth of 157 metres (515 feet) at its centre.

The area of the Gulf deeper than 100 metres (328 feet) occupies about 75% of the navigable surface. The entrance faces SE and is nine miles wide. The town and important naval base of Puerto Madryn, which lacks any facilities for submarines, is located well inshore on the SW side. For the most part the coast has a dune landscape. Human population away from the town is scarce. Whales are present in the winter months June to August.

The coast between Puerto Madryn and the entrance to the gulf is about 30 miles long and backed by a meseta up to 100 metres in height. In the 1960 occurrences, all six incidents with the two patrol boats, and a seventh incident involving an anti-submarine aircraft, took place within sight of the meseta off one of other of three minor headlands. South east of Puerto Madryn these were Punta Loma (6 miles), Punta Ambrosetti (8.5 miles) and Punta Conscriptos (14.5 miles).

In 1960, Argentina had established the limit of her territorial waters at three nautical miles. The "innocent passage" of submarines within three miles of her coasts was required to be on the surface. As regards "internal waters" such as Golfo Nuevo, access by submarines was prohibited except in special circumstances. This resulted following the incursion into Golfo Nuevo by an unidentified submarine "with a copper-coloured periscope" and identified by lookouts as a "Type XXI German U-boat" on Wednesday 21 May 1958. The submarine tangled in a large Argentine naval exercise and was depth charged by three cruisers and four destroyers. The periscope was seen again later. The intruder is believed to have escaped, but few details were ever made known.

In 1960 it was made known early on during the occurrence that the entrance to the gulf was unprotected and that no attempt would be made to intercept the submarines leaving.


THE OPENING EVENT

At 0910 hrs on 30 January 1960, the destroyer "Cervantes" and the corvettes "Murature" and "King" were engaged on a routine training exercise inside Golfo Nuevo when a submerged submarine was detected. A chase ensued in which the submarine showed superior speed and manouvrability. Outside the three mile limit the pursuit was abandoned.

On the same evening a fresh contact was obtained near Puerto Madryn inside Golfo Nuevo. Because this contact seemed slower (10 knots as opposed to the earlier 17 knots) and noisier, it was suspected to be a second submerged submarine.

Over the 36 hours between the first contact and 2150 hrs on 31 January, only 47 sonar bleeps were recorded resulting in some random depth charging asnd bombing without effect. Cosentino stated ("Testimonios de Tiempos Difíciles, p.59) "The basic element to plot the course of the submarine was always absent." This meant that during the entire period of twenty days in which the intruder submarines were present, their location was only ever known if they could be seen on the surface.

NEWSPAPER REPORTS

La Razón, 3 February: "In response to a question at a press conference, the Navy Secretary stated that it was probable two submarines were present "because these boats generally operate in pairs". This statement indicates that the Navy Secretary had previous knowledge of the nature and operating procedures of the intruder submarines.

La Nación, 11 February: "Military sources state that the submarine seen has a profile very similar to the German U-boats of Type XXI of the Second World War."

La Razön, 14 February: "The Navy Secretary has confirmed that there are two submarines present. They are submersibles which have very modern technology. For example, when boats of this Type suspect that they are being tracked by sonar, they use special rays which cancel the action of that precision instrument."

No photographs of the submarines sighted have ever been released. If they had been Russian submarines during the Cold War, this would not have presented a problem. Even stranger, possibly prior to, or at the start of events, all shipboard cameras aboard Argenine naval vessels were confiscated and the crews issued with sketch pads and pencils. A number of sketches have been declassified and are reproduced in Cosentino's book.

In the concluding part, the seven violent encounters with an intruder submarine during February 1960.


« Last Edit: Apr 8th, 2015, 1:21pm by ohrdruf » User IP Logged

ohrdruf
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 91
xx Re: USOs in Norway
« Reply #8 on: Apr 9th, 2015, 4:48pm »

THIRD PART

Here follow brief notes as to five of the seven encounters between Argentine surface forces and one or two U-boats identified as Type XXI German submarines with advanced technologies believed to make them invulnerable.

It was found by the Argentine Navy to be imposible to track or pinpoint their position when submerged in Golf Nuevo. All encounters occurred when the submarines were very close to shore and either fully surfaced or partly so. No crew were ever seen and no damage was ever observed to the submarines leading to the belief that they were protected by some kind of invisible all-round shielding.

In the sixth and seventh sightings (to follow in final posting) this immunity to damage is demonstrated very clearly, and also the certainty that the Argentine Navy was collaborating with these submarine of unknown flag in naval exercises. (At the height of the Cold War in 1960, the Argentine Navy would not have been collaborating with Soviet naval forces.)

FIRST SIGHTING
4 February 1960, corvette P-20 "Murature".
3,000 yards off Ambrosetti Point.
Observed by navigation officer, anti-submarine officer
REPORT: Offciers saw submarine submerging 1000 yards off Ambrosetti Point in charted depth of only 20 metres. Upper part of sail and projection on foredeck of "gold coppery colour". A spout or gush of water was seen coming from submarine as it submerged.
ACTION TAKEN: Pattern of nine depth charges dropped. No apparent effect. (Sketch provided).

SECOND SIGHTING
5 February 1960 0101 hrs (three hours later), corvette P-21 "King".
Location between Loma Point and Cape Avanzado.
Observed by gunnery officer, navigation officer and about 40% of crew on deck.
REPORT: U-boat seen surfacing facing east between warship and shore. "King" opened fore with 40mm Oerlikons. No hits observed.
Sketch: prow and part of sail.

THIRD SIGHTING
7 February 1960 0326 hrs, corvette p-21 "King".
Location, Conscriptos Point.
Observed by commanding offcier, executive officer, gunnery and three other officers, and 80% of men on deck.
REPORT: U-boat seen fully surfaced between warship and shore. "King" fired with 40 mm Oerlikons at the sail. Various hits claimed "like shells exploding", some "rebounds" and "misses long and short"but no actual damage observed.
Sketch provided, two periscopes protruding upwards from sail, unidentified object, protrusion on foredeck thought to be another periscope or radar aerial.

FOURTH SIGHTING
7 February 1960 2137 hrs, corvette P-20 "Murature"
Location Ambrosetti/Loma Point.
REPORT: Corvette adrift 100 yards from shore. Periscope or aerial protrusion of submerged submarine seen at 200 yards from shore. Sea calm, moon behind submarine, visibility very good. Instrument on U-boat foredeck seen to revolve, then submarine began to approach warship in threatening manner causing ships' officers to fear that submarine was intending to ram. U-boat then submerged as corvette turned away. (Sketches provided)

FIFTH SIGHTING
11 February 1960 0807 hrs Corvette P-20 "Murature"
Location: Cape Avanzado
Observed by nearly all crewmen.
REPORT: U-boat seen on surface was engaged with 40 mm Oerlikons. No hits seen.
Sketch: Periscope or radar aerial on foredeck of fourth sighting closely observed, projected 0.5 metres above deck, seen to have parabolic aerial-like fixture attached. (Three sketches of this item provided)

In the sixth sighting it will be described how the two corvettes worked together in a manoevre: the seventh sighting involved naval aircraft.
User IP Logged

ohrdruf
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 91
xx Re: USOs in Norway
« Reply #9 on: Apr 10th, 2015, 09:55am »

PART FOUR

It is this sixth sighting which demonstrates clearly that the U-boat(s) engaged in naval exercises with two Argentine corvettes to test the invulnerability of the submarines. In the later Norwegian sightings much the same conditions and results apply.

SIXTH SIGHTING
16 February 1960 at 1239 hrs
P20-Murature and P-21 King working as a team. The event is reported in detail by both Schwarz and Cosentino in their books mentioned in Part One.
Location: Cape Avanzado
Observers: Commanders and deck officers, 60% of crews on deck
REPORT: The two corvettes joined together beam to beam, proceeding on one propellor each. The idea was "to deceive the submarine commander into thinking that this was only one corvette".
"Once it was suspected that the submarine would be close" - how could they suspect that? - P-21 "King" would cut its engine and drift with all machinery shut downwhile P-20 "Murature" would leave the scene as noisily as possible on two engines.
The submarine commander, "thinking that the corvette had left, would surface and be engaged and sunk by P-21 "King".

This only makes any sense if the Argentines knew IN ADVANCE that the submarine commander would surface without having first observed the surface waters through the periscope. Obviously he would not do so therefore proving that the whole show was a clandestine naval exercise with submarines of no flag.

In the event, a U-boat came up almost alongside P-21 "King" and received a full pattern of depth charges dropped slightly below its hull. No normal submarine could have survived such an attack. The tumescence caused by the explosions, the submarine being at the centre of it, lasted 15 seconds. No wreckage or oil was seen, but the submarine was seen immune at the centre of the occurrence throughout.
Sketch: depicts the tumescence with the U-boat at its centre.

SEVENTH SIGHTING
(On 14 February 1960 a team of thirteen US Navy anti-submarine warfare experts under Capt.Ray Pitts arrived at Golfo Nuevo bringing with them the most powerful non-atomic depth charges available and a number of "infallible" homing torpedoes. The Americans were there only as observers, the Argentines would make the air attack.)

17 February 1960 at 1938 hrs
Location: Beacon "25 de Mayo" near most westerly coastal point of gulf.
Observers: Crew of Argentine Navy Neptune 2P107 aircraft at 300 feet in excellent visibility, sea state calm.
REPORT: Pilot saw a periscope 1000 yards distant and released two Mk 43 "infallible" homing torpedoes. Both failed to home in in the U-boat which was by then partially surfaced.
Sketches: (i) protrusion on foredeck (ii) overhead sketch showing torpedo drop in wake of submerging submarine.

IN ADDITION
There is an interesting report declassified under NARA/RG 35 Intelligence Division, Top Secret Reports of Naval Attachés 1944-1947, Box II Report 35-5-1946, compiled in France entitled "Report on Guided Missiles sent from Soviet Controlled Territories over Scandinavian Territories"

This misleading title assumes the sightings came from Leningrad and Peenemünde although there is no proof of that. "Indeed, the machines are evidently self-destroying and have caused no damage on Scandinavian territory". Remarkable machines indeed, more likely than not originating from the parallel dimension to where their German designers evacuated when times got tough. The flight plan drawn up by the French indicates that Stavanger was an important part of the "guided missile" itinerary.

Numerous newspaper reports from Sweden in 1944 and early 1945 point to the German occupied Norwegian coast as being the origin of certain extremely fast flying machines heading east and upwards to Finland.

It is tempting to link in the "guided missile" reports from 1944-1946 with the unsinkable U-boats on the coast of Argentina and in Norwegian fjords.

END
« Last Edit: Apr 10th, 2015, 09:59am by ohrdruf » User IP Logged

Pages: 1  Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls