If the flap was as I suspect A NORAD or whatever other 3 letters agency exercise, I suspect that they would have made preparation in advance to control all information related to Charlie. As the author describe, full rolls of photos send to laboratories in and around Carman, came back with blank role. To a few exceptions as for example in Tanis case, they let some of her picture get back to her. Was it a mistake on their part or was it voluntary that is the question. I have thought about the film and the movie ant Tanis picture behind a window and find some plausible answer.
Question and answer.
Some other examples would be that the CKY film of Charlie somehow reversed its order of timeline events when developed. Also, the bizarre behaviour of the CKY editing team throwing out almost all the footage then not being able to remember where they disposed of it.
As I said above in the case the flap was an exercise, team would have been ready to intervene and cover all possible uncontrolled information coming out of Carman. There was not many tv crew that came to Carman to report about the flap and film it. I don’t think that it is a great challenge, for a well prepare team, to set one of their team inside a tv network or just buy the right technician to alert them if some suspected footage come by him. As it is said in the book, the cameraman who filmed Charlie left the roll of film to technical team at the station for editing and unbelievably the next morning said that only a few inch of footage that had showed anything was kept. The cameraman could never have the proof if what the tech said was true because the rest of the film was destroyed. If you want my idea, it sound quit easy for a ‘’secret team’’.
As for the footage reversal, I’m no expert but maybe a small mistake from the technician. He made a copy from the original but inverted the roll with the end result as described by the author.
- Page 46 - Tannis the photographer gets Charlie in focus and as soon as she's about to take the picture, his light blinks off. This happens to her a number of times. It seems to know she's trying to get a picture. Once she experiments with putting a piece of glass between her and Charlie, she can suddenly get quality photos.
Charlie was described from witnesses as being of different size from 20 feet to 200 hundred feet in length. We know nothing of it occupant, how many crews were operating it. As I said, I think that it was remotely operated but it doesn’t change anything in this case.
As an example, a crew of and AWAC plane as a flight crew of three and mission crew of 12. They are loaded with instrument doing whatever is needed in an awac mission. If as I suspect human are behind Charlie is control, as in a AWAC there might be many crew members with different device as let say, movement detector, cameras working on different frequency (think of infrared) and multiple observers who can quit easily have a pretty good knowledge when someone is pointing a camera at the craft. As for Tannis having success with the pictures taken through a window, it may have been a lucky action from her part. The reaction from someone seeing Charlie and have a camera in hand, will be to run outside to take a picture and thus be easily detected by as I said movement detector or cameras. They never thought that someone will install a camera in is living room behind a window. It may have disabled the detecting potential of the equipment and thus Tannis to get the best pictures ever of Charlie.
If I remember correctly she got the visit of RCMP officer after they were processed. I’m not sure but the processing took place in a lab not close to Carman and that may explain why she got any back.
Only a few inches of the CKY film and a few of Tannis picture got trough the control team. Not enough to give a clear picture, as in the case of the film, of the characteristic of Charlie but enough to create and enhance the mystery surrounding the whole affair. Imagine if the whole 50 foot roll from CKY as been preserved! It may have show too much to a proper scientific team and put at risk the whole project.
I think all of what you posted above is well thought out and totally plausible
@Laurentien2 .
In the current state of the MIC world we live in North America, it may even be the most likely explanation for the Charlie flap - today. BUT I'll add some context to 1975 Southwest Manitoba that may sway your opinion in the hyper-dimensional direction.
And as with all Charlie weirdness... I always make sure every few days if anyone on the forum comments on something I post to make a timely response or at least acknowledge it. I didn't see your response until last night (3 weeks ago). As I mentioned in my first post, there's always this "blanking" effect when discussing Charlie. Even talking to my "UFO" buddies, I always have a clenched feeling to not talk about it. Yet that doesn't happen with talking about Mothman or the Falcon Lake incidents. The Michalak encounter is something even the non-UFO people have had open discussions with me about. Everyone here knows about it. Charlie - nothing.
To start with the CKY film, I was in film studies in university at the end of the physical film world (late 80's) and when I took a class in Canadian Documentary History, we went through the actual process of how all filmed docs were made back to the 1890's. I also spent a couple of years on and off at the Winnipeg Film Group working with 8mm and 16mm equipment learning the process.
A location film team in 1975 at CKY would only use actual film and not video, due to the low light sensitivity of 8mm and the cumbersome size and cost of video. Negative based 16mm film would be available for a local TV station to use. But that would entail using an expensive Arriflex camera that was finicky and the 16mm film was expensive. This would usually only be used by the CBC (who had a much bigger budget that a local station like CKY) to film a pre-planned major event like a federal politician making a speech or a big announcement.
I'm 99% sure that the crew from CKY sent out to Carman from Winnipeg was using reversal Super 8 film due to its ability to record in low light situations as well as a smaller camera that worked great on location. It was also very cheap. Charlie wasn't a "major" news item in those day, but it had popular buzz. In funky 1975 Winnipeg (we were a pop culture center then - Monty Hall, Bobby Hull, K-Tel, The Guess Who and BTO etc) so the story was a novelty item that fit with that time.
The process for developing reveresal Super 8 is that there is no negative that the positive is processed from. It's one strip of film that is checmically treated into positive. You can't change the time sequence on it except through cutting the physical film and re-arranging the order of events. So there is no way the raw footage could be reversed sequentially in the lab. The cameraman claimed to see it after it was processed before it went to the editors and said the time sequence was reversed. That's not physically possible with reversal Super 8.
In terms of the NORAD, military-industrial complex, you're right it was already in high gear - but not in Carman and barely in Winnipeg. When you read the early UFO reports/flaps with military coverups, disinfo and intimidation, they are most numerous in the U.S. Canada and the U.S. are essentially the same country when it comes to military jurisdiction. there is no mention of the "secret team" intimidating witnesses, stealing files or breaking into houses. The situation in the CKY editing room is described as people suddenly becoming incompetent and forgetful (not 3D in my opinion).
And the encounters in the NORAD reports from 1975 are seen as a threat. Not one of "ours".
What is described in the NORAD reports is a threat and was particularly heightened around large, sensitive bases. Are all the military personnel in the bases from Maine to Montana not in on the test? Or at least the Generals?
Secretly launching this "Charlie" probe or craft put pilots in potential danger and could lead to serious mishap, especially considering nuclear weapons are involved in North Dakota. Wouldn't the low level guys just get a wink from the officers to stand down -
it's one of ours - and leave it alone? If it's the CIA or Black Ops, where's the base? If it was in North Dakota or Manitoba - wouldn't the Charlie activity or new Charlies have kept being seen?
Don't they have to let the military guys know? If I have some super-secret 3D (or part 4D) tech being tested, would I want F-106's scrambled to interecept it? Sounds like it would be easily destroyed. And why is Charlie so slow? What tech since 1930 in aviation moves slower than a DC-3 like Charlie? He seems like a sitting duck if he's 3D.
Although Minot and Grand Forks bases aren't geographically far from the Pembina Valley, I don't think they would care about "security" in Carman or the general area. I still don't think they are. We spend every weekend in the summer out there - and I've never seen a police car in the rural areas, never mind a military vehicle. Just over the border in North Dakota (still sparsely populated) it feels very different. Military personnel and police are noticeable.
Charlie was described from witnesses as being of different size from 20 feet to 200 hundred feet in length. We know nothing of it occupant, how many crews were operating it. As I said, I think that it was remotely operated but it doesn’t change anything in this case.
The point you wrote above is pertinent. Many people saw Charlie change size and colour. He also reacted to observers and seemed to know how to avoid getting "caught". Also he was observed floating with no sound. And I think you're right - there may have been no occupant. That doesn't mean it's a 3D military experiment. We have very little idea of what 4D is doing in terms of data gathering in 3D or what their plans are in detail. Before Laura, Karla Turner and RA - we practically had
no idea what their plans are.
From what
@Eboard10 posted in the
What Happened in 1972 thread from Richard Dolan:
In the history of UFOs, 1975 does not capture the imagination of the general public the way that 1947 does. Yet the year was nothing short of spectacular. Unlike 1947, 1952, 1966, when UFO sightings received a great deal of coverage by the U.S. media, the events of this year - as well as 1974, for that matter - received scarcely any attention at all. In 1952 and 1966, the U.S. military made formal, public statements on UFOs. Nothing of the sort occurred in 1974, even though the situation was more grave. It is understandable that an entrenched bureaucracy would not want to make matters worse by telling the public what was going on. Whoever was behind the air space violations of 1975 - be they human or alien - had technology that the U.S. military feared, and the confidence to fly brazenly into restricted areas containing nuclear weapons, and then confidently fly away. How does one tell the public that?
I would say that Dolan's comment above is exactly why we know almost nothing beyond Cameron's book on Charlie Red Star.
A final point about the MIC possibly being the main actor behind Charlie, is that Bob Diemart is a key witness. He was a military aviation expert. Arguably the most knowledgeable in Manitoba at that time and met with a NASA astronaut who had a similar interest in restoring WWII planes.
If Diemart had been the only one who saw Charlie - then there's a problem. But hundreds of others saw Charlie independently of Diemart witnessing the same things. As you understand NORAD and MIC aviation patterns and plans, I would think Diemart's ability to figure out where Charlie might show up was based on the same predictive knowledge you have. But he never stated that he thought it was human made.
It's possible Charlie mimicked flight plans/patterns as deceptive camouflage to those who are most likely to detect it (which would be very few). If we're to take Cameron and Diemart at their word, and believe their evidence, then what they are describing for 18 months between 75-76 in Southwest Manitoba this is a very unusual event that changed their lives.
I don't think an experimental probe/craft from the U.S. (or CIA) military would have this effect on honest humans. Maybe I'm wrong. But what would the point of a creating a slow moving, bright red aerial craft that plays games with observers be? If it was to create mass fear or some "disclosure" - that's possible. But no one was particularly afraid of Charlie and it didn't create mass hysteria or fear. And then it completely disappeared - both Charlie and the talk of him. There's nothing left, but one book that no one reads (outside of us) as well as some vague local memory that will disappear when anyone who saw Charlie in 1975 passes on.
My wife did bring up an interesting point. As we're in that area all summer - she asked if I thought Charlie might come back. I sure hope so
