Originally posted by NotClever
Now we have some questions to work with. Your original post had one question..."What are your thoughts?"...I gave you my thoughts and the result is
a bunch of ponderous sentences.

Fair enough.
First question: There is absolutely no way to determine what the bright object was. Done with that one.

Agreed. We cannot determine what the light was.
However, the translational properties of the "object" (approaching the aircraft and then leaving at a different angle to the horizon at a high rate
of speed) are interesting to me and I would assume, interesting to those on this forum interested in unidentified flying objects.
I posted this story because I believe that it is important for individuals who see "foo like" events to report them to the public. Only through the
reitereation of them, and then careful vetting against known common sources (stars, helicopters, balloons, etc) can we reiterate the importance of the
need for more careful investigation, through official channels, of such phenomena.
...another smaller aircraft detaching from the original?...not likely...How about an air-to-air missile?...I don't think there is any other
conclusion that can be arrived at, based on your description.
It may be the wrong conclusion, but it fits the known facts, as meager as they are,
and it fits with known aerospace technologies. And, it is in line with your own conjecture;

I'm not sure I am following your argument here. Again, it seems that you are suggesting that because the observaton doesn't well match anything you
can think of, and seems illogical with respect to your best fit hypothesis (air-to-air missile), that we should somehow judge the merits of the
observation upon the lack of a useful model.
A foo event is an observation of a light-like thing tailing an aircraft, and then moving away at high velocity when interacted with. That seems to be
what my brother's observation contains.
I simply restated and discounted your hypothesis. I didn't provide the 'provisional explanation', you did.

Again, perhaps I misunderstand. It appeared from your post as if you stated the hypothesis of an air-to-air missile, and then appeared to discourage
the original observation because the observation did not fit your model.
My hypothesis is that the event closely resembles a foo fighter event. That is, a luminous, nondescript object tails a conventional aircraft, and
when interacted with, moves away at a different orientation with a very high and sudden velocity. Furthermore, I suggested that it appeared that
the conventional aircraft launched a countermeasure. I didn't say air-to-air missile, as I recall. It had a contrail. That is all we can say.
What is it? That is the important question. The purpose of this thread is not to answer that question, but to add to the anecdotes of such
observations within recorded text. I also wish to encourage discussion of the event, and I appreciate your input.
As for possible objects leaving the aircraft: If it was a military aircraft, could the object leaving the aircraft not be a simple probe, for example,
our a harmless countermeasure? I personally, think there is more room for things we cannot think of with respect to the aircraft's response, than
with respect to the luminous object. But thats just my bias.
I agree that most aircraft pilots are careful people who think well under pressure. But I don't feel it is neccessary to assume that the contrail
leaving the aircraft represented a threat to the communities below.
I've already posted why I think an air-to-air missile launch is unlikely.

I agree, it seems unlikely, if the missile poses a threat to the target or to the ground. But perhaps it is not a missle. Or perhaps it poses a threat
to neither?
Is it possible your brother's memory of this incident is not clear? Being that it did occur 15 years ago. Or, is he simply jerking your chain?

He is not jerking my chain. That much is very clear. However, it is well known from exeriments that memory is selective, and worse, very often
fictitious. So yes, you should consider very carefully that this is his recollection from 15 years ago, although he did tell me this story 2 years
after it happened. But within days, the memory could be largely selective and fabricated. Eye witness testimony is very very shakey, and should always
be considered very skeptically.
I can't offer anything beyond this text. The description is sketchy, it's second-hand, old, and unverifiable. So in conclusion; I don't think a
'large passenger craft' fired a countermeasure at a foo fighter.

I don't think the description is sketchy, it seems quite vivid and specific to me.
However, I agree that it is second-hand, old, and unverifiable.
Personally, I am inclined to believe my brother, based on my knowledge of him, but obviously, you cannot make such a judgement. Maybe I can get my
brother to come here and post about it.
Again, I appreciate your input and will take it under careful consideration.
[edit on 28-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]
[edit on 28-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]
[edit on 28-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]