Foo event

Hey,

This is about a real Foo observation event, so just bare with me while I give you some background:

I joined a couple of weeks ago based on what I thought after seeing a video on Illinois police viewing of a black craft. I also joined because I discovered a secret that is being witheld from the public, and most of the public is falling for it, but I cannot talk about what that is. Just to say, important secrets can be held from the American public, and are, even when they are of importance to your fundamental understanding of our foreign policy.

I, myself, have never seen anything interesting, but someone started a thread the other day with the "Out of the Blue" scifi channel video. I watched it and thought it was interesting (although it bothers me that people who call each other frauds are on the same video without any mention of the controversy.) I sent the video link to my twin brother, who has a longer term interest in UFO stuff. I had forgotten why.

He replied that the foo fighters were exactly like what he had seen when we were in High School. Here is his description of the account:

*******

I got off the afternoon bus and was walking to our house. A jet that looked like a large passenger craft but with a longer thinner wing (higher aspect ratio) was traveling at a very high altitude, leaving a contrail. It was light colored, like a grayish white, but not particularly reflective. Nearby there was a bright spot, with no discernable shape...like a point. As it traveled though, its reflectivity changed a bit and so it varied in brightness. Overall it was very bright compared to the jet.

Anyway, it approached the jet at an oblique angle... sort of a nearly parallel but intersecting course. After a minute, when the light had gotten closer, a small contrail peeled off the side of the aircraft, travelling faster than either the plane or the bright light. The contrail travelled toward the bright light for a few seconds and then, what seemed like instantaneously, the bright light changed course by about 60 degrees and shot off at a great speed. It disappeared a second or two later after traversing a large distance of sky.

The small contrail petered out and the plane continued on its way.

*******

At the time this happened, I told him it was probably a Pegasus launch, and didn't really spend much time listening to his story. Now that I am more receptive to thinking about it, it is clear that Pegasus doesn't match. Its more like the plane launched a countermeasure against a foo fighter. What are your thoughts? (This event would have been approx. 15 years ago)

[edit on 28-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

Your account reads like a description of an air-to-air missile being launched over a populated area.

I find that extremely unlikely. One, what would the story be if they had actually hit the unknown craft and it had spiralled into a residential area? If they want to keep this type of activity secret that wouldn't seem to be a good strategy. Two, I don't think any military commander or pilot is irresponsible enough to take the chance of an errant missile causing damage or injury.

Not that its entirely impossible, just very unlikely. I've met some former and current military pilots and commanders, and they're not normally rash or impulsive persons.

I also joined because I discovered a secret that is being witheld from the public, and most of the public is falling for it, but I cannot talk about what that is.

Frankly, I find that aggravating. Why throw that little snippet in a post about what is apparently a completely different subject? It has negative connotations in the phrases 'withheld from the public' and 'falling for it', but you yourself are withholding it...At the risk of sounding trollish....You don't have any special secret.

NC

I agree. Don't bring something up if you are not going to share it. If you are waiting for someone to beg you to reveal your "secret", I'm sure someone will oblige but it won't be me.

Try another approach.

Not another " I know something you don't know" thread.
Anybody and there dog can proclaim this but without proof it just makes you look foolish
If you have no intention of revealing it to the masses then why bother announcing it.

Originally posted by executioner
Not another " I know something you don't know" thread.
Anybody and there dog can proclaim this but without proof it just makes you look foolish
If you have no intention of revealing it to the masses then why bother announcing it.

This is not a thread about "I know something you don't know." I just felt like relating why I am on this site. I am on this site because, after learning this thing, I felt compelled to examine conspiracy as a potential element of reality. If you do not like me including motivation for my post, then I wonder why you are so detached from the emotional state of other posters. I find such detachment to be souless and isolating. Perhaps we differ in personality, and what you find foolish I find essential to health.

another poster wrote
Your account reads like a description of an air-to-air missile being launched over a populated area.

I find that extremely unlikely. One, what would the story be if they had actually hit the unknown craft and it had spiralled into a residential area? If they want to keep this type of activity secret that wouldn't seem to be a good strategy. Two, I don't think any military commander or pilot is irresponsible enough to take the chance of an errant missile causing damage or injury.

It does read like a description of an air-to-air missle being launched over a populated area. And I thought about it being such a test, but as you said, that doesn't make much sense.

However, it seems to me that the issue at hand is not to provide a provisional explanation for the observed phenomena, and then use one's perception of the infeasibility of that proposed explanation as a reason to discount the original observation.

What was the bright object? What was the contrail that came off of the aircraft? These are the fundamental questions.

Attributing a causation and then discounting the proposed causation does not negate the original event.

As for the veracity of the claim, I can only report what he saw. I do not think this is useless, however.

O.K., I'll bite.

This quote and all other quotes in this post originally posted by Ectoterrestrial
What was the bright object? What was the contrail that came off of the aircraft? These are the fundamental questions.

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.

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

Second question: Here we have more to work with. First we'll brainstorm as to what may have caused the contrail that came off of the aircraft. Kinda' limited here because it obviously needs to be something that creates an exhaust...hummhh.....a flatulent witch?...no, that's silly...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;

Its more like the plane launched a countermeasure against a foo fighter.

I simply restated and discounted your hypothesis. I didn't provide the 'provisional explanation', you did.

I've already posted why I think an air-to-air missile launch is unlikely. 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?

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.

NC

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]

How about this: For some reason there is a weather (or otherwise) balloon near /launched or otherwise in the vicinity of the plane (many of these types of balloons reflect sunlight at a high degree of intensity).

OK, we have the balloon in the air. Next, a crewmember in the plane fires a flare or something else that leaves a trail at the balloon to knock it out of the sky. The balloon obviously ruptures and it takes off from the force of the escaping gas and disappears upon deflation.

How about a scenario like that or similar in some respects? Make sense?

There is about a one in a million chance of hitting a weather balloon with a flare. Especially when your jet is traveling around 400 miles an hour, and the balloon is traveling at the speed of the wind.

Hmm.. Interesting story, but it really does sound like a STA or ATA missle fired at a passing craft. But this is more unlikely then aliens, since a stray missle passing over a suburban area would raise a red flag high enough to touch the moon. I dosen't really sound like a UFO you're describing (At least to me), but it also dosen't sound like any plausible terrestrial object either. A missle passing over a city of any size would make national news, to say the least.

Yeah, I see what you are saying.
I donno. Not sure any model is ever going to fit it. That's why these things are so strange.

As far as a balloon goes, I think the relative motion of the two objects would not fit if the objects were at the same altitude. But if the bright object were a reflective helium balloon at a much lower altitude than the airliner, then I can see how the bright object could have just been a balloon blowing around that happened to be near the airplane for a time.

Then again, the apparent interaction of the airplane and the bright object seems to contradict that.

As far as the bright object being a SAM, that is an interesting possibility that I had not thought of. But like you said, that poses apparent problems with safety and human motivation. But maybe it was some test of something safe.

Don't most fast SAMs leave a pretty strong contrail? I'm not sure the bright object left a trail, I'll have to talk to my brother about it.

So it is just an odd story, in my opinion.

Originally posted by UnMature
There is about a one in a million chance of hitting a weather balloon with a flare. Especially when your jet is traveling around 400 miles an hour, and the balloon is traveling at the speed of the wind.

I'm not saying specifically, just a scenario. Plus, it may not have been a jet, could have been a prop plane mistaken for a jet. Also, the balloon could have been released on a tether of some sort.

Just a scenario to expand on or provoke thought my friend.

Originally posted by jbondo
I'm not saying specifically, just a scenario. Plus, it may not have been a jet, could have been a prop plane mistaken for a jet. Also, the balloon could have been released on a tether of some sort.

Just a scenario to expand on or provoke thought my friend.

Yeah, another thing crossed my mind was some kind of refueling event where the small, bright object was a small airplane, and the larger craft was a tanker?

The contrail between the two might have been generated by some tether between them, but I'll ask my brother. I'm assuming the distance between the two objects wasn't as close as the refueling exercises I have seen on video, where the fighter pilot has to get right up near the butt of the refueling craft to where the hose extends.

I suppose its possible during mid-air refueling that spilled fuel can appear as a contrail as it hits the slipstream. However, that would take a lot of fuel and it would also appear to be generated by the larger aircraft, suddenly appearing and trailing it like its jet contrails.
The description is something dynamic and powered, moving away from the larger craft and toward the smaller object at an angle. It indicates a power source or some kind of guidance.

NC

Originally posted by Ectoterrestrial

Originally posted by jbondo
I'm not saying specifically, just a scenario. Plus, it may not have been a jet, could have been a prop plane mistaken for a jet. Also, the balloon could have been released on a tether of some sort.

Just a scenario to expand on or provoke thought my friend.

Yeah, another thing crossed my mind was some kind of refueling event where the small, bright object was a small airplane, and the larger craft was a tanker?

The contrail between the two might have been generated by some tether between them, but I'll ask my brother. I'm assuming the distance between the two objects wasn't as close as the refueling exercises I have seen on video, where the fighter pilot has to get right up near the butt of the refueling craft to where the hose extends.

That's just the kind of thought I was talking about. I have seen cases where the tanker has dumped a great deal of fuel as the other plane detaches from the fuel line (tether). That fuel dump would look an awful lot like a contrail as NC stated.

I talked to my brother about it. He said the bright object changed courses what seemed like instantaneously and achieved an immediate high rate of speed that caused it to cross much of the sky and dissappear in only a few seconds. I think that in particular stuck out in his mind and to his memory. So unless a small fighter craft then took off at a very very high speed with near instaneous acceleration (who knows with black projects, anyways?), then the refueling scenario also has difficulties. The acceleration would at least suggest that the craft contained no human pilot.

As was noted by posters earlier in this thread, its going to be hard to draw any conclusions about this event.

But I really appreciate people taking time to think about this observation with me.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]