If you haven't seen the "Black Box Flight Recorders" episode of "UFO Files" on the History Channel yet, WATCH IT next time they air it!

Excellent show! The best evidence I've seen to date.

Springer...

Is that the episode where they play recordings from pilots ho see UFO's in mid flight?

If thats what your talking, it is indeed an excellent episode

Originally posted by V Kaminski
Is this the same episode? Sorry for the uni-liner. [url=http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2199958316518248687&q=UFO+Files+black+Box&total=24&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3]Linkage.[/ur l]

Cheers,

Vic

Sorry again, the URL doesn't want to diplay correctly.



[edit on 11-10-2007 by V Kaminski]

whats the date for this episode?.. i think this one is pretty old.. but still a good one.

i think i have seen that one before. unless it was a different show with the captions flying past the screen. =)

good stuff though.

I've had it on my TiVo for a few months now... The only one I've kept...

absolutely one of the best...its been on a few times now....but to me, it boils all the stories down to straight facts. you HEAR the pilots' voices and the accounts....hard to refute.

Yup, thanks Springer! - I got a copy of this one myself -it's definitely a "keeper".

The real question with these incidents is: How could mainstream media ignore and belittle these excellent first-hand accounts from professionals whose job it is to navigate the sky and who are specifically trained to be ultra-observant of any other flying objects in their vicinity?

Secondly - why is there such strong pressure placed on professional pilots to 'disavow' any knowledge of sightings, to refrain from reporting them, and to face ridicule and potentially career-threatening 'disciplinary action' if they do so? Who determined that it was in the public's best interest to suppress such information? Certainly not you or me or the multitude of others that comprise 'the public'!

I think ATS should encourage ALL current and former pilots to come forward and disclose what they may have witnessed. Provide an open, anonymous avenue to reveal what they know, share what they may have seen.

As a pilot myself, I can honestly say that I have never seen anything that resembles a 'traditional UFO' while flying. But I know other pilots who have - and they are petrified at the thought of letting anyone know. There is something wrong with that - and there must be thousands of other pilots around the world in a similar predicament. Too bad for us.

An ATS "Pilot's Forum" - let's send the invitations...

Springer - for increasing awareness about this topic...

I seen this one a while scouring around google video looking for something to watch, by far the most trained and credible witnesses ever. It's a shame that a lot of airline pilots fear ridicule and/or losing their jobs over sightings like these. I believe there are a lot of pilots still to afraid to say anything, which is a pity because like i said, these are the most credible eye witness testimonies available.

What a great episode. It makes you wonder when mainstream science is going to examine the UFO sightings. Stanton Freeman (Freedman?) is as intelligent as they come. I love his take on these sightings.

This is what we should be discussing here on ATS. Is there any other reports from the captain of the japanese plane that was followed for 400 miles?

Stanton Freidman is one of those guys that can be seen as a kook or an intelligent guy. i personlly see him as a mix of both. I've seen him in a lot of interviews and I think he has some good information. at the very least he genuinely believes what he says. even thought he's a little eccentric, i kind of like him. i can also see how the average person could just blow him off though.

Originally posted by Outrageo
The real question with these incidents is: How could mainstream media ignore and belittle these excellent first-hand accounts from professionals whose job it is to navigate the sky and who are specifically trained to be ultra-observant of any other flying objects in their vicinity?

The JAL case made international headlines. It wasn't ignored.

The problem is, that after the shock value, it was swept away by the next headline story and forgotten. Maybe some other celebrity got drunk, which would have demanded seven pages of front page coverage. People determine their priorities by paying money to read what they are forced to.

What about the astronaut recordings? How can they be authenticated?

Originally posted by Access Denied
However (as usual) once you start digging into these cases a little deeper some potential “problems” start to appear. Take the JAL sighting over Alaska for example…
1. Only one witness.
2. Why (apparently) didn't any of the passengers see anything?

Wasn't it a cargo plane? How many cargo planes have passengers on them?

3. No radar confirmation.

At 2.45 in the video, isn't there a voice advising the plane that military radar is picking up a target in trail?

Did we watch the same video, or did I miss something?

Originally posted by tezzajw
Wasn't it a cargo plane? How many cargo planes have passengers on them?

You're right, there were only three crew members. Thanks for the correction.

Originally posted by tezzajw
At 2.45 in the video, isn't there a voice advising the plane that military radar is picking up a target in trail?

Did we watch the same video, or did I miss something?

I must admit I haven't watched it recently. I was going by memory and what the article I quoted stated. (no radar confirmation)

I believe the military attributed what they picked up to "clutter"?

Wait what’s that I hear in the background… a collective “yeah right”?

Originally posted by Access Denied
I must admit I haven't watched it recently. I was going by memory and what the article I quoted stated. (no radar confirmation)
I believe the military attributed what they picked up to "clutter"?
Wait what’s that I hear in the background… a collective “yeah right”?

Try watching it again and hear what the voice said about the target in trail. Maybe it was clutter, maybe not, but don't rely on an article, when you can click at the top of this thread and listen to it yourself. The voice clearly says more than once that there is a target in trail with the plane. There was talk of scrambling some jets to investigate - would they do that for 'clutter'? I wonder, especially considering the information that the Captain was reporting to them.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Try watching it again and hear what the voice said about the target in trail. Maybe it was clutter, maybe not, but don't rely on an article, when you can click at the top of this thread and listen to it yourself.

Thanks, like I said I already saw the video. Call me crazy but I prefer not to rely on only one source. I'd rather investigate things for myself and come to my own conclusion and that's exactly what I did after seeing this intriguing video when it first came out.

Originally posted by tezzajw

The voice clearly says more than once that there is a target in trail with the plane. There was talk of scrambling some jets to investigate - would they do that for 'clutter'? I wonder, especially considering the information that the Captain was reporting to them.

Actually that's misleading, the pilot was asked if he wanted the military to scramble some jets for visual confirmation and he declined (which he later gave a very odd explanation for to the FAA in my opinion) despite their repeated persistence. Later another airliner in the area *was* diverted by the AARTCC (Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center) to obtain visual confirmation but they didn't see anything. Also, the pilot said he tried to take a picture but claims his camera didn't work.

If you're truly interested in this case (it's fascinating) I suggest you read the full (unedited) transcript of the AARTCC tape recording including the conversations with the ROCC (Elmendorf Air Force Base Regional Operational Control Center) and the two other flights in the area, UA Flight 69 and an "unidentified" military aircraft codenamed TOTEM and compare it to the transcript of Captain Terauch's statement made to the FAA and the results of the FAA's investigation (analysis of the radar tapes).

AD

Originally posted by Access Denied
Actually that's misleading,... (snip) Later another airliner in the area *was* diverted by the AARTCC (Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center) to obtain visual confirmation but they didn't see anything.

Misleading?

The facts are that the other airliner arrived when the sighting was all but over just after making visual contact with JAL 1628, JAL 1628 also reported having lost visual contact of the object which at that point was already miles distant from JAL 1628 as reoprted at the time.

Originally posted by Access Denied
If you're truly interested in this case (it's fascinating) I suggest you read the full (unedited) transcript of the AARTCC tape recording including the conversations with the ROCC (Elmendorf Air Force Base Regional Operational Control Center) and the two other flights in the area, UA Flight 69 and an "unidentified" military aircraft codenamed TOTEM and compare it to the transcript of Captain Terauch's statement made to the FAA and the results of the FAA's investigation (analysis of the radar tapes).

The analysis of RADAR tapes alone can't tell us whether the JAL crew witnessed UAP or not, considering that UAP often do not appear on RADAR and when they do its often as intermittent returns. The fact that UAP tend to be surrounded by plasma likely accounts for this in large part.

Taking that into consideration when Cpt. Terauchi described one object he said it "appeared, bathed in blue light." This of course seems like a description that might be consistent with something being surrounded by plasma. The other two objects were described by the crew as being "white/yellow" and again that is consistent with UAP, which tend to be surrounded by plasma.

So you shouldn't look at RADAR evidence with the expectation that it can tell you if a pilot/crew is actually seeing a UAP surrounded by plasma or not. Plasma can reflect RADAR signals but often absorbs the RADAR signal or scatters it. No RADAR return can rule out the presence of other airlines and conventional airframes, but no RADAR return does not rule out the presence of UAP.




[edit on 13-10-2007 by lost_shaman]