The Oldfield UFO Film - Evidence that some UFOs are mirages

Originally posted by Tifozi
Although we still have some topics that seem weird in this case, and some are even not explainable, most of this case points to a cloud as being the UFO.

I agree that everything points to the giant mothership UFO being a cloud.

The other smaller UFOs are more mysterious and followed the plane and while I have a theory, I'm not as sure what caused them.

But yes, I'm pretty sure a cloud caused the radar returns and the visual sighting of the giant mothership.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I actually was not aware of the "The Oldfield UFO Film"!

This thread was absolutely brilliant.

reply to post by KIZZZY

Thanks.

You're in good company, it seems almost nobody has heard of the Oldfield film.

I think some people would rather forget about the Oldfield film. Especially the guy who predicted it would be very famous (since exactly the opposite happened, it faded into obscurity).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I am really thrilled that you pulled it out of the cobwebs. I used you as reference to the Maybe...Maybe not' thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

I only wish that more people examined the lights they film in the sky instead of waving their hands frantically over their heads screaming UFO! UFO!

Of course Alison Kruse equates UFO=ALIEN. She claims there is an Alien invasion with orbs that morph into fake planes taking place in her woods!

P.S. This thread is a keeper and should be used as reference to a lot of so-called sightings. Your work is fantastic!

[edit on 16-6-2010 by KIZZZY]

I think the OP did a great job on explaining the Oldfield case and how some mirages could be mistaken, but stretched a lot to explain the other cases using mirages as the key.

Mentioning foo fighters and mirages in the same sentence is not too clever I think. Foo-fighters, if there is a natural phenomenon that could explain this, are probably a version of elmo's fire, with an electric charge generating around the thin metal skin of the plane and discharging at the wingtips and tail. They were sometimes observed forming at the nose, floating within the plane itself, and exiting out the back of the plane (perhaps another form of ball lightning).

Great thread, with lots of interesting info. But shouldn't it have a summary about JAL 1628? There seems to be a little wavering about the role of PABI in the last few pages. Is it that they saw a visual superior mirage of PABI, with maybe some sorties that might be interpreted as shuttlecraft around a mothership (plus some fluctuation in the inversion that trained directional landing lights into the cockpit momentarily), side by side with a superior mirage of that clould that wasn't seen visually at first but only on the 747's radar, both judged to be some 7-8 miles ahead and appearing to maintain that distance for 300 miles or so? Or is it down to just the cloud plus some loose ends? And since pilots are aware of this case, I wonder if any have noticed PABI as a superior mirage since. Maybe they just aren't aware of this theory.

Originally posted by xpoq47
Great thread, with lots of interesting info. But shouldn't it have a summary about JAL 1628? There seems to be a little wavering about the role of PABI in the last few pages. Is it that they saw a visual superior mirage of PABI, with maybe some sorties that might be interpreted as shuttlecraft around a mothership (plus some fluctuation in the inversion that trained directional landing lights into the cockpit momentarily), side by side with a superior mirage of that clould that wasn't seen visually at first but only on the 747's radar, both judged to be some 7-8 miles ahead and appearing to maintain that distance for 300 miles or so? Or is it down to just the cloud plus some loose ends? And since pilots are aware of this case, I wonder if any have noticed PABI as a superior mirage since. Maybe they just aren't aware of this theory.

These are excellent comments and I agree about the wavering about PABI.

Sometimes rare events happen with aircraft. Just one 747 blew up due to a center fuel tank explosion (TWA flight 800). None did before, and none have since. And this mirage observation of PABI might be a on-off thing. Alternatively, pilots who know the story probably know the guy who said what he saw (capt Terauchi) got fired for saying what he saw, and they don't want to meet a similar fate, so they keep their mouths shut even if they do see it!? But I'm just as curious as you are to know if anyone else ever saw anything like it since. Here's another reason the story would be less likely to get blown out of proportion today: radar is much better than it was back then.

There's very little doubt in my mind about the cloud, after seeing in satellite infrared,and it's in the right location.

I'd also say if the cloud was backlit and looked anything remotely like this, the captain could be forgiven for saying it looks like a giant mothership, because, it sort of looks that way:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aacd7cd49322.jpg[/atsimg]

The reason I was wavering about PABI, is I'm only something around 80% confident about that, versus over 99% confident about the cloud. So I do have some doubts. The directional consistency of the visual sightings always being in the direction of PABI coupled with the remarkable resemblance of the lights seen to airport lights make up a compelling case for the 80% probability in my assessment.

The reason for the 20% doubt I have is, it's difficult to map out a clear optical path for the refraction for the light to get from the airport to the 747. Even a more complicated optical path like the one in BOAC can be mapped out so we have more confidence in it.

On the other hand, I haven't spent much time trying to map out the optical path, I might do that when I get some extra time. This one shows how an ground observer can see past the horizon in a reflection:

www.islandnet.com...
So, this makes the object appear higher than it actually is.

I have yet to confirm exactly how this effect can be modeled with an observer in an aircraft, but I suspect it might be possible. The pilot Tifozi thought I was over-complicating things and it's not necessary to know the exact optical path, but without knowing the optical path, which I don't, I an stuck at 80% probability.

Sorry I can't say I'm sure, but I'm not, hence the wavering. What I can say is, I don't think the visual observations other than the cloud are consistent with a structured craft like an alien ship or classified military craft, and I conclude this with a relatively high degree of confidence based on the way the shape of the sighting morphed dramatically.

Of course one might say an alien craft could have technology to morph, but since such morphing of shapes was demonstrated in the BOAC mirages, I think applying occam's razor makes that more likely than the morphing alien or classified military craft.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


How, exactly, has radar gotten "much better" since way back in the 80's? (Many years after stealth technology.) What radar deficiencies (which have since been improved, I assume you're saying?) were so egregious way back then as to allow such coincidences as occurred in this case? And, given these radar improvements, there should not be many recent radar-visual cases where the radar returns could reasonably be attributed to temperature inversions?

You mention the aircrew's "visual sightings always being in the direction of PABI" which is "coupled with the remarkable resemblance of the lights seen to airport lights." This summary makes me doubt that you've considered all relevant and reliable evidence. Does your explanation take into account the descriptions provided by the the other aircraft crew members and the FAA controllers? If you're ignoring any significant parts of their descriptions, while you're clearly accepting other parts, on what basis are you dismissing the former?

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

How, exactly, has radar gotten "much better" since way back in the 80's? (Many years after stealth technology.) What radar deficiencies (which have since been improved, I assume you're saying?) were so egregious way back then as to allow such coincidences as occurred in this case? And, given these radar improvements, there should not be many recent radar-visual cases where the radar returns could reasonably be attributed to temperature inversions?

Mostly the electronics and the ability to detect and reject spurious signals as opposed to "real" radar returns. I discussed this in some detail and if you didn't read the thread, then read it.

You mention the aircrew's "visual sightings always being in the direction of PABI" which is "coupled with the remarkable resemblance of the lights seen to airport lights." This summary makes me doubt that you've considered all relevant and reliable evidence. Does your explanation take into account the descriptions provided by the the other aircraft crew members and the FAA controllers? If you're ignoring any significant parts of their descriptions, while you're clearly accepting other parts, on what basis are you dismissing the former?

What part of the description makes you think they aren't airport lights, distorted by some kind of atmospheric phenomenon, as apparently happened with the distortions and morphing of the apparitions seen in the BOAC case?

Here's a repost of the crew's own drawings showing the similarity, and you don't get a much better source than the crew's drawings. The captain's drawings compared with runway lights:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7749147d2a0e.png[/atsimg]

Other images of the lights after they "morphed"


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/36ab449862c3.png[/atsimg]

An example of the kind of atmospheric distortion that can show objects beyond the horizon in a distorted fashion, and may make them morph shape, and you even see a double image or reflection as may have happened with the airport lights.:
www.polarimage.fi...


The FAA didn't see the lights. There are explanations for the FAA observations on radar, I even posted a satellite picture of what the FAA was pinging on radar. Did you read the thread? It doesn't sound to me like you read it from your questions.

reply to post by Arbitrageur
I read the entire thread. Excellent presentation. Very informative.
I'm thoroughly entertained


reply to post by xpoq47
Can't thank you enough for bumping this thread, I would never have read it otherwise.

reply to post by Forevever

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed the thread.

Regarding the presentation, I planned out the OP but I didn't really plan on getting into JAL1628, so I agree with the previous poster, it probably could have been presented better, it was more of a work in progress where research was posted as it took place, and that was kind of a team effort with Tifozi helping a lot. As a result, the information is presented somewhat piecemeal, but that's the way it happened! I might try to put together a better summary of what I learned someday but for now this thread is what I have to share.

It was fun for me too!

reply to post by Arbitrageur
It's damn near one of the most interesting threads I've read or taken part in. If anything, it stands to highlight a time when more threads were thoughtful and combative without being aggressive.

All the best by the way - I'd have posted a Christmas 'card,' but your wall is closed.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
[snip]
What part of the description makes you think they aren't airport lights, distorted by some kind of atmospheric phenomenon...?

MANY things make me almost positive they weren't seeing airport lights.

Here's a big issue:

1) You confuse terminology in a very fundamental way, which can only represent either a pretty significant deficit in understanding, or extreme recklessness with words. You appear to be confusing PAPI (a glideslope indicator) with ALS (approach lighting systems), and also with runway *edge* lights. The mirage is the PAPI, you say at one point (and the PAPI is only 4 lights at the runway in question, BTW), yet you've pasted in a picture just above of an *approach lighting system* (ALS), which is not only a totally different system / size and in a totally different place, but it's of an ALS configuration that's not even at the airport in question! (Nothing even close to it is.)

You then seem to think you're buttressing this analysis by citing the Airnav entry which shows the runway as equipped with "high intensity" edge lights. These are HIRL, High Intensity Runway Edge lights. EDGE lights. Now you've introduced a third type of lighting. So, is this "mirage" that the pilots and radars saw (for what, 45 minutes I think it was?) a mirage of runway edge lights, or the approach lights, or the much smaller GSI lights?

The only thing that looks close to the aircrew's description are the ALS system in the pic you posted... which, again, is not even at that airport. (Maybe I'd go for a 16 light VASI... but, not present, and thankfully not mentioned. No need to get a fourth source for this mirage.)

Also, you prefaced the mis-leading ALS pic above with "Here's a repost of the crew's own drawings showing the similarity".... Once again, the pic is of an ALS system that the airport's not even equipped with! It's not equipped with anything CLOSE to that, actually. It apparently had no ALS at all, but only runway end lights. Rather significant....

Sorry if I sound confrontational or whatever, but to anyone who's familiar with aviation and airport lighting / markings, your mirage theory is not just "probably wrong," but to be fair really is borderline absurd. PAPI... ALS... HIRL... which?!?

So that alone told me that I didn't really need to understand every undulation and variation of your mirage theory; you connect dots that cannot reasonably be connected.

And there are other issues:

2) Light color: the yellow and amber described by the crew are quite different from the white that appears in VASI/PAPI systems... and the drawing they made does not look like either HIRL's, or the only runway end lights that were present. Also, where's the green that the crew described coming from? Never adequately addressed.... Do you know which of the above 3 lighting systems you've offered as explanation for this "mirage" could have green in it?

3) Light motion: nothing that I've seen here adequately explains the "swinging" or rocking motion that was described by the crew members, or the 90 degree rotation in orientation of the two halves of the supposed approach lights (*immediately* shifting their orientation).

4) Light magnification - look at the length of event (quite long), and distance traveled by the aircraft over that time. And you say (apparently) that this cloud + temperature inversion is *magnifying* runway or airport lights (or much smaller PAPI, whichever of the 3 types you've settled on) to THAT degree? Are you sure?

5) Aircraft's heading vs. reported "UFO's" relative bearing vs. airport lights' bearing, over time. They do not match, to put it plainly.

6) You cite the FAA conclusions that the radar returns were basically just anomalous and coincidental. I could as easily cite the statements by the 3 FAA controllers who said (in the reports submitted to their employer in its official investigation) that they had radar contacts which correlated with the radar contacts of the Air Force ground radar, AND with the aircrew's reported 'UFO' position. (That the FAA ultimately ignored their own men to get out of a sticky situation isn't all that shocking, is it?)

I could go on, but number one, above (WRT airport lighting) is alone enough to show the carelessness of analysis and the high unlikelihood of this "mirage" theory being the proper explanation.....

Sorry if this sounds excessively confrontational or "aggressive." It's certainly not personal. But to see that level of carelessness mixed (so oddly) with such confidence, tireless attempts at persuasion, plus your resistance to very reasonable rebuttals, is very frustrating. (A pilot told you on page 3 that the mirage theory is practically impossible and why, and you simply shrugged it off....) This kind of analysis deepens the divide between sides, and affects intellectual trust. Yes, the "true believers" do it regularly. I'm saying that we can ALL do better than this, and should.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Browsing through the thread again, I have to say that, after all that's been discussed, for you to post that Approach Lighting System picture that's just above, under the crew's drawing, and say basically, "see how much they look alike?!" is so incredibly misleading that I'm almost speechless. (Arbitrageur's Dec. 18, 11:00 pm post, 4th pic down, is what I refer to.)

You know (or should, by now) that the runway and airport in question have nothing CLOSE to that kind of lighting system. The runway end lights are about 10% of that. (Also, there are no touchdown zone lights present at the airfield, either, as someone earlier implied.)

So what are you thinking while posting that pic?

That perhaps "winning" an argument and scoring points is more important than fact? How much "winning" can one do when his credibility is damaged by such a move?

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
The runway end lights are about 10% of that. (Also, there are no touchdown zone lights present at the airfield, either, as someone earlier implied.)

So what are you thinking while posting that pic?

I do recall searching for actual pics of the lights from that airport to post, and not being able to find them (aside from the more distant aerial views I posted). If you have actual pictures from that airport, they would be a most welcome addition to this thread and I'd encourage you to post them.

I think there is a problem with this theory in the Oldfield film. If you look at the full length film, the one that starts filming even the terrain and landscape, at seconds between 19 to 23, there is no reference point to afirm that the supossedly mirage movement is related with the aircraft movement itself. And the supossedly mirage turns and goes away but the aircraft doesnt seem to turn acordingly and doesnt seem to accelerate in a way related to the "mirage" dissapearing.

Sorry for my english.

Originally posted by Orion437
And the supossedly mirage turns and goes away but the aircraft doesnt seem to turn acordingly and doesnt seem to accelerate in a way related to the "mirage" dissapearing.

Thanks for your comment and I think your English is good enough if I understand you correctly. The movement and disappearance of the object results from movement of the camera relative to the reflective surface of the airplane window, and not movement of the aircraft.

In fact the movement of the aircraft relative to a fixed position inside the aircraft (like a passenger seat) is always zero. Does that answer your concern?