reply to post by Arbitrageur
I'll reply in the order that you posted, quoting you when needed.
It's a possible (probable?) explanation for the mothership and intermittent radar contacts which appeared, and disappeared.
Yes. Clouds usually don't appear on radar, but if they are big enough they can have a signature. But it's never the size of the cloud. It's
proporcional. For example, a smal cloud doesn't have radar signature. A medium cloud has a very small signature. A big cloud has a medium signature,
and a huge one possibly has a big signature, and so on...
One thing that I thought as an explanation for the "sudden" movement was distraction. Like when you're driving.
Imagine that you're flying, and you have fuel checklists, radio contacts/checkups to do, etc etc... You look to your front and spot whatever it was
that made him thought of a USAF fighter or whatever... Because you're working on something else you don't notice that the object is approaching
fast, so when you do look up the object is pretty close to you.
The only problem that I find with this, is that he wasn't with his lights on, you only have to use them below 10,000ft.
I also guessed that there could possibly be an interruption of the runway lights where the other runway intersects, is that possible? If so,
then instead of one long string of lights, the pilot would have seen the long string interrupted perhaps.
I would like to make it clear that the runway theory is pretty solid. The only thing that makes me dismiss it and point all the reasons, is that I
seriously doubt that it can happen at 35,000ft. That's
all that bothers me, because all the other reasons come from that detail.
35,000ft is
really high. To make a context, I have never flown above 25,000ft in the Fokker 100.
Now, since I'm giving you info and not presenting any theory, I think you must pay attention to one of the informations about the runways.
"Touchdown point: yes,
no lights".
To most of you this means nothing, but it actually means a lot to the Arbitrageur representation. The touchdown lights are the red and yellow (in some
cases, when they have lots of money, they even put green lights too, lol) lights at the start/end of the runway. In some airports they simply mark the
touchdown point (start) of the runway, on the more advanced ones, they actually represent arrows so you can see clearly were you need to touch
down.
To see this, click here:
Some airports have directional lights (because of liminous polution, for example). That means you can only see the lights when you're heading
straight down to the runway, you can't see them, for example, from the side. But not all airports have this, so, it's just a possibility.
What makes me believe that this airport has them, it's because they are also used in crossed runway airports, so you don't get visualy confused when
looking at the runway (you can only see the runway that you are approaching from the correct angle).
That would explain why it appears that only one of the runway is visible, although your sources tell you that 2 of them have lights.
Now, talking with my pilot eyes I must say this: that representation that you made based on the drawings is what I would draw if you asked me to draw
a runway being observed from high altitude (mind you that the light fog that you get when flying high distorts things a bit).
As for the lights that don't appear, there could be a bunch of reasons... For example, if you would look straight to that runway with an ILS landing,
provably you wouldn't even tell that there were lights missing. Perspective.
Now how about the color of the lights, is that consistent with the sighting?
I can't explain how a experienced pilot can't say "that's not a plane" just for the fact that he doesn't see the navigation lights, which are
red and green, so you can tell if the airplane is coming or going...
Actually that discrepancy in the pilot's recollection is not the only thing that he remembered differently 6 weeks later. As most
investigators know, the most reliable source of information is closest to the actual sighting, so the air traffic control to pilot transcripts would
almost supersede other testimony in terms of perceived reliability for events like this such as estimating the approximate distance.
Actually you can't present a report a month ago from the events date. They don't even accept it. If you're going to report something, then do it
"now" when the memory is still fresh.
Look at that cockpit. Look at all the buttons and switchs. You have to do checklists for all of them before/during/after flying. Those things can
affect your memory... Overload.
But back to the lights, they were white and yellow, and some strobe lights. Is that consistent with the colors of airport lights?
Yes and no. White/yellow and red are consistent with the airport. But not the strobe lights. I mean, not in the runway. But they can be from something
on the ground (other planes with taxi lights on, for example). But I tend to believe that the strobe effect was from something else. The runway lights
can make your skin darker if you stand there too much time, but strobes are "normal" lights with reflective mirrors (most cases).
Thank you for that map representation. With all that data, and assuming it's possible the airport reflection could reach 35,000ft, yes, it's
consistent with a runway sight.
--
After reading your emotional response to the 360º turn, I went back and read the radar report again. You're right. They don't say it's following
them, they just say "it's behind you". You assume that the radar contact is following, but if it was, they would say that.
Another discrepancy is that after the initial sighting, if the inversion layer resulted in a mirror like mirage, they would gradually see the
angle of the lights change if they were seeing a reflection of the airport.
Don't push the thermal inversion so much, you don't need to.
Remember Batman?
This can happen without thermal inversion, although it helps.
[edit on 26/8/09 by Tifozi]
). 
