It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Oldfield UFO Film - Evidence that some UFOs are mirages

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


With all due respect, I totally disagree.

His move actually made people remember that they need to think twice before posting anything on this forum.

It's ridiculous the ammount of garbage that people post just because they want to participate and don't bother to put sources or arguments along their "evidence".

It doesn't matter if you're skeptical or believer, if you don't agree with the OP, just debate it.

And as you can see, we're debating a case, one of those presented in the circular logic that you claim.




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
I'm less convinced by your explanation than you are. It's a good explanation, plausible, but it's predicated on the possibility of a temperature inversion being overlooked by investigators at the time. When that point was raised in argument, it was dismissed by you as being a logical fallacy. Then...



But I really feel many of the appeal to authority arguments can be simply avoided by focusing on the facts, which I am trying to do (when you aren't dragging me into logical reasoning debates like this). So since you were not even the poster involved in the authority issues, I'd rather you just drop it and if Internos wants to elaborate he can. But I would still rather talk about the facts of the case. OK my friend?


I completely agree that 'logical fallacy' arguments should be left aside. I find that people that introduce the method often do so from a self-perceived superiority. I also notice that those choosing to attack opinions from 'logical fallacy' positions are easily upset when it's used against their own opinions. Although Internos is a good friend, I was pointing out his argument had internal logic. Indeed, it's the same position I share. How could I ignore it? The investigation is key to the 'facts of the case.'

Now that we're agreed it's ridiculous to bring such arguments to a discussion forum...we'll forget about it


Temperature inversions and mirages have been addressed by FAA investigations for decades. The Condon Committee's report 1968, made a number of references to 'anomalous propagation' in it's conclusions...


#1 Anomalous Propagation (AP) effects are probably responsible for a large number of UFO reports in cases involving radar and visual sightings.

#2 There are two common patterns that are evidenced in radar-visual cases involving anomalous propagation effects:

2a. Unusual AP radar targets are detected, and visual observers are instructed where to look for apparent UFOs and usually "find" them in the form of a star or other convenient object.

2b. Unusual optical effects cause visual observers to report UFOs and radar operators are directed where to look for them. As above, they usually "find" them, most often in the form of intermittent AP echoes, occasionally of the unusual moving variety.
Condon Report

In 1964 Flight Global discussed the hazards of mirages and inversions. Philip Klass was familiar with both temperature inversions and mirages, he was senior editor of Aviation Week & Space Technology for thirty-four years prior to 1986. From the 1960s, Don Menzell favored the explanation of pilot error in identifying the same causes you support. When explanations like this were investigated by USAF pilots and scientists they identified a number of errors, but accepted it's a possibility in some cases. Major Ruppelt (the eventual head of Project Blue Book) pointed out...


The one [UFO explanation] that received the most publicity was the one offered by Dr. Donald Menzel of Harvard University. Dr. Menzel, writing in Time, Look, and later in his Flying Saucers, claimed that all UFO reports could be explained as various types of light phenomena. We studied this theory thoroughly because it did seem to have merit. Project Bear's physicists studied it. ATIC's scientific consultants studied it and discussed it with several leading European physicists whose specialty was atmospheric physics. In general the comments that Project Blue Book received were, "[Menzel has] given the subject some thought but his explanations are not the panacea."
Donald Menzel

I'll reiterate that I haven't implied the FAA are 'infallible,' neither are Klass, Macabee or Dr Haines at Narcap. Neither would I imply that you, I or Don Menzel are 'infallible.' We all draw conclusions (within our biases) with the best evidence we have access to. I was arguing that, in my opinion, it's foolish or arrogant to ignore several independent authorities with direct experience of such phenomena. I'll explain once more my position...

Tifozi points out that pilots make mistakes. Granted. He points out that crew may lie under the influence of pilots. I wouldn't know. You imply that in 1986 investigators and air crews may have misunderstood the incident. You suggest that they overlooked or weren't aware of 'anomalous propagation.' I've hopefully illustrated that those involved in aviation were very familiar with mirages and temperature inversions...decades earlier. Both Klass and the FAA have explained UAP/UFO and pilot errors as mirage and inversions long before 1986.

Your explanation of the JAL flight as being a combination of temperature inversion and mirage is dependent on several factors. I'll highlight the number of mistakes, oversights and misidentifications necessary for your explanation to displace the original conclusion of unexplained...


The first is that the crew mistook a cloud/ temperature inversion for a moving object. Whilst the object moved from behind to port to ahead and below to port for a period of over 20 minutes they failed to identify it as a cloud. Secondly that whilst on a straight heading they were witness to a superior mirage at 35k. They mistakenly described the mirage as moving from port to directly ahead and imagined the brightness that lit the cabin. The warmth was misidentified as coming from the imagined light outside and was in fact from a blush of excitement caused by the mirage.

The pilot was mistaken and the others went along with him...or they were all similarly confused by the mirage. Of the three, not one had experience of 'anomalous propagation' and were therefore unable to realize or identify the cloud or mirage during the 20-40min duration of the incident. When the United Airlines flight and JAL 1628 flashed lights at each other, the cloud that the crew mistook for a pursuing object vanished. Do clouds, mirages or temperature inversions vanish suddenly?

Immediately upon landing they were interviewed. Did they seem excitable, exhausted or in some fatigued condition that would encourage wholesale misidentification? Seemingly not...


Head of local FAA security, Jim Derry,and others interviewed the flight crew. Later, Derry was quoted as saying, "We weren't really sure what we had...Was it a security situation, or a violation of air space? It was just a strange thing." He judged Capt. Terauchi to be a , "a very stable, competent professional." The entire crew was judged to be "normal, professional, rational, no drug or alcohol involvement..."
Aviation Safety

The errors mentioned above would need to be compounded by more oversights and mistakes by the FAA and investigators...

The ATC (air traffic control) failed to identify atmospheric conditions that could cause temperature inversions. They were unable to identify the radar returns as features of the inversions. Subsequent investigations failed to take into account the possibility of temperature inversions. Despite their combined experience and knowledge on the subject of anomalous propagation, they collectively overlooked the possibility. When Klass accepted that his Saturn explanation was mistaken, he again missed the opportunity to identify superior mirages. The weather on the day was also unsuited to temperature inversions as explained above.


In summary, my objections are that from the moment JAL 1628 saw something behind and then ahead, every opportunity to identify a natural atmospheric phenomena was somehow missed. Every party involved in the experience and investigation overlooked a simple explanation? To accept the explanation that you favor, I would have to dismiss the investigators and flight crew as incompetent. So rather than assuming I'm dependent on the 'authorities' for my opinions, understand that I'm unwilling to assume that so many professionals overlooked the 'prosaic' solution of atmospheric conditions.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


As you can tell I'm trying to avoid giving my personal theory or opinion about what happened with JAL1628. I'm just trying to give you all the information that I can.

Also, I'm not trying to give you any dogmas. I'm trying to give you a insight of what the "life of a pilot" is, because watching from outside sometimes things look a lot different.


The first is that the crew mistook a cloud/ temperature inversion for a moving object. Whilst the object moved from behind to port to ahead and below to port for a period of over 20 minutes they failed to identify it as a cloud.


No, that's not what I said.

I didn't said that they thought that the cloud/illusion was moving. I said that possibly they saw some effect that made them believe that the object was moving.

That happens all the time in clear weather, for example, with ships leaving a port (example that I experienced in Francisco Sa Carneiro IA).


Secondly that whilst on a straight heading they were witness to a superior mirage at 35k. They mistakenly described the mirage as moving from port to directly ahead and imagined the brightness that lit the cabin.


Don't do that. I'm not talking about the Cpt's eyes. What I'm trying to do is finding some type of phenomena or explanation, and then put myself in the place of the pilot. That's how you should act, not judging what they thought at the time.

If you try to explain why a person is on the floor bleeding and with his legs broken, maybe you won't realize what happened. But if you throw a car into the theory, maybe things start to make sense.

That's what I'm trying to do, finding something (other than the amazing UFO) that explains ALL of that, and I admitt that untill now we've failed.


The warmth was misidentified as coming from the imagined light outside and was in fact from a blush of excitement caused by the mirage.


I already stated that I disagree on that theory. We're trained professionals, and in class we actually discuss UFO's and weird phenomena. We've to be ready.

For example, I admitt that I believe in alien life and that we've some contact with them. That shows that provably my brain will associate somethings mundane to that phenomena, so, I'm trained to analyze and being objective. What doesn't mean that we don't do mistakes while ID something in the air, it just means that we can keep our heads cool and objective.

I seriously doubt that they felt some type of warm blood rush. They can't afford it.

If you get too excited about something you will loose track of what you are doing. Even with detailed checklists sometimes you forget what you are doing just because someone said a joke, so imagine believing that you are seeing a UFO.

In simulator they tell you "you CAN'T fail this challenges", and then they throw everything at you. Bad weather, engines failures, warnings, false warnings, stupid computer errors, generators failures, etc etc.

And you have to overcome ALL of those.

What they don't tell you, is that at least once they are going to make it impossible to control the airplane, and that you are going to crash.

What this makes out of you, is that it shows if you are that type of guy that holds the plane untill the very end, and you'll only give up when your body is up in flammes.

Can you imagine if you would give up at some degree of problems? Can you imagine that the master caution simply come on because of some pressure sensor that is badly lubricated, and you hear your Cpt speaking "well ladys and gentlemen, this is your Cpt speaking...Smoke'em if you got'em... We're going down"?

Pilots can't afford excitment in crucial situations, and I believe that they believed that it was a UFO, but some things don't make sense.

Remember the Hudson landing recently? The pilots voice shows everything about our state of mind in emergencies (of course not everyone is the same). The ATC was so surprised by the calm of the pilot that he had to ask the other ATC what he said because he didn't believe what he heard.


When the United Airlines flight and JAL 1628 flashed lights at each other, the cloud that the crew mistook for a pursuing object vanished. Do clouds, mirages or temperature inversions vanish suddenly?


Yes, they do. Not in seconds, but they can disapear pretty fast.

The problem in this argument is that United 69 never said anything about the clouds being the traffic, that's intrepertation, and you can't do that. United 69 said "we don't see any traffic". If you asked United 69 if they were seeing any clouds around JAL1628 heavy, maybe they would have said "yes".

And I seriously doubt that the pilot in United 69 would judge JAL1628 pilots hability to see traffic or clouds.


Immediately upon landing they were interviewed. Did they seem excitable, exhausted or in some fatigued condition that would encourage wholesale misidentification? Seemingly not...


That actually bothers me.

If you experience something like that and you don't get excited when you don't have nothing to worry about (i.e., out of the plane safely), why would you become so excited giving interviews a month later, making hand movements explaining the possible maneuvers, etc?

I can't see the logic in that, without trying to judge the crew/pilots.


The ATC (air traffic control) failed to identify atmospheric conditions that could cause temperature inversions. They were unable to identify the radar returns as features of the inversions.


Again, radar readings it's actually that... Reading.

You read the signals that the machine gives you and you make the situation avaliation.

If you see a weak signal on radar, you think "it's a cloud (or whatever)". If you have a pilot on the radio saying that he is watching in front of him traffic, and gives you detailed information about it and then you get a radar signature, you have to take it seriously.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Subsequent investigations failed to take into account the possibility of temperature inversions. Despite their combined experience and knowledge on the subject of anomalous propagation, they collectively overlooked the possibility.


Ironicly I'm going to give you an example that actually comes from Japan Airlines.

In August 12, 1985, the flight 123 (Boeing 747) crashed in Mt. Osutaka.

None of the investigators could find a plausible explanation for the crash, except terrorist attack.

It was only when they found a small piece of the rear fuselage that they noticed that it was badly repaired (actually, it hadn't even been repaired...).

If they haven't found that piece of the plane, they couldn't figure out what happened.

To me, it's possible that exists something that we don't know in this case that would give everything away.


Every party involved in the experience and investigation overlooked a simple explanation? To accept the explanation that you favor, I would have to dismiss the investigators and flight crew as incompetent.


It wasn't the first time, and if the JAL1628 had crashed, provably you would already know whtat happened, but it was just a UFO sighting, not trying to put down the credibility of the investigation and all, but no real effort was made, being it alien or not.

Not at all. Everyone makes mistakes, I've made them and I consider myself a good professional, and there are some bad pilots out there (I don't believe JAL1628 is the case, at all).

And as for the "simple explanation", 3 Boeing 737's crashed before everyone realizes that they went down because the pilot pressed the controls too hard.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 
Hiya Tifozi,
I appreciate your comments and your reply. I'm not objecting because I believe that Terauchi and crew saw a 'spaceship.' The 'unidentified' conclusion is one I support. Retro explanations, in particular, the inversion/mirage model is too dependent on a long chain of misunderstandings, errors and oversights.

When I referred to the two flights flashing their lights at each other and the 'object' vanishing, I was pointing out that a cloud doesn't vanish immediately. The perspective of the UAL flight was incidental to the point. Dr Haines interviewed all concerned in the subsequent weeks and reported...


I spoke with the Captain of the UAL flight who told me the sky was very dark ahead of them when they radioed JAL 1628, asking Capt. Terauchi to flash his landing lights for ID purposes. Capt Terauchi did so shortly after and, as Terauchi told me during an extended telephone interview, the UFO suddenly "went out" as the two airplanes flashed their landing lights at each other. The aerial object was not to be seen again. The B-747 was now 150 miles from Anchorage. The UAL flight crew said that they never saw the huge object ahead and slightly below their altitude. The jet landed safely at Anchorage at about 1825L. Author interviewed Capt. Terauchi extensively through a translator, on January 12, 1987.
Aviation Safety

I include the date of the interview for transparency.

The points you make about the errors and oversights that occur in aviation are not in dispute. Is there any industry that isn't prone to errors at some point? In fact, I find your examples very interesting.

From my point of view, the inversion/superior mirage theory doesn't address some of the points I've raised. I can only draw conclusions from the evidence I have available and the input of people like yourself. I'm at a loss as to why the FAA or Klass (with a history of explanations for UFO/UAP) didn't entertain the inversion/mirage model. It's recorded fact that such explanations are amongst the first models to be looked at in such cases since the late 1950s. It suggests that they did consider it and found it unsupported in this case. The 'cloud' that vanished. The brightly lit cockpit and alleged warmth. A number of elements prevent me from accepting the explanation favored by you/Arbitrageur. The conclusion remains 'unidentified.'



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I have a thought regarding the heat, if it was a mirage or reflection from the heat inversion. When light is reflected and that light has a heat source that you can feel as well, there are times when that heat is reflected as well.

I only know this from my own personal experiences, like when you are outside poolside and you have something reflective and you redirect the sunlight at someone, although the heat is not as much as the direct sun light, it is noticeable. (have not been poolside since my kids where born so going off memories of four years ago or more)

When you are in a building with windows and the heat is blocked, and you do a similar thing, only the light is reflected.

Since the mirage reflective heat would have to betraveling through the windshield of the plane, this might dispel this theory, but I am not certain about that.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Very well done! The truth should be the first and foremost importance to anyone researching this fantastic phenomena known as U.F.O.s

Surely, some will be dissapointed as their grand ideas of extra terrestrials will be some what rebutted.

But I urge people to consider the oppossite. The U.F.O.s that can be explained by the plethora of explanations such as mirages and different natural reasons only makes for a better case for those reports that do not fit into all other reasonable and logical explanations.

This is the kind of research ufology needs and requires. Not the sci fi fakers and exploiters it seems to be riddled with.

Star and Flag



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
From my point of view, the inversion/superior mirage theory doesn't address some of the points I've raised. I can only draw conclusions from the evidence I have available and the input of people like yourself. I'm at a loss as to why the FAA or Klass (with a history of explanations for UFO/UAP) didn't entertain the inversion/mirage model. It's recorded fact that such explanations are amongst the first models to be looked at in such cases since the late 1950s. It suggests that they did consider it and found it unsupported in this case. The 'cloud' that vanished. The brightly lit cockpit and alleged warmth. A number of elements prevent me from accepting the explanation favored by you/Arbitrageur. The conclusion remains 'unidentified.'


Kandinsky, thanks for putting the chronology of the event together like that, it helped to shift my perspective.

In the paragraph quoted above, I believe you've concisely laid out what amounts to a 'golden rule' for researchers, not simply in the UFO research community, but across the board.

In keeping with the scientific method, it is important that a theory undergo review and adaption, after each 'experiment' that tests the theory. If a theory does not fit with ALL of the observed evidence in a case, that theory should necessarily be adapted or discarded in favor of a theory that DOES fit with the total data set.

I find personally that Timelines help a lot (in organizing data, and in noting overlapping/corresponding data). Your use of the timeline in this case illustrates that an extremely high number of consecutive mistakes (like beginner mistakes apparently) would need to have occurred in order for the Temperature Inversion theory to apply in this case. The probability for this theory being accurate diminishes upon each consecutive mishap, to the point where alternate theories become much more probable.

Please research the 'Law of Averages'
en.wikipedia.org...

or the 'Law of Large Numbers'
en.wikipedia.org...

Also good reading, is the 'Fallacy of the Maturity of Chances'
en.wikipedia.org...

That last link will help to understand the likelyhood (using coinflipping as an example) that after flipping heads 4 times, you will flip another on the 5th flip... (it's the same odds as on any other flip).

It's understanding that the probability of consecutive flips decreases that seems to be the factor in play in this argument, and I must admit that statistically it's a good argument.

Very well thought out post Kandinsky! Star from me


-WFA



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Excellent post Easynow!

You are a respected contributor at ATS and the 2nd post you made to this thread is much more fitting for your excellent reputation than your first post so I thank you for elaborating!


Originally posted by easynow
a example of the opposite end of that spectrum would be for me to do what you have done and post the best possible video evidence of a ufo and then list some other cases that are weak and try to use the logic from the really good ufo video to insinuate that the other cases might possibly be a real because the first one is.
Actually if you would do the opposite of what I did, nobody would be happier than me! That is, I posted something presumed to be not from this earth, then showed it had an earthly explanation. If you post something that is first shown to have an earthly explanation, and later definitively proven to have an explanation not of this earth, I would be delighted, in fact that's one reason I look at UFO evidence: to find the "real thing".

Once you did that, I'd be so happy I really wouldn't care how many crappy UFO videos you posted after that, I'd compliment you for the good one and try to ignore the rest!


once again i don't have a problem with you wanting to discuss any of these cases, i just disagree with how you presented all this. i would also like to add that your side of the discussion of the Alaska case is weak at best and has re- enforced my belief that these pilots did see a ufo and not a mirage. so thanks for that


the foo fighters and the Utah case are in my opinion not a mirage or temp. inversion as your Op seems to want to imply and i am saddened that you even included these and to me shows you have not researched any of them before creating this thread.
You may have a point. It's possible I could have presented this in some better way, and I'm the first person to admit that. I was a little conscious about possible misinterpretations of my meaning and intent when I wrote the OP so allow me to remind you of a few points I made in the OP to try to address this concern:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Other possible Mirages?

For your consideration, I would suggest the possibility that the following sightings may be explained by mirages (more of the definition #1 type, from the refraction of air):

1941-1945 WWII "foo fighters"

Mirages are one possibility that should be at least considered even if they do not explain all "foo fighter" sightings.


Note the words "possibility","may be" and "considered" in those statements. I said what I meant, I think they could be a possibility, I'm not claiming that a mirage is a 100% verifiable explanation for ANY of them. Regarding foo fighters specifically, I think I was quite clear that I don't think optical effects explain all of them. What percentage might be explained by optical effects? I have no idea, the reason being that I've been unable to find photos of foo fighters to evaluate. Video would be even better. Perhaps you are right and none of the foo fighter sightings are explained by optical effects, I admit that's a possibility. I was only asking people to consider the possibility that some might be, that's all, and I admit that I am unable to prove how likely or unlikely that possibility is. I will say I list optical effects as one possibility on my list of possible explanations. If someone else chooses not to, I'm ok with that, especially since I'm not even sure any of them are optical effects myself, I only say that it's possible some are.

And I agree on the Utah case, let me repost some of my comments here:

1950 Great Falls (Montana) and
1952 Trementon Utah

.....
www.astronomycafe.net...

This phenomenon explains the lights filmed in 1950 over Great Falls (Montana); two jet aircraft were flying about the area at the time but no one seems to have asked if they had their lights on. It also explains the many lights filmed over Tremonton (Utah) in 1952. In that case, there is evidence of several inversions, one on top of the other.

tvufo.tripod.com...

In a press conference on July 29, 1952, Maj. Gen. John Sanford of the U.S. Air Force stated that the sightings were caused by temperature inversions. The public was easily convinced, and for many, that was that.
I think this is a small possibility, but I'm not convinced these sightings were from mirages. But if it was the reflection of airplane lights that would appear to explain why they were determined to be light sources and not reflections. I probably would have left this sighting off the list, if it wasn't for the temperature inversion explanation offered by Major General Sanford.


So you see, the main reason I included the temperature inversion explanation, is because Major General Sanford said that's what it was. As I explained to Kandinsky, just because someone is in a position of authority, doesn't mean I have to find their conclusions credible. In this particular case, I don't find Major General Sanford's statement convincing, that's why I said "I'm not convinced these sightings were from mirages". Now someone will probably flame me for disagreeing with an authority, but I really don't care. I think we have to evaluate as much of the evidence as possible ourselves, and decide for ourselves if the conclusions reached by authorities actually fit the facts or not.


please be honest and admit you purposely used the Oldfield film debunk example to install or create a layer of doubt about the other cases you listed after it. i will speculate that you did this so anybody reading this thread will automatically be in a skeptical mindset from jump street and in my opinion it's unfair to anyone that may be just learning about these cases for the first time because they might be wrongly influenced by your deceptive opening post thought experiment.


You say that like doubt a bad thing! Doubt is my product! That's what I'm selling here! I have doubt about every case I have ever researched, I doubt every earthly explanation, I doubt every unearthly explanation. I doubt witness testimony even when I firmly believe it's an honest person telling the truth about what they saw describing it to the best of their ability. (I'm going to write another reply to give some of my views on witness testimony). I doubt photographic evidence even if it's not a hoax, as with the Oldfield film. I try to look at the facts, list what I think are some possible explanations, and see what direction the preponderance of evidence takes me in. If I were to offer advice to anyone researching these or any other cases, it's to doubt everything that everyone tells you, INCLUDING WHAT I SAY!!! Look at the facts for yourself and make your own assessment.

This is apparently what you have done in looking at my explanation of the JL1628 Incident and I applaud you for it! If your conclusion is different from mine, I'm happy as long as you looked at the facts and decided for yourself. That's all I ask of anyone, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me on any case I claim is still unexplained. As I said I doubt everything, and in the case of JL1628 that includes my own explanation. If I had no doubts I'd claim it was explained, but I haven't done that.

If I claim a case is explained as I have done with the Oldfield film, then I might try to be a little more persuasive in trying to convince someone. But in the case of JL1628 I won't try to change your mind because frankly, you could be right and I could be wrong. In the case of General Sanford's claim, I think we are both skeptical of his temperature inversion claims so I think we even agree on that case! But I can't prove he's wrong either, I just think it's not likely that he's right.

Thanks again for your feedback easynow



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Aircraft visibility simulation

Intro:

This is a simulation using a professional simulator used for training, it uses Flight Simulator X as a base and has much more complexities around the avionitcs and commands of an airplane. A more refined version, so to speak.

This is not perfect, is has flaws. I only made this so you can see how it fits to your arguments, ideas, theory or explanation. Maybe it will help, maybe it will confuse you, but I hope it gives you an insight of the JAL1628 flight, and what they possibly saw.

Hope that this serves you well.

Add Info -

Aircraft: Boeing 747-400 - empty - low fuel
Time: Winter - 17:30 (+-)
Weather: Newbie Bubble (completly clear weather)

(please open the picture and read comment)

First picture:



Red arrow indicates position of the Allen Airfield (A.K.A. PABI).

The plane is heading South, parallel with PABI, at a distance of 170Km's (+-).

Note that this is a game, you can't see the lights from that distance due to graphics limitations. In my personal experience, I do believe that you could see some lights at this distance.

Also note that the line of sight is perfect although the plane is at FL330. Thanks to Arbitrageur I could make estimates about the distance from the airfield. I must state that in case JAL1628 was 50 km's closer, at FL350, they provably wouldn't be able to see PABI.

Picture 2:



This picture is in the same position, except that is viewed from the outside to give you a little more perspective of the scenario.

Picture 3:



This is the view that the JAL1628 pilot provably had on that day.

Note that if he had the panel lights off, the cockpit was pretty dark, although acceptable.

Picture 4:



In this picture the aircraft is making a left turn with 20º of banking starting in the point of the previous pictures (same location as the JAL1628, (+-)).

Note that PABI doesn't get out of sight for any moment, except when it goes "under" the aircraft because of the banking (assuming that the turn continued untill completion of 360º).

Picture 5:



This is when I was taking off (mind you that putting a 747 up on a runway made for fighter jets isn't easy. lol
).

Note the strong approach lights that PABI has on 2 of the runways.

Arbitrageur was correct. Only 2 of the tracks have lights (4 runways. Each direction is a runway).

According to this picture, JAL1628 would be to the right, paralell with the runway from which I'm taking off.

Pciture 6:



Then I took a F/A-18 for a spin and took some photos of the airfield so you can analyze it.

This is a picture taken from above (duh).

Numbers 1 and 2 are the intersections that may had their lights missing in 1986 (note that this simulation is based on the current state of the airfield, for all the important info given).

Number 3 shows the angle of view that JAL1628 had of the airfield.

Picture 7:



This is a picture taking while taking off from PABI, and the plane is around 7,000ft. This is how the airfield would look like if you could see the lights from a certain distance.

Picture 8:



This is a picture taken from topdown of PABI.

This shows some of the lights from a height of 30,000ft.

(continues)



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Conclusion:


From this simulation what comes to my understanding is that although they could possibly see one of the runways, provably they would appear as a perfect line and not like several dots.

To appear like that the plane would have to be much closer to what he was reported to be.

According to the scenario, it wouldn't be hard to light up the cockpit, although I can't find an explanation to what happen, neither to the warm feeling. It had to be something very reflective and close. Any reflection or projection from PABI would resemble like a small dot, not like a big and bright light.

To my knowledge, a thermal inversion or a cloud can't make a projection/reflection big enough at this distance. At least, if you assume the pilots characteristics for the UFO. Size does not fit the PABI theory, in my opinion.

To a thermal inversion affect a plane that distant it must have been huge, nearly gigantic, and I don't believe this is the case in this area.

But I still believe that it's possible for the pilots have seen some type of mirage, I just don't believe it's related to PABI, much less for the part he claims that there were more UFO's.

The alignment of the lights, shape and color all ad up correctly to the drawnings of the pilots, but the distance takes that all away.

One detail that I believe could bring some hope to those who believe it was a mirage, is the fact that the pilots have drawn a small aura around the small lights, maybe that can explain something, but honestly, at this moment, I can't explain it.

[edit on 27/8/09 by Tifozi]

[edit on 27/8/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Your explanation of the JAL flight as being a combination of temperature inversion and mirage is dependent on several factors. I'll highlight the number of mistakes, oversights and misidentifications necessary for your explanation to displace the original conclusion of unexplained...

The first is that the crew mistook a cloud/ temperature inversion for a moving object. Whilst the object moved from behind to port to ahead and below to port for a period of over 20 minutes they failed to identify it as a cloud.


As far as I can tell most of the radar returns from the plane and from the ground came from the location of that cloud. I think the physicsforums photo with the blue arrows showing the location of the radar returns based on data provided by Dr. Maccabee show this too. Since the cloud is about 30 miles across, I don't find it a stretch of the imagination to suspect that flaky, spotty, inconsistent returns could come from more than one location within that 30 mile cloud.


Secondly that whilst on a straight heading they were witness to a superior mirage at 35k.They mistakenly described the mirage as moving from port to directly ahead and imagined the brightness that lit the cabin. The warmth was misidentified as coming from the imagined light outside and was in fact from a blush of excitement caused by the mirage.


At what time did JL1628 report "They mistakenly described the mirage as moving from port to directly ahead" If it's in the transcript I missed it (I may have), if they said that 6 weeks later, then maybe their recollection is less than perfect?
I've already agreed the warmth does not coincide with an optical phenomenon but could possibly have other explanations. If you want to conclude the other explanations are impossible then the warm face issue closes the case on my proposed explanation. I admit I have chosen to consider more than one possible interpretation of what the crew reported, and I can't prove I'm right to do so.


The pilot was mistaken and the others went along with him...or they were all similarly confused by the mirage. Of the three, not one had experience of 'anomalous propagation' and were therefore unable to realize or identify the cloud or mirage during the 20-40min duration of the incident.


Well they saw something they couldn't explain, so yes they were confused by it whatever it was! I do believe that they had experience with anomalous propagation. However, they first saw lights, and eventually the big cloud that caused the intermittent radar returns, which understandably could lead them to believe that the radar returns might not be anomalous but in fact associated with a physical object. You may choose to find it beyond credibility that they failed to recognize a cloud as a cloud, and instead thought it was some kind of mothership. I have no problem with that but if that's the case then we can just agree to disagree on that theory. However, allow me to remind you that I have provided not only a photo of a cloud right where he said the mothership was, but that same cloud is also in the same position as almost all the radar returns (again noting the cloud is 30 miles across). At 17:30 as my map shows, the cloud could have possibly been illuminated by the airport lights, so they can be forgiven for no longer thinking its anomalous. And what kind of cloud has lights that look like rocket exhaust dancing around it? The kind situated at the altitude of a temperature inversion near an airport, but he didn't know that as he had not seen anything like that before, so why should we expect him to recognize it? Even Dr Maccabee said he though the "big ship" wasn't a very reliable sighting, and I agree with him on his assessment. As for the other radar returns not in the direction of the cloud:

www.physicsforums.com...


Pilots don't see split beacons, but air traffic controllers do. Most of the anomalies noted in the radar data are in fact either "Split beacon" or "Beacon with offset primary". These are not interpretations by anybody, these are the facts of what the radar system actually recorded. This particular type of anomaly (e.g., beacon-related) can't shed any light whatsoever on the question of whether or not there was ever a UFO near to JAL1628, but rather it tends to explain how an air traffic controller(s) might be fooled into thinking (momentarily) that they might have seen something that was never really there. In fact, the audio tapes and transcripts clearly show that none of the air traffic controllers in this case ever thought that they had good radar contact on anything other than known aircraft; and that they were simply doing their best to try and be absolutely sure not to too hastily disregard something as clutter/noise that might be significant.


When the United Airlines flight and JAL 1628 flashed lights at each other, the cloud that the crew mistook for a pursuing object vanished. Do clouds, mirages or temperature inversions vanish suddenly?

I believe you have either misread or misinterpreted the transcript. If you re-read it and feel this is not the case then we can agree to disagree on this point and move on to other topics. It seems likely to me that if they had a radar contact of the cloud behind JL1628, that in fact what they were getting is the same type of flaky return that radars had been getting all night! Yes that is EXACTLY what a flaky radar signal does, it comes and goes!!! And since a cloud is not a solid object, United never tracked it as a solid object. It all seems very consistent.


Immediately upon landing they were interviewed. Did they seem excitable, exhausted or in some fatigued condition that would encourage wholesale misidentification? Seemingly not...


Head of local FAA security, Jim Derry,and others interviewed the flight crew. Later, Derry was quoted as saying, "We weren't really sure what we had...Was it a security situation, or a violation of air space? It was just a strange thing." He judged Capt. Terauchi to be a , "a very stable, competent professional." The entire crew was judged to be "normal, professional, rational, no drug or alcohol involvement..."
Aviation Safety


I don't mean to suggest that Cpt Terauchi is anything other than a competent professional who described what he observed to the best of his ability. But I would note that:

www.physicsforums.com...

Dr. Maccabee has sent me copies of several documents which help shed light on several issues that were discussed earlier in our current thread, and within this thread from which our current thread was split.

One of these documents was a copy of an article from the Philadelphia Enquirer May 24, 1987 issue. Within this article Capt. Terauchi is quoted as saying that he has seen at least one other "mothership" before while flying but that he wasn't feeling well at the time, and since the object was too "weird" he ignored it.


I wouldn't go so far as to question his competence, as I believe he's a competent pilot, who acted responsibly in this case. But Pilots are human beings and as you said nobody's infallible, not even you and me, nor Cpt. Terauchi either, so please don't misinterpret my assessment that he may have mistaken a cloud for a mothership as a suggestion he's incompetent, others might imply that but not me. He might be a bit predisposed to think of unexplained sightings in terms of spaceships, but he's not incompetent.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky

The errors mentioned above would need to be compounded by more oversights and mistakes by the FAA and investigators...

The ATC (air traffic control) failed to identify atmospheric conditions that could cause temperature inversions. They were unable to identify the radar returns as features of the inversions. Subsequent investigations failed to take into account the possibility of temperature inversions. Despite their combined experience and knowledge on the subject of anomalous propagation, they collectively overlooked the possibility.


Is this true? Let me re-post what my the source I quoted said:


The crew's description of the lights exactly matched that of typical runway lights and the FAA reported that a temperature inversion had existed over the area at the time

www.astronomycafe.net...

Did the FAA report this? I don't know, I don't have a copy of the FAA report. Do you? does anybody? I thought this was an unconfirmed claim until I saw the temperature inversion data posted here:

www.physicsforums.com...

Here is some of the data from a weather balloon that was released at Fairbanks around 0000 UTC on 11-18-1986. JAL1628 was flying at an altitude of about 10668 meters.

Altitude in meters, temperature in degrees-C, wind direction, wind speed in meters/second
135, -17.5,,
195, -15.3,,
1436, -13.7, 090, 8.0
2909, -16.9, 075, 7.0
5360, -32.5, 040, 9.0
6890, -44.1, 020, 7.0
8760, -57.5, 020, 8.0
9920, -54.7, 005, 11.0
11350, -53.9, 350, 13.0
13210, -51.1, 335, 17.0
15860, -50.3, 325, 22.0
18150, -56.5, 305, 23.0
20270, -58.7, 305, 27.0
23440, -63.9, 305, 35.0
25910, -65.7, 300, 40.0


My understanding is that a normal temperature profile will show steadily decreasing (larger negative) numbers for temperature as the altitude increases. However, this is not what the weather balloon data shows. And interestingly, some of the anomalous data occurs in the range of interest of JAL1628's altitude.

So maybe the FAA did examine this and maybe the FAA did know there was a temperature inversion in the area at the time. I would sure like to see their report to confirm one way or the other if anyone has their full report.


The FAA conducted an investigation of the incident, and did not issue its final report until March 5

www.ufoevidence.org...
So the FAA report issued March 5 is the one I would like to review, if anyone has it.


When Klass accepted that his Saturn explanation was mistaken, he again missed the opportunity to identify superior mirages. The weather on the day was also unsuited to temperature inversions as explained above.


Klass's explanation was wrong, what can I say? The airport theory could be wrong too, but it does have the advantage of aligning with the reported positions of the traffic, which the planet explanation would not do. Do you have other data from that weather balloon showing there was NOT a temperature inversion? I can't confirm that data is correct though if you have better data on the temperature profile, please share it!



[edit on 27-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 

Cool flight simulator photos!

I appreciate the work you put into making this!

I'm the first person to doubt my own explanation. If I didn't have doubts about it, I'd claim I've solved the case, and I haven't.

I agree the great altitudes and distances involved make it seem like a stretch to see the airport from that distance.

What the simulation shows is what one might see under more normal circumstances. however I'm sure we all agree that what happened that night was anything but normal. So the first thing I have to say, is if you assume everything was normal that night, there's no point in discussing my optical explanation any further. But what about the temperature inversion data I just posted? I'm the first person to admit I'm not the world's foremost expert in temperature inversions, but it looks like a temperature inversion to me. Once that optical phenomenon is on the table, we have created some additional optical possibilities for what a pilot might observe.

I agree the great distance at first sighting would require some kind of magnification effect, not just a simple reflection. Is this possible? I don't know how possible it is, I'd have to be cautious about claiming that it's impossible.

Great post again Tifozi! I might have to try that flight simulator myself. I used an older version but not version X.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


That was truly awesome Tifozi! Thanks so much for sharing that post. Your flight simulator is really detailed


Your job must be a lot of fun, deep down underneath all of the hard work that obviously goes into aircraft flight...

In your opinion (since most of us don't have regular access to such an amazing resource) what would be the best online flight simulator around?

I always like to increase the tools in my 'UFO Researcher Toolkit'
And such analysis brings a new opportunity to expand my frames of reference...

Thanks for the pointers!


-WFA



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 

Aliencarnage, thank you for the post and suggestion.

An optical phenomenon certainly could in some cases cause heat on the face of an observer! you gave some examples, and I can think of others.

Even though the inverse-square law might not apply strictly to directional lights as it would with omnidirectional lights, I still feel the distances involved are so great that they would make it unlikely that the pilot would feel warmth from the infrared radiation. My thinking is the intensity varied in the image he saw for a number of reasons and he definitely saw it get brighter at times.

At a closer distance (closer than in this JL1628 case) what you say could be possible, as Tifozi said the high-intensity directional lights are extremely bright and I think he said they can even darken your skin if you're near them which I didn't know!!!! Wow that's bright!

Regards and thanks for your input, all suggestions are welcome.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

is if you assume everything was normal that night, there's no point in discussing my optical explanation any further.


Not at all, Arbitrageur.

Nothing normal would "upset" a Cpt. and his crew. It wasn't normal, at all. If it was an illusion, and if it was natural, is one of those things that happen at the right place at the right time.


Once that optical phenomenon is on the table, we have created some additional optical possibilities for what a pilot might observe.


It is possible. Like I said in previous posts, it happens in the desert. But everyone knows that the ground is just reflecting light from the sky, because you see that all the time.

It can happen higher and creat a mirror effect on the sky, and who is below it looks that something is up on the sky. You're not making that up or assuming, it happens!

We actually need to (and I can't simulate that) understand the role of that cloud, because if it produced a magnification effect, then it's possible that the cloud is responsable for the sighting.

For example, if you are in the runway and you watch a airplane approach, it looks like a bright (very, lol) dot.

But if you look at the same plane coming out from a cloud or fog, the "dot" becomes a huge light.

The problem is that it doesn't make much detail of the shape of the light source, it only enlarges it. (you can all experience that driving in the fog)

The approach lights are very strong, and they are used mainly in military airports/carriers.

I would like to dismiss them because they have an angle, the correct angle of approach. For example, you are landing, and you look at the lights. If you see them clearly, you are on the correct path, but if they start to turn red (little mirror trick) you are too high or too low, so you can only see them if you are in alignment with the track. So it's impossible those lights reached JAL1628, IF they were installed before 1987.


I still feel the distances involved are so great that they would make it unlikely that the pilot would feel warmth from the infrared radiation.


I think it's actually impossible. Airports have to obey certain regulations, and they can't be light-crazy, lol.

But I don't know to which degree they could confuse warm feeling with brightness. I'm just assuming here. But maybe it's possible that an intense bright might trigger your brain to think it's warm.


high-intensity directional lights are extremely bright and I think he said they can even darken your skin if you're near them which I didn't know!


Well, I exagerated a bit, but they actually can if you abuse. The same way you can use those artificial lights to tan (dunno the name of those in english).

If you put your hand in front of a headlight you will feel warm in your hand. Imagine how much heat a landing light of a plane can produce if you can see it for miles and miles away.

They are so powerfull that actually you are not allowed near them when they're on. You'll go blind.

[edit on 27/8/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
We actually need to (and I can't simulate that) understand the role of that cloud, because if it produced a magnification effect, then it's possible that the cloud is responsable for the sighting.

For example, if you are in the runway and you watch a airplane approach, it looks like a bright (very, lol) dot.

But if you look at the same plane coming out from a cloud or fog, the "dot" becomes a huge light.


This is true! The question is, could a temperature inversion have a magnifying effect, without the distortion that a cloud does? I don't know.

Regarding the role of the cloud, I trying not to overestimate the role the cloud could have played in the event and would like you to understand my theory even if you don't agree with it.

I think the cloud provides a possible explanation for the mothership sighting and many of the radar returns from the ground and from the air.

Look at time 17:30 on my map how the airport is beyond the cloud from the pilot's perspective. It seems possible the airport lights could have illuminated the cloud, but only during that orientation as the pilot flew the 30 miles past the cloud.

At 17:10-17:19, I see no way the cloud could have had any effect on the sighting, but he saw no mothership at that time right? Just the lights. No cloud is necessary to explain observations during that time interval, but some kind of atmospheric optical magnification would be necessary if the airport light theory is correct.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
[off-topic:

WitnessFromafar, I sent you a U2U with the information you asked. Didn't wanted to go off-topic here.


/ : off-topic]

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



The question is, could a temperature inversion have a magnifying effect, without the distortion that a cloud does?


Regarding the shape of the lights? Yes. Don't forget that a thermal reflection isn't exactly like a mirror. It can have reflections, but you wouldn't be able to see yourself in them. I know that they can give the shape that the Cpt gave on the drawings. But I don't know if they can "pull" the light and intensify it... At least, that much that far.

But I must tell you that when I was flying Cessna's, I could see peoples stuff on the beach reflecting on my cockpit. A car windshield looks like a huge mirror from 800ft. We must take that into account on our theories.

I know it's hard to understand, and it's even harder to explain to someone that maybe never experienced this stuff, but "up there" you lose detail in some things, but you gain in anothers, mostly because of perspective.

There are stories about people being rescued from remote locations just because an airliner in cruising altitude spotted "something" odd reflecting on an island.


Look at time 17:30 on my map how the airport is beyond the cloud from the pilot's perspective. It seems possible the airport lights could have illuminated the cloud, but only during that orientation as the pilot flew the 30 miles past the cloud.



I don't think that's the case. I would tend to believe the cloud distorted and magnified the light source. (looks the same, but it isn't. If you put a light source behind you hand, your see a shape or whatever. If you put the lightsource in touch with your skin, you see the light source coming from the inside... Don't know if I'm presenting this the correct way).

I don't know if I'm recalling correctly, but had the sun already disappeared? Because on my simulation (and it is pretty accurate) the sun was half way up.


No cloud is necessary to explain observations during that time interval, but some kind of atmospheric optical magnification would be necessary if the airport light theory is correct


Agreed.

This is some wicked $$$$... Somethings don't make any sense and your brain screams "ALIEN! DUCK AND COVER", but some other evidence suggests that it's an illusion.

The way the captain describes the lights on his window on the left, screams "PABI!!!" to me...



[edit on 27/8/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi


The question is, could a temperature inversion have a magnifying effect, without the distortion that a cloud does?


Regarding the shape of the lights? Yes. Don't forget that a thermal reflection isn't exactly like a mirror. It can have reflections, but you wouldn't be able to see yourself in them. I know that they can give the shape that the Cpt gave on the drawings. But I don't know if they can "pull" the light and intensify it... At least, that much that far.

But I must tell you that when I was flying Cessna's, I could see peoples stuff on the beach reflecting on my cockpit. A car windshield looks like a huge mirror from 800ft. We must take that into account on our theories.


I found some great photos of optical effects on several sites. I'll post some I think are relevant as I have time. First, regarding the magnification effect, you are correct. From:

www.polarimage.fi...

Here is an image showing the 21 reduced in size through atmospheric optics:



Now look at how much the 21 gets magnified in this photo:



Now look at multiple photos of the same distant image as the atmosphere distorts the perceived size of objects:



Now these distortions in size were caused by an inversion layer, as described in this photo:



I made the last two images scrollable, so you can scroll to see the whole thing.

This is really cool stuff to me!

I'm starting to think some kind of magnifying effect may actually be possible, I think these photos show that it IS possible, especially in an inversion layer which I now think was in place at that time (The weather balloon showing the temperature inversion was released a few hours before the sighting, so I think that's fairly relevant information).

Regarding how bright it was outside, I found that the sunset occurred in Fairbanks (near the "mothership") between 2-3PM local time on December 21, the shortest day of the year. I never was able to find the time of sunset on the date of the JL1628 sighting, let me know if you find it. But I don't have to tell you the pilots may see more light in the sky than the ground time for sunset might indicate.

(Edit to add last photo and description, and for clarity)

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join