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: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well, although in some cases the ego plays a big part in the story, I don't think this was the case, considering the time where it happened (there was a lot of ignorance about the skies in those days).

To be fair, I honestly think that he believes in what he saw, and that it wasn't an illusion. It can also happen, belief isn't associated with right or wrong, that's why it's a belief.

On an immediate guess without further information, the only thing that comes in mind to what he described, are runway lights.

The stronger lights of presence in runways are on the side and touch-down point. In a certain angle, the middle lights seem to disappear. That could give the U shape (touch-down lights + side lights).

BUT, what also triggers my mind, is the definition in the angle assistance lights. While the runway lights might present that U shape, the side lights (3 dots) seem to perfect in comparison.

Can you give me more info?

[edit on 18/2/10 by Tifozi]




posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
Can you give me more info?


I did a search after you asked that and found it on Caelestia, I've looked at that site before and I didn't even know it was there, they mention mirage as a possibility also. They have more information:

www.caelestia.be...


This classic observation was made by crew and passengers of a 4-engine Boeing Stratocruiser [2] of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. Flight 510-196 was a luxury flight bound for London on the "champagne and caviar run", departing New York at 17:03 local (21:03 GMT) on June 29, 1954 with 51 passengers aboard. Four hours later at sunset, 19,000 ft (5,791 m) over Labrador, Newfoundland, and en route for Goose Bay, an apparently huge shape-changing UAP [3] and a swarm of small attendant objects was seen against the bright sky off the left wing. The strange display persisted for 18 minutes.

After a refuelling stop at Goose where they were met and questioned by US Air Force intelligence officers the crew proceeded to London, where the story rapidly appeared in national papers and magazines. Capt. James R. HOWARD was filmed for BBC TV and cinema newsreels. It became big news and went around the world within days via the Associated Press syndicated wire. The standing of the witnesses, in particular 33-year-old Capt. HOWARD, a highly respected former RAF Squadron Leader with 7500 hours commercial flying on 256 Atlantic crossings to his credit at the time of the sighting, has never been called in question. They were convinced that their airliner was followed for 80 miles by a formation of solid flying objects under intelligent control. To this day the case is still hailed by many ufologists as unexplained and one of the most significant "British" cases.

Several theories have been advanced. Were these objects spaceships, a giant flock of migrating starlings, balloons, or perhaps a mirage? Whilst the evidence is not conclusive, we present evidence that the most likely explanation seems to be an unusual mirage of a type which, whilst rare, appears to have been observed several times in similar conditions in other parts of the world.


That's just the introduction, the details go on for pages at that link. Actually the detail is incredible, they look at the possibility of a mirage and other options in great detail.

Mirage Theory


The theory of an unusual mirage may appear at first glance to have fewer difficulties than either birds or balloons. Such a mirage would be formed by a layer of air in which temperature climbs rather than falls with altitude, called an inversion. These layers can occur adjacent to the earth's surface or, as in a case such as this, high in the atmosphere - a so-called elevated inversion.


But the theory has some problems, like what's the source, I think that's what you were getting at. Very interesting details, too many to post here but you can read many details in the link.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Continued from my last post about the caelestia report on the BOAC Labrador sighting of June 29,1954, they have an interesting photo January 8, 2005 edition of the Mexican newspaper El Imparcial of two "UFO's" with an interesting caption that is relevant to this thread:

www.caelestia.be...




"This photo was published in the January 8, 2005 edition of the Mexican newspaper El Imparcial. The following "clarifications" were given: "HERMOSILLO, Sonora(PH) - More than half of a hill located on the Hermosillo coast apparently 'vanished'. (...) According to a series of images taken by EL IMPARCIAL which were classified as 'historically significant', a hill belonging to the Sierra de Cirios range near Puerto Libertad ceased to exist in a matter of hours. At 08:54 minutes yesterday, a reporter and a photographer from this newsroom saw what they took to be a UFO as they drove along Rt.36 North along the coastline. After this sighting there occurred a strange phenomenon in which rocky formations changed composition (sic). At 14:08 hours, as shown by photographs taken from the site, a considerable part of said hill disappeared". The Mexican paper published 3 of the 12 pictures that were taken by their photographer. The image above is the first of this series and apparently shows not one but two "UFOs". The second photo is very similar except that, according to the newspaper's commentator, "Matter begins to fall from the object on the left before it lands on the hilltop". A subsequent investigation, however, revealed that chunks of the hillside were not swallowed up by spacecraft, but that the hills were still perfectly intact. In reality, the photos show a typical superior mirage, whereby distant mountain tops were not only stretched out vertically, but also mirrored in the sky above. [Image found at www.ufoinfo.com; translation from Spanish: Scott CORRALES.]"


How do you like these descriptions???
-Part of the hill disappeared (No it didn't, but to some it looks that way)
-Two UFO's (no they're not but some might think so)

and the most interesting description:

-Matter begins to fall from the object on the left before it lands on the hilltop

Of course what's happening in that description is slight temperature gradient fluctuations causing the reflection in the center where the UFOs are to look more like the reflections on the right where the hill is "solid" but in fact it's a mirage so parts of the hillside reflection are coming and going.

Now I think for most of us, the mushroom shaped objects on the top right of that photo are a giveaway that we are seeing a mirage, so I'm surprised such misleading descriptions made it into the caption of that Mexican newspaper.

But imagine for a moment you didn't have that visual cue and all you could see were the two "UFO's". They look solid enough in the photos, so if someone tells you they aren't an illusion you can understand why, but in fact they are in illusion. And yes Tifozi, I agree the captain really believed the objects he saw were not an illusion.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Hey just got your U2U. From an air traffic control perspective (RADAR) contol it is very hard for us to tell something is a UFO or not. The radar consists of 2 systems, a primary and secondary radar system. The primary works by bouncing a signal off of the actual aircraft and then it returns to the radar and shows up on the scope. Secondary radar recieves the signal from the aircrafts transponder and it returns with flight info like altitude and airspeed and associates it with that target. Not all aircraft have transponders.

I will say that experienced controllers will notice something on a primary target if it is behaving odd. IE a target moving at great distances over a short period of time or changing direction swiftly.

This is rare though and I would assume would only occur during very low traffic volume periods as our attention is soley on the aircraft we are controlling and any conflicting traffic near them.

As far as radars go, most ATC facilities have upgraded to new digital systems which reduce the chance of false targets and ground clutter and break down less.

For clarification, controllers dont sit around analizing every target on our scope. If we arent talking to it we really could care less (unless it is in direct conflict with another aircraft) in which case we provide a traffic call to the aircraft under our control and leave it at that.

Our sole purpose is to separate aircraft and issue safety alerts (duty priority) and there is alot going on so we have little time for anything else.

I have seen quite a few posts where people use ATC data off of radars to substantiate claims of UFOs. Thats hard for me to swallow given what I have written above.

Hope this helps and sorry it took so long, just checked my U2U and saw you requested I post.

Take care!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATC_GOD
As far as radars go, most ATC facilities have upgraded to new digital systems which reduce the chance of false targets and ground clutter and break down less.

For clarification, controllers dont sit around analizing every target on our scope. If we arent talking to it we really could care less (unless it is in direct conflict with another aircraft) in which case we provide a traffic call to the aircraft under our control and leave it at that.


Yes that's helpful so thanks for posting. That confirms what I've suspected that the modern radar systems are more sophisticated and better able to filter out things like ground clutter etc.

So when I read very old UFO reports with information about radar returns, especially flaky radar returns like were seen in the JL1628 incident, I always wonder if these same incidents would be less mysterious had they been using modern radar with better capabilities. The 1952 Washington incident comes to mind also.

Anyway, thanks again for posting, that's helpful.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Thanks for the thread again.

I totally think that some sightings are reflections, or mirages'.

I disagree with some of the sightings that you have provided, but the point of your thread outweighs it.

I'm glad you brought this to light and to the forum.
It should be classed as part of ufo studies.

Good luck with future research on this topic.
Ufo sighting go back to far in our time on planet earth to even begin to make a list.
It's unfortunate people don't understand it.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


G'day Arbitrageur

This is one of the best threads I've ever read on ATS.

It encompasses the sort of discussion & debate that keeps me here.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now how many times have you read in these threads: "You haven't seen what I've seen. There's no earthly explanation for it." Well I would have agreed that seems to be the case here.

Stop and think about this for a while, and how you would have explained it.

Then watch the explanation:


The oldfields indeed had not faked anything. The UFO in their film soon proved explainable. A few days later, an enterprising BBC cameraman took a similar camera, sat in the same seat, and filmed the same English countryside. The same UFO hovered into view, went through the same maneuvers, and disappeared into itself the same way. The UFO turned out to be the reflection of the tail section of the plane itself.
The refraction of light in the Earth's atmosphere is capable of fooling both the human eye and the camera lens.


There is a small problem with that explanation, in that the BBC cameraman's footage shown does not exactly replicate the entire sausage shape in the Oldfield film, but I think I can explain this. The BBC guy didn't use the exact same camera, they just said it was similar, and I think it's a better, higher quality camera, with a larger lens. A lens with a larger diameter won't let it get as close to the window, which was critical for the oldfield film, because they photographed 2 reflections, not just one. The 2nd reflection was an inverted image off the inner side of the glass, where as the BBC cameraman photographed mostly only the single reflection off the outer side of the glass. (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).


I must say that the object in the BBC film looks almost the same as the half left part of that object in the Oldfield film and I said almost because I see clearly a great difference between both images.

Object in the Oldfield film.



The Oldfield film adapt to show the object visible in the BBC film which is clearly only the left part of that object in the Oldfield film.



If the object in the Oldfield film really was some kind of a mirage, so that it was indeed the tail section of that plane that occurred during some seconds on especially that specific moment due the refraction of light in the Earth's atmosphere, how then was it so easy to film it again a few days later?

Because is it not so then that a mirage only occurs when all the circumstances are absolutely perfect for such an rare emergence?

And how great would be the chance then that the atmospheric circumstances where a few days later exactly the same as they were during the shooting of the Oldfield film so that that mirage could emergence again?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

What is the definition of a mirage?


1. an optical phenomenon, esp. in the desert or at sea, by which the image of some object appears displaced above, below, or to one side of its true position as a result of spatial variations of the index of refraction of air.
2. something illusory, without substance or reality.


dictionary.reference.com...


And then this, in the definition of a mirage is said, that it is an optical phenomenon, esp. in the desert or at sea, so meanly there, but this Oldfield film was shot above the English country site where such things aren’t so common then to happen and especially not again some days later.

So I don’t believe that the refraction of light in the Earth's atmosphere was responsible for that object in the Oldfield film.

That explanation reminds me immediately of that ridicules swamp gas explanation.

I think that the real mirage was not in the Oldfield film but in the BBC film with only one purpose, to debunk the original.



[edit on 20/2/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Hi all, Nice piece OP. I have some trouble with the Oldfeld film being criticized as light refraction. Simply due to not understanding what 'tail section on any old plane looks like that?

Decoy



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
This has been definately the best thread in which i have been somewhow in disagreement with (actually, I am just in disagreement about some very narrowed parts of it): Arbitrageur has proven himself to be some wise, thoughtful, balanced, modest person with whom is a great pleasure to share thoughts.
Of course i still think that the JAL1628 can be considered 100% an UFO sighting, but i admit with pleasure that he actually took the time and put efforts to do his homework before opposing some serious counter-arguments to the case, and he did it much-much-much better than some celebrated researchers.
I would never be sorry to be proven wrong from him, because there would be nothing wrong with it



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by internos
Of course i still think that the JAL1628 can be considered 100% an UFO sighting,


Hi internos, regarding Arbitrageur’s post about the Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 and your replies I just finished this one about it, perhaps it could help in explaining or proving a bit more that it was indeed a UFO or as I am convinced of an Extraterrestrial craft and not some kind of mirage.

It’s from the Testimony of John Callahan, Former FAA Division Chief for the Disclosure Project back then.

He was also able to secure videotape and audio evidence of the event.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
1986 Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 Over Alaska

www.ufoevidence.org...

www.astronomycafe.net...


On 17 November 1986, a Japanese freighter aircraft had crossed the North Pole and was .ing SW toward its next stop, Anchorage in Alaska. Suddenly the crew were confronted by clusters of lights just a. of them. They assumed that the lights were the exhausts of some unidentified aircraft and tried in vain to evade them. Gradually the mysterious lights shifted to port and the captain was sure he could make out the shape of a huge UFO alongside them. The incident was reported to the (US) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), who issued a report on the incident, but without any explanation.

Because the object's direction appeared to move aft with time, it was obvious that the source lay on the ground only a few hundred kilometres away, and because the crew gave good descriptions and bearings to the lights at various times on their route, it was possible to locate its source. This turned out to be the US Army airfield at Delta Junction. 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. The 'UFO' was a mirage of the runway lights.


Regarding this case I support Internos explanation and want only add the following.


Then the next day I got a call from someone with the Scientific Study Group [for President Reagan], or the CIA, I’m not sure who it was, the first call. And they had some questions about the incident. And I had said, I don’t know what you are talking about, you probably want to call the Admiral [FAA Administrator Engen].

Well a few minutes later the Admiral calls down and says, I have set up a briefing tomorrow morning at 9:00 am in the round room. Bring all the stuff you have.

Bring everybody up there and give them whatever they want. We want to get out of it. Just let them do whatever they want. So I brought all the people from the Tech Center. We had all kinds of boxes of data that we had them print out; it filled up the room.

They brought in three people from the FBI, three people from the CIA, and three people from Reagan’s Scientific Study team — I don’t know who the rest of the people were but they were all excited…

When they got done, they actually swore all these other guys in there that this never took place. We never had this meeting. And this was never recorded.

SG: Who said that? Who was saying that?

JC: This was one of the guys from the CIA. Okay? That they were never there and this never happened.

At the time I said, well I don’t know why you are saying this. I mean, there was something there and if it’s not the stealth bomber, then you know, it’s a UFO. And if it’s a UFO, why wouldn’t you want the people to know? Oh, they got all excited over that. You don’t even want to say those words.

He said this is the first time they ever had 30 minutes of radar data on a UFO.

And they are all itching to get their hands onto the data and to find out what it is and what really goes on. He says if they come out and told the American public that they ran into a UFO out there, it would cause panic across the country.

So therefore, you can’t talk about it. And they are going to take all this data…


www.ufoevidence.org...



[edit on 20/2/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
If the object in the Oldfield film really was some kind of a mirage, so that it was indeed the tail section of that plane that occurred during some seconds on especially that specific moment due the refraction of light in the Earth's atmosphere, how then was it so easy to film it again a few days later?

Because is it not so then that a mirage only occurs when all the circumstances are absolutely perfect for such an rare emergence?


Good question. Actually mirages for ground observers aren't as rare, but for pilots and airborne observers they can happen but are more rare. The Oldfield film is a mirage or reflection but it's caused by the window glass, not by the atmosphere, that's why it was so easy to repeat.

You're absolutely right, the atmospheric mirages are not so easy to repeat, which is why even in the last case I looked at of the 10 page long Caelestia analysis, they state that it's likely to be an atmospheric mirage but it's not 100% conclusive, it's really hard to duplicate the conditions to prove it 100%.

I haven't mentioned the Salida CO case yet in this thread, but I posted in the Salida thread itself, and looking at the temperature inversion frequency maps, that part of the country is prone to ground temperature inversions. So when the sun rises in the morning and reflects off the river surface to the southeast of Salida, I would expect it's not necessarily that rare for the reflection to encounter a temperature inversion that can reflect it back to the ground, as I explained here . So when they say Salida is a UFO hotspot, I can understand why, I think it's an area where the atmospheric reflections can repeat, maybe several times a year.

I'm fairly confident the Salida CO object is a mirage, but to be honest, one reason I used the Oldfield film as an example is that I'm 100% confident that is a reflection, and my confidence level is below 100% on the other cases, even if my confidence is high, I still have some doubt and am open to other possibilities if it's not proven beyond any doubt.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Decoy
Hi all, Nice piece OP. I have some trouble with the Oldfeld film being criticized as light refraction. Simply due to not understanding what 'tail section on any old plane looks like that?


Actually it's easier to understand how to get a double reflection off of window glass than off the atmosphere, but in fact a double reflection can happen off the atmosphere too where one reflection is inverted.

In the glass there are two sides, right? So you can get a reflection from each side of the glass, giving 2 reflections. It's more complicated how that happens in the atmosphere, but it does happen sometimes.

The reason the BBC footage doesn't match the Oldfield footage exactly is that the Oldfields got a double reflection, the BBC camera only got a single reflection, due to its larger lens I suspect.

In rare cases you can get even more than 2 reflections, like 3, 4, or even 5 reflections in the atmosphere, and all can be of the same object, so you can literally get a fleet of UFOs from a single light or object on the ground.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Thanks Internos, I appreciate the compliment, and while I still feel your contributions to ATS dwarf my own, I like that some people appreciate I have at least made some small contribution. I hope I at least got some people thinking even if I never convinced them 100%, I haven't even convinced myself 100% on JL1628 but am just sharing the possibilities I'm considering.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I was under the impression that you couldn't photograph a mirage.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRandomUser
 

Mirages are physical, so they can be photographed, in the same way as a reflection can be photographed.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
It’s from the Testimony of John Callahan, Former FAA Division Chief for the Disclosure Project back then.

He was also able to secure videotape and audio evidence of the event.


When they got done, they actually swore all these other guys in there that this never took place. We never had this meeting. And this was never recorded.

SG: Who said that? Who was saying that?

JC: This was one of the guys from the CIA. Okay? That they were never there and this never happened.


Yes that's fascinating, and in fact I believe Callahan and that there was an attempted coverup which he thwarted by keeping copies so he could prove that it DID happen.

But the fact that they covered it up, or tried to, doesn't prove what it was. And if you go through the radar data, nearly all the radar reflections come from the location of that cloud we now have a picture of, the same cloud that they requested a course correction to go around, and that I believe formed the silhouette of a giant spaceship. And even though most of the radar data is in the direction of that cloud, it's also very flaky, not like a return from a solid object. Just look at the Air traffic controllers own comments about the radar:


At 5:51:32, after the planes had passed one another, the UA plane reported being able to see the JAL plane silhouetted against the sky. The UA captain could see the contrail as well as the jet but nothing else. The controller responded, "We got just a few primary hits on the target and then, ah, we really haven't got a good track on him, ever," meaning that the radar never showed a continuous track (a continuous series of "blips") of primary-only radar targets associated with the unusual "traffic."


"We got just a few primary hits on the target and then, ah, we really haven't got a good track on him, ever" OK does this sound like a real, solid object? No, and in fact the UA pilot confirmed visually there was nothing else there. The cloud was still behind the JL1628, more than 10 miles away by this time. Keep in mind this happened before we made significant advances to the quality of ground and air systems in the 90s.

My theory on the reason for the coverup, is to hide ignorance. They thought perhaps there might have been something in our airspace and they wanted to hide the fact that we had no idea what in the heck it was, but that's just my guess. Turns out there was something in our airspace making those radar reflections, and I never saw it documented anywhere until I found the object on satellite data. And the fact that it was a cloud explains why the radar reflections were flaky and didn't "track" as the controller explained, and it also explains why the object on radar was relatively motionless (compared to JL1628's speed), just like a cloud would be. Everything really adds up on the radar explanation quite well as shown by the blue arrows all pointing to the cloud, those are the directions of the radar returns reported!


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
From: www.physicsforums.com...

Scroll down to:
Apr6-07, 11:49 AM Aether


Dr. Maccabee has shared with me a hand-drawn plot of JAL1628's ground track, and I have plotted some (not all) of those points on this satellite image: img372.imageshack.us... The four blue arrows that I have drawn on top of the satellite image all point to a big cloud that is approximately 30nm in diameter. The first blue arrow (near the timestamp 5:31:08) represents the direction in which the flight crew were looking when they asked the air traffic controller for permission to turn right to avoid an object a. of them:



From this, I conclude that this cloud is in fact what Terauchi saw and reported as the "mothership" and as "the silhouette of a gigantic spaceship".


I wish I could take credit for this discovery but it's Aether who deserves the credit and his analysis did hold up to scrutiny when I looked a the directions of the radar returns on my own detailed map.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Thanks for answering my replies Arbitrageur.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

From this, I conclude that this cloud is in fact what Terauchi saw and reported as the "mothership" and as "the silhouette of a gigantic spaceship".


Firstly, regarding your conclusion that the very big object [the so called mother ship] what was seen by the pilots was in fact a cloud, I suggest you to read the lines below this document, because there is stated that the flight conditions where clear and there were no clouds.



But there were more objects seen during that trip.
First they saw those smaller lights and because of their behavior and their effects one cannot mistake these as being clouds in my opinion.


At about 5:11 PM local time, Captain Terauchi noticed the lights of some sort of aircraft about 2000 feet below and 30 degrees to the left front of them.

He decided that the aircraft was probably an American jet fighter from nearby Eielson or Elmendorf Air Force Bases patrolling Alaskan airspace, so he ignored them at first.

However, after a few minutes, he noticed that the lights were keeping pace with his own aircraft, which would be an unusual thing for patrolling jets to do.

It was about seven or so minutes since we began paying attention to the lights (when), most unexpectedly, two spaceships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights. The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face.

Terauchi said that it was his impression that the two objects he had seen below them minutes before had suddenly jumped in from of him. The craft, one above the other, kept pace with the 747 for several minutes, moving in unison with an odd rocking.


www.ufoevidence.org...

So the two objects above were definitely two smaller UFO’s and because as is said that there were no clouds its highly possible that the big one was indeed a mother ship then.

Then see also its behavior, it’s obvious capable of moving/disappearing quickly.


As the 747 neared Fairbanks:

The lights (of the city) were extremely bright to eyes that were used to the dark. (The cockpit lights had been turned off to eliminate window reflections of internal lights.) We were just above the bright city lights and we checked the pale white light behind us. Alas!

There was a silhouette of a gigantic spaceship. We must run away quickly! "Anchorage Center. The JAL1628 is requesting a change of course to right 45 degrees." It felt like a long time before we received permission

Just after the plane turned to the right, the AARTCC controller called the Fairbanks Approach Radar controller to find out whether or not the short-range radar had a target near the JAL. The approach radar reported no target other than JAL1628.

The plane came out of the turn and flew toward Talkeetna at an altitude of 31,000 ft, with the object still following.

At about 5:40 a United Airlines passenger jet took off from Anchorage and .ed north to Fairbanks. The AARTCC controller decided to ask the UA pilot to try to see the object that was following the JAL flight. The UA pilot said he would look when he got closer. The controller asked the JAL flight to stay at 31,000 ft and the UA flight to stay at 29,000 ft. He then directed the UA flight to turn some more so that the planes would pass within five miles of one another.

As the United Airlines jet got closer, the UFO apparently dropped behind, allowing the JAL plane to get far a.. The United pilot asked the AARTCC to have the JAL pilot flash the .lights on the JAL aircraft so he could locate the plane. At 5:49:45 the JAL pilot did that. At this point the planes were about 25 miles apart.

When the planes were about 12 miles apart, the UA plane reported seeing the JAL plane and nothing else. But by this time the UFO had apparently disappeared, not being seen by JAL1628, either.


And again your cloud explanation holds also no ground for this happening below.



Then the next day I got a call from someone with the Scientific Study Group [for President Reagan], or the CIA, I’m not sure who it was, the first call. And they had some questions about the incident. And I had said, I don’t know what you are talking about, you probably want to call the Admiral [FAA Administrator Engen].

Well a few minutes later the Admiral calls down and says, I have set up a briefing tomorrow morning at 9:00 am in the round room. Bring all the stuff you have.

Bring everybody up there and give them whatever they want. We want to get out of it. Just let them do whatever they want. So I brought all the people from the Tech Center. We had all kinds of boxes of data that we had them print out; it filled up the room.

They brought in three people from the FBI, three people from the CIA, and three people from Reagan’s Scientific Study team — I don’t know who the rest of the people were but they were all excited…

When they got done, they actually swore all these other guys in there that this never took place. We never had this meeting. And this was never recorded.

SG: Who said that? Who was saying that?

JC: This was one of the guys from the CIA. Okay? That they were never there and this never happened.

At the time I said, well I don’t know why you are saying this. I mean, there was something there and if it’s not the stealth bomber, then you know, it’s a UFO. And if it’s a UFO, why wouldn’t you want the people to know? Oh, they got all excited over that. You don’t even want to say those words.

He said this is the first time they ever had 30 minutes of radar data on a UFO.

And they are all itching to get their hands onto the data and to find out what it is and what really goes on. He says if they come out and told the American public that they ran into a UFO out there, it would cause panic across the country.

So therefore, you can’t talk about it. And they are going to take all this data…


www.ufoevidence.org...

An interesting note;
Here is another UFO sighting of an object with the same kind of shape as the shape of the object seen by Captain Terauchi and his crew.


771122/01:00 – Município de Belém - Baía do Sol (Mosqueiro Island) – Reddish light moving north about 30 meters above the bay in front of Ponta do Machadinho (island of Colares), 1,500 meters from beach, alternately climbing and descending (wavy motion?), then disappearing suddenly. At 01:30 a new sighting with the same characteristics.




www.mufon.com...

So because of that all, I don’t agree in any way with your conclusion that it was nothing more than a cloud.




[edit on 21/2/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
So because of that all, I don’t agree in any way with your conclusion that it was nothing more than a cloud.


If you want to disagree with my explanation, that's fine, but you should at least read it before disagreeing with it, I only said the cloud explains the radar returns and the silhouette of the giant spaceship, not the lights. My explanation starts on page 3 here and lasts for several pages.

All the radar returns are in the direction of the cloud, and all the lights are in the direction of Allen Army Airfield. Therefore it's not unreasonable to suspect the cloud caused the radar returns and the airfield was the source of the lights (which were then reflected on an inversion layer), especially when the drawings of the lights look so much like airfield lights, it really adds up. But I'm not going to repost the entire explanation here, so please read it if you are really interested.

The satellite image does confirm the immediate area was relatively cloudless, so that weather report about clear skies seems consistent with the satellite image, for the most part the skies were clear and in fact JL1628 went around that cloud so they didn't even see it until it was backlit as Dr Maccabee stated. That cloud was sort of a loner in the immediate flight path area.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Arby:

Since you maintain that a cloud explains the radar returns, you do realize that a cloud shows up on radar a certain way and under certain conditions, right?What kind of radar target was seen on the scopes in the JAL case? I'm not too much up to date on the specifics of the JAL incident, so I'm sure you can enlighten me.

Just because you have a cloud in the sky, and a radar target, it does not mean you can put these together.

PS the Condon report has a nice section on radar returns, anomalous propagation, etc. Though dated the basics are still valid.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by jclmavg]



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join