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: 9
35
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



Especially because the AARTCC asked the JAL 1628 several times if there were clouds near their altitude, which they answered as no.


If they confused the cloud with a UFO, they would never say "hey, we are seeing a cloud. It's also a UFO".

If they confuse visually that cloud for a UFO (this may have happened due to the mirage theory), and then they are asked "do you see any clouds?", of course they are not going to say they see a cloud.

Which is actually working against them, because THERE WAS A CLOUD near them.


If you find their testimony so important, why then do you totally ignore it?


I've never ignored it. Actually, I debated it on the thread by internos regarding this case.

And where did I ignored it? I said that the UA flight stated that they didn't see any UFO, that's the important bit. I don't recall them denying any cloud around JAL, which is a lot different from not referring any cloud to the report.

I'm just assuming that the UA crew knew that the JAL would be able to distinguish between a cloud and a UFO.


JAL 1628 pilots is therefore indeed important and in fact the only possible explanation that it was indeed a UFO because a UFO can appear and disappear anytime its crew wanted it to do.


I'm going to give you room to the possibility of a UFO turn on and off visualization.

So, using that, there is still a problem. A UFO going visible and invisible is plausible, but are you also going to say that they can choose WHO is able to see them?

Because, timing is everything, and the JAL crew pinpointed the location of the visual UFO, and the UA stated they didn't see anything, but they DID see the JAL 747.

I'm okay with the plausibility and theorizing about what type of UFO (assuming it was a ship) it was. But filling the gaps with exotic explanations isn't going to take us anywhere further to understand what happened.


Of course that radar operator doesn't put his feet down, he is quite aware of the consequences when he would do that.

Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi was grounded for his indiscretion of reporting a UFO.


He is aware, but you aren't.

UFO's are taken seriously in aviation. We have reports that we need to fill the second we turn off the aircraft, because any UFO can be a hazard/threat to civil/military aviation.

They DO take it seriously. They just don't flag it around, but they have to assume that it can be from aliens to a enemy nation advanced aircraft going into illegal territory without clearence.

A radar operator MUST give accurate information, and he CAN'T "go with the flow" of events. This isn't fun, neither it is a hobby.

Peoples life can depend on it.

But, having that said, he shows a lot of uncertain, which is easily interpreted by someone in aviation as the type of sighting he was analyzing in his scope.

For him, it could be a cloud, a UFO, or a new species of duck.

Thus, the possibility of it actually being a cloud.

He said "he thinks" that the UFO is following him, because he wasn't sure in that time period. It was very quick, and you need some time to plot courses and understand the behavior of an aircraft.

It's not like in the movies where dots move really fast and in 2 minutes they cross a country.

Radar protocols have time labels, you need to follow the blips in order to understand where he is going from point A to point B, and how he is doing it (curve, straight line, speed, etc).


I am convinced that radar operators are trained in never admitting or speak in UFO cases like this about calling the unknown object a UFO or an unknown aircraft, they [the AARTCC] named it in this case as “traffic” and the ROCC named it “him” or “he”.


Then I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Like I said, UFO's are taking seriously, and "here" we don't put beauty into words.

UFO in civil life is an alien craft with little green beings inside of it.

In military/civil aviation, it means UNKNOWN FLYING OBJECT. Three different but important words.

UFO is on the top of characterization. Is the one where you state that you don't know ANYTHING about that particular data/image/whatever.

After that, you begin to put details into the profile of the object. Is it a plane? Is it moving? How fast is it moving? How is the object signature? How high/low? and so on, until you have an id, or you end up without understanding what it was.

Sometimes an explanation pops up, sometimes it doesn't. Most of the "doesn't" are UFO cases, like this one, but that doesn't mean that some theories don't explain most of the reports. That is the case with JA flight.

Although we have some strict protocols regarding communications and expressions used, the military tend to be "free" while talking, thus the ATC saying "he" or "him", or even "it".

While more "professional" controllers will use "traffic", "UFO" or another expression that puts a small label on that object being detected.

In the military they use closed frequencies for communication, thats why they don't need strict and precise vocabulary. You can even hear "dude" on some air communication between the military.

But in civil aviation, since we are a lot more than military, we need words, expressions and sentencing rules in order so that EVERYONE that is hearing can understand.

The fact that the ATC told the UA flight "do you see any traffic near JAL?" means that they were asking them "do you see any aircraft near JAL plane?". Precise, short sentences that give you the information that you need to understand and communicate back without message pollution.

That's mainly why the UA flight never referred to the cloud near JAL. They were never asked about it.

People need to draw a line between romance and reality, because many people tend to put theories and preconceptions in the way of reality.

Most of your points raised regarding the radar controllers are completely mundane to me or any other pilot/crew/ATC.




posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

When the planes were about 12 miles apart and still approaching one another, the UA plane reported seeing the JAL plane and nothing else. By this time the "mothership" had apparently disappeared:


Again, and especially if it was a cloud, that UA plane must have seen it.
At this time when the UA flight and the JAL flight were about 12 miles apart, the cloud was already many miles behind the JAL flight so it would have been over 20 miles from the UA flight I think though I don't have exact coordinates and times on the UA flight to give you an exact distance.

Remember JAL1628 couldn't see the cloud either most of the time, until it was silhouetted against some background lights at a particular angle, therefore it's reasonable to say that unless the cloud was similarly silhouetted by some background lights for the UA flight also, they wouldn't see it, and at this angle it wasn't, so they didn't see it.

Edit to add: I see Tifozi replied that UA was asked about "traffic", not a cloud, so that makes sense as another reason they wouldn't report a cloud even if they DID see it.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Excellent post as usual Arbitrageur

The Oldfield film looks like a reflection to me too, especially as it disappears - there is sort of a fish-eye effect.

It is also symmetrical about 2 axes which lends more credence to this hypothesis.

As you say it is likely that some or maybe many pilot sighting are mirages of some sort.

With regards to temp inversions it is possible that two separate and distant radars could get a return from a temp inversion under certain conditions if the refraction was great enough. These inversions are called super-refractional. This type of inversion could also produce a mirage effect.




[edit on 23/2/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic
As you say it is likely that some or maybe many pilot sighting are mirages of some sort.

With regards to temp inversions it is possible that two separate and distant radars could get a return from a temp inversion under certain conditions if the refraction was great enough. These inversions are called super-refractional.


Thanks LightFantastic, it sounds like you know something about this topic, so thanks for contributing.

I actually only think it's "some" and not "many" pilot UFO sightings that are explained by mirages, since from the research I've done the upper altitude temperature inversions are less common than thermal inversions closer to the ground. But, given this fact, I think that while pilot mirage sightings may be somewhat unusual, I don't think ground observer mirage UFO sightings are that unusual.

Here's a case of a ground observer sighting I haven't mentioned yet, which I suspect is a mirage, and even the photographer thinks it could be a "reflection":

Classic UFO Pictures: 1952 Salem Massachusetts Coast Guard



www.slate.com...


"These people interviewed me till I was going out of my head," Alpert recalled. They asked him if what he saw could have been a reflection of some sort. "Sure could," he answered.


So the photographer thinks it could be a reflection, so do I. But here's how some people use that photo:

www.ufodigest.com...


Flying Saucers are real and they pose a great psychological threat to the nation, as well as, a potential threat to the military supremacy and national security of the United States. In 1957, they had not exhibited any overt hostile actions yet (except, as the panelists knew, when fired upon or attacked by our aircraft).

However, the potential threat of attack ("indications of hostile actions") was clearly a major concern and the "noise" (i.e. interference) of thousands of UFO reports across the country could impede the military in the national defense by distracting it from discerning "true indications of hostile actions" from "false indications" of UFO attacks.


Now isn't it a little ironic that even the photographer says they could be reflections, yet that is the ONE UFO photograph attached to that article saying "Flying saucers are real", and if it is a reflection as I and the photographer suspect it might be, that would explain whey they didn't "attack"!


I also think it likely that the Salida CO UFO sightings are the result of reflections from temperature inversions, again to ground observers.

But getting back to your super-refraction comment, I ran across that term in a description of "Ducting" in this link:

www.theweatherprediction.com...

I also found it interesting that a type of ducting can carry mirages so far that you can actually see objects beyond the horizon, hundreds of miles away.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



Especially because the AARTCC asked the JAL 1628 several times if there were clouds near their altitude, which they answered as no.

I'm just assuming that the UA crew knew that the JAL would be able to distinguish between a cloud and a UFO.


You are absolutely right here, the JAL crew would indeed be able to distinguish between a cloud and a UFO, therefore they did not spoke of a cloud but they spoke very clearly of a mothership.


After seeing the outline the captain had the impression that the distant lights were on a very large "mothership" and that the two small "ships" had traveled to the "mothership"


Thanks for mentioning that.


Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



JAL 1628 pilots is therefore indeed important and in fact the only possible explanation that it was indeed a UFO because a UFO can appear and disappear anytime its crew wanted it to do.


I'm going to give you room to the possibility of a UFO turn on and off visualization.

So, using that, there is still a problem. A UFO going visible and invisible is plausible, but are you also going to say that they can choose WHO is able to see them?


Firstly, as you probably also know, a UFO can move unbelievable fast, so by doing that they can appear and disappear very quickly from or at the scene.

They also can if necessary make themselves on the spot visually visible and invisible due a for us so far unknown kind of technology and that counts also for our radars.

Then regarding your last remark of I think that they are capable to choose WHO is able to see them, my answer is yes.


Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



Of course that radar operator doesn't put his feet down, he is quite aware of the consequences when he would do that.

Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi was grounded for his indiscretion of reporting a UFO.


He is aware, but you aren't.


UFO's are taken seriously in aviation. We have reports that we need to fill the second we turn off the aircraft, because any UFO can be a hazard/threat to civil/military aviation.

They DO take it seriously. They just don't flag it around, but they have to assume that it can be from aliens to a enemy nation advanced aircraft going into illegal territory without clearence.

A radar operator MUST give accurate information, and he CAN'T "go with the flow" of events. This isn't fun, neither it is a hobby.

Peoples life can depend on it.


I did not say that they DIDN”T take it seriously and I DIDN’T give the impression that they DON’T give accurate information and I am FULLY aware that people’s lives can depend on it.

Therefore I can strongly recommend you to read this narcap.org report. Aviation Safety in America – A previously Neglected Factor.
By Richard Haines Chief Scientist.

In there is something very interested said regarding the JAL 1628 case, it’s at the bottom of page 27.


As was briefly discussed in the Japan Airlines flight 1628 case of November 17, 1986, the FAA was clearly caught between a rock and a hard place in deciding what to say publicly about the large lighted object[s] that Capt. Kenju Terauchi and his crew had reported.

The FAA didn’t want to encourage the public hysteria by releasing information “whose meaning it could no ascertain.

It also did not want to cast aspersions on the crew – it had no reason to – or create the impression that it had anything to cover up, because it didn’t.

The FAA just didn’t know.

It was a lose-lose situation.”



Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



I am convinced that radar operators are trained in never admitting or speak in UFO cases like this about calling the unknown object a UFO or an unknown aircraft, they [the AARTCC] named it in this case as “traffic” and the ROCC named it “him” or “he”.


Then I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Like I said, UFO's are taking seriously, and "here" we don't put beauty into words.

UFO in civil life is an alien craft with little green beings inside of it.

In military/civil aviation, it means UNKNOWN FLYING OBJECT. Three different but important words.


Look what is said in that same narcap.org report. Aviation Safety in America – A previously Neglected Factor.
By Richard Haines Chief Scientist.

Its at the top of page 28.


Another interesting quote was made by FAA’s air traffic manager in Anchorage, a Mr. Elias, concerning the November 17, 1986 JAL flight 1628 close encounter and alleged ground radar traces.

“We come to the conclusion… that, uh, you know…we can’t confirm nor deny.

If the [crew] had never said anything, we would have said, “We see that every day.” “It [the UFO’s radar return] would have been passed off as a split beacon or “uncorrelated target.” [italics mine]

This is an interesting admission indeed.

It suggest that there may be more UAP related radar traces that the FAA is willing to admit.



Originally posted by Tifozi
Most of your points raised regarding the radar controllers are completely mundane to me or any other pilot/crew/ATC.


I try to understand your real meaning of the word mundane you are using in this reamark, so perhaps you can say it in some other words for me.


[edit on 23/2/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
You are absolutely right here, the JAL crew would indeed be able to distinguish between a cloud and a UFO, therefore they did not spoke of a cloud but they spoke very clearly of a mothership.


Yes the captain did, but technically you can't refer to the captain as "they" because he is singular and the crew is plural. There's a reason for making this distinction, according to Dr Maccabee:

brumac.8k.com...


Tsukuba was sure that the "mothership" light was indeed outside the aircraft, but it was sufficiently indistinct and "hard to see" from his seat on the right side of the jet that he was "not certain whether it was lights of a distant town or a strange object."



www.physicsforums.com...

Personally I think that the initial sighting of two objects in front of the plane, seen by the whole crew, is a "strong" UFO event. However the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship" by the captain alone is a "weak" UFO event. Too bad the crew didn't speak English better.
-bruce maccabee

So only the captain saw the "mothership", so you can say "he" (the captain) saw it, but you can't say "they" saw it. And because of that Dr. Maccabee characterized that part of the event as a "weak" UFO event since it wasn't corroborated by the rest of the crew, so in fact it's significant to some extent that "they" did not see it.



Originally posted by spacevisitor
Then regarding your last remark of I think that they are capable to choose WHO is able to see them, my answer is yes.


You realize that's a pretty outlandish claim, right?



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Referring back to the BOAC Labrador sighting of June 29, 1954, which I believe is also a case of a pilot mirage sighting like the JL1628 case, I think there are some commonalities between the two cases.

The UFOs "followed" both planes at the same speed and direction as the plane, a classic sign of a mirage, but the objects appearance morphed in both cases. Earlier in this thread I reposted sketches the captain of JL1628 made of how the 2 small ships seemed to morph in appearance. Now let's look at a series of sketches made by Capt. James Howard of the BOAC flight, which also show the suspected mirage morphing its shape over the 18 minutes he and the other crew and some passengers observed it:

www.ufo-blog.com...


And here are three sketches that the pilot made after his sighting:








Now I don't think the BOAC observed a mirage of airport lights like JL1628 did, in fact I'm not sure what the source of the BOAC image was. However I do note there's a commonality in these suspected mirage sightings by pilots that the images are not constant, they can morph appearance over time which is consistent with what we know about mirages, they don't produce perfect reflections like a mirror, they usually have some degree of distortion.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


While watching those sketches, it flashed my mind like a thunder. lol

Isn't it possible that this case is only about a glass distortion? I was looking at the sketches and for some reason my brain associated them with those distortions that sometimes you see in cheap glass windows and whatnot.

Bare in mind that in those days the cockpits weren't made with the same standards as our cockpit windows now.

Adding to that information, the position of the sun in relation to the object also explains the changes in shape, the actual shape of the UFO, and it also explains the duration of the sighting and relation to the aircraft.

The only problem that I see with this theory, is the fact that the report color of the object was black, not very usual with sun glares or glass distortions.

Another thing that is bothering me...

...if more people on the aircraft spotted the UFO, why the only witness in reports is the Captain?

I don't think I missed something, but I'm only seeing the Captain testimony.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
The only problem that I see with this theory, is the fact that the report color of the object was black, not very usual with sun glares or glass distortions.

Another thing that is bothering me...

...if more people on the aircraft spotted the UFO, why the only witness in reports is the Captain?

I don't think I missed something, but I'm only seeing the Captain testimony.


Watch the video at about 50 seconds, he says at least 10 people saw it:

So if they all saw the same morphing, that would rule out the glass theory but you're right, all I can find are the captain's statements. But I'm not sure what the airline or regulatory policies and procedures were, if they would have taken other witness statements or not, I would have thought they would at least debrief the other crew members in the flight deck. But I tend to doubt the glass distortion.

Well the obvious reason the object would appear black, is because it was backlit by the sun. It could have been a mirage of a cloud :

www.caelestia.be...

In the course of correspondence with Dr. Andy YOUNG during summer 2009 an interpretation emerged that may solve some or all of the remaining problems of the mirage theory. Rather than enormously remote mountains the miraged objects may have been silhouetted high-altitude clouds, either lines of towering cumulus (cumulus congestus) which are sometimes known to punch up through an inversion layer [68] (often over 20,000 ft, sometimes to 30,000 ft or more), more fully-developed cumulonimbus storm anvils (even higher and perhaps miles wide, the sort of scale implied by the reported angular width) or alternatively perhaps well-defined orographic clouds (standing-wave lenticular clouds, sometimes called mountain clouds) forming thousands of feet above the peaks. In what follows the reader may refer to the local weather information in Fig. 8.

One relevant reference frequently cited in the mirage literature is a superior mirage of a cumulus cloudtop observed from an aircraft at high altitude in 1956. The authors remark: "Such phenomena as described in this paper do not appear to have been previously reported from aircraft in flight, unless some of the reports of 'flying saucers' may have been due to this effect." (DURST & BULL, 1956) Clearly observations of this type are relatively unusual, but a few reliable records including high-altitude observations of "green flash" mirages [69] "certainly suffice to show that strong inversions can occur at rather large heights in the troposphere. So mirages at aircraft heights are uncommon mainly because of a lack of objects at suitable heights to appear miraged."

....the hypothetical cloud concerned would be far away over the hills of N Quebec, perhaps 400 miles or more distant and thus beyond the geometric horizon.

...The raypaths from high clouds do not have to pass through the dense and hazy lower atmosphere but instead originate and remain within the duct, minimising contrast losses.


And they show this diagram of the raypaths in the duct that would pipe the backlit image of the cloud hundreds of miles:


Fig. 11 : Highly schematic diagram of possible mirage geometry.


The amazing thing to me is, that nobody thought of this possibility (that's documented in the caelestia report) of the cloud until 55 years after the event, in 2009!!! While there is a lot of literature on the field of mirage science, and we know a lot about it, I think we still have a lot to learn about how these known optical effects are manifested.

Edit to add: This case might be easier to solve if it happened today, as we might be able to get satellite data showing if there were clouds over the horizon in the area suspected by this theory, such as the satellite image of a cloud we have in the JAL1628 case! But unfortunately this was before satellite imagery so we may never be able to confirm this explanation with 100% certainty, even though it seems like a good possible explanation.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spacevisitor
You are absolutely right here, the JAL crew would indeed be able to distinguish between a cloud and a UFO, therefore they did not spoke of a cloud but they spoke very clearly of a mothership.


Yes the captain did, but technically you can't refer to the captain as "they" because he is singular and the crew is plural. There's a reason for making this distinction, according to Dr Maccabee:
brumac.8k.com...


That is correct.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur


Tsukuba was sure that the "mothership" light was indeed outside the aircraft, but it was sufficiently indistinct and "hard to see" from his seat on the right side of the jet that he was "not certain whether it was lights of a distant town or a strange object."

www.physicsforums.com...


But Tsukuba said more right after what you posted, and right after that, Copilot Tamefuji said also something very important in my opinion.


He [Tsukuba] reported that the weather was clear and that none of his instruments showed any disturbances.

Copilot Tamefuji recalled that the radar echo was just like other traffic, but, ah, I thought a little bit large. He said the radar target image was green and at a distance of 7 to 8 miles - nautical. He said he had many experiences before in checking oncoming aircrafts on a radar and in his opinion the radar echo was similar to a conventional aircraft echo.


So the weather was clear and the radar showed an echo that was similar to a conventional aircraft, but a little bit large.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Personally I think that the initial sighting of two objects in front of the plane, seen by the whole crew, is a "strong" UFO event. However the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship" by the captain alone is a "weak" UFO event. Too bad the crew didn't speak English better.
-bruce maccabee


Oke, that’s an interesting remark, but right before the post wherein Bruce Maccabee said that, he said this.


I have to dig out buried records to find out if I have the coordinates of the plane. However, you should note that Klass' moonlight-on-clouds explanation was intended for the first two objects which appeared in front of the plane, with their unusual arrays of lights or "fires" and the captain said he felt "heat on his face."

THat certainly doesn't square with moonlight on clouds.


I find it therefore quite remarkable that despite Bruce Maccabee called the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship" by the captain alone is a "weak" UFO event that he doesn’t try to explain it away as that it could be a cloud.

And here below you can see his reason for why he possibly did not do that.


Originally Posted by Bruce Maccabee.

Klaas attributed the airplane radar sighting to "an echo from thin clouds of ice crystals...Klass' explanation for the radar target is total conjecture on his part since the clouds were reported by the plane to be thin.

Would there be any return at all from such clouds?

One might ask, if there were so many clouds, why the radar didn't pick up numerous blobby returns on the right side and ahead of the aircraft as well as on the left where the mothership appeared to be One might ask, if there were so many clouds, why the radar didn't pick up numerous blobby returns on the right side and ahead of the aircraft as well as on the left where the mothership appeared to be.


Oke Arbitrageur, this is my last post regarding this discussion, as you no doubt also understand, I cannot chance in any way your view about this matter and you cannot chance in any way my view, so its better to move on.

It was however an interesting discussion, it really did have cost me a lot of time regarding my English, but it was worth it.

Regards.



[edit on 24/2/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
Yes thanks for the good discussion spacevisitor. There are some interesting conflicting statements, was it clear? Was there a thin cloud? Is a single thin cloud considered being the same as clear? There's no doubt the cloud on satellite looks thin, but then again that's consistent with the green radar return.

You point out another very interesting inconsistency in the 747 radar interpretation, maybe Tifozi can comment on this. The captain says green is a weak weather pattern, and red would be an aircraft (or presumably an extremely dense or high intensity weather pattern, like maybe very heavy rain? At least the color radar in the helicopters I flew in as a passenger I think worked sort of that way, but they were different in different helicopters).

But I agree with your observation that the other crew member said the green looked like "traffic" to him except a little bit large. Now this seems to be in direct conflict with what the captain stated that green meant cloud and red meant traffic. So which one is right? I don't know, maybe Tifozi can shed some light on this, but I'm suspecting the captain is right, based on the radars I've seen, but I could be wrong since I've never seen a 747 radar.

*Edit to add image:

This color scale for weather radar looks like the scale used in the helicopters I flew in, green meant very light weather, very little reflection, and red meant very dense weather, very high reflection. I didn't see another aircraft on it but I would have assumed high reflectivity for a dense object like an aircraft, so red would be my expectation for an aircraft. end edit*

Tifozi, any thoughts on this? There should be some way to resolve this apparent contradiction between the captain and his crew in interpreting the color green on their radar as traffic or a cloud, right?

Maccabee mentioned the language barrier, perhaps that's a contributing factor to the apparent contradiction? Speaking of that your English is good spacevisitor! And thanks for your contributions, you don't have to agree with me to be appreciated, and I hope the feeling is mutual, it was an interesting discussion.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
There was also a lot of dirt with black smoke chugging out nearby.
Or little orbs or Foo at play.



We find these non free energy engine saucers in South America
running on carbon fuels.

Dual Exhaust



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
There was also a lot of dirt with black smoke chugging out nearby.
Or little orbs or Foo at play.


I didn't see any orbs or foo at play, or any dirt with black smoke in the scenery?

What it looks like to me is a weather-related fog/haze at ground level, and quite a few clouds, but they looked whitish, not black.

I did see lots of black specs but they aren't foo fighters. The black specks look like dirt, dust, scratches and other imperfections in the film, it's not very clean.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That frame was taken from a posted youtube video at one time.
Guess you had to see the one I saw.
There were definitely objects flying around the old mother ship we
hear so much about.
However I don't recall sparks only dark orbs as it were.
I was amazed to see that black trail appear.
The dark image of the mother ship is consistent with many images
of dark objects in the sky found in photos.



The photographer probable did not see any orbs flying about
and was amazed when seeing the processed film.
I'm amazed the ship was spotted or more of the same tail illusions
forthcoming as that would be a highly reproducibly effect.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



But I agree with your observation that the other crew member said the green looked like "traffic" to him except a little bit large. Now this seems to be in direct conflict with what the captain stated that green meant cloud and red meant traffic. So which one is right?


I think the Captain is wrong. Not fully wrong, because the interpretation of the radar data is very subjective, but wrong.

And when the crew member says "a little bit large", I think he means that is "a little bit too large to be traffic", only sharing some characteristics, that are also very subjective.


Tifozi, any thoughts on this? There should be some way to resolve this apparent contradiction between the captain and his crew in interpreting the color green on their radar as traffic or a cloud, right?


Green is good, red is bad.


The scale relates to density, and it's aimed to give you the ability to judge the safety/danger of crossing a cloud.

A "green cloud" is a normal cloud, which is safe to "dive" into.

But a red one, with high density, usually means danger, that can go from bad winds to ice, and so on.

That data is displayed so the pilots can decide if they can cross it and save time/fuel, or that they need to go around it, making the job harder and forcing them to calculate fuel consumption, traffic around them, and so on.

Usually this is accomplished with the help of ATC.

Usually, what you see in the radar is a very large shape, with green on the outside, and red in the inside (this depends of the type of cloud you are seeing). Sometimes it's almost all green, some times it only has a little green (outside layer) and has the inside completely red.

Have this for an example:



(It's from a 747 btw)

Regarding to traffic in the radar:

This radars don't have a lot of definition. You have to keep in mind that clouds can have miles in height and width. There is no need to develop a radar that can give you perfect visualization of every inch of the cloud. You just need the larger picture, because it's the larger clouds that can arm you.

So, a small object can be visualized in green. Since the radar is not that precise, an aircraft going into this scale is small, so the feedback shape of that particular aircraft can be very distorted.

Although the aircraft is denser than a cloud, because of it's size, it can be read like a low-density cloud in the radar, especially if you have a bigger scale being used.

In that case, you can have a aircraft made of plutonium and you still have a reading like a low density cloud.

The best way to understand why is actually to imagine a shadow (that is the feedback from the radar). If your light doesn't have a lot of power and definition, the shadow will be like a blur.

If the object in the shadow is huge, you can see the shape and density of it looking at the shadow.

But if the object is very small (compared to a cloud), what you see is a small blur, so you can't really understand how dense and big it really is, and it's shape.



Hope this helped.

[edited to add picture]

[edit on 25/2/10 by Tifozi]



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
Hope this helped.


Yes that is helpful, starred your post!

You seem to know what you're talking about because I researched some radar manuals and they said pretty much what you did, it's subject to interpretation. One I looked at had a gain control on it so by increasing the gain, you could turn a green object into a red object, thereby making the color less decisive as an identification tool, but then you consider other factors like size and shape too.

Even in that area, there seems to be some conflict in what the captain saw, even his own sketch doesn't match his verbal description as well as an artists conception of his description, the captains' sketch looks more like the flight engineer's description.

First the artists rendering based on the captain's description:

brumac.8k.com...


A large green and round object (here he refers to the image or "blip" on the radar screen) had appeared at 7 or 8 miles (13 km to 15 km) away, where the direction of the object was.

I'd say that drawing more or less matches that description, except the color green of course.

But the captain's sketch looks like this:



And that looks like the flight engineer's description, not the captain's:


FLIGHT engineer Tsukuba recalled seeing on the radar screen at "about 10 miles" a "green dot like, not exactly a dot. It was not a dot but stream like", i.e., elongated. He did "not think it (the radar target) was the same lights as the one (sic) I saw in front of us."


Now I don't agree with all of maccabee's analysis though his presentation of the facts is outstanding. But I do agree with this part of his analysis:


At any rate, the shape, size and color of the radar target indicated that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector.


The captain seemed to confirm this was also his interpretation as the reflection was too weak to be from a solid object, such as an aircraft made from metal:


In commenting on the radar image the captain pointed out that "normally it appears in red when an aircraft radar catches another aircraft" whereas green is usually the color of a weak weather target such as a cloud. The fact that the echo was green on the screen led him to ask whether or not the "metal used in the spaceship is different from ours."(2)


So I know you said you think the 747 captain was wrong about how to interpret the color, and I actually agree that an aircraft could show up as green, but if it was a large aircraft made up of metal I suspect it would show up as red, so it appears to me the captain was right about thinking it wasn't a solid object based on the size etc. Is that your take too Tifozi? Do you buy Maccabee's interpretation that "the shape, size and color of the radar target indicated that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector"?



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Are you quite certain that a green color necessarily indicates a weak reflection? Did the scope show a weak, intermittent reflection?

As far as I can The color indicates indicates that whatever bounced the signal back, the reflection occured in a certain frequency range typical for weather radar. You'd have to see the radar tapes and know more about the equipment to draw final conclusions.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 


I didn't talk about strength of the signal. I talked about density and distortion. It works fine with a bigger scale, but I think the weather radar has some trouble with smaller objects.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



At any rate, the shape, size and color of the radar target indicated that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector.


Which is exactly how a cloud appears to "behave" on radar. Large and weak.


but if it was a large aircraft made up of metal I suspect it would show up as red


Yes, absolutely. That's what usually happen. I just threw away the possibility (that some times occurs) of an aircraft showing as green. It's possible, thus, it must be considered.

But, I stick to my opinion that it was indeed a cloud, not an aircraft or a UFO (ship).


Is that your take too Tifozi? Do you buy Maccabee's interpretation that "the shape, size and color of the radar target indicated that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector"?


Under the circumstances(of the case), you have to consider a more abroad range of possibilities for the radar contact.

But if you come to me in person, and just say "hey, the other day I saw a radar display and it had a green silhouette and was almost fading", my immediate response is that it was a cloud. It's the immediate, logical and reasonable explanation for such a contact.

If you keep your mind open, you then follow the path of thinking he did. "Maybe it's a ship with different materials than ours".

For example, the black "paint" on the F-117 and B-2 are synthetic, and it looks and feels like rubber.

We now have the technology to make amazing plastics, which, can reduce significantly your radar signature.

It's possible, to build an aircraft out of plastic, and even more easier if you have an advanced propulsion system that doesn't generate a lot of heat.

It has a lot of advantages. Since plastic can be melted and shaped very easily (even the most advanced ones), you can, for example, build a monocoque structure for the plane, reducing weight, gaining strength and the possibility of odd shapes that can give you much more maneuver capability, resistance, storage space, and so on...

If it was a UFO, is it possible that they don't even use something as "primitive" as metal? Absolutely. But unless there are other clues to that point, I tend to choose the most simple and reasonable explanation. It was a cloud to me.

That sketch from the Captain gives a lot of strength to the cloud theory.

The apparent movement of the UFO is like a stationary/slow-moving object. It was in front, some degrees to the left, and as the 747 was passing,it made a diagonal linear move to the left and then to the back of the 747.

You see the same thing when passing by a cloud, or even looking at an object on the ground.

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

[edit on 26/2/10 by Tifozi]



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Are you quite certain that a green color necessarily indicates a weak reflection? Did the scope show a weak, intermittent reflection?

As far as I can The color indicates indicates that whatever bounced the signal back, the reflection occured in a certain frequency range typical for weather radar. You'd have to see the radar tapes and know more about the equipment to draw final conclusions.


Well here's the thing: He had a visual on the source of the radar reflection, it was the "giant mothership" and the thing was bigger than an aircraft carrier. So given the size of that object, yes I'm 99% sure that green represents a weak reflection.

Now Tifozi is right, if it had been a small plane causing the reflection, the radar could show a green signal, but that's not consistent with the visual sighting of the huge object in the direction of the radar signal of the plane. I see Tifozi just posted he leans toward the cloud interpretation too though if there was no visual sighting of the object he's right we wouldn't rule out a plane.

Maccabee DID pay $100 and ordered the complete data package from the FAA including the radar data, transcripts, etc.

He made the following comments about the plane radar:
brumac.8k.com...
"the shape, size and color of the radar target indicated that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector."

He points out there are issues with the FAA's explanation of a split radar return explaining the other reflections they got.

I'm sure Tifozi will correct me if I'm wrong here but I think the primary purpose of the ground radar is to track aircraft, am I right? And do the controllers get their weather information from seaparate weather radars? So if the ground radar is meant to track aircraft and encounters a big but thin cloud, could that produce an anomalous reflection that looks like a split signal? I don't know, I thought the split signal should have very specific characteristics and I thought the FAA might be trying to force-fit that explanation, when in fact some of the ground returns might have been caused by a thin cloud, the locations are certainly consistent with the cloud.

And the main purpose of the plane's radar system seems to be to track weather, not planes, they rely on ATC to steer them clear of other aircraft tracked on the ground radar. But I defer to Tifozi's expertise in this area, he knows more about it than I do.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join