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.

 

USAF advises Commercial airliner to 'abandon landing' and follow UFO.

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Nice post.



"The Air Force concluded that the object viewed during this sighting was the planet Venus."


I mean c'mon, seriousley when are the public going to stand up and hold the "usaf" accountable for some of the dumbest excuses and lame lies they keep feeding us with. Time after time they give some daft reason or explanation and no one bats an eyelid. They are liers and need to held accountable for thier actions/deceitfullness.

Excuse my bad spelling just a quick post whilst at work




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cookie79
They are liers and need to held accountable for thier actions/deceitfullness.


Why?



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cookie79
Nice post.



"The Air Force concluded that the object viewed during this sighting was the planet Venus."


I mean c'mon, seriousley when are the public going to stand up and hold the "usaf" accountable for some of the dumbest excuses and lame lies they keep feeding us with. Time after time they give some daft reason or explanation and no one bats an eyelid. They are liers and need to held accountable for thier actions/deceitfullness.

Excuse my bad spelling just a quick post whilst at work


Venus can be a tricky customer. While in the Med, we saw Venus so bright we actually thought a helicopter with a search light was coming in to inspect us. However that being said this case does not sound like Venus to me and came right out of the "they will believe anything we say" book of military answers.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I'm shocked at the USAF's apparent disregard for the lives of the passengers.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by draknoir2]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
lol, have to laugh as first any legitimate astronomer knows that the planet earth rotates counter clock wise to the sun, thus venus rotates clockwise. so how is this possible. sheesh, my god, best laugh of the day



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 

I almost got excited when I saw this post, until I saw that it was done in 1956. Oh well.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Okay, I am going to put on my tinfoil cap for a moment...

First...Not Venus. Yes to many times average observers confuse Venus for something unknown.

This however was moving...and Airport Tower Operators DO NOT get Venus confused with unknown object/aircraft...this is like a zoologist getting a tiger confused with a dog.

What suprises me is that the Air Force would encourage a jet full of passengers to pursue an unknown object? Civilain safety anyone?

Again...wearing the tinfoil hat...it could be speculated that the airforce was encouraging either a confrontation with civilains and an unknown object or they were encouraging an abduction for some purpose.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


Did you Just say there is no life out there???

Are you saying all Witnesses are delusional/Crazy/Ignorants?

Im no expert in stars brother but I can surelly tell the difference between a star and a moving light in the sky.

So you believe us humans are it and God only created us.
You know what brother! Im sure you used to say there is no water else where in the universe and they found it on more then 2 planets.

To say it could be possible is one thing but to Say it doesnt exist there is no doubt about it is ignorant and closed minded.

Unless I misinterpreted your post brother ...

Fear No One, Trust No One



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by guidanceofthe third kind
well now we know that venus is the most agile of the planets


Indeedy - the Venus explanation was also (ab)used to debunk the Redmond Oregon incident:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder just how stupid the USAF think people actualy are?


About as stupid as they really are unfortunately. The level of intelligence that one finds on ATS (well at least most of the time) is not representative of the general population.

The average guy or gal on the street probably thinks satellites "fly" and make quick maneuvers just like airplanes.

-rrr



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by guidanceofthe third kind
well now we know that venus is the most agile of the planets


Indeedy - the Venus explanation was also (ab)used to debunk the Redmond Oregon incident:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder just how stupid the USAF think people actualy are?


Although I bring no bounty of links, I have seen that excuse used many times. It's bizarre because these are trained pilots. It's like if a fisherman says he has seen a ghost and someone tells him, no that was a trout. These pilots must become so enraged when these flimsy stories are given out in response to their long, clear testimony. Eye witness sightings are never taken seriously, not even with people who are as credible as life long pilots.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


I know! Venus? What a stupid excuse! Are people really that dumb, or do you think the government agencies are laughing their arses off, saying "lets just tell'em it was Venus what are they gonna do? prove us wrong? and who will believe them?! hahaha"



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

"The Air Force concluded that the object viewed during this sighting was the planet Venus."

Air Force "fact sheet", 1963.


There are a number of reasons pointing to the fact that this UFO was not Venus.


  1. According to the original article, they were flying into a "starless night" (meaning it was cloudy)
  2. The captain reported that they came "abreast" to the UFO. "Abreast" means "near" or "next to".
  3. After they were next to it, the captain said the UFO zoomed off and away from them at tremendous speed
  4. While Venus's shine can be bright at times, it is never "painfully" bright, so bright that they almost couldn't look at it, as reported by the captain.
  5. People on ground (fixed position) also saw the light - how could both airborne witnesses and ground witnesses mistake a planet (common occurrence) for a UFO? Both saw the light MOVING. A planet's motion across the sky is too slow to be observed clearly.


Based on those testimonies and facts, the Venus response by the USAF is clearly just disinformation which is completely unsupported by the facts.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Venus or not I find it odd that they told the commercial aircraft to pursue the UFO, I wonder what they had hoped to accomplish by doing such a thing?



Chadwickus,thanks for the reply- you make some good points.

I'm just speculating but I suspect the Air Force base wanted to keep track of the unknown object due to their military ground radar not being warmed up yet:



Ryan: We looked at one another a little bit amazed, so we decided we'd call Griffiss Air Force Base, and I thought they had the radar on. . . And they didn't have it on- It would taken them 30 minutes to energize the set.


Neff: They asked us to keep it sighted and we did, and we kept calling out our location and as we told them where we were we turned all our lights on. They asked us to turn them off and they could see us, and they asked if this object you see is orange in color. We said it was---


Ryan: Yes. They said "we have a definite silhouette in sight south of the field." Now those fellas are observers who are in the tower. They said that they could see a silhouette





Originally posted by Chadwickus
This is back in the days when the airforce would scramble fighter jets to intercept UFO's because they believed them to be a possible threat.



Yes,there are many UFO incidents from that era where fighter jets were scrambled to intercept unknown objects -in some instances the pilots were ordered to shoot them down:



"This thing had to be going double-digit mach making turns that I didn't think were possible, breaking all the rules of physics,
The man that visited me later told me in no uncertain terms to keep quiet. He told me I would lose my pilot’s license and it would be the end of my flying days, so for 30 years I've said nothing"

Retired Air Force pilot Milton Torres discussing his F-86D Sabre fighter jet UFO incident in 1957 in which he was ordered to shoot down a UFO hovering over the British countryside.
Air Force Times Interview, Oct 22nd, 2008.





Originally posted by Chadwickus
It's also back when they were more forthcoming about such things. (project bluebook etc)



Ah yes the good old days - Project Bluebook may have been 'more forthcoming' back then but if you go back and actualy examine some of their 'explanations and conclusions' then many of them simply fail to stand up.

Dr James McDonald makes an important point here:



"As a result of several trips to project Bluebook,I´ve had an opportunity to examine quite carefully and in detail the types of reports that are made by Bluebook personnel. In most cases,I have found that theres almost no correlation between so-called "evaluations and explanations" that are made by Bluebook and the facts of the case...
There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of this problem,years ago,yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Bluebook investigators and their consultants."

Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona



As does Dr Hyneck:


"Project Blue Book was ballyhooed by the Air Force as a full-fledged top-priority operation. It was no such thing. The staff, in a sense, was a joke. In terms of scientific training and numbers, it was highly inadequate to the task. And the methods used were positively archaic. And that is the crack operation that the general public believes looked adequately into the UFO phenomenon".

Dr J Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force investigations of UFOs from 1948 until 1969 (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book).



Who knows- maybe the project was just window dressing for the public so the USAF could manipulate (and lower) their statistical figures for 'actual unknowns'.




Originally posted by Chadwickus
I believe there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye and not necessarily aliens, maybe something to do with the cold war as DoomsdayRex mentioned.



Well, I'm sure there may have been a heightened state of awareness back then due to Cold War nerves but its worth pointing out that there are quite a number of very unusual UFO reports from the 1950s - some of which involve unknown objects performing flight characteristics, aerial manouverability and rates of speed that we cannot even attain today.

NICAP have some comprehensive files here on the subject and a few of the incidents are mentioned in this thread.

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
..do you think the government agencies are laughing their arses off, saying "lets just tell'em it was Venus what are they gonna do? prove us wrong? and who will believe them?! hahaha"


Apparently so:


Dayton,USA -March 8th,1950

An extraordinary encounter took place on March 8th,1950, once again right over ATIC in Dayton. In mid morning,TWA pilot Capt.W .H. Kerr reported to the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) that he and two other TWA pilots saw a UFO hovering at a high altitude.
The pilots were unaware that CAA had received over twenty other reports describing a UFO in the area.
ATIC contol tower operators saw the object,and the radar had an unidentified target in the same position.Something was up there.

Wright Patterson AFB sent four F-51 fighters to intercept.Two of the pilots saw the object,which appeared round and,in the words of one of them, "huge and metallic".
It appeared to be hiding in a cloud formation,which prevented the pilots from closing on it. They eventualy turned back.The Master Sergeant who tracked the object on radar stated
"The target was a good,solid return....caused by a good,solid target", Witnesses reported that the UFO climbed verticaly out of sight at high speed.

A report was sent to the Civil Aeronautics Authority in Washington,then turned over to Air Force Intelligence -
ATIC's official answer was that the UFO had been the planet Venus.
The pilots and radar men vehemently disagreed.

keyholepublishing.com...



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
I almost got excited when I saw this post, until I saw that it was done in 1956.


There are plenty more cases you can address from recent times.

This documentary covers a few of them.

video.google.co.uk...

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Based on those testimonies and facts, the Venus response by the USAF is clearly just disinformation which is completely unsupported by the facts.


Great post Harry.

The above statement can also be used to describe the Portage County UFO Incident:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It appears the USAF also used 'the Venus debunk' for this (quite fascinating) case as well.
Cheers.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I wonder why the Air Force would have used a prop plane to track a UFO traveling "800-900" miles per hour. Given that the B-707 was the first commercial US jet and was launched in '58 It obviously a prop plane. The article mentions a Convair, and the pilot worked for American Airlines. This makes it probably a CV-240 or a variant. Cruise speed is 280mph max is 315mph (Pilot says he was doing about 240mph). If I read the article right they tracked it for 30 minutes? Assuming they started very close to each other ("we came abreast of it") and travelled in roughly the same direction, the UFO would have been about 250-350 miles away after 30 minutes. The service ceiling for a 240 is about 16,000ft. That puts the horizon about 150 miles out. At 4500ft were they were at duing the encounter the horizon would have been 90 miles out. It would have disappeared over the horizon after about 10 minutes.

edit: After reading again it says that it didnt keep going but slowed and kept distance about 8 miles away. If it were right on top of the plane it would have covered that distance in 2 seconds. The pilot did say he couldnt get a judge of its size. Without a size comparison, how could he know distance or speed? I also didn't notice anything that the Air Force asked them to divert or abandon their landing. The captain saw something adn decided to follow it. The airforce simply asked him to turn of his lights. That is also odd, since the object was 3-8 miles away at all times. What could his lights have possibly picked up?

I'm not question the pilots integrity. I think he beleives everything he says is true. I am also not saying that UFO's dont exist or that we are alone in the universe. I believe, but this isn't your proof. This article is full of things that don't make sense. I'm calling any of BS, but I have to question it quite heavily.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by tristar
Do i need to really post a link or is it that the search option is far more harder than i imagined for members of ats ?


I was responding to BigfootNZ. But if you have evidence of the US government shooting down an airliner because of a UFO sighting, please post it.


Oh okay, but if i did have any evidence i sure would not post anything as it would create a universe of problems for myself and my immediate loved ones.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by barrelmaker
I wonder why the Air Force would have used a prop plane to track a UFO traveling "800-900" miles per hour. Given that the B-707 was the first commercial US jet and was launched in '58 It obviously a prop plane. The article mentions a Convair, and the pilot worked for American Airlines. This makes it probably a CV-240 or a variant. Cruise speed is 280mph max is 315mph (Pilot says he was doing about 240mph). If I read the article right they tracked it for 30 minutes? Assuming they started very close to each other ("we came abreast of it") and travelled in roughly the same direction, the UFO would have been about 250-350 miles away after 30 minutes....



Thanks for the stats on prop planes.

In the full transcript of the television interview the pilots state the object seemed to be stationary for a while - standing just off their wingtip. The stewardess also witnessed the object as it moved away:



Int: Was that a regular flight of American Airlines?

Ryan: Yes, it was.

Int: From Buffalo to New York?

Ryan: This flight comes out of New York and lands at Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and terminates in Buffalo.

Int: What was your first idea that anything was happening-- that you were seeing something?

Neff: This very brilliant white light, like an approaching aircraft with its landing lights on. Naturally we moved away from it thinking that's what it was. Then we noticed it was standing still at the time and we got sort of curious.

Int: Just about what location was this?

Ryan: This was just about over Schenectady. We were coming out of Albany. We took off north and we made a left turn and we noticed this light over Schenectady. It seemed to be standing still.

Int: A light? Now, when you say a light do you mean a light like a light bulb- about that color?

Ryan: Oh yes, very fluorescent--a very bright light.

Int: A big what?

Ryan: A large light. It looked more like a light coming into Albany airport.

MIT: And both of you saw it? At the same time?

Int: How close were you to it, do you think?

Ryan: We turned a little bit to pass to the south of it, and we were probably 2 or 3 miles from it.

Int: And the thing was just standing there?

Ryan: Just about standing; it was off our wingtip.


Int: Was there anyone else on the flight with you?

Ryan: Oh, we had Miss Reynolds, our stewardess was with us.

Int: Did she happen to notice it too?

Ryan: She came up. We called her and she came up and looked at it later on after this had taken off at this terrific speed from where we first noticed it.

Int: How long was it stationary there?

Neff: We couldn't say that it was actually stationary.....(several talking at once) < br />

Ryan: · . . from the time we were off the ground at Albany, until we--it's about 15 miles by air to Schenectady and it was off our wingtip, and we watched it go through a ninety degree arc, go right straight to the west, and it was-- how many seconds does it take to go through a ninety degree arc?

Int: Bruce?

Foster: How fast would you say it appeared to be going? Did it change speed very radically during the time that you saw it?

Ryan: The initial speed l would say probably was 800 to 1000 miles an hour. How fast can it--it's hard to say, just to compute that speed.

Link





Originally posted by barrelmaker
I also didn't notice anything that the Air Force asked them to divert or abandon their landing. The captain saw something adn decided to follow it.



More of the interview dealing with why the aircraft was asked to switch their lights on and off (location position) and the subsequent orders to follow the object:



Neff: They asked us to keep it sighted and we did, and we kept calling out our location and as we told them where we were we turned all our lights on. They asked us to turn them off and they could see us, and they asked if this object you see is orange in color. We said it was---

lnt: This is after it turned on I understand

Ryan: Yes. They said "we have a definite silhouette in sight south of the field." Now those fellas are observers who are in the tower. They said that they could see a silhouette.

Neff: Watertown could see it and they're quite a ways north of Griffiss, and Albany saw it--two men in the tower at Albany--one an Air Force man and one a CAA man. And they saw it after we first called them, and noticed--and they looked over to the west and saw it right away.

Int: And when they saw it was it moving?

Neff: Well, we didn't get to talk with them---

Int: But to you it was moving?

Neff: Oh yes.

Int: Real fast?

Ryan: It stayed just that far ahead of us, and they asked us what our point of next intended landing was, and 1 told them Syracuse, and they wanted to be identified--our aircraft, number and serial number, and they said "well abandon that next landing temporarily and maintain the course and your altitude," so we did. They were calling scramble.

Link




Originally posted by barrelmaker
I believe, but this isn't your proof



Proof?
Proof of what -UFOs?


"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.

Link



I have to say you make a lot of insignificant or erroneous remarks in your post Barrelmaker.

Given that the reported facts about this case are correct do you think the object was the planet Venus?


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
By the way, we are alone, there is no such other living organism in the billions of stars within our known universe.


I find your post rather amusing. I can only conclude this ideology is formed either from a rhetorically religious individual or an atheist who lacks knowledge in DNA, bacteria and life form mutations.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join