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: 3
39
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by krystalice

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..


...or a person who was being sarcastic.




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12

Originally posted by krystalice

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..


...or a person who was being sarcastic.



Bingo..! I was being sarcastic


[edit on 8-10-2009 by tristar]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


hahaha I lost a sense of humour there for a second, I should have read your post properly


Gratullations on the sarcasm though



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
More statement by scientists concerning the USAF's completely inadequate UFO investigations, explanations and conclusions:




"I feel that the Air Force has misled us for twenty years.I equate almost all of that misrepresentation to incompetence and superficiality on the part of the Air Frce investigators involved with Project bluebook and its forerunners.Nobody there with any strong scientific competence s looking into the problem ."
Dr James McDonald -Senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Arizona




"I was there at [Project] Bluebook and I know the job they had. They were told not to excite the public, not to rock the boat... Whenever a case happened that they coud explain--which was quite a few--they made a point of that, and let that out to the media. . .Cases that were very difficult to explain, they would jump handsprings to keep the media away from them. They had a job to do, rightfully or wrongfully, to keep the public from getting excited."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, former Chairman of the Dept. of Astronomy at North Western University and scientific advisor to Project Bluebook from 1952-1969




"Based upon unreliable and unscientific surmises as data, the Air Force develops elaborate statistical findings which seem impressive to the uninitiated public unschooled in the fallacies of the statistical method. One must conclude that the highly publicized Air Force pronouncements based upon unsound statistics serve merely to misrepresent the true character of the UFO phenomena."
Yale Scientific Magazine (Yale University) Volume XXXVII, Number 7, April 1963




"Blue Book was now under direct orders to debunk...I remember the conversations around the conference table in which it was suggested that Walt Disney or some other educational cartoon producer be enlisted in the debunking process".
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).




"My study of past official Air Force investigations (Project Blue Book) leads me to describe them as completely superficial. Officially released 'explanations' of important UFO sightings have been almost absurdly erroneous."
Senior Atmospherical Physicist Dr James McDonald, speech to American Meteorological Society 1966


USAF "force fit" debunks.


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



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Funny. This reminded my of a clip I saw of Buzz Aldrin in an interview in which he is saying he also followed an UFO while flying a jet which he later claims to be Venus. Was on you tube but can not find it anymore



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by barrelmaker
 


Don't believe barrelmaker. He seeks to dissuade you because he is, in fact, an alien himself.

I have proof but cannot post it as he will know who I am via the pictures and my position when I took them.

barrelmaker I will not let you destroy the interwebz with your lies to these crazy....I mean fellow conspiracy buffs.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tehzomgconspiracy
 


Tehzomgconspiracy, thanks for sharing your opinions.

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



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Interesting report of similar object over Florida four months earlier:


Dec.11 1955.

At about 9 p.m., along the Atlantic Coast near Jacksonville, Florida, a fast - maneuvering, round, orange - red object was reported by the crews of two airliners and by persons on the ground. Two Navy jets, on a night practice mission, were directed to the area by the Jacksonville Naval Air Station control tower.The jets located the object, but when they attempted to close in, it shot up to 30,000 feet and then dived back, circling and buzzing the jets, while Naval Air Station officers and tower controllers watched via radar.
(Reported by Capt. Joe Hull, Capital Airlines pilot).

www.nicap.org...



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
I have a feeling this had more to do with Cold War paranoia than any Air Force interest in aliens.


As I mentoned to Chadwickus, I'm sure there was a heightened state of awareness back then but if you actualy look at some of the government statements from the era then its quite clear they were interested in the UFO subject:



US Government statements

July 30, 1947: "This 'flying saucer' situation is not all imaginary or seeing too much in some natural phenomena. Something is really flying around."


Sept. 23, 1947: "The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious."


Oct. 28, 1947: "It is the considered opinion of some elements that the object may in fact represent an interplanetary craft of some kind."


Dec. 10, 1948: "It must be accepted that some type of flying objects have been observed, although their identification and origin are not discernible."

Link





Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
I'm not making a claim as to what the object was but rather the Air Force's interest.


I understand that but, given that the facts surrounding the case are correct (and based on deductive reasoning) what would you say the nature of the object involved in this incident actualy was?

Cheers.

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



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Reports of UFOs being witnessed the night before in upstate New York.




Link



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Excellent stuff as always Karl. Looks like some of the good threads are finally getting the attention they deserve rather than the usual garbage topics so called skeptics seem to flock to in droves to debunk as if it's somehow supposed to impress those of us with half a brain.

In my 10 years holding a PPL with an IFR and night certification, I have yet to come across a time when I have questioned whether the planet Venus was a UFO or not. Venus and Jupiter are two of the most easily recognizable celestial bodies in our night sky. Stars, planets and the moon always stay in one position and all move across the cockpits viewpoint at the same time as the aircraft banks, gains altitude or descends. For the Air Force to claim that commercially certified Pilot's mistook Venus for a UFO is about as stupid of an explanation as I have ever come across. It's actually rather ironic that the Air Force would make such a statement as Air Force pilots will usually finish their careers flying commercial passenger jets in the private sector. So much for Air Force training huh?

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Jocko Flocko]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Jocko Flocko
 



Jocko Flocko, thanks for the reply matey - it seems the USAF will use the Venus explanation to debunk just about anything and many debunkers will just lap it up with absolutely no follow up or further investigation - probably because 'that is what they want to believe'.

Here's a relevant statement made by an Ohio Sheriff upon hearing the USAF's 'evaluation' of the Portage County incident:




"I've seen Venus many times, but I never saw Venus 50 feet above a road and moving from side to side like this was..."

Portage County Sheriff Ross Dustman to United Press International

Link





Below are some other highly questionable government 'debunks' - a great many involve the USAF completely ignoring the reported facts and the planet Venus.




Highly Dubious USAF UFO Explanations.



The Minot B-52 UFO Incident, 1968.


The RB-47 Radar/Visual Incident, 1957.


The Redmond Oregon UFO Incident, 1959.


The Dayton UFO Incident, 1950.


The Selfridge AFB UFO Incident, 1950.


The Portage County Incident, 1966.


The Chorwon Incident, Korea, 1952.


The SwissAir 127 UFO Incident, 1997.


The Las Vegas UFO Crash, 1962.


The Goose Bay Incident, Labrador, 1948.


The Exeter UFO Sightings, 1965.


The Levelland UFO sighting wave, 1957.


The White Sands Jeep Patrol Incident, 1957.


The Red Bluff UFO incident, 1960.


The Davis-Monthan AFB UFO Incident, 1952.


The MV Coolsingel UFO Incident, 1958.


The SS Danfjord UFO Incident, 1956.


Thread




I'm sure there are many more out there and its worth pointing out that, even with all this dishonest debunking going on, the USAF still couldn't explain away hundreds upon hundreds of UFO incidents.

Comprehensive Catalogue of 1,600 Project BLUE BOOK UFO Unknowns (pdf)


Cheers.


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



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
It is cases like this that merit serious thought. Even without a video, lol. As I always said, video evidence is but a small part of a good topic, especially when it is the typical 30 second crap we have to put up with.

While this happened during the cold war, and for sure things were handled a little differently in that day and age (concerning the military and the civilian relationship), I also find it difficult to think the pilots mistook Venus or any stationary light in the sky for what they claimed to have seen. That being said, I have been around a ton of pilots, cops, engineers and even a couple astronauts that...to be blunt....are no more competent observing things like this than you or I...rather, I bet most of us on this board are more astute when it comes to these things than they would have been. Add in cold war paranoia and pop-culture and they might have made something simple and mundane into something else entirely, even remembering things that simply didn't happen they way they thought it did.

I don't doubt the military asking for the pilots to check it out further (made sense in that day and age). I also don't doubt that the pilots saw something unusual. There is no way for me to imagine that they didn't. Even if they blew it out of proportion, or possibly elaborated creatively on what they saw, there is still some kernel of reality that sparked this whole incident, and that kernel can't be (in my opinion) something normal and mundane, otherwise it would not have blown up into this.

Things like this just make one shake their head and ask more questions, lol. Maybe one day something like this will lead to a question we can answer?

Good thread, Karl!

[edit on 24-3-2010 by IgnoreTheFacts]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


IgnoreTheFacts, thanks for the reply -I agree that its unlikely the pilots mistook the planet Venus for the reported object (especialy when one reads the transcripts) and suspect that this explanation is yet another 'kneejerk debunk' so commonly practised by the USAF.

As you can see from the list in the post above there are a great many other unsatisfactory USAF UFO explanations that appear to raise serious questions about Project Bluebook's objectivity and agenda - I think Dr James E. Mcdonald got it spot on when he said:




"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."

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




As for this incident, it appears after the television interview one of the pilots changed his story prompting claims of a cover up - the article below goes into more detail about the flight route and UFO descriptions.



Cover-Up Suspected in Reported Air-UFO Chase

Civil Aeronautics Board Disapproves UFO Pursuits by Airliners

Source: Nicap UFO Investigator; Vol1No3; Jan 1958 pp10-12


After a 7-month probe of a UFO encounter by an American Airlines plane, NICAP has evidence indicating the important facts have been officially withheld, and that Capt. Raymond Ryan, the pilot involved, may have been pressured into changing his original report.

Since the case raises the question of airline-passenger safety, all documents, including reports of investigation by the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Civil Aeronautics Board, will be submitted to appropriate Senate and House subcommittees. Both the CAA and CAB investigations were made at NICAP’s request.

Since April 10, 1956, two days after the incident occurred, this UFO has remained a “sleeper.” Requests for further details have been repeatedly refused by the Air Force, American Airlines and Captain Ryan himself.


Link


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
These things are the "diamonds in the rough" that I mention from time to time. Unfortuantly, there is nothing more to do concerning cases like this than debate them over the internet and run to whatever side one believes in.

The real sad thing is, if a case like this happened today (and some have) they get pushed aside very quickly to make room for the absurd, or they have such little meaningful documentation (audio, video..whatever) they they are pointless to take seriously.

Again, good thread Karl, this stuff is why I stick around.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


ITF, glad you like the thread and I think you're right about there being some truly interesting UFO incidents out there (I also agree about there being a lot of #).

I'll never know why certain (very puzzling) UFO incidents receive little or no interest from debunkers but I am aware that many UFO sightings involve prosaic explanations - that said, I'm also very grateful for Dr Mcdonald's work on exposing Project Bluebook's dishonest debunking methods and just wish we had more 'scientists with balls' like him around these days.

It's said that out of several studies carried out about 20 -30% of UFO incidents remain unexplained - surely with a figure that high the subject warrants rigorous objective examination?

I've always been wary of debunkers who noisily object to scientific study of the actual unknowns involved with UFO research and I think Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch makes a very astute point below:




“Cut through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of evidence?

Beranrd Haisch bio


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
These things are the "diamonds in the rough" that I mention from time to time.



ITF, I don't think I've ever heard you specify or make a thread about any of these cases.

I'm not questioning your sincerity but could you actualy list some of these UFO incidents you find truly puzzling and explain why you think the UFO subject deserves serious scientific scrutiny.

Thanks.

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



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
USAF Venus explanation debunked - Brad Sparks.




Recently the April 8, 1956, classic case of Captain Raymond Ryan and First Officer William Neff was brought up on this list as simply a case of the airliner chasing the planet Venus. In fact, the Venus explanation could not possibly be correct if the airliner had chased it for half an hour on orders of the AF as the airliner would not have flown over (or anywhere near) Syracuse and on AF orders abandoned its scheduled landing there to continue chasing the UFO. If it had chased Venus to the NW instead of heading W as it actually did, the airliner would have been roughly 40 miles off course N of Syracuse, up towards Watertown, and the issue of abandoning its landing in Syracuse would simply not have come up. The airliner would also have nearly flown right over the Griffiss AF Base near Rome, NY, that Ryan and Neff were in radio contact with during the encounter, and that surely would have provoked comment (but didn't, since it didn't happen). Instead Griffiss AFB tower saw the airliner and UFO both to the S, not to the N, as it would have if the airliner stayed on course for Syracuse as the crew reported. A chase of Venus would have placed the airliner way off course to the N of the air base.

Link



posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
You know, if I were going to name my government's "exotic propulsion craft", instead of Intrepid, Lindbergh, Admiral Peary or whatnot, I think I'd name them Venus, Swamp Gas, Headlights etc, so that I could be perfectly honest when it came to making statements like this.

"Yes ma'am, you saw Venus"

"That craft you were following? Swamp Gas."



posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
You know, if I were going to name my government's "exotic propulsion craft", instead of Intrepid, Lindbergh, Admiral Peary or whatnot, I think I'd name them Venus, Swamp Gas, Headlights etc, so that I could be perfectly honest when it came to making statements like this.

"Yes ma'am, you saw Venus"

"That craft you were following? Swamp Gas."



Bedlam -that one gave me a chuckle.



It's been posted before but here's a handy USAF ID chart to help spot those UFOs:





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join