Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cometa report case; Pilot talks about his UFO sighting.

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Perhaps interesting for some, this is a short but interesting interview with the France pilot Jean-Charles Duboc about a UFO-sighting he had together with his co pilot Valérie Chauffor during Air France Flight AF 3532 [January 28, 1994]

Part 1 of the complete French report on UFOs published in 1999, entitled "UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for?". This ninety-page report is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense.

COMETA Report on UFOs - Part 1 (PDF)

www.ufoevidence.org...

COMETA Report on UFOs - Part 2 (PDF)

www.ufoevidence.org...


COMETA PILOT TALKS!
We owe it to our pilots to seek the truth!
An interview with Jean-Charles Duboc, Pilot: Air France, Cometa report case.
By Paola Leopizzi Harris Barcelona, Spain, July 2009

PH; Paola Leopizzi Harris
JD; Jean-Charles Duboc

PH: When did you have that incident when you saw the UFO? What was the date?

JD: It was January 28, 1994. I was a captain on the route from Nice to London. It was one pm.

PH: It was dark?

JD: No, it was full day. One pm in the afternoon. It was very beautiful visibility. It was a huge lens, dark brown.

PH: It was circular?

JD: Yes, , a disc. A huge disc, about 300 meters.


Look here for the whole interview.

www.paolaharris.com...



[edit on 29/1/10 by spacevisitor]




posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Thank you for posting your interesting material, spacevisitor.

I look forward to having a good read of this during the weekend.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Thank you for the link to the paper. A hot cup of coffee and I'm settled in for some reading.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Hey bud, thats certainly a very interesting UFO case - heres what the pilot had to say about the incident during the National Press Club Conference:






"My name is Jean-Charles DUBOC, and I am a retired Air France Captain.During Air France Flight 3532 from Nice to London, on 28 January 1994, 1 observed, with my crew, a dayliqht UFO near Paris. We had few passengers on board and none of them had reported that observation to the crew.The time was 1:00 P.M, and the visibility was excellent with some altocumulus clouds.

That object had been identified initially by a steward who was in the cockpit and by the copilot as a weather balloon, but when I identified it, it looked quite different.In fact this UFO was in evolution and it looked like this (I shall then show a drawing), with a bank angle of 45°. It seemed to be a huge flying DISC. It stabilized and stopped moving (moving horizontally the draw.

We observed it over one minute on the LEFT on our plane, surprisingly totally stationary in the sky, and it disappeared progressively (turn of the drawing).This large object was below us at the altitude of 35, 000 ft (we were at 39 000 if), at a distance of about 25 nautical miles.

The colour was RED BROWN with BLURRED outlines.

The apparent diameter of this object could be compared to the diameter of the moon, or the sun. That means that it was about 1000 feet wide".

Jean-Charles Duboc - Captain,Air France.

Link


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Sully is retired now.
I wonder if he ever saw UFOs.
And even better, any ideas how they work and who made them.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Hey bud, thats certainly a very interesting UFO case - heres what the pilot had to say about the incident during the National Press Club Conference:


Sorry for the late reply my friend, but thanks for this very interesting video and additional information.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Sully is retired now.
I wonder if he ever saw UFOs.


I don’t know who you mean by Sully?


Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
And even better, any ideas how they work and who made them.


I don’t know how they work because the technology and physics that are used for that is infinity far beyond my capability to understand it.

However, I am convinced that there are human scientists [working in those black UFO/ET projects] and who are studying those crafts for decades now have solved some small parts of that immense big Magic puzzle.
But that obtained knowledge remains deeply hidden from our “normal” scientific community.

They are made by non earthly humans.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


G'day spacevisitor

Thank you again for posting this very interesting info


The pilot comments very cleary on several occasions regarding the appearance of the object as follows:

- A brownish colour

- Fuzzy edges

- Semi-translucency

- 45 deg angle (see 2nd image below.....)

You know.....I have to consider the "lenticular cloud" option as per my pictures below.....

Even the altitude matches up very well:




Altitude: 6,000-12,000m (20,000-40,000 ft)

en.wikipedia.org...







Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


G'day spacevisitor

Thank you again for posting this very interesting info


The pilot comments very cleary on several occasions regarding the appearance of the object as follows:

- A brownish colour,- Fuzzy edges,- Semi-translucency,- 45 deg angle (see 2nd image below.....)

You know.....I have to consider the "lenticular cloud" option as per my pictures below.....

Even the altitude matches up very well:


G'day Maybe...maybe not, thanks for posting this option and the great pictures.

Despite those clouds have indeed interesting shapes I don’t share that option, because don’t you think that all three men, those two pilots and a steward would have recognized it as being nothing more than such a Lenticular cloud when it really was one?

See how they described it all.


While flying over the Paris region, the crew noticed a large brown-red disk hovering on the horizon and constantly changing shape. .

The visibility was of more than 300 km (150 Nm) and the cloud cover consisted of altocumulus.

The flight encountered no airshakes.

The navigation was under excellent weather conditions, in spite of the facing wind of almost 130 km/h (70 kts).

From the pilot: "This object seemed to us then absolutely abnormal by its size which seemed immense, its dark red color and of the fuzzy edges.

I had the impression to observe a gigantic lens in evolution.

It did not resemble anything we had seen in our flying careers. .

We arrived above Coulommiers when a steward who was in the cockpit noticed an object which he thought could be a weather balloon.

This object was then seen by the copilot and myself a few moment afterwards.

According to their description it seemed to have a variable form and to come very quickly across our road. .

I first identified it like an aircraft facing us, at approximately 45 km (25 Nm), at an altitude of approximately 10500 meters (25 Nm) and at an angle close to 45°.

I found this slope absolutely abnormal because aircraft are not inclined at this altitude beyond 30 degrees without risking to fall down.

This object seemed to us then absolutely abnormal by its size which seemed immense, its dark red color and of the fuzzy edges.

I had the impression to observe a gigantic lens in evolution.

This object, this phenomenon, remained motionless while we left it on our left side, still at an aproximate distance of 45 km.

We observed it during a good minute, conscious that we were seeing something utterly anomalous.

We continued to observe it when it gradually merged with the environment.

We saw it becoming translucid, transparent, diluted in space. That was absolutely amazing.

On the other hand this UFO was approximately 10 km above Paris, and the Parisian people, under layer of clouds, were much closer to the UFO than we were.


www.ufoevidence.org...



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Hey Spacevisitor -I don't know how good your French is but heres Jean-Charles Duboc speaking on a televised debate about the UFO/OVNI subject from 1994 (around 01:30).

The French people certainly seem to be a lot more open about the subject than some of their Western counterparts and although my grasp of their language is sketchy (at best) it certainly was an interesting watch.





Documentaire OVNI



Documentaire OVNI 1994, présenté par Stephane Bern


Cheers.

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



posted on Mar, 7 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Hey Spacevisitor -I don't know how good your French is but heres Jean-Charles Duboc speaking on a televised debate about the UFO/OVNI subject from 1994 (around 01:30).


Thanks buddy, but I must pass this one because I only know three words in French, oui, non and a word for cursing.



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


G'day spacevisitor

Thanks for posting that transcript.

Upon reading it a couple of times & considering some of the cloud sighting effects in Arbitrageur's brilliant thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In my mind, I still can't exclude a lenticular cloud with 100% certainty.

I still think the "door is still open a tiny, tiny bit" for that option.

However I still classify the case as 1 of my "very interesting" ones


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


G'day spacevisitor

In my mind, I still can't exclude alenticular cloud with 100% certainty.

I still think the "door is still open a tiny, tiny bit" for that option.


G'day Maybe...maybe not, perhaps this could be the info that will "close that door for you entirely" for that option.

It’s an extract from page 11 from the COMETA Report on UFOs - Part 1 (PDF) which I typed over.

Air France Flight AF 3532


However, following the existing procedure, Reims informed the Taverny Air Defense Operations Center [CODA] of the sighting made by the crew and asked P to follow the “Airmiss” procedure upon landing.
CODA did in fact record a radar track initiated by the Cinq-Mars-La-Pile control center at the same time that corresponded in location and time to the phenomenon observed.

This radar track, which was recorded for 50 seconds, did cross the trajectory of flight AF 3532 and did not correspond to any flight plan filed. It should also be noted that the phenomenon disappeared from the view of the crew and the radar scopes at the same instant.

The investigations conducted by CODA enabled both the hypothesis of a weather balloon to be ruled out and the precise crossing distance of the two trajectories to be determined, consequently bringing the approximate length of the craft to 250 m in lengths.


www.ufoevidence.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


G'day spacevisitor

Whilst it's possible to obtain radar readings from some clouds, it's hard to see how that could have been the case in this instance.

So.....I guess it wasn't a lenticular cloud


These are such fascinating cases


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Spacevisitor -I must admit I'm a little rusty on the old French but it was refreshing to see prime time televised discussion about the subject.


Theres a great interview below that Tim Binnall did with Gildas Bourdais about French Ufology - he doesn't mention the Duboc case but does go into great detail about the French 1954 UFO flap and many other incidents -he also makes some interesting points about the true number of actual unknown reports being far larger than 5-10 percent.




Gildas Bourdais Interview






BoA:Audio takes another look at international Ufology as Gildas Bourdais joins us for an in-depth discussion on the French UFO scene. We'll be talking about its history and evolution, official government sponsored French UFO studies through the years, the Cometa report, media coverage of UFOs, the attitude of the everyday public with regards to UFOs, a re-examination of percentages of unknown UFOs, the release of French UFO files in March '07, the state of French Ufology today, and tons more.


Link


Cheers.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Spacevisitor,
Thank you for bringing this to ATS.

This guy (France pilot Jean-Charles Duboc) seems sincere, yet makes reference to "free energy" which I don't think he has any knowledge of other than what we talk/speculate about here on ATS. He apparently has latched onto this UFO propulsion/energy source hypothesis which IMO weakens his credibililty. However, that does not mean he did not see what he claims to have seen.

As for the COMETA docs, I have not read them in their entirety, but have skipped over some of the material.. I think reports like this are some of the best evidence available for an ET-UFO connection. You have undoubtly noticed my signature so maybe I am biased!


One interesting thing I have noticed by studying the 1976 Tehran incident is that the object shows intelligence.


While the object and the F-4 continued on a southerly path, a smaller second object detached itself from the first and advanced on the F-4 at high speed. Lieutenant Jafari thinking he was under attack, tried to launch an AIM-9 sidewinder missile, but he suddenly lost all instrumentation, including weapons control, and all communication.
wiki

This clever UFO was very aware of Jafari's intentions probably because of his course and type of radar. Afterall, radar is basically radiation sent in pulses which looks for disturbances/reflection to ascertain coordinates in 3-d space of an object.

My understanding is that military fighters (like the F-4 phantom) have different types of radar systems on board. Once Jafari tried to launch his sidewinder he would have automatically switched to a different radar system... one where the EM pulses are faster but the cone of range is limited (radar used for "dogfights"). The UFO intelligence picked up on this and immediately shut him down.

Given the data, one assumption is that the UFO used some sort of EMP on the F-4. However, the fact that they temporarily disabled the F-4 and didn't totally fry it shows an extremely precise and intelligently crafted device? Food for thought anyways...



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76
This guy (France pilot Jean-Charles Duboc) seems sincere, yet makes reference to "free energy" which I don't think he has any knowledge of other than what we talk/speculate about here on ATS.

He apparently has latched onto this UFO propulsion/energy source hypothesis which IMO weakens his credibililty. However, that does not mean he did not see what he claims to have seen.


Hi Scramjet76, thanks for your reply.

Jean-Charles Duboc said ; We need absolutely to make an international connection. And we need the free energy.

So even if as you said he apparently has latched onto this UFO propulsion/energy source hypothesis, I don’t see in any way why that would weakens his credibility.

Because it’s very logical to assume that those crafts using such types of energy, whether they use it for their propulsion system of other things.

And it’s also very obvious that we desperately need this "free energy".

Perhaps you will find this information interesting, its a small excerpt from the Executive Summary of the Disclosure Project Briefing Document.


The evidence and testimony presented in the following pages establishes the following:

 That we are indeed being visited by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations and have been for some time;

 That this is the most classified, compartmented program within the US and many other countries;

 That those projects have, as warned in 1961 by President Eisenhower, escaped legal oversight and control in the US, the UK and elsewhere;

 That advanced spacecraft of extraterrestrial origin, called extraterrestrial vehicles (ETVs) by some intelligence agencies, have been downed, retrieved and studied since at least the 1940s and possibly as early as the 1930s;

 That significant technological breakthroughs in energy generation and propulsion have resulted from the study of these objects (and from related human innovations dating as far back as the time of Nicola Tesla) and that these technologies utilize a new physics not requiring the burning of fossil fuels or ionizing radiating to generate vast amounts of energy;

 That classified, above top-secret projects possess fully operational anti-gravity propulsion devices and new energy generation systems that, if declassified and put to peaceful uses, would empower a new human civilization without want, poverty or environmental damage.

Those who doubt these assertions should carefully read the testimony of dozens of military and government witnesses whose testimony clearly establishes these facts. Given the vast and profound implications of these statements, whether one accepts or seriously doubts these assertions, all must demand that Congressional hearings be convened to get to the truth of this matter. For nothing less that the human future hangs in the balance.

Implications for the Environment:

We have identified insiders and scientists who can prove, in open Congressional hearings, that we do in fact possess classified energy generation and anti-gravity propulsion systems capable of completely and permanently replacing all forms of currently used energy generation and transportation systems.

These devices access the ambient electromagnetic and so-called zero point energy state to produce vast amounts of energy without any pollution. Such systems essentially generate energy by tapping into the ever-present quantum vacuum energy state — the baseline energy from which all energy and matter is fluxing.

All matter and energy is supported by this baseline energy state and it can be tapped through unique electromagnetic circuits and configurations to generate huge amounts of energy from space/time all around us. These are NOT perpetual motion machines nor do they violate the laws of thermodynamics — they merely tap an ambient energy field all around us to generate energy.

This means that such systems do not require fuel to burn or atoms to split or fuse. They do no require central power plants, transmission lines and the related multi-trillion dollar infrastructure required to electrify and power remote areas of India, China, Africa and Latin America.

These systems are site-specific: they can be set up at any place and generate needed energy. Essentially, this constitutes the definitive solution to the vast majority of environmental problems facing our world.



Originally posted by Scramjet76
One interesting thing I have noticed by studying the 1976 Tehran incident is that the object shows intelligence.
However, the fact that they temporarily disabled the F-4 and didn't totally fry it shows an extremely precise and intelligently crafted device? Food for thought anyways...


You did notice that very well.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Whilst it's possible to obtain radar readings from some clouds, it's hard to see how that could have been the case in this instance.

So.....I guess it wasn't a lenticular cloud


Thanks for the compliment on my thread. I agree it wasn't a lenticular cloud. Well, not a direct view of a cloud anyway, because clouds don't generally disappear as fast as he describes this object disappearing.

But there is something that can create the visual effect he described, and a radar return also...a thermal inversion. The only mystery would be what would cause the thermal inversion to dissipate so rapidly, but that's a lot more likely than a cloud dissipating that rapidly. Actually all the thermal inversion has to do is become badly distorted for the reflected image to disappear.

A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED TARGETS OBSERVED ON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL RADARS


Firsthand observation in the tracking and subsequent motion analysis of 80 of these unidentified targets indicated that a large number of these were actually secondary reflections of the radar beam. Apparently these reflections were produced by isolated refracting areas which traveled with the wind at or near the temperature inversion levels.

Although the exact size, shape, and composition of these isolated areas are not known, it is believed that they may be atmospheric eddies produced by a shearing action of dissimilar air strata. It appears possible that such eddies may refract and focus the radar energy with a lens effect to produce small concentrations of ground return with sufficient intensity to show up on the radar display. It is also believed that the correlation of the appearance of these radar targets with visual reports of so-called "flying saucers" is due to the strong probability that both effects are caused primarily by abrupt temperature inversions.


That's why I don't get as excited as some people do who shout "BUT IT WAS CONFIRMED ON RADAR!!!" Maybe it was, but that evidence isn't as convincing as people think it is, especially prior to about 1990.

However, by 1994 radar was getting more sophisticated than it was in the 80s and I think a lot of radars in 1994 had the ability to detect if what they were seeing was the result of a thermal inversion, though I'm not sure about the exact capabilities of the aircraft radar in this case.

So I think there's a good possibility that he saw a reflection of something in a thermal inversion. What he saw a reflection of, could have been a distant cloud. And when the thermal inversion became disrupted, they lost he visual sighting and the radar return. At least that sounds more plausible to me than a solid object phasing into another dimension or something like that.

By the way I'd like to note that the object seen over Salida CO does the same thing, it appears to phase in and out of existence, and I believe it's also an illusion, a pretty cool one actually.

Here's a screenshot of the Salida UAP video while it's "phasing" out of existence like the subject of this thread:



You can see it's semi-transparent by this point, but at other points in the video, it really looks like a solid object.

This diagram was made for another UAP sighting to illustrate how the pilot could have seen a reflection of some distant cloud tops even though there were no clouds in the sky:

www.caelestia.be...


The image seen wasn't stable in the other sighting either, however instead of vanishing like it did in this case, it changed shape several times before getting small and then vanished. That's also consistent with a temperature inversion.

While the mirage explanation in that incident is inconclusive, it's probably the best candidate for an explanation, and I'd say the same thing is true in this case as well.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But there is something that can create the visual effect he described, and a radar return also...a thermal inversion.

The only mystery would be what would cause the thermal inversion to dissipate so rapidly, but that's a lot more likely than a cloud dissipating that rapidly.

Actually all the thermal inversion has to do is become badly distorted for the reflected image to disappear.

While the mirage explanation in that incident is inconclusive, it's probably the best candidate for an explanation, and I'd say the same thing is true in this case as well.


Arbitrageur, don’t you think that if a thermal inversion was responsible as a real possibility for that radar return back then, that Air Defense Operations Center [CODA] and that Northern Regional Air Navigation Center (CRNA) would not have come immediately forward with that as the most logical explanation for what those pilots of flight AF 3532 had witnessed instead of starting both an investigation to it all?

Air France Flight AF 3532


However, following the existing procedure, Reims informed the Taverny Air Defense Operations Center [CODA] of the sighting made by the crew and asked P to follow the “Airmiss” procedure upon landing.
CODA did in fact record a radar track initiated by the Cinq-Mars-La-Pile control center at the same time that corresponded in location and time to the phenomenon observed.

This radar track, which was recorded for 50 seconds, did cross the trajectory of flight AF 3532 and did not correspond to any flight plan filed.
It should also be noted that the phenomenon disappeared from the view of the crew and the radar scopes at the same instant.

The investigations conducted by CODA enabled both the hypothesis of a weather balloon to be ruled out and the precise crossing distance of the two trajectories to be determined, consequently bringing the approximate length of the craft to 250 m in lengths.

It should be noted that the Northern Regional Air Navigation Center (CRNA), which handles 3000 movements per day, has investigated only three cases over the last seven years, one of which was that of flight AF 3532.


www.ufoevidence.org...



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Arbitrageur, don’t you think that if a thermal inversion was responsible as a real possibility for that radar return back then, that Air Defense Operations Center [CODA] and that Northern Regional Air Navigation Center (CRNA) would not have come immediately forward with that as the most logical explanation for what those pilots of flight AF 3532 had witnessed instead of starting both an investigation to it all?


If they thought a thermal inversion was a possibility, it would be still be irresponsible of them to not investigate. Possibility isn't good enough. If they were certain it was a thermal inversion, then yes, why investigate?

But if they only considered it a possibility, it would be a crime to NOT investigate and find out if there was any real hazard to air traffic safety.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join