Peruvian Air Force pilot shoots at UFO.

page: 5
100
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Let me throw this one at you all.

The fact that the pilots were orderd to Fire, Is PROOF the craft are not ET.

It was a TEST of some sort.

Probably a new type of Electro magnetism UMV thus the extreem manouvers it/they are able to make.

Man made me thinks, maybe reverse enginering,,,maybe.(nwo)

I would like to give Human Kind a bit more credit than to shoot first at a true ET craft.




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrmcleod
2 positive things strike me about this video.

1. It was fired upton and did not retaliate, it evaded the 'lock-ons' without missles being fired. Why would a UFO do this when it would simply be easier to destroy the plane?

2. The UFO gave no chase, even after being hit by the plane and aggressive threats from the plane?

I can only assume 2 things as to why it didnt fight back/destroy the plane.

1. It simply couldnt be bothered fighting/destroying the plane because it felt far to superior to the plane and it was simply toying with it

2. The UFO and its occupants are frienly towards humans and will not engage in violence against our race.

The two reasons above could be concerning. If they were toying with the plane it would clearly suggest that they are extremely capable of huge destruction and a sense of humour that could be very very dangerous to human life. And if they are 'good' ET's who wouldnt hurt a human, why on earth are they being hidden from the mass people? Is the governments of the world trying to formulate a plan to either seize technology from them to wage war against them?

Both of these assumptions are very scary, i dont know who i'd rather trust, humans stealing technology from positive species or ET's with a sense of humour...


yeah, from how the story was being told the UFO was toying with the pilot. The UFO pilot was probably laughing at our technology because we call it at the time "advanced".

i believe they have a prime directive of sorts as to not interfere with the human species. I am glad they have that in place if it is true. They would own us.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by moebius


Peruvian Air Forces never had MIGs "in service" as far as I know.

I just wanted to point out that the SU-22 is not the best choice for high altitude intercept missions. And his numbers fit much better to a MIG-25.



Well maybe he flew civilian aircraft too .When the control tower calls an aircraft does he say "maintain flight level 350"(35,000 feet) or does he say "maintain flight level 10 kilometers".Why try so hard to debunk this report,what does this pilot gain from talking BS?

I have no idea about Peru, but the Russians and Chinese are using a Metric Leveling System. If you are not able to switch your instruments to meters be sure you've got a conversion table.

I don't say that he is talking BS just that some numbers and units are somewhat suspect. Maybe a translation issue?


Yeah, must be a translation issue. I speak spanish too, so I didn't pay attention to the english translation and, listening the original audio, there is nothing wrong with what the pilot said. By the way, all Southamerica uses metric units.

During his first presidential period (now he's president for a second time), president Alan Garcia was involved in an scandal of an illegal re-sell of new planes acquired by the air force, I think those were MIGs. Anyway, those planes never took off.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MinMin
Let me throw this one at you all.

The fact that the pilots were orderd to Fire, Is PROOF the craft are not ET.



Hi MinMin , why would that be proof the craft are not ET.
Take the following in consideration.
This case from Peruvian Air Force Commander Oscar Alfonso Huertas is from 1980, but there are numerous other same like cases/encounters which did happen long before and after that date.

It seems it happens since we humans are able to shoot at them from the ground or from out a plane and it did happened and still happens all around the world.

So if those crafts did/do belong to some nation or country like America, Russia or China or another, that nation or country would have been no doubt be capable of conquering the entire world for decades now.

And the fact that that still not has happened yet is an important thing to think about.

Here is some information from Nick Pope who worked on the Ministry of Defence's UFO desk for three years.


RAF PILOTS HAVE TRIED TO BLAST UFOS OUT OF THE SKY UNDER A TOP SECRET GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVE, IT WAS CLAIMED LAST NIGHT.

Nick Pope - who worked on the Ministry of Defence's UFO desk for three years - revealed the rules of engagement for the first time.
He claimed RAF pilots had fired at UFOs on several occasions - but failed to bring them down.

He added: "We know of cases where the order has been given to shoot down - with little effect to the UFO."

Mr Pope said the rules of engagement were drawn up after dozens of close encounters with suspect craft in British airspace.

RAF attacks on UFOs were "not automatic but happen when something in our airspace is deemed to be a threat".


www.thesun.co.uk...


This is for instance the case from 1942.


The 1942 'Battle of Los Angeles' Date February 25, 1942 Location
Los Angeles, California, United States



Summary: Imagine a visiting spacecraft from another world, or dimension, hovering over a panicked and blacked-out LA in the middle of the night just weeks after Pearl Harbor at the height of WWII fear and paranoia.

Imagine how this huge ship, assumed to be some unknown Japanese aircraft, was then attacked as it hung, nearly stationary, over Culver City and Santa Monica by dozens of Army anti-aircraft batteries in full view of hundreds of thousands of residents.

Imagine all of that and you have an idea of what was the Battle of Los Angeles.




www.ufoevidence.org...

THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES. Photo analysis by Bruce Maccabee

brumac.8k.com...


And this is a quite remarkable story from Boyd Bushman.


Boyd Bushman (1936–) is a retired senior research engineer who worked for Lockheed Martin, Texas Instruments and Hughes Aircraft. Regarded as one of the inventors of the Stinger missile.


VIDEO: A USAF PILOT SHOT DOWN THE ROSWELL UFO? - DAVID SEREDA





[edit on 22/5/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MinMin
Let me throw this one at you all.

The fact that the pilots were orderd to Fire, Is PROOF the craft are not ET.

.


WHY??....ETs didn't signed any pact. Do you mean in that case, the pilot should say : "Pilot to base: I won't shoot it....It's just one of those things from other planet so It's ok".

That was "something" flying on top of an militar air base, without flag, making intelligent moves and 100% unidentified.........any country will do the same.

Sorry man, that was funny.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Two things I thought I'd respond to:

1. The assertion that the pilot's story is not believable because the plane was flying way higher than the specs should have allowed it to.


Sorry, that is not a valid argument. (though it would SEEM to be)

Why?

My dad is a pilot, and was the former Commander of a military AirForce base. When I was a kid, he would take me up to fly in small planes (Bonanza, Cessna, a few others I don't recall, as I never really was "into" planes too much). In those planes, he did some CRAZY maneuvers! Loops, and spiraling weird stuff that you often see at airshows with the stunt-plane demonstrations.

I can tell you that some of those planes were DEFINITELY not meant to be flying loops, nor supposedly ABLE to do some of those stunts according to specs. Plus, I got into deep trouble when I told some other folks about how my dad flew those planes, as those maneuvers were extremely dangerous!

2. The assertion that the story is not believable because the Peruvian government "just fired at an unknown object".


Again, governments sometimes have rules of an "act now, think later" nature..whether for defense purposes, or bureacratic reasons.

For example, my dad once took me to work (can't remember the reason why,) and we walked through a hangar...there was a plane in the hangar, and a line of yellow tape creating a perimeter around the plane, along with armed security close by.

My dad told me, "Do not EVER step inside that line, because you can be shot".

Is the government REALLY "stupid enough" to let armed guards shoot a 7 year old kid who is getting too close to a plane? Apparently, in regard to security, yes the government is.

My two cents in regard to those arguments.




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Thank you so much for posting this. These types of reports are (IMO) some of the most credible evidence of something unusual. This report reminds me of one of the most famous UFO incidents- The 1976 Tehran Iran UFO.



Scramjet, thanks for the reply matey - couldn't agree more with you there and BlackVault's John Greenewald Junior makes some pretty darn interesting observations about the Tehran incident in this interview:





Continued



Spacevisitor also authored this mighty fine thread about Air France Captain Jean-Charles Duboc's UFO encounter over Paris which was also covered at the National Press club conference in 2007:


Cometa report case; Pilot talks about his UFO sighting.


Cheers.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Triangulum

Originally posted by Unknown Origin
One aspect of this report makes me think it's bogus that is the part where the pilot was ordered to fire on the object. They don't know what something is so they shoot it? It makes no sense or is the Peruvian air force really that ignorant?


Really? That's all it takes? I suppose you'd feel differently if an object was flying towards New York City or Washington DC. Said object being unidentifiable via visual observation, IFF or radio communication. How long would you like the Air Force to wait before trying to down the object?

T.


That made me laugh ALOT!!

Say your in the savanna in africa. You have a BB Gun with you and a
lion charges at you...Do you shot at it or do you run...?

LOL



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey

Originally posted by Triangulum

Originally posted by Unknown Origin
One aspect of this report makes me think it's bogus that is the part where the pilot was ordered to fire on the object. They don't know what something is so they shoot it? It makes no sense or is the Peruvian air force really that ignorant?


Really? That's all it takes? I suppose you'd feel differently if an object was flying towards New York City or Washington DC. Said object being unidentifiable via visual observation, IFF or radio communication. How long would you like the Air Force to wait before trying to down the object?

T.


That made me laugh ALOT!!

Say your in the savanna in africa. You have a BB Gun with you and a
lion charges at you...Do you shot at it or do you run...?

LOL


You shoot at the lion.

Lions will out run you. Lion prey runs, and lions are used to eating whatever runs away from them. If you run, the lion will chase and catch you.

Your BB gun will not seriously injure the lion, but it will surprise the lion for a moment, and may make the lion decide that this little runt isn't worth the annoyance, assuming you aren't trying to do anything else aggressive or hostile.

You have a pretty low chance in either situation if the lion should really be set on your demise, but it's a bit better with the bb gun.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Miccey

Originally posted by Triangulum

Originally posted by Unknown Origin
One aspect of this report makes me think it's bogus that is the part where the pilot was ordered to fire on the object. They don't know what something is so they shoot it? It makes no sense or is the Peruvian air force really that ignorant?


Really? That's all it takes? I suppose you'd feel differently if an object was flying towards New York City or Washington DC. Said object being unidentifiable via visual observation, IFF or radio communication. How long would you like the Air Force to wait before trying to down the object?

T.


That made me laugh ALOT!!

Say your in the savanna in africa. You have a BB Gun with you and a
lion charges at you...Do you shot at it or do you run...?

LOL


You shoot at the lion.

Lions will out run you. Lion prey runs, and lions are used to eating whatever runs away from them. If you run, the lion will chase and catch you.

Your BB gun will not seriously injure the lion, but it will surprise the lion for a moment, and may make the lion decide that this little runt isn't worth the annoyance, assuming you aren't trying to do anything else aggressive or hostile.

You have a pretty low chance in either situation if the lion should really be set on your demise, but it's a bit better with the bb gun.


Ok my thought might have been of..
But do you see my point?

And still, WHY shoot at something you dont know what is??
What if its an angel..OR god himself, and you starts shooting
at him..That would be a HUGE misstake right..



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


I don't question the Peruvians itchy trigger finger. I know the pilot from that C-130 incident, btw he handled it a lot better than I would have. The Peruvians knew it was a US aircraft in international airspace, but shot at it anyway. So for them to have a truly "unidentified" aircraft in their airspace--bullets are gonna fly.

Great post Karl! S&F



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
As usual, a great find from Karl!

I knew this important testimony, but I had not still seen it.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Actually, three miles is close in terms to aviation. A thirty foot object resembling a balloon is easily seen. I've spotted weather balloons with a smaller radius three miles or more away from my aircraft.

Pilots, especially fighter pilots spend a great amount of time looking for other aircraft. I can't tell you what the Peruvian Air Force vision requirements are, but I can assure you that 30 years ago, the USAF required me to have 20/20 uncorrected.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Everwatcher33
If you believe it fantastic, if not great too...


All the more reason to ask for evidence.


Originally posted by Everwatcher33
Doesn't mean it's true, but if you are coming to these forums for proof of UFO's you're probably in the wrong place. Sorry if it seems like the post is just aimed at you two, but it's aimed at a lot of people who straight up ask for proof. If the thread was about proof we would be hitting national news not the ATS forums... It's a story/account like most things in this forum.



Parable of the story. When presented with a fantastic claim, don't ask for evidence, just nod your head and accept it.


It doesn't bother me when you ask for evidence, but when it's presented as someone's story or an account of what happened to them. What evidence are you expecting? Just because people read something doesn't mean they have to smile and accept it. I question the stories just as much as anyone, but I'm not naive enough to believe someone will produce hard irrefutable evidence from the case. As I stated earlier if hard evidence was around we would have known about this long before Karl's post.

It just amuses me that you constantly ask everyone who decides to share something for evidence. If they had it wouldn't they have posted it in the first place?

I don't mind doubt at all or asking for some shred of something, but when it comes down to needlessly questioning something when you know you won't find what your asking for...stop asking and move on. Your mind should have already come to a conclusion no?



[edit on 5/26/2010 by Everwatcher33]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Hey mate!
I couldn't agree more with Greenewald. I've always thought cases like the 1976 Tehran UFO were about as close as I might get to "a smoking gun" in my liftetime.. but I still have many decades to go so that remains to be seen.


We are talking about trained professional military pilots telling you what they saw. We are talking about ground radar and air radar. We have multiple witnesses both in the air and on the ground. Furthermore, you can't cry "US gov't military conspiracy" because the report comes a foreign military.

Another good one is Bentwaters. And not just the 1980 incident which it's most famous for.... but also the 1956 Jet-Chase: Link

Also, thanks for the link to Spacevisitor's thread! I'll check it out-


-SJ76



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by 12voltz
 


I have a hunch that the craft didn't absorb the shells so much as divert them.

If the craft have quantum drives based on teleportation, they are could be surrounded by a quantum energy 'shield', which would teleport the shells and anything else that contacts it, to who knows where or even 'when'.

It might funnel the shells into another dimension, to reappear around the opposite side of the craft to carry on as though the craft wasn't there.

Only maybe's and speculation of course.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by 12voltz
 


It might funnel the shells into another dimension, to reappear around the opposite side of the craft to carry on as though the craft wasn't there.



You are somewhat on the right track there.
Good thinking



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Thanks for the replies -some very interesting reading there.

Regarding pilots being ordered to shoot at unknown objects, Timothy Good makes some very interesting comments in this E-book (page 174-178) about 'the destruction or disappearance of military aircraft during interceptions of UFOs' - there are also some relevant statements below about military attitudes on the subject.





"We have stacks of reports about flying saucers.We take them seriously when you consider we have lost many men and planes trying to intercept them."
General Benjamin Chidlaw,
Air Defense Command.




"We had contact with an unidentified flying object that had entered our air space. The order was given by Admiral Trane to get this object forced down out of the sky if at all possible, by whatever means possible….Two gentlemen began to question me about this event. They were being pretty rough. I remember literally putting my hands up and saying, “Wait a minute fellows. I’m on your side.” My logbook, I never did see that again."
US Navy Atlantic Command, Merle Shane McDow



"Air Force interceptors still pursue UFOs as a matter of national security to this country and to determine technical aspects involved."
Major General Joe W. Kelly, 1957.



"This can't be laughed off.We have over three hundred reports which haven't been publicized in the papers from very competent personnel,in many instances.
...We are running down every report.I can't tell you how much we would give to have one of those crash in an area so that we could recover whatever they are".
Colonel McCoy - March 17th 1948.
Air Force Scientific Advisory Board meeting at the Pentagon.




"There was something definite in the sky...If it had proved to be hostile we would have destroyed it."
Major Gerald Smith, USAF--One of the F-106 pilots scrambled under orders from NORAD (North American Air Defense Command) to investigate a UFO over West Palm Beach, Florida on September 14, 1972. The UFO was viewed through binoculars by the FAA supervisor, George Morales, sighted by an Eastern Airlines captain, police and several civilians, as well as being tracked on radar by Miami International Airport and Homestead AFB.



"Army intelligence has recently said that "the matter of 'Unidentified Aircraft' or 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena',otherwise known as 'Flying Discs','Flying Saucers', and 'Balls of fire' is considered top secret by intelligence officers of both the army and the air forces."
FBI issued memo on UFOs entitled "Protection of Vital Installations"
-Memo sent to the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Office of Special Investigations.




"Here we had a number of object seen coming in across the North Sea on coastal radar. It looked like a Russian mistake. Jet aircraft were scrambled. The objects were travelling at quite impossible speeds like 4-5000 mph and then came to an abrupt halt near to one of these stations not very high up. Jet aircraft picked them up on aircraft radar. The objects then simply made rings round them."
"Inevitably this led to the sort of enquiry which you would put in hand if you had any military responsibilities. Had something gone wrong with ground radar or with aircraft radar? We experienced pilots going out of their minds? Were people having fantasies? We *had* to investigate cases of that kind. Over the years - although there were not an enormous number of such cases - there were a sufficient number to persuade me, and a number of air staff friends with whom I had to work, that something was going on, sporadically, in British airspace which we could not explain."
"But we did not particularly want to make public statements about that. Not for something that we had no explanation."
Ralph Noyes,Senior Official with British Air Ministry - retired as Under Secretary of State in 1977

Link


Cheers.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Scramjet76
 


Scramjet, you're not wrong there mate and there's certainly been some bizarre object descriptions from government documents uncovered by researchers like John Greenewald Junior over the years - there's also been some pretty freaky reports submitted by policemen (link).



Gov Docs.


"It looked to be about 2000 feet in the air and a white-silverish looking colour -rotating in a counter clockwise manner. It was round in shape and going in a rather fast motion".
Doc




“Object described as flat on top and bottom and appearing from a front view to have rounded edges and slightly beveled. From view as object dived from top of plane was completely round and spinning in clockwise direction.... Object did not appear to be aluminum. Only 1 object observed. Solar white. No vapor trails or exhaust or visible system of propulsion. Described as traveling at tremendous speed".
Doc




"Objects being described as "25 yards in diameter, gold or silver in color with blue light on top, hole in middle, and red light on bottom".
Doc




"DURING THE FOURTH MINS OF OBSERVATION A BLUISH GREEN BEAM OF LIGHT APPEARED FROM THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE CONFIGURATION, EXTENDING OUTWARD AND DOWNWARD TO THE LEFT AT AN ANGLE OF APPROX 45 DEGREES, AND REACHING TO THE FADE OUT POINT OF THE RADIATING RINGS OF LIGHT. APPROX FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE BLUISH-GREEN BEAM (SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE TO A SEARCHLIGHT BEAM), THE RADIATIVE CIRCLES OF LIGHT DISAPPEARED, LEAVING ONLY THE CORE OF LIGHT AND THE COLORED BEAM".
Doc




"There were bright objects hanging over the sea.The closest object was luminous, round and four to five times larger than a Whirlwind helicopter.
The objects separated. Then one went west of the other, as it manoeuvred it changed shape to become body-shaped with projections like arms and legs".
Doc




"THEY WATCHED THE OBJECTS FOR APPROX. 1 HOUR BEFORE REPORTNG THAT THE LARGE OBJECT WAS ALMOST ON THE ICE. THEY REPORTED THAT THE ICE WAS CRACKING AND MOVING ABNORMAL AMOUNTS AS THE OBJECT CAME CLOSER TO IT. THE ICE WAS RUMBLING AND THE OBJECT LIT MULTI-COLOR LIGHTS AT EACH END AS IT APPARENTLY LANDED".
Doc




“...pilot of helicopter wished to stress fact that the object was of a saucer-like nature, was stationary at 2000 ft. And would be glad to be called upon to verify any statement and act as witness.”
Doc


Thread


Cheers.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Another creditable witness!, People say were is the evidance?, What about this persons creditability? Next time I see one land I'll ask for some trinkets and blood and skin samples






top topics



 
100
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join