Flight Air France 3532 : undeniable UFO case (1994) and the semi-disclosure of the french government

page: 1
19

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
As promised, i wanted to talk about the flight AF3532 from Nice (South France) to London (UK)...

The Facts :



For those who don't understand french, the blue line is the radar trace of the french Airbus, the red line is the radar trace of the UFO.

The encounter happened near Paris, and there was an OTAN radar next to this area.

As for every unusual observations, french pilotes must fill a form. here is the form they filled at their arrival :


For the PILOT


For the CO-PILOT


Once again, the interessant part is the description of the UFO. It is written in french and both testimony are 90% the same :

SHAPE : Disc
COLOR : Dark/ Red Dark / Translucid
Dimension : 300 meters (!!!)
Distance from the plane : 25 miles

The pilot said that the object was not moving and slowly disappear while the co-pilote stated that the object was changing form.

So we got two pilots who not only said but REPORTED officialy a HUGE UFO. 300 meters is not something you can miss in the sky


The plane was at 10500m high.

Naturally, they alerted the closest navigation Control Center, at Reims (150 km from Paris). Their radar show nothing, but as the procedure asked, Reims warned the CODA (Centre d'opérations de la défense aérienne, the equivalent of USA's NORAD). The CODA's radar, for 50 seconds, showed a trace near the plane at the exact moment and place the pilotes said it happens. This is the red trace on the first picture of this thread. The radar trace disappears exactly when the pilots said it vanished...

So according to an official report, an official radar gave credit to the pilots sayings and reports.

Here is an english interview of the pilot... i also include next to this interview videos of french news (yes, here it hits the main media, i remember it i was a young adult at this time)...

TERMS YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE READING THIS INTERVIEW :

COMETA
English version of the COMETA report
SEPRA

There was an ATS THREAD on cometa report : but it was not really taken in account
it s a semi-official disclosure as the document has been un-officialy asked by our president and PM and officialy written by active militaries and scientifics...


THE INTERVIEW : (SOURCE)



-You were a flight commanding officer at AIR France and on January 28, 1994, you have encountered an unusual phenomenon as you were doing the Nice to London flight 3532. Could you tell what you witnessed?

-I was indeed commander of flight AF-3532 of January 28, 1994, with copilot Valerie Chauffour, and 24 passengers on board. I have kept a copy of the "OCTAVE", which is the data-processing follow-up of the flight and I can specify that above the Paris area at the altitude of 11700 meters (FL 390), the outside temperature was of minus 59 Celsius degrees, and with a wind from the North-West had a speed of1 80 km/h (311°/101 kts). 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). That gave us a ground speed of 650 km/h (350 kts). The takeoff hour in Nice was 00h56pm UT and the arrival hour in London 02:13pm UT. It was a particularly calm flight, without particular problem. 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. It did not resemble anything we had seen in our flying careers. 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 seing 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. After some interrogations we contacted the control center of Rheims to announce this unidentified object to them, as we are required by air transportation regulation.

-Was this "object" tracked by your instruments? What about he black box of flight 3532? Were the communications between your aircraft and the control center in Rheims recorded?

-Our ON BOARD instruments are not intended to locate other aircraft. The airborne radar is only intended to locate storms in order to be able to avoid the air movements ascending and descebding, associated with them, characteristic of these clouds, the cumulonimbi. During this event the radar was not in operation, as it is only necessary in instrument flying (IFR). In the same way, the black box cannot in any case detect aircraft or phenomena far away from the plane. On the Airbus 320 there is a first recorder which is the Quick Access Recorder (QAR). It records only flight parameters, speed, altitude, mechanics, engines, electric, etc. It is analyzed by the maintenance service. The second recorder, the DFDR, has the same recordings but must support the constraints of an accident. This recorder is analysed only if a crash occurs or on request of the crew. As no parameter of our flight has been modified, the tapes were not analyzed because it would have been pointless. The UFO was at nearly 45 km of our aircraft, and there has been no electric or magnetic disturbances. 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. If there had been electromagnetic disturbances, a few million people would have noticed it. The communications were always preserved, and it is the same for the main TV and radio shows!

-Which were the continuations of this affair, at a professional and personal level? Have you been interviewd by the civilian or military authorities?

-In the immediate, the continuations were non-existent, because I did not submit a written report to avoid being ridiculed. It was three years later, as I read an article from Paris Match, which described how a UFO has been detected above Paris, that I made the connection between this UFO and that what I had seen. I then submitted a report to the Gendarmerie Nationale (French police, having an SOP for collection of UFO reports).

-Was your testimony transmitted to the SEPRA? Which were the continuations brought by this branch of the CNES?

-My report was transmitted by the Gendarmerie to the SEPRA, and the UFO Committee, was created within the framework of the Association of the Former Auditors of the Institute fot the High Studies of National Defense (IHEDN). I was heard during nearly one hour and half by the group chaired by General Denis Letty. After discussing about the observation, we concluded that the object was approximately 300 meters in diameter. I took note of the radar recordings by the CODED (Operational Center of Air Defense). There is a very curious characteristic for the trajectory of the UFO, as it shows that it would have almost collidedus. The minimal distance on the recording is less than 1 Nm, that is to say 10 seconds of flight. This kind of observation is traditional in electronic war. The modern military aircraft are furtive, and at the same time able to synthesize a virtual image of themselves by delaying the radar echo. If a missile had been drawn on this UFO, which was above Paris, it would be our A320 which would probably have been hit by the missile. I think that it is not desirable to shoot fire at this kind of phenomenon.

-Did you speak again of your observation with your colleagues of flight 3532? Which is, now, their feeling about this affair?

-I never found the steward who was in the cockpit. My various requests to find the list of the crew fot this flight were left unanswered by the of the commercial flight crew personal management (PNC). I had indeed four crew in two days, and I did not keep the lists of the members with me, because they are on the on board documentation. On the other hand I have reexamined the case several times with the copilot who has a very precise memory of the event, and who wrote a report for the gendarmerie (police) of the Charles De Gaulle Airport. I can only suggest you asking them about their feeling now.

-During your pilot career, have you heard from collegues or other air personal, of similar phenomena?

-I barely speak about this encounter, and I had the surprise to note that about one out of ten pilot had observed a unidentified flying phenomenon.

-Your testimony appears in the COMETA Report, page 11, which has been publisehd in a special edition of the VSD magazine, this summer 1999. Were you interviewed by this association? What do you think of this report, from a general point of view?

-As I said, I was actually auditioned by the above mentionned UFO Committee, which took shape in an association named COMETA. I have recently met Mr. Denis Letty along with a friend who is flight commander on the Concorde, responsible for the training of pilots at the General Management of Civil Aviation (DGAC), in order to study a regulatory possibility to have a reports form for UFO observations on the board of all French airliners. Their report seemed to me extremely well conceived, written by high level personalities, and constitutes a reference for UFO question. It still has some restricted diffusion because this subject is still one of the three great taboos of aeronautics. The first taboo is the cosmic radiation on aircraft. From May 2000 on, the flying personal will have to carry a dosemeter and the amount of radiation received each year will be measured and calculated according to the recommendations of the project SIEVERT which is developed by the General Management of Civil Aviation, the Institute of Protection and Nuclear Safety (IPSN), the Office of Protection against radiation Ionizing (OPRI), and the Observatory of Paris-Meudon. Flight crew of aeronautics, as well as astronauts will be soon classified among the people who receive amounts of radiations on their workplace. The amount of cosmic radiation received by passengers or members of flight crew during a Europe to US trip and return trip is similar to a lung radioscopy, and this fact is carefully hidden to the crews and the passengers since nearly 35 years. Indeed, a recommendation of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), back in 1964, requested that the airlines take measurements of on board radiations on airliners. A modification of the European regulation in May 2000, European directive 96/29 of May 13, 1996, divided by five the maximum amount of radiation applicable to the public, which will be able to take only 1 millisievert per year, instead of five. The airline pilots, hostesses, steward receive between two and five mSv per year, which is more than the majority of the workers in nuclear powerplants. This taboo will disapear when the information circulates in the general public. The second taboo is the suicide of the airline pilots as they fly, and it will be shattered by the accident of the EGYPTAIR 990 flight, if the assumption of the suicide of the copilot is to be confirmed. The third taboo is the UFO phenomenon UFO, and in particular the 220 visual observations confirmed by radar, among them is mine. We can thank the COMETA team which, by the quality of its members, its knowledge, its overview, its hypothesis, makes it possible to start to discuss seriously about the sightings from all points of the planet.

-On December 7, 1999, TV viewers have an occasion to see you in the "Why? How?" show, animated by Sylvain Augier and Julie Bhaud, for the France3 channel.

-As I took part myself in the recording of this show, I had the pleasant impression that the questions were not "oriented." The "And CO" team (producing the show) seemed opened, although skeptic, and very sympathetic. If the editing does not suppress it, do you think that this kind of show can have some utility for general public? What do you think about the attitude of the medias, in general, as for their editing of UFO related information? As I wrote above, there are several taboos in aeronautics, and the reporters who dare to face these interdicts risk to be ridiculed, but also to have trouble finding a job. This type of show require curiosity and courage, and the journalists know that they risk negative reactions, or aggressive reactions, and derision. This type of emission is very important for it makes it possible to give previously confidential information to the public. Information must pass gradually, whereas we must know that there will be all sorts of reactions. The bottomline of this problem is the maturity of the public. Is the public ready to receive the information? The social psychologists can consider the consequences which an official meeting with an extraterrestrial civilization would have, if they have several million years of technological advance. Which upheavals would be induced? Will there be panic in the population? Which disappointed hopes? Will we find the best, the worst, or both? Which information should be given to the public?

-Today, do you think that the origin of the UFO phenomenon is not our planet?

-The imensity of the universe, its beauty, its unknown features, the current technological progress, the space travels, the orbiting stations, and what I saw, can only convince me that we are not alone in the universe and that we will take part, if we do not destroy ourselves, in the community of the species which travel across the galaxy. The true current problem of our planet is not the existence, or not, of extraterrestrial civilizations but all the problems caused by pollution, the accumulation of the weapons of destruction, fanaticism, totalitarianism, the overcrowding of our planet. If we have something to fear maybe it is not the others, but our own kind.

-To conclude this interview that you so nicely granted us, do you have a particular message, a comment to be transmitted to our readers?

-I bought myself a 14 inches telescope, and I had a small astronomical observatory with a cupola of 3,50 meters constructed. Astronomy will be one of my occupations in retirement, and if I must leave a message to your readers it is: take the time to look at the moon, the sun, the planets, the stars, the galaxies, in the astronomical reviews, a club, or at home. I hope that one day each French village will have a small astronomical observatory so that the children, and the teenagers, but also the adults, can satisfy their curiosity and become open to the mysteries of the universe.

SOURCE

FRENCH NEWS :

French News talkin about this incident
French News again

In this case, the pilots got the support of the CERN (the French NASA) and especially it's SERPA's bureau. One of the head of the CERN even wrote a book about this subject.

An english article on the subject : click me

FRENCH SOURCE 1
FRENCH SOURCE 2

Some militaries officials, after seeing all the debates, tried to debunk this case saying that the witnesses saw the UFO coming to the left when the radar showed a trace coming from the right... The answer of the pilot about this radar "bug" is :

"There is a very curious characteristic for the trajectory of the UFO, as it shows that it would have almost collidedus. The minimal distance on the recording is less than 1 Nm, that is to say 10 seconds of flight. This kind of observation is traditional in electronic war. The modern military aircraft are furtive, and at the same time able to synthesize a virtual image of themselves by delaying the radar echo. If a missile had been drawn on this UFO, which was above Paris, it would be our A320 which would probably have been hit by the missile. "

My opinion is that a military radar is controlled only by the military and they can easily change something to avoid an official disclosure. And guess what, no proper explanation was given for a radar trace maybe coming from the left or the right, but still not corresponding to any plane which was supposed to flight this day... and a trace who appears and disappears in the middle of the air


Your thoughts guys ?

Namaste !



















edit on 26/11/10 by estebadia because: (no reason given)
edit on 26/11/10 by estebadia because: (no reason given)
edit on 26/11/10 by estebadia because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
This is great! Does anyone have any recent information about follow up investigations into this? I hate that the most credible forms of evidence are seemingly brushed aside while more sketchy UFO topics are debated. I guess it is not fun debating something that is hard, or unable, to debate.

Very nice.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by estebadia


THE INTERVIEW : (SOURCE)


we were seing something utterly anomalous. We continued to observe it when it it gradually merged with the environment. We saw it becoming translucid, transparent, diluted in space.. We saw it becoming translucid, transparent, diluted in space. That was absolutely amazing.
It is amazing and I have no doubt they saw something utterly anomalous as claimed.

But what that description tells me is that it wasn't a UFO, but a UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon), a term used by NARCAP since some sightings of things in the sky don't involve any real object which that description suggests is the case.

Truly, it's something we don't understand, but that description "it gradually merged with the environment. We saw it becoming translucid, transparent, diluted in space" sounds like an atmospheric phenomenon and nothing like a real object, don't you agree?

That's sort of the way the observers described the two UFOs in this image:


Source: This photo was published in the January 8, 2005 edition of the Mexican newspaper El Imparcial.

Those UFOs also became translucid, transparent, diluted in space and merged with the environment.
They showed up on film but we know they are UAPs and not UFOs.

edit on 26-11-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
these ufo's might have some star trek cloaking devices that let them blend into the enviroment. if this is true then every sighting is a delibrate attempt to be seen.

it looks more and more that unknown vistors are slowly trying to make contact without causing mass hysteria.

look what mass hysteria is doing to the u.s. after 9/11. maybe they know more about ourselves than we do.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well thats ONE explanation though there is really no proof..
UFO it is then...



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I would have said that, as it was partially tracked on (defense) radar, then that would suggest a solid object rather than a 'phenomenon' without substance. Its worth noting that modern civilian radar has software which 'filters' out any return that doesnt act like a normal airliner- that means they literally do not appear on the operators screen in any way. Im sure, given the description by the pilots, this would both by its size and flight characteristics fall into that category. Hench it being 'seen' on defence radar but not on civilian.

I have seen Captain Jean-Charles Duboc talk about this encounter, and found him to be an excellent witness (as most pilots are), as well as the COMETA report being a real eye opener. Britain and US could learn a thing or two about openness and accountability on the UFO subject from France.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I've not read the whole item as I'm stung for time here but did read a few of the responses and I have to say it would be odd but not impossible for seasoned pilots and ground staff to mistake and aerial phenomenon for a craft of some sort. Surely with all the logged hours and obvious time to see all sorts of cloud imagery that us non pilots would never see.

For someone of that experience to do that would be immensely unlikely but not impossible.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Truly, it's something we don't understand, but that description "it gradually merged with the environment. We saw it becoming translucid, transparent, diluted in space" sounds like an atmospheric phenomenon and nothing like a real object, don't you agree?


No. It sounds more like you want it to be just anything but a UFO.

The description simply tells that the object went from a solid state to a transparent, diluted state, only to disappear. In short, it turned invisible.

I've been living in Paris for years and we don't get any exotic weather phenomenon around here, strange enough to fool two experienced pilots that must have seen just about any type of weather you can throw at them.

Both pilots distinctly refers to the phenomenon as an object.

"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. "

-Jean-Charles Duboc, Air France pilot.

Radars can be set to pick up weather phenomenon, but the radar that picked up both Flight 3532 and the object was of course tracking planes.
edit on 27-11-2010 by Heliocentric because: A black dragonfly flits by my sandaled feet at Waterfall Temple.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
No. It sounds more like you want it to be just anything but a UFO.
It really doesn't matter what I or anyone else wants it to be, it is what it is. Another reason I don't think it's an object is the fact that it morphed shape so much. If it was just a flying object turning stealth on, that wouldn't explain all the different shapes it appeared to have.


Radars can be set to pick up weather phenomenon, but the radar that picked up both Flight 3532 and the object was of course tracking planes.
Are you sure the radar picked up the object, and if so, how do you explain the fact that the pilots reported the object was at a distance of 25-50 nautical miles but radar showed an object coming within 1 mile of the aircraft? That's quite a discrepancy!



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It really doesn't matter what I or anyone else wants it to be, it is what it is. Another reason I don't think it's an object is the fact that it morphed shape so much. If it was just a flying object turning stealth on, that wouldn't explain all the different shapes it appeared to have.


Exactly. You can't establish with certainty whether this was an unidentified flying object or an unidentified weather phenomenon. But... the pilots refer to it as an object, that is some type of solid mass with a defined shape, and they have way more training and experience on the subject than you, and they were there!

As I told you, we don't get red/brown lenticular weather phenomenon around here. Why don't you contact a meteorologist and ask him/her what type of weather conditions could possibly produce this type of phenomenon, and in what part of the world.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Are you sure the radar picked up the object, and if so, how do you explain the fact that the pilots reported the object was at a distance of 25-50 nautical miles but radar showed an object coming within 1 mile of the aircraft? That's quite a discrepancy!


Perhaps because the object moved? Here's some in depth info on the radar hits:

www.ufologie.net...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
Exactly. You can't establish with certainty whether this was an unidentified flying object or an unidentified weather phenomenon. But... the pilots refer to it as an object, that is some type of solid mass with a defined shape, and they have way more training and experience on the subject than you, and they were there!
You're reading way too much into their use of the word object. As you said they also used the word "lens".


As I told you, we don't get red/brown lenticular weather phenomenon around here. Why don't you contact a meteorologist and ask him/her what type of weather conditions could possibly produce this type of phenomenon, and in what part of the world.
There's an interesting investigation on Caelestia about a morphing object seen by pilots. The circumstances are not identical but I do think it provides some good ideas:

www.caelestia.be...



Perhaps because the object moved? Here's some in depth info on the radar hits:

www.ufologie.net...
Nope! Not according to the pilots, and your source confirms that the pilot testimony completely contradicts what the radar says, I don't think it's the same thing:


this drawing shows that the visual UFO does not correspond to the radar-UFO. The visual UFO is indicated to be at 25NM while the radar-UFO passes at 1 NM of the Airbus. The visual UFO is indicated as being stationary at the approximate clock position 10:30 or 45° on the left in front of the plane while the radar-UFO is indicated as starting from somewhere on front at the right of the plane, not stationary but moving in straight line perpendicular to the trajectory of the plane, passing in front of the plane at 1 NM and continuing towards the left.
So it's at completely the wrong distance, on the wrong side of the plane, how much more does it take to convince someone that the radar did not detect the same thing seen by the pilots? "the visual UFO does not correspond to the radar-UFO", yes your source is CORRECT, they do NOT correspond!
edit on 28-11-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There's an interesting investigation on Caelestia about a morphing object seen by pilots. The circumstances are not identical but I do think it provides some good ideas:

www.caelestia.be...


Your Belgian web site is interesting but does not in any way produce a probable explanation for the disc-shaped red/brown object as some type of strange weather phenomenon, which you seem to be aware of. Is this the only thing you've got to prop up your unidentified aerial phenomenon theory?

I lust love it the way they introduce the theory of "mirage":

"The theory of an unusual mirage may appear at first glance to have fewer difficulties than either birds or balloons."

"(It) may appear at first glance to have fewer difficulties than either birds or balloons". And at second glance? In short, they haven't got a clue what they're talking about, they're just toying around with any imaginable explanation for something they cannot explain.

Which means that it has no more credibility - as a theory - than explaining it as unidentified flying objects, which is what the pilots reported, moving from different altitudes through different weather types (in the cases the web site presented).

But, at least it shows that there is imaginative thinking in the scientific community, which is good.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So it's at completely the wrong distance, on the wrong side of the plane, how much more does it take to convince someone that the radar did not detect the same thing seen by the pilots? "the visual UFO does not correspond to the radar-UFO", yes your source is CORRECT, they do NOT correspond!


Your last hope to discredit the whole incident?

So you're no longer questioning that there was a radar observation? Just that the location doesn't seem to correspond with the pilot's observation?

The question you must ask yourself is; if the unidentified object appearing on radar wasn't the the unidentified object observed by the pilots, then what was it? Still an unidentified object if you ask me. Which is troubling, that there are unidentified objects flying around in such an extremely busy air space, Paris being one of the biggest airline hubs of Europe.

Also, if you ask me, an object described to have the capacity to go invisible could perhaps have moved to the mentioned radar location while being invisible, or have come from there?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
But, at least it shows that there is imaginative thinking in the scientific community, which is good.
I won't argue with that, they list numerous other similar cases and while AF3532 isn't on the list it also has some similarities. Actually AF3532 may be a better fit for that type of explanation than the BOAC sighting they are looking at, which lasted a very long time. The AF3532 sighting was much shorter, only about a minute, much more consistent with that type of explanation, and that was one of the reasons they made the "at first glance" statement you mentioned. I'm not saying that's a definitive explanation, there isn't one for AF3532, only that there's no reason not to consider that type of explanation a good possibility, so I agree with a lot of your comments about guesswork, etc. But it's educated guesswork, so I don't agree they have no idea what they are talking about.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So it's at completely the wrong distance, on the wrong side of the plane, how much more does it take to convince someone that the radar did not detect the same thing seen by the pilots? "the visual UFO does not correspond to the radar-UFO", yes your source is CORRECT, they do NOT correspond!
Your last hope to discredit the whole incident?

So you're no longer questioning that there was a radar observation? Just that the location doesn't seem to correspond with the pilot's observation?
Location, distance, and speed, virtually any possible characteristic you can compare, doesn't match. How people can claim it's a match escapes logic. My previous question about the radar observation wasn't whether there was one, it was whether it was the object the pilot saw. Obviously, it wasn't. If you claim it was, you pretty much have to throw out the pilots' statements and then all you have is an unknown radar object. But since you raised the question of whether there actually was a radar observation, I think there was not an observation on the air traffic control radar the same as the defense radar, because no collision avoidance order was issued by air traffic control.


The question you must ask yourself is; if the unidentified object appearing on radar wasn't the the unidentified object observed by the pilots, then what was it? Still an unidentified object if you ask me. Which is troubling, that there are unidentified objects flying around in such an extremely busy air space, Paris being one of the biggest airline hubs of Europe.
Actually I don't think it's that unusual, but maybe a bit troubling. For all practical purposes it was on a collision course with the aircraft, since 1 nautical mile is only 10 seconds of flight time. If air traffic control had thought they saw an object on a collision course like that, I would expect them to issue collision avoidance orders to flight AF3537, but they didn't, did they? So am I understanding correctly that an object was detected on CODA but that's defense radar and not the normal air traffic control radar, which apparently detected nothing?


Also, if you ask me, an object described to have the capacity to go invisible could perhaps have moved to the mentioned radar location while being invisible, or have come from there?
While that's a reasonable statement and might be an explanation if there was a time gap, it doesn't fit this case. The pilot observed their UFO in a totally different position, distance, and velocity, than the radar track, simultaneously, so they were concurrent events. The pilot has a possible explanation or maybe a guess, but it seems pretty far-fetched, something about projecting a false radar image so if a missile were launched it would have hit his plane, my French isn't that great so I don't understand his explanation completely. Maybe you can read French better than I can: ovni.zeblog.com...


raconte Duboc...
J'ai pris connaissance de l'enregistrement radar du CODA. Il y a une particularité très curieuse car la trajectoire de l'ovni nous fait entrer quasiment en collision. La distance minimale sur l'enregistrement est de moins de 1 NM, soit 10 s de vol… Ce genre d'observation est classique en guerre électronique. Les aéronefs militaires modernes sont furtifs, et en même temps capable de synthétiser une image virtuelle d'eux-mêmes en retardant l'écho radar… Si un missile avait été tiré sur cet ovni, qui était au-dessus de Paris, ce serait l'A320 qui aurait vraisemblablement reçu le missile


I agree the atmospheric-optical explanation is a guess too, but it's a better guess than the pilot's guess in my opinion. But reading between the lines of that comment by the pilot, he seems to be suggesting that he thinks perhaps there was no object where the radar tracking occurred, that maybe it was a false projection of some sort, if I'm understanding that correctly (which I may not be)? But he is very clear the radar object was on a collision course, I'm sure about that, and I don't think he was directed to take evasive action so I don't think Air Traffic Control tracked any object on a collision course? I think that was a defense radar (CODA) and not an air traffic control radar that detected the radar object, but correct me if I'm wrong. So then if it showed up on one and not the other you have to ask why. I don't think it's all that unusual, I think spurious radar images are more commonplace than most of us who don't operate radars for a living know about. Filters have become better over time, but there is plenty to filter out, Some of the filters used are mentioned here:

www.ll.mit.edu...


Inside the NEXRAD Open Radar Product Generator (ORPG) the data quality assurance algorithm is used to detect and remove such artifacts as constant power returns which can result in bull’s eye patterns and sun strobes. It also removes some clutter due to anomalous propagation returns using low velocity and spectrum width signatures.
I think you would find there are more anomalous propagations than you think, but more in the past due to better filters today.

The defense radar filters are probably different than ATC radar too which may be one reason defense radar picked it up but not air traffic control radar:

www.scribd.com...


Modern air-traffic control RADAR is equipped with a data processing filter called a Moving Target Indicator (MTI). When activated, an MTI removes all non-relevant returns, or clutter (such as elevated ground features) from a RADAR display. A RADAR system reverts to a primary setting when the MTI is switched off, resulting in all detectable objects appearing upon a unit’s scope. Secondary RADAR depends on a transponder, a specialized radio transmitter carried by all commercial and most private aircraft. This device broadcasts the aircraft's call sign, altitude and destination to a RADAR unit, which then displays this data on its Plan Position Indicator.

It is well known that anti-ICBM defence RADAR systems, such as those utilized by NORAD, often register "unknown" returns (termed UCTs, or Uncorrelated Targets).

Most ufologists prefer RADAR cases where an anomalous return is noted in conjunction with a visually observed UFO. This is because RADAR can be fooled by a variety of atmospheric conditions, or even malfunctions within the RADAR mechanism itself. Under certain atmospheric conditions anomalous propagation can occur. This effect, induced by temperature inversions, causes ground features not normally detectable by a RADAR set to temporarily appear on its scope. On some RADAR sets, a "ghost" signal of an already "ranged" object is sometimes detected close to the originating target, precisely mimicking its motion(s). Angels are the semi- official term for a specific class of natural RADAR return. Typically, this phenomenon manifests on a RADAR scope as an erratically moving and intermittently visible return. They are variously thought to be caused by moving pockets of air whose temperature differs to that of the surrounding environment, swarms of insects or electrically charged atmospheric particulates.

The existence of all these phenomena emphasizes the need for apparent RADAR detections of UFOs to be associated with a visually observed stimulus. Even in those instances, the possibility of a false return always renders this form of UFO evidence open to some doubt.
There is certainly plenty of room for doubt in this case due to the complete lack of correlation between the radar and the visual UFO, and for that matter, lack of correlation between defense radar and Air Traffic Control radar.
edit on 29-11-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The pilot has a possible explanation or maybe a guess, but it seems pretty far-fetched, something about projecting a false radar image so if a missile were launched it would have hit his plane, my French isn't that great so I don't understand his explanation completely. Maybe you can read French better than I can: ovni.zeblog.com...


You weren't that far off. Duboc makes a reference to modern military aviation technology, pointing at how stealth bombers/fighters not only can jam radar tracking, but also can project a radar echo of itself at a distance, leading defense systems to go after the echo. This would be a rational explanation to why the object visually appeared in one place, but appeared in another on the radar, since this technology exists.

Also, it indicates that Duboc in no whatsoever way is locked on an extraterrestial spacecraft explanation to his and his co-pilot's sighting. Rather, he doesn't know what he saw and leaves the door open to any explanation, even some type of military black ops project.

Only, He knows what he saw.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There is certainly plenty of room for doubt in this case due to the complete lack of correlation between the radar and the visual UFO, and for that matter, lack of correlation between defense radar and Air Traffic Control radar.


There is of course doubt in this case, since we don't know what the object reported by the pilots was, but not because of the inconsistency between the visual observation and the radar observation.

There is no "complete lack of correlation" as you try hard to establish. In classic debunker style, you've first tried to banalize the incident as a mere weather phenomenon, now you focus on the visual/radar observation inconsistency in order to show that neither are trustworthy.

Only, one does not exclude the other. We have a rational explanation (suggested by Duboc) why an object can appear visually in one place and in another on radar.

Also, there could have been a visual object in one place and an undetected/invisible object in another.

Let's make a quick reference to the Phoenix Lights incident in 1997. There were actually two observations that night, strange lights going on and off over the Phoenix area, and a delta-wing shaped craft flying over the state. At first glance, one incident does not seem related to the other, but isn't it strange that both phenomenon appeared the same night? Following classic debunker reasoning, you could say "Was it strange lights over Phoenix or was it a delta-shaped craft? The witness statements do not correspond, therefore they have no value!". Also, some people saw a delta-wing shaped craft, others saw a boomerang shaped craft, and some saw only a V-shaped formation of lights. Yet again enough inconsistency for a debunker to discard it all as pure fantasy, right?

Instead of discarding it as "complete lack of correlation", I would say that it's interesting that there was a visual observation on one side and a radar hit on the other. I don't understand why, but it merits further investigation.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I agree the atmospheric-optical explanation is a guess too, but it's a better guess than the pilot's guess in my opinion.


First of all, the pilots have (as far as I know) never ventured into trying to explain their sighting, since it appears totally unexplainable to them.

Airline pilots are exceptional people. They are hand-picked for their abilities, they're highly trained and generally have years of experience. They have training and routine in observing atmospheric phenomenon, therefore their observations are in the domain of expertise, and our whole society is run on a hierarchy of qualified judgement made by experts.

You on the other hand is just an anonymous person with no apparent credentials, and the reasoning you have produced so far to discredit these pilots' observation is shaky to say the least.

Therefore you are - as you said - only expressing an opinion. You weren't there, and your opinion/judgement is a lot less worth than that of a professional airline pilot.
edit on 1-12-2010 by Heliocentric because: a world of dew, and within every dewdrop a world of struggle



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric
There is no "complete lack of correlation" as you try hard to establish. In classic debunker style, you've first tried to banalize the incident as a mere weather phenomenon, now you focus on the visual/radar observation inconsistency in order to show that neither are trustworthy.
No I believe the pilots visual observation. It's the radar that's not only suspect but also fails to correlate with the visual sighting and the pilot confirms it with his theory about a possible projection, obviously the pilot is saying if there was any correlation it must be a projection because it what he saw was NOT where the radar object was, we've clearly established that right?


Only, one does not exclude the other. We have a rational explanation (suggested by Duboc) why an object can appear visually in one place and in another on radar.the visual UFO, and for that matter, lack of correlation between defense radar and Air Traffic Control radar.
So have you got any links on that technology? I haven't read about it but I studied radar and projecting a false radar image at a different location in the same heading and velocity might be possible, technically, in fact I can explain how it could be done. However, I know of no way for what the captain suggested to be done, that is to project a target moving in a different direction at a totally different velocity. I admit that just because I don't know how to do it doesn't make it impossible but if you have reason to believe it's possible I'd like to see your reasons to support that. So until you provide that, I'm not sure how rational the captain's explanation is.


Instead of discarding it as "complete lack of correlation", I would say that it's interesting that there was a visual observation on one side and a radar hit on the other. I don't understand why, but it merits further investigation.

This is understating the discrepancy. It's not just the location direction on the wrong side of the aircraft, it's the distance, and also the velocity, and the fact it apparently didn't show up on air traffic control radar at all.


First of all, the pilots have (as far as I know) never ventured into trying to explain their sighting, since it appears totally unexplainable to them.
Wasn't that comment about projecting a false radar image some kind of guess at trying to explain the lack of correlation between the visual sighting and the radar target?


Airline pilots are exceptional people. They are hand-picked for their abilities, they're highly trained and generally have years of experience. They have training and routine in observing atmospheric phenomenon, therefore their observations are in the domain of expertise, and our whole society is run on a hierarchy of qualified judgment made by experts.
They have training in routine atmospheric conditions, but some pilots have admitted they never received any training in mirages or other unusual phenomena. So while clouds and other common weather patterns are within the domain of expertise, mirages, and other unusual phenomena are not.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


One of the world’s first genuine UFO investigators, Allen Hynek of Northwestern University, came to believe that some encounters really could have otherworldly causes. But he was much more skeptical about the reliability of pilot testimony. "Surprisingly, commercial and military pilots appear to make relatively poor witnesses," he wrote in "The Hynek UFO Report."

Hynek found that the best class of witnesses had a 50 percent misperception rate, but that pilots had a much higher rate: 88 percent for military pilots, 89 percent for commercial pilots, the worst of all categories listed.
You still think pilots are such great witnesses?

Well they may be exceptional people, but that doesn't mean we should put them on some kind of pedestal about the accuracy of their sighting, such as your misplaced insistence that the fact they used the word "object" means that it was an object, when it could be a phenomenon. Certainly they saw something, and we are all curious about what it was.





new topics
top topics
 
19

log in

join