It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1965 multiple pilots sighting -- can it be explained?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
But that's the problem -- you wait until a case 'falls apart' before you STOP believing it's evidence for true UFOs.

Most folks don't withhold judgment until all reasonable -- and a few fluky -- prosaic explanations can be eliminated. They start out believing and demand 'disproof' of the story before they stop trusting it.

In this case, the clue that led to the prosaic explanation was dropped -- or never got INTO -- the top quality data bases. Without it, we wouldn't have reached this point in our socratic dialog.

Without it, this case would remain a member in good standing of a supposedly validated, unexplainable set of pilot reports.

Well actually -- even AFTER this resolution, the case is STILL in the data bases.

What can we do about that?

Does anything HAVE to be done about it?

Over the years I've pointed out to Richard Haines a number of cases that similarly had rocket/space explanations.

He has left EVERY one of them in his data base.

Why? Is there any harm in that?



If by true UFOs you mean alien visitors of some sort I don't think I believe all UFOs are that until proved otherwise. At least I don't think so.


That there are vested interests with agendas to keep every case possible alive should come as no surprise. You find that sort of thing in every field in existence in this world. I don't think it's a bad idea to at least speculate as to what the best prosaic explanation is for every case that comes down the pike. Not every speculation equals a proved solution either. That would be like finding a murder victim and claiming, "I've solved the case . . . it was a murder!"

If you don't like the way Haines manages his Dbase, start your own.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFO Partisan
If you don't like the way Haines manages his Dbase, start your own.


Since you haven't started your own, can we presume that you like the way Haines maintains his?

Shouldn't there at least be a cautionary note affixed, saying, 'We really haven't checked out many of these stories, but they sure sound impressive at first -- and if you find any explanations, don't bother us."

Just joking. I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful comments.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Hey Jim great thread
. That first link you provided was great a couple of these particularly caught my eye. As im not really sure what the orbs are i was real interested in different countries identifying ships which they were saying looked like inverted plates.

USA 30 miles east of Cochise, New Mexico - a USAF training bomber TB-25 - instructor pilot + student pilot -
a metallic disc, looking like 2 inverted plates passed the plane.

Colombia Tabio - a Cessna 150 - a trainee pilot - a white inverted object, looking like an inverted plate, effects on plane and pilot

Do these two accounts give the McMinnville UFO Photographs a little bit more credibility?



I look forward to hearing what you think, and like i stated above great thread and i hope it gets some lengthy discussion.

ThatGuyInTheKnow



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatGuyInTheKnow
I look forward to hearing what you think, and like i stated above great thread and i hope it gets some lengthy discussion.


It's a dangerous direction, but how about this idea.

If the 1965 case shows pilots being spooked by a prosaic apparition -- a sounding rocket launch hundreds of miles away -- leading them to imagine the object is a nearby craft interacting with them and causing electromagnetic effects and radar returns, then what are the implications.

Surely it doesn't prove that ANY such report must have a prosaic explanation? By no means.

Worse -- it simply shows that any such report MIGHT have such an explanation, and researchers can't find it -- or won't tell you, if they do.

This is pretty scary.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
Over the years I've pointed out to Richard Haines a number of cases that similarly had rocket/space explanations.

He has left EVERY one of them in his data base.

Why? Is there any harm in that?


The extent of any harm rather depends on whether (as is the case with many UFO databases) they are used merely for the purposes of helping find references to relevant resources/discussions, rather than being the first and last word in relation to a relevant entry.

Few, if any, authors of UFO databases would claim that their database should be treated as exhautive. They are generally best regarded as a convenient starting point when looking for information on a particular sighting or type of sighting. Of course, since they are a further step away from primary material they introduce an opportunity for (yet further) distortion - unintentional or otherwise - of any relevant underlying stimulus/report.

One problem with many UFO databases is that they tend to only include a single reference. The problem is that, once you decide not to limit yourself to one reference per entry, where do you stop? For some UFO sightings, I have noted references to discussions in (literally) several hundred UFO/SETI books - without counting references to all (or even the most interesting) discussions of those sightings in UFO magazines/journals, newspaper articles, Government documents etc etc etc.

When you refer to "his data base", which one in particular are you referring to Jim? It would be interesting to see how the relevant "data base" is described by Richard Haines.

By the way, I spotted one or two hoaxes during a fairly cursory consideration of a draft database circulated by Richard Haines and a co-author a year or two ago and my comments (and references to relevant material) were, I think, all incorporated into that database before a version was made public.

All the best,

Isaac
edit on 2-2-2011 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by UFO Partisan
 


Belated thanks for the Socorro links.

Rather than distract again from Jim's important thread, I'll have a think and perhaps post something on this Socorro thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not yet having digested all the relevant info, I still guess that both the ET theory and the hoax theory were purposeful distractions. Would appreciate Jim's comments either here or on the Socorro thread.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Jim,

Would appreciate your expertise on the likely EM effects produced by Lambda.

I understand fireballs can produce remarkable EM effects, but don't know much about rockets.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Jim,


The pilot reports of cause-and-effect EMI phenomena (including 'radar confirmation') were crap.


While awaiting your response on the likely EM pulse caused by Lambda's flight through the ionosphere, I've done a little googling and apart from confirming that such pulses occur, I've found surprisingly little further relevant material.

I guess most material concerning the detection of such EM pulses produced by rockets must be highly top secret.

Therefore I'm not sure you've demonstrated that the Convair pilot's report of EM effects, as reported by Amamiya, were crap.

Amamiya wrote "After the Convair regained its original flight path the UAP remained off their left wing. Capt. Inaba reported that the two needles of his automatic direction finder swung violently and radio static
was heard while the UAP flew beside the airplane."

As a layman, I would guess that the swinging of the direction finder needles and the static might have been caused by Lambda's EM pulse. If so, this incident would add to the plausibility of pilot reports of EM effects linked to UAPs.

Couldn't find anything in Amamiya's paper about radar detection.

Would much appreciate your comments.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Thanks for the follow-up. While fireballs from natural or artificial entry objects can cause EM noise, I'm not familiar with any EM effects of rocket launchings, especially at this distance. So I will cling to the interpretation that the pilot reported a coincidental -- not cause-and-effect -- phenomenon. But that's subject to further consideration of launch-generated EM effects.

Mainichi Daily News (Tokyo) of March 22, 1965
quoted by MUFON, www.ufoevidence.org...
"He [Inaba] said the object ... violently affected his automatic direction finder and his radio. He said he tried to contact the Osaka communications tower but was unsuccessful.

You are correct that no radar sightings are claimed for this encounter -- my oops.


edit on 8-2-2011 by JimOberg because: add link



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Is it agreed that these baffling-sounding pilot stories were really caused by the rocket launching?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Jim,

Thanks for your responses. And also for the explanation of the 1976 Canary Island sightings on another thread.

I certainly agree that the answer to the question you pose in the title of this thread is Yes.

But Richard Haines has assembled dozens of remarkable cases of this kind, for example in Appendix 2 of this paper:

www.narcap.org...

I could find only a few weak cases in this list - think I found one possible Venus and one possible rocket launch. But I'm no expert, and it may be that someone, perhaps yourself, has gone through Haines's list with a toothcomb, identifying many other of his UAPs.

If so, I would much appreciate references.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lowneck
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Jim,

Thanks for your responses. And also for the explanation of the 1976 Canary Island sightings on another thread.

I certainly agree that the answer to the question you pose in the title of this thread is Yes.

But Richard Haines has assembled dozens of remarkable cases of this kind, for example in Appendix 2 of this paper:

www.narcap.org...

I could find only a few weak cases in this list - think I found one possible Venus and one possible rocket launch. But I'm no expert, and it may be that someone, perhaps yourself, has gone through Haines's list with a toothcomb, identifying many other of his UAPs.

If so, I would much appreciate references.

Cheers


I listed ten such 'bad eggs' in my MSNBC critique of Kean's pilot-worship last summer.

A point worth repeating is that often the prosaic explanation may never be discovered because of inadequate documentation available to the public. Some of the ones I did discover were by freak streaks of luck.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I would suggest that before applying a certain prosaic explanation to a case one should at least try to discuss it with the pilot, if possible, given the past history of insulting pilots with explanations that had already been ruled out by the initial investigators, like "the planet Venus" after the pilot had said it was the apparent size of the moon. A pilot might be happy to hear that it might have been a rocket if he believes it fits the case. Of course, that’s usually impossible for a case this old.

I wonder what possible prosaic explanation one could offer to the cockpit crew in the JAL 1628 case. The pilot has already said that the notion of a stealth blimp larger than an aircraft carrier that can keep up with then speed away from a 747 is ridiculous.


edit on 21-9-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
I would suggest that before applying a certain prosaic explanation to a case one should at least try to discuss it with the pilot, if possible, given the past history of insulting pilots with explanations that had already been ruled out by the initial investigators, like "the planet Venus" after the pilot had said it was the apparent size of the moon. A pilot might be happy to hear that it might have been a rocket if he believes it fits the case. Of course, that’s usually impossible for a case this old.

I wonder what possible prosaic explanation one could offer to the cockpit crew in the JAL 1628 case. The pilot has already said that the notion of a stealth blimp larger than an aircraft carrier that can keep up with then speed away from a 747 is ridiculous.


edit on 21-9-2011 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)


I think that a certain logic should be applied to any debunking of a sighting that uses the highly probable....IT WAS A SECRET U.S. AIRCRAFT. First of all....the LAST thing that anyone who is involved with a Highly Secret Aircraft Test would want is for this craft to be anywhere NEAR any passing CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT.

Great pains are taken to test Highly Classified craft in low population...actually....ZERO POPULATION....areas and the idea that a U.S. craft of this nature would be shadowing or showboating around or anywhere near a Civilian Flight....is shere STUPIDITY as were as insulting the intelligence of anyone with an IQ above 90.

Split Infinity



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Just bumping Jim Oberg's good thread to make the point that one can disagree strongly with someone's overall views yet still respect their expertise.

As far as I know this 'UFO' sighting has still not been removed from the UFO data bases and reclassified as an IFO (or IAP). It should be.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
In guidelines for clinical practice recommendations for particular drugs for particular indications are accompanied by grading of level of evidence, typically A, B, C, or D, the highest being for statistically significant positive evidence from multiple large-scale, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trials.

In a UFO/UAP database, it would be nice to rank each case at the top or bottom of each entry and give perhaps a chart or summary of modes of observation, numbers of witnesses, and theories on possible prosaic explanations, and also include cases with low ranking so people can see that a particular case should probably not be cited as evidence pro-ETH evidence without further investigation.

Regarding pilots as observers, one point to consider is that pilots have heard of UFO sightings and perhaps discussed the whole issue and become more aware of many of the things that might fool an observer, including distant rocket launches. In some reports pilots have specifically mentioned testing particular prosaic explanations, such as reflection on a canopy, during a sighting.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join