UFO Dangers and Commercial Aircraft- Finally under Examination

While the debate rages over whether some of the residual UFOs are interplanetary or interdimensional spacecraft, the magazine is exploring the potential danger of UFO encounters with commercial airline pilots.

Huffy Post Link

Has any one else heard about this?
I was surprised to hear it. I've been wondering when an organization would take that threat seriously. I know a few government investigations have been carried out but who can believe a government report anyway?I can only hope it pushes research groups into taking a good long look at the subject. I think we need as many researchers as possible, from notable organizations, looking at every angle of the entire UFO phenomenon.

My questions:
Is U.S. News and World Report an organization worth listening to on this subject?
Are we being pumped full of hot air?
Is this going to be another avenue for disinformation?

"Our objectives are to make flying safer for the public, and we're convinced there's a potential threat posed by nearby unexplained aerial phenomena to commercial and private airplanes," former UFO skeptic and NASA research scientist Richard Haines

Is or has Nasa been investigating this?
How many reports of this type have come out? I don't know the exact number but it seems suffice to say, Tons of pilots have reported instances of their aircraft being observed, followed, tampered with, etc.... Its good to see it in the news. There's no shortage of threads regarding UFOs and Commercial Aircraft...
jkrog08 's Thread
A video I always found strange.

A thread on the Corcord Orb

What are your thoughts on the article and the apparent news of some investigations? Its apparent there is something to airline/ufo cases.

TXML

I don't think there's a question that UFOs exist, pilots of commercial craft see them often enough and report them.. passengers see them.

The question is what are they? are they ours ( I tend to lean towards that opinion most of the time ) .. are they Alien? I don't think that matters so much when the question comes up about them posing a risk to commercial flights.

Ultimately if there are objects, man-made or note.. flying around near commercial planes.. it should probably be considered for risks..

Interesting

UFO Dangers and Commercial Aircraft- Finally under Examination

Finally? Where have you been hiding. Groups have been using that angle since the late 70's all the way through the 90's. Not a new idea at all. And certainly not an idea that can turn up anything important or shed any light on this mystery for obvious reasons.

I don't think UFO's represent any significant danger to aircraft to warrant someone spending money on an investigation. Back in the day NICAP (or wasn't NARCAP? Can never keep those stupid groups straight) were taking that route too. Basically not even using the word UFO because it was already affiliated with total lunacy, so anyone "investigating" UFO's was sure not to get anywhere because the loonies ruined it for everyone (gee, seems the same thing is happening even worse in these modern times, lol).

And they were going after the "potential danger to passenger aircraft" angle in order to "fly above" the loony bin associated with UFOS, while all the time focusing on UFO's anyway.

Simply put though, there isn't a danger. Out of the millions of flights a year, a the percentage that report UFO's and the even rare percentage that report they are in danger is so low it isn't even worth mentioning. I remember talking to one of the guys about that, and he started crying about for a few years it was statistically higher than wind shear incidents (which is VERY low as well), and that the government and the people spent tons of time and money addressing the potential wind-shear danger, so why not UFO danger? The mentality he displayed by stating that was a good indication of why they will never turn up anything, they are brain-dead idiots. I told him for one that wind-shear is a tangible, verifiable problem, unlike UFO's. There was a big difference between addressing wind-shear issues on a national level and addressing "UFO" issues with the same amount of money, time and gusto, even if reported incidents of wind shear and ufo's were similar. He couldn't see the difference. I felt sorry for him.

So yeah, your article about taking the aviation safety approach is not a new idea, and anybody that has been around for a whiles has seen it all before. Unfortunately, it will not turn up anything. Not that there is nothing to turn up, there is something going on up there for sure. But do to the fact that this subject has been ruined by ignorance over the years, you can't seriously investigate it on a national level and maintain credibility.

I do admire the cover-up job the government pulled off. Probably the best intelligence operation ever. Ridicule the subject for years until you have enough useful idiots on board to continue making the subject look like a laughable joke without government intervention......then sit back and watch the useful idiots ensure this subject can't be taken serious by any reasonable person in numbers that would amount to a potential intelligence threat.

reply to post by gameisupman

I know a few government investigations have been carried out but who can believe a government report anyway?

I do realize its not a totally new concept. I guess I should have clarified with a question mark at the end of the title. Meaning I don't believe most of the B.S. from any previous investigation especially NICAP.

I do see your side though. And you make some good points like:

Ridicule the subject for years until you have enough useful idiots on board to continue making the subject look like a laughable joke without government intervention

Thats why I don't trust what the government reports say. Any finding they come out to the public with is surely not a real finding at all.
I'm simply stating that I hope some investigative groups step up and deliver us some decent reports on their findings.

TXML

reply to post by txMEGAlithic


What we seem to know is that UFOs come from such a high-level of a technological civilization that they can travel here from other stars. We also know that after half a centurn of being in our airways that collisions between our aircraft and UFOs are rare or non-existent ,
So we can wonder if this sudden interest in this issue is nothing but a PR creating for the sake attracting attention to the subject of UFOs and those making the noise.

Any one of our mechanical and electronic systems that we use either as consumers or as members of specialized occupations gets further and furthe refined during their during of use. In short, more complicated and safer. With aircraft, both civilian and military, the point has been reached where an out and out failure of equipment or a gross pilot error is about the only way an accident cn happen. And increasingly, pilot error is reduced by some piece of equipment looking over the pilot's shoulder in oversight.

So why now this debate over collisions with UFOs?

And the other side of the "why now" question can be equally attacked. As seems evident and stated first on here, we are dealing with extreme technologically developed entities. Regardless of how UFOs are controlled, by a typical control stick, buttons or by pure thoughts, we can bet that their computers or brains operate in such a way that aerial moves are virtually fool proof and that the devices themselves by they sensors or the occupied craft are failure proof.

The famous video of the small ball of light coming down to closely circle a Concorde and close to within inches of it before streaking away is ample evidence of the abilities of those craft--again, be they self-contained remotes or controlled elsewhere as our drones.

I refuse to believe that anyone working with the topic of UFOs on a daily basis would even consider that UFOs present a danger to aircraft worthy of a campaign on that issue. I can think of far better issures that relate to the UFOs involvement with Earth than concerns about traffic accidents. In my view these recently voiced concerns are a designed to attract attention to the topic, a "false flag" topic of words, hiding an agenda of another sort..

reply to post by txMEGAlithic
Richard Haines and Ted Roe have been focusing attention on *near misses* and air-safety for many years through NARCAP.

In recent years, Leslie Kean has also used this angle to generate more attention on the ETH side of UFO phenomena.

Further back into the 'Golden Age' of ufology, Major Donald Keyhoe pushed similar ideas.

A huge problem with this approach is the lack of good evidence that 60 odd years of UFO reports have resulted in conclusive aviation accidents or collateral damage. There are a handful of cases with excellent provenance and they still don't amount to enough for an official, public strategy. Google Kinross UFO, Valentich or Coyne helicopter UFO to see what I mean. You could check out Tehran 1976 or NARCAP's 'Project Sphere' report too.

There are more aviation accidents involving geese than unknown phenomena.

At the end of the day, if nobody wants to budget for an official, public investigation of UFOs, they aren't going to be swayed by the aviation safety argument. Also, whilst I'd enjoy seeing an official investigation taking place, it's quite transparent that the aviation-safety threat is more of a bait and switch to add legitimacy to a subject held in contempt by at least 3 decades (post-Condon Report 1969) of officialdom.

If some internet nobody like me can see this, it's hard to imagine strategic masterminds being wrong-footed by the subterfuge.

I feel that anyone looking into this subject in as serious a manner as NARCAP earns a pat on the back for moving in the right direction. What other groups can we name that are doing anything like this? There are very few from what I've seen.

Read NARCAP's technical reports and judge for yourself.

reply to post by Aliensun

know that after half a centurn of being in our airways that collisions between our aircraft and UFOs are rare or non-existent

That is very true. I can't think of one time.
I do wonder about some of our pilots. And as the article said:

cockpit confusion or distraction

is another concern.

"false flag" topic of words

It very well could be. If so, what other agenda would this false flag support?

Thanks for your reply. All good points.

TXML

reply to post by Kandinsky
I guess I need to explain my distrust of NARCAP. It comes from the fact that they say they are concerned yet they won't say why, and their is not a lot of evidence that we need to be concerned. (other than our own pilots stupidity) Maybe I'm just paranoid. I can't help but feel slightly deceived when I hear some of their comments. Just like the government lies in a roundabout way sometimes. So it makes me think Uncle Sms Hand is controlling what comes out from them too. Wow....I guess I read into stuff too much.

When it comes down to it, what am I really asking for? Some rich guy like Donald Trump needs to fork over a hefty sum to a 'good' batch of scientist and researchers. Let em research and then I might come closer to feeling okay with any report they publish.
Well that's dumb dream if I've ever had one.

I do find some of the reports from NARCAP interesting. I just feel they know more.

TXML

Originally posted by txMEGAlithic
reply to post by Aliensun

know that after half a centurn of being in our airways that collisions between our aircraft and UFOs are rare or non-existent

That is very true. I can't think of one time.
I do wonder about some of our pilots. And as the article said:

cockpit confusion or distraction

is another concern.

"false flag" topic of words

It very well could be. If so, what other agenda would this false flag support?

Thanks for your reply. All good points.

TXML

"...What other agenda would this false flag support?"
Answer: The people pushing it and the backdoor legitimacy of UFOs.

I'm sure its ball lightning. . . err. . .swamp gas. . .

Awesome. Love this article!

reply to post by amongus
Thanks for the reply.
Agreed....Ball Lightening reflecting off of swamp gas.

The airline industry is dumb, UFOs are still taboo and countless pilots don't even report them when they see them. Although UFO/airline collisions are rare, they do happen and I'm pretty sure it is taken seriously in at least one of the South American countries.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum
I love that some S. American countries seem to be moving in the way of disclosure. I think they might be the worlds best bet if we are ever to know whats really going on. They do get a little excited sometimes but that, to me, is just reassurance that they are sincere in working towards a greater public awareness.

TXML

reply to post by txMEGAlithic
I think NARCAP are genuinely interested in the UFO phenomena and have been applying their methods for a long time (12 years). I don't think they're dishonest or anything other than what they claim to be. Many of their associates over the years are known and highly qualified technical specialists from S. America, Europe and N. America.

I've chatted on-line with Ted Roe and he comes off as a deeply genuine man. He's got a sense of humour and doesn't buy into the circus-side of ufology presented by Exopolitics and others. He'd like to see UFO reporting taken seriously.

The same can be said for Richard F Haines who's been in the field for many years. Read his bio and you'll see he's got quite a pedigree.

People who are attracted to the UFO enigma express it in different ways. Some go out flashing lights at the stars, others lie in farm fields at night. For others, when Mike Salla says they're waiting for 'disclosure' and they'll fill our arms with more goodies than a looter in a blackout...they believe it. Some collect hundreds of cases and books whilst others try and make sense of the numbers and look for patterns.

In NARCAP's approach, they see a physically manifested phenomena that warrants study and who better to provide data than aviation crews? They deliberately distance themselves from the UFO circus because sober professionals rarely want anything anything to do with the subject. Ultimately, they want to scrutinise the cause of the sightings and not the mythology that has attached itself like Athlete's Foot - who wants to catch that right?

So it's unlikely that NARCAP are actively dishonest as you suspect - it's more a case of a means to an end in the process of gathering evidence of UAP and UFOs.

In one of favourite UFO-related interviews, Richard F Haines describes his interest and explains what NARCAP stand for. It's from the Paracast and you can right click - save as (here) if you want a copy. Some great thinking in there, cases and history.

reply to post by Kandinsky
Maybe you're right. If so many people hold Haines and Roe to such a high esteem, I could be wrong feeling the way I do about it. I do respect many opinions on this site (yours being one) and since you've had contact with the researchers and feel okay with them, I suppose my feelings of distrust are unwarranted. I will thoroughly examine the biographies and reexamine my opinions of NARCAP and those involved in the research.
I love this site because so many members are willing to educate others. You all could've turned your backs on this thread as soon as I started trashing NARCAP. Thank you for not.

That's the good thing about a mind. It can be changed if the conditions are right.

TXML


Zcustosmorum---Thanks for the video, I'll sure check it out. Much appreciated!

reply to post by Kandinsky


Whilst I haven't followed Roe, I have followed a lot of the work of Haines, dealing specifically in pilot/UFO encounters, and if that doesn't make you re-evaluate the whole UFO thing, nothing will. Guy knows his stuff and some of the cases he has dealt with are staggering, to say the least.

reply to post by txMEGAlithic

I love this site because so many members are willing to educate others. You all could've turned your backs on this thread as soon as I started trashing NARCAP. Thank you for not.

No problem at all

Guys with your attitude are the ones who make it worth visiting and too many forget how they started out on ATS. My first threads died the death and I learned a lot from the posts of Chad, Phage, Internos, IsaacKoi and a ton of others - no BS, I found a lot of members quite intimidating.

In the UFO subject,'feelings of distrust' are some of the best ones. Keep hold of them whenever in doubt because nobody has the answers - no matter how well they write or what letters they have after their name.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Whilst I haven't followed Roe, I have followed a lot of the work of Haines, dealing specifically in pilot/UFO encounters, and if that doesn't make you re-evaluate the whole UFO thing, nothing will. Guy knows his stuff and some of the cases he has dealt with are staggering, to say the least.

Haines has been around for a long time and that podcast I linked is well worth a listen and should make anyone think. It caused me to post a thread Stalking the UFOs that looked into the value of all these databases and stats of UFO reports. He made the comment that UFOs are more frequently reported as being sighted during the 11th hour of night.

The thread had a good variety of explanations from members. As ever with ufology, no easy answers and there's always an *if* a *maybe* and a *but.*

reply to post by
Thank you for the encouraging words. They're much appreciated. I am learning. ...And I am listening.

Thanks to all for the replies. I value your input.
Also, Thank you for all the links. I'll look, indepth, at each and every one.

TXML

reply to post by gameisupman


What's with the attitude? Nice touch of condescension in the post too.

The OP's brought up quite an interesting facet of UAP investigation that really isn't discussed very often. This isn't the first I've heard of it, it's only until I read Leslie Kean's book that I realised there was a move to broach air safety issues with UAPs publicly. But my interest tends to weave in and out so I'll have a period of intense interest then it'll wane.

I'll agree that pushing for investigation into near misses with UFOs/UAPs does smack more of 'backdoor investigation for legitimacy rather than total interest in air safety. But I think it's worth pursuing and just because there have been no accidents nor fatalities thank god. Doesn't mean there won't be. By definition, a near-miss is an averted disaster. And anything that doesn't show up on radar, but travels at high altitudes and sometimes at great speed with a phenomenal rate-of-turn ought to be looked into. Sure, it won't have the urgency that something such as wind sheae would for obvious reasons. Nonetheless, it's a flight hazard and when you're dealing with the safety of flight crew and paying passengers. One shouldn't be too nonchalant or blasé about it.