Pilot claims to see UFO at KCI Airport - Aug 1, 2012

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Well, I'm not sure if this means anything, but the report says it is a regularly scheduled flight from St. Louis to Kansas City.... I just did a quick search on Orbitz.com for a few different dates, and it shows NO direct flights between the two. If there were layovers in the flight, would he still be saying he was flying from St. Loius, or would be report it as flight out of wherever the layover was leaving from?




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


The story is all very well and nice, and even more so since it got some MSM coverage, however, anyone, any internet troll on the planet can make anonymous reports to UFO sites, and even call up news agencies claiming credentials they don't have with no way to have said credentials vetted because of the anonymity.

I could claim to be a pilot. You could claim to be a pilot. Anyone could claim to be a pilot and say any number of fantastic things to media outlets, UFO websites, any many other venues under the charade and 'protection' of anonymity.



NO!

As usual you're wrong.

Why do you always attempt to debunk the UFO sightings?

I think you have a reason but I don't know what it is so please share.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavalryscout

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


The story is all very well and nice, and even more so since it got some MSM coverage, however, anyone, any internet troll on the planet can make anonymous reports to UFO sites, and even call up news agencies claiming credentials they don't have with no way to have said credentials vetted because of the anonymity.

I could claim to be a pilot. You could claim to be a pilot. Anyone could claim to be a pilot and say any number of fantastic things to media outlets, UFO websites, any many other venues under the charade and 'protection' of anonymity.



NO!

As usual you're wrong.

Why do you always attempt to debunk the UFO sightings?

I think you have a reason but I don't know what it is so please share.


I don't always agree with Druscilla, but what she says here is absolutely true. Go to the MUFON website and make a report yourself. You can say and claim anything you want.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkumaStreak
So... the whole "I get it, this person wants to stay anonymous to protect their job" thinking eludes me.

What intelligent people would sacrifice the chance to stand as reputable witnesses to something as Earth-shaking as this to save a career? Silly.
edit on 8/2/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)


This witness (assuming he actually saw what he's saying he did) would likely not make a perceptible dent in the general attitude toward UFOs by coming forward publicly. He would be just one more in a long list of pilots and other reputable professionals who have made reports of this kind over the last several decades. People like having a steady income, and most won't give theirs up for the chance to go on TV and be ridiculed. Ask the dozen or so witnesses working for United Airlines who reported seeing a flying saucer over O'Hare International Airport in 2006. All of them demanded anonymity.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
I don't always agree with Druscilla, but what she says here is absolutely true. Go to the MUFON website and make a report yourself. You can say and claim anything you want.


At this point, I have to admit I am VERY skeptical about this report.
The pilot wants to remain anonymous but he divulges the flight source, destination and approximate time of the flight. If this information were true, it would be very easy to determine the identity of the pilot.

The report stated that passengers were talking about the sighting as they left, yet none have come forward to confirm the sighting, despite the fact this "sighting" was reported on TV.

I really suspect this is a hoax report.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by finnzter
Well, I'm not sure if this means anything, but the report says it is a regularly scheduled flight from St. Louis to Kansas City.... I just did a quick search on Orbitz.com for a few different dates, and it shows NO direct flights between the two. If there were layovers in the flight, would he still be saying he was flying from St. Loius, or would be report it as flight out of wherever the layover was leaving from?


The only airline that I have been able to find that fly direct is Southwest Airlines. But their flights don't match with the time 09.25 UTC (4.25 AM local time) given in the report.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I'm sure many have seen this video but these accounts need constantly pushing but of course the skeptics of ATS have been flying their whole lives and have psychology degrees.
What do these people have to gain from making this stuff up?



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by finnzter
Well, I'm not sure if this means anything, but the report says it is a regularly scheduled flight from St. Louis to Kansas City.... I just did a quick search on Orbitz.com for a few different dates, and it shows NO direct flights between the two. If there were layovers in the flight, would he still be saying he was flying from St. Loius, or would be report it as flight out of wherever the layover was leaving from?



Look, I hate to point the obvious out however, seems some need it. If the guy is seeking anonymity because of his job it therefore follows he is hardly likely to give the exact and even correct details of where exactly the flight was from to. Why?? Well it's maybe because there are still total dillheads such as Klass out there who's be straight onto it work out what flight it was, find out who flew it and then phone their boss to give them the old "Do you really want these loonies flying your aircraft?" routine.

Now consider this, if the report turns out to be a fake, a complete hoax, who is harmed. Oh yes only the totally innocent pilot of the flight that comes closest to matching the details given.

So , all in all, you can thank, in part, a bunch of self centred know it all, debunkers for enabling people to hoax these sort of reports a lot easier than they should be able to and at the same time they have managed to instil a climate of fear amongst those who would, genuinely like to report something that was "out of the ordinary".

That these people have the temerity to call themselves the "rational ones" and the "true scientists/seekers" only serves to show what total and utter hypocrites they actually are. You know, you don't have to be a conspiracist to suggest that, to make it easier to hoax and harder for good witnesses to come forward smacks of an agenda.

At least over here in Europe, we seem have a reached a situation where, pilots can report UFOs without being ridiculed and even the relevant bodies that deal with the fallout have the bottle to stand up and say "We really don't know what they saw".. The Manchester Airport sighting being a classic example of this. www.ufocasebook.com...

That does two things, it makes it far far harder to hoax such a report and it "easier" for crew to report such incidents. As the pilot in the British video says "Over here, pilots have a legal duty to report any "unknown" in their airspace ".



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I am joining the ranks of folks who think this a fake. Here's why.

1. The time involved. If it were a commercial jet such as a Southwest Airlines jet, the published flying time between KSTL (St Louis) and KMCI (Kansas City) is just one hour. If I were flying such a route, I would not consider myself on approach when I was still 35 minutes out.

2. Who is controlling me at that time? It isn't Kansas City International Tower. When you are 35 minutes out you are still talking to Kansas City Center. You will soon be talking to Kansas City Approach control. But definitely not Kansas City Tower. You won't be handed off to tower until at least within 20 nautical miles and cleared for an approach.

But, if there was an error in the report and the intervals reported were in distance (miles) and not time (minutes), then it could be possible. However, from my experience, I still won't talk to tower until much closer to the field because the airspace they control is much closer to the field.

So sorry, this report does not sound like it came from a pilot with the alleged experience that this witness claims.

Oh, and the time of the incident...it's still dark outside. I have seen quite a few objects up close at night (even from the flight deck). I very seldom can make out their exact color. Now, if the reported time of the incident was in error and it was 0940 CDT versus UTC (Zulu), then again it is plausible that the pilot saw the color of the object.
edit on 8/4/2012 by JoeBarna because: Clarification



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Unless they were running REALLY late, which happens upon occasion, but in this case I would hazard a guess that they didn't.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by ho chi minh
I'm a commercial airline pilot
and i can confirm that in my
17 years in the cockpit i have
never seen anything unusual.
This leads me to believe that
all U.F.O. sightings are hoaxes.


see it's easy anyone can make anything up.



This wasn't like an anonymous caller phoning Coast to Coast. This did go through the rigorous scrutiny of MUFON so it's not "THAT" easy.
I was just wondering what type of vetting was used.

Trust me, MUFON ain't that desperate for publicity. They are very careful when standing behind a UFO report!


If MUFON vetting was as rigorous as you claim (assume I presume) wouldn't every single case be a verified case? Would any non verified cases ever get through? If then every case was verified since it was reported by them wouldn't we already have proof of aliens?

I think your assumptions and presumptions put you in some very vulnerable spots. Thank god we have you here to make a thread about every UFO sighting reported on youtube. Otherwise we might have to learn about them on youtube. Oh wait...



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


According to Flightradar24.com there were no flights between St Louis and Kansas City at 07/30/2012 09:25 UTC.

edit on 2/8/2012 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)




I'm not going to argue this because I don't feel like taking the time to check it out.....so I will assume you're right.
But at the same time I would think MUFON put in this slightest effort too just as you did.

Plus, I have personally used that site (when debating chemtrails) and very often the planes... that were right overhead... were not on the active map.
So not sure how reliable that is although the planes I was seeing might've been military.

But like I said, I would think MUFON would've done something very similar to what you just did. I just don't have an explanation.
edit on 2-8-2012 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)


So you assume/claim that MUFON has a rigorous vetting procedure, and assume that they are correct in what they report.

Then you assume that the poster that says there was no flight is also correct. You then tell us you are too busy to verify if they are right or not, you just take it for granted they are.

Are you being serious here?





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join