It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The UFOs are gone!

page: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by xpoq47

I just reread the crash description in Crash at Corona.
The U.S. Army showed up and made then go east towards Datil, NM.

Judging from the topography of the area, it looks like - Sugarloaf Mountain - took a
direct hit on the east side of the mountain.
Professor Buskirk was there with 5 college students: 3 guys and 2 girls
A guy named Professor Barnett was there also.

Captain Armstrong told them it was their patriotic duty to keep quiet about this crash.

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 02:30 PM
reply to post by Brighter

The Colored Lights:

From co-pilot Tamefuji's transcript:

Beckner - Right, okay. How 'bout the colors of the lights? Is that also...

Tamefuji - Humm, might Captain, maybe for different thing and Mr. Fukuda maybe different thing, but ah, ah I say it was aircraft so I thought but actually I think...

Beckner - Okay

Tamefuji - ... I think salmon, just like Christmas assorted...

Beckner - Okay, okay assorted.

Tamefuji -... and uh, I remember red or orange, hum, and a white landing light, just like a landing light, and ah weak green, blinking.

Beckner - Blinking

Tamefuji - How should I say - looks like this, (hand-signs were made by Mr. Tamefuji) moving like this in one....

Beckner - Swinging?

Tamefuji - Yes, and ah, ah if there was, there are ah, how should I say, very good formation flight....

Beckner - Close formation flight?

Tamefuji - Yes close.

Again the colors, red, white, and green lights. I comment about the "amber and white" below. It doesn't matter if he initially thought he saw aircraft or not because these were the colors(as shown above) he described. Unless you think he was hallucinating the colors. What do you assume the purpose is of an intelligently controlled spacecraft to have red, white, and green lights? Why not all white? Why not all red? Why any colored lights at all since this only draws attention to the "spacecraft"? Which happens to be the purpose of our own navigation lighting. Is it just a coincidence?

Now the characteristics of those lights. The issue isn't if they're blinking too fast or blinking too slow, or strobing too bright or strobing too dim, or pulsating or whatever. If these were experimental military aircraft, it could explain the difference in the frequency or brightness in the lighting in relation to passenger/cargo aircraft. The issue is fact that the lights are performing any type of actions at all. Why not only steady lights? Why any form of blinking/stobing/pulsing at all since this only draws attention to the "spacecraft"? Which again, happens to be the purpose of our own navigation lighting. Is it just a coincidence?

Yellow navigation lights have been used on some older military aircraft in the past. A yellow strobe in combination with the traditional white one wouldn't be out of the question. Besides, the action alone of strobing is consistent with Earthly aircraft visibility lighting.
Also, the flash frequency is not a set standard:

"it must not be less than 40 times per minute but no more than 100 times per minute."

Light intensity also varies in candle power within the FAA guidelines.

Re: The Amber/White Lights

From pilot Terauchi's transcript:

Terauchi - This light was amber and whitish, but when it came to here it was only amber... white light. Why I don't understand. (Japanese) right.

Fufii (interpeter) - First of all it's like amber and whitish color, came closely it seems like all output exhaust positions of the jets, all these Challenger

Gordon - Look like something like after burners.... okay okay, like each one of these was an individual exhaust

? - Yes

Gordon - Okay

Terauchi - So this light is special like Challenger, yes like Challenger took off amount of flame going on, we can't see Challenger by this flame.

These were not the navigation light colors mentioned above. The amber/white lights were the description of the propulsion of exhaust and "afterburner" type exhaust of these craft by the pilot. Jet flames on Earthly aircraft happen to be amber and white. Depending on their use.

Among other aircraft, the F-117 Stealth bomber has rows of small rectangular exhaust ports. The F-22 Raptor has two rectangular exhaust ports and uses undetectable stealth technology. The Harrier V/STOL fighter has four rotating rectangular nozzles for vectored thrust of fan and jet exhaust and has stealth capabilities. Who knows how many models and variations the military has experimented with over the years. For years, the military has also experimented with directional square nozzles that move up, down and side to side which moves the aircraft accordingly to create quick movement without the need to change altitude. What seems to be described by the pilot as far as the amber/white colors, is the square exhaust ports of jet aircraft. Such as the stealth bomber which was in development at the time. Not a spacecraft. Besides, it would seem odd that a spacecraft that possesses the advanced technology and ability to travel the galaxy or universe(or where ever), relies on archaic "jet power" as a means of propulsion.


posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 02:32 PM

The Enormous "Mothership"

Only seen by the pilot. "Connected the dots" with lights and assumed this was an enormous spacecraft.

Co-pilot Tamefuji never saw it after looking all around.

Flight engineer Tsukuba's transcript:

Tsukuba - When we saw the first one in front of us, we did not change the heading, but the second one("mothership") it was really hard to see it, so we changed heading(360 degree turn). I think the object was with us when we changed altitude, I could not see. The captain said it was there, so I felt like it was there.

Beckner - Did the intensity of the lights change?

Tsukuba - The first lights I saw was unchanged until they disappeared. The second one, it was so hard to see. In my mind, I am not certain whether it was lights of a distant town or a strange object.


No, it doesn't seem likely they saw experimental aircraft, because what professional in their right mind piloting a top-secret experimental aircraft would be pacing and then toying around with a commercial 747, or any aircraft for that matter?

The pilot said at no time was he scared or felt in danger by these craft. That would lead one to believe these '"toying" events were going on safely and far from the flight. In fact, they were described in terms of miles in front, not feet. But, lets go with your perspective. Your belief is that these intelligently controlled non-human piloted craft were just "toying" with the flight? What do you suspect the reasoning is behind this? What about applying your "what professional would" to the pilot(s) of these craft? They seemingly have to be fairly intelligent. Wouldn't they be smart enough to know they are putting our primitive aircraft and crew in danger by flying so close, as you seem to think?

Radar Evidence:

AATC reported an intermittent radar hit over a period of one minute, but didn't report back any further hit. This relates to the comment: "We just got a very few primary hits on the-ah target and then we-ah really haven't got a good track on him ever." ROCC picked up an intermittent track for 2 minutes and 51 seconds then lost it. Their "other equipment" had a track for 2 minutes and 25 seconds then lost it. NORAD didn't comment on the duration. This is over a 35 minute conversation with JAL and air traffic controllers. I don't see consistent overwhelming evidence of a "mothership" in that exchange.

When they entered Fairbanks Airport Approach Control airspace and during this incident, there was absolutely no radar target around JAL 1628 at any time. The 360 degree turn, with the claimed enormous walnut shaped mothership following them, was performed in Fairbanks airspace. But nothing was picked up on their radar. Here we have two other radar installations several hundred miles away picking up an intermittent target. While the one in JAL's direct path is receiving nothing except JAL's own signal. You can't explain it away because of the less advanced radar used by Fairbanks Airport, since AATC is using the same. Why didn't the "mothership" show up on close-range radar?

Furthermore, here's what Dr. Bruce Maccabee has to say about the FAA's 'explanation':"The press release did not mention that the "split return effect" was contradicted by the fact that the extra echo did not come back with every sweep of the radar and by a statement by an airtraffic controller who said that they rarely, if ever, get a split image in the area where the JAL jet was flying."

Dr. Bruce Maccabee: An active UFologist since the 1960's and state director for the Maryland chapter of MUFON. So you're using Bruce Maccabee as your credible source and view his conclusions over the FAA experts(along with many others not stated) I've already noted? Interesting that you search and find a UFologist that supports your own point of view, and he's right. Yet, all professional FAA experts actually trained in reading radar data come up with their answer, and they are wrong. I'm sure you either believe it's part of a coverup, or the FAA had to give a response, therefore they just pulled out "split image" as an imaginary answer. Also, no where in the FAA report does it mention an air traffic controller saying a split image is rarely seen in that area.

Your quoted comment by Maccabee proves the point I was making in my first post. Flawed research by reading a case through the eyes of biased reporting.


edit on 24-2-2013 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 02:36 PM

Furthermore, these radar operators were so concerned that they were ready to immediately scramble military aircraft to intercept the unknown craft following the 747. Does that sound like the behavior of radar operators who are looking at ambiguous radar data?

The radar operators were naturally concerned when a pilot is consistently stating "other traffic" is within his area throughout their conversation. Even with a statement by AATC like: "We just got a very few primary hits on the-ah target and then we-ah really haven't got a good track on him ever.", they still are essentially blind and at the mercy of a pilot repeatedly stating and insisting something visually and physically different. So they were basing the jets being scrambled not off consistent radar data, but by the pilots repeated claims. In fact, before clearing the jet(s) being scrambled, they asked the pilot if that's what he wanted, in which he said "negative, negative". You clearly misinterpreted the meaning.

The reality that we're confronted with here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's hilarious that you assumed that I wasn't familiar with this case. Well, you're free to unassume that now.

Yep, showed me didn't you?

I know you really want to hold on to the fact that this was an intelligently controlled craft and it would be difficult for you to let go of that, even a little bit. Afterall, it further supports your belief in general about the existence of UFOs by showing an example of a "strong case" that's close-up and went on for 50+ minutes. But, being a close-up case, with multiple witnesses, it especially has to stand up to the scrutiny of overwhelming, unexplainable evidence. To me, it does not do this.
Relate it to this: If a flight in the early 1900's observered a jet aircraft from 2013 close-up for 50+ minutes in their skies, there would be absolutely no doubt that what they saw is completely unexplainable and far more advanced than they are. That's with only 100 years difference. In the same vein, If we saw a spacecraft with the technology to defy gravity, travel the galaxy and/or universe and is thousands or possibly millions of years more advanced than us, there would be absolutely no doubt that what we saw is something completely unexplainable and far more advanced than we are. Visually, we would see things that logically made no sense and can't be explained. And that accepted "unexplainable" evidence wouldn't include the witnesses describing: navigation colored lights, blinking and/or strobing lights, and afterburner or exhaust style of propulsion. That is far too similar to our own. Also, the Radar evidence is too inconsistent to show with any certainty that there was a "mothership" following them.

To me, this case shows a greater possibility of the crew intitially seeing experimental aircraft such as the Stealth bomber. Combined with the pilot misidentifying lights shortly thereafter as an enormous mothership. As he had done in the past.

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by Brighter

Bumping for a response.

top topics
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in