The UFOs are gone!

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
(continued from above)

It seems as though you might agree with this for this JAL case. You're just unsure of making the next inference involving characterizing what they saw as 'intelligently controlled craft'.

To me at least, everything that the captain describes and that was caught on radar indicates that they were intelligently controlled craft.

Their careful and calculated maneuvers throughout the entire event imply intelligently control.

They also appear to be structured craft. You could assume that a lack of symmetry would imply their not being craft, but in fact they are described in symmetrical terms. Symmetery doesn't automatically imply fabrication, but if they weren't fabricated, you'd expect them to lack obvious symmetry. And it's not just a single symmetrical object. There were three objects, all symmetrical. The glowing nozzles (themselves arranged in a symmetrical, rectangular pattern) on the two smaller objects also imply fabrication. And the fact that this same rectangular pattern of glowing nozzles appeared on two objects is even more convincing evidence that what he was looking at was a pair of constructed craft.

They also couldn't have been hallucinations, as he felt the heat of these objects on his face as they approaced the cabin, in addition to the fact that the light emanating from the nozzles lit up the entire cabin. The other crew members also observed these objects, eliminating the possibility of an hallucination.

So, those are the basic contours of why I believe that what they saw were actual intelligently controlled craft.
edit on 8-2-2013 by Brighter because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2013 by Brighter because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


All very good points. Now why aren't there sightings like this anymore?
(Or haven't been for quite some time)



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53
reply to post by Brighter
 


All very good points. Now why aren't there sightings like this anymore?
(Or haven't been for quite some time)


I think there are real sightings every day - just not as well-documented as this.

A lot of variables have to fall neatly into place to end up with a case with this much documentation.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Obviously something was there but I do think the captain had a predisposition to believe in spaceships from other planets based on his report. My memory sucks, so If I am wrong, please correct me.


No, you're not wrong. Terauchi reported two previous UFO sightings about 5 years before the Nov 1986 sighting. He reported seeing another "mothership" shortly after taking off from Taipai. He's quoted as saying in his FAA interview: "um, ah I saw, um, mothership. Taipai, Kushung, Formosa, south of Formosa ...... When we started to climb we saw left-hand side big mothership..... It was so weird, I ignored it (did not look)." The other sighting was from his home in which he saw bright lights in the sky that continued for 10 minutes. He also reported a UFO on January 11, 1987 in the same general area as the Nov 17, 1986 incident. He radioed air traffic control: "Please record this,.... Irregular lights, looks like a space ship." He later offered an explanation after someone from the FAA pointed out it could have just been lights bouncing off the clouds from a distant village, which he agreed.

He also made statements about the JAL 1628 incident that he thought the "UFOs" didn't want to leave any evidence. "The turbulence would assure their existence: therefore, they positioned themselves well from the beginning. I think perhaps they have regulations they must not be clearly seen by humans"

So this wasn't his first reported sighting and he did seem to have a predisposition for at least believing in the UFO and/or alien phenomenon. His co-pilot and flight engineer did observe red or orange, white "like a landing light" and green lights. But they never described a "mothership" or the details that the pilot Terauchi did. The "spaceships" seemed to stay on the port(left/pilot) side of the craft for a majority of the sighting.

Source



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123
Notice how sightings and UFO reports these days get worse and worse, most of the time bordering the utmost absurdity of hoaxes, fakes, misinterpretations etc. (Just browsing ATS for the latest videos etc..makes one shake heads in disbelief). Birds, lens-flares etc..etc...

Then we have the startling discoveries of "aliens" and similar often in countries like "some town in Russia" or Mexico...and the biggest and most absurd hoaxers like Greer, Maussean etc.

Is this all "UFOLogy" is today? Birds on youtube videos and claims by proven fakers and hoaxers like Maussean about "invisible UFO landings" and similar?

Cheezus....compare this with the 50s or 60s, at least there were HALFWAY credible cases compared to all this nonsense today...just saying...

When you look at the better UFO books and documentaries, the "good" cases are mostly those from way back (several decades, although I also start to think Randlesham is not credible anymore) - no real good recent cases.

So..have "aliens" stopped coming to this awful planet sometime in the 80s and now all its left on the subject is the latest UFO hoaxes on Youtube? Where are the GOOD cases, the good videos, the startling cases, ..not the overhyped BS and fakes out of Mexico or "Siberia"? What has happened? Where are they?
edit on 3-2-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the above link is my old account
My whole family 3 kids (a12 year old and twins of 9 know)the other half and myself
have seen the same ufo 3 times in one day ( i only saw it twice) in broad light


a brief description ,it looked like a building with a row of windows rounded at the edges
it was white with no visible flashing lights, and it followed us for 35 mins on the a55 chester to rhyl

and for what its worth i give you my word that this is no tom foolery

my eldest was veery scared

but it was good to have witnesses though
edit on 12/2/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)
edit on 12/2/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


well i never said i believed it was a UFO haha
but that does look tripply. Get me 2 of those rockets in blue and 2 in green and 25kilos of fireworks. An open fire with beer and ribs. Sounds about right. Sparks a smoke. Ahh yes. Cancer.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sean
 


That would be how, but im not agreeing that it wouldn't be suicide to do it. I'v never tried. And i probably never will. I don't feel like being punished in what ever way they plan on carrying out. Sure, you could run into area 51 and start taking pictures, because as 3rd dimensional beings trying to prove in third dimensional locations holding aliens would be some of our main priorities lol.

So i'm just going to compare that scenario, you know taking pictures of a multi dimensional race. With the scenario of creeping passed the do not trespass sign. And youl be dodging 50 cals.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Obviously something was there but I do think the captain had a predisposition to believe in spaceships from other planets based on his report. My memory sucks, so If I am wrong, please correct me.


No, you're not wrong. Terauchi reported two previous UFO sightings about 5 years before the Nov 1986 sighting. He reported seeing another "mothership" shortly after taking off from Taipai. He's quoted as saying in his FAA interview: "um, ah I saw, um, mothership. Taipai, Kushung, Formosa, south of Formosa ...... When we started to climb we saw left-hand side big mothership..... It was so weird, I ignored it (did not look)." The other sighting was from his home in which he saw bright lights in the sky that continued for 10 minutes. He also reported a UFO on January 11, 1987 in the same general area as the Nov 17, 1986 incident. He radioed air traffic control: "Please record this,.... Irregular lights, looks like a space ship." He later offered an explanation after someone from the FAA pointed out it could have just been lights bouncing off the clouds from a distant village, which he agreed.

He also made statements about the JAL 1628 incident that he thought the "UFOs" didn't want to leave any evidence. "The turbulence would assure their existence: therefore, they positioned themselves well from the beginning. I think perhaps they have regulations they must not be clearly seen by humans"

So this wasn't his first reported sighting and he did seem to have a predisposition for at least believing in the UFO and/or alien phenomenon. His co-pilot and flight engineer did observe red or orange, white "like a landing light" and green lights. But they never described a "mothership" or the details that the pilot Terauchi did. The "spaceships" seemed to stay on the port(left/pilot) side of the craft for a majority of the sighting.

Source


I couldn't help but notice how you ignored the fact that the mothership - that you've tried so hard to downplay - was not only witnessed by the captain, but tracked on two separate radar installations, one even being an advanced military radar installation.

Just a minor detail, right?

I guess for you, it's more plausible that not only the captain, but the two radar installations all simultaneously 'hallucinated' this object.

Or how about this gem: Maybe the two radar installations each had 'predispositions' to believe in UFOs?

And god forbid a pilot with thousand of hours of experience and an obvious interest in aviation was familiar with the UFO subject. Boy, I'm sure that never happens.

In fact, I'd argue that that could actually help in identifying such objects.

What it boils down to is this: Given the corroborating witness and multiple radar data, there obviously was an object that was pacing the 747 that was not an ordinary aircraft. They were so concerned that they even attempted to scramble military jets. This object paced the 747, and even followed it a full 360 degrees as they attempted to move away from it.

No amount of 'predisposition' can account for this. In fact, it's plain silly to even talk about.

Such a focus on psychological 'predispositions' in a case like this betrays a total, abject failure of critical thought, and a bizarre ability to (willfully?) ignore the most obvious facts.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


lol time for some counter theories. The aliens have wiped out the masses memory so many times through abductions that people are pre-programmed to disbelieve it! dunn dunn dunnnn Nows whos crazy? I could be true it could be false but such a statement obviously can't be proved. So il leave it to speculation. lol.

Still it would be a funny thought if that was what's going on.

i'd be screaming at WAKE UP JIMMY WAKE UP *slaps slaps* (puts tin foil hat on) DO you believe them now? huh huh? DO YOU *shines flashlight directly in pupil* Have the alien brain waves evaded your subconscious yet jimmy?
edit on 13-2-2013 by CrypticSouthpaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AdAstra
 


Thanks for the reply. I agree with all you've said. I too have seen unexplainable things in the sky but I mostly keep them to myself because people just give you a hard time when you have no evidence.

I can't remember if I even had a camera with me when I saw the most intriguing UFO in broad daylight. I was speachless and just stared in marvel. The only people who expect you to drop everything and start filming are those who have never witnessed such an enigma.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


we arn't here on ATS for those people now are we
There are thread where you can explain your experiences with speculation you just have to look around. Anyways i know what you mean, and a lot of my friends feel the same way when they see one. Its a marvel. Not a once in a life time camera shot
lol. But UFOs are fine to take pictures. Just don't go painting goats blood on an alter to lure an alien for a cover photo lol.

If you find anything insteresting u2u me



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
If you have 10 20 or 30 unexplained cases and with all possibilities, to that's a lot of cases. Let the rest hundreds be all explainable cases and hoaxes. Especially when it comes to trained people, somehow saying that every single time they cnanot distinguish rocket trail, Aurora Borealis/Australis or some lightning or reflection, is insult to such pilots and people...



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


You make some good points and I do generally agree with them. I don't think that it is unreasonable to say that this was a sighting of intelligently controlled something. Anyone would be hard pressed to explain this case away reasonably. At the same time, I do think that it is entirely possible that this was a very complex set of unusual occurrences of earthly origin and not intelligently controlled.


They also couldn't have been hallucinations, as he felt the heat of these objects on his face as they approaced the cabin, in addition to the fact that the light emanating from the nozzles lit up the entire cabin. The other crew members also observed these objects, eliminating the possibility of an hallucination.


Again, I want to reiterate that "hallucinations" are not exactly what you might think they are. "Hallucinations" can account for every type of perception.


Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality — visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive.
en.wikipedia.org...

I really wish that more attention be paid to what exactly a hallucination is and what exactly would cause them. It does not equal mental illness or anything of the sort.

As for the crew, I believe was two other people, they absolutely saw the same phenomenon. That something was there that was illuminated, nobody can debate. That this same observation was also captured on ground radar is also most likely the case. I don't know anything about radars or anything about what natural phenomenon could account for this. I do think I know enough about some things to account for how an observation could have been mispercived. It would just take one person of the 3 to "see" the details of whatever this was and lead the others in that same direction.

I would argue equally against someone who would claim that this was just all very explainable and just write it off as a broken radar and Venus.



edit on 15-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by magma
Looks like still to this day not one single person, not anyone has ever proved UFO's exist.

So until that day comes, they do not exist.

I want to believe, just can't, there is no credible evidence. Not a speck.


So high ranking officials in the military, government, and Nasa, all saying that ufos are real and are taken very seriously, as well as having demonstrated abilities beyond the capability of our flying machines of the time - that amounts to no credible evidence?

Most people who say there is no evidence, simply have not looked.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by magma
Looks like still to this day not one single person, not anyone has ever proved UFO's exist.

So until that day comes, they do not exist.

I want to believe, just can't, there is no credible evidence. Not a speck.


So high ranking officials in the military, government, and Nasa, all saying that ufos are real and are taken very seriously, as well as having demonstrated abilities beyond the capability of our flying machines of the time - that amounts to no credible evidence?

Most people who say there is no evidence, simply have not looked.



yeah pretty much


edit on 15-2-2013 by CrypticSouthpaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



No amount of 'predisposition' can account for this. In fact, it's plain silly to even talk about.

Such a focus on psychological 'predispositions' in a case like this betrays a total, abject failure of critical thought, and a bizarre ability to (willfully?) ignore the most obvious facts.


I disagree. I think that understanding what "predispositions" the key witness might have is important to regaining some objectivity to cases like these. I believe that it is really important to do away with language that "colors" cases like these in a certain way. If we can understand that someone might Expect to see something in a certain way and describe something in a certain way, then we can gain some insight on the witness. It really is an interesting aspect to this case and is a valid point. It doesn't explain it all away but describing an observation in terms of space ships, mother ships, and crafts, doesn't help either.

If someone has a predisposition to see alien spaceships in random lights, they may also experience some intense fear when they think they are encountering beings from another world. It is not hard to imagine that a predisposition like this could lead to more exaggerated perceptions when in such a state.

It would actually be more credible to me if the first hand account was described in more objective terms.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by magma
Looks like still to this day not one single person, not anyone has ever proved UFO's exist.

So until that day comes, they do not exist.

I want to believe, just can't, there is no credible evidence. Not a speck.


So high ranking officials in the military, government, and Nasa, all saying that ufos are real and are taken very seriously, as well as having demonstrated abilities beyond the capability of our flying machines of the time - that amounts to no credible evidence?

Most people who say there is no evidence, simply have not looked.
i think there are a lot of bogus stories circulating about. People that believe them simply have not looked harder than they should.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrighterI couldn't help but notice how you ignored the fact that the mothership - that you've tried so hard to downplay - was not only witnessed by the captain, but tracked on two separate radar installations, one even being an advanced military radar installation.
Just a minor detail, right?

I guess for you, it's more plausible that not only the captain, but the two radar installations all simultaneously 'hallucinated' this object.

Or how about this gem: Maybe the two radar installations each had 'predispositions' to believe in UFOs?

And god forbid a pilot with thousand of hours of experience and an obvious interest in aviation was familiar with the UFO subject. Boy, I'm sure that never happens.
In fact, I'd argue that that could actually help in identifying such objects.

What it boils down to is this: Given the corroborating witness and multiple radar data, there obviously was an object that was pacing the 747 that was not an ordinary aircraft. They were so concerned that they even attempted to scramble military jets. This object paced the 747, and even followed it a full 360 degrees as they attempted to move away from it.

No amount of 'predisposition' can account for this. In fact, it's plain silly to even talk about.

Such a focus on psychological 'predispositions' in a case like this betrays a total, abject failure of critical thought, and a bizarre ability to (willfully?) ignore the most obvious facts.

Repeated "predisposition" points, witless assumptions, overall odd tone... I must have struck a chord. Seems like you're a passionate expert and believer of the case, huh?
It is interesting how you think you can form a complete picture in your mind of my belief and thoughts based upon a little information. Sounds suspiciously like part of the believer methodology.

First off, my post was directed to ZetaRediculian. I was confirming his assumption: "I do think the captain had a predisposition to believe in spaceships from other planets based on his report". If you actually read and studied the facts of the case for yourself, rather than view it through the eyes of biased reporting, you would have known he described these other incidents in the actual FAA interview.

The corroborated sighting of the crew was of the initial aircraft. Captain Terachui described jet flames/exhaust and also identified the lights as: "ah, navigation lights and ah, strobe lights". His co-pilot Tamefuji, reported seeing "Christmas assorted" lights. Red/orange, green, and white lights, blinking. He described the white light as "just like a landing light". All of these lights, as pointed out by the crew in the real-time transcript, happen to be the same color and share the same characteristics as regulation aircraft navigation lighting. What an incredible coincidence that a "spacecraft(s)"(as Terachui later claimed they were) just so happened to display the same color lighting and same actions as Earthly aircraft navigation lights. In his interview, Tamefuji repeatedly spoke about these objects(s) as aircraft. It seems more likely that the crew initially saw some type of experimental aircraft or some other military aircraft they didn't recognize, than a spacecraft from another world, dimension, or where ever.

The above incident could have set the scene for captain Terachui to misidentify lights and carry this into seeing a massive "mothership". Something that only he saw. He admitted seeing a mothership on one previous occasion, but just "ignored it". And another, later after the fact, but came up with a reasonable explanation for it after an FAA official pointed it out. So, it's not out of the question, as with his other sightings, that he was mistaken and misidentified lights. You also would think with an object at least twice the size of an aircraft carrier, or at the tremendous scale Terachui drew it, his crew would have also seen and described this enormous craft. But, they didn't. During his interview, the co-pilot Tamefuji was asked if he saw the craft and he said after looking all over, he did not.

As far as the radar data, after not being able to initially pickup a radar signal, Anchorage Air traffic control(AATC) contacted Elmendorf AFB ROCC. Several minutes later, they said: "It looks like I am getting some surge, primary return... I don't know if it's erroneous or whatever". This radar hit was intermittent and only minutes long. The signal was lost several times. The later review of this radar data by "FAA experts using identical equipment at the FAA’s research technical center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, revealed that the radar system was receiving what is called an 'uncorrelated primary and beacon target.'" It's described as occurring "when the radar energy that is sent up....

Continued Below




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
towards the aircraft,returns to the radar receiver along with the aircraft transponder signal and the two do not match up as being in the same exact location" It's an electronic phenomena that is not unusual. Also, in the FAA real-time transcript, AATC said to UA69: "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." So this was intermittent data, in a small time frame relative to the length of the sighting, and wasn't a continuous radar track of something, as you and others seem to make it out to be.

An FAA Quality Assurance Specialist and Automations Specialist looked over the AATC continuous radar data and could not find any indications of consistent target information.

AATC also directed United Airlines flight #69 to intersect JAL 1628 during the incident to confirm the sightings. UA 69 came within sight of JAL 1628 but never witnessed lights or anything unusual around the plane. They got closer and still didn't see anything. A suspected object at least 2 times the size of an aircraft carrier, certainly would have been seen.

I don't believe this was a knock-it-out-of-the-park unexplainable UFO case. There are too many Earthly explanations throughout the incident. There needs to be consistent, overwhelming evidence that can't be explained to show this was something highly unusual. Unfortunately, many believers get their information by reading the sensationalized UFO stories online. And that seems to be enough for many of them. Many cases are posted and quoted here without any personal research. The facts themselves need to be studied, not the "facts" through someone else's biased eyes.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
i think there are a lot of bogus stories circulating about. People that believe them simply have not looked harder than they should.


In many instances the men I've referenced have made these statements on video. Military, government, and Nasa astronauts.

One example among MANY: Gordon Cooper, Mercury astronaut, stating ON CAMERA that he has seen a ufo (classic saucer shape with a dome on top) land in a military base while being filmed by military officials. Unless there is some serious CGI magic moving their mouths and ventriloquists imitating their voices, these are not bogus stories.

It appears to me that you're the one who is not looking harder than they should. In fact, I would venture a guess that you simply assume these are bogus stories, or listen to someone like Phil Klass and just take his word as gospel.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join