The most convincing UFO video footage we have.

Any of these early ones....Especially the late 1800's to early 1900's photographs. Hard to manipulate photos back then and there were not many things flying in the sky in those days.

Best UFO Pictures Ever Taken from UFO Casebook

reply to post by dragonridr


Take a look at my post that I linked you to. It appears there's no object at all, and that it's just a hoax.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


so following your diagram the rear plane would be flying backwards how do you account for that? be consistent

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Here's what Maussan's buddy free_spirit had to say about it in an older thread -

I know. This clip was taken from an old documentary about military aircraft and then
created a fake story about a UFO crashing in New Mexico. The story was invented by
mexican Daniel Muñoz who copied the documentary and extracted the clip. Then he
gave copies to british Graham Birdsall from the UFO Magazine and other researchers
in several ufo conventions.

Some years ago Daniel Muñoz confessed the hoax during a radio interview and he said
he planted a fake evidence as an experiment.This is the infamous video clip from that
documentary. At minute 1:00.

video.google.es...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's funny how he leaves Maussan's name out of it, since they all know each other and worked together.

freelance_zenarchist
It's funny how he leaves Maussan's name out of it, since they all know each other and worked together.

What's funnier is the comment before free_spirit's in that thread where he claimed he worked for the Air Force and knew about that video and described what the object was. With what we know now, his comment is a complete fabrication.

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

.... but what about the radar returns, didn't they show something following the JAL plane? Also by the time that other United Plane flew by they were no longer reporting seeing it.

Ectoplasm8
I'll answer if Arbitrageur doesn't mind.

I don't mind at all since your answer is accurate, but it's not really complete. Even from the intermittent radar reflections, it's not apparent that anything was following the JAL flight. In fact what happened was, initially the radar target was in front of the plane (not following...see the blue arrow in the image below labeled with time 5:31:08, showing the radar targer in FRONT of the plane). As they got closer to it, the captain wanted to make sure to avoid any possible collision, so he requested a course change, to fly around the object, which course change was approved. So after the object was in front of him, then to the side of him, then finally, behind him, it appears that he flew around it, not that it was chasing him in any way. Add to this that the color of the radar reflection on the captain's radar screen showed green which is the color of a cloud, and the fact that the satellite image shows a cloud right in the exact spot where the cloud-like radar reflections occurred, and I find the evidence for the cloud being the "mothership" (which was the object he changed course to fly around) pretty compelling.

Here is some more explanation:
www.physicsforums.com...

In the meantime, Dr. Maccabee has shared with me a hand-drawn plot of JAL1628's ground track, and I have plotted some (not all) of those points on this satellite image: img372.imageshack.us... The four blue arrows that I have drawn on top of the satellite image all point to a big cloud that is approximately 30nm in diameter. The first blue arrow (near the timestamp 5:31:08) represents the direction in which the flight crew were looking when they asked the air traffic controller for permission to turn right to avoid an object ahead of them:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/33cb7c0bab3f.jpg[/atsimg]


As for the intermittent radar signals from ground based radar, I suspect they may have had a few hits from the cloud also, and other spurious errors (split signal). Dr Maccabee who had the full radar data package from the FAA analyzed it and thought the radar evidence was not compelling (ambiguous at best), for reasons that Ectoplasm8 explained.

www.mapit.kk5.org...

Maccabee conceded: "It seems at least plausible that he may have misinterpreted oddly lighted clouds which the crew had reported to be below the aircraft. Although the several ground radar returns behind the jet were intriguing, the failure of the radar to show a continuous track of some unknown primary target makes the radar confirmation ambiguous at best.

That's the same author who wrote the authoritative source you quoted earlier, with lots of good facts and details that I used in my analysis.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Are you saying Darthorious's comment was a complete fabrication?
I believe he is right, the footage is from an old documentary on the Air Force or something to do with military stuff. The footage was then taken out of context and spread around by Maussan and Daniel Muñoz as a UFO crash. Isn't that what we know now?

bottleslingguy
so following your diagram the rear plane would be flying backwards how do you account for that? be consistent

I did say "could" be a larger plane, or smaller fighters. I say fighters. But there's no way to ever tell, so it's really pointless to continue this line of discussion. Moving on.....

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


Eh, I think I mis-read something. I think you're correct. Time for sleep.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Yeah, I'm coming solely from the perspective of the facts in FAA transcript and this "overwhelming" radar data claimed by supporters of this being an actual mothership. When in reality, it's small fraction of time in the 35 minute conversation between JAL 1628 and the towers. That and the fact of it being an intermittent, poor signal that magically turns into this solid radar data for television shows and ufo biased websites. It's unfortunate that factual information is out there, but rarely gets looked into.

The cloud theory is an interesting one. Especially backed up with NOAA satellite images. The cloud being backlit by lights of a distance town (possibly Fairbanks) or Eielson Air Force Base and mistaken by Terauchi as a mothership is plausible as well seeing as he has made this mistake before. Quoting in the FAA transcript of a previous incident in Taipei:

"... When we start to climb 'we' saw left-hand side big mothership, but, ah... it was so weird, I ignored it (did not look)."

I quote "we" because I haven't found any supporting evidence anyone but Terauchi saw this.
Fairly strong willed of Terauchi to claim to see such an extraordinary sight as an alien mothership, only for him to "ignore it".

In another interview he was asked if he could have mistaken lights in the Taipei incident for a mothership and he agreed he could have.

In the 377 page FAA file, Terauchi has quite an essay that he had written about the JAL 1628 incident called "Meeting The Future". He seemed to at least be an enthusiast.

To me it is kind of aggravating that we don't have conclusive evidence, video or otherwise to substantiate what many people have witnessed. I've witnessed two events of unexplainable aerial phenomenon, at least from my own discernment. The first one, had I had a camera, it would only demonstrate my ability to follow a light source in the dark. The second one, had I filmed it, might appear a little more peculiar. Regardless neither would hold much evidence. What I seen with my own eyes, will be all the proof that I need, to know that many people have seen something unknown and amazing. While others will try their best to recreate the lies or fantasy started in their head and the results will be posted on youtube.

My vote for best evidence is, the battle of Los Angeles and operation high jump. Good luck to the modern observer, maybe we will do better for understanding, than in the history of this long observed phenomenon.

reply to post by blindprometheus


Do you mean this one?

blindprometheus
My vote for best evidence is, the battle of Los Angeles

Actually that's good evidence for the Air Force's common excuse of a weather balloon, though in that case it wasn't just an excuse. The person who launched the weather balloon saw gunners start to shoot at it, and he reported it to his commander. I think one reason they didn't launch planes that night is they would have shot at our own planes too, which would have been downed in "friendly" fire.

What's worse, the famous photo that purported to show some kind of UFO was retouched. Now that the real photo has surfaced, that case has completely fallen apart so anybody citing it as good evidence must not be aware the small evidence people mistakenly thought was there vanished.

If it's convincing evidence of anything, it's that people are not rational, and have irrational beliefs. People are not particularly good observers either, given the wildly varying accounts of what happened that night, which conflict with each other, though the one guy who knew what he was looking at was the guy who launched the weather balloon, because he tracked it after he launched it.

Battle of LA photo: Nothing indeed

it’s still interesting to see how believers still cling to the idea of alien spaceships as the only faint evidence literally vanishes. “This case will never be closed for those who want to believe it was an actual craft in the center of the image”, comments Printy.

Indeed, Bruce Maccabee, who had previously analyzed – and failed to realize he was dealing with – a crudely retouched print updated his analysis given Harrison’s image, but actually maintained his previous considerations. “The fact is that the beams basically do not get past the convergence”, he states, but given these different scans, with higher dynamic range, it’s clearer both that there’s no solid object there and that the “faint evidence of beams above the convergence” is actually clear evidence of beams right past and above it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I know there is no concrete evidence. With the story of the battle of Los Angeles, I've seen the claims that no one suspected that it was UFO till like 50 years later. Though some news articles of that time did take that leap. I also understand that everyone was on very high alert. I also see that a weather balloon could possibly be the suspect. I also see conflicting eyewitness testimonies and that the picture was touched up, to meet the expectations of a flying saucer.

The only thing is, many of the shots being fired, where making impact. Many of the shooters claimed direct hits. Since smoke would have made the sighting messy, I can allow for that to be mispercieved. Though I imagine one direct hit would destroy a weather balloon. Something happened, seen by many, six people died and was met with as much criticism, doubt and debate as 911.

blindprometheus
Though I imagine one direct hit would destroy a weather balloon.

It doesn't really matter whether they ever shot down the weather balloon or not, not much anyway. What we do know from the guy who launched it, is that's what started the shooting, and once that happened, it didn't really matter if there were any targets, as some people admitted they fired into the sky without seeing anything. I suspect what happened is long after the balloon was gone, they were firing at other puffs of smoke, left from previous AA shell explosions.

In any case, the weather balloons could reach well over 25,000 feet, and the maximum altitude of the 3" guns was less than 25,000 feet, so if they survived the ascent they would have been out of range of the AA guns. I also get the impression those 3" guns weren't very accurate even if the target was in range, and those weather balloons are small targets compared to an airplane (Planes could be over 10 meters and a weather balloon is maybe 1.3 meter).

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I still say its one of the best. Without the addition of a weather balloon into the story. The rest paints a picture of an unbeatable aerial sighting that lasted a long time, over a major city. I think its understandable that it is debated. Again, I know no evidence exists in the public domain of extraterrestrial craft. That is what I first said aggravated me. So my best examples are both of highly witnessed unusual events, held together by a flimsy answer.

Martyn Stubbs recorded the best footage ever from the NASA Space Shuttle cameras, here's loads of them from his youtube channel -

www.youtube.com...

This is all real, NASA even had to change their cameras to ensure this never happens again lol.

reply to post by JamesTB


I suggest you take some time to read right through this thread, paying particular attention to Jim Oberg's posts.

oxbow
reply to post by JamesTB

 

I suggest you take some time to read right through this thread, paying particular attention to Jim Oberg's posts.

I have no need to see Jim's posts as I've been studying Martyn's footage for over 10yrs now and I'm very familiar with Jim's opinion, I just totally disagree with it.

Try studying Martyn's footage yourself before looking to a 3rd party to make up your mind for you.

i have always liked the Catalina Island UFO video from 1966