It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
It's funny how he leaves Maussan's name out of it, since they all know each other and worked together.
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.
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.
I'll answer if Arbitrageur doesn't mind.
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:
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.
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.
so following your diagram the rear plane would be flying backwards how do you account for that? be consistent
"... When we start to climb 'we' saw left-hand side big mothership, but, ah... it was so weird, I ignored it (did not look)."
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.
My vote for best evidence is, the battle of Los Angeles
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.
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.
Though I imagine one direct hit would destroy a weather balloon.
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.