Police chase UFO over Cardiff

reply to post by infinite

That's how I contact them using a torch. Not a normal torch a dynamo one, it's made in Canada and I think the variation in the dynamo effect looks like the inner workings of the pulsating ufo orb.

I was just looking into a similar thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And found this BBC report...

Wedding couple sparked UFO alert

I wonder if it is related to this sighting also?

Here is a video by a Glo-Lantern supplier in the UK.





[edit on 25-6-2008 by yankeerose]

I have no idea what's going on ...

Soldier films 13 UFO's over barraks.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(same thread as posted above)

UFOs over Liverpool UK - BBC news & several sightings
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And lots of sightings by general public.



Now the Sun is saying the Cardiff ufo was "huge". How do they know?
BBC is saying it was a lantern
news.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 25/6/2008 by rocksolidbrain]

The bbc article above telling about Lanterns does sound like it probably is the solution for this case.

I know the die hards here hate to think that the UFO could be a lantern, but the facts are that the lanterns were released at the same time in a nearby location.

There is so far no "statement of fact" about what the chopper pilots actually saw or did. There is conflicting accounts as to whether the chopper had to swerve out of the way. IMHO the swerving out the way part of the story was either newspaper fabrication or the source of the story was someone on the inside who decided to leak the story to the press and in the same time decided to play a prank on his pilot buddies and told a few lies to amle the story more dramatic and more embarrassing for the pilots.

There is nothing saying they gave chase for a fact, and nothing saying how far away they were when / if they decided to give chase. For example they could have been near the base and saw the light in the distance, and decided to go and see what it was, but they may have decided to forget about it after they realised it was going out over the Bristol Channel.

Further confermation of the lantern story, is that if they were released from Cowbridge, and the people at the party saw them travelling towards St Athan, that means the wind direction would have taken them on out into the Bristol Channel.

The fact that the party released many lanterns over a prolonged period, would also help to account for the alledged hundreds of UFO reports to South Wales Police on the night in question.

This is enough for me to write this one down as chinese lanterns. Unless and until one of the chopper crew comes forward to say in public what they saw and what exactly happened that night.


Also on this thread in the last few posts a number of people have been talking about seeing glowing orange lights in the sky. I'd just like to say that if I saw such a thing the first thing I would think of would be chinese lanterns. Plus note that the user said they saw them outside the shop at 6:30Pm in early February, correct me if I'm wrong, user, but it would have been dark at that time, and it was a Saturday night, hence the lantern theory is strengthened.

[edit on 25/6/2008 by Wig]

Originally posted by Wig
The bbc article above telling about Lanterns does sound like it probably is the solution for this case.

I know the die hards here hate to think that the UFO could be a lantern, but the facts are that the lanterns were released at the same time in a nearby location.

Totally different reports of the same event usually means only one thing - one of the papers is lying and making up things. Unfortunately this time they have gone too far.

The Sun says, its was saucer shaped with blinking lights, 'attacked' the chopper, went too fast, could not be seen on IR cams and was huge....
BBC says, they did not follow it and may be these were lanterns.

Police won't lie usually and something must have happened. So is the Sun stuffing words into witness's mouth or is BBC spreading disinfo ?
Unless the police and pilots come forward we won't know for sure.

Well, what happened to freedom of info request? How many days it takes usually? It should clear things up.

I actually laughed really hard when I read the lantern theory!

Im still laughing!

I can just picture this scene in my head....

Pilot: LIKE TOTALLY OMG! THERE ARE DEADLY LANTERNS HEADING STRAIGHT FOR US!!!!

Crew: NOOOO NOT LANTERNS!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!

Group:I cant wait until we get back and tell them it was a UFO, are credibilities will be set in stone after that!!!!


Seriously....

These people wouldn't risk their career on lanterns. These people deserve more credit than that! Unreal!

"police don't lie usually"

I think there's a big difference between police lying, and one of them deciding to tell the press a few fat lies (anonymously remember) about something that did occur for the chopper crew and was probably a huge laugh for everyone else. You can imagine the chopper crew having a big laugh at their buddies expense. They probably have the newspaper front page on the notice board, with a joke like "The one that got away" written next to it.

Freedom of information......... be prepared to wait about 2 years.

"These people wouldn't risk their career on lanterns."
They haven't risked anything, none of them have gone on the record. This could all be a big joke played on the crew by one of their mates.

[edit on 25/6/2008 by Wig]

reply to post by Wig


A joke?

Police making a UFO joke?

Are you listening to yourself?

I really don't see anything wrong with my suggestion. The lantern theory fits perfectly, so I'm coming up with a scenario that fits (assuming the lantern theory is correct). I can easily imagine the flight crew are rolling around in stitches at what one of them has leaked to the press.

They would have lit up like stars on the infrared footage. Wonder why they couldn't see them?

Originally posted by yellowcard
...it could have been just a UAV as someone said.

Yes, but highly unlikely, given that the type of people who saw it "believed it was a UFO". The people who didn't see it, are the one's who are making up excuses for it, as if they know better.

The truth is obvious here. Some people choose not to believe UFO's exist, and will forever bend over backwards making excuses to try and make themselves not look silly.

Originally posted by Shere Khaan
They would have lit up like stars on the infrared footage. Wonder why they couldn't see them?

Why do respondents on this thread keep missing the point?

The facts of this case are:
On the night of June 7th 2008 the South Wales Police helicopter crew reported seeing something.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
Yes, but highly unlikely, given that the type of people who saw it "believed it was a UFO". The people who didn't see it, are the one's who are making up excuses for it, as if they know better.

I don't know what a UAV is, but you are another person here who is totally missing the point. All you have is anonymous newspaper reporting, followed by possibly newspapers exagerating the story. How do you know who saw what? How do you know what they thought they saw? 90% of this story could be total fiction and you don't know one way or the other.

reply to post by Wig


I know from experience in the military that even a cigarette gives off a bright signature from quite a distance, up to multiple kilometers depending on the equipment used.


[edit on 26/6/08 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS]
I know from experience in the military that even a cigarette gives off a bright signature from quite a distance, up to multiple kilometers depending on the equipment used.

Ok, so maybe they don't have such good equipment, maybe the reason they didn't see it on night vision camera was something as simple as the camera was not pointing at it. Maybe they did see it on camera and this was just another red herring.

But thanks for the relevant technical info.



[edit on 26/6/2008 by Wig]

reply to post by NuclearPaul


You said that very well!

Couldn't have done it better myself!

Thanks for your time and your post

Lanterns and UAV's!!!!

The mention of these objects are demeaning and disrespectful to the crew of the helicopter.

If you genuinely witnessed a UFO and were told over and over that what you saw was nothing more than a LANTERN, how would you feel?

I would be PISSED!

AGAIN>>>These are trained people. These people aren't your average Joe, and are trained to be savvy in the sky!!!!! So believing that this was a lantern or a UAV, is all fine and dandy, if your into disrespecting the observers.

There are no excuses beyond that!

This was no joke! The mere mention of a joke is again disrespectful to the observers.

Just remember!

Not everyone lies. There are still good, honest people left in this world. Try to believe now and again.

In other words........OPEN YOUR MIND

[edit on 26-6-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
In other words........OPEN YOUR MIND

AGAIN>>>> The crew of the helicopter have said absolutely nothing on this in the public. I can't be disrespectful to someone that has not said one way or the other what was observed. This case has no (ZERO) reliable witnesses.

I'm going to quote Mr NuclearPaul here, because I failed to address this part of his post, I quote it here because you have just said a similar thing. (as quoted).

The truth is obvious here. Some people choose not to believe UFO's exist, and will forever bend over backwards making excuses to try and make themselves not look silly.

This sort of response really is annoying. I am a person who kind of believes in UFOs, I'd like to see one, I'd like to be unable to explain what I saw. But if I do see something I will always examine it first and try to see if it fits in with modern Earth origin technology. Only if it fails that test will I accept the possibility that it was extraterrestrial or Top Secret or paranormal.

I'd like to ask you and anyone else here who is scoffing at the possibility that it could have been lanterns. These 2 questions....

1. Are you familiar with the phenomenon of using a flash camera in a darkened room and after causing dust to stir into the air, photographing at random, the flash-light will bounce off the dust particles into the camera lens and the photograph will have a blurry white blob in it?

If you are familiar, are you also familiar with (some of) the believers in ghosts and spirits who consider such to be an "orb" a manifestation of a spirit into our world only visible to the camera?

2. Are you familiar with the strobe effect caused by frames per second of video cameras which - when filming flying insects - causes the insect to appear on the film as an elongated shape with a sinusoidal wave formation along it's length?

If you are familiar are you also familiar with (some of) the cryptozoology community who believe such to be an as yet undiscovered interdimensional lifeform?


If you answered 'yes' to either 1 or 2 and you believe the scientific explanation, do you not see that you are doing exactly the same thing in your chosen field of interest (UFOlgy)? That is to say you are blind to the possible explantion and you like to critisise anyone who dares to mention the words "chinese lanterns", just as the ghost hunters pour scorn on those who say "dust particles" or "rain drops" - (if the orbs are outside in the rain). Just as the cryptozoos scoff at those who say "not RODS but mosquitos".

Nuclear paul thinks I don't want to appear "silly"
I'madamnalien thinks my mind is not OPEN.

I ask the readers of this post, who is the one that really appears silly?
Who is the one with a truly OPEN MIND and whose mind is firmly CLOSED?

[edit on 26/6/2008 by Wig]

I just got an email back from Paul Webb who is with the MOD and holds Nick Pope's former job dealing with UFO public affairs.

I asked him if the MOD was investigating the Cardiff area UFO sightings and the helicopter encounter and he replied and said the MOD was not.

Either he's lying or is possibly misinformed?