The Oldfield UFO Film - Evidence that some UFOs are mirages

The Oldfield UFO Film - Evidence that some UFOs are mirages

I grew up hearing UFO reports by reliable witnesses, and I didn't think they were lying or hoaxing, expecially the sightings by pilots (commercial and military) who had everything to lose and nothing to gain by reporting false sightings, and who I THOUGHT were trained observers. The craft that these witnesses observed had fantastic flight capabilities, sometimes far exceeding the flight capabilities of any known craft, even beyond what experts thought black projects were capable of creating. So when you start to list the possible explanations for these sightings (and you've seen movies like Close encounters of the Third Kind) it's only natural to think of extraterrestrial craft as one possible explanation for these sightings.

Something like 80% of Americans think ETs are already visiting us, and a large portion of the other 20% acknowledge that even if they don't think we are being visited, that life elsewhere is not only possible, it could even be likely given the huge number of stars and planets we now know about. So I think over 90% of the population is on board with the idea of ETs (This is also why I think the argument that the general population couldn't handle the truth about disclosure sounds so extremely silly, what do you mean can't handle the truth? most people already know it so where's the shock?). I count myself among those who believes ETs probably exist, and I thought we were being visited when I read the research done by others.

However, once I started doing my own research, I started finding things like the Oldfield film, a confirmed and documented sighting of a UFO that couldn't possibly be anything from earth.

Here is a video clip (with snapshot) from 1966 showing the Oldfield Film with some commentary about it:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6554174e811.png[/atsimg]

What's this thing? It's inexplicable!

unless it's a fake....well, it's NOT a fake...

It is nothing airborne we've ever seen. It's basically sausage shaped with two dorsal and two ventral fins. And as you look at this film, it turns away on its vertical axis from you and disappears out that way. Well I mean you can argue until you're blue in the face. What is it except something that is airborne, by a force, probably electrogravitic force of some kind that we know nothing whatever about. It is nothing conventional, it is nothing unconventional aerodynamically. There's no single piece of Earth-borne equipment of any kind that can look and behave like that."

Now put yourself in 1966. Would YOU be able to explain this sighting? I don't think I could have, and I don't think most other people could have either.

Do you think the commentator's analysis is inappropriate? Well I would share his amazement over the footage, I think it's simply incredible. The only thing I would fault him for is that he's already speculating about the propulsion system and he doesn't even know what the object is yet (and no, I'm not picking on you Teslaandlyne, I'm picking on this guy for doing that).

But the movement away is simply incredible, it looks to me like it flies away at over 6000 mph. Back then we didn't have anything that could move that fast, and even today I doubt even our 6000mph craft can accelerate that fast (if they exist which they might, like Aurora) And even if they could accelerate that fast, the G forces would at least black out and possibly even kill the occupants without some kind of "inertial dampener" (a science fiction concept which allows the ship to ignore the laws of physics).

Now how many times have you read in these threads: "You haven't seen what I've seen. There's no earthly explanation for it." Well I would have agreed that seems to be the case here.

Stop and think about this for a while, and how you would have explained it.

Then watch the explanation:

The oldfields indeed had not faked anything. The UFO in their film soon proved explainable. A few days later, an enterprising BBC cameraman took a similar camera, sat in the same seat, and filmed the same English countryside. The same UFO hovered into view, went through the same maneuvers, and disappeared into itself the same way. The UFO turned out to be the reflection of the tail section of the plane itself.
The refraction of light in the Earth's atmosphere is capable of fooling both the human eye and the camera lens.

There is a small problem with that explanation, in that the BBC cameraman's footage shown does not exactly replicate the entire sausage shape in the Oldfield film, but I think I can explain this. The BBC guy didn't use the exact same camera, they just said it was similar, and I think it's a better, higher quality camera, with a larger lens. A lens with a larger diameter won't let it get as close to the window, which was critical for the oldfield film, because they photographed 2 reflections, not just one. The 2nd reflection was an inverted image off the inner side of the glass, where as the BBC cameraman photographed mostly only the single reflection off the outer side of the glass. (I think, correct me if I'm wrong).

Some people may think this is disinfo since it didn't show exactly the same thing, but apparently it was good enough to convince most people because the Oldfield Film that was supposed to become famous, never did. In fact I googled "oldfield film" and came up with a list of results but nothing matching this case, so it seems to have been almost completely forgotten, so I hope it's new to some here even though it's very old. But I think we not only can but SHOULD learn something from this. Mirages can and do exist. And there is no doubt in my mind they account for SOME UFO sightings.

The purpose of this thread is to get people thinking about mirages as a possible explanation for some UFOs. What is the definition of a mirage? dictionary.reference.com...

1. an optical phenomenon, esp. in the desert or at sea, by which the image of some object appears displaced above, below, or to one side of its true position as a result of spatial variations of the index of refraction of air.
2. something illusory, without substance or reality.

In this case, it was more of a fit to definition #2, since it's a reflection off the glass and not a reflection off the air. But reflections off the air can and do cause UFO sightings too:

Remember earlier in the post I said I THOUGHT that pilots were trained observers? Well it turns out, they don't seem to get any training in mirages, and most pilots know little about them. So even pilots, confronted with real, solid looking objects, can conclude they are really there, just as we did when watching this film. Not only that, but the temperature inversions that can result in pilot UFO sightings can also produce radar returns, apparently "confirming" that it's a real object when it fact it may only be a real temperature inversion.

Continued in next post........

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Other possible Mirages?

For your consideration, I would suggest the possibility that the following sightings may be explained by mirages (more of the definition #1 type, from the refraction of air):

1941-1945 WWII "foo fighters"

Mirages are one possibility that should be at least considered even if they do not explain all "foo fighter" sightings.
sped2work.tripod.com...

Interestingly enough, with all the sightings and reports, and all the qun cameras and high altitude photographs, no truly GOOD pictures of Foo Fighters from the period have surfaced.

1947 Kenneth Arnold UFO Sighting
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48441ef3c73a.png[/atsimg]
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.astronomycafe.net...

Surprisingly, and significantly, the very first 'flying saucer' report, that by Kenneth Arnold in 1947, can be explained in this way. He reported seeing a chain of nine peculiar 'aircraft' flying near Mount Ranier in Washington state (USA). They all moved together and occasionally flashed very brightly. However analysis shows that the apparent movement was entirely due to his own, just as a low moon will appear to follow you across a stationary landscape. All very distant objects at low altitude will appear to move because their direction does not change as that of a nearer object would. In this case, the source was nine snow-capped peaks in the Cascade Range over 100 kilometers away. In the bright sunlight, mirages of them were formed by temperature inversions over two deep river valleys between Arnold and the mountains. Where the inversions were strong, the mirages of the peaks flashed brightly. It appears that Arnold was not familiar with mirages, but this is true of almost all pilots.

1948-Trinidade Island
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae2411cac3ab.jpg[/atsimg]
ufos.about.com...
www.astronomycafe.net...

Other bright planets at low altitude have also been the source of UFO reports. The most sensational was the mirage of Jupiter reported and photographed by Almiro Barauna from a Brazilian research ship at Ilha da Trindade in the south Atlantic Ocean in January 1958. These are unique photographs, clearly showing the double image which results from the merging of two mirage images (see photo).

1950 Great Falls (Montana) and
1952 Trementon Utah
Courtesy of ufologie.net
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc2cd76f7969.jpg[/atsimg]
www.astronomycafe.net...

This phenomenon explains the lights filmed in 1950 over Great Falls (Montana); two jet aircraft were flying about the area at the time but no one seems to have asked if they had their lights on. It also explains the many lights filmed over Tremonton (Utah) in 1952. In that case, there is evidence of several inversions, one on top of the other.

tvufo.tripod.com...

In a press conference on July 29, 1952, Maj. Gen. John Sanford of the U.S. Air Force stated that the sightings were caused by temperature inversions. The public was easily convinced, and for many, that was that.

I think this is a small possibility, but I'm not convinced these sightings were from mirages. But if it was the reflection of airplane lights that would appear to explain why they were determined to be light sources and not reflections. I probably would have left this sighting off the list, if it wasn't for the temperature inversion explanation offered by Major General Sanford.

1952 Washington, DC UFO sightings
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98f4b2af8f0e.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4bf5daa47566.jpg[/atsimg]
www.ufoevidence.org...
greyfalcon.us...

the Civil Aviation Authority's Technical Development and Evaluation Center concluded that the radar images were the result of temperature inversions which could cause radar signals to be reflected back to the ground.

And of course temperature inversions can cause light reflections in the sky also, which could look like the photos.

1986 Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 Over Alaska
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c099907cc6df.png[/atsimg]
www.ufoevidence.org...
www.astronomycafe.net...

On 17 November 1986, a Japanese freighter aircraft had crossed the North Pole and was heading SW toward its next stop, Anchorage in Alaska. Suddenly the crew were confronted by clusters of lights just ahead of them. They assumed that the lights were the exhausts of some unidentified aircraft and tried in vain to evade them. Gradually the mysterious lights shifted to port and the captain was sure he could make out the shape of a huge UFO alongside them. The incident was reported to the (US) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), who issued a report on the incident, but without any explanation.

Because the object's direction appeared to move aft with time, it was obvious that the source lay on the ground only a few hundred kilometres away, and because the crew gave good descriptions and bearings to the lights at various times on their route, it was possible to locate its source. This turned out to be the US Army airfield at Delta Junction. The crew's description of the lights exactly matched that of typical runway lights and the FAA reported that a temperature inversion had existed over the area at the time. The 'UFO' was a mirage of the runway lights.

2007 Multiple pilots witness large object near Guernsey, UK
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b18f8f6aa41.png[/atsimg]
www.ufoevidence.org...

We have undeniably found some evidence suggestive of an atmospheric-optical explanation. In general “atmospheric-optical” means some effects on the propagation of light either by airborne particles (haze, mist or ice crystals) or by refractive index anomalies (unusual temperature gradients, causing mirage).

However in the Guernsey case, they then go on to say none of the "usual" mirage theories seem to fit so they can't really explain it completely. Therefore it may not be a mirage, as some of the other sightings may likewise not have been mirages, all I ask you to do is consider the possibility that they may have been mirages. Unfortuanlely duplicating a mirage caused by refraction in the air is not as easy as with the Oldfield film where all you have to do is sit in the same plane to photograph the same thing.

What are some characteristics that now immediately make me at least consider the mirage possibility?
- Unbelievably high speeds (as in the rate at which the object recedes in the Oldfield film. In atmospheric sightings objects could appear to disappear similarly at unbelievably high speeds due to changes in the atmospheric conditions or changes in the angle of the inversion layer.
-Unbelievably large objects (as in the mile wide Guernsey sighting).

Maybe there really are objects that large or that can accelerate that quickly but we don't know of them yet so Occam's razor would suggest to consider the simpler mirage possibility before concluding the "unbelievable".

So in conclusion, even though pilots have expertise in flying and tend to make better UFO observers than the general population, even trained pilots don't have training in mirages, so even pilots can mistake a mirage for a real solid object. And if a pilot can misidentify such objects, it's even easier for the rest of us to do so.

Edit: Added JAL 2nd Par.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

I don`t know if I should laugh or cry. The Oldfield film was really one of my favourites, although I never knew that`s it`s name, but I can follow that explanation.
I do have a question about the Trinidad case. Didn`t that object move pretty quickly and made a turn?
en.wikipedia.org...
If it was Jupiter shouldn`t it be almost stationary?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Great job, thank you for taking the time to make this thread for all of us.

While I do not believe the other cases you presented are mirages due to many other factors the object in your film obviously appears to be so. Again great work and what a good thread to show people how stunning and realistic mirages can be. Keep up the good work!

[edit on 8/23/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by Arbitrageur
It looks like another great thread writer has risen to the surface of ATS

Very impressive and a lot to digest. I'll post something more constructive after getting stuck into all this. This is just to say well done and to make sure you know it's appreciated. Good stuff

Edit to add this report on the Guernsey UFO sighting...Report on Aerial Phenomena Observed near the Channel Islands, UK, April 23 2007

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Kandinsky]

Originally posted by derpif
I don`t know if I should laugh or cry. The Oldfield film was really one of my favourites, although I never knew that`s it`s name, but I can follow that explanation.
I do have a question about the Trinidad case. Didn`t that object move pretty quickly and made a turn?
en.wikipedia.org...
If it was Jupiter shouldn`t it be almost stationary?

Good question.
Generally speaking, if you are moving as an observer, a mirage of a distant object will appear to move with you or almost follow you. So if you move east and the object moves east, then you stop and go backwards and the object stops, and goes backwards to the west, that's exactly what you would expect from a mirage. So that might possibly explain some horizontal motion. As for vertical motion, if the atmospheric conditions are perfectly stable with no wind blowing at ground, or at elevation, then you might expect little vertical motion. However that is rarely the case. Small breezes could cause distortions of the inversion layer creating the reflection causing the object to appear to move up and down. It is conceivable that such distortions in the inversion layer could result in a horizontal component to the apparent motion, in addition to the vertical motion, however if the disturbances were transitory you might even expect to see the object return back to it's original apparent position. Whether that fully explains the Trinidad case, it is difficult to say, without a video of the motions. It's nearly impossible to say from just still photos. As your link points there are even questions about the authenticity of the case regarding the photographer having been previously involved in hoaxes, but I don't know about that, it seems to me a lot easier to hoax a sighting by yourself, than with 50 witnesses.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ok, thank you, I`ll keep an open mind about the Trinidad sighting. And because I forgot to say in my first post, great thread.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Great job, thank you for taking the time to make this thread for all of us.

While I do not believe the other cases you presented are mirages due to many other factors the object in your film obviously appears to be so. Again great work and what a good thread to show people how stunning and realistic mirages can be. Keep up the good work!

[edit on 8/23/2009 by jkrog08]

Thanks for the applause jkrog, I'm not sure the other objects are mirages either, especially the one Major General Sanford said was a mirage. But I do think it's a possibility for them until or if they are ever truly explained. Since we can't just pop back in the same airplane like the BBC guy did in the Oldfield film to prove a mirage, other, air refraction mirage cases are a lot harder to prove.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

It looks like another great thread writer has risen to the surface of ATS

Very impressive and a lot to digest. I'll post something more constructive after getting stuck into all this. This is just to say well done and to make sure you know it's appreciated. Good stuff

Edit to add this report on the Guernsey UFO sighting...Report on Aerial Phenomena Observed near the Channel Islands, UK, April 23 2007

Thanks for the feedback Kandinsky, and for the Guernsey link! 181 pages!!! It will take quite a while to read through all that!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Hey guy good post S&F, but read other threads on ElectroGravity, Tesla, E=mc2 here on ATS. You will find that if TRB3(AURORA) really exists it utilises a loophole in Einsteins equasition. From some sources the Aurora can nullify only 89% of it´s own weight + Loophole says also that the inertia by this machine must be decreased like the effect of gravity on mass.
Logically the engines(classical ones, plasma, Magneto Hydro-dynamic propulsion or a.e.) must be on the rim of the sphere of the authority of the anti-G field because it would extremely make the drive system useless, because it also nullify inertia.
That means accelaration by 50G is equal to 5G. WOW.

[edit on 12/08/09 by Durabys]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I have a more sinister theory .
What some of the UFOs aren´t mirrages but holograms made by the goverment ... did you somebody heard something about PROJECT BLUE BEAM .

[edit on 12/08/09 by Durabys]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now put yourself in 1966. Would YOU be able to explain this sighting? I don't think I could have, and I don't think most other people could have either.

You see, to me, the way it disappeared made it obvious that one half of the image was a mirror image of the other half. Had it not disappeared in the video I wouldn't have been able to explain it, but it did, so I could.

Still, it seems a lot of people were fooled by it, and you make some good points

I think it should be mentioned that Internos has made an excellent presentation of the JAL flight 1628 case. Personally I don't think objects who lights up the cockpit in a plane and also causes the pilot to feel heat against his face could be mirages. The sighting also lasted for almost an hour.

But read about this case and judge for yourself.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ziggystar60
I think it should be mentioned that Internos has made an excellent presentation of the JAL flight 1628 case. Personally I don't think objects who lights up the cockpit in a plane and also causes the pilot to feel heat against his face could be mirages. The sighting also lasted for almost an hour.

But read about this case and judge for yourself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree Internos did an OUTSTANDING job on that post (as he usually does!). Applause for that! Thanks for the link.

I'm not sure it was a mirage but I just noticed I accidentally left out the 2nd paragraph of their explanation, they claim to have even identified the source. I'll post the 2nd paragraph here and try to correct the OP if I still can:

Because the object's direction appeared to move aft with time, it was obvious that the source lay on the ground only a few hundred kilometres away, and because the crew gave good descriptions and bearings to the lights at various times on their route, it was possible to locate its source. This turned out to be the US Army airfield at Delta Junction. The crew's description of the lights exactly matched that of typical runway lights and the FAA reported that a temperature inversion had existed over the area at the time. The 'UFO' was a mirage of the runway lights.

www.astronomycafe.net...

I'm not saying the explanation is correct or incorrect, we have to decide for ourselves. Personally I don't know what it was, but I do have this explanation on my list of possibilities. If you feel it should be ruled out on your list for certain reasons, I can accept that.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Arbitrageur, my friend, read @ line 0226, where it reads:
"Zan contacted the military regional operation center (ROCC) and asked if they were receiving any radar returns near the position of jl1628. The ROCC advised that they were receiving a primary radar return in jl1628's 10 o' clock position at 8 miles".
NOW:
what's a mirage?
"A mirage is a naturally occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays are bent to produce a displaced image of distant objects or the sky."
I have a simple question for you mate: do you think that the two scenarios are consistent each other? Do you think that some optical phenomenon returns some primary plot on both grounded and onboard RADARS? I recall that one time some guy tried to debunk it as Jupiter, but this one is even more funny, a mirage being detected by radars IS funny, isn't it? I wonder what certain people smoke before publishing articles, whatever it is i'd like to have a lil bit of it because it has to rock whatever it is, how comes that i'm always the only one who miss the party?
Thanks for sharing

Originally posted by internos
Arbitrageur, my friend, read @ line 0226, where it reads:
"Zan contacted the military regional operation center (ROCC) and asked if they were receiving any radar returns near the position of jl1628. The ROCC advised that they were receiving a primary radar return in jl1628's 10 o' clock position at 8 miles".
NOW:
what's a mirage?
"A mirage is a naturally occurring optical phenomenon in which light rays are bent to produce a displaced image of distant objects or the sky."
I have a simple question for you mate: do you think that the two scenarios are consistent each other? Do you think that some optical phenomenon returns some primary plot on both grounded and onboard RADARS? I recall that one time some guy tried to debunk it as Jupiter, but this one is even more funny, a mirage being detected by radars IS funny, isn't it?

I wonder what certain people smoke before publishing articles, whatever it is i'd like to have a lil bit of it because it has to rock whatever it is, how comes that i'm always the only one who miss the party?
Thanks for sharing

Hi Internos,
Yes if you read my post carefully I think that a mirage and a radar return can sometimes (but not always) be two different manifestations of the same temperature inversion.

Where I think you are confused is assuming it's the same optical phenomenon that returns the radar image, it's NOT, I agree with you completely on that point.

The mirage is a reflection of lights on the ground, and the radar reflection is a direct reflection off the temperature inversion itself. So they are two different effects, but they can both be caused by temperature inversions.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


Hi Internos,
Yes if you read my post carefully I think that a mirage and a radar return can sometimes (but not always) be two different manifestations of the same temperature inversion.

NO
Ask to some pilot and you will find out that while yes, temperature inversion can jeopardize ONE radar plot, there is NO WAY that the same thing happens simoultaneously on both grounded and onboard radars, they work in DIFFERENT ways: there was something there. Fortunately we have a lot of professional both military and civilian pilots on ATS, we can ask to them what they think about it, but lemme say beforehand that the incident was investigated by FAA and filed as UNSOLVED case.




[edit on 23/8/2009 by internos]

Originally posted by internos

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


Hi Internos,
Yes if you read my post carefully I think that a mirage and a radar return can sometimes (but not always) be two different manifestations of the same temperature inversion.

NO
Ask to some pilot and you will find out that while yes, temperature inversion can jeopardize ONE radar plot, there is NO WAY that the same thing happens simoultaneously on both grounded and onboard radars, they work in DIFFERENT ways: there was something there. Fortunately we have a lot of professional both military and civilian pilots on ATS, we can ask to them what they think about it, but lemme say beforehand that the incident was investigated by FAA and filed as UNSOLVED case.

Yes let's ask some pilots, but I don't know if they are experts in radar, temperature inversions, and radar reflections off of temperature inversions. I would tend to think many are not, but some might be.

I drew a sketch of how such a phenomenon could occur here:


Sorry it's a wide image, so you may have to download it to see it.

Now how is it that radar on planes and on the ground works differently? please elaborate. My understanding is that they are both capable of picking up reflections from temperature inversions but I could be wrong.

I'm not saying this solves the case, it may not have been a mirage. But I think it's a possibility. In my opinion it's still unsolved.

Internos,

I just re-read your excellent thread on JAL1628, and copied your pictures of the drawings the pilot made of what he saw after the sighting:

www.abovetopsecret.com...






We can ask the pilots to look at these images too, but I've looked at runways from the air, and it's striking to me how much these drawings look like airport runways at a distance. The pilot of course would rule out that explanation as he's not expecting to see runways in the sky, plus the images are somewhat imperfect and therefore distorted reflections, but nonetheless, I must say most of what's in your post seems to support the mirage theory pretty well.

One thing that seems inconsistent with a mirage, is that the pilot could feel the heat on his face. However, if I see something I don't understand, I can get excited, and my face can get flush, which produces a warm feeling.

Let's ask the pilots to look at these drawings and see if they think they might bear a resemblance to airport runway lights, they sure look that way to me. The smaller lights are probably the runways, and the larger overall light he described would be the surrounding base. I think it adds up pretty well except the heat on his face and there could be other explanations for that if he was excited.

Former international heavy pilot and ground radar operator:

I was over Oklahoma at 35000 ft when I saw a radar return ahead at altitude. It was a clear night, no clouds or thunderstorms. As I kept proceeding, the radar return continued to exist and was apparently in a fixed position that I was rapidly approaching. The sun had recently set, and we were in twilight. None of the crew in the cockpit could see any object. Something was making a radar return. I made a precautionary change of course to avoid the return by 20 miles, typical of thunderstorm distances, and we continued to search the sky and ground vicinity for any object that could have given a return. No object was seen. I raised and lowered the scan of the radar to confirm again that the object was at altitude, not a ground return. It may have been an anomalous propagation of the radar return due to a localized temperature inversion, though I cannot explain how that type of weather phenomenon could exist. I assumed it was a local spot for severe clear air turbulence, and avoided it.

Any other aircraft at or near our position would likely have picked up the same return.

Excellent Post, Deserves 500 flags and 500 points! This should open peoples eyes up to a lot of sightings and other things in the ufo field of thought on seeing is believen, now we know "Not So Fast"

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Mr_XIM]