The Oldfield UFO Film - Evidence that some UFOs are mirages

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Sam60
G'day Arbitrageur.....

I am interested regarding how you feel your "mirage" theory might fit in with the following case:

The Valentich disapperance

Thanks again for triggering such an interesting thread.

Kind regards
Sam60

No, I can't say I see any obvious fit with that case, that's a strange one indeed.

You're welcome and thanks for the feedback.

I apologise if I did not furnish enough infromation when I asked that question.

My thoughts when asking that question about Valentich were as follows:

There were claims made that when Valentich said he could the see the "object with lights" above him, he was actually flying inverted & looking at lights on the ground.

Now I have done a great deal of flying (military & civilian) & I find it hard to believe he could have been flying inverted & not have known that (i.e. not impossible, but extremely improbable).

Could Valentich have been seeing a "mirage" or "reflection" of the ground lights above him?





[edit on 26-8-2009 by Sam60]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'll reply in the order that you posted, quoting you when needed.

It's a possible (probable?) explanation for the mothership and intermittent radar contacts which appeared, and disappeared.

Yes. Clouds usually don't appear on radar, but if they are big enough they can have a signature. But it's never the size of the cloud. It's proporcional. For example, a smal cloud doesn't have radar signature. A medium cloud has a very small signature. A big cloud has a medium signature, and a huge one possibly has a big signature, and so on...

One thing that I thought as an explanation for the "sudden" movement was distraction. Like when you're driving.

Imagine that you're flying, and you have fuel checklists, radio contacts/checkups to do, etc etc... You look to your front and spot whatever it was that made him thought of a USAF fighter or whatever... Because you're working on something else you don't notice that the object is approaching fast, so when you do look up the object is pretty close to you.

The only problem that I find with this, is that he wasn't with his lights on, you only have to use them below 10,000ft.

I also guessed that there could possibly be an interruption of the runway lights where the other runway intersects, is that possible? If so, then instead of one long string of lights, the pilot would have seen the long string interrupted perhaps.

I would like to make it clear that the runway theory is pretty solid. The only thing that makes me dismiss it and point all the reasons, is that I seriously doubt that it can happen at 35,000ft. That's all that bothers me, because all the other reasons come from that detail.

35,000ft is really high. To make a context, I have never flown above 25,000ft in the Fokker 100.

Now, since I'm giving you info and not presenting any theory, I think you must pay attention to one of the informations about the runways.

"Touchdown point: yes, no lights".

To most of you this means nothing, but it actually means a lot to the Arbitrageur representation. The touchdown lights are the red and yellow (in some cases, when they have lots of money, they even put green lights too, lol) lights at the start/end of the runway. In some airports they simply mark the touchdown point (start) of the runway, on the more advanced ones, they actually represent arrows so you can see clearly were you need to touch down.

To see this, click here:

Some airports have directional lights (because of liminous polution, for example). That means you can only see the lights when you're heading straight down to the runway, you can't see them, for example, from the side. But not all airports have this, so, it's just a possibility.

What makes me believe that this airport has them, it's because they are also used in crossed runway airports, so you don't get visualy confused when looking at the runway (you can only see the runway that you are approaching from the correct angle).

That would explain why it appears that only one of the runway is visible, although your sources tell you that 2 of them have lights.

Now, talking with my pilot eyes I must say this: that representation that you made based on the drawings is what I would draw if you asked me to draw a runway being observed from high altitude (mind you that the light fog that you get when flying high distorts things a bit).

As for the lights that don't appear, there could be a bunch of reasons... For example, if you would look straight to that runway with an ILS landing, provably you wouldn't even tell that there were lights missing. Perspective.

Now how about the color of the lights, is that consistent with the sighting?

I can't explain how a experienced pilot can't say "that's not a plane" just for the fact that he doesn't see the navigation lights, which are red and green, so you can tell if the airplane is coming or going...

Actually that discrepancy in the pilot's recollection is not the only thing that he remembered differently 6 weeks later. As most investigators know, the most reliable source of information is closest to the actual sighting, so the air traffic control to pilot transcripts would almost supersede other testimony in terms of perceived reliability for events like this such as estimating the approximate distance.

Actually you can't present a report a month ago from the events date. They don't even accept it. If you're going to report something, then do it "now" when the memory is still fresh.

Look at that cockpit. Look at all the buttons and switchs. You have to do checklists for all of them before/during/after flying. Those things can affect your memory... Overload.

But back to the lights, they were white and yellow, and some strobe lights. Is that consistent with the colors of airport lights?

Yes and no. White/yellow and red are consistent with the airport. But not the strobe lights. I mean, not in the runway. But they can be from something on the ground (other planes with taxi lights on, for example). But I tend to believe that the strobe effect was from something else. The runway lights can make your skin darker if you stand there too much time, but strobes are "normal" lights with reflective mirrors (most cases).

Thank you for that map representation. With all that data, and assuming it's possible the airport reflection could reach 35,000ft, yes, it's consistent with a runway sight.

--

After reading your emotional response to the 360º turn, I went back and read the radar report again. You're right. They don't say it's following them, they just say "it's behind you". You assume that the radar contact is following, but if it was, they would say that.

Another discrepancy is that after the initial sighting, if the inversion layer resulted in a mirror like mirage, they would gradually see the angle of the lights change if they were seeing a reflection of the airport.

Don't push the thermal inversion so much, you don't need to.

Remember Batman?



This can happen without thermal inversion, although it helps.

[edit on 26/8/09 by Tifozi]

I would expect this kind of unstable appearance from an atmospheric mirage.

Well, not exactly. Yes, it can happen like that, but don't need to...

If you are watching some kind of reflection, and a cloud passes between the projection and your eyes, it can distort the image and it looks like its moving, like if you put a glass of water in front of your eyes and looking to a object.

(never seen it happen, but it's a theory)

Again, we are not looking at a mirror reflection of the runway here. The lights will get brighter and dimmer, undulate, and given that there are strobe lights there is even flashing taking place. If the shape of the lights is distorted with a lot of shimmering and twinkling going on, it's not hard to imagine some of the effects he describes regarding varying intensity of the lights.

I have nothing against this Cpt, and respect him as a professional, but I think he is exagerating in his descriptions due to excitment. I don't this sort of things on the other pilots.


Congratulations for that post, you gained huge points with your data an explanations. Very good post my friend.


Kadinsky:

If that part is taken out the equation, the explanation still relies on all three experienced aircrew being unable to differentiate something known from unknown.

My friend, don't reduce the issue of one of the crew being the Cpt, and the others co-pilots.

I have seen (well, not personaly) accidents happen because co-pilots were right, the Cpt was wrong, and they didn't act because they were afraid to contradict what their superior is saying.

Not saying this is the case, but it's not the first, nor the last, time that you see someone agree with something that they actually desagree just to go "with the flow" of their superior.

Again, the only person of that crew that was really excited and keep this sighting "in flammes" through the years was the Cpt, not the other pilots. Correct me if I'm wrong.

P.S.:

I would be happy to post my air maps here, but the problem is that you pay for those (too much in my opinion) and I only have the ones that I use. I fly a regional airplane, so I don't need the global ones, just the european air space.

[edit on 26/8/09 by Tifozi]

This is the type of threads I would love to see on ATS more, well thought out, well documented and well debated.

This whole thread has been very interesting and enlightening. Even the debate is extremely interesting, I don't have any opinions, but wanted to let you know you get a S&F from me.

I'm going to give this discussion a candy, just give me some time to elaborate on it.

2.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Do you think this is a mirage UFO (August 2009 UFO)?!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If so I like to know how the light of the city can reflect on a mirage!

Originally posted by Kandinsky
What I can't overcome in your explanation is the witness testimony and duration. The descriptions by Terauchi, Tamefuji and Tsukaba conflict with the explanation in different aspects. The cockpit being lit up and warmth being felt is hard to accept from an optical illusion point of view. If that part is taken out the equation, the explanation still relies on all three experienced aircrew being unable to differentiate something known from unknown. It also requires that atmospheric conditions hadn't been accounted for by investigators.

Yes the warmth is an issue. But to paraphrase what Internos said, if 90-95% of the evidence points in one direction and 5-10% points in another direction, are you going to go with the 95% or the 5%? (not and exact quote and he made the opposite argument but still a good point). I see the warmth as a 5% issue in this case, but I could be wrong to weight it that way. Others may weight that differently and I cant fault them for doing so. But there is virtually no other evidence I found of a real object in the sky unless you want to count the cloud. I think a psychologically induced response leading to a perceived or possibly even real physical response (increased blood flow to the face as a response to excitement) is not something I would rule out. But I agree it's not a match at face value.

Once we get past that (if we can) I don't have any problems with someone, even an experienced pilot, seeing something unusual and not recognizing it.

Likewise, I don't assume that in 1986 we understood all possible atmospheric conditions and their effects, nor do I assume that today. I'm not saying we are ignorant of them, we know a great deal, but I think it's not only possible but in fact likely that there are probably at least 1 or 2 things we don't know yet. And by the very nature of an unusual sighting, it is in fact unusual, and there may have been some unusual conditions at play which we didn't fully understand then and perhaps still don't today. If I was claiming to have solved this case completely, I would have to explain the exact conditions responsible, but I'm not making a claim that I have solved it, only presented what I believe to be some very strong evidence pointing to one possible explanation that many people seem to have not considered.

Whilst I appreciate those kind words, I wouldn't want you to misunderstand the point I was attempting to make. I interpreted your suggestion that Internos made an 'argument from authority' to be misplaced. It was logical to point out that several independent organizations and individuals had investigated the incident. Comparing the point to a geocentric belief system is an argument to ridicule and quite unnecessary, given your obvious intelligence.

With all that said, I reiterate that your posts here have been informative and interesting. I look forward to more

You are entitled to your interpretation, however I do not agree that my assessment of a logical fallacy of argument from authority is misplaced, and furthermore I still feel I was misquoted by a suggestion that I am disagreeing with authorities. Rather than make generalized statements like that which I find highly inappropriate, I would be much more receptive to specific facts in question, such as:

"Dr Maccabee suggested two possible explanations for the loss of sighting of the traffic during the 360 degree turn, one that the traffic might have followed JL1628, and the other that maybe the object did not follow the plane, and there seems to be a preference in your theory for accepting the latter possibility without due consideration for the former possibility".

If objections are placed in such a context, I can understand what they are and respond appropriately, but to just make broad based statements that "the Authorities" don't agree with my interpretations of the facts isn't very persuasive in convincing me to change my assessment of the facts if I don't have more specifics. Furthermore, what you call an argument to ridicule, might be an understandable misinterpretation if considered only in the context of today, however I was referring to a historical fact that the position of the authorities at one time was just that. Galileo was told that all the authorities knew the Earth was at the center of the universe and if he didn't admit that, he would be tortured, so authorities can indeed be powerful, but they may not always be right

Fred Miller is a more contemporary example of someone who didn't believe in accepting what the FAA said because they are an authority. He didn't feel that they had performed a proper investigation and taken appropriate measures as a result of their investigation. He's just an ordinary engineer who decided to investigate on his own after his child was killed in a plane crash, and found out that the FAA had done such a lousy job that he had to point out things they missed in their investigation. I saw a documentary about that, and am not sure if it's this one www.tv.com... or if there's more than one about that case. So yes the FAA is an authority but that doesn't mean that they can't miss something, and that you or I or Internos or Fred Miller could find something they missed (Fred Miller actually did). So yes the FAA could be wrong, or at least have missed something. Anyone who wants to appeal to authority should realize that.

Now having pointed out that the FAA (or other authorities) aren't infallible, I must say I have looked at many other investigations the FAA has done and I'm usually very impressed with their competence and thoroughness, and that they usually do have a professional, accurate, and objective evaluation. I believe the incident with Fred Miller is an exception. (At least I would like to think so, since I fly as a passenger).

But I really feel many of the appeal to authority arguments can be simply avoided by focusing on the facts, which I am trying to do (when you aren't dragging me into logical reasoning debates like this). So since you were not even the poster involved in the authority issues, I'd rather you just drop it and if Internos wants to elaborate he can. But I would still rather talk about the facts of the case. OK my friend?

And I likewise, I always find your posts informative and interesting, so I'm glad we enjoy that mutual appreciation!

Regards

Originally posted by Sam60
There were claims made that when Valentich said he could the see the "object with lights" above him, he was actually flying inverted & looking at lights on the ground.

Now I have done a great deal of flying (military & civilian) & I find it hard to believe he could have been flying inverted & not have known that (i.e. not impossible, but extremely improbable).

Could Valentich have been seeing a "mirage" or "reflection" of the ground lights above him?

If I recall the facts of that case, didn't his plane have a gravity-fed fuel system making inverted flight for more than a few seconds impossible?

As for whether or not he would have known he was inverted, I agree that during daylight and in clear weather conditions being able to fly inverted without realizing it is hard to imagine. However at night, or in bad weather or poor visibility, it's a lot easier to imagine. JFK's Jr's crash was thought to have something to do with Vertigo even though he had enough experience to be a flight instructor. www.airlinesafety.com...

But regarding a mirage possibility, if I were going to list 8 possible explanations for what happened to Valentich, then yes I would put that as one of the 8 possibilities to screen against the facts.

But there seems to be a shortage of good solid facts, so I can't say that theory would gain any more preference than the other 7 possible explanations I tried to come up with. So while I wouldn't rule it out, I wouldn't say it seems likely.

They never figured out exactly what caused those mechanical noises did they? That seemed like pretty good evidence, I thought he was just having engine failure and crashed as a result of that but that doesn't explain the mysterious green object he reported and that independent witnesses also saw.

It's an interesting case.

BTW I didn't know you're a pilot, you can chime in here too on the JL1628 if you have anything to add, everyone's input is welcome.

Regards

Originally posted by Tifozi
I would like to make it clear that the runway theory is pretty solid. The only thing that makes me dismiss it and point all the reasons, is that I seriously doubt that it can happen at 35,000ft. That's all that bothers me, because all the other reasons come from that detail.

35,000ft is really high. To make a context, I have never flown above 25,000ft in the Fokker 100.

More excellent posts, I continue to learn a great deal from you Tifozi, thank you very much!

Not only is the altitude very high, but the distance is very far. At the initial sighting at 17:10, JL1628 is just north of 67 degrees N, and the airfield is at about 64 degrees, so I think that's about 200 miles in just the northerly direction alone, he's actually to the northeast so perhaps 225-250 miles overall distance, is it possible to even see a runway from that distance, even with high intensity lights? The curvature of the earth might even be an issue at that distance.

Now, since I'm giving you info and not presenting any theory, I think you must pay attention to one of the informations about the runways.

"Touchdown point: yes, no lights".

To most of you this means nothing, but it actually means a lot to the Arbitrageur representation. The touchdown lights are the red and yellow (in some cases, when they have lots of money, they even put green lights too, lol) lights at the start/end of the runway. In some airports they simply mark the touchdown point (start) of the runway, on the more advanced ones, they actually represent arrows so you can see clearly were you need to touch down.

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I just noticed something else on the airport fact sheet, maybe you can provide some insight on what it means:

www.abovetopsecret.com... See the 3rd image down in that post.

Look just above the touchdown point you mentioned.

The 2nd runway mentions runway identifier lights, the first runway has no such entry which I find odd, I would have thought they would at least list it and put "no" to be consistent? Do you think there could be any significance to that?

I was wondering as when he's lined up with the 2nd runway the appearance is different, and was wondering if end identifier lights could have anything to do with that.

Some airports have directional lights (because of liminous polution, for example). That means you can only see the lights when you're heading straight down to the runway, you can't see them, for example, from the side. But not all airports have this, so, it's just a possibility.

What makes me believe that this airport has them, it's because they are also used in crossed runway airports, so you don't get visualy confused when looking at the runway (you can only see the runway that you are approaching from the correct angle).

That would explain why it appears that only one of the runway is visible, although your sources tell you that 2 of them have lights.

Tifozi, if you are correct about the directional lights, that might explain several things!!! Namely:

- JL1628 lost sight of traffic at approximately the time interval during which they were not lined up with EITHER runway at PABI. Would this be consistent with the directional light theory? Any idea how many degrees wide the directional lights are visible? If say plus or minus 30 degrees, then that would leave a 25 degree gap between the 2 runways during which the lights from neither would be visible. I am finding your directional lights comment very interesting.

-.JL1628 was reasonably close to lined up with the 2nd runway (125 deg) when they started their turn, but is it possible their travel north took them out of the range of the directional lights and that's why they didn't see them again until they had completed their turn?

I had never even considered directional lights, but if the lights were in fact directional, then some additional facts of the case might be supported by that observation. Wow collaboration on these ideas is great! Together we can think of things that alone we might miss!

Actually you can't present a report a month ago from the events date. They don't even accept it. If you're going to report something, then do it "now" when the memory is still fresh.

For some reason the FAA dragged their feet on starting a thorough investigation. There were a couple of initial interviews but they aren't well documented IMO and there may have been some language problems due to no translator. But I agree that over a month is too long, but that's how long the FAA waited.

Thank you for that map representation. With all that data, and assuming it's possible the airport reflection could reach 35,000ft, yes, it's consistent with a runway sight.

You're welcome. I felt I was spinning my wheels trying to explain it until I provided a map like that.

After reading your emotional response to the 360º turn, I went back and read the radar report again. You're right. They don't say it's following them, they just say "it's behind you". You assume that the radar contact is following, but if it was, they would say that.

Yes I guess Cpt Terauchi wasn't the only one who got excited. I reread the data involving the 360 degree turn several times and while it does lead to several possible conclusions, the one most people seem to be drawing seems less likely to me even without the directional lights you just mentioned. If directional lights are involved, there may be an even better explanation of the facts.

Another discrepancy is that after the initial sighting, if the inversion layer resulted in a mirror like mirage, they would gradually see the angle of the lights change if they were seeing a reflection of the airport.

Don't push the thermal inversion so much, you don't need to.

you commented earlier that it was hard to look down out of the 747 cockpit and I would tend to agree, so I thought that might be an issue. But I guess we have to look at the distances to the airport to consider the angle at which he'd be looking down if it's not a reflection.

The one conclusion I come to, is that the sightings do all seem to line up with that airport! as for explaining all the optics involved in what may have been unusual conditions, could be difficult. Perhaps there is some type of refraction involved with or without any reflection taking place? But even though I may not understand the optical mechanism, it does seem like more than coincidence the way the directions of the sightings line up with PABI!


[edit on 26-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Tifozi

I would expect this kind of unstable appearance from an atmospheric mirage.

Well, not exactly. Yes, it can happen like that, but don't need to...

If you are watching some kind of reflection, and a cloud passes between the projection and your eyes, it can distort the image and it looks like its moving, like if you put a glass of water in front of your eyes and looking to a object.

I see what you're saying. When I drive through the desert, I see a shimmering appearance in the mirages of the road caused by distortion of the atmosphere from the air currents rising from the heated road surface. So atmospheric turbulence could certainly cause shimmering or distortion, I've seen it on the ground.

But in the air, I was actually referring to another possible effect. If there's an inversion layer, the chances that the inversion layer will exactly follow the spherical curvature of the earth with perfect smoothness are near zero. If you measure the height of the inversion layer at one point, it might be X, if you travel a quarter mile mile, it might be X +50 feet, then another 1/4 mile back to 0 and then 1/4 mile later to -50'

These 50' differences in the height of the inversion layer may seem relatively small. But when you are flying at 400mph under them, what will the optical effect be on the observer of a mirage? The mirage will appear to move based on the varying reflectional angles of the reflective surface, even if there's no real turbulence to distort the image between you and the light source, see the difference?

Again, we are not looking at a mirror reflection of the runway here. The lights will get brighter and dimmer, undulate, and given that there are strobe lights there is even flashing taking place. If the shape of the lights is distorted with a lot of shimmering and twinkling going on, it's not hard to imagine some of the effects he describes regarding varying intensity of the lights.

I have nothing against this Cpt, and respect him as a professional, but I think he is exaggerating in his descriptions due to excitement. I don't this sort of things on the other pilots.


Congratulations for that post, you gained huge points with your data an explanations.

Very good post my friend.

Yes I think he's being a little colorful in his descriptions of shimmering lights. However he sees something airborne and apparently stationary at times, so with such a perception thinking of rocket propulsion is not totally unreasonable. However if you think of the physics of having two rockets with their noses pointed at each other, and the exhausts pointed in opposite directions, what have you got? The two forces would cancel each other out and you've got no net force. I'm sure the aliens are smarter than that!

OK you can say he's just describing what it LOOKS LIKE, not what it is, but I'm just saying, it's probably not what it looks like if it looks like rocket exhaust.

Absolutely outstanding post, thank you very much for teaching me so much and for contributing so much to this thread. Others have recognized and appreciated your contribution also, we value your expertise as a pilot to help with topics like these!

[edit on 26-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Well, the "candy" has to wait untill tomorrow. I had a problem with the data and I don't have the time to run it now (it's late here 1:11 AM).

I'm just going to answer some of your questions Arbitrageur:

is it possible to even see a runway from that distance, even with high intensity lights?

Well, I believe it's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. That's why we have various towers to contact when we're landing (Approach, Final Approach, Tower) that guide us close to the airport, and that's why in the "advanced" charts you have detailed info about the go-around routes and all that stuff.

But again, some aircraft lights aren't that big, but if a plane is coming out of a cloud he looks huge, so...

The 2nd runway mentions runway identifier lights, the first runway has no such entry which I find odd, I would have thought they would at least list it and put "no" to be consistent? Do you think there could be any significance to that?

You have to think that when you read those things you are flying an airplane on fire and you have to land immediatly. You don't find info that you don't need. If you need touchdown lights, the info will be there, but if the airport doesn't have them, they don't waste your reading time saying "we are low on funds". lol

It's normal, friend.

I was wondering as when he's lined up with the 2nd runway the appearance is different, and was wondering if end identifier lights could have anything to do with that.

Tomorrow I'll give you a "candy" that will allow you to study that.

Tifozi, if you are correct about the directional lights, that might explain several things!!!

I'll try to find it out.

But here is some data about that:

This are the normal runway lights, they actually point up, but sometimes they are made in such a way that you can only see them if you are high enough.



This are the "modern" lights. They have 2 or 4 point of exit that have lens on them. So, it's like looking into a cave. If you have the right angle of vision, you can see the fire inside the cave, if not, the light doesn't bother you.

In some cases they only use them on the center line, but I have seen them on the sides.



This are the normal and most common directional lights, the lights that show you the touch-point.



--

Perhaps there is some type of refraction involved with or without any reflection taking place? But even though I may not understand the optical mechanism, it does seem like more than coincidence the way the directions of the sightings line up with PABI!

For now we only need to look into various scenarios and assume some things as certain. I'm just guessing and a simple projection could explain everything, or we might never explain it but be very close.

After taking some pictures today, I tend to believe the runway theory. But we'll talk tomorrow, I must process the data.

[edit on 26/8/09 by Tifozi]

[edit on 26/8/09 by Tifozi]

The mirage will appear to move based on the varying reflectional angles of the reflective surface, even if there's no real turbulence to distort the image between you and the light source, see the difference?

I have to look into it, since I don't fly on "extreme" weather. I know the theory, but I have never seen it, at least to the point it could explain this case.

I see what you are getting into, and that could explain the difficulty in spoting the runway (supposed). Maybe a scope effect could easy the theory a bit, but I honestly can't tell.

But the thermal inversion wouldn't be "that" big, since there are mountains around the airfield and some rivers, and those can distort the thermal inversion.

I tend to believe that it was a projection of some kind. The point is: is it possible to reach that far?

Yes I think he's being a little colorful in his descriptions of shimmering lights. However he sees something airborne and apparently stationary at times, so with such a perception thinking of rocket propulsion is not totally unreasonable. However if you think of the physics of having two rockets with their noses pointed at each other, and the exhausts pointed in opposite directions, what have you got? The two forces would cancel each other out and you've got no net force. I'm sure the aliens are smarter than that!

Before that the rockets would crush the structure. lol

But even before that, it wouldn't have even taken off. You can't achieve lift with rockets point outwards...

The only way a disc can gain lift with rockets is with rotation. Or just having a couple on one side that pushes the disc around. lol

OK you can say he's just describing what it LOOKS LIKE, not what it is, but I'm just saying, it's probably not what it looks like if it looks like rocket exhaust.

That's the problem with pilots. lol

If you see a plane in the air and a flamme comes out of the jet engine, you think "keeewwwlll".

If I see a flamme coming out of the jet engine I pick up my portable radio and tell the tower that the planne that is approaching had a bird strike and he needs to tell the pilot to check the rotations and fuel injection and...and...

When you know too much of something to a certain degree, all you see is that subject and you try to fit your reality to it.

That's why investigators don't relie too much on pilots witnesses, they give you too much detail about the crash, and they can be wrong and lead you exactly the wrong direction (sound familiar? maybe it should ).

Absolutely outstanding post, thank you very much for teaching me so much and for contributing so much to this thread. Others have recognized and appreciated your contribution also, we value your expertise as a pilot to help with topics like these!

Thank you! But it's like you said, collaboration.

I'm really looking forward to your feedback, and internos, on the data that I'm presenting tomorrow about the Allen Airfield.

[edit on 26/8/09 by Tifozi]

Originally posted by freighttrain
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Do you think this is a mirage UFO (August 2009 UFO)?!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If so I like to know how the light of the city can reflect on a mirage!

I replied in your thread, please let me know (via u2u if necessary) if you find the original or at least a better quality photo and I can try to give you an analysis. Thanks for asking.

Originally posted by Tifozi
I'm really looking forward to your feedback, and internos, on the data that I'm presenting tomorrow about the Allen Airfield.

Now you have me sitting at the edge of my chair waiting to see the "eye candy"! You know how to build some good suspense and anticipation!

Thanks for answering my questions. The data is about the runway end lights?

I really can't wait to see it because I think I have a guess what you might show? And it might look something like the other drawing the pilot made (or am I off track)? I guess I'll just have to wait and see, you really have me curious now.

I'll let the JAL debate continue - very interesting and valuable - but surely you can remove the Kenneth Arnold sighting from the list of possible mirages as there was at least one well documented ground based observer and, from the same period, some less well documented gun camera footage showing an identically shaped UFO.

the Op is presenting a debunk case and using that as his base to project circular logic to try and dismiss other ufo evidence.

this is the exact opposite of what the blind believers do when they think everything is an Alien space craft.

epic fail















[edit on 27-8-2009 by easynow]

Originally posted by chunder
I'll let the JAL debate continue - very interesting and valuable - but surely you can remove the Kenneth Arnold sighting from the list of possible mirages as there was at least one well documented ground based observer and, from the same period, some less well documented gun camera footage showing an identically shaped UFO.

Please give me links to the information and I'll review it, I may not have seen all of it if it's less well documented, thanks.

If the gun camera is of another sighting, I don't think it necessarily confirms the Arnold sighting. In fact, one thing that the Oldfield film should demonstrate is that the camera can see objects that aren't there just as easily as the eye can. These are mirages, not hallucinations.

The camera can't capture hallucinations, but the camera can capture mirages. Not having seen the photo yet, I can't comment on what it is, but as a general rule if the eye is seeing a mirage, there is no reason the camera can't capture the same mirage on film.

I think I do recall seeing something about a ground based observer, but was it something like "I saw what he saw" report or was it really a good independent observation like we had in the Ohio sightings by police officers? Thanks for asking and I look forward to reviewing what you are looking at that convinces you it's not a mirage. Maybe it will convince me too when I see it.

Regards.

Originally posted by easynow
the Op is presenting a debunk case and using that as his base to project circular logic to try and dismiss other ufo evidence.

this is the exact opposite of what the blind believers do when they think everything is an Alien space craft.

epic fail

I welcome your disagreement with my arguments.

However given all the detail I have provided on the JL1628 case, I don't think it's a fair assessment of my arguments to suggest that I tried to present a case that the Oldfield film somehow debunks the JL1628 event.

In fact I'm not trying to use the Oldfield film as direct evidence for ANY of the possible mirage sightings I listed, if I were then you would certainly have a valid criticism and I would agree with you 100% that would be an epic failure.

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


well before i get accused of showing bad form because i object to your methodology here in the way you presented this thread, i probably should explain a little more in detail what my viewpoint really is.

i do not have a problem with discussing any of the cases you have brought up for discussion. the problem i see here is the deceptive way you are going about it.

you posted a debunk scenario out the gate and then listed other ufo cases with the intent to insinuate that these other cases might be explained as a mirage or false image just like the debunk video you started off with.

a example of the opposite end of that spectrum would be for me to do what you have done and post the best possible video evidence of a ufo and then list some other cases that are weak and try to use the logic from the really good ufo video to insinuate that the other cases might possibly be a real because the first one is.

this is what they call circular logic and if i actually did create a thread using the example i just told you about i would be blasted by the skeptics for doing so.


once again i don't have a problem with you wanting to discuss any of these cases, i just disagree with how you presented all this. i would also like to add that your side of the discussion of the Alaska case is weak at best and has re- enforced my belief that these pilots did see a ufo and not a mirage. so thanks for that

the foo fighters and the Utah case are in my opinion not a mirage or temp. inversion as your Op seems to want to imply and i am saddened that you even included these and to me shows you have not researched any of them before creating this thread.


please be honest and admit you purposely used the Oldfield film debunk example to install or create a layer of doubt about the other cases you listed after it. i will speculate that you did this so anybody reading this thread will automatically be in a skeptical mindset from jump street and in my opinion it's unfair to anyone that may be just learning about these cases for the first time because they might be wrongly influenced by your deceptive opening post thought experiment.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for your thoughts regarding the Valentich case, Arbitrageur.

Also....

I did not mean to give the impression I'm a pilot.

When I stated I have done a lot of military & civilian flying, it has not been as a pilot.

Cheers mate
Sam60