The most convincing UFO video footage we have.

JimOberg
Here's the link -- www.jamesoberg.com...

OK, I read all the 98 questions (there's no question number 80), I couldn't see any that applies to this case.

The sudden appearance of dots is undeniably bizarre, except not under space conditions. It often happens when nearby stuff drifts out of the spaceship's shadow, as explained in the 99 FAQs, Here's another attempt:

I'm not talking about the appearance of the dot, I am talking about the apparent movement of the dot, as if moving down to Earth and remaining stationary (relative to Earth) while the shuttle moves away, apparently above the atmosphere.

reply to post by JimOberg

The sudden appearance of it isn't a problem for me, that's easy enough to understand with things coming out of shadows.

What I can't understand, is how large and how far away the object is during the video. It may be an illusion, but it gives the appearance of descending to a lower altitude where it falls significantly behind the spacecraft in its orbit. Again nothing surprising here due to smaller particles possibly slowing down more from atmospheric drag. But it appears to almost slow to a nearly stationary point above the Earth, at some high altitude (it appears to line up with the visible edge of the atmosphere at 2:20 in the video ARMAP asked about):



This may be just an illusion, due to seeing a 2D view of 3D events and maybe that's not what is really happening. If it's a small particle, I would have expected a small particle to fade from view more quickly if that really happened, so maybe it's never really stationary above the Earth and it stays much closer to the camera than that illusion suggests.

On the other hand, we know of another type of illusion from the tether video, that sometimes a small (or in that case, thin) object can reflect enough light to display a bigger visual appearance on the camera's image, than they really have. So maybe it really is a small particle that really does remain visible at great distance due to that known camera issue, although I think that tether video had something to do with overexposure, and that may not apply in this case of this video?

ArMaP
I'm not talking about the appearance of the dot, I am talking about the apparent movement of the dot, as if moving down to Earth and remaining stationary (relative to Earth) while the shuttle moves away, apparently above the atmosphere.

OK, let me look at it again. How can we meanwhile track down the actual time so can determine thruster firings and other effluent-producing actions?

JimOberg
OK, let me look at it again. How can we meanwhile track down the actual time so can determine thruster firings and other effluent-producing actions?

I don't know how to get that information, but I will try.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You have a PM.

reply to post by jhn7537


I've personally linked the scientific papers on this and a youtube video exists recreating the effects. The video is real, the UFO' are actually identified and are not alien in nature.

reply to post by FlySolo


Watching the lightning storm video made it all make sense. Thanks for posting!

_BoneZ_

jhn7537
Can the debunkers show proof that where the camera is pointing is right at the oil rig?

Yes:

Those images are identical except for one aspect: the reflections on the water are slightly different. The image on the left shows the reflections elongated due to the camera being low to the surface. The image on the right shows the reflections to be very short due to the camera being much higher than the surface, like the sky on an aircraft.

And there's your proof. Both images show reflections, proving both images were taken of the same thing on the water. Not flying through clouds in the sky.

Anyone can make any wild claim they want, and give any description they want, but the evidence proves otherwise.

Take 9/11 for instance, some people said they saw a black plane. Some people said they saw a gray plane. Some people said they saw a small commuter plane at both the Pentagon and NYC. All of the evidence proves them to be inaccurate. It doesn't matter what anyone says, the evidence says otherwise.

Same thing with this "UFO" story. It doesn't matter what they think they saw, or what they claim they saw. The evidence proves otherwise.


Reflections prove what they videoed was on the water. There is no debating it. There is no doubting it. It's 100% proof-positive that they videoed the oil rigs regardless of any other claims made.



Having said that, everyone is free to embrace and believe in whatever they choose. If someone wants to believe all of the baseless, wild claims instead of the actual facts and evidence, that's their choice. It still doesn't make the actual facts and evidence any less valid.

Sorry but you cant compare a stand still image with a video. Its obvious that both images are similar but in the video you dont see two bright spots standing with no movement. Theres a lot of bright objects, people in the Mexican aircraft say nine objects, and more important at the same altitude of his aircraft. I dont understand why you dont trust to the conversation between the pilot and the ground people, they are pilots not ufologist.

In the video you can cleary see that bright objects arent standing with no movement, far objects tend to move more slowly than close objects, its called parallax or diference in the aparent position. If you see again the video far bright object moves fastest than clouds near the airship, thats why they are moving not standing still like an oil rig.

Its clear that Maussan make money with this kind of evidence, but thats is not a proof that the video dont show UFO´s.

reply to post by drwire


Ok that was pretty wild.

drwire
If you see again the video far bright object moves fastest than clouds near the airship, thats why they are moving not standing still like an oil rig.

Sorry, but the lights aren't moving. The plane is flying through the clouds and the lights are miles away on the water. Since the lights are so far away, they appear to move with the plane. And since the camera is constantly moved and focused on the lights, it appears the lights keep moving with the plane through the clouds. But that's not the case.

What you're seeing in the video is exactly what you would see at night driving fast down a highway looking at the moon shining through the clouds. It only appears that the moon is traveling fast through the clouds to keep up with you, but the moon isn't moving at all. You are. The lights on the water aren't moving, only the plane and camera is.

As I stated earlier, it doesn't matter what anyone claims. The evidence is 100% conclusive that the pilots videoed the oil rigs.

If you have the time, take a look at the following website. Every single aspect of the case has been thoroughly analyzed, proving that oil rigs are the source of the lights:

www.alcione.org...

imo the most compelling UFO incident or encounter, albeit it's not a video OF the UFO fleet in question is this one, the Japanese Airliner encounter.



I think if they're here that they are arriving from another galaxy, so rare are the true Earth-like worlds where long longgg term sustained evolutionary and technological development is possible.

But because there is at least one such world in our own galaxy, the universe of 500 billion galaxies is expected to have many many such worlds, where the reason they are visiting here in particular, is simply because of the extreme rarity of an Earth-like world, and the reason we don't all get to meet them is because of the vast gap between their development and ours which must carry with it it's own "Prime Directive" or non-interventionalist policy. Otherwise there's no way to resolve the Fermi Paradox, because we'd already be colonized or invaded long ago ie: we would not even be here, they would be instead.

NewAgeMan
imo the most compelling UFO incident or encounter, albeit it's not a video OF the UFO fleet in question is this one, the Japanese Airliner encounter.

Fascinating case, but not very compelling upon further research. Actually it points out how important and nice visual records are to UFO cases (like pictures or videos), but in place of photos, we do have drawings by the crew. Do you see any similarity between the crew's drawings of the lights, and airport lights? Here are some comparisons I made:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7749147d2a0e.png[/atsimg]

Other images of the lights after they "morphed"


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/36ab449862c3.png[/atsimg]
What's interesting is that the crew reported the direction of the lights relative to their heading, which changed during the flight. And the lights were always observed in the direction of Allan Army Airfield, when they could see them. There was a point they lost sight of the lights when they weren't lined up with either runway, which is also consistent with directional runway lights. So, there's pretty strong circumstantial evidence the lights they saw could have been coming from Allen Army Airfield, though the way the lights morphed, I'd say it may have been some kind of strange reflection of them, which given the prevalence of sometimes very strong thermal inversions in polar regions could have happened.

The giant mothership he saw was almost certainly a cloud, since it had the radar reflection of a cloud, and it's right where a satellite image shows a cloud was at that time. And yes some clouds look like motherships:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aacd7cd49322.jpg[/atsimg]

The man who probably knows more about the case than anybody else is Bruce Maccabee and he finally admitted it could have been a cloud:

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.

The captain may have thought the lights and the cloud were related, and perhaps they were at one single moment in the flight at 17:30:56, when the cloud may have been backlit by the lights (see this map), but aside from that moment, the evidence in the case confirms the first officer's statement that the lights and the radar return were not the same thing.

So it's another case of a UFO where there's apparently no "object", which by the way was confirmed by a plane flying in the opposite direction, who was asked to look for anything around the Japan flight, and they confirmed that was nothing there.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That doesn't really jive with what the captain and crew reported, which involved the aircraft-UFO maneuvering around, with two of them at one point buzzing the plane's windows, nor the follow up incidents in the same region and general time period.

You're stretching too far to try to explain it, and it doesn't pass muster, reminds me of some of the 9/11 debunking i run into.

Good debunking effort though..

NewAgeMan
nor the follow up incidents in the same region and general time period.

You're right, it doesn't explain any follow-up incidents. Please provide more information about those.

coastlinekid
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

BA-LOONS...
2nd

strange object


conventional object

Arbitrageur

NewAgeMan
nor the follow up incidents in the same region and general time period.

You're right, it doesn't explain any follow-up incidents. Please provide more information about those.

Just watch the video i posted, it's covered there. Plus radar had the object following, twice, the Japanese Airlines cargo plane, and it was the pilot and crew as witnesses. The pilot described it in clear terms as a "formation" and talked about them pacing his plane and zipping around, coming close enough to the windows that he could feel the heat on his face. What you offered doesn't seem the least bit congruent with the encounter, including those alleged drawings where what the pilot and crew described looked more like a "shelled walnut". In fact, when comparing the report itself to what you've offered in rebuttal it appears like you're offering us an interpretation from Project Bluebook for the least explainable of encounters. And are a pilot and crew to mistake a runway like that, for the reported UFO's that's absurd, imho.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Facts about JAL 1628:
-Two separate incidents which routinely gets confused as one.
-The first being lights which are described by the pilot/crew as afterburner-like and in rows as if it had windows.
-Lights were described as blinking or strobing: "we can see, uh, navigation lights and, strobe lights.” by the co-pilot Tamefuji.
-The classified Stealth bomber was being developed and test flown during this period. Which happens to have rows and window-like exhaust ports.
-The second incident being a "mothership" which is described by the captain as the size of two aircraft carriers. Yet neither his co-pilot nor navigator observed it at any point.
-A 360 degree turn was made around this mothership and again neither of the crew saw anything.
-Fairbanks airport was in direct line of this mothership but had no radar reading of anything.
-The touted radar data is only a couple of minutes long and sporadic and inconsistent.
-A United Airlines flight and an Air Force C-130 were both diverted by Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center to identify this gigantic mothership. When the flights were within sight of JAL 1628, nothing was seen by any of the crew.
-The captain Terauchi, admittedly misidentified lights on two other separate occasions as motherships.

I've commented on this case many times and this to me isn't a strong case. The story is routinely told wrong with facts left out by sensationlized television shows or websites.

Go to 5; 40 mins on this video, fascinating objects that seem to interact with each other. The shining object looks way too bright to be a star or planet and the darker object really should be displaying lights if it's an aircraft.

Not discounting "UFO's" i.e. Unidentified Flying Objects as these could (and mostly are) man made crafts or rather flying objects that have yet to be identified by the general public.

But I have often found both here on ATS and further afield in the internet bog marsh that people have a tendency to blur aliens with ufo's and this just muddies the water.

If I was an alien and I was visiting another planet, the last thing I would do is have giant neon lights on my ship with a great big spoiler on the bag and half a dozen rally lights on the front - that's the dumbest thing ever and we are doing a disservice to them (if they exist in our current dimension) and those crafts.

Now if you wanted to perpetuate the cover of a UFO + Alien story for this many years then yeah a few Christmas lights don't hurt.

NewAgeMan
including those alleged drawings where what the pilot and crew described looked more like a "shelled walnut".

Yes there is a huge discrepancy between my account and the account in the video you posted. You see, this is because I went to the original source material for their actual drawings. I also used material provided by the man in the video, Bruce Maccabee, who had all the FAA radar data, and the original Air traffic control transcripts, and probably did more research on this case than anybody else I know of.

You on the other hand, are believing what someone told you without checking any original source material. Yes there is a conflict, but which is more accurate? Why you choose distorted storytelling over the original sources is not clear or logical.

There is a good thread with some original source material here:

The strange story of JAL 1628

The animations used in that video you posted are not consistent with the crew's drawings of the lights. They look like miniature versions of the "mothership" in the animations, but that is not how the crew drew them. The captain did draw a mothership that looked something like that the animations in the video, but at no point was that described as it's described in the video you posted; it's a different object than the lights. So that video is wrong on so many levels, and yes it's completely inconsistent with the facts.

If you spend any time investigating UFOlogy, you'll find a lot of myths and distortions being promoted, sometimes out of ignorance or sometimes out of bias by people trying to sensationalize stories for their own, sometimes capitalistic reasons (to make books or shows more popular).