Well, by all means of respect, you still have to share a single speck of that knowledge.



Uhm, now I have to admit a lack of knowledge. I am not really up to speed of that maneuver, but don't they do that at airshows? Like this admittedly very short description about 1/4th down the page.



I might be wrong, but please do enlighten me. And I do remember dogfights in Vietnam where such situations have been described (history or military channel).

Cheers,
Badeskov

Just to interject a thought here; I highly suspect that various UFOs most likely have various explanations. In other words, the plasma explanation certainly doesn't fit all cases, but appears to be viable for some cases. Each case has to be looked at individually, some explanations just *fit* certain cases better than others. However, there are a few cases that really do seem to defy explanation (hence, the mystery).

Reality is that there isn't any one highly supported hypothesis that manages to definitively explain all UFOs events. One is certainly 'free to choose' whichever explanation they personally like, but this isn't the same thing as saying one has 'proven' one's hypothesis to be reality.

Exactly. Is it any wonder that Vallee and Hynek (two of the greatest champions of the ETH in the 60s-early 70s) eventually moved away from the ETH altogether? Simply, to arrive at ETH for all UFOs, one must ignore every case that doesn't 'fit'. That in itself is biased debunking.

edit: Deja vu. I'm sure I've made that statement (or similar) a few times now

"No triangular crafts were ever spotted in conjunction with the radar data. Actually, the lights were moving independently and not attached to a triangular craft. And nowhere was the plasma hypothesis excluded."

Sorry but that statement is completely and utterly wrong... F16s were scrambled to intercept Radar tracks of craft that had been also been reported as Triangular shapes by witnesses on the ground... it was a few days after the initial sightings of several Triangular craft over Eupen, about 9 miles from the German border.

As the pilots involved themselves said of the incident. "It was if they were playing a game with us they would allow us to get close enopugh for a lock on then just skip out of our way"

It should also be noticed that, the craft broke the sound barrier without any sort of sonic boom being registered. They also performed manoeuvres that would have killed any human pilot

A triangual craft was noted by thousands of people in conjunction with incident.

Yes indeed,

Ever wondered wny there are now nations who are releasing their own UFO case files and reporting that the UFOs are those of intelligently controlled flying vehicles? And, I expect the number of countries to grow as well.

About Jacques Vallee.



I guess they were weather balloons that flew too high.

In regards to J. Allen Hynek, he was once skeptical of UFOs but not longer after he began his investigations.

http://www.ufo-blog.com/ufo-blog/2007/12/g...er-belgium.html

seems to be a pretty good site on this particular sighting. At the time of these incidents, I was aware of the US gov't's vivid promotion in my immediate vicinity of reconnaissance satellites in that the street lingo was given they could determine the date on a US currency piece of 10 cents. This dime presence, coupled with the notation vehicle tags were even easier, enhanced the veil of silence that was mandate at the time.
Why even mention that? When the Easten Block countries became concerned at the fall of the Soviet Empire, information began to pour out, where once there was only spy operations. The Belgians, through possibly a Black Mountain episode, did not/do not have the American gov't's philosophy of extra terrestrial phenomenon. They are much more concerned. It is no laughing matter to them. Perhaps, as some think tanks promote, they are examples of what a referrer would call 'over-experimented'; however, this does not shield from the extreme reaction achieved by those seeking to know what another may. They, the Belgians, are very aggressive in obtaining at claims given by those that "know". Fear, drives them. If they are brain-washed, to use a popular street term of the time, into knowing this mannerism, they act accordingly. No glass of water, bright light, and offer of a cigarette during respective questioning. Medieval practice. Of where, in that region, application of localized force is in order.

Under these circumstances, why then, if hoax: has this country, as well as some of it's neighbors, dropped border recognition for data analysis? Of which, little is ever heard. If you were to look, you would see you can still obtain a work visa where it is allowable to move between borders if you are attempting to decode this string of incidents.

Back to America's response, the most indicated book to heighten your senses was 1984, and the mention of Big Brother. Which now, of course, everyone that has the time to say is of high rank within and knows everything. You are to believe this.

What was so fascinating about this, is Russia's response. The aforementioned Black Mountain campaign. Where local villagers were exposed to hallucinogenics and reproducible light/sound architectures. The create a mass hysteria. For study. Within that closed circle, it's been determined that around 15% responded positively. They assumed it alien to this world. 2% went permanently insane. The remaining sought through prayer resolution. And, became convinced it was in fact the Devil, wanting their souls. They are now all permanently marred from this experiment, and often have to be cared for.

UFOs were reported on Vietnam, and you didn't you know that???

Come on!!

They are even confirmed in the press in multiple countries and confirmed by the military, so where did you get that false idea from when the facts prove otherwise and widely documented already???




Where did you get that idea?? Didn't you read the official reports that indicated the craft was of triangular shape and witnessed by thousands of people?!



So you see, thousands of witnesses were describing a structured triangual-shaped craft and I don't know how you missed those facts when the incident was widely publicized around the globe, even in the Wall Street Journal!

No. Because I'm still waiting for an explanation for that radar plasma E layer study that I posted...


in full (emphasis mine)-


Odd, then that when I first presented Vallee, you dismissed him with your standard response about disagreeing "with UFOlogist and when the facts came rolling in, they found out why."

And interestingly, Vallee's name appears in quite a few of those reports you reference (down the bottom in the list of UFOlogists present)...

Now you're presenting him as an astronomer turned beliver (like Hynek)?



Or maybe you're not...


And Hynek, just like Vallee, came to find the ETH as an unsatisfactory explanation for UFOs as a whole...

Says something doesn't it? That these two great thinkers (and yes they obviously are great since they both show a deeper and more complex pattern of thought than either of us) could both find the answer that is 'reality' to be errant in many ways...

True SE, he started out as a skeptic & debunker (read somewhere he even boasted about enjoying it) Yet he was assigned to three of the top secret projects (Sign, Grudge & Blue Book) 'Surely the air force would have been 'keeping close tabs on him even in his later years' (a man of that importance ya know)...Why the 360 ^o (change of heart)? Or is there more a lot more $$$ in it for him as a believer especially in his retirement years?...

To use Vallee to further your arguments as it not being anything of ET in origin is a bit like using Mao to excuse Stalin when it comes to butchery. Vallee's own hypothesis, the one i tend to subscribe to, does indeed allow for an external intelligence. In fact it is actually pivotal to his whole hypothesis. Ie, that someone has been messing with human minds from as far back as we can find records. Vallee does not say they are not ETs at all. He says he feels the craft themselves are not of an extraterrestrial origin. That is becasue Vallee believes many sightings are actually mass hallucination DELIBERATELY projected into our reality by an outside force we, as yet, have no real understanding of.

Valle believes it might well be an inter dimensional explanation So please, before you go spouting that Vallee doesn't this or that, actually read what the guy says..

Plasma never played a part in any of the UFO case files I have presented, and that the fact remain unexplained in terrestrial terms to this very day despite extensivie research and analysis, which underlines my point.

In other wordsl examiners, researchers, those inovolved, didn't take plasma seriously either, and rightly so, because the incidents involved structured and intellligently controlled crafts and many countries around the world are currently reporting from their own UFO case files.

Besides, you don't understand the nature of plasma and I could have set up a website and posted false information on plasma and you would have used in against me thinking it was factual.

Yes... And how about going back and checking what I've been saying in the last 30 odd pages (where I've posted) before spouting off what you think I'm spouting off about?

Then you'd see that I'm not the one presenting Vallee in the manner described. In fact it's the nut's'n'bolters who are cherry picking Vallee association with the early ETH.
Not to mention Vallee doesn't limit the hypothesis to an extraterrestrial intelligence. He also allows for multidimensional and existing in many points in time and space, as well as the possibility of a terrestrial collective conciousness.
If anything I'm happy to bring Vallee into it as a reason to move away from ET and his spaceship, and start looking at the really big picture..
Which is definitely not the same as presenting an argument that ET came down in his spaceship, and because Vallee used to believe in the ETH-case closed!

About J. Allen Hynek.

Fact of the matter is, plasma has no bearing on any of the UFO cases in question; and because of that fact, the issue is moot.

Right... So despite the fact that I posted it solely for recognising the words plasma, solid, radar, echo and E layer (atmosphere), you're trying to tell me that you've set up... Ah, hell with it, I'll let somebody else point out why you clearly haven't done your homework...
Now maybe you could redeem yourself from your brainfart, and explain the technical data in aforementioned report in terms I can understand (since you've just told me that you are indeed the expert).

Do aircraft, buildings, ocean waves, boats reflect radar waves? Yes!

Are those objects rejected in STT mode on radar to where only the designated primary target is tracked. Yes!

Was plasma responsible for any of the UFO case files in question? No!



All you had to do was to review the reports to make that determination.

I can't work out if he was coming or going?...


'Late in his life', Hynek was critical of the popular extraterrestrial hypothesis, and began expressing his doubts to theories that UFOs were physical spacecraft from other planets. As Hynek himself said in October 1976: "I have come to support less and less the idea that UFOs are 'nuts and bolts' spacecrafts from other worlds. There are just too many things going against this theory. To me, it seems ridiculous that super intelligences would travel great distances to do relatively stupid things like stop cars, collect soil samples, and frighten people. 'I think we must begin to re-examine the evidence. We must begin to look closer to home.' ?

And we have taken a look closer to home and in doing so, Aeroject engineers, makers of NORAD's DSP satellites, have revealed that NORAD's surveillance systems have been detecting and tracking UFOs flying in from deep space and even their own DSP satellites have been tracking UFOs as well.

So yes, J. Allen Hynek's advice to look closer to home is how we found that UFOs were flying in from deep space.

Its not waisted time at all B.

There are skeptics, people on the fence and even some believers in the ETH, not all painfully obvious by now, that find this most interesting.

People like skyeagle have to much "invested" in the hypotheses. Those are the people that goes down with the ship rather then admitting they were wrong. I have no doubt he will put this in his records as another win over the skeptics. All the documents ever posted isnt the evidence and smoking gun sky so badly wants/needs them to be. Reading between the lines seems to be the key word and skyeagles favorite "get out of jail free card".



Sad really.

Hmmm from the sounds of it i think he was talking 'looking closer to home as in man-made'(?)...

He was, but over the years, we found that the UFOs were not man-made.

In fact, just the other day, I posted references to that fact.

Did I miss something? I'm sure all I asked you to do was explain my report in layman's terms, not dance a merry jig.

Now either explain it, since you've admitted that it's well within the scope of your knowledge, or admit that you've been caught behaving decietfully and have been passing off what you've found with google (or had relayed to you by real technicians) as your own technical expertise...

You posted the following:


I really don't think you understand what you posted. Aircraft also reflect radar beams but are still rejected in STT mode and ground clutter rejected as well if a primary target is designated by the pilot; in other words, only information on the primary target is displayed on radar.

Now, review this video if you haven't already done so, to understand that the issue of plasma in this case is moot and why.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uh5IKmWDmHk&feature=related

You have been missing alot, as evident by what you have been posting.

Well done Sherlock, you've finally cracked the case, despite me mentioning on several occasions that I really didn't get that report. But it had the words plasma and radar in it, so why not put it to an expert to explain the terminology and just what those guys were doing in their experiment.


And this is your technical explanation in laymans terms? JAL? Doesn't tell me a thing that seems to be related to my post.

I'm afraid you're going to have to walk me through the report I posted in your own words. Then I might understand whether or not it has any relevance to either side of the atmospheric plasma and radar debate...

Why even post it in the first place since plasma has no relevance to any of the UFO case files in question??? You would have been better off posting facts on the Empire State Building since it can reflect radar beams as well.



It proves beyond any doubt that plasma played no part in the JAL incident and the reasons are clearly evident in that video as to why plasma was not responsible.

Not really!

After all, reading between the lines is how I was able to determine that the CIA was very much interested in UFOs even though they told the public otherwise, and now documents released and historical facts have confirmed my claim.

In addition, reading between the lines is how I was able to determine that no weather balloon, Project Mogul balloon, test dummies and accident victims of the 1950's were not responsible for an incident in 1947.

Reading between the lines is how I had determined that no classified project of any kind was responsible for the Roswell incident.

Learning to read between the lines can give true insight whenever the government goes into debunk mode on UFOs.

Reading between the lines is how others found that the Air Force's temperature inversion explanations to explain away UFO reports, were false, including meteorologist and radar operators.

Ahh, so if the radar receives a signature from an aircraft it doesnt recognize, it is rejected?



How would he know? Apparently, according to you, he didnt even see the damn thing!



Why? If a pilot can track an aircraft in STT mode, he can track plasma in it too.



Or so you claim.

Now, how about YOU tell us why? Why do you avoid proving us wrong, as you claim you can? Is it perhaps because you cant?

If the pilot determines it is not pertinent to the mission, yes if he designates another primary target and locks it up. The other blip, and all others, will disappear off the screen.




Apparently, you haven't done your homework, so now, do it and tell us all why he didn't!



What does plasma have to do with it since plasma was never responsible for any of the UFO case files that have already been presented? Buildings also reflect radar beams but none were reported to maneuver around aircraft in flight!

However, it seems that there are skeptics who think that a lighthouse near Rendlesham forest has the ability to fly around aircraft. After all, they have claimed that a lighthouse was that UFO in the forest.

I told them no, and why, but as usual, they don't listen to the facts. I guess they think the lighthouse was also responsible for the other objects in the sky that were spotted by both, military and civilians witnesses.

You have already been proven wrong as evident that plasma had nothing to do with any of the UFO case files in question.

So if he determines that this anomalous signal is pertinent and designates it, it will remain on the scope, no?



Why he didnt what? See the thing? Well, according to you, its because he had his eyes fixed on radar...



Because we're determining whether plasma could have been responsible for those radar readings... and yes, we've determined it can.

It will.



Not only that, the triangular-shaped object was dark, it was night, and the object was not a form of hghly-visible plasma either. Another fact, the triangualar-shaped object didn't display the international arrangement of navigation lights even though the triangular-shaped object was as large as a B-747.

False, because witnesses described a structured craft, not plasma, so there you have it. The data never displayed any plasma whatsover and why plasma is not even in the report as explaining the triangular-shaped craft.

It was all in the official reports so it is inconceivable as to why you think that plasma could have been responsible when the facts have already proven otherwise and the performance levels recorded on ground-based and airborne radars were not indicative of plasma for that period of time, which is why European skeptics went along with artificial vehicles such as the F-117 and other secret aircraft to explain the Belgian craft.

It was all very simple that plasma was never a major player in the first place, but you would have known that if you had reviewed the videos.



What did the professor say at the end of one those videos?

So therefore, if that anomalous signal is created by atmospheric plasma, it will remain on the scope, no?

I still say that if they are advanced and intelligent, wouldn't of they contacted us in some way by now? What are they waiting for?

If they did contact us, the government more than likely would cover that up. They control 95% of our planet... its sad, but they do control most of our planet. The human race as a whole have hardly any freedom what so ever. Your allowed to do very little and what we're allowed to do is regulated by our government.

I also think we will find evidence in various places of their existence; Mars, The Moon, and on Earth. ( If they exist )

But we need to finish discovering and understanding our own world before finding another IMO...

Like an hour?? Nope, and how long was the Belgian encounter?

In other words the craft was not indicative of plasma on the raddar screen, As indicated by the Belgian Air Force, the object indicated intelligence in its maneuvers around the F-16s.

Why not? What does time have to do with anything?

A lot! Guess why?!

They don't maneuver around aircraft in the manner as noted in many UFO reports nor fit the descriptions noted by aircrews and radar operators nor were the radar returns indicative of plasma.

Ok I did, now what...?

Explain why plasma was not responsible.

You do know that it was a dramatization, right?

If real to begin with...All we have are those CT to pilot communications and I never heard anyone say alien spaceship or even the estimated size of anything. All I heard was "traffic--object--target"...The rest are, as always, only stories told by someone.

Thats it.

Live with it people we are being visited,whats the problem with understanding that somethings are just going to be as they are? UFO`s are driven by little green and grey,and blue wit white poke-a-dots and what ever one wishes to manafeaste Yummy ! now Im getting hungry anyone for a human snack? LoL DONTEATUS

Skyeagle409 has made hay out of JAL1628. Here is my opinion.

This report sounds like a human response to things, not ordinary, but not demonstratably out of the realm of natural occurance. Flying a jet airliner, visual conditions, radars with possible normal signals to those particular conditions, and people's various reactions. However...

The visuals might be from perceived light or shapes from natural circumstances or people-related activities (oil and gas fields, pipelines, towns, mountain terrain, etc.).

It also sounds like the pilot was an excitable personality (spaceship!) and the crew were suggestable. Also, they took no photograph because of camera malfunction.

The rest sounds like an issue those in charge wanted to eventually iron out, because of various levels of concern. It's just to be expected.

But, I don't buy all this "flying saucer" business that takes place in the recesses of people's brains.

I don't buy the ET hypothesis. It seems irrational, given the evidence of the sheer scope of solar system- to- solar system distances, and variability of stellar types and environments, and using Earth as a model for evolution and development.

JAL flying saucer? No, IMO. Were people naturally interested up the chain? They always are. It's their job. So what? A report was written and reviewed. Ideas were exchanged. And, hopefully, some better understanding of radar operations and pilot reporting resulted.

I think an objective reading of the article would bring a similar conclusion. Although, make your own conlcusions.

The Fantastic Flight OF JAL1628

Compuserve Conference Transcript, 11/15/87


Here are some illustrations (a few from the pilot). The page is not readable, but the images can be scrolled through. I don't know what they saw, or what they thought they saw. It seems like so-much confusion, to me.

JAL1628 from brumac.8k.com

"Veteran pilot Kenji Terauchi told investigators Friday through an interpreter that two of the lights were small, perhaps no larger than eight feet across. He said the third light was on an aircraft, a huge darkened globe with a diameter of perhaps two aircraft carriers placed end-to-end, Steucke said.

The pilot said the large UFO showed up on his cockpit weather radar. But images on military radar screens at the time were dismissed as "clutter," and a blip that showed up on FAA screens was analyzed as a coincidental "split image" of the aircraft, Steucke said.

The evening sky was clear as the jet, cruising at 525 knots, crossed into Alaska from Canada, just northeast of Fort Yukon. At 6:19 p.m. (AST), as the plane flew at 35,000 feet, Terauchi said he saw three lights eight miles in front of his aircraft.

The pilot reported the lights were yellow, amber and green, Steucke said, but not red, the international color for aircraft beacons. "The two smaller ones moved a little bit, changed their angle. The smaller ones did not show up on the weather radar onboard," Steucke said. "The larger one did.

"It appeared to him it might be possible that the lights might be exhaust pipes, they kind of wavered but did not blink. His main concern was trying to determine whether he was overtaking another aircraft."

Steucke said the pilot reported he dimmed cockpit lights to ensure he was not seeing a reflection. "He flew for about six minutes before he decided to report anything," Steucke said. "I can't say I blame him for that."

Terauchi radioed Anchorage FAA air controllers, who direct allaircraft traffic in the state, except for planes near airports, Steucke said. Fairbanks controllers checked their screens but saw only Flight 1628, Stuecke said.

The pilot reported the object was staying with him and controllers told him to take any evasive action needed. Terauchi decreased altitude to 31,000 feet, but the lights went down with him "in formation," Steucke said.

South of Fairbanks, Terauchi turned the plane in a complete circle to see if the lights would follow. "That was pretty
clever," Steucke said. "It allowed him to eliminate any natural phenomenon which would have stayed stationary."

The lights stayed with the cargo jet, and moved to its left side, the pilot told the FAA. Friday, he told investigators that there were no magnetic disturbances noted on the plane and no changes in its instruments or navigation systems, Stuecke said.

The FAA in Anchorage and the military in Alaska use the same long-range radar in Fairbanks, Steucke said. The FAA also uses sophisticated computer systems to screen clutter before it reaches radar screens, he said.

The military in Alaska does not use such computers, he said. "The military decided about a minute into this exercise that what it was seeing was clutter," he said. The Air Force did not send up an interceptor and is not investigating the matter, Steucke said.

At the FAA center in Anchorage, controllers following the flight noted occasional second blips, or "split targets," on the screennear Flight 1628, Steucke said.

"That happens when the transponder aboard the aircraft is not electronically in sync with radar bouncing off the plane," he said. "We get an intermittent blip every three sweeps of the radar screen. It's not unusual. It has happened and it does happen.

"It was what I call coincidence that the split image happened to fall at the right distance and the same side of the aircraft that the object was reported by the pilot."

The lights vanished, heading east, when the JAL jet was about 80 miles north of Anchorage, Steucke said. The FAA has ruled out alcohol or drugs as a factor in the sightings, Steucke said. "They were rational, professional pilots.
I'd describe them as very sincere, very intense," Steucke said.

"I've been here 12 years, I've been with the FAA three, and I've talked to people who've been here seven or eight years and they don't recall anything like this," he said.

The FAA started investigating the report after the sighting, he said, but not as a top priority. "Basically, the public interest heightened the interest level. I wasn't hiding it, but I wasn't standing on a rooftop announcing it," he said.

Link

We're not talking about "many UFO reports", we're talking about the one specific to the radar data. Exactly what maneuvers did it perform that can not be performed by plasma?



Too bad none of them saw the object.



And what do plasma radar returns look like in comparison to aircraft radar returns?

Sky keeps dancing around....evading the hard questions. Pathetic.