ok some of these are amazing

im sure the die hard skeptics will easily explain it away in their minds, and fool themselves into believing it was just swamp gas or some crap

right now a show atarted on the History Channel about airplane blackbox UFO reports and pilot to tower communications

one of the most absurd was when a pilot saw an object moving faster then a plane could possibly move and the military said it was a weather balloon

these are all very experinced pilots that know what a weather balloon is, and any other typical air traffic for that matter

when they say they see an object moving faster then anything we can fly id say they know what they are talking about

now the show is talking about the Astronauts report of seeing a "bogey" up there with them

but im sure it was ice crystals



edit

ok they just showed video of STS-114

explain to me please for the love of God how that isnt a UFO

what else could it be ?

it caught up the the shuttle while in flight, then made manuvres we couldnt make, then flew off in the opposite direction

i would LOVE to hear the explaination for that

Yeah I too just finished watching that. Kinda creeped me out when I saw the film from STS-114. Very interesting program

These pilot cases are cery important, esp when pilots, passengers and radar are all involved, then it makes the case more credible.




Many astronauts have been told to keep quiet when they see ufos in space.


This is very interesting. I have never seen this before, so i want to find out more about it. It could be close to the camera, which means it could be ice particles or debri. If its far away from the camera, and considering that it changes direction, then i would have to say that its an intelligent contolled object.

during the show they stated the object was a good distance from the camera, i believe they said it was a mile away

also i would rule out debris as they said at the time the Shuttle was traveling at like 18,000 MPH (thats what i recall anyway, does that speed make sense ?).........however fast it was going, it was moving forward.......so whatever the object was it caught up to the Shuttle and maintained speed before shooting off in the other direction

I'm very interested in this. What what the programe called again?

I was going to bring out the History Channel's program but you beat me to it.

I was very DELIGHTED that new video and audio were revealed, especially the audio where "ALIEN spacecraft" was picked up in regards to a UFO in communications from one of the astronauts and another astronaut report of a UFO nearby before NASA cut them off and the news broadcast by Walter Cronkite of yet another UFO enounter near New Zealand. I was aware of the America West UFO incident and was DELIGHTED when it was revealed that in addition to the UFO sighting by the airliner's aircrew, the sighting was also confirmed by NORAD and by an F-117 stealth fighter pilot flying in the area.

Amazingly, I was just talking about aircraft "Black Boxes" on the other thread earlier today in regards to UFO visual corroborations and look what the History Channel presented.

Good show, History Channel!!

seems like it was a really good show, what was it called?

HISTORY CHANNEL
UFO Files: Black Box UFO Secrets.

"Reveals for the first time the cockpit and control tower audio recordings of pilot and astronaut confrontations and sightings of unidentified flying objects high in our skies. From a detailed account of one of the very the first reported pilot case, the Arnold case in 1947, to recent recordings over New England and Texas, to NASA recordings and video from 2005, this special features interviews with pilots, witness and experts, including UCLA's Joseph Nagy, actor Ed Asner, and pilot/UFO researcher Don Berliner."


These are two cases covered in addition to the others.

America West UFO

UFO confirmed by NORAD, America West aircrew and pilot of the F-117 stealth fighter.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case225.htm


Japan Airlines Flt 1628

In addition to that encounter in 1986, an Air Force KC-135 encountered possibly the same gigantic UFO over Alaska in January 1987. Later that month, another airliner encountered the UFO over Alaska as well.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/JALalaska.htm

Amazing how that UFO suddenly reversed its course after catching up to the space shuttle. It would have had to be traveling much faster than 18000 mph considering how fast it caught up to the shuttle.

A couple of very interesting reports. I will have to try and catch that show. thanks!

I was just thinking (unusual in it's self) that the UFO'S sighted by the planes in the 1995-1997 may have been some of the X-33 thou x-38 test craft that NASA was working on at the time. To test the odd aerodynamics I know they shot a couple in to Near Earth Orbit , then brought them down by remote control. The fast reentry speed would account for the "Bright Light" on the front and Weird color exhaust. Heat Plasma , the same as whats on the Shuttle going up and back from space. And the regular Military would either not know of these flights or could not say because of Security concerns.

Hey , It's a guess !

I hear what your saying ROGER, and It makes a lot more sence, atleast than the believers "the aliens are swarming the planet in their big, small, invisible, slow, faster than the eye spaceships but its covered up by the military/government" nonsense.

very well could be. Im more interested in the other object that was sighted in space. That seems very interesting. I really want to watch the show!!!

seems a very plausible explaination for atleast some of the things sighted



*sense



yeah those commercial pilots are idiots

the Japan pilot that said it was about 300 feet across and looked like a walnut must have been on crack

ya know, i might would settle for the experimental craft theory but some of the facts dont point to that

one of the biggest is how close these craft fly to the airplanes

there is no way in hell the gov. is going to fly an experimental craft that close to a civilian airplane

any slight pilot error on either side and it would spell disaster

mmmh Alien spacecraft.. I wonder what they could've meant by alien spacecraft?

Still waiting to see it!!!!!!!

one of the oddest things was the story about the pilots that saw a UFO and thier sighting was confirmed on an audio tape received from NORAD

that was amazing NORAD was tracking the same object and had no idea what it was

then at a later date, they got a letter from NORAD stating that the incident in question never happened



and how about the Astronaut said she saw a UFO on the open channel.....right after that you could see she was still talking on the video, but there was no audio........NASA had switched from the open radio channel to the encrypted channel provided by the DOD

i would imagine she got one hell of an arse chewing for her statement made on the open channel

As I've stated before and also noted in last months edition of Air Force Magzine, that is NOT the way we conduct secret aircraft operations and the ariticle is detailed as to how the Air Force hides its secret aircraft even from those who possess top secret clearances on secret airbases. You can have a top secret clearance, but if you don't have the proper clearance for the right projects, you are told to go inside a windowless building until that secret aircraft is brought out of its hangar and flown away from visual view and only then are you allowed to exit the building and yet skeptics seem to think that the military flies such secret aircraft next to scheduled airliners for fun. Hmmmmm!

And, to underline my point and as I have asserted before, the UFO that flew near those airliners violated several FAA regulations outright and that area is not considered testing grounds for our "Black" aircraft anyway, hence no secret aircraft involved and to further add, the military would never conduct an operation with any "Black" aircraft in such a reckless manner. The fact that radar never tracked the UFOs to any military base or airport is just the another hint that no secret aircraft was involved in any of those UFO incidents presented.

Actual audio tapes of the UFO incidents now released for the first time of the UFO encounters they denied. Just amazing and it just goes to show that the government UFO cover-up campaign is alive and well.

Astronauts and cosmonauts for years have been saying they encountered UFOs in space and it is no longer a secret that NORAD has been tracking UFOs coming in from deep space as well. The following might give a little insight as to what is going on behind closed doors.

Dr. Edgar Mitchell
Astronaut

"As technical and scientific observers, astronauts have not always been willing to become involved in the debate of UFO's as extraterrestrial visitors. Others have waited until after retirement . One remarkable admission comes from former Apollo astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell. He claims to have talked to people at the highest level. These sources range from employees in control towers and radar, as well as high officials in military intelligence; people whose jobs actively involved the investigation of the UFO phenomenon. "

Alien co-operation

"According to Mitchell: "These people are ready to tell their story....Their story is that much of the ET lore is true.....that much of the core evidence is true". Mitchell also maintains that disclosures from the highest sources admit to extraterrestrial technology having being adopted in the latest aeronautical developments. In other words the military have actively benefited from technology revealed to them by aliens."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>

Admiral Bobby Inman

Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, once said that we were back-engineering alien technology and that sent ripples thoughout the aviation community and that placed a lot of pressure on Admiral Inman to clarify his statement. In a telephone interview, which was released on TV, he denied that he meant "alien technology" and people accepted his clarification.

S.A.I.C. of California, has been reportedly working on back-engineered systems and I've heard they have been working on some remarkable stuff. After his retirement, Admiral Inman took up a position at, you guessed it, S.A.I.C.

Perhaps, I should have a look at what was identified by USAF Colonel Steve Wilson as S.A.I.C., the company which has been reported researching anti-gravity engines for US "copycat UFO's".

these were taken out the window of a 747 ...did the pilot see them?..

They look like reflections of lights inside of the plane.

Hazard!

Secret aircraft? Invisible spaceships??

Apparently, the UFOs weren't invisible to the flight crews of that Air Force KC-135 tanker and the commercial airliners whose crews also made their reports nor were the UFOs invisible to the radar systems of the Air Force and of the FAA either. After all, the ground-based and airborne radar systems also confirmed the ***HIGHLY*** visible UFOs as well. Check it out!

http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/Callahansummary.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>

PILOT DESCRIBES 'UNBELIEVABLE' UFO ENCOUNTER
United Press International (UPI), December 31, 1986

Summary: "It was unbelievable." The words belonged to Kenju Terauchi, a Japan Air Lines pilot who was trying to describe an inflight incident that thus far has defied explanation. The veteran pilot says there unidentified flying objects - two small ones and one twice the size of an aircraft carrier - trailed his JAL cargo jet for 400 miles across the Arctic skies."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <^>


Yes indeed, Hazard, I am very sure that Elmendorf AFB has a hangar large enough to hide a secret aircraft the size of two aircraft carriers inside and to fly it out without being seen by military personnel.

What it is, is that debunker ridicule just won't get it since these UFO case files are backed by a multitude of evidence that corroborate one another and its that simple, can't make it any clearer than that.

So, there arent any real skeptics here intelligent enough to debunk this ?

or have you all accepted the UFO's in the sky seen by pilots, and maybe youre just too flabberghasted by the mountain of evidence to reply ?

The debunkers go for the easy meat daddy...too many pilots who are credible witnesses have seen UFO's...researching into this will blow there already preconceived notions...UFO's dont exist

*bolding is mine





It's not spelled "explaination", it's spelled "explanation".

But this discussion isn't really about spelling, is it?

Personally, I have yet to see the program in question, so I can't really comment. However, of course there are UFOs, of course pilots (and many other people...myself included) have seen UFOs. The pertinent question is: Is there any proof that UFOs are ET space craft (at the exclusion of any and all possible other explanations)? Now, perhaps this program contained some evidence that could serve as irrefutable evidence to prove that the UFOs=ET space craft hypothesis is unfalsifiable and scientifically sound. I will try and watch the program at the next air time on Sun Nov 19th.

again a debunker comes to the party empty handed

maybe next time you will show up with something real to offer

these pilots and astronauts and NORAD claimed to see things they couldnt explain, with all of their training you would think they would know what they are talking about

they saw "aircraft" do things that even our scientists cant explain, so i suppose to you that means it cant be done

typical response actually........if we cant do it, it cant be done

300 years ago no one would really believe flight was possible let alone space travel to the moon.........and yet we have

how dare skeptics and scientist decide what a civilization could do with even 300 years advancement on us

I'm not a debunker, I'm an empiricist.



Gee, I helped you with your spelling, that's *real*. I haven't seen the show because I was in a meeting at the time it aired here. I will try to see it at it's next airing.



I'm sure that these folks saw something, but is it an absolute certainty that what they were seeing was alien space craft?



Who said this? If advanced aliens are behind the UFO phenomena, I'd suspect they can do all sorts of things we can't.



Well, not everyone thinks we went to the moon, but that's for another thread. I see your point, and concede that it's quite valid



Which scientists said this? No one can logically determine what an alien civilization might have knowledge of, or be capable of doing.

The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
a. Employment of empirical methods, as in science.

www.dictionary.com

now i find it hard to believe you are a true and total empiricist

does that mean if someone tells you they love you it is impossible for you to believe them ?.........i am really new to this concept so i am asking

seems to me the idea of love falls outside of the empirical spectrum ( i clarify, someones love for you....as i suppose you can somehow sense your love for another)



here i think we should rely on Occam's razor


to me aliens is the simplest solution

it is much easier to swallow then the idea that our scientists have developed such craft behind closed doors that manuvers in such a manner all "experts i have ever heard say the human body could not withstand it.......and we cant yet make it work even by remote control


thats wasnt exactly directed at you, though it does seems to be the general response from much of the scientific community


thank you. much appreciated


well ok, now it is i that concedes your point

they dont actually say a civilization will not be able to do such things 300 years more advanced then ours

they just seem to dismiss the idea that such a civilization could exist all together all together





im sorry, actually, now that i think about it they may say it

i know ive heard "experts" state things like......'there could be life on another planet near another star, but that life could never make it to this planet'

and other absurd statements

Just a quick comment with respect to the Callahan report - short excerpt:



To the best of my knowledge, the CIA has no power domestically and that should have been handed over to the FBI. If the CIA really was behind this, the last they would have wanted was to attract attention to themselves and would have either used the FBI, or more sinister, posed as FBI. Not as CIA in a place where they most certainly shouldn't be and has no jurisdiction.

It's just such information that takes all credibility away. But on the other hand, if I am wrong and the CIA indeed would have jurisdiction, please do let me know and I will retract the above.

Best,
Badeskov

I'm an empiricist in a scientific sense, not so much a philosophical sense. Scientific empiricism is the methodology of observation and experimentation used in the natural sciences.



No, I don't apply this standard to my emotions (at least not all of them!).




Really? Or do they say that we have no idea (at this time) how intelligent beings might be able to cross the vast distances between stars.

The CIA was in fact, very much involved. The CIA was named in a lawsuit in 1978. Not long afterwards, documents on the 1976 Iranian UFO encounter were released.

1976 Iranian UFO Incident

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00017.pdf



The Robertson Panel

“There is no more pivotal event in the CIA’s involvement with UFOs, perhaps in the U.S. government’s interest in UFOs, than the Robertson Panel of January 1953. Haines devotes just over a page to this critical study, which provides him no room for nuance or much more than a bare reciting of the facts.”

“In his review of CIA documents he demonstrates the very high-level CIA interest in UFOs engendered by the UFO flap in the summer of 1952 and, especially, the sightings over Washington, D.C. A special study group was formed within OSI to review the UFO situation. Director Walter Bedell Smith "wanted to know whether or not the Air Force investigation of flying saucers was sufficiently objective," and he wondered "what use could be made of the UFO phenomenon in connection with US psychological warfare efforts."

“Memos and meetings were frequent in late 1952 as the CIA considered what should be done about the UFO problem. Haines’s research shows that the Robertson Panel’s concerns about the clogging of communication channels and the use of UFOs to disrupt U.S. air defenses were taken straight from CIA concerns expressed in internal memos during the summer of 1952. In other words, the Robertson Panel, despite the eminence of the scientists involved, appears to have been carefully orchestrated by the CIA to come to the conclusions it did, which included debunking UFOs with the help of the Air Force Project Blue Book.”


Links For The CIA And UFOs
UFOs and the Central Intelligence Agency

http://www.project1947.com/ciaufo/ciagsw.html#art

Passenger Plane Sightings
Space 2001

Summary: Statistics show that across the world UFO sightings occur at a rate of around one every two or three minutes. Not surprising then that pilots of commercial airliners should be high on the list of people to have most witnessed them.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1779.htm



Interference with Aircraft Equipment (Sturrock Panel Report)

Summary: Richard Haines presented a summary of his extensive research into pilot-UFO-sighting reports. He now has a catalog of over 3,000 pilot reports, of which approximately 4% involve transient electromagnetic effects allegedly associated with the presence of strange objects. Another catalog of aircraft-UFO-encounter cases (referred to by Velasco in Section 5) is being compiled by Weinstein (1997) as a GEPAN/SEPRA project; this catalog currently contains several hundred aircraft-UFO-encounter cases.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc622.htm

huh??
wheres the video?

You can catch the History Channel's program on Sunday. Here is the schedule.

UFO Files: Black Box UFO Secrets

Early UFO Aerial Reports

1916: January 31, 2045 hours, local, Near Rochford, England
Flight Sub Lieutenant J. E. Morgan. Flying at 5000 feet, he saw a row of lights like lighted windows on a railway carriage with the blinds drawn. Thinking he had encountered a German Zeppelin, he fired his Webley Scott pistol. The lights rose and rapidly disappeared.

(This is the first sighting from an aircraft and the first firing on UFO from an aircraft.)

Source: THE GERMAN AIR RAIDS ON ENGLAND, 1914-1918,
by Capt. Joseph Morris (London 1925), page 81
(Credit: Dr. Thomas E. Bullard)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>

1926: # January, 1300 hours, local, Between Wichita, Kansas and Colorado
Springs, Colorado.

Bert Anacosta, stunt pilot, saw six "flying manhole covers."

NOTE: For some reason, the description of "flying manhole covers" just don't have the same ring as "flying saucers."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>

1933: Sussex, England.
On July 5th 1933, during a night cross country training flight over Sussex, England a flight of four Hawker Fury I biplane fighters was broken up by a "huge" circular light that "dropped down from above their formation, into its very centre." RAF Capt. Nigel Tompkins was forced to land after his engine quit. Lt. Bruce H. Thomas suffered burns to his face and hands after passing close to the light while trying to land his aircraft after his engine quit...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>

1937: January, Van Buren, Missouri
A local pilot chased a flying disk. The pilot would later become a state government official.


NOTE: Contrary to popular belief, UFO aerial encounters with saucer-shaped UFOs didn't begin in 1947 with Kenneth Arnold's sighting, but years earlier.

you can do a google search; on drones or ufos over Iran and pakistan and find alot of ufo's...

What goes on in the skies regarding UFOs (UAPs) and Commercial Aircraft that is not normally reported by the media.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>


Report: Are UFOs an Air Safety Hazard?
Space.com

"While en route to Boston the pilots of a TWA flight noticed a circular group of twinkling lights slightly below their altitude. Whatever it was, they quickly realized, the "thing" was "huge," "moving in a hurry," and "about to cross in front of, or about to collide with us." To avoid a disaster, the captain "slammed on some power, hauled the nose up, and prayed we'd go over the top of the thing." They did.

"This hair-raising incident, which occurred on December 22, 1977, and others like it, also raises a good question: Do UFOs pose a hazard to aviation safety in America today? Yes, they can, is the answer according to a recently published study entitled "Aviation Safety in America -- A Previously Neglected Factor," which refers to UFOs as Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)."

"The author, Richard Haines, is a senior aerospace scientist and a member of the International Society for Air Safety Investigators, which assists the NTSB in accident investigations. The study was supported by a grant from the International Space Science Organization and is the first technical report on the subject of air safety and unidentified aerial phenomena produced by a newly formed organization called NARCAP."

"In a March 12, 1977 case, for example, a United Airlines flight from San Francisco experienced a uncommanded heading change to the left. When the puzzled crew looked to the left they saw an perfectly round, extremely bright white light as big or bigger than a DC-10 at about their own altitude. Noticing that their three compasses "were all reading different headings," the flight officer uncoupled the autopilot as the object kept pace with them for about 4 or 5 minutes before finally picking up speed and disappearing."

"The pilot never filed an official report on the incident. In fact, fear of ridicule or worse prevents most pilots from reporting such encounters; some have even been told not to report their sighting publicly. Haines calls this "the law of diminishing reports," and estimates that "for every pilot who is brave enough to come forward with a case of something he can't identify, there are probably 30 to 40 who don't."

More

UFOs and Aviation Safety

Ok, last night I was able to catch this episode of The UFO Files (on The History Channel).

Here are my observations: Pilots are definitely seeing something, UFOs without a doubt exist. Some of these things show up on radar, some do not. UFOs appear in a variety of shapes and sizes, not just disc shaped. Some UFOs are very large. Most seem to have a luminous metallic quality of varying colors, often with strobing lights. UFOs move at incredible speeds, and engage in maneuvers impossible for known aircraft. UFOs seem to be able to disappear in the blink of an eye.

All this leads me to conclude that something is indeed being seen. However, none of this leads me to conclude that the explanation has to be alien craft at the exclusion of any other explanation. This is especially clear when we consider the plasmoid explanation brought up by badeskov. But, the plasmoid explanation is not definitive either, some UFOs simply don't fit into the criteria for this explanation either! Example, some of the large flying triangles seen do not appear to be plasma like IMO.

My final conclusion: UFOs are still an unexplained mystery. UFOs could be alien space craft, but they could be some type of unknown phenomena as well.

I have always asserted that some UFOs are either those of ET or ours.



The exotic maneuvers alone exclude conventional aircraft, even secret aircraft, and the Air Force concurred with that assessment back in 1952.



Actually, the UFOs don’t disappear in the way that people think. For instance, you see an aircraft in the distance that is flying away from you and you watch it until it disappears from view. Let’s call the point where you first spotted the aircraft, point “A” and the point where you lost visual contact, point “B.” A UFO at point “A” can reach point “B” in less than a second and may have looked like it disappeared but in reality, didn’t. Such phenomenal velocities have been recorded on radar time after time after time. There were cases where the UFO was lost from view due to the distance factor but was still in radar contact. .



I know of no other pilots nor meteorologist who are aware of atmospheric phenomena that can result in a UFO that is 100 meters and larger that is saucer-shaped or triangular-shaped with features that are clearly artificial, such as rotating multi-colored strobe lights, portholes and even landing gears. Yes, landing gears of UFOs that were seen rising from a landing site where physical evidence was left behind and noted..

I don't re-call any of the pilots (featured on the UFO Files episode) saying that they could see artificial features such as portholes and landing gear. I notice that Cinders has provided a link to this episode, perhaps someone just now watching it could pay attention for these comments? I don't remember hearing anything like that.

I am watching it again right now But I agree, I do not recall any features like that mentioned either.

Actually, my first impression was equal to yours: that some objects are flying around, but we simply don't know what they are, ET or naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena. And, admittedly, after seeing it the second time over I find it shows some inconsistencies. But I am taking notes and will come back with my opinion.

Best,
Badeskov

I was referring to UFO reports in general. There are many UFO reports of UFOs with portholes, windows, specific shapes, and other features that are clearly defined as artificial. Here are a few of the thousands of such UFO reports.

DC-3 Texas UFO Encounter1948

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/u-f-o-sigh...ery-alabama.htm


Veteran Pilot Encounters UFO With Portholes

http://www.fufor.com/case780101.htm


Airline Crew Reports Cigar With Pulsing Lights

http://www.fufor.com/case950525.htm


Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields / Indian River

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case102.htm


Air Force Bomber Encounter With Discs

http://www.fufor.com/case520101.htm


Coast Guard Encounter With Giant Ellipse

http://www.fufor.com/case880304.htm

This incident was noted in the Air Force Academy's Science Book

F-86/UFO Enounter

"About ten o'clock in the morning, one day a few weeks before, a radar near the base had picked up an unidentified target. It was an odd target in that it came in very fast - about 700 miles per hour - and then slowed down to about 100 miles per hour. The radar showed that it was located northeast of the airfield, over a sparsely settled area. Unfortunately the radar station didn't have any height finding equipment. The operators knew the direction of the target and its distance from the station but they didn't know its altitude. They reported the target, and two F-86's were scrambled."

"The radar picked up the F-86's soon after they were airborne, and had begun to direct them into the target when the target started to fade on the radarscope. At the time several of the operators thought that this fade was caused by the target's losing altitude rapidly and getting below the radar's beam. Some of the other operators thought that it was a high flying target and that it was fading just because it was so high. In the debate which followed, the proponents of the high flying theory won out, and the F-86's were told to go up to 40,000 feet. But before the aircraft could get to that altitude, the target had been completely lost on the radarscope. The F-86's continued to search the area at 40,000 feet, but could see nothing. After a few minutes the aircraft ground controller called the F-86's and told one to come down to 20,000 feet, the other to 5,000 feet, and continue the search, The two jets made a quick letdown, with one pilot stopping at 20,000 feet and the other heading for the deck."

"The second pilot, who was going down to 5,000 feet, was just beginning to pull out when he noticed a flash below and ahead of him. He flattened out his dive a little and headed toward the spot where he had seen the light. As he closed on the spot he suddenly noticed what he first thought was a weather balloon. A few seconds later be realized that it couldn't be a balloon because it was staying ahead of him. Quite an achievement for a balloon, since he had built up a lot of speed in his dive and now was flying almost straight and level at 3,000 feet and was traveling "at the Mach." Again the pilot pushed the nose of the F-86 down and started after the object. He closed fairly fast, until he came to within an estimated 1,000 yards. Now he could get a good look at the object. Although it had looked like a balloon from above, a closer view showed that it was definitely round and flat saucer shaped. The pilot described it as being "like a doughnut without a hole."

"As his rate of closure began to drop off, the pilot knew that the object was picking up speed. But he pulled in behind it and started to follow. Now he was right on the deck. About this time the pilot began to get a little worried. What should he do? He tried to call his buddy, who was flying above him somewhere in the area at 20,000 feet. He called two or three times but could get no answer. Next he tried to call the ground controller but he was too low for his radio to carry that far. Once more he tried his buddy at 20,000 feet, but again no luck. By now he had been following the object for about two minutes and during this time had closed the gap between them to approximately 500 yards. But this was only momentary. Suddenly the object began to pull away, slowly at first, then faster. The pilot, realizing that he couldn't catch it, wondered what to do next. When the object traveled out about 1,000 yards, the pilot suddenly made up his mind - he did the only thing that he could do to stop the UFO. It was like a David about to do battle with a Goliath, but he had to take a chance. Quickly charging his guns, he started shooting."

"A moment later the object pulled up into a climb and in a few seconds it was gone. The pilot climbed to 10,000 feet, called the other F-86, and now was able to contact his buddy. They joined up and went back to their base.

QUESTION: Was that 'flying saucer' as described by the pilot of that F-86, ours or theirs?

Chinese Air Force Pilot Plays Chase with UFO
Agence France Presse, Nov. 5, 1998

Summary: Newspaper story of the Chinese air force having a prolonged up-close encounter with a UFO, which the pilot described as an aerial cat-and-mouse game played between the object and a jet fighter ordered to intercept it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <^>

SHANGHAI, Nov. 05, 1998 -- (Agence France Presse) The air force had a prolonged up-close encounter with a UFO last month that one fighter pilot described as "just like ones in foreign movies," a government-controlled newspaper reported Thursday.

A Hebei Daily report -- carried in the news digest Baokan Wenzhai -- gave a detailed pilot's account of an aerial cat-and-mouse game played between the object and a jet fighter ordered to intercept it.

At least 140 people on the ground also saw the object, it said.

An editor with the Hebei Daily said the events took place on Oct. 19 and were still being investigated by local government departments.

The newspaper's report and military sources quoted show an openness that contrast sharply with Washington's notorious secrecy on the topic of unidentified flying objects (UFOs).

It said the encounter began when four different radar stations in northern Hebei province picked up an unknown moving target in airspace directly above a military flight training base near Changzhou city.

To observers at the base, the UFO first appeared like "a small star," and then grew larger and larger, perhaps as it descended to a lower altitude, the report said.

They described an object with a mushroom-shaped dome on top and a flat bottom covered with bright, continually rotating lights.

A base commander surnamed Li reported to his superiors, who ordered a Jianjiao-6 armed interceptor airborne to pursue the object once checks showed no other civilian or military aircraft in the area.

The two pilots aboard said the object closely resembled depictions they had seen in foreign science fiction films.

When they got within 4,000 meters (13,200 feet) of the UFO over Qing county, it abruptly shot upward, easily evading subsequent attempts to get closer.

It appeared to be toying with the fighter by repeatedly outdistancing it and then reappearing just above it, the pilots said.

The report said a request for permission to fire on the UFO with an onboard cannon was denied by ground command at one point.

Great posts skyeagle409 , as always.

Thank you!

The public is unaware of the magnitude between military aircraft and UFO encounters, and not just in this country but in countries around the world. Check out the distribution list on this report regarding the UFO encounters over Peru.

What the government doesn't like to report to the media.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <^>


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Message Center RECEIVED

JUN - 3 1980
VZOZCMLT565 7YUW
MULT DIA RT3 - 2B
ACTION 18134
DIA:
DISTR
IADB(01) J5(02) JE:NMCC NIDS SECDEF(07) SECDEF: USDP(15)
ATSD:AE(01) ASD:PA&E(01) ::DIA(20) NMIC
- CMC CC WASHINGTON DC
- CSAF WASHINGTON DC
- CNO WASHINGTON DC
- CSA WASHINGTON DC
- CIA WASHINGTON DC
- SFCSTATE WASHINGTON DC
- NSA WASH DC
FILE
(047)

TRANSIT/1542115/1542207/0001525941542204
DE RUESLMA #4888 1542115
7NY CCCCC
R 0220527 JUN 80
FM USDAD LIMA PERU
TO RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
INFO RULPALJ/USCINCSO QUARRY HTS PN
RULPAFA/USAFSO HOWARD AFB PN
BT

SUBJ: IR 6 876 0146 80 (U)
THIS IS AN INFO REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVAL INTEL
1. (U) CTRY: PERU (PE)
2. TITLE (U) UFO SIGHTED IN PERU (U)
3. (U) DATE OF INFO: 800510
4. (U) ORIG: USDAD AIR LIMA PERU
5. (U) REQ REFS: Z-D13-PE030
6. (U) SOURCE: 6 876 0138. OFFICER IN THE PERUVIAN AIR FORCE
WHO OBSERVED THE EVENT AND IS IN A POSITION TO BE PARTY
TO CONVERSATION CONCERNING THE EVENT. SOURCE HAS REPORTED
RELIABLY IN THE PAST.

7. SUMMARY: SOURCE REPORTED THAT A UFO WAS SPOTTED
ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS NEAR PERUVIAN AIR FORCE (FAP) BASE
IN SOUTHERN PERU. THE FAP TRIED TO INTERCEPT AND DESTRY THE
UFO, BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Message Center

PAGE 2
18134
8A. DETAILS: SOURCE TOLD RO ABOUT THE SPOTTING OF AN
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT IN THE VICINITY OF MARIANO MELGAR AIR
BASE, LA JOYA, PERU (168058, 0715306W). SOURCE STATED THAT THE
VEHICLE WAS SPOTTED ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE FIRST WAS
DURING THE MORNING HOURS OF 9 MAY 80, AND THE SECOND DURING
THE EARLY EVENING HOURS OF 10 MAY 80.

SOURCE STATED THAT ON 9 MAY, WHILE A GROUP OF FAP
OFFICERS WERE IN FORMATION AT MARIANO MALGAR, THEY SPOTTED A
UFO THAT WAS ROUND IN SHAPE, HOVERING NEAR THE AIRFIELD. THE
AIR COMMANDER SCRAMBLED AN SU-22 AIRCRAFT TO MAKE AN
INTERCEPT. THE PILOT, ACCORDING TO A THIRD PARTY, INTERCEPTED
THE VEHICLE AND FIRED UPON IT AT VERY CLOSE RANGE WITHOUT
CAUSING ANY APPARENT DAMAGE. THE PILOT TRIED TO MAKE A
SECOND PASS ON THE VEHICLE, BUT THE UFO OUT-RAN THE SU-22.

THE SECOND SIGHTING WAS SURING HOURS OF DARKNESS.
THE VEHICLE WAS LIGHTED. AGAIN AN SU-22 WAS SCRAMBLED, BUT THE
VEHICLE OUT-RAN THE AIRCRAFT.

8B. ORIG CMTS: RO HAS HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
SIGHTING FROM OTHER SOURCES. APPARENTLY SOME VEHICLE WAS
SPOTTED, BUT ITS ORIGIN REMAINS UNKNOWN.

9. (U) PROJ NO: N/A
10. (U) COLL MGMT CODES: AB
11. (U) SPEC INST: NONE. DIRC: NO.
12. (U) PREP BY: NORMAN h. RUNGE, COL. AIRA
13. (U) APP BY: VAUGHN E. WILSON, CAPT, DATT, ALUSNA
14. (U) REQ EVAL: NO REL TO: NONE
15. (U) ENCL: N/A
16. (U) DIST BY ORIG: N/A

BT
#4888
ANNOTES
JAL 117
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <^>

The Haneda AFB R/V Incident
Japan, August 5, 1952


“Three minutes after midnight an F-94 scrambled from nearby Johnson AFB came into the area. The ground controller sent the F-94 south of Yokohama, up Tokyo Bay, and brought him in "behind" the UFO. The second that the ground controller had the F-94 pilot lined up and told him that he was in line for a radar run, the radar operator in the rear seat of the F-94 called out that he had a lock-on. His target was at 6,000 yards, 10 degrees to the right and 10 degrees below the F-94. The lock-on was held for ninety seconds as the ground controller watched both the UFO and the F-94 make a turn and come toward the ground radar site. Just as the target entered the "ground clutter" - the permanent and solid target near the radar station caused by the radar beam's striking the ground - the lock-on was broken.”

“The target seemed to pull away swiftly from the jet interceptor. At almost this exact instant the tower operators reported that they had lost visual contact with the UFO. The tower called the F-94 and asked if they had seen anything visually during the chase - they hadn't. The F-94 crew stayed in the area ten or fifteen more minutes but couldn't see anything or pick up any more targets on their radar.”

“Soon after the F-94 left the area, both the ground radar and the tower operators picked up the UFO again. In about two minutes radar called the tower to say that their target had just "broken into three pieces" and that the three "pieces," spaced about a quarter of a mile apart, were leaving the area, going northeast. Seconds later tower operators lost sight of the light. The FEAF intelligence officers had checked every possible angle but they could offer nothing to account for the sighting.”

“There were lots of opinions, weather targets for example, but once again the chances of a weather target's being in exactly the same direction as a bright star and having the star appear to move with the false radar target aren't too likely - to say the least. And then the same type of thing had happened twice before inside of a month's time, once in California and once in Michigan.”


More on that encounter.

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/hanedarep.htm