UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[FlexGunship]

OH, I ALMOST FORGOT! I GOT MY BOOK LAST NIGHT!

Heh, I almost totally forgot that was what this thread was about. I haven't read much into it, but it plays out like most other UFO books, but leans heavily on the "conspiratorial" nature of things. Twice now, when a high ranking military officer ordered a subordinate to "knock it off" the author plays it out like a conspiracy to keep the guy quiet.

I'm reserving judgement until I finish.

 

[mugaliens]

True, but I know of two fatalities in my environment due to that problem, so I was a bit biased to add it.

I feel for you. I've lost two friends in ejection seat malfunctions, and three more in flight training accidents. It's always been difficult. One was my Sunday school teacher; the other was my squadron commander. The other three were my friends, one of whom I signed up with.

Yes, it's hard. I'd love to be able to say, "life goes on," but that's rather hard-***, and I'm not as apt to write them off as others.

Post QRA scramble checklist (especially for a life 'Alpha scramble'), after getting airborne within the two minutes, be sure to finish strap in, recheck this, that and that and seat - "armed..." - OOPS

Edit: And those guys were on an 'alpha scramble'

Really! Makes sense, though. Chances of something going that bad on T/O, even on a scramble, are slim. Try 12-sec interval MITO takeoff, though... eek! Couple of times we lost lift down to about 150 feet, below ejection altitude! Gulp and pray...

The first essence of the 'ejection button' is accuracy of reporting and a hue of inserting wrong suggestions. Could it be that there more problems with that?

Ahem, I think it's someone who made up a bunch of horsehockey.

The second essence is that the failure of the ejection could have been pilot error, this would indicate that this particular pilot likely made an error in that stress situation in the first place. Now can it be excluded that he made more errors?

Could be pilot error. We did have our checks, but I do recall one guy on post-flight looked up somberly, pointing at a safety pin he'd left in place. I clapped him on the shoulder and said something like, "Well, you made it this time - next time you'll be sure to pull the pin!"

You, at some point, the feeling for our lost brethren must subside. It'll never stop. But it might slow to a trickle so we can get on with our lives.

 

[Andre]

...Really! Makes sense, though. Chances of something going that bad on T/O, even on a scramble, are slim.

Well, you know how it goes on a scramble especially in the old days, "Kick the tyres, lite the fires, first airborne is lead, briefing on guard" In other words, it was a mess.

Combine that with the additional stress of highly disorienting night flying over a city where above you are lights and below you are lights. Now, the usual gravity pointing downwards as last resort for orientation, is highly modified by aircraft g-forces, generating middle ear desorientation.

You can take it from me (well not you, but anybody who'd not been there, not done that), that's by far the most challenging situation to be in as a fighter pilot, night air combat maneouvring, and it needs a very intense training, just to be able to generate some situational awareness about what is going on in the first place.

But what was their training status?

Now picture a total electrical failure, no instruments, no lights, cockpit completely dark, no artificial horizon, and up looks like down and no gravity senses to rely on, only desorientation. And yet they manage a 180 degrees turn and fly away. Wow.

Then try and do all the drills to get an AIM9 fired, chances are not exactly zero that the 'master arm switch' was still guarded, since you never touch that in a training situation and moreover, their have been discussions about that in the past, since the master arm switch was not lighted, because of the guard over it, you don't see it at night, which makes it a tad more likely to forget about it in stress.

So maybe it shows that I'm not really convinced about the accuracy of the debriefing and indeed, as suggested, it would not be the first time in any armed force that the general decided what has happened and take away any notion that there may be a military error in the loop.

Edit: to clarify, I have still no idea what happened and what was the nature of that object, but I do have reservations about the real actions and explanations thereof. I see enough reasons to believe that the total electrical failure, the failure to fire a missile and the ejection failure were not necesarily generated by that object.

 

[FlexGunship]

Well, as a discussion group, could we choose to discount the testimony of the pilot(s) in this case? Ivan Seeking, are you okay with that?

I'd still like to propose Venus as an explanation. I found a really neat website that deals almost exclusively in UFO reports that were later explained as Venus (http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Venusufo.htm ). Including cases where Naval officers were fooled and some where USAF pilots were trying to shoot it down.

Btw, it's very difficult to shoot down Venus, so this might account for some reports of the UFO being impervious to bullets. Furthermore, it's almost impossible to get a missile-lock on Venus, so this might explain why pilots have a hard time getting a lock on UFOs.

EDIT: keep in mind that there are only two options when you realize your air force made a huge mistake, you either (1) lie about it and cover it up; UFOs being a great scapegoat, or (2) you come out and say "Yes, we were easily fooled by Venus (or something else). It's perfectly reasonable for a national military force to lie about it. Otherwise, all we would need for an invasion is to wait for opposition of Venus.

 

[FlexGunship]

I thought I would also introduce into the discussion, some more interesting information. Has anyone noticed that there are very few reports of UFOs from astronomers? These are people who dedicate their lives to looking at the sky, and yet they see so few UFOs.

Here's a list of cases reported to the megalithic UFO Evidence website: (http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=Astronomer)

Only three?! One was from an amateur astronomer (i.e. regular Joe). Another one was Halley, who is a great observer, but the record is just so old, it's hard to corroborate anything. And lastly, the third one is from a guy that mistook Pluto for a planet, so I think it's safe to discount pretty much anything this guy says.

Lastly, Phil Plait has something to say on the subject: (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/01/why-astronomers-dont-report-ufos/).

 

[russ_watters]

Yes I have and that's one of the most compelling pices of evidence I know of. A quick browse of an astronomy forum shows that UFOs are just treated differently than in other contexts - by which I mean they are treated scientifically. And yes I do mean to imply that the so-called scientists of UFOs, "UFOologists", aren't.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes I have and that's one of the most compelling pices of evidence I know of. A quick browse of an astronomy forum shows that UFOs are just treated differently than in other contexts - by which I mean they are treated scientifically. And yes I do mean to imply that the so-called scientists of UFOs, "UFOologists", aren't.

WHAT?! Honest intellectual inquiry on the topic of UFOs?! Impossible. Pic or it didn't happen.

 

[mugaliens]

Now picture a total electrical failure, no instruments, no lights, cockpit completely dark, no artificial horizon, and up looks like down and no gravity senses to rely on, only desorientation. And yet they manage a 180 degrees turn and fly away. Wow.

...

So maybe it shows that I'm not really convinced about the accuracy of the debriefing and indeed, as suggested, it would not be the first time in any armed force that the general decided what has happened and take away any notion that there may be a military error in the loop.

I can certainly understand why. :) Yours is by far the more plausible explanation than a UFO somehow jammed an ejection seat.

Lastly, Phil Plait has something to say on the subject: (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/01/why-astronomers-dont-report-ufos/).

Even people with a lot of experience in aviation can encounter something new or different. After I'd been flying for about ten years, I looked up one evening (it was still dusk) and saw a string of lights just hanging there in the sky. They didn't appear to be moving, so I pulled over to observe them.

At first they didn't appear to be moving, but after watching them for several minutes I noticed they were a bit lower and to the right than they were before.

What was new and different is that this is the first time I'd had the opportunity to witness landing traffing in the the desert, where the visibility is good for hundreds of miles. I was about two miles north and a mile west of the airport, and the landing traffic was on a straight-in descent beginning about 100 miles out. The reason behind the clustering is simple - it was a regional airport, hub to but one airline, and airlines schedule arrivals and departures clustered around a a few key times each day. Thus, there's a way of aircraft landing before that time, and some ground loiter to allow passengers to get to their gates before taking off again. FAA rules require landing lights to be on in high-density traffic areas (Class B, C, and D areas around airports), but they also strongly suggest keeping them on throughout climbs and descents as a means of improving visibility. Most airlines are only too happy to do so, as any airline accident can spell the death of the airline as well, as their profit margins are quite slender as it is.

My point is that by then, between training and experience, I'd become an expert in the eyes of my superiors, to the point where I'd become an instructor and the assistant chief of academics at a well-known and prestigious military school at Nellis. Even so, I could not readily identify that string of lights! But neither did I jump to the conclusion they were ETs, either. I simply said, "Oh, here's some UFOs! Let's wait and see if I can turn them into IFOs" and simply observed them until it became clear as to what they were.

I can certainly understand how something like this might have remained an IFO is the lights had simply winked out, or if they'd descended below an intervening mountain ridge before they were positively identified as airliners in descent, visible via their landing lights, but way to distant to see their red and gree anticollision lights or their their position strobes, much less any outline ofthe planes themselves.

 

[russ_watters]

My point is that by then, between training and experience, I'd become an expert in the eyes of my superiors, to the point where I'd become an instructor and the assistant chief of academics at a well-known and prestigious military school at Nellis. Even so, I could not readily identify that string of lights! But neither did I jump to the conclusion they were ETs, either. I simply said, "Oh, here's some UFOs! Let's wait and see if I can turn them into IFOs" and simply observed them until it became clear as to what they were.

Pilots are often seen as "experts" by UFO advocates, but experts in what? It isn't like flight training includes courses in astronomy - pilots are not necessarily qualified to identify objects in the sky (does "in the sky" imply "in the atmosphere"...?). UFO reports from pilots are often chock-full of obvious false conclusions about what is being seen, just like reports from laypeople. They talk about distance, altitude, speed, size - all things they can't possibly know from what they see. These are conclusions/illusions generated in their heads, not observations. One thing astronomers are good at that others are not necessarily good at is understanding what they are actually seeing and overriding the brain's attempts to assign distance/altitude/speed/size to what they see. For example, when yous eee an object moving in the night sky, odds are good it is either a plane or a satellite. But while either may cover the same chunk of your field of view in the same time (and that time can be highly variable), the satellite is traveling 20x higher and faster.

If anything, I get the impression that the training pilots get conditions them to attempt to assess distance, altitude, speed, and size even without the information required to do that. That can make them worse even than laypeople when it comes to UFO sightings.

 

[Andre]

About observation and imagination and the mix thereof, Phil Plait links to a great story; make sure not to miss part 2.

The essential part:

As the objects passed overhead, the drama of the incident evaporated in an instant. Both of us made a positive identification and uttered the same word at the same time: “Pigeons!”

In an instant, four UFOs had been replaced by four pigeons flying overhead. So what was going on in our minds to turn pigeons into UFOs? This is a classic case of “Seeing What You Are Believing.” I tend to think of information from our senses as passing through filters —or being assembled onto templates by our brains — as we are trying to make sense of what is happening around us. This means that the same sensory information can be interpreted quite differently by our brains on different occasions, depending on what filters or templates may be in operation at any given moment. In the case of our pigeons, light from the street lamps below was being reflected back to us much better from their round white bellies than from the rest of the pigeon, making the bellies stand out much more against the black sky. Essentially, as soon as we saw the four round white objects, a UFO filter popped up in our brains. It is absolutely amazing how effectively the UFO filter filtered out the rest of the pigeons.

Credit John Woolley, Highly recommended to read the last paragraph.

Anyway, I concur about that filter, I have been looking at things using the wrong filters and definitely not recognizing what I saw. Once there was an impossible crazy brilliant glowing square sky scraper at the horizon. I did not realize what I saw until much later I learned about http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/phenomena/superior_mirage.html. It was the rising moon, partly covered by its inverted image, making it seem square. Something like this (scroll down half way to the pic with caption

A good example of a Superior Mirage, CD North drill rig.

Now, concerning the failed ejection of the Iranese pilot. During my career I never ever heard of any colleague in combat situations (Balkan, Afghanistan) who had any inclination to eject -upon facing direct imminent treaths from incoming missiles and such -rather than try an evading 'last ditch manoeuvre' (with a 100% success rate in reality). It's just not done.

The mere fact that the crew attempted to eject suggests that their decisions were likely based on subjective fear generated by the UFO filter or template, aggravated by desoriention, seeing lights everywhere, and a lack of situational awareness. Hence, I would not take this story for granted.

Another thing. The event took place after midnight. Venus is either visible around sunrise or sunset. Hence it could not have been Venus.

 

[eupeptic]

Concerning the misidentification of objects in the sky, last month during the Perseid meteor shower I was laying on my back on the roof and saw a dim red meteor strike travel from the top of my vision towards my feet. At about 30 degrees above the horizon at my feet it swerved in what appeared to be the shape of a half-circle that was perhaps a bit larger than the moon (from the beginning of the swerve to the end of it) before continuing on its original path and being obscured by a tree (at about 20 degrees above the horizon). The duration of the entire event was about 4 seconds.

I submitted a more detailed http://mufoncms.com/cgi-bin/manage_sighting_reports.pl?mode=view_long_desc&id=25133&rnd=64911284716699 to The Mutual UFO Network as it seems unlikely that what I saw was a meteor strike. (If you read that I mentioned a photo on Flickr that's similar in brightness and color to what I saw, but the person who took that photo [Steve Gifford] is no longer a member. I did keep a copy of the picture of interest along with another picture he took of another meteor strike for comparison.)


Then there are other oddities such as how the spiral light seen over Australia a few months (video) ago was rotating the opposite direction of the Falcon 9 rocket... (I'm not implying anything here, just saying that it's not wise to make assumptions and jump to conclusion.)


For those of you who know that you do not know everything that there is to know about the universe we live in and happen to be interested in learning more about what people are seeing in the sky I would encourage you to take a few minutes each day to read the latest reports submitted to MUFON (hover your mouse over the "Click here for UFO case files" at the top of their page and see the "Last 20 reports") as there are a number of interesting observations that occur and are reported to them each day - several hundred each month (although a number of those are just planes, satellites, bugs, balloons, etc., not all of them are).

 

[FlexGunship]

Another thing. The event took place after midnight. Venus is either visible around sunrise or sunset. Hence it could not have been Venus.

Sunrise is after midnight.

EDIT: Stupid comment.

 

[FlexGunship]

(although a number of those are just planes, satellites, bugs, balloons, etc., not all of them are).

What are the rest? Illusions? Hoaxes?

 

[Andre]

Sunrise is after midnight.

I was just tossing out ideas. You're right though; didn't think that one through. Although, if its in opposition, you can see it at midnight, right?

Only if you're beyound the pole circles during summer time, but http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html

 

[FlexGunship]

Only if you're beyound the pole circles during summer time, but http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/venus_worldbook.html

OMFG... give me a prize for idiotic discussion. Opposition only occurs on planets in an orbit outside of the observer. Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc... all visible at midnight during opposition. Venus and Mercury are incapable of being in opposition.

 

[alt]

What are the rest? Illusions? Hoaxes?

.. don't forget advanced military technology.

The more serious ones are that, IMO.

 

[FlexGunship]

.. don't forget advanced military technology.

The more serious ones are that, IMO.

Isn't that card a little overplayed lately? My last job was with as an engineer at an aerospace defense contractor, and, yes, there was classified stuff, but it's just applications of current technology in very clever ways.

I assure you, as of 2010, there are no aircraft that operate on anti-gravity, or that can make 90-degree instant turns.

 

[alt]

Isn't that card a little overplayed lately? My last job was with as an engineer at an aerospace defense contractor, and, yes, there was classified stuff, but it's just applications of current technology in very clever ways.

No doubt. And that does not exclude the possibility (probability IMO) that there is novel technology in use, not yet known to you.

I assure you, as of 2010, there are no aircraft that operate on anti-gravity, or that can make 90-degree instant turns.

You are not aware of the existence of something, and you assure me that it doesn't exist ?
PS - It is you who speaks of anti gravity - not I. I'm simply saying advanced technology.

 

[FlexGunship]

No doubt. And that does not exclude the possibility (probability IMO) that there is novel technology in use, not yet known to you.

You are not aware of the existence of something, and you assure me that it doesn't exist ?
PS - It is you who speaks of anti gravity - not I. I'm simply saying advanced technology.

Yes, yes... hyperbole. Useful for demonstrating a point, not useful for extracting specifics. I'm just saying that even the most fanciful military projects were developed based on clever applications of technology that was common knowledge. So postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are due to military projects is not a very productive line of thought.

EDIT: I'm suggesting that we should be postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are illusions, confusions, or hoaxes.

 

[alt]

Yes, yes... hyperbole. Useful for demonstrating a point, not useful for extracting specifics. I'm just saying that even the most fanciful military projects were developed based on clever applications of technology that was common knowledge. So postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are due to military projects is not a very productive line of thought.

EDIT: I'm suggesting that we should be postulating that objects with impossible behaviors are illusions, confusions, or hoaxes.

I suppose we need to cut to the chase at some point.

(Incidently, 'tis you who gave yourself a prize for idiotic discussion a few posts up, so don't be too quick to call mine hyperbole).

What you need to think about, is just because it's 'impossible behaviors' to you, doesn't mean that it IS impossible.

I agree that most of it (sightings) is illusions, confusions, or hoaxes. But not all.

Threads like this can only ever lead to speculation, fanciful thinking, faith, or hyperbole. Take the Iran incident for instance. If there was proof either way, it would have long being tendered by now, by either side. But it hasn't (which leads me to wonder - what is the purpose of these threads, anyway ?).

So in the absence of some poster chiming in with "here it is folks - I have definitive proof of .. " we can only ever speculate.

So using my common sense, and taking into account mankinds vast intellect and drive for dominance over others, I speculate that some of it IS advanced military technology, and some of it is deliberate obfuscation to hide such technology in plain sight. This, IMO, is far more down to Earth (excuse the pun) and mundane than aliens.

But I have no further evidence in any direction. Do you ? Does anyone else here ?

 

[FlexGunship]

I suppose we need to cut to the chase at some point.

(Incidently, 'tis you who gave yourself a prize for idiotic discussion a few posts up, so don't be too quick to call mine hyperbole).

Firstly, I called my own example "hyperbole" not your's. Secondly, at least I openly admitted I was wrong. I suggest you find other examples on this forum.

Take the Iran incident for instance. If there was proof either way, it would have long being tendered by now, by either side. But it hasn't (which leads me to wonder - what is the purpose of these threads, anyway ?).

Oddly, I think most of us would have to disagree. It seems like we came to a pretty definitive conclusion. Given the unreliability of the pilot's testimony (missile-lock and eject scenarios), the inexperience with the equipment (only acquired U.S. radar, missile, and fighter technology 4 years earlier), and the history of high ranking military officials to deny any mistakes, I think we've got this one wrapped up.

Proof? No. But a series of normal events is much more likely than a single outrageous event.

 

[alt]

Firstly, I called my own example "hyperbole" not your's.

It didn't read that way to me, but I accept I may have mis-read it.

Secondly, at least I openly admitted I was wrong. I suggest you find other examples on this forum.

It takes a great man to freely admit they're wrong. I see where you've done that. I've been wrong more times than you in these forums, and have freely said so, ergo, I must be the greatest .. (I'll get my coat) !

Oddly, I think most of us would have to disagree. It seems like we came to a pretty definitive conclusion. Given the unreliability of the pilot's testimony (missile-lock and eject scenarios), the inexperience with the equipment (only acquired U.S. radar, missile, and fighter technology 4 years earlier), and the history of high ranking military officials to deny any mistakes, I think we've got this one wrapped up.

I disagree. I think it's a high candidate for advanced military technology (no wonder they've been flat out trying to get da bomb ever since .. heh.. )

Proof? No. But a series of normal events is much more likely than a single outrageous event.

Nevertheless, outrageous events happen, and you could say your above, everytime one did.

 

[FlexGunship]

Nevertheless, outrageous events happen, and you could say your above, everytime one did.

Except that there always seems to be real evidence when an actual outrageous event happens.

This is what outrageous event evidence looks like:

[PLAIN]http://www.wyrdology.com/cryptozoology/coelacanth_assets/1575055368.jpg

So, I hope you can understand when some of us dismiss outrageous event evidence that looks like:

 

[alt]

You should have included a pic of Alice Cooper!

 

[FlexGunship]

You should have included a pic of Alice Cooper!

Heh, he was picking up golf clubs one time at the shop I used to go to.

 

[FlexGunship]

I disagree. I think it's a high candidate for advanced military technology...

"[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace)

 

[alt]

"[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace)

He restated and developed the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system and was one of the first scientists to postulate the existence of black holes and the notion of gravitational collapse.

OUTRAGEOUS !

 

[alt]

Heh, he was picking up golf clubs one time at the shop I used to go to.

I used to pick up girls in shops I used to go to, though I can see how Alice would have seen golf clubs as a suitable substitute !

 

[FlexGunship]

He restated and developed the nebular hypothesis of the origin of the solar system and was one of the first scientists to postulate the existence of black holes and the notion of gravitational collapse.

OUTRAGEOUS !

And did it all without postulating secret military aircraft!

 

[alt]

And did it all without postulating secret military aircraft!

.. or the internet !