Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

UFO Sightings by Aircraft Pilots

Expand Messages
  • Royce Holleman
    FILE: AIRSPACE.TXT AUTHOR: Dennis Stacy, Air & Space Magazine DATE: 12-03-87 SUBJECT: UFO Sightings by Aircraft Pilots ... WHEN PILOTS SEE UFO s
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      AUTHOR: Dennis Stacy, Air & Space Magazine
      DATE: 12-03-87
      SUBJECT: UFO Sightings by Aircraft Pilots

      People have been seeing unidentified flying objects in the skies
      for years. But when the eyewitness is up there with the UFO, is the sighting
      more difficult to explain?

      *** By Dennis Stacy for Air & Space Magazine December 1987/January 1988

      In the late afternoon of November 17, 1986, Japan Air Lines flight 1628, a
      Boeing 747 with a crew of three, was nearing the end of a trip from Iceland
      to Anchorage, Alaska. The jet, carrying a cargo of French wine, was flying
      at 35,000 feet through darkening skies, a red glow from the setting sun
      lighting one horizon and a full moon rising above the other.

      A little after six p.m., pilot Kenju Terauchi noticed white and yellow
      lights ahead, below, and to the left of his airplane. He could see no details
      in the darkness and assumed the lights were those of military aircraft. But
      they continued to pace the 747, prompting first officer Takanori Tamefuji to
      radio Anchorage air traffic control and ask if there were other aircraft
      nearby. Both Anchorage and a nearby military radar station announced that they
      were picking up weak signals from the 747's vicinity. Terauchi switched on the
      digital color cockpit weather radar, which is designed to detect weather
      systems, not other aircraft. His radar screen displayed a green target, a color
      usually associated with light rain, not the red he would have expected from a
      reflective solid object.

      Because he was sitting in the left-hand seat, Terauchi had the only unob-
      structed view when the lights, still in front of and below the airplane, began
      moving erratically, "like two bear cubs playing with each other," as the pilot
      later wrote in a statement for the Federal Aviation Administration. After
      several minutes, the lights suddenly darted in front of the 747, "shooting off
      lights" that lit the cockpit with a warm glow.

      As the airplane passed over Eielson Air Force Base, near Fairbanks, the
      captain said he noticed, looming behind his airplane, the dark silhouette of a
      gigantic "mothership" larger than two aircraft carriers. He asked air traffic
      control for permission to take his airplane around in a complete circle and
      then descend to 31,000 feet. Terauchi said his shadower followed him through
      both maneuvers.

      A United Airlines fight and a military C-130 were both in the area and An-
      chorage asked the airplanes to change course, intercept the Japanese 747, and
      confirm the sighting. Both airplanes flew close enough to see JAL 1628's
      navigation lights, alone in the night sky, before Terauchi reported that the
      unidentified flying objects had disappeared. The encounter had lasted nearly
      50 minutes.

      Because it involved an airline pilot and an unidentified flying object that
      had apparently been captured on radar, the JAL 1628 encounter attracted a
      great deal of public attention. But UFO reports from pilots--private, military
      and airline--are not new to the subject of "ufology." One of the best known
      cases was a sighting by Idaho businessman and private pilot Kenneth Arnold.
      Flying his single-engine airplane over Washington's Cascade Mountains on June
      24, 1947, Arnold spotted nine silvery, crescent-shaped objects skimming along
      at high speed near Mt. Rainier. They dipped as they flew, "like a saucer would
      if you skipped it across water," Arnold told reporters--and thus "flying
      saucers" entered the popular vocabulary.

      Pilots had reported similar unexplained aerial phenomena before, mainly in
      the form of the "Foo Fighters" noted by American bomber crews over Europe
      in World War II. But Arnold's sighting, with its accompanying front-page
      publicity, struck a jittery, post-Hiroshima nerve in American society and
      set off a barrage of similar reports. Skeptics believed that every sighting
      had a prosaic explanation, such as mis-identification of stars, planets, or
      natural atmospheric phenomena. Others thought that there was more to UFOs,
      that they could even be visitors from other planets.

      Following the Arnold incident, the Air Force was given the responsibility of
      investigating UFO reports from the United States, first as Project Sign (also
      called Saucer), then Grudge, and finally Blue Book. Usually understaffed and
      underfunded, the Air Force program functioned more like a public relations
      office than a scientific investigation, according to the late astronomer
      J. Allen Hynek. Hynek himself, who served as a consultant to Project Blue Book
      from 1948 until it was dissolved in December 1969, gradually changed from a
      skeptic into a believer.

      Not even skeptics can deny the subject's popular appeal. Last March, a Gallop
      poll found that 88 percent of its respondents had heard of UFOs. Nearly half
      of those polled believed UFOs were real, not figments of the imagination or
      mis-perceived natural phenomena. Nine percent of the adult population claimed
      to have seen one.

      Of these claims, pilot reports are the ones that interest Richard F. Haines,
      a perceptual psychologist who compiles AIRCAT, a computerized catalog that
      lists more than 3,000 UFO sightings by aviators over the past 40 years. Chief
      of the Space Human Factors Office at NASA's Ames Research Center in California
      Haines is the author of "Observing UFOs", a handbook of methodology for
      accurate observation, and the editor of "UFO Phenomena and the Behavioral
      Scientist", a collection of psychologically oriented essays on the subject.


      -- SKEPTICS R US --

      The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
      (CSICOP) was founded in the spring of 1976, during a meeting of the American
      Humanist Association in Buffalo, New York. The impetus for the group's form-
      ation had been provided a year earlier by the publication of "Objections to
      Astrology" by Paul Kurtz, professor of philosophy at the State University of
      New York at Buffalo. The manifesto had been signed by 186 scientists, in-
      cluding 18 Nobel prizewinners, who feared that the public was confusing
      astronomy and astrology.

      Today Kurtz is chairman of the loosely knit international organization, which
      holds annual meetings and publishes a 25,000-circulation quarterly, "The
      Skeptical Inquirer." The journal is devoted to articles debunking psychokinesis
      telepathy, clairvoyance, and other psychic claims, the Loch Ness Monster,
      astrology and UFOs. CSICOP Fellows include science writer Isaac Asimov,
      astronomer Carl Sagan, Nobel physicist Murray Gell-Mann, and James Randi,
      recent recipient of a "genius grant" awarded by the MacArthur Foundation.

      The UFO subcommittee is led by Philip J. Klass ("UFOs--Identified","UFOs Ex-
      plained",and "UFOs, the Public Deceived"), James Oberg ("UFOs & Outer Space
      Mysteries"), and Robert Sheaffer ("The UFO Verdict"). The subcommittee con-
      sists of about two dozen members who operate as an informal network, exchang-
      ing articles about UFOs for information and comment. Some members make them-
      selves available for local media appearances to counteract what Klass calls
      "the popular view of UFOs as extraterrestrial spaceships."

      "We prefer to have skeptics, of course," says Klass, "but we don't require
      anyone to take an oath of allegiance saying they don't believe in flying
      saucers. Basically, we're a mutual education circuit."

      -- Dennis Stacy


      AIRCAT's cases include Blue Book's declassified files as well as some Haines
      collected and research personally. Before joining the Space Human Factors
      Office, his research included interviewing pilots about what they had seen
      peripherally during takeoffs and landings, data that may one day lead to re-
      design of airplane cockpits. "I was interviewing pilot anyway," he says, "and
      fell naturally into the habit of asking them if they'd ever seen anything

      Haines concentrated on pilot reports for reasons other than convenience. "They
      have a unique vantage point simply by being in the air," he says, "if for no
      other reason than if the phenomenon is between your eyes and the ground, you
      can calculate the slant range, and you're establishing an absolute maximum
      distance the object could be away. You can't do that with the object against
      the sky background."

      "Pilots also have available to them a variety of electromagnetic sensors of
      various kinds on board the aircraft itself, which can possibly record some
      manifestations of the phenomenon, such as electromagnetic frequency and even
      energy content," he says. "They can control the location of their plane so that
      they can maneuver to gain the best vantage point, under some conditions.

      "Finally," says Haines, "they represent a very stable personality type with a
      high degree of training, motivation, and selection. If a pilot comes forward
      with a strange tale, I give him a lot of careful concentration because he's
      putting his reputation on the line and maybe his job. He's had to have thought
      the details out in his mind already, and perhaps eliminated a number of ex-
      planations before going public."

      He's also likely to request anonymity. Kenneth Arnold, tired of the publicity
      following his sighting, later commented, "If I ever see again a phenomenon of
      that sort, even if it's a ten-story building, I won't say a word about it."
      The feeling was echoed even in the Air Force. When Blue Book's predecessor,
      Project Grudge, conducted an informal survey of Air Force pilots in the late
      1940s , one respondent said, "If a spaceship was flying wing-tip to wing-tip
      formation with me, I would not report it."

      The UFO phenomenon got its tabloid reputation at least in part because of the
      saucer-busting of active UFO skeptics. Foremost is the UFO panel of CSICOP,
      the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
      (see "Skeptics R Us," previous page). Led by Philip J. Klass, contributing
      avionics editor of "Aviation Week and Space Technology", James Oberg, an
      aerospace writer and a manned space operations specialist, and Robert Sheaffer,
      a Silicon Valley computer systems analyst, CSICOP exposes hoaxes and uncovers
      explanations of UFO sightings.

      Sheaffer doesn't agree that pilots are superior UFO observers. "The idea of
      pilots as super witnesses just doesn't hold," he says. "The last I heard they
      were human like the rest of us, and still subject to all concerns and errors
      of human psychology and perception. In fact, they're apt to be less worried
      about how bright an object is, or its angular elevation, than in keeping their
      plane in the air. Anyone surprised by a very brief and unexpected event is not
      likely to report it accurately."

      Haines agrees that normal perception isn't infallible. Very bright objects,
      for example, can appear to be much nearer than they actually are. Autokinetic
      or self-generated, movement of the eyeball can make distant objects like
      stars and planets appear to move. "Also when you're flying in a sunny, clear
      blue atmosphere," Haines says, "sometimes the eye can focus inaccurately, so
      that you're not focusing at infinity anymore, but maybe only one or two meters
      in front of the cockpit."

      Because the way we see external events depends on the body's perception of it-
      self in space, acceleration and inertial forces that disrupt the inner ear's
      delicate sense of balance can also lead to optical illusions. Still, Haines
      contends that many induced illusions are short-lived and cannot account for
      the majority of AIRCAT's cases. "If a pilot describes a disk-shaped airform
      with no visible means of propulsion pacing his right wing for 30 minutes,
      doing everything he's doing--and I have plenty of cases like that--then that's
      not an optical illusion, it's not a bird or balloon or meteor, it's not any of
      those prosaic explanations," Haines says. "We don't know what it is necessarily
      but we know quite clearly what it isn't."

      One sensational pilot-and-UFO case almost certainly had a prosaic explanation.
      On the afternoon of January 7, 1948, people near Godman Air Force Base at Fort
      Knox, Kentucky, reported an object in the sky that looked like "an ice cream
      cone topped with red." Captain Thomas F. Mantell, flying in command of a ferry
      flight of four F-51 Mustangs (P-51s had been re-designated F-51s the previous
      year), was asked to investigate. None of the fighters were equipped with oxy-
      gen, and after three dropped out of the chase Mantell continued alone. "It's
      directly ahead and above and still moving at about half my speed," he radioed.
      "The thing looks metallic and of tremendous size. I'm going up to 20,000 feet,
      and if I'm no closer I'll abandon the chase." A few minutes later Mantell's
      airplane crashed, earning him the dubious distinction as the world's first
      "UFO martyr."

      Project Blue Book proposed that Mantell succumbed to hypoxia, or oxygen
      starvation, and crashed while chasing the planet Venus, but later evidence
      indicates he was pursuing a top-secret, high-atmosphere Skyhook balloon. The
      balloons, designed for upper-atmosphere research, were later used by the CIA
      for surveillance. At altitudes of 70,000 feet or more, the translucent plastic
      balloons would often be swept rapidly along by the jet stream.

      Mantell wasn't the last pilot to die while pursuing, or being pursued by, an
      alleged UFO. At 6:19 p.m. on Saturday, October 21, 1978, Frederick Valentich
      of Melbourne, Australia, took off from Moorabbin Airport aboard a rented
      Cessena 182 bound for nearby King Island. He planned to pick up a load of
      crayfish for his fellow officers at the Air Training Corps, where he was a
      flight instructor. An experienced daytime pilot with an unrestricted license
      and instrument rating, Valentich, 20, was relatively inexperienced at night
      flying. He was also a UFO enthusiast who, his father said later, had claimed
      a UFO sighting 10 months before his disappearance.

      Out of Melbourne, Valentich paralleled Cape Otway before heading over open
      water for King Island, where he was scheduled to land at 7:28. At 7:06 he
      radioed Melbourne Flight Service, asking, "Is there any known traffic in my
      area below 5,000 feet? Seems to be a large aircraft." Ground control asked
      what kind. "I cannot confirm," Valentich replied. "It has four bright lights
      that appear to be landing lights...[and] has just passed over me about 1,000
      feet above... at the speed it's traveling are there any RAAF [Royal Australian
      Air Force] aircraft in the vicinity?"

      "Negative," answered Melbourne. "Confirm you cannot identify aircraft?"
      Valentich replied in the affirmative, adding three minutes later, "It's not
      an aircraft, it's ..." At that point there was a brief break in the recorded
      transmission that was later released to the Australian press.

      "It is flying past," Valentich continued. "It has a long shape. Cannot
      identify more than that... coming for me now. It seems to be stationary.
      I'm orbiting and the thing is orbiting on top of me. It has a green light
      and sort of metallic light on the outside." The pilot then informed air
      traffic controllers that the object had vanished. At 7:12 he was back on the
      air, reporting his "engine is rough-idling and coughing." Ground control
      asked what his intentions were; Valentich said, "Proceeding King Island.
      Unknown aircraft now hovering on top of me." His radio transmission ended
      in a jarring 17-second metallic noise. Neither pilot nor airplane has been
      seen or heard from since. Some have attempted to explain away the incident
      as a hoax or a suicide, while others have suggested that the inexperienced
      night pilot, overcome by vertigo, may have turned upside down and seen the
      reflections of his own lights before the engine of his Cessna failed.

      Haines has published a book about the Valentich incident, "Melbourne
      Episode: Case Study of a Missing Pilot," and he is in the midst of another
      compiling all of AIRCAT's cases. Most are variations on ufology's two
      major themes: daylight disks and nocturnal lights. The first involves what
      appears to be objects in the shape of disks, spheres, or elliptical forms.
      Nocturnal lights normally appear as single, continuously visible white light
      sources. Sometimes the lights are also detected by ground or airborne radar
      and less frequently, accompanied by radio static and brief engine interruption,
      such as that experienced by Valentich. Most sightings involve two or more
      witnesses and last slightly more than five minutes, long enough in most cases,
      says Haines, to eliminate a number of explanations, such as meteors and

      One case from the AIRCAT files involved a pilot--call him Captain Gray--who
      had logged more than 21,000 hours in a 31-year career. On July 4, 1981, he
      was piloting a passenger flight in a Lockheed L-1011 Tristar, cruising on
      automatic pilot at 37,000 feet. The flight was bound from San Francisco to
      New York's Kennedy Airport, approaching the eastern shore of Lake Michigan.
      The lake below was obscured by clouds, but ahead and above the sky was clear.

      Suddenly, from ahead and to the left of the aircraft, a silvery disk "splashed
      into view full size...like the atmosphere opened up," Gray said later. He
      leaned forward, blurting out, "What's that?"

      Appearing at first like a sombrero viewed from the top, the object rolled as
      it approached the airplane along an arc that carried it toward and then
      abruptly away from the L-1011. From the side, the disk appeared ten times
      wider than it was thick, with six evenly spaced, jet black portholes along its
      edge. A bright splash of sunlight flared off the top left end of the object.
      As it disappeared, seemingly in a shallow climb, Gray noticed what looked like
      the dark smudge of a contrail.

      "Did you just see anything?" Gray asked his first officer. "Yes," he replied,
      "a very bright light flash." The flight engineer, his view blocked, had seen

      The overriding question for ufologists is whether a sighting like Captain
      Gray's is a natural phenomenon or an object that displays evidence of in-
      telligence. "As a scientist I have to be cautious," says Haines. "But when
      AIRCAT is made public, I think the technical-minded can read between the

      Skeptics would disagree, "I think there are more than enough ordinary
      stimuli floating around to create the UFO phenomena, the UFO social event,
      of the past 40 years," says CSICOP's James Oberg. "Because of imperfections
      in human memory and perception, coincidences and so on, there'll always be a
      small residue of unsolved sightings. A small percent of airplane crashes,
      murders, and missing-person cases don't get solved either. But you don't have
      to invoke alien airplane saboteurs, murderers, or kidnappers to explain them."

      Haines retorts that Captain Gray was a skeptic before his own UFO confront-
      ation. But afterwards, "there was no doubt in his mind whatsoever' that what
      he had seen was an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

      Captain Terauchi of JAL flight 1628 was equally convinced that he had encount-
      ered an extraterrestrial craft in the skies above Alaska. Skeptics are not so
      sure, citing the fact that Terauchi had reported seeing UFOs on two previous
      occasions--and would report yet another sighting the following January, again
      over Alaska. (He would later explain his second Alaskan encounter as city
      lights reflecting off ice crystals in the clouds.) CSICOP's Philip Klass
      thinks that ice crystals in clouds played a significant role in the November
      encounter. He theorizes that moonlight reflecting off the clouds accounts for
      the initial sighting, and that when the crew later saw Mars and Jupiter, bright
      in the autumn sky, they assumed the planets were lights from the original UFO.
      The signal on the on-board radar, Klass believes, could have been reflected by
      the same ice crystals (although ice crystals, unlike rain droplets, are very
      poor reflectors of radar energy). The FAA analyzed the ground radar and con-
      cluded that they had been uncorrelated radar signals, a common phenomenon that
      occurs when a radar beam bounced back from an airplane to a ground station
      doesn't match up with a separate signal sent by the airplane's transponder.

      That pilots, as well as ground observers, have seen something in the skies is
      undeniable. The question of what they have seen has yet to be satisfactorily
      resolved. Maybe it never will be. It may even be irrelevant. As Jacques Valle,
      who has written several books on the subject, once said, "It no longer matters
      whether UFOs are real or not, because people BEHAVE as if they were,

      Paranormal Palace Radio
      Paranormal Palace.net
      Paranormal Palace.Com its like Myspace but dedicated to the Paranormal Community

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.