FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

[murnut]

Wow...what a post!

Great as always

[DrDil]

Wow...what a post!

Great as always

QFT!!

(And Kean’s still at it).


Cheers.

[astrophotographer]

I have been following the CEFAA thing and your blog Dr. Dil. SUNlite will have a recap and commentary on the subject. I want to point out that the group at ATS, you , and Hoaxkiller deserve all the credit in put this one to bed. Unless better evidence is presented by CEFAA (and not this photoshop filter nonsense they have already presented), I think this one is "case closed". Kean just keeps demonstrating that she simply accepts anything this UFO organizations tell her without the least bit of checking.

[DrDil]

I have been following the CEFAA thing and your blog Dr. Dil. SUNlite will have a recap and commentary on the subject. I want to point out that the group at ATS, you , and Hoaxkiller deserve all the credit in put this one to bed. Unless better evidence is presented by CEFAA (and not this photoshop filter nonsense they have already presented), I think this one is "case closed". Kean just keeps demonstrating that she simply accepts anything this UFO organizations tell her without the least bit of checking.

Thanks Tim it’s appreciated,

I agree that it will take something special to resurrect this case but as we’ve apparently already seen the best of the seven clips then I’m not holding out much hope, looking forward to reading your commentary in SUNLITE though.

Cheers.

[ryguy]

Wow, wish I had seen James' post earlier than now. What a brilliant write-up. And I agree 100% about Kean - a journalist she is absolutely not.

-Ryan

[Frank Stalter]

I have been following the CEFAA thing and your blog Dr. Dil. SUNlite will have a recap and commentary on the subject. I want to point out that the group at ATS, you , and Hoaxkiller deserve all the credit in put this one to bed. Unless better evidence is presented by CEFAA (and not this photoshop filter nonsense they have already presented), I think this one is "case closed". Kean just keeps demonstrating that she simply accepts anything this UFO organizations tell her without the least bit of checking.

Put what to bed? Did you read Macabee's article?

"What the FAA was saying was that because of a minor and temporary malfunction of the radar the primary return was separated in position on the radar screen from the transponder return, thus making look as if there were two separate radar-reflective objects in the sky.) The press release did not mention that the "split return effect" was contradicted by the fact that the extra echo did not come back with every sweep of the radar and by a statement by an airtraffic controller who said that they rarely, if ever, get a split image in the area where the JAL jet was flying. The press release did NOT offer an explanation for the visual sighting, nor did it dispute the crew's claim that something unusual was seen. The press release just did not address the issue of the visual sighting.

In summary, the Jupiter-Mars explanation is contradicted by the sighting directions to the UFO at various times, by the descriptions of the crew members and by the airplane radar detection. However, the "gullible" press did not know that at the time. The explanation was widely publicized. The explanation made the captain look like an idiot, but that's OK. Only idiots report UFOs. Having done their duty the newsmedia promptly forget about the sighting.

The lights ahead of the aircraft were described as bright. The copilot compared them to headlights of oncoming aircraft. A reflection of the moon from thin clouds would cover broad areas of cloud and would be dim, rather than bright and point-like.

Klass explanation for the radar target is total conjecture on his part since the clouds were reported by the plane to be thin. Would there be any return at all from such clouds? One might ask, if there were so many clouds, why the radar didn't pick up numerous "blobby" returns on the right side and ahead of the aircraft as well as on the left where the "mothership" appeared to be. And, of course, Klass' explanation does not account for the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship.""

What I always see when I stop in here, is someone finding either a slight or significant discrepancy or sloppiness and then the gleeful reaction . . . . "You've put this one to bed." You haven't done anything except expose some sloppiness, it doesn't change the facts of the case.

[murnut]

I think your quote is out of context Frank...it refers to another case...

but if you really read the thread....you would know this

[Frank Stalter]

I think your quote is out of context Frank...it refers to another case...

but if you really read the thread....you would know this

Sorry . . . no.

"The Fantastic Flight Of JAL 1628
Bruce Maccabee
original source | fair use notice


Summary: This is the complete report on the UFO sighting by the Japanese crew of a jumbo freighter aircraft in November, 1986. What you are about to read is the most complete and analytical investigation of this sighting ever published."

If I'm wrong, like you claim, what other case is Maccabee referring to?

[murnut]

I have been following the CEFAA thing and your blog Dr. Dil. SUNlite will have a recap and commentary on the subject. I want to point out that the group at ATS, you , and Hoaxkiller deserve all the credit in put this one to bed. Unless better evidence is presented by CEFAA (and not this photoshop filter nonsense they have already presented), I think this one is "case closed". Kean just keeps demonstrating that she simply accepts anything this UFO organizations tell her without the least bit of checking.

I'm referring to this quote Frank

This is about another case that Kean is involved with.

It has nothing to do with the JAL case ....except Kean's apparent sloppiness.

You should reread the thread for proper context

[James Carlson]

Hi, Frank -- The incident referred to in this thread occurred in Chile, South America; the only reference to Dr. Maccabee was cited by Ms. Kean and General Bermudez of the Chilean military, and merely expresses his opinion in regard to that incident. Dr. Maccabee, however, published nothing in relation to the event, and didn't mention it at all on his website. Kean merely attempted to bolster the value of her assessment by offering Maccabee's opinion -- an opinion that was supposedly based on the incomplete data that Kean has provided (and I say "supposedly" only because Kean's claims and Maccabee's claims seem to have been at cross-purposes here). There's no consistency at all in Kean's report, and although she insists that it was based on multiple video recordings, she has still failed to provide this evidence for examination, a failure that makes Maccabee's opinion about as worthless as Kean's assertions. This incident had nothing to do with civilian aircraft and was nowhere near the event involving the JAL flight that you've discussed here. Maccabee's only input was his apparent affirmation that Kean's conclusions are correct. This seems to have been an overly hasty assessment, as Maccabee now insists that he has reached no conclusions in regard to this matter, an insistence based on the limited data he was asked to examine. Is it possible that you intended to post your assessment on a different thread? I only ask, because I've come very close to doing that myself a couple of times.

[Frank Stalter]

I'm referring to this quote Frank

This is about another case that Kean is involved with.

It has nothing to do with the JAL case ....except Kean's apparent sloppiness.

You should reread the thread for proper context

Basically what I see is an article that raises a legitimate question about Callahan possibly embellishing his secondary role in a fairly famous UFO case and that's about it, but even that seems ambiguous as even Pandolfi seems to support what Callahan has been saying.

"Pandolfi did say that he recalled John Callahan being present at the meeting, and that all discussion regarding “delaying dissemination of information” was between Bruce and Callahan."

Like I wrote before, it doesn't change the facts of the actual incident or it's difficult to explain nature, as Maccabee's article points out. It also raises the question, "Why is Ron Pandolfi traveling all the way from DC to Alaska to ask questions about a meaningless UFO incident?"

You'll all have to get over the fact that I misunderstood the reference to the Chilean case, but I think I get the gist of the thread.

[murnut]

Callahan went to Washington...not Pandolfi to Alaska.

The gist is Callahan and Kean claimed a cover up of the events when there was none.

In fact the FAA sold the data to the public at large

Maccabee was in the room when Callahan gave his presentation to Reagan Science advisors.

Maccabee was given the data

Kean was told that Callahan account of the meeting wasn't accurate

She went ahead and wrote her book with Callahan's account as the only testimony...when she was aware of both Pandolfi's account and the fact that Maccabee were in the room.

This isn't sloppiness...it's down right deceitful.

Now I don't know what happened that night around the JAL flight....but I do know I don't trust Callahan or Kean...the chief story tellers.

They tainted it.

[murnut]

And actually...there is a fairly decent explanation for the event here.....

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread ... f&t=158668


Even Maccabee joined in

[Frank Stalter]

Callahan went to Washington...not Pandolfi to Alaska.

The gist is Callahan and Kean claimed a cover up of the events when there was none.

In fact the FAA sold the data to the public at large

Maccabee was in the room when Callahan gave his presentation to Reagan Science advisors.

Maccabee was given the data

Kean was told that Callahan account of the meeting wasn't accurate

She went ahead and wrote her book with Callahan's account as the only testimony...when she was aware of both Pandolfi's account and the fact that Maccabee were in the room.

This isn't sloppiness...it's down right deceitful.

Now I don't know what happened that night around the JAL flight....but I do know I don't trust Callahan or Kean...the chief story tellers.

They tainted it.

I think you're jumping to some awfully unfair conclusions about Callahan and Kean based on not very much. Firstly, Maccabee was still at that time employed by the government so if he says essentially to keep a lid on this for some open to question length of time, which Pandolfi absolutely confirms, why jump to the immediate conclusion there's dishonesty from Callahan? Certainly an honest misunderstanding regarding a meeting that took place a quarter century ago is possible. Did Callahan engage in some dramatic licensing? I've seen him tell his tale and he does do it in a compelling fashion but I think you are really reaching here. We don't really know for sure what efforts Kean, and probably James Fox who gathered a lot of the same witnesses for the NPC event and his doco movie, made to round up witnesses. They went to some serious lengths to get the Iranian pilot for example. Do you know she didn't try to contact JAL pilot Terauchi? Seems like he got a really bad time after this happened so you can understand any reluctance to take part in any book or film.

Regardless of whether Kean was sloppy, unethical or just did her best with what she had, it still doesn't change the facts of the case and still doesn't answer why Ron Pandolfi was at the meeting about the case whether it was in Alaska or, in fact, in DC.

[murnut]

Nobody told anybody to keep a lid on it.

Quoting Maccabee from the above link

The FAA sold a complete package for over $100 back in March, 1987.

Here is the link to page 3

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread ... 668&page=3


Look...you are free to believe what you want to believe.

The major issue for me is that Kean, a supposed investigative journalist, only tells one side of the story and I know that to be the case because of my personal dealings with her.

I don't trust her...she is basically a liar.

She covers up the truth.....she is doing it again with the Chilean Air base Bug/Ufo case.

I don't know what happened with the JAL case....although I think a pretty good explanation is at the link

You should read it