El OVNI del vuelo 1628 y los escépticos

@Luis Lizana K

Se elucubrarán hipótesis para discernir qué fue lo que se vio en ese vuelo. Pero a ver, centrándonos en las supuestas posturas que se derivan acá, creo entender que es así, sino sería un sinsentido el debate.

Las hipótesis tienen que estar fundamentadas en algo coherente y plausible, porque no me negará que como hipótesis, también pudo ser Papa Noel, sacando a pasear a sus renos o superman volviendo a su refugio.

Y en ese presunto, cómo podemos demostrar, primero, que no existe inteligencia extraterrestre, segundo, si existiera, que aún no saben de nosotros y en consecuencia jamás nos han visitado.

Es verdad lo que dice, como podemos demostrar que no existen las sirenas, y que si existieran aún no saben de nosotros, y mira que hay bibliografía y testimonios de haberlas visto y oído cantar.

Nos conformamos simplemente con un –lo que no he visto no existe– porque todos aquellos que han dicho ver, son unos mentirosos y locos confundidos, todos!, y toda imagen que exista es falsa, todas! y si no, no hay explicación posible, entendiendo que este argumento inexplicable lo sustenta que la dilucidación extraterrestre, jamás será posible. El vasto universo y sus probabilidades tampoco existen.

Hombre puestos a elucubrar veo más plausible que exista vida extraterrestre a que existan los unicornios, los dragones, los pitufos, las hadas, los elfos, etc, etc.

Ahora bien, cuando alguien me muestre una sóla prueba de su existencia, cambiaré de opinión. Mientras tanto, para mí los extraterrestres que nos visitan son tan ciertos como el mounstro del lago Ness.

@ mentidero de arpíos:

en que pueblo vives?..

Hechos que se pueden contrastar:

– los pilotos no estaban cansados porque pararon en islandia, pasaron la noche allí y salieron al dia siguiente:

-The flight began on November 16, 1986, with himself and a crew of two (copilot, flight
engineer) in the cockpit. The plane landed in Iceland and waited for good weather. The next
day the plane took off heading north northwest.

– Un piloto con 29 años de experiencia no confunde nubes ni auroras boreales con un OVNI y más si son tres diferentes personas los testigos y ven moverse un artefacto, a no ser que las nubes se muevan a 910km/h:

-«It was at this time that the pilot concluded that he was looking at something REALLY unusual because, in his words, «it is impossible for any man made machine to make a sudden appearance in front of a jumbo
jet that is flying 910 km/hr and to move along in a formation paralleling our aircraft»
The copilot, Takanori Tamefuji, compared the numerous lights or flames to «Christmas assorted» lights with a «salmon» color….He had no doubt that he was seeing some sort of aerial object or objects just ahead and to the left of the airplane.
The flight engineer who sat behind the copilot, Yoshio Tsukuba, had a poorer view of the
lights. He recalled that when he first saw them he was looking «through the L1 window at the
11 o’clock position» (about 30 degrees to the left of straight ahead) and he saw «clusters of
lights undulating» [10]. The clusters were «made of two parts…shaped like windows of an airplane».
They asked us several times if there were clouds near our altitude. We saw thin and spotty clouds near the mountain below us, no clouds in mid-to-upper air, and the air current was steady» [2]. The repeated questions about the clouds caused Terauchi to wonder why the controller was so interested in clouds. He speculated, «Perhaps
the controllers were concerned that an increased use of improved lazer (sic) beams using (sic) clouds was creating moving images.» (Here Terauchi refers to laser beams illuminating the clouds. Of course, there were no such laser beams in the «wilds» of Alaska at that time….
nor are there now.)

– Aparecen trazas en tres radares, el del avión, el de la torre de control civil y el de la torre de control militar.

Terauchi wrote [2], «I thought it would be impossible to find anything on an aircraft radar if a large ground radar did not show anything, but I judged the distance of the object visually and it was not very far. I set the digital weather radar distance to 20 (nautical) miles, radar angle to horizon (i.e., no depression angle). There it was on the screen. A large green and round object (here he refers to the image or «blip» on the radar screen) had appeared at 7 or 8 miles (13 km to 15 km) away, where the direction of the object was. We reported to Anchorage center that our radar caught the object within 7 or 8 miles in the 10 o’clock position.

5:26:13 ROCC – OK. I’ve got him about….
5:26:15 AARTCC – Eight miles in front of the (JAL1628) he’s got traffic at the same altitude (35,000 ft.).

5:26:18 ROCC – OK. I’ve got him about his, ah, oh, it looks like about, ah, 10 o’clock at about that range, yes.

The clear implication of the last ROCC comment is that the Elmendorf radar showed a primary return – an object without a transponder – in about the same location as the captain reported! (Keep this in mind as you read the FAA «explanation» presented farther on in this paper.) The AARTCC then asked the ROCC to check on any military flights in the area around the plane and ended the conversation at 5:26:35

– Si fuera o fuese un prototipo secreto de avión, no hubiera o hubiese estado más de treinta minutos dando vueltas alrededor de un avión civil, y además creo que la torre de control militar hubiera avisado al prototipo secreto del vuelo de un avión civil, más que nada para que siguiera siendo secreto.

Dos meses y medio después del incidente del avión japonés, un avión militar de la fuerza aerea estadounidense un KC-135 tuvo un encuentro similar, relatando el piloto que lo que estaba viendo era similara a lo que vió el piloto japonés:

U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker Airplane Encounters Large UFO, Alaska, 30 January 1987

Two and a half months after the JAL Flight 1628’s UFOs encounter (the previous post), a similar incident occurred over Alaska. A U.S. Air Force Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker flew inbound from Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska to Eielson Air Force Base in Fairbanks, Alaska. At 20,000 feet the airplane crew sighted a very large disk-shaped UFO that was similar to the one encountered by the JAL Flight 1628. The UFO moved to within 13 metres (40 feet) of the KC-135.

And as can be determined by the U.S. Air Force Pilot’s question 5:29 minutes into the video, it’s apparent that he has been briefed about the JAL Flight 1628’s UFO encounter.

@Luis Lizana

“Reflexiones Profundas”. Vaya forma de hacerle sentido a tu apodo.

A ver, cómo te puedo ayudar…

Me hace feliz comprobar como a la gente le gusta hacer chistecitos sobre mi nick y mi capacidad de reflexión.

Es tan tierno y juvenil, ¡jo! que lindo

Cómo podemos demostrar que no existe vida inteligente extraterrestre…

No se puede demostrar que algo no existe, a lo máximo que se puede llegar, es a negar que se encuentre en un determinado sitio, en un determinado momento y bajo unas circunstancias determinadas.

Por eso «existen» las sirenas, los pitufos, papa noel, y todas las leyendas urbanas, incluidas la de los extraterrestres que nos visitan.

Y será quizás que no se puede porque al hacerlo nos estamos rehusando a nosotros mismos?.

Venimos del polvo de las estrellas, y en polvo nos convertiremos EA,

Porque como me salga ahora con que unos extraterrestres nos dejaron aquí, después de varias explosiones nucleares, la vamos a liar.

Miles de coincidencias se conjugaron para detonar un estallido de vida en este planeta y otras cientos de condiciones más para concebirnos a nosotros. Aún así, la inconmensurable magnitud del universo nos supone que sólo somos algo exiguo en el espacio y tiempo de éste.

Algo así como que nos tocara el premio gordo de la lotería del sistema solar

Sería insensato entonces suponer que no se hayan replicado, en cualquier otro lugar del universo, vidas similares a la nuestra, entendiendo ésta como la capacidad de poder razonar la percepción de nuestros sentidos,

Por enésima vez:

No niego la existencia de vida extraterrestre, niego que tengamos evidencia alguna de que nos visitan viajeros del espacio interestelar.

así como absurdo no presumir una evolución aún más allá de la que hemos alcanzado. Negarse a esa probabilidad, es negar nuestra propia existencia.

Madremiadelamorhermoso,

Hemos pasado de las naves siderales y los extraterrestres que nos visitan, a la evolución de los ascendidos a otras dimensiones.

Vaya forma de hilvanar pensamientos para llegar al único fin que le ha traído aquí,

la prédica de su homilia

¿cuando empezamos con lo del ego y eso?

Pero dale, si quieres seguir haciendo sosas reflexiones comparándonos con pitufos y sirenas, adelante.

Yo no se si la gente no entiende lo que lee, o simplemente se hace el sueco

Si esta sosa pruebe con un poco de sal, igual entra mejor.

Javi dijo:
«La estimación de velocidades “a ojo” es de lo más impreciso del mundo»

Si yo voy con mi coche a 120 KM/h y se pone otro coche a mi altura, sin hacer ningún tipo de calculo ni otra consideración ya sé que ese coche va a 120 KM/h y para saber eso no hay que ser ni físico ni químico.

@ Rflexiones Profundas

En vez de contestarte yo con otra reflexión a las alegacions qu le haces a Luís, te contestará uno de los científicos del simposio de 2003, que se ve que vuestras reflexiones les deben parecer poco serias, pues ni las tienen en cuenta, al igual que el informe cometa, y otro gran número de cientificos de toda indole, quizás porque les parezca infantiles esas respuestas:

My name is Ted Roe, I have been asked to speak to you about the scientific reality of
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAP. I think the best way I can do this is refer to the
scientific efforts to understand UAP that are already underway. I hope you all come away
with a new understanding for the serious studies that are being conducted by qualified
researchers and that you consider these references as responsible sources for information
regarding UAP.
For nearly three years I have had the unique opportunity to serve as an executive
administrator to an international volunteer team of scientists and aviation professionals as
they examine an apparent relationship between UAP and aviation safety. This effort,
called the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena or NARCAP,
is based upon an expanding body of evidence that safety related incidents involving UAP
are occurring. This organization was founded by Dr. Richard Haines and myself to
develop base data regarding these incidents within the US aviation system. The decision
to take this step was based upon an analysis of over 3400 aviation related incidents and
observations compiled by Dr. Haines through personal research during his 37 years with
NASA.
These cases span the entire history of powered flight and come from official sources
including the FAA, the USAF, and the direct testimony of civilian; commercial and
military pilots, air traffic controllers and radar operators. After identifying examples of
safety related incidents involving UAP, Dr. Haines composed a report titled “Aviation
Safety in America – A Previously Neglected Factor”. In this document, three kinds of
reported UAP dynamic behavior and reported consequences are addressed, each of which
can affect air safety: (1) near-miss and other high speed maneuvers conducted by the
UAP near the aircraft, (2) transient and permanent electromagnetic effects onboard the
aircraft that affect navigation, guidance, and flight control systems, and (3) close
encounter flight performance by the UAP that produces cockpit distractions which inhibit
the flight crew from flying the airplane in a safe manner.
More than one hundred documented close encounters between UAP and commercial,
private, and military airplanes are reviewed relative to these three topics. These reports
are drawn from several sources including the author’s personal files, aviation reports
prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration administered
«Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).» Interestingly, all of the U.S. government
sources illustrate the fact either that pilots don’t report their UAP sightings at all or, if
they do, they almost never use the term UAP, UFO, or flying saucer when reporting their
near-miss and/or in flight pacing encounters.
The Director of the ASRS, Linda Connell has acknowledged that there are indeed cases
in the confidential database that fit the UAP profile and that she simply does not have the
resources to examine them closely.
We define UAP as follows:
An unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) is the visual stimulus that provokes a sighting
report of an object or light seen in the sky, the appearance and/or flight dynamics of
which do not suggest a logical, conventional flying object and which remains
unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically
capable of making both a full technical identification as well as a common-sense
identification, if one is possible. (Haines, Pp. 13-22, 1980)
It is important to understand that UAP represent a family of observations and incidents
that are categorized collectively as “unidentified”.
Though the category is “unidentified” there are certain commonalties to UAP reports that
could be considered “characteristics”.
UAP Characteristics:
UAP are described as single or multiple lights or objects with unusual qualities.
UAP often appear as solid balls of white, blue, green, red, amber or orange light.
Some will occasionally seem to display multicolored flashing lights, spotlights,
colored beams, sparks, etc…. They can be very bright.
UAP have been reported to divide into two or more lights or objects, release
smaller lights and/or objects and recover lights and/or objects.
UAP can appear as simple geometric forms; cones, triangles, cylinders,
rectangles, oblate spheroids (discs) and tauroids (donuts). Some UAP are
reported to have a bright metallic surface.
UAP can range in size from 6” to several hundred feet. Reliable radar/visual
observations of very large lights and objects have been reported.
UAP are reported to hover and to move erratically and at great speed.
UAP observations can be accompanied by transient or permanent
electrical/avionic system failures.
UAP observations and incidents have occurred at low, mid and high altitude.
UAP observations can range in duration up to several hours or longer and can
recur in specific locations.
Aviation safety related observations and incident profiles include:
Types of observations include:
1. Visual observations of lights or objects that are visible to ground and/or air based
radars as targets that do not display transponder codes.
2. Visual observations of lights or objects that are not visible on ground or air based
radars.
3. Radar observations of objects that are not visible to the unaided viewer and that
do not display transponder codes.
Types of incidents include:
1. Close pacing, sometimes very close. Occasionally erratic movements are reported.
2. Disruption of on-board avionics systems
3. High-speed passes at sometimes very close range
4. Problems (including injuries) resulting from control inputs to avoid near mid-air
collisions
5. Near mid-air collisions
6. Mid-air collisions
7. Disruption of, electrical systems, lighting, and air traffic near aviation facilities.
8. Downed or Missing aircraft and crews
Aviation cases can be particularly data-rich due to the quality and motivations of the
reporting pilots and aviation professionals and the radar supported visual observations of
crews and controllers. Sometimes these cases involve multiple aircraft, air and ground
radar data and air traffic controller testimony. FAA mandated audio recordings of the
incidents are often helpful in reviewing the incidents.
When NARCAP went on-line in December of 2000 it joined a small but growing list of
similar efforts including several official international research groups who share our
concern for safe aviation and our interest in UAP.
The French space agency, CNES, has maintained the longest continuous government
study to date. Through the organization, SEPRA, formerly called GEPAN, UAP data is
gathered from across the official bureaucracies of France. Under the leadership of its
director, Jean-Jacques Valesco, SEPRA investigates reports of UAP submitted by the
Gendarmarie, the air traffic control system, the airlines and the French military. Although
the scope of SEPRA investigations is broad, they are conducting specific aviation related
investigations including a study of radar cases. Additionally, Mr. Valesco teaches a
course at the air traffic control school in Bordeaux.
Within the Air Technical School of the Chilean Directorate of Civil Aviation or DGAC is
an organization called the Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena or
CEFAA. This organization was founded in 1997 after a number of safety related
incidents and observations involving UAP occurred in Chile. Formerly under the
guidance of General Bermudez Sanhueza, this organization is lead by General Henriquez
and administrated by Gustavo Navarro. NARCAP and CEFAA share a common goal and
collaborate on a variety of issues including international development and research and
analysis of UAP related incidents involving aircraft and or aviation facilities.
Other efforts include the Uruguayan Air Force group, CRIDOVNI and the Peruvian Air
Force group OIFAA.
Dr. Erling Strand is conducting another effort of merit at Hessdalen, Norway. UAP seem
to repeatedly manifest in this location, in some cases creating difficulties for aircraft. Dr.
Strand and other physicists and engineers have been conducting research and
documenting UAP manifestations at this location for nearly 20 years. For the past two
years a team of scientists called the EMBLA group have been conducting research at
Hessdalen . There are sites located around the world, including several in the United
States with similar characteristics and they deserve a much closer look.
NARCAP is working in coordination with these organizations and individuals as well as
others to develop base metrics regarding incident profiles, frequency of occurrence and
other foundational data.
With respect to today’s topic we certainly feel that UAP are “Science Fact”. Of course,
the question on everyone’s mind is “What are they?”. It is likely that UAP represent
several different sources including uncommon or poorly understood natural phenomena.
A category of observation appears in the data of both NARCAP and the other
organizations previously mentioned that seems to have attributes of intelligence,
technology and advanced energy management.
These characteristics are consistent in reports spanning 80 years of powered flight and
should be examined very closely as they may represent important sociological and
scientific developments.
NARCAP, OIFAA, CEFAA, SEPRA, CRIDOVNI, as well as the Hessdalen teams
previously mentioned have no position regarding the source of this category of
observation. The definitive work has not been done.
Thank you very much.

¿Entonces la razón de querer debatir conmigo cual es?
Le ofrezco varias alternativas
– Aún no estoy seguro de haberlas visto todas y las analizaré con objetividad por si alguna almenos me hiciera dudar.

Es esta.

– Estoy tan convencido que pongas lo que pongas, digas lo que digas y presentes las pruebas que presentes no voy a cambiar.

Le remito a mi cagada en el hilo del cometa, en la que cambio de opinión por haberme dejado bastante claro que la coma de un cometa es una atmósfera, temporal, pero al fin y al cabo una atmósfera. Y eso que lo he leído en libros y además no coincide plenamente con la definición de atmósfera.

– Como antes fui un entusiasta de los ovnis y quedé decepcionado, ahora mi única intención declarandome escéptico es hacer escarnio y burla del tema y es mi único objetivo.

No le voy a negar que ante el empecinamiento de algunos en defender lo indefendible, me asalten las risas o las carcajadas, pero ese no es mi objetivo.

Te agradecería una respuesta, porque si es alguna de las dos últimas, ya no pierdo el tiempo y me dedico a otra cosa, gracias por tu comprensión.

Es la primera, pero aún así puede hacer lo que le plazca, y puestos a pedir favores, yo le agradecería que en esta web no utilizara más nicks distintos, si no al final se va a convertir esto en una suerte de Magonia.

¿La última parte de tu mensaje lo dices porque tienes constancia clara y segura de que cambio de nick porque te lo dijo Lamentira, que es quién lo sabrá, o es una especulación tuya con el ánimo de molestarme?
Tus palabras irán dirigidas a mí, pero son otros muchos los que nos leen y seguro que muchos de ellos han seguido parte de lo que hemos escrito. Y como podrás imaginar, ni me molesta, ni voy a entrar en el juego de que si tú o de que si yo. Cada uno se retrata con lo que escribe.
Yo seguiré escribiendo mis razonamientosñ y lo que crea oportuno, si tus respuestas son dignas de respuesta las contestaré y si no, pues no. Como te he dicho, no voy a estar con el cuento de que si tú o que si yo.