Pilots and Passengers spot UFO off Guernsey Coast

[purduejake]

Pilots and aircraft passengers have confirmed sightings of two large Unidentified Flying Objects off the coast of Guernsey.

The mysterious shapes were spotted earlier in the week and are described as long objects that measured up to a mile wide.

Radar screens picked up some activity in the area and pilot witnesses are now preparing reports for the relevant authorities. Aurigny Pilot Ray Bowyer (pictured) is a professional pilot who has been flying for 20 years. He said: "In my years of experience I've never seen anything like this and frankly I'd be perfectly happy not to ever again."

http://www5.channelonline.tv/news/templates/guernseynews2.aspx?articleid=9013&zoneid=1

---------------

Another high profile case involving credible aviation professionals.

[knitter4democracy]

1. I love guernseys. Oh, not the sweater.

You know, it is odd that pilots are reporting these sightings and yet still aren't believed. Odd.

[purduejake]

3. As if they can't tell the difference between a cloud....

and a solid flying object. One would think that people who fly THROUGH clouds for a living and are spending their life maintaining safe distances from other objects could tell the difference after 20 years of experience.

[OlderButWiser]

12. Not if the cloud

were reflecting some other source of light.

[purduejake]

14. What are you talking about? n/t

[OlderButWiser]

16. The pilot said

that the object was 40-50 miles away, how could you expect him to know any detail as to it's composition.

[purduejake]

23. I can tell the difference between a large solid object

And a cloud from 60 miles away. I did it every time I went to the beach and saw the City of Chicago across the lake. Most people can tell the difference between something solid like a flying object and a cloud.

[WinkyDink]

64. Experienced pilots know from clouds.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

36. No, not Jerseys

different isle. Guernseys are light brown cows with high butter fat content. And pretty eyes.

[knitter4democracy]

63. No, I was thinking of what we often call ganseys.

I've seen a couple of different spellings for those. Nice sweaters.

[OlderButWiser]

2. Yes they saw "unidentified flying objects"

no they didn't see spacecraft from another planet.

[purduejake]

5. How do you know?

Were you there and able to identify these as terrestrial objects? If so, what's their purpose and WHO made them?

[OlderButWiser]

10. Think about it...

...intelligent beings from another planet spend vast amounts of capital, fly billions of miles, risking countless lives to just come to the fringes of Earth, teasing us with fleeting glimpses from time to time. Why would they do that?

[purduejake]

13. Why would we go to the moon...

and send probes to mars? Maybe you're the one who needs to be doing a little more thinking about this.

[OlderButWiser]

15. You've proved my point...

...thank you very much. We send probes that land on other planets, that send out signals on their way out of our solar system and have plaques on them identifying their planet of origin.

[purduejake]

25. You have a poor way of expressing your point.

Because it seemed to me you were pointing out that it wouldn't make sense to spend capital and risk lives for exploration. You were ignoring the fact that curiosity and the need to explore is human nature and likely in the nature of any intelligent species.

And there have been mysterious crashes, landings, and sightings that the government takes huge measures to cover up. What makes you think any government would reveal the existence of any alien artifacts if they exist?

[Milo_Bloom]

54. Actually...

Long before we send out probes that land on things, we send ships that just fly past them. In fact, if we suspected that there was actual life on another planet, the chances of us just landing on that place and/or giving a roadmap to our location would be slim and none, for fear of the consequences.

[Glorfindel]

21. Quarantine patrol, of course...

making DAMN sure that the killer apes don't escape their home planet and spread their poison throughout the galaxy. Very, very wise of the extraterrestrials, I believe. Very wise indeed.

[Kool Kitty]

46. Maybe they are observing us.

Maybe they are casing the joint.

[Matariki]

67. How could you possibly know what intelligent beings from another planet would do?

why would you assume things like 'spend vast amounts of capital' applies?

you may think you are being 'logical' but really there are huge gaping holes in your logic. the first being approaching what you don't know with the limitations of what you do know.

[krispos42]

37. I don't think they saw extraterrestrial spacecraft

Why? Not because I don't believe in extraterrestrial intelligence. I do.

It is because by any theoretical drive system that can be envisioned in physics would dump enormous amount of highly visible energy as they approached.

Think about it. Absent some form of warp drive/superluminal drive/jump drive/hyperdrive, they would have to do it in the sublight universe. That means expending HUGE quantities of energy to build up near-lightspeed velocities, cruise at that level for years, decades, centuries, or millenia, then flip over and slow down.

Pointing the exhaust of a high-powered fusion or antimatter drive right at us for months at a time.

I think we'd notice.

I don't know what they saw, but I know what they didn't see.

[purduejake]

41. And you think you know about propulsion systems

of alien craft and how they'd travel? Submit a resume to NASA, PLEASE.

[krispos42]

51. They said I was over-qualified

:rofl:

Seriously, I haven't heard any sort of hyper-light travel that could move anything larger than a subatomic particle.

Maybe you've heard of some sort of non-emitting space or star drive, but I haven't outside of science fiction. Larry Niven's 'gravity polarizers' come to mind, IIRC, but those depend on magnetic monopoles, which I don't believe exist outside of theory.

One of the bedrock assumptions of science is that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. We're operating under the same umbrella of laws as the Vogons in the Megabrantis Cluster do, as the Vulcans around 40 Eridani A do.

And in 500 years, we won't be able to talk to Mars any faster than we can now due to the limitations on the speed of light, regardless on how many terahertz our computers run at.

[purduejake]

53. And now you can forsee the future?

Great.

[krispos42]

59. In the year 2507 I predict....

That the speed of light will still be a shade over 186,000 miles per second.

I'll bet a thousand Italian lira on it! Your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandchild can pay mine!

[misanthrope]

68. In the year 2525...

In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive they may find

In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today

In the year 4545
Ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes
You won't find a thing to chew
Nobody's gonna look at you

In the year 5555
Your arms hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine's doing that for you

In the year 6565
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube, whoa-oh

In the year 7510
If God's a-comin' He oughta make it by then
Maybe He'll look around Himself and say
Guess it's time for the judgment day

In the year 8510
God is gonna shake His mighty head
He'll either say I'm pleased where man has been
Or tear it down and start again, whoa-oh

In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old Earth can give
And he ain't put back nothin', whoa-oh

Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man's reign is through

But through eternal night
The twinkling of starlight
So very far away
Maybe it's only yesterday

[mainer]

66. Scared pilot was desperate to land and "get a cup of tea" (!!)

Wow, this is the difference between English pilots and American pilots. If he was American, you can bet that a "cup of tea" wouldn't have been the first beverage he'd have reached for!

[frogcycle]

4. wtf?

[truthisfreedom]

6. Didn't ANYONE film that UFO? No video cameras on the whole plane???

Come on, someone must have videotaped it. Check the box yes or no at the bottom of the article and you can see that THOUSANDS of people saw it, apparently from the ground.

[purduejake]

8. What does the non-scientific pole...

have to do with the credibility of the witnesses? Unfortunately most people don't lug around video cameras... do you? They're still a little bulky these days.

[Orrex]

19. You're right! Today's camera-phone must weigh close to four ounces

[purduejake]

30. And what's the first thing you'd think of if you saw...

something weird hovering above you? OMG, where's my camera phone?!? And who are you to say that pictures weren't taken?

[Orrex]

34. If I were seeing a UFO that no one would believe on just my say-so

You can bet your ass I'd get my camera phone.

And who are you to say that pictures weren't taken?

Until someone steps forth with pictures, then I will say that no pictures of the object are available. By what leap of faith are you able to conclude that pictures were taken?

[purduejake]

39. delete

[purduejake]

31. We were talking camcorders, not phones.

And try taking landscape pics with your camera phone. Tell me how that works for you.

[Orrex]

35. Why were we talking camcorders, and not phones?

Hell, why not go whole-hog and ask why no one was running around strapped into a full steady-cam rig?


Here's the bottom line: one thousand eye-witness accounts of a spectacularly unusual event don't amount to anything more than hearsay. Get me a good photo (from a camera phone, a camera, a camcorder, or whatever), and then we'll talk.

Until then, we're just discussing a mysterious blob that may or may not be interesting.

[purduejake]

40. There were one thousand witnesses on the plane?

Not even the A380 carries that many. What are you talking about?

[Orrex]

43. Have you read any of this thread?

Check out reply #6 by Truthisfreedom:

Come on, someone must have videotaped it. Check the box yes or no at the bottom of the article and you can see that THOUSANDS of people saw it, apparently from the ground.

And, as I mentioned already, the eyewitness testimony of all of these THOUSANDS of people doesn't amount to much more than hearsay.

Any other questions?

[purduejake]

45. The article mentioned nothing about thousands...

of witnesses, did it? Have you read the article?

[Orrex]

47. I read it. Did you click the yes/no box?

As of right now, 9,598 people claim to have seen it, none of whom has come forth with footage as yet.

Besides which, that's incidental to the point I was making: eyewitness testimony about a fantastical event is worthless in the absence of corroborating evidence. That's true whether there's one witness or 9,598 witnesses.

[purduejake]

49. You must have missed the part about radar hits.

That would seem to be a piece of corroborating evidence. Again, I urge you to read the article before arguing over it.

[Orrex]

52. Is that an attempt at snark? It sounds like an attempt at snark. Bravo!

In this case, the radar hits aren't really corroborating evidence; they're the only evidence. The rest is hearsay.

What can we conclude from the radar hits? That something anomalous appears to have been in the sky in relative proximity to the craft.

Eyewitness testimony likewise concludes that something anomoalous appears to have been in proximity to the craft.

What can we conclude, beyond that?

Not much.


So we're left with a UFO, which is where we started.

[purduejake]

55. It's an attempt to get you to debate the facts.

You're using an online poll to make a point and ignoring what the article says. And you're ignoring the fact that we don't have all the data. I agree with one point... we're left with a UFO. And we certainly may be able to rule out a cloud with the testimony and radar hits which need further study.

[sproutster]

17. God, didn't you say same on O'Hara incident?

BTW there was film and Ackroyd bought it. He is making a documentary.

[purduejake]

28. Yes I did...

And it is a very good argument. And I know of the film but know nobody who has seen it - it may very well be a hoax like all the other pictures, but we'll see when it comes out.

[erinmblair]

7. Hey!

Can we get the aliens to beam up Bush and Cheney? :) That would be beneficial for us!

[purduejake]

9. Funny.

I don't recall stories of these objects abducting anybody.

[Sal Minella]

24. Maybe we could bribe them. Chocolate chip cookies?

[purduejake]

32. No, lets bribe them with free hippies. n/t

[jeff30997]

11. And I wish them...

A long and painful rectal probe!

[Kool Kitty]

48. Maybe that's why they're NOT landing.

I mean, if you saw that video of him with the dancers and drummers and you found out that was the leader of the "free world", would you even slow down?:rofl:

[Orrex]

18. "it appeared to be fairly small but it must have been fairly huge."

Well, that's about as unambiguous a description as we could have hoped for...

[purduejake]

29. It's undoubtedly difficult to describe size and distance....

of an object of a nature you've never seen before.

[Orrex]

33. For you and me, sure. But this guy's a pilot with 20 years' experience!

If he can't do better than "it's big or it's small," then I'm not sure I want him judging the distance to the runway, either.

But in practical terms, this presents an additional difficulty; advocates of UFO-as-spacecraft like to cite pilots as unimpeachably credible witnesses. But in this case it's clear that his description is no more clear than "I don't know what it was."

Can we call it a UFO? Sure, because it's unidentified.

Can we call it an alien craft? Not really, based on the minimal evidence at our disposal.

[purduejake]

38. 20 years of experience...

And how much of that is looking at UFOs? I don't think I called it an alien craft although I argued that it's easier for me to believe extraterrestrial origin rather than some government conspiracy.

[Orrex]

42. The article made a point of mentioning his 20 years' experience

So it seems that someone, at least, thinks that it's relevant.

And, like I said, UFO-advocates are historically very fond of citing pilots and military personnel when there's no actual evidence to support a claim. But here we have a great example of why that's a questionable tactic; the pilot can't make head or tail of what he's seen, so his testimony is of little value.

[purduejake]

44. 20 years of experience...

FLYING. Not judging the size of anomalous craft. If you can't honestly discuss this, I'm not going to bother replying.

[Orrex]

50. Ah, yes. The old "I don't like what you're saying, so I quit" argument

Well, someone in this thread made a point of referring to "another high profile case involving credible aviation professionals," so apparently someone judged the pilot to be credible.

Oh, wait a minute! That was in your original post! No wonder it seems so familiar.

On what basis do you judge him to be credible? The article gives no evidence other than his 20 years' experience. Are you privy to details not revealed in the article? Do tell, please!


If you're tired of discussing this, you're obviously free to walk away. But don't make the mistake of thinking that you've proven your point.

[purduejake]

56. Actually, it's the "you're ignoring the facts of the case" argument.

RADAR DATA. You keep ignoring that and I keep correcting you. You're wasting my time... that's the argument.

On edit: I'm actually the one wasting my time and that's why I'm going to stop. There is no point debating with people when they are close-minded and even want to debate about what I saw.

[Orrex]

60. Accusations of closed-mindedness are the last refuge of the embattled woo-woo

It is hardly closed-minded of me to say "let's have some clear evidence," when all we have so far is murky uncertainty and wishful thinking.

Here's a quick recap of the facts:

1. We have inconclusive radar data, from which we can draw no solid conclusions.

2. We have eyewitness hearsay, from which we can draw no solid conclusions.

3. We have no clear photos of the alleged event, so we can draw no solid conclusions.


Did I miss any?

Now, if you'd be so kind, please tell me what you conclude based on these facts? That you saw something weird? Super.

[Selatius]

20. It was probably government aircraft.

At any rate, that explanation holds more water than an extra-terrestrial vehicle.

[Orrex]

22. Sure, unless it's an Extra-Terrestrial Water-Holding Vehicle

Then, all bets are off.

[purduejake]

27. Really?

Because I think it would be more plausible to think these technologically advanced craft are from other civilizations than to believe some crazy conspiracy theory that our government holds the answers to our energy and transportation problems yet spends countless billions developing primitive jet and turbo-prop technologies.

[Selatius]

65. I have precedent to back up my claims.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s people were mistakenly reporting sightings of F-117 stealth fighters to the police as sightings of alien aircraft because nobody had seen such aircraft before outside of the team that built the thing. It was wedge shaped and looked like nothing in use by the Airforce at the time.

[devilgrrl]

26. No worries folks, it's just Gort and Klaatu

[Canuckistanian]

57. What would they want from us?

I mean, besides the sweet, sweet protein from our bodies.

I don't see any threat.

[purduejake]

58. You're right.

We're a very peaceful species.

[Canuckistanian]

62. And very good sautéed with a nice Chianti

slurpslurpslurpslurp

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. "Radar screens picked up some activity in the area" v. "nothing had appeared on his radar"

Report from the local paper:

Two experienced airline pilots on separate flights saw something up to a mile wide off the coast of Alderney on Monday afternoon. Surprisingly, Jersey radar equipment did not pick up the object, although an air traffic controller said he had received simultaneous reports from the Aurigny and Blue Islands pilots.
...
Paul Kelly, 31, the air traffic controller who was on duty, said the Blue Islands pilot had made a similar report, but nothing had appeared on his radar.
‘The pilot from Blue Islands was en route to Jersey at the same time and as he went past Sark he described an object behind him to his left,’ he said.
...
‘If the object was stationary, our equipment would not have picked it up because the radar would have screened it out.’

http://www.thisisguernsey.com/code/showarchive.pl?ArticleID=002080&year=2007&category=news

[SpiralHawk]

70. "We had our anti-radar system in 'obscure' mode." - Ashtar

"Neener, neener, neener, so you could not detect our Mother Ship. We are here to help
Commander AWOL & beloved republicon Crony succeed in destroying
this EVIL planet, and placing all you noisy freedom-loving proles in
Permanent Labor Camps for the benefit of our republicon allies.
Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha."

- Ashtar, Mutant Republicon Life Form

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. Was Elvis driving one? Heard he had a gig in Vegas.

[ruiner4u]

71. This gets the...........

[OlderButWiser]

72. Was this mile wide object

seen from the ground?