Airplane abducted by UFO caught on tape: Hoax or what?

jmart714
YouTube
Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:09 UTC

This video was posted on YouTube by user jmart714. The user does not seem to be a joker or hoaxer having only posted 2 videos in the past 3 years. The user states that the video was taken to the media who rejected it practically sight unseen since no airplanes had been reported missing in the area. What do you think...real, hoax, cover-up,test of new military craft ?

Below is the videographer's story.

Best wishes,

Donald Ryles PhD

The airplane was approaching Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson Arizona at approximately 4:15PM MST on August 8th, 2009. We first witnessed the object hovering in a locked position, southwest of the base. We thought it was a balloon, until it dropped in elevation a few thousand feet in less then a second. At that point I ran inside and grabbed my digital camera and rushed outside in time to catch the object approaching the airplane from behind. Unfortunately the microphone barely works on the camera, from being dropped so many times, so you can't hear much. But at least there is a little. The object made no sound, completely silent.

There was an attempt to take the video to the media, unfortunately, every affiliate rejected the video due to lack of evidence. There was no report in the city of a missing airplane, nor did the Air Force Base report anything missing. Many of the news affiliates did confirm that they had received calls on August 8th from various sources, claiming they had seen a UFO. They said that they receive calls on a regular basis dealing with UFOs all the time, as well as many hoax videos, and there was no reason to believe my video was anything different. They refused to believe that the Air Force base would withhold information about a missing airplane.

Comment: This was actually posted on SOTT a few days ago. A reader brought it to our attention that the person who filmed the incident and uploaded it to YouTube subsequently confessed to the video being a hoax. So we took the article down.

But then we remembered this:

Flashback: 1953: Pilot Felix Moncla Lost Chasing UFO

Moncla finally brought his jet to the exact spot of the UFO, but as he did, radar operators at Truax saw both blips as one. For a moment, it was expected that Moncla had gone over or under the UFO, causing the united blip, and that two blips would soon be seen again. But suddenly, the one blip faded, as no radar return was registered. Attempts to contact Moncla from ground control were unsuccessful.

Off the record, those close to the case believed that the loss of the Scorpion was a direct result of an encounter with the unknown object, clearly seen on radar. In recent months, the Michigan Diving Company has made assertions that they may have found the jet and the UFO, but this finding is still being investigated.

Richard Dolan recounts the 'merging' of craft, terrestrial and otherwise, in his seminal tract, UFO's and the National Security State:

Probably the most bizarre and controversial case of [1953] was the November 23rd incident over Soo Locks, Michigan. Keyhoe and Frank Edwards were the main people involved in ferreting this one out. What appears to have happened is that an Air Defense Command Ground Control Intercept controller was alerted to the presence of an unidentified and unscheduled target on his radar scope at Soo Locks. An F-89, piloted by 26 year old Felix Montcla and co-piloted by Lt. R. R. Wilson was scrambled to intercept the object. The radar station had the F-89 and the UFO on the scope as the blips merged into one. For a moment the single blip remained on the scope, then disappeared. No trace of wreckage or the missing men was ever found. The story was carried briefly on Associated Press, but Keyhoe and Edwards faced continual stonewalling by the military brass.

The Pentagon's official explanation was that the unknown radar blip turned out to be a Canadian C-47. The F-89, far from colliding with it, never got closer than several miles from the aircraft. Montcla's plane then crashed for unknown reasons, but he may have suffered from vertigo and lost control of his plane. The explanation was weak - no records indicated that he was flying on instruments, and no transcript of his conversations with traffic controllers was ever released. Furthermore, the Canadian government repeatedly denied any connection of its aircraft to the incident.

A few years later, a script for a production of the Soo Locks case was developed - and cleared - at Lackland AFB in Texas, promoting a strongly pro-UFO perspective. The script died a quick death, before which it was sent to Keyhoe and Richard Hall. Both believed the script was the creation of UFO enthusiasts acting on their own, not at the direction of Air Force Headquarters. Years later, Hall continued to think of the entire incident as "extremely odd."

Another incident in Australia in 1978 DOES include radio transcripts. Note the pilot's description of the UFO as it 'plays' with his airplane, darting back and forth at speeds the pilot "could not identify," vanishing then reappearing:

The mysterious disappearance of Frederick Valentich

Apparent victim of a UFO abduction who never returned. On 21st October 1978, Valentich took off from Moorabin airport in Victoria, Australia, in his single-engine Cessna 182 aircraft. His destination was King Island, a trip that would take about one hour, and which would take him over Bass Strait. At about 7:00pm, Valentich watched the approach of another aircraft, which hovered over his own, causing some engine trouble. He radioed Steve Robey at Melbourne Air Flight Service, informing him of the situation. Here is the (abridged) conversation that took place:

VALENTICH: Is there any known traffic below 5,000 [feet]?

MELBOURNE FLIGHT SERVICE: No known traffic.

V: Seems to be a large aircraft below 5,000.

MFS: What type of aircraft is it?

V: I cannot confirm it is four bright ... it seems to me like landing lights ... the aircraft has just passed over me at least a thousand feet above.

MFS: Roger and it is a large aircraft confirm.

V: Er, unknown due to the speed it's travelling. Is there any Air Force aircraft in the vicinity?

MFS: No known aircraft in the vicinity.

V: It's approaching now from due east towards me ... It seems to me that he's playing some sort of game, he's flying over me two to three times at a time at speeds I could not identify.

MFS: What is your actual level?

V: My level is 4,500, four five zero zero.

MFS: Confirm that you cannot identify the aircraft.

V: Affirmative.

MFS: Roger standby.

V: It's not an aircraft, it is ...

MFS: Can you describe the, er, aircraft?

V: As it's flying past, it's a long shape ... cannot identify more than before me right now, Melbourne.

MFS: Roger, and how large would the, er, object be?

V: It seems like its stationary. What I'm doing right now is orbiting and the thing is orbiting right now on top of me also. It's got a green light and sort of metallic like it's all shiny on the outside ... It's just vanished ... Would you know what kind of aircraft I've got, is it a military aircraft?

MFS: Confirm the, er, aircraft just vanished.

V: Say again.

MFS: Is the aircraft still with you?

V: ... Approaching from the southwest ... the engine is rough idling.

MFS: Roger. What are your intentions?

V: My intentions are, ah, to go to King Island, ah, Melbourne, that strange aircraft is hovering on top of me again ... it's hovering and it's not an aircraft ...

That was the last anyone ever heard of Frederick Valentich. No trace of him or his aircraft was found. According to NASA scientist Dr. Richard Haines, who analysed the tape of the above conversation, there was a 17-second burst of metallic noise following Valentich's last transmission. The conclusion of the Aircraft Accident Emergency Investigation Summary Report listed the following information:

Location of occurence: Not known
Time: Not known
Degree of injury: Presumed fatal
Opinion as to cause: The reason for the disappearance of the aircraft has not been determined

In 1982 an independent film maker named Ron Cameron was approached by two divers who claimed to have located the wreckage of Valentich's Cessna on the seabed off Cape Otway. They showed him some photographs of a plane with the Cessna's registration mark, and offered to sell them to him, with the plane's exact location for the sum of $10,000. They also claimed that Valentich's body was not in the plane. Cameron replied that he would need further verification before he handed over that much money. The divers were not heard from again, and their claims were regarded by most researchers to have been a hoax.

The Valentich disappearance remains unsolved, and there is no evidence that he faked his own death. It has been suggested that his plane got into trouble, ditched into the sea and sank immediately. However, the Cessna 182 is designed to float on impact with water. In addition, as ufologist Timothy Good states, "VHF radio would not be able to transmit below 1,000 feet from the aircraft's position of 90 miles from Melbourne, and Valentich's communications with the Flight Service Unit were loud and clear to the last word, as was the 17-second burst if 'metallic' noise which followed."

- From The Encyclopedia of Alien Encounters, by Alan Baker

So we see that such incidents have happened in the past, with credible evidence to support them. Could the owner of 'Airplane Abduction' video, Justin Martinez, have been 'made an offer he couldn't refuse' to call his own video a hoax? It has been viewed 70,000 times in little over a week since it was posted on YouTube, so it's certainly got people talking. Martinez has produced short films using CGI special effects before, so he appears capable of producing such a hoax.

Case closed? For this 'incident', perhaps. And yet, although there is a high probability of the incident being a fake, we DO need to bear in mind that very often staged incidents are commissioned and designed by the very factors that wish to make the real incidents appear doubtful or even ridiculous. One thing the government is VERY touchy about is any kind of implication of helplessness in the face of UFOs. A scenario like this - a UFO abducting an entire aircraft in broad daylight - panics the national security apparatus into doing whatever it takes to block mass awareness of our predicament and the attendant threat to social control.

At SOTT we strive to remain open to possibilities and to as many options as possible. Reliable data often DEMANDS that we leave all options open and consider all possibilities on their merit.

For many, the idea of being open to unlimited possibilities is an intimidating proposition. People want definite answers. They want hard and fast, black and white answers, which are duly supplied in droves through official culture. They invariably seek to control the outcome and thus constrict unlimited potential.

It is important to remember that you can always change your mind.

Truth, as always, is stranger than fiction.