PDA

View Full Version : [pepiboy32 introduces oscar santamaria huertes]



pepiboy32
2011-Jun-05, 08:14 PM
i have just recently stumbled on the story of oscar santamaria huertes - this peruvian military pilot actually fired at a ufo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS0Ws1WSuyI

fascinating stuff.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-05, 08:28 PM
So he fired at something he couldn't identify. So what?

Garrison
2011-Jun-05, 08:36 PM
i have just recently stumbled on the story of oscar santamaria huertes - this peruvian military pilot actually fired at a ufo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS0Ws1WSuyI

fascinating stuff.

Does this video contain any actual footage of the incident or other evidence, or is it just claims and unsupported testimony?

Garrison
2011-Jun-05, 09:21 PM
Against my better judgement I checked the video and it's nothing but Huertas(apparently that's the correct spelling) speaking at the event discussed in this thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/113666-UFOs-Generals-Pilots-and-Government-Officials-Go-On-the-Record

He speaks in Spanish, with an English translator. In short there's nothing here but another story where we are simply being asked to believe because the witness is apparently so credible.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-06, 04:25 AM
Against my better judgement I checked the video and it's nothing but Huertas(apparently that's the correct spelling) speaking at the event discussed in this thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/113666-UFOs-Generals-Pilots-and-Government-Officials-Go-On-the-Record

He speaks in Spanish, with an English translator. In short there's nothing here but another story where we are simply being asked to believe because the witness is apparently so credible.

no-one has 'asked' you to believe anything - and there is nothing 'apparent' about his credibility.

it's yet another story of somebody going about their everyday business and coming across a situation which is very much out of the ordinary.

maybe he's a liar.... maybe you're in denial..... who knows?

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-06, 04:46 AM
i have just recently stumbled on the story of oscar santamaria huertes - this peruvian military pilot actually fired at a ufo.


Why did he fire at a UFO? Firing at something he couldn't identify seems to be extremely questionable behavior.



fascinating stuff.


What is fascinating about it? Tell us, here.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jun-06, 05:39 AM
no-one has 'asked' you to believe anything - and there is nothing 'apparent' about his credibility.
Well, if all he said was that he don't know what he saw, then you'd be correct, his credibility wouldn't be much in question.

Unfortunately this is not the case since the description includes estimated distance, size and velocity.
Using his apparent credibility from being a pilot to put any weight on those estimates is what we're objecting to here, because it's well documented both that those are notoriously hard to estimate and that air force pilots are no better than anyone else at estimating them for unfamiliar objects.

Shaula
2011-Jun-06, 05:48 AM
Why did he fire at a UFO? Firing at something he couldn't identify seems to be extremely questionable behavior.
And possibly against international law:

Article 57(2)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that, with respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them

FWIW military types take the open fire order VERY seriously. They are not in the habit of saying "I don't know what that is ... ... FIRE!!"

amazeofdeath
2011-Jun-06, 02:37 PM
maybe he's a liar.... maybe you're in denial..... who knows?
Maybe he could produce some other evidence (read: official records, statements from the higher command) for permission to fire at an unidentified target.

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-06, 04:43 PM
...maybe he's a liar.... maybe you're in denial..... who knows?

Why must this be the "default" explanation? Do you have any evidence that would contradict that he was simply mistaken about what he saw??

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-06, 04:46 PM
Unfortunately this is not the case since the description includes estimated distance, size and velocity.

If the pilot thinks he can estimate the distance to an object, when he doesn't know what, or how large that object is...well, that pretty much kills his credibility as an objective observer.

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-06, 04:52 PM
it's yet another story of somebody going about their everyday business and coming across a situation which is very much out of the ordinary.

How do you know that what the pilot witnessed was "very much out of the ordinary", when you haven't eliminated ALL mundane explanations???

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-06, 05:46 PM
How do you know that what the pilot witnessed was "very much out of the ordinary", when you haven't eliminated ALL mundane explanations???

please suggest something mundane that could 'absorb' the bullets that the pilot fired and also perform the manoevres that the object did. i'm all ears.

Perikles
2011-Jun-06, 05:50 PM
i'm all ears.You'll need at lest one eye to read his answer.

slang
2011-Jun-06, 05:52 PM
please suggest something mundane that could 'absorb' the bullets that the pilot fired and also perform the manoevres that the object did. i'm all ears.

The usual technical term for 'absorbing' bullets with no perceivable effect on the target is called "missing". This applies to both missing to left, right, top, bottom as well as due to insufficient range.

Swift
2011-Jun-06, 05:58 PM
please suggest something mundane that could 'absorb' the bullets that the pilot fired and also perform the manoevres that the object did. i'm all ears.
pepiboy32,

It is up to you to present evidence that something extraordinary has gone on with this incident, it is not up to the rest of the membership to prove otherwise, or to provide mundane explanations. If they choose to give you alternative explanations, that is their choice, but you can not make demands.

Garrison
2011-Jun-06, 05:59 PM
please suggest something mundane that could 'absorb' the bullets that the pilot fired and also perform the manoevres that the object did. i'm all ears.

If you want us to accept the claims about absorbing bullets and the maneuvers then present some evidence they happened. As it stands you are simply asking us to take the pilots word for events that took place 30 years ago. The simplest explanation for the claims is that the pilot was mistaken in his estimates of what he was seeing and his bullets passed through thin air.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-06, 06:38 PM
You'll need at lest one eye to read his answer.

d'you know what? ... i dont need that eye you know! i already know what his answer will be.

you see, 99% of the posters on here already 'know' that alien visitation has not taken place - so that explanation is not even entertained. then they have the audacity to call themselves skeptics. they are debunkers plain and simple!

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-06, 06:45 PM
...99% of the posters on here already 'know' that alien visitation has not taken place - so that explanation is not even entertained.

Bologna....you've been "tasked" to demonstrate that these sightings do not have a mundane explanation, but instead of presenting ANY evidence, you make unsupported claims re. what posters here think.

It's not like we've never seen these type of "tactics" employed by believers.

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-06, 06:47 PM
My questions, again:


Why did he fire at a UFO? Firing at something he couldn't identify seems to be extremely questionable behavior.



What is fascinating about it? Tell us, here.

So far, pepiboy, you've presented a youtube link, but you haven't given any detailed description or discussion. Tell us what is supposed to be fascinating. Don't just point to a link.

Swift
2011-Jun-06, 06:59 PM
d'you know what? ... i dont need that eye you know! i already know what his answer will be.

you see, 99% of the posters on here already 'know' that alien visitation has not taken place - so that explanation is not even entertained. then they have the audacity to call themselves skeptics. they are debunkers plain and simple!
pepiboy32,

You know what, that earned you a Friendly Warning infraction. You need to lose the attitude and you need to start answering the questions put to you (like Van Rijn's question above), or you will be infracted and suspended. No more warnings.

Garrison
2011-Jun-06, 07:05 PM
d'you know what? ... i dont need that eye you know! i already know what his answer will be.

you see, 99% of the posters on here already 'know' that alien visitation has not taken place - so that explanation is not even entertained. then they have the audacity to call themselves skeptics. they are debunkers plain and simple!

So I'm guessing you've got no evidence to offer to back this claim up either then?
My view is simple, there is no reason to believe that such visitations have taken place, given the available evidence. Some pilot saying that he opened fire on some unknown sighting 30 years ago is not the sort of evidence that's going to change my view.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-06, 07:09 PM
Yeah, I'd love to see real evidence of extraterrestrial life, to say nothing of alien visitation to this planet. Nothing I've seen thus far proves anything more than that people aren't always very good at identifying what they see.

Bobbar
2011-Jun-06, 08:22 PM
I have a friend who's an F-16 instructor and airline captain. If he told me that he fired upon the Ohio grass man in a bush, and brought back nothing but a story, that is still only an uncompelling and wacky story, regardless of his 'credibility'.

eburacum45
2011-Jun-06, 10:43 PM
Here's a transcript of Huerte's account
http://uforesearchnetwork.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=allthelatestuforeports&action=print&thread=211
he fired at it several times, and missed (or, as he would say, 'probably they were absorbed'.)

I find one sentence particularly interesting;

After I landed, the object remained stationary in the sky for two more hours, for everyone at the base to see.

A similar thing happened in the Tehran case

According to Pirouzi, it was about 4:00 AM when the original UFO climbed upward and disappeared from view.
from
http://brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

and in the Rendlesham case

03:30 and the objects are still in the sky, although the one to the south looks like it’s losing a little bit of altitude. We’re turning around and heading back toward the base.
from
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.htm

All three sightings include phenomena which hung around in the night sky long into the night, a characteristic which seems to suggest a misidentification of some celestial object was involved for part or all of the sighting.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-07, 12:21 AM
If the object was visible for that long, wouldn't there be good footage of it? Clear photographs? Something?

Jason Thompson
2011-Jun-07, 07:21 AM
Well quite. If something hangs around long enough for someone to go in and get some decent imaging equipment and try to record it, why didn't anyone go in and get some decent imaging equipment and try to record it? We are talking about someone at a military base, right? And they had no suitable equipment?!

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-07, 08:45 AM
Here's a transcript of Huerte's account
http://uforesearchnetwork.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=allthelatestuforeports&action=print&thread=211
he fired at it several times, and missed (or, as he would say, 'probably they were absorbed'.)


And he KEPT SHOOTING. If they thought it was a balloon, with espionage being a concern, a shoot order might be credible. But when he realized it wasn't a balloon, wouldn't it have been time to reevaluate? If it was actually what he claimed it was, didn't it occur to him that this would be something or someone you probably did not want to annoy?

And yes, with all that was claimed to happen, and given how long the blob stuck around, there definitely should have been images. You would want them, because somebody would want to review these events. I would, for one.

Garrison
2011-Jun-07, 12:35 PM
And he KEPT SHOOTING. If they thought it was a balloon, with espionage being a concern, a shoot order might be credible. But when he realized it wasn't a balloon, wouldn't it have been time to reevaluate? If it was actually what he claimed it was, didn't it occur to him that this would be something or someone you probably did not want to annoy?

And yes, with all that was claimed to happen, and given how long the blob stuck around, there definitely should have been images. You would want them, because somebody would want to review these events. I would, for one.


One would have thought they would have wanted clear images even before the failed attempt at a shoot down, and it would have been practically mandatory afterwards, unless of course someone in the meantime contacted an astronomer/meteorologist and discovered that it actually was something quite mundane. If I was in charge and my airforce had been shooting at Venus or some such I would have buried the records too...

Tog
2011-Jun-07, 12:52 PM
His transcribed statement was that this all happened in an SU-22 and that he stopped climbing at 63,000 feet. Is that part plausible? The only information I can find on it says that they have a ceiling of about 53,000.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-07, 01:58 PM
Here's a transcript of Huerte's account
http://uforesearchnetwork.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=allthelatestuforeports&action=print&thread=211
he fired at it several times, and missed (or, as he would say, 'probably they were absorbed'.)

I find one sentence particularly interesting;


A similar thing happened in the Tehran case

from
http://brumac.8k.com/IranJetCase/

and in the Rendlesham case

from
http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/rendlesham3.htm

All three sightings include phenomena which hung around in the night sky long into the night, a characteristic which seems to suggest a misidentification of some celestial object was involved for part or all of the sighting.

thanx ebauracum - i respect and admire your objective view of the subject in hand. i am, however suprised that the only sentence you find interesting is the only one that may possibly have a mundane explanation -personally, i find the other 90% of the testimony much more interesting.

my op was a footnote to the tehran incident which subsequently spawned it's own thread.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-07, 03:30 PM
Well quite. If something hangs around long enough for someone to go in and get some decent imaging equipment and try to record it, why didn't anyone go in and get some decent imaging equipment and try to record it? We are talking about someone at a military base, right? And they had no suitable equipment?!

how do you know they didn't?

Perikles
2011-Jun-07, 03:56 PM
how do you know they didn't?It makes sense to assume they didn't, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Do you have that evidence?

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-07, 05:33 PM
From the transcript, it looks possible to me that the UFO gained
altitude whenever the jet fighter gained altitude, so as to maintain
a constant position in the sky relative to the plane. Like the Moon,
which was high in the sky at the time. The Moon would probably
have become almost invisible within a couple of hours after the
incident because of the Sun's brightness.

I wonder if the pilot was aware in 1980 that the Moon can be up
in the sky in daytime.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Tedward
2011-Jun-07, 05:39 PM
Not sure my starry night is giving me the right info. I pop those times and place (near by) in and it shows the local sky as dark not sunny? Sun rise And a crescent moon.

Garrison
2011-Jun-07, 05:48 PM
thanx ebauracum - i respect and admire your objective view of the subject in hand. i am, however suprised that the only sentence you find interesting is the only one that may possibly have a mundane explanation -personally, i find the other 90% of the testimony much more interesting.


It is not the only one that has a mundane explanation, it just provides the trigger point for misperceptions and mistakes to pile up and make something fantastic out of something ordinary. You've been offered explanations for the other 90% at least in the Tehran case, your rebuttal has amounted to no more than a demand that we take the eyewitnesses word for it.

Garrison
2011-Jun-07, 05:51 PM
how do you know they didn't?

Again you are trying to shift the burden, do you have evidence that they made any sort of recording?

Halcyon Dayz
2011-Jun-07, 08:31 PM
d'you know what? ... i dont need that eye you know! i already know what his answer will be.

you see, 99% of the posters on here already 'know' that alien visitation has not taken place - so that explanation is not even entertained. then they have the audacity to call themselves skeptics. they are debunkers plain and simple!

Not presuming the existence of unknown entities sounds like a solidly parsimonious null hypothesis to me.

redshifter
2011-Jun-07, 09:57 PM
d'you know what? ... i dont need that eye you know! i already know what his answer will be.

you see, 99% of the posters on here already 'know' that alien visitation has not taken place - so that explanation is not even entertained. then they have the audacity to call themselves skeptics. they are debunkers plain and simple!

99% (maybe even 99.9%) of the posters here just need to see solid evidence to support the claim...Do you have any such evidence? We'd love to see it. Of course we're skeptical. What would you expect with the absence of evidence?

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-07, 10:38 PM
Why did he fire at a UFO? Firing at something he couldn't identify seems to be extremely questionable behavior.



What is fascinating about it? Tell us, here.

he fired at the ufo because he was ordered to.... it was in restricted airspace - this is all explained in the link.......

have you even bothered to watch it?

NickW
2011-Jun-07, 10:43 PM
have you even bothered to watch it?

I can tell you I have not, and here is why. A video by itself, is not evidence. When there is other evidence that supports this story that it was an alien spacecraft, then I might watch the movie, but at this point it probably isn't even entertaining.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-07, 10:43 PM
It makes sense to assume they didn't, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Do you have that evidence?

if (as may be the case) alien visitation has been taking place, then it automatically follows that a cover-up has been taking place also - therefore, if any footage was taken, it's a 'given' that the general public would not be aware of it.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-07, 10:46 PM
I can tell you I have not, and here is why. A video by itself, is not evidence. When there is other evidence that supports this story that it was an alien spacecraft, then I might watch the movie, but at this point it probably isn't even entertaining.

but the video DOES answer the question that the poster asked - this is so frustrating - it reminds me of creationists who wont take a trip to the local natural history museum aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh hhhhhh!!!!!!

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-07, 10:56 PM
he fired at the ufo because he was ordered to.... it was in restricted airspace - this is all explained in the link.......

have you even bothered to watch it?

No, I haven't. I was hoping you'd bother to tell us more about it.

I did, however, look at the transcript that eburacum45 linked to later, and as I pointed out, the initial claim was that this was a balloon, but why did he keep shooting at it when he decided it was NOT a balloon? Wouldn't you think that some reevaluation was called for at that point?

Garrison
2011-Jun-07, 10:56 PM
if (as may be the case) alien visitation has been taking place, then it automatically follows that a cover-up has been taking place also - therefore, if any footage was taken, it's a 'given' that the general public would not be aware of it.

Nice bit of circular reasoning, and neatly does away with the need to offer any real evidence, if anyone were inclined to accept such spurious logic. As for your next post:


but the video DOES answer the question that the poster asked - this is so frustrating - it reminds me of creationists who wont take a trip to the local natural history museum aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh hhhhhh!!!!!!

No, in the museum there will be fossils and other solid evidence, what you are offering is the equivalent of a natural history museum full of nothing but sworn statements pinned to the walls from people who insist they saw a fossil, alongside blurry photos of who knows what.

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-07, 10:57 PM
What Huertas said about what he was ordered to do sounds very
suspicious to me:



My unit commander ordered me to takeoff in my Sukhoi 22 jet to
shoot down the spherical object. It was in restricted airspace, without
clearance, and we were concerned about espionage.
What responsible military commander would order a pilot to shoot
down a UFO without first identifying it? None, I think. If the objective
was only to shoot it down, it would have been shot down from the
ground. I suspect that Huertas's original order was to try to identify
the UFO, not to shoot it down. Shooting at something without
identifying it first is a really bad thing in peacetime. I don't think Peru
was at war at the time.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-07, 10:59 PM
it was the height of the cold war jeff.

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-07, 11:03 PM
if (as may be the case) alien visitation has been taking place, then
it automatically follows that a cover-up has been taking place also -
therefore, if any footage was taken, it's a 'given' that the general
public would not be aware of it.
Luckily, this particular UFO was over a military air base, where a
coverup might work. But has Huertas said that he was ordered to
participate in a coverup? Has Huertas offered his own explanation
of why he has no pictures to go with his story? Huertas wouldn't
necessarily agree with your explanation.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Garrison
2011-Jun-07, 11:12 PM
it was the height of the cold war jeff.

Sorry but no. Even in a real, and tragic, event like the KAL flight 007 shootdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007) efforts were made to establish contact and identify the aircraft prior to attacking, the notion that a pilot would be launched with what amounts to a shoot to kill order on an unidentified target is fanciful, particularly one that was apparently a 'stationary object in the sky'. Oh and look how well the Soviet coverup in the KAL 007 incident lasted...

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-07, 11:49 PM
it was the height of the cold war jeff.

So?

I'd expect a lot more justification for the initial shoot order of a balloon, and even more justification for why he kept shooting when he decided it wasn't a balloon. Why wasn't there a reevaluation?

Don't you find that questionable at all? If you're looking for credibility, doesn't this give you reason to question his?

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-08, 12:22 AM
...this is so frustrating - it reminds me of creationists who wont take a trip to the local natural history museum.

This "comparison" doesn't make any sense.

How does "our" demand for evidence in any way compare to creationists Who won't visit the museum??

Swift
2011-Jun-08, 01:36 AM
but the video DOES answer the question that the poster asked - this is so frustrating - it reminds me of creationists who wont take a trip to the local natural history museum aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh hhhhhh!!!!!!
pepiboy32,

So far, the only evidence you have offered is this single video (and yes, I watched it), you have not politely answered questions put to you, and then you rant at other members. This is my last warning, you will either start following our rules, you will politely answer questions put to you and you will offer evidence of your claims, or you may retract your claims, or this thread will be closed (depending on your behavior you may earn an infraction).

NickW
2011-Jun-08, 01:44 AM
but the video DOES answer the question that the poster asked - this is so frustrating - it reminds me of creationists who wont take a trip to the local natural history museum aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhh hhhhhh!!!!!!

If it answers the questions, why do so many people keep asking questions. You are taking everything in the video as evidence, yet you are unwilling to answer questions. It puts the credibility of the person in the video, as well yours, into question.

Selenite
2011-Jun-08, 02:31 AM
I had to glide part way down due to lack of fuel, zigzagging to make my plane harder to hit, always with my eyes on the rearview mirrors, hoping it wouldn't chase me. It didn't.

I spent 22 minutes maneuvering with this object.

I'm no expert on military aircraft, but it seems to me that if a fighter bomber starts to run out of gas after a mere 22 minutes of maneuvering with an object over it's own base I'd be shopping my Peruvian pesos around for a plane with better range.

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-08, 03:01 AM
I'm downloading the video now. Since I only have a dial-up
connection, it will take almost an hour to download the
whole thing if I keep going. However, so far, it is just a
talking head saying word-for-word what is in the translated
transcript. I think the transcript contains everything there
is to be had. And is only about a thousandth as long.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Eagletree
2011-Jun-08, 04:51 AM
Pepiboy32, Maybe the best way to put it is that the video is a testimony, nothing more. A testimony is not evidence because people fabricate things as much as they tell the truth, and even if they are telling the truth, it's as easy for it to be an unintentional fabrication as it is to be an accurate memory. If there is nothing beyond a testimony, it doesn't stand up in court (at least here). It's a starting point for an investigation.

An unbiased approach to the testimony is, if it's credible, then the investigation starts, the believing at that point is just whether it's worth investigating to see if there is a case. The case then is eventually made of evidence and testimony. To believe on testimony is dangerous. For you and I, that becomes an extreme difficulty in cases like this. We have to spend money to travel to the source and dig up actual evidence. It's rather impractical to do that. For me, that means if there isn't some way of obtaining evidence, the testimony has to be discounted.

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-08, 05:36 AM
There wasn't anything in the video that wasn't in the translated transcript.



They all observed a stationary object in the sky, which looked like a
balloon .... It was luminous because it reflected the sun.
...
It was an enameled, cream-colored dome, with a wide, circular,
metallic base. It had no engines, no exhausts, no windows, no wings
or antennae. It lacked all the typical aircraft components, with no
visible propulsion system.
I've tried to draw it as Huertas described it, as seen from below:

15071
http://www.bautforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15071&d=1307510153

If I were to talk with Huertas, I'd ask him:

How many photos of the UFO were obtained?

Why was he ordered to shoot the UFO down before it was identified?

How far from the base did he chase the UFO?

Why did he nearly run out of fuel after only 22 minutes?

Did he have to change direction to chase the UFO, or
did he fly in the same direction the whole time?

How high in the sky was the UFO? (Angle above horizon.)

Was he ever at the same altitude or higher than the UFO?

Did anyone on the ground see the UFO move while he was
chasing it?

Is the Moon visible when the Sun is up?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-08, 08:00 AM
Yeah, that sure looks like the Moon to me.

gwiz
2011-Jun-08, 08:54 AM
Yeah, that sure looks like the Moon to me.

Or a balloon.

Without watching the video, why was a balloon ruled out? Those big high-altitude scientific balloons fly well above the altitude any aircraft could reach.

Strange
2011-Jun-08, 09:00 AM
if (as may be the case) alien visitation has been taking place, then it automatically follows that a cover-up has been taking place also

Could you clarify what you mean by that. Do you mean:
a) If alien visitation has been taking place AND there is no evidence, then this is evidence for a cover-up.
Or
b) If alien visitation has been taking place THEN (for some reason) it will be covered up.

It seems to me that (a) is effectively meaningless: it tells us nothing unless you assume the truth of either alien visitation or a cover-up. And the cover-up seems unlikely, given how useless governments seem to be at keeping things secret. And there is no evidence for alien visitation. So we are no further ahead.

And (b) not only has the problem of governments being able to keep the evidence hidden but also raises the obvious question "why?"

Jason Thompson
2011-Jun-08, 10:58 AM
how do you know they didn't?

How do you know they did and it's being covered up?

slang
2011-Jun-08, 02:35 PM
I'm no expert on military aircraft, but it seems to me that if a fighter bomber starts to run out of gas after a mere 22 minutes of maneuvering with an object over it's own base I'd be shopping my Peruvian pesos around for a plane with better range.

That depends on the airplane configuration, whether it's carrying any external fuel stores, drag from other stores, etc. But 22 minutes is a very long time for a dogfight situation, jets consume an awful lot of fuel at full power and afterburner. (I haven't watched the video, but it's also possible that the pilot reached the bingo point, meaning that whatever fuel is left is needed to return to base, with a bit to spare).

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-08, 03:06 PM
lots of good points being made here and lots of questions to be answered (which i wll in due course,and politely - within the next 24 hours)

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-08, 05:13 PM
pepiboy32,

So far, the only evidence you have offered is this single video (and yes, I watched it), you have not politely answered questions put to you, and then you rant at other members. This is my last warning, you will either start following our rules, you will politely answer questions put to you and you will offer evidence of your claims, or you may retract your claims, or this thread will be closed (depending on your behavior you may earn an infraction).

Ummm...how do I put this...so what happened to "no more warnings"???

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-08, 05:14 PM
lots of good points being made here and lots of questions to be answered (which i wll in due course,and politely - within the next 24 hours)

Why does this sound so "familiar"?

PetersCreek
2011-Jun-08, 05:52 PM
Ummm...how do I put this...so what happened to "no more warnings"???

You put it in a report or a PM. Do not discuss/dispute/question moderation in-thread.


Why does this sound so "familiar"?

And that will be enough of that, too.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-08, 06:07 PM
How do you know they did and it's being covered up?

i dont know that they did - the point i was making was that:

a) if they didn't film it - then there is no footage

b) if they did film it - then they wouldn't show it to the general public so we wouldn't know about it anyway

so the fact that there aint any footage readily available to us is not evidence that the event didn't happen (as was infered by several posts earlier in the thread)

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-08, 06:17 PM
...so the fact that there aint any footage readily available to us is not evidence that the event didn't happen (as was infered by several posts earlier in the thread)

Nor is it evidence that anything "extraordinary" occurred.

Without any credible evidence, all you have is the "word" of the pilot.

The idea of visiting ET is too important a question to simply accept the "word" of ANYONE. That is why we require evidence that can be tested independently...evidence that is credible...

Awaiting your presentation of that evidence...

Gillianren
2011-Jun-08, 06:24 PM
so the fact that there aint any footage readily available to us is not evidence that the event didn't happen (as was infered by several posts earlier in the thread)

So the fact remains that all we have is the unsupported word of a single person. So I have a couple of questions.

1. What do you know about this person other than that he appears in the video? In other words, what reason do you have to trust him other than "why would he lie?" Because I can come up with quite a few reasons, even leaving out "he wasn't lying; he was simply mistaken in what he saw," which is the most likely explanation.

2. If there was such a big coverup that any pictures/film taken of the incident will never be shown, what consequences can Huertas expect to suffer from coming forward?

3. What consequences has he suffered?

4. What exactly was Peru's involvement in the Cold War, that it's more likely that a Peruvian jet would fire on an unidentified object than would a Soviet or American one?

5. If government coverups are so successful that there is no reason to expect a leak of the footage/photos from this incident, how do you explain things like Watergate and Iran-Contra?

NEOWatcher
2011-Jun-08, 06:29 PM
I find it hard to believe that out of an entire military base full of people that saw this, the one person they would most likely "hush" is the only person speaking.

Garrison
2011-Jun-08, 06:32 PM
i dont know that they did - the point i was making was that:

a) if they didn't film it - then there is no footage

b) if they did film it - then they wouldn't show it to the general public so we wouldn't know about it anyway

so the fact that there aint any footage readily available to us is not evidence that the event didn't happen (as was infered by several posts earlier in the thread)

You've offered noting to suggest such footage might exist, you've offered no evidence any such conspiracy is even possible let alone actually exists. You've offered nothing but the uncorroborated testimony of one pilot whom it seems quite likely was taking pot shots at a weather balloon and missed. Have you got one thing besides Huertas story to suggest that isn't so?

Garrison
2011-Jun-08, 06:36 PM
I find it hard to believe that out of an entire military base full of people that saw this, the one person they would most likely "hush" is the only person speaking.

That would be number 2 on my hard to believe list, number 1 is that despite this thing hanging around for a further two hours everyone seems to have shrugged their shoulders and ignored it after Huertas got back to base.

Hal37214
2011-Jun-08, 07:00 PM
Nor is it evidence that anything "extraordinary" occurred.

Without any credible evidence, all you have is the "word" of the pilot.

The idea of visiting ET is too important a question to simply accept the "word" of ANYONE. That is why we require evidence that can be tested independently...evidence that is credible...

Awaiting your presentation of that evidence...


And to the same point, the photographic evidence is not required to disprove the extraordinary claim.

Space Chimp
2011-Jun-08, 07:04 PM
4. What exactly was Peru's involvement in the Cold War, that it's more likely that a Peruvian jet would fire on an unidentified object than would a Soviet or American one?



To be fair, Peru and Ecuador have had a series of border wars going back many decades. The most recent being the Cenepa War of 1995 in which Peru actually lost a few of it's Su-22s. That might explain any trigger happy behaviour more than any East-West Cold War scenario. However, I find this pilot's testimony rather hollow and useless thirty-one years after the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenepa_War

Maybe it was an Ecuadorian UFO? :D

Gillianren
2011-Jun-08, 07:44 PM
Sure, but that wasn't the response to the question we were given when the question, "Why did he shoot at an unidentified object without attempts at communication?" was asked. We got "It was the Cold War."

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jun-08, 08:33 PM
if (as may be the case) alien visitation has been taking place, then it automatically follows that a cover-up has been taking place also - therefore, if any footage was taken, it's a 'given' that the general public would not be aware of it.
Why do you think a cover-up automatically follows?

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-08, 11:36 PM
Sure, but that wasn't the response to the question we were given when the question, "Why did he shoot at an unidentified object without attempts at communication?" was asked. We got "It was the Cold War."

wrong wrong WRONG... i was responding to jeffs assertion that there wasn't any war going on!!!


please please PLEASE dont misquote me madam!!!!!

PetersCreek
2011-Jun-08, 11:53 PM
wrong wrong WRONG... i was responding to jeffs assertion that there wasn't any war going on!!!


please please PLEASE dont misquote me madam!!!!!

Calm down.

If you want to be quoted more precisely, then you should post more precisely. I went back and read your response to Jeff and you did not make it at all clear that you were responding only to a limited portion of his post. I say this because you did not quote any part of his post in your response. This made it appear that you offered your "cold war" answer as a general response to his post.

Now, as one who served during the Cold War, I'll say that your answer was not very satisfying. The Cold War was not a war in the conventional sense and the same rules of engagement did not routinely apply as they would in a declared war.

NickW
2011-Jun-08, 11:54 PM
wrong wrong WRONG... i was responding to jeffs assertion that there wasn't any war going on!!!


please please PLEASE dont misquote me madam!!!!!

That is pretty hypocritical, considering Jeff made no such assertion. He said he didn't think Peru was at war with anyone.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-08, 11:55 PM
So the fact remains that all we have is the unsupported word of a single person. So I have a couple of questions.

1. What do you know about this person other than that he appears in the video? In other words, what reason do you have to trust him other than "why would he lie?" Because I can come up with quite a few reasons, even leaving out "he wasn't lying; he was simply mistaken in what he saw," which is the most likely explanation.

2. If there was such a big coverup that any pictures/film taken of the incident will never be shown, what consequences can Huertas expect to suffer from coming forward?

3. What consequences has he suffered?

4. What exactly was Peru's involvement in the Cold War, that it's more likely that a Peruvian jet would fire on an unidentified object than would a Soviet or American one?

5. If government coverups are so successful that there is no reason to expect a leak of the footage/photos from this incident, how do you explain things like Watergate and Iran-Contra?

1) he didn't just see 'it' - he engaged 'it' in a dog fight for 22 minutes - but please give me your 'quite a few' reasons why he would lie (i'm intrigued)

2)i never asserted that there was any footage taken - i have no idea what consequences he may endure due to his 'coming forward'

3)i refer the honourable lady to the above answer

4) i refer you to space chimp's ownership of you on this one (thanx chimpy)

5) i never asserted that there is any footage.... strawman.... have you stopped beating your husband....

next!

Jim
2011-Jun-09, 12:39 AM
So?

I'd expect a lot more justification for the initial shoot order of a balloon, and even more justification for why he kept shooting when he decided it wasn't a balloon. Why wasn't there a reevaluation?

Don't you find that questionable at all? If you're looking for credibility, doesn't this give you reason to question his?

Pepiboy32, Van Rijn has asked this question several times yet you haven't answered it yet (or I missed it). Please answer it now.

Tensor
2011-Jun-09, 12:50 AM
1) he didn't just see 'it' - he engaged 'it' in a dog fight for 22 minutes - but please give me your 'quite a few' reasons why he would lie (i'm intrigued)

Noticed you didn't bother actually answering what you know about the person.


4) i refer you to space chimp's ownership of you on this one (thanx chimpy)

Actually, space chimp gave a possibility of Peru's involvement with Ecuador, not it's involvement in the cold war. You're the one that brought up Peru's involvement in the Cold war. In post #47, in response to Jeff Root's question in post #46. That doesn't sound like owning her. However, since you were thanking him, you must agree with his statement :"However, I find this pilot's testimony rather hollow and useless thirty-one years after the fact."

Gillianren
2011-Jun-09, 12:56 AM
1) he didn't just see 'it' - he engaged 'it' in a dog fight for 22 minutes - but please give me your 'quite a few' reasons why he would lie (i'm intrigued)

Well, you're paying attention to him now, aren't you? He might also have a book deal out. If you don't assume that his motives are pure, the possible reasons become obvious. However, I only count him as seeing something and firing at it. Being "engaged in a dogfight" means that it fired back.


2)i never asserted that there was any footage taken - i have no idea what consequences he may endure due to his 'coming forward'

I know you didn't. You responded to the assertion that it ought to have been with the statement that, if it was, it was obviously covered up. Despite having no evidence that it was. The assertion that there ought to be clear photos and footage of an event of great interest which lasted several hours is an extremely logical one, and your only refutation of it was the statement that there was obviously a coverup if there were, because we hadn't seen any. This is, as I'm sure you are aware, circular reasoning. However, a coverup also requires that people involved in something suffer consequences if they reveal the thing being covered up. Are you aware of what those were in things like the Manhattan Project?


3)i refer the honourable lady to the above answer

The "honourable lady" could do with a bit less of the sarcasm and a bit more serious considering of the question and the reasoning behind it. What consequences he has or hasn't suffered from coming forward are directly relevant to the issue at hand. If there was no coverup, you have to answer the question of why no one, including Huertas, thought the incident important enough to take photos or film during the "hours" it was happening. If there was one, you have to answer the question of what the Peruvian government might reasonably do to Huertas for coming forward.


4) i refer you to space chimp's ownership of you on this one (thanx chimpy)

Rudeness aside, that isn't actually an answer to the question. The question was more about the requirements American and Soviet jet fighters had to follow before they engaged a supposed enemy. A series of border skirmishes between two nations? Okay. On the other hand, do you have evidence that a written order, for example, was not necessary before firing? Do you know the sequence of events which had to be followed before live fire was authorized? What, in short, does the Cold War have to do with anything that you brought it up at all?


5) i never asserted that there is any footage.... strawman.... have you stopped beating your husband....

No, you explicitly rejected our reasonable assertion that there would be some. Since you have done this, you must be able to explain how a government would be able to successfully hide them. If not, you must concede that no footage or photographs were taken, despite several hours of visibility, according to Huertas, of the "object." You must then explain why there wasn't any.

All I'm asking for you to do is to look at this logically and in historical context. Why didn't you do that before you presented it as interesting?

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-09, 01:01 AM
a) if they didn't film it - then there is no footage

b) if they did film it - then they wouldn't show it to the general public so
we wouldn't know about it anyway
They might show it or they might not. You have no idea whether they
would show it or not. All we know is that they didn't show any.



so the fact that there aint any footage readily available to us is not
evidence that the event didn't happen (as was infered by several
posts earlier in the thread)
I would have to re-read the thread to be sure, but I don't recall anyone
making such an inference. Until I read this just now, the thought had
not occurred to me that the event might not have happened. What I
did have in mind is that the event didn't happen quite the way Huertas
described it.

The combination of the facts that no photos have come from this
event, and Huertas did not claim that any photos were "covered up",
and provided no other explanation for the lack of photos, implies
that he is unaware that there was ample opportunity to take photos
and that photographic documentation of an attack by or on a possible
enemy is pretty much standard proceedure. The reason it is standard
proceedure is that without photographs it can be extremely difficult to
determine with any certainty whether the correct target has been hit.
The pilot may believe he hit the correct target, but the photos may
show otherwise. When an interceptor pilot flies into a situation not
even knowing what his target is, whether it is an enemy or not, whether
it has weapons or not, it will be particularly important to him and to his
commanders that he get that information before he fires on the target,
and record the event for later analysis. Why did Huertas not mention
any of that? It looks very suspicious. He has had more than three
decades to refine how he tells his story. Some explanation of the
surprising lack of photographic evidence is a missing part of his story.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Jim
2011-Jun-09, 01:11 AM
... 4) i refer you to space chimp's ownership of you on this one (thanx chimpy)

5) ... have you stopped beating your husband....

next!

Impolite and uncalled for. You should read Rule 2 very, very carefully.

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-09, 01:58 AM
So the fact remains that all we have is the unsupported word of
a single person. So I have a couple of questions.

1. What do you know about this person other than that he appears
in the video? In other words, what reason do you have to trust him
other than "why would he lie?" Because I can come up with quite
a few reasons, even leaving out "he wasn't lying; he was simply
mistaken in what he saw," which is the most likely explanation.
1) he didn't just see 'it' - he engaged 'it' in a dog fight for 22 minutes
That isn't an answer to Gillian's question.




4. What exactly was Peru's involvement in the Cold War, that it's
more likely that a Peruvian jet would fire on an unidentified object
than would a Soviet or American one?
4) i refer you to space chimp's ownership of you on this one (thanx chimpy)
Gillian asked *you*. You should answer.




5. If government coverups are so successful that there is no
reason to expect a leak of the footage/photos from this incident,
how do you explain things like Watergate and Iran-Contra?
5) i never asserted that there is any footage.... strawman....
I actually think this a rather unfair question from Gillian, but on the
other hand, it makes no difference whether you asserted that there
is any photography, and it makes no difference whether there is any
photography. The relevant fact is that you asserted that there
would be a coverup. That is what Gillian asked you about. There
is no strawman argument or strawman question there. If you had
not tried to weasel out of answering the question by calling it a
"strawman", I wouldn't have complained, because it is such a
difficult question to answer. But now I really think you should
answer it. Or make an honest attempt.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-09, 05:18 AM
1) he didn't just see 'it' - he engaged 'it' in a dog fight for 22 minutes - but please give me your 'quite a few' reasons why he would lie (i'm intrigued)


It's interesting that you would characterize it as a "dog fight." To me, that implies a battle with at least two participants that are trying to attack each other at close quarters. In this case, Huertes, by his own statements, was the only one shooting at what he initially thought was a balloon.

As for lying, if Huertes was shooting at the Moon (or some other misidentified target), I expect he wouldn't want to admit even to himself he was fighting imaginary enemies. Who would want to think of themselves as Don Quixote, tilting at windmills? Better to imagine he was fighting real giants.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-09, 05:46 AM
I actually think this a rather unfair question from Gillian, but on the other hand, it makes no difference whether you asserted that there is any photography, and it makes no difference whether there is any photography.

Personally, I just thought it was a question that someone should answer. The routine answer to why there isn't more convincing evidence of whatever ETH being proposed at any given time is "the government is covering it up." However, we've seen what happens when governments try to cover things up. Watergate and Iran-Contra are just two obvious examples. I would posit that, the more anyone would care about any given coverup, the harder it actually is to cover it up. Obviously, I can't prove that, but if I'm right, wouldn't that make covering up the existence of extraterrestrial visitation literally impossible?

Tedward
2011-Jun-09, 11:58 AM
I am starting to go for the moon and disorientation. The antics in the plane do not seem to match what I can find for a SU17 derivitive. No real plane spotter mind so I may have it wrong. This includes plane type and endurance and a service ceiling around 50,000. How much further can a zoom climb go? And the number of rounds carried. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Space Chimp
2011-Jun-09, 01:05 PM
4) i refer you to space chimp's ownership of you on this one (thanx chimpy)


I guess I fail to see where determining that Peru's air force is mostly there to impress it's neighbors than to impress the Soviets is owning anybody. :confused:

Given that Peru had proper fighter jets (Mirages) in it's inventory at the time, why would they send up a hybrid like the Su-22?

Swift
2011-Jun-09, 01:48 PM
I am starting to go for the moon and disorientation. The antics in the plane do not seem to match what I can find for a SU17 derivitive. No real plane spotter mind so I may have it wrong. This includes plane type and endurance and a service ceiling around 50,000. How much further can a zoom climb go? And the number of rounds carried. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
I couldn't find a lot of info about flight ceiling, and there are so many SU-22 variants, particularly in the export market, but this website (http://militaryforces.ru/weapon-1-2-4.html) gives the service ceiling for the SU-22M4 as 14,200 meters (46,600 feet).

This website (http://tig.ludost.net/plane_su22.html) gives the ceiling as 18,000 meters (59,000 feet).

Tedward
2011-Jun-09, 02:13 PM
Did seem a tad all over the place for this plane, information that is. Speaking to a chap who was a controller during the cold war in the UK and when they scrambled for the bears the first thing they would do is look for the tanker. So the next question is could this plane with after burner, take off and dog fight for 20 mins on one tank. Does mention a fraught landing but if he was fighting the moon then maybe it can.


Edit. Also it appears to be more of a ground attack but then if that is what you have at hand then so be it.

Garrison
2011-Jun-09, 07:25 PM
Did seem a tad all over the place for this plane, information that is. Speaking to a chap who was a controller during the cold war in the UK and when they scrambled for the bears the first thing they would do is look for the tanker. So the next question is could this plane with after burner, take off and dog fight for 20 mins on one tank. Does mention a fraught landing but if he was fighting the moon then maybe it can.


Edit. Also it appears to be more of a ground attack but then if that is what you have at hand then so be it.

But the thing is this 'object' hung around for several hours there were plenty of opportunities for a follow up sortie but we have nothing to show any such thing was done, all we have is Huertas rather scant account.

Tedward
2011-Jun-09, 09:37 PM
Sorry, had a reply set out and sommit swallowed it up on posting.

Sort of slip sliding down the wrong path, does interest me though for a few reasons. I am sold for the time being on shooting the moon until a better offer comes along. But how long can someone carry on is something I am still interested in.

Me astronomy software, not sure that is set up right for the area and conflicts (I think) with the transcript linked to on page 1 with regards sunrise so I need to check that. I still have the sun below the horizon when the first sighting is made, as I said, not sure I have my software set up correctly.

captain swoop
2011-Jun-09, 09:52 PM
Did seem a tad all over the place for this plane, information that is. Speaking to a chap who was a controller during the cold war in the UK and when they scrambled for the bears the first thing they would do is look for the tanker. So the next question is could this plane with after burner, take off and dog fight for 20 mins on one tank. Does mention a fraught landing but if he was fighting the moon then maybe it can.


Edit. Also it appears to be more of a ground attack but then if that is what you have at hand then so be it.

To be fair the RAF in the COld War scrambled Lightnings to intercept the 'Bears' Not an aircraft with the longest endurance, it was designed just to climb very quickly.

slang
2011-Jun-09, 10:36 PM
Did seem a tad all over the place for this plane, information that is. Speaking to a chap who was a controller during the cold war in the UK and when they scrambled for the bears the first thing they would do is look for the tanker.

But why was that? Because they were out of fuel already, or to maximize combat range and escort time? I think the latter.


So the next question is could this plane with after burner, take off and dog fight for 20 mins on one tank. Does mention a fraught landing but if he was fighting the moon then maybe it can.

Does the pilot mention power levels or if he used afterburner, and if so for how long? In my air force time F-16s would fly out to the areas where dogfighting was allowed, do their stuff, and fly back. Pilots were begging for a "clean" configuration (AIM-9 only), because any outside stores would put limits on maximum G load. Those with wing or centerline tanks would generally stay out longer, clean configuration aircraft would be back much quicker. I don't remember the exact times, and wouldn't post them if I did, but a 20 minute flight isn't necessarily one of the holes in the story.


Edit. Also it appears to be more of a ground attack but then if that is what you have at hand then so be it.

Given that the Moon is a LOT of ground, it does seem apt.

Don J
2011-Jun-10, 03:32 AM
But the thing is this 'object' hung around for several hours there were plenty of opportunities for a follow up sortie but we have nothing to show any such thing was done, all we have is Huertas rather scant account.

Just to add to the discussion,based on that FOIA release it is said that another SU-22 WAS SCRAMBLED when the "unknown vehicule" was spotted again during HOURS OF DARKNESS

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/foia_008.htm

Don J
2011-Jun-10, 03:42 AM
There wasn't anything in the video that wasn't in the translated transcript.


I've tried to draw it as Huertas described it, as seen from below:

15071
http://www.bautforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15071&d=1307510153

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis


Surely that your drawing looks like the Moon visible in day time...

Here something based on the same description ...

http://dhyanchohan.unblog.fr/files/2009/01/dogfight01.jpg

source for more ...

http://dhyanchohan.unblog.fr/2008/06/01/lobservation-du-commandant-oscar-alfonso-santa-maria-huertas-1980/

Tedward
2011-Jun-10, 06:22 AM
Thanks slang and Captain Swoop. Nice to have an informed angle on it. Makes more sense than my mumbling. An idea forms and then it gets modified and I think, "ah" .

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-10, 09:08 AM
Does the pilot mention power levels or if he used afterburner, and if so for how long?


Not in the transcript, but I managed to find an Italian Iedit: Spanish - I was confusing this with another article I was looking at ] article that seems to be based on interview material that gets into that a little bit, and has some interesting additional detail, but also raises more questions about the story. Here's a link:

http://www.carabayllo.net/temas/nacionales/3898-avion-de-la-fuerza-aerea-peruana-ataco-ovni-en-los-80.html?joscclean=1&comment_id=27348

Here's a Google auto English translation that is fairly readable (good for me, since I don't know much Italian):

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carabayllo.net%2Ftemas%2Fnacion ales%2F3898-avion-de-la-fuerza-aerea-peruana-ataco-ovni-en-los-80.html%3Fjoscclean%3D1%26comment_id%3D27348

Anyway, here's a bit on afterburners:



The bullets seemed to pop through the object without any of them without causing harm, then the object shot up into the sky at incredible speed, being followed by the Soviet-built supersonic aircraft, the UFO then took on more speed, at this Santa Mary made out to the auxiliary burners that launched at a speed of Mach 1.2, crossing the sound barrier.

Until then the object was not detected by the radar which is why the Peruvian pilot did not use his ship missiles only looking for guns near him again, we were still over 100 rounds per download.


So, if I'm understanding the article, it was originally assumed this was an unmanned spy balloon sitting at low altitude. There's no explanation how he or anyone determined that altitude, so it sounds like a wild . . . guess. And notice above that it had not been detected on radar.

After he shot (notice that bullets went through the claimed, radar transparent, object like it wasn't there :razz:) it moved off and climbed rapidly (again, how that was determined is not explained). And obviously, at this point, it should have been abundantly clear this was no balloon. Yet, he continued to chase after this claimed object until it stopped suddenly (as usual, no explanation of how he decided that), and he claims he was forced to veer off. He seemed to think that was an attack. I think it sounds a little too much like a Star Trek episode (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Obsession_%28episode%29).

Anyway, the article has other interesting bits. For instance, It talks about unhappiness between Peru and Chile (this definitely wasn't a cold war issue) that got them so worked up they would shoot at the Moon. It also does mention that he went a km above the recommended flight altitude for the jet.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jun-10, 12:18 PM
Here something based on the same description ...
That is an illustration, so the visualization may not be accurate. Plus; it's from a show that tries to build intrigue.

I'm sure an illustrator would design that same picture from someone that already has UFO bias trying to explain a lenticular cloud Similar to this one (http://www.weathervortex.com/images/Lenticular%20clouds5.jpg).

It's interesting to note that the youtube account associate with that sight was also bannned for multiple copyright infringements. It's just another mark against credibility.

Garrison
2011-Jun-10, 07:26 PM
Surely that your drawing looks like the Moon visible in day time...

Here something based on the same description ...

http://dhyanchohan.unblog.fr/files/2009/01/dogfight01.jpg

source for more ...

http://dhyanchohan.unblog.fr/2008/06/01/lobservation-du-commandant-oscar-alfonso-santa-maria-huertas-1980/

Don J so someone else came up with a different interpretation of the description that makes it look more exotic, what evidence is there, and I don't mean Huertas 30 year old memories, to support this exotic version over Jeff Root's rather more mundane interpretation?

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-10, 09:48 PM
Don J so someone else came up with a different interpretation of the description that makes it look more exotic, what evidence is there, and I don't mean Huertas 30 year old memories, to support this exotic version over Jeff Root's rather more mundane interpretation?

Even by Huerta's statements, this object hadn't been detected by radar, bullets went through it without effect, and it always seemed to be above him, with, supposedly, repeated cycles of stopping until he approached and darting away as he approached. All these are things that would fit a misidentification.

Tensor
2011-Jun-10, 10:12 PM
Here something based on the same description ...

http://dhyanchohan.unblog.fr/files/2009/01/dogfight01.jpg

Ya know, it's possible that something like that could be in the sky. It looks like the top of the one of the bed posts from Bedknobs and Broomsticks (http://www.listal.com/viewimage/1626441).

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-10, 10:29 PM
the idea that the moon could be responsible for this encounter is an insult to the intelligence of those involved, and also to any genuinely open-minded person who reads this thread - it requires an extreme application of artistic licence to the description huertas gave, followed by a total disregard for every other part of his testimony.

how come every airforce in the world isnt scrambling its fighters as the tides ebb and flow?
do any of you really think that huertas and the 1800 or so people on the base that day dont know what a crescent moon looks like? - enough already!

Bobbar
2011-Jun-10, 10:44 PM
do any of you really think that huertas and the 1800 or so on the base that day dont know what a crescent moon looks like? - enough already!

We see thousands of people misidentify contrials and Jupiter and Venus. So its hard to dismiss that as a possibility. Confusion and disorientation happens to the best of us, especially during times of stress and panic.

Garrison
2011-Jun-10, 11:08 PM
the idea that the moon could be responsible for this encounter is an insult to the intelligence of those involved, and also to any genuinely open-minded person who reads this thread - it requires an extreme application of artistic licence to the description huertas gave, followed by a total disregard for every other part of his testimony.

As Van Rijn has pointed out the rest of Huertas story could easily support a misidentification, especially with the dubious benefit of 30 years hindsight to add some lustre to the memories, not to mention the attention of people who desperately want him to have seen something exotic/extraterrestrial. You really seem to have a problem with the notion that eyewitness testimony isn't worth much by itself but it is a reality that has been demonstrated time and again both by experiment and real world experiences.


how come every airforce in the world isnt scrambling its fighters as the tides ebb and flow?
do any of you really think that huertas and the 1800 or so people on the base that day dont know what a crescent moon looks like? - enough already!

But as others UFO believers have been so eager to point out there have been lots of sightings by airforce personnel so perhaps such misidentifications are relatively common. And how can you say what the other 1799 or so people saw? Despite Huertas seeming immunity from retaliation none of them appear to have come forward.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-10, 11:08 PM
the idea that the moon could be responsible for this encounter is an insult to the intelligence of those involved . . . .

Who other than Huertas was involved?

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-10, 11:35 PM
the idea that the moon could be responsible for this encounter is an insult to the intelligence of those involved, and also to any genuinely open-minded person who reads this thread - it requires an extreme application of artistic licence to the description huertas gave, followed by a total disregard for every other part of his testimony.


Not considering a possibility is being open-minded? Anyway, based on the testimony I read, this sounds very much like a misidentification of something, and a misidentification of the Moon seems to be a good possibility. But, by all means, if you have arguments against the idea (hopefully something other than personal incredulity), please present them.



do any of you really think that huertas and the 1800 or so people on the base that day dont know what a crescent moon looks like? - enough already!

Do you have any references to testimony of anyone other than Huerta? I'd very much like to compare what others saw, for instance, at the time he claimed the object was zipping about the sky.

Garrison
2011-Jun-10, 11:47 PM
Who other than Huertas was involved?

That is something that bugs about Huertas statement, he never names anyone else who must have been involved in the incident. Who issued the order to shoot the 'balloon' down? Who was he in contact with on the ground during the flight? Who debriefed him about it afterwards? 1800 people on the base and Huertas doesn't give us even one name?

Swift
2011-Jun-11, 03:19 AM
the idea that the moon could be responsible for this encounter is an insult to the intelligence of those involved, and also to any genuinely open-minded person who reads this thread - it requires an extreme application of artistic licence to the description huertas gave, followed by a total disregard for every other part of his testimony.

how come every airforce in the world isnt scrambling its fighters as the tides ebb and flow?
do any of you really think that huertas and the 1800 or so people on the base that day dont know what a crescent moon looks like? - enough already!
pepiboy32,

You have been warned multiple times, both in this thread and in the past, about your behavior. You had the opportunity to answer questions and present additional evidence. Instead it is you who insult other members, by falsely accusing them of being insulting and close-minded. This earns you another infraction and a suspension.

Don J
2011-Jun-11, 03:40 AM
Don J so someone else came up with a different interpretation of the description that makes it look more exotic, what evidence is there, and I don't mean Huertas 30 year old memories, to support this exotic version over Jeff Root's rather more mundane interpretation?
Not a direct evidence but the event was reported to the US Department Of Defence by a "source" well informed in june 1980.So this seem to point that Huertas is not the only one involved ...that may also provide more weight to Huertas testimony who talked about it 30 years later.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/foia_008.htm

eburacum45
2011-Jun-11, 07:47 AM
Note that the dates (plural) on that FOIA document are 9 May 1980 and 10 May 1980, wheras Huetas gives the date (singular) as April 11, 1980. Quite some discrepancy there. Are we talking about two (or three) separate events, or one badly recalled event?

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-11, 07:54 AM
Not a direct evidence but the event was reported to the US Department Of Defence by a "source" well informed in june 1980.So this seem to point that Huertas is not the only one involved ...that may also provide more weight to Huertas testimony who talked about it 30 years later.


He claimed that he was ordered by his unit commander to shoot at what was initially thought to be a balloon, so unless he is lying about that, more than one person saw something. What they saw is another matter and without testimony there's no way to say whether others would support or contradict his version of events. As I said before, I'd like to compare what others saw when (according to him) the object was zipping about the sky. Supposedly, according to his claims, it rapidly gained altitude and moved far away from the air base, repeatedly going from a complete stop to instant supersonic velocity, and back again. If real, that should have been pretty noticeable from the ground.

chrlzs
2011-Jun-11, 08:27 AM
the idea that the moon could be responsible for this encounter is an insult to the intelligence of those involved
No, it isn't. It is a simple and accurate recognition that people make mistakes and that the mind is quite easily fooled, even if you are a 'professional'. Contrary to popular belief, being a pilot does not make you a 'perfect', or even a good, observer.. Indeed it is the mark of a good observer that s/he understands all the *limitations* of observation, and they will NOT stridently insist that one theory is the only theory, nor will they make unsupported claims about sizes and distances that would have been impossible to determine *unless* the object (if there was one..) was a *known* object in terms of shape and size.

As far as air force pilots observational 'abilities' and fallibility, I would simply draw your attention to a well known example - the Canterell Oil Well UFO's.... (http://www.alcione.org/FAM/FLIR_CONCLUSION.html) The pilots in this case stated that these 'UFO's (which were ground-based, stationary oil-well flares) were chasing/following them.. You can watch the videos - and clearly these things are on the ground! Yet because of the motion of their own aircraft and the passing clouds, the pilots were convinced they were flying objects.


it requires an extreme application of artistic licence to the description huertas gave, followed by a total disregard for every other part of his testimony.
As Mr Huertas has broken several of those 'rules' of good observation above, I think there are exceptionally good reasons to disregard his testimony, especially when added to the fact that there is no supporting testimony or evidence (unless I've missed something...)


do any of you really think that huertas and the 1800 or so people on the base that day dont know what a crescent moon looks like? - enough already!
I'm sorry, I guess I did miss something...

Pepiboy, where exactly does it say 1800 people saw the ufo?
If you are unable to back that up, withdraw the implication.

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-11, 08:38 AM
the idea that the moon could be responsible for this encounter is an
insult to the intelligence of those involved, and also to any genuinely
open-minded person who reads this thread - it requires an extreme
application of artistic licence to the description huertas gave,
followed by a total disregard for every other part of his testimony.
I disagree.

The simple picture I made was intentionally and deliberately similar
to the appearance of the Moon, off course, but it matches Huertas's
description of its visual appearance:



They all observed a stationary object in the sky, which looked like a
balloon .... It was luminous because it reflected the sun.
...
It was an enameled, cream-colored dome, with a wide, circular,
metallic base. It had no engines, no exhausts, no windows, no wings
or antennae. It lacked all the typical aircraft components, with no
visible propulsion system.
The motions Huertas described are approximately the motions of an
object keeping a constant, short distance away from his jet as he
maneuvered, trying to get closer to it. As he went toward the UFO,
it moved away as fast as his plane. As he climbed, the UFO climbed
as fast as his plane. That is exactly what the Moon appears to do if
you fly toward it and think that it is only a short distance away. Why
did he think it was only a short distance away? Because he didn't
see that it was the Moon. Why didn't he see that it was the Moon?
Because it was so close to the Sun, a thin crescent, difficult to see,
and he was primed to think it was something else. A balloon, or
some other aircraft, close to his base.

I have seen the Moon and not recognized it for what it was at first.
It wasn't because I'm unusually stupid. It was because I was seeing
the Moon in conditions I had not previously encountered. Everyone
starts out life equally and completely ignorant of everything. Huertas
is not an exception to that rule. He may have never seen the Moon
so close to the Sun before, and failed to recognize it even after some
minutes of chasing it because his belief was that he was looking at
something else. He saw what he thought he was looking at. As the
Sun and Moon rose higher in the sky, the Moon would become even
harder to see.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Selenite
2011-Jun-11, 08:48 AM
All of this speculation is kinda making me wonder. Perhaps Huertas at some point during his flight realized to his chagrin that the object was indeed the moon. However, as a proud military pilot, which story would you rather have pursue you throughout your military career? That you spent 22 minutes in 1980 foolishly expending fuel and rounds of munitions shooting at the daylight moon. Or that you are one of the privileged few who had a close encounter with something mysterious and alien?

I could see why version 2 might be preferable.

Garrison
2011-Jun-11, 11:08 AM
Not a direct evidence but the event was reported to the US Department Of Defence by a "source" well informed in june 1980.So this seem to point that Huertas is not the only one involved ...that may also provide more weight to Huertas testimony who talked about it 30 years later.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/foia_008.htm


All this appears to be is someone choosing to report the incident to the DOD, the source may have done nothing more than read Huertas account of events. One assumes there was some sort of debriefing in the aftermath but again this is a detail Huertas skips over, in fact how do we know that the source isn't Huertas himself?. The report is couched in language designed to avoid pointing to who the source might be so Huertas is a possibility. And did you notice this in the document:


THIS IS AN INFO REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVAL INTEL

In other words they've taken the report but they haven't decided whether it has any validity or not.

Don J
2011-Jun-11, 06:40 PM
All this appears to be is someone choosing to report the incident to the DOD, the source may have done nothing more than read Huertas account of events. One assumes there was some sort of debriefing in the aftermath but again this is a detail Huertas skips over, in fact how do we know that the source isn't Huertas himself?. The report is couched in language designed to avoid pointing to who the source might be so Huertas is a possibility. And did you notice this in the document:

Of course the DOD didn t wanted to blown the "name"of the source.

in page 1, point 6 the "source" is described to be an officer who observed the event and that they tried to intercept the vehicule on 2 different occasions


6. (U) SOURCE: 6 876 0138. OFFICER IN THE PERUVIAN AIR FORCE
WHO OBSERVED THE EVENT AND IS IN A POSITION TO BE PARTY
TO CONVERSATION CONCERNING THE EVENT. SOURCE HAS REPORTED
RELIABLY IN THE PAST.

PAGE 2 18134
8A. DETAILS: SOURCE TOLD RO ABOUT THE SPOTTING OF AN
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT IN THE VICINITY OF MARIANO MELGAR AIR
BASE, LA JOYA, PERU (168058, 0715306W). SOURCE STATED THAT THE
VEHICLE WAS SPOTTED ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE FIRST WAS
DURING THE MORNING HOURS OF 9 MAY 80, AND THE SECOND DURING
THE EARLY EVENING HOURS OF 10 MAY 80.
SOURCE STATED THAT ON 9 MAY, WHILE A GROUP OF FAP
OFFICERS WERE IN FORMATION AT MARIANO MALGAR, THEY SPOTTED A
UFO THAT WAS ROUND IN SHAPE, HOVERING NEAR THE AIRFIELD. THE
AIR COMMANDER SCRAMBLED AN SU-22 AIRCRAFT TO MAKE AN
INTERCEPT. THE PILOT, ACCORDING TO A THIRD PARTY, INTERCEPTED
THE VEHICLE AND FIRED UPON IT AT VERY CLOSE RANGE WITHOUT
CAUSING ANY APPARENT DAMAGE. THE PILOT TRIED TO MAKE A
SECOND PASS ON THE VEHICLE, BUT THE UFO OUT-RAN THE SU-22.



THE SECOND SIGHTING WAS SURING HOURS OF DARKNESS.
THE VEHICLE WAS LIGHTED. AGAIN AN SU-22 WAS SCRAMBLED, BUT THE
VEHICLE OUT-RAN THE AIRCRAFT.
8B. ORIG CMTS: RO HAS HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
SIGHTING FROM OTHER SOURCES. APPARENTLY SOME VEHICLE WAS
SPOTTED, BUT ITS ORIGIN REMAINS UNKNOWN.



And did you notice this in the document:

THIS IS AN INFO REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVAL INTEL

In other words they've taken the report but they haven't decided whether it has any validity or not.

It was taken seriously enough to be classified.

Garrison
2011-Jun-11, 06:48 PM
Of course the DOD don t want to reveal the "name"of the source.

in page 1, point 6 the "source" is described to be an officer who observed the event and that they tried to intercept the vehicule on 2 different occasions

Well Huertas certainly observed the event, do you have any evidence that the source was anyone other that Huertas?




It was taken seriously enought to be classified.

As you yourself stated they would want to protect the source, adequate reason to classify the material regardless of the quality of the content don't you think?

Don J
2011-Jun-11, 06:54 PM
Well Huertas certainly observed the event, do you have any evidence that the source was anyone other that Huertas?

The source talk about 2 differents attempt to intercept the vehicule.

Huertas don't seem to be aware about a second attempt to intercepting the vehicule.





As you yourself stated they would want to protect the source, adequate reason to classify the material regardless of the quality of the content don't you think?

I agree.

Garrison
2011-Jun-11, 07:32 PM
The source talk about 2 differents attempt to intercept the vehicule.

Huertas don't seem to be aware about a second attempt to intercepting the vehicule.

That might indeed point to the source not being Huertas but it doesn't tell us a lot about such a second attempt and if the source was not a direct witness they might have misunderstood or been misinformed that there was a second interception attempt.






I agree.

So all the report actually does is repeat elements of Huertas story and suggest there was a second intercept for which we have no other evidence, in effect we're back to Huertas unsupported story. Seriously a base with supposedly 1800 people on it, an alleged second intercept attempt and not one other witness/piece of evidence has come to light in 30 years?

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-11, 08:24 PM
Seriously a base with supposedly 1800 people on it, an alleged second intercept attempt and not one other witness/piece of evidence has come to light in 30 years?

Doesn't seem likely does it. Someone has seriously overestimated either the people present, or the actual "impact" the sighting had...which apparently wasn't a whole heck of a lot.

slang
2011-Jun-11, 09:34 PM
It was taken seriously enough to be classified.

Intelligence data is classified by default, to protect means and methods. Leicester City admitted that they were not prepared for a zombie attack, after a FOIA-like request from a citizen. Are the city of Leicester officials idiots because they take zombies serieus enough to answer the citizen?

ETA: Besides, even the fact that certain officers strongly believe in UFOs can be useful, to be exploited by psy ops in case of war.

Don J
2011-Jun-12, 03:46 AM
Doesn't seem likely does it. Someone has seriously overestimated either the people present,

Effectively
The DOD report give some clue about the people present (a group of FAP officers were in formation...) so that limit seriously the number of witnesses.


SOURCE STATED THAT ON 9 MAY, WHILE A GROUP OF FAP
OFFICERS WERE IN FORMATION AT MARIANO MALGAR, THEY SPOTTED A
UFO THAT WAS ROUND IN SHAPE, HOVERING NEAR THE AIRFIELD



or the actual "impact" the sighting had...which apparently wasn't a whole heck of a lot.
They originally thought it was a balloon used for an espionnage mission... it was labelled a UFO after Huertas interception attempt .

Don J
2011-Jun-12, 04:00 AM
Intelligence data is classified by default, to protect means and methods.

I have agreed about that.



ETA: Besides, even the fact that certain officers strongly believe in UFOs can be useful, to be exploited by psy ops in case of war.

Surely, but which country was the perpretator in that case and what kind of technology was used.Because it does not seem that the object was a balloon?

I know that the current theory is that the Moon visible in daytime could be the cause of all that exitation... but what about the second interception attempt at dark in the evening of the next day ?



DETAILS: SOURCE TOLD RO ABOUT THE SPOTTING OF AN
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT IN THE VICINITY OF MARIANO MELGAR AIR
BASE, LA JOYA, PERU (168058, 0715306W). SOURCE STATED THAT THE
VEHICLE WAS SPOTTED ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. THE FIRST WAS
DURING THE MORNING HOURS OF 9 MAY 80, AND THE SECOND DURING
THE EARLY EVENING HOURS OF 10 MAY 80.

.......
THE SECOND SIGHTING WAS DURING HOURS OF DARKNESS.
THE VEHICLE WAS LIGHTED. AGAIN AN SU-22 WAS SCRAMBLED, BUT THE
VEHICLE OUT-RAN THE AIRCRAFT.
8B. ORIG CMTS: RO HAS HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
SIGHTING FROM OTHER SOURCES. APPARENTLY SOME VEHICLE WAS
SPOTTED, BUT ITS ORIGIN REMAINS UNKNOWN.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-12, 05:36 AM
Until we see evidence beyond a single eyewitness report, there's not a heck of a lot to speculate about.

eburacum45
2011-Jun-12, 05:52 AM
I have agreed about that.



Surely, but which country was the perpretator in that case and what kind of technology was used.Because it does not seem that the object was a balloon?

I know that the current theory is that the Moon visible in daytime could be the cause of all that exitation... but what about the second interception attempt at dark in the evening of the next day ?

Which day are we talking about? Huerta gave that date as April 11th. That link talks about May 9th and 10th. Are we talking about the same incident?

chrlzs
2011-Jun-12, 06:51 AM
THE SECOND SIGHTING WAS DURING HOURS OF DARKNESS.
THE VEHICLE WAS LIGHTED. AGAIN AN SU-22 WAS SCRAMBLED, BUT THE
VEHICLE OUT-RAN THE AIRCRAFT.
8B. ORIG CMTS: RO HAS HEARD DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
SIGHTING FROM OTHER SOURCES. APPARENTLY SOME VEHICLE WAS
SPOTTED, BUT ITS ORIGIN REMAINS UNKNOWN.
Q - was this a translation, perchance?

Even if it wasn't, it is *very* poorly worded and completely open to interpretation, eg "..the vehicle outran the aircraft" could simply be that by the time they went up, they couldn't find it. If it did outrun it, where is the description of exactly what happened, in what direction, how it 'disappeared', etc? A few sentences as vague as those are essentially worthless unless there is supporting evidence and a *full* explanation. And I have to ask - on what grounds did it become a 'vehicle'???

<rant>
And to me, this case is a sad but typical example of why 'ufology' is now pretty much a joke. There are now so many faux researchers out there (I'm referring to the folks who initially post them on Youtube, ATS and so on) grabbing onto these short mentions of unidentified objects, but when properly looked it, these cases often have completely insufficient information to be worthy of a further look.

But then hardcore ufologists gather all of them together, and misuse the wonderful world of 'metastatistics' to suggest that with so many reports, there must be something to it... :eh:

If *only* there was a bit more selectivity applied to these cases by the 'researchers' who raise them, such that only the (very few) worthy ones were raised into the public arena - we would save much time... </rant>

I can dream.. :razz:

slang
2011-Jun-12, 07:55 AM
ETA: Besides, even the fact that certain officers strongly believe in UFOs can be useful, to be exploited by psy ops in case of war.


Surely, but which country was the perpretator in that case and what kind of technology was used.Because it does not seem that the object was a balloon?

You misunderstand. In this context it doesn't matter what caused these current UFO reports. Simply knowing which officers might be deceived by some clever trick could be valuable in the future, regardless of what made them believe this instance. I know this is pretty far fetched, and I don't think blackops are routinely doing this, it was just a little outside the box thinking about how such knowledge might be used. The real point is: you never know in advance which little nugget of information might turn useful in the future.


I know that the current theory is that the Moon visible in daytime could be the cause of all that exitation... but what about the second interception attempt at dark in the evening of the next day ?

Could still be the moon, no? One day later it would look pretty much the same. Oops. In the dark. Disregard.

Garrison
2011-Jun-12, 12:59 PM
I know that the current theory is that the Moon visible in daytime could be the cause of all that exitation... but what about the second interception attempt at dark in the evening of the next day ?

That was only one possibility, and of course there's nothing to say the second intercept, assuming it isn't a misinterpretation or misunderstanding, was of the same thing. People on edge after the first incident may have been jumping at shadows.

DALeffler
2011-Jun-13, 06:03 AM
the idea that the moon could be responsible for this encounter is an insult to the intelligence of those involved, and also to any genuinely open-minded person who reads this thread - it requires an extreme application of artistic licence to the description huertas gave, followed by a total disregard for every other part of his testimony.

Are you’re implying we seriously consider that an intelligent, alien, and at the very least - interstellar - space faring civilization mounts a mission to Earth; get’s spotted, draws a significant reaction, and then disappears without a trace based on nothing more than individual testimony?


how come every airforce in the world isnt scrambling its fighters as the tides ebb and flow?

Why did Huertas’ country only scramble one fighter? Why not scramble more of ‘em?


do any of you really think that huertas and the 1800 or so people on the base that day dont know what a crescent moon looks like? - enough already!

No. Whatever Huertas saw wasn’t answered by what Huertas did. He didn’t shoot “it” down; he didn’t get shot down.

I’d be interested if any air force in the world has changed any aerial tactics what-so-ever based on any observed phenomena like that reported by Huertas.

The idea to commence fire on an unknown object speaks to a narrower mindset, not a more open one.

Extracelestial
2011-Jun-13, 07:07 AM
Maybe he could produce some other evidence (read: official records, statements from the higher command) for permission to fire at an unidentified target.

Well,that would be against the rules of the game!? Any HB worth that title rather died than provide a shard of evidence.

Ex:whistle:

tnjrp
2011-Jun-13, 07:25 AM
Well, even the soldiers of line of the ET-hypothesis Defence Force seem to getting from the actual UFOlogists that making definitive statements of fact about the existence of aliens is going to lead to no end of demands for evidence. So they instead go for the "must be seriously considered or else you are a denialist" approach instead. Not sure if much can be done about that really except to point out that lacking a belief is not a belief in the lack and listen to them whinge about how "it is for you tho".

As to the actual insident, this is a case I've heard next to nothing about before (probably a passing mention since the name of the pilot seems familiar) so it's been interesting read so far, thanks to pepiboy (and probably also the stalwart moderator team, judging by the title of the thread).

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 01:30 AM
Well, even the soldiers of line of the ET-hypothesis Defence Force seem to getting from the actual UFOlogists that making definitive statements of fact about the existence of aliens is going to lead to no end of demands for evidence. So they instead go for the "must be seriously considered or else you are a denialist" approach instead. Not sure if much can be done about that really except to point out that lacking a belief is not a belief in the lack and listen to them whinge about how "it is for you tho".

As to the actual insident, this is a case I've heard next to nothing about before (probably a passing mention since the name of the pilot seems familiar) so it's been interesting read so far, thanks to pepiboy (and probably also the stalwart moderator team, judging by the title of the thread).

you're welcome tnjrp.... you'll find that most 'skeptics' aren't aware of cases such as these - that's why they're 'skeptics'

you'll find that the loudest 'negative' voices in ufology come from those who know least about the subject, but they've got so much invested in their 'skepticism' that they've got to play brinkmanship - they won't dare entertain the possibilty that we may be the subject of et visitation - and on here? safety in numbers.....

LaurelHS
2011-Jun-15, 01:48 AM
Are you going to answer the pending questions in this thread or just make insulting generalizations about the forum?

Jim
2011-Jun-15, 02:54 AM
So?

I'd expect a lot more justification for the initial shoot order of a balloon, and even more justification for why he kept shooting when he decided it wasn't a balloon. Why wasn't there a reevaluation?

Don't you find that questionable at all? If you're looking for credibility, doesn't this give you reason to question his?

Pepiboy32, Van Rijn has asked this question several times yet you haven't answered it yet (or I missed it). Please answer it now.

Pepiboy32, last chance. Start answering questions beginning with this one.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-15, 04:09 AM
you'll find that the loudest 'negative' voices in ufology come from those who know least about the subject, but they've got so much invested in their 'skepticism' that they've got to play brinkmanship - they won't dare entertain the possibilty that we may be the subject of et visitation - and on here? safety in numbers.....

The possibility exists. The evidence does not. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and that's really all that's been presented here. Not even very impressive eyewitness testimony. I do not in general consider people who come forward with this kind of story to be liars. In general, they are merely mistaken. In this case? It simply doesn't ring true in too many ways.

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-15, 06:02 AM
...you'll find that the loudest 'negative' voices in ufology come from those who know least about the subject, but they've got so much invested in their 'skepticism' that they've got to play brinkmanship - they won't dare entertain the possibilty that we may be the subject of et visitation - and on here? safety in numbers.....

Mischaracterization of other posters noted.

tnjrp
2011-Jun-15, 07:26 AM
The possibility exists. The evidence does not.Indeed to both. With the caveat of evidence meant in the scientific sense of the word. Most serious "UFOlogfists" flat out admit this and in even the best cases (say Belgium, Rendlesham, Tehran, whathavewe -- UFOlogists don't all agree on what are the top cases tho this case doesn't often seem to make the cut) they call for reliance on the circumstantial variety.

Strange
2011-Jun-15, 07:58 AM
you're welcome tnjrp.... you'll find that most 'skeptics' aren't aware of cases such as these - that's why they're 'skeptics'

you'll find that the loudest 'negative' voices in ufology come from those who know least about the subject, but they've got so much invested in their 'skepticism' that they've got to play brinkmanship - they won't dare entertain the possibilty that we may be the subject of et visitation - and on here? safety in numbers.....

That suggests that if people knew of this case (or cases like it) they would no longer be skeptics, they would be "convinced". But this has to be one of the least compelling accounts ever - one man reports seeing something that couldn't be identified. From this I should be convinced that aliens are visiting earth? Where is the logic in that?

Jeff Root
2011-Jun-15, 08:11 AM
I have seen UFO proponents claim on numerous occasions that
the case they are about to present is the best ever. The smoking
gun. The one that shows they really *ARE* here on Earth! Only
to find that the story is miserably poor in evidence, doesn't hang
together logically, and contradicts known facts. Over and over.
Those cases are claimed by the proponents to be the best they
have, and I take their word for that.

tnjrp,

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific evidence". I have long
said that there is a vast quantity of evidence for ETs on Earth, but
all of it (that I've seen) is abysmally poor quality. I interpret Gillian's
use of the word "evidence" to mean "stuff which supports the
contention", as opposed to "stuff that might possibly support the
contention". My favored useage of the word is loose, while Gillian's
is more stringent. Both interpretations appear to be very common.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

tnjrp
2011-Jun-15, 09:52 AM
There is of course no single solid definition of "scientific evidence", but I use it as shorthand for something along the lines of "empirical evidence repeatable (i.e. can be tested by multiple independent observers) or rigorously documented in accordance with scientific method so as to be usable in support or falcification of a proposed theory". Which is pretty much the same as "stuff that supports a contention" I suppose. This may admittedly be setting the bar too high for initial acceptance of the ET hypothesis. Currently in most UFO cases (certainly in this case, whatever it should be called -- the Huertes' insident?), the majority of the more spectacular evidence appears to be anecdotal in nature, that is reliant on eyewitness testimony.

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-15, 11:06 AM
I doubt this thread will stay open much longer, and as pepiboy doesn't seem to want to discuss it, I'm going to go over some items in the testimony. From:

http://uforesearchnetwork.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=allthelatestuforeports&action=print&thread=211



On April 11, 1980, at 7:15 in the morning, 1800 men were in formation at the Air Base of La Joya, Arequipa.

They all observed a stationary object in the sky, which looked like a balloon, at about three miles distance, and approximately 1,800 feet altitude. It was luminous because it reflected the sun.

My unit commander ordered me to takeoff in my Sukhoi 22 jet to shoot down the spherical object.

If there were 1800 witnesses, why aren't there any others talking about this? (If somebody can find a link to somebody else there talking about it, please provide it. I sure haven't found any).

Also, how did they determine distance and altitude? Another article indicated they didn't see it on radar, and they weren't certain of the object's size. The balloon ID appeared to be a guess, so I wonder about that shoot order. I would suspect he would have been allowed discretion based on what he found. I would want to hear more about this.


I approached the object and strafed sixty-four 30 mm. shells at it. Some projectiles went towards the ground, and others hit the object fully, but they had no effect at all. The projectiles didn't bounce off; probably they were absorbed. The cone-shaped "wall of fire" that I sent out would normally obliterate anything in its path.


How did he determine he was hitting the object? This fellow is moving along at several hundred miles an hour. That generally doesn't give a lot of time to watch for details. Also, he apparently had assumed this was a balloon of a roughly known size at a particular location, but he should be realizing right about now that isn't a balloon.



The object then began to ascend, and move farther away from the base. When I was at about 36,000 ft., it made a sudden stop, forcing me to veer to the side since I was only 1500 feet away. I flew up higher to attack It from above, but just as I had locked on to the target and was ready to shoot, the object made a straight vertical climb evading the attack.

How did he determine the speed? How did he determine it stopped? At this point there should be no question at all that this is not a balloon. Why is he still shooting? Note, by the way, that this description, right here, sounds very much like he's misidentifying a distant object.



Two more times, I had the object on target, when the object was stationary. Each time, it moved away at the very last minute, when I was just about to fire, always eluding my attack.

I decided to climb at full thrust to get above the object, bit began to ascend almost parallel to my plane, and when I reached 63,000 ft., it stopped.

At this point, I came within about 300 feet of the UFO. It was about 30 feet in diameter. It was an enameled, cream-colored dome, with a wide, circular, metallic base. It had no engines, no exhausts, no windows, no wings or antennae. It lacked all the typical aircraft components, with no visible propulsion system.

It was at that moment that I realized that this was no spying device, but that it was a UFO, something totally unknown. I was almost out of fuel, so I couldn't attack or maneuver my plane, or make a high speed escape. I was afraid. I thought I might be finished.

What? He should have long since been aware that it wasn't a balloon. And, why is he worried now? He's been shooting at it for some time and it never shot back, though he thinks it stopped occasionally. What's the big deal now?

Also, again, plenty of questions about what he saw: What did he see that made him think it stopped? How did he determine his distance? He was supposedly going Mach 1.2 right about now, according to the interview article I linked earlier in thread. Yet he claims he got within 300 feet, that the object was 30 feet in diameter, and he claims he had a good look at it. That's a good look at a stopped object that you're flashing by at Mach 1.2.

I suspect he finally had a clear look at the Moon.

I do notice in the interview that nobody else bothered to look at it after his run. That would make sense if they realized there wasn't anything to it. This sounds to me like a story that's been revised a bit since he first started telling it And, without witnesses, evidence, or at least a good interview, I think any serious UFO researcher would realize there wasn't enough here to make good case.

Tog
2011-Jun-15, 12:30 PM
A 30 foot object at three miles would be just over 6 arcminutes across. That's too small to really be confused with the moon from the ground. I don't have a reliable way to look at the sky on that date and location, but where were the other usual suspects at the time? Venus, Jupiter? Canopus?

Also, he may have known where his rounds were going due to the use of tracer ammunition. If he were shooting at the moon, the tracers may have burned out giving the impression they were absorbed.

The SU-22 (http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Military-Aircraft/Sukhoi/Su-17/20/22-Fitter/) was a ground attack aircraft, not an interceptor. It did carry twin 30mm cannons with 80 rounds each, so aside from actually using it in an air defense roll, that part was possible. The question I have is why not fire a missile? No IR or radar return for a missile lock? No missiles carried? Why were the guns the weapon of choice?

I'm not saying this is the case here, but I once dreamed that I saw a news story about the fountains at the Bellagio in Las Vegas being torn out. It was so real to me that I was bothered to see them in the establishing shots on CSI the following year. When someone I new was going down there, I had them check for me. A person's brain can do strange things to them and they may not even know.

As to the unreliability of eyewitnesses, I can speak to that first hand. I chased a beer runner out of our store one night. The kid the police brought in for me to identify matched my description in every way except one. I remember him wearing a plain white shirt and the kid they showed me had a white shirt with a huge dragon image on it. I know it was the same kid, but I honestly did not remember seeing it just 5 minutes before. When it comes to something like a UFO sighting, I wouldn't even take my own word without something to back it up.

captain swoop
2011-Jun-15, 12:52 PM
The SU-22 (http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Military-Aircraft/Sukhoi/Su-17/20/22-Fitter/) was a ground attack aircraft, not an interceptor. It did carry twin 30mm cannons with 80 rounds each, so aside from actually using it in an air defense roll, that part was possible. The question I have is why not fire a missile? No IR or radar return for a missile lock? No missiles carried? Why were the guns the weapon of choice?.

If the aircraft was configured for ground attack it wouldn't have missiles in all probability. Same for an Air to Air Radar. Cannon would be his only option. It begs the question why was a Ground Attack AIrcraft scrambled to intercept an Air Target?

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 02:04 PM
Pepiboy32, last chance. Start answering questions beginning with this one.

the question has a false premise.

huertes only strafed the target once - he did NOT continue firing at it.

it's all there in the testimony - if i've mis-read it, please point this out.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 02:09 PM
If the aircraft was configured for ground attack it wouldn't have missiles in all probability. Same for an Air to Air Radar. Cannon would be his only option. It begs the question why was a Ground Attack AIrcraft scrambled to intercept an Air Target?

maybe because it's all they had available to them at that time - remember, it was 1980 peru.

Space Chimp
2011-Jun-15, 02:16 PM
maybe because it's all they had available to them at that time - remember, it was 1980 peru.

In 1980 the Peruvuan air force had about 10 Dassault Mirage 5s on hand. A far superior interceptor to a ground attack plane like the Sukhoi 22.

Tog
2011-Jun-15, 02:24 PM
maybe because it's all they had available to them at that time - remember, it was 1980 peru.

I flew up higher to attack It from above, but just as I had locked on to the target and was ready to shoot, the object made a straight vertical climb evading the attack.

Two more times, I had the object on target, when the object was stationary. Each time, it moved away at the very last minute, when I was just about to fire, always eluding my attack.

It was at that moment that I realized that this was no spying device, but that it was a UFO, something totally unknown. I was almost out of fuel, so I couldn't attack or maneuver my plane, or make a high speed escape. I was afraid. I thought I might be finished.
It doesn't appear that there was a lack of intent to fire more than once.

And the bold bit there, Locked onto it how exactly? What part of the SU-22 was geared for locking onto a target for a gun pass?

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 02:25 PM
in post #25 eburacum45 states, 'Here's a transcript of Huerte's account
http://uforesearchnetwork.proboards....int&thread=211
he fired at it several times, and missed (or, as he would say, 'probably they were absorbed'.)'

the trascript doesn't say this - yet in post # 28 van rijn takes this misinformation and runs with it, adding that the pilot 'kept on firing' - this also isn't mentioned in the transcript. he only states that he strafed the target once. he witnessed that some of the projectiles 'went towards the ground' while others hit the target but had no effect at all.

i would advise them both to re-read the transcript thoroughly, this will reduce the chances of misquoting. (and misleading other posters who have not read the transcript)

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 02:31 PM
It doesn't appear that there was a lack of intent to fire more than once.

And the bold bit there, Locked onto it how exactly? What part of the SU-22 was geared for locking onto a target for a gun pass?

granted, there was an intent to shoot - but van rijn asked why he had 'kept on shooting'

also huertas said, "I flew up higher to attack It from above, but just as I had locked on to the target" implying that HE locked onto the target, as opposed the the 'plane' locking onto the target.

Tog
2011-Jun-15, 02:43 PM
Well, as to why they didn't use a Mirage, I think I found something. They didn't have any there. The thing is, in April 1980, they didn't have any SU-22s either.

Peru AF stationed in La Joya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_Air_Force#Ala_A.C3.A9rea_N.C2.BA_3)
History of Escuadrón Aéreo 411 (http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/americas/peru/AirForce/Peru-af-Esc411.htm).
The unit was formed as Escuadrón de Caza-Bombardeo 411 in 1977, when 16 Cessna A-37B arrived in country. They served until May 1980, when the Su-22M Fitter arrived, and were sent to Piura to form Escuadrón Aéreo 712.

Swift
2011-Jun-15, 02:44 PM
i would advise them both to re-read the transcript thoroughly, this will reduce the chances of misquoting. (and misleading other posters who have not read the transcript)
And I would advise you to stop telling other people what to do and to stop accussing others of misdeeds (like misleading people).

pepiboy32, this is your last chance. If you have a different interpretation of the transcript then it is up to you to supply the appropriately quoted section and to politely point out any differences in interpretation. You seem to fail to understand that the onus is completely on you to prove this non-mainstream interpretation and to present evidence of this extraordinary event (alien visits), it is not up to anyone else to disprove it. Those are our rules and if you don't like them you can take this discussion elsewhere. And no matter what, you will do so completely politely.

You have been told this too many times; the next time you even slightly cross the line you will be seriously infracted.

Tog
2011-Jun-15, 02:48 PM
granted, there was an intent to shoot - but van rijn asked why he had 'kept on shooting'

also huertas said, "I flew up higher to attack It from above, but just as I had locked on to the target" implying that HE locked onto the target, as opposed the the 'plane' locking onto the target.

Maybe the "Locked onto the target" is a translation error. That's a pretty specific phrase when dealing with military situations. Soldiers don't "lock on". Even Snipers don't do that. Artillery doesn't either. The only thing that normally "locks on" is a targeting system such as with radar, IR, or laser guided weapons.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 03:03 PM
yes - possibly an error in translation.

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-15, 03:16 PM
Assuming one translation error, how in the heck are we supposed to take any of the account seriously??


eta...or should I say, how are we to know what is accurately described and what is not??

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 03:23 PM
Assuming one translation error, how in the heck are we supposed to take any of the account seriously??


eta...or should I say, how are we to know what is accurately described and what is not??

incredible....

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-15, 03:28 PM
incredible....

I'm serious....given that we can't "guarantee" the accuracy of the translation, by what method are we to determine what was actually witnessed??

Strange
2011-Jun-15, 03:29 PM
That suggests that if people knew of this case (or cases like it) they would no longer be skeptics, they would be "convinced". But this has to be one of the least compelling accounts ever - one man reports seeing something that couldn't be identified. From this I should be convinced that aliens are visiting earth? Where is the logic in that?

So, pepi, do you consider this case convincing evidence of something? If so, what and why?

Bobbar
2011-Jun-15, 03:49 PM
A 30 foot object at three miles would be just over 6 arcminutes across. That's too small to really be confused with the moon from the ground. I don't have a reliable way to look at the sky on that date and location, but where were the other usual suspects at the time? Venus, Jupiter? Canopus?



Stellarium puts all the planets out of sight until around 10:30 when Venus rises with a magnitude of -4.5x. It also shows the Moon very close to the sun, around 5 or 6 degrees, and darn near completely dark.

*RETRACTED* (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116302-pepiboy32-introduces-oscar-santamaria-huertes?p=1901725#post1901725)

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 03:51 PM
So, pepi, do you consider this case convincing evidence of something? If so, what and why?

i consider it convincing evidence of a technology far in advance of anything we were aware of in 1980.

i dont think it was the moon.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 03:54 PM
Stellarium puts all the planets out of sight until around 10:30 when Venus rises with a magnitude of -4.5x. It also shows the Moon very close to the sun, around 5 or 6 degrees, and darn near completely dark.

so would this rule out the moon bobbar?

Gillianren
2011-Jun-15, 03:54 PM
i consider it convincing evidence of a technology far in advance of anything we were aware of in 1980.

Why? Especially given the multiple problems pointed out with the account, only one or two of which may be considered likely to be translation errors?

Strange
2011-Jun-15, 03:58 PM
i consider it convincing evidence of a technology far in advance of anything we were aware of in 1980.

So what makes it convincing?
And why does it demonstrate the use of advanced technology?
And where do you believe this advanced technology comes from? And why?

Maybe it is me, but I can't get beyond: "he says he saw something he couldn't identify". I just don't see the logical steps from there to alien/time-travelling technology...

Bobbar
2011-Jun-15, 04:01 PM
I goofed...

The Moon would be up in the sky, 55 degrees, very visible crescent.



so would this rule out the moon bobbar?

In light of my correction, no.

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-15, 04:13 PM
i consider it convincing evidence of a technology far in advance of anything we were aware of in 1980.

Why?...be specific.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 04:23 PM
Why?...be specific.

due to the fact that (as in the jaffari case) the vehicle seemed to anticipate the actions and intentions of the pilot.

Strange
2011-Jun-15, 04:25 PM
due to the fact that (as in the jaffari case) the vehicle seemed to anticipate the actions and intentions of the pilot.

But ... but ... how do you know it was a "vehicle"? That is my point, how do you know any technology was involved at all?

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-15, 04:29 PM
due to the fact that (as in the jaffari case) the vehicle seemed to anticipate the actions and intentions of the pilot.

...and you were able to determine it was a "vehicle" how??

The thing you don't seem to be "getting" here is that witness testimony is simply not sufficient to answer a question as "important" as this.

Gillianren
2011-Jun-15, 04:39 PM
due to the fact that (as in the jaffari case) the vehicle seemed to anticipate the actions and intentions of the pilot.

According to the pilot. What did the other people there at the time see?

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 04:49 PM
...and you were able to determine it was a "vehicle" how??

The thing you don't seem to be "getting" here is that witness testimony is simply not sufficient to answer a question as "important" as this.

vehicle was the word used in the U.S. dept. of defence document.

'vehicle of unknown origin'

Gillianren
2011-Jun-15, 04:51 PM
vehicle was the word used in the U.S. dept. of defence document.

'vehicle of unknown origin'

What authority did the US Department of Defense have in Peru? How did they determine what went into the report?

Tog
2011-Jun-15, 04:56 PM
i consider it convincing evidence of a technology far in advance of anything we were aware of in 1980.
So you are not willing to accept even the slightest possibility that his account is not 100% accurate as far as the "facts" go?

*April 11, 1980 near his base in Peru, something was seen in the sky. Unless you look at every other report out there, then it happened on May 9, 1980.

*His commander ordered him to fly up alone, no wingman, and attack an unknown object which they thought might be a surveillance balloon. La Joya's location puts it close to only Chile and Bolivia. Can you find any evidence that either used, or were rumored to use balloons that would justify the order to shoot it down?

From everything I've found the SU-22 would have been the only plane there starting in May of 1980, which is not the date he gives.

*He fires 64 of 160 (max possible) rounds from a 30mm cannon, presumably because he had no air to air missiles. SU-22's were capable of carrying a pair of AIM-9 style IR seeking air defense missiles, which may not have been fitted. That brings up the question as to why another air base that had actual interceptors was not contacted.

*The object is not harmed, and flies up to evade him. He is never able to get above it, but it never completely evades him.

He chases it for 22 minutes until his fuel is low. I have no problem with that time frame.

*He then leaves the engagement Zig-zagging to avoid return fire and "gliding" to conserve fuel. Zig-zagging, I'm okay with, but gliding in a single engine jet by choice? No. Most jet fighters glide like rocks, turning will make this worse.

*After his "battle" the object remained in the sky in the same relative position for another 2 hours, and still no interceptor was called in.

There are no photographs or video evidence available, which is possible.

*There is no other living person coming forward with this claim. That is questionable to me.

I used a * to mark the things I have a hard time accepting on only the word of a person, regardless of his level of credibility.

Unless you can clear up those discrepancies, his story is no more convincing than badly written fan fiction or a good Roger Corman film.

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-15, 04:56 PM
vehicle was the word used in the U.S. dept. of defence document.

'vehicle of unknown origin'

They must have relied on witness testimony to reach that conclusion...so my argument remains...will you address it??

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 04:56 PM
According to the pilot. What did the other people there at the time see?

how would any other people know what the pilot was seeing or experiencing?

of course its according to the pilot - its his testimony.

the people on the ground saw something which was approx 1,800 ft in altitude - 22mins later they refused to send up a second plane because the object was now "too high" - so by deduction, they must have seen the object move.

Strange
2011-Jun-15, 04:57 PM
vehicle was the word used in the U.S. dept. of defence document.

'vehicle of unknown origin'

and what do you think? do you think this is a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence? if so, why?

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 05:05 PM
i have just re-read the whole thread and i now think that huertes is a complete liar who was afraid of his reputation being tarnished - THE MOON DID IT.

last one out please turn off the lights......

Gillianren
2011-Jun-15, 05:06 PM
how would any other people know what the pilot was seeing or experiencing?

I'm not asking them to. I'm asking to give their version of events as they saw and experienced them. Since there were apparently 1800 of them, you can doubtless come up with the testimony of one or two others, right?


of course its according to the pilot - its his testimony.

The only testimony we have. You don't find that to be a problem at all?


the people on the ground saw something which was approx 1,800 ft in altitude - 22mins later they refused to send up a second plane because the object was now "too high" - so by deduction, they must have seen the object move.

But the only evidence you've presented of this is a single person's word. Doesn't that bother you? Don't you understand how much paperwork this should have generated?

R.A.F.
2011-Jun-15, 05:25 PM
i have just re-read the whole thread and i now think that huertes is a complete liar who was afraid of his reputation being tarnished.

Assuming he had a "rep" that could be tarnished.

Still don't understand why it must be one (alien space craft) or the other (liar). Can't you accept that he just might have been mistaken??

slang
2011-Jun-15, 06:02 PM
There are no photographs or video evidence available, which is possible.

Gun camera footage was pretty normal in the 80's. Heck, it was there in World War II. Does anyone happen to know if the Fitter was equipped with a gun camera? (Why gun cameras? To evaluate claims of gun kills, either real ones or in training.)

Garrison
2011-Jun-15, 06:23 PM
vehicle was the word used in the U.S. dept. of defence document.

'vehicle of unknown origin'

Which was simply a synopsis of the report made by Huertas, relayed by some unnamed source to the DOD, the only thing it adds to Huertas story is the claim of a second intercept later in the day, on which we have exactly nil information.

Garrison
2011-Jun-15, 06:26 PM
how would any other people know what the pilot was seeing or experiencing?

of course its according to the pilot - its his testimony.

the people on the ground saw something which was approx 1,800 ft in altitude - 22mins later they refused to send up a second plane because the object was now "too high" - so by deduction, they must have seen the object move.

Or based on Huertas report they realized that it wasn't a low altitude balloon in the first place but a much higher object? For that matter the DOD the report says that there was a second interception attempt, so which source would you like us to believe?

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-15, 06:27 PM
The SU-22 (http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Military-Aircraft/Sukhoi/Su-17/20/22-Fitter/) was a ground attack aircraft, not an interceptor. It did carry twin 30mm cannons with 80 rounds each, so aside from actually using it in an air defense roll, that part was possible. The question I have is why not fire a missile? No IR or radar return for a missile lock? No missiles carried? Why were the guns the weapon of choice?


In this interview (translated), it seems to say he couldn't detect it on radar, so didn't use missiles:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carabayllo.net%2Ftemas%2Fnacion ales%2F3898-avion-de-la-fuerza-aerea-peruana-ataco-ovni-en-los-80.html%3Fjoscclean%3D1%26comment_id%3D27348


Until then the object was not detected by the radar which is why the Peruvian pilot did not use his ship missiles only looking for guns near him again, we were still over 100 rounds per download.


The "until then" might suggest he finally did detect it by radar, but that's the only mention I've been able to find of the term in that article or anything else I found on him. Also, the translation has problems, so I don't trust the wording.

PetersCreek
2011-Jun-15, 06:34 PM
And the bold bit there, Locked onto it how exactly? What part of the SU-22 was geared for locking onto a target for a gun pass?

During part of my USAF career, I maintained F-4E Phantoms manufactured around 1972-74. These and other production blocks were equipped with a Lead Computing Optical Sight System (LCOSS) that offset the HUD reticle from the gun boresight based on target velocity and range data provided by the fire control radar. I don't know anything specific about the SU-22 but I would not be at all surprised to learn that it was similarly equipped.

In my experience, when a pilot says that he "locked on" to a target, he means that he did so with some sort of fire control or sensor avionics. I maintained the latter. I've talked to and debriefed many a crew and I've viewed more training/combat tapes than I can count. Never have I heard one use the "lock on" term to mean that he visually acquired a target.

Swift
2011-Jun-15, 06:38 PM
i have just re-read the whole thread and i now think that huertes is a complete liar who was afraid of his reputation being tarnished - THE MOON DID IT.

last one out please turn off the lights......
All,

We've had several reports about this post. My interpretation of it is that pepiboy32 is retracting his claim that this incident describes evidence for ET visitation, and so he is no longer obligated to defend that position or to answer questions put to him. However, the thread will remain open (at least at this time) so others may discuss it.

If at a future time pepiboy32 again claims something extraordinary about this incident, or someone else does, all the obligations for such an advocate would apply.

Tog
2011-Jun-15, 06:41 PM
In this interview (translated), it seems to say he couldn't detect it on radar, so didn't use missiles:

The only missiles I could find listed for air to air for an SU-22 were IR seeking, so no radar required. I'm not sure how much heat they need for a lock. The rails were added as an afterthought between the ground ordinance hard points, so they may not even have been fitted for that run. Which would be another odd thing. One plane with a max load of 160 rounds of anti-armor bullets, (80 per gun) wouldn't seem to be the best option.

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-15, 06:46 PM
how would any other people know what the pilot was seeing or experiencing?


They should have been able to tell if the claimed object was moving about the sky the way he claimed it was. It would be very useful to compare testimony and points of view.



The people on the ground saw something which was approx 1,800 ft in altitude - 22mins later they refused to send up a second plane because the object was now "too high" - so by deduction, they must have seen the object move.

That's based on Huertas's statement, so by your prior argument I would ask: How would he know what they were seeing or experienced? This is another example of why it would be good to have their statements to compare to his.

Garrison
2011-Jun-15, 07:10 PM
Assuming he had a "rep" that could be tarnished.

Still don't understand why it must be one (alien space craft) or the other (liar). Can't you accept that he just might have been mistaken??

This seems to be a common problem with UFO believers, that unless you can demonstrate a witness is lying then everything they say must be taken as an accurate account of events, thee is no room for the issues of misperception or misunderstanding, or the well established malleability of human memory. Either the account is absolute truth or its a lie, and so once they reject the lie option then there was an extraordinary event and the believers get annoyed when the rest of us just don't see it that way.

In this case like Tehran I see a simple misidentification snowballing through adrenalin fueled mistakes to create a lurid story that renders its mundane origin near impossible to discern.

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-15, 09:22 PM
The only missiles I could find listed for air to air for an SU-22 were IR seeking, so no radar required.


Interesting. So either there is a translation issue, or Huertas made an incorrect statement, or the interviewer made assumptions they shouldn't have.

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-15, 09:36 PM
the trascript doesn't say this - yet in post # 28 van rijn takes this misinformation and runs with it, adding that the pilot 'kept on firing' - this also isn't mentioned in the transcript. he only states that he strafed the target once.


Fair enough. I was wrong about that. However, there is no indication he intended to stop attacking or any statement by him advising the ground that it wasn't a balloon, or of him asking for new instructions.



he witnessed that some of the projectiles 'went towards the ground' while others hit the target but had no effect at all.


How did he determine the bullets hit the target?



i would advise them both to re-read the transcript thoroughly, this will reduce the chances of misquoting. (and misleading other posters who have not read the transcript)

A careful reading should also raise many questions about the statements, like the one above. It's interesting to me that you have avoided discussing anything that calls his story into question.

pepiboy32
2011-Jun-15, 11:00 PM
Fair enough. I was wrong about that. However, there is no indication he intended to stop attacking or any statement by him advising the ground that it wasn't a balloon, or of him asking for new instructions.

How did he determine the bullets hit the target?



A careful reading should also raise many questions about the statements, like the one above. It's interesting to me that you have avoided discussing anything that calls his story into question.

be honest please van rijn.... you didn't read the transcript did you? eh? did you? be honest now did you? eh? eh? be honest now....

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-15, 11:14 PM
be honest please van rijn.... you didn't read the transcript did you? eh? did you? be honest now did you? eh? eh? be honest now....

Did you read MY post, where I quoted much of it and commented on it? See here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116302-pepiboy32-introduces-oscar-santamaria-huertes?p=1901611#post1901611

Speaking of which, there was this, from the transcript:


The object then began to ascend, and move farther away from the base. When I was at about 36,000 ft., it made a sudden stop, forcing me to veer to the side since I was only 1500 feet away. I flew up higher to attack It from above, but just as I had locked on to the target and was ready to shoot, the object made a straight vertical climb evading the attack.

(Emphasis added). While he might have managed to only shoot one burst, he definitely was attempting to continue to shoot. My question is essentially the same: Why did he continue to attack when it was obvious it wasn't a balloon?

Garrison
2011-Jun-15, 11:29 PM
Did you read MY post, where I quoted much of it and commented on it? See here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116302-pepiboy32-introduces-oscar-santamaria-huertes?p=1901611#post1901611

Speaking of which, there was this, from the transcript:



(Emphasis added). While he might have managed to only shoot one burst, he definitely was attempting to continue to shoot. My question is essentially the same: Why did he continue to attack when it was obvious it wasn't a balloon?

Pepiboy32 won't be able to answer for a while but it's still a good question. I suppose one answer is that the pilot was just overloaded and became fixated on carrying out his orders, focusing on the familiar to avoid freaking out about what he thought he was seeing. Of course that wouldn't exactly enhance the reliability of his testimony.

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-18, 08:53 AM
Pepiboy32 won't be able to answer for a while but it's still a good question. I suppose one answer is that the pilot was just overloaded and became fixated on carrying out his orders, focusing on the familiar to avoid freaking out about what he thought he was seeing. Of course that wouldn't exactly enhance the reliability of his testimony.

Yes, it is hard to understand how he could avoid realizing this wasn't a balloon if he actually did see it absorb bullets, move at extreme velocity and instantly stop, repeatedly.

On a related issue, it surprises me he hasn't gotten more criticism from the people that take his story seriously. After all, if you think this was an alien spaceship, wouldn't you want to emphasize the point that it wouldn't be a good idea to antagonize them? Yet, here is a comment from the end of the transcription page, of someone that had listened to him:



After the conference, I told Commander Huerta that I envied his experience, his flight and the amazing things his eyes had seen.


He thinks the guy attacked ET, and he envies the experience? Does that make sense to anybody?

Normandy
2011-Jun-18, 02:13 PM
i have just recently stumbled on the story of oscar santamaria huertes - this peruvian military pilot actually fired at a ufo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS0Ws1WSuyI

fascinating stuff.

Yeah right. The last time I checked there were no artifacts from your story in my local museum. So where's the evidence?
You do know that internet links doesn't prove something to be true. Or maybe you are not aware of that after all?

Garrison
2011-Jun-18, 04:09 PM
Yes, it is hard to understand how he could avoid realizing this wasn't a balloon if he actually did see it absorb bullets, move at extreme velocity and instantly stop, repeatedly.

On a related issue, it surprises me he hasn't gotten more criticism from the people that take his story seriously. After all, if you think this was an alien spaceship, wouldn't you want to emphasize the point that it wouldn't be a good idea to antagonize them? Yet, here is a comment from the end of the transcription page, of someone that had listened to him:

After the conference, I told Commander Huerta that I envied his experience, his flight and the amazing things his eyes had seen.

He thinks the guy attacked ET, and he envies the experience? Does that make sense to anybody?

It is weird, especially as I believe the Tehran pilot spoke at the same meeting. Frankly if I believed either account I would be looking for the people involved to be prosecuted, not lionized. I'm sure somewhere in the archives of the DOD, MOD etal there is a 'first contact' policy and somewhere near the top it says; 'do NOT shoot at the aliens'.

NickW
2011-Jun-18, 04:20 PM
"Once again, the L.A.P.D. is asking Los Angelenos not to fire their guns at the visitor spacecraft. You may inadvertently trigger an interstellar war. "
~Newscaster from Independence Day

eburacum45
2011-Jun-25, 08:56 PM
Shooting at aliens makes some sense; if the alien craft is damaged in any way and shed debris which can be recovered, then that debris could be analysed. Call it aggressive sampling of material. In every other way it is an incredibly dangerous thing to do.

Garrison
2011-Jun-25, 09:03 PM
Shooting at aliens makes some sense; if the alien craft is damaged in any way and shed debris which can be recovered, then that debris could be analysed. Call it aggressive sampling of material. In every other way it is an incredibly dangerous thing to do.

More likely that they would be sampling the wreckage of the plane doing the shooting to figure out what sort of death ray was used to destroy it...

captain swoop
2011-Jun-27, 08:18 AM
Why would we think a few cannon shells would damage a flying saucer?

Gillianren
2011-Jun-27, 04:41 PM
Wouldn't any craft we could damage that way be remarkably vulnerable in space and unlikely to have traveled very far?

pepiboy32
2011-Jul-01, 01:52 PM
Wouldn't any craft we could damage that way be remarkably vulnerable in space and unlikely to have traveled very far?

yes - how far did this particular craft travel btw? how can you be sure it didn't originate from one of those secret bases on the dark side of the moon?

Swift
2011-Jul-01, 01:59 PM
yes - how far did this particular craft travel btw? how can you be sure it didn't originate from one of those secret bases on the dark side of the moon?
"Secret bases on the dark side of the moon"? pepiboy32, are you serious? If you are, then you will need to defend such claims. If you are trying to be funny, stop it.

pepiboy32
2011-Jul-01, 02:26 PM
not trying to be funny, merely pointing out the strawman.

Garrison
2011-Jul-01, 02:29 PM
not trying to be funny, merely pointing out the strawman.

Actually it's just a subset of the larger question that nothing in the account provided answers; why did Huertas keep firing at the 'object' after he realized it wasn't a balloon?

pepiboy32
2011-Jul-01, 02:42 PM
he was scared for his life - he says so.

NickW
2011-Jul-01, 02:56 PM
Why was he scared for his life? This 'object' made no aggressive actions toward him or anyone else.

Swift
2011-Jul-01, 02:58 PM
not trying to be funny, merely pointing out the strawman.
No, you are just countering inconsistences in the story and reasonable questions about it by adding even more absurd stories, based on zero evidence, to the narrative.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jul-01, 04:17 PM
I'm waiting for pepiboy to answer post 193.

Strange
2011-Jul-01, 04:25 PM
I am waiting for an answer to post 160.

Gillianren
2011-Jul-01, 04:37 PM
I'm also rather curious as to what would make him believe Huertas was wrong. Not in a "I don't want to defend it, so I'm going to claim I think you've all convinced me" kind of way but in a "hey, this story doesn't make sense!" kind of way. Because it doesn't.

Swift
2011-Jul-01, 05:26 PM
I'm waiting for pepiboy to answer post 193.


Originally Posted by pepiboy32
i have just re-read the whole thread and i now think that huertes is a complete liar who was afraid of his reputation being tarnished - THE MOON DID IT.

last one out please turn off the lights......
All,

We've had several reports about this post. My interpretation of it is that pepiboy32 is retracting his claim that this incident describes evidence for ET visitation, and so he is no longer obligated to defend that position or to answer questions put to him. However, the thread will remain open (at least at this time) so others may discuss it.

If at a future time pepiboy32 again claims something extraordinary about this incident, or someone else does, all the obligations for such an advocate would apply.

Good point Paul. I'll make that official. pepiboy32, in the post I quoted above, it appeared you had retracted your claims, but now you are again advocating that this incident involves an ET. You can't have it both ways. Since you are again advocating, you are required to address all questions put to you; not just post 193, but 160, 183, and 188 (to name a few). If you do not address these questions, or you continue to play games as to what your position is, you will be infracted.

pepiboy32
2011-Jul-03, 06:57 PM
I'm waiting for pepiboy to answer post 193.

answered in post 207

pepiboy32
2011-Jul-03, 07:00 PM
I am waiting for an answer to post 160.

answered in 162

pepiboy32
2011-Jul-03, 07:04 PM
They should have been able to tell if the claimed object was moving about the sky the way he claimed it was. It would be very useful to compare testimony and points of view.



That's based on Huertas's statement, so by your prior argument I would ask: How would he know what they were seeing or experienced? This is another example of why it would be good to have their statements to compare to his.

huertas requested that they send up a second plane but was told 'no, its too high'

Strange
2011-Jul-03, 07:06 PM
answered in 162

I still don't really understand why you find this compelling evidence of anything, let alone technology. But never mind...

Garrison
2011-Jul-03, 07:31 PM
answered in 162

Not really an answer, it just comes back to taking Huertas account at face value again. Isn't it just as likely that Huertas fired at an object far more distant than he believed it to be and the bullets simply expended their energy and fell to earth? If not, why not?

Garrison
2011-Jul-03, 07:34 PM
huertas requested that they send up a second plane but was told 'no, its too high'

Was told by whom? Again we come back to the problem that Huertas is very sparing with details, he offers no other named individual who was involved in this incident and none appears to have come forward independently. Could it be Huertas avoids giving names because if those individual were interviewed they would offer a rather less dramatic account of the event?

pepiboy32
2011-Jul-03, 07:36 PM
Was told by whom? Again we come back to the problem that Huertas is very sparing with details, he offers no other named individual who was involved in this incident and none appears to have come forward independently. Could it be Huertas avoids giving names because if those individual were interviewed they would offer a rather less dramatic account of the event?

i would imagine that it has more to do with the fact that the case is over 30 years old but, who knows?

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jul-03, 07:40 PM
answered in post 207

Don't lie to me. The questions asked by Van Rijn in post 193 are not answered in post 207.

Either answer the question or withdraw the claim. Do not claim you have answered questions when you have not.

Garrison
2011-Jul-03, 07:40 PM
answered in post 207

From #207:


he was scared for his life - he says so.

And yet the 'vehicle' never appears to have initiated hostile action, even by his own account it simply flew around the sky taking evasive action? Perhaps he was so pumped up with Adrenalin he wasn't thinking things through clearly, which may have affected his perceptions. I realize I'm indulging in speculation but you need to explain why such speculations are somehow less plausible than alien spacecraft.

Garrison
2011-Jul-03, 07:43 PM
i would imagine that it has more to do with the fact that the case is over 30 years old but, who knows?

So when it comes to remembering names his memory is suspect but his recollection of the event is to be taken as accurate?

Swift
2011-Jul-03, 07:45 PM
answered in post 207
Post 193:


be honest please van rijn.... you didn't read the transcript did you? eh? did you? be honest now did you? eh? eh? be honest now....

Did you read MY post, where I quoted much of it and commented on it? See here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116302-pepiboy32-introduces-oscar-santamaria-huertes?p=1901611#post1901611

Speaking of which, there was this, from the transcript:


The object then began to ascend, and move farther away from the base. When I was at about 36,000 ft., it made a sudden stop, forcing me to veer to the side since I was only 1500 feet away. I flew up higher to attack It from above, but just as I had locked on to the target and was ready to shoot, the object made a straight vertical climb evading the attack.

(Emphasis added). While he might have managed to only shoot one burst, he definitely was attempting to continue to shoot. My question is essentially the same: Why did he continue to attack when it was obvious it wasn't a balloon?
Post 207

he was scared for his life - he says so.

Paul Beardsley
2011-Jul-03, 07:47 PM
Which, incidentally, clearly makes no attempt whatsoever to ask Van Rijn's question, "Did you read MY post, where I quoted much of it and commented on it?" A question which needs to be answered.

Swift
2011-Jul-03, 07:48 PM
Don't lie to me. The questions asked by Van Rijn in post 193 are not answered in post 207.

Either answer the question or withdraw the claim. Do not claim you have answered questions when you have not.
Paul, Please be a little careful. You have already reported this - please let moderators deal with it, and please be a little careful in accusing another member of lying.

pepiboy32
2011-Jul-03, 08:07 PM
i took the first part of the question to be rhetorical (since he then went on to post the relevant part of the thread which i subsequently read) and post 207 answered the last question posed.

i didn't lie to you so i expect an appology pronto.

Swift
2011-Jul-03, 08:07 PM
answered in 162
It would be very nice if you gave a little more - such as quoting the original question and answer, at least partially, or include links.

Swift
2011-Jul-03, 08:09 PM
i took the first part of the question to be rhetorical (since he then went on to post the relevant part of the thread which i subsequently read) and post 207 answered the last question posed.

i didn't lie to you so i expect an appology pronto.
And as I said to Paul, only moderators moderate on this form. If you have problems with another member's post you report it. I'll call these even - no more demands for apologies from anyone. Just deal with the issues at hand.

pepiboy32
2011-Jul-03, 08:22 PM
fair enough swift

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jul-03, 08:23 PM
he was scared for his life - he says so.
If we take this as true, can you seriously claim his fear wasn't affecting his perceptions of what he saw, causing him to interpret things in terms of a threat rather than a phenomenon to be observed?
It's well-known that expectations have a very large effect on how a situation is perceived.

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-04, 02:53 AM
he was scared for his life - he says so.

No, that's not the sequence, at least not in the transcript. Do you have more information on this?

In the transcript, as I quoted in this post:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116302-pepiboy32-introduces-oscar-santamaria-huertes?p=1901611#post1901611

he claims he was ordered to shoot a suspected balloon. He claimed that the bullets were absorbed and the object climbed quickly and moved off. He said nothing about being scared at this point. He does say he attempted to chase the claimed object and continue to attack. He doesn't explain why. This went on for some time with the object supposedly climbing and stopping, so if this were an accurate description there should have been no question this was not a balloon. It was much later, when he claims he was almost out of fuel and he claims to have gotten close to his UFO, that he claims he was afraid.

So, the question still stands.