Arizona’s Odd Valentich Remake

Posted: August 15th, 2009 in Forteana, human behavior, media, UFO, UFO sightings
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Now here’s a strange video that I saw the other night which has now been picked up by Roger Marsh at the Examiner, so it should get some good hittage. Roger advised viewing it with caution as it hadn’t been reported to MUFON yet, as if that occurrence would make it alright somehow. I’d advise treating any case of anything with caution, regardless of whether or not it’s been reported to some group. I mean, seriously, come on… oh well, don’t get me going.

Anyway, this video definitely reminds one right off the bat of the famous Frederick Valentich case of 1978, where one might surmise from the story told that what’s depicted here is likely the very thing that happened to young Fred.

The behavior of this object seems very odd to me, it’s like a cat stalking a mouse and then pouncing.  It just doesn’t seem right for a machine operated by who knows who to do such a thing, but, if some of these things are in fact sky critters then the cat analogy might come into play if it wants the airplane to be lunch… but that seems implausible, too… where would the ‘dining room table’ be?

The disappearance of the joined pair shortly after ‘take off’ seems a bit, well, off, and opens the door to the question asking whether the objects, saucer and plane, have been layered in to create the whole episode. It is a possibility. Certainly. Why would someone do that? I don’t know… compositing practice, perhaps. Fun?

Fun, too, that idea of a hungry sky creature… but as much as I’m pretty certain there are such things, (see Story Musgrave’s ‘worm’ as an example), I wouldn’t seriously imagine that they have a taste for airplanes, or their contents, or even birds for that matter.

The most damaging bit of evidence for the video’s authenticity is mentioned in the description… there are no missing plane reports. Missing planes are taken rather seriously by the authorities, well except for four on one day a while ago, and there would be not only reports but a reasonably extensive area search and all that goes with it. Probably even a mention on TV. In light of that, I tend toward the compositing practice theory, but, as they say, you never know. It’s just that the other theories are greatly lessened in magnitude here.

Then, again, they never did find Fred or his plane, and they indeed searched mightily, so…

Ah, well, see what you think.

Here’s the description posted with the video…

August 11, 2009

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

There was an attempt to take the video to the media, unfortunately, every affiliate rejected the video due to lack of evidence. There was no report in the city of a missing airplane, nor did the Air Force Base report anything missing. Many of the news affiliates did confirm that they had received calls on August 8th from various sources, claiming they had seen a UFO. They said that they receive calls on a regular basis dealing with UFOs all the time, as well as many hoax videos, and there was no reason to believe my video was anything different. They refused to believe that the Air Force base would withhold information about a missing airplane.I’m hoping that more videos surface to confirm this object was real. We live within a mile of the base, so I don’t know how many people witnessed the event.

Yes, indeed, UFOlogy just gets stranger and stranger…
  1. D.M.D. says:

    It is not UFOlogy getting stranger and stranger, it is the conspiracy theorists and UFOlogists getting whackier and and whackier, desperate for — as you point it out —, : hittage!

    Hopefully, by 12/30/2012, a lot of them will be ascended. Heaven’s Gate style.


  2. “as if that occurrence would make it alright somehow. I mean, seriously, come on… oh well, don’t get me going.”


  3. Are you familiar with the blog Running Cause I Can’t Fly. I visit it daily and its funny but I think about you a lot when I do. He has over 4,000 posts in the past year. A lot of it is on economics but the tinkers pretty heavily in conspiracy items and others of a similar nature. In case you’ve not been there, here’s his address to check out.

    Running Cause I Can’t Fly

  4. I need to proof read more often. I’m sure you figured out what I meant to say.

  5. fodderbutwiser says:

    Thomas M. Cosgrove August 24 at 8:53am
    I had some feedback re: the 8/8 sighting at DMAFB in Tucson. We framebyframed it and observed
    -that the UFO appears sharper in focus throughout, while the incoming plane is blurred, indicating that the ufo is closer to the viewer than the plane. Hence, the objects were not as close, or in a chase, as it appeared.

    -During the “chase” sequence, the ufo shows some side-to side blurring, as wings would make when filmed from a distance.

    -Motion of the ufo appeared to be legit, i.e. that the now classic “surge and stop” motion was seen. However, it did also seem to be reminiscent of hummingbird flight. Tucson also has at least two species of large beetle that fly just like that, but much closer to rooftops.

    -At the point the two objects converge, lots of morphing or distortion occur. The airplane suddenly seems to appear similar to a “lifting body” design,
    like the ISS escape vehicle, formerly part of the X program for smaller, pot-bellied re-entry vehicles.

    -At 1:10 in the video, both now-merged objects disappear completely,
    re-appear on frame, and begin the streaking vertical ascent and disappearance. Odd.

    While the above might be worth note, conclusions are difficult to make due to the lack of resolution in the clip.

    • iggymak says:

      Whoa! Tom! Thank you… that’s fabulous research. And regarding your last line, that’s going to be forever a problem now that we’ve gone digital, for even “full HD” is a mere fraction of the resolution of film… ah well, the cameras will in time get better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s