Last updated on February 8th, 2022 at 08:17 pm
Aviation Case # 119564 in the MUFON Case Management System is one of the most important cases of 2021 in UFOlogy but not for the reasons everyone expects!
On an “approximate” date of November 24, 2021, at 5:00 A.M. in airspace purportedly near Hong Kong, a commercial airline pilot named “J” submitted a video to MUFON in Case Management System (CMS) Report # 119564 that lacked essential details apart from the alleged timeframe of 5 minutes in view. If verified as a group of UAP, it would have been a truly momentous event in the annals of UFO history. Alas…..
The larger UFO Community went viral with the video. It was pirated across Facebook, YouTube, and numerous UFO websites and even a National New Network. It accrued millions of views. Scott Waring, a UFOlogist in Taiwan, declared it was ultimate proof of extraterrestrial intervention in Earth affairs!
To summarize, a cockpit video allegedly taken near sunrise showed rows of white phosphorescent lights between cloud layers. The lights would begin from the left and as the initial left light extinguished after several seconds another light would explode into existence on the right in a continuous patter. This occurred in three consecutive rows over the 53 second video believed to be provided by the pilot. The video ends with the alleged “pilot”, an individual with an American accent, saying “They’re gone.” At the same time the objects seem to disappear under a cloud layer. The video is, if anything else, spectacular, and most likely real and unedited. Its source is subject to debate. Why? Well, the UFO community often rushes to spectacular and explosive conclusions. This is unfortunate because the rush to sensationalism often eclipses reality and the scientific method!
MUFON pulled the metadata from the video. No date! No time! No latitude or longitude in the program we frequently used called Mediainfo.com. In other words, there was no way to discern if this video took place in Hong Kong airspace on the date and time defined by the dubious witness. This video, in effect, could have been taken in South America 10 years ago for all we can gather from the extant evidence so far.
After the entire worldwide news community had been exposed to this viral video, the facts slowly came in but the damage has been already done. “It’s an armada!”” UFOs are real!”” We are under attack.” And it is these erroneous conclusions that cause legitimate UFO investigation to be classified as bogus!
Here are the results of MUFON’s investigation into the video. The first order of business was to contact the witness who only identified himself as “J…Pilot”. This is obviously concerning. Yes, a pilot may sometimes obscure their identity if they feel they may be retaliated upon. Understood. But the email provided suggested the submitter’s name was different. No other personal info was given. Since MUFON treasures all personal information given as sacrosanct and anonymous it is unclear why the pilot named “J” would differ from the contact info.
Next, we need to consider that the date and time input by the witness are not “exact” but approximate! The integrity of the report begins to fail.
Here is the pilot’s exact narrative from the CMS report” South China sea, 9 lights visible in video, then it becomes 12 lights in formation, closest object disappears then 3 more objects reappear on outside of formation. Filmed at 39,000ft over the South China Sea, lights all then slowly vanish.”
The most logical thing MUFON could do at this point is email the witness and ask the pertinent logical questions. We did that on 12/27/21 to “J” at the email provided.
1. Can we have an exact date?
2. What was your departing destination and what was your arriving destination hub?
3. Can we have a flight number and airline?
4. What was the exact time of the incident?
5. The incident occurred over 5 minutes. Why is there only 53 seconds of video?
6. Did any possible passengers report this?
The bottom line is that “J” did not respond to MUFON’s emails. So, what is the disposition of this report and how does it reflect on the UFO Community at large.
First, MUFON and such debunkers as Mick West actually agree here! This is not an otherworldly encounter like Scott Waring suggests. The most logical explanation is that due to contrast in the film and the highly noisy cloudy “sunrise” the fighter jets “possibly” from the Communist Chinese People’s Army fighter jets or another nearby nation’s, in exercises, were unloading phosphorescent flares in sequence.
In WWII, allied and axis forces used what was called flack or strips of metal like aluminum shot out from craft to disturb and confuse enemy radar. The strips created confusion as to where the actual aircraft they meant to shoot down was. Today, in a much more sophisticated venue, aluminum strips have been replaced by phosphorescent plasma discharges that use heat to lure a heat seeking missile away from a plane to an ethereal energy burst full of heat! Since flares usually come out in segments, one will burn out when another is appearing. No military flares exist past 2 minutes maximum based on MUFON inquiries to the Orion Flare Company, which is evident here. They explode into existence while the last released dissipates almost like clockwork when the next appears.
To MUFON’s advantage, an airline pilot who is also a MUFON Field Investigator, also analyzed the footage and tweaked out some additional remarkable details at this point. He likes to go only by his initials P.L. to avoid scrutiny in his occupation. This is the estimate of the situation. P.L. was able to piece together from the cockpit radio communications that went as follows:
Air Traffic Control: “Bauhinia 2735 contact Ho Chi Minh on 120 decimal 7. Good day. “
Reply from CRK 2735: “Ho Chi Minh at 120 decimal 7 good day bauhinia 2735.”
According to P.L., BAUHINIA is a Hong Kong Airline call sign. The International Civilian Airport Code (ICAO)would be CRK and The International Air Transport Association (IATA) code would be HK2375.
CRK 2735 is a scheduled flight (usually daily) from Hong Kong with a departure time of 17:00 p.m./5:00 p.m. local (09:00 ZULU) with a planned flight time of 3 hours 45 minutes arriving in Singapore local time at 20:45 p.m. or 8:45 p.m. (12:45 ZULU) which is the same time zone as HKG. Based on direction and time of the flight as well as the radio communications, P.L. believed CRK2735 was flying south-southeast bound, and had to come from the SANYA Area Control Center (ACC) Flight Information Region (FIR) in China and was about to enter the Ho Chi Minh ACC FIR.
P.L. continues” It also means that if the videorecording aircraft hears this transmission, it is in the same area (ACC) as CRK2735. As we can see on Flightaware.com, the flight path for CRK2725 would fly through SANYA ACC prior to Ho Chi Minh ACC. This would place the videorecording aircraft within the SANYA ACC airspace around 10:00 UTC time. The problem is we do not know the date from the video metadata. If the video was indeed recorded on November 24, 2021, the aircraft in question is most likely an Airbus A330-343 and the registration is B-LNO. That day, CRK 2735 left at 5 p.m. local (09:00 ZULU) and arrived 3 hours and 33 minutes later on Nov 24th local time at 20:33 p.m. (12:33 ZULU).
The air distance from Hong Kong to Singapore is about 1380 nautical miles with a flight time of roughly 3 hours and 30 minutes total that day and the distance from HKG to the Sanya ACC/ Ho Chi Minh ACC border is close to 440 Nautical Miles. That put the time at slightly over an hour from departure which give an estimate of 6 p.m. local time (10:00+ UTC). This time seems to be close enough to actual sunset time (Local time: Hong Kong sunset 5:38 p.m. and Singapore sunset 6:53 p.m.) and would match video scenery.
This time however contradicts the time entered in CMS of 5:00 a.m. (that would not match either the local sunrise scenery on that day (6:50 a.m. for Singapore and 6:41 a.m. for Hong Kong).
One more consideration is that it was not CRK/HK2375 which was at 40,000 feet but one of two other planes in the area in the November 24th date is accurate. Two freighters. One was an A330 DHL and the other a B747 Singapore Airlines. Additionally, the conversing pilots in the video were speaking with American accents which may give additional context that it possibly may have been the DHL flight.
In conclusion, the video is most likely real. An actual event was filmed somewhere off the coast of Vietnam. Other than that, the date will never be established as Mediainfo.com records no date or GPS coordinates! The witness will probably never come forward! However, if we assume it was a p.m. flight at sunset as opposed to an a.m. flight at sunrise, P.L. and MUFON feel confident we have the video filming plane down to 3 possibilities! We continue to reach out to military analysts to confirm that what was videotaped was indeed a military exercise by some nation’s aircrafts utilizing flares.
Disposition: Identified Flying Object-Manmade.