by Dr. Bruce Cornet, Ph.D.
This page was last edited 10/23/2005
data, images, animations, and movies are on linked pages
[If all images do not download, hit refresh button.]
Table of Contents
Materials and Methods
AOP No. 1
Fly-over 1 8:17 pm
Landing 1 9:06 pm
AOP No. 2
Fly-over 2 8:24 pm
Landing 2 9:07 pm
AOP No. 3
Fly-over 3 8:26 pm
Landing 3 9:12 pm
Anomalies during the "Fly-overs"
Anomalies during the "Landings"
The Anomalous Flight Path of AOP No. 1
On 25 January 1997 John Macedo, Jr. and Bruce Cornet traveled to Pine Bush, New York, in search of AOP (Anomalistic Observational Phenomena). That evening was one of the best encounters Cornet had in his seven years of investigation, because it was a demonstration by three separate AOP, each one designed to test the ability of human perception and understanding.
John Macedo, Jr. Bruce Cornet
Macedo and Cornet initially parked on the shoulder of South Searsville Rd. between two farm fields (location 1X on map below), a location Ellen Crystall had taken Cornet on several occasions (S. Searsville Station). The Moon was full and bright, giving added illumination for photography that evening. Visibility was excellent. The time was about 8:00 pm.
Weather: Above freezing, full Moon, with intermittent clouds.
They had to wait for about an hour before they spotted a set of lights coming towards them. Aircraft on approach to Stewart International Airport about 9 miles to the southeast frequently make their final turn towards the east-west-oriented main runway just to the west of them. Thus, it is not unusual to see commercial aircraft flying east over the north-south-oriented ridge in the picture below. What is unusual, however, are aircraft that fly less than 1,000 feet above that ridge as they approach the runway. See FAA regulations below. But almost all large aircraft that use the red beacon on top of that ridge as a landmark for turning have not yet begun to descend, and their altitude over the ridge would not be much less than 1,500 feet.
FAA regulation 91.515 Flight altitude rules: (a) Notwithstanding 91.119 and except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate an airplane under VFR at less than -- (1) One thousand feet above the surface, or 1,000 feet from any mountain, hill, or other obstruction to flight, for day operations; and (2) The altitudes prescribed in 91.177 for night operations. (b) This section does not apply -- (1) During takeoff or landing; (2) When a different altitude is authorized by a waiver to this section under subpart J of this part; or (3) When a flight is conducted under a special VFR weather minimum of 91.157 with an appropriate clearance from ATC.
FAA regulation 91.177 Minimum altitude for IFR operations. (a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below - (1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in Parts 95 and 97 of this chapter; or (2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in those parts -- (i) In the case of operations over an area designated a mountainous area in part 95, an altitude of 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown; or (ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown (AIM/FAR 1994 airman's information manual / federal aviation regulations).
At 8:17 pm the first set of lights (AOP No. 1) was spotted just to the right (north) of the red beacon on top of the ridge, but they were no more than a few hundred feet above the ridge as they crossed it. From that point onwards the lights climbed in altitude as they came directly towards Cornet and Macedo. Cornet captured excellent video of the craft as it passed overhead, and then flew nearly due east until it was almost to the other side of the valley (where Stewart International Airport is located). The only problem they initially had with this object being an commercial jetliner is that it dropped out of sight before getting to Stewart. Most jetliners on approach to Stewart can be seen descending slowly until they get to the airport. AOP No. 1 disappeared well short of and to the north of the runway.
When AOP No. 1 flew over Cornet and Macedo, they could not see a fuselage. All they saw was a deltoid-shape wing with what appeared to be two booms sticking out front, which could be seen because a large pair of lights at the front of the wing illuminated them. Reflection off those booms is what led a number of skeptics to question Cornet's interpretation, but as will be seen and detailed on a web page for this AOP, there is a large amount of contradictory data that cannot be explained by a commercial jetliner identification.
At 8:24 pm another set of lights (AOP No. 2) was spotted approaching their position from behind the ridge to the west. This set of lights crossed the ridge a little further to the south (see map and picture below). As it flew over them, Cornet saw the distinctive shape of a jetliner with a T-tail, similar to that of a Boeing 727 or DC-9. However, no engine pods were seen attached to its fuselage or wings. DC-9's commonly land at Stewart airport, but this jetliner was not flying towards Stewart. It was flying in a northeasterly direction towards Wallkill, NY. There are no airports in that direction. AOP No. 2 also climbed in altitude as it approached their position, which is unusual for commercial aircraft flying in this region and in that direction.
As AOP No. 2 flew slowly away, Cornet captured on video something highly unusual. At 8:25:02 pm the AOP lit up its belly. That's right, its belly glowed white for two seconds, which can be seen clearly on the video. There was no searchlight beam coming up from the ground, which might be the first suspicion of a skeptic. In addition, the strobes on its wings, belly, and tail fired semi-randomly and out of sync, something that conventional aircraft strobes do not do. More data in support of these statements are given on a web page for this AOP.
Cornet and Macedo decided to drive to West Searsville Rd., but after driving a very short distance (about 30 seconds driving time) west on South Searsville Rd. they spotted a third set of lights approaching them from the west. The lights were at about 500 feet altitude (well below the minimum 1,000 ft. FAA-approved altitude). Macedo quickly pulled to the shoulder of the road and stopped (2X on location map below). They got out rapidly and Cornet began videotaping almost immediately. The time was 8:26 pm.
AOP No. 3 approached over the saddle in the ridge where South Searsville Rd. goes over the ridge (north or to the right of the previous approaches). As it approached, it also climbed in altitude, but more steeply than the previous AOPs. Its lighting pattern was unlike that of a conventional jetliner. A bright light (as bright as a landing light) was positioned at its port (left) side, while no complimentary or symmetrical light was positioned at its starboard (right) side. A small light was perched above the plane of the craft off to one side - not where a fuselage would be. But what was most unusual is that as AOP No. 3 approached, it put on a spectacular colored light show, flashing multicolored strobes all over its belly and leading edge. In other words, it illuminated lights in places where conventional aircraft do not have lights, and it flashed them in a random sequence. A web page has already been devoted to this sighting: The Light Show, which includes a detailed animated gif. More information is given here on a web page for this AOP.
The shape of AOP No. 3 was unlike that of any conventional jetliner. Its shape resembled a kite, which is a shape Cornet has seen and photographed many times in the valley. He calls the AOP with this shape the Manta Ray.
All three AOP produced muffled jet-like sounds as they flew over Cornet and Macedo. Skeptics beware: Sounds can be faked and broadcast. Some of these same AOP or similar ones have been recorded producing various types of sounds, and have been recorded producing no sound at all. See frequency spectrogram for AOP No. 1.
Map showing initial approaches.
Photograph showing direction of approaches.
Altitude for all three AOP below 1,000 feet (minimum FAA altitude = 1,500 feet)
Following the third fly-over, Cornet and Macedo decided to drive north to a valley overlook on Flury Road. They reached that location and parked at about 9:00 pm. Two minutes later they spotted a set of lights flying north from the direction where AOP No. 1 had disappeared. It was traveling very fast for a conventional aircraft taking off from Stewart. It traveled north almost to Wallkill, NY, banked and turned back south, flew a couple miles back towards Stewart, slowed down, turned towards the west (towards the camera), and then began descending but drifting sideways as it descended. A separate web page has been constructed to hold the images and movies of this event, which show the AOP descending below tree top level into an area where a small lake is located (Lake Osiris). It disappeared at 9:03 pm. A map below shows the flight path of this AOP and where it appears to have "landed."
The video captured the treeline well enough to be certain that the AOP disappeared between trees, and not behind them as would be the case if it had been moving away from the observers. On the contrary, this AOP disappeared as it approached the observers. A separate web page entitled, Landing 1, contains images and movies of this "landing."
At 9:07 pm Cornet spotted a second AOP over the same area where the first one had disappeared. Its lights blinked on and then brightened considerably (perhaps to get Cornet's attention). AOP No. 2 slowly turned south and began to descend. It disappeared in the same place where AOP No. 1 had disappeared. A separate web page entitled, Landing 2, contains images and movies of this "landing." A map below shows the approximate position (x) where the lights on AOP No. 2 blinked on, and its direction of movement.
For the sake of simplicity, the sequence of AOP events has been taken as an organized pattern. The first AOP to fly over Cornet and Macedo is combined with the first AOP to land, and the second AOP to fly over them is combined with the second landing, etc. Whether or not the three AOPs which flew over them are the same ones which landed cannot be determined, but aside from two jetliners which were videotaped on approach to Stewart airport (at about 9:09 pm), no other aircraft or lights were observed in the night sky. It is therefore logical to think that if three AOP began the performances that evening, they would be the same three AOP which ended it in a spectacular fashion. In addition, AOP No. 1 disappeared to the southeast after the initial fly over, which is the direction and place where the first AOP spotted later came from as it headed north. The second AOP to "land" blinked on in an area where AOP No. 2 was headed after the fly over. And AOP No. 3 disappeared in the same general area as AOP No. 2. In other words, connect the dots.
At 9:11 pm Cornet spotted a third AOP over the same area where the first two had disappeared. Its lights blinked on and then brightened considerably. It turned slowly south and began to descend. It disappeared in the same area as the first two AOPs. A separate web page entitled, Landing 3, contains images and movies of this "landing."
Go to the Discussion section below for an overview of that night's events.
Map showing direction and positions of "landings."
Note the unusual flight paths.
Materials and MethodsStage or Setting
Date: 25 January 1997.
Place of observed fly-overs: South Searsville Rd. Standing on north side of road with farm fields on both sides of road. Southeast of West Searsville Rd, about 2.65 miles NNW of the police station in Montgomery, NY, and 3.55 miles W of the police station at Walden, NY.
Time: 8:07 pm to 8:28 pm.
Place from where landings were observed: Flury Rd., just South of Bruyn Turnpike, on hill and shoulder of road overlooking valley to the East.
Time: 9:03 pm to 9:12 pm.
Number of AOPs: Three (3) recorded.
Witnesses: John Macedo, Jr. and Bruce Cornet.
Weather condition: Clear, cold, with a high cloud cover; at least five miles visibility.
Camcorder: Sony Handycam video Hi8, model CCD-TRV81 (3-971-670-0). Owner: Bruce Cornet. Medium: Sony Hi8 MP 8mm videotape, 60 minute.
For compiled Images, Animations, Movies, and Data, select an AOP Number below.
AOP No. 1
AOP No. 2
AOP No. 3
Test Your Skills At Aircraft Identification
What Is It?
[Image Map File created by Map This! Copyright © 1995-1996 Todd C. Wilson/Fresh Ground Software]
Time Line for Events that Evening
- 8:17 = Time pm EST
- FO = Fly Over (beginning)
- LD = Landing (ending)
- SA = Stewart Airport (conventional aircraft)
For 40 minutes after the fly-overs no aircraft or AOP were spotted flying over the valley. Commercial jetliners typically arrive at Stewart on the hour or slightly after the hour. At 9:09 pm a jetliner was spotted and videotaped on its final landing approach. No commercial landings were scheduled for 8:30 pm, which would account for the times of the fly-overs.
The questions that must be asked are:
1) Were these three AOP conventional jetliners?
2) Are the three AOP which flew over Cornet and Macedo the same AOP which were observed later descending and disappearing below tree top level?
3) What data or evidence can be brought to bear on their identifications?
Anomalies during the "Fly-overs"
At least two skeptics who looked at images of AOP No. 1, which are published at http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/newsd/cornet/cornet.html, claim that enhancement shows the presence of a fuselage in front of a deltoid-shaped wing.
What evidence is there that this AOP was not a jetliner on approach to Stewart International Airport?
1) No jetliner landed at Stewart immediately following the flyover.
2) There is no room for a fuselage at the front of the triangle, because the leading edges of the triangle come to a point.
3) Two booms were seen sticking out in front of the triangle, accounting for the reflections, which were mistaken by the skeptics as reflections off of a conventional fuselage.
4) No tail assembly was observed as the FT flew over the observers.
5) The FT banked sharply to the right after it flew over, but it did not turn; based on the lift characteristics of conventional wings, this is impossible for a fixed wing aircraft to do at slow speeds without dropping rapidly in altitude in an uncontrolled stall. The camcorder was mounted on a monopod, limiting its orientation to horizontal motion, and eliminating camcorder tilt as the cause of FT orientation.
6) As it approached slowly, the FT traveled about one mile in 70 seconds (70 mph), which is about half the stall speed of most conventional jetliners. Check the movie.
7) As the FT approached Cornet its paired lights brightened briefly and then dimmed (see animated gif). The FT did not change orientation, implying that the brightening was intentional. Landing lights on commercial jetliners can be toggled between low and high beam. If this was not a case of the pilot checking the status of his landing lights, their brightening could imply a signal. AOP on initial approach during a performance commonly flared their headlights (see graph on The Illusion web page entitled, Changes in Light Intensity during Transformations), which is why Cornet says, "This is a craft" on the RealPlayer movie.
8) As the FT departed a tail light swung back and forth as if attached to a flexible pole.
9) The median pair of bright white lights (just to the right of the FT nose) rotated downwards and backwards as the FT flew past the observers, and can be seen on the video pointing backwards as the FT flies away; conventional aircraft landing lights do not rotate backwards and cannot be seen as brightly from the rear of a plane.
10) The strobes on the FT fired semi-randomly and not in sync, which is very atypical of commercial or military aircraft strobes.
AOP No. 2 clearly resembled a T-tail conventional jetliner in shape and size. What evidence is there that this was not a conventional jetliner, but an AOP designed to look like one for the purposes of camouflage?
1) No engine pods were observed attached to the fuselage or wings, something that is usually very obvious on a DC9 or Boeing 727, even at night.
2) The bottom of the fuselage of this AOP glowed white for about two seconds just after it passed over the observers on the ground. Conventional aircraft do not have this capability unless engineered that way, and there is no logical reason why a commercial aircraft would need that capability.
3) The strobes on the T-tail fired semi-randomly and not in sync, which is very atypical of commercial or military aircraft strobes.
4) This AOP flew below miminum FAA approved altitude in a direction not headed for any known airport.
AOP No. 3 had the shape of a large kite with a tail. What evidence is there that this was not a secret military aircraft on approach to Stewart Airforce Base (located at Stewart airport) across the valley?
1) AOP No. 3 headed in the wrong direction, and was NOT later observed turning towards Stewart and descending for a landing at that airport.
2) The navigation lights on this AOP are unconventional, because the brightest light, which is typically a landing light, was located on its port side (left wingtip if this was a conventional aircraft) with no complimentary solid light on its starboard side. A small starboard light was blue-green in color, not green, while a small white light was located up front to the left (port) side of where a fuselage would normally be and above the "wing". In other words, there were lights and strobes located in positions where no fuselage, horizontal surfaces, or vertical structures exist on normal airplanes. See The Light Show for pictures of what this AOP may look like and where its lights are attached on an unconventional airframe.
3) As this AOP approached the camera, it put on a light show by firing multicolored strobes in a seemingly random pattern; the strobe pattern was restricted in time and position, implying that it was intended for the observers on the ground. A random strobe pattern is atypical of military or commercial aircraft. In addition, for the strobes to have fired randomly, they would have to be controlled individually by the pilot, which is not how hazard lights operate on any conventional aircraft: They are automatically controlled by electronics and fire in a preprogrammed sequential pattern.
4) As this AOP approached the camera it climbed rapidly in altitude and accelerated to a calculated speed greater than 300 mph (based on the movement of a fixed star past the AOP in the video). It also began its ascent from an altitude below 1,000 feet, which is difficult to explain when there is no airport located on the west side of the valley near where the town of Pine Bush is located (the direction from which the AOP flew). If this AOP was taking off, it had to have originated from a location in the valley, because the Shawangunk Mountains form a wall on the western side of the valley that rises 1,000 to 1,100 feet above the valley floor! Whether or not it was taking off, its flight path and climb are both anomalous.
Anomalies during the "Landings"
For purposes of simplicity, the sequence of AOP appearances during the "landing" phase are given the same numbers as those during the "fly-over" phase. This is not done to imply that the first AOP to fly over us was the first one to land, and that the last one to fly over us is the last one to land. The actual sequence could have changed, but because of distance and resolution, the AOP during the "landing" phase cannot be correlated with certainty with those that flew over us.
The question might be asked, therefore, what evidence is there that they were the same three AOP?
Using Accum's Razor principle, it is more logical to correlate the events than to assume that six AOP put on performances that night. Three anomalous "fly-overs" correlate with three anomalous "landings" in an area where no airport exists. The first AOP demonstrated the same type of random strobe activity that the three AOP demonstrated during the "fly-over". By itself that would support a correlation. In addition, each AOP brightened its lights just before slowly descending below tree top level. The amount of brightening was greater than can be produced by aircraft landing lights that turn and point towards the camera. That brightening, coupled with the unusual flight patterns, the random strobes on the first AOP, the sudden blinking on of lights to the next AOP to "land" above the area where the previous AOP descended, and the descent of all three AOP below tree top level in front of the horizon strongly imply the same craft or objects in the two events.
The Anomalous Flight Path of AOP No. 1
Why did the AOP No. 1 fly all the way north from a location just north of Stewart airport to the city limits of Wallkill, bank to the east and turn back south, return south about a third the distance it had traveled north, turn towards the west, brighten its lights, dim them, and then descend slowly sideways into an area where Lake Osiris is located?
Why did AOP No. 2 turn on its lights over the same area where AOP No. 1 descended, brighten its lights, dim them, and then slowly descend and disappear in the same area?
Why did AOP No. 3 turn on its lights over the same area where AOPs No. 1 and No. 2 descended, brighten its lights, dim them, and then slowly descend and disappear in the same area?
The second two AOP seem to have been waiting (hovering) while AOP No. 1 made its trek north and then back south before descending. This circuitous path could have been shortened simply by turning east once the AOP reached the latitude of Lake Osiris. The fact that the second two AOP mimicked the first AOP once it was on its final "landing" approach to Lake Osiris stands out as punctuations at the end of the event. Cornet noticed a light on the ground turn on and off in front of the area where the AOPs disappeared after each one descended, as if to doubly mark or punctuate that area (listen to the comments made in the movie of the third AOP "landing".
Aside from the obvious: This seems to have been a staged event or performance, what was the message?
On 31 May 1995 Cornet captured on film what appears to have been a deliberate holographic-like image of a golden pyramid projected during a flash of light coming out of the ground. Pyramid means Pyro mid, or light in the middle. The projected image needs no interpretation. So why a pyramid?
The three AOP disappeared in an area where a small lake occurs within a horseshoe-like ridge, which conceals it from view on three compass sides. This lake can be seen only from the north looking south. The compass direction South has been important in numerous AOP performances in the valley.
That lake bears a very unusual name: Osiris, which is unlike most other names in the valley, with the exception of Goshen (located between Walden and Middletown, NY). Osiris is perhaps the most important deity and ruler in the ancient Egyptian religion, and Osiris is clearly associated with the pyramids of Gyza. So why name a lake after the God Osiris?
Osiris, the great God of Egypt who dwelled in the constellation Orion. OS is Latin for "mouth, opening," while IRIS is the medical term for the opening into the eye. More specifically the iris is the shutter or eyegate into the eye. Thus, Osiris literally means "open eye" or perhaps even "stargate" to the mythological gods and goddesses.
Osiris holding a flail and crook.
From What Life Was Like on the banks of the Nile, Time-Life Books, Alexandria, VA
With these associations in mind, let us take another look at the unusual flight path of AOP No. 1, which was accented by the flight paths of AOPs No. 2 and No. 3. Next to the reconstructed flight path (based on the video) I show an Egyptian crook (see image below), which along with the flail were two of the most important symbols the ancient Egyptian pharaohs held during official ceremonies.
The Egyptian crook had the name "heqa" and meant "ruler" (The Name Of The Dead, Tutankhamun Translated, by Hany Assaad & Daniel Kolos, 1979, Mirror Press, Stratford, Ontario).
Could the resemblance of the flight path to the crook be the intended message? If so, why? Was the Wallkill River Valley connected in the distant past to the gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt? Then again, the Masons consider the United States to be the New Egypt. This is a mystery that only becomes deeper as more clues are given by the enigmatic AOP that fly over the valley.
Comparison of Egyptian crook and AOP flight path.
The flight path also resembles the hieroglyph for the English letter "S". It stood for "health" or "she, her", and is commonly found associated with other hieroglyphs meaning "life" and "birth".
From Understanding Hieroglyphs, a complete introductory guide, by Hilary Wilson, Passport Books, Lincolnwood, IL, 1996.
Come again? On four separate occasions between 1992 and 1994 AOP performed skyglyphs in the shape of the letter "S". See If Here, How Would ETI Communicate?
Are you beginning to see why the performances, skyglyphs, and flight paths of Pine Bush AOP are truly anomalous (a mystery)?
When taken individually and out of context from the entire sequence of events and with the exclusion of other anomalous data, it is understandable how some skeptics might jump to conclusions about the identity of these three AOP. This exercise in data analysis is important in that it shows how additional data from other sources can help eliminate wrong interpretations.
For FT AOP No. 1 to have been a conventional jetliner on approach to Stewart International Airport, a number of anomalies would have to be explained, such as the clear indication of a pointed leading edge to the FT in comparison to the spacing of wings and fuselage on a conventional aircraft. In addition, the anomalous pattern of strobes has to be explained, not just from a probabilistic standpoint (multiple misfiring strobe generators), but in combination with the banking without turn that the FT performed as it flew over Cornet.
If the three "landings" are correlated with the three "fly-overs", the anomalies are compounded. If skeptics still want to force the data into a conventional interpretation, they must be responsible for the burden of proof.
With each new piece of relevant data, the number of alternative explanations decreases until there is one and only one possible explanation.
Of course, the parameters or boundaries of that explanation might be too wide, preventing an acceptable or accurate identification. If something is still unidentified because it does not fit the known description of anything on this planet (natural or manmade), it can be defined only by those sets of characteristics which were detected, recorded, and analyzed.
Just because the three AOP do not fit the descriptions, characteristics, and normal operations of conventional aircraft does not mean that they are from another world. Only with the collection of additional scientific data will it be possible to understand what similar AOP might represent and why they are interacting with humans.
Search for ExtraTerrestrial Visitation
Designing and Building an Experimental Tactical Platform (ETP) or Earth probe for
Back to Top of page
Exit back to Index page
Send mail to email@example.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2000 Sirius Onion Works.
This page was last edited 10/23/2005