I find it hard to believe that Frederick was abducted by a UFO. There must some logical explanation for his disappearance. What do you guys think happened to him? Here are some theories I found:

1. Frederick was attacked by drug smugglers and killed.

2. Faking the entire episode which was the setting for a suicide attempt.

3. Valentich was flying upside down and became disoriented. He then began seeing his own plane's lights reflected in the water and ended up crashing into the water.

4. Valentich staged his own disappearance.

3 has been debunked as the plane was incapable of this

Christ almighty...what a freaking amazing episode.

I think it was a much more simple explanation...something along the lines of..."the sun was hitting the plane at a percise angle which created a coloring and the image of a flying effect", etc. Along those lines. Needless to say...I dont buy into the UFO's and such.

But either way, LivesByTheSea, Im interesting in why you posted #1...that extremly interesting. I, personally, Had never even thought of it. Continue please....:)

1. I don't think drug smugglers can fly at insane speeds- would he not have reported seeing suspicious activity, would a smuggler not take a shot from the ground rather than sending a plane after him?

2. There were no reports he was ever depressed or suicidal, he seemed to be a happy person- so suicide is very unlikely. Would he be bothering reporting all that stuff if he was going to kill himself?

3. No

4. Possibly although unlikely, what would be his motive?


There can be no doubt something strange happened that night, we will probably never know what. Theories range from freak weather conditions, to aliens, to a military project.

The old "In Search of" series did a story about Valentich's unusal disappearance that also featured a re-enactment of the flight.

The ISO re-enactment, in my opinion, was world's better than the UM re-enactment. Granted it was the seventies so they didn't utilize all the special effects, but did well with what they had. The ISO segment was also how I first heard of the case. It would be a couple more years before UM profiled it (I first saw the ISO segment in '91 or '92 on A+E).

Frederick's father was interviewed for both productions. I always felt bad for him. He still believed Frederick was alive and in the ISO segment conceded the possibility that Frederick might be living with other intelligences in outer space.

Ultra bizarre case. I think he may have suffered from som ekind of dementia while in flight OR saw a strange light reflection and dumped his plane.

Why is everyone saying that it's impossible for him to have been flying upside down? This is how JFK Jr. crashed his plane- becoming disoriented and flying vertically down instead of horizontally.

Why is everyone saying that it's impossible for him to have been flying upside down? This is how JFK Jr. crashed his plane- becoming disoriented and flying vertically down instead of horizontally.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread409461/pg1


lots of info here

But how do you explain the green light that was floating over his airplane? That mysterious green light raises a lot of questions as to what happened.

The old "In Search of" series did a story about Valentich's unusal disappearance that also featured a re-enactment of the flight.

The ISO re-enactment, in my opinion, was world's better than the UM re-enactment. Granted it was the seventies so they didn't utilize all the special effects, but did well with what they had. The ISO segment was also how I first heard of the case. It would be a couple more years before UM profiled it (I first saw the ISO segment in '91 or '92 on A+E).

Frederick's father was interviewed for both productions. I always felt bad for him. He still believed Frederick was alive and in the ISO segment conceded the possibility that Frederick might be living with other intelligences in outer space.

Really? I would love to see this. This is probably the only UFO segment I really like from UM: it's one of my all-time favorites.

The old "In Search of" series did a story about Valentich's unusal disappearance that also featured a re-enactment of the flight.

The ISO re-enactment, in my opinion, was world's better than the UM re-enactment. Granted it was the seventies so they didn't utilize all the special effects, but did well with what they had. The ISO segment was also how I first heard of the case. It would be a couple more years before UM profiled it (I first saw the ISO segment in '91 or '92 on A+E).

Frederick's father was interviewed for both productions. I always felt bad for him. He still believed Frederick was alive and in the ISO segment conceded the possibility that Frederick might be living with other intelligences in outer space.

ISO was a fun show, but they were always "conceding" - I would say pushing - the most bizarre possible explanations for everything. I just watched the opening of the show on "Atlantis" out on the internets somewhere - it begins, strangely, with a review of various large stone carvings like the ones on Easter Island and even larger "drawings" of people made in the land using mounds and stuff (the kind you need to be up in the air to really make out what they are), and suggests, like all shows of this type do, that all these things could only have been made with "advanced" technology. What could have been the source of this terribly "advanced" technology on display in these art objects at these far-flung locations (the drawing of at least one giant man was from England, whereas Easter Island is off the west coast of South America)? Why Atlantis of course! Even though the only we thing we know for sure about Atlantis is that it, in all likelihood, never existed per se as a place, the only logical conclusion is that it must have been the source for the technology used to make sculptures and renderings in England and South America thousands of years before recorded time.

These are the kinds of conclusions ISO draws.

Wasn't Leonard Nimoy a great narrator though? As for the Valentich case, it is a truly compelling one and one for which I can't think of a plausible explanation.

3 has been debunked as the plane was incapable of this

Doesn't rule out being disoriented. Likely he wasn't paying attention to his instruments and went down.

Wasn't Leonard Nimoy a great narrator though? As for the Valentich case, it is a truly compelling one and one for which I can't think of a plausible explanation.

The Valentich case is the only UFO case I've ever really loved. UM's coverage and reenactment are top-notch, and the case is genuinely eerie. Nevertheless, I'm 99.99999999% certain that there is, at bottom, a very humdrum and Earth-bound explanation for his disappearance - though it will probably never be known to us. And as long as it isn't, the imagination boggles the mind...

Why is everyone saying that it's impossible for him to have been flying upside down? This is how JFK Jr. crashed his plane- becoming disoriented and flying vertically down instead of horizontally.


Getting disoriented, flying out of control, and crashing is one thing. Flying upside down is something else.

The kind of plane Frekerick was flying is not capable of upside down flight. The fuel is fed to the engine via gravity from the wings and it has no fuel pump. If it were to roll inverted, the engine would quit almost immdiately.

I have no doubt he saw "something." What that something was, and if it was real or imagined, is anyone's guess. He probably flew until he became disoriented (easy to happen over the ocean in low light) or ran out of gas and crashed. Those are the most likely scenario.

Or he is living with Skywalker family on Tatooine. :lol:

I have no doubt he saw "something." What that something was, and if it was real or imagined, is anyone's guess. He probably flew until he became disoriented (easy to happen over the ocean in low light) or ran out of gas and crashed. Those are the most likely scenario.

Or he is living with Skywalker family on Tatooine. :lol:

What about he slipped into an alternate dimension?

This case would have Bizarro saying, "That's just weird".

ISO was a fun show, but they were always "conceding" - I would say pushing - the most bizarre possible explanations for everything. I just watched the opening of the show on "Atlantis" out on the internets somewhere - it begins, strangely, with a review of various large stone carvings like the ones on Easter Island and even larger "drawings" of people made in the land using mounds and stuff (the kind you need to be up in the air to really make out what they are), and suggests, like all shows of this type do, that all these things could only have been made with "advanced" technology. What could have been the source of this terribly "advanced" technology on display in these art objects at these far-flung locations (the drawing of at least one giant man was from England, whereas Easter Island is off the west coast of South America)? Why Atlantis of course! Even though the only we thing we know for sure about Atlantis is that it, in all likelihood, never existed per se as a place, the only logical conclusion is that it must have been the source for the technology used to make sculptures and renderings in England and South America thousands of years before recorded time.

These are the kinds of conclusions ISO draws.

Agreed. ISO is a fun and entertaining show but you have to take much of it with a huge grain of salt. Did you ever see the Lee Harvey Oswald episode? It started out with a decent overview of the acoustics evidence, then mentioned the Cuban missile crisis being the most humiliating defeat in Russian politics, then touched on some discrepancies in the diary Oswald kept while in Russia. So we've basically made the assumption and leap now that the Russians killed Kennedy. This is topped off with an interview with a crackpot British author who believed that the Oswald who returned to the US from Russia was an impostor named "Aleck" who the KGB sent over for the purpose of eliminating JFK. :rolleyes:

Like I said, HUGE grain of salt...

Agreed. ISO is a fun and entertaining show but you have to take much of it with a huge grain of salt.

Some were, but the ISO episodes on Jack the Ripper, DB Cooper & Marilyn Monroe, Josef Mengele were excellent enough to be taken seriously as good documentary material, IMHO.

The DB Cooper ISO was actually pretty good in terms of facts about the case.

As for Valentich, let me through in another off the wall theory?:p

Is there a possibility that there might be a military reason for his disappearance.

1. Espionage (maybe Valentich was a spy?)
2. Plane was accidently shot down by military?
3. Something having to do with magnetic pulses in the earths field.

I know these sound bizzare but considering this was classified as a UFO abduction.

BTW which ISO eppy had Valentich in?

Some were, but the ISO episodes on Jack the Ripper, DB Cooper & Marilyn Monroe, Josef Mengele were excellent enough to be taken seriously as good documentary material, IMHO.

Yeah, I agree with that too. Although some of the episodes tended to propose the most sensational and out there theory as an explanation for the phenomenon. I think that's the point mozart was getting at. Jack the Ripper is another example of this. The connection to British royalty is one of the more (most?) scandalous theories and it has pretty much been disproved.


The DB Cooper ISO was actually pretty good in terms of facts about the case.


One of my favorites, and how I first heard about the Cooper case way back in the early nineties. I think it aired a year or two before some of the money was found by that family digging a barbecue pit. The only artifact that had been found at that time was the plastic emergency exit notice sign from Cooper's plane.


BTW which ISO eppy had Valentich in?

I'll have to check my DVDs, but I'm pretty sure it was "In Search of...UFO Australia".

Pretty amazing that the most baffling and unique unsolved mystery happened in my country of Australia. Strange they never found wreckage from the plane or anything.

I went to the link provided earlier in the thread and read the flight transcript and the poster's comments.

Is it correct that the missing pilot was only 20 years old? I haven't seen this segment very often and for some reason, I was thinking he was about age 35.

Edit to add:

From what I can find, it looks like the age is correct. That bothers me and makes me wonder about his state of mind, flying ability and experience, etc.

He disappeared on October 28th, 1978. One of the commenters in the site linked mentioned that 1978 was quite an active year for UFO type sitings.

I believe he came into contact with a UFO, but it didn't abduct him. I say maybe in trying to pursue it or get away from it, either the UFO did something to his plane or the plane unexpectedly malfunctioned and his plane crashed into the sea, killing him.

Bumping a super old thread (watched a more recent show that had something on this disappearance & they showed a part of the Unsolved Mysteries segment they did, I was searching for the full UM episode of it & this thread popped up)

Anyway, for any interested parties, you can see the Australian government's full file on this case if you want (takes a few steps to do it)

1 - Go here: http://www.naa.gov.au/
2 - Click Search the Collection
3 - Click Search the Collection again on the next page
4 - On the following page, under Keyword, enter this: VH-DSJ
5 - Press Search
6 - Click on View Digital Copy

I don't know why it's so strange for people to believe that something happened to his plane along the lines of some unexplained paranormal incident. The universe contains infinite unknowns. There are ton of unexplained phenomena on this planet alone that can't be explained. People really need to get off their high horse and stop assuming that there just HAS to be a logical explanation in truly baffling cases like this one.

I don't know why it's so strange for people to believe that something happened to his plane along the lines of some unexplained paranormal incident. The universe contains infinite unknowns. There are ton of unexplained phenomena on this planet alone that can't be explained. People really need to get off their high horse and stop assuming that there just HAS to be a logical explanation in truly baffling cases like this one.

Valentich was obsessed with UFO's. What are the odds that of all the aircraft that have flown over the years that the one "most credible abduction" just so happens to be a guy who was someone who was described as a UFO "aficionado"? He either staged his disappearance, or committed an elaborate suicide. You can read more about him on his Wikipedia page. IMO, it leaves little room for doubt.

People really need to get off their high horse and stop assuming that there just HAS to be a logical explanation in truly baffling cases like this one.

There is a logical explanation. Lack of information does not equate to lack of a logical explanation, and what we have here is lack of information.

I don't know what happened to Valentich, but I know I don't have enough information to make an educated guess. I know little about aircraft and zilch about flight. I have read in multiple reports, as Cars mentioned, Valentich had a deep fascination with UFOs. I'm not sure it suggests anything in particular, but it's interesting.

I think true skepticism is actually rather indicative of humility. It suggests the skeptic realizes he or she is a fallible human being susceptible to irrationality and bias. I see no high-horse-riding in that notion at all.

Valentich was obsessed with UFO's. What are the odds that of all the aircraft that have flown over the years that the one "most credible abduction" just so happens to be a guy who was someone who was described as a UFO "aficionado"? He either staged his disappearance, or committed an elaborate suicide. You can read more about him on his Wikipedia page. IMO, it leaves little room for doubt.
The only thing that the Wikipedia page says is that he believed in UFO's. Doesn't mean he was obsessed with them. There are a lot of people who believe in UFO's, but aren't obsessed with them. There are people that fear getting in a car accident. Doesn't mean they stage their own death if they get in one.

And you're ignoring other aspects of the case:

- There is no signs of a plane crash.
- There were multiple eyewitnesses that saw some strange lights around Fred's plane.
- The photographer's strange photo that was developed and apparently not attributed to film error.

EDIT: A quick search found this. It's from a recent article regarding the case.

What is significant about the file, Mr Basterfield argues, is that for the first time it is revealed that parts of aircraft wreckage with partial serial numbers were found in Bass Strait five years after the disappearance.

Mr Basterfield says Valentich's aircraft serial numbers fell within the range of those found on the wreckage, almost eliminating the theory that the pilot staged his disappearance on the way to King Island.

"There was a lot of public speculation at the time of a hoax disappearance but there is nothing in the 315 pages that even suggests that," he says.

He says transcripts and notes of extensive interviews with those who knew or were related to Valentich, doctors and colleagues virtually eliminate the possibility of suicide.

http://www.sott.net/article/247700-Frederick-Valentich-Truth-Was-Out-There-After-All

There is a logical explanation. Lack of information does not equate to lack of a logical explanation, and what we have here is lack of information.

I don't know what happened to Valentich, but I know I don't have enough information to make an educated guess. I know little about aircraft and zilch about flight. I have read in multiple reports, as Cars mentioned, Valentich had a deep fascination with UFOs. I'm not sure it suggests anything in particular, but it's interesting.

I think true skepticism is actually rather indicative of humility. It suggests the skeptic realizes he or she is a fallible human being susceptible to irrationality and bias. I see no high-horse-riding in that notion at all.
What is the logical explanation in this specific case when there is no evidence to propel it? What motive did Fred have to stage his own disappearance? And how did he hide the aircraft when a trace of it was never found? What was the unidentified clicking noise that occurred before all contact was lost?

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

What is the logical explanation in this specific case when there is no evidence to propel it? What motive did Fred have to stage his own disappearance? And how did he hide the aircraft when a trace of it was never found? What was the unidentified clicking noise that occurred before all contact was lost?

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

You are presuming:

1. I have an explanation. I do not. That does not mean one does not exist, or that it is the result of something "supernatural".
2. That I believe Valentich staged his disappearance.
3. That I also believe he "hid" an aircraft.
4. That I have an explanation for those "clicking sounds" heard over his radio transmission.


Bottom Line Up Front: It is ok to say "I don't know."


Also, here is an excellent read that breaks down the logic of your Sherlock Holmes quote very well. I've snipped the crucial piece below. Emphasis is my own.

...problems arise when this very logical principle of investigation are applied without constraints. The logic breaks down in a world where one allows for the existence of magic. How, then, does one define possible vs impossible? Holmes clearly assumes magic does not exist, and Doyle places him in a world (the real world) where magic in fact does not exist. Therefore Holmes (very much unlike Scully from The X-files, who lives in a paranormal world) is never “baffled” when his rational explanations do not fit an irrational world he refuses to accept.

There is also a very practical consideration in applying this principle – how complete is your set of alternate explanations?

...The abuses of this principle that Stuart refers to generally combine the above two failings – including “magical” explanations in the set of the possible, and failing to consider all possible explanations. Let’s take a very common example – the sighting of a UFO. Proponents of the ET hypothesis often argue that the UFO could not be a plane, a balloon, a cloud, or the planet Venus, therefore it must be an ET craft.

The first problem with such arguments is that the list of possible explanations is too short. It should also consider more and even rare but mundane explanations, such as a satellite re-entry, an experimental aircraft, a hoax, or an optical illusion.

The logic also breaks down in concluding that the UFO (by which I simply mean a flying object that is truly unidentified) must be an ET craft, because that is all that remains. In addition to not being “all” that remains, it should not even be included in the list of known possibilities. The error here is including unknown or new phenomena on the list of the possible, which should only include established phenomena.

This is necessary because the list of possible new phenomena is theoretically infinite. Why favor ET craft often time-traveling psychic bigfeet? Or fairies from another dimension? Or a previously hidden race of intelligent dinosaurs who survived the extinction 65 million years ago. Or the act of a mischievious deity. Favoring one unknown explanation over another based solely on the absence of an established explanation is a logical fallacy we call the argument from ignorance.

http://theness.com/roguesgallery/index.php/logicphilosophy/a-sherlock-holmes-logical-fallacy/

You are presuming:

1. I have an explanation. I do not. That does not mean one does not exist, or that it is the result of something "supernatural".
2. That I believe Valentich staged his disappearance.
3. That I also believe he "hid" an aircraft.
4. That I have an explanation for those "clicking sounds" heard over his radio transmission.


Bottom Line Up Front: It is ok to say "I don't know."


Also, here is an excellent read that breaks down the logic of your Sherlock Holmes quote very well. I've snipped the crucial piece below. Emphasis is my own.



http://theness.com/roguesgallery/index.php/logicphilosophy/a-sherlock-holmes-logical-fallacy/
Alright. Well we were talking about "logical" explanations. None have even been proposed at this point. The only information we have on the case borders on the paranormal. Just because we can't come up with a logical explanation doesn't mean we should dismiss something that may not follow our means of conventional logic. Whatever people think that may be in this instance. Like I said earlier, the universe, let alone this planet contains infinite unknowns. This may have been one of those times. That's the entire point of my position. If you can't come up with a logical explanation fine. At the same time that doesn't mean we should dismiss something that may seem illogical or unexplainable as an impossible scenario.

EDIT: A quick search found this. It's from a recent article regarding the case.



http://www.sott.net/article/247700-Frederick-Valentich-Truth-Was-Out-There-After-All

It's Keith Basterfield. He is not a scientist; he's a guy that gets published in MUFON's "journal" a lot. I'd sooner ask my coffee table about anything involving the natural sciences than I would Keith Basterfield--it would give me a more accurate answer.

The only information we have on the case borders on the paranormal. Just because we can't come up with a logical explanation doesn't mean we should dismiss something that may not follow our means of conventional logic.

For the third time, bluejazz87: Argument from ignorance. Please Google it.

Alright. Well we were talking about "logical" explanations. None have even been proposed at this point. The only information we have on the case borders on the paranormal. .


This is simply false.

The established information we have is as follows:

1. Valentich went on a flight.
2. In that flight he reported a strange incident.
3. He and his plane disappeared.

It is quite possible that Valentich was mistaken or disorientated when he reported the incident. Given his long standing interest in UFOs and the fact that he lied to his girlfriend and Australian Aviation Authorities about his itinery that day (check the wikipedia page about this incident), it is also possible- maybe even probable- that he was engaging in some sort of hoax or prank when he made the call. He wouldn't be the first young man to do such a thing.

There is nothing "mysterious" about his plane not being found either- the waters of Bass Stait (that Valentich flew over) are some of the most treacherous in the world - it is entirely possible that the plane crashed into the water and currents then immediately swept the debris many miles from the crash site, leaving nothing for the police or Navy to find when they surveyed the area.

Did this happen? I don't know...but it's possible, and it seems a great deal more likely than him being picked up by a UFO.

Even as a skeptic, I was initially baffled by the Valentich case, but the more you read into it, the more" red flags" are raised regarding Valentich's character. The fact that he had a long standing interest in UFOs is not a coincidence IMO.

This is simply false.

The established information we have is as follows:

1. Valentich went on a flight.
2. In that flight he reported a strange incident.
3. He and his plane disappeared.

Thank you for reiterating this. There is hardly anything "paranormal" about these things.



I keep thinking of that Carl Sagan remark about impatience with ambiguity.

For the third time, bluejazz87: Argument from ignorance. Please Google it.
LOL okay? Pot, meet kettle. I could tell you the exact same thing to yourself. Doesn't change anything. My position has always been to keep things in mind, not to say one scenario is the truth because another scenario isn't proven to be true. What I've implied is to keep all doors open.


I keep thinking of that Carl Sagan remark about impatience with ambiguity.
Cool story bro. Tell it again. Funny, because that quote you are talking about goes both ways in this case.

It's Keith Basterfield. He is not a scientist; he's a guy that gets published in MUFON's "journal" a lot. I'd sooner ask my coffee table about anything involving the natural sciences than I would Keith Basterfield--it would give me a more accurate answer.

Not sure if serious. I never stated he was a scientist. The only thing the article states, not me, is that he is a researcher that has had his eye on the case for a long time. He is a guy that ironically is skeptical to their very existence. UFO's that is.

This is simply false.

The established information we have is as follows:

1. Valentich went on a flight.
2. In that flight he reported a strange incident.
3. He and his plane disappeared.

It is quite possible that Valentich was mistaken or disorientated when he reported the incident. Given his long standing interest in UFOs and the fact that he lied to his girlfriend and Australian Aviation Authorities about his itinery that day (check the wikipedia page about this incident), it is also possible- maybe even probable- that he was engaging in some sort of hoax or prank when he made the call. He wouldn't be the first young man to do such a thing.

There is nothing "mysterious" about his plane not being found either- the waters of Bass Stait (that Valentich flew over) are some of the most treacherous in the world - it is entirely possible that the plane crashed into the water and currents then immediately swept the debris many miles from the crash site, leaving nothing for the police or Navy to find when they surveyed the area.

Did this happen? I don't know...but it's possible, and it seems a great deal more likely than him being picked up by a UFO.

Even as a skeptic, I was initially baffled by the Valentich case, but the more you read into it, the more" red flags" are raised regarding Valentich's character. The fact that he had a long standing interest in UFOs is not a coincidence IMO.
I meant about logical explanations in regards to his fate. And what about the eyewitnesses? The photographer's strange photo? The strange clicking noise. That is other established information that we know of that was reported. Since we're talking about what's possible, I'd say that the other information that was reported that day whether true or not was highly unusual, and of the paranormal nature in description. I'm not saying he didn't perish by conventional means, but I am saying that we shouldn't easily dismiss other aspects of the case, no matter how strange they may be.

By the way, what motive do you think Fred would have to pull such a prank and/or stunt? Just curious on what you think. Even though you already have your opinion on his fate.

LOL okay? Pot, meet kettle. I could tell you the exact same thing to yourself. Doesn't change anything. My position has always been to keep things in mind, not to say one scenario is the truth because another scenario isn't proven to be true. What I've implied is to keep all doors open.

I honestly recommend enrolling in a logic or critical thinking course at some local college or university if you are able to do so. Please at least pick up a book on logic; there are plenty of good ones.

Cool story bro. Tell it again. Funny, because that quote you are talking about goes both ways in this case.

You could try explaining what Sagan meant in your own words, and we will see if your assertion is correct.

Not sure if serious. I never stated he was a scientist. The only thing the article states, not me, is that he is a researcher that has had his eye on the case for a long time. He is a guy that ironically is skeptical to their very existence. UFO's that is.

I'm not sure there's much irony in a known believer in UFOs asserting that a pilot was abducted by a UFO.

I meant about logical explanations in regards to his fate. And what about the eyewitnesses? The photographer's strange photo?
The strange clicking noise. That is other established information that we know of that was reported. Since we're talking about what's possible, I'd say that the other information that was reported that day whether true or not was highly unusual, and of the paranormal nature in description. I'm not saying he didn't perish by conventional means, but I am saying that we shouldn't easily dismiss other aspects of the case, no matter how strange they may be.

By the way, what motive do you think Fred would have to pull such a prank and/or stunt? Just curious on what you think. Even though you already have your opinion on his fate.


There is no credible evidence that extra terrestrial piloted UFOs exist. One day, there might be (although, they've apparently been hovering around for centuries without leaving any evidence, so I wouldn't hold my breath). Until such time as they are proven to exist, we do not attribute unexplained phenomena to them.

When I was in Vegas a couple of years back, I saw a show by illusionists Penn & Tellar. To this day, I have no idea how they did some of their tricks. But just because I cannot explain what I saw, does not mean it has a supernatural cause. It just means I cannot explain it.

Per Richard Dawkins - "its good to keep an open mind.. but not so open your brain falls out"

As your question as to why Fred may have pulled a prank...Firstly, I'm not certain that he did ( i just stated it was possible - perhaps probable - that he did),and secondly, there is a lot of things I cannot explain about his behaviour - like the fact that he "studied UFOs as a hobby"(according to his dad), that he lied to his family and aviation authorities about his proposed route on the day of the incident, that he repeatedly breached aviation regulations in the months leading up to his disappearance.

Three things could have logically happened to Valentich:

-He staged the whole UFO affair and is still alive and well. There were reports that an unidentified plane landed near where Valentich was last reported. I doubt this is what happened or else Valentich would have surfaced by now.
-He staged the UFO encounter as an elaborate suicide.
-He became disoriented and thought he saw lights and another aircraft.

Suicide seems the most likely, IMO. From his Wikipedia page:

"He had twice applied to enlist in the Royal Australian Air Force but was rejected because of inadequate educational qualifications. He was a member of the Air Training Corps, determined to have a career in aviation. His student pilot licence was issued 24 February 1977 and his private pilot licence the following September. Valentich was studying part-time to become a commercial pilot but had a poor achievement record, having twice failed all five commercial licence examination subjects, and as recent as the previous month had failed three more commercial licence subjects. He had been involved in flying incidents, straying into a controlled zone in Sydney (for which he received a warning) and twice deliberately flying into cloud (for which prosecution was being considered)."

Sounds to me like a guy who wanted to be somebody important or special, but kept failing at everything he was trying to accomplish finally had enough and decided to stage this elaborate suicide to make people remember him and somewhat famous. The fact that we're still talking about him today means he succeeded.

And Valentich's Wikipedia page makes it quite clear that the guy was a little more into UFO's than simply believing in their existence:

"According to Guido Valentich, Frederick's father, Frederick was a "firm believer in UFOs," and, prior to his disappearance, he had "worried about attacks from UFOs."

If that doesn't scream RED FLAG I don't know what does.

prior to his disappearance, he had "worried about attacks from UFOs."
Now bluejazz will claim he was psychic as well :lol:

I remember this on UM. For any Aussies they will recognize actress Lisa McCune as the witness who saw Frederick's plane and the light/object above it. I also have no plausible explanation for this one. This really is a true unsolved mystery!

I remember this on UM. For any Aussies they will recognize actress Lisa McCune as the witness who saw Frederick's plane and the light/object above it. I also have no plausible explanation for this one. This really is a true unsolved mystery!

Nope, no mystery at all. Just an inexperienced pilot who didn't follow orders & let his imagination run away with him.

Yeah maybe.... no one knows for sure. It's conjecture

Yeah maybe.... no one knows for sure. It's conjecture

Well nobody knows anything for sure-but it is about as clear cut as it gets. The man shouldn't have been flying.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_valentich_disappearance_another_ufo_cold_case_solved

Yeah maybe.... no one knows for sure. It's conjecture

Exactly. I've followed this case for a few years, done a fair amount of research; a lot of things just don't add up. First of all, a number of websites and news articles site Fred's father as saying that Fred was a UFO enthusiast, however Fred's father (before he died) fervently denied having ever made such statements. Also, why weren't the original recordings of Fred's last conversation with ATC ever released? The only evidence released from the Australian air traffic control was a written transcript of the conversation between Frederick and ATC, which quite a few people have read and recorded verbatim for distribution via online and tv broadcasts featuring this case. The actual voice transmitted recording have never been released. Finally, if Fred's plane crashed, where is the wreckage? :confused:

I listened to the Thinking Sideways Podcast about this case, and the hosts gave the most thorough breakdown I've seen online. It's a really good listen, the three hosts are super clever, quirky and funny. ;) http://thinkingsidewayspodcast.com/valentich-disappearance/

This article suggests that Valentich saw natural phenomenon and due to hus UFo obsession and assumed it was UFO related which caused him
To panick and crash


http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_valentich_disappearance_another_ufo_cold_case_solved

What in the hell happened to this forum?? Over a decade ago, people discussed UM cases with an open-mind and there was no need to insult others. People were respectful about mental illness and addiction. I've dealt with both and the recent comments around here with regards to that topic are judgmental and horrific. I don't like the term "victim shaming" but it's rampant here- that and "witness shaming" too. I am looking forward to the day when adult conversation returns to this forum.

I have no doubt that there was nothing paranormal about the Valentich case. But my God, discuss this with an open mind and be respectful of other opinions! Just because you consider paranormal to be outrageous doesn't mean someone who considers/believes is crazy or that you should automatically discount it.

The attitude and atmosphere of this forum has become so negative over the years and that is disrespectful to the show, the families and victims featured, and to the memory of the hosts. Try practicing some damned compassion for others.

Haven't seen anything here treating him badly. The facts point toward his beliefs & actions, along with his ineptitude at flying being a danger to himself & others & what led to his demise, that has to be pointed out.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/news/pilot-talk/2020/11/23/mysteries-of-flight-alien-abduction-or-pilot-error/

Not sure if this has been commented or not, but this is from the Wikipedia page about his disappearance:

"He had about 150 total hours' flying time and held a class-four instrument rating, which authorized him to fly at night, but only "in visual meteorological conditions". He had twice applied to enlist in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), but was rejected because of inadequate educational qualifications. He was a member of the RAAF Air Training Corps, determined to have a career in aviation. Valentich was studying part-time to become a commercial pilot but had a poor achievement record, having twice failed all five commercial license examination subjects, and as recently as the month before his disappearance had failed three more commercial license subjects. He had been involved in flying incidents, for example, straying into a controlled zone in Sydney, for which he received a warning, and twice deliberately flying into a cloud, for which prosecution was being considered. According to his father, Guido, Valentich was an ardent believer in UFOs and had been worried about being attacked by them.

The destination of Valentich's final flight was King Island, but his motivation for the flight is unknown. He told flight officials that he was going to King Island to pick up some friends, while he told others that he was going to pick up crayfish. Later investigations found both stated reasons to be untrue. Valentich had also failed to inform King Island Airport of his intention to land there, going against "standard procedure"

I think one of two things happened. Either he deliberately staged this entire thing and killed himself so that he could become pseudo-famous and to put in the annals of history along with UFO's. Or, he was distracted by some other kind of light and automatically assumed it was a UFO. While doing this, he stopped pay attention to flying the plane and eventually crashed as a result. I lean towards the former.

This segment, to me, was quintessential Unsolved Mysteries. What I mean by that is when I first saw this episode, I actually believed something happened to Valentich. But when you research the incident and who he was, it becomes much more clear. UM left out the fact that he was obsessed with UFO's, that he wasn't that good of a pilot, that the flight he was going on had no purpose and had lied to at least one party about the nature of the flight.

I think this is a typical example of grasping at illogical explanations to explain something because the alternative is assumed to be something even more absurd like alien abduction, when in reality there are other possibilities.

Someone intentionally killing themselves to become famous? Yes, it happens, but is is very rare, and usually there is plenty of evidence that points to such a state of mind. By most accounts Valentich was not suicidal or insane.

Flying upside down? Not even possible with a gravity fed fuel system, aside from the obvious fact that gravity still applies and it would be obvious to even an inexperienced pilot that they were upside down.

Distracted looking at some light and just crashed? Yeah possible, but then that begs the question "what light" which no one seems to have an answer to either.

The aircraft was never recovered, and the transportation authorities admired they did not know what happened. And if I recall correctly the ATC tapes have been withheld from the public to this very day.

None of this is to say he was abducted by martians, but I tend to think something somewhat unusual did happen, possibly involving another aircraft as he reported.

His father said he was afraid of aliens attacking him, besides being a hell of a coincidence it could indicate some kind of mental illness. The guy had also lied about the purpose of the flight and did not inform the airport of his intention to land. I personally go with an elaborate suicide. His desire to become a commercial pilot also wasn't working out.

His father said he was afraid of aliens attacking him, besides being a hell of a coincidence it could indicate some kind of mental illness. The guy had also lied about the purpose of the flight and did not inform the airport of his intention to land. I personally go with an elaborate suicide. His desire to become a commercial pilot also wasn't working out.

His father (and others) also were adamant that he was not suicidal, for what that is worth.

I will say his father's statements about his UFO fear are odd, but keep in mind those statements from the father came after the incident, and may have been colored somewhat by it. And to be interested in UFOs, or even fearful of them, was not perhaps a fringe belief in the late 70's, that was an era where the subject was still close to its high water mark.

His lying about the purpose of the flight I do find interesting, and could open the door to various other scenarios where outsiders were involved (drug transport comes to mind).

The fact that the transportation board did not rule as a probable suicide has always made me think that they were unconvinced of that angle, as it would have been easy enough to make such a ruling. And we know they withheld some evidence from the public, so its possible they are basing that on more than we can.

Not to say that I can't see a suicide being the case, but I can certainly see alternatives.

His father (and others) also were adamant that he was not suicidal, for what that is worth.

I have no trouble believing that he never told anyone he was suicidal even if he was. But they can't know if he was suicidal or not since they weren't able look inside his head. There may have been signs, but I know a lot of people tend to be in denial about things like that.

But apparently Valentich did explicitly tell his father about his concern about an UFO attacking him and I see no reason to really doubt it, especially since the father did NOT want to suggest his son suffered from mental illess.

I think the only other possible explanation is that he crashed after going after something he believed was an UFO, but in fact had a perfectly reasonable explanation (the lights he saw being stars and planets). But I personally think it's a bit too much of a coincidence that he acted so odd just before the flight and that no trace of him was found right when he finally came across this "UFO". It just seems "staged", in my opinion.

Was his fear of aliens attacking him due to previous experiences? did he report prior abductions. please help me contact his family

The idea that an alien spaceship would be some flash of blue light or whatever, is also foolish.

He crashed into the ocean.

There are no such things as aliens.

There are more important mysteries to be solved.

The idea that an alien spaceship would be some flash of blue light or whatever, is also foolish.

On what basis? Because you don't think there would be one?
I think it is presumptuous to say what ET craft, if/when they come to earth, would present themselves as.

If he crashed into the ocean, why was nothing found? What caused him to crash? Why has the audio never been released to the public?

On what basis? Because you don't think there would be one?
I think it is presumptuous to say what ET craft, if/when they come to earth, would present themselves as.

If he crashed into the ocean, why was nothing found? What caused him to crash? Why has the audio never been released to the public?

Because we don't default to something like that just because we don't have the answer. That's already been gone over in this very topic about 5 times.

Because we don't default to something like that just because we don't have the answer. That's already been gone over in this very topic about 5 times.

Its not a matter of defaulting to ET because we don't have the answer, its a matter of not defaulting to crashed in the ocean when the evidence available does not support such a claim.

Its not a matter of defaulting to ET because we don't have the answer, its a matter of not defaulting to crashed in the ocean when the evidence available does not support such a claim.

Crashing into the ocean is the most logical outcome here. There is the remotest of possibilities that he crashed onto some small island, but after 44 years, the odds of any trace of him or the wreckage not being found on land are much less than the former hypothesis.

If anybody believes in any sort of alien angle, then they can discuss that with like-minded individuals. I'll take myself out of that discussion, thank you very much.

Crashing into the ocean is the most logical outcome here. There is the remotest of possibilities that he crashed onto some small island, but after 44 years, the odds of any trace of him or the wreckage not being found on land are much less than the former hypothesis.

If anybody believes in any sort of alien angle, then they can discuss that with like-minded individuals. I'll take myself out of that discussion, thank you very much.

There is no evidence that he crashed into the ocean however. No debris, no sightings to that effect, and no indication on the radio transcript with air traffic control.

A priori when a plane goes missing over the water the assumption should rightly be that it crashed into the water.
However, when the pilot of said aircraft explicitly indicates contact with traffic before losing radio contact, that assumption needs to be examined more critically.