It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Greenewald of Black Vault finds documents related to JAL airline ufo encounter over Anchorage

page: 2
58
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
Thanks!


originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
So can we assume Terauchi was simply lying to sex up his account when he said the 'mothership' immediately vanished upon the arrival of the United plane?

Or did the United plane interfere with the mirage's 'projection' in some way?
The word "immediately" is problematic. If the translation said that then yes I would assume he was either lying or there was a problem in the translation, maybe you can point me to the place where he used that word?

Remember the other crew members didn't see the mothership and my proposed explanation of events explains why the united flight never would have seen the "mothership", even when Terauchi could see it. Again it has to do with the angles of viewing, because the mothership was not self-illuminated according to my analysis, it was backlit, and only someone who had it lined up with the light source that was backlighting it could see it, and that was JAL1628 and united never had that backlighting source lined up the same way. But since JAL 1628 was moving at Mach 0.8, of course the backlit source which wasn't moving at all, and the "mothership" which was probably moving very slowly didn't stay lined up with the 747 cockpit, the alignment was eventually lost as the 747 continued to move at mach 0.8 so yes the "mothership" visibility would have "disappeared", but I don't believe "immediately" would be a good description of how it disappeared.

By the way, even Bruce Maccabee, who didn't mention this possibility in his original detailed report, which probably analyzed the case scientifically more than anyone else, even the FAA, later admitted on a forum that this was one possible explanation for the "mothership" sighting, which he didn't consider very well confirmed since the other crew members never saw it.

I do think Terauchi's description was "sexed up" based on his previous obsession with UFOs and I'm not sure I'd call it any intentional lying on his part, rather some kind of perceptive bias being a "UFO enthusiast" and having already seen two other motherships. If you read the descriptions of events by the other crew members, they are quite different than Terauchi's description, and of course they never saw any "mothership". Their account of events counts too, some people forget that, but they aren't as "sexy" so you don't hear them talked about as much, like this statement by the flight engineer in the third pdf of the Black Vault docs:

'The flight engineer said that, when he was first interviewed by the FAA immediately following the incident, he "was not sure whether the object was a UFO or not. My mind has not changed since then." '

What I don't get about Terauchi is how he didn't seem to put 2+2 together that when the radar reflection indicates a cloud, he didn't seem to realize it might very well be a cloud, that's the real mystery to me. It's really even harder to figure out after reading his interview. Gordon is the FAA interviewer, and I underlined some things in the interview with red lines where Terauchi says the radar showed green, and Gordon says green like a cloud, and Terauchi says "Oh yeah...", but it still doesn't seem to occur to him it could have been cloud. That's what the satellite data suggests by the way, there was a round cloud in that area. This is from page 8 of the 8th pdf in the black vault download (though that version doesn't have the red lines I added):



edit on 2018929 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
call me FAA skeptical, based on their actions or inactions in quite a few ufo cases and/or denial of incidents then sudden clarity and it's like yes, something did happen but it was, fill blank sentence as to what the official FAA explanation was. I am reminded of the O'Hare ufo incident from 2009. And the FAA's playing out of this situation as well. Because of actions like this there is still that good ole ufo reporting stigma, especially with pilots and astronauts to this day. It's sad.

This is the FAA explanation of this incident from wikipedia's article on this sighting:


After a three-month investigation, the FAA formally released their results at a press conference held on March 5, 1987. Here Paul Steucke retracted earlier FAA suggestions that their controllers confirmed a UFO,[13] and ascribed it to a "split radar image" which appeared with unfortunate timing. He clarified that "the FAA [did] not have enough material to confirm that something was there", and though they were "accepting the descriptions by the crew" they were "unable to support what they saw".[12] The McGrath incident was revealed here amongst the ample set of documents supplied to the journalists. The sighting received special attention from the media,[17] as a supposed instance of the tracking of UFOs on both ground[13] and airborne radar, while being observed by experienced airline pilots, with subsequent confirmation by an FAA Division Chief.


Too convenient. I don't buy it.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the further fascinating thoughts, Arb.


Regarding my use of "immediately", looking back, his actual words were "disappeared suddenly":


When the United plane came by our side, the spaceship disappeared suddenly and there was nothing but the light of moon.


I think "suddenly" and "immediately" do belong in the same ballpark, but I am swaying towards a mirage or cloud as the most likely explanation overall.

If only that damn camera had worked.





edit on 29-9-2018 by ConfusedBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   
It is interesting that the ROCC claims they could see traffic near the JL1628 but it wasn’t military.

They don’t usually call clouds traffic do they? Seems strange that this is chalked up to a cloud in the area. I would think the military could tell the difference.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 03:10 AM
link   
USA always interferes.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nicolita
USA always interferes.


It is far more likely that the USA fabricates false evidence
than to cover up genuine evidence.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I wouldn't disagree with that opinion. But, I also think evidence has been covered up in many instances over the past many decades as it relates to ufo sightings. We currently live in extreme science suppressing times in the U.S., worst certainly in my lifetime.
edit on 01pm31pm5091 by data5091 because: insertion



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Why would the government want to hide all the evidence?

I can think of several reasons, and a number of them are pretty good, too.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I wouldn't disagree with that opinion. But, I also think evidence has been covered up in many instances over the past many decades as it relates to ufo sightings. We currently live in extreme science suppressing times in the U.S., worst certainly in my lifetime.


I can't argue that science has been covered up..

hell.. the State of Texas education board tries to make science education
all but illegal in schools.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I wouldn't disagree with that opinion. But, I also think evidence has been covered up in many instances over the past many decades as it relates to ufo sightings. We currently live in extreme science suppressing times in the U.S., worst certainly in my lifetime.


I can't argue that science has been covered up..

hell.. the State of Texas education board tries to make science education
all but illegal in schools.


Do they?

It's not like you would just throw out a massive oversimplification or exaggeration just for effect, would you?

Wait. Let me guess. You work for the New York Times...



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MteWamp

rationalwiki.org...

Kev



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Watcher777
It is interesting that the ROCC claims they could see traffic near the JL1628 but it wasn’t military.

They don’t usually call clouds traffic do they? Seems strange that this is chalked up to a cloud in the area. I would think the military could tell the difference.
I think you're mistaken about the word "traffic". I've seen no reason to think the uncorrelated primary return the ROCC got were any different than the uncorrelated primary returns that the other radar got, which they talk about in this analysis from document 11 in the black vault collection:

"Approximately 61 minutes of data was extracted from the EARTS CDR
printouts relating to the November 18 incident involving JAL-1628
and the alleged UFO sighting.

Review of the data involving this incident did not show any
abnormalities that could be associated with any type of target as
indicated by the pilot of JAL-1628.

Radar returns from the aircraft and surrounding terrain vary with
the different segments of the flight, but are considered normal
for the area.

Returns relating to the incident can be categorized as three
types: primary radar reinforced by a beacon reply (primary radar
returns and beacon returns are both evident in the same 1/4 mile
range cell), beacon only reply and beacon with an associated
radar reply. Seventy-two percent of the replies were radar with
beacon reinforcement (same range cell) which is normal for the
Murphy dome radar system.

Approximately 25 percent were beacon only and of those that
registered as beacon only, 90 percent of those had a primary only
reply within 1/8 of a mile, either ahead or behind the beacon
target (5 behind, 12 ahead).

These uncorrelated primary returns are not uncommon, due to the
critical timing associated with the delay adjustments in the
aircraft transponder for beacon systems and the target
correlation circuitry within the radar equipment.

When an aircraft is being interrogated as it passes through the
beginning of adjacent range cells the intricate timing between
the two systems very often is off just enough to declare both a
beacon and a radar target in different range cells, resulting in
un correlated radar replies.

The data derived from the JAL-1628 flight is representative of
the data from another aircraft in the same general area and is
considered normal."

This is what ROCC said in the transcript in the same doc:

"Okay, I've got your squawk. It looks like I am getting sane
surge, primary return, ah I don't know if it's erroneous or
whatever but ..."

How can you tell that's not the same kind of problem described in the analysis of the other radar data? No such analysis was done on ROCC data that I know of, and ROCC did not maintain any track, further evidence it probably was a similar erroneous signal. In fact the FAA invited Klass to go to watch the radar to see for himself that they get these uncorrelated returns all the time, and they usually just ignored them. The only reason they paid any attention to them in this case was because JAL1628 said they saw something.

"0227: 53 ROCC: It is an unknown, okay, we've lost contact with it now."

So it is not maintaining a track like an aircraft or "traffic" would, it comes and goes like an error would. I didn't see where they ever referred to it as "traffic" and their statement "I don't know if it's erroneous or whatever" leads me to believe they don't have a lot of confidence in whatever they are looking at.


originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: MteWamp

rationalwiki.org...

Kev
Wow, those are some scary creationist nutjobs in Texas!

edit on 2018101 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I try hard to avoid becoming involved with the 'culture wars'
(the assault on being rational). But when the subject of
suppressing science came up.. I had a very narrow and
well-documented case to share... so I did so.

Kev



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doc Lithium
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

In case someone starts googling for more information: The Kefurabik airport mentioned here means with 99.9% certainty the Keflavik airport in Iceland. This seems to be the Japanese pronounciation of that very airport.




Correct, in Japanese hiragana it would be broken down as KE - FU - RA - VI - KU ( け ふ ら ゔい く)



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: MteWamp

rationalwiki.org...

Kev


Where does it say "the State of Texas education board tries to make science education
all but illegal in schools"?



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: shawmanfromny


The people who think this was a UFO should not read these docs, it will break their heart. What we have here is a UFO report, but there was no UFO. These docs confirm the 747's radar was picking up a cloud because it was green and green is clouds on that system...all the details are here. Nobody's really sure what the visual sighting was, but they are sure it's not a UFO because not one but two other aircraft confirmed there was nothing in the sky but the JAL 747. When the united flight was diverted to find the other traffic JAL1628 reported, JAL1628 was asked to turn their landing lights on so United could identify that aircraft, which they did. United flight said they clearly see the JAL flight but nothing else. Tower asked JAl where the UFO was now, he said it's in front of the united flight, they should see it. But they didn't see it, there was no UFO.

These docs say the FAA thought he was seeing reflections in ice crystals in the cloud from lights on the ground.



I appreciate your logical approach, as others here have said. But you seem to be saying the UFO's, that the pilot said suddenly disappeared, were never there because 1.) United, who showed up after they disappeared didn't see them, and 2.) because the FAA said so.

"When the United plane came by our side, the spaceship disappeared suddenly and there was nothing but the light of moon."

I'm going to have to dig into those documents because they either disappeared, as someone else quoted, before United et al arrived on scene, or they saw it in front of United as you quoted.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: CajunMetal
No.

If you want to have any hope of understanding what really happened, you must study the air traffic control transcript. That is the real time conversation on the radio between JAL1628, UA69 (the united flight) and air traffic control, and the C130.

What you will find if you compare the transcript to what Terauchi said in later interviews is that he misremembered many details. Some in his immediate interview, and even more were misremembered in the subsequent interview 6 weeks later.

Anyway this diagram shows a satellite image of the mothership, a cloud, which the blue arrows point to at various times in the transcript. It didn't disappear, but the source of illumination was lost when the backlighting alignment was lost.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


So at 5:44:17 he said he could see the mothership at his 9 O'clock, he was completing his 360 degree turn that he requested. You can see what he was looking at on the satellite image. Then as he continued to fly, his plane moved at Mach 0.8, the cloud didn't move much, so later at 5:48 he reported it was about 10 miles behind him at his 8 O Clock.

Bruce Maccabee added his comments to the transcript. Unfortunately his site died, too bad since it was an excellent analysis of the case. I saved it, but the link doesn't work anymore. It might in wayback machine.

brumac.8k.com...

5:44:07 AARTCC JAL1628, sir, do you still have the traffic?
5:44:12 JAL1628 Ah, say again pease.
5:44:13 ARTCC JAL1628 heavy.. Do you still have the traffic?
5:44:17 JAL1628 Ah, affirmative, ah, nine o clock.

...The AARTCC controller decided to ask the UA pilot if he could see anything
behind the JAL flight. At 5:44:43 he called the UA pilot to say that the JAL flight was in his
11 o clock position and 110 nm north and he has traffic following him, sir. It s unknown
traffic... I want you to see if you see anything with him. The UA pilot said he would look
when he got closer. The controller asked the JAL flight to stay at 31,000 ft and the UA flight
to stay at 29,000 ft. He then directed the UA flight to turn some more so that the planes would
pass within five miles of one another.

5:46:48 AARTCC JAL1628 heavy. Maintain flight level three one zero.
5:46:54 JAL1628 maintain three one zero.
5:46:59 AARTCC JAL1628, roger. I m gonna have a United aircraft get close to you and take a
look, ah, to see if he can identify your traffic.
5:47:06 JAL1628 Thank you.

SEVERAL minutes later the planes were much closer together and closing on one another
rapidly (the separation was decreasing at rate between 15 an 20 nm per minute).

5:48:16 UNITED 69. Can you please point the traffic out again please?
5:48:19 AARTCC United 69 heavy, affirmative. The, ah, Japan Air is in your eleven o clock
position and five zero (50) miles (away), southbound.
5:48:28 UNITED 69 Ah, roger. Thank you.
5:48:31 AARTCC JAL1628 heavy, sir, Say the position of your traffic.
5:48:34 JAL1628 Ah, now, ah, ah, moving to, ah, around 10 miles now, ah, ah, position, ah
seven, ah, eight o clock, 10 miles.
5:48:36 AARTCC JAL1628 heavy, roger.

AS the planes approached each other in the dark sky the mothership apparently dropped
back, allowing the JAL plane to get far ahead. Of course the 10 miles distance was only the
pilot s guess. The object was too far back to be detected on the airplane radar, which would
give an accurate distance. The United pilot asked the AARTCC to have the JAL pilot flash the
headlights on the JAL aircraft so he could locate the plane. At 5:49:45 the JAL pilot did that.
At this time the planes were about 25 miles apart...

WHEN the planes were about 12 miles apart and still approaching one another, the UA plane
reported seeing the JAL plane and nothing else...

5:50:35 UA69 UA69 heavy. We've got the Japan Airliner in sight. I don t see anybody around
him. He s (referring to the spaceship ) at his seven o clock position, huh?
5:50:46 AARTCC UA69, that s what he says. JAL1628 heavy, say the position of your traffic
now.
5:50:52 JAL1628 Ah, now, distinguishing (he meant to say extinguishing ), but, ah, ah, your,
I guess, ah, 12 o clock below you.
5:51:02 AARTCC JAL1628 heavy, say again. You re broken.
5:51:06 JAL1628 Just ahead of United, ah..(unintelligible)


So to some extent Terauchi's lack of English skills may be part of the problem, but it makes zero sense for him to say traffic is "extringuished" or "distinguished" or whatever at 5:50 when he says it's behind him. Try going into a 747 cockpit and looking behind you. You can't, there's a huge plane in the way! So any notion that he knows what became of the cloud or mothership after he flew past it contradicts the transcript, which is the most accurate record of what really happened. And the United plane didn't suddenly "show up", it was flying toward him the whole time, they just adjusted its course slightly so the planes would fly within 5 miles of each other.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: MteWamp

rationalwiki.org...

Kev


Where does it say "the State of Texas education board tries to make science education
all but illegal in schools"?






Perhaps the most famous and bizarre series of events took place in 2009-10, when the TBoE received criticism from more than fifty scientific organizations over an attempt to weaken science standards on evolution.[3] At the time the board also decided to purge Thomas Jefferson from the History Standards, focusing instead on “Enlightenment thinkers” with a more obvious religious point of view. In addition they removed anything that could be construed as a negative portrayal of Joseph McCarthy.[4] The Board of Education were aptly described as “drafting its own version of American history”,[5]


Just one example from the quoted reference.

I picked a very narrow thing to which to respond, and responded with functionally
impossible to logically deny references.

But I understand that I accidentally, and without meaning to, fell into a
'american culture war topic', which was not my intent.

I could go back and forth all day... but I have no interest in fanning
the flames of culture war -- that was not my intent to bring up logic
in terms of our society. That's a lost cause in many cases.

So please take no offense that i'm not going to respond to anything else you
say.. it's not that I'm afraid of you.. or don't like you... or am not willing
to have a discussion..

I just don't enjoy pointless culture war clashes.

Have a good day.

Kev



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 12:01 AM
link   
One of the objections I've seen to the "ice crystals refracting ground lights" hypothesis is that other than the obvious cloud on the satellite image which also showed up on the 747's radar as a cloud, the weather reports said the skies were clear. So people ask "don't there have to be clouds to have ice crystals in them?"

The polar regions can be interesting where ice crystals can form in otherwise clear skies, and for them to get aerodynamically aligned just right so they reflect in unison is rare. So when I ran across this photo, I had to post it, because it checks several of the boxes for a possible means of explaining seeing ground lights in the sky. One box is that it must be physically possible and follow the laws of physics, and the other box is it must be something that happens rarely because what the 747 crew reported is not a common occurrence. In the following photo, the light source is the sun which you can see reflected in ice crystals in otherwise clear skies at various angles, so this checks the box of seeing the light not at it's original location, and the caption says that such events are extremely rare so that also checks the box of why other crews don't see this type of phenomenon all the time.

www.snowcrystals.com...


Antarctic Halos

The most exotic halo displays have been found at the South Pole. This one was photographed by Walter Tape. The bitter cold, dry climate sometimes fills the air with nearly perfectly faceted ice crystals, that are also aerodynamically aligned, producing a variety of unusual arcs, rings, and spots. Even at the South Pole, displays like this one are exceedingly rare.


So imagine flying in a clear sky filled with those ice crystals in a dark or dusk sky. If there are ground lights in the area they could possibly be seen at angles other than their origin, reflected in the ice crystals. Since those ground lights aren't as bright as the sun, you won't see the full arcs but may only see patches of reflection where it's the strongest, as seen in only limited portions of the above image. I'm not sure this is the mechanism for seeing the ground lights, but the analysis of the transcript does indicate the lights always came from the direction of the allen army airfield, and some effect like this could explain why the lights appeared in the air instead of on the ground, which does in fact happen in a sky which otherwise appears to be more or less cloudless.




top topics



 
58
<< 1   >>

log in

join