The strange story of JAL 1628

page: 11
140
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
After going through all this, to say it is a "cloud" is one of the stupidest things I've read at ATS.

Sorry if I offends, it almost reeks of a disinformation agent Or one who LOVES to go against truth.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by thetiler
After going through all this, to say it is a "cloud" is one of the stupidest things I've read at ATS.

Sorry if I offends, it almost reeks of a disinformation agent Or one who LOVES to go against truth.

not sure why it would offend but do you have anything to suggest it was something different. All the facts are there so people can believe whatever they want even if its the belief that it was aliens.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 
Has any of the multitude of experts, pilots, witnesses, ground officials, radar controllers locked onto the cloud theory? Just asking.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 
Has any of the multitude of experts, pilots, witnesses, ground officials, radar controllers locked onto the cloud theory? Just asking.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)
I have no idea. I imagine they don't care anymore since the investigation is over. I'm not an expert on this case, why would you ask me?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
In the summary of communication between the airliner and traffic controllers, there is no mention of the UFOs more amazing attributes. When did those details emerge?

OP: The link for "Statement of Captain Terauchi, Pilot of JAL Flight 1628" is missing.
EDIT: Aaaand I see this thead is 5 years old. Well, if you're still out there OP, you have a missing link in post 1.
edit on 24-2-2013 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tearman
In the summary of communication between the airliner and traffic controllers, there is no mention of the UFOs more amazing attributes. When did those details emerge?

OP: The link for "Statement of Captain Terauchi, Pilot of JAL Flight 1628" is missing.
EDIT: Aaaand I see this thead is 5 years old. Well, if you're still out there OP, you have a missing link in post 1.
edit on 24-2-2013 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

They weren't mentioned in the communications. They were detailed during the investigation. 2 interviews? One a few days after and one a few months after. I would say they were interesting but not amazing. There is links all throughout the thread. Good stuff.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 
Has any of the multitude of experts, pilots, witnesses, ground officials, radar controllers locked onto the cloud theory? Just asking.
I suppose you could call Dr. Macabee an expert on the case. He investigated it and had a full package of FAA data. And his report indicates that it was actually the captain who pointed out the radar reflection was green, like a cloud:

brumac.8k.com...

In commenting on the radar image the captain pointed out
that "normally it appears in red when an aircraft radar catches another aircraft" whereas green
is usually the color of a weak weather target such as a cloud. The fact that the echo was green
on the screen led him to ask whether or not the "metal used in the spaceship is different from
ours."(2) One might also speculate on the use of radar signature reduction techniques generally
calssified as "stealth." At any rate, the shape, size and color of the radar target indicated
that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector.
So, obviously what happened here is the captain reported it had a radar signature like a cloud, so he was wondering what kind of alien metals may have caused a cloud-like radar return. It's not clear if he actually considered whether it might be a cloud. Also, Dr. Maccabee didn't seem very impressed with the "mothership" claim and called it "weak":

www.physicsforums.com...

Personally I think that the initial sighting of two objects in front of the plane, seen by the whole crew, is a "strong" UFO event. However the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship" by the captain alone is a "weak" UFO event. Too bad the crew didn't speak English better.
Note that Dr. Maccabee recognizes as the flight engineer did, that there are really two separate things going on here (the "mothership", which I think is a cloud, and the lights, which I think may be airport lights). And he's making this statement about the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship" being "weak" in the thread where the image of the cloud was posted, so he doesn't seem to be arguing very passionately against it being a cloud, quite the contrary, he calls it a "weak" UFO event.

Regarding the "strong" UFO event, I see no evidence in my research that Dr. Maccabee is aware of Stuart Campbell's explanation for the lights which always come from the direction of the airport. I was skeptical of this claim myself the first time I read it since other skeptics had come up with force-fit explanations that didn't match the facts of the case, which is why I created a detailed map to evaluate his claim, and if you pay careful attention to the communications with the FAA, the JAL crew notes the position of the lights numerous times, and they are ALWAYS in the direction of the airport, except there are a few times they cant see the lights and this also may support the airport explanation.

The pilot who posted in the other thread mentioned that some airports use directional runway lights, meaning they can only be seen within a certain angle of being lined up with the runway. It is VERY interesting and indeed compelling to note in the transcripts that when the lights disappear from view, is when the plane is not lined up with either runway (the two main runways are roughly at right angles).

So, they're lined up with the first runway (though pretty far away) and see the lights ahead. Then they aren't lined up with either runway and don't see the lights. Then they are lined up with the other runway and see the lights to the left, and eventually slightly behind them, where I think the last position noted was 8 o'clock. Look at my detailed map where I posted an enlarged view of the airport so you can see the orientation of the runways.

The main problem I found with Steuart Campbell's claim about the airport lights was one of optical physics. It would take a rare atmospheric condition, and even then, the physics become difficult, but not impossible. This atmospheric condition is explored in the BOAC case in the oldfield thread. That said, since rare atmospheric conditions occur only rarely, and this type of sighting is also a rare event, I don't think rare means impossible. In fact it would need to be a rare event to explain why so many other pilots haven't seen the same thing (or if they did, they kept their mouths shut so they didn't get fired like Terauchi).


Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
The ONLY way to rule out a psychological explaination for the feeling of heat on the captains face is to have a recorded temprature of the plane. Would that exist?
Not to my knowledge, but there would have potentially been some other sources that weren't explored....what about the co-pilot? I can't find any record if anybody asked him if he also felt the heat, but that would be interesting to know. If there had been a translator available they probably would have been asked a lot more questions, but since there wasn't, the language barrier prevented any extensive debriefing when they landed. However apparently interviewers did ask the other crew members if they ever saw the "mothership", and apparently they didn't. Only the captain saw that, according to Dr. Maccabee.
edit on 25-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 
Has any of the multitude of experts, pilots, witnesses, ground officials, radar controllers locked onto the cloud theory? Just asking.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)


I first saw it here, and I must admit it is a good fit for many aspects of the sighting. When I first saw the satellite photo with the flight path overlay it was just plain eerie. You could see the pilot responding to a very real thing.

But there are other details.

jal-1628-ufo-case

I suspect synergy.
edit on 25-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 

Thanks, I didn't recall that quote from Dr. Maccabee, where he says the cloud explanation is "plausible":


Maccabee conceded:
"It seems at least plausible that he may have misinterpreted oddly lighted clouds which the crew had reported to be below the aircraft. Although the several ground radar returns behind the jet were intriguing, the failure of the radar to show a continuous track of some unknown primary target makes the radar confirmation ambiguous at best...
So, the expert says the cloud is a "plausible" explanation for that part of the sighting, as indeed it certainly is.

I say it's beyond plausible and in fact likely given that we now have a radar image of a cloud in the same position where the "cloudlike object" was reported, but that's just my opinion...each is entitled to his own opinion.

His comments about the ambiguous radar returns which never got a good track are also spot-on.


Originally posted by thetiler
After going through all this, to say it is a "cloud" is one of the stupidest things I've read at ATS.

Sorry if I offends, it almost reeks of a disinformation agent Or one who LOVES to go against truth.
Dr. Maccabee probably spent more time investigating this case than anybody else I know of, and he says the cloud explanation is plausible. I'm sure he's not offended, as I also am not offended. You're free to believe whatever you like, however I note that Dr. Maccabee has written extensively regarding facts of the case, and you offer no facts but just an opinion.
edit on 25-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Not to my knowledge, but there would have potentially been some other sources that weren't explored....what about the co-pilot? I can't find any record if anybody asked him if he also felt the heat, but that would be interesting to know. If there had been a translator available they probably would have been asked a lot more questions, but since there wasn't, the language barrier prevented any extensive debriefing when they landed. However apparently interviewers did ask the other crew members if they ever saw the "mothership", and apparently they didn't. Only the captain saw that, according to Dr. Maccabee


I think it is an interesting point. If the co-pilots also fealt heat, I still don't think it would rule out anything completely. There is still a lot to contend with. I am sure I will be accused of force fitting explainations but another factor is memory and how the recall of that memory is solicited. So if we could find the co-pilot now and ask him if he felt heat during the encouter, either response would be pretty useless. Its an interesting question but really hard to say.

To what degree was the feeling of heat? I imagine that if it was a significant temperature change, that we wouldn't really need to be discussing the issue. But this appears to be a slight change.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Not sure, but I vaguely recall in the documentary "Black Box UFOs" some mention of the co-pilot not wishing to go on record.

I'll have to watch it again to be sure.

edit on 25-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 
Regardless of what the pilot felt as heat, this much is evident. It appears something inexplicable was out there with the flight crew.

Regardless of how this story is turned, twisted, altered, those three men told the same consistent story of things seen that were inexplicable. They all saw blinking lights. The pilot claimed he saw and felt a little bit more.

Steucke said the pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer have told the same story: Blinking yellow, amber and green lights appeared too close to their plane for comfort.


edit on 25-2-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I've always been highly interested in this story, mainly because of the time of the report it was still taboo to report such things, especially for pilots as they could be grounded, but this pilot has always stuck to his story and it has never changed as far as I know. My ONLY problem with stories such as these is that it seems the best cases always happen when there aren't any passengers to back them up and only the pilot/co-pilot.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by draknoir2
 
Regardless of what the pilot felt as heat, this much is evident. It appears something inexplicable was out there with the flight crew.

Regardless of how this story is turned, twisted, altered, those three men told the same consistent story of things seen that were inexplicable. They all saw blinking lights. The pilot claimed he saw and felt a little bit more.

Steucke said the pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer have told the same story: Blinking yellow, amber and green lights appeared too close to their plane for comfort.


edit on 25-2-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)


I quoted the wrong post. Was responding to the part where the other crew members were asked about seeing a mothership.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
Regardless of how this story is turned, twisted, altered, those three men told the same consistent story of things seen that were inexplicable. They all saw blinking lights. The pilot claimed he saw and felt a little bit more.

Steucke said the pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer have told the same story: Blinking yellow, amber and green lights appeared too close to their plane for comfort.


edit on 25-2-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)


I don't see trying to come up with an explanation that best fits as turning, twisting, and altering. Personally I have no doubt they all are describing the same thing... just not sure what that "thing" is.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 
Agreed.

Plus the most telling thing is the flight crew all said it was a clear sky, especially below them, so the cloud theory was perplexing to them.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Not sure, but I vaguely recall in the documentary "Black Box UFOs" some mention of the co-pilot not wishing to go on record.

I'll have to watch it again to be sure.

edit on 25-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


I did see that episode but don't recall. I will give it a watch again also. I love this case.

that could be the case but could be interpreted different ways:

1. he didn't want to get in trouble with the Airline as his captain did by telling what he really saw.
2. he didn't want to embarrass his captain by going against his claims.
3. both 1 and 2
4. any other possible thing you can think of.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by draknoir2
 
Regardless of what the pilot felt as heat, this much is evident. It appears something inexplicable was out there with the flight crew.

Regardless of how this story is turned, twisted, altered, those three men told the same consistent story of things seen that were inexplicable. They all saw blinking lights. The pilot claimed he saw and felt a little bit more.

Steucke said the pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer have told the same story: Blinking yellow, amber and green lights appeared too close to their plane for comfort.


edit on 25-2-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)

I agree except for the " turned, twisted, altered" comment. Clearly something was there. I am just pointing out that the "feeling of heat" should not be taken as strong evidence of anything. It is something but it is also questionable. I think its a key point. If he did actually feel heat, then we can look at visual descriptions with a lot more confidence that it was a real solid object(s). But we really don't have any corroborating evidence other than it was lights. So I agree with this:
"co-pilot and flight engineer have told the same story: Blinking yellow, amber and green lights appeared too close to their plane for comfort."

does that still sound "turned, twisted or altered"?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by draknoir2
 
Agreed.

Plus the most telling thing is the flight crew all said it was a clear sky, especially below them, so the cloud theory was perplexing to them.
But since we see the cloud on satellite, and they flew right past it, this is more compelling and not perplexing at all. The sky to the east was dark, so it's entirely possible any clouds in that direction couldn't be seen until backlit or otherwise illuminated. In fact the captain's description of a "silhouette" infers this is what happened, that it was backlit, possibly by some lights on the ground.

If the captain had seen the cloud that shows on satellite, and a "mothership" near it, then he could say something like "I saw the giant spaceship about half a mile from the cloud", but the fact that he doesn't say this and satellite evidence shows there is a cloud in the same spot, is more indication it was a cloud.





new topics
top topics
 
140
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join