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.
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:
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":
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
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