The strange story of JAL 1628

page: 12
140
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


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

When I said "turned, twisted or altered" I am talking specifically of how the FAA and media handled the accounts from flight crew. That is all.




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
Just to be sure, I am NOT fixated only on the "giant spaceship" but rather on what they all collectively saw that night.

Please do not discount or diminish the rotating cylindrical objects with rows of lights while trying to pin down the "giant spacecraft" vs the "cloud" theory.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
The visual that keeps popping up in my head is..."no clouds here...but there's this giant mother ship!"

I know, I know...it shows my bias.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


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

When I said "turned, twisted or altered" I am talking specifically of how the FAA and media handled the accounts from flight crew. That is all.

Fair enough, and I agree with that too.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by MadhatterTheGreat
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.


I think that lack of passengers doesn't mean much if anything. Also, I don't think the inability to work the camera to take a photo has any meaning either. I am sure non-passenger flights are rutine enough.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
Please do not discount or diminish the rotating cylindrical objects with rows of lights while trying to pin down the "giant spacecraft" vs the "cloud" theory.
Actually, I see no evidence they were objects.

Technically, they were lights and are described as such.

This is an important distinction, which causes some UFO researchers to prefer the term "UAP" or "unidentified aerial phenomena" instead of UFO. The cloud or mothership was apparently a large weak radar reflector object since it had a radar return, but the flight engineer didn't think that radar return and the lights were the same thing. All the evidence suggests the flight engineer was correct about that.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Forgive me if this was already mentioned, but ten weeks after the JAL 1628 encounter a USAF refueler and Alaskan Airlines flight had separate encounters within 24 hours of each other involving a high speed radar target and visual sighting of a disc-shaped object, respectively.

Not saying they're related, but Captain Terauchi was not the only pilot to report strange things on the route to and from Anchorage.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
Regardless how you try to coin it, this is the definition of what an "object" is:

Merriam-Webster -

Definition of OBJECT 1 a : something material that may be perceived by the senses


The Free Dictionary -

Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.


So, as long as one of your sense perceive something, in this case visually, it can be deemed an object.


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



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
Regardless how you try to coin it, this is the definition of what an "object" is:

Merriam-Webster -

Definition of OBJECT 1 a : something material that may be perceived by the senses


The Free Dictionary -

Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing.


So, as long as one of your sense perceive something, in this case visually, it can be deemed an object.


edit on 25-2-2013 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)
thats interesting. I like it. Now I have to think about that for a while.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 
It's simple. Just because our radars are not technologically advanced enough to register the objects consistently, it doesn't mean they are not objects.

There are some experts who also believe the cloud theory was used because the ground radar was not equipped to discern UFOs. At that particular point in time, ground radar would pick up and identify all known aircraft but anything out of the ordinary, especially such a large object, the radar would go belly up and register it as an anomalous "cloud".



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 
It's simple. Just because our radars are not technologically advanced enough to register the objects consistently, it doesn't mean they are not objects.

There are some experts who also believe the cloud theory was used because the ground radar was not equipped to discern UFOs. At that particular point in time, ground radar would pick up and identify all known aircraft but anything out of the ordinary, especially such a large object, the radar would go belly up and register it as an anomalous "cloud".



But there is the photo... of a huge, perfectly circular cloud... between the plane and the airport... time stamped ... and the flight path shows course corrections around it... pretty convincing evidence. Seldom does it get much better with such reports.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 

Using the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of object, it is the "material" part of the definition I'm disputing.

It was perceived by the senses, but like the Oldfield UFO, what was perceived was not really material, as evidenced by lack of any radar reflection.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Of course. I just thought the definition was interesting. Lights technically would come from an "object" even if that object was an airfield. What about an hallucination? That's perceived.
edit on 25-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 
In this particular case, all three occupants observed moving lights/objects. So, I am not sure how a hullicination can compare with what all 3 saw.

For whatever reasons, the ARTCC didn't or couldn't confirm radar reports from the object(s) in question, even though their sister control center, the ROCC confirmed intermittent radar contact of an "object" in the same vicinity as reported by JAL 1628. Another airline in the same sector as JAL 1628 was overheard confirming to the Anchorage center that there was an "object" near JAL 1628.

So, bottom line is there were many reports of visual confirmation and intermittent radar returns of object(s) near JAL 1628.

We can sit here are debate if light is material or immaterial or if light has mass or not. The reports of many from what they saw still stands. However way we want to interpret it is totally discretionary and subjective.

I know where I stand with this based on the numerous reports.

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



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 
In this particular case, all three occupants observed moving lights/objects. So, I am not sure how a hullicination can compare with what all 3 saw.


Sorry, I was just talking about the definition of "object" in general.

Originally I thought this could be a hallucination of sorts by the captain. Not a full on hallucination. That doesn't really happen. Obviously 3 people wouldn't hallucinate the same general thing. In this case I was looking for a more bizarre description from the captain then what was given. I really see no reason to pull a hallucination out of my butt for this one. I mean technically it would be if it was the airfield lights given his description but getting into that discussion just confuses the issue and isn't really needed. Plus there is no way to prove it. It's just interesting to think about is all.

I believe all the radar hits were in the general vicinity of the "cloud".
edit on 25-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 
In this particular case, all three occupants observed moving lights/objects. So, I am not sure how a hullicination can compare with what all 3 saw.
I referenced the oldfield case for comparison. It was recorded on camera, so obviously that's not a hallucination. I think this JAL event also could have been recorded with a modern video camera which has good low light sensitivity, but with the camera the captain had, it wasn't sensitive enough in low light conditions.

But the evidence says neither the oldfield UFO nor the lights in the JAL case were material objects as far as I can tell. That's not to say they are hallucinations.

I think this is an aspect of ufology that's not understood by many and that's one reason I created the Oldfield film thread. People can see things that are not material objects, and not be hallucinating.

Here is another example of UFOs I don't think are material objects, but were recorded on film:

The photographer was asked if they might be some kind of reflection instead of material objects, and he said it's possible.
edit on 25-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'm learning that when I say the "H" word it just causes confusion all over.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
I guess it depends on what your definition of "material' is.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Could you provide evidence demonstrating that the flight path that was overlaid on top of the satellite weather image is drawn in precisely the same coordinates that JAL1628 actually took? In other words, could you walk us through how they decided to draw the flight path in the precise location that they did over that image?

Also, could you demonstrate at what altitude that cloud is in that image? This is extraordinarily important, as if the cloud were too low or too high relative to the flight altitude (which I believe was roughly 10668 meters), it becomes less likely that they were observing this cloud. As a result, I'm sure you've already gathered this data, so it would be appreciated if you'd post it here.

The reason I ask is that your weather map displays a sky filled with clouds, whereas the flight crew reported a cloudless sky. This leads me to believe that either 1) your satellite weather image is not from that same location and time (again, if you could provide documented evidence for this, it would be appreciated), or 2) the clouds in that image are far higher or far lower in the Earth's atmosphere.


I wish I could take credit for this discovery but it's Aether who deserves the credit and his analysis did hold up to scrutiny when I looked a the directions of the radar returns on my own detailed map.


Could you publish your detailed map on this thread? Hopefully your map contains actual longitude / latitude locations so we can confirm that these locations on the satellite weather map correspond to the actual long/lat locations of the actual JAL1628 flight.

One more thing. You responded here that

The satellite image does confirm the immediate area was relatively cloudless, so that weather report about clear skies seems consistent with the satellite image, for the most part the skies were clear...


However, the satellite image clearly shows clouds in all directions, so I'm a little confused as to your conclusion that the satellite image confirms that "the immediate area was relatively cloudless". If you could also expand on this I'd appreciate it.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
Could you provide evidence demonstrating that the flight path that was overlaid on top of the satellite weather image is drawn in precisely the same coordinates that JAL1628 actually took? In other words, could you walk us through how they decided to draw the flight path in the precise location that they did over that image?
It's already explained at the source. Dr Maccabee had the full data package and the guy who drew the flight path got it from Dr Maccabee. Here are some reference points from Dr Maccabee:

www.physicsforums.com...

My estimated locations based on a map drawn by an FAA investigator at the time is at 5:09, 67:40 (67 deg, 40 minutes) lat and 142:20 (west) longitude; at 5:24, 65:50 by 145:20 and at 5:30, 65:10 by 140:30. I have not tried to be accurate to a minute of arc. These numbers are interpolations between markings on an aero map and should be good enough to look for correlations between clouds and sightings.


Here is some more explanation:
www.physicsforums.com...

In the meantime, Dr. Maccabee has shared with me a hand-drawn plot of JAL1628's ground track, and I have plotted some (not all) of those points on this satellite image: img372.imageshack.us... The four blue arrows that I have drawn on top of the satellite image all point to a big cloud that is approximately 30nm in diameter. The first blue arrow (near the timestamp 5:31:08) represents the direction in which the flight crew were looking when they asked the air traffic controller for permission to turn right to avoid an object ahead of them:




Also, could you demonstrate at what altitude that cloud is in that image?
The cloud is in the position where the planes radar detected a cloud-like radar return. That's why they requested permission to change course to fly around it. If you look at the drawings the captain made, this one shows what the cloud looked like on radar, and it shows a range but no altitude:


So even the captains' drawing doesn't show the altitude of the cloud, just the radar reflection from it at about 7nm. Regarding the possibility the cloud's altitude was lower than the aircraft, yes it probably was, which would explain how it could have been illuminated by ground sources to appear like a giant mothership.


Could you publish your detailed map on this thread? Hopefully your map contains actual longitude / latitude locations so we can confirm that these locations on the satellite weather map correspond to the actual long/lat locations of the actual JAL1628 flight.
Didn't you read the thread? I already did and it's got all that detail:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


However, the satellite image clearly shows clouds in all directions, so I'm a little confused as to your conclusion that the satellite image confirms that "the immediate area was relatively cloudless".
Not really, but I think looking at this image will help:

img372.imageshack.us...

It's another image of the same area 15 hours later, so things that have moved are clouds, things that are in the same place are ground features, not clouds. That's from the same source where Aether talks about the hand-drawn plot of the flight path Maccabee shared with him.

Hope that helps.





new topics
top topics
 
140
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join