WOW, calling it Jupiter is just funny...

Did he completely ignore the reports of it showing up on multiple radar screens, or does he think planets show up on radar? lol



[edit on 5-9-2008 by breakingdradles]

Amazing thread.

If there's anything I love more then a ATS debunker its a "pro" debunker.
I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, but I wouldn't mistake something close to me for a planet.
And I'm sure a pilot with experience wouldn't either.

In my view, this is still one of the most fascinating sightings and encounters with an Unidentified Flying Object, ever. I appreciate your having presented such a thorough report on this particular and most peculiar of incidents. Alaska is such a vast Wilderness, with so many Pilots, that you wonder how many other incidents similar to this have been going on for the last Half-Century.

Another fine post my friend. Thanks for sharing all your knowledge with us for one am forever in your debt. Shame to hear the pilot was grounded for his actions. Hopefully one day 'the powers that be' will get their just deserts.

Thanks again friend star and of course flagged

I am curious who was on the flight, or on the flight manifest. Such encounters are not random.

Hildegard

This cant be debunked.
It has the radar data, and the testimony of a serious witness.
Many pilots report seeing strange craft, whether they are aliens or super advanced human technologies, well, that is the mystery, on this particular case, i believe it was something from the outer depths...

A most excellent thread internos!

I only have a few questions to elucidate this matter somewhat. As a few people have enquired earlier, I am confused as to the exact difference between the, seemingly, three objects described by the pilot of JAL 1628.

To me it appears as though he is describing one large 'mothership' object, which has been likened to a walnut with protruding winglets from which white lights were flashing.

The other two objects are described in two ways, from one perspective they look similar to satellites with solar arrays, and from another perspective they are circular with circulating lights traversing its circumference.

Were these two objects satellites of the mothership or only clearer descriptions? Were there three seperate objects of two?

Again, a most excellent and refreshing post

This sighting is very intriguing. What gets me the most about it is the size of the object. TWO aircraft carriers?!! Holy geez!

If this is a black-budgeted military project, where in the WORLD do they build that thing?!

Reports that are radar confirmed always stick out. And it is always amusing to see some "skeptic" on a talkshow tell people the most outlandish things to discredit these reports. It is as if they are laughing in your face while they tell you something they know isn't true. Problem is, most people who are preconditioned not to accept the idea of UFO's actually believe what they say. They always use some stuffy looking "ex-military" type who uses a condescending and monotonous tone.. Hilarious.

On a side note, I really think that things like google earth and the new google space update are going to help bring disclosure home. I mean, in this case here, we need to be scouring google earth to find a possible location suitable to building something the size of two aircraft carriers that gives the military enough seclusion as not to be seen. I'm sure there are such places, I would just like to see one.

PS; starred and flagged for the effort alone internos. Great work.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR


Reports that are radar confirmed always stick out. And it is always amusing to see some "skeptic" on a talkshow tell people the most outlandish things to discredit these reports. It is as if they are laughing in your face while they tell you something they know isn't true. Problem is, most people who are preconditioned not to accept the idea of UFO's actually believe what they say. They always use some stuffy looking "ex-military" type who uses a condescending and monotonous tone.. Hilarious.

Thank you for your star & flag and for your brilliant post, have a star from me: you brought a very interesting point to the table: yes, some people start saying "no no no" even before reading the reports and/or looking at the evidences. It is a form of ignorance, the same thing of being "blind believer": the SAME. Another thing i've noticed: when a skeptikal explanation is far fetched, it has many chances to be taken seriously, no matter if they tell you that a ground radar detected Jupiter. I find it very sad: a sane dose of scepticism is always accepted by me: i try to look at every case with a percentage of scepticism: what is difficult is to keep an open mind at the same time, to be balanced in our judgements. Thanks again

Internos,

An excellent synopsis of the JAL incident. Meticulously researched and presented.

I would like to say hi to all and also thanks to all that take their time to contribute to this

excellent resourse - aka - ATS.

While I have lurked in at ATS for several years, this is really my first time to post.

Part of my background is in aviation, accompanied by a life-long interest in all things that fly - inluding UAP.

I've been residing in China for the last few years, and I must say that some of the events involving close friends and colleagues (all pilots) during this year alone, warrant serious investigation. China is an untapped resource of UAP material.

Once again, hi to everyone on the board, and thanks to Internos for the excellent post.

McKyle

Sorry, wanted to add a jab without editing my last post. (Thanks for the star internos)...

I find it even MORE hilarious when the professional skeptics used are ex-military types who tell people that military types aren't trained to evaluate their visual experiences and are actually, at that very time, evaluating the visual experience of ANOTHER PERSON.

I think the governments have a fairly regimental way of making people not believe these things.

If they can't explain the phenomena THEN they will claim the person is "seeing things" or simply attack their credibility.