It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The strange story of JAL 1628

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by internos

Excellent post and a well documented case of a UFO encounter. I can always appreciate a well documented case. I am especially pleased to see so many recent cases being approached from with a scientific perspective.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 01:48 PM
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]

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 01:53 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by internos

Possible, but not probable.....Three crew members that were used to some of the strange sights over Alaska and the NOPAC see the same thing. Most JAL pilots came from (in those days) the Japanese Air Force, so have some experience in observation techniques. I've seen a lot of weird things over the NOPAC that cannot be explained (and none of them were planets), however in the USAF, you had better not report them if you want to keep your security clearance

This is one of the best postings I have ever seen here or anywhere....Thanks!!!

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 05:15 PM
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.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:24 PM
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

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by urdead

It's crazy!

Did you know that pilots can't see the stars at altitude (or with great difficulty)? The low oxygen environment kills their night vision so all they can see are bright lights and Venus.
Everything else is black.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:10 PM
I am curious who was on the flight, or on the flight manifest. Such encounters are not random.


posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:03 PM
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

Since I do not believe in insulting posts, just let me state:

Military pilots are on O2 or a mixture constantly
Airline pilots (long trips) are usually at a 6K cabin altitude, but I can personally tell you that if one feels sleepy (or his crew feels he is sleepy) , O2 is easily available through the mask and is often used....So, decreasing high alt vision rarely, if ever, happens with a professional crew.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 10:29 PM
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...

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 05:02 AM
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

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 05:04 AM
First, let me say thank you to everyone for your contributes and for your nice, moving words. There are some cases, that in some way are almost at the same level of this one: imagine what would have been this one if it was corroborated by a video

One case that comes to mind is the 1976 Tehran incident:
if i'm correct, Scramjet76 is already on it (looking forward to read it, btw
It was a radar and visual sighting but what makes the incident unique are the electromagnetic interferences that were observed on aircrafts when they approached the UFO: the planes, basically, did loose the use of instrumentation and the communication system suffered the same problem:
also weapons systems failures were observed as well:all documented also in an U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report:
copies of the report were sent to the White House, to the Secretary of State, to NSA, to CIA etcetera.
Some of the officers involved in the incident stated publically that in their opinion the UFO was not terrestrial in origin. It seems that even a satellite, DSP-1, detected an infrared anomaly over Tehran at the moment of the sighting:. It was another interesting case for sure, i look forward to see Scramjet76's thread about it.

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 05:13 AM
reply to post by The_Modulus

Thank you for your nice post

The sighting was relatively long: the best thing i can do is to post the link to Bruce Maccabee's analysis and timeline of the sighting: that explains also why what we see is so different in the drawings:
a quick reply by me would be incomplete and probably unsatisfactory .
Please, let me know if the report clarifies it: and thanks again for your post

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:31 AM
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]

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:47 AM

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

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 09:59 AM
reply to post by internos

Just read this latest report......I find it interesting that when ARTCC first asks the ROCC (regional mil command center) if they have anything operating in the area, ROCC says no. Yet, shortly TOTEM 71 appears and is offered by the ROCC to investigate.....????

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:13 AM

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.


posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:37 AM
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.

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:44 AM
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.

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:32 AM
Great Post! Really good work! This is what ATS should be all the time! Starred and Flagged!

interesting bit from the AP skeptical article on Jan 28. 1987:

Terauchi reported a second UFO sighting in approximately the same area on January 11. That sighting was explained by FAA officials as village lights bouncing off ice crystals in the atmosphere.

Terauchi later conceded that that was a reasonable explanation, said Steucke.

Steucke said the FAA would be releasing the results of its own investigation in mid-February.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by shermanium]

[edit on 6-9-2008 by shermanium]

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in