The strange story of JAL 1628

reply to post by shermanium


Good grief, where do they come up with this stuff? For one, I've never heard of such a phenomena in my life (that doesn't mean that it can't happen) and two, that does nothing but explain ONE aspect of the report. It completely avoids the topic of ground-to-air radar confirmation of the witnessed event... Multiple witnesses, no less.

It sucks that the disinfo campaign works so well. People should be questioning these things, but they don't. Save for a few of us.

agreed.

I am interested in the allegation that the pilot also made another sighting.

anyone confirm this from another source?

from another Main-Stream Hack Job (People Mag, Jan 26, 1987)

where do they get their facts?

www.people.com...

As the Japan Air Lines 747 cargo jet winged through the night skies over northern Alaska last Nov. 17 there was no hint of anything out of the ordinary. For the three-man cockpit crew of flight 1628, the leg from Reykjavík to Anchorage was a routine milk run,though the hold was brimming with cases of Beaujolais for the Japanese market.

More intriguing is what Terauchi's crew, copilot Takanori Tamefuji and flight engineer Yoshio Tsukuda, saw or didn't see. Both sighted a peculiar light tracking their plane, but neither witnessed the closer encounters with the UFO. The pilot's suggestion that his crew was too busy with flight duties seems curious and, still more perplexing, news reports suggest there was minimal cockpit chatter of the "What-was-that?" variety.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by shermanium]

[edit on 6-9-2008 by shermanium]

from the People mag article

www.people.com...

(I can't believe i'm quoting People... I need another source!)

Ultimately the issue hinges on the credibility of Captain Terauchi, a onetime Japan Air Self Defense fighter jock and a pilot with an impeccable record. No one could suggest a reason why he might want to invent a cockamamie yarn and risk professional ridicule. Terauchi contends that other pilots have seen things in the skies but don't report them because doing so is bad for one's career.

To date the FAA takes the position that while Terauchi is a responsible pilot, there is scant evidence to corroborate his strange sighting. But the captain is not done with UFOs.Just last week, flying a similar cargo mission from Europe to Anchorage, he said it happened again. "Please record this," he radioed air traffic control excitedly, lapsing partly into Japanese. "Irregular lights, looks like a space ship." This time there were no unexplained radar contacts, though Terauchi's cockpit companions (a different crew from flight 1628's) again were uncertain as to what, if anything, had happened. The FAA will investigate. Watch this space.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by shermanium]

Very nice one mister, starred and a flag...
Keep up the good work!

i would love to see someone call this a hoax.. we have very credible witnesses .. I suggest you watch the whole video.. looks like this happens more then once in awhile.

Terauchi's cockpit companions (a different crew from flight 1628's) again were uncertain as to what, if anything, had happened.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by shermanium]


Shermanium,

Good find with that People archive. I think what the People article should have speculated on was the motivation for the co-pilot and flight engineer not corroborating Terachui's observations. Being the captain, he was probably protecting them (aircrew) from sticking their necks out by admittinng to having seen what Terauchi did. This was 1987, and a high-profile Japanese company. It's risky to go on the record about such stuff today, let alone twenty years ago.

My gut feeling is that the three officers on the flight deck at the time all saw the UAP and that Terauchi was protecting them by being the only one to come out and report in full on what exactly happened.

reply to post by mckyle


In that era, it is unusual for the other JAL crewmembers to not back the Captain.....in the JAL environment, and the Japanese culture, the Captain is "God".......

reply to post by internos
as always, great work, Internos; you, my friend, are a shinng example for all the members to use as a benchmark for excelence in research; i remeber the incident and the flap over it, remember phillip klass and several more spouting oxymoronic gibberish about it; what amazes me is some of the statements made by members in this thread,i.e. grounding the pilot for passenger safety when the objects were confirmed and tracked on radar? seriously, people, give us a break and perhaps put a little more detailed thought into your efforts; mr internos always puts together impeccably detailed work and stimulates the mind.

again,great work,friend!



seeker

This is certainly a fascinating case.
An aircraft carrier of itself is an incredible sight, something twice the size of an aircraft carrier along side your aircraft at some serious altitude , is certainly something not to be confused with a planet.

FAA spokesman stated, "We are accepting the descriptions of the crew, but are unable to support what they saw."
Even that grudging statement must of killed them to have to say.




Starred and flagged.

My first entry at ATS.
Sorry Japanese article, but if you click WMV from the link below, you can listen to Terauchi's real voice he had with the interview.
www5e.biglobe.ne.jp...

reply to post by UmbraSumus


i used to think this was one of the best ufo cases. But as has been posted already his crew never saw the giant ufo the captain claims to have seen. Why didnt they see it?Also on the same night several other pilots reported venus being extremely bright. I just dont know about this case anymore.

The location is interesting too, the earths magnetic field is lower & stronger in that area.



[edit on 7-9-2008 by yeti101]

reply to post by internos


Hello internos.

This is a very interesting well researched and well sourced post about an absolute solid case.
I already strrd and flggd you yesterday for it.
I knew of it of course but it is always so good to see that it is discussed again.
But you have put so much work in this case to explain absolute all about it, even the link to the complete report of Bruce Maccabee what I have downloaded once to my computer so that I have nothing to contribute to it besides the comment that I am convinced that this case and thread is 100% solid and true.

So thanks for sharing this again my friend.

Thanx for that great post Internos.
It has the ussual quality we learned to trust from you.

We must consider that unidentified objects of large sizes comparable to what we normaly operate could be utilizing small signatures to be captured by our own radar. This time it was pilots visual recongition that was estimating the true size of the object. If no airplane was crossing the same altitude and space as that puzzling object did we wouldn't be discussing in this thread today. This can make me think that more objects of that size may be traversing through our skies that we may realize.
According to our proportions and manners of building any kind of contraptions, objects with above a certain limit of size tend to have numerous features extending out of a normal streamline, which would be much more simplistic in smaller models, it does not happen in larger ones. Try to think a small frigate streamline against the more complicated silhouete an aircraft carrier for example. The shape of the Unidentifying object in question in a certain illustration, if it follows an accurate visual testimony, shows some diffusion. There would be a possibility that big unidentified contraptions like that could follow similar patterns like our contraptions do. In order for aspects of their technology to be concealed they could be using a kind of shape diffusion that would present a simpler more streamlined shape instead of visible discernable features that would reveal some philosophies of their technology.

The fact that gigantic contraptions like that would roam freely around out atmosphere at least brieffly, must make us wonder that if more advanced technologies can roam freely in our airspace, then whoever operates them why are they not making any kind of claims uppon us? We should contrast this kind of attitude at least from certain cases against our own attitudes and realize that there might be a tottaly different game out there, with a different set of rules and habits than the one we have been accustomed to follow here.

The simple question that asks, why since they seem more powerfull do not make a move against us, might be the primary reason of why the skeptics do not believe stories about UFOs.
Maybe politics among interstelar civilizations require much more complicated
procedures and maybe do not worth the effort of someone making a move against an technologicaly inferior civilization. Yet there is the aspect of the visitation itself that argues against our presumed insignificancy.

There we are puzzled by the concept of a spiritual/cultural evolution versus a technological one. We don't really know which one is more important than the other.
Visitations of unidentifying flying objects generate numerous valid questions about them and about ourselves and our place in this universe.
Denying the phenomenon of visitation won't make us understand in what kind of universe we currently live in.

Originally posted by mckyle
I think what the People article should have speculated on was the motivation for the co-pilot and flight engineer not corroborating Terachui's observations. Being the captain, he was probably protecting them (aircrew) from sticking their necks out by admittinng to having seen what Terauchi did. This was 1987, and a high-profile Japanese company. It's risky to go on the record about such stuff today, let alone twenty years ago.

My gut feeling is that the three officers on the flight deck at the time all saw the UAP and that Terauchi was protecting them by being the only one to come out and report in full on what exactly happened.

Which aircrew are you referring to?

November 17, 1986 (JAL 1628)
January 11, 1987 (Terauchi' second reported sighting, different crew)

from Macabee's report on 1628:

copilot

THE copilot, Takanori Tamefuji, compared the numerous lights or flames to "Christmas
assorted" lights with a "salmon" color. (9) He said, "I remember red or orange, and white
landing light, just like a landing light. And weak green, ah, blinking. " The intensity wasn't
constant but rather it pulsated: "became stronger, became weaker., became stronger, became
weaker, different from strobe lights" (which have very quick flashes). The lights were
"swinging" in unison as if there were "very good formation flight...close (formation)" of two
aircraft side by side. He had no doubt that he was seeing some sort of aerial object or objects
just ahead and to the left of the airplane. He compared the clarity of the lights to seeing
"night flight head-on traffic" at which time it is only possible to see the lights on the
approaching aircraft and "we can not see the total shape."

Flight Engineer

THE flight engineer who sat behind the copilot, Yoshio Tsukuba, had a poorer view of the
lights. He recalled that when he first saw them he was looking "through the L1 window at the
11 o'clock position" (about 30 degrees to the left of straight ahead) and he saw "clusters of
lights undulating." (10) The clusters were "made of two parts...shaped like windows of an
airplane" (i.e., arranged in square or rectangular clusters). He emphasized that "the lights in
front of us were different from town lights." He described the colors as white or amber.

From Macabee's End Notes:

The
order of events as presented here seems, to this author, to be the most consistent with the
testimony of the copilot and the flight engineer and the ARTCC tape. It should be noted that
the lights were first seen by the captain in a location to the left and below the plane where
neither the copilot nor the flight engineer would be likely to look. Whether or not the captain
mentioned them at that time is not known. But all three witnesses recalled seeing the lights
remaining in front and somewhat to the left of the aircraft for a number of minutes and then
seeing the light return to the left side as far back as the 9 o’clock position After the
lights dropped back farther than that, only the pilot was easily able to see them because of his
position on the left side of the cockpit. Thus the total event consisted of a single witness
sighting at the beginning, a multiple witness sighting in the middle and a single witness
sighting at the end.

7) Notes made by Special Agents Jack Wright, James Derry and Ronald Mickle after the crew was
interviewed just after the plane landed at Anchorage on November 17.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by shermanium]

[edit on 7-9-2008 by shermanium]

[edit on 7-9-2008 by shermanium]

[edit on 7-9-2008 by shermanium]

[edit on 7-9-2008 by shermanium]

This is very frustrating!

The large, "Walnut-shaped" craft described by the JAL pilot reminded me of the description of a UFO seen off the California coast some time in last year (or two?).

The description was posted on ATS by a member whose name I have forgotten. I tried to search for it, but there are so many posts (and so little time!).


As I remember, the California sighting was described as ovoid when viewed head-on but somewhat of a "compressed", or flattened, circle (walnut-shaped) if viewed from above or below. The craft had a conical protusion on the "front" and "rear"; the rear cone was centered in a inverted conical indentation (I picture the air intake of a jet engine).

There were three "ridges" extending along the top of the craft from the front to the rear of the craft. The ridges blended smoothly into the body of the vehicle, the center ridge was the largest and tallest of the three.



Again, I know that this description has been posted somewhere on these boards, I just cannot find it!


I do not recall the poster saying the size of the craft observed was anywhere near the size of an aircraft carrier, but its the general shape of the object that piques my interest.


The similarities of the descriptions might well indicate a common origin.

Consider how, for the most part, despite differences in actual size, most of Earth's aircraft follow the same basic form: a tube with flattened, perpendicular protrusions.

Could the similarities between these two craft be the expression of a design paradigm as realized by a particular race of ET's?


Or was the poster I cannot find just being a "copycat"?

reply to post by shermanium


Hi Shermanium,

I was referring to the second incident - January 11, 1987.

mckyle,

Thats what i thought. Forgive me if i seemed flippant in my response, but your reply prompted me to dig a little.... deny ignorance, right?

This second sighting needs to be "fully vetted"

[edit on 7-9-2008 by shermanium]

Hello internos, during searching on the net I found this one.
And because of the in my opinion reasonable comparison with the shape of the object seen by Captain Terauchi and his crew I found it important enough to post it.
What is your view on it?

771122/01:00 – Município de Belém - Baía do Sol (Mosqueiro Island) – Reddish light moving north about 30 meters above the bay in front of Ponta do Machadinho (island of Colares), 1,500 meters from beach, alternately climbing and descending (wavy motion?), then disappearing suddenly. At 01:30 a new sighting with the same characteristics.

reply to post by Bhadhidar


IMO detailed sightings of exotic shapes is much more interesting technologically wise, since the more common saucer like or sphere shapes could actually be a sort of camouflage. Plus we could gather more information from something that is distinctive, for ex. speculate about its shape and what role would it play in interstellar travel.
if I would like the public to become uninterested in such phenomena I would introduce lots of fake cases with identical shaped crafts that their actual shape wouldn't inspire the public imagination with anything to wonder and research about.

Lets face it, saucers and spheres are boring.

[edit on 7-9-2008 by spacebot]