|
reply posted on 7-9-2008 @ 07:27 PM by mckyle
|
reply to post by shermanium
Shermanium,
No problem at all. Applying a level of scrutiny to the posts is a good thing
'Denying/pleading ignorance?' - spot on!! That's what I was thinking.
Unfortunately, this is the frustrating part - speculation on what they didn't see and why they didn't see, while their senior pilot did (again, I'm
referring to the second incident with a different crew).
As for the '1628' incident, if their is such a thing as a 'slamdunk' investigation, with corroborating evidence, that's got to come as close as
any incident. Amazing story.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-10-2008 @ 08:13 PM by goodwood_
|
The story is long, Internos knows it but leave him alone.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-10-2008 @ 06:10 PM by from downunder
|
Originally posted by internos
Dear friends, i share this one, of course discussed before,
duplicate thread?
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-10-2008 @ 06:15 PM by internos
|

[edit on 11/11/2008 by internos]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 21-10-2008 @ 06:26 PM by from downunder
|
mate, i dont know what you're on about.
anyway, so you know, i enjoyed this thread yesterday (appreciate you pulling he pieces of the jal thing together - i like this story very much)
however your reaction to another member today who had obvious enthusiasm for a differing subject was poor imho.
but i doubt you care what i think regardless.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-10-2008 @ 06:32 PM by internos
|

[edit on 18/7/2009 by internos]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 02:51 PM by longfade
|
Originally posted by urdead
I googled "terauchi ufo" and found this explanation (by Paul Raeburn) for the event:
www.skepticfiles.org...
!!! and !!! again! I find it highly unbelievable that a pilot would mistake any planet for a ufo. Philip Klass is cited in the article: "This is not
the first time that an experienced pilot has mistaken a bright celestial body for a UFO, nor will it be the last".
When reading such a statement one would like to reply: This is not the first time a sceptic has mistaken a ufo for a bright celestial body.
I really hate skeptics who take such a cynical and lazy approach to 'debunking' sightings like these. It's an insult to any half-intelligent
person. "Ahh, you didn't see anything! It was (flares, temperature inversions, a blimp, a planet, yadayada)." This is a group sighting with
several highly credible witnesses and this guy tries to write it off as being a planet?
Anyway, super fascinating stuff. I particularly like the renderings on the youtube vid. Really makes it easy to imagine and it's quite chilling.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-11-2008 @ 04:08 PM by ll__raine__ll
|
looks like a wraith ship ... ut oh!
thanks for posting this; was becoming a bit disenchanted with this board and wading through topics that lacked much (or sometimes any) substance.
cheers.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 3-3-2009 @ 06:04 PM by karl 12
|
Originally posted by longfade
Originally posted by urdead
www.skepticfiles.org...
!!! and !!! again! I find it highly unbelievable that a pilot would mistake any planet for a ufo. Philip Klass is cited in the article: "This is not
the first time that an experienced pilot has mistaken a bright celestial body for a UFO, nor will it be the last".
When reading such a statement one would like to reply: This is not the first time a sceptic has mistaken a ufo for a bright celestial body.
I really hate skeptics who take such a cynical and lazy approach to 'debunking' sightings like these. It's an insult to any half-intelligent
person. "Ahh, you didn't see anything! It was (flares, temperature inversions, a blimp, a planet, yadayada)." This is a group sighting with
several highly credible witnesses and this guy tries to write it off as being a planet?
Longfade,I think you're right on the money there but I don't think Klass was a 'sceptic', I think he was a 'cynic'.
Klass was known as a bit of joke even in sceptic circles and all he was realy (in)famous for was noisily 'shoehorning in' preconceived explanations
irrespective of any contradictory evidence.
The retired electrician was also fond of muddying the water with ridicule and scorn whilst deliberately overlooking glaring contradictions and factual
discrepencies in his premeditated debunks - classic cynic behaviour.
This (Alaska JAL) incident is a truly interesting one and for him to lazily suggest it was a planet just goes to show how wilfully ignorant and
hopelessly prejudice the man actualy was.
(Rant over).
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 8-5-2009 @ 10:52 AM by Xtraeme
|
  
Originally posted by yeti101
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?
I'm not sure where you're getting your data, but a NICAP report written up by Bruce Maccabee
quoted Takanori Tamefuji and Yoshio Tsukuba. In their statements they say they saw something. However it's obvious they're unwilling to speculate as
to what it was.
Direct quotes from Yoshio Tsukuba,
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. (Note: keep in mind the descriptions of these lights and the flight dynamics for comparison with explanations which were put forth months later
that these were misidentified astronomical phenomena and reflections on clouds.)
Quotes from Takanori Tamefuji's statement,
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."
Furthermore this case becomes more intriguing as you factor in John Callahan's comments.
So add it up.
- Capt. Terauchi - A pilot of 29 years says he saw a UFO.
- Tamefuji and
Tsukuba - The other two crew members, say they saw something that they
couldn't explain.
- The ROCC controller said he had a primary target in the same
position as JAL-1628
- The AARTCC controller signed an affidavit saying, "Several times I had
primary returns where JL1628 reported the traffic."
- Then a week later the FAA Head of Accidents & Investigation, John Callahan, claims he was
visited by the CIA, FBI, and Reagan's Scientific Study team, and was sworn to secrecy after discussing the JAL-1628 sighting. A discussion where the
subject was treated very seriously - as though it were a real UFO.
It should be noted John Callahan kept the flight records and
in front of the National Press Club presented this information boldly stating he's prepared to
testify before Congress, under oath, that everything he presented was true.
[edit on 8-5-2009 by Xtraeme]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 9-5-2009 @ 06:27 AM by stewartw2
|
reply to post by internos
if that is a rendition that would be mighty scarey-have any passengers come forward??
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 22-5-2009 @ 12:06 PM by wylekat
|
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
If this is a black-budgeted military project, where in the WORLD do they build that thing?!
I'm willing to bet the moon, if the stories about the moon anomalies are true to any degree. I am sure there are places on earth to do it- but think
of the hassle of going up thru the atmosphere, tackling gravity, dealing with air traffic, ect...
[edit on 22-5-2009 by wylekat]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 22-5-2009 @ 04:48 PM by dhunter
|
Originally posted by longfade
Originally posted by urdead
www.skepticfiles.org...
!!! and !!! again! I find it highly unbelievable that a pilot would mistake any planet for a ufo. Philip Klass is cited in the article: "This is not
the first time that an experienced pilot has mistaken a bright celestial body for a UFO, nor will it be the last".
When reading such a statement one would like to reply: This is not the first time a sceptic has mistaken a ufo for a bright celestial body.
I really hate skeptics who take such a cynical and lazy approach to 'debunking' sightings like these. It's an insult to any half-intelligent
person. "Ahh, you didn't see anything! It was (flares, temperature inversions, a blimp, a planet, yadayada)." This is a group sighting with
several highly credible witnesses and this guy tries to write it off as being a planet?
Anyway, super fascinating stuff. I particularly like the renderings on the youtube vid. Really makes it easy to imagine and it's quite chilling.
LOL! Does this Klass guy actually believe that a seasoned flight crew, of not only an airliner, but a large international airliner, would dare mention
over the air, or bring forward such a tremendous account if it was not happening?? Not to mention stating that the object was the size of two (2)
aircraft carriers? I would imagine that they would be able to distinguish between a celestial body or something that is definitely not.
I have no use for skeptics - especially when you have professionals staking their entire careers and livelihoods on what they report (or not).
This is a great post and an intriguing incident.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 8-6-2009 @ 03:42 AM by shasa
|
Outstanding work on one of the most interesting ufo cases ever!!!!!!
Deep analysis, and with the attitude that will help us all glue the pieces together of this puzzle...
this is the kind of work that gives this site it's reputation
Respect man!
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 2-8-2009 @ 02:39 PM by jkrog08
|
Bumping a GREAT thread.
The most detailed report I have seen on one of the top cases, everything is in here.
I have told you before internos, but I'll say it again, GREAT JOB.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-8-2009 @ 09:06 PM by Arbitrageur
|
Excellent Thread Internos!
This is a fascinating case!
Originally posted by Xtraeme
Originally posted by yeti101
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?
I'm not sure where you're getting your data, but a NICAP report written up by Bruce Maccabee
quoted Takanori Tamefuji and Yoshio Tsukuba. In their statements they say they saw something. However it's obvious they're unwilling to speculate as
to what it was.
Actually Bruce Maccabee not only confirms what you said, but also confirms what yeti101 said about the captain being the only one to see the
mothership. We know why the other crew members didn't see it, because it was on the left side of the plane when the captain saw it, so the other crew
members don't have visibility in that location:
www.physicsforums.com...
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. -bruce
maccabee
[edit on 30-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 30-8-2009 @ 10:39 AM by internos
|
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-8-2009 @ 12:31 PM by autowrench
|
reply to post by internos
Internos, what can I say? I too am a long time researcher in this field, but this is amazing. From the size of the object, it must have been a Star
Cruiser. I have seen my share of ET craft, but never one that size! Great post, ans by the way, please do write that book, and I will buy a copy too.
Great work! F&S. Love and Light, Autowrench
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-8-2009 @ 12:41 PM by platipus
|
really good article nontheless
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-8-2009 @ 12:43 PM by jimmyx
|
Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by internos
Internos, what can I say? I too am a long time researcher in this field, but this is amazing. From the size of the object, it must have been a Star
Cruiser. I have seen my share of ET craft, but never one that size! Great post, ans by the way, please do write that book, and I will buy a copy too.
Great work! F&S. Love and Light, Autowrench
hey autowrench...do you have past threads of your own experiences, with photos, clips etc. that i could look at?
|
copyright & usage
|
 |