Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The strange story of JAL 1628

page: 6
140
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Don't know if these have been posted before but there were two other extremely strange UFO reports from aircraft in the same area of sky over Alaska not two months later - both of which occurred over a twenty four hour period:

USAF KC-135 Encounters Large UFO Over Alaska
January 30, 1987
Alaska:=

www.nicap.org...


Large Discs / Flight 53 Tracks At A Mile A Second
January 31, 1987
Alaska:

www.nicap.org...


The new documentary film "I know what I saw " also goes into more detail about the case and and features actual recordings of pilot/control tower transmissions.

Flight 1628 incident - found at 00:46

Cheers.




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
The new documentary film "I know what I saw " also goes into more detail about the case and and features actual recordings of pilot/control tower transmissions.

Flight 1628 incident - found at 00:46


I noticed that in the "I know what I saw" movie also. I've seen the written transcripts before but that's the first time I heard parts of the actual recordings.

Does anyone know if the actual audio recordings are available online somewhere?

Listening to those gives a different perspective than just reading the transcripts, you can hear pauses, vocal intonations, etc much more in context.



posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by karl 12
The new documentary film "I know what I saw " also goes into more detail about the case and and features actual recordings of pilot/control tower transmissions.

Flight 1628 incident - found at 00:46


I noticed that in the "I know what I saw" movie also. I've seen the written transcripts before but that's the first time I heard parts of the actual recordings.

Does anyone know if the actual audio recordings are available online somewhere?

Listening to those gives a different perspective than just reading the transcripts, you can hear pauses, vocal intonations, etc much more in context.



Arbitrageur - you're right about how actualy hearing the tower transmissions gives you a better perspective on the incident (and it's a great film anyway
)

There are some interesting documents at the link below which discuss the validity of the FAA explanations and go into further detail about the radar confirmations - they also make mention of debunker Phillip Klass's 'opinion' that the unknown object was the planet Jupiter:


Link (pdf):
www.theblackvault.com...

Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Odds are what they seen was the moon. I have been on a few flights when looking out the window the moon just took my breath, big, bright, and seems to be 20 ft away from the _ Beautiful, but no space ship from another world. I just believe if this thing was this big, right outside the plane, the audio tapes might go more like this.. "$#%^##&*#(*# GET THE AIRFORCE..%*&(_)_)_)%^$#@$ HELL GET EVERY MILITARY PEOPLE WE GOT" Thats just me, who knows maybe if we were all on the plane we would just say hey Bob, look at the size of this one. I really don't know, but a lot more passion from the pilots and people getting off the plane like running up to people and going NUTS, because they just seen a ufo with aliens flying it, the biggest gd news on the planet, or history of the planet just happen. However, thats just me! Big events, need big emotion, I'm just saying folks..c'mon.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Since this thread got a bump, I don't mind if I do!

A couple things were on my mind since I first heard of this case. I sometimes wonder why certain fact-finding isn't done, or why the obvious actions were never taken. Well, "obvious" to me.

For instance:

1. If an "Unknown" is involved in our airspace, complete with Radar signature, etc, why aren't there more incidents of jets being scrambled, and measures being taken?
I mean, our military DOES do that. And, that area used to be the location of great interest, due to it's proximity to the old USSR.
Am I wrong?
I mean, that entire state must have been under some serious scrutiny at the time.

and

2. The pilot reported something very important. Very quantifiable: Heat, that was able to make it through the protection of the cockpit.
Now, this is no spacecraft, but these jets are made of seriously sturdy stuff, I would imagine.
For that much heat to be passed through the windows, and, or fuselage, it might very well have left some damage, or, at least evidence of it's occurrence. If not plainly visible, then possibly at a microscopic level, I don't know.
Something that large, giving off that much energy, in such close proximity to the jet, must have left some kind of evidence.
And, if some evidence of the energy output is found, and correlated with information from the pilot, such as any visible light, change in color of object, noise, duration of heat sensation, etc, it might actually point to a source that could be confirmed by our science. Or, at least, give us a direction.

Just my opinions.

[edit on 22/1/10 by ThePublicSpirit]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
Odds are what they seen was the moon.

The Moon?



6:26 PM: ZAN contacted the Military Regional Operations Control Center (ROCC), and asked if they were receiving any radar returns near the position of JL1628. The ROCC advised that they were receiving a primary radar return in JL1628s 10 o'clock (left-front) position at 8 miles.

I'd say that we can safely rule out the Moon, can't we?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePublicSpirit
2. The pilot reported something very important. Very quantifiable: Heat, that was able to make it through the protection of the cockpit.
Now, this is no spacecraft, but these jets are made of seriously sturdy stuff, I would imagine.
For that much heat to be passed through the windows, and, or fuselage, it might very well have left some damage, or, at least evidence of it's occurrence. If not plainly visible, then possibly at a microscopic level, I don't know.


We could have a lot better answers to questions like this if the crew spoke better English, but their English wasn't very good and i guess they didn't have an interpreter handy at the debrief.

We know that ONLY the captain saw the "giant spaceship" and the crew didn't see that. What I haven't been able to confirm, but I think is true that the same thing can be said about the "heat", at least I find a record of the captain mentioning the heat, but no record of the crew mentioning the heat. If it was really that noticeable don't you think the crew would have felt it too? Or did they and we just have no record of it because nobody asked them?

My own opinion is that the heat was probably a psychological interpretation of bright lights, kind of like looking at a Fireplace DVD makes me feel a little bit warmer even though there's really no more heat coming from my monitor than if I look at antarctic scenery which makes me feel colder. And he probably had some adrenaline pumping which can make you feel warmer also. Just look at how excited he appears from merely retelling the story:



I can only imagine how much more excited he was while it was happening. He still acted professionally IMO, but that doesn't mean he wasn't excited.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
He was definitely freaked.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I would like to bump this great thread made by Internos, and report that some discussion about this case is being made on this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Started with some comments on the case, and now has parallel discussion.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


In the above linked post, bullet-point 4's URL has since gone dead:


* The AARTCC controller signed an affidavit saying, "Several times I had primary returns where JL1628 reported the traffic."


The URL linked to this paragraph:


The air traffic controller who was responsible for guiding the JAL flight recorded his recollections the next day, evidently without first listening to the AARTCC tape recording of the conversations with the plane. He wrote as follows [13]:


During the period of 2030 UTC (universal time coordinated), November 17, 1986, to 0430 UTC, November 18, 1986 I was on duty in the Anchorage ARTCC. I was working the D15 position from 0156 UTC to 0230 UTC, November 18, 1986. (This corresponds to 4:56 to 5:30 PM Alaska Standard Time, November 17, 1986.) At approximately 0225Z (5:25 PM) while monitoring JL1628 on Sector 15 radar the aircraft requested traffic information. I advised no traffic in his vicinity. The aircraft advised he had traffic 12 o'clock, same altitude. I asked JL1628 if he would like high/lower altitude and the pilot replied negative. I checked with ROCC to see if they had military traffic in the area and to see if they had primary targets in the area. ROCC did have a primary target in the same position JL1628 reported. Several times I had primary returns where JL1628 reported the traffic. JL later requested a turn to heading 210. I approved JL1628 to make deviations as necessary for traffic. The traffic stayed with JL1628 through turns and descent.

Source: www.nicap.org...



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


has since gone dead:


allegedly the same with all the reports..... 'shredded'

www.theblackvault.com...


If I have not heard from you by July 12, 2001, we will consider your request canceled. In addition, all documents pertaining to this UFO citing [sic] will be destroyed in 30 days from the date of this letter.




then they released....






posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Why do people keep saying they saw a star or the moon, or a mirage?

It was DETECTED ON RADAR. That would pretty much rule on the celestial body theory, as well as a mirage. They saw it, they reported it, asked if they could see it on radar.. and they did. You can't simply discount that very important bit of scientific evidence because it doesn't fit your belief system.

Listen to the actual recording of the event.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Why do people keep saying they saw a star or the moon, or a mirage?

It was DETECTED ON RADAR. That would pretty much rule on the celestial body theory, as well as a mirage. They saw it, they reported it, asked if they could see it on radar.. and they did. You can't simply discount that very important bit of scientific evidence because it doesn't fit your belief system.

Listen to the actual recording of the event.
There were two separate issues in this event, the radar return was in one location/direction, and the lights were separate and appeared in another location/direction.

The thing detected on radar was a cloud, it didn't move much. Here is a picture of the actual cloud:
From: www.physicsforums.com...

Scroll down to:
Apr6-07, 11:49 AM Aether


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:

From this, I conclude that this cloud is in fact what Terauchi saw and reported as the "mothership" and as "the silhouette of a gigantic spaceship".




I think he's right, there is lots of evidence for this conclusion. The red line is the flight path of JAL1628, and the blue arrows all point in the direction of the object observed on radar, which is a cloud. And the composition of the object that made the radar reflection showed up on the radar as green, which is the way clouds show up.

The lights were something else and in a different direction. Coincidentally all the lights looked like airport lights and came from the direction of an airport (OK maybe not so coincidentally).


The top image is what the captain drew, the bottom image shows airport lights. Other images the captain drew matched other images of airport lights. In fact the only time the crew could see the airport lights was apparently when they were lined up with one of the two main runways at the airport (Allen army airfield). When they weren't lined up with either runway, they couldn't see the lights. This would be explained if the runways were using directional lights.

Exactly how they were able to see airport lights at the distances they saw them is a mystery to me, if that's what they saw, but if they didn't see airport lights, there sure are WAY too many coincidences like the lights appeared exactly the direction of the airport and looked like airport lights. When the lights got real bright it might have resulted from the landing lights of a plane taking off or landing.

This has been discussed in depth in the thread Tifozi linked to a couple of posts up, which even includes temperature inversion data which could explain some possible mirage-like effects, possibly causing some kind of superior mirage of the distant airport.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
If you read the actual description of the craft from the pilot, it in no way matches the theory that it was airport lights. They saw exhaust, and flames, and the co-pilot said it was like blinking Christmas lights. I would think (and hope) two pilots would be able to identify airport lights from any distance.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 
I read the description quite carefully and I never said that if the airport lights were reflected by a thermal inversion they would be completely undistorted, quite the contrary, even small fluctuations in the thermal inversion layer could produce just the effects described, especially since the plane was traveling at about mach 0.8 which would speed up the passage of the small undulations in the inversion layer. In fact what is amazing to me is how UNDISTORTED the airport lights are in the drawings the captain made. I would actually expect to see more distortion while traveling at mach 0.8.

And as I said the intensity changes observed might have had something to do with aircraft operations at the airport, like landing lights from taking off or landing.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
from page 53.... www.theblackvault.com...



faa had no basis to come to the conclusion that the uncorrelated primary radar signals were due to "another aircraft" being in the vicinity... because the transponder/beacon signal would have confirmed their id... without which they would have been forced to radio or even scramble it....

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
I would think (and hope) two pilots would be able to identify airport lights from any distance.
There's one major problem with what you think and hope.

Pilots expect to see airports on the ground, not flying around in the air.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The huge problem with your theory is that. Mirages don't move, there were 3 objects sighted by the JAL flight in the beginning and mirages don't make pilots feel *the heat on my face* it was that close, that intense.

If it was a mirage then why, when the crew of the KC135 asked if

!"You get these light up here often?", didn't they just say.

."Oh yes, it's just a mirage"?
edit on 19-6-2011 by FireMoon because: spelling of course



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If he truly just some some anomoly of the airport runway lights from that distance, then both pilots exaggerated greatly. Or they were not landing lights. If you inspect ALL of the diagrams made by the pilot, there is no way they could have been landing lights. Unless they were dipping into their cargo.. wine, I believe. Lights going both directions - exhaust flames - lighting up the cockpit, so that they felt heat on their faces... this does not occur from clouds and a far off reflection of landing lights.

I'm not saying they couldn't have been making it more than it was - perhaps they were. But either they were greatly exaggerating, or they were not airport lights.






top topics



 
140
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join