Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The strange story of JAL 1628

page: 8
140
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mcrom901
but that's what the atc had claimed i.e. "another aircraft"....


"The data derived from the JAL-1628 flight is representative of the data from another aircraft in the same general area and is considered normal."
No I think you may be misunderstanding that quote, though I admit the quote could be a lot more clear, as it's not worded very well. Of course there were other aircraft in the same general area, they asked the nearby UA flight to look for the UFO too and the UA flight saw the JAL flight but no sign of any UFO.


that was re the 'uncorrelated primary radar target' by atc... if the reference was about the ua flight... the transponder response from that flight wouldn't have given rise to such 'mis-wordings'



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
that was re the 'uncorrelated primary radar target' by atc... if the reference was about the ua flight... the transponder response from that flight wouldn't have given rise to such 'mis-wordings'
Where does it say the other aircraft in the same general area didn't have transponders? I'm sure the UA flight had one.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mcrom901
that was re the 'uncorrelated primary radar target' by atc... if the reference was about the ua flight... the transponder response from that flight wouldn't have given rise to such 'mis-wordings'
Where does it say the other aircraft in the same general area didn't have transponders? I'm sure the UA flight had one.


you had proposed that the 'another aircraft' could have been the ua... which is irrelevant to the actual context.... www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
you had proposed that the 'another aircraft' could have been the ua... which is irrelevant to the actual context.... www.abovetopsecret.com...
No that's exactly the context. I don't think you understand what that says so I'll try to explain it more simply.

First: how do you interpret this: "Review of the data surrounding the incident did not show any abnormalities that could be associated with any type of target as indicated by the pilot of JAL-1628"

That's the part that's telling you it's NOT another aircraft. The part you keep quoting is saying they looked at data from not only the JAL1628 but also the data from other aircraft in the same general area and while they don't specify the UA flight, that would be an example of the type of aircraft they are referring to.

It describes that the data received by JL1628, or other aircraft in the area, consists of either a primary reflected radar return from another aircraft, or an amplified signal signal from the transponder of the other aircraft, or hopefully in most cases, both. Then it goes on to explain why you don't always get both with another aircraft, which they refer to as uncorrelated. The reasons described are analogous to switching cell phone service towers, the transition is intended to be smooth but sometimes it's not, and that can explain why the targets may not always be correlated. This can also be influenced by the terrain, which is why they would want to compare the data from the JL1628 flight to data from other flights in the area to see if there was anything unusual about the uncorrelated targets seen by JL 1628. They conclude by saying there's nothing unusual about the uncorrelated targets seen by JL 1628, and that other aircraft in the same general area get the same kind of uncorrelated targets to pretty much the same degree, that it's normal.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
First: how do you interpret this: "Review of the data surrounding the incident did not show any abnormalities that could be associated with any type of target as indicated by the pilot of JAL-1628"


and what was indicated by the jal pilot in the first place....






Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's the part that's telling you it's NOT another aircraft. The part you keep quoting is saying they looked at data from not only the JAL1628 but also the data from other aircraft in the same general area and while they don't specify the UA flight, that would be an example of the type of aircraft they are referring to.


ah, i c...








Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It describes that the data received by JL1628, or other aircraft in the area, consists of either a primary reflected radar return from another aircraft, or an amplified signal signal from the transponder of the other aircraft, or hopefully in most cases, both. Then it goes on to explain why you don't always get both with another aircraft, which they refer to as uncorrelated. The reasons described are analogous to switching cell phone service towers, the transition is intended to be smooth but sometimes it's not, and that can explain why the targets may not always be correlated. This can also be influenced by the terrain, which is why they would want to compare the data from the JL1628 flight to data from other flights in the area to see if there was anything unusual about the uncorrelated targets seen by JL 1628. They conclude by saying there's nothing unusual about the uncorrelated targets seen by JL 1628, and that other aircraft in the same general area get the same kind of uncorrelated targets to pretty much the same degree, that it's normal.


you forgot to add the "o rly?" factor there.... being....


This electronic phenomena is not unusual according to Steucke who said, "It is unfortunate that the uncorrelated target phenomena occurred just when a pilot was reporting seeing something outside his aircraft.


which translates to...


This explanation implies that the controllers did not see a "real" target and therefore, the flight crew must have also been mistaken about what they saw. The problem with this official explanation is that it does not account for what the controllers reported seeing as stated in the 1 ive transcript. This is why: The official FAA explanation can only account for two targets that were within a quarter mile of each other (one radar cell apart) and only if in the same line or flight path, because the two radar signals, originating from the same target, must necessarily follow each other, since they are coming from the same moving source but with a slight timing difference. That is, the timing difference between the reception of the primary and the secondary signals while the plane is crossing from one radar cell to another is the only way an uncorrelated signal occurs.



But, in the live transcript, the controllers are talking about seeing the other target in locations more than 1/4 mile away from the 747. In one instance, the controller is talking about seeing the other target five miles or more from the 747 ( "five miles in trail"), or out to the side ("ten o'clock position"); in another instance it was reported several miles from the 747 (50 miles south of Fort Yukon, when the 747 was 40 miles south of Fort Yukon just earlier). In another instance, the controllers report a flight size of two around the 747, which means a total of three targets, which cannot be accounted for by the split radar image, which can only yield two targets. Also, note above that the controllers say they are picking up another "primary" target near the 747; they never talk about picking up another secondary (transponder) target. To restate, the primary target is the ground radar signal bouncing off an aircraft and returning to the ground receiver; it is not a transponder code coming in. This means that whatever was up there did not have an active transponder in it, which is required by FAA regulations for civilian aircraft at that altitude. The ROCC states clearly that no military craft are in the area. This facts tends to eliminate another airplane, either civil or military, as an explanation for these unexplained signals.



This is not to say controllers did not see "uncorrelated radar signals", which is a common phenomenon when dealing with a plane going 565 miles per hour and where the ground radar is located several hundred miles away. The controllers probably did see them. This is so because the plane advances into a new radar cells (1/4 mile increments) every 1.6 seconds, while the FAA radar does a sweep (updates the position of the plane by taking a new radar reading) approximately every three seconds. Rather, the 1ive transcript confirms that the controllers saw something either separate from or in addition to these very common split returns. Furthermore, controllers are trained to recognize these split images, so that it is doubtful that this type of error actually occurred in this instance, especially by 3 or 4 different controllers.





posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
FAA are idiots, its their job to cover and debunk to make sure nothing is revealed. This JAL case shows clearly there was some not ordinary objecty in the sky but again in return people get the usual bs.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901

This facts tends to eliminate another airplane, either civil or military, as an explanation for these unexplained signals.
You're switching gears here. A moment ago we were talking about the interpretation of the last line of that report which said

"The data derived from the JAL-1628 flight is representative of the data from another aircraft in the same general area and is considered normal."

Now you just posted something which confirms my interpretation of that statement, which is that they are saying they looked at data from other aircraft, not that the returns were indicitave of another aircraft. The part you just quoted "This facts tends to eliminate another airplane, either civil or military, as an explanation for these unexplained signals" is really more consistent with my interpretation of that than yours.

Now regarding the other material you brought up, yes there were other primary returns besides JAL1628, but they don't appear to be consistent with any type of aircraft since they never got a good track on them.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now you just posted something which confirms my interpretation of that statement, which is that they are saying they looked at data from other aircraft, not that the returns were indicitave of another aircraft. The part you just quoted "This facts tends to eliminate another airplane, either civil or military, as an explanation for these unexplained signals" is really more consistent with my interpretation of that than yours.


the above statement was not made by the faa... so its irrelevant whether it confirms or denies your interpretation of the faa report... which you already agreed was poorly worded, in the sense that "data" was not representative of 'radar returns' but rather previous reports.... thanks for the clarification


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now regarding the other material you brought up, yes there were other primary returns besides JAL1628, but they don't appear to be consistent with any type of aircraft since they never got a good track on them.


glad to hear that.... cheers
edit on 21/6/11 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
the above statement was not made by the faa... so its irrelevant whether it confirms or denies your interpretation of the faa report... which you already agreed was poorly worded, in the sense that "data" was not representative of 'radar returns' but rather previous reports.... thanks for the clarification
Hey don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the FAA and claim everything they said was correct, that's not my position. However I was trying to clarify to you what they intended to communicate with that report.

Bruce Maccabee actually pointed out in his investigation where he thinks the FAA was in error in their claim, which is discussed in this article:

Huge UFOs in Alaska's Skies

Contradictory statements emerged from the FAA. Spokesman Paul Steucke acknowledged that air traffic controllers tracked something pacing the JAL 007, that the encounter was a “mystery” and “a violation of air space.” But there was also “nothing to investigate.” The FAA records were being reconstructed, he said, and the alleged uncorrelated echoes could not be found. As for the Air Force, said Steucke, it no longer possessed its radar data but was attributing the apparent UFO to “clutter.”

Steucke referred to the radar signal of the JAL and UFO as a “split image” caused by the FAA primary radar signal and JAL’s transponder. Such things can happen, although hardly ever in the region of the JAL encounter. Normally, the transponder signal and the primary signal would be either directly adjacent or occupying the same spot. Steucke was in fact saying that the primary return reported by the AARTCC and ROCC controllers was a malfunction of the radar set, causing the two types of signals to separate and look as though they were distinct objects. Bruce Maccabee pointed out in his detailed analysis that if this were true, the extra echo would have come back with every sweep of the radar, which it did not.
So basically what Maccabee is using as his argument to say the FAA analysis is wrong, is that if the extra echo was the split image the FAA claimed it was, it would have come back with every sweep, which it didn't. So if it doesn't come back with every sweep, that may show the FAA split image claim is wrong, but on the other hand it's not an exceptionally good indication of something actually being there, aside from a cloud.

And further, Maccabee's analysis of the radar data is what I would characterize as being consistent with a cloud:


Bruce Maccabee, who later provided an in depth analysis of this incident, concluded that the full radar data “indicated that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector.”
So an object being quite large and quite a weak reflector pretty much describes a cloud to me, and we have a picture of the cloud on the satellite imagery. Hence I don't see why people aren't concluding the radar image from the ground and from the air, was from a cloud, all the information that I've seen seems to be consistent with a cloud.

I have more doubts about what they actually saw in the visual part of the sighting.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by memoody
 




LOL

That pic is hilarious


Oh man... :shk:



Here ya go, here's another


edit on 24/6/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arbitrageur,

Very thorough research of the analysis of this case. I'm glad somebody read through the Macabee report and provided the thumbnail version. Does seem to make this once very compelling case look much more sketchy.

Also want to thank the OP, Internos, for compiling and providing a considerable amount of information to start this thread.

Glad I checked this thread out thoroughly; however, I have to admit I'm also a bit bummed by what I've learned here. I really thought the JAL 1628 was one of the more credible cases. Had never read anywhere before that the radar pings for the UFO corresponded to those of cloud reflections. Does make one wonder about the facts of other apparently very credible UFO sightings involving radar sightings.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Very fine thread, shows what ATS can still do.

Contrast the blundering, unscientific publicity-seeking interventions of Phil Klass with the rational and courteous approach of Arbitrageur.

And we now see CSICOP, which still idolizes Klass, exposed as the pro-UFO organization that it truly is.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Apparently what happened is Callahan thought Bruce Maccabee was a CIA guy and Maccabee apparently did have some conversation with Callahan about delaying dissemination of information, but Maccabee was only a contractor, not a CIA guy like Callahan thought, and in fact Maccabee published his findings which is the source for my research. Callahan did not respond to an inquiry to confirm that Maccabee was indeed the guy he thought was CIA. If you think there was some kind of cover-up, I'd suggest you e-mail Brice Maccabee and ask him if he was at the meeting that Callahan talked about, and if anything was said about covering things up. I think what you'll find is that Maccabee was at the same meeting, and did discuss delaying the release of information with Callahan, but not a complete coverup.


Out of curiosity Arb, where'd you originally get this bit of information? Bruce is being a bit quiet on email, and I haven't found anything yet to corroborate it.

Appreciate the info, cheers bud.

-Xt



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 

reply to post by Lowneck
 

Thanks for the kind words. Some of the stuff Klass wrote still amazes me, and I can see why he earned a spot on the UFO hall of shame. I think it was pretty clear there was more going on than a planet in this sighting which I think is what Klass claimed. And I like Tim Printy, but I see he resurrected the title of Klass's newsletter, which I think is a bad idea. Personally I would have tried to distance myself from Klass given some of the outrageous "pseudo-debunks" he came up with.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
Appreciate the info, cheers bud.

-Xt
Glad to help my friend, I'd rather not post it, but check your messages.
If anyone else needs it, send me a message requesting the Callahan info.





new topics




 
140
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join