Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The strange story of JAL 1628

page: 9
140
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Here's an interesting continuation to this whole affair,


Document Shredding by the FAA Destroys Valuable UFO History


ENCINO, CALIFORNIA (BlackVault) - September 16, 2009 -

...

In 2001, I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FAA for information regarding this event. Throughout the processing, they determined that I was what is called a "commercial" requester, and was going to charge me excessive fees for the search and duplication of responsive records, which totaled more than 100 pages.

This was one of hundreds of examples of game play by our U.S. Government and Military agencies while processing my FOIA requests. When you file, you fit into one of three "fee categories." The basic definition of categories is commercial, non-commercial, or all other.

What you pay for the request and records is dependent on which category you fit into. Commercial is the most expensive, wherein you pay for everything; search, document review and duplication. Their search fees can range from $45-$85 an hour, so if they want to send you a large bill, they certainly can! (In one FOIA case, the NSA gave me an estimated cost of $8,000 just to search for records. If I paid that amount, I was told I may not even receive one page of responsive material. Think about it, $8,000 for nothing.)

After a telephone conversation with Jean Mahoney on June 5, 2001, I was told I could withdraw my request and the documents would be sent to me free of charge. Although I do not have record of it since it was sent on a crashed computer which lost its data, I know I sent an email withdrawing my request in hopes to receive the package.

The package never came. Unfortunately, I received a letter in the mail that stated, "On June 5, 2001, I contacted you to by telephone and discussed the fees for search, review, and duplication of documents pertaining to your May 9, 2001, request for UFO sightings in or around Alaska between 1981 and 1988. We have determined that you would be considered a commercial requester and would be charged for all search, review, and duplication of the records. I advised you that approximately 107 pages of documents could be made available to you outside of the FOlA without fees. These documents do not include radar tracking data and simulated radar data for JL1628. It was agreed that you would withdraw your request by either fax (907-271-2800) or E-Mail (CENSORED) and l would forward the 107 pages to you on receipt of your withdrawal.

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

Due to irrelevant circumstances, I did not read this letter until the thirty day deadline had come and gone. Of course, I feared the worst; that the documents were destroyed.

Subsequent e-mails and letters regarding the documents went unanswered, and due to multiple other FOIA cases that I filed, I let this one slip away and forgot about it.

So recently, I decided to open up many of the past cases of The Black Vault, to see what documents might have surfaced since I originally filed. I came across this letter, remembered my original frustration, and re-filed a FOIA request to see if anything came up.

I was told that the documents were destroyed. The biggest question was why? Why is it that if the letter that was sent to me remained unanswered, that the documents would be destroyed? They claim due to their records retention schedule (how long certain records are kept) authorized such a destruction.

Was it coincidence that my letter came thirty days before they would destroy the documents? Or did my request prompt them to destroy the documents?

Although I try not to create such conspiratorial scenarios, it makes one wonder. It's possible these documents are floating around in some investigators filing cabinets -- and they are somewhat in the "public domain." But that isn't the point. The larger issue is that these types of games are being played while processing FOIA requests, and the true spirit of government openness and transparency is too often ignored at nearly every level. As a result - important historical records are being destroyed.

Interestingly, I was able to uncover a reference to the JAL-1628 UFO encounter through another FAA facility. Also, making anyone suspicious of how agencies are processing FOIA requests. One office says all documents relating to the event were destroyed. Another office of the SAME AGENCY says here are two pages referencing the incident.

The newly found record is what is known as an "Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing" or ASIAS report. Although not very descriptive, at least from a historical standpoint, the UFO case remains a part of documented history, at least for now.

(... continued ...)




posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Yet in the future, these references presumably will be destroyed, completely wiping out the fact that this event never happened. Even though the UFO community has long debated this case since it occurred, it sparks the question of how many others do we not know? The U.S. Government and Military maintains records dating back decades, even a century. Many don't realize that classified records exist prior to World War II even beginning!

But yet a 1986 UFO encounter is something they quickly want to shred. And to think, seventeen years prior, Project Blue Book and the entire military and government powerhouse adopted the notion that UFOs were easily identifiable and explainable.

source: www.theblackvault.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.



There's a slight problem with the cloud explanation - clouds don't travel 500 miles per hour behind a 747.

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned, but there were at least three radars that tracked the object following JAL: AARTCC, ROCC and also NORAD:

"Upon completion of my discussion with the crew, I called Capt. Stevens, Duty Officer to NORAD, and asked if he had any questions other than what I had asked. He said he had no other questions, but they also showed two targets on radar (one was JAL). He stated that they would give all data to Intelligence in the morning. I then asked Bobby Lamkin by phone if the Air Force was holding the data and he said yes."

(FAA interview by agent James Derry)

Military radar is far more advanced than civilian radar, and their operators would have ruled out it having been a cloud when it was actually following the 747 on radar.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 
I think after examining the evidence most of us will agree that this was a real, tangible and unexplainable phenomenon.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by Brighter
 
I think after examining the evidence most of us will agree that this was a real, tangible and unexplainable phenomenon.

of course. But I think we will have the same amount of people disagreeing that it necessarily alien or intelligently controlled "craft".

I actually spent some time looking at the details of this case last night. There is quite a bit of good documentation. Some details seem to have been lost in translation. I don't see much on the co pilot accounts.

Also of note was the captain talking about after burners or exhaust pipes and flames

the lights were like flames coming out of multiple rocket exhaust ports arranged in two rectangular arrays, according to the captain's drawings made shortly after the event and again two months later. He compared them to "output exhaust" like the "Challenger (as it took off)" [1]. He described the colors as "amber and whitish." He stated that the "numerous lights" were "exhausts on the engines" which were "lined up all the way." When they were "blasting recoil [the] jets [were] so strong that I could not see [the individual lights and their arrangement] because it was so bright." However, "once the recoil blasts stopped the speed was absolutely steady, not faster, not slower, and I could see them (the individual lights or exhaust ports) very clearly" [1]. Besides the lights of the "exhaust ports" the captain also reported seeing "sparks like a fire when using gasoline or carbon fuel." By this he may have meant brief bursts of yellowish color.


Are we to assume aliens or whoever use rocket technology?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I'm sure he was trying to articulate from a humanistic perspective.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
There's a slight problem with the cloud explanation - clouds don't travel 500 miles per hour behind a 747.

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned, but there were at least three radars that tracked the object following JAL: AARTCC, ROCC and also NORAD:

"Upon completion of my discussion with the crew, I called Capt. Stevens, Duty Officer to NORAD, and asked if he had any questions other than what I had asked. He said he had no other questions, but they also showed two targets on radar (one was JAL). He stated that they would give all data to Intelligence in the morning. I then asked Bobby Lamkin by phone if the Air Force was holding the data and he said yes."
Nothing in your quote suggests the cloud was going at 500 miles an hour. In fact all evidence I've seen shows it wasn't. You haven't posted anything which supports your claim.

The cloud didn't follow the aircraft, the aircraft was heading toward it, and requested a course change to steer around it, and after it went around the cloud, the cloud was behind it. This is consistent with the records of the event.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   
OP you should add the 'high strangeness' stuff that also occured during this encounter :

- The inability of primary witness to photograph the phenomena, its well documented that on many sightings the phenomena itself seems to prevent the capture of photographic proof by influencing the witnesses or their equipments.
- The pilot seems to be a repeater (witnessing multiple UFO events). its also documented that sensitive people / people who have psychic abilities are more likely to witness UFO phenomena.
- The modern technology make our world seems smaller and we forget that certain areas are devoid of humans and truly desolate / isolated. This Alaskan UFO phenomena occurs on the northren wilderness (similar to the giant YUKON ufo sightings on canadian wilderness during the same time frame)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Nothing in your quote suggests the cloud was going at 500 miles an hour. In fact all evidence I've seen shows it wasn't. You haven't posted anything which supports your claim.

The cloud didn't follow the aircraft, the aircraft was heading toward it, and requested a course change to steer around it, and after it went around the cloud, the cloud was behind it. This is consistent with the records of the event.



No, the "mothership" that Terauchi described was at various times to the side and to the rear of the 747.

It was also continuously tracked on military radar as following the 747 and as flying along with the 747 in the same relative position to it as the captain was verifying visually.

The "mothership" was tracked on radar as it followed them:

ROCC: "Yeah, this is one dash two again. On some other equipment here we have confirmed there is a flight size of two around. One primary return only.

AARTCC: "Okay. Where is - is he following him?"

ROCC: "It looks like he is, yes."

AARTCC: "Okay. Stand by."

Then AARTCC contacted JAL1628:

AARTCC: "JAL1628 heavy, roger, sir. The military radar advises they do have a primary target in trail of you at this time."

ROCC: "Ah, I'm gonna talk to my other radar man here...he's got some other equipment watching this aircraft."

AARTCC: "Okay."

ROCC: "Okay. We're going to call the military desk on this."

About fifteen seconds later, AARTCC contacted JAL1628 and asked if they wanted to have military jets scrambled.

They were obviously convinced that they were watching an unidentified aircraft (primary return only) following the 747.

A bit later, the following conversation took place between AARTCC and ROCC:

AARTCC: "Where's that, uh, are you still painting a primary, uh, by that JAL flight?"

ROCC: "Okay, let me look at my other..."

AARTCC: "If so, where's the position of it?"

ROCC: "Okay...stand by..."

ROCC: "It looks like, uh, offset left and then possibly fell back in trail. However, I can't see him now. I can't pick him out."

JAL1628: "Ahh, we have - Anchorage Center [this is] JAL1628 - We have in sight same position. Over."

In other words, right as the military radar is saying that it is behind and to the left, Terauchi verifies that it is in the same position that it was before - behind and to the left.

That military radar hit by ROCC just quoted took place about three and a half minutes after they initially confirmed the "flight size of two". That's one fast cloud, right?

I wonder what kind of cloud can keep pace with a 747 for at least three and a half minutes?

Let's look at this for a second - the time between these two military radar hits and the distance traveled during that time.

Let's assume the 747 was traveling at 500mph. So it's traveling roughly 8.33 miles per minute. The time elapsed between those two radar hits of the object following them was about 3.5 minutes. So during that elapsed time, that cloud traveled roughly 8.33 x 3.5, or about 29 miles.

And that's just the time elapsed between those two radar hits.

Now let's look at the time elapsed and distance traveled between when the captain first radioed AARTCC (5:30:16) to alert them of the mothership following them, and when it starts to fade from view (5:50:52) - a little over 20 minutes. Again, assuming they're traveling at 8.33 miles per minute, the distance covered was roughly 8.33 x 20, or about 166 miles.

And this object that was continuously verified visually by the captain and tracked at multiple locations following the 747 is the same object that the captain described as having followed them around a 360 degree turn earlier.

I'm also going to make the rash assumption that a flight captain and former fighter pilot with over 10,000 hours flight experience would be able to identify a cloud.

So I'm not sure who exactly you're trying to convince that this was a 'cloud,' but you're going to have to provide some extremely compelling evidence to get me or any one else to believe that.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 
Could it be a reflection off of a large cloud? That could explain the apparent "pacing" and subsequent stopping.

I don't know, I'm not a meteorologist or a pilot

www.ufocasebook.com...


As the 747 neared Fairbanks:

"The lights (of the city) were extremely bright to eyes that were used to the dark. (The cockpit lights had been turned off to eliminate window reflections of internal lights.) We were just above the bright city lights and we checked the pale white light behind us.

" Alas! There was a silhouette of a gigantic spaceship.

"We must run away quickly! Anchorage Center."

The JAL1628 is requesting a change of course to right 45 degrees." It felt like a long time before we received permission."

Just after the plane turned to the right, the AARTCC controller called the Fairbanks Approach Radar controller to find out whether or not the short-range radar had a target near the JAL. The approach radar reported no target other than JAL1628.

The plane came out of the turn and flew toward Talkeetna at an altitude of 31,000 ft, with the object still following.

At about 5:40, a United Airlines passenger jet took off from Anchorage and headed north to Fairbanks. The AARTCC controller decided to ask the UA pilot to try to see the object that was following the JAL flight.



this says that "The approach radar reported no target other than JAL1628."

I'm kind of confused with what exactly was on radar and what wasn't. What would be cool is a graphed timeline of radar hits compared to visual observations and by whom. Do you know if thats been done?

ADD: maybe this is where I'm confused. This was tracked by the military radar and not by the "Fairbanks Approach Radar" ?

So far I understand that there were 2 objects at first and they were described in detail as:


Terauchi said that the "amber and whitish" lights were like flames coming out of multiple rocket exhaust ports arranged in two rectangular rows on the craft. He felt that they fired in a particular sequence to stabilize the craft, much like the small maneuvering thrusters on the Space Shuttle.



Co-pilot Tamefuji described the lights as "Christmas assorted" lights with a "salmon" color. He said: I remember red or orange, and white landing light, just like a landing light. And weak green, ah, blinking. He also described the lights as pulsating slowly. They became stronger, became weaker., became stronger, became weaker, different from strobe lights.

The lights were "swinging" in unison as if there were "very good formation flight... close" of two aircraft side by side.

He described the appearance of the lights as similar to seeing "night flight head-on traffic," where it is only possible to see the lights on an approaching aircraft and "we cannot see the total shape."



Flight engineer Tsukuba, who sat behind the copilot, did not have as good a view of the lights. He first saw them "through the L1 window at the 11 o'clock position," and he saw "clusters of lights undulating."

These clusters were "made of two parts... shaped like windows of an airplane."

He emphasized that "the lights in front of us were different from town lights."


and then


" Alas! There was a silhouette of a gigantic spaceship.

"We must run away quickly! Anchorage Center."


I believe the other 2 Co-pilots did not see this nor did another plane in the area:


When the planes were about 12 miles apart, the UA plane reported seeing the JAL plane and nothing else. But by this time the UFO had apparently disappeared, not being seen by JAL1628, either.


I think its reasonable to treat these as 2 seperate sightings. It seems to me that it would be very easy to explain this in a variety of ways but impossible to pin down exactly. A possible scenerio would be that the first objects were experimental rockets or aircraft and the large object was misidentified due to the captains hightend sense from seeing the first objects but we need clarification on the radar evidence. even so, there is no eveidence for any of that.
edit on 22-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


So we have airport rador, military radar and the aircraft weather radar. Some painting targets some not.

We also have 3 eye witnesses but seeing the details to varying degress.

We also have 3 reported objects. at least one, maybe 2 of the objects confirmed by the co-pilots. The 3rd object only seen by the captain.

please clarify any of this.

Taking everything at face value, how can we get this charted objectively? Seems easy enough to get this confused.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
I think after examining the evidence most of us will agree that this was a real, tangible and unexplainable phenomenon.


Most reasonable people, yep! You're right.

I'm just a little doubtful, though, that "examining the evidence" is what some are interested in.

A cloud explains this case, some argue? I'm always open to being convinced, but someone would have to explain to me why I should ignore a substantial amount of solid and corroborated information which basically precludes the cloud hypothesis.

Also, that some people focus on Terauchi as a "saucer nut" is astounding, given that the rest of the aircrew and several Air Traffic Controllers confirm the fundamentals of the incident.

For example, here's what the involved Air Traffic Controllers initially had to say, in signed affidavits to their employer (the FAA), when the official government investigation began:

Carl E. Henley:
"I checked with ROCC [the Air Force radars] to see if they had military traffic in the area and to see if they had primary targets in the area. ROCC did have primary target in the same position JL1628 reported. Several times I had single primary returns where JL1628 reported traffic."

John L. Aarnink:
"As to the specific incident, I monitored the aircraft's transmissions and observed data on the radar that coincided with information that the pilot of JL1628 reported. I coordinated with the ROCC on the BRAVO and CHARLIE lines. They confirmed they also saw data in the same location."

Samuael Rich:
"After the radar scale was reduced to approximately twenty miles I observed a radar return in the position the pilot had reported traffic.... After assuming the D15 position I called the ROCC at approximately 0230 UTC to ask if they had any military traffic operation near JL1628. The ROCC said they had no military traffic in the area. I then asked them if they could see any traffic near JL1628. ROCC advised that they had traffic near JL1628 in the same position we did."

These are men who had everything to lose by putting these statements out there, especially when it was apparent by that time that the FAA (their employer) wanted to just rid itself of this mess.

Also, the data from at least one of the radars, overlayed with the synchronized pilot and ATC voice recordings / transcripts, is available online, no?

How does the "cloud" theory fit with all of this?

Would the CIA and other high-level officials have wasted so much time on this incident, months later, had "cloud" even still been a plausible explanation? Or can we all agree that weather and radar anomalies would've been the first things ruled out?.

It's disappointing that, instead of accommodating new information, some people will work so hard just to reaffirm their own initial conclusions, even when those conclusions are obviously either preliminary, or based upon assumptions which conservative, mainstream science is now casting aside as obsolete.

UFO 'True Believers" are guilty of the same types of shortcuts, no doubt about it, but it's disturbing no matter who is doing it....

So how about we all show a little reasonableness and honesty here?
edit on 22-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter
 


So we have airport rador, military radar and the aircraft weather radar. Some painting targets some not.

We also have 3 eye witnesses but seeing the details to varying degress.

We also have 3 reported objects. at least one, maybe 2 of the objects confirmed by the co-pilots. The 3rd object only seen by the captain.

please clarify any of this.

Taking everything at face value, how can we get this charted objectively? Seems easy enough to get this confused.


Bruce Maccabee has a pretty detailed report floating around on the web somewhere which does a good job of sequencing the events.

The event involved two separate 'sightings'. The first sighting involved the two smaller objects with bright lights, and the second sighting involved the larger object (the "mothership").

I know that at least the onboard radar picked up the first two objects, which were at times in front of the plane. The second, larger object was detected by at least three ground radars, but the onboard radar wouldn't have been able to pick it up because it only sweeps in front of the plane, and the object spent most of its time to the side or behind them.

Just being honest, I have no idea what they saw that night. I don't even know if or how the objects in the two separate sightings were related. But I do know that we can safely rule out some explanations.

You mentioned how the second "mothership" object could have been a cloud, but I just don't see it as very plausible. You'd have to do a lot of stretching to make it work. For instance, you'd have to say this cloud was roughly 166 miles long (or it was a smaller cloud that followed them for 166 miles), and during that entire time, Terauchi continually misidentified this cloud for a craft. You'd think that, if it were a cloud, since you're traveling at roughly 500 mph, you'd easily see it's 'cloud-like' features because you're seeing it from different positions. But he was insistent that it was a ship or some sort, not a cloud. And if it were a normal cloud that he was seeing to his rear, you'd think that it would have quickly faded from view, given the speed at which a 747 travels. And above all, at the time he had over 10,000 hours flight experience. You'd think that a professional that's logged that many hours in the sky wouldn't have been scared by a cloud, so concerned that he requested evasive maneuvers and kept asking Anchorage if there was any other identifiable traffic in their vicinity. To which the military radar responded that there was no identifiable craft, but there was in fact something (a primary return) showing up on radar that was following them, that just so happened to be in the exact same position that Terauchi was visually confirming.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter

Bruce Maccabee has a pretty detailed report floating around on the web somewhere which does a good job of sequencing the events.

Yes, I was looking at that the other night. I thought it was a pretty good report and pretty objective. Even so, the report is quite lengthy and detailed and hard to keep straight.



You mentioned how the second "mothership" object could have been a cloud, but I just don't see it as very plausible. You'd have to do a lot of stretching to make it work.
I have no idea how it could be a cloud. I was just asking if it could have been a reflection on a cloud.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I recall some time ago someone had posted a satellite image from the time of the sighting - NOAA, I think, It showed some large circular weather anomaly. Wish I could recall the thread. They had a flight path overlay and you could see the changes in direction in apparent response to the anomaly.


Anyone else recall the thread?



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 
Yes, I remember that. Unfortunately, that theory was also fully fleshed out and destroyed.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



Also, that some people focus on Terauchi as a "saucer nut" is astounding, given that the rest of the aircrew and several Air Traffic Controllers confirm the fundamentals of the incident


I think that his predispositon does have some bearing on the overall "story" and its outcome. It seems like it has been established that he had misidentified something as a UFO already and had at least one other sighting. He also called off jets being scrambled due to his belief that they would have been vaporized by this thing. This was based on his "knowledge" of a famous UFO incident where a piolot died chasing a weather balloon.

So I think the argument can be made that his beliefs influenced his decision making process. To what extent this influenced what he "saw" is hard to say. After looking over some of his account, he does use "space ship and "mother ship" a lot to describe the objects. He was also the one who had the best view and also the only one who described these things in great detail. He was also the only one to have a visual of the mother ship.

perhaps, if he didn't use those descriptions, no one would have cared much about this.
edit on 22-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
I recall some time ago someone had posted a satellite image from the time of the sighting - NOAA, I think, It showed some large circular weather anomaly. Wish I could recall the thread. They had a flight path overlay and you could see the changes in direction in apparent response to the anomaly.


Anyone else recall the thread?
Destroyed or not, that sounds interesting.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


It's disappointing that, instead of accommodating new information, some people will work so hard just to reaffirm their own initial conclusions, even when those conclusions are obviously either preliminary, or based upon assumptions which conservative, mainstream science is now casting aside as obsolete.
Sadly, I have come to the damning conclusion most of these people who fit the category you so succinctly describe, find it almost impossible to mentally break free of the constraints holding them back from objectively seeing outside of the big box for whatever physiological reasons.

Maybe it's a mental block or maybe they enjoy pushing other folks' buttons. I don't know but sometimes it does bother me people exist as such.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by draknoir2
 
Yes, I remember that. Unfortunately, that theory was also fully fleshed out and destroyed.



Got a link to it? Curious to see how it went.


This is one of the cases that make me go "HMMM".





new topics

top topics



 
140
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join