Originally posted by Tifozi
Although we still have some topics that seem weird in this case, and some are even not explainable, most of this case points to a cloud as being the UFO.

I agree that everything points to the giant mothership UFO being a cloud.

The other smaller UFOs are more mysterious and followed the plane and while I have a theory, I'm not as sure what caused them.

But yes, I'm pretty sure a cloud caused the radar returns and the visual sighting of the giant mothership.

I think the OP did a great job on explaining the Oldfield case and how some mirages could be mistaken, but stretched a lot to explain the other cases using mirages as the key.

Mentioning foo fighters and mirages in the same sentence is not too clever I think. Foo-fighters, if there is a natural phenomenon that could explain this, are probably a version of elmo's fire, with an electric charge generating around the thin metal skin of the plane and discharging at the wingtips and tail. They were sometimes observed forming at the nose, floating within the plane itself, and exiting out the back of the plane (perhaps another form of ball lightning).

Great thread, with lots of interesting info. But shouldn't it have a summary about JAL 1628? There seems to be a little wavering about the role of PABI in the last few pages. Is it that they saw a visual superior mirage of PABI, with maybe some sorties that might be interpreted as shuttlecraft around a mothership (plus some fluctuation in the inversion that trained directional landing lights into the cockpit momentarily), side by side with a superior mirage of that clould that wasn't seen visually at first but only on the 747's radar, both judged to be some 7-8 miles ahead and appearing to maintain that distance for 300 miles or so? Or is it down to just the cloud plus some loose ends? And since pilots are aware of this case, I wonder if any have noticed PABI as a superior mirage since. Maybe they just aren't aware of this theory.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
[snip]
What part of the description makes you think they aren't airport lights, distorted by some kind of atmospheric phenomenon...?

MANY things make me almost positive they weren't seeing airport lights.

Here's a big issue:

1) You confuse terminology in a very fundamental way, which can only represent either a pretty significant deficit in understanding, or extreme recklessness with words. You appear to be confusing PAPI (a glideslope indicator) with ALS (approach lighting systems), and also with runway *edge* lights. The mirage is the PAPI, you say at one point (and the PAPI is only 4 lights at the runway in question, BTW), yet you've pasted in a picture just above of an *approach lighting system* (ALS), which is not only a totally different system / size and in a totally different place, but it's of an ALS configuration that's not even at the airport in question! (Nothing even close to it is.)

You then seem to think you're buttressing this analysis by citing the Airnav entry which shows the runway as equipped with "high intensity" edge lights. These are HIRL, High Intensity Runway Edge lights. EDGE lights. Now you've introduced a third type of lighting. So, is this "mirage" that the pilots and radars saw (for what, 45 minutes I think it was?) a mirage of runway edge lights, or the approach lights, or the much smaller GSI lights?

The only thing that looks close to the aircrew's description are the ALS system in the pic you posted... which, again, is not even at that airport. (Maybe I'd go for a 16 light VASI... but, not present, and thankfully not mentioned. No need to get a fourth source for this mirage.)

Also, you prefaced the mis-leading ALS pic above with "Here's a repost of the crew's own drawings showing the similarity".... Once again, the pic is of an ALS system that the airport's not even equipped with! It's not equipped with anything CLOSE to that, actually. It apparently had no ALS at all, but only runway end lights. Rather significant....

Sorry if I sound confrontational or whatever, but to anyone who's familiar with aviation and airport lighting / markings, your mirage theory is not just "probably wrong," but to be fair really is borderline absurd. PAPI... ALS... HIRL... which?!?

So that alone told me that I didn't really need to understand every undulation and variation of your mirage theory; you connect dots that cannot reasonably be connected.

And there are other issues:

2) Light color: the yellow and amber described by the crew are quite different from the white that appears in VASI/PAPI systems... and the drawing they made does not look like either HIRL's, or the only runway end lights that were present. Also, where's the green that the crew described coming from? Never adequately addressed.... Do you know which of the above 3 lighting systems you've offered as explanation for this "mirage" could have green in it?

3) Light motion: nothing that I've seen here adequately explains the "swinging" or rocking motion that was described by the crew members, or the 90 degree rotation in orientation of the two halves of the supposed approach lights (*immediately* shifting their orientation).

4) Light magnification - look at the length of event (quite long), and distance traveled by the aircraft over that time. And you say (apparently) that this cloud + temperature inversion is *magnifying* runway or airport lights (or much smaller PAPI, whichever of the 3 types you've settled on) to THAT degree? Are you sure?

5) Aircraft's heading vs. reported "UFO's" relative bearing vs. airport lights' bearing, over time. They do not match, to put it plainly.

6) You cite the FAA conclusions that the radar returns were basically just anomalous and coincidental. I could as easily cite the statements by the 3 FAA controllers who said (in the reports submitted to their employer in its official investigation) that they had radar contacts which correlated with the radar contacts of the Air Force ground radar, AND with the aircrew's reported 'UFO' position. (That the FAA ultimately ignored their own men to get out of a sticky situation isn't all that shocking, is it?)

I could go on, but number one, above (WRT airport lighting) is alone enough to show the carelessness of analysis and the high unlikelihood of this "mirage" theory being the proper explanation.....

Sorry if this sounds excessively confrontational or "aggressive." It's certainly not personal. But to see that level of carelessness mixed (so oddly) with such confidence, tireless attempts at persuasion, plus your resistance to very reasonable rebuttals, is very frustrating. (A pilot told you on page 3 that the mirage theory is practically impossible and why, and you simply shrugged it off....) This kind of analysis deepens the divide between sides, and affects intellectual trust. Yes, the "true believers" do it regularly. I'm saying that we can ALL do better than this, and should.