It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
These are excellent comments and I agree about the wavering about PABI.
Originally posted by xpoq47
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.
Mostly the electronics and the ability to detect and reject spurious signals as opposed to "real" radar returns. I discussed this in some detail and if you didn't read the thread, then read it.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
reply to post by Arbitrageur
How, exactly, has radar gotten "much better" since way back in the 80's? (Many years after stealth technology.) What radar deficiencies (which have since been improved, I assume you're saying?) were so egregious way back then as to allow such coincidences as occurred in this case? And, given these radar improvements, there should not be many recent radar-visual cases where the radar returns could reasonably be attributed to temperature inversions?
What part of the description makes you think they aren't airport lights, distorted by some kind of atmospheric phenomenon, as apparently happened with the distortions and morphing of the apparitions seen in the BOAC case?
You mention the aircrew's "visual sightings always being in the direction of PABI" which is "coupled with the remarkable resemblance of the lights seen to airport lights." This summary makes me doubt that you've considered all relevant and reliable evidence. Does your explanation take into account the descriptions provided by the the other aircraft crew members and the FAA controllers? If you're ignoring any significant parts of their descriptions, while you're clearly accepting other parts, on what basis are you dismissing the former?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What part of the description makes you think they aren't airport lights, distorted by some kind of atmospheric phenomenon...?
I do recall searching for actual pics of the lights from that airport to post, and not being able to find them (aside from the more distant aerial views I posted). If you have actual pictures from that airport, they would be a most welcome addition to this thread and I'd encourage you to post them.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
The runway end lights are about 10% of that. (Also, there are no touchdown zone lights present at the airfield, either, as someone earlier implied.)
So what are you thinking while posting that pic?
Thanks for your comment and I think your English is good enough if I understand you correctly. The movement and disappearance of the object results from movement of the camera relative to the reflective surface of the airplane window, and not movement of the aircraft.
Originally posted by Orion437
And the supossedly mirage turns and goes away but the aircraft doesnt seem to turn acordingly and doesnt seem to accelerate in a way related to the "mirage" dissapearing.