1965 multiple pilots sighting -- can it be explained?

In wrestling with the question about WHAT else could be causing pilot UFO reports besides genuine UFOs, it helps to keep checking in detail on specific cases. Here's one that's caught my interest and I'd like to ask, does it deserve to remain on an 'unsolved list'? If not, does its presence diminish the value of that 'unsolved' list?

March 18, 1965, two airliners were chased by a strange object over the Seto Inland Sea (Japan).

detailed description:


Military, Airline and Private Pilot UFO sightings from 1942 to 1996
Compiled and © 1997 by Dominique Weinstein
www.project1947.com...
65.03.18 - 19h06 Japan Dishima Island, between Osaka and Hiroshima A P Toa Airlines Convair 240, pilot
Piper Apache pilot + ground witness 3 ellongated objects + one circular object (diameter: 15 meter)

AND

www.ufoevidence.org...

And

www.ufologie.net...

And

MUFON UFO JOURNAL, # 263, March 1990, p. 22, first column ("Looking Back")
www.scribd.com...

Hi Jim, the Ufologie article you linked doesn't work as the site has now been taken off-line but you're right about this being a very interesting UFO incident - it was posted in this thread and there's a video about the case below -see 7:35.

reply to post by karl 12

Many thanks, karl, a very interesting case.

But, as far as I could discern it, Jim's point was that it should be removed from the UFO list, because there may be an explanation.

Intrigued, I found that the Soviet Voskhod 2 one-day 17 orbit space mission took place on 18 March that year.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is certainly enough information available for some expert to try to link the pilots' sightings with the space mission. Perhaps Jim has already written a paper on the subject. If so, and if his arguments are sound, that would be a neat bit of science. And if Jim gives us full details of his arguments I will give his thread a flag.

reply to post by Lowneck


Lowneck, thanks for the reply mate and it looks like Jim initialy re-edited his post after my reply - I'm all for prosaic explanations where appropriate and hopefully the Soviet Voskhod mission explains this one.

Voskhod might be a candidate but the time and location don't jibe. Still, there's a long list of possible prosaic explanations that ought to be run through. But that implies that perhaps the pilots' interpretations may have been off-the-mark. This is a theme I have stressed, and gotten a lot of flack over. How MUCH can pilot testimony get distorted? I think this case -- with visual and EM effects reported -- can teach a lot.

It's NOT a trivial case, and the clues that can be found in the report are pretty accidental. To me, that suggests that simply by accident, such clues usually WON'T be recorded, even if they were present, in other cases.

In my view that raises the possibility that all these pilot cases are pre-selected to be bizarre-looking because they DID look bizarre to pilots, but that can happen even without bizarre stimuli. We don't know how OFTEN it happens or what fraction is genuine or faux-UFO. But to me that's the fundamental question of serious ufology -- finding out, not just expressing confidence in assumptions.

.

The little descriptions in that Weinstein spreadsheet don't give you nearly enough. I'm certain there are some officially unidentified cases that do have mundane explanations (Socorro 1964) and plenty of cases that received force-fit explanations, that based on the detailed and credible witness accounts, just don't work (Kelly Johnson, Deke Slayton). The stats, "we can explain X percent of all cases," are BS.

Wow, I had NOT seen the treatment by Bill Birnes on the History Channel. this is a great adduition to the case's literature, thanks.

I tried to transcibe the program's comments, here's my draft:

Pacific Bermuda Triangle // Host Bill Birnes
Publisher: UFO Magazine
Executive Producer and Director/Writer Jon Alon Walz, HistoryChannel.com
Supervising Editor / Producer Jeff Tober
Producer / Writer David Pavoni
Narrator Stanley Bernard
For the History Channel
Executive Producer Dolores Gavin
Supervising Producer Michele Wilcox
Produced by “Motion Picture Production, Incorporated”
@2006 A&E Television Networks


HST] UFO Files - The Pacific Bermuda Triangle-3.avi
www.youtube.com...#
posted by dennyfromspace

7:15

Reports of UFO s in the Dragon’s Triangle are not limited to the sea. From the Amelia Earhardt incident onward, pilots have found the skies above the triangle to be as treacherous as the oceans below. A significant air-to-air UFO event occurred over the western end of the triangle, a near miss collision between an unidentified aircraft and a TOA airlines Convair 240.

Voice: “UFO”

Junichiro Kato, President, OUR-JUFO Group [Japanese expert]: “One famous incident happened in Ikeda when a pilot witnessed a UFO and the control tower announced to all the aircraft that there was a UFO approaching.”

March 18, 1965, 7:06 PM. In a harried report to the air traffic control tower in Tomakatsu, 43-year-old captain Yoshiharu Inaba reports an unidentified oblong craft was approaching his jetliner as it cruises over the Triangle, fast. Inaba then makes a 60 degree turn at over 500 miles per hour to avoid collision. The object stops abruptly, then follows alongside the airliner. Captain Inaba reports he’s being shadowed by the UFO. He reports the object is 50 feet in length and radiates a greenish light.

Several witnesses observe the situation from the ground. Meanwhile, a Piper Apache registered to Tokyo Airlines hears Captain Inaba’s frantic transmissions. At 10:07 Universal Time it sees the same UFO at 7200 feet heading east to Osaka and toward the Dragon’s Triangle.

Air traffic controller Akira Togushi was at his post when Captain Inaba radios his report. He later confirms the object was seen over the mountains near Hiroshim…. [end at 8:56]

HST] UFO Files - The Pacific Bermuda Triangle-4.avi
www.youtube.com...

..and near the island of Shikoku.

The same day at roughly the same time, engineers who had worked in the mountains near Hiroshima said they had seen something which had been a flying saucer. These other facts – nobody knows what this object really was. [end topic at 00:15]

Loren Coleman, Author, “Mysterious America”
The Dragon’s Triangle has been known for thousands of years….

reply to post by UFO Partisan


Agree very much with what you say.

A little bit off topic, but I've always felt Socorro had a likely prosaic explanation. Would be very interested in your views on Socorro - I think Hynek's promotion of it had a baleful effect on the scientific study of UFOs.

Originally posted by Lowneck
reply to post by UFO Partisan

 

Agree very much with what you say.

A little bit off topic, but I've always felt Socorro had a likely prosaic explanation. Would be very interested in your views on Socorro - I think Hynek's promotion of it had a baleful effect on the scientific study of UFOs.

Uh oh . . . are you sure about that? Lots of links, lots of reading.

This particular case is on my mind right now, because of what I see as missed opportunities to develop a plausible prosaic explanation. This issue bears on the question of -- what is the significance of pilots as a special class of UFO observers -- and also on the even more general question, "What does it signify when Bill Birnes swears HE can't find a prosaic explanation of a case he puts on his TV show?".

Originally posted by JimOberg
This particular case is on my mind right now, because of what I see as missed opportunities to develop a plausible prosaic explanation. This issue bears on the question of -- what is the significance of pilots as a special class of UFO observers -- and also on the even more general question, "What does it signify when Bill Birnes swears HE can't find a prosaic explanation of a case he puts on his TV show?".

Honestly, you have to take the TV documentaries with a grain of salt . . . but I think you probably know that already.

Originally posted by UFO Partisan
Honestly, you have to take the TV documentaries with a grain of salt . . . but I think you probably know that already.

Having been on a number of them, I prefer to take them with cash.

[wink]

Back to 1965. Is there a clue to where to start looking for a candidate prosaic explanation in the UFO researcher notes on this case -- and if so, WHY couldn't they follow it? Why Birnes couldn't follow it -- much less mysterious. But bright and industrious people have been over these reports. Did they really miss such an important clue?

Here's the most detailed report, containing the clue:

www.narcap.org...

I'm talking about "Ramda". Where might that lead?

Wonder if Jim has confused Ramda with Lambda?


1965 March 18 - . 10:07 GMT - . Launch Site: Kagoshima. Launch Complex: Kagoshima L. LV Family: Lambda. Launch Vehicle: Lambda 3. LV Configuration: Lambda 3 L-3-3.

But I don't think that's the whole story.

Originally posted by Lowneck
Wonder if Jim has confused Ramda with Lambda?

1965 March 18 - . 10:07 GMT - . Launch Site: Kagoshima. Launch Complex: Kagoshima L. LV Family: Lambda. Launch Vehicle: Lambda 3. LV Configuration: Lambda 3 L-3-3.

But I don't think that's the whole story.

No confusion at my end -- what's the Japanese-language reaction to "L" words in English?

It's not the whole story but it's definitely the executive summary. Kudos!!

Now -- what possible connection could there have been?

What are the documented times and directions of the pilot reports vis-a-vis the rocket launch?

I truely believe that there is enough evidence to warrent a serious investigation into the subject of ufo's. But to be honest, i believe it is taken seriously behind closed doors. I mean, with militery sightings alone, that should surely make governments stand up and take notice.

The sad fact of the matter though is this. Too many people scream ET straight away, and not too mention all the people out there that believe everything they read and see. I am having a debate at the moment on thisthread

It drives me mad that there are people out there that still believe the meier case and other cases like it. It just makes the subject of ufo's a bit of a joke. But if you forget about these stupid cases, and study the great cases that are out there, then you will learn a hell of a lot about the subject.

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim,

Looking through Amamiya's NARCAP paper - for which many thanks - and comparing it with the Lambda launch, without a detailed study, I think you are quite right to say that Lambda is the executive summary. Another flag for you.

Kiyoshi Amamiya clearly didn't do his homework. Perhaps Richard Haines should sack him, he should certainly think more carefully about what he publishes in future. I might add that I've caught out Richard Haines several times before. One I've posted on this website.

As pointed out by Peter Sturrock, the problem is that since Condon reputable peer-reviewed journals have not published material on UFOs. Thus papers like Amamiya's get published on the web and detract from NARCAP's reputation.

But there is a corollary to all this.

Amamiya's paper shows how good the pilot's descriptions of Lambda were.

So pilots' UAP reports are accurate after all.

Jim Oberg has scored a decisive victory over Jim Oberg.

Congratulations!

Originally posted by Lowneck
reply to post by JimOberg

 

Jim,

Looking through Amamiya's NARCAP paper - for which many thanks - and comparing it with the Lambda launch, without a detailed study, I think you are quite right to say that Lambda is the executive summary. Another flag for you.

Kiyoshi Amamiya clearly didn't do his homework. Perhaps Richard Haines should sack him, he should certainly think more carefully about what he publishes in future. I might add that I've caught out Richard Haines several times before. One I've posted on this website.

As pointed out by Peter Sturrock, the problem is that since Condon reputable peer-reviewed journals have not published material on UFOs. Thus papers like Amamiya's get published on the web and detract from NARCAP's reputation.

But there is a corollary to all this.

Amamiya's paper shows how good the pilot's descriptions of Lambda were.

So pilots' UAP reports are accurate after all.

Jim Oberg has scored a decisive victory over Jim Oberg.

Congratulations!

That's always been my opinion. People, pilots included, don't recognize what they don't recognize, but if they describe it well enough there's a better chance the UFO can be explained. They are quantitatively better witnesses.

Originally posted by UFO Partisan
That's always been my opinion. People, pilots included, don't recognize what they don't recognize, but if they describe it well enough there's a better chance the UFO can be explained. They are quantitatively better witnesses.

That's a reasonable hypothesis to debate.

In this case, descriptions of direction and angular size were pretty good.

But aren't you overlooking the 800-pound-yeti in the room?

The pilot descriptions of RANGE and object SIZE and relative motion were crap.

The pilot reports of cause-and-effect EMI phenomena (including 'radar confirmation') were crap.

All but one of the top-quality UFO documentation reports dropped all mention of the contemporary newspaper claim that the people who launched the rocket said -- AT THE TIME -- that they thought it was what the people were seeing.

These report compilers -- sources of supposedly reliably and verified data used by Haines, and COMETA, and by Kean, and by others -- decided that they (and you) didn't need to be distracted by that inconvenient fact ["Ramda"] -- well, it might just have been careless, not deliberate. But they polluted the data base.

We have to guess -- HOW OFTEN HAVE THEY DONE THAT ON OTHER CASES? Call it the "ramda factor".

Are we approaching a consensus and, even better, a forward plan of action?

Originally posted by JimOberg
That's a reasonable hypothesis to debate.

In this case, descriptions of direction and angular size were pretty good.

But aren't you overlooking the 800-pound-yeti in the room?

The pilot descriptions of RANGE and object SIZE and relative motion were crap.

The pilot reports of cause-and-effect EMI phenomena (including 'radar confirmation') were crap.

All but one of the top-quality UFO documentation reports dropped all mention of the contemporary newspaper claim that the people who launched the rocket said -- AT THE TIME -- that they thought it was what the people were seeing.

These report compilers -- sources of supposedly reliably and verified data used by Haines, and COMETA, and by Kean, and by others -- decided that they (and you) didn't need to be distracted by that inconvenient fact ["Ramda"] -- well, it might just have been careless, not deliberate. But they polluted the data base.

We have to guess -- HOW OFTEN HAVE THEY DONE THAT ON OTHER CASES? Call it the "ramda factor".

Are we approaching a consensus and, even better, a forward plan of action?

In my own experience at looking at a very limited number of cases very closely, the original source is always best. Once it goes through someone else's filter, you can have problems. Especially with the TV docs. Sometimes there's dramatic license, sometimes it works the other way and time constraints don't allow for the full story. That's the beautiful part about the internet. Yes, many cases do fall apart but often it's just the opposite and the closer I've looked, the more compelling the phenomenon is.

Originally posted by UFO Partisan
In my own experience at looking at a very limited number of cases very closely, the original source is always best. Once it goes through someone else's filter, you can have problems. Especially with the TV docs. Sometimes there's dramatic license, sometimes it works the other way and time constraints don't allow for the full story. That's the beautiful part about the internet. Yes, many cases do fall apart but often it's just the opposite and the closer I've looked, the more compelling the phenomenon is.

But that's the problem -- you wait until a case 'falls apart' before you STOP believing it's evidence for true UFOs.

Most folks don't withhold judgment until all reasonable -- and a few fluky -- prosaic explanations can be eliminated. They start out believing and demand 'disproof' of the story before they stop trusting it.

In this case, the clue that led to the prosaic explanation was dropped -- or never got INTO -- the top quality data bases. Without it, we wouldn't have reached this point in our socratic dialog.

Without it, this case would remain a member in good standing of a supposedly validated, unexplainable set of pilot reports.

Well actually -- even AFTER this resolution, the case is STILL in the data bases.

What can we do about that?

Does anything HAVE to be done about it?

Over the years I've pointed out to Richard Haines a number of cases that similarly had rocket/space explanations.

He has left EVERY one of them in his data base.

Why? Is there any harm in that?