It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New information about flight JAL-1628?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 09:23 PM
While reading the NSA's FOIA archive I stumbled on a PDF that seems to indicate that a UFO sighted during a "cargo flight" was possibly a satellite.

[atsimg][/atsimg] (or view here)

The only well known UFO case that I can think of involving a cargo flight (and I've done my homework) is JAL-1628. Also, even though the document is heavily redacted, there's a goodly amount of other information to suggest the same thing. Take for instance,


Anyone who's knows anything about the JAL-1628 knows that there were two "drone" type crafts that flew in front of the 747 at about 5:10PM and that 20 minutes later Capt. Terauchi reported to AARTCC,

  • 5:30:23 - JAL1628 - Request, ah, deviate, ah, ah, from, ah, object, ah, request heading two four zero.
  • 5:30:52 - AARTCC - JAL1628 Roger. Fly heading two four zero. Jal1628 heavy, deviations approved as necessary for traffic.
  • 5:30:49 - JAL1628 - It's, ah, quite big...
  • 5:30:52 - AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, you're still broken. Say again.
  • 5:30:56 - JAL1628 - It's, ah, very quite big, ah, plane.

Indicating that he had seen, as he later called it, the "mothership." This fits in line with the one "stationary craft" and the "two other, moving ..." There's more here as well that makes me think this is the JAL-1628 case, but I don't want to bog down the post.

What does ATS think? Is this JAL-1628? If not, why not? If it is, does everyone believe this was a sighting of a low-orbit satellite and if so - how did it disappear at 5:53?

  • 5:53:13 - JAL1628 - JAL1628, ah, pilot’s discretion maintain, ah, two five zero, so , ah, ah, I cannot, I couldn’t see, ah, UFO, over.
  • 5:53:27 - AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, understand. You do not see the traffic any longer.
  • 5:53:31 - JAL1628 - Affirmative.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Xtraeme]
edit on 20/6/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:12 PM
The highly redacted document does not prove that it was a satellite whatsoever. The blacked text before and after the text "the light was a satellite not an aircraft" could be in a context that reads:

Flight control tower prompted the crew to verify if "the light was a satellite not an aircraft" or UFO and were determined not to be a satellite nor the planet Venus.

Or any such similar context. We really can't make much of any conclusions shedding new light into the UFO event from that document, but great find an posting, I too like to scour the foia space for interesting documents....

[edit on 6/15/2007 by greatlakes]

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:31 PM
INteresting post. So much is redacted that there are multiple possible interpretations, but what is this about 300 meters altitude? That's low even for a plane.

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:37 PM
This is a rendering from the description that Capt. Terauchi gave to the FAA. It was first published by the International UFO Reporter in the March/April 1987 issue Volume 12, number 12. The relative size of Capt. Terauchi's Boeing 747 can be seen at the bottom right of the 'satellite':

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 10:54 PM
Here is Capt. Terauchi's actual drawing showing the shape of the craft and the relative size of his Boeing 747:

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 11:01 PM
Are you sure the redacted document is concerning JAL UFO sighting? If so, how?

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 12:24 PM

Talk about disclosure and black out 90% of the document...
This only proves that govt has "something" to hide here.

John Lear , thanks for those amazing pics. If they are backed by the pilot, then they are worth considering.

About the satellite bit, I noticed that there is a line that says "The UFO was at 300 m". (perhaps they forgot to delete that one), so it cannot be a satellite.

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 01:29 PM
Certainly the pdf is about this flight, though. Good find. I'm sure they tossed around lot of ideas trying to explain this one away.

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:23 PM
I still have not seen a link from this redacted document to the JAL airlines UFO sighting. How was this *link* arrived at, I do not see it in the filename, its not at the FOIA website where this document resides, nor is it inside the redacted document itself (from what we can read there)...

The JAL UFO event took place at 35000 ft and then the JAL plane descended to 31000 ft. The document in question states the UFO at 300 meters altitude, clearly not correlating well to the JAL sighting...

So how was this correlation made OP? Am i missing something?

[edit on 6/16/2007 by greatlakes]

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 04:55 PM
There is no guarantee that this is in reference to flight JAL-1628. It's just very likely.

As I stated in the first post the link is:
  1. At the bottom of the FOIA document which reads, "It was a cargo flight."

    There aren't many prolific cargo flights that have been reported on in the UFO community. The biggest two that I know of are
    1. JAL-1628 and
    2. the 1991 Kosmonaut Musa Manarov filming of the approach of the PROGRESS cargo flight towards MIR.

  2. Another link is the description of the lights. There were three crafts in the JAL-1628 sighting. One was largely stationary (the "mothership") and the other two crafts moved about the 747, flying in trail. This seems to match up with the description in the FOIA document, "ONE WAS A STATIONARY, BLINKING LIGHT; THE TWO OTHER, MOVING, LIGHTS CROSSED PATHS ..."
Most of the confusion seems to be coming from the the quote, "The UFO was at an altitude of approximately 300 meters..." I encourage everyone to read Bruce Maccabee's analysis of the JAL-1628 flight. One of the first things you'll read is:

After the plane leveled out he observed "lights that looked like aircraft lights, 30 degrees left front, 2,000 feet below us, moving exactly in the same direction and with the same speed we were. ... IT is important to note the pilot's statement of his belief that the lights were 2,000 feet below him. He could not know how far below the lights were just from his visual sighting. (To determine the distance below he would have to know the exact depression angle and the distance to the lights.) Nevertheless, his statement indicates that his sighting line to the lights had a noticeable depression angle (the angle below horizontal). At 35,000 ft the horizon distance is about 214 nm so the depression angle of the horizon is about 1.5 degrees which is hardly noticeable. The pilot's statement therefore implies that the lights were below, probably considerably below, his horizon, i.e., between himself and the ground, thus ruling out any astronomical source for the lights. "

So after reading that, look at the redacted area of text surrounding the quote, "The UFO was at an altitude of approximately 300 meters..." It's easy to see how the text might actually read, "The UFO was at an altitude of approximately 300 meters below the 747 cargo plane." As Bruce Maccabee points out it would be very difficult to estimate with any amount of certainty the actual distance, especially at dusk. So it's possible, that the ROCC controller was tracking the craft the entire time (he admitted a primary return at least once) and used additional equipment to more accurately measure the telemetry of the UFO in relation to the 747. In which case it's possible the UAP was actually 300m (~1000ft) below the aiplane - not 2000ft as originally reported.

Another aspect of the FOIA document that suggests it's referring to JAL-1628 is, "The light was subsequently identified as at least one aircraft."

It was about 11 minutes past 5 local time, November 17 that Capt. Terauchi first realized that the lights to the left and below were unusual. He later reported thinking, " After watching them for a short time [I determined] they were lights of `special missioned aircrafts or two fighters` on some mission."


Yes, this is still conjecture, but it fits in line with the rest of the details better than the MIR sighting would.

So, greatlakes, if you don't think this is the JAL-1628 flight, do you think it's some other anonymous flight that was never reported on? Or do you have a hunch that it better fits the details of another sighting?

I look forward to your response!

[edit on 16-6-2007 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Xtraeme
There is no guarantee that this is in reference to flight JAL-1628. It's just very likely.

So, greatlakes, if you don't think this is the JAL-1628 flight, do you think it's some other anonymous flight that was never reported on? Or do you have a hunch that it better fits the details of another sighting?

Yes I think its very possible that it refers to a previously unknown UFO sighting, one that was reported to officials, but never officially given out to the public of such a sighting. I think that the numbers of such sightings to be high, the eyewitnesses report it to some gov't agency thinking that thats the proper and most direct course of action, only to have it become 'buried'.

Its possible also that it does refer to the JAL flight, but the evidence is shaky, due to the highly redacted document.

Also note that the document seems to be only pages 15-16 of the full document. Who knows what the title of the document really is, what the rest of the content holds...

Just wanted to point out that from this document, the correlation to JAL1628 is not definite and can be any such sighting that has not been reported to the public.

posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 05:12 AM
for anyone who doesnt know the story of JAL flight over Alaska

has to be my favourite ufo case.

here FAA official recalls the events and subsequent coverup

posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 04:55 PM
yeti101, the History channel recreation of the JAL-1628 flights is definitely one of my favorites. If only because they had Bruce Maccabee and Stanton Friedman talk about the sighting.

It should be underscored for people reading this that the FAA Head of Accidents & Investigation at the time of the JAL-1628 flight, John Callahan, has since come forward and claimed that three members from Reagan's Scientific Study team, the CIA, and the FBI visited FAA headquarters after the sighting. According to Mr. Callahan, after the briefing, the CIA men said,

"this was the first time they had 30 minutes of radar data on a UFO ... and that if they told the American public it would cause panic."
(source - below video)

Following this the CIA men said they were taking all the data; and then swore everyone to secrecy, that the meeting never took place, and was never recorded.

For this to be coming from the mouth of a person who was two levels from the Director of the FAA is staggering.

So add it up.
  1. Capt. Terauchi - A pilot of 29 years says he saw a UFO.
  2. Tamefuji and Tsukuba - The other two crew members, say they saw something that they couldn't explain.
  3. The ROCC controller said he had a primary target in the same position as JAL-1628
  4. The AARTCC controller signed an affidavit saying, "Several times I had primary returns where JL1628 reported the traffic."
  5. Then a week later the FAA Head of Accidents & Investigation, John Callahan, claims he was visited by the CIA, FBI, and Reagan's Scientific Study team, and was sworn to secrecy after discussing the JAL-1628 sighting. A discussion where the subject was treated very seriously - as though it were a real UFO.
The only way this story could get better is if the UFO crashed.

It should also be noted that John Callahan claimed he kept some of the flight records.

In front of the National Press Club (as seen below), he presented some of this information and boldly states that he's prepared to testify before Congress, under oath, that everything he had presented was true.

So, if this report is in any way related to JAL-1628. It would be extremely interesting to find out what other details the NSA might be able to bring to bear on the subject.

For instance, what's this about a satellite?

I just wish I could find out more about this document...

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 06:48 PM
Another thought just occurred to me. What if the the other people who attended the meeting in DC, the group of people who John Callahan couldn't remember, were NSA officers?

It's interesting to note that if this PDF is somehow related to JAL-1628 it may actually have been partially the result of the very meeting that John Callahan talks about in the above videos.

Ah conspiracies.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Xtraeme]

posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 09:49 PM
I'm probably stating the obvious (and nothing much, at that) here, but it's curious to note that the phrase 'STET' is used by the 'CARGO PLANE' sentence.

For those that might not know, STET is a proofreading term used as an instruction to disregard an editorial change. What this may mean, if anything, I do not know, just thought I'd bring it up and try and add something to the discussion!

posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 12:52 AM
Corda, glad you brought it up!

I had the same thought, though rather than thinking of it in proof-reading terms ("let it stand") I thought of it more in the sense of a person deciding what to and not to redact. If I were to venture a guess I'd say that the first person to act on the FOIA request passed over the document and underlined the whole ending paragraph to indicate that it should be removed. Then a coworker, or perhaps a superior, scanned the markings and penned in the STET to override the decision.

Or, maybe this was a first draft of a report that was destined for some high-level operator within the NSA - who knows?

If it's the first, though, it suggests something rather interesting and that is that this was originally considered sensitive by the first reader. This tells me that if anyone's to read anything in to this document it should be focussed on those last few words, "it was a cargo flight."

Another thing to note is the title of the report on the NSA's website, "Communications Intelligence (COMINT) report - "XXXXX Unidentified Flying Objects."

Most of the declassified COMINT reports I've read include a header that has the destination, sender, time, classification, and so on and so forth. Whereas in this report absolutely everything, including part of the title is redacted. This tells me that the screener didn't want to disclose the specific event this was tied to.

So it's not too much of a leap to say the screener thought the bottom passage gave too much away.

Of course I could also be talking out of my ass. But hey, it's just a theory.

I'd love to hear other ideas, thoughts?

posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 06:28 AM
I'm curious. Did the radar sightings confirm/suggest/contradict the reported size of the UFOs

top topics


log in