the great ufo limbo

originally posted by: Bordon81
The search engines I tried this morning only matched internal tag criteria.

Appears to be the same UFO as JAL1628 reported back in the 1980's.

You could have just read this thread, where not one but two people responded that the UFO on youtube with 30 eyewitnesses was a rocket booster re-entry, and Jim Oberg even posted a link with reference to what pages to read.

As the two folks who responded said it's an overhyped example, but I used it because the statement ending the opening post sounds very much like the overhyped example of the 2004 Nimitz incident, where Fravor estimated the size of the tic-tac UFO as 40 feet: "u cant build no 40ft 7 ton machine that goes 5 miles in under a sec without their help js" is what the OP wrote.

What makes that probably the worst claim in all of UFOlogy is, nobody actually saw that, so it's really, really overhyped. What really happened is, radar operator Kevin Day had multiple UFOs on his radar screen, a documentary shows about 9 or 10 of them. He then asked commander Fravor and his wingman to investigate one of the closer UFOs to see what they were. Fravor saw it for a while, then it vanished and he didn't see exactly where it went, neither did the pilots in the wingman plane, they said it just disappeared. Then Kevin Day , who also did not see the UFO travel to the CAP point on radar, for some reason says "it's back at the CAP point", but since he was tracking multiple UFOs, if something appeared at the CAP point how does he know which UFO it was and that it was the same one Fravor was looking at? He doesn't, and what's really sad is you can go through the history of UFOlogy and find where relatively credible people have seen incredible things, so why not use one of those incidents instead of something that NOBODY SAW HAPPEN, either visually or on radar!!! To me it's the worst possible example that could be used.

I found a satellite photo of the JAL 1628 UFO, one of them. Captain Teruchi seemed to have the visual UFO and the radar UFO confused and maybe he thought they were related or the same thing, but the co-pilot said he did not think they were the same thing. A careful review of the evidence suggests the co-pilot was right, they were not related, and eventually the headings of the two phenomena diverged, which can be determined from transcripts of the air traffic control recordings.

That is yet another case that's really overhyped and even the primary witness, Captain Terauchi, eventually told a version of the story where he said the UFO followed him around the 360 degree turn, which contradicted what the Air traffic voice recordings show he said which is he lost sight of the UFO during his turn. The documentaries all latch on to the more incredible claim that the UFO followed him around the turn, to the point where almost everyone if not everyone on ATS parroted that claim because that's what they heard over and over again, and they all attacked me when I said the UFO didn't follow him around the turn. When I showed them the transcript of what the captain actually said to air traffic control, I think they were embarrassed for attacking me and some even thanked me for actually exposing the truth as documented in the ATC recordings. The point is, I think most of the UFO documentaries over-hype the UFO cases and I can almost always find things in them that are demonstrably not true.

Anyway I think I have a working hypothesis for the sources of the JAL1628 UFOs, since we now have a photo of an object in the direction of the radar UFO matching that radar signature, and I was able to confirm on Google Earth using all the visual UFO headings called out by the captain that the lights were all all in the same direction as a known light source on the ground and they even look like that light source, the only thing that's still somewhat mysterious to me is why they were seeing the lights in the air instead of on the ground. There are a couple of possibilities for that, like ice crystal refraction or refraction due to atmospheric density variations. Here's some of the research I did mapping out the headings the pilot called out for the lights and the radar return and so on:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Some of the control tower transcripts detail the radar (electromagnetic signature) of the Yukon UFO's traveling at thousands of MPH with abrupt stops and hovering. My take on the pilot observations is that there may have been some visible light spectra trigger such as an Aurora, northern lights etc that combined with the tower feedback and possible subliminal memory implant created an illusion in the minds eye of the pilot reporting the UFO.

I didn't see anything in the JAL 1628 UFO incident drawings that looked like runway angles of 51 or 167 degrees so that could be something I'm projecting rather than observing in the report.

You have obviously had time to think about this, I'm still reacting to the William Pawelec interview (by Dr. Steven Greer).
He went into the psychology of how UFO interpretation is shared or not and how in most cases the UFO identifies more about the observer than the craft.

I'll need to think about this some more as these are still classified as UFO's for the purpose of the search engines.
Stanton Friedman's death was kind of a negative omen although for me it gave closure for CEOTTK.
Just feeling a little spooked by the mind control implications.

originally posted by: Bordon81
I didn't see anything in the JAL 1628 UFO incident drawings that looked like runway angles of 51 or 167 degrees so that could be something I'm projecting rather than observing in the report.

This is a comparison of some distorted runway lights with the captain's drawing, which even matches for the gap in that airport's lights where the other runway intersects (The airport has two major runways in sort of an X shape, so they cross each other more or less in the middle).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7749147d2a0e.png[/atsimg]

Also, if the runway lights were directional as some runway lights are, the correlation between the air traffic control transcript and the appearance of the lights is very convincing. They see the lights if they are lined up more or less with one of the run ways, but when they are between being lined up with the runways, they lose sight of the lights, as would be expected with directional runway lights.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm beginning to think that all of our FOIA requests are screened and the responses are compartmentalized to a profound degree that prevents universal conclusions. Just trying to figure out what the C in William Pawelec described RFID CHIP might stand for is a challenge.

The JAL 1628 pilot may not have completely understood the technology he had observed on the ground.
The HAARP ionospheric heater supposedly only went operational in 1990 four years after this 1986 sighting and there was talk of a "split screen radar" with possibly a more modern dish technology implementation(that was used to track deorbiting debris).

www.researchgate.net...

The other Yukon UFO you mentioned looks like the Lark satellite, named after a small brown bird.
Note the long spiral implementation there.

en.wikipedia.org...

My interest in these UFO's is primarily the earliest sightings that are clearly related so I think the JAL 1628 pilot might have been trying to explain a pre 1945 ground installation.

a reply to: saskwatch


Disclosure - what a word right!

It appears that you have already reached an answer to your own question but are you sure you're asking the right question(s)?

This is a major problem in Ufology overall; people have already reached the answer and believe they know it. If the real actual "truth" was ever unveiled and it failed to align with the answer you have already produced yourself, would you accept it?

Deciding what the answer to a question that most don't understand or even contemplate if it's the correct question; is why Ufology has always failed.