The strange story of JAL 1628

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

I think that his predispositon does have some bearing on the overall "story" and its outcome. It seems like it has been established that he had misidentified something as a UFO already and had at least one other sighting. He also called off jets being scrambled due to his belief that they would have been vaporized by this thing. This was based on his "knowledge" of a famous UFO incident where a piolot died chasing a weather balloon.

This is the first I've heard of that. My knowledge of the sighting[s] up until now has been limited to what was reported on cable "documentaries", which played up the credibility of the pilot and made no mention of this potentially damning background information. Still I am not prepared to discount his testimony... there were multiple sightings from different aircraft, as well as radar returns. But radar is not necessarily a reliable indicator of size... or presence, even.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets

 

It's disappointing that, instead of accommodating new information, some people will work so hard just to reaffirm their own initial conclusions, even when those conclusions are obviously either preliminary, or based upon assumptions which conservative, mainstream science is now casting aside as obsolete.

Sadly, I have come to the damning conclusion most of these people who fit the category you so succinctly describe, find it almost impossible to mentally break free of the constraints holding them back from objectively seeing outside of the big box for whatever physiological reasons.

Maybe it's a mental block or maybe they enjoy pushing other folks' buttons. I don't know but sometimes it does bother me people exist as such.

By all means, lets keep things objective and keep each other honest. Lets start by looking at this piece by piece and throw out terms like "pacing", "craft", "eluding" and all other leading terminology. I guess you guys can go on and keep patting each others backs if you want.

Why does someone believing its a cloud upset you so much. It doesn't bother me at all when someone believes this was space aliens.

reply to post by internos


I have heard this story before a few times. One thing that was never made clear is how many of the passengers on the plane also witnessed this object from the passenger windows. If passengers came forward it would certainly add crediibility.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

I think that his predispositon does have some bearing on the overall "story" and its outcome. It seems like it has been established that he had misidentified something as a UFO already and had at least one other sighting. He also called off jets being scrambled due to his belief that they would have been vaporized by this thing. This was based on his "knowledge" of a famous UFO incident where a piolot died chasing a weather balloon.

This is the first I've heard of that. My knowledge of the sighting[s] up until now has been limited to what was reported on cable "documentaries", which played up the credibility of the pilot and made no mention of this potentially damning background information. Still I am not prepared to discount his testimony... there were multiple sightings from different aircraft, as well as radar returns. But radar is not necessarily a reliable indicator of size... or presence, even.

Who said anything about discounting anything!!!! wait who is this? draknoir2? oh sorry. No, we shouldn't discout it but we should keep this in mind also.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by internos

 

I have heard this story before a few times. One thing that was never made clear is how many of the passengers on the plane also witnessed this object from the passenger windows. If passengers came forward it would certainly add crediibility.

Absolutely zero passengers saw this and for good reason. There were no passengers.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian


Who said anything about discounting anything!!!! wait who is this? draknoir2? oh sorry. No, we shouldn't discout it but we should keep this in mind also.

Don't confuse my arguments in pure logic with my actual personal views.

I don't always let Brighter make them up for me.

reply to post by draknoir2

I recall some time ago someone had posted a satellite image from the time of the sighting - NOAA, I think, It showed some large circular weather anomaly. Wish I could recall the thread. They had a flight path overlay and you could see the changes in direction in apparent response to the anomaly.

Anyone else recall the thread?

The topic is covered more extensively on this threadOldfield UFO case.

Kandinsky, Internos and Arbitrageur went head to head with charts, maps, etc.

reply to post by Brighter

You're quoting selectively. You left out the part where it was in front of him. It was in front, he requested a course change to fly around it, and then it was behind him. That's not following. That's what a cloud would do, as shown here:

Originally posted by draknoir2
I recall some time ago someone had posted a satellite image from the time of the sighting - NOAA, I think, It showed some large circular weather anomaly. Wish I could recall the thread. They had a flight path overlay and you could see the changes in direction in apparent response to the anomaly.

Anyone else recall the thread?

Yes it was my thread and here's the link to it with a picture of the map. Evidence is pretty strong the mothership and the radar returns were the cloud, however the case that the other lights are airport lights is not as conclusive, but it's a fascinating coincidence that the lights always come from the direction of the airport and look amazingly like airport lights, if they aren't airport lights.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
From: www.physicsforums.com...

Scroll down to:
Apr6-07, 11:49 AM Aether

Dr. Maccabee has shared with me a hand-drawn plot of JAL1628's ground track, and I have plotted some (not all) of those points on this satellite image: img372.imageshack.us... The four blue arrows that I have drawn on top of the satellite image all point to a big cloud that is approximately 30nm in diameter. The first blue arrow (near the timestamp 5:31:08) represents the direction in which the flight crew were looking when they asked the air traffic controller for permission to turn right to avoid an object ahead of them:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a703628180e0.jpg[/atsimg]

From this, I conclude that this cloud is in fact what Terauchi saw and reported as the "mothership" and as "the silhouette of a gigantic spaceship".

I wish I could take credit for this discovery but it's Aether who deserves the credit and his analysis did hold up to scrutiny when I looked a the directions of the radar returns on my own detailed map.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter

 

Could it be a reflection off of a large cloud? That could explain the apparent "pacing" and subsequent stopping.

The cloud only explains the radar returns...it doesn't explain all the visual observations, except for the giant mothership (the cloud). The other visual observations were all in the direction of an airport and all looked like airport lights so it isn't too much of a stretch to wonder if they were airport lights, possibly seen with some kind of atmospheric distortion which isn't uncommon to that area.

Originally posted by Jaellma
reply to post by draknoir2

 

I recall some time ago someone had posted a satellite image from the time of the sighting - NOAA, I think, It showed some large circular weather anomaly. Wish I could recall the thread. They had a flight path overlay and you could see the changes in direction in apparent response to the anomaly.

Anyone else recall the thread?

The topic is covered more extensively on this threadOldfield UFO case.

Kandinsky, Internos and Arbitrageur went head to head with charts, maps, etc.

Thanks. I'll give it a read.

Here's the map I made that also shows the location of the airfield, with the direction the lights were observed coming from (the airfield), with the transcript of the course change request to avoid the "traffic", which according to the plane's radar registered the same color reflection as a cloud would, so it's hard to say it wasn't a cloud with a picture of the cloud and a radar reflection indicating it was a cloud:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But back to the lights, they were white and yellow, and some strobe lights. Is that consistent with the colors of airport lights? I think so.

Now let's look at how the perspective of the crew changed as they proceeded in their flight path:



When they first report to the control tower at 17:19 they are still lined up pretty well with the PABI long runway, though maybe a little bit off.

Note at 17:28 as they approach the cloud, JL1628 requests and are granted a course change. Then at 1730 when they may be in a position such that the airport light mirage can illuminate the cloud, they make the famous statement:

5:30:56 JAL1628 - It's, ah, very quite big, ah, plane.
(snip)
The captain's narrative continues after the right turn: "We checked our rear [and] there was still the ship following us. 'This JAL1628. Again requesting for change course 45 degrees to the right.' We had to get away from that object. 'JAL1628. This is Anchorage Center. We advise you, continue and take 360 degree turn.' 'Jal1628, thank you. We will continue 360 degree turn" [2].

Unfortunately the captain was not totally accurate in his recall of these apparently frightening events. The AARTCC transcript shows that there was no request for a second right turn. There was, however, a request for a descent in altitude from 35,000 to 31,000 ft at 5:32:07 followed by a request to turn to a heading of "two one zero," i.e. about a 12 degree turn to the left, at 5:34:56. Later on, at 5:36:37 the AARTCC controller asked the plane to make a 360 degree right turn. But all of this is getting ahead of the story.

So, what was it that the captain saw that caused this "flight response?" What did he mean by the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship?

Well thanks to our physicsforum friend, we have one possibility. Now I've heard over and over about this 360 degree turn that it rules out any theory like mine about a fixed object, but does it? Let's examine Bruce Maccabee's report:

5:34:38 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, say position of your traffic.

5:34:42 JAL1628 - Affirmative. Just over Fairbanks.

5:34:52 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, understood. Your traffic is over Fairbanks at this time.

5:34:56 JAL1628 - Affirmative, ah, requesting heading two one zero.

5:35:02 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, roger. Deviations approved as necessary for traffic.

edit on 22-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

reply to post by draknoir2
You're welcome. It's probably in the Top 10 most technically entertaining threads we have on ATS.

Each of the 3 mentioned above would probably like to think he came out as the most convincing but based on expert and witness analysis and also from the responses from readers on this thread, you should be able to form your own analysis of what happened.

Good reading!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That is actually quite impressive. Is this only the flight path when seeing the giant cloud-ship and not the first objects?

Or is the theory that the airfield accounts for the first objects?

The other visual observations were all in the direction of an airport and all looked like airport lights so it isn't too much of a stretch to wonder if they were airport lights, possibly seen with some kind of atmospheric distortion which isn't uncommon to that area

nevermind

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
That is actually quite impressive. Is this only the flight path when seeing the giant cloud-ship and not the first objects?

Or is the theory that the airfield accounts for the first objects?

There were two things. The cloud which I'm pretty sure about, and the airport lights which is an interesting hypothesis but not completely convincing. They are both shown on that map and I think it encompasses the relevant times of the flight to both events.

[Correction to my above post: They were traveling at 910 km/hr, which is roughly 565 mph.]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

You're quoting selectively. You left out the part where it was in front of him. It was in front, he requested a course change to fly around it, and then it was behind him. That's not following. That's what a cloud would do, as shown here:

Are you referring to when they requested to change course 45 degrees to the right?

He made that request when he noticed the large object suddenly appear behind them. He didn't see this object fly past them, as though he were passing a cloud.

Let's look at the series of events.

Early on, the captain (Terauchi) and crew were visually tracking lights in front of them at their 11 o'clock, but these lights in front of them were quite distinct from the object that was actually following them:

5:24:50 AARTCC JAL1628, do you still have, uh, visual contact with the, ah, traffic?

5:24:53 JAL1628 Affirmative. Also, (4) we (have) radar contact, ah...(unintelligible; broken
transmission).

5:25:02 AARTCC JAL1628 heavy, roger, sir. I'm picking up a hit on the radar approximately
five miles in trail of your six o'clock position (i.e., behind the plane). Do you concur?

(Note: this was probably a silly question to ask since the crew could not see behind the plane.
However, it is the first indication that the Elmendorf radar may have detected something other
than the plane.)

5:25:12 JAL1628 Ah, negative, ah, 11 o'clock, ah, eight miles, ah, same level. Over.

Link

In other words, while Terauchi and the crew were initially focused on the objects in front of them that they picked up on their on-board radar, they were actually unaware of the fact that they were being followed by the huge object.

About five minutes later, Terauchi got visuals of this very object behind them, and requested a 45 degree change of course to get it off of their tail:

Here is Terauchi's subsequent account ...

"We were just above the bright city lights and we checked the pale white light behind us. Alas! There was a silhouette of a gigantic spaceship. We must run away quickly! 'Anchorage Center. This is JAL1628 requesting a change of course to right 45 degrees.'"

And here is the actual transcript ...

5:30:16 JAL1628 (very broken communication; unintelligible)

5:30:20 AARTCC JAL1628 heavy, you're coming in broken. Say again.

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.

Link

After this, they descended 4,000 feet, turned 12 degrees to the left and then made a 360 degree right turn, all during which this object followed them in formation. A cloud can't do that.

So here's what happened: They were tracking visually and by radar the smaller lighted objects in front of them. There is no way these were clouds or airport lights. Terauchi described the lights in front of them as being at different times at the same altitude (35,000 ft) as their 747 and as even being at a higher altitude as their plane. These objects were also picked up on military radar that tracks objects according to altitude, and I'm pretty sure they weren't aiming their radar at the ground. Furthermore, Terauchi picked up those same objects on his on-board radar that he made sure to aim straight ahead with no depression angle. As the objects approached the 747 at one point, they lit up the interior of the cabin and Terauchi could feel the heat from them on his face. Airport lights on the ground don't do that.

During this time, they didn't know it but they were being followed by the larger object, which was picked up separately on radar as Terauchi and crew were looking at the lights in front of them.

Five minutes later, Terauchi was able to see that object that had been flying behind them the entire time. He became startled and suddenly requested to change course to let that object pass them. They then performed the maneuvers noted above, while the object followed them.

So, I'm wondering if you could provide more evidence for the fact that they requested a change of course to avoid an oncoming large object. Are you sure you're not mixing up the two separate sightings?

Could you also touch on how it's possible for a cloud to follow - in formation - a 747 through a 360 degree turn?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That's an awful lot of force-fitting. Beside the huge problem of absolute bearing to the 'cloud' at different times, I don't see you addressing apparent or angular size here.

The geographic scale isn't apparent from your purple weather image, and it's easy for anyone to miss, so it's worth pointing out that the aircraft flew through at least 4 degrees of latitude during this sighting. That's 240 nautical miles / ~280 statute. (IF traveling straight down the meridian; it would be even farther were we to factor in the E/W component.)

How big does a 30 mile wide cloud appear to be when it's 200 miles away?

How big does a 30 mile wide cloud appear to be when it's only a few miles away?

There should have been at least a 20x change in the cloud's apparent size. From about the size of a fist at arm's length, to covering practically their entire field of view. Why do none of the 3 flight crew members mention this?




**And before offering up things like 'inversion layers' or 'ice crystals', remember... ~300 miles were covered during this sighting.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I have just spent some time reading your analysis from the thread you linked. Seems like you have laid out a pretty good case. Very informative discussion. I'm going to refrain from commenting more until I read and understand more.

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
How big does a 30 mile wide cloud appear to be when it's 200 miles away?

The cloud aka "mothership" was never seen that far away. I never suggested it was. If you think it was, you need to familiarize yourself with the facts of the case, as you're mistaken.

It was only when the pilot got relatively close to it that he referenced a giant mothership. Prior to that I am going by the radar evidence and crew's description so I can't be misinterpreting anything more than they are. This is the pilot's sketch of the cloud, on radar:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
brumac.8k.com...
...But the captain's sketch looks like this:



And that looks like the flight engineer's description, not the captain's:

FLIGHT engineer Tsukuba recalled seeing on the radar screen at "about 10 miles" a "green dot like, not exactly a dot. It was not a dot but stream like", i.e., elongated. He did "not think it (the radar target) was the same lights as the one (sic) I saw in front of us."

Now I don't agree with all of maccabee's analysis though his presentation of the facts is outstanding. But I do agree with this part of his analysis:

At any rate, the shape, size and color of the radar target indicated that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector.

The captain seemed to confirm this was also his interpretation as the reflection was too weak to be from a solid object, such as an aircraft made from metal:

In commenting on the radar image the captain pointed out that "normally it appears in red when an aircraft radar catches another aircraft" whereas green is usually the color of a weak weather target such as a cloud. The fact that the echo was green on the screen led him to ask whether or not the "metal used in the spaceship is different from ours."(2)

So the captain is wondering why the alien ship appears to look like a cloud on radar, and wonders if maybe the "metal used in the spaceship is different from ours" which is why it has a radar relection like a cloud. I am merely taking this explanation by the captain, and HIS description and drawing of the object on his radar, and suggesting that maybe it WAS a cloud. I think that's what it was.

And you might say surely a pilot can tell the difference between a could and a mothership...I say, look at this picture of a cloud...it does look like a mothership, doesn't it? We only have the satellite image of the cloud the captain flew around, so we don't know what it looked like from the pilot's perspective, but if it looked anything like this, I wouldn't blame him for calling it a mothership:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aacd7cd49322.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Arbitrageur
That thread you linked gives me nostalgia.

I used to enjoy the sport of debating in the UFO forums and it was genuinely competitive and challenging. Sure, it got snarky sometimes but we kept it gentlemanly and walked away with no hard feelings.

It's still amongst my favourite threads and the respect I have for you hasn't diminished.

Originally posted by Brighter
After this, they descended 4,000 feet, turned 12 degrees to the left and then made a 360 degree right turn, all during which this object followed them in formation. A cloud can't do that. ...

Could you also touch on how it's possible for a cloud to follow - in formation - a 747 through a 360 degree turn?

I don't know why people keep propagating this myth, but it's a myth. They lost sight of the object and there's no confirmation at all it followed them around the turn. A lot of people say that, but there's simply no evidence for it. The object was there, they made the turn, and after the turn it was right where it was before the 360 turn, so the object didn't have to move to do that, it only had to stay where it was. I'm talking about the object they made the course change to avoid flying toward.

Here is ground radar reporting the primary return (probably the cloud, the same one the captain observed) in front of JAL1628:

brumac.8k.com...

5:26:03 AARTCC I'm picking up a primary approximately 50 miles southeast. But it's right in
front of the (JAL1628). (4)

See that, IN FRONT, not following.

5:26:13 ROCC OK. I've got him about....
5:26:15 AARTCC Eight miles in front of the (JAL1628) he's got traffic at the same altitude
(35,000 fty).
5:26:18 ROCC OK. I've got him about his, ah, oh, it looks like about, ah, 10 o'clock at about
that range, yes.

Again this is in front. Here is the course change request:

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.
(Note: since the controller knew that there were no other known aircraft in the sky it was
OK for JAL1628 to go anywhere it wanted to avoid "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.

I've noted this time on my map, and this quote. It's when he's close to the cloud, and has made this course change to avoid it.

So here's what happened: They were tracking visually and by radar the smaller lighted objects in front of them.

According to the flight engineer, they were two different things. He didn't think the radar reflection was the same as the lights they were seeing.

FLIGHT engineer Tsukuba recalled seeing on the radar screen at "about 10 miles" a "green dot like, not exactly a dot. It was not a dot but stream like", i.e., elongated. He did "not think it (the radar target) was the same lights as the one (sic) I saw in front of us."

There is no way these were clouds or airport lights. Terauchi described the lights in front of them as being at different times at the same altitude (35,000 ft) as their 747 and as even being at a higher altitude as their plane. These objects were also picked up on military radar that tracks objects according to altitude, and I'm pretty sure they weren't aiming their radar at the ground. Furthermore, Terauchi picked up those same objects on his on-board radar that he made sure to aim straight ahead with no depression angle. As the objects approached the 747 at one point, they lit up the interior of the cabin and Terauchi could feel the heat from them on his face. Airport lights on the ground don't do that.

As I said, I'm pretty sure the thing that had all the properties of a cloud was probably a cloud. Regarding the lights, that's true that airport lights wouldn't heat up the captains face. So if they actually did that, then it wasn't airport lights, I admit that. However, I can't rule out the possibility that the captain got excited and felt flush when he saw something surprising...this does have the sensation of warming your face, and it's not just mental, it's physical...you can see extra blood flowing in the face when this happens and it can make the cheeks red.

If this is what happened, then the captain really could have felt heat in his face, though the heat would be coming from expanded capillaries and extra blood flow. Is that what happened? Who knows? It might seem like a bit of a stretch, but the other evidence that the lights look like airport lights is too coincidental to just dismiss, so anyone wanting to keep an open mind should at least consider the possibility. And I'm going by the captain's own sketch of the lights (followed by some airport lights, slightly distorted, for comparison):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7749147d2a0e.png[/atsimg]
Maybe it wasn't airport lights. But I'm not ready to rule out that possibility, if there's a possibility the heat the captain felt could have been from being flush with excitement.

www.healthguidance.org...

Any emotion that is a form of 'excitement' can result in flushing in the face. This includes embarrassment yes, but it also encompasses anger, fear, lust or anything else that gets our 'blood pumping'. That's precisely what our blood is doing in these situations you see – pumping – as a result of the 'fight or flight' response our body secretes adrenaline resulting in a faster and more powerful heartbeat as well as a dilation of the blood vessels. This means that there is more pressure in your veins which are now also carrying more blood.

This is a real physiological effect, and you can even see the extra blood flow:

Five minutes later, Terauchi was able to see that object that had been flying behind them the entire time.

See Terauchi's sketch above. It shows the object in front of the plane. It's in the lower left corner of the radar display. It's obviously not behind them at this point. So it wasn't flying behind them the entire time.

Your references to the ground radar getting other targets are interesting, but when you look at the comments about that, I suspect they would have never even mentioned the other, spurious ground radar hits had the captain not seen something...because the ground radar never got a good track (except for the cloud). So it's really a stretch to say that the ground radar on targets other than the cloud was reliable:

AT 5:51:32, after the planes had passed one another, the UA plane reported being able to
see the JAL plane silhouetted against the sky. The UA captain could see the contrail as well as
the jet but nothing else. The controller responded, “We got just a few primary hits on the
target and then, ah, we really haven’t got a good track on him, ever, “ meaning that the radar
never showed a continuous track (a continuous series of “blips”) of primary-only radar targets
associated with the unusual “traffic.”

Such sporadic hits aren't really good evidence of anything, and the other plane they asked to look for the object where those sporadic returns were didn't see anything:

DURING the next several minutes TOTEM viewed the JAL plane but couldn’t see any other
traffic.

So I think there's some basis to confirm the spurious signals were just that, spurious, since the other aircraft couldn't see anything but the JAL flight.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Thanks Kandinsky, I appreciate that. I don't make it to the UFO threads much lately, but it brings back nostalgia for me too!

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Regarding the lights, that's true that airport lights wouldn't heat up the captains face. So if they actually did that, then it wasn't airport lights, I admit that. However, I can't rule out the possibility that the captain got excited and felt flush when he saw something surprising...this does have the sensation of warming your face, and it's not just mental, it's physical...you can see extra blood flowing in the face when this happens and it can make the cheeks red.

There is no question that someone can have the sensation of heat on their face that is purely psychological. This is what surprises me sometimes when someone says "psychological explanations can be ruled out" when they miss the most basic of psychological explainations. Personally, I sweat profusely when I eat spicy foods and yet I am almost positive that the spices are not actually producing heat. I also start sweating when I walk down the spicy section of the grocery store. In fact, I am starting to feel flush now by just talking about it.

The ONLY way to rule out a psychological explaination for the feeling of heat on the captains face is to have a recorded temprature of the plane. Would that exist?