The strange story of JAL 1628

reply to post by shermanium

Shermanium,

No problem at all. Applying a level of scrutiny to the posts is a good thing

'Denying/pleading ignorance?' - spot on!! That's what I was thinking.

Unfortunately, this is the frustrating part - speculation on what they didn't see and why they didn't see, while their senior pilot did (again, I'm referring to the second incident with a different crew).

As for the '1628' incident, if their is such a thing as a 'slamdunk' investigation, with corroborating evidence, that's got to come as close as any incident. Amazing story.

The story is long, Internos knows it but leave him alone.

Originally posted by internos
Dear friends, i share this one, of course discussed before,

duplicate thread?

[edit on 11/11/2008 by internos]

mate, i dont know what you're on about.

anyway, so you know, i enjoyed this thread yesterday (appreciate you pulling he pieces of the jal thing together - i like this story very much) however your reaction to another member today who had obvious enthusiasm for a differing subject was poor imho.

but i doubt you care what i think regardless.

[edit on 18/7/2009 by internos]

Originally posted by urdead


I googled "terauchi ufo" and found this explanation (by Paul Raeburn) for the event:

www.skepticfiles.org...

!!! and !!! again! I find it highly unbelievable that a pilot would mistake any planet for a ufo. Philip Klass is cited in the article: "This is not the first time that an experienced pilot has mistaken a bright celestial body for a UFO, nor will it be the last".

When reading such a statement one would like to reply: This is not the first time a sceptic has mistaken a ufo for a bright celestial body.

I really hate skeptics who take such a cynical and lazy approach to 'debunking' sightings like these. It's an insult to any half-intelligent person. "Ahh, you didn't see anything! It was (flares, temperature inversions, a blimp, a planet, yadayada)." This is a group sighting with several highly credible witnesses and this guy tries to write it off as being a planet?

Anyway, super fascinating stuff. I particularly like the renderings on the youtube vid. Really makes it easy to imagine and it's quite chilling.

looks like a wraith ship ... ut oh!

thanks for posting this; was becoming a bit disenchanted with this board and wading through topics that lacked much (or sometimes any) substance.

cheers.

Originally posted by longfade

Originally posted by urdead
www.skepticfiles.org...

!!! and !!! again! I find it highly unbelievable that a pilot would mistake any planet for a ufo. Philip Klass is cited in the article: "This is not the first time that an experienced pilot has mistaken a bright celestial body for a UFO, nor will it be the last".

When reading such a statement one would like to reply: This is not the first time a sceptic has mistaken a ufo for a bright celestial body.

I really hate skeptics who take such a cynical and lazy approach to 'debunking' sightings like these. It's an insult to any half-intelligent person. "Ahh, you didn't see anything! It was (flares, temperature inversions, a blimp, a planet, yadayada)." This is a group sighting with several highly credible witnesses and this guy tries to write it off as being a planet?

Longfade, I think you're right on the money there but I don't think Klass was a 'sceptic', I think he was a 'cynic'.

Klass was known as a bit of joke even in sceptical circles and all he was really (in)famous for was noisily 'shoehorning in' preconceived explanations onto events irrespective of any contradictory evidence.

The retired electrician was also fond of muddying the water with ridicule and scorn - classic cynic behaviour.

This (Alaska JAL) incident is a truly interesting one and for him to lazily suggest it was a planet just goes to show how hopelessly prejudice and wilfully ignorant the man actually was.

(Rant over).

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by UmbraSumus

 

i used to think this was one of the best ufo cases. But as has been posted already his crew never saw the giant ufo the captain claims to have seen. Why didnt they see it?

I'm not sure where you're getting your data, but a NICAP report written up by Bruce Maccabee quoted Takanori Tamefuji and Yoshio Tsukuba. In their statements they say they saw something. However it's obvious they're unwilling to speculate as to what it was.

Direct quotes from Yoshio Tsukuba,

The flight engineer who sat behind the copilot, Yoshio Tsukuba, had a poorer view of the lights. He recalled that when he first saw them he was looking "through the L1 window at the 11 o'clock position" (about 30 degrees to the left of straight ahead) and he saw "clusters of lights undulating" [10]. The clusters were "made of two parts...shaped like windows of an airplane" (i.e., arranged in square or rectangular clusters). He emphasized that "the lights in front of us were different from town lights." He described the colors as white or amber. (Note: keep in mind the descriptions of these lights and the flight dynamics for comparison with explanations which were put forth months later that these were misidentified astronomical phenomena and reflections on clouds.)

Quotes from Takanori Tamefuji's statement,

The copilot, Takanori Tamefuji, compared the numerous lights or flames to "Christmas assorted" lights with a "salmon" color. (9) He said, "I remember red or orange, and white landing light, just like a landing light. And weak green, ah, blinking." The intensity wasn't constant but rather it pulsated: "became stronger, became weaker., became stronger, became weaker, different from strobe lights" (which have very quick flashes). The lights were "swinging" in unison as if there were "very good formation flight...close (formation)" of two aircraft side by side. He had no doubt that he was seeing some sort of aerial object or objects just ahead and to the left of the airplane. He compared the clarity of the lights to seeing "night flight head-on traffic" at which time it is only possible to see the lights on the approaching aircraft and "we can not see the total shape."

Furthermore this case becomes more intriguing as you factor in John Callahan's comments.

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.

It should be noted John Callahan kept the flight records and in front of the National Press Club presented this information boldly stating he's prepared to testify before Congress, under oath, that everything he presented was true.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by internos


if that is a rendition that would be mighty scarey-have any passengers come forward??

reply to post by Jay-in-AR

If this is a black-budgeted military project, where in the WORLD do they build that thing?!

I'm willing to bet the moon, if the stories about the moon anomalies are true to any degree. I am sure there are places on earth to do it- but think of the hassle of going up thru the atmosphere, tackling gravity, dealing with air traffic, ect...

[edit on 22-5-2009 by wylekat]

Originally posted by longfade

Originally posted by urdead

www.skepticfiles.org...

!!! and !!! again! I find it highly unbelievable that a pilot would mistake any planet for a ufo. Philip Klass is cited in the article: "This is not the first time that an experienced pilot has mistaken a bright celestial body for a UFO, nor will it be the last".

When reading such a statement one would like to reply: This is not the first time a sceptic has mistaken a ufo for a bright celestial body.

I really hate skeptics who take such a cynical and lazy approach to 'debunking' sightings like these. It's an insult to any half-intelligent person. "Ahh, you didn't see anything! It was (flares, temperature inversions, a blimp, a planet, yadayada)." This is a group sighting with several highly credible witnesses and this guy tries to write it off as being a planet?

Anyway, super fascinating stuff. I particularly like the renderings on the youtube vid. Really makes it easy to imagine and it's quite chilling.

LOL! Does this Klass guy actually believe that a seasoned flight crew, of not only an airliner, but a large international airliner, would dare mention over the air, or bring forward such a tremendous account if it was not happening?? Not to mention stating that the object was the size of two (2) aircraft carriers? I would imagine that they would be able to distinguish between a celestial body or something that is definitely not.

I have no use for skeptics - especially when you have professionals staking their entire careers and livelihoods on what they report (or not).

This is a great post and an intriguing incident.

Outstanding work on one of the most interesting ufo cases ever!!!!!!

Deep analysis, and with the attitude that will help us all glue the pieces together of this puzzle...

this is the kind of work that gives this site it's reputation

Respect man!

Bumping a GREAT thread.

The most detailed report I have seen on one of the top cases, everything is in here.

I have told you before internos, but I'll say it again, GREAT JOB.

Excellent Thread Internos!

This is a fascinating case!

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by UmbraSumus

 

i used to think this was one of the best ufo cases. But as has been posted already his crew never saw the giant ufo the captain claims to have seen. Why didnt they see it?

I'm not sure where you're getting your data, but a NICAP report written up by Bruce Maccabee quoted Takanori Tamefuji and Yoshio Tsukuba. In their statements they say they saw something. However it's obvious they're unwilling to speculate as to what it was.

Actually Bruce Maccabee not only confirms what you said, but also confirms what yeti101 said about the captain being the only one to see the mothership. We know why the other crew members didn't see it, because it was on the left side of the plane when the captain saw it, so the other crew members don't have visibility in that location:

www.physicsforums.com...

Personally I think that the initial sighting of two objects in front of the plane, seen by the whole crew, is a "strong" UFO event. However the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship" by the captain alone is a "weak" UFO event. Too bad the crew didn't speak English better.

-bruce maccabee

[edit on 30-8-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I've decided to add a link to your spectacular thread:

The Oldfield UFO Film - Evidence that some UFOs are mirages

Not only it's deserving to be read, it also ADDS MUCH to this case, regardless what i think about it.

[edit on 30/8/2009 by internos]

reply to post by internos


Internos, what can I say? I too am a long time researcher in this field, but this is amazing. From the size of the object, it must have been a Star Cruiser. I have seen my share of ET craft, but never one that size! Great post, ans by the way, please do write that book, and I will buy a copy too. Great work! F&S. Love and Light, Autowrench

really good article nontheless

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by internos

 

Internos, what can I say? I too am a long time researcher in this field, but this is amazing. From the size of the object, it must have been a Star Cruiser. I have seen my share of ET craft, but never one that size! Great post, ans by the way, please do write that book, and I will buy a copy too. Great work! F&S. Love and Light, Autowrench

hey autowrench...do you have past threads of your own experiences, with photos, clips etc. that i could look at?