It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That seems quite easy to explain to me. In fact, you couldn't ask for a more perfect explanation of exactly what a mirage does!!!! If anything, this description CONFIRMS it's a mirage, rather than casting any doubt on it: "moving exactly in the same direction and with the same speed we were" That's EXACTLY what a mirage will do when observed in this manner my friend!!!
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
(1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil. Therefore:
(2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
However, in this case you are debating, quoted above, I think you might have missed a variable. For the above described mirage to travel with the plane, would not the temperature inversion (used as a secondary mirror in this example, like in a telescope) also need to be in motion comparable with the ground point and the observer's perspective?
It seems to me that if you have two moving points (the observer and the runway which was moving relative to the observer's perspective, as you mentioned) then your 'mirror' point would also need to necessarily move at the approximate speed of the observer, in order to maintain the illusion of visual/radar contact?
Perhaps I'm confused on this point, thoughts?
-WFA
But then, on March 5, the FAA announced the results of the inquiry. According to the FAA press release the FAA "was unable to confirm the event" [15]. The event was unconfirmed because "a second radar target near the JAL flight at the time of the reported sighting was not another aircraft but rather a split radar return from the JAL Boeing 747." In other words, the FAA couldn't confirm the sighting on radar because the "traffic" or "primary return" reported by the AARTCC controller at the time of the sighting was merely an artifact of the radar set.
Originally posted by Tifozi
Alright, I have been reading the case on internos thread about the case and I must divide my points in two sections. In favor and against.
I'm not trying to put your hopes down, neither I'm debunking this, it's just a pilot opinion from a pilot point of view of flying.
(snip)
...I need more information to make a more steady statement. Does anyone have a more detailed description of the flight?
Originally posted by Tifozi
In the early days of the radar era, radar waves could only outline big particles, meaning, that you can't make a difference from a flock of birds or a bunch of bombers.
Source
Clear, calm fall nights are perfect for creating inversions near the ground. The ground cools much quicker than the air, which cools the air near to the ground. But the air higher up is slower to cool. On calm nights, when the wind isn't stirring up the air, the air close to the ground can grow quite cool compared with the air above, creating a "nocturnal" because this happens at night, or "radiation" inversion because heat is radiating away from the ground much quicker than from the air higher up. If the air near the ground often cools to its dew point temperature, water vapor in the air condenses to form tiny water droplets, which drift in the air to create a layer of radiation fog.
"like two bear cubs playing with each other,"
"shooting off lights"
5:50:35 UA69 - UA69 heavy. We've got the Japan Airliner in sight. I don't see anybody around him. He's (referring to the "spaceship") at his seven o'clock position, huh?
5:50:46 AARTCC - UA69, that's what he says. JAL1628 heavy, say the position of your traffic now.
5:50:52 JAL1628 - Ah, now, distinguishing (he meant to say "extinguishing"), but, ah, ah, your, I guess, ah, 12 o'clock below you.
5:51:02 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, say again. You're broken.
5:51:06 JAL1628 - Just ahead of United, ah..(unintelligible)
Source
"Then three to seven seconds later a fire like from jet engines stopped and became a small circle of lights as they began to fly level flight at the same speed as we were, showing numerous numbers of exhaust pipes. However the center area of the ship(s) where below an engine might be was invisible. [From] the middle of the body of a ship sparked an occasionally (sic) stream of lights, like a charcoal fire, from right to left and from left to right. Its shape was square, flying 500 feet to 1,000 feet in front of us, very slightly higher in altitude than us. Its size was about the same size ad the body of a DC-8 jet, and with numerous exhaust pipes."
"Then three to seven seconds later a fire like from jet engines stopped and became a small circle of lights as they began to fly level flight at the same speed as we were, showing numerous numbers of exhaust pipes. However the center area of the ship(s) where below an engine might be was invisible. [From] the middle of the body of a ship sparked an occasionally (sic) stream of lights, like a charcoal fire, from right to left and from left to right. Its shape was square, flying 500 feet to 1,000 feet in front of us, very slightly higher in altitude than us. Its size was about the same size ad the body of a DC-8 jet, and with numerous exhaust pipes."
Originally posted by Tifozi
What gives the information "it's thermal...it's weather...it's a plane" is actually the experience of the controller.
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".
Originally posted by Tifozi
4- I would like to take out the runway theory at all. I could expose all of the reasons, but its simply not possible. Using Kandinsky photo you can see that in the cockpit you can see everything around you pretty clearly. But you can't see below the nose of the plane.
Upon seeing the lights he first thought he was seeing "two small aircraft." But they were "very strange" because there were "too many lights" and "it was so luminous."
5:19:32 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, roger.
5:19:36 JAL1628 - Ah, roger and, ah, we [have] in sight, ah, two traffic (sic), ah, in front of us one mile about.
At the time of the event Tamefuji estimated the distance to the lights as being "one mile, about" which is quite a bit greater than the "500 to 1000 feet" that Capt. Terauchi recalled in his testimony written about a month and a half later.
5:19:49 AARTCC - JAL1628, roger, do you have.., ah, can you identify the aircraft?
5:19:58 JAL1628 - Ah, we are not sure, but we have traffic in sight now.
5:20:04 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, Roger. Maintain visual contact with your traffic and, ah, can you say the altitude of the traffic?
5:20:14 JAL1628 - Uh, almost [at] the same altitude.
5:20:21 AARTCC - JAL 1628 Roger. Would you like a higher or lower altitude?
5:20:27 JAL1628 - Ah, no, negative. JAL1628.5:21:19 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, see if you are able to identify the type of aircraft, ah, and see if you can tell whether it's military or civilian.
5:21:35 JAL1628 - JAL1628. We cannot identify the type, ah, but we can see, ah, navigation lights and ah, strobe lights.
5:21:48 AARTCC - Roger, sir. Say the color of the strobe and beacon lights.
5:21:56 JAL1628 - The color is, ah, white and yellow, I think.
5:22:03 AARTCC - White and yellow. Thank you.
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?
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.
This portion of the audio tape transcript shows that the captain was incorrect in recalling a second right turn. Instead, the plane turned left about 12 degrees beginning at 5:35:09 and it continued to turn as if it were heading back in the direction of Talkeetna. By the time of the left turn the altitude had decreased to about 33,000 ft. The statement at 5:34:42 that the object was "over Fairbanks" could not be correct if the object were at the left side of the plane because at that time Fairbanks was still ahead and somewhat to the right.
5:36:37 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, sir. I'm gonna request you to make a right turn three six zero degrees, 360 degree turn and advise me what your traffic does then.
5:36:47 JAL1628 - Right turn 360.
The plane commenced the turn at about 5:37:15. The pilot, in his testimony written a month
and a half later, recalled this event: " We had to get away from that object. 'JAL1628. This is Anchorage Center. We advise you, continue and take a 360 degree turn.' 'JAL1628, thank
you. We will continue 360 degree turn.' It was too slow to circle in the automatic pilot mode; therefore we switched to the manual mode and set to turn right on a 30 degree bank. We
looked to our right forward but did not see any light." (Note: if an object initially behind the
plane remained stationary as the plane turned to the right it would first be seen by the copilot on the right side.) "We were relieved, thinking the object may have left us and [we] returned to level flight, but when we checked to our rear the object was still there in exactly the same place" (i.e., after the turn was complete it was seen again, by the captain, far to the left rear of the plane).
5:23:13 JAL1628 - And now the target, ah, traffic is extinguished. We cannot see it now.
5:38:55 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, sir. Does your traffic appear to be staying with you?
5:38:57 JAL1628 - Ah, [unintelligible] distinguished. [He meant extinguished.]
5:39:01 AARTCC - JAL1628 say again?
5:39:04 JAL1628 - It, ah, disappeared.
5:39:10 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, roger. At your discretion proceed directly to Talkeetna, J125 [to] Anchorage.
The fact that it "disappeared" very soon after the plane started the turn indicates that the "mothership" did not make a turn on the outside of the turn of the plane. On the other hand, the captain and copilot recall that they looked out the right hand side to see if it would reappear during the turn, but they did not see it. Therefore it may have trailed the aircraft during the turn. But it did not stay directly behind the aircraft after the turn because the captain recalled that after the turn had been completed and they were again heading southward "we" (the captain, since he was the only one who could see to the left and behind) "checked to our rear and the object was still there in exactly the same place."
5:44:07 AARTCC - JAL1628, sir, do you still have the traffic?
5:44:12 JAL1628 - Ah, say again please.
5:44:13 ARTCC - JAL1628 heavy.. Do you still have the traffic?
5:44:17 JAL1628 - Ah, affirmative, ah, nine o'clock.
5:48:16 UNITED 69 - Can you please point the traffic out again please?
5:48:19 AARTCC - United 69 heavy, affirmative. The, ah, Japan Air is in your eleven o'clock position and five zero [50] miles [away], southbound.
5:48:28 UNITED 69 - Ah, roger. Thank you.
5:48:31 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, sir, Say the position of your traffic.
5:48:34 JAL1628 - Ah, now, ah, ah, moving to, ah, around 10 miles now, ah, ah, position, ah seven, ah, eight o'clock, 10 miles.
5:48:36 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, roger.
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."
After this sudden appearance in front of the jet the lights moved in formation with the jet for
three to five minutes. As they moved they rocked or swayed back and forth.
Continuing the description, the lights were like flames coming out of multiple rocket exhaust ports arranged in two rectangular arrays, according to
the captain's drawings made shortly after the event and again two months later. He compared them to "output exhaust" like the "Challenger (as it took off)" [1]. He described the colors as "amber and whitish." He stated that the "numerous lights" were "exhausts on the engines" which were "lined up all the way."
Originally posted by Sam60
G'day Arbitrageur.....
I am interested regarding how you feel your "mirage" theory might fit in with the following case:
The Valentich disapperance
Thanks again for triggering such an interesting thread.
Kind regards
Sam60
@Kandinsky, my friend (you are my friend and will continue to be my friend!), I don't care how many authorities say the Earth is at the center of the universe, it could be 100 or 1000, that doesn't make it true.