JAL 1628: A new synthesis of narratives!

Aright. So, I know how hard it is to talk about UFOs with other people. I’d like to provide a compelling story that works!


The past three years I’ve researched a book (whose name I won’t say because everyone seems to hate “personal spam” here O.o). For this book I needed a clear and overwhelming story of a UFO encounter. And I pieced together a complete narrate of the event from the FAA's Reports [12MB pdf]; and personally interviewed John Callahan, the retired FFA Chief of Investigations during the event.

I’d like to thank this forum for the inspiration, and Dr. Bruce Maccabee for his review and consent to build off his work The Fantastic Flight of JAL1628!


Here’s the most complete story of the JAL 1628 ever told… An Odd Night in Alaska [19 page PDF]

I'd love your thoughts! Thanks for stopping by

reply to post by RussHaywood


It's the FAA.

But, really, what could be "new" to this story. All participants have been interviewed ad nauseum. Did someone change their story?

reply to post by 35Foxtrot


no they did not

reply to post by 35Foxtrot


35Foxtrot, it's a new synthesis of narratives--it's the whole picture of the event, all at once. This has been only partly done before; the most complete is Dr. Maccabee's, but this goes beyond his paper. But fair point, here's the things I'm guessing might be new:

+ How the radar system reflects off the UFO is explained better regarding the FFA's WFMU.
+ Callahan's post-event investigation is clarified
+ During in the investigation, parts were removed from the public transcripts, i.e. "What's that following UA 69?" The giant UFO had moved away from JAL 1628 to follow UA 69...
+ All the FAA statements are helpfully linked to their place in the narration
+ It's easy to read and share, and not just a massive clutter of threads and PDFs.



I haven't "blown the lid off something new." The point is to help teach those who aren't in The Know yet.
But ad nauseum, to you, maybe. So sorry. I don't know what you already know, you'll have to read it and tell me what's so redundant...

Thanks for putting this together. I look forward to reading it. This kind of thing should be done more often. There is a ton of great information out there, but sometimes it seems like it would help if someone would organize it thoroughly into a reader-friendly form.

reply to post by RussHaywood


Thanks Russ good work.
Some people are just hard to impress I guess. Don't sweat it. Those without wonder and imagination are doomed to live a mundane life.

Ive a feeling this will end up being one of the most important cases ever to come up.......
There is all kinds of confirmations here, both in the sky(with other aircraft seeing the show)
and on radar, as well as the tapes of the FAA
There is no doubt about what happened, and nop other explanation for the huge UFO is possible other than out of this world.....
A clear cut case that definately needed a well organised history.....
Thanks for doing so, and if your book synthesis is about this case id def be interested in ti....thanks again s

oops downloaded your PDF where do i get the rest??????u2u

reply to post by RussHaywood


That narrative read very well, thanks for sharing.

I thought I was familiar with this story, what is new to me is the "what's following UA..."

I'lll have to read more sometime.

Good work, you've inspired me to finish my artice off that i've stalled half way on.
Reminds me of the ATS 3 or 4 years ago where people put up proper content, encouraged more indepth discussion and less flaming.

reply to post by RussHaywood


One of my all time favourite cases


To take a step back from this and to include the KC-135 incident a couple months later, there's a few points/assumptions we can make here:

1. The captain of JAL 1628 reportedly said it was as if the object wanted to not be seen because it stayed on one side of the plane. If we are to assume it was the same object witnessed by the KC-135, who's captain reported it being only 40 feet from his aircraft, then possibly that would indicate that the controllers of the UFO were becoming more confident, possibly

2. James Callaghan reported that one of the CIA agents said this is some of the best UFO data ever received or words to that effect. This to me is definite proof, if any were needed, that the government still investigates UFOs. Additionally, in the cockpit recording from the KC-135, the controller asked the pilot to contact the FAA to "give them a call" regarding the object, once on the ground.

3. This case is the real E.T. deal imo.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum



Thank you friends! Yes, please feel free to share the thing. I believe we can get this forum turning out some rather excellent work if we put our minds together I'm game to play.



@ Zcustosmorum

I've heard of that KC-135 incident but never really put much effort into it, as JAL 1628 was just too sexy, and I didn't want my narrative to sprawl any more than it already had I just wanted to convince people of the high probability of UFOs, and move on I suppose.

One thing that might be of further interest to you, is that during my interview with John Callahan we went through the paper line-by-line and he would correct various inaccuracies, be they content or grammar. One point he had, which I found odd, was where I wrote:

Callahan was told by the Admiral that his function at this meeting would be to "give them a dog and pony show" and hand the data to them "since the FAA does not deal with UFO's."

He wanted it changed to:

Callahan was told by the Admiral that his function at this meeting would be to "give them a dog and pony show" and hand the data to them "since the FAA does not control UFOs in the government."

Now that's a rather interesting change, isn't it?

reply to post by RussHaywood


I'd have to yes mate and thanks for the reply . "Since the FAA does not control UFOs in the government.", interesting choice of words, did he mention in what context they were made, as it's a very broad statement?

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


He didn't give any other context than being very adamant about it. And the point was surprising to me; as I thought they seemed to semantically say the same thing. However, on thinking more on it... there's a world of difference between the two phrases:


The first one implies that the FAA just ignores "UFO reports" by pilots and radar.

Whereas the second phrase implies that the FAA doesn't control UFOs, someone else does.... and they just forward the reports!