# The JAL 1628 UFO event

by Aether
Tags: 1628, event
 P: 10 The first explanation was presented in a ress release by CSICOP in Feb. 1987 if I recall correctly (see my paper). The second explanation was published in the CSICOP journal.
PF Gold
P: 717
 Quote by bruce maccabee The first explanation was presented in a ress release by CSICOP in Feb. 1987 if I recall correctly (see my paper). The second explanation was published in the CSICOP journal.
I searched the CSICOP website, but didn't find the press release. I ordered a Summer 1987 copy of the journal, but haven't received anything yet. Do you know of an online link to either of these documents? If not, then would you mind scanning your own copies and emailing them to me? And if you now have the FAA's radar tracking data handy, I would like to plot that data onto the aeronautical chart. If the FAA sends me that data, then I can do that then; but I could do that sooner if I could get a copy of the data that you have. Also, are you aware of any other evidence in this case that we might want to consider and which hasn't already been cited either in your report or elsewhere in this thread?

 Quote by Aether Here is a high resolution thermal infrared satellite image snapped by NOAA-9 approximately 3.5 hours before JAL1628 crossed into Alaskan airspace from Canada on 11-18-1986 (UTC) (http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/693...6282235qk4.jpg).
I have updated this satellite image to reflect the event coordinates given by Dr. Maccabee, and I have added data from the 3.74um and 10.82um thermal infrared bands in addition to the data from the 12.00um band. The new image is posted here http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3...6282235dd9.jpg. The actual flight path of the aircraft is roughly the same as the previously estimated flight path, but the timing of the important events along the flight path are significantly different. Warm surfaces appear darker in this image, and cold surfaces appear lighter. White surfaces are the coldest of all, and I suspect that we may be seeing a mixtue of both high-level clouds and glaciers in this photo that are colored white. The weather balloon data shows that the surface winds blowing across the Crazy Mountains were from about 90 degrees true at about 15kts. This appears to be generating standing wave clouds over these mountains at high altitude, and that might be what the flight crew of JAL1628 saw on their weather radar.
 P: 10 If you send email address to brumac@compuserve.com I can email you a few scans. However, the raw radar data takes dozens of pages since it gives several readouts per minute. There are numerous other documents. The FAA sold a complete package for over $100 back in March, 1987. PF Gold P: 717  Quote by bruce maccabee If you send email address to brumac@compuserve.com I can email you a few scans. However, the raw radar data takes dozens of pages since it gives several readouts per minute. There are numerous other documents. The FAA sold a complete package for over$100 back in March, 1987.
Thanks!

This satellite image may be the "smoking gun" in this case, literally: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2...6280248ke9.jpg. POTAT is the point where JAL1628 crossed into Alaska from Canada; the aircraft made a 15-degree turn to the left at about 5:09pm local time; and TKA is the VOR station at Talkeetna toward which JAL1628 was flying during the entire 10-15 minutes that the crew was observing the first set of lights. The blackened portions of sky southeast of Talkeetna appears to be direct evidence that a solar flare hit that region of Alaska immediately before this image was taken at 5:48pm local time by NOAA-10. The black color indicates that a large region of Alaska appears to be quite hot to the satellite. I don't know of any other possible explanation for this other than that this represents the afterglow from a solar flare that heated the upper atmosphere there.

 Quote by Bruce Maccabee In the subsequent interviews with a translator the colors mentioned were yellow, amber and green.
 Quote by The Weather Doctor Each atmospheric gas glows with specific colors. For example, atomic oxygen is responsible for two primary auroral colors: green-yellow (wavelength of 557.7 nanometres (nm)) and red (630.0 nm). The brightest and most common auroral color, a brilliant green-yellow, is produced by those oxygen atoms at roughly 100 km (60 miles) altitude. -- http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weathe...nts/aurora.htm
The next step is to calculate the lat/lon required for an auroral emission at an altitude of 100km to appear at the same location in Terauchi's windscreen as shown in Dr. Maccabee's Figs. 2 & 3; and see if this falls within the blacked-out region of the satellite photo.
PF Gold
P: 717
 Quote by Aether This satellite image may be the "smoking gun" in this case, literally: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2...6280248ke9.jpg...The black color indicates that a large region of Alaska appears to be quite hot to the satellite. I don't know of any other possible explanation for this other than that this represents the afterglow from a solar flare that heated the upper atmosphere there.
The blackened area of this photo corresponds to Prince William Sound. This area looks darker in this photo than in any of the others that I have looked at, but it is also noticeably dark in the other photos and has a similar shape. It may appear warm to the satellite simply because the sound connects to the Pacific Ocean.
 The next step is to calculate the lat/lon required for an auroral emission at an altitude of 100km to appear at the same location in Terauchi's windscreen as shown in Dr. Maccabee's Figs. 2 & 3; and see if this falls within the blacked-out region of the satellite photo.
An auroral emission 100km above the ground would be in about the right place in Terauchi's windscreen (e.g., having an elevation of between four and six degrees) if it was between 313-385nm away, and the middle of Prince William Sound was about 380nm from JAL1628 and about 20-degrees to the left of center at 5:18.
PF Gold
P: 717
 Quote by Aether The FAA said this: "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." I personally doubt that, but do not feel free to speculate further at this time. Whatever it was, it was not even in the same place and time in the sky as the lights seen by the flight crew of JAL1628.
I doubted this at first because I thought that the FAA was attempting to explain a series of anomalous primary radar contacts as a "split return". However, upon further review of Dr. Maccabee's report it seems clear to me now that what the FAA is talking about here is a situation where the transponder return is temporarily separated from the primary return. I still haven't seen any numerical radar contact data records, but I no longer have any doubt that those records (the numerical radar contact data records that were released to the public in the 1987 FAA report) will be shown to be consistent with the FAA's explanation when we finally see them. I will comment more on this issue later after I have reviewed the FAA's original numerical radar contact data records. I would also like to compare the numerical radar contact data records contained within John Callahan's computer printout with the records released by the FAA in their 1987 report; however, I'm not sure how to obtain a copy of John Callahan's data.

In the meantime, 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: http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/6...hershipcp3.jpg. 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:

5:30:23 JAL1628 Request, ah, deviate, ah, ah, from, ah, object, ah, request heading two four zero.

5:30:49 JAL1628 It's, ah, quite big...

5:30:56 JAL1628 It's, ah, very quite big, ah, plane.

Then at timestamp 5:44:17 the flight crew gives us a fix on the object from another position and from another viewing angle:

5:44:13 ARTCC JAL1628 heavy. . Do you still have the traffic?

5:44:17 JAL1628 Ah, affirmative, ah, nine o'clock.

And finally, at timestamp 5:48:34 (while NOAA-10 was recording this satellite image) the flight crew reports a third fix on the object from a third viewing angle:

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.

Many satellite images of this cloud were taken over a three day period while it was stationary in roughly the same position shown on this image. It appears that a low warm cloud blew in from the direction of the ocean earlier in the day (see the medium-dark red band of clouds in the lower left quadrant of the photo) and then stopped in the position shown in this photo. Then Terauchi's "mothership" cloud rose up by auto-convection to JAL1628's altitude.

Here is a high resolution satellite photo of the area that was taken about fifteen hours later, but which shows Terauchi's "mothership" cloud more clearly:
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/1...ership2jz0.jpg

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".

 Quote by Terauchi They asked us several times if there were clouds near our altitude. We saw thin and spotty clouds near the mountain below us, no clouds in mid-to-upper air, and the air current was steady.
 Quote by Bruce Maccabee The repeated questions about the clouds [from 5:22:11 to 5:23:05] caused Terauchi to wonder why the controller was so interested in clouds. He speculated, "Perhaps the controllers were concerned that an increased use of improved lazer (sic) beams using (sic) clouds was creating moving images." (Here Terauchi refers to laser beams illuminating the clouds. Of course, there were no sufficiently powerful visible laser beams in the "wilds" of Alaska at that time...nor are there now.)
PF Gold
P: 717
Dr. Maccabee has sent me copies of several documents which help shed light on several issues that were discussed earlier in our current thread, and within this thread from which our current thread was split.

One of these documents was a copy of an article from the Philadelphia Enquirer May 24, 1987 issue. Within this article Capt. Terauchi is quoted as saying that he has seen at least one other "mothership" before while flying but that he wasn't feeling well at the time, and since the object was too "weird" he ignored it. Is there anybody here who would not call Capt. Terauchi in for a medical exam after reading this if you were on the medical board of Japan Airlines?
 Quote by Philadelphia Enquirer ...And five years ago, on a cargo flight south of Formosa, "when we start climb we saw lefthand side big mothership." But he said it was too "weird," he wasn't feeling well, and he ignored it.

 Quote by Ivan Seeking As for airline personnel being allowed to take photos, it has long been claimed by pilots that to discuss UFOs is to put one's career in jeopardy. Most pilots only speak out after retiring. Note for example that in the case of JAL 1628, the pilot had to sue the airlines in order to get his job back. He did win in court because of the evidence available to support his claim. So in the airline industry especially, there is reason to be concerned about your job if you see a UFO. It is all part of the lunacy of the stigma attached to such reports.
 Quote by Aether See one, or report one? Are you assuming this, or do you have statistics on the motives of pilots who choose not to report UFO sightings? I recently asked a retired air-traffic controller (who is also still-licensed as a commercial pilot, and who has many years of experience handling air traffic at both Andrews Air Force Base and Washington National airport) about "why pilots and air traffic controllers are reluctant to report UFO sightings", and he didn't say anything at all about "the stigma attached to such reports". He said that "the government doesn't want this information given to the public".
 Quote by Ivan Seeking My statements are based on many statements made by pilots over the last twenty years. I'm sure that plenty of quotes can be found at links in the Napster. I also cited a specific example of a pilot who lost his job over a UFO report. Obviously the problems only happen if one reports what one sees. Also, pilots and air traffic controllers aren't privy to classified information so I doubt the conspiracy angle. Perhaps in some cases the military asks people to keep quiet, but it is hard to understand how that would happen since the government no longer investigates UFO reports.
 Quote by Philadelphia Enquirer A message also went out over the FAA employee's "code-a-phones" at work, warning that reporters would hound them on this story and that FAA policy required them to go through public affairs.
A pilot does his duty by avoiding collisions with unknown objects, and then reporting what he sees to FAA controllers. An FAA controller does his duty by informing other pilots of the presence of unknown objects, and then passing any information along to public affairs that he thinks the public should know about.

 Quote by Ivan Seeking UFO Incident Involving a Japanese B747 in the Alaskan Region John Callahan - Former Division Chief of Accidents and Investigations for the FAA http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science.html
Although I still don't have all of the documentation that was released to the public by the FAA in 1987, I have now at least seen a copy of the flight path chart that was produced by FAA experts showing actual radar data in this case plotted onto an aeronautical chart. From this I conclude that the statements made by John Callahan in this video are not relevant here.
 Quote by John Callahan ...so what I am going to tell you is about an event that never happened...who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or the government?
The FAA released all of the data that they had in this case to the public in 1987 including copies of the audio tape(s), transcripts of those tape(s), about 100 pages of radar data records, and professionally made charts of the aircraft's flight path and related radar contacts.
 ...everybody standing there saw the target, they all saw the same target you just saw, they saw the same target that the administrator saw, ok? The military controller saw the target. The FAA has to kill the story, so the FAA says after we analyzed all this data it is our conclusion that it was a split beacon...the pilot's don't see split beacons, the pilots don't see ghost targets.
Pilots don't see split beacons, but air traffic controllers do. Most of the anomalies noted in the radar data are in fact either "Split beacon" or "Beacon with offset primary". These are not interpretations by anybody, these are the facts of what the radar system actually recorded. This particular type of anomaly (e.g., beacon-related) can't shed any light whatsoever on the question of whether or not there was ever a UFO near to JAL1628, but rather it tends to explain how an air traffic controller(s) might be fooled into thinking (momentarily) that they might have seen something that was never really there. In fact, the audio tapes and transcripts clearly show that none of the air traffic controllers in this case ever thought that they had good radar contact on anything other than known aircraft; and that they were simply doing their best to try and be absolutely sure not to too hastily disregard something as clutter/noise that might be significant.

The FAA records do show that there are several examples of another type of anomaly in the radar data called "Beacon with merged and offset primary". These might really be interesting, but there is no way to tell from just looking at the charts and tables that I have seen so far. Dr. Maccabee does have the complete records though, so I expect that we will soon know more about these "Beacon with merged and offset primary" anomalies.

 Quote by Ivan Seeking Since you already have video testimony, the complete report, and multiple sources, including an FAA division chief, all telling approximately the same story, you are free to make up your own mind. Perhaps they only saw Mars and Venus, as the skeptics claim. If you want more documentation, then I suggest that you contact Dr. Haines or Dr. Maccabee.
Dr. Maccabee also sent me the CSICOP news release where Philip J. Klass proposed his theory about Jupiter and Mars. Since this document doesn't seem to be available elsewhere online, I have copied the full-text below for future reference (was it really necessary to discuss the bombing of Japan by B-29's during WW-II here? )

Here is my estimate of what Jupiter and Mars would have looked like to Capt. Terauchi, assuming an undistorted atmosphere, between about 5:09 and 5:30: http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/5...termarsgb6.jpg. Terauchi couldn't have seen these planets through his front windshield, but rather he would have had to look through his middle window to see them. Here is a virtual reality view (generated using Microsoft's Flight Simulator X) of the pilot of a 747 looking through his middle window: http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/7...windowsvl1.jpg.

In view of Fig. 5A from Dr. Maccabee's report, we should consider whether or not these two planets might account for the "flat pale white lights" and the "two white florescent-like lights" that Terauchi described seeing from the windows on his left side. Fig. 8 also seems to suggest that he saw the "mothership" bracketed by these two lights at some time between 5:30 and 5:50 when the "mothership" sighting was in progress. Weather balloon data shows that during this event the aircraft was flying within a temperature inversion layer. So, I will ask Dr. Maccabee, who is an optical physicist, could this inversion layer have caused these two planets to appear distorted as shown in Fig. 5A of your report?

Here is some of the data from a weather balloon that was released at Fairbanks around 0000 UTC on 11-18-1986. JAL1628 was flying at an altitude of about 10668 meters.

Altitude in meters, temperature in degrees-C, wind direction, wind speed in meters/second
135, -17.5,,
195, -15.3,,
1436, -13.7, 090, 8.0
2909, -16.9, 075, 7.0
5360, -32.5, 040, 9.0
6890, -44.1, 020, 7.0
8760, -57.5, 020, 8.0
9920, -54.7, 005, 11.0
11350, -53.9, 350, 13.0
13210, -51.1, 335, 17.0
15860, -50.3, 325, 22.0
18150, -56.5, 305, 23.0
20270, -58.7, 305, 27.0
23440, -63.9, 305, 35.0
25910, -65.7, 300, 40.0

 Quote by Philadelphia Enquirer When the story about Klass' Jupiter theory came over the wires at the Anchorage Daily News, Hal Bernton called up Terauchi. The pilot was adamant--he had recognized Jupiter during the flight, and whatever had tailed him was no planet. Klass laughed when told that the pilot had rejected his explanation: "This is par for the course. When a person is a dedicated UFO believer, as the pilot is and was, he'll always deny a prosaic explanation. You know, of course, that he's a UFO repeater.
 Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 12,497 Aether, there is a difference between radio communications and an official UFO report. Obviously they discuss it on the radio if they ask for confirmation of local traffic. Your inability to get this straight makes me take the rest with a grain of salt.
PF Gold
P: 717
 Quote by Ivan Seeking Aether, there is a difference between radio communications and an official UFO report. Obviously they discuss it on the radio if they ask for confirmation of local traffic. Your inability to get this straight makes me take the rest with a grain of salt.
What is the OMB number for the official UFO report form?
 Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 12,497 I don't know. What is the IRS form for depletion of property?
PF Gold
P: 717
 Quote by Ivan Seeking I don't know. What is the IRS form for depletion of property?
Then let's assume that there isn't one, and that there isn't any such thing as an official UFO report which explains my inability to "get this straight", ok? This is the IRS form for depreciation and amortization, and the OMB number is listed at the top right as OMB No. 1545-0172.

btw, Haines' video has been pulled down due to copyright issues. Within that video I recall him saying that Terauchi "filled out a report and all the paperwork that goes with it". I haven't seen or heard of any such report anywhere else, only that he was interviewed by federal agents.

So, what are "official UFO reports"?
 Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 12,497 JANAP 146 required reporting by commercial pilots. This was a military document. And there is certainly official reporting esp in the event of a near collision. Beyond that, there is another video posted in post #50 of the Napster [the one nominated by PIT2] in which two more pilots mention the concerns and reluctance to report UFOS. I have personally heard at least dozens of pilots make similar comments over the years. And frankly, the fact that you can't understand why any professional would hesistate to file such a report tells me that you are not being reasonable. This is self-evident to almost anyone. The FAA is concerned any time that aviation safety might be affected. If the observation does not affect safety, the FAA isn't interested. I believe that JANAP 146E relieved commercial pilots of reporting responsiblities imposed by JANAP 146. http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...7/aim0706.html I was going to let you continue until you started in on this again. Thread locked.

 Related Discussions High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 3 Calculus & Beyond Homework 3 Forum Feedback & Announcements 5