| Thread Closed |
The JAL 1628 UFO event |
Share Thread |
| Mar30-07, 01:51 PM | #35 |
|
|
The JAL 1628 UFO event
My estimated locations based on a map drawn by an FAA investigator at the time is at 5:09, 67:40 (67 deg, 40 minutes) lat and 142:20 (west) longitude; at 5:24, 65:50 by 145:20 and at 5:30, 65:10 by 140:30. I have not tried to be accurate to a minute of arc. These numbers are interpolations between markings on an aero map and should be good enough to look for correlations between clouds and sightings.
Regarding the aurora explanation, the lights in front of the aircraft were distinct lights like distant fires or exhaust pipes in two parallel vertical rows as shown in Terauchi's simple sketch made after the plane landed in Anchorage and again with more detail 2 months later (about) during the FAA interviews. There were two objects, apparently, each with these parallel arrays of lights. The captain estimated that for 2 minutes after their appearance in front of the aircraft they were one above the other. Then they shifted to side by side for about 10 minutes. As they traveled ahead of the airplane they rocked left and right in a correlated manner. Klass' first explanation, by the was, was "extraterrestrial." In Feb 1987 CSICOP (now CSI) published its extraterrestrial explanation: Mars and Jupiter. It was only after my report was published in the IUR that Klass advanced his second theory. |
| Mar30-07, 04:21 PM | #36 |
|
|
I have also plotted all four points on top of the NOAA-10 image of Alaska from 11-18-1986 02:48 (UTC) which can be viewed here (http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/486...6280248xb4.jpg). A small red arrow points to the location of the weather radar target, and lat/lons are labeled for the four corners of the image in case anyone wants to plot some additional points by interpolation. There are both static and non-static structures in the vicinity of the radar target, so I will post one or two additional images from before and/or after this time in order to help reveal which structures are static and which are in motion. |
| Mar30-07, 10:39 PM | #37 |
|
|
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.
|
| Mar31-07, 12:42 PM | #38 |
|
|
|
| Mar31-07, 04:46 PM | #39 |
|
|
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.
|
| Apr1-07, 12:25 PM | #40 |
|
|
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. |
| Apr2-07, 03:46 PM | #41 |
|
|
|
| Apr6-07, 11:49 AM | #42 |
|
|
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". |
| Apr9-07, 01:08 PM | #43 |
|
|
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? 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. )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 |
| Apr9-07, 06:34 PM | #44 |
|
|
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.
|
| Apr9-07, 06:40 PM | #45 |
|
|
|
| Apr9-07, 06:50 PM | #46 |
|
|
I don't know. What is the IRS form for depletion of property?
|
| Apr9-07, 07:21 PM | #47 |
|
|
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"? |
| Apr9-07, 07:30 PM | #48 |
|
|
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. |
| Thread Closed |
Similar discussions for: The JAL 1628 UFO event
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| ZZ event | High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics | 3 | ||
| Independent event and mutually exclusive event | Calculus & Beyond Homework | 3 | ||
| Tech Tip: Troubleshoot event 9318 and event 9322 error messages in Exchange | Computing & Technology | 0 | ||
| a PaWa event | Forum Feedback & Announcements | 5 | ||