The JAL 1628 UFO event

  1. Aether

    Aether 717
    Gold Member

    Ivan, thank-you for maintaining this forum.

    I watched the video, but did not see any "validation of the alleged stigma that concerns pilots". Please show where in the video that you find such validation, and explain why you interpret it as such.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How could you have watched it without seeing the long segment on the JAL pilot? That was discussed explicitly and in some detail. I believe another pilot mentions this as well.

    It would take some time to find many of the examples that I have seen over the years, but I will start posting them to this thread as I run across them. It is common to hear pilots mention this, but even in this case – the O’Hare case - note that airline employees are remaining anonymous. Their case for some kind of sighting is proven by the FAA documents released after claims were made, but they don’t wish to go public with their names.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  4. Aether

    Aether 717
    Gold Member

    I saw that segment, but I didn't see anything in there to suggest that the JAL pilot was in fear of an alleged stigma. He reported what he saw, then he was grounded after a medical exam by a qualified doctor, and then he was reinstated to fly. Where in that segement is there any evidence of a stigma, real or imagined?
     
  5. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He was grounded because he saw a UFO. That is the stigma.

    Also, I believe that he had to take the airline to court, but I will have to dig for that information. Also, I think in this video there is another pilot who makes the statement directly that pilots fear reporting UFOs.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  6. Aether

    Aether 717
    Gold Member

    That is not what was stated in the video. In the video, it was stated that he was grounded after a medical exam. Even if he was grounded because he saw a UFO (which is not what the video said) then that would still not be evidence that he was in fear of an alleged stigma at any time.
     
  7. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    ...because he saw a UFO. He was grounded for a medical exam.
     
  8. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That is why Dr. Haines offered his analysis and showed that the object was tracked on RADAR.
    You had better watch it again. This was made pretty clear.
     
  9. Aether

    Aether 717
    Gold Member

    Maybe so, but I don't recall hearing anyone in the video say that. If you do, then please give the quote and the time of occurrence in the video.

    Ok, I will watch it again.

    Ok, that might be evidence if presented; but I didn't see any of that in this video. Please give the quote and the time of occurrence in the video of the other pilot's statement if you find it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  10. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    First of all, for the general case you can follow this:
    http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0107/pilots.html

    [the NARCAP site linked in the article is down temporarily, but they are a longstanding, operational website]

    Since you seem to think this is some kind issue, I will review the video and note the related time marks when I have more time later. And, as I said earlier, I will post other examples over the next week or so.

    Also, note again the annonymity in the O'Hare case. Nobody wants to go on the record.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  11. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here is more of the story

    http://www.japantoday.com/jp/kuchikomi/443

    So this says that he was grounded for going public. He was also told that the object he saw, that was tracked on RADAR, was an illusion.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  12. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Here is a paper by Haines about aviation safety and UFOs, that discusses this issue.
    http://www.ufologie.net/doc/narcap.pdf

    This is linked in the UFO napster, but again, the NARCAP site is down right now, so I found the paper at another site.
     
  13. Aether

    Aether 717
    Gold Member

    He is not quoted as saying that. The reporter says this without giving any source, or evidence.
    What Terauchi actually said was that the object was not tracked on RADAR: "I checked with the Anchorage control tower. They said nothing was showing on their radar...Five minutes later, the object vanished in the gathering darkness, but soon another, much larger object, "several tens of times larger than a jumbo jet," which itself is some 70 meters long, appeared, bathed in blue light. Again the control tower radar registered nothing."
     
  14. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You clearly haven't watched the analysis with Haines. Haines said that it was tracked on RADAR. He submitted the evidence showing this to JAL. What you quoted there occurred before the ground RADAR picked up the second object.

    Take it up with Japan. I only repeated what they had reported here. You wanted a reference, you got a reference in a matter of minutes. If you are claiming that the paper was falsely reporting the story, you would have to show evidence. I have followed this case since it happened and I believe the information presented is basically accurate. Many other references can be found.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2007
  15. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is also plenty of information posted as per the stigma concern, with quotes from pilots.
     
  16. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay, I went back and checked, and Haines explains this all very clearly between the 31 and 34 minute marks.

    Edit: Also, here is another review of the event by Dr. Bruce Maccabee. There was a legitimate point of confusion: The second object was tracked by military RADAR, not the tower RADAR. However, this was all much later in the encounter. See the content between the 3 and 7 minute marks. [Note that with the Google video, you can scroll to any point in the file].
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8285709939745631584&q=UFO&hl=en

    Also, the NICAP case file
    http://www.nicap.org/jal1628.htm
    http://www.nicap.org/reports/jal1628-2.htm

    And
    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
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2007
  17. Aether

    Aether 717
    Gold Member

    Yes I have watched it. I told you that I watched it.
    There is much more detail here on the nature of the RADAR evidence in this case. I do not see any correlation between any of this RADAR evidence and the lights seen by this flight crew, and neither do I see any correlation between this RADAR evidence and Haines' characterization of it as presented between the 33:28 and 34:26 marks of the video. Whatever Haines' submitted to JAL is irrelevant because he did not show us what he submitted, and there is no reason for us to believe that what he submitted had any influence over the decision by the medical board of JAL to restore Terauchi's flying status. I do not consider Haines' remarks presented between the 31:33 and 33:28 marks of the video as evidence that Terauchi was ever in fear of an alleged stigma. More particularly, I do not consider Haines' remark presented at the 31:45 mark of the video as evidence that Terauchi was treated unfairly by the medical board of JAL. I would like to see Terauchi's medical records. I would like to see the actual reason given by the medical board of JAL for grounding him.

    I watched it again. Dr. Haines' analysis is demonstrably confused (wrong) about most if not all of the objective facts which pertain to this case.

    This is not consistent with the facts as presented in detail here. First Haines' says that "we have multiple eye-witnesses in the cockpit who confirm what the radar is telling them" and then he says that onboard radar "didn't receive any signals back from the aircraft". The onboard radar did receive signals back from something about eight miles ahead of the aircraft, but flight engineer Tsukuba said that he did "not think it (the radar target) was the same lights as the one (sic) I saw in front of us." A ground-based radar did pick up something about five miles behind the aircraft, but the flight crew immediately responded that this was not what they were talking about.
    I am not necessarily claiming that this paper is falsely reporting this story, but I do not find within it any convincing "validation of the alleged stigma that concerns pilots".
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2007
  18. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Then why did you deny what is clearly stated in the video.

    That's why I posted it.

    That's interesting, what aircraft do you suppose it was?

    Correct, he is telling the story based on his research. The audio tapes were played in the other link and documented in the written report. Also, first you found his testimony acceptable, and now you don't; interesting. And as you have already pointed out, I posted the report from another source to help make this all clear.

    The stigma is attached to making formal and public reports. The original claim was that he was grounded because he saw and reported a UFO, and that this is an example of what worries pilots. I provided sources citing this allegation. But here, you have tried to divert the discussion by making the statement that there is no evidence in the aforementioned section of the video showing concern about the stigma of filing a report. You are clearly misrepresenting the original statement. The next such misrepresentation of this discussion, or of my post, or attempts to confuse the statements made, will be treated as a violation of the posting guidelines. I have given you far too much rope already.

    In addition to the three links provided - a newspaper, a website with quotes, and the paper by Haines - referencing the claim of harassment or ridicule and a reluctance to file an official or public UFO report, it is self-evident that any professional like a pilot would worry about being labeled a crackpot for such a report. In this case, the pilot reported an object twice the size of an aircraft carrier. Klass said that he had seen Venus and Mars, and this was widely publicized. So the proof of what happens is already posted.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2007
  19. Aether

    Aether 717
    Gold Member

    Please quote the statement(s) that you are referring to, and explain why you interpret them as you do. I have repeatedly asked you to do this.
    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.
    No, he is not. In the video he said this:
    But on page 76 of his written report he said this:
    The first time I watched his testimony I was only listening for "validation of the alleged stigma that concerns pilots", but found none. Sure, he appears to be implying that Terauchi was treated unfairly by the medical board of JAL; but he didn't actually say that, he didn't show any evidence for that, nor did he (or anyone else) quote Terauchi as even feeling that way much less showing any real evidence.
    You have failed so far to show any evidence of this.
    I do not consider "sources citing this allegation" as validation that the allegation is true. I asked you several times to "Please show where in the video that you find such validation, and explain why you interpret it as such" but you haven't done so.
    No I haven't. I asked you several times to "Please show where in the video that you find such validation, and explain why you interpret it as such" but you haven't done so.
    I object to this. If you feel that I have misrepresented something, then you should make your case here on the merits.
    It is not self evident to me. I have found nothing whatsoever related to the case of JAL1628 to suggest that Terauchi was unfairly treated for reporting what he observed. On the contrary, all of the evidence points to the diligence and professionalism of the FAA, military, and the medical board of JAL who were involved in this incident. None of the other flight crew or radar operators failed to do their job, declined to answer the questions of investigators, expressed concern for their jobs, or suffered retribution from JAL or any other official agency. Here is where Terauchi lays his credibility on the line:
    This is clearly unprofessional conduct/attitude for an airline captain.
    I do not need any more documentation at this time. The flight crew of JAL1628 themselves explicitly and firmly denied that there is any correlation of the radar evidence with the lights that they saw.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2007
  20. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,537
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay, then lets take things one at a time.

    My original comment was this.
    You replied
    Later I said this:
    31:33-32:02

    Why should I not penalize you for misinformation?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2007
  21. Aether

    Aether 717
    Gold Member

    My last statement there was made in post #8 in reply to this statement of yours in post #6, but you have presented it here as if it was a reply to something that you said in post #17. Please clarify your intentions here.

    What I have said is accurate. It is not misinformation.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?