Pilots & JAL 1628 UFO Event: Validation of Stigma?

[Aether]

Btw Aether, if you see the Pilot UFO sightings video in post #50 of the UFO Napster, you will find some validation of the alleged stigma that concerns pilots.

Ivan, thank-you for maintaining this forum.

I watched the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCAZVCpwrc" that you find such validation, and explain why you interpret it as such.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, thank-you for maintaining this forum.

I watched the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCAZVCpwrc" that you find such validation, and explain why you interpret it as such.

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.

 

[Aether]

How could you have watched it without seeing the long segment on the JAL pilot? That was discussed explicitly and in some detail.

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?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Aether]

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

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Aether]

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

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.

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.

Ok, I will watch it again.

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.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is more of the story

... Journalism is a skeptical trade, and as for pilots, even if they do spot strange lights, objects and movements in the sky for which they can conceive no other explanation, they are expected to keep their suspicions to themselves. Their livelihood depends on passengers' confidence. Talk of UFOs does not encourage it.

...There are other possibilities, among them a secret U.S. military operation or development, about which nothing is known precisely because it is secret. Or maybe it really was what Terauchi says it was – a UFO. In any case, Terauchi was shortly afterwards grounded by JAL for talking to the press. He was given a desk job, and only reinstated as a pilot years afterwards. Now 67 and retired, he lives quietly with his wife in a small town in north Kanto, and talks about the adventure as little as possible.

"I spoke to a doctor – he said it was an illusion," he tells Shukan Shincho. "

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a paper by Haines about aviation safety and UFOs, that discusses this issue.

(3) Documented UAP phenomena have been seen and reported for at least fifty years by pilots but many of these reporters have been either ridiculed or instructed not to report their sighting publically. (4) Responsible world aviation officials should take UAP phenomena seriously and issue clear procedures for reporting them without fearing ridicule, reprimand or other career impairment and in a manner that will support scientific research, (5) Airlines should implement instructional courses that teach pilots about optimal control procedures to carry out when flying near UAP and also what data to try to collect about them, if possible, and (5) A central clearing house should be identified to receive UAP reports (e.g., ASRS; Global Aviation Information Network (GAIN). This unclassified clearing house should collect, analyze, and report UAP sightings for the continuing benefit of aviation safety as well as scientific curiosity. Whatever UAP are they can pose a hazard to aviation safety and should be dealt with appropriately and without bias.[continued]

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.

 

[Aether]

So this says that he was grounded for going public.

He is not quoted as saying that. The reporter says this without giving any source, or evidence.

He was also told that the object he saw, that was tracked on RADAR, was an illusion.

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."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

So this says that he was grounded for going public.

He is not quoted as saying that. The reporter says this without giving any source, or evidence.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[Aether]

You clearly haven't watched the analysis with Haines.

Yes I have watched it. I told you that I watched it.

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.

There is much more detail http://www.nicap.org/reports/jal1628-2.htm" . 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.

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.

Ok, I will watch it again.

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.

It's important to realize that a pure visual sighting is just is not as important as a correlated RADAR-visual sighting, and this case qualifies. And so we have multiple eye-witnesses in the cockpit who confirm what the radar is telling them you see. Well I asked Captain Terauchi about the onboard RADAR...he had a weather RADAR on there...and he told me that he tried to image something on the weather RADAR and didn't receive any signals back from the aircraft now. Nonetheless, there was ground RADAR that every aircraft of course has to be plotted where it is for safety reasons and so ground RADAR had picked up not only the 747 as it should but also this "uncorrelated" target...something near the airplane that shouldn't have been there...why, because it wasn't identified they didn't know what it was.

This is not consistent with the facts as presented in detail http://www.nicap.org/reports/jal1628-2.htm" . 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.

5:25:02 AARTCC - JAL1628 heavy, roger sir. I'm picking up a hit on the radar approximately five miles in trail of your six o'clock position (i.e., behind the plane). Do you concur?
5:25:12 JAL1628 - Ah, negative, ah, 11 o'clock, ah, eight miles, ah, same level. Over.

So this says that he was grounded for going public.

He is not quoted as saying that. The reporter says this without giving any source, or evidence.

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 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".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes I have watched it. I told you that I watched it.

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

There is much more detail http://www.nicap.org/reports/jal1628-2.htm" on the nature of the RADAR evidence in this case.

That's why I posted it.

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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCAZVCpwrc".

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

Whatever Haines' submitted to JAL is irrelevant because he did not show us what he submitted,

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.

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.

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.

 

[Aether]

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

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.

Please show where in the video that you find such validation, and explain why you interpret it as such...Where in that segment is there any evidence of a stigma, real or imagined?...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, 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.

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

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.

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.

No, he is not. In the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCAZVCpwrc" he said this:

While FAA ground radar showed no returns other than the B-747 Capt. Terauchi turned on his digital (X band) weather radar (20 mile range) to horizontal pitch. “There it was, on the screen, a large, green, and a round object had appeared in seven or eight miles (13 kilometers to 15 kilometers) away, where the direction of the object was...

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 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.

The stigma is attached to making formal and public reports.

You have failed so far to show any evidence of this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I object to this. If you feel that I have misrepresented something, then you should make your case here on the merits.

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.

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:

"...JAL1628, This is Anchorage center. Would you like to request scramble for confirmation?...Anchorage center, this is JAL1628, We would not request scramble." We turned down the offer quickly. I knew that in the past there was a U.S. military fighter called the Mustang that had flown up high for a confirmation and a tragedy had happened to it. Even the F-15 with the newest technology had no guarantee of safety against the creature with an unknown degree of scientific technology.

This is clearly unprofessional conduct/attitude for an airline captain.

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.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, then let's take things one at a time.

My original comment was this.

Btw Aether, if you see the Pilot UFO sightings video in post #50 of the UFO Napster, you will find some validation of the alleged stigma that concerns pilots.

You replied

I watched the video, but did not see any "validation of the alleged stigma that concerns pilots".

Later I said this:

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

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.

I think a very interesting postscript to this event, involving this Japan Airlines 747, is what happened to Captain Terauchi after he landed. Well because of his report, his conscientiousness, to fill out a report form and all of the paperwork that goes with it, he was evaluated by the medical board of Japan Airlines. And he was asked to terminate his flying duties.

31:33-32:02

Why should I not penalize you for misinformation?

 

[Aether]

Okay, then let's take things one at a time.

My original comment was this.

Btw Aether, if you see the Pilot UFO sightings video in post #50 of the UFO Napster, you will find some validation of the alleged stigma that concerns pilots.

You replied

I watched the video, but did not see any "validation of the alleged stigma that concerns pilots".

Later I said this:

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

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.

My last statement there was made in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1258616&postcount=8". Please clarify your intentions here.

I think a very interesting postscript to this event, involving this Japan Airlines 747, is what happened to Captain Terauchi after he landed. Well because of his report, his conscientiousness, to fill out a report form and all of the paperwork that goes with it, he was evaluated by the medical board of Japan Airlines. And he was asked to terminate his flying duties.

31:33-32:02

Why should I not penalize you for misinformation?

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

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.

What I have said is accurate. It is not misinformation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not acceptable. I quoted Haines. You are playing word games. If you had a point, you could have made it without the drama.

Next, you stated

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 stated:

If you want more documentation, then I suggest that you contact Dr. Haines or Dr. Maccabee.

then you stated:

I do not need any more documentation at this time.

Why should I not penalize you for being obnoxious and argumentative?

 

[Aether]

Not acceptable. I quoted Haines. You are playing word games. If you had a point, you could have made it without the drama.

I am not playing word games. The reason for Terauchi's grounding is contained within his medical record; which I said that I would like to see.

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.

You are assuming that you know what reason the medical board had for grounding him.

Next, you stated

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 stated:

If you want more documentation, then I suggest that you contact Dr. Haines or Dr. Maccabee.

then you stated:

I do not need any more documentation at this time.

Why should I not penalize you for being obnoxious and argumentative?

Your reply there was not originally presented as a direct reply to that statement of mine. Therefore, I did not recognize it as such.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Your reply there was not originally presented as a direct reply to that statement of mine. Therefore, I did not recognize it as such.

Nor did you express any interest in obtaining additional information. Nonetheless, you arrived at your own conclusion.

Next point:

Whatever Haines' submitted to JAL is irrelevant because he did not show us what he submitted

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.

No, he is not.

You then change the subject by citing a conflict in the reporting, which has nothing to do with that above.

No, he is not. In the video he said this:
Quote:

Well I asked Captain Terauchi about the onboard RADAR...he had a weather RADAR on there...and he told me that he tried to image something on the weather RADAR and didn't receive any signals back from the aircraft now.

But on page 76 of his written report he said this:
Quote:

While FAA ground radar showed no returns other than the B-747 Capt. Terauchi turned on his digital (X band) weather radar (20 mile range) to horizontal pitch. “There it was, on the screen, a large, green, and a round object had appeared in seven or eight miles (13 kilometers to 15 kilometers) away, where the direction of the object was...

What does this have to do with your initial objection cited above? The answer is: Nothing.

As for your objection, you yourself posted this without a reference:

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."

Are you suggesting that Terauchi has changed his story, or does your objection here no longer apply? Certainly his original reports are more reliable than his recall after twenty years.

In any event, Haine's statements in the written report agree with Maccabee's written report, which you seem to be found of.

Terauchi wrote [2], "I thought it would be impossible to find anything on an aircraft radar if a large ground radar did not show anything, but I judged the distance of the object visually and it was not very far. I set the digital weather radar distance to 20 (nautical) miles, radar angle to horizon (i.e., no depression angle). There it was on the screen. A large green and round object (here he refers to the image or "blip" on the radar screen) had appeared at 7 or 8 miles (13 km to 15 km) away, where the direction of the object was. We reported to Anchorage center that our radar caught the object within 7 or 8 miles in the 10 o'clock position. We asked them if they could catch it on ground radar but it did not seem they could catch it at all" [21]. During the January interview Terauchi recalled that the radar detection occurred about 15 minutes after he first saw the lights, i.e., at about 5:25 PM. He was only slightly in error.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1316.htm
http://www.nicap.org/reports/jal1628-2.htm

So, for some reason the story from Haines has changed at some point. It could be that new information has come to light, it could be out of date, or it could be that Terauchi convinced Haines that he was originally mistaken. Also, there could have been translation errors [Japanese to English], memory errors, or perhaps additional analysis convinced Haines that what was seen on RADAR was not the UFO. If you were interested in getting the correct answer, you could do additional research, or you could contact Haines or Maccabee and request an explanation, which you have already stated doesn’t interest you. Perhaps this is another exception to your lack of interest in documentation?

As for your conclusions about the RADAR information, you are certainly entitled to draw your own conclusions. But, out of curiosity, what is your expertise in this area?

 

[Aether]

Nor did you express any interest in obtaining additional information. Nonetheless, you arrived at your own conclusion.

I do not need any additional information with respect to the radar evidence in this case because the flight crew themselves said that it doesn't correlate with the lights that they were reporting in the first place. 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.

Next point:

You then change the subject by citing a conflict in the reporting, which has nothing to do with that above.

What does this have to do with your initial objection cited above? The answer is: Nothing.

No, the answer is: you are assuming that Haines is "telling the story based on his research. The audio tapes were played in the other link and documented in the written report", but this isn't so. There is nothing in his written report about Terauchi's being grounded, and the account of the weather radar that he gave in the video contradicts the account that he gave in his written report.

As for your objection, you yourself posted this without a reference:

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."

I gave that quote in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1258696&postcount=12" reference that you gave. I am quoting from your reference there. These are all your references, I haven't cited any references of my own here.

Are you suggesting that Terauchi has changed his story, or does your objection here no longer apply? Certainly his original reports are more reliable than his recall after twenty years.

I am simply pointing out that the lights observed by the flight crew of JAL1628 were never tracked on radar.

I spoke to a doctor – he said it was an illusion

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.

In any event, Haine's statements in the written report agree with Maccabee's written report, which you seem to be found of.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1316.htm
http://www.nicap.org/reports/jal1628-2.htm

So, for some reason the story from Haines has changed at some point. It could be that new information has come to light, it could be out of date, or it could be that Terauchi convinced Haines that he was originally mistaken. Also, there could have been translation errors [Japanese to English], memory errors, or perhaps additional analysis convinced Haines that what was seen on RADAR was not the UFO. If you were interested in getting the correct answer, you could do additional research, or you could contact Haines or Maccabee and request an explanation, which you have already stated doesn’t interest you. Perhaps this is another exception to your lack of interest in documentation?

Regarding the RADAR issue, I already have the correct answer. The FAA radar never picked up a second radar target. When asked by the radar operator if a second (military) radar target five-miles behind their aircraft was what they were reporting, the flight crew of JAL1628 replied that it was not. The flight engineer of JAL1628 said that he didn't think that the target seen by onboard weather radar was either.

As for your conclusions about the RADAR information, you are certainly entitled to draw your own conclusions. But, out of curiosity, what is your expertise in this area?

I have been inside radar rooms and control towers a few times, and while there the controllers sat me down at their displays and explained to me how they do their jobs.

 

[Aether]

Then why did you deny what is clearly stated in the video...he is telling the story based on his research. The audio tapes were played in the other link and documented in the written report.

Are you referring to the audio re-enactment at the start of the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCAZVCpwrc" is a hoax.

At 5:19:28 (in real life) JAL1628 asked Anchorage Center "Do you have any traffic in front of us?", and they replied at 5:19:32 AARTC "JAL1628 heavy, Roger." However, in the video the response attributed to AARTCC is "Negative, we show no traffic in your area." The fact that there is traffic in front of JAL1628 could be important for understanding the rest of the radar evidence in this case and it raises the possibility that JAL1628 could be flying through the contrail(s) of air-traffic that is in front of them.

Then at 5:19:36 JAL1628 replies "Ah, roger and, ah, we [have] in sight, ah, two traffic (sic), ah, in front of us one mile about", but in the video this statement is further embellished with "...moving off left wing to our six-o'clock position". The intent of the producers of this video is clear: they have intentionally attributed false statements to the flight crew of JAL1628 in an attempt to substantiate their theory that the lights observed by the flight crew were tracked by ground radar.

A few seconds later, AARTCC asks: 5:20:04 "JAL1628 heavy, Roger. Maintain visual contact with your traffic and, ah, can you say the altitude of the traffic?" to which JAL1628 relies: 5:20:14 "Uh, almost [at] the same altitude". In the video, this exchange is presented this way: AARTCC asks: "JAL1628 Roger. Can you say the altitude of the traffic?", to which JAL1628 replies "Affirmative. Traffic now right overhead but moving rapidly behind us, it's right behind us!".

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.

I have simulated the night-sky at the place and time where the flight crew of JAL1628 saw these lights. Here is a screenshot of the sky where Jupiter and Mars were visible to the flight crew (they were initially on a heading of about 215-degrees true): http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7922/jal1628jupiteryw4.jpg , and here is a screenshot of the sky to flight crew's back: http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1842/jal1624moonvx6.jpg . I doubt that Jupiter and Mars are what the flight crew saw initially, but Terauchi may well have mis-interpreted these planets (near the end of his sighting) as the same UFOs receding into the far distance.

I have also simulated the flight of a Boeing 747 cargo jet along the same route as JAL1628 and on the same date and at the same time that they saw the lights they reported. Although I have turned off all weather, the simulator still shows frequent intermittent aurora in the sky above the aircraft. Here is a view out of the Captain's window of the simulated 747: http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/679/jal1628auroradu3.jpg . And here is a view from a (virtual) spotting plane looking back at the aircraft and showing where the moon was near the time that the flight crew first noticed something unusual, and the aircraft's moonlit contrail: http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/2670/jal1628contrailiz3.jpg .

It seems plausible that JAL1628 may have flown up the moonlit contrail of another aircraft(s) ahead of them.

It's size was about the same size as the body of a DC-8 jet, and with numerous exhaust pipes.

...the lights were like flames coming out of multiple rocket exhaust ports arranged in two rectangular arrays...He compared them to "output exhaust" like the Challenger (as it took off). He described the colors as "amber and whitish". He stated that the "numerous lights" were "exhausts on the engines" and were "lined up all the way".

They stated that all they could see were the lights and at no time could they see the craft.

 

[Aether]

I have requested records from the FAA Alaskan Region in Anchorage including a flight path chart and the actual radar tracking data related to this incident; this should indicate the actual flight path taken by JAL1628, and show what other aircraft if any were in front of JAL1628. I have also requested some arctic weather balloon data in order that we may know the winds, temperature, and humidity within the airmass through which JAL1628 was flying at this time. I suspect that the first officer's initial impression "thinking the lights were the jet exhausts of several military jets" may be fairly accurate, and this may allow us to estimate how long-lasting any contrails would have been, and how they might have drifted relative to the flight path of JAL1628.

In Haines' written report he describes the JAL1628 first officer's (FO) initial impression of the lights:

Thinking the lights were the jet exhausts of several military jets, the FO called Anchorage Center to inquire if other aircraft were in the area. They were told "...there were no other aircraft in the North area."

However, according to the actual transcript of this conversation as presented in Maccabee's written report, Anchorage Center's reply to this question was "JAL1628 heavy, roger." Note that at the time JAL1628's first officer made this call to AARTCC at 5:19:15, the lights had been under observation by the flight crew for about ten minutes and yet he was still "thinking the lights were the jet exhausts of several military jets."

Of course, the "moonlit contrail" theory could be further tested by actually flying through the same airspace under similar conditions of air-traffic, moonlight, wind, temperature, and humidity.

 

[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/img66/6939/jal16282235qk4.jpg ). NOAA-10 also snapped a high-resolution image while the event was actually taking place, but that image is missing from the archive. A low resolution image from that pass of NOAA-10 is available, but it's quite grainy compared to this image. High resolution images are often lost when there is radio interference between this series of satellites and the ground stations which record the data in real time. Unfortunately, the receiving station for these satellites is in Fairbanks, Alaska and the record shows that radio reception was very bad in this area during this event. In the bottom right corner of the image shown here, you can see a tell-tale sign of radio interference. Low resolution images are saved in RAM onboard the satellite so that they can be transmitted later when hopefully radio reception is better, but the high resolution images are lost if they aren't received correctly the first time.

Upon inspection of these satellite images we can see that the estimated flight path of JAL1628 passed over a large low-hanging cloud which was located to the rear of the aircraft at 5:30:23 when Capt. Terauchi requested a change in heading to run away from a large object behind him.

We were just above the bright city lights and we checked the pale white light behind us. Alas! There was a silhouette of a gigantic spaceship. We must run away quickly!

5:30:23 JAL1628 - Request, ah, deviate, ah, ah, from, ah, object...
5:30:49 JAL1628 - It's, ah, quite big...
5:30:56 JAL1628 - It's, ah, very quite big, ah, plane.

It would be interesting to see what this large cloud would have looked like from the perspective of JAL1628's flight crew, and that may be possible using Microsoft's Flight Simulator.

Also visible in the satellite image:
1) A large contrail cloud measuring between about 1000 to 2000 meters wide.
2) Isolated storm cells (vertically developed clouds) approximately 200nm West of where JAL1628 picked up cloud-like returns on their onboard weather radar. These particular storm clouds may be too far away to be the same ones that were picked up on JAL1628's weather radar approximately four hours after this image was taken, but other storm cells could have developed closer to JAL1628's flight path in the intervening four hours.

These NOAA satellites also have sensors onboard that measure the solar wind in real time, and NOAA-10 did record a moderately strong surge of charged particles (coming from the Sun) as it passed over the arctic during the JAL1628 event. From those measurements, it is estimated that the solar wind was pumping an average total power of about 24 giga-Watts into the Northern Hemisphere during the JAL1628 event. This may be a clue that we should look more closely at auroral activity during this event. Unfortunately, the records of auroral activity posted online by the Geophysical Institute (University of Alaska, Fairbanks) do not go back as far as 1986.

 

[bruce maccabee]

In case this thread continues, those participating should access the complete report at http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html . The complete report (which has been partially copied at several web sites) includes all the drawings by the crew and a complete reconstruction of the path of the aircraft.

 

[Aether]

In case this thread continues, those participating should access the complete report at http://brumac.8k.com/JAL1628/JL1628.html . The complete report (which has been partially copied at several web sites) includes all the drawings by the crew and a complete reconstruction of the path of the aircraft.

Hello Dr. Maccabee, Thank-you for joining our discussion of the JAL 1628 UFO event.

This is from the postscript to your report:

Klaas attributed the airplane radar sighting to "an echo from thin clouds of ice crystals...Klass' explanation for the radar target is total conjecture on his part since the clouds were reported by the plane to be thin. Would there be any return at all from such clouds? One might ask, if there were so many clouds, why the radar didn't pick up numerous "blobby" returns on the right side and ahead of the aircraft as well as on the left where the "mothership" appeared to be. And, of course, Klass' explanation does not account for the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship."

And in Fig. 6 of your report, we see the "Captain's sketch of how the objects moved with respect to the plane and how the radar echo appeared on the weather record display.".

If we knew the precise latitude, longitude, and heading of the aircraft at 5:24:53, then we could examine Phil Klass' explanation for the radar target in view of the contemporaneous satellite imagery from NOAA-9 & 10. I am still waiting to receive records from the FAA indicating the actual flight path taken by JAL1628, but if you have this information would you please tell me the latitudes and longitudes along the actual flight path for timestamps 5:09:20, 5:24:53, and 5:30:23? When I get this information I will post before and after satellite photos from NOAA-9 and 10 showing where the major cloud formations were relative to the actual flight path of the aircraft around the time of this sighting.

A weather balloon was released from Fairbanks at around 00:00 (UTC) and its measurements show that the wind at 35,000ft. was from 350 degrees at about 26kts. This wind would have caused the heading of the aircraft to be slightly different from the ground track shown by the radar data. The winds aloft must also be taken into account when estimating the drift of any clouds in the area between 02:25 (UTC) when the aircraft radar picked up a target, and 02:48 (UTC) when the most timely satellite image of Alaska was taken by NOAA-10.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This wind would have caused the heading of the aircraft to be slightly different from the ground track shown by the radar data.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[bruce maccabee]

I have to dig out buried records to find out if I have the coordinates of the plane. However, you should note that Klass' moonlight-on-clouds explanation was intended for the first two objects which appeared in front of the plane, with their unusual arrays of lights or "fires" and the captain said he felt "heat on his face." THat certainly doesn't square with moonlight on clouds.
Personally I think that the initial sighting of two objects in front of the plane, seen by the whole crew, is a "strong" UFO event. However the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship" by the captain alone is a "weak" UFO event. Too bad the crew didn't speak English better.

 

[bruce maccabee]

I just checked the paper posted at my web site. Figure 1 gives the geographic coordinates well enough to it should be possible to locate the plane to within several degrees. Don't know if I have more accurate readings for the times you requested.

 

[bruce maccabee]

Your reference to the upper altitude wind at 350 deg and 25 kt means that the airplane would have a slight "crabbing angle" in order to read roghly southward. However, the plane was traveling at over 500 kt so the crabbing angle would be small.

 

[Aether]

This wind would have caused the heading of the aircraft to be slightly different from the ground track shown by the radar data.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Your reference to the upper altitude wind at 350 deg and 25 kt means that the airplane would have a slight "crabbing angle" in order to read roghly southward. However, the plane was traveling at over 500 kt so the crabbing angle would be small.

Here is a screenshot of the simulated aircraft's instrument panel at 5:24:53 (http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/3994/jal1628022453mt1.jpg ). The "Horizontal Situation Indicator" is the second instrument from the left on the bottom row. The magnetic heading of the simulated aircraft at this time is 191-degrees; the white line pointing to about 188 degrees represents the ground-track of the aircraft; and the difference between these two (approximately 3-degrees) represents the "crabbing angle" due to the wind. Dr. Maccabee's report states that at this time the aircraft is "continuing along a straight line heading of 215 degrees (southwestward) toward Talkeetna" and a little bit later that "the plane began to turn from its magnetic heading of 182 (+/-1) degrees (about 215 degrees with respect to geographic north)." The magnetic declination at Fairbanks, AK is about 27 degrees east (see http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF14/1468.html). When we subtract this from the ground-track of the aircraft of 215 degrees true, we get a ground track of about 188 degrees magnetic; then when we add the crabbing angle necessary to compensate for the winds aloft, we arrive at an estimated magnetic heading for JAL1628 of 191 degrees (+/-1) which is consistent with the 191 degree magnetic heading shown in the simulation. The radar display shown in Fig. 6 of Dr. Maccabee's report should be interpreted as being oriented relative to the aircraft's true heading of 218 (+/-1) degrees.

I have to dig out buried records to find out if I have the coordinates of the plane.

If you can't easily place your hands on the records, then we could wait a few weeks to see what the FAA comes up with.

However, you should note that Klass' moonlight-on-clouds explanation was intended for the first two objects which appeared in front of the plane, with their unusual arrays of lights or "fires" and the captain said he felt "heat on his face." THat certainly doesn't square with moonlight on clouds. Personally I think that the initial sighting of two objects in front of the plane, seen by the whole crew, is a "strong" UFO event. However the "silhouette of a gigantic spaceship" by the captain alone is a "weak" UFO event. Too bad the crew didn't speak English better.

I ordered a copy of the Skeptical Inquirer issue containing Klass' article, but I haven't received that yet. I am considering the possibility that the first two objects might be consistent with aurora borealis. The issue of the magnetic heading of the aircraft is especially important in this regard. Referring to Figs. 2 & 3 of your report, we see that on a magnetic heading of 191 degrees for the aircraft the position of the objects in the Captain's window is consistent with a viewing angle of approximately 180 degrees (due south magnetic). Now, let's consider what is shown in Fig. 10 in light of this:

In fact, statistically speaking, Ft. Yukon may be the aurora capital of the world...When the aurora is directly overhead, auroral rays look like glowing needles in some gigantic game of pick-up-sticks, except they are all tidily oriented. The apparent convergence of the rays as they extend upward is only a trick of perspective. The rays are actually parallel. The point toward which they seem to converge is the magnetic zenith...Nowadays there's one aurora-watching platform the old-timers couldn't have dreamed of: jet aircraft. Commercial planes can offer terrific views to passengers on late-night flights. Try for a window seat so you can see east-northeast---the left side if you're flying south...Thanks to the Earth's curvature, auroras over 1000 miles away are visible from a plane flying at 30,000 feet. Since most of the Earth's atmosphere is below cruising altitude on long flights, the air muffles little of the aurora's light; the aurora will actually be brighter seen from the airplane than from the ground. -- http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF10/1046.html

Since Capt. Terauchi did not report seeing any auroral activity during this sighting, then we may assume that if any such activity was present then it must have been misinterpreted by Terauchi. The Geophysical Institute operates auroral observatories at Fairbanks and Fort Yukon, but their online data archives do not extend back as far as 1986. There may or may not be records of auroral observations from the time and place of this event stored there offline. Terauchi's memory of feeling "heat on his face" may (or may not) simply be a natural physiological response to fear; we can examine that too.

 

[bruce maccabee]

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.