Discuss General Topics.
No, they weren't aircraft. The Japanese pilot saw a planet which is another common UFO mistake. If you'll investigate with an open mind, you'll find that what the pilot reporting at the time of the incident contradicts his testimony 6 weeks later--the one the UFOligists like to report.
You have proven my point:
You cannot deny the ETH given the data,
so you will deny the data.
While you're at it, why don't you just state that you can't deny EDH and claim that EDH proves UFOs as well or that IDH is what happens when UFOs simply disappear in thin air and then ask me to deny that as well.
It appears you are formulating a guess to fit your belief. Hence, you deny reality which is there could very well be a simple, terrestrial explanation for all UFO cases. Bottom line, you are asking me to prove a negative, quite impossible. Additionally, a hypothesis requires tests that can prove it exists, but until that time, it is simply one possibility. At the present time, a test hasn't been done on ET so ETH remains simply a guess to you and others who fall into the trap of believing without researching for rational explanations. You want to believe so you do.
As long as there COULD BE a rational explanation, then ET is only real to those who believe without proof.
In any event, the ETH acronym may be unfamiliar to many readers. Why don't you explain it in simple, easy to understand terms...
ETH = Extraterrestrial Hypothesis i.e., UFO's are ET
I am not denying terrestrial explanations at all. I know most UFO cases can be explained by
terrestrial explanations, and in fact most reputed ufologists would not disagree. The first thing
they will do is try out all terrestrial explanations. However, when they fail, the only other explanations
that remain are ET.
Your planet explanation for the Japanese cargo ship UFO case fails. It does not fit the data.
It is you who are not being objective here. While, I will consider terrestrial explanationS and
ET explanations and not bat an eye lid, you will only consider terrestrial explanations, even if
they don't work. You are simply unable to consider the ET explanation because it is against your
So if something can't be explained by someone who wasn't there, then the only other explanation is that it is an alien spacecraft? That is as bogus as it can come. I can't believe that anyone would say that. You are certainly a pseudo-believer. Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it was paranormal. Your statement is ridiculous. Sorry.
As for Flight 1628. that's a great way to rebut my explanation, simply saying it does not fit the data. Here's the bottom line: If testimony given weeks after an incident conflicts with original testimony, then the entire story becomes suspect. If you don't believe that, then fine, just keep being a pseudo-believer.
Again, your explanation does not fit the data. Planets do not produce moving radar signatures
that can be tracked, and they certainly do not shine intensely and produce radiation that would
light up the insides of the plane and heat that can be felt, and they do not
chase aeroplanes and move around them, and they do not look like massive objects many
times bigger than a plane.
Please produce evidence of this alleged later testimony that was different, so I can compare and contrast.
As always, so far, the evidence is on my side.
Underline comment mine:
ANCHORAGE (AP) -- The Federal Aviation Administration has stepped
up efforts to determine the source of wavering lights that dogged a
Japan Air Lines cargo jet across Alaska's night sky for nearly an
hour in November.
"We're looking at it to ensure that somebody didn't violate
airspace we control," FAA spokesman Paul Steucke said Sunday. "We
looked at it about six weeks ago, but since then we've gotten a lot
of public interest, so we went back and re-interviewed the pilot.
He provided us with additional information."
Veteran pilot Kenji Terauchi told investigators Friday through
an interpreter that two of the lights were small, perhaps no larger
than eight feet across. He said the third light was on an aircraft,
a huge darkened globe with a diameter of perhaps two aircraft
carriers placed end-to-end, Steucke said.
The pilot said the large UFO showed up on his cockpit weather
radar. But images on military radar screens at the time were
dismissed as "clutter," and a blip that showed up on FAA screens
was analyzed as a coincidental "split image" of the aircraft,
Radar tapes, transcribed interviews and radio messages are to be
sent to the FAA in Washington, D.C., later this week for review,
Last edited by ProfWag on 02 Jul 2010, 05:23, edited 1 time in total.
Steucke added, "At 6:32 the JAL pilot requested
and received permission for a descent from 35,000
feet to 31,000." Air controllers asked if the
lights were still there, and were told, "It is
descending in formation." At 6:39 p.m.,20 minutes
after the lights first reported, the JAL crew said
it no longer saw the lights.
At 6:45 p.m. Fairbanks controllers authrized a
United Airlines northbound jet to make a 10 degree
turn to better view the JAL plane and asked the
United crew if it saw anything besides the Boeing
747. It did not. Nor did the JAL crew see the
Is it just a coincidence that the lights decended in formation at the same time the plane descended? Planets appear to do this as well.
Further, it is often reported that the plane made a 10 degree turn and saw the object move, however, when the plane made the 10 degree turn, it was 1845 hours or 6 minutes after the plane no longer saw the lights.
FAA says UFO on radar screen was just
a double image of jet
United Press International
ANCHORAGE - Federal investigators say
a review of radar tapes failed to
show a UFO shadowing a Japan Air Lines
cargo jet, contradicting reports made
by the crew and the air-traffic
controller who handled the plane.
This testimony only shows proof of a cover up by the FAA. Later, an
FAA official spills the beans on this case, and reveals how the FAA covered
It's just like Roswell. First they report flying saucers, then later their reports
change to weather balloons.
It is interesting how you accept testimony when it suits your purposes lol
Same to you.
This is a case of testimony vs testimony.
Here read FAA Division Chief John Callahan's testimony:
For 6 years Mr. Callahan was the Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington DC. In his testimony he tells about a 1986 Japanese Airlines 747 flight that was followed by a UFO for 31 minutes over the Alaskan skies. The UFO also trailed a United Airlines flight until the flight landed. There was visual confirmation as well as air-based and ground-based radar confirmation. This event was significant enough for the then FAA Administrator, Admiral Engen, to hold a briefing the next day where the FBI, CIA, President Reagan’s Scientific Study Team, as well as others attended. Videotape radar evidence, air traffic voice communications and paper reports were compiled and presented. At the conclusion of this meeting, the attending CIA members instructed everyone present that ‘"he meeting never took place" and that "this incident was never recorded." Not realizing that there was additional evidence, they confiscated just the evidence presented, but Mr. Callahan was able to secure videotape and audio evidence of the event.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSu ... asp?ID=290
Which is more likely of the two: An experienced pilot and his crew first report seeing 3 giant UFO's chasing them for 30 min, and ground radar also track the object, a few weeks later change their testimony into something entirely different AND a high ranking FAA division chief later comes out with documented, audio and video evidence showing there was a cover up, is lying and has forged everything.
The FAA covered it up
Using Occams razor the least amount of assumptions is required with the latter. So the most likely explanation here is the FAA covered it up.
The pilot reported 1 "giant" UFO and 2 smaller ones, later changed to 3, then back to 2. After studying what I have about this case, I am personally convinced that there were simple, rational, and terrestrial explanations for those "UFOs." But there's nothing I could say that would change your pseudo-believer mind so I won't waste my time.
Nah, I just think you are gullible that's all. You've fallen
for another cover-up. It is clear to any intelligent person that
the FAA covered it up. For the following reasons
1) The first testimony and the testimony a few weeks later
is radically different. Similar to Roswell, where first they report
seeing a flying saucer, with occupants and strange metallic debris
with unusual properies, then all of a sudden its a weather balloon.
2) A high ranking FAA division chief has now come out and spilled
the beans that the FAA did cover it up, and has document, audio
and video evidence to prove it.
Any intelligent and rational person can clearly see the FAA covered it up.
Finally, the fact that this case is one amongst thousands where pilots have
seen these UFO's, shows that it is most likely this was yet another case of it.
As always the evidence is on my side.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests