Talk:Japan Air Lines Cargo Flight 1628 incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time discrepancies[edit]

Weak aspects of the article are the time discrepancies still contained in the lead, and with respect to the arrival time of the first objects. Firstly the total time would be either 40 or 50 minutes, and requires additional sources to narrow down the end location and time. Secondly the arrival time of 5:18/19 does not tie in with the periods which the pilots specified for the respective flight configurations. JMK (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distance discrepancy[edit]

In the paragraph titled "Two objects," the distance to the object in front of the aircraft is reportedly 500'-1000' at between 5:18 and 5:19pm. In the ATC transcript, at the same recorded time, the object is reported to be a mile away and the aircrew has confirmed that it has navigational lights and strobe, which would definitely suggest an earthly origin. Based on Cpt. Terauchi's statement, the change in position is included at 5:21, but is not reported in the ATC transcript. Additionally, Cpt. Terauchi's testimony is cited as coming from ufocasebook.com which is probably not an unbiased source. This site in turn cites the Japan Today news website, but the article link is dead. I think the whole timeline requires a lot of clean-up and maybe some better sources.The Famous Adventurer (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAARP involvement?[edit]

The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program Research Station in Alaska.

Maybe the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program Research Station could be somehow involved in the... "incident"?
  M aurice   Carbonaro  08:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


asking for an unrelated idea to be connected without any evidence is of low utility to a wiki! Waptek (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAARP started in 1990, this event took place in 1986--how could HAARP be involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.111 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

  • This is a B-classed article that is tagged (since May 2017) for reference problems. This fails #1 of the assessment criteria and is at risk of being demoted.
  • The lead is too short for the article.
It is not actually an issue but we use subsections that are related to the section. "References" is certainly related to "Notes" yet we oftentimes separate the two into sections. Otr500 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #16 and others are from an author whose book with no scientific credibility and should not be used as such. The FAA secrecy material is nonsensical and doesn't belong in the article. The best explanation for what happened is the pilot saw Jupiter and Saturn in exactly the positions he reported. The rest were a combination of optical illusions. Reported radar sightings were not real; radar operators are taught to recognize the limitations of their equipment and how atmospheric conditions can put "ghost" images on their scopes. An Aviation Week and Space Technology piece debunked this "incident." See https://apnews.com/article/275967ae96c4e21dad2fb5eda04bcb37

Raryel (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Registration?[edit]

Does anyone know the registration for the aircraft? Username006 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I searched on the basis of aircraft date of service and type through planespotters.net and only 4 aircraft met all of the conditions. i.e.

Registration Into Service Out of Service Aircraft Type JA8123 – 17 Sep 1974 – 17 Apr 2002 – Boeing 747-246F JA8132 – 27 Jul 1979 – 28 Mar 2006 – Boeing 747-246F JA8165 – 20 Dec 1973 – 1 May 2007 – Boeing 747-221F JA8171 – 28 Aug 1986 – 24 Feb 2009 – Boeing 747-246F

Note: Please use the edit button to see the above details correctly.

Username006 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why is the aircraft registration particularl important to this incident? if a reference is hard to find or nonexistent it it probably isn't. this is the main reason original research does not create a reliable encyclopaedia. WP:ORAndrewgprout (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC). Also planespotters is not generally considered particularly reliable due to its somewhat userdriven content. Andrewgprout (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to let the readers know which aircraft was involved in the incident. You could probably also say the same thing for Finnair Flight 915. Also, I think this page should be renamed to Japan Airlines Cargo Flight 1628 since it is a cargo flight. But I had to do a bold move because no one was responding here. Also, what are reliable sources?

Also, why are you tracking me? Username006 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should I rename the page to Japan Airlines Cargo Flight 1628 incident?[edit]

Should I rename the page to Japan Airlines Cargo Flight 1628 incident since it is a cargo flight. Also, please respond orelse I may have to make you forcefully respond by renaming the page which I certainly do not enjoy. Username006 (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm in separating it from passenger incidences. JAL Cargo was a subsidiary of Japan Air Lines. There should be a needed "exception" not to follow the most commonly used name in sources.
There is Empire Airlines Flight 8284, Alaska Airlines Flight 779, Pan Am Flight 799, United Airlines Flight 2860, Aeroservicios Ecuatorianos Flight 767-103, United Airlines Flight 2885, Flying Tiger Line Flight 66, Transbrasil Flight 801, China Airlines Flight 358, El Al Flight 1862, Pulkovo Aviation Enterprise Flight 9045, Spair Airlines Flight 3601, Fine Air Flight 101, Emery Worldwide Flight 17, MK Airlines Flight 1602, FedEx Express Flight 80, Azza Transport Flight 2241, Avient Aviation Flight 324, AeroUnion Flight 302, UPS Airlines Flight 6, Sun Way Flight 4412, Asiana Airlines Flight 991, National Airlines Flight 102, UPS Airlines Flight 1354, Atlas Air Flight 3591, Ukraine Air Alliance Flight 4050.
Using "cargo": Korean Air Cargo Flight 6316, Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509, and JAL Cargo Flight 8054.
If the title is renamed it should follow JAL Cargo Flight 8054 for consistency. I would think there should be a sub-category of "Incidences involving cargo aircraft" or List of accidents and incidents involving cargo aircraft" as a navigational aid. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Article issues (above) would be a more pressing concern. Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Japan Airlines which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page rewritten[edit]

This page is now rewritten. I have only used RS and removed the images and much of the detail. According to RS this was a nothing event and the article now reflects that.Sgerbic (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This rewrite was per consensus discussion at FTN (link may change when archived). Much improved, thanks to Sgerbic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No note posted here until after the discussion. Great transparency. Some people taking liberties. So RS would be 1. PJ Klass, "known for his skepticism regarding UFOs" and "Jupiter and Mars were in the area" (b.t.w., when the first two objects arrived it was not even completely dark yet, and yet the pilot is expected to look out for certain stars while he can feel the heat of two very luminous objects on his face), 2. P Sheaffer, "UFO skeptic", and also a skeptic on human-induced climate change 3. B Dunning, "who focuses on science and skepticism", while not having any scientific qualifications, and is seemingly prone to take liberties with other people's money. So the article must not mention the cargo of the cargo plane, really. Just look at this: "Two other nearby planes only saw Flight 1628 and no other objects." — where, when and how were these travelling to make it relevant? Did they at least confirm "Jupiter and Mars"? Was JAL seeing something at the same time they could not? The article was and is in need of attention though. JMK (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a dose of WP:OR, via Stellarium, that might help address the first point raised immediately above. I am going to define "eastern Alaska" as Eagle, Alaska (N64 47 15, W141 12.5 0), and the local time as either 1711 (0211 UTC), as reported in the article, or 1815 (0315 UTC), as reported by Klass. More on times below. All of Alaska is -9 hr UTC.
On November 17, 1986: At 1711 local time Mars was magnitude 0.69 and 9 deg above the horizon, Jupiter was magnitude -1.95 and 12 deg above the horizon, both to the SE - SSE. The sun was already 11 deg below the horizon. At 1815 local time, Mars was magnitude 0.62 and 10 deg above the horizon, Jupiter was magnitude -2.07 and 15 deg above the horizon, both to the S - SE. The sun was 17 deg below the horizon.
At either time it was sufficiently dark for both planets to have been readily visible to the cockpit occupants of a plane passing overhead at 8000m or so, a bit to the left (how much to the left depends upon the exact flight path, of course) as they approached Anchorage.
I note that, although I might well have missed it, I was unable to confirm the 1711 local time in any of the cited sources. Klass reported a local time of 1815, and that the sun was 11 deg below the horizon. That sun location, however, is correct for 1711 local time, not for 1815. Not that it matters: it was sufficiently dark at either time to render Jupiter and Mars visible.
One last thing for JMK: regarding Great transparency. Some people taking liberties and per WP:PA, please comment only on content, not other editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If unchecked, this formula can be repeated and all UFO articles be damaged in no time, nobody able to speak out. So my comments relate both to the sweeping content changes and the disingenuous way of reaching "consensus" in a silo – informing us post facto of the swamp gas they produced there. Ambush editing is my take on it. JMK (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page had been discussed at Fringe Noticeboard for years. The page clearly needed to be written fresh with a clean sandbox and not picking away at an existing page as has been done for years. The problem with the page before I got to it was that people thought it necessary to put every detail they could find including the bit about the wine. The story is simple, there is no need to have graphics and renderings of what someone thought the pilot thought he saw. If you want to know the math on the positions of the planets, well they are there on the page. Click on the Further reading section and shazam you will find all the math and astronomy your heart desires. Wikipedia is not a print book sitting on the shelf, if someone feels strongly about a change or wants to add something, then we can discuss it here on talk. Sgerbic (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem with the rewrite? Are there some specific tweaks you can suggest, or is it that the tone has shifted from "it's an unexplained mystery" to the mainstream scientific view (that is, the overwhelming number of UFO reports have mundane explanations)? You don't like skeptical sources, but they satisfy WP:FRIND, while the UFOlogist books do not. Unfortunately there are still many UFO articles like this one that indulge in WP:GEVAL, or tilt the scales in favor of the fringe or "unexplainable mystery" interpretation, written by both well meaning editors and ardent UFO believers. In a sense, you can't blame these editors for taking a credulous POV because most pop culture media sources are more focused on getting clicks and eyeballs than accuracy. all UFO articles be damaged in no time, nobody able to speak out I'm baffled as to why this natural movement toward NPOV (i.e.WP:NOTNEUTRAL) translates into a fatal drama for you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think phrases like the swamp gas they produced and Ambush editing speak for themselves. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The changes fall exactly in the swamp gas category: negating specific observations by substituting them with ridiculous substitutes, with no reliable sources. And it is also an ambush because this page was not notified. And in the safe space silo, the previous editors of the article were made to look simpleminded. Let's start with some basics, Astronomers and investigators have determined that .... Can we get the names of these astronomers? I think it is a false statement. With the exception of the Seti proponents, typically Carl Sagan fans who need funding for Sagan-style investigations, there are no astronomers that comment on UFOs. Astronomers are interested in nebulas, double stars, pulsars and planets yes, but don't comment on whether planets were seen by pilots, etc. If I'm wrong let us see who these "astronomers" are. I hope it is not someone with a backyard telescope or Stellarium on his computer. JMK (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't access source 4 and it contradicts an article in the Washington Post[edit]

The source citing that the FAA did not confirm the mysterious craft on radar is a dead link and it contradicts the article in the Washington Post on January 2, 1987: UFO SIGHTING CONFIRMED BY FAA, AIR FORCE RADAR https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/01/02/ufo-sighting-confirmed-by-faa-air-force-radar/c186c4b7-54ed-459e-b94d-eeeff7b3322e/ 78.1.47.111 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier dated WaPo story is not cited here because: At the time, news media stated that the FAA reported seeing objects near the plane even after the evasive maneuvers, but upon later review, the military radar images were "dismissed as clutter, and an object that showed up on the aviation agency's screens was thought to be a coincidental split image of the aircraft". Anchorage FAA air controllers saw only Flight 1628 on their radar screens. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

What justified removing the map, illustrations, and ATC transcript? The fringe noticeboard discussion really did not explain that. — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 07:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a website meant to collect every detail of the story. The illustrations are original research. I think readers know where Alaska is, so a map isn't necessary and only clutters the article. And as the citations show, this wasn't something that really happened. This pilot had been reporting UFO's previously and two other planes said that nothing was near the Japan flight. Whatever this pilot thinks he saw, it was not a UFO. I hope that answers your questions. I did leave a comment after rewriting the article, it is a few inches above this comment. Sgerbic (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And there you go. I had written the following but the cat-like reflexes of Sgerbic beat me to it: The removals were apparently done here. I assume the rationale was that the figures were deemed WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, a violation of WP:GEVAL, and/or unnecessary in some other way, but you would have to ask that editor. Pinging @Sgerbic: to see if they would like to comment. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shazza! And I am here! I have very few articles on my watchlist, and most are inactive. That is the reason for my quick response.Sgerbic (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japan_Air_Lines_Cargo_Flight_1628_incident&oldid=1213209316"