The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Raryel ( talk) 17:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone know the registration for the aircraft? Username006 ( talk) 17:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Great transparency. Some people taking libertiesand per WP:PA, please comment only on content, not other editors. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
all UFO articles be damaged in no time, nobody able to speak outI'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)
the swamp gas they producedand
Ambush editingspeak for themselves. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 07:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Raryel ( talk) 17:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone know the registration for the aircraft? Username006 ( talk) 17:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Great transparency. Some people taking libertiesand per WP:PA, please comment only on content, not other editors. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
all UFO articles be damaged in no time, nobody able to speak outI'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)
the swamp gas they producedand
Ambush editingspeak for themselves. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 07:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)