janvier 1987 went by and then le mois suivant with still no word from the FAA. But then, on jeudi 5 mars 1987,
the FAA announced the results of the inquiry. According to the FAA press release the FAA was unable to confirm
the event
s1“FAA Releases Documents on Reported UFO Sighting Last November,” by Paul Steucke, Office of Public Affairs,
Alaskan Region, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transport, March 5, 1987 (Anchorage, AK).
The event was unconfirmed because 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.
In other words, the FAA
couldn't confirm the sighting on radar because the "traffic" or "primary return" reported by the AARTCC controller
at the time of the sighting was merely an artifact of the radar set. Or so said the FAA! (Recall that the
transponder return or "blip" is separate from the primary return blip. These two should be immediately adjacent or
one-on-top of the other under ordinary conditions. What the FAA was saying was that because of a minor and temporary
malfunction of the radar the primary return was separated in position on the radar screen from the transponder
return, thus making look as if there were two separate radar-reflective objects in the sky.) The press release did
not mention that the "split return effect" was contradicted by the fact that the extra echo did not come back with
every sweep of the radar and by a statement by an airtraffic controller who said that they rarely, if ever, get a
split image in the area where the JAL jet was flying. The press release did NOT offer an explanation for the
visual sighting, nor did it dispute the crew's claim that something unusual was seen. The press release just did not
address the issue of the visual sighting.
The March FAA release made a smaller splash in the press than had the original January stories about the FAA
involvement. This may have been because the press misinterpreted the FAA statement combined with the "fact" that the
sighting had already been "explained" by CSICOP. The general newsmedia concentrated on the FAA statement that it
could not confirm the radar sighting and ignored the failure of the FAA to even mention the visual sighting. For
example, NBC News incorrectly reported that Terauchi's crewmates were not sure that they had seen a UFO
and
that the FAA concluded a three-month investigation saying there is nothing to substantiate the pilot's story
.
From this sort of press reporting one would get the impression that the whole sighting revolved around the Captain's
story, which was not supported by the crew members. The NBS story failed to mention, probably because the NBC
reporter didn't know, what you, dear reader, know: that the copilot and flight engineer had independently confirmed
the pilot's report of seeing numerous lights appear in front and to the left of the aircraft and that the airplane
radar had picked up a large target in the same direction as the UFO.
After March 5 the press interest in this story essentially died, leaving the general public with the impression that once again an experienced air crew had failed to identify normal phenomena. (Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi was subsequently "grounded" for a couple of years, evidently for his boldness in reporting what he and the others had seen.)