164 lines
7.1 KiB
Plaintext
164 lines
7.1 KiB
Plaintext
![]() |
SUBJECT: IS THE K2 REPORT A FAKE ? FILE: UFO1531
|
||
|
|
||
|
PART 1
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Some time ago I decided to further investigate the claims of the Phoenix
|
||
|
Project in regards to their K2 Report about a supposed underground alien
|
||
|
base located near Quincy CA. This report chronicles my initial findings.
|
||
|
It is not my intention to discredit the Phoenix Project, or Jack Mathias.
|
||
|
They, as a scientific organization, should be able to appreciate any
|
||
|
attempt of independant verification.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The following is excerpted directly from the K2-Report, and chronicles
|
||
|
an "object" being pursued by 8 F-4 Phantoms.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
* * *
|
||
|
|
||
|
Report # 1: By Staff # 2:
|
||
|
Date: August 10, 1989, Time: 2212 PDT.
|
||
|
Location: Approximately 40 miles southwest of K-2.
|
||
|
|
||
|
A brightly glowing object was observed from my
|
||
|
location. It was approximately 30-40 feet in diameter,
|
||
|
moving slowly from south to north at 500 feet above the
|
||
|
tree-tops.
|
||
|
|
||
|
[text deleted for brevity]
|
||
|
|
||
|
Within 10 minutes, after the object left the area,
|
||
|
eight Air Force jet fighters (F-4s, judging from their
|
||
|
sound and appearance) and moving very fast, went overhead
|
||
|
traveling in the same direction the object had taken --
|
||
|
towards the North. Four minutes later, the fighters
|
||
|
returned, heading south. I presumed the object had been
|
||
|
spotted by their radar. Their quick return would indicate
|
||
|
they lost radar contact with the object.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* * *
|
||
|
|
||
|
[text deleted for brevity]
|
||
|
|
||
|
Memo
|
||
|
August 12, 1989
|
||
|
From Staff # 1
|
||
|
To: Staff # 2
|
||
|
|
||
|
Our contacts in the Air Force verify that on the night
|
||
|
of August 10, 1989, at the time indicated in Report # 1
|
||
|
of that date, that eight F-4's, scrambled from Beale AFB,
|
||
|
CA. They had a brief radar-lock, on a "bogie" in the area
|
||
|
described. However, they lost the target, due to ground
|
||
|
clutter when it suddenly descended into the mountainous
|
||
|
terrain. They returned to the base when a further sweep
|
||
|
of the area proved fruitless.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You're right, the AF had a blip on their radar, but
|
||
|
lost it when the ship dropped into that 20-mile approach
|
||
|
corridor between the valleys and the radar dead zone.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* * *
|
||
|
|
||
|
My Investigation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
I contacted the Public Affairs office at Beale AFB. (916-634-8890)
|
||
|
After identifying myself, and the information I needed, they transfered
|
||
|
me to another office. The person who answered the phone identified both
|
||
|
himself, and the office so swiftly, I couldn't make out who I was talking
|
||
|
to. (altho the point is moot..)
|
||
|
The following is a -rough- transcript of the conversation, although it is
|
||
|
not verbatim. (I did not record the conversation.) The officer I was speaking
|
||
|
to was quite candid, and informal. The conversation itself was spontaneous,
|
||
|
so I do not believe that I was being fed a "canned" story. Besides, as you'll
|
||
|
see in a moment, the officer has absoloutly no reason to lie about this.
|
||
|
I read the above memo to the officer, and then asked the following questions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Q: Has Beale AFB operated F-4 Phantoms in an interceptor role at any time,
|
||
|
and specificly during August of 1989?
|
||
|
|
||
|
A: No. Beale AFB is a SAC [Strategic Air Command] base, and has never
|
||
|
operated tactical aircraft in any capacity. We have B-52s, KC-130 air
|
||
|
refuelers, and until recently, the SR-71. We're a bomber base, not a
|
||
|
fighter base. There was an attempt made in an 89 air show to get 2 RF-4Cs
|
||
|
to come here, but unfortunatly, they couldn't make it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
[Note: In conversation, he told me the RF-4s were part of the High Roller
|
||
|
squadron based here in Reno...Joe.]
|
||
|
|
||
|
Q: Were F-4s ever used in an interceptor role as late as 1989?
|
||
|
|
||
|
A: Not to my knowledge, no. The F-4s have been relegated to ECM, "Wild
|
||
|
Weasel" roles, and low level recce [Recon] roles for quite some time now.
|
||
|
These types of F-4s are completely unarmed, therefor useless as fighters.
|
||
|
If an intercept mission was called out for northern CA, the response
|
||
|
would come from only one of 2 AFB's. Eilson<sp> or Almendorf AFB in
|
||
|
Alaska, although I'm not sure which one, and the other AFB would be March
|
||
|
AFB. Both bases have a wing of F-15 interceptors that the AF have assigned
|
||
|
to West Coast defense. The US Navy also has NAS [Naval Air Stations]
|
||
|
assigned to coastal defense, but I'm not sure which bases those are.
|
||
|
At any rate, the only Naval outfits to use the F-4 are the Marines, and
|
||
|
they also use it as "Wild Weasel" and low level recce.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Q: Has it ever been AF SOP to use eight aircraft in an intercept?
|
||
|
|
||
|
A: For -one- radar bogie? [he laughed at this point] That would insult most
|
||
|
of the fighter pilots I've ever known. [another laugh] No, most AFB's
|
||
|
only have 2 aircraft capable of being "scrambled" on a moments notice.
|
||
|
Even if an AFB had more aircraft available for a scramble, they would
|
||
|
still only send 2 aircraft. Operating an interceptor is extremly
|
||
|
expensive, somwhere in the region of $4,000 per flight hour. This is
|
||
|
fuel, oil, hydraulics, and air and ground crew salaries. The AF wouldn't
|
||
|
spend $32,000 for something they know from experience would only take
|
||
|
$8,000. Besides, we're still talking F-4s here right? [Yes] Well, for
|
||
|
an intercept conducted by the AF, you're looking at the F-15, or the
|
||
|
F-16. Even if we had F-4s that were armed, they'd wouldn't use them.
|
||
|
They're just not fast enough anymore.
|
||
|
|
||
|
* * *
|
||
|
|
||
|
Summary:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. Beale AFB is a SAC base, and as such, does not operate tactical
|
||
|
aircraft, (ie fighters) in any capacity, and never has. Their primary
|
||
|
aircraft types are bombers, hi-alt recon, and refuelers.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2. The AF would never send eight ships to intercept a radar bogie. IMHO
|
||
|
they wouldn't need to.
|
||
|
|
||
|
3. There are no F-4 Phantoms being used on the West Coast in an interceptor
|
||
|
role. They are used in Recon, and ECM roles only, and as such, are
|
||
|
totally unarmed. If the AF were to scramble an intercept, they would
|
||
|
use F-16s or F-15s.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Possible Explanations:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. The AF is lieing.
|
||
|
Not likely. They've no reason to hide the fact that tactical aircraft
|
||
|
do not operate from their base, nor have they any reason to lie about
|
||
|
using F-4s as interceptors.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2. The Phoenix Project member mis-identified the aircraft.
|
||
|
Unfortunatly, the Phoenix Project cannot use this as a defense, since
|
||
|
they state that they "verified" that 8 F-4s were scrambled to intercept
|
||
|
the radar "bogie."
|
||
|
|
||
|
3. The Phoenix Project deliberatly falsified this portion of their report.
|
||
|
Unfortunatly, this is the only explanation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Conclusion:
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is my opinion that at least this portion of the Phoenix Project's K-2
|
||
|
report is a deliberate falsehood. It can neither be a typographical error,
|
||
|
nor an error in judgement, (since they "verified" the info using AF
|
||
|
sources.) This also throws considerable doubt on the validity of the
|
||
|
"object" sighting, and on the K-2 report as a whole. However, I will let
|
||
|
others, more knowledgable and capable than I to determine the validity
|
||
|
of the remaining K-2 claims.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Joe.
|
||
|
|
||
|
**********************************************
|
||
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
||
|
**********************************************
|