2584 lines
174 KiB
Plaintext
2584 lines
174 KiB
Plaintext
![]() |
SUBJECT: 22 YEARS OF INADEQUATE UFO INVESTIGATIONS FILE: UFO2107
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, 134th MEETING
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Subject Science in Default: 22 Years of Inadequate
|
|||
|
UFO Investigations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Author James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Address The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Time 9:00 a.m., December 27, 1969
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Place Sheraton Plaza Ballroom
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Program General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Convention
|
|||
|
Address Sheraton Plaza Hotel
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RELEASE TIME
|
|||
|
A.M,'s December 28
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
No scientifically adequate investigation of the UFO problem has been
|
|||
|
carried out during the entire 22 years that have now passed since the first
|
|||
|
extensive wave of sightings of unidentified aerial objects in the summer of
|
|||
|
1947. Despite continued public interest, and despite frequent expressions of
|
|||
|
public concern, only quite superficial examinations of the steadily growing
|
|||
|
body of unexplained UFO reports from credible witnesses have been conducted in
|
|||
|
this country or abroad. The latter point is highly relevant, since all
|
|||
|
evidence now points to the fact that UFO sightings exhibit similar
|
|||
|
characteristics throughout the world.
|
|||
|
Charging inadequacy of all past UFO investigations, I speak not only from
|
|||
|
a background of close study of the past investigations, but also from a
|
|||
|
background of three years of rather detailed personal research, involving
|
|||
|
interviews with over five hundred witnesses in selected UFO cases, chiefly in
|
|||
|
the U. S. In my opinion, the UFO problem, far from being the nonsense problem
|
|||
|
that it has often been labeled by many scientists, constitutes a problem of
|
|||
|
extraordinary scientific interest.
|
|||
|
The grave difficulty with essentially all past UFO studies has been that
|
|||
|
they were either devoid of any substantial scientific content, or else have
|
|||
|
lost their way amidst the relatively large noise-content that tends to obscure
|
|||
|
the real signal in the UFO reports. The presence of a percentually large
|
|||
|
number of reports of misidentified natural or technological phenomena
|
|||
|
(planets, meteors, and aircraft, above all) is not surprising, given all the
|
|||
|
circumstances surrounding the UFO problem. Yet such understandable and usually
|
|||
|
easily recognized instances of misidentification have all too often been
|
|||
|
seized upon as a sufficient explanation for all UFO reports, while the residue
|
|||
|
of far more significant reports (numbering now of order one thousand) are
|
|||
|
ignored. I believe science is in default for having failed to mount any truly
|
|||
|
adequate studies of this problem, a problem that has aroused such strong and
|
|||
|
widespread public concern during the past two decades. Unfortunately, the
|
|||
|
present climate of thinking, above all since release of the latest of a long
|
|||
|
series of inadequate studies, namely, that conducted under the direction of
|
|||
|
Dr. E. U. Condon at the University of Colorado, will make it very difficult to
|
|||
|
secure any new and more thorough investigations, yet my own examination of the
|
|||
|
problem forces me to call for just such new studies. I am enough of a realist
|
|||
|
to sense that, unless the present AAAS UFO Symposium succeeds in making the
|
|||
|
scientific community aware of the seriousness of the UFO problem, little
|
|||
|
immediate response to any call for new investigation is likely to appear.
|
|||
|
In fact, the over-all public and scientific response to the UFO phenomena
|
|||
|
is itself a matter of substantial scientific interest, above all in its
|
|||
|
social-psychological aspects. Prior to my own investigations, I would never
|
|||
|
have imagined the wide spread reluctance to report an unusual and seemingly
|
|||
|
inexplicable event, yet that reluctance, and the attendant reluctance of
|
|||
|
scientists to exhibit serious interest in the phenomena in question, are quite
|
|||
|
general. One regrettable result is the fact that the most credible of UFO
|
|||
|
witnesses are often those most reluctant to come forward with a report of the
|
|||
|
event they have witnessed. A second regrettable result is that only a very
|
|||
|
small number of scientists have taken the time and trouble to search out the
|
|||
|
nearly puzzling reports that tend to be diluted out by the much larger number
|
|||
|
of trivial and non-significant UFO reports. The net result is that there still
|
|||
|
exists no general scientific recognition of the scope and nature of the UFO
|
|||
|
problem.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* * *
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Within the federal government official responsibility for UFO
|
|||
|
investigations has rested with the Air Force since early 1948. Unidentified
|
|||
|
aerial objects quite naturally fall within the area of Air Force concern, so
|
|||
|
this assignment of responsibility was basically reasonable, However, once it
|
|||
|
became clear (early 1949) that UFO reports did not seem to involve advanced
|
|||
|
aircraft of some hostile foreign power, Air Force interest subsided to
|
|||
|
relatively low levels, marked, however, by occasional temporary resurgence of
|
|||
|
interest following large waves of UFO reports, such as that of 1952, or 1957,
|
|||
|
or 1965.
|
|||
|
A most unfortunate pattern of press reporting developed by about 1953, in
|
|||
|
which the Air Force would assert that they had found no evidence of anything
|
|||
|
"defying explanation in terms of present-day science and technology" in their
|
|||
|
growing files of UFO reports. These statements to the public would have done
|
|||
|
little harm had they not been coupled systematically to press statements
|
|||
|
asserting that "the best scientific facilities available to the U. S. Air
|
|||
|
Force" had been and were being brought to bear on the UFO question. The
|
|||
|
assurances that substantial scientific competence was involved in Air Force
|
|||
|
UFO investigations have, I submit, had seriously deleterious scientific
|
|||
|
effects. Scientists who might otherwise have done enough checking to see that
|
|||
|
a substantial scientific puzzle lay in the UFO area were misled by these
|
|||
|
assurances into thinking that capable scientists had already done adequate
|
|||
|
study and found nothing. My own extensive checks have revealed so slight a
|
|||
|
total amount of scientific competence in two decades of Air Force-supported
|
|||
|
investigations that I can only regard the repeated asseverations of solid
|
|||
|
scientific study of the UFO . problem as the single most serious obstacle that
|
|||
|
the Air Force has put in the way of progress towards elucidation of the matter
|
|||
|
I do not believe, let me stress, that this has been part of some top-
|
|||
|
secret coverup of extensive investigations by Air Force or security agencies;
|
|||
|
I have found no substantial basis for accepting that theory of why the Air
|
|||
|
Force has so long failed to respond appropriately to the many significant and
|
|||
|
scientifically intriguing UFO reports coming from within its own ranks.
|
|||
|
Briefly, I see grand foulup but not grand coverup. Although numerous instances
|
|||
|
could be cited wherein Air Force spokesmen failed to release anything like
|
|||
|
complete details of UFO reports, and although this has had the regrettable
|
|||
|
consequence of denying scientists at large even a dim notion of the almost
|
|||
|
incredible nature of some of the more impressive Air Force-related UFO
|
|||
|
reports, I still feel that the most grievous fault of 22 years of Air Force
|
|||
|
handling of the UFO problem has consisted of their repeated public assertions
|
|||
|
that they had substantial scientific competence on the job.
|
|||
|
Close examination of the level of investigation and the level of
|
|||
|
scientific analysis involved in Project Sign (1948-9), Project Grudge (1949-
|
|||
|
52), and Project Bluebook (1953 to date), reveals that these were, viewed
|
|||
|
scientifically, almost meaning less investigations. Even during occasional
|
|||
|
periods (e.g., 1952) characterized by fairly active investigation of UFO
|
|||
|
cases, there was still such slight scientific expertise involved that there
|
|||
|
was never any real chance that the puzzling phenomena encountered in the most
|
|||
|
significant UFO cases would be elucidated. Furthermore, the panels,
|
|||
|
consultants, contractual studies, etc., that the Air Force has had working on
|
|||
|
the UFO problem over the past 22 years have, with essentially no exception,
|
|||
|
brought almost negligible scientific scrutiny into the picture. Illustrative
|
|||
|
examples will be given.
|
|||
|
The Condon Report, released in January, 1968, after about two years of
|
|||
|
Air Force-supported study is, in my opinion, quite inadequate. The sheer bulk
|
|||
|
of the Report, and the inclusion of much that can only be viewed as
|
|||
|
"scientific padding", cannot conceal from anyone who studies it closely the
|
|||
|
salient point that it represents an examination of only a tiny fraction of the
|
|||
|
most puzzling UFO reports of the past two decades, and that its level of
|
|||
|
scientific argumentation is wholly unsatisfactory. Furthermore, of the roughly
|
|||
|
90 cases that it specifically confronts, over 30 are conceded to be
|
|||
|
unexplained. With so large a fraction of unexplained cases (out of a sample
|
|||
|
that is by no means limited only to the truly puzzling cases, but includes an
|
|||
|
obJectionably large number of obviously trivial cases), it is far from clear
|
|||
|
how Dr. Condon felt justified in concluding that the study indicated "that
|
|||
|
further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
|
|||
|
expectation that science will be advanced thereby. "
|
|||
|
I shall cite a number of specific examples of cases from the Condon
|
|||
|
Report which I regard as entirely inadequately investigated and reported. One
|
|||
|
at Kirtland AFB, November 4, 1957, involved observations of a wingless egg-
|
|||
|
shaped object that was observed hovering about a minute over the field prior
|
|||
|
to departure at a climb rate which was described to me as faster than that of
|
|||
|
any known jets, then or now. The principal witnesses in this case were
|
|||
|
precisely the type of witnesses whose accounts warrant closest attention,
|
|||
|
since they were CAA tower observers who watched the UFO from the CAA tower
|
|||
|
with binoculars. Yet, when I located these two men in the course of my own
|
|||
|
check of cases from the Condon Report, I found that neither of them had even
|
|||
|
been contacted by members of the University of Colorado project! Both men were
|
|||
|
fully satisfied that they had been viewing a device with performance
|
|||
|
characteristics well beyond any thing in present or foreseeable aeronautical
|
|||
|
technology. The two men gave me descriptions that were mutually consistent and
|
|||
|
that fit closely the testimony given on Nov. 6, 1957, when they were
|
|||
|
interrogated by an Air Force investigator. The Condon Report attempts to
|
|||
|
explain this case as a light-aircraft that lost its way, came into the field
|
|||
|
area, and then left. This kind of explanation runs through the whole Condon
|
|||
|
Report, yet is wholly incapable of explaining the details of sightings such as
|
|||
|
that of the Kirtland AFB incident. Other illustrative instances in which the
|
|||
|
investigations summarized in the Condon Report exhibit glaring deficiencies
|
|||
|
will be cited. I suggest that there are enough significant unexplainable UFO
|
|||
|
reports just within the Condon Report itself to document the need for a
|
|||
|
greatly increased level of scientific study of UFOs.
|
|||
|
That a panel of the National Academy of Sciences could endorse this study
|
|||
|
is to me disturbing. I find no evidence that the Academy panel did any
|
|||
|
independent checking of its own; and none of that 11-man panel had any
|
|||
|
significant prior investigative experience in this area, to my knowledge. I
|
|||
|
believe that this sort of Academy endorsement must be criticized; it hurts
|
|||
|
science in the long run, and I fear that this particular instance will
|
|||
|
ultimately prove an embarrassment to the National Academy of Sciences.
|
|||
|
The Condon Report and its Academy endorsement have exerted a highly
|
|||
|
negative influence on clarification of the long-standing UFO problem; so much,
|
|||
|
in fact, that it seems almost pointless to now call for new and more extensive
|
|||
|
UFO investigations. Yet the latter are precisely what are needed to bring out
|
|||
|
into full light of scientific inquiry a phenomenon that could well constitute
|
|||
|
one of the greatest scientific problems of our times.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* * *
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some examples of UFO cases conceded to be unexplainable in the Condon Report
|
|||
|
and containing features of particularly strong scientific interest: Utica,
|
|||
|
N.Y., 6/23/55; Lakenheath, England, 8/13/56; Jackson, Ala., 11/14/56; Norfolk,
|
|||
|
Va., 8/30/57; RB-47 case, 9/19/57; Beverly Mass., 4/22/66; Donnybrook, N.D.,
|
|||
|
8/19/66; Haynesville, La., 12/30/66; Joplin, Mo., 1/13/67; Colorado Springs,
|
|||
|
Colo., 5/13/67.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some examples of UFO cases considered explained in the Condon Report for which
|
|||
|
I would take strong exception to the argumentation presented and would regard
|
|||
|
as both unexplained and of strong scientific interest: Flagstaff, Ariz.,
|
|||
|
5/20/50; Washington, D. C., 7/19/52; Bellefontaine, O., 8/1/52; Haneda AFB,
|
|||
|
Japan, 8/5/52; Gulf of Mexico, 12/6/52; Odessa, Wash., 12/10/52; Continental
|
|||
|
Divide, N.M., 1/26/53; Seven Isles, Quebec, 6/29/54; Niagara Falls, N.Y.,
|
|||
|
7/25/57; Kirtland AFB, N.M., 11/4/57; Gulf of Mexico, 11/5/57; Peru, 12/30/66;
|
|||
|
Holloman AFB, 3/2/67; Kincheloe AFB, 9/11/67; Vandenberg AFB, 10/6/67;
|
|||
|
Milledgeville, Ga., 10/20/67.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
SCIENCE IN DEFAULT: 22 YEARS OF INADEQUATE UFO INVESTIGATIONS
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
James E. McDonald, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
|
|||
|
University of Arizona, Tucson
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Material presented at the Symposium on UFOs,
|
|||
|
134th Meeting, AAAS, Boston, Dec, 27, 1969)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
***
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The following treats in detail the four principal UFO cases referred to
|
|||
|
in my Symposium talk. They are presented as specific illustrations of what I
|
|||
|
regard as serious shortcomings of case-investigations in the Condon Report and
|
|||
|
in the 1947-69 Air Force UFO program. The four cases used as illustrations are
|
|||
|
the following :
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. RB-47 case, Gulf Coast area, Sept. 19, 1957
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. Lakenheath RAF Station, England, August 13-14,
|
|||
|
1956
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. Haneda AFB, Japan, August 5-6, 1952
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, Nov. 4, 1957
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
My principal conclusions are that scientific inadequacies in past years
|
|||
|
of UFO investigations by Air Force Project Bluebook have _not_ been remedied
|
|||
|
through publication of the Condon Report, and that there remain scientifically
|
|||
|
very important unsolved problems with respect to UFOs. The investigative and
|
|||
|
evaluative deficiencies illustrated in the four cases examined in detail are
|
|||
|
paralleled by equally serious shortcomings in many other cases in the sample
|
|||
|
of about 90 UFO cases treated in the Condon Report. Endorsement of the
|
|||
|
conclusions of the Condon Report by the National Academy of Sciences appears
|
|||
|
to have been based on entirely superficial examination of the Report and the
|
|||
|
cases treated therein. Further study, conducted on a much more sound
|
|||
|
scientific level are needed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
SOME ILLUSTRATIVE UFO CASES - J. E. McDonald
|
|||
|
(AAAS UFO Symposium, Boston, Dec. 27, 1969.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Case 1. USAF RB-47, Gulf Coast area, September 19-20, 1957.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brief summary: An Air Force RB-47, equipped with ECM (Electronic
|
|||
|
Countermeasures) gear, manned by six officers, was followed over a total
|
|||
|
distance in excess of 600 miles and for a time period of more than an hour, as
|
|||
|
it flew from near Gulfport, Miss., through Louisiana and Texas, and into
|
|||
|
southern Oklahoma. The unidentified object was, at various times, seen
|
|||
|
visually by the cockpit crew (as an intense white or red light), followed by
|
|||
|
ground-radar, and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47.
|
|||
|
Simultaneous appearances and disappearances on all three of those physically
|
|||
|
distinct "channels" mark this UFO case as especially intriguing from a
|
|||
|
scientific viewpoint. The incident is described as Case 5 in the Condon Report
|
|||
|
and is conceded to be unexplained. The full details, however, are not
|
|||
|
presented in that Report.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Summary of the Case:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The case is long and involved and filled with well-attested phenomena
|
|||
|
that defy easy explanation in terms of present-day science and technology. The
|
|||
|
RB-47 was flying out of Forbes AFB, Topeka, on a composite mission including
|
|||
|
gunnery exercises over the Texas-Gulf area, navigation exercises over the open
|
|||
|
Gulf, and ECM exercises in the return trip across the south-central U.S. This
|
|||
|
was an RB-47 carrying a six-man crew, of whom three were electronic warfare
|
|||
|
officers manning ECM (Electronic counter-measures) gear in the aft portion of
|
|||
|
the aircraft. One of the extremely interesting aspects of this case is that
|
|||
|
electromagnetic signals of distinctly radar-like character appeared definitely
|
|||
|
to be emitted by the UFO, yet it exhibited performance characteristics that
|
|||
|
seem to rule out categorically its having been any conventional or secret
|
|||
|
aircraft.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I have discussed the incident with all six officers of the crew:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lewis D. Chase, pilot, Spokane, Wash.
|
|||
|
James H. McCoid, copilot, Offutt AFB
|
|||
|
Thomas H. Hanley, navigator, Vandenberg AFB
|
|||
|
John J. Provenzano, No. 1 monitor, Wichita
|
|||
|
Frank B. McClure, No. 2 monitor, Offutt AFB
|
|||
|
Walter A. Tuchscherer, No. 3 monitor, Topeka
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Chase was a Major at the time; I failed to ask for information on 1957 ranks
|
|||
|
of the others. McClure and Hanley are currently Majors, so might have been
|
|||
|
Captains or Lieutenants in 1957. All were experienced men at the time. Condon
|
|||
|
Project investigators only talked with Chase, McCoid, and McClure, I
|
|||
|
ascertained. In my checking it proved necessary to telephone several of them
|
|||
|
more than once to pin down key points; nevertheless the total case is so
|
|||
|
complex that I would assume that there are still salient points not clarified
|
|||
|
either by the Colorado investigators or by myself. Unfortunately, there
|
|||
|
appears to be no way, at present to locate the personnel involved in ground-
|
|||
|
radar observations that are a very important part of the whole case. I shall
|
|||
|
discuss that point below.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This flight occurred in September, 1957, just prior to the crew's
|
|||
|
reassignment to a European base. On questioning by Colorado investigators,
|
|||
|
flight logs were consulted, and based on the recollection that this flight was
|
|||
|
within a short time of departure from Forces to Germany, (plus the requirement
|
|||
|
that the date match a flight of the known type and geography) the 9/19/57 date
|
|||
|
seems to have emerged. The uncertainty as to whether it was early on the 19th
|
|||
|
or early on the 20th, cited above is a point of confusion I had not noted
|
|||
|
until preparing the present notes. Hence I am unable to add any clarification,
|
|||
|
at the moment; in this matter of the date confusion found in Thayer's
|
|||
|
discussion of the case (1, pp. 136-138). I shall try to check that in the near
|
|||
|
future. For the present, it does not vitiate case-discussion in any
|
|||
|
significant way.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The incident is most inadequately described in the Condon Report. The
|
|||
|
reader is left with the general notion that the important parts occurred near
|
|||
|
Ft. Worth, an impression strengthened by the fact that both Crow and Thayer
|
|||
|
discuss meteorological data only for that area. One is also left with no clear
|
|||
|
impression of the duration, which was actually over an hour. The incident
|
|||
|
involved an unknown airborne object that stayed with the RB-47 for over 600
|
|||
|
miles. In case after case in the Condon Report, close checking reveals that
|
|||
|
quite significant features of the cases have been glossed over, or omitted, or
|
|||
|
in some instances seriously misrepresented. I submit that to fail to inform
|
|||
|
the reader that this particular case spans a total distance-range of some 600
|
|||
|
miles and lasted well over an hour is an omission difficult to justify.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
From my nine separate interviews with the six crew members, I assembled a
|
|||
|
picture of the events that makes it even more puzzling than it seems on
|
|||
|
reading the Condon Report -- and even the latter account is puzzling enough.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Just as the aircraft crossed the Mississippi coast near Gulfport,
|
|||
|
McClure, manning the #2 monitor, detected a signal near their 5 o'clock
|
|||
|
position (aft of the starboard beam). It looked to him like a legitimate
|
|||
|
ground-radar signal, but corresponded to a position out in the Gulf. This is
|
|||
|
the actual beginning of the complete incident; but before proceeding with
|
|||
|
details it is necessary to make quite clear what kind of equipment we shall be
|
|||
|
talking about as we follow McClure's successive observations.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Under conditions of war, bombing aircraft entering hostile territory can
|
|||
|
be assisted in their penetrations if any of a variety of electronic
|
|||
|
countermeasures (ECM techniques as they are collectively termed) are brought
|
|||
|
into action against ground-based enemy radar units. The initial step in all
|
|||
|
ECM operations is, necessarily, that of detecting the enemy radar and
|
|||
|
quantitatively identifying a number of relevant features of the radar system
|
|||
|
(carrier frequency, pulse repetition frequency, scan rate, pulse width) and,
|
|||
|
above all, its bearing relative to the aircraft heading. The latter task is
|
|||
|
particularly ample in principle, calling only for direction-finding antennas
|
|||
|
which pick up the enemy signal and display on a monitor scope inside the
|
|||
|
reconnaissance aircraft a blip or lobe that paints in the relative bearing
|
|||
|
from which the signal is coming.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The ECM gear used in RB-47's in 1957 is not now classified; the #2
|
|||
|
monitor that McClure was on, he and the others pointed out, involved an ALA-6
|
|||
|
direction-finder with back-to-back antennas in a housing on the undersurface
|
|||
|
of the RB-47 near the rear, spun at either 150 or 300 rpm as it scanned in
|
|||
|
azimuth. Inside the aircraft, its signals were processed in an APR-9 radar
|
|||
|
receiver and an ALA-5 pulse analyser. All later references to the #2 monitor
|
|||
|
imply that system. The #1 monitor employed an APD-4 direction finding system,
|
|||
|
with a pair of antennas permanently mounted on either wing tip. Provenzano was
|
|||
|
on the #1 monitor. Tuchscherer was on the #3 monitor, whose specifications I
|
|||
|
did not ascertain because I could find no indication that it was involved in
|
|||
|
the observations.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Returning now to the initial features of the UFO episode, McClure at
|
|||
|
first thought he had 180-degree ambiguity in his scope, i.e., that the signal
|
|||
|
whose lobe painted at his 5 o'clock position was actually coming in from the
|
|||
|
11 o'clock position perhaps from some ground radar in Louisiana. This
|
|||
|
suspicion, he told me, was temporarily strengthened as he became aware that
|
|||
|
the lobe was moving upscope. (It is important here and in features of the case
|
|||
|
cited below to understand how a fixed ground-radar paints on the ECM monitor
|
|||
|
scope as the reconnaissance aircraft flies toward its general direction:
|
|||
|
Suppose the ground radar is, at some instant, located at the 1 o'clock
|
|||
|
position relative to the moving aircraft, i.e., slightly off the starboard
|
|||
|
bow. As the aircraft flies along, the relative bearing steadily changes, so
|
|||
|
that the fixed ground unit is "seen" successively at the 2 o'clock, the 3
|
|||
|
o'clock, and the 4 o'clock positions, etc. The lobe paints on the monitor
|
|||
|
scope at these successive relative azimuths, the 12 o'clock position being at
|
|||
|
the top of the scope, 3 o'clock at the right, etc. Thus any legitimate signal
|
|||
|
from a fixed ground radar must move downscope, excluding the special cases in
|
|||
|
which the radar is dead ahead or dead astern. Note carefully that we deal here
|
|||
|
only with direction finding gear. Range is unknown; we are not here speaking
|
|||
|
of an airborne radar set, just a radar-frequency direction-finder. In
|
|||
|
practice, range is obtained by triangulation computations based on successive
|
|||
|
fixes and known aircraft speed.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As the lobe continued moving _upscope_, McClure said the strength of the
|
|||
|
incoming signal and its pulse characteristics all tended to confirm that this
|
|||
|
was some ground unit being painted with 180-degree ambiguity for some unknown
|
|||
|
electronic reason. It was at 2800 megacycles, a common frequency for S-band
|
|||
|
search radars.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
However, after the lobe swung dead ahead, his earlier hypothesis had to
|
|||
|
be abandoned for it continued swinging over to the 11 o'clock position and
|
|||
|
continued downscope on the port side. Clearly, no 180-degree ambiguity was
|
|||
|
capable of accounting for this. Curiously, however, this was so anomalous that
|
|||
|
McClure did not take it very seriously and did not at that juncture mention it
|
|||
|
to the cockpit crew nor to his colleagues on the other two monitors. This
|
|||
|
upscope-downscope "orbit" of the unknown was seen only on the ALA-6, as far as
|
|||
|
I could establish. Had nothing else occurred, this first and very significant
|
|||
|
portion of the whole episode would almost certainly have been for gotten by
|
|||
|
McClure.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The signal faded as the RB-47 headed northward to the scheduled turning
|
|||
|
point over Jackson, Miss. The mission called for simulated detection and ECM
|
|||
|
operations against Air Force ground radar units all along this part of the
|
|||
|
flight plan, but other developments intervened. Shortly after making their
|
|||
|
turn westward over Jackson, Miss., Chase noted what he thought at first were
|
|||
|
the landing lights of some other jet coming in from near his 11 o'clock
|
|||
|
position, at roughly the RB-47's altitude. But no running lights were
|
|||
|
discernible and it was a single very bright white light, closing fast. He had
|
|||
|
just alerted the rest of the crew to be ready for sudden evasive maneuvers,
|
|||
|
when he and McCoid saw the light almost instantaneously change directions and
|
|||
|
rush across from left to right at an angular velocity that Chase told me he'd
|
|||
|
never seen matched in his flight experience. The light went from their 11
|
|||
|
o'clock to the 2 o'clock position with great rapidity, and then blinked out.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Immediately after that, Chase and McCoid began talking about it on the
|
|||
|
interphone and McClure, recalling the unusual 2800 megacycle signal that he
|
|||
|
had seen over Gulfport now mentioned that peculiar incident for the first time
|
|||
|
to Chase and McCoid. It occurred to him at that point to set his #2 monitor to
|
|||
|
scan at 2800 mcs. On the first scan, McClure told me, he got a strong 2800 mcs
|
|||
|
signal from their 2 o'clock position, the bearing on which the luminous
|
|||
|
unknown object had blinked out moments earlier.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Provenzano told me that right after that they had checked out the #2
|
|||
|
monitor on valid ground radar stations to be sure it was not malfunctioning
|
|||
|
and it appeared to be in perfect order. He then checked on his #1 monitor and
|
|||
|
also got a signal from the same bearing. There remained, of course, the
|
|||
|
possibility that just by chance, this signal was from a real radar down on the
|
|||
|
ground and off in that direction. But as the minutes went by, and the aircraft
|
|||
|
continued westward at about 500 kts. the relative bearing of the 2800 mcs
|
|||
|
source did not move downscope on the #2 monitor, but kept up with them.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This quickly led to a situation in which the entire 6-man crew focussed
|
|||
|
all attention on the matter; the incident is still vivid in the minds of all
|
|||
|
the men, though their recollection for various details varies with the
|
|||
|
particular activities they were engaged in. Chase varied speed, to see if the
|
|||
|
relative bearing would change but nothing altered. After over a hundred miles
|
|||
|
of this, with the 2800 mcs source keeping pace with the aircraft, they were
|
|||
|
getting into the radar-coverage area of the Carswell AFB GCI (Ground
|
|||
|
Controlled Intercept) unit and Chase radioed that unit to ask if they showed
|
|||
|
any other air traffic near the RB-47.
|
|||
|
Carswell GCI immediately came back with the information that there was
|
|||
|
apparently another aircraft about 10 miles from them at their 2 o'clock
|
|||
|
position. (The RB-47 was unambiguously identifiable by its IFF signal; the
|
|||
|
"other aircraft" was seen by "skin paint" Only, i.e., by direct radar
|
|||
|
reflection rather than via an IFF transponder, Col. Chase explained.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This information, each of the men emphasized to me in one way or
|
|||
|
another, made them a bit uneasy for the first time. I asked McClure a question
|
|||
|
that the Colorado investigators either failed to ask or did not summarize in
|
|||
|
their Report. Was the signal in all respects comparable to that of a typical
|
|||
|
ground radar? McClure told me that this was what baffled him the most, then
|
|||
|
and now. All the radar signature characteristics, as read out on his ALA-5
|
|||
|
pulse analyser, were completely normal -- it had a pulse repetition frequency
|
|||
|
and pulse width like a CPS-6B and even simulated a scan rate: But its
|
|||
|
intensity, McClure pointed out, was so strong that "it would have to had an
|
|||
|
antenna bigger than a bomber to put out that much signal." And now, the
|
|||
|
implications of the events over Gulfport took on new meaning. The upscope-
|
|||
|
downscope sweep of his #2 monitor lobe implied that this source, presuming it
|
|||
|
to be the same one now also being seen on ground radar at Carswell GCI, had
|
|||
|
flown a circle around the RB-47 at 30-35,000 ft altitude while the aircraft
|
|||
|
was doing about 500 kts.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Shortly after Carswell GCI began following the two targets, RB-47 and
|
|||
|
unknown, still another significant action unfolded. McClure suddenly noted the
|
|||
|
lobe on the #2 monitor was beginning to go upscope, and almost simultaneously,
|
|||
|
Chase told me, GCI called out that the second airborne target was starting to
|
|||
|
move forward. Keep in mind that no visual target was observable here; after
|
|||
|
blinking out at the 12 o'clock position, following its lightning-like traverse
|
|||
|
across the nose of the aircraft, no light had been visible. The unknown now
|
|||
|
proceeded to move steadily around to the 12 o'clock position, followed all the
|
|||
|
while on the #2 monitor and on the GCI scope down at Carswell near Ft. Worth.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As soon as the unknown reached the 12 o'clock position, Chase and McCoid
|
|||
|
suddenly saw a bright red glow "bigger than a house", Chase said, and lying
|
|||
|
dead ahead, precisely the bearing shown on the passive radar direction-finder
|
|||
|
that McClure was on and precisely the bearing now indicated on the GCI scope.
|
|||
|
_Three independent sensing systems_ were at this juncture giving seemingly
|
|||
|
consistent-indications: two pairs of human eyes, a ground radar, and a
|
|||
|
direction-finding radar receiver in the aircraft.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
One of the important points not settled by the Colorado investigations
|
|||
|
concerned the question of whether the unknown was ever painted on any radar
|
|||
|
set on the RB-47 itself. Some of the men thought the navigator had seen it on
|
|||
|
his set, others were unsure. I eventually located Maj. Hanley at Vandenberg
|
|||
|
and he informed me that all through the incident, which he remembered very
|
|||
|
well, he tried, unsuccessfully to pick up the unknown on his navigational
|
|||
|
radar (K-system). I shall not recount all of the details of his efforts and
|
|||
|
his comments, but only mention the end result of my two telephone interviews
|
|||
|
with him. The important question was what sort of effective range that set
|
|||
|
had. Hanley gave the pertinent information that it could just pick up a large
|
|||
|
tanker of the KC-97 type at about 4 miles range, when used in the "altitude-
|
|||
|
hold" mode, with antenna tipped up to maximum elevation. But both at the start
|
|||
|
of its involvement and during the object's swing into the 12 o'clock position,
|
|||
|
GCI showed it remaining close to 10 miles in range from the RB-47. Thus
|
|||
|
Hanley's inability to detect it on his K-system navigational radar in altitude
|
|||
|
hold only implies that whatever was out there had a radar cross-section that
|
|||
|
was less than about 16 times that of a KC-97 (roughly twice 4 miles, inverse
|
|||
|
4th-power law), The unknown gave a GCI return that suggested a cross-section
|
|||
|
comparable to an ordinary aircraft, Chase told me, which is consistent with
|
|||
|
Hanley's non-detection of the object. The Condon Report gives the impression
|
|||
|
the navigator did detect it, but this is not correct.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I have in my files many pages of typed notes on my interviews, and cannot
|
|||
|
fill in all of the intriguing details here. Suffice it to say that Chase then
|
|||
|
went to maximum allowable power, hoping to close with the unknown, but it just
|
|||
|
stayed ahead at about 10 miles as GCI kept telling them; it stayed as a bright
|
|||
|
red light dead ahead, and it kept painting as a bright lobe on the top of
|
|||
|
McClure's ALA-6 scope. By this time they were well into Texas still at about
|
|||
|
35,000 ft and doing upwards of 500 knots, when Chase saw it begin to veer to
|
|||
|
the right and head between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Getting FAA clearance to
|
|||
|
alter his own flight plan and to make sure other jet traffic was out of his
|
|||
|
way, he followed its turn, and then realized he was beginning to close on it
|
|||
|
for the first time. Almost immediately GCI told him the unknown had stopped
|
|||
|
moving on the ground-radarscope. Chase and McCoid watched as they came almost
|
|||
|
up to it. Chase's recollections on this segment of the events were distinctly
|
|||
|
clearer than McCoid's. McCoid was, of course, sitting aft of Chase and had the
|
|||
|
poorer view; also he said he was doing fuel-reserve calculations in view of
|
|||
|
the excess fuel-use in their efforts to shake the unknown, and had to look up
|
|||
|
from the lighted cockpit to try to look out intermittently, while Chase in the
|
|||
|
forward seat was able to keep it in sight more nearly continuously. Chase told
|
|||
|
me that he'd estimate that it was just ahead of the RB-47 and definitely below
|
|||
|
them when it instantaneously blinked out, At that same moment McClure
|
|||
|
announced on the interphone that he'd lost the 2800 mcs signal, and GCI said
|
|||
|
it had disappeared from their scope. Such simultaneous loss of signal on what
|
|||
|
we can term three separate channels is most provocative, most puzzling.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Putting the aircraft into a left turn (which Chase noted consumes about
|
|||
|
15-20 miles at top speed), they kept looking back to try to see the light
|
|||
|
again. And, about halfway through the turn (by then the aircraft had reached
|
|||
|
the vicinity of Mineral Wells, Texas, Chase said), the men in the cockpit
|
|||
|
suddenly saw the bright red light flash on again, back along their previous
|
|||
|
flight path but distinctly lower, and simultaneously GCI got a target again
|
|||
|
and McClure started picking up a 2800 mcs signal at that bearing: (As I heard
|
|||
|
one after another of these men describe all this, I kept trying to imagine how
|
|||
|
it was possible that Condon could listen, at the October, 1967, plasma
|
|||
|
conference at the UFO Project, as Col. Chase recounted all this and shrug his
|
|||
|
shoulders and walk out.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Securing permission from Carswell GCI to undertake the decidedly non-
|
|||
|
standard maneuver of diving on the unknown, Chase put the RB-47 nose down and
|
|||
|
had reached about 20,000 ft, he recalls, when all of a sudden the light
|
|||
|
blinked out, GCI lost it on their scope, and McClure reported loss of signal
|
|||
|
on the #2 monitor: Three-channel consistency once more.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Low on fuel, Chase climbed back up to 25,000 and headed north for
|
|||
|
Oklahoma. He barely had it on homeward course when McClure got a blip dead
|
|||
|
astern and Carswell radioed that they had a target once more trailing the RB-
|
|||
|
47 at about 10 miles. Rear visibility from the topblisters of the RB-4 now
|
|||
|
precluded easy visual check, particularly if the unknown was then at lower
|
|||
|
altitude (Chase estimated that it might have been near 15,000 ft when he lost
|
|||
|
it in the dive). It followed them to southern Oklahoma and then disappeared.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. Discussion:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This incident is an especially good example of a UFO case in which
|
|||
|
observer credibility and reliability do not come into serious question, a case
|
|||
|
in which more than one (here three) channel of information figures in the
|
|||
|
over-all observations, and a case in which the reported phenomena appear to
|
|||
|
defy explanation in terms of either natural or technological phenomena.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In the Condon Report, the important initial incident in which the unknown
|
|||
|
2800 MC source appeared to orbit the RB-47 near Gulfport is omitted. In the
|
|||
|
Condon Report, the reader is given no hint that the object was with the
|
|||
|
aircraft for over 600 miles and for over an hour. No clear sequence of these
|
|||
|
events is spelled out, nor is the reader made aware of all of the "three-
|
|||
|
channel" simultaneous appearances or disappearances that were so emphatically
|
|||
|
stressed to me by both Chase and McClure in my interviews with them. But even
|
|||
|
despite those degrees of incompleteness, any reader of the account of this
|
|||
|
case in the Condon Report must wonder that an incident of this sort could be
|
|||
|
left as unexplained and yet ultimately treated, along with the other
|
|||
|
unexplained cases in that Report, as calling for no further scientific
|
|||
|
attention.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Actually, various hypotheses (radar anomalies, mirage effects) are weighed
|
|||
|
in one part of the Condon Report where this case is discussed separately (pp.
|
|||
|
136-138). But the suggestion made there that perhaps an inversion near 2 km
|
|||
|
altitude was responsible for the returns at the Carswell GCI unit is wholly
|
|||
|
untenable. In an Appendix, a very lengthy but non-relevant discussion of
|
|||
|
ground return from anomalous propagation appears; in fact, it is so unrelated
|
|||
|
to the actual circumstances of this case as to warrant no comment here.
|
|||
|
Chase's account emphasized that the GCI radar(s) had his aircraft and the
|
|||
|
unknown object on-scope for a total flight-distance of the order of several
|
|||
|
hundred miles, including a near overflight of the ground radar. With such wide
|
|||
|
variations in angles of incidence of the ground-radar beam on any inversion or
|
|||
|
duct, however intense, the possibility of anomalous propagation effects
|
|||
|
yielding a consistent pattern of spurious echo matching the reported movements
|
|||
|
and the appearances and disappearances of the target is infinitesimal. And the
|
|||
|
more so in view of the simultaneous appearances and disappearances on the ECM
|
|||
|
gear and via visible emissions from the unknown. To suggest, as is tentatively
|
|||
|
done on p. 138 that the "red glow" might have been a "mirage of Oklahoma
|
|||
|
City", when the pilot's description of the luminous source involves a wide
|
|||
|
range of viewing angles, including two instances when he was viewing it at
|
|||
|
quite large depression angles, is wholly unreasonable. Unfortunately, that
|
|||
|
kind of casual ad hoc hypothesizing with almost no attention to relevant
|
|||
|
physical considerations runs all through the case-discussions in the treatment
|
|||
|
of radar and optical cases in the Condon Report, frequently (though not in
|
|||
|
this instance) being made the basis of "explanations" that are merely absurd.
|
|||
|
On p. 265 of the Report, the question of whether this incident might be
|
|||
|
explained in terms of any "plasma effect" is considered but rejected. In the
|
|||
|
end, this case is conceded to be unexplained.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
No evidence that a report on this event reached Project Bluebook was found
|
|||
|
by the Colorado investigators. That may seem hard to believe for those who are
|
|||
|
under the impression that the Air Force has been diligently and exhaustively
|
|||
|
investigating UFO reports over the past 22 years. But to those who have
|
|||
|
examined more closely the actual levels of investigation, lack of a report on
|
|||
|
this incident is not so surprising. Other comparable instances could he cited,
|
|||
|
and still more where the military aircrews elected to spare themselves the
|
|||
|
bother of interrogation,by not even reporting events about as puzzling as
|
|||
|
those found in this RB-47 incident.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
But what is of greatest present interest is the point that here we have a
|
|||
|
well-reported, multi-channel, multiple-witness UFO report, coming in fact from
|
|||
|
within the Air Force itself, investigated by the Condon Report team, conceded
|
|||
|
to be unexplained, and yet it is, in final analysis, ignored by Dr. Condon. In
|
|||
|
no section of the Report specifically written by the principal investigator
|
|||
|
does he even allude to this intriguing case. My question is how such events
|
|||
|
can be written off as demanding no further scientific study. To me, such cases
|
|||
|
seem to cry out for the most intensive scientific study -- and the more so
|
|||
|
because they are actually so much more numerous than the scientific community
|
|||
|
yet realizes. There is a scientific mystery here that is being ignored and
|
|||
|
shoved under the rug; the strongest and most unjustified shove has come from
|
|||
|
the Condon Report. "unjustified" because that Report itself contains so many
|
|||
|
scientifically puzzling unexplained cases (approximately 30 out of 90 cases
|
|||
|
considered) that it is extremely difficult to understand how its principal
|
|||
|
investigator could have construed the contents of the Report as supporting a
|
|||
|
view that UFO studies should be terminated.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Case 2. Lakenheath and Bentwaters RAF/USAF units; England, August 13-14,
|
|||
|
1956.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brief summary: Observations of unidentified objects by USAF and RAF personnel,
|
|||
|
extending over 5 hours, and involving ground-radar, airborne-radar, ground
|
|||
|
visual and airborne-visual sightings of high-speed unconventionally
|
|||
|
maneuvering obJects in the vicinity of two RAF stations at night. It is Case 2
|
|||
|
in the Condon Report and is there conceded to be unexplained.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Introduction:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This case will illustrate, in significant ways, the following points:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
a) It illustrates the fact that many scientifically intriguing UFO
|
|||
|
reports have lain in USAF/Bluebook files for years without knowledge
|
|||
|
thereof by the scientific community.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
b) It represents a large subset of UFO cases in which all of the
|
|||
|
observations stemmed from military sources and which, had there been
|
|||
|
serious and competent scientific interest operating in Project
|
|||
|
Bluebook, could have been very thoroughly investigated while the
|
|||
|
information was fresh. It also illustrates the point that the actual
|
|||
|
levels of investigation were entirely inadequate in even as
|
|||
|
unexplainable and involved cases as this one.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
c) It illustrates the uncomfortably incomplete and internally
|
|||
|
inconsistent features that one encounters in almost every report of
|
|||
|
its kind in the USAF/Bluebook files at Wright-Patterson AFB, features
|
|||
|
attesting to the dearth of scientific competence in the Air Force UFO
|
|||
|
investigations over the past 20 years.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
d) It illustrates, when the original files are carefully studied and
|
|||
|
compared with the discussion thereof in the Condon Report,
|
|||
|
shortcomings in presentation and critique given many cases in the
|
|||
|
Condon Report.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
e) Finally, I believe it illustrates an example of those cases conceded
|
|||
|
to be unexplainable by the Condon Report that argue need for much
|
|||
|
more extensive and more thorough scientific investigation of the UFO
|
|||
|
problem, a need negated in the Condon Report and in the Academy
|
|||
|
endorsement thereof.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
My discussion of this case will be based upon the 30-page Bluebook case-
|
|||
|
file, plus certain other information presented on it in the Condon Report.
|
|||
|
This "Lakenheath case" was not known outside of USAF circles prior to
|
|||
|
publication of the Condon Report. None of the names of military personnel
|
|||
|
involved are given in the Condon Report. (Witness names, dates, and locales
|
|||
|
are deleted from all of the main group of cases in that Report, seriously
|
|||
|
impeding independent scientific check of case materials.) I secured copies of
|
|||
|
the case-file from Bluebook, but all names of military personnel involved in
|
|||
|
the incident were cut out of the Xerox copies prior to releasing the material
|
|||
|
to me. Hence I have been unable to interview personally the key witnesses.
|
|||
|
However, there is no indication that anyone on the colorado Project did any
|
|||
|
personal interviews, either; so it would appear I have had access to the same
|
|||
|
basic data used in the Condon Report's treatment of this extremely interesting
|
|||
|
case.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For no Justified reason, the Condon Report not only deletes witness names,
|
|||
|
but also names of localities of the UFO incidents in its main sample of 59
|
|||
|
cases. In this Lakenheath case, deletion of locality names creates much
|
|||
|
confusion for the reader, since three distinct RAF stations figure in,the
|
|||
|
incident and since the discharged non-commissioned officer from whom they
|
|||
|
received first word of this UFO episode confused the names of two of those
|
|||
|
stations in his own account that appears in the Condon Report. That, plus
|
|||
|
other reportorial deficiencies in the presentation of the Lakenheath case in
|
|||
|
the Condon Report, will almost certainly have concealed its real significance
|
|||
|
from most readers of the Report.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Unfortunately, the basic Bluebook file is itself about as confusing as
|
|||
|
most Bluebook files on UFO cases. I shall attempt to mitigate as many of those
|
|||
|
difficulties as I can in the following, by putting the account into better
|
|||
|
over-all order than one finds in the Condon Report treatment.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. General Circumstances:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The entire episode extended from about 2130Z, August 13, to 0330Z, August
|
|||
|
14, 1956; thus this is a nighttime case. The events occurred in east-central
|
|||
|
England, chiefly in Suffolk. The initial reports centered around Bentwaters
|
|||
|
RAF Station, located about six miles east of Ipswich, near the coast, while
|
|||
|
much of the subsequent action centers around Lakenheath RAF Station, located
|
|||
|
some 20 miles northeast of Cambridge. Sculthorpe RAF Station also figures in
|
|||
|
the account, but only to a minor extent; it is near Fakenham, in the vicinity
|
|||
|
of The Wash. GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) radars at two of those three
|
|||
|
stations were involved in the ground-radar sightings, as was an RTCC (Radar
|
|||
|
Traffic Control Center) radar unit at Lakenheath. The USAF non-com who wrote
|
|||
|
to the Colorado Project about this incident was a Watch Supervisor on duty at
|
|||
|
the Lakenheath RTCC unit that night. His detailed account is reproduced in the
|
|||
|
Condon Report (pp. 248-251). The Report comments on "the remarkable accuracy
|
|||
|
of the account of the witness as given in (his reproduced letter), which was
|
|||
|
apparently written from memory 12 years after the incident." I would concur,
|
|||
|
but would note that, had the Colorado Project only investigated more such
|
|||
|
striking cases of past years, it would have found many other witnesses in UFO
|
|||
|
cases whose vivid recollections often match surprising well checkable
|
|||
|
contemporary accounts. My experience thereon has been that, in multiple-
|
|||
|
witness cases where one can evaluate consistency of recollections, the more
|
|||
|
unusual and inexplicable the original UFO episode, the more it impressed upon
|
|||
|
the several witnesses' memories a meaningful and still-useful pattern of
|
|||
|
relevant recollections. Doubtless, another important factor operates: the UFO
|
|||
|
incidents that are the most striking and most puzzling probably have been
|
|||
|
discussed by the key witnesses enough times that their recollections have been
|
|||
|
thereby reinforced in a useful way.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The only map given in the Condon Report is based on a sketch-map made by
|
|||
|
the non-com who alerted them to the case. It is misleading, for Sculthorpe is
|
|||
|
shown 50 miles east of Lakenheath, whereas it actually lies 30 miles north-
|
|||
|
northeast. The map does not show Bentwaters at all; it is actually some 40
|
|||
|
miles east-southeast of Lakenheath. Even as basic items as those locations do
|
|||
|
not appear to have been ascertained by those who prepared the discussion of
|
|||
|
this case in the Condon Report, which is most unfortunate, yet not atypical.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
That this incident was subsequently discussed by many Lakenheath personnel
|
|||
|
was indicated to me by a chance event. In the course of my investigations of
|
|||
|
another radar UFO case from the Condon Report, that of 9/11/67 at Kincheloe
|
|||
|
AFB, I found that the radar operator involved therein had previously been
|
|||
|
stationed with the USAF detachment at Lakenheath and knew of the events at
|
|||
|
second-hand because they were still being discussed there by radar personnel
|
|||
|
when he arrived many months later.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. Initial Events at Bentwaters, 2130Z to 2200Z;
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
One of the many unsatisfactory aspects of the Condon Report is its
|
|||
|
frequent failure to put before the reader a complete account of the UFO cases
|
|||
|
it purports to analyze scientifically. In the present instance, the Report
|
|||
|
omits all details of three quite significant radar-sightings made by
|
|||
|
Bentwaters GCA personnel prior to their alerting the Lakenheath GCA and RTCC
|
|||
|
groups at 2255 LST. This omission is certainly not because of correspondingly
|
|||
|
slight mention in the original Bluebook case-file; rather, the Bentwaters
|
|||
|
sightings actually receive more Bluebook attention than the subsequent
|
|||
|
Lakenheath events. Hence, I do not see how such omissions in the Condon Report
|
|||
|
can be justified.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
a) _First radar siqhting, 2130Z._ Bentwaters GCA operator, A/2c ______ (I
|
|||
|
shall use a blank to indicate the names razor-bladed out of my copies of the
|
|||
|
case-file prior to release of the file items to me), reported picking up a
|
|||
|
target 25-30 miles ESE, which moved at very high speed on constant 295 deg.
|
|||
|
heading across his scope until he lost it 15-20 miles to the NW of Bentwaters.
|
|||
|
In the Bluebook file, A/2c _____ is reported as describing it as a strong
|
|||
|
radar echo, comparable to that of a typical aircraft, until it weakened near
|
|||
|
the end of its path across his scope. He is quoted as estimating a speed of
|
|||
|
the order of 4000 mph, but two other cited quantities suggest even higher
|
|||
|
speeds. A transit time of 30 seconds is given, and if one combines that with
|
|||
|
the reported range of distance traversed, 40-50 miles, a speed of about 5000-
|
|||
|
6000 mph results. Finally, A/2c _____ stated that it covered about 5-6 miles
|
|||
|
per sweep of the AN/MPN-llA GCA radar he was using. The sweep-period for that
|
|||
|
set is given as 2 seconds (30 rpm), so this yields an even higher speed-
|
|||
|
estimate of about 9000 mph. (Internal discrepancies of this sort are quite
|
|||
|
typical of Bluebook case-files, I regret to say. My study of many such files
|
|||
|
during the past three years leaves me no conclusion but that Bluebook work has
|
|||
|
never represented high-caliber scientific work, but rather has operated as a
|
|||
|
perfunctory bookkeeping and filing operation during most of its life. Of the
|
|||
|
three speed figures just mentioned, the latter derives from the type of
|
|||
|
observation most likely to be reasonably accurate, in my opinion. The
|
|||
|
displacement of a series of successive radar blips on a surveillance radar
|
|||
|
such as the MPN-11A, can be estimated to perhaps a mile or so with little
|
|||
|
difficulty, when the operator has as large a number of successive blips to
|
|||
|
work with as is here involved. Nevertheless, it is necessary to regard the
|
|||
|
speed as quite uncertain here, though presumably in the range of several
|
|||
|
thousand miles pr hour and hence not associable with any conventional
|
|||
|
aircraft, nor with still higher-speed meteors either.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
b) _Second radar siqhting, 2130-2155Z._ A few minutes after the preceding
|
|||
|
event, T/Sgt _____ picked up on the same MPN-11A a group of 12-15 objects
|
|||
|
about 8 miles SW of Brentwaters. In the report to Bluebook, he pointed out
|
|||
|
that "these objects appeared as normal targets on the GCA scope and that
|
|||
|
normal checks made to determine possible malfunctions of the GCA radar failed
|
|||
|
to indicate anything was technically wrong." The dozen or so objects were
|
|||
|
moving together towards the NE at varying speeds, ranging between 80 and 125
|
|||
|
mph, and "the 12 to 15 unidentified objects were preceded by 3 objects which
|
|||
|
were in a triangular formation with an estimated 1000 feet separating each
|
|||
|
object in this formation." The dozen objects to the rear "were scattered
|
|||
|
behind the lead formation of 3 at irregular intervals with the whole group
|
|||
|
simultaneously covering a 6 to 7 mile area," the official report notes.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Consistent radar returns came from this group during their 25-minute
|
|||
|
movement from the point at which they were first picked up, 8 mi. SW, to a
|
|||
|
point about 40 mi. NE of Bentwaters, their echoes decreasing in intensity as
|
|||
|
they moved off to the NE. When the group reached a point some 40 mi. NE, they
|
|||
|
all appeared to converge to form a single radar echo whose intensity is
|
|||
|
described as several times larger than a B-36 return under comparable
|
|||
|
conditions. Then motion ceased, while this single strong echo remained
|
|||
|
stationary for 10-15 minutes. Then it resumed motion to the NE for 5-6 miles,
|
|||
|
stopped again for 3-5 minutes, and finally moved northward and off the scope.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
c) _Third radar siqhting, 2200Z._ Five minutes after the foregoing
|
|||
|
formation moved off-scope, T/Sgt _____ detected an unidentified target about
|
|||
|
30 mi. E of the Bentwaters GCA station, and tracked it in rapid westward
|
|||
|
motion to a point about 25 mi. W of the station, where the object "suddenly
|
|||
|
disappeared off the radar screen by rapidly moving out of the GCS radation
|
|||
|
pattern," according to his interpretation of the event. Here, again, we get
|
|||
|
discordant speed information, for T/Sgt _____ gave the speed only as being "in
|
|||
|
excess of 4000 mph," whereas the time-duration of the tracking, given as 16
|
|||
|
sec, implies a speed of 12,000 mph, for the roughly 55 mi. track-length
|
|||
|
reported. Nothing in the Bluebook files indicates that this discrepancy was
|
|||
|
investigated further or even noticed, so one can say only that the apparent
|
|||
|
speed lay far above that of conventional aircraft.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
d) _Other observations at Bentwaters._ A control tower sergeant, aware of
|
|||
|
the concurrent radar tracking, noted a light "the size of a pin-head at arm's
|
|||
|
length" at about 10 deg. elevation to the SSE. It remained there for about
|
|||
|
one hour, intermittently appearing and disappearing. Since Mars was in that
|
|||
|
part of the sky at that time, a reasonable interpretation is that the observer
|
|||
|
was looking at that planet.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A T-33 of the 512th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, returning to
|
|||
|
Bentwaters from a routine flight at about 2130Z, was vectored to the NE to
|
|||
|
search for the group of objects being tracked in that sector. Their search,
|
|||
|
unaided by airborne radar, led to no airborne sighting of any aircraft or
|
|||
|
other objects in that area, and after about 45 minutes they terminated search,
|
|||
|
having seen only a bright star in the east and a coastal beacon as anything
|
|||
|
worth noting. The Bluebook case-file contains 1956 USAF discussions of the
|
|||
|
case that make a big point of the inconclusiveness of the tower operator's
|
|||
|
sighting and the negative results of the T-33 search, but say nothing about
|
|||
|
the much more puzzling radar-tracking incidents than to stress that they were
|
|||
|
of "divergent" directions, intimating that this somehow put them in the
|
|||
|
category of anomalous propagation, which scarcely follows. Indeed, none of the
|
|||
|
three cited radar sightings exhibits any features typical of AP echoes. The
|
|||
|
winds over the Bentwaters area are given in the file. They jump from the
|
|||
|
surface level (winds from 230 deg. at 5-10 kts) to the 6000 ft level (260
|
|||
|
deg., 30 kts), and then hold at a steady 260 deg. up to 50,000 ft, with speeds
|
|||
|
rising to a maximum of 90 kts near 30,000 ft. Even if one sought to invoke the
|
|||
|
highly dubious Borden-Vickers hypothesis (moving waves on an inversion
|
|||
|
surface), not even the slowest of the tracked echoes (80-125 mph) could be
|
|||
|
accounted for, nor is it even clear that the direction would be explainable.
|
|||
|
Furthermore, the strength of the individual echoes (stated as comparable to
|
|||
|
normal aircraft returns), the merging of the 15 or so into a single echo, the
|
|||
|
two intervals of stationarity, and final motion off-scope at a direction about
|
|||
|
45 deg. from the initial motion, are all wholly unexplainable in terms of AP
|
|||
|
in these 2130-2155Z incidents. The extremely high-speed westward motion of
|
|||
|
single targets is even further from any known radar-anomaly associated with
|
|||
|
disturbed propagation conditions. Blips that move across scopes from one
|
|||
|
sector to the opposite, in steady heading at steady apparent speed, correspond
|
|||
|
neither to AP nor to internal electronic disturbances. Nor could interference
|
|||
|
phenomena fit such observed echo behavior. Thus, this 30-minute period, 213O-
|
|||
|
2200Z, embraced three distinct events for which no satisfactory explanation
|
|||
|
exists. That these three events are omitted from the discussions in the Condon
|
|||
|
Report is unfortunate, for they serve to underscore the scientific
|
|||
|
significance of subsequent events at both Bentwaters and Lakenheath stations.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. Comments on Reporting of Events After 2255Z, 8/13/56:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The events summarized above were communicated to Bluebook by Capt. Edward
|
|||
|
L. Holt of the 81st Fighter-Bomber Wing stationed at Bentwaters, as Report No.
|
|||
|
IR-1-56, dated 31 August, 1956. All events occurring subsequent to 2200Z, on
|
|||
|
the other hand, were communicated to Project Bluebook via an earlier, lengthy
|
|||
|
teletype transmission from the Lakenheath USAF unit, sent out in the standard
|
|||
|
format of the report-form specified by regulation AFR200-2. Two teletype
|
|||
|
transmissions, dated 8/17/56 and 8/21/56, identical in basic content, were
|
|||
|
sent from Lakenheath to Bluebook. The Condon Report presents the content of
|
|||
|
that teletype report on pp. 252-254, in full, except for deletion of all names
|
|||
|
and localities and omission of one important item to be noted later here.
|
|||
|
However, most readers will be entirely lost because what is presented actually
|
|||
|
constitutes a set of answers to questions that are not stated! The Condon
|
|||
|
Report does not offer the reader the hint that the version of AFR200-2
|
|||
|
appearing in the Report's Appendix, pp. 819-826 (there identified by its
|
|||
|
current designation, AFR80-17) would provide the reader with the standardized
|
|||
|
questions needed to translate much of the otherwise extremely confusing array
|
|||
|
of answers on pp. 252-254. For that reason, plus others, many readers will
|
|||
|
almost certainly be greatly (and entirely unnecessarily) confused on reading
|
|||
|
this important part of the Lakenheath report in the Condon Report.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
That confusion, unfortunately, does not wholly disappear upon laboriously
|
|||
|
matching questions with answers, for it has long been one of the salient
|
|||
|
deficiencies of the USAF program of UFO report collection that the format of
|
|||
|
AFR200-2 (or its sequel AFR80-17) is usually only barely adequate and
|
|||
|
(especially for complex episodes such as that involved here) often entirely
|
|||
|
incapable of affording the reporting office enough scope to set out clearly
|
|||
|
and in proper chronological order all of the events that may be of potential
|
|||
|
scientific significance. Anyone who has studied many Bluebook reports in the
|
|||
|
AFR200-2 format, dating back to 1953, will be uncomfortably aware of this
|
|||
|
gross difficulty. Failure to carry out even modest followup investigations and
|
|||
|
incorporate findings thereof into Bluebook case-files leaves most intriguing
|
|||
|
Bluebook UFO cases full of unsatisfactorily answered questions. But those
|
|||
|
deficiencies do not, in my opinion, prevent the careful reader from discerning
|
|||
|
that very large numbers of those UFO cases carry highly significant scientific
|
|||
|
implications, implications of an intriguing problem going largely unexamined
|
|||
|
in past years.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5. _Initial Alerting of Lakenheath GCA and RTCC:_
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The official files give no indication of any further UFO radar sightings
|
|||
|
by Bentwaters GCA from 2200 until 2255Z. But, at the latter time, another
|
|||
|
fast-moving target was picked up 30 mi. E of Bentwaters, heading almost due
|
|||
|
west at a speed given as "2000-4000 mph". It passed almost directly over
|
|||
|
Bentwaters, disappearing from their GCA scope for the usual beam-angle reasons
|
|||
|
when within 2-3 miles (the Condon Report intimates that this close in
|
|||
|
disappearance is diagnostic of AP, which seems to be some sort of tacit over-
|
|||
|
acceptance of the 1952 Borden-Vickers hypothesis), and then moving on until it
|
|||
|
disappeared from the scope 30 mi. W of Bentwaters.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Very significantly, this radar-tracking of the passage of the unidentified
|
|||
|
target was matched by concurrent visual observations, by personnel on the
|
|||
|
ground looking up and also from an overhead aircraft looking down. Both visual
|
|||
|
reports involved only a light, a light described as blurred out by its high
|
|||
|
speed; but since the aircraft (identified as a C-47 by the Lakenheath non-com
|
|||
|
whose letter called this case to the attention of the Colorado Project) was
|
|||
|
flying only at 4000 ft, the altitude of the unknown object is bracketed within
|
|||
|
rather narrow bounds. (No mention of any sonic boom appears; but the total
|
|||
|
number of seemingly quite credible reports of UFOs moving at speeds far above
|
|||
|
sonic values and yet not emitting booms is so large that one must count this
|
|||
|
as just one more instance of many currently inexplicable phenomena associated
|
|||
|
with the UFO problem.) The reported speed is not fast enough for a meteor, nor
|
|||
|
does the low-altitude flat traJectory and absence of a concussive shock wave
|
|||
|
match any meteoric hypothesis. That there was visual confirmation from
|
|||
|
observation points both above and below this fast-moving radar-tracked obJect
|
|||
|
must be viewed as adding still further credence to, and scientific interest
|
|||
|
in, the prior three Bentwaters radar sightings of the previous hour.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Apparently immediately after the 2255Z events, Bentwaters GCA alerted GCA
|
|||
|
Lakenheath, which lay off to its WNW. The answers to Questions 2(A) and 2(B)
|
|||
|
of the AFR200-2 format (on p. 253 of the Condon Report) seem to imply that
|
|||
|
Lakenheath ground observers were alerted in time to see a luminous object come
|
|||
|
in, at an estimated altitude of 2000-2500 ft, and on a heading towards SW. The
|
|||
|
lower estimated altitude and the altered heading do not match the Bentwaters
|
|||
|
sighting, and the ambiguity so inherent in the AFR200-2 format simply cannot
|
|||
|
be eliminated here, so the precise timing is not certain. All that seems
|
|||
|
certain here is that, at or subsequent to the Bentwaters alert-message,
|
|||
|
Lakenheath ground observers saw a luminous object come in out of the NE at low
|
|||
|
altitude, then _stop_, and take up an easterly heading and resume motion
|
|||
|
eastward out of sight.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The precise time-sequence of the subsequent observations is not clearly
|
|||
|
deducible from the Lakenheath TWX sent in compliance with AFR200-2. But that
|
|||
|
many very interesting events, scientifically very baffling events, soon took
|
|||
|
place is clear from the report. No followup, from Bluebook or other USAF
|
|||
|
sources,'was undertaken, and so this potentially very important case, like
|
|||
|
hundreds of others, simply sent into the Bluebook files unclarified. I am
|
|||
|
forced to stress that nothing reveals so clearly the past years of
|
|||
|
scientifically inadequate UFO investigation as a few days' visit to Wright-
|
|||
|
Patterson AFB and a diligent reading of Bluebook case reports. No one with any
|
|||
|
genuine scientific interest in solving the UFO problem would have let
|
|||
|
accumulate so many years of reports like this one without seeing to it that
|
|||
|
the UFO reporting and followup investigations were brought into entirely
|
|||
|
different status from that in which they have lain for over 20 years.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Deficiencies having been noted, I next catalog, without benefit of the
|
|||
|
exact time-ordering that is so crucial to full assessment of any UFO event,
|
|||
|
the intriguing observations and events at or near Lakenheath subsequent to the
|
|||
|
2255Z alert from Bentwaters.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6. Non-chronological Summary of Lakenheath Sightings, 2255Z-0330Z.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
a. _Visual observations from ground._
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As noted two paragraphs above, following the 2255Z alert from GCA
|
|||
|
Bentwaters, USAF ground observers at the Lakenheath RAF Station observed a
|
|||
|
luminous object come in on a southwesterly heading, stop, and then move off
|
|||
|
out of sight to the east. Subsequently, at an unspecified time, two moving
|
|||
|
white lights were seen, and "ground observers stated one white light joined up
|
|||
|
with another and both disappeared in formation together" (recall earlier radar
|
|||
|
observations of merging of targets seen by Bentwaters GCA). No discernible
|
|||
|
features of these luminous sources were noted by ground observers, but both
|
|||
|
the observers and radar operators concurred in their report-description that
|
|||
|
"the objects (were) travelling at terrific speeds and then stopping and
|
|||
|
changing course immediately." In a passage of the original Bluebook report
|
|||
|
which was for some reason not included in the version presented in the Condon
|
|||
|
Report, this concordance of radar and visual observations is underscored:
|
|||
|
"Thus two radar sets (i.e., Lakenheath GCA and RATCC radars) and three ground
|
|||
|
observers report substantially same." Later in the original Lakenheath report,
|
|||
|
this same concordance is reiterated: "the fact that radar and ground visual
|
|||
|
observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abrupt stops certainly
|
|||
|
lend credulance (sic) to the report."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Since the date of this incident coincides with the date of peak frequency
|
|||
|
of the Perseid meteors, one might ask whether any part of the visual
|
|||
|
observations could have been due to Perseids. The basic Lakenheath report to
|
|||
|
Bluebook notes that the ground observers reported "unusual amount of shooting
|
|||
|
stars in sky", indicating that the erratically moving light(s) were readily
|
|||
|
distinguishable from meteors. The report further remarks thereon that "the
|
|||
|
objects seen were definitely not shooting stars as there were no trails as are
|
|||
|
usual with such sightings." Furthermore, the stopping and course reversals are
|
|||
|
incompatible with any such hypothesis in the first place.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
AFR200-2 stipulates that observer be asked to compare the UFO to the size
|
|||
|
of various familiar objects when held at arm's length (Item 1-B in the
|
|||
|
format). In answer to that item, the report states: "One observer from ground
|
|||
|
stated on first observation object was about size of golf ball. As object
|
|||
|
continued in flight it became a 'pin point'." Even allowing for the usual
|
|||
|
inaccuracies in such estimates, this further rules out Perseids, since that
|
|||
|
shower yields oniy meteors of quite low luminosity.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In summary of the ground-visual observations, it appears that three ground
|
|||
|
observers at Lakenheath saw at least two luminous objects, saw these over an
|
|||
|
extended though indefinite time period, saw them execute sharp course changes,
|
|||
|
saw them remain motionless at least once, saw two objects merge into a single
|
|||
|
luminous object at one juncture, and reported motions in general accord with
|
|||
|
concurrent radar observations. These ground-visual observations, in
|
|||
|
themselves, constitute scientifically interesting UFO report-material. Neither
|
|||
|
astronomical nor aeronautical explanations, nor any meteorological-optical
|
|||
|
explanations, match well those reported phenomena. One could certainly wish
|
|||
|
for a far more complete and time-fixed report on these visual observations,
|
|||
|
but even the above information suffices to suggest some unusual events. The
|
|||
|
unusualness will be seen to be even greater on next examining the ground-radar
|
|||
|
observations from Lakenheath. And even stronger interest emerges as we then
|
|||
|
turn, last of all, to the airborne-visual and airborne-radar observations made
|
|||
|
near Lakenheath.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
b. _Ground-radar observations at Lakenheath._
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The GCA surveillance radar at Lakenheath is identified as a CPN-4, while
|
|||
|
the RATCC search radar was a CPS-5 (as the non-com correctly recalled in his
|
|||
|
letter). Because the report makes clear that these two sets were concurrently
|
|||
|
following the unknown targets, it is relevant to note that they have different
|
|||
|
wavelengths, pulse repetition frequencies, and scan-rates, which (for reasons
|
|||
|
that need not be elaborated here) tends to rule out several radar-anomaly
|
|||
|
hypotheses (e.g., interference echoes from a distant radar, second-time-around
|
|||
|
effects, AP). However, the reported maneuvers are so unlike any of those
|
|||
|
spurious effects that it seems almost unnecessary to confront those
|
|||
|
possibilities here.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As with the ground-visual observations, so also with these radar-report
|
|||
|
items, the AFR200-2 format limitations plus the other typical deficiencies of
|
|||
|
reporting of UFO events preclude reconstruction in detail, and in time-order,
|
|||
|
of all the relevant events. I get the impression that the first object seen
|
|||
|
visually by ground observers was not radar-tracked, although this is unclear
|
|||
|
from the report to Bluebook. One target whose motions were jointly followed
|
|||
|
both on the CPS-5 at the Radar Air Traffic Control Center and on the shorter-
|
|||
|
range, faster-scanning CPN-4 at the Lakenheath GCA unit was tracked "from 6
|
|||
|
miles west to about 20 miles SW where target stopped and assumed a stationary
|
|||
|
position for five minutes. Target then assumed a heading northwesterly (I
|
|||
|
presume this was intended to read 'northeasterly', and the non-com so
|
|||
|
indicates in his recollective account of what appears to be the same
|
|||
|
maneuvers) into the Station and stopped two miles NW of Station. Lakenheath
|
|||
|
GCA reports three to four additional targets were doing the same maneuvers in
|
|||
|
the vicinity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three ground observers
|
|||
|
report substantially same." (Note that the quoted item includes the full
|
|||
|
passage omitted from the Condon Report version, and note that it seems to
|
|||
|
imply that this devious path with two periods of stationary hovering was also
|
|||
|
reported by the visual observers. However, the latter is not entirely certain
|
|||
|
because of ambiguities in the structure of the basic report as forced into the
|
|||
|
AFR200-2 format).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
At some time, which context seems to imply as rather later in the night
|
|||
|
(the radar sightings went on until about 0330Z), "Lakenheath Radar Air Traffic
|
|||
|
Control Center observed object 17 miles east of Station making sharp
|
|||
|
rectangular course of flight. This maneuver was not conducted by circular path
|
|||
|
but on right angles at speeds of 600-800 mph. Object would stop and start with
|
|||
|
amazing rapidity." The report remarks that "...the controllers are experienced
|
|||
|
and technical skills were used in attempts to determine just what the objects
|
|||
|
were. When the target would stop on the scope, the MTI was used. However, the
|
|||
|
target would still appear on the scope." (The latter is puzzling. MTI, Moving
|
|||
|
Target Indication, is a standard feature on search or surveillance radars that
|
|||
|
eliminates ground returns and returns from large buildings and other
|
|||
|
motionless objects. This very curious feature of display of stationary modes
|
|||
|
while the MTI was on adds further strong argument to the negation of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
undergoing small-amplitude but high-speed jittering motion to yield a scope-
|
|||
|
displayed return despite the MTI. Since just such jittery motion has been
|
|||
|
reported in visual UFO sightings on many occasions, and since the coarse
|
|||
|
resolution of a PPI display would not permit radar-detection of such motion if
|
|||
|
its amplitude were below, say, one or two hundred meters, this could
|
|||
|
conceivably account for the persistence of the displayed return during the
|
|||
|
episodes of "stationary" hovering, despite use of MTI.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The portion of the radar sightings just described seems to have been
|
|||
|
vividly recollected by the retired USAF non-com who first called this case to
|
|||
|
the attention of the Colorado group. Sometime after the initial Bentwaters
|
|||
|
alert, he had his men at the RATCC scanning all available scopes, various
|
|||
|
scopes set at various ranges. He wrote that "...one controller noticed a
|
|||
|
stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles southwest. This was
|
|||
|
unusual, as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless it was
|
|||
|
moving at a speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all. We watched this target on all the different scopes for
|
|||
|
several minutes and I called the GCA Unit at (Lakenheath) to see if they had
|
|||
|
this target on their scope in the same geographical location. As we watched,
|
|||
|
the stationary target started moving at a speed of 400 to 600 mph in a north-
|
|||
|
northeast direction until it reached a point about 20 miles north northwest of
|
|||
|
(Lakenheath). There was no slow start or build-up to this speed -- it was
|
|||
|
constant from the second it started to move until it stopped." (This
|
|||
|
description, written 11 years after the event, matches the 1956 intelligence
|
|||
|
report from the Lakenheath USAF unit so well, even seeming to avoid the
|
|||
|
typographical direction-error that the Lakenheath TWX contained, that one can
|
|||
|
only assume that he was deeply impressed by this whole incident. That, of
|
|||
|
course, is further indicated by the very fact that he wrote the Colorado group
|
|||
|
about it in the first place.) His letter (Condon Report, p. 249) adds that
|
|||
|
"the target made several changes in location, always in a straight line,
|
|||
|
always at about 600 mph and always from a standing or stationary point to his
|
|||
|
next stop at constant speed -- no build-up in speed at all -- these changes in
|
|||
|
location varied from 8 miles to 20 miles in length --no set pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spent stationary between movements also varied from 3 or 4 minutes
|
|||
|
to 5 or 6 minutes..." Because his account jibes so well with the basic
|
|||
|
Bluebook file report in the several particulars in which it can be checked,
|
|||
|
the foregoing quotation from the letter as reproduced in the Condon Report
|
|||
|
stands as meaningful indication of the highly unconventional behavior of the
|
|||
|
unknown aerial target. Even allowing for some recollective uncertainties, the
|
|||
|
non-com's description of the behavior of the unidentified radar target lies so
|
|||
|
far beyond any meteorological, astronomical, or electronic explanation as to
|
|||
|
stand as one challenge to any suggestions that UFO reports are of negligible
|
|||
|
scientific interest.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The non-com's account indicates that they plotted the discontinuous stop-
|
|||
|
and-go movements of the target for some tens of minutes before it was decided
|
|||
|
to scramble RAF interceptors to investigate. That third major aspect of the
|
|||
|
Lakenheath events must now be considered. (The delay in scrambling
|
|||
|
interceptors is noteworthy in many Air Force-related UFO incidents of the past
|
|||
|
20 years. I believe this reluctance stems from unwillingness to take action
|
|||
|
lest the decision-maker be accused of taking seriously a phenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Force officially treats as non-existent.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
c. Airborne radar and visual sightings by Venom interceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet interceptor, a Venom single-seat subsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
with an air-intercept (AI) nose radar, was scrambled, according to the basic
|
|||
|
Bluebook report, from Waterbeach RAF Station, which is located about 6 miles
|
|||
|
north of Cambridge, and some 20 miles SW of Lakenheath. Precise time of the
|
|||
|
scramble does not appear in the report to Bluebook, but if we were to try to
|
|||
|
infer the time from the non-com's recollective account, it would seem to have
|
|||
|
been somewhere near midnight. Both the non-com's letter and the contemporary
|
|||
|
intelligence report make clear that Lakenheath radar had one of their
|
|||
|
unidentified targets on-scope as the Venom came in over the Station from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward a target on radar 6 miles east of the
|
|||
|
field. Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and would
|
|||
|
investigate. At thirteen miles west (east?) he reported loss of target and
|
|||
|
white light."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It deserves emphasis that the foregoing quote clearly indicates that the
|
|||
|
UFO that the Venom first tried to intercept was being monitored via three
|
|||
|
distinct physical "sensing channels." It was being recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the 1957 RB-47 case (Case 1 above) in the evidently simultaneous
|
|||
|
loss of visual and airborne-radar signal here. One wonders if ground radar
|
|||
|
also lost it simultaneously with the Venom pilot's losing it, but, loss of
|
|||
|
visual and airborne-radar signal here. One wonders if ground radar also lost
|
|||
|
it simultaneously with the Venom pilot's losing it, but, as is so typical of
|
|||
|
AFR200-2 reports, incomplete reporting precludes clarification. Nothing in the
|
|||
|
Bluebook case-file on this incident suggests that anyone at Bluebook took any
|
|||
|
trouble to run down that point or the many other residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so painfully evident here. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
from the then-current Blue book officer, Capt. G. T. Gregory, a dispatch that
|
|||
|
proposes a series of what I must term wholly irrelevant hypotheses about
|
|||
|
Perseid meteors with "ionized gases in their wake which 5N1irVOrelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losing e after the initial Bentwaters
|
|||
|
aler same maneuvers in
|
|||
|
the vicinity of the Station. Thus two radbseawere doh. Precise time of the
|
|||
|
scramble does not apionary"und observen down files contain such eas alsoT4rEMmA as non-erep the visual obMputes..." Becauseet "..UFO carlRs as of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis<EFBFBD>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutes..." Because his account jibes so well wted abo Statios losingIs so well wted aboy as rather later visl lotes... to d the contemporary
|
|||
|
intelligence repohe delay in scramdar hlmindar Aire experienD _ground radar_rs Sth and was veI series of what I must termypotheses about
|
|||
|
Perseid meteors with "ionized gases in their wake which 5N1irVOrelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losing e after the initial Bentwaters
|
|||
|
aler same maneuvers in
|
|||
|
the vicinity of the Station. Thus two rcOr his spight white light in sight and would
ocountarse
|
|||
|
resolution of a PPI display would not permit radar-detection of such motion if
|
|||
|
its amplitude were below, say, one or two hundred meters, this could
|
|||
|
conceivably account for the persistence of the displayed return during ng tt whis used. However, the
|
|||
|
targeh. The TWX to Blue book statok stIed y, one or two hundred meters, methese jibes so well wted abo Statiocordicrs in which it cZh motion of a PP such motion ifeturns and returns from ldonnrom r
|
|||
|
alsolo
|
|||
|
C froite light in sight and would
ocountaColorado group
|
|||
|
about it inound radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and of che
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargument to thegetis, various
|
|||
|
scope he MTI was on adds further strong argument to the negation of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
undergoing small-
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAibes so well
|
|||
|
C frmotionrious*tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displayed return during ng tt whis used. However, the
|
|||
|
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not permit illo<6C>n the
|
|||
|
I.." BecauhIo this speed -- it was
|
|||
|
constant from the second it starte)
|
|||
|
stould
oct
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
|
|||
|
vividly or 6 however,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acL6ramS47en
anvesteion-erroradar_, ucRthe very facl ws itio miles tolo
|
|||
|
C froite light2su acLirectiofor at all -- these chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. ndds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s<>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu<6E>Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
about it inound radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and of che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Force<63>rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath
u l
|
|||
|
scientific interest.
|
|||
|
e. ned he,
if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
|
|||
|
alsolo
|
|||
|
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI<77>nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar radar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
undergoing small-
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAibes so well
|
|||
|
C frmotionrious*tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentified<EFBFBD>_th
u[oing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
|
|||
|
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simulvenheathion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
|
|||
|
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it<69>Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence of theook statesZlaridar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
|
|||
|
Imusc Ho d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu acL6ramS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant musc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd
ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI<77>nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vecteion-errorI serisetpothes5amSt for the persistence to r RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s<>C (At it scramdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
|
|||
|
ity ethe h and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual queu losinwhda_tttereriA CakizedMpuererhe Station. Thus two radar sets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty
en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
|
|||
|
I
and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would
ocountarse
|
|||
|
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed y, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
about it inound radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborence gation obre
|
|||
|
r_,
|
|||
|
ocR. statelsolo
innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and of che
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any
ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and wo'rSs l heus
|
|||
|
25 rsfd
|
|||
|
conChvanit(9 puithd
Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
|
|||
|
atesZeduring dar_,
ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
|
|||
|
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not permit illo<6C>n starte)
|
|||
|
stould
oct
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
|
|||
|
vividly or 6 however,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acL6ramS47en
anvesteion-erroradar_, ucRthe very facl ws itio miles tolo
|
|||
|
C froite light2su acLirectiofor at all -- these chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. ndds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s<>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu<6E>Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Force<63>rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath
u l
|
|||
|
scientific interest.
|
|||
|
e. ned he,
if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
|
|||
|
alsolo
|
|||
|
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI<77>nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar radar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
undergoing small-
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAibes so well
|
|||
|
C frmotionrious*tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentified<EFBFBD>_th
u[oing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
|
|||
|
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simulvenheathion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
|
|||
|
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it<69>Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence of theook statesZlaridar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
|
|||
|
Imusc Ho d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu acL6ramS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant musc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd
ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI<77>nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vecteion-errorI serisetpothes5amSt for the persistence to r RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s<>C (At it scramdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
|
|||
|
ity ethe h and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual queu losinwhda_tttereriA CakizedMpuererhe Station. Thus two radar sets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty
en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
|
|||
|
I
and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would
ocountarse
|
|||
|
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed y, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
about it inound radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborence gation obre
|
|||
|
r_,
|
|||
|
ocR. statelsolo
innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and of che
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any
ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and wo'rSs l heus
|
|||
|
25 rsfd
|
|||
|
conChvanit(9 puithd
Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
|
|||
|
atesZeduring dar_,
ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
|
|||
|
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not permit illo<6C>n starte)
|
|||
|
stould
oct
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
|
|||
|
vividly or 6 however,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acL6ramS47en
anvesteion-erroradar_, ucRthe very facl ws itio miles tolo
|
|||
|
C froite light2su acLirectiofor at all -- these chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. ndds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s<>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu<6E>Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Force<63>rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath
u l
|
|||
|
scientific interest.
|
|||
|
e. ned he,
if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
|
|||
|
alsolo
|
|||
|
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI<77>nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar radar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
undergoing small-
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAibes so well
|
|||
|
C frmotionrious*tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentified<EFBFBD>_th
u[oing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
|
|||
|
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simulvenheathion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
|
|||
|
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it<69>Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence of theook statesZlaridar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
|
|||
|
Imusc Ho d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu acL6ramS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant musc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd
ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI<77>nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vecteion-errorI serisetpothes5amSt for the persistence to r RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s<>C (At it scramdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
|
|||
|
ity ethe h and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual queu losinwhda_tttereriA CakizedMpuererhe Station. Thus two radar sets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty
en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
|
|||
|
I
and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would
ocountarse
|
|||
|
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed y, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
about it inound radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborence gation obre
|
|||
|
r_,
|
|||
|
ocR. statelsolo
innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and of che
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any
ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and wo'rSs l heus
|
|||
|
25 rsfd
|
|||
|
conChvanit(9 puithd
Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
|
|||
|
atesZeduring dar_,
ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
|
|||
|
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not permit illo<6C>n starte)
|
|||
|
stould
oct
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
|
|||
|
vividly or 6 however,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidenti,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s<>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu<6E>Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Force<63>rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath
u l
|
|||
|
scientific interest.
|
|||
|
e. ned he,
if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
|
|||
|
alsolo
|
|||
|
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI<77>nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar radar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
undergoing small-
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAibes so well
|
|||
|
C frmotionrious*tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentified<EFBFBD>_th
u[oing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
|
|||
|
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simulvenheathion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
|
|||
|
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it<69>Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-ed
ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
|
|||
|
Imusc Ho d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd
ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI<77>nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vectei was
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd kenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s<>C (At it scramdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
|
|||
|
ity ethe h and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty
en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
|
|||
|
I
and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would
ocountarse
|
|||
|
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
about it inound radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborence gation obre
|
|||
|
r_,
|
|||
|
ocR. statelsolo
innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and of che
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any
ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and wo'rSs l heus
|
|||
|
25 rsfd
|
|||
|
conChvanit(9 puithd
Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
|
|||
|
atesZeduring dar_,
ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
|
|||
|
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not permit illo<6C>n starte)
|
|||
|
stould
oct
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
|
|||
|
vividly or 6 however,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidenti,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s<>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu<6E>Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Force<63>rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath
u l
|
|||
|
scientific interest.
|
|||
|
e. ned he,
if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
|
|||
|
alsolo
|
|||
|
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI<77>nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar radar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
undergoing small-
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAibes so well
|
|||
|
C frmotionrious*tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentified<EFBFBD>_th
u[oing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
|
|||
|
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simulvenheathion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
|
|||
|
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it<69>Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-ed
ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
|
|||
|
Imusc Ho d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd
ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI<77>nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vectei was
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd kenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s<>C (At it scramdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
|
|||
|
ity ethe h and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty
en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
|
|||
|
I
and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would
ocountarse
|
|||
|
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
about it inound radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborence gation obre
|
|||
|
r_,
|
|||
|
ocR. statelsolo
innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and of che
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any
ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and wo'rSs l heus
|
|||
|
25 rsfd
|
|||
|
conChvanit(9 puithd
Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
|
|||
|
atesZeduring dar_,
ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I
u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
|
|||
|
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM<45>Sregetissplay would not permit illo<6C>n starte)
|
|||
|
stould
oct
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
|
|||
|
vividly or 6 however,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidenti,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s<>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu<6E>Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove bee weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt fever,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
|
|||
|
Air Foradar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
undergoing small-
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAibes so well
|
|||
|
C frmotionrious*tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentified<EFBFBD>_th
u[oing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
|
|||
|
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simulvenheathion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
|
|||
|
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarityt and would
ocountarse
|
|||
|
resolutioeance of the andistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tiomeua<75>imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-ed
ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
|
|||
|
Imusc Ho d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd
ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI<77>nadar had oO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohBluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intE weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd kenheath annal as vectored by<62>vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s<>C (At it scramdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
|
|||
|
ity ethe h and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty
en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
|
|||
|
I
and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would
ocountarse
|
|||
|
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaouW y
ly buirt onn]Blu-47 ca), and _vtidariqrmly_. _. _. _. _. _. _. _. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( o<>y simulvenheathion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tat
|
|||
|
Lahmr and wousc Hove been
|
|||
|
viviand three ground obseny
|
|||
|
hypothesis of an_,nheit ceptoiandver RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWXI
|
|||
|
L,( o<>y simpAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wa not pO permit illo<6C>n starte)
|
|||
|
stould
oct
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o<>y simpAts frfL<66>or 6 however,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidenti,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue boo
uL<75>ew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenea<EFBFBD>tar1on addL<64>ectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s<>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>on
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove bee weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt fever,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
|
|||
|
Air Foradar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified tarrepoh from
|
|||
|
WaterbeachI
L<>motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
unolthree gl herst pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentified<EFBFBD>_th
u[oing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
|
|||
|
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt,<2C>ighr <20>similarity to the diD<69>X to Bl conLk q
|
|||
|
siion
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF m wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
|
|||
|
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarityt and would
ocountarse
|
|||
|
resolutioeance of the andistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tiomeua<75>imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-ed
ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
|
|||
|
Imusc Ho d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd47ea<65>a_t1anodL<64>oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI<77>nadar had oO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohBluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intE weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd kenheath annal as vectored by<62>vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s<>C (At it scramdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
|
|||
|
ity ethe h and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the dight and would
oSa<53>bOe1tatiL<69>esolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaouW y
ly buirt onn]Blu-47 ca), and _vtidariqrmly_. _. _. _. _. _. _. _. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( o<>y simulvenheathion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tat
|
|||
|
Lahmr and wousc Hove been
|
|||
|
viviand three ground obseny
|
|||
|
hypothesis of an_,nheit ceptoiandver RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
oco
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o<>y theircO s<>seLkercept
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o<>y simpAts frfL<66>or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidenti,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue boo
uL<75>ew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD>
u3addL<64>ectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdarerba<EFBFBD>stt1ual questat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s<>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>on
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa<4C>ibe1that UFO anervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove bee weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt fever,bt
|
|||
|
L,vargvividly relous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
|
|||
|
Air Foradar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified tarrepoh from
|
|||
|
WaterbeachI
L<>motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
unolthree gl herst pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa<70>s i1
|
|||
|
Itegory [ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt,<2C>ighr <20>similarity to the diD<69>X to Bl conLk q
|
|||
|
siion
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF m wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd
ocoion from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tiomeua<75>imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-ed
ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
|
|||
|
Imusc Ho d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd47ea<65>a_t1anodL<64>oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh<6F>ou1to ttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt cly Iheath annal as vectored by<62>vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s<>C (At it scramdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
|
|||
|
ity ethe h and wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the dight and would
oSa<53>bOe1tatiL<69>esolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
|
|||
|
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> i <20>. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( o<>y simulvenheathion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tat
|
|||
|
Lahmr and wousc Hove been
|
|||
|
viviand three ground obseny
|
|||
|
hypothesis of an_,nheit ceptoiandver RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
oco
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o<>y theircO s<>seLkercept
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o<>y simpAts frfL<66>or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE<65>R*tount jeu-- of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidenti,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue boo
uL<75>ew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD>
u3addL<64>ectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdarerba<EFBFBD>stt1ual questat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air/eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accdns<6E>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenhFVe1uesvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>on
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa<4C>ibe1that UFO anervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s Sts and tvestee clh andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaver sts ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:g wikt fromg s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
|
|||
|
Air Foradar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified tarrepoh from
|
|||
|
WaterbeachI
L<>motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
unolthree gl herst pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa<70>s i1
|
|||
|
Itegory [ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records ground here. a, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakesskmal east direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"thg t, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt,<2C>ighr <20>similarity to the diD<69>X to Bl conLk q
|
|||
|
siion
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF m wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd
ocoion from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tiomeua<75>imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateyL<79>id toE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mot met interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>er (C<>o tIweliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd47ea<65>a_t1anodL<64>oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh<6F>ou1to ttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt cly Iheath annal as vectored by<62>vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing s_airbo)ete one oriaaamdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never bein2kkdar ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Tanodsnd wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the dight and would
oSa<53>bOe1tatiL<69>esolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
|
|||
|
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> i <20>. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( o<>y simulvenhe) dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aaan<61> i <20>. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion,nheit ceptoiand8l in8ligh8nion
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
oco
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o<>y theircO s<>seLkercept
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o<>y simpAts frfL<66>or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE<65>R*tount jeu-- of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidsteeatnlign eteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that escriba<62>* S1y
|
|||
|
tL<EFBFBD>ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue boo
uL<75>ew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD>
u3addL<64>ectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdarerba<EFBFBD>stt1ual questat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air/eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accdns<6E>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenhFVe1uesvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h)lut<75>ight in sight and woulnovnortheal queLked onnce o theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>on
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa<4C>ibe1that UFO anervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s Sts and tvestee clh andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaver sts ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:g wikt fromg s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
|
|||
|
Air Foradar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified tarrepoh from
|
|||
|
WaterbeachI
L<>motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
unolthree gl herst pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa<70>s i1
|
|||
|
Itegory [ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records ground here. a, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakesskmal east direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"thg t, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book s
|
|||
|
An RADtunhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt,<2C>ighr <20>similarity to the diD<69>X to Bl conLk q
|
|||
|
siion
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF m wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd
ocoion from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tiomeua<75>imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateyL<79>id toE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mot met interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>er (C<>o tIweliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(Mhu6tter (Condos St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Statio, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd47ea<65>a_t1anodL<64>oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh<6F>ou1to ttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt cly Iheath annal as vectored by<62>vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing s_airbo)ete one oriaaamdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never bein2kkdar ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Tanodsnd wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the dight and would
oSa<53>bOe1tatiL<69>esolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
|
|||
|
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> i <20>. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( o<>y simulvenhe) dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aaan<61> i <20>. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion,nheit ceptoiand8l in8ligh8nion
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
oco
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o<>y theircO s<>seLkercept
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o<>y simpAts frfL<66>or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE<65>R*tount jeu-- of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidsteeatnlign eteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that escriba<62>* S1y
|
|||
|
tL<EFBFBD>ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue boo
uL<75>ew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD>
u3addL<64>ectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdarerba<EFBFBD>stt1ual questat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air/eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accdns<6E>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenhFVe1uesvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h)lut<75>ight in sight and woulnovnortheal queLked onnce o theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>on
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa<4C>ibe1that UFO anervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s Sts and tvestee clh andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaver sts ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:g wikt fromg s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
|
|||
|
Air Foradar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified tarrepoh from
|
|||
|
WaterbeachI
L<>motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
unolthree gl herst pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa<70>s i1
|
|||
|
Itegory [ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records ground here. a, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakesskmal east direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"thg t, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book s
|
|||
|
An RADtunhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt,<2C>ighr <20>similarity to the diD<69>X to Bl conLk q
|
|||
|
siion
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF m wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd
ocoion from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tiomeua<75>imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateyL<79>id toE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mot met interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>er (C<>o tIweliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(Mhu6tter (Condos St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Statio, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd47ea<65>a_t1anodL<64>oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh<6F>ou1to ttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt cly Iheath annal as vectored by<62>vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing s_airbo)ete one oriaaamdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never bein2kkdar ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Tanodsnd wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the dight and would
oSa<53>bOe1tatiL<69>esolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
|
|||
|
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> i <20>. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( o<>y simulvenhe) dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aaan<61> i <20>. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion,nheit ceptoiand8l in8ligh8nion
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
oco
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o<>y theircO s<>seLkercept
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o<>y simpAts frfL<66>or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE<65>R*tount jeu-- of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidsteeatnlign eteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that escriba<62>* S1y
|
|||
|
tL<EFBFBD>ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots te<74>ous
|
|||
|
20 yeahAiF St
anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"th
h. The TWX to Blue boo
uL<75>ew over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD>
u3addL<64>ectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdarerba<EFBFBD>stt1ual questat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
|
|||
|
time. Time spenor at al spe<70>Scotionlcaat all anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
|
|||
|
Air/eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accdns<6E>C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenhFVe1uesvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
|
|||
|
fr<EFBFBD>pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h)lut<75>ight in sight and woulnovnortheal queLked onnce o theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>on
|
|||
|
Lakenheath an<61>Cf the
|
|||
|
fi
|
|||
|
a<EFBFBD>ous
|
|||
|
20(
dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha
ly f che
|
|||
|
UFbnti(Aanervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa<4C>ibe1that UFO anervenheath
u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
|
|||
|
"th
h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
|
|||
|
n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
|
|||
|
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
|
|||
|
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s Sts and tvestee clh andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawaver sts ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:g wikt fromg s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
|
|||
|
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
|
|||
|
Air Foradar_,
|
|||
|
basic
|
|||
|
Bluebnorepn
|
|||
|
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidentified tarrepoh from
|
|||
|
WaterbeachI
L<>motionless, was actually
|
|||
|
unolthree gl herst pla<6C>ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
|
|||
|
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan<61>,bt[ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa<70>s i1
|
|||
|
Itegory [ any
|
|||
|
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7<6E>y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
|
|||
|
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
|
|||
|
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
|
|||
|
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records ground here. a, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakesskmal east direct cons Itation from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
|
|||
|
"thg t, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan<61> <20> one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
|
|||
|
Waterbea. The je <20>X to Blue book s
|
|||
|
An RADtunhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> <20>h. The TW I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
I
|
|||
|
Itegory has
|
|||
|
nevery_. Maners
heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
|
|||
|
I ed todt,<2C>ighr <20>similarity to the diD<69>X to Bl conLk q
|
|||
|
siion
|
|||
|
I ed todt, the
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF m wiFn
|
|||
|
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan<61>,bt
|
|||
|
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd
ocoion from
|
|||
|
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
|
|||
|
Cilot's losing ipsets <20>tiomeua<75>imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th
s St
anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been
ight and would
ocountaColortio anE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateyL<79>id toE0Ea
|
|||
|
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mot met interceptors tanyL<79>ith theteircO heircO (Aarea<65>er 1s. ndsL<73>er (C<>o tIweliR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
ocountaCo weli<6C>NIradarothe first(Mhu6tter (Condos St
anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Statio, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE<65>R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul<75>r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
|
|||
|
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis<69>serhR0calwa aBd47ea<65>a_t1anodL<64>oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t <20>e dlmiut
anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
|
|||
|
LaAiF StationwiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
|
|||
|
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh<6F>ou1to ttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt cly Iheath annal as vectored by<62>vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis<69>serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing s_airbo)ete one oriaaamdar
|
|||
|
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
|
|||
|
concategory has
|
|||
|
never bein2kkdar ies set at various ranges. HchI
tne,
|
|||
|
alwa the displaon. Tanodsnd wany
ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( over RAF Station
|
|||
|
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog
eath) tAi
|
|||
|
aler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the dight and would
oSa<53>bOe1tatiL<69>esolution of a PPI display woulall-
|
|||
|
L,( <hat then to display diDsmal)e
|
|||
|
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
|
|||
|
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je <20>X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan<61> i <20>. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
|
|||
|
similarity to the diDsmall-
|
|||
|
L,( o<>y simulvenhe) dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aaan<61> i <20>. <20>pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion,nheit ceptoiand8l in8ligh8nion
|
|||
|
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all anyubsonic aircraft equipped
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
|
|||
|
er be accused in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
|
|||
|
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
|
|||
|
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would <20>airDde a lenBd
oco
|
|||
|
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o<>y theircO s<>seLkercept
|
|||
|
tunrary
Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o<>y simpAts frfL<66>or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
|
|||
|
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE<65>R*tount jeu-- of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla<6C>ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion
<0A>tt coGe lim wiFn
|
|||
|
Lakn pu* St
FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r radar_, Rboothesis<69>serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
|
|||
|
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
|
|||
|
unidsteeatnlign eteors k acLakenheecould detect no
|
|||
|
movement at all.s. nds that escriba<62>* S1y
|
|||
|
tL<EFBFBD>ns that UFO reporly ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty
eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mo
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
**********************************************
|
|||
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|||
|
**********************************************
|