121 lines
4.5 KiB
Plaintext
121 lines
4.5 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: IS THE K2 REPORT A FAKE ? FILE: UFO1532
|
|
|
|
PART 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Validity of the K-2 Report: Addendum 1 of 2
|
|
by Joseph Harris
|
|
CIS: 70714,3321
|
|
|
|
This is a problem with the K-2 Report that was so obvious, it
|
|
remained hidden until I printed it out and poured over it while at work.
|
|
(Nothing better to do.. :^) I started by hi-lighting all the dates
|
|
and times given in the Information Update portion of the report. Then
|
|
I started doodling like so...
|
|
|
|
8-10-92 2215 PDT: Staff #1 receives phone call.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, I made myself a little time-line of events, and 2 very obvious
|
|
errors showed up.
|
|
|
|
I'll quote only the pertinent data from the K-2 report so there is proof
|
|
of what they released.. the real clincher is the time-line that follows:
|
|
|
|
Remember.. we're looking at the sequence of events here:
|
|
|
|
INFORMATION UPDATE
|
|
|
|
Date: August 16, 1989
|
|
From: Staff # 1
|
|
Subject: Activity Reports concerning K-2
|
|
Comment from Staff # 1:
|
|
Date: August 10, 1989, Time: 2215 PDT.
|
|
At 2215 PDT, I received a phone call from Staff # 2
|
|
[text deleted]
|
|
I received the following information from Staff # 2 on August 14, 1989.
|
|
* * *
|
|
Report # 1: By Staff # 2:
|
|
Date: August 10, 1989, Time: 2212 PDT.
|
|
Location: Approximately 40 miles southwest of K-2.
|
|
|
|
It remained stopped for approximately 15 seconds, then
|
|
[text deleted]
|
|
The sighting lasted approximately 45 seconds. There
|
|
[text deleted]
|
|
Within 10 minutes, after the object left the area,
|
|
[text deleted]
|
|
towards the North. Four minutes later, the fighters
|
|
[text deleted]
|
|
* * *
|
|
[report #3 and #4 deleted, reports from Staff 2 about forgetting his
|
|
camera... yeah right.]
|
|
Memo
|
|
August 12, 1989
|
|
From Staff # 1
|
|
To: Staff # 2
|
|
Our contacts in the Air Force verify that on the night
|
|
of August 10, 1989, at the time indicated in Report # 1
|
|
of that date, that eight F-4's, scrambled from Beale AFB,
|
|
[text deleted]
|
|
* * *
|
|
|
|
Time Line:
|
|
|
|
Aug 10 92: 2212 PDT Staff # 2 Object sighting begins. [Report #1]
|
|
Aug 10 92: 2215 PDT Staff # 1 receives phone call.
|
|
|
|
This is the first major error. According to the text of Report #1, the
|
|
sighting lasted 45 seconds, then 10 minutes later the F-4s show up, and
|
|
4 minutes after that the F-4s return. A total event time of 14m 45s.
|
|
Yet Staff #2 called Staff #1 only 3 minutes after the initial sighting.
|
|
This in and of itself proves nothing, but becomes MUCH more relevant to
|
|
the next major error.
|
|
|
|
Aug 12 89: Staff #1 verifies AF activity as stated in Report # 1.
|
|
Aug 14 89: Staff #1 RECEIVES Report # 1
|
|
Aug 16 89: Staff #1 Begins Information Update.
|
|
|
|
Do you see the error? I'll let you re-read the portion of the Aug 12
|
|
statement...
|
|
|
|
Our contacts in the Air Force verify that on the night
|
|
of August 10, 1989, at the time indicated in Report # 1
|
|
of that date, that eight F-4's, scrambled from Beale AFB,
|
|
|
|
HOW COULD HE VERIFY DATES AND TIMES IN A REPORT HE WOULDN'T RECIEVE
|
|
FOR TWO MORE DAYS???
|
|
|
|
Here's the line from Staff #1:
|
|
|
|
I received the following information from Staff # 2 on August 14, 1989.
|
|
* * *
|
|
Report # 1: By Staff # 2:
|
|
Date: August 10, 1989, Time: 2212 PDT.
|
|
|
|
Now is where the first error becomes important. If the time was
|
|
but 3 minutes between the start of the sighting, and the phone call
|
|
to Staff #1, then Staff #1 had NO WAY OF KNOWING ABOUT THE JETS FROM
|
|
THE PHONE CALL. The jets didn't show for 10 minutes, remember? There
|
|
was a swift conversation, and then no further phone communication, since
|
|
they were worried about wire taps. I doubt that the Phoenix Project will
|
|
be able to claim that this was a simple typo, as all the rest of the
|
|
memos and comments follow a very precise pattern. They attempted to show
|
|
us that the Phoenix Project members are scientific, and detail oriented.
|
|
All they succeeded in doing was putting holes in their report one could
|
|
drive a truck through.
|
|
|
|
There is another curiosity in the K-2 Report, but that will be posted
|
|
in a second message, as this one is long enough.
|
|
|
|
Conclusion:
|
|
|
|
Staff # 1 directly referanced a document that by their own report he
|
|
would not receive for 2 more days. This is a glaring error, and one that
|
|
would not have happened if the report were anything but a work of pure
|
|
fiction.
|
|
|
|
Joe.
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |