textfiles/ufo/UFOBBS/2000/2107.ufo

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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>bOe1tatiL<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>ew over RAF Station 
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD> 
u3addL<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>bOe1tatiL<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>ew over RAF Station 
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD> 
u3addL<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>bOe1tatiL<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>ew over RAF Station 
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD> 
u3addL<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>bOe1tatiL<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>ew over RAF Station 
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD> 
u3addL<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>bOe1tatiL<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>ew over RAF Station 
Lakenea<EFBFBD>ta<EFBFBD> 
u3addL<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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<EFBFBD>bOe1tatiL<EFBFBD>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 
<EFBFBD>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 *
**********************************************