193 lines
8.5 KiB
Plaintext
193 lines
8.5 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: THE PHOENIX PROJECT FROM A GENIE FORUM FILE: UFO2503
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Filename: Phoenix6.Txt
|
|
Type : Editorial/Opinion
|
|
Author : Joseph Harris -CIS: 70714,3321
|
|
Date : 10/21/92
|
|
Desc. : Editorial on the K2 Report
|
|
Cis Id# : 70714,3321
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Validity of "THE K-2 REPORT"
|
|
-Joseph Harris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some time ago I decided to further investigate the claims of the
|
|
Phoenix Project in regards to their K2 Report about a supposed
|
|
underground alien base located near Quincy CA. This report chronicles
|
|
my initial findings. It is not my intention to discredit the Phoenix
|
|
Project, or Jack Mathias. They, as a scientific organization, should be
|
|
able to appreciate any attempt at independant verification.
|
|
|
|
The following is excerpted directly from the K-2 Report, and chronicles
|
|
an "object" being pursued by 8 F-4 Phantoms.
|
|
|
|
* * *
|
|
|
|
Report # 1: By Staff # 2:
|
|
Date: August 10, 1989, Time: 2212 PDT.
|
|
Location: Approximately 40 miles southwest of K-2.
|
|
|
|
A brightly glowing object was observed from my location. It was
|
|
approximately 30-40 feet in diameter, moving slowly from south to north
|
|
at 500 feet above the tree-tops.
|
|
|
|
[text deleted for brevity]
|
|
|
|
Within 10 minutes, after the object left the area, eight Air Force
|
|
jet fighters (F-4s, judging from their sound and appearance) and moving
|
|
very fast, went overhead traveling in the same direction the object had
|
|
taken -- towards the North. Four minutes later, the fighters returned,
|
|
heading south. I presumed the object had been spotted by their radar.
|
|
Their quick return would indicate they lost radar contact with the
|
|
object.
|
|
|
|
* * *
|
|
|
|
[text deleted for brevity]
|
|
|
|
Memo
|
|
August 12, 1989
|
|
From Staff # 1
|
|
To: Staff # 2
|
|
|
|
Our contacts in the Air Force verify that on the night of August 10,
|
|
1989, at the time indicated in Report # 1 of that date, that eight F-
|
|
4's, scrambled from Beale AFB, CA. They had a brief radar-lock, on a
|
|
"bogie" in the area described. However, they lost the target, due to
|
|
ground clutter when it suddenly descended into the mountainous terrain.
|
|
They returned to the base when a further sweep of the area proved
|
|
fruitless.
|
|
|
|
You're right, the AF had a blip on their radar, but lost it when the
|
|
ship dropped into that 20-mile approach corridor between the valleys
|
|
and the radar dead zone.
|
|
|
|
* * *
|
|
|
|
My Investigation.
|
|
|
|
I contacted the Public Affairs office at Beale AFB. (916-634-8890)
|
|
After identifying myself, and the information I needed, they transfered
|
|
me to another office. The person who answered the phone identified both
|
|
himself, and the office so swiftly, I couldn't make out who I was
|
|
talking to. (altho the point is moot..)
|
|
|
|
The following is a -rough- transcript of the conversation, although it
|
|
is not verbatim. (I did not record the conversation.) The officer I was
|
|
speaking to was quite candid, and informal. The conversation itself was
|
|
spontaneous, so I do not believe that I was being fed a "canned" story.
|
|
Besides, as you'll see in a moment, the officer has absoloutly no
|
|
reason to lie about this. I read the above memo to the officer, and
|
|
then asked the following questions.
|
|
|
|
Q: Has Beale AFB operated F-4 Phantoms in an interceptor role at any
|
|
time, and specificly during August of 1989?
|
|
|
|
A: No. Beale AFB is a SAC [Strategic Air Command] base, and has never
|
|
operated tactical aircraft in any capacity. We have B-52s, KC-130
|
|
air refuelers, and until recently, the SR-71. We're a bomber base,
|
|
not a fighter base. There was an attempt made in an 89 air show to
|
|
get 2 RF-4Cs to come here, but unfortunatly, they couldn't make it.
|
|
|
|
[Note: In conversation, he told me the RF-4s were part of the High
|
|
Roller squadron based here in Reno...Joe.]
|
|
|
|
Q: Were F-4s ever used in an interceptor role as late as 1989?
|
|
|
|
A: Not to my knowledge, no. The F-4s have been relegated to ECM, "Wild
|
|
Weasel" roles, and low level recce [Recon] roles for quite some time
|
|
now. These types of F-4s are completely unarmed, therefor useless as
|
|
fighters. If an intercept mission was called out for northern CA,
|
|
the response would come from only one of 2 AFB's. Eilson<sp> or
|
|
Almendorf AFB in Alaska, although I'm not sure which one, and the
|
|
other AFB would be March AFB. Both bases have a wing of F-15
|
|
interceptors that the AF have assigned to West Coast defense. The US
|
|
Navy also has NAS [Naval Air Stations] assigned to coastal defense,
|
|
but I'm not sure which bases those are. At any rate, the only Naval
|
|
outfits to use the F-4 are the Marines, and they also use it as
|
|
"Wild Weasel" and low level recce.
|
|
|
|
Q: Has it ever been AF SOP to use eight aircraft in an intercept?
|
|
|
|
A: For -one- radar bogie? [he laughed at this point] That would insult
|
|
most of the fighter pilots I've ever known. [another laugh] No, most
|
|
AFB's only have 2 aircraft capable of being "scrambled" on a moments
|
|
notice. Even if an AFB had more aircraft available for a scramble,
|
|
they would still only send 2 aircraft. Operating an interceptor is
|
|
extremly expensive, somwhere in the region of $4,000 per flight
|
|
hour. This is fuel, oil, hydraulics, and air and ground crew
|
|
salaries. The AF wouldn't spend $32,000 for something they know from
|
|
experience would only take $8,000. Besides, we're still talking F-4s
|
|
here right? [Yes] Well, for an intercept conducted by the AF, you're
|
|
looking at the F-15, or the F-16. Even if we had F-4s that were
|
|
armed, they wouldn't use them. They're just not fast enough anymore.
|
|
|
|
* * *
|
|
|
|
There was more to this conversation, but we got to talking about the
|
|
High Rollers and the Reno Air races.. the above is the only portion
|
|
that pertains to this report...
|
|
|
|
Summary:
|
|
|
|
1. Beale AFB is a SAC base, and as such, does not operate tactical
|
|
aircraft, (ie fighters) in any capacity, and never has. Their
|
|
primary aircraft types are bombers, hi-alt recon, and refuelers.
|
|
|
|
2. The AF would never send eight ships to intercept a radar bogie. IMHO
|
|
they wouldn't need to.
|
|
|
|
3. There are no F-4 Phantoms being used on the West Coast in an
|
|
interceptor role. They are used in Recon, and ECM roles only, and as
|
|
such, are totally unarmed. If the AF were to scramble an intercept,
|
|
they would use F-16s or F-15s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possible Explanations:
|
|
|
|
1. The AF is lieing.
|
|
|
|
Not likely. They've no reason to hide the fact that tactical
|
|
aircraft do not operate from their base, nor have they any reason to
|
|
lie about not using F-4s as interceptors.
|
|
|
|
2. The Phoenix Project member mis-identified the aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunatly, the Phoenix Project cannot use this as a defense,
|
|
since they state that they "verified" that 8 F-4s were scrambled to
|
|
intercept the radar "bogie."
|
|
|
|
3. The Phoenix Project deliberatly falsified this portion of their
|
|
report.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunatly, this is the only explanation.
|
|
|
|
Conclusion:
|
|
|
|
It is my opinion that at least this portion of the Phoenix Project's K-
|
|
2 report is a deliberate falsehood. It can neither be a typographical
|
|
error, nor an error in judgement, (since they "verified" the info using
|
|
AF sources.) This also throws considerable doubt on the validity of the
|
|
"object" sighting, and on the K-2 report as a whole. However, I will
|
|
let others, more knowledgable and capable than I, determine the
|
|
validity of the remaining K-2 claims.
|
|
|
|
Joe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |