Common UFO Terminology and other Explainations

Zion, the fact that people have not voted in huge numbers, indicates that this is no way to conduct statistical analysis. The respondents are a self selecting sample who have an interest in the concept of UFOs as alien artifacts.
I voted other, because it is the only one that fits:
I don't believe UFO's are alien craft, so I can't say a). I don't reject the possibility outright, so I can't say b). I don't consider them unlikely on the basis that I have not presonally had an encounter with them (that would be crap science), but on the basis that nobody has had a convincing documented encounter., so I can't go for c). There are a zillion interesting other things to do, but UFOs are still intriguing, so I can't say d). That only leaves 'Other'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the continuum can never be completed, by presenting all sorts of choices, this is because of inability to see everyone of them, but yes, by adding others i have attempted to complete the continumm by adding the incomplete stuff. The polar extremes have already been on the poll.Thanks for input,i appreciate it .

Thanks again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi,

I have made a *.pdf copy of all the posts so far, it has all the pictures etc...Size is 2.92 MB. If you need it,please PM me your email-ids.


Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now that we are aware of generic stuff, we will proceed to detail descriptive UFO cases,i"ll try to compile stuff from various sources and present here.I would also want to add these to my PDF file collections...(which incase if you want,i can email them to you...just Send over a message to me.)

 

DISCLAIMER: Please read this carefully(before using the material here.) This material is taken from several sources,I donot hold the copyrights for this. My belief is that Information should be used for education and not for commercial purposes, and hence i do not in any ways wish to use this information for my own personal gains

The Ellsworth AFB Case (RV)
August 5, 1953
Ellsworth Air Force Base, E. of Rapid City, SD

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

F-84B "Thunderjet"

I first heard about the sighting about two o'clock on the morning of August 11,1953, when Max Futch called me from ATIC. A few minutes before, a wire had come in carrying a priority just under that reserved for flashing the word the U.S. has been attacked. Max had been called over to ATIC by the OD to see the report, and he thought that I should see it. I was a little hesitant to get dressed and go out to the base, so I asked Max what he thought about the report. His classic answer will go down in UFO history, "Captain," Max said in his slow, pure Louisiana drawl, "you know that for a year I've read every flying saucer report that's come in and that I never really believed in the things." Then he hesitated and added, so fast that I could hardly understand hini, "But you should read this wire." The speed with which he uttered this last statement was in itself enough to convince me. When Max talked fast, something was important.

A half hour later I was at ATIC - just in time to get a call from the Pentagon. Someone else had gotten out of bed to read his copy of the wire.

I used the emergency orders that I always kept in my desk and caught the first airliner out of Dayton to Rapid City, South Dakota. I didn't call the 4602nd because I wanted to investigate this one personally. I talked to everyone involved in the incident and pieced together an amazing story.

Shortly after dark on the night of twelfth, the Air Defense Command radar station at Ellsworth AFB, just east of Rapid City, had received a call from the local Ground Observer Corps filter center. A lady spotter at Black Hawk, about 10 miles west of Ellsworth, had reported an extremely bright light low on the horizon, off to the northeast. The radar had been scanning an area to the west, working a jet fighter in some practice patrols, but when they got the report they moved the sector scan to the northeast quadrant There was a target exactly where the lady repored the light to be. The warrant officer who was the duty controller for the night, told me that he'd studied the target for several minutes. He knew how weather could affect radar but this target was well defined, solid, and bnght." It seemed to be moving, but very slowly. He called for an altitude reading, and the man on the height-finding radar checked his scope. He also had the target - it was at 16.000 feet.

The warrant officer picked up the phone and asked the filter center to connect him with the spotter. They did, and ihe two people compared notes on the UFO's position for several minutes. But right in the middle of a sentence the lady suddenly stopped and excitedly said, "It'sstarting to move - it's moving southwest toward Rapid."

The controller looked down at his scope and the target was begining to pick up speed and move southwest. He yelled at two of his men to run outside and take a look. In a second or two one of them shouted back that they could both see a large bluish-white light moving toward Rapid City. The controller looked down at his scope, the target was moving toward Rapid City. As all three parties watched the light and kept up a steady cross conversation of the description, the UFO swiftly made a wide sweep around Rapid City and returned to its original position in the sky.

A master sergeant who had seen and heard the happenings told me that in all his years of duty - combat radar operations in both Europe and Korea - he'd never been so completely awed by anything. When the warrant officer had yelled down at him and asked him what he thought they should do, he'd just stood there. "After all," he told me, "what in hell couldf we do - they're bigger than all of us."

But the warrant officer did do something. He called to the F-84 pilot he had on combat air patrol west of the base and told him to get ready for an intercept. He brought the pilot around south of the base and gave him a course correction thai would take him riglit into the light. which was still at 16.000 feet. By this time the pilot had it spotted. He made the turn, and when he closed to within about 3 miles of the target, it began to move. The controller saw it begin to move, the spotter saw it begin to move and the pilot saw it begin to move - all at the same time There was now no doubt that all of them were watching the same object.

Once it began to move, the UFO picked up speed fast and started to climb, heading north, but the F-84 was right on its tail. The pilot would notice that the light was getting brighter, and he'd call the controller to tell him about it. But the controller's answer would always be the same, "Roger, we can see it on the scope."

There was always a limit as to how near the jet could get, however. The controller told me that it was just as if the UFO had some kind of an automatic warning radar linked to its power supply. When something got too close to it, it would automatically pick up speed and pull away. The separation distance always remained about 3 miles.

The chase continued on north out of sight of the lights of Rapid Cty and the base - into some very black night.

When the UFO and the F-84 got about 120 miles to the north, the pilot checked his fuel; he had to come back. And when I talked to him, be said he was damn glad that he was running out of fuel because being out over some mighty desolate country alone with a UFO can cause some worry.

Both the UFO and the F-84 had gone off the scope, but in a few minutes the jet was back on, heading for home. Then 10 or 15 miles behind it was the UFO target also coming back.

While the UFO and the F-84 were returning to the base - the F-84 was planning to land - the controller received a call from the jet interceptor squadron on the base. The alert pilots at the squadron had heard the conversations on their radio and didn't believe it. "Who's nuts up there?" was the comment that passed over the wire from the pilots to the radar people. There was an F-84 on the line ready to scramble, the man on the phone said, and one of the pilots, a World War II and Korean veteran, wanted to go up and see a flying saucer. The controller said, "OK, go."

In a minute or two the F-84 was airborne and the controller was working him toward the light. The pilot saw it right away and closed in. Again the light began to clirnb out, this time more toward the northeast. The pilot also began to climb, and before long the light, which at first had been about 30 degrees above his horizontal line of sight, was now below him. He nosed the '84 down to pick up speed, but it was the same old story - as soon as he'd get within 3 miles of the UFO, it would put on a burst of speed and stay out ahead.

Even though the pilot could see the light and hear the ground controller telling him that he was above it, and alternately gaining on it or dropping back, he still couldn't believe it - there must be a simple explanation He turned off all of his lights - it wasn't a reflection from any of the airplane's lights because there it was. A reflection from a ground light, maybe. He rolled the airp!ane - the position of the light didn't change. A star - he picked out three bright stars near the light and watched carefully. The UFO moved in relation to the three stars. Well, he thought to himself, if it's a real object out there, my radar should pick it up too; so he flipped on his radar-ranging gunsight. In a few seconds the red light on his sight blinked on - something real and solid was in front of him. Then he was scared. When I talked to him, he readily admitted that he'd been scared. He'd met MD 109's, FW 190's and ME 262's over Germany and he'd met MIG-15's over Korea but the large, bright, bluish-white light had scared - he asked the controller if he could break off the intercept

This time the light didn't corne back.

What he UFO went off the scope it was headed toward Fargo, North Dakota, so the controller called the Fargo filter center. "Had they had any reports of unidentified lights?" he asked. They hadn't.

But in a few minutes a call came back. Spotter posts on a southwest- northeast line a few miles west of Fargo had reported a fast-nioving, bright bluish-white light.

This was an unknown - the best..

The sighting was thorougly investigated, and I could devote pages of detail on how we looked into every facet of the incident; but it will suffice to say that in every facet we looked into we saw nothing. Nothing but a big question mark asking what was it.



here's some documents regarding the sightings,(taken from NICAP):

Some words from Dr. Hynek on the case were as follows :

here is an article regarding this taken from the True Magzine :
Why Don't The Damn Things Swim so we can turn them over to the Navy!"

by
Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt USAFR
This is how an Air force investigator summed up his exasperation in trying to sift UFO facts from fancy. From 1951-53, the author headed up Project Blue Book, the now-famous official investigation into UFO's.
Here is what he learned.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ON AUGUST 12, 1953, a woman in Ground Observer Corps in the Black Hills of South Dakota reported a light hovering in the sky to the east of her position. Two operators from a radar station went out to check the thing while the woman was still on the telephone. While they were scanning the sky, the woman reported, "The thing is beginning to move over Rapid City." At the same time, the two radar men observed the light start to move. They returned to their radar to pick it up, and the woman reported that the object was moving back to its original position. The radar got a fix on it at that spot.

An F-84, in the air at the time, was vectored into the target. The jet pilot sighted the light visually and started after it. The object headed north with the jet after it, and the radar operators observed the chase on their scope. The Unidentified Flying Object stayed ahead of the jet and seemed to put on speed whenever the pilot speeded up the jet. After chasing the object 120 miles, the pilot ran low on fuel and was granted permission to return. When the jet turned around, the UFO also turned and followed him back.

After the first jet landed, a second F-84 went up to investigate. He was talked into position and spotted the thing visually above him. He went up to 20,000 feet, reported that he was level with the light, and again the object took off the to the north with the jet in pursuit. Again the chase was observed on ground radar, with both the UFO and the jet showing plainly on the scope.

In the second pursuit, the pilot made a number of tests to rule out some of the common phenomena that have been mistaken for "flying saucers." He turned off all his instrument lights and kicked the plane around to make certain that he was not chasing a canopy reflection. He was not. He observed the object carefully in relation to the stars, and swore that it moved across them, thus eliminating the possibility that he was chasing a planet or a star. Finally, when he thought he was closing in on the object, he switched on his radar gun sights. This type of jet has a light on the instrument panel that goes on to indicate a "lock on" with the target by the radar sights. The light went on.

The second jet chased the light 160 miles to the north before abandoning the pursuit. This time the UFO continued flying north. The Ground Observer Corps Filter Center ahead was alerted, and observers there reported a light speeding north.

This was indeed an astounding occurrence. There were simultaneous visual sightings from two ground sites linked by telephone, simultaneous ground and radar sightings, simultaneous ground-radar and jet-visual sightings, a pursuit in which the UFO outran the jet, a reversal in course, a second jet-visual sighting confirmed by ground radar, an air-radar "lock on" and finally a sighting from the ground hundreds of miles away.

What was the object? For two years, from 1951 to 1953, I flew 200,000 miles, conferred with dozens of top American scientists and an exotic collection of hot-eyed screwballs, stumbled through Florida mangrove swamps, dragged myself out of bed at 3 a.m. to answer transatlantic telephone calls, inspected scores of strange photographs and watched one short amateur movie ninety-seven times in an effort to answer this and similar questions.
My colleagues and I were lambasted by fellow Americans for concealing the biggest news story in the history of modern man, and by Radio Moscow for setting the stage for atomic war.

I was called an ignorant dupe, a Charlie McCarthy manipulated by powerful forces in the Pentagon. I was consulted by the White House, and I briefed the highest figure in the Air Force, who listened respectfully and let me do all the talking.

For two years, with the help of the best brains in the country, we worked on a giant jigsaw of a puzzle that was either utterly meaningless or would rock the world.

For every piece that we fitted into place, we found that two more had been added to the puzzle's pile.

I finally found myself soberly inspecting a piece of cow manure to learn if it had come from outer space.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Two moving discs were photographed by Earl E. Brown, Jr. (right), in 1958.
"They scared the hell out of me." he told Air Force.
Project Blue Book - USAF photos

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Note Inserted : I am trying to find out lab analysis of the pics, where it was done etc ~~Zion)
From 1951 to 1953, I was in charge of the official Air Force investigation of Unidentified Flying Objects, the things that whiz through space under the popular name of "flying saucers."

The Age of the Flying Saucer was in Year Five when it plucked me out of my job as technical intelligence analyst for the Air Technical Intelligence Center at Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio.

Year One had opened on June 24, 1947, when a Boise businessman named Kenneth Arnold reported seeing a chain of nine "saucerlike things" glinting in the sun as they flew at 1,200 mph - twice the speed of sound - near Mt. Rainier. His story snared the nation's imagination with one baffling fact. No known aircraft in the world had broken the sonic barrier at that time. "I don't believe it," Arnold said, "but I saw it."

If Arnold's story had stood alone, the Age of the Flying Saucer would have opened and closed with a one-day stand. But in the next thirty days there were fifty-three more reports of saucers. Near Portland, Oregon, a couple of deputy sheriffs reported "twenty in a line going like hell to the west." A Chicago housewife saw one "with legs" and ran into the house and slammed the door. A prospector in the Cascade mountains spotted five or six of them "with tails" and was startled to see his magnetic compass "gyrating wildly." In Spokane, a woman reported five of them "about the size of a five-room house." Hers were shaped "like washtubs." A remarkably cool gentleman in Seattle spoke out and reported, "Why, they come through our yard all the time."

At the time, I was out in Yellowstone National Park, on vacation from Iowa State College, where I was studying aeronautical engineering. It was my second try for a degree. I had dropped out the first time, in 1942, to enlist in the Air Force. I had been assigned as bombardier in the first B-29 squadron organized, flown the Hump out of India, and then moved over to Tinian for the big raids against Japan. Our group flew the last mission of the war, a raid against Tokuyama, minutes before the end of the war.

Within a few days after Arnold's sighting, youngsters were tossing paper plates over our lodge at Yellowstone and yelling, "Saucer, saucer!" Some of the tourists started seeing things and would come in and tell about them, as if their vacation was complete. I read Arnold's story and shrugged it off. Twice over Japan I'd seen strange objects in the sky. One was an orange-yellow light that followed our B-29 for a while and then suddenly winked out. The consensus was that it was a "foo fighter" - the strange light spotted dozens of times by airmen over Europe and Japan. The theory was that it was a static-electricity phenomenon. Another time, flying home with jumpy nerves after a rough mission, I cut loose with six 0.50-caliber guns at a bright object just about dawn. After getting the crew in an uproar, I suddenly realized I was shooting at the planet Venus.


(The study in condon report was as follows of the same)
The CONDON REPORT
15-B. Blackhawk and Rapid City, S. Dak., and Bismarck, N. Dak., 5-6 August 1953, 2005-0250 LST. Weather: clear, excellent visibility, stable conditions, temperature inversions and radio surface ducts prevalent. See Fig. 4. The night was dark and moonless.

The initial incident in this chain of UFO sightings was the sighting by a GOC (Ground Observers Corps) observer of a stationary "red glowing light" at 2005 LST near Blackhawk, S. Dak. This light soon began to move some 30° to the right, "shot straight up," and moved to the left, returning to its original position. A companion thought it was "just the red tower light" (a warning light on an FM

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 4
Radio Refractivity Profile
Bismark, 5 Aug 63

- 197 -
transmitter tower normally just visible from their location). The report was relayed to the Rapid City Filter Center, and three airmen from the radar site were sent outside to look for the UFO. They saw what was undoubtedly a meteor, judging from their description. The radar operator when informed of the new sighting began to search for unidentified targets. He found many.

Over the course of the next four hours a large number of unidentified blips appeared on the Rapid City radar. Many of those were transitory, moving blips with a fairly short lifetime, usually being "lost in the ground clutter." An F-84 fighter was vectored in to a stationary blip near Blackhawk, and the pilot "chased" a UFO which he found at the location on a heading of 320 ° M. without gaining on it. The F-84 was probably chasing a star, in this case Pollux (mag. 1.2) which was in the correct location (335° true azimuth, near the horizon).

When the Blackhawk GOC post called in that the original object had returned for a third time, another F-84 was vectored in on the visual report, as no radar contact could be made. The pilot made a visual contact and headed out on a 360 ° magnetic (~15° true) vector. At this point the radar picked up what apparently was ghost echo, that is, one that "paced" the aircraft, always on the far side from the radar. The fighter in this instance was probably chasing another star, the image of which may have been somewhat distorted. The pilot's report that the visual UFO was "pacing" him appears to have strengthened the radar operator's belief that he was actually tracking the UFO, and not a ghost echo. The star in this instance may well have been Mirfak (mag. 1.9), which, at 2040 LST, was at azimuth 15 ° and about 5 ° to 7 ° elevation angle. The second pilot, upon being interviewed by Dr. Hynek, stated that he felt he had been chasing a star, although there were some aspects of the

- 198 -
appearance of the object that disturbed him. He also stated that the radar gunlock. which he had reported by radio during the chase, was due to equipment malfunction, and that the radar gunsight continued to malfunction on his way back to the base. This equipment was never subsequently checked for malfunctioning (i.e., not before or during the official AF investigation of the incident).

The Bismarck, N. Dak. sightings began when the Bismarck Filter Center was alerted to the "presence of UFO's" by Rapid City. At 2342 LST the sergeant on duty there and several volunteer observers went out on the roof and shortly spotted four objects. The descriptions of these objects by the various observers were consistent with the hypothesis that they were stars, although some apparent discrepancies caused early AF investigators to deduce by crude triangulations that the sighted objects must have been nearby. It now appears that all four objects were stars viewed through a temperature inversion layer. The observers stated that the objects resembled stars, but that their apparent motion and color changes seemed to rule out this possibility.

Dr. Hynek's summary of the probable nature of the four Bismarck objects is enlightening:

Object #1, which was low on the horizon in the west and disappeared between midnight and 0100 hr. was the star Arcturus observed through a surface inversion. Arcturus was low on the horizon in the west and set at approximately 1220 (LST) at 289 ° azimuth.

Object #2 -- was the star Capella observed through a surface inversion. At 0011 CST Capella was at 40° azimuth and 15 ° elevation ... [and] at 0200 CST [it] was at 53° azimuth and 30 ° elevation, which agrees with the positions given by [the two witnesses].

Objects #3 and #4 were, with a high degree of probability, the planet Jupiter and the star Betelgeuse, observed through

- 199 -
a surface inversion. Jupiter's ... stellar magnitude was -1.7 [and it] was low on the eastern horizon at approximately 92° azimuth. Betelgeuse ... was also low on the eastern horizon at approximately 81° azimuth.

The statement of one of the witnesses at Bismark includes the following comments:

... they appeared much brighter than most of the stars and at times appeared to take on a rather dull bluish tint.

They appeared to move in the heavens, but at a rather slow rate and unless a person braced his head against some stationary object to eliminate head movement it would be hard to tell that they were moving.

The one in the west eventually disappeared below the horizon and the one in the northeast gradually seemed to blend in with the rest of the stars until it was no longer visible.

The last statement is typical of the description given by witnesses who have apparently observed a bright star rising through an inversion layer. It would seem to be circumstantial evidence of the diffraction-brightening predicted by Raman for propagation along an inversion layer (see Section VI Chapter 4). However, there is an alternative explanation that simple diffractive blurring or smearing of a star's image, by spreading the available light over a larger area of the eye's retina, may cause a psychological illusion of brightening of the object.

The meteorological conditions were generally favorable for anomalous propagation at both locations. The refractivity profile for Rapid City 2000 LST 5 August shows a 0.5 ° C temperature inversion over a layer 109 m. thick, although the resulting refractivity gradient is only -77 km-1 (Fig. 5). The 0800 LST profile (Fig. 6) shows a pronounced elevated

- 200 -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 5
Radio Refractivity Profile
Rapid City, 5 Aug 53

- 201 -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

• stars seen through an inversion layer,
• at least one meteor,
• AP echoes on a GCI radar, and
• possible ghost echoes on the GCI radar and malfunction of an airborne radar gunsight (although the commanding officer of the Rapid City detachment was later skeptical that there had in fact ever been even a ghost echo present on the GCI radar).

Personal Conclusions :
None.

 

Case 2
Lakenheath and Bentwaters RAF/USAF units
England
August 13-14, 1956

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

de Haviland "Venom"
Dr. James E. McDonald:
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 sighting, 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 sighting, 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 sighting, 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 may be traced on radarscopes", and inversions that "may cause interference between two radar stations some distance apart." Such basically irrelevant remarks are all too typical of Bluebook critique over the years. The file also includes a case- discussion by Dr. J. A. Hynek, Bluebook consultant, who also toys with the idea of possible radar returns from meteor wake ionization. Not only are the radar frequencies here about two orders of magnitude too high to afford even marginal likelihood of meteor-wake returns, but there is absolutely no kinematic similarity between the reported UFO movements and the essentially straight-line hypersonic movement of a meteor, to cite just a few of the strong objections to any serious consideration of meteor hypotheses for the present UFO case. Hynek's memorandum on the case makes some suggestions about the need for upgrading Bluebook operations, and then closes with the remarks that "The Lakenheath report could constitute a source of embarrassment to the Air Force; and should the facts, as so far reported, get into the public domain, it is not necessary to point out what excellent use the several dozen UFO societies and other 'publicity artists' would make of such an incident. It is, therefore, of great importance that further information on the technical aspects of the original observations be obtained, without loss of time from the original observers." That memo of October 17, 1956,is followed in the case-file by Capt. Gregory's November 26, 1956 reply, in which he concludes that "our original analyses of anomalous propagation and astronimical is (sic) more or less correct"; and there the case investigation seemed to end, at the same casually closed level at which hundreds of past UFO cases have been closed out at Bluebook with essentially no real scientific critique. I would say that it is exceedingly unfortunate that "the facts , as so far reported" did not get into the public domain, along with the facts on innumerable other Bluebook case-files that should have long ago startled the scientific community just as much as they startled me when I took the trouble to go to Bluebook and spend a number of days studying those astonishing files.

Returning to the scientifically fascinating account of the Venom pilot's attempt to make an air-intercept on the Lakenheath unidentified object, the original report goes on to note that, after the pilot lost both visual and radar signals, "RATCC vectored him to a target 10 miles east of Lakenheath and pilot advised target was on radar and he was 'locking on.'" Although here we are given no information on the important point of whether he also saw a luminous object, as he got a radar lock-on, we definitely have another instance of at least two-channel detection. The concurrent detection of a single radar target by a ground radar and an airborne radar under conditions such as these, where the target proves to be a highly maneuverable object (see below), categorically rules out any conventional explanations involving, say, large ground structures and propagation anomalies. That MTI was being used on the ground radar also excludes that, of course.

The next thing that happened was that the Venom suddenly lost radar lock- on as it neared the unknown target. RATCC reported that "as the Venom passed the target on radar, the target began a tail chase of the friendly fighter." RATCC asked the Venom pilot to acknowledge this turn of events and he did, saying "he would try to circle and get behind the target." His attempts were unsuccessful, which the report to Bluebook describes only in the terse comment, "Pilot advised he was unable to 'shake' the target off his tail and requested assistance." The non-com's letter is more detailed and much more emphatic. He first remarks that the UFO's sudden evasive movement into tail position was so swift that he missed it on his own scope, "but it was seen by the other controllers." His letter then goes on to note that the Venom pilot "tried everything -- he climbed, dived, circled, etc., but the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close, but we always had two distinct targets." Here again, note how the basic report is annoyingly incomplete. One is not told whether the pilot knew the UFO was pursuing his Venom by virtue of some tail-radar warning device of type often used on fighters (none is alluded to), or because he could see a luminous object in pursuit. In order for him to "acknowledge" the chase seems to require one or the other detection-mode, yet the report fails to clarify this important point. However, the available information does make quite clear that the pursuit was being observed on ground radar, and the non-com's recollection puts the duration of the pursuit at perhaps 10 minutes before the pilot elected to return to his base. Very significantly, the intelligence report from Lakenheath to Bluebook quotes this first pilot as saying "clearest target I have ever seen on radar", which again eliminates a number of hypotheses, and argues most cogently the scientific significance of the whole episode.

The non-com recalled that, as the first Venom returned to Waterbeach Aerodrome when fuel ran low, the UFO followed him a short distance and then stopped; that important detail is, however, not in the Bluebook report. A second Venom was then scrambled, but, in the short time before a malfunction forced it to return to Waterbeach, no intercepts were accomplished by that second pilot.

7. Discussion:

The Bluebook report material indicates that other radar unknowns were being observed at Lakenheath until about 0330Z. Since the first radar unknowns appeared near Bentwaters at about 2130Z on 8/13/56, while the Lakenheath events terminated near 0330Z on 8/14/56, the total duration of this UFO episode was about six hours. The case includes an impressive number of scientifically provocative features:

1) At least three separate instances occurred in which one ground-radar unit, GCA Bentwaters, tracked some unidentified target for a number of tens of miles across its scope at speeds in excess of Mach 3. Since even today, 12 years later, no nation has disclosed military aircraft capable of flight at such speeds (we may exclude the X-15), and since that speed is much too low to fit any meteoric hypothesis, this first feature (entirely omitted from discussion in the Condon Report) is quite puzzling. However, Air Force UFO files and other sources contain many such instances of nearly hypersonic speeds of radar-tracked UFOs.

2) In one instance, about a dozen low-speed (order of 100 mph) targets moved in loose formation led by three closely-spaced targets, the assemblage yielding consistent returns over a path of about 50 miles, after which they merged into a single large target, remained motionless for some 10-15 minutes, and then moved off-scope. Under the reported wind conditions, not even a highly contrived meteorological explanation invoking anomalous propagation and inversion layer waves would account for this sequence observed at Bentwaters. The Condon Report omits all discussion of items 1) and 2), for reasons that I find difficult to understand.

3) One of the fast-track radar sightings at Bentwaters, at 2255Z, coincided with visual observations of some very-high-speed luminous source seen by both a tower operator on the ground and by a pilot aloft who saw the light moving in a blur below his aircraft at 4000 ft altitude. The radar-derived speed "as given as 2000-4000 mph. Again, meteors won't fit such speeds and altitudes, and we may exclude aircraft for several evident reasons, including absence of any thundering sonic boom that would surely have been reported if any near hypothetical secret 1956-vintage hypersonic device were flying over Bentwaters at less than 4000 ft that night.

4) Several ground observers at Lakenheath saw luminous obJects exhibiting non-ballistic motions, including dead stops and sharp course reversals.

5) In one instance, two luminous white objects merged into a single object, as seen from the ground at Lakenheath. This wholly unmeteoric and unaeronautical phenomenon is actually a not-uncommon feature of UFO reports during the last two decades. For example, radar-tracked merging of two targets that veered together sharply before Joining up was reported over Kincheloe AFB, Michigan, in a UFO report that also appears in the Condon Report (p. 164), quite unreasonably attributed therein to "anomalous propagation."

6) Two separate ground radars at Lakenheath, having rather different radar parameters, were concurrently observing movements of one or more unknown targets over an extended period of time. Seemingly stationary hovering modes were repeatedly observed, and this despite use of MTI. Seemingly "instantaneous" accelerations from rest to speeds of order of Mach 1 were repeatedly observed. Such motions cannot readily be explained in terms of any known aircraft flying then or now, and also fail to fit known electronic or propagation anomalies. The Bluebook report gives the impression (somewhat ambiguously, however) that some of these two-radar observations were coincident with ground-visual observations.

7) In at least one instance, the Bluebook report makes clear that an unidentified luminous target was seen visually from the air by the pilot of an interceptor while getting simultaneous radar returns from the unknown with his nose radar concurrent with ground-radar detection of the same unknown. This is scientifically highly significant, for it entails threeseparate detection-channels all recording the unknown object.

8) In at least one instance, there was simultaneous radar disappearance and visual disappearance of the UFO. This is akin to similar events in other known UFO cases, yet is not easily explained in terms of conventional phenomena.

9) Attempts of the interceptor to close on one target seen both on ground radar and on the interceptor's nose radar, led to a puzzling rapid interchange of roles as the unknown object moved into tail- position behind the interceptor. While under continuing radar observation from the ground, with both aircraft and unidentified object clearly displayed on the Lakenheath ground radars, the pilot of the interceptor tried unsuccessfully to break the tail chase over a time of some minutes. No ghost-return or multiple-scatter hypothesis can explain such an event.

I believe that the cited sequence of extremely baffling events, involving so many observers and so many distinct observing channels, and exhibiting such unconventional features, should have led to the most intensive Air Force inquiries. But I would have to say precisely the same about dozens of other inexplicable Air Force-related UFO incidents reported to Bluebook since 1947. What the above illustrative case shows all too well is that highly unusual events have been occurring under circumstances where any organization with even passing scientific curiosity should have responded vigorously, yet the Air Force UFO program has repeatedly exhibited just as little response as I have noted in the above 1956 Lakenheath incident. The Air Force UFO program, contrary to the impression held by most scientists here and abroad, has been an exceedingly superficial and generally quite incompetent program. Repeated suggestions from Air Force press offices, to the effect that "the best scientific talents available to the U.S. Air Force" have been brought to bear on the UFO question are so far from the truth as to be almost laughable, yet those suggestions have served to mislead the scientific community, here and abroad, into thinking that careful investigations were yielding solid conclusions to the effect that the UFO problem was a nonsense problem. The Air Force has given us all the impression that its UFO reports involved only misidentified phenomena of conventional sorts. That, I submit, is far from correct, and the Air Force has not responsibly discharged its obligations to the public in conveying so gross a misimpression for twenty years. I charge incompetence, not conspiracy, let me stress.

The Condon Report, although disposed to suspicion that perhaps some sort of anomalous radar propagation might be involved (I record here my objection that the Condon Report exhibits repeated instances of misunderstanding of the limits of anomalous propagation effects), does concede that Lakenheath is an unexplained case. Indeed, the Report ends its discussion with the quite curious admission that, in the Lakenheath episode, "...the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high."

One could easily become enmeshed in a semantic dispute over the meaning of the phrase, "one genuine UFO", so I shall simply assert that my own position is that the Lakenheath case exemplifies a disturbingly large group of UFO reports in which the apparent degree of scientific inexplicability is so great that, instead of being ignored and laughed at, those cases should all along since 1947 have been drawing the attention of a large body of the world's best scientists. Had the latter occurred, we might now have some answers, some clues to the real nature of the UFO phenomena. But 22 years of inadequate UFO investigations have kept this stunning scientific problem out of sight and under a very broad rug called Project Bluebook, whose final termination on December 18, 1969 ought to mark the end of an era and the start of a new one relative to the UFO problem.

More specifically, with cases like Lakenheath and the 1957 RB-47 case and many others equally puzzling that are to be found within the Condon Report, I contest Condon's principal conclusion "that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." And I contest the endorsement of such a conclusion by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, an endorsement that appears to be based upon essentially _zero_ independent scientific cross-checking of case material in the Report. Finally, I question the judgment of those Air Force scientific offices and agencies that have accepted so weak a report. The Lakenheath case is just one example of the basis upon which I rest those objections. I am prepared to discuss many more examples.

8. The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis:

In this Lakenheath UFO episode, we have evidence of some phenomena defying ready explanation in terms of present-day science and technology, some phenomena that include enough suggestion of intelligent control (tail-chase incident here), or some broadly cybernetic equivalent thereof, that it is difficult for me to see any reasonable alternative to the hypothesis that something in the nature of extraterrestrial devices engaged-in something in the nature of surveillance lies at the heart of the UFO problem. That is the hypothesis that my own study of the UFO problem leads me to regard as most probable in terms of my present information. This is, like all scientific hypotheses, a working hypothesis to be accepted or rejected only on the basis of continuing investigation. Present evidence surely does not amount to incontrovertible proof of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. What I find scientifically dismaying is that, while a large body of UFO evidence now seems to point in no other direction than the extraterrestrial hypothesis, the profoundly important implications of that possibility are going unconsidered by the scientific community because this entire problem has been imputed to be little more than a nonsense matter unworthy of serious scientific attention.
Those overtones have been generated almost entirely by scientists and others who have done essentially no real investigation of the problem-area in which they express such strong opinions. Science is not supposed to proceed in that manner, and this AAAS Symposium should see an end to such approaches to the UFO problem.

Put more briefly, doesn't a UFO case like Lakenheath warrant more than a mere shrug of the shoulders from science?

Source: Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects, James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, December 27, 1969


Account by Timothy Good
RAF Bentwaters
Lakenheath
1956


Timothy Good:
This is the little-known but definitive account by F.H.C. Wimbledon, RAF Fighter Controller on duty at RAF Neatishead, Norfolk:



I was Chief Controller on duty at the main RAF Radar Station in East Anglia on the night in question. My duties were to monitor the radar picture and to scramble the Battle Flight, who were on duty 24 hours a day, to intercept any intruder of British airspace not positively identified in my sector of responsibility.
I remember Lakenheath USAF base telephoning to say there was some thing "buzzing" their airfield circuit. I scrambled a Venom night fighter from the Battle Flight through Sector and my controller in the Interception Cabin took over control of it. The Interception Control team would consist of one Fighter Controller (an Officer), a Corporal, a tracker and a height reader. That is, four highly trained personnel in addition to myself could now clearly see the object on our radarseopes.

After being vectored onto the trail of the object by my Interception Controller, the pilot called out, "Contact," then a short time later, "Judy," which meant the Navigator had the target fairly and squarely on his own radar screen and needed no further help from the ground. He continued to close on the target but after a few seconds, and in the space of one or two sweeps of our scopes, the object appeared behind our fighter. Our pilot called out, "Lost Contact, more help," and he was told the target was now behind him and he was given fresh instructions.

I then scrambled a second Venom which was vectored toward the area but before it arrived on the scene the target had disappeared from our scopes and although we continued to keep a careful watch was not seen by us.

The fact remains that at least nine RAF ground personnel and two RAF aircrew were conscious of an object sufficiently "solid" to give returns on radar. Naturally, all this was reported and a Senior Officer from the Air Ministry came down and interrogated us.


Source: Above Top Secret, 45

Personal Conclusions :
Contradictions in reports neverthless cannot hide Baffling events that took place.

 

FEDERICH VALENTICH CASE

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

During the evening of October 21, 1978, twenty year old Australian Pilot Frederick Valentich disappeared over Bass Strait, while flying from Melbourne's Moorabbin Airport to King Island, off the coast of Victoria. His last communication occurred at 7:12 p.m., during the largest UFO flap in Australian history. Nearly fourteen years after that fatal Saturday evening, no trace has ever been found of either the pilot or his blue and white Cessna model 182 aircraft.

During my travels and correspondence, I have found many false stories circulating around the world regarding this most important case. I have found that these inaccurate statements are coming from individuals at home and abroad. These are people who live thousands of kilometres from the scene where the action took place, newcomers to the field, journalists who write about everything and are experts on nothing except misquotations and out of context reporting and last but not least, "Professors of Impossibility" from the scientific community who have concocted preconceived opinions and have tried to make their ideas fit around them.

Frederick Valentich was not the only person who reported a strange object over and near Bass Strait that day and night. Researchers have found over fifty reported observations in that area which occurred before, during and after his encounter. Most of this information would never have been found without the diligence of researchers from the Victorian UFO Research Society, based at Moorabbin, near the location from whence the mysterious flight originated.

The Bass Strait Flap had been building up for over six weeks prior to the pilot's disappearance. The UFO flap reached a peak that very weekend of October 21st. More daytime sightings were reported that day than in any flap period that we have ever investigated. Many of these reports have been published in the VUFORS publication, AUSTRALIAN UFO BULLETIN, the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, the INTERNATIONAL UFO REPORTER and other publications throughout the world.

It is a confirmed fact that many UFOs were reported in the vicinity of King Island and the area around Bass Strait on that day and night. Two months prior to this fateful event, we were receiving increasing telephone calls from individuals reporting strange lights in the sky. About this same time UFO reports were being passed on to the police and the King Island News. We were not aware of the reports occurring on this island until they were forwarded to us after news of the pilot's disappearance became known.

On that same day and night something strange was taking place in the Melbourne and Victorian skies as well as over Bass Strait. That is the inescapable conclusion from startling files of evidence compiled by investigators in the vicinity. Documented interviews with people from unrelated locations up to 300 kilometres apart told similar stories of round objects, star-fish shaped objects and silver cigar shaped UFOs moving slowly in the sky apparently with no visible means of propulsion, no wings and no sound.

No official conclusion has been given for the strange sound which was heard that interrupted the last statement of the pilot.

The Valentich encounter is almost a carbon copy of the experience of a four man crew aboard an Army helicopter who encountered a frightening event on 18 October, 1973, almost five years to the day prior to the Valentich disappearance.

Captain Lawrence Coyne was flying near Mansfield, Ohio at 2500 feet when a crew member notified the captain that an object was approaching on a collision course. Coyne then initiated a 'Control descent to 1700 feet. The UFO took up a position just ahead of the helicopter which was flying at 100 knots. The pilot was amazed his helicopter was climbing even though his controls were in descending position. At 3500 feet there was a thump when the helicopter broke loose from the object.

During this period Coyne tried to contact air fields nearby but both UHF and VHF frequencies had failed. Coyne also reported that his compass was rotating slowly. The shape of the object was described as cigar or long shaped and its manoeuvrability was identical to the one reported by Valentich. The instruments were later checked out in Cleveland and found to be satisfactory. In this case Larry Coyne and his crew got back to tell the story, Frederick Valentich did not.

While military and civilian aircraft searched the area over Bass Strait, VUFORS investigators concentrated their efforts with interviews of witnesses who had reported objects they had seen flying that same day and night. Some examples of reports follow: (Names are on file with VUFORS) Currie, King Island, 2:00 p.m.: The sky was clear, except one large cloud directly overhead. Out of this cloud came an object similar to a huge golf ball about a quarter-size of the moon. The object was white or silver in colour. It moved slowly to the west toward the sea. The UFO stopped at an angle of 70 degrees above the horizon, then started moving back in the direction from whence it came. At that time there was no wind. The cloud remained stationary. The UFO was the only object seen to be moving in the sky. No balloons are released at King Island on the weekends.

Beginning less than one hour after the King Island UFO was seen, twin cigar shaped objects were reported to be moving from west to east over Victoria, near Bass Strait. They were last seen about 4:30 p.m. when suddenly they changed colour from silver to white, made a sweeping curve to the north and sped away. The movement of these objects was traced by interviewing witnesses scattered along a flight path until the objects sped away. The observers nearest to the UFOs were almost directly udder the objects. They described them to be about three-quarters the size of a Boeing 747 aircraft, joined together with two silver beams. They were last seen over the ranges near Cape Otway.

At 6:45 p.m., just 21 minutes before Pilot Valentich radioed Melbourne Flight Service that he was encountering an unknown aircraft, Roy Manifold, of Melbourne, photographed on 35mm film, an object hurtling in a blur of speed and mist out of the water neat Cape Otway lighthouse. All modes of computer analysis were used to gain data. including edge enhancement, colour contouring, digitising and filtering. The analysis was made by GSW and critique issued by William H. Spaulding, GSW Director. The photos were also examined by other photo specialists.

Publication of the photos brought "Professors of Impossibility" out of their arm chairs for another debunking attempt. They decreed that the photos showed "a cloud or a puff of smoke". VUFORS advisors quickly exploded this hasty announcement. The object appears only in two of the six pictures, taken while the camera was in automatic sequencing. The time interval between each photograph is confirmed by the setting sun's Position. In the last picture the so called cloud is already nine degrees into the shot. This means it would have been moving at 200 miles per hour. It is not possible for a cloud or puff of smoke to move at this speed on a calm day.

Communications between Valentich and Melbourne Flight Service were recorded from 7:06 to 7:12 p.m., before an unexplained sound abruptly terminated the voice communications. During that time, twenty people located in different areas around Bass Strait observed a green light in the same direction and at the same time the pilot was reporting the approach and description of an object with a green light.

In addition, other reports have been forthcoming, such as: In the southern suburb of Frankston, a mother and four teenagers reported what appeared to resemble a sky rocket, although the object was stationary. The colour appeared to be a mixture of red, pink and white. The witnesses estimated the object to be a quarter-size of the moon. The mother said that at the time of the sighting she did not realise it was a UFO, until later when she learned that other people had seen the same object. At the same time, a bank manager and his wife, while driving on the highway west of Melbourne, observed a star-fish shaped object out over the Strait. They noticed green flickering lights at the ends. The couple are of the opinion that it was the same object that Valentich was reporting before the strange sound jammed his radio transmission.

Another sighting was reported from Ormond, a suburb in southern Melbourne, occurring at 7:15 p.m. when lights were noted in a cigar shaped arrangement. The lights were described as looking like "silver rain" as they appeared to fall or else were turned off from top to bottom.

Two lads were out in the street communicating with their walkie-talkies when they saw a star-shaped object appear at a low altitude over their heads. It was moving slightly faster than an aircraft as if oh an approach run to an airport. During the observation both witnesses recall a sound like a low pulsating ,hum was associated with the object. Each of the walkie-talkies first became jammed with static then communication was lost altogether, even though the lads were only a short distance apart. Communication was restored when the UFO flew away. Their description was of an object with bright white lights placed intermittently at each tip of a star-fish shaped object and at Various points along the arcs to the tips.

There were many other similar reports of flying objects throughout southern Victoria during that same day and night and they continued for several days following this strange encounter. These reports were being referred to VUFORS from various sources.

An outstanding sighting was reported on Monday evening, 23 October, 1978, only two days later. It occurred at 9.00 p.m. as two families were preparing to leave the beach. They saw a cigar shaped light speeding low over Port Philip Bay, from the direction of Bass Strait. When it reached a position about halfway across the bay, between the observers on the Frankston beach and Williamstown on the opposite shore, the UFO flashed a brilliant white ray of light. Following this event a smaller red light was noted to have detached itself from the larger object. As the large UFO sped away to the north, the smaller red one flew at a much slower speed toward the beach where the observers were standing. As the smaller object approached the beach, the nine people observed that the object was shaped like a star-fish with red lights at each tip. They could also hear a low humming sound as it flew nearby. When the red lighted UFO was a mile or so past the group, it stopped in mid air for a few minutes. It then accelerated away at a much faster speed in the direction of Bass Strait where the larger lighted object had first appeared.

One of the best indications from observers that a UFO was involved in Frederick's experience came a few years after the event when four witnesses came forward to report sighting both the aircraft and the UFO flying directly above the Cessna. They had hesitated reporting outside their immediate friends because of fear of ridicule. They came forward when they did because the information bore on their conscience.

An uncle, his son and two nieces were rabbit hunting at Cape Otway. A niece looked up and saw the green light and called to her uncle, "What is that light?" The uncle looked up and answered, "An aeroplane light". The niece then said, "No, the light above the aeroplane". Frederick was the only pilot flying in the area at that time. Sight of the aeroplane and object was lost when they flew behind the hills. This sighting completely rules out all speculations and fictitious stories - other than that a UFO was involved in the pilot's disappearance.

Media coverage :

Personal Comments

I have tried to mail several people regarding this incident,only to recieve disappointing mails.Evidence of Forgery or Sabotage wasnt reported by Related authorities. (It is open to discussion,however.). This is perhaps the best documented encounter of UFOs.

 

Kelly Hopkinsville Encounter
Add one :

These events occurred on the night of August 21 to 22, 1955, near the little town of Kelly, located near the small city of Hopkinsville, in the rural area of Christian County, in southwestern Kentucky, USA.

"Lucky" Sutton, as he was known to friends and neighbors, was the "patriarch" of this bluegrass clan. Visiting Lucky and his family, was a man from Pennsylvania named Billy Ray Taylor. Billy left the Sutton house to go for some water from the family well, there was no inside plumbing at the Sutton farm house. At the well, he saw an shining object land in a small gully about a quarter of a mile away. Running back to the house, he excitedly reported his sighting to the eleven people in the house. Billy was laughed at, as no one believed his tale and no one left the house to check.

After a short period of time, the family dog began to bark loudly outside. As customary in this rural area, Lucky and Billy quickly went outside to find the reason of the dog's concern. The dog actually hid under the house and was not seen anymore that evening. At a short distance from the front door, both men were stopped dead in their tracks by the sight of a glowing hovering light, which came towards them and allowed them to see that it was in fact a 3 and a half feet tall creature, advancing towards them with hands up, as if to surrender. The bizarre creature would be described as having "two large eyes with a yellow glow, more on the sides than in the human face, a long thin mouth, large bat-like ears, thin short legs, and unusually long arms with large hands ending in claws."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Description by a woman.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Description by Billy Ray Taylor

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Description by another of the men

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Illustration made for the cryptozoology researcher Loren Coleman's 1983 book "Mysterious America" (http://www.lorencoleman.com).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Description by another witness.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Localization of Hopkinsville, Kentucky

As tradition imposes, they grabbed their guns and shot first, all questions postponed, at the moment that the creature was no farther than 20 feet to them. Billy Ray fired a shot with his .22, and Lucky unloaded with his shotgun. Both men later admitted that there was no way they missed the creature at close range, but the little being just did a back flip, stood up again, and fled into the woods.

No sooner had the two men reentered the house before the creature, or another like it, appeared at a window. They took a shot at him, leaving a blast hole through the screen. They ran back outside to see if the creature was dead, but found no trace of it. Standing at the front of the house, the men were terrified by a clawed hand reaching down from the roof in an attempt to touch them. Again, they shot, but the being simply floated to the ground, and scurried into the cover of the woods. The two men sought the protection of the house again, only to find themselves under siege from these little men. For a time, the entities seemed to tease the family, appearing from one window to another. Taking pot shots through the windows and walls, their weapons seemed totally ineffective against the creatures.

Many times, the creatures would again approach the house, their hands raised above their head as in some kind of friendly gesture. The two men would fire at them, the bullet did metallic clanging noise when it hit the creature, which would flip over, or float in the air, or escape on all fours towards the weeds, only to come back again minutes later. The Suttons estimated that they might have been as many as 10 to 15 such creatures harassing them, although they never attempted to penetrate the house.

After three hours of fear turning into sheer panic, with three children crying or shrieking, the Sutton family decided to make a break from the house, and get help at the Police station at Hopkinsville. The farm was located nearer to Kelly, but the nearest police were in Hopkinsville. Family members took two vehicles to the Police Station in Hopkinsville, and reported their strange tale to Sheriff Russell Greenwell. Finally persuading the policemen that they were not joking, the policemen agreed to visit the Sutton house. Arriving at the farm, police found no trace of the creatures, but did find numerous bullet and rifle holes in the windows and walls. Greenwell was in charge of the twenty plus officers at the scene, and reported that the Suttons seemed sober, and were genuinely frightened by something. After a canvas of the neighborhood, reports were entered of the "hearing of shots being fired," and the observation of "lights in the sky."

Exhausting all efforts to find a rational explanation to the strange story, and finding no clear evidence of any alien visitors, the police left the Suttons farm at about 2:15 am. 90 minutes later, the creatures made their return. They began again peeking in the windows, seemingly out of curiosity. More gunfire took place, but again without effect. Several more hours of antics followed, finally stopping some 90 minutes before daybreak.

FOLLOW UP:
According to a text from the Kentucky archives of the Mutual UFO Network, another interesting event took place in Knoxville, Kentucky, on August 22 1955, with description similar to the Kelly-Hopkinsville event, unfortunately I have not yet found the time to search for information on this other event

STATEMENTS AND QUOTES FROM INVESTIGATORS:
Kevin D. Randle:

Kevin D. Randle, ufologist, USAF retired, radio interview quote:

Dr. Gregory L. Little:

Karal Ayn Barnett:

Martin S. Kottmeyer:

Here's the original Article :

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

an article on the same :

A historic Review

Anonymous Documents from Web of unknown Origin :
October 1996

One of my first excursions into the underbellly of American UFO cover-ups occurred back in August of 1955. On a routine trip from New Orleans to Washington, I was re-directed to Kelly, Kentucky to look into reports of an alien encounter with a rural family. My directives came within 15 minutes of the family's first contact with local police, leading me to believe there was already some sort of established protocol between local and federal authorities in the case of a UFO encounter. Why I was chosen to interview the family still puzzles me to this day. Proximity? A test? Regardless of reasoning, the experience was a sobering one. After landing at nearby Fort Campbell, I was given the uniform of a military policeman and driven to the scene of the alien contact.

We arrived at the farm at about the same time as the local police. Piecing together the interviews of the rather unsophisticated occupants of the house, we came up with the following official report:

"At approximately 8:30 pm, Billy Ray Taylor reported seeing an object hovering in the sky. After telling the rest of his family, they all agreed it was a joke. One hour later, a family dog began barking violently. The family, somewhat on guard after the "joke," saw a "glowing creature" approach the house. The creature's description fits s.g.d. Billy Ray and housemate "Lucky" Sutton fired upon the creature with a .22 rifle and a 20 gauge shotgun, knocking it over, but not harming it.

For the next 6 hours 3 different creatures were sighted and shot at. At one point, one creature grabbed Billy Ray's hair with `a claw'. Neither the family nor the creatures seemed to be hurt.

On site inspection reveals no physical evidence, save spent rounds found on the floor of the farm house. Local officer Richard Digby reported residual glow on flattened grass area, but no one else reported visual confirmation.

No evidence of intoxication. Witnesses deemed credible. Consider as possible sighting."

With that I was driven back to the base and flown ahead to New Orleans. I did not hear anything about the incident for a few weeks.

The papers reported a different story. They characterized Billy Ray Taylor as an abusive alcoholic with mental problems who was quite drunk during the entire ordeal. At the time of my interview with him, he seemed a bit spooked, but definitely sane and sober. The papers reported contradictions in the stories of the family members (in reality, there were none), painting the picture that the family was simply humoring a delusional Billy Ray Taylor out of fear.

On vacation a few months later, I drove back out to the farm house, partly out of curiosity, partly because I felt guilt for being part of this family's nightmare. Billy Ray refused to talk to me. It seems his reputation in the town had been ruined, going from a well respected Baptist to a shunned alcoholic. He was held up as an example of what happens to people who tell the truth. After talking to other family members, I was hesitantly told that the aliens came back that same night, almost seeming to taunt the family before leaving. The family was confused as to why it was being torn apart by the same people it went to for help. I never spoke to or heard from them again.

I think about this now as I pass though Kentucky on my way back out. I never saw the official report from that night again. It doesn't exist. 41 years have passed, the document can no longer be classified, and so it is dust. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Fair is foul, and foul is fair in America. Just don't get in the way.


(sgd: This was not my line. I didn't find out until 3 years later that s.g.d stands for "Standard Grey Description". The fact that an acronym already existed suggests that this was not the first alien sighting.)

(sober: In fact, careful note was made of the fact that there was no liquor to be found in the entire house!)

More to be Added ...
Thank You.

 

Kinross AFB/F-89 Disappearance
November 23, 1953

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

F-89 "Scorpion"
Richard Hall:
On the night of November 23, 1953, an Air Defense Command radar detected an unidentified "target" over Lake Superior. Kinross Air Force Base, closest to the scene, alerted the 433rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Truax Field, Madison, Wisconsin, and an F-89C all-weather interceptor was scrambled. Radar operators watched the "blips" of the UFO and the F-89 merge on their scopes, in an apparent collision, and disappear. No trace of the plane was ever found.

U S Air Force accident-report records indicate that the F-89 was vectored west northwest, then west, climbing to 30,000 feet. At the controls were First Lieutenant Felix E. Moncla, Jr.; his radar observer was Second Lieutenant Robert L. Wilson. While on a westerly course, they were cleared to descend to 7,000 feet, turning east-northeast and coming steeply down on the known target from above. The last radar contact placed the interceptor at 8,000 feet, 70 miles off Keeweenaw Point, and about 150 miles northwest of Kinross AFB (now Kincheloe AFB).

The incident is not even labeled as a "UFO" case in Air Force records; instead, it was investigated by air-safety experts. There were several layers of scattered clouds (one with bottoms at 5,000 to 8,000 feet) and some snow flurries in the general area. Official records state, however, that the air was stable and there was little or no turbulence.

The Air Force later stated that the "UFO" turned out to be a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) C-47 "On a night flight from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Sudbury, Ontario Canada." The F-89 apparently had crashed for unknown reasons after breaking off the intercept. In answer to queries from the NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE ON AERIAL PHENOMENA (NICAP) in 1961 and again in 1963, RCAF spokesmen denied that one of their planes was involved. Squadron Leader W. B. Totman, noting that the C-47 was said to be on a flight plan over Canadian territory, said "... this alone would seem to make such an intercept unlikely."

The Air Force suggested that "... the pilot probably suffered from vertigo and crashed into the take." Harvard University astronomer and UFO debunker Dr. Donald H. MENZEL accepted this explanation, adding that the radar operators probably saw a "phantom echo" of the F-89, produced by atmospheric conditions, that merged with the radar return from the jet and vanished with it when the plane struck the water.

Exactly what happened that night remains unclear, as the Air Force acknowledges, and serious unanswered questions remain. How likely is it that a pilot could suffer from vertigo when flying on instruments, as official records indicate was the case? If the F-89 did intercept an RCAF C-47, why did the "blip" of the C47 also disappear off the radar scope? Or, if Menzel's explanation is accepted and there was no actual intercept, why did the Air Force invoke a Canadian C-47, which RCAF spokesmen later stated was not there? No intelligence document has yet surfaced that reports the radio communications between the pilot and radar controllers, and what each was seeing. Without this information, it is impossible to evaluate the "true UFO" versus the false radar returns and accidental crash explanations.

Richard Hall

Debunking Claim :

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Richard Hall:
...... the Air Force reported that the "UFO" was identified by the F-89 as a Royal Canadian Air Force C-47. After identifying the friendly plane, the Air Force states, the F-89 turned back to base. From that time, "nothing of what happened is definitely known." [Air Force information sheet; copy on file at NICAP]. The C-47 was "on a flight plan from Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Sudbury, Ontario, Canada." [Air Force letter to NICAP member, 4-2-63}.

The original report released by the Air Force PlO at Truax AFB, Wisc., stated that contact was lost with the F-89 when it appeared to merge with the UFO. There is no mention of tracking the jet after that.

In 1961, a NICAP member wrote to the RCAF concerning the Kinross incident to verify the C-47 identification. The reply stated:

"Thank you for your letter of April 4 requesting information regarding an 'Unidentified Flying Object' on November 23, 1953.

"A check of Royal Canadian Air Force records has revealed no report of an incident involving an RCAF aircraft in the Lake Superior area on the above date." (Flight Lt. C. F. Page, for Chief of the Air Staff, RCAF, to Jon Mikulich, 4-14-61).

Later, another NICAP member wrote to the RCAF and received an even more specific denial that any Canadian aircraft was intercepted by a U.S. jet. The spokesman added: ". . . as you stated the C-47 was travelling on a flight plan taking it over Canadian territory; this alone would seem to make such an intercept unlikely." (See photostat).

There are two interpretations of what happened over Lake Superior that night: (1) Air Force radar tracked a UFO, the F-89 closed in to investigate, collided with or was in some manner destroyed by the UFO (as indicated by the blips merging on radar, the fact that radar contact was lost after the blips merged, and the fact that no trace of the fully-equipped all-weather aircraft has been found.); or (2) Air Force radar tracked a temporarily unidentified RCAF plane, the F-89 intercepted it, made the identification and then crashed for unknown reasons.

The latter explanation does not account for what was observed on radar; it assumes that expert radar men cannot read radar scopes. The RCAF has no record of such an incident, although a flight plan allegedly was filed. If there was such a flight, it would have been entirely over Canadian territory. Because of international identification networks between Canada and the U.S., its flight plan would have been known to the radar stations and there would have been no need for the intercept mission to begin with. The F-89 was originally reported to be chasing an "unidentified object."

The Air Force information sheet on this case states: "It is presumed by the officials at Norton AFB [Flying Safety Division] that the pilot probably suffered from vertigo and crashed into the lake." Judging by weather reports at the time, the pilot would have been on instruments, so that vertigo (dizziness resulting from visual observation) would be an extremely unlikely explanation. Even if the F-89 was not on instruments at the time, there is no explanation why radar tracked it 160 miles out over the lake and then lost contact just after the blips appeared to merge.

Source: THE UFO EVIDENCE, pages 114-115

Map of region Plotted :

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

KINROSS AFB MISSING F-89C - 23 NOV 1953
USAF REPORT OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT
03-July-1999
The 23 November 1953 "Kinross Case," wherein a US Air Force F-89C jet fighter was scrambled from Kinross AFB Michigan on an "active air defense mission" to intercept an "unknown aircraft" and disappeared with two crew members aboard, is considered by many to be one of the "UFO classics." Controversy remains over what the "unknown aircraft," which was the target of the interception, was. USAF records presented here indicate that it was a Canadian aircraft. Canadian officials have denied that any of their aircraft was the target of an interception mission by the USAF on the date in question. The USAF seems to have changed its story over the years about just what Canadian aircraft was being intercepted and has been silent on the method by which they identified the aircraft. (See the UFO Evidence (Ref. Below) for an official Canadian statement)

It is the occurrence of the radar trace of the "unknown aircraft" and the F-89 appearing to "merge" on the Ground Control radar screen shortly after (voice) radio and IFF contact with the F-89 were lost that has made this case loom large in UFO circles. Some print references have the remaining single "blip" moving rapidly off the radar screens, but the USAF records presented here indicate that the "unknown aircraft" continued on its original course.

The weather, although stable as far as flight is concerned, was winter. Even if the crew survived a hypothetical crash, their chances for survival would be considerably diminished by the freezing temperatures, especially if they went into the water. Snow on the ground certainly hampered the search activities.

Whatever the case, no trace of the F-89 or either of the crewmembers were ever located even though an extensive search was mounted in the days immediately after the F-89 went missing.

All the print references (below) give the last known position of the F-89C as 'at 8000 feet altitude, 70 miles off Keweenaw Point, 160 (or 150) miles northwest of Soo Locks,' probably indicating a single source of information. This location is indeed over Lake Superior.

However, the USAF Aircraft Accident Report material we have indicates on two different documents the last reported position as ": AT COORDINATES 45 DEGREES 00 MINUTES NORTH - 86 DEGREES 49 MINUTES WEST." This position is not over Lake Superior, but is over Lake Michigan. All of Lake Superior is north of 46 degrees north latitude. This seems a considerable discrepancy of about 180 miles. The Canadian search plan quotes the other pilots as saying that if Moncla was in trouble, he would have steered 150 deg (roughly SE) as his "homing" path. This jibes with the point in Lake Superior. The search patterns as depicted in the USAF records also jibe with the Lake Superior area. The point in Lake Michigan is due south of the point in Lake Superior... could the 45 deg N latitude be a typo which should be 47 degrees?

Flight Report

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

WEATHER SUMMARY

23 November 1953

The weather in the vicinity of the last known position of the F-89 lost an a scramble on the evening of the 23rd of November 1953 is presumed to be the following:

A low centered over Northern Minnesota moving to the East. A cold front extended South from the low thru central Minnesota, Iowa and Eastern Kansas. The local area was under the influence of a fresh South-Westerly flow ahead of the approaching cold front.

The Eastern half of Lake Superior was covered with an overcast of stratocumulus bases generally 2000 ft to the West and 3000 ft to the East. Tops variable 5 - 8000 ft. A broken layer of Alto stratus formed the second layer base generally 8000 ft to the West 10000 ft to the East. Tops 12000 - 14000 ft Some? Scattered Cirrus at 18 - 20000 ft was observed in the area. Visibilities generally 8 - 10 miles over entire area.

Scattered snow showers were moving thru the area causing locally, ceilings as? low? As 500 ft and visibilities 1 - 2 miles in light snow.

Analysis of the radiosondes taken at Sault Ste Marie at approximately 1630E indicated moderate to heavy iceing in all clouds. The air being quite stable, indicates Rime iceing to predominate and generally little or no turbulence.

Winds from the surface to 20000 ft were generally Westerly. 260 Deg/10 kts at 5000 ft - 260 Deg/30 kts at 10000 ft - 270 Deg/35 kts at 20000 ft.

Temperatures were - 6 Deg/5000 ft - 8 Deg at 10000 ft - 18 Deg at 15000 ft and 25 Deg at 20000 ft.

HOURLY OBSERVATIONS FDF TO 1930E WERE AS FOLLOWS:

1730E) CMX E20(+)3S - 929/35/28SSE14/927/SB50
INR 30(|)E80(||)9 986/34/31SE5/945
GMI 20(|)E 100(||)200(||)15+ 980/33/31S9/942

1830E) CMX S1 E20(+)2S- 919/32/32SSE12/924
INR E40(||)80(||)8 000/35/30SE10/949
GMI 20DE100(+)15+ 976/33/30SSE8/940

1930E) GMX S2 P5X1S- 919/32/31SSE8/924
INR M27(+)8 991/35/32SE10/947
GMI 20(+)E 100(+)15+ 949/38/31S10/933

A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF HOURLY WEATHER

/S/
HAROLD A. WARD
Captain, USAF
Deputy Detachment Commander
Detachment 19, 12th Weather Sq
Kinross AFB, Kinross, Mich

23 November 1953 A/C NO 51-5853A Lt. Moncla


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C E R T I F I C A T E

I certify that the F-89 aircraft 51-5853A listed as missing on 23 November 1953 was on an active Air Defense mission and in accordance with ADC Regulation 55-28 dated 14 Feb, 1952. A DD Form 175 or a similar flight clearance form was not required.

/S/
DAVID C. COLLINS
Captain USAF
Aircraft Accident Investigating Officer

23 November 1953 A/C NO 51-5853A Lt. Moncla


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 December 1953

C E R T I F I C A T E

1. The following Technical Orders were noted on Part III of the Form 1 as not complied with for
F-89C 5105853A.

a. T.O.01-1-476 Replacement Exchange of Type B-8 stick grip.
b. T.O. 01-15DC-1 Not in A/C.
c. T.O. 02B-1-17 Compounding the Ignition System
d. T.O. 01-15FDC-172 Installation R.O's Interphone cutout SW.
e. T.O. 02B-1050-73 Removal of Latch.

/S/
DAVID C. COLLINS
Captain USAF
Aircraft Accident Investigating Officer

23 November 1953 A/C NO 51-5853A Lt. Moncla


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24 November 1953

Maintenance Report for A/C/ 51-5853A

Aircraft 51-5853A was given a thorough preflight inspection at approx. 07:30 on 23 Nov 53. No discrepancies were found during this inspection

Aircraft 51-5853A was "scrambled" at 11:45 hours and returned at 12:45 hours. The pilots remarks in the AF Form I were Flt #1 "ok".

The A/C/ was immediately serviced and spot checked for worn tires, cleared engine intakes, oil, hydraulic tank levels, oxygen, nitrogen. All servicing caps and covers were securely replaced and the A/C was towed into the alert hangar where it was returned to number one aircraft on 5 minute alert status.

The aircraft was again scrambled at approx 18:15 hours without encountering any difficulty before take-off.

/s/
RAYMOND C. RICHARDS
T/Sgt, AF 13162361
NCOIC 433rd FIS

A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

/S/
DAVID C. COLLINS
Captain USAF
Aircraft Accident Investigating Officer

23 November 1953 A/C NO 51-5853A Lt. Moncla


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< This following page also is obviously a modern photocopy because of the difference in the image and background density and the paper finish. It is also, however, obviously a copy of an older page because of the edge of the original page showing with "curl." It appears that this may be a copy of a print made from the microfilm made to add redaction information. These redaction notices are in the form of "rubber stamp" notations and brackets made with what appears to be a "felt tip" pen. The redaction notices ate indicated below by the use of curly brackets { } >

I N D E X
T O
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT
Aircraft F-89C, Number 51-5853A, Pilot - 1st Lt Felix E. Moncla Jr:
Date: 23 November 1953

A. TWX with authority to investigate accident
B. Missing aircraft report
C. TWX suspending search for missing aircraft
D. Preliminary report
E. Air Force Form 14
F. Air Force Form 14A
G. Air Force Form 14B (Lt. Moncla) {Medical Data WITHHELD}
H. Air Force Form 14B (Lt. Wilson) {Medical Data WITHHELD}
I. Pillow (665th AC&W SQ) Controllers statement {WITHHELD}
J. Statement by Capt Bridges {WITHHELD}
K. Statement by Capt Mingenbach {WITHHELD}
L. Statement by Lt. Nordeck {WITHHELD}
M. Weather forecast and Weather sequence for Kinross (INR) Houghton CMX) and Grand Maria
(GMI)
N. Statement on weather by pilot of aircraft being intercepted {WITHHELD}
O. Accident investigation board proceedings {WITHHELD}
P. Statement of aircraft clearance
Q. Form I Part I
R. Form I Part II
S. Form I Part III
T. List of T.O'S not complied with
U. Maintenance report on aircraft
V. Overlay map

23 November 1953 A/C NO 51-5853A Lt. Moncla


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49TH AIR RESCUE SQUADRON
5TH AIR RESCUE GROUP (ARS-MATS)
Selfridge Air Force Base, Michigan

OPS 6-11 28 MAY 1954
Mission Number. 5-49-24-23 November 1953 (Reopened)
Objective. AF 5853/F-89/Moncla/Kinross/Alert Scramble/Unk/UHF/1822E/Unk/1 plus 45/3-2/9.
Date of Suspension. 23 May 1954.
Source and Time of Initial Alert. Headquarters, 5th Air Rescue group at 0950L, 16 April 1954.
Date and Time of Initial Dispatch of ARS Facilities. SA-16 AF 7167 airborne at 0757L, 13 May 1954, for snow reconnaissance.

Synopsis. T 095L, 16 April 1954, the Operations Officer of Headquarters, 5th Air Rescue group, called relating that new leads had been uncovered on this mission by the missing radar operator's father, Mr. R.O. Wilson. The information had been forwarded to this Squadron through channels requesting reopening of the mission based on reports of a low flying aircraft in the vicinity of Limer, Ontario, Canada which would correlate with the time of the missing F-89. This information had bee reported and investigated during the original prosecution of the mission, but was determined to have no relative bearing on the incident because of time differentiation. Since that time the individual reporting the low flying aircraft stated he may have been mistaken in the time.

The information was received by this Squadron on 6 May 1954, and positive search action was planned for on or about 10 May 1954 with the advanced base to be located at Kinross AFB, Michigan. In the meantime, information on the snow conditions in the proposed search area were obtained from Canadian sources. The snow condition on 16 April 1954, was reported from two (2) to four (4) feet deep with an estimated date of 10 May 1954, when snow would disappear. Arrangements were also made with the Royal Canadian Air Force Search and Rescue Centre, Trenton, Ontario, Canada, to reopen the mission and to fly over Canada. Mr. Wilson was contacted for any further information, and he wished to be notified when the mission was actually reopened in order that he might be present at Kinross AFB, Michigan, during the actual search.

The weather was reported below minimums in the search area on the estimated date of reopening, but a continued check indicated improvement by 13 May 1954. At 0757L, 13 May 1954, SA-16 AF 7167 reported southern part of search area clear, but northern sector had some snow and the lakes were covered with ice, but with rising temperatures should be clear within four (4) or five (5) days.
INDEX OF TABULAR MATERIAL

A. Orders Directing the Investigation
B. List of Personnel Participating in the Investigation
C. Statistical data
D. Missing Aircraft Report, Preliminary report, Search Discontinuance Report
E. Form 14A, Pilot's Flight Records, radar Observer's Flight Records
F. Pilot's Activities Prior to Flight
G. Scramble Clearance, Weather
H. Statements, Ground Controller's Report
{I. Accident Board Proceedings Not Releasable }
J. Area Map with Bogey's and Interceptor's Positions Plotted
K Aircraft Engineering data


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDIVIDUAL FLIGHT RECORD - AIRCRAFT OBSERVER < Page 1 of 2 >

INDIVIDUAL FLIGHT RECORD - AIRCRAFT OBSERVER < Page 2 of 2 >

INDIVIDUAL FLIGHT RECORD - PILOT

WEIGHT AND BALANCE CLEARANCE FORM F - TACTICAL

SECTION II - SUMMARY OF PILOT EXPERIENCE


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORT ON SEARCH FOR MISSING
F-89 (SCORPION) 5853
Coordinated by the Eastern Area Rescue Co-ordination Centre
TCHQ, Trenton, Ontario
OPERATION SAR SCORPION

Appendices:

"A" Weather Situation at the time of the Interception carried out by the Missing Aircraft 23 Nov 53.
"B" Search Plan
"C" Aircraft Deployed
"D" Daily Search Coverage and Flying Times
"E" Breakdown of Flying Time by Aircraft
"F" Photograph of the Search Area
"G" Photograph of the Search Area

GENERAL SITUATION

1 Eastern Area RCC was alerted by the 49th Air Rescue Squadron, USAF, Selfridge, at 2200 hrs EST 23 Nov 53 re a F89C all-weather fighter believed to be down NW of Sault Ste Marie. The aircraft Scorpion 5853 with a crew consisting of Pilot, 1st Lt F.R. Moncla, and Radar observer 2nd Lt R. Wilson, was scrambled from Kinross Air Force Base at 1822 EST on a routine flight. Radio and radar contact with Scorpion 5853 was lost at 1855 EST, position 4800N 8649W. prior to the loss of radio and radar contact with the Scorpion, the pilot had received and acknowledged a steer to base of 150 Deg T and a new track to fly of 020 Deg Magnetic. At the time of the take off the aircraft had an hour and forty-five minutes fuel aboard. The aircraft is a twin-engined jet all weather fighter with the rear fuselage curved up, giving it the appearance of a Scorpion. The aircraft was silver in colour with American markings. The only emergency equipment carried by the crew of the aircraft was a one-man dingy for each member.

INITIAL ACTION

2 The normal communications checks were carried out by Selfridge Rescue with negative results. The Ontario Provincial Police were alerted and information placed with radio stations in Sault Ste Marie, Mich, and Sault Ste Marie, Ont. The Ontario Department of Lands and Forests made a communications check of their own radio stations in the probability area with negative results.

3 Due to the extremely bad weather existing between Trenton and Kinross on the evening of 23 Nov 53, the SAR Dakota from 102 C&R Unit carrying the searchmaster, assistant searchmaster and para rescue team was unable to take off until the following morning. The same weather situation affected the departure time of the additional search aircraft from Stn Centralia.

ORGANIZATION

4 Search headquarters was set up at Kinross USAF Base at 1215 EST 24 Nov 53 with F/L F. Campbell, 102 C&R Flight Trenton as Searchmaster

- 2 -

and F/O B.R. Ketcheson, RCC TCHQ as assistant. Co-ordination of the search, prior to the arrival of the NCAF Searchmaster was provided by Captain Meyer of Selfridge Air Rescue Base, USAF. This officer remained at Kinross as liaison officer until 26 Nov when he was replaced by Capt Davenport from Selfridge, who remained at Kinross until completion of the search.

SEARCH PLAN

5 Prior to the arrival of the RCAF Searchmaster and search aircraft, the United States Coast Guard provided one SA16 and one surface vessel. The 49th Air Rescue Squadron provided two SA16's. These aircraft and the surface vessel carried out an expanding square search in the area of 4800N 8649W during the night of 23 Nov and the following day. Additional aircraft were not dispatched by the Searchmaster on 24 Nov because of poor weather and the unknown position of the SA16 executing a square search in the probability area.

6 The initial search blocks were laid out to cover 60 miles west of the last reported position the Datum Line along 090 Deg true and the remaining squares covering the area to the east. It was the opinion of the other jet crews from Kinross who were interviewed that normally the missing pilot's first move at any sign of trouble would have been to turn on his homing of 150 Deg. With this probability in mind, further search blocks were out to the east, south and south-east.

7 Except for the initial night search, no additional night search was carried out because of bad weather and the lack of emergency equipment carried by the crew of the missing Scorpion.

8 The areas covered were searched from 1000' using 2 miles visibility. Coastline searches were carried out at 500' and 1/2 mile visibility along the east and north shore of the Lake from Sault Ste Marie to Simpson Island (4850N 8743W) and return to Marquette (4633N 8723W) and return.

WEATHER

9 Generally, the weather conditions throughout the search period were poor. Crews were constantly hampered with low ceilings and reduced visibility. On the afternoon of 25 Nov and the morning 26 Nov 53 operations were seriously delayed by the search aircraft being laden with ice on the ground.

COMMUNICATIONS

10 W/T and R/T contact wee maintained by the majority of aircraft with the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests' ground stations. All other aircraft maintained contact, when possible, with radio stations at Houghton, Grand Marie, and Sault Ste Marie.

11 Aircraft were provided by the 49th Search and Rescue Squadron in the form of two SA16s, four C45s and a B25; Kinross provided 1 C47 and one helicopter. US Coast Guard at Traverse city provided 1 SA16, the Civilian Air Patrol provided 1 Cessna 140, the RCAF provided 3 C47s from Centralia and 1 C47 from Trenton.

GROUND REPORTS

12 Numerous ground reports were received, the majority of which upon investigation were discounted. An overheard radio transmission discussing aircraft wreckage was traced to its origin in South Bend Indiana . The wreckage referred to was the wreckage of another missing aircraft which was eventually located in that area.

- 3 -

13 Two clues - - one obtained on the 25 Nov and the other on 27 Nov, were considered reliable. The first from a mail carrier who claimed he thought he saw the wreckage of an aircraft in the water in the Cut River Bridge area (455730N 8457W). Michigan state police searched the area three times and discounted his sighting as rocks. The second clue was reported as the sighting of wreckage of an aircraft on the side of a mountain on the eastern shore of the lake about 80 miles north of Kinross (472330N 844110W). This area was searched exhaustively by an Expeditor, a Dakota, a B25 and finally a Helicopter with negative results.

CONCLUSIONS

14 Because of the inability to determine the cause of the aircraft's disappearance the search was expanded to cover all possibilities, but was greatly hampered by bad weather and icing conditions.

15 Despite intensive aerial search and the careful \check of all ground reports, no trace of the missing aircraft could be found. After a conference with USAF authorities and with their concurrence active search was suspended the evening of 28 Nov 53.

16 The co-operation shown to the searchmaster, his assistant and the Canadian crews, by the USAF authorities at Kinross Air Force Base was exceptionally good.

/s/
(R.H. Stroute) S/L
for AOC, TC.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX "A"
TO 976-3 (SC&T/AT4)
DATED 18 DEC 53

WEATHER SITUATION ALONG THE ROUTE OF THE MISSING AIRCRAFT

1 The weather conditions existing over eastern Lake Superior at the time contact was lost with the missing F89, was forecast to be the following. A generally solid deck of Stratocumulus base from 2-3000 and top at 6-7000 feet. A broken Altostratus layer, base 10,000 to 14-15000 feet. The visibility was generally 10-12 miles falling to 1-2 miles in isolated snow showers. The freezing level was at the surface to the west, rising to 800 - 1000 feet in the east. Analysis of the Sault Ste Marie Radio Sonde Run for 2100Z (1600E) indicates that moderate to heavy icing could occur from the cloud base to 7000 feet. The air was quite stable and rime ice should have predominated. No turbulence or other hazard would have been encountered. The winds were light south-easterly at the surface shifting to west aloft.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX "B"
TO 976-3 (SC&T/AT4)
DATED 18 DEC 53

SEARCH PLAN

1 The following Datum Points and Datum Lines were used to plot search areas:

AREA DATUM POINT DATUM LINE

RED 48:00N 87:47W 090 Deg (T)
BROWN 46:15N 85:15W 090 Deg (T)
BLUE 48:00N 85:47W 090 Deg (T)
GREEN 46:15N 87:15W 090 Deg (T)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX "C"
TO 976-3 (SC&T/AT4)
DATED 18 DEC 53

AIRCRAFT DEPLOYED

1 USAF AIRCRAFT
057 Dakota
5286 SA16
7167 SA16
0849 B25
7163 C45
1620 C45
1616 C45
913 C45 Oscoda3961 H15? (helicopter)


Kinross
Selfridge
Selfridge
Selfridge
Selfridge
Ohare
Ohare
Kinross


2 US COAST GUARD AIRCRAFT
SA16


Traverse City


3 RCAF AIRCRAFT
653 Dakota
961 Dakota
641 Dakota
658 Dakota


Trenton
Centralia
Centralia
Centralia


4 CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Cessna 140 Civilian Air Patrol


Sault Ste Marie, Mich.


SURFACE CRAFT EMPLOYED
1 US COAST GUARD

USCG "WOODRUSH"




Sault Ste Marie, Mich.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX "D"
TO 976-3 (SC&T/AT4)
DATED 18 DEC 53

DAILY SEARCH COVERAGE AND FLYING TIMES

DATE
24 Nov 53
25 Nov 53
26 Nov 53
27 Nov 53
28 Nov 53

TOTALS
COVERAGE
3,000 sq mi
6,000 sq mi
600 sq mi
13,500 sq mi
6,500 sq mi

29, 600 sq miles
SEARCH
14:00
31:55
3:00
39:05
30:25

113:25
TRANSIT
10:15
4:20
NIL
10:25
NIL

25:00



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX "E"
TO 976-3 (SC&T/AT4)
DATED 18 DEC 53

BREAKDOWN OF FLYING TIMES BY AIRCRAFT

1 USAF
DAKOTAS
C45s
SA16s
B25
H19

Total 57:20


11:35
21:00
18:25
3:20
3:00

Total 57:20


2 US COAST GUARD
SA16

Total


14:00

14:00


3 RCAF
DAKOTAS

Total


69:35

69:35


4 CIVIL
CESSNA 140

Total


2:30

2:30

GRAND TOTAL 143:25

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Northrop F-89 "Scorpion"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The F-89 was a twin-engine, all-weather fighter-interceptor designed to locate, intercept, and destroy enemy aircraft by day or night under all types of weather conditions. It carried a pilot in the forward cockpit and a radar operator in the rear who guided the pilot into the proper attack position. The first F-89 made its initial flight in August 1948 and deliveries to the Air Force began in July 1950. Northrop produced 1,050 F-89s.
On July 19, 1957, a Genie test rocket was fired from an F-89J, the first time in history that an air-to-air rocket with a nuclear warhead was launched and detonated. Three hundred and fifty F-89Ds were converted to "J" models which became the Air Defense Command's first fighter-interceptor to carry nuclear armament.


TYPE
XF-89
YF-89A
F-89A
F-89B
F-89C
YF-89D
F-89D
YF-89E
F-89F
F-89G
F-89H
F-89J Number built/Converted
2
1 9(cv)
48
30 (cv)
164
1 (cv)
682
1 (cv)
0
0
154
350 (cv) Remarks
Prototype
Mod. XF-89
18 produced; 30 to F-89B
Imp. F-89A
Six 20mm cannons
Mod. F-89B
104 rockets
Engine test bed
Nuc. weapons A/C; canc.
Imp. fire control; canc.
AIM-4 and 42 FFAR
Mod. F-89D; Genie missiles
SPECIFICATIONS (F-89J)
Span: 59 ft. 10 in.
Length: 53 ft. 8 in.
Height: 17 ft. 6 in.
Weight: 47,700 lbs. loaded
Engines: Two Allison J35s turbojets of 7,200 lbs. thrust each with afterburner
Armament: Two AIR-2A Genie air-to-air rockets with nuclear warheads plus four AIM-4C Falcon missiles
Crew: Two
Cost: $1,009,000
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 627 mph
Cruising speed: 465 mph
Range: 1,600 miles
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft


F-89 Photo Gallery

XF-89
In flight - S/N 46-678, first aircraft built
YF-89A
3/4 front view - S/N 46-679, second XF-89 to YF-89A
In flight
4 photo sequence showing engine change - 93KB 519x723 jpg
F-89A
Front view - S/N 49-2437
3/4 right front view - S/N 49-2438
3/4 left front view - S/N 49-2438
Side view - S/N 49-2438
F-89B
3/4 front view - S/N 49-2450 at Eglin AFB, FL. Note the external vibration dampeners on the horizontal stabilizer. This distinguishing characteristic of -A and -B models was modified to an internal dampening system starting with the -C model.
DF-89B in flight - Director aircraft (S/N 49-2448) with snark missile
F-89C
Landing - S/N 51-5795 at Eglin AFB, FL.
F-89D
3/4 front view
Side view - S/N 53-2520
Loading wingtip rocket launchers
3 aircraft formation - S/N 53-2623, 53-2649, 53-2648
3 aircraft formation - (color) of the 59th Fighter Sq. Goose Bay, Labrador. S/N 52-1959, 52-2141, 52-2138
F-89H
In flight - S/N 52-1938 with AIM-4 Falcon missiles
F-89J
3/4 front view - S/N 53-2677 of the Wisconsin ANG, 176th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Oct. 1972
Side view - S/N 53-2550 of the Iowa ANG, 124 Fighter Squadron, July 1968


(This is an accurate presentation of facts,however some typing errors may occur).

 

A request : If someone has saved the document before with the pictures complete, please send them over to me, since some of the pictures have been removed from the site...

 

Please take a look at following Link:

GLOBAL UFO DATABASE

 

This is an interesting Link, it traces sighting by date and place, on MAP:

MAP

 

Some interesting UFO Hotspots and Facts :

http://ufoinfo.com/news/usahotspots.shtml


Now NW,NJ is there in Semi-Hot list, i waiting for my sighting...

 

Hi zion, thanks for putting together this wonderful thread...good job

I voted 'other' in the poll, mainly because there is still a question mark over whether some of these ET's might be earth-based.

Also, recent revelations that the Majestic & secret government agents were seriously looking into Jacque Vallee's work seems to indicate a possible psychological/archetype explanation.

I've had sightings myself of metallic craft over the last 29 years, and also have been involved in a recent investigation
where orbs and anomalous activity have been occuring on a nightly basis at a remote rural location in Australia.

Here's a few links to some interesting footage from my friends website;

http://www.asoulartphenomena.com/blueorb.html

http://www.asoulartphenomena.com/orionseries.html

Well worth a look...even though the site itself is a bit hard to navigate
I can vouch that what is going on there is real, though...and truly strange..

Peace to all

Om Gum Ganapatayei Namah

 

Yes, I have to agree......this is quite the comprehensive thread you have going on here.
Thanks.

 

Every age has its mysterious but ultimately evasive forms of apparitions - they always relate to the culture they are seen in. Such as high-technology craft seen by high-technology-aware people. Ectoplasm seen by ectoplasm-obsessed victorians. Elves and pixies seen at other times by the corresponding cultural audience. People who want to see angels will probably see them, or at least be desperate to tell you they have. There are plenty of goths who will tell you they have see real vampires - because it suits them. The current trend for ORBS will die out when people get bored by the lack of conclusive evidence (except for those endless crap photos and testimonies - take em or leave em).

The fact is - as many people have already said - their is no evidence for alien visitation (the word UFO does NOT mean alien visitation - it should never be used in that context). I wish there was - but I have been looking at it on and off for 25 years now and nothing confirms it.

And don't say a million people can't lie - yes they can. And its very difficult to tell someone that they are lying to their face when you cannot automatically disprove what they are saying. And the liars know it. And they can spice their lives up with those lies and take them to their graves.

I will make a prediction. Because UFOLOGY has turned up NOTHING but VERY convenient government cover-up stories to explain the lack of evidence, there has been a clear move towards a more vague 'spiritual' explanation of alien contact. This is clear if you look at way abductees now describe their experiences (very different from how they did in the seventies and eighties) - if you check out alien telepathic contactees (try Lia Light for one) - or even the books (Urantia book for example).

We are basically witnessing the birth of a new faith - one that will go on and on whether there is a scrap of evidence or not. That's faith for you.

As to whether aliens might turn up in the future - I think its perfectly possible. They may have also been here already - regularly even -but left no trace. One day they might just show all the cultural myth-making for what it all was.

Can you imagine the day. When abductees actually argue with aliens and tell THEM that they are wrong when they tell us they never abducted anyone.

 

Hi :

This thread is lengthy but excellent.It shows the real aspects of an intriguing global phenomena in our skies.I simply do not understand how some rational people do not analyze this data in an unabiased way as to discern the strangeness and the overwhelming reality beyond the crowd of skeptics of the UFO phenomenon.Keep going!

Best Regards,

Charliequimico

 

About duplicating Crop Circles
A group of MIT Graduate and Undergraduate students duplicated the formation of a crop circle. The geometry was easy but the dispersion of iron particles and radiation was not so easy. The students concluded that they found it hard to believe that a simple hoaxer would want to spend all the time needed to create all the components involved.

 

- http://www.circlemakers.org/fe3.html

The MIT students actually had a device they made from scratch to spray iron particles.

 

Flying saucers are manmade