Argentinean Air Force launches new UFO commission;
Seems that the Argentinean Air Force (AAF) was indeed serious about setting up a UFO Commission as they launched officially their Commission for the Investigation of Aerospace Phenomena (Spanish acronym CIFA) at a ceremony last Thursday May 26 at the Condor Building in Buenos Aires, the AAF Headquarters where the Commission will operate;Good news i say the more country's follow suit the better;
quote;
"In a story published on this site last December we reported that the Argentinean Air Force (AAF) was in the process of setting up a UFO Commission, which triggered a lot of excitement in Argentina’s ufological community and media.
True to their word, the AAF launched officially their Commission for the Investigation of Aerospace Phenomena (Spanish acronym CIFA) at a ceremony last Thursday May 26 at the Condor Building in Buenos Aires, the AAF Headquarters where the Commission will operate;"
The event was presided by Captain Mariano Mohaupt, an AAF spokesman who has been interacting with several Argentinean ufologists in recent months. But to give weight to the event, a brief statement was also given by Brigadier General Ernesto Omar París, Secretary General of the AAF. “This Commission will undertake a scientific study of aerospace phenomena,” said Gen. París, adding that “with this action we have reached an important goal for our institution.”
Captain Mariano Mohaupt, press spokesman of the Argentinean Air Force, who presided at CIFA’s launching ceremony. (Image credit: AAF);
Capt. Mohaupt provided more details about CIFA’s goals, composition and methodology. CIFA will function under the General Secretary of the AAF and will have members from the National Meteorological Service, engineers, radar technicians, pilots from the National Administration of Civil Aviation, computer experts, and satellite experts like Marcelo Módica from the National Commission of Space Activities (CONAE).
One reason to launch the Commission, explained Capt. Mohaupt, was “the increment of [UFO] sightings by people. However, the intention is not to prove that there is life in other planets, but to confront from a scientific perspective these unknown phenomena and arrive at the truth, because undoubtedly they are the reason of our study.”
The officer added that “the Argentinean Air Force can confirm that aerospace phenomena which have not been identified are sighted and studied,” but clarified this didn’t mean they are acknowledging visits from other planetary civilizations. CIFA will launch in the coming weeks an official web page within the portal of the AAF where the public can report UFO sightings. Capt. Mohaupt then summarized the Commission’s methodology in three phases:
The first phase will consist in the acquisition of data from primary and secondary sources and “the contribution of citizens and institutions will be crucial in this process. The intermediate phase contemplates a detailed study of each particular case and its documentation. Those phenomena which cannot be explained will pass to a third phase of statistical analysis and cross-referencing of data brought by each specialty.”
Cooperation with civilian ufologists;
One of the facets of CIFA that will seem highly unusual for North Americans, but not so in South American where cultural attitudes towards ufology are far more open, is that the AAF reached out to several civilian UFO groups and researchers to act as outside members and advisors of the Commission.
These include Alberto Brunetti from the Investigative Group of Unknown Aerospace Phenomena (Spanish acronym GIFAD); Carlos Fergusson, coordinator of the Argentinean Ufological Network (RAO); the independent researcher, computer expert and well known local ufologist Carlos Alberto Iurchuk; and Andrea Pérez Simondini, a chemist with CEFORA, an umbrella group of Argentinean UFO groups which requested, in a letter to President Cristina Fernández several months ago, the declassification of military UFO documents —a story also covered in this website at the time.
Needless to say, these outside Commission advisors as well as others in the Argentinean UFO community are delighted with the launching of CIFA and have made enthusiastic comments to the local media and in many UFO websites and forums in Argentina.
Fergusson, for instance, observed that the integration of civilian researchers and military personnel “will produce a great improvement in terms of means and methodology. It’s crucial to be able to reach the site of an event and count on scientific help. In addition there will be a system to interview witnesses, which can be very useful.”
Silvia Pérez Simondini, the director of CEFORA who also runs the Visión OVNI UFO Museum in Victoria, a city in the province of Entre Ríos famous for its many UFO sightings, told the newspaper Clarín that “it’s wonderful that this Commission has been created because whenever we need to conduct analysis we’ll have access to official laboratories.”
Silvia’s daughter Andrea Pérez cautioned that it’s important “not to create false expectations in the people, that’s why we’ll have now a decisive body that will evaluate what is certain and discard what is supposition.” Iurchuk noted that “the first step is to exclude satellites, space junk, balloons and meteorological devices, rockets, meteors and even the International Space Station (ISS) can be confused” with a UFO.
Dr. Oscar Galíndez, a retired judge and highly respected jurist who was also a pioneer of serious UFO investigations in Argentina in the 1960s and ’70s, serving as representative for the Americans groups APRO and NICAP and Britain’s Flying Saucer Review, commented in a web column that “the scientific investigation of the UFO phenomenon requires the collaboration of many interdisciplinary fields joined in a common goal.
I am happy to see that the Argentinean Commission is oriented towards this correct way.” Another highly respected Argentinean ufologist who also met Capt. Mohaupt during his informal meetings with the UFO community is the architect Roberto Banchs, author of several important UFO books and monographs.
The first case?
Until the AAF Commission launches its official web page and really gets underway on the field, it’s hard to say for sure which cases they will actually investigate. According to the web daily ELINTRANSIGENTE.COM and the Visión Ovni forum, the first case that they will probably look into is a photograph taken in 2005 during maneuvers of the IV Aerial Brigade in Mendoza.
The picture shows a luminous unidentified object underneath and to the right of a Mirage M3 fighter. According to Visión Ovni, “the event occurred on November 18, 2005 and was seen by several witnesses, whom will be interviewed to obtain more data as to what happened. An attempt will be made to determine if the small white dot close to the aircraft is an unidentified flying object or has some atmospheric explanation.”
The newspaper Tandil Diario, on the other hand, speculates that the Commission should mobilize and look into a series of UFO sightings that were reported in the city of Tandil in Buenos Aires province. Yet another good case for CIFA would be to reinvestigate the important multiple-witness case in the town of Joaquín V. González in Salta province on the early hours of November 26, 2009, which was linked to a power blackout after a large cylindrical-shaped object was seen beaming one of the turbines of the El Tunal Dam of the local power company EDESA. We also covered this UFO case in detail in this website.
Regardless of which cases CIFA investigates—time will tell obviously—it is worth noting a couple of comments of a sociological nature. One is that Argentina’s fledging military UFO commission is not the first but rather the latest such agency in South America.
Three of Argentina’s neighbors—Uruguay, Brazil and Chile—already have official UFO investigation projects. I expand on this subject at length on the next issue of Open Minds magazine (August/September), discussing the official UFO projects in Uruguay (CRIDOVNI), Chile (CEFAA) and Peru (OIFAA).
The second point worth noting is the lack of adversarial relationship between the official South American UFO projects and civilian ufologists. This is almost the complete opposite of the history of this subject in the U.S. Even when there were official UFO investigations like Project Blue Book or the Condon Commission, there always tended to be bad blood between the government and private UFO groups and researchers.
The government investigators would tend to ignore or belittle the civilian ufolgists who in turn would accuse the government of bad faith and censorship. In South America, on the other hand, the dynamics is exactly the opposite, as illustrated by Capt. Mohaupt’s meetings with the Argentinean UFO community and the fact that some of their more prominent researchers were invited to participate as external members and/or advisors of the AAF Commission.
Riddle of the Skies , British UFO Documentary part one;this was made in 1999;
Here is a selection of a series of UFO documentary's from Britain;
06-15-2011, 08:40 AM
Fatal Guillotine
06-15-2011, 08:44 AM
Fatal Guillotine
The Lakenheath Radar/Visual UFO Case;
This investigated case stands out as one with very high levels of strangeness and collaborative evidence from military sources;All serious UFO investigators or enthusiasts should familiarize themselves with this case as it merits a serious approach to UFO studies;
The Lakenheath Radar/Visual England;
August 13-14, 1956;
quote;
Many UFOlogists are aware of this case, but most other people are not. This is undoubtedly one of the most important UFO events in the Blue Book files, but, surprisingly, was not listed among the "unknowns". The case impressed Dr. James E. McDonald and Dr. J. Allen Hynek, and even more notably, the Condon Committee. This is another intercept mission where a pilot, faced with an unknown form of reality, was very frightened by his nocturnal encounter.
The Condon Report:
"... this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files. The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting. However, in view of the inevitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanations of this report cannot be entirely ruled out."
************************************************** ********
Timeline of Events and Quick Summary ;
-9:30PM: Radar contact made by Bentwaters GCA, AN/MPN-1. Contact made 25-30 mile east, southeast of base at an estimated speed of between 4,000 and 10,800 mph on a west, northwest heading. No visual contacts confirmed, likely not anomalous propagation (AP from here on).
-9:35 to 9:55PM: Radar contact made by Bentwaters GCA showing 12-15 UREs 8 miles southwest of base. Targets moving between 80-125 mph constantly becoming stationary for some minutes then resuming northeast direction, finally merging into one URE before disappearing at speeds between 400-700 mph on the continued northeasterly course. No confirmed visuals, it is possible this was AP however.
-10:00PM: Third URE picked up bye Bentwaters GCA 30 miles east of Bentwaters moving west. Observed for 16 seconds at a calculated speed of between 4,000 and 12,000 mph. No confirmed visuals, likely not AP.
-10:55PM: Bentwaters GCA picked up a forth hit 3o miles east moving west at 2,000-4,000 mph. Also visually seen by a pilot of a C-47 and personal in the Bentwaters control tower. Object appeared to be at 4,000 feet and was visually seen at the same time as radar contact. It appears that at one point the UFO seems to possibly accelerate to 18,000 mph instantly as it disappears from one side of the scope and appears on the other side all in the same sweep. The distance in between is 60 miles. Lakenheath AFB then called.
-11:40PM to 3:30AM: Lakenheath RATCC, CPS-5, GCA, and CPN-4 pick up UFO on radar. Contact initially made 20-25 miles southwest of Lakenheath with speeds between 400-600 mph, again with sudden stops and near instant acceleration. (This all happens at different times in this 4 hour 50 minute period, although BOTH ground and air radar was simultaneous when jet was in pursuit)Venom jet scrambled to intercept UFO at around 11:50PM.
Pilot of Venom aircraft reports visual contact and radar contact with UFO which then proceeds to chase him before pulling away after the pilot starts to return to base because of low fuel. UFO eventually vanishes around 3:30AM. Likely NOT AP or a radar malfunction.
************************************************** ********
Radar malfunction-
This is highly unlikely because multiple tests were ran continuously throughout the event to make sure the radar was functioning correctly, and it was. Even further evidence against this is the fact that there were multiple radars that picked up the objects also. So unless they all were malfunctioning this is not the case.
Weather balloon-
For many reasons this is near impossible, the first being the high rate of speed (up to possibly 18,000 mph at times) of the UFOs. Secondly, there were none in the area reported that night. Lastly, the maneuvers made by the UFO rule out any weather pattern driven event like a weather balloon. Although this could cause radar hits, it would not be able to fly at the speeds and maneuvers recorded. This statement from the RAF Balloon Unit should dismiss this theory: link;http://www.geocities.com/parcellular/ufo/astrodata.htm
************************************************** ********
The Condon report on this case was interesting but even they admitted that at least one UFO appeared to be genuine:
The Condon report;
"The probability that anomalous propagation of radar signals may have been involved in this case seems to be small. One or two details are suggestive of AP, particularly the reported disappearance of the first track as the UFO appeared to over fly the Bentwaters GCA radar. Against this must be weighed the Lakenheath controller's statement that there was "little or no traffic or targets on scope," which is not at all suggestive of AP conditions, and the behavior of the target near Lakenheath -- apparently continuous and easily tracked.
The "tailing" of the RAF fighter, taken alone, seems to indicate a possible ghost image, but this does not jibe with the report that the UFO stopped following the fighter, as the latter was returning to its base, and went off in a different direction. The radar operators were apparently careful to calculate the speed of the UFO from distances and elapsed times, and the speeds were reported as consistent from run to run, between stationary episodes. This behavior would be somewhat consistent with reflections from moving atmospheric layers -- but not in so many different directions.
Visual mirage at Bentwaters seems to be out of the question because of the combined ground and airborne observations; the C47 pilot apparently saw the UFO below him. The visual objects do not seem to have been meteors; statements by the observers that meteors were numerous imply that they were able to differentiate the UFO from the meteors.
In summary, this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files.The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting. However, in view of the inevitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanations of this report cannot be entirely ruled out.
"In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high."
link; http://www.nicap.org/lakencon.htm
************************************************** ********
RAF Lakenheath/Bentwaters/Neatishead Incidents - Aug. 13-14, 1956 - Martin Shough
The Lakenheath Collaboration presents The RAFLakenheath/Bentwaters/Neatishead Incidents;
August 13-14 1956;
An historical and scientific inquiry into a classic UFO case;
The RAF Lakenheath/Bentwaters Incidents
August 13-14 1956
The Lakenheath Collaboration Document Archive;
Transcripts and facsimiles of the entire primary evidence base of the Lakenheath Collaboration are accessible from here. A brief history of the case giving the background to this archive can be read here;http://martinshough.com/aerialphenom...background.htm
PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL
U.S.A.F. & Project Blue Book
i CIRVIS report BOI-485 from Lakenheath to ADC, ATIC, AFOIN, 16 August 1956
i CIRVIS report IDO-73351, from ADC to SAC, USAFE, 3rd AF, 17 August 1956
i Air Intelligence Report IR-1-56, 81st Fighter Bomber Wing, Bentwaters, 31 August 1956
i Air Intelligence Report SAC IR-2-56, D/I CINCSAC Offut AFB, Nebraska, 17 August 1956
i Blue Book project 10073 Record Card (6 pages) - undated
i ATIC Memo Routing Slip, by Capt. Gregory, internal distribution, 5 September 1956
i Report to DI HQ Washington by Captain Gregory, ATIC, 5 September 1956
i Memo from Dr L.V. Robinson, Air Science Division to Blue Book, 27 August 1956
i Memo from Dr J. Allen Hynek, 'Evaluation of Lakenheath Reports', 17 October 1956
i Memo from Dr. H. A. Miley AFOIN-4E4 to Col. G. C. Hoffman AFOIN-4E1, 7 Nov 1956
i Letter to Dr. Hynek from Captain Gregory (with sketch map), 26 November 1956
i Letter to Robert J. Low from Dr. Donald Menzel, 15 March 1968 ref Perkins' report.
i Letter from Dr. J. Allen Hynek to Dr. James E. McDonald, 11 September 1970
PERKINS, T/Sgt Forrest
i -letter to U. of Colorado, February 1968 (transcript of handwritten original with diagram)
i -copy of above with marginal annotations by Robert Low, Project Administrator
i -letter of acknowledgement from Pauline Haslett, UFO Project, 8 March 1968
i -letter to National Enquirer late March/early April 1972
i -letter to Stanton Friedman 14 Aug 1975
i -letter to Stanton Friedman 20 Aug 1975
i -letter to G. David Thayer, 27 July 1976
i -letter (unfinished) to G. David Thayer, about 1 Aug 1976
i -letter to Stanton Friedman 03 Sept 1978
i -letter to Martin Shough 18 Aug 1987
i -letter to Martin Shough mid-Sept 1987
i -letter to Martin Shough 12 Feb 1988
i METZ, Lt Charles, 512th FIS, Bentwaters 1955-57, e-mail to Dave Clarke dated 18 March 2002
i SIMPSON, William, GCA Operator, Bentwaters 1956-57, e-mail to DC dated 5 June 2002
i THOMAS, Raymond, GCA Bentwaters, e-mail to DC re UFO events 1956
i GOSSETT, Richard, CMS Retired, re Lakenheath UFO alert of April 1958, e-mail to DC dated 29 December 2001
i O'TOOLE, Walter, Editor Bentwaters Base Newspaper 1956-9, email to DC 25 March 2003
R.A.F. and MoD material
i PRO AIR 2/18564 8 May 1957: briefing by DDI (Tech) to S6 Air Ministry re 'unexplained radar incidents' in 1956.
i PRO CAB 159/37: Minutes of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), Cabinet Office, Whitehall, 1957.
i PRO AIR 29/2631: 271 Signals Unit, RAF Neatishead, Operations Record Book 1956.
i PRO AIR 29/2631: 271 Signals Unit, RAF Neatishead, Operations Record Book 1957-8.
i PRO AIR 29/2796: Eastern Sector Operations Centre, RAF Bawburgh, ORB, 1956.
i PRO AIR 29/2797: Metropolitan Sector Operations Centre, RAF Kelvedon Hatch (Trimley Heath), Essex, 1956-58.
i PRO AIR 27/2742: RAF No 23 Squadron, Operations Record Book, August 1956.
i RAF 23 Squadron Diary entry, dated 13 August 1956.
i PRO AIR 28/1439: RAF Waterbeach station logbook/253 Squadron (AIR 27/3119).
i PRO AIR 28/1370: RAF Horsham St Faith, Operations Record Book (form 540) Jan 1956 to Jul 1963
i PRO AIR 28/1343: ORB for RAF Coltishall, Jan 1956 to December 1960
i PRO AIR29/2610: ORB for Air Defence Operations Centre, Bentley Priory, Jan 1956 to November 1960.
i PRO AIR29/2796: ORB for Eastern Sector Operations Centre, RAF Bawburgh.
i PRO AIR 20/12056: Letter from P.R. Smith to S4f(Air) 25 March 1969 enclosing cutting from Daily Telegraph re Condon study and Lakenheath incident, reply from Les Ackhurst.
i PRO AIR10/6200 & AIR2/12264: SARAH (Search and Rescue and Homing) beacon
i PRO MJ1/436, Met. Office R&D Establishment, & AIR 29/2986, RAF Balloons Unit, RAF Cardington, Beds.
i PRO AIR 2/18871: Letter from Air Commodore Anthony N. Davis to Charles Lockwood, 17 March 1972 re Lakenheath incident.
i PRO AIR 2/18871: Memo re. 'Correspondence for Official Action' annotated by Air Commodore A. N. Davis 19 July 1972.
i BBC Radio Oxford programme, hand-written notes by Air Commodore Anthony Davis.
WIMBLEDON, Flt Lt Freddie
i -letter to Sunday Times, 19 March 1978;
i -letter to Flying Saucer Review, 24/1, June 1978
i -letter to Stanton Freidman, 16 Aug 1978
i -letter to G. David Thayer, 23 Sept 1978
i -letter to G. David Thayer, 18 Jan 1979
i -correspondence with Phil Klass, 1979 (missing)
i -correspondence with Ian Ridpath, 1979
i -letter to Martin Shough, 15 Sept 1986
i -letter to Martin Shough, 12 Oct 1986
i -letter to Martin Shough, 13 Oct 1987
i -letter to Martin Shough, 25 Jan 1988
i -letters to Jenny Randles, Nov 2000
i -letter to RAF Neatishead Air Warfare Radar Museum Newsletter 22 (2000)
i -correspondence with David Clarke, 2001-2
i -transcript of interview with Dave Clarke and Andy Roberts, 25 March 2001
i -follow up interview for BBC Radio 4, March 2002
i BOWDEN, Cpl John, ground radar fitter, RAF Neatishead, 1951-57, e-mail and letter dated August 2001
i CLIFT, Squadron Ldr Douglas, fighter controller RAF Neatishead, 1956- letter dated 24 April 2002 and phone conversation
i Squadron Leader X, notes from phone conversation 13-3-02 and Met Sector ORB note re visit of Belgian officers to Neatishead.
i MAUGHAN, Lac Harry, RAF Neatishead, 1957-58. Note from phone conversation re 'angels' and UFOs.
i GROCOTT, Wing Commander R.G. Eastern Sector, 1956 letter re role of Sector in incident, 28 July 2001
i HOBSON, Graeme, interception controller RAF Neatishead 1956, letter dated 4 February 2002.
i ROBB, Douglas, Museum Manager, RAF Neatishead radar museum, transcript of BBC Radio 4 interview, April 2002
i SQUIRE, Flt. Lt. Nick, 23 Squadron Historian, email to Dave Clarke February 2003
NOYES, Ralph - Air Ministry and MoD, 1949-77
i -transcript of interview with Dave Clarke and Andy Roberts, 1989
i -transcript of interview with Jenny Randles, 1996
i -video copy of interview with BBC, 1996 (questions from Jenny Randles)
i MITCHELL, Sqn Ldr Victor, MoD Ops (GE)2 (RAF), 1977-80 - transcript of interview October 2002
i MOORE, Air Vice Marshal Charles, director of intelligence Air Ministry 1956, letter dated 24 June 2001 re ACAS (I) and Lakenheath incident
i FINLAYSON, Group Captain P.J. Commanding Officer, 253 Squadron 1956, letter dated 1 September 2001.
i GAZE, Sqdn Ldr David, radar technician RAF Neatishead, 1955-57, notes from conversation with him and colleagues LE Watten, JP O'Brien and John Bebbington, 2001.
i GOODE, Iain, MoD Deputy Records Officer, New Scotland Yard, letters dated 2001.
i HUDSON, P., Assist. Sec. S6(Air), Air Ministry, 1956-7, letter to David Clarke 24 Sept 2002
23 Squadron RAF:
i ARTHUR, F/O Leslie, phone conversation 9 March 2001
SCOFIELD, F/O Grahame,
i - shorthand notes of telephone interview with Dave Clarke, May 2001
i - letter to Dave Clarke, 11 June 2001
i - letter to Dave Clarke, 01 February 2003
i - copy of flying logbook entry
CHAMBERS, F/O David,
i - transcript of interview with Dave Clarke & Steven Payne, 4 March 2001
i - copy of logbook entry
BRADY, F/O John
i -letter dated 1 November 2000
i -copy of logbook entry
i -interview transcript 11 February 2001
i -transcript of BBC Radio 4 interview, April 2002
i FRASER-KERR, F/O Ian, e-mails dated January/March 2001
LOGAN, F/O Ivan
i -transcript of interview with Jenny Randles, January 1996
i -letter dated 23 October 2000
i -copy of logbook entry
i -transcript of interview with Dave Clarke & Andy Roberts, 12 November 2000
i -interview with Logan and Brady outside RAF Lakenheath 1996, Jenny Randles (transcript from video copy)
i SMITH, F/O Colin letter dated 17 March 2001
i DELL, F/O D.E. notes from phone conversation, March 2001
i AIKEN, F/O Patrick notes from phone conversation March 2001
i RICHARDS, F/O Ron, notes from phone conversation January 2003
Civilian visual witnesses
i Letter from John Killock to London Daily Express, 1978 (extract with diagram)
i Answers from John Killock to questions by Martin Shough, Feb 1988
i Letter from John Killock to Martin Shough, 02 March 1988 (narrative account)
i Map of Ely visual sighting locations by John Killock
i Notes of telephone conversation between John Killock and Martin Shough (presently missing)
i Notes by Jenny Randles re Otterburn, Northumberland, visual sighting
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND RESOURCES;
Meteorological charts and balloon soundings from Met.Office Daily Weather Reports and Daily Aerological Record for 13/14 August 1956 supplied by Paul Fuller
Astronomical data for the Suffolk, England area, 13/14 August 1956, sky-maps courtesy Coeli Adastra "Freestar" digital planetarium
Records of Geomagnetic and Auroral Activity for August 1956
A.P. (Air Ministry Air Publication) 4335C Vol.1, Venom NF Mk.3 Aircraft - General and Technical Information (Amendment List 45, Jul. 56 - A.L.57, Nov.57)
A.P. 2913D, Vol.1 2nd Ed., AI Mk.21 Radar, General and Technical Information (A.L.1/2 Jun.55)
AN 16-30 APS 57-2 AI Radar Set Handbook, USAF (extract)
Schematic diagram of 1956 GCI 'Happidrome' radar installation, (courtesy Bruce T. Neale, Marconi Radar Systems)
Photos of AMES Type 7, and Marconi Type 13 and Type 14 radar antennas.
Photos of RAF Ground Controlled Interception 'Happidrome' circa1950's; views of Reporting Room, local-area plotting table and Chief Fighter Controller's room
Correspondence from Frederick Flower, RAF Museum, Hendon, re Venom & interception procedures, to Martin Shough 1986
Correspondence from Bruce T. Neale, consultant, Marconi Radar Systems Ltd., to Martin Shough, 1986 (re RAF GCI radar circa 1956)
Correspondence from G. David Thayer to Martin Shough, 1986-88
Correspondence between Philip Klass, G. David Thayer and Stanton Friedman 1976-78
Correspondence between Dave Clarke and Dr David Atlas, NASA, 2002
Correspondence between Dave Clarke and Ian Ridpath re Perseid meteors, 2001.
Article, 'Lakenheath ATC Saves USAF B-45 "Tornado"', Lakenheath base newspaper, August 1956 (courtesy Forrest Perkins)
Article, 'Nuclear Near-Disaster Reportedly Covered Up', Sun-News, November 6 1979 (courtesy G. D. Thayer)
Telex classified TOP SECRET OPERATIONAL IMMEDIATE from General Walsh, Commander US 7th Air Division in England to General Curtis Le May, Commander of Strategic Air Command concerning B-47 crash in weapons storage area, July 27 1956
Personal letter (handwritten) from 'AC' to Martin Shough detailing hearsay information from MoD-accredited aviation photographer re Lakenheath incident in 1956
Email to James Easton, hearsay regarding Lakenheath/Bentwaters radar technicians 1956
Ridpath, Ian, 'The UFO Conspiracy' Sunday Times, March 19 1978
Shough, M. L., Blips! The Lakenheath Story, unpublished manuscript 1992
Thayer, G. D., Inside the Colorado UFO Project, unpublished manuscript 1987
'Unceasing Vigil'- article from Flight International, 1956, on work of 23 Squadron and RAF Coltishall in Air Defence (courtesy Ivan Logan)
"New European Defence System", from FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, 23 December 1955
Lindsay, R., De Havilland Venom, Stockton-on-Tees, 1974
SECONDARY SOURCE MATERIAL
(major books and articles)
Hynek, J. A., The UFO Experience, Henry Regnery 1972. Case summary.
Klass, Philip J, 'UFOs Over England' in UFOs Explained, Random House, 1974, p.216
McDonald, J., 'UFOs over Lakenheath', FSR Vol 16/2 (1970)
McDonald, J. 'Science in default: 22 years of inadequate UFO investigation', Symposium on UFOs, 134th Meeting, AAAS, Boston, Dec, 27, 1969, in: Sagan & Page (eds) UFOs: A Scientific Debate, Cornell University Press, 1972
Menzel, D., 'UFOs, a Modern Myth', in: Sagan & Page (eds) UFOs: A Scientific Debate, Cornell University Press 1972
Menzel, D. & Taves, The UFO Enigma 1977
Ridpath, Ian, 'New Light on Lakenheath' IUR (CUFOS) August 1978 pp.6-7
Shough, Martin L., 'Radar and the UFO', in Evans & Spencer (eds) UFOs: 1947-87, Fortean Tomes 1987
Shough, M. L. 'Radar/visual Encounter at Bentwaters', in: Evans & Spencer (eds), Phenomenon, Futura 1988 pp.82-96
Thayer, G.D., Radar and Optical Analyses of Field Cases, and Case #2 in: Gillmor, D., (ed) et al, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1969.
Thayer, G. D., 'The Lakenheath Radar-Visual UFO case', J. of Astronautics and Aeronautics, September 1971
Thayer, G. D., entry on Lakenheath-Bentwaters in: Story, Ronald (ed) The UFO Encyclopedia, 1980
Detailed analyses and Opinions by members of the Lakenheath Collaboration can be accessed from the Background and History page
************************************************** ********
The Lakenheath/RAF Bentwaters Case - Dr. James E. McDonald
The RAF Fighter Controller's Report - Wimbledon/Timothy Good
The Lakenheath Case - Gordon Thayer
Case 2. Lakenheath, England - The Condon Report
Aug. 13, 1956; Nuclear War Games & UFOs - Dan Wilson
* A Narrative Reconstruction of the Events - The Lakenheath Collaboration (includes documents)
* Links and reports above are the product of three years work by the Lakenheath Collaboration - a team of British researchers that includes Martin Shough, David Clarke, Paul Fuller, Andy Roberts and Jenny Randles.
Below is some info on RAF Bentwaters, this is a follow up to last post on 2The Lakenheath Radar/Visual UFO Case";
************************************************** ********
RAF Bentwaters;
Royal Air Force Station Bentwaters
USAAF Station 151
Located near Woodbridge, Suffolk, England;
Republic F-84F-50-RE Thunderstreak, Serial 52-6852 of the 81st Fighter-Bomber Wing, 91st Fighter-Bomber Squadron, about 1955.
Type Air Force Station;
Coordinates 52°07′40.26″N 001°26′06.17″E
Built 1942;
In use from 1942-1949,1951-1993;
Garrison RAF Bomber Command;
RAF Fighter Command/United States Air Forces in Europe;
Occupants No 11 Group, RAF Fighter Command;
81st Tactical Fighter Wing;
Battles/wars/European Theatre of World War II;
Air Offensive, Europe July 1942 - May 1945;
RAF Bentwaters, now known as Bentwaters Parks, is a former Royal Air Force station about 80 miles NE of London, 10 miles ENE of Ipswich, near Woodbridge, Suffolk in England. The name was taken from two cottages (‘Bentwaters Cottages’) that had stood on the site of the main runway during its construction in 1943.
It was used by the RAF during World War II, and by the United States Air Force during the Cold War, being the primary home for the 81st Fighter Wing under various designations from 1951 to 1993. For many years the 81st Fighter Wing also operated RAF Woodbridge, with Bentwaters and Woodbridge airfields being known by the Americans as the "Twin Bases".
Bentwaters is also known as the location for the alleged December 1980 UFO incident in Rendlesham Forest.
The site is now known as Bentwaters Parks.The Bentwaters Cold War Museum is located site, there are offices and warehouses to rent, and the site is also used for television and film making.[1]
link; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Bentwaters
Detailed Contact Information;
First Contact;
quote;
"The first URE, or unidentified radar echo, came at around 9:30 PM on the Bentwaters Air Force Base radar. The contact was about 25-30 miles east, southeast. The contact remained until it was lost about 15-20 miles to the west, northwest of Bentwaters.
The object stayed on a constant azimuth heading of 285 degrees and was moving at an estimated speed of between 4,000 and 10,800 mph (Mach 7.5 - 15), the speed varies as there is discrepancy in the radar operators calculation of speed in regards to the transit time between distances in between the 2 second radar sweeps".
The operator said that "the size of the blip was that of a normal aircraft, but diminished in size and intensity to the vanishing point before crossing the entire screen."A T-33 "Shooting Star" trainer from the 512th Fighter Interceptor Squadron manned by 1st Lieutenants Charles Metz and navigator Andrew Rowe, who were already in the air returning from a training mission, were diverted to investigate but found nothing and returned home.
Second Contact;
quote;
"About 5 minutes later at around 9:35PM a group of 12-15 UREs was picked up about 8 miles southwest of Bentwaters, the echos "appeared as normal targets" and "normal checks were made to determine possible malfunctions of the radar failed to show any malfunctions."
The UFOs appeared to move as a group to the northeast at speeds varying between 80 and 125 mph. A 6-7 mile area was covered on the scope, while the echos "faded considerably" after a distance of 14 miles NE of Bentwaters they were still tracked to a point 40 miles NE of Bentwaters where they merged into a single echo "several times larger than a B-36 return under similar conditions."
This single echo remained stationary for 10-15 minutes at this location 40 miles NE of Bentwaters for 10-15 minutes, then proceeded to move NE for 5-6 miles, stopped again for 3-5 minutes, and finally moved out of range (range was 50 miles) of the radar at 9:55PM. The apparent average speed for the merged object was calculated at between 290-700 mph (58 miles in 5-12 minutes).
Third Contact;
quote;
"At 10:00PM yet another contact was picked up about 30 miles east of Bentwaters and tracked to a point about 25 miles west of the station for 16 seconds. The radar operator figured the speed to be "in excess of 4,000 mph" but given the distance covered divided by time it appears the speed was more like 12,000 mph, or around Mach 17. All of the returns appeared normal except for the last, which was slightly weaker than the others. The URE disappeared when it moved out of range".
Because of the major importance of the 1980 UFO landings in Rendlesham Forest near the RAF / USA joint bases of Bentwaters and Woodbridge, another important, well documented UFO sighting at Bentwaters is often overlooked.
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 make this case a true "unexplained.". It is Case 2 in the Condon Report and is there conceded to be unexplained.
On the night of August 13-14, 1956, radar operators at two military bases in the east of England repeatedly tracked single and multiple objects which displayed high speed, as well as rapid changes of speed and direction. Two jet interceptors were sent up, and were able to see and track them in a brief series of maneuvers. According to official U.S. Air Force reports, the sightings could not be explained by radar malfunction or by unusual weather.
It began at 9:30 p.m. when Airman 2nd Class John Vaccare, of the U.S. Air Force at RAF Bentwaters, tracked one UFO on his Ground Controlled Approach radar (type AN/MPN-11A) as it flew 40-50 miles (65 to 80 km.) in 30 seconds, i.e. 4,800 to 6,000 mph (7,500 to 9,500 km./hr.).
A few minutes later Vaccare reported to T/Sergeant L. Whenry that a group of 12 to 15 unidentified targets was tracked from 8 miles (13 km.) southwest of Bentwaters to 40 miles (65 km.) northeast, at which time they "appeared to converge into one very large object, according to the size of the blip on the radar scope, which seemed to be several times larger than a B-36 aircraft [the largest operational bomber in history, with a wingspan of 230 feet or 70 m.]." The single large blip stopped twice for several minutes while being tracked, before flying off the scope.
At 10 p.m., a single unidentified target was tracked from Bentwaters as it covered 55 miles (90 km.) in just 16 seconds. This works out to over 12,000 mph (19,000 km./hr.).
Then, at 10:55 p.m., the Bentwaters GCA radar picked up an unidentified target on the same east-to-west course as the previous one, at an apparent speed of "2,000 to 4,000 mph" (3,200 to 6,400 km./hr.). Someone in the Bentwaters control tower reported seeing "a bright light passing over the field from east to west at about 4,000 feet [1,200 m.]."
At about the same time, the pilot of a C-47 twin-engine military transport plane over Bentwaters said, "a bright light streaked under my aircraft travelling east to west at terrific speed." All three reports coincided.
Soon after, radars at Bentwaters and RAF Lakenheath reported a stationary object 20-25 miles (32-40 km.) southwest of the latter base. It suddenly began moving north at 400 to 600 mph (650 to 1,000 km./hr.), but "there was no build-up to this speed - it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped." It made several abrupt changes of direction without appearing to slow for its turns.
Around 11:30 p.m., the RAF launched a deHavilland Venom jet interceptor, from RAF Waterbeach. According to the U.S. Air Force UFO report:
"Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and would investigate. At 13 miles [20 km.] west he reported loss of target and white light. Lakenheath (radar) vectored him to a target 10 miles [16 km.] east of Lakenheath and pilot advised (that) target was on his radar and was 'locking on.' Pilot then reported he had lost target on his radar.
"Lakenheath GCA reports that as the Venom passed the target on radar, the target began a tail chase of the friendly fighter. Radar requested pilot acknowledge this chase. Pilot acknowledged and stated he would try to circle and get behind the target. Pilot advised he was unable to 'shake' the target off his tail and requested assistance.
"One additional Venom was scrambled from RAF station. Original pilot stated: 'Clearest target I have ever seen on radar." The following conversation between the two Venom fighter pilots was heard by the Lakenheath watch supervisor:
Flight Lieutenant Freddie Wimbledon,supervisor at Neatishead RAF Fighter Command that night statement;
************************************************** ********
"Did you see anything?" [Pilot #2]
"I saw something, but I'll be damned if I know what it was." [Pilot #1]
"What happened?" [Pilot #2]
"He - or it - got behind me and I did everything I could to get behind him and I couldn't. It's the damndest thing I've ever seen." [Pilot #1]
The 1969 report by the Air Force-funded study at the University of Colorado under Dr. Edward U. Condon concluded:
"In summary, this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files. The apparent rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting. However, in view of the inevitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanations of this report cannot be entirely ruled out."
USAF Air Intelligence Information Report filed by Captain Edward L. Holt, August 31, 1956.
RAF CONTROLLER ACCOUNT:
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 radarscopes."
"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."
link; http://www.ufocasebook.com/bentwaters1956.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++
Statement made by USAF officer Paula W. Stimson:
QUOTE;
"Paula W. Stimson, Cwpt. USAF, Intelligence Officer, 3910th ABGRU (SAC), RWF station Lakenheath, Suffolk, England. All personnel interviewed and logs of RATCC lend reality to the existence of some unexplainable flying phenomena near this air field on this occasion. No Air Base; however, 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. All ground observers and reports from observers at Bentwaters agree on colour, maneuvers and shape of object. My analysis of the sightings is that they were real and not figments of the imagination. The fact that three radar sets picked up the targets simultaneously is certainly conclusive that a target or object was in the air.
The maneuvers of the object were extraordinary; however, the fact that radar and ground visual observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abrupt stops certainly lend credulance to the report. It is not believed these sightings were of any meteorological or astronomical origins.
On the night of August 13-14, 1956, radar operators at two military bases in the east of England repeatedly tracked single and multiple objects which displayed high speed, as well as rapid changes of speed and direction. Two jet interceptors were sent up, and were able to see and track them in a brief series of maneuvers. According to official U.S. Air Force reports, the sightings could not be explained by radar malfunction or by unusual weather.42
It began at 9:30 p.m. when Airman 2nd Class John Vaccare, of the U.S. Air Force at RAF Bentwaters, tracked one UFO on his Ground Controlled Approach radar (type AN/MPN-11A) as it flew 40-50 miles (65 to 80 km.) in 30 seconds, i.e. 4,800 to 6,000 mph (7,500 to 9,500 km./hr.).
A few minutes later Vaccare reported to T/Sergeant L. Whenry that a group of 12 to 15 unidentified targets was tracked from 8 miles (13 km.) southwest of Bentwaters to 40 miles (65 km.) northeast, at which time they "appeared to converge into one very large object, according to the size of the blip on the radar scope, which seemed to be several times larger than a B-36 aircraft [the largest operational bomber in history, with a wingspan of 230 feet or 70 m.]." The single large blip stopped twice for several minutes while being tracked, before flying off the scope.
At 10 p.m., a single unidentified target was tracked from Bentwaters as it covered 55 miles (90 km.) in just 16 seconds. This works out to over 12,000 mph (19,000 km./hr.).
Then, at 10:55 p.m., the Bentwaters GCA radar picked up an unidentified target on the same east-to-west course as the previous one, at an apparent speed of "2,000 to 4,000 mph" (3,200 to 6,400 km./hr.). Someone in the Bentwaters control tower reported seeing "a bright light passing over the field from east to west at about 4,000 feet [1,200 m.]." At about the same time, the pilot of a C-47 twin-engine military transport plane over Bentwaters said, "a bright light streaked under my aircraft travelling east to west at terrific speed." All three reports coincided.
Soon after, radars at Bentwaters and RAF Lakenheath reported a stationary object 20-25 miles (32-40 km.) southwest of the latter base. It suddenly began moving north at 400 to 600 mph (650 to 1,000 km./hr.), but "there was no build-up to this speed - it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped." It made several abrupt changes of direction without appearing to slow for its turns.43
Around 11:30 p.m., the RAF launched a deHavilland Venom jet interceptor, from RAF Waterbeach. According to the U.S. Air Force UFO report:
"Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and would investigate. At 13 miles [20 km.] west he reported loss of target and white light. Lakenheath (radar) vectored him to a target 10 miles [16 km.] east of Lakenheath and pilot advised (that) target was on his radar and was 'locking on.' Pilot then reported he had lost target on his radar.
"Lakenheath GCA reports that as the Venom passed the target on radar, the target began a tail chase of the friendly fighter. Radar requested pilot acknowledge this chase. Pilot acknowledged and stated he would try to circle and get behind the target. Pilot advised he was unable to 'shake' the target off his tail and requested assistance.
"One additional Venom was scrambled from RAF station. Original pilot stated: 'Clearest target I have ever seen on radar.'"
The following conversation between the two Venom fighter pilots was heard by the Lakenheath watch supervisor:
"Did you see anything?" [Pilot #2]
"I saw something, but I'll be damned if I know what it was." [Pilot #1]
"What happened?" [Pilot #2]
"He - or it - got behind me and I did everything I could to get behind him and I couldn't. It's the damndest thing I've ever seen." [Pilot #1]44
The 1969 report by the Air Force-funded study at the University of Colorado under Dr. Edward U. Condon concluded:
"In summary, this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files. The apparent rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting. However, in view of the inevitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanations of this report cannot be entirely ruled out." 45
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
42. USAF Air Intelligence Information Report filed by Captain Edward L. Holt, August 31, 1956.
1957: Third american sighting wave;
In this section i will be posting cases from the " UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT CASE HISTORIES",this documentation is invaluable in understanding just how complex and mysterious some UFO cases are and the display of high strangeness in some of these cases is authentic in a sense that genuine unknowns could be beyond our current scientific understandings at present;
************************************************** ********
THE UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT CASE HISTORIES;
The third of the major American waves of UFO reports peaked in the first week46 of November 1957, with at least 30 accounts of electrical devices experiencing temporary failure in connection with a UFO sighting.
The files of Project Blue Book show 330 reports for that week, while the files of the private National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) list almost 90 unexplained reports.
It started four weeks after the Soviet Union shocked the world by launching the first earth-orbiting satellite, Sputnik I, and a day before Sputnik II was orbited with a small dog as passenger. Public enthusiasm for searching the night sky for a glimpse of the first satellite had waned, and that for the second had not yet begun.
The most striking feature of this sighting wave was the concentration of "electromagnetic effect" cases around the west Texas town of Levelland. There were at least eight such reports in the space of 2.5 hours in an area to the west, north and east of Levelland:
"At 10:30 p.m. came the report from truck driver Pedro Saucedo, who described seeing a blue torpedo-shaped object with yellow flame and white smoke coming out of its rear. He estimated it was 200 feet [60 m.] long and 6 feet [2 m.] wide. He said it rose from a nearby field and roared low over his truck with a loud, explosive sound, and produced so much heat he got out of his truck and lay on the ground.
'It sounded like thunder, and my truck rocked from the blast.' He thought it came within 200-300 feet [60-90 m.]. His truck lights and engine failed while the UFO was in view; after it disappeared, his lights worked perfectly, and he was able to re-start the engine.
"At Pettit, Texas, 10 miles [16 km.] to the northwest, two grain combines failed as a UFO flew past.
"Shortly before midnight, Jim Wheeler reported seeing a large 200 ft. [60 m.] elliptical object on the road; as he drove toward it, his car lights and engine failed. The UFO rose and flew off, and when it blinked off, his lights came back on and he was able to re-start his engine.
"At the same time, Jose Alvarez's car lights and engine died when he saw a glowing, 200-foot [60 m.] UFO nearby. After the object flew away, his lights came back on and he was able to re-start his engine.
"At about 12:05 a.m., college student Newell Wright's car lights and engine failed. He got out to fix them, looked up and saw a glowing, bluish-green, flat-bottomed, oval object on the highway. The object was in sight for four or five minutes. During that time, Wright tried to start his engine, and while the starter made contact, the motor was unaffected. The object disappeared, straight up, and immediately the car lights came back on, the engine started, and then operated perfectly.
"At 12:25 a.m., Frank Williams' car experienced a failure of its lights and engine, when a glowing, egg-shaped object appeared on or near the ground pulsating brightly. When it rose straight up, the car returned to normal. 'When it took off, it sounded like thunder.'
"At 12:45 a.m., Ronald Martin's truck lights and engine stopped working when a round, glowing UFO landed and changed from orange to blue-green. He said the glow was so bright it lit up the inside of his truck. The UFO then changed back to orange and took off straight up. The car lights came back on, and his engine re-started by itself!
"At 1 a.m., some 17 miles [27 km.] to the north, Fire Marshall Ray Jones reported seeing a streak of light and at the same time his car lights dimmed and his engine almost quit.
"At 1:15 a.m., James Long said he saw an elliptical UFO on the road ahead, and when he drove to within 200 feet [60 m.] of it, the lights and engine of his truck died. The UFO then shot up vertically with a sound like thunder, and the lights and engine returned to normal.
"By 1:30 a.m., Hockley County Sheriff Weir Clem had heard so many reports that he decided to see for himself. He drove out with a deputy sheriff, and saw a large oval red light, though he did not experience electrical system problems. Years later he said: 'The object was shaped like a huge football and had bright white lights. The blinding lights flashed on, it went right over the car and was gone. No living human being could believe how fast it traveled. The whole thing was as bright as day; it lit up the whole area.'"48
Project Blue Book sent a single investigator to Levelland to check the reports. His explanation, accepted as the official Air Force conclusion, was that:
"... the major cause for the Levelland case was a severe electrical storm. The storm stimulated the populace into a high level of excitement. This excitement reflected itself in their reactions to ordinary circumstances, and resulted in the inflation of the stories of some of the witnesses concerning their experiences."49
Ten years after these incidents, atmospheric physicist Dr. James McDonald completed a study and determined that there had been no storm in the area, and thus no source of excessive moisture to interfere with the automobiles' electrical systems. With no "severe electrical storm" to "stimulate the populace into a high level of excitement," the official explanation falls apart.
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
46. Project Blue Book case files, U.S. National Archives, Washington, D.C.
47. Webb, Walter N., NICAP Field Investigation Report, 1957.
48. Project Blue Book report, "Levelland, Texas, November 2-4, 1957."
49. McDonald, James, "UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Time?," lecture to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1967.
LINK;
1958: Brazilian navy photographic case;
From THE UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT CASE HISTORIES;
1958: BRAZILIAN NAVY PHOTOGRAPHIC CASE
On February 21, 1958, the Brazilian newspapers Correio de Manha and O Jornal published a sequence of clear daytime photographs showing an oval object with a ring in the center, flying off the island of Trindade in the South Atlantic Ocean. The photos were taken by a professional civilian photographer, Almiro Barauna, on board the Brazilian Navy training ship NE Almirante Saldanha, which was conducting research for the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The Navy at first kept the matter secret, but the photos were eventually given to the press by the President of Brazil, Juscelino Kubitschek;
Map of Trindad Island showing the location of the ship and the trajectory of the UFO with the position where Barauna's photographs were taken.
Other high-ranking officials such as the Minister of the Navy, Admiral Alves Camera, were quoted in the press vouching for the photos. Following his weekly meeting with the President, the Minister told the United Press that "the Navy has a great secret which it cannot divulge because it cannot be explained."51 On February 27th, Deputy Sergio Magalhaes of the House of Representatives formally requested the Navy Ministry to answer several questions about the photos and other prior UFO observations at the IGY post, maintained by the Navy in Trindade Island.52
The Navy eventually released a detailed report on the matter entitled "Clarification of the observation of unidentified flying objects sighted on the Island of Trindade, in the period of 12/5/57 to 1/16/58," prepared by Captain of Corvette (CC), Carlos Alberto Ferreira Bacellar, Commander of the Oceanographic Station at Trindade.
The report begins with a short summary of four UFO sightings by Navy crewmen and workers at the station from early December 1957 to mid-January 1958, including a phenomenon seen by Captain Bacellar with a theodolite (a surveying instrument for measuring vertical and horizontal angles). Four observations occurred in daytime and one at night; one was considered likely to be a seagull.
The report then introduces Almiro Barauna as "a professional civilian photographer who was on deck in the stern of the ship, ready to photograph the operation of hoisting the launch," when he was "alerted about the UFO" and was able to take four photographs showing the object. The crucial details of the development of the film are discussed:
"That, after having taken the above-mentioned photographs, the photographer, in the presence of CC Bacellar and other persons, took the roll of film from the camera; later, in the company of this official he went to the darkroom of the ship (improvised in the infirmary), dressed as he was in shirt and shorts, and where he remained only ten minutes, presenting at once the negative of the film to CC Bacellar, who affirms having seen the above-mentioned UFO represented on the negative, although with much less clarity because the film was somewhat dark."53
An analysis of the facts in the report confirms there were may witnesses on deck of the Almirante Saldanha of "various qualifications - workmen, sailors, dentist, doctor, aviation officer and professional photographer," but no exact number is given. A report by Dr. Willy Smith, published by the Center for UFO Studies, indicates that "all in all, 48 ocular witnesses were on deck during the incident," although no source for this figure is provided. These included sailors, workers and the ship's dentist, as well as members of a civilian submarine diving group to which Baruana and Brazilian Air Force Captain (Ret.) J.T. Viejas belonged.54
Captain Viejas' eyewitness description of the incident was published in the Brazilian press:
"The first view was that of a disc shining with phosphorescent glow, which -even at daylight - appeared to be brighter than the moon. The object was about the apparent size (angular diameter) of the full moon. As it followed its path across the sky, changing to a tilted position, its real shape was clearly outlined against the sky: that of a flattened sphere encircled, at the equator, by a large ring or platform. Its speed was around 700 miles an hour [1,100 km./hr.] at the moment it disappeared into the horizon."
Captain Viejas added that the sighting occurred at 12:20 p.m., causing "a tremendous confusion aboard. Mr. Barauna found it very difficult to operate his camera, being pushed and pulled by excited observers around him."55 Neither CC Bacellar nor the Captain of the Almirante Saldanha, Jose Saldanha da Gama, observed the phenomenon, although they did see the commotion caused by the event.
Baruana gave detailed interviews to Brazilian reporters. His camera was a Rolleiflex 2.8 camera, model E, "set at speed 125, with the aperture at f/8." He shot the first two photos before the object disappeared behind the peak "Desejado." The UFO then reappeared, "bigger in size and flying in the opposite direction, but lower and closer than before, and moving at a higher speed. I shot the third photo." The fourth and fifth photos were lost when Barauna was pushed by other witnesses. The last photo in the roll of film was taken when the object was moving back toward the sea.
Barauna also disclosed that he had been interrogated for four hours at the Navy Ministry and that:
"Some days later I was called again. This time they [Navy] also asked for my Rolleiflex. They wanted to make tests in order to estimate, if possible, the speed of the flying saucer at the moment of the sighting. The tests were performed. They showed that I had taken my six pictures in 14 seconds, and that the saucer was flying at 900 to 1,000 km./hr. [550 to 600 mph]."56
The negatives were analyzed by Navy and civilian experts from the Cruzeiro do Sul Aerophotogrammetric Service. The previously cited Navy document states that a technician from the Hydrographic Navy Department concluded there were no signs of tampering with the negatives which showed "the object photographed."
A "more complete and thorough examination" was made by photo technicians from Cruzeiro do Sul (a private airline company), "including microscopic, for the verification of granulation, verification of signs, luminosity, and details of contour." The Cruzeiro experts concluded:
"There was on the above-mentioned negatives no sign of montage, all indicating it to be a negative of the object really photographed;
"Any hypotheses of later montage were removed; it would be impossible to prove either the existence or nonexistence of prior montage, which requires, however, extreme technical skill and circumstances favorable to its execution."
The Navy's final conclusion was very cautious, due to Barauna's reputation as a highly skilled photographer with some experience in UFO montages, which he had previously shown while refuting the 1952 Barra de Tijuca UFO photo case. The report's two final conclusions regarding the photos are:
"That the strongest and most valid testimony, that of the photographer, loses its definitely convincing character given the technical impossibility of proving if there was or not previous photographic montage.
"That, finally the existence of personal testimonies and of a photographer, of some value given the circumstances involved, permit the admission that there are indications of the existence of the UFO [underlined in the original]." 57;
Enlargement of first UFO photograph taken by Barauna from a Brazilian Navy ship off Trindade Island.
In contrast to the careful and neutral style of the Brazilian Navy report, the U.S. Naval Attaché in Rio, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and Project Blue Book at the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC), did not hesitate to label the Trindade Island UFO photos as a notorious hoax. The ONI Information Report from the Naval Attaché, while containing valuable data about the case and the position of the Brazilian Navy, is written in a very slanted negative style.
It labels Barauna as a man with "a long history of photographic trick shots" and suggests that "the whole thing is a fake publicity stunt put on by a crooked photographer, and the Brazilian Navy fell for it." The coup de grace, however, is the final concluding remark by Captain Sunderland, USN:
"It is the reporting officer's private opinion that a flying saucer would be unlikely at the very barren island of Trindade, as everyone knows Martians are extremely comfort loving creatures."58
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Northwestern University astronomer serving as consultant to Project Blue Book, observed appropriately that "such bias and flippancy have no place in scientific investigations." 59
Likewise, Blue Book was quick to determine that "analysis of the Brazil picture by ATIC led to the conclusion that it was probably a hoax," although a "Record Card" admits that "this center [ATIC] has been unable to obtain copies of the photos."60 This, despite the fact that Barauna's photos were widely available to the press and several UFO organizations both in Brazil and the United States.
Olavo T. Fontes, the late pioneer Brazilian UFO investigator and medical doctor, compiled an extensive report on the case for the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (APRO) in the U.S., with transcripts of all the official statements and interviews published in the Brazilian press. Fontes disclosed additional sightings off Trindade Island, as well as other observations in the Atlantic Ocean from the Navy ships Tridente and Triunfo, and on the island of Fernando Noronha, located between Brazil and Africa, where "a U.S. guided missile and satellite tracking station" had just been set up. No official confirmation of the Noronha reports, however, was provided by Fontes.61
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
50. Fontes, Olavo T., M.D., "UAO Sightings Over Trindade," originally published in three parts in The A.P.R.O. Bulletin, Alamogordo, New Mexico, January, March, and May 1960; reprinted in full as "The Brazilian Navy UFO Sighting At The Island Of Trindade," Flying Saucers, Amherst, Wisconsin, Feb.'61.
51. United Press News wire from Rio de Janeiro, February 25, 1958; reprinted in Fontes, O.T., ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. 6 page document from the Brazilian Department of the Navy, General Staff of the Fleet, Subdivision of Information, "SUBJECT: Clarification of the observation of unidentified flying objects sighted on the Island of Trindade, in the period of 12/5/57 to 1/16/58." English translation in the papers of the late Dr. Edward U. Condon at the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia.
56. Interview with Almiro Barauna, O Globo, Rio de Janeiro, February 24, 1958; reprinted in Fontes, O.T., ibid.
57. Brazilian Navy report, ibid.
58. Sunderland, M., Capt., USN, ONI Information Report re "Brazilian Navy - Flying Saucer Photographed from ALMIRANTE SALDANHA," March 11, 1958; reprinted in Hynek, Dr. J. Allen, The Hynek UFO Report, Dell, 1977.
59. Hynek, ibid.
60. ATIC documents in the Condon papers at the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia.
1964: Landing case at socorro, new mexico;
There is a much more in depth report of the investigations carried out ect on this case but the primary summary below is sufficient just now in this section i feel;
************************************************** ********
THE UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT CASE HISTORIES;
1964: LANDING CASE AT SOCORRO, NEW MEXICO;
Until the experience of a small-town policeman in New Mexico, reports from persons claiming to have seen small beings in connection with UFOs on the ground (CE-III or Close Encounters of the Third Kind) were looked upon with considerable disfavor within the UFO research community. After the landing near Socorro, New Mexico, confirmed by a second reputable witness, attitudes changed. The years following this event produced an unprecedented flow of reports of high credibility and strangeness.
At about 5:45 p.m. on Friday, April 24, 1964 Socorro policeman Lonnie Zamora was chasing a speeding car when his attention was drawn to a peculiar sight in the sky. "At this time I heard a roar and saw a flame in the sky to the southwest some distance away." Thinking it might be an explosion connected with a building known to contain explosives, he forgot about the car chase, and sped off in the direction of the UFO.
The next time he saw it, it was on the ground, and from a distance it looked like a car that had overturned. As he drove closer, he could see that it resembled a large egg, sitting on one end and supported by slender legs. He stated:
"I saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled -seemed to quickly jump somewhat. I don't recall noting any particular shape or possibly any hats or headgear. These persons appeared normal in shape -but possibly they were small adults or small kids."
As he drove closer, a small hill blocked his view of the object, though at one point he heard a noise like a door closing. When he could again see the object, there was no one near it. He drove as close as the rough terrain would permit, stopped, parked his police cruiser and got out, intending to walk toward the craft. At this point "I heard about two or three loud 'thumps,' like someone possibly hammering or shutting a door or doors hard. These 'thumps' were possibly a second or less apart."
The white-suited individuals were not seen after he heard the thumps. As he started towards the object, it began to roar:
"It started at a low frequency, but quickly the roar rose in frequency and in loudness... Flames were under the object... light blue and at bottom was a sort of orange color."
Assuming it might be about to explode, Zamora quickly hid behind his cruiser for protection. The roaring then stopped and he looked up to see it hovering a few feet above the ground. "It was so quiet you could have heard a pin drop." The vehicle then moved away slowly, gathering speed as it headed toward the dynamite shack, which it cleared by a few feet.
Map of Socorro landing site and Zamora's sketches of the object and its insignia, from the Project Blue Book case file. Courtesy of Brad Steiger.
At this time, Zamora was joined by a police sergeant who watched the craft fly away into the distance. Zamora and the sergeant then walked to where it had been parked, and noted charred and singed grass, underbrush and imprints in the ground corresponding to where the vehicle had landed.62
Within hours, Zamora was interviewed by U.S. Army Captain Richard T. Holder, Up-Range Commander of the White Sands Missile Range, and by FBI Special Agent Arthur Byrnes, Jr., the latter requesting that the FBI's involvement be kept secret. Zamora described the object to them:
"It was smooth - no windows or doors. As the roar started, it was still on or near the ground. There was red lettering of some type. The insignia was about 2.5 feet [75 cm.] high and about 2 feet [60 cm.] wide. It was in the middle of the object. The object was... aluminum-white."
He then drew a sketch of the object with the red "insignia": half of a circle over an inverted V with a vertical line inside and horizontal line below.63 (See map above.)
A day or two later, Dr. J. Allen Hynek arrived to investigate the report for the Air Force's Project Blue Book. In addition to questioning Zamora, Hynek measured and photographed the landing site. He located what appeared to be impressions in the ground made by the landing gear, as well as several small footprints.
The case received rapid and extensive press coverage, and the Air Force was under pressure to explain it as something less momentous than a landed spacecraft. Among the explanations considered and rejected were a rancher's helicopter and an experimental NASA lunar lander.
In the end, Project Blue Book declared the report "unsolved," and Major Hector Quintanilla, the project's final director, stated that there is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object which left quite an impression on him:
"There is also no question about Zamora's reliability. He is a serious police officer, a pillar of his church, and a man well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles in his area. He is puzzled by what he saw, and frankly, so are we. This is the best-documented case on record, and still we have been unable, in spite of thorough investigation, to find the vehicle or other stimulus that scared Zamora to the point of panic."64
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
62. Written statement by Lonnie Zamora to Project Blue Book, 1964; reprinted in Steiger, Brad, ed. Project Blue Book, ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. Quintanilla, Hector, "The Investigation of UFO's," Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4, Fall 1966.
1967: Physiological case at falcon lake, canada;
Here is a case concerning a witness suffering actual burns after his encounter with a UFO, he was examined by a doctor and also found to be under extreme physiological effects;No matter the evidence in this case Professor Craig chose to dismiss the whole incident with curious reasoning in his final "Conclusion of 'Case 22'" for the Condon Report:Here we see evidence of the real nature of the debunking agenda by this governmental UFO investigation group named the Condon Report;
THE UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT CASE HISTORIES;
1967: PHYSIOLOGICAL CASE AT FALCON LAKE, CANADA;
The experience of Stephen Michalak in the Falcon Lake area in Manitoba, at noon on May 20, 1967, is a CE-II (Close Encounter of the Second Kind) on two counts: physical traces were found on the area where the UFO reportedly landed, and the witness experienced a series of physiological effects apparently linked to his close encounter with a metallic-looking, disc-shaped object. Michalak is an industrial mechanic from Winnipeg who was doing some amateur prospecting in the area.
Drawing with notes by Michalak of the landed UFO he encountered at Falcon Lake. Notice grill pattern (encircled) and compare to burn marks above. From the declassified files of the RCAF and RCMP. Courtesy of ICUFON Archives.
The case was investigated extensively by Canadian authorities, the Condon Commission, and several civilian UFO groups from the U.S. and Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Department of National Defense (DND), the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), and the Manitoba Department of Health were some of the agencies involved.
Canadian officials reacted quickly after some radioactive traces were detected in soil samples from the landing area as well as on Michalak's garments. Many reports and documents on the case were eventually released by the Canadian government. One document provides a full summary of the case and investigation:
"A Mr. Steven Michalak of Winnipeg, Manitoba reported that he had come into physical contact with a UFO during a prospecting trip in the Falcon Lake area, some 90 miles east of Winnipeg on the 20 May 67. Mr. Michalak stated that he was examining a rock formation when two UFOs appeared before him. One of the UFOs remained airborne in the immediate area for a few moments, then flew off at great speed. The second UFO landed a few hundred feet away from his position. As he approached the UFO, a side door opened and voices were heard coming from within.
"Mr. Michalak states he approached the object but was unable to see inside due to a bright yellow bluish light which blocked his vision. He endeavored to communicate with the personnel inside the object [in English, Russian, German, Italian, French and Ukrainian], but without result.
As he approached within a few feet of the object, the door closed. He heard a whining noise and the object commenced to rotate anti-clockwise and finally raised off the ground. He reached out with his left gloved hand and touched the object prior to its lifting off the ground; the glove burned immediately as he touched the object.
"As the object left the ground, the exhaust gases burned his cap, outer and inner garments, and he sustained rather severe stomach and chest burns. As a result of these he was hospitalized for a number of days. The doctors who attended and interviewed Mr. Michalak were unable to obtain any information which could account for the burns to his body. The personal items of clothing which were alleged to have been burnt by the UFO, were subjected to an extensive analysis at the RCMP Crime laboratory. The analysts were unable to reach any conclusion as to what may have caused the burn damage.
"Soil samples taken by Mr. Michalak from the immediate area occupied by the UFO were analyzed and found to be radioactive to a degree that the samples had to be safely disposed of. An examination of the alleged UFO landing area was made by a radiologist from the Department of Health and Welfare and a small area was found to be radioactive. The Radiologist was unable to provide an explanation as to what caused this area to become contaminated.
"Both DND and RCMP investigation teams were unable to provide evidence which would dispute Mr. Michalak's story."65
The RCAF investigation of Michalak, undertaken by Squadron Leader P. Bissky, was tough and highly skeptical. There were a few problems: Michalak failed to locate the landing site on two occasions when accompanied by the RCMP, but found it later with a friend. Much was made of this by physicist Roy Craig of the Condon committee, who eventually dismissed the case.66
However, Canadian researcher Chris Rutkowski makes a reasonable case of "disorientation in the wilderness" in discussing the details of the initial searches. Michalak had literally been taken from the hospital and flown in a helicopter by the RCAF to search for the spot. By the time of the third search, Michalak had partially recovered from his burns.67
Photograph of Stephen Michalak showing the geometric burn pattern on his body. Courtesy of ICUFON Archives.
S/L Bissky looked at the possibility of a hoax, searching for small details; for example whether Michalak had handled "radium sources" at the cement company where he worked as a mechanic. Although S/L Bissky was trying to find holes in the story, he had to admit that "notwithstanding the evidence as it appears, the abdominal burns sustained by Mr. Michalak remain unexplainable as to the source of the burn."68
Michalak underwent several medical examinations in the course of the following months. The first took place on the evening of May 20 at Misericordia General Hospital in Winnipeg, where Michalak was taken by his son following his return from Falcon Lake on the same day of the incident. The RCAF file includes a memorandum by a Deputy Base Surgeon who interviewed the physician who examined Michalak.
The physician was not aware that the injuries were reportedly linked to a close encounter with a UFO, but had just been told that it was an accident. Surgeon D.J. Scott reported:
"At examination the physician found an area of first degree burns over the upper abdomen, covering an area of 7-8 inches [17-20 cm.] and consisting of several round and irregular shaped burns the size of a silver dollar or less. These were a dull red in color, the hair over the lower chest was singed as was the hair on the forehead with some questionable redness of the right cheek and temple."69
It is interesting to note that the geometrical burn marks on Michalak's chest and abdomen appear to conform to "a grid-like exhaust vent" observed by Michalak. According to Rutkowski's report:
"Unexpectedly, the craft shifted position, and he was now facing a grid-like exhaust vent which he had seen earlier to his left. A blast of hot air shot on to his chest, and set his shirt and undershirt on fire, and also caused severe pain. He tore off his burning garments, and threw them to the ground. He then looked up in time to see the craft depart like the first, and felt a rush of air as it ascended...
He walked over to where he had left his things, and noticed that his compass was behaving erratically; after a few minutes, it became still. He went back to the landing site, and immediately felt nauseous and a surge of pain from a headache."70
Rutkowski summarized other physiological effects such as weight loss, "a drop of his blood lymphocyte count from 25 to 16 per cent," swelling of his body, and other ailments. He described as well the circumstances surrounding a series of physical and psychiatric tests undertaken by Michalak at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota in 1968, at his own expense.
Since Michalak was found in general good health, normal medical explanations such as neurodermatitis and hyperventilation were hypothesized. The psychiatrists determined that, despite the stress caused by all the publicity generated by his UFO experience, "there was no other evidence of delusions, hallucinations or other emotional disorders."71
One of the weaknesses of the case is that Michalak was the only witness. No one corroborated his crucial testimony of the landing or overflight of a disc-shaped object. Professor Craig chose to dismiss the whole incident with curious reasoning in his final "Conclusion of 'Case 22'" for the Condon Report:
"If Mr. A's [Michalak] reported experience were physically real, it would show the existence of alien flying vehicles in our environment. Attempts to establish the reality of the event revealed many inconsistencies and incongruities in the case, a number of which are described in this report. Developments subsequent to the field investigation have not altered the initial conclusion that this case does not offer probative information regarding unconventional craft."72
Yet a careful review of all the physical and medical evidence collected by the RCMP and others could easily lead one to the opposite conclusion. Moreover, some of the physiological effects reported in the Falcon Lake incident are not isolated events in the UFO literature. Aerospace engineer John Schuessler has been documenting UFO medical cases for many years, compiling a Catalog of Medical Injury Cases. The 1995 version of the catalog contains approximately 400 cases.73 Although this particular field requires further research, it is one area where at least "partial proof" can be offered.
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES;
65. "UFO Report - Falcon Lake, Man." Document in the RCMP case file; no author, agency or department are identified.
66. Gilmor, Daniel S., ibid.
67. Rutkowski, Chris, "The Falcon Lake Incident," 3-part article published in Flying Saucer Review, July, August and November 1981.
68. Bissky, S/L P., "Report of an Investigation Into the Reported UFO Sighting by Mr. Stephen Michalak on May 20, 1967 in Falcon Lake Area," in the RCAF file.
69. Scott, DJ, Deputy Base Surgeon, Memorandum to S/L P. Bissky, May 26, 1967; in the RCAF file.
70. Rutkowski, C., ibid.
71. Rutkowski, C., ibid.
72. Craig, Roy, "Case 22 North Central Spring 67," in Gilmor, D.S., ibid.
73. Schuessler, John F., "Developing a Catalog of UFO-Related Human Physiological Effects," MUFON 1995 International UFO Symposium Proceedings
1975:strategic air command bases ufo alert;
THE UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT CASE HISTORIES;
1975:STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND BASES UFO ALERT;
Visual sightings and radar tracking of UFOs in the vicinity of military installations have been reported since the beginning of the modern era. The number and nature of most of these events has been kept from the public by military security, but on occasion information has been released, although its significance is usually played down.
From late October through the middle of November 1975, high-security bases along the U.S.-Canada border were the scene of intrusions of what were euphemistically called "mystery helicopters," despite their unhelicopter-like appearance and behavior.
The most complete recounting of the events from anyone in the U.S. or Canadian Governments is from the Commander-in-Charge of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), on November 11, 1975:
"Part I. Since 28 Oct. '75, numerous reports of suspicious objects have been received at the NORAD CU. Reliable military personnel at Loring AFB, Maine, Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan, Malmstrom AFB, Montana, Minot AFB, North Dakota, and Canadian Forces Station Falconbridge, Ontario, Canada, have visually sighted suspicious objects.
"Part II. Objects at Loring and Wurtsmith were characterized to be helicopters. Missile Site Personnel, Security Alert Teams, and Air Defense Personnel at Malmstrom AFB, Montana report an object which sounded like a jet aircraft. FAA advised there were no jet aircraft in the vicinity. Malmstrom search and height finder radars carried the object between 9,500 ft. [2,900 m.] and 15,600 ft. [4,850 m.] at a speed of seven knots [9 mph or 14 km./hr.].
There was intermittent radar contact with the object from 080753Z through 0900Z November 1975. F-106's scrambled from Malmstrom could not make contact due to darkness and low altitude. Site personnel reported the object as low as 200 ft. [60 m.] and said that as the interceptors approached, the lights went out. After the interceptors had passed, the lights came on again, one hour after the F-106's returned to base. Missile site personnel reported the object increased to a high speed, raised [sic] in altitude and could not be discerned from the stars.
"Part III. Minot AFB on 10 Nov. reported that the site was buzzed by a bright object the size of a car at an altitude of 1,000 to 2,000 ft. [300 to 600 m.]. There was no noise emitted by the vehicle.
"Part IV. This morning, 11 Nov. '75 CFS Falconbridge reported search and height finding radar paints on an object 25 to 30 nautical miles [30 to 35 statute miles or 48 to 56 km.] south of the site ranging in altitude from 26,000 ft. to 72,000 ft. [6,500 m. to 18,000 m.]. The site commander and other personnel say the object appeared as a bright star but much closer. With binoculars, the object appeared as a 100 ft. diameter sphere and appeared to have craters around the outside.
"Part V. Be assured that this command is doing everything possible to identify and provide solid factual information on these sightings. I have also expressed my concern to SAFOI [Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Information] that we come up soonest with a proposed answer to queries from the press to prevent over reaction by the public to reports by the media that may be blown out of proportion. To date, efforts by Air (National) Guard helicopters, SAC helicopters and NORAD F-106s have failed to produce positive ID [identification]."74
The most important fact omitted from the NORAD report was that many of the sightings were of objects over or near areas used for the storage of nuclear weapons. This fact is clearly established by other declassified documents which mention that, "in the interest of nuclear weapons security the action addressees will assume Security Option III during hours of darkness until further notice." A SAC message on the subject of "Defense Against Helicopter Assault," captures the alert mood:
"Several recent sightings of unidentified aircraft/helicopters flying/hovering over Priority A restricted areas during the hours of darkness have prompted the implementation of security Option 3 at our northern tier bases. Since 27 Oct. 75, sightings have occurred at Loring AFB, Wurtsmith AFB, and most recently, at Malmstrom AFB. All attempts to identify these aircraft have met with negative results."75
With the exception of the object reported form CFS Falconbridge, only limited descriptions were given of the appearance of the UFOs. From a variety of military sources come these descriptions:
"October 28, Loring AFB, Maine. Unknown craft with a white flashing light and an amber or orange light. Red and orange object, about four car-lengths long. Moving in jerky motions, stopped and hovered. The object looked like all the colors were blended together; the object was solid.
"October 30, Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan. One light pointing downward, and two red lights near the rear. Hovered and moved up and down in an erratic manner. A KC-135 aerial tanker crew established visual and radar contact with UFO: 'Each time we attempted to close on the object, it would speed away from us. Finally, we turned back in the direction of the UFO and it
really took off... I know this might sound crazy, but I would estimate that the UFO sped away from us doing approximately 1,000 knots [1,150 mph or 1,800 km./hr.].'
"November 7, Malmstrom AFB, Montana. A Sabotage Alert Team described seeing a brightly glowing orange, football field-sized disc that illuminated the Minuteman ICBM missile site. As F-106 jet interceptors approached, the UFO took off straight up, NORAD radar tracking it to an altitude of 200,000 feet [38 miles or 60 km.]. An object... emitted a light which illuminated the site driveway. The orange-gold object overhead also has small lights on it.
"November 8, Malmstrom AFB. Radar showed up to 7 objects at 9,500 to 15,000 feet [2,900 m. to 4,700 m.]. Ground witnesses reported lights and the sound of jet engines, but radar showed objects flying at only 7 kts. [8 mph or 13 km./hr.].
"November 10, Minot AFB, North Dakota. A bright, noiseless object about the size of a car buzzed the base at 1,000-2,000 feet [300-600 m.]."76
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
74. Official U.S. Air Force report, NORAD, November 11, 1975.
75. CINCSAC Offutt AFB message, "Subject: Defense Against Helicopter Assault," November 10, 1975.
76. Extracts: 24 NORAD Region Senior Director Log November 1975.
1976:multiple witness case in the canary islands
This another one of those cases that stand out like a sore thumb so to speak, that they have multiple witnesses and photo graphic evidence adds even more lives of high strangeness;
************************************************** ********
THE UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT CASE HISTORIES;
1976:MULTIPLE WITNESS CASE IN THE CANARY ISLANDS;
A large unidentified luminous phenomenon was observed throughout the Spanish Canary Islands on the night of June 22, 1976. Newspaper headlines proclaimed the following day that "thousands of people" had seen a "spectacular luminous phenomenon" which "lasted twenty minutes and was observed from Tenerife, La Palma and La Gomera."77 The most sensational aspect was the experience of a medical doctor and his taxi driver, who reported a transparent sphere with two tall entities inside.
Photograph of large luminous phenomenon seen over the Canary Islands in June 1976. From the declassified file of the Spanish Air Force. Courtesy of Antonio Huneeus.
On June 25, 1976, the Commanding General of the Canaries' Air Zone named an "Investigative Adjutant" to investigate the case. Copies of some of the depositions, though technically confidential, were given by a Spanish Air Force General to journalist J.J. Benitez in October 1976, who subsequently published them in his book UFOs: Official Documents of the Spanish Government.78
The complete Air Force file on the case, comprising over 100 pages of questionnaires, evaluation, appendices, illustrations, etc., was officially declassified in June 1994, as part of the ongoing public release of the Spanish Air Force UFO files which began in 1992.
The Air Force file contains depositions with fourteen witnesses. In a previously established methodology, it divides observers into four categories according to their reliability: from high credibility rating (pilots, aeronautical engineers, astronomers) all the way to a very unreliable rating (those who were illiterate, mentally impaired or under the influence of alcohol or drugs).
Likewise, each observation is also divided into four levels, according to the number and quality of additional witnesses, radar evidence, etc. The dossier also included a color photograph of the phenomenon, taken by a tourist and obtained with the assistance of the Civil Guard; according to the photo lab where the film was developed, "no trickery or modification of any kind was added."
The Investigative Adjutant reconstructed the sequence of events in his final report. The first observation was made at 21:27 hrs. on June 22, 1976 by the entire crew of the corvette Atrevida of the Spanish Navy, which was located 3 nm (3.5 statute miles or 5.5 km.) off Punta Lantailla on the coast of Fuerteventura Island. The ship's captain provided a detailed description of the event:
"At 21:27 (Z) hrs. on 22 June, we saw an intense yellowish-bluish light moving out from the shore towards our position. At first we thought it was an aircraft with its landing lights on. Then, when the light had attained a certain elevation (15 - 18 degrees), it became stationary. The original light went out and a luminous beam from it began to rotate. It remained like this for approximately two minutes. Then an intense great halo of yellowish and bluish light developed, and remained in the same position for 40 minutes, even though the original phenomenon was no longer visible.
"Two minutes after the great halo, the light split into two parts, the smaller part being beneath, in the center of the luminous halo, where a blue cloud appeared and the part from which the bluish nucleus had come, vanished. The upper part began to climb in a spiral, rapid and irregular, and finally vanished.
None of these movements affected the initial circular halo in any way, which remained just the same the whole time, its glow lighting up parts of the land and the ocean, from which we could deduce that the phenomenon was not very far away from us, but was close."79 (see diagram 1)
The file also includes the deposition of a lieutenant, the Atrevida's first officer, and indicates "the phenomenon was initially observed by the entire crew" of the Navy warship. The report adds that no echo was detected on the ship's surface radar. Three minutes later, at 21:30 hrs., a very similar phenomenon was observed by many people in the Grand Canary Island.
The majority of the witnesses interviewed by the Air Force were from the villages of Galdar, Las Rosas and Agaete. They were from different professions: medical doctor, school teacher, farmer, sergeant, two taxi drivers, police guard and laborers. Newspapers and UFO investigators located additional witnesses in the islands.
The Investigative Adjutant determined that there was no aerial traffic or military exercises at the time that could account for the phenomenon. The observation itself was divided into two categories: the large luminous halo in the sky, seen by many people; and the smaller luminous globe with two figures inside, observed by a doctor, a taxi driver and one woman. The Adjutant had no problem accepting the reality of the first event. Noting that it was vouched for officially by the crew of the Atrevida, he added:
"Then, numerous witnesses belonging to different positions and cultural strata, saw it with similar characteristics in the Grand Canary island. Therefore, the fact that a very strange and peculiar aerial phenomenon occurred on the night of 22 June is a true and proven fact, as incredible as its behavior and conditions may seem."
The Adjutant considered four possible explanations - aircraft, missile test, aurora, and meteor fall - only to reject each hypothesis, one at a time. The report also considered and rejected other explanations such as weather balloons and meteorological phenomena, admitting that "its nature is totally unknown." 80
The Investigative Adjutant, however, had more problems accepting the reality of the CE-III (Close Encounter of the Third Kind) described by some of the witnesses. Not because he questioned their veracity or suspected them of hoaxing, but simply because of the nature of the report.
The CE-III's main witness was a physician from the town of Guía, Dr. Francisco Padrón León. His deposition is the longest in the file. The Air Force had also checked his background and psychological condition. Dr. Padrón explained that he had been called to attend a patient and was riding in a taxi to see her in the town of Las Rosas:
"We were talking about hunting... as we entered the last part of the road, the car lights pointed at a slightly luminous sphere that was stationary and very close to the ground, although I can't say for sure if it was touching it; it was made of a totally transparent and crystalline-like material, since it was possible to see through it the stars in the sky; it had an electric blue color but tenuous, without dazzling;
It had a radius of about 30 m. [100 ft.], and in the lower third of the sphere you could see a platform of aluminum-like color as if made of metal, and three large consoles. At each side of the center there were two huge figures of 2.50 to 3 m. [8.5 to 10 ft.] tall, but no taller than 3 m. [10 ft.], dressed entirely in red and facing each other in such a way that I always saw their profile." (see diagram 2)
They were humanoid in shape with the head proportionate to the thorax and wearing some kind of head gear. Dr. Padrón asked the taxi driver if he was seeing the same thing, and he exclaimed, "My God! What is that?" As the car reached the patient's house, the doctor noted:
"Then I observed that some kind of bluish smoke was coming out from a semi-transparent central tube in the sphere, covering the periphery of the sphere's interior without leaking outside at any moment. Then the sphere began to grow and grow until it became huge like a 20-story house, but the platform and the crew remained the same size; it rose slowly and majestically and it seems I heard a very tenuous whistling."
Dr. Padrón entered the house and alerted the residents, who went outside and saw:
"The sphere, now high, was moving slowly toward Tenerife; suddenly it reached enormous speed like none I ever saw in an airplane; the sphere dissolved into a bluish spindle-shape with red underneath; a brilliant white halo was formed close to the object, which bit by bit was forming another very brilliant blue halo. It disappeared in the direction of Tenerife."81
Dr. Padrón's testimony was confirmed by the taxi driver, who also saw "a craft that looked as if it was made of transparent crystal," about 25 m. (85 ft.) high and 20 m. (65 ft.) wide, with "two persons dressed in brilliant red inside." In addition, there was a third witness, an illiterate woman who was a relative of the doctor's patient. She was watching TV when the screen went blank and the dogs began to bark. She ran to the window in time to:
"... see the doctor's car and just above it the great blue ball... It was like a perfectly round globe, but very big, transparent, the stars could be seen through it. She saw two man-like figures inside, but she is not completely sure as she panicked, closed the windows and doors of the house and began to pray."
Diagram 1: The transparent sphere with two tall occupants seen by a medical doctor and two other witnesses. From the declassified file of the Spanish Air Force. Courtesy of Antonio Hunneus.
Diagram 2: Diagram of the phenomenon seen by the crew of the Spanish Navy corvette Atrevida.
Because of the strange nature of the CE-III, the Investigative Adjutant had reservations accepting it. He remarked that:
"We should forcefully consider the VERY PROBABLE [sic] circumstance that both witnesses, facing the presence of an unusual phenomenon in the sky, narrated what their 'minds' made them see, mutually influencing each other. This Investigative Adjutant doesn't have the slightest doubt about their seriousness and sincerity. They told what they unquestionably 'believed' to have seen."83
The Adjutant's final conclusion, however, was that what the crew of the corvette Atrevida and many other witnesses observed in the sky on the night on June 22, was indeed an "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon." It is important to note that this incident was neither the first nor the last UFO report investigated officially in the Canary Islands.
On November 19, 1976, the Commanding General of the Canaries' Air Zone, Gen. Carlos Dols de Espejo, and his aides observed first-hand another large halo while flying on an Air Force T-12 transport plane. The crew of a Spanish Navy training ship and the personnel at the Gando Air Base also reported the phenomenon. The Investigative Adjutant in that case concluded his report:
"If we study as a whole the three reports issued up to the present (1/75, 1/76, and 2/76), we should have to think seriously of the necessity of considering the possibility of accepting the hypothesis that a craft of unknown origin, propelled by an equally unknown energy, is moving freely over the skies in the Canaries."84
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
77. Benítez, J.J., OVNIS: Documentos Oficiales del Gobierno Español, Barcelona, Plaza & Janes, 1977.
78. Ibid.
79. Deposition No. B-07 of the Captain of Corvette in the Spanish Air Force file; English translation by Gordon Creighton, Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1977.
80. Adjutant's Report, Las Palmas Aerial Sector, July 16, 1976.
81. Deposition No. A-01 by Dr. Francisco Padrón León in the Spanish Air Force file.
82. Deposition No. A-02 by taxi driver and No. B-05 by woman in Galdar, in the Spanish Air Force file.
83. Adjutant's Report, ibid.
84. Benítez, J.J., "Informe 02/76 de las Fuerzas Aéreas españolas," Mundo Desconocido, Barcelona, September 1979; quoted in Huneeus, Antonio, "Top Spanish General sees UFO", The News World, New York, December 5, 1981.
1976:ufo dog-fight over tehran;
Astounding report, again military involvement in these kind of cases is hard to ignore;The nature of the military conclusions like other cases like it suggests that unknown objects displaying advanced technology are entering and leaving various country's restricted air space;
************************************************** *******
THE UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT CASE HISTORIES;
1976:UFO DOG-FIGHT OVER TEHRAN;
One of the best documented UFO-aircraft incidents took place over the skies of Tehran, Iran, on the night of September 18-19, 1976, when a UFO was observed flying over the capital's restricted airspace.
Two U.S.-made F-4 Phantom II jet fighters of the Imperial Iranian Air Force were scrambled, but as the pilots closed in on the target, their communications and weapons systems were suddenly jammed. The incident was confirmed by high ranking officers of the Iranian Air Force and later documented by several agencies of the U.S. military.
Lt. General Azarbarzin, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of Operations of the Imperial Iranian Air Force, confirmed in a 1977 interview the strong electromagnetic effect experienced by the two F-4s:
"That is true. They both were scrambled and they locked on the target but they received a very strong jamming. And then they lost almost every avionics system they had on the airplane... The jets couldn't fire their missiles because they had very strong jamming... this technology it [UFO] was using for jamming was something we haven't had before and we don't have it. It doesn't exist because it was a very wide band and could jam different bands, different frequencies at the same time. It's very unusual."85
General Nader Yousefi, Base Operations commander and the number three man in the Imperial Iranian Air Force, authorized the scramble mission and was also an eyewitness, as described in a recent TV interview:
"I put down my phone [with the Control Tower] and I ran to my balcony to see if I can see that object. I saw a big star among the other stars, which it was at least twice as large as the normal stars... It was around 12 miles [19 km.], we lost communication and I heard nothing from the pilots, so I was so scared what's going to happen and what happened to the pilots.
I asked from the tower controller to tell them to continue their mission and see if they can get more information from the flying object... and it [UFO] was coming toward them, they try to shoot them down, when they squeezed the trigger it didn't work and the trigger was inoperative, they couldn't shoot the missiles."86
The sequence of events can be reconstructed from both Iranian sources and declassified U.S. intelligence documents:
Between 10:30 and 11:15 p.m. on September 18, several calls were received by the Control Tower at Mehrabad Airport, reporting an unknown object hovering 1,000 feet (300 m.) above the ground in the northern section of Tehran. The night shift supervisor, Hossain Perouzi, initially didn't pay too much attention. The radar system was turned off since it was under repair. After he received the fourth telephone call at 11:15 p.m., Perouzi went to the terrace next to the tower and observed the UFO with binoculars:
"Suddenly I saw it. It was rectangular in shape, probably seven to eight meters [24 to 27 ft.] long and about two meters [7 ft.] wide. From later observations I made, I would say it was probably cylindrical. The two ends were pulsating with a whitish blue color. Around the mid-section of the cylinder there was this small red light that kept going around in a circle... I was amazed. I didn't know what to think. There definitely was a very strange object there in the sky right over Tehran."87
At 12:30 a.m. on September 19, Perouzi called the Air Force Command post to report the UFO. The Base Commander, in turn, called General Yousefi, who authorized the scramble of an F-4 Phantom jet from Shahrokhi AFB to investigate. The first scramble is summarized in a "Memorandum for Record" from the U.S. Defense Attaché Office (DAO) in Tehran:
"The F-4 took off at 01:30 a.m. and proceeded to a point about 40 nm [45 statute miles or 75 km.] North of Tehran. Due to its brilliance the object was easily visible from 70 miles [110 km.] away. As the F-4 approached a range of 25 nm [29 statute miles or 46 km.], he lost all instrumentation and communications (UHF and Intercom). He broke off the intercept and headed back to Shahrokhi. When the F-4 turned away from the object and apparently was no longer a threat to it, the aircraft regained all instrumentation and communications."88
At 01:40 a.m., Gen. Yousefi authorized a second F-4 scramble piloted by Lt. Jafari, who quickly established radar contact with the UFO. The DAO Memorandum describes the events of the second scramble:
"The size of the radar return was comparable to that of a [Boeing] 707 tanker. The visual size of the object was difficult to discern because of its intense brilliance. The light that it gave off was that of flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern of alternating blue, green, red and orange, in color. The sequence of the lights was so fast that all the colors could be seen at once.
"The object and the pursuing F-4 continued a course to the south of Tehran when another brightly lighted object, estimated to be .5 to .33 the apparent size of the moon, came out of the original object. The second object headed straight toward the F-4 at a very fast rate. The pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 missile at the object, but at that instant his weapons control panel went off and he lost all communications (UHF and Interphone). At this point, the pilot initiated a turn and negative G dive to get away."89
The aircraft electric system went back to normal once the F-4 reached a certain distance from the UFO. The small object returned to the primary object, but a second one emerged and flew toward the ground. Gen. Yousefi observed the landing from the balcony of his Tehran residence:
"He went down and landed on the ground and now it is a communication between the mothership and that small flying object, and it shows the lights between those two is connected."90
More strange events were still reported that night. A UFO seemed to follow the F-4 as it approached the runway, and a civil airliner experienced communications failure but did not see anything. The DAO Memorandum describes the investigation early that morning:
"During daylight, the F-4 crew was taken out to the area in a helicopter where the object apparently had landed. Nothing was noticed at the spot where they thought the object landed (a dry lake bed), but as they circled off to the West of the area they picked up a very noticeable beeper signal. At that point, where the return was the loudest was a small house with a garden. They landed and asked the people within if they had noticed anything strange last night. The people talked about a loud noise and a very bright light like lightning."91
The trail ends there. Although the Attaché Office added that the area had been checked for possible radiation and that "more information will be forwarded when it becomes available," the details surrounding the beeper signal and the ground witnesses have not been released. A report published in a 1978 classified U.S. military journal, MIJI Quarterly, basically repeats the facts contained in the original DAO message, although its author begins the article with this interesting remark:
"Sometime in his career, each pilot can expect to encounter strange, unusual happenings which will never be adequately or entirely explained by logic or subsequent investigation. The following article recounts such an episode as reported by two F-4 Phantom crews of the Imperial Iranian Air Force during late 1976. No additional information or explanation of the strange events has been forthcoming; the story will be filed away and probably forgotten, but it makes interesting, and possibly disturbing, reading."92
Recent taped testimonies by Iranian Air Force Generals Nader Yousefi and Mahmoud Sabahat, now retired and living in exile in the United States, reveal that Gen. John Secord, then chief of the USAF mission in Iran, attended a high level briefing with Iranian authorities and the pilots and air traffic controllers involved in the incident. A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) "Evaluation" summarized the salient features of the Iranian incident:
"An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon:
"a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e. Shemiram, Mehrabad and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).
"b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force General, qualified aircrews, and experienced radar operators).
"c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.
"d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.
"e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e. loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).
"f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs."93
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
85. Cathcart, John, transcript of interview with Lt. Gen. Azarbarzin, January 4, 1977, filed with the Fund for UFO Research.
86. International Noor Productions, Sherman Oaks, California, videotaped interview with Gen. Yousefi, shown in the TV program Sightings, 1994.
87. Petrozian, transcript of interview with Hosain Perouzi, December 22, 1976, filed with the Fund for UFO Research.
88. Mody, Lt. Colonel Olin, USAF, Memorandum for Record, "Subject: UFO Sighting," undated; the text appears virtually identical to an "unclassified" message from the Defense Attaché Office in Tehran, September 23, 1976.
89. Ibid.
90. International Noor Productions, ibid.
91. Mody, ibid.
92. Shields, Captain Henry. USAFE, "Now You See It, Now You Don't." United States Air Force Security Service, MIJI Quarterly, October 1978.
93. Defense Information Report Evaluation, DIA, October 12, 1976; reprinted in The UFO Cover-up, by Lawrence Fawcett & Barry Greenwood, Simon & Schuster, 1992.
06-17-2011, 09:37 AM
Fatal Guillotine
1980:ufo incidents at rendlesham forest, england
Well this case deserves its own thread but a primary summery below is included;
************************************************** ********
THE UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT CASE HISTORIES;
1980:UFO INCIDENTS AT RENDLESHAM FOREST, ENGLAND;
Several UFO incidents, including multiple-witness sightings by military personnel and ground traces with above normal radioactive readings, were reported in late December 1980 at the Rendlesham Forest in Suffolk, England. The site was near two then-important NATO bases leased to the U.S. Air Force: RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge.
Although details and dates reported by various investigators in the past decade are somewhat confusing, there is an official record of the case in a memorandum to the British Ministry of Defence (MOD), signed by USAF Lt. Col. Charles I. Halt, Bentwaters Deputy Base Commander:
"SUBJECT: Unexplained Lights
TO: RAF/CC
"1. Early in the morning of 27 December, 1980 (approximately 0300L, or 3 a.m. local time), two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge. Thinking an aircraft might have crashed or been forced down, they called for permission to go outside the gate to investigate. The on-duty flight chief responded and allowed three patrolmen to proceed on foot. The individuals reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest.
The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three meters [7 to 10 ft.] across the base and approximately two meters [6.5 ft.] high. It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs. As the patrolmen approached the object, it maneuvered through the trees and disappeared. At this time, the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy. The object was briefly sighted approximately an hour later near the back gate."94
In addition to Col. Halt's summary, testimony was provided by the USAF patrolmen involved in the case. Law enforcement airman John Burroughs wrote an official deposition of his experience after spotting some lights while on patrol near Woodbridge's East Gate:
"We stopped the truck where the road stopped and went on foot. We crossed a small open field that lead into the trees where the lights were coming from and as we were coming into the trees there were strange noises, like a woman was screaming, also the woods lit up and you could hear the farm animals making a lot of noise and there was a lot of movement in the woods. All three of us hit the ground and whatever it was started moving back towards the open field and after a minute or two we got up and moved into the trees and the lights moved out into the open field."95
Burroughs drew a sketch of the object in his official statement. (see sketch below) In a 1990 interview, Burroughs described the object as:
"A bank of lights, differently colored lights that threw off an image of like-a-craft. I never saw anything metallic or anything hard."
Yet the most interesting part of his testimony is not the presence of the lights, but rather his sensation of an altered state of consciousness:
"Everything seemed like it was different when we were in that clearing. The sky didn't seem the same... it was like a weird feeling, like everything seemed slower than you were actually doing, and all of a sudden when the object was gone, everything was like normal again."96
The testimonies of Burroughs and the other members of the USAF security patrol were confirmed the following day by the finding of ground traces with radioactive readings in the forest. Col. Halt summarized the events in his memorandum to the MOD:
"2. The next day, three depressions 1.5 feet [.5 m.] deep and 7 feet [2 m.] in diameter were found where the object had been sighted on the ground. The following night (29 December, 1980) the area was checked for radiation. Beta/gamma readings of 0.1 milliroentgen were recorded with peak readings in the three depressions and near the center of the triangle formed by the depressions. A nearby tree had moderate (.05-.07) readings on the side of the tree toward the depressions."97
Col. Halt, moreover, became directly involved in the UFO incidents when he led a second patrol into the forest two nights later. He made an audio tape recording describing live the puzzling events of that night. While the tape runs for about 20 minutes, it covers a span of over three hours, so there are obviously cuts in between. The tape describes their efforts to carry on the radiation readings quoted above and, as the night goes on, the voices become increasingly excited as strange lights appear in the forest:
"OK, we're looking at the thing, we're probably about two or three hundred yards. It looks like an eye winking at you. It's still moving from side to side and when you put the starscope [a night vision device] on it, it's like this thing has a hollow center, a dark center. It's a bit like a pupil of an eye looking at you, winking, and the flash is so bright through the starscope that it almost burns your eye."
Sketch with notes by USAF law enforcement patrolman John Burroughs of the UFO he encountered at the Rendlesham Forest after Christmas 1980. Courtesy of Antonio Huneeus.
Col. Halt summarized these events in the third part of his memo to the MOD:
"3. Later in the night, a red sun-like light was seen through the trees. It moved about and pulsed. At one point, it appeared to throw off glowing particles and then broke into five separate white objects and then disappeared. Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed in the sky, two objects to the north and one to the south, all of which were about 10 degrees off the horizon.
The objects moved rapidly in sharp angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights. The objects to the north appeared to be elliptical through an 8-12 power lens. They then turned to full circles. The objects to the north remained in the sky for an hour or more. The object to the south was visible for two or three hours and beamed down a stream of light from time to time. Numerous individuals, including the undersigned, witnessed the activities in paragraphs 2 & 3."99
Charles Halt discussed the case again after retiring from the USAF with the rank of full colonel. He told the TV program Unsolved Mysteries in 1991:
"I was very skeptical. I found what allegedly had taken place hard to believe, and I was really going to debunk it quite frankly; and as events unfolded I became more and more concerned that there maybe is something to this... I kept telling myself that there had to be some type of explanation for it, but I certainly couldn't find one and even to this day I can't explain what happened."
Col. Halt alluded to the military implications of the event when describing beams from the object pointing to the weapons storage area a Woodbridge:
"We could very clearly see it... I noticed other beams of light coming down from the same object falling on different places on the base. My boss was standing in his front yard in Woodbridge and he could see the beams of light falling down, and the people in the weapons storage area and other places on the base also reported the lights."100
Many accounts and commentaries have been published on the Rendlesham Forest or Bentwaters incidents. Some, like the appearance of ghost-like entities, are still enveloped by controversy. The Rendlesham events have been mentioned in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and looked into by Nebraska Senator James Exon.101
A re-examination of the Rendlesham Forest UFO incidents was undertaken recently by Nick Pope during his 3-year tour as head of the MOD Secretariat Air Staff (AS2) office, which inherited the UFO reporting function from DS8. Mr. Pope checked with radiation experts as to the significance of the 0.1 milliroentgen of beta/gamma readings taken by Col. Halt's patrol:
"I went to an organization called the Defense Radiological Protection Service, which is a unit attached to the Institute of Naval Medicine near Gosport, Hampshire, and they told me that the levels of radiation reported by Col. Halt in that memo were ten times what they should be in that area compared to their background samples."102
British author and researcher Ralph Noyes was for four years the head of Defense Secretariat 8 (DS8), retiring in 1977 with the rank of Under Secretary of State. He wrote regarding this case:
"Our worried skeptical colleagues have already had to advance an extraordinary hotch-potch of explanations: space debris, a bright meteor, a police car, drink and drugs, a lighthouse, other lights on the coast, dear old Sirius.
"Occam, you will remember, urged us to cut away unnecessary complications in our attempts to explain phenomena and to look for the simplest explanation.
The simplest explanation of Halt's memorandum is that he was reporting - as precisely as wondrous events permit - what he and 'numerous individuals' encountered on December 29/30, together with such facts as he had been able to ascertain from his subordinates about the occurrences of December 26/27."103
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
94. Halt, Lt. Col. Charles I., USAF, Memorandum to MOD, "SUBJECT: Unexplained Lights," January 13,1980.
95. Huneeus, Antonio, "The Testimony of John Burroughs," Fate, September 1993.
96. Ibid.
97. Halt, C. I., ibid.
98. Transcript of Col. Halt's audio recording published in Good, T., Above Top Secret, Quill, William Morrow, 1988.
99. Halt, C. I., ibid.
100. Interview with Col. (Ret.) Halt, Unsolved Mysteries, "U.S. military officers discuss a 1980 sighting of an unidentified flying craft near a U.S. air base in England," originally broadcast on NBC-TV on September 18, 1991.
101. See Butler, Street & Randles, Sky Crash, Neville Spearman, 1984; Randles, J., From Out of the Blue, Global Communications, 1991; "The Bentwaters Incident," articles by Jenny Randles, Ray Boeche and Antonio Huneeus, Fate, September 1993.
102. Pope, Nick, lecture at the New Hampshire MUFON Conference, Portsmouth, September 10, 1995.
103. Noyes, Ralph, "UFO lands in Suffolk - and that's Official," chapter in Timothy Good's anthology, The UFO Report 1990, Sidgewick & Jackson, 1989.
Diagram: The UFO landing at Trans-en-Provence with insert of craft seen by farmer Nicolai.
Courtesy of CNES/SEPRA;
On the afternoon of January 8, 1981, a strange craft landed on a farm near the village of Trans-en-Provence in the Var region in southeastern France. Physical traces left on the ground were collected by the Gendarmerie within 24 hours and later analyzed in several French government laboratories. Extensive evidence of anomalous activity was detected.
The case was investigated by the Groupe d'Etudes des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (GEPAN), or Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena Study Group, established in 1977 within the National Center for Space Studies (CNES) in Toulouse, the French counterpart of NASA. (The functions of GEPAN were reorganized in 1988 into the Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrées Atmosphériques or SEPRA). The primary investigator was Jean-Jacques Velasco, the current head of SEPRA.
The witness was the farmer Renato Nicolai, 55, on whose property the UFO landed and then took-off almost immediately. Thinking that it was a military experimental device, Nicolai notified the local gendarmes on the following day.
The gendarmes interviewed Nicolai and collected soil and plant samples from the landing site within 24 hours of the occurrence, notifying GEPAN on January 12 as part of a cooperation agreement for UFO investigation between the two agencies. Further collection of samples and measurements of the site were undertaken by the GEPAN team, and the samples were thoroughly analyzed by several government laboratories.
The first detailed report on the case was published by GEPAN in 1983 in its "Technical Note No. 16, Inquiry 81/01, Analysis of a Trace." Nicolai's testimony to the police was simple and straightforward:
"My attention was drawn to a small noise, a kind of little whistling. I turned around and I saw, in the air, a ship which was just about the height of a pine tree at the edge of my property. This ship was not turning but was descending toward the ground. I only heard a slight whistling. I saw no flames, neither underneath or around the ship.
"While the ship was continuing to descend, I went closer to it, heading toward a little cabin. I was able to see very well above the roof. From there I saw the ship standing on the ground.
"At that moment, the ship began to emit another whistling, a constant, consistent whistling. Then it took off and once it was at the height of the trees, it took off rapidly... toward the northeast. As the ship began to lift off, I saw beneath it four openings from which neither smoke nor flames were emitting. The ship picked up a little dust when it left the ground.
"I was at that time about 30 meters [100 feet] from the landing site. I thereafter walked towards the spot and I noticed a circle about two meters [7 feet] in diameter. At certain spots on the curve of the circle, there were tracks (or traces).
"The ship was in the form of two saucers upside down, one against the other. It must have been about 1.5 meters [5 feet] high. It was the color of lead. The ship had a border or type of brace around its circumference. Underneath the brace, as it took off, I saw two kinds of round pieces which could have been landing gear or feet. There were also two circles which looked like trap doors. The two feet, or landing gear, extended about 20 centimeters [8 inches] beneath the body of the whole ship."104 (See diagram and photograph)
The samples of soil and wild alfalfa collected from the landing site, as well as the control samples from varying distances from the epicenter, were subjected to a number of analyses: physico-chemical analysis at the SNEAP laboratory, electronic diffraction studies at Toulouse University, mass spectrometry by ion bombardment at the University of Metz, and biochemical analysis of the vegetable samples at the National Institute of Agronomy Research (INRA), among others.105
The Trans-en-Provence case is very likely the most thoroughly scientifically documented CE-II (Close Encounter of the Second Kind) ever investigated. Some of the scientific findings included:
"Traces were still perceptible 40 days after the event.
"There was a strong mechanical pressure forced (probably the result of a heavy weight) on the surface.
"A thermatic heating of the soil, perhaps consecutive to or immediately following the shock, the value of which did not exceed 600 degrees.
"The chlorophyll pigment in the leaf samples was weakened from 30 to 50 percent... The young leaves withstood the most serious losses, evolving toward the content and composition more characteristic of old leaves."
"The action of nuclear irradiation does not seem to be analogous with the energy source implied with the observed phenomenon; on the other hand, a specific intensification of the transformation of chlorophyll... could be tied to the action of a type of electric energy field.
"On the biochemical level, the analysis was made on the entirety of the factors of photosynthesis, lipids, sugars and amino acids. There were many differences between those samples further from the spot of the landing and those that were closer to the spot.
"It was possible to qualitatively show the occurrence of an important event which brought with it deformations of the terrain caused by mass, mechanics, a heating effect, and perhaps certain transformations and deposits of trace minerals.
"We cannot give a precise and unique interpretation to this remarkable combination of results. We can state that there is, nonetheless, another confirmation of a very significant event which happened on this spot."
Photograph: Ground traces found in Trans-en-Provence in January 1981. Courtesy of CNES/SEPRA.
Most of the puzzling biochemical mutations were discovered by Michel Bounias of INRA. Describing the young leaves to a journalist from France-Soir magazine, Bounias stated in 1983 that:
"From an anatomical and physiological point, they [leaves] had all the characteristics of their age, but they presented the biochemical characteristics of leaves of an advanced age: old leaves! And that doesn't resemble anything that we know on our planet."107
In a technical report published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Bounias concluded that:
"It was not the aim of the author to identify the exact nature of the phenomenon observed on the 8th of January 1981 at Trans-en-Provence. But it can reasonably be concluded that something unusual did occur that might be consistent, for instance, with an electromagnetic source of stress.
The most striking coincidence is that at the same time, French physicist J.P. Petit was plotting the equations that led, a few years later (Petit, 1986), to the evidence that flying objects could be propelled at very high speeds without turbulence nor shock waves using the magnetohydrodynamic effects of Laplace force action!" 108 (See chart 1.)
Chart 1: Summary and Conclusion of Trans-en-Provence case.
Courtesy of CNES/SEPRA.
Out of a total of 2,500 reports collected officially in France since 1977 and investigated by GEPAN, this case and three other ground trace incidents (where strange ground traces were left after alleged UFO landings) continue to puzzle the original investigator, Jean-Jacques Velasco. At a meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) in Glasgow in 1994, Velasco summarized the "four noteworthy cases" with "effects observed on vegetation": (See chart 2.)
Chart 2: Four UFO cases with physiological signs on vegetation.
Courtesy of CNES/SEPRA.
"These cases have all been the subject of enquiries by the police, then GEPAN or SEPRA. In each of these situations, a UAP [Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena] was observed in direct relation in a zone perturbed by the phenomenon.
"1. 'CHRISTELLE' case of 27/11/1979: Persistence of flattened grass several days after the observation. The samples taken and analyzed by a plant biology laboratory at Toulouse University did not give unequivocal evidence of chemical or biological disturbance of the samples taken from the marked area relative to controls. A study of the mechanical properties of grass tissue subjected to strong mechanical pressure showed that the duration is a more important factor than the mass.
"2. 'TRANS EN PROVENCE' case of 8/01/81: Apparition of a circular print in a crown shape after observation of a metallic object resting on the ground. The vegetation, a kind of wild alfalfa, showed withering of the dried leaves in the central part of the print. The analyses revealed damage of a specific kind affecting the functional relationships of the photosynthetic system.
"3. 'AMARANTE' case of 21/08/82: Severe drying of the stems and leaves on a bush (amaranth), punctuated by the appearance of raised blades of grass before the phenomenon disappeared. Biochemical analyses revealed that no reported outside agent could be the cause of such effects. Only a corona effect due to powerful electromagnetic fields could partially explain the observations.
"4. 'JOE LE TAXI' case of 7/09/87: Leaf damage on a tree (birch) and functional disturbance of the photosynthetic system after an intense light and sound phenomenon had been observed. This case demonstrated the importance of good sample collection and preservation for biochemical analysis."109
Of these four cases, Trans-en-Provence still remains the best documented one. Velasco concluded that, after years of investigations:
"The laboratory conclusion that seems to best cover the effects observed and analyzed is that of a powerful emission of electromagnetic fields, pulsed or not, in the microwave frequency range." 110
SEPRA's latest thrust in the investigation has centered on "experimentally reproducing in the laboratory, continuous and pulsed emissions of microwave fields at various powers and frequencies so as to verify biochemical effects on plants." While the studies are still preliminary, Velasco concluded his SSE presentation with the following statement:
"However these initial studies carried out to validate the hypothesis of microwave action on the biological activity of plants in relation with UAPs need to be extended if we are to understand the mechanisms involved at molecular scale. Similarly, an investigation of the frequency range, the power and the exposure time would be useful to confirm the hypothesis of microwaves combined with other fields of electromagnetic forces coming into play in the propulsion of UAPs."111
_______________________________________
FOOTNOTES
104. GEPAN, Note Technique No. 16, Enquête 81/01, Analyse d'une Trace, March 1, 1983.
105. Velasco, Jean-Jacques, "Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces: The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990.
106. GEPAN, ibid.
107. Roussel, Robert, Les Vérités Cachées de l'Enquête Officielle, Albin Michel, 1994; quoted in Huneeus, A., "The French government UFO dossier," Fate, October 1994.
108. Bounias, Michel, "Biochemical Traumatology as a Potent Tool for Identifying Actual Stresses Elicited by Unidentified Sources: Evidence for Plant Metabolic Disorders in Correlation with a UFO Landing," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1990.
109. Velasco, J-J., "Action Of Electromagnetic Fields In The Microwave Range On Vegetation," paper presented at a meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration in Glasgow, Scotland, August 1994.
