From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 02:58:08 -0500 (EST)
Fwd Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:57:05 -0500
Subject: 02/04 - 22 Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations
but also names of localities of the UFO incidents in its main sample of 59
cases. In this Lakenheath case, deletion of locality names creates much
confusion for the reader, since three distinct RAF stations figure in,the
incident and since the discharged non-commissioned officer from whom they
received first word of this UFO episode confused the names of two of those
stations in his own account that appears in the Condon Report. That, plus
other reportorial deficiencies in the presentation of the Lakenheath case in
the Condon Report, will almost certainly have concealed its real significance
from most readers of the Report.
Unfortunately, the basic Bluebook file is itself about as confusing as
most Bluebook files on UFO cases. I shall attempt to mitigate as many of those
difficulties as I can in the following, by putting the account into better
over-all order than one finds in the Condon Report treatment.
2. General Circumstances:
The entire episode extended from about 2130Z, August 13, to 0330Z, August
14, 1956; thus this is a nighttime case. The events occurred in east-central
England, chiefly in Suffolk. The initial reports centered around Bentwaters
RAF Station, located about six miles east of Ipswich, near the coast, while
much of the subsequent action centers around Lakenheath RAF Station, located
some 20 miles northeast of Cambridge. Sculthorpe RAF Station also figures in
the account, but only to a minor extent; it is near Fakenham, in the vicinity
of The Wash. GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) radars at two of those three
stations were involved in the ground-radar sightings, as was an RTCC (Radar
Traffic Control Center) radar unit at Lakenheath. The USAF non-com who wrote
to the Colorado Project about this incident was a Watch Supervisor on duty at
the Lakenheath RTCC unit that night. His detailed account is reproduced in the
Condon Report (pp. 248-251). The Report comments on "the remarkable accuracy
of the account of the witness as given in (his reproduced letter), which was
apparently written from memory 12 years after the incident." I would concur,
but would note that, had the Colorado Project only investigated more such
striking cases of past years, it would have found many other witnesses in UFO
cases whose vivid recollections often match surprising well checkable
contemporary accounts. My experience thereon has been that, in multiple-
witness cases where one can evaluate consistency of recollections, the more
unusual and inexplicable the original UFO episode, the more it impressed upon
the several witnesses' memories a meaningful and still-useful pattern of
relevant recollections. Doubtless, another important factor operates: the UFO
incidents that are the most striking and most puzzling probably have been
discussed by the key witnesses enough times that their recollections have been
thereby reinforced in a useful way.
The only map given in the Condon Report is based on a sketch-map made by
the non-com who alerted them to the case. It is misleading, for Sculthorpe is
shown 50 miles east of Lakenheath, whereas it actually lies 30 miles north-
northeast. The map does not show Bentwaters at all; it is actually some 40
miles east-southeast of Lakenheath. Even as basic items as those locations do
not appear to have been ascertained by those who prepared the discussion of
this case in the Condon Report, which is most unfortunate, yet not atypical.
That this incident was subsequently discussed by many Lakenheath personnel
was indicated to me by a chance event. In the course of my investigations of
another radar UFO case from the Condon Report, that of 9/11/67 at Kincheloe
AFB, I found that the radar operator involved therein had previously been
stationed with the USAF detachment at Lakenheath and knew of the events at
second-hand because they were still being discussed there by radar personnel
when he arrived many months later.
3. Initial Events at Bentwaters, 2130Z to 2200Z;
One of the many unsatisfactory aspects of the Condon Report is its
frequent failure to put before the reader a complete account of the UFO cases
it purports to analyze scientifically. In the present instance, the Report
omits all details of three quite significant radar-sightings made by
Bentwaters GCA personnel prior to their alerting the Lakenheath GCA and RTCC
groups at 2255 LST. This omission is certainly not because of correspondingly
slight mention in the original Bluebook case-file; rather, the Bentwaters
sightings actually receive more Bluebook attention than the subsequent
Lakenheath events. Hence, I do not see how such omissions in the Condon Report
can be justified.
a) _First radar siqhting, 2130Z._ Bentwaters GCA operator, A/2c ______ (I
shall use a blank to indicate the names razor-bladed out of my copies of the
case-file prior to release of the file items to me), reported picking up a
target 25-30 miles ESE, which moved at very high speed on constant 295 deg.
heading across his scope until he lost it 15-20 miles to the NW of Bentwaters.
In the Bluebook file, A/2c _____ is reported as describing it as a strong
radar echo, comparable to that of a typical aircraft, until it weakened near
the end of its path across his scope. He is quoted as estimating a speed of
the order of 4000 mph, but two other cited quantities suggest even higher
speeds. A transit time of 30 seconds is given, and if one combines that with
the reported range of distance traversed, 40-50 miles, a speed of about 5000-
6000 mph results. Finally, A/2c _____ stated that it covered about 5-6 miles
per sweep of the AN/MPN-llA GCA radar he was using. The sweep-period for that
set is given as 2 seconds (30 rpm), so this yields an even higher speed-
estimate of about 9000 mph. (Internal discrepancies of this sort are quite
typical of Bluebook case-files, I regret to say. My study of many such files
during the past three years leaves me no conclusion but that Bluebook work has
never represented high-caliber scientific work, but rather has operated as a
perfunctory bookkeeping and filing operation during most of its life. Of the
three speed figures just mentioned, the latter derives from the type of
observation most likely to be reasonably accurate, in my opinion. The
displacement of a series of successive radar blips on a surveillance radar
such as the MPN-11A, can be estimated to perhaps a mile or so with little
difficulty, when the operator has as large a number of successive blips to
work with as is here involved. Nevertheless, it is necessary to regard the
speed as quite uncertain here, though presumably in the range of several
thousand miles pr hour and hence not associable with any conventional
aircraft, nor with still higher-speed meteors either.)
b) _Second radar siqhting, 2130-2155Z._ A few minutes after the preceding
event, T/Sgt _____ picked up on the same MPN-11A a group of 12-15 objects
about 8 miles SW of Brentwaters. In the report to Bluebook, he pointed out
that "these objects appeared as normal targets on the GCA scope and that
normal checks made to determine possible malfunctions of the GCA radar failed
to indicate anything was technically wrong." The dozen or so objects were
moving together towards the NE at varying speeds, ranging between 80 and 125
mph, and "the 12 to 15 unidentified objects were preceded by 3 objects which
were in a triangular formation with an estimated 1000 feet separating each
object in this formation." The dozen objects to the rear "were scattered
behind the lead formation of 3 at irregular intervals with the whole group
simultaneously covering a 6 to 7 mile area," the official report notes.
Consistent radar returns came from this group during their 25-minute
movement from the point at which they were first picked up, 8 mi. SW, to a
point about 40 mi. NE of Bentwaters, their echoes decreasing in intensity as
they moved off to the NE. When the group reached a point some 40 mi. NE, they
all appeared to converge to form a single radar echo whose intensity is
described as several times larger than a B-36 return under comparable
conditions. Then motion ceased, while this single strong echo remained
stationary for 10-15 minutes. Then it resumed motion to the NE for 5-6 miles,
stopped again for 3-5 minutes, and finally moved northward and off the scope.
c) _Third radar siqhting, 2200Z._ Five minutes after the foregoing
formation moved off-scope, T/Sgt _____ detected an unidentified target about
30 mi. E of the Bentwaters GCA station, and tracked it in rapid westward
motion to a point about 25 mi. W of the station, where the object "suddenly
disappeared off the radar screen by rapidly moving out of the GCS radation
pattern," according to his interpretation of the event. Here, again, we get
discordant speed information, for T/Sgt _____ gave the speed only as being "in
excess of 4000 mph," whereas the time-duration of the tracking, given as 16
sec, implies a speed of 12,000 mph, for the roughly 55 mi. track-length
reported. Nothing in the Bluebook files indicates that this discrepancy was
investigated further or even noticed, so one can say only that the apparent
speed lay far above that of conventional aircraft.
d) _Other observations at Bentwaters._ A control tower sergeant, aware of
the concurrent radar tracking, noted a light "the size of a pin-head at arm's
length" at about 10 deg. elevation to the SSE. It remained there for about
one hour, intermittently appearing and disappearing. Since Mars was in that
part of the sky at that time, a reasonable interpretation is that the observer
was looking at that planet.
A T-33 of the 512th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, returning to
Bentwaters from a routine flight at about 2130Z, was vectored to the NE to
search for the group of objects being tracked in that sector. Their search,
unaided by airborne radar, led to no airborne sighting of any aircraft or
other objects in that area, and after about 45 minutes they terminated search,
having seen only a bright star in the east and a coastal beacon as anything
worth noting. The Bluebook case-file contains 1956 USAF discussions of the
case that make a big point of the inconclusiveness of the tower operator's
sighting and the negative results of the T-33 search, but say nothing about
the much more puzzling radar-tracking incidents than to stress that they were
of "divergent" directions, intimating that this somehow put them in the
category of anomalous propagation, which scarcely follows. Indeed, none of the
three cited radar sightings exhibits any features typical of AP echoes. The
winds over the Bentwaters area are given in the file. They jump from the
surface level (winds from 230 deg. at 5-10 kts) to the 6000 ft level (260
deg., 30 kts), and then hold at a steady 260 deg. up to 50,000 ft, with speeds
rising to a maximum of 90 kts near 30,000 ft. Even if one sought to invoke the
highly dubious Borden-Vickers hypothesis (moving waves on an inversion
surface), not even the slowest of the tracked echoes (80-125 mph) could be
accounted for, nor is it even clear that the direction would be explainable.
Furthermore, the strength of the individual echoes (stated as comparable to
normal aircraft returns), the merging of the 15 or so into a single echo, the
two intervals of stationarity, and final motion off-scope at a direction about
45 deg. from the initial motion, are all wholly unexplainable in terms of AP
in these 2130-2155Z incidents. The extremely high-speed westward motion of
single targets is even further from any known radar-anomaly associated with
disturbed propagation conditions. Blips that move across scopes from one
sector to the opposite, in steady heading at steady apparent speed, correspond
neither to AP nor to internal electronic disturbances. Nor could interference
phenomena fit such observed echo behavior. Thus, this 30-minute period, 213O-
2200Z, embraced three distinct events for which no satisfactory explanation
exists. That these three events are omitted from the discussions in the Condon
Report is unfortunate, for they serve to underscore the scientific
significance of subsequent events at both Bentwaters and Lakenheath stations.
4. Comments on Reporting of Events After 2255Z, 8/13/56:
The events summarized above were communicated to Bluebook by Capt. Edward
L. Holt of the 81st Fighter-Bomber Wing stationed at Bentwaters, as Report No.
IR-1-56, dated 31 August, 1956. All events occurring subsequent to 2200Z, on
the other hand, were communicated to Project Bluebook via an earlier, lengthy
teletype transmission from the Lakenheath USAF unit, sent out in the standard
format of the report-form specified by regulation AFR200-2. Two teletype
transmissions, dated 8/17/56 and 8/21/56, identical in basic content, were
sent from Lakenheath to Bluebook. The Condon Report presents the content of
that teletype report on pp. 252-254, in full, except for deletion of all names
and localities and omission of one important item to be noted later here.
However, most readers will be entirely lost because what is presented actually
constitutes a set of answers to questions that are not stated! The Condon
Report does not offer the reader the hint that the version of AFR200-2
appearing in the Report's Appendix, pp. 819-826 (there identified by its
current designation, AFR80-17) would provide the reader with the standardized
questions needed to translate much of the otherwise extremely confusing array
of answers on pp. 252-254. For that reason, plus others, many readers will
almost certainly be greatly (and entirely unnecessarily) confused on reading
this important part of the Lakenheath report in the Condon Report.
That confusion, unfortunately, does not wholly disappear upon laboriously
matching questions with answers, for it has long been one of the salient
deficiencies of the USAF program of UFO report collection that the format of
AFR200-2 (or its sequel AFR80-17) is usually only barely adequate and
(especially for complex episodes such as that involved here) often entirely
incapable of affording the reporting office enough scope to set out clearly
and in proper chronological order all of the events that may be of potential
scientific significance. Anyone who has studied many Bluebook reports in the
AFR200-2 format, dating back to 1953, will be uncomfortably aware of this
gross difficulty. Failure to carry out even modest followup investigations and
incorporate findings thereof into Bluebook case-files leaves most intriguing
Bluebook UFO cases full of unsatisfactorily answered questions. But those
deficiencies do not, in my opinion, prevent the careful reader from discerning
that very large numbers of those UFO cases carry highly significant scientific
implications, implications of an intriguing problem going largely unexamined
in past years.
5. _Initial Alerting of Lakenheath GCA and RTCC:_
The official files give no indication of any further UFO radar sightings
by Bentwaters GCA from 2200 until 2255Z. But, at the latter time, another
fast-moving target was picked up 30 mi. E of Bentwaters, heading almost due
west at a speed given as "2000-4000 mph". It passed almost directly over
Bentwaters, disappearing from their GCA scope for the usual beam-angle reasons
when within 2-3 miles (the Condon Report intimates that this close in
disappearance is diagnostic of AP, which seems to be some sort of tacit over-
acceptance of the 1952 Borden-Vickers hypothesis), and then moving on until it
disappeared from the scope 30 mi. W of Bentwaters.
Very significantly, this radar-tracking of the passage of the unidentified
target was matched by concurrent visual observations, by personnel on the
ground looking up and also from an overhead aircraft looking down. Both visual
reports involved only a light, a light described as blurred out by its high
speed; but since the aircraft (identified as a C-47 by the Lakenheath non-com
whose letter called this case to the attention of the Colorado Project) was
flying only at 4000 ft, the altitude of the unknown object is bracketed within
rather narrow bounds. (No mention of any sonic boom appears; but the total
number of seemingly quite credible reports of UFOs moving at speeds far above
sonic values and yet not emitting booms is so large that one must count this
as just one more instance of many currently inexplicable phenomena associated
with the UFO problem.) The reported speed is not fast enough for a meteor, nor
does the low-altitude flat traJectory and absence of a concussive shock wave
match any meteoric hypothesis. That there was visual confirmation from
observation points both above and below this fast-moving radar-tracked obJect
must be viewed as adding still further credence to, and scientific interest
in, the prior three Bentwaters radar sightings of the previous hour.
Apparently immediately after the 2255Z events, Bentwaters GCA alerted GCA
Lakenheath, which lay off to its WNW. The answers to Questions 2(A) and 2(B)
of the AFR200-2 format (on p. 253 of the Condon Report) seem to imply that
Lakenheath ground observers were alerted in time to see a luminous object come
in, at an estimated altitude of 2000-2500 ft, and on a heading towards SW. The
lower estimated altitude and the altered heading do not match the Bentwaters
sighting, and the ambiguity so inherent in the AFR200-2 format simply cannot
be eliminated here, so the precise timing is not certain. All that seems
certain here is that, at or subsequent to the Bentwaters alert-message,
Lakenheath ground observers saw a luminous object come in out of the NE at low
altitude, then _stop_, and take up an easterly heading and resume motion
eastward out of sight.
The precise time-sequence of the subsequent observations is not clearly
deducible from the Lakenheath TWX sent in compliance with AFR200-2. But that
many very interesting events, scientifically very baffling events, soon took
place is clear from the report. No followup, from Bluebook or other USAF
sources,'was undertaken, and so this potentially very important case, like
hundreds of others, simply sent into the Bluebook files unclarified. I am
forced to stress that nothing reveals so clearly the past years of
scientifically inadequate UFO investigation as a few days' visit to Wright-
Patterson AFB and a diligent reading of Bluebook case reports. No one with any
genuine scientific interest in solving the UFO problem would have let
accumulate so many years of reports like this one without seeing to it that
the UFO reporting and followup investigations were brought into entirely
different status from that in which they have lain for over 20 years.
Deficiencies having been noted, I next catalog, without benefit of the
exact time-ordering that is so crucial to full assessment of any UFO event,
the intriguing observations and events at or near Lakenheath subsequent to the
2255Z alert from Bentwaters.
6. Non-chronological Summary of Lakenheath Sightings, 2255Z-0330Z.
a. _Visual observations from ground._
As noted two paragraphs above, following the 2255Z alert from GCA
Bentwaters, USAF ground observers at the Lakenheath RAF Station observed a
luminous object come in on a southwesterly heading, stop, and then move off
out of sight to the east. Subsequently, at an unspecified time, two moving
white lights were seen, and "ground observers stated one white light joined up
with another and both disappeared in formation together" (recall earlier radar
observations of merging of targets seen by Bentwaters GCA). No discernible
features of these luminous sources were noted by ground observers, but both
the observers and radar operators concurred in their report-description that
"the objects (were) travelling at terrific speeds and then stopping and
changing course immediately." In a passage of the original Bluebook report
which was for some reason not included in the version presented in the Condon
Report, this concordance of radar and visual observations is underscored:
"Thus two radar sets (i.e., Lakenheath GCA and RATCC radars) and three ground
observers report substantially same." Later in the original Lakenheath report,
this same concordance is reiterated: "the fact that radar and ground visual
observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abrupt stops certainly
lend credulance (sic) to the report."
Since the date of this incident coincides with the date of peak frequency
of the Perseid meteors, one might ask whether any part of the visual
observations could have been due to Perseids. The basic Lakenheath report to
Bluebook notes that the ground observers reported "unusual amount of shooting
stars in sky", indicating that the erratically moving light(s) were readily
distinguishable from meteors. The report further remarks thereon that "the
objects seen were definitely not shooting stars as there were no trails as are
usual with such sightings." Furthermore, the stopping and course reversals are
incompatible with any such hypothesis in the first place.
AFR200-2 stipulates that observer be asked to compare the UFO to the size
of various familiar objects when held at arm's length (Item 1-B in the
format). In answer to that item, the report states: "One observer from ground
stated on first observation object was about size of golf ball. As object
continued in flight it became a 'pin point'." Even allowing for the usual
inaccuracies in such estimates, this further rules out Perseids, since that
shower yields oniy meteors of quite low luminosity.
In summary of the ground-visual observations, it appears that three ground
observers at Lakenheath saw at least two luminous objects, saw these over an
extended though indefinite time period, saw them execute sharp course changes,
saw them remain motionless at least once, saw two objects merge into a single
luminous object at one juncture, and reported motions in general accord with
concurrent radar observations. These ground-visual observations, in
themselves, constitute scientifically interesting UFO report-material. Neither
astronomical nor aeronautical explanations, nor any meteorological-optical
explanations, match well those reported phenomena. One could certainly wish
for a far more complete and time-fixed report on these visual observations,
but even the above information suffices to suggest some unusual events. The
unusualness will be seen to be even greater on next examining the ground-radar
observations from Lakenheath. And even stronger interest emerges as we then
turn, last of all, to the airborne-visual and airborne-radar observations made
near Lakenheath.
b. _Ground-radar observations at Lakenheath._
The GCA surveillance radar at Lakenheath is identified as a CPN-4, while
the RATCC search radar was a CPS-5 (as the non-com correctly recalled in his
letter). Because the report makes clear that these two sets were concurrently
following the unknown targets, it is relevant to note that they have different
wavelengths, pulse repetition frequencies, and scan-rates, which (for reasons
that need not be elaborated here) tends to rule out several radar-anomaly
hypotheses (e.g., interference echoes from a distant radar, second-time-around
effects, AP). However, the reported maneuvers are so unlike any of those
spurious effects that it seems almost unnecessary to confront those
possibilities here.
As with the ground-visual observations, so also with these radar-report
items, the AFR200-2 format limitations plus the other typical deficiencies of
reporting of UFO events preclude reconstruction in detail, and in time-order,
of all the relevant events. I get the impression that the first object seen
visually by ground observers was not radar-tracked, although this is unclear
from the report to Bluebook. One target whose motions were jointly followed
both on the CPS-5 at the Radar Air Traffic Control Center and on the shorter-
range, faster-scanning CPN-4 at the Lakenheath GCA unit was tracked "from 6
miles west to about 20 miles SW where target stopped and assumed a stationary
position for five minutes. Target then assumed a heading northwesterly (I
presume this was intended to read 'northeasterly', and the non-com so
indicates in his recollective account of what appears to be the same
maneuvers) into the Station and stopped two miles NW of Station. Lakenheath
GCA reports three to four additional targets were doing the same maneuvers in
the vicinity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three ground observers
report substantially same." (Note that the quoted item includes the full
passage omitted from the Condon Report version, and note that it seems to
imply that this devious path with two periods of stationary hovering was also
reported by the visual observers. However, the latter is not entirely certain
because of ambiguities in the structure of the basic report as forced into the
AFR200-2 format).
At some time, which context seems to imply as rather later in the night
(the radar sightings went on until about 0330Z), "Lakenheath Radar Air Traffic
Control Center observed object 17 miles east of Station making sharp
rectangular course of flight. This maneuver was not conducted by circular path
but on right angles at speeds of 600-800 mph. Object would stop and start with
amazing rapidity." The report remarks that "...the controllers are experienced
and technical skills were used in attempts to determine just what the objects
were. When the target would stop on the scope, the MTI was used. However, the
target would still appear on the scope." (The latter is puzzling. MTI, Moving
Target Indication, is a standard feature on search or surveillance radars that
eliminates ground returns and returns from large buildings and other
motionless objects. This very curious feature of display of stationary modes
while the MTI was on adds further strong argument to the negation of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
undergoing small-amplitude but high-speed jittering motion to yield a scope-
displayed return despite the MTI. Since just such jittery motion has been
reported in visual UFO sightings on many occasions, and since the coarse
resolution of a PPI display would not permit radar-detection of such motion if
its amplitude were below, say, one or two hundred meters, this could
conceivably account for the persistence of the displayed return during the
episodes of "stationary" hovering, despite use of MTI.)
The portion of the radar sightings just described seems to have been
vividly recollected by the retired USAF non-com who first called this case to
the attention of the Colorado group. Sometime after the initial Bentwaters
alert, he had his men at the RATCC scanning all available scopes, various
scopes set at various ranges. He wrote that "...one controller noticed a
stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles southwest. This was
unusual, as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless it was
moving at a speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could detect no
movement at all. We watched this target on all the different scopes for
several minutes and I called the GCA Unit at (Lakenheath) to see if they had
this target on their scope in the same geographical location. As we watched,
the stationary target started moving at a speed of 400 to 600 mph in a north-
northeast direction until it reached a point about 20 miles north northwest of
(Lakenheath). There was no slow start or build-up to this speed -- it was
constant from the second it started to move until it stopped." (This
description, written 11 years after the event, matches the 1956 intelligence
report from the Lakenheath USAF unit so well, even seeming to avoid the
typographical direction-error that the Lakenheath TWX contained, that one can
only assume that he was deeply impressed by this whole incident. That, of
course, is further indicated by the very fact that he wrote the Colorado group
about it in the first place.) His letter (Condon Report, p. 249) adds that
"the target made several changes in location, always in a straight line,
always at about 600 mph and always from a standing or stationary point to his
next stop at constant speed -- no build-up in speed at all -- these changes in
location varied from 8 miles to 20 miles in length --no set pattern at any
time. Time spent stationary between movements also varied from 3 or 4 minutes
to 5 or 6 minutes..." Because his account jibes so well with the basic
Bluebook file report in the several particulars in which it can be checked,
the foregoing quotation from the letter as reproduced in the Condon Report
stands as meaningful indication of the highly unconventional behavior of the
unknown aerial target. Even allowing for some recollective uncertainties, the
non-com's description of the behavior of the unidentified radar target lies so
far beyond any meteorological, astronomical, or electronic explanation as to
stand as one challenge to any suggestions that UFO reports are of negligible
scientific interest.
The non-com's account indicates that they plotted the discontinuous stop-
and-go movements of the target for some tens of minutes before it was decided
to scramble RAF interceptors to investigate. That third major aspect of the
Lakenheath events must now be considered. (The delay in scrambling
interceptors is noteworthy in many Air Force-related UFO incidents of the past
20 years. I believe this reluctance stems from unwillingness to take action
lest the decision-maker be accused of taking seriously a phenomenon which the
Air Force officially treats as non-existent.)
c. Airborne radar and visual sightings by Venom interceptor.
An RAF jet interceptor, a Venom single-seat subsonic aircraft equipped
with an air-intercept (AI) nose radar, was scrambled, according to the basic
Bluebook report, from Waterbeach RAF Station, which is located about 6 miles
north of Cambridge, and some 20 miles SW of Lakenheath. Precise time of the
scramble does not appear in the report to Bluebook, but if we were to try to
infer the time from the non-com's recollective account, it would seem to have
been somewhere near midnight. Both the non-com's letter and the contemporary
intelligence report make clear that Lakenheath radar had one of their
unidentified targets on-scope as the Venom came in over the Station from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward a target on radar 6 miles east of the
field. Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and would
investigate. At thirteen miles west (east?) he reported loss of target and
white light."
It deserves emphasis that the foregoing quote clearly indicates that the
UFO that the Venom first tried to intercept was being monitored via three
distinct physical "sensing channels." It was being recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the 1957 RB-47 case (Case 1 above) in the evidently simultaneous
loss of visual and airborne-radar signal here. One wonders if ground radar
also lost it simultaneously with the Venom pilot's losing it, but, loss of
visual and airborne-radar signal here. One wonders if ground radar also lost
it simultaneously with the Venom pilot's losing it, but, as is so typical of
AFR200-2 reports, incomplete reporting precludes clarification. Nothing in the
Bluebook case-file on this incident suggests that anyone at Bluebook took any
trouble to run down that point or the many other residual questions that are
so painfully evident here. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
from the then-current Blue book officer, Capt. G. T. Gregory, a dispatch that
proposes a series of what I must term wholly irrelevant hypotheses about
Perseid meteors with "ionized gases in their wake which may be traced on
radarscopes", and inversions that "may cause interference between two radar
stations some distance apart." Such basically irrelevant remarks are all too
typical of Bluebook critique over the years. The file also includes a case-
discussion by Dr. J. A. Hynek, Bluebook consultant, who also toys with the
idea of possible radar returns from meteor wake ionization. Not only are the
radar frequencies here about two orders of magnitude too high to afford even
marginal likelihood of meteor-wake returns, but there is absolutely no
kinematic similarity between the reported UFO movements and the essentially
straight-line hypersonic movement of a meteor, to cite just a few of the
strong objections to any serious consideration of meteor hypotheses for the
present UFO case. Hynek's memorandum on the case makes some suggestions about
the need for upgrading Bluebook operations, and then closes with the remarks
that "The Lakenheath report could constitute a source of embarrassment to the
Air Force; and should the facts, as so far reported, get into the public
domain, it is not necessary to point out what excellent use the several dozen
UFO societies and other 'publicity artists' would make of such an incident. It
is, therefore, of great importance that further information on the technical
aspects of the original observations be obtained, without loss of time from
the original observers." That memo of October 17, 1956,is followed in the
case-file by Capt. Gregory's November 26, 1956 reply, in which he concludes
that "our original analyses of anomalous propagation and astronimical is (sic)
more or less correct"; and there the case investigation seemed to end, at the
same casually closed level at which hundreds of past UFO cases have been
closed out at Bluebook with essentially no real scientific critique. I would
say that it is exceedingly unfortunate that "the facts , as so far reported"
did not get into the public domain, along with the facts on innumerable other
Bluebook case-files that should have long ago startled the scientific
community just as much as they startled me when I took the trouble to go to
Bluebook and spend a number of days studying those astonishing files.
Returning to the scientifically fascinating account of the Venom pilot's
attempt to make an air-intercept on the Lakenheath unidentified object, the
original report goes on to note that, after the pilot lost both visual and
radar signals, "RATCC vectored him to a target 10 miles east of Lakenheath and
pilot advised target was on radar and he was 'locking on.'" Although here we
are given no information on the important point of whether he also saw a
luminous object, as he got a radar lock-on, we definitely have another
instance of at least two-channel detection. The concurrent detection of a
single radar target by a ground radar and an airborne radar under conditions
such as these, where the target proves to be a highly maneuverable object (see
below), categorically rules out any conventional explanations involving, say,
large ground structures and propagation anomalies. That MTI was being used on
the ground radar also excludes that, of course.
The next thing that happened was that the Venom suddenly lost radar lock-
on as it neared the unknown target. RATCC reported that "as the Venom passed
the target on radar, the target began a tail chase of the friendly fighter."
RATCC asked the Venom pilot to acknowledge this turn of events and he did,
saying "he would try to circle and get behind the target." His attempts were
unsuccessful, which the report to Bluebook describes only in the terse
comment, "Pilot advised he was unable to 'shake' the target off his tail and
requested assistance." The non-com's letter is more detailed and much more
emphatic. He first remarks that the UFO's sudden evasive movement into tail
position was so swift that he missed it on his own scope, "but it was seen by
the other controllers." His letter then goes on to note that the Venom pilot
"tried everything -- he climbed, dived, circled, etc., but the UFO acted like
it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close, but we
always had two distinct targets." Here again, note how the basic report is
annoyingly incomplete. One is not told whether the pilot knew the UFO was
pursuing his Venom by virtue of some tail-radar warning device of type often
used on fighters (none is alluded to), or because he could see a luminous
object in pursuit. In order for him to "acknowledge" the chase seems to
require one or the other detection-mode, yet the report fails to clarify this
important point. However, the available information does make quite clear that
the pursuit was being observed on ground radar, and the non-com's recollection
puts the duration of the pursuit at perhaps 10 minutes before the pilot
elected to return to his base. Very significantly, the intelligence report
from Lakenheath to Bluebook quotes this first pilot as saying "clearest target
I have ever seen on radar", which again eliminates a number of hypotheses, and
argues most cogently the scientific significance of the whole episode.
The non-com recalled that, as the first Venom returned to Waterbeach
Aerodrome when fuel ran low, the UFO followed him a short distance and then
stopped; that important detail is, however, not in the Bluebook report. A
second Venom was then scrambled, but, in the short time before a malfunction
forced it to return to Waterbeach, no intercepts were accomplished by that
second pilot.
7. Discussion:
The Bluebook report material indicates that other radar unknowns were
being observed at Lakenheath until about 0330Z. Since the first radar unknowns
appeared near Bentwaters at about 2130Z on 8/13/56, while the Lakenheath
events terminated near 0330Z on 8/14/56, the total duration of this UFO
episode was about six hours. The case includes an impressive number of
scientifically provocative features:
1) At least three separate instances occurred in which one ground-radar
unit, GCA Bentwaters, tracked some unidentified target for a number
of tens of miles across its scope at speeds in excess of Mach 3.
Since even today, 12 years later, no nation has disclosed military
aircraft capable of flight at such speeds (we may exclude the X-15),
and since that speed is much too low to fit any meteoric hypothesis,
this first feature (entirely omitted from discussion in the Condon
Report) is quite puzzling. However, Air Force UFO files and other
sources contain many such instances of nearly hypersonic speeds of
radar-tracked UFOs.
2) In one instance, about a dozen low-speed (order of 100 mph) targets
moved in loose formation led by three closely-spaced targets, the
assemblage yielding consistent returns over a path of about 50 miles,
after which they merged into a single large target, remained
motionless for some 10-15 minutes, and then moved off-scope. Under
the reported wind conditions, not even a highly contrived
meteorological explanation invoking anomalous propagation and
inversion layer waves would account for this sequence observed at
Bentwaters. The Condon Report omits all discussion of items 1) and
2), for reasons that I find difficult to understand.
3) One of the fast-track radar sightings at Bentwaters, at 2255Z,
coincided with visual observations of some very-high-speed luminous
source seen by both a tower operator on the ground and by a pilot
aloft who saw the light moving in a blur below his aircraft at 4000
ft altitude. The radar-derived speed "as given as 2000-4000 mph.
Again, meteors won't fit such speeds and altitudes, and we may
exclude aircraft for several evident reasons, including absence of
any thundering sonic boom that would surely have been reported if any
near hypothetical secret 1956-vintage hypersonic device were flying
over Bentwaters at less than 4000 ft that night.
4) Several ground observers at Lakenheath saw luminous obJects
exhibiting non-ballistic motions, including dead stops and sharp
course reversals.
5) In one instance, two luminous white objects merged into a single
object, as seen from the ground at Lakenheath. This wholly unmeteoric
and unaeronautical phenomenon is actually a not-uncommon feature of
UFO reports during the last two decades. For example, radar-tracked
merging of two targets that veered together sharply before Joining up
was reported over Kincheloe AFB, Michigan, in a UFO report that also
appears in the Condon Report (p. 164), quite unreasonably attributed
therein to "anomalous propagation."
6) Two separate ground radars at Lakenheath, having rather different
radar parameters, were concurrently observing movements of one or
more unknown targets over an extended period of time. Seemingly
stationary hovering modes were repeatedly observed, and this despite
use of MTI. Seemingly "instantaneous" accelerations from rest to
speeds of order of Mach 1 were repeatedly observed. Such motions
cannot readily be explained in terms of any known aircraft flying
then or now, and also fail to fit known electronic or propagation
anomalies. The Bluebook report gives the impression (somewhat
ambiguously, however) that some of these two-radar observations were
coincident with ground-visual observations.
7) In at least one instance, the Bluebook report makes clear that an
unidentified luminous target was seen visually from the air by the
pilot of an interceptor while getting simultaneous radar returns from
the unknown with his nose radar concurrent with ground-radar
detection of the same unknown. This is scientifically highly
significant, for it entails three separate detection-channels all
recording the unknown object.
8) In _at least_ one instance, there was simultaneous radar
disappearance and visual disappearance of the UFO. This is akin to
similar events in other known UFO cases, yet is not easily explained
in terms of conventional phenomena.
9) Attempts of the interceptor to close on one target seen both on
ground radar and on the interceptor's nose radar, led to a puzzling
rapid interchange of roles as the unknown object moved into tail-
position behind the interceptor. While under continuing radar
observation from the ground, with both aircraft and unidentified
object clearly displayed on the Lakenheath ground radars, the pilot
of the interceptor tried unsuccessfully to break the tail chase over
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com