Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jul -> Here

From: Jenny Randles <nufon@currantbun.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:28:09 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 22:56:46 -0400
Subject: Re: French COMETA Report


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <GBourdais@aol.com>
 >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:00:32 EDT
 >Subject: Re: French COMETA Report
 >To: updates@globalserve.net

 >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:39:56 +0200
 >>From: Perry Petrakis - SOS OVNI <sosovni@pacwan.fr>
 >>To: updates@globalserve.net
 >>Subject: French COMETA Report

<snip>

 >>For instance, Lakenheath (1956), the RB-47 case
 >>(1957) or Teheran (1976) are mentionned while there is not a
 >>word on the  Belgian sightings flap (1989-1991), a situation
 >>which has led to much speculation in France and Belgium.

 >This is an irrelevant critique. They have selected a few very
 >good cases: fine! They may have avoided the Belgian wave because
 >it is a very complex case. Even among ufologists, there is not
 >100 % agreement on everything.


Hi,

There is a good test of the objectivity of the COMETA report
noted above that perhaps those who have read it (as I have not)
can comment upon.

In reviewing the 1956 Lakenheath/Bentwaters case as a good case
what data did they use? The Condon report? The Jim McDonald
assessment? Nick Pope's theories?

It is important because I too believed this case from older
sources to be highly important. It is still an interesting case
and I dont pretend it is solved, but I can tell you that the
sources that report it to so far have got it fundamentally
wrong.

How do I know? In l996 I was asked to research, write and
present a documentary on UFOs and the British government for BBC
television. As part of my six months working at the BBC I was
able to use their resources to do some things I never had the
chance (or money) to do before. One included tracking down and
interviewing the RAF crew involved in that 1956 intercept case.
To my amazement I learned that many of the preconceptions about
this case were wrong.

All the reports have the wrong kind of aircraft, the wrong
number of crew, the wrong take-off and landing details (we
retrieved log books) and most importantly significant
differences in nearly every aspect of the intercept story as
reported by Condon.

Many have assumed he got thisversion pretty well  right as he
was working from USAF records. Although is there a Blue Book
file on this case? But by going back to source as I did (and
Condon and others clearly did not) (admittedly mostly because
they did not have the opportunity to do so) they committed
lasting errors in the understanding of this case.

So, the question is - as nobody at COMETA asked me for copies of
the filmed interviews I made with the now elderly air crew - did
they find them by some other way? Or did they base their report
on the now somewhat dubious earlier sources?

The answer will help tell us if they genuinely did have high
level contacts to establish a good assessment of the evidence or
whether they are really doing what anybody else could do and
comment upon pre-published information? If that is so then,
okay, but it indicates the limitations of the project.

The key is their discussion of the actual intercept between RAF
planes and the UFO in 1956. If the report says there was a
visual encounter with radar lock on and the UFO flew from in
front and to behind the jet very rapidly, then it is bad news
for COMETA fans. Thats the traditional (and incorrect) version
in all prior reports. What the aircrew report first hand is that
they saw _nothing_ visually and that the radar contact was
stationary. At no time did it fly around them. If COMETA has
that version it has clearly done its homework and should be
judged accordingly.

Can Perry or others comment on this, perhaps?

Best wishes,

Jenny Randles