RAF Lakenheath F-15 UFO Encounter

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Hey PW229 (I'm guessing it stands for the P&W F100 series...) nice info and follow up explanation on the topic. Although you wont say what capacity your work entails I'll hazard a guess a guess toward Crew Chief perhaps? At one of various USAF facilities on the British isles...

Anyway given your noticable expertise on the subject I'd like to welcome you to the Advanced Aircraft Projects Forum. If you have anything to say about any of the topics there feel free...




posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Hey PW229 (I'm guessing it stands for the P&W F100 series...) nice info and follow up explanation on the topic. Although you wont say what capacity your work entails I'll hazard a guess a guess toward Crew Chief perhaps? At one of various USAF facilities on the British isles...

Anyway given your noticable expertise on the subject I'd like to welcome you to the Advanced Aircraft Projects Forum. If you have anything to say about any of the topics there feel free...





Hehe, someone did a bit of research into the relevence of my nick. I've been "lurking" in the Advanced Aircraft Projects forum for some few weeks now and must say I find some of the subjects quite fascinating. However I must admit to being a bit of a UFO sceptic on several points. For instance, abductions. Not happening. There are all sorts of psychological and drug induced conditions that can make a mundane event seem extraordinary and I firmly believe these can more than adequetly explain abduction events. Next is the mere presence of "aliens" on this planet, wheteher they be in a UFO or trampling around looking to cut up some poor bovine. The act of getting here without being seen is just insurmountable in the numbers that are reported. Not to mention the lack of firm evidence, we can't even manage a landing on Mars without strewing firm evidence all over the place. Granted we may be "simpletons" but give us 200 years and I'll bet my house we still leave evidence of our visit all over the place. BUT, do I believe there are vehicles visiting this planet of ET orirgin? Hell yeah! They appear intelligently controlled because by their very nature and design they are essentially "intelligent." It's in exactly the same way a chimp might describe a Mars rover as intelligent. It's just a machine to us but to them it's astonishing and somewhat frightening and certainly unknown!

And Crew Chief? They don't get paid enough for me to even wake up
Try harder.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PW229
And Crew Chief? They don't get paid enough for me to even wake up
Try harder.


Sometimes it's not all about the Benjamin's, still, I can guess at what you do or perhaps used to do but without more specific hints it would be an exercise in futility. Since I can't resist anyway, say, how do ABM's get paid in comparison to Crew Chiefs, warmer or colder?


[edit on 29-3-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
As a memeber of the TXANG, I can make a claim that this is in fact actual radio message traffic. It may be a little 'casual' to most other fellow military members here from other branches, but trust me its 100% the real deal. Us airforce types use that kinda low key lingo. Brevity terms are all accurate. Could they be pretenders yeah but as someone else said, this clip would have been made to convince you much more. Very interesting and great work PW..



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by USAF1N051
As a memeber of the TXANG, I can make a claim that this is in fact actual radio message traffic. It may be a little 'casual' to most other fellow military members here from other branches, but trust me its 100% the real deal. Us airforce types use that kinda low key lingo. Brevity terms are all accurate. Could they be pretenders yeah but as someone else said, this clip would have been made to convince you much more. Very interesting and great work PW..


Now I'm anxious to see if they got anything on their gun camera. Even if it is a balloon, ground radar + AA radar + multiple eyewitness events are pretty rare. Add to that video, and you have a really uncommon combination of evidence.



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Well I tried to send this privately but apparently I do not have enough posts to send yet so here it is. Before I even begin let me state categorically that the following information CANNOT be confirmed nor corroborated. It is PURELY information I have heard second-hand and therefore I cannot confirm it's validity.

If one looks at the transcript there is an entry that I thought was from the pilot of aircraft 2 that states, "Confirm the object appears stationary?" It has come to my attention that this was not aircraft 2 and was in fact a NATO E-3 that was managing this intercept. This aircraft tracked the object for quite some time and saw 2 very unusual maneuvers. The first was a rapid acceleration from 30 knots indicated to around 150 knots in 6 seconds. This type of acceleration is well within the capabilities of the F-15E's intercepting the target. Although an F-15 flying at 30 knots is in a LOT of trouble! This occurred at exactly the point in the transcript that the pilot of aircraft one stated, "very small black object I had it at seventeen seven ~BREAK~ He just flew right it just flew right over me ~BREAK~" Although this first maneuver was nothing outrageous, the second maneuver most certainly was. The target dropped from 155 knots indicated to 10 knots indicated in less than half a second at which point the E-3 lost the target (it was lost in ground clutter). At this point aircraft 2 states, "Two’s clean ~BREAK~ Two’s locked! Bulls-eye at zero one two fifteen, eighteen thousand." From here the E-3 telemetry is very hazy on the target.

EDIT: I have recieved additional info that there was no IFF transmission from the object.


[edit on 1-4-2007 by PW229]



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Hi PW229,

Have found all the comments on this incident very interesting.

I am the person who originally got this audio tape and story into the public domain.

I found your last post most interesting re the E-3.

The person who originaly recorded the aircraft comms, stated that it was London Military Air Traffic Control who contated the F-15s to ask them to intercept the uncorrelated target.

Our enquiries with the UK Ministry of Defence, reveal that London ATC have no record of such an intercept. Could this be because the original call up to the F-15s came from the E-3?

The originator of the recording says that the contact with the F-15s was made on a frequency of 233.7250Mhz. This freq I have been told is used by London Military Console 15. Do the E-3s also use this freq for their own ops?

The freq used by the F-15s coms amongst themselves was apparently 268.7250Mhz which I understand is used by USAFE 493rd Aux 03 F-15 C and F-15D aircraft. Apparently only the 492FS/494FS use F-15E aircraft.

Does this mean that different FS at the same Airbases can use the same freqs?

Interestingly, the MOD state that the USAF told them that what the pilots saw was part of a balloon. Yet a FOI request by an American researcher, received a response from the USAF, denying that the incident ever happened.

Can you elaborate on where the E-3 info come from?

Also has anyone on the forum had any response to their FOI requests?

I would like to get copies of what they have receieved if possible.

If anyone wishes to contact me off the Forum privately, they can do so at ufomek@hotmail.co.uk



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
FOIA request is off and running. Be back in 20ish business days with the results of the request....
Thread flagged....

Lets see how many different ways I have to make this request before any data comes my way (if any). I requested transcripts of pilot to pilot comms., flight logs, debriefing files if any exist, electronic media of gun camera footage and audio of comms of F-15 pilots from Lakenheath and any other aircraft involved in incident, etc., etc., etc.

I am prepared for a littany of denials.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
heads up try to stay away from seventeen thousand keep your nugget on UNINTELLIGABLE

He says keep your nugget on a swivel.

wildcat



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Note, I started a new thread and was directed here. I`m just going to copy and paste my original comments from there here.

This is very interesting. This is my main interest in UFO`S, the one`s seen by military or civilian pilots. The radar track makes it more interesting. If your familiar with the radio traffic, you will understand that the first pilot is locking the object up in what is commonly referred to as an AACQ radar mode. This stands for automatic acquisition. It has several variations such as bore site mode which focuses the radar in a narrow beam roughly along the boreline of the gun sight. The second type of AACQ sends a slightly wider beam focused on the area that would be directly seen through the HUD or heads up display. On the tape they are calling this auto guns. This is commonly referred to as hud scan. The next type is vertical scan which sweeps the radar on a vertical axis and is used when you get stuck in lag pursuit and can`t get you nose on the target. All of these modes auto lock the first target in the field of view at 10 miles or less.

Went over to the UFO DATA forums and took a look around. Seems like they are more into attacking each other than investigating. Too bad because they have people who seem to have contacts that could get it sorted out. I hope some of the locals there will call the local weather service and get a detailed weather report including winds aloft data. We all know that this could explain a lot. The conditions may have made it hard to I.D. the object. The wind data could explain the speed of the object. With a bit of internet research I was able to find out that weather balloons sometimes come in different colors. I saw a picture of a dark red one that could easily be confused with black, just add in speed, canopy distortion and weather conditions. I also found that weather balloons require a radar reflector per FAA regulations. I was unable to find out if this was also required in the U.K. The reflector is a safety device to avoid mid air collisions so it probably is. This would easily account for the radar lock. I was also able to find that over 900 balloons are released each day throughout the world at the same time.

Locally, they need to call the weather service there and find out if weather balloons were released and the time of day etc. Next, someone with local contacts at the airbase there needs to request the bullseye location for that day. With this info you can overlay the bullseye on a map and get the exact location of the object as it was called out during the radio transmissions. I`m not going to post this over there as it seems more of a place to attack each other. An outsider like myself would probably not be to welcome.

I am going to see if I can research this more myself but it would be much easier for the locals there to knock it out. The Bullseye info might not be obtainable but would be a massive help in the investigation. The military probably won`t disclose the location but it doesn`t hurt to ask.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Got a little bit more of the radio traffic figured out. By the way, good job on the transcription.

Aircraft 1 Pilot Copy that I’m gonna’ UNINTELLIGABLE

He says copy that I`m in an easy right hand turn.

wildcat



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Went over to the UFO DATA forums and took a look around. Seems like they are more into attacking each other than investigating.


Actually, there was just one individual that seemed intent on disrupting our investigation by continually denigrating our work. We are still looking into this case and a report of our progress so far will be in the next issue of UFOData Magazine at the beginning of May.

We have contacted the MoD, the USAF, the National Air Traffic Service, we have quotes about the case from the Met Office and we have acknowledged the excellent input from ATS members.


Thanks,

Steve Johnson



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Hi,

Just wondered if anyone has had any lck with their FOI request in the States, re this incident?

We are still feverishly working on the case here in the UK, and hopefully the first article in it will appear in the May issue of UFO DATA Magazine.

ufomekchris.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Hi all,

Even though this case is now over a year old, we do not have much else to report. The MOD confirmed it did happened, but stated it was a balloon.

Can't remember what the responses from National Air Traffic Services was.

Don Berliner, tried using FOI in the Staes and was told by the USAF that it simply did not happen.

Did anyone else over there in the States get anywhere with there enquiries via FOI?

What about PW229? How did you fare with your enquries. I am thinking as mine was the last post in the thread, that no one found out much?

If anyone want's to contact me direct via email re this case my address is ufomek@hotmail.co.uk

Look forward to hearing what anyone else has on this.

ufomekchris



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ufomekchris
 


Even though this case is now over a year old, we do not have much else to report. The MOD confirmed it did happened, but stated it was a balloon.

Riiiight... a balloon with the radar return of a "rock".



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
edit on 14-12-2012 by intrptr because: NVM





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join