It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Classic Case: Lakenheath/Bentwaters radar/visual episode (1956)

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:29 AM
As part of a project I'm currently finalising relating to the most frequently discussed UFO cases of all time, I’ve been collating links to discussions of the relevant cases on ATS. I could not find any threads relating to some of those cases so decided to quickly start a few of them, including this one:

The Lakenheath/Bentwaters radar/visual episode ocurred during night of 13th-14th August 1956.

This incident is discussed as “Case 2” in the Condon Report, which includes the following summary (which states that “The preponderance of evidence indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO in this case”):

“At least one UFO was tracked by air traffic control radar (GCA) at two USAF-RAF stations, with apparently corresponding visual sightings of round, white rapidly moving objects which changed directions abruptly. Interception by RAF fighter aircraft was attempted; one aircraft was vectored to the UFO by GCA radar and the pilot reported airborne radar contact and radar gunlock., The UFO appeared to circle around behind the aircraft and followed it in spite of the pilot's evasive maneuvers. Contact was broken when the aircraft returned to base, low on fuel. The preponderance of evidence indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO in this case. The weather was generally clear with good visibility.”

For links to various relevant documents and articles online see:

This was Project Blue Book Case Number 4294.

This incident featured in a document (“the Rockefeller Briefing Document”) endorsed by Dr Mark Rodeghier (President of CUFOS), Richard Hall (Chairman of FUFOR) and Walter Andrus (President of MUFON) as containing “the best available evidence for the existence of UFOs”.

This incident has featured in the following:

  • a list of the ten “best” case published by Ronald Story in his book “UFOs and the Limits of Science” (1981).
  • a list by Don Berliner of “the top 10 cases of World Ufology” in an interview made available on the UFO UpDates discussion List on 14 January 2007.

As part of a survey of various researchers conducted by the Fortean Times in 2007 of the ten cases from 1947 onwards that interested them the most, this incident featured in lists of cases produced by the following:

  • British ufologist Nick Pope
  • British ufologist Gary Heseltine
  • a joint list by British ufologists Dave Clarke and Andy Roberts

(For references to relevant discussions in various UFO books see Koi Chronology 1956.0813)

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 01:33 PM
Isaac - if you've not seen it before,Jkrogs done a pretty comprehensive thread on this one here and theres also a good link below which details maps,log books,pilot interviews and timelines - it also contains some pretty interesting (unsubstantiated) statements like this one:

"Here we had a number of object seen coming in across the North Sea on coastal radar. It looked like a Russian mistake. Jet aircraft were scrambled. The objects were travelling at quite impossible speeds like 4-5000 mph and then came to an abrupt halt near to one of these stations not very high up. Jet aircraft picked them up on aircraft radar. The objects then simply made rings round them."

"Inevitably this led to the sort of enquiry which you would put in hand if you had any military responsibilities. Had something gone wrong with ground radar or with aircraft radar? We experienced pilots going out of their minds? Were people having fantasies? We *had* to investigate cases of that kind. Over the years - although there were not an enormous number of such cases - there were a sufficient number to persuade me, and a number of air staff friends with whom I had to work, that something was going on, sporadically, in British airspace which we could not explain."

"But we did not particularly want to make public statements about that. Not for something that we had no explanation."

Ralph Noyes,Senior Official with British Air Ministry - retired as Under Secretary of State in 1977



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by karl 12
Isaac - if you've not seen it before,Jkrogs done a pretty comprehensive thread on this one here

Hi Karl,

Thanks for the link.

I started this thread well over a year ago, as the same time as doing my Top 100 list at the beginning of last year. I don't think there was any thread at all on ATS on the Lakenheath incident - hence my relatively brief post about it.

I was glad to see the fuller treatment in the thread at your link.

All the best,


[edit on 18-10-2009 by IsaacKoi]

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:39 PM
Yes when Jkrog does a thread, he is so thorough it's hard to justify starting another thread on the same topic. There are some shoddy UFO threads on ATS that need to be redone with more evidence and detail, but none of them are by Jkrog, all his are excellent.

Actually Isaac, what you can do is check this list before starting a UFO thread:

Unless you have a particularly unique angle or new information to justify a new thread, I'd just add to the existing thread on that list.

But while jkrog was very thorough, one thing I'm not sure he included was this modification of Col Halt's recording to add beeps at 5 second intervals, same as the lighthouse:

The Rendlesham Forest UFO

Every lighthouse has a published interval at which it flashes. This is how sea captains are able to identify which light they're seeing. The Oxfordness lighthouse has an interval of 5 seconds. Now listen to the same exchange again; I've added a beep at exactly five second intervals:

The embedded audio file demonstrates that the light is seen by Col Halt at exactly the same 5 second intervals as the Oxfordness lighthouse. Listen for yourself.

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Unless you have a particularly unique angle or new information to justify a new thread, I'd just add to the existing thread on that list.

But I started this thread well over a year ago and the other thread on Lakenheath did not exist at that time.

It would have been rather difficult to add to a thread that did not exist at that time...

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:55 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Hi Arbitrageur -I think you're referring to another incident there as this one happened in 1956.

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by karl 12
Oops, sorry, my mistake, you're right.

And you're also right about there already being a good thread on this one, I should have just left it at that, my apologies..

new topics

top topics


log in