It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

US pilot ordered to shoot down UFO over Norwich

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Amazing story.
Makes you... think?

I hope to hear more now the MoD has released their files.

Hoping the US government follows, which they undoubtedly won't.




posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
This is now covered over CNN:

CNN UFO report



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Would be great for the US Military to release a few older cases - they must have thousands of the things lying around. Perhaps with the UK Government releasing this latest batch this will be more likely!

Heck perhaps this is a covert "nudge" from someone in the UK in the know to a US counterpart that they are tired of the secrecy.

The MOD October 2008 release is ufos.nationalarchives.gov.uk.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It appears this account was obtained by a UFO researcher named Harry Harris back in 1988 when he happened to run into the pilot who was attending a reunion. It was Mr. Harris who contacted the MoD about the matter.

At any rate, UFO Casebook had done an article detailing this case and it's worth a read. It has all the names redacted in the MoD release.

Go about a third of the way down this page... www.ufocasebook.com...

Here's the story again in the Jan/Feb 2008 edition of UFODATA magazine...

www.ufodata.co.uk...

[edit on 20-10-2008 by IAttackPeople]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Just a brief note:

The F86 didn't carry sidewinders but instead carried unguided rockets.

Source



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
great news i hope more files get released(that are obviously u.f.o related), we should be grateful and show our appreciation. some would argue they should of never hide this stuff, but at the same time they did'nt have to release anything, so a thumbs up
to british ministry of defence for making this case public.

we are ready and prepared for the truth. even sceptics are they just want some hard evidence as to why they should take it seriously.

lets hope theres more to come. in the ideal world they would just level with us about what they are, but then this is'nt an ideal world. so no point getting your hopes up.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
And here is another account of the incident by the fellow pilot.

www.ufocasebook.com...


And that would indeed be that, were it not for the back-up of
Milt Torres's element partner on that night, Dave Roberson.
Though Dave sees some details differently, it is clear that
something unusual did occur:

"As I recall, I was the flight leader, and we were on a training
mission making simulated attacks on each other. While on this
flight, we were contacted by someone (probably Manston), and
told to contact a GCI site. I believe it was the site in East
Anglia just north of the Thames (Bawdsey?). They queried me
about the weapons status of our aircraft. We were unarmed, as
was the usual status on training flights, and I so advised. We
were directed to land at RAF Bentwaters where our aircraft were
armed with live rockets."

"We received a briefing of some sort on the ground. I don't
recall by whom, but I believe it was by land line. I
specifically recall being advised that more than one GCI site
and multiple 'unknowns' were involved and that the area extended
into Scotland. I don't recall being advised of other RAF or USAF
aircraft being involved, but would seem probable that they
were."

"After launch, we were vectored independently. Normal procedure
would have been to receive an initial heading and altitude along
with a call-sign and frequency of the GCI site to contact. I
don't recall ever going above 10,000 feet, but Milton [Torres]
was sent to higher altitudes. I was vectored on several of the
unknowns and in spite of the ground clutter, I did get several
pretty good returns, but was unable to maintain radar contact
long enough to get a lock on. Information from the controller
indicated the unknowns were changing speed and altitude quite
frequently. Some of my runs were in the cloud and others were in
the clear. I don't recall how many attempts at radar and/or
visual contact I made, but it was several."

"One [run] I remember quite well was at 3,000 feet. I was told
that the 'bogey' was at angels 3 and at very slow speed. I
recall being told that the unknown was at 12 o'clock and I was
closing. Perhaps because of the ground clutter I never got a
positive radar contact of the unknown. At this point, I believe
I was in in the vicinity of Norwich. As directed, I attempted to
get a visual contact when I closed to less than 2 miles, but was
unable. If the unknown was lighted, he must have blended with
the ground lights. The bogey then either accelerated or
descended and the controller lost him."

"I don't recall whether we became low on fuel or the unknowns
left the area; but at some point the controller rejoined us and
we recovered to Manston. I do not recall being contacted
one-on-one by anyone about keeping the details quiet. However,
due to some of my later activities in the Air Force involving
close-kept operations, where I learned to blank out details in
my mind, this lack of recall does not surprise me. I do recall
Milton was rather excited and talked about getting a lock on one
of the unknowns, but I don't remember the details."

"I might add that during this time frame (spring of 1957), while
either standing cockpit alert or acting as runway control
officer, on two occasions I saw some activity to the south of
Manston [English Channel/North Sea area], which involved several
lighted objects moving in strange ways. They were sometimes
motionless and sometimes accelerating in various directions
which did not appear to be consistent with either fixed wing
aircraft or helicopters known to me at that time. I reported
these to control tower and/or Met Sector, but never requested or
received any explanation of what they were."



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
The description of the radar contact seems to fit the description of the effects of radar countermeasures. The fact that, during the Cold War, an interceptor and GCI may have been spoofed by a Soviet (or other unidentified) aircraft would be very good reason to "conceal" the incident. Of note is the fact that there was never any visual contact made with this immense object, by the pilot of the interceptor or ground observation.


Mechanical jamming

Mechanical jamming is caused by devices which reflect or re-reflect radar energy back to the radar to produce false target returns on the operator's scope. Mechanical jamming devices include chaff, corner reflectors, and decoys.
* Chaff is made of different length metallic strips, which reflect different frequencies, so as to create a large area of false returns in which a real contact would be difficult to detect. Chaff is often aluminum for weight purposes and is usually coated with something such as a plastic to make it more slick and less likely to bind up in large clumps.
* Corner reflectors have the same effect as chaff but are physically very different. Corner reflectors are multiple-sided objects that re-radiate radar energy mostly back toward its source. An aircraft cannot carry as many corner reflectors as it can chaff.
* Decoys are maneuverable flying objects that are intended to deceive a radar operator into believing that they are actually aircraft. They are especially dangerous because they can clutter up a radar with false targets making it easier for an attacker to get within weapons range and neutralize the radar. Corner reflectors can be fitted on decoys to make them appear larger than they are, thus furthering the illusion that a decoy is an actual aircraft. Some decoys have the capability to perform electronic jamming or drop chaff.

Source

Electronic jamming can cause the "target" to appear to be in different locations and move at different speeds.

Time magazine article 1957

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Maybe he was briefed that it probably was from German origin? Or maybe something to do with the whole 1947 thing…
Good find merits for you..



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thank you for injecting some logic into this coversation. I was just going to post the same thing, but you beat me to it. Be prepared to be called a disinfo agent.

1. F-86 did not carry any sidewinders in 1957, they carried Unguided rockets in 1957.
2. I have always heard that the F-86 carried a total of 16 HVARs not 24 rockets, but i could be wrong.
3. The pilots never saw anything. How do you not see something that huge, even at night? I guess you guy will say it was cloaked or something, right?



Edited to correct my post about the F-86's radar.



[edit on 20-10-2008 by drock905]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mazmike
This is now covered over CNN:

CNN UFO report


Just saw that. They also have a blurb about it on Fox News in the side panel. You don't see too many UFO stories in the mainstream media, so I am fairly excited.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Great thread but personally I find this rather worrying, actions like that could lead to them attacking us although they probably know we physically can't touch them as they are so much more advanced than us but nevertheless it's very ignorant of them to attempt to do so.....



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spock Shock

Originally posted by StargateSG7
Shooting down a million tonne starship that has been through the farthest
reaches of space containing engines of nearly infinite energy density
with the ability to create field effects that can distort the very fabric
of space and time......TRYING to shoot it down with a Sidewinder missile?
Now that is a laugh that makes me want to quaff a few pints in disbelief.


Best Quote In History, lmao... I know eh, as if a sidewinder is gonna save the day, lmao


First, allow me to state that I am in no way a "skeptic", professional or otherwise. However, I really need to correct some misinformation given by some of the posters. If this happened 50 years ago, the North American F-86D Sabre interceptors would not be equipped with "sidewinders" at all. The F86D was equipped with a retractable rocket bay loaded with 24 unguided rockets not much more advanced than those used in WWII. Secondly, in 1958-59, who knew that a "starship" weighed some number of tons or that it had a particular type of power configuration? Only science-fiction writers.
The only thing more distracting to true UFO research than the "professional skeptic" is the "professional believer" like the nut-job MUFON sent me to help investigate a case in Florida twenty years ago. His theory was that since everyone had already been abducted, there was no point in not asking leading questions to the witnesses. With "investigators" like those, who needs skeptics? Let's all make sure of our footing before we sound completely daft in front of the general public.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


The F-86D carried AN/APG-36 search radar.
The nose was modified to fit the radome.

Carried 24, 2.75 inch FFAR's

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I stand corrected, you are right the f-86D did have radar. My mistake I thought it just had a radar ranging sysyem for the guns.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Please assume the possibility that the radar return observed over East Anglia was an Alien craft, that said imo alien craft are pretty rare;

The F-86D Sabre in question did have a radar system as reported, and was reported to be carrying 24 rockets.

So Chaff/ECM versus Unknown craft hypothesis?

Is it possible for this to be a conventional explanation?, is there anyone out there with a little experience of Soviet "probing" of the time who could validate or throw more light on this?

**

(I will be biased as I would like this 1 to be an alien craft
*reported -theory)

- Soviet Tu-95 flight approaches East coast below radar coverage

*observed for "considerable-time" by ground radar
- Tu-95 flight loiters in area, employing popup tactics and other maneuvers, noticed by ground radar.

*2 Fighters sent to intercept
- 1 of the fighters definately went for 1 target, I'll ignore the other 1 if it did chase different targets (as I only just read that post thx)

* "The final turn was given"
- The pilot reports using a flashlight in cockpit, also with his radar on. An alert crewman on the Tu-95 notices flashlight/radar emmisions/or uses his own tail radar(?) to otherwise spot the Sabre.

*"It was the best target I could ever remember locking on to"
- The pilot of the Tu-95 is informed, deploys a chaff cloud, heck multiple chaff clouds, and dives as if his life depends on it.
- The pilot of the Sabre gets a near instant maximum range lock on the "perfect" return of the now stationary chaff cloud and declares "Judy".

15 miles lock = 13 nautical miles
800 knot closing speed (more or less stationary chaff cloud)
13nm/minute (conveniently)
Intercept in about 60 seconds

- The Sabre closes on its perfect target, after 40 seconds the Chaff cloud disperses to the extent the lock is no longer "perfect"

- For whatever reason as the lock degrades the Fire control computer interprets an accelerating target.

- Back at GCI at the heat of the moment the operator misses the "switchover" and is also fooled.

- (??) The Tu-95 plummets like a bat out of hell, and is detected briefly departing the area by GCI within 2 sweeps

**

Would welcome more input from more people! Any more pro-UFO knowledgeable people out there? (personal bias sry! we all have it!)



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ezappa
\
If these craft are so technologicaly advanced why havent they figured out stealth technology or some other form of radar invisibility yet?.


Umm well maybe because they don't really care if they are seen or not .
Answer me that , when you go to the zoo or aquarium do you try and conceal yourself from the animals while watching ?
just some food for thought



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Out of curiosity which nations have been open with/admitted UFO encounters? Any idea where I could find a list?



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Since no one made visual contact it could have been something to do with radar fault, and since phage offers a plausible alternative then alien spacecraft then it is too soon to jump the gun and call it great ufo/alien evidence. Or it could have been something natural messing with thier radars...
. Sorry guys another ufo story with another possible explaination that counters ETs are here theory.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by riggs2099]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
This is definitely one of the most convincing stories I've read on UFO's. Up until today I was more convinced that we are not being visited by strange outter space things, but now I'm either over the line or at least on it, that we are being visited.

This also strongly supports the notion that governments are actually letting loose the details on purpose in some ridiculous grand scheme.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join