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: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


As far as I know that is incorrect. The first effective false target technology was being developed in the USA around that time and the Russians did not have an active platform. They had radar JAMMING yes, that technology had been around for a while but as far as im aware the technology you are talking about was in its infancy at that time and wouldnt have fooled the R3 radar network which would have confirmed target from multiple bunkers as a matter of protocol.

Regarding the pilot he quite clearly explained his lack of memory when he stated there were top secret projects going on at that time and he was "conditioned to forget: instantly so he wasnt surprised to not remeber details, all part of his training.

No mystery there, the second pilot does recall the other telling him about having a radar lock and just because one had missle lock on target doesnt mean the other would have one.

"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. "

Also since the second pilot didnt achieve lock maybe there was no need to advise him of the position. the first pilot was talking about it and his lock, which would justify anyone wishing to silence further talk.

The consitancy of false targets has nothing to dow ith the pilots, the target was tracked and verified by the R3 ground stations, firing order was given and then confirmed that means all protocols were followed and protocol would have the signal checked by other bunkers along the network before live firing was ordered over a UK civilian area.

You are looking for incosistancies which arent there basically, theres nothing in the account that indicates these men were not involved in the incident. Seems to me like you are looking to suggest it was invented based on your desire to debunk and nothing else.

Again the MOD classified this for some reason so obviously they assumed it to be a valid security item or it wouldnt have been sent to classified archives in the first place.


[edit on 20-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 20-10-2008 by silver6ix]




posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Fox news:

www.foxnews.com...

I also emailed Paul Webb who is the "UFO" guy at the MOD regarding this. Paul Webb holds the job at the MOD which Nick Pope held.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
Yes I quite clearly said UFOs than you for confirming. Again, UFO doesnt mean Alien Craft, its just your choice to twist it that way. UFO means unidentified and if it was an lien craft it wouldnt be a UFO.


Please, do not attempt to insult our intelligence. There is no need to twist it. It is very clear what you meant, that it was an alien craft, and the government was lying when they said they were not a threat. You are trying to lie your way out of it.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Yahoo News as well:

news.yahoo.com...

[edit on 20-10-2008 by ufo reality]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by silver6ix
Yes I quite clearly said UFOs than you for confirming. Again, UFO doesnt mean Alien Craft, its just your choice to twist it that way. UFO means unidentified and if it was an lien craft it wouldnt be a UFO.


Please, do not attempt to insult our intelligence. There is no need to twist it. It is very clear what you meant, that it was an alien craft, and the government was lying when they said they were not a threat. You are trying to lie your way out of it.


If you dont understand the meaning of UFO im not sure how you can talk on the subject. Again, you cant find plenty examples in this thread and on the forum where ive said clearly I dont claim aliens but if lies is what you need to make a point, please go ahead. I said UFO, I meant UFO and no matter how much fiction you choose to write, UFO is still UNIDENTIFIED.

Yes, the military have seen UFOs they consider a threat and classified it. That does not mean they saw aliens. Only someone with an agenda to twist the truth would try to paint it that way.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
The consitancy of false targets has nothing to dow ith the pilots, the target was tracked and verified by the R3 ground stations


Actually, we don't know that. We have no confirmation, of any sort, it was being tracked and verified. All we know is what the pilot was told in briefing and during the pursuit. We don't know what was really happening, just what the pilot was told...they could be two quite different things.


Originally posted by silver6ix
firing order was given and then confirmed that means all protocols were followed and protocol would have the signal checked by other bunkers along the network before live firing was ordered over a UK civilian area.


The firing was not ordered over a populated or civilian area. From the pilot's testimony:


Our vector took us out over the North Sea just east of East
Anglia...

The instructions came toreport any visual observations, to which I replied "I'm in the soup and it's impossible to see anything!" The weather was probably high alto stratus, but between being over the North Sea and in the weather, no frame of reference was available



Originally posted by silver6ix
Again the MOD classified this for some reason so obviously they assumed it to be a valid security item or it wouldnt have been sent to classified archives in the first place.


Just because it seems to have been classified, does not mean the MoD thought it to be a valid security item. If you read the other files released in this most recent batch, many are innocuous items, such as letters to the MoD inquiring about UFOs, and innocuous replies. One letter complains that aliens are barking at the writer at night. It seems these items were not classified because of the security implications, but rather fell into some sort of UFO slush-pile.

If 1958 incident were a security concern, why don't we see any documetation of the MoD following-up on this? Other than the original letter, there is nothing there. There is absolutely nothing here to indicate the MoD thought it was a cause for any sort of concern.

And far from being proof of a cover-up, as you claimed earlier, this story has been on the internet for a decade now, as the link at the bottom of this page (a word for word recreation) seems to indicate.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Yes we do know that because firing orders have to follow a strict set of protocols, for thefiring order to be given the protocols were completed, the firing codes were given verified and the confirmation returned, protocol was being followed.

The pilot clearly states the location of the UFOs from ground control as being over the mainland "over the north sea" can be red a generic description involving the location in the UK.

"I was advised of the situation quite
clearly. The initial briefing indicated that the ground was
observing for a considerable time, a blip that was orbiting the
East Anglia area."

The second pilot confirms the location which ground control gave as being over the mainland, not at see as I listed previously.

Bottom line is the report is full of details and his exact location when asked to report on visibility to the pilot would have been impossible to gauge. The information from GCI which was "quite clearly reporter" to him was the object was ove East Anglia, a fact confirmed by the second pilot.

I see nothing unusual in that at all.

As for the "UFO slush pile" im sorry but non interesting non investigated non threatening reports are not classified as standard. If they were classified its because a high ranking official gave it classified status, the question being why were UFO reports given classified status and not just thrown out.

As for investigation the MOD has already answered this.

"The Ministry of Defence said it examined the reports solely to determine whether enemy aircraft had infiltrated British airspace. Once it was determined that no enemy aircraft were in the sky, it did not investigate further.

"The Ministry of Defence has no other interest or role regarding UFO matters and does not consider questions regarding the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life-forms," it said in May."


That is the MODs position on UFOs they take no interest in them and will not investigate them. Yet they do classify UFO reports for some bizarre reason.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 20-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I am not able to download the report at the moment (using a phone for my internet) can someone please infom if my understanding is accurate so far?

- Uk ground based radar picked up a huge radar return over the area of Norwich

-2 American pilots flying f-86s were scrambled to investigate.

-One or both of the Sabers had radar, rockets and sidewinder missiles?

- One pilot at 3000 feet and the other was at a higher altitude

- Weather was bad so they never had a visual on the radar blip

- They followed this signal out over the North Sea

- Both pilots achieved a radar lock ?

- Ground command ordered the pilots to fire

- One pilot (blindly????) fired 24 of his unguided rockets at this radar return? from 2 miles out?

-Both pilots safely returned to thier base, where they we debriefed and told the incident was classified and not to discuss it.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
This is a very interesting account, and I am not surprised that an RAF investigation report is not included with the report. This would fit the pattern followed in the US by the USAF for many similar incidents.

One I have heard of from the witness/participant occurred during the Vietnam War during military exercises conducted off the east coast of the US. What I recall of the pilot's account, he was flying high above an aircraft carrier in an aircraft used in refueling. My recall of his account is very hazy, but I do remember that he saw the UFO which I believe was also observed by radar on the surface. I believe he was flying in to investigate when his aircraft entered some sort of "green light beam" emanating from the craft. (this is reminiscent of the "Coyne helicopter UFO Incident") The pilot believes he was somehow taken aboard onto the craft probably via the beam and that he went into some sort of containment vessel. He lost consciousness for much of the incident and when he came to, he was in his aircraft at an altitude in excess of the maximum operating altitude and his jets had flamed out. He recalls he struggled to control the aircraft and was able to relight his turbines when his aircraft dropped down to about 40,000 feet.

He said when he got back on the carrier he was debriefed and shown photographs of UFOs and asked if what he saw was like any of the photos.
Unfortunately, I can't provide more details, and to my knowledge the witness was not willing to go on record so the incident is not widely known.

I believe that there were many close encounters between military aircraft and UFOs and back in the 1950s, there were at times, orders to shoot at the UFOs and also in some cases, pilots and aircraft dissappeared during these encounters or in other cases, aircraft crashed. I know of no incidents where any pilot was able to shoot down a UFO. And from what I have concluded, at least some of these UFOs seem to originate from civilizations which are far more advanced than any on earth.

I know that without a public statement from the witness, this account is basically useless as any sort of evidence to others, but I certainly felt the pilot's account was intrigueing.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
I am not able to download the report at the moment (using a phone for my internet) can someone please infom if my understanding is accurate so far?

- Uk ground based radar picked up a huge radar return over the area of Norwich

-2 American pilots flying f-86s were scrambled to investigate.

-One or both of the Sabers had radar, rockets and sidewinder missiles?

- One pilot at 3000 feet and the other was at a higher altitude

- Weather was bad so they never had a visual on the radar blip

- They followed this signal out over the North Sea

- Both pilots achieved a radar lock ?

- Ground command ordered the pilots to fire

- One pilot (blindly????) fired 24 of his unguided rockets at this radar return? from 2 miles out?

-Both pilots safely returned to thier base, where they we debriefed and told the incident was classified and not to discuss it.



The planes were originally flying an unarmed traing exercise when they were ordered to land and equip with live rounds, its not normal for planes on any kind of duty bar full active duty to be flying "hot" over civilian airspace in the UK. They were scrambled to intercept an object which all the time was being monitored over East Anglia by the radar stations.

Id imagine during the time the planes were scrambled and armed the correct protocols were being followed and confirmation procedures were used to verify the contact from other (there are hundreds of radar outposts all across the sland) stations. They were given orders to fly hot, intercept and engage the contact.

This is important, this order (much like US launch codes) followed a strick protocol which the account verifies was being followed, firing codes were given and the verification code was sent back to ground and the confirmation firing order returned. These two fighters (US fighters) were authorised to attack and shoot down an object flying over the UK, a very rare situation, historically only during the WW with Germany has this ever occured.

They were in the clouds being guided by ground, ne of the pilots had a lock on the other did not, the lead pilot of the pair had full clear lock on an object he claims was as big as an aircraft carrier, this is hard to judge because it simply means radar contact was very large, you couldnt be precise in the exact size with that technology except that it was of considerable size, far bigger than a fighter for example.

The lead pilot "selected" 24 missles, meaning he prepared them for launch and zeroed on his target through the clouds, the target sped up and took off and he couldnt keep wth it, with the target lost the pilots were ordered to return to base.

Thats a brief summary. Only one pilot recalls being debriefed, the one who had full target lock on the bogey.

The other pilot does say he believes its normal he doesnt remeber as he was trained to forget details when working with later classified projects so he, as a rule, forgot as much as possible about anything of that sort of nature. Again an honest answer.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by silver6ix
 


Thanks for the quick response. Clears some of the questions I had.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
- Weather was bad so they never had a visual on the radar blip

- Ground command ordered the pilots to fire

- One pilot (blindly????) fired 24 of his unguided rockets at this radar return? from 2 miles out?

-Both pilots safely returned to thier base, where they we debriefed and told the incident was classified and not to discuss it.



I also have had problems in my attempts to download the file, so I haven't been able to read the whole report.

My understanding is that the pilot used his radar to target the unknown. During any normal intercept, the pilot would be requested to identify the unknown before an order to fire would be issued so this does not sound like a normal intercept procedure. However, I do think that the pilot primarily relies on his radar for targetting the aircraft in a rocket salvo, at least, I believe that was what the firing was like in the F-89, another fighter jet from the same timeframe. As I have read it here, the size of the return was very large.

One possible explanation is that the unknown was testing the RAF response (as the Russians would do if they were able to get that close in to the UK). They may have deliberately enabled radar detection so they could be seen on ground radar and then sat cloaked by cloud to inhibit visual detection.

I know that in incidents like this, there always is enough unknowns for those reading about the incident to come to alternative explanations such as the ones involving variations on conventional military encounters involving the Russians or testing of new technology. If the report is true as to what I have gleaned so far, it is unlikely that this would have been a Russian aircraft. But one thing is true, in some cases, orders to shoot down aircraft perceived to be military threats were issued before the aircraft was visually identified. I am thinking about the case of the Iranian passenger jet shot down over the Persian Gulf by the US and the case where the Korean passenger jet was shot down over the USSR.

However in these unfortunate circumstances, the jet was not able to depart at speeds of 10,000 kph (or whatever the speed was in this case) to save themselves from the threat posed by the interceptors.

If this was a test of new technology by UK or UK allies, then they most certainly would not have issued firing orders to the pilot.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
The planes were originally flying an unarmed traing exercise when they were ordered to land and equip with live rounds, its not normal for planes on any kind of duty bar full active duty to be flying "hot" over civilian airspace in the UK. They were scrambled to intercept an object which all the time was being monitored over East Anglia by the radar stations.


I'm not certain of the rules used in the US and Canada, but I find your comment interesting. I am quite certain that in the US, back in the 1950s, that all fighter squadrons part of ADC (Air Defense Command) maintained aircraft on 7 day, 24 hour active alert. Aircraft on alert were equipped for combat.

One aircraft crash which has very much interested me was the crash of a USAF F-86 from McChord AFB in Tacamo, WA into Grouse Mountain in North Vancouver, BC back in February 1954. Newspaper accounts and the official accident reports state the pilot was flying on a "routine training mission" when he got lost, probably due to failures of his compass. (Note: it seems the mission is ALWAYS stated as a "routine" training or intercept mission )

How ground control lost track of the pilot is not stated but the accident report seems to suggest it was due to the volume of traffic they were monitoring. One thing I find very suspicious about the incident is that the F-86 crashed with live rocket ammo. The USAF spent a few days trying to find the rockets from the crash as some were apparently missing. I could find no indication in the documents I searched that they were successful in recovering all the rockets, making me wonder if the pilot was on a more secret air defense mission and he had actually fired some of his weapons? In any case, it seems suspicious to me that the F-86 would be loaded with live ammo for a training mission that was described as "navigational" (not combat)

The jet engine from the F-86 still rests quite peacefully up on Grouse Mountain, down below the base of the ski lift. As a piece of wreckage, it looks remarkably like it could have been dropped there just a few weeks ago.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


To the best of my knowledge (I had family and friends who operated ground crew in the RAF, although not in that era) this is not the case.

UK is very secure airspace with very few intruders. What we normally have anddo have to this day is scramble squadrons which are kept fully armed in heavily enforced bunkers. These planes in the modern age can be airborne at full combat readiness in under five minutes. For example the Tornado Squadron at RAF Leuchars.

Its very unusual for any military craft to be in UK civilian airspace armed with live weapons. The exceptions would be planes dispatched to live combat situations which crossed the airspace but as a rule, in transit, in training and in all general manouvers they would be equipped with dummy weapons or simply carry no weapons at all.

If they were reqired to go live, they land and the weapons would be switched out within minutes and the planes would be airborne again.

In the US it might be different as you have had far more "incidents" in your airspace due to proximity to other nations, on an Island in the highly defensible postion of the UK it was never deemed neccessary, even during the cold war enemy fighters lacked the range to enage in UK space, long range bombers could be sent in theory but without fighter support against the best dog fighting airforce in the skies at that time, they would be tord to shreds before they ever cleared the water so the threat of aircraft was low.

We were more concerned with ICBM threats from Russia than anything else.

The time it would have been different was during the war with Germany for obvious reason however at that time I think we had the worlds largest standing NAVY and many aircraft carriers who would have a full compliment of readied fighters. Most of the UK defence has always been focused in the waters offshore, combining naval and air strength before the enemy got to the mainland, which is why Hitler got himself in such trouble, attacking that Island was always a fools errand.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by bluestreak53
To the best of my knowledge (I had family and friends who operated ground crew in the RAF, although not in that era) this is not the case.
[edit on 21-10-2008 by silver6ix]


Hi silver6ix

I wasn't disagreeing, just commenting. In the early 1950s, before USSR developed operational ICBM capability, the primary threat in North America were long range bombers loaded with atomic bombs. Even after ICBMs were developed and deplyed, I am quite sure that USSR and US maintained long range bomber fleets that could reach targets in US (so I assume they could reach UK as well). And I believe that some bombers are still basically venturing to the edges of US/Canadian/Russian air space to this day.

However, I understand your point about radar protection and UK was already setting up a fairly extensive radar network during the second world war and has a much smaller land mass. In north america, the US and Canada were busy through most of the 1950s, building the pine tree line and then the dew line as well as an extensive network the US built in the northern states and Alaska.

I am certainly surprised to read that the order to fire was issued without the interceptors having had a chance to visually identify the targets so this certainly appears to be a very exceptional level of response to an unknown threat (as others have already noted).

Of course, as the government and military tell us, "Don't worry, UFOs are of no threat to national defense, so we don't study them and aren't bothered by them in the least". (or similar words to the same effect)
They don't tell us that they have on many occasions risked starting a possible inter-planetary war by firing on unknown craft that many in the Air Force and Navy believed to originate from other planets.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Just to make a clarification...I only ASSUMED that the missiles that
might have been used to fire at a large craft would be a Sidewinder
which were still in development up until 1957/1958.

I DO NOT truly KNOW for certain that what was fired was actually
a Sidewinder missile BUT I AM certain is was an ARMED rocket-like
device LIKE a Sidewinder that was intended to harm/blow up
an enemy craft.

I still think it's a bit of a joke to fire a Sidewinder-like missile
(by the way - the name was VERY apt because its snaking trajectory
after firing!) in the 1950's at a craft that is CLEARLY much larger
and had an obviously much more advanced flight envelope than
an F86 Sabre. That is SURELY inviting almost certain death.

It's like me throwing a molotov cocktail at an almost 70 tonne
M1 Abrams tank - It's kinda hard to make a dent in it
much less STOP IT and it probably would fire back
at me with something MORE than just some gumballs!

What I question about this incident is that a commander with ANY
sense of brains would EVEN TRY to PROVOKE a possible retaliation
when it is CLEAR that a craft of such size and flight characteristics
would obviously be very advanced and MIGHT have weaponry
detrimental to a very large portions of one's own arsenal.

In this business of war...INFORMATION is as important as firepower
because it is a BAD IDEA to directly confront a possible enemy without
having enough information on their precise whereabouts and abilities.
In this case I would have specifically sent observer craft with cameras,
and passive/active radar to gather more information rather than possibly
provoke an interplanetary war which we would likely lose after
firing the initial salvos of rockets.

I know the paranoia of the 1950's was likely a big factor in firing
the missiles, BUT IT STILL was a BAD IDEA to try and shoot down
a large craft that, even IF it could be brought down, would have
caused ENORMOUS DAMAGE if it crashed into a populated area.

At such sizes as an Aircraft carrier that has enormous acceleration
capabilities, ONLY a nuke could possibly make a big enough dent
fast enough to POSSIBLY bring down such a craft down.

---

As an aside, during the 1980's and 1990's, there have been instances
of craft in Northern Canada, Britain, Australia and South America that
were reported to be in the size ranges of 2 to 5 miles across
(i.e. 10,000 feet to 26,000 feet) which even a nuke would have
a problem taking down.

It's these types of reports that give credence to ME that probably
there ARE alien species exploring our corner of the Galaxy and that
it is LIKELY that they are NOT OVERTLY hostile but rather INDIFFERENT
to our military machinations UNTIL it really bugs them like a pesky
mosquito bugs me! Then we get swatted like bugs for being annoying!



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by StargateSG7
 


The rockets carried were 2.75 inch FFAR's, unguided rockets. Point the aircraft in the right direction, push the button, and hope for the best. Effective range was about 3,700 yards but accuracy was terrible.

According to the report the radar target was lost before the interceptor got within range and no rockets were launched.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
This news was feautred on our public service's text-TV as well.

I think it is proof enough that we are not alone. I am confident, very much so.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Raud
 


Its not proof we are not alone...
Your confidence is based soley on faith thats all.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join