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.


The UFO gauntlet: the case the Condon study, Blue Book, & Klass couldn't crack.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by Xtraeme

wow this case is a smoking gun !

multiple objects sighted, radar targets, a ufo chasing a fighter jet !

Observations of unidentified objects by USAF and RAF personnel, extending over 5 hours, and involving ground-radar, airborne-radar, ground visual and airborne-visual sightings of high-speed unconventionally maneuvering objects in the vicinity of two RAF stations at night.

a group of 12 to 15 unidentified targets was tracked from 8 miles (13 km.) southwest of Bentwaters to 40 miles (65 km.) northeast, at which time they "appeared to converge into one very large object

i agree with McDonald, the ET hypothesis is the most likely explanation:

In this Lakenheath UFO episode, we have evidence of some phenomena defying ready explanation in terms of present-day science and technology, some phenomena that include enough suggestion of intelligent control (tail-chase incident here), or some broadly cybernetic equivalent thereof, that it is difficult for me to see any reasonable alternative to the hypothesis that something in the nature of extraterrestrial devices engaged-in something in the nature of surveillance lies at the heart of the UFO problem.

thanks Xtraeme for the great thread

[edit on 25-7-2010 by easynow]

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 05:18 PM
Since not many people are aware of this, here's an interview conducted by Jenny Randles with the two pilots who were dispatched to intercept the unknown aerial object.

One really striking statement, that's corroborated by the night-watch supervisor in the Radar Air Traffic Control Center at Lakenheath, can be heard at @2:00,

Jenny: Did you try to close in on this object to get a visual sighting of it?
John (1st pilot): Yes we did, but this was impossible because, in my opinion, the thing was stationary. You can't intercept a stationary object in an aircraft traveling at [several] hundred miles per hour.
Jenny: So what did you try, to fly around it?
John: We overshot it, passed it, flew down, and then turned around, and vectored on to it again, and exactly the same result with the blip just disappearing down the tube.

Compare this to what the night-watch supervisor wrote in a letter to the Condon committee,

I had each scope set on a different range-from 10 miles to 200 miles radius of... [GCA A]. At this time I did not contact anyone by telephone is I was rather skeptical of this report. We were using full MTI on our radar, which eliminated entirely all ground returns and stationary targets. There was very little or no traffic or targets on the scopes, as I recall. However one controller noticed a stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles southwest. This was unusual as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless it was moving at a speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could detect no movement at all. We watched this target on all the different scopes for several minutes and I called the GCA Unit at ... [A] to see if they had this target on their scopes also. They confirmed the target was on their scope in the same geographical location. As we watched, the stationary target started moving at a speed of 400 to 600 mph in a north, northeast direction until it reached a point about 20 miles north northwest of ... [A]. There was no slow start or build-up to this speed--it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped.

It's striking that after all these years the two pilots confirm exactly the same thing that the night-watch supervisor reported. Interesting, no?
edit on 18-6-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in