It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A vibrating or rapidly rotating target will show up on MTI radar even if it is not otherwise in motion.
"He tried everything. He climbed, dived and circled. But the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him. Always the same same distance, very close."
For 10 minutes the pilot tried to shake off the object. Those on the ground could "tell from his tonal quality that he was getting worried, excited and also pretty scared."
Soon after he turned back to base as fuel was getting low.
Number 2: "Did you see anything? "
Number 1: "I saw something, but I'll be damned if I know what it was."
Number 2: "What happened?"
Number 1: "He - or it - got behind me and I did everything I could to get behind him and I couldn't. It's the damnedest thing I've ever seen."
d) [Description of flight path and maneuvers of object(s)] Flight path was straight but jerky with object stopping instantly and then continuing. Maneuvers were of the same pattern except one object was observed to "lock on" to fighter scrambled by RAF and followed all maneuvers of the jet fighter aircraft. In addition, Lakenheath RATCC observed object 17 miles east of station making sharp rectangular course of flight. This maneuver was not conducted by circular path but on right angles at speeds 600-800 mph. Object would stop and start with amazing rapidity.
The target made a couple more short moves, then left our radar coverage in a northerly direction -- speed still about 600 mph. We lost target outbound to the north at about 50-60 mi., which is normal if aircraft or target is at an altitude below 5,000 ft (because of the radiation lobe of that type radar [a CPS-5]).
I was Chief Controller on duty at the main RAF Radar Station in East Anglia on the night in question. My duties were to monitor the radar picture and to scramble the Battle Flight, who were on duty 24 hours a day, to intercept any intruder of British airspace not positively identified in my sector of responsibility."
"I remember Lakenheath USAF base telephoning to say there was some thing "buzzing" their airfield circuit. I scrambled a Venom night fighter from the Battle Flight through Sector and my controller in the Interception Cabin took over control of it. The Interception Control team would consist of one Fighter Controller (an Officer), a Corporal, a tracker and a height reader. That is, four highly trained personnel in addition to myself could now clearly see the object on our radarscopes."
"After being vectored onto the trail of the object by my Interception Controller, the pilot called out, "Contact," then a short time later, "Judy," which meant the Navigator had the target fairly and squarely on his own radar screen and needed no further help from the ground. He continued to close on the target but after a few seconds, and in the space of one or two sweeps of our scopes, the object appeared behind our fighter.
Our pilot called out, "Lost Contact, more help," and he was told the target was now behind him and he was given fresh instructions."
"I then scrambled a second Venom which was vectored toward the area but before it arrived on the scene the target had disappeared from our scopes and although we continued to keep a careful watch was not seen by us."
"The fact remains that at least nine RAF ground personnel and two RAF aircrew were conscious of an object sufficiently "solid" to give returns on radar. Naturally, all this was reported and a Senior Officer from the Air Ministry came down and interrogated us
This file is for the RAF Balloon Unit at RAF Cardington.
There were no balloon launches following the one at Liverpool on July 19th until the one at Usworth on August 16th. These balloon launches were also tethered as most were used for parachute jumps. Again some balloons escaped and had to be reported to ATCC Uxbridge. Balloons were not to be flown when winds exceeded 18 knots.
The Perseid meteor radiant shows unusual mobility and descends across more than 50° of arc from moderately high elevation in the east towards the northeast between about July 25 and August 17, moving from about 2°RA 41°Dec in Andromeda across the celestial N of Perseus to 68°RA 61°Dec in Camelopardus, reaching a maximum of around 50 particles per hour around August 10-12 and dwindling rapidly over the next five nights or so. On the night of August 13-14 the shower has passed its maximum and the radiant is only about 10° of azimuth from its terminal position in the NNE. [Tver, Motz & Hartmann, 1979] Neil Bone, head of the Meteor Section of the British Astronomical Association, concurs that the 1956 maximum had occurred on August 11-12 and that by the night of 13-14 rates would probably have fallen to around 20 particles per hour.
Paula W. Stimson, Cwpt. USAF, Intelligence Officer, 3910th ABGRU (SAC), RWF station Lakenheath, Suffolk, England. All personnel interviewed and logs of RATCC lend reality to the existence of some unexplainable flying phenomena near this air field on this occasion. No Air Base; however, the controllers are experienced and technical skills were used in attempts to determine just what the objects were. When the target would stop on the scope, the MTI was used. However, the target would still appear on the scope. All ground observers and reports from observers at Bentwaters agree on colour, maneuvers and shape of object. My analysis of the sightings is that they were real and not figments of the imagination. The fact that three radar sets picked up the targets simultaneously is certainly conclusive that a target or object was in the air. The maneuvers of the object were extraordinary; however, the fact that radar and ground visual observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abrupt stops certainly lend credulance to the report. It is not believed these sightings were of any meteorological or astronomical origins.
The probability that anomalous propagation of radar signals may have been involved in this case seems to be small. One or two details are suggestive of AP, particularly the reported disappearance of the first track as the UFO appeared to over fly the Bentwaters GCA radar. Against this must be weighed the Lakenheath controller's statement that there was "little or no traffic or targets on scope," which is not at all suggestive of AP conditions, and the behavior of the target near Lakenheath -- apparently continuous and easily tracked. The "tailing" of the RAF fighter, taken alone, seems to indicate a possible ghost image, but this does not jibe with the report that the UFO stopped following the fighter, as the latter was returning to its base, and went off in a different direction. The radar operators were apparently careful to calculate the speed of the UFO from distances and elapsed times, and the speeds were reported as consistent from run to run, between stationary episodes. This behavior would be somewhat consistent with reflections from moving atmospheric layers -- but not in so many different directions.
Visual mirage at Bentwaters seems to be out of the question because of the combined ground and airborne observations; the C47 pilot apparently saw the UFO below him. The visual objects do not seem to have been meteors; statements by the observers that meteors were numerous imply that they were able to differentiate the UFO from the meteors.
In summary, this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files. The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting. However, in view of the inevitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanations of this report cannot be entirely ruled out.
"In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high."
Four British Fortean researchers, Dr David Clarke, Andy Roberts, Martin Shough, and Jenny Randles, have since conducted a study that has indicated that the incident, or incidents, were very much more complex than the Condon Report had suggested.
Most significantly, the aircrews originally involved in the incident, F/Os David Chambers and John Brady from the first aircraft and F/Os Ian Fraser-Ker and Ivan Logan from the second, were located and interviewed. The aircrews involved all flew with 23 Squadron from RAF Waterbeach and were scrambled at 02:00 and 02:40 on 14 August - around two hours later than Wimbledon and Perkins claimed the interceptions occurred.
In contrast to the reports given in the original classified teletype and in the accounts of both Wimbledon and Perkins, the aircrews both stated that the radar contacts obtained were unimpressive and that no 'tail-chase', or action on the part of the target, occurred. They also asserted no visual contacts were made. The first pilot, Chambers, commented that "my feeling is that there was nothing there, it was some sort of mistake", while Ivan Logan, the second Venom's navigator, stated that "all we saw was a blip which rather indicated a stationary target". At the time 23 Squadron decided that the radar contact had, if anything, been with a weather balloon.
Letter from L.W. Ackhurst, S4 Air, Ministry of Defence, to P.R. Smith, dated 31 March 1969
The Ministry of Defence investigates reports of UFOs because of their possible air defence implications. However, we do not undertake to pursue our enquiries until we have established in every case an absolute correlation with a known occurrence. Your report and our subsequent check of aerial activity did not provide sufficient information to enable us to tell you what you saw. But we are satisfied that there was no aerial activity in the area which had air defence implications.
I am afraid I am unable to comment on the press cutting covering a UFO report made in 1956 since details of reports prior to 1962 are no longer available. All Ministry of Defence papers are retained for periods relating to the importance of the papers and in the case of unidentified flying objects they may be disposed of after five years. Should it ever appear that a report was of special significance, then the papers would, of course, be retained for a longer period. This has not yet been found necessary.
The Lakenheath UFOs
"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."
11. Position title and comments of the preparing officer, including his preliminary analysis of the possible cause of the sightings(s). Paula W. Stimson, Cwpt. USAF, Intelligence Officer, 3910th ABGRU (SAC), RWF station Lakenheath, Suffolk, England.
All personnel interviewed and logs of RATCC lend reality to the existance of some unexplainable flying phenomena near this air field on this occasion. No Air Base; however, the controllers are experienced and technical skills were used in attempts to determine just what the objects were. When the target would stop on the scope, the MTI was used. However, the target would still appear on the scope. All ground observers and reports from observers at Bentwaters agree on colour, maneuvers and shape of object. My analysis of the sightings is that they were real and not figments of the imagination.
The main criticism is that you never leave much for anyone else to add!
So see, I took care of everything, no need to derail, just read, learn, and enjoy!