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 Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO Incident

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:31 PM
Wow! Bravo Jkrog!
Very well researched thread, and very interesting!


posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:03 PM
Great work, OP! You've given me much to think about.

I have been wondering for some time if there's anything in common between this RAF Betwaters sighting and the one from December 1980. Obviously, the site is the same, only 25 years apart.

It made me think of a concept that UFO's travel through time just like space. I haven't gotten my mind all the way around this theory, but imagine that time exists, from the point of view of higher dimensions, as a wave. Could it be possible to surf, or jump from wave-to-wave? Kind of like skipping a stone across a lake.

On a recon mission, location and time are of equal importance. How about from the UFO's point of view, it's all one mission, it's location that's important?

It could also explain UFO sightings throughout history; maybe, on the E.T.'s own planet (or even ourselves), their "today" technology is the same as ours, but in a thousand years, they (we) could have mastered time-travel and gone to "today."

Thinking about this is making my head spin; time for a cold one.

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

Great presentation of another very interesting UFO incident jkrog08 !

of course i have heard of this case but once again all the facts just like you described, are in many places so having your research here in this thread made it easy to see the real story , awesome job

my opinion is , the pilots said there was something there that seemed solid and they were chasing the dam thing !.... it was a ufo, there is no other explanation that to me wouldn't be seen as a poor excuse to dismiss this sighting.

the only thing i can add is: you said this would be classified as a C.E. 1, but if the engine trouble that was reported from the second pilot was actually from the UFO then this case would be categorized as a C.E. 2

Close Encounter of the Second kind

Interference with engines or TV or radio reception.

not a big deal really but maybe you disagree ?

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by easynow

not a big deal really but maybe you disagree ?

Yes, because the engine trouble may have been caused by normal means. There was nothing to indicate the UFO did it. The first plane did not have the problem. But of course the UFO could have decided to stop the second plane in its tracks so it wasn't bothered, there simply was not enough information or evidence of that for me to classify it as a CE2.

EDIT to add: Loved the applause my friend, THANK YOU...

[edit on 7/6/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:55 PM
Very nice research there, But I don't feel like researching these fossilized old cases are getting us any nearer to the truth myself. Most of the cases the British dumped are rather boring and a waste of time.

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

your welcome, i hope you got applauded for this thread.

i will have to agree with you then, there is nothing in the report that would clarify that the ufo caused the engine trouble. but i thought any interaction (not just a sighting) with a ufo was classified as a C.E. 2 ?

if the pilot was chased by the ufo , then i would say that would be some type of interaction with it. i could be wrong and like i said it's not a big deal, just thought i would bring that up.

thanks again for the great story, if you keep this up your gonna have some serious proof for anyone that still doubts ufo's are real

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:00 AM
awesome thread..the info is just stunning bro....flagged

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:26 AM

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by fls13

You can't lead your life concerned with what others will think or how they will react. I am interested in this subject and don't give an Unidentified Flying F**k what other people think

Well this is a passion for me, I will stop at NOTHING to get the truth out to the masses and educate them. I think some here at ATS still do not realize that about me. This is more than a "interesting site to discuss fringe topics" for me.The is a site (epic and great) where I can collaborate with some of the best UFO minds in the world (IMO) and have a excellent medium to get these good cases to the public, since ATS has over a million viewers a day.
I am not here only to educate and share information with other members, but to present and educate and share with THE WORLD. For I feel that the first step to getting the truth is to get more people aware, and by more I mean MILLIONS IF NOT BILLIONS. If I myself can start one little spark that can propel us into disclosure and the ultimate and real truth then all my time put into ATS and making threads will be worth it a million times over.

So yes, I do care what other people think of UFOs, because right now ufology is so disorganized with absolutely NO gameplan to move forward with. I am personally sick of being called fringe or silly, although the majority of the world think ETs exist somewhere, I am out to prove they exist HERE and have been and the world governments, specifically the US government has been lying to WE THE PEOPLE for at least 60 years, possibly many more. So I am taking charge and setting the direction, as well others (though not enough) who have came to the same logical gameplan I have:To educate the masses and garner widespread interest and anger for the lies. Only then can we take the next step and seriously consider getting the governments to answer our calls for disclosure, or at the very least give us the crucial missing pieces of evidence so many cases need to be confirmed. This is a multi-stage game my friend, and we just now are still trying to get stage one started. So in conclusion, I WILL ALWAYS WORRY about the public perception of the epic UFO EPOCH. I ask that all do the same to whatever capabilities they can or feel comfortable with. THIS IS NOT A GAME, this is real, this is happening, and WE NEED TRUTH!

Continue Stage One....

[edit on 7/6/2009 by jkrog08]

Indeed I'm astounded by the incredible and meticulous job that you have made! I do not have words..... My compliments. BRAVO!! Really!

I'm totally in agree with how much you say, even if, (if I have understood well) regarding the total spread of the common knowledge and of the majority of the humanity of UFO or Extraterrestrial Phenomenon, it is not sufficient single to evidence it and to discuss it on the forums or an Internet site. The enormous job that you have made is the TEST that the ALIEN phenomenon EXISTS and is REAL. ON THIS THERE IS NOT DOUBT!
But, during the years, how many other examples and irrefutable tests, are introduced and supported by reliable witnesses, sientifics and instrumental tests that confirm out of any doubt “the UFO ANOMALY”?
There is an enormous size, impressive of TESTS but still the Alien Phenomenon is ridiculed and not taken seriously. WHY?
The job that you have carried out (as many others on ATS) are exemplary and are fundamental here in order to prepare “the NEWS”, but the total knowledge grows only if UFOs or Extraterrestrial phenomenon IS SPOKEN about them during the Main Stream Television News in Prime viewing time.
The “battle” for the acquaintance must be fought in those centers, not only in UFOs conferences (Most important, like the Disclosure Project and others). This is not enough... to break the WALL.
Unfortunately, “The Secret” that this truth covers is immense and involves every aspect of our Social, Technological, Economic and Religious existence. It must prepare people for the event, must make to grow the total consciousness and Knowledge and this can be ONLY made through (unfortunately) the GREAT TV MEDIA.
In my opinion, our next step is to carry pressure on THE GREATs TV MEDIA NEWS and to begin to speak about Extraterrestrial Phenomenon exhibiting tests and documentation like that you have brought back here on the Thread on ATS.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Taymour]

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:40 AM
~need more sleep, sorry!~

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JennyJen]

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:14 AM

Originally posted by fls13
Anyone on here speak Russian?

Try the The UFO-Alien Applied Linguistics Registry.

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:07 AM
Another well written and thorough thread mate.

Keep up the good work!

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:10 AM
very well researched and put together. I had heard of this case but I had missed some of the speeds. Radar confirmed speeds of mach 17 and up? Wow. Even though they never gave actual speeds for the SR-71, (they would only admit to mach 3.5) it has been said that it was close to mach 5. So think about mach 17. That would have to get someones attention. Great job again.

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:14 AM
reply to post by easynow

your welcome, i hope you got applauded for this thread

Yes I hope krog got some applauses as well! This thread deserves nothing less then a LOT of applauses for this awesome work.

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:15 AM
this is great and majority of your threads are fantastic. One question I would like to ask is can this be spread out elsewhere. At the moment, I take it that your threads are solely on ATS. If we want to spread the word I think the threads you have documented may need to be published elsewhere in order to generate more interest....

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by easynow

Well CE2's are dictated by when a UFO leaves some kind of trace evidence or has an impact on something or someone. The Mantell UFO Incident would be one. As well The Michalak Case (Falcon Lake).

reply to post by booda

Haha, well I don't like to think I present anything all that great, I mean the documentation is all there for all. I just put it together for an easy to read format and better documentation, and what better place than ATS, this site is GREAT isn't it?! I also have a case file on Pegasus Research Consortium, so that is two highly trafficed sites for ufology right there. Other than that, I guess this will have to do right now as I am still in college and am just trying to do my part, or what I can lol, for ufology.

[edit on 7/7/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by network dude

Unfortunately back then (apparently) radars were not capable of giving speed readings so the operators had to calculate them by themselves. The radar operator calculated the highest speed "in excess of 4,000 mph", while later calculations by Blue Book and other researchers put the highest speed more like 18,000 mph. Like I said in the opening, this case has some contradictions but is still a great one.

[edit on 8/23/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE

The point of these old cases is that they are much more heavily documented than todays are. That being the case these are the best to present to a wide audience and to garner attention to the subject, rather than some blurry youtube film or sketchy eyewitnesses claiming to be abducted by the Pleadians and taken to the Draconian War in Sector Gamma-5,lol.

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:26 PM
Hey all. Very well put together post. I cant help but notice though how much is put into the Radar portion of the report. I have been an Air Traffic Controller for the past 12 years. (Started my career working with 50s radar (GPN-12) and I can tell you all that some of this technology absolutely baffles the mind..

I have met a few controllers that are still in that joined in the late 70s and at that time the technology was VERY VERY BASIC. No way could a ATC radar system calculate the speed an aircraft was moving. It was all primary only in those days and the services that were provided were very limited because very seldom did controllers even know if the target they saw was the one they were controlling or not. And there is alot of ghost targets and other things involved which I wont get into to much detail...

Lets just leave it at from an Air Traffic Control perspective, IN THE 50s!!! I see no way that someone would even be looking for targets that they arent talking to, and secondly if they saw a target jump that far they would have no reason to believe it was the same target...

Using radar data as a validation of any UFO back then is silly...

Just saying...Not flaming really....remember my knowledge is purely an Air Traffic Controller perspective.

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by ATC_GOD

Thanks for offering your expertise, it is appreciated. They only calculated the speed based on distance covered in time. The radar didn't calculate it for them, that is the reason for the discrepancy. Also both bases were Air Force bases, with Lakenheath housing nuclear bombers, so they had to be watching the radar closely because the high sensitivity of the base. As I stated, one or maybe a few radar hits could have been AP, but at least one and probably two were definitely not. The pilot had radar contact and visual at the same time the ground did. Also the object was seen on radar to circle around and get behind the Venom jet that was sent to intercept. So there were many things besides single radar hits that add to the credibility of the case.

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:46 PM
Np man. Who ever was watching this radar wasn't a controller though... I would be very suprised if the bases even had dedicated radar controllers at the time. And if they did, ATC didn't do any calculations on the distance that the target was travelling....

Probably someone in the nuke site that was monitoring the airspace.

Im actually newly stationed here in the area of subject of your post. Based on all the sightings that get reported over here, I must say, I am pretty STOKED and carry my video camera EVERYWHERE with me....hoping...

We are not alone....

Thanks again...this is actually the first time I have ever used my ATC knowledge in a post.

Cheers! (Practicing the lingo..)

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in