The Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO Incident, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 81 times

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 12:51 PM by MysterE

Originally posted by Taymour
Phenomenon is ridiculed and not taken seriously. WHY?

With all due respect Taymour, the phenomenon is ridiculed because people post un-researched, very presumptive ideas (sound familiar?) I saw your recent threads for the first time last night, and they are extremely speculative. With such a sensative topic we cannot afford to be so outlandishly speculative and expect anyone to take us seriously.

Hope that answered your question.
-E-

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 01:23 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by jkrog08Thoughts on case?

It's one of the real mysteries, with some discrepancies to make things even more interesting.

Whatever those objects were, at least the one that followed and avoided the aeroplane had, undoubtedly, an intelligent behaviour.

The differences in the speed of the objects are a little strange, I don't see how they could have such a difference between the lower and the higher estimate, 4,000 and 12,000 mph.

Also, the difference in the US and UK reports is a little strange, was any explanation given for that difference?

PS: I remember that there are (or were) at least two ATS members with a long experience with radar, maybe they could explain some things better.

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 01:26 PM by ArMaP

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

He got at least one.

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 01:36 PM by jkrog08

reply to post by ArMaP

He got at least one.

Thank You

On The Discrepencies

There was really no reason given, other then a lot of the original files are now gone, but that doesn't explain the Blue Book reports. I would guess miscommunication or a attempted cover-up by the British MoD. I mean the name of the pilots did not come out until the nineties! This is just a case (IMO) of of miscommunication, as the only major discrepancy was where the Venom was launched from and what encounter it had. Now what is probably more likely is since we now know there was a T-33 sent to investigate one of the first reports earlier that night and found nothing but a bright star that that was probably miscommunicated by someone who did not know of the second encounter, or something like that anyways,lol.

One of these experts already came on, last page near the bottom.

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 01:40 PM by spartan002

i saw an documentary on this amazing. i can't decide if this a another military plane or a alien craft.

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 02:42 PM by Taymour

reply to post by MysterE

Dear MysterE,
I referred to common people and to the way with which this argument is dealt, (very serious), in the public world-wide opinion, on newspapers and televisions. Not here on ATS.
Do you think that investigators like Richard Hoagland, Jaime Maussan, Steven Greer and others have not given irrefutable tests of the Alien phenomenon? You believe that all the witnesses of the Disclosure Project are false or crazy or visionary ones?
Not. I know that you think like me about them.
But then, why Great News corporation do not speak of that?
My own opinion is that there is a Mediatic Darkness about that.
Even this incredible job made by jkrog is "nothing" if it do not came trough the media news.
If we don't made under pressure the media corporations we never disclose anything. Will be never no sufficient tests in order to say: I'have the proof, “WE ARE NOT ALONE”.
Also for this reason I wait the officials answers from analysts and experts in order to the “IMAGES”.

For what it regards my Threads does not have no presumption of giving absolute proof.
Mine, is only submit some “Anomalies”.
I am not an analyst or a investigator or skilled researcher like you, jkrog, Internos, Mike Singh and others and I leave to who he has more competences than me to verify if there is some "anomaly" or not.
To discuss, to analyze and to verify is always a good thing.
Tay

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Taymour]

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 02:47 PM by jkrog08

To Taymour and MysterE

While I appreciate your kind words and input I ask that all personal 'battles' or conversations be taken care of via u2u so as not to derail this thread. Thank you both for your understanding and again for your inputs and kind words.

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 03:37 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by jkrog08
One of these experts already came on, last page near the bottom.

I noticed that after posting, that post was started some hours before it was posted, I was at work at the time (but don't tell my boss

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 03:37 PM by spacevisitor

sorry wrong post.

[edit on 7/7/09 by spacevisitor]

reply posted on 7-7-2009 @ 03:54 PM by Xtraeme

Originally posted by ATC_GOD
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...

Not to be ornery, but isn't it true that in almost every monitoring system setup by the USAF / USN / NORAD / ADC / NASA etc, whether for defense or scientific purposes, if you don't want to be snowed with data, there's built-in selectivity?

That said you do not see what you're not looking for.

Consequently, the fact that we don't repeatedly turn up what appear to be similar to UFOs, whatever we define that to be, is not quite as conclusive as it might seem.

In fact I think the somewhat simplistic nature of older radar systems, like the FPS-10s, CPS-6Bs, the older ALA-6 D/Fs, GPX-6 IFF sets, etc because of their raw presentation of the VC Beam ended up showing things that are now traditionally filtered out (inversions, ground reflection, as well as potential UFOs - again somewhat nebulous as to what this might represent) because they simply don't fit the characteristics of a traditional "target" based on movement / size / etc.

I think you're being a bit over-inclusive saying, "Using radar data as a validation of any UFO back then is silly..."

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Xtraeme]

reply posted on 8-7-2009 @ 03:30 AM by LaMano

damn that looks like a great thread to me with lots of infos which i need to check out later in detail.

s&f for this thread

reply posted on 8-7-2009 @ 06:37 AM by spacevisitor

reply to post by jkrog08

Sorry that I had to delete my last post jkrog08, I struggled some time to make an answer and when I finally had it posted I realised to my shame that I mixed up this one with the The Rendlesham Forest/RAF Bentwaters- case.
So, therefore it’s deleted.
Despite that, I want to say the following.
You posted an excellent thread here and obviously did your research of this remarkable case indeed, thanks for this one jkrog08.

strrd&flggd.

To bad Jenny Randles video about this case I saw some years back then isn’t available.
But your input here is a very interesting read.

reply posted on 8-7-2009 @ 10:18 AM by InfaRedMan

Top thread. You should submit this to TinWiki if you haven't already mate. Decent points pay-off too might I add

IRM

reply posted on 8-7-2009 @ 05:43 PM by MOTT the HOOPLE

I seen a UFO last night Although it was not that interesting it was just a big orange red light in the sky moving east of Melbourne moving west, I never seen a typical saucer shaped UFO yet in Australia we always seem to get the oddest shaped craft! Which makes me feel they might be experimental military Anti Gravity Vehicles.Or it could be that certain races of aliens has Jurisdiction over certain continents. What do you think?

here's an example of what we are seeing

Photoshop Enhanced version

[edit on 8-7-2009 by MOTT the HOOPLE]

reply posted on 8-7-2009 @ 09:15 PM by jkrog08

reply to post by MOTT the HOOPLE

Well if it is not CGI then it could be one of the new MAV(Micro Air Vehicle) drones, I mean I would guess that over antigravity, although that could very well be the case. I do not know if an ultra black craft would be so openly used like that. Plus these are being used in Iraq. Here is one of the MAV drones I am talking about:

YouTube Link

The term micro air vehicle (MAV) or micro aerial vehicle refers to a new type of remotely controlled aircraft (UAV) that is significantly smaller than similar craft obtainable using state of the art technology as it was in as of 2007
Important Topic Updates
. The target dimension for MAVs today is approximately 15 centimetres (six inches) and development of insect-size aircraft is reportedly expected in the near future. Potential military use is one of the driving factors, although MAVs are also being used commercially and in scientific, police and mapping applications. Another promising area is remote observation of hazardous environments which are inaccessible to ground vehicles. Because these aircraft are often in the same size range as radio-controlled models, they are increasingly within the reach of amateurs, who are making their own MAVs for aerial robotics contests and aerial photography.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is the manufacturing companies site:www.honeywell.com...

There is one I saw on a documentary that looks just like a small flying saucer, I am trying to find it. It matches your pic better. But I would say it is a near 100% chance that is what the object in the picture is. Especially since it is seen with a group of troops.

[edit on 7/8/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 7/8/2009 by jkrog08]

reply posted on 8-7-2009 @ 10:07 PM by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by MOTT the HOOPLE
I seen a UFO last night Although it was not that interesting it was just a big orange red light in the sky moving east of Melbourne moving west

Wasn't the ISS by any chance? ... though it typically appears white when I've seen it - but it always goes westerly.

IRM

reply posted on 8-7-2009 @ 10:43 PM by jkrog08

Minor typo correction:

In the opening of this thread I stated that "speeds from 80 mph to potentially 10,800 mph were achieved by the UFO", it should say 80 mph to potentially 18,000 mph .

Thought I would clear that up. Also in the third OP the word "pneumonia" is used,lol it should be "phenomena". Spellcheck typo there,lol.

reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 02:48 PM by TheMythLives

reply to post by jkrog08

Giving a well deserved bump to this thread, so that way fresh eyes can read it and perhaps shed some their own conclusions. So Krog whats your next case mate?

for a stupid error mistake....and stupid typo