Did a RAF Tornado crash during a UFO intercept mission in 1997?

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Let's clear one thing up, It wasn't "Mr Burn's Jet Fuel man" it was a witness, Mr Jonathan Dagenhart who , on tape said one thing and then later ,tried to retract what they had said. Plus, the police then come out and say, it was a "failed suicide" admitting fully, that there was someone on the moors covered in fuel of some sort. Personally, I find the "failed suicide bid" probably more ridiculous than the possibility of a single aircrew ejecting and the other aircrew member managing to regain control of the craft.


That doesn't seem to fit with much of the rest of the accounts from that night. If a crew member ejected and the pilot regained control of his jet, then that information would have been known to the RAF. Why would there have been any story of a plane crash in the first place? The explanation doesn't seem to make much sense (although I do agree that there does seem minimal evidence to suggest the plane actually did crash, aside from the sound of explosions (maybe the sonic booms), orange glow in sky (maybe the UFO), description that helicopter pulled bodies from reservoir the next day (only one witness), conflicting info from firemen (small plane crashed/jet crashed) - and later info that a small plane was in distress but didn't crash, plus the authorities claiming the sounds were caused by a meteor exploding.

Wow, this really is the "mother of all UFO sightings"!


Originally posted by FireMoon
Plus please people, if you intend to contribute to a thread, please read it fully and then read the links provided fully as well. David Clarke himself documents how, the RAF did indeed "completely lose" a plane in this very area several years before. It buried itself 50 feet into the bog on impact and was deemed totally unsalvageable and within hours, all that there was to show it had crashed was a raised bank of earth round an 8 foot deep pool of water.

Personally, I don't think they lost a Tornado at all, I suspect a Tornado might have problems and dropped its' outboard pod(s) . If it was a weapons pod, they most likely ditched in it a lake and there would have been an attempt to salvage it or, at the very least , make sure no-one else could salvage it either.

What we can say is this, if there were 2 sonic booms caused by RAF aircraft then there's not a hope in hells' chance it was a "routine flight", as it breaks just about every rule in the book, particularly given the time the "booms" occurred. it is almost 100% certain that if RAF aircraft were allowed to go supersonic, over land, at that time of the night, they were on "active service".


If you have spent any time reading through military air SAR incidents and Air Force accident reports, I think it is possible to state that the Air Force NEVER has an accident that isn't a totally "routine training mission". Aircraft never crash or disappear in "emergency Air Defense Missions" especially if they might involve "alleged UFOs".


Anyways, I do agree its possible that the incident may not have involved the actual crash or disappearance of any aircraft, but I have to wonder why the firemen thought that a plane had crashed.




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
If it was a fuel pod that crashed on the moor and split open, they set fire to it as the safest all round solution? Had they sprayed it liberally with foam to neutralise it it would have left traces that were clearly visible, the day after and they would have had to admit "something" went wrong?

Look it another way, it seems 100% certain that the following happened. The MOD ordered at least 2 aircraft to pursue something and then the MOD has steadfastly refused to admit that ever since. Dropping a POD deliberately is not "an accident" one person ejecting safely is not "an accident" as no-one died and no aircraft was lost. If both were deliberate actions during a pursuit then the MOD can easily side step any accident announcement in public.

I would say, it's perfectly possible that the person "covered in fuel" might just have been an unfortunate bystander saw the Pod dropped, went to look and slipped over. It's pretty toxic stuff and inhaling the fumes might well have seriously disorientated them for a while.

In other words , as it was an "active mission" and therefore covered by confidentiality and no-one died, then the MOD can just legally "play dumb".



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
I would say, it's perfectly possible that the person "covered in fuel" might just have been an unfortunate bystander saw the Pod dropped, went to look and slipped over. It's pretty toxic stuff and inhaling the fumes might well have seriously disorientated them for a while.

In other words , as it was an "active mission" and therefore covered by confidentiality and no-one died, then the MOD can just legally "play dumb".
...

Oh, really. Some unfortunate soul just happened to be there when a Tornado dumped its fuel tank and got covered in fuel. Of course, this person never filed a complaint or was hushed up? Maybe, whatever. Seems more bizarre than a lot of other possible explanations.

In any case, this barely rationally explains the guy out in the moors covered with fuel, let alone all the remaining anomalies. Just my opinion of course.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Not half a weird as trying to commit suicide by using diesel fuel. Man, that is one hell of a painfully inefficient way of doing it. Pouring it over yourself, the heat needed to light it would be enough to do you some serious damage in the first place. The guy had to arrive there in the first place, where was his transport? Or, he was driving along, saw something weird , stopped to investigate and was sent a bit doolally by inhaling the fumes from the broken fuel POD and wandered off to be spotted by the witness shortly after.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Not half a weird as trying to commit suicide by using diesel fuel. Man, that is one hell of a painfully inefficient way of doing it. Pouring it over yourself, the heat needed to light it would be enough to do you some serious damage in the first place. The guy had to arrive there in the first place, where was his transport? Or, he was driving along, saw something weird , stopped to investigate and was sent a bit doolally by inhaling the fumes from the broken fuel POD and wandered off to be spotted by the witness shortly after.


Well, I'll certainly agree with you there. The guy decides to go out in the moors to pour diesel fuel over himself to commit suicide just coincidentally on the same night that the RAF sends jets out to intercept UFOs (which of course, was a totally routine mission). Kind of amusing I guess.



edit on 31-8-2012 by bluestreak53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


You stated earlier that this is a remote area whats the chance of this guy having the fuel dumped directly on him? millions to one? Why did he never say anything to anyone about it? When the 2 Tornados crashed in Scotland with all crew killed earlier this year why did the RAF admit this straight away they could have been chasing ufos?
They said that that accident was a training flight why not admit to the peak district "crash" and say that was a training excersise?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dashdespatch
 


I have never said at any point the guy had fuel dumped on him, A few years ago I was playing tennis against a friend in London at the bottom of Parliament hill fields, a huge open space close to the centre of London. The sky was totally clear when I saw a lone pigeon flying across the fields from hundreds of yards away. There was no-one apart from us around at all, the pigeon flew over the tennis court and shat straight on my friend's head as they were about to serve. Point being the weirdest of coincidences happen time and time again to people.

In this case, I suspect that the person was driving somewhere, probably Sheffield, that's where they said they needed to be, saw something crash, stopped the car went to investigate and was disorientated by the fumes leaking from the damaged fuel pod. They, quite possibly stumbled over in the dark getting fuel all over them from the damaged pod.

Here's something you probably didn't know, the British government is not insured, as to do so, the typical annual policy would cost more than meeting the typical yearly claims. I know that because I use to work for them myself as a civil servant. Given that, there is a culture, particularly since the early 90s, of deny responsibility at every opportunity . If simply a fuel pod was jettisoned then it wasn't an accident how many times does that have to be explained? If a crew member ejects however, the plane doesn't crash and they are not seriously injured, it is not an accident. If it was a training exercise they would have , by regulation, have had to be a full investigation into why aircraft went supersonic expressly against the regulations. If however, it was on "active duty" they can claim confidentiality and say nowt and pretend it was an exercise.

It's the MOD who keep changing their story with regards to that night and what happened, ergo its about 99% certain they are still, the ones being economical with the truth. There is also a decent body of evidence to suggest that, Clarke is working hand in hand with the MOD to play this whole story down.
edit on 1-9-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I think the stranger on the viaduct story is interesting.

However Dr. David Clarke reported was that this was simply an unrelated incident and an attempted suicide.

Clarke claims he contacted Derbyshire Police Inspector Andy Howard, the duty police inspector at Bakewell, Derbyshire (who was on duty on the night of March 24). Both he and Peak District Park Ranger Brian Jones confirmed it was a gentleman of eastern extraction, Indian/Pakistani, and dressed in dark brown clothing, " who had poured petrol or some other inflammable liquid over himself. But he had not gone through with the suicide."

Clarke claimed this type of thing happens 3 or 4 times a year in the Yorkshire area and that these attempts are not released to the media "so as not to add to the trauma and suffering of the victim who is often disturbed or mentally ill, which was the case with the March 24th Ladybower Viaduct incident."

Source: www.ufoupdateslist.com...

Were Inspector Howard, Park Ranger Jones and Clarke all part of a cover story? "The Fuel on the Hill" if you like



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageman
 


When that TV transmission happened in the late 70s the police said. "It was a prank and the students responsible were arrested and charged under the communications act etc."

I was part of the group that checked that out and it was a lie, no students were ever found guilty of anything pertaining to that "prank" anywhere by any court in this country. I strongly suspect, if were you to check this tale out it would likewise, turn out to be wholly untrue and that the person cannot be found in the police records and if there is a name, you wouldn't be able to find them either. Have you ever read of a case of someone killing themselves by setting fire to them self in this area?

Stats show that 74 % of all suicides are by hanging or poisoning, from my research it would seem self immolation, by means of fire , is nearly always done in public, in front of others as a protest statement. I suspect the idea that 3-4 people a year set commit suicide by setting themselves on fire in the open air might be stretching it. To suggest 3-4 people a year do it in one tiny area seems wholly false to me. I shall have a word with a couple of professionals I know and see if they can give me an exact figure for this form of suicide.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I rarely star & flag threads, but this is going to be one of them. One of the most intriguing themes that is consistent within this topic is the issue of sonic booms over populated areas with the military rejecting ownership. Unlike seeing "something in the sky", a sonic boom is inherently unmistakable - you can't mix that up with a conventional explanation. What it goes to show is that there was an object in the sky going at rapid speeds, an object not belonging to the military. That is an amazing admission if anything.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageman
I think the stranger on the viaduct story is interesting.

However Dr. David Clarke reported was that this was simply an unrelated incident and an attempted suicide.


Its not clear at all to me if this is even a real event. If so, it seems to fit into the "paranormal, high strangeness" category. But I echo the comments that the "official explanation" that this was a "common occurrence" in the moors for three or four people a year to set themselves on fire after dousing themselves with fuel - seems highly unlikely.

Its no at all clear to me what importance investigator Max Burns placed on the incident. There was no mention of this particular tidbit in the raw video I watched.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Hi bluestreak53

Burns interviewed (and taped) the witness on the minbus, Jonathan Dagenhart as follows:




Dagenhart: Hello

Burns: So what happened that night? You'd been the Wales...

Dagenhart: Well, we'd been to Wales, Um on the way home, Um driving down Snake Pass and all of a sudden just coming up to the viaduct this man stepped out in front of us, flagged us down so we stopped, pulled over I was in the front of the minibus with the driver and another passenger so I wound my window down and he started speaking to us he said I've got to get to Sheffield, Sheffield and that's basically all he said.

Burns: Did he look in shock?

Dagenhart: Yer, he didn't seem to really know which way Sheffield was or what he was doing or anything and the thing is I said at the time when I rang the police he smelled of diesel fuel, well since then I've joined the airforce and I'm now working for the airforce and it \tab wasn't diesel fuel it was aviation fuel that he'd got on him.

Burns: Ah absolutely superb

Dagenhart: and I will put my money on that

Burns: You work for the airforce

Dagenhart: I work for the royal air force

Burns: Where do you work? as a civilian for the airforce

Dagenhart: No I actually work for the airforce I am paid by the air force

Burns: Really can I ask you what job you do?

Dagenhart: I'm a jet engine specialist

Burns: A jet engine specialist

Dagenhart: Yes

Burns: Yer and there were no vehicles in the area

Dagenhart: There was nothing.

Burns: And it was definitely aviation fuel

Dagenhart: yes

Burns: and you can substantiate that because you now work for the Royal Air Force on jet engines you now what aviation fuel smells like

Dagenhart: yes

Burns: And he really didn't know where he was going

Dagenhart: He didn't know where he was going it looked like he just walked off a hill

Burns: But as you work for the Royal Air Force on jet engines your absolutely 100% certain that it was aviation fuel not diesel

Dagenhart: yes

Burns: Thanks mate

Dagenhart: OK

Burns: Brilliant

Dagenhart: No problem

members.tripod.com...


It should be noted that Mr Dagenhart was also contacted by the News of the World and refused to have his name put against the report. Burns believes he was "got at". The other side of the argument is that at no time did Dagenhart realise he was going to be quoted in a UFO/Conspiracy story. Reading the transcript you can understand why he may have said so. He also feared he may lose his job with the RAF if he was quoted in a national newspaper.

Meanwhile the identity of the stranger on the moors covered in fuel remains a mystery. I have also been unable to find any other quotes from any other witness on the minibus.

The two unaccounted for sonic booms and the fact that the authorities launched a massive SAR operation are the strongest evidence for something odd going on. It all points to the military hushing something up but the question remains - What?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageman
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Hi bluestreak53

Burns interviewed (and taped) the witness on the minbus, Jonathan Dagenhart as follows:
...

It should be noted that Mr Dagenhart was also contacted by the News of the World and refused to have his name put against the report. Burns believes he was "got at". The other side of the argument is that at no time did Dagenhart realise he was going to be quoted in a UFO/Conspiracy story. Reading the transcript you can understand why he may have said so. He also feared he may lose his job with the RAF if he was quoted in a national newspaper.

Meanwhile the identity of the stranger on the moors covered in fuel remains a mystery. I have also been unable to find any other quotes from any other witness on the minibus.

The two unaccounted for sonic booms and the fact that the authorities launched a massive SAR operation are the strongest evidence for something odd going on. It all points to the military hushing something up but the question remains - What?


Thanks. That does put this into context. Just adds to the mystery I guess. I take it that Dagenhart perhaps wasn't fully aware they didn't want air force personnel talking about the incident?

I did one time talk to someone on the phone who had worked at a USAF radar station in Michigan that was guiding the F-89 which disappeared over Lake Superior in 1953 (possible UFO related event). He arrived on the base after the incident, but he told me that he had learned that the incident was totally hushed up on base. That many of the base personnel only heard about it when they went into Calumet on leave as noone was supposed to even talk about it on base. If true, this would of course be an indication that this was not a "routine plane accident".

I do think there is quite a lot of evidence that the military does cover up many UFO related incidents.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by mirageman
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Hi bluestreak53

Burns interviewed (and taped) the witness on the minbus, Jonathan Dagenhart as follows:
...

It should be noted that Mr Dagenhart was also contacted by the News of the World and refused to have his name put against the report. Burns believes he was "got at". The other side of the argument is that at no time did Dagenhart realise he was going to be quoted in a UFO/Conspiracy story. Reading the transcript you can understand why he may have said so. He also feared he may lose his job with the RAF if he was quoted in a national newspaper.

Meanwhile the identity of the stranger on the moors covered in fuel remains a mystery. I have also been unable to find any other quotes from any other witness on the minibus.

The two unaccounted for sonic booms and the fact that the authorities launched a massive SAR operation are the strongest evidence for something odd going on. It all points to the military hushing something up but the question remains - What?


Thanks. That does put this into context. Just adds to the mystery I guess. I take it that Dagenhart perhaps wasn't fully aware they didn't want air force personnel talking about the incident?

I did one time talk to someone on the phone who had worked at a USAF radar station in Michigan that was guiding the F-89 which disappeared over Lake Superior in 1953 (possible UFO related event). He arrived on the base after the incident, but he told me that he had learned that the incident was totally hushed up on base. That many of the base personnel only heard about it when they went into Calumet on leave as noone was supposed to even talk about it on base. If true, this would of course be an indication that this was not a "routine plane accident".

I do think there is quite a lot of evidence that the military does cover up many UFO related incidents.




Burns did not contact Dagenhart until 2/5/98 (2nd May 1998) according to his log. I believe Dagenhart was NOT working for the RAF at the time of the incident and his report to the police.

He was subsequently employed by the RAF as an jet engine specialist and recognised the smell of aviation fuel as being similar to that of our stranger on the viaduct.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageman

Originally posted by Thunda

Originally posted by TheWoolf
reply to post by mirageman
 


"Well researched" - no. The reservoir is Ladybower not "Ladybowen". You guys are only going to be truly credible when you are TRULY well researched and accurate, until then anyone who has half an idea will not take these things seriously. Please get it right.


Oh no- he got one letter wrong- well, we better write the whole thread off then.


And Kandinsky said he was North West, not the area in question.

A facinating read, and not one I had head about. Whilst we are talking about plane crashes in remote areas, back in 2001, my partners father, who is a keen walker and climber was up in the Cairngorm mountains with his climbing partner- miles from anywhere, they came over a rise into a scene straight out of the X-files. A Chinook helicopter was in the process of dropping off an 'incident room' trailer to a temporary compound full of US soldiers. There are soldiers in full combat gear riding around on ATC's and those tracked vehicles you see out in the Arctic. As they are taking the scene in, they hear "Halt!"- a British soldier, fully blacked up, stands up 30 ft away and points his SA80 at them. Another couple of soldiers appear and they are held and questioned as to why they are there, who they were- proper 3rd degree- bearing in mind the are up Ben Macdui in the middle of the Cairngorms, its not something you would expect to encounter. Then a Policeman that they knew from Braemar appeared, and told them "you boys bet get the hell out of here- these guys arent messing about" After they are released, and told in no uncertain terms to 'beat it', they headed back down. The soldiers refused to give them any information as to who they were, what regiment they were in or what they were doing up there. My girlfriends Dad came back down quite shaken and bemused.

It turns out that 2 F15C Eagles had collided- one was being piloted by the Squadron CO, who although was cleared to fly F15's, hadnt done so for some time, and was attempting to do low level work in mountainous country. "Unconfirmed local media reports said "a member of the public" was hearing an explosion in the mountainous area at about the same time." but they didnt confirm the loss of an aircraft for several days after the encounter, even though they knew exactly where the crash site was. This is the incident:

"On 26 March 2001,[5] during a low flying training exercise over the Scottish Highlands, two US Air Force F-15Cs crashed near the summit of Ben Macdui in the Cairngorms.[6] Both, Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth John Hyvonen and Captain Kirk Jones died in the accident which would later result in a court martial for an RAF air traffic controller, who was later found not guilty.[7]"

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 31-8-2012 by Thunda because: spelling


That's a very compelling story which suggests that the UK, USA, NATO and our special relationship is not always that special. However I am a little confused. Were our (British) troops warning off the Americans or vice versa? And who were the police addressing?


Sorry for the confusion, there were both US and British troops there- I assume that was because US troops arent allowed to carry weapons on British soil (supposedly), so the British soldiers were doing that bit for them. The way he tells it, the US troops were setting up some sort of base camp- I assume it was somewhere they could bring the wreckage back to and co-ordinate the recovery from. The British troops were on the outside of this base as 'sentry's', although my girlfriends dad managed to walk right up on them without seeing them. The police were addressing the the teller of the story, my girlfriends father- he arrived as they were being questioned by the British troops, and told them to leave asap- my girlfriends dad knew this cop from his mountain rescue days, and was glad to see him. Once the British troops had finished with them and checked them over the radio(and I think the cop spoke up for them and said that he knew them and they were just hillwalkers), my girlfriends dad and his mate got the hell out of there.

Hes far from a military man, my partners Dad, but I think he could tell the difference between the US and British troops, but he said 'a big twin rotor helicopter' rather than a 'Chinook', so some of the smaller details might be confused, but thats the main story- sorry I didnt tell it very well!



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Found this from Arsse.co.uk , suu23?

The question being can a pilot navigate and land his aircrart after an "explosion" (canopy) and ejection of his navigater ?




Tornado canopy primary jettison is by means of a pair of rocket motors mounted on the canopy section adjacent to the pilot, initiation of the rockets is gas generated by the seat pan handle or canopy jettison handle internally or by a break the glass external cable assembly. The MDC is a secondary means of canopy clearance should the rockets fail to operate, the MDC is detonated by seat mounted protrusions that activate the MDC cartridges once the seat has risen approximately a couple of centimetres and the canopy is still there.

I don't know the PSI equivalent but the thrust of a rocket is usually expressed in Kg.

I do know that the Tornado canopy is 'kin heavy.

I do know of one aircrew member who impacted the jettisoned canopy when he ejected following hitting the sea, with fatal results.

The rockets are sufficiently powerful to remove the canopy at zero speed and zero height, obviously a 500 knot forward speed will generate approximately a 500 knot assistance once the front edge of the canopy raises into the airflow and the wind gets under it.

The canopy raising and lowering pneumatic ram is vented by a gas generator cartridge on seat pan or canopy jettison initiation allowing the canopy to pivot about it's rear hinge point with no resistance.

The seat rockets are canted and are fired at the point of full extension of the ejection gun to maintain an acceleration of 80 foot per second as initiated by the gun.

Crew separation on ejection is further maintained by separate and differently timed main gun firing mechanisms and a dual or single command ejection selector unit. If selected to 'both' the Nav goes first. if selected to Single the Nav cannot command eject the Pilot, but the Pilot can command eject with the Nav still going first.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by foxhoundone
Found this from Arsse.co.uk , suu23?

The question being can a pilot navigate and land his aircrart after an "explosion" (canopy) and ejection of his navigater ?


I would think so. The jet is designed to be able to continue flying after canopy is (accidentally) ejected. The pilot is fully capable of flying the plane without his navigator. It would be annoying and distracting to deal with the rushing air in the cockpit, but there is no reason the pilot would be unable to continue flying the plane under these circumstances.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Indeed you can have a look at this englishrussia.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Indeed you can have a look at this englishrussia.com...


Thanks. A great set of photos. Biggest problem seems to be pilot can't hear Ground Control on radar.
Bloody freezing cold.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Don't know if anyone has posted this link yet:



And this video has been posted.



Regards

Andrew Johnson
edit on 14-9-2012 by izopen because: Youtube link not entered correctly for this format of post.






top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join