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

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


It is a great series of photos apart from one. The ejection didn't take place in the air. They filmed the ejection on the ground using an Su-27UB painted up to look like the Su-35 number 801. Note the giveaway of the slanted fin tops? The Su-35 flew without the canopy and had the rocket ejection seat blast marked painted on the fuselage.



The footage of the ejection on the ground from the Su-27UB





posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


It is a great series of photos apart from one. The ejection didn't take place in the air. They filmed the ejection on the ground using an Su-27UB painted up to look like the Su-35 number 801. Note the giveaway of the slanted fin tops? The Su-35 flew without the canopy and had the rocket ejection seat blast marked painted on the fuselage.



The footage of the ejection on the ground from the Su-27UB



Okay. But that has absolutely no bearing on the original point. I'm quite sure it is possible to fly an aircraft without a canopy in place.

In any case, that latest video is quite revealing. I'm not sure I would conclude the "pilots" came from a "crashed Tornado". And also no way of knowing without further evidence if the "crash site" was in any way related to events from that night.




posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by izopen
 


Thanks for the video izopen, I will watch it over the weekend to see if Burns offers up any more information on the case.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shino
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.


Right. And suppose the true facts are that the RAF were chasing a SR-71 or an undisclosed SR-75, or some test drone, but didn't know it until much later?

They won't reveal anything anwyay, because either it is opening admission to questioning about an undisclosed program or an operational screwup---chase a non-threat, and then crash. There is no upside for them and only downside.
edit on 15-9-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-9-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Hmm Burns now claims to have found an ambulanceman who says his colleague (a former policeman) confirms that an aircrew were picked up by police (if I heard that right).

He has also found a crash site in woods and pieces of an aircraft.

Actually this was all a year ago. So where next for this case?



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Yes it's well over a year since the last update here on this case and close to 17 years ago since the incident happened.

However I'm always aware that this is how the MSM often operates. No follow up on stories long forgotten unless force fed new information. So I always try to dig for anything that may add to a case.

Now this isn't actually new information that has appeared recently (it's from 2010) but I have found what appears to be pictures of parts of a Tornado found in the Peak District where an RAF aircraft is alleged to have crashed.






Source(s): www.sheffieldforum.co.uk...
www.sheffieldforum.co.uk...

This is a case long forgotten now in the UK. But at the time a very costly rescue mission was launched which found absolutely nothing. I still wonder what happened.





new topics
 
39
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join