Edwards AFB UFO Revisited.

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The Edwards Air Force Base UFO incident is a truly intriguing one and, like quite a few other compelling UFO cases here on ATS, it's a shame it doesn't garner more attention - there's an existing thread here from Jazzyguy about the case (with an excellent post from Internos) but as the majority of the videos and links to government documents are now defunct, thought it best to revisit the case, fix all the links and hopefully generate some discussion.

It states in the History Channel documentary below that the Edwards case was so infamous that, in USAF circles, it was simply referred to as 'The Incident' and it's certainly a very interesting one involving several UFOs over a secure military runway witnessed by several U.S. Military personnel and verified by five independent radar installations.

The objects were described as having 'flashing red lights on the bottom and green, glowing lights on top' and were reported to be performing highly unusual flight characteristics over the restricted airspace of Edwards - the pilot of an F106 fighter jet sent up to intercept the objects also stated one UFO gained a 'tremendous amount of altitude' and 'appeared to move right out into space'.

Below are the fixed links to documents, pilot transmission recordings and some very interesting testimony from the air traffic controller Chuck Sorrels who also gives his first television interview about the case in the History Channel programme.



Edwards Air Force Base.




Part 2, 3, 4, 5


Edward J. Ruppelt, former chief of an Air Technical Intelligence Center, reported several incidents of unidentified aerial vehicles with advanced flight characteristics, seen over this secured test facility in the 1950s. A similar event happened on the night of October 7, 1965. And here is the voice of the man who first reported it.



Chuck Sorrels: My name is Chuck Sorrels, a retired Air Force air traffic controller. I'm recording this on May 16, 1995. In 1965, 30 years ago, I was a tech sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, attached to the19 25th Communication Squadron at Edwards Air Force Base in California. I was the air traffic controller on duty in Edwards tower on the night of October 7, 1965. I was working a midnight shift in the tower when at approximately 1:30 a.m., I spotted a group of luminous objects in the air above and around Edwards Air Force Base. They had a flashing red light on the bottom, with a green, glowing light above the red.

They also sometimes flashed or glowed a white light above the green light. The sightings lasted until about daylight, 5:30 or six a.m. At first I sighted one object, which was larger and brighter than the rest. At one point there were seven objects visible at the same time.
The objects would be stationary for a period of time and then move very fast to another location and appeared to be able to climb straight up in short order. Good eyesight and my experience as an air traffic controller made it plain to me that these luminous objects were not planes, helicopters, stars, satellites, weather balloons or any other known aerial object. Your job as an air traffic controller calls for you to be watchful.Training told me these were not normal objects. The objects weren't supposed to be there. These were objects out of the normal, from their appearance and flight characteristics. I reported these sightings to base operations and the Los Angeles Air Defense Sector. The objects were also seen by at least five other people on Edwards Air Force Base. They were also seen by George Air Force Base tower and were showing up on radar in at least four different radar sight locations.


Transcript



Transmission Recording:







Excerpts


Okay. Captain Clark, uh, Lieutenant Reed?

Yeah.

Uh, we have some confirmed reports of, uh, some unidentified flying objects your area. .

Okay.

Approximately six or more, uh, from Edwards, uh, just south of Victorville, and we'd like to use-- We have information from 28th --- We also have some height-finder cuts from anywhere from 3,000 up to 13. They're moving slowly.

Uh huh.

And they're climbing slowly.

I see.

They're red, white and green flashing lights.

Uh huh.

And, uh, they have been confirmed on radar..


Uh, San Pedro is painting them, uh, three targets, and they're all three around 9,000 feet.

San Pedro's pickin' 'em up at 9,000, huh?

Roger.

What about Boron?

Boron? We're, uh, working with them to see if we can get 'em on 'em now. That's those three little dots out there [OVERLAPPING] and

[OVERLAPPING] Yeah.

I'd say that, uh, there are three definite objects. It's not weather. It's not clutter.

Uh, they, they can see the objects, but they don't see, uh, [SOUNDS LIKE: it's not an aircraft?]

No. They can't tell what they are.

[01:29:02:02]

Uh. Oh. Scramble 'em.

[SOUNDS LIKE: You are scramblin' 'em] [UNINTELLIGIBLE]? [LAUGHS] [SOUNDS LIKE: I'm curious to] find out what the hell they are.

I am too.

And you'd be within your right to scramble 'em, wouldn't you?

I don't know. [SOUNDS LIKE: Be up to me just] [WORD?] I guess.

Well, [UNINTELLIGIBLE].

They're not moving [SOUNDS LIKE: hard] at all. [SOUNDS LIKE: They did?]

They watched 'em for 30 minutes and they didn't move at all and then all of a sudden, boom.

Oh yeah? Hmm. [SOUNDS LIKE: What are they?]

[LAUGHS] Don't know.

Little green men?

Nobody [SOUNDS LIKE: has ever accepted these things yet..



Fixed links from Internos:

LINKS:

  • Actual documents (17 pages) from BBfiles - Jan Aldrich - (.PDF file)
  • Transcription of 17 actual documents above (.PDF file)
  • An Introduction to the Edwards Encounter - Sam Sherman
  • The Tape Transcript - Sam Sherman/Francis Ridge
  • The Edwards Alert Story - Sam Sherman
  • Darryl Clark, transcribed written statement (.DOC file)
  • Darryl Clark, statement, actual documents(.PDF file)
  • Dec. 2000 Testimony of Sgt. Chuck Sorrells - Disclosure Project interview (.PDF file)
  • The Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
  • The Convair F-106 Delta Dart




  • posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:39 PM
    link   
    NICAP's Francis Ridge also makes some interesting comments about the case below and describes how the incident is classified as an 'S5P5' - 'S5' because the objects were highly strange and suggest intelligent guidance and 'P5' because the case is highly credible and leaves almost no doubt - there's also a relevant clip about the incident from 'Unexplained Mysteries'.








    There's still some great discussion on the original thread about missing information and the official 'explanation' for this case so hopefully this thread will generate some replies on the other one - as Zcustosmorum points out here, this case wouldn't have been classified for 30 years for no reason and there's still plenty of data that is being withheld by the U.S. Government - in any case, here's what the USAF expect people to believe about 'the incident':






    posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 07:10 PM
    link   
    reply to post by karl 12
     


    I can tell your threads now by your headline. Always the historical incidents.
    The skeptics will probably fall for the balloon excuse, as they all know a balloon can out run a Thunderchief.

    Interesting, here is that Janus name again.

    www.youtube.com...
    edit on 10-12-2012 by spiritualarchitect because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 07:53 PM
    link   
    reply to post by karl 12
     


    Another excellent thread and UFO History lesson, Karl. I never tire of exploring anew cases from the archives - especially when given a refreshing twist and commentary by an erudite, careful reviewer...

    Great job!
    Please keep up the good work...



    posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 11:42 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by spiritualarchitect



    Spiritualarchitect, thanks for posting that vid
    thought the thread might generate some discussion about this truly perplexing UFO case but apparently not.

    Regarding the actual objects, the Air Traffic controllers say towards the end of the video they're 'curious to find out what the hell they are' - too bad that can't apply to everyone, especially people who just think the UFO subject is a load of silly nonsense.



    Those three little dots out there - I'd say there are three definite objects. It's not weather. It's not clutter.

    They can see the objects but they don't see they're not aircraft?

    No, they can't tell what they are.

    Uh. Oh. Scramble em.

    You're scrambling them?

    I'm curious to find out what the hell they are.

    I am too



    Also thought NICAP's Francis Ridge asks a very pertinent question below - there's a lot the U.S. Government isn't releasing about this case and when the F-106A interceptor was sent up to chase the objects I'd say it's a fair bet the aircraft was equipped with gun camera as well.. so where's the footage?




    Up to twelve luminous UFOs flew over this secure test facility and the region, and at least one F-106A interceptor was scrambled from George AFB at Victorville. All of this action was captured on classified U.S. Air Force audio tapes which have now been declassified and are available to the public along with official documentation.

    The question in my mind is, what was going on during those 3-4 hours we don't know about? If we were allowed to hear only 6 hours of 40, and read only 17 pages of hard-to-read documents, what is it we were NOT allowed to hear and see? The documents we have make it clear that by the time Alpha Lima Zero One was scrambled at at 1209Z or 5:09 PM PDT, "the activity was just about over.."

    The event at Edwards Air Force Base took place over about a five hour period and since the voice recordings were made from at least 8 positions, approximately 40 hours of audio recordings had to have been made. Out of the possible 40 hours of these tape recordings only 6 hours were declassified by the Department of the Air Force

    link


    Cheers.
    edit on 13-12-2012 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:03 PM
    link   
    reply to post by karl 12
     


    People that think UFO's are silly just cannot allow a superior physical presence into their life. They have to be at the top of the food chain.



    posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:47 PM
    link   
    apparently alot of people in the military are tin-foil-hat-wearing UFO nutjobs as well.....i think there has been plenty of disclosure, there is just too many people that refuse to believe it. there is so much overwelming evidence, the people that deny it are the real nutjobs.



    posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:58 PM
    link   
    As I said mate, great case, S+F.

    So, there's still 40 hours of audio in government vaults somewhere. Ever get the feeling the true (and probably most interesting) moments of this case are still being kept from us? Time and time, again the fact they just release the least exciting parts of a remarkable case, actually, to me, just shows how guilty they are of the cover up and more importantly, has there been any interaction with these objects?

    The fight for the release of this information must continue.
    edit on 13-12-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



    posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:23 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

    So, there's still 40 hours of audio in government vaults somewhere.

    Ever get the feeling the true (and probably most interesting) moments of this case are still being kept from us?


    Yes, I absolutely do.




    Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

    The fight for the release of this information must continue.


    Well mate it doesn't look good and I think the days of the UFO document releases involved with this presentation are long gone - as it mentions here the Pentagon are also going to become (along with NORAD) 'completely exempt' from the Freedom of Information Act and not have to release any more UFO documents so that can't be good news as the DIA appear heavily involved with the UFO subject.

    Researcher Kevin Randle also makes some good points below about 'The Decline and Fall of FOIA' and mentions how the teeth have been removed from it - also brought up is the fact that the Bush administration made several changes to the 'interpretation' of the FOIA laws and, in June 2003, the Department of Justice actually held meetings 'to train FOIA officers how to keep more information from being disclosed under FOIA'.

    I also thought it apt that the U.S. Air Force is stated to be 'one of the most notorious agencies of government in ignoring, denying, and essentially contravening the current requirements of the FOIA and related rules and law regarding Mandatory Declassification Review requests (MDRs)' and wasn't really surprised to learn that in 2007 they won the Rosemary award for worst FOIA performance from the National Security Archives group at George Washington University.




    There are those who believe that the Freedom of Information Act is the gateway to all knowledge about UFOs. If you have a question, just file a FOIA request and the information will be sent to you. Anything you wish to know, you can learn, if you can find the right agency, form your questions intelligently, and if you have a little patience.

    And I say crapola…

    The point here is that it doesn’t seem that FOIA works as well as it used to. It seems that they can ignore repeated requests, and I really don’t want to pay an attorney two hundred dollars an hour to sue them for a response, only to learn that the information is considered vital to national security which would launch another lawsuit. They have the resources to dance, but we out here do not.Oh, I get it that lots of people file FOIA over trivia… but then, if the records weren’t hidden away, there would be no need for FOIA. And yes, I understand that some things are a matter of national security, but I’m not sure how that might relate to the Air Force investigations of Roswell since the Air Force said it was a balloon, or how it relates to the radar tracks of a commercial airliner more than two decades ago.FOIA just doesn’t work the way it used to and that is really all I’m saying..


    I believe that the problem is systemic... the teeth have been removed from the FOIA laws, they now routinely charge, they categorize the requests, all to keep from having to do anything at all. It has nothing to do with UFOs and everything to do with keeping information, however routine and dull, from the public.

    I had asked for something that should have been as simple as reviewing the Command Post logs on a single date. I just wanted to know if a telephone call had been made and if a radar track had been seen... Instead, I get a number of emails that have nothing to do with that and I still have no answer to my questions.

    And, I have received absolutely no answer from one office at all. I have sent, over the last year, four separate requests for the very same information.

    The point is that FOIA is sick and dying and that has nothing to do with UFOs.

    link



    Don't think we'll be seeing the withheld 40 hours of audio (or missing gun camera footage) any time soon mate.

    Cheers.



    posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:52 AM
    link   
    reply to post by karl 12
     


    Additionally on the suppression of information, I recently was made aware that Robert Bigelow(who heavily invested into MUFON, who is also owner of Skinwalker Ranch and Bigelow Aerospace, which has some major military contracts with the government), keeps all the best MUFON reports and is referred to directly when someone has a genuine unexplained sighting.

    One could be forgiven for thinking, that perhaps he is also privvy to government material also



    posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:24 AM
    link   
    reply to post by karl 12
     
    Hiya mate


    This year has seen my UFO enchantment diminishing gradually and the way I view the big cases has altered too.

    This case was originally one of those 'take-to-the-bank' incidents that had it all: radar, multiple witnesses and separate locations. A tough one to argue against and to a degree it still is in terms of the apparent incident.

    What puzzles me is the 'scrambled release.' Mid-year I was looking for other examples of them from other areas like investigative journalism. You know, like a proof of concept or a standard operating procedure? Admittedly I didn't spend hours, but I couldn't find any other examples of 'scrambled release' beyond those directly relating to this case.

    This point undermines my confidence in the recordings as the chain of evidence isn't clear. Sure they sound authentic and I'm not arguing that they aren't. Where my concerns lie are in the reasons for releasing the tapes - scrambled or otherwise. *If* the USAF has no history (prior or since) of 'scrambled releases,' isn't it curious that the one time they do it involves a UFO incident? Could it have been some form of stage-management?



    posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 02:43 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Kandinsky
    reply to post by karl 12
     
    Hiya mate


    This year has seen my UFO enchantment diminishing gradually and the way I view the big cases has altered too.

    This case was originally one of those 'take-to-the-bank' incidents that had it all: radar, multiple witnesses and separate locations. A tough one to argue against and to a degree it still is in terms of the apparent incident.

    What puzzles me is the 'scrambled release.' Mid-year I was looking for other examples of them from other areas like investigative journalism. You know, like a proof of concept or a standard operating procedure? Admittedly I didn't spend hours, but I couldn't find any other examples of 'scrambled release' beyond those directly relating to this case.

    This point undermines my confidence in the recordings as the chain of evidence isn't clear. Sure they sound authentic and I'm not arguing that they aren't. Where my concerns lie are in the reasons for releasing the tapes - scrambled or otherwise. *If* the USAF has no history (prior or since) of 'scrambled releases,' isn't it curious that the one time they do it involves a UFO incident? Could it have been some form of stage-management?


    It could be, but there could also be other reasons for this, I guess it's how you view it personally.


    The TPTB have handled UFO reports very strangely over the years, and don't forget they are the masters of misinfo/disinfo using ANY methods, they have perfected it imo. Take the case of Flight 564 www.ufocasebook.com... in 1995, now obviously whatever they seen was just plain weird. Direct contact with a NORAD controller, who confirmed they were tracking the object on the radar. After this encounter, all knowledge of the incident was flat out denied by NORAD. Make of that what you will.

    I ask this, why would NORAD confirm tracking a foreign object and then flat out deny it? That really doesn't make sense.
    edit on 15-12-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 12:47 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

    I ask this, why would NORAD confirm tracking a foreign object and then flat out deny it?


    Hey mate, apparently the standard USAF operating procedure when a radar controller confirms a UFO is 'to keep it to yourself, never to write anything down and notify NORAD immediately' - also mentioned in Michael Smith's testimony here is that NORAD informed him to lie to Police Officers about UFO radar confirmation over Michigan so maybe it's not the first time they've been caught telling porkies.




    Originally posted by Kandinsky

    What puzzles me is the 'scrambled release.' Mid-year I was looking for other examples of them from other areas like investigative journalism. You know, like a proof of concept or a standard operating procedure? Admittedly I didn't spend hours, but I couldn't find any other examples of 'scrambled release' beyond those directly relating to this case.


    Fair point there mate and will certainly have a good look into the subject of scrambled releases and standard operating procedure.



    posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:28 AM
    link   
    Has anyone considered the possibility that another government is using these sophisticated drones or whatever craft they are to spy on the AFB?

    This possibility for those that don't know, is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more likely than it being E.T.'s.
    edit on 13-1-2013 by Razimus because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:42 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Razimus
     
    It was 1965 and Edwards AFB is located in LA County. The probability of it being another Govt has got to be highly unlikely. Would it be Canadians? Soviets? Mexicans?

    I've read theories for these AFB reports that suggest other agencies like the CIA were testing their own technology. Another notion is that the AFB personnel were being tested by the military to see how they'd respond to incursions. Neither particularly satisfy my own judgement and I remain undecided about the *whats* or the *who* in these reports.

    In the Edwards incident (iirc!!) the objects showed up on multiple radars and also at an adjacent base. The 'lights in the sky' were also observed through field glasses by more than one person from different locations too. The radio traffic in the tapes charts the developing situation as it rises through the ranks and permission is eventually granted to scramble.

    These details are worth considering because although the CIA had sophisticated means of spoofing radars (ECM, Palladium etc) they didn't have aerial technology with those flight characteristics. I think these same points applied to other govts of the period.

    Ultimately, one has to wonder about the authenticity of the tapes. Was the whole thing stage-managed? If so why? What was gained by the release? Nothing much as far as I can judge. It isn't a particularly well-known or definitive incident. Furthermore, 1965 was full of domestic upheaval (Civil Rights riots etc) and war in Vietnam. Cold War too. One can't speak for the minds of 1965 military men, but it seems an unlikely endeavour to orchestrate such an incident to 'fool the crazy UFO folk.'

    So we're apparently left with a puzzling incident with no satisfactory explanations.



    posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:17 PM
    link   
    I think this case doesn't usually show up on top-ten lists, but it's on mine for reasons already covered in this thread.



    posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:57 PM
    link   
    wasn't this sighting/event the inspiration for the entire "contact" event in Close Encounters - where the ships were flying around the landing strip prior to the mothership arriving?



    posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:38 PM
    link   
    I remember a while back, there was a UFO that the military couldn't shoot down. The official report stated it was a weather balloon. People fell for it. Here's an interesting question that can be posed: If the military can't shoot down a weather balloon..why should we trust them with protecting us? Unless it _wasn't_ a weather balloon, and it was something else.



    posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:26 PM
    link   
    I've always considered this case the "Smoking Gun." Apart from video, it's got so much evidence that’s hard to ignore.

    Sort of on topic, years ago I heard that Samuel Sherman retrieved the tape when working on a documentary tentatively titled "Beyond this earth" which has never been released. It’s supposed to be the definitive documentary to prove to the world that UFOs exist and are not man made. Allegedly there are up-close videos of crafts taken from fighter planes, interviews with top ranking Air Force personnel, that sort of thing.

    Has anyone else ever heard about this alleged documentary?



    posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 06:55 PM
    link   
    Thanks for the replies and this incident is certainly up there on my list as well - haven't had much time to post recently but here's a good interview with the air traffic controller, Chuck Sorrells:






    Chuck Sorrells is a career Air Force military man who was at Edwards Air Force Base in 1965 when not one, but at least seven UFOs appeared over Edwards Air Force Base airspace, moving in extraordinary fashion at enormous speeds, making right-hand turns and other maneuvers which no known aircraft was capable of at the time. This event lasted for five or six hours.


    Cheers.





    new topics
    top topics
     
    19
    <<   2 >>

    log in

    join