SUBJECT: IS THE K2 REPORT A FAKE ? FILE: UFO1531
PART 1
Some time ago I decided to further investigate the claims of the Phoenix
Project in regards to their K2 Report about a supposed underground alien
base located near Quincy CA. This report chronicles my initial findings.
It is not my intention to discredit the Phoenix Project, or Jack Mathias.
They, as a scientific organization, should be able to appreciate any
attempt of independant verification.
The following is excerpted directly from the K2-Report, and chronicles
an "object" being pursued by 8 F-4 Phantoms.
* * *
Report # 1: By Staff # 2:
Date: August 10, 1989, Time: 2212 PDT.
Location: Approximately 40 miles southwest of K-2.
A brightly glowing object was observed from my
location. It was approximately 30-40 feet in diameter,
moving slowly from south to north at 500 feet above the
tree-tops.
[text deleted for brevity]
Within 10 minutes, after the object left the area,
eight Air Force jet fighters (F-4s, judging from their
sound and appearance) and moving very fast, went overhead
traveling in the same direction the object had taken --
towards the North. Four minutes later, the fighters
returned, heading south. I presumed the object had been
spotted by their radar. Their quick return would indicate
they lost radar contact with the object.
* * *
[text deleted for brevity]
Memo
August 12, 1989
From Staff # 1
To: Staff # 2
Our contacts in the Air Force verify that on the night
of August 10, 1989, at the time indicated in Report # 1
of that date, that eight F-4's, scrambled from Beale AFB,
CA. They had a brief radar-lock, on a "bogie" in the area
described. However, they lost the target, due to ground
clutter when it suddenly descended into the mountainous
terrain. They returned to the base when a further sweep
of the area proved fruitless.
You're right, the AF had a blip on their radar, but
lost it when the ship dropped into that 20-mile approach
corridor between the valleys and the radar dead zone.
* * *
My Investigation.
I contacted the Public Affairs office at Beale AFB. (916-634-8890)
After identifying myself, and the information I needed, they transfered
me to another office. The person who answered the phone identified both
himself, and the office so swiftly, I couldn't make out who I was talking
to. (altho the point is moot..)
The following is a -rough- transcript of the conversation, although it is
not verbatim. (I did not record the conversation.) The officer I was speaking
to was quite candid, and informal. The conversation itself was spontaneous,
so I do not believe that I was being fed a "canned" story. Besides, as you'll
see in a moment, the officer has absoloutly no reason to lie about this.
I read the above memo to the officer, and then asked the following questions.
Q: Has Beale AFB operated F-4 Phantoms in an interceptor role at any time,
and specificly during August of 1989?
A: No. Beale AFB is a SAC [Strategic Air Command] base, and has never
operated tactical aircraft in any capacity. We have B-52s, KC-130 air
refuelers, and until recently, the SR-71. We're a bomber base, not a
fighter base. There was an attempt made in an 89 air show to get 2 RF-4Cs
to come here, but unfortunatly, they couldn't make it.
[Note: In conversation, he told me the RF-4s were part of the High Roller
squadron based here in Reno...Joe.]
Q: Were F-4s ever used in an interceptor role as late as 1989?
A: Not to my knowledge, no. The F-4s have been relegated to ECM, "Wild
Weasel" roles, and low level recce [Recon] roles for quite some time now.
These types of F-4s are completely unarmed, therefor useless as fighters.
If an intercept mission was called out for northern CA, the response
would come from only one of 2 AFB's. Eilson<sp> or Almendorf AFB in
Alaska, although I'm not sure which one, and the other AFB would be March
AFB. Both bases have a wing of F-15 interceptors that the AF have assigned
to West Coast defense. The US Navy also has NAS [Naval Air Stations]
assigned to coastal defense, but I'm not sure which bases those are.
At any rate, the only Naval outfits to use the F-4 are the Marines, and
they also use it as "Wild Weasel" and low level recce.
Q: Has it ever been AF SOP to use eight aircraft in an intercept?
A: For -one- radar bogie? [he laughed at this point] That would insult most
of the fighter pilots I've ever known. [another laugh] No, most AFB's
only have 2 aircraft capable of being "scrambled" on a moments notice.
Even if an AFB had more aircraft available for a scramble, they would
still only send 2 aircraft. Operating an interceptor is extremly
expensive, somwhere in the region of $4,000 per flight hour. This is
fuel, oil, hydraulics, and air and ground crew salaries. The AF wouldn't
spend $32,000 for something they know from experience would only take
$8,000. Besides, we're still talking F-4s here right? [Yes] Well, for
an intercept conducted by the AF, you're looking at the F-15, or the
F-16. Even if we had F-4s that were armed, they'd wouldn't use them.
They're just not fast enough anymore.
* * *
Summary:
1. Beale AFB is a SAC base, and as such, does not operate tactical
aircraft, (ie fighters) in any capacity, and never has. Their primary
aircraft types are bombers, hi-alt recon, and refuelers.
2. The AF would never send eight ships to intercept a radar bogie. IMHO
they wouldn't need to.
3. There are no F-4 Phantoms being used on the West Coast in an interceptor
role. They are used in Recon, and ECM roles only, and as such, are
totally unarmed. If the AF were to scramble an intercept, they would
use F-16s or F-15s.
Possible Explanations:
1. The AF is lieing.
Not likely. They've no reason to hide the fact that tactical aircraft
do not operate from their base, nor have they any reason to lie about
using F-4s as interceptors.
2. The Phoenix Project member mis-identified the aircraft.
Unfortunatly, the Phoenix Project cannot use this as a defense, since
they state that they "verified" that 8 F-4s were scrambled to intercept
the radar "bogie."
3. The Phoenix Project deliberatly falsified this portion of their report.
Unfortunatly, this is the only explanation.
Conclusion:
It is my opinion that at least this portion of the Phoenix Project's K-2
report is a deliberate falsehood. It can neither be a typographical error,
nor an error in judgement, (since they "verified" the info using AF
sources.) This also throws considerable doubt on the validity of the
"object" sighting, and on the K-2 report as a whole. However, I will let
others, more knowledgable and capable than I to determine the validity
of the remaining K-2 claims.
Joe.
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
