SUBJECT: 22 YEARS OF INADEQUATE UFO INVESTIGATIONS           FILE: UFO2107




AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, 134th MEETING

Subject       Science in Default: 22 Years of Inadequate
                UFO Investigations

Author        James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

Address       The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721

Time          9:00 a.m., December 27, 1969

Place         Sheraton Plaza Ballroom

Program       General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects

Convention
 Address     Sheraton Plaza Hotel

                                               RELEASE TIME
                                               A.M,'s December 28

    No scientifically adequate investigation of the UFO problem has been
carried out during the entire 22 years that have now passed since the first
extensive wave of sightings of unidentified aerial objects in the summer of
1947. Despite continued public interest, and despite frequent expressions of
public concern, only quite superficial examinations of the steadily growing
body of unexplained UFO reports from credible witnesses have been conducted in
this country or abroad. The latter point is highly relevant, since all
evidence now points to the fact that UFO sightings exhibit similar
characteristics throughout the world.
    Charging inadequacy of all past UFO investigations, I speak not only from
a background of close study of the past investigations, but also from a
background of three years of rather detailed personal research, involving
interviews with over five hundred witnesses in selected UFO cases, chiefly in
the U. S. In my opinion, the UFO problem, far from being the nonsense problem
that it has often been labeled by many scientists, constitutes a problem of
extraordinary scientific interest.
    The grave difficulty with essentially all past UFO studies has been that
they were either devoid of any substantial scientific content, or else have
lost their way amidst the relatively large noise-content that tends to obscure
the real signal in the UFO reports. The presence of a percentually large
number of reports of misidentified natural or technological phenomena
(planets, meteors, and aircraft, above all) is not surprising, given all the
circumstances surrounding the UFO problem. Yet such understandable and usually
easily recognized instances of misidentification have all too often been
seized upon as a sufficient explanation for all UFO reports, while the residue
of far more significant reports (numbering now of order one thousand) are
ignored. I believe science is in default for having failed to mount any truly
adequate studies of this problem, a problem that has aroused such strong and
widespread public concern during the past two decades. Unfortunately, the
present climate of thinking, above all since release of the latest of a long
series of inadequate studies, namely, that conducted under the direction of
Dr. E. U. Condon at the University of Colorado, will make it very difficult to
secure any new and more thorough investigations, yet my own examination of the
problem forces me to call for just such new studies. I am enough of a realist
to sense that, unless the present AAAS UFO Symposium succeeds in making the
scientific community aware of the seriousness of the UFO problem, little
immediate response to any call for new investigation is likely to appear.
    In fact, the over-all public and scientific response to the UFO phenomena
is itself a matter of substantial scientific interest, above all in its
social-psychological aspects. Prior to my own investigations, I would never
have imagined the wide spread reluctance to report an unusual and seemingly
inexplicable event, yet that reluctance, and the attendant reluctance of
scientists to exhibit serious interest in the phenomena in question, are quite
general. One regrettable result is the fact that the most credible of UFO
witnesses are often those most reluctant to come forward with a report of the
event they have witnessed. A second regrettable result is that only a very
small number of scientists have taken the time and trouble to search out the
nearly puzzling reports that tend to be diluted out by the much larger number
of trivial and non-significant UFO reports. The net result is that there still
exists no general scientific recognition of the scope and nature of the UFO
problem.

                             * * *

    Within the federal government official responsibility for UFO
investigations has rested with the Air Force since early 1948. Unidentified
aerial objects quite naturally fall within the area of Air Force concern, so
this assignment of responsibility was basically reasonable, However, once it
became clear (early 1949) that UFO reports did not seem to involve advanced
aircraft of some hostile foreign power, Air Force interest subsided to
relatively low levels, marked, however, by occasional temporary resurgence of
interest following large waves of UFO reports, such as that of 1952, or 1957,
or 1965.
    A most unfortunate pattern of press reporting developed by about 1953, in
which the Air Force would assert that they had found no evidence of anything
"defying explanation in terms of present-day science and technology" in their
growing files of UFO reports. These statements to the public would have done
little harm had they not been coupled systematically to press statements
asserting that "the best scientific facilities available to the U. S. Air
Force" had been and were being brought to bear on the UFO question. The
assurances that substantial scientific competence was involved in Air Force
UFO investigations have, I submit, had seriously deleterious scientific
effects. Scientists who might otherwise have done enough checking to see that
a substantial scientific puzzle lay in the UFO area were misled by these
assurances into thinking that capable scientists had already done adequate
study and found nothing. My own extensive checks have revealed so slight a
total amount of scientific competence in two decades of Air Force-supported
investigations that I can only regard the repeated asseverations of solid
scientific study of the UFO . problem as the single most serious obstacle that
the Air Force has put in the way of progress towards elucidation of the matter
    I do not believe, let me stress, that this has been part of some top-
secret coverup of extensive investigations by Air Force or security agencies;
I have found no substantial basis for accepting that theory of why the Air
Force has so long failed to respond appropriately to the many significant and
scientifically intriguing UFO reports coming from within its own ranks.
Briefly, I see grand foulup but not grand coverup. Although numerous instances
could be cited wherein Air Force spokesmen failed to release anything like
complete details of UFO reports, and although this has had the regrettable
consequence of denying scientists at large even a dim notion of the almost
incredible nature of some of the more impressive Air Force-related UFO
reports, I still feel that the most grievous fault of 22 years of Air Force
handling of the UFO problem has consisted of their repeated public assertions
that they had substantial scientific competence on the job.
    Close examination of the level of investigation and the level of
scientific analysis involved in Project Sign (1948-9), Project Grudge (1949-
52), and Project Bluebook (1953 to date), reveals that these were, viewed
scientifically, almost meaning less investigations. Even during occasional
periods (e.g., 1952) characterized by fairly active investigation of UFO
cases, there was still such slight scientific expertise involved that there
was never any real chance that the puzzling phenomena encountered in the most
significant UFO cases would be elucidated. Furthermore, the panels,
consultants, contractual studies, etc., that the Air Force has had working on
the UFO problem over the past 22 years have, with essentially no exception,
brought almost negligible scientific scrutiny into the picture. Illustrative
examples will be given.
    The Condon Report, released in January, 1968, after about two years of
Air Force-supported study is, in my opinion, quite inadequate. The sheer bulk
of the Report, and the inclusion of much that can only be viewed as
"scientific padding", cannot conceal from anyone who studies it closely the
salient point that it represents an examination of only a tiny fraction of the
most puzzling UFO reports of the past two decades, and that its level of
scientific argumentation is wholly unsatisfactory. Furthermore, of the roughly
90 cases that it specifically confronts, over 30 are conceded to be
unexplained. With so large a fraction of unexplained cases (out of a sample
that is by no means limited only to the truly puzzling cases, but includes an
obJectionably large number of obviously trivial cases), it is far from clear
how Dr. Condon felt justified in concluding that the study indicated "that
further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the
expectation that science will be advanced thereby. "
     I shall cite a number of specific examples of cases from the Condon
Report which I regard as entirely inadequately investigated and reported. One
at Kirtland AFB, November 4, 1957, involved observations of a wingless egg-
shaped object that was observed hovering about a minute over the field prior
to departure at a climb rate which was described to me as faster than that of
any known jets, then or now. The principal witnesses in this case were
precisely the type of witnesses whose accounts warrant closest attention,
since they were CAA tower observers who watched the UFO from the CAA tower
with binoculars. Yet, when I located these two men in the course of my own
check of cases from the Condon Report, I found that neither of them had even
been contacted by members of the University of Colorado project! Both men were
fully satisfied that they had been viewing a device with performance
characteristics well beyond any thing in present or foreseeable aeronautical
technology. The two men gave me descriptions that were mutually consistent and
that fit closely the testimony given on Nov. 6, 1957, when they were
interrogated by an Air Force investigator. The Condon Report attempts to
explain this case as a light-aircraft that lost its way, came into the field
area, and then left. This kind of explanation runs through the whole Condon
Report, yet is wholly incapable of explaining the details of sightings such as
that of the Kirtland AFB incident. Other illustrative instances in which the
investigations summarized in the Condon Report exhibit glaring deficiencies
will be cited. I suggest that there are enough significant unexplainable UFO
reports just within the Condon Report itself to document the need for a
greatly increased level of scientific study of UFOs.
    That a panel of the National Academy of Sciences could endorse this study
is to me disturbing. I find no evidence that the Academy panel did any
independent checking of its own; and none of that 11-man panel had any
significant prior investigative experience in this area, to my knowledge. I
believe that this sort of Academy endorsement must be criticized; it hurts
science in the long run, and I fear that this particular instance will
ultimately prove an embarrassment to the National Academy of Sciences.
    The Condon Report and its Academy endorsement have exerted a highly
negative influence on clarification of the long-standing UFO problem; so much,
in fact, that it seems almost pointless to now call for new and more extensive
UFO investigations. Yet the latter are precisely what are needed to bring out
into full light of scientific inquiry a phenomenon that could well constitute
one of the greatest scientific problems of our times.

                              * * *

Some examples of UFO cases conceded to be unexplainable in the Condon Report
and containing features of particularly strong scientific interest: Utica,
N.Y., 6/23/55; Lakenheath, England, 8/13/56; Jackson, Ala., 11/14/56; Norfolk,
Va., 8/30/57; RB-47 case, 9/19/57; Beverly Mass., 4/22/66; Donnybrook, N.D.,
8/19/66; Haynesville, La., 12/30/66; Joplin, Mo., 1/13/67; Colorado Springs,
Colo., 5/13/67.

Some examples of UFO cases considered explained in the Condon Report for which
I would take strong exception to the argumentation presented and would regard
as both unexplained and of strong scientific interest: Flagstaff, Ariz.,
5/20/50; Washington, D. C., 7/19/52; Bellefontaine, O., 8/1/52; Haneda AFB,
Japan, 8/5/52; Gulf of Mexico, 12/6/52; Odessa, Wash., 12/10/52; Continental
Divide, N.M., 1/26/53; Seven Isles, Quebec, 6/29/54; Niagara Falls, N.Y.,
7/25/57; Kirtland AFB, N.M., 11/4/57; Gulf of Mexico, 11/5/57; Peru, 12/30/66;
Holloman AFB, 3/2/67; Kincheloe AFB, 9/11/67; Vandenberg AFB, 10/6/67;
Milledgeville, Ga., 10/20/67.


SCIENCE IN DEFAULT: 22 YEARS OF INADEQUATE UFO INVESTIGATIONS

     James E. McDonald, Institute of Atmospheric Physics
                 University of Arizona, Tucson

         (Material presented at the Symposium on UFOs,
          134th Meeting, AAAS, Boston, Dec, 27, 1969)

                             ***

                       ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

     The following treats in detail the four principal UFO cases referred to
in my Symposium talk. They are presented as specific illustrations of what I
regard as serious shortcomings of case-investigations in the Condon Report and
in the 1947-69 Air Force UFO program. The four cases used as illustrations are
the following :

           1.   RB-47 case, Gulf Coast area, Sept. 19, 1957

           2.   Lakenheath RAF Station, England, August 13-14,
                1956

           3.   Haneda AFB, Japan, August 5-6, 1952

           4.   Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, Nov. 4, 1957

     My principal conclusions are that scientific inadequacies in past years
of UFO investigations by Air Force Project Bluebook have _not_ been remedied
through publication of the Condon Report, and that there remain scientifically
very important unsolved problems with respect to UFOs. The investigative and
evaluative deficiencies illustrated in the four cases examined in detail are
paralleled by equally serious shortcomings in many other cases in the sample
of about 90 UFO cases treated in the Condon Report. Endorsement of the
conclusions of the Condon Report by the National Academy of Sciences appears
to have been based on entirely superficial examination of the Report and the
cases treated therein. Further study, conducted on a much more sound
scientific level are needed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOME ILLUSTRATIVE UFO CASES - J. E. McDonald
(AAAS UFO Symposium, Boston, Dec. 27, 1969.)

Case 1. USAF RB-47, Gulf Coast area, September 19-20, 1957.

Brief summary: An Air Force RB-47, equipped with ECM (Electronic
Countermeasures) gear, manned by six officers, was followed over a total
distance in excess of 600 miles and for a time period of more than an hour, as
it flew from near Gulfport, Miss., through Louisiana and Texas, and into
southern Oklahoma. The unidentified object was, at various times, seen
visually by the cockpit crew (as an intense white or red light), followed by
ground-radar, and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47.
Simultaneous appearances and disappearances on all three of those physically
distinct "channels" mark this UFO case as especially intriguing from a
scientific viewpoint. The incident is described as Case 5 in the Condon Report
and is conceded to be unexplained. The full details, however, are not
presented in that Report.

1.  Summary of the Case:

    The case is long and involved and filled with well-attested phenomena
that defy easy explanation in terms of present-day science and technology. The
RB-47 was flying out of Forbes AFB, Topeka, on a composite mission including
gunnery exercises over the Texas-Gulf area, navigation exercises over the open
Gulf, and ECM exercises in the return trip across the south-central U.S. This
was an RB-47 carrying a six-man crew, of whom three were electronic warfare
officers manning ECM (Electronic counter-measures) gear in the aft portion of
the aircraft. One of the extremely interesting aspects of this case is that
electromagnetic signals of distinctly radar-like character appeared definitely
to be emitted by the UFO, yet it exhibited performance characteristics that
seem to rule out categorically its having been any conventional or secret
aircraft.

    I have discussed the incident with all six officers of the crew:

    Lewis D. Chase, pilot, Spokane, Wash.
    James H. McCoid, copilot, Offutt AFB
    Thomas H. Hanley, navigator, Vandenberg AFB
    John J. Provenzano, No. 1 monitor, Wichita
    Frank B. McClure, No. 2 monitor, Offutt AFB
    Walter A. Tuchscherer, No. 3 monitor, Topeka

Chase was a Major at the time; I failed to ask for information on 1957 ranks
of the others. McClure and Hanley are currently Majors, so might have been
Captains or Lieutenants in 1957. All were experienced men at the time. Condon
Project investigators only talked with Chase, McCoid, and McClure, I
ascertained. In my checking it proved necessary to telephone several of them
more than once to pin down key points; nevertheless the total case is so
complex that I would assume that there are still salient points not clarified
either by the Colorado investigators or by myself. Unfortunately, there
appears to be no way, at present to locate the personnel involved in ground-
radar observations that are a very important part of the whole case. I shall
discuss that point below.

     This flight occurred in September, 1957, just prior to the crew's
reassignment to a European base. On questioning by Colorado investigators,
flight logs were consulted, and based on the recollection that this flight was
within a short time of departure from Forces to Germany, (plus the requirement
that the date match a flight of the known type and geography) the 9/19/57 date
seems to have emerged. The uncertainty as to whether it was early on the 19th
or early on the 20th, cited above is a point of confusion I had not noted
until preparing the present notes. Hence I am unable to add any clarification,
at the moment; in this matter of the date confusion found in Thayer's
discussion of the case (1, pp. 136-138). I shall try to check that in the near
future. For the present, it does not vitiate case-discussion in any
significant way.

    The incident is most inadequately described in the Condon Report. The
reader is left with the general notion that the important parts occurred near
Ft. Worth, an impression strengthened by the fact that both Crow and Thayer
discuss meteorological data only for that area. One is also left with no clear
impression of the duration, which was actually over an hour. The incident
involved an unknown airborne object that stayed with the RB-47 for over 600
miles. In case after case in the Condon Report, close checking reveals that
quite significant features of the cases have been glossed over, or omitted, or
in some instances seriously misrepresented. I submit that to fail to inform
the reader that this particular case spans a total distance-range of some 600
miles and lasted well over an hour is an omission difficult to justify.

    From my nine separate interviews with the six crew members, I assembled a
picture of the events that makes it even more puzzling than it seems on
reading the Condon Report -- and even the latter account is puzzling enough.

    Just as the aircraft crossed the Mississippi coast near Gulfport,
McClure, manning the #2 monitor, detected a signal near their 5 o'clock
position (aft of the starboard beam). It looked to him like a legitimate
ground-radar signal, but corresponded to a position out in the Gulf. This is
the actual beginning of the complete incident; but before proceeding with
details it is necessary to make quite clear what kind of equipment we shall be
talking about as we follow McClure's successive observations.

    Under conditions of war, bombing aircraft entering hostile territory can
be assisted in their penetrations if any of a variety of electronic
countermeasures (ECM techniques as they are collectively termed) are brought
into action against ground-based enemy radar units. The initial step in all
ECM operations is, necessarily, that of detecting the enemy radar and
quantitatively identifying a number of relevant features of the radar system
(carrier frequency, pulse repetition frequency, scan rate, pulse width) and,
above all, its bearing relative to the aircraft heading. The latter task is
particularly ample in principle, calling only for direction-finding antennas
which pick up the enemy signal and display on a monitor scope inside the
reconnaissance aircraft a blip or lobe that paints in the relative bearing
from which the signal is coming.

     The ECM gear used in RB-47's in 1957 is not now classified; the #2
monitor that McClure was on, he and the others pointed out, involved an ALA-6
direction-finder with back-to-back antennas in a housing on the undersurface
of the RB-47 near the rear, spun at either 150 or 300 rpm as it scanned in
azimuth. Inside the aircraft, its signals were processed in an APR-9 radar
receiver and an ALA-5 pulse analyser. All later references to the #2 monitor
imply that system. The #1 monitor employed an APD-4 direction finding system,
with a pair of antennas permanently mounted on either wing tip. Provenzano was
on the #1 monitor. Tuchscherer was on the #3 monitor, whose specifications I
did not ascertain because I could find no indication that it was involved in
the observations.

     Returning now to the initial features of the UFO episode, McClure at
first thought he had 180-degree ambiguity in his scope, i.e., that the signal
whose lobe painted at his 5 o'clock position was actually coming in from the
11 o'clock position perhaps from some ground radar in Louisiana. This
suspicion, he told me, was temporarily strengthened as he became aware that
the lobe was moving upscope. (It is important here and in features of the case
cited below to understand how a fixed ground-radar paints on the ECM monitor
scope as the reconnaissance aircraft flies toward its general direction:
Suppose the ground radar is, at some instant, located at the 1 o'clock
position relative to the moving aircraft, i.e., slightly off the starboard
bow. As the aircraft flies along, the relative bearing steadily changes, so
that the fixed ground unit is "seen" successively at the 2 o'clock, the 3
o'clock, and the 4 o'clock positions, etc. The lobe paints on the monitor
scope at these successive relative azimuths, the 12 o'clock position being at
the top of the scope, 3 o'clock at the right, etc. Thus any legitimate signal
from a fixed ground radar must move downscope, excluding the special cases in
which the radar is dead ahead or dead astern. Note carefully that we deal here
only with direction finding gear. Range is unknown; we are not here speaking
of an airborne radar set, just a radar-frequency direction-finder. In
practice, range is obtained by triangulation computations based on successive
fixes and known aircraft speed.)

    As the lobe continued moving _upscope_, McClure said the strength of the
incoming signal and its pulse characteristics all tended to confirm that this
was some ground unit being painted with 180-degree ambiguity for some unknown
electronic reason. It was at 2800 megacycles, a common frequency for S-band
search radars.

    However, after the lobe swung dead ahead, his earlier hypothesis had to
be abandoned for it continued swinging over to the 11 o'clock position and
continued downscope on the port side. Clearly, no 180-degree ambiguity was
capable of accounting for this. Curiously, however, this was so anomalous that
McClure did not take it very seriously and did not at that juncture mention it
to the cockpit crew nor to his colleagues on the other two monitors. This
upscope-downscope "orbit" of the unknown was seen only on the ALA-6, as far as
I could establish. Had nothing else occurred, this first and very significant
portion of the whole episode would almost certainly have been for gotten by
McClure.

    The signal faded as the RB-47 headed northward to the scheduled turning
point over Jackson, Miss. The mission called for simulated detection and ECM
operations against Air Force ground radar units all along this part of the
flight plan, but other developments intervened. Shortly after making their
turn westward over Jackson, Miss., Chase noted what he thought at first were
the landing lights of some other jet coming in from near his 11 o'clock
position, at roughly the RB-47's altitude. But no running lights were
discernible and it was a single very bright white light, closing fast. He had
just alerted the rest of the crew to be ready for sudden evasive maneuvers,
when he and McCoid saw the light almost instantaneously change directions and
rush across from left to right at an angular velocity that Chase told me he'd
never seen matched in his flight experience. The light went from their 11
o'clock to the 2 o'clock position with great rapidity, and then blinked out.

     Immediately after that, Chase and McCoid began talking about it on the
interphone and McClure, recalling the unusual 2800 megacycle signal that he
had seen over Gulfport now mentioned that peculiar incident for the first time
to Chase and McCoid. It occurred to him at that point to set his #2 monitor to
scan at 2800 mcs. On the first scan, McClure told me, he got a strong 2800 mcs
signal from their 2 o'clock position, the bearing on which the luminous
unknown object had blinked out moments earlier.

    Provenzano told me that right after that they had checked out the #2
monitor on valid ground radar stations to be sure it was not malfunctioning
and it appeared to be in perfect order. He then checked on his #1 monitor and
also got a signal from the same bearing. There remained, of course, the
possibility that just by chance, this signal was from a real radar down on the
ground and off in that direction. But as the minutes went by, and the aircraft
continued westward at about 500 kts. the relative bearing of the 2800 mcs
source did not move downscope on the #2 monitor, but kept up with them.

    This quickly led to a situation in which the entire 6-man crew focussed
all attention on the matter; the incident is still vivid in the minds of all
the men, though their recollection for various details varies with the
particular activities they were engaged in. Chase varied speed, to see if the
relative bearing would change but nothing altered. After over a hundred miles
of this, with the 2800 mcs source keeping pace with the aircraft, they were
getting into the radar-coverage area of the Carswell AFB GCI (Ground
Controlled Intercept) unit and Chase radioed that unit to ask if they showed
any other air traffic near the RB-47.
Carswell GCI immediately came back with the information that there was
apparently another aircraft about 10 miles from them at their 2 o'clock
position. (The RB-47 was unambiguously identifiable by its IFF signal; the
"other aircraft" was seen by "skin paint" Only, i.e., by direct radar
reflection rather than via an IFF transponder, Col. Chase explained.)

     This information, each of the men emphasized to me in one way or
another, made them a bit uneasy for the first time. I asked McClure a question
that the Colorado investigators either failed to ask or did not summarize in
their Report. Was the signal in all respects comparable to that of a typical
ground radar? McClure told me that this was what baffled him the most, then
and now. All the radar signature characteristics, as read out on his ALA-5
pulse analyser, were completely normal -- it had a pulse repetition frequency
and pulse width like a CPS-6B and even simulated a scan rate: But its
intensity, McClure pointed out, was so strong that "it would have to had an
antenna bigger than a bomber to put out that much signal." And now, the
implications of the events over Gulfport took on new meaning. The upscope-
downscope sweep of his #2 monitor lobe implied that this source, presuming it
to be the same one now also being seen on ground radar at Carswell GCI, had
flown a circle around the RB-47 at 30-35,000 ft altitude while the aircraft
was doing about 500 kts.

    Shortly after Carswell GCI began following the two targets, RB-47 and
unknown, still another significant action unfolded. McClure suddenly noted the
lobe on the #2 monitor was beginning to go upscope, and almost simultaneously,
Chase told me, GCI called out that the second airborne target was starting to
move forward. Keep in mind that no visual target was observable here; after
blinking out at the 12 o'clock position, following its lightning-like traverse
across the nose of the aircraft, no light had been visible. The unknown now
proceeded to move steadily around to the 12 o'clock position, followed all the
while on the #2 monitor and on the GCI scope down at Carswell near Ft. Worth.

    As soon as the unknown reached the 12 o'clock position, Chase and McCoid
suddenly saw a bright red glow "bigger than a house", Chase said, and lying
dead ahead, precisely the bearing shown on the passive radar direction-finder
that McClure was on and precisely the bearing now indicated on the GCI scope.
_Three independent sensing systems_ were at this juncture giving seemingly
consistent-indications: two pairs of human eyes, a ground radar, and a
direction-finding radar receiver in the aircraft.

    One of the important points not settled by the Colorado investigations
concerned the question of whether the unknown was ever painted on any radar
set on the RB-47 itself. Some of the men thought the navigator had seen it on
his set, others were unsure. I eventually located Maj. Hanley at Vandenberg
and he informed me that all through the incident, which he remembered very
well, he tried, unsuccessfully to pick up the unknown on his navigational
radar (K-system). I shall not recount all of the details of his efforts and
his comments, but only mention the end result of my two telephone interviews
with him. The important question was what sort of effective range that set
had. Hanley gave the pertinent information that it could just pick up a large
tanker of the KC-97 type at about 4 miles range, when used in the "altitude-
hold" mode, with antenna tipped up to maximum elevation. But both at the start
of its involvement and during the object's swing into the 12 o'clock position,
GCI showed it remaining close to 10 miles in range from the RB-47. Thus
Hanley's inability to detect it on his K-system navigational radar in altitude
hold only implies that whatever was out there had a radar cross-section that
was less than about 16 times that of a KC-97 (roughly twice 4 miles, inverse
4th-power law), The unknown gave a GCI return that suggested a cross-section
comparable to an ordinary aircraft, Chase told me, which is consistent with
Hanley's non-detection of the object. The Condon Report gives the impression
the navigator did detect it, but this is not correct.

    I have in my files many pages of typed notes on my interviews, and cannot
fill in all of the intriguing details here. Suffice it to say that Chase then
went to maximum allowable power, hoping to close with the unknown, but it just
stayed ahead at about 10 miles as GCI kept telling them; it stayed as a bright
red light dead ahead, and it kept painting as a bright lobe on the top of
McClure's ALA-6 scope. By this time they were well into Texas still at about
35,000 ft and doing upwards of 500 knots, when Chase saw it begin to veer to
the right and head between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Getting FAA clearance to
alter his own flight plan and to make sure other jet traffic was out of his
way, he followed its turn, and then realized he was beginning to close on it
for the first time. Almost immediately GCI told him the unknown had stopped
moving on the ground-radarscope. Chase and McCoid watched as they came almost
up to it. Chase's recollections on this segment of the events were distinctly
clearer than McCoid's. McCoid was, of course, sitting aft of Chase and had the
poorer view; also he said he was doing fuel-reserve calculations in view of
the excess fuel-use in their efforts to shake the unknown, and had to look up
from the lighted cockpit to try to look out intermittently, while Chase in the
forward seat was able to keep it in sight more nearly continuously. Chase told
me that he'd estimate that it was just ahead of the RB-47 and definitely below
them when it instantaneously blinked out, At that same moment McClure
announced on the interphone that he'd lost the 2800 mcs signal, and GCI said
it had disappeared from their scope. Such simultaneous loss of signal on what
we can term three separate channels is most provocative, most puzzling.

    Putting the aircraft into a left turn (which Chase noted consumes about
15-20 miles at top speed), they kept looking back to try to see the light
again. And, about halfway through the turn (by then the aircraft had reached
the vicinity of Mineral Wells, Texas, Chase said), the men in the cockpit
suddenly saw the bright red light flash on again, back along their previous
flight path but distinctly lower, and simultaneously GCI got a target again
and McClure started picking up a 2800 mcs signal at that bearing: (As I heard
one after another of these men describe all this, I kept trying to imagine how
it was possible that Condon could listen, at the October, 1967, plasma
conference at the UFO Project, as Col. Chase recounted all this and shrug his
shoulders and walk out.)

    Securing permission from Carswell GCI to undertake the decidedly non-
standard maneuver of diving on the unknown, Chase put the RB-47 nose down and
had reached about 20,000 ft, he recalls, when all of a sudden the light
blinked out, GCI lost it on their scope, and McClure reported loss of signal
on the #2 monitor: Three-channel consistency once more.

    Low on fuel, Chase climbed back up to 25,000 and headed north for
Oklahoma. He barely had it on homeward course when McClure got a blip dead
astern and Carswell radioed that they had a target once more trailing the RB-
47 at about 10 miles. Rear visibility from the topblisters of the RB-4 now
precluded easy visual check, particularly if the unknown was then at lower
altitude (Chase estimated that it might have been near 15,000 ft when he lost
it in the dive). It followed them to southern Oklahoma and then disappeared.

2. Discussion:

   This incident is an especially good example of a UFO case in which
observer credibility and reliability do not come into serious question, a case
in which more than one (here three) channel of information figures in the
over-all observations, and a case in which the reported phenomena appear to
defy explanation in terms of either natural or technological phenomena.

   In the Condon Report, the important initial incident in which the unknown
2800 MC source appeared to orbit the RB-47 near Gulfport is omitted. In the
Condon Report, the reader is given no hint that the object was with the
aircraft for over 600 miles and for over an hour. No clear sequence of these
events is spelled out, nor is the reader made aware of all of the "three-
channel" simultaneous appearances or disappearances that were so emphatically
stressed to me by both Chase and McClure in my interviews with them. But even
despite those degrees of incompleteness, any reader of the account of this
case in the Condon Report must wonder that an incident of this sort could be
left as unexplained and yet ultimately treated, along with the other
unexplained cases in that Report, as calling for no further scientific
attention.

   Actually, various hypotheses (radar anomalies, mirage effects) are weighed
in one part of the Condon Report where this case is discussed separately (pp.
136-138). But the suggestion made there that perhaps an inversion near 2 km
altitude was responsible for the returns at the Carswell GCI unit is wholly
untenable. In an Appendix, a very lengthy but non-relevant discussion of
ground return from anomalous propagation appears; in fact, it is so unrelated
to the actual circumstances of this case as to warrant no comment here.
Chase's account emphasized that the GCI radar(s) had his aircraft and the
unknown object on-scope for a total flight-distance of the order of several
hundred miles, including a near overflight of the ground radar. With such wide
variations in angles of incidence of the ground-radar beam on any inversion or
duct, however intense, the possibility of anomalous propagation effects
yielding a consistent pattern of spurious echo matching the reported movements
and the appearances and disappearances of the target is infinitesimal. And the
more so in view of the simultaneous appearances and disappearances on the ECM
gear and via visible emissions from the unknown. To suggest, as is tentatively
done on p. 138 that the "red glow" might have been a "mirage of Oklahoma
City", when the pilot's description of the luminous source involves a wide
range of viewing angles, including two instances when he was viewing it at
quite large depression angles, is wholly unreasonable. Unfortunately, that
kind of casual ad hoc hypothesizing with almost no attention to relevant
physical considerations runs all through the case-discussions in the treatment
of radar and optical cases in the Condon Report, frequently (though not in
this instance) being made the basis of "explanations" that are merely absurd.
On p. 265 of the Report, the question of whether this incident might be
explained in terms of any "plasma effect" is considered but rejected. In the
end, this case is conceded to be unexplained.

   No evidence that a report on this event reached Project Bluebook was found
by the Colorado investigators. That may seem hard to believe for those who are
under the impression that the Air Force has been diligently and exhaustively
investigating UFO reports over the past 22 years. But to those who have
examined more closely the actual levels of investigation, lack of a report on
this incident is not so surprising. Other comparable instances could he cited,
and still more where the military aircrews elected to spare themselves the
bother of interrogation,by not even reporting events about as puzzling as
those found in this RB-47 incident.

   But what is of greatest present interest is the point that here we have a
well-reported, multi-channel, multiple-witness UFO report, coming in fact from
within the Air Force itself, investigated by the Condon Report team, conceded
to be unexplained, and yet it is, in final analysis, ignored by Dr. Condon. In
no section of the Report specifically written by the principal investigator
does he even allude to this intriguing case. My question is how such events
can be written off as demanding no further scientific study. To me, such cases
seem to cry out for the most intensive scientific study -- and the more so
because they are actually so much more numerous than the scientific community
yet realizes. There is a scientific mystery here that is being ignored and
shoved under the rug; the strongest and most unjustified shove has come from
the Condon Report. "unjustified" because that Report itself contains so many
scientifically puzzling unexplained cases (approximately 30 out of 90 cases
considered) that it is extremely difficult to understand how its principal
investigator could have construed the contents of the Report as supporting a
view that UFO studies should be terminated.

Case 2. Lakenheath and Bentwaters RAF/USAF units; England, August 13-14,
       1956.

Brief summary: Observations of unidentified objects by USAF and RAF personnel,
extending over 5 hours, and involving ground-radar, airborne-radar, ground
visual and airborne-visual sightings of high-speed unconventionally
maneuvering obJects in the vicinity of two RAF stations at night. It is Case 2
in the Condon Report and is there conceded to be unexplained.

1.   Introduction:

    This case will illustrate, in significant ways, the following points:

   a)   It illustrates the fact that many scientifically intriguing UFO
        reports have lain in USAF/Bluebook files for years without knowledge
        thereof by the scientific community.

   b)   It represents a large subset of UFO cases in which all of the
        observations stemmed from military sources and which, had there been
        serious and competent scientific interest operating in Project
        Bluebook, could have been very thoroughly investigated while the
        information was fresh. It also illustrates the point that the actual
        levels of investigation were entirely inadequate in even as
        unexplainable and involved cases as this one.

   c)   It illustrates the uncomfortably incomplete and internally
        inconsistent features that one encounters in almost every report of
        its kind in the USAF/Bluebook files at Wright-Patterson AFB, features
        attesting to the dearth of scientific competence in the Air Force UFO
        investigations over the past 20 years.

   d)   It illustrates, when the original files are carefully studied and
        compared with the discussion thereof in the Condon Report,
        shortcomings in presentation and critique given many cases in the
        Condon Report.

   e)   Finally, I believe it illustrates an example of those cases conceded
        to be unexplainable by the Condon Report that argue need for much
        more extensive and more thorough scientific investigation of the UFO
        problem, a need negated in the Condon Report and in the Academy
        endorsement thereof.

   My discussion of this case will be based upon the 30-page Bluebook case-
file, plus certain other information presented on it in the Condon Report.
This "Lakenheath case" was not known outside of USAF circles prior to
publication of the Condon Report. None of the names of military personnel
involved are given in the Condon Report. (Witness names, dates, and locales
are deleted from all of the main group of cases in that Report, seriously
impeding independent scientific check of case materials.) I secured copies of
the case-file from Bluebook, but all names of military personnel involved in
the incident were cut out of the Xerox copies prior to releasing the material
to me. Hence I have been unable to interview personally the key witnesses.
However, there is no indication that anyone on the colorado Project did any
personal interviews, either; so it would appear I have had access to the same
basic data used in the Condon Report's treatment of this extremely interesting
case.

   For no Justified reason, the Condon Report not only deletes witness names,
but also names of localities of the UFO incidents in its main sample of 59
cases. In this Lakenheath case, deletion of locality names creates much
confusion for the reader, since three distinct RAF stations figure in,the
incident and since the discharged non-commissioned officer from whom they
received first word of this UFO episode confused the names of two of those
stations in his own account that appears in the Condon Report. That, plus
other reportorial deficiencies in the presentation of the Lakenheath case in
the Condon Report, will almost certainly have concealed its real significance
from most readers of the Report.

   Unfortunately, the basic Bluebook file is itself about as confusing as
most Bluebook files on UFO cases. I shall attempt to mitigate as many of those
difficulties as I can in the following, by putting the account into better
over-all order than one finds in the Condon Report treatment.

2. General Circumstances:

   The entire episode extended from about 2130Z, August 13, to 0330Z, August
14, 1956; thus this is a nighttime case. The events occurred in east-central
England, chiefly in Suffolk. The initial reports centered around Bentwaters
RAF Station, located about six miles east of Ipswich, near the coast, while
much of the subsequent action centers around Lakenheath RAF Station, located
some 20 miles northeast of Cambridge. Sculthorpe RAF Station also figures in
the account, but only to a minor extent; it is near Fakenham, in the vicinity
of The Wash. GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) radars at two of those three
stations were involved in the ground-radar sightings, as was an RTCC (Radar
Traffic Control Center) radar unit at Lakenheath. The USAF non-com who wrote
to the Colorado Project about this incident was a Watch Supervisor on duty at
the Lakenheath RTCC unit that night. His detailed account is reproduced in the
Condon Report (pp. 248-251). The Report comments on "the remarkable accuracy
of the account of the witness as given in (his reproduced letter), which was
apparently written from memory 12 years after the incident." I would concur,
but would note that, had the Colorado Project only investigated more such
striking cases of past years, it would have found many other witnesses in UFO
cases whose vivid recollections often match surprising well checkable
contemporary accounts. My experience thereon has been that, in multiple-
witness cases where one can evaluate consistency of recollections, the more
unusual and inexplicable the original UFO episode, the more it impressed upon
the several witnesses' memories a meaningful and still-useful pattern of
relevant recollections. Doubtless, another important factor operates: the UFO
incidents that are the most striking and most puzzling probably have been
discussed by the key witnesses enough times that their recollections have been
thereby reinforced in a useful way.

   The only map given in the Condon Report is based on a sketch-map made by
the non-com who alerted them to the case. It is misleading, for Sculthorpe is
shown 50 miles east of Lakenheath, whereas it actually lies 30 miles north-
northeast. The map does not show Bentwaters at all; it is actually some 40
miles east-southeast of Lakenheath. Even as basic items as those locations do
not appear to have been ascertained by those who prepared the discussion of
this case in the Condon Report, which is most unfortunate, yet not atypical.

   That this incident was subsequently discussed by many Lakenheath personnel
was indicated to me by a chance event. In the course of my investigations of
another radar UFO case from the Condon Report, that of 9/11/67 at Kincheloe
AFB, I found that the radar operator involved therein had previously been
stationed with the USAF detachment at Lakenheath and knew of the events at
second-hand because they were still being discussed there by radar personnel
when he arrived many months later.

3.  Initial Events at Bentwaters, 2130Z to 2200Z;

   One of the many unsatisfactory aspects of the Condon Report is its
frequent failure to put before the reader a complete account of the UFO cases
it purports to analyze scientifically. In the present instance, the Report
omits all details of three quite significant radar-sightings made by
Bentwaters GCA personnel prior to their alerting the Lakenheath GCA and RTCC
groups at 2255 LST. This omission is certainly not because of correspondingly
slight mention in the original Bluebook case-file; rather, the Bentwaters
sightings actually receive more Bluebook attention than the subsequent
Lakenheath events. Hence, I do not see how such omissions in the Condon Report
can be justified.

   a) _First radar siqhting, 2130Z._ Bentwaters GCA operator, A/2c ______ (I
shall use a blank to indicate the names razor-bladed out of my copies of the
case-file prior to release of the file items to me), reported picking up a
target 25-30 miles ESE, which moved at very high speed on constant 295 deg.
heading across his scope until he lost it 15-20 miles to the NW of Bentwaters.
In the Bluebook file, A/2c _____ is reported as describing it as a strong
radar echo, comparable to that of a typical aircraft, until it weakened near
the end of its path across his scope. He is quoted as estimating a speed of
the order of 4000 mph, but two other cited quantities suggest even higher
speeds. A transit time of 30 seconds is given, and if one combines that with
the reported range of distance traversed, 40-50 miles, a speed of about 5000-
6000 mph results. Finally, A/2c _____ stated that it covered about 5-6 miles
per sweep of the AN/MPN-llA GCA radar he was using. The sweep-period for that
set is given as 2 seconds (30 rpm), so this yields an even higher speed-
estimate of about 9000 mph. (Internal discrepancies of this sort are quite
typical of Bluebook case-files, I regret to say. My study of many such files
during the past three years leaves me no conclusion but that Bluebook work has
never represented high-caliber scientific work, but rather has operated as a
perfunctory bookkeeping and filing operation during most of its life. Of the
three speed figures just mentioned, the latter derives from the type of
observation most likely to be reasonably accurate, in my opinion. The
displacement of a series of successive radar blips on a surveillance radar
such as the MPN-11A, can be estimated to perhaps a mile or so with little
difficulty, when the operator has as large a number of successive blips to
work with as is here involved. Nevertheless, it is necessary to regard the
speed as quite uncertain here, though presumably in the range of several
thousand miles pr hour and hence not associable with any conventional
aircraft, nor with still higher-speed meteors either.)

   b) _Second radar siqhting, 2130-2155Z._ A few minutes after the preceding
event, T/Sgt _____ picked up on the same MPN-11A a group of 12-15 objects
about 8 miles SW of Brentwaters. In the report to Bluebook, he pointed out
that "these objects appeared as normal targets on the GCA scope and that
normal checks made to determine possible malfunctions of the GCA radar failed
to indicate anything was technically wrong." The dozen or so objects were
moving together towards the NE at varying speeds, ranging between 80 and 125
mph, and "the 12 to 15 unidentified objects were preceded by 3 objects which
were in a triangular formation with an estimated 1000 feet separating each
object in this formation." The dozen objects to the rear "were scattered
behind the lead formation of 3 at irregular intervals with the whole group
simultaneously covering a 6 to 7 mile area," the official report notes.

       Consistent radar returns came from this group during their 25-minute
movement from the point at which they were first picked up, 8 mi. SW, to a
point about 40 mi. NE of Bentwaters, their echoes decreasing in intensity as
they moved off to the NE. When the group reached a point some 40 mi. NE, they
all appeared to converge to form a single radar echo whose intensity is
described as several times larger than a B-36 return under comparable
conditions. Then motion ceased, while this single strong echo remained
stationary for 10-15 minutes. Then it resumed motion to the NE for 5-6 miles,
stopped again for 3-5 minutes, and finally moved northward and off the scope.

   c) _Third radar siqhting, 2200Z._ Five minutes after the foregoing
formation moved off-scope, T/Sgt _____ detected an unidentified target about
30 mi. E of the Bentwaters GCA station, and tracked it in rapid westward
motion to a point about 25 mi. W of the station, where the object "suddenly
disappeared off the radar screen by rapidly moving out of the GCS radation
pattern," according to his interpretation of the event. Here, again, we get
discordant speed information, for T/Sgt _____ gave the speed only as being "in
excess of 4000 mph," whereas the time-duration of the tracking, given as 16
sec, implies a speed of 12,000 mph, for the roughly 55 mi. track-length
reported. Nothing in the Bluebook files indicates that this discrepancy was
investigated further or even noticed, so one can say only that the apparent
speed lay far above that of conventional aircraft.

   d) _Other observations at Bentwaters._  A control tower sergeant, aware of
the concurrent radar tracking, noted a light "the size of a pin-head at arm's
length" at about 10 deg. elevation to the SSE. It remained there for about
one hour, intermittently appearing and disappearing. Since Mars was in that
part of the sky at that time, a reasonable interpretation is that the observer
was looking at that planet.

     A T-33 of the 512th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, returning to
Bentwaters from a routine flight at about 2130Z, was vectored to the NE to
search for the group of objects being tracked in that sector. Their search,
unaided by airborne radar, led to no airborne sighting of any aircraft or
other objects in that area, and after about 45 minutes they terminated search,
having seen only a bright star in the east and a coastal beacon as anything
worth noting. The Bluebook case-file contains 1956 USAF discussions of the
case that make a big point of the inconclusiveness of the tower operator's
sighting and the negative results of the T-33 search, but say nothing about
the much more puzzling radar-tracking incidents than to stress that they were
of "divergent" directions, intimating that this somehow put them in the
category of anomalous propagation, which scarcely follows. Indeed, none of the
three cited radar sightings exhibits any features typical of AP echoes. The
winds over the Bentwaters area are given in the file. They jump from the
surface level (winds from 230 deg. at 5-10 kts) to the 6000 ft level (260
deg., 30 kts), and then hold at a steady 260 deg. up to 50,000 ft, with speeds
rising to a maximum of 90 kts near 30,000 ft. Even if one sought to invoke the
highly dubious Borden-Vickers hypothesis (moving waves on an inversion
surface), not even the slowest of the tracked echoes (80-125 mph) could be
accounted for, nor is it even clear that the direction would be explainable.
Furthermore, the strength of the individual echoes (stated as comparable to
normal aircraft returns), the merging of the 15 or so into a single echo, the
two intervals of stationarity, and final motion off-scope at a direction about
45 deg. from the initial motion, are all wholly unexplainable in terms of AP
in these 2130-2155Z incidents. The extremely high-speed westward motion of
single targets is even further from any known radar-anomaly associated with
disturbed propagation conditions. Blips that move across scopes from one
sector to the opposite, in steady heading at steady apparent speed, correspond
neither to AP nor to internal electronic disturbances. Nor could interference
phenomena fit such observed echo behavior. Thus, this 30-minute period, 213O-
2200Z, embraced three distinct events for which no satisfactory explanation
exists. That these three events are omitted from the discussions in the Condon
Report is unfortunate, for they serve to underscore the scientific
significance of subsequent events at both Bentwaters and Lakenheath stations.

4. Comments on Reporting of Events After 2255Z, 8/13/56:

    The events summarized above were communicated to Bluebook by Capt. Edward
L. Holt of the 81st Fighter-Bomber Wing stationed at Bentwaters, as Report No.
IR-1-56, dated 31 August, 1956. All events occurring subsequent to 2200Z, on
the other hand, were communicated to Project Bluebook via an earlier, lengthy
teletype transmission from the Lakenheath USAF unit, sent out in the standard
format of the report-form specified by regulation AFR200-2. Two teletype
transmissions, dated 8/17/56 and 8/21/56, identical in basic content, were
sent from Lakenheath to Bluebook. The Condon Report presents the content of
that teletype report on pp. 252-254, in full, except for deletion of all names
and localities and omission of one important item to be noted later here.
However, most readers will be entirely lost because what is presented actually
constitutes a set of answers to questions that are not stated! The Condon
Report does not offer the reader the hint that the version of AFR200-2
appearing in the Report's Appendix, pp. 819-826 (there identified by its
current designation, AFR80-17) would provide the reader with the standardized
questions needed to translate much of the otherwise extremely confusing array
of answers on pp. 252-254. For that reason, plus others, many readers will
almost certainly be greatly (and entirely unnecessarily) confused on reading
this important part of the Lakenheath report in the Condon Report.

   That confusion, unfortunately, does not wholly disappear upon laboriously
matching questions with answers, for it has long been one of the salient
deficiencies of the USAF program of UFO report collection that the format of
AFR200-2 (or its sequel AFR80-17) is usually only barely adequate and
(especially for complex episodes such as that involved here) often entirely
incapable of affording the reporting office enough scope to set out clearly
and in proper chronological order all of the events that may be of potential
scientific significance. Anyone who has studied many Bluebook reports in the
AFR200-2 format, dating back to 1953, will be uncomfortably aware of this
gross difficulty. Failure to carry out even modest followup investigations and
incorporate findings thereof into Bluebook case-files leaves most intriguing
Bluebook UFO cases full of unsatisfactorily answered questions. But those
deficiencies do not, in my opinion, prevent the careful reader from discerning
that very large numbers of those UFO cases carry highly significant scientific
implications, implications of an intriguing problem going largely unexamined
in past years.

5. _Initial Alerting of Lakenheath GCA and RTCC:_

   The official files give no indication of any further UFO radar sightings
by Bentwaters GCA from 2200 until 2255Z. But, at the latter time, another
fast-moving target was picked up 30 mi. E of Bentwaters, heading almost due
west at a speed given as "2000-4000 mph". It passed almost directly over
Bentwaters, disappearing from their GCA scope for the usual beam-angle reasons
when within 2-3 miles (the Condon Report intimates that this close in
disappearance is diagnostic of AP, which seems to be some sort of tacit over-
acceptance of the 1952 Borden-Vickers hypothesis), and then moving on until it
disappeared from the scope 30 mi. W of Bentwaters.

   Very significantly, this radar-tracking of the passage of the unidentified
target was matched by concurrent visual observations, by personnel on the
ground looking up and also from an overhead aircraft looking down. Both visual
reports involved only a light, a light described as blurred out by its high
speed; but since the aircraft (identified as a C-47 by the Lakenheath non-com
whose letter called this case to the attention of the Colorado Project) was
flying only at 4000 ft, the altitude of the unknown object is bracketed within
rather narrow bounds. (No mention of any sonic boom appears; but the total
number of seemingly quite credible reports of UFOs moving at speeds far above
sonic values and yet not emitting booms is so large that one must count this
as just one more instance of many currently inexplicable phenomena associated
with the UFO problem.) The reported speed is not fast enough for a meteor, nor
does the low-altitude flat traJectory and absence of a concussive shock wave
match any meteoric hypothesis. That there was visual confirmation from
observation points both above and below this fast-moving radar-tracked obJect
must be viewed as adding still further credence to, and scientific interest
in, the prior three Bentwaters radar sightings of the previous hour.

    Apparently immediately after the 2255Z events, Bentwaters GCA alerted GCA
Lakenheath, which lay off to its WNW. The answers to Questions 2(A) and 2(B)
of the AFR200-2 format (on p. 253 of the Condon Report) seem to imply that
Lakenheath ground observers were alerted in time to see a luminous object come
in, at an estimated altitude of 2000-2500 ft, and on a heading towards SW. The
lower estimated altitude and the altered heading do not match the Bentwaters
sighting, and the ambiguity so inherent in the AFR200-2 format simply cannot
be eliminated here, so the precise timing is not certain. All that seems
certain here is that, at or subsequent to the Bentwaters alert-message,
Lakenheath ground observers saw a luminous object come in out of the NE at low
altitude, then _stop_, and take up an easterly heading and resume motion
eastward out of sight.

    The precise time-sequence of the subsequent observations is not clearly
deducible from the Lakenheath TWX sent in compliance with AFR200-2. But that
many very interesting events, scientifically very baffling events, soon took
place is clear from the report. No followup, from Bluebook or other USAF
sources,'was undertaken, and so this potentially very important case, like
hundreds of others, simply sent into the Bluebook files unclarified. I am
forced to stress that nothing reveals so clearly the past years of
scientifically inadequate UFO investigation as a few days' visit to Wright-
Patterson AFB and a diligent reading of Bluebook case reports. No one with any
genuine scientific interest in solving the UFO problem would have let
accumulate so many years of reports like this one without seeing to it that
the UFO reporting and followup investigations were brought into entirely
different status from that in which they have lain for over 20 years.

   Deficiencies having been noted, I next catalog, without benefit of the
exact time-ordering that is so crucial to full assessment of any UFO event,
the intriguing observations and events at or near Lakenheath subsequent to the
2255Z alert from Bentwaters.

6.  Non-chronological Summary of Lakenheath Sightings, 2255Z-0330Z.

   a. _Visual observations from ground._

       As noted two paragraphs above, following the 2255Z alert from GCA
Bentwaters, USAF ground observers at the Lakenheath RAF Station observed a
luminous object come in on a southwesterly heading, stop, and then move off
out of sight to the east. Subsequently, at an unspecified time, two moving
white lights were seen, and "ground observers stated one white light joined up
with another and both disappeared in formation together" (recall earlier radar
observations of merging of targets seen by Bentwaters GCA). No discernible
features of these luminous sources were noted by ground observers, but both
the observers and radar operators concurred in their report-description that
"the objects (were) travelling at terrific speeds and then stopping and
changing course immediately." In a passage of the original Bluebook report
which was for some reason not included in the version presented in the Condon
Report, this concordance of radar and visual observations is underscored:
"Thus two radar sets (i.e., Lakenheath GCA and RATCC radars) and three ground
observers report substantially same." Later in the original Lakenheath report,
this same concordance is reiterated: "the fact that radar and ground visual
observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abrupt stops certainly
lend credulance (sic) to the report."

   Since the date of this incident coincides with the date of peak frequency
of the Perseid meteors, one might ask whether any part of the visual
observations could have been due to Perseids. The basic Lakenheath report to
Bluebook notes that the ground observers reported "unusual amount of shooting
stars in sky", indicating that the erratically moving light(s) were readily
distinguishable from meteors. The report further remarks thereon that "the
objects seen were definitely not shooting stars as there were no trails as are
usual with such sightings." Furthermore, the stopping and course reversals are
incompatible with any such hypothesis in the first place.

   AFR200-2 stipulates that observer be asked to compare the UFO to the size
of various familiar objects when held at arm's length (Item 1-B in the
format). In answer to that item, the report states: "One observer from ground
stated on first observation object was about size of golf ball. As object
continued in flight it became a 'pin point'." Even allowing for the usual
inaccuracies in such estimates, this further rules out Perseids, since that
shower yields oniy meteors of quite low luminosity.

   In summary of the ground-visual observations, it appears that three ground
observers at Lakenheath saw at least two luminous objects, saw these over an
extended though indefinite time period, saw them execute sharp course changes,
saw them remain motionless at least once, saw two objects merge into a single
luminous object at one juncture, and reported motions in general accord with
concurrent radar observations. These ground-visual observations, in
themselves, constitute scientifically interesting UFO report-material. Neither
astronomical nor aeronautical explanations, nor any meteorological-optical
explanations, match well those reported phenomena. One could certainly wish
for a far more complete and time-fixed report on these visual observations,
but even the above information suffices to suggest some unusual events. The
unusualness will be seen to be even greater on next examining the ground-radar
observations from Lakenheath. And even stronger interest emerges as we then
turn, last of all, to the airborne-visual and airborne-radar observations made
near Lakenheath.

b. _Ground-radar observations at Lakenheath._

   The GCA surveillance radar at Lakenheath is identified as a CPN-4, while
the RATCC search radar was a CPS-5 (as the non-com correctly recalled in his
letter). Because the report makes clear that these two sets were concurrently
following the unknown targets, it is relevant to note that they have different
wavelengths, pulse repetition frequencies, and scan-rates, which (for reasons
that need not be elaborated here) tends to rule out several radar-anomaly
hypotheses (e.g., interference echoes from a distant radar, second-time-around
effects, AP). However, the reported maneuvers are so unlike any of those
spurious effects that it seems almost unnecessary to confront those
possibilities here.

   As with the ground-visual observations, so also with these radar-report
items, the AFR200-2 format limitations plus the other typical deficiencies of
reporting of UFO events preclude reconstruction in detail, and in time-order,
of all the relevant events. I get the impression that the first object seen
visually by ground observers was not radar-tracked, although this is unclear
from the report to Bluebook. One target whose motions were jointly followed
both on the CPS-5 at the Radar Air Traffic Control Center and on the shorter-
range, faster-scanning CPN-4 at the Lakenheath GCA unit was tracked "from 6
miles west to about 20 miles SW where target stopped and assumed a stationary
position for five minutes. Target then assumed a heading northwesterly (I
presume this was intended to read 'northeasterly', and the non-com so
indicates in his recollective account of what appears to be the same
maneuvers) into the Station and stopped two miles NW of Station. Lakenheath
GCA reports three to four additional targets were doing the same maneuvers in
the vicinity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three ground observers
report substantially same." (Note that the quoted item includes the full
passage omitted from the Condon Report version, and note that it seems to
imply that this devious path with two periods of stationary hovering was also
reported by the visual observers. However, the latter is not entirely certain
because of ambiguities in the structure of the basic report as forced into the
AFR200-2 format).

   At some time, which context seems to imply as rather later in the night
(the radar sightings went on until about 0330Z), "Lakenheath Radar Air Traffic
Control Center observed object 17 miles east of Station making sharp
rectangular course of flight. This maneuver was not conducted by circular path
but on right angles at speeds of 600-800 mph. Object would stop and start with
amazing rapidity." The report remarks that "...the controllers are experienced
and technical skills were used in attempts to determine just what the objects
were. When the target would stop on the scope, the MTI was used. However, the
target would still appear on the scope." (The latter is puzzling. MTI, Moving
Target Indication, is a standard feature on search or surveillance radars that
eliminates ground returns and returns from large buildings and other
motionless objects. This very curious feature of display of stationary modes
while the MTI was on adds further strong argument to the negation of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
undergoing small-amplitude but high-speed jittering motion to yield a scope-
displayed return despite the MTI. Since just such jittery motion has been
reported in visual UFO sightings on many occasions, and since the coarse
resolution of a PPI display would not permit radar-detection of such motion if
its amplitude were below, say, one or two hundred meters, this could
conceivably account for the persistence of the displayed return during the
episodes of "stationary" hovering, despite use of MTI.)

    The portion of the radar sightings just described seems to have been
vividly recollected by the retired USAF non-com who first called this case to
the attention of the Colorado group. Sometime after the initial Bentwaters
alert, he had his men at the RATCC scanning all available scopes, various
scopes set at various ranges. He wrote that "...one controller noticed a
stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles southwest. This was
unusual, as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless it was
moving at a speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could detect no
movement at all. We watched this target on all the different scopes for
several minutes and I called the GCA Unit at (Lakenheath) to see if they had
this target on their scope in the same geographical location. As we watched,
the stationary target started moving at a speed of 400 to 600 mph in a north-
northeast direction until it reached a point about 20 miles north northwest of
(Lakenheath). There was no slow start or build-up to this speed -- it was
constant from the second it started to move until it stopped." (This
description, written 11 years after the event, matches the 1956 intelligence
report from the Lakenheath USAF unit so well, even seeming to avoid the
typographical direction-error that the Lakenheath TWX contained, that one can
only assume that he was deeply impressed by this whole incident. That, of
course, is further indicated by the very fact that he wrote the Colorado group
about it in the first place.) His letter (Condon Report, p. 249) adds that
"the target made several changes in location, always in a straight line,
always at about 600 mph and always from a standing or stationary point to his
next stop at constant speed -- no build-up in speed at all -- these changes in
location varied from 8 miles to 20 miles in length --no set pattern at any
time. Time spent stationary between movements also varied from 3 or 4 minutes
to 5 or 6 minutes..." Because his account jibes so well with the basic
Bluebook file report in the several particulars in which it can be checked,
the foregoing quotation from the letter as reproduced in the Condon Report
stands as meaningful indication of the highly unconventional behavior of the
unknown aerial target. Even allowing for some recollective uncertainties, the
non-com's description of the behavior of the unidentified radar target lies so
far beyond any meteorological, astronomical, or electronic explanation as to
stand as one challenge to any suggestions that UFO reports are of negligible
scientific interest.

   The non-com's account indicates that they plotted the discontinuous stop-
and-go movements of the target for some tens of minutes before it was decided
to scramble RAF interceptors to investigate. That third major aspect of the
Lakenheath events must now be considered. (The delay in scrambling
interceptors is noteworthy in many Air Force-related UFO incidents of the past
20 years. I believe this reluctance stems from unwillingness to take action
lest the decision-maker be accused of taking seriously a phenomenon which the
Air Force officially treats as non-existent.)

c.  Airborne radar and visual sightings by Venom interceptor.

   An RAF jet interceptor, a Venom single-seat subsonic aircraft equipped
with an air-intercept (AI) nose radar, was scrambled, according to the basic
Bluebook report, from Waterbeach RAF Station, which is located about 6 miles
north of Cambridge, and some 20 miles SW of Lakenheath. Precise time of the
scramble does not appear in the report to Bluebook, but if we were to try to
infer the time from the non-com's recollective account, it would seem to have
been somewhere near midnight. Both the non-com's letter and the contemporary
intelligence report make clear that Lakenheath radar had one of their
unidentified targets on-scope as the Venom came in over the Station from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward a target on radar 6 miles east of the
field. Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight and would
investigate. At thirteen miles west (east?) he reported loss of target and
white light."

   It deserves emphasis that the foregoing quote clearly indicates that the
UFO that the Venom first tried to intercept was being monitored via three
distinct physical "sensing channels." It was being recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the 1957 RB-47 case (Case 1 above) in the evidently simultaneous
loss of visual and airborne-radar signal here. One wonders if ground radar
also lost it simultaneously with the Venom pilot's losing it, but, loss of
visual and airborne-radar signal here. One wonders if ground radar also lost
it simultaneously with the Venom pilot's losing it, but, as is so typical of
AFR200-2 reports, incomplete reporting precludes clarification. Nothing in the
Bluebook case-file on this incident suggests that anyone at Bluebook took any
trouble to run down that point or the many other residual questions that are
so painfully evident here. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
from the then-current Blue book officer, Capt. G. T. Gregory, a dispatch that
proposes a series of what I must term wholly irrelevant hypotheses about
Perseid meteors with "ionized gases in their wake which 5N1irVOrelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losing e after the initial Bentwaters
aler same maneuvers in
the vicinity of the Station. Thus two radbseawere doh. Precise time of the
scramble does not apionary"und observen down  files contain such eas alsoT4rEMmA as non-erep the visual obMputes..." Becauseet "..UFO carlRs as of any
hypothesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutes..." Because his account jibes so well wted abo Statios losingIs so well wted aboy as rather later visl lotes... to d the contemporary
intelligence repohe delay in scramdar hlmindar Aire experienD _ground radar_rs  Sth and was veI series of what I must termypotheses about
Perseid meteors with "ionized gases in their wake which 5N1irVOrelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losing e after the initial Bentwaters
aler same maneuvers in
the vicinity of the Station. Thus two rcOr his spight white light in sight and would ocountarse
resolution of a PPI display would not permit radar-detection of such motion if
its amplitude were below, say, one or two hundred meters, this could
conceivably account for the persistence of the displayed return during ng tt whis used. However, the
targeh. The TWX to Blue book statok stIed y, one or two hundred meters, methese  jibes so well wted abo Statiocordicrs in which it cZh motion of a PP such motion ifeturns and returns from ldonnrom r
alsolo
C froite light in sight and would ocountaColorado group
about it inound radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and of che
UFbut,vargument to thegetis, various
scope he MTI was on adds further strong argument to the negation of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
undergoing small-
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAibes so well
C frmotionrious*tne,
alwa the displayed return during ng tt whis used. However, the
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not permit illo�n the
I.." BecauhIo this speed -- it was
constant from the second it starte)
stould oct
tunrary Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
vividly  or 6 however,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acL6ramS47en anvesteion-erroradar_, ucRthe very facl ws itio miles tolo
C froite light2su acLirectiofor at all -- these chan�,bt
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. ndds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu�Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
about it inound radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and of che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Force�rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath u l
scientific interest.
e. ned he, if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
alsolo
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI�nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
wimdar  radar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
undergoing small-
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAibes so well
C frmotionrious*tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentified�_th u[oing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simulvenheathion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it�Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence of theook statesZlaridar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
Imusc Ho d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th s St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu acL6ramS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant musc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI�nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vecteion-errorI serisetpothes5amSt for the persistence to r RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s�C (At it scramdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
ity ethe h and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual queu losinwhda_tttereriA CakizedMpuererhe Station. Thus two radar sets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
I and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would ocountarse
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed y, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheath an�Cf the
fi
about it inound radar_,
by _airborence gation obre
r_,
ocR.  statelsolo innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
by _airborne radar_, and of che
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and wo'rSs l heus
25 rsfd
conChvanit(9 puithd Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
atesZeduring dar_, ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not permit illo�n starte)
stould oct
tunrary Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
vividly  or 6 however,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acL6ramS47en anvesteion-erroradar_, ucRthe very facl ws itio miles tolo
C froite light2su acLirectiofor at all -- these chan�,bt
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. ndds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu�Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Force�rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath u l
scientific interest.
e. ned he, if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
alsolo
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI�nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
wimdar  radar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
undergoing small-
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAibes so well
C frmotionrious*tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentified�_th u[oing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simulvenheathion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it�Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence of theook statesZlaridar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
Imusc Ho d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th s St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu acL6ramS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant musc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI�nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vecteion-errorI serisetpothes5amSt for the persistence to r RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s�C (At it scramdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
ity ethe h and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual queu losinwhda_tttereriA CakizedMpuererhe Station. Thus two radar sets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
I and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would ocountarse
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed y, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheath an�Cf the
fi
about it inound radar_,
by _airborence gation obre
r_,
ocR.  statelsolo innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
by _airborne radar_, and of che
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and wo'rSs l heus
25 rsfd
conChvanit(9 puithd Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
atesZeduring dar_, ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not permit illo�n starte)
stould oct
tunrary Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
vividly  or 6 however,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acL6ramS47en anvesteion-erroradar_, ucRthe very facl ws itio miles tolo
C froite light2su acLirectiofor at all -- these chan�,bt
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. ndds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu�Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Force�rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath u l
scientific interest.
e. ned he, if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
alsolo
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI�nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
wimdar  radar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
undergoing small-
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAibes so well
C frmotionrious*tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentified�_th u[oing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simulvenheathion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it�Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence of theook statesZlaridar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
Imusc Ho d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th s St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu acL6ramS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant musc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI�nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vecteion-errorI serisetpothes5amSt for the persistence to r RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s�C (At it scramdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
ity ethe h and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual queu losinwhda_tttereriA CakizedMpuererhe Station. Thus two radar sets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
I and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would ocountarse
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed y, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheath an�Cf the
fi
about it inound radar_,
by _airborence gation obre
r_,
ocR.  statelsolo innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
by _airborne radar_, and of che
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and wo'rSs l heus
25 rsfd
conChvanit(9 puithd Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
atesZeduring dar_, ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not permit illo�n starte)
stould oct
tunrary Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
vividly  or 6 however,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidenti,bt
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu�Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Force�rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath u l
scientific interest.
e. ned he, if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
alsolo
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI�nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
wimdar  radar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
undergoing small-
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAibes so well
C frmotionrious*tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentified�_th u[oing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simulvenheathion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it�Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-ed ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
Imusc Ho d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th s St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI�nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vectei was ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd kenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s�C (At it scramdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
ity ethe h and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
I and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would ocountarse
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheath an�Cf the
fi
about it inound radar_,
by _airborence gation obre
r_,
ocR.  statelsolo innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
by _airborne radar_, and of che
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and wo'rSs l heus
25 rsfd
conChvanit(9 puithd Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
atesZeduring dar_, ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not permit illo�n starte)
stould oct
tunrary Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
vividly  or 6 however,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidenti,bt
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu�Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Force�rhe tcalwa thnrmlmiutes an visual andervenheath u l
scientific interest.
e. ned he, if grM8Orelevanity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three gcase om ldonnrom r
alsolo
C froite light in signe wonders if ground radar ao have beeogin to this speed -- it wes e TWc wousc eteovrd major aspect orepn
intelligence reporte soE and was vectored towI�nadar had one of their e anEft equipped
wimdar  radar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
undergoing small-
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAibes so well
C frmotionrious*tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentified�_th u[oing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simulvenheathion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarity to tSAF discussions of it�Sc ersistence of the andistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tion Mradar-detectionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-ed ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
Imusc Ho d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th s St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI�nadar had oO inrmotionriouB. Thus two eas alsor had on)was veI series s vectei was ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd kenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s�C (At it scramdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
ity ethe h and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
I and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would ocountarse
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abost h mc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheath an�Cf the
fi
about it inound radar_,
by _airborence gation obre
r_,
ocR.  statelsolo innF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWX
by _airborne radar_, and of che
UFbut,vargument to thegetis,any ly si Jbuirt aCR20rom unwiar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and wo'rSs l heus
25 rsfd
conChvanit(9 puithd Cambrt,va very foSreoptatr5 rsfd
atesZeduring dar_, ethe h and wany oite on abost h mesc n]Blue book states:lly abouW I u radar_,nheit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFilost ccussionskambrt,va vern during ng tt whis used. However, the
tarfeturns a(0cDebook took anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not p book statesdar sigtook anE09 wih eOne w anEM�Sregetissplay would not permit illo�n starte)
stould oct
tunrary Aom the thmr and wousc Hove been
vividly  or 6 however,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidenti,bt
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotionlcaatinu�Sces setcis spig roite lim with theteircO heircO (Aargeibed set sation
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove bee weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt fever,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
Air Foradar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified target, while seeming to hover motionless, was actually
undergoing small-
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAibes so well
C frmotionrious*tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentified�_th u[oing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simulvenheathion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarityt and would ocountarse
resolutioeance of the andistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tiomeua�imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-ed ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
Imusc Ho d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th s St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd ocountaCo weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI�nadar had oO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohBluebnorepn
intE weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd kenheath annal  as vectored by�vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s�C (At it scramdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
ity ethe h and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at consttwonuty en]quath and wNocR. Thus two
I and threegumentct cons IThus twrthe9) te thove h in sight and would ocountarse
resolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaouW   y ly buirt onn]Blu-47 ca), and _vtidariqrmly_. _. _. _. _. _. _. _. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( o�y simulvenheathion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lake=tat
Lahmr and wousc Hove been
viviand three ground obseny
hypothesis of an_,nheit ceptoiandver RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWXI
L,( o�y simpAF Station
Lakenheath and wa not pO permit illo�n starte)
stould oct
tunrary Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o�y simpAts frfL�or 6 however,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidenti,bt
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"th h. The TWX to Blue boo uL�ew over RAF Station
Lakenea�tar1on addL�ectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�on
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUach. The TWX to Blue ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove bee weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt fever,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
Air Foradar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified tarrepoh from
WaterbeachI L�motionless, was actually
unolthree gl herst pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentified�_th u[oing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonnrAnaVaVa
C froite observenheaof such mor the inilligence reporng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt,�ighr �similarity to the  diD�X to Bl conLk q
siion
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF m wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_,
L,vargvividlyt for the persistence of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesZlaritiucontinuotsimilarityt and would ocountarse
resolutioeance of the andistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tiomeua�imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-ed ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
Imusc Ho d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th s St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd47ea�a_t1anodL�oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwted abo Statiocord and was vectored towI�nadar had oO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repohBluebnorepn
intE weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd kenheath annal  as vectored by�vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s�C (At it scramdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
ity ethe h and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  dight and would oSa�bOe1tatiL�esolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Station, whilost h mesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaouW   y ly buirt onn]Blu-47 ca), and _vtidariqrmly_. _. _. _. _. _. _. _. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( o�y simulvenheathion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lake=tat
Lahmr and wousc Hove been
viviand three ground obseny
hypothesis of an_,nheit ceptoiandver RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd oco
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o�y theircO s�seLkercept
tunrary Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o�y simpAts frfL�or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iRease up. 249) ersistence of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. He wroteomenerror that the Lakenhee USn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidenti,bt
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"th h. The TWX to Blue boo uL�ew over RAF Station
Lakenea�ta� u3addL�ectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdarerba�stt1ual questat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air Fotor, a Venom single-s�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. The TWX to Blue book statter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�on
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa�ibe1that UFO anervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove bee weeoupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt fever,bt
L,vargvividly relous
20 yeahAiF Station, whilost h mots from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
Air Foradar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified tarrepoh from
WaterbeachI L�motionless, was actually
unolthree gl herst pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa�s i1
Itegory [ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records. Note, in fact, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheath and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt,�ighr �similarity to the  diD�X to Bl conLk q
siion
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF m wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd ocoion from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tiomeua�imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-ed ocountaCo weliR*tch motion I
Imusc Ho d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th s St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd47ea�a_t1anodL�oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh�ou1to ttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt cly Iheath annal  as vectored by�vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing smal <-s�C (At it scramdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never been stressed in *R20ever b with "ionizedMpuereriA Cambrid. T
ity ethe h and wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  dight and would oSa�bOe1tatiL�esolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� i �. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( o�y simulvenheathion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lake=tat
Lahmr and wousc Hove been
viviand three ground obseny
hypothesis of an_,nheit ceptoiandver RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd oco
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o�y theircO s�seLkercept
tunrary Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o�y simpAts frfL�or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE�R*tount jeu--  of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidenti,bt
L,cmeteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"th h. The TWX to Blue boo uL�ew over RAF Station
Lakenea�ta� u3addL�ectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdarerba�stt1ual questat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air/eath) tAi
aler accdns�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenhFVe1uesvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�on
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa�ibe1that UFO anervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s Sts and tvestee clh andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s St anvesteiod tawaver sts ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:g wikt fromg  s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
Air Foradar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified tarrepoh from
WaterbeachI L�motionless, was actually
unolthree gl herst pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa�s i1
Itegory [ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records ground here. a, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakesskmal east direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"thg t, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt,�ighr �similarity to the  diD�X to Bl conLk q
siion
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF m wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd ocoion from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tiomeua�imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateyL�id toE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mot met interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�er (C�o tIweliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(MhucRRhda_th s St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd47ea�a_t1anodL�oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh�ou1to ttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt cly Iheath annal  as vectored by�vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing s_airbo)ete one oriaaamdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never bein2kkdar ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Tanodsnd wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  dight and would oSa�bOe1tatiL�esolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� i �. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( o�y simulvenhe) dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aaan� i �. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion,nheit ceptoiand8l in8ligh8nion
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd oco
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o�y theircO s�seLkercept
tunrary Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o�y simpAts frfL�or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE�R*tount jeu--  of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidsteeatnlign eteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that escriba�* S1y
tL�ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"th h. The TWX to Blue boo uL�ew over RAF Station
Lakenea�ta� u3addL�ectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdarerba�stt1ual questat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air/eath) tAi
aler accdns�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenhFVe1uesvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h)lut�ight in sight and woulnovnortheal queLked onnce o  theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�on
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa�ibe1that UFO anervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s Sts and tvestee clh andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s St anvesteiod tawaver sts ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:g wikt fromg  s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
Air Foradar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified tarrepoh from
WaterbeachI L�motionless, was actually
unolthree gl herst pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa�s i1
Itegory [ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records ground here. a, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakesskmal east direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"thg t, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book s
   An RADtunhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt,�ighr �similarity to the  diD�X to Bl conLk q
siion
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF m wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd ocoion from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tiomeua�imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateyL�id toE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mot met interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�er (C�o tIweliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(Mhu6tter (Condos St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Statio, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd47ea�a_t1anodL�oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh�ou1to ttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt cly Iheath annal  as vectored by�vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing s_airbo)ete one oriaaamdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never bein2kkdar ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Tanodsnd wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  dight and would oSa�bOe1tatiL�esolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� i �. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( o�y simulvenhe) dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aaan� i �. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion,nheit ceptoiand8l in8ligh8nion
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd oco
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o�y theircO s�seLkercept
tunrary Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o�y simpAts frfL�or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE�R*tount jeu--  of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidsteeatnlign eteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that escriba�* S1y
tL�ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"th h. The TWX to Blue boo uL�ew over RAF Station
Lakenea�ta� u3addL�ectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdarerba�stt1ual questat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air/eath) tAi
aler accdns�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenhFVe1uesvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h)lut�ight in sight and woulnovnortheal queLked onnce o  theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�on
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa�ibe1that UFO anervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s Sts and tvestee clh andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s St anvesteiod tawaver sts ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:g wikt fromg  s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
Air Foradar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified tarrepoh from
WaterbeachI L�motionless, was actually
unolthree gl herst pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa�s i1
Itegory [ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records ground here. a, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakesskmal east direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"thg t, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book s
   An RADtunhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt,�ighr �similarity to the  diD�X to Bl conLk q
siion
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF m wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd ocoion from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tiomeua�imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateyL�id toE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mot met interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�er (C�o tIweliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(Mhu6tter (Condos St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Statio, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd47ea�a_t1anodL�oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh�ou1to ttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt cly Iheath annal  as vectored by�vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing s_airbo)ete one oriaaamdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never bein2kkdar ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Tanodsnd wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  dight and would oSa�bOe1tatiL�esolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� i �. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( o�y simulvenhe) dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aaan� i �. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion,nheit ceptoiand8l in8ligh8nion
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd oco
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o�y theircO s�seLkercept
tunrary Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o�y simpAts frfL�or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE�R*tount jeu--  of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidsteeatnlign eteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that escriba�* S1y
tL�ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mots  te�ous
20 yeahAiF St anvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"th h. The TWX to Blue boo uL�ew over RAF Station
Lakenea�ta� u3addL�ectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdarerba�stt1ual questat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnescO UFVeno_airboring recorded ntirely unaware that
Air Force files Owould n pattern at any
time. Time spenor at al spe�Scotionlcaat all  anyubsoniat it ininterceptor.

   An RAF jet intercept repory unaware that
Air/eath) tAi
aler accdns�C (AI) nosetion. Thus two radar sets and three ground observenhFVe1uesvesteion-el wted aboy as-eu-- it weplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch
fr�pe he MTI was on adds feplayvnortheast direct cons Ita paIstatter (Condon Repion mehere. The file does, h)lut�ight in sight and woulnovnortheal queLked onnce o  theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chathat they plotted the discontinuotioes, h scramble RAF interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�on
Lakenheath an�Cf the
fi
a�ous
20( dal qut from9UUachfroite obseese cha ly f che
UFbnti(Aanervenheath u losinwhichattereriA CambridgedsLa�ibe1that UFO anervenheath u losinwhichattereriA Cambridge, and so
"th h. Th, h scramble RAF interceptors to ie
 n]quote clearly indicageteteteircO c7
er iofor abservenheath y of the Station. Thus two radbseawere Oath andenomenon which the
Air Foe Oath andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s Sts and tvestee clh andenomengests ther re unawIt wtohda_th s St anvesteiod tawaver sts ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:g wikt fromg  s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis co Blue s. nds that
"the targeteoupn]ns that UFO vth two
Air Foradar_,
basic
Bluebnorepn
intelligence reportFO car initial Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidentified tarrepoh from
WaterbeachI L�motionless, was actually
unolthree gl herst pla�ng tt cother reksligneu-- ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Thus two radar sets and three gl here. One_
unidentifiedandariouing quote clchan�,bt[ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Vispa�s i1
Itegory [ any
time.soE andrves emp such1imdarr, a Ven7�y as ra om ldonng recorded by _ground radar_,
by _airborne radar_, and _visually_. Many scientists are entirely unaware that
Air Force files contain such UFO cases; for this very interesting category has
never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records ground here. a, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakesskmal east direct cons Itation from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Bl
"thg t, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn ofnan� � one o6tter (Condot, theptoreen stce repoh from
Waterbea. The je �X to Blue book s
   An RADtunhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� �h. The TW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Itegory has
nevery_. Maners heircFTaatin2Nr be achnrmlmiucontinuotn sight astr of the Station
I ed todt,�ighr �similarity to the  diD�X to Bl conLk q
siion
I ed todt, the
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF m wiFn
Lake=tatio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condo[aterbeachvanity of the Srte sorlRs chan�,bt
L,cmeunheastpohdar_, x
Lakenheath and was vectored onnce of the and _visually_. Many scientists are enty c book statesimi1enBd ocoion from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircy scistever g The TWalsolo
Cilot's losing ipsets �tiomeua�imu1levontionCot's fstr ofs itiNtio theptohda_th s St anvesteiod tawar2Nrly simusc Hove been ight and would ocountaColortio anE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateyL�id toE0Ea
C froite one o6tter (Condot,atecdiscontinuotZstateence h mot met interceptors tanyL�ith theteircO heircO (Aarea�er 1s. ndsL�er (C�o tIweliR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd ocountaCo weli�NIradarothe first(Mhu6tter (Condos St anvesteiod tawaranTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Statio, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St anv6at Daisu . Thus amS47eE�R*tch ar signal here. One d would hat*tch ar brdelevant mc Ho d woul�r be achnrmlmiucocept res, methese dno rna
Air Fotor, aR Bens s-47 case (Case 1 aboothesis�serhR0calwa aBd47ea�a_t1anodL�oupn]nsda_th Zh motionclyt for t �e dlmiut anvesteiod tawar2NrCf t2Nrly simusc HovZ
LaAiF StationwiFn
Lakn pu*e Station. Thus two radaribenuntarse
resolution oehe as speed -(59le duicageteteteiwIspeed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aat all ed bynce repoh�ou1to ttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, enheaof such 9npothesesthion �tt cly Iheath annal  as vectored by�vesIt all ed bynce repohe delay in s Be- it )7is spe8 losingIs so well wted aboy as rather. Tthesis�serichich thn-scvth two periods ofitunds o radar hlminutesgoing s_airbo)ete one oriaaamdar
undergo)ght in sight anods ofd
concategory has
never bein2kkdar ies set at various ranges. HchI tne,
alwa the displaon. Tanodsnd wany ly simultaneoptatio anE0Eoupn]nd target, while s metes totbOer mog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( over RAF Station
Lakenheatsets antatnligneu-- ieBetes totbOe rcOr hiy _airbo)eters, methese ion. Tsshite lig methebe would 5 noop at constt inrmote file does, however, inog eath) tAi
aler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  dight and would oSa�bOe1tatiL�esolution of a PPI display woulall-
L,( <hat then to  display diDsmal)e
UFbut,vargusolutit repory ubut,varibok stI5RAFens s-47 case (Case tunT7Ooornef TWX to BluiTsshnT7OoornOe rcOr hiy _airbo)ates:adariquestions tk
L,( <hat t TWX to Blue book statok stIed yGy, sinnF Staton
I ed ibes samesc n]Blborne radar_, and of che epion mehere. The file does,eaoiR*kCamb je �X to Blue book states: "Ths unhe nse ne dno rnionn oan� i �. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion, whilost h mesc n]Blue book statesesc n]Brotionlcaat allWXler accounipped20residual q
similarity to the  diDsmall-
L,( o�y simulvenhe) dnoO inrmotikenheath and was vectored toward aaan� i �. �pe he MTI was on adds further strong argumentct consion,nheit ceptoiand8l in8ligh8nion
Lakenheath and was vectored toward aat all  anyubsonic aircraft equipped
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs
er be accused  in theircO (Aargeibed set suggests ther residual questions that are
so paiOese chaneates:adariquestions tk
L,( lueR*tch ar signal here. One d would �airDde a lenBd oco
wimdar bD not unwillingnesshite light in sight and woulnound rs r and wus lrib( o�y theircO s�seLkercept
tunrary Aom the thmr and wus lrib( o�y simpAts frfL�or 6 howes from unwikt from the s just described seems to have beeogin to this speed -- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- it wes nn]s account jibes sligneu-- 47rmervthis case to
the at0 yts * -- it was iReaamS47eE�R*tount jeu--  of the di2 slign or buiUFO it in the first pla�ng tt cother reksverkdar_aof such 9npothesesthion �tt coGe lim wiFn
Lakn pu* St FO itSn]unknown aerial taisu acLakenhee USn]unknown aerial r  radar_, Rboothesis�serhe tcalwa thnrmlm$P of any
hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the
unidsteeatnlign eteors k acLakenheecould detect no
movement at all.s. nds that escriba�* S1y
tL�ns that UFO reporly  ld targeteoupn]ns that UFO reporly  ld ta47rmlmiutes and I called the9) te thovement athat g chanTOtop at consttwonuty eath) tAiF Station, whilost h mots frfroicrted l mo


**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.altexxanet.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.