Use ARROWS to page backward or forward |
as propagation phenomena and/or misinterpreted man-made objects.” Earlier in his summary (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, pp. 163-164), Thayer makes the following comment on this case, which he then identifies as “Lakenheath, England, August 13-14, 1956, 2230-0330 LST”: “The probability that anomalous propagation of radar signals may have been involved in this case seems to be small.” Later, he adds: “The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting.”
Case 2 (listed, rather oddly, as “Greenwich, summer 1956”) is presented in the Condon Report (Condon & Gillmor, 1968) pp. 248-256. The abstract reads as follows:
At least one UFO was tracked by air traffic control radar (GCA) at two USAF-RAF stations, with apparently corresponding visual sightings of round, white rapidly moving objects which changed directions abruptly. Interception by RAF fighter aircraft was attempted; one aircraft was vectored to the UFO by GCA radar and the pilot reported airborne radar contact and radar “gunlock.” The UFO appeared to circle around behind the aircraft and followed it in spite of the pilot’s evasive maneuvers. Contact was broken when the aircraft returned to base, low on fuel. The preponderance of evidence indicates the possibility of a genuine UFO in this case. The weather was generally clear with good visibility.
This case has been further described by Thayer (1971) as one of the AIAA cases. It is interesting to note the conclusion given by Thayer, at the end of this article, which reflects his view after further intensive study of this case:
In conclusion, with two highly redundant contacts–the first with ground radar, combined with both ground and airborne visual observers, and the second with airborne radar, an airborne visual observer, and two different ground radars–the Bentwaters-Lakenheath UFO incident represents one of the most significant radar-visual UFO cases. Taking into consideration the high credibility of the information and the cohesiveness and continuity of accounts, combined with a high degree of ‘strangeness,’ it is also certainly one of the most disturbing UFO incidents known today.
The other case of special interest is Case 5 (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, pp. 260-266) listed in the Condon Report as “South-Central, Fall, 1957.” This case is reviewed by Craig (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, pp. 56-58). He emphasizes that “No report of the incident was found in Blue Book files or in the files of NORAD Headquarters at Ent AFB.” [The reason that no report was found is that the project staff had incorrectly dated the event as September 19, 1957, whereas it actually occurred on July 17, 1957.] Craig, in describing the phenomenon, stated:
It disappeared suddenly and reappeared at a different location both visually and on airborne and ground radars. Since visual and radar observation seemed to coincide, reflection of ground radar did not seem a satisfactory explanation. Other explanations such as airplanes, meteors, and plasma also seem unsatisfactory.