(1956/08/13-14) Lakenheath-Bentwater radar-visual jet chase

This case is considered by many to be the quintessential proof of the existence of UFOs. In 1956 at Bentwaters/Lakenheath an object was sighted by several military officers on the ground while simultaneously tracked on radar at two different stations. The object moved at ~4000 MPH and was monitored for several hours during which two planes were scrambled.

When the first DeHavilland Venom locked on to the object the UFO shot to the rear of the plane. The pilot tried evasive maneuvers, couldn't break free and eventually had to return to base to refuel.

The second plane encountered mechanical difficulties as it flew within range of the object. The US sponsored Condon Report had this to say, "In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears fairly high."^[1][2]

Contents 1 Transcribed from The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning, Volume 2: L-Z 2 Transcribed from The Hynek UFO Report 3 Transcribed from Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects 3.1 Summary 3.2 Case Analysis 4 Icarus - Book Review: The Condon report, scientific study of Unidentified Flying Objects 5 Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 16 No 2: UFOs OVER LAKENHEATH IN 1956, James E. McDonald 6 Personal Contributions 7 Notes 8 References 9 Further Reading 10 External Links 11 Transcluded from Wikipedia

Transcribed from The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning, Volume 2: L-Z

"At 9:30 on the evening of August 13, 1956, a radar station at Bentwaters, Suffolk, England, where the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the U.S. Air Force jointly ran an air base, picked up a target 25 to 30 miles to the east-southeast. The return was in all ways but one like that of an ordinary aircraft; what made it remarkable was the object was moving somewhere between 4000 and 9000 mph. Over a period of 30 seconds it moved in a straight line from its original location to a location 15 to 20 miles northwest of Bentwaters.

A few minutes later a group of about a dozen targets were spotted eight miles southwest of Bentwaters. The Bentwaters radar operator later told Project Blue Book investigations that "these objects appeared as normal targets on the GCA [Ground Controlled Approach] scope and ... normal checks made to determine possible malfunctions of the GCA radar failed to indicate anything was technically wrong." In front of the 12 or so objects, radar indicated, three others flew in triangular formation, all separated by 1000 feet. The objects in the rear were scattered at irregular intervals, and in all they covered an area of six or seven miles. They seemed to be moving at 100 mph, more or less, and were heading northeast. Forty miles from Bentwaters something bizarre occurred: all the targets appeared to converge into one huge target which caused a return several times bigger than a B-36 would under comparable circumstances. The target remained stationary for the next 10 or 15 minutes, then resumed movement to the northeast, then stopped again for three to five minutes. Finally it was lost to radar heading north. All this occurred over a 25-minute period.

As these events were going on, a T-33 on its way back to Bentwaters was directed to look for the objects, but a 45-minute search, unaided by airborne radar, resulted only in sightings of a bright star in the east and a coastal beacon. The pilots' inability to see the objects has caused this aspect to be the most controversial — critics would say weakest^[3] — part of the sighting, through atmospheric physicist James E. McDonald, who conducted an extensive analysis of the case, argued that for a number of technical reasons the returns could not have been caused by anomalous propagation ^[4]

At 10 P.M., only minutes after the above episode had concluded, another target, again as solid as an aircraft, appeared on the screen. It moved at great speed — more than 4000 mph, the operator thought (though McDonald concluded the real figured should have been 12,000 mph [ibid.]) — to the west until it got to a point 25 miles from the station, when it abruptly vanished from the screen.

At 10:55 yet another target was picked up, this one 30 miles to the east, heading west at 2000 to 4000 mph. It passed nearly directly overhead and disappeared from the screen 30 miles from the base. This time observers both on the ground and in the air (a C-47 pilot glimpsed it beneath his plane) saw the object, whose extraordinary speed made it look like a blur of light.

Now the center of action shifted to nearby Lakenheath AFB, to the west-northwest of Bentwaters. During or immediately after the radar/visual sighting, Bentwaters notified Lakenheath. Ground personnel at the latter location saw a luminous object come in on a southwesterly heading, stop, then shoot off toward the east. Soon afterwards two white lights appeared (apparently from different directions; Blue Book records are vague on this point), "joined up with [one] another, and both disappeared in formation together." Before doing so, the UFOs performed startling maneuvers such as "rapid acceleration and abrupt stops" (Blue Book files). All of this was recorded on not one but two radar screens at Lakenheath.

At midnight Lakenheath called the chief fighter controller on duty at the RAF station at Neatishead, Norfolk, and reported that a strange object was buzzing the base. The fighter controller, F.h>C. Wimbledon, subsequently recalled, "I scrambled a Venom night fighter from the battle Flight through Sector, and my controller in the Interception Cabin took over control of it. The interception Control team would consist of one Fighter Controller (an Officer), a Corporal, a tracker and a height reader. That is, four highly trained personnel in addition to myself could now clearly see the object on our radarscopes"^[5]. The Venom headed in its direction, saw a bright white light, and picked it up on its radar, but soon both the light and target disappeared. Immediately afterwards the interceptor was directed to another target over Bedford, north of Cambridge, and the navigator locked on to it on his radar; it was, he said, the "clearest target I have ever seen on radar." (Interviewed in 1996 by British ufologist Jenny Randles, the navigator would say he was misquoted, though he confirmed the radar tracking [Randles, 1997].) This object, 10 miles east of Lakenheath, suddenly appeared behind the plane, but when the pilot "tried everything - he climbed, dived, circled, etc., but the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close, but we always had two distinct targets" (McDonald, op. cit.).

After 10 minutes, with fuel running low, the Venom headed back to the base. The UFO followed it a short distance, then stopped and hovered in the sky. A second Venom was scrambled, but equipment problems forced it to abort its mission. Two ground radars tracked the UFO's departure northward at 600 mph.

Lakenheath continued to note periodic anomalous radar echoes until 3:30 A.M.

This extraordinary episode was classified until 1969, when it was discussed in the final report of the University of Colorado UFO Project (informally known as the Condon Committee, after its director, physicist Edward U. Condon). In the report's "Conclusions and Recommendations" Condon wrote that "nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge .... [F]urther extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." Yet, ironically, incredibly, or both, the summary of the committee's investigation of the incident belies Condon's words; it characterizes the Lakenheath/Bentwaters case as the "most puzzling and unusual ... in the radar-visual files. The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting."^[6] Later and elsewhere, the committee's investigator, physicist Gordon David Thayer, would write: "There is simply no way that known sort of anomalous propagation effect could account for this. In fact, any explanation even remotely conceivable seems to demand the presence of some physical object in the air over Lakenheath" (Thayer, 1980)

McDonald, whose analysis is generally considered the most comprehensive, observed that the "Lakenheath case exemplifies a disturbingly large group of UFO reports in which the apparent degree of scientific inexplicability is so great that, instead of being ignored and laughed at, those cases should all along since 1947 have been drawing the attention of a large body of the world's best scientists." (McDonald, op. cit.).

In 1974 book UFO debunker Philip J. Klass argued that a combination of operator error, anomalous propagation, and meteors had caused the radar contacts and visual sightings (Klass, op. cit.). Subsequently, he debated the issue in letters with Thayer, who countered that Klass's interpretation was based on factual errors, implausible assumptions, and technical misunderstandings. Martin Lawrence Shough, who conducted an in-depth reanalysis of the case in the 1980s, concurred, judging the Lakenheath/Bentwaters events to be "probably the most impressive of their kind on record" (Shough, 1987). More than four decades after their occurrence, the events that took place over east-central England on the night of August 13-14, 1956, remains a mystery and a challenge to all who would seek to reduce every UFO to a prosaic cause.^[7]

Primary Sources:^{[6] [5] [8] [9] [10] [3] [11] [4]}

Transcribed from The Hynek UFO Report

On August 13 and 14, 1956, between the hours of 9:20 P.M. and 3:30 A.M. in the vicinity of Lakenheath-Bentwaters, England, occurred one of the most baffling series of UFO radar-visual contacts ever to confront Air Force radar operators. This case was so confounding that it was eventually to cause the Condon Committee investigator who reviewed it to state all but outright that it was proof that UFOs did exist. But Project Blue Book, in its customary manner, listed it as "anomalous propagation," the all-purpose out of the Air Force applied to any radar contact with a UFO that it could not explain.

An extensive analysis of this case by Gordon D. Thayer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and the member of the Condon Committe who conducted its review of radar cases) was examined closely by the UFO Subcommittee of the American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics and then published in the September 1971 issue of its magazine, Astronautics & Aeronautics.

Thayer's report describes the case as "the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual file. The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting...." He did leave open the possibility that more conventional explanations could be applied to the case due to the fallibility of human witnesses.

According to Thayer, a report by the night-watch supervisor in the Radar Air Traffic Control Center at Lakenheath submitted to the Condon Committee years after the events of the night of August 13-14, 1956, provided the most coherent account. That report was not to be found in the Blue Book file at the time of Thayer's analysis for the Condon Committee in 1967, but it was contained in the files released in 1976 by the Air Force. Here is the account of the night-watch supervisor as submitted to the Condon Committee:

In 1956, sometime between January and September (I can't remember the exact date or month), I was on duty as Watch Supervisor at Lakenheath RAF Station, England, (a USAF base), in the Radar Air Traffic Control Center. It was the 5:00 P.M. to midnight shift. I had either four or five other controllers on my shift. I was sitting at the Supervisor's Coordinating desk and received a call on the direct line (actually, I'm not sure which line it was). Anyway, it was Sculthorpe GCA Unit calling and the radar operator asked me if we had any targets on our scopes traveling at 4,000 MPH. They said they had watched a target on their scopes proceed from a point 30 or 40 miles east of Sculthorpe to a point 40 miles west of Sculthorpe. The target passed directly over Sculthorpe, England, RAF Station (also a USAF Station). He said the tower reported seeing it go by and just appeared to be a blurry light. A C47 flying over the base at 5,000 feet altitude also reported seeing it as a blurred light that passed under his aircraft. No report as to actual distance below the aircraft. I immediately had all controllers start scanning the radar scopes. I had each scope set on a different range -- from 10 miles to 200 miles radius of Lakenheath. At this time I did not contact anyone by telephone as I was rather skeptical of this report. We were using ______ on our radar, which eliminated entirely all ground returns and stationary targets. There was very little or not [sic] traffic or targets on the scopes, as I recall. However, 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 scopes also. They confirmed the target was 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.

I called and reported all the facts to this point, including Sculthorpe GCA's initial report, to the 7th Air Division Command Post at London. They in turn notified 3rd Air Force Command Post and hooked into the line. I also hooked in my local AFB Commanding Officer and my Unit (AFCS, Communications Squadron) Commander on my switchboard. And there could have been others hooked in also that I was not aware of. I repeated all the facts known to this point and continued to give a detailed report on the target's movements and location. 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, no set pattern at any time. Time spent stationary between movements also varied from 3 or 4 minutes to 5 or 6 minutes (possibly even longer as I was busy answering questions -- listening to theories, guesses, etc., that the conference line people were saying). This continued for some time. After I imagine about 30 to 45 minutes, it was decided to scramble two RAF interceptors to investigate. This was done I believe by 3rd Air Force calling the RAF and, after hearing what the score was, they scrambled one aircraft. (The second got off after as I will mention later.)

The interceptor aircraft took off from an RAF station near London and approached Lakenheath from the southwest. Radio and radar contact was established with the RAP interceptor aircraft at a point about 30 to 35 miles southwest of Lakenheath, inbound to Lakenheath. On intial contact we gave the interceptor pilot all the background information on the UFO, his (the interceptor's) present distance and bearing from Lakenheath, the UFO's (which was stationary at the time) distance and bearing from Lakenheath. We explained we did not know the altitude of the UFO but we could assume his altitude was about 1,500 feet and below 20,000 feet, due to the operational characteristics of the radar (CPS-5 type radar, I believe). Also, we mentioned the report from the C-47 over Sculthorpe that relayed the story about the light which passed below him. His altitude was 5,000 feet.

We immediately issued heading to the interceptor to guide him to the UFO. The UFO remained stationary throughout. This vectoring of the intercept aircraft continued. We continually gave the intercept aircraft his heading to the UFO and his distance from the UFO at approximately 1-to-2-mile intervals. Shortly after we told the intercept aircraft he was one-half mile from the UFO and it was 12 o'clock from his position, he said, "Roger, Lakenheath, I've got my guns locked on him." Then he paused and said, "Where did he go? Do you still have him?" We replied, "Roger, it appeared he got behind you and he's still there." There were now two targets, one behind the other, same speed, very close, but two separate distinct targets.

The first movement by the UFO was so swift (circling behind the interceptor) I missed it entirely, but it was seen by the other controllers. However, the fact that this had occurred was confirmed by the pilot of the interceptor. The pilot of the interceptor told me he would try to shake the UFO and would try it again. He tried everything -- he climbed, dived, circled, etc., but the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close, but we always had two distinct targets. (Note: Target resolution on our radar at the range they were from the antenna [out 10 to 30 miles, all in the southerly sectors from Lakenheath] would be between 200 and 600 feet probably. Closer than that we would have got one target from both aircraft and UFO. Most specifications say 500 feet is the minimum, but I believe it varied and 200 to 600 feet is closer to the truth and, in addition the tuning of the equipment, atmospheric conditions, etc., also help determine this figure.)

The interceptor pilot continued to try and shake the UFO for about ten minutes (approximate -- it seemed longer to both him and us). He continued to comment occasionally and we could tell from the tonal quality he was getting worried, excited and also pretty scared.

He finally said, "I'm returning to station, Lakenheath. Let me know if he follows me. I'm getting low on petrol." The target (UFO) followed him only a short distance, as he headed south/southwest, and the UFO stopped and remained stationary. We advised the interceptor that the UFO target had stopped following and was now stationary about 10 miles south of Lakenheath. He rogered this message and almost immediately the second interceptor called us on the same frequency. We replied and told him we would advise him when he had a radar target, so we could establish radar contact with his aircraft. (He was not on radar at this time, probably had just taken off and was too low for us to pick him up, or too far away -- we had most of the scopes on short range, so we could watch the UFO closely on smaller range.) The number-two interceptor called number one interceptor by name (Tom, Frank -- whatever his name was) and asked him, "Did you see anything?" Number one replied, "I saw something, but I'll be damned if I know what it was." Number two said, "What happened?" Number one then switched frequencies to his home-base frequency. We gave number two the location of the UFO and advised him that we still didn't have him on radar, but probably would have shortly. He delayed answering for some seconds and then finally said, "Lakenheath ____ (identification, aircraft call sign) -- can't remember what call sign those aircraft were using. Returning home, my engine is malfunctioning." He then left our frequency.

Throughout this we kept all the agencies, 7th Air Division, 3rd Air Force, etc., advised on every aspect, every word that was said, everything.

We then inquired what action they wanted to take. They had no more suggestions, then finally they told us to just keep watching the target and let them know if anything else happened. The target made a couple more short moves, then left our radar coverage in a northerly direction -- speed still about 600 MPH. We lost target outbound to the north at about 50 to 60 miles, which is normal if aircraft or target is at an altitude below 5,000 feet (because of the radiation loss of that type radar). We notified 7th Air Division Command Post and they said they'd tell everybody for us.

I made out a written report on all this, in detail for the officer in charge of my facility, and was told that unless I was contacted later for any further information, he would take care of it.... I heard no more about it....

At least three separate times that same night, prior to the telephone contact with the supervisor at Lakenheath, unidentified radar echoes were tracked by the GCA unit at Bentwaters. While those incidents are quire interesting themselves, there was no visual observation involved.^[12]

Transcribed from Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects

Summary

"Case 2. Lakenheath, England, 13-14 August 1956, 2230-0330 LST. Weather: generally clear until 0300 LST on the 14th. (For details see Section IV.)

The probability that anomalous propagation of radar signals may have been involved in this case seems to be small. One or two details are suggestive of AP, particularly the reported disappearance of the first track as the UFO appeared to overfly the Bentwaters GCA radar. Against this must be weighed the Lakenheath controller's statement that there was "little or no traffic or targets on scope," which is not at all suggestive of AP conditions, and the behavior of the target near Lakenheath -- apparently continuous and easily tracked. The "tailing" of the RAF fighter, taken alone, seems to indicate a possible ghost image, but this does not jibe with the report that the UFO stopped following the fighter, as the latter was returning to its base, and went off in a different direction. The radar operators were apparently careful to calculate the speed of the UFO from distances and elapsed times, and the speeds were reported as consistent from run to run, between stationary episodes. This behavior would be somewhat consistent with reflections from moving atmospheric layers -- but not in so many different directions.

Visual mirage at Bentwaters seems to be out of the question because of the combined ground and airborne observations; the C47 pilot apparently saw the UFO below him. The visual objects do not seem to have been meteors; statements by the observers that meteors were numerous imply that they were able to differentiate the UFO from the meteors.

In summary, this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files. The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting. However in view of the inevitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanations of this report cannot be entirely ruled out."^[13]

Case Analysis

"Case 2 Greenwich Summer 1956 Investigator: Staff

Abstract:

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.

Background:

The existence of this very interesting radar-visual case was first brought to the attention of the project staff in winter 1968 by the receipt of an unsolicited letter from one of the principal witnesses, a retired USAF non-commissioned officer who was the Watch Supervisor at the GCA station on the night in question. This letter is rather well written, it forms the most coherent account of this UFO case, it is reproduced below in its entirety.

“

Reference your UFO Study: you probably already have this item in your file, but, in case you don't, I will briefly outline it and you can contact me for full details if you want them. I retired (20 years service)...from the USAF. I have placed my name, rank, and serial number at the top of the page if you want to check on my authenticity. I was an Air Traffic Controller throughout my service career and utilized radar the last 16 years in the control of Air Traffic. I won't bother listing the types and locations, although I could supply all this if needed. In 1956,...(I can't remember the exact date or month), I was on duty as Watch Supervisor at... [GCA A] in the Radar Air Traffic Control Center. It was the 5:00 p.m. to midnight shift. I had either four or five other controllers on my shift. I was sitting at the Supervisor's Coordinating desk and received a call on the direct line (actually I'm not sure which line it was). Anyway, it was... [GCA B] calling and the radar operator asked me if we had any targets on our scopes traveling at 4,000 mph. They said they had watched a target on their scopes proceed from a point 30 or 40 miles east...to a point 40 miles west of...[GCA B]. The target passed directly over... [GCA B] RAF Station (also an USAF Station). He said the tower reported seeing it go by and it just appeared to be a blurry light. A C-47 flying over the base at 5,000 feet altitude also reported seeing it as a blurred light that passed under his aircraft. No report as to actual distance below the aircraft. I immediately had all controllers start scanning the radar scopes. I had each scope set on a different range-from 10 miles to 200 miles radius of... [GCA A]. At this time I did not contact anyone by telephone is I was rather skeptical of this report. We were using full MTI on our radar, which eliminated entirely all ground returns and stationary targets. There was very little or no traffic or targets on the scopes, as I recall. However 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 ... [A] to see if they had this target on their scopes also. They confirmed the target was 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 ... [A]. There was no slow start or build-up to this speed--it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped. I called and reported all the facts to this point, including... [B] GCA's initial report, to the ...Command Post... ...I also hooked in my local AFB Commanding Officer and my Unit (AFCS Communications Squadron) Commander on my switchboard. And there could have been others hooked in also that I was not aware of. I repeated all the facts known to this point and continued to give a detailed report on the target's movements and location. 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 (possibly even longer as I was busy answering questions--listening to theories, guesses, etc. that the conference line people were saying). This continued for some time. After I imagine about 30 to 45 minutes, it was decided to scramble two RAF interceptors to investigate. This was done I believe by Air Force calling the RAF and, after hearing what the score was, they scrambled one aircraft. (The second got off after as I will mention later.) The interceptor aircraft took off from an RAF Station...and approached... [A] from the southwest. Radio and radar contact was established with the RAF intercept aircraft at a point about 30 to 35 miles southwest...[and] inbound to...[A]. On initial contact we gave the interceptor pilot all the background information on the UFO, his (the interceptor's) present distance and bearing from... [A], the UFO's (which was stationary at the time) distance and bearing from... [A]. We explained we did not know the altitude of the UFO but we could assume his altitude was above 15,000 feet and below 20,000 feet, due to the operational characteristics of the radar (CPS-5 type radar, I believe). Also we mentioned the report from the C-47 over . . . [B] that relayed the story about the light which passed below him. His altitude was 5,000 feet. We immediately issued headings to the interceptor to guide him to the UFO. The UFO remained stationary throughout. This vectoring of the intercept aircraft continued. We continually gave the intercept aircraft his heading to the UFO and his distance from the UFO at approximately 1 to 2 mile intervals. Shortly after we told the intercept aircraft he was one-half mile from the UFO and it was twelve-o'clock from his position, he said, "Roger, ...I've got my guns locked on him." Then he paused and said, "Where did he go? Do you still have him?" We replied, "Roger, it appeared he got behind you and he's still there." [There were now two targets; one behind the other, same speed, very close, but two separate distinct targets.] The first movement by the UFO was so swift (circling behind the interceptor); I missed it entirely, but it was seen by the other controllers. However, the fact that this had occurred was confirmed by the pilot of the interceptor. The pilot of the interceptor told us he would try to shake the UFO and would try it again. He tried everything--he climbed, dived, circled, etc. but the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close, but we always had two distinct targets. [Note: Target resolution on our radar at the range they were from the antenna (about 10 to 30 miles, all in the southerly sectors from... [A]) would be between 200 and 600 feet probably. Closer than that we would have got one target from both aircraft and UFO. Most specifications say 500 feet is the minimum, but I believe it varies and 200 to 600 feet is closer to the truth and, in addition, the tuning of the equipment, atmospheric conditions, etc., also help determine this figure.] The interceptor pilot continued to try and shake the UFO for about ten minutes (approximate -- it seemed longer both to him and us). He continued to comment occasionally and we could tell from the tonal quality he was getting worried, excited and also pretty scared. He finally said, "I'm returning to Station, .......[A]. Let me know if he follows me. I'm getting low on petrol." The target (UFO) followed him only a short distance, as he headed south southwest, and the UFO stopped and remained stationary. We advised the interceptor that the UFO target had stopped following and was now stationary about 10 miles south of...[A] He rogered this message and almost immediately the second interceptor called us on the same frequency. We replied and told him we would advise him when we had a radar target, so we could establish radar contact with his aircraft. (He was not on radar at this time, probably had just taken off and was too low for us to pick him up, or too far away--we had most of the scopes on short range, so we could watch the UFO closely on the smaller range.) The number two interceptor called the number one interceptor by name (Tom, Frank--whatever his name was) and asked him, "Did you see anything?" Number one replied, "I saw something, but I'll be damned if I know what it was." Number two said, "What happened?" Number one said, "He (or it) got behind me and I did everything I could to get behind him and I couldn't. It's the damnedest thing I've ever seen." Number one also made a remark at this time to number two, that he had his radar locked on whatever it was for just a few seconds so there was something there that was solid. Number one then switched frequencies to his home base frequency. We gave number two the location of the UFO and advised him that we still didn't have him on radar, but probably would have shortly. He delayed answering for some seconds and then finally said, . . . [A] _________ (Identification aircraft call sign)--can't remember what call sign these aircraft were using. Returning home, my engine is malfunctioning." He then left our frequency. Throughout this we kept all the agencies, ... advised on every aspect, every word that was said, everything. We then inquired what action they wanted to take. They had no more suggestions and finally they told us to just keep watching the target and let them know if anything else happened. The target made a couple more short moves, then left our radar coverage in a northerly direction -- speed still about 600 mph. We lost target outbound to the north at about 50 to 60 miles, which is normal if aircraft or target is at an altitude below 5,000 feet (because of the radiation lobe of that type radar). We notified . . . Air Division Command Post and they said they'd tell everybody for us. I made out a written report on all this, in detail for the officers in charge of my facility, and was told that unless I was contacted later for further information, he would take care of it. I don't know if a CERVIS report was submitted on this or not--I heard no more about it. All speeds in this report were calculated speeds based on time and distance covered on radar. This speed was calculated many times that evening and although this happened quite awhile ago, the basic elements are correct.

”

Fig. 1 shows a map of the contact as drawn by the witness.

Investigation:

Since this case was discovered so late in the project, investigation was limited to a follow-up request for additional information from Project Blue Book, and analysis of the available details of the case by investigators familiar with radar and optical propagation anomalies.

Copies of the Project Blue Book files on the case were received in late August of 1968. A considerable amount of this material is reproduced below. One of the interesting aspects of this case is the remarkable accuracy of the account of the witness as given in the letter reproduced above, which was apparently written from memory 12 yr. after the incident. There are a number of minor discrepancies, mostly a matter of figures (the C-47 at 5,000 ft. was evidently actually at 4,000 ft.), and he seems to have confused the identity of location C with B; however, all of the major details of his account seem to be well confirmed by the Blue Book account.

There were ancillary sightings at . . . [C] besides those which instigated the UFO search by the . . . [A] GCA Unit but as subsequent airborne intercept attempts yielded neither radar nor visual contact, these accounts are not detailed below.

At 22557, ...[C] GCA sighted object thirty miles east of station traveling westerly at 2000-4000 mph. Object disappeared on scope two miles east of station and immediately appeared on scope three miles west of station where it disappeared thirty miles west of station on scope. Tower personnel at .... [C] reported to GCA a bright light passed over the field east to west at terrific speed and at about 4000 feet alt. At same time pilot in aircraft at 4000 feet alt. over.... [C] reported a bright light streaked under his aircraft traveling east to west at terrific speed. At this time.... [C] GCA checked with RAF station.... [A] GCA to determine if unusual sightings were occurring ....[A] GCA alerted [the] AAA stationed at ....[A] and ....[B] GCA to watch for unusual targets. Following info is the observations made by this station radar, tower and ground personnel placed in format required by AFR 2000-2: 1. Description of object(s): (A) Round white lights (B) 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." (C) Color was white. (D) Two from ground observation undetermined number of blips appearing and disappearing on radar scopes. (E) No formation as far as radar sightings concerned. Ground observers stated one white light joined up with another and both disappeared in formation together. (F) No features or details other then the white light. (C) Objects as seen by ground observers and GCA radar have feature of traveling at terrific speeds and then stopping and changing course immediately. 2. Description of course of objects: (A) Ground observers looked at sky and saw the object(s). RAF Station .... [Al GCA was alerted by .... [C] GCA to be on lookout for unusual targets. (B) Ground observers estimated objects were 20-2500 feet alt and were on a SW heading. Object stopped and immediately assumed an easterly heading. RAF Station .... [A] GCA and Air Traffic Control Center reports radar tracking from 6 miles west to about twenty miles SW where target stopped and assumed a stationary position for five minutes. Target then assumed a heading north westerly into the Station and stopped two miles NW of Station. ....[Al GCA reports three to four additional targets were doing the same. Radars reported these facts to occur at later hours than the ground observers. (C) Ground observers report no change in alt and objects disappeared on easterly heading. Radar sets stated no definite disappearance factors other than targets disappeared from scopes at approx 0330 GMT Aug 14. (D) Flight path was straight but jerky with object stopping instantly and then continuing. Maneuvers were of same pattern except one object was observed to "lock on" to fighter scrambled by RAF and followed all maneuvers of the jet fighter aircraft. In addition, ....[A] 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. (B) Objects simply disappeared. (F) Objects were observed intermittently by RAF Station....[A] radars from 140310 to 140330. 3. Manner of observation: (A) Ground-visual, air-electronic and ground-electronic. Ground-electronic equipment was TS-ID, CPS 5, and CPN4 radars. Air-electronic was A-l airborne radar equipment in ....jet aircraft. Type of aircraft, Venom, operating out of RAF Station .... . 4. Time and date of sighting: (A) Summer 140010Z through 140330Z. (B) Night (sky clear and nin/th of clouds--moonlight). 5. Location of observers RAF Station .... [A] 52o24'N 0o33'E. 6. Weather and winds-aloft conditions at time and place of sightings: (A) Clear sky until 0300Z shortly thereafter scattered clouds at 3500 ft. (B) From midnight until 0600Z surface wind was 230 deg at 15 knots; 6000 ft 290 deg at 24 knots; 1000 ft 290 deg at 35 knots; 16,000 ft 290 deg at 45 knots; 20,000 ft 290 deg at 53 knots; 30,000 ft 290 deg at 62 knots; 50,000 ft 290 deg at 75 knots. (C) Ceiling unlimited. (D) Visibility from OOOlZ to 04000Z was 10 nautical miles. (F) 1/10 of sky covered at 0300Z. 8. Ground observers report unusual amount of shooting stars in sky. Further state the objects seen were definitely not shooting stars as there were no trails behind as are usual with such sightings. 9. Interception was undertaken by one British jet fighter on alert by.... [A] sector control. Aircraft is believed to have been a Venom. The aircraft flew over RAF Station ....[A] 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 he reported loss of target and white light. ....[All RATCC vectored him to a target 10 miles east of .. ..[A]and pilot advised target was on radar and he was "locking on." Pilot reported he had lost target on his radar. ....[A] RATCC reports that as the Venom passed the target on radar, the target began a tail chase of the friendly fighter. RATCC requested pilot acknowledge this chase. Pilot acknowledged and stated he would try to circle and get behind the target. Pilot advised he was unable to "shake" the target off his tail and requested assistance. One additional Venom was scrambled from the RAF Station. Original pilot stated; "clearest target I have ever seen on radar." Target disappeared and second aircraft did not establish contact. First aircraft returned to home Station due to being low on fuel. Second Venom was vectored to other radar targets but was unable to make contact. Shortly afterwards, second fighter returned to home Station due to malfunctions. No further interception activities were undertaken. All targets disappeared from scopes at approximately 0330Z. 10. Other aircraft in the area were properly identified by radar and flight logs as being friendly. All personnel interviewed and logs of RATCC lend reality to the existence of some unexplainable flying phenomena near this air field on this occasion. Not an Air Base; however, 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. All ground observers and reports from observers at ....[C] agree on color. Maneuvers and shape of object. My analysis of the sightings is that they were real and not figments of the imagination. The fact that three radar sets picked up the targets simultaneously is certainly conclusive that a target or object was in the air. The maneuvers of the object were extraordinary; however, the fact that radar and ground visual observations were made on its rapid acceleration and abrupt stops certainly lend credence to the report. It is not believed these sightings were of any meteorological or astronomical origin.

The material on the .... [C] sightings given at the beginning of the preceding account is typical; three other radar targets tracked by that station behaved in a similar manner and intercept attempts made from 2130 to 2215 GMT by an American T-33 jet aircraft were fruitless.

An analysis of this case from the viewpoint of possible anomalous propagation was made and appears in Chapter 7.

Conclusions:

In view of the multiple radar sightings involved in this case, any conventional explanation for the occurrences reported would seem to require some sort of radar anomalous propagation. As pointed out in Chapter 7, the evidence for anomalous propagation in this case is rather uncertain. The temporary disappearance of the target as it appeared to overfly the ....[C] GCA is quite suggestive of anomalous propagation. The generally clear weather was conducive to the formation of the atmospheric stratification that causes anomalous propagation, although it by no means follows that such formation would have actually occurred. In this connection, the apparent near-coincidence between the appearance of broken clouds (0330 GMT) and the disappearance of the radar targets (0330 GMT) could be significant.

On the other side must be balanced the generally continuous and consistent movements of the radar tracks reported by . . .[A], which are not at all typical of radar false targets caused by anomalous propagation. In addition, some of the maneuvers reported in the radar controller's letter to have been executed by the UFO are extremely unlikely to be duplicated by a false target, in particular stopping and assuming a new path after following the intercepting aircraft for some time. The comments of the Air Force officer who prepared the UFO message reproduced earlier are also significant.

In an early Air Force investigation it was suggested that the visual sightings might have been caused by the Perseid meteors. However, as Air Force Consultant Dr. Hynek pointed out:

“

It seems highly unlikely, for instance, that the Perseid meteors could have been the cause of the sightings, especially in view of the statement of observers that shooting stars were exceptionally numerous that evening, thus implying that they were able to distinguish the two phenomena. Further, if any credence can be given to the maneuvers of the objects as sighted visually and by radar, the meteor hypothesis must be ruled out.

”

Dr. Hynek also remarked:

“

The statement that radars reported these facts to occur at later hours than the ground observers' needs clarification inasmuch as it contradicts other portions of the report which indicate that at least at certain times visual and radar sightings were simultaneous.

”

In retrospect it appears that what the statement in question may have been meant to imply was that the radars continued to report target(s) after visual contact had been lost; the statement does not necessarily imply that no simultaneous radar-visual sightings occurred.

In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high."^[1]

Icarus - Book Review: The Condon report, scientific study of Unidentified Flying Objects

`In many cases which the Report does discuss, the level of analysis and the thoroughness of the discussion are woefully inadequate (e.g., Lakenheath, England, Aug. 13, 1956; Beverly, Massachusetts, April 22, 1966; Vandenberg AFB, Oct. 6, 1967; Louisiana-Texas B-47 case, Sept. 19, 1957; Kirtland AFB, Nov. 4, 1957; just to cite a few examples).<sup>[14]</sup>`

Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 16 No 2: UFOs OVER LAKENHEATH IN 1956, James E. McDonald

Personal Contributions

• ATS - how comes theres never any proof!
• ATS - Why do you believe in aliens UFO's?
• ATS - The UFO gauntlet: the case the Condon study, Blue Book, & Klass couldn't crack.

Notes

References

• Clark, Jerome (1998). The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning, Volume 2: L-Z. Omnigraphics, Inc.. ISBN 0780800974. 
• Klass, Philip (1974) (in English). UFOs Explained (illustrated ed.). New York: Random House. pp. 369. ISBN 9780394492155. OCLC 979190. http://books.google.com/books?id=GZ0sAAAAYAAJ. Retrieved on 7-5-2009. 
• McDonald, James (July 1971). "UFO Encounter I: Sample Case Selected by the UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA" (in English). Astronautics and Aeronautics 9 (7). http://www.nicap.org/papers/AIAA_rep1.pdf. 

• Gillmor, Daniel (1969). Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Bantam Book (New York). ISBN 0552047473. 
• Good, Timothy (1988). Above Top Secret. William Morrow and Company (New York). ISBN 978-0688092023. 
• Loren, Gross (1994). UFOs: A History - 1956: August. The Author (Fremont, CA). OCLC 36199843. 
• Loren, Gross (1994). UFOs: A History - 1956: September-October. The Author (Fremont, CA). OCLC 36199843. 
• Hynek, Allen (1972). The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry. Henry Regnery Company (Chiacgo). ISBN 9780809480548. 
• McDonald, James (March/April 1970). "UFOs Over Lakenheath in 1956" (in English). Flying Saucer Review 16 (2). 
• Hynek, Josef (1997). The Hynek UFO Report. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0760704295. 
• Edward U. Condon, Ph.D. (1969). Daniel S. Gillmor. ed (html). Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. University of Colorado: Bantam Books. ISBN 0552047473. http://www.ncas.org/condon/. Retrieved on 6-20-2009. 
• McDonald, James (November 1969). "Book Review: The Condon report, scientific study of Unidentified Flying Objects" (in English). Icarus (Institute of Atmospheric Physics University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA) 11 (1): 443-447. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(69)90083-9. ISSN 0019-1035. http://wiki.razing.net/index.php/Image:McDonald%2C_J.E._Icarus%2C_Volume_11%2C_Issue_3%2C_November_1969%2C_Pages_443-447.pdf. Retrieved on 2009-6-15. 

Further Reading

External Links

• The Lakenheath Collaboration Document Archive
• ufocasebook.com - 1956: UFO Encounter / Jet Chase Over Bentwaters AFB, U. K.
• ufologie.net - 1956: RADAR/VISUAL JET CHASE OVER BENTWATER, UK
• ufologie.net - Gordon D. Thayer's investigation
• ufologie.net - James E. McDonald's investigation
• ATS - Justin Krog's take on the "The Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO Incident
• Black Vault - Bentwaters Air Force Base, United Kingdom (8-1956)
• Note: no TinWiki page for this entry

.
.
.

Transcluded from Wikipedia

The Lakenheath-Bentwaters Incident was a series of radar and visual contacts with Unidentified Flying Objects that took place over airbases in eastern England on the night of 13 - 14 August 1956, involving both RAF and USAF personnel. The incident has since gained some prominence in the literature of ufology and the popular media.^[1]

The final Report of the Condon Committee, which otherwise concluded that UFOs were simple misidentifications of natural phenomena or aircraft, took an unusual position on the case: "In conclusion, although conventional or natural explanations certainly cannot be ruled out, the probability of such seems low in this case and the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high".^[2] It has, however, also been argued that the incidents can be explained by false radar returns and misidentification of astronomical phenomena.^[3]

Contents 1 The incident 2 Investigation by the Condon Committee 3 The account of F. H. C. Wimbledon and a further civilian witness 4 Recent research 5 See also 6 References

[edit] The incident

The commonly cited sequence of events is that recorded in the original Project Blue Book file by the US Air Force, subsequently analysed by the Condon Committee's report and by atmospheric physicist Dr James E. McDonald.

The incident began at the USAF-tenanted RAF Bentwaters, Suffolk, on the evening of 13 August 1956. This was a dry, largely clear night with, observers noted, an unusually large number of shooting stars, associated with the Perseid meteor shower. Radar operators at the base tracked a target, appearing similar to a normal aircraft return, approaching the base from the sea at an apparent speed of several thousand miles per hour. They also tracked a group of targets moving slowly to the north-east which merged into a single very large return (several times the strength of that from a B-36) before moving off the scope to the north, as well as a further rapid target proceeding east-west.^[4]

A T-33 trainer from the 512th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, crewed by 1st Lieutenants Charles Metz and Andrew Rowe, was directed to investigate the radar contacts, but saw nothing. No visual sightings of the objects were made from Bentwaters in this period with the exception of a single amber star-like object which was subsequently identified as probably being Mars, then low in the south-east.^[5]

At 22:55, a target was detected approaching Bentwaters from the east at a speed estimated around 2-4000 mph. It faded from the scope as it passed over the base (possibly suggesting anomalous propagation as a source for the target), reappearing to the west. However, as it passed overhead a rapidly-moving white light was observed from the ground, while the pilot of a C-47 at 4000 feet over Bentwaters reported that a similar light had passed beneath his aircraft. At this point, Bentwaters alerted the US-tenanted RAF Lakenheath base, 40 miles to the north-west, to look out for the targets.^[6] Ground personnel at Lakenheath made visual sightings of several luminous objects, including two which arrived, made a sharp change in course, and appeared to merge before moving off. The angular size of these objects was compared to that of a golf ball at arms length, and they were stated to dwindle to pinpoint size as they moved away, an observation which seemed to rule out a bolide or bright meteor.^[6]

The final phase of the incident was described in some detail by T/Sgt Forrest Perkins, who was the Watch Supervisor in the Lakenheath Radar Air Traffic Control centre, and who wrote directly to the Condon Committee in 1968. Perkins claimed that two RAF De Havilland Venom interceptors were scrambled and directed towards a radar target near Lakenheath. The pilot of the first Venom achieved contact, but then found that the target manoeuvred behind him and chased the aircraft for a period of around 10 minutes despite the latter’s taking violent evasive action; Perkins characterised the pilot as "getting worried, excited and also pretty scared".^[7] The second Venom was forced to return to its home station due to engine problems; Perkins stated that the target remained on their screens for a short period before leaving on a northerly heading.

[edit] Investigation by the Condon Committee

The Condon Committee included the case in its analysis largely in response to Perkins' letter. Aside from the Blue Book file, it was able to obtain a previous classified teleprinter message, transmitted three days after the incident, from 3910th Air Base Group to Air Defence Command at Ent AFB; the teleprinter message's description of the events, including the 'chase' episode, largely agreed with that of Perkins.

Based on the information available, the Committee's researcher (Thayer) felt that while anomalous propagation was possible, the lack of other targets on radar scopes at the time made it unlikely.^[8] Focusing on the later phase of the incident at Lakenheath, he came to the remarkable conclusion that "this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files. The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting".^[8]

A detailed investigation by noted aviation journalist and researcher Philip J. Klass concluded, however, that the incident could be explained as a combination of false radar returns and misperceptions of meteors from the Perseid stream.

[edit] The account of F. H. C. Wimbledon and a further civilian witness

No more information emerged on the case until the late 1970s, when an article in the Daily Express, and a subsequent piece by astronomer Ian Ridpath in the Sunday Times, produced further witnesses. Flight Lieutenant F. H. C. Wimbledon wrote to the Sunday Times on 19 March 1978 contesting Ridpath's statement that the incident had effectively been explained by Klass.

Wimbledon had been the radar controller on duty at RAF Neatishead at the time of the sightings.^[9] While his account of events agreed with that of Perkins in some details, including the description of the aircraft being apparently chased by the object, he stated that it had in fact been his team who directed the two Venoms to the interception and that the US personnel at Lakenheath would have been merely 'listening in'.^[10] Wimbledon disagreed with Klass' analysis, remembering the incident as involving a solid radar return tracked from three sets on the ground and one in the intercepting aircraft.

The same 1978 press interest in the case also elicited a letter from a John Killock to the Daily Express in which he claimed to have seen, in August 1956, both a single, rapidly-traveling white light at Ely, along with a Venom, and subsequently an odd group of amber lights.^[11]

[edit] Recent research

Four British Fortean researchers, Dr David Clarke, Andy Roberts, Martin Shough, and Jenny Randles, have since conducted a study that has indicated that the incident, or incidents, were very much more complex than the Condon Report had suggested.

Most significantly, the aircrews originally involved in the incident, F/Os David Chambers and John Brady from the first aircraft and F/Os Ian Fraser-Ker and Ivan Logan from the second, were located and interviewed. The aircrews involved all flew with 23 Squadron from RAF Waterbeach and were scrambled at 02:00 and 02:40 on 14 August - around two hours later than Wimbledon and Perkins claimed the interceptions occurred.

In contrast to the reports given in the original classified teleprinter message and in the accounts of both Wimbledon and Perkins, the aircrews both stated that the radar contacts obtained were unimpressive and that no 'tail-chase', or action on the part of the target, occurred. They also asserted no visual contacts were made. The first pilot, Chambers, commented that "my feeling is that there was nothing there, it was some sort of mistake",^[12] while Ivan Logan, the second Venom's navigator, stated that "all we saw was a blip which rather indicated a stationary target".^[13] At the time 23 Squadron decided that the radar contact had, if anything, been with a weather balloon.

To add to the contradictory nature of the accounts collected, another Venom crew was traced who had been scrambled much earlier in the evening. F/Os Leslie Arthur and Grahame Scofield were not told of the nature of their target and were forced to return to base after the aircraft's wingtip fuel tanks malfunctioned; Scofield recalled listening in to the radio communications of the intercepting pilots while back at Waterbeach later in the evening.^[14] Scofield's account of the overheard radio transmissions agreed, puzzlingly, with those of Wimbledon and Perkins, though he felt able to identify the crews as Chambers / Brady and Fraser-Ker / Logan. The time and path of Scofield's flight was identified as one which could also convincingly explain the sighting of a Venom at Ely by the civilian, Killock, who had claimed to see anomalous lights.

The new research additionally revealed that 23 Squadron's CO, Wing Commander (later Air Commodore) A. N. Davis, had also been diverted to investigate the radar returns while flying a Venom from RAF Coltishall. As the interception would have occurred at the same time as that described by Wimbledon and Perkins, it has been suggested that Davis and another pilot were the two described in their accounts.^[15]

[edit] See also

• Rendlesham Forest incident

[edit] References

v d e UFOs and ufology Notable incidents List of aircraft-UFO incidents List of UFO sightings in outer space Aurora (1897) Roswell (1947) Washington (1952) Tehran (1976) Rendlesham Forest (1980) Japan Air Lines (1986) Belgian UFO wave (1990) Phoenix Lights (1997) 21st century Mexico (2004) Tinley Park Lights (2004-2006) O'Hare Airport (2006) Alderney (2007) Stephenville (2008) Turkey (2008) Wales (2008) Norway (2009) Harbour Mille (2010) Vancouver, Washington (2011) Sightings by country Argentina Australia Belarus Belgium Brazil Canada China France Indonesia Iran Iraq Italy Mexico New Zealand Norway Philippines Portugal Russia South Africa Spain (Canary Islands) Sweden United Kingdom United States Scientific studies Project Blue Book Condon Report COMETA Report List of notable studies in ufology Identification studies of UFOs Hypothesis UFO hypotheses Types Black triangle Chupa Fastwalkers Flying saucer Foo fighter Ghost rockets Green fireballs Mystery airship UFO conspiracy theory Majestic 12 Area 51 Bob Lazar Men in Black Project Serpo Disclosure Project Culture UFO Culture UFO religion List of UFO religions UFOs in fiction Skeptics List of skeptics and skeptical organizations Committee for Skeptical Inquiry