RAF Chicksands UFO Report - high strangeness or hoax

This is a very curious report and rather unique too. It's the first time it's been heard on the interwebz and only seems to have had a mention once before by veteran Robert Barrow.

Back in the mid-1970s, a woman phoned the National UFO Reporting Center with an extraordinary account involving a UFO sighting over RAF Chicksands, England in 1964 or ’65.



She describes how she was playing badminton with a friend and they were laughing and chatting. At some point, they could no longer hear anything and their attention was then caught by an object hovering above the nearby oaks. She runs to tell her father who notifies the base security; he’s apparently a senior NCO and attends to matters on the base - he’s gone all night.

Several years later, she asks him about this incident. He tells her that six other listening stations simultaneously experienced the same events and he won’t go further than saying, ‘They weren’t ours.’

Naturally, I’ve spent some time trying to substantiate anything in the claim and haven’t uncovered much. At the same time, it’s important to recognise that nothing leaves secure sites like these. As it stands, this is a single report that hasn’t been repeated anywhere else. In many ways, it’s unique. She was correct about family quarters, there were tall trees and the secret nature of the base was likewise accurate. If there were any UFO sightings at the other listening stations they haven't seen the light of day...I haven't found any reports yet.

The nearest relation to a claim like this could be the British Topcliffe and Operation Mainbrace UFO reports from 1952. Military witnesses reported seeing various objects including a disc-shaped craft. Those sightings are considered by some to be amongst the best evidence for actual unknown craft in the skies.

In the event of this being a hoax, I wonder what would motivate her? Why choose a base in England and why opt for one whose purpose was little-known and secret? If she did indeed spend part of her childhood there, would that render the broad fabric of the story true? Sounding sincere is no guarantee of honesty or sanity, but she does sound at ease and not manic.

Anyway, give her a listen and see what you think about it. Right now, I can't say I'm certain one way or another although hoaxery is often a chief suspect. Also apologies for the video...they are so annoying to make!

Very strange account , she seemed more interested in telling the story than actually describing the object in any way.

If this happened on 7 bases then anything up to 1000's of people would have seen it. Are there any other reports on that day?

reply to post by PhoenixOD
I haven't found any, but I've thought of looking by location instead of being base-specific.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


If they were all at RAF or military bases then all would be told to say nothing, hence the lack of knowledge about it. Most of these type of bases are out in the middle of nowhere.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

reply to post by PhoenixOD


On the other hand, why would someone who wants to make up a story not tell the typical banal descriptions, which everyone else would do? I don't think this is a sign of a hoax. Never heard of that case before.

These military base accounts are always interesting.

I seem to recall some stories similar to this and the American ICBM base incursion that shutdown a battery of missiles, also happening in old Soviet Russia where ICBMs were shut down, communications disrupted, and other sorts of antics.

The Soviet stories I always find fascinating as we hear so little from that time.

Originally posted by alienscot1
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

If they were all at RAF or military bases then all would be told to say nothing, hence the lack of knowledge about it. Most of these type of bases are out in the middle of nowhere.

that didnt stop the guys from the Rendlesham forest case. those guys have been all over tv for years

Originally posted by Imtor
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

On the other hand, why would someone who wants to make up a story not tell the typical banal descriptions, which everyone else would do? I don't think this is a sign of a hoax. Never heard of that case before.

But on the flip side of that logic you could say that anyone who doesn't tell a story like she did is more likely to be presenting a hoax.

I find when people are trying to tell you something potentially unbelievable they tend to give you as much detail as possible to strengthen their case. While on the other hand people who are not telling the truth are more sketchy with the details of the event but more details on the story. Its the type of behavior that young children display when they attempt to make up a story. They beat around the bush and leave out details on the most important part. Than if there story isnt challenged by the time they finished explaining it they tend to go back to the most important part and add a few more details. Just like this lady did.

To be honest its hard to say for sure if she is not telling the truth or was mistaken without asking her questions and not seeing here face. But i get the feeling that something is not right about her story.

My Dad was in the RAF for 30 years, he was stationed at RAF Acklington for sometime, my family lived on camp. during the mid 60's. We were coming home one evening from Gateshead, visiting my grandparents. In a field, close to the camp was a cone shaped object, hovering motionless, making no noise that we could here. We all saw it, from the car.

A very fascinating account, Kandinsky. My street-sense tends to make me believe the caller was relating a true experience from her memory.

Not just her no-nonsense recitation, but the fact that she was reporting to a "collection" center and didn't seemed concerned with garnering any attention other than getting it off her chest.

You add those factors to the obscurity of the base and the supporting details and it seems to fall outside the usual credentials associated with hoaxes.

I see why it intrigued you.

I did note in your link to "Operation Mainbrace" that both of the main stories related there had elements that might suggest a "set-up" under controlled conditions as possible explanations to consider:

“…In some RAF field, there was some sort of demonstration to which high officials of the RAF in London had been invited. During the show, a ‘perfect flying saucer’ was seen by these officials as well as RAF pilots. So many people saw it that many articles appeared in the public press. This is distressing to [Dr] Jones because he realises that the creation of the correction of public opinion is a part of his responsibilities.”
drdavidclarke.co.uk...

AND

In Michael Swiney’s Flying Logbook Exercise 18 is described as “a high-level cross-country flight” that would take the two men on a southwesterly course towards a turning point on the south coast, then return to Little Rissington. Swiney, who was instructing, occupied the front seat and his student was seated directly behind him in the small cockpit. As the aircraft taxied along the runway, there was nothing to suggest this exercise would be any different to other routine flights both men had made together. Little did they realise it would become the most dramatic – and unusual – experience of their entire flying careers.
drdavidclarke.co.uk...

Not that that's necessarily indicative of anything here, but notable--maybe--nonetheless.

Back to Chicksands; That cone of silence detail is unique enough to merit attention, too. Especially since the base was part of the signals network.



One last thing I found kind o' interesting in a synchronicity kind o' way was the acronym for the Chicksands operation in modern day:

Since 1997 the site has been the home of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre (DISC) and the Headquarters of the Intelligence Corps.
DISC conducts training for personnel of all three arms of the British Armed Forces, members of the Civil Service and others. Courses are delivered across the range of Intelligence disciplines.
en.wikipedia.org...

Yep, DISC...how funny is that?

reply to post by Kandinsky


Hmmmm exactly. I listened to the interview several times and what strikes me as odd is that there's so much focus on facts about the base. The Hole, the Elephant cage, things that kind of look like missiles but they're not missiles etc. We know this is what hoaxers do when trying to establish credibility for their stories. She doesn't really sound like someone recalling from memory more like someone reading from a piece of paper. Interesting find none the less Will listen to it a couple of more times.

reply to post by The GUT
Yeah, for one reason or another that story was intended to see the light of day. NUFORC didn't always follow up and had presence, but likely not as much as MUFON. Back in the 70s and very early 80s, the FAA, sheriffs' offices, police departments etc would be more likely to contact NUFORC than anyone else...less so individuals. They sent hotline stickers and cards nationwide.

If she wanted exposure, MUFON would have been a smarter move. If she wanted to get something off her chest, NUFORC long-distance telephone must have been easier for her; easier for telling the truth or not.

The easiest route is to suspect a mixture of altered memories and actual memories so she believes what she says, but it didn't happen that way. The last couple of minutes do sound like someone trying to express actual memories. It's a puzzler. Still, I've learned a lot about 'Iron Horse' and that's something.

In trying to encompass the extent of her story with reality as we know it, it causes a few hoop-jumps doesn't it? Shades of Vallee. Even as far as unique stories like these, there's sometimes a half-joking suggestion (in my mind) that the Muses are in play...McCartney-style.

reply to post by cripmeister

She doesn't really sound like someone recalling from memory more like someone reading from a piece of paper. Interesting find none the less Will listen to it a couple of more times.

Right at the beginning, you can hear paper being turned and I thought she had a script or notes. Then again, she refers to a magazine article to get the NUFORC number so she would have paper in front of her. If it wasn't the extraordinary contents of the story, I'd tend to believe her. Still, 'They're not ours' is very much like the closing line of an urban myth.

These military base accounts are always interesting. I seem to recall some stories similar to this and the American ICBM base incursion that shutdown a battery of missiles, also happening in old Soviet Russia where ICBMs were shut down, communications disrupted, and other sorts of antics. The Soviet stories I always find fascinating as we hear so little from that time.

reply to post by Druscilla



It is gob-smacking that you find it interesting, and not a load of nonsense!

There is hope...

I changed the search terms and couldn't find much to support her story. Of the other bases, there are two reported UFO encounters, but they didn't happen in the same year and one has more pedigree than the other.

Clark AFB Philippines Air Police Large Object Picked Up On Radar

Date: From 2/63 to 8/64
Time: Approx: 11:30 p.m.

I was in the Air Police at Clark AFB from 2/63 to 8/64. I was on post one night about 11:30 p.m. on the far end of the run way where they kept the uploaded 102s. I had a radio on my post so I could hear all of the action. All at once CSC called the Strike Team to go down to the end of the Runway close to where my post was and check to see if they could find anything on the runway. The radar site had picked up something large on the runway. I saw the Strike Team search the area and they called in that they did not find anything. Everyone went back to normal and I did not think much of it all. Then the Radar Site called back and they picked up the large object again coming on the runway from the Jungle.

This time they had a lot of troops searching the area. I was thinking that if this was some aliens and they were looking for specimens to take back with them than I was probably the best candidate as I was very close to the action but all along. I would not even be missed for a long time. This is the only time I was really scarred during my 4 years in the Air Police. I could feel the hairs going up on my back. To make a long story short nothing was ever found but it has to be something large enough for our Radar to pick up.

Thank you to the person for their report.

Brian Vike, Director
HBCC UFO Research

Clark AFB Sighting 1964

The other is better although it doesn't share the features in her account beyond the presence of UFOs...

April 10-14, 1965; Misawa AFB, Japan (BBU)
Night. Unidentified radar targets were observed. The targets direction of travel varied. The targets appeared the size of 2 century type aircraft and targets were observed on PAR and ASR at the same points. The targets were seen on eight occasions on April 14, four times on both search and precision radar. In one instance four targets were visible simultaneously. The radars involved were CPN-18 (S-band) and FPN-16 (X-band) GCA radars. Maintenance checked the radar, it appeared normal. The Chief, Target Branch, 1st Lt. David W Vaughan stated; "In the past 12 years I have observed all types of weather, wind, temperature inversion, false returns, birds, and numerous other objects on radar, but never a target this size, moving with the speed and directions of these."
(McDonald list)

NICAP 1965 Chronology

For just ten minutes, the base was buzzed by 9 objects that appeared on the Airport Surveillance Radar and one that showed on the Precision Approach Radar (link to BB file). No visuals, just the radar staff.

My girlfriend lives round the corner from the base and I do martial arts with some of the personnel from there, so I'll see if I can find out anything. It's a bit of a dead end place and not a lot apprears to go on there, but again that's the ideal cover if you want to get up to some sneaky stuff. I'll also ask in the local villages to see if any of the old timers remember anything.

Maybe that antenna they put up in 1962 looked like a landing site or something to our aerial bretheren.

the wiki entry

Well I asked around and got nowhere, so I'm afraid it's a dead end.

Sorry, but I did try.

reply to post by nomadros
In all likelihood, it never happened. If it did, given the defence significance of their work, nobody would talk about it anyway. Thanks for trying and let's hope you haven't earned a clown badge for asking.

One of my main interests in ufology is understanding the motivations behind all the myth-making. Telling stories is human psychology in practice. On the other hand, why do some people concoct such far-out elaborate stories? In this case, a mum took it upon herself to make that phone-call with no expectation of lime-light or attention beyond Bob Gribble. So why?

Once again....thanks

reply to post by Kandinsky


I definitely earned the clown badge. Even people I knew had that look in their eyes when I mentioned the subject.

I know how the military works at the levels noted in this website's name, so nothing was ever coming from that direction.

The only chance was to find people who were adjacent to the site when the incident occured because in farming communities news travels fast, especially in the pubs, but again nothing. Worth a punt though given there might have been "strangeness" on the doorstep.

This was my second "investigation." Last year I parked myself 1500ft up on a hillside for a month in a UFO hotspot in Spain. After 3 weeks I was happy to see a plane in the sky!

Maybe one day, maybe one day.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Everybody lies. Deception is an essential part of our psychology:

The truth about lying - Psychology today (brief article: light reading)

Another interesting article in NY Times

... findings imply that some kinds of deception are aimed more at the deceiver than at the audience ...

The problems lay with interpreting who is lying when, and about what?
Often we say "Person X has no reason to lie", when in fact, this is just naive as Person X may very well have a personal reason where whatever deception they play may benefit them on an emotional level beyond detection or understanding of the receiving audience.

It's sad that genuinely daunting subjects like this UFO phenomenon attracts such attention with many people coming forward to add their own bit of creative prose to the greater story.
What can be done about it though?

We can discount every anecdote that doesn't coincide with physical or other independently verifiable evidence, but, therein can lie problems stemming from easy dismissal.

All in all anecdotal 'evidence' should probably be recorded for posterity at the very least, at least until such time any corroborating evidence may come to light at a later time.
Those stories who's worth lies only in interesting reading can be preserved just for that.