Air traffic control says UFOs in UK 'around one a month'

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
What about those radar returns that show unexplained technical abilities of a given radar return like sudden acceleration,stop,then shoot of the radar screen.

Those sound like glitches. The radar "confirmation" of the Belgian UFO incident had radar glitches that even had the UFOs flying underground.

reply to post by miniatus


They have been conditioned to it. That and to think that everyone else is a bit cucu when they mention life outside of Earth or multiple universes. Anything that erodes their own sense of reality is an anathema, it should be ignored, mocked or destroyed (in that order).

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
What about those radar returns that show unexplained technical abilities of a given radar return like sudden acceleration,stop,then shoot of the radar screen.

Those sound like glitches. The radar "confirmation" of the Belgian UFO incident had radar glitches that even had the UFOs flying underground.

Of course there are radar "glitches" in some radar UFO confirmations cases but there are also UFO cases that are backed up by radar returns or confirmations , there is very good information regarding those radar/UFO cases on the UFO Chronicle Thread Directory in this UFO forum.That there are UFO cases involving objects with radar confirmation is apparent if one looks at such cases in the UFO Chronicle Thread Directory in this UFO forum.

Originally posted by faryjay
Just one a month?

I'd say it's a lot more than that ... But at least it's coming in the news now.

And from a lot more than that how many are a real alien aircraft ort even top secret military aircraft if such? Maybe one per 2-3 months... (and that is the military) as for alien, maybe once in 10 years, IF even such has come at all.

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Of course there are radar "glitches" in some radar UFO confirmations cases but there are also UFO cases that are backed up by radar returns or confirmations , there is very good information regarding those radar/UFO cases on the UFO Chronicle Thread Directory in this UFO forum.That there are UFO cases involving objects with radar confirmation is apparent if one looks at such cases in the UFO Chronicle Thread Directory in this UFO forum.

Name one case
"that show unexplained technical abilities of a given radar return like sudden acceleration,stop,then shoot of the radar screen." that you think is not due to radar glitches.

Here is a follow up article on the same programme, such was the interest I imagine, in the original segment.
news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No doubt some radar UFOs are caused by glitches but this cannot be the case when the UFO is tracked by more than one radar station or is accompanied with pilot radar or visual , of which there are many reports .
.

Radar confirmation of a dramatic UFO chase by AF jets has just been received at NICAP headquarters. The attempted interception took place in the summer of '58, near an AF base in the southwest.

According to an AF radar man at the base, two jets were vectored in on two unknown objects which were flying together. As the jets tried to close in, one UFO disappeared from the radar-scope and then quickly reappeared behind the first jet. (This disappearance and reappearance, the radar man explained, was carried by the UFO’s racing up out of the radar beam, then descending quickly at a new spot where the beam again picked it up.)

When this UFO streaked upward and then back behind the jet, pilot No. 1 reversed his course, again attempting to close in. As before, his quarry swiftly climbed out of range. During these maneuvers, both the jet and the UFO were tracked by the AF ground radar men. After these two futile attempts, jet pilot No. 1 turned back to join his companion, who was having the same difficulty with the second UFO. Moments later, pilot No. 1 looked back and saw the other mystery object once more trailing him. Determined not to lose it this time, he whipped around at near-blackout limits. But before he could finish the turn, the unknown device was gone in an almost vertical climb. Back at the base, ground radar registered the UFO's third evasion, and a similar escape of the other object from pilot No. 2. Helpless, completely outmaneuvered, the frustrated jet pilots finally gave up and returned to their base.

The UFO’s swift evasive maneuvers, seen by both pilots und fully confirmed by expert radar men, prove beyond any question that these objects were intelligently controlled machines. The technical explanation of their disappearance and reappearance from the radar-scope also was confirmed by the pilots who saw the UFOs streak up and back at the same moments. This explanation, given by a number of radar experts in other cases, was first stated by CAA Senior Traffic Controller Harry Barnes, who with several assistants tracked a group of UFOs over Washington in July of '52.
www.nicap.org...

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

No doubt some radar UFOs are caused by glitches but this cannot be the case when the UFO is tracked by more than one radar station or is accompanied with pilot radar or visual , of which there are many reports .

.

Weather phenomena certainly can be tracked by more than one radar; it happens all the time, so why would this surprise you or anybody? I didn't hear anything about any visual confirmation in the video, so it could have been some unusual atmospheric phenomenon, which, by the way was probably one cause of the July 1952 sightings and radar returns mentioned at the end of your quote when there was some very unusual weather.

Radar confirmation of a dramatic UFO chase by AF jets has just been received at NICAP headquarters. The attempted interception took place in the summer of '58, near an AF base in the southwest.

Which AF base in the southwest?
I'm still looking for one good case. If they don't even say what base or give any names how can it be verified?

I've also found that these stories can be and sometimes are embellished, even when re-told by the same person, so getting accurate source information is essential for verification.

The other piece of evidence I would offer supporting the radar glitch conclusion is that people often point to very old cases like these, when radar wasn't very good and had more glitches and false returns. Radar still isn't perfect but it is better now compared to the older radar systems,meaning it has better filters to filter out the glitches and some (but not all) weather anomalies. And interestingly enough, in more recent times, there seem to be fewer reports that look like radar glitches. I don't think that's a coincidence.

What kind of pisses me off about the hullabaloo about this admission....s that far more startlng admssions have been dsclosed in the past yet still nothing has forced the goverment to disclosure.
What about years back when they were buzzng England in flghts of many n formation at a certain tme of day...They flew east to west and took on three separate formatons shapes as the passed over england towards the atlantic.?
I swear to god that the people hear this stuff and it goes right out the other side as its too hard to contemplate as reality, so they just forget it,,,,they become equally startled at the next serious [piece of UFO info but quickly forget it agan....
They are here people......please snap out of it!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Of course there are radar "glitches" in some radar UFO confirmations cases but there are also UFO cases that are backed up by radar returns or confirmations , there is very good information regarding those radar/UFO cases on the UFO Chronicle Thread Directory in this UFO forum.That there are UFO cases involving objects with radar confirmation is apparent if one looks at such cases in the UFO Chronicle Thread Directory in this UFO forum.

Name one case
"that show unexplained technical abilities of a given radar return like sudden acceleration,stop,then shoot of the radar screen." that you think is not due to radar glitches.

Please visit the "UFO Directory Thread" it has a few there.Of course you do realise that the ones that do contain very good proof of non glitches radar returns are more than likely censored.There is of course a certain amount of what one believes in the possibility that NOT all cases of radar returns are glitches i am one of them. Of course the amount of radar operators and military pilots that came out of the wood work in recent years ,(disclosure project),cannot be ALL wrong or confusing real objects for radar glitches .

Maybe they're only on a four week vacation?

Great thread, thanks for sharing. Interesting to hear it from air traffic control, you'd think it would carry more weight by virtue of the fact that it is their job and they are trained to watch the skies and know what is what up there.

Originally posted by miniatus

UFO means unidentified flying object....

A UFO to an air traffic controller could be ANY NUMBER OF THINGS .... it does not mean automatically that it is an alien flying an interplanetary/interdimensional craft ..=)

Yes, although that's a pretty obvious point I suppose it's an important one - there certainly are some intriguing UFO incidents involving ATC's and radar confirmation though, especially when the unknown objects are being plotted and tracked in the same area of sky as to which they're being reported by eye-witnesses.

The reported object descriptions and flight characteristics in this case and this case are pretty darn interesting and there's some relevant statements from ATC's and radar confirmation below which are also worth a read - don't know what the objects they're describing actually are though (hence the term 'UFO').

"Here we had a number of object seen coming in across the North Sea on coastal radar. It looked like a Russian mistake. Jet aircraft were scrambled. The objects were travelling at quite impossible speeds like 4-5000 mph and then came to an abrupt halt near to one of these stations not very high up. Jet aircraft picked them up on aircraft radar. The objects then simply made rings round them."
Ralph Noyes,Senior Official with British Air Ministry - retired as Under Secretary of State in 1977




"During the 1955 Warsaw Pact exercises, a radar station in the area of Warsaw recognized two targets over the Gulf of Gdansk. The targets were moving at a speed of 2,300 km/h at an altitude of 20 thousand meters. In those days there was no aircraft with such performance. At one point it was noticed that the two objects did a 90 degrees turn, literally on the spot with no turning radius. This maneuver at such high speeds cannot be done. Most modern aircraft are unable to do so even today, and that was 50 years ago".
Colonel Ryszard Grundmanem - Former Head of Poland's 'Air Traffic, Air Force and Air Defense'




“What I saw defied all logic and was, quite frankly, extraordinary. It wasn’t just me, more than 30 pairs of eyes of RAF staff and radar operators at Heathrow Airport witnessed the same thing. I instantly knew this wasn’t a convoy of military planes -the only craft with that rate of climb were supersonic lightning aircraft but they wouldn’t have been able to hold such a perfect formation".
RAF Wing Commander Alan Turner (MBE).




"There is no other conclusion I can reach but that for six hours on the morning of the 20th of July, 1952 there were at least ten unidentifiable objects moving above Washington....I can safely deduce that they performed gyrations which no known aircraft could perform. By this I mean that our scope showed that they could make right angle turrns and complete reversals of flight".
Senior Air Route Traffic Controller Harry Barnes




"When you have the view of the airspace and the radar screen and you see the UFOs go around twenty or thirty miles a second – that is very real. They can turn suddenly almost 90 degrees in a second or half a second. The UFOs can go vertically straight up very quickly."
Mexico City Senior Air Traffic Controller, Enrique Kolbeck




"We had objects with four-way confirmation – ground visual, ground radar, airborne visual, airborne radar. It doesn’t get any better than that. In my following of unusual aerial phenomena for the past 50 years, there seems to be some reason to discredit very viable and very reputable witnesses when they say something is unidentified."
US Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Brown




“On several occasions the instruments gave reading of material objects moving at incredible speed. Calculations showed speeds of about 230 knots, of 400 kph. Speeding so fast is a challenge even on the surface. But water resistance is much higher. It was like the objects defied the laws of physics. There’s only one explanation: the creatures who built them far surpass us in development".
Russian Naval Rear Admiral Yury Beketov

Cheers.

Listen to the audio and read a few responses. Can't say I've read every response (I will get back to that).

I know I am new here so I'll just get this out of the way. I do believe in life out there and I do believe "we" have been visited, whatever that is supposed to mean in the grand scheme of things. I just think it is about as rare as a large meteor strikes interacting in any meaningful way. I don't believe "they" are not cruising around us like we are some kind of zoo and I surely don't believe "they" have infiltrated our governments. But "they" are quite possibly "there" in space. I mean, why not? Who is to say, in the grand scheme of things, what is really going on? The way I figure it, when they do come to "interact" with us we will all definitely know. I mean, we are still penciling stuff in as far as the sciences go. I will feel more comfortable in the Big Questions once we start running out of Big Questions. If we even survive that long. so if they are around, I wish they would either come on or go on. This flitting around on the periphery of humanity leaving behind a million bad and blurry photos and crappy merchandising is nonsense. If you want to "teach" us all something of the universe then get to it.

Anyway

Once a month for a 6000 flight a day corridor (Is that the right term?) really isn't that many and can easily be written of to glitches. That is a lot of flights in a months time and there are a lot of eyeballs on screens looking at those flights. So there is a lot of ways one glitch a month can happen. As much as I want to HOPE one gets nailed down, so what? Not like we can do anything with the "knowledge gained" by actually finding concrete evidence of ET's. OOohh!!! We know they are here!! WOOHOO!! There!! I've celebrated other life out there!! WE FINALLY KNOW!! Now what? Cause it doesn't mean anything really unless it can get rid of my electric bill or maybe popping by to help me jump off my lawn tractor.

A matter of fact... Screw them! The anti-social bastards! Always hiding in clouds and skulking about like cowards... Who needs friends like those, right? Not like I wouldn't share my booze with them if they came by..

If people listen to Richard they will hear he was less than pleased to be asked about it and tried to avoid it, you could tell he thought it was a bloody stupid question and felt a little on the spot to reply because it came from the presenters child.

What was sad was what the BBC did next next, they consulted good old UFO expert and all round man of office Filing Nick Pope (an administrator and NOT in charge of the X-Files of the UK as he loves to make out). he gets wheeled out and he's straight in the the Martian this and that like he's got a clue what he's on about.

As you can tell I'm no fan of Nick "I'll have the fee in cash upfront" Pope.

The fact that the guy (Richard) admitted to at least one a month was pretty amazing as technically he's rubbishing the security of the skies which isn't what he's paid to do. As for what these one a months are I don't know, the temptation to define UFO as other worldly is just to quick to jump to, I'd go for 99% human engineering and or wishful thinking BUT with things like the O' Hare Airport craft you do have to wonder how much of that one percent might be not ours.

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
If people listen to Richard they will hear he was less than pleased to be asked about it and tried to avoid it, you could tell he thought it was a bloody stupid question and felt a little on the spot to reply because it came from the presenters child.

What was sad was what the BBC did next next, they consulted good old UFO expert and all round man of office Filing Nick Pope (an administrator and NOT in charge of the X-Files of the UK as he loves to make out). he gets wheeled out and he's straight in the the Martian this and that like he's got a clue what he's on about.

As you can tell I'm no fan of Nick "I'll have the fee in cash upfront" Pope.

The fact that the guy (Richard) admitted to at least one a month was pretty amazing as technically he's rubbishing the security of the skies which isn't what he's paid to do. As for what these one a months are I don't know, the temptation to define UFO as other worldly is just to quick to jump to, I'd go for 99% human engineering and or wishful thinking BUT with things like the O' Hare Airport craft you do have to wonder how much of that one percent might be not ours.

edit on 19-8-2012 by Mclaneinc because: (no reason given)

Yea.

It was obvious what was implied in the question and it definitely wasn't glitches. I mean the guy actually mentioned "flying obect" in the question though I think it was kinda funny the interviewer blamed his kids for the question.

As far as O'Hare goes. I am really aggravated at Dan Akroyd for buying up all the footage and just sitting on it.

This is a very good case of unknown objects being picked up and tracked by radar,not only that but 35 Air / Ground Radar UFOs detected over Sopley in 1971 Confirmed by Wing Cmdr Alan Turner.

One such case is the April 21st 1971 radar incident reported by Wing Commander Alan Turner MBE, over southern England. Like many high quality cases the incident was virtually unknown to the public. Thankfully the British Closest Encounters documentary team was able to secure an interview with Mr. Turner and recorded his expert insight as the supervising air traffic controller to help clarify the record,

Turner: I kept asking the pilot, "Are you visual?" And then he said, the voice sounded quite jittery, "I don't know what that was, it was a quarter of a mile away, climbing like the clappers and we saw it on radar. We did not see it visually. There were seven technically different radars all seeing exactly the same thing. Two radars at Southern radar, two radars at Heathrow, two at the fighter control establishment, and the airborne one with the Canberra bomber. @1:40 (emphasis added)

This particular case stands out with a very credible source verifying these radar returns.


REFERENCES;

scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...


www.thesun.co.uk...



Darcy, D. (July 27, 2009) (in English). "(1971/04/21) Sopley, UK 35 air / ground radar UFOs".
wiki.razing.net...(1971/04/21)_Sopley%2C_UK_35_air_/_ground_radar_UFOs

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

We did not see it visually.

This particular case stands out with a very credible source verifying these radar returns.

Yes multiple radars got a reflection from something, but doesn't the fact that there was nothing visible indicate it was more likely to be an atmospheric anomaly than an object?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

We did not see it visually.

This particular case stands out with a very credible source verifying these radar returns.

Yes multiple radars got a reflection from something, but doesn't the fact that there was nothing visible indicate it was more likely to be an atmospheric anomaly than an object?

Yes they never saw anything , hence their statement below;

"I don't know what that was, it was a quarter of a mile away,

Does"t the fact that something WAS picked up by multiple radars and that nothing of an atmospheric anomaly was offered as an possible explanation by the military source a case for actually listening to those in a better position than those on a internet forum. As i have stated until it can be prove beyond all doubt that no object was detected then that possibility remains in contention.

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

I agree using an internet forum as a source is risky business indeed, so I don't advocate that. At best use it as food for thought or a starting point for further research.

Since you'd like a better source and I don't blame you, this might help:

Study of Unusual Radar Observations....(p21)

Anomalous propagation (AP)/forward scatter

It is possible for special AP conditions to produce the appearance of discrete targets in the air, even without the radar being refracted to pick up surface targets such as ships. If there is an elevated layer of sharp refractive index discontinuity (i.e., abnormal changes in temperature and humidity across a narrow layer) then a radar beam impinging in the layer at a shallow or grazing angle can be reflected as from a mirror. This process is called forward scattering...

Also I think it's fair to say that many radar operators have a limited understanding of these AP phenomena, which might explain why they aren't considered in some cases.