1957 UFO Conflict! Bang! Biff!

[patchbunny]

Didn't see this mentioned elsewhere, so here ya go.

USAF Ordered to Shoot Down UFO Over Britain (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27279684/)

LONDON - An American fighter pilot flying from an English air base at the height of the Cold War was ordered to open fire on a massive UFO that lit up his radar, according to an account published by Britain’s National Archives on Monday.

The fighter pilot said he was ordered to fire a full salvo of rockets at the UFO moving erratically over the North Sea — but that at the last minute the object picked up enormous speed and disappeared. The account, first published in Britain’s Daily Star newspaper more than 17 years ago and to this day unverified by military authorities, was one of many carried in the 1,500 pages the archives made available online.

[snip]

[DevilsAdvocate]

A balloon, spy plane or helicopter, intentional radar disturbance, radar system malfunction, a flock of seagulls. Who knows.

A guy saw something on his radar. It went away. Military people told him to forget about it. So the radar picked up on something part of a secret operation that the military didn’t want to disclose. Or, the radar picked up on something due to a defect that the military didn’t want to disclose. Or the reports are a bunch of hooey. Or aliens from outer space planned to come all the way from distant galaxies and position a spacecraft close into Earth while avoiding all identification by all human resources except to show up as a blip on radar screen, just for grins, and then skedadle before anyone could get a good fix on them.

Those darn aliens…

[TheDeeMan]

Well, if they're ere to observe they don't want to BE observed.

Dee

[Graham2001]

Someone at work was talking about this. He stated that the pilot saw the UFO vanish before his eyes.

Did not look too happy when I mentioned that the pilot only saw the object, whatever it was on his radar screen.

[TheDeeMan]

Someone at work was talking about this. He stated that the pilot saw the UFO vanish before his eyes.

Did not look too happy when I mentioned that the pilot only saw the object, whatever it was on his radar screen.

How dare you confuse him with facts. LOL! :)

Dee

[Dragonrock]

I like how the second pilot's conflicting story was give 2 lines at the end of the article. Nothing like objective journalism.

[ERGONER]

...Nothing like objective journalism.



...surprisng how much coverage this bogus UFO story received in the mainstream media this week -- even the New York Times published it without the slightest journalistic objectivity.

You would think at least one serious journalist in the world would have bothered to directly contact the retired USAF Pilot Milton Torres (readily available in Miami Beach, Florida) -- to objectively document his UFO story.

Instead, all the news stories are brief, vague accounts... with unsourced quotes attributed to Torres -- very favorable to a 'genuine' UFO incident.

Great credence is apparently given to recently-declassified UK Ministry of Defence files, although they are not quoted at all, nor referenced. We are led to believe that these secret official documents somehow confirm pilot Torres' incredible UFO story. They do not.

Those declassified documents are merely routine, boring, bureaucratic responses to UFO quacks who peppered the British government with UFO sightings/stories for decades. Some "UFO-ologist" had long ago submitted a version of Torres' UFO story to the UK Ministry of Defence... seeking official records of the incident; he got the standard boilerplate response.

Such files should not have been 'classified' in the first place. There is certainly no confirmation or support for Torres' UFO story in these declassified files. They are readily available on the internet in .pdf format: http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

Pilot Torres probably did scramble his F-86D jet fighter in 1957 -- and found nothing. The rest of the story is all hearsay and fantasy. Torres is quoted as saying he never saw anything 'visually' -- he relied totally on the tiny cockpit screen of his primitive APG-37 intercept radar.

...so much for "professional" journalism...

____

[TheDeeMan]

I like how the second pilot's conflicting story was give 2 lines at the end of the article. Nothing like objective journalism.

UFOnly have yourself to blame for expecting objectivity in modern journalism.

And yes, I went there. :)

Dee

[Correa Neto]

ERGONER touched an important issue- the accuracy of radar and weapon systems. Those were quite primitive systems, especially when compared to what's available nowadays. Keep this in mind when a woo says something like "UFOs evaded being chased by a fighter". By the way, use the opportunity and remind them that one of the causes of the alleged Roswell crash (as well as others) was earthling's primitive radar interfering with the flying saucer's systems...

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86dl.htm
...snip...tests disclosed that the F-86D's 2.75-inch folding-fin serial rockets were marginal in accuracy and effectiveness.

Its E-4 fire-control system remained unreliable and difficult to maintain. Various engineering changes could still be made to increase reliability, ease maintenance and, perhaps, raise the F86D's kill capability. However, the gain would not justify the cost.

And from http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/275in-rockets.html
Maximum range was around 6000 m (6500 yds), but effective range was more like 3400 m (3700 yds). The rocket's accuracy was relatively poor, because its speed and spin rate were too low to effectively counter gravity drop, cross winds and dispersion.

And from http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_6.html
Targets could be located up to 30 miles away. When the target showed up as a blip on the pilot's radar scope, he locked the radar onto the target and the AN/APA-84 computer determined a lead collision course. The pilot flew this course by keeping the steering dot on his scope inside a reference circle. When the automatic tracking system indicated that there were only 20 seconds to go, the pilot steered more precisely to keep the dot in a smaller circle. The pilot chose whether to fire 6, 12, or all 24 of his rockets, and pressed the trigger. However, the actual firing instant was determined by the computer, not by the pilot, and when the computer deemed the range to be right, the rocket pack was extended and the rockets were fired. The range at which the computer fired the rockets at the target was typically about 500 yards. It took a half-second for the pack to lower, and only a fifth of a second to fire all 24 rockets. After firing, the rockets fanned out in a predetermined pattern reminiscent of a shotgun blast.