CONTENTS

Apollo 20: The Controversy Continues

South Wales Police Encounter a UFO - NEW

STS-48 - 15 Years On - NEW

STS-48: 15 years on

On September 12^th, 1991, the shuttle mission designated STS-48 blasted off from Pad 39-A at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Aboard the Discovery were astronauts John O. Creighton, Kenneth S. Reightler, Jr., James F. Buchli, Charles D. Gemar and Mark N. Brown. Their primary mission was to launch a seven-ton observatory, called the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS), into a low Earth orbit. The mission, however, became more famous for quite another thing.

On September 15^th, 1991, a camera at the rear of the shuttle’s payload bay captured something extraordinary. Focused on the distant, curving horizon, over Australia, a violent thunderstorm raged three hundred miles below Discovery. Between the Earth and the shuttle, several objects were moving in seemingly random paths. All of a sudden, another object appeared from over the horizon and began moving to the left of the camera’s field of view.

Suddenly there was a bright flash from the far left and the new object streaked away it the depths of space. Several, but not all, of the other objects also altered their courses. A second later, two streaks flashed through the frame, one of which passed close to where the new object had been.

What had the payload bay camera just witnessed? This would be a question that still causes heads to be scratched fifteen years later. The complete footage can be viewed below:

NASA’s explanation was that the objects were nothing more than ice particles and their sudden motion was caused by the source of the flash, Discovery’s manoeuvring thrusters.

This explanation did not sit well with many researchers, though, and one, Dr Jack Kasher, a physicist from the University of Nebraska and in the employ of NASA also, set about to test the ice particle theory. His method was to try and prove that the objects were indeed nothing more astounding than the chunks of ice that follow all space flights, but what his analysis proved to him was much more fascinating and not a little disturbing.

Dr Kasher enlisted the help of the microbiology department of the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. They had developed software that enabled them to plot the trajectories of tiny microbes in Lake Michigan. This software would be ideally suited to obtaining accurate data on the objects seen in the STS-48 footage. Dr Kasher also found equations to work out the 3-dimensional geometry of the footage i.e. taking the 2-dimensional image from the television screen and calculating the 3-dimensional movements of the objects depicted – basically adding the z coordinates to the existing x and y.

Armed with graphs and charts from the guys in Milwaukee, Kasher set about trying to prove the ice particle theory.

NASA explained the objects as being ice particles caught in the exhaust from the shuttle’s Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters. Kasher had to find out which of the thrusters had fired. Each orbiter has 44 thrusters (38 primary and 6 vernier).  As the flash came from the left of the camera, it must have come from one of the aft clusters, so the 16 thrusters at the forward section of Discovery can instantly be dismissed. The camera is mounted at the back of the payload bay on the right-hand side, so it is unlikely that the thrusters on that side, behind the camera would be seen, so this eliminates another 14 thrusters. So, what we have remaining are the 14 thrusters in the left-hand Orbital Manoeuvring System/Reaction Control System (OMS/RCS) pod.

The OMS engines are used for orbital insertion, orbital transfer and de-orbit functions, amongst others. Basically, they move the shuttle in space and are the largest, most powerful engines after the main ones.

The main RCS engines are used to change the attitude of the shuttle both in orbit and in the atmosphere. They control the yaw, pitch and roll functions, as well as small velocity changes along the orbiter’s axis that may be required. The vernier engines are much less powerful and are normally used for stabilising the shuttle in orbit or for station-keeping.

The upshot is that if any of the main thrusters were the cause of the flash on the screen, then the angle of the horizon should have changed as the orbiter moved in space. It didn’t, the distant horizon remained fixed. Dr Kasher calculated that if any of the relevant thrusters had fired, the picture should have rotated about 6 degrees, a motion that should clearly have been visible.

Let us assume, then, that the flash was caused by the vernier RCS firing. Remember, the camera is located at the rear of the payload bay on the right hand (starboard) side. It is looking across the left (port) side of the shuttle and up at an angle of roughly 50-70 degrees from the main body of the shuttle. The camera is focused to infinity, so we can see the horizon clearly.

Dr Kasher worked out that if the objects were ice particles, with the camera focused to infinity, the objects would have been about 65 feet or so from Discovery to be in focus. The verniers can fire from 1 to 125 seconds in steady-state mode or in pulses of 0.08 seconds. NASA designs its engines to produce a purely laminar flow, meaning that the exhaust remains, as much as possible, in a steady, even stream. The exhaust gases do expand, obviously, but could they reach a point almost a hundred feet from the shuttle at such a steep angle and still affect debris 

It should also be noted that the flash in the footage lasted for almost 0.4 seconds. So neither the steady-state thrust (1-125 seconds) or the pulse-mode thrust (0.08 seconds) match that timeframe. James Oberg countered this by suggesting that the camera only picked up part of the thrusting manoeuvre, so we only saw the back end of it, so to speak.

In an article that Dr Kasher published in the Journal of UFO Studies, he had managed to get hold of the telemetry data from STS-48 and found that the only thrusters that fired at that time were the two downward-pointing verniers on the left and right-hand sides of the shuttle (L5D and R5D – Left and Right thrusters 5, firing Downwards). Obviously the thrust from the starboard thrusters could not possibly reach the ‘ice particle’, so we are left with the portside vernier. In his article, the only way in which Dr Kasher could accept that the thrust from L5D could possibly interact with the main object was if somehow the gases ‘bounced’ off the left wing of the shuttle! If this occurred, though, it would go against the design requirements of the spacecraft, making the thrusters less effective. In the fifteen minutes preceding the ‘flashes’, the vernier thrusters fired nineteen times. Dr Kasher finds it odd that none of these other thrusters exhausts produced a ‘flash’.

The main object in the film, the one that streaks away after the flash, was found to actually stop dead in its tracks for a full half-second. Kasher’s analysis of the flash found that there were actually two flashes, a short pre-flash and the main one. It could be argued that the pre-flash was the one that stopped the object dead and the main flash was what caused it to shoot away. Unfortunately for that theory, Dr Kasher calculated that the object was actually moving away from the shuttle at the time of the pre-flash. For anything to stop it in space, it would have had to come from the opposite side i.e. the exact opposite direction in which the vernier fired! Obviously this is impossible, unless the object was some sort of controlled craft and stopped under its own power.

Using the trajectories of the two main objects, Kasher was able to discount that it was the RCS thrusters that caused them to move. He found that, drawing lines back from their trajectories after the flash, they did not converge on where the thrusters should have been. In fact, they diverged, never meeting at all!

Next, Kasher worked out (still assuming these were ice particles, remember) the actual velocities of the objects in the film, compared with what their speeds should have been if they were influenced by the thruster’s exhaust.

His calculations showed that the main object was accelerating away for 1.7 seconds at about 5-6 feet per second, while the exhaust pulse lasted for 0.4 seconds with a velocity of about 8,400 feet per second. This causes a slight problem, because the equations show that the object, if it is an ice particle, should be travelling at 98% of the exhaust velocity of the vernier thruster, which would give it a speed of about 8,300 feet per second. A slight difference!

Also, the object, if an ice particle, should be about 65 feet from the shuttle. It reacts half a second after the main flash. This means that the exhaust velocity should be about 130 feet per second. As we have seen, the velocity of the gases from the vernier rockets are in the order of 8,400 feet per second, so this is another example of how the object cannot be an ice particle close to Discovery.

Now, as we know the exhaust velocity of the vernier thrusters, we can work out how far the ‘ice particle’ would have to be from the shuttle if it took half a second to react to the flash. It turns out that it would have to be 22.2 miles from Discovery! Also, drawing a line back through the trajectory of the object places the thrusters 14.8 miles behind the shuttle. It could be argued that the shuttle is zipping through space and covers 14.8 miles quickly. At an altitude of 354 miles, the shuttle is travelling at 4.7 miles per second, so it would take over three seconds to travel 14.8 miles, not the half-second required to make the numbers fit. Also, it is unlikely that an ice particle small enough to be affected by the vernier rocket would even be visible to the camera from 22 miles away.

So, from Dr Kasher’s analysis, he cannot conceivably conclude that what we are seeing in the footage are ice particles close to the camera. His calculations seem to suggest that what we have are large objects, manoeuvring above the Earth’s atmosphere under their own power.

Kasher also calculated the acceleration of the main object. As we don’t know exactly how far away the object is, he was forced to work out figures for different distances:

• 1 mile distance means the object moved away at 10.5 Gs with a velocity of 250 mph.
• 10 mile distance means the object moved away at 105 Gs with a velocity of 2,500 mph.
• 100 mile distance means the object moved away at 1050 Gs with a velocity of 25,000 mph.
• 1000 mile distance means the object moved away at 10,500 Gs with a velocity of 250,000 mph.
• 1,710 mile distance (the horizon) means the object moved away at 18,000 Gs with a velocity of 430,000 mph.

Obviously these are forces that would crush any human pilot, were any present.

If the flash is not from the RCS rocket, then what causes it? Another strange aspect to the STS-48 footage are two streaks that zip away into space, one of them passing through the area the main object had been before the flash. What were they?

It has been suggested that the streaks were actually missiles fired from the Earth! If so, then they are extremely fast-moving missiles. A projectile from a rail gun or coil gun or a beam from a projected energy weapon has also been proposed. Was the flash from some kind of targeting system?

If the streaks were not just more bits of ice passing through the frame, then it poses a difficult question. Why are we shooting at stuff in orbit? The objects easily out-manoeuvred our attempts, but it is still a scary thought.

There were other objects caught by the camera that were also affected by the flash. On the right side of the screen, several objects, with what appeared to be flashing lights, slightly altered their trajectories after the flash. Other objects, though, seemed unaffected.

Afterwards, the camera pans down and we see a strange, triangular object for a brief period before it is swallowed by the reflected glare from the rising sun. Then we see the payload bay of the shuttle grossly out of focus. The camera adjusts and we then see it clearly, proving that the camera focus was previously set to infinity.

The STS-48 footage has become the stuff of legend in the UFO community and, despite their best efforts, NASA seems unable to explain it, sticking steadfastly to the ice particle theory. Jack Kasher’s calculations seem to prove that they are not so. Other researchers, such as Mark Carlotto, have also independently come to the conclusion that these are not chunks of ice close to Discovery.

Is this definite proof that we are not only ‘not alone’, but that we are also in conflict with somebody from beyond our planet?

I contacted Dr Kasher and he graciously answered some questions:

Dr Kasher, thank you from everybody at UFO DATA Magazine for agreeing to speak with us. Anybody with an interest in UFOs will know of your research into the famous STS-48 footage, but not everybody will know that you were working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the time. Are you still doing research for NASA and if so, what are you working on these days?

I began my research for NASA in the summer of 1992, studying supergranules on the surface of the Sun, and continued working for them off and on until I retired in 2001 from the University of Nebraska at Omaha after 33 years there. I have not done anything for them since then.

Are you also still active within the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON)?

I am currently a member of MUFON, and serve as a consultant in physics, Nebraska State Director, and Central Regional Director over 20 states in the middle of the USA. In my capacity as consultant in physics I have most recently helped analyze several pages of physics equations written by Stan Romanek both after a hypnotic session and during the night while he was asleep. Most of the equations are very advanced, and deal with quantum gravity. They are way beyond anything Mr. Romanek is capable of by himself. As Nebraska State Director I help organize and run our bi-monthly meetings, assign cases for investigation, and give UFO talks locally when asked. As Central Regional Director I communicate with the State Directors in my region, and offer assistance in any way that might be helpful.

In the last few years, ufology has been said to be in something of a decline. Do you agree with this or are you of the opinion that UFO sightings are actually on the increase?

My general sense is that UFO sightings are at least steady, if not increasing. I know that here in Nebraska we are getting more reports now than in the recent past. And the sightings down in Mexico, and the crop circles in England, continue on as well. I haven’t made a quantitative study of the issue, though; so I can only give you my impressions, which are not based on counting the number of sightings worldwide.

Going back to the STS-48 footage, your analysis has become a benchmark for the study of this particular case. Do you stand by your findings, that what appears in the film are controlled spacecraft, or do the arguments from NASA, that they are ice particles agitated by Discovery’s thrusters, now seem more likely?

I have not changed my opinion about the STS-48 footage. I still think that the objects in the video were not ice particles, but rather spacecraft out in space away from the Shuttle, exhibiting flight characteristics well beyond anything we are capable of here on the Earth.

In your analysis of the STS-48 objects, you implemented some equations that gave you the trajectories, velocities etc. of the objects based on their motion in the film. Some sceptics, such as James Oberg, have suggested that your figures are wrong. Do you still stand by them and have any of the debunkers come up with alternative figures?

To the best of my knowledge no one, including James Oberg, has come up with a detailed, rigorous, scientific analysis proving that my calculations and figures are wrong. Debunkers MUST do this, if they wish to defend the ice particle theory. Since they have not presented this analysis, and since more than ten years have passed since I published my calculations, I assume that no one can show that I am wrong. I wholeheartedly stand by my calculations and figures. To prove the objects were ice particles, it is not enough to simply watch the video and make a qualitative judgment. A rigorous quantitative analysis is needed.

There is another aspect of the video that has been somewhat overlooked. After the main flash, and immediately after the bright objects move in apparent reaction to the flash, two streaks move in straight lines up from the lower left of the picture into the regions where the objects had been. One of these streaks moves through the previous location of the main object, and the other goes through the right side of the picture, where two other objects had been. These two streaks are clearly of a different texture and appearance than the glowing objects of interest. They have a fuzzier appearance, move in straight lines, and their trajectories can be traced back to a common point that is below the lower part of the screen. No one from NASA has commented on or tried to explain the different appearance of these two streaks, which are obviously very strange ice particles, if that is what they think they are. In addition, the timing of the two streaks is very coincidental, if they are ice particles.

There has been a multitude of other NASA footage showing anomalous objects, possibly the most widely known being the ‘tether’ footage from STS-75. What are your thoughts on some of this other evidence?

I have always had a problem believing the tether footage from STS-75 shows some anomalous event. The tether itself is about 13 miles long and less than a centimeter thick. In the footage the thickness of the tether is way, way out of proportion to its length. This suggests to me some distortion in the picture caused by a camera effect. Until this can be clearly explained, I will find it difficult to interpret the tether footage in terms of something extraterrestrial. The best analysis I have seen is by James Oberg, at http://www.rense.com/general/stsd.htm.

Another Shuttle flight I find very interesting is STS-80. There were several unusual objects moving in very strange ways. The cameraman obviously noticed them, because in one instance he zoomed in on three objects as they moved fairly evenly around the right side of the Earth. I can’t say what the objects were. It would be nice if someone at NASA had tried to explain them for us.

Have any NASA astronauts commented to you about STS-48, STS-75 or any other UFO footage? What is the feeling amongst them about UFOs in general?

No astronauts have ever contacted me or commented to me about my analysis of the STS-48 footage or their belief in UFOs. However, Gordon Cooper has very clearly and publicly commented on his experiences, especially the case when a saucer landed on the runway at Edwards Air Force base in California when he was stationed there in the 1960s. Anyone wishing more details about Cooper’s experiences can find them in his book, Leap of Faith.

Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin recently stated in the television documentary, Apollo 11: The Untold Story, that on their way to the Moon in 1969, Armstrong, Collins and himself saw an unidentified object travelling alongside their craft. I mean, if it wasn’t a section of their own launch vehicle, then what could it have been? Something from the earlier Apollo missions, prior to the landing, perhaps? He also claimed that NASA ordered the men not to discuss the incident afterwards. What impact do you think this disclosure will have and do you believe it is a part of the overall disclosure program to drip-feed the public into the reality of the UFO/alien visitation subject?

I didn’t see the documentary, so I can’t comment from first hand knowledge. But if they saw something on the way to the Moon, before they got there, then it is very, very unlikely that it was something from the earlier Apollo missions. It would have to be trapped in orbit, and there wouldn’t be an orbit at that location. Also, you would think that the astronauts would recognize something from their own launch vehicle. So it is difficult to say what it was that they saw. It is also very interesting that NASA told them not to discuss the incident.

My opinion about an overall disclosure program by NASA is purely speculation; but I strongly doubt that NASA is doing this.

What do you make of the old stories that the Apollo astronauts saw ‘something’ while actually on the lunar surface? There’s a famous tale, for instance, of Armstrong and Aldrin seeing alien spacecraft ‘lined up’ on the edge of a crater. Remembering that the UFO sighting whilst en route to the Moon was essentially folklore for many years, do you think anything will happen with regard to this more dramatic story 

Like most of us in the UFO field, I am aware of this interesting rumor. I find it quite fascinating, and would love for it to be true. But I don’t think we’ll ever have the evidence to prove it. It would take a major press conference by all the astronauts involved, and I don’t think that will happen.

Since STS-48, has anything from NASA relating to UFOs piqued your interest that the general public might not be aware of?

I have no secret files or confidential cases to disclose. Those I find most interesting, like the STS-75 and STS-80 footages mentioned above, are known to the general public.

Recently, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) released a document to the public that suggested that most UFOs, those that could not be explained as terrestrial technology, were weird atmospheric phenomena such as plasmas. Have you had the chance to examine the report and, if so, what do you think of its conclusions?

I have not read the report first hand, and have only seen summaries of it. But it appears to me to be far-fetched to try to explain most UFOs as atmospheric phenomena. I wonder how many of the more than 3,000 trace cases studied by Ted Phillips were included in their report. I would guess none, since these cases would simply blow their conclusion out of the water.

2007 is likely to be a big year for ufology, being the sixtieth anniversary of the Roswell Incident. No doubt the mainstream media will latch onto it and we will be inundated with UFO-based programming for a while, probably some good, but more likely, mostly bad. What do you think of the way the mainstream media handles the UFO subject? For instance, the current series of The History Channel, UFO Files, is an excellent example, in my opinion, of good, mainstream UFO programming. At the other end of the spectrum, here in the UK, we suffered The World’s Strangest UFO Stories on Discovery, which handled the subject with a great deal of ridicule.

I would give the mainstream media mixed reviews for their coverage of UFO issues. I was disappointed with the Peter Jennings report last year on ABC; and the major networks at least part of the time seem to lean too much toward scepticism. But, as you point out, The History Channel has produced a good number of fine, objective programs recently. When I watch one I always look forward to a solid, fair treatment of whatever issue they are presenting. I hope this trend continues throughout 2007.

What are your plans for the future and how do you see ufology progressing in the years to come? Do you think we will ever get definitive answers or is the UFO enigma going to remain just that, an enigma?

I plan to continue working for MUFON in the three capacities mentioned above, especially applying my knowledge of physics when I can. As far as the future of ufology is concerned, we can always hope that the big breakthrough is just around the corner. But I recall a comment made by Dr. Leo Sprinkle at a presentation of his I attended some years ago. Someone asked if he thought we would have these definitive answers very soon, and he replied (I’m paraphrasing him) “Yes, I certainly do, very soon. I thought that in the 1960s, and in the 1970s, and in the 1980s, and in the 1990s.” In other words, we always appear to be on the brink of the big discovery, but never quite seem to get there. But it’s fun to keep trying.

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to speak with us, Dr Kasher. Everybody at UFO DATA Magazine wishes you all the best for the future.

© Steve Johnson - 2006

Below are copies of Dr Kasher's analysis:

In June and July, the UK network television broadcaster, Channel 5, aired a four-part series entitled Britain’s Closest Encounters. Produced by Firefly Film and Television Productions, the series was narrated by Anthony Head and featured UFO eyewitnesses and experts from all around the United Kingdom.

The first episode focussed upon the notorious Berwyn Mountains Incident from 1974. During the evening of January 23^rd, 1974, the town of Landrillo in North Wales was shaken by an earthquake. In nearby Corwen, Sergeant Elfed Roberts (who would go on to become the Assistant Chief Constable of North Wales Police) feared that the dam at nearby Bala had breached and rushed to investigate. Satisfied that the dam was secure, he headed for Bala Police Station, where the phones were ringing almost constantly. Reports were coming in from the residents of Landrillo about lights in the sky. A ‘ball of fire with a tail’ was seen coming down over the mountains close to the village.

Sergeant Roberts and a colleague headed out to Landrillo and witnessed an arcing, green light, with blue edges, in the sky, unlike anything Roberts had seen before. When they arrived in the village, the locals told of what they had seen. Fearful that an aircraft might have crashed, the policemen began searching the area. Commandeering a local farmer’s Land Rover, they headed up the mountain, sweeping the area with their torches. Then they decided to switch off the flashlights and waited quietly to see if anything unusual could be seen or heard.

A few miles away, local nurse, Pat Evans, also feared a plane had crashed and set off with her daughters to see if anybody required medical assistance. She described seeing a circular, red light with other lights moving around it. Meanwhile, Sergeant Roberts’ search proved fruitless.

The next day, the media descended upon Landrillo, curious about the strange story coming from the village. Astronomer, Dr Ron Maddison arrived with colleagues and began searching for what he suspected was a meteorite coming down in the mountains. No evidence was ever found of a plane crash or a meteorite impact. The mystery persisted.

The British Geological Survey had measured an earthquake in the area with a magnitude of 3.5 on the Richter Scale. So, that explained the rumbling, but what about the lights in the sky? The Royal Astronomical Society explained that a meteor shower had been visible that night and they had received reports from all over the country about particularly bright meteors.

The case was forgotten for about fifteen years, until Pat Evans spoke to Jenny Randles about what she had seen. Her story reignited the mystery. Investigators once again descended upon the area and, eventually, Nurse Evans became so fatigued with the attention that she moved abroad.

Three weeks after the earthquake, local gamekeeper, Geraint Edwards, witnessed something on the mountain that remained in his memory ever since. He described a red object, shaped like a rugby ball, but with more pointed ends, hovering sixty to a hundred feet over Pen-Y-Bryn. As he and his friends watched, it took off at high speed over the mountains.

For some bizarre reason (and this happened in every episode), the programme whisked us away from Berwyn and across the country to Derbyshire to check out another case.

In October, 2000, Sharon Rowlands saw something over Bonsall and captured it with her camcorder. She said that what she saw was a segmented disc with a dark centre that was as large as ‘a detached house’. She became very nervous when she feared that the object would land in the field close to her house. As she recorded the event, the object blinked out. When her story appeared in the local paper, UFO investigators from all over the world began contacting her. She decided to place the video tape in a vault at her solicitor’s.

Video expert, Peter Marriot, came to the conclusion that what Sharon had recorded was simply a street lamp. Sharon discounts this explanation, saying that what she saw was not a streetlight and was like nothing she had ever seen. Judging from the clip shown in this episode, just before it blinks out, there appear to be two steady lights with flashing lights accompanying them. Frankly, that looks like a conventional aircraft to me. Sorry, Sharon.

Jenny Randles explains that out of over ten thousand cases she has looked at over thirty years, ninety-five percent can be explained as IFOs, Identified Flying Objects. Aircraft, balloons, Chinese lanterns, meteors etc. fall into this category of misidentification. We are then told how Chinese lanterns have sparked a UFO wave over the UK in recent years. Andy Roberts agrees, saying that the general public are somewhat ignorant of what is in the skies above their heads and that he has seen several things that he cannot explain.

Back to Berwyn, sceptics such as Andy Roberts claimed that what Pat Evans saw was people on the mountain across the valley. These, according to Andy, were the police and farmers meeting a group of poachers. One of the poachers in question, Ieuan Roberts, is doubtful that the lights they used that night could be mistaken for anything else. He said that Pat could not have seen their lights that night.

Could so-called earthlights have been what people witnessed that night? Jenny Randles believes that this is a possibility. Earthlights are caused by tectonic stresses grinding together rocks and releasing piezoelectric energy into the sky in the form of plasma.

The programme then moved on to the alleged cover-up regarding the Berwyn Mountains Incident. Huw Lloyd, son of the farmer whose Land Rover was borrowed by Sergeant Roberts, believes that a cover-up did, in fact, take place. Nick Pope doesn’t think so. Reports of what the programme called Men-In-Black interviewing witnesses in Landrillo (although none of those interviewed described them as such on camera) were, according to Dr Roger Musson of the British Geological Survey, seismologists sent to check out the earthquake reports. 

Locals reported that army personnel arrived and deployed on the mountain, apparently searching for something. A Landrillo fireman said that the area became a virtual no-go area for a while. Andy Roberts explained sagely that what they saw was a three-man team from RAF Valley and this trio was mistaken for a ‘huge military presence searching for a crashed UFO’.

Local newspapers reported that army vehicles had been seen with soldiers loading large, black boxes. Then in 1996, a former soldier, going under the pseudonym of James Prescott, claimed in UFO Magazine that he had been part of a unit that had extracted the bodies of two dead aliens from the mountain and whisked them off to Porton Down. Elfed Roberts and Andy Roberts doubt that this story is true, citing technical and operational difficulties in getting vehicles up and down the mountain. Andy suggested that a helicopter would have been used rather than trucks. Nick Pope agreed, saying that he never heard a whiff of UFOs or aliens being connected with the Incident.

The programme solved nothing about the Berwyn Mountains Incident and believers (i.e. the people who saw what happened that night and shortly afterwards) and sceptics remain at loggerheads about the case. To quote a popular member of the UFO DATA forum: “Next!”

The next episode stayed in Wales and cast a critical eye over the infamous Broad Haven Triangle. Broad Haven is a coastal town in Pembrokeshire, South Wales and in 1977 became the global focus for UFO researchers.

On February 4^th, 1977, young David Davies was playing with his friends when they noticed something in the field behind their school. He said that a silver, cigar-shaped object, about the size of a bus, ‘popped-up’ from behind the trees and appeared as though it was trying to take-off. It paused for a few seconds and then dropped back down behind the trees. The kids ran inside and told of what they had seen. Their head teacher sat them down and asked them to draw what it was that they had witnessed.

Hugh Turnbull, a reporter for the Western Telegraph went to the school and asked David Davies to show him where they had seen the object. Hugh and David could find no tracks in the field to suggest a vehicle had been there and David noted that a telegraph pole cross-member had been dislodged and was at about forty-five degrees.

Liz Philpott, an administrator at the school, thought that what the children might have seen was a tanker truck from the nearby sewage works. Speaking to an employee of the works soon discounted that theory. She was told that a tanker truck could not get into the field in question.

Hugh ran the story and the school became the focus of worldwide attention.

That was not the end of the story, however. A few miles away, in the village of Herbrandston, Maureen Dytor was taking in some fresh air one night when she saw a ‘cylindrical object with lights’ zip across the sky in seconds. In Little Haven, Dorothy Cale was in a car one evening as a passenger. She described a series of very bright flashes that lit up the whole village. The driver hit the brakes when they saw a very bright light that appeared to have a glass dome. As they watched silently, the object flashed and vanished.

Astronomer Ian Ridpath glibly suggested that what was seen could have been a bright star or a planet.

Stephen Bamford and Robert Best saw a segmented, orange object, moving from ‘right to left’ one evening. They set out and drove towards it, in the hope of finding out what it was. As they watched, the object collapsed in on itself and disappeared. They discounted ideas such as the Moon or ships at sea and are still baffled by what they saw.

Professor Chris French admitted that multiple witness sightings should be taken more seriously than those where only a single person saw something. He added, though, that when people see things, they talk about them and stories can become interlaced.

The police and newspapers continued to receive reports from the area between Broad Haven, Milford Haven and Haverfordwest and a bone fide flap had begun. Dr David Clarke explained about flaps, citing the UK’s first one at Warminster, in Wiltshire.

The Warminster events began on Christmas Day in 1964. John Rimmer, editor of Magonia magazine, told us about strange hammerings, shakings and mechanical noises going overhead. By May 1965, sightings of lights over Warminster had begun and famed researcher, Arthur Shuttlewood, gave the world ‘The Warminster Thing’. Following Shuttlewood’s newspaper reports, dozens of skywatchers would spend each evening on the hills around Warminster hoping to catch a glimpse of something.

Kevin Goodman was one of those skywatchers and described the community spirit that arose during the long, dark hours of observations. He told of how he saw four red lights, spaced evenly apart, crossed the landscape before the lead object shot upwards at tremendous speed. It then made a ninety-degree turn and shot out of sight. About thirty seconds later the remaining three lights shot straight up into the sky.

Warminster is surrounded by military facilities of all kinds and the locals are familiar with the armed forces going about their business. Were aliens interested in these bases or were people seeing military activity from these various installations?

RAF Brawdy lies close to Broad Haven. Squadron Leader Tony Cowan explained that activity from the base could have explained some of the sightings in South Wales. Dorothy Cale said that what she witnessed was definitely not anything from the Brawdy airfield. She was quite used to seeing activity from the base. Squadron Leader Cowan admitted that there were some reports that remain a mystery.

Former RAF engineer, Gordon Bowden, explained that while regular aircraft activity can be misidentified as something mysterious, he has personally seen something that he cannot explain. On two occasions, he saw lights out to sea that accelerated with ‘impossible’ speed. He said that he knew of no aircraft at the time that could change direction so rapidly without killing the pilots.

Close to RAF Brawdy was a top secret facility that was once operated by the US Navy.

Mentioning the Americans gave us the chance to look at the Lakenheath Incident from 1956. US personnel at RAF Lakenheath and RAF Bentwaters saw something strange on their radar screens. Fighters were scrambled to intercept. David Clarke continued the story of how RAF Neatishead also picked up the unknown contacts. Numerous fighters were sent out and two gave chase, but failed to intercept or identify the objects. Dr Clarke admitted that the case has never been explained.

Then there was the big one: The Rendlesham Forest Incident. We all know this story from 1980 about lights being seen in the woods between RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters and Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt’s venture through trees, recording the audio as he went and the subsequent memo. Nick Pope thinks it’s a supremely important case, while Ian Ridpath thinks it was Orford Ness lighthouse. Pope disagrees, saying that in no way could the lighthouse be mistaken for anything else. Ridpath countered with an explanation consisting of a meteoric fireball. “If it was nothing more than a lighthouse and a fireball, why were the base personnel not allowed to talk about it?” asked Anthony Head.

Anyway, back to Broad Haven and the top secret US Navy facility. When the base was decommissioned, it was revealed that it had simply been monitoring Soviet submarine activity and housed only computers and stuff. Mystery solved, then. Well, not really, because strange things were still happening.

Dozens of reports of silver-suited figures landed on the desk of local bobby, Ernest Jones. One in particular made the headlines. It came from the Coombs family at Ripperston Farm. The Coombs’ story has become infamous and they no longer wish to discuss what happened to them thirty years ago. Ernest, though, picked up the story from his perspective. He received a call from them and went out to the farm. He was told that a silvery figure had been seen close to the window and it had terrified the family to such a degree that the policeman made arrangements for them to spend the night elsewhere.

David Clarke found that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had found the reports from Broad Haven intriguing and they had made discreet enquiries into the events there. They came to the conclusion that ‘a local prankster’ was behind some of the events, particularly the silver-suited figure.

Glyn Edwards, a businessman from Milford Haven, owned up to being the culprit. He had cobbled together a silver spacesuit for a fancy dress dinner and decided to lurch about the village, scaring any local people that stumbled across him. He denied ever visiting Ripperston Farm, however. 

As with all flaps, the sightings diminished and the press moved on, but the mystery remained. Again, those who witnessed these things stand by their stories, but the sceptics claim to know better.

On the night of November 28^th, 1980, PC Alan Godfrey was investigating a report of cattle wandering around a Todmorden, West Yorkshire. As he drove along a damp Burnley Road, he saw what he thought was a staff bus that had skidded across the road. As he drew closer, though, it became apparent that this was not what he was looking at.

He described a diamond-shaped object with a rotating lower section. He tried contacting the station using both of his radios, VHF car radio and his UHF handheld radio, but neither worked. He decided to make a sketch of the object. Then there was a brilliant flash and he was further along the rode driving. He glanced in his mirror, but the object was gone. He pulled up and got out of the car. Checking the area where the object had been, he saw that it was dry in a circular or whirlpool pattern, as though the rotating section of the craft had agitated leaves and twigs into this pattern.

Puzzled, Alan returned to the police station. He told his colleague, Malcolm Agley, what he had seen and Malcolm saw no reason to disbelieve him, having known Alan for six years.

While at the station, Alan realised that about half an hour of time could not be accounted for. He also found that the sole of his boot was split across. He also had an irritating itch on his foot. On removing his sock, he found a circular red mark on his instep that was very itchy.

The next day, he was told by an inspector that three officers in nearby Halifax had also had some sort of encounter. Asked for a statement for the inspector’s report, Alan was pleased that he was not alone in having something bizarre happen the previous night.

The three police officers in Halifax had been out searching for stolen motorbikes when they saw in the sky a ‘cold-steel, blue light’. One of the policemen, John Porter, described the light as pulsating and darting about the sky incredibly quickly in complete silence. As with Alan Godfrey’s experience, their radios were non-functioning. John said that WPC Julie Baxter admitted to be very scared. PC Howard Turnpenny, like John, was intrigued, but not afraid. As they watched, the light shot off towards Todmorden. John said, “It was completely alien to my understanding.”

Two police officers in Littleborough, some five miles from Todmorden, reported seeing a glowing orb hovering between two electricity pylons. The object then headed in the direction of Todmorden.

The late Seventies and early Eighties saw UFO sightings double. The programme connects this trend with the release of films like Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Jenny Randles investigated the Alan Godfrey case for the British UFO Research Association (BUFORA). She met Alan and felt that he was a ‘no-nonsense bobby’ who would not have reported anything unless he was certain of what he had seen.

Andy Roberts felt that Alan entered ‘some form of altered state of consciousness’ and that what he saw was actually a bus, but he interpreted it as a UFO. Alan described the object as having two rows of windows. Like a bus. Hmmmm…

Alan refuted that, explaining that what he saw was hovering off the ground, had no wheels, was a metallic colour and had black panelling or dark windows. “I know the difference between a bus and what I saw that night.” He added, “If I had got out of the car and thrown a brick at it, it would have gone ‘clang’! That’s how real it was.”

What about the sighting in Halifax? Could that have a rational explanation? Dr Ian Griffin, who used to work for NASA, but now researches asteroids from his home in Todmorden, thinks so. He cited the planet Venus, meteorites and aircraft as likely candidates. We should also consider earthlights, said Dr David Clarke, who undertook a study of the phenomenon called Project Pennine. Dr Clarke suggests that these lights follow fault lines or natural magnetic variations and can be mistaken for intelligently-controlled craft.

David Clarke looked into MoD reports about the police sightings on the night of November 28^th, 1980. He found the report from John Porter and his colleagues, but nothing about Alan Godfrey’s sighting. Dr Clarke mused if this incident just too weird to pass on to the Ministry.

UFO Data Magazine co-editor and serving police officer, Detective Constable Gary Heseltine, has compiled a database of UFO reports from police officers. He believes that police testimony should be regarded very highly concerning UFOs. Andy Roberts stated that police officers tend to see a lot of UFOs because they are out at night very often.

Between 1970 and 2000, there were over 700 UFO reports filed by police officers. David Clarke admitted that when a police officer makes a report about something they have seen in the sky that might be a UFO, it is not something they will do lightly, as it could have an impact upon their career.

In 1976, PC Patrick Tunney saw something bizarre in Wakefield, West Yorkshire. PC Tunney described three green lights gliding towards him at an altitude of about 150 feet. Suddenly, the lights banked left and streaked away.

Jenny Randles felt that Alan Godfrey’s case cemented the Pennine region’s reputation as a genuine and major hotspot for UFO activity. Eighteen months before Alan’s encounter, orange lights had been observed speeding across the skies of Lancashire.

In the early hours of November 24^th, 1979, Mike Sachs saw a bright light illuminate his bedroom. Through the window, he saw a huge, ovoid, pulsating orange-white light. As he watched, it descended into a nearby quarry.

The same night, Alf Kyme also saw a bright object, ‘the size of two double-decker buses’, pulsating different colours, but mostly orange. The object moved across the sky and descended towards the quarry 

Mike Sachs phoned Bacup police and was told that two officers had also seen the light in the quarry. Mike and his brother went to the quarry and found the policemen still there. They confirmed that they had also seen the orange object and feared that it was coming down on top of them! The four men checked out the quarry, but nothing out of the ordinary could be seen.

That night, between 2:30 and 2:50 am, over a dozen sightings came in from Lancashire and Merseyside. Dr Ian griffin suggested a satellite re-entry may have been the culprit, while Andy Roberts thought they were aircraft. Our own Russel Callaghan admitted that while ninety-nine percent of cases can be explained away, there is a small number that remain mysterious even after considerable investigation.

The MoD released a statement that between February 21^st and 24^th, 1979, military exercises resulted in aircraft flying low over the UK. Had Mike Sachs and Alf Kyme seen such an exercise? Mike thinks not because he sees all sorts of aircraft flying over the valley and what he saw was extra-terrestrial. Jenny Randles agrees that something genuinely unidentified passed over the area that night.

Getting back to Alan Godfrey’s experience, we are told that he declined hypnotic regression to find out what happened in the missing half-hour. His only experience with hypnosis was with stage hypnotists using it as entertainment. Eventually, though, he was persuaded and was hypnotised in the presence of two psychiatrists, and, coincidentally, Mike Sachs. No details were given of Alan’s case, except that he was to be regressed to a certain date and time to try and recover information about an incident that may or may not have happened. Mike described the atmosphere in the room as electric.

Under hypnosis, Alan described being taken aboard the craft by alien beings. Andy Roberts admits that when a police officer says this sort of thing, it should be taken more seriously. Professor Chris French, though, believes that under hypnosis people become confused with what is real and what is fantasy.

Alan Godfrey and Malcolm Agley were also connected with another mystery that may or may not be connected with UFOs – the case of Zygmund Adamski.

On June 11^th, 1980, Alan and Malcolm were sent out to investigate a body that had been found on a heap of coal at a local yard. Neither policeman could understand how the body got where it was without disturbing the coal beneath it. The body was that of a retired coalminer, Zygmund Adamski. Mr Adamski was from Tingley, near Wakefield and had disappeared five days earlier.

Alan explained that if Mr Adamski had climbed the heap and died, he should have been covered with coal dust, yet he was not. He had burn marks around the back of his head and a blister at the nape of his neck, where some form of green ointment had been applied.

The coroner, James Turnbull, found that Mr Adamski had died of a heart attack, but the ointment could not be identified in any toxological analysis. Speaking in 1993, the coroner admitted that it was his most baffling case and if UFOs had been said to be involved, he would only have raised ‘half an eyebrow’.

Philip Mantle added that when the Adamski case came to light, UFO researchers speculated that Mr Adamski had been the victim of a botched abduction and was dropped onto the coal heap after his death.

John Sheard, a reporter for the Sunday Mirror, wrote an article about the Adamski case and it made the front page with the headline: AMAZING UFO DEATH RIDDLE. The article resulted in the newspaper being deluged with thousands of letters and hundreds of phone calls from interested parties across the world. John also wrote about Alan Godfrey’s experience, saying that individually, the stories are fascinating, but together, with the possible connections, they are ‘dynamite’.

Andy Roberts pops up, suggesting that while Alan’s encounter may have been real to him, that does not make it real in fact. Yeah, you said that earlier, Andy…

Alan Godfrey and John Porter are reunited and have a good laugh at the thought of Alan being asleep or hallucinating his entire experience. “I’d only left the police station five minutes earlier!” he exclaimed. Philip Mantle agreed that Alan’s story has never changed and that he had more to lose than to gain from telling it. This puts it up there as a classic case from British ufology 

David Clarke adds that it does not add up that swarms of alien ships are zipping across the universe to visit us, while Ian Griffin remarks that he has not come across any UFO sighting that cannot be explained. Alan Godfrey, John Porter, Mike Sachs and Alf Kyme disagree.

The final episode investigated the most recent case featured in the series, that of the Guernsey UFO.

On April 23^rd, 2007, Captain Ray Bowyer took off from Southampton Airport on a routine Aurigny Air Services passenger flight (Flight GR544) to Alderney in the Channel Islands. He had flown the same route for ten years, but today would be different.

As he busied himself with the various duties that pilots do, paperwork, checking the instruments, checking the flightpath etc., he saw a yellowish light in the direction of Guernsey, the second largest of the Channel Islands. At first he suspected it might be sunlight reflecting from greenhouses.

When the object had not disappeared after several minutes, as you might expect sunlight reflecting from a stationary object to do, he grabbed his binoculars for a closer look. He described it as a disc-shape, pointed at each end and brilliant yellow, except for a dark band about two-thirds of the way along its length. Ray’s passengers also saw the object and could tell that the pilot was concerned, although he did not voice this to them.

Ray contacted Air Traffic Control (ATC) in Jersey, the largest of the Channel Islands. The actual recording of the conversation with Paul Kelly at Jersey ATC was then played. Ray, in a very calm voice, said that there was a bright object in his twelve o’clock position (directly ahead), describing it as cigar-shaped, and asked if they had any traffic in that area of the sky. Paul replied that there was no air traffic at Ray’s twelve o’clock position. By this time, Ray’s plane had been flying towards the object for ten minutes.

Ray handed his binoculars to a passenger and asked him to confirm what he was seeing. The passenger did so and added that another object had appeared in addition to the first. John and Kate Russell, two of the passengers also confirmed that a pair of bright objects was directly ahead of them.

Captain Bowyer estimated that the objects were about the size of a Boeing 737 airliner, assuming that they were approximately five to ten miles away. He later concluded that he had first seen them from about fifty-five miles distance, making the objects much, much larger, perhaps a mile across.

Paul Kelly reiterated that nothing was ahead of Ray’s plane for at least forty miles. The pilot of a Blue Islands Airways plane came on the radio and confirmed that an object was in the vicinity. Ray was relieved to arrive safely and on time at Alderney airport. Once they were safely parked, Ray admitted to his passengers that what they had seen was something he had not experienced in over twenty years of flying. The sighting had obviously affected him because one of the ground crew told him that he looked like he had seen a ghost 

At Jersey ATC, Paul Kelly filled in the forms necessary when a UFO is reported and he asked Captain Bowyer to fax him the notes that he had taken during the flight. Paul said that on the form, there is a phone number for the MoD and when you dial it, you get an answering machine. Paul faxed his report to the Ministry and waited to see what happened.

News of the sighting spread around the islands and Joel de Woolfson, of the Guernsey Press, contacted Ray. The newspaper reported the sighting seriously and word spread, soon reaching the national media, both print and broadcast, with Ray appearing on popular talk show, Richard & Judy.

Dr David Clarke found the case fascinated and offered to investigate the sighting. Ray had had many offers from researchers to look into the report, but he waited until he felt that somebody could perform an unbiased assessment of his experience.

Dr Clarke assembled a team and they began looking at alternative explanations for what Ray, his passengers and the Blue Islands pilot had seen.

Meanwhile, atmospheric physicist, Dr Grant Allen, had created a computer model of the weather patterns for that day and found that there was a temperature inversion that could have created the illusion witnessed. Ray is convinced that what he saw was not an atmospheric effect. What he was ‘was tangible’.

Troy Queripel, a pilot for Flybe, believed that what Ray saw was real, but was of military origin. He pointed out that there are restricted military airspace zones around the Channel Islands and that what the Aurigny pilot may have seen was a secret test program.

David Clarke contacted the MoD, who denied that any military activity occurred in the area at that time.

Seven weeks earlier, Alderney builder, Paul Gaudion, was alone at the northern tip of the island at about 6:30 am. He saw two lights just below the cloud base, appearing to ‘bob about’ at a height of about three hundred feet. Paul explained that the only aircraft normally visible at that time would be the plane carrying newspapers to Guernsey. Suddenly one of the lights darted to the west and when Paul looked to where it had gone, he could see about twenty similar lights in a ‘broken arrow-head shape’. This group of objects was moving silently south below the cloud base towards Guernsey.

Professor Peter Sammond, of University College London, believed that what might have been seen were earthlights. Four days after Ray’s sighting, Kent was rocked by the largest earthquake in the region for fifty years. Alderney lies close to a fault line called the Alderney-Ushant fault. Could the build-up to the earthquake have generated the forces necessary to create the earthlight phenomenon over the island? Professor Sammond admits that earthlights are unlikely to form over water, as the energy requires to be released directly into the atmosphere.

It was then time for one of the series’ little detours. In June, 1954, Captain James Howard was flying his BOAC Stratocruiser from New York to London when he sighted something bizarre in the sky. He explained in a BBC news report from the time that he saw an object that changed shape and that he was convinced it was under intelligent control. Best-selling author and UFO researcher, Timothy Good, explained that pilot sightings from the UK began in about 1950 and peaked in 1952. Winston Churchill demanded answers about the ‘flying saucer problem’, but he was fobbed off by his advisors, telling him that everything was under control and all the sightings had been explained. The reports continued to come in, though.

In October, 1954, Flight-Lieutenant James Salandin took off in his twin-engined Meteor jet from RAF North Weald in Essex. When he reached 16,000 feet, he saw three objects ‘come down’. At first he thought they were aeroplanes, but when he was about 800 yards away from them, two of them peeled-off to the left. One was silver in colour, while the other was gold and both were saucer-shaped with ‘buns’ on top and below. The third object closed to within 200 or 300 yards before moving away to follow the other two craft. Salandin attempted to follow them, but they were too fast.

Professor Richard Wiseman believes that when pilots see strange phenomena in the sky, it all happens too fast for them to report it accurately. They may be honest and sincere, but are they accurate? Ray had twelve minutes to watch the objects he encountered.

David Clarke listened to the ATC recordings of Captain Bowyer’s sighting and heard Paul Kelly say that there was an object at Ray’s ten o’clock position and about three miles away. Could this be what the pilot was looking at? It was explained as anaprop or anomalous propagation. This is when radar is deflected by atmospheric phenomena, reflections from the sea, solid objects such as flocks of birds or many other sources. Dr Clarke had the radar recordings analysed to see if anything concrete could be obtained from them. More of that in a bit…

First, we made another detour to another pilot sighting from 1971. Wing-Commander Alan Turner was, at the time, a Duty Military Supervisor at RAF Sopley in Hampshire. He was informed of an odd radar return of a pair of objects east of Salisbury Plain and travelling south-east. As they watched, more blips appeared on the screen, all from the same location. In all, he said there must have been thirty to thirty-five contacts.

Alan concluded that the only aircraft capable of the speeds being shown were the English Electric Lightning fighters, but Alan cannot imagine all of those aircraft being deployed at the same time in the same area. The Wing-Commander ordered two Canberra bombers, which were inbound from Germany, to vector towards the blips and one of the pilots reported in a jittery voice, “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.”

Alan reported that, in all, seven different radar stations (six on the ground and the one in the Canberra) detected these objects. He gathered together all of the video and audio recordings and made the appropriate entries into his log. More than thirty years later, the MoD has not made those recordings or Alan’s log public. David Clarke suggested that the Ministry may have just been baffled by what happened and simply did not want the public to know that they had no clue.

Back to Ray Bowyer’s sighting: the Jersey ATC engineers had analysed the radar recordings and stripped away all known radar contacts. This left two traces that were yet to be identified, one travelling north, the other south.o:p>

After checking timetables, David Clarke’s team came to the conclusion that at least one of the radar tracks was of a ferry on a regular run across the Channel. The final report about Captain Bowyer’s sighting, however, was inconclusive. David suggests that rather than calling what Ray saw a UFO, it should be classed as a UAP, an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, something that is natural in origin, but is yet to be understood by science.

Ray admitted that he was disappointed that Dr Clarke’s team had come to no definite conclusions about the case. His final words emphasised his belief that what he saw ‘was not from around here’.

This four-part series was very well-made and appeared to give believers and sceptics equal opportunity to get their points across. It is good that network television stations are prepared to broadcast programmes of this nature and while Channel 5’s ratings are nowhere near that of BBC1 or ITV, it still was able to bring the UFO subject to a wider audience in a serious manner.

As with all programmes of this nature, it might be naïve to expect any definite answers about the topics discussed and we certainly did not get any answers at all from this series, only the reporting of mysteries that have yet to be solved. That is the nature of the beast in the UFO field and paranormal issues in general. It is difficult to bolt on solid, scientific strictures to phenomena that are, at best, transient and unrepeatable. Even when we have solid evidence, such as radar traces or multiple eyewitnesses, we still have a certain amount of uncertainty in how to evaluate that information. Different people will have a different perspective on what that data is telling us. So we are back to square one with a mystery.

Top marks for trying, though.

SJ

Footnote:

The report into Captain Bowyer’s sighting by Dr Clarke’s team can be viewed at http://www.guernsey.uk-ufo.org:80/

Coincidentally, I stumbled across a YouTube video of what I believe is Ray’s plane coming in to land at Alderney airport in March 2007, just a month or so before his sighting. It can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsFS8NmuOAM

South Wales Police Encounter a UFO

On Friday 20th June, 2008, we had another big UFO story to hit the mainstream media. Many newspapers, ranging from The Sun to The Telegraph picked it up and television news reports also ran the story.

Initial reports told us that a helicopter operated by South Wales Police had to take avoiding action when an unidentified object approached the aircraft. The surprised officers in the chopper gave chase, pursuing the UFO across the Bristol Channel into North Devon, before running low on fuel and being forced to return to base.

At the time of the near-miss, the helicopter was waiting for clearance to land at the military base at St Athan, near Cardiff, and hovering at about 500 feet (152 meters).

The Telegraph Online reported: “A spokesman for South Wales Police said: “We can confirm the Air Support Unit sighted an unusual aircraft. This was reported to the relevant authorities for their investigation.”

“It was reported that the aircraft closed in at great speed, aiming straight for the helicopter which swerved sharply.

““They are convinced it was a UFO. It sounds far-fetched, but they know what they saw.”

The Sun went on: ““After the near-collision they decided to follow it to find out what the hell it was. They belted across the Bristol Channel in pursuit, but it was too quick. They got to the North Devon coast and had to turn back because they were running low on fuel.”

“The chopper is crammed with hi-tech cameras and surveillance gear, but the UFO somehow avoided being caught on film.

“Strangely, the crew could not see the craft with night-vision goggles – but all said it was “clearly visible” to the naked eye on the night of June 7.”

The BBC reported: “A South Wales Police spokesperson said: “The crew are very experienced and responded in a professional manner in relation to what they saw.

““In today's skies, there are a wide variety of aircrafts which come in a range of different shapes and sizes and in all probability, this sighting has just confirmed that one of these was in the area at the relevant time,” the spokesperson added.

“A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said they had heard nothing about the incident.

““But it is certainly not advisable for police helicopters to go chasing what they think are UFOs,” the spokesperson said.”

An amendment to the BBC’s initial report contained the following:

“George Withrington, of St Mellons, said he reported the sighting to police and was given an incident number.

“The ex-RAF glider pilot said he was sitting in his garden reading a book on 8 June when he spotted the object at around 1620hrs. 

““I was looking at an aeroplane overhead when I spotted this thing was in the corner of my eye.

“It shifted direction very quickly, in the blink of an eye.

“I looked at it for quite a while, I was watching it for at least 10 minutes. It flew off towards the east, towards Newport.”

I contacted South Wales Police (SWP) and asked them for any information they could pass on to us. Oonagh Moore from the SWP Press Office replied the very same day. The email read:

““South Wales Police can confirm the South & East Wales Air Support Unit sighted an unusual aircraft. This was reported to the relevant authorities for their investigation. In today's skies, there are a wide variety of aircrafts which come in a range of different shapes and sizes and in all probability, this sighting has just confirmed that one of these was in the area at the relevant time.”

“Extra information:

“**It was not a flying saucer and has not been described as so.

“**The helicopter did not chase it.

“**The police helicopter was not attacked.

“**The unusual aircraft did not speed straight at the helicopter.

“**The helicopter did not have to swerve sharply to avoid being hit and
the crew would not have been “dead” as stated in The Sun.

“**The helicopter did not follow it, or chase it, across the Bristol
Channel and the North Devon coast.

“**We haven't confirmed any of the details in The Sun story and a lot of
the details are inaccurate.

“**The South & East Wales Air Support Unit is a facility shared between
South Wales Police and Gwent Police.”

I never mentioned The Sun in my initial contact with SWP, so I do not know why they have picked on that particular newspaper. The same basic story appeared in several other places, such as The Telegraph. Perhaps it’s because The Sun is the most widely-read newspaper in the country. 

What was this mystery aircraft that almost collided (or didn’t) with a police helicopter? Was it a secret, military aircraft or drone? Was it a genuine unidentified flying object? Well, as it has not been identified yet, that’s exactly what it is.

Did the pilots pursue the UFO? Early reports suggested they did, but the South Wales Police press release says that they did not. What sources furnished the news media with the details of the encounter and can they be trusted?

I contacted the author of the article in The Sun, John Coles, asking about his sources. He replied that he could not identify the source, but did say that “they are well-placed”.

On Tuesday 24^th June, a BBC report claimed to have solved the mystery. A wedding party in Cowbridge, close to St Athan, set off about thirty Chinese lanterns between 11pm and 2am on the evening in question. The groom, Lyn Thomas, said: “There's no doubt in my mind it was our lanterns. We went on the internet on our honeymoon in Turkey and saw a report about this UFO. I thought, “Oh no, it was exactly the same time and I remember they were going straight towards St Athan way.”

He added, “I read about the UFO on the BBC website and saw it had had coverage in India and in the New York Times. It made us laugh. I suppose this sheds a bit of light.”

SJ

Planet X:

What’s Going On In The Outer Solar System?

The theories about Planet X are among the most popular in ufology. There are many, many websites, books, videos and magazine articles about this mysterious, and possibly mythical, member of our solar system.

Before we proceed further, let’s take a potted history of the solar system’s ‘back of beyond’... The term ‘Planet X’ came about when astronomers were looking for a planet beyond the orbit of Neptune. The ‘X’ simply meant ‘unknown’.  The first contender for the term, though, was Uranus. For millennia, there were only six planets sharing space: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Of course, our ancestors didn’t realize they were planets and called them ‘wandering stars’, which is what ‘planet’ means. Their orbits make them move quite quickly against the background stars, you see.

Although Uranus is sometimes just visible to the naked eye, it wasn’t ‘officially’ discovered until Sir William Herschel spotted it in 1781. Fifty-five years later, Neptune brought the Sun’s planetary tally up to eight.

When Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, we suddenly had nine planets orbiting the Sun, so the search for Planet X became the search for the tenth planet. ‘X’ is ten in Roman numerals, obviously.

For over seventy years, Pluto was held as the outermost member of the Sun’s family, a tiny, rocky/icy body that had an orbit like none of the other planets. Its orbit brought it inside that of Neptune for several years and its orbit is at an angle very different to that shared by its eight cousins. The other eight planets orbit in what is called ‘the plane of the ecliptic’. They all share this orbital slice of space within a few degrees of each other. You might liken the solar system to a dinner plate, with the Sun being a big baked potato in the middle and the planets being, say, peas placed on the plate at regular intervals.

Pluto, though, is a pea that some naughty kid is throwing at the plate from above. Its orbital inclination is seventeen degrees from the ecliptic. Pluto was also much smaller than expected, being only 2,390km (1,485 miles) in diameter. The search for Pluto was sparked by an apparent eccentricity in the orbit of Neptune. It seemed that something was tugging at the gas giant and affecting its orbit. Pluto was way too small to have this kind of an effect. It turned out that an error had been made and Neptune was not being pulled by a massive body somewhere in the far reaches of the solar system.

In 1992,