are suggestive 07 AP, particulary the reported disappearance of the first
track as the UFO appeared to overfly the Bentwaters GCA radar. Against
this must be wf"igh\~d the Lakenheath controller's statement that there
was "Iittle or no traffic or targets on scope," which is not at all
suggestive of AP conditions, and the behavior of the target near LaKenheath
apparent 1)' continuou5 and easily tracked. The "tai ling" of the RAF
fighte:r., taken alone, seems to indicate a possible ghost image, but this
does nut jibe with the report that the UFO stopped following the fighter,
as the latter was returniTlg to its base) and went off in a different
direction. lhe radar operators were apparently careful to calculate
the speed of the UFO from distances and elapsed ti~es. and the speeds
were reported as consistent from run to run, between stationary episodes.
litis behavior would be 50~ewhat consistent with reflections from mov-
ing atmospheric layers - - but- not in so many different directions.
Visual mirage at Bentwaters seems to be out of the question
because of the combined ground and airborne observations; the C47
pilot apparently saw the UFO below him. The 'J1sual objects do not
seem to have been mt"teors; statements by the observers that meteors
were numerous imply that they were able to differentiate the UFO from
the metoers,
In summary, this is the most puzzling and unusual case in the
radar-visual files. TIle apparently rational l intelligent behavior of
the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most
probab Ie explanation of this ~ ighting. However, in vi.ew of the in-
evitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional cxplanktions of
this report cannot be entirely ruled out.
246
are suggestive 07 AI', particulary the reported disappearance of the first
track as the IJFO appeared to overfly the Bentwaters GCA radar. Against
this must be wf'igh(~d the Lakenheath controller'~ statement that there
was "Ii ttle or no traffic or targets on scope," which is not at all
suggestive of AP conditions. and the behavior of the target near LaKcnheath
apparently continuous and easily tracked. The "tailing" of the RAF
fighter.. taken alone. seems to indicate a possible ghost image. but this
does nut jibe with the report that the UFO stopped following the fighter,
as the latter was returniJ~ to its base, and went off in a different
dir~ction. lhe radar operators were apparently careful to calculate
the speed of ~he UFO from distances and elapsed times. and the speeds
were reported as consistent. from run to run, between stationary episodes.
1his behavior would be so:newhat consistent with reflections from mov-
ing atmospheric layers -- but" not in so many different directions.
Visual mirage at Bentwaters seems to be out of the question
because (If the combined ground and airborne observations; the C47
pilot apparently saw the UFO below him. The '/isual objects dfJ not
seem to have been meteors; statements by the observers that meteors
were numerous imply that they were able to differentiate the UFO from
the mctoers.
In slUnmary, this is the most puzzling and unusual c.ase in the
radar-visual files. TIle apparently rational, intelligent behavior of
the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most
probable explanation of this ~ighting. However, in vi.ew of the in-
evitable fallibility of witnesses, more conventional explanktions of
this report cannot be entirely ruled out.
246