*~~~~~
*~~~~~~~
UFOs of
March 30th/31st 1993 Explained!
© Gary
Anthony & Chris Fowler, November, 2006..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A non-profit website. All documents and images
reproduced under license and with permissions.
This web page has been developed to address fallacious and
misleading assumptions both spoken and visual made by the UK Channel 5
documentary ‘The UFO
Mystery, Stranger Than Fiction’ that aired on Wednesday, 1 November, 2006.
This site predominantly deals with the space debris component of the alleged
March 30th/31st 1993 UFO sightings over the UK and tries
to place them in proper context. Offering limited but useful insight and links
to the official reports, whether explained or not by space debris. This page
also indicates what remainder of sightings may have other explanations and
identifies those that cannot be explained..
Introduction
On the night of 30th and morning of the 31st
of March, 1993, UFO sightings were reported across the UK and parts of Europe.
The UK witnesses to these various events during approximately a seven-hour
period hail from varied backgrounds, including policemen in Devon, Cornwall and
Wales, RAF personnel and civilians, many officially reporting what were
initially UFOs to the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The bulk of sightings occurred at around 01:10 am local time on
the 31st March describing ‘two cream-white’ coloured lights
traversing across the sky sometimes seen emitting tail-like plumes or
projections and going from a north-west to south-eastern aspect of the
sky.
Sightings occurred earlier on the 30th March
particularly at 21:30 from Birch Wood, 22:10 towards the Camelford area and one
at 22:40 reported to RAF Finingley.
After the 01:10 local time sightings on 31st March,
there were later reports. An account by elver fishermen near Bridgewater
describing a catamaran shaped UFO at around 02:00 local time and one from two
guards on duty at Ternhill Barracks reporting lights. Finally there was an account from a meteorological officer Wayne
Elliott, describing an object that moved erratically, possibly low to the
ground emitting a beam near RAF Shawbury at 02:40 – 02:50 local time..
Contemporaneously Nick Pope
the then Ministry of Defence UFO desk officer (Sec (AS) 2a) officially chased
up the sightings receiving a number of reports from across the UK, but
especially from Devon, Cornwall and Wales.
However the number of official UK reports received and how they are
lumped together may be at question. In
places Pope alleges several hundred witnesses,
whereas actually the official files only record less than forty sightings. Doug
Cooper of Devonshire UFO Research Organisation (DUFORO) and British UFO Research Association (BUFORA)
vigorously investigated the 30/31 March 1993 events and received quite a number
of reports before Nick Pope had gone into work the following day to answer
enquiries about them. Cooper despatched
no less than thirty-three UFO report forms to witnesses, liasing with Nick Pope
in trying to uncover what might be behind the sightings.
A few theories for the UFO sightings have been postulated and
beside the popular extraterrestrial hypothesis, (ETH) both space debris and the
super secretive elusive hypersonic Aurora plane were considered possible
causes. Irish
newspapers and radio initially favoured Aurora at the time. The Aurora
speculation featured in an official loose minute 22 April 1993, sent up the
official chain of command by the Head of Sec (AS) MoD to Assistant Chief of the
Air Staff (ACAS). *1.
The Space Debris
A space debris re-entry of satellite rocket booster (R/B) 22586
from Cosmos
2238 occurred over Ireland, Devon, and Belgium around 01:10 am local time
on the 31st March 1993. Undoubtedly
this re-entry caused most of the sightings.
In March of 1993, I was an astronomical consultant to BUFORA and
recall Jenny Randles interest in these events and the investigation that
transpired. They represented unfolding evidence to support Jenny’s adduced
theories of witness misperception of natural, if albeit unusual events and in
joining dots to arrive at false descriptions of shape, distance and size. *6,
*8.
Members of the BUFORA National Investigation Committee (NIC) were
interested in the March 1993 sightings and were able to confirm the trajectory
first calculated by space expert T.S.
Kelso as a realistic
explanation for most of the sightings.
BUFORA had experienced another Cosmos
re-entry in the winter of 1978 that caused comparative events to these and
which generated speculation about massive cigar and other shaped UFOs with rows
of windows over the UK. Bernard J
Delair of Contact UK, followed up the1978 sightings (See table1, table 2, table 3, shapes 1, shapes 2, 1978 map for
comparison). *5. The December 31, 1978, Cosmos 1068 launcher re-entry sightings also
had civilians, policemen and military personnel inaccurately reporting UFO,
directions, times and altitude from locations all over the UK. The 1978 sightings featured in UFO
literature and are contained in a file at The National Archive attesting
how multiple witness UFO sightings are misperceived. (See a few references at
*5, *6, *7).
Getting back to the 1993 March sightings, Devonshire investigator
Doug Cooper, in a letter to the MoD dated 26 May, 1993, made mention to Nick
Pope stating he was ‘certain the majority of 01:10 am sightings were of the
space debris.’ According to the official files Nick Pope had consulted MoD
departments in defence intelligence DI50, DI55c and Fylingdales
BMEWS in trying to determine a trajectory for the 22586 debris. But the files do not reveal any
trajectory plot or information crucial in understanding how witnesses from
different locations could observe a single phenomenon, sometimes seen in
different directions? Nor did the MoD make necessary comparisons with
other such events..
Below is a screen grab of an accurate simulation, using the last
element data set for 22586 provided by NASA that I did of the space debris
re-entry orbit, employing STS Orbit Plus program by David H Ransom. (Thanks
David). A large icon (usually used to represent
the Hubble Space Telescope HST) is conveniently utilised to show more clearly
where 22586 was on the 31st March around 01:10 local time BST at the
moment re-entry was recorded elsewhere. ** (positions were calculated and
double-checked the old fashioned method -- using pencil, paper and grey cells,
I am willing to address more technical details, calculation methods and
considerations with enquirers in email at gary@uk-ufo.org
where time permits).**
STS Orbit Plus screen, of 22586
re-entry used by permission. (in
greyscale)
The re-entry track traversed south-easterly over the UK, through
Ireland and Devon and may account for delineated and different directions in
the official witness
reports for the sightings at or near the 01:10 local time. The re-entry was
observed from Ireland before crossing over the Irish Sea to Devon. The circular line shows it’s potential
visibility from most parts of the UK, if intervening weather conditions or
geographical features did not interfere.
This simulation using the NASA Space Command element data proves T.S. Kelso was correct in his early
estimate in 1993. After
corresponding with T.S. he informed me he had used his TrakStar code (based on SGP4) to analyse the
last orbit back in 1993. To be certain,
more recently I sought the qualified assistance of Dr. Nick Johnson of NASA
Space Debris Program in June 2004 and asked Dr. Johnson to separately calculate
the position of 22586 for March 31, 1993.
Dr Johnson emphasised that ‘Sat. No.
22586 was over Southern UK at 0010 GMT on 31 March 1993, heading in a
south-easterly direction.’
In a following email Dr Johnson remarks ‘You will need to check to
see if the UK was on Summer time on 31 March.
My guess is that it was.’
[Technical Note:- Time is
expressed in Greenwich Meant Time (GMT) and we had changed to British Summer
Time (BST) on the 28
March 1993 So an hour needs adding
to Dr Johnson’s GMT time. The
simulation above calculates the trajectory against accurate UK local times in
BST. Data used to extrapolate the track
simulation is from the last observation of 22586 from a tracking station and in
such data elements, times are expressed in Julian time (*4) and can
be used to calculate orbits within acceptable range, at location and in any
expression of time. Since this was a
rocket booster from immediate Cosmos 2238
satellite launch it was current knowledge at the time].
According to Chris Fowler, American ‘UFOlogist’ Dr. Richard Haines
recently also calculated the final orbit and concurs space debris explains the
bulk of sightings around 01:10 am local time on the 31st March, 1993
over the UK. So the separate
corroboration of space debris by four separate experts confirms the Fylingdales
BMEWS estimate and now we can move on to how it accounts for the largest fraction of
the official total March 31st, 1993 sightings. Including all, if not
most of those close to the 01:10 local time.
Examination of the sighting reports by comparison to the space
debris appearance and trajectory and with the details of the 1978 re-entry
should answer a number of possible doubts and criticisms about how fundamental
details can be falsely reported in multiple witness sightings. See Joe McGonagle’s Cosford, 1993 UFO web
page at www.uk-ufo.org/cosford/sightings.html
for breakdown of all official sighting reports.
Sighting
8 at 00:15
Haverford West describing the same visual details as the 01:10 batch may be a
confused time, out by as much as one hour and five minutes in reference to a
watch or clock perhaps not yet adjusted to reflect the BST change. Another
clue for sighting 8 is that if we make a simple assumption that the object
crossed the width of St Brides Bay in about 25 seconds as the witness stated
this sighting is over the Irish Sea right in the debris transit track (placing
it possibly in the right region of the atmosphere and travelling at meteoric
velocities).
What’s not generally known in the UFO community -- up until now --
is that this particular spectacular space debris was anticipated and observed
and recorded by space enthusiasts here in the England, in Ireland and France
and that it featured in Phillip Clark's ‘Worldwide
Satellite Launches, 1993, "Decay from orbit was observed in Ireland and
Belgium, the final burn-up coming approximately at 00.10 GMT on March 31."
Although in the UK, in the public gaze at least, ironically it was morphed into
a UFO. (GMT and Universal Time are used frequently in astronomical measurements
and expressions of time).
Although space debris entry into our
atmosphere is an everyday occurrence, it’s not often a rocket booster burns up
over the UK. A booster is quite large by comparison to common natural sand
grain or pea sized meteoric events. The booster and associated fragments
incandesced brightly perhaps somewhere beyond half a minute or so.
Here are two images of the re-entry of
Compton Gamma Ray Observatory on June 4, 2000 courtesy of NASA’s Dr. Nicholas
Johnson. There’s a single main light,
now for some conceptualisation, imagine what two, possibly three would look
like. There’s a note that 22586 may have fragmented. *9.
The Channel Five Documentary, Official Assessment and Files
In a message to Ufology
UK mailing list on Smartgroups about ‘The British UFO Mystery – Stranger
Than Fiction documentary, Jenny Randles commented that she hoped after 13 years
Nick Pope had learned investigative lessons from the 1993 March UFOs case and
that the documentary would be objective. *10. However David Clarke, who took
part in Channel Five’s (C5) show and who was privy to an advanced screening
adversely expressed an opinion it was both unbalanced and misleading.
After watching the documentary myself, I wondered if Nick Pope had
lost the real plot or not because in places there were exaggerative comments
and the reports were misrepresented both by Nick and in the visual continuity
and the narrating voice. The presentation was more geared towards Pope’s own
personal and theatrical interpretation of the sightings and was laid out
fallaciously for an unsuspecting public.
Relevant information was not included, witness participation was minimal
and some of the facts presented were grossly out of context. That’s the nature
of entertainment I guess! Hopefully
this web page may address some of what was missing from the C5 documentary in
an objective manner.
A message to the International
UFO Updates Mailing List on 1 November by Nick Pope advertising the
documentary beforehand suggested it might not be objective. In this public post
Pope comments ‘A cluster of the sightings may have been attributable to
the burning up of a Russian rocket, but many of the others were harder to
explain. Many of the witnesses were police and military personnel and the UFO
was described by some as a vast triangular shaped craft, capable of
accelerating in seconds from a virtual hover to speeds of around Mach 2.’ These two sentences are indeed
misleading, especially contrasted against analysis of the file contents and the
witness reports, this statement is untrue.
Firstly there is little evidence to substantiate a vast triangular
shaped craft that travelled at Mach 2 from a hover. (See The Meteorological
Officer’s Sighting). Neither is there
anything to substantiate proof that ‘many’ of the others [sightings] were
harder to explain.’ After reasonably ruling out the very large ‘cluster’
attributable to space debris, not ‘many’ reports remain. See Joe McGonagle’s Cosford website at www.uk-ufo.org/cosford for details of
all the official reports from the files.
The whole C5 feature seemed to be mostly how brilliant Nick Pope’s
assessment of the March 30/31, 1993 sightings was but disappointingly that was
flawed as Pope proved incapable of reaching the right conclusions about certain
of the sightings. He clearly has fallen
into the trap of not recognising salient features and errors of multiple
witness reports, making links that do not exist and falling back on the
questionable prowess of ‘trained observers,’ endowed with super-human abilities
of discerning distance, altitudes and size in lights seen at night. A real house of cards.
The programme featured only one witness, a lady who saw a row of
lights whilst driving home. For the 45-minute plus feature exclusively on these
sightings none of the official witnesses used to bolster the theme appeared.
Four years ago David Clarke requested the official documents from the
MoD under the then existent Code of Practise (CoP) and was supplied with both
the D/Sec(AS)12/7 and D/DI55/108/15/2 files covering the March 30/31st
events, a check with the MoD by anyone will confirm Clarke’s
correspondence. Realising that most
of sightings were explicable by the debris, we were still curious to learn why
Nick Pope continued to make a big deal of lumping them together in the strange
way he does? David Clarke asked me to
re-evaluate the satellite debris component and make sure as best as I could
where it was and compare this to all the official sightings. On reading through
and carefully analysing the documents I was disappointed to find very scant
references in support of Pope’s reasoning and multitude of various conflicting
public statements about the March 30/31, 1993 UFO sightings. *2, *3.
The official papers did help in our learning the extent and
limitations of an official enquiry into a multiple witness event. Nick Pope from his time at Sec (AS) 2a
deserves some credit in recording details in his correspondences, however there
is much more that could have been done in analysing these reports. After personally watching Pope relate
certain facts in support of his own pet theory about these events at the
Newcastle Science Festival last year, I thought he couldn’t beat that act. I was wrong… Congratulations are in order,
because never was a bigger deal or meal made of the March1993 sightings than in
the C5 feature. Thirteen years on nothing has changed Pope’s mind about the
majority of sightings – it’s stuck in limbo-like stasis but the official files
demonstrate that the UK’s second best case is in need of a big bandage and
clearer revision.
.
Chris Fowler separately requested *all* of the March 30/31 1993,
UFO documents from the MoD under the new UK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
independently last year featuring on the Internet and recording Chris’s first impressions. After going through the official documents
carefully Chris said he too noticed many of the sightings occurred
around the time of the space debris and that he had spotted other questionable
points relating to how those just outside the time possessed the same
descriptions. Chris emailed Nick Pope
on at least three occasions afterwards, asking for clarification of certain
points but was fobbed off leaving a series of valid questions unanswered. Chris also emailed Timothy Good who featured
these sightings as largely unknown in his last book and learned that Good is
more prone to take Nick’s word.
Several researchers have now had opportunity to analyse every
detail of every document in the official files perspicaciously and realise the
major significance of the re-entry, as well as submit further relevant
enquiries. David Clarke wrote a
definitive article for Fortean
Times providing a reasonable backdrop to the historical and official angle,
revealing that we had substantially confirmed the presence of space debris over
the UK by consulting the NASA Space Debris Program. Clarke’s FT article also shed new insights on the meteorological
officer Wayne Elliott’s sighting and concerning Nick Pope’s subsequent
interpretation of his account and even though it’s thirteen years later, it’s
always best to consult the horses mouth than trust second-hand information or
rely on some scenario involving argumentum ad verecundiam.
In Nick Pope’s message to UFO Updates Mailing List he mentions
that ‘The documentary covers the sightings themselves, the roles of the
Defence Intelligence Staff and the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System at
RAF Fylingdales, the briefing of the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff and the
liaison with the US Government.’ The official records note Fylingdales
BMEWS were aware of the re-entry and that it was visible from the UK at 12:10
GMT. A loose minute to Head of Sec (AS)
dated 16 April confirms this, but Fylingdales didn’t calculate a clear
trajectory of 22586 for Nick Pope to superimpose against the geographical
locations. Channel 5 didn’t show any
track or plot of the satellite debris over the UK either, even though they were
provided with one?
In a handwritten statement on a loose minute addressed to DI55c
dated 7 May, 1993 there is a note asking Nick Pope to ‘drop’ his examination
and enquiries yet Nick Pope is adamant that the official enquiry and assessment
was in-depth. Perhaps it is in-depth by comparison to most other MoD UFO
assessments, but it clearly wasn’t deep enough to reach the right conclusions
about a number of the sightings, specifically those around the time of the
space debris that Nick supposes cannot be explained. It is difficult to gauge Nick Pope’s motives when his statements
are at variance so much. Five weeks had
then elapsed from the date of the sightings and the MoD in inimitable style
obviously decided (since it’s not Aurora) whatever happened no longer represented
a threat to UK Air Defence Region. Fairly, Nick Pope makes similar comment in
the C5 programme about his role of trying to determine whether these sightings
were a threat to UK airspace, the MoD’s usual remit.
In support of the above is a memorandum from DI55c dated 19 May,
1993, demonstrating the defence intelligence branches had not ‘yet
investigated’ the reports which suggests their investment was in some way
ineffectual. (What if there had been a threat to UK airspace?) We can note at
this juncture that MoD intelligence aren’t likely to go any further with the
reports, since Pope has been told to drop them twelve days before. All the defence intelligence papers end here
culminating in an open-ended file with a few loose ends and courteous correspondence
between Doug Cooper and Nick Pope along with Cooper’s investigative report. The
final letter is Nick Pope’s to Cooper of 10 June, 1993. Which in paragraph 2
reads ‘I agree that unless a sighting is explained almost immediately, there
is very little hope that it will ever be explained; perhaps if the case is
mentioned in ‘UFO Times’ it will lead to some useful feedback.’
An Important Point - UFO Sightings Close To Time Of The
Space Debris Re-entry
Nick Pope concedes in the C5 feature that the ‘high level’
sightings might be explained by space debris, as he did in the beginning during
his days at Sec (AS) 2a. But I would
like to use this opportunity to ask Nick, why the debris component is seldom
mentioned in his many intermediate public lectures and TV appearances? In the ‘The British UFO Mystery, Stranger
Than Fiction’ the high level sightings are presented as only those around 01:10
am local time and the programme visuals and Nick Pope’s comments suggest some
of the 01:10 am sightings were not of the debris, when clearly the descriptions
tally with debris reports? Nick implies in his statement of the high level
sightings that these are a minority by suggesting many others remain
unexplained. Perhaps Nick could
individually identify those he thinks cannot be accounted for by the space
debris?
Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that all sightings of the same description occurring
say somewhere up to but not exceeding 15 minutes before or after the local
debris re-entry time on the 31st March may represent actual
observations of the space debris, but not reported accurately in time,
directions or distance? That perhaps two reports are exceptions and could be
out by as much as an hour or so, simply because the witnesses referred to time
devices that had not been adjusted from the very recent change from GMT to BST?
Multiple UFO sightings comprising either one or more confirmed
significant IFO component characteristically possess an error margin accounting
for poor time reportage, it is a natural logical feature and a necessary
consideration to be factored into the evaluation, even including observations
by policemen and RAF personnel. (See table1, table 2, table 3, shapes 1, shapes 2, 1978 map for
comparison).
We know observation times are not always recorded properly and
accurately, even in officialdom by otherwise considered competent observers.
Jenny Randles recently pointed out in a message to the UFOlogy UK Mailing List
comparing these events to the winter 1978 cosmos re-entry ‘the classic 31
December 1978 event was an almost identical example where the evidence proves
what happened and reveals that the biggest timing error came from what you
might have expected to be the most reliable source - police officers reading
the time from their station clock yet clearly reporting this incorrectly as
they very obviously saw what everybody else saw and so we know the time that
they should have reported.’ *10
No one’s disputing police and military personnel
reported what they saw, only the accuracy of reports in fundamental aspects of
time, altitude estimates, shapes, size and directions reported at night. It is also not disputed that some
military reporters may know their directions and how to apply useful measures
to their observations; but again here we advise careful scrutiny of details in
all of the official
sightings. In the C5 documentary,
claims of low-flying craft, close to or at the time of the re-entry were cited
to bolster an erroneous perspective reinforced supposedly by observers who are
official police and military personnel, as a sanction of precision. This view
does not stand up in this case under scrutiny.
Readers should examine the descriptions, times and
other details from the witnesses and superimpose them against the satellite
debris track and time and try to determine fairly what may be applicable to the
space debris.
A logical argument may settle the matter of sightings with same or
similar description at or close to the time of the actual space debris
re-entry.
The reports describe significantly
a number of witnesses outdoors near the time of the re-entry.
The witnesses do not mention
seeing a spectacular event as separate to their UFO sightings, since the debris
was re-entering while they where outdoors, why is it not mentioned as a
separate item or connected in some way to their sightings? (Particularly those cited as 01:10 am local
but alleged as not of debris).
The simple answer may be
that witnesses at or close to the time were watching only space debris.
After space
debris sightings are correlated, what remains?
March 30th
UFO Sightings
What of the earlier sightings on the 30
March? There were at least four from the Devon and Cornwall area and one at
21:30 Birch Wood and another from Bradway 23:40, South Yorkshire. The most notable examples appear to be 22:10
Camelford and 22:40 reported to RAF Finingley? See sightings 2,3,4,5,6,7
Can we treat these early
sightings as part of a mass, lumped together or should they not be
concatenated?
Can any of these sightings
also be linked with the later sightings?
Certainly logic might eliminate them from the space debris batch at
least.
Where the visual descriptions
are diverse perhaps examination might determine if these should be treated
separately. More importantly is there any possible explanation for any of
them?
It seems that at the time Nick Pope was in receipt of a possible
explanation, yet strangely despite his other unprecedented early disclosures
and help offered to Doug Cooper and in the C5 documentary, Pope has never
shared at least one important piece of information. An omission that might explain the Camelford 22:10 report and
perhaps other of the reports on the 30th
from the Devon and Cornwall areas (See sightings 2,3,4,6). Recorded in the official files there is an
MoD communication dated 1st April.
It refers to the fact that on the 30th March, 1993, two Sea King helicopters
from RNAS Yeovilton
were active in the LFA 2 area up to
midnight.
[There is a more detailed
map to the LFA 2 and 2P area in the recently released Condign report Volume 2,
Chapter 9 – 17, figure 16 also worth consulting for the range of this locale.
*12 ].
With exception to the sightings from Birch
Wood and Bradway, most of the other 30 March reports indeed come from areas
within the LFA 2 region.
It’s a pity the radar
information available in the file only relates to the 31st March and
none for the 30th March because all those which are adjusted to Zulu time are by
definition one hour plus into the 31st March local
times! Where is radar information for
the 30th March?
If we have followed a reasonable path then we should arrive at
correct conclusions, working from known facts and inferences and by those presented
by both the un-official and official file sightings and resolve
there are only two witness remaining describing anything close to an actual
‘flying triangle’ Sightings
3 and 26 Sighting 3 mentioned as 30
March, at 22:40 Bradway. Remarkably through the filter of Sec (AS) 2
we learn that the witness of this sighting informed that it was ‘a triangle with red glow from it’s
centre tail area,’ ‘heading north’ and ‘just above the horizon against a light
sky’, moving ‘not slow but not too fast’ stating also that the witness ‘did
not believe in UFOs.’ A note at the bottom of the form poses the question ‘Was
Stealth in the area?’
Sighting 26, report
from Braunton Burrows, Devon of three large bright lights heading from the
south. But just lights, no mention of a discernible triangular shaped craft.
It’s possible incorrect directions are reported, as well as times
see the 1978 cosmos debris tables cited earlier for comparison.
Sighting 3, just above the
horizon doesn’t bode well either against expression or assumption of a vast
triangular craft penetrating UK airspace.
Since lights seen against the horizon are subject to more atmospheric
distortion in colour and shape. But
none of these facts have stopped Nick Pope continually making the triangular
craft assumption since leaving his official role. *3, *11. You cannot take one or even two vague
descriptions and relate them to other diverse reports of just lights without
reason?
The
Meteorological Officer’s Sighting.
Claims of an exotic craft on March 30/31, 1993, hinge exclusively
upon an insistence on the RAF Shawbury meteorological officer, Wayne Elliott’s
sighting as being extraordinary. *2 On Nick Pope’s website there is misrepresentation of this
in the section titled ‘Selected Essays’ in an article titled ‘The Real X
Files.’ where this sighting is described as being of a ‘vast triangle’ hovering
at ‘200 ft’ firing a ‘narrow beam’ down to the ground and then flying off at
‘high speed.’ See
sighting 29. David Clarke recently
contacted Mr. Elliott who said he was personally much ‘more ambivalent’ about
what he saw than the ‘excitement’ and interpretation Nick Pope subsequently
placed upon the experience. Okay, so
the interview is thirteen years later but there are some points worth examining
by comparison to the official papers and Nick Pope’s version and the relevancy
of primary rather than secondary information that’s already been covered.
Pope's account on the C5 documentary implies that when the
Military Police at Cosford saw
their UFO they phoned Shawbury to tell them it was on its
way and that Mr. Elliott then went out to see something minutes later,
supporting Nick Pope’s widely expressed false notion of a fast-moving
triangular shaped craft travelling at Mach 2 between RAF Cosford and RAF
Shawbury....In Pope’s own words from the C5 documentary ‘From RAF Cosford
the object moved quickly to the next military base Shawbury.’ So quickly,
it took more than 1 hour 35 minutes to travel a mere 20 miles, a homemade
aircraft with an elastic band might fair technologically better. Nick was a little naughty suggesting this
when in fact Elliott saw his sighting one and a
half hours later! See Nick Pope’s own official note about this
sighting, demonstrating clearly that he knew when both these sightings really
occurred. (For reference the sighting
numbers are 22 and 29)
The files reveal that Mr. Elliott's sighting actually took place
around 2.50 am after he left his office to take his weather observations. Mr.
Elliot told Clarke it may have been nearer to 02:40 am. Pope's original account does not mention a
"triangular shaped" UFO but includes a guesstimate of size
"somewhere between a C130 and a 747 [jumbo-jet]". The UFO carried three red lights "two side by side
and one larger red light slightly behind", which may be where the idea
of a triangular object was further enforced.
Mr. Elliott was indeed familiar with military aircraft and helicopters,
but said this was unlike anything he had seen before. He said it hovered for
several minutes 15-20 km away before moving across the airfield at a speed
estimated at hundreds of miles per hour. As it passed over Mr. Elliott heard
what he described as "a low humming noise" and at one point
when the object was 400ft above the ground it projected a thin shaft of light,
like a laser beam, which "appeared to be searching for something on the
ground." Mr. Elliott also told Clarke that Nick Pope used a leading
question about the shape of the UFO ‘asking if it could have been triangular?’
when Mr Elliott might have been more content to express the UFO in terms of
lights rather than discernible shapes.
Clearly the object seen by Wayne Elliott wasn't the Russian
Tsyklon rocket booster. What else carries red lights, moves erratically at low
altitude and uses a beam of light to search the ground late at night? An answer
seems obvious. But it wasn't until 2005
that an airman serving at RAF Shawbury read Nick Pope's account of the sighting
and decided it was time to speak out. "The UFO supposedly seen at RAF
Shawbury was later identified as a Dyfed-Powys police helicopter following a
stolen car down the A5 between the A49 junction," he wrote. "The observer was using his NiteSun to
illuminate proceedings."
Are we to take the word of one airman
over another, or try to make sense out of both and of the experience and
possibilities?
How could a meteorologist - a trained observer - be mistaken? When David Clarke put this to Mr Elliott,
now a senior figure in the Met Office, his reply was equally surprising. Mr
Elliott confirmed MoD police at Cosford, having seen the rocket decay,
phoned his station and suggested he look out for UFOs. When, over an hour
later, he saw unfamiliar lights hovering near the airbase, he was primed to
interpret what he saw as a UFO.
Details of Mr. Elliott’s sighting were then passed by Cosford to
Whitehall and Nick Pope rang to quiz him.
Mr. Elliott said he was assured that checks had ruled out military or
civilian aircraft. But had any
enquiries been made with local police forces?
At the time both the Dyfed-Powys and West Mercia police forces operated
helicopters equipped with searchlights. Unfortunately flight logs are only kept
for a short period before destruction. As a result, it is impossible to
establish with certainty whether a helicopter was indeed responsible for Mr
Elliot's sighting.
Significantly we should not ignore Mr Elliott’s discussion with
David Clarke, in his own words "At
the time it did not strike me as being something familiar," he
told me. "However, it's clear in hindsight that what I saw was not
the same object seen at Cosford as it was much later. I never made anything of
it, I just reported what I had seen.
Nick Pope was very excited about it and made a great deal of the
fact that I was an official observer, which was true. He assured me that he had
checked with all the military sources for aircraft and ruled them out." Adding.
"I believed what I was told at the time, but now I'm convinced that
what I saw has been explained. I have to accept that the noise like a humming
and the beam of light are very similar to what you would expect of a police
helicopter."
In reference to police helicopters David Clarke cites the
following relevant information from a policeman.
PC Ian Cooke of South Yorkshire Police said their copter (an
American MD-902, which is apparently the type used now by most other UK
forces), carried four lights:
1) a red port light
2) a green starboard light
3) a red anti-collision
beacon (flashing), sometimes white
4) A NiteSun searchlight
Operational height: is usually
1,000 feet, but can often descend to 500 feet when pursuing stolen vehicles or
chasing miscreants! (compares with the altitude described by Elliott).
"If there’s no full
moon you would not necessarily see the shape of the aircraft just the three lights
and perhaps the searchlight," said PC Cooke.
"On a number of
occasions in the last nine years we have had people ringing the police to
report UFOs and when we have checked our operation logs it has turned out to be
our helicopter," he said.
"On other occasions we
have had people reporting UFOs who have actually seen airliners descending into
Manchester who have switched their landing lights on or off.
"Most people have no
idea of spatial awareness at night and cannot accurately judge the height or distance.
We have had people saying they have seen things at treetop height and when we
have checked it has been an aircraft descending into Manchester at 10,000 feet
or more."
PC Cooke also made an
important point about the noise made by helicopters:
"If the wind is blowing
it's possible an observer might not hear the noise at all, even if the aircraft
is very close by, and then if the wind direction changes suddenly they may hear
a terrific noise."
My own dealings with the Oscar 99 crew discovered that the
regional police helicopter in Humberside has also been reported as a UFO
frequently and this is probably a common occurrence elsewhere in the country.
In response to Nick Pope’s official request for radar tapes and
information covering the period, there is another detail not previously shared
with the UFO community, but which featured in the C5 documentary. It is a memorandum to Sec (AS) 2a dated 19
April, 1993, showing radar detections on the dates of the sightings, which Pope
rounds up quite well in his description, at point 9, it states ‘310140z Clee
Hill Squawk 2304/200 descending on A25. At 0146z overhead Shawbury squawk
5231/203 southbound.’ It’s an aircraft, transponding at 20,000 ft plus,
directly over Shawbury, during the time of Mr Elliott’s sighting. The aircraft is at altitude with perhaps
only lights visible. At this altitude
some aircraft lights have a tendency to merge into singular form. It’s difficult to reconcile this information
with three lights as reported by the witness and mentioned by Pope in the C5
documentary. However on the question of
what may or not have been visible in the area that morning, it may be relevant,
if not causal. A high altitude
aircraft’s visibility at night is dependent upon it’s size, type, light configurations
and whether any other non-routine lights were switched on and upon atmospherics
and weather. The earlier space debris may have appeared visually much more
dramatic by comparison to the squawk aircraft.
The Official
Irish Reports
Late in 1997, Pat Delaney and Anne Griffin of the Irish UFO and Paranormal Research Association (IUFOPRA) uncovered official documents relevant to the March 30/31 UFO sightings.
One particular document titled 'Unidentified Airborne Sighting’ signed by a Commander H. O’Keefe of the ‘Headquarters Air Corps Group’ is revealing. O’Keefe, Captain of an Air Corps Dauphin helicopter with five other servicemen aboard, had left Baldonnel at 00:30 am local time, on the 31 March. The helicopter headed towards Finner Camp in Donegal flying at 1,500 feet at an air speed of 140 knots. About ten miles east of Mullingar all the crew had a 'visual sighting.'
In O'Keefe's own words ‘I and the co-pilot observed a light at our two o'clock position at 10-15 miles… The observed light came on and went out in a period to two seconds. We continued to observe the position and noted two white lights at a fixed distance apart in the horizontal plane. These lights continued to close our position moving from our two o'clock towards our eight o'clock. This track was in a north-west to south-east direction.'
The servicemen also watched the lights through night vision equipment. They saw trails behind the lights and the two lights passed over them. They contacted Dublin Air Traffic Control at the time, who insisted no air traffic was on the course reported. Shannon radar also had nothing on screen. During a conversation between Air Traffic Control (ATC) and the Dauphin, a Captain of Iona Airways Flight 961 joined in. The Iona flight heading to Ireland from Europe crossing the coast of southwest Wales at 20,000ft confirmed fast moving lights across their path too, approximately going from north to south.
According
to the helicopter clock bearing and description they passed below the 22586
transit, while the Iona flight behind en route to Ireland over the coast of
southwest Wales was in an approach corridor and both aircraft are seeing two
lights. Calculably the approximate
areas and altitudes of both aircraft seeing the lights simultaneously
demonstrate their crossing at high altitude and moving at velocity. (At
re-entry zone and descending from possibly as high as 120 km altitude). The helicopter
crew noted the beginning of the burn-up, seeing initial flashing.
Interestingly, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) told Shannon ATC the same day they had no record of a satellite debris burn up, but later stated it was the 22586 re-entry.
The
Air Corps report is useful and enlightening. The crew and servicemen all gave
different estimates of height for the lights between 500 and 3,000 feet above
them. These are enormous spatial
inaccuracies, but since this type of event is infrequent, with no conscious
reference and experience of this phenomenon to fall back on, it’s
understandable how anyone may not be able to discern accurately. *14,
*15
What Credence For Determining Altitude of Lights Seen At
Night?
The human visual perceptual system and cognisance are very
discerning but easily fooled by events like those described here. The example
cited by Jenny Randles from 1978 is a good benchmark showing how observers
misperceive. It is part of common UFO
reportage that lights and aircraft flying at night can lead to false reports of
distance, altitude, time estimates, size and other fundamental attributes.
There is a noteworthy earlier case of pilots misperceiving space debris during
flight manoeuvres near Ypenburg on 5 November, 1990
It should be stressed that in the 01:10 and 01:15 am local time
batch of officially reported sightings, obviously
describing the 22586 re-entry, there are observations that misperceive
altitude, see sightings 13, 15, 20, 21, 22.
We should take note all observers are fallible to misperception
and illusory effects and to false interpretation and apply adequate reasoning
here.
These 1993 events may be exemplary in providing more evidence of
the inability of those often described as ‘trained observers’ to discern
altitude in lights than is supposed. It
is fallacious to assume that certain subsets of people, by occupation, may be
more or less accurate in their observations of lights, shapes, distance and
altitude without providing evidence.
Here is a reference which offers some insight either way on spatial
misperception by pilots and what the limitations are for overcoming this (A
link to a PDF file download http://tinyurl.com/ylsdnq). Observational accuracy by any subset of witnesses
depends upon circumstance and a willingness to apply useful pragmatic means to
recording observations at the time and on some understanding of limitations.
To employ Nick Pope’s own words from the ‘UFO Visits UK?’ official
document, before he became the non-official UFO personality he now is :- ‘Some
of the witnesses quoted dimensions and altitudes. How do you estimate the
height of a light of unknown size at night, with nothing with which to compare
it? Also the estimates are not necessarily independent for example, Sgt XXXXXXX
estimated an altitude of 1000ft. However, he filed his report after interviewing
another witness who also gave that figure.’
.
NOSS Satellites
The C5 documentary featured the Naval Ocean Surveillance Systems
(NOSS) satellites as an explanation that was ruled out. Indeed the NOSS satellites have been blamed
for UFO reports
before. However, the NOSS triplets lose
some of their closed formation and equilateral lights appearance and charm and
are not particularly bright. The
triplets are now being replaced by a new generation of high-tech doublets. Tony Eccles, a competent investigator of
BUFORA and Merseyside Anomalies Research
Association (MARA) investigated a series of sightings in 1999 that were probably
NOSS from determining distinctive features.
The NOSS satellites not being very striking would not normally come
close to the kind of visual display produced by either a rocket booster
re-entry or low flying helicopter.
In Conclusion
There are a few reports remaining that cannot be
explained.
Particularly curious are the glass-bottomed object with two rows
of lights reported from Penistone, the triangle above the horizon from Bradway,
sighting from the Quantock Hills and the Shawbury sighting. (See sighting 5, 7, 2, and 29 though
2 might be explained by the Yeovilton helicopter activity and 29 might be explained
by a police helicopter).
When someone makes a statement like ‘the high level sightings are
explained but many others are harder to explain’ paraphrasing, we need to
consider an assumption like this can be invalid, as we have hopefully shown
‘most’ of the sightings are explicable. Various phrases on the C5 documentary
are dependent upon selective interpretation and arguably, unbalanced,
non-objective and exaggerative. Phrases like the ‘greatest UFO mystery’ and
‘they were seeing these lights on the underside of a triangular craft’ and
‘expert witness statements were precise’ are completely unfounded.
It is truly difficult to apply judgement in useful terms of
altitude, distance, shapes, size and other fundamental details of objects seen
at night by multiple witness without pragmatic application, even by official
observers like police and military. Beyond stating UFOs were seen by competent
or ‘trained observers’ there is no pragmatic application mentioned in any of
the official files for altitudes, shapes, distance or size for any of the sightings beyond a
report form. This latter fact applies to the official examination and the C5
feature.
It’s incumbent on the reader to decide what they personally think
relevant among all the sightings that still may retain the title UFO. The MoD
have now proactively released all the government files on March 30/31,1993
sightings and they are available
for scrutiny under the MoD’s publication scheme. In sharing this information, we hope to have journeyed a small
distance in convincing the reader that most of the UK UFO
sightings from 30/31 March are explicable.
Perhaps collectively these should no longer be referred to as a large
UFO wave, but in part as a large IFO wave. *3 .
We acknowledge any useful references that more adequately suppose
an alternative to fallacious reasoning, no matter how late that is in
arriving. Perhaps herein lies the heart
of the mystery, it’s enduring confusion found in the purview of a false belief
that has been perpetuated. It’s time to
learn from it, quantify the remainder and move on.
A Summary Of The Main Points.
- The UFO sightings on 31 March within a
reasonable time close to 01:10 are of space debris.
- UFO sightings of 30 March might be explained by
Yeovilton Sea King helicopter activity.
- The sightings that remain are diverse and
perhaps should not be concatenated.
- Wayne Elliot's sighting from RAF Shawbury *may*
be explained by a police helicopter.
- The Channel Five documentary featuring Nick Pope
was inaccurate, it did not relay relevant information, or state that many
of the sightings could be explained by space debris, but expressed a false
alternate view that many were harder to explain or could not be explained.
- The Channel Five documentary promoted a false
impression that the Shawbury UFO sighting occurred shortly after the
Cosford sighting to support the supposition of a triangle travelling at
Mach 2, transiting from Cosford to Shawbury.
- The Channel Five documentary omitted information
that might explain some of the 30 March sightings as the RNAS Yeovilton
helicopters.
- The Channel Five documentary only featured one
witness during a 45-minute plus feature about the March 1993 sightings.
We hope we have been fair in presenting relevant information,
asking additional necessary questions and positing some basic reasoning. We are willing to engage in any useful
discussion of these sightings and are open to suggestions to adjust this web
page accordingly to accommodate any relevant or necessary changes in the light
of new or better information and in correcting any mistakes.
Though it’s thirteen years since these sightings, we’d like to
hear from other witnesses, please email
or express an opinion, feedback is appreciated.
Email Gary
Anthony or Chris Fowler at gary@uk-ufo.org
An update will be added to
this page in due course.
Joe McGonagle is
developing a more analytical website on the Cosford UFOs at:-
References
*1 The MoD communication to
ACAS does not mention space debris.
*2 Open Skies, Closed Minds,
Nick Pope. Simon & Schuster 1996 pp
– 134-141. [From page 132 relates 1990 Belgium sighting. Influence?]
*3.Space debris component often
missing in Nick Pope’s media renditions of the 1993 March UFOs. My own filming of Nick Pope at the Newcastle
Science Festival in March 2005, also supported by a compilation of over twenty
TV appearances of Nick Pope.
* 4 There are plenty of
online references for Julian Time but to see how these are applied, see various
explanatory links at http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
*5 Bernard Delair’s data for the 1978 Cosmos debris reports, also
reproduced in BUFORA Journal Volume 10 No 1. Feb 1981 pp 11- 21.
*6 ‘UFO Study’ – A Handbook For Enthusiasts’ Jenny Randles, HALE
1981 p 78 and illus.
*7 TNA File DEFE24/1212.
*8 Fortean Times, 195 Jenny Randles ‘Casebook’
*9 –22586- debris
fragmentation note [large PDF
catalogue]
http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/SatelliteFragHistory/13thEditionofBreakupBook.pdf
*10 Smartgroups list, 24 October 2006. Ufology UK Mailing List –
*11 The UFO Mystery,
Stranger Than Fiction’ TV documentary for UK Channel 5, Wednesday 1 November,
2006.
*`12 See the Condign PDF downloads.
*13 Northern UFO News, 160, dated April 1993.
*14 ‘Something in the Air,’ Jenny Randles, Robert Hale, London, 1998 pp 175 –9.
*15 various email correspondence Jenny Randles
07.11.06.
------------
For a complete breakdown of
all the official files sighting reports see Joe McGonagle’s developing
analytical Cosford UFO 1993 web page at:-
www.uk-ufo.org/cosford/index.html
.
And for discussion of the
March 1993 UFOs see the new Ufology
UK Mailing List.
Satellite
information References:-
The last 22856 satellite element data set can be pasted into a
text file from http://www.space-track.org/perl/login.pl
after approved membership, for anyone wanting to calculate the final orbit for
themselves. Tracking software downloads are available at David H Ransom’s
website at http://www.dransom.com/stsplus.html
and elsewhere.
Or contact me for
alternative methods of obtaining the data.
For those interested in
keeping tabs on the latest decays and re-entries see:
http://www.reentrynews.com/upcoming.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html -- also see this site links for FAQs and
information on satellite tracking and explanation of elements and calculation
methods.
UFO articles that are
pertinent to the 1993, sightings and space debris re-entries, not embedded in
the text.
http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/rocket.html
Satellite tracking software and data URLs
http://www.dransom.com/stsplus.html
http://www.space-track.org/perl/login.pl
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/spacewarn/spx474.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
© Gary Anthony & Chris
Fowler 2006.