SUBJECT: THE PHOENIX PROJECT FROM A GENIE FORUM              FILE: UFO2503



PART 6



    
    Filename: Phoenix6.Txt
    Type    : Editorial/Opinion 
    Author  : Joseph Harris -CIS: 70714,3321 
    Date    : 10/21/92
    Desc.   : Editorial on the K2 Report
    Cis Id# : 70714,3321 
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------


                        The Validity of "THE K-2 REPORT" 
                                         -Joseph Harris
    
    
    
    Some  time  ago  I  decided to further investigate the  claims  of  the 
    Phoenix  Project  in  regards  to their K2   Report  about  a  supposed 
    underground alien base located near Quincy CA.  This report  chronicles 
    my  initial findings.  It is not my intention to discredit the  Phoenix 
    Project, or Jack Mathias. They, as a scientific organization, should be 
    able to appreciate any attempt at independant verification. 
     
    The following is excerpted directly from the K-2 Report, and chronicles 
    an "object" being pursued by 8 F-4 Phantoms. 

    * * *

    Report # 1:  By Staff # 2:
    Date: August 10, 1989, Time:  2212 PDT.
    Location: Approximately 40 miles southwest of K-2.

    A  brightly  glowing  object  was observed from my  location.   It  was 
    approximately 30-40 feet in diameter, moving slowly from south to north 
    at 500 feet above the tree-tops. 

    [text deleted for brevity] 

      Within 10  minutes,  after the object left the area,  eight Air Force 
    jet fighters (F-4s, judging from their sound and appearance) and moving 
    very fast, went overhead traveling in the same direction the object had 
    taken -- towards the North.  Four minutes later, the fighters returned, 
    heading south.  I  presumed the object had been spotted by their radar. 
    Their  quick  return  would indicate they lost radar contact  with  the 
    object. 

    * * * 

    [text deleted for brevity] 

    Memo 
    August 12, 1989 
    From Staff # 1 
    To: Staff # 2 

      Our contacts in the Air Force verify that on the night of August  10, 
    1989,  at the time indicated in Report # 1 of that date,  that eight F-
    4's,  scrambled from Beale AFB,  CA. They had a brief radar-lock,  on a 
    "bogie"  in the area described. However,  they lost the target,  due to 
    ground clutter when it suddenly descended into the mountainous terrain. 
    They  returned  to  the base when a further sweep of  the  area  proved 
    fruitless. 
     
      You're right,  the AF had a blip on their radar, but lost it when the 
    ship  dropped into that 20-mile approach corridor between  the  valleys 
    and the radar dead zone. 
     
    * * * 
     
    My Investigation. 
     
    I  contacted  the Public Affairs office at Beale  AFB.   (916-634-8890) 
    After identifying myself, and the information I needed, they transfered 
    me to another office. The person who answered the phone identified both 
    himself,   and  the office so swiftly,  I  couldn't make out who I  was 
    talking to. (altho the point is moot..) 
     
    The following is a -rough- transcript of the conversation,  although it 
    is not verbatim. (I did not record the conversation.) The officer I was 
    speaking to was quite candid, and informal. The conversation itself was 
    spontaneous, so I do not believe that I was being fed a "canned" story. 
    Besides,   as  you'll see in a moment,  the officer has  absoloutly  no 
    reason  to lie about this.  I  read the above memo to the officer,  and 
    then asked the following questions. 
     
    Q: Has  Beale AFB operated F-4  Phantoms in an interceptor role at  any 
       time, and specificly during August of 1989? 
     
    A: No.  Beale AFB is a SAC [Strategic Air Command] base,  and has never 
       operated  tactical aircraft in any capacity.  We have B-52s,  KC-130 
       air refuelers,  and until recently, the SR-71.  We're a bomber base, 
       not a fighter base.  There was an attempt made in an 89  air show to 
       get 2 RF-4Cs to come here, but unfortunatly, they couldn't make it. 
     
       [Note:  In conversation,  he told me the RF-4s were part of the High 
       Roller squadron based here in Reno...Joe.] 
     
    Q: Were F-4s ever used in an interceptor role as late as 1989? 
     
    A: Not to my knowledge,  no. The F-4s have been relegated to ECM, "Wild 
       Weasel" roles, and low level recce [Recon] roles for quite some time 
       now. These types of F-4s are completely unarmed, therefor useless as 
       fighters.   If an intercept mission was called out for northern  CA, 
       the  response would come from only one of 2 AFB's.   Eilson<sp>   or 
       Almendorf AFB in Alaska,  although I'm not sure which one,  and  the 
       other  AFB  would  be  March AFB.  Both bases have a  wing  of  F-15 
       interceptors that the AF have assigned to West Coast defense. The US 
       Navy  also has NAS [Naval Air Stations] assigned to coastal defense, 
       but I'm not sure which bases those are.  At any rate, the only Naval 
       outfits  to  use the F-4  are the Marines,  and they also use it  as 
       "Wild Weasel" and low level recce. 
     
    Q: Has it ever been AF SOP to use eight aircraft in an intercept? 
     
    A: For -one-  radar bogie? [he laughed at this point] That would insult 
       most of the fighter pilots I've ever known. [another laugh] No, most 
       AFB's only have 2 aircraft capable of being "scrambled" on a moments 
       notice.  Even if an AFB had more aircraft available for a  scramble, 
       they  would still only send 2 aircraft.  Operating an interceptor is 
       extremly  expensive,   somwhere in the region of $4,000  per  flight 
       hour.   This  is fuel,  oil,  hydraulics,  and air and  ground  crew 
       salaries. The AF wouldn't spend $32,000 for something they know from 
       experience would only take $8,000. Besides, we're still talking F-4s 
       here right? [Yes] Well, for an intercept conducted by the AF, you're 
       looking  at the F-15,  or the F-16.  Even if we had F-4s  that  were 
       armed, they wouldn't use them. They're just not fast enough anymore. 
     
    * * * 

    There  was more to this conversation,  but we got to talking about  the    
    High  Rollers and the Reno Air races..  the above is the  only  portion 
    that pertains  to this report... 
     
    Summary: 
     
    1. Beale  AFB  is a SAC base,  and as such,  does not operate  tactical 
       aircraft,   (ie fighters)  in any capacity,  and never  has.   Their 
       primary aircraft types are bombers, hi-alt recon, and refuelers. 
     
    2. The AF would never send eight ships to intercept a radar bogie. IMHO 
       they wouldn't need to. 
     
    3. There  are  no  F-4  Phantoms being used on the  West  Coast  in  an 
       interceptor role. They are used in Recon, and ECM roles only, and as 
       such, are totally unarmed.  If the AF were to scramble an intercept, 
       they would use F-16s or F-15s. 
     
     
    Possible Explanations: 
     
    1. The AF is lieing. 

       Not  likely.   They've  no  reason to hide the  fact  that  tactical 
       aircraft do not operate from their base, nor have they any reason to 
       lie about not using F-4s as interceptors. 
     
    2. The Phoenix Project member mis-identified the aircraft. 
    
       Unfortunatly,   the  Phoenix Project cannot use this as  a  defense, 
       since they state that they "verified"  that 8 F-4s were scrambled to 
       intercept the radar "bogie." 
     
    3. The Phoenix  Project  deliberatly  falsified this  portion  of their 
       report. 
    
       Unfortunatly, this is the only explanation. 
     
    Conclusion: 
     
    It is my opinion that at least this portion of the Phoenix Project's K-
    2  report is a deliberate falsehood.  It can neither be a typographical 
    error, nor an error in judgement, (since they "verified" the info using 
    AF sources.) This also throws considerable doubt on the validity of the 
    "object"  sighting, and on the K-2 report as a whole. However,  I  will 
    let  others,   more  knowledgable and capable than  I,   determine  the 
    validity of the remaining K-2 claims. 
     
    Joe. 




**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************