The Sheffield Incident

[robert]

Hello there Guys,

Just thought I would mention this incident as it is in my own back yard as it were that happened on 24th March 1997.

Reports of a crashed plane was received that happened over the moors near Sheffield and Emergency services were sent out during the evening including Fire engines, Ambulances, the Police and a rescue helicopter in the search and the local Hallamshire Hospital was put on standby.
Reports of a silent triangular low flying craft were reported over Dronfield, a nearby town, on the same evening and subsequently according to some reports RAF Tornados were involved in chasing the craft.
Despite this and numerous reports of a low flying aircraft crashing nothing was subsequently found.

A curious and hard to explain event that had multiple witnesses and emrgency services involved.

Regards

Robert

[IanR]

Just thought I would mention this incident as it is in my own back yard as it were that happened on 24th March 1997.

This is known as the Howden Moor incident:
http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/casehowd.htm

Ian

[daveclarke]

Hi Robert,

Re 'the Sheffield incident' - you should read the full report on the incident posted on my website here:

http://www.uk-ufo.org/condign/casehowd.htm

see also:

http://www.drdavidclarke.co.uk/ghostfliers.htm

There's nothing hard to explain about it - the whole thing was triggered off by a low-flying RAF Tornado jet which I traced to RAF Marham in Norfolk.

The emergency services who responded to reports of a low flying aircraft and sonic boom (not a UFO - an aircraft), were never told this was due to a low-flying exercise over the Peak.

These types of incident are not uncommon - I know of at least 4 other similar cases since 1997 where rescue services have been called out in response to reports of crashing aircraft in the Peaks, only to find there was no aircraft. The area - like the Lakes and the Scottish Highlands - is often used for low-flying training.

I was working as a journalist on the Sheffield Star at the time of the 1997 incident and spoke to most of the participants, and managed to pursuade my MP Helen Jackson to raise a series of questions in the House of Commons.

This revealed the exercise did take place at the relevant time, it was pre-booked so they weren't out chasing saucers either. The RAF police did a half hearted investigation that confirmed aircraft were in the area (they received 36 low flying complaints from that night alone), but could not identify the naughty pilot who broke the sound barrier (an offence that can lead to a court martial!)

So sorry to disappoint you - this is not a UFO incident at all. And certainly it has nothing to do with Rendlesham!

[robert]

Thanks very much for the info guys,
I don't want to appear pedantic but.....

What an absolute waste of public money.

God knows how many people were out there that night.

Why on earth didn't the local emergency services liaise with the RAF before sending all these people out on a wild goose chase and wasting time and money and endangering the lives of other people who might have needed the emergency vehicles on that particular evening?

One of my guys came into work knackered (A part time Fireman) the next day having been over on the Strines and didn't see a thing.


I presume the reports of a silent slow moving triangular shaped object over Dronfield was mistaken as well?

Or do you think the observer was deaf and actually saw a Tornado!

Robert

[robert]

The most spectacular recent example happened on the night of Monday 24 March 1997 when police in both Derbyshire and South Yorkshire received a series of 999 calls reporting a low flying plane on a collision course with the Peak District hills north of the Howden Reservoir. Once again reliable witnesses, including a police special constable and several farmers reported seeing the plane and two gamekeepers were startled by a huge explosion as if something had crashed into the moors near Strines Forest. The special constable, Marie-France Tattersfield, insisted the object she saw while driving near Bolsterstone was a real plane and not a ghost. But she had to admit the plane was 'the weirdest thing I have ever seen ... it was big and it was well below the legal altitude for night flying. All its windows were lit up which made it look even more odd as no pilot would fly blind at that time of night over these hills.' Her story was supported by a gamekeeper who said he saw the aircraft pass over as he worked on Midhope Moor. He said it was 'definitely a plane, and it was a big one, like an old wartime Lancaster.' It flew off towards the moors at Woodhead and he could hear a 'loud humming noise' as it disappeared from view.

David,
Got this from your link as quoted above.

Why would these witnesses say 'the plane' was flying from Midhope moors towards the Moors at Woodhead?

These are in the next valley to the Strines so anyone searching the Strines area would be way of course.

Even the Dam at Howden is south of these two areas.

Why were the the Services not searching from the road on the Woodhead Pass based on this witness testimony?

Oh and what do you think about the take on it being a 'Ghost Plane'?!

Several reports of a different (propellor) aircaft moving across North Sheffield that Evening!


Robert

[daveclarke]

Hi Robert,

all it tells you is that when you get an incident like this you get lots of people saying contradictory things, i.e. different times and directions etc. Does that remind you of anything else (i.e RFI?)

I know the Mountain Rescue personnel well and they are true professionals. If anything had crashed they would have found it.

The police helicopter that searched the moors has a heat detector that can find a cigarette burning, never mind a crashed flying saucer.

They found nothing as there was nothing to find.

As I said there was full-scale low flying RAF exercise ongoing that night with the Peak District as the target. Dozens of Tornado and Jaguar aircraft from 4 different sqaudrons were involved, so it's no wonder that quite a few people heard and saw aircraft flying from different directions at different times.

I have friend who was out on the moors that night and heard and saw the formations and it quite a sight - they skimming the top of the moors at 100 ft at one point.

Not a UFO I'm afraid, just the RAF doing their thing.

[robert]

David,
Fair comment re this incident. I appreciate the candid replies etc.

Have you any thoughts on the Ghost planes you write about. Cause and effect etc?

And do you think that all UFOs have a rational explanation despite the credibility of the witnesses involved?

I know the old adage would probably be 'I believe that they believe in what they saw' but what about your thoughts.

Would you think it's fair to suggest in all the universe that there is no race advanced enough to be able and to actually want to reach this part of our galaxy.

Do you not think it's a fair assumption that someone or something has the capability and the desire to make some sort of contact.

To put the shoe on the other foot if we were that far advanced wouldn't we want to do the same thing?

I am very interested to find out your studied opinion of the phenomena as you are heavily involved in researching and writing about it.

Kind Regards

Robert

[IanR]

To put the shoe on the other foot if we were that far advanced wouldn't we want to do the same thing?

Not directed at me, I know, but if we were that far advanced we wouldn't go in person - we'd send a probe with artificial intelligence. Those who believe in spacecraft piloted by flesh-and-blood aliens are just _so_ last century...

Ian

[robert]

Makes a lot of since Ian, for an initial introduction to surveying a planet etc, similar in many respects to what we would do, are doing, on Mars and the Moon.

But after the AI 'Probe', if it were of interest from a resource point of view and had we the capability in say 500 years time surely we would follow it up with a more permanent means of exploration.
Or do you think we would have moved on from a physical transportion system by then and any valuable resources discovered would therefore be immaterial?
I'm just trying to follow a basic logic of technological evolutionary progress from our point of view.

Best regards

Robert

[daveclarke]

Hi Robert,

for my qualified views on the subject I've cut & pasted the following from the 'Frequently asked Questions' section of my bio:

Do I believe in UFOs?

People see objects in the sky they can't identify, therefore there can be no serious doubt that UFOs exist until they are identified (usually as natural or man-made phenomena). As far as I'm aware no 'UFO' has ever been identified as an alien spaceship; but this question frames my interest in the subject. When I'm asked, as I frequently am, particularly by the media, "do I believe in UFOs?" what they actually mean is "Do I believe UFOs are alien spaceships?" As Carl Sagan wrote in his Demon Haunted World: "I'm always struck by how the question is phrased the suggestion that this is a matter of belief and not evidence." To me this incredibly strong belief - in visits by aliens - is a modern myth, and myths of all shapes and sizes are what fascinate me.

My approach to the subject of UFOs and UFOlogy is from the viewpoint of a journalist and a historian. Although I take a sceptical stance, I remain open-minded about the possibility that some "UFOs" might have an exotic origin, most probably as UAPs - Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena. But I would need a lot more evidence than has currently been brought to the table to convince me that aliens, as opposed to human or natural phenomena, lie at the root of the UFO phenomenon. My stance is similar to that of Carl Jung who in his book Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies (1958) said: "..something is seen, but one doesn't know what."

The problem I see it is not with UFOs, but with the practice of UFOlogy. There is no agreed body of knowledge to work from, because all the 'evidence' rests upon witness testimony. The 'best' reports have been so poorly investigated that they are largely worthless. The field known as UFOlogy is disorganized, chaotic and belief-driven. As such it is never likely to be taken seriously by mainstream science, which is a pity because there are aspects that could be usefully studied by both social and physical scientists. On the one hand some of the most intriguing UFO cases seem to involve novel 'new' phenomena such as ball lightning, earthquake lights and plasmas, the study of which could prove useful to meteorologists and atmospheric physicists. On the other hand, social scientists and historians can study the UFO movement itself and how the subject has evolved from the human perspective, asking why people continue to believe, so emotionally, in the extra-terrestrial or supernatural origin for UFOs despite a complete lack of evidence.

Probably the most relevant academic discipline of all to UFOlogy is contemporary legend and folklore. To my way of thinking, the cultural factors which influence people to 'believe' and to 'see' UFOs, and how those stories are then passed on by word of mouth, the media and the internet, leading to more belief, is the most fascinating aspect of the subject. UFOs, in my view, tell us more about ourselves than they do about 'alien visitors.'

OK?

[puddlepirate]

Hi Robert

Regarding UFOs in an alien being context I go along with DC on that. I also agree with David regarding the state of ufology. It often seems to me that if you even mention the fact that you are interested in UFO's you are immediately placed in the box marked 'potential loony' but it is a subject worthy of serious study.

Interestingly and somewhat controversially, during one of the Apollo moon landings, the astronauts reported seeing something strange whilst on the surface of the Moon. I have no idea if this was ever taken any further or whether NASA simply ignored it - but it is intriguing.

I am a sceptic when it comes to alien beings. I remain to be convinced and until I see hard evidence, not heresay or stories from those who knew someone who saw something, I shall continue to remain so. This might not be evident from my posts on here but I prefer to consider the evidence or facts that could lead toward a particular interpretation where such evidence is absent, than seek a solution in the more esoteric areas of technology.

This does not mean that anyone who considers alien beings might have a hand in things is wrong - it is just that I need to see the evidence.

As far as the RFI goes, it seems to me that the only common thread between all the various statements is lights....everyone seems to have seen lights of some sort. It is known that the area has a history of odd happenings involving lights so perhaps one area worth studying might be the atmospheric conditions prevalent during the period 26th to 30th Dec and what, if any, effect that would have on lights from various sources. Of course this will not explain everything - Penniston's craft, the C5, the need for lightalls and so forth but it might explain some of what was seen. And as Sherlock Holmes said, once you have eliminated the probable, then whatever is left, no matter how improbable, has to be the truth.

[puddlepirate]

St

My sources:

http://www.subversiveelement.com/UFO_Moon_Base.html

Also; p452 Beyond Top Secret; Good T; Pan Books, London (1997)

However, there are claims and counter claims, i.e. on p455 of Beyond Top Secret there is a transcript of an alleged conversation between an unnamed professor and Neil Armstrong, apparently confirmed by a source, also unnamed, from British Military Intelligence, where Armstrong states that the the Apollo 11 crew were 'warned off' the Moon by what appeared to be superior craft but when asked to explain, Armstrong declined to expand on the story.

Later, on p455, Armstrong denies any such conversation ever took place - but earlier in the text, on p452, it is alleged that a Russian scientist, Dr Vladimir Azhazha, claimed that Armstrong reported to mission control that two large, mysterious objects were watching them after having landed near the moon module. On p452 it is also alleged that in 1979, a former NASA communications specialist named Maurice Chateleinn confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of crater and that the encounter was common knowledge within NASA.

Having never met, much less interviewed, Neil Armstrong, Timothy Good, Maurice Chatelain or Dr Azhazha I cannot make any comment on the reliability of the above. I simply put it forward as the source(s) for my previous post.

[robert]

Thank you very much Guys for all your candid views on the subject and all the links you have supplied.

I agree with David that mainstream science isn't taking the subject seriously enough precisely because of the lack of 'Nuts ans Bolts' evidence and what amounts to the stigma of linking UFOs with the Alien connection.

I agree that this will be the case for some time to come and photographic proof is now becoming less credible because of the ablity of our computers to reproduce a computer graphic that is comparable to the 'real' thing.


I would ask though if I were one of the Military Defense Chiefs the last thing I would want is for this technology to end up outside the control of our own technological development. That being the case I don't think you would ever see proof of this technology until it is ready to be employed in the Public Domain.

It is for this reason that there is an understandable position by the 'Ufologist' to shout cover up.

A catch 22 scenario for the Military where they can't release details from a security/development point of view or, if there is seriously nothing to it, to ask the General Public to believe the Military when they actually state that they are not involved.

Perfectly understandable points of view from both sides.

There does seem however to be a nervous reaction to any UFO connection that mentions the word Aliens, even as a possibility, and that to me is the major stumbling block as regards advancing serious study of this subject.

I would simply ask the question why it is not logical and reasonable to look at our own development and imagine where we would be in a few Hundred years time.

I am sure every mainstream Scientist will have asked himself this question and know what the likely answer would be. I just find it a little sad that they can't apply this simple scenario and equate it to another life form in the Universe in a similar or slightly more advanced state of development.

Until this is addressed I think the study of the UFO will unfortunately remain on the fringe of serious research.

My thanks to all you Guys for for your valued help and replies.

Keep plugging away!

Best Regards
Robert

[Observer]

Although these threads are off topic, i find them extremely interesting.

Trying to seperate fact from fiction is often very difficult, and unfortunately the RFI contains both these elements. It is also a fact that the fiction side of the RFI seems to have grown disproportionately higher.
As puddle said, one of the only bits of evidence that everybody seems to agree on is that they all saw lights in the forest. Each witness described these lights in slightly different ways as i guess it was from each persons perspective and where they were standing and moving about at the time.

These lights were in everyone's initial reports and i am inclined to believe them at face value.
I also agree that they could have been caused by some sort of atmospheric light distortion [as suggested in an earlier post] caused by possibly car head lights shining upwards into the night sky as the vehicle traversed an undulating road nearby. What i find hard to accept is that this light phenomena happened on three consecutive nights.

Rendlesham forest and the surrounding area seems to have a lot of alleged strange happenings and weird goings on. Much of this has been put forward by Brenda Butler who is a local to the area.
I don't doubt Brenda's observations but we all have to take into account that much of this could be just folk lore. Go to any rural community in the UK and you will hear about local folk lore so i don't think that RF is any thing special in that department, its certainly not unique.

As some of you may remember me saying, i used to go roost shooting in that forest at night with a couple of mates. It was called 'LAMPING', that was because one guy would hold a very powerful quartz Halogen lamp of over a million candle power with a pencil thin beam and he would shine it up into the trees to pick out the roosting Pheasant and Pigeon. The light beam on these lamps was more powerful than a car head light on high beam. We would then shoot them with our CO-2 powered air rifles fitted with night scopes. We shot there many times, usually weekends during the late 70's and 80's as did other teams on other occasions. Its also worth mentioning that Christmas holidays was a favourite Lamping period.
Not once did i or my mates experience any weird things or paranomal happenings whilst we were in those woods at night. For those anti hunting, it was all for the freezer or local pubs menu.
Obs

[Observer]

Robert
Re your recent post dated July 3rd.
I don't wish to get embroiled into the argument about UFOLOGY and whether it is a good or bad thing.
Silly documentaries with cloak and dagger voice overs don't do the movement any good at all as do some books written from the lunatic fringe of the movement. In a word it is chaotic which is probably why main stream science keeps it's distance.
If you are a Ufologist then good luck to you, whatever turns you on as they say.

I suspect that nearly everybody who has joined this forum has an element of the Ufologist in them me included. You will however notice that after the intial honeymoon period on the forum people start to distance themselves from ufology per se and gravitate back to the old nuts and bolts arguments as that is within the human remit and a recognised comfort zone. Talking of remits, Prof Steven Hawkin was once asked about his views on extra terrestrials and visitations etc, this was when the film Close Encounters was very topical. His answer was profound to say the least, he simply said that it was out side the boundaries of the human remit. You can interpret that how you wish.
My own belief is maybe, but as puddle said lets see the evidence to prove it. Sadly, there is not one iota of evidence. My last word on the subject, perhaps they don't leave evidence.
Obs

[robert]

Unfortunately Obs I think to have a fair hearing nowadays you really have to avoid the little green men as it obviously attracts what I would call a black or white reaction.

From what I have seen and heard regarding UFOs there are too many unexplainable sightings by too many Professional Guys for all sightings to have been a hoax or having a conventional explanation.

But as everybody has said it is all about tangible proof and I don't think for one reason or another we are going to get it unless every witness starts coming forward. When we have all hit Pension Age the other witnesses might have second thoughts.

I will just leave it at that as this subject can run and run ad infinitum!

Cheers
Robert