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.

Jim Singleton
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23