Filename: Phoeni10.Edi
Type : Editorial/Opinion
Author : Joseph Harris
Date : 10/31/92
Desc : The validity of the K-2 report: Addendum 1 & 2
CIS : 70714,3321


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


The Validity of the K-2 Report: Addendum 1 & 2
By: Joseph Harris


There is a problem with the K-2 Report that was so obvious, it
remained hidden until I printed it out and poured over it while at
work. (Nothing better to do.. :^) I started by hi-lighting all the
dates and times given in the Information Update portion of the report.
Then I started doodling like so...

8-10-92 2215 PDT: Staff #1 receives phone call.

Anyway, I made myself a little time-line of events, and 2 very
obvious errors showed up.

I'll quote only the pertinent data from the K-2 report so there is
proof of what they released.. the real clincher is the time-line that
follows:

Remember.. we're looking at the sequence of events here:

INFORMATION UPDATE

Date: August 16, 1989
From: Staff # 1
Subject: Activity Reports concerning K-2
Comment from Staff # 1:
Date: August 10, 1989, Time: 2215 PDT.
At 2215 PDT, I received a phone call from Staff # 2

[text deleted]

I received the following information from Staff # 2 on August 14, 1989.

* * *

Report # 1: By Staff # 2
Date: August 10, 1989,
Time: 2212 PDT.
Location: Approximately 40 miles southwest of K-2.

It remained stopped for approximately 15 seconds, then
[text deleted]
The sighting lasted approximately 45 seconds. There
[text deleted]
Within 10 minutes, after the object left the area,
[text deleted]
towards the North. Four minutes later, the fighters
[text deleted]

* * *

[report #3 and #4 deleted, reports from Staff 2 about forgetting his
camera... yeah right.]

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,

[text deleted]

* * *

Time Line:

Aug 10 92: 2212 PDT Staff # 2 Object sighting begins. [Report #1]
Aug 10 92: 2215 PDT Staff # 1 receives phone call.

This is the first major error. According to the text of Report #1,
the sighting lasted 45 seconds, then 10 minutes later the F-4s show up,
and 4 minutes after that the F-4s return. A total event time of 14m
45s. Yet Staff #2 called Staff #1 only 3 minutes after the initial
sighting. This in and of itself proves nothing, but becomes MUCH more
relevant to the next major error.

Aug 12 89: Staff #1 verifies AF activity as stated in Report # 1.
Aug 14 89: Staff #1 RECEIVES Report # 1
Aug 16 89: Staff #1 Begins Information Update.

Do you see the error? I'll let you re-read the portion of the Aug 12
statement...

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,

HOW COULD HE VERIFY DATES AND TIMES IN A REPORT HE WOULDN'T RECEIVE
FOR TWO MORE DAYS???

Here's the line from Staff #1:

I received the following information from Staff # 2 on August 14, 1989.

* * *

Report # 1: By Staff # 2:
Date: August 10, 1989, Time: 2212 PDT.

Now is where the first error becomes important. If the time was but 3
minutes between the start of the sighting, and the phone call to Staff
#1, then Staff #1 had NO WAY OF KNOWING ABOUT THE JETS FROM THE PHONE
CALL. The jets didn't show for 10 minutes, remember? There was a swift
conversation, and then no further phone communication, since they were
worried about wire taps. I doubt that the Phoenix Project will be able
to claim that this was a simple typo, as all the rest of the memos and
comments follow a very precise pattern. They attempted to show us that
the Phoenix Project members are scientific, and detail oriented. All
they succeeded in doing was putting holes in their report one could
drive a truck through.

There is another curiosity in the K-2 Report, but that will be posted
in a second message, as this one is long enough.

Conclusion:

Staff # 1 directly referanced a document that by their own report he
would not receive for 2 more days. This is a glaring error, and one
that would not have happened if the report were anything but a work of
pure fiction.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a simple curiosity about the K-2 Report, and not, exactly, an
error. It does however, raise a question or two:

[Quote from K-2]

Comments by Staff # 1
Date: 8/29/89

Observations of night-time activity at K-2, over the past month,
indicate that alien crafts are making supply runs at two week
intervals. All of our attempts, on site, to photograph or video tape
their arrival, unloading and departures have failed. The aliens seem to
detect our presence even though we have made every effort to remain
concealed. On two occasions, from our concealed location, we have
observed one of their craft making a landing approach. The craft
suddenly veers off, about two miles from the base, and quickly leaves
the area. For both practical and economic reasons we cannot continue
this surveillance. In our opinion, we have validated the existence of
the base and the alien activity associated with this site.

* * *

Two problems with this:

1. From what they say, all attempts to photograph or video tape the
objects have failed.

Yet they also say that on 2 occasions they observed landing craft
making an approach, but turning away while still 2 miles out.

Sorry guys, but ANYTHING you can see, you can photograph and video
tape. You don't mean to tell me that trained scientific- military
people went to observe a supposed alien base and FORGOT THEIR
CAMERAS? That makes about as much sense as the guy who went to the
LZ and saw landing marks, but conveniently forgot his camera.

2. They also state that over the course of the "last month" the aliens
have been making regular supply runs at 2 week intervals. That
doesn't jive with the rest of the report. That would have covered
most of the month of August, in which we already know that at least
one sighting was made. Why no mention of the others? Why was Staff
# 2 so excited about his sighting on the tenth if this was to be
expected? How can they state with such confidence that the supply
runs are regular? If they make the supply runs every two weeks,
then they would only have had 2 chances to observe them. Hardly
enough data to base the opinion that these are regular supply
runs...

" In our opinion, we have validated the existence of the base and the
alien activity associated with this site."

This line deserves absoloutly no comment...

Conclusion:

This portion of the K-2 report raises more questions about it's
credibility in general. If the US postal service were a bit faster, I'd
be able to post quite a bit more about the K-2 report. Until I receive
my confirming data though, this will have to remain simply as a
teaser... sorry. :^)

Joe.


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