1989 - Fire in the Sky Jenny Randles

Magazine Overview

This document, titled 'FIRE IN THE SKY: CASE HISTORY TWO - THE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE UFO MOVIE FILM', is a publication from BUFORA's National Investigations Committee, compiled by Jenny Randles. It details a significant UFO sighting and filming event that occurred on January 11, 1973, in Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom.

Section One: The Case

Introduction

The introduction highlights the difficulty of convincing others about UFO sightings, emphasizing the need for visual proof. It states that genuine UFO photographs are rare, and movie film is even rarer. The Buckinghamshire case is presented as arguably the most significant of its kind in Britain and globally. The case's special nature stems from the availability of film evidence, allowing for analysis of the phenomenon's dynamics, and the presence of multiple witnesses at two separate locations. The document aims to allow the reader to decide whether an acceptable explanation exists or if it represents an unidentified close encounter. It also notes that the film has been featured on television, often without proper context regarding its importance. This booklet is the first in a series of 'Case Histories' from BUFORA's National Investigations Committee, with plans to publish about two per year. The publication expresses gratitude to Peter Day for his sixteen years of cooperation.

(1): The Eye-Witness Account

On Thursday, January 11, 1973, Peter Day, a building surveyor from Moreton, Oxfordshire, was traveling to Lower Winchendon, Buckinghamshire, for a client meeting. While driving northeast along the A418, he noticed an orange ball of light low on the northern horizon, approximately at 09:05 GMT. The object moved from his left to his right (northwest to northeast) across the terrain, remaining visible for about two to three minutes. He stopped his car on a sideroad near Cuddington to film the object. The object was described as an orange ball of light, silent, and moving steadily without any sound heard by the witness. The film captured the object for 23 seconds, though Peter Day estimated he filmed for only 12 seconds before it vanished instantly.

(3): Aftermath

After filming, Peter Day waited for about ten to twenty minutes, anticipating the object's return, but it did not reappear. He then proceeded to his appointment, arriving slightly late. Later that day, at 11:30 GMT, he visited the Thame Gazette to report his sighting and filming. He was surprised to learn that a local teacher and schoolchildren had also reported seeing a UFO. The newspaper attributed the sighting to a military jet that had dumped fuel, an explanation Peter Day rejected due to the object's appearance and behavior. His wife, Connie, later informed him about a BBC report of an F-111 jet crashing near Upper Heyford around 09:46 GMT. Peter Day contacted USAF Upper Heyford, where a Major confirmed the F-111 crash but stated the jet was not on fire before impact, contradicting eyewitness reports. The Major showed no interest in Peter Day's film. He also contacted ITV and BBC, who lacked the facilities to screen 8mm film. His attempt to contact the Ministry of Defence (MoD) resulted in an interrogation and a request to mail the original film, which he declined. He offered to deliver it personally, but the MoD never followed up. Peter Day then took the film to KODAK in Hemel Hempstead for processing.

(4): The Movie Film

Upon viewing the film, Peter Day confirmed he had captured the orange ball moving steadily across the screen, partially behind trees. The film revealed two surprising details not observed by the witness: the object clearly pulsated, and the last frame showed the trees behind where the object had vanished as 'smeared' or out of focus. This 'smearing' effect led to speculation about a force field or warping of light rays caused by the UFO vanishing at the speed of light, an effect too brief for the human eye but captured by the camera.

(5): The Other Witnesses

Peter Day learned from the Thame Gazette that other witnesses existed, including schoolchildren and a teacher from Chilton village, near Long Crendon. These witnesses, aged between six and eleven, along with a teacher named Elizabeth Thompson, provided accounts that generally aligned with Peter Day's sighting. They described an orange ball or sphere that was slightly flattened, floating, and spinning or rotating. Some reported it shaking from side to side. The object appeared from the west, hovered north of their school, and then moved east towards Aylesbury. The sightings were accurately timed around 09:00 GMT, coinciding with the school assembly bell. The existence of these three separate groups of witnesses is considered invaluable to the case.

(6): The Investigations

Following the newspaper report, Peter Day was contacted by CONTACT UK, a UFO group from Oxford led by Brinsley le Poer Trench. They were impressed by the film but initially denied a copy. Later, a copy was made available to BUFORA and CONTACT UK. The original film was duplicated, with later copies showing a darker background due to the copying process. A preliminary frame-by-frame analysis of the film in March 1973 yielded little substantial information, though size and speed estimates were made based on assumptions about the object's distance. CONTACT UK and BUFORA collaborated, with Derek Mansell and Rick Roebuck from CONTACT UK interviewing witnesses. BUFORA's Roger Stanway, a lawyer, sent Peter Day a questionnaire and requested a detailed taped statement. In the summer of 1973, Stanway conducted an on-site investigation and, using a reconstruction method involving a plumb line, estimated the object's diameter to be around 75 feet.

On September 1, 1973, Roger Stanway presented his findings to a large, informed audience at BUFORA, where Peter Day answered questions and received a consensus opinion that he was truthful. The document also mentions the arrival of Dr. J. Allen Hynek in Britain, a prominent UFOlogist who had consulted on 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'. Hynek suggested the background image on the film might have been bent by a UFO traveling faster than light. CONTACT UK's inquiries added detail to other witnesses' accounts. Rick Roebuck interviewed children after they had seen the film. Typical descriptions included a yellowy-orange ball that hovered, descended, rotated, and shook. Paula Fox described it 'cracking open into a V shape'. Nina Sparks saw a distinct silvery shape. These accounts, while offering differences, highlighted significant factors like color, shape, hovering, descending, and varying brightness. The object was observed for about two minutes before being lost behind Dorton Hill.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the presentation of compelling UFO evidence, particularly film footage, supported by multiple eyewitness testimonies. BUFORA's stance appears to be one of serious, sober research, aiming to compile data and investigate UFO phenomena rigorously. They emphasize the importance of high-quality evidence and aim to present the 'cream' of their findings. The document implicitly advocates for the reality of UFOs by presenting such detailed cases and investigations, while acknowledging the need for readers to form their own conclusions.

This issue of Butora, published by the National Investigations Committee, focuses on the 1973 UFO sighting and film by Peter Day, exploring its connection to a concurrent F-111 aircraft crash and the subsequent investigations. The publication delves into witness testimonies, film analysis, and potential explanations for the phenomenon.

The Peter Day Sighting and Film

The issue begins by detailing the account of Elizabeth Thompson, a teacher who, along with her students, witnessed and described a bright orange, rotating object on the morning of January 11, 1973. While the children were excited and convinced they saw what Peter Day had filmed, Thompson was initially less certain, describing the object as a large, hemispherical, fast-rotating, and intensely bright solid object, not a rounded shape as seen on film. She initially mistook it for a grain silo roof or an orange parachute used by pilots ejecting, but later concluded she had seen the same phenomenon as Day.

Peter Day's film, which was later shown on a BBC program with minimal commentary, was crucial to the investigation. Viewers were not informed of the multiple witnesses. The film was loaned to Hugh Burnett, a TV producer making a documentary, and later to Peter Warrington and the author for analysis.

Film Analysis and Expert Verification

In March 1978, the film was studied at KODAK's Hemel Hempstead laboratories with the assistance of Peter Southerst. Photographic experts concluded that a real object was present on the film at a distance from the camera. The bizarre last frame was explained as camera shake caused by switching off the shutter, though Peter Day was not entirely satisfied with this explanation.

The F-111 Crash Connection

A significant aspect of the investigation was the F-111 aircraft crash that occurred on the same morning as the UFO sighting. Investigators explored a potential link, with BUFORA investigator Ken Phillips studying the crash relationship. The F-111 crashed at 0946 local time on January 11, 1973, near North Crawley, UK, after experiencing a problem and burning in the mid-fuselage area. The crew ejected safely. The Times reported that the F-111 had been in trouble for about 50 minutes before crashing, circling to use up fuel, with the problem appearing around 09.06 GMT, coinciding with the UFO sighting.

Investigations and Organizations

Various organizations and individuals were involved in the case. BUFORA (British UFO Research Association) played a significant role, with Peter Warrington and the author working on their book "UFOs: A British Viewpoint." Later, SCUFORI (Swindon Centre for UFO Research and Investigation) took over the case, producing a 108-page report. Their research team, including Charles Affleck, Marty Moffatt, Martin Shipp, and Mike Williams, focused on reconstructing the event and gathering more accurate measurements. Dr. J. Allen Hynek and John Timmerman from the Center for UFO Studies also visited the site.

Object Characteristics and Theories

Based on witness accounts and film analysis, estimates were made for the object's height (1800 feet), diameter (64 feet), and speed (about 140 MPH). The object was described as a bright orange dome or semi-circle, hemispherical, rotating, and varying in brightness. Some witnesses described it as a saucer shape with a dome, silvery white, and spinning. The possibility of it being ball lightning was raised, as it had only been filmed in still photographs before. Another theory suggested it was a form of air traffic, but witnesses, including Nina Sparks, categorically stated it was not a normal aircraft, citing the noise and appearance.

Witness Testimony and Discrepancies

Further interviews were conducted, particularly after the BBC's "Kilroy" program featured the case in 1987, helping to locate some of the original witnesses. Paula Fox, a student witness, described a bright, silvery-white, spinning object with a saucer shape and dome, which moved slowly and steadily before dipping and vanishing. She recalled the playground going silent and expecting martians to emerge. Tracy, another witness, claimed to hear a loud roaring noise, unlike other witnesses who reported silence. These discrepancies in testimony, particularly regarding sound and exact shape, added to the mystery.

Evaluation and Conclusion

The evaluation section considers astronomical explanations, dismissing a meteorite theory due to the duration and lack of widespread observation. The aircraft or helicopter theory is also discussed, with witnesses strongly denying it was conventional air traffic. The issue highlights the difficulty in definitively explaining the phenomenon, with the film being verified as genuine but the object's nature remaining a subject of debate. The article suggests that while the film and witness accounts confirm a genuine strange phenomenon, further investigation is needed to resolve the remaining questions.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the investigation of UFO sightings, the analysis of photographic and film evidence, the importance of witness testimony, and the potential connection between UFO phenomena and conventional events like aircraft crashes. The editorial stance appears to be one of thorough, evidence-based investigation, acknowledging the complexities and uncertainties inherent in UFO research, while also being critical of hasty explanations and emphasizing the need for rigorous scientific scrutiny. There is a clear commitment to exploring all plausible explanations while remaining open to the possibility of unknown phenomena.

This issue of Bufora, published by the National Investigations Committee and dated July 1989, focuses on the "FIRE IN THE SKY" incident that occurred on January 11, 1973. The magazine delves into the details of a UFO sighting and the subsequent crash of an F-111 aircraft, exploring various hypotheses and evidence.

The Eye Witness Account

The article begins by referencing correspondence with the Ministry of Defence regarding UFO reports. A brief statement from the department suggested that the observed phenomenon was consistent with an aircraft using its afterburners, though this was considered mere speculation due to a lack of resources. The nature of afterburners, which produce a visible orange glow at high speeds, is explained. Researcher Steuart Campbell favored the afterburner explanation, especially given the misty conditions.

However, the author recounts a lecture at RAF Shawbury where senior air force officers expressed disbelief at the afterburner theory, finding it improbable that an afterburner could be visible for an extended period without auditory clues. An alternative theory emerged from discussions with atmospheric physicists: that the phenomenon might have been caused by experimental rotating searchlights fitted to helicopters in the mid-seventies. This was investigated and found to be a short-lived trial that did not operate in January 1973.

Meteorological Phenomenon

The issue then explores the possibility of ball lightning, described as a rare atmospheric phenomenon of plasma that can be spherical or cylindrical and orange in color. While it can drift and vanish suddenly, sometimes with an explosion, Steuart Campbell ultimately concluded that ball lightning was not a probable explanation for this case.

The Film and Scientific Response

The film of the event, which was the basis for a symposium, was replayed and discussed at length by scientists. It was agreed that ball lightning can sometimes be reported as a UFO. However, scientists generally believed ball lightning to be a short-lived phenomenon, typically lasting only seconds and being only a few feet in size, unlike the case in question. They also noted that ball lightning usually occurs under specific meteorological conditions, which were not met on January 11, 1973. Despite the scientists' initial hopes, they ultimately agreed that the film did not depict ball lightning, expressing disappointment. One scientist, however, suggested the film fit the description of a UFO better than anything else.

The article notes the stigma attached to UFOs, leading to the use of the term UAP (Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomenon). The scientists declined to loan the film for further study, fearing it might jeopardize their credibility.

Dr. Terence Meaden's Theory

Dr. Terence Meaden, editor of the Journal of Meteorology and head of TORRO, proposed a theory involving spinning vortices, akin to short-lived tornadoes, which can cause ionization effects. He suggested these could be responsible for strange circular patterns in cereal fields and might pose a danger to air traffic. It is speculated that the UFO event could have been the result of such a novel meteorological phenomenon.

The Air Crash Theory

This section examines the hypothesis that the UFO and an aircraft crash were linked. A 1984 BUFORA report concluded that an F-111 aircraft had crashed approximately 24 miles north-northeast of the sighting location around the same time. The report suggested that the observed phenomenon was the F-111 itself, possibly with its afterburners engaged.

However, the article presents counterarguments. The F-111 was seen at least forty minutes before its crash and was flying in the opposite direction of the impact site at the time of the crash. While the F-111 might have flown past the witnesses earlier, the lack of any reports from people who might have seen or heard the aircraft is questioned. The article also notes the disinterest of the US Air Force and the MoD in the film, suggesting they might have had their own explanations or diagnostic films.

The UFO Caused the Jet to Crash

This dramatic scenario, where a UFO is responsible for the F-111's problem, is considered. The article posits that if an unidentified object caused the F-111's malfunction, the two must have come into close proximity. However, no reports of the F-111 and a UFO together exist, suggesting they might be the same phenomenon. The F-111 was reported in the vicinity of the M1 motorway, some distance from where the UFO sighting took place. The timing of the F-111's malfunction, beginning around 09:00 GMT, closely aligns with the UFO event, strongly inferring a connection.

The cloud ceiling at 1800 feet and the MoD's reassurances that the F-111 was not flying low suggest the aircraft might have been high above the clouds. This would explain why it wasn't seen or heard by witnesses. If the orange ball was merely the aircraft's afterburners, it would have to be low and visible, and thus likely heard. The absence of sound suggests it was higher, making the afterburner theory less plausible.

The possibility of a Meaden vortex briefly manifesting and then disappearing into cloud cover is raised. If the F-111 flew through this phenomenon at a higher altitude, it could have suffered electrical faults, rudder failure, or engine overheating, leading to its malfunction. The disappearance of the UFO from ground level coincides with the F-111's malfunction.

The UFO Was the Crashing Jet

This conclusion, reached by SCUFORI, is deemed faulty due to an assumption about timing. The article argues that the F-111 could not have been filmed on fire at 09:05 GMT and remained airborne for another hour. However, the testimony of children and witnesses confirms the 09:05 GMT timing. The article suggests that if the F-111 was the UFO, there might have been an earlier, brief fire that was controlled before the main malfunction.

The Fuel Dump Theory

This theory proposes that the UFO was a product of the aircraft's behavior during its malfunction. If the F-111 overflew the location after 09:00 GMT, it might have been out of view above the clouds. Upon experiencing a serious malfunction, the crew might have decided to dump fuel to attempt an emergency landing. The article describes how ejected fuel could be ignited by afterburners at a height to burn up before reaching the ground. A cloud of burning vapor could then be trapped by an air thermal and appear as a UFO, floating above the cloud ceiling.

However, the steady, horizontal passage of the UFO in the film does not align with the idea of burning fuel descending. RAF officers considered this theory fanciful but not impossible. The main drawback is the UFO's apparent steady movement, with no indication of falling.

Conclusions

The article concludes that a fire was seen in the sky above Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire shortly after 09:00 GMT on January 11, 1973, and an F-111 crashed about an hour later. These are facts, and by definition, the observed object was a UFO. The connection between the UFO and the F-111 crash is considered likely. The question remains whether a strange atmospheric phenomenon damaged the jet, or if the witnesses saw burning fuel ejected by the crew.

A news story from early June 1989, reporting on a UFO sighting in Oxfordshire, provided an explanation: it was an American fighter pilot from RAF Upper Heyford igniting jettisoned fuel with his after-burners. This suggests that similar phenomena might have mundane explanations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the investigation of unidentified atmospheric phenomena (UAP), the analysis of specific incidents like the 'Fire in the Sky' case, and the exploration of various scientific and speculative explanations. The editorial stance appears to be one of thorough investigation, presenting multiple theories and evidence, while acknowledging the limitations of proof and the potential for misinterpretation or mundane explanations. The use of the term UAP instead of UFO reflects a cautious and scientific approach. The article also highlights the challenges faced by researchers, including official disinterest and the potential for public misinterpretation of events.