By Paul Dean, 11 August 2016
(UFOs – Documenting The Evidence, Melbourne, Australia)
HMAS Hobart was attacked by a United States Air Force F–4
Phantom Fighter-Bomber on 17 June 1968.
Quote from the article:
“The report that mentions the HMAS Hobart is titled ‘Project
CHECO South East Asia Report: Air War In The DMZ September 1967 – June 1968.’ It was produced by
the 7th Air Force’s (7AF) Directorate of Tactical Evaluation, Headquarters,
Pacific Air Forces (HQ PACAF), and was published on the 1st of August, 1969.
Signed off by Col. Warren H. Peterson, the report was originally classified
SECRET/AIR FORCE EYES ONLY, the report was only declassified on the 17th of
August, 2006. In
relation to the HMAS Hobart and UFO’s, on pages forty–five and forty–six it
states:
‘The
several direct hits or near misses on friendly vessels by the Air Force
missiles obviously raised the question of what went wrong with target
acquisition. The pilots, based on their radar and visual sightings, fired at
what they thought were helicopters. The joint service conference on the UFO
problem took note of one possibility…’
This passage ends with an endnote, namely, number ‘128.’
The next passage of text is a quote taken directly from raw USAF records, and
it states:
‘It is
important to note that only in the case of the Hobart were the recorded targets
in close proximity to ships. It is possible that targets fired on were airborne
and that missiles subsequently [were] guided on the stronger radar return from
ships in the vicinity.’
So what can we take from this? The fact that USAF attempted to make sense of these elusive ‘visual, radar, and infrared sightings,’ by organising the photographing of them, is something that we scarcely see in the established official record. The statement ‘…On three successive August nights, RF–4s flew a total of 12 sorties against 34 radar–plotted UFO targets’ demonstrates clearly the urgency of the situation. The statement about the ‘…chances of photographing one of the UFOs in the DMZ is extremely remote…’ indicates that a fair degree of discussion must have taken place over the matter. If that is not enough, note the passage of text which states ‘…two special projects were established to observe the UFOs….’ There is no question that something odd was going on. To use the frowned–upon term ‘UFO’ so readily implies that US forces had few clues as to what they were visually witnessing and plotting on radar systems. Also, as I mentioned at the beginning of this entry, the term ‘UFO’ is utilised as distinct from terms like ‘hostile aircraft,’ ‘flak,’ ‘rocket barrage,’ ‘formation of planes’ and so forth.”
So what can we take from this? The fact that USAF attempted to make sense of these elusive ‘visual, radar, and infrared sightings,’ by organising the photographing of them, is something that we scarcely see in the established official record. The statement ‘…On three successive August nights, RF–4s flew a total of 12 sorties against 34 radar–plotted UFO targets’ demonstrates clearly the urgency of the situation. The statement about the ‘…chances of photographing one of the UFOs in the DMZ is extremely remote…’ indicates that a fair degree of discussion must have taken place over the matter. If that is not enough, note the passage of text which states ‘…two special projects were established to observe the UFOs….’ There is no question that something odd was going on. To use the frowned–upon term ‘UFO’ so readily implies that US forces had few clues as to what they were visually witnessing and plotting on radar systems. Also, as I mentioned at the beginning of this entry, the term ‘UFO’ is utilised as distinct from terms like ‘hostile aircraft,’ ‘flak,’ ‘rocket barrage,’ ‘formation of planes’ and so forth.”
Wikipedia article: “HMAS Hobart (D 39)”:
Quote from the Wikipedia article:
“HMAS Hobart (D 39) was a Perth class guided missile destroyer of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).”
.jpg)
(wikimedia.org photo)
