The Pentyrch UFO Encounter

Mendel

Senior Member.
If the event was just due to a military exercise then I don’t understand why there was a massive explosion in woodland near enough to the Royal Glamorgan Hospital to shake it to it’s foundations and fill it with pungent smoke. Also it seems than 60 ft trees had their trunks roughly chopped in half and somehow bleached a pale color rather than being charred. Seems very strange to me.
What is the evidence for that?

If it was due to some extraterrestrial craft, I don't understand how the hospital knew about it two weeks in advance.
Article:
In your reply you suggest an email exists that gave prior warning to the hospital regarding this MILITARY exercise in the early hours of the 26th FEBRUARY 2016, and that an email was sent out AT THE TIME to relevant staff members. Can you please provide details of that email to include the date and time of this prior notification?

An email was issued by our Civil Contingencies Manager, to all relevant staff at 15:56 on the 12 February 2016. This included the following extract:

“South Wales Police have notified me that they will be conducting two counter terrorism exercises:

• 11pm to 3am on 25-26 February
• all day on 21st June

Weapon noise and explosions may be heard on the first date along with increased helicopter activity. On the second date this has been described to me as a 5hr ‘gun battle’ with a considerable number of police vehicles and a large number of helicopters landing on the common land adjacent to the industrial units opposite RGH. This second event will definitely be noticed by the public and staff.”
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Zooming in on the photo shows a different grain size to the noise around the triangle lights, and each of those lights has that different grain size in a conspicuous sharp-edged rectangle around it. Is that indicative of photoshop? I don't know enough about the artefacts produced by photography, so I'm looking for more knowledgeable commentary.
See post #109 above, similar artifacts seem to be associated with some of the street lights and roof lines of houses, items that there would be no reason to photoshop. So I'm not convinced that this is evidence of photoshopping. Which is not to say that the triangle is not shopped into the picture, just that I don't believe artifacts like those say anything one way or another.

To the Eyeball Test, the lights on the triangle look fishy. That might indicated some copy-pasting, or that the lights are reflections off of a sheet of glass instead of being a more distant object flying by, or something else. Or, to be fair, that I don't believe in mysterious triangle UFOs so maybe I'm predisposed to seeing something off there.

I still think it looks fake enough that I believe it to be fake. I'm just not sure the artifacts around the light are evidence of that.

Edited for a sense-mangling typo.
 

johne1618

Active Member
In the new documentary "Craig Charles: UFO Conspiracies" evidence is given of an email from a nurse who was working at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital in the early morning of Feb 26, 2016. The nurse heard one extremely loud explosion that sounded like it came from right outside the hospital followed by a smaller explosion that sounded like it came from further away.

hosp1.jpg

Further on in the email the nurse says that there was a smell of sulfur all around. The nurse phoned security again and they said it was a military exercise which contradicts the claim in post#121 that it was the South Wales Police conducting a counter-terrorism exercise. However the nurse goes on to say there was a heavy police presence in the area and all the roads were blocked.


hosp2.jpg

In the documentary they show the damage to trees in Smilog woods. The trees seem to have been chopped in two and show unusual blanching on their trunks.

trees1.jpg
trees2.jpg
trees3.jpg
trees4.jpg
 
Last edited:

flarkey

Senior Member
In the documentary they show the damage to trees in Smilog wood. The trees seem to have been chopped in two and show unusual blanching on their trunks.
What are you suggesting here? Is there any evidence to confirm that the trees were intact the day/week/month before these photos were taken? If the damage to these trees was the result of an impact from a large object from above, why would the surrounding trees remain standing?

If you think something specific happened, please state what you think occurred, your reasoning and provide any evidence that supports it. Don't just post 'this weird thing happened and I can't explain it' type posts. It gets us nowhere.... That is unless you want us to explain it...?
 
Last edited:

johne1618

Active Member
From the book The Pentyrch Incident, by witness Caz Clarke and UFO researcher Gari Jones, the radar returns of two military planes, ZG996 and ZZ418, circling over the area of Pentrych in Wales on 25th and 26th February 2016. The UFO incident witnessed by Caz Clarke started some time after 2:00 am on the 26th Feb but these planes had been repeatedly flying over the area since 23rd February. It seems that the planes were waiting for something rather than taking part in an exercise. Unfortunately one can't read the details on these figures from PlaneFinder.net. I suppose there is no way of finding this data online as it is 6 years old.

radar.jpg
 
Last edited:

flarkey

Senior Member
From the book The Pentyrch Incident, by witness Caz Clarke and UFO researcher Gari Jones, the radar returns of two military planes, ZG996 and ZZ418, circling over the area of Pentrych in Wales on 25th and 26th February 2016. The UFO incident witnessed by Caz Clarke started some time after 2:00 am on the 26th Feb but these planes had been repeatedly flying over the area since 23rd February. It seems that the planes were waiting for something rather than taking part in an exercise. Unfortunately one can't read the details on these figures from PlaneFinder.net. I suppose there is no way of finding this data online as it is 6 years old.

radar.jpg
As an aviation enthusiast, ex-army Officer and a daily viewer of ADSB data I can confirm that this is exactly the sort of activitiy I would expect if a Special Forces Exercise , such as the bi-annual EXERCISE CHAMELEON, was being held in the South Wales area.

You said "It seems that the planes were waiting for something rather than taking part in an exercise." - please justify this statement.
 

flarkey

Senior Member
ZG996 Britten-Norman Islander

1645477822786.png

ZZ418 Raytheon KingAir BE500 Shadow R.1

1645477851015.png

An Islander and a Shadow - both aircraft with roles to provide surveillance of points on the ground. They are regularly used to support Counter Terrorism incidents or special forces operations. They are not used to detect interdimensional spaceships. This evidence supports the hypothesis that this was all just a military exercise. If you're trying to provide evidence that support the witness's story you're going about it the wrong way.
 
Last edited:

johne1618

Active Member
According to her book "The Pentyrch Incident" written with Gari Jones, Caz Clarke, the main witness, left the following comments on the WalesOnline article How military training planes and helicopters kept parts of South Wales awake on Feb 26-27, 2016:

scr1.jpg

scr2.jpg

These comments are no longer on the WalesOnline article. There are currently (Feb 22, 2022) only three comments posted within the last month.

I emailed website.enquiries@walesonline.co.uk asking them if they had deleted any comments from the article.

Their reply was:

Thanks for your email. There are no hidden, deleted or edited comments visible on that article in the back end of the system so it doesn't look like it has been edited at any point.

I don't believe Caz Clarke lied.

What happened to the comments?
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
These comments are no longer on the WalesOnline article.
There's another article in Wales Online by Robert Dalling, Senior Reporter, published 11:51, 22 OCT 2018, UPDATED10:04, 12 MAR 2021.
Article:
Recalling the events of that day more than two years ago, one witness, Caz Clarke said she could "categorically state it was no exercise".

"I will take a lie detector anywhere for anyone but what I witnessed will stay with me for the rest of my life," she said.

"What is more, the military knew they were coming and had a spotter plane in the air for two days waiting for 'the event'.

"When it came, four planes chased the "green" object whilst the spotter plane circled approximately six red oval objects, which formed a pyramid shape. Several red spheres hovered silently above the fields until the helicopters came."

That was the first hit on Google when I searched for this comment.
It's also linked in post #1 on this very thread. All of the observations are explained in that post.

It's kinda hard to make the case that the news site is suppressing something they actually publish.
 
Last edited:

johne1618

Active Member
There's another article in Wales Online by Robert Dalling, Senior Reporter, published 11:51, 22 OCT 2018, UPDATED10:04, 12 MAR 2021.
Article:
Recalling the events of that day more than two years ago, one witness, Caz Clarke said she could "categorically state it was no exercise".

"I will take a lie detector anywhere for anyone but what I witnessed will stay with me for the rest of my life," she said.

"What is more, the military knew they were coming and had a spotter plane in the air for two days waiting for 'the event'.

"When it came, four planes chased the "green" object whilst the spotter plane circled approximately six red oval objects, which formed a pyramid shape. Several red spheres hovered silently above the fields until the helicopters came."

That was the first hit on Google when I searched for this comment.
It's also linked in post #1 on this very thread. All of the observations are explained in that post.

It's kinda hard to make the case that the news site is suppressing something they actually publish.

But I still don't understand why comments would be deleted from the original article. In the Amazon preview of the book, one can see that Caz Clarke gives some examples of Twitter comments about the military aircraft flying around and explosions near Llantrisant in the early hours of Feb 26, 2016. I can confirm that these comments are still on Twitter. If there were so many people disturbed by the event then there must have been more comments on the original WalesOnline article in addition to Caz Clarke's comments. Why delete them? Newspapers shouldn't be in the business of deleting history.

scr1.jpg
scr2.jpg
 
Last edited:

johne1618

Active Member
From what I can see on the wayback machine, it looks like they changed their comment hosting provider.

I also think your expectations of what happens to comments is too high.

That's interesting. Could you give some details of what you see on the wayback machine that makes you think that they changed their comment hosting provider?
 
Last edited:

Ann K

Active Member
@johne1618, you refer to a book with comments from a witness (Caz Clarke) in conjunction with a ufo researcher (Gari Jones). But just as "every problem looks like a nail to a man with a hammer", every airborn object tends to look like a ufo to a "ufo researcher". I'd take that book with a large grain of salt, and suspect that he looked longer for things he considered suspicious than things that were explanatory.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I don't believe Caz Clarke lied.
This seems to be a repeating pattern. She may not be "lying", in that she was out of town and is completely making it up, but that doesn't mean she is right. She may really believe that the military exercises she saw were something they were not.

I think you'll find, after reading the entire thread again as I did, she is a UFOlogest and into conspiratorial thinking. She and her co-writer, Jones, tried to collect data and reported results even though they had no idea what they were doing.

Some people lie outright, for whatever reason. Some people take a kernel of truth and exaggerate it for dramatic effect, I had a friend named Tim that did this all the time, we called them Timy-tales. And some people see what they want to see no matter what.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The idea that there's a "kernel of truth" behind UFO sightings is the premise of Metabunk: it's how we can debunk sightings with evidence in the first place.

When I read an account like Caz Clarke's, I mentally separate observation and interpretation.
Thanks for sharing this but I can categorically state it was no exercise! Last night I saw absolutely everything and what they were chasing were not planes! I will take a lie detector anywhere for anyone but what I witnessed will stay with me for the rest of my life. What is more, the military knew they were coming and had a spotter plane in the air for two days waiting for 'the event'. When it came, four planes chased the "green" object whilst the spotter plane circled approximately six red oval objects, which formed a pyramid shape. Several red spheres hovered silently above the fields until the helicopters came....
Content from External Source
It's notable that all of the observations fit what flarkey tells us about military exercises in post #1.

And it's equally notable that some key interpretations are extremely doubtful:
• "I saw absolutely everything" when it was in the middle of the night and therefore dark, shows a lack of self-reflection.
• "the military knew they were coming" is extremely rare. Official forces generally don't display any precognition of UFO sightings. This is actually evidence against this being an extraterrestrial or extradimensional manifestation, and evidence for the event being planned. But for UFOlogists/CTists, anything that's unusual to them is often evidence for their theory, no questions asked.
• "approximately six objects, which formed a pyramid shape" is the wrong number, as a pyramid is a 3-dimensional shape with 5 corners. (5 is "approximately six"?) Pyramids have esoteric significance, so there's an expectation to see pyramids (pareidolia).
• With a "chase", the chasers usually have a plan in place for what to do when they catch up (e.g. in a car chase, stop the car and arrest the driver). Caz Clarke never witnesses that.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Senior Member.
....
• "the military knew they were coming" is extremely rare. Official forces generally don't display any precognition of UFO sightings. This is actually evidence against this being an extraterrestrial or extradimensional manifestation, and evidence for the event being planned. But for UFOlogists/CTists, anything that's unusual to them is often evidence for their theory, no questions asked.
....
Very good point. If there is one thing specific for UFO's then it the complete unpredictability of it. Unless of course, the military is in direct contact with our alien friends and got a copy of the mission.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Unless of course, the military is in direct contact with our alien friends and got a copy of the mission.
Yes.
But can you tell from the observations whether the aliens were friendly or not? I can't.

They might be friendly because of a complete lack of stealth, and because they appeared in an area already surveilled by a spotter aircraft.

They might be hostile because of the explosions, the weapons, and the chasing.

So which is it?
 
Last edited:

Hugh Manchester

New Member
Hi all, I will try again with a question.

I have Many doubts about the incident. But, Caz's testimony has always felt very sincere and honest. Even if I have doubts about any other evidence, I could not be happy with dismissing her.

However, I have seen a post form her regarding a video of a supposed UFO sighting, and would like an oppinion on it.
Ay 00:02 and again at about 00:15 the mobile phone camera seems to adjust slightly with it's auto focus. So it seems to me.
However Caz and a few other posters 'see' a flash at this time from the craft and describe it as unusual and interesting.
cz1.jpg
What am I looking at?
If it is an auto focus artefact, then this compromises my veiw on her ability to understand and identify what she is looking at.
If in fact it is me that is mistaken, I will trust her judgement completely!

Here is a link to the video.
https://video.fbhx1-1.fna.fbcdn.net...AsIWj89XYSgD9YtEYmRMByeZC_s9y1SSw&oe=622378F2

Just looking for some impartial comments to help me get to grips with my thoughts. Couldn't get any in the group.

Thanks.
 

Ann K

Active Member
For me, that link goes to the much longer URL that copies as above and gets a message that says "URL signature expired if I click on it. If I copy/paste the shorter version that shows in Hugh Manchester's post it comes back "trouble finding that page."
I get nothing but a black screen, with a centered triangle symbol with a slash through it (Same for either version of the link).
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I have Many doubts about the incident. But, Caz's testimony has always felt very sincere and honest. Even if I have doubts about any other evidence, I could not be happy with dismissing her.
This seems to be a common problem. As I stated in post #136
I think you'll find, after reading the entire thread again as I did, she is a UFOlogest and into conspiratorial thinking. She and her co-writer, Jones, tried to collect data and reported results even though they had no idea what they were doing.
She may well be very sincere and very honest and very wrong about what she saw and continues to see.

A person's sincerity doesn't make them right. You said you "have doubts about the other evidence"? So why do you feel uncomfortable with dismissing her story if it's not backed up? It doesn't mean you'r calling her a liar or a hoaxer, just that she misinterpreted what she saw.

Betty Hill, the original abductee, was always sincere and honest and in her later years saw almost every light in the sky as a UFO.
 

Easy Muffin

Active Member
She may well be very sincere and very honest and very wrong about what she saw and continues to see.
Plus she tends to make giant mountains out of the molehills she saw.
A couple prop planes and some helicopters become 'enough firepower to have taken over a small country', some random workers are probably up to no good because they didn't let her look at their laptops (?), and they could be secret military because their tents are neatly lined up (??), and they could be 'triangulating a satellite' (???) to 'listen, perhaps' (????) etc.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Plus she tends to make giant mountains out of the molehills she saw.
What I find interesting in going back over this thread, is some people just take her so seriously and find her totally believable, even if they find the evidence lacking.

I figured this was a done deal when flarkey explained it in the opening post, but here we are 4 pages later. I guess I'll have to watch her latest video that flarkey posted and see if she really does have some sort of magical power of persuasion.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
What I find interesting in going back over this thread, is some people just take her so seriously and find her totally believable, even if they find the evidence lacking.

I figured this was a done deal when flarkey explained it in the opening post, but here we are 4 pages later. I guess I'll have to watch her latest video that flarkey posted and see if she really does have some sort of magical power of persuasion.
if people didn't "want to believe" this stuff, it wouldn't have made it to Metabunk in the first place.

People believe all sorts of stuff because they find the messenger believable, even if there is no evidence for it. Everything from politics to health enhancements or cures, to cosmetics etc. It's not just UFO people who mainly believe stuff just because they "want to" or because they don't like or trust the guy saying "no, that's not true".
 

flarkey

Senior Member
So the witness Caz Clarke has created a new video that 'proves' that this was no military exercise. The video is linked below. I have downloaded the transcript of the video from YouTube to save you the pain of watching the whole thing.

Source: https://youtu.be/9HNKhzQl5Ac

The video contains all sorts of claims about what happened that night, all with very little evidence to back them up. The claims generally relate to perceived breaches of MoD policy when it comes to low flying and exercise planning. There is no actual evidence to support the claims that any regulations were broken, only statements and verbal guarantees that they did. So debunking these very vague statements is difficult. However, the witness does make at least one debunkable statement. In the video at the 18m33s mark she claims that 'they are not permitted to low fly within a controlled airspace of a civil airport' and the military breached this rule by flying within Cardiff Airports Control Zone at low level over the towns of Llantrisant and Pentyrch. She is correct, there is a rule that prohibits low flying in such an area, but this only applies to Class A airspace around an airport's control zone (CTR). The towns of Llantrisant & Pentyrch are outside the Cardiff CTR.

Screenshot_20220310-095147_Gmail.jpg

Anyone want to debunk the other claims she makes...?

Here's another one.... at 51m17s she makes the claim "they were armed you know they didn't have yellow caps in the end of their gun which again is an offence unless it was a real situation". This is blatently not true. The BFA is only fitted if blanks are being used in an exercise. There is no "offence" of not fitting one. This was debunked in post #1 of this thread.
 

Attachments

  • transcript.txt
    57.3 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Might be interesting to check if there was a NOTAM out for that night. They could've simply closed the airport during the ecercise.

What I'd like zo know is why land belonging to "3:08:00 uh local authority 3:10:00 and national resources for wales" is supposed to be private land, I'd have expected that to be public land?
 

Easy Muffin

Active Member
One of the NOTAM's on page 1 mention that para drop height is subject to ATC so they would have been in contact with traffic control, presumably to deconflict their activities from local traffic (however much there was in the middle of the night).

I've not looked at the video but one thing from the transcript is that she seems to confuse IFF transponders with ADS-B information. When she says
14:35:00 use of identification friend or foe iff
14:37:00 or secondary radar transponders
14:41:00 are a must especially when they low fly
14:43:00 and the transponders that night were
14:47:00 switched off when the operations started
14:49:00 so we couldn't track them on radar
14:51:00 but they were there
I reckon that's them not finding the planes on their flight tracking site of choice and not understanding a) the difference between IFF and ADS-B and b) not knowing about the pitfalls of volunteer-run ADS-B tracking networks, maybe even thinking that these sites are in any way comparable to what ATC sees on their displays.

Also in general I get the impression that she views low flying as this monolithic block that could not possibly have excemptions for exercises. By the way, these things happen all over the UK all the time, there's really nothing special about it. And they spread these out so as not to annoy the same people over and over again. By the looks of things they held one exercise near Pentyrch for a couple of days in 2016 and not again since.

Huge military planes and RAF helicopters to take part in Northamptonshire low flying exercises
https://www.northantslive.news/news.../huge-military-planes-raf-helicopters-5883543

'It shook the whole house' - RAF helicopters spotted flying low over Seaham in late night training exercise
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/raf-helicopter-seaham-training-flying-21662155

Mystery of low flying planes over Kent countryside solved
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/ive-honestly-never-seen-anything-like-it-257379/
 

flarkey

Senior Member
I've not looked at the video but one thing from the transcript is that she seems to confuse IFF transponders with ADS-B information. When she says

Yes, IFF is for use in combat situations and isnt accessible by the public. Not all military aircraft have ADSB transponders anyway. And not all tracking websites share military traffic. And when she says...

14:49:00 so we couldn't track them on radar

... well its not really '"RADAR" is it. I suppose this is just a colloquialism for ADSB that has flowed over from FlightRadar24. But still, it shows a lack of understanding of what she is talking about.
 
Last edited:

Phill

New Member
So how do you explain the explosion which was heard by quite a few people and if the so called "training excersise" is an annual event how come the said explosion hasn't happened in past years
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
So how do you explain the explosion which was heard by quite a few people and if the so called "training excersise" is an annual event how come the said explosion hasn't happened in past years
As Mendel says, something exploded. If you read through the entire thread it's obvious that there was an exercise going on in that area. If you check Easy Muffin's post #149, he list other places around the country where exercises have taken place, so they get moved around.

What sounds more plausible: during a planned exercise somebody set off an overly large munition and refrained from doing it again in the future or the MoD spent days and nights chasing and shooting down an UFO and then quickly packed it up and took it away.

The fact that there was an explosion at a military training exercise is not evidence for Clark's story.
 
Top