Norwich, Norfolk-23rd May 2014

Location of Sighting: Norwich, Norfolk
Date of Sighting: 23 May 2014
Time: 14:20
Witness Name: Michael Bower

Witness Statement: 23 May 2014 as my son and I were walking Stella the dog by the River Yare, and having sat down on the seat over looking the river situated south of Bland Road, Norwich, Norfolk, UK, we were commenting on the fighter jets roaring above our heads at great height. They looked very small when out of the white clouds. I said they were not playing war games but chasing a UFO radar contact for I knew from previous experiences how to tell the difference. We watched a fighter plane go into a great pulled about fluffy white cloud that was unlike the other clouds and I said to my son to watch for a UFO to come out of the other end of it. There was a short gap between that cloud and the next and as we watched it a craft of huge size materialized within the gap. It was not moving but just hovering. It was in shape hard to describe as it seemed that the outer edge was not so visible but it was long like a cigar and light metallic green in colour with two bars or rails running along ether side underneath that shone a brighter metallic green. After around ten seconds or so it dematerialized and a jet fighter came out of the cloud, which was tiny like a fly in comparison to the UFO. We could hear the jets after burners and see them at times going extremely fast, then slow right down and turn as if trying to find it once again. I got the impression that the UFO was kind of playing games with them. The time of the sighting was 14:20 and the craft was almost overhead and slightly to the east. I have watched something like this now three times from or near my home, and over the twenty years I have lived here I have seen a good few sightings. Once one has seen them it becomes habit to keep an eye on the sky and to learn how to look. I am sure the RAF would just say what they always say, that they were just playing war games or practising. However all three times I have seen these happenings it was over built up areas and the flying was frantic. I?m afraid that I did not have the time or togetherness to get my phone out and take a video or photo, for if I had tried to do that I would have missed the sighing. Next time perhaps!

Source:?www.uk-ufo.co.uk

Comment : If you can provide further information on this or other possible UFO sightings in this area then please leave a comment or send details through our ?submit sighting? form

Updated: May 26, 2014 — 10:00 pm

23 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. I’m afraid the credibility of the Trent/McMinnville photos is now (quite literally) hanging by a thread: http://www.ipaco.fr/ReportMcMinnville.pdf

  2. Hi Steve T,

    Regarding your comment, “surely it strikes you as odd that someone who has had a number of sightings has never taken a picture? I don’t know about you, but even my very cheap mobile has a half decent camera on it”.

    The Edinburgh sighting of 16th Jan 2014, shows an illuminated object that you suggested was an ‘aeroplane’, & you commented, “the pictures above could have been taken by me (if I had a camera!) at any time on a bright day from my back garden in Northumberland; they’re aeroplanes, nothing more”.

    When I politely asked you to supply us with a photograph to prove that is the case, you responded with, “As for replicating the aeroplane as requested, how should I do that? I don’t own one, and I have no camera”.

    So, my point is Steve, I gave you the opportunity to prove that ‘K Bennett’s’ pictures are that of an ‘aeroplane’, I have to take that comment with a pinch of salt, ‘Michael Bower’ has stated, “I’m afraid that I did not have the time or togetherness to get my phone out and take a video or photo, for if I had tried to do that I would have missed the sighing”.

    It doesn’t “strike me as odd”, that we have no pictures/video’s of the (alleged) sightings, for I have no idea how long the object(s) were in sight, for instance, mobiles have cameras of various quality, take a picture of a bird (feathered kind;-), sat on a fence, then take a picture of the same bird in flight, the results, I’m sure you will agree, are totally different!.

    George Adamski said he took thousands of photograph’s of UFO’s, (the majority, he said were blurred), however, ‘Venusian Scout Ship’ is, as you know, a photograph that isn’t a blurred image, but shows good detail of an object that Adamski claimed, was from ‘another world’ & that he rode in!.

    Then we have the two Stephen Darbishire photo’s of what can only be described (unlike Adamski’s) as blurred photos, that appear to share a resemblance, (in shape), to Adamski’s ‘Scout Craft’ photo’s taken by Stephen Darbishire in the 50’s using a simple ‘box Brownie’, that were declared as ‘fakes’, & that begs the question, how does a 13 year old accomplish this?.

    He said, in a letter to Timothy Good in 1986, how “in desperation. “I said it was fake”, the ‘hoax’ did not bring an end to the notoriety-rather the opposite: “I was counter-attacked, accused of working with ‘Dark Powers’…or patronisingly ‘understood’ for following orders from some secret government department”.

    When you say a photograph of a UFO doesn’t “look right”, how can we tell the difference between a ‘fake’ & a ‘real’ UFO?, we have nothing to compare them to, only what our eyes tell us!.

    And finally, no doubt there are some that will agree with your thinking, & that’s fine, but you are unable to use words like, “many others” with any conviction, it’s an unquantifiable statement, no offence!.

  3. Trent pictures are about as believable as Cedric Allingham’s.

  4. http://www.debunker.com/trent.html

    The believers will no doubt say that this is Government-sponsored.

  5. “When you say a photograph of a UFO doesn’t “look right”, how can we tell the difference between a ‘fake’ & a ‘real’ UFO?, we have nothing to compare them to, only what our eyes tell us!.”

    Very good point, Chris, and this works both ways, doesn’t it?

    “And finally, no doubt there are some that will agree with your thinking, & that’s fine, but you are unable to use words like, “many others” with any conviction, it’s an unquantifiable statement, no offence!.”

    No offence taken, as always, but it’s hardly unquantifiaqble to suggest that many people consider the majority of UFO pictures to be fake, and I can say it with conviction. I did not say, however, that many people do not consider them to be fake.

    You know my take on the Adamski pictures – fakes (and, yes, many people do agree with me) – and the Trent picture is open to massive conjecture, and not very believable when analysed correctly.

    You ask, also, ‘how does a 13 year old accomplish this?’ (in relation to the Stephen Darbishire pictures and his famous letter to Good); that’s a strange question to ask, and assumes the lad was stupid. Cottingley Fairies, anyone?

    As I’ve said before, you have a strong desire to ‘believe’ and tend to approach sightings from the other direction; you come in looking at a report as being of a UFO; I at least look for the rational (satellite/lantern/aircraft/someone taking the piss).

    I remain unconvinced by photo’s I’ve seen.

    One more point: the Darbishire/Adamski/Trent photo’s all show circular craft that are remarkably similar, and fit with the common term of the time that stems from the newspaper reports of Arnold’s sightings – Flying Saucer (which, we know, Arnold never used, but as it was the paper’s chosen term, it stuck with readers). Look at the majority of reports from the last twenty years: why have the aliens suddenly begun using triangular craft as the norm? It’s worth thinking about.

  6. Chris, the Trent pictures are fake. If a UFO image is blurred, then the photographer is just trying to make it appear real. No dark forces, no aliens, no fairies (This is just for T Wood and Alderley).

    Adamski Do you really believe him? I did when I was a child of 8 – 9. Then reality dawned on me; I saw the light regarding UFO’s and the deceit of the human mind.

    Many of the photographs were taken to deceive. To then sell the deceit and make money, an additional side line to this, is of course to become famous. Ghost are another area that makes fame and fortune for people.

    Yes, there are pilots sightings, which I would come down on the side of fact.

    You need to step away from all the information you have collected over the years and apply an objective, not subjective approach to your in-depth research. Additionally, more knowledge on flying would help as well.

  7. Incidentally, the Edinburgh sighting was the sun glinting off an aircraft fuselage. It was flying on a recommended east coast route.

    I use to fly, I’ve seen reflection off other aircraft many times.

  8. Hi Stephen,

    The problem with the Trent ‘model theory’ is that there is no way to determine the objects size, it could be large & far away, or small & close by, it’s possible to ‘theorize’ on it’s dimensions,
    but that’s just guesswork at best!.

    Hi Gary,

    Typing out ‘one liners’ gives us no clue into your thinking, go on, tell us your thoughts ;-).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.