Jump to content

Talk:RAF Machrihanish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LUNDAVRA (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 5 September 2006 (Second longest runway in the UK?: Runway length myth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your report fails to mention very important aspects of the bases 'murky' past. This whole area is known as the UK equivalent of Nevada's Area 51. Many unexplained UFO phenomenon and strange weather patterns has happened here and continues to this day.

Second longest runway in the UK?

The second-longest after RAE Bedford presumably? Do we have a list of such things anywhere on Wikipedia? Ojw 14:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not got access to data on RAF airfields handy but the AIS website gives Machrihanish as 3049M, Heathrow 3901M & 3660M, Gatewick 3316M, Stanstead 3048M. It just seems to be a story that has been repeated so many times that it is believed, like the Aurora report which originated in one newspaper report that has been copied numerous times so thata web search gives many matches but all from the same source.
Security was originally very heavy because of the nuclear weapons stored there rather than any mysterious aircraft being tested or LGM kept there. --jmb 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Past, Dark Future.

Ron Halliday has published in his book UFO Scotland a list of some of the many UFO sightings that has happened at this base. He also asks the very relevant question, why does the MOD still keep this place, for what purpose? In July 2005 the local paper published a number of UFO reports. They are up to no good there!

There have been rumours of RAF Macrihanish re-opening as an active base.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=202502005

That rumour resulted in a question to parliament - the base remains in "care and maintenance" mode, with no plans to change that status.

Inaccuracies

Inaccuracies, POV... For starters the "massive" runway for sure isn't. In reality it is shorter than Heathrow's and well down the pecking league. Until fairly recently the HIAL website had the same claim (only recently watered down, but still OTT). wangi 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]