DATE: May 15 1964 - nicap.org · Web viewDATE: May 15 1964 TIME: 1130 local CLASS: R/V ground...
76
DATE: May 15 1964 TIME: 1130 local CLASS: R/V ground radar/ground visual LOCATION: SOURCES: Lorenzen SEIOS 1966 225 Holloman-White Sands Ordnance Testing Range New Mexico RADAR DURATION: 45 mins. EVALUATION: No official PRECIS: A rumoured incident at Holloman AFB-White Sands involving a landing object reported by an RB-57 crew on an April 30 practice mission was pursued by Lorenzen, Arlynn Breuer (editor of the Alamogordo Daily News) and Terry Clarke of radio KALG. During inquiries a separate incident was anonymously disclosed by personnel. Between 1130 and 1215 local, two targets were simultaneously tracked on surveillance and FPS-16 radars at Stallion Site, the most northerly range of the army-controlled Holloman-White Sands complex a few miles west of San Antonio, N.M. The targets were north of the radar site, performing "perfect, precise flight maneuvers" in tandem, involving separations and rejoins and "up-and-down 'pogo' maneuvers". One radar operator obtained a visual sighting of two browncoloured football-shaped objects which were flying at very low altitude and were lost from view behind buildings at the site. The two targets were displayed as skin paints. However, IFF transponder codes were also received on two different frequencies alternately. NOTES: That the targets were tracked on different radars argues that they may well have been airborne, radar-reflective objects. The FPS-16 is a C-band (about 5 GhZ/6 cm) tracking radar with a 1.2 degree pencil beam; most surveillance radars operate in a longer-wavelength region from S- to L-band, typically 10-50 cms. If two such very different instruments did detect correlating targets then this tends to argue against sporadic AP or partial inversion reflections, both of which are frequency-dependent effects. Mutual or remote RFI also seems unlikely, and internal system noise would appear to be ruled out. In general, two discrete targets performing "precise manoeuvres" in tandem is not behaviour diagnostic of AP. There appears to be nothing in the report to definitely contradict the hypothesis that the two radar targets were conventional aircraft. The type of manoeuvres described could be consistent with helicopters, possibly US Army helicopters operating from a nearby site on the range complex. The visual
Transcript of DATE: May 15 1964 - nicap.org · Web viewDATE: May 15 1964 TIME: 1130 local CLASS: R/V ground...
DATE: May 15 1964 TIME: 1130 local CLASS: R/V ground radar/ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Lorenzen SEIOS 1966 225Holloman-White SandsOrdnance Testing RangeNew Mexico
RADAR DURATION: 45 mins.
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: A rumoured incident at Holloman AFB-White Sands involving a landing object reported by an RB-57 crew on an April 30 practice mission was pursued by Lorenzen, Arlynn Breuer (editor of the Alamogordo Daily News) and Terry Clarke of radio KALG. During inquiries a separate incident was anonymously disclosed by personnel.
Between 1130 and 1215 local, two targets were simultaneously tracked on surveillance and FPS-16 radars at Stallion Site, the most northerly range of the army-controlled Holloman-White Sands complex a few miles west of San Antonio, N.M. The targets were north of the radar site, performing "perfect, precise flight maneuvers" in tandem, involving separations and rejoins and "up-and-down 'pogo' maneuvers". One radar operator obtained a visual sighting of two browncoloured football-shaped objects which were flying at very low altitude and were lost from view behind buildings at the site.
The two targets were displayed as skin paints. However, IFF transponder codes were also received on two different frequencies alternately.
NOTES: That the targets were tracked on different radars argues that they may well have been airborne, radar-reflective objects. The FPS-16 is a C-band (about 5 GhZ/6 cm) tracking radar with a 1.2 degree pencil beam; most surveillance radars operate in a longer-wavelength region from S- to L-band, typically 10-50 cms. If two such very different instruments did detect correlating targets then this tends to argue against sporadic AP or partial inversion reflections, both of which are frequency-dependent effects. Mutual or remote RFI also seems unlikely, and internal system noise would appear to be ruled out. In general, two discrete targets performing "precise manoeuvres" in tandem is not behaviour diagnostic of AP.
There appears to be nothing in the report to definitely contradict the hypothesis that the two radar targets were conventional aircraft. The type of manoeuvres described could be consistent with helicopters, possibly US Army helicopters operating from a nearby site on the range complex. The visual description of "football-shaped" objects could be consistent with an ovoid helicopter fuselage, tail and rotor assemblies unnoticed due to the viewing angle and/or poor viewing conditions. The brown colouration might be consistent with an Army camouflage livery. Whether or not any sound was heard is unstated, but distant rotor noise might have been blown away on the wind or masked by local noise. Finally, the association of the targets with standard FAA transponder recognition signals very strongly suggests conventional aircraft.
In conclusion, the information available is limited and the report cannot be regarded as more than hearsay. Nevertheless the IFF response alone would appear to be sufficient reason to suspect unidentified friendly aircraft, and the residue of the report is not inconsistent with helicopters.
STATUS: Probable helicopters
*DATE: December 19. 1964 TIME: 3:30 A. M. CLASS: GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall, UFOE II, page 241Patuxent River Naval Air Station,Maryland
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Sparks
Initial Summary: Dec. 19, 1964. Patuxent River NAS, Maryland. 3:30 a.m. USN control tower operator Bernard Sujka and 2 other CTO's tracked 2 large target 10 miles apart heading directly toward the radar station at about 7,000 mph, swerving off at 15 miles range, then approaching again to 10 miles, then one target returned to 8 miles range and made a high speed 160_ turn. (NICAP)
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: January 12, 1965 TIME: CLASS: GR/GV
LOCATION: SOURCES: Vallee, PTM, case 630Blaine Air Force Base,Washington
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Spaarks
Initial Summary: Jan. 12, 1965. Blaine AFB, Wash. Member of a federal agency, who was driving toward the base, saw a low-flying object, 30 ft in diameter, which avoided collision at the last moment. He got out of the car and saw it hovering for 1 min, then fly off at high speed. Object tracked on radar. Same night, a round, glowing object with a dome on top landed on a nearby farm, melting snow in a 30 ft diameter circle. (Vall╚e Magonia 630; NICAP March 1965; BB files??) 1+ min 1 + ? RV
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: January 13, 1965 TIME: 0845Z CLASS: AR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: Australian Disclosure Project41S 167E
Internet presence: http://www.auforn.com
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS: RAAF: Meteor Shower
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Source: Pages121-122 on digital copy of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 4. Telex originally classified "confidential." [Meteor shower]Report of UFOs by Qantas flight 363. Course 275 degrees mag at 20,000 feet. Shortly after sunset. "Single vapour trail appeared to north west travelling east"became seven distinct contrails apparently made by large aircraft in loose formation"" "Second pilot also recalls that at approximately longitude 166E this morning on the Sydney to Wellington flight he noticed what he considered as eleven ships in group on his radar screen." RNZAF-radars at Wellington and Ohakea had nothing at height within 15-200mls. Except "angels" S of Wellington speed 100kts. Copy passed to US Air Attaché. Search of the area by aircraft on 14 January revealed nothing, except an unusually large number of high density cloud radar contacts. Up to 10 at a time were obtained at ranges up to 70Nmls. Witnesses: 1 + others. AURA
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: February 11, 1965 TIME: CLASS: R/V air
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242Pacific Ocean
RADAR DURATION: 30 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: AThree glowing red ovals seem to pace a Flying Tiger airliner for about 30 minutes. They climbed up out of sight at 1200 knots.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: February 11, 1965 TIME: CLASS: AR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall, UFO E, page 76
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added:
Initial Summary: AThree red ovals paced airliner, tracked on radar, climbed upward at high speed.@ AThree glowing oval paced Flying Tiger airlineer for 30 minutes, climbed up and out of sight at 1200 knots.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: May 5 1965 TIME: 0110 local CLASS: R/V shipboard radar/deck visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hynek (1972) 81Philippine Sea
RADAR DURATION: 6 minutes
EVALUATIONS: Blue Book - "aircraft" & "insufficient data"
PRECIS: The official report states:
At 060910, in position 20 degrees 22 minutes north, 135 degrees 50 minutes east, course 265, speed 15, leading signalman reported what he believed to be an aircraft, bearing 000, position angle 21. When viewed through binoculars three objects were sighted in close proximity to each other; one object was first magnitude; the other two, second magnitude. Objects were travelling at extremely high speed, moving toward ship at an undetermined altitude. At 0914, 4 moving targets were detected on the SPS-6C air search radar and held up to 6 minutes. When over the ship, the objects spread to circular formation directly overhead and remained there for approximately 3 minutes. This maneuver was observed both visually and by radar. The bright object which hovered over the starboard quarter made a larger presentation on the radarscope. The objects made several course changes during the sighting, confirmed visually and by radar, and were tracked at speeds in excess of 3,000 (three thousand) knots. Challenges were made by IFF but were not answered. After the three-minute hovering maneuver, the objects moved in a southeasterly direction at an extremely high rate of speed. Above evolutions observed by CO, all bridge personnel, and numerous hands topside.
The report carried an addendum:
During the period 5-7 May, between the hours 1800 and 2000, several other objects were sighted. These objects all had the characteristics of a satellite, including speed and [presumably visual] presentation. These are reported to indicate a marked difference in speed and maneuverability between these assured satellites and the objects described above.
NOTES: This report, as usual in Blue Book reports, implies a very great deal of missing information. In terms of the information available, however, the unequivocal
statement that very particular movements were several times confirmed visually and on radar makes it of interest. There are minor questions as to the date, which Hynek lists as May 6 in his appended catalogue, and the duration, which he lists in the same appendix as 8 minutes, whereas the report states that the radar targets were held for 6 minutes beginning 4 minutes aftervisual acquisition, making 10 minutes overall.
The ship would have been about 150 miles S of the Tropic of Cancer steaming at 15 knots on a heading a little S of W towards the northern tip of the Philippine island of Luzon, 900 miles away across open ocean. The first visual sighting was dead ahead at an elevation of 21 degrees. The distance to land rules out an optical mirage of shore lights, and the elevation exceeds the critical grazing angle by a factor of forty, ruling out a mirage of shipboard lights. Further, the approach at "extremely high speed" towards the ship implies (although it doesn't guarantee) that this initial elevation increased during the four minutes. Presumably the light seen was white (as no colour is mentioned, and the comparison made with the visual appearance of satellites mentions nodramatic distinction due to colour) and presumably did not notably flash, scintillate or wander erratically even as viewed through binoculars. It resembled a steady aircraft light and was initially so identified. There seems no reason to suspect any atmospheric-optical component to the initial visual sighting.
Through binoculars the light resolved into 3 sources, one of the 1st magnitude, two of the 2nd, which, visually integrated, would imply a naked-eye object of no great brilliance but brighter than most of the stars. No estimate of visual magnitudes is offered for the objects as later seen "directly over the ship", but it is implied that the overall "presentation" of the lights was dissimilar to, and therefore presumably brighter than, that of satellites. Nevertheless, they do not at any time appear to have been more than moderately bright point sources without noticeable detail or extension.
How the 3 objects first seen visually relate to the 4 objects subsequently seen visually and tracked on radar is not clear. The bearing of the first radar acquisition is not stated, but the 4 targets reduced range from 22 miles to "over the ship", and it is at least implied that this approach bore a natural relation to the visual approach of the 3 lights first seen 4 minutes earlier. The 4 radar targets "spread to circular formation directly overhead", implying a compact initial configuration not inconsistent with the visual observation, and one of the targets made a larger scope presentation than the rest consistent with visual sightings made previously and concurrently.
The SPS-6C is described as an "air search radar" and was probably a moderately long range S-band instrument used for aircraft detection, wavelength in the range 6-20cm, with the normal toroidal scan volume (possibly a sea-going cousin of the CPS-6 multiple-beam search radar). Such a radar would have sensitive clutter rejection characteristics to contend with sea clutter and the motion of the ship, and frequency agility to combat jamming. It was not a tactical targeting radar, and the report does not mention any other radar being used. This being the case, the report of targets which "spread to circular formation directly overhead" may be in need of some interpretation due to the zenithal radar shadow. One of the 4 targets was "off the starboard quarter", and the clear implication is that the center of the circular formation was directly over the ship with the targets disposed around it at elevations significantly less than 90 degrees. No altitude data are quoted, but it might be inferred from this geometry that if the targets were real radar-reflective objects then they were not at extreme altitude, but in relatively local airspace as is also suggested by their initial acquisition at a slant range of only 22 miles. Visually and on radar, it would seem that the target manoeuvres bore a relation to the presence of the ship consistent with this assumption.
The 3 minutes of stationarity rules out fixed wing aircraft, but might be consistent with reconnaissance helicopters from another vessel (presumably "hostile" given the absence of IFF response). However there are objections to this hypothesis: 1) the targets were observed visually by all bridge personnel and "numerous hands topside" whilst disposed around the ship, and with a quiet deck in the middle of the night 4 helicopters hovering in the vicinity would possibly be heard given that at any moment at least one would be upwind; 2) the initial visual sighting noted the "extremely high speed" of approach, independent of subsequent radar tracking, a phrase employed again to describe the objects' radar-visual departure; 3) the radar targets "were tracked at speeds in excess of 3,000 (three thousand) knots" - about 3450 mph; 4) given that the period ofstationarity occupied 3 minutes of a total 6 minutes radar duration, then even neglecting departure time entirely we are left with a window of 3 minutes for the targets to close from an initial range of 22 miles, which leads to an absolute minimum target speed during approach of 440 mph relative to the ship (425 mph true), not consistent with the performance of helicopters.
Birds, insects, balloons or other windborne objects are clearly not appropriate to this case. The duration of several minutes is alone sufficient to rule out meteor-wake ionisation. Multiple-trip returns from an artificial satellite could not account for 3 minutes of stationarity or the manouevring of 4 distinct targets, nor could multiple-trip returns from any single reflector account for simultaneous targets at opposite scope azimuths. Distant ships might be displayed at spuriously close ranges due to superrefractive conditions, and the circular disposition of the targets might result from multiple-trip returns from four such ships detected via an isotropic elevated duct; but the approach and departure of the 4 targets at high speed on narrow azimuths separated by about 135 degrees conflicts with this hypothesis.
The targets apparently approached head on from the W and departed SE, two essentially radial headings which taken in isolation might suggest an internal noise source or RFI, possibly radar pulses from other ships or even (initially) a land-based radar site near Aparri in the Philippines detected due to anomalouspropagation. A distant search radar with a pulse length and PRF similar to the SPS-6C but a scan rate slightly out of phase with that of the receiver might be detected as a target reducing range with each scan; a distinct radar source on a ship at sea to the SE might similarly generate a receeding target (air radar operates at very different frequencies and pulse rates). However the scenario is at best fanciful, requiring a great deal of coincidence including radars with almost identical scan rates rotating relative to one another such that theorientations of the receiving and (two) sending antennae coincide near peak gain, and more importantly it does not explain 4 distinct targets arriving, spreading over the ship, and then departing.
A more complex hypothesis would be short-pulse signals arriving with a much longer PRF than the receiver and displaying, not as an integrated target arc but as a number of smaller spots distributed on non-adjacent trace radii. If the input PRF were close to a whole multiple of that of the receiver, then these small "point echoes" could appear at similar ranges forming a group of "targets". If the "scan rate" of the source were, as in the previous scenario, slightly out of phase with that of the SPS-6, then this group could approach scope centre. However, due to the convergence of trace radii such spot arrays will converge to an integrated arc as they approach scope center, not diverge to "spread over the ship", so that a superadded explanation is required.
It is qualitatively speaking possible that if the "scan rates" of the first source and receiver came into phase then the integrated blip could slow and stop, and if at this time the received signal strength were fortuitously enhanced (say, by worsening AP conditions)
the same signal might be spuriously displayedat widely separate azimuths due to sidelobe-gain as the antenna rotated, the result being a distributed set of apparently different targets at the same displayed range with one (corresponding to the peak gain of the antenna) giving a much brighter presentation, as reported. Such an effect, however, would seem to require yet a third source of RFI pulses, since the bright target corresponding, ex hypothesi to the peak summed gain) was displayed to starboard (N) and thus on an azimuth 90 degrees from the initial signal; also, the same constant source could not generate rapidly moving blips and, consecutively, stationary blips for as long as 3 minutes; this mechanism does not explain the subsequent movement of the blips away into the opposite sector; furthermore the required signal characteristics (pulse length, wavelength and scan rate all comparable to the SPS-6, but PRF several times that of the SPS-6) do not correspond to any likely radar system. And finally, the small spots of excitation produced on the tube in this fashion would (during "approach" and"departure") in no way resemble the presentation of real targets.
Sporadic noise sources seem highly improbable: very great variations in measured speed from hundreds to thousands of knots could result from intermittent noise signals jumping discontinuously between different trace radii on successive scans, but in the absence of detailed scope photos or diagrams one can only say that the likely random behaviour of such blips conflicts with the ordered sequence of events reported. Cyclic noise sources local to, or internal to, the transmitter or receiver circuitry are a possible source of ordered blips, butseveral of the objections raised against remote RFI sources also apply here. In general, any such electronic or propagation artefact must be seen in the context of specifically reported visual corroboration of target movements during the whole incident, and it should be noted that the radar report of targets broadly "over the ship" does not imply the low elevation angles required for anomalous propagation of surface returns or signals from distant radars.
Partial reflection from wind-driven waves on an inversion layer could account for target clusters at moderate speeds, but here too there are problems: 1) target heading changed by about 50 degrees; 2) the reported maximum speed, as well as the minimum speed derived from time and distance data quoted, are impossibly excessive for the 2 x windspeed behaviour of such echoes; 3) the 3-minute period of stationarity cannot be explained; 4) such echoes reduce in intensity as the 6th power of the cosecant of the elevation angle, leading to signal strengths proportional to range, and would not be displayed approaching to high elevations in proximity to ("over") the ship.
In summary, it might be possible to conceive a number of highly speculative atmospheric structures and noise/interference effects which, combined with an initial sighting of aircraft, led to a coincidental sequence of radar and visual misinterpretations of false blips, stars and meteors by an overexcited crew. But the probability is far too low to constitute a solution. Given the clear statement of radar-visual concurrence, and observations by the Commanding Officer, all bridge personnel and numerous hands, the very great strain required to deconstruct the coherent sequence of events reported into a conventional interpretation seems unwarranted and uneconomical. There are persuasive indications of ordered behaviour on the part of self-luminous, radar-reflective objects which appear to have had some rational intent with regard to thepresence of the ship, which objects exhibited speed and mavoeuvrability inconsistent with the performance of any vehicle known to have been flying in 1965.
STATUS: Unknown
*DATE: July 31 , 1965 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242Wynnewood, Oklahoma
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: AUFOs tracked on Air Force and Weather Bureau Radar; numerous police sightings.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: August 2 , 1965 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242Wichita, Kansas
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: A@Weather Bureau radar tracked four to five UFOs visual sightings coincided.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: August 4 , 1965 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visualLOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242Michigan--Minneasota
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: AUS Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force radar tracked 7-10 unexplained objects at 9,000 mph; objects moved from Southwest the North Northeast.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 7 , 1965 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242Edwards AFB, California
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Sparks
Initial Summary: Hall@ AProlonged radar=visual of 12 UFOs, jet interceptors scrambled, could not reach object.@ Oct. 7, 1965. Edwards AFB, Calif. Ground radar tracked 12 objects and USAF F-106 pilot sighted object(s). (Weinstein; McDonald list)
radar [gun camera film?]
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: February 11, 1966 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242Skowhegan, Maine
RADAR DURATION: 30 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: AGlowing orange UFO with dome hovered, maneuvered; tracked on Air Force and FAA radars@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: March 14 , 1966 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242Dexter, Michigan
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: ASelfridge AFB tracked UFOs over Lake Erie; objects obsered moving at high speed, making shapr turns.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: March 27, 1966 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242Columbus, Georgia
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Radar-visual sighting of maneuvering UFO, witnesses included control tower personal.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: May 4 1966 TIME: 0430 local (0340 - Thayer) CLASS: R/V ground/air radar/multiple air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hynek (1978) 73Nr. Charleston Thayer (Condon 163)W. Va.
RADAR DURATION: 5 minutes
EVALUATIONS: Blue Book - a/c landing lights
PRECIS: At 0340 (or 0430 - Hynek) a Braniff Airlines Flight 42 707 pilot heading E on jet airway 6 @ 33,000' saw a bright descending light off to his left which was also painted by the Boeing's airborne radar. He called Charleston ARTC center and asked if radar showed any traffic for his flight. The Charleston highaltitude sector controller was distracted by a 'phone call and hadn't seen the appearance of the target, which he now noticed, 11 o'clock from Braniff, range 5 miles. It was a "raw" target (no transponder, which would give on-screen data on flight ID and altitude), and the controller advised Branniff that it must be an aircraft in the low sector below 24,000' as the only other traffic under his control was an American Airlines flight 20 miles behind him. Braniff replied that the object was definitely above him and now descending through his altitude. The controller suggested that it might be a military research aircraft of some sort and asked Braniff for a visual. Braniff replied that it was not an aircraft but was "giving off brilliant flaming light consisting of alternating white, green and red colours". At this time ground radar showed the target closing range to within 3 miles @ 10 o'clock from Braniff; Braniff then advised that it was now turning away from him, and the controller saw the radar target execute a smallradius 180-degree turn and reverse its track NW away from Braniff @ approx. 1000 mph. Braniff confirmed this and reported that the object was 20 degrees above the horizon and still descending (Braniff's airborne radar indications at this time are not known).
A sighting of what may have been the same object was made by the pilot of the American Airlines flight 20 miles behind (W of) Braniff: a bright light at 9 or 10 o'clock observed for 3-4 mins. According to the controller, American had been monitoring his communications with Braniff and called the latter, asking if he had his landing lights on. When the controller asked him to amplify, American "politely clammed up". American submitted no report and later disclaimed seeing anything other than what looked like an aircraft with its landing lights on.
NOTES: The likelihood of a real radar-reflective target is in this case quite strong, since correlating returns were reportedly displayed by ground and airborne radars concurrent with matching visuals from (at least) one aircrew. The Blue Book explanation that the object was an aircraft is based on this fact, together with the American Airlines pilot's opinion and the comment that the object displayed no performance beyond the capabilities of an aircraft of the period. No specific identification was offered of the aircraft involved.
According to Thayer's summary of the Blue Book file, the object was first reported by Braniff at a time of 0340 LST, it was picked up at his 8:30 or 9:00 position, the speed of the ground radar target was 750-800 mph with "no unusual maneuvers", and it disappeared off-scope to the SW after making a "sweeping turn". According to the ARTC controller's account (quoted verbatim in Hynek), the incident began at 0430, the target appeared at 11 o'clock from Braniff moving to 10 o'clock, the speed of the target was approximately 1000 mph, and it left to the NE after making "a complete 180-degree turn in the space of five miles, which no aircraft I have ever followed on radar could possibly do." The controller had 13 years experience with USAF and FAA air traffic control, observing all types of civilian and military aircraft including SR-71's. His account is extremely circumstantial as to Braniff's flight number, VHF frequency, altitude, air lane number and heading, and augmented by a diagram (unpublished) showing the geographic locations of the UFO and the aircraft under his control.
There seems no good reason to question the controller's statement that Braniff was "eastbound on jet airway 6", which means that a target closing from 9 or 10 o'clock (N or NW) and retreating on a similar course after a turn, however "sweeping", could not possibly be on a heading off-scope to the SW. Either Thayer's summary, or the Blue Book file, or both, are here inconsistent, whereas the controller's first hand account is not. According to that account, the combined speed and manoeuverability of the target were outside of his experience, also contradicting the Blue Book file which appears to base its assessment of performance (the origin of the 750-800 mph figure is uncertain) on a statement obtained from the reluctant American Airlines witness: " . . . to me it only appeared to be an airplane at some distance, say six or eight miles, who turned on his landing lights . . . . I thought nothing further of it." This also is inconsistent, inasmuch as the object was well in front of Braniff and thus significantly in excess of 20 miles from American, so that American's estimate of landing light brilliance and distance would be out by a factor of 3 or 4. The same pilot speculated: "I presume it was the air force refuelling." Air-refuelling tankers are indeed always brightly lit, but no such operation would normally be in progress close to a commercial airlane, still less on a descending course through it. An Air Force refuelling operation would, presumably, not be difficult for the Air Force to trace; yet no such operation was discovered by Blue Book despite a witness suggesting it. A possible explanation might be a cover-up of a military flight conducted in error; but the radar target could not possibly relate to a refuelling tanker on the basis of speed alone. A military fighter could account for the speed, and for the rapid departure when the pilot realised he was straying close to commercial traffic, but presumably not for the tight 180degree turn.
The visual from Braniff of a brilliant light with multicoloured scintillation is more akin to a bright celestial body seen through a sharp inversion layer than anything else, but not on a descending course through his altitude. (Note: Braniff reports the object descending through his altitude, then somewhat later reports it still in a "descending configuration" at 20 degrees above the horizon. This could be interpreted as an inconsistency, inasmuch as 20 degrees seems a rather high elevation for an object to be seen at a depression angle even from 33,000', and this might imply that the object was less mobile in elevation than suggested. However observers almost always grossly overestimate elevation angles, and there tends to be a visual "quantum" of 10 degrees.) A fireball meteor could fit the
"flaming" appearance and gross trajectory, flaring and dying to give the illusion of an object which approached Braniff and then receeded; but no trail was reported, and a fireball which was in sight for five minutes would be a very remarkable phenomenon in itself, probably spawning a great many reports, in addition to which the ATC radar track, mimicking the illusory visual approach of the meteor, would become a highly improbable coincidence.
On ground radar a "ghost" echo from a ground target with Braniff as the primary reflector could simulate an "intercepting" target of this nature: it would appear beyond Braniff and always on the same azimuth, closing as Braniff approached the ground reflector and then receeding in a manner qualitatively similar to that described, although the exact geometry would have to be established. However, Braniff was flying @ 33,000' so that such a "ghost" could not be displayed closer than 6.25 miles to the a/c. The unknown target approached to 3 miles. A "ghost" produced by secondary reflection from an airborne target, for example an aircraft passing above or below Braniff, could mimic this behaviour, and if we assume that the secondary a/c reflector was itself outside the ATC radiation pattern then it would not itself be tracked on the ground - only its ghost would be displayed. The air radar contact and the visual sighting could have been this a/c, since without the ATC radar track we no longer have to suppose extraordinary performance - merely a fast jet with an unusual lighting pattern, possibly viewed through an inversion at Braniff's altitude. The ground-displayed speed of 1000 mph would be the relative speed of the two reflecting aircraft, not implausible for a military jet flying by a 707 on a near-reciprocal heading.
However, the hypothetical a/c would be flying as close to Braniff as its displayed ghost (approx. 15,000' of range or altitude) and thus could hardly be outside the overall ATC radiation pattern (the a/c could hardly have remained in a null zone between radar lobes for several minutes); no other aircraft were currently under ATC control except American, 20 miles away; and 5 minutes is a very long time indeed for such sensitive reflection geometry to be maintained between aircraft separating at better than Mach 1.3.
Further, this hypothesis does not explain the correlation of visual and radar kinetics, and for an inversion layer to explain the abnormal colour scintillations of the light it would have to be viewed at a rather narrow range of relative elevation angles on the order of 1.0 degree, which is inconsistent with a source which was seen descending at speed for several minutes. Other more complex and less homogeneous atmospheric structures might be hypothesised, but the exercise would be highly speculative and unconvincing.
A similar radar track might be produced on the ATC scope by multiple-trip returns from meteor wake ionisation, although typical ATC wavelengths of 10-50 cm are far from optimum and signal strengths would be low; but the duration is far too long, and Braniff's shorter-wave airborne radar would not have anything like the power output (around 40 kW, or some 5% of typical ATCR output) required for such returns. In general no radar propagation or electronic anomaly can easily explain concurrent, corresponding returns on two very different and physically remote instruments, and the visual observations effectively reduce the probability of anomalous propagation to near-zero.
In conclusion, the target appears to have been a real object emitting brilliant, corruscating light which descended into an Air Route Traffic Control sector at better than Mach 1, passed within 3 miles of a commercial airway in complete radio silence, executed an abnormally sharp 180-degree turn at speed and flew away. The probability of a conventional aircraft seems small: the visual appearance and the radar-tracked turn are the key elements of this report, neither of which were within the experience of the observers. Whilst of relatively low strangeness, therefore, the report must be classified unknown.
STATUS: Unknown*DATE: May 10, 1966 TIME: 0030Z CLASS: GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure AustraliaMelbourne, Australia
Internet presence: http://www.auforn.com
RADAR DURATION: 40 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Source: page 76 of digital copy of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 5. Original reference 5/6/(130) Victoria Barracks. ATC reported trace on radar at range 140-150 miles bearing 261 degree True. Trace disappeared and reappeared at intervals in the same place. No known civilian aircraft in the area. Probably aircraft crop dusting. Duration: 40 minutes AURA
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: July 26, 1966 TIME: CLASS: GR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: UFOE II, page 242Atlanta, Georgia
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: AFAA personnel observed oval UFOs, tracked on radar; one objects accelerated sharply.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: August 24, 1966 TIME: !0:00 P. M. CLASS: GR/GV
LOCATION: SOURCES: Vallee, PTM, case 791Minot Air Force Base,North Dakota
RADAR DURATION: 4 hoursEVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Sparks
Initial Summary: Aug. 24, 1966. Minot AFB [Grano? Carpio?], North Dakota. 10 p.m. Airman saw and reported by radio a multi-colored light high in the sky. Strike team sent to his location confirmed the object. Second object, white, was seen to pass in front of clouds. Radar detected and tracked an object. Sightings made by 3 different Minuteman ICBM missile sites. Radio interference was noted by teams sent to locations where object was hovering at ground level. (Vall╚e Magonia 791; FUFOR Index) nearly 4 hrs many EM
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: September -- 1966 TIME: small hours CLASS: R/V groundradar/ground visual
LOCATION SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 70Heathrow ATCCLondon
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: According to an anonymous Heathrow ATCC employee an object was observed hovering at low altitude over the airport in the very early hours of the morning when there was no traffic. It was seen visually by all personnel in the control tower and tracked on radar. It departed at a measured speed of 3000 mph. A report was made to the MoD, whence two investigators arrived who told the witnesses that they had "seen nothing" and advised them that disclosure would attract penalties under the Official Secrets Act.
DATE: September 6, 1966 TIME: CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES:Grand Maris, Minnesota
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
University of Colorado Case #1321B
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Mrs. Johnson, house wife, observed one object with red, yellow, and green flashing lights which appears to be 20 feet long; radar operators at the Duluth SAGE radar site pick up a return; 2 F-84 scrambled, but no contact. Visibility at the time of sighting 15 nautical miles.
NOTES: TBPSTATUS: TBP*DATE: September 18, 1966 TIME: 0100 CST CLASS: GV,GR
LOCATION: SOURCES:Sault Ste Marie, Michigan
RADAR DURATION: 2-5 seconds
EVALUATIONS:
University of Colorado Case #1323B
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: One elliptical object of the apparent size of a basketball with the colors of pale yellow, green, pink and grey seen during clear skies and pick up on radar.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: January 8, 1967 TIME: CLASS:R/V multiple ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Project Blue BookGoose Bay, Labrador Weinstein AUER/VC Vol. 4Canada
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS: HQ, 95th Strategic Wing (SAC): UFO, possible aircraft but unlikely
Added case: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Air Traffic Control at Goose Bay track an unidentified target on their radar. They in turn called the 641st Air Control and Warning Squadron which also track an unknown target. A Military Airlift Command pilot flying a C-97 aircraft observed an unknown object at the same time. Radar was AN/FPS-93. Radars of both facilities were operating on different frequencies. The 641st ACW Sq tracked the object from a speed of 200 knots to a departure speed of 2100 knots.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: January 13 1967 TIME: 2200 local CLASS:R/V ground radar/ multiple air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hynek (1978) 72Air Traffic Control Weinstein AUERVC, Vol. 4Center, Albuquerque, N.M.
RADAR DURATION: 25 mins.
EVALUATIONS: official not specified
PRECIS: The pilot of a Lear jet flying near Winslow, Arizona, reported a red light at their 10
o'clock position that flashed on and off and several times quadrupled itself vertically, appearing to "retract into itself the lights below the original light". A National Airlines pilot in the area was queried by Albuquerque control tower, and after initially denying any sighting confirmed that they had been watching the object "doing exactly what Lear jet said" approximately 11 o'clock from their position. Albuquerque radar painted an unidentified target in a position consistent with the visual report, and for much of the 25 minutes during which the object was watched from the Lear, Albuquerque maintained radio conversation with the pilot. Whenever the red light was "on", ground radar painted a single target, but whenever it was visually "off" radar painted nothing. Radar apparently did not detect any changes coinciding with the quadrupling of the light. After a while radar showed the target closing range with the Lear, and the tower warned the pilot, who reported that the object began "cat-and-mouse" manoeuvres with his a/c involving rapid accelerations. At 2225 the object began a 30-degree ascent with great acceleration and was watched by the Lear pilot for 10 seconds until it was out of sight. At this time Albuquerque radar lost the target from their scope. Both Lear and National declined to officially report a UFO.
NOTES: Much of the significance of this case depends on details of the "catand-mouse" manoeuvres and the degree to which the radar target movements correlated during this episode. Unfortunately this information is lacking.
The downward "quadrupling" of the light is very suggestive of a multiple inferior mirage due to highly stratified atmospheric conditions, and celestial bodies can appear dramatically reddened, particularly when near setting. Since the critical grazing angle for an optical mirage is on the order of 0.5 degree this would presumably indicate a light source above the horizon for an aircraft at altitude, and would require the same (vertical) viewing angle from both aircraft. Thus Lear and National need to have been at roughly similar flight altitudes with, probably, a bright celestial body near the horizon. The visual disappearance of the object might be due to its setting below the critical angle, and the rapid "cat-and-mouse" movements of the object (in the absence of detailed description) could be due to sudden excursions of the mirage image (on the order of 1 degree) due either to movements of the aircraft relative to the refractive layer or to local discontinuities in the layer. Unfortunately we do not know the relative altitudes of the two aircraft, or the true azimuth at which the light was observed. However, it can be noted that the radar target which appeared to confirm the object near Winslow would have been due west from Albuquerque and thus not necessarily inconsistent with the azimuth of a setting star or planet viewed due west from Winslow. The same sharp inversion/lapse strata responsible for such a mirage might be expected to favour anomalous propagation of radar energy and thus the possibility of false echoes.
There are some problems with this hypothesis, however: 1) During 25 minutes of observation a celestial body above the western horizon would have declined by some 6 degrees, or at least 10 x the critical grazing angle for a mirage, and this makes some unlikely demands on the changing altitudes of the mirage layers and the two aircraft over the duration of the sighting; 2) to keep a celestial body in view for 25 mins the Lear was presumably flying a roughly straight course, during which it probably covered on the order of 100 miles at least - a great distance over which to remain in the same inversion domain; 3) the visual departure of the object, moving upwards at a 30-degree angle for ten seconds at a considerable angular rate, is inconsistent with the optical geometry of any mirage; 4) the repeated flashing of the light on and off suggests an intermittent superior mirage of a celestial body otherwise invisible below the horizon, which is at odds with the consistent downward multiplication of the image suggesting an inferior mirage of a source above the horizon.
An intermittent source would more aptly explain the flashing off and on, such as a beacon on a radio mast, which would also to some extent evade the problem of maintaining the
critical mirage angle for many minutes. However, there is also the general question of the repeated simultaneous radio and optical disappearances of the source: this cannot be explained by an intermittent ground light, and optical disappearance of a celestial body due to the Lear's altitude departing from the optimum mirage angle or flying in and out of localised inversion/lapse domains cannot explain simultaneous signal loss at the radar site. In general it might be noted that the rather extreme atmospheric stratification required for the multiple mirage images would be expected to generate a great deal of AP clutter, and is not usually so anisotropic as to generate a unitary target over a narrow range of azimuths for 25 mins. In summary, the radiooptical AP hypothesis is superficially attractive but conjectural, and suffers from several serious deficiencies.
Other explanations of the radar target have to address the simultaneous radio-optical disappearances, which argue strongly for a real radar-reflective body. The object would be an anisotropic reflector and emitter - that is, an object with a high radar aspect-ratio in elevation (i.e., side-on:tail-on), zigzagging, rotating, or oscillating, and carrying a light which was visible to Lear only when it presented its greatest radar cross-section to Albuquerque. One could imagine a slowly spinning balloon with an underslung radar-asymmetrical instrument package bearing a red running light, if this could explain 25 minutes of jet-pursuit. A very large research balloon at high altitude over the horizon might be "pursued" for 25 minutes, and (improbably, given small radar crosssection at extreme range) might be painted by second-trip returns which displayed it in spurious proximity to the Lear over Winslow. But this could not explain the high-acceleration 30-degree visual ascent and disappearance, and the lights required to be carried by such balloons during night launches would hardly be prominent at the implied distant ground range and float-altitude of over 100,000'.
The illusion of a high-acceleration manoeuvre might be created by a small weather balloon near the a/c, but such a balloon could not be pursued at jet speed for 25 minutes. Furthermore weather balloon lights are not red; the quadrupling of the light would still require the superadded improbability of a rare optical mirage with a fortuitously maintained altitude relationship between the aircraft, the rising balloon and a slowly canting inversion layer; and the final radar-visual disappearance would remain unexplained and coincidental.
Visually, a reddish light could be explained as the tail-pipe of a jet, and periodic disappearance could relate to a circling or zig-zagging flight pattern which would present a changing aspect with a factor 5 or 10 fluctuation in radar cross-section (10-20 sq. m. down to 2-3 sq. m. for a small fighter). Close to the operational maximum range of the set, the returned signal might drop below the noise threshold as the a/c turned tail-on, and the distance between Albuquerque & the area of Winslow is >200 miles which would be consistent with the action occurring near the limits of an ATC surveillance radar. On this hypothesis the Lear would have been proceeding N or S with the jet ahead, tail-on to the Lear and side-on to the radar whenever it was visible. Such a jet could explain the final ascent and radar/visual disappearance by a climb and turn, tail-on to the radar and out of the pattern. This hypothesis is speculative, however, without knowing the frequency of the light's on-off cycle, the Lear's heading, the displayed speeds of the radar target, and the nature of the "cat-and-mouse" episode. 25 minutes is very a long time for a military jet to be flying at high speed (ahead of the Lear) in such an unusual fashion. Finally, the repeated quadrupling of the red light observed from two aircraft with only a single target appearing on radar is entirely unexplained without recourse to a superadded mirage phenomenon which is itself very rare and which renders the whole scenario too improbable to be convincing.
In conclusion, the raw visual description alone is strongly suggestive of mirage, although most other features of the case - qualitative and quantitative - argue against mirage as
normally understood, and the simultaneous on/off radarvisual periodicity confirmed by radio between the observers as it was happening does argue quite strongly that the radar target and visual object(s) were related. The case should therefore be classified as "unknown" pending further investigation.
STATUS: Unknown
*DATE: February 24, 1967 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 243Atlantic City, New Jersey
RADAR DURATION: 2 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: UFO tracked for two minutes on FAA radar ; airport employee saw glowing orange object coinciding.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: March -- 1967 TIME: unknown CLASS: R/V ground-air radar/air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 195Air defence Weinstein AUER/VC, Vol. 4radar site, Cuba
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATIONS: No official
PRECIS: A USAF security specialist assigned to the 6947th Security Squadron of the Air Force Security Service (AFSS, a service subsidiary of the National Security Agency) stated that an air-intercept by Cuban Air Force MiG 21s on an object in Cuban airspace had been monitored by personnel of the Squadron's Detachment 'A' from the AFSS COMINT/SIGINT facility of Key West Naval Air Station on Boca Chica Key, east of Key West and 97 miles from the Cuban coast.
Communications intercept operators monitoring Cuban air defence radio transmissions heard radar controllers report an unidentified target entering Cuban airspace from the NE at an altitude of about 33,000' and at a speed of slightly less than Mach 1. Two MiG 21s were launched and vectored to within about 3 miles of the target by GCI radar operators. The flight leader reported a visual on a bright metallic sphere with no markings or appendages. When radio challenges went unmet, the leader was authorised to engage the intruder and reported that his AI radar was locked on and his missiles were armed. Seconds later the distressed voice of the wingman reported that his leader's aircraft had exploded, and his next transmission stated that the aircraft had broken up without any sign of smoke
or flame. Ground radar then reported that the target accelerated rapidly and climbed to over 98,000' on a heading SSE out over the Caribbean.
NOTES: The source of this report is an anonymous former AFSS security specialist who approached physicist Stanton Friedman in early 1978, and therefore it falls in the category of hearsay. It is interesting, nevertheless, and some alleged background events are worth recording. The source stated that a mandatory Intelligence Spot Report went out immediately to NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, but contrary to regulations NSA failed to acknowledge receipt. A follow-up report resulted within hours in an order to ship all data to NSA and list the Cuban aircraft loss as due to "equipment malfunction".
From February to July 1978 researcher Robert Todd attempted to locate more information on this incident by FOIA requests to the NSA, CIA, Air Force and Navy, without result. The CIA response suggested that Todd contact the Cuban government, and he notified the USAF and NSA of his intention to do so subject to their objection on security grounds within twenty days. This time the response was an intimidating visit from the FBI, who stated that they were acting at the instigation of the NSA in a matter of possible counterespionage. The agents pressed Todd to reveal the name of the source, which he was unable to do, and hinted at the possibility of indictments under the espionage laws. FBI spokesmen for the Philadelphia Field Office and headquarters, Washington, D.C. later refused to confirm or deny any investigation into Todd's activities. NSA spokesman Charles Sullivan also responded that he was not at liberty to discuss either the report or any action by the FBI. On August 4 1978 Todd was contacted by Major Gordon Finley, USAF, from the Office of the Air Force Judge Advocate General, who indicated that the report in Todd's possession may contain classified material, and requested that it be kept secure until it could be collected from him. It was never collected. But four days later Todd received a letter from the NSA stating that "This agency has located no record indicating that the incident . . . in fact occurred" but explaining that information about the manner in which the intelligence was allegedly collected was classified, and that such information from an AFSS source constituted "an unauthorized disclosure in violation of the law." In a further FOIA appeal to the Air Force Todd received the reply from Col. James Johnson, Judge Advocate General's Office, that although "the Air Force can neither confirm nor deny the authenticity" of the report, "if authentic, I am advised the statement would be classified Secret in its entirety." Todd had requested complete copies of his FOIA case file containing all documents generated by his initial request, but this was denied. What he received was a list of ten USAF documents about the case with their internal distribution lists, all of which were to remain classified under the national security exemptions of the Act.
The foregoing is not inconsistent with the authenticity of the report, but is not positive evidence even though the Air Force declined to deny that the event occurred as stated. And even if the event did occur as stated, this is not evidence that the cognizant US authorities regarded its cause as remarkable or unexplained. However, if the report is accurate, then ground- and air-radar contacts plus air-visual confirmation are persuasive prima facie indications of a real target. The reported radar-displayed speeds of around Mach 1 are inconsistent with a balloon (which the visual description most nearly resembles) even allowing excessively generous values for windspeeds between 33,000 and 100,000'. It is of course possible that the visual sighting was of a large balloon, coincidentally visible at the expected position of the ground radar target, and metallised components of the balloon or its unseen payload could have been responsible for the MiG 21's AI radar contact. The ground radar contacts may have been due to an intruding aircraft which went its way unmolested, to a misidentified friendly flight, or to some kind of propagation/interference anomaly. But such a scenario is a little improbable, and the catastrophic break-up of the interceptor - presumably due to premature detonation of an armed missile - would remain an uncomfortable coincidence.
One possibility which is worth considering is a reconnaissance overflight by a foreign power. Since 1948 the US has pursued a variety of classified ELINT/PHOTINT programmes employing balloons and dirigibles, from the early CIA/USAF Skyhook through to the Navy's abandoned High Altitude Superpressure Aerostat (HASPA), a large electric-powered helium airship for ocean surveillance, and its successor, Lockheed's HiSpot, an over-the-horizon-targeting platform capable of controlled flight and hovering for upwards of three months at extreme altitude with a 3 ton of ELINT sensors and a huge internal antenna. Some analogous project in early 1967 could have involved overflights of communist Cuba, still a strategically sensitive area following Khrushchev's removal of Soviet missiles in 1962. If the MiGs had fortuitously encountered such a platform this could explain both the reported visual appearance, and the apparent over sensitivity of the NSA to an incident of foreign aircraft loss: any admission of US technology in the area might create an awkward international incident.
Of course, the destruction of the MiG remains a coincidence on this hypothesis. However, certain types of AEW, reconnaissance and ELINT aircraft over the years have been fitted with defensive armament, even though this is not routine practice. A number of Soviet models have carried 25mm guns, usually in the tail and sometimes radar directed. Some British and American aircraft - presumably more likely culprits in this case - have provision for infrared air-toair missiles and would either be able to use their airborne radar equipment in passive mode to detect hostile signals or would be fitted, like almost all at-risk military aircraft, with dedicated radar warning receivers (RWRs). RWRs are capable of detecting when a hostile radar has stopped scanning, meaning that it has locked on and begun to track (hence the development of modern trackwhile-scan systems), and this situation must be construed as highly threatening. The lead MiG in this case was reportedly destroyed shortly after its pilot had radioed that his radar was locked on to the target and his missiles were armed, which is consistent with a preemptive missile attack. The scenario has some shortcomings, however, including the visual description of the intruder, the oddly clean destruction of the MiG, and the reported departure altitude of about 100,000' which would be beyond the maximum ceiling of known aircraft in 1967.
In summary it seems possible that the source in this case was genuinely in a position to impart sensitive information, and that communications intercepts did occur which related to some sort of incident in Cuban airspace. However, given the second hand nature of the report allowance has to be made for inaccuracies and embroideries. The possibility therefore exists that the core of the report describes an engagement by Cuban MiGs with a US reconnaissance overflight. The further possibility exists that US intelligence sources were aware that Cuba could not definitely identify the intruder, and deliberately "leaked" a phony air-radio intercept as a counterintelligence ploy. Unlikely as this may seem, there is some evidence that states have used the UFO rumour in this way - for example, reports in the Soviet state press during the '70s which were allowed to feed public speculation about UFOs, but which were later discovered to originate with secret military satellite launches from Plesetsk. In the present case, however, the likelihood of such a ploy is perhaps not very great, particularly considering that 10 years had elapsed between the reported date of the incident and the leak. What we are left with, then, is a tantalising story, but one which will almost certainly never be more than hearsay.
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: March 2, 1967 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 58, 243White Sand Missile Range,New Mexico
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: AGroups of three to four UFOs tracked on radar sliver discs seen widely.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: March 5 1967 TIME: unknown CLASS: R/V
LOCATION: SOURCE: Fowler CUFOI 1981 187Minot AFB Hall, UFOE II, pages 27 80-81, 243N. Dakota
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: According to Raymond Fowler, a former US Air Force Security Service employee, NORAD (North American Air Defence Command) radar detected an uncorrelated target on a descending track over a Minuteman site of the 91st Strategic Missile Wing, Minot AFB. Alerted strike teams sighted a metallic, discshaped object with bright flashing lights moving slowly above the site and pursued it in three armed trucks. It stopped and hovered at 500', thenbegan to circle above a launch control facility. F-106 jets were ordered into the air, but before they could be launched the object climbed vertically at a very rapid rate and disappeared.
NOTES: The report contains no evaluable detail and must be considered as hearsay. Similar incidents were reported at US Northern Tier missile sites during the '70s, however, which were sometimes supported by official documentation. The report may be of interest historically. STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: March 13 (11?), 1967 TIME: 2200 CST CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES:Tillamook, Oregon
RADAR DURATION: 4 hours, 38 minutes
EVALUATIONS: Project Blue Book: False radar returns
Case Added: Aldrich
University of Colorado Case #1212B
Initial Summary: Three lights lare than stars observed by 12 witnesses. Weather
condition clar with some ground fog.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: March 20 1967 TIME: unknown CLASS: R/V ground radar/ prob. ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 29, see also: FowlerMalmstrom AFBMontana RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATIONS: No official
PRECIS: A reported UFO sighting was "confirmed on radar". Interceptors were launched from Malmstrom, with results unknown. A flight of ten missiles, probably Minuteman, reportedly developed problems at about the same time.
NOTES: Missile malfunctions have been reported in similar circumstances. CF, Minuteman site, Lewiston, Montana, Nov. 7 1975, and anecdotal report by Ray Fowler.
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: March 22, 1967 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein ACUERVC, Vol. 4Bay of Biscay
RADAR DURATION: minutesEVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: March 24 1967 TIME: 2134Z CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Volunteer Flight Office Network (VFON) report formA/C: 52 deg 21" N, 06 deg 12" W Weinstein AUER/VC vol. 4 Preston ground radar
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATIONS: No official
VFON Report #682
Added case: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Irish Airlines Flight 275A heading on course of 300 degrees True at an altitude of 10,000 observed a white object about as bright as Venus ahead and at an elevation of about 10 degrees above the aircraft. The object was observed for about 6 minutes. It change color to pale green and then to red. Preston radar (G-PK) informed the crew that they had an target with a speed of about 150 knots.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: April 1967 TIME: CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: NICAP, UFO Investigator V 5, #1, May-June 1967Brixham, Devon, England
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: A huge, cone-shaped UFO that slowly revolved, hovered for more than an hour, and shot away as an airplane approached was seen by members of Her Majesty's Coast Guard and others at Brixham, Devon, England at 11:25 a. m., April [1967] 3580.Coast Guardsman Brian F. Jenkins stated in his report to NICAP member J. A. Hennessey that the object was seen stationary at approximately 15,000 feet. It slowly drifted to the northwest during the next 80 minutes. It was slowly revolving, revealing a door like structure on its side as it did so. There was a curtain-like structure' at its bottom that changed shape during the flight. At 12:40,' Jenkins stated, "an aircraft with a thick vapor trail approached the object from the northeast, flew above it and passed it, then turned and dived and approached the object from below, slowing down . . . until the vapor trail faded, and the aircraft was lost from sight. A few minutes later the object was lost in a cloud." The UFO disappeared at an estimated 22,000 feet altitude. According to May 21st edition of the London Sunday Express, an undetermined number of people along the Devon coast saw the UFO. Within minutes, the Royal Air Force submitted an account to the Ministry of Defense, who at first denied they had received any report, but then said that they did receive a report, but somehow it was not logged. The object was also reported tracked on radar, according to a senior RAF controller at Plymouth. At the same time as the sighting, an air vice marshall was visiting the Brixham Coast Guard station.
"We raised the subject [of the sighting] with his staff who remarked that they had never seen anything like it before," Jenkins remarked after they had seen his detailed drawing of the object
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: April 6, 1967 TIME: 2145 MST CLASS: R ground radar/AV?
LOCATION SOURCE: University of Colorado SummaryEdmonton, Alberta Weinstein: ACER/VC, Vol. 4Canada Hall, UFOE II, 243
RADAR DURATION: Not specified
EVALUATION: No official
University of Colorado Case #1206N
Added case: Aldrich
Initial Summary: GCA radar at the Edmonton International Airport picked up an a fast moving object at a low altitude coming from the northwest and traveling in an erratic manner. The controlers asked the pilot of Pacific Western Airlines to check on the object. He observed for a short time a dull red-orange light which vanished as the plane approached. Original source of the report was NICAP.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: July 7 1967 TIME: evening CLASS: R ground radarLOCATION SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 195Kenora Airport Campagna, TUF, p96Ontario
RADAR DURATION: 3 hours
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: An unidentified target was observed on a Canadian Air Traffic Control radar by three controllers and two technicians. It was on a heading towards Kenora, Ontario (about 125 miles E of Winnipeg, Manitoba). Later that evening an unidentified target was detected by Kenora Airport radar on a NE heading. It remained on-scope for three hours, executing a series of manoeuvres including 180-degree turns and twice appearing to follow different Air Canada flights, before resuming its NE heading and disappearing off-scope.
At 03:24 GMT an object was picked up that followed Air Canada Flight # 405 before disappearing. The return had remained on the scope for 29 minutes. The same or similar return reappeared and followed Air Canada Flight #927. It was the opinion of the radar operators that the targets were not caused by mechanical or electrical problems.
NOTES: There is no basis for any conclusion in this case without detailed information on target behaviour and presentation over the 3 hours. There appears to be no simultaneous radar or visual corroboration, and the relatedness of the two radar incidents cannot be established. Nevertheless, the prima facie report is very interesting and would appear to warrant further investigation.
*DATE: July 31, 1967 TIME: 0430Z CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES:Kernville, California
RADAR DURATION: 1 hour, 45 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
University of Colorado case #1306B
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Mr. & Mrs. Petyak, telephone company worker observe two round star like lights bright blue in color. Radar operators at Edwards AFB RAPCON pick up targets on radar. Weather conditions: clear.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: August 23, 1967 TIME: 2145 CLASS: GR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES:Halifax, Nova Scotia
RADAR DURATION: several seconds
EVALUATIONS: University of Colorado Case #1473N
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: One object with flashing white lights observed by commercial pilot: strange return picked up on ground radar.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: October 21, 1967 TIME: 6"16 A. M. CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Project Blue Book FilesBlythewille Air Base, Hynek, UFO ReportArkansas
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Sparks
Initial Summary: Oct. 21, 1967. Blytheville AFB, Ark. (35.96_ N, 89.95_ W). 6:16 a.m. 2 control tower operators and an observer at the S end of the runway saw 2 dark oblong table-latter shaped objects with 7 ft long exhaust at about 1,200-1,500 ft height fly E to W, tracked by RAPCON radar at a distance of 2 miles, make a turn to the SW when they disappeared. (Hynek UFO Exp ch. 6, case DD-3) 15-30 secs 3 RV
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: June (?) 1968 TIME: 2300 local CLASS: R/V groundradar/ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 105DMZ region,Vietnam
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATIONS: No official
PRECIS: According to Newsweek July 1 1968, US personnel at radar posts along the DMZ separating N and S Vietnam were reporting "dozens" of unidentified aircraft moving across the border, almost on a nightly basis. These incidents were widely characterised at the time by US and South Vietnamese official sources as incursions by "communist helicopters", and US positions along the DMZ were reinforced to counter an expected aerial assault. The assault never came, however, and subsequent official statements dismissed the incidents as "a mistake". A statement by USAF Chief of Staff General George S. Brown on October 16 1973, responding to journalists' questions about UFOs and the Air Force, is illuminating:
I don't know whether this story has ever been told or not. They weren't called UFOs. They were called enemy helicopters. And they were only seen at night and they were only seen in certain places. They were seen up around the DMZ in the early summer of '68. And this resulted in quite a little battle. And in the course of this, an Australian destroyer took a hit and we never found an enemy. We only found [out] ourselves when this had all been sorted out. This caused some shooting there and there was no enemy at all involved, but we always reacted. Always after dark. The same thing happened up at Pleiku in the Highlands in '69.
One of these incidents was documented by Newsweek reporter Robert Stokes, who was present at the Army headquarters at Dong Ha when a visual report was radioed in. Captain William Bates was the operator who took the message at about 2300. A Marine observer saw "thirteen sets of yellowish-white lights" and tracked them with an electronic telescope. They were moving west over the Ben Hai River at altitudes of between 500 and 1000 feet.
When it was established that no known aircraft were in the area contact was made with radar unit Alpha 2, a northerly outpost of 1 Corps. The radar operator confirmed targets, stating that he was surrounded by blips on his scope. By 0100 Air Force and Marine jets were airborne in pursuit. At about 0145 one Marine pilot reported that he had shot down a helicopter. A reconnaisance aircraft overflew the area with infrared sensors to certify the kill but, although a "burned spot" was detected, no wreckage was found.
NOTES: The impression of radar-visual simultaneity in this report may be false, as 2 hours appear to have elapsed between the initial visual and the launching of aircraft. If radar confirmation had been positive and/or simultaneous one might expect action to have been taken more promptly. It is also impossible to conclude that the target of the interceptor engagement, occurring some 2: hours after the visual report, was related to the original sets of yellowish lights. If these lights were helicopters they could have been far away and grounded by this time. The pilot could have engaged, say, a lighted balloon in error, which would account for the lack of wreckage, or if he attempted to intercept a bright celestial body he would not be the first. The "burned spot" could have several explanations, and may even have been caused by the pilot's own wayward missile if he engaged a non-existent target. However, this is mere speculation.
The radar operator's statement that there were echoes widely distributed on his scope could be consistent with anomalous propagation of ground returns. The chief of staff's statement that other, similar incidents always occurred at night is also suggestive of anomalous propagation, which is most prevalent in stable, stratified nocturnal atmospheres and typically disappears with the onset of solar warming. Studies of propagation at two microwave bands (< 1000 MHz & <3000 MHz) show that this part of the world is in fact subject to AP conditions for more than 5% of the time most of the year (Cole 1985, pp.47-51). It is also true to say, of course, that all "UFO" reports as a class - visual or radar - show a similar circadian distribution, and correlation does not establish causation. Nevertheless, repeated incidents of large numbers of radar ghosts in a region prone to AP, and which cannot be intercepted or identified, do tend to suggest the likelihood of AP. The nature of the "thirteen sets of yellowish-white lights" initially reported in the Ben Hai River incident remains unknown, however, and the possibility remains that these phenomena could have been detected on radar.
STATUS: Insufficient information
DATE September 5 1968TIME: 1900 local (approx.) CLASS: R/V groundradar/air-ground visual
LOCATION SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 145Madrid Klass UFOEx 1974 40
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: A bright object was observed moving slowly in the twilight sky above Madrid by thousands of people in the streets, causing traffic jams miles in length. It was still visible until about 1930, some time after the sun had set. Observers generally described the object as "pyramid shaped". It was also observed from an aircraft flying at 36,000' and from a Spanish Air Force F-104 interceptor which climbed above 50,000' in pursuit. TheF-104 could not reach the object's altitude. Spanish Air Force radars tracked a slow-moving target at 90,000. The object appeared to be on a SW heading. It was observed through an astronomical telescope from Madrid Observatory, appearing to emit a"blinding light" as described by a reporter present. A telescopic photograph was also obtained, showing a
triangular form which appeared partially translucent. According to the account published by the London Daily Telegraph on September 9, the object left the area at high speed. The Spanish Air Force statement concurred in this detail. The Air Force later stated that the object was unexplained, but speculated that it may have been a meteorological balloon. The Madrid Weather Bureau could find no balloon release that might account for it, however, and suggested that asatellite reentry might have caused the sightings.
NOTES: The probability that this was a large, high altitude balloon, probably of French origin, is rather strong. From the Max Planck Insitut fur Aeronomie in Germany, who had launched cosmic ray research balloons from Gottingen in the 1960s, Tim Good learned that many such balloons were terahedral in shape at this time with volumes up to 10,000 cu. meters. They were built by a French factory. Philip Klass noted in 1974 that the major French launch site was the Centre Nationale d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) facility at Aire-sur-l'Adour near the Spanish border, NE of Madrid. Inquiries to CNES on two occasions elicited no response, but Klass pointed out that the launch location is, given appropriate winds, consistent with a SW heading across Madrid. By 1987 Klass had still not been able to confirm that the balloons made in Toulouse for CNES were of this tetrahedral design, but according to his information they would have been designed toroughly maintain station at high altitude (within a few tens of miles) for hours, or even days, by radio-controlled ballast adjustments.
Several similar sightings occurred in Britain and Europe during this period, typically describing bright, slow-moving objects at high altitude which resolved into "translucent" structures when viewed with binoculars or telescope, usually witnessed by numbers of people over a wide area, and usually around twilight. The similarity to a polyethylene balloonscattering light after the local sunset is indeed striking.
Good has some reservations, in particular about one widely-observed "tetrahedral balloon" which was reported from all over London and the home counties on the evening of August 1 1963, and which was the subject of another similarly unsuccessful interception by an F-100 Super Sabre from RAF/USAF Bentwaters. The object was believed to be at over 90,000'. Good saw it himself from Beckenham and described its binocular appearance as "tetrahedral" and "translucent or glass-like". It was photographed by an amateur astronomer from Bushey, Hertfordshire, who noted that it wasstationary in the field of view of a 4" refractor for more than two hours. Good points out that this degree of stationarity would surely rule out a balloon. He submitted the astronomer's photograph to the Max Planck Institute for comment, who responded that that it "possibly shows a balloon, if you turn it by 180 degrees." But Good is adamant that theorientation of the object he saw was such that its apex was uppermost, flat base down. The photographer, Jan Willemstyn, apparently agrees, stating that a rod-like structure with "several transverse members" extended from the pointed top of the object, a description confirmed by the pianist John Bingham who also happened to be an amateur astronomer and made observations through a reflecting telescope. (It is perhaps worth pointing out that astronomical telescopes do normally produce an inverted image unless corrected at the eyepiece, since the minimum of optical surfaces affords maximum light transmission. However, one would expect amateur astronomers to be thoroughly aware of this fact.)
The possibility exists that these objects were not innocent scientific research balloons, but covert photo-reconnaissance/SIGINT/ELINT balloons in the tradition of the CIA programme begun in 1947 with adapted US Navy Skyhooks - an idea which was surely developed by other nations. This might explain the French space centre's reluctance to confirm details of their balloon flights from Aire sur-l'Adour, and might also explain why some details of these balloons appear to differ from the "innocent" norm. For example, the "rod with several transverse members" seen protruding from the 1963 object sounds somewhat like a yagi antenna array which might relay intercepted electronic or communications intelligence to remote ground stations. Obviously there is limited information available on any such classified projects, but it is noteworthy that static buoyant platforms are known to have been deployed. In particular, in the late '70s Lockheed produced a hydrogen-fuelled, powered, 500' airship called HiSpot (Hi-altitude Surveillance Platform for Over-the-horizon Targeting) to replace an earlier and slightly smaller helium/electric airship called HASPA (High-Altitude Superpressure Powered Aerostat) built by
the US Navy for ocean surveillance. HiSpot could hold station at 70,000' for more than three months carrying 250kg of equipment and sensors, transmitting intelligence by way of an enormous internal aerial. The true capabilities of these and other, perhaps unknown, historical projects may well remainclassified, and it is possible that they explain some of the curious balloon-like objects reported from time to time. In conclusion, the Madrid radar target was probably a French research balloon. The object's rapid departure is on the face of it inconsistent, but the report does not establish this detail firmly enough to counterbalance the rather strong indications that it was a balloon. The possibility also exists that the object was a classified, powered ELINT platform which might display limited manoeuvrability.
STATUS: Probable balloon
*DATE: September 15, 1968 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein ACUERVC, Vol 4Near Oscala, Palm Beach,Florida
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Sparks
Initial Summary: 12498 Sept. 15, 1968. W of Cross City to 12 miles W of Ocala, Florida. 9:30 p.m. [12:31 a.m.?] Missionary pilot Ray [Jay?] Cole, flying a Twin Beech C45H twin-engined utility plane at 9,500 ft heading 120_ at 200 mph true airspeed, with a pilot passenger Ray Rushing, saw a white [?] light with pale green light flashing less than once per sec at their flight level, moving up and down vertically by about 500-1,000 ft for 15 mins maintaining distance then turned right about 10_ climbed at a 15_ angle until vanishing when 12 miles out from Ocala. 2nd light, very bright white also flashing pale green and at about 5,000 ft height, then suddenly appeared on a collision course, made a 90_ turn at about 2 miles away and 500 ft below, then descended and receded to about 15 miles away and disappeared with distance to the W of Ocala. Later, ground radar said a target was following them [?]. (NARCAP; Berliner) 15 mins + ? + ? 2 ? RV?
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 18, 1968 TIME: 1417Z CLASS: AV/AR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure AustralaiDarwin, NT, Australia
Internet presence: http://www.auforn.com
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Source: Pages 197-203, 205 of digital copy of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 10. [Unidentified aircraft]A RAF Hercules aircraft no 9651 took off from Darwin. When at 1500 feet, heading 290 degrees, the crew made a visual observation of a light which they took to be another aircraft. This aircraft showed white lights "Presumed to be those from fuselage windows." But did not have any navigation or anti-collision beacons.This aircraft crossed the path of the Hercules from right to left in front of the Hercules. The crew estimated its height to be 2500 feet. The radar on the Hercules indicated a target at 15 miles range, estimated speed 200 knots, travelling on a heading of 230-250 degrees magnetic. Its estimated size was at least that of the Hercules. No unauthorised aircraft were in the area.A check revealed that ground radar was not operating at the time. No additional information was gained from DCA, Met, Navy, Customs or ASIO. No unscheduled aircraft landed at Broome, Derby, Port Headland or Wyndham.In a memo dated 1 Nov 68 Penrith to Dept of Air ref 5/2/7/Air (86) & 5/15/1/Air (26). "The fact that the sighting was made by experienced RAF aircrew and detected by the aircraft=s radar leaves very little doubt that an aircraft was in the area. As the aircraft has not been identified, the possibility of the violation of our national airspace cannot be discounted." AURA
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: October 24 1968 TIME: 0300 local CLASS: R/V air radar/air-ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hynek (1978) 138Minot AFBNorth Dakota RADAR DURATION: several minutes
EVALUATIONS: Blue Book - plasma/stars/ground lights
PRECIS: The Blue Book summary states:
At about 0300 hours local, a B-52 that was about 30 miles northwest of Minot AFB making practice penetrations sighted an unidentified blip on their radars. Initially the target travelled approximately 22 miles in 3 sec. or at about 3,000 mi/hr. After passing from the right to the left of the plane it assumed a position off the left wing of the 52. The blip stayed off the left wing for approximately 20 miles at which point it broke off. Scope photographs were taken. When the target was close to the B-52 neither of the two transmitters in the B-52 would operate properly but when it broke off both returned to normal function.
At about this time a missile maintenance man called in and reported sighting a bright orangish-red object. The object was hovering at about 1,000 ft. or so, and had a sound similar to a jet engine. The observer had stopped his car, but he then started it up again. As he started to move, the object followed him, then accelerated and appeared to stop at about 6-8 miles away. The observer shortly afterward lost sight of it.
In response to the maintenance man's call the B-52, which had continued its penetration run, was vectored toward the visual which was about 10 miles northwest of the base. The B-52 confirmed having sighted a bright light of some type that appeared to be hovering just over or on the ground.
The Blue Book file contains fourteen additional reports from missile maintenance technicians and security guards at five separate sites around Minot AFB describing sightings of a similar object over a period of 4 hours 48 minutes bracketing the above incident. The exact times and details of these sightings are unavailable, although some observers apparently described the object as seeming to land, and in one case the light was reportedly compared to "the sun".
NOTES: The date given by Hynek, Oct. 28 1956, is apparently in error. A summary reference to what appears to be the same case elsewhere (source, 125) gives Oct. 24 1968, which seems to be the correct date - given that Major Quintanilla (who is quoted in connection with the investigation) did not take over Blue Book until 1963 and was in charge as at Oct. 1968.
The B-52 was inbound, NW from the base at range 30 miles when the target was acquired. The target was held for 20 miles, "close to" the B-52 until it "broke off", placing it and the B-52 some 10 miles NW of the base at this point. The ground-visual reported independently "at about this time" placed the red/orange light "about 10 miles northwest of the base" at fairly low level, consistent with an object which had just dropped below the elevation scan limit of the B-52 radar. The ground observer "lost sight" of the object, and subsequently the B-52, vectored to the site, reported a "bright light" on or close to the ground. This sequence of events is roughly consistent, and the proximity of the missile technician to the point at which the target was lost to air radar might be certified by his statement that he heard what sounded like a jet at this time: Although the altitude of the B-52 Stratofortress is unstated, its practice mission suggests a low-level radar-penetration exercise, and it would not be surprising if its eight turbofans were audible on the ground.
The possibility exists that the ground observer saw the B-52 itself, its apparent "hovering" and "acceleration" being illusions. There is a small suggestion of visual illusion in the movement of the light apparently "following" the motion of the observer's car. But the likelihood of an airforce technician, who would doubtless be very familiar with jet movements over the area, hearing a jet, seeing it, and yet still not recognizing it, must be very small. Add to this a further fourteen reports from airforce ground crews of a similar "UFO", and the coincidence of a near-simultaneous radar "UFO" report (of which none can have been aware) from the very same aircraft, and the probability falls dramatically.Blue Book's evaluation makes no concession to probability. They appear to have explained the initial radar target as possibly "a plasma of the ball lightning class", the ground visual sightings variously as "probable aircraft" or "some [unspecified] first magnitude celestial bodies", and the visual sighting from the B-52 as "the star Vega . . . or it could be a light on the ground, or possibly a plasma." It is difficult to take this sort of thing seriously. Nevertheless, there is insufficient information for any probative analysis.
The radar target is essentially unevaluable as described, but several points bear emphasis a propos the Blue Book evaluation. 1) Blue Book made no attempt to deny the reality of the target, which is unusual and may relate to: 2) the fact that more than one air radar is stated to have been involved and 3) the hard evidence of scope photographs as to target presentation and movement over time. 4) The behaviour of the target would redefine our understanding of ball lightning: an initial transit of the a/c @ 3000 mph followed by close pacing ofthe a/c for 20 miles, or a minimum of about 3 minutes on the assumption that the B-52 was pushing 400 knots or so. Blue Book also suggested a "possible plasma" as an explanation
of the object later seen visually from the B-52 near the ground. The probability of so rare a phenomenon as ball lightning occurring twice in this way is vanishingly small, and if the suggestion is that this was the same plasma then this remarkable "plasma" is a UFO" in all but name.
The malfunction of the two radio transmitters coincident with the proximity of the radar target is not really addressed at all by Blue Book, although it is worth noting that one theory of ball-lightning formation proposes that the plasma is sustained by dueled radio-frequency fields associated with electrical storms. In the present case weather conditions are not cited, but it can be inferred from Blue Book's explanation of the visuals as possible stars that the sky was fairly clear and there is no suggestion elsewhere in the summary of poor visibility, cloud, rain or storm. Statistically, ball lightning is very strongly correlated with electrical storms, even though there are reports in the literature of similar phenomena occurring in clear weather. If such phenomena are ball lightning or not is a moot question.
Supposition aside, however, and notwithstanding the unavailability of so much implied data, the balance of probability does suggest that an unidentified, radar-reflective, self-luminous object may have been observed near the base. But the case cannot be said to be probative, and the possibility remains that the failure of the airborne radios to "operate properly" is diagnostic of some source of broad-band local RFI which also caused a noise track on the B-52*s radar. The subsequent visual sightings could conceivably have been coincidental. The case therefore merits further study.
Additional information: (Sparks) Oct. 24, 1968. About 30 miles NW of Minot AFB, North Dakota. 3:30 a.m. (CDT). USAF Minot AFB ground radar tracked unidentified object correlated with orange glow and radioed it to the attention of the USAF crew of B-52H bomber (call sign JAG 31) on a 290_ heading at 2,000 ft as a UFO target at 1 o'clock position to the NW at 24 miles, then 15 miles at 3:35 a.m. At 3:52 a.m., Minot radioed the B-52H that base weather radar was also tracking target now at 1 o'clock position and 3 miles from the B-52H. At 3:58 Minot requested IFF transponder identification from the B-52H and the B-52H radio transmitter failed for 4 mins. B-52H crew saw and radar tracked bright red-orange object [?] at 9 o'clock position at 35 miles then 1.25-1.5 miles, traveling at 3,000 mph [?]. UFO landing for 45 mins at location "AA-43." UFO sightings at Minuteman ICBM nuclear missile sites N, O, J [?], and M Flights, 91st Strategic Missile Wing, including strange EM effects such as security alarms activated at outer and inner rings around silos, outer [silo?] door opened and combination lock of inner door moved. Witnesses included Maj. Bradford Runyon, S/Sgt Bond, S/Sgt Smith, et al. (Project 1947; Kevin Randle; Hynek UFO Rpt pp. 137-9 [misdated as 1966]; etc.) 4 hrs 48 mins 16+ [20+ ?] RV, EM, radar scope photos
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: November 13, 1968 TIME: 0120 hrs CLASS: GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure Australia ProjectDawrin, NT, Australia
Internet presence: http://www.auforn.com
RADAR DURATION: 53 minutes
EVALUATIONS: A flock of birds
Case Added:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: 13 November 1968 Darwin NT 120hrs 53mins 1mM Byrne RadarA met. Officer at Darwin Airport detected an object on radar. 'A fairly strong paint on PPI.' 'Appeared as a definite echo, observer first thought it to be a helicopter because of slow speed.' Height 7000-7500 feet. Speed 17-25 knots. 'Object appeared to come directly towards observer then reverse to SW.' 'Lost in permanent echoes.' Two other people attempted a visual observation through binoculars. No sighting was made. Report includes weather details and radar tracking data. (Pages 176-182 of digital copy of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 10. [Flock of birds])
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November 26, 1968 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 119, 130-131, 243Bismark, North Dakota
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: A@FAA radar tracked two UFOs,; pilots air traffic controllers observed two luminous objects.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: April 12, 1969 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/groun, air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Rossala Air Force Base,Finnland
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: September 4, 1969 TIME: 1930 hours CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. RNW of Wellington, UFO Bulletin (Auckland University UFO Research Group) #3,New Zealand April 1970, pages 6-7 FSR
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: Investigation by Harold Fulton
AThe before 1930 hours on September 4, 1969. It was a dark night, with no moon. Captain R. Cullum and First Officer Faircloth, the crew of a Bristol Freighter of Straits Air Freight Express, had just taken off on a routine run from Wellington to Bleheim across Cook Strait. This trubulent piece of waer separates the North and South Islands of New Zealand.
AThe crew noted that apart from four or five-eighths scattered cloud , visibility was some 20 miles. As hey ere climbing steadily toward 3,000 feet, Wellington readar sudden came on the intercom. The airport terminal radar was tracking an unknown which was four miles dead ahead. The freighter at heis wass flying north into wind, and started then to swing around to the west, hea ding for the coast, where it turned again south southwest on course for Blenheim.
AThe aircraft had overflown the coast-line and turned for the southerly heading when F. O. Faircloth, who was piloting the plane from he Captain=s seat, spotted a bright blue, pulsating, flourescent light. The blinking blue light was below them, and to their right. It was an estimated two miles from their aircraft. The pilots informed Wellington radar of their visual sighting and their position fix was confirmed. Radar was tracking the object the pilots were watching..
AIt was noted with some surprise that the object was >flying= very slowly at an estimated 50-60 knots. There was a northerly wind of 30-35 knots, which meant the UFO was only moving at an air speed of 25 knots. The pilots noted that the blue light flashed every two to three seconds and was as bright as a first magnitude star at its brightest. The UFO maintained a steady southerly course.
AThe pilots watched the unknown for approximately two minutes. They made not attempt to close with it, and their aircraft soon lelf it behind. Meanwhile Wellington Radar continued to track it.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: September 4, 1969 TIME: about 2100 hours CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. RNW of Wellington, UFO Bulletin (Auckland University UFO Research Group) #3,New Zealand April 1970, pages 6-7 FSR
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Investigation by Harold Fulton
ASome 90 minutes later F. O. Faircloth was making a return flight to Wellingtonand again spotted the mystery light. This time it appeared as a cluster of lights some 15 miles distant, off the coast of South Island in the vicinity of Cape Campbell bacon. F. O Faircloth contacted Wellingon radar and told them of his further observation and the position. Wellington confirmed that this was the same object and that they were still tracking it. Immediately following the first public disclosure of his interesting incident b Wellington Evening Post in its September 23 issue, I wrote to Captain Ridgewell Cullum asking him for his first-hand account and also for that of F. O. Faircloth. The Captain=s report was back in 10 days, and fully confirmed the press account. There were no contradictions or inaccuracies, it has not yet been received.
ACaptain Cullum provided a detailed sketch, showing plottings. He is an experienced aviaor who received his wings in Canada as a trainee of the Royal New Zealand Air Force. After being commissioned he saw active service in England during the closing stages of World War II. For some years after leaving the Service he flew as a captain with British United Airways before returning to New Zealand. He has an open ming on the subject of UFOs and admites he has no explanation for Sept. 4 shared observation. The Press carried a follow-up story on Sept. 24 to the effect taht the RNZAF were interested in the sighting and had called for reports from the pilots. An air force spokesman speculated that the radar tracked object might be explained as a radar >angle,= but unlike many other reports, partiularly American cases, this radar sighting had been visually confirmed. To my way of thinking this show how uninformed official spokesmen can be.
>Capt. Cullum, in a special >Sighting Report Form,= which he kindly completed for me, confirmed that he had reported the sighting to the Ministry of Defense Intelligence Services, Wellington. No restriction had been placed on him regarding his sighting.
AA number of other possible explanations of this sighting were also made in the Sept. 24 press report. It was suggested ha the object was an unscheduled private aircraft, or a helicopte, bu the object=s slow speed and its pulsating flourescent light made these explanations very weak. The has been no further public comment about this incidnet.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: October -- 1969? TIME: unknown CLASS: R - ground radar
LOCATION: SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 60
USAF/NSA radar siteN. Carolina
RADAR DURATION: 30 mins.+
EVALUATIONS: No official
PRECIS: An anonymous informant described a second-hand report of an incident involving UFO reports over the AEC facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. A USAFstaffed NSA-run [therefore possibly Air Force Security Service] radar facility in N. Carolina, E of Oak Ridge, tracked two targets which remained nearly stationary for approx. 2 hour. 2 F-4 Phantoms were scrambled to intercept and were vectored to within 5 miles, when targets moved off, outdistancing the F-4s by 60 miles in some 10 seconds. The targets stopped again and the F-4s closed. The targets moved off again with a sudden burst of speed and the F-4s went to afterburners in pursuit, closing to 3 miles @ approx. 25,000'. One F-4 blip vanished from the scope, then 10 seconds later the other F-4 vanished from the scope. Wreckage of both aircraft was found scattered over 8-9 miles, and the crews were recovered alive but psychologically damaged.
NOTES: Since this report is hearsay and the original informant (GCI operator) is said to have been killed in Vietnam no evaluation is possible.
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: May 23, 1969 TIME: 1835 hours CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure Australia ProjectKalamunda, West Australia Bill Chaker, unpublished manuscript 2002
Internet presence: http://www.auforn.com
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Two years later, a radar visual event occurred on the 23 May 1969 which involved a DCA radar operator at Kalamunda WA. At 1835hrs two civilian witnesses saw a moving light which travelled from 10 degrees S, through the SE to the E then to the N of them. It appeared as a steady red light on top of a blue-white light. Finally it settled in a stationary position 10-15 degrees bearing 015 degrees. It was described as circular, half the size of the full Moon. It was there for 15-20 minutes before, at 1900 hours it moved off at high speed to the N/NE. The female witness at 1901hrs telephoned Kalamundra radar. On checking the radar screen the operator saw a large echo 9 miles distance at 300 degrees. This meant it was some 2.5 miles N of the civilian witnesses. Contact was held for 30-40 seconds. The echo appeared for short instances on five occasions and finally disappeared at
1942hrs. Interestingly, despite the radar having Moving Target Indicator which meant that it suppressed targets moving less than 6 knots. The target had no noticeable displacement. (17) (17) Chalker, B. unpublished manuscript 2002 citing copy of a report from O H Turner.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Further info////////////At 1101,1108,1115,1118,1136 & 1142z, ATC radar-strong stationary paint 300 deg 9NM from Kalamunda. Seen at same time as object like a Abig street slight@ reported over Cloverdale by a Mrs Cosgrove. Radar returns were strong-stationary. Met. Radar at Perth also had unusual returns but times/dates did not tally with above. Return from this latter radar could have been due to inversion over OTC antennas on ground.Mrs Cosgrove 1835hrs (1035z) of Cloverdale WA. Blue/white light, with red light on top from SE 12 deg el. Very fast but slow at other times. Stopped overhead for 15mins then left at speed to N. pp238-241 of 580/1/1 part 11.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: January 1970 TIME: N/A CLASS: R/V ground radar/visual
LOCATION: SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 310South Korean Republic
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATION: ROK Air Force - possible hostile dirigibles
PRECIS: A report from the Republic of Korea (ROK) Intelligence Agency to the US Defence Intelligence Agency reads:
On 10 and 11 February 1970 a meeting of all Commanding Officers (CO) of ROK Air Force (ROKAF) Security Units (SU) throughout the ROK was held at ROKAF Headquarters in SEOUL . . . . At that meeting the ROKAF Chief ofStaff gave those in attendance a highlyclassified briefing concerning recent sightings of UFOs in KANGWON-do, ROK. Since the beginning of 1970 ROKAF radar stations along the eastern coast of the ROK in KANGWON-do have been sighting (detecting) maneuvers of large balloon-shaped objects at high altitude just north of the extreme Eastern Sector of the Korean DMZ. On several occasions these UFOs, which the ROKAF officials are assuming to be dirigibles because of their shape and speed, have penetrated ROK air space, travelled in a southeasterly direction over KANGWON-do and then exploded. ROK efforts to recover debris subsequent to the explosions have been unsuccessful. The ROKAF Chief of Staff speculated that if current maneuvers of the UFOs prove to be successful, then NK [North Korea] may use the self-propelled balloons for dropping agents, propaganda, or even epidemic germs into the ROK. His briefing and speculation caused consternation among the ROKAF SU CO's because this was the first report they had had of these penetrations.
NOTES: This is a curious report in several respects. The situation is strikingly reminiscent of the Scandinavian "ghost rockets" of 1946-1948, and the "green fireballs" which caused a furore around New Mexico defence installations in 1948-1950. As in these instances there was much concern about possibly hostile foreign
projectiles, and a conviction that the phenomena were real yet never any physical residue despite exhaustive recovery efforts. Eventually the incidents petered out, as perhaps occurred in Korea, without being resolved. Nevertheless it is possible that the suspicion of North Korean intrusions was correct, and a "self-propelled balloon" could be a light-weight affair which would yield minimumrecoverable wreckage.
The most interesting feature is that the Air Force Chief of Staff called a "highly classified" briefing to inform the Commanding Officers of the Air Force's own Security Units about an air security matter which had, he revealed, been of concern for at least a month. The Air Force Security officers received this intelligence with "consternation", not so muchbecause of its content but specifically because they had heard nothing about it. The sightings were characterised as "UFOs" by the ROK Intelligence Agency, and this poses an interesting question about the channels by which such reports reached the Chief of Staff from ROK Air Force sources over a period of several weeks without the knowledge ofcommand-level Air Force officers who, as indicated by the briefing and their own surprise, were responsible for the implied security issue as it might affect ROKAF. Indeed, not only had reports been passively received over this period, but there had also been an active programme to recover remnants of devices which had supposedly been exploding over ROK territory. No wonder there was "consternation" among the assembled chiefs of security!
One interpretation is that as long as the objects were being characterised as "UFOs" the reports were routed through dedicated intelligence channels with an obscure destination, the implication being that these channels were rather secure even from those whose business was security. Once the reports had been evaluated and ground searches failed to turn up any evidence, opinion began to favour a North Korean origin for the "balloons" and they ceased to be treated as "UFOs". They were now a mundane defence threat and thus ordinary Air Force business, at which point the responsible security command was brought into the loop.
There is no proof of this scenario, of course, and conversely it can be argued that as long as the reports were "merely" of UFOs they were not taken sufficiently seriously to warrant the Chief of Staff informing the Commanders of Air Force Security Units. But this still does not explain how none of them knew: after all, there would inevitably be a potential security issue from the first such sighting, and even if reports did not pass routinely over their own desks it is hardly credible that they would not be informed, either by a memo, or by casual talk, or at least by rumour. There were evidently a number of incidents, "several" of which had involved explosions in ROK airspace, as well as efforts to recover wreckage, and there was sufficient intelligence on the matter to warrant a top-level briefing which spanned two days. This is not the sort of activity that is likely to pass by commanding officers completely unnoticed for several weeks, nor is it consistent with a matter which had not hitherto been taken seriously, and the idea that information was being actively secured is quite persuasive.
There is much more extensive evidence that analogous intelligence arrangements existed in the US since at least 1952, and probably still do. There is some evidence of a common policy, or at least a reciprocal understanding in these matters, between the US, Canada, the UK and some other European countries, in a pattern perhaps broadly congruent with NATO. This seems to be the first indication of such an arrangement in the protégé state of South Korea.
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: Spring, 1970 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Lorring Air Force BaseMaine
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: July 29, 1970 TIME: CLASS:
LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure Australia ProjectSepik River, Paupa/New Guinea
Internet presence: http://www.auforn.com
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: 49 distinct UFO reports from PNG [ PAPUA NEW GUINEA] for the period June 1958 to August 1971 from these files and these are listed in attachment one. The 29 [49 reports were found in the Papua/New Guinie file including one radar case ]Jun 1970 Sepik River radar case stands out from the rest as one of interest to us. The DAFI file has a single page reporting this event, with no analysis and no follow up, yet it is written off in the Annual Summary as Aelectro-meteorological@ what ever that means! 3581. 29 Jun 70 Sepik River PNG 1720hrs 1M Keog Radar Pilot of F27 aircraft VH-FNK reported radar observation. On descent from 12,500 feet noted echoes on radar 60 deg green to abeam his plane. Radar scale set at 180nm and echoes appeared to be 60nm from plane and keeping station with him. There were five cigar shaped objects. With the radar scanner on maximum depression or elevation the echoes disappeared. DCA advised there were no aircraft in the area. File ref 69/4393.p53 of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 13. [Electro-meteorological phenomena]29 Jun 70 Sepik River PNG 1720hrs 1M Keog RadarPilot of F27 aircraft VH-FNK reported radar observation. On descent from 12,500 feet noted echoes on radar 60 deg green to abeam his plane. Radar scale set at 180nm and echoes appeared to be 60nm from plane and keeping station with him. There were five cigar shaped objects. With the radar scanner on maximum depression or elevation the echoes disappeared. DCA advised there were no aircraft in the area. File ref 69/4393. (P53 of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 13.)
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: September 4, 1970 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar, air radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4San Juan de Porto Rica,Porto Rica RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 24, 1969 TIME: 12:43 A. M. CLASS: Surface Radar/Surface Visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Bill ChalkerPacific Ocean, 359 miles south of Valparaiso Portoff the coast of Chile
Internet Presence: http:// www.waterufo.net
RADAR DURATION: 8 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Pacific Ocean, about 350 miles to the south of Valparaiso Port, off the coast of Chile. The incident involved a Chilean Naval destroyer and was witnessed by crew members and the commander of the vessel. Just after midnight, on or about October 24, 1969, a Chilean Navy destroyer, a week out of dry dock at Talcahuano Port (where the ship's axle had been removed and replaced), was navigating at 20 knots and heading north 20 degrees port side from NNW). The incredible events that followed took place over the next eight minutes.
At 12:43 A.M. the radar officer reported a long-range flying contact. A minute later the Acontact" was at 400 miles. Because of the "object's" speed, the operator suspected a malfunction in his equipment. In the next minute the contact was approximately 150 miles away closing from 331 degrees of true north. But the operator and officer in charge during the late night duty (an officer of second-class rank) speculated that the contact was a "plane flying southeast@ --but at 213 miles in a minute: 12,780 mph! One large and five small objects were sighting approaching the ship. The five smaller objects were egg-shaped and appeared to be no bigger than eight feet long and five to six feet wide. They were bluish in color The larger object was estimated to be twice the lenght of the ship. As the objects approached the smaller object made elliptical circles forwards and backwards between the large object and the ship. At 300 yards there was a humming noise and the power went out.
As it passed over the ship and off 200 yards the power systems came back on. The small objects formed on the bigger one and at about two miles vanished like someone turning out a light.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November 4, 1970 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Zaragoza Air Base,Spain
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November 18, 1970 TIME: 1400 M CLASS: GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: UFO Bulletin (Auckland University UFO Res Gp) 8/71, pages3-4Christchurch, New Zealand
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Radar Report from Meteorological Office ChristchurchBrief Synopis
AWednesday the 18th November last Christchurch Met Radar was engaged in tracking constant level balloon from Hekitika as part of a study fo lee waves being carried out in conjunction with Neil Cherry, M.S.C., of Canterbury University who is trying for a PhD on a wave study. At approximately 1400M the constant level balloon was at a height of 30,137 feet 128 KMS (70nmls) distant from Christchurch on a bearing of 151 deg True. Wind direction at this level was 310 deg 70 kts. At this point the Radar, which is auto follow acquired a new stronger target then the standard radar reflector on the constant level balloon and commenced tacking this target. For this to have occurred the second target must have been within 4-500 meters of the original target and of much greater reflectivity, e. g. an aircraft.
AWhen this occurred I had gone up to the Terminal Building {payday} and left a young graduate to write down the readings which he proceeded to do despite the fact that they did not appear to be from the original target. Upon my return the radar was still tracking the new target and the graduate recording the readings. It was immediately obvious to me that he had picked up an aircraft which I thought would be from Bigram. I picked up the
slide rule and saw that we were getting quite unusual heights so we maintained the tracking until the target speed became so great that the radar would not held in lock. Tracking was then abandoned. ANot a great deal was thought about the target we had acquired for a few days until in an idle moment I fired a few more reading on the slide rule, thinking to myself that the Skyhawks certainly do have an impressive performance. A week or so later, I had a course of advanced navigators over at this installation and in the course of conversation, I mentioned the impressive Skyhawk performance. The Navigators assured me that it could not have been a Skyhawk or any other aircraft in the R.N.Z.A.F....
ABeing a little more curious then, I put the reading through a Hewlitt Packard desk computer and obtained the results you will see on the attached form. [not included] I did not do a great deal more with the information except every now and again take it out and breed over it. Briefly, what we have is an aircraft with the capacity to climb to 63,247 feet wih a rate of climb up to 7000 feet per minute at 60,000 feet and maintain an average ground speed of 80-100 kts. Looks a bit like a super jet helicopter or some special form of a U2, but not even the U2 is far as I know, can pull off that rate of climb at around 60,000 ft. Another interesting point is the half minute changes of heightBI am not really up on aircraft performance these days, my experience finished with a Halifax about 25 years ago, but all I can think that it must have been rather uncomfortable descending at 2355 ft min for half a minute and then climbing at 2046 ft min. Many other instances will be seen on the figures.
AI think hat the figures shown will be fairly self evident. Readings were taken at 30 second intervals with all value taken to two decimal points.
AIt must be realised that these reading are spot reading at the specified time intervals, for example we show a height change of say 1000 meters between two readings when conceivably it could have been much greater as he time interval may have occurred when it was on he way up again. I have shown heights in feet fo people not familiar with metres, shown the half minutes height changes in metres, and to convert that to a more familiarhas shown the rae of climb/descent in ft/min fo the half minute intervals. The ground speed in knots was obtained from the half minute ground positions and shows a high degree of variation almost as though the aircraft flying along a track in a series of tight turns combined with a few doglegs of very small magnitudeBsounds all very uncomfortable. The readings on the form above the red line are the last readings off the constant level balloon. The height changes shown off these readings are partly from wave effect but predominately from inaccuracies on the elevation readings at very low elevation of three degrees. Consistency of the ranges and azimuth readings are shown from the last three velocities obtained from the constant level balloon.
AReading the accuracy of the readings at ranges of 120 kms and elevations of below five degrees we can expect with a weak target an appreciable degree of inaccuracy on elevation readings, slant range should be spot on and a small error is likely in azimuth . This small error becomes appreciable in he resultant calculation of bearing, however, with the elevation above 5 degrees and ranges around 100 kms the degree of accuracy is pretty high particularly with a target of the signal strength of this target. Basically, we can say that the reading are pretty reliable and the degree of error negligible particularly considering the signal strength of the target.
AA computer analysis of the height and ground speeds could probably show a definite pattern if the programme was arranged to smooth out the half minute readings into a form of continuous reading.
AThere is absolutely no possibility that the target echo was a radar phenomenon such as angel echoes and so on. I have been operating and in charge of radar installations for far
too long to be caught by that one.
AOne interesting point is that at the moment of acquiring this target it appears as though the craft had seen our constant level balloon and had turned off its predominantly northwest heading to examine the balloon.
AThe Air traffic control would most probably have located this target, but I should imagine that the operators would not have paid much attention as it was well off the air lanes and also the most significant point with this aircraft was its height and this information would not be available to the Air traffic control operators.
AYou will note that when the target was lost the ground speed had shot up to 245 knots but it was very rapidly increasing after than. Our radar will hold a lock at that speed without any trouble but I was observing the scope at eh time and the target pulse was moving off at a speed greatly in excess fo the 248 knots. AAn interesting exercise but I would be interested to find out just what type of aircraft can put on this sort of performance.@
F. W. Borthwick Met. Radar Christchurch
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: 1971 TIME: CLASS: GR/AR
LOCATION: SOURCES: The Sun. Sep 13, 2008Salisbury Plain, England ANI Horne, Marc, Scotland on Sunday Sep 24, 2008
RADAR DURATION:
Internet Presence: http://news.scotsman.com/uk/RAF-officer-breaks-37year-silence.4489914.jp
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: An RAF expert claims that the Ministry of Defence in Britain asked him to keep quiet after he tracked a whole fleet of spaceships on military radar in 1971. Wing Commander Alan Turner, 64, who was a chief operator of the RAFs radar system for 29 years, said that all his colleagues were surprised to see 35 super-fast vessels appear on their screens. He said that the craft were equally spaced and shot from 3,000 ft to 60,000 ft at almost 300 mph. He revealed that every UFO would suddenly vanish from
radar after a few seconds, and be replaced by an identical vessel moments later. According to him, six military radars and operators at Heathrow spotted the UFOs east of Salisbury Plain, and filed reports on the unexplained phenomenon in 1971.The RAF chief even drew a map charting their flight in between key sites like RAF Lyneham, Wilts, and the aircraft navigation transmitter at Brookmans Park, Herts. A Canberra aircraft returning to base was asked to investigated the radar returns. Within about a mile of the return the pilot reported a radar return climb rapidly, but no visual contact.Turner:AThe objects were about 3,000ft above ground level when they first appeared and climbed so rapidly that, by the time they disappeared from radar they were in excess of 60,000ft."To climb to such a height in only 40 miles was beyond the ability of almost any fighter aircraft at that time."
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: April 29, 1971 TIME: 1850 hours CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure Australia ProjectRichmond, New South Wales, Australia
Internet presence: http://www.auforn.com
RADAR DURATION: 150 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: 29 Apr 71 Richmond NSW 1850hrs 150mins 1M Price RVATC. Flashing red, green and white 1.5sec duration 035 deg az 8miles at nearest approach 5000-6000 feet. Slow drift from 035 deg az to 025 deg az. Last seen 7 deg el 025 deg az. Was three times the size of Venus. Radar contact at 1910hrs 'Contact painted similar to small fabric aircraft on both azimuth and elevation scopes. Contact terminated at 1935hrs.' Clear sky. Sydney radar had a faint trace. RAAF 'This Headquarters has no explanation of what the sighting may have been.' (Pages 141-146 of copy of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 14.)
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 8, 1971 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Pulj AirportYugoslavia
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 12, 1971 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 474 miles west of Zagreb,Yugoslavia RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: about February 4, 1972 TIME: 7:00 A. M. CLASS: GR/GV/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: FSR Case Histories #13, 2/73, page 13Sarajevo Airport, Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Bosnia-Herzegovina
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: AAccording to a report dated February 7, 1972, from Sarajevo, much excitement had bee caused by a triangular unidentified flying object observed, over Bosnia-Herzegovina, at between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. a few days before. At the Sarajevo Airport, where the thing was picked up on radar, they said it was traveling at a speed of 1 km per minute and that it was of the sized of a small aircraft. But when a Yugoslav Airlines (JAT) Convair made an approach toward it, the object at once accelerated and vanished at a tremendous speed. Quoted in the newspaper Delo of February 8, 1972, he rocket engineer Enver Dupanovic commented; >If it is correct that the UFO was traveling, as reported, at a height of 3000 meters, then there is no possiblity whatsoever that this could have been
either a satellite or a commercial balloon.=@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: September 14, 1972 TIME: CLASS: R/V air radar, ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4West Palm Beach Airport,Florida RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS: Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November --, 1972 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Rykevik, Iceland
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Maiquetia Airport,Venezuela RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: February 14, 1973 TIME: 2:30 A. M. CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall, UFOE II, 120, 132, 243McAlester, Oklahoma
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: ADisc wih dome maneuvered near plane. Flew up and down, made sharp turns, confirmed by radar.@ DC-8 en route from St Louis to Dallas, weather radar used to track object., UFO seemed to try evade radar tracking.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TPB
DATE: August -- 1973 TIME: unknown CLASS: R ground radar
LOCATION: SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 69Region ofMarshall Island Trust Territory,North Pacific
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATIONS: No official
PRECIS: According to the Hobart (Australia) Mercury, June 17 1974, US Army science & technology sources working for the ballistic missile defence systems command at Huntsville, Alabama, reported radar tracking of multiple unknowns during a Minuteman ICBM test. The missile was launched from Vandenburg AFB, California, aimed for the Kwalaicin Pacific test range. Two different radar systems both reportedly tracked a target during the missile's descent which appeared to fly "next to the ICBM's nose cone", then crossed ahead of its trajectory and disappeared. Unnamed sources stated that the incident was unprecedented, that no known radar anomaly could account for it, and that the object appeared to have been under power. Three other similar targets were also detected in the vicinity.
NOTES: Although an Army spokesman, Major Dallas Van Hoose, is quoted as confirming that "some unexplained aerial phenomena" were observed during testing, an FOIA inquiry filed with Vandenburg AFB elicited the statement that launch operations records for the period had been destroyed in accordance with Air Force Manual 12-50. An FOIA request to the Army was met with a denial of any records.
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: October 19, 1973 TIME: CLASS: GR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall, UFO E II, page 120Indianapolis, Indiana toBeckley, WV
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: APulsating geen, pyramid-shaped object swooped alongside plane, shot up out of sight, tracked by FAA radar.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 23, 1973 TIME: 02:30 local CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 41 Mile west of San Antonioairport, Texas
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
Case Added: Aldrich
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November 15, 1973 TIME: CLASS: R/V air radar, ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Managua, Nicaragua
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November 30, 1973 TIME: 1900 CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Turin airport, Italy Hall UFOE II, 132-3, 243
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: A@Military radar tracked UFO near airport; pilots saw glowing changing colors.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: March 9, 1974 TIME: 2200 CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual,
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Milan airport, Italy Hall, UFOE II, 121, 243
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: AMilan radar tracked UFO, business pilot saw disc with colored rings, gave chase.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: June 9 1974 TIME: night CLASS: R/V ground radar/air visual
LOCATION: SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 427Northern Japan Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATION: JASDF - "aircraft or object unknown"
PRECIS: The report was given by Major Shiro Kubota after retiring from active service with the Japan Air Self-Defence Force following the death of his crewmate, Lt. Col. Toshio Nakamura, as a result of the incident. The JASDF are understood to have conducted a vigorous investigation, but only released the terse public statement that Nakamura was killed following the collision of his F4EJ Phantom, serial no. 17-8307, with "an aircraft or object unknown." It was his desire to be free to tell the full story which reportedly prompted Major
Kubota to leave the Air Force.
According to Kubota he was the backseater - radar and fire-control operator - in the F-4EJ piloted by Nakamura when they were scrambled on an interception of what they at first assumed would be a Soviet intrusion. When they were in the air GCI advised them that an unidentified bright coloured light had been reported by dozens of ground observers and detected on radar. After "several minutes" they broke through clouds and levelled off at 30,000' in clear, moonless conditions, quickly acquiring a visual on a red-orange light which appeared to be a few miles ahead. Kubota's immediate impression was that the object was a controlled vehicle, and as they closed range it appeared to be "disc-like", about 10 metres in diameter, with square markings around the periphery that might have been apertures. Nakamura flew the F-4 straight towards the object and, said Kubota, "as it grew larger in our gun sight, it dipped into a shallow turn, as if sensing our presence." Nakamura followed, the F-4's 20mm cannon armed and ready, but then the object "reversed direction and shot straight at us", forcing the plane into a violent dive. It passed by at high speed, missing them very narrowly. Then, said Kubota, "it made a sharp turn and came at us again . . . The UFO began making rapid, high-speed passes at us, drawing closer and closer. Several times [it] narrowly missed us." The F-4 and the object then collided and both airmen bailed out, but Nakamura's parachute caught fire and he fell to his death. The object seemed either to disappeared or to disintegrate.
NOTES: Given the type of close-in dog-fight motion displayed by the object there would not appear to be any convincing astronomical explanation, and the ground radar contact - though the report of it is unevaluable - supports the impression of an object in local airspace. Presumably GCI vectored the F-4 towards the target displayed on scope, and the fact that the F-4 climbed blind through the cloud deck to find the object dead ahead and apparently only a few miles away makes it somewhat likely that radar and visual sightings were of the same object. Given that the night was cloudy one might infer that the object seen visually by ground observers was also not an astronomical object, but an object below the clouds, and further that if it was the same object later intercepted above the clouds then it would therefore have been climbing.
The time of these initial observations is not known, but would have been a good many minutes earlier given that reports would have to be (presumably) telephoned in and coordinated with the radar plot before a decision to scramble was made, followed by the time necessary to run up the aircraft and get it into the air. Then one must add the time taken to climb to 30,000' (according to Kubota this alone took "several minutes"). An optimistic allowance for this process might be, say, 10 minutes. It can be noted that in 10 minutes a lighted radiosonde balloon could climb about 12,000'.
The reported dog-fight behaviour of the object is broadly speaking quite typical of balloon interceptions: pilots in similar cases have reported the balloon making a number of head-on passes which forced them to take evasive action, their own rate of closure (the F-4 is capable of better than Mach 2 at altitude) with an unexpectedly slow-moving object giving the illusion of sudden course reversals and aggressive, high-speed approaches. (Cf. Fargo, N. Dakota, October 1 1948.) Kubota's estimate of an object 10 metres across is bound to be approximate, but would be of about the right order for a neoprene or rubber radiosonde at 30,000'. If Nakamura's interception attempt was too successful he may have struck the balloon. Its radar reflector and instrument package might have caused actual damage in a high-speed impact - possibly to the canopy - causing the alarmed aircrew to bail out. Unhappily, Nakamura's chute was presumably ignited by the jet exhaust on the way by.
The main problem with this hypothesis is the visual appearance of the object since balloon lights are typically white. Such balloons become translucent as they expand and can scatter sunlight brilliantly, appearing red or orange in the last rays of the setting sun for some time after twilight; but, whilst the time of the incident is not known, the reportedly "night" conditions just above cloud cover would seem to preclude solar illumination. In other respects the description is not inconsistent with a balloon (illusory apertures or "windows" are occasionally reported, for example) and allowance should be made for possible errors of observation or memory in the exciting - and ultimately disturbing - circumstances. There are many types of balloons flown for a variety of military, meteorological and academic purposes; it is to be supposed that some configurations are rare or one-off adaptations; and it is possible that a research flight of some kind might employ coloured fabric or carry unusual lighting.
In conclusion, although the object cannot be positively identified the information available does not
convincingly rule out the hypothesis that the object was a balloon. The exact time, location, and appropriate winds-aloft data would have to be matched against the records of potential launch sites.
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: June 29, 1974 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4Cordoba airport, Argentina
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS: Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: August 20 1974 TIME: sometime after 2000 local CLASS: R/V gr. radar/multiple gr. visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Sachs & Jahn CP 1977 97Albany AirportNew York State
RADAR DURATION: 45 mins.(+ 2nd event 50 secs.)
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: Beginning at about 2000 local, police, television stations, radio stations and newspaper offices in the Albany area of northeastern New York State received numerous calls from citizens about unidentified flying objects. The first call was to the Saratoga State Police barracks at Malta, N of Albany near Lake Saratoga on the Northway route to Canada. The local caller asked if the police knew of any unusual aircraft in the vicinity. When told that they did not, he stated that in that case he would like to report an unidentified object over his home.
The officer dispatched to the caller's address, State Trooper Michael Morgan, arrived in time to join a police detective who was also watching the object. According to the officers it appeared to be about the size of a blimp and was about 500 feet over Lake Saratoga. It was a reddish-coloured light that flashed on and off similar to a strobe. Shortly two smaller lights approached the primary light, apparently from a higher altitude, and seemed as though they would merge with it. At this point the officers believed that the objects must be helicopters and were concerned about a possibly dangerous situation. They called Air Traffic Control at Albany Airport 20 miles S of their position and spoke to Supervisor Robert King, who advised them that there should be no such traffic. The policemen continued to watch from the stationary patrol car as the two smaller lights appeared to merge completely with the red strobe. At this time a single unidentified target was observed on radar at Albany Airport control tower.
While the officers were watching from Malta they heard another report over the car radio from State Trooper Warren Johnson, stating that he was watching a UFO above the Northway. Meanwhile the visual objects remained merged for several minutes, then fissioned, the two smaller objects departing as they had arrived, the large object moving slowly towards the observers. As it approached, Trooper Morgan switched off his car engine and both men watched as the object passed overhead, making no audible sound and displaying a dazzling white light on its center underside. It appeared to be very large, but they had difficulty estimating its size and shape due to the brilliance of the light. At this point the object performed an unusual turning manoeuvre and travelled away quite slowly, passing over the police barracks, before suddenly disappearing "as if someone had reached up and turned the lights out. It was that quick." Morgan and the detective then drove off to meet up with Trooper Johnson.
During this time radar operators at Albany tower observed their single target separate into three distinct targets which moved off in different directions. A controller radioed the pilot of a light aircraft in the area and requested a visual check. The pilot made two passes but although it was a clear, cloudless night he saw nothing, and shortly - 45 minutes after acquisition - radar lost contact with the targets.
Just after this the tower was queried by the pilot of a military flight who was passing near Albany at 8000' en route to Griffis Air Force Base, about 90 miles NW of Albany. He wanted confirmation of any high-speed traffic in the area. The tower replied that there was none and the pilot responded: "Well, something just passed us at about one thousand feet over our heads. It looked like a red fireball going by, and it's heading right your way." A senior controller went immediately to a radar scope (described as a GCA - Ground Controlled Approach - radar) that was not in use and set it to its maximum range scale of about 50 miles, in time to pick up a target at the edge of the screen. It was a clear, sharp echo. The next sweep four seconds later indicated that it was inbound at very high speed. The controller engaged an anti-clutter device (probably MTI - moving target indicator) to assure himself that the apparent track was not the result of sporadic AP echoes from ground reflectors. The target was still there. At a range of 5 miles it was lost between sweeps and did not reappear. Controllers John Guzy and Neil Parker, together with ATC Supervisor Bob King, computed the speed of the target from distance coveredper-scan at about 3000 mph.
Other reports of unidentified low-level lighted objects were made imndependently that evening by visual observers in the South Glens Falls area, about 20 miles N of Lake Saratoga, and as far N as Lake George near the Vermont border.
NOTES: The initial radar event would appear to broadly correlate with the fission of the three objects observed visually, although times, ranges and bearings which would permit confirmation of this impression are not given. The failure of the light-plane pilot to visually confirm the target(s) towards which he was directed appears damaging to the assumption that the said target(s) had any connection with the visual objects reported by the police witnesses; but his exact location and the time of his search are unstated. If, for example, his search took place after the primary visual object had "turned the lights out" then it would not be surprising if he didn't see it. The cause of the radar targets cannot be inferred from the information available, but some weight has to be given to the fact that several experienced controllers were apparently puzzled by them after 45 minutes of observation.
The concurrent visual report by the two policemen is again interesting but lacking in useful timing references, bearings and elevations. An object appearing to be at 500' over Lake Saratoga as seen from nearby Malta would presumably be at fairly low elevation somewhere to the E of N, and could be a rising bright star, reddened due to atmospheric
absorption near the horizon (the first magnitude star Capella, for example, would have been low and bright in the NNE). Marked scintillation could occur due to convective turbulence, which might explain the apparent flashing on and off. Alternatively it may have been a mirage image of a celestial body - perhaps a bright planet - at a small (order of 2 degree) negative elevation, intermittently visible due to image wander (the plane of the ecliptic would have run round the S sky to dip just below the ENE horizon). The smaller secondary objects could have been the distant lights of aircraft in landing patterns (perhaps associated with scheduled services at airports near Springfield or Rutland, 50 miles NE of L. Saratoga in Vermont) which circled close to the line of sight and appeared to merge briefly with the light, perhaps themselves distorted by the same mirage layer.
However, whilst some such hypothesis may plausibly explain the initial sighting it not only requires a deal of coincidence and speculation but fails to address the subsequent approach of the object towards the witnesses, who reportedly had to look up from their stationary vehicle to follow its passage overhead, at which time they were "dazzled" by the intensity of the light. To explain this episode by the addition of a further light source - an aircraft, say, or a balloon - which coincidentally appeared from the same direction and caused the witnesses to transfer their attention unwittingly, would be very strained. It makes more sense to interpret the whole sighting in terms of the movements of the same lighted object or objects in local airspace.
The approach and separation of the two secondary objects could suggest an air refuelling operation. These operations are brightly lit, and the belly lamps of a tanker subsequently passing overhead - possibly inaudible due to wind or the masking effect of local traffic noise - might well appear dazzlingly bright to an observer unfamiliar with such a sight. But according to the Albany ATC Supervisor there was "nothing operational in that area" at that time, and air refuelling is very unlikely to be conducted close to civil airlanes unbeknown to Federal Aviation Administration traffic controllers. If any such activity were responsible for the radar targets (and if it wasn't, what was?) it would be readily identified by transponder (either on a full secondary surveillance system, if Albany ATC had it, or by the ATC radar's piggy-back IFF transceiver), if not by voice link. The later radar episode occurred sufficiently close on the heels of an airvisual report to be considered a radar-visual, although technically not concurrent. The visual report alone is unevaluable in terms of the information available, and could have been a meteor (estimates of proximity in such cases are typically wayward, and "one thousand feet" could easily have been many miles) or the tail pipe of a fast jet (although one might expect a military flight crew to be more familiar with jet exhausts). However, the object was reported inbound at high speed to Albany and a target was almost immediately picked up at 50 miles, inbound at high speed. The a priori probability that these two events were related has to be high, saving the absence of much desirable information. No known jet in 1974 was capable of achieving 3000 mph, still less at at an altitude sufficiently low that its exhaust would appear to be a nearby "fireball" as seen from an aircraft at 8000', and anyway should have been identified to Albany ATC by voice or by IFF transponder. (Parts of the SR-71 spy-plane's titanium skin can glow cherry red in high-speed flight, but this is at altitudes well-over 60,000' and at speeds - <2200 mph - which are still too slow to account for the radar target.) Experimental rocket planes have achieved higher speeds, but again at altitude, and these are essentially projectiles; that such a vehicle would be flying unannounced through a civil airfield surveillance radar drum in upstate New York is about as likely as a land-speed-record attempt down Oxford Street. The same objection applies to guided missiles and military ordnance generally.
A word needs to be said about the type of radar involved here. It is described as a GCA set, but the GCA system was generally supplanted by ILS (Instrument Landing System) for civil use by 1974, although retained for many military applications. Its civil successor, alternative to ILS, is the Precision Approach Radar (PAR), which is essentially the same
thing. A GCA/PAR system has directional sector-scanning altazimuth antennae and an operator to talk down the landing aircraft; ILS has no operator and its passive signals are followed down by the pilot. However, both systems operate in conjunction with an airfield control radar. The ACR is a short-range (typically 50 miles) surveillance radar with a PPI display, usually operating at 3 or 10 cms with a 15 rpm scan, used to guide traffic onto final approach, and since this is plainly the scope involved in this case the distinction is academic.
The wake of a sizeable meteor might be detected as a brief spot target on a sensitive search radar (the trail ionisation of a common meteor could not be detected on a radial heading even by a very sensitive radar operating at optimum metric frequency), but a control tower set with a maximum range of 50 miles is not a sensitive search radar, and its operating wavelength is far from the (metric) optimum. Nevertheless, very large meteors do occur rarely which survive entry unablated and experience aero-braking at tropopausal altitudes of 7 or 8 miles (35 - 40,000'), slowing to speeds of several thousand miles an hour. The incandescent, ionised envelope of such a meteor might be on the order of tens or even hundreds of yards across for a time and could indeed have a radar cross-section large enough to be detected if it passed within the radiation pattern during the terminal part of its trajectory. (Detection of a meteor outside the pattern by multiple-trip returns would require it to be at some ten times the altitude and range - minimum 55 miles slant range at closest displayed approach for 2nd trip - and thus, due to the inverse 4th power signal attentuation, probability of detection would be some ten-to-the-40th lower.) Visually, it would be a spectacular fireball which, due to its relatively low speed, would have low excitation energy and might very well emit reddish light. This would be consistent with the visual object, which was in fact described as "like a red fireball".
Arguments against this hypothesis are: 1) such an event typically generates a great many reports over a wide area, but the other reports made that evening are not generally characteristic of fireball sightings; 2) the time of this event does not appear to coincide with the times of other visual reports (which had begun on the order of 1 hour earlier at 2000); 3) the duration of the radar track is somewhat long; 4) there is a significant likelihood that a meteoroid large enough to survive down to the sort of altitudes at which it could be tracked by a short-range airfield radar at low speed (meteorically) for many seconds (having been seen visually a significant time before that) would survive to impact, presumably somewhere in the close vicinity of Albany where its echo was lost - but neither sound, sight, damage nor residue of such impact was reported then or later; and 5) an inquiry by Jahn to the Cambridge office of the Smithsonian Institution, headquarters of the Project Moonwatch astronomical sky-watching programme, established that no unusual meteoric event was recorded for the time frame in question.
The fast radar track appears to have been quite carefully observed and measured. The target was acquired near the scope periphery and held to a range of 5 miles. Assuming a 40 mile track, a target computed at 3000 mph would have been observable for 48 seconds which, at 15 rpm, equates to 12 or 13 radar paints, affording a reasonable opportunity to confirm its speed and presentation. The disappearance at a slant range of 5 miles is consistent with a radarreflective aerial target entering the radar shadow over the site (this would be the last paint displayed - a rapid target could be above the radar in the four seconds required for the antenna to revolve for the next scan). Moreover, this close-in disappearance would imply a target at quite low altitude. A meteor would be on a descending trajectory, of course; but could this implied altitude be consistent with an object in level flight which passed not far above the altitude of an aircraft at 8000'?
A very rough calculation can be made here on the basis of a typical surveillance profile. On the vertical polar diagram of such a radar the contour of equiprobability of detection representing maximum operational range at a given elevation is designed to approximate a
cosecant-squared pattern. This is very much an approximation, and the free space pattern is further modulated by ground-incident energy into complex lobe patterns unique to every site; but the rough beam shape typically emerges with a top edge rising from the antenna at a slant angle somewhat greater than 45 degrees. So: A 3000 mph target is approaching in level flight at 5000', detected on one sweep at a displayed slant range of 5 miles. By the next sweep, 4 seconds later, the target is at less than 2 miles slant range, elevation about 25 degrees. It is thus well within the beam and should be displayed on this sweep. A similar target at 8000', 5 miles slant range, would arrive at a position just over 2 miles slant range, elevation 45 degrees after 4 seconds. This target might be within the beam and might be painted. A target at 10,000' would be at about 55 degrees; it might not be within the beam and might not be painted. Conversely, if 55 degrees were the elevation above which a target was not likely to be detected, then the maximum altitude of a target with a displayed slant range of 5 miles will be around 20,000'. Thus, whilst this is admittedly an extreme approximation to a very complex situation, the figures would seem to be not inconsistent with a target at an altitude somewhere between about 8000' and 20,000'. And this is therefore not inconsistent with the visual report of an object passing not too far above the aircraft altitude.
This target was not seen to reappear from the radar shadow, which could be consistent with several hypotheses. If a fireball was on a descending trajectory of <55 degrees or so, passing through 20,000' at last detection, it might well have vapourised, or cooled and impacted, before leaving the shadow cone. One might expect either event to have been widely witnessed, not least by personnel around the Airport, pilots in the air, and observers in the control tower itself. Alternatively the target may have stopped, or climbed acutely to stay within the cone during departure, or accelerated to about 45,000 mph taking it diametrically off-scope within one sweep. If the first and last options seem fanciful, we are left with an object which executed a >60-degree climb within a few miles at 3000 mph, or which was already on a rising trajectory whilst being detected - possibly climbing to about 20,000' by the time of its last radar echo - thus requiring a less acute maneouvre but a compensating true airspeed of somewhat more than the 3000 mph computed from the reducing slant range. If this seems no less fanciful, then we might consider the possibility that the radar track was caused by radio frequency interference, internal system noise or component failure.
A cyclic source of interference, successive bursts of pulses with an interburst period minutely shorter (on the order of microseconds) than the scan rate of the receiving antenna, could generate a false output on a primary radar scope which displayed as a blip, reducing range along the same set of trace radii with each scan. A very fortuitous half-rotation delay followed by a lengthening of this cyclicity would have to occur at exactly the right microsecond for such a signal to appear to cross the scope centre and recede diametrically; therefore the most probable result of such an effect is that the "target" would not reappear on the same heading. If the source of interference continued unchanged then the blip would in fact reappear on an adjacent trace at the edge of the scope and once again approach the centre, repeating this performance all the way around the bearing ring until it ultimately returned to its original trace. This behaviour apparently did not occur, so it is possible that the noise source disappeared, either just as the blip approached scope centre or shortly thereafter so that one or two peripheral blips on an adjacent trace could have gone unnoticed by the operator who was watching for the emergence of his "target" into the opposite sector.
The only likely source of such cyclic interference is another 15 rpm centimetric radar, perhaps a remote installation whose narrow main-lobe output was abnormally ducted to the Albany antenna due to anomalous propagation (with which the clear, starry summer night would not be inconsistent) and weakly detected only at peak gain. In order for the displayed signal to resemble a convincing target arc, with the pulse train distributed across
several adjacent trace radii in the manner of signals returned by a solid target, the pulse repetition frequency of the interfering transmitter would have to be identical to that of the receiving radar and in precise synchrony with its scope trace. This set of circumstances is highly improbable, but not impossible. (The effect of extraneous signals on the synthetic digital display of a secondary surveillance ATC radar [SSR] is a special case. On SSR raw targets are replaced by symbols and alphanumerics: the operator may know that he has a non-transponder signal, which is displayed on the screen by a symbol representing a raw skin-paint, but he will not be able to derive any information about the origin, strength or propagation history of the signal. This leads to different consequences and different problems of interpretation; but it does not appear that SSR radar was involved in this case.)
The general case of false signals caused by component degradation or catastrophic failure is difficult to address, but on a primary analogue display such a noise track is extremely unlikely to resemble the multi-trace target arc generated by a solid reflector such as an aircraft, and experienced operators would perhaps not be so easily misled given adequate time to study the scope presentation. In subsequent talks with Ernest Jahn of NICAP and data systems specialist Tom Esposito the three controllers remained puzzled about what was evidently to them a highly unusual event. Had such a track been seen before, or subsequently, system defects might be suspected; but it apparently did not recur. Any hypothesis which is unique to the radar set or its propagation environment has to address the coincidence of a highly unusual false track with a visual sighting with which it appeared to correlate. This seems, if not impossible, certainly improbable. Further, what is the probability that such a radar artifact and an independent air-visual report would jointly occur by chance immediately after another "UFO" event (involving what was evidently a very different type of multiple-echo target behaviour with a duration of 45 minutes) which was concurrent with a visual report from quite unconnected ground witnesses?
In summary, there are two principal episodes in this case, both of which can be described as presumptive radar-visuals. In neither case, however, are radar and visual events definitely both simultaneous and of commensurate strangeness. In the first case the visual report contains details which are not easily explained, but the radar targets are poorly described and their unique relationship with the visual objects is not established beyond doubt. In the second case the radar target is not very easily explained, but the visual sighting was not truly simultaneous and is not of very great strangeness. Nevertheless, there are sufficient points of radar-visual correlation reported or implied in both cases to make it at least probable that there was common cause. The possibility remains that the second object was a fireball meteor - although there are some noteable objections to this hypothesis - and/or radar interference. The first object(s) reported on the order of 1 hour earlier cannot be satisfactorily identified, but could conceivably have been due to astronomical/atmospheric-optical phenomena and/or some combination of civil/military aircraft operations - possibly an inflight refuelling exercise of which there would appear to have been no FAA notification or record. At the same time, the improbable coincidence of two separate radar and visual episodes, both involving objects reported as emitting red light, clearly invites a common explanation which is not apparent at the present time.
In conclusion, no individual feature of the case is proven as unconventional beyond doubt. As a whole, however, the sequence of events is difficult to interpret except in terms of a series of explanations of such cumulative improbability that they are inelegant and unconvincing. That the events are unexplained on the basis of information available might fairly be said to be established beyond reasonable doubt. More information is required, however, and the case is sufficiently interesting to warrant further investigation.
STATUS: Insufficient information
DATE: October 10 1974 TIME: 1830 local (approx.) CLASS: R/V groundradar/air visual
LOCATION SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 195Near Gander AirportNewfoundland
RADAR DURATION: 12 seconds approx. ("two or three sweeps")
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: A Canadian Armed Forces pilot, John Breen, was flying a Cessna 150 en route from Deer Lake to Gander. About 50 miles from Gander his passenger drew attention to a light which appeared to be following the aircraft. Breen described it as triangular or delta-shaped, of a luminescent green colour, and initially intermittent. It was on for 2-4 seconds, then off, then on again with a "fairly regular" period. After a time it became "pretty well a steady light". 2530 miles out from Gander, Breen queried the airport about traffic in the vicinity, receiving the assurance that there was none. Breen reported that "we've definitely got an aircraft or something here with us." About 14 miles N of Gander the object was still there, and its reflection was clearly visible in the water of Gander Lake. Breen started a turn to the right, then "cut hard left", at which time Gander "picked up the object for two or three sweeps, which would have been about 10-12 seconds. When we turned around, I just saw it going off the other way and then I lost it because of the back of the aeroplane."
NOTES: There is insufficient detail to exclude the hypothesis that the visual object was a mirage image of, say, a rising celestial body. An expanding/contracting pulsation sometimes occurs in a mirage of an extended source. It is possible that such an image might be a detached portion of the lunar or solar limb in highly-stratified atmospheric conditions;alternatively a near point-source such as a bright planet on or a little below the horizon (order of degree) might produce a superior mirage which could seem to flash on and off due to image wander. (The plane of the ecliptic would run low around the southern and eastern sky for the date, time and latitude in question, intersecting the horizon in the ENE). Therefractive separation of a white-light source into vertically disposed images of different colours has sometimes been observed, and because in such a case the green image would appear uppermost it could conceivably appear in isolation. The change to "pretty well a steady light" could correspond to the changing elevation of the source in relation to thecritical mirage angle.
This is all very speculative, however, and it can be inferred from the distance flown and the likely speed of the Cessna that the "object" must have been in view for a period on the order of 15 minutes, during which time a celestial body would have moved nearly 4 degrees in Right Ascension. It appears that the aircraft was approaching Gander from the N, so that an object which appeared to have been "following" it for 15 minutes during a flight roughly N-S was presumably visible off to port or starboard, and thus to the E or W. At the fairly low latitude of Gander (48 degrees N,about that of Paris) 4 degrees RA on the E or W horizon implies a significant change in terrestrial elevation, probably several times the critical grazing angle (0.5 degree) required for simple mirage. It is therefore not so easy to explain why the image remained green, since refractive colour separations are especially sensitive to meteorological conditions and the geometry of viewing, typically lasting only a few seconds. It is possible, though somewhat improbable, that the critical angle could be maintained if the aircraft was in a long descent towards Gander with the rise in elevation of a source to the E being almost exactly compensated by the declining altitude of the observers.
The radar echoes, evidently on an airfield surveillance PPI with a scan-rate of about 15 rpm, are not conclusively related by bearing or range information to the object observed visually. Undescribed echoes observed
on "two or three sweeps" could be almost anything, and it should be noted that the same highly-stratified superrefractive conditions which might create visual mirage would also predispose towards anomalous radar propagation and the detection of ground returns by trapping or partial reflection.
In conclusion, the radar report is unevaluable and there is no strong radar visual correlation. It is possible that both observations resulted from radar/optical mirage, although there is no direct evidence that the required atmospheric conditions obtained at the time.
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: November 30, 1974 TIME: CLASS: Surface visual/surface radar
LOCATION: SOURCES: Ideal UFO Magazine #2, 6/78, page 54Indian Ocean
RADAR DURATION: 17 minutes
Internet Presence: http:// www.waterufo.net
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
NOTES: On November 30, 1974, dozens of crewmen aboard the U.S. Navy destroyer Blackburn (DD-756) in the Indian Ocean observed three round, luminescent objects flying in orbit above the ship, as if spying on it. The objects were tracked by the destroyer's radar. Although reports differ, the captain apparently sounded General Quarters and prepared for possible hostile action. Then, 17 minutes after the round objects had first appeared, all three dived into the ocean and vanished in a geyser of spray. Their movements were detected on sonar after they submerged. 3582. This reference: Ideals UFO Magazine #2, June 1978 AMystery Objects Sighted Beneath The Seas by F.B. Newman, p. 54
Carl Feidt made a search on Google for USN DD-756 the name that came up was the Beatty not Blackburn and was decommissioned 14 July 1972B CF. Aldrich further searched for the Blackburn in lists of US Navy ships. The results were negative.
STATUS: Hoax, probably journalistic in nature..
