DATE: May 15 1964
TIME: 1130 local
LOCATION:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ground visual
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 RB57 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 1050 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 "footballshaped" 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.
LOCATION:
CLASS: GR
SOURCES: Hall, UFOE II, page 241
Patuxent 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: GR/GV
SOURCES: Vallee, PTM, case 630
Blaine 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
LOCATION:
TIME: 0845Z
CLASS: AR/AV
SOURCES: Australian Disclosure Project
41S 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V air
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Pacific 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:
LOCATION:
CLASS: AR/AV
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
LOCATION:
CLASS: R/V shipboard radar/deck visual
SOURCES: Hynek (1972) 81
Philippine 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 after
visual 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 no
dramatic 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 of
stationarity 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 anomalous
propagation. 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 the
orientations 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 displayed
at 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, but
several 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 the
presence 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Wynnewood, 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Wichita, 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Michigan--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, 242
Edwards 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Skowhegan, 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Dexter, 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Columbus, 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:
Nr. Charleston
SOURCES: Hynek (1978) 73
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 radartracked 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
LOCATION:
TIME: 0030Z
CLASS: GR
SOURCES: Disclosure Australia
Melbourne, 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: GR/AV
SOURCES: UFOE II, page 242
Atlanta, 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 791
Minot Air Force Base,
North Dakota
RADAR DURATION: 4 hours
EVALUATIONS:
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
radar/ground visual
LOCATION
Heathrow ATCC
London
TIME: small hours CLASS: R/V ground
SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 70
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: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: September 18, 1966
LOCATION:
TIME: 0100 CST
CLASS: GV,GR
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:
LOCATION:
Goose Bay, Labrador
Canada
CLASS:R/V multiple ground radar/ air visual
SOURCES: Project Blue Book
Weinstein AUER/VC Vol. 4
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/FPS93. 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
LOCATION:
CLASS:R/V ground radar/ multiple air visual
SOURCES: Hynek (1978) 72
Air Traffic Control
Weinstein AUERVC, Vol. 4
Center, 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 crosssection 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 243
Atlantic 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 195
Air defence
Weinstein AUER/VC, Vol. 4
radar 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:
LOCATION:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 58, 243
White 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
LOCATION:
Minot AFB
N. Dakota
TIME: unknown
CLASS: R/V
SOURCE: Fowler CUFOI 1981 187
Hall, UFOE II, pages 27 80-81, 243
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',
then
began 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
LOCATION:
TIME: 2200 CST
CLASS: GV/GR
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
LOCATION:
TIME: unknown
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ prob. ground visual
SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 29, see also: Fowler
Malmstrom AFB
Montana
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:
LOCATION:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/air visual
SOURCES: Weinstein ACUERVC, Vol. 4
Bay of Biscay
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: March 24 1967 TIME: 2134Z
LOCATION:
SOURCES: Volunteer Flight Office Network (VFON) report form
A/C: 52 deg 21" N, 06 deg 12" W
Preston ground radar
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
Weinstein AUER/VC vol. 4
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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: GV/GR
SOURCES: NICAP, UFO Investigator V 5, #1, May-June 1967
Brixham, 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]
1.
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
LOCATION
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
TIME: 2145 MST
CLASS: R ground radar/AV?
SOURCE: University of Colorado Summary
Weinstein: ACER/VC, Vol. 4
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
LOCATION
Kenora Airport
Ontario
TIME: evening
CLASS: R ground radar
SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 195
Campagna, TUF, p96
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
LOCATION:
TIME:
0430Z
CLASS: GV/GR
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
LOCATION:
SOURCES:
CLASS:
GR/AV
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
LOCATION:
Blythewille Air Base,
Arkansas
TIME: 6"16 A. M.
CLASS: GV/GR
SOURCES: Project Blue Book Files
Hynek, UFO Report
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
LOCATION:
CLASS: R/V ground
radar/ground visual
SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 105
DMZ 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 1968 TIME: 1900 local (approx.)
radar/air-ground visual
LOCATION
Madrid
CLASS: R/V ground
SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 145
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 a
satellite 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 to
roughly 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 balloon
scattering 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 was
stationary 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 the
orientation 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 remain
classified, 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
LOCATION:
Near Oscala, Palm Beach,
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
SOURCES: Weinstein ACUERVC, Vol 4
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
LOCATION:
TIME: 1417Z
CLASS: AV/AR
SOURCES: Disclosure Australai
Darwin, 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
LOCATION:
CLASS: R/V air radar/air-ground visual
SOURCES: Hynek (1978) 138
Minot AFB
North 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 lowlevel 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 of
the 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
LOCATION:
TIME: 0120 hrs
CLASS: GR
SOURCES: Disclosure Australia Project
Dawrin, 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 Radar
A 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 119, 130-131, 243
Bismark, 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:
LOCATION:
SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
Rossala Air Force Base,
Finnland
CLASS: R/V ground radar/groun, air visual
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: September 4, 1969
LOCATION:
TIME: 1930 hours
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. R
NW 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. R
NW 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 site
N. 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
LOCATION:
Kalamunda, West Australia
TIME: 1835 hours
CLASS: GV/GR
SOURCES: Disclosure Australia Project
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 310
South 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 of
Staff 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 minimum
recoverable 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 much
because 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 of
command-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. 4
Lorring Air Force Base
Maine
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: July 29, 1970
TIME:
CLASS:
LOCATION:
SOURCES: Disclosure Australia Project
Sepik 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!
2.
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. 4
San Juan de Porto Rica,
Porto Rica
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 24, 1969
LOCATION:
TIME: 12:43 A. M.
CLASS: Surface Radar/Surface Visual
SOURCES: Bill Chalker
Pacific Ocean, 359 miles south of Valparaiso Port
off 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 eggshaped 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
Zaragoza Air Base,
Spain
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November 18, 1970
LOCATION:
TIME: 1400 M
CLASS: GR
SOURCES: UFO Bulletin (Auckland University UFO Res Gp) 8/71,
pages3-4
Christchurch, New Zealand
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Radar Report from Meteorological Office Christchurch
Brief 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 familiar
has 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:
LOCATION:
CLASS: GR/AR
SOURCES: The Sun. Sep 13, 2008
Salisbury 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
LOCATION:
TIME: 1850 hours
CLASS: GV/GR
SOURCES: Disclosure Australia Project
Richmond, 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 RV
ATC. 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
Pulj Airport
Yugoslavia
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 12, 1971
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
74 miles west of Zagreb,
Yugoslavia
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: about February 4, 1972
LOCATION:
TIME: 7:00 A. M.
CLASS: GR/GV/AV
SOURCES: FSR Case Histories #13, 2/73, page 13
Sarajevo Airport,
Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
Bosnia-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. 4
West Palm Beach Airport,
Florida
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November --, 1972
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
Rykevik, Iceland
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE:
LOCATION:
Maiquetia Airport,
TIME:
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
Venezuela
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: February 14, 1973
LOCATION:
TIME: 2:30 A. M.
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
SOURCES: Hall, UFOE II, 120, 132, 243
McAlester, 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
LOCATION:
Region of
Marshall Island Trust Territory,
CLASS: R ground radar
SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 69
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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: GR/AV
SOURCES: Hall, UFO E II, page 120
Indianapolis, Indiana to
Beckley, 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. 4
1 Mile west of San Antonio
airport, 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. 4
Managua, 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. 4
Turin 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
LOCATION:
SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
Milan airport, Italy
CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual,
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
LOCATION:
Northern Japan
TIME: night
CLASS: R/V ground radar/air visual
SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 427
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. 4
Cordoba 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
LOCATION:
CLASS: R/V gr. radar/multiple gr. visual
SOURCES: Sachs & Jahn CP 1977 97
Albany Airport
New 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 multitrace 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.)
radar/air visual
LOCATION
Near Gander Airport
Newfoundland
CLASS: R/V ground
SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 195
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). The
refractive 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 the
critical 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
LOCATION:
TIME:
CLASS: Surface visual/surface radar
SOURCES: Ideal UFO Magazine #2, 6/78, page 54
Indian Ocean
RADAR DURATION:
Internet Presence: http:// www.waterufo.net
EVALUATIONS:
17 minutes
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.
1.
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..