DATE: May 15 1964
DATE: May 15 1964 TIME: 1130 local CLASS: R/V ground radar/ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Lorenzen SEIOS 1966 225
Holloman-White Sands
Ordnance Testing Range
New Mexico
RADAR DURATION: 45 mins.
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: A rumoured incident at Holloman AFB-White Sands involving a landing object reported by an RB-57 crew on an April 30 practice mission was pursued by Lorenzen, Arlynn Breuer (editor of the Alamogordo Daily News) and Terry Clarke of radio KALG. During inquiries a separate incident was anonymously disclosed by personnel.
Between 1130 and 1215 local, two targets were simultaneously tracked on surveillance and FPS-16 radars at Stallion Site, the most northerly range of the army-controlled Holloman-White Sands complex a few miles west of San Antonio, N.M. The targets were north of the radar site, performing "perfect, precise flight maneuvers" in tandem, involving separations and rejoins and "up-and-down 'pogo' maneuvers". One radar operator obtained a visual sighting of two browncoloured football-shaped objects which were flying at very low altitude and were lost from view behind buildings at the site.
The two targets were displayed as skin paints. However, IFF transponder codes were also received on two different frequencies alternately.
NOTES: That the targets were tracked on different radars argues that they may well have been airborne, radar-reflective objects. The FPS-16 is a C-band (about 5 GhZ/6 cm) tracking radar with a 1.2 degree pencil beam; most surveillance radars operate in a longer-wavelength region from S- to L-band, typically 10-50 cms. If two such very different instruments did detect correlating targets then this tends to argue against sporadic AP or partial inversion reflections, both of which are frequency-dependent effects. Mutual or remote RFI also seems unlikely, and internal system noise would appear to be ruled out. In general, two discrete targets performing "precise manoeuvres" in tandem is not behaviour diagnostic of AP.
There appears to be nothing in the report to definitely contradict the hypothesis that the two radar targets were conventional aircraft. The type of manoeuvres described could be consistent with helicopters, possibly US Army helicopters operating from a nearby site on the range complex. The visual description of "football-shaped" objects could be consistent with an ovoid helicopter fuselage, tail and rotor assemblies unnoticed due to the viewing angle and/or poor viewing conditions. The brown colouration might be consistent with an Army camouflage livery. Whether or not any sound was heard is unstated, but distant rotor noise might have been blown away on the wind or masked by local noise. Finally, the association of the targets with standard FAA transponder recognition signals very strongly suggests conventional aircraft.
In conclusion, the information available is limited and the report cannot be regarded as more than hearsay. Nevertheless the IFF response alone would appear to be sufficient reason to suspect unidentified friendly aircraft, and the residue of the report is not inconsistent with helicopters.
STATUS: Probable helicopters
*DATE: December 19. 1964 TIME: 3:30 A. M. CLASS: GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall, UFOE II, page 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 TIME: CLASS: GR/GV
LOCATION: 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 TIME: 0845Z CLASS: AR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: Australian Disclosure Project
41S 167E
Internet presence:
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS: RAAF: Meteor Shower
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Source: Pages121-122 on digital copy of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 4. Telex originally classified "confidential." [Meteor shower]Report of UFOs by Qantas flight 363. Course 275 degrees mag at 20,000 feet. Shortly after sunset. "Single vapour trail appeared to north west travelling east"became seven distinct contrails apparently made by large aircraft in loose formation"" "Second pilot also recalls that at approximately longitude 166E this morning on the Sydney to Wellington flight he noticed what he considered as eleven ships in group on his radar screen." RNZAF-radars at Wellington and Ohakea had nothing at height within 15-200mls. Except "angels" S of Wellington speed 100kts. Copy passed to US Air Attaché. Search of the area by aircraft on 14 January revealed nothing, except an unusually large number of high density cloud radar contacts. Up to 10 at a time were obtained at ranges up to 70Nmls. Witnesses: 1 + others. AURA
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: February 11, 1965 TIME: CLASS: R/V air
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Pacific Ocean
RADAR DURATION: 30 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: (Three glowing red ovals seem to pace a Flying Tiger airliner for about 30 minutes. They climbed up out of sight at 1200 knots.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: February 11, 1965 TIME: CLASS: AR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall, UFO E, page 76
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added:
Initial Summary: (Three red ovals paced airliner, tracked on radar, climbed upward at high speed.( (Three glowing oval paced Flying Tiger airlineer for 30 minutes, climbed up and out of sight at 1200 knots.(
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: May 5 1965 TIME: 0110 local CLASS: R/V shipboard radar/deck visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hynek (1972) 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 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Wynnewood, Oklahoma
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: (UFOs tracked on Air Force and Weather Bureau Radar; numerous police sightings.(
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: August 2 , 1965 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Wichita, Kansas
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: ((Weather Bureau radar tracked four to five UFOs visual sightings coincided.(
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: August 4 , 1965 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Michigan--Minneasota
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: (US 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( (Prolonged radar=visual of 12 UFOs, jet interceptors scrambled, could not reach object.( Oct. 7, 1965. Edwards AFB, Calif. Ground radar tracked 12 objects and USAF F-106 pilot sighted object(s). (Weinstein; McDonald list) radar [gun camera film?]
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: February 11, 1966 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Skowhegan, Maine
RADAR DURATION: 30 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: (Glowing orange UFO with dome hovered, maneuvered; tracked on Air Force and FAA radars(
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: March 14 , 1966 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 242
Dexter, Michigan
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: (Selfridge AFB tracked UFOs over Lake Erie; objects obsered moving at high speed, making shapr turns.(
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: March 27, 1966 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 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: SOURCES: Hynek (1978) 73
Nr. Charleston Thayer (Condon 163)
W. Va.
RADAR DURATION: 5 minutes
EVALUATIONS: Blue Book - a/c landing lights
PRECIS: At 0340 (or 0430 - Hynek) a Braniff Airlines Flight 42 707 pilot heading E on jet airway 6 @ 33,000' saw a bright descending light off to his left which was also painted by the Boeing's airborne radar. He called Charleston ARTC center and asked if radar showed any traffic for his flight. The Charleston highaltitude sector controller was distracted by a 'phone call and hadn't seen the appearance of the target, which he now noticed, 11 o'clock from Braniff, range 5 miles. It was a "raw" target (no transponder, which would give on-screen data on flight ID and altitude), and the controller advised Branniff that it must be an aircraft in the low sector below 24,000' as the only other traffic under his control was an American Airlines flight 20 miles behind him. Braniff replied that the object was definitely above him and now descending through his altitude. The controller suggested that it might be a military research aircraft of some sort and asked Braniff for a visual. Braniff replied that it was not an aircraft but was "giving off brilliant flaming light consisting of alternating white, green and red colours". At this time ground radar showed the target closing range to within 3 miles @ 10 o'clock from Braniff; Braniff then advised that it was now turning away from him, and the controller saw the radar target execute a smallradius 180-degree turn and reverse its track NW away from Braniff @ approx. 1000 mph. Braniff confirmed this and reported that the object was 20 degrees above the horizon and still descending (Braniff's airborne radar indications at this time are not known).
A sighting of what may have been the same object was made by the pilot of the American Airlines flight 20 miles behind (W of) Braniff: a bright light at 9 or 10 o'clock observed for 3-4 mins. According to the controller, American had been monitoring his communications with Braniff and called the latter, asking if he had his landing lights on. When the controller asked him to amplify, American "politely clammed up". American submitted no report and later disclaimed seeing anything other than what looked like an aircraft with its landing lights on.
NOTES: The likelihood of a real radar-reflective target is in this case quite strong, since correlating returns were reportedly displayed by ground and airborne radars concurrent with matching visuals from (at least) one aircrew. The Blue Book explanation that the object was an aircraft is based on this fact, together with the American Airlines pilot's opinion and the comment that the object displayed no performance beyond the capabilities of an aircraft of the period. No specific identification was offered of the aircraft involved.
According to Thayer's summary of the Blue Book file, the object was first reported by Braniff at a time of 0340 LST, it was picked up at his 8:30 or 9:00 position, the speed of the ground radar target was 750-800 mph with "no unusual maneuvers", and it disappeared off-scope to the SW after making a "sweeping turn". According to the ARTC controller's account (quoted verbatim in Hynek), the incident began at 0430, the target appeared at 11 o'clock from Braniff moving to 10 o'clock, the speed of the target was approximately 1000 mph, and it left to the NE after making "a complete 180-degree turn in the space of five miles, which no aircraft I have ever followed on radar could possibly do." The controller had 13 years experience with USAF and FAA air traffic control, observing all types of civilian and military aircraft including SR-71's. His account is extremely circumstantial as to Braniff's flight number, VHF frequency, altitude, air lane number and heading, and augmented by a diagram (unpublished) showing the geographic locations of the UFO and the aircraft under his control.
There seems no good reason to question the controller's statement that Braniff was "eastbound on jet airway 6", which means that a target closing from 9 or 10 o'clock (N or NW) and retreating on a similar course after a turn, however "sweeping", could not possibly be on a heading off-scope to the SW. Either Thayer's summary, or the Blue Book file, or both, are here inconsistent, whereas the controller's first hand account is not. According to that account, the combined speed and manoeuverability of the target were outside of his experience, also contradicting the Blue Book file which appears to base its assessment of performance (the origin of the 750-800 mph figure is uncertain) on a statement obtained from the reluctant American Airlines witness: " . . . to me it only appeared to be an airplane at some distance, say six or eight miles, who turned on his landing lights . . . . I thought nothing further of it." This also is inconsistent, inasmuch as the object was well in front of Braniff and thus significantly in excess of 20 miles from American, so that American's estimate of landing light brilliance and distance would be out by a factor of 3 or 4. The same pilot speculated: "I presume it was the air force refuelling." Air-refuelling tankers are indeed always brightly lit, but no such operation would normally be in progress close to a commercial airlane, still less on a descending course through it. An Air Force refuelling operation would, presumably, not be difficult for the Air Force to trace; yet no such operation was discovered by Blue Book despite a witness suggesting it. A possible explanation might be a cover-up of a military flight conducted in error; but the radar target could not possibly relate to a refuelling tanker on the basis of speed alone. A military fighter could account for the speed, and for the rapid departure when the pilot realised he was straying close to commercial traffic, but presumably not for the tight 180degree turn.
The visual from Braniff of a brilliant light with multicoloured scintillation is more akin to a bright celestial body seen through a sharp inversion layer than anything else, but not on a descending course through his altitude. (Note: Braniff reports the object descending through his altitude, then somewhat later reports it still in a "descending configuration" at 20 degrees above the horizon. This could be interpreted as an inconsistency, inasmuch as 20 degrees seems a rather high elevation for an object to be seen at a depression angle even from 33,000', and this might imply that the object was less mobile in elevation than suggested. However observers almost always grossly overestimate elevation angles, and there tends to be a visual "quantum" of 10 degrees.) A fireball meteor could fit the "flaming" appearance and gross trajectory, flaring and dying to give the illusion of an object which approached Braniff and then receeded; but no trail was reported, and a fireball which was in sight for five minutes would be a very remarkable phenomenon in itself, probably spawning a great many reports, in addition to which the ATC radar track, mimicking the illusory visual approach of the meteor, would become a highly improbable coincidence.
On ground radar a "ghost" echo from a ground target with Braniff as the primary reflector could simulate an "intercepting" target of this nature: it would appear beyond Braniff and always on the same azimuth, closing as Braniff approached the ground reflector and then receeding in a manner qualitatively similar to that described, although the exact geometry would have to be established. However, Braniff was flying @ 33,000' so that such a "ghost" could not be displayed closer than 6.25 miles to the a/c. The unknown target approached to 3 miles. A "ghost" produced by secondary reflection from an airborne target, for example an aircraft passing above or below Braniff, could mimic this behaviour, and if we assume that the secondary a/c reflector was itself outside the ATC radiation pattern then it would not itself be tracked on the ground - only its ghost would be displayed. The air radar contact and the visual sighting could have been this a/c, since without the ATC radar track we no longer have to suppose extraordinary performance - merely a fast jet with an unusual lighting pattern, possibly viewed through an inversion at Braniff's altitude. The ground-displayed speed of 1000 mph would be the relative speed of the two reflecting aircraft, not implausible for a military jet flying by a 707 on a near-reciprocal heading.
However, the hypothetical a/c would be flying as close to Braniff as its displayed ghost (approx. 15,000' of range or altitude) and thus could hardly be outside the overall ATC radiation pattern (the a/c could hardly have remained in a null zone between radar lobes for several minutes); no other aircraft were currently under ATC control except American, 20 miles away; and 5 minutes is a very long time indeed for such sensitive reflection geometry to be maintained between aircraft separating at better than Mach 1.3.
Further, this hypothesis does not explain the correlation of visual and radar kinetics, and for an inversion layer to explain the abnormal colour scintillations of the light it would have to be viewed at a rather narrow range of relative elevation angles on the order of 1.0 degree, which is inconsistent with a source which was seen descending at speed for several minutes. Other more complex and less homogeneous atmospheric structures might be hypothesised, but the exercise would be highly speculative and unconvincing.
A similar radar track might be produced on the ATC scope by multiple-trip returns from meteor wake ionisation, although typical ATC wavelengths of 10-50 cm are far from optimum and signal strengths would be low; but the duration is far too long, and Braniff's shorter-wave airborne radar would not have anything like the power output (around 40 kW, or some 5% of typical ATCR output) required for such returns. In general no radar propagation or electronic anomaly can easily explain concurrent, corresponding returns on two very different and physically remote instruments, and the visual observations effectively reduce the probability of anomalous propagation to near-zero.
In conclusion, the target appears to have been a real object emitting brilliant, corruscating light which descended into an Air Route Traffic Control sector at better than Mach 1, passed within 3 miles of a commercial airway in complete radio silence, executed an abnormally sharp 180-degree turn at speed and flew away. The probability of a conventional aircraft seems small: the visual appearance and the radar-tracked turn are the key elements of this report, neither of which were within the experience of the observers. Whilst of relatively low strangeness, therefore, the report must be classified unknown.
STATUS: Unknown
*DATE: May 10, 1966 TIME: 0030Z CLASS: GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure Australia
Melbourne, Australia
Internet presence:
RADAR DURATION: 40 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Source: page 76 of digital copy of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 5. Original reference 5/6/(130) Victoria Barracks.
ATC reported trace on radar at range 140-150 miles bearing 261 degree True. Trace disappeared and reappeared at intervals in the same place. No known civilian aircraft in the area. Probably aircraft crop dusting. Duration: 40 minutes AURA
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: July 26, 1966 TIME: CLASS: GR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: UFOE II, page 242
Atlanta, Georgia
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: (FAA 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 TIME: small hours CLASS: R/V ground
radar/ground visual
LOCATION SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 70
Heathrow ATCC
London
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 TIME: 0100 CST CLASS: GV,GR
LOCATION: SOURCES:
Sault Ste Marie, Michigan
RADAR DURATION: 2-5 seconds
EVALUATIONS:
University of Colorado Case #1323B
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: One elliptical object of the apparent size of a basketball with the colors of pale yellow, green, pink and grey seen during clear skies and pick up on radar.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: January 8, 1967 TIME: CLASS:R/V multiple ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Project Blue Book
Goose Bay, Labrador Weinstein AUER/VC Vol. 4
Canada
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS: HQ, 95th Strategic Wing (SAC): UFO, possible aircraft but unlikely
Added case: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Air Traffic Control at Goose Bay track an unidentified target on their radar. They in turn called the 641st Air Control and Warning Squadron which also track an unknown target. A Military Airlift Command pilot flying a C-97 aircraft observed an unknown object at the same time. Radar was AN/FPS-93. Radars of both facilities were operating on different frequencies. The 641st ACW Sq tracked the object from a speed of 200 knots to a departure speed of 2100 knots.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: January 13 1967 TIME: 2200 local CLASS:R/V ground radar/ multiple air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hynek (1978) 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 cross-section to Albuquerque. One could imagine a slowly spinning balloon with an underslung radar-asymmetrical instrument package bearing a red running light, if this could explain 25 minutes of jet-pursuit. A very large research balloon at high altitude over the horizon might be "pursued" for 25 minutes, and (improbably, given small radar crosssection at extreme range) might be painted by second-trip returns which displayed it in spurious proximity to the Lear over Winslow. But this could not explain the high-acceleration 30-degree visual ascent and disappearance, and the lights required to be carried by such balloons during night launches would hardly be prominent at the implied distant ground range and float-altitude of over 100,000'.
The illusion of a high-acceleration manoeuvre might be created by a small weather balloon near the a/c, but such a balloon could not be pursued at jet speed for 25 minutes. Furthermore weather balloon lights are not red; the quadrupling of the light would still require the superadded improbability of a rare optical mirage with a fortuitously maintained altitude relationship between the aircraft, the rising balloon and a slowly canting inversion layer; and the final radar-visual disappearance would remain unexplained and coincidental.
Visually, a reddish light could be explained as the tail-pipe of a jet, and periodic disappearance could relate to a circling or zig-zagging flight pattern which would present a changing aspect with a factor 5 or 10 fluctuation in radar cross-section (10-20 sq. m. down to 2-3 sq. m. for a small fighter). Close to the operational maximum range of the set, the returned signal might drop below the noise threshold as the a/c turned tail-on, and the distance between Albuquerque & the area of Winslow is >200 miles which would be consistent with the action occurring near the limits of an ATC surveillance radar. On this hypothesis the Lear would have been proceeding N or S with the jet ahead, tail-on to the Lear and side-on to the radar whenever it was visible. Such a jet could explain the final ascent and radar/visual disappearance by a climb and turn, tail-on to the radar and out of the pattern. This hypothesis is speculative, however, without knowing the frequency of the light's on-off cycle, the Lear's heading, the displayed speeds of the radar target, and the nature of the "cat-and-mouse" episode. 25 minutes is very a long time for a military jet to be flying at high speed (ahead of the Lear) in such an unusual fashion. Finally, the repeated quadrupling of the red light observed from two aircraft with only a single target appearing on radar is entirely unexplained without recourse to a superadded mirage phenomenon which is itself very rare and which renders the whole scenario too improbable to be convincing.
In conclusion, the raw visual description alone is strongly suggestive of mirage, although most other features of the case - qualitative and quantitative - argue against mirage as normally understood, and the simultaneous on/off radarvisual periodicity confirmed by radio between the observers as it was happening does argue quite strongly that the radar target and visual object(s) were related. The case should therefore be classified as "unknown" pending further investigation.
STATUS: Unknown
*DATE: February 24, 1967 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 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 ( ton of ELINT sensors and a huge internal antenna. Some analogous project in early 1967 could have involved overflights of communist Cuba, still a strategically sensitive area following Khrushchev's removal of Soviet missiles in 1962. If the MiGs had fortuitously encountered such a platform this could explain both the reported visual appearance, and the apparent over sensitivity of the NSA to an incident of foreign aircraft loss: any admission of US technology in the area might create an awkward international incident.
Of course, the destruction of the MiG remains a coincidence on this hypothesis. However, certain types of AEW, reconnaissance and ELINT aircraft over the years have been fitted with defensive armament, even though this is not routine practice. A number of Soviet models have carried 25mm guns, usually in the tail and sometimes radar directed. Some British and American aircraft - presumably more likely culprits in this case - have provision for infrared air-toair missiles and would either be able to use their airborne radar equipment in passive mode to detect hostile signals or would be fitted, like almost all at-risk military aircraft, with dedicated radar warning receivers (RWRs). RWRs are capable of detecting when a hostile radar has stopped scanning, meaning that it has locked on and begun to track (hence the development of modern trackwhile-scan systems), and this situation must be construed as highly threatening. The lead MiG in this case was reportedly destroyed shortly after its pilot had radioed that his radar was locked on to the target and his missiles were armed, which is consistent with a preemptive missile attack. The scenario has some shortcomings, however, including the visual description of the intruder, the oddly clean destruction of the MiG, and the reported departure altitude of about 100,000' which would be beyond the maximum ceiling of known aircraft in 1967.
In summary it seems possible that the source in this case was genuinely in a position to impart sensitive information, and that communications intercepts did occur which related to some sort of incident in Cuban airspace. However, given the second hand nature of the report allowance has to be made for inaccuracies and embroideries. The possibility therefore exists that the core of the report describes an engagement by Cuban MiGs with a US reconnaissance overflight. The further possibility exists that US intelligence sources were aware that Cuba could not definitely identify the intruder, and deliberately "leaked" a phony air-radio intercept as a counterintelligence ploy. Unlikely as this may seem, there is some evidence that states have used the UFO rumour in this way - for example, reports in the Soviet state press during the '70s which were allowed to feed public speculation about UFOs, but which were later discovered to originate with secret military satellite launches from Plesetsk. In the present case, however, the likelihood of such a ploy is perhaps not very great, particularly considering that 10 years had elapsed between the reported date of the incident and the leak. What we are left with, then, is a tantalising story, but one which will almost certainly never be more than hearsay.
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: March 2, 1967 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 58, 243
White Sand Missile Range,
New Mexico
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: (Groups of three to four UFOs tracked on radar sliver discs seen widely.(
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: March 5 1967 TIME: unknown CLASS: R/V
LOCATION: SOURCE: Fowler CUFOI 1981 187
Minot AFB Hall, UFOE II, pages 27 80-81, 243
N. Dakota
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: According to Raymond Fowler, a former US Air Force Security Service employee, NORAD (North American Air Defence Command) radar detected an uncorrelated target on a descending track over a Minuteman site of the 91st Strategic Missile Wing, Minot AFB. Alerted strike teams sighted a metallic, discshaped object with bright flashing lights moving slowly above the site and pursued it in three armed trucks. It stopped and hovered at 500', 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 TIME: 2200 CST CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES:
Tillamook, Oregon
RADAR DURATION: 4 hours, 38 minutes
EVALUATIONS: Project Blue Book: False radar returns
Case Added: Aldrich
University of Colorado Case #1212B
Initial Summary: Three lights lare than stars observed by 12 witnesses. Weather condition clar with some ground fog.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: March 20 1967 TIME: unknown CLASS: R/V ground radar/ prob. ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 29, see also: 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: CLASS: R/V ground radar/air visual
LOCATION: 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 CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Volunteer Flight Office Network (VFON) report form
A/C: 52 deg 21" N, 06 deg 12" W Weinstein AUER/VC vol. 4
Preston ground radar
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATIONS: No official
VFON Report #682
Added case: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Irish Airlines Flight 275A heading on course of 300 degrees True at an altitude of 10,000 observed a white object about as bright as Venus ahead and at an elevation of about 10 degrees above the aircraft. The object was observed for about 6 minutes. It change color to pale green and then to red. Preston radar (G-PK) informed the crew that they had an target with a speed of about 150 knots.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: April 1967 TIME: CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: NICAP, UFO Investigator V 5, #1, May-June 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]
Coast Guardsman Brian F. Jenkins stated in his report to NICAP member J. A. Hennessey that the object was seen stationary at approximately 15,000 feet. It slowly drifted to the northwest during the next 80 minutes. It was slowly revolving, revealing a door like structure on its side as it did so. There was a curtain-like structure' at its bottom that changed shape during the flight.
At 12:40,' Jenkins stated, "an aircraft with a thick vapor trail approached the object from the northeast, flew above it and passed it, then turned and dived and approached the object from below, slowing down . . . until the vapor trail faded, and the aircraft was lost from sight. A few minutes later the object was lost in a cloud."
The UFO disappeared at an estimated 22,000 feet altitude.
According to May 21st edition of the London Sunday Express, an undetermined number of people along the Devon coast saw the UFO. Within minutes, the Royal Air Force submitted an account to the Ministry of Defense, who at first denied they had received any report, but then said that they did receive a report, but somehow it was not logged.
The object was also reported tracked on radar, according to a senior RAF controller at Plymouth.
At the same time as the sighting, an air vice marshall was visiting the Brixham Coast Guard station.
"We raised the subject [of the sighting] with his staff who remarked that they had never seen anything like it before," Jenkins remarked after they had seen his detailed drawing of the object
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: April 6, 1967 TIME: 2145 MST CLASS: R ground radar/AV?
LOCATION SOURCE: University of Colorado Summary
Edmonton, Alberta Weinstein: ACER/VC, Vol. 4
Canada Hall, UFOE II, 243
RADAR DURATION: Not specified
EVALUATION: No official
University of Colorado Case #1206N
Added case: Aldrich
Initial Summary: GCA radar at the Edmonton International Airport picked up an a fast moving object at a low altitude coming from the northwest and traveling in an erratic manner. The controlers asked the pilot of Pacific Western Airlines to check on the object. He observed for a short time a dull red-orange light which vanished as the plane approached. Original source of the report was NICAP.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: July 7 1967 TIME: evening CLASS: R ground radar
LOCATION SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 195
Kenora Airport Campagna, TUF, p96
Ontario
RADAR DURATION: 3 hours
EVALUATION: No official
PRECIS: An unidentified target was observed on a Canadian Air Traffic Control radar by three controllers and two technicians. It was on a heading towards Kenora, Ontario (about 125 miles E of Winnipeg, Manitoba). Later that evening an unidentified target was detected by Kenora Airport radar on a NE heading. It remained on-scope for three hours, executing a series of manoeuvres including 180-degree turns and twice appearing to follow different Air Canada flights, before resuming its NE heading and disappearing off-scope.
At 03:24 GMT an object was picked up that followed Air Canada Flight # 405 before disappearing. The return had remained on the scope for 29 minutes. The same or similar return reappeared and followed Air Canada Flight #927. It was the opinion of the radar operators that the targets were not caused by mechanical or electrical problems.
NOTES: There is no basis for any conclusion in this case without detailed information on target behaviour and presentation over the 3 hours. There appears to be no simultaneous radar or visual corroboration, and the relatedness of the two radar incidents cannot be established. Nevertheless, the prima facie report is very interesting and would appear to warrant further investigation.
*DATE: July 31, 1967 TIME: 0430Z CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES:
Kernville, California
RADAR DURATION: 1 hour, 45 minutes
EVALUATIONS:
University of Colorado case #1306B
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Mr. & Mrs. Petyak, telephone company worker observe two round star like lights bright blue in color. Radar operators at Edwards AFB RAPCON pick up targets on radar. Weather conditions: clear.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: August 23, 1967 TIME: 2145 CLASS: GR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES:
Halifax, Nova Scotia
RADAR DURATION: several seconds
EVALUATIONS:
University of Colorado Case #1473N
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: One object with flashing white lights observed by commercial pilot: strange return picked up on ground radar.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: October 21, 1967 TIME: 6"16 A. M. CLASS: GV/GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Project Blue Book Files
Blythewille Air Base, Hynek, UFO Report
Arkansas
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Sparks
Initial Summary: Oct. 21, 1967. Blytheville AFB, Ark. (35.96_ N, 89.95_ W). 6:16 a.m. 2 control tower operators and an observer at the S end of the runway saw 2 dark oblong table-latter shaped objects with 7 ft long exhaust at about 1,200-1,500 ft height fly E to W, tracked by RAPCON radar at a distance of 2 miles, make a turn to the SW when they disappeared. (Hynek UFO Exp ch. 6, case DD-3) 15-30 secs 3 RV
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: June (?) 1968 TIME: 2300 local CLASS: R/V ground radar/ground visual
LOCATION: 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 & 60-degree climb within a few miles at 3000 mph, or which was already on a rising trajectory whilst being detected - possibly climbing to about 20,000' by the time of its last radar echo - thus requiring a less acute maneouvre but a compensating true airspeed of somewhat more than the 3000 mph computed from the reducing slant range. If this seems no less fanciful, then we might consider the possibility that the radar track was caused by radio frequency interference, internal system noise or component failure.
A cyclic source of interference, successive bursts of pulses with an interburst period minutely shorter (on the order of microseconds) than the scan rate of the receiving antenna, could generate a false output on a primary radar scope which displayed as a blip, reducing range along the same set of trace radii with each scan. A very fortuitous half-rotation delay followed by a lengthening of this cyclicity would have to occur at exactly the right microsecond for such a signal to appear to cross the scope centre and recede diametrically; therefore the most probable result of such an effect is that the "target" would not reappear on the same heading. If the source of interference continued unchanged then the blip would in fact reappear on an adjacent trace at the edge of the scope and once again approach the centre, repeating this performance all the way around the bearing ring until it ultimately returned to its original trace. This behaviour apparently did not occur, so it is possible that the noise source disappeared, either just as the blip approached scope centre or shortly thereafter so that one or two peripheral blips on an adjacent trace could have gone unnoticed by the operator who was watching for the emergence of his "target" into the opposite sector.
The only likely source of such cyclic interference is another 15 rpm centimetric radar, perhaps a remote installation whose narrow main-lobe output was abnormally ducted to the Albany antenna due to anomalous propagation (with which the clear, starry summer night would not be inconsistent) and weakly detected only at peak gain. In order for the displayed signal to resemble a convincing target arc, with the pulse train distributed across several adjacent trace radii in the manner of signals returned by a solid target, the pulse repetition frequency of the interfering transmitter would have to be identical to that of the receiving radar and in precise synchrony with its scope trace. This set of circumstances is highly improbable, but not impossible. (The effect of extraneous signals on the synthetic digital display of a secondary surveillance ATC radar [SSR] is a special case. On SSR raw targets are replaced by symbols and alphanumerics: the operator may know that he has a non-transponder signal, which is displayed on the screen by a symbol representing a raw skin-paint, but he will not be able to derive any information about the origin, strength or propagation history of the signal. This leads to different consequences and different problems of interpretation; but it does not appear that SSR radar was involved in this case.)
The general case of false signals caused by component degradation or catastrophic failure is difficult to address, but on a primary analogue display such a noise track is extremely unlikely to resemble the multi-trace target arc generated by a solid reflector such as an aircraft, and experienced operators would perhaps not be so easily misled given adequate time to study the scope presentation. In subsequent talks with Ernest Jahn of NICAP and data systems specialist Tom Esposito the three controllers remained puzzled about what was evidently to them a highly unusual event. Had such a track been seen before, or subsequently, system defects might be suspected; but it apparently did not recur. Any hypothesis which is unique to the radar set or its propagation environment has to address the coincidence of a highly unusual false track with a visual sighting with which it appeared to correlate. This seems, if not impossible, certainly improbable. Further, what is the probability that such a radar artifact and an independent air-visual report would jointly occur by chance immediately after another "UFO" event (involving what was evidently a very different type of multiple-echo target behaviour with a duration of 45 minutes) which was concurrent with a visual report from quite unconnected ground witnesses?
In summary, there are two principal episodes in this case, both of which can be described as presumptive radar-visuals. In neither case, however, are radar and visual events definitely both simultaneous and of commensurate strangeness. In the first case the visual report contains details which are not easily explained, but the radar targets are poorly described and their unique relationship with the visual objects is not established beyond doubt. In the second case the radar target is not very easily explained, but the visual sighting was not truly simultaneous and is not of very great strangeness. Nevertheless, there are sufficient points of radar-visual correlation reported or implied in both cases to make it at least probable that there was common cause. The possibility remains that the second object was a fireball meteor - although there are some noteable objections to this hypothesis - and/or radar interference. The first object(s) reported on the order of 1 hour earlier cannot be satisfactorily identified, but could conceivably have been due to astronomical/atmospheric-optical phenomena and/or some combination of civil/military aircraft operations - possibly an inflight refuelling exercise of which there would appear to have been no FAA notification or record. At the same time, the improbable coincidence of two separate radar and visual episodes, both involving objects reported as emitting red light, clearly invites a common explanation which is not apparent at the present time.
In conclusion, no individual feature of the case is proven as unconventional beyond doubt. As a whole, however, the sequence of events is difficult to interpret except in terms of a series of explanations of such cumulative improbability that they are inelegant and unconvincing. That the events are unexplained on the basis of information available might fairly be said to be established beyond reasonable doubt. More information is required, however, and the case is sufficiently interesting to warrant further investigation.
STATUS: Insufficient information
DATE: October 10 1974 TIME: 1830 local (approx.) CLASS: R/V ground
radar/air visual
LOCATION SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 195
Near Gander Airport
Newfoundland
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 TIME: CLASS: Surface visual/surface radar
LOCATION: SOURCES: Ideal UFO Magazine #2, 6/78, page 54
Indian Ocean
RADAR DURATION: 17 minutes
Internet Presence: http://
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
NOTES: On November 30, 1974, dozens of crewmen aboard the U.S. Navy destroyer Blackburn (DD-756) in the Indian Ocean observed three round, luminescent objects flying in orbit above the ship, as if spying on it. The objects were tracked by the destroyer's radar. Although reports differ, the captain apparently sounded General Quarters and prepared for possible hostile action. Then, 17 minutes after the round objects had first appeared, all three dived into the ocean and vanished in a geyser of spray. Their movements were detected on sonar after they submerged.
This reference: Ideals UFO Magazine #2, June 1978 (Mystery 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 1972( CF. Aldrich further searched for the Blackburn in lists of US Navy ships. The results were negative.
STATUS: Hoax, probably journalistic in nature..
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- craigslist 1964 falcon for sale
- 1964 falcon sprint craigslist
- 1964 falcon sprint for sale
- 1964 falcon wagon for sale
- 1964 ford f100 restoration parts
- parts for 1964 ford f100
- 1964 ford f100 used parts
- 1964 ford pickup truck parts
- 1964 ford f100 truck parts
- 1964 ford pickup engine
- 1964 ford truck parts catalog
- 1964 ford truck parts for sale