The UFO Events at Minot AFB (one of the best cases ever)
A Narrative of UFO Events at Minot AFB
PART 8
Thomas Tulien
Investigation of UFO Events at Minot AFB
on 24 October 1968
Thomas Tulien
6. Project Blue Book Evaluation
On Friday, 1 November, Quintanilla consulted with a
Mr. Goff at FTD. The previous day, Werlich had informed Marano he was sending
additional information, including the RAPCON tapes, radarscope photos, and
overlay map, however, at this time the only information available to
Quintanilla was the Basic Reporting Data.
Talked to Mr. Goff, TDPA, who is quite familiar with air-borne radars. Mr. Goff said that from the evidence at this time it would appear to him that the sightings may have been precipitated by some type of ionized air plasma similar to ball lightning. He felt that a plasma could account for the radar blip, loss of transmission and some of the visual sightings. The entry of the missile site is being investigated by local authorities and with the information at our disposal at this time no explanation is offered.[160]
Later that day, Col. Quintanilla responded to Col.
Pullen’s earlier request to submit a preliminary report for Deputy Chief of
Staff/Intelligence Gen. Stewart “to get this thing simmered down.” He had
previously told Pullen, “I’m (Col
Quintanilla) pretty sure it was either caused by an internal radar malfunction
that also caused the blip or because of the inversion he might have also picked
up an anomalous blip,” however, he apparently reconsidered due to his
conversation with Mr. Goff.
TO COL PULLEN SSO SAC. FROM LT COL QUINTANILLA. REFERENCE OUR TELECON WITH REGARDS TO MINOT AFB UFO’S. IT IS MY FEELINGS, AFTER REVIEWING PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY M[I]NOT THAT UFO PAINTED BY B-52 ON RADAR AND ALSO OBSERVED VISUALLY BY IP AND PERSONNEL ON GROUND IS MOST PROBABLY A PLASMA OF THE BALL-LIGHTNING CLASS. PLASMAS OF THIS TYPE WILL PAINT ON RADAR AND ALSO AFFECT SOME ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT AT CERTAIN FREQUENCIES. PLASMAS ARE NOT UNCOMMON, HOWEVER, THEY ARE UNIQUE AND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DUPLICATE IN THE LABORATORY. ALSO BECAUSE OF THE TIME DURATIONS, FEEL STRONGLY THAT SOME SECURITY GUARDS AND MAINTENANCE CREW WERE OBSERVING SOME FIRST MAGNITUDE CELESTIAL BODIES WHICH WERE GREATLY MAGNIFIED BY THE INVERSION LAYER AND HAZE WHICH WAS PRESENT AT MINOT DURING THE TIME OF THE UFO OBSERVATIONS. DO NOT CONSIDER THE PHYSICAL VIOLATION OF THE LOCK AS BEING RELATED IN ANY WAY WITH UFO’S. I CONSIDER THE UFO REPORTS AS FAIRLY ROUTINE, EXCEPT FOR THE PLASMA OBSERVATION WHICH IS INTERESTING FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW. WE WILL STUDY THIS REPORT IN MORE DETAIL WHEN WE RECEIVE THE RAW DATA FROM MINOT.[161]
This is the first indication in the documents of a
mechanism to explain both the air-radar and air-visual observations by the B-52
crew, which could also account for the loss of UHF transmission. Since “plasma
of the ball lightning class” will be Blue Book’s final identification of the
cause for the UFO reports, this would be an appropriate place to consider the
basis for their conclusion.
“Plasma, Similar to Ball Lightning”
Plasma is the most abundant state of matter in the
universe, which is visible as the electrically charged gaseous state of our sun
and the stars. It is a distinct
phase of matter separate from solids, liquids, and normal gases,
which occurs at high temperatures when atoms are stripped of negatively charged
electrons to form positively charged ions.
Most importantly, ionized gas can conduct an
electrical current. The field of plasma physics is the science of ionized gases
interacting with electric and magnetic fields that profoundly influence the
state, either generated by current flows within the plasma (such as lightning),
or applied externally. For example, the aurora borealis and australis is an
affect of plasma accelerated
from the sun's atmosphere into interplanetary space in the form
of solar wind, compressing the earth’s magnetic field.
Massive explosions in the sun emit streams of
electrically charged particles 3 million miles to Earth causing the
northern and southern polar auroras. When the solar wind smashes into
Earth’s magnetic field, some plasma is swept towards the poles at the
polar cusps. Collisions between these ions and atmospheric atoms and
molecules result in energy (photon) releases in the form of auroras
appearing in large circles around the poles. (Click image for alternate
depiction.)
Furthermore, lightning is a result of electrical
discharges in the atmosphere breaking down into plasma, creating a conductive
channel to earth for current in the form of a superheated lightning bolt to
flash back up to the thundercloud. In all cases, a tremendously powerful source
of energy is required to produce and sustain the state; otherwise, the plasma
quickly dissipates and recombines as a neutral gas.
Ball
lightning is an ephemeral phenomenon most often associated with
thunderstorms. Witnesses typically describe a luminous ball one to 25
centimeters in diameter with the brightness of a domestic light bulb. It nearly always moves at speeds of about three meters
per second, while floating about one meter above the ground; and may last up to
10 seconds or more, whereupon the ball extinguishes noiselessly or sometimes
with a bang.[162]
It is a well-documented phenomenon in the sense that
it has been observed for centuries, and in many cases by well-qualified
observers. However, anecdotal descriptions vary widely making it difficult to
distinguish its specific and defining characteristics.[163]
Whatever it is, its appearance and behavior are unlike anything else we
routinely come across in nature, however, without fully established properties, it cannot
be argued to be an explanation for any strange report of a variety of
glowing atmospheric phenomena.
Modern
Mechanics and Invention, November 1931.
Still, scientists endeavor to formulate an
explanation for the existence of ball lightning. For example, a popular
explanation proposed by Nicola Tesla (1904), is that ball lightning is highly
ionized plasma (plasmoid) contained by self-generated magnetic fields. However,
on closer examination this hypothesis appears untenable, since the ionized gas
would be extremely hot and rise like a hot-air balloon. Adding
magnetic fields might solve the problem of the coherence of the plasma but
would make it even lighter. Most importantly, what
source of energy could sustain a stable plasma ball preventing it from rapidly
dissipating?
Plasmas are notoriously unstable and by nature evanescent, except when
suitably contained and provided a sustaining energy source. Any valid theory for ball lightning must
incorporate the energy source. For example, John Lowke (1996) proposed an
interesting mechanism to explain the occurrence of ball lightning occasionally
reported to enter houses through screens or chimneys, and even through glass
windowpanes. To account for this, he proposes that after a lightning strike to
ground, a moving electrical field pulse following filamentary paths in the
ground continually breaks down atmospheric gases above the ground, thereby
producing a moving corona ball. The reforming of the ball as the field moves
through the windowpane gives the observer the impression that the ball has
passed through the windowpane.[164]
While many theories have been advanced, none account for all reported
characteristics; furthermore, it has not been created under laboratory conditions.
Though ball lightning has long been a scientific
curiosity, renewed interest in the 1960s followed the
publication of statistical investigations by J. R. McNally (1960) in the Proceedings
of the Second Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical Society. Interest increased as
scientific journals published on the subject and research opportunities became
available. For example, in 1968, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research
provided a grant to physicists at Westinghouse Research Laboratories to study
ball lightning; and a popular book written by an editor for Aviation Week
& Space Review theorized ball
lightning might be the cause of many unusual UFO reports (Klass 1968).
Ball Lightning (bolbliksem) photographed by Mirjam Ruyter
on 10 September 2005 in Rijswijk, Netherlands. The round, bright-white ball
appeared near the power line of a tram where it remained for 3 minutes before
vanishing. Photo source: Association for Meteorology and Climatology in the Netherlands. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOYcGiNCBQ0.
In October 1967, under the
auspices of an Air Force UFO study contract with the University of Colorado, a
group of physicists expert in plasma and
atmospheric electricity convened to consider the theory. They
examined a report of a large glowing object that paced an RB-47 aircraft over a
distance of more than 700 miles, which was observed as an intensely luminous
light by the pilots,
confirmed by ground-radar, and detected on sophisticated ELINT (Electronic
Intelligence) monitoring gear onboard the RB-47. After review,
the unanimous conclusion was that the object was not plasma or an electrical
luminosity produced by the atmosphere.[165]
While the plasma-UFO theory found no support in the
scientific community, it was occasionally useful to Blue Book in identifying some unique UFO reports, despite the fact it
postulated one unknown phenomenon to explain another. Even so, the reported
characteristics of the Minot UFO scarcely suggest a correlation to “plasma of
the ball lightning class.”
For example:
- Most commonly, ball lightning observations occur during thunderstorms and are associated with lightning. Aside from the fact that late October is not when seasonal thunderstorms occur in northern climates, the weather was moderate and cool, with a high overcast, and visibility reported as 25 miles.
- Whereas a typical ball lightning is about the size of an orange or a grapefruit; in nearly all instances, the size of the UFO was described as very large — compared to the size of an aircraft.
- Whereas, ball lightning has a lifetime of 10 seconds to one minute, the UFO echo painted on the B-52 radar paced the aircraft for about 10 minutes. Later, the pilots visually observed the UFO in a stationary position on or near the ground for at least 4 minutes.
- Whereas, ball lightning typically moves horizontally about a meter above the ground at a velocity of a few meters per second, the UFO paced the B-52 from 20,000-9,000 feet altitude at speeds up to 280 knots (322 mph).
The only characteristics
that correlate to some degree are color — typically red to yellow (though ball
lightning is not particularly bright, or reported to change color); and the
correlation to electromagnetism, which provided Blue Book with a justification
for explaining the B-52’s radar echo and concurrent loss of UHF transmission.
Project Blue Book Final Report
On Thursday, 7 November, the Special Security Office
at SAC Headquarters responded to Col. Quintanilla’s message of 1 November,
prompting him to complete his analysis and forward a final case report.
REFERENCE YOUR TDPT MESSAGE REGARDING MINOT AFB UFO. SAC COMMANDER AND STAFF ARE EXTREMELY INTERESTED IN THIS ITEM. REQUEST A COPY OF YOUR REPORT OF THIS INCIDENT BE FORWARDED THIS HEADQUARTERS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IF ANY DIFFICULTY IS ENCOUNTERED SECURING RAW DATA OR ASSISTANCE FROM MINOT PLEASE ADVISE. YOUR EXPEDITIOUS HANDLING OF THIS INCIDENT IS APPRECIATED.[166]
Nearly one week later, on 13 November, Quintanilla
completed his evaluation and forwarded the Minot UFO case report to SAC. The
final report consists of a one-page letter providing his conclusions in the
form of multiple-choice possibilities, and eleven pages of attachments cobbled
together supporting the conclusions.
TDPT (UFO) 13 NOV 1968
UFO Observation, 24 October 1968
Special Security Office (SAC)
1. Reference SSO message 071540Z, with regards to evaluations of UFO reports from Minot AFB. The following conclusions have been reached after a thorough study of the data submitted to the Foreign Technology Division. The ground visual sightings appear to be of the star Sirius and the B-52 which was flying in the area. The B-52 radar contact and the temporary loss of UHF transmission could be attributed to a plasma similar to ball lightning. The air visual from the B-52 could be the star Vega which was on the horizon at the time, or it could be a light on the ground, or possibly a plasma. The physical violation of the lock of OSCAR 7 does not seem to be related to UFOs in any way.
Scan of the original document.
2. No further investigation by the Foreign Technology Division is contemplated. For your information we are attaching a copy of the sequence of events, a resume of the sightings and a discussion of the background information.
FOR THE COMMANDER
HECTOR QUINTANILLA, Jr., Lt Colonel, USAF Chief,
Aerial Phenomena Branch,
Aerospace Technologies Division,
Production Directorate.[167]
Quintanilla explains the
ground-based observations as appearing
to be “the star Sirius and the B-52 which was flying in the area.”
Misidentification of aircraft and celestial objects were useful default
explanations, particularly when there was insufficient information available to
rule out the possibility. In fact, an accurate reconstruction of the entire
flight track of the B-52 was possible, since RAPCON controlled all movements
and conversations were recorded with time references.[168]
In any case, the notion that military personnel, whose work required them to
remain at remote stations for days in the countryside surrounding Minot AFB,
would not be familiar with routine movements, patterns, and sounds of
jet-powered aircraft is disingenuous.
Quintanilla suggests that the haze and layered cloud
conditions could have diffused the light sources making identification difficult. However, the overcast conditions only
existed above 9,000 feet, while the B-52 would have been below these altitudes
when it was in vicinity of the base, which is also when the landing lights
would be turned on. In addition, such an explanation requires believing that
more than 16 ground observers in various locations all misidentified the
aircraft — an unlikely occurrence. It also requires that both the B-52 and the
star Sirius account for the entire range of ground observations, implying that
observers could not differentiate between a scintillating fixed star and a B-52
in flight.
Project Blue Book index card providing a brief description
of the case. Note that time, length of observation, and physical evidence —
submitted in the form of the radarscope photos — are inaccurate. Final Blue Book
Statistical Data for the year 1968 categorizes the Minot AFB UFO case as Identified (Other) by Radar Analysis as plasma.[169]
For an extended period, the personnel at N-7 were
observing a UFO in the south-southeast sky, though their descriptions scarcely
suggest the misidentification of a fixed star.[170]
Sirius is one of the brightest celestial objects in the sky and easily seen
during the winter months due to its blue-white brilliance. At the time of the
sightings, it was in the south-southeast to south sky at 159-175 degrees
azimuth, ascending at elevations above the horizon from 22 to 24 degrees.[171]
To account for the confusion of the observers, Quintanilla introduces
contributing factors, including a moderate temperature inversion during the
period.
Normally, rising air will cool at a uniform rate as
it ascends in the atmosphere, creating a gradient in which temperature
decreases by an amount known as the adiabatic lapse rate. Due to weather
conditions, in certain situations a warmer layer of air above prevents the
cooler air from rising, creating irregularities in normal lapse rates, while
increasing the scintillation of celestial objects viewed through the
atmosphere.[172]
Blue Book typically appealed to any evidence of a
temperature inversion, especially when explaining anomalous radar echoes, since
atmospheric inversion layers can refract and reflect radar waves, producing
spurious returns on the radarscope. But recent evaluations by Martin Shough of
Blue Book’s radiosonde data, including a more comprehensive data set provided
by the U.S National Climatic Data Center, indicate gradients generally close to
the mean, and do not support the conditions inferred by Blue Book.[173]
The view of the southeast horizon from N-7. During the
times of the UFO observations on 24 October 1968, the star Sirius was ascending
to the right. Bear in mind, if the reported overcast from 9,000 to 25,000 feet
also extended to the south; it is unlikely these stars would be visible. For
example, Smith at O-1 noted in his AF-117 that it was “completely overcast” and
no stars were visible (4).
As previously discussed,
the possibility that “plasma similar to ball lightning” could be the cause for
the B-52 radarscope return is untenable, and without scientific foundation. On
the other hand, Claude Poher has proposed that the loss of radio transmission
could conceivably be the result of a zone of highly ionized air encompassing
the UFO. For example, when the B-52 co-pilot pressed the button to transmit,
the amplitude of the antenna's local electrical field would increase,
immediately attracting the ions and electrons. With a thick layer of ions
encircling the transmission antenna the transmitting energy would be absorbed
in the agitation of ions and the heating of air. In this instance, the critical
frequency (484 MHz) is superior to the frequency of communications (270 MHz),
and the wave is absorbed rather than transmitted. In addition, the B-52’s
IFF/SIF transponder transmitted without a problem since it operated above the
critical frequency at 1 GHz.[174]
Quintanilla further
suggests that ”possibly a plasma” could account for the large object visually
observed by the B-52 pilots on or near the ground. Ball lightning is such a
rare and ephemeral phenomenon that the probability of a huge ball of plasma
maneuvering at various speeds near a B-52 for 10 minutes, and later appearing
to hover near the ground for at least 4 minutes without any evident source of energy to sustain it, in actually fact
constitutes a UFO in all but name. Nevertheless, Quintanilla provides two
additional possibilities: “The air-visual from the B-52 could be the star Vega
which was on the horizon at the time, or it could be a light on the ground.”
Based on information supplied by Quintanilla in his report (Attachment #3-1),
at the time of the observations the star Vega was about 345 degrees azimuth,
and two degrees below the horizon. The B-52 heading was 290 degrees placing
Vega to their right. In other words, for the pilots to observe Vega they would
have had to view it out of the right side cockpit window — below the horizon
line. In fact, they flew directly toward the object that was on or near the
ground beneath them.
The view of the northwest horizon from N-7, during the
times of the UFO observations on 24 October 1968. The star Vega was descending
below the horizon to the right.
Finally, the suggestion
that it “could be a light on the ground” fails to identify any source for the
“unusually bright light never seen [before] in this area,” which “looked like a
miniature sun placed on the ground.”[175]
The 24 October 1968 Minot AFB
case provides a unique opportunity to examine official attitudes and Air Force
policy regarding the UFO phenomenon. In this case, Quintanilla’s conclusions
were typical of the methods, and faux science the Air Force employed to eliminate
unidentified reports, and reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind
UFOs. For over two decades the policy was successful, and continues to
reinforce a prohibition on taking UFOs seriously. This
is particularly true in authoritative public sectors where the publication of erroneous
and more often misleading scientific data, sustained by the repetition of false
narratives, has effectively established a culturally induced ignorance or
doubt. What has
always been lacking and remains so after more than 60 years is an objective,
systematic scientific study of the UFO phenomenon — in a search for the truth.
----------------------------------------
Investigation of UFO Events at Minot AFB
on 24 October 1968
Thomas Tulien
Endnotes
[1] From
1946-1992, Strategic Air Command was the operational establishment of the United States Air Force, responsible for the
bomber-based, and ballistic missile-based strategic nuclear arsenal. Minot AFB,
in northwestern North Dakota, was a principal SAC dual-wing base, consisting of
the 5th Bombardment Wing, with 15 B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers
capable of delivering nuclear and conventional ordinance worldwide; and the
91st Strategic Missile Wing, responsible for 150 Minuteman, Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) housed in underground Launch Facilities scattered
across an area of 8,500 square miles. In addition, the 862nd Combat
Support Group provided base security and material support to the wings. At the
time, the wings were subordinate to the 810th Strategic Aerospace
Division at Minot AFB, which was responsible for mission support at Minot AFB,
Glasgow AFB, MT, and Malmstrom AFB, MT. The 810th SAD was
subordinate to the Fifteenth Air Force, March AFB, CA, and Strategic Air
Command, Offutt AFB, NE. Today both wings continue operations under the major
command of the Air Force Global Strike Command. For a better understanding of
the military environment surrounding the UFO events, see: Background section.
[2] Schulgen,
George F., Intelligence Requirements on Flying Saucer Type Aircraft (Draft of Collection Memorandum), 30 Oct. 1947.
Available from: http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/Schulgen.htm.
[3]
Reflecting on the incredible events, Harry G. Barnes wrote in a
widely distributed newspaper account that the UFOs seemed to “become
most active around the planes we saw on the scope…. They acted like a
bunch of small kids out playing. It was helter-skelter as if directed by
some innate curiosity. At times they moved as a group or cluster, at
other times as individuals over widely-scattered areas…. There is no
other conclusion I can reach but that for six hours on the morning of
the 20th of July there were at least 10 unidentifiable objects moving
above Washington. They were not ordinary aircraft. I could tell that by
their movement on the scope. I can safely deduce that they performed
gyrations which no known aircraft could perform. By this I mean that our
scope showed that they could make right angle turns and complete
reversals of flight. Nor in my opinion could any natural phenomena
account for these spots on our radar. Neither shooting stars, electrical
disturbances nor clouds could either. Exactly what they are, I don’t
know.” Quoted from: Harry G. Barnes, “How Radar Spotted Whatzits That
Air Force Couldn’t Find,” Washington Daily News (July 30, 1952). Reprint available online (p. 16 of PDF) from: http://www.nicap.org/articles/newsarticlesJuly1952.pdf.
[4] The
Background summary is abridged from: Sign Oral History Project, “History
of the United States Air Force UFO Programs” (1947-1969). Source references are in the original work. In
addition, the “Durant Report on the Robertson Panel Proceedings” is available
from: http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm.
[5] United
States. Department of the Air Force. Air Force Regulation No. 200-2, Unidentified
Flying Objects (UFO), Washington D. C.: 20
July 1962.
[6]
In July
1968, a research assistant to the University of Colorado UFO study,
Herbert
Strentz, queried Blue Book chief Lt. Col. Hector Quintanilla regarding
the
nature of the investigations: “We don’t investigate too much… .We
collect
data. It’s a misnomer to think we investigate.” Because this was
contrary to
Air Force chief of staff Gen. Thomas D. White’s statement that “all
unidentified flying object sightings are investigated in meticulous
detail by
Air Force personnel and qualified scientific consultants,” Quintanilla
was
asked to clarify his statement: “We are more or less a collection
agency… .
We contact everybody we can with regards to trying to identify the
stimulus
which caused the observer to report a UFO sighting, however, this is not
really
investigating, this is checking details. We do use scientific
disciplines to
evaluate the information, however, this is an after the fact evaluation.
We
have only subjective statements made by the witnesses to work with … but
we
are not empowered to check the individuals background…Collection is part
of
the investigative process and we accept the data as fact, however, we
seldom
really complete the cycle… . You don’t really do much investigating when
you check out satellite observations, astronomical observations, moving
lights,
weather balloons, etc.” Moreover: “We have certain characteristics for
sightings…characteristics for astronomical reports, aircraft, balloons.
If
any of these (UFO reports) have characteristics that fall into such
categories,
the plausible answer is that it (the UFO) was that… . Sometimes there is
a
thin line in classifying a UFO, but if it falls in the category, it’s in
the
category. You can quibble… . But I cut them off when I think we’ve got
the
answer.” Herbert J. Strentz, “A Survey of Press Coverage of Unidentified
Flying
Objects, 1947- 1966”
(Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1970), 216-217; 224. In addition,
Col. Quintanilla's unpublished manuscript entitled, "UFO’s: An Air
Force Dilemma" is available from: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/pdf/Quintanilla-afdilemma.pdf.
[7] Abridged
from: Sign Oral History Project, “History of the United States Air Force UFO Programs”
(1947-1969), esp.: http://sohp.us/sign_oral_history_project/usaf/the_cia_robertson_panel.php.
In addition: Jacobs, David M. The UFO
Controversy in America (Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press, 1975), 134-135.
[8] Werlich
refers to a “Gen. Hollingsworth” twice (Memo, 1 Nov. 1968a, 4, 6). We have been
unable to locate any information whatsoever on a General by this name in USAF
records and SAC rosters for the period.
[9] Transcription of Recorded Conversations, Transcript of tape for 24 Oct 68, 0921+. The precise time of the request is unknown,
since the time code references are omitted in the transcription after 4:21.
“JAG 31” is the call sign for the B-52. The transcription is time-coded to GMT
(minus 5 hours CDT).
[10] Later that
day, when Werlich first reported the UFO observations to Blue Book he affirmed,
“the Base Commander and Major General Nichols of the 15th Air Force
were both interested” (Memo, 24 Oct., 1). It is likely that during the UFO
events the Base Operations Dispatcher alerted Base Commander Col. Kirchoff, who
subsequently notified his superior, Maj. Gen. Edward M. Nichols Jr., Vice
Commander of the Fifteenth Air Force, March AFB, CA. In this scenario, Col.
Kirchoff and Gen. Nichols may have been monitoring the situation with RAPCON;
relayed the order to the B-52 pilots to overfly the stationary UFO; and
requested the debriefing following the landing.
[11] Partin was
not a regular member of this crew, but onboard during this mission being
evaluated by Aircraft Commander Capt. Don Cagle to maintain ratings. “Since
Major Partin was a little bit more senior than I was, he went in to tell what
he had seen and so I have no idea what he said. We never discussed it
afterwards” (Runyon 2000, 14). In addition: Goduto describes the routine
post-flight procedures at: Goduto, Thomas, 2001. Transcript of interview by
Thomas Tulien, 20 February (Sign Oral History Project), 23-24.
[12] Holland,
Ralph T., 2005. Transcript of interview by Thomas Tulien and James Klotz, 20
February (Sign Oral History Project). B-52 EWO Goduto recalls that General
Thompson debriefed them, however, at the time the only General stationed at
Minot AFB was Holland (Goduto 2001, 24-25). Also: McCaslin, Patrick, 2001.
Transcript of interview by Thomas Tulien, 25 February (Sign Oral History Project),
26-27.
[13] Clark,
Richard, 2003. Transcript of interview by Thomas Tulien, 11 July (Sign Oral
History Project), 9.
[14] Clark
2003, 19, 24. The original film was 35mm negative stock that analysts displayed
on a viewer similar to a Microfilm reader.
[15] After leaving
the AF, Clark passed on the first-generation radarscope photos to his
brother-in-law, William McNeff, who preserved them and made them available to
our research.
[16] Clark 2003, 23. In addition: “Basically, the big
question was, ‘how fast is this puppy going?’ Nothing about how big it is, they
wanted to know how fast it was going and what we felt it was. Hey, it’s going over 3000 mi. an hour,
it’s a UFO guys; there’s nothing else that could do it. I don’t care what anybody says, there
is no other explanation for that [indicating scope photos]. I mean, I don’t believe that we have
the technology today to do what that — ” (Clark 2003, 24). Clark’s
report is not included with the case documents, and it appears that Werlich and
Blue Book staff were unaware of this analysis.
[17] Clark 2003,
22. A few days after the events, B-52 Navigator McCaslin recalls being at
squadron headquarters when target studies officers invited him in to view the
original radarscope film along with “a team from Washington looking at the
incident” (2001, 36-37; 46-47). Also: McCaslin, Patrick, 2000. Transcript of
interview with James Klotz (Sign Oral History Project), 15. In addition, Brad
Runyon recalls that around 1995, while taking a civil services test he ran into
a former high school classmate. During the conversation, he mentioned that he
had been stationed at Minot AFB. In response, the former classmate said that
the CIA had sent him to Minot to investigate an incident between a B-52 and a
UFO. Runyon explained that he was piloting the B-52, and the AF concluded that
what they observed was not a UFO, to which his classmate responded, “They lied.
It was a UFO” (2000, 25). Unfortunately, we have been unable to identify and
locate the former classmate.
[18] Holland
2005, 5-7. See U.S. Air Force Biography for Major General
Ralph T. Holland available from: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5835.
USAF Fact Sheet for the 810th SAD available from: http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10152.
[19] Don Cagle
planned to be in Atlanta for a job interview with Delta Airlines later that
morning. When it became apparent they were being asked to search for a UFO he
excused himself from the flight deck, leaving Maj. Partin and Runyon in charge.
Cagle had missed an appointment with Delta one month earlier, due to an
unannounced Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI). His concern was any direct
involvement with the UFO events would require him to remain at Minot and miss
another opportunity for a new career. Early that morning, he flew to Atlanta
for the interview and was hired by Delta, resigning his commission in Jan.
1969. During recent interviews (7 Nov. 2000; 18 March 2001; and 27 Feb 2005),
he claims to have no recollection of the UFO events. See: Runyon 2000, 9, 26;
and McCaslin 2001, 27-28.
[20] Runyon,
Bradford, Jr., 2005. Transcript of interview by Thomas Tulien, 25 February
(Sign Oral History Project), 20-22. Also: Runyon, Bradford, Jr., 2000. Transcript
of interview by Thomas Tulien and Jan Aldrich, 5 May (Sign Oral History
Project), 15-17. In addition,
Runyon, Bradford, Jr. 2000. UFO Sighting Questionnaire-General Form, 11 February (Center for UFO Studies, Chicago, IL).
Standardization and Evaluation Board (STANBOARD, or STANEVAL) is an instructor
certification given to the most proficient crews in order that they may
administer the standardization program, including flight and ground evaluations
to other squadron members. All of the B-52 crew were certified as instructors
in their respective positions.
[21] McCaslin
2001, 29-33. Also: McCaslin, Patrick, 2000. Interview by Jim Klotz, 11 November
(Sign Oral History Project), 10-11; 18-19. Holland’s story of the Air Police as
recalled by Runyon and McCaslin, may be corroborated by 5th BMW
intelligence officer SSgt. Richard Clark: “I don’t know how accurate it is, and
I can’t remember who I heard it from, but it had to be somebody in the wing. I
heard that they sent a crew out to one of the missile silos after the alarms
went off and something happened to the crew, the motor stopped, the lights went
off — I can’t remember. I don’t even remember which three silos went off. [Three
silos?] Three separate silos went off and they ended up, what I did hear
was that they couldn’t find anything” (2003, 14). B-52 EWO Capt. Goduto also
recalled hearing about security intrusions at three missile sites. “What I
understood, was that the intrusion alarms went off and security reaction teams
responded but they found no locks, or no entries there.” Goduto, Thomas, 2000.
Transcript of interview by Jim Klotz, 22 November (Sign Oral History Project),
5.
[22] Jablonski
recalls: “You could hear them on the radio yelling that this thing was hovering
above them or whatever. And we all went outside. Naturally, me and the other
guy had to respond. On our way to the pickup, you know, everyone else was
outside and you could see it (gestures to sky) — [Do you recall what they told
you they were seeing?]. No, they were hysterical (laughs) like I said. Oh yeah,
you could see it. And me and the other guy got in the pickup and started going
down there…” Jablonski, Joseph, 2005. Transcript of interview by Thomas
Tulien, 22 February (Sign Oral History Project), 10. Also, Bond recalled: “I
remember the combat crew said something about the maintenance team was getting
a little flaky out there and they might need some help from security, because
they were getting a little scared” (2005, 21). O’Connor explained, “[Were you
excited at all during — ?] Apprehensive, I wanted to know what it was I was
seeing — didn’t understand what was going on and just knew that it wasn’t normal.
I just wanted to report to the base that something was happening that I didn’t
know what it was” (2005, 23).
[23]
McCaslin
2001, 29.
An independent report by Minot AFB missile launch commander Larry Manross, is strikingly similar to what Runyon and McCaslin recall being told by Holland in the debriefing. The first part of the following email between Manross and researcher Robert Hastings refers to an incident described in Hastings’ book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites (More UFOs at Minot AFB in 1967-68). Later in the email exchange (See: 8.B.), Manross recounts a story heard from other officers concerning a security team stationed at a missile site, in which a UFO hovered over the site and scared them to death.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Manross
To: Robert Hastings
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: UFOs at Minot
Robert,
Let me clarify my experience for you...it is some 40 years ago.
1. I was in the 742 squadron. The capsules we manned were K,L,M N,O. I was primarily assigned to K or L.
2. I do not remember the name of the senior officer that assignment...he was not the usual commander I was assigned with. He was several years older than I and was a career officer I believe. I was never assigned with him again and don't remember much about him. He may have been in a different squadron. Sometimes they mixed and matched us when they were having scheduling problems. 3. The year was 67 or 68 before I moved up to the commander role.
4. As I stated, I was attempting to sleep while the commander was dealing with security upstairs and the base headquarters regarding some unidentified object. He called for backup when the board lit up on him and then went blank, back to normal.
5. That was when I became engaged. The commander was rattled and so was the security team upstairs. The security team reported that something had buzzed the LCC and that they had gone into a defensive posture, turning out the lights and drawing their weapons. They indicated it was very bright and traveling at a high rate of speed. They did not describe any shape etc...other than it was bright. 6. Base headquarters reported that the unidentified object was no longer on radar and that was the last we heard of it.
7. There was no debriefing...nada. Just another day pulling an alert in Minot. I do remember the senior officer saying something about how I should not talk about the incident without getting authorization. It was the first thing I told my wife when I walked in the door after returning to the base.
8. All the officers talked about ufos and what was going on. As you can imagine there was quite a range of opinions. The stories were rampant including:
A. The security teams sitting on the roof watching for ufos in the evening. This was a common occurrence.
B. The story of a security team stationed at one of the missile launchers because the radar surveillance was out. If the surveillance went down they always stationed a team 24/7 on the site. As the story goes there was an object that scared them to death, as it hovered over the launch pad. They discharged their weapons and claim they heard plinks as the bullets hit the object. As you know, discharging a weapon in the military is considered serious and requires reports etc....Every security team I worked with said it was a true story and had taken place at Minot AFB. They even named the missile launcher where it took place and those who took part in it.
C. The common assumption among many was that the objects were somehow drawing power from the missile warheads.
I hope that this point by point description is helpful for you.
Larry
An independent report by Minot AFB missile launch commander Larry Manross, is strikingly similar to what Runyon and McCaslin recall being told by Holland in the debriefing. The first part of the following email between Manross and researcher Robert Hastings refers to an incident described in Hastings’ book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites (More UFOs at Minot AFB in 1967-68). Later in the email exchange (See: 8.B.), Manross recounts a story heard from other officers concerning a security team stationed at a missile site, in which a UFO hovered over the site and scared them to death.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Manross
To: Robert Hastings
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: UFOs at Minot
Robert,
Let me clarify my experience for you...it is some 40 years ago.
1. I was in the 742 squadron. The capsules we manned were K,L,M N,O. I was primarily assigned to K or L.
2. I do not remember the name of the senior officer that assignment...he was not the usual commander I was assigned with. He was several years older than I and was a career officer I believe. I was never assigned with him again and don't remember much about him. He may have been in a different squadron. Sometimes they mixed and matched us when they were having scheduling problems. 3. The year was 67 or 68 before I moved up to the commander role.
4. As I stated, I was attempting to sleep while the commander was dealing with security upstairs and the base headquarters regarding some unidentified object. He called for backup when the board lit up on him and then went blank, back to normal.
5. That was when I became engaged. The commander was rattled and so was the security team upstairs. The security team reported that something had buzzed the LCC and that they had gone into a defensive posture, turning out the lights and drawing their weapons. They indicated it was very bright and traveling at a high rate of speed. They did not describe any shape etc...other than it was bright. 6. Base headquarters reported that the unidentified object was no longer on radar and that was the last we heard of it.
7. There was no debriefing...nada. Just another day pulling an alert in Minot. I do remember the senior officer saying something about how I should not talk about the incident without getting authorization. It was the first thing I told my wife when I walked in the door after returning to the base.
8. All the officers talked about ufos and what was going on. As you can imagine there was quite a range of opinions. The stories were rampant including:
A. The security teams sitting on the roof watching for ufos in the evening. This was a common occurrence.
B. The story of a security team stationed at one of the missile launchers because the radar surveillance was out. If the surveillance went down they always stationed a team 24/7 on the site. As the story goes there was an object that scared them to death, as it hovered over the launch pad. They discharged their weapons and claim they heard plinks as the bullets hit the object. As you know, discharging a weapon in the military is considered serious and requires reports etc....Every security team I worked with said it was a true story and had taken place at Minot AFB. They even named the missile launcher where it took place and those who took part in it.
C. The common assumption among many was that the objects were somehow drawing power from the missile warheads.
I hope that this point by point description is helpful for you.
Larry
[25] Goduto,
Thomas, 2000. Transcript of interview by Jim Klotz, 22 November (Sign Oral
History Project), 5. In addition: Goduto, Thomas, 2001. Transcript of interview by Thomas Tulien. 20 February (Sign Oral History Project), 27.
[26]
Goduto 2001, 24-27. Judd recalled: “It was to me, and what the
crew always called stuff like that was cover your ass type stuff, you know, in
case somebody happened to ask them.” Judd, Arlie, Jr., 2001. Interview by
Thomas Tulien, 27 February (Sign Oral History Project), 20-21.
[27] Basic
Reporting Data and Format [Teletype], 290428Z OCT 68, SUBJ: UFO REPORT, 7-8. The actual date and time of the document is
Monday, 28 Oct. 10:28 p.m. CST. Daylight Savings ended on 27 Oct and CST offset
from GMT is minus 6 hours.
[28] Smith,
William E., Jr., 2001a. Interview by Jim Klotz, 11 July (Sign Oral History
Project), 8-10. Also: Smith 2001b, 13; 22-23.
[29] Smith
recalls that at the time of the events his capsule crew contacted ADC at Minot
AFS: “From what he was saying they were able to use some radar manipulations,
and see something operating 50 miles above where we were in the general
vicinity — they couldn’t pinpoint it, but they said 50 miles above” (2001b, 13).
[30] “The UFO is
being picked up by the weathers [sic]
radar also, should be your 1:00 [o’clock] position three miles” (Transcription,
0852).
[31] Memo for the Record, 1 November 1968a, Subj: Telephone conversation of 31 Oct 68, Col
Werlich - Lt Marano, 4. In addition, Col.
Weyant in Operations at SAC/HQ told Lt. Marano “he was trying to determine
whether ADC had any known phenomena on radar” (Memo, 28 Oct. 1968b).
[32] Memo for the Record, 8 November 1968. Subj: Minot AFB Sightings; and Memo, 14 Nov. 1968, Telephone
call of 13 Nov 68 to Minot AFB.
[33]
Regarding
ADC’s non-confirmatory posture: In the late 1960s, Grover Austad worked
as an
FAA controller in the SAGE building at Malmstrom AFB, MT.
[Semi-automatic
Ground Environment was a computer-based network of defense radars]. In a
telephone interview conducted by Robert Hastings in December 2003, he
recalled
his involvement in the radar tracking of a UFO: “One night this object
came on the radar and it was
moving at tremendous speed. We estimated that it was flying about 2,400
mph.
Now, the controllers who worked at SAGE knew about the SR-71 — even
though it was
still secret. But this thing, whatever it was, was even faster than
that.” Austad continued, “So I called ADC — that’s Air Defense Command —
to see if they had it too. The controller I talked to [affirmed],
‘Yeah, I see it, but UFOs don’t exist, do they?’ Then he laughed. The
object played around for a few minutes. It zigzagged back-and-forth,
covering hundreds of miles. Then it disappeared off the scope.”
Austad said that this tracking — and similar ones that he heard about
involving
other FAA controllers at Malmstrom — were formally logged, and reported
to the
ADC radar unit at SAGE. “We always told them about what we saw [on
radar], but
they never gave us any feedback.” (This account was personally provided
to this author by Robert Hastings).
[34] Blue Book
was a low-priority project with minimal staff headed by a relatively
low-ranking officer. Generally, sighting reports were not classified higher
than Restricted. Information on
security classification levels from: http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist2/chap_7.html.
[35] On 26 October 1962, at Malmstrom AFB, MT, the first
operational-ready Minuteman I missile went on "strategic alert" after
it was discovered the Soviet Union had placed nuclear missiles in Cuba. Over
the next four days, the 10th Strategic Missile Squadron placed four more
missiles on alert, with the last missile from Alpha-flight achieving alert
status 10 November. The Soviets eventually removed their missiles from Cuba.
Later, President Kennedy said the Soviets backed down because they knew he had
an “Ace in the Hole,” referring directly to the Minuteman missiles of the l0th
SMS. In November 1960, the USS George Washington (SSBN-598) became the first ballistic missile submarine
to enter service with 16 Polaris A-1 missiles. Between 1960-1966, forty more
submarines entered service.
[36] When
President Dwight D. Eisenhower received his first report on the SIOP 62 (for
fiscal year 1962), he commented that it “frighten[ed] the devil out of me.” An
excellent history of the creation and evolution of the SIOP, including many
declassified documents, is available from the National Security Archive
website: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB130/index.htm#1.
In the documents section, see Document
28: Headquarters, Strategic Air Command, History & Research Division, History
of the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff: Background and Preparation of
SIOP-62, n.d.,
available from: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB130/SIOP-28.pdf.
[37] Gen. Stewart was assigned to Headquarters Strategic Air Command,
Offutt AFB, NE, as Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence in June 1966. See
USAF Biographies from: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7265.
[38] Memo for the Record, 30 October 1968a, Subj: Telephone conversation [on 29 October]
with Col. Pullen, Hq SAC. SSO-SAC is the
acronym for the Special Security Office at Strategic Air Command headquarters.
Originally, the SSO was under the authority of the United
States Air Force Security Service (a subsidiary to the National Security
Agency), responsible for devising encrypted communications capabilities
and providing security support to military commands and other organizations
receiving intelligence and communications. In 1965, the SSO functions
transferred to the major user commands (MAJCOM). Within the commands, the
primary function of the SSO officer is the management of Special Access
Programs (SAP), and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), in which even
the extra protection measures applied to Top Secret information are not
sufficient. The term refers
to a method of handling certain types of classified information that relate to
specific national security topics or programs whose existence is not publicly
acknowledged, or of a sensitive nature requiring special handling. These
“need-to-know” classifications necessitate a special “SCI access,” or SAP
approval, before anyone can gain access to this information. For additional information see: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Compartmented_control_system.
[40] “Col Wyatt
[Weyant] said he gave Col Werlich the guidance and he guessed that Col Werlich
got our telephone number out of the regulation” (Memo, 28 Oct. 1968b).
[41] Memo, 1
Nov. 68a, 4, 6. We have been unable to locate any information whatsoever on a
General by the name “Hollingsworth” in USAF records and SAC rosters for the
period. It is possible that
Werlich is referring to SAC Commander in Chief, Gen. Bruce K. Holloway, however
it seems unlikely that the Commander in Chief would brief the Vice Commander.
See USAF Biographies for Lt.
Gen. Keith Compton from: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5051.
Gen. Bruce K. Holloway became Commander in Chief of SAC (CINCSAC) on 1 Aug.
1968. See: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5837.
[42] Teletype,
AFSSO FTD to SSO SAC, 012014Z (1 Nov. 1968c), TO COL PULLEN SSO SAC, FROM LT
COL QUINTANILLA REFERENCE OUR TELECON.
Perhaps Quintanilla was motivated to respond to Pullen’s request after learning
of the SAC commander’s debriefing the previous day.
[43] Teletype, SSO
SAC to AFSSO FTD, 071540Z (7 Nov.
1968), REFERENCE YOUR TDPT MESSAGE REGARDING MINOT AFB UFO. Quintanilla completed the report on 13 November, and
forwarded a copy to the Special Security Office at SAC headquarters.
[45]
Transcription, 0904-0921. Runyon recalled: “We proceeded on to the base and
then we had a General officer came on the radio and told us to go back and — but,
I mean, he could have been patched in from anyplace — he told us to go back and
fly over the object. I really don’t remember whether we had film in our Bombay
cameras, but we were supposed to take over and fly — over fly the thing and
observe it and take pictures if we could”
(2000, 11). In addition Runyon recalls: “Before we could tell the ground
people we wanted to land someone came over the radios, and said, he didn’t say
‘This is General such-and-such,’ he just said, they said, ‘General
such-and-such wants you to go back around and over fly the object’” (2005, 14).
Furthermore: Runyon 2000, 23-24; McCaslin 2000, 7-8; and Goduto 2001, 18-19.
[48] Runyon 2000, 14, 23. Also, Runyon, UFO
Sighting Questionnaire - General Form; and Runyon 2005, 16, 18.
[49] Partin,
James 2001. Transcript of interview by Jim Klotz, 20 January (Sign Oral History
Project), 4.
[50] McCaslin,
Patrick D., 2000. Transcript of interview with Jim Klotz, 11 November (Sign
Oral History Project), 8.
[51]
Transcription, 0921+. Runyon also questioned the transcription: “They have
changed some things, added and deleted and I’m pretty sure some headings were
wrong there” (2005, 17).The final time entry of “0928 [4:28]: JAG 31 on final for landing” is erroneous. In
our reconstruction of the flight track, the B-52 has turned onto the base leg
at about 4:28, and on final approach at about 4:30:40-4:33:40 for a “full stop”
(engines off) at 4:40.
[52] For
comparison see the communications transcripts contained in the “B-52H Aircraft
Mishap Report, 4 October 1968” (Headquarters, Air Force Safety Center, Judge Advocate
Mishap Records Division [AFSC/JAR], Kirtland AFB, NM). The Transcription
of Recorded Conversations begins when the
B-52 (FOG 31) is approximately 600 miles east of Minot, under control of
Minneapolis, and subsequently Great Falls Air Route Traffic Control Centers
(ARTCC). It covers a period of time from 0256-0852Z before passing to Minot approach
control. The Aircraft Accident Transcription-Minot Approach Control covers the period from 0842-0907Z. The communications span a
period of 6 hours, the jargon is accurate, and time references are precise to
increments of seconds.
[53] Background
summary abridged from: Sign Oral History Project, “History
of the United States Air Force UFO Programs (1947-1969),” In
particular: http://sohp.us/sign_oral_history_project/usaf/a_turning_point_in_the_controversy.php.
Condon’s conclusion was “That
nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to
scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to
us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be
justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.”
On 17 December 1969, Secretary of the Air Force, Robert C. Seamans, Jr.
announced the closure of Project Blue Book, echoing Condon that its
continuation “cannot be justified either on the ground of national security or
in the interest of science.” See: Air Force to Terminate Project “Blue Book”.
[54] United
States. Department of the Air Force. Research and Development. Air Force
Regulation No. 80-17, “Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO)”. Washington D. C.: 19 September 1966. (Courtesy of
Jim Klotz). Also, AFR 80-17 with changes and attachment at: http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/appndx-b.html.
AFR 80-17 superseded AFR 200-2, 20 July 1962, which had been revised since 26 August 1953.
[55] In this instance,
Werlich’s “comments and conclusions” comprise the last four pages of the Basic
Reporting Data (8-page Teletype).
[56] Memo for
the Record, 24 October 1968, Subject: UFO Observation, 1. Major General Edward M. Nichols Jr. was vice
commander of the Fifteenth Air Force, one of the Strategic Air Command’s three
numbered Air Force command units with jurisdiction over SAC bases in the
Midwest region. See U.S. Air Force Biographies at: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6604.
Regarding the Fifteenth Air Force, see Archives section: www.minotb52ufo.com/archives.php#15thaf.
[57] Memo, 24
Oct. 68, 1-2.
[58] Jablonski,
Joseph P., Air Force Form 117 (AF-117), Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena
Questionnaire, 25 October 1968, 8. In addition: Jablonski 2005, 16.
[60] According
to Smith: “I was debriefed by somebody within our command structure on base,
and talked to somebody from Operation [Project] Blue Book that came out. I’m
not sure when we got back, but we were told that we were not to talk to
anybody, not to talk to any of the press especially about this incident — that
people would be coming and checking with us. The only people we could talk to
were people within our chain of command. So, when the person, I think he was a
Lieutenant Colonel [Werlich], that’s what I remembered. For some reason I
thought he had come from some other — because I didn’t know him. He interviewed
me and from what I understood some people — I was briefed on this — were going to
be coming out and setting up campers. Some of our camper crews had told us, and
some of our officers had told us, that they had seen lights up at Oscar-2. A
lot. So, when I briefed him on that he literally took a camper and went out
there for a while. I think he spent some time on some of our sites. We were
told that he would be out near our sites, to be aware that he’s there
and don’t bother him. We could identify him if we wanted to, but as long as he
was not on the property, he was OK. And I think he spent some time up near
Oscar-2, because we’d had some sightings up there.” Smith, William E., Jr.,
2001b. Interview by Thomas Tulien and Jim Klotz, 25 August (Sign Oral History
Project), 22.
[61] O’Connor
recalls being awoken early on 24 October by the desk clerk in his barracks, and
instructed to go to Base Operations for a debriefing. However, both AF-117’s
specify they were completed on Monday, 28 October. O’Connor, Robert M. 2005.
Transcript of interview by Thomas Tulien (Sign Oral History Project), 15-17.
Isley, Lloyd M. 2001. Transcript of interview by Thomas Tulien and Jim Klotz
(Sign Oral History Project), 15-16.
[62] Partin,
James A., Air Force Form 117 (AF-117), Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena
Questionnaire, 30 October 1968, 8. It is
unknown how Werlich received the information concerning Partin’s air-visual
observation in the Basic Reporting Data (7). His account contains several
discrepancies compared to the information submitted by Partin in his AF-117.
[64] Wing
Security Controller summary, On 24 Oct 68 the following personnel, n.d. In
addition, the O-6 Camper Team of R. McDowell and W. Johnson are listed as
personnel who observed the UFO. No time is given. Werlich appears to be unaware
that reporting began with the Camper Team (and Target Alignment Team) at 2:15
a.m. (Smith, AF-117, 5). Note: under “Additional Ground Observers” in the Basic
Reporting Data he includes a location “7 miles south of Renville,” which is the
location of O-6 (2-3). Also, both Smith and the maintenance team first reported
the UFO at 2:30; however, Werlich notes the time of the initial observation
(only by the maintenance team) incorrectly as 0800Z (3:00 CDT) (2).
[65] During
their initial phone conversation on 24 October, Quintanilla requested that
Werlich compute the “azimuth and elevation from the fourteen witnesses to
determine if they were looking at the same object.” This request was never specifically
followed through.
[66] Memo for
the Record, 28 October 1968a, SUBJECT: 24 Oct 68 UFO Sighting from Minot
AFB, N.D.
[68] Basic
Reporting Data, 1. The TWX date is 29 October 1968 at 0428Z. Daylight Saving
Time ended on Sunday 27 October, and CST offset from GMT for Minot is now minus
6 hours. He transmits the Basic Reporting Data to Air Defense Command, Ent AFB,
Colorado; Air Division (Defense) at Malmstrom, AFB, Montana; Foreign Technology
Division (FTD) at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; and Chief of Staff, USAF (CSAF)
for Air Force Research and Development Command (AFRDC), and Secretary of the
Air Force, Office of Information (SAF-OI).
[69] Memo for
the Record, 29 October 1968, Subject: UFO Sighting, 24 Oct 68, Minot AFB.
[70] These are two
of Blue Book’s standard default explanations, (also referred to by Blue Book
scientific consultant Dr. J. Allen Hynek, as a “poverty of hypotheses”). Firstly, if
only one radar system paints a UFO, it is always possible that it was a result
of a malfunction. The second requires some basic understanding of atmospheric
physics. In the lower atmosphere, air (gas) temperature cools as it rises and
the pressure decreases. This is referred to as an adiabatic lapse rate. Under
certain conditions, a
warmer (less dense) air mass moves over a cooler (denser) air mass, inverting
the normal adiabatic lapse rate. In some instances,
electromagnetic waves propagating from radar can be refracted off the temperature inversion boundary
layer to the ground, (then back to the original source) resulting in anomalous
radar returns. Thus, if radar paints a UFO, and an inversion was present at the
time, it is always possible that it was a result of anomalous propagation.
[71] Memo, 30
Oct. 1968a. Quintanilla responded to Pullen through the Special Security Office
on Friday 1 November, but did not provide examples of comparable UFO incidents
involving other aircraft. Presumably, the attachment #3-2 (Eielson AFB, Alaska,
11 July 1968) to his final report on 13 November was intended to be a
comparable radar-visual UFO sighting, even though no aircraft were involved.
Blue Book concluded that the Eielson AFB RAPCON radar detection was probably
caused by anomalous propagation, and visual sightings by the tower personnel
located 35 miles west of Eielson at Murphy’s Dome were probably astronomical
(the full moon).
[72] Memo for
the Record, 30 October 1968b, Subj: Need for Additional Info on Minot
Sighting, 1-2.
[73] Memo, 1
Nov. 68a, 6-7.
[76] “The object
was first seen in the southern part of my area by a posted sentry. I directed
my gaze south of my position and saw the object about 15 minutes after my
sentry sighted it” (Smith, AF-117, 5). The (security) camper team would report
to Smith, while the targeting team would report to the capsule crew in the
Oscar-LCC.
[78] Smith,
AF-117, 8.
[79] Wing
Security Controller summary; and Bond, AF-117, 8. The 91st Strategic
Missile Wing maintains a distinct, control communications network linking all
15 underground Launch Control Centers (each manned by two Missile Combat Crew
Commanders, or capsule crew) with Wing
Security Control, and by extension, SAC/HQ, Offutt AFB, NE. The network
provided a secure communications channel and means to monitor the real-time
status and security of all 150 missiles. The MCCCs would communicate directly
with the Flight Security Controller, aboveground in the Launch Control
Facility, who provided the security requirements for the 10 Launch Facilities
(missile silos) encircling the LCF. The Launch Support Building was separate
from the silo and housed electrical distribution equipment, a back-up
generator, and brine chiller to maintain temperature and humidity-controlled
air for the launch equipment in the silo. Bruce Ecker’s spherical panoramic
image of a 1963 Launch Support Building at Ellsworth, AFB is available from: http://nonplused.org/panos/minuteman/html/delta09_support.html.
[80] In his AF-117, Bond notes his initial
observation at 3:08 (1), and that he is certain the length of time was 2 hours
26 minutes (3), for a total period (2:15-5:34) of 3 hours 19 minutes.
[82] See: “Discrepancies and Omissions in the Transcription
of Recorded Conversations” (3:30-3:35 (0830-0835Z)).
[83] “My memory
is about 3:00 in the morning we showed up at Minot, and the reason I think we
were coming from Grand Forks, my memory is that we were coming from the east to
the west and flew an approach of some kind to the runway, did a low approach as
I remember it” (McCaslin 2001, 11).
[84] Runyon 2005, 8.
In order to avoid flying over the base and missile complex, within a
50-mile radius surrounding Minot AFB the only open country is to the
east and northeast.
[85] Basic
Reporting Data, 3-4. In addition, “THE B-52 AIRCRAFT, OPERATING IN THE LOCAL
AREA, REPORTED A HEAVY HAZE CONDITION AT FL200 DOWN TO 10,000 FEET” (4). Later,
during the time of the B-52 air-radar encounter, Werlich notes, “WHATEVER
CAUSED THE ECHO WAS NOT VISUALLY SIGHTED BY THE AIRCRAFT CREW MEMBERS NOR WAS
IT SEEN BY THE TOWER OPERATOR WHO WAS FOLLOWING THE AIRCRAFT PROGRESS THROUGH
BINOCULARS. DUE TO HEAVY HAZE AND SEVERAL CLOUD LAYERS, THE AIRCRAFT WAS NOT
VISIBLE THROUGHOUT THE APPROACH” (7).
[86] Memo, 1
Nov. 68a, 1.
[87] Memo, 1
Nov. 68a, 3.
[90]
Basic Reporting Data, 4. “(B) 0355 CDT — RADAR 9,000 FEET
OVERCAST, VISIBILITY 25 STATUE MILES, TEMPERATURE 32, DEW POINT 29, WIND 160
DEGREES 4 KNOTS ALTIMETER SETTING 20.12 INCHES, RADAR CLOUD TOPS, OVERCAST
24,700 FEET.” Roughly, half of the B-52 approach would be below 9,000 feet.
[91] Base
Operations Dispatcher log, 24 October 1968, 0800. Object S/E of N-7, 0830-0844.
[92] Maj.
Partin’s description in his AF-117 varies somewhat compared to Werlich’s. He
noted, “It looked like a miniature sun placed on the ground below the aircraft”
(7); and “As I turned on to the downwind leg in the traffic pattern I saw a
bright orange ball of light at my one o’clock position” (4). In his drawing, he
noted an “orange ball of light” and “a very dim ring of soft white light”
projecting from the object to the right side (6). He did not describe the
object having “AN ORANGE SPOT” or the body appearing “TO BE A BRIGHT WHITE
LIGHT.”
[93] Basic
Reporting Data, 1-2.
[94] See: Discrepancies and Omissions in the Transcription
of Recorded Conversations 3:30-3:35 (0830-0835Z).
[95]
Transcription, 0830.
[96] Basic
Reporting Data, 5-6. Werlich refers to the procedure as a “VOR penetration.”
VOR is the acronym for VHF Omni-directional Radio Range, which in combination
with Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) provides range and bearing information
for civil aviation, comparable to, though less accurate than, the military’s
Tactical Air Navigation system (TACAN). “Penetration” is a colloquial term that
refers to departing FL200 and “penetrating” the airspace under the control of
Minot AFB radar approach control (RAPCON).
[97] Transcription,
0834-0835.
[98]
Transcription, 0852.
[100] Basic
Reporting Data, 3. Also, Werlich
Overlay Map. When RAPCON notified the B-52 of the weather radar detection at
3:52, they would have been about 34 nmi northwest (at an average speed of 255
knots).
[102] McCaslin
2001, 18-19. In addition: McCaslin 2000, 7; Runyon 2005, 9-10; and Werlich Overlay Map.
[103] Memo, 24
Oct. 1968, 1. Note: Werlich’s 3000 mph estimate is an average minimal speed.
For example, prior to the closure, the UFO was pacing the B-52 at three miles
while matching the forward speed at about 300 mph. It then altered course
(about 45 degrees per Werlich’s map) and would have accelerated to 6000 mph,
before decelerating back to 300 mph while altering its course to resume pacing
the B-52 at one mile. The change of position occurred within one 3-second sweep
of the radar.
[104] Basic
Reporting Data, 6. In response to Werlich’s account, McCaslin stated, “Okay,
that’s at variance with what I say because I saw it on the way out” (2001, 48).
[106] Whether
Werlich actually sent the RAPCON TAPES,
or the transcription included in the Blue Book file is unknown. VFR rules
govern flight during periods of good visibility and limited cloud cover (i.e.,
a pilot’s ability to fly and navigate by looking out the windows of the
airplane). Aircraft flying under the VFR system are not required to be in
contact with air traffic controllers. In this instance, Werlich’s statement is
unclear. Perhaps he is referring to the point where the pilot takes over
visually during landing.
[107] Memo, 1
Nov. 68a, 4. SIF/IFF [Selective Identification Feature/Identification Friend or
Foe] is an electronic
radio-based identification system using transponders, which can also determine
bearing and range from the interrogator. SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground
Environment) was a nation-wide network of advanced computer-based,
automated control centers for air defense. Developed and implemented in the
1950s and 1960s, by the
time SAGE was operational the Soviet bomber threat was replaced by the Soviet
missile threat, for which SAGE was entirely inadequate. In 1958, Air Defense Command established a SAGE Sector
Direction Center at Minot AFB, including a site at Minot AFS, which were only
active from June 1961-May 1963. Regarding the B-52 ECM capabilities see: Goduto
2001, 9-10. Actually, ECM was powered up during the UFO encounter, see: Goduto 2001,
12-14.
[110] Transcription, 0904.
[112]
Transcription, 0900-0902.
[113] Regarding
the B-52’s radio systems: “I want to explain the UHF antennas — there was radio 1
and radio 2 UHF. The antennas for those were located on different parts of the
airplane. One was low and forward, and the other was up in the back. The reason
for that was a lot of times the UHF radio reception and transmission quality
was [better] using one, depending on where you were relative to one site or the
other” (Goduto 2001, 11-12).
[114] Memo, 1
Nov. 68a, 4-5. “Mayday Squawk” refers to the activation of the SIF/IFF
transponder’s "ident" button, which results in the aircraft's blip "blossoming"
on the controller’s radarscope. In this instance, the ident feature was used to
determine if the radio
failure was only one way, and whether the pilot could still receive. The
accident Werlich refers to occurred on 4 Oct. involving a B-52H that had lost
radio contact during approach. Due
to engine failure, the aircraft spun out of control and crashed killing four
crewmembers. The “USAF Accident Report” is included in the Archive section.
[116] According
to Runyon: “Okay, well it went off again, because the controllers were asking
me if we had it and so forth. I’m talking to them. Then, after we went by it
and turned towards the runway again then the radios came back in. Of course,
they had me change and trying different frequencies, but there wasn’t anything
wrong with the radios (2000, 14).”
[117] Centre National d’Etudes
Spatiales (CNES) French space agency scientist and astronomer, Dr.
Claude Poher recently considered this problem in terms of plasma physics. See:
Claude Poher, “5-9. The Loss of VHF Transmissions,” in Analysis
of Radar and Air-Visual UFO Observations on 24 October 1968 at Minot Air Force
Base, ND (2005).
[118] See:
Claude Poher, “3.4. Refining the B-52 Position With Terrain Features,” in Analysis of Radar and Air-Visual UFO Observations on 24
October 1968 at Minot Air Force Base, ND
(2005). Resolving the B-52 altitude in radarscope photo #783, see:
Poher, “4.7. Discussion 1: The B-52 Altitude and the Tilt-up Angle of the Radar Antenna.”
[121] O’Connor,
AF-117, 3. Isley: “A B-52 was in the same area as the object, just before the
object left our view” (AF-117, 3). Adams: “B-52 bomber heard approximately 45
minutes after seeing UFO. B-52 west and much higher than UFO” (AF-117, 3).
Also: O’Connor 2005, 11-13.
[122] Jablonski,
AF-117, 7. At N-7, Jablonski’s impression of the distance to the UFO was 3-5
miles to the south-southeast ( 2, 7). The shortest distance to the B-52’s flight track was about 5 miles to the
southwest. In addition, Claude Poher’s analysis of the radarscope photos
locates the B-52 west-southwest of N-7 about 6.5 miles, at an altitude of 8865
feet.
[123] Jablonski:
Just prior to our sighting the diverted B-52 in the WSW the object had
descended gradually and for 1 minute or 2 had appeared to be obstructed by
trees… . When the B-52 flew in the vicinity (SSE) it was no longer seen in
that location. (AF-117, 5, 9). Adams: “Right before the B-52 was seen. The UFO
descended gradually behind what could have been trees. Hard to say about trees
it was so dark” (AF-117, 5); and “B-52 west and much higher than UFO” (3). Isley: “It [UFO] went low and out of sight in the southeast” (AF-117, 5).
[124] Base
Operations Dispatcher log, 0926-1010.
[125]
Jablonski,
AF-117, 5; and Adams, AF-117, 5. Bond: “Appeared to land and slowly changed to
a dim green, after about 15 minutes it disappeared (gradually)” (AF-117, 5). In addition, see the map Ground Observations: until 5:18 (or 5:34).
Note that at 4:26 the B-52 was on the downwind leg of the traffic
pattern observing the stationary UFO ahead, on or near the ground, and
at 4:40 has come to a full stop with engines off.
[126]
Transcription, 0904-0913. There are no entries in the
Base Operations dispatcher’s log after 3:58 until 4:26.
[127] Runyon
2000, 11; Runyon 2005, 14; McCaslin 2001, 22; and Goduto 2001, 19-20. See: 2.
“Discrepancies and Omissions in the Transcription
of Recorded Conversations 4:04-4:21 (0904-0921Z).”
[128]
Transcription, 0921. “Terminal landing” and “full stop” refer to the B-52 being
parked with the engines turned off. In a personal communication with this
author, Runyon explained his request to RAPCON: “ I'm asking for headings and
altitudes under instrument flight rules [IFR] for a surveillance approach, in
which the radar controller will tell me if I am left or right of the proper
course for landing, but does not give glide slope info. I am asking him to
adjust my pattern based upon my speed so I can land at 40 minutes past the
hour.”
[129] See: 3.
“Discrepancies and Omissions in the Transcription
of Recorded Conversations 4:21-4:40 (0921-0940Z).”
[130]
Transcription, 0921-end [0928].
[131] Runyon
also questioned the credibility of the Transcription: “I know, it confuses me
too. They have changed some things, added, and deleted, and I’m pretty sure
some headings were wrong there” (2005, 17).
[132] Partin,
AF-117, 1, 4. Our reconstruction of the flight path indicates the air-visual
observations occurred at roughly 4:24-4:28. Again, suggesting the B-52 onboard
time was ahead by 6-7 minutes. Also, the location of the “first visual
sighting” is actually north of Minot
AFB.
[134] Basic Reporting
Data, 3. Werlich did not plot the second
go-around, possibly because the time references and vector for the
downwind leg are absent from the communications transcript. Our reconstruction
of the second traffic pattern reveals an additional 1-3 minutes of flight time
compared to the first, allowing for the extension of the second pattern further
out to the north and/or west.
[135] Basic
Reporting Data, 7. Werlich also noted the location of the B-52: “VISUAL
SIGHTING DATA: 3200 FEET MSL, 335 DEGREES MH [Magnetic Heading], APPROXIMATELY
180 IAS” (2). In a personal communication with this author, Runyon explained:
GCA is a ground-controlled approach including precision and surveillance
approaches. The precision approach provides corrections right and left and above
and below a predetermined glide path to the runway. During surveillance
approach, the ground controller only gives heading corrections and it is up to
the aircrew to determine their own rate of descent.
[137] Partin
2001, 2-4. Werlich also states in the Basic Reporting Data that Partin was
“SITTING IN THE RIGHT SEAT” (7). In fact, Partin was piloting the B-52 from the
left seat, and it would be highly unusual if not prohibitive for him to unstrap
and change seats with the co-pilot — particularly while piloting the B-52 at low
altitude. He reiterates this memory later in the interview: “Thinking back, I
could have unstrapped and raised up and looked over the right side, but it
seems like I was sitting on the right in the co-pilot’s seat” (4).
[139] “The
pilots talked about seeing something down there, and my impression was that we
overflew it” (McCaslin 2001, 24). Also, “I heard the pilots say something like
‘holy shit look at this,’ or something like that. They indicated there was
something on the ground, they were talking back and forth about it, apparently
we flew right over the thing” (McCaslin 2000, 8).
[140] McCaslin
2000, 12-13. In addition: “At that briefing it was described as an orangish,
elliptically-shaped object — not perfectly circular, but elliptically-shaped,
with kind of a halo — a boomerang-shaped exhaust, if you will, of the same color,
slightly separated from the elliptical shape. I didn’t see it, so I just go with what the pilot said, but
that’s what I was told. And that’s my memory of what General Holland was told”
(McCaslin 2001, 30). Goduto recalls, “Brad’s description that came over
intercom was it was kind of a reddish, orangish football shape” (2001, 19-22).
[141] Basic
Reporting Data, 8. PARA. A(6) reads: “WHEN VIEWED FROM ABOVE BY A B-52 CREW, THE OBJECT [HAD A] FAINTLY
WHITE OBLONG HALO ON ONE SIDE WITH AN ORANGE SPOT ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THE
BODY APPEARED TO BE A BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT. ONE SOURCE DESCRIBED THE OBJECT, AS
SEEN FROM THE GROUND ALMOST OVERHEAD, TO BE SIMILAR IN GENERAL OUTLINE TO A
STING RAY FISH” (2).
[142] Partin
also provides the curious recollection that at about the same time as the B-52
overflight of the UFO, “the Air Police [missile security personnel] saw something
in the same vicinity and then they heard this I believe they phrased it as a
60-cycle per second hum I guess, like electric motors or something. Of course,
we could hear nothing where we were. And then all of a sudden it was gone”
(2001, 3).
[144] At the
time the B-52 pilots were on the downwind leg observing the stationary UFO
ahead of the aircraft, the dispatcher notes an observation ostensibly by Bond:
“4:26. Object direct S/W of N 1 moving north then lights went out.”
Following this, he notes the B-52 radar encounter and first go-around of the traffic pattern, but appears to be
completely unaware of the second go-around and air-visual observation. “A B-52 went out to location of
sighting and saw object and had on radar 20,000 feet. Object followed B-52 to
fifteen miles from base. During this time B-52 lost radio contact on all
frequencies. At this time N-7 lost sight of object. B-52 went around again and
negative contact. 4:40. B-52 landed. 4:40. N-7 picked up object again 3 miles west
of site … ” (0926-0940).
[145] Memo, 1
Nov. 68a, 1-2.
[146] Missile
security was monitored by the Missile Combat Crew Commanders (capsule crew) in
the underground Launch Control Center, and by extension to the 91st
SMW, Security Control, and SAC/HQ. The MCCCs would communicate directly
with
the Flight Security Controller, who was in charge of the aboveground
Launch Control Facility, while providing physical security requirements
for the 10 remote missile Launch Facilities encircling the LCF.
[147] Smith
2001b, 6, 14; and Jablonski 2005, 8-9. In our initial interview with Smith he
explains that he accompanied his crew to O-6: “We went through that whole
process, and I was with my crew when they did that — as supervisor I decided that
I needed to go out there and find out what's going on. I stayed with the crew,
which I didn't have to being in charge of security. Anyway, that is how I knew
what went on (2001a, 8-10).
[148] Basic
Reporting Data, 7-8.
[150] The 91st
The 91st
Strategic Missile Wing, Command Post, or Missile Support Base (MSB), provides
logistics support and control communications for the 740th, 741st
and 742nd Strategic Missile Squadrons, consisting of 15 Launch
Control Centers (LCCs) at Minot AFB. Three Squadron Command Post (SCP) LCCs,
serve as command units for their respective squadron within the wing, and
report directly to the Wing Command Post. One SCP serves as the Alternate
Command Post (ACP) for the Wing Command Post. The other 12 LCCs are designated
as primary LCCs. The four primary LCCs within each squadron report to their
respective command post (SCP). View the 91st Strategic Missile Wing, Hardened Intersite Cable System Connectivity Map.
[151] Available
in the Archives section: Department of the Air Force. History of 91st
Strategic Missile Wing, 1 October - 31 December 1968, Minot AFB, ND, 32-33.
[152] Memo, 1
Nov. 68a, 1-2. Earlier in the conversation Werlich made the off-hand remark:
“This weekend I would like to go down with a Geiger counter and go down to the
OSCAR-7 break in” (1). Apparently, he was aware that investigators detected
abnormal radiation readings on the site, but apparently he did not inform Blue
Book of this detail. His daughters recall that he did go to O-7 and detected
abnormal readings. See: Oral History Conversation with Kim Werlich-Flippo and Melody Werlich-Gibson.
[159] In July
1968, a research assistant to the University of Colorado UFO study, Herbert
Strentz, queried Quintanilla regarding the nature of the Blue Book
investigations: “We collect data. It’s a misnomer to think we investigate.”
Because this was contrary to Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Thomas D. White’s
statement that “all unidentified flying object sightings are investigated in
meticulous detail by Air Force personnel and qualified scientific consultants,”
Quintanilla was asked to clarify his statement: “We are more or less a
collection agency… . We contact everybody we can with regards to trying to
identify the stimulus which caused the observer to report a UFO sighting,
however, this is not really investigating, this is checking details. We do use
scientific disciplines to evaluate the information, however, this is an after
the fact evaluation. We have only subjective statements made by the witnesses
to work with … but we are not empowered to check the individuals
background…Collection is part of the investigative process and we accept
the data as fact, however, we seldom really complete the cycle… . You don’t
really do much investigating when you check out satellite observations,
astronomical observations, moving lights, weather balloons, etc.” In addition: “We have certain
characteristics for sightings…characteristics for astronomical reports,
aircraft, balloons. If any of these (UFO reports) have characteristics that
fall into such categories, the plausible answer is that it (the UFO) was that.
… Sometimes there is a thin line in classifying a UFO, but if it falls in
the category, it’s in the category. You can quibble… . But I cut them off
when I think we’ve got the answer.” Herbert J. Strentz, “A Survey of Press
Coverage of Unidentified Flying Objects, 1947- 1966” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern
University, 1970), 216-217; 224. In addition, see: Quintanilla's unpublished manuscript entitled, “UFO's: An Air Force Dilemma.”
[160] Memo for
the Record, 1 November 1968b, Talked to Mr. Goff, TDPA.
[161]
Teletype,
012014Z (1 November 1968), TO COLONEL PULLEN SSO SAC. FROM LT COL
QUINTANILLA (AFSSO FTD).
[162] See:
Martin D. Altschuler, “Atmospheric Electricity and Plasma Interpretations of
UFOs,” in Daniel S. Gilmore, ed.,
Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York; Bantam Books, 1969), 1164-1172. Available from: http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap07.htm#s7. Additional information regarding ball lightning and its various properties from: http://amasci.com/tesla/ballgtn.htm.
[163] For a
compilation of anecdotal reports of ball lightning see: http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/bl.html. See also: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/ball_lightning.html.
[164] J. J.
Lowke, “A Theory of Ball Lightning as an Electrical Discharge,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 29
(1996), 1237-1244. Available from: http://www.australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2000/docs/0006-02.htm.
More BL theories from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=periodically-i-hear-stori
[165] “Plasma
UFO Conference” in Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, from:
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap07.htm#s18.
This case is referred to as the RB-47 Radar/Visual case, which occurred over
the southern U.S. in July 1957. See: http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/case05.html; and http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm. Brad Sparks’ seminal work on the case
is included in: Jerome Clark, The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon From The Beginning (Vol. 2) (Detroit: Omnigraphics Books, 1998), 761-790. In addition,
atmospheric physicist, Dr. James McDonald, refutes Klass’
plasma-UFO theory in a presentation to the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute, Astronautics Symposium,
Montreal, Canada, March 12, 1968. Available from: http://web.archive.org/web/20080907132128/http://ufologie.net/htm/mcdonaldca.htm.
[166] Teletype,
SSO SAC to AFSSO FTD, 071540Z (7
Nov. 1968), REFERENCE YOUR TDPT MESSAGE REGARDING MINOT AFB UFO.
[167] Hector
Quintanilla, Jr., 13 November 1968, UFO Observation, 24 October 1968 (final case report with attachments).
[168]
For an example of the precision that was possible see: “B-52H Aircraft Mishap Report,
4 October 1968”
(Headquarters, Air Force Safety Center, Judge Advocate Mishap Records Division [AFSC/JAR], Kirtland AFB, NM). The TRANSCRIPTION OF RECORDED CONVERSATIONS
begins when the B-52 (FOG 31) is approximately 600 miles east of Minot,
under control of Minneapolis, and subsequently Great Falls Air Route
Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC). It covers a period of time from
0256-0852Z before passing to Minot approach control. [Note: this
document is in two parts in reverse order.]
The AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT TRANSCRIPTION-MINOT APPROACH CONTROL
covers the period from 0842-0907Z. The communications span a period of 6
hours, the jargon is accurate, and time references are precise to
increments of seconds.
[169] Project
Blue Book chief Lt. Col. Hector Quintanilla wrote an unpublished manuscript
concerning his Blue Book experiences, entitled, UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma (1974).
The final chapter provides Blue Book statistical data based on UFO reports
received for the years 1953-69 (1968 at p. 117 of online PDF version).
[170] See for
examples the AF-117 Questionnaires for: Isley,
O’Connor,
Jablonski,
Adams, and
Bond (located north of N-7 at N-1). Smith (located northeast of N-7 at O-1)
viewed the object in the south-southwest (2) and indicated that he did not
observe any stars (4). In Attachment #3 to
the final case report, “Discussion of Background Information,” Quintanilla
incorrectly states, “Stars could be seen and this was indicated in all the AF
Forms 117.”
[171] Attachment
#3-1 in the final case report indicates from 3:00-4:00: Sirius is 138-152
azimuth at 24-28 degrees elevation.
[172]
Quintanilla informs Pullen that “BECAUSE OF THE TIME DURATIONS,
FEEL STRONGLY THAT SOME SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE CREW WERE OBSERVING FIRST
MAGNITUDE CELESTIAL BODIES WHICH WERE GREATLY MAGNIFIED BY THE INVERSION LAYER
AND HAZE WHICH WAS PRESENT AT MINOT DURING THE TIME OF THE UFO OBSERVATIONS.” (Teletype, 1 Nov. 1968).
[173] See:
Martin Shough, “6-11. Anomalous propagation,” in Anomalous Echoes Captured
by a B-52 Airborne Radarscope Camera: A Preliminary Report. A
complete National Climatic Data Center rawinsonde dataset for 0000 hrs.
and 1200 hrs., 24 Oct 1968, Bismarck, ND, is included as Endnote #10.
[174] Claude
Poher, “5.9. The Loss of VHF Transmissions,” in Analysis of Radar and
Air-Visual UFO Observations on 24 October 1968 at Minot AFB, ND, USA.
[175] Partin,
AF-117, 5, 7.
--------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment