The UFO Events at Minot AFB (the Queen of cases) -part 1

THIS ABOVE SITE IS DEDICATED TO THE "UFO Events at Minot AFB", IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THIS CASE (THE QUEEN OF CASES FOR US) YOU HAVE TO VISIT THIS SITE TO SEE THE FULL DOCUMENTATION AND DISCUSSION, THE POHER REPORT etc. (VERY BEST WORK, CONGRATULATIONS TO THOMAS TULIEN!).

The UFO Events at Minot AFB (one of the best cases ever)

A Narrative of UFO Events at Minot AFB

PART 1

    Thomas Tulien

    In the early morning hours on 24 October 1968, United States Air Force (USAF) maintenance and security personnel within the Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) complex surrounding Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, observed one, and at times, two UFOs. The Minot Base Operations dispatcher established radio communications with personnel reporting in the field, Minot AFB, Radar Approach Control (RAPCON), and the crew of a returning B-52H aircraft.

    RAPCON alerted the pilots to the location of the UFO, which they observed on the B-52 radarscope maintaining a three-mile distance throughout a standard 180° turnaround. As the B-52 initiated the descent back to Minot AFB, the UFO appeared to close distance to one mile at a high-rate of speed, pacing the aircraft for about 20 miles before disappearing off the radarscope. During the close radar encounter, the B-52 UHF radios would not transmit, and radarscope film was recorded.

    Following, RAPCON provided vectors for the B-52 to overfly a stationary UFO on or near the ground. The pilots observed an illuminated UFO ahead of the aircraft during the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, before turning onto the base leg over the large UFO while observing it at close range. After the B-52 landed, both outer and inner-zone intrusions alarms were activated at the remote missile Launch Facility Oscar-7. The duration of reported observations was over three hours.

    Strategic Air Command (SAC), Offutt AFB, Nebraska, initiated investigations. In the weeks following, staff at USAF Project Blue Book, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, completed a final case report as required by Air Force Regulation 80-17.

----------------------

Introduction

Preface

As an unidentified flying object, the UFO poses a challenge to scientific authority. Observations are random and transitory, difficult to grasp objectively, and may even appear to exceed known technological capabilities. Without an acceptable theory to explain how UFOs can do what they are repeatedly observed to do, they are relegated to popular myth, while the study of individual cases after the fact can only tell us that some UFOs defy conventional explanations.

Folklorist Thomas Bullard explains,

UFOs as experiential phenomenon and UFOs as popular cultural myth entangle in a knot of confusion. I suspect that this entanglement stands as one of the greatest impediments to understanding the nature of UFOs, and scientific acceptance as a subject worthy of serious attention. A historical perspective offers a grip on the end of the string, a chance to untangle the mess to some degree.^[1]

In this regard, the 24 October 1968, Minot AFB UFO case offers an exceptional opportunity to untangle the myth, especially given the extent of the available documents and independent testimonial evidence. In the words of Bernard Haisch, “To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another.” This website was created to provide readers with an opportunity to examine all of the available evidence of the 24 October 1968, Minot AFB UFO event, and therefore determine for oneself whether it is convincing.

Background

In 1968, Strategic Air Command (SAC) was the operational establishment of the United States Air Force, responsible for the bomber-based and ballistic missile-based strategic nuclear arsenal. Minot AFB, located in the northwestern part of North Dakota, was a principal SAC dual-wing base. The two wings headquartered at Minot included the 5^th Bombardment Wing, with 15 B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers capable of delivering nuclear and conventional ordinance worldwide; and the 91^st Strategic Missile Wing, responsible for 150 Minuteman, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) housed in underground Launch Facilities scattered across an area of more than 8,500 square miles. Today both wings continue operations under the major command of the Air Force Global Strike Command.^[2]

A Boeing B-52H Stratofortress on the runway at Minot AFB. For more than 50 years, the B-52 has been the backbone of the U.S. manned strategic bomber force, and is expected to remain in service until at least 2040 — nearly 90 years after its first flight [Click on the images].

Typical unmanned Minuteman missile Launch Facility. By April 1967, 1,000 Minuteman missiles were emplaced and operational at six sites in seven states. Prior to launch, the 20-ton Launcher Closer covering the missile was blown open with explosive charges. Entrance to the lower equipment rooms surrounding the missile was through the Personnel Access Hatch. The separate Launch Support Building housed electrical equipment, a standby diesel generator, and brine chiller that provided temperature and humidity-controlled air to the launcher. For panoramic views of Launch Facilities at Ellsworth AFB, SD, see: Minuteman Missile National Historic Site.

In order to provide an understanding of the military environment in which the UFO events took place, we have included concise histories of the Strategic Air Command, Minot AFB, and both operational wings in the Background section of this website, including mission responsibilities and routine duties of the personnel who supported the requirements of America’s strategic nuclear force. These histories will be helpful in providing the reader with essential context to the military environment encompassing the UFO events.

Summary of UFO Events

The 24 October 1968 Minot UFO case is remarkable because reporting was continuous over 3 hours and involved more than 20 military personnel at locations across the missile complex surrounding Minot AFB. Two distinct communication networks facilitated reporting from remote locations. During this time, a B-52 returned to Minot and the B-52 navigator observed and filmed on radar a large UFO pacing the aircraft. During the encounter, the B-52 radios lost their ability to transmit. Later, radar ground controllers vectored the B-52 to the location of a stationary object on or near the ground, where they flew over a large UFO at close range.

The ABC News two-hour primetime special, “Peter Jennings Reporting: UFOs--Seeing Is Believing,” was first broadcast in February 2005. This segment of the special features the American history of the UFO phenomenon, including a four and a half-minute exposé of the 24 October 1968, Minot AFB case from 15:10-19:40 minutes. Here the complete 22 minute segment. 

Initial Ground-visual Observations

Early in the morning of 24 October 1968, Oscar-Flight Security Controller Staff Sgt. William Smith received a report from a Camper Team posted at the Launch Facility (LF) designated Oscar-6 (O-6). The team was providing aboveground security for a Target Alignment Team working underground in the missile silo when they observed a large glowing object go down behind some trees not far away.^[3] Shortly after, at 2:30 a.m., a missile maintenance team of Airman First Class Robert O'Connor and A1C Lloyd Isley were en route to the November-7 (N-7) Launch Facility when they reported an unusual light in the east to Base Operations. The strange light appeared to be pacing their vehicle while growing brighter. By the time they arrived at N-7, the bright UFO had taken up a position circling to the south.^[4]

In response, the Base Operations dispatcher patched in the observers at N-7 with the ground controllers at Radar Approach Control (RAPCON), established an open-line for reporting, and kept a log of the UFO activity over the next two hours. Soon, Flight Security Controllers (FSC) — the officers responsible for the security requirements at the Launch Control Facilities (LCF) — were also reporting sightings via their communications network linked to missile Wing Security Control (WSC).

Locations of 16 ground observers within the missile complex surrounding Minot AFB. The 91^st Strategic Missile Wing comprised the 740^th, 741^st, and 742^nd Strategic Missile Squadrons, each responsible for 50 Minuteman missiles. Each Launch Control Facility (and underground Launch Control Center) was responsible for 10 missile Launch Facilities.

In one instance, security personnel at three of the LCFs similarly described “the object separate in two parts and go in opposite directions and return and pass under each other.”^[5] In another, a FSC reported that an “object which looked to him as the sun” came near the hardened antenna within the security fencing of his LCF. It then moved away and he dispatched his two-man Security Alert Team (SAT), who followed the object to within a half-mile of where it appeared to be landing. When the object reached the ground the light dimmed and extinguished. After this, they could see nothing.^[6] Independent reports mutually described a very large, brightly illuminated aerial object that would alternate colors from brilliant white to amber and green, with an ability to hover, accelerate rapidly and abruptly change direction.^[7]

B-52 Air-radar Observations

At about 3:00 a.m., a B-52H Stratofortress returned to Minot AFB from a routine 10-hour training mission. The pilots practiced high-altitude instrumented procedures and approaches to the runway, eventually requesting clearance to fly out to the Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) initial approach fix (“WT fix”), 35 nautical miles northwest of the airbase. Given clearance to Flight Level 200 (20,000 feet altitude), RAPCON ground controllers then asked the crew to “look out toward your 1:00 [one o’clock] position for the next 15 or 16 miles and see if you see any orange glows out there. Somebody is seeing flying saucers again.”^[8]

The B-52 crew observed nothing out of the ordinary during the flight out. Approaching the WT fix, they initiated a standard 180-degree turnaround that would eventually bring them back over the WT fix on a straight approach to the runway. As they started the wide turn, at 3:52, ground controllers informed the crew “the UFO is being picked up by the weathers [sic] radar also, should be your 1:00 position 3 miles now.”^[9]

The B-52’s own radar detected the radar return (UFO) about three miles away at the same altitude, sparking air safety concerns among the crew. However, as the B-52 banked around the roughly 6-mile diameter turn the UFO maintained a constant three-mile separation, moving to the northeast — outside of the turn radius and to the left of the B-52 as it finally rolled out.

Upon clearing the WT fix to begin the descent back to the runway, the radar return suddenly changed position. In one sweep of the radar — less than three seconds — the UFO appeared to close distance to a mile from the B-52, while subsequent sweeps indicated that the return was matching the forward velocity. The seemingly phenomenal and instantaneous movement of the UFO startled B-52 navigator Captain Patrick McCaslin:

I knew whatever it was that there was something there that I’d never seen on radar. I don’t know of anything that could go laterally in three seconds, two miles, and just stop. It was maintaining our descent rate, and then just laterally to one mile… perfect formation.^[10]

At the same instant as the return’s abrupt change of position, the B-52’s two UHF radios ceased transmission on all frequencies with RAPCON. The UFO continued pacing the aircraft off the left wing for nearly 20 miles. Near the end of the descent trajectory, the radarscope camera filmed the UFO as it appeared to spiral around behind the B-52, after which the radar return disappeared and radio communications returned to normal.^[11]

Partial scan of Minot AFB investigating officer Colonel Werlich’s Overlay Map showing the flight track of the B-52, including the 180-degree turnaround back over the WT fix (black circle). Relative positions of the UFO are in red; and the blue section (Radar Film Area) is Werlich’s estimate of the location of the B-52 when the 14 radarscope photographs were exposed (Werlich Overlay Map).

B-52 Air-visual Observations

Following the inexplicable radar encounter, the B-52 pilots practiced a missed approach to the runway and were vectored back around to land. However, on final approach to the runway a General officer radioed a request not to land, but to continue around in order to fly over and photograph the object if possible.^[12] Accordingly, RAPCON controllers vectored the B-52 once again onto the traffic pattern, to the location of a stationary UFO on or near the ground, roughly 16 miles north-northwest of the airbase. Immediately after turning onto the downwind leg of the pattern, both pilots observed an illuminated object more than 10 miles ahead of the aircraft. The non-crew pilot Major James Partin compared the UFO to “a miniature sun placed on the ground below the aircraft.”^[13]

Maj. Partin’s drawings from his AF-117 Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena Questionnaire (6). His second drawing represents the head of a match at arm’s length overlaid on the orange ball of light. The match head is about 1/4 the diameter of the ball of light, which is about 100 arc minutes or 1.7 degrees. Partin states that he turned "one mile to the south of the light and was above it" (4), whereas, Werlich states approximately 2 miles to the south (BRD, 7). At 1-2 miles, the object would be about 150-300 feet in diameter.

Partial scan of Minot AFB investigating officer Col. Werlich’s Overlay Map showing the flight track of the B-52 around the first traffic pattern. Werlich did not plot the second extended go-around when the pilots observed and overflew the UFO. He does nevertheless indicate the location of the B-52 during the pilot’s “first visual sighting,” following the turn onto the downwind leg of the pattern, and “probable area of aircrew ground sighting” in the rectangular box (Werlich Overlay Map).

Upon reaching the object the B-52 flew alongside and executed a left turn over and around it. As the B-52 banked over the object, copilot Capt. Bradford Runyon was able to observe the UFO through the pilot’s window as it passed beneath the aircraft. He described a huge egg-shaped object with a surface that appeared to give off a dull reddish color like molten steel. As they began the turn, he noticed a smooth metallic tubular section extending horizontally from the long-end of the elliptical object, connecting to the mid-point of a curved crescent-shaped protuberance, not unlike a bumper. This section encompassed the width of the body and emanated a greenish-yellow glow from its interior back, illuminating the tubular section and the front of the egg-shaped main body of the object. Once again, their radios would not transmit during the very close approach.^[14]

Capt. Brad Runyon's drawing of the UFO dated 28 November 2000. The B-52 was at a standard altitude of 3200 MSL, or roughly 1500 feet above the ground. Runyon cautiously estimated the size of the UFO as being 200 feet in length, 100 feet in width, and 50 feet in height.

The B-52 turned left onto the base leg of the traffic pattern and lost sight of the UFO. They continued around to the runway at Minot AFB and came to a terminal landing at 4:40 a.m. At 4:49, both the outer and inner-zone security alarms sounded at the missile Launch Facility Oscar-7, and SSgt. Smith immediately dispatched his Security Alert Team to investigate. The team discovered the front gate unpadlocked, and an access hatch on site standing open, but no other evidence of intruders. In the meantime, November security personnel continued reporting a UFO west of N-7, until the light gradually diminished around 5:30.

Investigation

Following the early morning events Strategic Air Command initiated investigations. Later that afternoon, Minot AFB investigating officer Col. Werlich informed Project Blue Book per Air Force Regulation 80-17. Over the next couple days, six of the ground observers completed the Air Force Form 117 Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena Questionnaire (AF-117). Although Maj. Partin completed an AF-117 the following week, Blue Book investigators did not interview the B-52 crewmembers during the official investigation. Not until recently have they publicly discussed their experiences. Given their clearances and responsibilities, Capt. Runyon understood at the time they were not to discuss the matter. Aware that the Air Force was engaged in an ongoing investigation of the UFO phenomenon, he naturally assumed that conclusions would eventually be available to the public. However, over 30 years later, still lacking any explanation for what they had observed that morning, Runyon’s curiosity led him to contact the J. Allen Hynek, Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) in Chicago, and complete a UFO Sighting Questionnaire regarding his experience.^[15]

Documentary Evidence

Based on Runyon’s sighting report, we initiated a search for documentation pertaining to the 24 October 1968 Minot AFB UFO case, and were fortunate to discover more than 120 pages of primary documents in the declassified operational files of Project Blue Book.^[16] All of the documents are available in the Documentation section of the website. In order to provide a sense of the evidentiary value of the source materials, we have categorized the documents into four basic types.

Transactional Documents are primary evidence produced in compliance with official military regulations. In this case, Air Force Regulation 80-17 established the Air Force UFO program, and specified the responsibilities (actions) for investigating, analyzing, and submitting UFO reports.^[17] The regulation required Minot AFB investigating officer Lt. Colonel Arthur Werlich to have principal witnesses complete the AF-117 Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena Questionnaire, and compile information in response to a formatted list of questions (Basic Reporting Data). Upon receipt, Project Blue Book was required to evaluate the data and prepare a final case report. The transactional documents total 83 pages.

Selective Documents are primary evidence recorded during the events, which the recorder deemed important or worth noting. These include logs of events noted by the Base Operations Dispatcher and missile Wing Security Controller, and a Transcription of Recorded Conversations between the B-52 copilot and RAPCON. The records also contain timelines useful for reconstructing the events. In addition, during the B-52 radar encounter the navigator filmed the radarscope, which shows the UFO and its relative movements. A targeting studies officer analyzed the film and selected fourteen 35mm frames from the larger sample as indicative of the UFO’s performance characteristics. These first-generation 8x10 positive prints contain quantitative information of the UFO encounter, and provide a means for assessing physical characteristics of the UFO. Werlich also prepared a map overlay (transparency superimposed on a classified 200-series map), plotting the B-52 flight track, and relative positions and movements of the UFO. The selective documents total 19 pages, plus 2 maps.

Memo[s] for the Record document telephone conversations between Blue Book staff and Minot AFB investigating officer Lt. Col. Werlich. Also included are conversations between Headquarters, Strategic Air Command/Operations with Blue Book staff, and the assistant Deputy Chief of Staff/Intelligence at SAC with Blue Book chief Lt. Col. Quintanilla. These conversations provide more details, insight into the process of the official investigation, and especially personal information and attitudes generally absent in transactional documents. The memoranda of conversations, including two telex communications, total 20 pages.

Oral History Interviews. During our research, we conducted more than 30 interviews with military observers and witnesses to the events. Transcriptions of the interviews are available in the Interview section of the website. While an oral report may be a true description of an event, it is crucial to understand that information in an oral history interview is a selective recollection, removed from the original event and further abstracted by human memory. Nevertheless, there are ways to evaluate reliability, and in this case, the oral history interviews make an important contribution to our understanding. For example, regarding the B-52 crewmembers, individual recollections reflect particular situations at the time of the event respective to their stations in the aircraft. We can compare individual recollections to cross-validate any particular memory claim with more reliability given to claims independently recalled by more than one witness. In some instances, the way something is recollected, or even the lack of a recall can be meaningful.

Although oral history is subjective interpretation, it is eminently valuable in recovering levels of experience and understanding other perspectives that are not normally available to historians. Moreover, we can assess the validity of the recollections by contrast and comparison to the event itself as revealed in the primary source materials. A statement is not necessarily more accurate or true if written down at the time than if recalled later in testimony. Written documents possess immediacy and are uninfluenced by subsequent events, however, the documents can be incomplete, in error, or even written to mislead. In this case, the cumulative recollections of various witnesses form a general narrative of the events, which reveals significant information that is missing and unavailable in the official record.^[18]

Sign Oral History Project

In May 1999, independent researchers, writers, and historians established the Sign Historical Group (SHG) and convened a foundational workshop in Chicago to discuss the application of traditional historical methodology to the “sometimes sketchy, often misinterpreted and always incomplete” subject of UFO history.^[19] One area identified as lacking was the collection of oral testimonies, so we resolved to establish the Sign Oral History Project (SOHP) to preserve first-person accounts and significant historical information.

In May 2000, along with SHG colleague and Project 1947 director Jan Aldrich, we interviewed Bradford Runyon. Runyon’s testimony reasonably corroborated the events as revealed by the Blue Book documentation, while providing supplementary details and lines of inquiry not evident in the official documentation. In many respects, the case presented exceptional opportunities for historical research, particularly since it had never received any publicity.^[20] The events evolved over a three-hour period, involving a significant cross-section of officers and military personnel. Since various groups had no contact with each other, it was possible to examine a body of testimonies untainted by other’s experiences and interpretations. The extent of the primary evidence provided an abundant means by which to assess, cross-validate, and corroborate information by seeking correspondence with multiple sources.

Over the next several years, with the assistance of SHG colleague James Klotz, we interviewed all the B-52 crewmembers and the non-crew pilot Major James Partin.^[21] Our process was to record an initial telephone interview followed by a formal videotaped interview.

B-52 Aircraft Commander, pilot Capt. Don Cagle, Co-pilot Capt. Bradford Runyon, Radar Navigator Maj. Chuck Richey, Navigator Capt. Patrick McCaslin, Electronic Warfare Officer Capt. Thomas Goduto, and Gunner Tech/Sgt. Arlie Judd. All crewmembers were rated as instructors in their respective positions, establishing them as one of the top crews at Minot AFB in 1968.

In addition, we interviewed the 5^th Bombardment Wing intelligence officer responsible for the radarscope film analysis (SSgt. Richard Clark); the commander of the 810th Strategic Aerospace Division (Brig. General Ralph Holland); and the 91^st Strategic Missile Wing commander (Col. B.H. Davidson). In all cases, we were the first public contact the witnesses had regarding their experiences.

Unfortunately, the Minot AFB officer responsible for investigating the case, 862^nd Combat Support Group/Operations Division chief Lt. Colonel Arthur Werlich, is deceased, though we have spoken with family members. The events of 24 October 1968 made a lasting impression on his then-teenage daughters Kim and Melody, when they were awakened “in the middle of the night” and overheard an urgent telephone call to their father reporting the mysterious UFO activity.

The B-52 Radarscope Photographs

While researching the case, we were fortunate to discover first-generation radarscope photographs filmed onboard the B-52 during the radar UFO encounter. Early in the morning on 24 October 1968, 5^th Bombardment Wing intelligence officer Staff Sergeant Richard Clark arrived at work and was instructed to examine the original negative radarscope film. Clark requested two sets of 14 photographic prints from the larger sample, which clearly exhibit the UFO movement from front-right of the airborne B-52, as it appears to spiral around behind the aircraft to a position off the left wing. He included one set of the photos in his report and retained the other as a personal file-copy. Later, Clark passed the photographs along to his brother-in-law, fellow Minnesotan William McNeff, who has generously contributed them for our analysis.

The 14 radarscope photographs present successive three-second time-lapse exposures, corresponding to less than 40 seconds when the UFO echo was “painted” by the radar. The photos present a quantifiable data set that, among other things, allows us to determine the precise altitude and location of the B-52 at the time of the photograph. These allows us to extrapolate the flight track of the B-52 in real-time, and compare documentary timelines, while providing an additional means to inform the interpretation and narrative reconstruction of the events.

The B-52 radarscope consists of an illuminated bearing ring and 10-inch diameter tube face called a Plan Position Indicator (PPI). The chronometer, data plate, and counter to the right are superimposed via a separate optical path. The time on the twenty-four clock is 090617Z (4:06:17 CDT). Below it, the handwritten data plate identifies locations in the flight plan (Bismarck and St. George); the date (24 Oct. 68); aircraft identification (B-52H 012); radar system designation (ASQ-38); and names of the operators (Richey and McCaslin). The counter identifies the frame as #772. The B-52 is the bright spot in the center of the radarscope, on a heading of 122 degrees (0 degrees is north). The UFO echo appears at 242 degrees azimuth, 1.05 nautical miles (nmi) aft of the right wing of the B-52. The black circle in the center is the “TR hole” (transmit/receive) or “altitude hole,” and the white annulus extending five nmi out to the edge of the bearing ring is radar ground return. The diameter of the altitude hole decreases as the B-52 descends in altitude. There are three inner range rings visible within the altitude hole corresponding to .75, 1.25, and 1.75 nmi. The radial line at 284 degrees is the point where the next frame advances in the camera to begin another three-second time exposure, corresponding to the clockwise rotation of the radar antenna mounted beneath the nose of the B-52. The marker at 132 degrees is a manually adjusted azimuth marker. View all 14 B-52 radarscope photographs.

This illustration demonstrates the radar field pattern surrounding the B-52, and corresponding display on the radarscope for “Station Keep” mode, in which coverage is elevated to aid navigation during formation flying, or when lining up with the docking boom of an air-refueling tanker. McCaslin switched the radar to this mode after being notified by RAPCON of the UFO in close proximity to the B-52.

In addition, the radarscope photographs contain information to examine the nature of the UFO that is typically not available in the majority of UFO reports. In this instance, information in the photographs allows us to infer accelerations and trajectories, providing insight into the physical characteristics of the UFO.

Martin Shough, an experienced and critical radar analyst in Scotland, has studied the B-52 radarscope photographs. Martin has contributed an analysis to this report, entitled Anomalous Echoes Captured by a B-52 Airborne Radarscope Camera, with the goal of testing the internal consistency of the witness narratives and official records against the physical evidence, while seeking an explanation for the anomalous radar echoes. He considers many conventional interpretations of the echoes, concluding that none of the possibilities are convincing.

Building on Shough's foundation, Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES) French space agency scientist and astronomer Dr. Claude Poher has contributed a photometric study of the radarscope photos, entitled Analysis of Radar and Air-Visual UFO Observations on 24 October 1968 at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, USA. Incorporating a multidisciplinary approach, Poher systematically formulates hypotheses leading to theoretical considerations concerning the energetic potential of the UFO. He suggests, for instance, that if it were possible for the UFO to sustain the inferred accelerations for more than a dozen hours it could theoretically attain relativistic speeds approaching that of light, such that an interstellar voyage is possible.

Site Summary

In order that the reader can appreciate the historical context and circumstances surrounding the UFO events, the Background section includes historical summaries of the Strategic Air Command; Minot Air Force Base; and two operational wings at Minot, the 5^th Bombardment Wing, and 91^st Strategic Missile Wing. In addition, the reader may wish to read the concise History of the United States Air Force UFO Programs, which provides a general understanding of the evolution of the program from 1947-1969, including official attitudes regarding the phenomenon.

The Narrative section recounts the story of the 24 October 1968 Minot AFB UFO case based on the primary source materials, while the Investigation section looks at the process by which the Air Force and Project Blue Book investigated the case over nearly a three-week period, resulting in Blue Book's final case report. Finally, the Radar Analyses section presents the contributions of Martin Shough and Dr. Claude Poher.

For readers wishing to dig deeper, the Documentation section contains all of the primary documents and the Interviews section contains complete transcripts of many of the pertinent oral history interviews. For supplemental information, the Archives contains many relevant historical records of the Air Force, including unit histories and official publications for the period, and the Maps section contains historical maps accumulated during the process of research, including a series created to illustrate the text.

--------------------------

Ufo's - The landmark RB-47 1957 case (Best of the Best)

Ufo's - The landmark RB-47 1957 case (Best of the Best)

The RB-47 radar visual multiple witnesses cases, July 17, 1957:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090427152524/http://ufologie.net/htm/rb47.htm

An Air Force Boeing Stratojet reconnaissance jet RB-47, equipped with electronic countermeasures gear and manned by six officers, was followed by an unidentified object for a distance of well over 700 miles, and for a time period of more than one hour, as it flew from Mississippi, through Louisiana and Texas and into Oklahoma. The object was, at various times, seen visually by the cockpit crew as an intensely luminous light, followed by ground-radar and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47. Of special interest in this case are several instances of simultaneous appearances and disappearances on all three of those physically distinct observation channels, and rapidity of maneuvers beyond aircraft possibilities.

TABLE OF CONTENT:

	The case summary.
	Case study by James E. McDonald.
	Case story by James E. McDonald for the UFO committee of the AIAA.
	About the RB-47.
	References.

THE CASE SUMMARY:

On board an RB-47H aircraft equipped with sophisticated electronic countermeasures equipment, including three electronic intelligence (ELINT) stations over the Gulf of Mexico.

The crew consisted of:

Major Lewis D. Chase, pilot, Spokane, WA
Capt. James H. McCoid, copilot, Offutt AFB
Capt. Thomas H. Hanley, navigator, Vandenberg AFB
John J. Provenzano, No. 1 monitor, Wichita, KS
Capt. Frank B. McClure, No. 2 monitor, Offutt AFB
Capt. Walter A. Tuchschner, No. 3 monitor, Topeka, KS

These six men were on a training and test exercise in an RB-47H electronic countermeasures reconnaissance aircraft. The RB-47, while originally developed as a bomber, was also used extensively as a reconnaissance aircraft. One was shot down by the Soviet Union while on such a mission in 1960.

This particular mission began at Forbes AFB, Topeka, Kansas as an exercise including gunnery exercises over the Texas-Gulf area, navigation exercises over the open Gulf, and Electronic Countermeasures exercises on the return trip across the south-central U.S. The men participating were soon to depart for Germany and duty there. It should be noted that the ECM equipment was not radar. It did not emit a signal and then pick up reflected echoes off of an object. Rather, it detected electromagnetic signals that were actually emitted by an object itself. The purpose of this was to detect and locate enemy radar installations. On this aircraft, the #2 monitor consisted of a direction finder with antenna on the lower rear of the aircraft, and the #1 monitor consisted of a direction finder with antennas on each wingtip of the aircraft. The #3 monitor was not involved in the events of July 17, because its range did not include the frequencies involved.

The first contact with the unknown was before 4:00 AM CST. The first two parts of the mission had been completed, and the aircraft was just leaving the airspace over the Gulf of Mexico near Gulfport, Mississippi, when Frank McClure, on the #2 ECM monitor, detected an airborne signal to the right rear of the aircraft, out over the Gulf of Mexico. The signal was of a type usually confined to ground-based radar installations. It was at 2800 megacycles, a common frequency for S-band search radar. McClure at first thought that his scope must be 180° out of alignment and that he must be picking up a ground-based radar station in Louisiana, which would actually be to the left front of the aircraft. As he watched, the signal moved up the scope, as it would if the scope was 180° out of alignment. However, he was amazed to see that, after it had moved up the scope on the right-hand side of the aircraft, it then crossed the path of the RB-47 and proceeded to move down the scope on the left-hand side. In other words, whatever was emitting the signal flew a ring around the RB-47, which was flying at approximately 500 miles per hour. Even if the scope was 180° out of alignment, the signal source still moved completely around the aircraft, which no ground radar could do. McClure said and did nothing at this time, not mentioning the signal to the other crewmembers. The signal faded as they flew north.

The RB-47 made a scheduled turn to the west over Jackson, Mississippi and the crew was preparing to begin a series of simulated ECM operations against Air Force ground radar units, when suddenly the pilot, Lewis Chase, saw a light coming in from the left, at approximately the same altitude as the RB-47. At first he thought it was another plane, but it was only a single white light, closing fast. He gave the command to prepare for evasive maneuvers, but the light flashed across from left to right so fast that no such action could have been taken. It then blinked out at a point to the right front of the aircraft. Both Chase and Copilot James McCoid observed this. At this point, approximately 4:10 AM CST, they were approximately over Winnsboro, Louisiana.

Chase told the other crewmembers what he had seen, and McClure now told him about his earlier signal reading. At 4:30 AM, McClure set his scope to detect signals near 3000 mcs again, and he detected a strong signal at the same location in relation to the RB-47 that Chase had last seen the light. He and Provenzano checked the alignment of the #2 monitor by tuning in on known ground radar installations and found it to be in perfect working order. At 4:30 AM, Provenzano tuned his own monitor, #1, to 3000 mcs, and found that his equipment detected a signal at the same location. What's more, he and McClure found that the signal was staying in the same position, keeping pace with the RB-47, which was still flying at 500 miles per hour. This meant that it was not a signal from a ground-based radar.

By this time they had reached the Duncanville, Texas area. At 4:39, Chase spotted a huge light to the right front of the RB-47 an about 5,000 feet below the aircraft's 34,500 feet altitude. The weather was perfectly clear. At 4:40, McClure reported two signals, at 40° and 70°. Chase and McCoid reported seeing red lights at those locations. Chase contacted radar Station Utah at Duncanville, Texas and requested permission to abandon his flight plan and pursue the lights, which he received. At 4:48 AM, radar station Utah requested the position of the signals that McClure was receiving, and they immediately confirmed that their radar had detected the objects at the same location.

As the RB-47 attempted to pursue, the object appeared to stop suddenly. Chase could see that they were gaining on it, and they over shot it. At 4:52 it blinked out, and simultaneously vanished from McClure's scope and the ground radar! Chase put the aircraft into a port turn, and the object suddenly blinked on again, simultaneously reappearing on McClure's scope and the ground radar at 4:52! They began to close to within 5 miles of the object, when it suddenly dropped to 15,000 feet and then blinked out again, once again vanishing from the scopes and ground radar. At 4:55, Chase radioed Utah radar station that they had to break of pursuit and continue with their scheduled flight plan due to low fuel. At 4:57 McClure picked up the signal again, and at 4:58 Chase made visual contact again. As they headed into Oklahoma, McClure continued to receive a signal, now from the rear of the aircraft, until it finally faded as they neared Oklahoma City. The Director of Intelligence, 55th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing, stated in his report that he had: "...no doubt the electronic D/F's coincided exactly with visual observations by aircraft commander numerous times, thus indicating positively the object being the signal source."

What can be detected on ECM direction finding devices, can be seen visually, and can be detected on ordinary ground-based radar all at the same time? What can be detected by all the sensors and can also fly rings around a jet travelling at 500 miles per hour?

Project Bluebook said that the sightings in Dallas - Fort Worth area were an ordinary jet airliner. They actually simply confused or voluntarily confused the case with a totally different incident implying a quasi-collision between civilian flights 966 and 655 of American Airlines, which flew above Texas at more than 1000 kilometers away from the RB-47. They couldn't explain the abrupt, simultaneous disappearance and reappearance of the object from radar screens, ECM scopes, and visual detection. They also couldn't explain the events that occurred over Mississippi and Louisiana. They couldn't explain how the Utah radar station could not have told an airliner from an unknown.

Above: Blue Book file card for the case.

The Condon Committee toyed with several explanations, but found none to be satisfactory, finally classifying this case as unknown. In fact, Condon's radar case specialist Gordon L. Thayer said that the Blue Book explanation that the case was due to airliners was "literally ridiculous." The self proclaimed UFO debunker Philipp Klass, not discouraged by his previous ridicule explanation of UFOs as plasmoids which was pointed at as typical pseudoscience wishful thinking by Dr. McDonald, considered that the electronic tracks were due to anomalous radar wave propagation and that the visual sighting was first a meteor, then the star Vega and finally the other planes from American Airlines cited by Blue Book; the long demonstrated ridicule of this explanation apparently did not came up to his mind. Ufologist Brad Sparks, a specialist of aeronautics, responded point by point in a paper in Jerome Clark's UFO Encyclopedia and demonstrated how Klass' interpretation was based on the erroneous interpretation of the data and overall nonsensical.

Map by the crew:

This is the flightpath of the RB-47 (dotted line) and of the UFO (plain line), drawn on their formal report by the captain of the crew. 

PROFESSOR JAMES MCDONALD:

The following study is excerpted from "Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations" American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects, by James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, December 27, 1969.

Case 1. USAF RB-47, Gulf Coast area, September 19-20, 1957. Brief summary: An Air Force RB-47, equipped with ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) gear, manned by six officers, was followed over a total distance in excess of 600 miles and for a time period of more than an hour, as it flew from near Gulfport, Miss., through Louisiana and Texas, and into southern Oklahoma. The unidentified object was, at various times, seen visually by the cockpit crew (as an intense white or red light), followed by ground-radar, and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47. Simultaneous appearances and disappearances on all three of those physically distinct "channels" mark this UFO case as especially intriguing from a scientific viewpoint. The incident is described as Case 5 in the Condon Report and is conceded to be unexplained. The full details, however, are not presented in that Report. 1. Summary of the Case: The case is long and involved and filled with well-attested phenomena that defy easy explanation in terms of present-day science and technology. The RB-47 was flying out of Forbes AFB, Topeka, on a composite mission including gunnery exercises over the Texas-Gulf area, navigation exercises over the open Gulf, and ECM exercises in the return trip across the south-central U.S. This was an RB-47 carrying a six-man crew, of whom three were electronic warfare officers manning ECM (Electronic counter-measures) gear in the aft portion of the aircraft. One of the extremely interesting aspects of this case is that electromagnetic signals of distinctly radar-like character appeared definitely to be emitted by the UFO, yet it exhibited performance characteristics that seem to rule out categorically its having been any conventional or secret aircraft. I have discussed the incident with all six officers of the crew: Lewis D. Chase, pilot, Spokane, Wash. James H. McCoid, copilot, Offutt AFB. Thomas H. Hanley, navigator, Vandenberg AFB. John J. Provenzano, No. 1 monitor, Wichita. Frank B. McClure, No. 2 monitor, Offutt AFB. Walter A. Tuchscherer, No. 3 monitor, Topeka. Chase was a Major at the time; I failed to ask for information on 1957 ranks of the others. McClure and Hanley are currently Majors, so might have been Captains or Lieutenants in 1957. All were experienced men at the time. Condon Project investigators only talked with Chase, McCoid, and McClure, I ascertained. In my checking it proved necessary to telephone several of them more than once to pin down key points; nevertheless the total case is so complex that I would assume that there are still salient points not clarified either by the Colorado investigators or by myself. Unfortunately, there appears to be no way, at present to locate the personnel involved in ground- radar observations that are a very important part of the whole case. I shall discuss that point below. This flight occurred in September, 1957, just prior to the crew's reassignment to a European base. On questioning by Colorado investigators, flight logs were consulted, and based on the recollection that this flight was within a short time of departure from Forces to Germany, (plus the requirement that the date match a flight of the known type and geography) the 9/19/57 date seems to have emerged. The uncertainty as to whether it was early on the 19th or early on the 20th, cited above is a point of confusion I had not noted until preparing the present notes. Hence I am unable to add any clarification, at the moment; in this matter of the date confusion found in Thayer's discussion of the case (1, pp. 136-138). I shall try to check that in the near future. For the present, it does not vitiate case-discussion in any significant way. The incident is most inadequately described in the Condon Report. The reader is left with the general notion that the important parts occurred near Ft. Worth, an impression strengthened by the fact that both Crow and Thayer discuss meteorological data only for that area. One is also left with no clear impression of the duration, which was actually over an hour. The incident involved an unknown airborne object that stayed with the RB-47 for over 600 miles. In case after case in the Condon Report, close checking reveals that quite significant features of the cases have been glossed over, or omitted, or in some instances seriously misrepresented. I submit that to fail to inform the reader that this particular case spans a total distance-range of some 600 miles and lasted well over an hour is an omission difficult to justify. From my nine separate interviews with the six crew members, I assembled a picture of the events that makes it even more puzzling than it seems on reading the Condon Report - and even the latter account is puzzling enough. Just as the aircraft crossed the Mississippi coast near Gulfport, McClure, manning the #2 monitor, detected a signal near their 5 o'clock position (aft of the starboard beam). It looked to him like a legitimate ground-radar signal, but corresponded to a position out in the Gulf. This is the actual beginning of the complete incident; but before proceeding with details it is necessary to make quite clear what kind of equipment we shall be talking about as we follow McClure's successive observations. Under conditions of war, bombing aircraft entering hostile territory can be assisted in their penetrations if any of a variety of electronic countermeasures (ECM techniques as they are collectively termed) are brought into action against ground-based enemy radar units. The initial step in all ECM operations is, necessarily, that of detecting the enemy radar and quantitatively identifying a number of relevant features of the radar system (carrier frequency, pulse repetition frequency, scan rate, pulse width) and, above all, its bearing relative to the aircraft heading. The latter task is particularly ample in principle, calling only for direction-finding antennas which pick up the enemy signal and display on a monitor scope inside the reconnaissance aircraft a blip or lobe that paints in the relative bearing from which the signal is coming. The ECM gear used in RB-47's in 1957 is not now classified; the #2 monitor that McClure was on, he and the others pointed out, involved an ALA-6 direction-finder with back-to-back antennas in a housing on the undersurface of the RB-47 near the rear, spun at either 150 or 300 rpm as it scanned in azimuth. Inside the aircraft, its signals were processed in an APR-9 radar receiver and an ALA-5 pulse analyzer. All later references to the #2 monitor imply that system. The #1 monitor employed an APD-4 direction finding system, with a pair of antennas permanently mounted on either wing tip. Provenzano was on the #1 monitor. Tuchscherer was on the #3 monitor, whose specifications I did not ascertain because I could find no indication that it was involved in the observations. Returning now to the initial features of the UFO episode, McClure at first thought he had 180-degree ambiguity in his scope, i.e., that the signal whose lobe painted at his 5 o'clock position was actually coming in from the 11 o'clock position perhaps from some ground radar in Louisiana. This suspicion, he told me, was temporarily strengthened as he became aware that the lobe was moving upscope. (It is important here and in features of the case cited below to understand how a fixed ground-radar paints on the ECM monitor scope as the reconnaissance aircraft flies toward its general direction: Suppose the ground radar is, at some instant, located at the 1 o'clock position relative to the moving aircraft, i.e., slightly off the starboard bow. As the aircraft flies along, the relative bearing steadily changes, so that the fixed ground unit is "seen" successively at the 2 o'clock, the 3 o'clock, and the 4 o'clock positions, etc. The lobe paints on the monitor scope at these successive relative azimuths, the 12 o'clock position being at the top of the scope, 3 o'clock at the right, etc. Thus any legitimate signal from a fixed ground radar must move downscope, excluding the special cases in which the radar is dead ahead or dead astern. Note carefully that we deal here only with direction finding gear. Range is unknown; we are not here speaking of an airborne radar set, just a radar-frequency direction-finder. In practice, range is obtained by triangulation computations based on successive fixes and known aircraft speed.) As the lobe continued moving upscope, McClure said the strength of the incoming signal and its pulse characteristics all tended to confirm that this was some ground unit being painted with 180-degree ambiguity for some unknown electronic reason. It was at 2800 megacycles, a common frequency for S-band search radars. However, after the lobe swung dead ahead, his earlier hypothesis had to be abandoned for it continued swinging over to the 11 o'clock position and continued downscope on the port side. Clearly, no 180-degree ambiguity was capable of accounting for this. Curiously, however, this was so anomalous that McClure did not take it very seriously and did not at that juncture mention it to the cockpit crew nor to his colleagues on the other two monitors. This upscope-downscope "orbit" of the unknown was seen only on the ALA-6, as far as I could establish. Had nothing else occurred, this first and very significant portion of the whole episode would almost certainly have been for gotten by McClure. The signal faded as the RB-47 headed northward to the scheduled turning point over Jackson, Miss. The mission called for simulated detection and ECM operations against Air Force ground radar units all along this part of the flight plan, but other developments intervened. Shortly after making their turn westward over Jackson, Miss., Chase noted what he thought at first were the landing lights of some other jet coming in from near his 11 o'clock position, at roughly the RB-47's altitude. But no running lights were discernible and it was a single very bright white light, closing fast. He had just alerted the rest of the crew to be ready for sudden evasive maneuvers, when he and McCoid saw the light almost instantaneously change directions and rush across from left to right at an angular velocity that Chase told me he'd never seen matched in his flight experience. The light went from their 11 o'clock to the 2 o'clock position with great rapidity, and then blinked out. Immediately after that, Chase and McCoid began talking about it on the interphone and McClure, recalling the unusual 2800 megacycle signal that he had seen over Gulfport now mentioned that peculiar incident for the first time to Chase and McCoid. It occurred to him at that point to set his #2 monitor to scan at 2800 mcs. On the first scan, McClure told me, he got a strong 2800 mcs signal from their 2 o'clock position, the bearing on which the luminous unknown object had blinked out moments earlier. Provenzano told me that right after that they had checked out the #2 monitor on valid ground radar stations to be sure it was not malfunctioning and it appeared to be in perfect order. He then checked on his #1 monitor and also got a signal from the same bearing. There remained, of course, the possibility that just by chance, this signal was from a real radar down on the ground and off in that direction. But as the minutes went by, and the aircraft continued westward at about 500 kts. The relative bearing of the 2800 mcs source did not move downscope on the #2 monitor, but kept up with them. This quickly led to a situation in which the entire 6-man crew focussed all attention on the matter; the incident is still vivid in the minds of all the men, though their recollection for various details varies with the particular activities they were engaged in. Chase varied speed, to see if the relative bearing would change but nothing altered. After over a hundred miles of this, with the 2800 mcs source keeping pace with the aircraft, they were getting into the radar-coverage area of the Carswell AFB GCI (Ground Controlled Intercept) unit and Chase radioed that unit to ask if they showed any other air traffic near the RB-47. Carswell GCI immediately came back with the information that there was apparently another aircraft about 10 miles from them at their 2 o'clock position. (The RB-47 was unambiguously identifiable by its IFF signal; the "other aircraft" was seen by "skin paint" Only, i.e., by direct radar reflection rather than via an IFF transponder, Col. Chase explained.) This information, each of the men emphasized to me in one way or another, made them a bit uneasy for the first time. I asked McClure a question that the Colorado investigators either failed to ask or did not summarize in their Report. Was the signal in all respects comparable to that of a typical ground radar? McClure told me that this was what baffled him the most, then and now. All the radar signature characteristics, as read out on his ALA-5 pulse analyzer, were completely normal - it had a pulse repetition frequency and pulse width like a CPS-6B and even simulated a scan rate: But its intensity, McClure pointed out, was so strong that "it would have to had an antenna bigger than a bomber to put out that much signal." And now, the implications of the events over Gulfport took on new meaning. The upscope-downscope sweep of his #2 monitor lobe implied that this source, presuming it to be the same one now also being seen on ground radar at Carswell GCI, had flown a circle around the RB-47 at 30-35,000 ft altitude while the aircraft was doing about 500 kts. Shortly after Carswell GCI began following the two targets, RB-47 and unknown, still another significant action unfolded. McClure suddenly noted the lobe on the #2 monitor was beginning to go upscope, and almost simultaneously, Chase told me, GCI called out that the second airborne target was starting to move forward. Keep in mind that no visual target was observable here; after blinking out at the 12 o'clock position, following its lightning-like traverse across the nose of the aircraft, no light had been visible. The unknown now proceeded to move steadily around to the 12 o'clock position, followed all the while on the #2 monitor and on the GCI scope down at Carswell near Ft. Worth. As soon as the unknown reached the 12 o'clock position, Chase and McCoid suddenly saw a bright red glow "bigger than a house", Chase said, and lying dead ahead, precisely the bearing shown on the passive radar direction-finder that McClure was on and precisely the bearing now indicated on the GCI scope. _Three independent sensing systems_ were at this juncture giving seemingly consistent-indications: two pairs of human eyes, a ground radar, and a direction-finding radar receiver in the aircraft. One of the important points not settled by the Colorado investigations concerned the question of whether the unknown was ever painted on any radar set on the RB-47 itself. Some of the men thought the navigator had seen it on his set, others were unsure. I eventually located Maj. Hanley at Vandenberg and he informed me that all through the incident, which he remembered very well, he tried, unsuccessfully to pick up the unknown on his navigational radar (K-system). I shall not recount all of the details of his efforts and his comments, but only mention the end result of my two telephone interviews with him. The important question was what sort of effective range that set had. Hanley gave the pertinent information that it could just pick up a large tanker of the KC-97 type at about 4 miles range, when used in the "altitude- hold" mode, with antenna tipped up to maximum elevation. But both at the start of its involvement and during the object's swing into the 12 o'clock position, GCI showed it remaining close to 10 miles in range from the RB-47. Thus Hanley's inability to detect it on his K-system navigational radar in altitude hold only implies that whatever was out there had a radar cross-section that was less than about 16 times that of a KC-97 (roughly twice 4 miles, inverse 4th-power law), The unknown gave a GCI return that suggested a cross-section comparable to an ordinary aircraft, Chase told me, which is consistent with Hanley's non-detection of the object. The Condon Report gives the impression the navigator did detect it, but this is not correct. I have in my files many pages of typed notes on my interviews, and cannot fill in all of the intriguing details here. Suffice it to say that Chase then went to maximum allowable power, hoping to close with the unknown, but it just stayed ahead at about 10 miles as GCI kept telling them; it stayed as a bright red light dead ahead, and it kept painting as a bright lobe on the top of McClure's ALA-6 scope. By this time they were well into Texas still at about 35,000 ft and doing upwards of 500 knots, when Chase saw it begin to veer to the right and head between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Getting FAA clearance to alter his own flight plan and to make sure other jet traffic was out of his way, he followed its turn, and then realized he was beginning to close on it for the first time. Almost immediately GCI told him the unknown had stopped moving on the ground-radarscope. Chase and McCoid watched as they came almost up to it. Chase's recollections on this segment of the events were distinctly clearer than McCoid's. McCoid was, of course, sitting aft of Chase and had the poorer view; also he said he was doing fuel-reserve calculations in view of the excess fuel-use in their efforts to shake the unknown, and had to look up from the lighted cockpit to try to look out intermittently, while Chase in the forward seat was able to keep it in sight more nearly continuously. Chase told me that he'd estimate that it was just ahead of the RB-47 and definitely below them when it instantaneously blinked out, At that same moment McClure announced on the interphone that he'd lost the 2800 mcs signal, and GCI said it had disappeared from their scope. Such simultaneous loss of signal on what we can term three separate channels is most provocative, most puzzling. Putting the aircraft into a left turn (which Chase noted consumes about 15-20 miles at top speed), they kept looking back to try to see the light again. And, about halfway through the turn (by then the aircraft had reached the vicinity of Mineral Wells, Texas, Chase said), the men in the cockpit suddenly saw the bright red light flash on again, back along their previous flight path but distinctly lower, and simultaneously GCI got a target again and McClure started picking up a 2800 mcs signal at that bearing: (As I heard one after another of these men describe all this, I kept trying to imagine how it was possible that Condon could listen, at the October, 1967, plasma conference at the UFO Project, as Col. Chase recounted all this and shrug his shoulders and walk out.) Securing permission from Carswell GCI to undertake the decidedly non- standard maneuver of diving on the unknown, Chase put the RB-47 nose down and had reached about 20,000 ft, he recalls, when all of a sudden the light blinked out, GCI lost it on their scope, and McClure reported loss of signal on the #2 monitor: Three-channel consistency once more. Low on fuel, Chase climbed back up to 25,000 and headed north for Oklahoma. He barely had it on homeward course when McClure got a blip dead astern and Carswell radioed that they had a target once more trailing the RB- 47 at about 10 miles. Rear visibility from the top blisters of the RB-4 now precluded easy visual check, particularly if the unknown was then at lower altitude (Chase estimated that it might have been near 15,000 ft when he lost it in the dive). It followed them to southern Oklahoma and then disappeared. 2. Discussion: This incident is an especially good example of a UFO case in which observer credibility and reliability do not come into serious question, a case in which more than one (here three) channel of information figures in the over-all observations, and a case in which the reported phenomena appear to defy explanation in terms of either natural or technological phenomena. In the Condon Report, the important initial incident in which the unknown 2800 MC source appeared to orbit the RB-47 near Gulfport is omitted. In the Condon Report, the reader is given no hint that the object was with the aircraft for over 600 miles and for over an hour. No clear sequence of these events is spelled out, nor is the reader made aware of all of the "three-channel" simultaneous appearances or disappearances that were so emphatically stressed to me by both Chase and McClure in my interviews with them. But even despite those degrees of incompleteness, any reader of the account of this case in the Condon Report must wonder that an incident of this sort could be left as unexplained and yet ultimately treated, along with the other unexplained cases in that Report, as calling for no further scientific attention. Actually, various hypotheses (radar anomalies, mirage effects) are weighed in one part of the Condon Report where this case is discussed separately (pp. 136-138). But the suggestion made there that perhaps an inversion near 2 km altitude was responsible for the returns at the Carswell GCI unit is wholly untenable. In an Appendix, a very lengthy but non-relevant discussion of ground return from anomalous propagation appears; in fact, it is so unrelated to the actual circumstances of this case as to warrant no comment here. Chase's account emphasized that the GCI radar(s) had his aircraft and the unknown object on-scope for a total flight-distance of the order of several hundred miles, including a near overflight of the ground radar. With such wide variations in angles of incidence of the ground-radar beam on any inversion or duct, however intense, the possibility of anomalous propagation effects yielding a consistent pattern of spurious echo matching the reported movements and the appearances and disappearances of the target is infinitesimal. And the more so in view of the simultaneous appearances and disappearances on the ECM gear and via visible emissions from the unknown. To suggest, as is tentatively done on p. 138 that the "red glow" might have been a "mirage of Oklahoma City", when the pilot's description of the luminous source involves a wide range of viewing angles, including two instances when he was viewing it at quite large depression angles, is wholly unreasonable. Unfortunately, that kind of casual ad hoc hypothesizing with almost no attention to relevant physical considerations runs all through the case-discussions in the treatment of radar and optical cases in the Condon Report, frequently (though not in this instance) being made the basis of "explanations" that are merely absurd. On p. 265 of the Report, the question of whether this incident might be explained in terms of any "plasma effect" is considered but rejected. In the end, this case is conceded to be unexplained. No evidence that a report on this event reached Project Bluebook was found by the Colorado investigators. That may seem hard to believe for those who are under the impression that the Air Force has been diligently and exhaustively investigating UFO reports over the past 22 years. But to those who have examined more closely the actual levels of investigation, lack of a report on this incident is not so surprising. Other comparable instances could he cited, and still more where the military aircrews elected to spare themselves the bother of interrogation, by not even reporting events about as puzzling as those found in this RB-47 incident. But what is of greatest present interest is the point that here we have a well-reported, multi-channel, multiple-witness UFO report, coming in fact from within the Air Force itself, investigated by the Condon Report team, conceded to be unexplained, and yet it is, in final analysis, ignored by Dr. Condon. In no section of the Report specifically written by the principal investigator does he even allude to this intriguing case. My question is how such events can be written off as demanding no further scientific study. To me, such cases seem to cry out for the most intensive scientific study - and the more so because they are actually so much more numerous than the scientific community yet realizes. There is a scientific mystery here that is being ignored and shoved under the rug; the strongest and most unjustified shove has come from the Condon Report. "unjustified" because that Report itself contains so many scientifically puzzling unexplained cases (approximately 30 out of 90 cases considered) that it is extremely difficult to understand how its principal investigator could have construed the contents of the Report as supporting a view that UFO studies should be terminated.

ABOUT THE RB-47:

The B-47 "Stratojet" was the first all-jet operational bomber in the Air Force and was the backbone of the Strategic Air Command bomber fleet in the 1950s. It was a medium range bomber that could be refueled in flight manufactured by Boeing Aircraft Company (primary), Douglas and Lockheed. It had 6 General Electric J-47-GE-25 turbojet engines, a maximum speed of 600 miles per hour, and a range of 4000 miles. The RB-47E was the photomapping, weather and electronic reconnaissance version of the B-47 and was also one of its best versions; it first flew July 1953. It was designed to check weather along projected bombing routes, photograph enemy installations and monitor defensive radar systems during the period 1954 to 1964. It was used in missions above North Korea, China, and also over the Soviet Union for the most sensitive reconnaissance missions of the Cold War.

REFERENCES:

• Project Blue Book case file #10073, National Archives and Record Administration (NARA, www.nara.gov), Washington D.C., files of 1957.
• ""Statement on Unidentified Flying Objects" by James McDonald Submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics on July 29, 1968.
• "AIAA Committee Looks at UFO Problem", AIAA UFO Subcommittee, Astronautics and Aeronautics, p. 12, December 1968.
• "Optical and radar analyses of field cases" by Gordon D. Thayer, 1969, in "Final report of the scientific study of unidentified flying objects" aka "The Condon Report", by Edward U. Condon and E.P. Dutton et al., New York, Library of Congress Catalog No. 73-77914, 1969.
• "Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations", by James E. McDonald, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting, General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects, by James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, December 27, 1969, reprinted in "UFOs, a scientific debate", edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1972.
• "Meteorological Factors in Unidentified Radar Returns", paper Presented at the 14th Radar Meteorology Conference American Meteorological Society November 17-20, James E. McDonald The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona, 1970.
• "The RB-47 UFO Case - A New Explanation", self-published article by Philipp Klass, 1971, reprinted in his book "UFOs Explained", Random House, New York, ISBN 0-394-72106-3, 1974.
• "UFO Encounter I Sample Case", case selected by the UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA Astronautics and Aeronautics, July, 1971, pp. 66-70. Dr. James E. McDonald.
• "UFOs: A Scientific Debate", edited by Carl Sagan and Thornton Page, "a collection of evidence and opinion from both sides", Norton publisher, ISBN 0-39300-739-1, 1974
• "RB-47 radar/visual sighting", article by Gordon D. Thayer, in the book "The encyclopedia of UFOs", edited by Ronald D. Story, Doubleday and co, New York, 1980.
• "UFOs: An insider's view of the official quest for evidence", by Roy Craig, University of North Texas Press, Denton, Texas, ISBN 0-929398-94-7, 1995.
• "The UFO Book", by Jerome Clark, pp. 505-509, Visible Ink, New York, ISBN 1-57859-029-9, 1998.
• "L'affaire du RB-47", by Dominique Weinstein, in "OVNI USA", hors série VSD magazine, pp 32-33, July 2001.
• "Les OVNIS et la défense - A quoi doit-on se préparer", book by association Cometa, pp. 40-44, Editions du Rocher, ISBN 2-268-04592-7, France, 1999.

25 Shocking Facts About the Pharmaceutical Industry

Researching and snagging an adequate, wallet-friendly health care plan is tough these days, despite its high-profile presence in political debates. A large part of the controversy over expensive health costs stems from criticism of high-priced medications marketed by powerful pharmaceutical companies. From Medicare fraud to CEOs worth billions of dollars, big drug companies are accused of putting profits above patients, spinning false PR campaigns and more. We've uncovered 25 of the most shocking facts about the pharmaceutical industry in this list.

1. The price of drugs is increasing faster than anything else a patient pays for: Marcia Angell writes in her book The Truth About Drug Companies that "drugs are the fastest-growing part of the health care bill which itself is rising at an alarming rate." Dr. Angell argues that patients are spending more on drugs simply because they are being prescribed more drugs than ever before and that "those drugs are more likely to be expensive new ones instead of older, cheaper ones, and that the prices of the most heavily prescribed drugs are routinely jacked up, sometimes several times a year."
2. Your health care provider may have an ulterior motive behind your prescription: In 2007, the St. Petersburg Times reported that drug reps often give gifts to convince medical professionals to prescribe the medications that they represent. Dr. James P. Orlowski tries to teach his students that interaction with drug reps is not in the best interests of patients. Even though many doctors may believe solicitation from drug reps is unethical or at the very least impractical, gifts like free meals, pens, posters, books, and free samples are offered to physicians in an effort to influence their prescription practices.
3. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than research: According to ScienceDaily, a "new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development." Despite pharmaceutical companies' claims that Americans pay such high prices for prescription medications because they're really paying for research and development costs, the industry spent $33.5 billion on promotion costs in 2004. The study also "supports the position that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven and challenges the perception of a research-driven, life-saving, pharmaceutical industry" that values the lives of its patients, rather than their spending habits.
4. Brand name meds often have a 1,000% mark-up price: Many Americans are aware that brand name prescriptions cost more than generic meds, and that part of the reason for the higher prices is because they've been hiked up by the pharmaceutical companies themselves and aren't necessarily a direct result of expensive new ingredients. This study, however, reveals that some meds can have a mark-up of 1,000%. For example, according to the study, consumers pay approximately $215 for 100 tablets of the allergy medicine Claritin, while the cost of the generic active ingredient in Claritin only costs 71 cents.
5. Popular meds are referred to as "blockbuster" drugs: The new presence of blockbuster drugs is a testament to how the pharmaceutical company's marketing tactics and price hikes are getting out of control. According to TheAtlantic.com, "the industry usually considers a drug to be a blockbuster if it reaches a billion dollars a year in sales." The drug Prilosec, for example, was marketed as a miracle pill that allowed people to "eat the burritos and curries that their gastrointestinal systems had placed off-limits." Prilosec is the first drug to make the industry $5 billion in one year, and the next year, in 2000, Prilosec reached $6 billion. Consumers called it "purple Jesus," making it easy for the drug company to capitalize on patients addict-like behavior.
6. Vioxx advertising reaches new heights: To give consumers more perspective on how prescription drug advertising has reached new heights, the AARP Bulletin reports that pharmaceutical giant "Merck spent more advertising Vioxx, according to NIHCM, than the $125 million spent promoting Pepsi or the $146 million spent on Budweiser beer ads. It even came close to the $169 million spent promoting GM's Saturn, the nation's most advertised car." While "drug prices are rising at more than twice the rate of inflation," industry analysts and insiders debate over whether or not rising prices is the fault of the pharmaceutical company or the consumers.
7. Drug reps often have no medical or science education: Is it safe for physicians to assume that the professionals they meet with to discuss new medications and prescription recommendations for their patients actually have backgrounds in medicine or science? According to ABC News, it's not. A former drug rep for the pharmaceutical company Eli Lily, Shahram Ahari testified before Congress, saying that "pharmaceutical companies hire former cheerleaders and ex-models to wine and dine doctors, exaggerate the drug's benefits and underplay their side-effects." He also explained that he was taught "how to exceed spending limits for important clients...[by] using friendships and personal gifts" and to "exploit sexual tension."
8. Pharmaceutical companies are helping, hurting the AIDS epidemics: Pharmaceutical companies have been feeling the pressure from the UN as well as governments and activists from underdeveloped countries to supply tests and medicine for AIDS patients at reduced prices. According to the Center for International Development at Harvard University, the pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. agreed to slash prices on its two AIDS drugs in Brazil" in 2001, but supposedly "in part to stop that country from importing a generic version." Unpatented AIDS drugs are circulating in countries like South Africa, which makes pharmaceutical companies nervous because "patents are the basis for high drug prices," and the presence of generic drugs "weakens the drug companies' efforts to maintain a worldwide environment that respects intellectual property." The debate surrounding intellectual property and the private sector vs. patient rights and affordable health care is magnified on a much larger, more global scale in this situation.
9. Doctors can choose to reveal or keep private their prescription records: Drug reps often research doctors' prescription records before meeting with them and attempting to convince them to recommend certain drugs. By understanding a physician's history with a given drug, the drug rep is more likely to influence caregivers and sell more medicines. The New York Times reports, however, that not all doctors are falling prey to these background checks. In 2006, the American Medical Association decided to give doctors a choice to keep their "records off limits to drug sales representatives" and make prescription recommendations based on unbiased judgment.
10. Good PR trumps patient care: When Merck & Co. found out that one of their products, Vioxx, can increase the risk of heart attacks in its patients, it allegedly "played down" the evidence. Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Dr. Eric Topol accused Merck of "scientific misconduct," and two days later, Dr. Topol was kicked off the board of governors at the Cleveland Clinic.
11. Toxins found in drugs exported from China: A top story in the spring of 2007 centered around Zheng Xiaoyu, a Chinese drug czar who was sentenced to death "after admitting that he took bribes while running the country's Food & Drug Administration between 1998 and 2005," when he served as commissioner. According to The New York Times, "every year, thousands of people [in China] are sickened or killed because of rampant counterfeiting and tainted food and drugs."
12. Abbott Laboratories charged Medi-Cal nearly $10 for saline solution : This list has already mentioned some of the extreme mark-ups for prescription medications, but Abbott Laboratories' fraudulent behavior towards California's state Medicaid program actually ended up in court. The state attorney general "sued 39 drug companies...accusing them of bilking the state of hundreds of millions of dollars by overcharging for medicines," reports The New York Times. An example of the outrageous mark-ups include the $9.73 price tag for saline solution, which cost other health care providers 95 cents.
13. Guilty of Medicare fraud: Pharmaceutical companies are also being tried in federal courts as an answer to their exploitation of Medicare. AstraZeneca Inc. had to pay $280 million in civil penalties and $63 million in criminal penalties to the federal government after the company "paid kickbacks to health care providers and coached them to cheat Medicare to promote a prostate cancer drug."
14. Some generic brands are becoming more popular: Those wanting to really "stick it" to the big man and who hope to see pharmaceutical companies stumble as the result of more competition and fewer consumers will enjoy this 2007 report from The New York Times, which finds that "annual inflation in drug costs is at the lowest rate in the three decades since the Labor Department began using its current method of tracking prescription prices." Patients are starting to use generic medications and buy prescriptions from discount stores like Wal-Mart to alleviate the financial burden of brand name drugs.
15. Combined wealth of top 5 pharmaceutical companies outweighs GNP of sub-Saharan Africa.: Corporate Watch shows the public just how much wealth big pharmaceutical companies have, even on a global scale. Their report references The Guardian, which found that "the combined worth of the world’s top five drug companies is twice the combined GNP of all sub-Saharan Africa and their influence on the rules of world trade is many times stronger because they can bring their wealth to bear directly on the levers of western power."
16. Dr. Robert Jarvik isn't a licensed doctor: Many Americans watched as Dr. Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart, gently coaxed them to take the Pfizer-marketed drug Lipitor in order to lower their cholesterol. The ads were eventually pulled, however, when "it turn[ed] out Jarvik isn’t a licensed heart doctor." U.S. Representative John Dingell remarked, "It seems that Pfizer’s No. 1 priority is to sell lots of Lipitor, by whatever means necessary, including misleading the American people."
17. Ernesto Bertarelli makes Forbes' billionaires list: Just as Americans are questioning the record profits and salaries of booming oil companies when they're forced to accept rising prices at the pump, people may wonder about Ernesto Bertarelli's billionaire status. Bertarelli is the CEO of the pharmaceutical company Serono, and Forbes reports that his net worth in 2002 reached $8.4 billion. That was enough to place him as the 31st richest person in the world.
18. Pfizer is fifth-best wealth creator: Corporate Watch reports that Fortune named pharmaceutical giant Pfizer as the "fifth-best wealth-creator" in America, and Corporate Watch considers it the "largest and richest pharmaceutical enterprise in the world."
19. Americans pay more for prescription meds than anyone else in the world: The Media Matters website analyzes a 60 Minutes interview between correspondent Bob Simon and then Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona. During the segment, Carmona maintains that Americans pay more for brand name prescriptions than anyone else in the world because of the hefty price associated with "the research and development of drugs." See point number 3 on this list, which points out that drug companies pay more on advertising and marketing than they do on research and development.
20. Pharmaceutical advertisements actually work: The public wag their fingers at pharmaceutical companies' advertising budgets only if they admit that sometimes, those commercials actually work. The Miami Herald points out that while "more than four in ten [Americans] have an unfavorable view" of pharmaceutical companies, "prescription-drug advertising has driven a third of Americans to talk to a medical professional about specific drugs, and many of these people got a prescription from their health care provider as a result."
21. Americans spent $200 billion on prescription drugs in 2002: Marcia Angell reveals in her book The Truth About the Drug Companies that Americans spent $200 billion on prescription drugs in 2002. That's the amount medical experts estimated it will cost to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and the amount China is pouring into an energy renewal program.
22. Academics help pharmaceutical companies conduct research: A new trend in the R&D sector of the pharmaceutical industry features research-based partnerships between academic centers and drug companies. Marcia Angell explains the collaboration by writing that these companies "now ring the major academic research institutions and often carry out the initial phases of drug development, hoping for lucrative deals with big drug companies that can market the new drugs. Usually both academic researchers and their institutions own equity in the biotechnology companies they are involved with," and everyone can "cash in on the public investment in research." As academic centers play a more significant role in the success of the drug companies, they are more likely to take on the "entrepreneur" spirit and make profits from patents, royalties and stocks, which can mark up the prices for everyday consumers.
23. "New" Drugs aren't really new: When a new drug hits the market, is it really new? Euractiv.com reports on a recent study which found "that two-thirds of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1989 and 2000 were identical to existing drugs or modified versions of them. Only about one-third of the drugs approved by the FDA during the time period were based on new "molecular entities" that treat diseases in novel ways." Many of these newer drugs cost more because the drug companies have to extend their patents, which can "enable a brand company to delay generic competitors and maintain a high price for an aging product."
24. Some drug companies are taking advantage of underdeveloped countries to perform clinical trials: Wired.com reports that India is becoming a more attractive place for drug companies to run clinical trials and test out new drugs. The article explains, "more and more drug companies are conducting clinical trials in developing countries where government oversight is more lax and research can be done for a fraction of the cost." Controversy is starting to build over the trend, however, as one expert explains. Sean Philpott, managing editor of The American Journal of Bioethics, reveals to Wired.com that such practices may be unfair, as "individuals who participate in Indian clinical trials usually won't be educated. Offering $100 [as payment for their participation] may be undue enticement; they may not even realize that they are being coerced."
25. Pharmaceutical Companies donated millions to Hurricane Katrina relief programs: Americans are used to bashing pharmaceutical companies, just as they criticize health insurance companies, rising gas prices and monopolies. It may come as a shock, then, to discover the philanthropic efforts undertaken by big drug companies. Medical News Today writes that companies like Abbott, Eli Lilly, Merck, Pfizer and others have donated millions of dollars in cash and supplies to the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

Detaining Africans latest step in making Israel an ethnocracy

Detaining Africans latest step in making Israel an ethnocracy

Sophie Crowe

March 2, 2012 Levinsky Park sits just across from Tel Aviv’s central bus station, a rundown, bustling neighborhood in the city’s south known for its large migrant worker community and municipal neglect. For years Levinsky Park itself has been a hub for homeless asylum seekers. On any given day there can be up to 250 persons living in the park, according to Nick Schlagman, program manager at the African Refugee Development Center. The African asylum-seekers, hoping for a solution to their limbo status, have fled impossible situations at home — mostly Eritrea and Sudan. They were greeted upon arrival in Israel with a hostile government that offers them no support or protection and wants them out. Indefinite detention The climate in Israel for refugees has grown increasingly harsh. The border with Egypt is heavily patrolled by soldiers who pounce on new arrivals, shuttling them to a detention center, where they are registered, held for a number of weeks, then left to fend for themselves. Most receive a month-long visa, which must be renewed on a rolling basis, Schlagman explained. The trend was cemented in January, when the 1954 Prevention of Infiltration law was amended. The amendment allows the state to detain refugees without trial for three years, or indefinitely if they are from an "enemy" country such as Sudan. This puts Israel at first place among western states for the longest jail time for asylum seekers, according to Amnesty International ("Israel: new detention law violates rights of asylum seekers," 10 January 2012). To help realize this provision, a refugee detention center is being planned that will hold 10,000 persons. Those that offer support to refugees, the law says, may face up to 15 years in prison. The Infiltration Law was originally intended to block the efforts of Palestinians uprooted during the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing leading to Israel’s foundation in 1948, who might try to return and lay claim to their homes. It allowed the state to imprison "infiltrators" — anyone, namely Palestinians, who crossed Israel’s boundaries without official permission. The law was imagined as part of the Zionist project of keeping Israel Jewish by excluding Palestinians. Today it has the same purpose, this time targeting people fleeing an oppressive dictatorship in Eritrea, and Sudan, where large scale human rights abuses have occurred in the province of Darfur and in fighting between the north and south. The Israeli government has described its anti-refugee policies as "deterrence." If the state’s 50,000 refugees relay to their families and friends the awful treatment meted out to them in Israel others like them will go elsewhere, the logic goes. Israel cannot deport the refugees due to its signing of the 1951 Refugee Convention, according to which states must provide refuge to those fleeing danger in their home country. Israel manages to circumvent this obligation by refusing to acknowledge people as refugees, instead labeling them "migrant workers." The conditional release visa that refugees receive does not allow them to work. "We went to the high court to fight this," explained Yohanes Bayu, director of ARDC, "which decided the state could not fine businesses that employed asylum seekers." Denying right to work In reality it is still extremely difficult for refugees to find work. While the government cannot overturn the court’s decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Interior Minister Eli Yishai are saying on television that employers of refugees will be punished, Bayu said. In January, it was reported that contractors employed by the Tel Aviv municipality fired 800 asylum seekers working as street cleaners, under orders from municipal authorities ("Tel Aviv orders subcontractors to stop employing asylum seekers," Haaretz, 23 January 2012). Blankets confiscated Conditions in Levinsky Park this year, with a particularly cold winter, were tough. One man sleeping there told The Electronic Intifada that municipal authorities had been making rounds of the park each morning, clearing away blankets donated by locals to help the homeless men through the cold nights. One 40-year-old Eritrean, Yohanes Barko, did not survive the experience. Barko had lived in a tent in the park during the summer’s "tent protests" but was made homeless again when his tent was torn down by municipal authorities last October. In mid-January he was found in the park, having died from the cold ("Tel Aviv refugee froze to death. 'Go back to Africa, it’s warmer,’" +972 Magazine, 22 January 2012). "It was this man’s death that galvanized the community to take immediate action," Schlagman noted. Tel Aviv locals, shocked by the state’s total apathy, began bringing bags of clothes and blankets to the park. Some came every night with warm meals. In late January, Sons of Darfur, a group of Darfuri refugees, set up a small shelter for the refugees in an old bar, meters away from the park’s boundaries. The space can fit about 150 individuals. The organizers cannot afford to maintain the shelter, which costs 12,000 shekels ($3,200) a month to rent, but worry what might befall their lodgers should they close down. The group, along with the Israeli emergency service Magen David Adom, managed recently to find temporary housing for all of Levinsky Park’s refugees. This is the first time since 2006 that the park is empty at night, Schlagman said. Preserving apartheid Once again, demography is being wielded by the establishment with great bluster and urgency. If Israel offers sanctuary to downtrodden Africans, soon its Jewish majority will be jeopardized, the argument goes. Israel’s demographic fear has already fueled much racially-biased legislation, most recently the high court’s upholding of a law denying citizenship to West Bank and Gaza spouses of Israeli citizens and nationals of Arab "enemy" states. While the security line is often employed to buttress policies denounced as racist and discriminatory, Israeli leaders are not attempting to disguise the amendment to the Infiltration Law as anything but another means of ensuring ethnic homogeneity — or, in other words, Jewish supremacy. In December, Netanyahu spoke of a forthcoming trip to Africa and planned discussions with African leaders about how to stem the continuing stream of their citizens into Israel. "These are very important steps to ensure the future of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state," he said. "If we do not act to stop this illegal flood, we will simply be inundated" ("Netanyahu to go to Africa to return infiltrators," Israel National News, 11 December 2011).