3 radar cases · 2018. 7. 15. · historical case studies: three ufo radar cases selfridge air...

Historical Case Studies: Three UFO Radar Cases

_______________________________________

Selfridge Air Force Base, Michigan. March 9, 1950 p. 1

Bentwaters-Lakenheath RAF, Suffolk, UK. August 13-14, 1956 p. 5

Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. October 24, 1968 p. 16

Thomas Tulien

Sign Oral History Project

2018


SELFRIDGE AIR FORCE BASE RADAR CASE March 9, 1950

On the evening of March 9, 1950, at Selfridge Air Force Base near Mount Clemens,

Michigan, a crew of three radar controllers was busy monitoring the night flying units of the 56th Fighter-Interceptor Group at Selfridge Air Force Base. Shortly after sundown, Lt. Francis E. Parker arrived for duty in the radar station, relieving Lt. Frank Mattson on the AN/CPS-5 radarscope while establishing contact with the F-80 Shooting Star pilots that were already airborne. The crew, including Mattson, Sgt. McCarthy, and Cpl. Melton, mentioned to Parker that they had been observing an intermittent target on the height range indicator (HRI) scope of the AN/CPS-4 radar at 45,000 feet altitude and over. At this time, the target was not visible on either radarscope, and since the highest assigned altitude of the F-80s was limited to 24,000 feet, Parker attributed the reports to radio-frequency interference or crew inexperience. But over the next fifteen minutes the crew repeatedly reported a target rapidly changing altitudes on the HRI scope. Eventually, Parker was able to break from monitoring the F-80s long enough to observe the target, which presented “a very narrow and clear-cut presentation on the HRI scope” at 47,000 feet with a range of 70 miles.

The Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star was the first turbojet-powered combat fighter to enter USAAF service in the final days of World War II.


2

Further indications of what Parker described as an “aircraft” were picked up with increasing regularity over the next 45 minutes to an hour. Curiously, during this time the target seemed to stay in the area where the fighter pilots were flying, occasionally appearing to approximate their courses—though at 20,000 feet above them. During the course of the events, Parker was able to speak to the Lockheed F-80 fighter pilots over the VHF radio to determine their exact altitude, bearing, and speed. This provided a means to calibrate the accuracy of the radar systems and eliminate the possibility of any internal malfunction during the actual observation period. In addition, the radar operators were monitoring two distinct radar systems—a CPS-5 radar operating in the L-band (“long” wave) frequencies, designed to provide a search to 60 miles (though effective to 210 miles) at 40,000 feet; in conjunction with a separate height finding radar set with a vertical antenna designated CPS-4 with a range of 90 miles operating in the S-band (“short” wave) of frequencies. The MIT AN/CPS-4 system was recently installed as part of a preliminary establishment of an early-warning radar system to guard against Soviet invasion. Because of the significant differences in frequencies of the two radar systems any temperature inversion or atmospheric anomalies, which are extremely sensitive to frequency, would not display correlating and consistent returns on both radarscopes as was observed. Further, according to Lt. Parker’s report, the target

indication was definitely not that of a cloud or atmospheric phenomenon. I checked [with] pilots in the area by VHF and was assured by the F-80 pilot at the highest altitude that he was at 24,000 feet. The clarity, narrowness, and definition of the presentation were definitely that of an aircraft. The target gave a similar presentation to that given by an F-80, and if anything narrower.

Furthermore, the crewmembers reported from indications on both radarscopes the target

hovering in one position. During a four to five minute period it traversed from due west (270 degrees) at 78 miles, to north (358 degrees) at 53 miles, at an altitude of 45,000 feet—resulting in a speed approaching 1,500 mph for this run. For reference, the normal cruise speed of an F-80 was 410 mph; and Martin Shough has noted that even a factor-2 error in the calculation results in a speed well in excess of the fastest operational jet in 1950 (Shough, 2002). Though unable to substantiate the speed himself, Parker conceded, “I knew only that the target was very fast.” This seemed to heighten his interest, and by momentarily turning around and watching the HRI scope he was able to observe several extreme instances of gaining and losing altitude, remarkably at times up to 20,000 feet very rapidly.

Finally, he was able to identify the “aircraft” on his radarscope, and simultaneously on the

HRI scope as the target began to move away from the area to the southeast. With clear indications on both scopes, he began recording the range and azimuth on the minute, while McCarthy recorded the altitudes on the HRI over the next six minutes. The results are indicated in the following graph.

Following this, the unidentified target began fading from the radarscope, though for short

periods they were still able to observe it for durations of one and two minutes. Once more, at a distance of 110 miles it appeared to hover for two minutes, before fading from the scope at 120 miles for the last time.


3

In reference to the recorded data, Parker noted, “These figures, although not as spectacular as some of the climbs and speeds I observed, show definitely the erratic speed and altitude changes,” clearly implying that the flight characteristics were not consistent with aircraft typically observed on his radarscopes. In fact, no aircraft known to be flying in 1950 could approach the performance envelope of the target, or remain stationary at high altitudes for up to two minutes.

Time, speed, range, and altitude plotted over a six-minute period at Selfridge Air Force Base in Michigan on March 9, 1950 (Shough, 1987).

For example, the one-minute plots logged by the controllers indicate a climb rate of up to 7,000 feet per minute (fpm), and speeds over 450 mph at altitudes above 35,000 feet. For comparison, the maximum rate of climb of a clean F-80 (with no external loading) was 4,950 fpm, and a calibrated airspeed of 310 mph at sea level. However, according to the F-80C flight manual, these specifications decrease proportionally with increase in altitude (and the consequent decrease in air density). At 25,000 feet, the standard rate of climb decreases by more than half, to 2,250 fpm at an airspeed of 260 mph, and more so as the plane approaches the service ceiling around 40,000 feet. As an experienced pilot and radar controller, Parker would have been cognizant of these standards.

His report (Parker, 1950) of the incident reached Headquarters, Continental Air

Command, Mitchell Air Force Base in New York, where it was reviewed by technical experts, resulting in a classified letter of recommendation forwarded to the Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, in Washington, D.C. The letter corroborated Lt. Parker’s


4

reporting, further emphasizing:

The great difference in the frequencies of the L-Band CPS-5 and S-Band CPS-4 radar sets and the evident correlation of observations between these two sets almost rule out the possibility of anomalous propagation effects. Further, the magnitude of the velocity and accelerations of the three dimensional movements of the “object” reported are beyond the capability of known heavier or lighter than air vehicles in controlled flight (O’Brien, 1950).

The experts also noted that field experience with the CPS-5 radar system at the ranges and altitudes reported indicate the reflection aspect ratio of the object as comparable to a B-29 Superfortress or greater. The letter concluded with this acknowledgment: “The frequency of reports of this nature has recently increased; instructions have therefore been directed to all radar installations within this command to report scope sightings of unusual objects,” with a further recommendation that all Air Force agencies be reconsidered for submission of unidentified object reports (O’Brien, 1950). Given the historical context in early 1950, at the advent of the Cold War—while lacking any early warning system to effectively guard against a Soviet invasion—Air Force officials had just cause to be concerned about unidentifiable aircraft operating in the vicinity of military facilities, particularly when they exhibited performance characteristics that could not be defended against with current technologies.

The Selfridge observations clearly demonstrate the ability of radar to provide reliable,

quantitative data in order to demonstrate, in unambiguous fashion, a range of performance characteristics of UFO reports. On two occasions the target appeared to hover in the low-density air found higher up in the atmosphere, an attribute of many UFO reports beyond any aerodynamic capability to this day. In addition, radar provides a means to track UFOs over ranges of hundreds of miles, and often in relation to known aircraft. Parker noted that during a 45-minute period of time “this target seemed to stay in the area in which our fighters were flying, sometimes approximating their courses but 20,000 feet above them,” which infers rational behavior, or an inquisitive nature directed by intelligence. This ability to infer intelligent behavior is an intriguing aspect of UFO radar reports.

—Thomas Tulien

Sources: Hynek, J. Allen. The Hynek UFO Report. New York: Dell, 1977. O’Brien, Neal. Classified letter from HQ, Continental Air Command, Mitchell AFB, NY to Director of

Intelligence, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, in Washington, D.C., April 3, 1950. Parker, Francis E. Narrative report sent to HQ, Continental Air Command, Mitchell AFB, NY, March 10,

1950. Shough, Martin L. Radar and the UFO. In UFOs 1947-1987: The 40-year Search for an Explanation.

London: Fortean Tomes, 1987. __________. Radar Catalogue (RADCAT). The Author, 2002.


5

LAKENHEATH-BENTWATERS RADAR/VISUAL CASE August 13-14, 1956

This radar-visual case is one of the more intriguing UFO reports on record, and remained

classified until publication of the University of Colorado’s two-year government-funded study of unidentified flying objects in 1969. According to Colorado staff radar consultant Gordon D. Thayer:

This is the most puzzling and unusual case in the radar-visual files. The apparently rational, intelligent behavior of the UFO suggests a mechanical device of unknown origin as the most probable explanation of this sighting (Thayer, 1971).

The events occurred over East Anglia, bordering the North Sea in England, and involved numerous British and American aircrews, however, the public were never informed of the events and the official records of the British Air Ministry investigation were routinely destroyed in 1962. Simply by chance, the case was brought to the attention of staff at the University of Colorado UFO Project following the receipt of an unsolicited letter from a principal witness.

At this time, retired, U.S. Air Force Technical Sergeant Forrest D. Perkins happened to

notice an article in his local newspaper discussing the officially sanctioned Colorado UFO study. It so happens that Perkins was serving as the Watch Supervisor at RAF Lakenheath, near the city of Cambridge, in the Radar Air Traffic Control Center (RATCC) at the time of the events. In a well-written, four-page letter, dated February 1968, he presented Colorado staff with what would prove to be a particularly coherent narrative. However, this did not elicit much of a response until July, when the project’s radar-visual consultant Gordon Thayer discovered Perkins’ letter and submitted a request to U.S. Air Force Project Blue Book for additional information. Blue Book forwarded part of the declassified file to Thayer in August. Following a second request, complete copies of the file were received in September, though too late for the case to be properly evaluated for the final report (Shough, 2003).

Thayer discovered the Blue Book file contained additional information regarding several

earlier observations by radar controllers at the Bentwaters RAF station, located 38 miles east of Lakenheath. These events were not recounted in Perkins’ letter, since they precede the alerting phone call from the Bentwaters’ radar operator inquiring if Lakenheath too “had any targets on [their] scopes traveling at 4,000 mph.” Thayer also noted, “One of the interesting aspects of this case is the remarkable accuracy of the account . . . which was apparently written from memory 12 years after the incident.” With only minor discrepancies, “all of the major details seem to be confirmed by the Blue Book report” (Gillmor, 1969).

Following World War II, President Harry Truman reactivated the United States Air Forces

in Europe (USAFE) in response to the international crisis resulting from the Berlin Blockade


6

and escalating threats from the Soviet Union. By 1952 the NATO Military Committee was calling for an ambitious buildup of conventional forces to counter the Soviets. In cooperation with the British government, a number of Royal Air Force stations were transferred to the USAFE. RAF Bentwaters became host to the USAF 81st Fighter-Bomber Wing and was designated as a primary installation of HQ USAFE, while RAF Lakenheath became one of three operating bases of the U.S. Air Force, Strategic Air Command (SAC), which began deploying its strategic nuclear bomber forces to England. Although American forces occupied several bases in East Anglia, the Air Ministry was principally responsible for defending British air space. In this respect, the British maintained a number of air bases in the region under the control of a Sector Operations Centre (SOC), and Ground Control Intercept (GCI) station located at RAF Neatishead near Norfolk.

The two-man de Havilland Venom NF.3 was the ultimate night fighter variant and saw combat service during the Malayan Emergency and the Suez Crisis in late 1956.

At the time, the role of Chief Fighter Controller, Lt. F.H.C. Wimbledon, was to monitor and track all aircraft not positively identified and direct the local RAF fighter squadrons to intercept. A two-man aircrew flying the de Havilland Venom NF.3 night-fighter was on alert at all times and ready on the flight line to take off in a minute’s notice. Normally, they were scrambled to maximum altitudes up to 48,000 feet to intercept targets over the North Sea coming into the East Anglian coast from the east. In fact, Wimbledon acknowledged to British researcher David Clarke, “at that time we were being visited by the Russians three times a week . . . scrambled every time” (Shough, 2003). In this case, however, the RAF aircrews engaged to intercept an unidentified flying object over Lakenheath said it was highly unusual to intercept a low-altitude target over land. One of the navigators remarked to British researcher Jenny Randles, “Normally, if we were being sent to intercept while something was flying over Cambridge, it would already be way too late!”(Randles, 1999).


7

Events at RAF Bentwaters

Several events occurred at Bentwaters leading up to the incidents, which would cause genuine concern for British and American military authorities. Shortly after 6:00 P.M. on August 13, a Venom night-fighter of the No. 23 Squadron at RAF Waterbeach was diverted to identify an unidentified radar target at high altitude. Flying Officers George Sandman and Peter Dell acquired the target on their Airborne Intercept radar far above the maximum ceiling of the Venom. Unable to close, they dismissed the target as a balloon and returned to base. A few hours later the events began to escalate well into the early morning hours.

Shortly after 9:00 P.M., radar operator T/Sgt. Elmer Whenry, at Bentwaters’ Ground

Control Approach (GCA), was tracking a cluster of unidentified targets slowly moving to the northeast eight miles southwest of Bentwaters. The straggling cluster of about a dozen echoes was preceded by three others maintaining an estimated separation of 1,800 feet in “a triangular formation,” and crossed the radarscope center at speeds varying between 80 and 125 mph. During this time, S/Sgt. Lawrence Wright in the control tower at Bentwaters sighted an unusual star-like object above the horizon to the southeast. Evidently, the Bentwaters controller reported the observations to the chief controller at RAF Neatishead GCI, 40 miles to the north. According to Wimbledon, in a 2001 interview: “Bentwaters rang through to say that something was buzzing their airfield,” and they subsequently tracked an object “that travelled at tremendous speeds and then stopped” (Shough, 2003).

Arrangements were made with RAF Waterbeach to scramble a Venom night-fighter to

intercept these targets and it got off the ground at 9:20. However, Flying Officers Les Arthur and Grahame Scofield were forced to abort shortly after takeoff because of a switch-guard malfunction that resulted in the accidental loss of their wingtip fuel tanks. During the same time, a U.S. Air Force T-33 jet trainer in the area on a routine flight was vectored to search for the targets. Lieutenants Charles Metz and Andrew Rowe searched the area to the northeast without seeing anything out of the ordinary to explain the targets. But searching to the east and southeast, they apparently observed the same “bright star” reported earlier by S/Sgt. Wright.

At 9:30, radar operator A/2C John Vaccare Jr. was startled to see an unidentified target,

which first appeared as a normal aircraft, though on a high-speed approach toward Bentwaters. From the initial position 25–30 miles east-southeast over the North Sea, the object passed directly over Bentwaters on a constant course to a vanishing point 15–20 miles west-northwest in only 30 seconds. (Lakenheath is on the same 295-degree course though 38 miles inland.) Vaccare’s estimate of the speed of the target was over 4,000 mph.

Meanwhile, the slow-moving cluster of targets being observed by T/Sgt. Whenry was

proceeding to a point 40 miles northeast of Bentwaters, at which time it converged into a single integrated return on the radarscope several times the strength of a typical aircraft. This strong echo now stopped and maintained a stationary position for more than 10 minutes, then proceeded for 5–6 miles and remained stationary again for less than five minutes, and then moved to the north disappearing on scope at 9:55.


8

Only a few minutes elapsed after the disappearance of these curious targets before Whenry

detected yet another “normal” return on his scope in the east, at a range of 30 miles. Similar to the previous target tracked 30 minutes earlier by Vaccare, it was also inbound to Bentwaters at hypersonic speed. It crossed Whenry’s radarscope diametrically and disappeared 55 miles to the west “by rapidly moving out of the GCA radiation pattern.” Once more, estimates of the speed of the target were well in excess of 4,000 mph. It seems curious that, following these events—including two incredible hypersonic over flights of Bentwaters—that the radar operators would not alert Lakenheath until one hour later. In any event, the activity settled down over the next hour, although, this would soon take a dramatic turn according to the RATCC Watch Supervisor on duty at RAF Lakenheath, T/Sgt. Forrest Perkins.

Events at RAF Lakenheath

At around 11:00 P.M., T/Sgt. Perkins was sitting at the supervisor’s coordinating desk when he received a call from the Bentwaters radar operator inquiring whether personnel at Lakenheath had observed “any targets on [their] scopes travelling at 4,000 mph.” He was informed that Bentwaters had just tracked another object from a position 30 miles east traveling westerly at an apparent speed of “2,000–4,000 mph.” The “object disappeared two miles east of station and immediately reappeared on the scope three miles west of station where it disappeared 30 miles west of station on scope.” At the same time, personnel in the control tower visually observed a blurry bright light at about 4,000 feet altitude passing over the station east to west; while the pilot of a C-47 transport aircraft at 5,000 feet altitude above Bentwaters “reported a bright light streak[ing] under [his] aircraft traveling east to west at terrific speed.” In this instance, the radar controllers had visual confirmations of the hypersonic UFO. It is also noteworthy that all four of the initial radar tracks share a common point of intersection directly over Bentwaters.

Although skeptical of the report, Perkins instructed his controllers to set each scope on a

different range surrounding Lakenheath and to engage the Moving Target Indicator function of the RATCC radar to entirely eliminate all ground returns or stationary targets. At first there was little or no traffic on the scopes, until a controller noticed a stationary target about 20–25 miles to the southwest. Perkins recalled, “this was unusual since a stationary target should have been eliminated . . . and yet we could detect no movement at all.” He phoned the GCA radar controller at Lakenheath, who confirmed the same target on their scope. As they continued watching, the target began to move to the north-northeast at an apparent speed of 400–600 mph until it reached a point 20 miles to the north-northwest. What caught their attention were the instantaneous movements. According to Perkins, “there was no slow buildup to this speed—it was constant from the second it started to move until it stopped.”

At this time, he contacted the 7th Air Division (SAC) Command Post to report the

situation and established an open line of communication that included the U.S. Third Air Force (USAFE) Commanding General, and local squadron commanding officers via his switchboard. He reviewed the situation up to that point and continued to provide detailed reporting on the


9

target’s movements and locations. In particular, he related that the target always moved rectilinearly at a constant speed of about 600 mph to an instantaneous stop. At one point, the object was tracked 17 miles east of Lakenheath making a “sharp rectangular course of flight at speeds of 600–800 mph.” There appeared to be no set pattern to the target trajectories and change of positions, which varied in length from 8–20 miles, while the time spent stationary between movements varied from 3-6 minutes or even longer.

Map of nine radar tracks from the USAF Project Blue Book documents: Teletype BOI-485, August 16, 1956; Air Intelligence Information Report IR-1-56, August 31, 1956; and letter from T/Sgt. Forrest Perkins to the University of Colorado Condon Committee, February 13, 1968.

According to Perkins, during this time he was fairly distracted answering questions or

listening to suggestions and theories over the phone while also trying to keep track of a hectic situation. Though he would eventually submit a detailed report, the report is not available in the official documents. Two days later, a summary report was compiled in compliance with U.S. Air Force Regulation 200-2. This report noted two distinct radar systems at Lakenheath, and three ground personnel visually observed the objects, in which all reported substantially the same description. Unfortunately, the intelligence summary is not formatted in a coherent manner. It does state, however, at least two “round, white lights” were observed that had the characteristic of “travelling at terrific speeds and then stopping and changing courses


10

immediately.” In one instance, ground observers estimated “the altitude at 2,000–2,500 feet on a southwest heading. Object stopped and immediately assumed an easterly heading.” The observers also reported that

One white light joined up with another and both disappeared in formation together. . . . RAF station Lakenheath GCA and RATCC reports radar tracking from 6 miles west to about 20 miles southwest where target stopped and assumed a stationary position for 5 minutes. Target then assumed a heading northwesterly into the station and stopped 2 miles northwest of station. Lakenheath GCA reports three to four additional targets were doing the same maneuvers in the vicinity of the station (Gillmor, 1969).

Interception (tail-chase)

During these events, around midnight, a decision was made to scramble RAF interceptors to investigate. Perkins recalls this was accomplished through the Third Air Force contacting the RAF, which subsequently scrambled interceptors “from an RAF station near London.” The initial radio and radar contact was established about 30–35 miles southwest of Lakenheath, at which time he provided the pilot with distance and bearing to Lakenheath and background information regarding the UFO. Then he proceeded to issue headings and distance at intervals to guide the interceptor to the UFO, which remained stationary throughout the vectoring.

An intriguing aspect of this case is that both Perkins and Wimbledon, the RAF Neatishead Chief Fighter Controller, were convinced that their respective radar was used to vector the Venom to the unknown target, though, according to the pilot’s flight logs, it is evident during the intercepts that Lakenheath GCI was directing them. It is also evident that the pilot was switching back and forth between the respective radio frequencies of both stations. According to Wimbledon, Bentwaters had previously alerted him to the unusual situation before receiving a call from Perkins at Lakenheath. After some discussion regarding the curious situation, Wimbledon relates, “I scrambled a Venom night-fighter from the Battle Flight [located at RAF Waterbeach, 17 miles southwest of Lakenheath] through Sector Control and my Controller in the Cabin took over control of it.” The Venom aircrew consisted of a pilot and a radar navigator, who operated the fighter’s APS-57 Airborne Intercept radar. The Interception Control team consisted of a Fighter Controller (an officer), a corporal, a tracker, and a height reader. The Chief Controller states, therefore, “four highly trained personnel in addition to myself could now clearly see the object on our radar scopes” He added, “I also took the precaution of manning a second Interception Cabin to monitor and act as backup to the first.”

According to the Blue Book report, the Venom flew over Lakenheath and was vectored to a

target 6 miles east of the station. The “pilot advised that he had a bright white light in sight and would investigate.” He then evidently chased the light 13 miles to the west, where he reported the loss of target and white light. He was then vectored to a target on radar 10 miles east of Lakenheath.


11

Wimbledon continues,

After being vectored onto the object by my Interception Controller, the pilot called out, “Contact,” then a short time later, “Judy,” which meant the navigator had the target fairly and squarely on his own radar screen and needed no further help from the ground. He continued to close on the target, but after a few seconds, and in a space of one or two sweeps on our scopes, the object appeared behind our fighter. Our pilot called out, “Lost contact, more help,” and he was told the target was now behind him.

In hindsight, he recalled that it appeared as though the target stopped at the critical moment, causing the Venom to undershoot the target, which then performed a quick maneuver to get behind him. Further, Wimbledon relates,

I then scrambled a second Venom which was vectored towards the area, but before it arrived on the scene the target had disappeared from our scopes and although we continued to keep a careful watch was not seen again by us (Shough, 2003).

According to Perkins, following the vectoring of the Venom to one-half mile from the stationary UFO, the pilot suddenly lost the target:

The first movement by the UFO was so swift [circling behind the interceptor] I missed it entirely but it was seen by the other controllers. However, the fact that this had occurred was confirmed by the pilot of the interceptor. The pilot of the interceptor told us he would try to shake the UFO and we’d try again. He tried everything—but the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance, very close, but we always had two distinct targets. The pilot continued to try and shake the UFO for about 10 minutes (approximate guess—it seemed longer both to him and us). He continued to occasionally comment and we could tell from the tonal quality he was getting worried, excited and also pretty scared. He finally said, “I am returning to station, Lakenheath. Let me know if he follows me. I’m getting low on fuel.”

As he headed south-southwest, the target followed a short distance before stopping 10 miles south of Lakenheath, where it remained stationary. Perkins informed the pilot that the UFO had stopped following him, “and almost immediately the second interceptor called us on the same frequency.” Perkins replied that they would advise him as soon as they established radar contact with his aircraft, at which time the second pilot called the first pilot by name while asking him “Did you see anything? The first pilot replied “I saw something but I’ll be damned if I know what it was,” and then recounted what had happened. Following this the first pilot switched frequencies to his home base. Perkins then advised the second pilot that they “still didn’t have him on radar but probably would shortly,” at which point there was a delayed response before the pilot declared he was returning to his home station due to an engine


12

malfunction. Perkins recalls the UFO remained motionless on the scope for some time and made a couple more short moves before leaving radar coverage in a northerly direction at about 600 mph (Gillmor, 1969).

More Attempted Interceptions…

In the early 2000s, British researchers located several Venom aircrews from the 23 Squadron who had flown out of RAF Waterbeach on the night in question. An entry in the squadron diary identified Flying Officers Les Arthur and Grahame Scofield as the crew that scrambled at 9:20, but shortly after takeoff lost their wingtip fuel tanks, which crashed in a field without injury. The Venom was forced to turn back. In a 2001 interview, Scofield recalls:

We returned to Waterbeach at 10:00 P.M. and our aircraft was segregated for close inspection. We were then separately taken for interrogation. Neither of us could provide much useful information and fortunately the emergency release handle was found to be intact. It would have been about 11:00 P.M. when we were released to the crew room.

In the crew room they had a radio receiver tuned to their airborne frequency and were

able to monitor the transmissions from the aircrews. According to Scofield, after midnight, a crew was scrambled that established radar contact with a target and were closing rapidly.

They tracked it down to within about three miles and lost contact. They were called off and the second crew instructed to make an intercept. They also reported radar contact at about ten miles dead ahead. The navigator called off the distance as the target rapidly closed. At one mile there was a shout of confusion from the pilot who had seen nothing. We then heard “I think they are now on our tail!” Almost immediately both crews were told to break off the engagement and return to base.

Scofield’s account is structurally similar to the version of the “tail chase” commentary provided by both Perkins and Wimbledon, indicating that it relates to the same attempted interception. However, the aircrews involved in this intercept have not been identified, and Scofield was the only 23rd Squadron crewmember interviewed that had any knowledge of the “tail chase” event. Nor did any of the aircrew have knowledge of the numerous radar trackings and observations reported by the controllers at Bentwaters and Lakenheath over the previous several hours.

This extraordinary sequence of events was not the end of the excitement, and Lakenheath

continued to track UFOs into the early hours of August 14. Another discovery by British researchers came in 2003 and concerned Air Commodore Anthony N. Davis. In 1956, Davis was the commanding officer of the 23rd Squadron, and later in his career moved to Whitehall to become head of the Ministry of Defense office responsible for UFO reports. Unbeknownst to


13

his squadron crewmembers at Waterbeach, on the night of August 13, he was en route from RAF Stradishall to RAF Coltishall when he was diverted by ground radar to intercept an unidentified target. Little is known concerning the time of the event; however, Davis did not acquire a radar contact and the attempted intercept was aborted after he found himself “chasing a star.”

Furthermore, British researchers interviewed two additional Venom aircrews that were

scrambled from RAF Waterbeach to intercept a UFO early in the morning. According to their pilot logbooks, they were scrambled at 2:00 and 2:40 A.M. Flying Officers David Chambers and John Brady were sitting at readiness on the flight line when the order came from the Operations Controller that the US Air Force at Lakenheath wanted an interception on a low-level radar target near their airfield. Lakenheath directed them toward the target at 7,000 feet. In 2002, Brady recalled:

The first run we had at it I saw nothing. The next time we turned onto a reciprocal heading and I obtained a contact, which I held 10–15 degrees off dead ahead and noticed that it raced down the tube at high speed. We were flying at around 350–400 mph. I remember saying to David: “Contact—there, it’s out 45 starboard now at one mile”—and he kept saying to me “Where is it? I can’t see it!” as we rushed past. And it would go down the right hand side or the left side. Two further runs were made with the same result and it was fairly obvious that whatever it was, it was stationary. My radar contact was firm but messy but there was something there.

While returning to base they were informed that a second Venom was on its way. Flying Officers Ian Frazer-Kerr and Ivan Logan scrambled at 2:40, and their experience was virtually identical to that of Chambers and Brady. According to Logan,

Usually when scrambled we climbed to high-level, 100 miles or so over the North Sea. In this case, we were at low-level 2–3000 feet I think, looking for a target near RAF Lakenheath. I recall picking up a contact several times usually at about 3 or 4 miles. It may have been the same one. As it appeared to be virtually stationary we could not turn behind it as it was closing at high-speed. Our targets were normally travelling at our speed and when in behind we synchronized speeds at visual range. In this case it was impossible. Eventually we returned to base as our fuel was low.

Upon returning they compared notes with Chambers and Brady over coffee, and finally concluded that it must have been a meteorological balloon or something similar. Around the same time, ground observers reported the objects disappearing in an easterly direction while radar continued to track the targets until they finally disappeared from the scopes at approximately 3:30 A.M. (Shough, 2003).


14

As a postscript, Jenny Randles recounts discussions she had with Ralph Noyes, a retired Ministry of Defense (MoD) Under Secretary of State concerning the events and the impact they had within the MoD at the time:

[Noyes] had certainly heard about this case. He could hardly not have done so because, he says, “It was all over the MoD. Everyone was buzzing that night.” Furthermore, he states that: “Coastal radar had picked up the objects and, at first, they were moving at 4000 mph. A response simply had to be made. Our first response was to check if the radar was showing false returns. It was not. The Venom was the fastest jet aircraft we had at the time. Two aircraft were simultaneously aloft and detected these objects on their own aircraft radar, and the pilot supposedly had a visual sighting. A game went on for 30 minutes. One object came to a dead halt and then made rings round our aircraft.” Noyes reported this account from personal experience before members of the aircrew were traced, and you can see his recall of the matter generally fits in with subsequent testimony. You can also see why the matter was so significant to battle-hardened MoD sources. It had multiple radar trackings from the ground, and visual sightings from the ground looking up and from the air looking down. The chances of some kind of illusion being responsible appear negligible. Noyes states: “Those events certainly caused a major inquiry and the Ministry buzzed with the story for weeks. Inquiries were held. Nobody was found to be to blame. Nobody had mishandled equipment. No damage had been done. No explanation was found. Something had gone on and we did not know what. We had to assume retrospectively that it was a defense threat.” And yet, the MoD would have you believe that only 5 years later it destroyed all its records about this incident and now knows absolutely nothing about it (Randles, 1999).

—Thomas Tulien

Sources

Clarke, David. Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO. 2011. Accessed June 22, 2018. https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/secret-files/lakenheath-bentwaters-ufo/

Gillmor, Daniel S. Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. New York: Dutton and Company, 1969. Online: http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/case02.html Good, Timothy. Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-up. New York: William Morrow and

Company, 1988. Gross, Loren E. UFOs: A History—1956: August. Fremont, CA. The Author, 1994. Online:

http://sohp.us/collections/ufos-a-history/doc/1956-Aug.php (pp. 28-42, 72). __________. UFOs: A History—1956, August: Supplemental Notes. Fremont, CA. The Author, 2002. Online: http://sohp.us/collections/ufos-a-history/doc/1956-Aug-SN.php (pp. 9-30). __________. UFOs: A History—1956: September–October. Fremont, CA. The Author, 1994. Online: http://sohp.us/collections/ufos-a-history/doc/1956-AugSN.php (pp. 22-26). Hynek, J. Allen. The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1972.


15

J. Allen Hynek, Center for UFO Studies. Classic UFO Cases: Bentwaters-Lakenheath RAF, Suffolk, UK, 1956. Accessed June 22, 2018. http://www.cufos.org

Klass, Philip J. UFOs Explained. New York: Random House, 1974. McDonald, James E. “Science in Default: Twenty-two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations.” In

UFOs—A Scientific Debate, edited by Carl Sagan and Thorton Page, 52–122. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1972.

__________. “UFOs Over Lakenheath in 1956.” Flying Saucer Review 16, no. 2 (March/April 1970): 9–17, 29. Randles, Jenny. “A Few Home Truths.” In UFOs 1947–1997: From Arnold to the Abductees: Fifty Years of

Flying Saucers, edited by Hilary Evans and Dennis Stacy, 246–56. London: John Brown Publishing, 1997.

__________. From Out of the Blue. New Brunswick, NJ: Global Communications, 1991. __________. UFO! Danger In the Air. New York: Sterling Publishing Company, 1999. Shough, Martin L. The Lakenheath Collaboration. Aerial Phenomena Studies. 2003. Accessed June 22,

2018. http://martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/Lakenheath/page-index.htm (Note: The Lakenheath Collaboration website provides the most complete documentation,

along with considerable discussion of the various aspects of the case from evidence and reasoning developed by Martin Shough, David Clarke, Andy Roberts, and Jenny Randles.)

__________. “Radar and UFOs.” In UFOs 1947–1987: The 40-Year Search for an Explanation, edited by Hilary Evans with John Spencer, 211–29. London: Fortean Tomes, 1987.

Story, Ronald D., with Richard J. Greenwell. UFOs and the Limits of Science. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1981.

Thayer, Gordon David. “Lakenheath Bentwaters [England] Radar/Visual Sightings.” In The Encyclopedia of UFOs, edited by Ronald D. Story, 200–2. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1980.

__________. UFO Encounter II: Sample Cases Selected by the UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA. Astronautics and Aeronautics 9, no. 9 (Sept. 1971): 60–64.


16

MINOT AIR FORCE BASE RADAR/VISUAL CASE October 24, 1968

During the early morning hours of October 24, 1968, sixteen military personnel stationed throughout the Minuteman ICBM missile complex surrounding Minot Air Force Base (AFB) in North Dakota, reported a very large, brightly illuminated aerial object, alternating colors from brilliant white to orangish-red and green, with an ability to hover, accelerate rapidly, and abruptly change direction.

Ground Observations (2:15–4:02 A.M.)

The initial report was received at 2:15 by Staff Sergeant William Smith, a flight security controller at the Oscar-1 launch control facility, from a remote, two-man security camper team posted at the Oscar-6 missile launch facility ten miles to the south. The team radioed Smith to report the presence of a strange light, described as “a large glowing object that went down by some trees not far away.” At the time, the team was providing aboveground security for a target alignment team working underground in the missile silo. Apprehensive about the unknown object so close to the exposed nuclear warhead, Smith recalls that the captain in charge informed his missile combat crew commander in the underground Oscar-launch control center that “we can do this another time—it’s just not worth us being out here,” thereby securing the site and returning to base. Shortly after, Smith also observed the glowing object in the vicinity of O-6. In his Air Force-117 Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena Questionnaire, he explained,

I was notified it had been seen in an adjacent area. I alerted my [sentries]. The object was first seen in the southern part of my area by a posted sentry [the camper team]. I directed my gaze south of my position and saw the object about fifteen minutes after my sentry sighted it.

At the same time, thirteen miles east of O-6, a missile maintenance team composed of Airman First Class Robert O’Connor and A1C Lloyd Isley was driving south to the November-7 missile launch facility to perform routine maintenance. At 2:30 they observed a bright object near the horizon due east at precisely the same time and location of Smith’s initial observation. As they continued driving on the gravel road, the object appeared to rise up and pace their vehicle while growing brighter. O’Connor radioed transportation control and the base operations dispatcher, who both confirmed that there were no aircraft in the area. The dispatcher then notified the ground controllers at Minot AFB Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) while establishing a phone patch and open line of communications with the remote maintenance team.

Arriving at N-7, the team parked outside the front gate and continued observing the object

from outside the truck. In his AF-117 report, Isley noted,


17

We first saw the object to the east of us while we were traveling toward the site. It started moving south. We arrived at the site then started observing the object from outside the truck. It was moving in a large circular area to the south of us. Unable to determine the precise size or shape of the object, he nevertheless compared it to a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker “by the lights on the object.”

Likewise, O’Connor reported,

The object appeared self-luminous like a big ball of white-light that seemed to change to a dim green light then later to a dim amber color . . . I was unable to make out a definite shape because the object put out such a bright light.

Locations of sixteen ground observers within the vast missile complex surrounding Minot AFB. The 91st Strategic Missile Wing was responsible for 150 Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), housed in underground launch facilities. Each launch control facility (and underground launch control center) was responsible for 10 missiles.


18

Upon entering the N-7 facility, O’Connor reported to the November flight security controller, S/Sgt. James Bond, at the November-1 launch control facility, located ten miles to the north. At 3:08, Bond, along with his security alert team of A1Cs Joseph Jablonski, and Gregory Adams, stepped outside for a better view and observed the security lights at N-7 in the south with a bright light over the facility, about 35 degrees above the horizon “alternating all kinds of pretty colors.” Bond immediately dispatched his security team to assist the maintenance team at N-7.

Over the next twenty minutes, all of the observers in diverse locations observed two similar

objects moving with regard to each other. For example, the wing security controller noted in his summary of the events at

[03:20] SSgt Smith at Oscar-1 saw the object separate in two parts and go in opposite directions and return and pass under each other. At this time [03:24] Juliet Flt and [03:25] Mike Flt Team observed the same things and described it in the same way.

The base operations dispatcher’s log notes at 3:28 that “Two are seen now.” In his AF-117 report, Bond included a drawing of two objects on a course toward each other, in which the second object “was in view for about three minutes” before disappearing. Further, RAPCON noted an additional observation at 3:30: “Controllers received information on UFO 24 miles NW,” in the vicinity of the Mike-1 launch control facility, about 10 miles west-northwest of N-7.

B-52 Air-radar Encounter (3:52–4:02 A.M.)

Around 3 A.M., a B-52 had returned to the Minot Air Force Base area from the east on a 50-nautical-mile radius clearance, following a 10-hour combat training mission. Upon return the B-52 pilots practiced routine high-altitude instrumented procedures. Following this, the B-52 departed flight level 200 (20,000 feet) descending from the southeast for a low approach over the runway at Minot Air Force Base. At 3:44, copilot Capt. Brad Runyon requested clearance to fly out to the tactical air navigation (TACAN) aid, referred to as the TACAN initial approach fix, or simply “WT fix,” located 35 nautical miles to the northwest. RAPCON ground controllers responded:

3:45: JAG 31 [the B-52’s call sign] roger, climb out on a heading of 290 climb and maintain 5000. Standby for higher altitude, we’re trying to get it from center now . . . climb and maintain FL200, and JAG 31 on your way out to the WT fix request you look out toward your 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.

Following RAPCON’s request for the pilots to look out in the direction of N-7 for “any

orange glows” and a final garbled response, there were no further communications with the


19

B-52 for the next seven minutes. Ascending to a flight level altitude at 20,000 feet, the pilots would have had limited visibility as a result of the extended overcast and haze reported above 9,000–27,700 feet.

B-52 aircraft commander, Captain Don Cagle; copilot, Capt. Bradford Runyon Jr.; radar navigator Major Charles “Chuck” Richey (deceased); navigator, Capt. Patrick McCaslin; electronic warfare officer, Capt. Thomas Goduto; and gunner, Technical Sergeant Arlie Judd Jr. All crewmembers were rated as instructors, establishing them as one of the top crews at Minot Air Force Base in 1968.

When communications resumed at 3:52, the B-52 was 34 nautical miles northwest of the base and in the beginning stages of executing a standard 180-degree right turnaround back over the WT fix. Upon completion, the aircraft would be aligned on a straight approach to the runway to begin its descent back to Minot AFB. Once again, RAPCON alerted the B-52 crew:

JAG31 the UFO is being picked up by the weathers [sic] radar also, should be at your 1:00 [o’clock] position 3 miles now.

Runyon responded: We have nothing on our airborne radar and I am in some pretty thick haze right now and unable to see out that way.

Navigator Capt. Patrick McCaslin, downstairs in the belly of the B-52, aroused Radar Navigator Maj. Chuck Richey and requested he switch to a 360-degree surveillance mode


20

designated “Station Keep.” In this mode, the coverage is elevated and concentrated close to the aircraft; this mode is used primarily for formation flying and lining up behind the docking boom of a KC-135 air-refueling tanker. Following this, McCaslin noticed a bright echo appear on his radarscope in the same location indicated by the RAPCON controller. He recalls:

As we climbed out, I monitored the direction we were heading, the altitude, and I watched the scope. At some point I saw a weak—off to our right, maybe three miles out—I saw a weak return, one scan. The next scan, there was a very strong return at that location, which meant to me that something had either climbed into the radar energy, and then was about co-altitude in the next sweep, or it could’ve descended into it. Don’t know which. But it was clear that something was out there and it was large. My impression was it was a larger return than the KC-135 gave me. So I called the pilots and said, “There’s traffic off our right wing at three o’clock. Looks like co- altitude,” and nobody saw anything. So I kept watching this thing. The pilots basically said, “Keep us advised.”

McCaslin then requested that Richey switch on the 35mm camera mounted over the top of the radarscope. The camera films the 10-inch radarscope, while superimposing the data plates via a separate optical path. It automatically exposes one frame during a three-second time exposure, equal to one complete rotation of the radar beam sweep.

Safely turning a B-52 around requires a three-mile radius, and the presence of a large,

unknown aircraft at co- altitude inside the turn-radius presented a serious safety concern for the crew. Yet, as the B-52 banked around the wide turn, McCaslin observed the object on the radarscope moving away to the northeast, while maintaining the three-mile separation in relation to the turning aircraft. This ultimately allowed the B-52 to turn safely inside, while the UFO assumed a position three miles off the left wing of the B-52 following the completion of the turnaround.

At 03:56, the B-52 requested routine approach procedure and acknowledged RAPCON’s

request to “report leaving FL200 on this approach.” Shortly after, the aircraft would pass over the WT fix to begin its descent and penetration back to Minot AFB. During this time, the object’s return on the radarscope remained bright, indicating to McCaslin that the UFO was following at three miles. It was now clear to the crew that a large unidentified object was keeping pace with them, though there was little they could do except keep a watchful eye on the situation.

At 3:58, just before Runyon could report leaving FL200, the B-52 abruptly lost two-way

communications with RAPCON at the same time that the UFO suddenly changed distance from three miles to one. The seemingly instantaneous change of position occurred in less than a three-second sweep of the radar antenna. Runyon recalls that the movement occurred so unexpectedly that it startled Ritchey, and by the shrill tone of his voice over the interphone, for a second, Runyon imagined a collision was imminent.


21

McCaslin recalled:

At some point in the descent, with this thing still shining out there, I saw it at three miles on the left, and then the next scan it was at one mile. I mean it was just—there was no sense of it closing. There was no time for that. I was on the intercom immediately and called the pilots and said, “Hey, this thing’s one mile off our left wing now,” and, well, in my own mind, at that point I knew there was something there that I’d never seen on radar. The ability to close two miles and stop instantaneously was—although I wasn’t a pilot yet—during my career as a pilot I didn’t know of anything that could go laterally in 3 seconds, 2 miles, and just stop.

Flight path of the B-52 and the standard traffic pattern around Minot AFB from 3:45–4:40 A.M. The radarscope photographs were filmed near the end of the radar encounter with the UFO. The B-52 pilots visually observed the UFO during the second go-around of the traffic pattern prior to the terminal landing at 4:40.

After the B-52’s radio transmission abruptly broke off in mid-sentence, the pilots could still hear the controller, but RAPCON could not hear the B-52 and were seemingly unaware of the UFO pacing the aircraft. The controller requested them to “squawk ident,” which means to use the aircraft’s onboard SIF/IFF transponder to paint a bright blip on RAPCON’s radarscope, signaling that the pilots could hear the controller’s transmission. Satisfied that the B-52 could hear them, the controller then contacted the Minot AFB control tower to clear the runway for the approaching B-52.


22

As the B-52 continued its descent, the pilots were still unable to visually observe the pacing

UFO through the haze. At 4:02, the B-52 was just over 20 miles from the runway at an altitude of about 9,000 feet MSL, when the object abruptly disappeared from the radarscope. At the same moment, the B-52’s radio transmission with RAPCON was suddenly restored. Shortly thereafter, RAPCON queried the pilots wondering if the UFO “could have been the cause of the radio troubles,” to which Runyon replied, “I don’t know . . . but that’s exactly when they started.”

It is intriguing to note that the UFO departed just prior to the B-52 (and pacing UFO)

emerging below the haze and cloud cover at 9,000 feet, and into view of the tower personnel and ground observers at N-7. The visibility at lower altitudes was 25 miles and clear. Furthermore, the UFO observed in the south and southeast for over an hour by security and maintenance personnel at N-7 disappeared at the same time. The four observers at N-7 were not aware of the B-52 radar UFO encounter and loss of radio transmission. Rather, the base operations dispatcher had informed them that a B-52 was being diverted to investigate their sighting, and were directed to the precise time and location of the incoming B-52. According to Jablonski’s AF-117 report:

Just prior to our sighting the diverted B-52 in the WSW the object had descended gradually and appeared to be obstructed by trees . . . When the B-52 flew in the vicinity (SSE) it was no longer seen in that location.

In addition, he notes,

The B-52 engines could be easily heard while the UFO made no sounds at about the same distance.

As the B-52 passed by on its way to the base, the personnel at N-7 were no longer observing the UFO and returned to their assigned duties. The maintenance team completed their tasks at N-7 and returned to base. Jablonski and Adams started back to the November launch control facility on patrol, periodically reporting the UFO in the west to Base Operations.

B-52 Air-visual Encounter (4:24–4:28 A.M.)

RAPCON cleared the incoming B-52 for low approach to the runway. By 4:06 the pilots had completed a missed approach and were given a vector to turn left onto the standard traffic pattern, at an altitude of 3200 feet MSL (roughly 1,500 feet above the ground). The controller then provided clearance for the B-52 to visually land if communications were again interrupted.


23

Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, circa 1973.

Along the way, the pilots received an order from RAPCON not to land, but rather to fly back around the traffic pattern a second time in order to overfly the UFO. Although the crewmembers were fatigued and anxious to land, co-pilot Runyon reluctantly conceded:

[RAPCON] gave us a heading to fly back over the object, and when we made our go-around over the runway and headed back, just as soon as we rolled out at wings level there was an orange glow sitting out there, so we were heading straight to it.

In his official report, non-crew pilot Maj. James Partin reported an “unusually bright light I had never seen at night in this area,” which was about 15 miles away, below the horizon (“on the ground or just slightly above the ground”) in the west- northwest (292 degrees), that appeared like “a miniature sun placed on the ground below the aircraft.”


24

Capt. Bradford Runyon’s drawing of the UFO on or near the ground. He estimated the size as 200 feet in length; 100 feet in width; and 50 feet in height. At the time, the B-52 altitude would have been approximately 1,500 feet above the ground at 180 knots (207 mph).

Over the next few minutes, Runyon had his head down in the cockpit occupied with routine tasks, running the numerous checklists and checking fuel settings in preparation for landing. Eventually, out of the corner of his eye, his attention was drawn to something on the left side of the aircraft. Through the pilot’s window he perceived a dark square with a dull red color around it. Thinking he was seeing a barn loft with the door open—while also thinking that a barn would not be that high—they flew alongside the object, and Runyon recalls:

There was really nothing to see, just this dull-reddish and I didn’t see the bottom or the top. I’m just looking along the side and it might be my field of view was limited looking across the airplane. So, then we come to a metallic cylinder, sort of like stainless steel or shiny aluminum protruding from the end of this thing, and it’s on the ground and is just well lighted. I could see maybe trees, bushes, or breaks in the ground. And as we are going past this, I looked back and thought that this thing might be close to the first big part of the object, but it appeared to be attached and coming out of the end of it, and the end [of the first large object] was well-lit, and, well, it was sort of barn red, but it was a whole lot brighter than


25

it was down the sides from the glow of the next section, which was like a crescent moon—a crescent-shaped object attached to the other end of the cylinder. The light from it had the cylinder completely illuminated just about as if it was daylight, really. The crescent-shaped part appeared to be solid but also translucent, like you could almost see through it, the lines were distinct on it, and it was higher than the tube section was—not a lot higher, not nearly as high as the main body of the thing was. As we banked over it to make our crosswind [base leg], I guess we were told to turn about that time, and our radios went out again because I did transmit something and they did not receive. As we went by it was pretty good size because that is all that showed up—or maybe I was just concentrating on it and didn’t see anything else—but at one point I could see it [the crescent-shaped section] and the tubular section and the front part of the main body together.

Following the 90o turn over and around the UFO onto the base leg of the traffic pattern, the

pilots were no longer able to observe the UFO. RAPCON provided vectors for the final approach to the runway and the B-52 terminally landed, arriving to a full stop at 4:40. RAPCON requested that “somebody stop in at baseops,” and since Partin was senior officer he attended the debriefing at Base Operations, while the crew proceeded to the routine post-flight mechanical debriefing. Along the way, someone was sent over to meet McCaslin and appropriate the radarscope film packets. Afterward, the crewmembers were instructed to return to base later in the morning for a debriefing in the office of the commander of the 810th Strategic Aerospace Division, Brigadier General Ralph Holland. But in the meantime, while Cagle hurried off to Atlanta to attend an interview with Delta Airlines, the rest of the crewmembers headed home to bed. McCaslin reminisced:

All of us were tired. We’d been at it all day and we were ready to go home, and I remember telling my wife—Sammy, she still tells me this—I woke her up and said, “You’re never going to believe what I saw tonight,” and I told her all about it, what I remembered of it, and then I went to sleep. I was bushed, and she was up the rest of the night looking out, wondering what’s out there and everything.

Oscar-7 LF Intrusion (4:49 A.M.)

Shortly after the B-52 landed, both security alarms at the O-7 missile launch facility sounded in the Oscar-1 launch control center. It was highly unusual for both inner-zone and outer-zone alarms to be activated simultaneously, therefore S/Sgt. William Smith personally accompanied his security alert team to secure the site. When they arrived, they found the gate had been unpadlocked and left open, while the navy-style hatch (weather cover) protecting the controls for personnel access to the missile silo had been unsecured and propped open. Inside, someone had turned the combination dial on the vault door off its setting, thus triggering the inner alarm. The security team conducted a procedural search of the facility but found no further evidence of the intruder. Meanwhile, Jablonski and Adams remained in radio contact with base operations, periodically reporting the UFO in the west until their final observation at


26

5:18. Bond, from the November-1 launch control facility, confirmed the final observation in the southwest, which “appeared to land and slowly changed to a dim green—after about 15 minutes it disappeared (gradually).

View of a missile emplaced in the hardened underground silo, and cutaway of the Launch Facility. At the height of the Cold War the Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile was dubbed America’s “Ace in the Hole.”

Strategic Air Command Investigations

Following the landing of the B-52, commanders at Minot AFB ordered immediate debriefings and investigations. In accordance with Air Force Regulation 80-17, Minot AFB Base Commander, Col. Ralph Kirchoff, was responsible for providing the investigative capability necessary to submit a complete initial report of a UFO sighting. He designated Lt. Col. Arthur Werlich, chief of the 862nd Combat Support Group, Operations Division, as liaison to the UFO program. Werlich’s primary responsibility was to collect data, collate a formatted list of Basic Reporting Data, and provide his initial analysis and comment on the possible cause or stimulus for the sighting. On completion, Werlich forwarded his analysis to Project Blue Book staff to the Foreign Technology Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, which was responsible for preparing a final case report based on the information it received.

Several internal SAC inquiries occurred prior to informing Project Blue Book. The results of

these initial inquiries, including the post-flight debriefing of Maj. Partin, B-52 radarscope film analysis, B-52 crewmember debriefing, investigations of the Oscar-7 LF intrusion, and any information regarding radar tracking of the UFO by ground-based radar systems at Minot AFB or long-range radar systems of the Aerospace Defense Command at Minot Air Force Station (16 miles south of Minot AFB), were not available to Blue Book investigators. In addition, none


27

of the commissioned officers were interviewed or completed the Air Force-117 Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena Questionnaire (AF-117) with the exception of Maj. Partin, who was interviewed after Werlich had completed his investigation.

Over the next two weeks, officials at SAC Headquarters regularly monitored the progress of

the Blue Book investigation, while Col. Werlich provided Gen. Hollingsworth at SAC Headquarters with the information he had assembled for briefing SAC Vice Commander in Chief, Lt. Gen. Keith Compton on Thursday, October 31.

Diagram of the B-52 radar field pattern in Station-Keep mode, and the corresponding display on the Plan Position Indicator (radarscope).

B-52 Radarscope Film Analysis

At 7:30 A.M., 5th Bombardment Wing targeting studies officer S/Sgt. Richard Clark arrived for work at the headquarters building and was directed to set aside routine duties in order to analyze the B-52 radarscope film. In a 2003 interview he recalls:


28

Our major priority was keeping up with the intelligence of the day—we were virtually always updating the bombing information for what we were going to do if we came to war over Russia . . . But this turned into a priority so we informed the photo lab that we wanted it now.

The main concern was to determine whether the film confirmed the account of the B-52 crewmembers, though Clark recalls, “the big question was how fast it was going and what we felt it was.” He retrieved the processed film from the photo lab and based on the sequence illustrated by the 14-radarscope photographs, estimated a minimal average speed of the UFO at 3,900 mph. He further explained:

It had to be something other than what we were aware of, you know, I didn’t think our technology had anything like that as far as capability—so it’s got to be a UFO.

Description of B-52 radarscope photograph #772. The fourteen radarscope photographs constitute a quantifiable data set for determining the precise time and location of the B-52 in three-dimensional space; as well as, the hypothetical performance characteristics of the UFO (Poher, 2005).


29

B-52 Crew Debriefing

Later that morning, the B-52 crewmembers returned for a debriefing in the office of the commander of the 810th Strategic Aerospace Division. At the time, Gen. Ralph Holland was the highest-ranking officer stationed at Minot. In attendance were copilot Capt. Brad Runyon, radar navigator Maj. Charles Richey, navigator Capt. Patrick McCaslin, electronic warfare officer (EWO) Capt. Thomas Goduto, and gunner T/Sgt. Arlie Judd. Not present at the debriefing were Maj. Partin, the B-52 instructor pilot from another crew who was onboard being evaluated, or Capt. Don Cagle, who had excused himself from the flight deck to avoid any direct involvement in the UFO events.

For the first time, the crewmembers learned the extent of the ground observations and missile site intrusions. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that only a few hours after the events, Gen. Holland—or even Col. B.H. Davidson, the 91st Strategic Missile Wing commander who briefed Holland on the situation—would have had a complete grasp of the situation. As a result, information provided to the crew by Holland may have been inaccurate or misconstrued. In particular, the B-52 crewmember recollections are not supported by existing documentation.

For example, recollections of Capt. Runyon concerning the debriefing include:

Well, instead of asking us any questions, he just informed us as to what had gone on during the previous night, about outer and inner alarms going off at one of the missile sites. He did mention there had been two instances with missiles within a week, one at another base—and I couldn’t differentiate the things that were going on from one opposed to the other. There had been outer and inner alarms activated and Air Police [security alert team] had been sent to investigate. The first Air Police had not reported in. Other Air Police were sent to check and found the first Air Police either unconscious or regaining consciousness, and the paint was burned off the top of the vehicle. The last they remembered something was starting to sit down on them and they started running. The Air Police did go onto the missile site and the 20-ton concrete blast door—he might have called it blast door—anyway, the 20-ton concrete lid had been moved from the top of one of our Minuteman missiles, and the inner alarm had been activated. He also mentioned that the Air Police had seen us fly over, and had seen the object take off and join up with us. Basically that was it. I think he asked us for any additional input. I don’t remember whether I mentioned anything. INTERVIEWER: You never described the object you overflew? RUNYON: I don’t think I ever did . . . Maybe they thought I never looked outside the airplane—I have no idea why I was ignored.


30

Capt. McCaslin recalled less detail, but the essential experience of the security alert team (air policemen) is comparable:

I remember he volunteered the information about the Air Policemen. He volunteered the information about the missile alarms going off. I’m sure he talked about other things, I just don’t remember—those are the things that stick in my mind. My memory is that General Holland said there were two—and he was saying it like he was very sympathetic toward these two Air Policemen—that at the time our aircraft did the low approach there were two poor Air Policemen out there with this thing hovering, or something hovering directly over their pickup truck. I think he said they were responding to one of the missile alerts that had gone on in the missile— INTERVIEWER: Alarms?” MCCASLIN: Yeah . . . this thing was directly over their vehicle. INTERVIEWER: Did it damage the vehicle in any way? MCCASLIN: Don’t know. The only memory I have is that it was lit in some fashion when it was over the top of them, and my impression is that it was very close to their vehicle and they were scared to death. And at the point these Air Policemen saw our aircraft taking off or doing a low approach at the base, that this thing went dark and began to climb in the direction of our aircraft.

The impression is that the crewmembers were struggling to incorporate the information

provided by Holland with their own experience in order to create a coherent picture of the events. It is unclear, however, whether Holland’s information describes undocumented events at Minot AFB, other SAC bases, or was misconstrued from facts. Both Capt. Goduto and S/Sgt. Clark recall later discussions concerning intrusion alarms at three missile sites during the morning in question. In any event, the consensus of the B-52 crewmembers was that the debriefing seemed perfunctory and not concerned with effectively interrogating them to obtain useful information regarding the events or their experiences. Goduto felt “the right questions weren’t asked by the interviewers,” while Arlie Judd assumed the debriefing was merely pro forma “in case somebody happened to ask them.” Moreover, during the Blue Book investigation, none of the B-52 crewmembers were interviewed or required to complete the AF-117 Questionnaire regarding their experience.

Another curious event is noted by the missile Wing Security Controller in his summary of

events, which is also unsupported by documentation or testimony:

SSgt Bond the FSC at Nov Flt stated that the object which looked to him as the sun, came near the hardened antenna at Nov-1. It then moved to the right and he sent the SAT out to check and see what it was. The object then moved about one mile away with the Nov SAT following. They came within 1⁄2 mile from where it appeared to be landing. When it reached surface the lights became dimmer and finally went out. After this they could see nothing.


31

No specific time is noted, and neither Bond nor his Security Alert Team reported anything

at all comparable to this, or have any memory of this specific event. In reference to the notation, Bond recently declared:

It was not anywhere near November-1. I was at November-1. It might have been at another site that they were talking about. In fact, if it had been that close to my LCF my combat crew [in the underground launch control center] would have been going bananas! It wasn’t anywhere near the antenna, didn’t come near my site—my LCF. Just didn’t happen.”

Project Blue Book Investigation

Since this was Col. Werlich’s first UFO investigation, he initially contacted SAC Headquarters at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, to request technical assistance. Denied assistance, Col. J.A. Weyant, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, directed him to act in accordance with AFR 80-17.

At 4:30 P.M. (CDT), Werlich telephoned Project Blue Book duty officer S/Sgt. Harold Jones, reporting:

The crew of a B-52 had sighted and photographed an UFO and the Base Commander [Col. Ralph Kirchoff] and Maj. Gen. Nichols of the 15th Air Force were both interested.

Jones phoned assistant Lieutenant Carmon

Marano, who returned to the office to inform Blue Book chief Lt. Col. Hector Quintanilla before phoning Werlich back at Minot AFB. Since it was such an unusual sighting, Werlich wanted to know if Blue Book could help in any way. Marano asked him for the details of the sighting:

Lt. Col. Arthur Werlich

At about 0300 hours local, a B-52 that was about 39 miles northwest of Minot AFB and was making practice penetrations sighted an unidentified blip on their radar. Initially the target traveled approximately 2-1/2 miles in 3 sec—or about 3,000 mph. After passing from the right to the left of the plane it assumed a position off the left wing of the 52. The blip stayed off the left wing for approximately 20 miles at which point it broke off. Scope photographs were taken. When the target was close to the B-52 neither of the two transmitters in


32

the B-52 would operate properly but when it broke off both returned to normal function. At about this time a missile maintenance man called in and reported sighting a bright orangish- red object. The object was hovering at about 1000 feet or so, and had a sound similar to a jet engine. The observer had stopped his car, but he started it up again. As he started to move the object followed him then accelerated and appeared to stop at about 6-8 miles away. The observer shortly afterward lost sight of it. In response to the maintenance man’s call, the B-52, which had continued its penetration run, was vectored toward the visual, which was about 10 mile northwest of the base. The B-52 confirmed having sighted a bright light of some type that appeared to be hovering just over or on the ground. Fourteen other people in separate locations also reported sighting a similar object. Also, at this approximate time, security alarm for one of the sites was activated. This was an alarm for both the outer and inner ring. When guards arrived at the scene they found that the outer door was open and the combination lock on the inner door had been moved.

Quintanilla then requested information on other radars and control tower personnel observations, observational data from the 14 witness sightings, to determine if they were looking at the same object or stellar bodies, and whether anyone had observed a physical object. Finally, it was determined that exact time sequences for the events were necessary. Werlich agreed to gather the information.

Over the next four days, Werlich assembled the information necessary to complete the

formatted list of basic reporting data. As security personnel returned to base, he had them complete an AF-117 Questionnaire. On Friday, October 25, the November security personnel returned to base and both A1C Jablonski and A1C Adams completed the AF-117. On Saturday, Flight Security Controller’s S/Sgt. Bond, and S/Sgt. Smith completed AF-117s. During his interview, Smith recalls informing Werlich of numerous earlier reports of strange lights observed near the Oscar-2 missile silo up near the Canadian border. He maintains that afterward Werlich took a camper vehicle and spent some time up at O-2. What became of this is unknown. There is no mention to Blue Book, or any results officially reported. On Monday, October 28, the missile maintenance team of A1C O’Connor and A1C Isley were awakened early in the morning and instructed to report to Base Operations. Werlich informed Isley that a B-52 had picked up something on radar, but the main purpose was to have them complete the AF-117s.

Werlich includes B-52 navigator Capt. McCaslin, and the non-crew pilot Maj. Partin, in his

list of military observers; however, McCaslin, Runyon, and other B-52 crewmembers were never


33

interviewed. Partin did eventually complete an AF-117 on Wednesday, October 30, two days after Werlich had completed his investigation and submitted the basic reporting data to Blue Book. Consequently, it is unknown how Werlich obtained information regarding the B-52 encounters—though, apparently from Col. Kirchoff as a result of Partin’s post-flight debriefing.

Werlich also declared,

NINE OTHER MILITARY MEMBERS STATED THAT THEY VISUALLY OBSERVED AN OBJECT, HOWEVER, ONLY ONE [OF] THESE WAS IN A POSITION TO CONTRIBUTE ANY PERTINENT INFORMATION.

He does not name these additional witnesses, though they evidently include security personnel at Mike-1, Juliet-1, and Oscar-1, including the target alignment team and the security camper team at O-6, identified in the summary by the wing security controller. In any case, it is unfortunate that he did not record basic observational data, especially those at diverse locations such as Mike-1, Juliet-1, and O-6, which, combined with the other reports, would have provided a means to determine whether they were all observing the same object. Surely, it would have resolved any probability that they were observing a fixed celestial object or the B-52.

SAC Headquarters Intervenes

At 11:15 A.M. (EST) Monday, October 28, Blue Book duty officer S/Sgt. Jones received a call from Col J.A. Weyant at SAC headquarters, inquiring about the procedures by which Blue Book receives and investigates UFO reports, while underscoring that

“The investigator [Werlich] would handle it in accordance with AFR 80-17.” Sgt Jones told him that was right. Col Weyant then said, “then you can’t do anything until you receive their report,” Sgt Jones said, “that’s right.”

Weyant asked Jones if there have been “any other reports for that period of time from that area” and requested that whoever was responsible for handling the report give him a call, before ending the conversation. Shortly thereafter, at 12:50, Weyant phoned again, wanting to know if we [Lt Marano] had received any indication of any other reports from Minot. Marano informed him that we haven’t received any other reports from that area. After establishing that both Marano and Quintanilla had spoken with Werlich who had agreed to do the investigation,

Col Weyant said he was trying to determine whether ADC [Aerospace Defense Command at Minot AFS] had any known phenomena on radar. Col Weyant asked Lt Marano if we [Blue Book] ever participated in any investigations. [Marano responded] Very seldom do we ever go out in the field. As far as Lt Marano was concerned Col Werlich was quite competent and he did not feel that Col Werlich needed any additional help at this time.


34

What follows is a somewhat cryptic comment indicating that Weyant had already been in contact with Werlich:

Col Weyant said he gave Col Werlich the guidance and he guessed that Col Werlich got our telephone number out of the regulation. Col Weyant said he felt that we couldn’t give him any more information so he ended the conversation.

Basic Reporting Data and Format

Late Monday, October 28, Col. Werlich completed the Basic Reporting Data. At 10:28 P.M. (CST), he transmitted the eight-page report via teletype (TWX) to Blue Book and several other Air Force agencies specified in the regulation. Supplying Blue Book staff with data and information necessary to prepare the final case report fulfilled Werlich’s principal responsibility under the regulation. Nevertheless, over the next two weeks, Blue Book staff continued to request supplemental information.

Early Tuesday morning, October 29, Blue Book staff received an inquiry from Col. H.V.

Pullen, assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence at SAC headquarters, requesting “a brief rundown on the Minot sightings.” In response, at 9:45 (EST), Lt. Marano phoned Minot hoping to speak with Werlich, who was unavailable because he was flying. He spoke with a Mr. Carber, who informed him the UFO report had been completed and “sent out this morning or would be sent out today.” It seems Marano was unaware the report had been sent by TWX the night before.

The first four pages of the Basic Reporting Data comprise description of objects, sighting

data, and weather information in a formatted list of questions; while the last four pages include Werlich’s comments and preliminary analysis. In this case, he presents a chronological reconstruction of the events; erroneously stating that the initial ground observations began at “0800Z (3:00 CDT).”

AT THE TIME OF THESE EVENTS, A B-52 WAS IN THE LOCAL AREA. THE AIRCRAFT INITIALLY ARRIVED IN THE AREA ON A 50 [NAUTICAL] MILE RADIUS CLEARANCE WITH A BLOCK ALTITUDE OF FL210 TO FL230 AND BEGAN VARIOUS INSTRUMENT PRACTICE MANEUVERS INCLUDING A VERTICAL “S” PATTERN. THIS TOOK PLACE AT ALMOST THE SAME TIME AS THE FIRST GROUND SIGHTING.

Werlich disregards the initial observations by the O-6 security camper team at 2:15, and the observations by Smith and Oscar-1 security personnel, as well as the maintenance team beginning at 2:30, which began 45 minutes before the B-52 had returned to the Minot area. Furthermore, when the B-52 arrived under control of RAPCON on a 50 nautical-mile radius clearance, it remained to the east, at altitudes up to 40,000 feet practicing high-altitude maneuvers. The B-52 landing lights would not be on; moreover, weather conditions indicated


35

a heavy haze and overcast from about 10,000 to 27,700 feet, with excellent visibility below to 25 miles. Moreover, he ignores the independent reports by 14 ground observers of two similar objects from 3:20-3:30.

In any case, Werlich asserts the ground observers were in fact misidentifying the B-52:

IN COMPARING THE AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY AND TIMES CONTAINED ON THE RAPCON TAPE RECORDINGS WITH THE BASE OPERATIONS DISPATCHER’S LOG OF GROUND OBSERVATIONS, IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE AND HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT THE INITIAL SIGHTING AND SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITIES OF THE OBJECT WERE IN FACT THE B-52 ACCOMPLISHING UPPER AIRWORK. LATER SIGHTINGS OF BRIGHT LIGHTS AND FLASHING GREEN AND WHITE LIGHTS ACCOMPANIED BY A LOW JET ENGINE SOUND CORRELATES WITH THE B-52 MAKING A VOR PENETRATION, LOW APPROACH AND MISSED APPROACH. PORTIONS OF THE MANEUVER ARE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE AIRCRAFT LANDING LIGHTS ON. THE HAZE AND LAYERED CLOUD CONDITIONS COULD HAVE DIFFUSED LIGHT SOURCES AND MADE IDENTIFICATION DIFFICULT.

Following this Werlich concludes:

FOUR OCCURRENCES THAT CANNOT BE CORRELATED OR EXPLAINED AT THIS LEVEL ARE:

(A) WHAT CAUSED THE AIRCRAFT RADAR ECHO.

(B) AIRCRAFT LOSS OF UHF TRANSMISSION.

(C) THE CAUSE OR SOURCE OF VISUAL AIRCRAFT SIGHTING OF A BRIGHTLY LIGHTED OBJECT AS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH A(6). [WHEN VIEWED FROM ABOVE BY A B-52 CREW, THE OBJECT HAD A FAINTLY WHITE OBLONG HALO ON ONE SIDE WITH AN ORANGE SPOT ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THE BODY APPEARED TO BE A BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT].

(D) THE OSCAR 7 ALARMS COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EFFORT OF PRANKSTERS, HOWEVER NO EVIDENCE OF TRESPASSERS WAS FOUND.

At 3:30, Quintanilla telephoned Col. Pullen at SAC headquarters, who had phoned

earlier that day requesting “a brief rundown on the Minot sightings.” Quintanilla began to wander through possible, if tenuous, explanations for the various observations, suggesting that the B-52’s radio transmitter might have caused the radar echo, “since it occurred for only a short period of time.” Then, referring to the lengthy sighting period, “I feel some of the men were looking at celestial bodies” because of a temperature inversion in the lower atmosphere causing


36

the stars to scintillate. He adds, “There were a number of stars in the area at the time.” Pullen then said that he would “like to receive a preliminary report giving a quick look.” Quintanilla consented to the request, while explaining that the sightings took place over a period of more than two hours, which “is too long to make an accurate report.” Finally, proposing he was “pretty sure” the B-52 radar return “was either caused by an internal radar malfunction that also caused the blip or because of the [temperature] inversion he might have also picked up an anomalous blip.” Pullen asked whether they had sent anyone to Minot to investigate, to which Quintanilla responded:

We did not send anyone up because I only have four people on my staff, an assistant, a secretary, an admin sergeant and myself. I talked to Col Werlich for over thirty minutes and since this didn’t appear [too] unusual I didn’t send anyone up. Col. Pullen requested that Col Quintanilla send a preliminary report so that he could give it to Gen. Stewart [Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence] to get this thing simmered down. Send it SSO [Special Security Office] SAC, attention Col. Pullen. He requested that Col. Quintanilla hit a little heavy on what happened to other aircraft on occasions like this, this would help to play the issue down.

Early Wednesday morning, October 30, Lt. Marano phoned Minot and learned that Col. Werlich was still flying. He spoke with Sgt. Hoy, and requested that Hoy have Werlich obtain additional information and TWX it to him. The first part is a request to “have the navigator [McCaslin] accompany someone and go out and interview the individual observers at the missiles sites.” By this time, Werlich had already interviewed principal ground witnesses, though he had not forwarded the AF-117s, or any supplementary documentation to Blue Book.

Marano also requested statements from aircraft personnel regarding the B-52 radar and air-

visual sighting (which may have prompted Werlich to have Partin complete his AF-117 that same day). He also requested information on other radar systems in the Minot area, and inquired if additional radars or ECM (electronic countermeasures) onboard the B-52 painted anything and whether the equipment was checked out by ground maintenance after the B-52 landed. Werlich had suggested “the Oscar-7 alarms could be attributed to a circumstantial effort of pranksters,” and Marano requested “a statement that the missile sites had been broken into before and what results.” Finally he requested that additional materials be sent by mail, including a map of the area; a plot of the B-52 flight path from 02:58 CDT until landing with time sequence markings; the AF-117 reports from each observer; and copies of the B-52 radarscope photographs.

The next day, October 31, Werlich telephoned Blue Book. Over the course of a long

conversation, he endeavored to address all of the supplemental questions solicited by Marano, while qualifying his comments and conclusions in the basic reporting data. For example:

Col. Werlich said he was trying to take a positive approach towards this investigation. Almost 80 per cent were looking at the B-52. If you take a look at an aircraft at 20,000 ft, then you wouldn’t see much but I’m to place logic in


37

that it was there and what they saw was there. There is enough there that it is worth looking at. Nobody can definitely say that these people definitely saw the aircraft, but within reason they probably saw it.

At the very end of the conversation, he said that this would be his last communication:

Col. Werlich said he would be flying tomorrow and Monday. Col. Werlich said he had done the initial investigation in accordance with the regulation and I’m at the limits of my capabilities. Col Werlich [said] I can send supplemental data and will if we make our desires known and inform what specific information we need. Col. Werlich said we were hoping for technical assistance and we didn’t get it. Lt. Marano told Col. Werlich we felt that he was doing an adequate job as far as technical data. Col. Werlich said this was his first report and didn’t know how to ask questions or anything and he had spent too much time on it already.

With the end of Werlich’s involvement came the end of the information available to Quintanilla as he formulated his final case report.

Project Blue Book Evaluation

On Friday, November 1, Col. Quintanilla consulted a Mr. Goff within the Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB. The previous day, Werlich agreed to send supplementary information to Blue Book, including the “RAPCON TAPES,” the thirteen B-52 radarscope photos, AF-117s, and an overlay map with B-52 flight track, although, at this time, the only information available to Quintanilla was the Basic Reporting Data.

Talked to Mr. Goff, TDPA, who is quite familiar with air-borne radars. Mr. Goff said that from the evidence at this time it would appear to him that the sightings may have been precipitated by some type of ionized air plasma similar to ball lightning. He felt that plasma could account for the radar blip, loss of transmission, and some of the visual sightings.

Later that day, Quintanilla responded to Col. Pullen’s request to submit a preliminary report for Gen. Stewart, in order “to get this thing simmered down.” He had already informed Pullen, “I’m [Col. Quintanilla] pretty sure it was either caused by an internal radar malfunction that also caused the blip or because of the inversion he might have also picked up an anomalous blip.” Evidently he reconsidered as a result of his earlier conversation with Mr. Goff.

TO COL PULLEN SSO SAC. FROM LT COL QUINTANILLA. REFERENCE OUR TELECON WITH REGARDS TO MINOT AFB UFO’S. IT IS MY FEELINGS, AFTER REVIEWING PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY MINOT THAT UFO PAINTED BY B-52 ON RADAR AND ALSO OBSERVED VISUALLY BY IP [Instructor Pilot Maj. Partin] AND


38

PERSONNEL ON GROUND IS MOST PROBABLY A PLASMA OF THE BALL-LIGHTNING CLASS. PLASMAS OF THIS TYPE WILL PAINT ON RADAR AND ALSO AFFECT SOME ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT AT CERTAIN FREQUENCIES. PLASMAS ARE NOT UNCOMMON, HOWEVER, THEY ARE UNIQUE AND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DUPLICATE IN THE LABORATORY. ALSO BECAUSE OF THE TIME DURATIONS, FEEL STRONGLY THAT SOME SECURITY GUARDS AND MAINTENANCE CREW WERE OBSERVING SOME FIRST MAGNITUDE CELESTIAL BODIES WHICH WERE GREATLY MAGNIFIED BY THE INVERSION LAYER AND HAZE WHICH WAS PRESENT AT MINOT DURING THE TIME OF THE UFO OBSERVATIONS. DO NOT CONSIDER THE PHYSICAL VIOLATION OF THE LOCK AS BEING RELATED IN ANY WAY WITH UFO’S. I CONSIDER THE UFO REPORTS AS FAIRLY ROUTINE, EXCEPT FOR THE PLASMA OBSERVATION WHICH IS INTERESTING FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW. WE WILL STUDY THIS REPORT IN MORE DETAIL WHEN WE RECEIVE THE RAW DATA FROM MINOT.

This is the first indication of a means to explain both the B-52 air-radar encounter and air-visual observation by the pilots, which could also account for the temporary loss of the UHF radio transmission.

Project Blue Book Final Report

On Thursday, November 7, Col. Pullen at SAC Headquarters responded to Quintanilla’s TWX message of November 1, while prompting him to complete his evaluation and forward a final case report.

REFERENCE YOUR TDPT MESSAGE REGARDING MINOT AFB UFO. SAC COMMANDER AND STAFF ARE EXTREMELY INTERESTED IN THIS ITEM. REQUEST A COPY OF YOUR REPORT OF THIS INCIDENT BE FORWARDED THIS HEADQUARTERS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IF ANY DIFFICULTY IS ENCOUNTERED SECURING RAW DATA OR ASSISTANCE FROM MINOT PLEASE ADVISE. YOUR EXPEDITIOUS HANDLING OF THIS INCIDENT IS APPRECIATED.

Nearly a week later, on November 13, Quintanilla completed his evaluation and forwarded the final report to SAC headquarters. The report consists of a single-page letter providing several possible explanations for the various reports, along with eleven pages of attachments cobbled together in support.

TDPT (UFO) 13 NOV 1968 UFO Observation, 24 October 1968 Special Security Office (SAC)


39

1. Reference SSO message 071540Z, with regards to evaluations of UFO reports from Minot AFB. The following conclusions have been reached after a thorough study of the data submitted to the Foreign Technology Division. The ground visual sightings appear to be of the star Sirius and the B-52 which was flying in the area. The B-52 radar contact and the temporary loss of UHF transmission could be attributed to a plasma similar to ball lightning. The air visual from the B-52 could be the star Vega which was on the horizon at the time, or it could be a light on the ground, or possibly a plasma. The physical violation of the lock of OSCAR 7 does not seem to be related to UFOs in any way. 2. No further investigation by the Foreign Technology Division is contemplated. For your information we are attaching a copy of the sequence of events, a resume of the sightings and a discussion of the background information. FOR THE COMMANDER HECTOR QUINTANILLA, Jr., Lt Colonel, USAF Chief, Aerial Phenomena Branch

The year-end Blue Book Statistical Data for 1968 categorizes the Minot AFB UFO case as Identified (Other) by Radar Analysis as plasma.

“Most Probably a Plasma”

Plasma is the most abundant state of matter in the observable universe, visible as the electrically charged gaseous state of our sun and the stars. It is a distinct phase of matter separate from solids, liquids, and normal gases, which occurs at extremely high temperatures when atoms are stripped of negatively charged electrons to form positively charged ions.

Most importantly, ionized gas can conduct an electrical current. The field of plasma physics is the science of ionized gases interacting with electric and magnetic fields that profoundly influence the state, either generated by current flows within the plasma (such as lightning), or applied externally. For example, the solar wind is an effect of plasma accelerated from our sun’s atmosphere into interplanetary space, compressing the earth’s magnetic field.

Furthermore, lightning is a result of electrical discharges in the upper layers of the

atmosphere breaking down into plasma, which creates a conductive channel to earth for current in the form of a superheated lightning bolt to flash back up to the thundercloud. In all cases, a tremendously powerful source of energy is required to produce and sustain the state; otherwise the plasma quickly dissipates and recombines as a neutral gas. Ball lightning is a rare and ephemeral phenomenon associated with thunderstorms, though due to the lack of reliable data very little was known concerning its true nature in 1968. Similarly, in December 2000, the British Ministry of Defense completed a defense intelligence analysis based on reports over a span of 30 years, entitled, Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP) in the UK Defense Region (aka The Condign Report). The report suggests the formation of “buoyant plasmas” in our


40

atmosphere “are believed to be responsible for many UAP reports,” while acknowledging, “at present the information is not available to accurately predict the condition for the formation of plasmas.”

That UAP exist is indisputable. Credited with the ability to hover, land, take-off, accelerate to exceptional velocities and vanish, they can reportedly alter their direction of flight suddenly and clearly can exhibit aerodynamic characteristics well beyond those of any known aircraft or missile . . . Considerable evidence exists to support the thesis that the events are most certainly attributable to physical, electrical and magnetic phenomena in the atmosphere, mesosphere and ionosphere. They appear to originate due to more than one set of weather and electrically-charged conditions and are observed so infrequently as to make them unique to the majority of observers. There seems to be a strong possibility that at least some of the events may be triggered by meteor re-entry, the meteors neither burning up completely nor impacting as meteorites, but forming buoyant plasmas. The condition and method of formation of the electrically-charged plasmas and the scientific rationale for sustaining them for significant periods is incomplete or not fully understood.

In both instances, an explanation for the cause of UFO reports resulting from plasma formations in our atmosphere is merely hypothetical, and has a very tenuous scientific foundation. While natural-occurring plasma is visibly abundant in the universe, it is extremely rare in our atmosphere, even nonexistent except during thunderstorms when conditions exist for a sufficiently high electric potential.

On the other hand, it is intriguing that the Minot case provides evidence of a very strong

field of ionization (plasma) enveloping the UFO. For example, the ground observers are unanimous in describing a very large UFO, which alternated color from orangish-red to green to a very bright white light. According to Jablonski in his AF-117:

Object was self-luminous with glowing orange-red, white, greenish, alternating and at times combinations could be seen. Object appeared rather solid although not very wide and slender in shape. Edges were fuzzy. Lights were much too bright to determine the exact shape.

The descriptions are some of the most common characteristics of a majority of UFO reports observed during nighttime, which often describe a glow, with the illumination coming from the air encompassing the UFO and not the object surfaces. This is evidently caused as an effect (or energetic byproduct) of a powerful radiation generated by the UFO ionizing the surrounding air, or atmospheric gases, which emit photons of light in varying wavelengths. In this instance, red-orange corresponds to low–energy (frequency) operations, blue-white to high-energy operation, and a blend of all colors being white (Hill, 1995). Another example of this effect is the Aurora Borealis, in which plasma particles discharged from our sun pass through the earth’s magnetic shield, ionizing atoms and molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements that result in the dazzling display of lights in our sky.


41

Further evidence of an ionized cloud surrounding the UFO exists in the photogrammetric study of the B-52 radarscope photographs conducted by Dr. Claude Poher, a former space scientist with the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES), the National Center for Space Studies in France.

For example, according to Werlich, the ground observers all described a very large object,

too big for an aircraft. Runyon estimated the dimensions of the UFO as 200 x 100 feet (60 x 30 meters), while Partin compared the size to be much larger than a house. All of the estimates are remarkably coherent, however, in Poher’s analysis of radarscope photo #773, the dimensions of the UFO are over four times greater than the observer estimates.

Negative enlargement of the UFO radar echo in B-52 radarscope photograph # 773. (280 x 140 meters = 920 x 460 feet).

Again, this can be understood as an effect (or byproduct) of a powerful source of energy generated by the UFO, in which the rate of ionization of air encompassing the UFO was considerable. In this instance, the density of partly ionized gas is sufficient to an extent that the radar waves are deviated, even completely reflected. In other words, many of the lateral radar waves, which would normally pass by and not attain the reflective surface of the UFO, are rather highly deviated (or inflected) upon entering the ionized cloud encompassing the UFO, and returned in such a way that the size of the radar echo is considerably augmented. In this case, the reflection coefficient (or radar cross section) appears to increase as more microwaves enter inside the volume of the ionized cloud. According to Poher’s calculations, the rate of ionization is theoretically sufficient to completely reflect a radar wave of 9000 MHz, and return an echo equivalent to the ground echo beneath the B-52 (Poher, 2005).


42

Moreover, the B-52 loss of radio transmission appears to indicate that the electronic

density generated by the UFO was diminishing proportionally at a considerable distance beyond the UFO.

Following the turnaround, the UFO continued pacing the B-52 at three miles, until the

beginning of the descent back to Minot AFB, when it suddenly changed its relative distance to one mile. At this moment, the B-52 radios lost the ability to transmit.

According to Werlich:

AFTER ROLLING OUT OF A RIGHT TURNAROUND TO THE TACAN INITIAL APPROACH FIX, A BRIGHT ECHO SUDDENLY APPEARED 3 MILES ABEAM AND TO THE LEFT OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE ECHO RAPIDLY CLOSED ON THE AIRCRAFT AND REMAINED AT ABOUT 1 MILE. AT THIS MOMENT THE UHF TRANSMISSION FROM THE B-52 TO RAPCON WAS INTERRUPTED IN MID-SENTENCE. THE RADAR ECHO CONTINUED WITH THE AIRCRAFT DURING ITS TACAN PENETRATION FOR ABOUT 20 MILES. RAPCON HAD REQUESTED THE AIRCRAFT TO CHANGE UFH FREQUENCIES TWICE BUT THE AIRCRAFT WAS UNABLE TO TRANSMIT ON EITHER FREQUENCY. THE B-52 UHF RECEIVER WAS NOT AFFECTED NOR WAS THE IFF/SIF IDENTIFICATION FEATURE AFFECTED.

In this case, when the UFO decreased its distance relative to the B-52, the critical frequency associated with the electronic density encompassing the UFO increased sufficiently to cause the radio transmitter to fail. For example, when the B-52 copilot pressed the button on his microphone, the transmitter onboard the B-52 was sending its entire power to the 1/4 wave antenna. At this moment, the amplitude of the antenna’s local electrical field was increased, which immediately attracted the ions and the electrons encircling the antenna. With a thick layer of ions encircling the transmission antenna, all of the transmitting power was absorbed in the agitation of ions and the heating of air. Thus, the radiated power was very weak. In other words, the radiating impedance of the antenna was bypassed by the bath of ions as if it had been plunged into a conducting fluid driver such as water.

Another way to understand this phenomenon is to consider the critical frequency of the

ionized air surrounding the B-52. According to Poher’s calculations, the critical frequency of the ionized air (484 MHz), is superior to the frequency of communications (270 MHz) and the wave is returned and absorbed rather than being transmitted. Furthermore, the B-52’s IFF/SIF transponder transmitted without a problem, since it operated above the critical frequency at 1 GHz; while reception of the VHF communications from RAPCON were similarly unaffected, since the corresponding electrical field was insufficient to perturb the atmospheric ions at only a few millivolt VHF voltage at the receiving antenna.


43

It is remarkable that these considerations of plasma physics are completely consistent with many of the described facts in this case (Poher, 2005).

The October 24, 1968, Minot AFB case provides a unique opportunity to examine U.S.

Air Force policy and attitude regarding the UFO phenomenon. In this case, Quintanilla’s conclusions were typical of the methods the Air Force employed to eliminate unidentified reports, and reassure the public of the lack of evidence concerning UFOs. For over two decades, the policy was successful, and continues to reinforce a prohibition on taking UFOs seriously. This is particularly true in authoritative sectors where the publication of erroneous and often misleading scientific data, sustained by false narratives, has effectively established a culturally induced ignorance or doubt. What has always been lacking and remains so after seven decades is an objective, systematic scientific study of the UFO phenomenon.

—Thomas Tulien

Sources All of the sources including 100+ pages of primary documentation, maps, interview transcripts, radarscope photographs, and two radarscope film analyses, are available online from:

http://www.minotb52ufo.com

Hill, Paul R. Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, 1995.

Poher, Claude. Analysis of Radar and Air-visual UFO Observations on 24 October 1968 at Minot AFB, North Dakota, USA. 2005. Accessed June 22, 2018. http://www.minotb52ufo.com/radar_analyses.php

Shough, Martin L. Anomalous Echoes Captured by a B-52 Airborne Radarscope Camera: A Preliminary Report. 2006. Accessed June 22, 2018.

http://www.minotb52ufo.com/radar_analyses.php Tulien, Thomas M. “24 October 1968, Minot AFB, North Dakota.” Sign Oral History Project. Accessed

June 22, 2018. http://www.minotb52ufo.com

3 radar cases · 2018. 7. 15. · historical case studies: three ufo radar cases selfridge air...

Documents