The Minot AFB B-52 UFO Incident.

[DONTEATUS]

The B-52 will be around 90 years old when it is finally retired from service. BTW, "Red Tails" is due for opening this Friday, January 20, and I hope to bring Colonel Warren with me. He is doing just fine.

This B-52 is one that at least will not be cut up ! ,Cant wait to See the Red Tail movie this week ! WHen are you coming back to Texas Sky ?

[bmk1245]

If we did have some sort of celestial event, surely there would be a record of it? [...]

I meant celestial body(ies) and B52 maneuvers seen from ground.

[...] I would think if it was EAS or similar, that some group should be aware of this, and be able to put 2 and 2 together, but in his case, it seems nobody has an alibi.[...]

EAS research was in its infancy, so to speak, back in those days (link).

[...]

Also the pilot description of metallic cylinder attached to another section that was shaped like a crescent moon is hard to resolve with a natural event, and also that we simply did not respond to a radar return. The entire event seems well,, uneventful. A genuine confirmed massive UFO should not be.

And here is the problem: in 1968 it was "Orange ball of light/A very dim ring of soft white light" (by pilot Maj. Partin), while in 2000 it became "Dull reddish-orange color like molten lava/metallic tube-like structure/greenish-yellow glow/section that was shaped like a crescent moon" (by copilot Capt. Runyon) (link).

Its like comparing Ferrari 599 GTB with Airbus A360, and saying its the same vehicle: both are elongated, both have lights, both have wheels, doors, windows... Ferrari don't have wings, but hey, thats very unimportant detail - its the same vehicle!

Edited January 17, 2012 by bmk1245

[quillius]

Hi Quillius

Indeed, Quintanilla does not have a good record of convincing explanations, but he seemed to go the extra mile on this one. Plasma was still quite an unknown, so he must have sought the answer to fit. I find that out of character for him, as such I find the end result somewhat puzzling. Usually he seemed to find an answer he was happy with and that would suffice, this time he seems to have done much more than that. Why this case I wonder?

Personally I think we have an interesting anomaly, but again, the thing is reported as huge, how could it enter our airspace, and our solar system completely undetected? And what sort of system would keep such a massive body of the ground, and maneuver it like that? Regardless of technology, any alien still has to deal with inertia here. As such, I am struggling with the idea of a very large structured craft that is highly maneuverable, picks up speed at an amazing pace, and appears and disappears at will. And even though we have a genuine report, we decided it was not worth investigating. I think jumping to ET is premature considering all this. It is strange, but our actions are every bit as strange as the report itself. I am still thinking black ops. Maybe some attempt at an airborne refueling station or something.

Cheers.

Hey Psyche,

Like I said I know very little about this case, although I will look into it now.

You say he 'went the extra mile' which I need to look into and understand why you think this is the case, at first glance if his actions are as you say then yes I too am very puzzled by such actions, due to the fact that I agree he grabbed the first answer he could find and moved on. Why this one? is indeed a good question, but unless I look into the case I have no chance of answering.

[quillius]

You did well, I got

404 | Page Not Found!

Sorry, but the page you were looking for is not here.

Although I was only expecting more codswallop from Hastings and Salas.

I tried it again now and I also got 'page not found'....

at least you may see why I get paranoid with this subject...one minute there ...the next gone..

[DONTEATUS]

I meant celestial body(ies) and B52 maneuvers seen from ground.

EAS research was in its infancy, so to speak, back in those days (link).

And here is the problem: in 1968 it was "Orange ball of light/A very dim ring of soft white light" (by pilot Maj. Partin), while in 2000 it became "Dull reddish-orange color like molten lava/metallic tube-like structure/greenish-yellow glow/section that was shaped like a crescent moon" (by copilot Capt. Runyon) (link).

Its like comparing Ferrari 599 GTB with Airbus A360, and saying its the same vehicle: both are elongated, both have lights, both have wheels, doors, windows... Ferrari don't have wings, but hey, thats very unimportant detail - its the same vehicle!

Well its not really an issue If it looks like a Duck,and flys like a duck it then must be a Ferrari, or Airbus ! Its all in the way its looked upon and at by the witnesses ! From there its all a Duck shoot !

[bmk1245]

Well its not really an issue If it looks like a Duck,and flys like a duck it then must be a Ferrari, or Airbus ! [...]

That would be a Moose that quacks like a Duck

[psyche101]

I meant celestial body(ies) and B52 maneuvers seen from ground.

EAS research was in its infancy, so to speak, back in those days (link).

Gotcha

And here is the problem: in 1968 it was "Orange ball of light/A very dim ring of soft white light" (by pilot Maj. Partin), while in 2000 it became "Dull reddish-orange color like molten lava/metallic tube-like structure/greenish-yellow glow/section that was shaped like a crescent moon" (by copilot Capt. Runyon) (link).

Its like comparing Ferrari 599 GTB with Airbus A360, and saying its the same vehicle: both are elongated, both have lights, both have wheels, doors, windows... Ferrari don't have wings, but hey, thats very unimportant detail - its the same vehicle!

Hrrmmzz, that first description reminds me of:

Photograph of "an unusual atmospheric occurrence observed over Sri Lanka," forwarded to the UK Ministry of Defence by RAF Fylingdales, 2004.

[psyche101]

Hey Psyche,

Like I said I know very little about this case, although I will look into it now.

You say he 'went the extra mile' which I need to look into and understand why you think this is the case, at first glance if his actions are as you say then yes I too am very puzzled by such actions, due to the fact that I agree he grabbed the first answer he could find and moved on. Why this one? is indeed a good question, but unless I look into the case I have no chance of answering.

Hi Mate

By this time Klass had abandoned his Plasma theories due to pressure from McDonalds cronies. To pick something that was derided by the majority of what were deemed "the experts" at the time seems quite bold to me.

Cheers.

[DONTEATUS]

Gotcha

Hrrmmzz, that first description reminds me of:

Photograph of "an unusual atmospheric occurrence observed over Sri Lanka," forwarded to the UK Ministry of Defence by RAF Fylingdales, 2004.

Now that you mention it That photo does look like a quarterpounder -wit-cheese !

[psyche101]

Now that you mention it That photo does look like a quarterpounder -wit-cheese !

Hamburgers! The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast.

Mmm-mmmm. That is a tasty burger. Big D, ever have a Big Kahuna Burger?

[psyche101]

I tried it again now and I also got 'page not found'....

at least you may see why I get paranoid with this subject...one minute there ...the next gone..

It is rubbing off!

[quillius]

Hi Mate

By this time Klass had abandoned his Plasma theories due to pressure from McDonalds cronies. To pick something that was derided by the majority of what were deemed "the experts" at the time seems quite bold to me.

Cheers.

yes, its definitely an interesting point you have picked up on Psyche.

cheers

[quillius]

It is rubbing off!

[bmk1245]

[...]

Hrrmmzz, that first description reminds me of:

Photograph of "an unusual atmospheric occurrence observed over Sri Lanka," forwarded to the UK Ministry of Defence by RAF Fylingdales, 2004.

Spectacular view. But you must be cautious - ETHers will jump to conclusion that skeptics think cloud was responsible for Minot/B52 event

[psyche101]

Spectacular view. But you must be cautious - ETHers will jump to conclusion that skeptics think cloud was responsible for Minot/B52 event

Lets call it an alien cloud for now, and see if that reaches middle ground?

It sure fits the initial description though.

[DONTEATUS]

Hamburgers! The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast.

Mmm-mmmm. That is a tasty burger. Big D, ever have a Big Kahuna Burger?

Ive actually been to the Big Island several times to visit my brother-n-law and they Kona Burger in Kona Hi. is so big that even this Texan has to spend two hours downing it ! Ooh Raa !

[psyche101]

Ive actually been to the Big Island several times to visit my brother-n-law and they Kona Burger in Kona Hi. is so big that even this Texan has to spend two hours downing it ! Ooh Raa !

Sweet

We used to have a place here that sold Burgers like that called Toucan Burger. Monstrous things. Been gone for years though.

Gotta admit, it's gone quiet in here, the captains descriptions sounds just like that giant cheeseburger in the sky. Can't blame ET for liking burgers.

[DONTEATUS]

Yeah its all in good form that a thread dies a quite death ! UFO`s are a fleeting thought at the moment ! Until we get the Big-One Landing and 60 foot tall Amazon Women walking out Looking for earth men to pillage and plunder and take back to Plante Amazon III "Yikes" Run away ! Run away ! 60 feet tall ! You know waht they will want us to Do !

[karl 12]

Yeah its all in good form that a thread dies a quite death !

Happens quite a lot that - notwithstanding all the silly talk about Big Cahuna burgers it realy doesn´t change the fact that ´something´ was confirmed on radarscope over restricted airspace at Minot AFB on 24th October, 1968.

I would like to see the various reports posted on this thread collated to show the sequence of the sightings...

Leonardo, thanks for the intelligent post and the Minot AFB 1968 incident certainly is an intriguing one (though not to be confused with government documents describing incidents there in 1966 and 1967 as well) - Martin Shough has done an excellent job below collating a lot of information about the case and goes into quite specific detail about radar confirmation and time/distance data for the sightings, there is also a comprehensive section with all the government documentation in chronological order as well as examination of all the witness testimony:

link

Chief scientist to Project Bluebook, Dr Hynek also goes into more detail below about the speed, flight charateristics and electromagnetic interference effects displayed by the object:

link

Cheers.

[karl 12]

Cheers Karl.

One other thing, in the case of Portage county, even when Quintanilla seem to accept that Venus and a satellite were not the correct answer, and he said he would change the status back to unknown, he chose to leave it as was (or possibly forgot-admin error)..

Quillius, you make a good point there mate, apparently Dr Hynek proved the Portage county object wasn´t the planet Venus but was still completely ignored.. must have been very frustrating for him seeing as he was the ´Chief Scientific Advisor´ to the project

The most intriguing piece, however, came from Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the Air Force consultant. Hynek noted that Venus had risen at 3:35 that morning and would have been too high in the sky, by the time of the sightings, to be mistaken for an aircraft..

link

Perhaps it was clerical error but Major Quintanilla hasn´t realy got the best track record when it comes to objective UFO investigation- just look at the ´twinkling stars´ debunk for this case.

It´s just speculation of course but perhaps he (and Sgt Moody) were attempting to massage the statistical figure of ´actual unknowns´ and ´the flag of the utter nonsense school´ realy was flying at its highest on the mast.

I also found it relevant that Dr Hynek also attempted to get the USAF under Quintanilla to adopt a far more objective, analytical, scientific method for their investigations...but was completely ignored (again):

Severe Scientific criticism of Project Bluebook - suggested changes in protocol completely ignored:

In September 1968, Hynek received a letter from Colonel Raymond Sleeper of the Foreign Technology Division. Sleeper noted that Hynek had publicly accused Blue Book of shoddy science, and further asked Hynek to offer advice on how Blue Book could improve its scientific methodology.

Hynek was to later declare that Sleeper's letter was "the first time in my 20 year association with the air force as scientific consultant that I had been officially asked for criticism and advice regarding the UFO problem."

Hynek wrote a detailed response, dated October 7, 1968, suggesting several areas where Blue Book could improve. In part, he wrote:

A.... neither of the two missions of Blue Book [determining if UFOs are a threat to national security and using scientific data gathered by Blue Book] are being adequately executed.

B.The staff of Blue Book, both in numbers and in scientific training, is grossly inadequate...

C.Blue Book suffers … in that it is a closed system ... there is virtually no scientific dialogue between Blue Book and the outside scientific world...

D.The statistical methods employed by Blue Book are nothing less than a travesty.

E.There has been a lack of attention to significant UFO cases ... and too much time spent on routine cases ... and on peripheral public relations tasks. Concentration could be on two or three potentially scientific significant cases per month [instead of being] spread thin over 40 to 70 cases per month.

F.The information input to Blue Book is grossly inadequate. An impossible load is placed on Blue Book by the almost consistent failure of UFO officers at local air bases to transmit adequate information...

G.The basic attitude and approach within Blue Book is illogical and unscientific...

H.Inadequate use had been made of the Project scientific consultant [Hynek himself]. Only cases that the project monitor deems worthwhile are brought to his attention. His scope of operation ... has been consistently thwarted ... He often learns of interesting cases only a month or two after the receipt of the report at Blue Book.

Despite Sleeper's request for criticism, none of Hynek's commentary resulted in any substantial changes in Blue Book.

Link

..this leads me to my thought, how many 'explained cases' that give us these wonderful % of unknown cases versus known are actually correct?

If the records show only 5% remain unexplained, then I agrue that this may be a false figure upon which to base discussion.

It´s just my opinion but I´d be rather sceptical of many of the ´official´ government UFO explanations, particularly in the Quintanilla era - some examples are listed here and I think it´s fair to say that many cases need serious reapprasial, if only for the integrity of future research - as for the real percentage of actual unknowns, I think Ronald D Story from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics makes quite a good point here when speaking about (the complete and utter whitewash which was) the Condon report.

"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study.

From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."

Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980

Link

Cheers.

[quillius]

Quillius, you make a good point there mate, apparently Dr Hynek proved the Portage county object wasn´t the planet Venus but was still completely ignored.. must have been very frustrating for him seeing as he was the ´Chief Scientific Advisor´ to the project

hello Karl, yes I believe he did prove the object was not Venus, not that it needed proving IMO. The way in which he conducted the investigation said one of two things...either, we need to keep a lid on this so any (prosaic) answer will suffice or showed an extreme bias due to personal belief and therefore put forward any answer whether it fitted or not just to ....meet targets maybe?

Perhaps it was clerical error but Major Quintanilla hasn´t realy got the best track record when it comes to objective UFO investigation- just look at the ´twinkling stars´ debunk for this case.

It´s just speculation of course but perhaps he (and Sgt Moody) were attempting to massage the statistical figure of ´actual unknowns´ and ´the flag of the utter nonsense school´ realy was flying at its highest on the mast.

I also found it relevant that Dr Hynek also attempted to get the USAF under Quintanilla to adopt a far more objective, analytical, scientific method for their investigations...but was completely ignored (again):

...or ofcourse it could be the because of the bolded part above in your text

It´s just my opinion but I´d be rather sceptical of many of the ´official´ government UFO explanations, particularly in the Quintanilla era - some examples are listed here and I think it´s fair to say that many cases need serious reapprasial, if only for the integrity of future research - as for the real percentage of actual unknowns, I think Ronald D Story from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics makes quite a good point here when speaking about (the complete and utter whitewash which was) the Condon report.

Cheers.

I agree with 'your opinion' and personally trust very little of what I hear 'officially' especially as you say from that era.

30% was an interesting figure, I wonder if the figure would be the same today?

[psyche101]

Happens quite a lot that - notwithstanding all the silly talk about Big Cahuna burgers it realy doesn´t change the fact that ´something´ was confirmed on radarscope over restricted airspace at Minot AFB on 24th October, 1968.

Hey Karl

I beg your pardon.

Nobody offered any sort of response to the object I submitted as matching the description, so Big D lightened up the conversation a little. Look at the time stamps. It was not like others have not had a chance to respond when a possibility was offered. Everyone including you have had no comment on what the Cheeseburger originally was submitted as.

If I may refresh memories?

I was looking at a black ops option, when bmk said that it sounded like natural phenomena, and noted the difference in descriptions over the passage of time. bmk's post said:

And here is the problem: in 1968 it was "Orange ball of light/A very dim ring of soft white light" (by pilot Maj. Partin), while in 2000 it became "Dull reddish-orange color like molten lava/metallic tube-like structure/greenish-yellow glow/section that was shaped like a crescent moon" (by copilot Capt. Runyon) (link).

Now focussing on the first description, from the actual time frame of the incident, which to me seems more likely to be accurate, I recalled the photo taken by the flying Dales, which seems to me to match that description quite well i.e.

Does this object not display an Orange ball of light/A very dim ring of soft white light ??

Also

At 1-2 miles, the object would be about 150-300 feet in diameter.

Also fits this description. Does this anomaly move? Can that count it out? You tell me.

It seems more like a strong possibility has been glossed over the be perfectly honest.

[DONTEATUS]

All things are possible in this respect, We will get a better chance someday to Get the Goods on E.T Clouds are just fun to Look at,E.T. can Go really Fast !

And Im all about Fast !

[psyche101]

All things are possible in this respect, We will get a better chance someday to Get the Goods on E.T Clouds are just fun to Look at,E.T. can Go really Fast !

And Im all about Fast !

Exactly! If some can say spaceships made from tinfoil and balsa wood fly through space and crash on earth, then a cheeseburger is also on the table.

Edited January 25, 2012 by psyche101