Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

1968 Minot AFB UFO: B52-H Radar Return


Tim Hebert

Recommended Posts

Hi Tom,

Looking through the interviews you conducted, I noticed that on page 17 of the Runyan interview he seems to suggest that the RADAR was indeed picking up the object from its ground position as they seem to know where the B52 was in relation to object on the ground, I may of course just be getting confused....still so much to read.

Once again though, great job on your site, the more I read, the more impressed I am.

:tu:

Dear Quillius:

Thanks. That's what struck me when we began researching the case. Generally, you ruin a good story with too much research, however, the opposite is true in this case. Since it provides substantial information concerning the events and following investigation in the form of multiple bodies of evidence, including quantitative data, it provides a student the means to stand back and look at the events, for oneself, in the round, and in considerable detail. I would argue that it also requires a comprehensive understanding of the historical context, including the experiential, and official history of governmental UFO involvement, as well as, an understanding of the military environment surrounding the events. In other words, it demands the traditional methodologies of historical analysis. As an aside: several years in to the research I attended a local MN/MUFON meeting and mentioned that I was working on the case. One of the directors (Bill M.) told me that he had the original first-generation radarscope photographs. (The reproductions in the PBB file were poorly microfilmed and useless for analysis). That seemed a bit too coincidental, but some time later I drove out to his home to discover that his brother-in-law was the targeting studies officer in the 5th BMW at Minot AFB in Oct. 1968, and assigned that morning to produce an analysis of the B-52 radarscope film. See: http://www.minotb52u...3/clark2003.php. He kept a desk copy of the photographic prints that were included in his report. When he left service he passed them on to Bill M. who preserved them all these years. At that point I was hooked. I limited my personal interpretations of the events to focusing on the narrative as revealed by the primary evidence. In this respect, the presentation on line is not directed towards a pedestrian audience, but requires a level of commitment and critical ability that can lead to personal insight for a serious student of the phenomenon. There are no authorities when working in the dark, and anyone who presents themselves as such is misguided.

Your question: Runyon does feel that RAPCON knew precisely where the object was on or near the ground. However, there is no direct evidence indicating how they knew this in the documents. FYI: a B-52 flying within the 50 nmi airspace of an AFB is under the control of radar approach control (RAPCON) at all times. The pilots take direction from RAPCON ground controllers and if they plan to deviate they are required to request the change from RAPCON. There are two distinct ground radar systems, precision and approach that monitor the B-52 position. You may recall Runyon's concern after the radio transmission ceased functioning at the WT fix, when he was unable to notify RAPCON that they were leaving FL200: " I’m not sure just at what point I realized that we couldn’t talk to the ground, but we made our turn and penetration back towards the base and departed our altitude without receiving permission, which bothered me at the time because it was basically illegal to change your altitude without approval beforehand."

Later, they were ordered not to land but to continue around the traffic pattern and over fly the object. This implies that RAPCON knew where the object was located [followed it by radar or visually after it departed the B-52?]. There are no ground witness reports of the object in this location/time in the documents. Since RAPCON is providing the vector changes for the B-52 flight pattern, and on the second go-around vectored them directly towards "the bright orange ball of light ...that looked like a miniature sun placed on the ground below the aircraft" it appears as if someone knew precisely where it was located. The Missile Wing Security controller's summary provides a location of the object as AA-43 in the grid map [AA-43 is indicated on this map: http://www.minotb52u...bservation5.php, and derived from this map: http://www.minotb52u...s/1965_grid.jpg. How they all knew this is not explained or elucidated by the documentation. Werlich states in the Basic Reporting Data (BRD): "RAPCON was painting, IFF equipment was operating in the airplane. It’s a fairly good size blip. Every time it sweeps it shows the blip. The object would have been covered by the blip. There is a Sage site to the south. They do not remember having any unidentified paints. The only one I have is the one on the plane," suggesting that RAPCON painted nothing during the entire event. So, Runyon naturally assumes that RAPCON knows precisely where the object is on or near the ground since he was under their control at all times.

Kind regards, Tom

Edited by whynotminot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dear Quillius:

Thanks. That's what struck me when we began researching the case. Generally, you ruin a good story with too much research, however, the opposite is true in this case. Since it provides substantial information concerning the events and following investigation in the form of multiple bodies of evidence, including quantitative data, it provides a student the means to stand back and look at the events, for oneself, in the round, and in considerable detail. I would argue that it also requires a comprehensive understanding of the historical context, including the experiential, and official history of governmental UFO involvement, as well as, an understanding of the military environment surrounding the events. In other words, it demands the traditional methodologies of historical analysis. As an aside: several years in to the research I attended a local MN/MUFON meeting and mentioned that I was working on the case. One of the directors (Bill M.) told me that he had the original first-generation radarscope photographs. (The reproductions in the PBB file were poorly microfilmed and useless for analysis). That seemed a bit too coincidental, but some time later I drove out to his home to discover that his brother-in-law was the targeting studies officer in the 5th BMW at Minot AFB in Oct. 1968, and assigned that morning to produce an analysis of the B-52 radarscope film. See: http://www.minotb52u...3/clark2003.php. He kept a desk copy of the photographic prints that were included in his report. When he left service he passed them on to Bill M. who preserved them all these years. At that point I was hooked. I limited my personal interpretations of the events to focusing on the narrative as revealed by the primary evidence. In this respect, the presentation on line is not directed towards a pedestrian audience, but requires a level of commitment and critical ability that can lead to personal insight for a serious student of the phenomenon. There are no authorities when working in the dark, and anyone who presents themselves as such is misguided.

Your question: Runyon does feel that RAPCON knew precisely where the object was on or near the ground. However, there is no direct evidence indicating how they knew this in the documents. FYI: a B-52 flying within the 50 nmi airspace of an AFB is under the control of radar approach control (RAPCON) at all times. The pilots take direction from RAPCON ground controllers and if they plan to deviate they are required to request the change from RAPCON. There are two distinct ground radar systems, precision and approach that monitor the B-52 position. You may recall Runyon's concern after the radio transmission ceased functioning at the WT fix, when he was unable to notify RAPCON that they were leaving FL200: " I’m not sure just at what point I realized that we couldn’t talk to the ground, but we made our turn and penetration back towards the base and departed our altitude without receiving permission, which bothered me at the time because it was basically illegal to change your altitude without approval beforehand."

Later, they were ordered not to land but to continue around the traffic pattern and over fly the object. This implies that RAPCON knew where the object was located [followed it by radar or visually after it departed the B-52?]. There are no ground witness reports of the object in this location/time in the documents. Since RAPCON is providing the vector changes for the B-52 flight pattern, and on the second go-around vectored them directly towards "the bright orange ball of light ...that looked like a miniature sun placed on the ground below the aircraft" it appears as if someone knew precisely where it was located. The Missile Wing Security controller's summary provides a location of the object as AA-43 in the grid map [AA-43 is indicated on this map: http://www.minotb52u...bservation5.php, and derived from this map: http://www.minotb52u...s/1965_grid.jpg. How they all knew this is not explained or elucidated by the documentation. Werlich states in the Basic Reporting Data (BRD): "RAPCON was painting, IFF equipment was operating in the airplane. It’s a fairly good size blip. Every time it sweeps it shows the blip. The object would have been covered by the blip. There is a Sage site to the south. They do not remember having any unidentified paints. The only one I have is the one on the plane," suggesting that RAPCON painted nothing during the entire event. So, Runyon naturally assumes that RAPCON knows precisely where the object is on or near the ground since he was under their control at all times.

Kind regards, Tom

many thanks for the detail Tom.

McCaslin claimed that he had put the cross hairs on the co-ordinates from the initial point at which the 'object' came close to the B52, and then whilst they were headed towards these coordinates they saw the object on the ground. However, if this is used to suggest that the RADAR on the ground did not have sight of the object then I would say this is incorrect, simply because they must have known where the object was to suggest the B52 goes and does a flyover. How could they suggest a flyover unless they had the object on RADAR and could establish not only where it was but also that it was not still in the air? otherwise why suggest a 'flyover'? i.e. if the object was still at 20,000ft (I assume this was height at first contact) then unless they tracked it down to the ground then why use the words flyover?

sorry if this is poorly explained. I will keep reading what I can and trya nd get a better understanding, but my first impression is that the object was tracked from initial contact all the way down to the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many thanks for the detail Tom.

McCaslin claimed that he had put the cross hairs on the co-ordinates from the initial point at which the 'object' came close to the B52, and then whilst they were headed towards these coordinates they saw the object on the ground. However, if this is used to suggest that the RADAR on the ground did not have sight of the object then I would say this is incorrect, simply because they must have known where the object was to suggest the B52 goes and does a flyover. How could they suggest a flyover unless they had the object on RADAR and could establish not only where it was but also that it was not still in the air? otherwise why suggest a 'flyover'? i.e. if the object was still at 20,000ft (I assume this was height at first contact) then unless they tracked it down to the ground then why use the words flyover?

sorry if this is poorly explained. I will keep reading what I can and trya nd get a better understanding, but my first impression is that the object was tracked from initial contact all the way down to the ground.

Quillius:

The ASQ-68 radar system in the B-52 was a component bomb-navigation radar comprised of the ASB 9A/16. For more info see Shough at: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/shough/ms_sec4.php. During our research we attempted to obtain a technical manual for the system but were only able to locate a training manual: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/archives/5th_bombardment_wing_heavy/b52_stratofortress/bomb_navigation_systems_mechanic_cdc32150K_vol4.pdf (pages 45-49 discuss some of the display modes. Note the Indirect Bombing Damage Assessment (IBDA) mode and radarscope photo #784, which appears to be a result of a mode change from Station-keep to IBDA mode).

http://www.minotb52ufo.com/shough/ms_images/minot6.jpg

What McCaslin is referring to here is when the UFO departed from the B-52 radar (and radio transmission resumed) he immediately set the cross-hairs for the system that would allow the B-52 to automatically return to that exact spot. (See: McCaslin, pp. 21-23 at: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/interviews/mccaslin2001/mccaslin2001_pg21.php). His impression was that the object dropped down out of radar range. Bear in mind that the two radar operators are down in the belly of the B-52 connected by interphone to the rest of the crew (and without access to the flight-deck. (diagram: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/images/images/Crew-Positions.png). McCaslin's memory is that he instructed the pilots to fly to the position he had indicated by the cross-hair, and he assumes that this was how they located it on or near the ground. Actually, RAPCON provided the vectors for the B-52 to fly over the object. McCaslin's location would have been roughly 10+ miles to the west/southwest of the object on or near the ground.

When the object departed from the radar the B-52 was at about 9,000 ft altitude and just clearing the cloud cover (from 9,000-24,000 ft.). The four observers at N-7 were directed to the location of the incoming B-52 by the Base Operations dispatcher., see: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/narrative/section-3.php

Both McCaslin and Runyon recall an order received by radio that originated from a General to not land but over fly the object. I assume the general was Maj. Gen. McNichols, vice-commander of the 15th AF (mentioned by Werlich in his initial communication/ Memo for the Record with PBB on 24 Oct.). The 15th AF was located at March AFB in CA. so it seems that the base commander and McNichols were in contact with RAPCON during this time.

Kind regards, Tom

Edited by whynotminot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quillius:

The ASQ-68 radar system in the B-52 was a component bomb-navigation radar comprised of the ASB 9A/16. For more info see Shough at: http://www.minotb52u...gh/ms_sec4.php. During our research we attempted to obtain a technical manual for the system but were only able to locate a training manual: http://www.minotb52u...32150K_vol4.pdf (pages 45-49 discuss some of the display modes. Note the Indirect Bombing Damage Assessment (IBDA) mode and radarscope photo #784, which appears to be a result of a mode change from Station-keep to IBDA mode).

http://www.minotb52u...ages/minot6.jpg

What McCaslin is referring to here is when the UFO departed from the B-52 radar (and radio transmission resumed) he immediately set the cross-hairs for the system that would allow the B-52 to automatically return to that exact spot. (See: McCaslin, pp. 21-23 at: http://www.minotb52u...in2001_pg21.php). His impression was that the object dropped down out of radar range. Bear in mind that the two radar operators are down in the belly of the B-52 connected by interphone to the rest of the crew (and without access to the flight-deck. (diagram: http://www.minotb52u...w-Positions.png). McCaslin's memory is that he instructed the pilots to fly to the position he had indicated by the cross-hair, and he assumes that this was how they located it on or near the ground. Actually, RAPCON provided the vectors for the B-52 to fly over the object. McCaslin's location would have been roughly 10+ miles to the west/southwest of the object on or near the ground.

When the object departed from the radar the B-52 was at about 9,000 ft altitude and just clearing the cloud cover (from 9,000-24,000 ft.). The four observers at N-7 were directed to the location of the incoming B-52 by the Base Operations dispatcher., see: http://www.minotb52u...e/section-3.php

Both McCaslin and Runyon recall an order received by radio that originated from a General to not land but over fly the object. I assume the general was Maj. Gen. McNichols, vice-commander of the 15th AF (mentioned by Werlich in his initial communication/ Memo for the Record with PBB on 24 Oct.). The 15th AF was located at March AFB in CA. so it seems that the base commander and McNichols were in contact with RAPCON during this time.

Kind regards, Tom

Thanks again Tom,

What I was trying to get at is that if it is suggested that there was no RADAR visual of the object when it was on/near the ground and that RAPCON did not provide the vectors then my argument would be:

1- why did the Generals message read 'flyover'?

2- what were they instructed to go and see if no one else had a visual on the object?

3- and as you point out, the location of the object was 10+miles out to the west/southwest of the original position of contact. (not sure if this is on the path/en route to the crosshair target?, if not then this alone pretty much confirms RAPCON would have given the vectors for the B52 to fly over the object)

In my opinion this shows that RAPCON did indeed have the object on RADAR, they either tracked it from first contact and continued to do so even when it left the B52s RADAR, or they also lost it and picked it up again when it was near the ground....

I guess my opinion may change once I have read through everything, but I am still on the interviews (having to read each one two or three times)...

What is your opinion on Werlich? something seems 'off' there to me but havent put my finger on it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

do you know why Runyan and others never completed AF-117's? (or why these are not available?)

Surely the interviews suggest that they also saw the object (not via RADAR) but yet only Partin (from the crew) seems to have completed one.

Even the interview with McCaslin suggests it was being seen by more than one person (Partin), though it was Partin that seems to have said 'Jeez, what is that....', MaCaslin says ''why would I leave my ejector seat to see what those guys were seeing' indicating that it was not being seen by just one person.

(maybe I should save the questions for after I have read through all of it...cant seem to help myself though :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again Tom,

What I was trying to get at is that if it is suggested that there was no RADAR visual of the object when it was on/near the ground and that RAPCON did not provide the vectors then my argument would be:

1- why did the Generals message read 'flyover'?

2- what were they instructed to go and see if no one else had a visual on the object?

3- and as you point out, the location of the object was 10+miles out to the west/southwest of the original position of contact. (not sure if this is on the path/en route to the crosshair target?, if not then this alone pretty much confirms RAPCON would have given the vectors for the B52 to fly over the object)

In my opinion this shows that RAPCON did indeed have the object on RADAR, they either tracked it from first contact and continued to do so even when it left the B52s RADAR, or they also lost it and picked it up again when it was near the ground....

I guess my opinion may change once I have read through everything, but I am still on the interviews (having to read each one two or three times)...

What is your opinion on Werlich? something seems 'off' there to me but havent put my finger on it yet.

1. The general's message. See, below and Endnote 101. Note that the general's request does not appear in the transcript. Obviously, RAPCON knew the location of the object on or near the ground but how they knew is not stated in any documentation. The natural assumption would be that RAPCON painted the location, but any information one way or another (if they, in fact, did not paint anything would itself be a valid piece of data in any analysis) is absent from the documentation. Neither does Werlich state that RAPCON did not paint anything, but, rather, he avoids the issue and sidesteps, actually, obfuscates it in his Memo with PBB when he states: "It’s a fairly good size blip. Every time it sweeps it shows the blip. The object would have been covered by the blip," apparently suggesting that the "blip" from the B-52 would have covered the blip from the UFO on the radarscopes, or that the radar could not resolve/differentiate two large objects separated by one nmi. I can imagine this might be true only when the B-52 signaled with its IFF transponder (at 1 ghz), which would have "blossomed" the echo on the scope. The impression is that Werlich wants to avoid providing any information or details regarding the defensive radar systems at Minot to PBB. Why? I really don't know but assume that these systems are highly classified and PBB has no need to know.

2. No information, other than what they have recalled, and what other crew members were told at the time by the pilots.

3. McCaslin set his cross-hair when the UFO departed the B-52 radar at the time they were 18.8 nmi from the TACAN (end of runway) at an altitude of 8865 ft. along the flightpath leading to the runway from the WT-FIX (WHICH IS ABOUT 10+ MILES W-SW OF THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE UFO ON OR NEAR THE GROUND). The pilots followed the vectors that were provided by RAPCON.

WERLICH: Yeah, again you need to gain a perspective, I think, to understand Werlich's predicament. For example, the two most important pieces of data he should have compiled would be complete sighting reports from all observers and a complete transcript (or interviews with pilots or RAPCON controllers) of RAPCON/B-52 communications in order to determine whether the observers were reporting celestial objects, and/or the B-52. Neither of which he accomplished. Curiously, he only collected sighting data from observers to the north and northeast of the observations. He completely ignored the initial observations in the east (O-6 at 2:15, and 2:30 by Smith, O'Connor and Isley) and establishes in the BRD that the initial observations occurred at 3:00, at about the same time the B-52 returned to Minot (50 miles to the east at altitudes above FL200). I think he was in over his head on this one and decided that the best approach would be to attempt to explain the cause of the observations as misidentifications of the B-52, while avoiding the more difficult aspects of the events to explain in prosaic terms.

___________

Although preparing to land the B-52, the pilots received an order from a General officer not to land, but rather, to fly back around the traffic pattern in order to overfly and photograph the UFO.[100] The specific request by the General, or the request relayed by RAPCON and Runyon’s response, are clearly absent in the communications transcript. Although the crewmembers were fatigued and anxious to land the aircraft, Runyon reluctantly conceded:

RUNYON
: The request was made after our radios came back in and before we made our low approach, which, like I said, I thought we wanted to land—but maybe even before we could tell the ground people we wanted to land someone came over the radios. He didn’t say “This is General such-and-such,” he just said, they said, “General such-and-such wants you to go back around and overfly the object.”

INTERVIEWER
: But, did
he
come over the radio?

RUNYON
: It’s possible I don’t know, he could have—they could have patched him in—he could have been at SAC Headquarters, or it could have been Tom Goduto on the HF radio, because he would have been in contact with higher headquarters through that radio. But basically someone told us to go back around and the ground controllers knew that—well, I don’t know they could hear—but they knew we were supposed to go back and overfly the thing.

McCaslin also recalls the conversation over the intercom:

McCASLIN
: There was a request for us to go around one more time visually, and see if we could see something. I do not remember the exact words but the pilots were not keen to do that, but agreed to do it on the condition that they were going to come around one time visually and then were putting it on the ground and full stop.

Frankly, McCaslin was hoping that the pilots would decline the request:

McCASLIN
: I can remember that conversation. They wanted us to go around and do a visual and our pilot was reluctant to do that, but he agreed to go around and take a look. That to me was the tensest part of it, going over this thing at low altitude, basically on a search mission at a low altitude, and I remember that being a pretty tense time. I even remember him saying “We’ll go around one time and then we’re putting this thing on the ground,” because everybody had had about enough of it.

Thus it appears a General was in contact with somebody at Minot AFB, and concurrently monitoring the events. Further, it is clear the General and RAPCON knew the precise location of the UFO at rest, on or near the ground. None of the ground observers reported the UFO in this general location, and the source of this information is not evident in the documentation, except for a notation by the Wing Security controller stating, “the approximate grid coordinate of the apparent landing was at AA-43.”[104] This location is just over 2 miles north-northeast of N-7; adjacent to the “probable area of aircrew ground sighting” indicated on Werlich’s overlay map.[105]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

do you know why Runyan and others never completed AF-117's? (or why these are not available?)

Surely the interviews suggest that they also saw the object (not via RADAR) but yet only Partin (from the crew) seems to have completed one.

Even the interview with McCaslin suggests it was being seen by more than one person (Partin), though it was Partin that seems to have said 'Jeez, what is that....', MaCaslin says ''why would I leave my ejector seat to see what those guys were seeing' indicating that it was not being seen by just one person.

(maybe I should save the questions for after I have read through all of it...cant seem to help myself though :) )

The B-52 crew members were not interviewed, or asked to complete an AF-117 by Werlich or anyone else concerning their experiences. Why? Good question... They did attend a perfunctory debriefing in Gen. Holland's office that morning (See: INVESTIGATION, 2-3. B-52 Crew Debriefing). McCaslin claims that some days following the events he was invited to attend a meeting along with several officers who had arrived from Washington to review the B-52 radarscope film.

Partin was not a regular crew member of this B-52. He was onboard being evaluated (for STANEVAL) by the aircraft commander, Capt. Cagle. He attended the debriefing in Base Operations following the landing of the B-52:

"Following 4:21 a.m. (CDT), at the time of the B-52 pilots observation and overflight of the UFO on or near the ground, controllers at Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) relayed the following request to the pilots: “JAG 31 (garbled) requests that somebody from your aircraft stop in at baseops after you land.”[9] Apparently, somebody in command wanted to know what the B-52 pilots had experienced, though the purpose of the debriefing and the officials in attendance are unknown. Most likely, the request came from Minot AFB Commander Col. Ralph Kirchoff, who was responsible under AFR 80-17 for providing the investigative capability necessary to submit a complete initial report of a UFO sighting.[10]"

Werlich had him complete an AF-117 two days after he had completed and submitted the Basic Reporting Data to PBB. Note that information in the BRD regarding Partin's observation differs in several ways from the information Partin provided in his AF-117. Not sure why Werlich waited to interview him. Could be because PBB requested additional information, or it could have been intended for Gen. Hollingsworth at SAC/HQ for debriefing the vice commander the next day: "Gen Hollingsworth has been given all the information that Col Werlich obtained. Col Werlich said that Gen Hollingsworth was briefing Gen Compton and this briefing was probably going on at the time that Col Werlich was speaking with Lt Marano (time was approx 2 pm, EST, 31 Oct)."

Tom

Edited by whynotminot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The B-52 crew members were not interviewed, or asked to complete an AF-117 by Werlich or anyone else concerning their experiences. Why? Good question... They did attend a perfunctory debriefing in Gen. Holland's office that morning (See: INVESTIGATION, 2-3. B-52 Crew Debriefing). McCaslin claims that some days following the events he was invited to attend a meeting along with several officers who had arrived from Washington to review the B-52 radarscope film.

Partin was not a regular crew member of this B-52. He was onboard being evaluated (for STANEVAL) by the aircraft commander, Capt. Cagle. He attended the debriefing in Base Operations following the landing of the B-52:

"Following 4:21 a.m. (CDT), at the time of the B-52 pilots observation and overflight of the UFO on or near the ground, controllers at Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) relayed the following request to the pilots: “JAG 31 (garbled) requests that somebody from your aircraft stop in at baseops after you land.”[9] Apparently, somebody in command wanted to know what the B-52 pilots had experienced, though the purpose of the debriefing and the officials in attendance are unknown. Most likely, the request came from Minot AFB Commander Col. Ralph Kirchoff, who was responsible under AFR 80-17 for providing the investigative capability necessary to submit a complete initial report of a UFO sighting.[10]"

Werlich had him complete an AF-117 two days after he had completed and submitted the Basic Reporting Data to PBB. Note that information in the BRD regarding Partin's observation differs in several ways from the information Partin provided in his AF-117. Not sure why Werlich waited to interview him. Could be because PBB requested additional information, or it could have been intended for Gen. Hollingsworth at SAC/HQ for debriefing the vice commander the next day: "Gen Hollingsworth has been given all the information that Col Werlich obtained. Col Werlich said that Gen Hollingsworth was briefing Gen Compton and this briefing was probably going on at the time that Col Werlich was speaking with Lt Marano (time was approx 2 pm, EST, 31 Oct)."

Tom

Tom,

thanks for the detailed responses.

I will now refrain from asking too many more questions until I have gone through everything you have collated on your site, as I dont want you repeating yourself when the information/answers to most questions can be found there.

thanks again for your time and dilligence thus far.

speak soon

regards

Q

ps. there is just one thing niggling aaway at me. The Af-117's seem to all (bar one or two) have the section where the name is to be written bloacked out and the name written to the right of blacked out part, I can understand one, maybe even two getting this wrong and crossing it out to re-write it but why so many??? like I say its just niggling away at me as I cannot think of a logical reason as to why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

thanks for the detailed responses.

I will now refrain from asking too many more questions until I have gone through everything you have collated on your site, as I dont want you repeating yourself when the information/answers to most questions can be found there.

thanks again for your time and dilligence thus far.

speak soon

regards

Q

ps. there is just one thing niggling aaway at me. The Af-117's seem to all (bar one or two) have the section where the name is to be written bloacked out and the name written to the right of blacked out part, I can understand one, maybe even two getting this wrong and crossing it out to re-write it but why so many??? like I say its just niggling away at me as I cannot think of a logical reason as to why.

Hey Quillius:

My pleasure! I understand the difficulties gaining a perspective on this case, but, for that very reason, it is well worth the effort for someone seeking a broader understanding of the nature of the phenomenon.

FYI: there is an excellent and accessible history of the SAC mission at: http://www.nps.gov/mimi/historyculture/minuteman-missile-historical-documents.htm, in particular, Chap. 5 concerning the missile culture, as well as considerable info in the ARCHIVES section of the web site: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/archives.php

It took me many years to make some sense of the events and I am wholly sympathetic to anyone that finds the work useful.

FYI: Poher's report. There is considerable value in making an effort to understand the processes/methods which Poher utilized to analyze the radarscope photographs. I say this after having spent a couple years translating the original from French and editing the work to its current state. Understandably, most will be critical of the work without having any real understanding of the scope or intent. I should add that the work can be appreciated even without a background in advanced mathematics, though with some commitment. It's value derives from Poher's background in astronomy and space science working with CNES, a profession that presented problems which needed to be resolved incorporating multi-disciplinary methodologies. His report is an example of how science can be useful in developing new hypotheses regarding the nature of the phenomenon.

http://www.minotb52ufo.com/radar_analyses.php

RE: the AF-177s. Most are from the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) microfilmed version of the Blue Book records, which were redacted at the time they were filmed in 1976. Partin and O'Connor's AF-177s are actual scans from the original hardcopy records. See, for example the intro to: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/doc.php, including Endnote 1.

Kind regards, tom

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Quillius:

My pleasure! I understand the difficulties gaining a perspective on this case, but, for that very reason, it is well worth the effort for someone seeking a broader understanding of the nature of the phenomenon.

FYI: there is an excellent and accessible history of the SAC mission at: http://www.nps.gov/m...l-documents.htm, in particular, Chap. 5 concerning the missile culture, as well as considerable info in the ARCHIVES section of the web site: http://www.minotb52u...om/archives.php

It took me many years to make some sense of the events and I am wholly sympathetic to anyone that finds the work useful.

FYI: Poher's report. There is considerable value in making an effort to understand the processes/methods which Poher utilized to analyze the radarscope photographs. I say this after having spent a couple years translating the original from French and editing the work to its current state. Understandably, most will be critical of the work without having any real understanding of the scope or intent. I should add that the work can be appreciated even without a background in advanced mathematics, though with some commitment. It's value derives from Poher's background in astronomy and space science working with CNES, a profession that presented problems which needed to be resolved incorporating multi-disciplinary methodologies. His report is an example of how science can be useful in developing new hypotheses regarding the nature of the phenomenon.

http://www.minotb52u...ar_analyses.php

RE: the AF-177s. Most are from the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) microfilmed version of the Blue Book records, which were redacted at the time they were filmed in 1976. Partin and O'Connor's AF-177s are actual scans from the original hardcopy records. See, for example the intro to: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/doc.php, including Endnote 1.

Kind regards, tom

Appreciated Tom, and thanks for the FYI's and further links....looks like I will be a busy boy for a while....

speak soon

enjoy your weekend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I've revive the Minot topic on my blog site. Just curious if anyone has anymore input into the B-52 radar contact. I do appreciate the high level of discussions previously on this thread.

If you would like to PM me, that would be fine with me.

Tim Hebert

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I read the linked interview with the EW, and as a former B-52H EW of the same vintage, I have to say that either his memory or mine is faulty. He says procedure was to shut down the ECM receivers on penetration; I recall that the ECM gear stayed on until after landing unless you'd lost two generators (out of four). I vividly recall wishing I could shut down the APR-19 receiver that was still installed in about half the birds at our unit. It had nine glowing green traces that swept hypnotically back and forth, back and forth across the screen every two seconds and made it almost impossible to stay awake in the small hours of the morning!

Also I don't understand why the gunner didn't see the target on his radar if it was there. It was well within range and the radar covered the full rear hemisphere. I thought before that he was probably asleep (gunners were notorious for that), but supposedly everyone was awake and engaged.

Well, it's almost fifty years ago and I could easily be wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the board is crying out for a decent discussion.......hope we can get some new input on this case.

Tim,

any new findings on your blog site?

cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The object was first spotted by military staff on the ground. Then the B52 was diverted to the area where the object was seen

and observed by the crew. So in this case there were multiple witnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the board is crying out for a decent discussion.......hope we can get some new input on this case.

Tim,

any new findings on your blog site?

cheers

Tom Tulien and I have been trading comments. Our discussion is centering on the "stationary" light source on the ground spotted by the B-52 pilot and co-pilot. I'm proposing that the source of bright light was the launch facility (November-7) as documents confirm that the site lights topside were on. Obviously, Tom disagrees that the launch facility was the light source.

But I'm curious if more info can be had concerning the aircraft's radar contact. Unfortunately I'm not an expert (or novice) concerning radar. I do know that the statements from the ground personnel show that the object was not moving at the speeds noted by the aircraft's radar data and that no visible object was observed to be pacing or trailing the aircraft.

So that's where I'm at...not much different when I started this thread.

I think that PersonFromPorlock may have something with his line of thinking based on his past experiences.

We'll see how things go from here...

Tim

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of 'something real' brought to the stage.

Yeah, right.. Orbs after starring into sunlight through... What was that? Some kind of "obstructor"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.