STATUS: Insufficient information DATE September 5 1968 TIME: 1900 local (approx.) CLASS: R/V ground

Madrid Klass UFOEx 1974 40
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATION: No official

PRECIS: A bright object was observed moving slowly in the twilight sky above Madrid by thousands of people in the streets, causing traffic jams miles in length. It was still visible until about 1930, some time after the sun had set. Observers generally described the object as "pyramid shaped". It was also observed from an aircraft flying at 36,000' and from a Spanish Air Force F 104 interceptor which climbed above 50,000' in pursuit. TheF 104 could not reach the object's altitude. Spanish Air Force radars tracked a slow moving target at 90,000. The object appeared to be on a SW heading. It was observed through an astronomical telescope from Madrid Observatory, appearing to emit a

"blinding light" as described by a reporter present. A telescopic photograph was also obtained, showing a triangular form which appeared partially translucent. According to the account published by the London Daily Telegraph on September 9, the object left the area at high speed. The Spanish Air Force statement concurred in this detail. The Air Force later stated that the object was unexplained, but speculated that it may have been a meteorological balloon. The Madrid Weather Bureau could find no balloon release that might account for it, however, and suggested that a

satellite reentry might have caused the sightings.

NOTES: The probability that this was a large, high altitude balloon, probably of French origin, is rather strong. From the Max Planck Insitut fur Aeronomie in Germany, who had launched cosmic ray research balloons from Gottingen in the 1960s, Tim Good learned that many such balloons were terahedral in shape at this time with volumes up to 10,000 cu. meters. They were built by a French factory. Philip Klass noted in 1974 that the major French launch site was the Centre Nationale d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) facility at Aire sur l'Adour near the Spanish border, NE of Madrid. Inquiries to CNES on two occasions elicited no response, but Klass pointed out that the launch location is, given appropriate winds, consistent with a SW heading across Madrid. By 1987 Klass had still not been able to confirm that the balloons made in Toulouse for CNES were of this tetrahedral design, but according to his information they would have been designed to

roughly maintain station at high altitude (within a few tens of miles) for hours, or even days, by radio controlled ballast adjustments.

Several similar sightings occurred in Britain and Europe during this period, typically describing bright, slow moving objects at high altitude which resolved into "translucent" structures when viewed with binoculars or telescope, usually witnessed by numbers of people over a wide area, and usually around twilight. The similarity to a polyethylene balloon

scattering light after the local sunset is indeed striking.

Good has some reservations, in particular about one widely observed "tetrahedral balloon" which was reported from all over London and the home counties on the evening of August 1 1963, and which was the subject of another similarly unsuccessful interception by an F 100 Super Sabre from RAF/USAF Bentwaters. The object was believed to be at over 90,000'. Good saw it himself from Beckenham and described its binocular appearance as "tetrahedral" and "translucent or glass like". It was photographed by an amateur astronomer from Bushey, Hertfordshire, who noted that it was

stationary in the field of view of a 4" refractor for more than two hours. Good points out that this degree of stationarity would surely rule out a balloon. He submitted the astronomer's photograph to the Max Planck Institute for comment, who responded that that it "possibly shows a balloon, if you turn it by 180 degrees." But Good is adamant that the

orientation of the object he saw was such that its apex was uppermost, flat base down. The photographer, Jan Willemstyn, apparently agrees, stating that a rod like structure with "several transverse members" extended from the pointed top of the object, a description confirmed by the pianist John Bingham who also happened to be an amateur astronomer and made observations through a reflecting telescope. (It is perhaps worth pointing out that astronomical telescopes do normally produce an inverted image unless corrected at the eyepiece, since the minimum of optical surfaces affords maximum light transmission. However, one would expect amateur astronomers to be thoroughly aware of this fact.)
The possibility exists that these objects were not innocent scientific research balloons, but covert photo reconnaissance/SIGINT/ELINT balloons in the tradition of the CIA programme begun in 1947 with adapted US Navy Skyhooks   an idea which was surely developed by other nations. This might explain the French space centre's reluctance to confirm details of their balloon flights from Aire sur l'Adour, and might also explain why some details of these balloons appear to differ from the "innocent" norm. For example, the "rod with several transverse members" seen protruding from the 1963 object sounds somewhat like a yagi antenna array which might relay intercepted electronic or communications intelligence to remote ground stations. Obviously there is limited information available on any such classified projects, but it is noteworthy that static buoyant platforms are known to have been deployed. In particular, in the late '70s Lockheed produced a hydrogen fuelled, powered, 500' airship called HiSpot (Hi altitude Surveillance Platform for Over the horizon Targeting) to replace an earlier and slightly smaller helium/electric airship called HASPA (High Altitude Superpressure Powered Aerostat) built by the US Navy for ocean surveillance. HiSpot could hold station at 70,000' for more than three months carrying 250kg of equipment and sensors, transmitting intelligence by way of an enormous internal aerial. The true capabilities of these and other, perhaps unknown, historical projects may well remain

classified, and it is possible that they explain some of the curious balloon like objects reported from time to time. In conclusion, the Madrid radar target was probably a French research balloon. The object's rapid departure is on the face of it inconsistent, but the report does not establish this detail firmly enough to counterbalance the rather strong indications that it was a balloon. The possibility also exists that the object was a classified, powered ELINT platform which might display limited manoeuvrability.

STATUS: Probable balloon
*DATE: September 15, 1968 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein ACUERVC, Vol 4

Near Oscala, Palm Beach,

Florida
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Sparks

Initial Summary: 12498 Sept. 15, 1968. W of Cross City to 12 miles W of Ocala, Florida. 9:30 p.m. [12:31 a.m.?] Missionary pilot Ray [Jay?] Cole, flying a Twin Beech C45H twin engined utility plane at 9,500 ft heading 120_ at 200 mph true airspeed, with a pilot passenger Ray Rushing, saw a white [?] light with pale green light flashing less than once per sec at their flight level, moving up and down vertically by about 500 1,000 ft for 15 mins maintaining distance then turned right about 10_ climbed at a 15_ angle until vanishing when 12 miles out from Ocala. 2nd light, very bright white also flashing pale green and at about 5,000 ft height, then suddenly appeared on a collision course, made a 90_ turn at about 2 miles away and 500 ft below, then descended and receded to about 15 miles away and disappeared with distance to the W of Ocala. Later, ground radar said a target was following them [?]. (NARCAP; Berliner) 15 mins + ? + ? 2 ? RV?
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 18, 1968 TIME: 1417Z CLASS: AV/AR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure Australai

Darwin, NT, Australia
Internet presence: http://www.auforn.com
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich


Initial Summary: Source: Pages 197-203, 205 of digital copy of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 10. [Unidentified aircraft]A RAF Hercules aircraft no 9651 took off from Darwin. When at 1500 feet, heading 290 degrees, the crew made a visual observation of a light which they took to be another aircraft. This aircraft showed white lights "Presumed to be those from fuselage windows." But did not have any navigation or anti-collision beacons.This aircraft crossed the path of the Hercules from right to left in front of the Hercules. The crew estimated its height to be 2500 feet. The radar on the Hercules indicated a target at 15 miles range, estimated speed 200 knots, travelling on a heading of 230-250 degrees magnetic. Its estimated size was at least that of the Hercules. No unauthorised aircraft were in the area.A check revealed that ground radar was not operating at the time. No additional information was gained from DCA, Met, Navy, Customs or ASIO. No unscheduled aircraft landed at Broome, Derby, Port Headland or Wyndham.In a memo dated 1 Nov 68 Penrith to Dept of Air ref 5/2/7/Air (86) & 5/15/1/Air (26). "The fact that the sighting was made by experienced RAF aircrew and detected by the aircraft=s radar leaves very little doubt that an aircraft was in the area. As the aircraft has not been identified, the possibility of the violation of our national airspace cannot be discounted." AURA

NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP

DATE: October 24 1968 TIME: 0300 local CLASS: R/V air radar/air-ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hynek (1978) 138

Minot AFB

North Dakota

RADAR DURATION: several minutes
EVALUATIONS: Blue Book - plasma/stars/ground lights
PRECIS: The Blue Book summary states:
At about 0300 hours local, a B-52 that was about 30 miles northwest of Minot AFB making practice penetrations sighted an unidentified blip on their radars. Initially the target travelled approximately 22 miles in 3 sec. or at about 3,000 mi/hr. 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 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 1,000 ft. or so, and had a sound similar to a jet engine. The observer had stopped his car, but he then 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 miles 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.
The Blue Book file contains fourteen additional reports from missile maintenance technicians and security guards at five separate sites around Minot AFB describing sightings of a similar object over a period of 4 hours 48 minutes bracketing the above incident. The exact times and details of these sightings are unavailable, although some observers apparently described the object as seeming to land, and in one case the light was reportedly compared to "the sun".
NOTES: The date given by Hynek, Oct. 28 1956, is apparently in error. A summary reference to what appears to be the same case elsewhere (source, 125) gives Oct. 24 1968, which seems to be the correct date - given that Major Quintanilla (who is quoted in connection with the investigation) did not take over Blue Book until 1963 and was in charge as at Oct. 1968.
The B-52 was inbound, NW from the base at range 30 miles when the target was acquired. The target was held for 20 miles, "close to" the B-52 until it "broke off", placing it and the B-52 some 10 miles NW of the base at this point. The ground-visual reported independently "at about this time" placed the red/orange light "about 10 miles northwest of the base" at fairly low level, consistent with an object which had just dropped below the elevation scan limit of the B-52 radar. The ground observer "lost sight" of the object, and subsequently the B-52, vectored to the site, reported a "bright light" on or close to the ground. This sequence of events is roughly consistent, and the proximity of the missile technician to the point at which the target was lost to air radar might be certified by his statement that he heard what sounded like a jet at this time: Although the altitude of the B-52 Stratofortress is unstated, its practice mission suggests a low-level radar-penetration exercise, and it would not be surprising if its eight turbofans were audible on the ground.
The possibility exists that the ground observer saw the B-52 itself, its apparent "hovering" and "acceleration" being illusions. There is a small suggestion of visual illusion in the movement of the light apparently "following" the motion of the observer's car. But the likelihood of an airforce technician, who would doubtless be very familiar with jet movements over the area, hearing a jet, seeing it, and yet still not recognizing it, must be very small. Add to this a further fourteen reports from airforce ground crews of a similar "UFO", and the coincidence of a near-simultaneous radar "UFO" report (of which none can have been aware) from the very same aircraft, and the probability falls dramatically.

Blue Book's evaluation makes no concession to probability. They appear to have explained the initial radar target as possibly "a plasma of the ball lightning class", the ground visual sightings variously as "probable aircraft" or "some [unspecified] first magnitude celestial bodies", and the visual sighting from the B-52 as "the star Vega . . . or it could be a light on the ground, or possibly a plasma." It is difficult to take this sort of thing seriously. Nevertheless, there is insufficient information for any probative analysis.
The radar target is essentially unevaluable as described, but several points bear emphasis a propos the Blue Book evaluation. 1) Blue Book made no attempt to deny the reality of the target, which is unusual and may relate to: 2) the fact that more than one air radar is stated to have been involved and 3) the hard evidence of scope photographs as to target presentation and movement over time. 4) The behaviour of the target would redefine our understanding of ball lightning: an initial transit of the a/c @ 3000 mph followed by close pacing of

the a/c for 20 miles, or a minimum of about 3 minutes on the assumption that the B-52 was pushing 400 knots or so. Blue Book also suggested a "possible plasma" as an explanation of the object later seen visually from the B-52 near the ground. The probability of so rare a phenomenon as ball lightning occurring twice in this way is vanishingly small, and if the suggestion is that this was the same plasma then this remarkable "plasma" is a UFO" in all but name.

The malfunction of the two radio transmitters coincident with the proximity of the radar target is not really addressed at all by Blue Book, although it is worth noting that one theory of ball-lightning formation proposes that the plasma is sustained by dueled radio-frequency fields associated with electrical storms. In the present case weather conditions are not cited, but it can be inferred from Blue Book's explanation of the visuals as possible stars that the sky was fairly clear and there is no suggestion elsewhere in the summary of poor visibility, cloud, rain or storm. Statistically, ball lightning is very strongly correlated with electrical storms, even though there are reports in the literature of similar phenomena occurring in clear weather. If such phenomena are ball lightning or not is a moot question.
Supposition aside, however, and notwithstanding the unavailability of so much implied data, the balance of probability does suggest that an unidentified, radar-reflective, self-luminous object may have been observed near the base. But the case cannot be said to be probative, and the possibility remains that the failure of the airborne radios to "operate properly" is diagnostic of some source of broad-band local RFI which also caused a noise track on the B-52*s radar. The subsequent visual sightings could conceivably have been coincidental. The case therefore merits further study.
Additional information: (Sparks) Oct. 24, 1968. About 30 miles NW of Minot AFB, North Dakota. 3:30 a.m. (CDT). USAF Minot AFB ground radar tracked unidentified object correlated with orange glow and radioed it to the attention of the USAF crew of B 52H bomber (call sign JAG 31) on a 290_ heading at 2,000 ft as a UFO target at 1 o'clock position to the NW at 24 miles, then 15 miles at 3:35 a.m. At 3:52 a.m., Minot radioed the B 52H that base weather radar was also tracking target now at 1 o'clock position and 3 miles from the B 52H. At 3:58 Minot requested IFF transponder identification from the B 52H and the B 52H radio transmitter failed for 4 mins. B 52H crew saw and radar tracked bright red orange object [?] at 9 o'clock position at 35 miles then 1.25 1.5 miles, traveling at 3,000 mph [?]. UFO landing for 45 mins at location "AA 43." UFO sightings at Minuteman ICBM nuclear missile sites N, O, J [?], and M Flights, 91st Strategic Missile Wing, including strange EM effects such as security alarms activated at outer and inner rings around silos, outer [silo?] door opened and combination lock of inner door moved. Witnesses included Maj. Bradford Runyon, S/Sgt Bond, S/Sgt Smith, et al. (Project 1947; Kevin Randle; Hynek UFO Rpt pp. 137 9 [misdated as 1966]; etc.) 4 hrs 48 mins 16+ [20+ ?] RV, EM, radar scope photos
STATUS: Insufficient information

*DATE: November 13, 1968 TIME: 0120 hrs CLASS: GR
LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure Australia Project

Dawrin, NT, Australia
Internet presence: http://www.auforn.com
RADAR DURATION: 53 minutes
EVALUATIONS: A flock of birds
Case Added:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: 13 November 1968 Darwin NT 120hrs 53mins 1mM Byrne Radar

A met. Officer at Darwin Airport detected an object on radar. 'A fairly strong paint on PPI.' 'Appeared as a definite echo, observer first thought it to be a helicopter because of slow speed.' Height 7000-7500 feet. Speed 17-25 knots. 'Object appeared to come directly towards observer then reverse to SW.' 'Lost in permanent echoes.' Two other people attempted a visual observation through binoculars. No sighting was made. Report includes weather details and radar tracking data. (Pages 176-182 of digital copy of RAAF file 580/1/1 part 10. [Flock of birds])

NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP

*DATE: November 26, 1968 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall UFOE II, 119, 130-131, 243

Bismark, North Dakota
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: A@FAA radar tracked two UFOs,; pilots air traffic controllers observed two luminous objects.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: April 12, 1969 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/groun, air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

Rossala Air Force Base,

Finnland

RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: September 4, 1969 TIME: 1930 hours CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. R

NW of Wellington, UFO Bulletin (Auckland University UFO Research Group) #3,

New Zealand April 1970, pages 6-7

FSR
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added; Aldrich
Initial Summary: Investigation by Harold Fulton
AThe before 1930 hours on September 4, 1969. It was a dark night, with no moon. Captain R. Cullum and First Officer Faircloth, the crew of a Bristol Freighter of Straits Air Freight Express, had just taken off on a routine run from Wellington to Bleheim across Cook Strait. This trubulent piece of waer separates the North and South Islands of New Zealand.
AThe crew noted that apart from four or five-eighths scattered cloud , visibility was some 20 miles. As hey ere climbing steadily toward 3,000 feet, Wellington readar sudden came on the intercom. The airport terminal radar was tracking an unknown which was four miles dead ahead. The freighter at heis wass flying north into wind, and started then to swing around to the west, hea ding for the coast, where it turned again south southwest on course for Blenheim.
AThe aircraft had overflown the coast-line and turned for the southerly heading when F. O. Faircloth, who was piloting the plane from he Captain=s seat, spotted a bright blue, pulsating, flourescent light. The blinking blue light was below them, and to their right. It was an estimated two miles from their aircraft. The pilots informed Wellington radar of their visual sighting and their position fix was confirmed. Radar was tracking the object the pilots were watching..
AIt was noted with some surprise that the object was >flying= very slowly at an estimated 50-60 knots. There was a northerly wind of 30-35 knots, which meant the UFO was only moving at an air speed of 25 knots. The pilots noted that the blue light flashed every two to three seconds and was as bright as a first magnitude star at its brightest. The UFO maintained a steady southerly course.
AThe pilots watched the unknown for approximately two minutes. They made not attempt to close with it, and their aircraft soon lelf it behind. Meanwhile Wellington Radar continued to track it.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP

*DATE: September 4, 1969 TIME: about 2100 hours CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. R

NW of Wellington, UFO Bulletin (Auckland University UFO Research Group) #3,

New Zealand April 1970, pages 6-7

FSR
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: Investigation by Harold Fulton
ASome 90 minutes later F. O. Faircloth was making a return flight to Wellingtonand again spotted the mystery light. This time it appeared as a cluster of lights some 15 miles distant, off the coast of South Island in the vicinity of Cape Campbell bacon. F. O Faircloth contacted Wellingon radar and told them of his further observation and the position. Wellington confirmed that this was the same object and that they were still tracking it. Immediately following the first public disclosure of his interesting incident b Wellington Evening Post in its September 23 issue, I wrote to Captain Ridgewell Cullum asking him for his first-hand account and also for that of F. O. Faircloth. The Captain=s report was back in 10 days, and fully confirmed the press account. There were no contradictions or inaccuracies, it has not yet been received.
ACaptain Cullum provided a detailed sketch, showing plottings. He is an experienced aviaor who received his wings in Canada as a trainee of the Royal New Zealand Air Force. After being commissioned he saw active service in England during the closing stages of World War II. For some years after leaving the Service he flew as a captain with British United Airways before returning to New Zealand. He has an open ming on the subject of UFOs and admites he has no explanation for Sept. 4 shared observation. The Press carried a follow-up story on Sept. 24 to the effect taht the RNZAF were interested in the sighting and had called for reports from the pilots. An air force spokesman speculated that the radar tracked object might be explained as a radar >angle,= but unlike many other reports, partiularly American cases, this radar sighting had been visually confirmed. To my way of thinking this show how uninformed official spokesmen can be.
>Capt. Cullum, in a special >Sighting Report Form,= which he kindly completed for me, confirmed that he had reported the sighting to the Ministry of Defense Intelligence Services, Wellington. No restriction had been placed on him regarding his sighting.
AA number of other possible explanations of this sighting were also made in the Sept. 24 press report. It was suggested ha the object was an unscheduled private aircraft, or a helicopte, bu the object=s slow speed and its pulsating flourescent light made these explanations very weak. The has been no further public comment about this incidnet.@

Download 316.96 Kb.

Share with your friends: