LOCATION: SOURCES: Disclosure Australia Project

STATUS: TBP
*DATE: October 12, 1971 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

74 miles west of Zagreb,

Yugoslavia

RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: about February 4, 1972 TIME: 7:00 A. M. CLASS: GR/GV/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: FSR Case Histories #13, 2/73, page 13

Sarajevo Airport, Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

Bosnia-Herzegovina
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: AAccording to a report dated February 7, 1972, from Sarajevo, much excitement had bee caused by a triangular unidentified flying object observed, over Bosnia-Herzegovina, at between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. a few days before. At the Sarajevo Airport, where the thing was picked up on radar, they said it was traveling at a speed of 1 km per minute and that it was of the sized of a small aircraft. But when a Yugoslav Airlines (JAT) Convair made an approach toward it, the object at once accelerated and vanished at a tremendous speed. Quoted in the newspaper Delo of February 8, 1972, he rocket engineer Enver Dupanovic commented; >If it is correct that the UFO was traveling, as reported, at a height of 3000 meters, then there is no possiblity whatsoever that this could have been either a satellite or a commercial balloon.=@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP

*DATE: September 14, 1972 TIME: CLASS: R/V air radar, ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

West Palm Beach Airport,

Florida

RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:

Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November --, 1972 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

Rykevik, Iceland
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

Maiquetia Airport,

Venezuela

RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: February 14, 1973 TIME: 2:30 A. M. CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall, UFOE II, 120, 132, 243

McAlester, Oklahoma
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich

Initial Summary: ADisc wih dome maneuvered near plane. Flew up and down, made sharp turns, confirmed by radar.@ DC-8 en route from St Louis to Dallas, weather radar used to track object., UFO seemed to try evade radar tracking.
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TPB
DATE: August -- 1973 TIME: unknown CLASS: R ground radar

LOCATION: SOURCES: Fawcett & Greenwood 69

Region of

Marshall Island Trust Territory,

North Pacific
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATIONS: No official

PRECIS: According to the Hobart (Australia) Mercury, June 17 1974, US Army science & technology sources working for the ballistic missile defence systems command at Huntsville, Alabama, reported radar tracking of multiple unknowns during a Minuteman ICBM test. The missile was launched from Vandenburg AFB, California, aimed for the Kwalaicin Pacific test range. Two different radar systems both reportedly tracked a target during the missile's descent which appeared to fly "next to the ICBM's nose cone", then crossed ahead of its trajectory and disappeared. Unnamed sources stated that the incident was unprecedented, that no known radar anomaly could account for it, and that the object appeared to have been under power. Three other similar targets were also detected in the vicinity.

NOTES: Although an Army spokesman, Major Dallas Van Hoose, is quoted as confirming that "some unexplained aerial phenomena" were observed during testing, an FOIA inquiry filed with Vandenburg AFB elicited the statement that launch operations records for the period had been destroyed in accordance with Air Force Manual 12-50. An FOIA request to the Army was met with a denial of any records.

STATUS: Insufficient information
*DATE: October 19, 1973 TIME: CLASS: GR/AV
LOCATION: SOURCES: Hall, UFO E II, page 120

Indianapolis, Indiana to

Beckley, WV
RADAR DURATION:
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: APulsating geen, pyramid-shaped object swooped alongside plane, shot up out of sight, tracked by FAA radar.

NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP

*DATE: October 23, 1973 TIME: 02:30 local CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

1 Mile west of San Antonio

airport, Texas
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Initial Summary: TBP
Case Added: Aldrich
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November 15, 1973 TIME: CLASS: R/V air radar, ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

Managua, Nicaragua
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: November 30, 1973 TIME: 1900 CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual, ground visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

Turin airport, Italy Hall UFOE II, 132-3, 243
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich

Initial Summary: A@Military radar tracked UFO near airport; pilots saw glowing changing colors.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
*DATE: March 9, 1974 TIME: 2200 CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual,
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

Milan airport, Italy Hall, UFOE II, 121, 243
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:
Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: AMilan radar tracked UFO, business pilot saw disc with colored rings, gave chase.@
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: June 9 1974 TIME: night CLASS: R/V ground radar/air visual
LOCATION: SOURCE: Good ATS 1987 427

Northern Japan Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4
RADAR DURATION: unspecified
EVALUATION: JASDF   "aircraft or object unknown"
PRECIS: The report was given by Major Shiro Kubota after retiring from active service with the Japan Air Self Defence Force following the death of his crewmate, Lt. Col. Toshio Nakamura, as a result of the incident. The JASDF are understood to have conducted a vigorous investigation, but only released the terse public statement that Nakamura was killed following the collision of his F4EJ Phantom, serial no. 17 8307, with "an aircraft or object unknown." It was his desire to be free to tell the full story which reportedly prompted Major Kubota to leave the Air Force.
According to Kubota he was the backseater   radar and fire control operator   in the F 4EJ piloted by Nakamura when they were scrambled on an interception of what they at first assumed would be a Soviet intrusion. When they were in the air GCI advised them that an unidentified bright coloured light had been reported by dozens of ground observers and detected on radar. After "several minutes" they broke through clouds and levelled off at 30,000' in clear, moonless conditions, quickly acquiring a visual on a red orange light which appeared to be a few miles ahead. Kubota's immediate impression was that the object was a controlled vehicle, and as they closed range it appeared to be "disc like", about 10 metres in diameter, with square markings around the periphery that might have been apertures. Nakamura flew the F 4 straight towards the object and, said Kubota, "as it grew larger in our gun sight, it dipped into a shallow turn, as if sensing our presence." Nakamura followed, the F 4's 20mm cannon armed and ready, but then the object "reversed direction and shot straight at us", forcing the plane into a violent dive. It passed by at high speed, missing them very narrowly. Then, said Kubota, "it made a sharp turn and came at us again . . . The UFO began making rapid, high speed passes at us, drawing closer and closer. Several times [it] narrowly missed us." The F 4 and the object then collided and both airmen bailed out, but Nakamura's parachute caught fire and he fell to his death. The object seemed either to disappeared or to disintegrate.

NOTES: Given the type of close in dog fight motion displayed by the object there would not appear to be any convincing astronomical explanation, and the ground radar contact   though the report of it is unevaluable   supports the impression of an object in local airspace. Presumably GCI vectored the F 4 towards the target displayed on scope, and the fact that the F 4 climbed blind through the cloud deck to find the object dead ahead and apparently only a few miles away makes it somewhat likely that radar and visual sightings were of the same object. Given that the night was cloudy one might infer that the object seen visually by ground observers was also not an astronomical object, but an object below the clouds, and further that if it was the same object later intercepted above the clouds then it would therefore have been climbing.

The time of these initial observations is not known, but would have been a good many minutes earlier given that reports would have to be (presumably) telephoned in and coordinated with the radar plot before a decision to scramble was made, followed by the time necessary to run up the aircraft and get it into the air. Then one must add the time taken to climb to 30,000' (according to Kubota this alone took "several minutes"). An optimistic allowance for this process might be, say, 10 minutes. It can be noted that in 10 minutes a lighted radiosonde balloon could climb about 12,000'.
The reported dog fight behaviour of the object is broadly speaking quite typical of balloon interceptions: pilots in similar cases have reported the balloon making a number of head on passes which forced them to take evasive action, their own rate of closure (the F 4 is capable of better than Mach 2 at altitude) with an unexpectedly slow moving object giving the illusion of sudden course reversals and aggressive, high speed approaches. (Cf. Fargo, N. Dakota, October 1 1948.) Kubota's estimate of an object 10 metres across is bound to be approximate, but would be of about the right order for a neoprene or rubber radiosonde at 30,000'. If Nakamura's interception attempt was too successful he may have struck the balloon. Its radar reflector and instrument package might have caused actual damage in a high speed impact   possibly to the canopy   causing the alarmed aircrew to bail out. Unhappily, Nakamura's chute was presumably ignited by the jet exhaust on the way by.
The main problem with this hypothesis is the visual appearance of the object since balloon lights are typically white. Such balloons become translucent as they expand and can scatter sunlight brilliantly, appearing red or orange in the last rays of the setting sun for some time after twilight; but, whilst the time of the incident is not known, the reportedly "night" conditions just above cloud cover would seem to preclude solar illumination. In other respects the description is not inconsistent with a balloon (illusory apertures or "windows" are occasionally reported, for example) and allowance should be made for possible errors of observation or memory in the exciting   and ultimately disturbing   circumstances. There are many types of balloons flown for a variety of military, meteorological and academic purposes; it is to be supposed that some configurations are rare or one off adaptations; and it is possible that a research flight of some kind might employ coloured fabric or carry unusual lighting.
In conclusion, although the object cannot be positively identified the information available does not convincingly rule out the hypothesis that the object was a balloon. The exact time, location, and appropriate winds aloft data would have to be matched against the records of potential launch sites.

STATUS: Insufficient information

*DATE: June 29, 1974 TIME: CLASS: R/V ground radar/ air visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Weinstein, ACUERVC, Vol. 4

Cordoba airport, Argentina
RADAR DURATION: minutes
EVALUATIONS:

Case Added: Aldrich
Initial Summary: TBP
NOTES: TBP
STATUS: TBP
DATE: August 20 1974 TIME: sometime after 2000 local CLASS: R/V gr. radar/multiple gr. visual
LOCATION: SOURCES: Sachs & Jahn CP 1977 97

Albany Airport

New York State
RADAR DURATION: 45 mins.

(+ 2nd event 50 secs.)
EVALUATION: No official

PRECIS: Beginning at about 2000 local, police, television stations, radio stations and newspaper offices in the Albany area of northeastern New York State received numerous calls from citizens about unidentified flying objects. The first call was to the Saratoga State Police barracks at Malta, N of Albany near Lake Saratoga on the Northway route to Canada. The local caller asked if the police knew of any unusual aircraft in the vicinity. When told that they did not, he stated that in that case he would like to report an unidentified object over his home.
The officer dispatched to the caller's address, State Trooper Michael Morgan, arrived in time to join a police detective who was also watching the object. According to the officers it appeared to be about the size of a blimp and was about 500 feet over Lake Saratoga. It was a reddish-coloured light that flashed on and off similar to a strobe. Shortly two smaller lights approached the primary light, apparently from a higher altitude, and seemed as though they would merge with it. At this point the officers believed that the objects must be helicopters and were concerned about a possibly dangerous situation. They called Air Traffic Control at Albany Airport 20 miles S of their position and spoke to Supervisor Robert King, who advised them that there should be no such traffic. The policemen continued to watch from the stationary patrol car as the two smaller lights appeared to merge completely with the red strobe. At this time a single unidentified target was observed on radar at Albany Airport control tower.
While the officers were watching from Malta they heard another report over the car radio from State Trooper Warren Johnson, stating that he was watching a UFO above the Northway. Meanwhile the visual objects remained merged for several minutes, then fissioned, the two smaller objects departing as they had arrived, the large object moving slowly towards the observers. As it approached, Trooper Morgan switched off his car engine and both men watched as the object passed overhead, making no audible sound and displaying a dazzling white light on its center underside. It appeared to be very large, but they had difficulty estimating its size and shape due to the brilliance of the light. At this point the object performed an unusual turning manoeuvre and travelled away quite slowly, passing over the police barracks, before suddenly disappearing "as if someone had reached up and turned the lights out. It was that quick." Morgan and the detective then drove off to meet up with Trooper Johnson.
During this time radar operators at Albany tower observed their single target separate into three distinct targets which moved off in different directions. A controller radioed the pilot of a light aircraft in the area and requested a visual check. The pilot made two passes but although it was a clear, cloudless night he saw nothing, and shortly - 45 minutes after acquisition - radar lost contact with the targets.

Just after this the tower was queried by the pilot of a military flight who was passing near Albany at 8000' en route to Griffis Air Force Base, about 90 miles NW of Albany. He wanted confirmation of any high-speed traffic in the area. The tower replied that there was none and the pilot responded: "Well, something just passed us at about one thousand feet over our heads. It looked like a red fireball going by, and it's heading right your way." A senior controller went immediately to a radar scope (described as a GCA - Ground Controlled Approach - radar) that was not in use and set it to its maximum range scale of about 50 miles, in time to pick up a target at the edge of the screen. It was a clear, sharp echo. The next sweep four seconds later indicated that it was inbound at very high speed. The controller engaged an anti-clutter device (probably MTI - moving target indicator) to assure himself that the apparent track was not the result of sporadic AP echoes from ground reflectors. The target was still there. At a range of 5 miles it was lost between sweeps and did not reappear. Controllers John Guzy and Neil Parker, together with ATC Supervisor Bob King, computed the speed of the target from distance coveredper-scan at about 3000 mph.
Other reports of unidentified low-level lighted objects were made imndependently that evening by visual observers in the South Glens Falls area, about 20 miles N of Lake Saratoga, and as far N as Lake George near the Vermont border.

NOTES: The initial radar event would appear to broadly correlate with the fission of the three objects observed visually, although times, ranges and bearings which would permit confirmation of this impression are not given. The failure of the light-plane pilot to visually confirm the target(s) towards which he was directed appears damaging to the assumption that the said target(s) had any connection with the visual objects reported by the police witnesses; but his exact location and the time of his search are unstated. If, for example, his search took place after the primary visual object had "turned the lights out" then it would not be surprising if he didn't see it. The cause of the radar targets cannot be inferred from the information available, but some weight has to be given to the fact that several experienced controllers were apparently puzzled by them after 45 minutes of observation.
The concurrent visual report by the two policemen is again interesting but lacking in useful timing references, bearings and elevations. An object appearing to be at 500' over Lake Saratoga as seen from nearby Malta would presumably be at fairly low elevation somewhere to the E of N, and could be a rising bright star, reddened due to atmospheric absorption near the horizon (the first magnitude star Capella, for example, would have been low and bright in the NNE). Marked scintillation could occur due to convective turbulence, which might explain the apparent flashing on and off. Alternatively it may have been a mirage image of a celestial body - perhaps a bright planet - at a small (order of 2 degree) negative elevation, intermittently visible due to image wander (the plane of the ecliptic would have run round the S sky to dip just below the ENE horizon). The smaller secondary objects could have been the distant lights of aircraft in landing patterns (perhaps associated with scheduled services at airports near Springfield or Rutland, 50 miles NE of L. Saratoga in Vermont) which circled close to the line of sight and appeared to merge briefly with the light, perhaps themselves distorted by the same mirage layer.
However, whilst some such hypothesis may plausibly explain the initial sighting it not only requires a deal of coincidence and speculation but fails to address the subsequent approach of the object towards the witnesses, who reportedly had to look up from their stationary vehicle to follow its passage overhead, at which time they were "dazzled" by the intensity of the light. To explain this episode by the addition of a further light source - an aircraft, say, or a balloon - which coincidentally appeared from the same direction and caused the witnesses to transfer their attention unwittingly, would be very strained. It makes more sense to interpret the whole sighting in terms of the movements of the same lighted object or objects in local airspace.
The approach and separation of the two secondary objects could suggest an air refuelling operation. These operations are brightly lit, and the belly lamps of a tanker subsequently passing overhead - possibly inaudible due to wind or the masking effect of local traffic noise - might well appear dazzlingly bright to an observer unfamiliar with such a sight. But according to the Albany ATC Supervisor there was "nothing operational in that area" at that time, and air refuelling is very unlikely to be conducted close to civil airlanes unbeknown to Federal Aviation Administration traffic controllers. If any such activity were responsible for the radar targets (and if it wasn't, what was?) it would be readily identified by transponder (either on a full secondary surveillance system, if Albany ATC had it, or by the ATC radar's piggy-back IFF transceiver), if not by voice link.

The later radar episode occurred sufficiently close on the heels of an airvisual report to be considered a radar-visual, although technically not concurrent. The visual report alone is unevaluable in terms of the information available, and could have been a meteor (estimates of proximity in such cases are typically wayward, and "one thousand feet" could easily have been many miles) or the tail pipe of a fast jet (although one might expect a military flight crew to be more familiar with jet exhausts). However, the object was reported inbound at high speed to Albany and a target was almost immediately picked up at 50 miles, inbound at high speed. The a priori probability that these two events were related has to be high, saving the absence of much desirable information. No known jet in 1974 was capable of achieving 3000 mph, still less at at an altitude sufficiently low that its exhaust would appear to be a nearby "fireball" as seen from an aircraft at 8000', and anyway should have been identified to Albany ATC by voice or by IFF transponder. (Parts of the SR-71 spy-plane's titanium skin can glow cherry red in high-speed flight, but this is at altitudes well-over 60,000' and at speeds - <2200 mph - which are still too slow to account for the radar target.) Experimental rocket planes have achieved higher speeds, but again at altitude, and these are essentially projectiles; that such a vehicle would be flying unannounced through a civil airfield surveillance radar drum in upstate New York is about as likely as a land-speed-record attempt down Oxford Street. The same objection applies to guided missiles and military ordnance generally.
A word needs to be said about the type of radar involved here. It is described as a GCA set, but the GCA system was generally supplanted by ILS (Instrument Landing System) for civil use by 1974, although retained for many military applications. Its civil successor, alternative to ILS, is the Precision Approach Radar (PAR), which is essentially the same thing. A GCA/PAR system has directional sector-scanning altazimuth antennae and an operator to talk down the landing aircraft; ILS has no operator and its passive signals are followed down by the pilot. However, both systems operate in conjunction with an airfield control radar. The ACR is a short-range (typically 50 miles) surveillance radar with a PPI display, usually operating at 3 or 10 cms with a 15 rpm scan, used to guide traffic onto final approach, and since this is plainly the scope involved in this case the distinction is academic.
The wake of a sizeable meteor might be detected as a brief spot target on a sensitive search radar (the trail ionisation of a common meteor could not be detected on a radial heading even by a very sensitive radar operating at optimum metric frequency), but a control tower set with a maximum range of 50 miles is not a sensitive search radar, and its operating wavelength is far from the (metric) optimum. Nevertheless, very large meteors do occur rarely which survive entry unablated and experience aero-braking at tropopausal altitudes of 7 or 8 miles (35 - 40,000'), slowing to speeds of several thousand miles an hour. The incandescent, ionised envelope of such a meteor might be on the order of tens or even hundreds of yards across for a time and could indeed have a radar cross-section large enough to be detected if it passed within the radiation pattern during the terminal part of its trajectory. (Detection of a meteor outside the pattern by multiple-trip returns would require it to be at some ten times the altitude and range - minimum 55 miles slant range at closest displayed approach for 2nd trip - and thus, due to the inverse 4th power signal attentuation, probability of detection would be some ten-to-the-40th lower.) Visually, it would be a spectacular fireball which, due to its relatively low speed, would have low excitation energy and might very well emit reddish light. This would be consistent with the visual object, which was in fact described as "like a red fireball".
Arguments against this hypothesis are: 1) such an event typically generates a great many reports over a wide area, but the other reports made that evening are not generally characteristic of fireball sightings; 2) the time of this event does not appear to coincide with the times of other visual reports (which had begun on the order of 1 hour earlier at 2000); 3) the duration of the radar track is somewhat long; 4) there is a significant likelihood that a meteoroid large enough to survive down to the sort of altitudes at which it could be tracked by a short-range airfield radar at low speed (meteorically) for many seconds (having been seen visually a significant time before that) would survive to impact, presumably somewhere in the close vicinity of Albany where its echo was lost - but neither sound, sight, damage nor residue of such impact was reported then or later; and 5) an inquiry by Jahn to the Cambridge office of the Smithsonian Institution, headquarters of the Project Moonwatch astronomical sky-watching programme, established that no unusual meteoric event was recorded for the time frame in question.

The fast radar track appears to have been quite carefully observed and measured. The target was acquired near the scope periphery and held to a range of 5 miles. Assuming a 40 mile track, a target computed at 3000 mph would have been observable for 48 seconds which, at 15 rpm, equates to 12 or 13 radar paints, affording a reasonable opportunity to confirm its speed and presentation. The disappearance at a slant range of 5 miles is consistent with a radarreflective aerial target entering the radar shadow over the site (this would be the last paint displayed - a rapid target could be above the radar in the four seconds required for the antenna to revolve for the next scan). Moreover, this close-in disappearance would imply a target at quite low altitude. A meteor would be on a descending trajectory, of course; but could this implied altitude be consistent with an object in level flight which passed not far above the altitude of an aircraft at 8000'?
A very rough calculation can be made here on the basis of a typical surveillance profile. On the vertical polar diagram of such a radar the contour of equiprobability of detection representing maximum operational range at a given elevation is designed to approximate a cosecant-squared pattern. This is very much an approximation, and the free space pattern is further modulated by ground-incident energy into complex lobe patterns unique to every site; but the rough beam shape typically emerges with a top edge rising from the antenna at a slant angle somewhat greater than 45 degrees. So: A 3000 mph target is approaching in level flight at 5000', detected on one sweep at a displayed slant range of 5 miles. By the next sweep, 4 seconds later, the target is at less than 2 miles slant range, elevation about 25 degrees. It is thus well within the beam and should be displayed on this sweep. A similar target at 8000', 5 miles slant range, would arrive at a position just over 2 miles slant range, elevation 45 degrees after 4 seconds. This target might be within the beam and might be painted. A target at 10,000' would be at about 55 degrees; it might not be within the beam and might not be painted. Conversely, if 55 degrees were the elevation above which a target was not likely to be detected, then the maximum altitude of a target with a displayed slant range of 5 miles will be around 20,000'. Thus, whilst this is admittedly an extreme approximation to a very complex situation, the figures would seem to be not inconsistent with a target at an altitude somewhere between about 8000' and 20,000'. And this is therefore not inconsistent with the visual report of an object passing not too far above the aircraft altitude.
This target was not seen to reappear from the radar shadow, which could be consistent with several hypotheses. If a fireball was on a descending trajectory of <55 degrees or so, passing through 20,000' at last detection, it might well have vapourised, or cooled and impacted, before leaving the shadow cone. One might expect either event to have been widely witnessed, not least by personnel around the Airport, pilots in the air, and observers in the control tower itself. Alternatively the target may have stopped, or climbed acutely to stay within the cone during departure, or accelerated to about 45,000 mph taking it diametrically off-scope within one sweep. If the first and last options seem fanciful, we are left with an object which executed a >60-degree climb within a few miles at 3000 mph, or which was already on a rising trajectory whilst being detected - possibly climbing to about 20,000' by the time of its last radar echo - thus requiring a less acute maneouvre but a compensating true airspeed of somewhat more than the 3000 mph computed from the reducing slant range. If this seems no less fanciful, then we might consider the possibility that the radar track was caused by radio frequency interference, internal system noise or component failure.
A cyclic source of interference, successive bursts of pulses with an interburst period minutely shorter (on the order of microseconds) than the scan rate of the receiving antenna, could generate a false output on a primary radar scope which displayed as a blip, reducing range along the same set of trace radii with each scan. A very fortuitous half-rotation delay followed by a lengthening of this cyclicity would have to occur at exactly the right microsecond for such a signal to appear to cross the scope centre and recede diametrically; therefore the most probable result of such an effect is that the "target" would not reappear on the same heading. If the source of interference continued unchanged then the blip would in fact reappear on an adjacent trace at the edge of the scope and once again approach the centre, repeating this performance all the way around the bearing ring until it ultimately returned to its original trace. This behaviour apparently did not occur, so it is possible that the noise source disappeared, either just as the blip approached scope centre or shortly thereafter so that one or two peripheral blips on an adjacent trace could have gone unnoticed by the operator who was watching for the emergence of his "target" into the opposite sector.

The only likely source of such cyclic interference is another 15 rpm centimetric radar, perhaps a remote installation whose narrow main-lobe output was abnormally ducted to the Albany antenna due to anomalous propagation (with which the clear, starry summer night would not be inconsistent) and weakly detected only at peak gain. In order for the displayed signal to resemble a convincing target arc, with the pulse train distributed across several adjacent trace radii in the manner of signals returned by a solid target, the pulse repetition frequency of the interfering transmitter would have to be identical to that of the receiving radar and in precise synchrony with its scope trace. This set of circumstances is highly improbable, but not impossible. (The effect of extraneous signals on the synthetic digital display of a secondary surveillance ATC radar [SSR] is a special case. On SSR raw targets are replaced by symbols and alphanumerics: the operator may know that he has a non-transponder signal, which is displayed on the screen by a symbol representing a raw skin-paint, but he will not be able to derive any information about the origin, strength or propagation history of the signal. This leads to different consequences and different problems of interpretation; but it does not appear that SSR radar was involved in this case.)
The general case of false signals caused by component degradation or catastrophic failure is difficult to address, but on a primary analogue display such a noise track is extremely unlikely to resemble the multi-trace target arc generated by a solid reflector such as an aircraft, and experienced operators would perhaps not be so easily misled given adequate time to study the scope presentation. In subsequent talks with Ernest Jahn of NICAP and data systems specialist Tom Esposito the three controllers remained puzzled about what was evidently to them a highly unusual event. Had such a track been seen before, or subsequently, system defects might be suspected; but it apparently did not recur. Any hypothesis which is unique to the radar set or its propagation environment has to address the coincidence of a highly unusual false track with a visual sighting with which it appeared to correlate. This seems, if not impossible, certainly improbable. Further, what is the probability that such a radar artifact and an independent air-visual report would jointly occur by chance immediately after another "UFO" event (involving what was evidently a very different type of multiple-echo target behaviour with a duration of 45 minutes) which was concurrent with a visual report from quite unconnected ground witnesses?
In summary, there are two principal episodes in this case, both of which can be described as presumptive radar-visuals. In neither case, however, are radar and visual events definitely both simultaneous and of commensurate strangeness. In the first case the visual report contains details which are not easily explained, but the radar targets are poorly described and their unique relationship with the visual objects is not established beyond doubt. In the second case the radar target is not very easily explained, but the visual sighting was not truly simultaneous and is not of very great strangeness. Nevertheless, there are sufficient points of radar-visual correlation reported or implied in both cases to make it at least probable that there was common cause. The possibility remains that the second object was a fireball meteor - although there are some noteable objections to this hypothesis - and/or radar interference. The first object(s) reported on the order of 1 hour earlier cannot be satisfactorily identified, but could conceivably have been due to astronomical/atmospheric-optical phenomena and/or some combination of civil/military aircraft operations - possibly an inflight refuelling exercise of which there would appear to have been no FAA notification or record. At the same time, the improbable coincidence of two separate radar and visual episodes, both involving objects reported as emitting red light, clearly invites a common explanation which is not apparent at the present time.
In conclusion, no individual feature of the case is proven as unconventional beyond doubt. As a whole, however, the sequence of events is difficult to interpret except in terms of a series of explanations of such cumulative improbability that they are inelegant and unconvincing. That the events are unexplained on the basis of information available might fairly be said to be established beyond reasonable doubt. More information is required, however, and the case is sufficiently interesting to warrant further investigation.

Download 316.96 Kb.

Share with your friends: