DOCSLIB.ORG

Three UFO Radar Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Three UFO Radar Cases Historical Case Studies: Three UFO Radar Cases _______________________________________ Selfridge Air Force Base, Michigan. March 9, 1950 p. 1 Bentwaters-Lakenheath RAF, Suffolk, UK. August 13-14, 1956 p. 5 Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. October 24, 1968 p. 16 Thomas Tulien Sign Oral History Project 2018 Sign Oral History Project SELFRIDGE AIR FORCE BASE RADAR CASE March 9, 1950 On the evening of March 9, 1950, at Selfridge Air Force Base near Mount Clemens, Michigan, a crew of three radar controllers was busy monitoring the night flying units of the 56th Fighter-Interceptor Group at Selfridge Air Force Base. Shortly after sundown, Lt. Francis E. Parker arrived for duty in the radar station, relieving Lt. Frank Mattson on the AN/CPS-5 radarscope while establishing contact with the F-80 Shooting Star pilots that were already airborne. The crew, including Mattson, Sgt. McCarthy, and Cpl. Melton, mentioned to Parker that they had been observing an intermittent target on the height range indicator (HRI) scope of the AN/CPS-4 radar at 45,000 feet altitude and over. At this time, the target was not visible on either radarscope, and since the highest assigned altitude of the F-80s was limited to 24,000 feet, Parker attributed the reports to radio-frequency interference or crew inexperience. But over the next fifteen minutes the crew repeatedly reported a target rapidly changing altitudes on the HRI scope. Eventually, Parker was able to break from monitoring the F-80s long enough to observe the target, which presented “a very narrow and clear-cut presentation on the HRI scope” at 47,000 feet with a range of 70 miles. The Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star was the first turbojet-powered combat fighter to enter USAAF service in the final days of World War II. Sign Oral History Project Further indications of what Parker described as an “aircraft” were picked up with increasing regularity over the next 45 minutes to an hour. Curiously, during this time the target seemed to stay in the area where the fighter pilots were flying, occasionally appearing to approximate their courses—though at 20,000 feet above them. During the course of the events, Parker was able to speak to the Lockheed F-80 fighter pilots over the VHF radio to determine their exact altitude, bearing, and speed. This provided a means to calibrate the accuracy of the radar systems and eliminate the possibility of any internal malfunction during the actual observation period. In addition, the radar operators were monitoring two distinct radar systems—a CPS-5 radar operating in the L-band (“long” wave) frequencies, designed to provide a search to 60 miles (though effective to 210 miles) at 40,000 feet; in conjunction with a separate height finding radar set with a vertical antenna designated CPS-4 with a range of 90 miles operating in the S-band (“short” wave) of frequencies. The MIT AN/CPS-4 system was recently installed as part of a preliminary establishment of an early-warning radar system to guard against Soviet invasion. Because of the significant differences in frequencies of the two radar systems any temperature inversion or atmospheric anomalies, which are extremely sensitive to frequency, would not display correlating and consistent returns on both radarscopes as was observed. Further, according to Lt. Parker’s report, the target indication was definitely not that of a cloud or atmospheric phenomenon. I checked [with] pilots in the area by VHF and was assured by the F-80 pilot at the highest altitude that he was at 24,000 feet. The clarity, narrowness, and definition of the presentation were definitely that of an aircraft. The target gave a similar presentation to that given by an F-80, and if anything narrower. Furthermore, the crewmembers reported from indications on both radarscopes the target hovering in one position. During a four to five minute period it traversed from due west (270 degrees) at 78 miles, to north (358 degrees) at 53 miles, at an altitude of 45,000 feet— resulting in a speed approaching 1,500 mph for this run. For reference, the normal cruise speed of an F-80 was 410 mph; and Martin Shough has noted that even a factor-2 error in the calculation results in a speed well in excess of the fastest operational jet in 1950 (Shough, 2002). Though unable to substantiate the speed himself, Parker conceded, “I knew only that the target was very fast.” This seemed to heighten his interest, and by momentarily turning around and watching the HRI scope he was able to observe several extreme instances of gaining and losing altitude, remarkably at times up to 20,000 feet very rapidly. Finally, he was able to identify the “aircraft” on his radarscope, and simultaneously on the HRI scope as the target began to move away from the area to the southeast. With clear indications on both scopes, he began recording the range and azimuth on the minute, while McCarthy recorded the altitudes on the HRI over the next six minutes. The results are indicated in the following graph. Following this, the unidentified target began fading from the radarscope, though for short periods they were still able to observe it for durations of one and two minutes. Once more, at a distance of 110 miles it appeared to hover for two minutes, before fading from the scope at 120 miles for the last time. 2 Sign Oral History Project In reference to the recorded data, Parker noted, “These figures, although not as spectacular as some of the climbs and speeds I observed, show definitely the erratic speed and altitude changes,” clearly implying that the flight characteristics were not consistent with aircraft typically observed on his radarscopes. In fact, no aircraft known to be flying in 1950 could approach the performance envelope of the target, or remain stationary at high altitudes for up to two minutes. Time, speed, range, and altitude plotted over a six-minute period at Selfridge Air Force Base in Michigan on March 9, 1950 (Shough, 1987). For example, the one-minute plots logged by the controllers indicate a climb rate of up to 7,000 feet per minute (fpm), and speeds over 450 mph at altitudes above 35,000 feet. For comparison, the maximum rate of climb of a clean F-80 (with no external loading) was 4,950 fpm, and a calibrated airspeed of 310 mph at sea level. However, according to the F-80C flight manual, these specifications decrease proportionally with increase in altitude (and the consequent decrease in air density). At 25,000 feet, the standard rate of climb decreases by more than half, to 2,250 fpm at an airspeed of 260 mph, and more so as the plane approaches the service ceiling around 40,000 feet. As an experienced pilot and radar controller, Parker would have been cognizant of these standards. His report (Parker, 1950) of the incident reached Headquarters, Continental Air Command, Mitchell Air Force Base in New York, where it was reviewed by technical experts, resulting in a classified letter of recommendation forwarded to the Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, in Washington, D.C. The letter corroborated Lt. Parker’s 3 Sign Oral History Project reporting, further emphasizing: The great difference in the frequencies of the L-Band CPS-5 and S-Band CPS-4 radar sets and the evident correlation of observations between these two sets almost rule out the possibility of anomalous propagation effects. Further, the magnitude of the velocity and accelerations of the three dimensional movements of the “object” reported are beyond the capability of known heavier or lighter than air vehicles in controlled flight (O’Brien, 1950). The experts also noted that field experience with the CPS-5 radar system at the ranges and altitudes reported indicate the reflection aspect ratio of the object as comparable to a B-29 Superfortress or greater. The letter concluded with this acknowledgment: “The frequency of reports of this nature has recently increased; instructions have therefore been directed to all radar installations within this command to report scope sightings of unusual objects,” with a further recommendation that all Air Force agencies be reconsidered for submission of unidentified object reports (O’Brien, 1950). Given the historical context in early 1950, at the advent of the Cold War—while lacking any early warning system to effectively guard against a Soviet invasion—Air Force officials had just cause to be concerned about unidentifiable aircraft operating in the vicinity of military facilities, particularly when they exhibited performance characteristics that could not be defended against with current technologies. The Selfridge observations clearly demonstrate the ability of radar to provide reliable, quantitative data in order to demonstrate, in unambiguous fashion, a range of performance characteristics of UFO reports. On two occasions the target appeared to hover in the low- density air found higher up in the atmosphere, an attribute of many UFO reports beyond any aerodynamic capability to this day. In addition, radar provides a means to track UFOs over ranges of hundreds of miles, and often in relation to known aircraft. Parker noted that during a 45-minute period of time “this target seemed to stay in the area in which our fighters were flying, sometimes approximating their courses but 20,000 feet above them,” which infers rational behavior, or an inquisitive nature directed by intelligence. This ability to infer intelligent behavior is an intriguing aspect of UFO radar reports. —Thomas Tulien Sources: Hynek, J. Allen. The Hynek UFO Report. New York: Dell, 1977. O’Brien, Neal. Classified letter from HQ, Continental Air Command, Mitchell AFB, NY to Director of Intelligence, Headquarters, U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sightings by State/Country
    11/30/12 NSID Listing by State/Country Page 1 of 335 NC Date City State or Country Cat BB flag LC Description Code Rating Mozambique and Island of Madagascar strange globe glowing with greenish light 411200 Mozambique Africa 1 about half the size of full moon. (Page 17 Ref. 1) 501202 Nanyika, Kenya Africa 1 845 pearly, iridescent object with a flattened top 510219 Mt. Kilimanjaro, Kenya Africa 11 A 5 BBU Lodestar Crew Sees Stationary Silver Elongated Object South African headquarters announced in November that on May 23, radar had tracked an unidentified object near the Cape at over 1000 mph. [Prescott Evening 530523 Capetown, Union of South Africa Africa 9 R 5 Courier, May 22; UFOE, VIII] sighted an unidentified flying object over Laketi in the Likuala Mossaka region of 540618 French Equatorial Africa 1 the middle Congo. 540719 French Equatorial Africa 1 BBU (Jan Aldrich) J. H. Flanagan (a policeman) and some friends recently observed six unidentified 540725 Southern Rhodesia Africa 1 objects in the sky over Enkeldoorn Three shiny ovals hovering nearby; headlights remained off until 10 minutes after UFOs departed. Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 16, No. 5; see Rodeghier, 1981, p. 700130 Mrewa, Zimbabwe Africa 3 48 (L) police car The UFOs in this report were seen by multiple witnesses. The objects landed and took off. They were also spotted on radar and seen visually simultaneously. 75Jan-Mar Algeria Africa 2 Message sent to Henry Kissinger, from the American embassy in Algiers, Algeria. The UFOs in this report were seen by multiple witnesses. The objects landed and took off.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Dragon Comeback
    Operation Dragon Comeback Air Education and Training Command’s Response to Hurricane Katrina Dr. Bruce A. Ashcroft Dr. Joseph L. Mason Air Education and Training Command Office of History and Research Air Force History and Museums Program United States Air Force Washington, D.C., 2006 Preface The Air Education and Training Command’s response to Hurricane Katrina was a pivotal event in the organization’s history. Unlike previous storms that shut down training for a day or two, Katrina caused serious problems. In a fast-paced disaster response, often the information most significant to the historical record is not available in written documents, making interviews essential. This study rests solidly on a series of oral history interviews conducted at several AETC bases by the command’s historians with 65 members of the command and other participants in the relief effort. In addition, Dr Bruce Ashcroft and Dr Joseph Mason had extensive informal discussions with AETC members, and Dr Ashcroft attended meetings of the technical training reconstitution Tiger Team. Throughout the effort, AETC historians collected documents that underpinned the information gathered in interviews. The authors attempted to cover not only the hurricane, but also, and perhaps more importantly, the first few months of the recovery effort. Chapter 1 deals with the preparations and initial response to the devastation Hurricane Katrina wrought on Keesler AFB. It covers the first few days of digging out after the destructive storm, evacuating students to Sheppard AFB, and evacuating medical patients from the base, as well as the welcoming of Air Force evacuees to Maxwell and Columbus AFBs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sightings by City
    11/30/12 NSID Listing by City Page 1 of 335 NC Date City State or Country Cat BB flag LC Description Code Rating 641119 220 miles NW of Puerto Rico At Sea 9 R 5 U.S.S. Gyatt Tracks Bogey 531120 36.55N 76.00 (Atlantic) At Sea 11 A 5 Silver Egg Observed By Navy Unit 481015 50 miles E of Virginia coast At Sea 1 BBU bright nearly moon-shaped object with distinct bright center 510909 50 miles off coast of North Korea At Sea 9 R 5 BBU radar tracking of multiple unidentified targets at 900 mph 370722 500 miles off US coast In Air Space 1 Lights of alleged aircraft (Page 11 Ref. 1) 590819 80 miles E of U.S. [?]. Unk 1 BBU (McDonald list) 420811-12 Aachen (near) Germany 1 A phenomenon described as a bright white light (Page 29-30 Ref. 1) Possible jet; single light; 5 free lance visuals on jets, no A.I. or G.C.I. contacts; 441105-06 Aachen/Bonn/Cologne Germany 1 several flares similar to jets. (Page 86-87 Ref.1) On this night a man with a flat tire was stopped on the highway between Abadan and Ahvaz, Iran when he suddenly felt heat from a "huge, bright object" that was very close to him. (Source: Allan Hendry, International UFO Reporter, January 770628 Abadan and Ahvaz btn. Iran 2 1981, p. 15). Dark object three times the size of a moon came over low above trees and hovered near auto causing its motor and radio to stop.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Catalog of 1500 Project BLUE BOOK UFO
    Comprehensive Catalog of 1,500 Project BLUE BOOK UFO Unknowns: Work in Progress (Version 1.7, Dec. 31, 2003) Compiled by Brad Sparks, © 2001-2003 The main purpose of this catalog at present is to help identify and fill in where possible missing or difficult-to-obtain U.S. Air Force documentation on better quality Unexplained UFO cases, not to present here the "proof" of UFO reality nor to discuss possible IFO identifications, subjects reserved for later analysis once full files can be examined. Here the goal is preliminary and to compile more complete documentation, not the perfection of the analysis or categorizations. This catalog will be used eventually to produce another catalog of UFO Best Evidence after a screening process based on Hynek's and other criteria and for that reason columns for data on Duration, No. of Witnesses, Angular Size and "Instrumentation/Scientists etc." have been separately presented from the available case data and/or calculated where possible. When Project Blue Book (BB) closed down on Jan. 30, 1970 (it was not on Dec. 17, 1969, which was merely the announcement date by the Secretary of the Air Force) the total number of Unidentified sightings was thought to be 701 and this is the number given on all subsequent press releases and so- called "fact sheets." However, based on the review by Hynek and the CUFOS staff of the released sanitized BB microfilm and Hynek's personal records which included many missing (and unsanitized) BB documents, the final number was determined to have been approximately 587, apparently reflecting an IFO elimination process carried out on old historical cases by the next-to- last BB Chief, Major Hector Quintanilla in the 60's (and of dubious scientific validity based on examples McDonald studied), which must have reduced the number of Unexplained cases by 114.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology American Aerospace Events
    CHRONOLOGY AMERICAN AEROSPACE EVENTS HAROLD “PHIL” MYERS CHIEF HISTORIAN AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE AGENCY LACKLAND AFB, TEXAS 23 February 2009 EVOLUTION OF A CHRONOLOGY In 1981, as an Air Force enlisted historian, I worked for the Research Division of the Air Force Historical Research Agency (then Albert F. Simpson Historical Center) at Maxwell AFB, Al. For the next two years, I answered inquiries and conducted the Historian’s Development Course. While there I discovered a real “nugget,” A Chronology of American Aerospace Events from 1903-1974, gathering dust on an obscure shelf. I knew the draft document would be a handy reference for all enlisted field historians. In 1983, I took a copy of this chronology with me on my next assignment with the 39th Tactical Group in Turkey. The chronology proved to be an invaluable source in promoting Air Force history. It allowed me to prepare “Today in Aerospace History” slides for weekly staff meetings and write a weekly “Aerospace Highlights” column for the base newspaper. But at that time, the chronology was arranged by year and date, and it took considerable time to find events by specific dates. In 1985, I moved to the Ballistic Missile Office at Norton AFB, California, to write about the Peacekeeper and Small ICBM programs. The introduction of computers allowed me to convert the original chronology into a “By Date” product. I knew that the chronology was not an all inclusive listing, so I began to integrate events from other works—like the Development of Strategic Air Command, 1946-1986, The SAC Missile Chronology, and The Military Airlift Command Historical Handbook, 1941-1986—into an electronic product.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Chronology of the Electronic Systems Division 1947-1986 CA
    IE F I CIII 6 ESD-TR-88-27 00 0 A Historical Chronology of the Electronic Systems Division 1947-1986 CA Dr. E. MICHAEL DEL PAPA MARY P. WARNER October 1987 *m Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited DTIC ELECTE D NOV 02988 Prepared For ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DIVISION HISTORY OFFICE HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, MASSACHUSETTS 01731-5000 I II ( , f. r4 LEGAL NOTICE When U. S. Government drawings, specifications or other data are used for any purpose other than a definitely related government procurement operation, the government thereby incurs no responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever; and the fact that the governmert may have formulated, furnished, or in any way sup- plied the said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise as in any manner licensing the holder or any other person or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto. OTHER NOTICES Do not return this copy. Retain or destroy. REVIEW AND APPROVAL "This technical report has been reviewed and is approved for publication." E. Michael Del Papa, GM-13 Chief, History Office FOR THE COMMANDER E. Michael Del Papa, GM-13 Chief, History Office UNCLASS!FIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 'Ia. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 1b. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS 1Tmi.AqTRT~tPn Za. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABIUTY OF REPORT /Approved for public release; '2b. DECLASSIFICATION IDOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution unlimited 4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) ESD-TR-88- 276 6a.
    [Show full text]
  • Air-Defense Systems in the Organization of US Nuclear Command and Control, 1940–1960
    The Computer in the Garbage Can: Air- Defense Systems in the Organization of US Nuclear Command and Control, 1940-1960 The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Volmar, Daniel. 2019. The Computer in the Garbage Can: Air- Defense Systems in the Organization of US Nuclear Command and Control, 1940-1960. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41121266 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA The Computer in the Garbage Can: Air-Defense Systems in the Organization of US Nuclear Command and Control, 1940–1960 A dissertation presented by Daniel Volmar to The Department of the History of Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts November 2018 © 2018 Daniel Volmar. Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . Dissertation Adviser: Peter Galison Daniel Volmar The Computer in the Garbage Can: Air-Defense Systems in the Organization of US Nuclear Command and Control, 1940–1960 ABSTRACT During the late 1950s, the United States Air Force initiated development on nearly two- dozen military “command and control systems.” What they shared in common was a novel application of digital electronics to the problem of nuclear warfare.
    [Show full text]