Hopefully this is not construed as overkill for previewing the Minot AFB case of 1968, but I thought this important to post as an overall approach to studying the case. I'm basically setting the table with an overview of a proposed methodology.
I've chosen to break up the case in sections or parts which is very similar to my approach to the Malmstrom Oscar Flight write up on this blog. I believe that most readers will stay with my presentations if I provide several meaningful posts that describes a given situation in a moderately length article rather than a long drawn out single post which boarders on the perception of a manifesto or novella. Simply, I'm trying to avoid reader fatigue.
The reader needs to keep in mind that this is a simple blog and not the place to park a research paper, nor am I intending to write a research paper. For example, I've not attempted to contact and interview the key players in the Minot sighting because that has already been done by Tom Tulien and others. Those interviews are conveniently available on numerous websites and the appropriate links and excerpts will be cited.
The Minot 1968 case can be broken up into several parts.
1. The missile maintenance team in route to N-07.
2. The missile security teams (FSCs and site security teams).
3. The diverted B-52 component (crew visuals, radar returns, UHF radio issues)
4. The O-07 intrusion.
5. Minot's UFO officer's (LtCol Werlich) investigation.
6. Blue Book's responses and final conclusion.
Each of the above areas may have subsets. These subsets may include data from Minot's base operations, wing security control, input from other launch control facilities and relevant information from the Memo for Records.
Most know that my view of the Malmstrom (Echo and Oscar) interviews conducted by Hastings and Salas was/is highly critical based on the nature of the cases and the major participants and the lack of others who remained in the shadows. The main participants (Figel, Meiwald and Salas) had no credible visual observations and we're left with the reminiscences of phone calls and poor recall of said phone calls some 45 years later. One has official documentation of the event, but the other exists purely in the mind of another individual leaving us to debate it's actual occurrence.
The Minot story is a different animal as there are written accounts based on the AF-117s plus interviews that were conducted years later of the actual eye witnesses. The AF-117s reveal what each participant experienced or perceived to have happened during the early morning hours of 24 October 1968. The witnesses saw something and there is no doubt in that regard, but what did they actually see? The interview statements given some 30-35 years later contain what is to be expected, that is difficult recall in certain areas, yet interesting information in other areas.
So I'll present the case in a multi-part format. How many parts is yet to be determined. I'll have to see how the case progresses.