Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Minot's 1968 UFO Incident: The Issue of Bias

I had recently opened a thread on Unexplained Mysteries forum, "1968 Minot UFO:  B52H Radar Return:  Discuss the technological aspects of radar return anomalies and causation." Frankly, the radar return anomaly had somewhat stumped me and I figured to get some additional input and general ideas on causes of radar anomalies.

Overall I had good inputs on potential issues such as plasma and the Hessdalen phenomena, but nothing that I feel totally comfortable with, but potential causations none the less.  Blue Book attributes the radar return as potentially a plasma event, yet I'm not totally on board with that conclusion.  

Tom Tulien, minotb52ufo.com, raised the issue, or concern(?) about potential bias on my part as we discussed comparing the case's AF-117s to oral testimony given 30 to 40 years later.   Tom raises a good point as we all have our biases when dealing with UFO phenomena.  My biases tend to filter through as all can see based on how I approach the phenomena.  I do my best to limit it's affect, but make no apologies since I take the skeptical view on the subject. Tom should read the title and header of this blog, "Did It Really Happen?"  That should explain my overall approach as I've always looked for possible alternative prosaic causes for the phenomena.

Despite my own acknowledged bias, Mr. Tulien has his own personal bias regarding the Minot case.  Mr. Tulien would have me believe that there is no question that a UFO(s) under intelligent control was the cause of the Minot sightings and radar anomalies...as well as the B-52's UHF transmission outage.  Though this appears to be his personal conclusion, he attempts to push me in that direction before I've yet to finish any analysis or render an opinion.  

Further, Mr. Tulien knows that I'm aware of the discrepancies, curiosities, and questions that the AF-117s and other documentation raise and he would attempt to supplant                 those idiosyncrasies with interviews that he and Mr. Klotz conducted some 30-40 years after the fact.  This has led Mr. Tulien to formulate a conclusion that some, if not all of the official documents regarding this case had been altered or omitted in the attempt to hinder or mislead those responsible for investigating the incident.  Thus, Mr. Tulien through supposition attempts to move me into the realm of conspiracy which I outright reject as there is no hard evidence to support such a view.

My format is a simple blog and I merely render opinions.  All can either accept or reject what I write.  I've an open comment section with no moderation that allows all to render an opinion of their own.  There is no peer review process to effectively eliminate bias for this is merely a blog site, but I honestly try to look at things objectively to limit bias.  Most articles that I've posted have been numerously edited to reflect a reasonable tone and demeanor.  As new information is gained past posts have been updated to reflect this new information either as an add-on or correction.

I'll post the first part of my Minot series by next week.  Other parts will be posted at various intervals. I look forward to others opinion one way or another.    


  1. For interested readers, the relevant posts are on page 9, specifically, posts #128 and #131 at the UM link above.

    Tim: I am not quite sure of where you are going with this post. Taken literally I can only extend my kind regards...


  2. As well as I extend my kind regards, Tom.