Monday, September 29, 2014

Minot's Visual Observations: A Question of Possibilities

My last post led to quite a few comments from my friend, Tom Tulien.  Tom raised good questions.  As I had stated in my reply to Tom, I'm merely looking at possibilities.  I was not present at or near Minot back in 1968.  I've had no contact with the principles involved with this case.  I, like others, am left with looking at, and deciphering reports in the form of AF-117s, memo for records and other various documents that are currently available.  And much gratitude to Tom and Jim Klotz for providing subsequent interviews that both had provided on Tom's excellent site, minotb52ufo.com.

Possibilities

When looking at the key principle's AF-117s, I have to take into account three possibilities:

1.  The ground observers, primarily O'Connor/Isley, Jablonski/Adams and Bond/Williams, saw lights and/or an object in their respective flight areas.  The possibility exists that this could have been a mis-identified star...possible, but not certain.

2.  At a given point in time, the B-52 visually supplants the initial object and the observers focus solely on the B-52.  I believe that this is possible, but not certain.

3.  The object is neither a star, nor the B-52, but of an unknown origin.  A UFO, if you will. This is possible, but not definitive nor is it certain.

Are the AF-117s accurate concerning the plotted directions and elevations of the object/light?  I tend to think not.  The observation reports were completed either the next day or a few days after the incident.  Werlich, per memo for record, had told the staff of PBB that he had to show most how to annotate the directions and elevations on the AF-117s.  If this is true, then the diagrams were best guesses based on memory recall.  Each observer perceived the event in a different way.

There is another AF-117, that of the B-52's pilot, Maj James Partin, that provides possible clues to his sighting that possibly discounts a UFO on or near the ground.  In my opinion, Partin's AF-117 does not corroborate the observations from the ground teams.  I'm not talking about the radar data, but of Partin's visual observations, what he saw with his own eyes. The radar data will be discussed in a separate post. 

Is a stellar observation possible?

This is what Blue Book proposed.  Unfortunately in today's UFO research climate, the mere mentioning of Blue Book tends to be toxic, but was a stellar component possible?  In order to answer this question we have to compare the ground observers' estimated plotted positions while on site at N-07 and the potential candidates for a proposed stellar observation.



As can be seen in the above diagram.  We have a combination of initial and final observed points based on the estimated elevations above the horizon as provided by the ground teams.  Information from Blue Book list four stars as the possible observed object/light:

Regulus  10 degrees above horizon at 0300 hr, and 20 degrees at 0400 hr.

Procyon  30 degrees above horizon at 0300 hr, and 37 degrees at 0400 hr.

Sirius  28 degrees above  horizon at 0300 hr, and 24 degrees at 0400.

Rigel  35 degrees above horizon at 0300 hr, and 35 degrees at 0400.

Based on the estimated positions plotted by Jablonski/Adams and O'Connor/Isley, it appears to me that Procyon, Sirius, and Rigel would be good candidates to have been observed by the ground teams.  

Tom Tulien provided a comment in my last post that Sirius would have been too low above the horizon to have any observational value.  To see if this was possible, I set up my telescope in my backyard and aligned it to 28 degrees and tracked this elevation via line of sight.  It was readily obvious that Sirius could have been easily seen even taking in to account tree lines in the distant area.  I further found that at 15 degrees above the horizon the same held true.  It was only at 10 degrees and below that I found that it would have been difficult to observe, based on probable tree lines and ground elevations, but in some respects not impossible.

What was the actual conditions during the night? This depends on the perception of each observer.  O'Connor listed the conditions as partly cloudy with nimbus clouds, a few stars, no moon. Isley wrote that the night was clear, few stars, no moon light.  Jablonski wrote that it was a clear night, few stars, no moon light.  The same for Adams.  Bond, at N-01, stated the night was clear with a few stars.  William Smith, O-01, wrote that it was completely overcast, clouds, no stars, and no moon.  James Partin, the B-52 pilot, wrote that there were many stars and no moon light, but Partin was at altitude in his aircraft.

Based on the above descriptions, it appears that the ground teams in the November Flight area, particular to N-07, had a fairly non-obscured sky during the observations.  Oscar Flight, NE of November Flight, was the only exception as it appeared to had been overcast, per William Smith, yet he saw a light/object SSW, 15 degrees above the horizon.


The above diagram shows the plotted "compass" points of the teams initial (A) and last (B) observations.  I've listed the approximately locations of Sirius and Rigel at important times during the early morning hours of 24 October 1968.

What is of interest is that at the time listed on O'Connor's AF-117, Sirius is almost directly due east.  Sirius' position changes through the next few hours, East, ESE, SE, SSE, and finally at 0500 hr, approximately due south. Rigel's position changes from SE,SSE and finally SSW at 0500 hr. Sirius tracks well with the descriptions given by Isley and O'Connor and the initial observation plotted by Jablonski/Adams.  Jablonski's last observed point B shows WSW, but Rigel's location of SSW is in the general vicinity.  Is it possible that Rigel was the object last seen by Jablonski?

James Partin's View from the B-52

James Partin was the pilot of the B-52 that over-flew the November flight area.  His aircraft was 10 miles northeast of Minot AFB at an altitude of 3200 ft MSL per his AF-117.  He saw a bright orange ball of light at his one o'clock.  It appeared to be 15 miles away either on the ground or slightly above the ground.  The light remained stationary as he flew towards it. During his 5 minute visual observation, the object never moved, even when he was directly above it. To Partin, "It looked like a miniature sun placed on the ground below the aircraft.

Nowhere in Partin's AF-117 does he describe a light/object moving about the flight area, as compared to the descriptions provided by the ground observers. Partin only saw a bright object or source of light on or near the ground...and it was stationary...not moving.

What was the bright light that Partin observed?  Project Blue Book offered the possibility of ball lightning or the star Vega.  Both of these options are very poor choices as Vega was barely above the horizon in the north, if at all, and ball lightning being a very rare event and hardly a stationary phenomena.

If we rule out Vega and ball lightning, then what is the source?  The answer may well be annotated by the ground observers AF-117s and the flight path of the B-52.

The PBB staff and LtCol Werlich either missed or glossed over a key passage in Jablonski's AF-117, in particular, section 11 e, Major Source of Illumination."  Jablonski had wrote in section 11 e, "Head lights and site lights".  While on N-07, the site's top-side lights were on and the team's vehicle head lights were on.

I asked two former missile maintenance officers about the arrangement of the site lights on a launch facility.  Both stated that there were 2 light posts with 3 lights mounted on each pole.  When asked how bright these lights were, one stated that all were very bright, lighting up the entire area of the launch facility.  I assume that all six lights were positioned in different angles on their respective poles to provide the illumination coverage.

If we look at the flight path of the B-52,  N-07 would have been in the direction of Partin's one o'clock.  The flight path takes the aircraft near N-07. I believe that what Partin had described as a stationary source of bright light was actually N-07 with it's site lights activated.  In his AF-117, Partin draws what he believes to have seen either on the ground or hovering above the ground.

Tom Tulien site, shows several map overlays of the aircraft's flight path viewed here.


Taken from Tom Tulien's minotb52ufo.com

The above is the diagram drawn by Maj. Partin in his AF-117.



The above is an overlay of what Maj. Partin saw and transposed over N-07.  The site lights would have brightly lit the entire topside of the LF and a portion of the outside perimeter. The graveled topside and concrete components could have been seen as a bright reflection being observed by Partin.  In an interview with Tulien/Klotz, Jablonski gave the impression that he and Adams had parked their vehicle on the access road.

I cannot say the above is exactly what Partin saw, but I believe that it is possible...plausible. It is "possible" that the ground observers saw a star, or a series of stars that appeared to move slowly over time.  It is "possible" that at a given point in time, the overflying B-52 takes over and is now the focus of the ground observers as the UFO.  Add in the light pollution by the bright site lights from N-07, it is "possible" that the ground observers lost frequent eye contact with the initial object (star?).  It is "possible" that Maj. Partin was actually observing a "stationary" brightly lit N-07.

If the above is true....where is the UFO?

15 comments:

  1. Your elevation angles for Sirius at 0300 is wrong. It should be about 19 degrees. I also think your azimuth for Sirius is wrong for 0100. It is way to far East.It should be ESE or SE (azimuth of about 123 degrees). Not that these values are that big a deal but I know how certain individuals like to harp on small details like this to make it appear the larger work is flawed. I am sure it was an honest mistake in the way you ran the astronomy program.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tim, thanks for the info and input. The elevations for 0300 and 0400 for Sirius and Rigel were obtained from PBB data. Who ever computed the elevations at Wright-Patterson listed Sirius at 28 degrees above the horizon at 0300 L.

    If you ran a program that shows differently, then you discovered a flaw in PBB's analysis, which eventually goes to one of my hypothesis that the entire investigation from Minot and W-P AFB was less than pristine.

    As far as my 0100 azimuth for Sirius, your probably right as I had used a star chart for 24 October that was not as accurate as I had liked. You'll notice that in the post I listed some of my locations as "approximately" because of the lack of precision. I had believed that it was within the ball park. It was my intent to show that Sirius was in the general vicinity regarding Isley's and O'Connors initial observation times. Simply, I got to cute with the chart that I had at hand.

    I'll take your figures and supply another chart in an addendum post as I value your expertise in the matters of astronomy.

    Thanks for the constructive critique!

    Tim H.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I did not realize that PBB bothered to list these values. I will give you some accurate values using stellarium in an e-mail that you can use to update the posting.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I sent you an email earlier requesting data from your program...just add the info from that email.

    Tim H

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Tim:

    I have to admit that you bring up issues that I really should have addressed in more detail during the research. While drafting a response to your post I soon realized that there were interesting correlations such as Bond at 3:08 viewing the object in the SSE (az 157.5) at 15 deg., while Sirius was at az 133 (SE), alt 12.

    As Tim P. has pointed out there are inaccuracies in the data. For example at 0100 Sirius was az 97 and more than 15 deg. below the horizon and probably not visual until after 0200. At 2:30 it is at az 125 alt 7. Also, Sirius does not arrive at 180 deg. (S) until 0614. Perhaps BB did not consider CDT.

    FYI: An animation is included at: Hi Tim:

    I have to admit that you bring up issues that I really should have addressed in more detail during the research. While drafting a response to your post I soon realized that there were interesting correlations such as Bond at 3:08 viewing the object in the SSE (az 157.5) at 15 deg., while Sirius was at az 133 (SE), alt 12.

    As Tim P. has pointed out there are inaccuracies in the data. For example at 0100 Sirius was az 97 and more than 15 deg. below the horizon and probably not visual until after 0200. At 2:30 it is at az 125 alt 7. Also, Sirius does not arrive at 180 deg. (S) until 0614. Perhaps BB did not consider CDT.

    FYI: An animation is included at: Hi Tim:

    I have to admit that you bring up issues that I really should have addressed in more detail during the research. While drafting a response to your post I soon realized that there were interesting correlations such as Bond at 3:08 viewing the object in the SSE (az 157.5) at 15 deg., while Sirius was at az 133 (SE), alt 12.

    As Tim P. has pointed out there are inaccuracies in the data. For example at 0100 Sirius was az 97 and more than 15 deg. below the horizon and probably not visual until after 0200. At 2:30 it is at az 125 alt 7. Also, Sirius does not arrive at 180 deg. (S) until 0614. Perhaps BB did not consider CDT.

    FYI: An animation is included at: Hi Tim:

    I have to admit that you bring up issues that I really should have addressed in more detail during the research. While drafting a response to your post I soon realized that there were interesting correlations such as Bond at 3:08 viewing the object in the SSE (az 157.5) at 15 deg., while Sirius was at az 133 (SE), alt 12.

    As Tim P. has pointed out there are inaccuracies in the data. For example at 0100 Sirius was az 97 and more than 15 deg. below the horizon and probably not visual until after 0200. At 2:30 it is at az 125 alt 7. Also, Sirius does not arrive at 180 deg. (S) until 0614. Perhaps BB did not consider CDT.

    FYI: An animation (scroll over) is included at: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/investigation/sirius.php
    that provides stellar locations at 0230, 0330, 0430 and 0530 for 24 Oct. 1968, with the geo location set at N-7 coordinates, and the time set to CDT/GMT -5. The data in the upper left corner is for Sirius.

    You also encouraged me to research the exterior lighting on the B-52 and discovered some interesting details I was previously unaware of. In particular, that the wing tip (nav) light on the right side was green.

    In any case, you have inspired me to imagine a method for compiling the data and way to illustrate the situation that could clarify the circumstances and make it more comprehensible. It is a bit ironic that Discovery Canada is including the case in its next season but due to budget constraints (cost of cockpit animations) is only recreating the ground observations. So in that respect this is perhaps a good time to try to clarify the matter. I will do that in the weeks perhaps months ahead as the snow begins to fly.

    Thanks, Tim.

    BTW: Giles: It was great to meet you too this summer. I wish there had been more time to hang out -but next time!

    Kind regards, Tom





    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Tim:

    I have to admit that you bring up issues that I really should have addressed in more detail during the research. While drafting a response to your post I soon realized that there are interesting correlations, such as Bond at 3:08 viewing the object in the SSE (az 157.5) at 15 deg., while Sirius was at az 133 (SE), alt 12.

    As Tim P. has pointed out there are inaccuracies in the data. For example at 0100 Sirius was az 97 and more than 15 deg. below the horizon and probably not visual until after 0200. At 2:30 it is at az 125 alt 7. Also, Sirius does not arrive at 180 deg. (S) until 0614. Perhaps BB did not take into account CDT.

    FYI: An animation (scroll over) is included (at the end of the INVESTIGATION section of the web site): http://www.minotb52ufo.com/investigation/sirius.php that provides star locations at 0230, 0330, 0430 and 0530 for 24 Oct. 1968, with the geo location set at N-7 coordinates, and the time set to CDT/GMT -5. The data in the upper left corner is for Sirius.

    You also encouraged me to research the exterior lighting on the B-52 and I discovered some interesting details I was previously unaware of. In particular, that the wing tip (nav) light on the right side was green.

    In any case, you have inspired me to imagine a method for compiling the data and way to illustrate the situation that could clarify the circumstances and make it more comprehensible. It is a bit ironic that Discovery Canada has including the case in its next season but due to budget constraints (cost of cockpit animations) is only recreating the ground observations. So in that respect this is perhaps a good time to try to clarify the matter. I will do that in the weeks perhaps months ahead as the snow begins to fly.

    Thank you!

    BTW: Gilles, it was great to meet you as well this summer. i wish there had been more time to hang out, but next time!

    Kid regards, Tom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: at 0100 Sirius is at az 108 alt -6 deg. It arrives at 180 (S) at 0618.

      Delete
  7. Tom,

    Tim Printy has provided me an accurate star chart for 24 Oct 1968. I'll post an addendum to reflect the new data.

    As I stated to Tim, it would appear that PBB had erroneous data. With that said, it does prop up my original thoughts that BB and Minot did a less than rigorous investigation...I believe you and I are in some degree of agreement on that point.

    Oh, Discovery Canada? Let's hope that they do a better effort than expose on Malmstrom's Oscar Flight...what a disappointment that was.

    Anyways, I do appreciate your comments and inputs...and your guidance:)

    Kind regards,

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tom, before I turn in for the night, what's your take on my proposed N-07 as the stationary bright light on the ground that Partin observed?

    Best,

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  9. Boy, that raises a bunch of questions that need to be considered.

    Werlich was reticent about the over flight in the BRD but had this to say to Marano (Memo, Nov. 1):

    "The one we (Lt Marano) are mainly interested is the one that cannot be identified. The one of radar and the aircraft correlated pretty well. Col Werlich said Lt Marano should get a section map of the area. Base Ops at Wright-Patterson has hundreds of the sectional maps of the Minot area.

    Look on map, half way down the runway, TACCAN, 320 radius, 16 nautical miles. This is where aircraft saw the object. There’s farm fields there. There is nothing there that would produce this, type of light. The same for O’Connor and Nicely from November 7 which is near Grano. I have gone over that are with a chopper."

    It seems that Tim's Stellarium data is may be different from mine. Is that the case based on what I posted? For example at 0100 Sirius is at az 108 alt-6? Or, 2;30: az 125 alt 7?

    Kind regards, Tom

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mea Culpa on the times Tim, Tom. I use UTC on my computer and subtracted the 6 hours for CST. I did not realize (or think to check) that DST was in effect at the time. The azimuth and elevations listed are for one hour later (i.e. 0100 should be 0200 CDT).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tim, thanks for the update. I had re-constructed another chart yesterday, but I'll do up another today which is not a problem. One wonders how BB came up with their figures as they had listed their times as local for Minot...they were well off the mark for whatever reason.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Been a while but I recall that we determined the PBB coordinates for Minot AFB were actually somewhere to the south of the airbase. Also, Werlich's "320 radius, 16 nautical miles" (to put it in the center of his box) would actually be 334 TRUE 16 mmi from the TACAN (declination was 13 E). It would be nice to be able to verify this location against other evidence in the documents but the specific information in the Transcript that would allow this was purged.

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tom, you may be correct on PBBs coordinates. It's possible that BB may have used the coordinates for the city of Minot, not being aware that the AFB was some 10 plus miles north of the city.

    I'll look again at the data that you compiled. Curious Tom, what's your evidence or sense that the Transcript was purged? I tend to agree that the Transcripts offer clues, yet lends to more questions.

    I hope to have an addendum posted later tonight, if not first thing in the morning. The data that Tim P. has provided and the corrected times for CDT should match fairly well with your data. Much thanks for your gentle prodding in that regards.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tim said: Tom, you may be correct on PBBs coordinates. It's possible that BB may have used the coordinates for the city of Minot.

    Actually, Sirius would have never exceeded alt 25 and PBB’s alt 28 would be for a location over 200 miles south of Minot.

    Tim said: Curious Tom, what's your evidence or sense that the Transcript was purged? I tend to agree that the Transcripts offer clues, yet lends to more questions.

    Purged…

    I suppose the simple answer is it seems to fit this particular situation. I used it in that sense to draw attention to the fact that any data points or directions that would have provided information to locate the B-52 during the second go-around when they over flew the UFO- are absent from the transcript. I thought that was clear but… If it could be read as simple incompetence by the transcriber then another word would have been more appropriate.

    (1) In particular, after the UFO departed from the B-52 radar and communications were restored there was a request by a General, or a General’s request relayed by RAPCON to over fly the object, which does not appear in the Transcript. Later, the apparent identity of the requester is transcribed as: “(garbled) requests that somebody from your aircraft stop in at baseops after you land.”

    (2) On Werlich’s overlay map he only plotted the first go-around (and we are left to assume that the B-52 flew the same circuit during the second go-around). The time code notations are missing after 4:21, at a time when the B-52 is given the vector for the first turn (after the runway) onto the crosswind leg at 335 degrees. Note that in the BRD Werlich states that the B-52 was on a heading of 335 deg. when it first observed the UFO on or near the ground. In fact, the B-52 was turning onto the downwind leg (NW) when it first observed the UFO.

    (3) The reason why Werlich noted 335 deg. is because the actual vector for the turn onto the downwind leg is missing from the Transcript. Later the B-52 is given the vectors to turn onto the base leg, dogleg and (extended) final; but the 290-degree downwind leg when they observed and over flew the UFO, and any possible communications during this leg appears to have been purged from the Transcript.

    Kind regards, Tom

    ReplyDelete