The Chinese Lantern is supposedly credited to the military strategist Zhuge Liang (181–234 AD). Liang was also referred to as Kongming and hence, in China, the lanterns are known as Kongming lanterns.
Liang's efforts may have well been the beginning's of the modern day UFO source. Ufology owes a debt of gratitude for this archaic, yet festive "fiery" balloon.
The invention of the automobile hubcap was a vast developmental milestone in Ufology. The mundane hubcap has advanced the general public's ability to photograph this aerial enigma thus adding to the growing scientific database of UFO design and performance specifications.
Demonstrated above is the UFO's capability to operate in precision formation. This photo further baffles ufologist as the proposed anti-gravity propulsion systems allows the UFOs to fly seemingly attached to one another. This could account for the UFO to appear as one object in the sky then abruptly separating into multiple objects. It is possible that military investigators have reversed engineered this capability and adapted this technology to the precision aerial demonstrations by such units as the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels.
.jpg)
Here is a demonstration of a multiple landing of UFOs. Should a higher advance extraterrestrial race attempt to invade the earth, this may be the strategic formation used in such an aerial assault. Again, noticed the precision of the formation which would allow ET forces to off load troops and supplies. This is very similar to the Greek phalanx used in ancient military tactics. This has led some ufologist to suggest that UFOs have indeed visited the earth during the time of Antiquity.
Here is an example of strange markings that have been seen on UFOs. What could it mean?Such galactic symbols continue to frustrate ufologist who specialize in extraterrestrial linguistic studies. Those dedicated scientific-minded individuals continue to labor to this very day attempting to discover the universal Rosetta Stone that may one day unlock this mystery.
There you have it. Those of us that follow the on-going saga of the UFO phenomena need to be reminded of the past achievements and developmental studies that have advance our knowledge of UFOs. There should be no doubt that the Chinese Lantern and the hubcap deserve to be recognized and celebrated due to the contributions both have had in the advancement of UFO studies.
Note all images provided from wikipedia and google image search. TH
Note: Yes, I'm working on the Minot case and hope to have the first installment soon. TH
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.
I've quietly been looking at the Minot AFB UFO(s) sightings occurring back on 24 October 1968. Honestly, its been an on/off effort as other personal events and work schedule have intervened and side tracked this project. That's not to mean that nothing has been done on my part, but simply it's been a much slower process than I originally anticipated based on my daily schedule performing the roles of husband, father, and Psychiatric Registered Nurse. Throw in my daughter's pending marriage into the mix...the reader should be able to get my point.
With the above excuses/justifications said, the reader should review the case as presented in various reports. Thomas Tulien has produced an impressive body of work for the Sign Oral History Project. Tulien's in depth work can be accessed here.
UFO Casebook Files has a rudimentary description of the B-52 radio transmissions, but falls short of providing any meaningful context to the incident. Further, missing is the missile maintenance personnel's written accounts per their AF-117s. Yet, somewhere in the Casebook Files, I thought that more had been written about this case.
The 90-plus pages of the official Blue Book investigation can be accessed at Fold3. The numerous completed AF-117s provided by the eye witnesses are available. Also included are the official message traffic generated by SAC, ADC, and FTD (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH). Of equal, if not compelling value, are the Memo for Records generated from the numerous phone calls between Minot, SAC HQ, and FTD.
I suggest that to save yourself the time and aggravation just go to Tulien's site as he has incorporated all of the Blue Book documents (and more) in a more friendlier format for easier reading. I've verified that Tulien has all of the documents and pertinent maps as listed on Fold3.com.
The focus of my work will center around the final Blue Book conclusions. That is, does the final conclusions make logical sense. My initial read of BBs 13 Nov 1968 conclusions leaves me with the sense that it's somewhat wanting for the most part. When I read the entire report, I couldn't help but see the lack of follow-up by both FTD and Minot's UFO Officer, LtCol Werlich.
The reader also needs to understand that I was not a pilot or navigator. My knowledge of radar operations is relatively poor. I did have the opportunity to sit in the pilot's seat of a B-52D at March AFB back in the late 1970s, but that does not qualify for any meaningful knowledge base of practical experience other than to provide knowledge of the cramp confines of the flight deck. I do have experience in using UHF radio equipment since the missile launch control centers were equipped with numerous radio systems, including UHF.
Below is the key points of BB's conclusion:
1. Ground visuals appear to be the star Sirius and the over flying B-52. The missile maintenance teams AF-117s show that this may indeed be possible as stellar objects tend to be misidentified and the characteristics of the phenomena observed was that of the B-52. Yet the question remains, did they misinterpret stars and the aircraft for a UFO(s)?
2. The B-52 radar contact and temporary loss of UHF transmission could be attributed to plasma/ball lightning. This one bothers me due to the rarity of such a phenomena. I get the impression (right/wrong) that this contributory theory was just thrown into the mix.
3. The B-52 visual observation was the star Vega, ground light, or plasma. This is an odd set of conclusions, but I believe that I have a good candidate for what was actually seen from the cockpit of the B-52. The clues are embedded in the case files and appeared to have been glossed over during the investigation. Plus there is a psychological component that was innocently introduced.
4. The break in of Oscar-07 was not related to the event. I tentatively agree with this conclusion.
So, there you have it! A brief preview of the case and hint of methodology. Hopefully, I'll be able to present my final product in the coming weeks barring any distractions.
Last week, Robert Sheaffer posted on his blog concerning the need to provide proper context to wikipedia articles. He highlighted the efforts of Susan Gerbic related to the late skeptic Phillip Klass' wiki article, "Guerilla Skepticism-Now We Have Klass' Wikipedia Back."
I had provided two comments on Sheaffer's blog referencing the efforts of James Carlson and his on-going efforts to provide alternative thoughts/points of view to the Wikipedia articles concerning the two Malmstrom AFB alleged UFO incidents back in 1967. In one of my comments, I had mentioned the wiki editing process as that of a "sausage making factory."
To see how this editing process occurs, one only has to click on the "Talk" portion of any given wiki article. The Malmstrom UFO section shows how the internal debates rage and underscores how any given Wikipedia entry, regardless of subject, changes over time. It further proves a valid point that Wikipedia articles should be held in suspect dependent of the references cited. I'm aware that wiki attempts to provide a neutral point of view, but that concept appears to be a difficult to implement.
Earlier to today, I had nine hits on my blog from Wikipedia's "Talk" section concerning "UFO Hoaxes" which Carlson has, for now, been able to list Hastings and Salas as either hoaxers or pranksters. I'm assuming that some of the editors were looking at references for citation that James had provided to back up his assertions.
A few weeks ago both Echo and Oscar Flights were listed in the wiki article as hoaxes or complete fabrications...that appears to have disappeared from the article. At least that's how I remembered the initial article. Perhaps Carlson will be able to shed some light on my memory of the editing events.
What's the best way to deal with the issues with Wikipedia? The best approach, one that I had proposed in a past blog post when I became aware of the Wikipedia articles on the Malmstrom UFO incidents, is to have two sections to any given UFO wiki entry. That is one can present evidence (with citations) supporting the UFO hypothesis and a separate section could present a dissenting view point (with citations) with an alternative hypothesis. This way both sides can be heard/read in a fair and consistent way. Let the reader decide which side presents the credible point of view.
I do not believe that there should be any form of censorship regardless of who is presenting their respective points of view. Hastings and Salas, and others, should be freely able to have their viewpoints aired out in Wikipedia's format as well as that of James Carlson...or me, for that matter. Its up to the reader to decide who makes the better case.
On my previous Arneson post, James Carlson and I were trading comments. James made a keen point concerning the current government scandals sweeping the U.S. I thought it was noteworthy because he drives home a point.
James Carlson: "On a slightly related side note, have you seen the news RE: Edward Snowden? I don't want to get into a long discussion about what folks may or may not believe about the legal impressions that have been made thus far today, but I did want to make one small, pointed observation. Given the current freak-out we're noting at the NSA, the CIA, and all points in-between in regard to secrets maintained to protect government access to email accounts and telephone records, does anybody really believe that there would be no reaction whatsoever to some ex-USAF whistle-blower telling the world all about the concern that UFOs and the denizens of other planets have about our nuclear interests if there was any truth at all to those claims? Or that there would continue to be no interest exhibited by the government through four Presidential administrations? I am amazed at the credulity exhibited by apparently intelligent American comic-book fans everywhere..."
BTW, I personally know of no one affiliated with the military that either was reprimanded, or lost their retirement pension because they had come out endorsing the sighting of a UFO encounter. Case in point, none of the principle individuals involved with the Malmstrom alleged incidents suffered career-wise. All either had successful military careers or excelled outside of the military.
James wrote is comment yesterday, as of today, Snowden has apparently disappeared from the scene...for now. Supposedly, the US government is in the process of conducting an international dragnet for this poor bastard (as well as, the Chinese and Russians). Yet we are free (for now) to write about UFO encounters around "secret" military sites or nuclear bases with impunity. I guess that some "disclosures" are more important than others.
Or to put it in a more Orwellian tone: all disclosures are equal, some are more equal than others.
Gotta go...I think the NSA is calling me on my cell phone...
I've been researching the Minot October 1968 UFO incident and came across information that appears to clarify Col. Arneson's statements concerning his receipt of a message relating to "UFO(s) sighted around missile silos." My blog post, "The Oscar Flight Mystery: Dwynne Arneson" covers his affidavit that was presented back in 2010.
It is readily apparent that all UFO sightings/reports were sent to the affected region's ADC Air Division regardless of the command making the report. Since Minot AFB, ND was in the 28th Air Division's jurisdiction all of it's UFO reports were sent to Malmstrom (28th's location).
With this in mind, Col Arneson's recollection of a message listing a UFO(s) sighting would have been consistent with the protocols in place during his tenure at Malmstrom. Based on Arneson's responsibilities within the air division, he would have had access to these types of message traffic.
The Minot message sent to Malmstrom (October time frame of 1968) was "Unclassified."I'll post a copy of the Minot message with a future blog post on that specific incident once the article is completed.
I was looking at Frank Warren's site today and came across Robert Hasting's article relaying that David Schuur had passed on 31 May 2013.
Mr. Schuur had provided an interview to Robert Hastings back in 2008 describing a UFO encounter while on alert duty at Minot AFB back in the mid to late 1960s. I had written a blog post regarding Mr. Schuur's experience back in December, 2010: "Did a UFO Attempt to Launch Minot AFB ICBMs?"
Recently, prior to Mr. Schuur's death, I had updated the post:
Update: 5/23/2013
David Schuur's interview to Robert Hastings brought up the idea that he had tapes to turn into his squadron and/or other base personnel.
I had downplayed this as confusion centering around printed tapes that would have recorded commands issued and received by the crew and that this capability was non-existent for the Minuteman I system.
Frankly, the confusion is mine. David Schuur in all probability turned in recorded tapes after his alert cycle. I came across a web page that detailed Minuteman alert crews back in 1967-68. This apparently was an Air Force promotional spot that may have either aired on TV back in the 67-68 time frame or was a promotional film that was shown to civic gatherings.
In the film, it details a 12 SMS crew at Malmstrom AFB. The film and it's narrator makes a point to show the voice tape recording system that was installed in the LCC. Per the narrator, this was supposed to be activated during a higher state of readiness and in preparation to launching the flight's ICBMs. Basically, it would have been a voice record of the event since there were no other capability to have a written trail to show the actions of the crew.
Obviously, by the time Minuteman II had been fielded, upgrades resulted in a printer system that recorded day to day actions of the crew. These tapes had to be turned into the squadron hq when the crew returned to base.
Tim Hebert
I thought this to be an important item that I had discovered which clarified Mr. Schuur's statements regarding the issue of tapes.
My sincere condolences to the Schuur family.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
