Minot AFB

What the file holds

Project Blue Book’s papers on this night make up one unit in the National Archives catalogue, “Minot AFB. North Dakota, October 1968” (NAID 302580672, 107 images). The catalogue shows the scans only; every quotation here is read from them.

• the record card (image 1) and a handwritten note: “THIS CASE INCLUDES 13 PHOTOS 8X10” (image 2);
• a memo for the record of 24 October 1968 on the first report, taken by telephone (images 3–4);
• the base’s message of 29 October 1968 from the 862nd Combat Support Group, by the base’s investigator, Lt Col Arthur J. Werlich (images 8–15);
• memos for the record of 30 October on what the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) still needed (images 16–17) and on a telephone call with Strategic Air Command (image 18), a record of a call with Werlich on 31 October (images 19–25) and a memo of 1 November (image 26);
• a transcript of the Minot RAPCON tape (images 30–34);
• questionnaires (AF Form 117) filled in by observers, the B-52’s pilot among them (images 35–94; his is images 86–94);
• Lt Col Hector Quintanilla’s message to Strategic Air Command of 1 November 1968 (image 95);
• the FTD’s letter of 13 November 1968 with a sequence of events, a résumé of the sightings and a discussion of background information (images 98–106).

The return on the B-52’s radar

The first report reached the FTD by telephone at about 1730 on 24 October. The memo on it (image 3):

“At about 0300 hours local, a B-52 that was about 39 miles northwest of Minot AFB and was making practice penetrations sighted an unidentified blip on their radar. Initially the target traveled approximately 2½ mile in 3 sec or at about 3,000 mi/hr. After passing from the right to the left of the plane it assumed a position off the left wing of the 52. The blip stayed off the left wing for approximately 20 miles at which point it broke off. Scope photographs were taken. When the target was close to the B-52 neither of the two transmitters in the B-52 would operate properly but when it broke off both returned to normal function.”

The base’s message of 29 October: “THE ECHO RAPIDLY CLOSED ON THE AIRCRAFT AND REMAINED AT ABOUT 1 MILE. AT THIS MOMENT THE UHF TRANSMISSION FROM THE B-52 TO RAPCON WAS INTERRUPTED IN MID-SENTENCE.” (image 13) And: “RADAR SCOPE PHOTOS WERE OBTAINED AND CLEARLY SHOW THE RADAR ECHO. AS SOON AS THE ECHO DISAPPEARED THE B-52 UHF TRANSMITTER BECAME OPERATIONAL.” (image 14)

On the tape the controller tells the bomber “you’re very very weak on 271.3” (image 31). Once the crew can transmit again (images 31–32):

aircraft: “Our UFO was off to our left there when we started penetration”

controller: “Roger understand you did see something on your left side”

aircraft: “We had a radar return at about a mile and a quarter nine o’clock position for about the time we left 200 to about 14”

aircraft: “He was about 1½ miles off our left wing at 35 miles when we started in and he stayed with us ’til about 10”

controller: “I wonder if that could have been your radio troubles”

aircraft: “I don’t know.... but that’s exactly when they started”

In the call of 31 October Werlich described the scope (image 24): “He didn’t take scope photos at first until the pilot said why don’t you take some photos. This was towards the end.” “Each scope photos is three seconds.” “The blip changes shape, round, rectangular, etc.” The FTD’s sequence of events gives the photographs’ times with “(scope photo)” as its source: “0406:15 B-52 scope photos start”, “0406:51 B-52 scope photos end” (image 99). The same sequence has the bomber lose its transmission at 0358 and regain it “between 0400-0402” (image 99), and by the base’s message the transmitter worked again as soon as the echo disappeared. By those times the photographs were taken four to six minutes after the echo disappeared; the file does not reconcile the two (our reading).

The photographs are not in the file as published: the note on image 2 says the case includes 13 of them, and none of the 107 images in the catalogue is one.

What the crew saw

The base’s message (image 14):

“WHATEVER CAUSED THE ECHO WAS NOT VISUALLY SIGHTED BY THE AIRCRAFT CREW MEMBERS NOR WAS IT SEEN BY THE TOWER OPERATOR WHO WAS FOLLOWING THE AIRCRAFT PROGRESS THROUGH BINOCULARS.”

Later in the approach, the message goes on, “THE INSTRUCTOR PILOT, SITTING IN THE RIGHT SEAT, VISUALLY SIGHTED AN OBJECT AHEAD AND BELOW”, and “THE OBJECT SEEMED TO REMAIN STATIONARY AND CLOSE TO THE GROUND.” The pilot’s own description, on his questionnaire (image 89):

“As I turned on to downwind leg in the traffic pattern I saw a bright orange ball of light at my one o’clock position. It appeared to be about 15 miles away, and either on the ground or just slightly above the ground. The light remained stationary as we flew toward it. I turned onto base leg about one mile to the south of the light and was above it. The light did not move during this time.”

He gives the time as 04:30 to 04:35, Central time (image 86). The FTD’s discussion (image 104):

“Initial report indicated a simultaneous ground visual and air visual at about 0335 local. This was not substantiated by the pilot’s form 117. The pilot indicated he sighted an unidentified light at about 0435 local.”

Two handwritten notes in the file, by an unknown hand, question his time: beside it on the form, “should be 0335 CDT?” (image 86), and at the head of the tape transcript, “Apparently he made a mistake of 1hr. in det. local time?” (image 30). In the call of 31 October, between his sentences on the scope photographs, Werlich also said: “They had it visually all the way down.” (image 24) The record of the call does not say whether he meant the scope or the window (our reading).

The ground radar

The base’s message says the dispatcher notified “THE TOWER OPERATOR AND RAPCON”; a handwritten note beside it, by an unknown hand, reads “did not paint anything” (image 12). Werlich on 31 October (image 22): “RAPCON was painting, IFF equipment was operating in the airplane. It’s a fairly good size blip. Every time it sweeps it shows the blip. The object would have been covered by the blip. There is a Sage site to the south. They do not remember having any unidentified paints. The only one I have is the one on the plane”.

The only other radar on the tape is the weather radar. At 0852Z the controller tells the bomber: “31 the UFO is being picked up by weathers radar also, should be your 1:00 position 3 miles now”; the bomber answers: “We have nothing on our airborne radar and I’m in some pretty thick haze right now and unable to see out that way” (image 30). The FTD: “Nor was any information submitted with regards to the possible visual observation by aircraft at 0335 hours local, radar paint by weathers radar at 0352, or exact time when the B-52 first entered the area of the sightings.” (image 103)

The sightings from the ground

The first report: “a missile maintenance man called in and reported sighting a bright orangish-red object”, and “Fourteen other people in separate locations also reported sighting a similar object.” (image 4) The FTD’s sequence of events runs from 0030, when an airman “sighted light in the east”, to 0518, when the last of the observers “no longer sees light” (images 99–100); those 4 hours 48 minutes are the card’s length of observation (our calculation).

The FTD matched much of this to the bomber: “It is entirely possible that the initial sighting and the subsequent activities of the object were in fact the B-52 accomplishing upper airwork. Later sightings of bright lights and flashing green and white lights, accompanied by a low jet engine sound, correlate with the B-52 making a VOR penetration, low approach, and missed approach.” (image 105) For the rest it named Sirius: “Sirius was the brightest astronomical object in the skies during the period of the sightings.” (image 104)

What the file says about its label

On 29 October Quintanilla telephoned Colonel Pullen at the headquarters of Strategic Air Command. A memo for the record of 30 October gives his view: “I’m (Col Quintanilla) pretty sure it was either caused by an internal radar malfunction that also caused the blip or because of the inversion he might have also picked up an anomalous blip.” It also records: “Col Pullen requested that Col Quintanilla send a preliminary report so that he could give it to General Stewart to get this thing simmered down.” “He requested that Col Quintanilla hit a little heavy on what has happened to other aircraft on occasions like this, this would help to play the issue down.” (image 18)

The plasma enters the file on 1 November, in a memo on a talk with Mr Goff, TDPA, “who is quite familiar with air-borne radars”: “Mr Goff said that from the evidence available at this time it would appear to him that the sightings may have been precipitated by some type of ionized air plasma similar to ball lightning. He felt that a plasma could account for the radar blip, loss of transmission and some of the visual sightings.” (image 26) The same day Quintanilla wired Pullen (image 95):

“IT IS MY FEELINGS, AFTER REVIEWING PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY MONOT, THAT UFO PAINTED BY B-52 ON RADAR AND ALSO OBSERVED VISUALLY BY IP AND PERSONNEL ON GROUND IS MOST PROBABLY A PLASMA OF THE BALL-LIGHTNING CLASS.”

The message ends: “WE WILL STUDY THIS REPORT IN MORE DETAIL WHEN WE RECEIVE THE RAW DATA FROM MINOT.” The date, 1 November 1968, is our reading of its time group “R 012014Z”.

The FTD’s letter of 13 November 1968 (image 98) gives the conclusions “reached after a thorough study of the data submitted to the Foreign Technology Division”: “The B-52 radar contact and the temporary loss of UHF transmission could be attributed to a plasma similar to ball lightning. The air visual from the B-52 could be the star Vega which was on the horizon at the time, or it could be a light on the ground, or possibly a plasma.” And: “No further investigation by the Foreign Technology Division is contemplated.” On the card the plasma is “Possible” (image 1).

The base had ended its message with what it could not explain (image 15):

“FOUR OCCURANCES THAT CANNOT BE CORRELATED OR EXPLAINED AT THIS LEVEL ARE: (A) WHAT CAUSED THE AIRCRAFT RADAR ECHO. (B) AIRCRAFT LOSS OF UHF TRANSMISSION.”

The third was the bright light seen from the aircraft together with a ground sighting in about the same place, and the fourth the alarms at the Oscar 7 missile site, which “SOUNDED AT WING SECURITY CONTROL” at 0949Z (image 14). Of the lock at Oscar 7 the FTD wrote: “The physical violation of the lock of OSCAR 7 does not seem to be related to UFOs in any way.” (image 98)

The base’s weather report has an item on thunderstorms whose first word cannot be read on the scan, followed by “A MODERATE TEMPERATURE INVERSION FROM APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET ABOVE THE SURFACE TO APPROXIMATELY 5,000 FEET” (image 11).

How the account changed in the file

• 24 October, the first report. The FTD duty officer passed on that “the crew of a B-52 had sighted and photographed an UFO” (image 3).
• 29 October, the base’s message. The echo was photographed, but “WHATEVER CAUSED THE ECHO WAS NOT VISUALLY SIGHTED BY THE AIRCRAFT CREW MEMBERS” (image 14).
• 1 November, Quintanilla’s message. The “UFO PAINTED BY B-52 ON RADAR AND ALSO OBSERVED VISUALLY BY IP” is one thing again, “MOST PROBABLY A PLASMA” (image 95).
• 13 November, the FTD. A simultaneous sighting from the ground and the air “was not substantiated by the pilot’s form 117” (image 104); on the card the radar return is “Possible (PLASMA)” (image 1).

Where it was

The pin is OpenStreetMap’s point for Minot Air Force Base (relation 6550288), rounded by us to 48.42° N, 101.34° W. The first report put the bomber “about 39 miles northwest of Minot AFB” when the blip appeared (image 3). The pin marks the base, not the return or the light.

Why this scores where it does

Witnesses: 4. Airmen at several missile sites, a bomber crew and the RAPCON controllers, each named in the file, and questionnaires from the observers and the pilot. Not 5: the FTD matched much of what was seen from the ground to the B-52 and to Sirius, and the crew member at the radar, who took the photographs, left no questionnaire or statement of his own in the file.

Radar: 3. A return on the B-52’s own radar, on the tape in the crew’s words and photographed by the base’s account. Not higher: the ground radars painted nothing unidentified, the weather radar remark rests on one sentence on the tape, and the photographs are not in the file as published.

Optics: 0. The card marks “Photos” as “No” (image 1); the scope photographs are a radar record and count under radar.

Physical trace: 0. The card marks “Physical Evidence” as “No” (image 1).

Multi-channel: 3. A radar return and a failed transmitter on the same aircraft at the same time, and lights seen from the ground and from the aircraft. Not higher: whatever caused the echo was not seen, and the FTD found nothing to show that the sighting from the aircraft coincided with those from the ground.

Documentation: 5. The tape transcript, the base’s message, the observers’ questionnaires, a sequence of events timed to the minute and the FTD’s analysis can all be opened. The missing photographs count under data today.

Anomaly: 3. A return that stayed off the bomber’s wing for miles while its transmitter failed. One radar on one aircraft, and by the file’s own times the photographs come after the echo had gone (our reading).

Data today: 2. No scope photograph, no RAPCON tape and no check of the bomber’s equipment: “The aircraft was not checked out afterwards because the transmission was working.” (image 23)

The overall is 2.4: class C, material gaps.

What would settle it

• The 13 scope photographs, and the “RAPCON TAPES, PHOTOS, and an overlay” that Werlich said he was sending (image 22).
• A check of the B-52’s radar and UHF transmitters; none was made.
• The weather radar’s record for 0352 local, about which, by the FTD’s account, no information was submitted (image 103).