UFOs: AN ANFRACTUOUS PHENOMENON
Keith Basterfield
Part one
Part one
I recently presented this talk to UFO Research (NSW) Incorporated. They have uploaded it to Yotube. You will find it at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2kt0_gPZkc
UFOs: A VARIETY OF
APPROCHES TO INVESTIGATION
I am going to start my talk by
taking a look at four approaches to investigation. Those undertaken by
governments; by science; by private enterprise and by civilian UFO groups.
A1: Firstly that of Governments
Over the years, many world
governments have taken a look at the UFO phenomenon. Perhaps the most well known
explorations are those of the United States, the United Kingdom and France.
However, many other countries, such as Spain, Brazil, New Zealand, and of
course, Australia, have, at times taken a look at the subject.
The term Government, is of
course, very broad. It has, in fact, been very specific areas of Governments
which have been the lead body. In some countries, such as Australia and New
Zealand and the USA, the task was delegated to that country’s Air Force. In
other countries, the task fell to the broader Defence Organisation. In the
United Kingdom, Defence Intelligence Units assisted with both active field
investigations and specialist knowledge. In yet other countries, such as Chile,
civil aviation authorities have been the lead agency.
The French government GEIPAN website |
Whoever has led the
investigation, a similar outcome has eventuated. Governments tell us that
“there is no threat from UFOs to national security.” By saying this, various
Governments have been able to wash their hands of researching the UFO
phenomenon. Governments have been able to withdraw from having a UFO policy; a
UFO study unit, and any ongoing official overt active interest.
On the theme of investigations, I
would now like to take a brief look at a number of cases which were
investigated by various Governments.
Case one:
Japan Airline flight 1628, was a
cargo flight with a crew of three, and north of Anchorage, Alaska about 1700hrs
local time. All three crew members described seeing unusual lights, which at
times illuminated the cockpit.
The captain manoeuvred the
aircraft but the object also turned. At various stages the object was level
with the aircraft; appeared to jump from one area of the sky to another; was
visible on the aircraft’s radar, and could not be identified by the crew.
Sketch drawn by the JAL 1628 pilot |
Investigation:
Federal Aviation Authority
officials, including the Division Chief of the Accidents, Evaluations and
Investigations Division of the FAA, looked into the incident. The relevant
radar data from the ground was obtained. John Callahan, the FAA Division Chief,
found there were primary targets on the radar, which were in roughly the same
time and place as the visual observations.
Interestingly, Callahan in a
write up on the case, in a book by Leslie Kean, said radar specialist were in
conflict as to the cause of the radar data. Hardware engineers said that the
radar target was a software problem, and the software engineers said the target
was a hardware problem.
What did Callahan conclude? “During
the playback of the event I clearly observed a primary radar target in the position
reported by the Japanese pilot. But the radar signals were intermittent because
the UFO was painted as an extremely large primary target and so the FAA
computer system tracked the UFO radar return as weather. Regardless, the target
could be seen near the 747 on and off for thirty one minutes.”
So that was Callahan’s viewpoint.
However, what was the official US FAA conclusion? “The final FAA report
concluded that the radar returns from Anchorage were simply a split image due
to a malfunction in the radar equipment, which showed occasional second blips
that had been mistaken for a UFO…it was just coincidence that the split image
matched the UFOs position.”
Case two:
A film crew aboard a New Zealand
freighter aircraft, and its crew, observed and filmed a number of apparently
anomalous lights in the sky. Unusual radar returns were also reported. US UFO
researcher Bruce Maccabee visited New Zealand, interviewed visual observation
witnesses; obtained radar and weather details and then published a detailed
research report about the case. However, it is the response of the New Zealand
government that I wish to draw attention to here.
Investigation:
Both the New Zealand Air Force
and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research looked into the
events; interviewing primary witnesses and examining the radar data.
The NZAF stated “The unidentified
radar and visual sightings reported by aircraft and the Air Traffic Control
radars of the north east coast of the south island recently, are the result of
natural but unusual atmospheric phenomena.”
The DSIR prepared a number of
reports by various areas, bearing such impressive titles as “Optical quality of
the windows of Argosy aircraft in relation to photographs with lenses of large
aperture.”
This examined photographs of a bright object taken by the Australian film crew. The DSIR concluded that the object was most likely due to imperfections in the aircraft window causing natural external light sources to appear abnormal.
This examined photographs of a bright object taken by the Australian film crew. The DSIR concluded that the object was most likely due to imperfections in the aircraft window causing natural external light sources to appear abnormal.
A second report “Photometric
properties of an unidentified bright object seen off the coast of New Zealand”
concluded that the most likely source of the bright light was a number of squid
boats on the ocean surface. Their analysis disputed that of Maccabee and
suggested that the observation are not inconsistent with a near stationary
surface object.
Case three:
In Trans-en-Provence, France, a
man watched an unusual object rapidly descending with a whistling sound and
land in his yard.
The object whistled again and
took off. Immediately after its departure a circular ground imprint was noted.
Investigation:
The gendarmerie interviewed the
witness, and collected soil and vegetation samples. The samples were examined
by various government owned laboratories. Analysis of the soil indicated that
strong mechanical pressure had been applied to the soil. Analysis of vegetation
revealed changes to chlorophyll levels and other signs which seemed to suggest
accelerated ageing of plants.
Case four:
On 5 March 2004, a surveillance
aircraft of the Mexican Department of Defence was conducting operations, when
the crew observed “invisible” targets on their infra-red equipment and also
viewed radar targets.
Investigation:
Infra red image - courtesy of Bruce Maccabee's investigation report |
The best documented investigation
was conducted by US researcher Bruce Maccabee. His research indicated that the
first object detected by radar remained unexplained.
However, other radar targets seem
to have been reflective objects on the ground. Many of the forward looking
infra-red sightings were of objects much further away than the aircraft crew
believed.
Some of these may have been
distant oil field, gas burn off flames.
Case five:
In 1989 according to Major
General Wilfried De Brouwer of the Belgium Air Force, there were 143 UFO
sightings, mostly of unusual triangular shapes, in a short period of time. De
Brouwer was head of operations for the Belgium Air Force.
Investigation:
Did the Belgium Air Force
investigate the sightings? The answer is no. Brouwer stated “Although the
defence minister insisted on a transparent approach, especially to show the
public that there was no cover up, the Air Force was not authorized to
establish a dedicated office for conducting its own inquiries.”
So what happened? The
investigations were conducted by a civilian UFO group, SOBEPS, supported by the
Belgium Air Force. Between the two, scientific investigations were conducted.
Numerous incidents remained unexplained at the end of these investigations.
These five examples show the diverse responses by national governments
to reported UFO events. The US government was dismissive; the New Zealand
government suggested mundane causes; the French government conducted a serious
investigation; the Belgium government cooperated with a civilian UFO group, and
the Mexican government was embarrassed.
Section A2 – Secondly, the approach of science
Science as a field of human
endeavour had its big chance to contribute to our knowledge of the UFO
phenomenon, back in the 1960’s. It blew the opportunity.
I doubt if many of you in the
audience have read the full report of the University of Colorado’s multi year,
and multi hundred thousand dollar study of UFOs.
The United States Air Force paid
for what was supposed to be a scientific review of the subject, but
specifically whether or not UFOs were a threat to national security, and
whether the further study of UFOs would contribute anything to scientific
knowledge? The report concluded “no” and “no” to these questions. However, the
study report was flawed as the overall conclusion did not reflect the rest of
the content. About one third of the cases studied remained unidentified after
analysis.
Since then, science as a field of
study, has not undertaken another detailed look at the topic. There are
however, individual scientists who have privately studied the subject, and many
of these who do, find the phenomenon has unexplained aspects. I’d like to
briefly mention two such individual scientists of whom you may not be aware.
Harley D Rutledge was the Chairman of the Physics Department of the
Southeast Missouri State University. He became aware of a number of UFO reports
coming in from the Piedmont area of his state. There were reports of stalled
cars, television signal interference, and crowds of people were swarming to
that area every night to see the UFOs.
As a scientist at a university, and
thinking of his career, Rutledge debated whether or not to investigate
personally. But he and others at the university ultimately decided they would
investigate. They made an initial trip to the area and saw some unusual lights
for themselves. They observed anomalous lights both from the ground and from an
aircraft. Over the next several months, some 35 scientists, engineers, students
and others associated with the university studied the phenomenon using a
variety of scientific equipment. They were able to measure angular size,
angular velocity and calculate the height of some of these lights.
Front cover of Rutledge's book |
This Project demonstrated that a
scientific team with equipment could see, photograph and obtain data on
numerous anomalous lights and a lesser number of structured objects, some seen
during the day.
Another scientist, Frank B Salisbury was a US researcher in botany
and biochemistry at the University of Utah. There were a series of both daytime
and nocturnal observations of both lights and structured objects, some at close
range. As a scientist, he decided to go to the area concerned and conduct
personal interviews and research. He
later wrote “I could not think of any reasonable explanation to account for the
objects sighted in the Unitah basin except for extra-terrestrial machinery.”
He also stated “The UFOs in the
Unitah basin wanted to be seen. They performed for their witnesses. They put on
a display. When we examine UFO accounts, however, we encounter events that just
don’t seem to fit within our understanding of natural laws.”
Front cover of Salisbury's book |
In summary, individual scientists have undertaken field investigations
and found there are indeed anomalies to investigate.
(Continued in part 2.)
2016 update
I gave this talk to UFO Research (NSW) Incorporated in 2016 and you may watch it at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2kt0_gPZkc
(Continued in part 2.)
2016 update
I gave this talk to UFO Research (NSW) Incorporated in 2016 and you may watch it at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2kt0_gPZkc
The recent US media disclosure relating to the USS Nimitz and CVA-11 aircraft, which encountered unidentified objects on radar cameras in the San Diego OPAREA seem to be an unusual event which may have further information in the Deck Logs, Command Operation Reports and Major Exercise Reports. There does seem to be a CVA-11 Event Summary that is on line.
ReplyDeleteBut is this record an official document? The Carrier should have had an escort screen of destroyers that may have also tracked the objects? Maybe the ships were engaged in an operation or exercise to test their response to various areal or underwater craft? Perhaps a holographic projection or something similar?
Hi anonymous, thanks for these thoughts. It certainly seems to me that the Event Summary is an official document. I understand that various US researchers are hot on the trail of deck and other logs.
ReplyDelete