UFO Conjecture(s)

Friday, June 17, 2016

The 1968 Minot UFO Incident

Destination America [TV channel] had a recap, last night [6/16/16] of the October 1968 Minot UFO incident that has absorbed our pal Tim Herbert, who finds the Minot UFO sightings intriguing:


UFO Casebook (from whom the rendering above comes) has noted the sighting also and an earlier one too::



Robert Hastings, too, has found these UFO cases to have high interest because the episodes involve an airbase that housed nuclear missiles, which seem to have been compromised by the appearance of the UFOs.

Picture from Earthfiles.com:

While some maintain that the UFOs were an extraterrestrial intrusion, I agree, somewhat, in that I propose the UFOs were machine intelligence controlled, either from within, or were AI machines themselves, in toto, from another galactic alien civilization (or perhaps from time or another dimension), probing for like intelligence.

That is, the UFOs were, like their often seen/reported counterparts, AI machines looking to communicate with what they, the machines, thought were AI machines -- the nuclear facility and its missiles -- tethered to the ground.

This case is one that shows us several things, the absurd explanation of it by Blue Book and the impeccable veracity of the military witnesses, with radar confirmations and visual sightings.

That the UFOs did no intrinsic harm to the missiles themselves, or the facility (and its staffed participants) tells me that it was a machine-inspired probe to determine if the technology at Minot was AI oriented, or a like-form [sic] of machine intelligence that UFOs seem to be looking for. (See previous postings here on this.)

Maybe Tim will elaborate on the sighting for me/us. They, the Minot cases, may be a Zoam Chomsky quagmire.



  • The link that is in your post concerning one of my blog posts deals with an earlier Minot incident that may have happened between 1965 and 1967. This was a Hastings' favorite that featured the late David Schuur who was on alert at one of the Minuteman launch control centers. Per the my blog post, I believe that the incident was purely a system anomaly due to a faulty Sensitive Command Network interface giving the spurious commander console displays such as "Enabled", "Launch in Process", etc. Obviously Hastings disagrees.

    The 1968 UFO incident is a totally different animal. My blog site has numerous posts analyzing the event...I'm still working on the case and will have more posted on the site by the end of the month.

    All one has to do is search the site for Minot 1968 UFO and all of the post should come up.

    I'm afraid that I have to disagree with an AI component as a possible culprit. What we have is merely 4 individuals on the ground at a launch facility that appear to have mistaken stellar objects (Rigel, Sirius, etc) as a UFO, as well as, mis-identifying the B-52 overflight as the UFO or separate UFO. This is all readily apparent when you read the AF-117 observation reports for each individual.

    The B-52 pilot and co-pilot, in my opinion, observed a UFO hovering, stationary, not moving, on the ground which was November 07 (launch facility) with it's topside site lights on.

    The B-52 radar return is interesting. It was indeed captured on radar and photographed by the crew (scope view) and calculated to be making maneuvers at impossible speeds and pacing the aircraft for up to 20 miles traveled distance. Despite all of the above, no one on the the ground saw any object making high speed maneuvers, nor did the ground observers see any object pacing or trailing the B-52. The highest estimated speed by the ground observers ranged from 100 knots to 175 knots per hour.

    Anyways, that's where I'm at currently...and no AI component fits so far.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 17, 2016  

  • Thanks, Tim...

    I defer to your exhaustive examination of both Minot accounts.

    You write:

    "What we have is merely 4 individuals on the ground at a launch facility that appear to have mistaken stellar objects (Rigel, Sirius, etc) as a UFO, as well as, mis-identifying the B-52 overflight as the UFO or separate UFO. This is all readily apparent when you read the AF-117 observation reports for each individual."

    Aren't you alarmed (or curious) that Air Force personnel could be so mistaken in their observation; that is, they seem to have mistaken prosaic things for something peculiar?

    You are too quick to dismiss the AI possibility.

    Is your position that there was no UFO incursion in Minot in the 1965-67 time-frame nor in the 1968 incident?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 17, 2016  

  • Rich: "Aren't you alarmed (or curious) that Air Force personnel could be so mistaken in their observation; that is, they seem to have mistaken prosaic things for something peculiar?"

    All 4 ground observers on N-07 were highly capable young men...2 of them well trained security troopers...yet, this does not make them infallible. Even the base UFO officer investigating the incident wrote that it was amazing that all 4 of the observers appeared to describe the B-52 as the UFO even though all were aware that the aircraft was to be in the area reconnoitering. This does not make them foolish, but human in their individual attempts to understand what was happening in the dead of night.

    "You are too quick to dismiss the AI possibility"

    In what way? There is nothing that describes anything artificial or intelligent responsible for the sightings. The radar return captured by the aircraft? The radar unit was never pulled from the aircraft for checkout, so we'll never know for certain that there was a problem with the system or not. That does not completely rule out AI, but as of now there is no clear evidence of such.

    " Is your position that there was no UFO incursion in Minot in the 1965-67 time-frame nor in the 1968 incident?"

    As of now, barring no other pieces of information or evidence, I have to say that there was NO UFO incursions that would have involved foreign technology, ie, Soviet or ET. With that said something was seen by AF personnel (I don't believe that all of this was made up).

    Now, base upon new scientific evidence presented on the characteristics and formation of Ball lightning, I need to revisit this. BTW, PBB casually concluded ball lightning as a possible cause of the sightings. So this may still be a viable option or theory to persue.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 17, 2016  

  • Ball lightning, Tim, is as foolish to me, as AI is to you.

    And I liked the scene in Houston's Moby Dick (with Gregory Peck) where Ahab grabs hold of St. Elmo's fire to sanctify his harpoon.

    The Minot case(s) fascinate, only insofar as I see an AI patina.

    Yet, as you say, the sightings need more examination.

    (I understand Bob Hastings' concerns.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 17, 2016  

  • "The Minot case(s) fascinate, only insofar as I see an AI patina."

    Then I suspect that these cases will cease to fascinate you, but from a psychological standpoint you should find some fodder hidden in these cases.

    And prey tell what is Hastings' concerns?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 17, 2016  

  • Hastings thinks UFOS (ETs) are trying to disable nuclear sites, no?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 17, 2016  

  • Hastings thinks UFOS (ETs) are trying to disable nuclear sites, no?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 17, 2016  

  • I've systematically shown that such notions are absurd. Since the advent of the atomic bombs dropped over Japan, we have systematically advanced in the technology for the delivery systems needed for the employment of nuclear warheads. The facts show that nothing has hindered this ability.

    If Hastings' theory was correct then we would be at a stand still in the design, development and fielding of our land base ICBMs/sub based ICBMs. If Hastings is correct then I submit that our galactic overseers are impotent and flaccid in stopping us.

    Besides, nuclear weapons are on the verge of being passe. What could be done by an air burst nuclear device can easily and cheaply be done by someone sitting at a computer keyboard hacking into electric grids bringing down our communication, military and financial institutions.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, June 17, 2016  

  • This is why I posit the AI supposition, Tim...

    Machine intelligence, probing Earth, might think that a nuclear facility, with all its computer sophistication, is a thinking entity.

    Elon Muck, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and other notables think that AI machines are inevitable, and "dangerous" which lets me extrapolate that an advanced civilization might have been taken over by its machines, which set out to probe the universe for entities like themselves. (See, I even give them some human quality by referring to such machines as them.)

    Hastings has proffered a raft of UFO sightings that make his proposition -- UFOs are probing our nuclear facilities, for what reason? -- not unreasonable.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, June 17, 2016  

  • This is interesting - I didn't know Tim that you had an interest in these ICBM base incursions but now it makes sense.

    I can imagine USAF security personnel mistaking something as a possible threat. Their job after all is to anticipate and react to threats...not scientifically ponder and evaluate what is happening.

    If true, then a B-52 could be mistaken as a flying object depending on angle of view, direction of flight, and lighting on the aircraft.

    Most of us have seen commercial airliners coming in from a particular angle where it seems as though they are hovering in one place for a very long time. The image is deceptive especially at night.

    What do you make of the Soviet incursions of a similar kind if not identical to those reported here?

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Saturday, June 18, 2016  

  • Nope, no quagmire. In short, like most "UFO" stories, none of it really happened the way it was reported or has been mythologized by mystery-mongers over decades.

    We have THE expert on this case right here. And this "UFO"-over-missile-base story is just one of several from the time involving the misidentification of ambiguous lights as threats coincident with the appearance of missile system gremlins. I'd call them all "small group scares." Human beings confined, stressed, at night, are going to experience occasional group scares, temporary confusion and panic, which are then brought under control. Decades of rumor and confabulation turn these mundane events into "UFO" stories.

    "Did it really happen?" I doubt it!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, June 18, 2016  

  • Brian,

    My blog was originally designed to refute Robert Hastings and Robert Salas regarding the Malmstrom AFB UFO events of 16 and 25 March 1967. After that, I took the blog towards other areas of interest from a skeptics point of view. The 1968 Minot incident is an example.

    Malmstrom was of key interest to me due to my having been assigned there to the alert force. I was a launch officer with Minuteman IIs in the 490th Strategic Missile Squadron which happened to be Salas' squadron though we were 14 years apart being on station.

    If one takes the time to read all of the observational reports, the AF-117s, it is clear that the maintenance and security personnel on site an the launch facility N-07 mistook the B-52 as being the UFO that was originally sighted. Keep in mind that the observation was first reported to the various Minot base agencies at 3 am and lasted until around 430 if not a little longer. Minot's UFO Officer, LtCol Werlich, noted to PBB that he was somewhat taken back that the ground observers appeared to mistaken the aircraft as that being the original UFO source.

    As far as the source of the "hovering UFO" as seen by the B-52 pilot and co-pilot (highly qualified and experienced), I believe that what they saw on the ground was N-07 brightly lit up due to the site lights on which was noted by the AF-117 report given by one of the security cops. So we have a very plausible explanation that rules out the hovering UFO scenario.

    I've seen nothing at this point in time that the Soviets had the capability to perform incursions over US ICBM facilities. Both the US and Soviets were well on the way towards performing recon missions via satellites. When I was a staff officer assigned to the missile wing at Grand Forks, ND, I did not come across any UFO type of excursions. Due to the nature of my job, I would have been in on the loop both formally and informally.

    Our friend Rich seems to think that these types of episodes may support an ET-type AI probe. Though I don't discount the AI probe theory in general, I believe that the Malmstrom and Minot cases do not support such a premise.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Saturday, June 18, 2016  

  • Tim,

    Just to be clear, the SP's mistook a B-52 for a UFO for an hour and half?
    At what range did they report the UFO to be?

    I know the B-52s did low level work back then, but there would certainly be lots of engine noise from those 8 engines and there would be position lights as well. I find it kind of hard for anyone, especially Air Force SPs to make such and error. Night observation work would be routine every day job.

    Can you explain further?


    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Sunday, June 19, 2016  

  • Bryan,

    Rather than going into a long in-depth review, I've provided a couple of links to my blog posts the looks at the observations of the missile maintenance team and the missile security response team.



    Hopefully the above links will explain further about the observations.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, June 19, 2016  

  • Tim's links, above, are very interesting.

    Tom Tulien gives Tim a respectful and thorough counter; that is Tulien presents excellent "answers" to Tim's \evaluation of the sighting(s).

    The whole (ongoing) colloquy shows how a UFO sighting should be adjudicated by those interested in a particular sighting.

    I walk away from Tim's case study still enamored of a real UFO sighting, one indicating an AI presence or intelligent surveillance by a UFO or UFOs, with ample, reliable witness testimony.

    Tim disagrees, and I have to weight to his views. He has an expertise about the locale and military machinations.

    Yet, military men, misperceiving the star Sirius and the fly-by and landing of a B-52 for an odd, UFO-like incursion boggles the mind.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 19, 2016  

  • Rich,

    Tom Tulien and I have had a running dialogue for a couple of years. For the most part, it has been polite disagreement. Just two guys attempting to make sense of the case. I have high regards for Tulien and his work.

    A few months ago, Tom and I met and visited for about two hours. He being in the San Diego area visiting and sight seeing. Tom made an interesting observation that given all of the complexities of the Minot case, at the end of the day it tells us very little about the UFO phenomena.

    Minot case is a good example of the devil being in the details. Its way too easy for most people to say that this case demonstrates a 100 percent sure reality of UFOs. One has to get down in the mud...deconstruct and then reconstruct thus examining as much of the parts as feasible.

    Of course I view the case in total as a good exercise in psychology, yet with an eye to the issues concerning the aircraft's radar return. My expertise was ICBM command and control. I was not a pilot nor a radar navigator. I did have a conversation with an old B-52H Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) who made a decent observation concerning the aircraft's capabilities to actually track any object traveling at 3000-plus mph...such things may exceed the radar's specifications thus rendering the return as suspect. But of course that is mere supposition at this point in time.

    I did reference your idea concerning AI-like probes as maybe a new area to ponder. Maybe this will be a new niche to expand on...we'll have to see.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, June 19, 2016  

  • Your work on this, and Tom's, is exemplary and, again, an example of how a UFO case or sighting should be dissected.

    I hope readers here give your links and postings (plus comments) a look-see.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, June 19, 2016  

  • >> the team was providing aboveground security for a Target Alignment Team working underground in the missile silo when they observed a large glowing object that "went down by some trees not far away."<<

    Bright meteors often appear to fall nearby when they're actually miles away. And all it takes is one report of an ambiguous light to initiate a "UFO" group scare.

    Once the latent "UFO" delusion erupts, every bright star and planet becomes suspect, glows brighter, changes colors, appears to move, comes closer, even takes chase--all in the mind of the frightened.

    >> RAPCON ground controllers then asked the crew to “look out toward your 1:00 [one o’clock] position for the next 15 or 16 miles and see if you see any orange glows out there. Somebody is seeing flying saucers again.”<<

    That single sentence should tell one all he needs to know about this case and many others.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Sunday, June 19, 2016  

  • Zoam,

    You've touched on my next installment where I will discuss the RAPCON transcript. One of my premises is that the psychological seed is planted for the B-52 crew with "Somebody is seeing flying saucers again."

    There is no evidence to support that a targeting team was on any of the sites in question. This came up during an interview with James Bond conduct some 40 years later. O-06 had a security camper team on site (top side) due to a faulty security system. (a common occurrence) We have no idea what they saw, if anything, due to the fact that they were never interviewed. Why this was so remains a mystery. This goes as well for some of the other security personnel at other flight areas that are listed by the Wing Security Controllers log are indicated to have seen something, yet they are never interviewed.

    The Minot case is an example of one of the better AF UFO investigations with up-channeling reports to PBB personnel, yet there are missed opportunities to gather more extensive information.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, June 19, 2016  

  • Hi Tim:

    RE: "no evidence to support that a targeting team was on any of the sites." Actually, there is no evidence (or discussion in the documentation) that there was a faulty security system at Oscar-6 LF. In fact there are really only two reasons why a camper security team would be posted to a launch facility. Either the security system was malfunctioning or the nuclear warhead was exposed due to maintenance or re-targeting. Neither did November FSC Bond provide this information, rather, Oscar-Flight Security Controller S/Sgt. William Smith recalled this to be the case in two separate interviews, which can be read on line at the Minot web site. In addition, in his AF-117, Smith clearly identifies the camper team at O-6 observing a UFO at 2:15 am, 15 minutes before he observes the UFO to the south at 2;30 in the vicinity of O-6. At the exact same time, the maintenance team of O'Connor and Isley independently report the observation of a UFO to the east of their location 5 miles north of N-7, which is precisely in line with O-6. Quite rare that one finds sufficiently documented (independent) sighting triangulation. Based on the documentation the initial sighting was at 2:15, followed at 2:30 by Smith and also the maintenance team en-route to N-7. What is curious to me is why the Wing Security Controller omitted the observation time for the camper team at O-6 and the PBB investigation ignored these observations prior to 3:00 am, and why you do as well.

    Kind regards, Tom

    By Blogger Tom Tulien, at Friday, July 01, 2016  

  • Hi Tim again:

    Sorry, just want to try to clarify....

    You quote me as saying: "at the end of the day it tells us very little about the UFO phenomena." Perhaps this is a bit out of context. I do contend the study of individual cases after the fact can only tell us that some UFOs defy conventional explanations. But, in this regard the case provides a considerable amount of information. In fact the documentation reveals SAC interest to the highest level and includes quantifiable evidence in the form of the radarscope photos. In this regard the web site provides two extensive analyses of the scope photos by qualified individuals, Martin Shough, and Claude Poher. The over 100 pages of documentation include communications transcripts between SAC and Blue Book that provide insight and attitudes into the investigation. In these and other regards the case is unique compared to the majority and provides an opportunity to examine a 3-hour UFO event in some detail. At the least it provides a considerable (say best-case) amount of information to determine for oneself whether it is convincing.

    RE: 3,000 miles per hour. This was the conclusion of the 5th BMW intelligence officer Clark's analysis following the event. (He recalls 3900). You need to understand that the scope camera recorded single frame three-second time-exposures. This estimate was based on the fact that the return moved from 3 nmi off the left wing of the B-52 to about 1 within one frame advance. In effect, 2 miles within 3 seconds. One would assume that to accomplish this the UFO would actually have to accelerate to 6,000 mph and a decelerate to the forward speed of the B-52 at 320 mph- while also altering its trajectory to match the trajectory of the descending B-52.

    Kind regards, Tom

    By Blogger Tom Tulien, at Friday, July 01, 2016  

  • Hi Tim:

    I was thinking about this today...

    The observations prior to 3:00 am would have included the two-man camper team to O-6, FSC Smith at O-1 LCF ( though Smith was off-duty at the time he was the senior NCO and hanging out in the office with the on-duty FSC and two-man SAT of Bajiar and Vennedall). He recalls the three-man targeting team at O-6 also observed the UFO near the LF and informed his (Oscar) missile combat crew downstairs that they were closing the site as a result and returning to base. At 2:30 Smith reported his observation to T/Sgt Bowles at Wing Security Control. The maintenance team of O'Connor and Isley en-route to N-7 reported their observation at 2:30 to Transportation Control and Base Operations. So, there was in effect eleven primary observers of a UFO at three distinct locations from 2:15-2:30 and additionally three commissioned officers plus Transportation Control and the Base Operations dispatcher (as well as RAPCON) that were notified of these observations. In other words, there were at least 16 witnesses that could have attested to UFO observations prior to 3:00 am. Only three of these (O'Connor, Isley, and Smith) were interviewed during the PBB investigation and completed AF-117's.
    Minot PBB investigating officer Lt. Col. Werlich chose to neglect the information he obtained during his interviews with these three witnesses regarding observations prior to 3:00 am. Who could blame him given the situation. Clearly, Werlich was a competent and experienced officer in charge of Base Operations and a B-52 pilot himself. This was his first UFO investigation and he was denied technical assistance by SAC headquarters. There is no indication in his investigation that celestial objects could have been a cause of the ground observations. Rather, his unconvincing conclusion was that the observers were reporting the B-52. (However, it needs to be said that B-52's do not fly around with their landing lights illuminated. In fact, the landing lights are automatically turned on only when the landing gear is engaged, and B-52's don't fly with gear down. A B-52 is not an illuminated object in the night sky and in any case would not be visible above 9,000 feet due to the extensive cloud cover that night). For example from the Basic Reporting Data:
    "Col Werlich said he was trying to take a positive approach towards this investigation. Almost 80 per cent were looking at the B-52. If you take a look at an aircraft at 20,000 ft, then you wouldn’t see much but I’m an to place logic in that it was there and what they saw was there. There is enough there that it is worth looking at. Nobody can definitely say that these people definitely saw the aircraft, but within reason they probably saw it. Lt Marano told Col Werlich that SAC was giving us trouble because they wanted to know what we are doing. Thursday afternoon I (Col Werlich) called, with the personal opinion that we needed technical assistance at that time and that is what we requested and we didn’t get it and we have tried to do what we could. Gen Hollingsworth is interested."
    The impression is that Werlich is struggling to explain the observations as the B-52. In any case, the B-52 did not return to the Minot area until 3:00 am where it remained at altitudes well above 20,000 feet executing instrumented procedures. The only way he could explain the ground observations being the B-52 would be to discount the reports that began 45 minutes before the arrival of the B-52. And I do argue, the triangulation of the UFO in the immediate vicinity of O-6 at 2:15-2:30.

    Kind regards, Tom

    By Blogger Tom Tulien, at Sunday, July 03, 2016  

  • Tom,

    Much appreciated that you've jumped into the conversation. Rich just sent me an email letting me know that you've added comments. Unfortunately, I've been extremely busy with work and other things, but will respond fully to your comments. But will quickly address your comment concerning O-06 and the CAT team.

    True there is nothing documented to state exactly why they were posted to the site, but it is easy to make the assumption that they were there for security reasons...that is what a CAT team provides...nothing else. CATs were posted for faulty OZ and IZ systems. They can provide security for maintenance teams when necessary freeing up the dispatch of a separate security team accompanying a maintenance team. Yet, there is no evidence to back up any assertions that a CTT was on site conducting a targeting and re-alignment task only speculation approached 40 years later. This could have been cleared up by having access to missile maintenance (Job Control) logs for the night in question, but we don't have those logs and nothing is seen in the numerous MFRs back and forth with Minot and PBB.

    Where is the AF-117s for the CTT? There are none. So we can make another reasonable assumption that such team was not on site.

    If there was both an OZ/IZ problem on O-06 then per SAC policy there would have been two CATs posted...one for the OZ and one for the IZ. Since only one CAT was posted on site then we can reasonably assume that one of the zones was malfunctioning. Based on historical documentation and personal experience, I'm willing to bet that it was more than likely a faulty OZ system that had failed to reset.

    I agree with your basic assessment of Smiths AF-117, but have been perplexed as to what was meant by his initial sighting in an "adjacent area. Could he had meant at that time in reference to November Flight? That seems possible. The CAT team? Smith never specifically mentions the CAT team in his AF-117, but it is true that the "after my sentry sighted it" refers to the CAT...or, he could have originally been referring to the on duty SAT team still on O-01. That is possible, despite what he had recalled 40 years later.

    True, the wing security controller log shows no times listed for any observations by the CAT on O-06...this is a mystery to me. I see that Wherlich made no attempts to have the CAT fill out an AF-117...another mystery as well. This goes the same for the other FSCs and security teams listed on the log with exception to November and Oscar.

    More to follow later...

    Best and king regards,


    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, July 03, 2016  

  • Thanks Tim:

    Right. Smith's wording is a bit confusing but he includes a map indicating his position and the position of the UFO in the immediate vicinity of O-6 (which is also consistent with the locations provided in the interviews).

    Smith AF-117, #14. What drew your attention to the phenomenon?: "I was notified it had been seen in an adjacent area. I alerted my [sentries]. The object was first seen in the southern part of my area by a posted sentry. I directed my gaze south of my position and saw the object about fifteen minutes after my sentry sighted it."


    I have no reason to doubt Smith's recall of the targeting team at O-6 or question why he would confabulate this aspect of the events.




    On the other hand, there is no evidence (basis for the assumption) that the camper team was posted at O-6 as a result of alarm malfunctions. But, regardless, this claim has no affect on the reports of the UFO and, and, therefore, quite willing to accept there were only eight primary observers of the UFO from 2:15-2:30.

    We have been through this previously without resolution and I think you are equivocating on this. Are the facts simply inconvenient?

    Kind regards, tom

    By Blogger Tom Tulien, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • Tom,

    "We have been through this previously without resolution and I think you are equivocating on this. Are the facts simply inconvenient?"

    I only provided my POV since YOU brought it up in one of your comments.

    You seem worried that I'm painting Smith as confabulating some 40 years later which is not the case. Smith did not initially volunteer any thoughts of a CTT on O-6. You or Klotz planted that idea when you interviewed him. The same goes with your interview with Bond...you were searching for an "elusive" CTT that for all practical purposes seems not to have existed on the the night in question.

    Hypothetically, let's say that your assertions are correct that a CTT was on O-06. We now assume that O-6 had a faulty O/Z or I/Z and the CAT was previously posted to the site. The presence of the CAT (Camper Alert Team) alleviates the need for assigning a two-man security team to accompany the dispatched CTT.

    Now ask yourself, "Why would a CTT be on site?" Targeting and alignment...nothing else. So the crucial question may be what preceded the need for the CTT? Missile (booster) placement leading to a full site build-up? Missile guidance system replacement? RV placement? Maybe a SIOP revision with new target requirements? All of these efforts require numerous maintenance teams to had been on that site during the day leading up to the late evening. Smith never mentions that a major maintenance effort was on going during the day leading up to the UFO sighting...did he? This is why I discount the presence of a CTT.

    Of course, the missing observation times listed on the Wing Security Controller's log could also be interpreted that nothing was reported from the CAT because they saw NOTHING.

    But in the end, we both probably agree that O-6 played no important role in the UFO incident...I say the same for O-07's intrusion alarms. So we can at least agree with that.

    Hope your 4th of July was relaxing. It was my wife's birthday as well.

    Kind regards,


    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, July 06, 2016  

  • Hi Tim:

    RE: "Smith did not initially volunteer any thoughts of a CTT on O-6. You or Klotz planted that idea when you interviewed him."

    I take a reasonable offense to your accusation in this instance. Smith was interviewed on two occasions, initially by Jim on 11 July 2001 by telephone, and again in August 2011 by Jim and I, which was videotaped at Smith's home. Prior to Smith bringing this up on his own we were ignorant of the situation at O-6. This fact can be verified by a careful reading of the 11 July interview. The first mention of a targeting team is on page 6 and again starting on page 10 of that interview. Anyone can make their own determination whether your accusation is justified. See following:


    It should be apparent from my previous post that I think the situation at O-6 was important in establishing the initial UFO report at 2:15, which results in an independent triangulation of observations at 2:30, and relocation of the UFO to the south of N-7 by 3:00 am. Based on the documentation this clearly establishes the beginning of the timeline. I see no justification that the O-7 break-in had anything to do with the UFO observations per se, though the timing of the break-in is certainly suspicious.

    It was an uneventful 4th up here...

    kind regards, Tom

    By Blogger Tom Tulien, at Thursday, July 07, 2016  

  • Hi Tom,

    I'm well pleased that you had a decent 4th.

    Off course you have proof that there was a CTT on O-6? You seemed to have conveniently brushed over, or ignore, my hypothesis of why a CTT would have been on the site and the maintenance troops that would have been on the site a mere few hours prior to this escapade.

    Regardless, we have something tangible to agree on as far as the importance, or lack of, of the 2 LFs importance regarding the UFO incident.

    Kind regards,


    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, July 07, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home