On November 17, 1986, the Japanese crew of a JAL Boeing 747 cargo freighter witnessed threeunidentified objects after sunset, while flying over eastern Alaska, USA. The objects seemed toprefer the cover of darkness to their left, and to avoid the brighter skies to their right. At least thefirst two of the objects were observed by all three crew members: Captain Kenju Terauchi, an exfighterpilot with more than 10,000 hours flight experience in the cockpit's left-hand seat; copilotTakanori Tamefuji in the right-hand seat; and flight engineer Yoshio Tsukuba.Now we have access to the official FAA investigation file and can see what really happened!

Concise Analysis

Although it's not uncommon for pilots to witness UFOs, the case of Japan Airlines flight 1628 is remarkable for involving a prolonged and dramatic close encounter corroborated by multiple radar systems. The witnesses’ story attracted both media and government interest, and the resulting investigation unearthed a wealth of supporting evidence, including extensive radar data and radio transcripts that document official handling of the situation. The case is a stand-out example of an airline UFO encounter, and it tells us a lot about the ways in which the FAA, the airlines, and even the US intelligence community, work behind the scenes to manage what we hear about UFOs.

The crew entered Alaskan airspace shortly after 5 p.m. local time, and the Anchorage Air Traffic Control Center ordered them to fly in the direction of Talkeetna airport, north of the city. As the crew began their turn, they immediately noticed a light in the direction they were headed. Once they’d completed the turn, they saw multiple lights at 11 o'clock at an estimated altitude of 35,000 feet, or 10,600 meters: just below their plane. The lights were moving at about 660 mph, or 900 kmph, in the exact same direction as the plane, so that they appeared to be standing still from inside the cockpit. 

Tamefuji, the co-pilot, radioed Anchorage Center to ask if there were any aircraft in the area, and the controllers confirmed that theirs was the only craft on radar. However, flight Engineer Yoshio Tsukuba saw an irregular return on his own radar screen that he described as a “stream.” The only clouds were some “thin and spotty” ones around a nearby mountain. Terauchi noticed that the two lights began maneuvers unlike any ordinary aircraft, which he likened to “two bear cubs playing with each other.” Terauchi grabbed his camera and tried to take a picture. With auto-focus on, the lens wouldn’t stop adjusting. On manual-focus, the shutter wouldn’t close.(2)

Roughly 7 to 10 minutes after first noticing the lights, two UFOs, or “spaceships,” as Terauchi called them, appeared in front of his aircraft: first, one above the other, then side-by-side. From the crew’s perspective, the UFOs were square, but Terauchi believed that they were actually cylindrical in shape, seen from the side. He could see that a wide, vertical stripe down the center of each craft was see-through, and sometimes ejected a “stream of lights,” that Terauchi likened to the sparks from a charcoal fire that spewed from side to side. Terauchi estimated each object’s size to be close to that of the fuselage of a DC-8 airliner. 

Each of the objects had a rectangular array of what Te rauchi called “exhaust pipes” or “ports” around their circumference. All of the “ports” were lit up with white light, and rounded at the corners like the windows of a passenger plane. They all seemed to shift position as a group, or rotate around the cylinders. For the next three to seven seconds, these ports shot a fiery light that Terauchi compared to the exhaust from a jet engine.(3) The “exhaust” would flare up and down from different ports at different times, in a way that seemed to be controlled automatically. Tsukuba stated that the light of the exhaust was either white or amber-colored, though Terauchi thought that it had turned other colors, too. The light from the objects lit up the cockpit of JAL 1628 and Terauchi could feel the warmth on his face. 

Terauchi described the two UFOs as moving as if they shared a common center of gravity, while oscillating slightly with a “random wavering motion.” Terauchi’s notes on his drawings suggest that each object rotated back and forth on its own axis while the lights moved around the cylinder. Tsukuba described the UFOs as “undulating.” 

Tsukuba later stated that he saw the target appear on radar immediately after the visual sighting. Radar operators at Elmendorf Regional Operational Control Center also reported a target ahead of the plane. At this point, the UFOs were flying at the same speed as JAL 1628, although they were higher in altitude. The UFOs remained in formation for three to five minutes before they shifted into a line at 40 degrees to the plane’s left. During the 10 to 15 minutes that the UFOs were either in front of or to the left of the plane, the flight crew had a very hard time communicating with the ground below. The UFOs then flew away, and the equipment worked as normal. The crew found no abnormalities in the aircraft to account for the malfunctions.

Around 15 minutes after the first UFOs appeared, the crew spotted a pale, white, horizontally-elongated light at the same altitude, direction, and speed as their own plane, coming from the direction that the first two UFOs flew away. The crew asked Anchorage Center if there was a light at their 11 o'clock position, but there was nothing on ground radar. Terauchi set the aircraft’s digital weather radar distance to 20 miles, and a large round object appeared on the screen about 7 to 8 miles, or 11 - 13 km away, in the same place that he could see the light. At one point, Anchorage had a radar hit “about five to eight miles,” or 8 - 13 km away from 1628. Anchorage then radioed Elmendorf Air Force Base where their controller reported that for a minute to a minute-and-a-half, he, too, picked up a weak return about 8 miles, or 13 km from 1628.

While Terauchi was speaking with Anchorage, the light gradually repositioned to the left of their aircraft -- revealing that there were two of them — before disappearing off the radar scope. Terauchi said that he felt that this maneuver was performed as if the UFOs “understood” their conversation. The lights were now located just below the eastern horizon where it was most difficult to see them, at an estimated distance of 7 to 8 miles, or 11 - 13 km. Tamefuji said that he could not see them due to his position on the right side of the cockpit.

As they were flying over Fairbanks, the crew looked behind them and saw the silhouette of a walnut-shaped object with a lip around the middle and the two pale, flat lights on the outer tips. The top was lit by “silverish” lights that flashed in a sparse, irregular pattern. Terauchi later estimated it to be about 1.5 to 2 times the length of an aircraft carrier, and referred to it as a “gigantic spaceship,” or as “the mothership.” Tsukuba later said that this object appeared very “vague” to him, and was difficult to see from his position.

The crew requested a right-turn change of course from Anchorage. Once they realized that the “mothership” UFO had followed them on this turn, they requested a second change of course, but the controller ordered that they continue the turn through to a full 360 degrees. As Terauchi executed this maneuver, an Anchorage radar operator observed a primary target in the 6 o'clock position, about 5 miles, or 8 km, away from JAL 1628. Elmendorf Control Center’s radar also displayed a target behind the aircraft that followed it through the turn. When the crew completed the full 360 degrees, the gigantic UFO was still observed to their rear. Tamefuji later insisted that there was no possibility of weather interference on the radar screens.

The UFO followed the plane towards Talkeetna. A United Airlines passenger aircraft was entering the same air zone and Anchorage Center requested that they get visual confirmation on JAL 1628. When the planes were in sight of each other, they both flashed their landing lights, but by this time, Terauchi claimed that the UFO had suddenly disappeared. Terauchi places the end of the encounter about 75 miles, or 120 km North of Talkeetna. He landed the plane at Anchorage International Airport at 6:20 p.m., and estimated that the whole series of UFO sightings lasted about 50 minutes.(4)

Shortly after landing, the crew was interviewed by a security manager with the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, Jim Derry, who determined that they had seen something following their plane.(5) Derry specifically asked if there were any cockpit lights reflecting on the inside of the windshield; both Terauchi and Tsukuba confirmed that there were none because the cockpit lights were off.(6)

Terauchi began speaking to the press about his encounter in December 1986, and was shortly after grounded by Japan Airlines. He then spent several years at a desk job before being reinstated as a pilot. Some have speculated that this was punishment for going public, but Japan Airlines claimed that it was part of a routine rotation.(7) At some point, Terauchi stopped talking about the events, and directed the airline to respond to inquiries by stating that he stood by his account and didn’t want to repeat it again.(8)

Still, the case went public after a Japanese news correspondent questioned the FAA about the incident on December 24th, sparking interest from other media, and forcing a government response. FAA Public Affairs Officer Paul Steucke stated that only one of the three radars returned a “blip,” and only briefly. Steucke also claimed that a review of the radar tapes found no evidence of UFOs, and he denied that there was any agency investigation.(9) He also said that he called the Air Force and was told that their radar signal was only “clutter” and that there was no military investigation, either.(10) Steucke spoke to the media again on January 6 to claim that the FAA reviewed the radar data and found no recording of a giant object.(11)

By early January ‘87, the sighting was getting a lot of media attention, so the Anchorage FAA began making their documents, data, and recordings available to the public. The planning documents that they released revealed that around January 4th, the agency reinterviewed the flight crew, reviewed data tapes, and obtained specialists’ reviews.

Around this time in early January ‘87, John Callahan, 6-year division chief of the Accidents, Evaluations, and Investigations Division of the FAA in Washington received a call from the air traffic quality control branch in the FAA’s Alaskan regional office. The branch asked Callahan how they could respond to the flood of calls from reporters to make them go away. Callahan instructed his caller to tell reporters that the matter was “under investigation,” then requested all the available information and data be sent to the FAA Tech Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey.(12)

Callahan went to the FAA Tech Center with his boss, where engineers used a computer program to synchronize all of the flight data, voice recordings, and radar together. Callahan then asked FAA specialists to plot the radar targets on a chart, then videotaped this chart along with the voice and radar playback. The video was shown to FAA administrator, Admiral Donald D. Engen, who set up a briefing for Reagan’s scientific staff, in an apparent attempt to offload responsibility for the case. At this briefing, Callahan presented the evidence to members of the CIA, Reagan's scientific team, and a few other unidentified individuals. Callahan claimed that someone from the CIA closed the meeting by saying, "this event never happened; we were never here.” The official then confiscated all of the data and swore everyone in the room to secrecy. Callahan suggested that they tell the public about the encounter, but said that the idea was rejected on the basis that it would cause “panic.” A few weeks later, the FAA delivered its report on the event, as well as the chart and voice tapes, to Callahan. Callahan said that he expected someone from the CIA to come pick them up, but no one ever did.(13)

The final FAA report was released on March 5th. It concluded only that the radar returns had been the result of an “uncorrelated primary and beacon target” that somehow coincided with the maneuvers reported by the flight crew. In an Inquirer article from May 1987, Alaska’s air traffic manager, Hank Elias, said that his “honest answer” to inquiries about the incident was that the FAA could “neither confirm nor deny" that the anomalous radar return was due to a split beacon,  where two adjacent targets appear from the same aircraft. He said that the erratic behavior of the radar returns “wasn't unheard of, but it wasn't usual either.”(14)

On January 11th, 1987, less than two months after his first encounter, Terauchi was piloting another 747 north of Anchorage, Alaska, when he reported a group of unusual “irregular pulsating lights” in front of his aircraft that seemed to be anchored to a large, black object. The lights passed below the aircraft’s nose before disappearing behind the craft. A similar encounter occurred later in the flight. However, during a later interview with the FAA, Terauchi said that he felt that both sets of unusual lights that night were just village lights distorted by ice crystals in the atmosphere. The FAA agreed.(15)

All three of the controllers that engaged with the crew during the sightings filed statements that contradicted the findings of the FAA. Anchorage Control Center staff reports revealed that “several times” they had primary returns where the crew reported UFOs, but they did not specify exactly when and where. Another air traffic controller at Anchorage Center later wrote that he watched a signal on his radar that behaved in accordance with descriptions given by the pilot. He also claimed that other radars confirmed that they too saw returns in the same locations. 

As public interest in the Japan Airlines sightings peaked in January ‘87, the popular UFO debunker, Philip Klass, tried to dampen it. In a press release from January 22nd, Klass suggested that the crew had seen nothing but “an unusually bright image of the planet Jupiter and possibly Mars.” Klass also claimed that the radar “blip” was just a “spurious echo” from the mountains below. Klass's explanation got a lot of traction in the media, contributing to the public perception that the entire incident had been explained. With the release of all the supporting materials in March, Klass revised his explanation for the summer ‘87 issue of The Skeptical Inquirer, adding that the nearly-full moon could have caused moonlight to reflect off of “turbulent clouds of ice crystals” and appeared to Terauchi as afterburners.(16)

Naval scientist and amateur ufologist, Bruce Maccabee, produced a report on the JAL 1628 UFO which appeared in the March/April ‘87 issue of the International UFO Reporter. His report details that the large walnut UFO appeared nearly opposite to the planets (from the crew’s perspective), casting doubt on Klass’s explanation.(17) Terauchi said himself that he recognized Jupiter during the flight and insisted that whatever he witnessed was not a planet.(18)

Though Terauchi claimed that he was not afraid, he and the crew were unsettled by the fact that they did not know the “purpose” of the UFO, as he put it.(19) Terauchi did not venture a guess as to the origin or intentions of the UFOs, and has apparently not spoken publicly of the event since the immediate aftermath.

Callahan retired in August of 1988, and in response, the FAA branch manager sent him all the agency’s documents on the case. Though Callahan was asked not to talk about it, he felt that the public had the right to know. From 2001 onward, Callahan began to speak out about his involvement in the case, and to push the U.S. government to reveal what it knows about the UFO phenomenon. He spoke at a UFO Disclosure Press Conference in 2007 as well as the Citizen's Hearing on Disclosure in 2013, and has made several appearances in UFO documentaries. He also wrote a chapter on the case for Leslie Kean’s popular 2010 book UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On The Record.(20) Shortly after this, Callahan spoke to the Huffington Post admitting that in his final 10 years working for the US government, he lied to the public and helped disseminate disinformation on UFOs.(21)

John Greenewald runs The Black Vault, a website specialising in U.S. Freedom Of Information Act, or FOIA, requests for documents on UFOs. He first filed a FOIA request for the JAL case in 2001, and was alerted to the existence of 107 pages of documentation. However, he was informed that all of these documents would soon be destroyed. Upon making a second request in 2009, he was told that the records were already gone. However, in 2018, Greenewald found around 1500 pages of documents related to the case in the National Archives. Most were letters from the public, but there were also copies of news coverage, FAA communications, radar data printouts, and interviews with the crew.(22)

Japan Airlines Flight 1628 was not the first or only commercial flight to encounter a UFO, but crews rarely report their sightings for fear of professional consequences. The fact that Terauchi was put on desk duty for years after his report may help to explain why most pilots generally don’t talk about UFOs. Whatever the reason, Callahan's investigation with the FAA proved that flight crews, flight controllers, and radar operators do obtain evidence of UFO activity. The FAA paper trail, and the wealth of technical data, makes JAL 1628 one of the best-documented UFO cases on record, and the involvement of the CIA proves that the US government was more invested in the case than they were letting on. As Callahan put it: “Who are you going to believe, your lying eyes or the government?”(23)

Source: https://www.thinkanomalous.com/Japan-Airlines-UFO.html

When the FAA announced that it was going to investigate, the airplane captain, Kenju Terauchi became a media star.  He  was featured on numerous radio and TV programs and in People Magazine.   Unfortunately his career suffered for his indescretion of reporting a UFO.  Within a few months of these events he was grounded, even though he was a senior captain with an excellent flying record.   Several years later he was reinstated.  

What you are about to read is the most complete and analytical investigation of this sighting ever published. (This was originally published in the International UFO Reporter, March/April, 1987, published by the Center for UFO Studies.  This report took up the whole issue of the IUR.)   

In mid-October, 1986, Capt. Kenju Terauchi was excited to learn of a special Japan Airlines flight from Paris to Anchorage and then to Tokyo. It was to carry a cargo of French wine.  There would be an intermediate stop at Reykjavik, Iceland.

The flight began on November 16, 1986, with himself and a crew of two (copilot, flight engineer) in the cockpit.  The plane landed in Iceland and waited for good weather.  The next day the plane took off heading north northwest.   A bright moon helped with the visibility for the night flight over Greenland, but as the plane continued over northern Canada the moon set behind them.  When the plane reached an air route reporting point in far northwestern Canada called "Shingle Point" the sky ahead was dark except for an afterglow of sun in the west.  The plane reported its position to the flight control center at Edmonton, Alberta, and continued across the Canada-Alaska border, where it made history.   UFO history, that is.

Although this wasn’t a routine flight, it, nevertheless, was not expected to be a newsworthy event.  But something happened over Alaska which caught the attention of the world for several days in late December and early January, 1987.  Virtually every newspaper in the world carried a story about what Capt. Terauchi and his crew saw over Alaska.   This is the story of that sighting as told to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by the crew members and the flight controllers on the ground.

It was about 11 minutes past 5 local time, the late afternoon of November 17, while JAL1628 (the designation for this particular flight) was high over the frozen northeastern part of Alaska that Capt. Terauchi first realized that the lights to the left and below were unusual.  

He had first noticed them about a mnute earlier while his plane was turning to the left.  After watching them for a short time he decided that they were lights of “special missioned aircrafts or two fighters” on some mission.   (Note:  The Air Force maintained continual air surveillance over Alaska because of its proximity to the (former) Soveit Union.)   He decided to ignore them.  But “the position of the lights had not changed even after a few minutes and that called our attention.”   In other words, the lights appeared to be traveling along with his plane. (1,2). At that time the Boeing 747 freighter was operating on autopilot and heading outhwestward (a heading of about 215 degrees) at an altitude of 35,000 ft (3).  The sky to the right had an afterglow of sunset, but ahead and to the left it was very dark.

The Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center (AARTCC) had called the plane just about two minutes before this time, i.e., at 5:09:20 (4,5) (or 20 sec. past 5:09 PM; exact times are based on the AARTCC tape recorded record of the events) to report the initial radar contact with the plane, which at that time was about 90 nautical miles (nm) notheast of Fort Yukon.    (1 nm = 1.15 statute miles = 1.85 km)  (Referring to a map, the plane at this time was at the "upper right hand corner" of Alaska.)   The flight controller had asked the plane to head directly toward an air route reporting point called Talkeetna, named after the small Alaska town nearby (north of Anchorage and not far from Mt. McKinley). (4)   In doing so the plane would pass south of Fort Yukon and Fairbanks.  The copilot, who handled the aircraft communications, acknowledged the AARTCC request and then turned the plane to the left ("left rotation") about 15 degrees to a heading of 215 degrees.  It was during this turn that Capt. Terauchi, sitting on the left side of the cockpit, first saw the unidentifiable lights out his side window (2).  (See Figure 1)

After the plane levelled out he observed "lights that looked like aircraft lights, 30 degrees left front, 2,000 feet below us, moving exactly in the same direction and with the same speed we were." At that time the airplane was flying at about 525 kts (nautical miles per hour) ground speed (972 km/hr or 605 mph) according to the tracking data (3).  Subsequently the speed decreased to about 500 kts.

It is important to note the pilot's statement of his belief that the lights were 2,000 feet below him.  He could not know how far below the lights were just from his visual sighting.  (To determine the distance below he would have to know the exact depression angle and the distance to the lights.)  Nevertheless, his statement indicates that his sighting line to the lights had a noticeable depression angle (the angle below horizontal).  At 35,000 ft the horizon distance is about 214 nm so the depression angle of the horizon is about 1.5 degrees which is hardly noticeable.  The pilot's statement therefore implies that the lights were below, probably considerably below, his horizon, i.e., between himself and the ground, thus ruling out any astronomical source for the lights.  (Note: CSICOP published its initial "solution" of the sighting as Jupiter and Mars.  This will be described later.)   

The captain's initial reaction to the lights was to ignore them as US air fighters, probably military aircraft from one of the nearby Air Force Bases (Eielson or Elmendorf).   But the position of the lights "had not changed even after a few minutes and that called our attention." (2)   The lights of these two "aircraft" stayed at the left for a while and then the unbelievable happened. (6)

"Traffic in Front of us''

"It was about seven or so minutes since we began paying attention to the lights (when), most unexpectedly, two spaceships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights. The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face."  (Note particularly these reported physical effects.)   

What the captain saw suddenly appear ahead of him and to the left at about the 11:00 o'clock position is illustrated in Figure 2, which was drawn by the Captain only a few hours after the event (7).  The vertical lines represent boundaries enclosing a dark center of each object. The horizontal lines represent flame colored or yellowish "exhausts" flaring outward, left and right, from the dark center.  There were two totally separate sets of the "exhaust" flame groups, i.e., two totally separate "crafts." It was the captain''s impression that the two "aircrafts" he had seen for the first time to the left only minutes before had suddenly jumped in front of his plane.  

Shortly after the copilot told the AARTCC, at 5:23:05, that the clouds were "below us", he reported a new and sudden event: 

5:23:13 JAL16298 And now the target, ah, traffic is extinguished. We cannot see it now. 

5:23:19 AARTCC JAL1628 Roger. And I'm not receiving any radar replies. 

IT was probably at this time that the "two ships" which had been quite close to the plane since 5:18 or 5:19 PM suddenly moved farther away and to the left. Looking to the left the captain could now see that "there was a pale white flat light in the direction where the ships flew away, moving in a line along with us, in the same direction and same speed and at the same altitude as we were."(2) 

ABOUT this time the AARTCC controller decided to find out if the Air Force at Elmendorf Regional Operational Control Center had anything on its radar. 

5:23:35 AARTCC (to the ROCC) Could you look approximately forty miles south of Fort Yukon? There should be (JAL1628) up there. Can you tell me (if) you see (a) primary target and its position? 

IT took the ROCC operator about two minutes to answer the question. In the meantime significant events occurred aboard the plane and at the AARTCC. IT was now about 14 1/2 minutes since Capt. Terauchi had first seen the lights traveling along with his plane, about 6 to 7 minutes since the lights had appeared abruptly in front of the plane, and only a minute or so since the "ships" quickly moved away from the jet, apparently in the direction of the "flat pale white light" (2) which the captain later described as like "two white fluorescent-like lights”. (12) The captain’s drawing indicates that the lights were horizontally oriented and spaced apart, like two long fluorescent tubes end-to-end but with a large dark gap in between them. (See Figure 5a. Figure 5b is the captain’s map to illustrate the location of the airplane along its flight track in Alaska when the “traffic” first appeared at the left - 1, when the traffic appeared in front of the airplane - 2 and when the traffic departed and the two white lights appeared at the left - 3. The illustrations in Figure 5 were drawn several hours after the sighting.)

The first Interview

Because of the report of unusual traffic the crew was interviewed immediately by FAA official Jack Wright and by agents James Derry and Ronald Mickle. Wright recorded the following information: (14)

I received a call from Dick Powers concerning a JAL flight which the Captain had stated he was being followed or shadowed. I observed the aircraft land at 1820 hours (6:20 PM). No other aircraft was noted. The B747 taxied into the international ramp area. I interviewed Capt. Terauchi and the crew of two. The captain stated that this was the first time that anything like this had happened to him. He stated that approximately five nm after passing the Canadian/Alaskan border at 35,000 ft something appeared five to seven nm in front of the aircraft. It had lights, four to five in a line (refer to captain’s drawing) and said it was bigger than they were (B-747). At times the object woud be to the captain’s side of the aircraft (left). Never the other side (right). He referred to the dark side. After passing Fairbanks area he requested to fly parallel to course and this was granted. When he turned to the right and flew parallel, the object was gone. (In all cases weather radar was also used to identify the object and the five-to-seven nm distance was taken from the radar dislay - 20 nm range.) They returned to course and the captain said “There it was, as if it was waiting for me.” At approximately the Talkeetna area the object took off to the east and was gone. A United flight departed from Anchorage and was requested to check if they could see anything but it was gone before United got there. Nothing different with the cargo except some expensive wine. The captain and crew were shook-up but professional. James Derry interviewed the crew at JAL operations. Capt. Terauchi had asked AARTCC if they were picking up two targets and was told “just one.” The total time was approximately 55 minutes. A new crew took the flight on to Tokyo. Capt. Terauchi and the crew were to be in Anchorage a few days before any additional flights. James Derry requested that the tapes and any other information be saved. (10)

THE sparse amount of information contined in this initial report indicates that Wright did not carry out an extensive interview of the pilot and crew. It also indicates that he did not learn exactly what happened, probably because of one or more of the following reasons: (a) he may have failed to ask for a minute-by-minute history of the flight; (b) Terauchi may not have been able to recall the events accurately and in the correct order, and (c) it may have been difficult to communicate (Japanese-English translation). Special Agents James Derry and Ronald Mickle also participated in the interview.. However, as will be seen, they did obtain more information. Both Derry and Mickle made notes. Agent Derry recorded the second interview as follows: (14) 

SPECIAL Agent Ronald Mickle recorded the interview as follows (14):

As per telephonic request from (Wright), the following are the events which took place on November 17, 1986 and were taken from my personal notes during the interview. I went to the Japan Airlines station office as instructed by the Manager (Derry). Myself (sic) and Jim Derry interviewed the crew of JAL Flight 1628, which reported the sighting of unidentified air traffic. The flight crew consisted of (Terauchi, Tamefuji and Tsukuba). Captain Terauchi stated he first sited (visually) the unidentified air traffic (UAT) in the vicinity of POTAT intersection and the ADIZ. The aircraft he was piloting (B747) was at flight level 390, airspeed 0.84 Mach. Captain Terauchi indicated that the UAT was in front of his aircraft at a distance of approximately seven to eight nautical miles for approximatey 12 minutes. Captain Terauchi stated that while he had a visual on the UAT he spotted yellow, amber and green lights and a rotating beacon but no red lights. The captain said there were two distinct sets of lights, but appeared to be joined together (as fixed to one object). Captain Terauchi ascertained through visual sighting and radar that the UAT was equal in size to a B747, possibly larger. 

CAPTAIN Terauchi stated that during the visual sighting the lights of the UAT changed from a horizontal position to a vertical position and had positioned itself in front of the B747 to the port side. The UAT stayed on the port side for approximately 35 minutes. Captain Terauchi said he was communicating with the AARTCC personnel during the sighting The captain stated he requested and received persmission to perform a 360 degee turn while in the vicinity of Fairbanks which he had a visual on. Captain Terauchi stated the UAT maintained its position on the port side during the turn. Captain Terauchi stated that visual sight of the UAT was completely lost approximately 40 nm north of Talkeetna, while continuing to Anchorage. The captain stated that there was static during VHF communications with the AARTCC, that there was erratic movement with lights of the UAT during the visual contact, that navigation was being performed by coupling of the onboard INS’s, and that the AARTCC had indicated to him the presence of a primary target in addition to his aircraft. Through a confidential source at JAL it was stated to me that this is not the first sighting of an unidentified aircraft by Captain Terauchi.(10)

A comparison of the above versions of the second interview shows that the full and accurate story that I have previously presented, as based on the transcripts of the AARTCC audio tape and the detailed testimony of the crew, did not come through in the initial interviews. Furthermore, the interviewers had somewhat divergent opinions on what the captain told them. Part of this problem may have been, literally, in the translation (Japanese to English), but part of the problem also is that different people react to and remember different elements of any story. It is interesting to note Derry’s reference to NORAD being contacted and NORAD reporting that “they also had two targets on radar.” Derry also indicated that Air Force Intelligence would get a report on the sighting. IT is unfortunate that the interviewers did not think to tape-record the conversations for later analysis but instead simply relied upon their recollections and brief notes. Nevertheless, the basic core of the story is clearly expressed in these early interviews and thus they support the captain’s subsequent more detailed testimony, written about month and a half later. Particularly supportive of the captain’s later testimony were the drawings made during the interview with Derry and Mickle (Figures 2, 3, 5, 6). They show how the lights appeared in front of the aircraft and beside the aircraft and how the radar target appeared. These sketches, made only hours after the events, are consistent with the more elaborate drawings that the captain made a month and a half later to illustrate his testimonial report (Figures 4, 8 - 11). These latter drawings were publicized widely in the news media. The captain also made a map of his recollection of the flight (Figure 12).

THE air traffic controller who was responsible for guiding the JAL flight recorded his recollections the next day, evidently without first listening to the AARTCC tape recording of the conversations with the plane. He wrote as follows (13):

During the period of 2030 UTC (universal time coordinated), November 17, 1986, to 0430 UTC, November 18, 1986 I was on duty in the Anchorage ARTCC. I was working the D15 position from 0156 UTC to 0230 UTC, November 18, 1986. (This corresponds to 4:56 to 5:30 PM Alaska Standard Time, November 17, 1986.) At approximately 0225Z (5:25 PM) while monitoring JL1628 on Sector 15 radar the aircraft requested traffic information. I advised no traffic in his vicinity. The aircraft advised he had traffic 12 o’clock, same altitude. I asked JL1628 if he would like high/lower altitude and the pilot replied negative. I checked with ROCC to see if they had military traffic in the area and to see if they had primary targets in the area. ROCC did have a primary target in the same position JL1628 reported. Several times I had primary returns where JL1628 reported the traffic. JL later requested a turn to heading 210. I approved JL1628 to make deviations as necessary for traffic. The traffic stayed with JL1628 through turns and descent. IN the vicinity of Fairbanks I requested JL1628 to make a right 360 turn to see if he could identify the aircarft. He lost contact momentarily at which I time observed a primary target in the six o’clock position, five miles. I then vectored UA69 northbound to Fairbanks from Anchorage with his approval to see if he could identify the aircraft. He had contact with the JL1628 flight but reported no other traffic. By this time JL1628 had lost contact with the traffic. Also a military C-130 southbound to Elmendorf AFB from Eielson AFB advised he had plenty of fuel and would take a look. I vectored him toward the flight and climbed him to Flight Level 240 (24,000 ft). He also had no contact. I requested JL1628 to identify the type or markings of the aircraft. He could not identify but reported white and yellow strobes. I requested the JL1628 to say flight conditions. He reported clear and no clouds. The phrase “single primary returns” (used above) is in reference to a target other than JAL and “the traffic” is in reference to the unidentified object.(10)

ALTHOUGH the Anchorage FAA alerted the FAA Security Office in Washington, D.C., no further action regarding the reported traffic was taken. This is unfortunate since careful debriefing at the time of the event possibly could have uncovered details which had been forgotten by the time the crew was interviewed again in January 1987. 

IT is quite likely that the JAL sighting would never have been known to the general public, nor would it have been investigated, if it hadn’t been for the interest by the American newsmedia in an odd story out of Japan. On December 29, 1986, the Kyoda Press in Japan published a news story about a Japan Airlines crew that had seen a UFO while flying over Alaska and that the UFO had been picked up by military radar. The Kyoda press got the story as a result of the air crew talking to their friends, etc., and someone alerted the press. On December 24 the Kyoda Press contacted the Public Information Officer at Anchorage, Paul Steucke. According to Steucke, as told to Walter Andrus of MUFON, “The first thing I got was a phone call from Kyoda News Service out of Japan. That was the day before Christmas, December 24. They sent a correspondent over and the correspondent said to me - you know that we’ve got some information on ‘such and such’. Is it true? I said, well, yeah, and here’s what we’ve got. On the 29th after the Christmas holidays that story must have been printed somewhere in Japan because United Press International picked it up. Then the United press reporter over here asked me the same question and I told him the same thing.” UPI reporter Jeff Berliner broke the story in the United States on December 29. Numerous newspapers reprinted the story and the FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. learned about it from Alaska press office. (According to John Callahan, he received a call from Alaska asking what to do about the press interest in the UFO sighting. 

Although he didn't know anything about the sighting he told them to say "We're investigating." ) When the FAA headquarters called Anchorage for the full story, it learned that the radar data tape had been saved (which was unusual since the tapes were generally reused after 30 days). The FAA trhen announced that it would investigate the sighting according to a story in the Washington Post, January 1, 1987. 

THE information about the sighting must have come as a compete surprise to the FAA headquarters. On January 1 the FAA reopened its inquiry into the sighting. Capt. Terauchi was interviewed on January 2 (1), at which time he supplied his written testimony (2). On January 4 the national press reported that the FAA had reopened the inquiry and numerous news stories followed. THE FAA released portions of the information through Mr. Steucke as the information became available. Unfortunately the FAA did not have a complete and accurate story to report and consequently the early news stories contained errors. The most amusing of these was in the reported time of the sightings. For some reason someone had handwritten a a note on the master copy of the first FAA release, which was a summary of the AARTCC tape recording. The note indicated that the events had begun at 6:19 PM, even though the summary itself clearly said 0219 UTC which translated to 5:19 PM Alaska Standard Time. This time error was perpetuated in news reports even though the captain recalled the correct time and stated it during an interview with Larry King on January 2. 

WHILE the press was having fun with the story the FAA continued its inquiry. The copilot was interviewed on January 5 (9) and the flight engineer on January 15 (10). A complete transcript of the AARTCC tape recording, although with some errors, was completed on January 9 and the radar data tape recording was sent to a special FAA facility for analysis. The FAA announced that it would release the material it had collected after it complete the inquiry. 

The initial press stories in January treated this sighting as real news. No one contradicted the captain when he made his “outlandish” claims, the most outlandish being that he was followed by a UFO larger than his 747 jumbo jet. The press was yearning for an explanation, but there was none to be had as long as the FAA was still investigating. Enter the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), ever ready to leap into the breach and provide an explanation. On the 22nd of January CSICOP published a press release entitled “UFO Mystery Solved.” (14) The cover letter of the press release announced the “findings of the (CSICOP) investigation into the Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 UFO incident of November 18, 1986.” The release itself stated that “according to a leading UFO investigator” (Philip J. Klass) “at least one extraterrestrial object was involved - the planet Jupiter, and possibly another - Mars.” The press release asserted that at the time of the sighting (incorrectly given as one hour earlier than it actually occurred) Jupiter was “extremely bright” at a -2.6 magnitude and would have been about 10 degrees above the horizon on the left side of the aircraft where the pilot first reported seeing the UFO. Mars would have been slightly lower and about 20 degrees to the right of Jupiter. The press release stated that “Although the very bright Jupiter and less bright Mars had to be visible to JAL Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi, the pilot never once reported seeing either - only a UFO that he described as being a ‘white and yellow’ light in his initial radio report to the Federal Aviation Administration controllers at Anchorage.” (14) 

THE press release could have mentioned, but did not, that Terauchi did report seeing numerous stars in the sky, city lights and a glow of sunset in the west. The CSICOP explanation was based mostly on Phil Klass’ analysis of an early version of the transcript of the audio tape. The radar tracking data were not made available at that time and so he could not have known the precise locations and flight directions of the plane at the times of the various sightings. Apparently he completely ignored the pictorial information (drawings by the captain) which had been widely publicized. Mr. Klass made a major error in not waiting for the release of the complete information package by the FAA because, if he had waited, he would have found that the publicized versions of the sighting were actually quite accurate in their descriptions of the lights. These descriptions, of course, rule out Jupiter and Mars as possible causes of the sighting. Without the FAA data package he did not know that initial drawings were made only about 2 hours after the event. Nor did he know that the other crew members, in separate interviews, supported the captain’s report of the groups of lights that appeared in front of the plane. Nor did he know about the sudden rearrangement of the relative positions of the groups of lights from one above the other to one beside the other, a maneuver that Jupiter and Mars would have difficulty carrying out during the time of the sighting. Nor did he know that at the end of the sighting, while the plane was flying southward, 

ROUGHLY TOWARD Jupiter and Mars, the pilot reported the “gigantic spacecraft” was behind and to the left, in a direction nearly opposite to the planets. THE CSICOP press release discussed and rejected the FAA and Air Force radar detections. Curiously, however, it completely ignored the claim by the pilot that the airplane radar did detect a radar-reflective object at 7 to 8 miles in the direction of the UFO. Perhaps Mr. Klass rejected this claim, but if he had waited for the data package from the FAA he would have learned that the other two members of the crew confirmed the pilot’s statement about the radar detection. IN summary, the Jupiter-Mars explanation is contradicted by the sighting directions to the UFO at various times, by the descriptions of the crew members and by the airplane radar detection. However, the “gullible” press did not know that at the time. The explanation was widely publicized. The explanation made the captain look like an idiot, but as far as the press was concerned, that’s OK. Only idiots report UFOs. Having done their duty the newsmedia promptly forget about the sighting. IN retrospect it appears that the CSICOP press release which was marked “FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE” should have been marked “FOR PREMATURE RELEASE.” 

JANUARY went by and then February with still no word from the FAA. But then, on March 5, the FAA announced the results of the inquiry. According to the FAA press release the FAA “was unable to confirm the event.”(15) The event was unconfirmed because “a second radar target near the JAL flight at the time of the reported sighting was not another aircraft but rather a split radar return from the JAL Boeing 747.” In other words, the FAA couldn’t confirm the sighting ON RADAR because the “traffic” or “primary return” reported by the AARTCC controller at the time of the sighting was merely an artifact of the radar set. Or so said the FAA! (Recall that the transponder return or “blip” is separate from the primary return blip. These two should be immediately adjacent or one-on-top of the other under ordinary conditions. What the FAA was saying was that because of a minor and temporary malfunction of the radar the primary return was separated in position on the radar screen from the transponder return, thus making look as if there were two separate radar-reflective objects in the sky.) The press release did not mention that the “split return effect” was contradicted by the fact that the extra echo did not come back with every sweep of the radar and by a statement by an airtraffic controller who said that they rarely, if ever, get a split image in the area where the JAL jet was flying. The press release did NOT offer an explanation for the visual sighting, nor did it dispute the crew’s claim that something unusual was seen. The press release ignored the visual sighting. 

THE FAA press release made a smaller splash in the newsmedia than had the original January stories about the FAA involvement. This may have been because (a) the press misinterpreted the FAA statement, thinking that the FAA was saying it had explained everything and (b) that the sighting had already been “explained” by CSICOP. The general newsmedia concentrated on the FAA statement that it could not confirm the radar sighting and ignored the failure of the FAA to even mention the visual sighting. NBC News incorrectly reported that “Terauchi’s crewmates were not sure that they had seen a UFO” and that the FAA “concluded a three-month investigation saying there is nothing to substantiate the pilot’s story.” From this sort of press reporting one would get the impression that the whole sighting revolved around the Captain’s story and did not involve the other crew members. The NBC story failed to mention, probably because the NBC reporter didn’t know, what you, dear reader, know: that the copilot and flight engineer had independently confirmed the pilot’s report of seeing numerous lights appear in front and to the left of the aircraft and that the airplane radar had picked up a large target in the same direction as the UFO. 

AFTER March 5 the press interest in this story essentially died, leaving the general public with the impression that once again an experienced air crew had failed to identify normal phenomena and that there was no evidence that UFOs are real objects. (Note: Capt. Kenjyu Terauchi was subsequently “grounded” for a couple of years, evidently for his boldness in reporting what he and the others had seen.) 

THERE are two postscripts to this story. One is that the Philadelphia Inquirer evidently took this sighting seriously because several months later in the Sunday Magazine they published a very detailed report on the sighting. The author did not support the conclusion that the lights could be explained. 

THE second postscript is that CSICOP was not finished with the case. Evidently even Phil Klass could see that his Jupiter-Mars explanation had failed. In the Summer, 1987 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer he published a new analysis. (16) This time the lights were explained as reflections of moonlight from the clouds and “turbulent ice crystals.” (Recall that the air crew reported thin clouds below them.) According to Klass the turbulent ice crystals “could have generated flame-colored lights” and “this would also explain why the undulating lights would periodically and suddenly disappear and then reapper as cloud conditions ahead changed. When the aircrft finally outflew the ice clouds and the initial ‘UFO’ disappeared for good (the Captain) would search the sky for it, spot Jupiter further to the left and conclude it was the initial UFO.” Klass attributed the airplane radar sighting to “an echo from thin clouds of ice crystals.” 

KLASS’s explanation verges on scientific garbage. There is no reason to suppose that moonlight reflected off ice crystals in the clouds would generate “flame colored lights.” Klass’ explanation certainly could not account for the heat which Terauchi felt on his face. Nor would it explain the distinct arrays of flames or lights associated with two independently flying objects that appeared ahead of the plane and ABOVE for many minutes (the clouds were reported to be below the plane). Nor would it explain the sudden rearranging of these arrays of lights. He says this reflection from crystals could explain the colors of the lights. However, the reflected light would be basically the color of the moonlight. A variation in color would occur only if the moonlight were “broken” into its spectrum by refraction of light in the crystals (similar to what happens with rain and a rainbow). But the spectrum of white light contains more than just the yellow, amber and green which were reported. Blue and red should also have been noted if the air crew was looking at what would essentially be a “rainbow.” 

THE lights ahead of the aircraft were described as bright. The copilot compared them to headlights of oncoming aircraft. A reflection of the moon from thin clouds would cover large areas of cloud and would be dim, rather than bright and point-like. 

KLASS’ explanation for the radar target is total conjecture on his part since the clouds were reported by the plane to be thin. Would there be any return at all from such clouds? One might ask, if there were so many clouds, why the radar didn’t pick up numerous “blobby” returns on the right side and ahead of the aircraft as well as on the left where the “mothership” appeared to be. And, of course, Klass’ explanation does not account for the “silhouette of a gigantic spaceship.”

SIC TRANSIT GLORIA CSICOP.

Post Postscript

IN May, 2001, John Callahan, who was at the time the manager of the FAA Division of Accidents, Evaluations and Investigations, for the first time publicized his version of the JAL1628 story. His testimony is presented at the CSETI web site. According to Callahan, when he learned of the sighting he directed that the radar tapes be sent to the FAA analysis center in Atlanta. Then he flew to Atlanta and, using his new home video camera, recorded the radar tape as it was played back through the special equipment at the Atlanta center. The radar tape was synchronized with the audio tape of conversations between the air traffic controller and the airplane. In an interview in 2001 Mr. Callahan told me that the unknown radar target disappeared when the plane was flying south from Fairbanks (after making the complete turn at Fairbanks) while the United airplane was flying northward toward JAL1628. The United plane did not see anything. But after the United airplane passed the JAL and continued north.... the unknown radar target appeared again, this time BEHIND THE UNITED AIRPLANE.

Thomas Tulien

In the early morning hours of 24 Oct. 1968, United States Air Force (USAF) maintenance and security personnel stationed within the Minuteman, Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) complex surrounding Minot AFB, North Dakota, observed one—and at times—two UFOs. The Minot Base Operations dispatcher initiated radio communications with personnel reporting in the field, Minot, Radar Approach Control (RAPCON), and the crew of a returning B-52H aircraft.

RAPCON alerted the pilots to the location of a UFO, which the B-52 navigator observed on the radarscope maintaining a three-mile distance throughout a standard 180° turnaround. As the B-52 started its descent back to Minot AFB, the UFO appeared to close distance to one mile at a high-rate of speed, pacing the aircraft for nearly 20 miles before disappearing off the radarscope. Both B-52 UHF radios would not transmit during the close radar encounter with the UFO and radarscope film was recorded.

Shortly afterwards, RAPCON provided vectors for the B-52 to overfly a stationary UFO on or near the ground. After turning onto the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, the pilots observed a large, illuminated UFO ahead of the aircraft for several minutes, before turning onto the base leg over the UFO while observing it at close range. After the B-52 landed, both outer and inner-zone intrusions alarms were activated at the remote missile Launch Facility Oscar-7. The duration of reported observations was over three hours.

USAF Strategic Air Command, Offutt AFB, Nebraska, initiated inquiries. In the weeks following, staff at USAF Project Blue Book, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, completed a final case report mandated by Air Force Regulation 80-17.

Preface

As an unidentified flying object the UFO presents a particular challenge to scientific authority. Observations are random, often transitory or difficult to grasp objectively, and may even appear to exceed known technological capabilities. Lacking an acceptable theory to explain how UFOs can do what they are repeatedly observed to do, the phenomenon is broadly relegated to popular myth, while the study of individual cases after the fact can only tell us that some UFOs defy conventional explanations. (See: UAP in the UK Defence Region: Executive Summary, p. 4).

Folklorist Thomas Bullard explains:

UFOs as experiential phenomenon and UFOs as popular cultural myth entangle in a knot of confusion. I suspect that this entanglement stands as one of the greatest impediments to understanding the nature of UFOs, and scientific acceptance as a subject worthy of serious attention. A historical perspective offers a grip on the end of the string, a chance to untangle the mess to some degree.[1]

In this regard, the 24 October 1968, Minot AFB UFO case offers an exceptional opportunity to untangle the myth, particularly given the extent of the primary documentation, including B-52 radarscope photographs and independent testimonial evidence. According to astrophysicist Bernard Haisch, “To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another.” This website was created to provide readers an opportunity to examine all of the available evidence of the 24 October 1968, Minot AFB UFO events, in order to determine for oneself whether it is convincing.

Background

In 1968, Strategic Air Command (SAC) was the operational establishment of the United States Air Force, responsible for the bomber-based and ballistic missile-based strategic nuclear arsenal. Minot AFB, located in the northwestern part of North Dakota, was a principal SAC dual-wing base. The two wings headquartered at Minot included the 5th Bombardment Wing, with 15 B-52H Stratofortress strategic bombers capable of delivering nuclear and conventional ordinance worldwide; and the 91st Strategic Missile Wing, responsible for 150 Minuteman, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) housed in underground Launch Facilities scattered across an area of more than 8,500 square miles. Today both wings continue operations under the major command of the Air Force Global Strike Command.[2]

B-52 at Minot AFB

A Boeing B-52H Stratofortress on the runway at Minot AFB. For more than 50 years, the B-52 has been the backbone of the U.S. manned strategic bomber force, and is expected to remain in service until at least 2040 — nearly 90 years after its first flight. [Click on all images for enlargements and alternate images].

Minuteman Launch FacilityMinuteman ICBM in it's underground missile silo Minuteman Missile Illustration

In the BACKGROUND section of this website, we have included concise histories of the Strategic Air Command, Minot AFB, and both operational wings, including mission responsibilities and routine duties of the personnel who supported the requirements of America’s strategic nuclear forces. These will be helpful in providing essential context to the military environment encompassing the UFO events. In addition, theARCHIVES section includes official unit histories and various supplemental documents accumulated during our research.

Brief Summary of UFO Events

The ABC News two-hour primetime special, “Peter Jennings Reporting: UFOs—Seeing Is Believing,” was first broadcast in February 2005. This segment of the special features the American history of the UFO phenomenon, including the (above) four and a half minute exposé of the 24 October 1968, Minot AFB case.

Initial Ground-visual Observations

Early in the morning of 24 October 1968, Oscar-Flight Security Controller Staff Sgt. William Smith received a report from a Camper Team posted at the Launch Facility (LF) designated Oscar-6 (O-6). According to Smith, 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."[3] Shortly after, at 2:30 a.m., a missile maintenance team of Airman First Class Robert O'Connor and A1C Lloyd Isley were en route to the November-7 (N-7) Launch Facility when they reported an unusual light in the east to Base Operations. The strange light appeared to be pacing their vehicle while growing brighter. By the time they arrived at N-7, the bright UFO had taken up a position circling to the south.[4]

In response, the Base Operations dispatcher patched in the observers at N-7 with the ground controllers at Radar Approach Control (RAPCON), established an open-line for reporting, and kept a log of the UFO activity over the next two hours. Soon, Flight Security Controllers (FSC) — the officers responsible for the security requirements at the Launch Control Facilities (LCF) — were also reporting sightings via their communications network linked to missile Wing Security Control (WSC).

In one instance, security personnel at three of the LCFs similarly described “the object separate in two parts and go in opposite directions and return and pass under each other.”[5] In another, a FSC reported that an “object which looked to him as the sun” came near the hardened antenna within the security fencing of his LCF. It then moved away and he dispatched his two-man Security Alert Team (SAT), who followed the object to within a half-mile of where it appeared to be landing. When the object reached the ground the light dimmed and extinguished. After this, they could see nothing.[6]Independent reports mutually described a very large, brightly illuminated aerial object that would alternate colors from brilliant white to amber and green, with an ability to hover, accelerate rapidly and abruptly change direction.[7]

B-52 Air-radar Observations

At about 3:00 a.m., a B-52H Stratofortress returned to Minot AFB from a routine 10-hour training mission. The pilots practiced high-altitude instrumented procedures and approaches to the runway, eventually requesting clearance to fly out to the Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) initial approach fix (“WT fix”), 35 nautical miles northwest of the airbase. Given clearance to Flight Level 200 (20,000 feet altitude), 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.”[8]

The B-52 crew observed nothing out of the ordinary during the flight out. Approaching the WT fix, they initiated a standard 180-degree turnaround that would eventually bring them back over the WT fix on a straight approach to the runway. At 3:52, as they started the wide turn, ground controllers informed the crew “the UFO is being picked up by the weathers [sic] radar also, should be your 1:00 position 3 miles now.”[9]

The B-52’s own radar detected the radar return (UFO) co-altitude at three miles away, sparking air safety concerns among the crew. However, as the B-52 banked around the roughly 6-mile diameter turn the UFO maintained a constant three-mile separation, moving to the northeast — outside of the turn radius and to the left of the B-52 as it finally rolled out.

Upon clearing the WT fix to begin the descent back to the runway, the radar return suddenly changed position. In one sweep of the radar — less than three seconds — the UFO appeared to close distance to one mile, while subsequent sweeps would indicate that the return was matching the forward velocity of the B-52. The seemingly phenomenal and instantaneous movement of the UFO startled B-52 navigator Captain Patrick McCaslin:

I knew whatever it was that there was something there that I’d never seen on radar. I don’t know of anything that could go laterally in three seconds, two miles, and just stop. It was maintaining our descent rate, and then just laterally to one mile… perfect formation.[10]

At the same instant as the return’s abrupt change of position, the B-52’s two UHF radios ceased transmission on all frequencies with RAPCON. The UFO continued pacing the aircraft off the left wing for nearly 20 miles. Near the end of the descent trajectory, the radarscope camera filmed the UFO as it appeared to spiral around behind the B-52, after which the radar return disappeared and radio communications returned to normal.[11]

B-52 Air-visual Observations

Following the inexplicable radar encounter, the B-52 pilots practiced a missed approach to the runway and were vectored back around to land. However, on final approach to the runway a General officer radioed a request not to land, but to continue around in order to fly over and photograph the object if possible.[12]Accordingly, RAPCON controllers vectored the B-52 once again onto the traffic pattern, to the location of a stationary UFO on or near the ground, roughly 16 miles north-northwest of the airbase. Immediately after turning onto the downwind leg of the pattern, both pilots observed an illuminated object more than 10 miles ahead of the aircraft. The non-crew pilot Major James Partin compared the UFO to “a miniature sun placed on the ground below the aircraft.”[13]

Upon reaching the object the B-52 flew alongside and executed a left turn over and around it. As the B-52 banked over the object, copilot Capt. Bradford Runyon was able to observe the UFO through the pilot’s window as it passed beneath the aircraft. He described a huge egg-shaped object with a surface that appeared to give off a dull reddish color like molten steel. As they began the turn, he noticed a smooth metallic tubular section extending horizontally from the long-end of the elliptical object, connecting to the mid-point of a curved crescent-shaped protuberance, not unlike a bumper. This section encompassed the width of the body and emanated a greenish-yellow glow from its interior back, illuminating the tubular section and the front of the egg-shaped main body of the object. Once again, their radios would not transmit during the very close approach.[14]

The B-52 turned left onto the base leg of the traffic pattern and lost sight of the UFO. They continued around to the runway at Minot AFB and came to a terminal landing at 4:40 a.m. At 4:49, both the outer and inner-zone security alarms sounded at the missile Launch Facility Oscar-7, and SSgt. Smith immediately dispatched his Security Alert Team to investigate. The team discovered the front gate unpadlocked, and an access hatch on site standing open, but no other evidence of intruders. In the meantime, November security personnel continued reporting a UFO west of N-7, until the light gradually diminished around 5:30.

Investigation

Following the early morning events Strategic Air Command initiated investigations. Later that afternoon, Minot AFB investigating officer Col. Werlich informed Project Blue Book per Air Force Regulation 80-17. Over the next couple days, six of the ground observers completed the Air Force Form 117 Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena Questionnaire (AF-117). Although Maj. Partin completed an AF-117 the following week, Blue Book investigators did not interview the B-52 crewmembers during the official investigation. Not until recently have they publicly discussed their experiences. Given their clearances and responsibilities, Capt. Runyon understood at the time they were not to discuss the matter. Aware that the Air Force was engaged in an ongoing investigation of the UFO phenomenon, he naturally assumed that conclusions would eventually be available to the public. However, over 30 years later, still lacking any explanation for what they had observed that morning, Runyon’s curiosity led him to contact the J. Allen Hynek, Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) in Chicago, and complete a UFO Sighting Questionnaireregarding his experience.[15]

Documentary Evidence

Based on Runyon’s sighting report we initiated a search for documentation pertaining to the 24 October 1968 Minot AFB UFO case, and were fortunate to discover 145 pages of primary documents in the declassified operational files of Project Blue Book.[16] All of the documents are available in theDOCUMENTATION section of this website. In order to provide a sense of the evidentiary value of the source materials, we have categorized the documents into four basic types.

Transactional Documents are primary evidence produced in compliance with official military regulations. In this case, Air Force Regulation 80-17 established the Air Force UFO program, and specified the responsibilities (actions) for investigating, analyzing, and submitting UFO reports.[17] The regulation required Minot AFB investigating officer Lt. Colonel Arthur Werlich to have principal witnesses complete the AF-117Sighting of Unidentified Phenomena Questionnaire, and compile information in response to a formatted list of questions (Basic Reporting Data). Upon receipt, Project Blue Book was required to evaluate the data and prepare a final case report. The transactional documents total 83 pages.

Selective Documents are primary evidence recorded during the events, which the recorder deemed important or worth noting. These include logs of events noted by the Base Operations Dispatcher and missile Wing Security Controller, and a Transcription of Recorded Conversations between the B-52 copilot and RAPCON. The records also contain timelines useful for reconstructing the events. In addition, during the B-52 radar encounter the navigator filmed the radarscope, which shows the UFO and its relative movements. A targeting studies officer analyzed the film and selected fourteen 35mm frames from the larger sample as indicative of the UFO’s performance characteristics. These first-generation 8x10 positive prints contain quantitative information of the UFO encounter, and provide a means for assessing physical characteristics of the UFO. Werlich also prepared a map overlay (transparency superimposed on a classified 200-series map), plotting the B-52 flight track, and relative positions and movements of the UFO. The selective documents total 19 pages, plus 2 maps.

Memo[s] for the Record document telephone conversations between Blue Book staff and Minot AFB investigating officer Lt. Col. Werlich. Also included are conversations between Headquarters, Strategic Air Command/Operations with Blue Book staff, and the assistant Deputy Chief of Staff/Intelligence at SAC with Blue Book chief Lt. Col. Quintanilla. These conversations provide more details, insight into the process of the official investigation, and especially personal information and attitudes generally absent in transactional documents. The memoranda of conversations, including two telex communications, total 20 pages.

Oral History Interviews. During our research, we conducted more than 30 interviews with military observers and witnesses to the events. Transcriptions of the interviews are available in the INTERVIEW section of the website. While an oral report may be a true description of an event, it is crucial to understand that information in an oral history interview is a selective recollection, removed from the original event and further abstracted by human memory. Nevertheless, there are ways to evaluate reliability, and in this case, the oral history interviews make an important contribution to our understanding. For example, regarding the B-52 crewmembers, individual recollections reflect particular situations at the time of the event respective to their stations in the aircraft. We can compare individual recollections to cross-validate any particular memory claim with more reliability given to claims independently recalled by more than one witness. In some instances, the way something is recollected, or even the lack of a recall can be meaningful.

Although oral history is subjective interpretation, it is eminently valuable in recovering levels of experience and understanding other perspectives that are not normally available to historians. Moreover, we can assess the validity of the recollections by contrast and comparison to the event itself as revealed in the primary source materials. A statement is not necessarily more accurate or true if written down at the time than if recalled later in testimony. Written documents possess immediacy and are uninfluenced by subsequent events, however, the documents can be incomplete, in error, or even written to mislead. In this case, the cumulative recollections of various witnesses form a general narrative of the events, which reveals significant information that is missing and unavailable in the official record.[18]

Sign Oral History Project

In May 1999, independent researchers, writers, and historians established the Sign Historical Group (SHG) and convened a foundational workshop in Chicago to discuss the application of traditional historical methodology to the “sometimes sketchy, often misinterpreted and always incomplete” subject of UFO history.[19] One area identified as lacking was the collection of oral testimonies, so we resolved to establish the Sign Oral History Project (SOHP) to preserve first-person accounts and significant historical information.

In May 2000, along with SHG colleague and Project 1947 director Jan Aldrich, we interviewed Bradford Runyon. Runyon’s testimony reasonably corroborated the events as revealed by the Blue Book documentation, while providing supplementary details and lines of inquiry not evident in the official documentation. In many respects, the case presented exceptional opportunities for historical research, particularly since it had never received any publicity.[20] The events evolved over a three-hour period, involving a significant cross-section of officers and military personnel. Since various groups had no contact with each other, it was possible to examine a body of testimonies untainted by other’s experiences and interpretations. The extent of the primary evidence provided an abundant means by which to assess, cross-validate, and corroborate information by seeking correspondence with multiple sources.

Over the next several years, with the assistance of SHG colleague James Klotz, we interviewed all the B-52 crewmembers and the non-crew pilot Major James Partin.[21] Our process was to record an initial telephone interview followed by a formal videotaped interview.

In addition, we interviewed the 5th Bombardment Wing intelligence officer responsible for the radarscope film analysis (SSgt. Richard Clark); the commander of the 810th Strategic Aerospace Division (Brig. General Ralph Holland); and the 91st Strategic Missile Wing commander (Col. B.H. Davidson). In all cases, we were the first public contact the witnesses had regarding their experiences.

Unfortunately, the Minot AFB officer responsible for investigating the case, 862nd Combat Support Group/Operations Division chief Lt. Colonel Arthur Werlich, is deceased, though we have spoken with family members. The events of 24 October 1968 made a lasting impression on his then-teenage daughters Kim and Melody, when they were awakened “in the middle of the night” and overheard an urgent telephone call to their father reporting the mysterious UFO activity.

The B-52 Radarscope Photographs

While researching the case, we were fortunate to discover first-generation radarscope photographs filmed onboard the B-52 during the radar UFO encounter. Early in the morning on 24 October 1968, 5thBombardment Wing intelligence officer Staff Sergeant Richard Clark arrived at work and was instructed to examine the original negative radarscope film. Clark requested two sets of 14 photographic prints from the larger sample, which clearly exhibit the UFO movement from front-right of the airborne B-52, as it appears to spiral around behind the aircraft to a position off the left wing. He included one set of the photos in his report and retained the other as a personal file-copy. Later, Clark passed the photographs along to his brother-in-law, fellow Minnesotan, William McNeff, who has generously contributed them for our analysis.

The 14 radarscope photographs present successive three-second, time-lapse exposures, corresponding to less than 40 seconds when the UFO echo was “painted” by the radar. The photos provide a quantifiable data set,which, among other things, allows us to determine the altitude and location of the B-52 in three dimensions at the precise time of the photograph. In addition, this allows for an extrapolation of the flight track of the B-52 in real-time, and comparison to the documentary timelines, while providing an additional means to inform the interpretation and narrative reconstruction of the events.

In addition, the radarscope photographs contain information to examine the nature of the UFO that is typically not available in the majority of UFO reports. In this instance, information in the photographs allows us to infer accelerations and trajectories, providing insight into the physical characteristics of the UFO.

Martin Shough, an experienced and critical radar analyst in Scotland, has studied the B-52 radarscope photographs. Martin has contributed an analysis to this report, entitledAnomalous Echoes Captured by a B-52 Airborne Radarscope Camera, with the goal of testing the internal consistency of the witness narratives and official records against the physical evidence, while seeking an explanation for the anomalous radar echoes. He considers many conventional interpretations of the echoes, concluding that none of the possibilities are convincing.

Building on Shough's foundation, Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES) French space agency scientist and astronomer Dr. Claude Poher has contributed a photometric study of the radarscope photos, entitledAnalysis of Radar and Air-Visual UFO Observations on 24 October 1968 at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, USA. Incorporating a multidisciplinary approach, Poher systematically formulates hypotheses leading to theoretical considerations concerning the energetic potential of the UFO. He suggests, for instance, that if it were possible for the UFO to sustain the inferred accelerations for more than a dozen hours it could theoretically attain relativistic speeds approaching that of light, such that an interstellar voyage is possible.

Site Summary

In order that the reader can appreciate the historical context and circumstances surrounding the UFO events, the BACKGROUND section includes historical summaries of the Strategic Air Command; Minot Air Force Base; and two operational wings at Minot, the 5thBombardment Wing, and 91st Strategic Missile Wing. In addition, the concise, History of the United States Air Force UFO Programs, provides a general understanding of the evolution of the USAF UFO program from 1947-1969, including official attitudes regarding the phenomenon.

The NARRATIVE section recounts the story of the 24 October 1968 Minot AFB UFO case based on the primary source materials, while the INVESTIGATION section examines the process by which the Air Force and Project Blue Book investigated the case over nearly a three-week period resulting in Blue Book's final case report. Finally, the RADAR ANALYSES section presents the contributions of Martin Shough and Dr. Claude Poher.

All of the primary documents are included in theDOCUMENTATION section, while the INTERVIEWsection contains complete transcripts of many of the pertinent oral history interviews. For supplemental information, the MAPS section contains historical maps accumulated during the process of research, including a series created to illustrate the text, and the ARCHIVESsection contains many relevant historical records of the Air Force, including unit histories and official publications for the period. In addition, all of the chronological sections and individual documents comprising the site can be directly accessed from theSITEMAP at the top right corner of the main page.

Source: https://minotb52ufo.com/

Iranian Fighter Pilot Chased a UFO

It was just after midnight on September 19, 1976, when the Iranian Air Force command post at Mehrabad International Airport began receiving phone calls about strange objects in the sky. Callers said the object looked birdlike, or they described it as a helicopter with a light on it. The night supervisor who answered the phone tried to convince the callers it was “just stars” in the sky, but then he took a look outside.There was something visible to the naked eye north of the airport. The Iranian Air Force quickly scrambled a jet from a nearby base to investigate further. 

The unidentified flying object appeared to be about 70 miles away, and though the jets were capable of flying up to 1000 miles per hour, the pilot could not catch up to the UFO. As the pilot tried to get closer to the object, he realized that his instrument panels quit working. According to the declassified NSA document, the panels began working when pilots turned away from the UFO. The UFO appeared to have bright, strobing multicolored lights that made it hard to see how big the object was or what it was shaped like. A second jet was scrambled from the base, and the UFO appeared to fire a bright, multicolored object at the jet. 

Eventually, that object fell from the sky and was believed to have landed in a dry lake bed before radar began picking up a beeping coming from the vicinity. A search of that lake bed did not recover any flying craft.The report generated by the Iranian Air Force was shared with the U.S. intelligence agencies as the two countries did have a diplomatic relation at the time. That report stayed classified until 2020. Officials wondered if the object had a terrestrial explanation

It was just after midnight on September 19, 1976, when the Iranian Air Force command post at Mehrabad International Airport began receiving phone calls about strange objects in the sky. Callers said the object looked birdlike, or they described it as a helicopter with a light on it. The night supervisor who answered the phone tried to convince the callers it was “just stars” in the sky, but then he took a look outside.There was something visible to the naked eye north of the airport. The Iranian Air Force quickly scrambled a jet from a nearby base to investigate further. 

The unidentified flying object appeared to be about 70 miles away, and though the jets were capable of flying up to 1000 miles per hour, the pilot could not catch up to the UFO. As the pilot tried to get closer to the object, he realized that his instrument panels quit working. According to the declassified NSA document, the panels began working when pilots turned away from the UFO. The UFO appeared to have bright, strobing multicolored lights that made it hard to see how big the object was or what it was shaped like. A second jet was scrambled from the base, and the UFO appeared to fire a bright, multicolored object at the jet. 

Eventually, that object fell from the sky and was believed to have landed in a dry lake bed before radar began picking up a beeping coming from the vicinity. A search of that lake bed did not recover any flying craft.The report generated by the Iranian Air Force was shared with the U.S. intelligence agencies as the two countries did have a diplomatic relation at the time. That report stayed classified until 2020. Officials wondered if the object had a terrestrial explanation

Although there are many UFO sightings among pilots and air traffic controllers, one case in particular serves to shatter the myth that trained observers don't see UFOs. In September of 1976, the Iranian Air Force scrambled two Phantom jets to intercept a luminous, shape-shifting object drifting over the capital city of Tehran. But every time the jets approached it, their equipment failed, and the object darted away. The case is exemplary for involving a mix of radar data, physical effects, and multiple independent witnesses, and a classified report proves that it drew attention from the highest levels of the US government - despite official insistence to the contrary.

The First Chase

Around 10:30 p.m. on the night of September 18, 1976, Hossein Pirouzi, an experienced air traffic controller working at Mehrabad Airport in Tehran, received a call from a woman northeast of the airport who saw a luminous object glowing red, yellow, and orange. It was shaped like a four-blade fan, and seemed to split in two. A few minutes later, another caller reported a similar object in the same area of the sky, one which also split in two and then rejoined as one.(1) The tower radar was under repair, so Pirouzi could not confirm the UFO, but after receiving two more calls in the next half hour, he stepped outside to look through his binoculars: in the direction of the callers' sightings, he saw a luminous cylindrical object sitting horizontally in the sky about 1.8 kilometers, or 6000 feet, off the ground. He guessed that it was 8 meters wide, or just over 26 feet. Each end was glowing blue, and a red light was making an orbit around the center every second or two, and pausing every 90 degrees. The entire cylinder was rocking back and forth like a seesaw.(2) As it got closer, Pirouzi saw it slowly change into a drooping starfish with a green body and a core that glowed like red-hot coal. Its arms were dark orange but faded to yellow at the tips. It seemed to have four of them, though Pirouzi believed that there was actually only one arm switching positions.(3) However, when Pirouzi's trainees looked through the binoculars shortly after, they saw a semi-circle: the object was constantly changing shapes.

The object drifted to the north, and sometimes to the south, and even once seemed to instantaneously disappear and reappear a few kilometers from its original location. To add to the mystery, four aircraft that flew over the area in the next half hour heard an emergency beeper on their radio, although there was no record of a crash.(4) Around 12:30 a.m., Pirouzi called the Imperial Iranian Air Force and spoke to Brigadier General Nader Yousefi, Assistant Deputy Commander of Operations. Yousefi saw the object for himself from his house in northern Tehran, and confirmed that it was not a star.(5) At 1:30 a.m, he called Shahroki Air Force base in nearby Hamadan and scrambled an F-4 Phantom jet. The pilot, Yadi Nazeri, saw the object distinctly from well over 100 k.m. away, but said that it was too bright to see a shape.(6) It was "radiating violet, orange and white light” and appeared to be about 3.6 k.m., or 12,000 ft off the ground. Nazeri was instructed only to get a visual inspection, but when he approached within 46 k.m., or just under 29 miles, the object moved farther away. Even at mach 2, Nazeri was unable to close in. When he turned back towards Tehran, an object flew up from behind and darted by, beating him back to the city while he was still 240 k.m., or 150 miles away.(7) As he approached the UFO again, he lost all his radio and navigational aids, and regained them when he turned away. On his last approach, he lost his radio and intercom functionality as well. He then heard the same emergency signal reported earlier before running low on fuel and returning to Shahroki.(8)

The Second Chase

At 1:40 a.m., Yousefi scrambled a second Phantom, piloted by Lieutenant Parviz Jafari, then a squadron commander.(9) Jafari's radar operator was able to get a lock on the object, which appeared on the scope to be the size of a Boeing 707, but they could not get close enough to see a structure: every time they closed within 46 k.m., or 31 miles, the object sped away or "jumped" positions in the sky. Jafari calculated that it once jumped more than 43 kilometers, or 27 miles, in an instant. It also changed shape again: Jafari said that it was composed of four flashing strobe lights in a rectangular pattern flashing blue, green, red, and orange so quickly that they could all be seen at once. In the center was a red light with a yellow glow.(10) At one point, a smaller ball of light emerged from the UFO, and moved rapidly towards the jet. Jafari attempted to launch an AIM-9 heat seeking missile at it, only to realize that he had lost all weapons control and communications. He turned around and flew back towards Tehran, but the light followed him. Pirouzi saw this light from his tower, and watched it fly up behind the jet and pass it overhead. At this moment, Pirouzi lost communication with the pilot, which did not resume until Jafari went into a diving turn and the object broke chase.(11) The light swung around to the inside of his turn, then rejoined the larger UFO, and Jafari later regained the use of all instrumentation.(12)

Soon after, Jafari, his radar operator, Pirouzi, and his trainees all saw another smaller object emerge from the opposite side of the UFO, and drop quickly down to earth.(13) The jet's crew watched the light slow in its descent and land gently on the ground, casting a brilliant glow that extended for two to three kilometers. Jafari said that  it looked like daytime: so much so that it took some time for him and his operator to adjust their eyes to the darkness again.(14) They approached the main object, which was orbiting over the landed one, and again lost their navigational aids.(15) Yousefi ordered Jafari to shoot down the UFO, but before the pilot could act on his orders, his firing control panel went dead. As he ran low on fuel and began his return to Mehrabad, he had communication and navigational failures in the same place outside the airport, and strong interference on the radio. The one commercial flight that landed in that time experienced the same thing. In descent, Jafari saw another cylindrical object with lights at the ends and a flasher in the middle fly up behind him and pass him overhead.(16) Tower operators at Mehrabad saw it for themselves when directed where to look.

Perouzi was intrigued. The erratic behavior left him very curious as well, but even more curious was that the object suddenly disappeared and then reappeared a mile or so away in seconds. It was stunningly bright, but he was able to make out a shape of the object. It appeared to be almost starfish - shaped.

To reassure him that he wasn’t hallucinating, he handed the binoculars over to one of the trainees to corroborate what he was seeing. The trainee saw the same exact thing. Perouzi was concerned at this point because no aircraft was scheduled to land. And this thing surely looked like it was getting closer and closer to restricted airspace. Several aircraft were due to cross into the flight information region. And this object was clearly in the space where this was to happen. The incoming flights began to contact the tower by radio concerned as they were hearing emergency signals coming from an automatic aircraft distress transmitter.

The first report in was an airliner who called and asked if an aircraft had crashed in the area. The pilots has received an automatic signal. Perouzi assured them there was no crashed aircraft nor had any made a forced landing. Then came several other calls, including a Swiss airplane and an Iran airlines plane, both reporting having heard the emergency signal. It was now clear that Perouzi had to do something for the safety of all the flights in the area. And perhaps even more importantly for the entire city of Tehran.

Perouzi decided to report this to the local Iranian Air Force headquarters. He would explain the situation to one of the officers on duty, who in turn, relayed the information to the Senior Officer in charge that night. Not a half hour later, the officer himself phoned Perouzi back and told him personally that he’d went outside to try to observe the object. His exact words to Peruzzi were that it was, “Most definitely not a star.” This is when the first plane was scrambled to intercept the object.

We are indeed living in interesting times when it comes to U.S. government involvement, once again, with the UFO issue. As we move forward in one of the most exciting and contentious times in UFO history, we have cases like the 1976 Tehran incident to look back on in order to fuel the fire of curiosity moving forward. And we have people like Parvis Jafari to thank for their willingness to speak openly and publicly on these incidents. And whether or not AARO will come to any firm conclusions on what UFOs are or aren’t, and whether or not we will truly ever know what Jafari chased over Tehran, we can continue to attempt peaceful contact with these unknown objects, while continuing to also live in the mystery that lay somewhere in our skies.

If you are a former or current military service member and have a UFO encounter you’d like to share with Ryan Sprague, please contact him at: ryan.sprague51@gmail.com. For more information, visit: www.somewhereintheskies.com

Trail of the Saucers is published by Stellar Productions and edited by Bryce Zabel, the co-host of the new UAP/UFO podcast, “Need to Know with Coulthart and Zabel.”

Late on the evening of September 18, 1976, residents of the Shemiran area of Tehran, Iran, observed what they took to be a multicolored aircraft hovering a few thousand feet in the air. Several called the nearby Mehrabad airport, but their reports were not taken seriously at first. Finally Houssain Perouzi, the chief air traffic controller, decided to look for himself. After scanning the sky for a short time, his binoculars focused on an unusual object at what he estimated to be 6,000 feet altitude and five miles’ distance. The object, which had blue lights on its right and left sides and a red flashing light in the middle, was moving in an erratic fashion, changing colors and even its apparent shape.

Perouzi handed the glasses over to another controller, who also saw the object. Then passing aircraft reported that they were hearing emergency beeper signals on their radios. Puzzled and alarmed, Perouzi notified a duty officer, who quickly contacted his superior, Gen. Youssefi. Youssefi stepped out onto his porch and spotted the object, then contacted two military radars, one at Shaharoki (135 nautical miles west-southwest), the other at Babolsar (88 miles to the northeast). Neither was picking up anything, possibly because the mountains surrounding Tehran were blocking off the signals. The radar at Mehrabad was not operating at the time.

At the general’s direction, an F-4 was dispatched from Shaharoki at 1:30 a.m. But when it got within 25 nautical miles of the UFO, its instrumentation and communication ceased functioning. Only when the pilot pulled away did functioning resume. He continued to pursue it at a safe distance until he thought he had chased it over the Afghan border. But when he turned back toward Tehran, he was startled to see the UFO ahead of him. Evidently it had beaten him to his own destination. Youssefi, now in the control tower, was in radio contact with the pilot, whom he ordered to close in on the intruder. Every time he got within 20 miles of it, however, he suffered the same avionics failure that he had experienced earlier. His plane was running low on fuel, and he was forced to give up the chase. The object was now about 14 miles away and 15,000 feet in the air.

A second jet took off from Shaharoki at 1:40. Twenty-seven miles from the target, the aircraft’s radar picked up the object; the return indicated an object the size of a “707 tanker.” As the pilot closed in on the UFO, it moved away, as his radar confirmed; A U.S. Air Force memo prepared by Lt. Col. Olin R. Mooy, who interviewed the pilot, tells what happened next:

The visual size of the object was difficult to discern because of its intense brilliance. The light that it gave off was that of flashing strobe lights arranged in a rectangular pattern and alternating blue, green, and orange in color. The sequence of the lights was so fast that all the colors could be seen at once. The object and the pursuing F-4 continued on a course to the south of Tehran when another brightly lighted object, estimated to be one-half to one-third the apparent size of the moon, came out of the original object. This second object headed straight toward the F-4 at a very fast rate of speed. The pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 missile at the object but at that instant his weapons control panel went off and he lost all communications [UHF and interphone]. At this point the pilot initiated a turn and negative G dive to get away. As he turned the object fell in trail at what appeared to be 3–4 NM [nautical miles]. As he continued in his turn away from the primary object[,] the second object went to the inside of his turn[,] then returned to the primary object for a perfect rejoin.

Shortly after the second object joined up with the primary object[,] another object appeared to come out of the other side of the primary object going straight down at a great rate of speed. The F-4 crew had regained communications and the weapons control panel and watched the object approach the ground anticipating a large explosion. This object appeared to come to rest gently on the earth and cast a very bright light over an area of about 2–3 kilometers. The crew descended from their altitude of 25,000 to 15,000 and continued to observe and mark the object’s position. They had some difficulty in adjusting their night visibility for landing, so after orbiting Mehrabad a few times they went out for a straight in landing. There was a lot of interference on the UHF and each time they passed through a mag. bearing of 150 degrees from Mehrabad they lost their communications [UHF and interphone] and the INS fluctuated from 30 degrees to 50 degrees. The one civil airliner that was approaching Mehrabad during this same time experienced communications failure in the same vicinity [Kilo Zulu] but did not report seeing anything. While the F-4 was on a long final approach[,] the crew noticed another cylinder-shaped object (about the size of a T-bird [jet trainer aircraft] at 10 NM) with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle. When queried the tower stated there was no other known traffic in the area. During the time that the object passed over the F-4 the tower did not have a visual on it but picked it up after the pilot told them to look between the mountains and the refinery.

During daylight the F-4 crew was taken out to the area in a helicopter where the object apparently had landed. Nothing was noticed at the spot where they thought the object landed [a dry lake bed] but as they circled off to the west of the area[,] they picked up a very noticeable beeper signal. At the point where the return was the loudest was a small house with a garden. They landed and asked the people within if they had noticed anything strange last night. The people talked about a loud noise and a very bright light like lightning. The aircraft and area where the object is believed to have landed are being checked for possible radiation.

The Iran military conducted an official investigation and interviewed the two pilots, their copilots, and the two controllers in the tower. (The latter did not see the landing, which took place 15 miles south of the airport, out of their view.) Gen. Abdulah Azerbarzin, who had sat in on the interviews, later told physicist/ufologist Bruce Maccabee that the radars on both aircraft had been jammed when they locked onto the UFO. One of the craft had almost passed under the UFO. The pilot described the object as looking, in the general’s words, “just like a saucer, and the shape of the cockpit was a ball . . . half a ball, and the color of the lighting of the cockpit was different with [sic] what it had on the outside. It was close to yellow. . . . It was unidentified. Definitely it was. Because we had six witnesses” (Maccabee, 1984).

Gen. Azerbarzin claimed that complete records of the investigation had been turned over to the U.S. Air Force. Nonetheless, the Air Force steadfastly maintained that its only record of the incident was the Mooy memo. (Two students of official UFO policy have written, “Reliable sources within the government have told us that the Iranian case file was about one and a half inches thick” [Fawcett and Greenwood, 1984].) In any case, copies of that memo went to an impressive list of offices and agencies: Secretary of State, Central Intelligence Agency, White House, Air Force and Army Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Naval Operations, Defense Intelligence Agency, Commander in Chief of U.S. Naval Forces in the Middle East, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Air Force in Europe, European Defense Air Command, and Commander in Chief of Forces in Europe (“The U.S. Government,” 1978).

A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) “Report Evaluation” rated it “High (Unique, Timely, and of Major Significance).” It went on:

An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon:

a. The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shemiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground).

b. The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).

c. Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.

d. Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.

e. There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).

f. An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs.

In its third-quarter 1978 issue MIJI Quarterly, a classified publication circulated among U.S. agencies involved in electronic intelligence, reported on the incident, drawing on the Mooy memo and the DIA comment. The author, Capt. Henry Shields, noted, “No additional information or explanation of the strange events has been forthcoming; the story will be filed away and probably forgotten, but it makes interesting, and possibly disturbing, reading.” The article was declassified in 1981.

No satisfactory explanation for the incident has ever been proposed, though the late Philip J. Klass, author of several debunking books on UFOs, would attempt one. In Klass’s view, the witnesses initially saw an astronomical body, probably Jupiter, and pilot incompetence and equipment malfunction accounted for the rest (Klass, 1983). Klass’s theory presumes, without clear or compelling evidence, a remarkable lack of even rudimentary observing and technical skills on the parts of the Iranian participants. In some ways it would be easier to credit the notion, for which no evidence exists either, that the witnesses consciously fabricated the sighting. Both Gen. Azerbarzin and air controller Perouzi considered the incident thoroughly puzzling. So, as the documents indicate, did American analysts familiar with it. (Maccabee, 1983)

Sources

• “The Air Force and the Bright Thing in the Sky.” Kayhan International (September 21, 1976).

• “Airport Official Confirms UFO Sighting.” Tehran Journal (September 22, 1976).

• Fawcett, Lawrence, and Barry J. Greenwood. Clear Intent: The Government Coverup of the UFO Experience. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.

• “Iranian Air Force Jets Scrambled.” UFO Investigator (November 1976): 1–2.

• Klass, Philip J. UFOs: The Public Deceived. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1983.

• Maccabee, Bruce. “UFOs—Still Unexplained, part 1.” Fate 37, no. 2 (February 1984): 72–79.

• ———. “UFOs—Still Unexplained, part 2.” Fate 37 no. 3 (March 1984): 68–75.

• ———. “The Wrath of Philip J. Klass.” Fate 36, no. 11 (November 1983): 68–74.

• Maccabee, Bruce, ed. Flying Saucers Don’t Exist—or Do They? Prescott, AZ: William L. Moore Publications and Research, 1982.

• “The Mystery Deepens.” Tehran Journal (September 21, 1976).

• “UFO, Jets in Chase Over Tehran.” The A.P.R.O. Bulletin (September 1976): 1, 3.

• “The U.S. Government and the Iran Case.” International UFO Reporter 3, no. 1 (January 1978): 6–7.