Tag Archives: By Keith Basterfield

Drury UFO Incident: Cold Case Review of Sighting & Film of Unidentified Flying Object

Drury UFO - Frame of Film 1982

Introduction

      An event which happened nearly 64 years ago, continues to be cited as a visual observation, of an anomalous object, which is supported by a movie film.

At about noon, on 23 August 1953, a Mr T. P. Dury, his wife and young son, observed an unusual object in the sky over Port Moresby, New Guinea. Mr Drury used his movie camera to capture images of the object. Claims have been made that the film returned to Mr Drury had some footage of the object missing.

By Keith Basterfield & Paul Dean

By Keith Basterfield & Paul Dean
ufos-documenting-the-evidence
4-22-17

Technical Note

The intention of section 1 of this paper, is to provide a chronological account, of items about the incident, in the form of direct text quotes, or summaries where items are exceedingly long. Although the chronology is lengthy, it does provide a detailed account of what Australian government Departments, civilian UFO researchers, and other interested parties, have documented about the incident.

In any set of documents, there are inevitable errors. In some cases, the main witness is said to be T. C. Drury; C. T. Drury or T. P. Drury. T. P. Drury is in fact correct. The date of the incident is actually 23 August 1953. However, it is sometimes said to have been 24 August 1953; 23 August 1957; Christmas 1953, or 23 August 1954. The location in at least one document, is said to have been Darwin, although it actually occurred in Port Moresby. The time is generally stated as 12 noon, but in at least once instance is shown as 11 am. There are other inconsistences, which the alert reader will detect.

There are numerous references to the Drury incident, in other UFO magazines; books, and on the internet. However, none of these provide any information, not already provided below, so these have not been cited.

Due to the passage of time, many of the individuals mentioned in this paper are no longer alive. The authors advise the reader, that have not re-interviewed any witnesses to the sighting, given the age of the event. Instead, they feel that there is far more value to utilising the text of sources close to the date of the event. The authors also disclose that they have not been able to view any of the colour film, or any first generation still photographs copied from the film. However, they do cite the opinions of individuals who have done so.

Read more »

Read More

UFO Incident April 25, 1945: Bomber Pilot Encounters UFO, Loses Power

UFO Incident April 25, 1945: Bomber Pilot Encounters UFO, Loses Power
The UFO incident occurred at 9.45 GMT just after a turn near Kaiserslautern, Germany on the final approach to Berchtesgaden.

An observation over Germany in 1945

     At the time of the sighting Kit Francis Williams was an Acting Squadron Leader in the Royal Air Force (RAF), England. Kit was in the 617 Bomber Squadron based at Woodall Spa, East Lincolnshire, England.

The sighting occurred on the 25 April 1945 while on a bombing mission for Bomber Command’s Special Duties Squadron. Kit was the pilot of the Avro Lancaster bomber, that was the wing finder in the flight group. This was the final bombing mission of the Squadron in the Second World War. The mission comprised 25 to


By Keith Basterfield
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
11-14-16

26 aircraft, and had been tasked to bomb, ‘Hitler’s hideout, Berchtesgaden,’ this was Hitler’s mountain retreat and headquarters at Obersalzberg, in the Bavarian Alps, Germany. These headquarters were also known as the Berghof (residence).

The UFO incident occurred at 9.45 GMT just after a turn near Kaiserslautern, Germany on the final approach to Berchtesgaden. The Lancaster was at an altitude of 16,500 feet (5030 metres), the sky was clear below and the there was a solid cloud cover at 18,500 feet (5640 metres). The nearest aircraft would have been two miles (three kilometres) to the port. The main bomber group, referred to as the, ‘Gaggle’ would have been ten to fifteen miles (16 to 24 kilometres) behind.

Kit, who was the pilot, witnessed, without warning, what he described as, ‘Like a great blanket, a woolly blanket,’ that may have been four to five miles wide (six to eight kilometres). Kit explained that it, ‘Seemed to fill the whole of the windscreen,’ and the colour was grey/brown like, ‘An old army type blanket.’

The object appeared to be moving in the vertical direction past the windscreen of the aircraft, and was gone, ‘In an instant.’

Lost bomb

Immediately following this sighting, the only bomb in the aircraft broke loose, from its mounting, and, ‘Crashed,’ through the bomb bay door and out of the aircraft. The bomb was a 12,000 pound (5443 kilograms) armour piercing type, known as a, ‘Tallboy.’ Kit could hear and feel the vibration of the bomb crashing through the bomb bay doors.

At the same time as the bomb loss, the electrical power in the aircraft failed. This resulted in the four propeller engines losing power and therefore the aircraft could not be properly trimmed from the lift
caused by the bomb’s weight loss. All four engine revolution counters started to drop and all other electrically powered instruments ceased to function.

Kit said during the interview that it was, ‘Obvious that my electrics had gone,’ and they were losing height.

The emergency action plan was commenced where the inboard port engine was, ‘Feathered,’ the other three engines continued, ‘Windmilling.’ The, ‘Feathered,’ engine was locked in its starting position and then started using the backup battery power system on the aircraft. The three other engines were successfully started using the same technique since, ’Windmilling,’ engines could not be started without first being, ‘Feathered.’ The aircraft had dropped 4000 feet (1220 metres) to an altitude of 12,000 feet (3658 metres) due to the power loss.

At the same time as Kit was working on starting the first engine when he, ‘Thought he had hit his head on something,’ and a, ‘Sudden sensation of a pounding headache,’ this sensation continued.

Due to the damage caused by the detached bomb, the bomb bay door could not be closed, apart from that there appeared to be no other damage to the aircraft. The other aircraft in the group continued with their bombing mission. Kit’s aircraft returned to the base in England, since they were now without a bomb. Another aircraft in the group apparently saw the bomb being dropped from Kit’s aircraft and the loss of altitude, they did not see anything else, such as, the unidentified object.

Since the headache occurred, Kit was having difficulty getting his reflexes working normally and having to think about an action before its execution. Kit noticed that the Engineer and the Bomber appeared to be having the same experience, of a headache. Kit commented that the Bomber, ‘Gave the impression that someone had walked up behind him, and slapped him hard, between the shoulder blades,’ adding that the Engineer had the same expression. After taking to all the crew he confirmed that they all had the same type of headache. The headaches were so debilitating that they were all taking a variety of pain relief medication that were in the emergency kits in the aircraft.

Because of the condition caused by the headache, Kit had not been able to land the aircraft successfully and ran off the runway at the end, and onto a grass verge. After landing their Lancaster in England an ambulance was waiting for them.

At the time of the incident, Kit was 19 years old, the eldest of the flight crew, the Navigator, was 26 years old.

After effects

Kit told McDonald that after landing the crew and himself were taken for medical treatment and interrogation, over a period of eleven days. They were first transferred to the base hospital then to Wokingham, England. Following this, to the ‘Guinea Pigs,’ hospital at Rauceby RAF, where all the medical specialists were located. They were finally moved to High Wickham, Bomber Command headquarters and then to the MI9 Enemy Intelligence and Interrogation Centre. The medical treatment consisted of various tests and the taking of medications to mitigate the headache, none of these treatments were successful. Kit commented that he was in a poor state of health because of the incident.

Kit said on the eleventh day is, ‘When the headache dispersed.’ Kit had found out that all the air crew, except the rear gunner, had ceased having headaches on the same day, within 12 hours of each other. The Rear Gunner took three weeks for the headache to dissipate.

The seven crew in the Lancaster were all different physical builds, and apparently that they were all equally effected by the headache. Kit commented to McDonald that he suspected that the unidentified object had caused the power loss in the aircraft, the headaches and loss of physical co-ordination.

Kit explained to McDonald that he knew of a similar event that occurred just after Christmas 1944 when a Hawker Tempest, piloted by John Dunk, lost power over the English Channel. The pilot had bailed out of the aircraft. Another similar event occurred in Nine Squadron during August 1944, when an aircraft lost power and the crew bailed out in the same area as Kit had lost power.

Kit claimed that there were other bomber crews at High Wickham Bomber Command, at the same time he was there. He noticed that these crews were taken to the same sections in the Command buildings and he therefore speculated that they may have been there because they had similar experiences while flying.

Kit witnesses one other sighting on the 1 January 1955 in the central highlands of Malaysia. He, ‘Was advised that there was a peculiar aircraft flying around the area.’ Therefore, he climbed, with others, at ‘Frasers Hill,’ to observe the unidentified object. He was the Field Security Officer. He did not initially notice anything, but the Tamil who had seen the object previously, climbed a tree to get a better view. Kit said that the Tamil, ‘Right out of the blue he started screaming has head off,’ and came down the tree to point, and he observed, ‘There was a puff, looked like a puff of green like smoke, like you would see from a smoke bomb.’ The, ‘Puff,’ was six to seven hundred feet (180 to 210 metres) above the tops of the mountains.

As it expanded Kit took several photographs until it dispersed over a period of six or seven minutes. The colour of the, ‘Puff,’ was described by Kit as being, ‘Bright sea green.’ Apparently, the Tamil has seen a flash of light before the, ‘Puff.’ At that time, he had the same feeling that the headache may reoccur, like the one he had in 1945. This discomfort lasted for about an hour and then dissipated. The Tamil had previously sighted the, ‘Peculiar aircraft,’ and described it as being like a flat shinny ball and without any noise.

Kit told Mc Donald that he resided at, Ortolan Avenue, Broadmeadows, Victoria. His telephone number was 309 2468.

Kit said that he had no lasting disability because of the incident in 1944. After leaving the hospital he commenced flying two weeks later with a doctor and another pilot on board to access his ability for flying. He later joined the Tiger Force, in Burma, and after that he worked at London University. He went to Japan after their surrender, at the end of the Second World War, and eventually moved to Australia.

When he had the second headache in 1955 he, ‘Had the impression that one was around,’ referring to the unidentified object.

Kit thought, at the meetings with other air crew, that talk of UFO activity is, ‘Conspicuous by absence.’ He also claimed that religious people are not comfortable with discussing the reality of UFOs.

Read more »

Read More

Official UFO Files for Papua New Guinea Uncovered

UFO File (Cover) in Papua New Guinea

“Unidentified Flying Objects and mysterious happenings in Papua New Guinea” – a file emerges

By Keith Basterfield
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
7-8-15

Introduction

     Last year, I located details on the National Archives of Australia (NAA) RecordSearch database system, of a previously unknown UAP file. I submitted a request for the file to be examined for release. It has taken until now for this request to be processed, and for a PDF copy of the file to be made available to me.

The file cover gives the title as “Unidentified Flying Objects and mysterious happenings in PNG.” The PDF file contains 107 pages of documents. Interestingly, the file cover bottom right hand side, says “PART File 69/4393,” and the inside cover, states “Confidential part file cancelled 15/2/71.” The end cover of the file goes on to state, “Unclassified part of 69/4393.” Later on in this post, I will provide my interpretation of the meaning of all these comments.

Contents

The first sighting on the file is dated 6 Dec 1957 from “Patrol post, Vanimo, Sepik District.”… where two corporals reported a nocturnal, bright, white light descending apparently to the ground, for a …muffled impact was heard.” The corporals were Royal Australian Engineers. Due to time and financial limitations, a decision was taken to do nothing about the report.

A memo, dated 12 Feb 1958, from the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial and Research organisation (CSIRO) to the Department of Territories (DOT) concluded that the object was most likely a meteor. A Department of Defence (DOD) memo, dated 26 Feb 1958 included (we) “…would appreciate being informed of any similar observations in the future. It is not, however, considered that a search would be justified from the Defence aspect in this particular instance.”

Mysterious explosion

Image 98 of the digitised file is an encrypted radiogram addressed to “Territories Canberra” received 8 Jul 1958. Image 97 decodes the cable. Three people reported a “mysterious light explosion” between 1900-2100hrs July 2nd. Later papers reveal that the location was “South of the Shortlands.”

Fallen object

A June 1959 radiogram to Canberra reported a UFO at 1900hrs Sunday 24 May 1959. Looking westwards, high in the sky, an object was seen to descend “…erratically in SW direction. Colour was of a brilliant blue.” Disappeared at 2015hrs. A DOD memo dated 29 Jun 1959 noted they had copied the report to both the Departments of Air, and Civil Aviation. . . .

Read more »

Read More

Western Australia Police UAP / UFO File Uncovered

Police UFO Files (Cover Crpd - OZ)

By Keith Basterfield
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
7-3-15

     Australian UAP researchers have long been aware that in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the RAAF when investigating reports of UAP, used the resources of state police forces to interview witnesses. The evidence for this is to be found on RAAF “Unusual Aerial Sightings” files, held by the National Archives of Australia. However, until now, no one has ever located a whole state police force file on the subject.

Courtesy of Dr Stuart Hatch of GovHack 2015, (click here) who found a Western Australia police department file, number 64/2885, we now have one such file.

What is on the file?

This is a 55 page file, with documents on it in the date range 1951 and 1975. The following will give you an idea of what is contained therein.

Item one:

Memo dated 14 August 1975, from R Carr, Assistant Commissioner (Admin) to RAAF Pearce. Forwarding copies of reports in the Northampton area.

Memo dated 3 August 1975 from Sargent Johnstone, Northampton, to Superintendent Murphy, Geraldton. Reports by Valerie Casley, Hutt River Province; and Cheryl and Ronald Hoskin of a nearby farm.

Report details. At 1100hrs on 8 July 1975. Casley attended the Northampton police station to report a number of UAP observations. She and her husband had seen a “…strange orange coloured object in the air…it lands and seems to take off again.” At 0900hrs 8 July 1975, while driving north to Northampton, she saw “…a very large white ball. This ball was about 2 to 3
cars round…it was present for about 10 to 15 seconds and then vanished. It did not move away just disappeared. The object was about half a mile away, to the east…” Soundless.

Between 2030-2100hrs about 18 June 1975, in the same area, “…an object shaped like cow horns was seen about 300 yards away on the ground. It appeared about 4 foot long with a bright light in the centre, with the lights getting less bright as they went to the horn shape.” It then took off and slowly disappeared from the inside out. No sound. Seen by Valerie and Wayne Casley. . . .

Read more »

Read More

Australian Monthly UAP / UFO Reports

Australian Monthly UAP / UFO Reports

By Keith Basterfield
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
4-4-15

March 2015 Australian national level sightings listing

Compiled by Keith Basterfield and Paul Dean.

     This is the sixth in a series of Australian national level sightings listings, gathered from input by Australian civilian UAP groups, and other sources. Many of the reports in the listing have not been investigated and documented.

One of the reasons for the listing, is to draw people’s attention to cases of which they might not be aware, and to stimulate them to then investigate and report back to us all. Paul and I would prefer to be publishing only cases which have been investigated, but the lack of investigated and published cases within Australia, would mean we would miss out on so many others. We have therefore chosen to compile as many as possible, with the hope, that over time, most cases we list here will have been investigated.

If you have items for the April 2015 listing, please forward them to keithbasterfield@yahoo.com.au by 3 May 2015.

Recurrent light phenomena in Tasmania:

A man visited a property in Tasmania which has been the scene of previous unusual light phenomena. At 2040hrs on 20 March 2015, in the company of the two property owners, they brought his attention to a slight glow around the honey box which he thought was just normal light. Then, moving to a rear fence, the owners saw a light and the man tried to approach it. He “…could clearly see a golf ball sized light at 70??metres away sitting at the base of a tree.” The man approached the light but lost sight of it. The owners told him “…the light had shrunk to a very small point source as I approached it.”

At about 2100hrs, the man “…walked about 40 metres from the owners…and the 6 week old torch I had (with new batteries) started to act weird and the light would go on and off.” After walking back, the torch resumed its usual functioning.

At about 2140hrs “…a second light appeared in the air about 2 metres (?) off the ground and about 5 metres to the left of the ‘pilot light’ which was still sitting at the base of the tree.” The three went inside after watching for a while longer.

On the 21 March 2015 at 0610hrs, “I witnessed a light about the size (?) of a basketball (?) appear at approximately 70-100 metres away. It stayed in the air for about 4 seconds. I initially flashed my torch at it with no response from the light, which then moved to the right and I could not see it anymore.”

I also placed three game cameras (which work off localised heat sources) and set them to video function as normal. When I picked up the cameras, which had nothing of note on them, I found that two of them were now on still mode.”

The man returned to the location on the 26 March. At 2015hrs the “pilot light” was again visible from the front gate. He approached this light but it faded so he returned to the gate. He could then see it again, approached but lost sight of it. The walkie talkie he had with him was working until he was about 100 metres away from the property owners, it started cutting in an out. He moved forward about another 100 metres, and a white light appeared at about 50/70 metres to his left and started flashing on and off. One second on and two seconds off. After about ten seconds another white light appeared about 10-15 metres to the right of the first light and this also turned on and off. After five minutes he returned to the farm. More lights were seen at 2245hrs and also on the following night.

(The above was summarised from a first hand account by the visiting male witness, supplied courtesy of Bill Chalker and TUFOIC. Keith Roberts of TUFOIC has kindly supplied us with a full account on the recurrent light phenomena.) . . .

Read more »

Read More

Scientific Ufology – the Way To Go

By Keith Basterfield
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
2-27-15

     Eddie Bullard

In his 2010 book, “The Myth and Mystery of UFOs,” US researcher Eddie Bullard listed his thoughts on categories of people who study UAP. Among his categories were “skeptics,” “activists,” and “scientific ufologists.”

What did Bullard write about “scientific ufologists?” In part he wrote:

“For this group UFOs are a phenomenon accessible to rational inquiry. These people pursue in-depth case investigations, critical examination of the evidence, comparison of collected data and rigorous research projects to determine if any UFO reports describe an unknown phenomenon…Exemplified by Hynek and McDonald, professed by the leading UFO organisations, this scientific approach represents ufology in the purist sense of a scientific or scholarly discipline.” (p.15.)

My own approach

In looking at my own approach to the subject, I clearly fit into being a “scientific ufologist.” I have conducted in-depth case investigations, and equally as important in my view, I have extensively published my research findings. Readers of my blog will be aware of my numerous “cold case” reviews (for a listing and links to these, click here.) I also have published in-depth reports on current cases I have been involved in, e.g. the 19 March 2014 Perth, Western Australia aircraft near-miss with an “unknown object” (click here to read the NARCAP technical report.) or the 29 May 2014 very unusual incident on the south coast of New South Wales (click here.)

Each of my “cold case” reviews involved a critical re-examination of the evidence, almost always drawn from tracking down and closely looking at original documentation, some of which no-one else had seen before.

“Hot air”

The opposite of my scientific approach to the subject, is to be seen in the work of some “investigators” who also claim to be researching the subject using a “scientific” approach. Here, in my opinion, there is much “hot air,” and little or no substance.

Recently, I have tried to locate any written, detailed case reports published by three individuals who claim to be following a “scientific” approach. Two are Australian and one is American. I failed to find a single published, detailed case report of theirs on the Internet, or in UAP Magazines/Newsletters/Journals. This is suggestive that, despite their claim to follow a “scientific” approach, they fail to live up to this approach.

My process

Attracting raw reports via electronic Internet forms on websites, is simply the first step in the process. It is too easy these days for anyone to submit an electronic report to UAP groups. A look at the types of reports being made to various electronic databases, reveals the questionable nature of some of them, e.g. how many are straight out hoaxes?

Once reported to an electronic system, or indeed via telephone, the old fashioned letter, or any other means, the next stage in the process should be to conduct an investigation by contacting the witness. Some raw reports are made anonymously and therefore no follow up is possible. In my opinion, an un-investigated anonymous report has little value.

When contact details are given, it is then necessary to speak to the witness in person. Reporting by someone in Australia, to an overseas database may mean no local interview is performed by anyone.
This face to face interview is critical. Besides taking note of the details of the reported occurrence, an experienced investigator will also gain a “feel” for the genuineness of the reporter and hence the report. My preference is to conduct this face to face interview at the site of the incident, wherever possible.

Analysis

Once details of the event are recorded, the next step is to critically examine of these details. A check for aircraft movements; planets; stars; satellites needs to be made. The weather at the time should be investigated. For a full list of investigative tools, click here. By this analysis, I am looking to see if a mundane explanation could explain the observation. My experience, and that of others, is that 95% of incoming raw reports have conventional explanations.

Publication

As I mentioned above, I rate publishing the details of investigations and research, equally as important as carrying out a detailed investigation. This allows for a scientific “peer review” of both your data and your conclusions, a very important part of the scientific process.

Sometimes, this also attracts the attention of members of the mass media. An example of this are remarks I made at the 2014 Melbourne, VUFOA conference, about the need for an Australian quick response team. The following morning, newspaper and radio items appeared about my remarks. I did not seek this publicity, it simply followed me presenting a conference paper. As a result I was asked to go on a number of radio shows to be interviewed about my thoughts. I carefully selected those on which to appear, and turned other requests down.

Similarly, the mass media picked up on aspects of the research conducted by myself about the 19 March 2014 Perth near-miss, between an aircraft and an unknown object. I did not seek out this publicity, it simply followed publication of my research. I turned down a number of requests to be interviewed about the case. I find it odd, therefore, that an Australian researcher recently has suggested that I am “seeking publicity.” This is not so. I reject something like 9 out of 10 mass media requests for interviews, including one recent approach from Channel 9 television to discuss pilot observations.

My process

So, my process is, collect incoming raw reports; conduct a personal interview (on site if possible); document the evidence presented by the witness; followed by an analysis; then preparing a detailed, written case report, and finally publishing it for peer review. This process produces a small, but screened, number of examples of the “core” UAP each year.

The above is how I believe that a scientific investigation of UAP should be conducted. Looking around, both overseas and here in Australia, I see far too many people who state they are following a “scientific” approach, who fall short of the standards I expect of my own research. I realise that this is not something that some people will like to hear, but I tell it as I see it.

Read more »

Read More

New UAP / [UFO] files located at the National Archives of Australia

New UAP / [UFO] files located at the National Archives of Australia

By Keith Basterfield
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
1-10-15

     I have recently located four more unexamined UAP Australian government files in the National Archives of Australia. They are:

1. File series A452, control symbol 1969/4393. Barcode 32756885, titled “Unidentified Flying Objects and mysterious happenings in Papua and New Guinea.” Department of Territories. 1957-1973.

2. File series A9755, control symbol 19. Barcode 3533548, titled “RAAF Headquarters no 82 Bomber Wing, Amberley, Qld. Unusual Aerial Sightings.” 1988-1989.

3. File series A9755, control symbol 20. Barcode 3533553, titled “RAAF Headquarters no 82 Bomber Wing, Amberley, Qld. Unusual Aerial Sightings.” 1989-1991.

4. File series A9755, control symbol 21. Barcode 3533564, titled “RAAF Headquarters Operational Support Group – Unusual Aerial Sightings.”

I have asked the NAA to examine all four files for release. This process can take up to several months. I will advise readers, of their contents when they become available.

Read more »

Read More

Dr Bruce Maccabee and the CIA

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);
Bookmark and Sharevar addthis_config = {“data_track_clickback”:true};

The FBI-CIA-UFO Connection

By Keith Basterfield
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
11-30-14

Introduction:

I have read numerous conspiracy based websites about the depth of the involvement of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in UAP. Few people, however, have had the opportunity to interact with CIA personnel with an interest, in this area. So, it was with great delight that I read Maccabee’s book titled “The FBI CIA UFO Connection.” Published by Richard Dolan Press. Rochester, NY. ISBN 978-150 231 7216 (2014).

“First contact” 1979:

Maccabee relates that following his investigation of the 1978 New Zealand, visual, radar and photographic case, he was referred to a Dr Gordon MacDonald of the MITRE Corporation, who referred him to a contact in the CIA known to MacDonald.

“About the middle of March…I got a call from a man who said he worked at the CIA and offered me the opportunity to get some technical help if I would present my work to the CIA.” (p.259.)

Maccabee then presented his NZ case work to seven CIA employees, one of whom was a Christopher ‘Kit’ Green. Green invited Maccabee to return at a later date “…for a more general discussion of the UFO subject.” (p.296.) Maccabee subsequently met with Green and two other CIA employees. “Kit portrayed his interest in the subject , and that of the others, as more of a personal than an agency interest.” (p.297.) A week later, Maccabee returned to talk to a radar expert at the CIA about the New Zealand case.

1984:

Maccabee was at this stage working at the Naval Surface Weapons Center in Maryland, in the field of Laser Generated Underwater Sound (LGUS.) In August 1984, he received a call from a Dr Ronald Pandolfi. Pandolfi was”…a scientist and intelligence analyst in the Scientific Intelligence branch of the CIA.” (p.299.) Pandolfi questioned Maccabee about LGUS. Pandolfi knew of Maccabee’s UAP interests, and earlier visits to the CIA, via Kit Green. “Thus began a more than fifteen year association with Ron based on the original CIA interest in LGUS and an unofficial interest of Ron and other agency employees on the subject of UFOs and the status of UFO research.” (p.301.)

1986:

Pandolfi resurfaced at the time of the 17 November 1986, JAL1628 aircraft encounter over Alaska. Maccabee learned of the case via Pandolfi on 30 December 1986 and “I told Ron about my concern and boldly asserted that I could do a better investigation than the FAA.” (p.313.) Pandolfi contacted the FAA and arranged a meeting with John Callahan, Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA. Pandolfi, Maccabee and another CIA employee met on 5 February 1987 with Callahan and others. “Then, as we left, Ron surprised me with a gift: a box containing radar printouts, transcripts of interviews, a copy of the AARTCC voice tape and numerous other valuable documents.” (p.316.)

“At the time of the investigation I wondered whether or not Ron would get into trouble for supplying me with the information I needed to analyse the sighting. After all, UFO investigation was not supposed to be a task of the CIA…Many years later (2008) he told me that there was an official concern but it was not that the UFOs may have been ET craft. Rather it was that they might have been Soviet jets trying to use a large commercial jet aircraft, as a sort of cover for clandestine flights over Alaska. (p.319.)

1987:

Pandolfi invited Maccabee “…to speak about the UFO subject at CIA headquarters.” (p.322.) He did so on 7 July 1987 to about two dozen people. One effect was “…my lecture had created a lot of “spies” within the agency, that is, employees who were using their top secret clearance level to nose around and try to find top secret UFO related information and projects. Whether anyone found such projects, I do not know.” (p.322.)

Pandolfi later told Maccabee that “…a CIA archivist had spent some amount of time searching but had not found MJ-12 in the CIA files. ” (p.324.)

Gulf Breeze:

Maccabee then became involved with investigations into the numerous visual sightings, and photographs associated with Gulf Breeze.

During meetings about the LGUS Maccabee appraised Pandolfi of his investigations “…there apparently was a considerable level of interest on the part of CIA employees. About the middle of September, I showed some of Ed’s pictures to several employees and was invited to discuss this and other UFO subjects with a branch chief.” (p.332.) Maccabee then lectured at the CIA about his Gulf Breeze research.

1989:

A wave of sightings came out of the Soviet Union. Maccabee writes “In August 1989, I pointed out to Ron that we could not keep up with the Russian flap because of the language problem, so he arranged to have newspaper articles translated for agency use and for me to receive copies of FBIS translations.” (p.339.)

“About two months later, in June, Ron told me that the fact that Maltsev had made a series of official reports about the March 21 sighting caused quite a stir at upper CIA levels.” (p.340.) Maltsev was Air Defence General Igor Maltsev.

1993:

In 1993, the Director of the CIA Robert James Woolsey asked National Reconnaissance Office historian Gerald K Haines “…to review all the records on the subject and write what would be the official history of the CIA involvement with the subject of UFOs.” (p.341.) Maccabee received a copy in 1996, “I thought I might learn something about saucers/UFOs that I didn’t know. No such luck.” (p.344.)

“The subject of my last lecture at the CIA was a UFO that had a “magnetic personality.””(p.348.) This was the 11 September 1992 Gulf Breeze case when an investigator used a flux gradient magnetometer to determine the presence of a magnetic field, where the sighting had occurred. Maccabee writes “The CIA employees were as puzzled as I by the “magnetic sighting.” (p.356.)

Summary:

Maccabee summarises his efforts by saying “From the time I first visited the CIA, I wanted the answers to two main questions…I wanted to know (a) if they had top secret information about UFOs and (b) if they were in control of the assumed cover up.” (p.357.)

In response to these two questions, Maccabee says “Kit seemed to treat the subject as something of medium importance, not very important but not something to laugh at…Ron on the other hand, seemed to treat it as a joke or an amusement.” (p.358.)

“…but there didn’t seem to be an official reason for the CIA to pay any attention to UFO research. Then, in 1990, Ron told me the official reason: the possibility of espionage. He said that in the 1970’s, the CIA had obtained “firm evidence” that the KGB had devised a plan to use US citizens, including UFOlogists, to penetrate the US defense program.” (p.354.)

Maccabee answers part two of hit two part question, was there a hidden CIA control group, by saying Pandolfi, in March 1994 told him “The Director of Central Intelligence and the Deputy Director come to me when they want to know what is going on in UFOs. He admitted there might be a liaison person, a sort of “mole” in the CIA, working with a UFO group in another agency, but he was “not aware of any group in the CIA.””(p.361.)

Maccabee mentions in other places in his book, that he felt he knew more about the UFO topic than any CIA employee he came across.

“Kit, during a conversation in 2008, provided a potential answer to this question. He told me that he had questioned 18 top level CIA officers to cabinet ministers and high level military and even a president. Most didn’t know anything about the subject but some did. This led him to conclude that there was something going on, but not in the government.” (.361.)

Having said all the above, Maccabee notes, that in 2012 “…another CIA employee, Chase Brandon told interviewers that he had seen, some years before, a “Roswell box” inside a Top Secret vault that contained part of the Historical Intelligence Collection of the CIA.” (p.362.)

My comments:

Overall, a very interesting insight by Maccabee into the role of the CIA in UAP. One wonders which of their employees now, if any, undertakes the role previously taken by Christopher Green and Ronald Pandolfi?

For a six part series of posts on Christopher “Kit” Green, by my former co-blogger Pauline Wilson, please take a look at January 2011 in this blog’s archives. Part one may be found here.

Read more »

Read More

UAP [UFO] – Investigation tools

UAP Tools

UAP [UFO] – Investigation tools

By Keith Basterfield
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
11-1-14

      When investigating UAP reports, besides on-site interviews, I use a number of readily available tools. A number of people have asked me to publish details, in order that they may also use them, so here they are.

Webtrak

This website, click here, run by Air Services Australia, allows you to view a secondary radar derived map, showing the location of aircraft near the main Australian airports. You can view an area up to 50 kilometres from these selected airports, to an altitude of 30,000 feet. Only aircraft carrying a transponder (click here) show on the map. For each aircraft, you can find details such as its flight number, originating airfield and destination airfield, and its moment to moment height, plus the type of plane. You can check timewise, from 40 minutes in the past, to three months in the past.

My suggestion is, that for every UAP report that comes in, that you use Webtrak to determine if any aircraft match the position and movement of the UAP.

Sky Charts

There are several astronomical sky charts available on the net, e.g. Sky View Cafe, (click here) or Fourmilab (click here.) These provide locations of the Sun, the Moon, the planets and bright stars, for any date, time and geographic location.

The use of a sky chart will enable you to compare the location in the sky of any UAP to Sun, Moon, planets and stars. If day time, a UAP 22 degrees from the Sun could be a “sun dog” (click here); 22 degrees from the Moon could indicate a partial lunar halo. If the planet Venus is in the morning/evening sky, and the witness does not report seeing both the UAP and Venus, then the UAP could actually be Venus.

A sky chart can also be used to determine the time of sunrise/sunset and moonrise/moonset for any geographical location.

24 Hour Radar

This website (click here) allows you to track aircraft movements at any time, at any location on earth, provided they are using a transponder. Again, as with Webtrak, you can compare UAP details with aircraft details.

Weather Data

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology website (click here) allows you access to weather data from hundreds of locations around Australia. Details available on a daily basis, going back 14 months, include wind direction, wind speed, cloud cover percentage, and temperatures. All for free. If you want to go back further than 14 months you can do so, but there is a fee for this service.

Wind direction might, of course, suggest that the UAP was a wind blown object, e.g. a hot air garbage bag balloon. If the witness tells you the sky was clear when they saw a UAP yet your check of the Bureau site tells you the sky was totally overcast, then you might start to think there is an issue with your witness’ information.

Primary Radar Data

Secondary radar imaging, such as from Webtrak, only shows information from aircraft which have transponders onboard, radiating a signal which is picked by by secondary radar. Primary radar however, shows anything which reflects a transmitted radar signal. Primary radar is what the RAAF uses. However, to obtain copies of this data, you will need to submit a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Defence. The RAAF appears to recycle its radar data every 30 days, so you need to be quick to receive this type of radar data. You might also consider submitting an FOI to Air Services Australia seeking primary radar data, if they have it, for the nearest airport to the UAP location.

Newspapers

If you have one UAP observation from a location, there may be other unreported observations. To ascertain this, I often check the web for the nearest local newspaper to the UAP location, and check the digitised copy of the relevant newspaper for further sightings. If I find none, then I might email the newspaper seeking any reader who may also have sighted the UAP and ask them for details.

The Net Itself

If I receive a UAP sighting from say, Burra, South Australia on 29 November 2013, I will use an internet search engine using Burra, and the date as keywords, to see if I can find additional sightings on the net, or possible explanations.

Historical Reports

If you are looking into an historical report, your nearest State Library is an excellent resource. It has accessible newspapers, and often runs of old magazines published by UAP groups. Old newspapers can provide daily weather details, often far cheaper than going through the Bureau of Meteorology. Rare, or hard to find copies of UAP books are also often held by State Libraries.

The National Archives of Australia and the National Library of Australia are also sources of files, photographs, old newspaper clippings and other reference material.

State Libraries also hold hard copies of old electoral rolls, up to about the year 2011. If you are trying to locate witnesses to old cases. I have successfully located individuals associated with cases as far back as 1965!

In Summary

The above, are a few of the numerous electronic and hard copy means of assisting investigating a UAP case. However, they are only additional means. There is nothing like the old fashioned on-site interview with a reporter, where they can show you the trajectory of the UAP across the landscape where you are standing.

If blog readers know of other Australian resources, I would be delighted to hear from you.

Read more »

Read More

"This Is One Of The Most Remarkable Cases Of A Flying Saucer…" | ADELAIDE – 1962

"This Is One Of The Most Remarkable Cases Of A Flying Saucer..." | ADELAIDE – 1962

“This Is One Of The Most Remarkable Cases Of A Flying Saucer…”

By Keith Basterfield
ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com
9-22-14

     Hi all,

As readers of this blog will be aware, I always try and locate original source material on an incident, where ever possible.

One case which has appeared in numerous magazines and on the Internet, is the October 1962 report from a Mrs Sylvester of Adelaide, South Australia. The details which I recorded in one of my Australian case catalogues, is as follows:

28 Oct 1962 Salisbury SA CE3 1930hrs 40mins Sylvester (34:56, 138: 36)

A high school teacher and her three children were travelling back to Adelaide, by car, along a highway. They were turning from a southerly direction to an easterly one, facing the Adelaide hills. On the lower level of the hills, at an angular elevation of 45 degrees, they reported seeing an orange coloured, oval shaped object. Her 9 year old son first saw it. “It appeared to have landed on the earth on a level piece of ground.” It sat on three “legs.” It had round windows and the son reported seeing people inside it. He said one of them came down steps to the ground. After a while the object began to move, to the north at incredible speed.

Australian Saucer record:

While recently in the State Library of South Australia, I made time to locate a copy of the “Australian Saucer Record” Volume 9 Number 1, dated March 1963, pp13-14. In this issue I found the best documentation yet, on this incident. I’d like to share it here for other researchers to be aware of it.

A Flying Saucer lands near Adelaide.

This is one of the most remarkable cases of a flying saucer observed so close and having been seen ‘landed’ so near to a city, at least in Australia. However, the integrity of the witnesses, particularly the mother of the children, leaves us in no doubt at the reliability of the evidence, and the actual incident being a very factual one.

Mrs Ellen D Sylvester, the mother, is a high school teacher, and indeed her ability to give evidence places her in the class of a first class type of witness. The following account is an abbreviated one taken from the actual tape recording of the interview, made by our special investigator Colin Norris, whose work in the field over the past twelve months has been one which calls for commendation which we like to register here.

Mrs Sylvester is a resident of one of the close suburbs of Adelaide and the date on which this occurred was October 28th 1962, a memorable date for sightings as this was the evening of the sighting which caused a stir to the police when an object was observed at Pine Point, across the gulf a few hundred miles distance away from the observation and we consider it is very possible it was one and the same craft.

The time was 7.30pm and the sighting was made as Mrs Sylvester and her family of three children were travelling back to Adelaide along a highway. They were turning from a southerly direction to an easterly one which brought them into a position which faced the hills surrounding Adelaide.

It was on the lower level of these hills that the object was first observed. The whole actual observation lasted about 40 minutes and therefore was one which could hardly be classified as an optical illusion or an hallucination. The elevation was about 45 degrees. The object was oval and orange in colour to the outline of the sky and Sun setting reflections.

A son 9 years old first drew his mother’s attention to the object and it was very clear to all the party. It appeared to be landed on the earth on a level piece of land fully observable to the party. It had three legs upon which it stood. It had windows round in shape and the lad remarked that he could see some people in it. Then one of the occupants got out and came down some steps to the ground and appeared to be doing something to one of the landing legs.

Mrs Sylvester says she thought that he seemed to have some trouble in making it retract which finally he overcame. Evidently some adjustment had to be made to it as it was on this portion of the craft he worked all the time he was being observed.

The distance from the observers was, Mrs Sylvester said, a few miles away. She said had she been closer she would have gone up to the object. She had no fear, merely amazed wonderment. The person from the craft was about six feet tall she thought, as best as she could determine from the distance, as his head reached the outer fringe of the craft in height.

He wore a helmet more like a description to a gas mask of the war type so Mrs Sylverster said, and a drawing is given below as done by the son.

The craft had a light around the centre rim. Weather conditions were admirable fine and very clear.

After the mechanic had attended to the landing gear he returned to the craft and it began to move at first slowly away, then terribly fast and disappeared incredibly swiftly away to a northerly direction.

Mrs Sylvester stated herself that she could not understand why other people had not reported it as there must have been people closer to it than they, as well as traffic was passing along the two main highways close at hand. It seems she said that because they were not facing the actual object but travelling north and south with the object in the east, may have been an explanation in that to see it they would have had to take their eyes off the road and look directly away from their driving direction. Also the speed travelled on these highways would not give a good point of view unless the attention was drawn to it as their’s was by turning and facing directly east.

Asked is she believed in such things and if she considered that a craft could have been from space she answered positively in the affirmative and added that it could not have been an earthly craft its speed was too terrific. Also that she had never seen any known craft of this size and description as belonging to earth.

She ridiculed the idea of anyone classifying the man from the craft as a little ‘green man’ saying in her opinion such belongs to the fantasy world of the science fiction writers and the press. It was here that she was able to tell us the height by comparing the man’s height with that of the craft. She was positive that it was not any known object normal to earth.

A press man was present at the interview and appeared to be very impressed by the evidence given.
Upon questioning as to the headgear of the man she added that there were two lights on either side of his helmet and there was a form of breathing apparatus coming from the helmet down to his chest. This made it impossible for them to determine any facial features of the man, or the color of his skin, as he was clothed in a uniform which gave no clues to this.

My comment:

Having now obtained the above, detailed description, a large number of questions come to my mind. Not least is Mrs Sylvester’s estimate that the object was “a few miles away.” How would it be possible to see the fine details she reported, at such a distance? The fact that the event occurred in 1962 prevents us from any further analysis. Best perhaps, to simply record the above details and move on to other things.

Read more »

Read More