DISCLOSURE / FILE
Declassified RNZAF Volume 1 file AIR 1080/6/897 collecting interviews, DSIR working papers, and outside analyses of the December 1978 Kaikoura radar-visual UFO sightings, opened December 1978 and closed July 1981.
Kaikoura UFO Files, RNZAF AIR 1080/6/897 Volume 1 (1978–1981), RNZAF_AIR-1080-6-897_Kaikoura_UFO_File.pdf
Declassified RNZAF Volume 1 file AIR 1080/6/897 collecting interviews, DSIR working papers, and outside analyses of the December 1978 Kaikoura radar-visual UFO sightings, opened December 1978 and closed July 1981.
The file is the Royal New Zealand Air Force's investigation record for the December 1978 East Coast South Island radar and visual sightings, declassified by NZDF on 26 August 2010 and released to the public in December 2010 under the Official Information Act. It documents the 30-31 December 1978 Argosy freighter flights from Wellington to Christchurch and back to Blenheim, during which Captain Bill Startup, co-pilot Robert Guard, reporter Quentin Fogarty, cameraman David Crockett, and wife Ngaire Crockett observed and filmed anomalous lights while Wellington ATC controller Geoffrey Causer logged corresponding radar targets. The package includes the NZ UFO Studies Centre's transmittal of Dr. Bruce Maccabee's provisional report 'What Really Happened in New Zealand' (5 June 1979), DSIR Physics & Engineering Laboratory reports, and 1981 correspondence between Wing Commander G.T. Clarke and Quentin Fogarty over the return of Captain John Randle's witness statement. Public access to the original file is restricted until 2051 under Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO THIS FILE IS RESTRICTED UNTIL 2051 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRIVACY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9 OF THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982.p.3
File contains copy of the 'Kaikoura Sightings - Dec 78' Investigation and associated papers, plus correspondence related to other sightings. File also contains two reports by the Physics & Engineering Laboratory DSIR.p.6
The primary sources of information are the memories of the eight witnesses who were involved.p.17
And finally, there is the film, which is a veritable tour de force of UFO images.p.17
At 11:46 pm on December 30, 1978, a four-engine turbo prop Argosy freighter left Wellington, N.Z, on a standard Saturday evening-Sunday morning newspaper delivery run, from Blenheim, N.Z, to Wellington to Christchurch, and then back to Blenheim.p.19
About 45 seconds after that Wellington told the plane that something was flying in formation with it.p.20
Extracted text · Page 1
Page 1 · vision OCR
Copy 14 of 36 NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO) FILES COPIES FOR RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC File Number: AIR 1080 / 6 / 897 Volume 1 File Title: Investigations of Unidentified & Radar Sightings East Coast South Island – December 1978 File Timespan: Opened: 1978 - Closed 1981 File Declassified: December 2010 Location of Original File: Held at Headquarters NZDF Access to Original File: Restricted until 2051 File Contains: Interviews with people involved in the 1978 Kaikoura sightings conducted by the RNZAF preparatory to the preparation of a formal report into these sightings. File also contains technical reports from DSIR and other scientific experts and an independent report of the Kaikoura sightings by the NZ UFO Studies Centre.
Page 2 · vision OCR
NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE PUBLIC RELEASE OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO) FILES These copied and redacted files of correspondence on Unidentified Flying Objects dating from 1952 to 2009 have been Declassified and released to the public by the New Zealand Defence Force under the Official Information Act. Access to the original files held by Archives New Zealand is restricted up until the year 2080 for Personal Privacy reasons. These copied files have had the personal details of members of the public making UFO reports removed to preserve their privacy. Personal details of service personnel and civilians employed by the New Zealand Defence Force and other Government Departments and Agencies have not been removed. No other information has been removed or omitted from these files. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FILES Correspondence on Flying Saucers began in New Zealand Defence Force files in 1952 and continued under different names, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) and Unidentified Aerial Sightings (UAS) until the present. The files contain reports of sightings by private individuals and military personnel, investigations by Defence and other Government Departments and agencies into these reports, newspaper clippings on UFOs and letters from individuals who claim to be in touch with alien beings and craft. While the files are in general date order from 1952 until the present some file periods overlap with one another and the documents within each file are not necessarily in strict date order. There can be duplicate documents within each file and copies of the same documents (particularly media releases and reports) can appear in different files. ACCESS TO UFO FILES These redacted files are available in hard copy from the Defence Library c/o Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force Aitken St Wellington. They are not available in electronic format.
Concatenated page-by-page transcript. Born-digital pages came through pdf.js; scanned pages were transcribed by Claude vision OCR. Pages marked unreadable failed multiple OCR retries (heavy redaction, microfilm artifacts, or blank separators) and are kept in place for audit.
Copy 14 of 36 NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO) FILES COPIES FOR RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC File Number: AIR 1080 / 6 / 897 Volume 1 File Title: Investigations of Unidentified & Radar Sightings East Coast South Island – December 1978 File Timespan: Opened: 1978 - Closed 1981 File Declassified: December 2010 Location of Original File: Held at Headquarters NZDF Access to Original File: Restricted until 2051 File Contains: Interviews with people involved in the 1978 Kaikoura sightings conducted by the RNZAF preparatory to the preparation of a formal report into these sightings. File also contains technical reports from DSIR and other scientific experts and an independent report of the Kaikoura sightings by the NZ UFO Studies Centre.
NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE PUBLIC RELEASE OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS (UFO) FILES These copied and redacted files of correspondence on Unidentified Flying Objects dating from 1952 to 2009 have been Declassified and released to the public by the New Zealand Defence Force under the Official Information Act. Access to the original files held by Archives New Zealand is restricted up until the year 2080 for Personal Privacy reasons. These copied files have had the personal details of members of the public making UFO reports removed to preserve their privacy. Personal details of service personnel and civilians employed by the New Zealand Defence Force and other Government Departments and Agencies have not been removed. No other information has been removed or omitted from these files. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FILES Correspondence on Flying Saucers began in New Zealand Defence Force files in 1952 and continued under different names, Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) and Unidentified Aerial Sightings (UAS) until the present. The files contain reports of sightings by private individuals and military personnel, investigations by Defence and other Government Departments and agencies into these reports, newspaper clippings on UFOs and letters from individuals who claim to be in touch with alien beings and craft. While the files are in general date order from 1952 until the present some file periods overlap with one another and the documents within each file are not necessarily in strict date order. There can be duplicate documents within each file and copies of the same documents (particularly media releases and reports) can appear in different files. ACCESS TO UFO FILES These redacted files are available in hard copy from the Defence Library c/o Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force Aitken St Wellington. They are not available in electronic format.
The film image sizes (except when defocussed) are never larger then several milliradians in angular size.p.18
Page 206 · vision OCR
O .
[DIAGRAM: arrow symbol] = 2500μs.
= 17%. (423.5μs)
= 9%. (224.84μs)
= 14%. (349.58μs)
[DIAGRAM: Two hand-drawn waveform traces showing pulse sequences. Upper trace shows a series of pulses labeled with 'D' markers above. Lower trace shows pulses labeled with 'C', 'D', 'B', 'D', 'A', 'D' markers.]
A219A-6-A2 File No. AIR 1080/6/897 SERIES: GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, ORGANISATION & MANAGEMENT SUB SERIES: BOARDS OF INQUIRY & SUMMARY INVESTIGATIONS SUBJECT: INVESTIGATIONS OF UNIDENTIFIED VISUAL & RADAR SIGHTINGS EAST COAST SOUTH ISLAND – DECEMBER 1978 VOL. 1 Previous File: OTHER RELEVANT FILES File Opened: DEC 78 File Closed: JUL 81 Subject: File No. [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] File No. 17/4/897 CLOSED [Handwritten annotations, partially illegible] Per [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] 17/4/897 TRANSIT DIRECTIONS [Table with columns: Folio | Referred to | Date | Actioned by Initials | Date | Folio | Referred to | Date | Actioned by Initials | Date | Folio | Referred to | Date | Actioned by Initials | Date] Reg Survr(P) 30/62 [ILLEGIBLE] 4/10 Sup HQ DMS [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] S/L DALE AIRSTAFF 14/10 THIS FILE MAY BE RELEASED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS FROM [ILLEGIBLE] 20 [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] 3/12/10 Date: 20/8/10 for HQ NZ DEFENCE FORCE DECLASSIFIED On 26/8/10 Reference [ILLEGIBLE] Appointment [ILLEGIBLE] STATEMENT/REFERENCE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THIS FILE IS RESTRICTED UNTIL 2051 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRIVACY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9 OF THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982. CLOSED SIGNED [ILLEGIBLE] DATED 3/12/2010 DEPARTMENT: NZ DEFENCE FORCE AIR
STAFF IN CONFIDENCE
File No. AIR 17/4/897
Volume No. ONE
SUBJECT (or NAME): COURTS OF ENQUIRY : INVESTIGATION OF
UNIDENTIFIED VISUAL AND RADAR SIGHTINGS
EAST COAST SOUTH ISLAND DECEMBER 1978.
File Opened Dec 78 File Closed: JUL 81
Previous File: — Subsequent File: —
OTHER RELEVANT FILES
Subject: File No.
REPORTS OF U.F.O's. AIR 39/3/3
Copy of CADMOT tape held in DOPS safe.
Folio | Referred to | Date | Cleared, Initials | Folio | Referred to | Date | Cleared, Initials
FILE D OPS 9 JUL 81 [ILLEGIBLE]
PLANS 1 11 MAR 08 [ILLEGIBLE]
Sup Reg (F) 11/3/09 M3 [ILLEGIBLE]
Sup Reg ( 25/5/09 [ILLEGIBLE] 25/6/09VETTING RECORD SHEET
PLEASE COMPLETE ONLY ONE PAGE PER RECORD
NZDF STORAGE NO 89354
*HQ NZDF/ARMY/NAVY/AIR FORCE/HQ- FILE *Delete as appropriate
FILE NO 1080/6/897 LOCATION L FRB
PART NO 1 TYPE F NFM
(File or Non File Material)
Series GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
Sub-Series BOARDS OF INQUIRY AND SUMMARY INVESTIGATIONS
Subject INVESTIGATIONS OF UNIDENTIFIED VISUAL AND RADAR SIGHTINGS
EAST COAST SOUTH ISLAND, DECEMBER 1978
Date of first document 22/12/1978 Date of last document 2/7/1981
Please Tick the Appropriate Boxes:
[ ] No NZ Documents on File [✓] No Foreign Source Classified Documents on File
[ ] No Classified Documents on File [ ] Some Foreign or Special-Source Documents
placed on restricted Parallel File
[✓] NZ Documents Cleared for Access [ ] Some NZ (Non-NZDF) Documents placed on
Restricted Parallel File
[✓] No Classified NZ Documents on File [ ] Some [ ] All Classified Foreign Source
or Documents Cleared for Access
OR
[✓] Release on 1 JAN in the Year 2051
[ ] Review again before the Year 20
VETTING COMMENTS IF NECESSARY
File contains copy of the 'Kaikoura Sightings - Dec 78'
Investigation and associated papers plus correspondence
related to other sightings.
File also contains two reports by the Physics & Engineering
Laboratory DSIR.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO THIS FILE
IS RESTRICTED UNTIL 2051
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRIVACY
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9 OF THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982.
Re-Vetting Commenced 2 /12/ 10
Re-Vetting Completed 2 /12/ 10
SIGNED [ILLEGIBLE]
STAMP (place relevant NZDF decision STAMP here, sign and date)
DATED 2/12/10File Number 1080/6/897... Vol No. 1.........
FILE RELEASE STATEMENT
VETTING COMPLETED AND:
✓ No classified documents on file.
✓ NZDF documents have been declassified
Other NZ Govt Dept classified documents have been cleared for access
Foreign Source classified documents have been cleared for access
Some foreign or special source documents have been placed on a
restricted parallel file (see separation sheets herewith recording transfer).
Other comments:
File contains copy of the 'Kaikoura Sightings - Dec 78' Investigation
and associated papers, plus correspondence related to other sightings.
File also contains two reports by the Physics & Engineering Laboratory
DSIR.
Access to this file is restricted on Privacy grounds until 2051
Signed......... [ILLEGIBLE] ................ Date.... 2/12/10......
For Headquarters New Zealand Defence Force
NB: Classified documents of other New Zealand
Departments where there is some concern about
declassifying them should be referred to the relevant
department.ACTION SHEET
ON COMPLETE ON RECORDS BELOW THIS
PAPER
Personnel other than Registry staff are
NOT
to place documents below this paper.
Documents may be placed above this paper for action/filing.
Enclosure numbers are not to be issued.
NOTE:
1. The position of this sheet in file MUST NOT be
changed except by Registry staff.
2. File maintenance remains a Registry responsibility and
users are reminded that papers are to be filed/removed by
Registry staff only.
.......................................................................17/4/897. TO. FSAC. W/o ic. 8.7.81. BY MINUP.
d. 17/4 /897
44/3/4
2 July 19[81]
Mr Quentin Fogarty
11 Metung St
Victoria 3103
AUSTRALIA
Dear Quentin,
Thank you for your letter seeking a copy of the
report of Captain Randle concerning the light sightings off
the Kaikoura coast in 197[8].
I have this day dispatched two copies of the report
to Captain Randle, along with a copy of this letter. Presumably,
as he has indicated his willingness to let you have a copy of
his report, he will forward a copy to you in due course.
Kind regards,
Yours faithfully,
[Signature]
(G.T. CLARKE)
Wing Commander
Director of Public Relations
[Handwritten note, bottom left:]
[ILLEGIBLE] to left Stanville
with suggestion he may
like to forward to Fogarty
3/7/81 [Signature]
[Handwritten note, bottom right:]
D Ops (Air Staff)
For your attention
[Signature]MINUTE SHEET Department:
Subject:
KAIKOURA UFO SIGHTINGS File No.
Date:
To—
[ILLEGIBLE]
1 Herewith two copies of the notes
prepared by Captain Randle for Wg Cdr Clement
investigation. We should retain the original
Captain Randle should pass on to
Quentin Fogarty whatever he wishes but
we should not deliver anything to Fogarty.
2 Please return copies of the Fogarty
letter and your response to him and
Captain Randle for retention on the
Investigation file.
[Signature]
Wg Cdr
18 Jun 81 Dept
Item 504MINUTE SHEET Department: DPR
Subject: STATEMENT : UFO SIGHTINGS
File No. 44/3/4
Date: [ILLEGIBLE]
To—
SASO [ILLEGIBLE]
Dops—
Do we have this
report? If so
we should return
it to Randle
along with this
letter. Y.
1 Please see letter below regarding the
statement given to the RNZAF by Capt John
Randle during the compilation of the report
by the then D Ops.
2 If a copy of Capt Randle's statement
is still held I will undertake to have it
returned to him with a copy for Fogarty
Note by DOPS
We can retain original and copy to
Randle, who can pass on to Fogarty
himself if he wishes
[Signature]
Wg Cdr
DPR
56519—68 D
Item 50411 Metung St
Balwyn
Victoria 3103
. Australia
June 10, 1981
Dear Geoff,
I hope this letter reaches you, as I have no way of
knowing whether or not you are still with the Ministry of Defence.
If you have moved on, and this letter is opened by someone in the
public relations section, then I hope they can act on my request.
I have written a book on the UFO sightings off the
Kaikoura Coast in December 1978 and it it has been accepted for
publication. My publisher is keen for me to expand the section
dealing with the December 21 incidents and I have written to a
number of the witnesses for additional information. One of those I
contacted was Captain John Randle who told me he had no desire to
go over the whole thing again, so much later. However, he did tell
me that he supplied the RNZAF with a written summary of the incidents
and he said that if I was able to obtain that summary, or a copy, then
I could use the information.
He told me that the RNZAF had indicated they would return
the summary, but apparently that has not been done. I would appreciate
a copy of the summary , or the summary itself. If you would like to
verify Capt. Randle's approval for me to use the summary, may I sugges
you contact him at
I am working to a deadline and whatever your decision, I
would appreciate being informed as soon as possible.
Kind regards
[Signature]
Quentin FogartyNEW ZEALAND UFO STUDIES CENTRE (NUSC)
Dr.J.F.deBock
5 Ngahue Crescent,
ELSDON.
5 June, 1979 39/3/3
REFERRED TO
Ministry of Defence,
Private Bag,
WELLINGTON. [STAMP: 12 JUN 1979 REGISTRY ACE HQTRS]
D 614—
Dear Sir,
Please find enclosed a copy of the provisional report made
by Dr.Bruce Maccabee on the Kaikoura UFO case. Through
our contacts with CUFOS (Centre for UFO studies) and MUFON
(Mutual UFO Network) in the USA, the report was forwarded to
us. In a personal letter, Dr.Maccabee requested us to send
copies to those who have been involved in the investigation.
Copies are being sent to DSIR, Met.Office, Civil Aviation,
Ministry of Defence, Carter Observatory and Wellington Air
Traffic Control.
Although Dr.Maccabee has released the copyright for some parts
of the report, we still have to emphasise its confidential
character. MUFON will publish the complete report, while the
magazine "Nature" will issue a more technical article on the
New Zealand case.
I would like to take the opportunity to inform you of the frequent
sightings reported to us. Most of which can easily be explained
after an initial investigation with the limited aids in our hands.
However, some sightings have to remain unexplained since we are
unable to obtain sufficient background information from such
institutions as yours. With this problem in view we would be
very grateful if you could advise us in future on those limited
unexplained cases. In several overseas countries this assistance
has led to the setting up of an advisory committee, with specialists
in various fields. The aim of the committee, which only meets
when necessary (perhaps twice a year) is to come to a natural
explanation of the more complicated sightings, to avoid the public
phoning your institutions, and to reduce speculation that reported
sightings are Flying Saucers, space-ships and other types of so
called extraterrestrial manifestations.
We already have the promise of a representative from a few
institutions, and we would be grateful if you could consider your
participation as well in the advisory committee.- 2 - if you wish to have additional information on similar set ups in overseas countries, please do not hesitate to contact us. I thank you in advance, and hope the report enclosed shows the serious approach into this field of unidentified aerial phenomena. Yours sincerely, [Signature] J.F.De Bock.
With the compliments of the
New Zealand UFO Studies Centre (NUSC)
As of
Min 19
27
Subject to
further revision
and additions
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
IN NEW ZEALAND
by
Dr. Bruce S. Maccabee
(Copyright, Bruce Maccabee, 1979)CONTENTS
Introduction 1
The Investigation 3
Sources of Information 7
Summary of Events 9
Event Descriptions and Map Legend 15
Analysis of Events
Technical Details for the Flight South 30
Technical Details for the Flight North 33
Natural and Artificial Sources of Light 34
Analysis of the Wellington Radar Sightings 35
Analysis of Radar-Visual Sightings 46
Analysis of the Film Obtained :South Flight — density traces
Analysis of the Film Obtained :near Christchurch — partial analysis
Analysis of the Film Obtained :last sequence— none done yet
Appendices (where available)
A. Transcript of the Wellington Control Tower Tape
B. Transcript of Quentin Fogarty's Tape7
Sources of Information
The primary sources of information are the memories of
the eight witnesses who were involved. These memories contain
a wealth of information which, nevertheless, is "soft information".
However , this case is unique for the amount of hard information
which was available after the events were over. The hard
information includes a tape recording of the conversations
between the Wellington ATC Center and the aircraft. This recording
establishes an irrefutable time line for the events. Then
there is the tape made on the aircraft by Quentin Fogarty
(how many UFO sightings have information recorded in situ ?).
Although this tape cannot be exactly synchronized with the
Wellington tape, the approximate times of Fogarty's statements
can be determined from the content (he occasionally repeated
what Wellington had told the plane). Then there are scribbled
pencil notes by Dennis Grant, the Christchurch N.Z. reporter.
(He took the place of the cameraman's wife, Ngaire Crockett,
on the trip north.) He was apparently the only one who actually
wrote anything down during the sightings. And finally, there
is the film, which is a veritable tour de force of UFO images.
The film contains pictures of airport lights (landings and
takeoffs), pictures of the airplane cockpit, pictures of
Quentin Fogarty at Christchurch Airport, and pictures of......
UFOs. The landing light sequences and the cockpit sequences
serve to establish that the film was taken from inside the
aircraft. A study of the edge numbers of the original film
(edge numbers are put on by the manufacturer) shows that they
are continuous, except for a change in film at Christchurch
(they needed a new roll for the journey north). Thus the film
is not a hoax. The landing light sequences provide color and
brightness information which can be used to calibrate the
film and the optical quality of the airplane window. All of
this hard information (acoustic and optical) is supplemented
by the memories of five witnesses on the aircraft at any time.
and one or two witnesses at the Wellington ATC( two witnesses
for part of the trip south; one witness at all other times).
As the interviews proceeded I found that the statements of the
various witnesses tended to complement rather than contradict
one another. There were some variations in descriptions of
events, etc., as might be expected from different observers
after a time lapse of over a month, but I found no outright
contradictions. To my surprise (and delight) almost every new
"bit " of information I learned supported rather than contradicted8
the previous "bits". From this wealth of information I have
abstracted a summary of the events which, when read in
conjunction with the "Event Descriptions and Map Legend,"
will give the reader an overview of the N.Z. Radar-Visual
UFO case. The associated maps, Figures 1 and 2, show the
overall path of the aircraft as a dashed line. The T shaped
symbols represent the aircraft at various points along the
path and the numbers refer to events in the "Event" sheet.
The events are primarily those associated with radar
targets referred to by Wellington ATC. Specifically, the
location of the airplane each time Wellington referred to
a target (or targets) is shown on the map. The locations
are believed to be accurate to within 1 or 2 miles. The
specific radar target(s) associated with a specific position
of the airplane is (are) connected to the airplane symbol
by a line(s). The events that occurred as the plane flew
away from Christchurch(#21-27) are reconstructed from the
witness statements about what they saw and what the airplane
radar screen showed. The path of the plane from Event # 25
to Event #27 is approximate and is subject to further
revision. The path of the object was estimated from witness
statements, airplane radar data, and from the image sizes
on the film. The film image sizes (except when defocussed)
are never larger then several milliradians in angular size.
Assuming that the object was of a fixed size , this means that
it never was closer than some minimum distance, probably about
10 miles, during the time it was being filmed . On the other
hand Fogarty remembers looking almost straight down on the object
out the right window (his last view of it) , and the captain is
quite certain that the plane passed over it. At these times the
cameraman was not able to film it because it was moving rapidly
with respect to the plane and because the film magazine and the
overall size of his camera made it difficult to shoot at large
downward angles (for example, the top of the film magazine could
have bumped some of the overhead switches in the cockpit).
The remainder of the airplane path (everything except 25-27)
is reconstructed from the standard flight plans and from the
memory of the Wellington Air Traffic Controller, Geoffrey Causer.
To obtain a good impression of the bewildering number of
unusual occurrences during those early morning flights I
suggest that the reader read the summary first and then read
the "Event" sheet, paying rather careful attention to the details
of the events.9 Copyright, B.S.Maccabee
1979
Summary of Events
(NOTE: all miles are nautical and times are local D.S.T.)
FLIGHT SOUTH
At 11:46 pm on December 30, 1978, a four-engine turbo prop Argosy
freighter left Wellington, N.Z., on a standard Saturday evening-Sunday
morning newspaper delivery run, from Blenheim, N.Z., to Wellington to
Christchurch, and then back to Blenheim. Aboard the aircraft were the
pilot, Captain Bill Startup, the co-pilot, Robert Guard, the
Australian news reporter, Quentin Fogarty, and a film crew which
consisted of the cameraman, David Crockett, and his wife, Ngaire,
who operated the tape recorder.
The reporter and film crew had been commissioned by a Melbourne TV station
to fly to Christchurch to obtain film footage for use in a news story about
a previous UFO sighting that had been made by pilots on a similar aircraft
flight. During the flight south the pilot and co-pilot observed lights
that were first seen in the direction of Kaikoura, from a point just
southeast of Cape Campbell (see map and Event Sheet). Coincidentally, Wellington radar
picked up and reported targets which were in the vicinity of the plane.
It appears that at least two, and perhaps several, of these anomalous
radar targets were observed by the passengers on the plane.
The cameraman obtained color film 16 mm footage of the inside of the plane, the
lights of Kaikoura, and of anomalous bright objects that were seen occasion-
ally in the 12:00 to 3:00 (front to rightside) quadrant with respect to
the direction of travel. The reporter recorded on-the-spot comments and
descriptions and occasionally referred to statements made by Wellington Air Traffic
Control (ATC). The anomalous lights seen on the trip south were observed
to be mainly in the direction of Kaikoura or ahead of the plane, except
for one, which was seen off the right wing after the plane was south of
Kaikoura.
Radar targets that were reported to the plane by the Wellington
ATC within about 20 miles of the plane as it travelled from a point just
south of Cape Campbell to a point about 57 miles northeast of Christchurch.
The airplane radar was not used on the flight south.
One particularly interesting sequence of events involving10
Wellington ATC occurred just after the plane had turned toward
Christchurch at a non-geographic reporting point called "Kaikoura
East" (see map). The plane had shifted to the Christchurch
communication frequency when Wellington saw a target appear
behind the plane about one or two miles (Event Sheet # 12 ) .
Wellington told the Christchurch controller, who asked the plane
to shift back to the Wellington frequency. Wellington then told
the plane the target was about four miles behind them. About half
a minute later Wellington said there was a further target about
four miles to the right of the plane. About 45 seconds after that
Wellington told the plane that something was flying in formation
with it. The plane and the unidentified target flew side by
side for at least half a minute, after which the radar target reduced
to that of the plane alone (Event Sheet #15 and 16). About a
minute later the plane contacted Wellington and reported
a"target", which was a flashing light, at the right of and
falling behind the airplane (Event Sheet # 17). Wellington
agreed that there was a target at the right of the plane that
was drifting behind as the plane moved forward.
The plane landed at Christchurch, N.Z., at 1:01 AM,December 31. While
newspapers were being unloaded the crew discussed the sightings with the
Christchurch radar operator, who described to the crew an anomalous target
that was not particularly impressive to him. In order to obtain more film
footage, Crockett and Fogarty decided to fly back to Blenheim. One of
the passengers, the wife of the cameraman, decided not to make the return
flight and her place was taken by a reporter from Christchurch, Dennis Grant, a
personal friend of the Australian reporter (the only person involved that the
Australian reporter had known before the flight).
FLIGHT NORTH
The plane left Christchurch on its flight north to Blenheim at 2:16 am.
About 3 minutes later, as the plane climbed through a low cloud cover, the
pilot, co-pilot, and cameraman, who were all in the cockpit at the time,
observed a bright yellow/white/orange light apparently at about their level,
which would appear and disappear through the tops of the clouds. It was
between 10 and 30 degrees to the right of the aircraft, which was flying
northeast. This light was pointed out to the two reporters who arrived ina specific request by S that the tape be retained until he
could copy it) so any information that was recorded on the
tape is no longer available.
TRIP NORTH
21 about 0216 : P took off from CH toward the northeast
along the "MOTO" track toward Kaikoura East. The heading
is 033 magnetic or 054° true (i.e., 54° clockwise from true
north ). DG had replaced NC. The climb rate was somewhat
greater than 1000 ft/min, a number which decreased as the
altitude increased, and the air speed was about 155 knots,
a number which increased with altitude. There was a southwest
wind of about 15 knots which added to the air speed of the
aircraft.
22 about 0218:40 : the plane had travelled about 7 miles from
CH and was not yet over the ocean. It was at an altitude of
about 2800 ft, and was just breaking through a low cloud
cover that was over the land. S,D, and DC, who were in the
cockpit, observed a bright light through the cloud tops.
The light was about 10-30° to the right of the airplane
heading. The light was apparently about at the height of the
plane. S's first impression was that he was looking at the
full moon without seeing any features. (The moon had set in the
west many hours before.) G described it as a "squashed
orange". S turned on the airplane radar and placed it in the
"mapping mode" . About the time that the light was first seen
DG and F, who had been sitting in seats in the loading bay
during takeoff, arrived on the flight deck and G pointed
out the light to them. This was at about 2:18 A.M. according to
a note written down by DG. DG described the light (not
necessarily his first impression) as looking like a ping-pong
ball (white) that was in a dark room and illuminated by
a spotlight . DG also recalled a light below the object which
he attributed to a reflection on the ocean. (It might have been
a reflection on clouds.) DC had filmed the takeoff from CH
so he was ready to film and probably was filming at the time
the F and DG arrived on the flight deck. F was now operating
the recorder. H recorded: "We are now about 3 minutes out of
Christchurch airport and on our starboard side we can see two
very bright lights......one much brighter than the other. The
only way to describe it.....it's like a very very bright starand just below it is another light not quite so bright."
23 about 0221:30 : the plane radar warmed up and S switched
from the 50 to the 20 mile range. He picked up a target about
30° to the right of straight ahead just inside the 20 mile
range ring. By this time DG had moved so that he was standing
behind S on the left of the plane where he could see the
radar scope. DG repeatedly compared the direction to the
bright object with the azimuth (angular direction) of the
target on the scope and assured himself that both directions
were the same. S and G were also sure that the radar target
was in the same direction as the visual target. S and G
estimated that the size of the radar blip was 3 to 5 times
that of a blip from a large fishing boat. The altitude of the
plane at this time was about 6000 feet and it was about 15
miles out of CH. About this time F recorded "....those two
lights appear to be travelling with us......the brighter
light is still up above the other and has moved a little
further ahead........now it's just dimmed! It's gone! ...Back
again. It appears to be going behind a cloud. I can't quite
make out whether in fact it is going behind a cloud or whether
in fact the light is just dimming......it's lighting up the
clouds around it....." DC filmed a light which did fade in
and out. DG described the object as if it were a light
connected to a dimmer switch so the brightness could increase and
decreased continuously rather than going off and on abruptly as when
a light is switched off and on.
Since the target was about 18-20 miles away from the plane
at about 30° to the right, and since the plane was about 15
miles from CH, the target was 32-35 miles from CH. Since the
CH radar has a "cone of silence" that extends upward from
ground level as the distance from the airfield increases at
a rate of 100 feet/mile, an object below 3000 ft. at 30 miles
would not (normally) be seen. A weak target for 50 cm radar
might not be detected even at altitudes soewhat greater than
3000 ft. at 30 miles. Since the object was not detected by
Ch radar it was probably at an altitude of around 3000 ft
or lower. Since the airplane radar was operated in the
mapping mode the 3 cm airplane radar beam could have picked
up a target at a lower altitude.
Sometime during the time interval from 0222- 0225 DG
scribbled a note " close as 10 miles; 170 knots; pace aircraft".
At about 0225-0225:30 the target went off radar because theazimuth angle to the target had increased from 30° to beyond about 50°, which was the maximum angle that the scope would display. Before it went off the scope it may have come as close as 8-10 miles, according to S, who had the best view of the scope. G remembers it being at least as close as 12 miles. F recorded "We must now be about 30 miles out of Christchurch and that bright light is still with us. According to Captain Bill Startup it came as close as 10 miles to us...." 24 about 0227 : P contacted W and said that the plane was 32 miles out of CH at an altitude of 11,500 feet and that there was a "great big target sitting at, uh, 3:00 to us..... at about 12 miles". P then asked W if W had anything on radar. However, W had not been expected to be called and was not looking at a range great enough to see the plane. W did say that there were many targets off Clarence and Kaikoura. The plane was climbing at a rate of about 800 ft/min at this time and travelling at about 200 knots ground speed. 25 about 0229 : the plane reached the cruising altitude of about 13,000 ft and an air speed of 215 knots. S and G decided to turn to the right toward the object to see what would happen. S made a turn that lasted about 45 seconds. He hadn't expected to have to turn very far, suggesting that the object was not directly to the right of the aircraft, but was still somewhat ahead. However, he found that he had to keep turning and he finally stopped when he had turned about 90 to the right. Before the turn started F recorded "The pilot has just told us he is going to actually level off......and head toward the object to see what happens." During the turn F recorded the apparent motions of the object, not realizing that the turning of the plane made it look as if the object were moving up and then down and then to the front of the aircraft. After the turn was completed the sighting line to the object was ahead and downward. DG wrote a note " 2:30 A.M., directly ahead, no radar reading :" The fact that it was not seen on the radar scope even though it was ahead of the airplane suggests that the sighting line to the object must have been considerably lower than 15° below horizontal, which is the nominal lower bound of the radar beam in the mapping mode. (The pilot did not try to increase the tilt of the radar beam.) If the sighting line had been at an angle of 20° below horizontal and the object had been at an altitude of 3000 ft. while the plane was at 13,000 ft. the distance to the object would have been about 5 miles. G had the impression that the plane had "overflown"
the object as far as the radar beam detection was concerned.
During the time that the plane was on its southeast course
the sighting line to the object moved around to the right
again. When the sighting line was so far downward and to the
right that S couldn't see the object he decided to turn to
the left to regain his original track. Before he turned
he could see a glow in the right hand windows and the other
passengers could see the object. S and G remember flying
for "no more than" 4 - 5 minutes on the southeast heading
before turning back. Actually they must have flown only about
1-1.5 minutes on that heading.
About the time of the turn to the right, DC stopped
filming and went downstairs into the loading bay to get
his bigger lens (he had been using the 100 mm. and now he
got the 240 mm lens). It took several minutes for him to
install the lens on the camera , but he was ready to film
probably just before the plane turned to the left.
26 about 0231 : S could no longer see the object so he
turned left onto a heading of 066 magnetic (087 true ) for
a short time and then he continued the left turn to head back
to the "MOTO" track. F apparently mentioned the start of
the turn saying "It's now dropping away right below us...."
(He was not aware that the captain had decided to turn. Since
he was looking out the right window, when the plane banked
to the left it would appear to him that the object dropped
downward.) Fogarty continued " It appears , in fact, to
be losing its speed...rising, coming back up towards us
again...... It appears to be coming straight for us....
It's getting a little bit brighter." A few seconds later F
said " It's now dropping right away behind us."
Probably during this turn DC obtained film footage with
his 240 mm lens. This footage shows an image which starts off
large, then shrinks to small bright images, and then grows
large and dim. He described the large image to F :"It now
appears to be an oval shaped object with rings of light
going around." A previous description given by DC before the
plane turned to the right was that it had a "brightly lit
bottom and a sort of transparent top" . The large image was
apparently an out-of-focus version of the smaller image.
During the time that the 240 mm lens was in focus DC did obtainimages that are consistent with his description of the object
as seen earlier through the 100 mm. lens. These focused
images are sort of bell shaped with bright bottoms and less
bright tops. The angular sizes of the focused images obtained
with the 240 mm lens are about the same as the sizes of the
images obtained earlier with the 100 mm lens, suggesting
that the object did not actually get closer to the plane
at least during the time that DC was filming. However,
it apparently did get quite close to the plane after
DC filmed it . DC could not film when the sighting line
was too far below horizontal because the top of the film
magazine would have bumped overhead switches. Therefore he
was not able to film it during the time that it apparently
passed under the airplane.
During the left turn S was surprised to see the object,
which had been on the right side of the aircraft, suddenly
appear at the left and apparently above the aircraft. (The
appearance of being above may have been due to the
tilt of the aircraft during the left turn.) The object
then appeared to move downward and pass behind and beneath
the aircraft. F last saw it out the far right window while
looking almost straight down on it.
27 about 0233 : the plane regained the MOTO track
at some point north of "MOTO" , which is 40 miles out of
CH. There is a "slight" time problem here in that the
W and CH controllers were discussing the position of the
plane at 0229:30-0230 and in their discussion they implied
that the plane was already heading for or about to reach
the MOTO track , perhaps close to the point MOTO. The
estimate listed previously that the plane turned to the right
at 0229 is based on the requirement that the plane reach
its altitude of 13,000 ft. and upon the statement made by P to
W at 0227 that the plane was at 11,500 ft. The estimate that
the plane turned left at 0231 is based on the minimum length
of time taken by F's recorded comments during and after
the turn to the right. The estimate that the plane reached
the MOTO track at 0233 is based on the travel time of the
plane to go along a track as indicated on the map from
#36 to #27. These times and the estimated path of the airplane,
as well as the estimated path of the object, are all subject
to revision.
28 about 0241 : W reported to P that there was a target
at 20 miles at 10:00, just off the coast 6 miles north
of Kaikoura. The location of the object for #28 on themap does not agree exactly with the location reported
by W, but it is close. There was no actual sighting, but S may have
seen it on the plane radar.
29 about 0245 : W told P that the same target was at
16 miles at about 9:30 to the plane. There was still no
sighting.
30 about 0246 : the plane "turned the corner" at Kaikoura
East and headed toward Cape Campbell, which they estimated
they would reach at 0300. W read the Blenheim weather report.
Then, at about 0246:30, W told the plane that the same
target just north of Kaikoura was at 9:00. The plane did not
indicate that the target was seen.
31 about 0247 : W reported two targets at 11:00 at
15 miles. P responded "We don't seem to be picking them up quite
so easily on the leg (of the trip)."
32 about 0248:30 : W reported a target at 9:00 at 8 miles.
P did not indicate that anything was seen.
At about 0250 F recorded the following statement: "We've
now just passed Kaikoura and, uh, there's been no further
activity. There are pinpoints of light in the sky, but
nothing's been confirmed on Wellington radar. I, for one, am
hoping that, uh, we've seen enough , and, uh, the rest of
our journey back to Blenheim will be uneventful. I've had
quite enough of UFO's for one night." Apparently S had the
same feeling. He said that he had detected objects on the
airplane radar which appeared to him to be in the positions
reported by W, but he didn't tell anyone and, in fact, paid
very little attention to the radar screen throughout the rest
of the trip. He did tell several people after the trip was
over, however, that he had had targets on his radar.
33 about 0251 : P asked W if there was a target in
the 12:00 position. W responded ".... a strong target at
12:00 to you at 20 miles.....2 miles off the coast, 10 miles
south of Cape Campbell." P responded "We have that one also (?)
and quite a good visual display at the moment....... it looks
like a collection of lights...." F recorded " About 30 seconds
after that last statement we've got another one right
in front of us.....very bright.....seems to be a long way
away. Another one just to the left of it. That one flashed
extremely brightly. They've both now faded..... The other one's
flashing again. It's giving off an orange flashing light.
It looks like an aircraft beacon." (Note: this comparison is
intended to convey the visual impression of very brief andbright flashes as opposed to "pulsations" in which the
light grows and dims slowly enough so that the brightness
change appears continuous rather than abrupt.) F continued
"It's moving off. It's extremely bright. It fades..... and its
dropped. It seems to have just dropped at an incredible speed
and it seems to be rolling and turning....in fact,..one light
has another beside it." The "rolling and turning" was
described by F as movement around a sort of elliptical path
with the long axis of the ellipse in the vertical direction.
The object travelled downward in the elliptical motion faster
than it rose upwards, in the opinion of F. DC obtained
about 7 feet of film that show a light source that changes
in a regular cyclic manner from bright white to dim red and
orange for about 32 cycles at a rate of 1.1 cycles/sec. The
bright source also apparently moved up and down in a flattened
elliptical path much higher than it was wide. This up and
down motion was periodic, at least for the first portion
of the film, at a rate of about 2.5 cycles/sec.
After describing the flashing light that dropped,
rolled, and turned, F described a "whole cluster" of lights
including one that "keeps flashing" and was part of a
"distinctive"pattern of lights. This one may have been
the Blenheim airfield beacon.
After describing the "collection of lights" to W, P
asked W if the Blenheim beacon could be turned off so that
the passengers on the plane could be sure that they weren't
mistaking it for a ' flashing UFO'. The Blenheim beacon
flashed red every 1.5 sec. or so. (Note : At this time the
beacon would have been about 45 miles from the airplane
and perhaps under the 1/8 cloud cover over Blenheim. The
cloud cover was at 4000 ft.) The beacon was turned off and
at about the same time the bright flashing light disappeared.
34 about 0252 : W called the plane to report "..two
further targets, one at 9:00 at 8 miles and one at 10:00 at
10 miles." Within a few seconds W also reported " the
one south of Cape Campbell has now gone off radar." The
disappearance of the target from the radar scope was
approximately (or exactly?) coincident with the visual
disappearance and with the turning off of the Blenheim beacon.
However, the radar would not have lost a target just because
the Blenheim beacon was turned off.
Whether or not the Blenheim beacon was in fact seen
was not established. Other bright lights did appear
within seconds after the flashing one disappeared. However,they may not have been to the left of the plane as were the
W radar targets which"replaced" the "strong target" that
had been south of Cape Campbell.
F recorded "Well, we can't be right all the time, but it
in fact appears that the last flashing light we saw was in
fact a beacon at Blenheim and the pilots asked for the beacon
to be turned off. But at the same time that they turned the
beacon off, Wellington radar told us that we had targets
coming from the left of us. But as I speak now, we have
another one, above Blenheim, and that's not a beacon because
it's not in the same position as the lights were before,
and these sightings at the moment are right in the position
where Wellington radar said they should be!" Actually, W
radar had referred to targets to the left of where the
strong target had been, and F referred to a light that was
to the right of and higher than the one that had disappeared.
DG described these lights as "pulsing" on and off as if they
were incandescent bulbs operated with dimmer switches so the
the brightness could change continuously rather than abruptly.
35 about 0253 : W told P about 4 targets at 9:00, 9:30,
10:00 and 10:30, all about 1 mile off the coast. One or more
of these may have been seen.
36 about 0254 : W told the plane about a target at 12:00
at 2 miles. P responded "No sighting of that one. "
37 about 0255 : W told the plane that it was about to
merge with the target that had been just ahead. Since W
did not have any measure of the heights of the radar targets
W could not have told the plane whether it was above, below,
or level with the anomalous target. The passengers were
unaware of any target close enough to "merge" with. However,
about 0255:30 the plane said to W:"We had a pretty bright light.
We have it again now. It appears to be behind Woodbourne
( Blenheim Airfield) from where we are...... Do you have anything
over there?" W responded "Nothing showing over there at all."
38 about 0256 : P asked W if there was anything in the
2:00-3:00 position with respect to the plane. W responded "
"Nothing showing up 2:00-3:00 to you. I have a target just
off the coast at 9:30.... at 5 miles."The passengers may have
seen targets at 9:30 . P then described lights that
looked like fishing boat lights on the right side in theCook Strait. W then responded " I got just one paint now
at 3:00 to you at 15 miles," and P said "Roger. Sounds like
some of the lights we can see....scattered through the Strait."
39 about 0257 : the plane was too high in altitude to
begin its descent into Blenheim, so it did a two minute
right hand orbit to lose altitude. Just before the orbit
the passengers had been watching a pair of bright lights
at the left of the airplane and DC was about to film them.
He didn't get a chance to film them, however, because the
plane turned, and when the plane had completed its turn
the lights were gone. W referred to targets at 12:00 at
2 miles before the turn and at 12:00 at 10 miles as the
orbit began. The plane apparently attributed these to
fishing boat lights on the surface . ( W radar could
detect boats in the Cook Strait if they moved
fast enough to exceed the minimum MTI speed.)
It was probably during or just after this orbit that
G pointed out the planet Venus that was just rising and would
have been visible at the altitude of the plane.
40 about 0259 : coming out of the orbit the plane
asked if there was a target over Picton. W responded
that there was no target over Picton. This was the last
anomalous light seen during the flight. The plane landed
at Picton at about 0310.1 CHNICAL DETAILS FOR THE FLIGHT SOUTH
TIME: 11:46 pm, December 30, 1978, to 1:01 am December 31, 1978.
WEATHER: (as determined by the flight crew) excellent flying conditions
with no noticeable departure from a standard temperature lapse
rate from ground level to 14,000 feet; low clouds over Wellington;
visibility about 60 km over the sea; wind speed at cruising
altitude estimated to be no more than 10-15 knots from the west;
atmospheric conditions sufficiently steady to allow operation
with automatic pilot and automatic height control (as pressure
sensitive device); no noticeable inversion effects on Wellington
radar. The temperature and humidity variations with
altitude are shown in Figure 3.
NUMBER OF WITNESSES ON PLANE: 5 (pilot, co-pilot, reporter, cameraman,
sound recordist)
AIR SPEED OF AIRCRAFT WHEN CLIMBING: 155-180 knots.
CRUISING ALTITUDE: 14,000 ft.
AIR SPEED AT CRUISING ALTITUDE: 215 knots.
TYPE OF AIRCRAFT: 4-engine turbo prop freighter -- 2-man crew (Argosy, SAE)
CAMERA EQUIPMENT USED: Bolex H16, EBM electric, 16 mm. reflex movie
camera operated at 24 frames/sec. and a Kern, vario-switer 16-100 mm
zoom lens at f/1.9.
FILM: Fujicolor type 8425, 16 mm, ASA 400 color reversal film; standard developer
RADAR EQUIPMENT USED:
WELLINGTON TOWER RADAR: Marconi 264, 50 cm (587 MHz), 500 kilowatts,
with some adaptations for use at Wellington.
MTI CAPABILITY: targets with radial velocities in excess of 15 knots
are detected in the MTI mode with phase shift and digital scan
summing electronics. Observations on known targets with and without
the MTI processing indicate that the MTI processing improves the
sensitivity of the radar. (Strong targets in the MTI mode may be
weak or even non-existent in the non-MTI mode.)21
a specific request by S that the tape be retained until he
could copy it) so any information that was recorded on the
tape is no longer available.
TRIP NORTH
21 about 0216 : P took off from CH toward the northeast
along the "MOTO" track toward Kaikoura East. The heading
is 033 magnetic or 054O true (i.e., 54O clockwise from true
north ). DG had replaced NC. The climb rate was somewhat
greater than 1000 ft/min, a number which decreased as the
altitude increased, and the air speed was about 155 knots,
a number which increased with altitude. There was a southwest
wind of about 15 knots which added to the air speed of the
aircraft.
22 about 0218:40 : the plane had travelled about 7 miles from
CH and was not yet over the ocean. It was at an altitude of
about 2800 ft, and was just breaking through a low cloud
cover that was over the land. S,D, and DC, who were in the
cockpit, observed a bright light through the cloud tops.
The light was about 10-30O to the right of the airplane
heading. The light was apparently about at the height of the
plane. S's first impression was that he was looking at the
full moon without seeing any features. (The moon had set in the
west many hours before.) G described it as a "squashed
orange". S turned on the airplane radar and placed it in the
"mapping mode" . About the time that the light was first seen
DG and F, who had been sitting in seats in the loading bay
during takeoff, arrived on the flight deck and G pointed
out the light to them. This was at about 2:18 A.M. according to
a note written down by DG. DG described the light (not
necessarily his first impression) as looking like a ping-pong
ball (white) that was in a dark room and illuminated by
a spotlight . DG also recalled a light below the object which
he attributed to a reflection on the ocean. (It might have been
a reflection on clouds.) DC had filmed the takeoff from CH
so he was ready to film and probably was filming at the time
the F and DG arrived on the flight deck. F was now operating 4
the recorder. H recorded: "We are now about 3 minutes out of
Christchurch airport and on our starboard side we can see two
very bright lights......one much brighter than the other. The
only way to describe it.....it's like a very very bright star22
and just below it is another light not quite so bright."
23 about 0221:30 : the plane radar warmed up and S switched
from the 50 to the 20 mile range. He picked up a target about
30O to the right of straight ahead just inside the 20 mile
range ring. By this time DG had moved so that he was standing
behind S on the left of the plane where he could see the
radar scope. DG repeatedly compared the direction to the
bright object with theazimuth (angular direction) of the
target on the scope and assured himself that both directions
were the same. S and G were also sure that the radar target
was in the same direction as the visual target. S and G
estimated that the size of the radar blip was 3 to 5 times
that of a blip from a large fishing boat. The altitude of the
plane at this time was about 6000 feet and it was about 15
miles out of CH. About this time F recorded "....those two
lights appear to be travelling with us......the brighter
light is still up above the other and has moved a little
further ahead.........now it's just dimmed! It's gone! ;...Back
again. It appears to be going behind a cloud. I can't quite
make out whether in fact it is going behind a cloud or whether
in fact the light is just dimming......it's lighting up the
clouds around it....." DC filmed a light which did fade in
and out. DG described the object as if it were a light
connected to a dimmer switch so the brightness could increase and
decrease continuously rather than going off and on abruptly as when
a light is switched off and on.
Since the target was about 18-20 miles away from the plane
at about 30O to the right, and since the plane was about 15
miles from CH, the target was 32-35 miles from CH. Since the
CH radar has a "cone of silence" that extends upward from
ground level as the distance from the airfield increases at
a rate of 100 feet/mile, an object below 3000 ft. at 30 miles
would not (normally) be seen. A weak target for 50 cm radar
might not be detected even at altitudes soewhat greater than
3000 ft. at 30 miles. Since the object was not detected by
Ch radar it was probably at an altitude of around 3000 ft
or lower. Since the airplane radar was operated in the
mapping mode the 3 cm airplane radar beam could have picked
up a target at a lower altitude.
Sometime during the time interval from 0222- 0225 DG
scribbled a note " close as 10 miles; 170 knots; pace aircraft".
At about 0225-0225:30 the target went off radar because the23
azimuth angle to the target had increased from 30O to beyond
about 50O, which was the maximum angle that the scope would
display. Before it went off the scope it may have come as
close as 8-10 miles, according to S, who had the best view
of the scope. G remembers it being at least as close as 12
miles. F recorded "We must now be about 30 miles out of
Christchurch and that bright light is still with us. According
to Captain Bill Startup it came as close as 10 miles to us...."
24 about 0227 : P contacted W and said that the plane was
32 miles out of CH at an altitude of 11,500 feet and that
there was a "great big target sitting at, uh, 3:00 to us.....
at about 12 miles". P then asked W if W had anything on
radar. However, W had not been expected to be called and was
not looking at a range great enough to see the plane. W did
say that there were many targets off Clarence and Kaikoura.
The plane was climbing at a rate of about 800 ft/min at this
time and travelling at about 200 knots ground speed.
25 about 0229 : the plane reached the cruising altitude of
about 13,000 ft and an air speed of 215 knots. S and G decided
to turn to the right toward the object to see what would happen.
S made a turn that lasted about 45 seconds. He hadn't expected
to have to turn very far, suggesting that the object was
not directly to the right of the aircraft, but was still
somewhat ahead. However, he found that he had to keep
turning and he finally stopped when he had turned about 90
to the right. Before the turn started F recorded "The pilot
has just told us he is going to actually level off......and
head toward the object to see what happens." During the
turn F recorded the apparent motions of the object, not
realizing that the turning of the plane made it look as
if the object were moving up and then down and then to the
front of the aircraft. After the turn was completed the
sighting line to the object was ahead and downward. DG
wrote a note " 2:30 A.M., directly ahead, no radar reading ;"
The fact that it was not seen on the radar scope even
though it was ahead of the airplane suggests that the sighting
line to the object must have been considerably lower than
15O below horizontal, which is the nominal lower bound of
the radar beam in the mapping mode. (The pilot did not try
to increase the tilt of the radar beam.) If the sighting line 4.
had been at an angle of 20O below horizontal and the object
had been at an altitude of 3000 ft. while the plane was at
13,000 ft. the distance to the object would have been about
5 miles. G had the impression that the plane had "overflown"24
the object as far as the radar beam detection was concerned.
During the time that the plane was on its southeast course
the sighting line to the object moved around to the right
again. When the sighting line was so far downward and to the
right that S couldn't see the object he decided to turn to
the left to regain his original track. Before he turned
he could see a glow in the right hand windows and the other
passengers could see the object. S and G remember flying
for "no more than" 4 - 5 minutes on the southeast heading
before turning back. Actually they must have flown only about
1-1.5 minutes on that heading.
About the time of the turn to the right, DC stopped
filming and went downstairs into the loading bay to get
his bigger lens (he had been using the 100 mm. and now he
got the 240 mm lens). It took several minutes for him to
install the lens on the camera , but he was ready to film
probably just before the plane turned to the left.
26 about 0231 : S could no longer see the object so he
turned left onto a heading of 066 magnetic (087 true ) for
a short time and then he continued the left turn to head back
to the "MOTO" track. F apparently mentioned the start of
the turn saying "It's now dropping away right below us...."
(He was not aware that the captain had decided to turn. Since
he was looking out the right window, when the plane banked
to the left it would appear to him that the object dropped
downward.) Fogarty continued " It appears , in fact, to
be losing its speed...rising, coming back up towards us
again...... It appears to be coming straight for us....
It's getting a little bit brighter." A few seconds later F
said " It's now dropping right away behind us."
Probably during this turn DC obtained film footage with
his 240 mm lens. This footage shows an image which starts off
large, then shrinks to small bright images, and then grows
large and dim. He described the large image to F :"It now
appears to be an oval shaped object with rings of light
going around." A previous description given by DC before the
plane turned to the right was that it had a "brightly lit
bottom and a sort of transparent top" . The large image was 4.
apparently an out-of-focus version of the smaller image.
During the time that the 240 mm lens was in focus DC did obtain25
images that are consistent with his description of the object
as seen earlier through the 100 mm. lens. These focused
images are sort of bell shaped with bright bottoms and less
bright tops. The angular sizes of the focused images obtained
with the 240 mm lens are about the same as the sizes of the
images obtained earlier with the 100 mm lens, suggesting
that the object did not actually get closer to the plane
at least during the time that DC was filming. However,
it apparently did get quite close to the plane after
DC filmed it . DC could not film when the sighting line
was too far below horizontal because the top of the film
magazine would have bumped overhead switches. Therefore he
was not able to film it during the time that it apparently
passed under the airplane.
During the left turn S was surprised to see the object,
which had been on the right side of the aircraft, suddenly
appear at the left and apparently above the aircraft. (The
appearance of being above may have been due to the
tilt of the aircraft during the left turn.) The object
then appeared to move downward and pass behind and beneath
the aircraft. F last saw it out the far right window while
looking almost straight down on it.
27 about 0233 : the plane regained the MOTO track
at some point north of "MOTO" , which is 40 miles out of
CH. There is a "slight" time problem here in that the
W and CH controllers were discussing the position of the
plane at 0229:30-0230 and in their discussion they implied
that the plane was already heading for or about to reach
the MOTO track , perhaps close to the point MOTO. The
estimate listed previously that the plane turned to the right
at 0229 is based on the requirement that the plane reach
its altitude of 13,000 ft. and upon the statement made by P to
W at 0227 that the plane was at 11,500 ft. The estimate that
the plane turned left at 0231 is based on the minimum length
of time taken by F's recorded comments during and after
the turn to the right. The estimate that the plane reached
the MOTO track at 0233 is based on the travel time of the
plane to go along a track as indicated on the map from
#36 to #27. These times and the estimated path of the airplane,
as well as the estimated path of the object,are all subject 4.
to revision.
28 about 0241 : W reported to P that there was a target
at 20 miles at 10:00, just off the coast 6 miles north
of Kaikoura. The location of the object for #28 on the26
map does not agree exactly with the location reported
by W, but it is close. There was noAvisual sighting,but S may have
seen it on the plane radar.
29 about 0245 : W told P that the same target was at
16 miles at about 9:30 to the plane. There was still no
sighting.
30 about 0246 : the plane "turned the corner" at Kaikoura
East and headed toward Cape Campbell, which they estimated
they would reach at 0300. W read the Blenheim weather report.
Then, at about 0246:30, W told the plane that the same
target just north of Kaikoura was at 9:00. The plane did not
indicate that the target was seen.
31 about 0247 : W reported two targets at 11:00 at
15 miles. P responded "We don't seem to be picking them up quite
so easily on the leg (of the trip)."
32 about 0248:30 : W reported a target at 9:00 at 8 miles.
P did not indicate that anything was seen.
At about 0250 F recorded the following statement: "We've
now just passed Kaikoura and, uh, there's been no further
activity. There are pinpoints of light in the sky, but
nothing's been confirmed on Wellington radar. I, for one, am
hoping that, uh, we've seen enough , and, uh, the rest of
our journey back to Blenheim will be uneventful. I've had
quite enough of UFO's for one night." Apparently S had the
same feeling. He said that he had detected objects on the
airplane radar which appeared to him to be in the positions
reported by W, but he didn't tell anyone and, in fact, paid
very little attention to the radar screen throughout the rest
of the trip. He did tell several people after the trip was
over, however, that he had had targets on his radar.
33 about 0251 : P asked W if there was a target in
the 12:00 position. W responded ".... a strong target at
12:00 to you at 20 miles.....2 miles off the coast, 10 miles
south of Cape Campbell." P responded "We have that one also (?)
and quite a good visual display at the moment....... it looks
like a collection of lights...." F recorded " About 30 seconds
after that last statement we've got another one right
in front of us.....very bright.....seems to be a long way
away. Another one just to the left of it. That one flashed
extremely brightly. They've both now faded..... The other one's
flashing again. It's giving off an orange flashing light.
It looks like an aircraft beacon." (Note: this comparison is
intended to convey the visual impression of very brief and27
bright flashes as opposed to "pulsations" in which the
light grows and dims slowly enough so that the brightness
change appears continuous rather than abrupt.) F continued
"It's moving off. It's extremely bright. It fades..... and its
dropped. It seems to have just dropped at an incredible speed
and it seems to be rolling and turning....in fact,...one light
has another beside it." The "rolling and turning" was
described by F as movement around a sort of elliptical path
with the long axis of the ellipse in the vertical direction.
The object travelled downward in the elliptical motion faster
than it rose upwards, in the opinion of F. DC obtained
about 7 feet of film that show a light source that changes
in a regular cyclic manner from bright white to dim red and
orange for about 32 cycles at a rate of 1.1 cycles/sec. The
bright source also apparently moved up and down in a flattened
elliptical path much higher than it was wide. This up and
down motion was periodic, at least for the first portion
of the film, at a rate of about 2.5 cycles/sec.
After describing the flashing light that dropped,
rolled, and turned, F described a "whole cluster" of lights
including one that "keeps flashing" and was part of a
"distinctive"pattern of lights. This one may have been
the Blenheim airfield beacon.
After describing the "collection of lights" to W, P
asked W if the Blenheim beacon could be turned off so that
the passengers on the plane could be sure that they weren't
mistaking it for a ' flashing UFO'. The Blenheim beacon
flashed red every 1.5 sec. or so. (Note : At this time the
beacon would have been about 45 miles from the airplane
and perhaps under the 1/8 cloud cover over Blenheim. The
cloud cover was at 4000 ft.) The beacon was turned off and
at about the same time the bright flashing light disappeared.
34 about 0252 : W called the plane to report "..two
further targets, one at 9:00 at 8 miles and one at 10:00 at
10 miles." Within a few seconds W also reported " the
one south of Cape Campbell has now gone off radar." The
disappearance of the target from the radar scope was
approximately (or exactly?) coincident with the visual
disappearance and with the turning off of the Blenheim beacon.
However, the radar would not have lost a target just because
the Blenheim beacon was turned off.
Whether or not the Blenheim beacon was in fact seen
was not established. Other bright lights did appear
within seconds after the flashing one disappeared. However,28
they may not have been to the left of the plane as were the
W radar targets which"replaced" the "strong target" that
had been south of Cape Campbell.
F recorded "Well, we can't be right all the time, but it
in fact appears that the last flashing light we saw was in
fact a beacon at Blenheim and the pilots asked for the beacon
to be turned off. But at the same time that they turned the
beacon off, Wellington radar told us that we had targets
coming from the left of us. But as I speak now, we have
another one, above Blenheim, and that's not a beacon because
it's not in the same position as the lights were before,
and these sightings at the moment are right in the position
where Wellington radar said they should be!" Actually, W
radar had referred to targets to the left of where the
strong target had been, and F referred to a light that was
to the right of and higher than the one that had disappeared.
DG described these lights as "pulsing" on and off as if they
were incandescent bulbs operated with dimmer switches so the
the brightness could change continuously rather than abruptly.
35 about 0253 : W told P about 4 targets at 9:00, 9:30,
10:00 and 10:30, all about 1 mile off the coast. One or more
of these may have been seen.
36 about 0254 : W told the plane about a target at 12:00
at 2 miles. P responded "No sighting of that one. "
37 about 0255 : W told the plane that it was about to
merge with the target that had been just ahead. Since W
did not have any measure of the heights of the radar targets
W could not have told the plane whether it was above, below,
or level with the anomalous target. The passengers were
unaware of any target close enough to "merge" with. However,
about 0255:30 the plane said to W:"We had a pretty bright
light. We have it again now. It appears to be behind Woodbourne
( Blenheim Airfield) from where we are...... Do you have anything
over there?" W responded "Nothing showing over there at all."
38 about 0256 : P asked W if there was anything in the 4.
2:00-3:00 position with respect to the plane. W responded "
"Nothing showing up 2:00-3:00 to you. I have a target just
off the coast at 9:30.... at 5 miles."The passengers may have
seen targets at 9:30 . P then described lights that
looked like fishing boat lights on the right side in the29
Cook Strait. W then responded " I got just one paint now
at 3:00 to you at 15 miles," and P said "Roger. Sounds like
some of the lights we can see....scattered through the Strait."
39 about 0257 : the plane was too high in altitude to
begin its descent into Blenheim, so it did a two minute
right hand orbit to lose altitude. Just before the orbit
the passengers had been watching a pair of bright lights
at the left of the airplane and DC was about to film them.
He didn't get a chance to film them, however, because the
plane turned, and when the plane had completed its turn
the lights were gone. W referred to targets at 12:00 at
2 miles before the turn and at 12:00 at 10 miles as the
orbit began. The plane apparently attributed these to
fishing boat lights on the surface . ( W radar could
detect boats in the Cook Strait if they moved
fast enough to exceed the minimum MTI speed.)
It was probably during or just after this orbit that
G pointed out the planet Venus that was just rising and would
have been visible at the altitude of the plane.
40 about 0259 : coming out of the orbit the plane
asked if there was a target over Picton. W responded
that there was no target over Picton. This was the last
anomalous light seen during the flight. The plane landed
at Picton at about 0310.30
I CHNICAL DETAILS FOR THE FLIGHT SOUTH
TIME: 11:46 pm, December 30, 1978, to 1:01 am December 31, 1978.
WEATHER: (as determined by the flight crew) excellent flying conditions
with no noticeable departure from a standard temperature lapse
rate from ground level to 14,000 feet; low clouds over Wellington;
visibility about 60 km over the sea; wind speed at cruising
altitude estimated to be no more than 10-15 knots from the west;
atmospheric conditions sufficiently steady to allow operation
with automatic pilot and automatic height control (as pressure
sensitive device); no noticeable inversion effects on Wellington
radar. The temperature and humidity variations with
altitude are shown in Figure 3.
NUMBER OF WITNESSES ON PLANE: 5 (pilot, co-pilot, reporter, cameraman,
sound recordist)
AIR SPEED OF AIRCRAFT WHEN CLIMBING: 155-180 knots.
CRUISING ALTITUDE: 14,000 ft.
AIR SPEED AT CRUISING ALTITUDE: 215 knots.
TYPE OF AIRCRAFT: 4-engine turbo prop freighter -- 2-man crew (Argosy, SAE)
CAMERA EQUIPMENT USED: Bolex H16, EBM electric, 16 mm. reflex movie
camera operated at 24 frames/sec. and a Kern, vario-switer 16-100 mm
zoom lens at f/1.9.
FILM: Fujicolor type 8425, 16 mm, ASA 400 color reversal film; standard developer
RADAR EQUIPMENT USED:
WELLINGTON TOWER RADAR: Marconi 264, 50 cm (587 MHz), 500 kilowatts,
with some adaptations for use at Wellington.
MTI CAPABILITY: targets with radial velocities in excess of 15 knots
are detected in the MTI mode with phase shift and digital scan
summing electronics. Observations on known targets with and without
the MTI processing indicate that the MTI processing improves the
sensitivity of the radar. (Strong targets in the MTI mode may be 4.
weak or even non-existent in the non-MTI mode.)31 /
PULSE REPETITION RATE: automatically varied between six frequencies
averaging 500/sec.
PULSE DURATION: 2.7 microseconds
ROTATION RATE: 12 sec./revolution
AZIMUTHAL BEAMWIDTH: 2.1° ± 0.2°
ANTENNA GAIN: 30 db over a dipole
POLARIZATION: horizontal
ABSOLUTE DISTANCE ACCURACY: 1% of full scale
RELATIVE DISTANCE ACCURACY: (set by blip size on the display): about
1 mile on the maximum range
MAXIMUM RANGE: 150 nautical miles at 10,000 ft.
ANTENNA HEIGHT: about 1,700 ft. above sea level
UPWARD TILT OF THE CENTER OF THE TRANSMITTED LOBE:
about 4° (there is no height resolution for this radar; the radar
detects surface targets for a distance of 30 to 50 miles under
normal conditions)
DISPLAY: 12" diameter PPI with 10 miles range rings on the 150 mile range.
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 2 (controller and technician)
CHRISTCHURCH TOWER RADAR: Marconi 264, 50 cm., 50 kw.
MTI CAPABILITY: not as sophisticated as Wellington, but similar
MAXIMUM RANGE: 100 nautical miles at 10,000 ft.
ANTENNA HEIGHT: about 120 ft. above sea level
UPWARD TILT OF THE TRANSMITTED LOBE: there is a cone of invisibility
extending outward from the antenna which rises at a rate of 100 ft/mile,
beneath which targets cannot be seen under ordinary atmospheric condition
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 132 FIGURE 3 TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY [Graph: Height, km on y-axis (0 to 5+); temperature/water vapor on x-axis (-20° T to 20° C. / ev = es×(R.H.) 0 to 20 mb.)] TEMPERATURE, C° - © WATER VAPOR, mb - □ (calculated from measured relative humidity-R.H.- and the saturation pressure for a given temperature) (The accuracy of this feature is questioned since new radiosonde equipment has caused some problems according to D.C.Thompson) VERTICAL STRUCTURE OF THE ATMOSPHERE FOR CHRISTCHURCH, N.Z. from the 11:00 P.M. balloon launching, Dec. 30, 1978. Data supplied by J.T. Steiner, Ass't. Dir. for Research and D.C. Thompson, Superintendant Physical Meteorology ; N.Z. Meteorological Service, Wellington, N.Z.
33
TECHNICAL DETAILS FOR THE FLIGHT NORTH
TIME: 2:16 am to 3:15 am, December 31, 1978
WEATHER: (as determined by the flight crew): excellent flying conditions
with no noticeable departure from standard lapse rate conditions;
wind speed at cruising altitude estimated at 10-15 knots from the
southwest; possibly a cloud bank more than 40 miles east of the
South Island: low cloud cover 1200 to about 3000 ft. above
Christchurch; scattered low cloud over ocean; CAVU
conditions above clouds; for Blenheim at about 2:45 am the wind
was out of the northwest at 10-15 knots, the visibility was 60 km,
the cloud cover was 1/8 at 4,000 ft, and the temperature was 15°C;
after achieving the cruising altitude the crew operated the plane
on automatic height control. (See also Figure 3.)
NUMBER OF WITNESSES IN THE PLANE: 5 (pilot, co-pilot, cameraman, Australia
reporter, Christchurch reporter)
CRUISING ALTITUDE: 13,000 ft.
(aircraft details are the same as for the flight south)
CAMERA EQUIPMENT USED: same, but now run at 10 frames/sec.; also used
Sun Macro-Zoom, 80-240 mm lens used at f/4. (This lens was later
found to be out of adjustment. At full zoom objects at "infinity"
came into focus when the focus ring read 15 ft., and distant objects
were out of focus when the ring read "infinity." This condition of
the lens may explain the section of film footage which shows a
large dim image which then contracts to a bright, much smaller image,
and then expands again to a dim large image, accompanied by an
apparent symmetry inversion ————→of the defocused image.)
FILM: same type as for the flight south.
RADAR EQUIPMENT USED:
WELLINGTON TOWER RADAR: same as for the trip south
NUMBER OF OBSERVERS: 1
CHRISTCHURCH RADAR: same as for the trip south
NUMBER OF OBSERVERS: 1
AIRPLANE WEATHER RADAR: M.E.L. Equipment Co. E190 Series, 3 cm (9375 MHz), 15 kw.
MIT Capability: none
Operating Mode: operated in the "map mode" which produces a fan-shaped beam
extending from 3° to about 15° below the centerline of the aircraft
Azimuthal Sweep Range: ± about 50° from straight ahead
Sweep Rate: about 3 sec. per cycle
Pulse Repetition Rate: 400/sec.
Pulse Duration: 2.2 microseconds
Beamwidth: 3.5°
Range: 150, 50, 20 miles (used on 20 mile range)
Display: sector display with 5 miles range rings and 15° azimuth markings.34
NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL SOURCES OF LIGHT
ASTRONOMICAL: Jupiter, visible in the northeast, magnitude about -2.0
Saturn, visible in the northeast, magnitude about 0.0
Venus, visible in the east after about 3 am at the altitude
of the plane, magnitude about -4.3, except on the
horizon where atmospheric extinction reduces its
brightness by a factor of 100 or more.
Stars and other sources, visible in the clear sky, but all
dimmer than Jupiter
No comets, meteors, or aurora were reported.
(NOTE: the co-pilot pointed out Venus to the plane passengers near the end
of the flight north.)
ARTIFICIAL: City lights.
Flashing and steady coastal and airport beacons, with flashing
or rotation periods ranging from about 1.5 sec (flashing only
red) to 30 sec (flashing only white)
Japanese fishing fleet lights, used for squid fishing, were
at distances estimated to be over 100 km east of the South
Island and east to southeast of Christchurch. A large boat
carrying 50, 4,000 watt bulbs, would put out between 4 and
5 million lumens, yielding a luminous intensity of 300,000
to 400,000 candlepower.
(NOTE: the pilot and co-pilot pointed out artificial sources including the
squid fleet to the passengers.)35
Analysis of the Wellington Radar Sightings
Geoffrey Causer reported that the Wellington radar
picked up anomalous targets more or less continually during
the period that he was on duty from about 11:45 PM, Dec. 30,
through about 4:00 AM , Dec. 31. The previous controller had
also seen the targets and had pointed them out to GC. The
targets were unusual because they did not generally leave
trails on the radar scope, indicating to the controller that they
were stationary. However, the MTI processing was supposed to
reject stationary targets. some targets would appear for only
one sweep (in which case no motion could have been detected anyway;
you need several sweeps for the motion of a target to leave a
trail) and some targets would remain at fixed positions for
many sweeps . One anomalous target, apparently paced the aircraft
during the flight south when the aircraft target "doubled
in size" . One other anomalous target did make a constistent
trail. This target was observed to move continuously northward
from a point south of Cape Campbell to a point several miles
northeast of CC during the period 0226 to 0300, when it
disappeared off the scope. GC first reported it to the plane at 0246
as follows :" The most consistent and interesting target I've
been observing for the last 20 minutes, uh, is about 10
miles south of Kames and slowly moving north. It's moved about
10 miles in that time." (Kames is a non-geographic reporting
point about 4 miles east of Cape Campbell.) The average velocity
suggested by these statements is 30 knots. GC referred to this
consistent target again at about 0256 : "Target I mentioned
before that was consistent and strong and moving north is now
just past Kames and still heading slowly north." During the
time period 0246-0256 this target had moved about 10 miles,
suggesting a velocity of 60 knots. A few minutes later it
disappeared off the radar scope. The speed seems somewhat
excessive for a fishing boat .
( The characteristics of the radar targets picked up during
the early morning of Dec. 31 were similar to those reported
during the early morning of Dec. 21. Senior Controller John
Cordy and controller Andy Herd reported targets which appeared
and disappeared off the coast near the mouth of the Clarence
River. They also reported a target which appeared at about 0300
at 160° azimuth and about 48 km (26 nautical miles) from
Wellington. It remained at that location for a period of time
and then moved , leaving a continuous track, to a point 80 km
away from Wellington on the same heading, where it remained
for "at least 30 minutes". The average speed of the target
when it moved was about 120 knots. These radar sighting form
part of the collection of radar-visual sightings of Dec. 21.)36
Stationary targets can be presented on an MTI processed
radar scope display providing that they can, in some way,
change the phase of the returned signal or shift its frequency
slightly. Such a phase shift could be provided by a vibration
of the surface of an object , or by a back and forth motion
of an object toward and away from the radar antenna. A plasma
might also shift the phase of a portion of the reflected
radar signal (this assumes the object is a plasma or is
surrounded by a plasma).
The "blips" (bright arc-shaped spots) on the radar scope that
were made by the unusual targets were comparable in size and
intensity to the blips made by the airplane, according to
GC and Bryan Chalmers. However, BC determined that when the
MTI processing was removed the targets were not seen. ( The
non-MTI display showed the normal amount of nearby land and
sea clutter and the plane.) Targets could appear on the MTI
display and not on the non-MTI display if they were basically
weak targets (i.e., not very reflective for the 50 cm radar).
This is because the MTI processing makes the radar receiver
more sensitive (by integrating over pulses and more effectively
separating the signal from the background noise ). Even
normally strong targets, such as aircraft, can be weak reflectors
if the targets are oriented in such a manner as to present
small "cross-sections"for radar reflection. For example, a
plane travelling directly toward or away from a radar antenna
has a smaller cross-section for radar reflection than a similar
plane travelling at an angle of 90° to the line-of-sight to
the radar antenna. (i.e., "broadside" to the radar antenna).
Thus the orientation in space is a major factor in determining
the cross-section. An object which appears as a strong target
(relatively large cross-section ) on one sweep of a radar scope
might turn between sweeps and become a weak target
(relatively small cross-section) by the time of the next sweep.
If the cross-section were to become too small the target would
"disappear", as far as the radar operator is concerned.
Blips are produced on the radar scope whenever the radar
antenna picks up sufficient power at the correct frequency.
Except in the cases when external sources of radar frequency
power irradiate the antenna (jamming, interference with other
radars), power is received at the antenna only when there is
a (or more than one) reflective object within the irradiating
field of the transmitter. In other words, when there are no
reflections of the radar beam there are no targets on the scope.37
Reflections can be provided by metallic objects ( e.g., planes),
conducting media ( e.g., ionized air of plasmas, such as are
created by lightning and meteors) and by discontinuities or
variations in the dielectric constants of the media through
which the radar signal passes. In the case of the anomalous
targets referred to here , one proposed explanation is that
the radar was picking up reflections from "dielectric
discontinuities or variations" caused by clear air turbulence.
However, "clear air turbulence" requires that the air be
turbulent. According to the flight crew the air was quite calm.
The captain estimated that the wind velocity was about 10-15
knots from the northwest when they were near Wellington and
from the southwest when they were near Christchurch. He was
able to operate the plane on "automatic height control", a
device which keeps the plane at a level corresponding to a
particular air pressure. (Since air pressure decreases with increasing
altitude, a particular pressure corresponds to a certain
altitude, or range of altitudes. When the air is turbulent the
pressure fluctuates considerably and the automatic height
control will not operate.) Regions of clear air turbulence
have very small cross-sections for radar reflection, especially
at rather long radar wavelengths like 50 cm. ( clear air
turbulence cross-sections may be one millionth of the cross-
section of an Argosy aircraft, or even smaller).
An alternative to having the atmosphere itself reflect the
radiation would be to assume that the atmosphere bends the
radar beam so that it reflects off objects on the surface.
Since the Wellington radar had no capability of determining the
height of a target, the controller could not tell from the
strength of the return whether he was looking at a boat , a
wave, or an airplane. However, by comparing successive
blips he could usually distinguish between slowly moving targets
such as boats and waves and rapidly moving targets such as
airplanes. ( A slowly moving airborne object such as a helicopter
could produce a blip that would be comparable to that of a boat.)
When the atmosphere is sufficiently refractive to bend the
radar beam downwards , an unusual an unusual amount of land and
sea clutter is visible on a non-MTI display. As already pointed
out, BC made such a check and determined that there were no
conditions indicative of"anomalous propagation"apparent on the
non-MTI display. The lack of anomalous propagation effects on
the scope is consistent with what would be expected from
the temperature-humidity "structure of the atmosphere" as
determined by data from a balloon launching earlier in the38
evening (see Fig. 3). Refractive bending of the radar beam
is caused by the variations in air pressure, temperature, and
humidity with altitude. The amount of bending to be expected
for a particular temperature-pressure-humidity "structure"
of the atmosphere can be estimated by calculating the
radar refractivity profile. Fig.4 shows the profile calculated
from data in Fig. 3. Radar ray curvatures in seconds or arc
per kilometer are also illustrated in the figure. Only for
a small height region around 3400 meters was the refractivity
sufficient to make a ray follow the curvature of the earth.
Nowhere was the refractivity great enough to bend a ray as
much as a minute of arc per kilometer of distance travelled.
A ray which travels 10 km through a medium that bends it
downward from a starting angle of 5° upward would be only about
30 meters lower in altitude if the bending rate is 2 minutes
per kilometer than it would be if the bending rate were 0.0
minutes per kilometer (no bending). Thus one can see that the
effect of the curvature is small. The same ray would rise to
a peak altitude of about 6.5 km after travelling about 150 km
(assuming the refractivity gradient is constant up to that
altitude) and then it would bend downward and intersect the
earth at a point about 300 km from where it started at the earth's
surface. A ray that started off at a steeper angle would go
farther before reaching the earth's surface, and one that
starts off at an angle of less than 5° would not go as far.
(For comparison , Fig. 5 shows the refractivity profile
for the early morning of the 21st of Dec. Note that there is
a sufficient refractivity gradient in the first kilometer to
cause some trapping of radiation near the earth's surface.
One might expect a non-MTI display to show ground and sea clutter
at greater distances than would be normal.)
One particular incident involving the Wellington radar
occurred when the plane was about 84 n.m. ( 155 km) from
Wellington and flying south (see #12,13,14,15 in the
event description listing). The radar picked up a target that
was apparently stationary behind the plane for a over a minute.
Then another (or the same?) target appeared at the right of the
plane, and finally the return from the plane "doubled in size"
suggesting that something was moving along with the plane. The
two witnesses to the scope at this time described the motion of the
large return blip along the scope as looking like two airplanes39 FIGURE 4 RADAR REFRACTIVITY N = 77.6(P/T) + 3.73×10⁵(eᵥ/T²) P in millibars (mb) T in K eᵥ = water vapor in mb N = (n-1)×10⁶ n = refractive index for microwaves [Graph: Height, km on y-axis (0 to 6); Refractivity, N units on x-axis (100 to 400)] Approx. Alt. of Plane → slope = -158 N/km [x (C.21"/km/ (N/km) ) ≈ -33.2"/Km (earth curvature: -33"/km) slope = - 30N/km ( 6.3"/km downward curvature) "Standard Refractivity Profile": 313 e^-.1438z slope = -11.7 N/km slope = - 105 N/km Approx. Alt. of Well. Radar → REFRACTIVITY PROFILE FOR CHRISTCHURCH,N.Z. From the 11:00 P.M. balloon launching,Dec. 30,1978. Multiply by 0.21"/km / (N/km) to get curvature in "/km. Curvature is downward if the sign is negative. The earth's curvature is -33"/km. Only at about 3400 m altitude was there a region with sufficient curvature to bend rays downward toward the earth at a bending rate equal to the earth's curvature.
THE STRUCTURE OF ATMOSPHERIC RADAR
REFRACTIVITY IN TERMS OF M UNITS
M(z) = N(z) + 10⁶z/a
where a = 6378 km, z
is in km, and N(z)
is given below
Based on
Dec. 30, 1978, Christchurch
New Zealand Balloon Launch
Data
N(z) = 77.6 P(z)/T(z) + 3.7×10⁵ eᵥ(z)/T²(z)
P(z) = measured pressure. mb.
T(z) = measured temperature, K
eᵥ = eₛ (R.H.)
R.H.(z) = measured relative
humidity
eₛ = saturation pressure of water
vapor in mb for the temperature
at altitude z
z = altitude in km.
[Graph: Height in km on y-axis (1 to 5); Refractivity, M units on x-axis (~400 to 1000). Regions labeled: "Trapping", "Range of Superrefraction", "Range of Normal Refraction". Dashed reference curve shown.]40 FIGURE 5 RADAR REFRACTIVITY [Graph: Height above Sea Level, km on y-axis (0 to 6); Refractivity, N units on x-axis (0 to 400)] Altitude of Plane ← slope = -23 N/km slope = -134 N/km slope = +34 N/km slope = -25 N/km slope = -208 N/km slope = -48N/km Altitude of Wellington radar antenna ← REFRACTIVITY PROFILE FOR CHRISTCHURCH,N.Z. From the 11:00 PM balloon launching, Dec. 20,1978
41 flying side by side. The question now to be raised is, can this be explained by anomalous propagation effects or radar "angels"? To answer this question one must keep in mind that the existence of a radar return requires that there be something reflective, and that the " radar path length" from the radar antenna to the object be the value given on the radar screen. Since this value was apparently the same as the path distance to the airplane for a period of over 36 seconds, this requirement means that the radar path length to the anomalous target must have increased at the same rate as the path length to the aircraft. The simple way for this to happen is to have a "real" reflective object which is moving away from the radar antenna at the same speed as the aircraft. It also has to be at the same azimuth as the aircraft, although not necessarily at the same altitude. It should be obvious that no natural radar reflector could effectively pace the aircraft for such a long period. Another airplane could do it, but there were none. An alternative hypothesis is that the radar picked up a stationary target which was made to appear to move by effects of anomalous propagation. If the radar rays were bent down sufficiently so that they could pick up a boat or a wave on the surface, the assumed boat or wave could be at the distance of the aircraft , but clearly neither a wave nor a boat could move at the same speed as the aircraft. Thus a "direct " radar path from the antenna to a boat (or some relatively stationary target) will not work. But what if the rays from the antenna first travelled upward and then were reflected downward, as if by an atmospheric mirror, and then the reflector started to move upward! In this case the radar path length would increase as the reflector moved upward while the reflective target remained relatively stationary compared to the speed of the plane. Fig. 6 illustrates the geometry. Initially one might assume a curved radar path such as the dashed line. However, such a trajectory has a curvature of about 17 minutes/km, which would require a refactivity gradient of about 5000 N/km, which is way out of the range of values on Fig4 . The only possibility would be a very flat ray which has undergone little bending on its way to the hypothetical ship on the surface. (The curvature of the "flat" ray - solid line - has been exaggerated.) Assuming the reflecting or bending region moves upward, as indicated by the arrow, the path length from the antenna to the ship will increase at a rate approximately given by (8h/x) , where x is the straight line distance from the antenna to the ship and h is the maximum distance between the straight line and the curved path. Since x is large (84 n.m.) and h is small (initially zero) , the path length increases very slowly as h increases. For example, let the straight line be 84 n.m. long, the approximate distance to the
42 FIGURE 6 APPARENT MOTION OF ANOMALOUS TARGET CREATED BY UPWARD MOVEMENT OF THE BENDING LAYER [Graph: Altitude, feet on y-axis (-15,000 to 15,000, with 5000 and 10,000 labeled); DISTANCE, Nautical Miles (nm) on x-axis (0 to 90). Two lines (solid and dashed) extend from antenna at left converging toward ocean at right. Labels: "84 nm", "86 nm", "h", "x", "(horizon)". Two upward arrows at far right end.]
43
plane when the blip first increased in size. The blip size remained
large for at least 36 seconds, which means that the plane
travelled at least 2 miles. Thus the radar path length to the
anomalous target (ship) must also have increased by 2 miles during
the same time period. That means the solid arc line on Fig. 6
is 86 miles long. Using trigonometry and calculus one can show
that the arc length ( segment of a circle) of 86 n.m. and the
chord length (straight line) of 84 n.m. have a maximum spacing
(h) of about 8 n.m. or 48608 feet, a distance which would not
even appear on the figure if it were drawn to scale! (The plane
is only 14,000 feet high.) The reflective or bending region of
the atmosphere would have to move upward 8 n.m. in the same
time that the plane moved only 2 miles, or at a speed four times
faster than the plane. Needless to say , volumes of air (which
do the bending) that are moving at 4 x 215 knots would cause some
turbulence since they would be moving faster than the speed of
sound! One may conclude from this argument that motion of
refracting layers cannot account for this incident.
One could make another suggestion: namely that the radar
beam bounced off the airplane and hit a stationary target
and then was reflected back to the antenna. However, unless
the stationary target were within 1 mile. of the airplane during
the whole period, the extra distance travelled would show up
on the scope as a bend in the unusually long return blip.
A boat on the surface, properly oriented, might provide a
sufficient reflection ....... but the plane was flying at an
altitude of over 2 n.m., so the extra distance travelled by
the twice reflected ray (one by the airplane and once by the
boat) would show up on the scope.
There is still another alternative, illustrated in Fig. 7.
In this case we assume that a bending layer develops at just
the right time and place so that a few rays hit the surface of
the ocean at a path distance equal to 84 nm. Then we assume that
the bending decreases slightly in time so that the rays hit the
surface at a greater distance. The decrease in bending has to
occur at exactly the correct rate to make the path length increase
by 2 nm in 36 seconds. It would not require much of a change
in the amount of bending to accomplish this , although the
average amount of bending would have to exceed the curvature
of the earth since the horizon , for an antenna at 1700 feet,
is at 47 nm (no bending; straight line distance).
The big problem with all of these explanations requiring
ray bending is that, when conditions are correct to that "one"
ray or "ray bundle" bends down and hits the ocean , or a ship on
the ocean, many adjacent bundles also bend down. Thus one would44 FIGURE 7 APPARENT MOTION OF ANOMALOUS TARGET CREATED BY A DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF RAY BENDING [Graph: Altitude, feet on y-axis (-15,000 to 15,000, with 5,000 and 10,000 labeled); DISTANCE, n.m. on x-axis (0 to 90). Two curves (close together) extending from antenna at left to OCEAN label at right. Labels: "84 nm", "86 nm", "(horizon)" marked with arrow.]
45 expect not one but many apparently real targets at various azimuths and distances all moving at various apparent velocities as the conditions of the atmosphere change. Moreover, when the conditions of the atmosphere are such that noticeable ray bending is taking place and producing sea clutter, the random targets appear on a non-MTI presentation as well as on the MTI presentation. Yet BC saw no evidence of anomalous propagation. Thus it appears to be difficult to ascribe this particular radar incident to anomalous propagation. It is also difficult to ascribe the other "class" of unusual radar targets, those that remained stationary for long periods of time (minutes) to anomalous propagation since stationary targets produced by ray bending are , nevertheless , stationary , and therefore should not be able to defeat the MTI processing.
46
Analysis of Radar-Visual Sightings
A radar-visual sighting occurs when a visual target (object) is
seen in the same direction as a radar target. Unfortunately
the radar target may not be the same thing as the visual object
since the radar operator has no way of estimating altitude
(when using a long range search radar, as in this case), and
the visual observer usually has no way of estimating distance.
However, if the visual and radar targets are observed to change
in some way (e.g. move, "appear",or "disappear") at the same
time, it is reasonable to assume that they are the same
object providing that the nature of the change is the same
for both types of observation . In this case we have three
classes of observations: those in which radar and visual targets
in the same direction with respect to the plane changed
simultaneously (apparent radar-visual : ARV); those in which
radar and visual targets were changing in similar ways but for
which the exact directions of the visual targets are not
known ( maybe radar-visual:MRV); and those in which there
appeared to be no synchonisom between radar and visual targets
(not radar-visual: NRV). Out of about 28 separable incidents
involving the Wellington radar, 16 are NRV's, 8 are MRV's , and
4 are ARV's. The sighting as the plane left Christchurch which
involved the airplane radar for about 4 minutes continuously
belongs to the ARV class. In this last sighting the object
was picked up on radar as soon as the radar was warmed up and
the sighting line to the object was in the same direction
as the radar azimuth until the object was so far to the right
of the plane that it went off the radar scope. The object
was not detected on radar when the plane turned toward it, but
at that time the depression angle (angle below horizontal)
was quite large, so the object may have been below the radar beam.
The Wellington radar ARV's are described in the event
description listing under #3, #10, #17, and #33. The MRV's
are described in events #4,5,8,16,20,34,35, and 38. Only the
ARV's will be discussed in detail.
Event # 3 was the beginning of the whole series of occurrances.
This is considered to be an ARV because the lights were seen
in the same direction as the radar targets and because the
"dynamic" characteristics of the lights matched those of the
radar targets" namely, they would appear and disappear apparently
at random . The visual estimate of distance ( over the town
of Kaikoura) must be considered to be erroneous for this to
be an ARV sighting.47
Event # 10 is considered to be an ARV because of the
apparently simultaneous appearance of a radar target and a
light directly ahead of the plane. It is possible that the
two targets that Fogarty referred to were sufficiently close
together to look like a single target on the radar scope,
or it may be that only one of them was sufficiently radar
reflective to show up on the radar scope.
Event # 17 followed the period of time when the radar
target at the location of the plane was twice its normal
size. In this case the observers looked to the right of the
plane where Wellington said there was a target. They saw a
flashing light which the copilot eventually lost sight of
as it drifted behind the plane. Wellington saw a target
which apparently remained stationary at the right of the
plane as the plane moved along.
Event # 33 was the beginning of the last series of
sightings just before the plane landed. Both Wellington
and the plane referred to the appearance of a target
almost directly ahead of the plane. About a minute later
this target disappeared both visually and on the radar scope.
It is impossible to establish simultaneity of disappearance
of the visual and radar targets at this late date, but the
disappearances occurred within 5 or 10 seconds at least. The
disappearance of the visual target may have been at the same
time that the Blenheim beacon went off, but certainly the
beacon was not the radar target. The object referred to here
may have been one of the several targets picked up by the
plane radar when it was heading toward Cape Campbell.48
(PARTIAL ANALYSIS OF THE FILM
OBTAINED FLYING SOUTH AND NORTH)
Projection Transmissometer Measurements
on Magnified Images Using the Original
Film
Magnification : 67
Each figure shows the date of the analysis
(measurement) and the # in order of analysis.
The number of a frame obtained when the plane was
flying south is obtained by counting from the
"orange" frame (overexposed when camera stopped
with shutter open) just before the first anomalous
light images
The number of a frame obtained when the plane was
flying north is obtained by counting from the
first anomalous light image after the takeoff
from Christchurch.MARCH 26 # 3 FLYING SOUTH FRAME 330S (after orange frame just before South sequence starts) (2nd orange frame is at 255) NEW ZEALAND FILM OF DEC. 31, 1978 Projection Transmissometer Measurements on the original film Tracing of Image Magnification: ~67 (defocused slightly on original film?) pale blue green fringe [pale blue] white Tracing of 100% Transmission Level Across the Projected Field Transmission Through the Unexposed Film plus Background Instrumental Light ZERO % [ILLEGIBLE handwritten annotation at lower left]
100% Transmission
NEW ZEALAND FILM OF DEC. 31. 1978
Projection Transmissometer Measurements
on the Original Film
Tracing of Image
Magnification: 67
D = -log_10 9.7 ÷ 0.2
= 17.4 - 0.2
= 0.258
since D_bkd = 2.18 ±
T_background should/be
.10066
[1.8 is .0165, 11.4 on
Extern [ILLEGIBLE]se = .2-.1/4
3.0 cm
MARCH 26 # 4 (Date and # of Analysis)
FLYING SOUTH
FRAME 85S (after orange
frame just before start
of south sequence)
White
(slight tinge
of blue)
D = .26 D
D = film neutral density
= -log_10(T_i/T_o)
T_i = image transmission
T_o = transmission with
no film = 100%
in this case T_i = 9.7, T_o = 17.4
and background = 0.2
[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE]4321V
MARCH 26 #5.
FRAME 432 N
FLYING NORTHEAST
("Squashed orange")
yellow
orangeabout 746N 1½ [ILLEGIBLE] out all MARCH 26 # 6 FRAME 746N FLYING NORTHEAST TRIANGULAR IMAGE D = .21 11.1 on orig 8 m orig Pale yellow white with [ILLEGIBLE]
march 26 #7 1766N Noblin et al → T_2= 2 172.2 172.2 18.4-2 MARCH 26 # 7 FRAME 1766N Scan direction → D = -log 74/18.2 .39 -7.6-.12 82-2 D=E.33
1766N MARCH 26 #8 FRAME 1766N 17.1-2 on original D = -log_10 16.4 = +.23 10.2-.2 on original
[ILLEGIBLE]
MARCH 26 #9
FRAME 1766N
19.1-2
10
D = -log 165/16.7 ≈ 0.18
D = -log 13.2-.2
17.2
= .24
11.7-2
12.8-.21768N
MARCH 26 #10
FRAME 1768N
11½
19.7-.2
D = -log 13.5-2 .166 ≈ 0.17
19.7-2
13.5-.2
white
centre
yellowT HT" 30<N MARCH 26 # 11 FRAME 3042 N FLYING NORTH PART OF "STEADY" SEQUENCE green protrusion white or very pale yellow white or very pale yellow 13.V-2 13.6-2 T_i-with D = .476 ≈ .18
3E10N
MARCH 26, #12
FRAME 3610N
FLYING NORTH
FOCUSED FRAME FROM
"DEFOCUS-FOCUS-DEFOCUS"
SEQUENCE
(240 mm lens used
at this point)
15N on orig
bright pale yellow
bright white
scan
scan
10.6 on orig
D = -log 10.62 = .165
15.42
9.5 on orig
D = -log 9.5-.2 = .21
15.V92(Partial Analysis of the film obtained near Christchurch) (abstracted from a paper submitted to Nature )
During the time that the object was detected on radar the plane was
climbing on a 54° heading out of Christchurch, N.Z. and the ground speed
· increased from about 315 to about 370 km/hr. Estimated positions of the plane
and the object are illustrated on Figure 1. The object was first detected on
radar at point A on the figure, and it was continuously on radar until the
azimuthal angle reached about 50°, the limit of the radar scan, at point B.
During that time (about 4 minutes) the plane travelled about 23 km and the
object apparently travelled about 5 km. The witnesses had the impression that
the object was at least as high as the top of the scattered cloud layer (about
800 m) and that for a period of time it actually "paced" the aircraft. Since
it was not detected by the Christchurch radar² it was either a weak reflector
of 50 cm waves, or below about 1 km in altitude (or both).
The photographic equipment consisted of a Bolex EBM electric 16 mm movie
camera with a 100 mm, f/1.9 zoom lens that was used at full aperture and full
zoom (except for a short section of wide angle photography which shows a meter
inside the airplane). The camera was operated at 10 frames/sec. Fujicolor
type 8425 color reversal film with an ASA speed of 400 was used. The camera
was hand held (a tripod was found inconvenient to use on the flight deck of
the aircraft) and consequently most images are smeared. Microdensitometer
scans have shown that the images which are small and not streaked are very
often highly overexposed, with the film having a transmission that approaches
the transmission of the clear film leader. For such highly overexposed images
it is very difficult to estimate the illuminance on the film plane. On the
other hand, smeared images are somewhat less overexposed and allow better
estimates of the film plane illuminance. With less exposure it is possible
to use the published characteristic curves (film density vs exposure) to
estimate the luminous flux which reached the film plane during the frame time.
2W h an estimate of image illuminance, and a measurement of the image area,
it is possible to estimate the flux (lumens) which reached the film and,
" with the following equation, to estimate the candlepower of the source:
I = E_i A_i R² e (3.9R/V) (1)
T A_L
where I is in lumens/steradian (i.e., candelas, cd.), E_i is the film plane
illuminance in lm/m², A_i is the image area, R is the distance to the source,
T is the lens transmission (assumed to be 80%), and A_L = πD²/4 is the area of
the lens aperture. For f/1.9, D = 10 cm/1.9 = 5.26 cm. The visibility, V,
estimated from ground level data, was about 70 km.
Of particular interest is a single frame image smear obtained when the
radar range, R, was between 18 and 35 km. This image, illustrated in Figure 2,
ranges in color from bright yellow in the "sides" of the loop to white-yellow
at the top and bottom of the loop. Neutral densities (density = -log_10 of the
film transmission) range from 0.4 down to 0.2, while that of the clear leader
is about 0.12. The densities for the three colors (red, green, blue) in the
portions of the film which have not been exposed (e.g. the black background)
lie in the range 2.1 - 2.3. Published film characteristics³ indicate that the
normal density range is from about 0.10 to about 2.3 - 2.7 for the three colors,
and that the "speed point density" for the film is about 0.90. Since the upper
density range of the film under study here is somewhat below the normal density,
the speed point may also be somewhat low. A conservative estimate is that the
speed point density for this film might be as low as 0.80.
According to the ANSI standard, ASA 400 film reaches its speed point density
when exposed by a flux of about 0.025 lm·sec/m² (0.025·lux sec). For a
0.044 sec exposure this becomes 0.56 lm/m². The measured loop image densities
3differ from the speed point density by 0.4 to 0.6 density units, indicating
the image illuminance was 10^0.4 = 2.5 to 10^0.6 = 4 times the speed point
·· illuminance. (Note: The relationship between density and exposure is some-
what less than linear to nearly linear in this region of the characteristic
curves.) Accepting a conservative estimate of three times the speed point
illuminance, E_i = 1.7 lm/m². The total image area for which the density is
0.4 or less (exposure is three times the speed point value or greater) is
about 0.003 cm². Assuming a radar range of only 18,000 m, equation (1) yields
about 217,000 cd. For R = 35 km, equation (1) yields about 2.1 x 10⁶ cd.
For comparison, a relatively high efficiency 10,000 watt incandescent bulb
radiates about 330,000 lumens into 4π steradians, which corresponds to about
26,000 cd.⁴
A characteristic source size may be estimated from the lens focal length
and the widths of the streaked image. The angular width of the narrow hori-
zontal sections is about 0.00065 radians, and that of the wider vertical
sections is about 0.001 radians. Assuming a stationary object (streak due only
to camera motion) these angular sizes would be consistent with a non-circular
source which, at 18 km, would be about 12 m high by about 18 meters wide. At
35 km the dimensions would be about twice those given.
It is not the intent of this paper to offer an explanation for the unusual
bright source. However, one may note that the brightness (over 100,000 cd),
the size (on the order of 20 m or more), and the duration (it was seen for over
twelve minutes⁵) place rather severe requirements on a conventional phenomenon
such as, for example, glowing plasma or "ball lightning."
4Bibliography and Notes
1. The object discussed here was one of several that were seen, filmed, and
detected on radar during the flight of an Argosy air freighter that flew
from Wellington to Christchurch and then to Blenheim, New Zealand, between
0010 and 0300 on December 31, 1978. An intensive non-government related
investigation has ruled out conventional explanations, including Venus and
other planets, stars, meteors, squid fishing boats, ground lights,
atmospheric effects, military maneuvers, balloons, mating mutton birds,
glowing bugs, and hoax.
2. The airplane has a 3 cm wavelength weather radar made by the M. E. L.
Equipment Co. of Crawley, England. It was operated in the mapping mode
with a radar lobe that is centered at an angle of about 9° below the
centerline of the aircraft. In the vertical plane the half power points
are about 6° above and below the center of the lobe. The azimuth of the
radar target was the same as that of the sighting line to the bright
object as nearly as the witnesses could determine. The radar target was
unusually large, with an azimuthal width on the radar screen of about 10°,
even though the rated azimuthal beamwidth is only about 3.5°. The object
was not detected by the Christchurch 50 cm radar, which cannot detect
objects below about 16 meters in altitude horizontally
for every kilometer away from the antenna.
3. Photo-lab Index, Morgan and Morgan, Inc., Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. (1978)
4. Handbook of Optics, Driscoll, W. G., Editor, McGraw-Hill, N.Y. (1978)
55. The object was seen for about 3 minutes before the radar warmed up, and
• it was seen for about 6 minutes after it went off radar. The object
·. was last seen apparently passing beneath and behind the aircraft as the
aircraft turned to the left to regain its northeasterly heading after
flying southeasterly toward the object for a minute or so.
6FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1 Relative positions of the airplane and the bright object during
·" the period of radar detection. The plane travelled along the path indicated
by the dashed line. The altitude of the plane increased from about 1800 m at
point A to about 2900 m at point B.
Figure 2 Tracing of the smeared image on a single frame from the New
Zealand film of December 31, 1978. The background neutral density is about
2.18, as it is for preceding and succeeding frames. The time duration of the
frame was about 0.044 sec. The bright yellow-white color is consistent with
the witness descriptions.
7[DIAGRAM] PLANE N ↑ A (circled) 28 km 54° □ CHRISTCHURCH 23 km 30° 35 km B (circled) 50° 18 km o OBJECT o FIGURE 1
[DIAGRAM]
D = 0.23
D = 0.33 ← → D = 0.39
←— 0.5 mm —→
D = 2.18 →• • D = 0.24
• D = 0.18
FIGURE 2MINUTE SHEET
Subject: Department: Air Staff
UFO Report File No.: [blank]
Date: 11 July 7[ILLEGIBLE]
o -
D/Ops
√a
11/7
Noted
1. NFA.
2. ? Use
of SMR.??
1 I received a telephone call from Mr
Anan Meachen, Civil Aviation, at 2240 hours
last night. He advised that both WN
and OH radars had been tracking
an unidentified flying object (UFO) since
approx 2140 hours. The UFO had
crossed the coast near Waverley and was
heading towards 3 vessels off the
Wanganui coast. Civil Aviation had
advised the police in case it involved
a Helo involved in a nefarious operation
(perhaps drugs)
2 I called the Duty Supervisor, WN Radar
(Mr Keith Nasbitt) who advised [that] the
following info:
a. A Strikemaster had been homed
to the radar target by OH radar. The
pilot would see the 3 vessels but
observed no aircraft/UFO
b The target [had] passed the vessels
on a divert track to the Brothers
Lighthouse
c. The target appeared to be travelling
at 60 kts but occasionally this
dropped to 30 - 45 kts
d. An Argosy passed within ½ Nm
of the radar target without making
any sighting
Item 503MINUTE SHEET
Subject: Department:
File No.:
Date:
To -
e The policeman at Waverley had
not heard or sighted any aircraft
at the time the target was plotted
crossing Waverley.
f. The lighthouse keeper at the
Brothers was asked to lookout.
He reports no visual sighting &
no sound even though the target
passed within 3 NM of the lighthouse
3 At that stage I advised Mr Nasbitt
that there was nothing that the RNZAF
could achieve by launching an Orion.
I advised him that I would make
a report to you.
[Signature]
(P.J. GARNETT)
Sqn Ldr
DASO
Item 503MINUTE SHEET
Subject: Department: ..........................................
File No.: ..........................................
Date: ..........................................
To -
D OPS.
REF : HELO SIGHTING FROM POLISH
VESSEL.
- MR COKER RANG : MINISTRY OF TDT.
1. CAPTAIN OF POLISH VESSEL ADAMANT THAT
THE A/C SIGHTED WAS A HELO.
2. ACCORDING TO MR COKER THERE WAS
A DEVON IN THE AREA AT 2000' &
MIN TDT THINK THAT THE SIGHTING WAS
THIS DEVON IN SPITE OF CAPTAINS
ASSERTION. (DEVON WAS WITHDRAWN
TO AVOID CLASH WITH HELO.)
[signature]
PSAC 3.
Item 503MINUTE
Air Staff
DASO ←
[initials]
D OPS.
UFO SIGHTING
At 1145 pm I received a telephone call from a
Upper Hutt
[REDACTED] who reported seeing occulating lights in the sky
2. The lights, of which there were three, were in the
direction of Porirua/Panamata to the right of and at a
higher altitude than Mk Kaukau Transmitter. The lights
which remained stationary & were changing colours regularly,
red, green, blue. Witness stated that he was alerted to
the lights by his neighbour at approximately 1115 pm
and then they both observed them for the next half
hour when he rang here. The lights were still visible at
this time(?). Witness who appeared sober and calm stated
that he had not seen the lights before and he knew of
nothing to explain their presence
3. After the telephone call, I checked the telephone
directory but could find no entry under the name of
[REDACTED] at the stated phone number or address. Wellington
ATC only movement at that time was a DC8 ex Australia which
landed at 1147pm.
[signature]
IC J WARSAW
Sqn Ldr
14 Apr 71 DDCMINUTE UFO SIGHTING cont. DASO 4. [REDACTED] rang back at 0845 am who confirmed that lights were still visible at midnight. He emphasised that they did not think them stars and elaborated that they appeared bright like large stars There was one that was much brighter than the others and he was basically curious as to what they were.
UFO REPORT by phone to DOPS
- visitor to NVN
1.
2. Hi speed light over Tohnionville
E to W about 1842 14 Apr 79.
Took about 2 secs to cross
about 15 nm. Above the mist
or cloud. Stars were visible
but it was 'a lot bigger'.
3. Adams.MINUTE SHEET
Subject: 1 Department: Air Staff 9.
UFO INVESTIGATION File No.: A 39/3/3
JAN 79 Date: 5 Mar 79
To -
DCAS
1. Reference E8.
2. I am rather annoyed at the tone of W/O
Llyfindells letter and equally surprised at the
manner in which CO Woodbourne has chosen
to handle the matter. Nevertheless, since the
papers have wended their way through the
command chain, and because my integrity
is being questioned, I consider it appropriate
that you decide whether Air Staff wants to
respond.
3. CO Woodbourne has seen a copy of my
report since he wrote the covering letter
to W/O Llyfindelli's submission, thus it might
be appropriate to ask CO Woodbourne to de-brief
W/O Llyfindell.
4. Request your advice please.
/
[signature]
OC Ops
(2754)
Item 503PERSONAL FOR DOPS (F)
PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY
DSIR
NEW ZEALANDPostal Address: PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY, DSIR PRIVATE BAG LOWER HUTT NEW ZEALAND Location: PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY, DSIR GRACEFIELD ROAD LOWER HUTT Near WELLINGTON 9979E—3000/4/78TC
COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF SELECTED
CLARENCE RIVER "UFO IMAGES" FILMED BY
TV1
M.J. McDonnell
and
A.D.W. Fowler
Physics and Engineering Laboratory
Report No. 632 February 1979
ABSTRACT
On 3 January 1979 some cine film of a suspected "UFO" was taken
by a Television One camera crew in the Clarence River area.
Computer image processing techniques were used to analyse some
frames of this film. The results of this analysis are presented in
this report.-1-
1. INTRODUCTION
Early on the morning of 3 Juanury 1979 some cine film of a
bright light in the night sky was taken by a Television One (TV1)
camera crew in the Clarence River area north of Kaikoura. This film
was widely publicised as being of a suspected "unidentified flying
object (UFO)". As this film appeared to be blurred it was
considered worthwhile applying computer image processing techniques
to some frames of the film, in order to assess whether the image was
blurred, and if so in what way. If the image frames were blurred,
it was hoped to be able to deblur them. This image processing
system has been developed by the Remote Sensing Section of the
Physics and Engineering Laboratory (PEL).
Two samples of the original film, each containing several
frames, were kindly provided to PEL by TV1. The first sample was
near the beginning of the original film sequence, and the second
near the middle. Each sample was chosen to be at a time when the
image was steady.
2. IMAGE DIGITISATION
Five sample frames (numbered A to E) of the 16 mm colour film
provided (the first two being from the first piece of Fuji 8425
film) were enlarged by a factor of 7, and printed through a
92 Wratten red filter onto an Ilford Pan F black and white film.
Each black and white image was then digitised on the Remote
Sensing Section's scanning microdensitometer to produce a 64 x 64
matrix of picture elements (pixels) which was stored on magnetic
tape. For each pixel, the intensity of light transmitted through it
was measured to an accuracy of 8 bits. The gamma for the Fuji film
was calculated to be 1.8 and that for the Ilford film 0.6. Each
sampled image was then corrected to have a resultant gamma of 1.0
and a constant was subtracted from each image to give a background
level of 0. Each image then consisted of pixels ranging in
intensity value from 0-90.
Each image was then smoothed according to the following
algorithm which was applied first in the along scan line direction,
and then in the cross scan line direction. If a pixel was greater
than or less than both of its nearest neighbours it was replaced by
the average of itself and its nearest neighbours. The purpose of
this smoothing procedure was to reduce the effect of film grain
noise in the original image frames. The result of applying this
smoothing procedure in the along scan line direction only is shown
in Figure 1. The images in Figures 1-12 were written out on the
Remote Sensing Section's Optronics Colorwrite machine using the
100 micron spot size.-2-
3. INTENSITY OF LIGHT SOURCE
The original 400 ASA film was taken with a 600 mm lens using an
f/5.6 aperture setting and an exposure time of 1/50 sec. The image
formed on each frame of the first film sample can be approximated by
a uniformly bright circle of diameter 0.70 mm on a black
background. The circle had an average density of approximately
0.62. Using this information and referring to Thomas (1973)
page 815 it was calculated that the total luminant energy recorded
on the film was 1.5 x 10-8 lumen seconds. It is estimated that
this calculation could be in error by up to a factor of 2.
By comparison, on the morning the original film was taken, Venus
had a stellar magnitude of -4.2. Assuming an elevation of angle of
20°, it was calculated that Venus would have caused a total
luminant energy of 1.9 x 10-8 lumen seconds to be recorded on each
film frame. This figure is estimated to be in error by up to a
factor of 1.5. The brightness of the original film is therefore
consistent with its having been an image of Venus.
4. IMAGE ANALYSIS AND RESTORATION
Each 64 x 64 pixel image was Fourier transformed on the Varian
V76 computer at PEL to give a new 64 x 64 pixel image matrix. The
complex part of the Fourier transform was set to zero. Any
resulting real pixel value which was negative was set equal to +1.
The logarithm of the resultant image matrix was then taken and the
result scaled to range from 0 to 255. The result of applying this
procedure to images A and B is shown in Figures 2 and 3
respectively. Each of these images includes a series of concentric
rings around the central d.c. term. These rings are caused by phase
reversals in the Fourier transform and are characteristic of
out-of-focus blurring (McDonnell 1975). From the rings and their
spacing it can be concluded that the original image is strongly out
of focus.
A strongly out of focus image should be uniform in its centre.
Each of the original images scanned had a noticeable darkening near
the image centre which is very probably caused by spherical
aberration in the imaging lens. It was decided to concentrate on
image B as the darkening was least for this image and it had the
clearest Fourier transform rings. The smoothness of the scanned
image and the number of visible Fourier transform rings indicated
that it would be worthwhile attempting to deblur the selected image
frames.
The first step in the restoration procedure was to estimate the
blurring point spread function (psf). For out of focus blurring the
psf should be a disc. It was decided to complicate this model
slightly to include the effect of spherical aberration. This was
done by subtracting from the disc a cone with the diameter of the
disc and zero at its edge. Initially the diameter of the disc was
chosen to be 45 pixels and the height of the cone to be 10% of that
of the disc.-3-
The restoration of image B was then carried out using standard
Wiener filtering techniques (McDonnell 1975). The restoration
program accepted five input variables. These were the psf average
diameter, its ellipticity, the cone height, the film gamma and a
constant noise to signal ratio. The psf disc was allowed to be
distorted into an ellipse as it was suspected from the shape of the
blurred image that the true psf might be slightly elliptical. The
film gamma was allowed to vary to compensate for errors in the
original estimate.
The diameter of the model psf implies that the original image
should have been a small bright object on a black background. Any
errors in the above input parameters would cause noise or artefacts
to be distributed throughout the restored image. The restoration
procedure is based on the concept that the worse the estimate of the
input parameters the more pronounced the artefacts.
Each parameter was varied in turn so as to reduce the intensity
of the brightest artefact. This procedure was interatively repeated
until a stable result was obtained. The optimum restored image B
was obtained using a circular psf of diameter 47.75 pixels, with
cone height 10%, a film gamma correction of 1.05, and a noise to
signal ratio of 0.004. The cone height, film gamma and noise to
signal ratio were not critical. The critical parameters were the
ellipticity and the psf diameter. The resulting restored image B is
shown in Figure 5. The maximum artefact intensity is 10% of maximum
image intensity.
The same restoration procedure (but using the optimum psf of
image B) was then applied to images A, C, D and E. The results are
shown in Figures 4, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. All five restored
images have a similar size although they have no discernible shape.
This shows that the restoration procedure is producing consistent
results. Figure 5 is the most reliable image as the restoration
procedure has been optimised for this image.
Figure 9 is the result of deblurring the above psf by itself
with the same assumed noise to signal ratio. It shows that the
restoration procedure is not noticeably contributing to the residual
blurring present in the deblurred images. The aim of the above
restoration procedure has been to produce the image that would have
been obtained if the camera had been in focus. The residual
blurring present in Figure 5 is partly caused by errors in
estimating the psf but may also have been contributed to by
atmospheric effects.
Figure 10 is the result of clipping the image in Figure 5 so as
to cut out the lowest 20% of the intensity range. This eliminates
the artefacts. The same clipping was used to produce Figures 11 and
12, which show the images in Figures 4 and 5 enlarged by a factor of
4. Figure 12 is the best restored image that was produced. The
image in Figure 5 has a maximum half width of 7 pixels which
corresponds to 35 seconds of arc. This is a reliable upper limit on
the size of the original object. By comparison, when the original
image was recorded, Venus subtended an angle of 28 seconds of arc.
The size of the restored image is therefore consistent with its
being an image of Venus.-4-
On the night the original image was recorded, Venus had a broad
crescent shape which would have been oriented along the diagonal
from bottom left to top right in Figure 12. Such a crescent shape
is not discernible in Figure 12. However, it is quite likely that
such a small crescent shape would not have been observable even if
the original image had been in focus.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions may be drawn from the work reported
here.
(a) The brightness of each original TV1 image frame is
consistent with its having been an image of Venus.
(b) The original image frames are severely out of focus.
(c) Deblurring selected image frames produced images of a size
consistent with what would have been expected of Venus.
(d) The size of the original object is too small for detail on
it to be resolved on the deblurred image.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to TV1 for their co-operation, and to
Mr N.J. Rumsey of PEL for a number of helpful discussions.-5- REFERENCES THOMAS, W. Ed., "SPSE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering", 1973. McDONNELL, M.J., "Nonrecursive Digital Image Restoration", Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1975.
-6-
FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1. Original image B after scanning and vertical
smoothing.
Figure 2. Logarithm of positive real Fourier transform of image
A.
Figure 3. Logarithm of positive real Fourier transform of image
B.
Figure 4. Image A deblurred using Image B psf.
Figure 5. Image B deblurred using Image B psf.
Figure 6. Image C deblurred using Image B psf.
Figure 7. Image D deblurred using Image B psf.
Figure 8. Image E deblurred using Image B psf.
Figure 9. Image B psf deblurred by itself.
Figure 10. Figure 5 with dark 20% clipped.
Figure 11. Figure 4 clipped and enlarged by a factor of 4.
Figure 12. Figure 10 enlarged by a factor of 4.[12 computer-processed image figures arranged in a 4x3 grid, numbered 1-12. Figure 1 shows a large white circle/disc on black background. Figures 2-3 show small bright dots on black backgrounds. Figures 4-9 show small point-source images on black backgrounds. Figure 10 shows a small point on black background. Figures 11-12 show enlarged bright square-shaped objects on black backgrounds.]
From: Group Captain I.V.Mackay, AFC.
New Zealand High Commission
New Zealand Defence Liaison Staff
New Zealand House
Haymarket
Reference DL 4/4/45 London SW1Y 4TQ
Telephone: 01-930 8422 Telex: 24368
14 February 1979
Wing Commander J.B.Clements,
Director of Operations,
Defence Headquarters,
Private Bag,
WELLINGTON.
Dear John, UFO Witness Reports.
Some time before leaving on my recent visit to New Zealand, I
agreed to speak to Mr. Andrew Andrea, 6A, Mornington Crescent,
London N.W.1 7RH, about the UFO report questionnaire that he put to-
gether. I may have mentioned the impending interview with him, when
we spoke on 29th January.
The UFO sightings in New Zealand in late December sparked off Mr.
Andrea's interest, although it is clear that he has an abiding interest
in such phenomena. I know only what I read in the papers, about the
RNZAF (Clements) report, and I leave it to you to decide if possession
of a stack of questionnaires of the sort Mr. Andrea has produced, would
facilitate UFO reporting in future by individuals in New Zealand, and
thereby aid the author of the official comment, in arriving at his
conclusions.
yours sincerely,
war mamay
Encl: UFO Witness Report Sheet (2)UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT WITNESS REPORT SHEET.
This questionnaire has been prepared in order to give the authorities as
much information as possible on the Phenomen that you witnessed. In order
that a detailed investigation can be carried out in finding an explanation
to your sighting, try to answer as many questions as possible. Any information
that you give will be treated in the strictest confidence.
If you have any additional information that you think may be helpful, including
diagrams, use the reverse side of each questionnaire, or on a similar sized
sheet of paper.
1. When was the object seen? 6. Weather (underline any)
Day .................. DRY
Month .................. FOGGY
Year .................. MISTY
Time ........ am/pm. ........ LIGHT RAIN
HEAVY RAIN
2. Approximate vicinity that you SNOW
were in when sighted. HAIL STONES
(or nearest postal address)
7. Wind (underline any)
..........................
..........................
..........................
.......................... NO WIND
SLIGHT BREEZE
3. How long did you observe STRONG WIND
the object? COLD WIND
WARM WIND
Hours ...................
Minutes .................
Seconds ................ 8. Temperature (underline any)
4. Was the object brighter than COLD
the sky? COOL
WARM
YES. NO. HUMID
HOT
5. What were the weather conditions
at the time you saw the object? 9. If you saw the object at night, dawn or
(underline any) dusk did you notice the moon or any stars.
(underline one or more)
CLOUDY
CLEAR SKY STARS · MOON
HAZY
SCATTERED CLOUDS None Bright
THICK or HEAVY CLOUDS Some Dull
Many Hazy
don't remember don't remember
Signed .............................
Date .............................10. D[id] the object do any of the 15. Did you observe the object through any
following? of the following?
(Underline one or more) (Underline one or more)
a. Appear to stand still a. Eyeglasses
b. Suddenly accelerate b. Sun glasses
c. Separate into different parts c. Car windows
d. Give off smoke d. House windows
e. Get brighter or dimmer e. Binoculars
f. Change shape f. Telescope
g. Throb or pulsate g. Camera lens
Any additional remarks to be h. Curtains
written on reverse side of this i. Other ............................
sheet.
11. Did the object move behind or in 16. If you took a picture of the object
front of any clouds or buildings? please complete the following.
a. YES Movie camera ............................
b. NO (make and model)
If yes please state which Still camera ............................
(make and model)
..........................
.......................... What size film used ......................
12. Where was the sun located when you A.S.A. rating ............................
saw the object? (Underline one)
Aperture setting f......................
a. Behind you
b. To your left Camera speed used ......................
c. In front of you
d. To your right At what setting was lens focus
e. Don't remember ring .................................
13. When did you first report the If movie camera was used, how many
sighting to an official? frames per second (F.P.S.) was
camera set at ..........................
day ......................
month ....................
year ...................... Does your camera have an automatic
exposure meter?
14. Did the object appear to you
(Underline one) a. YES
b. NO
a. Solid
b. Transparent 17. Can you estimate the distance of the
c. Don't know object from your position
a. YES
b. NO
If yes, please state estimation
miles ......................
yards ......................
feet ......................
Signed ...............................
Date .............................18. How large did the object appear compared with any of the items listed below, held
at arm's length? (Underline any)
a. Pin head f. 2 cent piece k. Ping pong ball
b. Nail head g. 5 cent piece l. Cricket ball
c. Shirt button h. 10 cent piece m. Grapefruit
d. Jacket button i. 20 cent piece n. Football
e. 1 cent piece j. 50 cent piece p. Other ............
19. How certain are you of the above answers? (Underline any)
a. 100 per cent certain d. Uncertain
b. Fairly certain e. Guess
c. Not very certain
20. Describe as best you can the following. (If none write NONE)
a. Colour .......................................
b. Sound .......................................
c. Electrical malfunctions in your immediate area
............................................................................
............................................................................
21. How did the object disappear from your view? ....................................
............................................................................
............................................................................
22. If you are familiar with angular direction answer the following.
i. When you first saw the object.
a. from true North .............. Degrees
b. from horizon ................. Degrees
ii.When you last saw object.
a. from true North .............. Degrees
b. from horizon ................. Degrees
23. If you suffered any injuries on the date mentioned in Question 1. specify below
............................................................................
............................................................................
Signed .............................
Date ..............................24. What direction were you looking in when you first saw the object?
(Underline any)
a. North c. East e. South g. West
b. North East d. South East f. South West h. North West
i. Don't know
25. What direction were you looking in when you last saw the object?
(Underline any)
a. North c. East e. South g. West
b. North East d. South East f. South West h. North West
i. Don't know
26. Please state names and addresses of any other witnesses.
Name .......................... Name ..........................
Address ....................... Address .......................
.............................. ..............................
.............................. ..............................
Telephone ..................... Telephone .....................
27. Were there any distinguishing marks on the object such as letters or unknown
markings?
a. YES
b. NO
If yes, try to duplicate as best you can on reverse side of this sheet.
28. Did the object do any of the following? (Underline one or more)
a. Stay motionless
d. Move to your right
b. Move upwards
c. Move to your left e. Move downwards
f. Move towards you
g. Move away from you
Other comments ......................................................................
9. As best as you can remember which of the above movements occurred first, if any.
eg. a. first a. ................:. d. ......................
b. second b. .................... e. ......................
c. .................... f. ......................
g. ......................
Other comments ......................................................................
Signed .................................
Date .................................;
,30. We r' the edges of the object (Underline one or more)
a. Fuzzy
c. Don't remember
b. Star like
d. Other comments .........................
.................................................................................
31. How many objects did you see? .............................................
32. Please give the following details of yourself in order that you could be contacted
should the necessity arise.
Name .................. ................... ...................
last name middle name first name
Full postal address ...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
Telephone .......................................
Country ...............................
33. If the above address is temporary give details of permanent address or an address
through which you could be contacted.
Address .................................
.................................
.................................
Telephone .......................................
Country ...............................
34. Profession ...............................
Date of birth ...............................
Sex .......................................
Signed ...............................
- date of completion ...............................
FOR OFFICIAL USE.
CODE NUMBERUNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT WITNESS REPORT SHEET.
)
This questionnaire has been prepared in order to give the authorities as
much information as possible on the Phenomen that you witnessed. In order
that a detailed investigation can be carried out in finding an explanation
to your sighting, try to answer as many questions as possible. Any information
that you give will be treated in the strictest confidence.
If you have any additional information that you think may be helpful, including
diagrams, use the reverse side of each questionnaire, or on a similar sized
sheet of paper.
1. When was the object seen? 6. Weather (underline any)
Day .................... DRY
Month ................... FOGGY
Year .................... MISTY
Time ......... am/pm. ........ LIGHT RAIN
HEAVY RAIN
2. Approximate vicinity that you
were in when sighted. SNOW
(or nearest postal address)
HAIL STONES
.........................
7. Wind (underline any)
.........................
NO WIND
.........................
SLIGHT BREEZE
.........................
STRONG WIND
COLD WIND
3. How long did you observe
the object? WARM WIND
Hours ...................... 8. Temperature (underline any)
Minutes .................... COLD
Seconds .................... COOL
4. Was the object brighter than WARM
the sky?
HUMID
YES. NO.
HOT
5. What were the weather conditions 9. If you saw the object at night, dawn or
at the time you saw the object? dusk did you notice the moon or any stars.
(underline any) (underline one or more)
CLOUDY STARS ' MOON
CLEAR SKY None Bright
HAZY Some Dull
SCATTERED CLOUDS Many Hazy
THICK or HEAVY CLOUDS don't remember don't remember
Signed ...............................
Date ...............................10. D' the object do any of the 15. Did you observe the object through any
fo lowing? of the following?
(Underline one or more) (Underline one or more)
a. Appear to stand still a. Eyeglasses
b. Suddenly accelerate b. Sun glasses
c. Separate into different parts c. Car windows
d. Give off smoke d. House windows
e. Get brighter or dimmer e. Binoculars
f. Change shape f. Telescope
g. Throb or pulsate g. Camera lens
Any additional remarks to be h. Curtains.
written on reverse side of this
sheet. i. Other ...............................
11. Did the object move behind or in 16. If you took a picture of the object
front of any clouds or buildings? please complete the following.
a. YES Movie camera ...............................
(make and model)
b. NO
If yes please state which Still camera ...............................
(make and model)
...............................
What size film used ........................
...............................
A.S.A. rating .............................
12. Where was the sun located when you Aperture setting f.........................
saw the object? (Underline one)
Camera speed used .........................
a. Behind you
At what setting was lens focus
b. To your left ring ......................................
c. In front of you If movie camera was used, how many
frames per second (F.P.S.) was
d. To your right camera set at .............................
e. Don't remember Does your camera have an automatic
exposure meter?
13. When did you first report the
sighting to an official? a. YES
day ....................... b. NO
month ..................... 17. Can you estimate the distance of the
object from your position
year ......................
a. YES
14. Did the object appear to you
(Underline one) b. NO
a. Solid If yes, please state estimation
b. Transparent miles .........................
c. Don't know yards .........................
feet .........................
Signed ...............................
Date .............................18. How large did the object appear compared with any of the items listed below, held
at rm's length? (Underline any)
a. Pin head f. 2 cent piece k. Ping pong ball
b. Nail head g. 5 cent piece l. Cricket ball
c. Shirt button h. 10 cent piece m. Grapefruit
d. Jacket button i. 20 cent piece n. Football
e. 1 cent piece j. 50 cent piece p. Other ..............
19. How certain are you of the above answers? (Underline any)
a. 100 per cent certain d. Uncertain
b. Fairly certain e. Guess
c. Not very certain
20. Describe as best you can the following. (If none write NONE)
a. Colour ...............................
b. Sound ...............................
c. Electrical malfunctions in your immediate area
................................................................................
................................................................................
21. How did the object disappear from your view? .....................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
22. If you are familiar with angular direction answer the following.
i. When you first saw the object.
a. from true North .............. Degrees
b. from horizon ................ Degrees
ii.When you last saw object.
a. from true North .............. Degrees
b. from horizon ................ Degrees
23. If you suffered any injuries on the date mentioned in Question 1. specify below
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
Signed ...............................
Date ...............................24. What direction were you looking in when you first saw the object?
(Underline any)
a. North c. East e. South g. West
b. North East d. South East f. South West h. North West
i. Don't know
25. What direction were you looking in when you last saw the object?
(Underline any)
a. North c. East e. South g. West
b. North East d. South East f. South West h. North West
i. Don't know
26. Please state names and addresses of any other witnesses.
Name ............................. Name ...............................
Address .......................... Address ............................
................................ ..................................
................................ ..................................
Telephone ........................ Telephone .........................
27. Were there any distinguishing marks on the object such as letters or unknown
markings?
a. YES
b. NO
If yes, try to duplicate as best you can on reverse side of this sheet.
28. Did the object do any of the following? (Underline one or more)
a. Stay motionless d. Move to your right
b. Move upwards e. Move downwards
c. Move to your left f. Move towards you
g. Move away from you
Other comments .................................................................
29. As best as you can remember which of the above movements occurred first, if any.
eg. a. ..first... a. ................ d. ....................
b. ..second.... b. .............. e. ....................
c. .............. f. ....................
g. ...............
Other comments .................................................................
Signed ...............................
Date ...............................)
30. Werr the edges of the object (Underline one or more)
a. Fuzzy
c. Don't remember
b. Star like
d. Other comments ....................
.................................................................................
31. How many objects did you see? .............................................
32. Please give the following details of yourself in order that you could be contacted
should the necessity arise.
Name .................. ................... ...................
last name middle name first name
Full postal address ...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
...........................................
Telephone .......................................
Country ...............................
33. If the above address is temporary give details of permanent address or an address
through which you could be contacted.
Address .................................
.................................
.................................
Telephone .......................................
Country ...............................
34. Profession ...............................
Date of birth ...............................
Sex .......................................
Signed ...............................
- date of completion ...............................
FOR OFFICIAL USE.
CODE NUMBERMINUTE SHEET DC-E
Subject: UNIDENTIFIED RADAR CONTACT Department: ........................
File No. ........................
Date: 9 FEB 79
To-
SASO
Kni
DOPS
[illegible initials]
D/2
1. At 082105 NZDT Feb 79 I received a
telephone call from Mr REG PHILLIPS of Wellington
ATC who informed me that he had been observing
a solid radar contact off the Clarence River.
2. The contact was reported at 2040 NZDT and
was still firmly held at 2125. Position was
given as 167in/65 nms from the radar head
and the operator reported the contact was
maintaining a left hand triangular pattern at
approximately 80 Kts. After 40 minutes of
observation the operator calculated that the
targets pattern was advancing on an MLA
of 1H08/10 Kts.
3. An ANT B737 was directed through the
area at FL260 as was a Cessna 402 who
was in and out of stratus at 1500'. Neither
aircraft saw anything.
4. Wigram had a Devon ready for a
planned sortie to WN which I requested to
have a look in the area. He saw only trawlers.
5. The PRO (Sqn Ldr COLE) and OPS 3 (Sqn Ldr
COLLINS) were kept in the picture in case of a
press leak.
6. I did not consider any further action
Item 503MINUTE SHEET
Subject: Department: ........................
-2- File No. ........................
Date: ...........................
To-
by the RNZAF to be warranted.
7. The contact faded at 2135 NZDT.
8. No explanation for the contact can be
given; one ATC operator considered the contact
to look like a helicopter, another considered
it to be anaprop. The stratus in the area
was not showing on radar and it is unlikely
that the trawlers would paint.
[signature]
(H.J. LAWTON)
Sqn Ldr
DASO
X 838
Item 503MINUTE SHEET Department: OPS 1
Subject: NIGHT HELICOPTER SIGHTING File No. .......................
30 Jan 79. Date: 26B79
To-
DOPS
[illegible]
D/2
Polish
Vessel
Smorny.
Posn
43 26 S
73 20 E
28 NM E
if Waimak.
1. Ref. night helicopter sighting off Waimak
river ... rang with following info.
A. Crew reports (Capt and Officer of Watch) that
helicopter was picked up on radar at 1½nm
and was visually spotted on three other
occasions.
B. Helicopter was seen at times to be
almost hovering. It displayed a white light
beneath (almost like search light) that did appear
to have some small vertical movement.
C. Helicopter disappeared in north / north east
direction.
D. As well as large vessel observed
heading south in area a small (about 800tm)
grey ship with no lights (or very poorly
lit) was also observed in area. Crew could see
it only by radar or by light of
helicopter.
[signature]
02/1600 NZST[Stamp: DELETED
On 26/8/10
Reference D__[illegible]
Appointment [illegible]]
[Stamp: [ILLEGIBLE]]
022 [illegible] 51.79
VV LKA775ISA953 HH
RR RZYXCE
DE RZYXUU 5430 0282130
ZNY RRRRR
R 252330Z JAN 79
FN RNZAF WOODBOURNE
TO RZYYUT/SGHQ RNZAF
INFO RZYXCE/NZDEF AIR
BT
R E S T R I C T E D
DIG KSY/KSZ
549 SUBJECT UNIDENTIFIED SIGHTING CLARENCE RIVER MOUTH AREA
REF YOUR KSY/KSZZ MOP DTG 1719152 JAN 79. NIL TO REPORT FROM THIS
BASE
BT
[Stamp: RESTRICTED]
DISTRIBUTION
DEF AIR 36/3/3.
ACTION: ................
D OPS
OPS 2
NNNN
KSY 0
ACTION OPS2 11
INFO
KSZ 1
ACTION OPS2 11
INFOLKA102ISA963 UU
RR RZYXCE 022 [illegible] 01.79
DE RZYXUU 5107 0222140
ZNR UUUUU
R 220120Z JAN 79
FN RNZAF WOODBOURNE
TO NZDEF AIR
BT
UNCLAS
DIG RTT/KSY/KSZ Marco
497 FOR DOPS FROM CO PD UNIDENTIFIED SIGHTINGS 20 DEC 78 PD
FOLLOING INFO PROVIDED BY FRAME/UFFINDELL CLN
A. INITIAL (MIDNIGHT) SIGHTING BEARING 098M 4 PT 5 DEGREE
ELEVATION
B. SIGHTING AT 0335M WAS ON BEARING OF 070M ALSO AT 4 PT 5 DEGREE
ELEVATION
TWO. I COMMEND TO YOUR READING THE EDITORIAL ON PAGE TEN OF 6 JAN
ISSUE OF THE ECONOMIST
BT
NNNN
ACTION SUPERVISOR
DISTRIBUTION
[illegible] AIR 36/8/3
ACTION: D OPS
[illegible]
22/1
KSY 0
ACTION OPS2 11 [FOR
COPY
INFO THIS]
KSZ 0
ACTION OPS3 11
INFOMINUTE SHEET Department: Air Staff
Subject: LETTER FROM File No. -
MR HUNTINGTON
Date: 28 Feb 79
To-
AO D/l 3
1. Mr raises some good practical
suggestions.
2. During our recent investigations we did
consider pranksters and hoaxes — but there
was no firm evidence that any such
activities had occurred. I had the gut
feeling that the Japanese fishing folk might
have been up to some fiendishly cunning
oriental lark — because they got the 'push'
last year! However, there was no proof of
this.
3. Suggest we answer briefly saying that
Item 504 6543/7/78—Y29-2- Date:
To-
we did consider the 'practical joke' aspect
during our Defence investigation of the
December sightings. However, there was
no proof that any persons had been sky larking.
Which is little more than one would expect —
if they had.
[signature]
Ac 3015
(3154)
Item 504 6543/7/78—Y29NOTICE
Defence Duty Officer
UFO SIGHTINGS
1. Any reports from Wellington Air Traffic Control
Authorities of unidentified radar contacts are to be passed
to the DASO as soon as possible. As much detail as possible
should be obtained from ATC including any visual or radar
contacts made by aircraft at or about the same time.
2. Any reports from civilians should be recorded with
details of time, place, height, description etc and passed
to the DASO during normal working hours.
3. Thank you.
[signature]
(J.B. CLEMENTS)
Wg Cdr
D Ops
14 Feb 79Ross,
As discussed, herewith my 'report'
plus the two bits from DSIR that were used
as the basis for the DSIR report to their
Minister.
I have since listened to the tapes (Para
14) and was not evenly excited. In my
view they did not correlate any of the
various sightings. There was however
a few bits of 'auto suggestion' between the
controller, the aircraft crew, and Mr Frame!
The main conclusion I have drawn
from my initial investigation and the various
inputs since then is that there really was very
little correlation between the many sightings.
In summary:
a. the radar is OK for bearing but
not for height — returns could
be anywhere twixt 0 and 50,000';
b. aircraft radar — much the
same except height had much
narrower of course;
c. Visual obs fair for bearing no
value in terms of distance — lights
could have been three feet or
three light years away;
d. when the aircrew were 'keyed'
to look out on a 'bearing' from
Item 503Wn radar they saw the 'lights'.
Verne saw the light that seemed
to 'track' them, which John saw
"a planet" !!
d. Wn radar was very much in
the 'spurious return mode' over the
period — seems to have quietened
down now.
The one thing that has arisen since the
sightings is that it is possible that somebody
is stuffing around with a helo somewhere
twixt Banks Peninsula — Kaikoura.
But it would not account for many
(if any) of the STFF sightings.
I hope this stuff is of some interest and,
as I said to you earlier, I am only
too happy to find a coffee de-brief to
your chaps when I am over there sometime.
Pse return the info when you can.
John
23/2
Ps. Note my report said I had
interviewed most of witnesses. DCAS
wrote the 'news release' !!
Item 503from:
Commanding Officer
RNZAF Base Woodbourne
John
Thanks very much.
No further comment at this
end, and I am not
raising subject. Let it
die a natural and
unmourned death.
Kind regards
— Ross.
[Crown/RNZAF crest letterhead]PERSONAL FOR DOPS (DOPS (F))
)
PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY
DSIR
NEW ZEALANDPostal Address:
PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY, DSIR
PRIVATE BAG
LOWER HUTT
NEW ZEALAND
Location:
PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY, DSIR
GRACEFIELD ROAD
LOWER HUTT
Near WELLINGTON
9979E—3000/4/78TCOPTICAL QUALITY OF THE WINDOWS OF
"ARGOSY" AIRCRAFT IN RELATION TO
PHOTOGRAPHY WITH LENSES OF LARGE
APERTURE.
by N.J. RUMSEY.
PEL REPORT NO. 625 JANUARY 1979)
Introduction
On the evening of Tuesday, 2 January 1979, TV1 showed a
film taken by a Wellington photographer, Mr David Crockett,
from a SAFE AIR Argosy aircraft on the night of 31 December
1978, for a Melbourne TV channel. Photographs of a bright
object taken with a long-focus lens (250 mm focal length) show
structure in the form of horizontal streaks. It seemed to
me very probable that these streaks were an artifact produced
by imperfections in the aircraft window. It also seemed to
me possible that the image was somewhat defocussed. These
points needed to be settled before there could be any possibility
of placing a reliable interpretation on the image.
Method of Investigation
A suitable test method had to be one that could be carried
out relatively quickly and with no disturbance to the normal
running of the aircraft. We put together a short telescope
(for portability) of high magnification (for ease in detecting
defects in the image). The objective was of 75 mm aperture
and relative aperture f/5: one of three high quality collimator
objectives recently made by Garry Nankivell of the PEL Optics
Section. The eyepiece was an "orthoscopic" of 4 mm focal length
intended for astronomical use. The magnification was thus
75 x 5/4 = 94 x approximately. A small area light source
consisted of an illuminated torch bulb placed sufficiently far
away that any significant blurring of the image would destroy
the ability to recognise the filament as such. In practice,
when the crucial test of the window through which most of the
photography had been done was carried out, the distance was
probably about 40 metres. The test was qualitative rather than
quantitative, or at best semiquantitative. When the light
source was viewed directly, i.e. not through an aircraft window,
the presence of some residual aberration in the optical system
in the form of secondary spectrum (a lack of perfect coincidence
of the foci in different colours) was easily detected; but the
envelope of the torch bulb appeared well defined and the bright
image of the filament nowhere obliterated the outline of the bulb.
Observations
When the author arrived at Woodbourne the aircraft from
which the photography had been done was not available, so three
windows of another Argosy were tested. The first two windows
caused the image of the light source to show considerable coma
(a lop-sided flare), and the third caused astigmatism (which
gives as the image of a point of light two lines at right-angles
to each other and separated along the line of sight).
When the plan arrived from which the photography had been
done, the crew pointed out the window through which most of
the photographs had been taken. When this was tested through-2-
an area near its bottom, the most compact image found by varying
the focus setting had an outline shaped like an inverted pear
and it was crossed by two bright streaks. When the telescope
was moved, the appearance of the image changed rapidly; but
horizontal streaks were generally present. This observation,
taken in conjunction with the way in which the position of
the streaks on the filmed image changed as the line of sight
moved relative to the window, make it substantially certain
that (as conjectured) the streaks across the filmed image are
artifacts caused by the window and are not images of genuine
detail in the object. On the other hand, it appears that we
should absolve the photographer from illegitimate enlargement
of the image, for the most compact images that could be obtained
were generally less compact than I had expected.
Conclusions
During the admittedly rather brief testing of four
different windows in the Argosy aircraft, no part of any window
was found that did not introduce serious aberrations into the
images formed by an optical system of 75 mm aperture. Thus the
windows are not suitable for photography with long focus lenses
(which, for a given relative aperture, have of course an absolute
aperture proportional to their focal length). Further, the
particular window through which film was shot with a long focus
lens was almost certainly responsible for the horizontal streaks
that appear in the resulting images. Thus the only use to
which these images can safely be put (apart from making money)
appears to be to set an upper limit to the angular size of the
object photographed. (It would be extremely difficult to
establish how much smaller than this a sharply defined image
would have been.)
Acknowledgement
The author is particularly indebted to Mr J. Kundycki,
Assistant General Manager of SAFE AIR LIMITED, who spared no
effort to facilitate these investigations.UFOs no threat to US — now there's N Korea UFOs were put in their place this morning ... in exactly 14 seconds ... by General James A Hill, the Vice-Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force In Wellington for the annual air-New Zealand talks with his New Zealand counterparts, General Hill digressed from military discussions with the media to answer a question re UFOs. Stating that the official United States Air Force view was on them, he treated the query as seriously as he had previous subjects. 'We have investigated more than 13,000 sightings but terminated any further investigations in 1969. 'And that was after 22 years of thorough research. 'Our findings were that most of them were [ILLEGIBLE] natural things such as me- teors, stars, and atmospheric phenomena.' 'We drew the conclusion that they led to no threat to us or anyone else.' 'At that stage, we termi- nated any further investiga- tions.' However, while UFOs are now casually dismissed, other threats are faced with a grim determination that puts a sharp edge in General Hill's normally quiet tone. 'The main threat to peace in the Pacific is North Korea,' is the instant answer. 'North Korea is the one place where an armistice exists — there is no treaty there. 'However, we are hopeful that the new alliance between us and China may influence the situation there. And from there lead to an amicable solu- tion.' Earlier, General Hill had some forthright comments to [ILLEGIBLE] Russia's military [ILLEGIBLE] 'The Soviets and Vietnam have a pact — we have seen.' 'Coupled with the recent [ILLEGIBLE] in Cambodia, [ILLEGIBLE] Russia favour- [ILLEGIBLE] 'They are manifesting a global presence — and I think he realises they have a quar- ter of their forces in the Far East region.' 'Here in New Zealand to foster and promote our com- mon [ILLEGIBLE] within our [ILLEGIBLE]' [ILLEGIBLE] was Air Marshall R B Bolt, New Zealand's Chief of De- fence RNZAF, and the Secretary of Defence [ILLEGIBLE] will cover a num- ber of subjects, the main one being the United States. The [ILLEGIBLE] Pacific. [ILLEGIBLE] as will put [ILLEGIBLE] in training [ILLEGIBLE] and the utilisation of women in the military [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] of the United States military are now volunt- [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] and about 7 percent of there are women. 'And with the decline in slightly' we expect to reach our goal of 12 percent (female) by 1984.' General Hill will also have lunched with Air Vice-Marshal C.L. Sloan, the Chief of Air Staff RNZAF, and other senior RNZAF officers before flying out from Ohakea air base to- morrow.
MINUTE SHEET Department: ASCP
Subject:
UFO : RADAR SIGHTING File No. —
Date: 23 JAN 79
To— 1 AS DASE ON SUNDAY 21 JAN I RECEIVED
ADVICE OF THE FOLLOWING UFO SIGHTING ON LUN RADAR:
A FIRST SIGHTED 1208 H, 50 NM 150° MAG UN
B TOTAL CONTACT 50 - 80 NM
C DIRECTION SE AT 2NM/MIN
D MET CONDITIONS N/A — RADAR SIGHTING ONLY
E FADED AT 80 NM
F TARGET APPROX SIZE OF MEDIUM SIZE A/C
2 THE REPORT WAS PASSED BY MR GAILEY, DUTY SUPERVISOR
LUN ALSO ADVISED THAT THERE WERE NO MET BALLOONS
IN AREA NOR ANY KNOWN AIRCRAFT.
[signature]
(P.J. GARNETT) 75389B-75,000/2 76 D
Item 504RESTRICTED UU LKA084RFA560 HH PO RZYXCE ZE RZYYUT 7956 0172130 017 22 55.79 ZNY RRRRR R 1719152 JAN 79 FM SGHQ RNZAF TO ZEN/RNZAF WIGRAM RZYXUU/RNZAF WOODBOURNE INFO RZYXCE/NZDEF AIR 5λ BT R E S T R I C T E D DIG KSY/KSZ 290 REF NZDEF AIR KSY/KSZ 849 160240Z JAN 79 AIR 36/3/3 NDTAL PD SUBJECT UNIDENTIFIED SIGHTING CLARENCE RIVER MOUTH AREA PD ONE PD HAVING CONDUCTED INQUIRY INTO RECENT QUOTE UNIDENTIFIED VISUAL AND RADAR SIGHTING UNQUOTE IN CLARENCE REGION THERE REMAINS SOME DOUBT ABOUT SOURCE OF THE LIGHTS THAT WERE OBSERVED BY THREE SAFE ARGOSY CREWS CMM AIRSTAFF HAVE NOW ASKED FOR ANY FEEDBACK FROM GROUPS ESPECIALLY OBSERVATIONS IN THE AREA AT NIGHT PD TWO PD BASES ARE TO INVITE REPORTS THROUGH BROS FROM SERVICEMEN OR DEPENDENTS WHO MAY HAVE OBSERVED THIS OCCURRENCE PD THESE REPORTS ARE TO BE FORWARDED EXPEDITIOUSLY TO THIS HQ BT DISTRIBUTION [STAMP] AIR 36/s/3 ACTION: D ops [signature] 25ll NNNN KSY 0 ACTION OPS2 11 INFO KSZ 0 ACTION OPS3 11 INFO RESTRICTED
DEFENCE
NEWS
RELEASE
Address all inquiries to:
Public Relations,
Defence Headquarters,
Wellington, N.Z.
Telephone: 49 800 Ext. 882 or 792.
RNZAF UFO SIGHTING REPORT
The unidentified radar and visual sightings reported by aircraft and
the Air Traffic Control radars off the north east coast of the South Island
recently, are the result of natural but unusual atmospheric phenomena.
This is the conclusion arrived at in the Air Force's just completed
investigation into the sightings.
Before arriving at his conclusions, the investigating officer
interviewed all the principle witnesses involved in the sightings on the
nights of 20 and 30 December. He also worked closely with the Department
of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Civil Aviation Division of the
Ministry of Transport, and the Meteorological Service.
His report reveals that during the months of December and early
January, atmospheric conditions over New Zealand were conducive to freak
effects on radar and light waves. Also, the planet Venus was rising in the
eastern sky early in the morning, and at this time of the year is unusually
bright in appearance.
It was also revealed that for some time the Wellington Air Traffic
Control radar has been giving spurious returns off the east coast of the
South Island.
Over the period more than 50 Japanese squid boats sailed from
Wellington to a position 120 miles off Banks Peninsula.
Not only would the squid boats give a good source of radar return
whilst in transit to the squid fishing grounds, but they generate a very
large amount of light when fishing at night. Each boat generates about
200 kilowatts of light to attract squid to its lures, and this light source
cannot be discounted as a cause of some of the visual sightings.2.
The investigating officer also speculates that lights seen in the
Clarence River mouth could have come from trains or vehicles travelling
along the coast, and affected by unusual atmospheric reflections and
refractions.
There is no evidence to connect the many radar and visual sightings
in the Clarence River and the larger lights seen to the east.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said the Ministry was completely
satisfied there were no unexplained physical objects in the skies at the
time of the sightings.
The lights were almost certainly from surface or planetary sources
affected by atmospheric reflection, refraction and distortion.
Radar sets are known to be subject to spurious returns, and it was
significant that on the occasions the large light was being filmed by a
television team on board the Argosy freighter, neither Christchurch or
Wellington radars reported any related visual sightings on their screens.
The spokesman said that the Ministry of Defence was not specifically
charged with formal responsibility for investigating so-called unidentified
flying objects in peacetime. However, the Ministry does take an active
interest in all such reports and within the limitations of its resources,
conducts investigations as necessary.
Commenting on some media speculation that the country was defenceless
against air attack, the spokesman said that New Zealand did not have
a complex air defence system, comprising sophisticated radar equipment
and a force of missiles and interceptor aircraft.3.
The recently announced Defence Review explains that over the next
decade at least, a physical threat to New Zealand's security, by sea
or from the air, is so remote that expenditure of funds on
sophisticated air defence equipments could not be justified.
No costing of a comprehensive air defence system for New Zealand
had been done, but the Defence spokesman said that the bill would be
enormous and well beyond current resource levels.
The Defence spokesman concluded by saying that the Ministry totally
discounts the possibility of visits to New Zealand, and particularly
to the areas of the country where the recent reports have suggested, of
alien aircraft or other flying machines. It also categorically discounts
any suggestion that air activity of any kind has taken place which poses
any threat to New Zealand's security. Defence does not share the view of
those who believe we are visited from outer space, or covertly by the air-
craft or machines of potentially unfriendly nations.RESTRICTED UU LKL211KLB573 HH NO UNCLASSIFIED RR RZYXSD REPLY OR REFERENCE DE RZYXCD 2207 0160300 ZNY RRRRR R 160240Z JAN 79 FM NZDEF AIR TO RZYWTT/OPHQ RNZAF RZYYVUT/SGHQ RNZAF BT R E S T R I C T E D DIG KSY/KSZ 849 AIR 36/3/3 SUBJECT UNIDENTIFIED SIGHTINGS CLARENCE RIVER MOUTH AREA PD HAVING CONDUCTED INQUIRY INTO RECENT QUOTE UNIDENTIFIED VISUAL AND RADAR SIGHTINGS UNQUOTE IN CLARENCE REGION THERE REMAINS SOME DOUBT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHTS THAT WERE OBSERVED BY THREE SAFE ARCOSY CREWS PD REQUEST ANY FEEDBACK FROM GROUPS ESPECIALLY OBSERVATIONS IN THE AREA AT NIGHT PD SPECULATIVELY CMM IT IS POSSIBLE THAT LIGHTS ON COAST COULD BE FROM CARS AND TRAINS SINCE ALL HAD BEEN APPEARANCE PD UNLIKELY THAT THEY WERE LIGHTS FROM A SQUADRON OF HELICOPTERS AS NO REPORTS OF AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITY RECEIVED FROM LOCAL INHABITANTS PD FOR YOUR REPEAT YOUR INFO ONLY CMM MOST PROBABLE THAT RADAR RETURNS WERE SPURIOUS BT C-HR-THEY-WERE- RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION [STAMP] AIR 36/3/3 ACTION: D OPS [signature] NNNN KSY 0 ACTION OPS2 11 INFO D4 KSZ 0 ACTION OPS3 11 INFO DECLASSIFIED On 26/8/12 Reference D.d[ILLEGIBLE] Appointment [signature] Karen Peet [Stamp: 16 JAN 1979]
[ILLEGIBLE handwritten header] P.E.L. 9/10/-
DETAILS OF RELATING TO SIGHTINGS OF OBJECTS OFF
SOUTH ISLAND EAST COAST, MORNING OF December 31st 1978.
P.E.L.
15 JAN 1979
RECEIVED
-1-
1) Quentin Fogarty, 32, a journalist from Melbourne
Television ATVo is an old friend. He his wife and
two children planned to come to New Zealand for a holiday
..plans were made about the middle of 1978.
2) Fogarty, as part of his duties as a general reporter
for Channel 0, covered a similar 'UFO' event in Bass
Strait during 1978. A young Pilot named Valentich claimed
he had been 'buzzed' by a 'UFO' in his last radio contact
before he disappeared.
3) While Fogarty was on holiday at his wife's parents farm
in Martin borough he was asked by Channel 0 to prepare a
report on a sighting by Safe Air Capt, Vern Powell
on Dec.21st. Fogarty filmed at Wellington Radar Centre
and with the ministry of transport and made arrangement's
to travel with the Safe Air Argosy delivering Sunday
newspapers to the South Island on the night of Sat 30th/Sun 31st
December.
4) He hired a 'stringer' or contracted film crew, David
and Ngaire Crockett of Wellington
5) Fogarty, the Crocketts, Safe Air Pilot Bill Startup
and First Officer Bob Guard flew to Christchurch and
encountered objects on the trip South.
Copy for Mike Collins
REFERRED TO
MAC 1-2- 6) My first contact with Fogarty was when he called me from Christchurch Airport (approx 1am). He informed me of the contacts. I [struck: drove to the airport with his] [struck: [ILLEGIBLE]] wife. 7) When we arrived at the airport Fogarty and the Safe Air Crew were in the Christchurch Radar Centre discussing what they had seen with Christchurch Operators. 8) Mrs Crockett, who was acting as sound recordist for her cameraman husband, informed her husband and Fogarty she was upset at what she had witnessed and would not make the return trip to Blenheim. 9) I asked Fogarty would he have any objections to my travelling to Blenheim on the Argosy. He did not. I asked Pilot Bill Startup if he had any objections and he said I was welcome to fly with them. 10) The Flight left Christchurch at 2.10am (Approx) Fogarty and I were seated at the rear of the air craft and remained there until the 'Fasten Seat Belt' light was extinguished and we made our way to the Flight Deck. (apprx 2.18) 11) On the Flight Deck Capt Startup was seated on the left monitoring the planes radar. First Off. Guard was on the right in command of the Air craft which was in the 'Auto-pilot' mode. [struck: The] Cameraman Crockett was in the third seat in the centre and behind the two front seats. Fogarty was to Crocketts right behind Guard....I was to his left, behind Capt. Startup. Crockett, Guard and Startup [struck: were on] had headphones.
*Summer Time 12) At 2.18* by my watch the object was pointed out to
me by First Officer Guard. It was to the right of the
Argosy and below the craft...keeping pace with us.
13) I checked with Capt. [struck: Startup]
Startup
our height...13-thousand
feet and speed...approx [struck: 170mph] 170 mph. [struck: cccccderchecccesd]
14) The object appeared to be circular in shape...a whitish/
yellow light varying in intensity. At one point I
saw a reflection from the object on the surface of the
Ocean.**
15) Capt [struck: Startup] Startup estimated the object came as close
as 10 miles on his radar.
16) The object kept abreast and below us for approx
40 miles when First Officer Guard took the plane off
Auto-pilot and headed directly towards the object.
(at a greater speed than us)
The Object moved to our right
radar
until it went out of
our view and off the screen.
17) [struck: Theminmiyapoxmthinkmojemihmrxmimuxmamrwy]
*Travelling As we approached Blenheim* I saw a smaller object
NW approx.
Object over the town...after some four or five minutes it was
slightly
left of joined at the same height by a similar object..as we
dead ahead.
turned the aircraft for landing, I lost sight of
both of them.
18) We landed and I made arrangements to get a film
crew to Blenheim where later in the morning, I filmed
a report of my experiences and interviewed Messrs
Startup and Guard.
** Experiment with Dennis Grant at Clarence on night 5/6 January. Gary
Lewis walked away with a torch to a distance where Grant estimated the
size of the light to be approximately the same as the UFO. Distance
was 30 paces (~yards) and torch face 2½ inches across. Hence size
~0.13° = 8' of arc.)
and
19) I do not wear [struck: glasses] spectacles, enjoy excellent health.
I had two glasses of white wine with my meal at approx
7pm the previous evening. I do not smoke, except for
the occasional cigar.
DC Grant
_______________
Senior Journalist
Television One
Po Box 2659 ChCh
Th GFF 60838
Res: 5 Denby St
ChCh 1
GF 7124THE MINISTER OF SCIENCE - IN CONFIDENCE [ILLEGIBLE]
INTERIM REPORT ON UFO SIGHTING DECLASSIFIED
CANTERBURY COAST On 26/8/12
Reference D.d[ILLEGIBLE]
1. Introduction Appointment [signature]
Widely publicised sightings of unidentified [ILLEGIBLE] — sometimes
accompanied by reports of unidentified radar returns — were made on
the nights of 20/21 December 1978, 30/31 December 1978, and the
morning of 3 January 1979. In addition to visual reports, two film
records of the sightings were obtained and unidentified returns
were recorded by the Wellington Airport Traffic Control radar at
Hawkins Hill. The Physics and Engineering Laboratory, DSIR,
undertook some investigation of the reported sightings in support
of the detailed investigation being conducted by the Ministry of
Defence. This report is limited to comment on the physical
conditions prevailing at the time of the sightings.
2. Sightings
The major reported sightings were made by responsible people
with considerable experience, and who would not be easily misled
by normal natural phenomena. These comprised the crews of two
Safe Air Argosy transport aircraft — the first on the night of
20/21 December piloted by Captain Vern Powell, and the second on
the night of 30/31 December piloted by Captain Bill Startup. An
Australian TV reporter and NZ cameraman (Mr Quinten Foggarty and Mr
David Crockett) were present on Captain Startup's flight. A TV1
camera crew made sightings from the Clarence River valley on the
morning of 3 January 1979.
In addition, many reports from individuals have been received.
3. Physical Factors
Physical factors which need to be considered, and which
prevailed over this period are as follows :
1. The atmosphere was very clear.
2. Venus which was rising at about 3.15 a.m. (NZ Daylight Saving
Time), was at its brightest in late December (table 1). Venus
was 12 times brighter than the brightest star (Sirius) over
this period.
3. Jupiter, which was rising about 10 p.m. (NZ Daylight Saving
Time), will be at its brightest in late January.
4. North westerly winds were producing inversion layers over the
Canterbury coast.
5. The movement into the sea off the Canterbury coast of
approximately 75 Japanese fishing boats.
4. DSIR Involvement
DSIR involvement was to provide technical support to the Defence
investigation. This support was provided by physicists from the
Physics and Engineering Laboratory (PEL). Investigations were as
follows :-2-
1. Examination of the films of the UFO's taken on 31 December
from an Argosy, and 3 January from the Clarence River.
In both films it was obvious that some distortions were
present making identification of the object filmed difficult,
if not impossible. Hence the laboratory endeavoured to
obtain selected frames of these films to see if such
distortion could be removed to enable a clearer picture.
Subsequent investigations of the conditions under which the
films were produced indicate that there is little merit in
proceeding with an analysis of the film taken by Mr Crockett
on 31 December, since the image recorded is almost entirely
due to imperfections of the window of the Argosy aircraft
(Appendix 1).
Analysis of the film obtained by a TV1 camera crew under the
direction of Terry Olson on 3 January from the Clarence River,
will continue since the greatest distortion appears to have
been produced by out of focus. Analysis will take approx.
2 months due, largely, to pressure of other work.
2. Obtaining further data. Unfortunately data relating to
direction and height of observations was lacking from most
early reports although reasonably accurate times were available.
Date on these parameters was obtained by interview and field
parties (Appendix 2).
3. Radar Signals. The Canterbury coast is well known for its
anomalous radio wave propagation and PEL has studied this
phenomenon for many years — the first occasion being in 1948.
Officers of the laboratory spent the nights of 5/6 and 7/8
January observing the Wellington Airport Authority radar
(Appendix 3).
5. Findings
It is not possible to prove what other people have seen, but
merely to predict probabilities. Careful examination of sightings
and data obtained indicates that the majority of substantive
sightings occurred from about 3 a.m. looking toward the east and
low on the horizon. These observations are consistent with the
UFO's being related to the rising of Venus, but are not consistent
with the normal appearance of that planet.
It is known, moreover, that atmospheric temperature inversions
produce considerable refraction of light (and radar waves) producing
strange effects upon an image. Such effects are often referred to
as mirages. It should be noted that on the night of each major
sighting such atmospheric inversions were recorded. The most
outstanding observation reported (that of the Argosy piloted by
Captain Startup) sighted their UFO shortly after 0230 a.m. — some
10 minutes before Venus should rise at their altitude. The
description of the object is classic for that of a planet substant-
ially refracted by the atmosphere — as indeed it must be to appear
10 minutes early! Rapid, random motion (as observed) is also to
be expected as the atmospheric conditions change.
It should be pointed out that Venus was at its most brilliant
and the atmospheric disturbance would have made its identification
difficult indeed; on one observation by PEL staff (Appendix 2)-3-
a star was observed on the horizon directly above a fishing vessel.
The heat produced by this vessel was sufficient to produce
atmospheric disturbances which refracted the image considerably —
the effect being similar to that described in the majority of
sightings.
Estimates of distance from one fixed point are difficult. In
each reported sighting distances were estimated as being "A few
miles". However, rough estimates for distance are possible for
the sightings of the 20/21 and 30/31 December. For the former,
an aircraft sighting at 0335 a.m. and a sighting from Woodbourne
airfield at 0335 a.m. could be correlated and indicate the object
was at a very great distance — consistent with Venus. For the
latter, observations of the reflection of the object in the sea
indicate a very small angular difference — certainly less than 5°.
Hence, even without atmospheric refraction the object could not have
been closer than 100 km and was most likely at a much greater
distance.
Unidentified radar reflections are quite common from the radar
on Hawkins Hill, and may be produced by a variety of targets brought
into the beam by super refraction (or ducting). Super refraction
is one consequence of atmospheric temperature inversions. In no
case brought to my attention was it shown that unidentified
reflections were coincident with visual UFO sightings. Also, at
least one reflection reported by Hawkins Hill and which should
have been seen by Christchurch Airport radar, was not. Radar
operators are very skilled at interpretation and in general recognise
spurious signals — indeed most operators agree that most signals
observed on the nights in question fit that category. However,
two changes to the radar system have been made recently (a signal
processor and tilting of the aerial) which will have produced effects
not yet assimilated into the experience of the operator.
On the night of 7/8 January 1979, an officer of PEL (expert
in radio wave propagation in this area) attended the Wellington
Airport Control Centre and observed many unidentified radar returns;
3 ground parties on the Kaikoura coast were in radio contact with
him but failed to make any visual contact to suggest these were
other than known targets (e.g. ships) or spurious returns (appendices
2 and 3).
While the above relates to the majority of sightings, several
others are not well enough defined to follow up. In addition, two
pieces of data do not fit this pattern. Firstly, in the flight of
20/21 December (Captain Vern Powell) a pulsating light was observed
moving toward the aircraft from Banks Peninsula which veered away
to the left, and this was accompanied by an on-board radar return.
The speed was estimated as being about 15,000 km per hour. The
sighting as described was not confirmed by Wellington radar. No
further data is available, hence one can only speculate on the
cause, but meteorite showers have the appropriate characteristics.
Secondly, on the flight of 30/31 December (Captain Bill Startup)
the visual observation was accompanied by a large on-board radar
signal in approximately the right bearing which indicated an object
keeping station at about 16 km. This object was not seen by ground
based radar but — had an object been there — it should have been.
Distance estimates (above) suggest the visual sights were
certainly not coincident. Hence, this unidentified return could
be attributed to a mirror reflection from the atmosphere not
observed by Wellington because of (1) the different look angle,
and (2) the different radar wavelength.CONCLUSION
This report does not attempt a detailed explanation of all
reported UFO sightings in New Zealand over the December-January
period. It does, however, deal with the physical conditions
occurring and major sightings. In each case (with the exceptions
noted above), it is our interim conclusion that the major sightings
are consistent with observations of the planet Venus through a
disturbed atmosphere.
(M.A. Collins)
12 January 1979
TABLE 1
Data on Venus Rising.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date | Rise time (sea level) | Bearing | Magnitude
| NZ Daylight Saving Time | |
---------------------------------------------------------------
21 Dec 1978 | 0331 | 8½° S of E | -4.3
---------------------------------------------------------------
31 Dec 1978 | 0316 | 9½° S of E | -4.3
---------------------------------------------------------------
3 Jan 1979 | 0313 | 10° S of E | -4.3
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Magnitue of brightest Star, Sirius, is -1.6APPENDIX 1
OPTICAL QUALITY OF THE WINDOWS OF
"ARGOSY" AIRCRAFT IN RELATION TO
PHOTOGRAPHY WITH LENSES OF LARGE
APERTURE.
by N.J. RUMSEY.
PEL REPORT NO. 625 JANUARY 1979O
Introduction
On the evening of Tuesday, 2 January 1979, TV1 showed a
film taken by a Wellington photographer, Mr David Crockett,
from a SAFE AIR Argosy aircraft on the night of 31 December
1978, for a Melbourne TV channel. Photographs of a bright
object taken with a long-focus lens (250 mm focal length) show
structure in the form of horizontal streaks. It seemed to
me very probable that these streaks were an artifact produced
by imperfections in the aircraft window. It also seemed to
me possible that the image was somewhat defocussed. These
points needed to be settled before there could be any possibility
of placing a reliable interpretation on the image.
Method of Investigation
A suitable test method had to be one that could be carried
out relatively quickly and with no disturbance to the normal
running of the aircraft. We put together a short telescope
(for portability) of high magnification (for ease in detecting
defects in the image). The objective was of 75 mm aperture
and relative aperture f/5: one of three high quality collimator
objectives recently made by Garry Nankivell of the PEL Optics
Section. The eyepiece was an "orthoscopic" of 4 mm focal length
intended for astronomical use. The magnification was thus
75 x 5/4 = 94 x approximately. A small area light source
consisted of an illuminated torch bulb placed sufficiently far
away that any significant blurring of the image would destroy
the ability to recognise the filament as such. In practice,
when the crucial test of the window through which most of the
photography had been done was carried out, the distance was
probably about 40 metres. The test was qualitative rather than
quantitative, or at best semiquantitative. When the light
source was viewed directly, i.e. not through an aircraft window,
the presence of some residual aberration in the optical system
in the form of secondary spectrum (a lack of perfect coincidence
of the foci in different colours) was easily detected; but the
envelope of the torch bulb appeared well defined and the bright
image of the filament nowhere obliterated the outline of the bulb.
Observations
When the author arrived at Woodbourne the aircraft from
which the photography had been done was not available, so three
windows of another Argosy were tested. The first two windows
caused the image of the light source to show considerable coma
(a lop-sided flare), and the third caused astigmatism (which
gives as the image of a point of light two lines at right-angles
to each other and separated along the line of sight).
When the plan arrived from which the photography had been
done, the crew pointed out the window through which most of
the photographs had been taken. When this was tested through-2-
an area near its bottom, the most compact image found by varying
the focus setting had an outline shaped like an inverted pear
and it was crossed by two bright streaks. When the telescope
was moved, the appearance of the image changed rapidly; but
horizontal streaks were generally present. This observation,
taken in conjunction with the way in which the position of
the streaks on the filmed image changed as the line of sight
moved relative to the window, make it substantially certain
that (as conjectured) the streaks across the filmed image are
artifacts caused by the window and are not images of genuine
detail in the object. On the other hand, it appears that we
should absolve the photographer from illegitimate enlargement
of the image, for the most compact images that could be obtained
were generally less compact than I had expected.
Conclusions
During the admittedly rather brief testing of four
different windows in the Argosy aircraft, no part of any window
was found that did not introduce serious aberrations into the
images formed by an optical system of 75 mm aperture. Thus the
windows are not suitable for photography with long focus lenses
(which, for a given relative aperture, have of course an absolute
aperture proportional to their focal length). Further, the
particular window through which film was shot with a long focus
lens was almost certainly responsible for the horizontal streaks
that appear in the resulting images. Thus the only use to
which these images can safely be put (apart from making money)
appears to be to set an upper limit to the angular size of the
object photographed. (It would be extremely difficult to
establish how much smaller than this a sharply defined image
would have been.)
Acknowledgement
The author is particularly indebted to Mr J. Kundycki,
Assistant General Manager of SAFE AIR LIMITED, who spared no
effort to facilitate these investigations.ATTACHMENT 1
VISUAL OBSERVATIONS FROM CANTERBURY COAST
5/6 AND 7/8 JANUARY 1979.
Observations were made of the azimuth and elevation of objects
that could be interpreted as UFO's on the nights of 5/6 and 7/8
January 1979. In order to determine their position in space these
were made from three different points.
1) Trig Station near Met. Office Kaikoura, elevation 108 metres.
2) DSIR Magnetic Radio Station, Clarence River Mouth, about
20 miles north east of Kaikoura.
3) Coast at eastern end of Kaikoura Peninsula (5/6 January) and
the Post Office radio relay station Waipapa point (elevation
360 metres) a few km south of Clarence River Mouth (7/8 Jan.).
Although not essential for determining position, the third
station was included at a different level in case atmospheric
refraction influence had significantly different effects at different
heights.
NZ Army supplied two land rovers equipped with VHF and HF
transceivers together with driver/radio operators and portable VHF
transceivers. One station was to be in HF contact with the
Surveillance Radar in Wellington where a scientist from PEL would be
located. Communication was not established on the night of 5/6
January.
Azimuth and elevation were determined by theodolite, magnetic
compass (azimuth) and inclinometer (elevation). The former was
useful only on fixed or very slightly moving objects, the latter
were necessary for something moving more rapidly. Instruments
were cross-checked against each other using stars, observations being
synchronised from the base station by VHF. After an observing
routine had been established, checks on stars showed the scatter
of the order of 1 deg. which was satisfactory.
5/6 January 1979
Light southerly mainly clear though with a little cloud low
in the east. No temperature inversion predicted or observed from
radiosonde from Christchurch.
Nothing unusual observed before 3.15 a.m. when a series of
observations was made on Venus during the first half hour after it
rose to check the effects of refraction. These have still to be
reduced but Venus appeared to behave normally.
At 4 a.m.,what afterwards turned out to be a star, rose slightly
south down wind of a ship anchored a few miles offshore from Clarence
River mouth. The heat given off by the ship produced "shimmering"
effect on the star image which appeared as a random motion of about
5 minutes of arc for amplitude and several seconds in mean period.
Other stars to the north and south showed no such effects. The
random motion continued for several minutes until the star went
behind a cloud. It reappeared later at higher elevation and the
motion was less obvious; after 10 minutes it was no longer detect-
able, comparable motion was not seen from the Kaikoura station.-2-
This was an excellent example of a phenomenon that could be
interpreted as a UFO. The motion of the image produced by the
localised heat source could be described as "hovering" and the
UFO would have approached" as the star slowly rose in the sky.
It is important to realise that there would have been a small area
a few km up the coast where the line of sight of Venus would have
passed close to the ship, and anyone in that area would have
observed a spectacular "UFO".
It was subsequently confirmed that no spurious echoes were
detected by the Wellington radar on the night of 5/6 January.
7/8 January 1979
Light westerly conditions, mild to warm temperature inversion
predicted to be at 300 metres elevation off shore. This prediction
was consistent with conditions at the Waipapa Point site where it
was generally mild, though sometimes relatively cool for short
periods, suggesting the site was then temporarily below the inversion.
No unusual optical effects were observed, although due to cloud,
Venus could not be seen until it was nearly a degree above the
horizon, and it was intermittently obscured for 20 minutes.
Observations made similar to those on the previous occasion are not
yet reduced.
A large number of spurious echoes were observed on the Wellington
radar by W. Ireland. The directions of some of these from the
observing sites were passed by radio and observations then made by
(theodolite) telescope, binoculars and visually from 0 to high
elevations. Nothing was seen corresponding to 18 different radar
echoes or groups of echoes. Some echoes were almost "overhead"
of a site, one group was interpreted by the Wellington radar
controller as a rain shower!
There was clearly very substantial ducting but it appears
temperature (and humidity) gradients that produced spurious echoes
were not appropriate to produce effects on stars or planets which
might lead to their being interpreted as a UFO. This is not
surprising, spurious echoes on the Wellington surveillance radar
are quite common in summer when inversions are present, but optical
effects leading to a "UFO sighting" relatively rare.
(R.S. Unwin)
10 January 1979APPENDIX 3
OBSERVATIONS OF UNIDENTIFIED RADAR RETURNS
ON 50 cm HAWKINS HILL RADAR, 8.1.79.
In the early morning of Monday 8.1.79, I kept watch with John
Cordy at the Wellington Control Centre. The general consensus of
others present before midnight was that there was an inversion -
witness echoes from mountains such as Ruapehu to confirm this. In
extreme inversions the coast near Wanganui is seen, but it was not
seen on Monday morning.
Significant modifications to the radar have taken place since
last summer. The effect on the display of anomalous echoes is
probably significant, but I have not attempted to verify this
assumption.
Anomalous returns which John Cordy could not identify were
present all the time, especially between about 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.,
when there may have been a dozen present at a time. They all
had the appearance of aircraft echoes when seen on the MTI (Moving
target display). I think they were generally absent when viewing
"raw video". I suspect that even the "raw video" was pre-processed
somewhat.
Early in the morning we attached no significance to movement
of the anomalous returns, but on reflection, I think they were
moving quickly outwards, because the afterglow was often visible
at shorter range. John had pointed this out at some stage.
Most of the anomalous returns were noticed in the area off
the Kaikoura-Cape Campbell coast, but others occurred in Cook
Strait and over Marlborough Province. They generally appeared
suddenly and lasted for a short time, rarely for more than a few
minutes.
A persistent group, seen I think only with raw video, occurred
about 15 miles from Christchurch. They moved generally northwards
over more than 1½ hours. (The radar is calibrated in nautical miles.)
Between 0450 and 0500 unusual "spotty" echoes covered the
coastline at Kaikoura-Clarence R. John Cordy identified these as
rain, but there was no rain there at that time.
On the MTI photo at 0219 an echo composed of three spots
appears. This was different to all the others seen. It moved
northwards and I would identify it as a ship seen on "raw video"
photos later, moving at about 11 knots, passing Cape Campbell at
about 0340. Another ship was tracked from Brothers westwards
for an hour at about 17 knots - this was visible on MTI.
The most interesting example was seen to be moving radially
outwards at 172° at an erratic 100-150 knots for 10-15 minutes.
It was 50-60 N.MILES from Wellington. Although we did not notice
when it first became visible, it disappeared quite quickly at
about 0445.
(W. Ireland)
9 January 19790338. RAW VIDEO. 160MI. BANKS PENINSULA RETURN AT MAXᵐ RANGE TWO ANOMALOUS ECHOES 15 MI. NORTH OF BANKS P. 0450. RAW VIDEO 90 MI. "RAIN" ECHOES OVER KAIKOURA POSSIBLE SHIP AT 18 MI.
0333. RAW VIDEO. 160MI. BANKS PENINSULA RETURN AT MAXᵐ RANGE TWO ANOMALOUS ECHOES 15 MI. NORTH OF BANKS P. 0450. RAW VIDEO 90 MI. "RAIN" ECHOES OVER KAIKOURA POSSIBLE SHIP AT 18 MI.
0219. M.T.I. 10MI CIRCLES TRIPLE ECHO POSSIBLY SHIP AT 46 MI. ALL OTHER ECHOES (8) ANOMALOUS. 0430. M.T.I. 10MI CIRCLES SHIP OFF SOUNDS 36 MI. ANOMALOUS ECHO AT 172° 50 MI, MOVING RADIALLY OUTWARDS 100-150 KT.
RESTRICTED
DECLASSIFIED
On 26/8/10
Reference D-[ILLEGIBLE]
Appointment [ILLEGIBLE]
Air 39/3/3 11th January 1979
REPORT ON UNIDENTIFIED VISUAL AND
RADAR SIGHTINGS EAST COAST SOUTH ISLAND
DECEMBER 1978
Introduction
1. On the nights of 20/21 December 78 and 30/31 December
78 Wellington ATC Radar, and the crews of SAFE Argosy aircraft
(both visually and on radar) made many unidentified sightings
off the east coast of the South Island. The first sightings
gave rise to much publicity by the media and eventual involvement
of the RNZAF when it was decided to conduct an Orion surveillance
of the area on the night of 2/3 January 79. At that time it was
decided to start a Defence investigation and this report is
submitted in accordance with DCAS instructions to provide a report
on the events surrounding the various sightings.
2. Air Staff was first advised by Civil Aviation Division
of Ministry of Transport (CADMOT) of these events mid-morning 21
December 78. Historically, Defence has adopted a 'low profile'
in connection with reports of unidentified sightings. Thus
CADMOT has not normally reported unusual sightings to Defence.
However, because of the number and nature of reports on the night
20/21 December 78 the Director of Civil Aviation specifically
instructed his staff to advise Defence. On the basis of the infor-
mation received Air Staff decided that should any further similar
instances occur we would, if possible, carry out an investigation
by the most appropriate aircraft available over the Christmas
period. CADMOT were advised to contact the Defence Duty Officer
in the event of any more sightings. As it transpired the memor-
andum from CADMOT the Director of Civil Aviation to the ATC Centre
was not delivered, thus the events of 30/31 December 78 were not
reported to Air Staff until the next day.
3. Other Government agencies, notably DSIR and NZ Meteor-
ological Services, are conducting their own investigations and
have provided relevant input to this report. The report is
confined to the events of 21 and 31 December 78. It does not
take into account the film made by TV1 on 3 January 79 which is
now being examined by DSIR and will most probably prove to be a
film of Venus and Jupiter rising.
4. When interviewing witnesses it was pointed out to them
that this was not a judicial enquiry. The credibility of
witnesses' statements was taken at face value. However, witnesses
were not necessarily interviewed separately because it was con-
sidered that, with a fairly emotive issue such as 'UFOs', corrob-
oration was best achieved by interviewing observers of the same
events together.
/Events 20/21 ...
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
-2-
Events 20/21 December 78 (Refer Chart at Annex A)
5. On 20/21 December 78 there were two SAFE Argosy flights
from Woodbourne to Christchurch one of which proceeded to Dunedin
and terminated, and the other returned to Woodbourne. The first
aircraft departed Woodbourne 210110 NZDT. At 0159 when south-
bound to Christchurch the aircraft captain was asked by Wellington
Radar to check the Clarence River area because Wellington ATC
was receiving radar returns from there. The crew observed lights
at low level that could possibly have been off the Clarence River
mouth but when the aircraft was about 30 miles north the lights
appeared to go out or disappear. During this period Christchurch
was visible and the sky was clear. Later in the morning (0406)
when the aircraft was northbound the crew was again requested to
check the area because Wellington Radar was again picking up radar
returns in that vicinity. The aircraft crew confirmed that lights
were visible to seaward and the crew got the impression of the
lights making rectangular patterns at irregular frequency. The
lights had a beam appearance rather than a point source appearance
and seemed to turn away rather than turn off. One light appeared
to illuminate the surface of the water and the aircraft captain
assesses that the source of the light could have been at about
1,000 feet. However, it is the reporting officer's opinion that
from the aircraft's height (14,000 feet) it would not be possible
to judge accurately the height of lights below the aircraft.
One possibility is that the aircraft captain was observing lights
from cars or trains because the main road and railway run parallel
and very close to the coast for some miles in this area. However,
the aircraft captain considers that the sightings could have been
produced by four or five helicopters and the whole thing was 'quite
undramatic'! The likelihood of such extensive aeronautical
activity has not been confirmed by any reports received from the
Police or local inhabitants. In fact, no reports have been
received and the Police do not have any interest in the area.
6. The second aircraft, which departed Woodbourne at 0315,
was also asked by Wellington Radar to look at the Clarence River
mouth area because Wellington was picking up radar returns there.
That aircraft crew did not observe anything in the region either
visually or on radar.
7. Subsequent investigations and scientific observation
carried out by DSIR proves conclusively (in the reporting officer's
opinion) that Wellington SRE Radar does give anomalous radar
returns off the east coast off the South Island. This was proved
by DSIR observation of the Wellington radar 8/9 January 79 and
taking a series of photographs of the radar presentation throughout
the night. Concurrently three field parties were stationed at
vantage points along the east coast with radio communications to
the Radar Control Centre. On several occasions during the night
when many large returns were painting on Wellington Radar the
observers on the coast could see nothing either in the air or on
the sea in the positions passed to them by the Radar Controller.
/Furthermore
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED -3- Furthermore, from discussions with two or three controllers it is evident that the Wellington SRE has for several months been giving anomalous radar returns in the Clarence area and south of Wellington. It is possible that this could be caused by a modification that was recently made to the radar head at Wellington depressing it one degree. DSIR scientists are following up this possibility and their findings should be available in due course. 8. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any clandestine activity in the vicinity of the Clarence River mouth. It is possible however that surface vessels could have been in the area with or without navigation lights but it is doubtful that such vessels could have given rise to the visual observations made by the aircraft crew. The fact that Wellington Radar 'keyed' both aircraft captains to look for objects in the Clarence area might well have induced observations from the air which might or might not have been related to the Wellington Radar returns. 9. From information supplied by DSIR, the NZ Meteorological Services, and astronomers, it is evident that during this period, and indeed for the last month or so, atmospheric conditions have been conducive to freak propogation of radio and light waves. Thus it is possible that the lights observed by the aircraft captain could have been produced by ships' lights reflected or refracted from afar. Such anomalous propogation (ducting) could also give rise to spurious radar returns. Note: The reporting officer has just received (1155 NZDT) a report from Auckland that ATC has issued a NOTAM that Auckland Radar is giving spurious returns caused by atmospheric conditions. 10. During the period that the Wellington Radar Controller was in dialogue with the aircraft captains about radar returns in the Clarence area the radar was also tracking a steady return on a track of 140°(M) which started at Wellington, proceeded to 30 miles and then, with less consistent radar returns, tracked out to 60 miles where it became stationary for 35 minutes. It then moved west and appeared to 'track' the second southbound Argosy at about 0328. The Wellington Radar Controller alerted the captain that there was a strong radar return about 25 miles to the port of the aircraft. The aircraft crew observed on that bearing a very bright light which they variously describe as a bright orb, pear shaped with a reddish tinge that then turned white. From the aircraft the object appeared to be stationary by visual observation but by the aircraft radar appeared to track the aircraft. The light appeared to be very close - less than ten miles. Although the aircraft radar return and the visual observation of the light were on more or less the same bearing the crew cannot confirm that the range was coincident. It is significant that within a few minutes of the crew's observation, Venus was rising on a bearing that coincided with their visual observation. DSIR optics, physics, and meteorological experts have confirmed that prevailing atmos- pheric conditions might well have produced most unusual but not unknown phenomena that could have made Venus appear large, bright and orange. There is a plethora of astronomical information that describes this phenomenon. Thus it is highly probable that the aircrew's observation was an unusual view of Venus. RESTRICTED /11. The radar
RESTRICTED
-4-
11. The radar returns observed on the aircraft radar might
have been caused by a natural return by a ship or perhaps could
have been anomalous returns caused by the prevailing atmospheric
conditions. During the period 19 - 28 December 78 some 50
Japanese squid boats sailed from Wellington to the area of the
Mernoo Bank (120 miles east of Banks Peninsula). These vessels
departed Wellington in groups of about 10 and their track to
their fishing grounds is almost identical to the radar track
plotted by Wellington radar. While there is no conclusive proof
that these vessels could have caused the fairly steady trace
observed by Wellington it is a fact that during the period of all
these observations there was no shortage of shipping in the area.
Furthermore, once in position and fishing, the squid fleet would
have produced an intense light source which coupled with prevailing
meteorological conditions could have been responsible for many and
varied reflected or refracted light images. (Each boat puts out
about 200kw of light.)
12. A further observation (which has not been reported by
the media) was made by the crew of this the same Argosy when the
aircraft was some 50 miles north east of Christchurch. The
captain observed five consecutive blips on the aircraft radar which
over a period of five seconds traced a pattern towards the aircraft
and then veered off very sharply to its port. Simultaneously the
co-pilot observed a flashing white light (which looked like a
strobe light) describing the same sort of path. For the brief
period that the returns were received on radar the object must
have been travelling at about 10,800mph! This sighting, above
all others during the night, caused the crew considerable consterna-
tion! It is possible that such a phenomenon could be produced
by a meteor which are not unknown at this time of the year. A
further possible explanation could be that the effect was caused
by a 'double bounce' radar contact produced by ducting. It is
note-worthy that an RNZAF Orion crossing Cape Palliser on 9 January
78 at 1652 NZDT observed a radar contact at 15 miles moving fast
towards the aircraft. There was no cloud and no surface contacts
visible. The radar return crossed the aircraft's track one mile
ahead, but there was no visual sighting. The closing speed was
calculated at 1,000mph thus the object itself was travelling at
some 630 mph. OFHQ staffs have considered the possibilities and
assess that the radar return could have been of an object 200
miles north of NZ (perhaps cloud) with freak propogation giving
rise to the radar observation made in the aircraft. But for
knowing that a Defence enquiry was under way OFHQ would not normally
have considered it necessary to pass on this information.
13. A further sighting on the 20/21 December 78 was made by
the Orderly Officer and Duty Air Traffic Controller at RNZAF Base
Woodbourne. At 2350 the Orderly Officer saw what he considered
to be three lights of a Bristol Freighter three to four miles
from Woodbourne. However, as no aircraft could be heard and the
lights did not appear to get any closer he checked through binoc-
ulars and determined that the lights appeared to be going towards
Wellington. Of the three lights the middle one appeared as a
white beam pointing northward. The lights appeared to move upward
/and around
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
-5-
and around in a rectangular pattern but at random speed. He
observed the lights for about 50 minutes. The bearing from
Woodbourne was about 080° (M), i.e., towards Cape Campbell.
At one stage the lights appeared to 'rush forward' but generally
over the period seemed to move northward and eventually fade.
In comparative terms the observer considered that the lights'
pattern looked like somebody 'spotlighting'. The Duty Air
Traffic Controller observed the same lights from the control
tower balcony. His impression was that the lights comprised
one bright orange light and two less intense white lights. The
large light appeared to remain stationary while the other two
seemed to move north. A shaft of light periodically appeared
to 'beam down' from the white lights at about 40° in a northerly
direction. Using binoculars apparently had no enlarging effect
on the lights! This could indicate that the lights were at
a great distance from the observer and not in Cook Strait as he
imagined. This thesis is supported by the fact that on checking
with Wellington Radar the Woodbourne observer was advised that
the radar was painting five targets in the Clarence area but no
mention was made of any returns in Cook Strait. It is highly
improbable that the radar returns and the visual observations were
in any way connected.
14. The reporting officer awaits a copy of the taped conver-
sation between the Wellington Radar Controller, the aircraft and
the Woodbourne observer and in addition the Woodbourne observer
is preparing a sketch map showing bearings,etc, in more detail.
When these two pieces of evidence are available they may shed
more light on the occurrence!
Summary
15. It is the reporting officer's opinion that almost all
the sightings made 20/21 December 78 can be explained by natural
but unusual phenomena. There were atmospheric conditions that
could have produced unusual visual and radar returns. There
is no doubt that Wellington SRE was (and still is) giving spurious
radar returns in the area under surveillance. With some of the
visual sightings of 'beams' of light it is only possible to
speculate on possible causes. On-going investigation by DSIR
scientists and the reporting officer may help to clarify this
in due course. Perhaps the most difficult aspect to explain
away is the apparent concern - even apprehension - of the aircrews
involved in the sightings. At present they do not seem to be
prepared to accept the fact that they might have observed Venus.
Thankfully, however, neither do they believe that they have seen
a visitor from outer space! Perhaps, when more scientific evidence
is gathered, their minds will be set at rest.
Events 30/31 December 78 (Refer Chart at Annex B)
16. On 30/31 December 78 an Argosy on a routine flight (but
carrying the TV crew that made the film shown on Australian TV)
departed Wellington at 2346 to proceed Christchurch and then
/return
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED -6- return to Woodbourne. 17. At 0013 while climbing to 14,000 feet the aircraft crew observed four to five lights close to the surface near the coast of the Kaikoura Peninsula (possibly in the Clarence River area but the crew were not sure and did not confirm with their radar). On checking with Wellington ATC the crew were advised that Wellington Radar had contacts 13 miles ahead of the aircraft (these would have been off Clarence). The crew observed a pulsing type of white light that looked like a helicopter search light zooming on to the beach somewhere north of the Kaikoura Peninsula. Again, it is difficult to explain the lights, short of them being some anomalous type of reflection or refraction, cars, or trains. However it is most probable that the Wellington Radar returns were spurious. 18. At 0018 when the aircraft was about 10 miles north of the Clarence River mouth, Wellington Radar advised the crew that there was a strong radar return behind them. They orbited and saw nothing. This was almost certainly a spurious radar return. 19. At 0042 when the aircraft was about 10 miles northeast of Motunau Island, Wellington Radar advised the crew that there was a large radar target behind the aircraft that appeared on the radar screen as a blip larger than the aircraft return and appeared to be tracking the Argosy. The aircraft captain carried out a left orbit but neither he nor the first officer saw anything. The crew did not refer to the aircraft radar and Christchurch radar was not operating for ATC purposes at the time. 20. Just before crossing the coast near Woodend the crew observed a white light on the starboard side of the aircraft and Christchurch Radar advised that there was a target at three-o'clock to the aircraft that 'moved off' when the aircraft was about 1.5 miles from touch down. No reports have been received from inhabitants of the area of any unusual lights or aeronautical activity. Thus, again, the natural explanation is that the light and radar return were spurious, possibly caused by some sort of anomalous propogation. 21. It is interesting to note that while taxiing to dispersal both the aircrew on the Argosy and the ATC officers in the control tower observed lights to the right of Sugar Loaf Hill which seemed to have the same pulsating characteristics as the lights observed earlier during the flight. The bearing of these lights would almost certainly coincide with the bearing of the squid fleet from Christchurch and if the lights could be proved to be refracted or reflected returns from the squid vessels much of the mystery would be solved! 22. At 0216 the aircraft departed Christchurch on the 033 radial. When overhead Woodend both crew members observed a large white light to the northeast. They also observed on the aircraft radar a very large target at 18 miles from the aircraft. The crew cannot be positive that the light and the radar return were coincident but that was the appearance that they gave. Slightly before these observations, the first officer had noticed through thin cloud a light which he describes as having the RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED -7- appearance of a squashed orange. Eventually this light became fully visible and measured against the thumb at arms length appeared to be about two inches long, that is, a very large source of light. The crew observed this light for some minutes while cruising at 13,000 feet. Between 35 and 40 miles from Christchurch the aircraft captain, of his own volition, turned towards the light. This necessitated a 90° turn onto a heading of about 125° at about 25° bank. The aircraft speed was 215 knots. The image on the aircraft radar moved to 10 miles from the aircraft but the crew cannot say whether this was due to their velocity or the movement of the radar return. The radar image then stayed in the same relative position to the aircraft for a few minutes (as if it were 'backing up' at the aircraft's speed). At this stage the large light appeared to go above, behind, and below the aircraft as the captain turned left to regain track and avoid further 'confrontation' with the object! This series of events occurred over a time frame of about 20 minutes. Throughout, Christchurch radar was working but reported nothing. Wellington Radar had been observing the aircraft during the period but did not report any unidentified radar contact in that area. 23. The visual observation made by the crew is consistent with an unusual view of Venus. The bearing of the observation coincides with the point at which Venus would have been visible. However, this observation was made at about 0225 and Venus did not rise until about 0328. Nevertheless, DSIR scientists have advised that with super refraction it would be possible to see the planet some time before it's actual rising and if it were seen it would have the appearance that the crew described. The last effect of the light passing above, below and behind the aircraft could be explained by an astronomical phenomenon known as the 'troublesome layer'. In the prevailing conditions with a marked inversion above about 10,000 feet, and fairly strong westerly winds with standing waves on the leeward side of the Alps the inversion layer can take on a marked wave form. Thus at the time that the light performed its convolutions around the aircraft it is possible that the aircraft was passing from one side of the inversion layer to the other. The fact that the light was no longer visible tends to support this thesis and it is most probable that the aircraft's radar return was spurious or of a ship, in view of the lack of confirmation of any other targets in the area by the Wellington Radar. 24. As the aircraft approached Kaikoura two or three radar contacts were noted on the aircraft radar at about ten o'clock position. These would be consistent with the radar returns Wellington had noted in the Clarence area for most of the night - and were almost certainly spurious. 25. Approaching Cape Campbell the aircraft captain observed what he thought was a fishing fleet off Cape Palliser. These might well have been part of the squid fleet enroute south. 26. As the aircraft turned towards Blenheim the first officer observed what appeared to be orange lights in the Nelson Bay area which appeared to move across the sounds towards Picton. No explanation can be offered for this observation but it has not RESTRICTED /been confirmed
RESTRICTED
-8-
been confirmed by any sightings made from the ground. The
aircraft landed at Blenheim at 0315.
Conclusions
27. The foregoing report has been compiled after interviews
with most of the principle witnesses involved with the sightings
20/21 and 30/31 December 1978. The SAFE pilots were most help-
ful to the reporting officer in the very frank manner in which
they related their experiences and the time they spent in inter-
view. It is considered that the reporting officer should, as
soon as possible, informally debrief the SAFE aircrew involved
on the general tenor of the findings to date.
28. It is evident that because of the interest over these
sightings reports will continue to come in from various sources
and on-going investigations by DSIR and meteorological officers
will probably serve to correlate much of the information.
Nevertheless, it is considered that Defence should issue a PR
statement fairly soon in order to tone down much of the wild
speculation that has existed over recent weeks.
29. In summary the reporting officer has made the following
findings:
a. During the period of the observations, and indeed
now, atmospheric conditions over NZ are conducive
to freak propogation of radio and light waves.
b. Venus was rising in the eastern sky and at this
time of the year is unusually bright in appearance.
c. Wellington Radar has been giving spurious indica-
tions off the east coast of the South Island for
some time but over recent weeks anomalous returns
seem to have been more prevalent.
d. During the period an unusually large number of
vessels (the squid fleet) sailed from Wellington,
often at night, to position off Banks Peninsula.
Not only would these vessels provide a good source
for radar returns but the lights that they use
when fishing could explain some of the visual
sightings of unusual lights.
e. The reporting officer speculates that the observa-
tion of lights in the Clarence area might have
been caused by trains or cars.
f. The reporting officer is of the opinion that
the large number of unusual occurrences on
/the nights
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
-9-
the nights in question made some aircrew and
air traffic controllers particularly respon-
sive to the various sightings.
g. There is no connection between the many sightings
in the Clarence area and the larger lights seen
to the east (and which were the subject of the
much publicised TV films).
h. Almost all the sightings can be explained by
natural but unusual phenomena. The few for
which the evidence to date in inconclusive may
well be explained in due course when current
investigations are completed.
[ILLEGIBLE signature]
(J.B. CLEMENTS)
Wing Commander
Director of Operations
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
ANNEX A TO
DOPS REPORT
DATED 11 JAN 79
N(T)
WOODBOURNE
• LIGHTS OBSERVED
O FROM WOODBOURNE
APPARENTLY THIS
POSITION - MOVED
NORTH
2350 ÷ 0130
Road / Rail
0159 (0406)
RADAR RETURNS
CLARENCE THROUGHOUT
THE NIGHT
CLARENCE
0328
ARGOSY SEES
LIGHT THAT
SEEMS VERY CLOSE
0328
RADAR RETURN
APPARENTLY 'TRACKS'
S/BOUND ARGOSY
AND APPARENTLY
'WAITS' FOR N/BOUND
ARGOSY THEN BRIEFLY
TRACKS IT!
0400
ARGOSY SEES
VERY FAST
TARGET ON A/C RADAR.
MOTUNAU
ARGOSY TRACK
OBSERVATIONS
20/21 DEC 78
0159
RADAR RETURN
'TRACKED' BY WN
TO 60 NMS
STATIONARY
35 MINS
THEN 'RADAR'
RETURN
MOVES WEST
VENUS
RISING
0327
SQUID FLEET TRACK
FROM WELLINGTON
SQUID FLEET
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
ANNEX B TO
DOPS REPORT
DATED 11 JAN 79
N(T)
LIGHTS OBSERVED
NELSON BAY
REGION
WOODBOURNE
0315
ARGOSY LANDS.
2346
ARGOSY LEAVES WN
Road / Rail
0013-18
LIGHTS / RADAR
RETURNS.
A/C INVESTIGATES
'LRCOS' RADAR RETURN
BEHIND THE A/C - SEES
NOTHING
CLARENCE
AGAIN, N/BOUND A/C INVESTIGATES
RADAR CONTACTS AT 10 O'CLOCK.
(CLARENCE AREA)
0042
A/C ADVISED BY WN RADAR
LARGE TARGET BEHIND.
A/C ORBITS - SEES NOTHING.
0235
A/C TURNS TOWARDS LIGHT AND
RADAR RETURN - LIGHT EVENTUALLY
GOES ABOVE, BELOW, BEHIND
AND DISAPPEARS.
MOTUNAU
A/C SEES LIGHT TO
RIGHT. CH RADAR HOUSE
A TARGET THAT POSITION
0325
WHEN N/BOUND
A/C SEES ORANGE
LIGHT AT 2-O-CLOCK
POSITION.
BEARING ON WHICH VENUS
WOULD RISE AT 0328
OBSERVATIONS
30/31 DEC 78
2476
LIGHTS VISIBLE FROM
CH AIRPORT TO THE
RIGHT OF SUGAR LOAF
(SQUID FLEET LIGHTS
REFRACTED?)
RESTRICTED
SQUID
FLEETSRE Wexford Road/Hawkins Hill Changes.
✓ SRE Notammed RNO 091300 PRF = 400 ±10% 9% & 17%
SA 120 . New aerial reflector, slotted feed and 3¼" co-ax run
from rotating joint. Re-conditioned pedestal and
rotating joint - data gearbox - no change. Digital
turning encoder fitted.
Radar Rx. Two S2050 solid state receivers installed, old SR100
receivers still in position but switched off and by-
passed - can be brought into service if required.
Processors Two S7100 solid state, digital processors installed.
Both SJ1000's removed from HH as well as associated
delay cells.
L/R SRE Max range = 160nm. Range 2/SD 1010 display T.B.
amplifiers set to place 80nm range ring under the
cursor knobs.
Video map - dots set at 15nm, 'T' marks at [ILLEGIBLE]nm.
Terrain Clearance map - not available - test slide
fitted.
Remote switching - No change except DSP S7100/1 and 2 replaces
SJ 1000/1 and 2.
Aerial To be run at half speed. Tilt = +4
[ILLEGIBLE] deg.
MTI Cancelled radar clutter is excessive but levels will
be adjusted over the next few weeks.
Radar Uncancelled radar appears different to previous radar
due to use of the S2050 radar receiver log/PLD
(pulse length discriminator) video output at HH.
Faults Until staff are more familiar with the new equipment
Ways 2 will look after faults on the S2050 receivers
and S7100 data processors - all other faults to be
cleared as before the upgrading.
[ILLEGIBLE signature]
TTO SRE.
Wellington Airport.
(1) PRF Stagger - fixed sequence NOT random
0 = 0 which = [ILLEGIBLE]
400 +14 = C
9 = B
17 = A OC OB OA then repeats
(2) Clarence returns were
probably coincident.
3) Enhanced video levels. All above would appear as '1' level -
same sizePERSONNEL INTERVIEWED
Name Designation
Capt V. Powell Captain SAFE Argosy 22 Dec 78 (second acft).
First Off I. Pirie First Officer SAFE Argosy 21 Dec 78.
Capt J. Randle Captain SAFE Argosy 22 Dec 78 (first
aircraft).
W/O Uffindell RNZAF Duty Officer Woodbourne 22 Dec 78.
Mr W. Frame Flight Service Woodbourne 22 Dec 78.
Mr M. Collins Director Physics Laboratory DSIR.
Mr N. Rumsey Head of Optics Division DSIR.
Dr D. Phillips NZ Meteorological Service.
Mr R. Davison Superintending Engineer Radar CADMOT.
Mr J. Cordy ATC Radar Controller 22 Dec 78.
Mr A. Herd ATC Radar Controller 22 Dec 78.
Capt W. Startup Captain SAFE Argosy 31 Dec 78.
First Off R. Guard First Officer SAFE Argosy 31 Dec 78.
Mr G. Causer ATC Radar Controller 31 Dec 78.
Sqn Ldr R. Carran Orion Captain Jan 79.
Fisheries Control Centre, MAF.
Dr Cherry Lincoln College (Propogation Exp)
Dr Wall Porirua " " (1948)AIDE MEMOIRE Possibilities: Ducting Hotspots Venus Jupiter Stars Planets Clandestine Operations Hoax 'Real UFO' Ships Birds Wave Cap Radar Returns Cyclical Patterns? Light Waves Radio Waves Squid Fleet Movement over period? Dr Wall Porirua - freak propogation experiment Canterbury 1948. Dr Neil Cherry Lincoln College - current study Canterbury NW conditions. Clarence TV film - possible planet or star rising? DSIR Clarence/Kaikoura theodolite observation star rising. Apparent movement caused by heat from Japanese vessel on horizon in line of sight. Coincidence of observations only by SAFE Argosy crews? Freak return generated by aircraft itself (mirror, mirage, radar return etc)? Squid fleet position 21 Dec 78 onwards. Squid fleet lights turn off time. Meteorite, asteroid shoals - refer astronomy info. Jupiter/Venus rising/setting times. ANZ timetables (strobe lights). Observations all over water, distances vague except for radar plots. Radar plots possibly not coincident with visual sightings. Lighthouses, aerodrome, navigation etc beacons. Last month extreme clarity of atmosphere. Inversion layer (refer T0 gram). Examine films (Sqn Ldr Clarke to arrange). DDI interest? Customs interest? Police interest? Fisheries interest?
MANUAL OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL EQP 2-1
SURVEILLANCE RADAR EQUIPMENT
1. MARCONI RADAR TYPES S264 AND S264A
TECHNICAL DATA
Wave Length 50 cms.
Frequency 585 - 610 mcs
Peak Power Output S264: 50-60KW
S264A: 500KW (nominal)
Beam width 2½°
Pulse Length 2 or 4 microsecs
Pulse Recurrence S264: 525 - 775 p.p.s.
Frequency S264A:
500 - 800 pps (2ms pulse)
260 - 385 pps (4ms pulse)
Rate of Scan 5 or 10 r.p.m.
Range Selection In ratio of 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 according
to range available
Antenna System Parabolic reflector with offset
linear wave guide feed.
Wind Limitations Up to 60 knots at 10 r.p.m.
Up to 90 knots at 5 r.p.m.
Presentation S264: Moving coil 12 in. PPI
S264A: Fixed coil 12 in. PPI
Special Facilities MTI, STC, Swept Gain, Video Mapping,
Off centering.
2. GENERAL
2.1 The main features of the S264 are its almost complete freedom
from weather clutter, the stable and efficient MTI system and the
high overall radar performance obtained with comparatively low power.
The S264 can be converted to S264A equipment at any time.
2.2 The S264A possesses all the main advantages of the S264 plus
the axceptional range and altitude cover. These features make this
equipment most suitable for its dual role as both area and approach
S.R.E.
3. SPECIAL FACILITIES
3.1 MTI
3.1.1 This is a fully coherent system with the transmitter, reference
oscillator and trigger pulse generator all crystal controlled. No
automatic frequency control is required as the receiver is locked to
Department of Civil Aviation
New ZealandO .
D = 2500μs.
A = 17%. (423.5μs)
B = 9%. (224.84μs)
c = 14%. (349.58μs)
[Two waveform diagrams showing pulse trains labeled with D, A, B, C markers]
↗20/21 Dec 78 SIGHTINGS
NE | WHO | WHAT
----|---------------|----------------------------------------
- | W/O UFFINDELL| Three lights C Campbell / White Bluffs
325 | WOODBOURNE | brg from WB. Move NE over period
| |
| Mr FRAME | Same as W/O U. Three lights. One
| ATC WBOURNE | bright/orange stationary. Two small
| | white moving N.
| |
19 | Capt RANDLE |
| SAFE #1 A/c | lights in Clarence River area — reported
106.| | by WN SRE as radar returns.Paper Structure
1. Background
BCAS instruction
2. Aim
3. Veracity of statements / credibility of witnesses
4. Two SAF flights 21 Dec
0110 — NB — CH — AK — WB (Capt Randle)
0310 AK —→ WB — CH — ↓m [Capt Powell
6. Squid Fleet sauled WN.
19, 21, 26, 28 Dec
(10) (10) (17) (2o3)
Now 75 boats in port
on Mercoo Bank. 077°(T) from CH city
110 nms.
7. Inversion #2 night (30/31). There were
a number of layers (000s). 5/level, 15,000'
but above 10,000 extremely (dry layer)
but below moist. According to pilots
but 30/40 kts westerly 10,000. S/ce
W/V L/Variable. Ch & WN reports.
21/31 night 30 kts westerly on both
WN & Ch. [ILLEGIBLE] fairly moist
small inversion 6/c. Uncertainty moist
to 20, 30,000'.
[ILLEGIBLE] Satellite 1600 30. Showed
strong fohn effect, standing waves //
to coast about nine streams of cloud.
8. If the object radar 'tracked' SB from WN 21/22 Dec
was one & same object a/c saw — should have been visual
[ILLEGIBLE] from WN.Jon Gordey 21/22
Anay Herd
↘ will call Tue/Wed.
Geoff Causer 30/Dec
[?]
Night of sighting
CH DSIR near our
station — but
each morning — processed
to in proximity — < 5 nm —
frequency of local point so
At one end fired points
or alien and moved
above a bit "
Lights of a/c / Clarence,
also seen 1 a/c / Clarence.
B47 566
7th mid Collins
DRIRMINUTE SHEET Department: PRO(AIR)
Subject: File No.
UFO SIGHTING
Date: 10 Jan 79
To— 1. A. Wellington telephoned on the 5 Jan 79
>/os to make a general report on UFO activities in the Kaikoura area
/BC over the past year.
10//. 2. She reports seeing a number of lights in the area, and on two
occasions a bell-shaped object landed on the hill by her home.
It stayed there for three hours, leaving a circular impression
in the hillside. Later (dates not confirmed) a large metal
saucer with the appearance of opaque glass hovered over her
home for some time before it was disturbed by an aeroclub
aircraft flying round the headland.
3. This is the basis of a ten minute conversation I had
with
K. Rounthwaite (Sgt)
Asst PRO Air.
Item 504 90608B—140,000pads/2/77 DPERSONAL FOR OOPS (DOPS(+))
OBSERVATIONS OF UNIDENTIFIED RADAR RETURNS
ON 50 cm HAWKINS HILL RADAR, 8.1.79.
In the early morning of Monday 8.1.79, I kept watch with John
Cardy at the Wellington Control Centre. The general consensus of
others present before midnight was that there was an inversion —
witness echoes from mountains such as Ruapehu to confirm this. In
extreme inversions the coast near Wanganui is seen, but it was
not seen on Monday morning.
Significant modifications to the radar have taken place since
last summer. The effect on the display of anomalous echoes is
probably significant, but I have not attempted to verify this
assumption.
Anomalous returns which John Cardy could not identify were
present all the time, especially between about 1 a.m. and 3 a.m.,
when there may have been a dozen present at a time. They all
had the appearance of aircraft echoes when seen on the MTI (moving
target display). I think they were generally absent when viewing
"raw video". I suspect that even the "raw video" was pre-processed
somewhat.
Early in the morning we attached no significance to movement
of the anomalous returns, but on reflection, I think they were
moving quickly outwards, because the afterglow was often visible
at shorter range. John had pointed this out at some stage.
Most of the anomalous returns were noticed in the area off
the Kaikoura-Cape Campbell coast, but others occurred in Cook
Strait and over Marlborough Province. They generally appeared
suddenly and lasted for a short time, rarely for more than a few
minutes.
A persistent group, seen I think only with raw video, occurred
about 15 miles from Christchurch. They moved generally northwards
over more than 1½ hours.
Between 0450 and 0500 unusual "spotty" echoes covered the
coastline at Kaikoura-Clarence R. John Cardy identified these
as rain, but there was no rain there at that time.
On the MTI photo at 0219 an echo composed of three spots
appears. This was different to all the others seen. It moved
northwards and I would identify it as a ship seen on "raw video"
photos later, moving at about 11 knots, passing Cape Campbell
at about 0340. Another ship was tracked from the Brothers west-
wards for an hour at about 17 knots - this was visible on MTI.
The most interesting example was seen to be moving radially
outwards at 172° at an erratic 100-150 knots for 10-15 minutes.
It was 50-60 N.MILES from Wellington. Although we did not notice
when it first became visible, it disappeared quite quickly at
about 0445.
W. Ireland
9.1.79.[Radar photograph] 0333. RAW VIDEO. 160MI. BANKS PENINSULA RETURN AT MAXM RANGE TWO ANOMALOUS ECHOES 15 MI. NORTH OF BANKS P. [Radar photograph] 0450. RAW VIDEO 90 MI. "RAIN" ECHOES OVER KAIKOURA POSSIBLE SHIP AT 18 MI.
[Radar photograph] 0219. M.T.I. 10MI CIRCLES TRIPLE ECHO POSSIBLY SHIP AT 46 MI. ALL OTHER ECHOES (8) ANOMALOUS. [Radar photograph] 0436. M.T.I. 10MI CIRCL[ES] SHIP OFF SOUNDS 36 MI. ANOMALOUS ECHO AT 172°(T) 50 MI, MOVING RADIALLY OUTWARDS 100-150 KT.
MINUTE
Defence Duty Officer
UFO SIGHTINGS
1. Any reports from Wellington Air Traffic Control Author-
ities of unidentified radar contacts are to be reported to D Ops
(Wg Cdr Clements) home telephone number 399451 as soon as
possible. As much detail as possible should be obtained from
ATC including any visual or radar contacts made by aircraft at
or about the same time.
2. Any reports from civilians should be recorded with
details of time, place, height, description etc and passed to
D Ops during normal working hours.
3. Thank you.
(J. B. CLEMENTS)
Wg Cdr
D Ops
5 Jan 79MD 403
MESSAGE FORM
FOR COMM CEN/SIGNALS USE SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
[ILLEGIBLE]
LINE 1
DECLASSIFIED
LINE 2 On 26/8/10
Reference D [ILLEGIBLE]
LINE 3 DE Appointment [ILLEGIBLE]
LINE 4 GR Date: 26/8/10
for HQ NZ DEFENCE FORCE MESSAGE [ILLEGIBLE]
PRECEDENCE — ACTION PRECEDENCE — INFO DATE — TIME GROUP
[ILLEGIBLE] PR40R[?] ROUTINE 030345 Z JAN 79
ROUTING INDICATORS FROM N2AF AIR DIG/ORIG No.
KSY 729
TO OPNS [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] SQUID BOAT AND LAUNCH JENKINS
CLARENCE [ILLEGIBLE] AND KSY 710 221G392
[ILLEGIBLE] TO [ILLEGIBLE] CURRENT ACTION FLIGHT PD
JC [ILLEGIBLE] TIME [ILLEGIBLE] SO SCHEDULED PD
HOWEVER [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] ON MY FUTURE
CONFIRMED AND INCIDENT ORDER AND VISUAL
[ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] REQUIRE ARION TO INVESTIGATE
ASAP TO [ILLEGIBLE] FOR AIRCRAFT INCLUDE UNDER
TAKE OVER AND [ILLEGIBLE] IN TIME WOULD BE TWO
HOURS FOR SITTING AS AUTHORITY TO LAUNCH
TO BE EVEN [ILLEGIBLE] DAYS PD DISORIENTED REMAINS
NOT RD NOT [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] EFFECT OR JASO
AS PREVIOUSLY ARRANGED PD [ILLEGIBLE] IS
[ILLEGIBLE] INVESTIGATION INTO [ILLEGIBLE]
[ILLEGIBLE] 21 AND 30 DEC 78 — WILL ADVISE
YOU OF THE FINALIZED IN DUE COURSE PD.
ALL [ILLEGIBLE] MATTERS TO BE DIRECTED TO [ILLEGIBLE] NO [ILLEGIBLE]
BRING UP
ON
TO
INITIALS
FILE
DATE
INITIALS
REFERS TO MESSAGE PAGE No. DRAFTER'S NAME AND TITLE PHONE No. REF. FILE No.
1 [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] Air 70/2015
CLASSIFIED No. of PAGES RELEASER'S NAME AND TITLE SIGNATURE
✓YES □NO 1 [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE]
FOR DATE TIME SYSTEM OPERATOR DATE TIME SYSTEM OPERATOR SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OPR'S R D [ILLEGIBLE]
USE
95842C—20,000/6/77 Da/c radar switched on
on s/bound leg but not used
SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW
WITH CAPTAIN W. STARTUP
with First Officer Guard were the crew
1. Captain Startup/ . of a SAFE Argosy that took
off Wellington 30 Dec 78 at 2346 hours to proceed via Cape Campbell,
abeam Kaikoura thence Motunau Island to Christchurch. The air-
craft radar was not used on the South-bound leg to Christchurch.
2. At 3100013, while climbing to 14,000 feet the aircraft
crew observed four to five lights close to the surface near the
coast and with the lights of Kaikoura in the background. The
crew asked Wellington ATC Radar controller whether there were any
radar returns in that area. Wellington Radar Controller replied
that they did have radar contacts 13 nautical miles ahead of the
aircraft. The crew saw "a pulsing" type of white light that
looked like helicopter search light zooming onto the beach north
side of Kaikoura peninsulaa:. The crew could not relate these
lights to the Wellington radar returns. (My feeling is that
they were the same four or five radar contacts that Wellington
Radar was plotting in Clarence River Mouth area).
3. 310018 when the aircraft was about ten miles northeast
of the Clarence River Mouth Wellington Radar advised crew that
there was a radar return behind them. They orbited and saw
nothing.
4. 310042 when the aircraft was about ten miles northeast
of Motunau Island Wellington Radar advised that they had a radar
target one mile from the aircraft which appeared as a larger radar
return than the aircraft and appeared to be tracking the aircraft.
Captain Startup carried out a left orbit but neither he nor First
Officer Guard saw anything. Christchurch radar was not operating
for ATC purposes at this time.
5. Just before crossing the coast near Woodend the crew
observed what appeared to be a white light on the starboard side
of the aircraft and radar advised (which radar?) that there was a
target at three o'clock to the aircraft that "moved off" when the
Argosy was on short finals, about 1.5 miles from touchdown.
6. When taxiing to dispersal area the crew and the controllers
in the tower observed lights to the right of Sugar Loaf Hill which
had the same pulsating characteristics as the lights seen earlier in
the flight. (speculative)
7. The aircraft departed Christchurch 310216 and climbed out
on the 033 degrees radial. Both crew members observed a big white
light to the northeast. The aircraft was then seven miles north-
east of Christchurch with the aircraft radar on "mapping mode".
With the aircraft radar on the fifty mile range the return appeared
as a small blip at two o'clock. On the twenty mile scale the
image appeared at 18 miles and was ½" in length. Thus the radar
return was about 25 miles from Christchurch Airport to the north-
east. (Some doubt as to whether the light that was observed and
the radar contact were one and the same, bearing in mind there would
be no background upon which the crew could visually assess the distance
of the light.) Slightly before the first officer had observed
through the cloud a light which he describes as looking like a
"squashed orange". Eventually this light become visible and-2- measured against the thumb at arms length appeared to be about two inches long, ie, a very large light if it was a long way from the aircraft. The crew observed this light for some time and when at 13,000 feet and between 35 and 40 miles from Christchurch the aircraft captain of his own volition turned towards the light. This necessitated a 90 degree turn onto a heading of about 125 degrees magnetic at about 25 degrees bank. The aircraft speed was 215 knots. The image on the aircraft radar moved to ten nautical miles from the aircraft (the crew cannot say whether this was due to their velocity or the movement of the radar return). The radar image then stayed in the same relative position to the aircraft for a few minutes (as if it were backing at the aircraft speed) and then the light which had been previously observed appeared to go above, behind and below the aircraft as it turned left to regain track and avoid further "confrontation" with the object! This episode concluded when the aircraft was about 53 miles from Christchurch so encompassed a time frame of about 20 minutes. 8. Throughout, Christchurch radar was working but reported nothing. Wellington radar had been observing the aircraft at 153 miles from Wellington when it was at 13,000 feet but apparently did not report any unidentified radar contacts to the aircraft and the aircraft captain decided that he would "keep this particular episode to himself". However it was during this period that the TV film was made so it is possible that distraction in the aircraft precluded [ILLEGIBLE] much dialogue with ATC. (Check this with Captain Startup and Wellington ATC). 9. As the aircraft approached Kaikoura east two or three radar returns were noted on the aircraft radar at about the ten o'clock position. (These would be consistent with the radar returns Wellington had noted in the Clarence area for most of the period). 10. The aircraft captain observed what he thought was a fishing fleet off Palliser (note: 40 or so Japanese fishing boats sailed from Wellington on the night of 30/31 December to take up their position off Banks Peninsula. And six squid boats have been in position off Banks Peninsula since 21 Dec. [Check with FCC for precise movements of squid fleet.) 11. As the aircraft turned towards Blenheim the First Officer observed what appeared to be orange lights in the Nelson Bay area which tended to move across the sounds towards Picton. 12. The aircraft landed at Blenheim at 0315. 13. Weather throughout was clear, little cloud and light variable winds (at altitude, check surface)
[Hand-annotated navigational/aeronautical chart of the Cook Strait / Canterbury area of New Zealand]
3NME CC 8[?]00ms
FLG W30SEC[?] 31 Dec
0008
0013
0013
0015
0028
0013
153nm
3000'
Advised by SRE
that there was
radar returns at
4 or 5 o'clock.
Did orbit — saw
nothing.
advised by WN
A target (radar) 1nm
astern.
[Circled notation:] FLEET [circled]
Bill Startup 30/31
Dec 78
squid fleet.[Hand-drawn chart of New Zealand coastline with annotations]
ORANGE LIGHTS
[arrow] TENDED TO MOVE ACROSS SOUND
ORBIT CARRIED OUT MANY LIGHTS ON
SURFACE THROUGH COOK STRAIT
BN AIRPORT BEACON TURNED OFF
WN RADAR MANY RETURNS NONE SEEN
KAIKOURA EAST.
TOP OF CLIMB F/L130 TURN TOWARDS OBJECT
OBJECT SEEN & CLOSED TO ABOUT 10NM WX RADAR
PRIOR TO WOODEND THROUGH ABOUT [?] ORANGE GLOW SEEN
AIRBORNE CH 0216 AT 35 RELATIVE — WX RADAR
RETURN AT ABOUT 18NM.
FISHING
FLEET [circled]
Capt Bill Startup
CoPlt Bob Guard.
G.M.T. 30/31 Dec 78[Hand-drawn chart of New Zealand coastline with annotations]
CLEARED TO CH VIA CC—K18 AT F/L 140
ABORNE WN [ILLEGIBLE]
2246
C.C AT 0008 APPROX 10,000 AT C.C.
0015
× LIGHTS SIGHTED OVER KI — RADAR CONFIRMATION
FROM WN
× WN RADAR TRIGGERS NEAR AW1650 OCCASIONAL
GLIMPSE OF LIGHTS ONLY
KAIKOURA EAST.
ORBIT CARRIED OUT ABEAM PORT ROBINSON (53 NME[?])
CH AIRPORT BEACON TURNED OFF
NEAR WOODEND LIGHT ON STB SIDE FOLLOWED US TO
APPROX 1.5NM FINAL CH.
FISHING
FLEET [circled]
Capt. Bill Startup.
CoPlt BobGuard.
G.M.T. 30/31 Dec 78Controller Geoff Causer
Captain Bill Startup
Edited tape of events night 30/31
0013 et seq. 0030
much discussion ATC / ATC
re echos in Clarence area. Started by A/c asking
001) radar to check for lights they had visually "over
Kio [?]". 10 or so NE of MOTO. Target at 3 o'clock.
Sub!
Ch Ch radar not released by controller
had a look — saw nothing on radar.
¶
N Bound
A/B from Ch CH 0216. asked radar
whether anything N. Ch have "never
seen anything" — but had a good return of Bill's a/c
WN "tracked" target for 20 mins
10nm S of Clar[ence]. averaged 70 Kts. (0230
[ILLEGIBLE] into KAI[ILLEGIBLE]
(— rain & road
at this point
on coast and
coincident ... poss
rail or cars going N.)
Bill made no comment to ATC about
orange orb etc. that they had seen
during this period. from a/c CANOE
I all the way.
a upward of 20 lights (where by whom)
all through straits. (? Squid people)SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW
WITH CAPTAIN J. RANDLE
1. Captain Randle was the Captain of a SAFE Argosy that
took off from Woodbourne 22 Dec 78 at 0110 for a Woodbourne,
Christchurch, Auckland, Woodbourne flight.
2. When going on duty at about midnight he observed what
could have been two vehicles on the hills towards the Cape
Campbell direction moving in a northerly direction. He thought
these could be two landrovers driving fairly fast over very rough
terrain. He makes this observation because of the light beams
described by the Woodbourne Orderly Officer and Mr Frame.
3. At 0159 on the south-bound leg to Christchurch with
Christchurch visible from Cape Campbell and a clear sky he
was asked by Wellington radar to check the Clarence River area
because Wellington were receiving radar returns from that area.
He observed some lights at low level that could possibly have been
in the Clarence area. When the aircraft was about 30 miles north
the lights appeared to go out or disappear.
4. From Kaikoura east the aircraft plotted on radar a large
vessel 17 miles northeast of Motunau about seven miles off the coast.
The crew had visual contact with a ships lights in that position.
However Captain Randle estimates that for the size of the radar
return the ship must have been fairly large (1,000 tons or so),
and he considered it unusual that such a large vessel would have
been so close to the coast.
5. At 0406 enroute to Auckland from Christchurch Wellington
Radar again requested that the Clarence river radar returns be
checked. The aircraft captain confirmed that lights were visible
in that area out to sea and he got the impression of the lights
making a rectangular pattern at irregular frequency. The lights
had a beam appearance rather than a point source appearance and
seemed to "turn away" rather than turn off. One light appeared
to illuminate the surface and Captain Randle assesses that the
source of the light could have been at about 1,000 feet.
6. The Clarence returns were the only ones that Captain
Randle was asked to look at.
7. Captain Randle has produced two sets of notes, one made
during the flight and one afterwards providing his comment/specula-
tion about the incident.NOTES COMPILED BY CAPTAIN J. RANDLE
SAFE ARGOSY FLIGHT 22 DEC 78
WOODBOURNE/CHRISTCHURCH/AUCKLAND
1. South-bound. Lights were seen close to shore which
corresponded with Wellington radar returns at ranges of 30 plus
miles. These were unusually bright for normal ground lights and
in one case appeared to be lighting up the surface in the Kekerenge(?)
district. None were continuous. In some/most cases seemed
directional (beam not point source). I saw no lights closer than
30 odd miles which were not (most probably) ships.
2. a. Aircraft radar return about Gore Bay about seven
miles off coast then lights corresponding to fair
size ship.
b. Three light groups with two defined radar returns
about 050/25 nautical miles Christchurch. At points
of letter L with about three and eight mile arms.
Centre target apparently large ship with floodlit
decks.
3. North-bound. No unusual lights, other than known
ships. In mid straits a 180° check showed lights corresponding
to Wellington radar position off Clarence. These behaved like
unexplained lights in para 1, intensity and with switching effect
with some possible sea/cloud reflection light not constant in
bearing and possibly in altitude — or two plus sources.
Wellington radar targets which were close to us both north and
south-bound and were not ships, were not seen visually or on our
radar i.e. the mystery lights were not observed at less than 30
odd miles. Venus(?) was low and very bright to east and while
this would not affect radar it could give some red/white light
effects visually. Cloud cover u/u Venus about 4/8 ths. Our
radar will not scan normally targets smaller than about 800
tons - say Holm line beats - First Officer noted two light sources
which I did not see:
a. Green light.
b. Fast white light.
c. Will differ in some details.Comment, Speculation. From inflight notes. My/our sightings were most undramatic and while no accurate count was made, five modern, say Irequois type helicopters could have produced the whole performance. When the surface was briefly lit up, in both directions, the illumination was V/V A/C landing lights of about 750 watts stronger and consistent with a light of somewhere up to 2000 watts at about 1,000 feet. While all light sources were consistent with this assumed strength focussing effects could have produced apparent strength, but not surface floodlighting. The ability of our weather radar to pick up surface ships is based against visual checks on Jap fishing boats during attempts to range, and pot them.. It is always possible that Tom Hood has screwed up the gear a notch and this estimate is invalid.. A normal number of presumed fishing boat lights which did not give returns on our radar were seen. The vessels mentioned were unusual by virtue of their assumed tonnage and area and tracks. There was no other reason to consider them unusual. They were not inconsistent,taken together with a Russian whaling/ shipping fleet where the standard vessels are larger than the Jap ( I have not targeted a Russian size vessel with our radar, this is an assumption) The only question with MY sightings is not how, for helicopters could easily have reproduced all radar and visual effects. but why. IF I dont want to blame anyone Russians or RNZAF they both could, it is illogical to assume either would. The undramatic nature of my sightings does not mean that I have any doubts as to the validity of what others saw( Pilots I mean). Just that I cant comment on what I didnt see. I would exclude Mutton birds.... lights and nature and one target too far to sea and speeds given of up to 120 knots, surfac wind assumed to be almost calm Duct propagation. Impossible on angles Venus. I could see Venus Northbound as well as lights Meteors.. Stationary ? Boats.. May have been related but were not source of " radar" light Electrical Disturbance... Twenty knot winds at height, near calm no surf line visible on surface. No buildups. Stratiform cloud 8/8 over breaking to 2-4/8 far to East. Near perfect vis under cloud. No cloud below about 15000 southbound and perhaps a bit lower 14000 Northbound in area. Distress flares, fire orbs etc.. Not consistent with these, several sources close, in miles. Does not account for radar. As noted Venus was at an altitude and Brilliance to give some illusions and at least one ground report on night seemed related to this Capt John Randle SAFE
[MAP PAGE] [Navigation chart of New Zealand South Island region with flight track annotations] Handwritten annotations: over 20 ft nms white SVR nominal lights [Bottom annotations, circled:] w/o Uffindell. Bill Frame ATC Capt. Vohn Randle STAFF / See att papers 21 0110 Flt WB – CH – ATC – WB [Map place names visible include: NELSON, Richmond, Picton, WELLINGTON, UPPER HUTT, LOWER HUTT, PORIRUA, BLENHEIM NDB, WOODBOURNE NDB (UHF), CAPE CAMPBELL NDB, KAIKOURA NDB, Hanmer Springs, CHRISTCHURCH, LYTTELTON, BANKS PENINSULA, PEGASUS BAY, Kaiapoi, MOLESWORTH, Clarence, Various elevation figures and navigation aids]
SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW WITH
W/O UFFINDELL AND MR FRAME
1. Messrs Uffindell and Frame were the Woodbourne Orderly
Officer and Flight Service Duty Officer on the night 20/21 Dec 78.
2. At 2350 hours Mr Uffindell saw what he initially considered
to be the three lights of a Bristol Freighter airdraft three to
four miles away from Woodbourne on finals for the airfield. The
lights did not get any closer he then checked the lights through
binoculars and determined that they appeared to be going to Wellington
Of the three lights the middle one appeared as a white beam pointing
northward. The lights appeared to move upward and around in rec-
tangles. He observed the lights for about 50 minutes. The
bearing from Woodbourne was about 080 degrees magnetic that is towards
Cape Palliser. At one stage the lights appeared to "rush forward".
Over a period the lights seemed to move northeast and then gradually
faded, he describes the light's appearance as [ILLEGIBLE] looking like
somebody spotlighting. There was no cloud in the sky.
3. The largest of the three lights was yellowish and the
other two were white. They were initially observed beyond Cape
Campbell and then [ILLEGIBLE] moved north. They were about one inch
[ILLEGIBLE] apart when measured at arms length.
4. Mr Frame in company with W/O Uffindell observed the
lights from the control tower balcony. He describes the three
lights as having one bright orange and two other less intense
lights. The large orange light appeared fairly stationary and
the other two appeared to move north. A shaft appeared from the
two white lights angling down at about 40 degrees in a northely
direction. Using binoculars apparently had no enlarging effect
on the lights! Mr Frame notified ATC Wellington of his observations
and was told by Wellington that they had five radar targets in the
Clarence area.(Apparently nothing to do with the Woodbourne sightings.)
5. The lights appeared to be slightly above the hills to the
southeast of Blenheim and all but one disappeared over a period.
One of the smaller lights was still visible when the Argosy took
off about 0120 hours.
6. At 0325 Wellington phoned Mr Frame to say they had a large
target east-north-east of White Bluffs (Wairau Bar). Nothing was
visible from the Woodbourne tower.
7. At about 0335 Mr Frame observed a white/red tinged light
(alternating) for about five minutes.
8. Messrs Uffindell and Frame will produce a map showing
more accurately the bearings from Woodbourne on which they made
their observations.SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW
WITH CAPTAIN V. POWELL
1. Captain Powell with First Officer Pirie were the crew
of a SAFE Argosy from Woodbourne to Christchurch and then Dunedin
on 22/2 Dec 78. The aircraft departed Woodbourne at 0315 hours.
The weather throughout the flight was good with a light northeasterly
wind and cloud to the east of the South Island. There was no
turbulence.
2. At 0330 Wellington ATC asked the crew to investigate the
Clarence River area for radar returns that Wellington was picking
up. The aircraft crew did not observe any activity either on
radar or visually.
3. At 0338 the crew were asked by Wellington Radar to
identify a strong radar return that Wellington was receiving about
25 nautical miles to the port of the Argosy. Both the captain and
the First Officer observed a very bright light which they variously
described as bright orb/pear shaped – reddish tinge then turned
white. From the aircraft the object appeared to be stationary
by visual observation however by radar the object appeared to "track
the aircraft". It appeared to be very close – less than ten miles.
(Although the light was on the bearing indicated by the aircraft
radar and apparently in the position described by Wellington Radar
confirmation is necessary as to whether the light could in fact have
been at great distance bearing in mind the crew would have no back-
drop to assess distances – query depth perception.) The light
passed behind it out of sight and radar contact. (When the crew
say the light tracked the aircraft confirmation is necessary that
it was seen to move on radar because by visual observation it
appeared stationary which in fact would indicate that the light was
at a great distance from the aircraft.)
4. At 0400 when 50 miles northeast of Christchurch the
Captain observed on the aircraft radar a return that approached the
aircraft very rapidly and then veered off sharply to the aircraft's
left. During a period of about five seconds about five radar
returns were received and in the space of that time the blips passed
through a distance of some 15 miles on the radar range scale and
then disappeared from the radar screen. (10,000mph per hour!)
During this period the aircraft radar was also plotting ships near
the coast. Simultaneously the First Officer observed a light he
describes as being like a Boeing flashing strobe light which
followed the same path as the radar returns. (This episode above
all others caused both aircrew mild consternation to say the least!)
5. Captain Powell checked with Christchurch radar whether
they had had any radar contacts but were advised that it was"not
worth having the radar on". (Check whether Wellington radar observed
anything.)[MAP PAGE] [Navigation chart of New Zealand South Island region with flight track and sighting annotations for Capt. Powell's flight] Handwritten annotations on map: 0338 Saw it unbelievably Pt K1 (E) then appeared to go behind/beyond cloud. Stayed in relative same point to A/C did not appear to move. Pt(E) did not [ILLEGIBLE] search any more Win radar advised they it had gone off radar. [Bottom of map:] Capt. Powell 21 Dec am Plt 9am. SAFE Argosy Southbound 1750
[DIAGRAM PAGE]
Argosy Radar
40 30 20
10 nm
[Sketch showing radar track with diagonal lines indicating approach]
[Arrow pointing right] Radar plot & visual sighting of a light. Visually 5° below
none.
...it faded.
15nm in 5secs (10,000 mph!)
[strikethrough] (9,800 mph.)
Argosy radar at 50nm Ch.[MAP PAGE] [Navigation chart of New Zealand South Island region with flight track and sighting annotations for 20/21 Dec 78] Handwritten annotations on map: 3 LIGHTS ON THESE BRES SEEN FROM 6M 1130 0159 0106 MANY RANDOM AND VARIOUS RADAR CONTACTS THROUGHOUT NIGHT 0325 TARGET (2) 0325 TARGET APPEARS TO MOVE LEFT AND TRACK S|BOUND ARGOSY 0328 RADAR TARGET: 'TRACKED' BY SRE TO 60N (3) STATIONARY THEN APPEARED TO 'TRACK' N|BOUND ARGOSY VERY FAST TARGET BRIEFLY CHECKED ON ATC RADAR ? meteo or double bounce effect) VENUS RISING 0327 ARGOSY TRACK Joined by 4 Visual Crew + checked on radar for quite some was a bigger (see over) Cloud Bank LIGHTS VISIBLE TO THE RIGHT FROM CH AIRFIELD OF SQUID FLEET 20/21 DEC 78 ABOUT 50 VESSELS EACH WITH A 200KW LIGHTS)
RESTRICTED
DECLASSIFIED
On 26/8/10
Reference [ILLEGIBLE]
Appointment [ILLEGIBLE]
UU LKL018KLA407 HH
PP RZYXSD
DE RZYXCD 9859 3352320
ZNY RRRRR
P 2200252 DEC 78 ZZM
FM NZDEF AIR
TO OPHQ RNZAF
BT
R E S T R I C T E D
DIG KSY
710 AIR 20/4/5 SUBJECT UNIDENTIFIED RADAR CONTACTS PD WELLINGTON RADAR HELD FIVE SLOW SPEED CONTACTS IN THE CLARENCE RIVERMOUTH AREA BETWEEN 191100 TO 191500Z DEC 78 PD
ONE CONTACT WAS CONFIRMED BY VISUAL SIGHTING OF RED LIGHT BY SAFE ARGOSY PD RNZAF HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO ASSIST IN INVESTIGATION OF THIS ACTIVITY PD OPHQ IS TO BE PREPARED TO RESPOND TO CALL FROM DEF HQ TO INVESTIGATE ANY FUTURE INCIDENT USING AIRCRAFT MOST CAPABLE OF REACHING AREA AND CONDUCTING RADAR/VISUAL SEARCH PD IN ADDITION A PATROL OF THE COASTAL AREA BETWEEN CAPE CAMPBELL AND BANKS PENINSULAR OUT TO 100NMS IS TO BE CONDUCTED BEFORE 27 DEC 78 PD SPECIAL ATTENTION IS TO BE DEVOTED TO OBSERVING AND REPORT ANY UNUSUAL MARINE ACTIVITIES PD ALL SURFACE CONTACTS ARE TO BE RECORDED PD ALL FUTURE COASTAL PATROLS ARE TO REPEAT THIS TASK UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE PD REPORT ANY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS TO DUTY AIR STAFF OFFICER
BT
RESTRICTED
[Stamp — printed upside down/inverted:
PREVIOUSLY DELIVERED WITH ERRORS
CORRECTED VERSION OF A MESSAGE
ADMIN OMITTED PORTIONS]
[Box: NO UNCLASSIFIED
REPLY OR REFERENCE]
[Handwritten: M/190]
DISTRIBUTION 20/40/5
Action : [ILLEGIBLE]
NNNN
KSY 0
ACTION OPS2 11
INFOB
Porn → Squid Fleet.
45S 175 55E.
↓
alt. was low level
N below 5000'.
[diagram with lines and arrows indicating track]
squid fin
otaki - V NIKKO
175°
43 30° 50 lights
each
50 1,000,000 light
4 KW
= 200 KW21/DEC/78 [Aeronautical chart — same base chart covering northern South Island and Cook Strait, annotated for 21 Dec 78] Handwritten annotations: Top right: 21 Dec 0159 Radar target tracked 140n to 30nm then bound when in Wellington stopped. Right side: moved to West and tracked [?] with Argosy did not appear to move. Station for [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] [ILLEGIBLE] Near Clarence area: 21:0159 (0006) by SAFE 5 Radar targets on Wellington radar Argosy radar visual 11 [ILLEGIBLE] 21:0328 Strong [?] assigned target about 23nm E of ATC Red light changed to white light Also on SCE II did not search any more radar advised that it had gone off radar Lower centre: Contact Stationarily then tracked N/bound Argosy [?] 20,000 rose about 17 mins earlier Near Christchurch: Close [?] Run Lower right: Mernoo Bank [oval symbol] Bottom annotations: Capt. [ILLEGIBLE] (Flt.) John Randle 20/21 Acc Mr Covey (Jnm.) WN Radar Mr Herd (Anim.)
[Photograph of radar PPI display — circular scan, concentric range rings, multiple bright echo returns visible] 0219. M.T.I. 10MI CIRCLES TRIPLE ECHO POSSIBLY SHIP AT 46 MI. ALL OTHER ECHOES (8) ANOMALOUS. PLEASE NOTE: The last 17 pages of this File have been mistakenly repeated by the printer. [Photograph of radar PPI display — partial view, lower right quadrant] . 10 MI CIRCLES DS 36 MI. 10 AT 172° . RADIALLY 1-150 KT.
RESTRICTED DECLASSIFIED
On 26/8/10
Reference [ILLEGIBLE]
Appointment [ILLEGIBLE]
Air 39/3/3 11th January 1979
REPORT ON UNIDENTIFIED VISUAL AND
RADAR SIGHTINGS EAST COAST SOUTH ISLAND
DECEMBER 1978
Introduction
1. On the nights of 20/21 December 78 and 30/31 December 78 Wellington ATC Radar, and the crews of SAFE Argosy aircraft (both visually and on radar) made many unidentified sightings off the east coast of the South Island. The first sightings gave rise to much publicity by the media and eventual involvement of the RNZAF when it was decided to conduct an Orion surveillance of the area on the night of 2/3 January 79. At that time it was decided to start a Defence investigation and this report is submitted in accordance with DCAS instructions to provide a report on the events surrounding the various sightings.
2. Air Staff was first advised by Civil Aviation Division of Ministry of Transport (CADMOT) of these events mid-morning 21 December 78. Historically, Defence has adopted a 'low profile' in connection with reports of unidentified sightings. Thus CADMOT has not normally reported unusual sightings to Defence. However, because of the number and nature of reports on the night 20/21 December 78 the Director of Civil Aviation specifically instructed his staff to advise Defence. On the basis of the information received Air Staff decided that should any further similar instances occur we would, if possible, carry out an investigation by the most appropriate aircraft available over the Christmas period. CADMOT were advised to contact the Defence Duty Officer in the event of any more sightings. As it transpired the memorandum from CADMOT Head Office to the ATC Centre was not delivered, thus the events of 30/31 December 78 were not reported to Air Staff until the next day.
3. Other Government agencies, notably DSIR and NZ Meteorological Services, are conducting their own investigations and have provided relevant input to this report. The report is confined to the events of 21 and 31 December 78. It does not take into account the film made by TV1 on 3 January 79 which is now being examined by DSIR and will most probably prove to be a film of Venus and Jupiter rising.
4. When interviewing witnesses it was pointed out to them that this was not a judicial enquiry. The credibility of witnesses' statements was taken at face value. However, witnesses were not necessarily interviewed separately because it was considered that, with a fairly emotive issue such as 'UFOs', corroboration was best achieved by interviewing observers of the same events together.
/Events 20/21 ...
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
-2-
Events 20/21 December 78 (Refer Chart at Annex A)
5. On 20/21 December 78 there were two SAFE Argosy flights from Woodbourne to Christchurch one of which proceeded to Dunedin and terminated, and the other returned to Woodbourne. The first aircraft departed Woodbourne 210110 NZDT. At 0159 when southbound to Christchurch the aircraft captain was asked by Wellington Radar to check the Clarence River area because Wellington ATC was receiving radar returns from there. The crew observed lights at low level that could possibly have been off the Clarence River mouth but when the aircraft was about 30 miles north the lights appeared to go out or disappear. During this period Christchurch was visible and the sky was clear. Later in the morning (0406) when the aircraft was northbound the crew was again requested to check the area because Wellington Radar was again picking up radar returns in that vicinity. The aircraft crew confirmed that lights were visible to seaward and the crew got the impression of the lights making rectangular patterns at irregular frequency. The lights had a beam appearance rather than a point source appearance and seemed to turn away rather than turn off. One light appeared to illuminate the surface of the water and the aircraft captain assesses that the source of the light could have been at about 1,000 feet. However, it is the reporting officer's opinion that from the aircraft's height (14,000 feet) it would not be possible to judge accurately the height of lights below the aircraft. One possibility is that the aircraft captain was observing lights from cars or trains because the main road and railway run parallel and very close to the coast for some miles in this area. However, the aircraft captain considers that the sightings could have been produced by four or five helicopters and the whole thing was 'quite undramatic'! The likelihood of such extensive aeronautical activity has not been confirmed by any reports received from the Police or local inhabitants. In fact, no reports have been received and the Police do not have any interest in the area.
6. The second aircraft, which departed Woodbourne at 0315, was also asked by Wellington Radar to look at the Clarence River mouth area because Wellington was picking up radar returns there. That aircraft crew did not observe anything in the region either visually or on radar.
- 7. Subsequent investigations and scientific observation carried out by DSIR proves conclusively (in the reporting officer's opinion) that Wellington SRE Radar does give anomalous radar returns off the east coast off the South Island. This was proved by DSIR observation of the Wellington radar 8/9 January 79 and taking a series of photographs of the radar presentation throughout the night. Concurrently three field parties were stationed at vantage points along the east coast with radio communications to the Radar Control Centre. On several occasions during the night when many large returns were painting on Wellington Radar the observers on the coast could see nothing either in the air or on the sea in the positions passed to them by the Radar Controller.
/Furthermore
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
-3-
Furthermore, from discussions with two or three controllers it is evident that the Wellington SRE has for several months been giving anomalous radar returns in the Clarence area and south of Wellington. It is possible that this could be caused by a modification that was recently made to the radar head at Wellington depressing it one degree. DSIR scientists are following up this possibility and their findings should be available in due course.
8. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any clandestine activity in the vicinity of the Clarence River mouth. It is possible however that surface vessels could have been in the area with or without navigation lights but it is doubtful that such vessels could have given rise to the visual observations made by the aircraft crew. The fact that Wellington Radar 'keyed' both aircraft captains to look for objects in the Clarence area might well have induced observations from the air which might or might not have been related to the Wellington Radar returns.
9. From information supplied by DSTR, the NZ Meteorological Services, and astronomers, it is evident that during this period, and indeed for the last month or so, atmospheric conditions have been conducive to freak propagation of radio and light waves. Thus it is possible that the lights observed by the aircraft captain could have been produced by ships' lights reflected or refracted from afar. Such anomalous propagation (ducting) could also give rise to spurious radar returns. Note: The reporting officer has just received (1155 NZDT) a report from Auckland that ATC has issued a NOTAM that Auckland Radar is giving spurious returns caused by atmospheric conditions.
10. During the period that the Wellington Radar Controller was in dialogue with the aircraft captains about radar returns in the Clarence area the radar was also tracking a steady return on a track of 140°(M) which started at Wellington, proceeded to 30 miles and then, with less consistent radar returns, tracked out to 60 miles where it became stationary for 35 minutes. It then moved west and appeared to 'track' the second southbound Argosy at about 0328. The Wellington Radar Controller alerted the captain that there was a strong radar return about 25 miles to the port of the aircraft. The aircraft crew observed on that bearing a very bright light which they variously describe as a bright orb, pear shaped with a reddish tinge that then turned white. From the aircraft the object appeared to be stationary by visual observation but by the aircraft radar appeared to track the aircraft. The light appeared to be very close - less than ten miles. Although the aircraft radar return and the visual observation of the light were on more or less the same bearing the crew cannot confirm that the range was coincident. It is significant that within a few minutes of the crew's observation, Venus was rising on a bearing that coincided with their visual observation. DSIR optics, physics, and meteorological experts have confirmed that prevailing atmospheric conditions might well have produced most unusual but not unknown phenomena that could have made Venus appear large, bright and orange. There is a plethora of astronomical information that describes this phenomenon. Thus it is highly probable that the aircrew's observation was an unusual view of Venus.
RESTRICTED /11. The radarRESTRICTED
-4-
11. The radar returns observed on the aircraft radar might have been caused by a natural return by a ship or perhaps could have been anomalous returns caused by the prevailing atmospheric conditions. During the period 19 - 28 December 78 some 50 Japanese squid boats sailed from Wellington to the area of the Mernoo Bank (120 miles east of Banks Peninsula). These vessels departed Wellington in groups of about 10 and their track to their fishing grounds is almost identical to the radar track plotted by Wellington radar. While there is no conclusive proof that these vessels could have caused the fairly steady trace observed by Wellington it is a fact that during the period of all these observations there was no shortage of shipping in the area. Furthermore, once in position and fishing, the squid fleet would have produced an intense light source which coupled with prevailing meteorological conditions could have been responsible for many and varied reflected or refracted light images. (Each boat puts out about 200kw of light.)
12. A further observation (which has not been reported by the media) was made by the crew of this the same Argosy when the aircraft was some 50 miles north east of Christchurch. The captain observed five consecutive blips on the aircraft radar which over a period of five seconds traced a pattern towards the aircraft and then veered off very sharply to its port. Simultaneously the co-pilot observed a flashing white light (which looked like a strobe light) describing the same sort of path. For the brief period that the returns were received on radar the object must have been travelling at about 10,800mph! This sighting, above all others during the night, caused the crew considerable consternation! It is possible that such a phenomenon could be produced by a meteor which are not unknown at this time of theyear. A further possible explanation could be that the effect was caused by a 'double bounce' radar contact produced by ducting. It is note-worthy that an RNZAF Orion crossing Cape Palliser on 9 January 78 at 1652 NZDT observed a radar contact at 15 miles moving fast towards the aircraft. There was no cloud and no surface contacts visible. The radar return crossed the aircraft's track one mile ahead, but there was no visual sighting. The closing speed was calculated at 1,000mph thus the object itself was travelling at some 630 mph. OPHQ staffs have considered the possibilities and assess that the radar return could have been of an object 200 miles north of NZ (perhaps cloud) with freak propogation giving rise to the radar observation made in the aircraft. But for knowing that a Defence enquiry was under way OPHQ would not normally have considered it necessary to pass on this information.
13. A further sighting on the 20/21 December 78 was made by the Orderly Officer and Duty Air Traffic Controller at RNZAF Base Woodbourne. At 2350 the Orderly Officer saw what he considered to be three lights of a Bristol Freighter three to four miles from Woodbourne. However, as no aircraft could be heard and the lights did not appear to get any closer he checked through binoculars and determined that the lights appeared to be going towards Wellington. Of the three lights the middle one appeared as a white beam pointing northward. The lights appeared to move upward
/and around
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
-5-
and around in a rectangular pattern but at random speed. He observed the lights for about 50 minutes. The bearing from Woodbourne was about 080° (M), i.e., towards Cape Campbell. At one stage the lights appeared to 'rush forward' but generally over the period seemed to move northward and eventually fade. In comparative terms the observer considered that the lights' pattern looked like somebody 'spotlighting'. The Duty Air Traffic Controller observed the same lights from the control tower balcony. His impression was that the lights comprised one bright orange light and two less intense white lights. The large light appeared to remain stationary while the other two seemed to move north. A shaft of light periodically appeared to 'beam down' from the white lights at about 40° in a northerly direction. Using binoculars apparently had no enlarging effect on the lights! This could indicate that the lights were at a great distance from the observer and not in Cook Strait as he imagined. This thesis is supported by the fact that on checking with Wellington Radar the Woodbourne observer was advised that the radar was painting five targets in the Clarence area but no mention was made of any returns in Cook Strait. It is highly improbable that the radar returns and the visual observations were in any way connected.
14. The reporting officer awaits a copy of the taped conversation between the Wellington Radar Controller, the aircraft and the Woodbourne observer and in addition the Woodbourne observer is preparing a sketch map showing bearings, etc, in more detail. When these two pieces of evidence are available they may shed more light on the occurrence!
Summary
15. It is the reporting officer's opinion that almost all the sightings made 20/21 December 78 can be explained by natural but unusual phenomena. There were atmospheric conditions that could have produced unusual visual and radar returns. There is no doubt that Wellington SRE was (and still is) giving spurious radar returns in the area under surveillance. With some of the visual sightings of 'beams' of light it is only possible to speculate on possible causes. On-going investigation by DSIR scientists and the reporting officer may help to clarify this in due course. Perhaps the most difficult aspect to explain away is the apparent concern - even apprehension - of the aircrews involved in the sightings. At present they do not seem to be prepared to accept the fact that they might have observed Venus. Thankfully, however, neither do they believe that they saw a visitor from outer space! Perhaps, when more scientific evidence is gathered, their minds will be set at rest.
Events 30/31 December 78 (Refer Chart at Annex B)
16. On 30/31 December 78 an Argosy on a routine flight (but carrying the TV crew that made the film shown on Australian TV) departed Wellington at 2346 to proceed Christchurch and then
/return
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
-6-
return to Woodbourne.
17. At 0013 while climbing to 14,000 feet the aircraft crew observed four to five lights close to the surface near the coast of the Kaikoura Peninsula (possibly in the Clarence River area but the crew were not sure and did not confirm with their radar). On checking with Wellington ATC the crew were advised that Wellington Radar had contacts 13 miles ahead of the aircraft (these would have been off Clarence). The crew observed a pulsing type of white light that looked like a helicopter search light zooming on to the beach somewhere north of the Kaikoura Peninsula. Again, it is difficult to explain the lights, short of them being some anomalous type of reflection or refraction, cars, or trains. However it is most probable that the Wellington Radar returns were spurious.
18. At 0018 when the aircraft was about 10 miles north of the Clarence River mouth, Wellington Radar advised the crew that there was a strong radar return behind them. They orbited and saw nothing. This was almost certainly a spurious radar return.
19. At 0042 when the aircraft was about 10 miles northeast of Motunau Island, Wellington Radar advised the crew that there was a large radar target behind the aircraft that appeared on the radar screen as a blip larger than the aircraft return and appeared to be tracking the Argosy. The aircraft captain carried out a left orbit but neither he nor the first officer saw anything. The crew did not refer to the aircraft radar and Christchurch radar was not operating for ATC purposes at the time.
20. Just before crossing the coast near Woodend the crew observed a white light on the starboard side of the aircraft and Christchurch Radar advised that there was a target at three-o'clock to the aircraft that 'moved off' when the aircraft was about 1.5 miles from touch. No reports have been received from inhabitants of the area of any unusual lights or aeronautical activity. Thus, again, the natural explanation is that the light and radar return were spurious, possibly caused by some sort of anomalous propogation.
21. It is interesting to note that while taxiing to dispersal both the aircrew on the Argosy and the ATC officers in the control tower observed lights to the right of Sugar Loaf Hill which seemed to have the same pulsating characteristics as the lights observed earlier during the flight. The bearing of these lights would almost certainly coincide with the bearing of the squid fleet from Christchurch and if the lights could be proved to be refracted or reflected returns from the squid vessels much of the mystery would be solved!
22. At 0216 the aircraft departed Christchurch on the 033 radial. When overhead Woodend both crew members observed a large white light to the northeast. They also observed on the aircraft radar a very large target at 18 miles from the aircraft. The crew cannot be positive that the light and the radar return were coincident but that was the appearance that they gave. Slightly before these observations, the first officer had noticed through thin cloud a light which he describes as having the
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
-7-
appearance of a squashed orange. Eventually this light became fully visible and measured against the thumb at arms length appeared to be about two inches long, that is, a very large source of light. The crew observed this light for some minutes while cruising at 13,000 feet. Between 35 and 40 miles from Christchurch the aircraft captain, of his own volition, turned towards the light. This necessitated a 90° turn onto a heading of about 125° at about 25° bank. The aircraft speed was 215 knots. The image on the aircraft radar moved to 10 miles from the aircraft but the crew cannot say whether this was due to their velocity or the movement of the radar return. The radar image then stayed in the same relative position to the aircraft for a few minutes (as if it were 'backing up' at the aircraft's speed). At this stage the large light appeared to go above, behind, and below the aircraft as the captain turned left to regain track and avoid further 'confrontation' with the object! This series of events occurred over a time frame of about 20 minutes. Throughout, Christchurch radar was working but reported nothing. Wellington Radar had been observing the aircraft during the period but did not report any unidentified radar contact in that area.
23. The visual observation made by the crew is consistent with an unusual view of Venus. The bearing of the observation coincides with the point at which Venus would have been visible. However, this observation was made at about 0225 and Venus did not rise until about 0328. Nevertheless, DSIR scientists have advised that with super refraction it would be possible to see the planet some time before it's actual rising and if it were seen it would have the appearance that the crew described. The last effect of the light passing above, below and behind the aircraft could be explained by an astronomical phenomenon known as the 'troublesome layer'. In the prevailing conditions with a marked inversion above about 10,000 feet, and fairly strong westerly winds with standing waves on the leeward side of the Alps the inversion layer can take on a marked wave form. Thus at the time that the light performed its convolutions around the aircraft it is possible that the aircraft was passing from one side of the inversion layer to the other. The fact that the light was no longer visible tends to support this thesis and it is most probable that the aircraft's radar return was spurious or of a ship, in view of the lack of confirmation of any other targets in the area by the Wellington Radar.
24. As the aircraft approached Kaikoura two or three radar contacts were noted on the aircraft radar at about ten o'clock position. These would be consistent with the radar returns Wellington had noted in the Clarence area for most of the night - and were almost certainly spurious.
25. Approaching Cape Campbell the aircraft captain observed what he thought was a fishing fleet off Cape Palliser. These might well have been part of the squid fleet enroute south.
26. As the aircraft turned towards Blenheim the first officer observed what appeared to be orange lights in the Nelson Bay area which appeared to move across the sounds towards Picton. No explanation can be offered for this observation but it has not
RESTRICTED /been confirmedRESTRICTED
-8-
been confirmed by any sightings made from the ground. The aircraft landed at Blenheim at 0315.
Conclusions
27. The foregoing report has been compiled after interviews with most of the principle witnesses involved with the sightings 20/21 and 30/31 December 1978. The SAFE pilots were most helpful to the reporting officer in the very frank manner in which they related their experiences and the time they spent in interview. It is considered that the reporting officer should, as soon as possible, informally debrief the SAFE aircrew involved on the general tenor of the findings to date.
28. It is evident that because of the interest over these sightings reports will continue to come in from various sources and on-going investigations by DSIR and meteorological officers will probably serve to correlate much of the information. Nevertheless, it is considered that Defence should issue a PR statement fairly soon in order to tone down much of the wild speculation that has existed over recent weeks.
29. In summary the reporting officer has made the following findings:
a. During the period of the observations, and indeed now, atmospheric conditions over NZ are conducive to freak propogation of radio and light waves.
b. Venus was rising in the eastern sky and at this time of the year is unusually bright in appearance.
c. Wellington Radar has been giving spurious indications off the east coast of the South Island for some time but over recent weeks anomalous returns seem to have been more prevalent.
d. During the period an unusually large number of vessels (the squid fleet) sailed from Wellington, often at night, to position off Banks Peninsula. Not only would these vessels provide a good source for radar returns but the lights that they use when fishing could explain some of the visual sightings of unusual lights.
e. The reporting officer speculates that the observation of lights in the Clarence area might have been caused by trains or cars.
f. The reporting officer is of the opinion that the large number of unusual occurrences on
/the nights
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
-9-
the nights in question made some aircrew and air traffic controllers particularly responsive to the various sightings.
g. There is no connection between the many sightings in the Clarence area and the larger lights seen to the east (and which were the subject of the much publicised TV films).
h. Almost all the sightings can be explained by natural but unusual phenomena. The few for which the evidence to date in inconclusive may well be explained in due course when current investigations are completed.
[signature]
(J.B. CLEMENTS)
Wing Commander
Director of Operations
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED
ANNEX A TO
DOPS REPORT
DATED 11 JAN 79
[Hand-drawn sketch map of the east coast of New Zealand South Island]
N(T) [north arrow]
*WOODBOURNE
• LIGHTS OBSERVED
FROM WOODBOURNE
APPARENTLY THIS
POSITION - MOVED
NORTH
2350 ÷ 0130
Road/Rail
Clarence
0159 (0406)
RADAR RETURNS
CLARENCE
THROUGHOUT
THE NIGHT
0328
ARGOSY SEES
LIGHT THAT
SEEMS VERY CLOSE
0328
RADAR RETURN
APPARENTLY 'TRACKS'
S/BOUND ARGOSY
AND APPARENTLY
'WAITS' FOR N/BOUND
ARGOSY THEN BRIEFLY
TRACKS IT!
0159 [boxed]
RADAR RETURN
'TRACKED' BY WN
TO 60 NMS
STATIONARY
35 MINS
THEN RADAR RETURN
MOVES WEST
VENUS
RISING
0327
SQUID FLEET TRACK FROM
WELLINGTON
[ship symbols]
Motunau
0406
ARGOSY SEES
VERY FAST
'TARGET'
ON A/C RADAR
[arrow]
ARGOSY TRACK
[arrow]
2478
OBSERVATIONS
20/21 DEC 78
SQUID FLEET
[ship symbols at bottom right]
RESTRICTEDRESTRICTED LIGHTS OBSERVED NELSON BAY REGION ANNEX 5 TO DOPS REPORT DATED 11 JAN 79 N(T) WOODBOURNE 0315 ARGOSY LANDS. 2346 P ARGOSY LEAVES WN. Road/ Rail CLARENCE 0013-18 LIGHTS/RADAR RETURNS. A/C INVESTIGATES 'LARGE' RADAR RETURN BEHIND THE A/C – SEES NOTHING AGAIN, N|BOUND A/C INVESTIGATES RADAR CONTACTS AT 10 O'CLOCK. (CLARENCE AREA) 0042 A/C ADVISED BY WN RADAR LARGE TARGET BEHIND. A/C ORBITS – SEES NOTHING. PRESS TRACK 0037 A/C TURNS TOWARD LIGHT AND RADAR RETURN. LIGHT EVENTUALLY GOES ABOVE, BELOW AND DISAPPEARS. SOUTH BOUND A/C SEES LIGHT TO RIGHT. CH RADAR ADVISE A TARGET THAT POSITION 0325 WHEN N|BOUND A/C SEES ORANGE LIGHT AT 2-O-CLOCK POSITION. BEARING ON WHICH VENUS WOULD RISE AT 0338 OBSERVATIONS 30/31 DEC 78 LIGHTS VISIBLE FROM CH AIRPORT TO THE RIGHT OF SUGAR LOAF (SQUID FLEET LIGHTS REFRACTED) .247f SQUID FLEET HERE RESTRICTED
SRE Wexford Road/Hawkins Hill Changes.
✓ SRE Notammed RNO 091309 PRF = 400 ±10% 9% & 17%
SA 120 New aerial reflector, slotted feed and 3½" co-ax run
from rotating joint. Re-conditioned redcestal and
rotating joint – data gearbox – no change. Digital
turning encoder fitted.
Radar Rx. Two S2050 solid state receivers installed, old SR100
receivers still in position but switched off and by-
passed – can be brought into service if required.
Processors Two S7100 solid state, digital processors installed.
Both SJ1000's removed from HH as well as associated
delay cells.
L/R SRE Max range = 160nm. Range 2/SD 1010 display T.B.
amplifiers set to place 80nm range ring under the
cursor knobs.
Video map – date set at 15nm, '7' marks at 145nm.
Terrain Clearance map – not available – test slide
fitted.
Remote switching – No change except DSP S7100/1 and 2 replaces
SJ 1000/1 and 2.
Aerial To be run at half speed. Tilt = +4 dep.
MTI Cancelled radar clutter is excessive but levels will
be adjusted over the next few weeks.
Radar Uncancelled radar appears different to previous radar
due to use of the S2050 radar receiver log/PLD
(pulse length discriminator) video output at HH.
Faults Until staff are more familiar with the new equipment
Ways 2 will look after faults on the S2050 receivers
and S7100 data processors – all other faults to be
cleared as before the upgrading.
[signature]
TTO SRE,
Wellington Airport.
① PRF Stagger – fixed sequence NOT random
0 = 0 which ÷ 2700s.
400 ÷14 = C
9 = B
17 = A DC DB DA – then repeats.
② Clarence returns were
probably coincident.
③ Enhanced video levels. All above levels appear as '1' level –
same sizePERSONNEL INTERVIEWED
Name Designation
Capt V. Powell Captain SAFE Argosy 22 Dec 78 (second acft).
First Off I. Pirie First Officer SAFE Argosy 21 Dec 78.
Capt J. Randle Captain SAFE Argosy 22 Dec 78 (first
aircraft).
W/O Uffindell RNZAF Duty Officer Woodbourne 22 Dec 78.
Mr W. Frame Flight Service Woodbourne 22 Dec 78.
Mr M. Collins Director Physics Laboratory DSIR.
Mr N. Rumsey Head of Optics Division DSIR.
Dr D. Phillips NZ Meteorological Service.
Mr R. Davison Superintending Engineer Radar CADMOT.
Mr J. Cordy ATC Radar Controller 22 Dec 78.
Mr A. Herd ATC Radar Controller 22 Dec 78.
Capt W. Startup Captain SAFE Argosy 31 Dec 78.
First Off R. Guard First Officer SAFE Argosy 31 Dec 78.
Mr G. Causer ATC Radar Controller 31 Dec 78.
Sqn Ldr R. Carran Orion Captain Jan 79.
Fisheries Control Centre, MAF.
Dr Cherry Lincoln College (Propagation Exp)
Dr Wall Porirua " " (1948)AIDE MEMOIRE Possibilities: Ducting Hotspots Venus Jupiter Stars Planets Clandestine Operations Hoax 'Real UFO' Ships Birds Wave Cap Radar Returns Cyclical Patterns? Light Waves Radio Waves Squid Fleet Movement over period? Dr Wall Porirua – freak propogation experiment Canterbury 1948. Dr Neil Cherry Lincoln College – current study Canterbury NW conditions. Clarence TV film – possible planet or star rising? DSIR Clarence/Kaikoura theodolite observation star rising. Apparent movement caused by heat from Japanese vessel on horizon in line of sight. Coincidence of observations only by SAFE Argosy crews? Freak return generated by aircraft itself (mirror, mirage, radar return etc)? Squid fleet position 21 Dec 78 onwards. Squid fleet lights turn off time. Meteorite, asteroid shoals – refer astronomy info. Jupiter/Venus rising/setting times. ANZ timetables (strobe lights). Observations all over water, distances vague except for radar plots. Radar plots possibly not coincident with visual sightings. Lighthouses, aerodrome, navigation etc beacons. Last month extreme clarity of atmosphere. Inversion layer (refer T0 gram). Examine films (Sqn Ldr Clarke to arrange). DDI interest? Customs interest? Police interest? Fisheries interest?
MANUAL OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL EQP 2-1
SURVEILLANCE RADAR EQUIPMENT
1. MARCONI RADAR TYPES S264 AND S264A
TECHNICAL DATA
Wave Length 50 cms.
Frequency 585 - 610 mcs
Peak Power Output S264: 50-60KW
S264A: 500KW (nominal)
Beam width 2½°
Pulse Length 2 or 4 microsecs
Pulse Recurrence S264: 525 - 775 p.p.s.
Frequency S264A:
500 - 800 pps (2ms pulse)
260 - 385 pps (4ms pulse)
Rate of Scan 5 or 10 r.p.m.
Range Selection In ratio of 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 according
to range available
Antenna System Parabolic reflector with offset
linear wave guide feed.
Wind Limitations Up to 60 knots at 10 r.p.m.
Up to 90 knots at 5 r.p.m.
Presentation S264: Moving coil 12 in. PPI
S264A: Fixed coil 12 in. PPI
Special Facilities MTI, STC, Swept Gain, Video Mapping,
Off centering.
2. GENERAL
2.1 The main features of the S264 are its almost complete freedom
from weather clutter, the stable and efficient MTI system and the
high overall radar performance obtained with comparatively low power.
The S264 can be converted to S264A equipment at any time.
2.2 The S264A possesses all the main advantages of the S264 plus
the exceptional range and altitude cover. These features make this
equipment most suitable for its dual role as both area and approach
S.R.E.
3. SPECIAL FACILITIES
3.1 MTI
3.1.1 This is a fully coherent system with the transmitter, reference
oscillator and trigger pulse generator all crystal controlled. No
automatic frequency control is required as the receiver is looked to
___________________________________________
Department of Civil Aviation
New ZealandO .
[DIAGRAM: arrow symbol] = 2500μs.
= 17%. (423.5μs)
= 9%. (224.84μs)
= 14%. (349.58μs)
[DIAGRAM: Two hand-drawn waveform traces showing pulse sequences. Upper trace shows a series of pulses labeled with 'D' markers above. Lower trace shows pulses labeled with 'C', 'D', 'B', 'D', 'A', 'D' markers.]
A