Blogarchiv
UFO-Forschung - THE BIG SUR UFO INCIDENT SAGA -Update2

12.02.2025

Fortsetzung:

 

The documented record for Butterfly Net and Buzzing Bee
The official version of events regarding Buzzing Bee and Butterfly net was documented in several classified reports describing how well they were tracked by the B.U. telescope and the radar systems at Kwajalein. Assuming they are an accurate record of what happened, they resolve the question of which versions of events is more accurate.
Butterfly Net - September 15, 1964
According to the final report written by Kingston George in 1964/1965, the launch of Butterfly Net was not well recorded:
Butterfly Net was launched on a day that was slightly more hazy than average; however, the missile was tracked by the B.U. telescope and the 180-inch lens operated by the 1369th Photo Squadron. The smaller image orthicon system and the 360-inch camera photo- graphed a large part of the flight, but the operators lost track before SECO on both instruments. The missile body is barely visible in the films obtained with the 180-inch camera around the time of BECO, demonstrating the “ordinary” focal length photography shows much promise from the Big Sur location. Black and white film was used in this camera, and the booster engine staging sequence is remarkably clear and interesting, comparable in quality to the image orthicon photography of BECO on “Buzzing Bee”.
The B.U. telescope films of “Butterfly Net” are not of as good quality as those of “Buzzing Bee”, partly because the kinescope was slightly too dark for registering dimly illuminated objects on the camera film. Another problem was that the sky was turning bright in the west at the time of launch, 94 minutes after sunrise, and the contrast between sun-reflecting objects and surrounding sky decreases rapidly some 45 minutes after sunrise. The combined effects of slight haze, technical problems, and poor sky contrast precluded the sighting of objects at the end of powered flight. 1
It is hard to reconcile this description of the film with the description by Jacobs, who proclaimed that images of the re-entry vehicle/ warhead deployment were very clear. There is also no mention of any anomaly in the flight trajectory that caused the warhead/RV to go off course and crash into the ocean. This is confirmed by the Nike-X Weapons report of September 1964:
On September 16 at Kwajalein the Nike-X elements gathered data in successful observations of a Low Observable Re-entry Vehicle (LORV) designated LORV-L3. The target complex, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base by an Atlas D rocket, contained the LORV-L3 re-entry vehicle , a graphite test vehicle, and a scientific passenger pod containing instrumentation to monitor the Atlas booster operation.
...The Discrimination Radar, operating under single computer control, in the fine frequency mode , acquired the target complex from ZAR data. The scientific passenger pod and re-entry vehicle were observed at a range of approximately 700 nautical miles . A track was estab- lished on the re-entry vehicle and maintained for 115 seconds, down to an altitude of 21 nautical miles. The graphite test vehicle and an unidentified object was observed late in the mission. Object placement was close to nominal. Starting at about 450 nautical miles, the DR made several designations to TTR4 until the latter established solid lock on at 147 nautical miles.2
The rest of the report describes how the other radar systems were able to track the re-entry vehicle to the designated target area. The airborne aircraft appeared to be capable of tracking the targets with its optical systems as well:
The EC-121K optical/IR instrumented aircraft with its ground designation system, gathered data on the graphite test vehicle and the tank. The re -entry vehicle did not appear to glow.3
The report gives no mention of any unknown vehicle interfering with the re-entry vehicle or any other payload on radar or optically. By all accounts, “Butterfly Net’s” rocket and payload performed as planned and the launch was a big success.
Buzzing Bee - September 22, 1964
At the time of its writing, the final report on the project was classified CONFIDENTIAL and eight frames from this film were in- cluded. We don’t have an exact date when the report was written but it appears to have been written several months after the event and, by that time, the film may have been downgraded to CONFIDENTIAL (as George stated in his original article) once it had been analyzed. According to that report, everything from BECO to RV deployment was filmed with the B. U. Telescope:
All these events were captured on film, and the bright points of light. as the objects appear on film at these ranges, were photographed out to about 650 miles from the Big Sur site. For a short period after BECO, the entire missile is visible on the projected films. Decoy pod cover removal was detected at approximately 160 seconds.
Photographs 11 through 18 are single frame negative reverse enlargements (for extra contrast) of the “Buzzing Bee” film. In photograph 18, the six objects in the lower left that are in a circular arrangement include two decoys and four Styrofoam spacers from the decoy tubes. From discussions with personnel in the 6595th ATW, we understand that these spacers or blocks were supposed to remain fastened to the sustainer stage after decoy deployment, and the B. U. telescope films were taken as evidence that the tethering system failed in some fashion.4
I expect that the quality of the images were better than those reproduced here and in the report, but they do demonstrate the quality of the images that the B.U. telescope was capable of. The upper left object is an azimuth/elevation indication. The T+320 seconds image is very revealing. In that image, one can see the decoys, the booster stage, and the RV. Joel Carpenter felt the bright spot below the rocket body might be HIRS plume but I suspect it may have been a bright spot introduced by the Image Orthicon tube or an effect produced by filming off the monitor. The T+380 second image shows, what appears to be, the RV and decoy war- heads. No UFO appears in these images.
.
Meanwhile, at Kwajalein, the Nike-Zeus radars were capable of tracking the incoming targets:
On September 23, the Kwajalein Nike -X equipment participated in successful observations of an Atlas ICBM mission designated KX-19. This was the most successful mission to date, with all test objectives being achieved.
The target, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, was boosted into the Kwajalein area by an Atlas D rocket. The target complex consisted of a modified series-30 TVX and two radar decoys. Translation of the tank was provided. The flight time of the target was 35 seconds less than anticipated.
The DR operated under single computer control. The fine frequency mode was controlled to start 15 seconds before the target reached 400,000 feet altitude. The ZAR designation on the tank was received at 760 nautical miles, at which time the tank return was observed. Track on the re-entry vehicle was established at a range of 189 nautical miles and an altitude of 480,000 feet. This track was held until splash at 37 nautical miles range.
The DR also made a number of other observations starting with its receipt of tank track designation from the ZAR. A track on a decoy was established at a range of 64 nautical miles and an altitude of 97,000 feet and held until 10 nautical miles and 2300 feet. Another track, on a decoy or fragment, was held for 34 seconds, from 200 nautical miles to 87 nautical miles. Three centroid assignments were made to update coast data on the re-entry vehicle.5
The report mentions the optical instruments doing a reasonably good job of tracking the re-entry vehicle and other targets for sev- eral seconds. The ground base radiometer was able to pick up the target at a distance of 330 nautical miles on one channel.
As with the “Butterfly Net” launch, the payload successfully managed to make it to the target area without interference from an unknown vehicle and the radars did not report any unusual craft following the RV, decoys, or missile.
Notes and references
1. George. Kingston A. Operational Analysis Image Orthicon Demonstration Project. Headquarters 1st Strategic Aerospace Divi- sion, Operations Analysis Staff Study, 1965. P. 25-6.
2. Bell laboratories. Progress report for September 1964: Nike-X weapons system. Bell Laboratories. September 1964. P. 46-7
3. ibid. P. 47
4. George. Kingston A. Operational Analysis Image Orthicon Demonstration Project. Headquarters 1st Strategic Aerospace Divi- sion, Operations Analysis Staff Study, 1965. P. 20-1.
5. Bell laboratories. Progress report for September 1964: Nike-X weapons system. Bell Laboratories. September 1964. P. 47-8.
.
UFO, misidentification, or hoax?
After examining all the documentation available we can now make some observations about the claims made by those who were present and see which individuals were more accurate in describing the actual events.
Butterfly Net and Robert Jacobs’ recollections
The reports indicate that Jacobs’ recollections of this event are inaccurate. Specifically:
1. The LORV was not “shot down” at all and successfully made it to the Kwajalein target area just as the USAF public affairs sergeant told Eric Mishara of Omni, which Jacobs referred to as a lie.
2. There is no mention of a “radar chaff cloud” being used in this launch in either report. If there was a radar chaff cloud deployed, the Nike X report would have mentioned its role in interfering with the tracking of the target from Kwajalein.
3. The B.U. telescope lost the rocket at the end of powered flight, which is before the LORV was released. There was no filming of the missile’s flight when the UFO supposedly interfered with the LORV’s flight.
4. The B.U. telescope had difficulty in resolving details because of haze and the bright sky interfering with the operation of the IO setup.
The only thing Jacobs might be able to pin his hopes on were the mention of the Discriminating Radar tracking an “unidentified object” with the graphite test vehicle in the Nike-X report. When I asked Joel Carpenter about this, he felt it was probably the sci- entific pod, which was used to gather data on the Atlas booster performance. That might be or it may have just been some sort of debris from the rocket that was tracking along with the payload. This was all well after the payload had left the visibility of the BU telescope and can not be considered evidence that Jacobs’ story is accurate. With so many errors in his recollections, it is hard to consider Jacobs’ story credible.
Buzzing Bee and Kingston George’s recollections
On the other hand, Kingston George’s recollections about what was on the Buzzing Bee film were pretty accurate. There seems to be no reason to question his claims that there was some concern for security because of what the film revealed about the decoy deployment. According to Carpenter, he had contacted Kingston George with a copy of the report. George was surprised to see it and remarked that he had thought it, like the film, had been destroyed. The sketch he made over ten years ago, of the re- entry vehicle, the rocket tank, and decoys1, is a close approximation of what is shown in the T+320 seconds image (labeling of T+320 second image done by Joel Carpenter).2
.
What about the “energy beams”
The mention of “energy beams” by Jacobs may have been due to the operation of the HIRS after RV deployment. Joel Carpenter felt that the retro rockets on Buzzing Bee would have created momentary bright flashes on the film and may have been inter- preted as “energy beams” being directed towards the RV. Of course, the flashes of light could easily have been issues associated with the operation of Image Orthicon tube as Kingston George suggested. In either case, there seems to be reason to believe that there is a logical explanation for Mansmann and Jacobs thinking they had seen energy beams being fired from a UFO toward the re-entry vehicle.
Misidentification/confused memory
There are several items that I believe are factors associated with this case that have been ignored in all the previous articles writ- ten about this case:
• The widespread UFO reports made during the Buzzing Bee launch.
• A launch involving a Minuteman missile on September 29th (the last launch filmed as part of the IO project) malfunctioned while the telescope was tracking it. Kingston George describes the event in the final report:
“Painted Warrior” was launched about 190 minute after sunrise, and was tracked by the B. U. system throughout powered flight. The gyrations of the third stage following a malfunction at the end of second stage burn are clearly visible on the films, and the stage was lost to view of the trackers when the flame disappeared, apparently due to propellant exhaustion.3
This was the only malfunction that had occurred in all the flights and is the malfunction mentioned in the preliminary report that Jacobs thought applied to the “Butterfly Net” launch. Despite this malfunction, the payload still appears to have been de- livered to the target according to the Astronautix web site.
• Jacobs emphasized in interviews that the missile he recalled deployed radar chaff. No such payload was used in the “Butterfly Net” test. However, Buzzing Bee did have decoys deployed and their associated debris that might be interpreted as “radar chaff”. This is an indication that Jacobs’memories of the actual film he saw was the flight of“Buzzing Bee”and not“Butterfly Net” as Kingston George hypothesized twenty years ago.
• The main source of the event involving an alien spaceship (AKA UFO) are the memories of two men. There is no documentation to support their claims and it is very possible that the details they describe are from a false memory. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, in her book, “Eyewitness testimony”, describes how memories can be compromised by many factors:
 

During the time between an event and a witness’s recollection of that event -- a period often called the “retention interval” -- the bits and pieces of information that were acquired through perception do not passively reside in memory waiting to pulled out like fish from water. Rather, they are subject to numerous influences. External information provided from the outside can intrude into the witness’s memory, as can his own thoughts, and both can cause dramatic changes in his recollections.

People’s memories are fragile things. It is important to realize how easily information can be introduced into memory, to understand why this happens, and to avoid it when it is undesirable.4

It seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that the combination of UFO reports filed from the Buzzing Bee launch, the concern about security associated with the Buzzing Bee film, and the malfunction recorded in the “Painted Warrior” Minuteman film could have been combined together by Jacobs, influenced by his belief in alien visitation and conspiracies, to create a story about a UFO that had shot down an ICBM. After that story was published, Florenz Mansmann, who trusted Jacobs, accepted this as an accurate recollection of events and added additional details that he recalled. Unfortunately, their strong convictions that they were accurately recalling these events has persuaded many that this was excellent evidence of aliens interfering with human activities. We now know that the documented record states that these two individuals were mistaken about what they recalled and there never was any UFO event.

Conclusion

Based on the documentation provided to me by Joel Carpenter, there seems to be little doubt that the events filmed by the B. U. telescope did not involve an alien spaceship trying to shoot down a rocket/warhead/re-entry vehicle. Despite these revelations, I do not believe that there will ever be enough evidence to explain, to everyone’s satisfaction, that no UFO was involved. Some individuals have already invested too much of their reputation in defending it and can not accept any possibility other than an alien spaceship. However, for people interested in examining the actual documented evidence, there should be enough information to consider this case to be closed. Unless new evidence surfaces to refute these documents, the rest of us can accept Joel Carpenter’s assessment that the case is “another one for the Retired UFO Yarn Hall of Fame”.

Quelle: SUNlite 4/2014

----

Update: 12.02.2025

.

Big Sur UFO update - Buzzing Bee Film Revealed

Back in SUNlite 6-4, I wrote an extensive article about the Big Sur UFO story. Readers recall that Robert Hastings had been promoting Robert Jacobs story about a UFO intercepting an ICBM launch and destroying/disabling a warhead. Kingston George, who ran the Boston University Telescope program disagreed and said no such event happened. He suggested that Jacobs had misinterpreted the film of the “Buzzing Bee” launch that September as being the one that he claimed involved the UFO. Jacobs countered with it being another launch called “Butterfly net”. The problem with that launch is the launch occurred in bright daylight and the telescope lost tracking shortly after launch. It never recorded the warhead deployment. However, Buzzing Bee did film the entire launch and deployment of warheads/decoys. The documentation, presented to me by Joel Carpenter, also demonstrates warheads from both Buzzing Bee and Butterfly Net made it to Kwajalein with no problems. Therefore, even if a UFO interfered with

the deployment of warheads, they had no effect on the trajectory. This is essentially what I had written ten years ago on the subject.

Recently, I received an e-mail from an individual, who gave me a link to a Youtube video showing the actual Buzzing Bee film! 

1964-09-22-atlas-testflug-a1964-09-22-atlas-testflug-aa1964-09-22-atlas-testflug-ab1964-09-22-atlas-testflug-ac1964-09-22-atlas-testflug-ad

Quelle: YouTube

It was very interesting to watch. I had posted images from the report showing several frames from the film but this film shows the entire sequence. 

Watching the film, the viewer needs to realize the Boston University telescope was on an anti-aircraft gun carriage. Two operators (one for azimuth and one for elevation) were looking through guide scopes and operating handwheels to keep the rocket centered in the field of view of the scope. It took great skill and teamwork to do this and the film shows the difficulty involved as the scope jumps about to keep the rocket centered. Additionally, the camera was not directly connected to the telescope. Instead an image orthicon tube, used to enhance the brightness of the image, was on the scope and the video from that was sent to a monitor.

A film camera was used to record the image off of the monitor display. It is similar to recording a program off your Television with a cell phone. It is not the same thing and the quality is not 100% (the technology in the 1960s was well below what it is today so the quality is even worse than using your cell phone). Add to this is the effect of the image orthicon tube, which provides an uneven illumination of the field. You have the brightest images at the center with a drop off in illumination on the outer 50% of the frame. This produces an odd effect when viewing the film as objects appear to come and go as they move in and out of the center of the frame.

Another item that can be clearly seen in the film is the resolution capabilities of the system. It has been claimed it was capable of filming “nuts and bolts” on the rocket. This is not true. I mentioned this in SUNlite 6-4 and the film confirms it. Seeing nuts and bolts on a rocket, even with an instrument like the BU telescope, was just not possible from the distance/equipment involved. The rocket, shortly after launch, is hidden by the exhaust plume and, when it is visible further down range, is not that large. Therefore, details like “nuts and bolts” are impossible to see even if one is looking at the raw image with a magnifying loupe.

At time 3:43, the warhead and decoys are deployed from the main rocket body. The rocket body continues to be the brightest object in the frame. At time 5:38, there is a good glimpse of, what appears to be, the six decoys in a circular pattern and, what appeared to be, the dummy warhead trailing them. Additionally, the main rocket body, which is much brighter than the warhead and decoys, begins to drift above the payload package creating a separation between the two groups. At time 5:49, the rocket body “blooms” (brightens) as it passes through the center of the image orthicon. This could have been done due to a gain adjustment on the image orthicon, a sudden reflection, or just some sort of change in the recording equipment. Shortly after this, the warheads/decoys are

no longer visible. The operators could not keep them centered with the rocket body, which was what they were tracking. By the nature of the systems associated with the rocket body, it was designed to drift away from the warhead and decoy package so they did not interfere with them. The film ends shortly after this.

To me, the film shows no UFO but it might explain what Jacobs thought he saw. His UFO was probably the rocket body itself, which was seperate from the package, very bright, and circular in shape. When the rocket body “blooms”, it can be interpreted as some sort of energy beam or spike. The disappearance of the package, due to it being too faint to see or away from the field of view, shortly after this was interpreted as they were vaporized by the UFO. Any description of the object “orbiting” the warhead was probably the recollection of them seeing the rocket body bouncing around due to the operators trying to center the target with the handwheels on the gun carriage.

Additionally, I also received a link showing some films from the Butterfly net launch. 

1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-b

1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-ba

1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bb1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bc1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bd1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-be1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bf1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bg1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bh1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bi1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bj1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bk1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bl1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bm1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bn1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bo1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bp1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bq1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-br1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bs1964-09-15-atlas-testflug-bt

Quelle: YouTube

Unfortunately, the BU telescope film is not in this batch. The quality of the films is less than perfect but the cameras that were furthest away from the launch show the brightness of the sky during this launch as well as what appears to be ground fog hindering tracking. The BU telescope reported the sky being hazy or that day, which contributed with the time of day, to cause tracking problems and poor film quality.

As I stated in SUNlite 6-4, this UFO story is based on a real event and involves the decades old flawed memories of two individuals, who thought what was seen was something “unearthly” . The evidence available to date, indicates no UFO was ever involved and that this case remains in Joel Carpenter’s “retired UFO yarn hall of fame”.

Quelle: SUNlite 6/2024

28 Views
Raumfahrt+Astronomie-Blog von CENAP 0