Kaikoura U.F.O.,s – what did they really see?

Press, 4 September 1980, Page 17

Kaikoura U.F.O.,s - what did they really see?

A report in “The Press” on December 23, 1978, said that early morning sightings on December .21 of unidentified flying objects by two experienced pilots and the Wellington Air Traffic Control radar had been passed on to the Defence Department for investigation. A huge: object was reported to have tracked a Christchurch-bound Argosy aircraft for nearly 20km off the Kaikoura coast. The pilot of the Argosy, Captain V. L. A. Potcell, said that the object teas “a huge, bright, white light with a red tinge to it.” The Wellington controller of Air Traffic Services (Mr E. McNae) said that the object was tracked by the Wellington control tower and was seen to keep pace with, the aircraft for about 19kni. Several ivhite lights were seen by Blenheim’s Flight Service Unit about 12.30 a.m. on Thursday. They were picked up within seconds by Wellington Air Traffic Control radar and confirmed at 1.20 a.m. by a radio call from another pilot of a Safe Air Argosy aircraft, Captain J. B. Randle. Captain Bill Startup, of Blenheim, piloted a Safe Air Argosy in which an Australian television crew filmed an object on December 31, in the. same area. Tomorrow, American experts, will debate New Zealand U.F.O.s in the prestigious Smithsonian Institute; in New Zealand, a book on the same controversial subject has just been published.

By

BRIAN MACKRELL

Captain Bill Startup, a principal witness in New Zealand’s most 'dramatic and controversial U.F.O. encounter, has given his personal account and views on “The Kaikoura U.F.0.5.” Everybody; from the Defence Department and DIS.I.R. down to the “armchair experts,” had a crack at telling Captain Startup what he saw. Now he tells us exactly what he, and. others, did see, with images from a film which caused world-wide sensation and speculation. The book suggests that a flying machine in trouble —alien or earthly—ditched somewhere off the coast, and a search was mounted by its owners who subsequently displayed a good deal of interest in the Argosy aircraft which passed through the area. However, on page 191, Captain Startup says: “And I do not know whether there were any actual physical objects in the. skies at the time ... we have no idea what they were, but something was there.”

Several chapters are devoted to questioning and debunking official and'unofficial explanations, and relating, in perhaps justifiably indignant terms, lightly laced with sarcasm, the treatment of principal witnesses by police, media, defence,. and D.SI.R. officials.

Captain Startup spent “several hundreds of hours of research” on the book “to present to the public an accurate and detailed reconstruction of the Kaikoura U.F.O; incidents, blending together the hard, factual evidence and the descriptions and observations of .the many witnesses involved.” This statement is contained in an introduction

entitled, “No Conclusions, Only More Questions.” It is followed by a chapter (“A Massive Machine in Trouble”) which graphically demonstrates that objectivity is practically impossible in the emotionally

charged subject of U.F.O.s. It also shows the difficulties of co-authorship between an experienced pilot who saw something he cannot explain and a journalist working the angle of most public interest —a mysterious craft 'in trouble.

The. alleged “massive machine” was sighted off the Kaikoura coast onDecember. 21, 1978, beaming out rays of light, fading and .flaring up. The principal witness watched it through binoculars and later declared it was as big as four Cook Strait ferries. When this “craft” came closest to the observer, he displayed a quite incomprehensible attitude: “Something told me it wasn’t right to look at the thing, so I took the glasses off it. . . when I was looking right into the top of it I felt I was taking advantage of it. It’s a pity I didn’t look a little longer.” A great pity indeed. Nevertheless, he was able to draw, sketches of “the gigantic machine.” It is not mentioned in the book but this witness has, to quote him, “been interested in U.F.O.s for a long time. I have seen these things before. The last time was in the autumn. But before that my wife and I saw a great ball of light in the sky in 1962” (“Sunday News,” February 18, 1979). I do not doubt that he

saw a light in the sky, but the “massive machine” assumption is questionable. The book could also have done without Mrs Startup’s fears, as she drove from Blenheim to Kaikoura with a camera crew and the U.F.O. film: “What if whoever or whatever it was up there knew about the film and wanted it back? This would be an ideal road for any sort of interception Mrs Startup, we are told, “is a believer in U.F.O.s and reads many of the seri-

ous books about them.” But her fears of interception and the sighting, possibly due to nerves, of a “dark ’figure” outside her Blenheim . home “remembering accounts she had read in UJE.O. books about strange men in dark suits who are sometimes supposed to visit witnesses after sightings,” suggests less-than-serious U.F.0.. books. The term “a believer in U.F.O.s” is a clumsy phrase. Can anyone not be a believer in Unidentified Flying Objects? People have been seeing things in the sky that puzzle them since the beginnings of time. U.F.O.s exist, visiting aliens, strange men in

dark suits,' and machines as big as four Cook Strait ferries are debateable. Apart from such criticisms, "The Kaikoura U.F.O.s” is a book full of interesting information, opinion, and re-enactment of the 1978-79 U.F.O. encounters. Encounters with officials are almost as startling. One witness who said the U.F.O.s appeared to display intelligent control was told by an interviewing Air Force Wing Commander that. “I must be a ufologist, a person

who " believes in flying saucers.” ■

The most important aspect ’ of the . Kaikoura U.F.O.s is that they are the first recorded on film and supported by visual and radar observation. However, with all due respect to the air traffic controllers involved, it is now well-known that the .outmoded radar they have to work with has long been malfunctioning. In the words of their association 1 ’-president, Mr Len Taylor; it is, “like trying to keep a 1938 Ford running.” Spurious radar returns and erroneous target ranges are faults that have been a problem too

long. Now the equipment appears to be in final stages of deterioration. Wellington’s radar, so important in the Kaikoura U.F.O. incidents, was inoperative between May 27 and June 6 this year due to “electronic clutter to the north and southeast — areas of high terrain — which sometimes made it impossible to pick out aircraft.” In his book, Captain Startup, mentions that Christchurch radar had “a lot of trouble with ionised spots,” and Squadron Leader Carran. of the U.F.0.-hunting Orion, said that Civil Aviation should check its Christchurch and Wellington radar “which was, playing some odd tricks.” Complaints from air traffic controllers and pilots, since early 1979, have finally got action with a proposed $9 million worth of new equipment under consideration. Important details regarding the Argosy aircraft’s radar are explained in Captain Startup’s book. ". . . the aircraft’s radar is designed either to show bad weather ahead or to show a map of the terrain below for navigation purposes, but not to show other aircraft. . . We can pick up the coast, bad weather and big ships, but I have never managed to pick up other aircraft . . .

The radar does a poor -job of showing small objects and other aircraft in the air * . .”

Yet; many of the radar U:F.O. targets on Wellington screens also appeared on the aircraft’s. In the most dramatic encounter, when the U.F.O. was filmed at close range, Christchurch screens showed nothing, perhaps due to angle, but the Argosy’s set did. If the aircraft’s radar does such a poor job of showing other aircraft in flight surely this tends to indicate the U.F.O. was some weather or electronic phenomenon? Captain Startup suggests some of the radar

U.F.O. “could have been a return from an area of high electrical potential.” When he turned the aircraft towards .the U.F.O. he watched -his “instruments very closely in case the glowing object so close to the plane was some sort of energy phenomenon. ' If there had been any sign of the instruments jumping or flickering, he was determined to abandon the turn

No unusual instrument flicker was observed, though this may have been due to the distance between aircraft and U.F.O. — eight miles. The possibility that . ■ the

“object” was some type of electrical phenomena cannot be ruled, out.

Captain Startup also mentions an unusual radio transmission from aircraft to Blenheim. “There was high ground between us and the airfield, so it is surprising that we ‘ got through, as VHF radio works only on line of sight.” The fact that this transmission was ; received was probably due to unusual atmospheric conditions at the time. Were they, the same atmospheric conditios that created radar and visual U.F.O.s? Similar to so many nocturnal, light U.F.O. photo-

graphs, the book's illustrations of various shaped blobs of light are not very convincing for the “solid craft” hypothesis. However. the film is unquestionably the most important piece of material evidence obtained on U.F.O.s and is now being analysed by scientists in the United States. It is a ioh which “might take years.” Dr Bruce. Maccabee, the American physicist who conducted an investigation into the Kaikoura U.F.O.s, “has.compared the information .on that film with the rocks brought back from the moon . a subject for prolonged and detailed scientific investigation which has only just begun,” says Captain Startup. . in . his introduction. .Some people might think .Dr Maccabee’s comparison is stretching it somewhat but, whatever they are, the lights captured on David Crockett’s film go through almost the entire snectrum of reported U.F.O. shapes and manoeuvres? The key to the explanation of “ the phenomenon could be on that film. Alien spacecraft, squid boat, mirage, secret weapon, a time-travelling machine to rival Dr Who’s phone box? Or has humankind at last captured on film a natural phenomena as yet little understood? In 27 years of interest I have read scores of U.F.O. books.. Many are boring chronicles of sightings; the majority are garbage. There would be perhaps a dozen I would recommend as sane, informative reading. Despite some criticism Captain Startup’s book joins the latter category. Dealing with _a subject that has spawned a vol’ uminous. largely nebulous, literature, “The Kaikoura UFOs’.’ is an important work. “The Kaikoura UFOs,” by Captain Bill Startup, with Neil Illingworth. Hodder and Stoughton, $12.95.