The 701 club: Case 7437, June 2, 1961 Miyako Jima AFS, Japan

Don Berlinner’s describes the case as follows:

June 2, 1961; Miyako Jima, Japan. 10:17 P.M. Witnesses: lst Lt. R.N. Monahan and Hazeltine Electric Co. technical representative D.W. Mattison. One blue-white light flew erratic course at varying speed, in an arc-like path for 5 minutes. 1

Sparks’ entry is basically a repeat of Berlinner’s and adds nothing in the way of new information.2

The Blue Book file

The Blue Book file consists of just the message from Mayako Jima AFS.3 The record card reflects most of what Berlinner wrote. However, the message revealed some information that explains the sighting:

The numbers were written out (as is common in some message traffic). Apparently, there was a transposition error and the actual date was NOT June 2. The message containing the date and time actually reads: “...ONE THREE ONE SEVEN ZULU CMM FOUR JUNE ONE NINE SIX ONE...” Numbers were written above the words and the number “4” is over FOUR but somebody at Blue Book goofed and decided it was 2 June. Confirming a later date was the fact that the message was sent on 5 June indicating it was more likely the event happened on the evening of the 4th. 

The object was first seen at an azimuth of 350 degrees. It was last seen at an azimuth of 190 degrees with an elevation of 60 degrees. 

The speed was described as “appeared to be erratic”. 

The end of the sighting was described as: “It appeared as if somebody turned off the light”. 

The duration was five minutes.

Analysis 

All of the descriptions match what one would expect of a satellite observation. When I first checked this sighting using Heavensat, I used the 2 June date. The only thing that was close was an Altair rocket body from the Echo launch. However, this bit of debris never gets very bright (it is still in orbit) so I really did not have a good solution. I then thought the time listed may have been wrong so I checked the message closely. That was when I discovered the date was wrong. After running the numbers with an Echo TLE that was only a few days old, a better candidate for the sighting appeared. 

The Echo satellite made a pass around 1300Z (Japan is GMT +9), which was only 17 minutes before the event in question. This was pretty close in time. The track was also similar (see next page). It rose in the NW and disappeared in the south. 

There were three discrepancies between the report and the Echo pass. The first has to do with the track. Comparing the observed an Echo’s track, we see some slight differences that can be explained as observer error:

Additionally, the witness reported the duration of the pass was 5 minutes. This pass lasted 15 minutes. It is possible the witness only saw the last five minutes of the pass and approximated the point of origin as being near 350 based on what they had observed. The disappearance position is pretty close and the description of it entering earth’s shadow is pretty accurate. 

A third issue with the explanation is the time of the event. There is a difference of about 15-17 minutes between the reported time and the Echo satellite passing into Earth’s shadow. That could be explained as when the incident was reported to the command and not the actual time of the event. It is also possible the witness just reported the time wrong for various reasons. I don’t consider 15-17 minutes to be that significant an issue with this explanation.

The reader has to remember that this was 1961 and satellite observations were not very common. Echo, the brightest satellite at the time, had been launched less than a year before and was producing UFO reports in the United States despite newspapers listing the times of visible passes. It would be no surprise that individuals overseas would not be aware of the times for each pass and, as a result, report it as a UFO. 

It is important to note that both Sparks and Berlinner describe the course as erratic but that is not what the message states. It never mentions an erratic course. The message states only the speed appeared erratic. It is the record card that added the “erratic course” comment. Like the date, there seemed to be some sort of transposition error. Even if they did report an erratic course and speed, it is not unusual for observers to think a satellite is moving erratically in course and/or speed. This is sort of an extension of the auto-kinetic effect. The only difference is that the light source is moving instead of being stationary. 

Conclusion

This case was difficult until the date was corrected. At that point, the Echo satellite became a prime candidate for this sighting. In my opinion, this case can be explained as probably the Echo satellite and should be removed from the list of the unidentifieds.

Quelle: SUNlite 3/2022