Williamtown UFO Incident: 1968 Radar Report

The measurements strongly suggest the object was carried by the wind. Its calculated course and speed were within five degrees and one knot of the upper-level wind measured at its assumed altitude. However, officials could not match it to any research balloon they checked, so its identity remained unresolved.

The Williamtown Incident In 60 Seconds

Three Bureau of Meteorology staff at Williamtown reported seeing a vertical cylindrical object at about 8:00 am on 28 July 1968.
Their report says the duty RAAF controller also saw it.
The controller reportedly told them that Sydney Airport radar had tracked the object from near Richmond since about 7:30 am as it moved east-north-east.
Mr Askey, one of the Bureau observers, recorded four successive one-minute theodolite readings.
The object appeared shiny and semi-transparent, with cone-like ends and something visible inside.
Its movement was calculated as 250 degrees at 110 knots. The measured wind at the assumed altitude was 255 degrees at 111 knots.
Officials contacted New Zealand's Project Ghost and checked French and Australian research-balloon activity.
Known balloons did not fit the reported shape, while a surviving HIBAL balloon launched ten days earlier was considered improbable.
A September memorandum concluded that the Bureau had no further explanation.

What Happened Over Richmond And Williamtown On 28 July 1968?

The incident is preserved in a Bureau of Meteorology file titled Observations - Meteorological Phenomena. The National Archives of Australia catalogues it as series B441, control symbol 45/566 Part 1, item 10409883.

V. P. O'Brien, Officer in Charge of the Williamtown meteorological office, wrote the central report on 5 August. It records an observation made eight days earlier by three staff members. Mr Askey and Mr Harrison are clearly named. The third handwritten surname is difficult to read.

At about 8:00 am, the staff members saw an unidentified object from their Williamtown office. The report says the duty RAAF controller saw it too. This was a near-contemporaneous operational memorandum, not a story reconstructed decades later.

The Reported Sydney Radar Track

The RAAF controller reportedly told the Bureau staff that Sydney Airport radar had been tracking the object since about 7:30 am. It was then near Richmond, west of Sydney, and moving east-north-east.

That statement is significant, but it is not direct radar evidence. O'Brien tried to contact the Sydney duty controller and wrote that the number was not answering. He later learnt that the senior air traffic controller on duty was George Bryant, who had begun five weeks of leave on 2 August.

The selected folios contain no Sydney radar log, display, plotted track or signed statement from Bryant. The evidence supports reported radar tracking, not radar confirmation, with only a starting place, time and direction.

Four Theodolite Readings At Williamtown

Askey did more than watch the object. He took four readings through the meteorological office theodolite, one minute apart.

Reading	Azimuth	Elevation
1	310.0°	12.5°
2	308.0°	12.0°
3	306.0°	11.9°
4	304.0°	11.5°

These readings record a steady change over at least three minutes. A theodolite measures angles rather than distance, so the figures cannot independently provide speed, altitude or physical size.

The continuation memorandum interpreted the movement using a Williamtown upper-air observation identified as a RAWIN. Modern Bureau of Meteorology guidance confirms that balloon-based observations measure upper-atmosphere wind speed and direction.

What Did The Witnesses Say The Object Looked Like?

O'Brien included a simple drawing based on descriptions from Harrison and the third observer. He noted that both men were sceptical of UFOs and had paid limited attention to the object's appearance.

Their description nevertheless contains several specific features:

The object was a vertical cylinder with a cone-like section at each end.
It appeared shiny and semi-transparent.
The observers thought they could see something inside.
The ends appeared less solid than the central cylinder.
The end sections resembled a cord or open framework.
Its apparent length filled one vertical graticule in the theodolite lens.

The drawing is not a technical rendering. O'Brien reconstructed what two colleagues described after the event. “Something inside” could refer to equipment, rigging or structure seen through a translucent envelope. An unfamiliar research balloon or suspended payload could look different from a familiar round weather balloon.

What The 220-Foot Estimate Actually Means

A handwritten note beside the drawing reads “At 45000 ft = 220 ft”. It appears to convert the object's one-graticule apparent length into a physical length of approximately 220 feet at an assumed altitude of 45,000 feet.

Online discussion of the newly released report has already misread this as 2,200 feet. The document supports approximately 220 feet, or about 67 metres.

Even 220 feet is not a direct measurement. It depends on three linked assumptions:

The object was approximately 45,000 feet high.
Its angular length was accurately represented by one vertical graticule.
The note used the correct theodolite graticule scale and viewing geometry.

The pages contain no range measurement. O'Brien inferred that the object was above 45,000 feet by comparing its apparent movement with upper-level winds and assuming it was not self-propelled. A closer object would be smaller and a more distant object larger. The file preserves a conditional estimate, not proof of a 67-metre object.

The Object Moved Almost Exactly With The Upper-Level Wind

The strongest clue in the file is the numerical match between the object's calculated movement and the measured atmosphere.

Measurement	Direction	Speed
Object movement calculated from the readings	250°	110 knots
Williamtown RAWIN wind at 150 millibars	255°	111 knots
Difference	5°	1 knot

A wind reported from approximately 255 degrees would carry a passive object towards the east-north-east. That agrees with the direction attributed to the Sydney radar track.

The object behaved almost exactly like something carried by the wind at that level. The file records no turn, acceleration or movement requiring independent propulsion.

The object's distance was not measured, so the assumed altitude affects the speed derived from angular movement. The Bureau used the wind match to infer that it was above 45,000 feet. This is a coherent windborne model, not an independent three-dimensional track. The remaining question is why officials could not connect the object to a known research balloon.

Which Research Balloons Did Officials Check?

The Bureau treated a research balloon as the leading explanation. Its enquiries extended beyond the local weather station and show officials comparing the report with several active programmes.

Project Ghost Balloons From New Zealand

On 27 August, a telegram asked the New Zealand Project Ghost team whether it had a large vertical cylindrical balloon in the area. The reply said the programme had seven balloons at about 45,000 feet and four at about 53,000 feet.

Those balloons did not fit the Williamtown description. The New Zealand team described them as spheres, approximately seven or ten feet in diameter depending on altitude. They would not normally look like a large vertical cylinder from the ground.

French research balloons launched from Pretoria were reportedly spherical as well.

Project Ghost staff then pointed back to Australia. If the observer's size, shape and height estimates were correct, they suggested a large polyethylene balloon launched from Mildura for air sampling and descending from altitude.

The HIBAL Launch From Mildura

The Mildura response supplied the decisive timing problem. The last HIBAL release had occurred on 18 July, ten days before the Williamtown observation. The next release was scheduled for Longreach on 8 August.

A handwritten note says the 18 July balloon would hardly still be over New South Wales ten days later. The formal follow-up was slightly more cautious. A 10 September memorandum said that survival of the HIBAL balloon for that long was “improbable”.

Improbable is not impossible. The folios contain no recovery, complete trajectory or termination record and cannot exclude every balloon that might have been aloft. They show only that the obvious candidates were checked. Ghost and French balloons had the wrong shape, while the identified Australian launch had a ten-day gap.

Was The Williamtown Object A Balloon?

A balloon or related high-altitude research vehicle is the best-supported category, but the surviving file does not identify a particular one.

Evidence favouring a balloon includes:

Movement almost identical to the upper-level wind.
A steady path with no recorded manoeuvre or acceleration.
A shiny, semi-transparent appearance.
Apparent internal structure and less-solid end sections.
The Bureau's immediate focus on scientific balloon programmes.

Evidence preventing a specific identification includes:

The vertical cylindrical description did not match the spherical Ghost and French balloons checked.
The most plausible Australian HIBAL launch occurred ten days earlier.
Several observers near The Entrance reportedly supplied a similar description.
No launch record, trajectory or recovered equipment was connected to the sighting.

The Bureau's final note says the object did not conform to the Ghost balloons then in flight, considers the earlier HIBAL launch improbable and offers no further suggestion.

That is an unresolved administrative conclusion, not a finding of extraterrestrial origin. The behaviour still points strongly towards a passive object in the upper atmosphere.

What The Williamtown File Proves And What It Does Not

Supported by the selected folios	Not established by the selected folios
Three Bureau staff reported seeing an unusual object.	That the object was an extraterrestrial or non-human craft.
A duty RAAF controller reportedly saw it too.	The controller's identity or complete first-hand account.
Sydney Airport radar was said to have tracked it.	A surviving radar trace, log or direct Sydney controller statement.
Four one-minute theodolite readings were recorded.	A measured range, independently calculated altitude or precise physical size.
The calculated movement closely matched the upper-level wind.	That the object was self-propelled or displayed extraordinary flight performance.
Officials checked several research-balloon possibilities.	That every possible balloon or airborne research vehicle was excluded.
The Bureau ended without a specific identification.	An official conclusion about extraterrestrial origin.

The theodolite readings and RAWIN comparison support a windborne explanation. The missing radar record and range prevent a stronger reconstruction. The unsuccessful balloon enquiries preserve the remaining uncertainty.

This is the third document audit in the Australian UFO Files. It can be compared with the Sea Fury UFO incident, where a signed radar statement survives, and the Woomera UFO incident, where a route plot survives but its famous speed calculation is incorrect.

Why This Report Appears To Be Newly Surfaced

The National Archives item received an open-access decision on 26 June 2026. Researcher Grant Lavac photographed selected folios at the Melbourne research centre and published the 14-page selection on 24 July.

The access date supports “newly opened”. It does not prove that nobody had seen the physical record. Bureau employees created and circulated it, archivists processed it, and an earlier researcher could have encountered it without publishing.

As of 27 July 2026, searches for the exact date, names and wording produce no indexed account earlier than Lavac's release. The report appears not to have been previously digitised or published online.

Lavac located a little-known meteorological file, photographed the surviving papers and made a substantial Australian case available for examination. The memoranda reveal a more useful balance than the headline: an apparently large object, reported radar tracking, measured angular movement, a near-perfect wind match and no specific balloon identification.

Williamtown UFO Incident FAQs

Was The Williamtown UFO Tracked On Radar?

The Bureau report says a duty RAAF controller advised that Sydney Airport radar had tracked the object from near Richmond. The selected folios do not contain a radar log, trace or direct statement from the Sydney controller, so the radar component remains a second-hand official report.

How Large Was The Williamtown UFO?

A marginal note estimates approximately 220 feet at an assumed altitude of 45,000 feet. That figure was derived from apparent angular length and was not measured directly. The frequently repeated figure of 2,200 feet is a misreading of the handwriting.

Was The Williamtown UFO Explained?

No specific object was identified in the selected Bureau papers. Its movement closely matched the upper-level wind, strongly supporting a balloon or other windborne object, but officials could not match its shape and timing to the research balloons they checked.

Where Is The Original Williamtown UFO File?

The record is held by the National Archives of Australia in Melbourne. Its citation is B441, 45/566 Part 1, item 10409883, Observations - Meteorological Phenomena. The item became open on 26 June 2026, and Grant Lavac published photographs of selected folios the following month.

Williamtown UFO Incident