Skip to content
The UFO LibraryA rack of paperbacks on the UFO record
Back to the rack

The UFO Library: Sighting

Tajik Air 747 UFO Encounter (1994)

1994Over Kazakhstan (approx. 45°N, 55°E)SightingJanuary 27, 1994Evidence rated contested

On 27 January 1994 the crew of a Tajik Air Boeing 747SP reported a bright, maneuvering object at 41,000 feet over Kazakhstan; a US Embassy cable recorded the report, which was released by the Pentagon in May 2026.

On 27 January 1994 a Tajik Air Boeing 747SP was flying at about 41,000 feet over Kazakhstan, near 45°N 55°E, when its crew saw a very bright light approaching from the east at high speed. The object stayed far above the aircraft. The crew watched it for roughly 40 minutes as it moved in circles, corkscrews and 90-degree turns, according to the cable's description. The aircraft later flew beneath the contrail the object had left, which the crew estimated to be near 100,000 feet. No conclusive identification has been published.

The flight and the report

The chief pilot, Ed Rhodes, was a US citizen, and he and two American colleagues were among the crew, according to The Times of Central Asia. Rhodes said he photographed the object with a pocket camera, but none of those images appear in the State Department record. The crew could not make out a shape. Rhodes later said the object was "extraterrestrial and under intelligent control".

The crew count is reported differently in the press. The same Times of Central Asia piece describes a chief pilot and two American colleagues, while the Associated Press account describes a pilot from Tajikistan and three Americans. Neither detail changes the core report, but the discrepancy is worth noting.

The cable and the meteor explanation

The report reached Washington through a cable from the US Embassy in Dushanbe, dated 31 January 1994 and titled "Tajik Air Pilots Report Unidentified Flying Object." The embassy suggested a meteor. The pilots rejected that explanation. The cable's closing line states: "We have no opinion and report the above for what it may be worth." The cable reaches no conclusion of its own.

The meteor suggestion is the only explanation the cable offers. Skeptics can reasonably point out that a single crew's observation at night, at high altitude, with no physical trace and no radar confirmation, cannot separate a misidentified natural or man-made object from something unexplained. Aircraft lights, reflections, and the difficulty of judging distance at altitude all complicate the record. The pilots' account, however, was recorded in an official cable shortly after the flight.

Release in 2026

The cable was stamped "Released in Full" on 25 February 2026, and on 8 May 2026 the Pentagon included it in its first batch of declassified UAP files. The release was published on a new Pentagon website with a retro, typewriter-style design, and the administration said the public could draw its own conclusions. The AP noted that the batch also included FBI records, NASA transcripts and military reports, mostly on cases the government considers unexplained.

The release is the main reason the case is now in public discussion. Because the document is an embassy's summary of a pilot report rather than a technical analysis, it provides a record of what the crew said they saw, not evidence of what it was.

Assessment

The event is well documented as a report. The Pentagon and the State Department files establish that a crew described the encounter in January 1994, and that the embassy recorded it. Whether the object was anything other than a conventional or natural phenomenon is not established. There are no photographs in the official record, no radar track, and no independent physical evidence. The crew's own accounts, which were given later to the embassy, are the core of the case, and they describe a sustained observation of an object that did not behave like a meteor.

The case is therefore best treated as an unresolved sighting. It belongs in the UAP record as a high-quality, government-documented report with a conventional explanation (a meteor) proposed at the time, which the crew rejected, and with no conclusive identification published since.

Witnesses

Chief pilot Ed Rhodes, identified as a US citizen, and two (or, per AP, three) American crew members of Tajik Air. The crew count differs between sources.

Evidence

No photographs appear in the cable, although Rhodes said he took several with a pocket camera. There is no radar track or physical trace in the public record. The only documented explanation is the embassy's meteor suggestion, which the pilots rejected.

Filed under

Watch

Bizarre Midair UFO Sighting Freaks Out Plane Passengers | New York Post

New York Post6.3M views, 34K likes

Where this entry came from

ProvenanceAgent indexedUpdated 12d ago3 sources

Drafted by the archive's AI research agent from the sources below; corrections from readers are reviewed and folded in.

First indexed
30 OCT 26 // 18:19Z
Last updated
30 OCT 26 // 18:19Z
  1. Pentagon UFO files include 1994 Tajik Air report over Kazakhstan, The Times of Central Asia staff, The Times of Central Asia
  2. Pentagon begins releasing new files on UFOs and says the public can draw its own conclusions, Seung Min Kim and Collin Binkley, Associated Press (via News4JAX)
  3. Pentagon begins releasing new files on UFOs and says the public can draw its own conclusions, Seung Min Kim and Collin Binkley, CTV News (Associated Press)

Notes

  1. Pentagon UFO files include 1994 Tajik Air report over Kazakhstan, The Times of Central Asia staff, The Times of Central Asia
  2. Pentagon begins releasing new files on UFOs and says the public can draw its own conclusions, Seung Min Kim and Collin Binkley, Associated Press (via News4JAX)
  3. Pentagon begins releasing new files on UFOs and says the public can draw its own conclusions, Seung Min Kim and Collin Binkley, CTV News (Associated Press)

Post-Cold-War

Also on this shelf

Related cases, then more from the same era.

From the same era, Post-Cold-War. See the full timeline

Readers' notes

Corrections, memories and arguments from readers.

Spotted a mistake or have something to add? Suggest a correction or join the discussion.

Reader discussion

Sign in to join the discussion — registered readers can comment and vote.

Retrieving marginalia…