October 1953
The Air Line Pilot Magazine
In an exclusive article to THE AIR LINE PILOT a well-known author reveals new facts on a controversial subject.
About the Article:
When Capt. Joe Hull's article, “Obituary of the Flying Saucers,” appeared last month, THE AIR LlNE PILOT had no idea of the furor it would whip up. From letters received from our readers, the subject is obviously far from dead. "’Give us another article, one for us 'believers,'" was the composite gist of their requests. This is it. The author, a freelance writer, has written numerous articles on Flying Saucers and is authoring a forthcoming book, “Flying Saucers from Outer Space.” This article is based on research and facts compiled in the writing of that book. It has been cleared by the Department of Defense and contains some facts released to the public for the first time. This story may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the express permission of the copyright owner, Henry Holt and Co., New York.
By Major Donald E. Keyhoe, USMC, Ret.
IN a recent issue of the Air Line Pilot, Capt Joe Hull predicted that 1953 should mark the end of the “flying saucers.” After several months behind the scenes at the Pentagon, I believe Captain Hull has been misled like other sincere converts to the theories of Dr. Donald Menzel.
Since 1951, unknown to most Americans, a small group of high Government officials has been secretly briefed on the saucers by Air force Intelligence officers. During the past year, with Air Force clearance, I have seen a large part of the evidence used in these secret briefings. This evidence has included over 40 of the most important unsolved sightings in the files of the Air Technical Intelligence Center. In addition, ATIC has furnished me with official statements flatly refuting Dr. Menzel's explanations.
Like Captain Hull, I have carefully read Dr. Menzel's book, Flying Saucers. In view of Menzel's reputation and scientific standing, his claims surprised me; none of his answers jibed with official evidence already in my possession. To make doubly sure, I put several questions to Project Bluebook, the saucer investigating agency at Dayton. Here is the first part of their official answer, released to me for publication in my new book, “Flying Saucers From Outer Space.”
“These explanations were known to the Project, and carefully considered, long before Menzel published his theories. They explain only a small per cent of the sightings ... At the request of ATIC, prominent scientists analyzed Menzel's claims. None of them accepted his answers .... Dr. Menzel was invited by Project Bluebook to apply his theories to any of all of the unexplained sightings, using Project records cleared for this purpose. He has not availed himself of this offer . . . .”
In view of this, Menzel's easy solution of specific sightings takes on a new light. One which he explained was the Mantell case. As most airline pilots know, Capt. Mantell was killed when his F-51 disintegrated during a saucer chase. The strange object he chased was seen by thousands in Kentucky, including pilots and tower men at Godman Field.
According to Dr. Menzel, the pilot was lured to his death by a “sundog.” To check on this, I queried Project Bluebook:
Question: “Does the ATIC accept Menzel's sundog explanation of the Mantell case?” Answer: “No,”
Next, Dr, Menzel “explained” the 1948 sightings by EAL pilots near Montgomery, Alabama. The strange, wingless ship they reported was also sighted by Air Force observers at Robbins Field, Macon, Georgia.
Dr. Menzel's answer: The witnesses were misled by a mirage — the effect of a temperature inversion. The Air Force answer to this: “The ATIC does not accept Dr. Menzel's explanation of the EAL sightings in 1948 near Montgomery, Alabama.”
In a third famous case, that of Lieut. George Gorman, Dr. Menzel said the light which Gorman chased was only a light reflection from a distance, caused by a whirlpool of air over his F-51's wingtip.
Again, I checked with Wright Field. Here is their answer: “The ATIC does not accept Menzel’s light reflection solution.”
Frankly puzzled, I couldn’t understand how Menzel had reached his conclusions after seeing all the Air Force records — I was positive he would not have tried to explain the sightings without all the evidence. To make certain, I asked ATIC about this point:
Question: “Did Dr. Menzel obtain all the available records in these three cases?" Answer from ATIC: “He did not obtain this information. In answer to a query, he was offered all Project data on these and other cases, through usual channels. We have heard nothing further from Dr. Menzel in regard to this.”
Considering this, Menzel's complaint about lack of Air Force cooperation seems a bit cockeyed:
“Scientists who might have easily provided the key that would unlock the secrets of the saucers did not receive detailed information necessary for a serious study of the whole problem.”
Nailing down their statements on the temperature-inversion theory, ATIC gave me factual proof in three released sightings.
First, a sighting at Bellefontaine, Ohio, August 1, 1952. About 11 a.m., a glowing disc was seen from the ground, and also picked up by GCI radar near Wright Field. Two F-86s were vectored toward the object. Both pilots maneuvered to make sure it was no reflection, then climbed to above 40,000 feet, attempting camera runs. During this time, the radar gunsight on one F-86 caught the UFO (Unidentified Flying Object). The other plane’s radar sight was caged. On a second run, one pilot clicked off several feet of film, which later showed a bright, round shape. The edges blurred because of the distance. (The UFO was estimated to be between 12,000 and 20,000 feet above the jets). Here is the official ATIC analysis, cleared for me:
“The ground radar squadron established two facts: That the UFO moved at 400 knots, that the F-86’s and UFO appeared simultaneously on the GCI scope. It is obvious all eyes and antennas put a fix on the same object . . . not a balloon, since speed was too fast . . . the object moved against the wind, its blip size that of a normal Aircraft. It was not a known A/C because the altitude was too high. It was not astronomical as the dual radar returns eliminate this.”
Then the ATIC proceeded to kick the Menzel theory squarely in the teeth:
“The electronic or visual mirage of meteorological phenomena is out of the question as the radar set was on high beam and both would not occur simultaneously in the same place. The sighting occurred above the weather. Conclusion: Unknown."
In a similar simultaneous radar and visual sighting, near Port Huron, Michigan, the ATIC gave me this official conclusion:
“The temperature inversion theory will not explain simultaneous visual and radar sightings when observers on the ground and in planes see a UFO at the same spot, when a plane's radar has locked on the object, and ground radar stations have both the plane and the UFO on their scopes at the same spot. Conclusion: Unknown."
Finally. in the famous Washington sightings, in July of 1952, the Air Force absolutely repudiated its earlier temperature inversion suggestion — and gave me an Air Force spokesman to make it official. But first, I checked for weeks at WNA Control Center and with top radar engineers, and leading scientists at least equal to Menzel in reputation, if not more so. One was Dr. Hagin, Chief Radio Astronomer of the Naval Research Laboratory. Here is what Dr. Hagin told me:
“Even with a heavy inversion, conditions would have to be very unusual to cause effects like those reported at Washington. I’d say it was impossible, with blips pin-pointed by three radar stations and lights seen simultaneously at the same points.”
“How much inversion is needed for ordinary effects?” I asked him.
“At the very least, 10 degrees Fahrenheit — to get really strong effects, it would have to be much larger. Even then, it couldn’t explain the simultaneous sightings.”
I checked with the Weather Bureau experts at the airport. The inversion on the first week-end had been just one degree Fahrenheit; barely two degrees, the second time. Later, I asked for the official Air Force answer. Major Lewis Norman, a jet pilot and an expert on radar and temperature inversions, was assigned for this purpose. Confirming what Dr. Hagin had said about the required inversion — Norman set it at “between 9 and 18 degrees, Fahrenheit” — he added:
“The low inversions on both occasions could not possibly explain the Washington sightings.”
I can readily see why Captain Hull and others accepted Menzel's book as gospel. But Menzel’s answers, according to top scientists working with ATIC, explain only a very small number of saucer sightings.
It may interest the members of ALPA to know that for months the Air Force and Navy secretly analyzed some important saucer movies taken by Navy Warrant Officer Delbert Newhouse, in 1952.
These pictures show a formation of round, glowing objects maneuvering at high speed. Final conclusion of ATIC and Navy Photo-Interpretation: No known conventional objects.
Certain Air Force officers at the Pentagon planned a public press showing of the film, with a frank admission for the public that the objects were real, and beyond the performance of any known aircraft. But after a fight by the Pentagon “silence” group, this plan was killed, and the pictures kept secret.
In my opinion, no one who examines the official reports released to me can doubt that the saucers are real. Repeatedly, Air Force pilots sighting them have insisted they are “some kind of revolutionary machine, with a performance capability beyond that of any known aircraft on earth.”
In an official Air Force document, it is stated that an increasing number of officials linked with the investigation are convinced “that the saucers are interplanetary, if the controlled maneuvers reported by many competent observers are correct.”
After 4 years of investigation, I am also convinced that this is the only logical explanation.
Project 1947
No comments:
Post a Comment