1967 08 00 Airman

Magazine Overview

Title: THE AIRMAN
Issue Date: August 1967
Publisher: U.S. Air Force
Document Type: Official Magazine of the U.S. Air Force

What Does the Air Force Really Know About Flying Saucers?

This issue of The Airman features a comprehensive article titled "What Does the Air Force Really Know About Flying Saucers?" by Maj. George W. Ogles of Hq. USAF. The article aims to present facts backed by authentic statements from qualified people, leaving the final judgment of whether UFOs are fact or fiction to the reader.

Synopsis of Air Force Investigations

For many years, reputable individuals have reported sightings of "flying saucers," with a dramatic increase since 1947. The Air Force's Project Blue Book investigated thousands of such sightings. The article states that the vast majority of these "saucers" were found to be explainable occurrences such as aircraft, balloons, satellites, meteors, or other identifiable phenomena. Approximately two percent of all reported sightings remain unexplained.

The Air Force has never denied the possibility of life on other planets, but it emphasizes that "no evidence has been received nor discovered which proves the existence and intraspace mobility of extraterrestrial life."

Debates and Doubts

"Saucer" believers cite unexplained sightings as evidence of extraterrestrial visitors. Conversely, "saucer" doubters question the absence of sonic booms from hypersonic craft, the lack of recovered debris, and how saucers defy laws of gravity and aerodynamics.

Notable Cases and Investigations

Captain Thomas Mantell Incident (January 17, 1948): Capt. Thomas Mantell led a flight of five P-51s to investigate an unidentified object over Godman Field, Ky. At 15,000 feet, four pilots turned back due to lack of oxygen. Mantell continued upward and his aircraft crashed. The Air Force concluded that Venus, one of the brightest objects in the sky, was at the elevation and azimuth of the UFO, and a large balloon used for high-altitude experimental flights was also in the vicinity. The Navy was conducting a classified program using "sky hooks" balloons at altitudes above 60,000 feet, and one such balloon released from Clinton County Airport, Ohio, could have been the object Mantell attempted to intercept. Venus was also visible and bright enough to be seen in daylight.

Lake Michigan Crash (November 1953): Civilian saucer groups claim an Air Force aircraft crash in Lake Michigan was caused by a flying saucer. An F-89 jet was scrambled to intercept an unidentified plane from Canada. The F-89 crew identified the object as a Canadian C-47 Kodiak. No further communication was received from the F-89 crew. Ground radar detected a "phantom blip or echo" following the jet, which merged with the jet's blip before both disappeared. The Air Force investigation concluded the F-89 crashed due to the pilot experiencing vertigo, and the phantom echo was likely a secondary reflection in the electrified atmosphere. The wreckage was never recovered.

Gulf of Mexico Sighting (December 6, 1952): A B-29 crew observed several strange objects with no aerodynamic features over the Gulf of Mexico. A steady blue-white light was reported, and the objects were estimated to be flying at approximately 5,000 miles per hour. Radar sightings were intermittent. This case was categorized as "Unidentified" by the Air Force, though a possible explanation exists.

Goose AB, Labrador Sighting (December 15, 1952): Aircrews of an F-84 and a T-33 sighted a UFO near Goose AB, Labrador. The object had no definite shape or size, appearing first as bright red, then alternating between red and white before fading. It was chased for 25 minutes. No jet or rocket exhausts or sound were heard. This case was also placed in the "unidentified" category.

Airliner Sighting (March 9, 1957): The pilot and copilot of a commercial airliner flying from New York to Puerto Rico reported a "brilliant greenish object." The pilot took evasive maneuvers, hospitalizing some passengers. The same object was confirmed by two other airliners. The Air Force concluded it was a seldom-seen form of meteor, a bolide or "fireball," confirmed by an astrophysicist.

New York Farmer's Report (August 19, 1965): A New York farmer reported a flying saucer 20 feet thick and 50 feet long hovering over his barn. The object pulsated with red, yellow, and green colors, disturbed a bull, caused his dog to bark, and reduced his cow's milk production. State policemen and investigators could not agree on whether it was a hoax, but Air Force records list it as "unidentified" due to the lack of a definite concrete explanation.

Dexter and Hillsdale, Michigan Sightings (March 20-21, 1966): Scores of people, including police officers and college students, witnessed "weird glowing objects" dancing and whirling. Air Force investigators listed "marsh gas" as a possible cause. The majority of observers reported only silent glowing lights (red, yellow, blue-green) near the ground. Witnesses described lights that seemed to move but stayed localized or disappeared and reappeared. The Air Force statement noted that swamps are places of rotting vegetation and decomposition, and that lights resembling tiny flames can be produced by spontaneous ignition of marsh gases (CH4, H2S, PH3). The association with swamps was considered significant, and the localized nature of the glow fit descriptions of marsh gas phenomena.

Presque Isle State Park Incident (July 31, 1966): Picnickers reported a square or hexagonal-shaped object falling from the sky to about 5-10 feet above the beach. A soft buzz or hum was heard, followed by a groan or turbine sound. Several small spotlights came on, arranged in a circle. The object reportedly descended left to right. Air Force investigators found no evidence to relate damp sandy areas and indentations to the sighting, and chemical analysis of the soil showed nothing unusual except urine. The report stated there was no evidence of a "black monster" and that scratching sounds and missing food indicated an animal. The lights observed remained unexplained, with no meteor reports from the Smithsonian or nearby bases.

Wisconsin Woods Discovery (October 13, 1966): A forest ranger discovered a hard, metal spherical object, which turned out to be space debris.

Hoaxes and Photographic Evidence

The article highlights that while most UFO sightings come from honest individuals, some reports are deliberate hoaxes. A case in California involved a teen-age girl submitting a photograph of a "flying saucer" taken during a time exposure of the moon. Air Force analysis revealed the moon track was interrupted, indicating the camera had been moved. The conclusion was that the photograph was a hoax, likely created by superimposing a light fixture. The alleged wreckage of a flying saucer in Spitzbergen, Norway, was denied by the Royal Norwegian Air Force as a hoax perpetrated by a newspaper.

Colored motion pictures submitted in May 1957 showed bright spots moving at night. High magnification revealed wing and tail surfaces, identifying them as fighter aircraft with jet afterburners. The photographer provided incorrect dates and indicated a desire to exploit the film, leading the Air Force to record it as an "attempted hoax."

Project Blue Book officials state that after 19 years and over 11,000 reported sightings, the Air Force does not have a single photograph, film, or graph of a UFO that has not been explained. Every photograph analyzed proved to be an astronomical body, balloon, lens flare, emulsion flaw, double negative, photographic defect, or a hoax. They emphasize that a photograph cannot be scientifically analyzed without the negative, and many reports fail to include it.

The Need for Positive, Credible Proof

Dr. Wernher von Braun, Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center, contributes a section titled "The Need for Positive, Credible Proof." He expresses skepticism about eyewitness accounts of fleeting, mysterious objects, noting that even experienced observers' accounts of mishaps can differ widely. He states that the "unaccounted two percent" of UFOs does not raise his blood pressure, considering 98 percent a "mighty good batting average." He concludes that for those who insist on extraterrestrial origin, he "cannot believe in their existence without positive, credible proof."

University of Colorado Study

In response to a recommendation from the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, which concluded that UFO phenomena posed no threat to U.S. security, the Secretary of the Air Force announced on October 7, 1966, that the University of Colorado had been selected to conduct independent investigations into unidentified flying object reports. The research agreement, valued at approximately $300,000, covers a 15-month period. Air Force Project Blue Book files and other UFO information will be made available to the university investigators, who will have the freedom to pursue their studies and release their findings. Dr. Edward Condon, professor of physics, is the scientific director of this study. The public is encouraged to continue reporting sightings to the nearest Air Force base or Project Blue Book.

Conclusion

The article concludes by posing the question, "What does the Air Force really know about flying saucers? Are they fact or fiction?" It invites the reader to be the judge, stating that they now know as much as the Air Force does. General J. P. McConnell, Air Force Chief of Staff, is quoted as saying, "Medals, fame, and our gratitude await any citizen who brings us a flying saucer."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout the article is the U.S. Air Force's systematic and scientific approach to investigating UFO sightings. The editorial stance is one of skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and favoring rational explanations for phenomena. While not outright dismissing the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the magazine's position, as represented by the article and the quote from Dr. von Braun, is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and thus far, such proof has not been presented to the Air Force. The article highlights the thoroughness of the investigations, the commonality of misidentification, and the prevalence of hoaxes, while acknowledging a small percentage of cases that remain officially unexplained.