1950 07 00 Flying Magazine Curtis Fuller

Magazine Overview

Title: FLYING
Issue: JULY 1950
Date: 1950-07
Price: 25 CENTS
Cover Headline: Facts and Fiction About The FLYING SAUCERS AS REPORTED BY THE MEN WHO SAW THEM!

This issue of FLYING magazine delves into the phenomenon of 'flying saucers,' presenting eyewitness accounts primarily from experienced airline pilots. The magazine aims to separate fact from fiction by examining credible reports and contrasting them with scientific skepticism and official denials.

The Flying Saucers: Fact or Fiction?

By CURTIS FULLER, Editor of FLYING

The article begins by highlighting the importance of giving a respectful hearing to experienced observers like airline pilots when they report seeing strange objects in the sky. It recounts a specific incident on March 31, 1950, where Captain Jack Adams and Co-Pilot G. W. Anderson Jr. of Chicago and Southern Air Lines witnessed a fast-moving, lighted object near Little Rock, Arkansas. They described it as circular, with 'portholes' on the lower side emitting soft, fuzzy lights, and a bright white flashing light on top. They estimated its speed at 700-1,000 m.p.h. and noted the absence of reflection, exhaust, or vapor trails.

Curtis Fuller explains that FLYING magazine has been investigating these reports for nearly three years, ever since Kenneth Arnold's widely publicized sighting in June 1947. Despite persistent inquiries to the Air Force, the official response has consistently been that 'There isn't any such thing.' However, the magazine acknowledges a nagging doubt, questioning what credible observers like Adams and Anderson might have seen. The article notes that the Air Force's Project Saucer had investigated numerous incidents, but many reports were dismissed as 'hallucinatory phenomena.'

Airline Pilots' Own Sketches of What They Saw

The issue features sketches and accounts from several airline pilots:

• Capt. C. S. Chiles (Eastern Airlines) reported seeing a strange object that had the traditional rocket shape and appeared to have jet exhaust. His sketch shows a long, cylindrical craft with a pointed nose and what appears to be a cockpit.
• Capt. Jack Adams (C.&S.) described the object he saw as possibly circular, with a circular arrangement of 'portholes' suggesting a disc shape.
• Capt. Robert Adickes (TWA) described an object that looked like a disc, about 10 to 20 percent as thick as it was round, glowing with a bright red color, and appearing to fly on edge like a wheel. He estimated its speed at 400 m.p.h.

Detailed Sightings and Analysis

The article continues with more detailed accounts:

• Capt. Jack Adams and Co-Pilot G. W. Anderson Jr.: They described the object as about 1,000 feet above them and half a mile away, moving at tremendous speed in an arc. They saw eight to 10 lighted 'portholes' on the lower side with fluorescent, soft, fuzzy lights. A bright white light flashed intermittently from the top. They emphasized that it was not a shooting star or a comet.

• Capt. Clarence Shipe Chiles and Co-Pilot John B. Whitted (Eastern Airlines) reported an incident in July 1948. They saw a bright glow that formed into a long, rocket-like ship, appearing to be a 'jet job' but too large. It had two rows of windows and seemed to be a two-decker, with ghastly white lights. The ship pulled up alongside at a sharp angle and then zoomed into the clouds, leaving a prop wash or jet wash. They estimated its speed at 700 to 900 m.p.h.

• Capt. E. J. Smith and First Officer Ralph Stevens (United Air Lines) reported seeing five disc-like objects in loose formation on July 4, 1947. They were seen at twilight and had no lights. The objects were described as flat and roundish, definitely not aircraft, and bigger than aircraft. Later, four more objects were seen, three clustered and one separate.

• Capt. Robert Adickes (TWA) described an object seen on April 27, 1950, as round, smooth, streamlined, and glowing evenly with a bright red color, like heated stainless steel. It appeared to fly on edge like a wheel. He noted that it seemed to be controlled by 'repulse radar,' veering away when he turned toward it, and then accelerating rapidly to about 400 m.p.h.

Scientific and Psychological Perspectives

The article notes the universal agreement among scientists that there are no such things as flying saucers. Astronomers and physicists tend to dismiss them as hallucinations, while psychologists are more inclined to credit the reports, suggesting that trained observers like pilots are less likely to err. Dr. Harlow Shapley of Harvard Observatory stated that no evidence has been received to suggest flying saucers are other than natural neurotic phenomena. Dr. I. S. Bowen of Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories also stated that no objects could not be explained as natural phenomena. Physicists like Dr. Arthur Jaffee suggested 'motes in their eyes,' while Dr. James Arnold cited a lack of evidence and the power of suggestion. Dr. Erwin Angres, a psychiatrist, acknowledged that pilots are trained observers and may not be easily fooled.

The article draws a parallel between the disbelief in flying saucers and the initial disbelief in heavier-than-air flight, citing prominent scientists and naval engineers who declared flight impossible. It mentions that the Wright Brothers were secretive about their early flights, leading to public skepticism.

FLYING's Stance and Contradictions

FLYING magazine states it has no secret government sources and does not believe the saucers are a Soviet or US development. It questions how such revolutionary technology could be kept secret or tested randomly across the country. The magazine points out several contradictions if they are a secret US development:

1. The secret has been kept better than the atomic bomb.
2. They involve revolutionary fuselage, flight theory, and propulsion types unknown to aviation experts.
3. Experimentation would likely not occur in random spots where secrets could be revealed.

The magazine criticizes the government's stance, noting that while denials are expected, the consistent denial of their existence seems conclusive. It references the Project Saucer report, which stated that no definite conclusive evidence existed to prove or disprove the possibility of unidentified objects being real aircraft of unknown configuration, calling this an evasion. FLYING concludes that the evidence suggests skilled pilots saw something real, and they are not all victims of hallucinations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the credibility of airline pilot testimony regarding unidentified aerial phenomena, the contrast between eyewitness accounts and scientific skepticism, and the persistent mystery surrounding the origin and nature of these objects. The editorial stance is one of open-minded investigation, acknowledging the validity of pilot reports while admitting that the true nature of the phenomena remains unknown. The magazine concludes that while they know what the phenomena are not (e.g., sensationalized media portrayals), they have little more understanding of what they are than when they began their investigation, emphasizing the intriguing nature of the mystery.