1949 05 07 Saturday Evening Post Shalett

Magazine Overview

Title: What You Can Believe About Flying Saucers

Publication: The Saturday Evening Post

Issue Date: May 7, 1949

Author: Sidney Shalett

Document Type: Magazine Article (Conclusion)

This article, the concluding part of a series by Sidney Shalett, delves into the U.S. Air Force's perspective on flying saucer reports, aiming to distinguish fact from fiction. It emphasizes that while the Air Force does not officially believe in extraterrestrial spacecraft, they take reports seriously and investigate them.

Air Force Stance and General Experiences

The article begins by stating that the men in high command of the U.S. Air Force do not believe in flying saucers, disks, or space ships. However, they are not surprised that people are seeing them, as experienced airmen understand the strange tricks the sun, stars, and senses can play, especially in the 'wild blue.'

Several anecdotes illustrate this point:

• Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, the Air Chief of Staff, recounts an experience while piloting a B-17 bomber at night. He saw a disk-shaped, lighted object, but upon adjusting his head angle, realized it was merely a reflection of a ground light on his window.
• Lt. Gen. Lauris Norstad and his copilot observed a large object pacing their aircraft. After a calm reconnaissance, they identified it as the reflection of a star on a cloud.
• Col. H. M. McCoy, who heads the intelligence division at Air Materiel Command headquarters, once mistook a glint of sunlight from another P-51 fighter's canopy for a disk while flying in daylight.

Official Investigations and Skepticism

Lt. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, then head of the Air Force's research-and-development program, was particularly critical of saucer reports. His weather expert found that a significant portion of current reports could be traced to aluminum-covered radar-target balloons. LeMay reportedly rebuked a lieutenant colonel who claimed to have seen flying saucers.

Gen. Carl Spaatz, the retired Air Chief, expressed indignation at saucer hysteria, stating, "If the American people are capable of getting so excited over something which doesn't exist, God help us if anyone ever plasters us with a real atomic bomb." He unequivocally stated that reported sightings were "completely unconnected with any form of [classified information]."

The Nature of Reports and Possible Explanations

The article highlights the mysterious nature of some reports that even Air Intelligence experts find difficult to evaluate. Examples include:

• A Montana man who reported a large, blue-white ball that beamed a bright light, insisting he was sincere and sober.
• An Army pilot at Dayton, Ohio, who reported three or four teardrop-shaped objects that came close to his plane, describing them as looking like a teardrop formed by dumping water.
• An aviation student in San Francisco who claimed to be attacked by a mysterious light.

Aeromedical Explanations

The article extensively discusses the role of aeromedical factors. Both Air Force and Navy experts have documented how vertigo, hypnosis, and other sensory illusions can affect pilots at high altitudes and extreme speeds. These conditions can lead pilots to mistake ground lights for other aircraft or even have outright hallucinations.

Hoaxes and Mass Hysteria

Beyond misidentification and illusions, the article addresses hoaxes and mass hysteria.

• A hoax "saucer" found in North Hollywood was made of galvanized iron, a radio tube, and a piece of pipe.
• Near Black River Falls, Wisconsin, a "flying disk" found at a county fair was identified as a crude construction of plywood and cardboard.
• Another "flying disk" found in a Southern city was made of aluminum strips, fluorescent-lamp starters, and other scrap materials, confessed as a hoax by its creator.

Mass hysteria is described as a phenomenon that has fascinated philosophers, where impressionable people can believe they've seen something based on a rumor, however honest.

Notable Case Studies

George F. Gorman Encounter:

One of the most baffling cases detailed is the encounter of George F. Gorman, a second lieutenant in the North Dakota Air National Guard, on October 1, 1948. Gorman, a man of good reputation and above-average intelligence, reported seeing a soundless white light that could climb, swoop, and outmaneuver any jet plane. He described it as a small ball of clear white light, about six to eight inches in diameter, traveling at an estimated 250 MPH at an altitude of 1000 feet. It blinked on and off and varied in intensity. Gorman attempted to overtake it but found it faster than his P-51 fighter. He engaged in a twenty-seven-minute "dogfight" with the object, during which he thought he came close to it. He even attempted to ram it, but the object pulled up and streaked to 14,000 feet with Gorman following. He reported blacking out several times during the maneuvers but insisted vertigo was "absolutely out of the question." The object eventually climbed straight up and disappeared. Gorman's story has partial corroboration from Dr. A. D. Cannon, an oculist, and his passenger, Einar Neilson, who saw a fast-moving light in the air.

Eastern Air Lines Pilots' Sighting:

Perhaps the most difficult-to-rationalize story is the account of Clarence Shipe Chiles and John B. Whitted, Eastern Air Lines pilots, on July 24, 1948, twenty miles west of Montgomery, Alabama. While flying a DC-3 airliner at 5000 feet, they saw an object they initially mistook for a jet. They described it as at least 100 feet long, with a fuselage more streamlined than a B-29, and nearly twice the diameter of a Superfortress. It flew like a plane but had no wings. The object had two rows of windows or "breathers" from which a highly intense white light emanated, and a fluctuating blue flame danced along its belly, with a trail of red-orange flames shooting out from the tail. Chiles noted a radarlike protrusion from its snout resembling a swordfish, and four to six metallic-looking objects resembling streamlined windshields or louvers.

They checked with the nearest control tower and were told no commercial or Army aircraft were in the vicinity. The Air Force confirmed it had nothing flying in the area at that time. The article notes that Eglin Field, 130 miles south, had no experimental craft that could match the description. Guided missiles and V-2 rockets were ruled out due to their speed and performance characteristics.

Henry G. Combs Encounter:

Another similar encounter occurred on November 18th at the Andrews Field base near Washington, D.C. Henry G. Combs, a second lieutenant in the Air Force reserve, reported seeing a "dull gray globe" six feet thick and twelve to fifteen feet across, giving off a frosty light with rough edges. It led him through astounding maneuvers, changing air speed from seventy-five to 600 MPH and varying altitude from 2000 to 7500 feet. His copilot, 2nd Lt. Kenwood W. Jackson, also saw the light.

Scientific Skepticism and Air Force Recommendations

Dr. Irving Langmuir, a distinguished scientist and Nobel Prize winner, is presented as a strong opponent of "pathological science," which he includes flying saucers under. He argues that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, stating, "If a man tells me that two and two equal five—or that he has seen a flying saucer—I don't feel I have to prove he is wrong. I feel the burden is on him to prove that he is right." Langmuir's advice to the Air Force was to "Forget it!"

Despite the skepticism, the Air Force wants to know about such things. They provide instructions for witnesses: take mental notes on the object's characteristics, location, and behavior; estimate distance, altitude, and size; take photographs or make sketches if possible; and write a detailed letter to the Technical Intelligence Division, Air Materiel Command Headquarters, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio. They suggest buttressing the report with an affidavit from a clergyman, doctor, or banker.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The article's recurring theme is the rational explanation of flying saucer sightings, attributing them primarily to misidentification, psychological factors like vertigo and hypnosis, and deliberate hoaxes. The editorial stance is one of scientific skepticism, encouraging a critical approach to extraordinary claims and emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence for extraterrestrial visitation. The piece concludes by suggesting that while the Air Force would prefer to forget about flying saucers, new reports necessitate continued investigation, albeit with a healthy dose of scientific scrutiny.