HOME                       

 

ARTICLE 2: THE WASHINGTON NATIONAL SIGHTINGS

The events at and near Washington National Airport—July 19-20 and July 26-27, 1952

The Arguments:

My Argument

Skeptical Replies to my argument:

(1) The “The Radar Wasn’t Working” Argument. Skeptic argues that the blips weren’t good evidence of exotic craft because the radar may not have been working correctly.

(2) The “The Radar Targets Were Weather Related” Argument. Skeptic argues that the blips were weather related, not exotic craft.

(3) The “The Visual Observations of Objects Were Weather Related” Argument. Skeptic claims that the visual observations were of weather phenomena.

(4) The “The Radar-Visual Observations Were Weather Related” Argument. Skeptic argues that the radar-visual observations were of weather phenomena.

(5) The “The Objects Were Ordinary Aircraft” Argument. Skeptic argues that the objects the observers saw were ordinary aircraft.

(6) The “The Objects Were Secret Earth-Made Test Vehicles” Argument. Skeptic claims that the objects were earth-made test vehicles.

To supply a framework for the discussion, I begin with a chronology of the events surrounding the Washington National Airport sightings of July, 1952. This chronology, though most of it is not in dispute, might reflect my own point of view with respect to some small details.

Ra = Kevin D. Randle, Invasion Washington. New York: HarperTorch, 2001.

Ru = Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. New York: Doubleday, 1956.

H = Richard Hall, NICAP presents The 1952 Sighting Wave (Revised version adapted from the Journal of UFO History for the NICAP web site.)

C = Interview of Al Chop by Thomas Tulien and Brad Sparks, November 1999. Copyright: AFS/Dialogue Productions LLC, and Sign Oral History Project. Transcription: Gary Mangiacopra, with additional editing by Candy Peterson and Tom Tulien

Cl = Jerome Clark. The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterreistrial, Visible Ink Press, Detroit, Michigan, 1998

Chronology

July 19-20, 1952;

1At 11:40 pm on July 19, 1952, eight unidentified blips appeared on two radar screens at the Air Routing and Traffic Control Center (ARTC) at the Washington National Airport. 2Edward Nugent, air traffic controller, picked up seven targets fifteen miles south-southwest of Washington. 3They moved at a hundred miles per hour, then appeared to accelerate far faster than any conventional airplane could. 4One of the objects was clocked at 7,000 miles per hour. 5This performance was beyond the capabilities of any known craft that could have been flying in that location in 1952. [Ra pp. 32-33]

6Nugent showed the scope to Harry C. Barnes, the senior air traffic controller, who called in two more men. 7All the observers agreed that the targets were not airplanes. 8The equipment was checked and found to be functioning properly. 9Barnes later wrote, “We knew immediately that a very strange situation existed.”[Ra p. 33; Ru p.159]

10Barnes called radar controller Howard Cocklin at the Airport’s control tower. Cocklin told Barnes that they had the same targets on their screens. 11He added that when he looked out the window he could see “a bright orange light” high overhead. [Ra pp. 33-34] 12The nearby Andrews Air Force Base radar operators were also watching the blips, and both the tower and Andrews reported the slow speeds and sudden accelerations. [Ru p. 159] [13But, seemingly in contradiction with Ruppelt’s account, Randle writes that Barnes called Andrews and was told that the operators weren’t seeing anything unusual on their screens—Ra p. 34]

14At this point, the targets were in every sector of the scope and had penetrated the prohibited areas over the White House and the Capitol. [Ru pp. 159-160]

15Barnes called Andrews again and suggested that they take a look outside. Airman William Brady looked out, and in the southern sky saw “an orange ball of fire trailing a tail…very bright and definite and unlike anything I had ever seen…. [It] took off at an unbelievable speed,” [Ra p. 34]

16At about 12:05 a.m., July 20, Airman Second Class Bill Goodman called the Andrews tower to draw their attention to a bright orange light that he was watching—the light was rising and falling as it moved quickly through the sky. [Ra p. 35]

17Airman Brady then saw another light, similar to the first; he said that “it made an arc-like pattern and then disappeared. I only saw each object for about a second.” [Ra p.34]

18Washington Center called Andrews to ask if their radar showed a target three miles north of Riverdale. 19Captain Harold Way, at Andrews, looked at the radar and saw a static blip at that location. 20It disappeared after 25 to 30 seconds. [H]

21At about 1:00 a.m. on the 20th, Captain Casey Pierman, piloting Capital Airlines flight 807, a DC-4, had just left Washington en route to Martinsburg, West Virginia when he and his crew saw six fast-moving objects in the sky ahead of them. 22Pierman said that the lights were “like falling stars without trails,” and that they hovered, moved vertically and moved horizontally. 23Harry Barnes, Chief Controller at Washington National, reported that each of Pierman’s sightings corresponded to a target on airport radar, and that the blips disappeared from the scopes when Pierman described the lights as streaking away from the plane. 24According to Pierman the objects moved with tremendous velocity—25an object, he said, took only three to five seconds to disappear in the distance. [Ra pp.140-3; Cl pp.654-5]

26At about 2:00 a.m., a pilot near National Airport called the airport control tower saying that his airliner was being followed at “eight o’clock level” by a light. 27Control tower radar showed a target behind and to the left of the plane. 28The ARTC radar also was picking up the airliner and the unidentified target. 29The UFO followed the airliner until the plane was four miles from touchdown, then it flew away. 30When it left, the two radars showed the target leaving. [Ru p.160]

31At about 2:00 a.m. Captain Harold C. Way, radar officer at Andrews Approach Control, went outside to check on a target east of Andrews that ARTC had spotted. 32He saw a light that appeared to be changing colors from “red to orange to green to red again.” 33He thought it was moving downward then upward. 34Later, he went out again and decided it was just a star. [Ra p.35]

35Also at about 2:00 a.m., the tower operator at Bolling Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C., saw what he called a “roundish” object moving low in the sky toward the southeast. 36It was not seen on radar. [Ra pp. 35-36]

37At some point, ATRC radar operators (at Washington National Airport) picked up targets near Bolling AFB and called Bolling, notifying operations dispatcher, Staff Sergeant Richard Lacava. 38Staff Sergeant Don Wilson, in the mobile control tower, reported seeing a round, white and yellow light, moving slowly and as bright as a star, which he took to be seven miles southeast of Bolling. 39The object was visible for several minutes. [Ra p.36]

40At some point, a guard who was going off of his shift noticed an object that “looked to be the size of a golfball…bright orange in color. 41The object moved from the west to the northeast in a half circle pattern and was traveling at such speed that I knew that it could not be a jet aircraft.” 42The object seemed to be falling and rising. 43After fifteen or twenty minutes, it vanished in the western sky. [Ra p.36]

44At some point, Staff Sergeant Charles Davenport, at Andrews, looked to the south and saw an orange-red light. 45He said, “It would appear to stand still, then make an abrupt change of direction and altitude.” 46Davenport notified the Andrews tower and the men there also saw the light, which then sped away and vanished. [Ra pp.36-37]

47At some point, the Andrews controllers received a report from ARTC at National Airport that the operators there still were picking up targets. 48Some sources say that the radar at Andrews was also picking up the targets; other sources say it was not. 49Civilian control tower operator at Andrews Joseph DeBoves, along with Monte Banning and John P. Izzo, jr. scanned the sky with binoculars from the Andrews tower and saw no unusual lights. [Ra p.37]

50At some point, the two radars at Washington National Airport and the single radar at Andrews AFB all showed a target hovering three miles north of the Riverdale Radio beacon, near Washington. 51The object remained there for thirty seconds, allowing the three radar operators to compare what they were seeing over the intercom. 52Suddenly, the target disappeared from all three scopes at the same time. [Ra p.37; Ru p.160]

53According to several records, an unnamed pilot encountered an object at about 5000 feet near Mount Vernon, Virginia. 54He had to swerve to avoid a collision. [Ra p.144]

55At 3:00 a.m. Captain Howard Dermott, a pilot on incoming Capital Airlines flight 610 reported that near Herndon, Virginia, a light began to follow his plane; it followed it to within four miles of the airport and then flew away. 56The ARTC radar and the Tower radar, both at Washington National Airport, picked up the object as it followed the plane and as it flew away. [Ra p.143; H]

57Two F-94 interceptors left Newcastle AFB in Delaware for Washington. 58At 3:00 a.m., moments before the jets arrived, the unknown targets disappeared from the radar at National Airport. 59The pilots searched the area, saw nothing and left when the planes ran low on fuel. 60When the jets left the area, the targets returned. 61These events led Barnes to believe that the unidentified objects were listening in on the radio traffic. [Ra pp.37-8; The UFO Evidence, p.158, http://www.nicap.org/ufoe/section_12.htm; 1952 Washington D.C. UFO Incidents, TIME Magazine - August 4, 1952; SCIENCE: Blips on the Scopes]

62At about 3:30 a.m., aircraft mechanic Staff Sergeant Charles Davenport witnessed a bluish-white object at treetop level that was moving erratically. 63Davenport said, “Three times I saw a red object leave the silver object at a high rate of speed and move east, out of sight.” [Ra p.38; see also: Cl p.655]

64In the wee hours of the morning, an ARTC traffic controller contacted the tower operators at Andrews AFB to tell them that ARTC was picking up a target over the Andrews Radio range station. 65The tower operators looked and saw a “huge fiery-orange sphere” hovering directly above their range station. [Ru p.160] 65aThe radar was checked and no malfunction was found that might have caused the target.[Ru pp. 160-1].

66At about daylight, another F-94 arrived but couldn’t find anything out of the ordinary. [Ru p.161]

67At 4:15 a.m., Andrews Approach Control scopes were showing a single unidentified blip, which faded after thirty seconds. [H]

68At about 5:30 a.m., ARTC radar picked up seven or eight unidentified targets, which quickly faded away. [Ra p.39]

69At about 5:30 a.m., radio engineer E. W. Chambers, witnessed five enormous disks that were circling aroung in the skies about The Washington, D.C. area. 70He said that the disks tilted upward and climbed in a steep ascent out of sight [Ra p.39]

71Later that day, mid-evening on the 20th, Air Force radar picked up 10 unidentified targets and tracked them for 15 to 20 minutes as the objects approached the runway, spread out, made sharp turns and reversed direction. [H, referencing an Air Force weather observer report to NICAP (the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena)]

72Senior air route traffic controller Harry G. Barnes wrote, “[73The unidentified objects] “acted like a bunch of small kids out playing…directed by some innate curiosity….74There is no other conclusion that I can reach but that for six hours there were at least ten unidentified flying objects moving above Washington.” 75He insisted that the objects “were not ordinary aircraft.” 76He said that he knew they were unconventional because of the way they moved—77he claimed that “they performed gyrations which no known aircraft could perform. 78By this,” he said, “I mean that our scopes showed that they could make right angle turns and complete reversals of flight.” 79He believed, also, that no natural phenomenon could account for the radar returns.

80Barnes reported that “a number of objects, some seven or eight, would be in a place as a group, then seem to go over to an aircraft to take a look” and that 81when an airplane took an evasive action, the objects would follow it. 82He believed that whoever was piloting the mysterious objects seemed to be listening in on radio transmissions between the aircraft and the tower: 83“When a particular pilot was told to look for an object the pilot would see it, but would report that it was zooming off at just about the time at which the target also disappeared from the radar set. 84Many of the objects were extremely maneuverable.”[Ra pp.40-4]

85Barnes believed that the objects were not weather-related phenomena. 86He stated that the blips could not be the result of radar malfunction. He said that Washington National, Andrews, and Andrews approach control all picked up the objects in the same locations at the same time. 87Barnes told the investigators that there were no malfunctions and that the men at the three facilities maintained contact with one another, and were able to compare observations. [Ra p.41]

July 26-27, 1952:

[note: sources do not appear to agree on the number of interceptor flights, on the times of the flights, and on which events were associated with which flights (although all sources agree on the events themselves). In my timeline, I follow the accounts of Al Chop and Ed Ruppelt, two men who were directly involved at the time. They state and imply that there were 2 flights. On the first, around midnight, the blips disappeared when the jets arrived, then returned when the jets left; on the second, around 3 am, Lt. Patterson was surrounded by lights as the blips were seen to converge on his jet.]

88At about 2:30 pm on July 26, radar at Langley AFB, near Washington, D.C., picked up an object at an altitude of about 5,000 feet approaching from the south at 2,600 miles per hour. 89Radar operators watched it for about two minutes before it vanished at a distance of eight miles. [Ra p.68]

90At about 2:50 p.m., for about four minutes, the Langley radar operators tracked a fuzzy blip, larger than an aircraft return, which was heading east. 91The object stopped, hovered for two minutes, and then resumed its eastern trajectory before vanishing (perhaps because it went below the radar’s lower limit of 5,000 feet) at a distance of fifteen miles. [Ra pp.68-9]

92At about 8:15 p.m., a pilot and a stewardess on board a National Airlines flight reported seeing, through the plane’s windows, several lights flying high above them. 93They compared the lights’ appearance to the “glow of a cigarette.” [Ra p.69]

94T/SGT H. Spiewakowski at Andrews told an investigator (Warrant Officer MaHaffee) that at 8:23 p.m., Washington Center contacted Andrews and asked if they had unidentified targets. 95Spiewakowski said that they watched the scopes and “observed targets following very erratic courses, sometimes appearing to stop, then reverse course, accelerating momentarily, & then slowing down.” 96He said that the observations were coordinated with ARTC] & verified. 97Spiewakowski said that targets would disappear and reappear 8 to 10 miles farther along its course. 98He stated that, “We had targets in vicinity of ADW(R)[Andrews range], the field & the SHZ [an unidentified location] vicinity, also NW of us targets were present in great No’s. 99The only area relatively free was the S.W.” [Ra p.135]

100At about 10:30 p.m., the same radar operators who had tracked the UFOs the week before saw several slow-moving returns. 101Now the objects were spread out in an arc over Washington. 102One of the radar controllers contacted Andrews AFB and was told that they, too, were picking up the same targets. [Ru p.164]

103Also at about 10:30 p.m., the ARTC (at Washington National Airport) asked the crew of a B-25 that was in the air in the area to take a look at several of the targets.104The crew saw no unusual lights in the sky, but one of the plane’s pilots reported that “each time the tower man advised us we were passing the UFO, we noticed that we were over…the Wilson Lines steamboat trip to Mount Vernon.” 105The pilot believed that the ARTC radar was “sure as hell picking up the steamboat.” [Ra pp.69-70]

106At 10:46 p.m., a flight instructor, flying #NC-12 at 2200 feet, said that he saw five unidentified objects, glowing orange and white. [Ra pp.130-1]

107At around 11:30 p.m., four or five objects were being tracked by radar, so jet interceptors were requested. [Ru p.164]

108Master Sergeant Harrison told an investigator that, “while standing in front of the GCA unit” at Andrews, he saw a bluish-white light moving “at an incredible rate of speed” through the sky. About 45 seconds later, he saw another moving light, and about a minute after that, he saw a similar light flying from the northeast. 109He stated that the lights “did not have the characteristics of shooting stars. There was no [sic] trails and seemed to go out rather than disappear,” and they moved faster than any meteor he'd ever seen.[Ra p.134]

110At midnight, Roy Nathan, information officer for the FAA called Air Force public information officer Al Chop at home to tell him that the radar at Washington National was picking up UFOs. 111Chop called Major Dewey Fournet. 112Chop arrived at National Airport. A little later, Fournet arrived with a radar expert, Lieutenant John Holcomb.[Ra p.70; C]

(113Chop believed that had Ed Ruppelt, director of the Air Force UFO study called Project Blue Book, been at Washington National that night, he would no longer have been skeptical about the reality of the saucers. [C])

114It was Al Chop who requested interceptors at that point, and the flag officer in command at the Pentagon made the decision to send them. [Ra p.70]

115About midnight, two F-94s from New Castle, Delaware, arrived on the scene. 116As soon as the jets arrived, the unknown targets vanished from the various radar scopes. 117The pilots made a systematic check of the area, but saw nothing. 118Running low on fuel they left the area. 119At that point, the targets returned to the scopes. 120The jets “hung around” for a while, and then left. Chop said years later, 121“[W]e could see them go off the scope, and the minute they got off scope, bang! 122Here's the UFOs again! 123You know, I…was scared!” 124He believed that everyone there was apprehensive.[Ra p.73; Ru p.165; C]

125Radar expert Lieutenant John Holcomb had been retrieving weather data from the Washington National Weather Station.

126Although there was a small temperature inversion of about 1 degree from the surface to 1000 feet, Holcomb believed it was too weak to account for the many solid returns. [Ra pp.72-3]

127When the F-94s arrived and the targets disappeared from the Washington radar scopes, lights appeared in a nearby locality. 128Ruppelt writes that “people in the area around Langley AFB near Newport news, Virginia, began to call Langley Tower to report that they were looking at weird bright lights that were ‘rotating and giving off alternating colors.’” [Ra pp.73-4; Ru p.165]

129Ruppelt wrote, “A few minutes after the calls began to come in, the tower operators themselves saw the same or a similar light and they called for an interceptor.”[Ra p.74; Ru p.165]

130An F-94 was in the area, and the Langley tower operators vectored it toward the light that they were watching. 131The pilot saw the light and began an intercept, but at that point the light went out, although the pilot was able to get a radar lock on it. 132The lock was quickly broken as the object apparently sped away. 133The pilot got two more radar locks, but both were also quickly broken. [Ra p.74; Ru p.165]

134Several minutes after the last lock-on was broken, the blips came back on the radar screens at Washington National. [Ru p.165]

135In the Newport News area, near Langley, William W. Parkinson, Jr., on the roof of the Daily Press building, witnessed a bright, rotating object that he said was flashing silver, red and green lights.

136He said it remained over the James River Bridge for almost thirty minutes.

137It then flew over a ball park, ascended to about 5,000 feet and was visible for over two hours. [Ra p.74]

138The newspaper received nearly two dozen calls reporting the UFO. [Ra p.74]

139At 1:45 a.m., the Langley Tower operators saw an object that they described as bluish and resembling a cotton ball—and as being located about ten miles away. 140It flew straight up to 5,000 feet and vanished, having been visible for five or six seconds. [Ra p.74]

141At some point after 3:00 a.m. (Chop says “about three hours [after the first interceptors left], when we got the second intercept up”), once again two F-94s arrived over Washington. 142The targets remained on the scopes this time and the pilots saw lights in the sky where the radar suggested the objects were located, but the jets couldn’t get near them. 143One of the pilots, Lieutenant William Patterson, later said, “I tried to make contact with the bogies below one thousand feet, but they [the controllers] vectored us around. 144I saw several bright lights. 145I was at my maximum speed, but even then I had no closing speed. 146I ceased chasing them because I saw no chance of overtaking them. 147I was vectored into new objects. 148Later I chased a single bright light which I estimated about ten miles away. 149I lost visual contact with it.” 150Al Chop said that the radar returns matched the attempted intercept as Patterson was describing it…. [Ra pp.74-5; Ru pp.165-6]

151At one point during this time, the radar operators watched as four targets surrounded Patterson’s plane. 152Patterson saw the lights closing in on him. 153In an interview, Chop described the event: “Patterson, down in the other quadrant down here, flew right into the middle of four of them, and he actually said, ‘They’re closing in on me! What shall I do?’….What was I going to tell him? I’m a civilian. I am not going to tell an Air Force pilot to fire at that damn thing or anything! I didn’t say anything! Nobody said anything!” The objects then moved away from the fighter and Patterson said, “They’re gone!” One or two minutes later, he said that he was returning to base, and he went back to Newcastle. 154Chop told his interviewers that he was sure that the targets represented solid objects. He added, “I am convinced that they are probably from another planet, from outer space somewhere. I always felt that way since that night. I can’t help but feel that way.” [Ra p.256; C]

155Chop said that after Patterson went back to Newcastle, “these things hung around all night long! Till about 4:30 or 5 in the morning.” [C]

156Chop said, “When it got light, they just gradually disappeared.” [Ra p.75]

157As chief of Project Blue Book, Ruppelt later spoke to Fournet about the events of that night. 158Ruppelt reported that the radar experts, Fournet and Holcomb were certain that the targets represented solid, metallic objects. 159Ruppelt said that, according to Fournet, the radar controllers were aware of some other returns that were caused by the temperature inversion, and recognized them as such. 160Holcomb and the others could distinguish between solid targets and weather related returns. 161Everyone was sure that the blips represented real objects.[Ra pp. 75-6]

162Interviewed years after the events, Chop and Fournet both stated that the targets were solid objects which appeared to react to the presence of the jet interceptors.[Ra p.76]

163Al Chop said that although General Samford, at the July 29th press conference that dealt with the Washington National sightings, mentioned how radar returns could be caused by ground clutter, and indicated temperature inversion was the cause of the unknown targets, 164there was no temperature inversion. 165Chop said that, having, himself, seen temperature inversions on radar, he could state that what he saw on the scopes that night did not at all resemble inversion. 166The returns, he said, looked the same as the return from an actual aircraft, except that 167the targets that night moved at speeds that aircraft are not capable of. 168He said that the blips at times jumped an inch in a single sweep on the scope, whereas 169the return from a normal airplane would move an inch in perhaps five or ten sweeps.[C]

My Argument

(a)If the appearance and performance of the objects sighted in the skies over Washington during the events described above cannot be attributed to any radar malfunction, to any weather inversion, to any mirage, to any atmospheric or astronomical phenomenon, or to any earth-made aircraft or balloon, then otherworldly craft were visiting Washington’s airspace in 1952. (b)The appearance and performance of the objects sighted in the skies over Washington during the events described above cannot be attributed to any radar malfunction, to any weather inversion, to any mirage, to any atmospheric or astronomical phenomenon, or to any earth-made aircraft or balloon. Therefore, (c)otherworldly craft were visiting Washington’s airspace in 1952.[a,b,c 1]


SKEPTICAL REPLY 1—THE “THE RADAR WASN’T WORKING” ARGUMENT


I can imagine the skeptic attempting to counter my argument this way:

Skeptic. These sightings can be explained as radar malfunctions.

I respond to this argument by Skeptic as follows:

First, (a)if the radar was checked and found to be in working order, then the returns were not the result of radar malfunctions. (b)The radar was checked thoroughly and found to be working properly (see, for instance, 8, 65a, 87). (c)Therefore the returns were not the result of radar malfunctions.[a,b,c 1]

Second, (a)if multiple radars picked up targets, then the returns were not the result of radar malfunctions. (b)Multiple radars picked up targets (see 1, 10, 12, 18-19, 26-30, 50-2 [3 radars], 86-87, 96, 102). (c)Therefore, the returns were not the result of radar malfunctions.[a,b,c 1]


SKEPTICAL REPLY 2—THE “THE RADAR TARGETS WERE WEATHER RELATED” ARGUMENT


I can also imagine the skeptic attempting to counter my argument this way:

Skeptic. The radar targets can be explained as returns caused by weather phenomena, by temperature inversion.

I respond to this argument by Skeptic as follows:

First, the radar operators who tracked the unknowns on the nights in question at Washington National were professionals, experienced in tracking airplanes in the area of Washington, D.C. and familiar with all kinds of targets, including weather phenomena. So, (a)If the experts at the radar (and Al Chop, whose opinion was formed as a result of his participation in the discussions among the experts at ARTC) were convinced that the targets were solid, metallic objects, and not weather-related, then the targets probably were solid, metallic objects. (b)These experts were all convinced that the targets were solid and not weather-related (see 74, 79, 85, 113, 125-6, 154, 158-162, 163-166). (c)Therefore, the targets probably were solid, metallic objects. [a,b,c 1]

Second, Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and a professor at the University of Arizona, in the Department of Meteorology, analyzed the radiosonde data for the two nights of the Washington National sightings. He wrote that his own study of this data led him to opposite conclusions from the official ones [see 163] regarding the cause of the anomalous radar returns. He reported that the inversions and the moisture gradients on those nights were very weak. He stated that he had spoken to five of the controllers involved in the events of those nights, and four of the pilots. He later recomputed the refractive index gradients in order to evaluate the claims of the Air Force.1 (d)If this expert, Dr. McDonald, after careful study, concluded that the inversions were too weak to have caused the striking radar effects, then the targets were not the result of temperature inversions. (e)McDonald, after careful study, concluded that the inversions were too weak to have caused the striking radar effects. (f)Therefore, the targets were not the result of temperature inversions. [d,e,f 1]


Notes

1. James E. McDonald. “UFOs—An International Scientific Problem,” 1968. Page 9.



SKEPTICAL REPLY 3—THE “THE VISUAL OBSERVATIONS OF OBJECTS WERE WEATHER RELATED” ARGUMENT


The skeptic might try to counter my argument this way:

Skeptic. The visual observations can be explained as mirages caused by weather phenomena, by temperature inversion.

There were many visual observations of strange lights by witnesses to the Washington National sightings: 11, 15, 16, 21-25, 26-30, 35, 37-39, 40-43, 44-46, 53-54, 55-56, 62-63, 64-65, 69, 70 (structured), 92-93, 106, 108-109, 127-128, 129, 130-131, 135-137, 139-140, 142, 150, 151-153.

I respond to this argument by Skeptic as follows:

First, Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and a professor at the University of Arizona, in the Department of Meteorology, analyzed the radiosonde data for the two nights of the Washington National sightings. He wrote that his own study of this data led him to opposite conclusions from the official ones [see 163] regarding the cause of the anomalous visual effects that were reported on those nights. He reported that the inversions and the moisture gradients on those nights were very weak. He stated that he had spoken to five of the controllers involved in the events of those nights, and four of the pilots. He later reevaluated the notion that optical refraction anomalies might have been responsible for the visual sightings—where pilots were above the ground-inversions and saw the objects moving around above their own positions—in order to appraise the claims of the Air Force.1

And McDonald also said, “[T]he temperature data aloft at aircraft altitude were not even remotely capable of producing anything like what was described by the pilots.”2

(a)If this expert, after careful study, concluded that the inversions were too weak to have caused the striking visual effects, then the visually observed objects were not the result of temperature inversions. (b)McDonald, after careful study, concluded that the inversions were too weak to have caused the striking visual effects. (c)Therefore, the visually observed objects were not the result of temperature inversions. [a,b,c 1]

Second, an Air Force report3 rejected the notion that the visual sightings could have been caused by temperature inversions: “Thus far, we have been unable to find any UFO sighting explained as mirages," the report said. “Our results clearly show that the temperatures and temperature gradients needed to produce mirages which occur at an angle of one degree or more from the horizontal are extraordinarily large.” The report continued: “[T]hese temperatures and temperature gradients are not found in our atmosphere. The inversions postulated by Menzel [a scientist whose claims were referenced during the Air Force’s July 29, 1952 press conference on the Washington National sightings] would need temperatures of several thousand Kelvins in order to cause the mirages attributed to them.” The actual temperature inversions were only 3 degrees on July 20 and 1 degree on July 26, 1952.

(a)If the Air Force itself rejected the notion that the visual sightings could have been caused by temperature inversions, then the visually observed objects were not the result of temperature inversions. (b)The Air Force itself rejected the notion that the visual sightings could have been caused by temperature inversions. (c)Therefore, the visually observed objects were not the result of temperature inversions. [a,b,c 1]

Third, (a)if the objects exhibited intelligent control, then they were intelligently controlled. (b)The objects exhibited intelligent control: three times, a red object left silver object and flew away (63); disks tilted up, flew up and away (69-70); they spread out in an arc around Washington (101); the lights kept their distance from the jets (142). As soon as the interceptors arrived on the scene on July 20, the radar targets disappeared; the blips reappeared when the jets left (57-60). At midnight on July 27, the same thing happened (115-124). After 3:00 a.m. on July 27, Lt. Patterson saw lights surrounding his jet as the radar operators saw the unknown targets surrounding him as well. Maintaining the configuration, the objects flew along with the interceptor for a while, then moved away from the plane and flew away (151-154). All these events demonstrate intelligent control. Therefore, (c)the objects were intelligently controlled.[a,b,c 1]

(d)Furthermore, if the objects were intelligently controlled, then they were not natural phenomena. As shown above, the objects were intelligently controlled. Therefore (e)they were not some kind of natural phenomenon. [d,c,e 1]


Notes

1. James E. McDonald. UFOs—“An International Scientific Problem,” 1968. Page 9.

2. James E. McDonald, “UFOs—Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?” (text of a presentation by McDonald at the 1967 annual meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D.C., on April 22, 1967.) p. 24

3. Menkello, F.V., “Quantitative Aspects of Mirages,” USAF Environmental Technical Applications Center, 1969



SKEPTICAL REPLY 4—THE “THE RADAR-VISUAL OBSERVATIONS WERE WEATHER RELATED” ARGUMENT


The skeptic might try to counter my argument this way:

Skeptic. The radar-visual observations can be explained as false targets and mirages caused by weather phenomena, by temperature inversion.

I respond to this argument as follows:

There were many radar-visual observations of objects during the Washington National sightings, where radar targets were seen at the same locations as visual objects: 15, 23, 26-30, 37-39, 55-56, 64-65, 131-133, 142, 150, 151-153.

Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and a professor at the University of Arizona, in the Department of Meteorology, wrote that, having reviewed the radiosonde data for the nights in question, he determined that there could have been no radar ducting, and the notion that the very weak inversions that actually existed on those nights might have caused the visual effects that were reported was “absolutely absurd.” He said that false radar targets and false visual effects would not have seemed to be located at the same position in the sky.1

(a)If this expert, after careful study, concluded that the radar-visual sightings on the nights in question showed that the radar and visual effects were caused by real, physical objects, then the radar and visual effects were caused by real, physical objects.

(b)McDonald, after careful study, concluded that that the radar-visual sightings on the nights in question showed that the radar and visual effects were caused by real, physical objects.

(c)Therefore, the radar and visual effects were caused by real, physical objects.[a,b,c 1]


Notes

1. James E. McDonald, “UFOs—Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?” (text of a presentation by McDonald at the 1967 annual meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Washington, D.C., on April 22, 1967.) pp.23-24



SKEPTICAL REPLY 5—THE “THE OBJECTS WERE ORDINARY AIRCRAFT” ARGUMENT


The skeptic might try to counter my argument this way (though this argument was not raised in a significant way at the time):

Skeptic. The observations can be explained as ordinary aircraft.

I respond to Skeptic’s argument this way:

(a)If the objects had exotic attributes, then they were not any aircraft known to exist at that time.

(b)In fact, the objects appeared exotic (in shape, color and performance): orange, with a tail—took off with unbelievable speed (15); bright orange—rising and falling (16); like falling stars without trails—moving up, down, horizontally and hovering (22); bright orange, too fast to be an airplane—falling and rising (40-42); orange-red, hovering, moving, with abrupt change of direction and altitude (44-45); (on 3 scopes) hovering 30 minutes, then suddenly off scopes (50-52); bluish-white object: 3 times, a red object comes out of it and flies away (62-63); five enormous disks circling overhead—tilt up and fly away in a steep ascent (69-70); radar targets approach runway, spread out, sharp turns, reverse direction (71); radar targets disappeared, then suddenly reappeared 8-10 miles further along (97); bluish-white light moves at incredible speed. (108); weird bright lights, rotating and giving off alternating colors (127-128); a bright, rotating object flashing silver, red and green lights—hovered, rose to 5,000 feet, visible for over 2 hours (134-137); a bluish object flew straight up to 5,000 feet and vanished (139-140); jets couldn’t close on lights (radar confirmed—150)(142); flying along with jet, surrounding it (151-153); in general, flying extremely fast (167-169). (c)Therefore, the objects were exotic, not earth-made aircraft. [a,b,c 1]


SKEPTICAL REPLY 6—THE “THE OBJECTS WERE SECRET EARTH-MADE TEST VEHICLES” ARGUMENT


The skeptic might try to counter my argument this way:

Skeptic. The objects were secret earth-made test vehicles. Ockham’s Razor would make you pick the secret test vehicle over the ET hypothesis.

I respond to Skeptic’s argument this way:

First, (a)if the objects had been test vehicles, piloted by Air Force test pilots, then they would not have harassed radar controllers, airliner pilots and interceptor pilots. (b)In fact, the objects did harass radar controllers, airliner pilots and did terrorize at least one interceptor pilot (recall how Lt. Patterson became confused, not knowing what to do [Chop claimed that the pilot was fearful]—151-153). (c)So, the objects were not test vehicles. [a,b,c 4]

Second, (d)if the objects had been test vehicles, piloted by Air Force test pilots, then they would not have created such a stir that the AF would have to hold a press conference in order to pacify the press and the public. (e)The presence of the objects did, in fact, create such a stir that the AF had to hold a press conference (the largest press conference since World War II) in order to pacify the press and the public. (f)Therefore, the objects were not AF test vehicles. [d,e,f 4]

Third, (g)if the objects had been test vehicles, piloted by Air Force test pilots, or test pilots of any other country, then the amazing technology (for example, the capability of great speed (167-169)) would be a secret aerodynamic technology that the U.S. or another country would have come out of World War II with; and surely would have eventually been declassified and used in combat by now. There surely would, by now, have surfaced indications, at least, that such technology had been under development during the war, or possessed by some nation in the present.

(h)The amazing technology was not a secret aerodynamic technology that we nor any other country had come out of World War II with—and such amazing technology was never declassified or used in combat by any nation: we cannot point to any indications that such technology had been under development during the war, or possessed by some nation in the present. (i)Therefore, the objects were not test vehicles.[g,h,i 4]

Fourth, (j)if the objects had been test vehicles, piloted by Air Force test pilots, then they would not have penetrated the prohibited areas over the White House and the Capitol. (k)The objects did penetrate the prohibited areas over the White House and the Capitol on July 19, 1952 [see 14]. (l)Therefore, the objects were not test vehicles. [j,k,l 4]

Fifth, I would answer the skeptic by saying that Ockham’s Razor only works with choices that are equally probable, but whereas the secret test vehicle hypothesis is improbable, the ET [or exotic] hypothesis is, in itself, not improbable. Since the test vehicle hypothesis is improbable, we must choose the ET [or exotic] hypothesis. But the skeptic might say:

Skeptic Even James McDonald, whom you quote above, says, “The hypothesis that the UFOs might be extraterrestrial probes, despite its seemingly low a priori probability….”

But McDonald says “seemingly.” (By the way, he goes on to describe the extrarrestrial hypothesis as “the least unsatisfactory hypothesis for explaining the now-available UFO evidence.”)

In fact, it seems correct to say that the ET hypothesis is probably the correct one: Eric Jones of Los Alamos Laboratories showed that an expanding sphere of colonized stellar systems could, even using slower-than-light vehicles, fill our entire galaxy within sixty million years. Since the Milky Way galaxy is at least 13 billion years old, that means that, even if intelligent life were so rare that colonizations of the Milky Way happened only one at a time, sequentially, our solar system could still have been colonized by the most distant stars 266.7 times.

Actually, the number of times that we could be colonized by the most distant stars would be many times more than that, because it is reasonable to suppose that many not-yet colonized races on these most distant worlds would embark on colonization at about the same time, and, in fact, they would do so all during the history of the galaxy.

Furthermore, colonizers from closer stars could find us more quickly, some much more quickly. We can safely suppose that, assuming that intelligent life is fairly common, the number of times that colonizers could reach us from all parts of the galaxy over the galaxy’s history is an absolutely enormous number. We have only to presume that some logic dictates to advanced colonizers that they should be secretive in their interactions with the less advanced cultures that they discover, and we will see that some UFOs, including the Washington National objects, are probably alien machines.

Further discussion of this question is found here, in the General UFO section, “The ‘The Distances Are Too Great’ Argument.”


Notes

1. “UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?” p. 1