THE WASHINGTON, D.C. UFO OVERFLIGHTS OF JULY, 1952
A Truth Engine Book
The reader is invited to make suggestions for improving the arguments in this book. To see how to make a suggestion, see my Medium.com article, “How to Submit a Suggestion for Changing a Dialectical Book.”
For more general arguments about UFOs, see my article on Medium.com: “General Arguments Pro and Con UFO Reality.”
For philosophical arguments relating to UFOs, see my article on Medium.com: “Philosophical Arguments Relevant to the Fringe Sciences.
CONTENTS
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.
W = Wikipedia — 1952 Washington, D.C. UFO Incident.
Ru = Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. New York: Doubleday, 1956.
H1 = Richard Hall, NICAP presents The 1952 Sighting Wave (Revised version adapted from the Journal of UFO History for the NICAP web site.)
H2 = Richard Hall, NICAP, The UFO Evidence. Online
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
U = UFO Evidence: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc823.htm
Chronology
July 19–20, 1952;
[1][1]At 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. [2]Edward Nugent, air traffic controller, picked up seven targets fifteen miles south-southwest of Washington. [3]They moved at a hundred miles per hour, then appeared to accelerate far faster than any conventional airplane could. [4]One of the objects was clocked at 7,000 miles per hour. [5]This performance was beyond the capabilities of any known craft that could have been flying in that location in 1952. [Ra pp. 32–33]
[2][1]Nugent showed the scope to Harry C. Barnes, the senior air traffic controller, who called in two more men. [2]All the observers agreed that the targets were not airplanes. [3]The equipment was checked and found to be functioning properly. [4]Barnes later wrote, “We knew immediately that a very strange situation existed.”[Ra p. 33; Ru p.159]
[3][1]Barnes called radar controller Howard Cocklin at the Airport’s control tower. Cocklin told Barnes that they had the same targets on their screens. [2]He added that when he looked out the window he could see “a bright orange light high overhead.” [Ra pp. 33–34] [3]The 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] [[4]But, 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]
[4][1]At 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]
[5][1]Barnes 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]
[6][1]At 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]
[7][1]Airman 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]
[8][1]Washington Center called Andrews to ask if their radar showed a target three miles north of Riverdale. [2]Captain Harold Way checked the radar and saw a static blip at that location. [3]It disappeared after 25 to 30 seconds. [H1]
[9–1]At about 1:00 a.m. on the 20th, Chief Controller Harry Barnes at Washington National Airport had been tracking unidentified targets. [2]He called the pilot of Capital Airlines flight 807, Captain Casey Pierman, who had just taken off from the airport, and asked Pierman to look for the objects. [3]Pierman, now near Martinsburg, W. Va., radioed back, saying, “There’s one, and there it goes!” [4]Over the next fourteen minutes, Pierman saw six lights. [5]He described them as being “like falling stars without trails.” [5a]He said they “moved rapidly up, down, and horizontally” and “hovered.” [6]Barnes later said that Pierman’s “subsequent descriptions of the movements of the objects coincided with the position of our pips at all times while in our range.” [H2]
[10][1]At 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. [2]Control tower radar showed a target behind and to the left of the plane. [3]The ARTC radar also was picking up the airliner and the unidentified target. [4]The UFO followed the airliner until the plane was four miles from touchdown, then it flew away. [5]When it left, the two radars showed the target leaving. [Ru p. 160]
[11][1]At 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. [2]He saw a light that appeared to be changing colors from “red to orange to green to red again.” [3]He thought it was moving downward then upward. [4]Later, he went out again and decided it was just a star. [Ra p.35]
[12][1]Also 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 to the southeast. ³⁷[2]It was not seen on radar. [Ra pp. 35–36]
[13][1]At some point, ATRC radar operators (at Washington National Airport) picked up targets near Bolling AFB and called the Bolling operations dispatcher, Staff Sergeant Richard Lacava. [2]Staff 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. [3]The object was visible for a few minutes. [Ra p.36]
[14][1]At 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. [2]The 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.” [3]The object seemed to be falling and rising. [4]After fifteen or twenty minutes, it vanished in the western sky. [Ra p.36]
[15][1]At some point, Staff Sergeant Charles Davenport, at Andrews, looked to the south and saw an orange-red light. [2]He said, “It would appear to stand still, then make an abrupt change of direction and altitude.” [3]Davenport notified the Andrews tower and the men there also saw the light, which then sped away and vanished. [Ra pp. 36–37]
[16][1]At some point, the Andrews controllers received a report from ARTC at National Airport that the operators there still were picking up targets. [2]Some sources say that the radar at Andrews was also picking up the targets; other sources say it was not. [3]Civilian 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 pp. 37]
[17][1]At 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, north of Washington. [2]The object remained there for thirty seconds, allowing the three radar operators to compare notes over the intercom. [3]Suddenly, the target disappeared from all three scopes at the same time. [Ra p. 37; Ru p.160]
[18][1]According to several records, an unnamed pilot encountered an object at about 5000 feet near Mount Vernon, Virginia. [2]He had to swerve to avoid a collision. [Ra p.144]
[19][1]At 3:00 a.m. Captain Howard Dermott, a pilot on incoming Capital Airlines flight 610 reported that near Herndon, Virginia, a light followed his plane to within four miles of the airport and then flew away. [2]The 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; H1; H2]
[20][1]Two F-94 interceptors left Newcastle AFB in Delaware for Washington. [2]At 3:00 a.m., moments before the jets arrived, the unknown targets disappeared from the radar at National Airport. [3]The pilots searched the area, saw nothing and left when the planes ran low on fuel. [4]When the jets left the area, the targets returned. [5]These events led Barnes to believe that the unidentified objects were listening in on the radio traffic. [Ra pp.37–38; W; U; 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]
[21][1]At about 3:30 a.m., aircraft mechanic Staff Sergeant Charles Davenport witnessed a bluish-white object at treetop level that was moving erratically. [2]Davenport 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; Wikipedia, referencing Jerome Clark, The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial. Visible Ink, 1998. ISBN 1–57859–029–9, p.655]
[22][1]In 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. [2]The tower operators looked and saw a “huge fiery-orange sphere” hovering directly above their range station [Ru p.160] [T]he technician…checked the radar and found that the targets weren’t caused by a radar malfunction.
[23][1]At about daylight, another F-94 arrived but couldn’t find anything out of the ordinary. [Ru 160–161]
[24][1]At 4:15 a.m., Andrews Approach Control scopes were showing a single unidentified blip, which faded after thirty seconds. [H1]
[25][1]At about 5:30 a.m., ARTC radar picked up seven or eight unidentified targets, which quickly faded away. [Ra p.39]
[26][1]At about 5:30 a.m., radio engineer E. W. Chambers, witnessed five enormous disks that were circling in loose formation in the skies about The Washington, D.C. area. [2]He said that the disks tilted upward and climbed in a steep ascent out of sight [Ra p.39]
[27][1]Later 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. [H1, referencing an Air Force weather observer report to NICAP (the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena)]
[28][1]Senior air route traffic controller Harry G. Barnes wrote, “[[2]The unidentified objects] acted like a bunch of small kids out playing…directed by some innate curiosity….[3]There is no other conclusion that I can reach but that for six hours there were at least ten unidentified flying objects moving above Washington. [4]They were not ordinary aircraft. [5]I could tell that by their movement on the scope. [6]I can safely deduce that they performed gyrations which no known aircraft could perform. [7]By this I mean that our scopes showed that they could make right angle turns and complete reversals of flight. [8]Nor in my opinion could any natural phenomena such as shooting stars, electrical disturbances or clouds account for these spots on our radar.”
[29][1]Years after the events, Barnes told investigators of the Condon Committee 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. [2]If the aircraft attempted evasive action by turning, the objects would turn too. [3]They seemed, furthermore, to have monitored messages between the aircraft and the tower. [4]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. [5]Many of the objects were extremely maneuverable. [Ra pp. 40–41]
[30][1]Barnes believed that the objects were not weather-related phenomena. [2]He 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. [3]Barnes 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.]
[31][1]At 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. [2]Radar operators watched it for about two minutes before it vanished at a distance of eight miles. [Ra p.68]
[32][1]At 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. [2]The 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. 68–69]
[33][1]At 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. [2]They compared the lights’ appearance to the “glow of a cigarette.” [Ra p.69]
[34][1]T/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. [2]Spiewakowski 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. [3]Target sightings were all coordinated with W.A.R.T.C. [Washington Air Route Traffic Control, that is, ARTC] & verified, using radar facilities. [4]Another peculiarity noted was the sudden disappearance of targets then suddenly reappearing 8–10 mi farther along the same course.” [5]He also said, “We had targets in vicinity of [Andrews range], the field & the SHZ [an unidentified location] vicinity, also NW of us targets were present in great No’s. [6]The only area relatively free was the S.W.” [Ra 135]
[35][1]At about 10:30 p.m., the same radar operators who had tracked the UFOs the week before saw several slow-moving returns. [2]Now the objects were spread out in an arc around Washington. [3]One of the radar controllers contacted Andrews AFB and was told that they, too, were picking up the same targets. [Ru p. 164]
[36][1]Also 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.[2]The 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.” [3]The pilot believed that the ARTC radar was “sure as hell picking up the steamboat.” [Ra p. 69–70]
[37][1]At 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.130–131]
[38][1]At around 11:30 p.m., four or five objects were being tracked by radar, so jet interceptors were requested. [Ru p.164]
[39][1]Master Sergeant Harrison told an investigator the following: “While standing in front of GCA unit [at Andrews AFB] I observed a bluish white light move from vicinity of range in a NNE dir at an incredible rate of speed — about 45 sec later I observed another light moving from over the vicinity of the range to the NW. [2]About one min later while walking toward AAPC [Andrews Approach Control] from the GCA unit I saw the same kind of light moving from the NE toward the range station. [3]These lights did not have the characteristics of shooting stars. There was no [sic] trails and seemed to go out rather than disappear, and traveled faster than any shooting star I have ever seen.” [Ra p.134]
[40][1]At midnight, Roy Nathan, information officer for the FAA called Air Force public information officer Al Chop to tell him that the radar at Washington National was picking up UFOs. [2]Chop called Major Dewey Fournet. [3]Chop arrived at National Airport. A little later, Fournet arrived with a radar expert, Lieutenant John Holcomb.[Ra p.70; C]
([41][1]Chop later said, “Ed Ruppelt was, you know, in Dayton, Ohio. [2] So naturally he couldn’t come there. But I think if Ed Ruppelt [director of the Air Force UFO study called Project Blue Book] had been there that night, he would have changed his mind about UFOs.” [C])
[42][1]It 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]
[43][1]About midnight, two F-94s from New Castle, Delaware, arrived on the scene. [2]As soon as the jets arrived, the unknown targets vanished from the radar scopes. [3]The pilots made a systematic check of the area, but saw nothing. [4]Running low on fuel they left the area. [5]At that point, the targets returned to the scopes. [6]Years later, Chop described the events: “[W]e had an intercept come in, and those things vanished the very instance [sic; instant] that we could see the planes coming in on the radar scope. [7]The minute we saw the beginning of these guys, the UFOs just disappeared. [8]They just left. [9]And these planes hung around, we sent one up north, one down south, different parts of Washington, nobody saw anything. [10]They finally said they are going go back to base, to Newcastle. [11]So they, we could see them go off the scope, and the minute they got off scope, bang! [12]Here’s the UFOs again! [13]You know, I was very apprehensive about that! [14]I, in fact, was scared! [15]I don’t mind telling you this, it scared me! [16]It was frightening! [17]And I think everybody in the room was very apprehensive!” [Ra p.73; Ru p.165; C]
[44][1]Radar expert Lieutenant John Holcomb had been retrieving weather data from the Washington National Weather Station.
[45][1]There was a small temperature inversion of about 1 degree from the surface to 1000 feet, but Holcomb believed it was too weak to account for the many solid returns. [Ra pp.72–73]
[46][1]When the F-94s arrived and the targets disappeared from the Washington radar scopes, lights appeared in a nearby locality. [2]Ruppelt 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.73–74; Ru p.165]
[47][1]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]
[48][1]An F-94 was in the area, and the Langley tower operators vectored it toward the light that they were watching. [2]The 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. [3]The lock was quickly broken as the object apparently sped away. [4]The pilot got two more radar locks, but both were also quickly broken. [Ra p.74; Ru p.165]
[49][1]Several minutes after the last lock-on was broken, the blips came back on the radar screens at Washington National. [Ru p.165]
[50][1]In 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.
[51][1]He said it remained over the James River Bridge for almost thirty minutes.
[52][1]It then flew over a ball park, rose to about 5,000 feet and was visible for over two hours. [Ra p.74]
[53][1]The newspaper received nearly two dozen calls reporting the UFO. [Ra p.74]
[54][1]At 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. [2]It flew straight up to 5,000 feet and vanished, having been visible for five or six seconds. [Ra p.74]
[55][1]At 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. [2]The targets remained on the scopes this time and the pilots saw lights in the sky where the radar suggested something might be seen, but the jets couldn’t get near them. [3]One 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. [4]I saw several bright lights. [5]I was at my maximum speed, but even then I had no closing speed. [6]I ceased chasing them because I saw no chance of overtaking them. [7]I was vectored into new objects.[8]Later I chased a single bright light which I estimated about ten miles away. [9]I lost visual contact with it.” [10]Al Chop said that the radar returns matched the attempted intercept as Patterson was describing it. [Ra p.75; Ru p.165–166]
[56][1]At one point during this time, the radar operators watched as four targets surrounded Patterson’s plane. [2]Patterson saw the lights closing in on him. [3]In 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! All of a sudden, these things began to move away from him, and he said, ‘They’re gone!’ The next minute or two he said, ‘I’m returning to base.’ And he did. Well, he went back to Newcastle…. [4]I’m convinced they’re solid objects. 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. I think if anybody who went through it like I did would feel the same way.” [Ra p.256; C]
[57][1]Chop 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]
[58][1]Chop said, “When it got light, they just gradually disappeared.” [Ra p.75]
[59][1]Ruppelt later quizzed Fournet about the activities that night. [2]According to Ruppelt, Fournet and Holcomb, the radar experts, were convinced the targets were solid,[Ra p.75] metallic objects. [3]Fournet told Ruppelt that there were weather-related targets on the scopes, but all the controllers were ignoring them. [4]Those watching the scopes, as well as Holcomb, could tell the difference between the weather-related targets caused by the inversion layers and those they believed to be solid. [5]Everyone was convinced that the targets were real….
[60][1]Both Fournet and Chop, interviewed years later, said that the returns were solid, not weather related, and that the objects seemed to react to the appearance of the jet interceptors. [2]Like the radar operators, and the Navy expert, Holcomb, both thought they were looking at real objects and not echoes or refracted returns.[Ra p.76]
[61][1]Al Chop said, “…General Samford had the press conference [on July 29]. But at the press conference he intimated that radar could pick up ground clutter and no doubt that this was probably temperature inversion and — kiss it off that way.[2]But there wasn’t any temperature inversion. [3]That was his response to a query that could be an answer. [4]I don’t believe that was the answer because, I have seen temperature inversion on radar and it doesn’t look anything like that. [5]These things are just as solid a return as you get from an actual flight. [6]They look the same. [7]The only difference is that they moved, probably at speeds that the aircraft can’t make. [8]Because they would jump sometimes a whole inch, one sweep of the radar. [9]They were holding.” INTERVIEWER: [10]“You think they were moving fast?” CHOP: [11]“Oh boy!” INTERVIEWER: [12]“Faster than anything near the planes?” CHOP: [13]“They were moving real fast when they jumped one inch, I’ll tell you.” INTERVIEWER: [14]“How many miles? What would a normal plane look-like?” CHOP: [15]“A normal plane would look like it’s in the same spot. When moving very slow, I think maybe five sweeps for it to move an inch, or maybe ten sweeps. [16]But these were instantaneous.” [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 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, [2–3], [22–2], [30–3]). (c) Therefore the returns were not the result of radar malfunctions.[a,b 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 [1–1], [3–1], [3–3], [8–1— 8–2], [10–1 — 10–4], [17–1 — 17–3] [3 radars], [30–2 - — 30–3], [34–3], [35–3]). (c) Therefore, the returns were not the result of radar malfunctions.[a,b 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 [28–3], [28–8], [30–1], [41–1], [44–1 — 45–1], [56–4], [59–2 — 60–1], [61–1 — 61–6]). (c) Therefore, the targets probably were solid, metallic objects. [a,b 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 “There were only very weak inversions and moisture gradients present on those nights, incapable of causing the striking radar … effects reliably reported. I have recently interviewed five of the CAA controllers and four pilots involved in that sighting…. Some months later, after I had been at Project Bluebook, studied their file on this important case, recomputed the refractive-index gradients to assess the Air Force claims that anomalous propagation effects caused the radar returns (numerous objects moving with variable speeds, high accelerations) …, I asked Air Force consultant Hynek how he could have permitted those incorrect radar ‘explanations’ to be passed on to press, public, and Congress for all these years.”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 1]
Notes
1. James E. McDonald. “UFOs — An International Scientific Problem,” 1968. Page 10.
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: [3–2], [5–1], [6–1], [9–3 — 9–4], [9–6], [10–1 — 10–5], [12–1], [13–1 — 13–3], [14–1 — 14–4], [15–1 — 15–3], [18–1 — 18–2], [19–1 — 19–2], [21–1 — 21–2], [22–1 — 22–2], [26–1], [26–2] (structured), [33–1 — 33–2], [37–1], [39–1 — 39–3], [46–1 — 46–2], [47–1], [48–2 — 48–4], [49–1 — 52–1], [54–1 — 54–2], [55–2], [55–10], [56–1 — 56–3].
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 “There were only very weak inversions and moisture gradients present on those nights, incapable of causing the striking…visual effects reliably reported. I have recently interviewed five of the CAA controllers and four pilots involved in that sighting…. Some months later, after I had been at Project Bluebook, studied their file on this important case…weighed official claims that optical refraction anomalies caused the visual reports (mainly from pilots flying well above the weak ground-inversions and sighting some of the objects maneuvering even above their flight altitudes), I asked Air Force consultant Hynek how he could have permitted those incorrect radar ‘explanations’ to be passed on to press, public, and Congress for all these years.”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.”6²
(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 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 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 (21–2); disks tilted up, flew up and away (26–1 — 26–2); they spread out in an arc around Washington (35–2); the lights kept their distance from the jets (55–2). As soon as the interceptors arrived on the scene on July 20, the radar targets disappeared; the blips reappeared when the jets left (20–1 — 20–4). At midnight on July 27, the same thing happened (43–1 — 43–4). 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 (56–1 — 56–3). All these events demonstrate intelligent control. Therefore, (c) the objects were intelligently controlled.[a,b 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 1]
Notes
1. James E. McDonald. UFOs — “An International Scientific Problem,” 1968. Page 10.
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: [5–1], [9–6], [10–1 — 10–5], [13–1 — 13–3], [19–1 — 19–2], [22–1 — 22–2], [48–2 — 48–4], [55–2], [55–10], [56–1 — 56–3].
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, “I have examined the radiosonde data for both nights, have computed the refractive index gradient, and find that, after making allowance for lag effects in the radiosonde, radar ducting could not have occurred. The suggestion that an inversion of the sort exhibited by the radiosonde data for that night at Washington caused the reported visual effects is absolutely absurd [emphasis McDonald’s]. First of all, the inversion was a very weak one by mirage standards, so that even the ground observers could not have seen mirages. But worse, the optics of mirages and the ‘optics’ of radar ground returns are significantly different in several respects, so that false targets would not seem to lie in the same place in the sky to a visual observer and a radar observer.”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 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 (5–1); bright orange — rising and falling (6–1); like falling stars without trails — moving up, down, horizontally and hovering (9–5 — 9–5a); bright orange, too fast to be an airplane — falling and rising (14–1 — 14–3); orange-red, hovering, moving, with abrupt change of direction and altitude (15–1 — 15–2); (on 3 scopes) hovering 30 minutes, then suddenly off scopes (17–1 — 17–3); bluish-white object: 3 times, a red object comes out of it and flies away (21–1 — 21–2); five enormous disks circling overhead — tilt up and fly away in a steep ascent (26–1 — 26–2); radar targets approach runway, spread out, sharp turns, reverse direction (27–1); radar targets disappeared, then suddenly reappeared 8–10 miles further along (34–4); bluish-white light moves at incredible speed. (39–1); weird bright lights, rotating and giving off alternating colors (46–1 — 46–2); a bright, rotating object flashing silver, red and green lights — hovered, rose to 5,000 feet, visible for over 2 hours (49–1 — 52–1); a bluish object flew straight up to 5,000 feet and vanished (54–1 — 54–2); jets couldn’t close on lights (radar confirmed — 55–10)(55–2); flying along with jet, surrounding it (56–1 — 56–3); in general, flying extremely fast (61–6 — 61–16). (c) Therefore, the objects were exotic, not earth-made aircraft. [a,b 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] —[ 56–1 — 56–3]). (c) So, the objects were not test vehicles. [a,b 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 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 (61–6 — 61–16)) 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 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 4–1]. (l) Therefore, the objects were not test vehicles. [j,k 4]
Fifth, I would answer the skeptic by saying that Ockham’s Razor only works with choices that are equally possible, 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 colonists 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 in my article on Medium.com: “General Arguments Pro and Con UFO Reality.”, “The ‘The Distances Are Too Great’ Argument.”
Notes
- “UFOs: Greatest Scientific Problem of Our Times?” p. 1