PROLOGUE
This is a discussion of one of the most credible and yet most detailed visual-only sightings that has ever occurred. Most visual sightings leave some doubt as the to whether or not the reported phenomenon can be explained because either the self-consistency and apparent accuracy of the sighting information or the credibility of the witness(es) is in doubt. However, this multiple witness, daylight sighting made under optimum viewing conditions of a pancake shaped object or "craft" leaves little to be desired as verbal testimony to the presence of a strange, unexplained flying craft. This case was not reported to the local newspapers or the radio or TV. Apparently the witnesses told the Air Force and no one else. (Note: should anyone find a report of this sighting in a newspaper I would be very interested in seeing it.) The initial report was made to the security office where two of the witnesses worked. An investigation was carried out by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI). No evidence that would impugne the witness testimony was found. A explanation was suggested by one of the OSI investigators. This explanation was accepted as "the" official explanation by the staff of Project Grudge (predecessor of Project Blue Book). Yet, this explanation did not convince a group of scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus, Ohio who studied the case and concluded that it was one of the twelve most convincing of the unexplained sightings that were reported between 1947 and the end of 1952. In the late 1970's I carried out a further investigation and discovered yet another reason for rejection of the "official" Blue Book explanation. My conclusion is that this sighting could only be either a hoax or an observation of the "real thing," a TRue UFO (TRUFO) which might be an alien flying craft. From reading the Air Force investigation I conclude that this was not a hoax.PROJECT BLUE BOOK SPECIAL REPORT #14; CASE 10 SIGHTING AT ROGUE RIVER, OREGON MAY 24, 1949
Project Blue Book Special Report #14 (abbreviated SR14) was the final report of a special study carried out jointly by the Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio and the Air Force Intelligence (Air Technical Intellgence Center/Project Blue Book). Published in 1955, it contained the statistical analysis of 3,201 reports which had been received by the Air Force (Projects Sign, Grudge and Blue Book) from 1947 through the end of 1952. It was the most massive publicly known study of flying saucers or UFOs ever carried out by the Air Force, even surpassing the University of Colorado study directed by Dr. Edward Condon from 1966 through 1968. The Condon study, which didn't even refer to the Battelle study (an error of scientific courtesy, at the very least), presented discussions of only about 100 sightings. (However, the published discussions or analyses of the Colorado study cases is in much greater detail than for any of the published reports in SR14.) A complete discussion of SR14 has been published in the Journal of UFO Studies, Volumes 1 (1979) and 3 (1983), published by the Center for UFO Studies (2457 West Peterson Ave, Chicago, IL 60659). (A brief discussion is presented in The Encyclopedia of UFOs edited by Ronald Story (Doubleday, NY, 1980). ) The writer(s) of SR14 described how carefully the individual sightings were analyzed and categorized as either Known (K; identified with high or reasonable probability), or Insufficient Information (II) for a decision as to whether or not a sighting could reasonably be identified (usually some key information was unavailable) or Unknown (U). The writer(s) of the report emphasized that, whereas all members of a panel of analysts had to agree to categorize a case as U, if only one person thought a sighting might be explainable then the sighting was categorized as K or II. The writer(s) also emphasized that the U cases were not simply a collection of "poor knowns" or those with insufficient information for identification (after all, II was a separate category). Instead, each case marked as unknown had to contain apparently valid, self-consistent, credible information that conflicted with all known explanations. SR14 was primarily a statistical study of a large number of sightings and therefore individual sightings were not discussed, except for a select dozen that seemed to be so well described that it should have been possible, the writer(s) claimed, to create from these a "model flying saucer." The writer(s) emphasized the differences between the various descriptions of the flying saucers and were therefore able to argue, with a sort of obfuscative logic (aka "fuzzy reasoning"), that there were actually no flying saucers because it was "impossible" to determine what a flying saucer should actually look like from the available data. (Using the same sort of obfuscative logic an alien coming to earth and seeing a few radically different types of land vehicles might say that humans couldn't travel in vehicles because it was impossible to create a single "model" of such a vehicle.) What is important for this discussion is not the failure of the SR14 analysts to arrive at a "model" flying saucer. What is important is that this report alerted me to the existence of the sighting to be described. So far as I know it is not mentioned in any other literature. I first learned of this sighting while reading SR14 in the early 1970's. When the files of Project Blue Book (BB) and the UFO files of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) were released to the National Archives in 1975 (on microfilm, after elimination of the witness' names), I decided to try to locate the original data on all twelve of the SR14 "good unknowns." I had some difficulty locating the records on this case, as I will now describe. (NOTE: the National Archives microfilm file contains the files of Project Blue Book, which included the files of the preceeding projects, Sign and Grudge, and also the UFO investigation files of the OSI. These two files together form what is called the "Project Blue Book file" at the National Archives. Individually they can be referred to as the "Blue Book section" or the "OSI section" of the Blue Book file.)THE SEARCH FOR "CASE 10"
The only information I had to go on was that presented in the SR14 summary of the sighting. Note that the location of the sighting was not provided, nor was the name of the laboratory. Here is the SR14 summary: An employee in the supersonic laboratory of an aeronautical laboratory and some other employees of this lab, were by a river, about 2 1/2 miles from its mouth, when they saw an object. The time was about 1700 hours on May 24, 1949. The object was reflecting sunlight when observed by the naked eye. However, when the witness looked at it with 8-power binoculars, there was no glare. [Did glasses have filter?] It was of metallic construction and was seen with good enough resolution to show the skin was dirty. It moved off in a horizontal flight at a gradually increasing rate of speed, until it seemed to approach the speed of a jet before it disappeared. No propulsion was apparent. Time of observation was 2 1/2 to 3 minutes. (Note: 1700 hours is 5:00 PM. Figure 1, below, shows the page in SR14 which describes this sighting and includes the illustrations. (There are no illustrations in the original Air Force investigation file so it may be that the drawings were based on the explicit verbal descriptions. On the other hand, they might have been made by one of the witnesses specifically at the request of the Battelle analysts.)
Clearly, if this report is taken at face value, something unusual, something very different from any operational flying craft made by mankind, had passed through the skies near some river on May 24, 1949. However, UFO investigators quickly learn not to take reports at face value but to dig as deeply as possible. It's not that I wouldn't "trust" the Battelle institute investigators who reported this case, but the summary is so short that certainly some details were left out. (As President Reagan said to Mikhael Gorbachev..."Trust but Verify.") In order to recover these details, I searched (in 1975-1976) the BB section of the microfilm file of Project Blue Book (BB). This file is available on microfilm at the National Archives in College Park, MD.) The BB section of the microfilm file presents the sighting reports in chronological order. On the first role (of the 92 rolls that make up the Blue Book file) there is a chronological list of all sightings in the BB section of the file. On this list are two reports dated May 24, 1949. To be specific, in the table of contents or case list at the very beginning of the microfilm file one finds the following information on the page which lists sightings between May 15 and May 31, 1949:
Date Location Observer* Evaluation** ------ ------ ------ 24 Rogue River, Bend, Oregon XXXXXX Multiple Other (missing***) (kites) 24 Rogue River, Oregon XXXXXX Aircraft ----- ----- -----
NOTES: *When a person's name was listed it was crossed out before the microfilm copy was made. The XXXXX's preceding the word "Multiple" is probably the name of one of the witnesses. ** The "evaluation" is the official explanation according to the Project Grudge staff. This evaluation was certainly not binding on the Battelle investigators. Note that the two sightings have different explanations, "kites" and "aircraft." *** The word "missing" is handwritten indicating that sometime before the sighting list was made records of the investigation had been removed from the Blue Book file. There is no way of knowing when this occurred, although it probably was during or after the Battelle study. Nor is there any way of determining who or what organization might have taken the files. Only persons with Secret clearance or higher were allowed to take original case file information.
CASE MISSING!
As indicated in the list, the information on the multiple witness sighting of that date was missing from the BB section the BB microfilm file. The information on the single observer sighting evaluated as "aircraft" was not missing, however. The fact that there were two cases listed for the same day and the same location posed a question: which case should be identified as the sighting referred to in SR14? Without further information to go on (initially) I assumed the multiple witness sighting, for which there were no records in the BB file, was the sighting referred to in SR14. The record of the other sighting stated the time as "approximately 1700 hours" and the location given was 1 1/2 miles up the Rogue River from (i.e., east of) Gold Beach, Oregon. This distance would be about 2 1/2 miles from the mouth of the river where it empties into the Pacific Ocean, the distance given by SR14 (see above). Because of the coincidence in time and place of the two sightings it seemed that the second sighting was an independent sighting of the same object as reported in the first listed sighting. But if that were true, it would mean that the object had been identified as both "kites" and "aircraft," although neither of these looked like the object in the illustrations. If these cases referred to the same sighting of a single object, how could the identifications be so widely diverse?THE "AIRCRAFT" SIGHTING"
The BB file on the second sighting contains a copy of an OSI interview of Mrs. XXX (name deleted, call her Mrs. A) who lived in Gold Beach. In her interview, she stated "At approximately 1700 hours, 24 May 1949, she and four other persons, while fishing on the Rogue River near Elephant Rock, approximately 1 1/2 miles above the highway bridge near Gold Beach, Oregon, sighted an object described as being round in shape, silver in color, and about the size of a C-47 aircraft. When first brought to Mrs. A's attention by one of the other witnesses, the object appeared to be three or four miles away. It was coming from the east, but later turned to the southwest. It appeared to be traveling at the same rate of speed as a C-47. It made no noise, left no exhaust trail, and made no maneuvers. The interviewee stated that she was not familiar with aircraft; therefore, she could not estimate with any accuracy the speed or altitude at which the object was traveling. Mrs. A made the comparison between the object and a C-47 because she is familiar with that type of aircraft; her son has pointed out C-47S as they flew over Gold Beach. " This interview of Mrs. A was carried out on August 8, 1949 by Special Agent R. Hauser. The BB case index card, which includes a short summary of the case, states the following conclusion (or evaluation): "No data presented to indicate object could NOT have been an aircraft." Evidently the Air Force Project Grudge analysts paid no attention to the her claim that the object was "round in shape." Although the sighting time and the rough description of the object seen by Mrs. A matches the time and general description of the sighting reported in SR14, there is no way to positively connect these two reports from the evidence in the BB section of the BB microfilm file. What about the missing case? The only other possible source for information was the OSI section of the BB microfilm file. However, this section is not in chronological order. Hence I had to search sighting after sighting from OSI district offices that might have handled the investigation. There were hundreds of sighting investigations reported in the OSI section. I spent many hours during several days reading these investigations and had just about given up on finding any information on the missing sighting when I started reading a sighting report that seemed familiar. Then after reading the first interview in the report I knew I had found what I was looking for, the original interviews of all the witnesses, including Mrs. A. The information in the OSI section of the BB microfilm file shows that the two sightings should be combined into a single report of a multiple witness observation. Furthermore, the OSI file establishes the high credibility of this case and shows that the this case should have been categorized by the Project Grudge staff as Unidentified, not as "kites."THE "LOST" INFORMATION
The first report of this sighting was made about 20 days after the sighting, on or just before June 14, 1949, to the Security Officer of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics at Moffett Field in California. This officer requested an investigation, which was subsequently carried out by OSI Special Agent C.E. Brooks and others during the following months. On June 24, a month after the sighting, Agent Brooks interviewed Mr. XXX (name deleted, call him Mr. B) who worked in the Drafting Section of the National Advisory Committee, Ames Laboratory, Moffett Field. This report of this interview follows: "On Tuesday, 24 May 1949, at 1700 P.S.T., Mr. B and four other persons, while fishing two miles upstream from the mouth of the Rogue River, at approximately the same direction and distance from the town of Gold Beach, Oregon, sighted an object which is described as follows: When first sighted it appeared to be a glitter about four miles away laterally, at some 5000 feet above the ground which, at that point, was at sea level or approximately so. The object was then examined through a pair of 8-power, Navy- type binoculars. Observation time about 90- 120 seconds. Object appeared round and shiny, something like a 50-cent piece, viewed from below and to one side. Object's color was silvery and it appeared round in plan view. The object seemed to be solid with no visible openings and was about 30 feet in diameter, as nearly as could be judged. Just before Mr. B handed the glasses to Mr. XXX (name deleted, call him Mr. C) the object made a turn on its vertical axis with no tilting or banking and started to move in a southeasterly direction. There was no sign of exhaust or propeller; no driving force could be seen or felt, and no sound was heard. The object at no time contacted earth or came any closer than 5000 feet, approximately, to the earth, and when last seen was disappearing in a southeasterly direction, accelerating to an approximate speed of a jet plane. There were no protuberances other than a slight fin which seemed to start amidship and come back flush with the trailing edge viewed as the ship drifted. No radio antenna or windows, portholes, or any other protuberances, gaps, or openings were visible. The only landmark near the sighting point was a rock formation locally known as Elephant Rock, approximately 700 yards northeast of the boat in which Mr. B and party were anchored." On June 24, Agent Brooks also interviewed Mr. YYY (name deleted; call him Mr. C), a mechanic who worked on a 1-by-3 foot supersonic wind tunnel at Ames Laboratory. This interview revealed the following information: "On 24 May 1949, at 1700 P.S.T., approximately two to two and a half miles upstream from the mouth of the Rogue River, in a boat anchored approximately midstream, about the same distance east of the town of Gold Beach, Oregon, an object was sighted about 5000 feet above the ground in a direction approximately 60 degrees clockwise from north. Object appeared to be about one or two miles away. Mr. C observed the object about 30 seconds with the naked eye at which time he could see only a bright glitter, like a round mirror standing on edge with no apparent motion. Just as the object began to move, Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges, perfectly flat on the bottom with a small fin or vane arising about midship and growing gradually higher to the rear, ending flush with a trailing edge as the object traveled. Flat surface was parallel to the earth. The object appeared to be made of aluminum or some other shiny metal, and while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section. There appeared to be no opening or protuberance of any sort other than the fin already described. Object appeared to be roughly 25 to 30 feet in diameter. It was traveling in a southeasterly direction, about 170 degrees clockwise from north. It executed no maneuvers; no lights, no propellers, no landing gear, or any method of propulsion could be seen or heard. There were no clouds and the sun was at Mr. C's back at the time of the sighting. The trailing edge of the object as it traveled appeared to be somewhat wrinkled and dirty looking. Mr. C ventured that these might have been vents but he said he could not see them well enough to say for sure. With Mr. B and Mr. C in the boat at the time of the sighting was Mrs. WWW (name deleted; call her Mrs. D), wife of a druggist at Ione, Calif; Mrs. A, wife of a Standard Oil distributor at Gold Beach; and Mrs. XXX. Note: Mr. B and Mr. C stated their attention was drawn to the object by its glittering as at the time they were engaged in looking upstream to see if they could spot any feeding fish on the surface. It appeared to this agent that Mr. [B or C] was a very reliable person, not at all easily excited, in fact, prone to be rather blase or indifferent. Mr [C or B] appeared to be a sober, well-rounded person, very mature and not easily swayed by someone else's opinion." [NOTE by this author: I believe the above information contains an error by the investigator; it seems to me instead of "Mrs. XXX" the fifth person was actually Mr. D, the husband of Mrs. D, as further interviews revealed.]SIGNED STATEMENTS!
Agent Brooks was not satisfied with the information in the above "casual interviews" that were made at the work locations of the witnesses. Therefore, on August 2, 1949, he obtained the following signed statements from the witnesses: ( Mr. B) "On 24 May 1949, at approximately 5:00 p.m., while fishing with several friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from Gold Beach, Oregon, my attention was drawn to an object in the sky by Mr. D, one of the members of the party. To the naked eye this object appeared circular and standing on edge. I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular and that we appeared to be looking upward at the bottom side of it. As nearly as possible to tell, the object appeared about 5000 feet in altitude, and not more than a mile away. When I first observed it, object was moving very slowly. As I put the glasses on, it made a turn to the south, with no banking or leaning, and picked up speed. I then handed the glasses to Mr. C in order that he might see the object. Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center. A triangular fin appeared to arise amidship and extended to the trailing end of the object viewed as it traveled. There were no openings visible and no sound was heard. There appeared to be no engines or motors, no landing gear, no other protruding parts other than the fin already described. The object was in sight for approximately one (1) minute. Sun was at our backs and there were no clouds." (M r. C) "While fishing with a party of friends about two and a half miles up the Rogue River from its mouth at Gold Beach, Oregon, at approximately 5:00 p.m., 24 May 1949, my attention was called to an object in the sky. The object was to the east of us about one (1) mile, at approximately 5000 feet altitude. With the naked eye, little but a glare and a silvery glint could be seen. But after watching it for approximately one minute and a half, I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that the object was roughly circular in shape and appeared to be 30 to 35 feet in diameter. It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges. A small triangular fin started in the middle and grew gradually higher to the rear as the object traveled. When first sighted, it was moving very slowly. As I watched it through the glasses, it picked up speed and when it vanished from sight approximately 90 seconds later, it was traveling as fast or faster than a jet plane. As far as could be seen, it had no openings or protuberances of any kind other than the fin, and there was neither sight nor sound of any driving force. It was a clear day and no clouds in the sky, and the sun was at our backs as we watched the object which vanished in a southeasterly direction, mostly south." Agent Brooks also obtained statements from six other people who had known one or the other of the witnesses for periods of time ranging from several months to several years. These character references concluded with statements such as "inclined to take seriously any statement Mr.___ might make," "inclined to place considerable reliability in anything Mr.___ might have to say," etc. The above interviews and signed testimonials were obtained by Agent Brooks at Moffett Field and Sunnyvale, California, on August 2, 1949. Several days previously, July 26, 1949, in a completely separate interview, Agent T.H. Kelley obtained the following signed statements from Mr. and Mrs. D. of Ione, California: (Mr. D) "During the latter part of May 1949, at approximately 1630 in the afternoon, while fishing in a boat on the Rogue River near Gold Beach, Oregon, together with [list of people deleted; assumed to be Mrs. A, Mr. B, Mr. C] and my wife, my attention was attracted by a silvery object in the sky, traveling at a height of approximately 5000 feet in a southerly direction. The object, circular in formation as a silver dollar, traveled without sound at a speed greater than a high speed or jet plane. Mr. B and Mr. C used a binocular to view the object, which was visible to the naked eye for approximately two minutes. Not using binoculars, I could not make out any irregularities of formation, or whether the object had a motor or motors, landing gear, or other items usually connected with a plane. It had no appearance of the conventional plane but in size would be of the diameter of the fuselage length of the DC-3 plane. I have fished in the general area a number of years and have observed various', type planes flying in this area, but have never observed anything of this nature before." (Note: 1630 is 4:30 PM.) (Mrs. D) "While on vacation near Gold Beach, Oregon, during the latter part of May 1949, and while fishing from a boat in the Rogue River in the late afternoon, my husband, Mr. D, called the attention of the group to a silver object, circular in shape, crossing the sky at a high attitude and at a high rate of speed. I could not estimate its height and its size was as large as a large passenger plane though shaped like a shiny circular disk. No sound was heard and it crossed our range of vision in two or three minutes. The day had been clear, visibility was good, and the sun was just setting. Other occupants of the party who observed the object were [names deleted; assumed to be Mrs. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C ] and my husband. There was no sound and the object traveled on a direct course."CASE CLOSED
Several days after Agent Brooks obtained the signed statements from Mr. B and Mr. C, he compiled the documents he had so far received and sent copies to the OSI headquarters, several other places, and to Wright- Patterson AFB, the headquarters of Project Grudge, the predecessor of Project Blue Book. (Project Blue Book inherited the files of its predecessors, Projects Sign [1948-1949] and Project Grudge [1949-1951]). He had marked his file "closed," even though he had not at that time obtained a statement from Mrs. A. Several days later, on August 8, Agent Hauser interviewed Mrs. A in Gold Beach, obtaining the information given previously. Although this interview was subsequently included in the file compiled by Agent Brooks (and is to be now seen on the OSI section of the microfilm files), the Project Grudge investigators didn't realize the connection between the sighting of Mr. B, Mr. C, and Mr. and Mrs. D, and that of Mrs. A, even though the estimated times were the same (about 5:00 PM hours) and the locations were virtually identical (near Elephant Rock in the Rogue River, Oregon)!! Thus, in the BB section of the microfilm file these two cases should be combined into one, and moreover, the identifications should be deleted: it certainly couldn't have been both an "aircraft" and a "kite." But the question arises, how did those identifications come about? It is clear how the Project Grudge analysts explained the sighting by Mrs. A. Because she was a self-admitted inexperienced observer, they simply ignored her claim that object was circular and then claimed that she had provided no information that would contradict the "Aircraft" explanation. Hence, it was an aircraft. The origin of the "kites" explanation was, however, a bit more complicated.CASE REOPENED
During his investigation, Agent Brooks compiled the following supplementary information: the (low altitude) weather charts for the area indicated the coast was clear on the date of the sighting; the San Francisco Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA), the Oakland Airport, and the San Francisco Airport all agreed that there were many local carriers (about 160) that could have flown over the Gold Beach area but that less than 1% of these file flight plans, so it would be useless to try to locate a flight that could account for the sighting; the Sixth Army and the Twelfth Naval District Intelligence did not possess radar installations near enough or powerful enough to have recorded anything at Gold Beach at that time; the Air Force Early Warning Radar Stations in the Bay Area were not powerful enough to reach as far north as Gold Beach and these stations did not report anything as unidentified on the date of the sighting; the 505th Aircraft Control and Warning Group at Silver Lake, Washington, did not have Gold Beach under radar coverage. Of all the above listed supplementary information, the only part of direct interest, since there was evidently no radar coverage is the confirmation of the witnesses' claim that the weather was clear. However, Agent Brooks did dig up an interesting bit of information which led to the "final identification," accepted by Project Grudge. Quoting Brooks' report: "On August 2, 1949, Air Force radar installations at Treasure Island and the military reservation at Fort Baker, both in the San Francisco area, send aloft radar testing devices known as "kites" twice each day, at around 1000 and 1600. These devices are of aluminum sheet, approximately five feet on a side, roughly diamond- shaped and containing a double set of triangular fins on the top side. These are carried aloft by gas-filled balloons approximately two feet in diameter when they leave the earth. When these devices reach high enough altitude, the expanding gases cause the balloons to burst and the devices known as "kites" fold and drift earthward. It is possible that one of these "kites" may have blown as far north as Gold Beach, Oregon on 24 May, 1949." (Note: 1000 is 10:00 AM and 1600 is 4:00 PM.) Figure 3 shows a typical radar "kite" arrangement.
Apparently the Project Grudge staff accepted the "possibility" that one of these devices could have drifted northward, a distance of about 340 miles, on May 24, 1949. Typical balloon ascension rates put a balloon at bursting altitude within an hour after launch. In order for the balloon launched at 4:00 PM to reach Gold Beach, about 340 miles north-northwest of San Francisco, by 5:00 PM, it would have to travel at about 340 miles per hour north- nothwestward. In order for the balloon launched at 10:00 AM to reach the sighting location by 5:00 PM it would have to fail to burst after reaching its intended altitude and then it would have to travel steadily at almost 50 mph northwestward. Of course, if a balloon launched on a previous day had reached Gold Beach (without bursting and without leaking sufficiently to drop to the ground), its required average speed would have been much lower. Hence, in order to accept the "kites" explanation the Air Force investigators had to assume that the balloons had not burst within an hour and also had to ignore the clear statements of four witnesses (Mrs. A was not included in the report identified as "kites"), two of whom used binoculars, that the object was circular. The investigators also had to assume that the witnesses did "not notice" that the object was suspended by balloons and they had to ignore the witness' claim that the object departed at the speed of a jet. (Note: the statement that the radar kites were carried aloft by two- foot diameter balloons combined with data on balloon lifting capabilities (about 0.07 lb/ft^3), we can calculate that the radar reflector or "corner cube" weighed about 0.3 lbs. An object of this weight could not remain above ground without support, so if such a kite reached the Rogue River, it would have to be supported by the balloons for the whole distance. The balloon would keep the kite at a high altitude (over 30,000 ft), assuming the balloon did not burst, unless it had a slow leak. Thus, in order for such a kite to have been low enough to be seen over the Rogue River, we have to assume that it was carried by one or more leaky balloons. Of course, the balloon(s) would be visible if the kite were visible since they were of comparable dimensions. The fact that the witnesses did not mention seeing anything above the unknown object provides another argument against the radar kite hypothesis.)
NOT A RADAR KITE
There is one further reason to reject the "kites" conclusion, and this is based on the available weather records for May 23 and 24, 1949. The information contained in those records would have been available to the Air Force investigator, had he thought to check, but he apparently was satisfied with his proposed solution and, I guess, didn't feel the need to "check it out." (This is the problem with much of the skeptical explaining and "debunking" of UFO sightings: the skeptic proposes a solution and leaves it at that, without testing the explanation against all the available information about the sighting. see "PROSAIC EXPLANATIONS: THE FAILURE OF UFO SKEPTICISM on this web site.) About 27 years after Agent Brooks closed his file on the Rogue River sighting I completed his investigation by "checking it out." The suggestion that the witnesses saw a radar kite launched in San Francisco presupposes that the wind directions and speeds at balloon altitudes were sufficient to transport the kite to the Rogue River area. To check this I obtained upper altitude data from reporting stations at Medford, Oregon (about 80 miles east of Gold Beach), and Oakland, California, from the National Weather Center in Ashville, North Carolina. The upper altitude data showed no winds as high as 50 mph, so even the radar kite launched at 10:00 AM on May 24 could not have made it to Gold Beach in time for the sighting. What about a kite launched the previous day? The weather records showed that during that latter part of May 23 and all day May 24 the prevailing upper altitude winds were from the west and northwest, with occasional winds from the southwest at various altitudes and times. Therefore, even if a balloon and kite could have remained in the air long enough to cover the 340 miles from San Francisco, they would have been blown generally eastward or inland rather than northward or along the coast. Hence on all counts the "kites" explanation must be ruled out.CRAFT UNIDENTIFIED
To aid in the study of this sighting, I have compiled a table important statments taken from the various interviews. The reader will note that the estimated times (durations) and distances varied somewhat, but all were comparable. All witnesses agreed on the general shape and color. Apparently the object was of an angular size that was large enough so that the witnesses could determine its circular shape even without binoculars.
The size estimates are subjective but suggest angular sizes comparable to 0.1 to 1 degree (0.0017 to 0.017 radians; the sun or moon is about half a degree in angular size). At the very least, the angular size must have been a minute or two of arc (1/60 to 2/60 of a degree) since the normal shape resolution of the daylight-adapted eye is on the order of one-half to one minute of arc, and the object was apparently resolved by the eyes of five people. The 8-power binoculars would have made details down to one-eighth or so of the diameter of the object apparent to the two witnesses who used the binoculars (Mr. B and Mr. C). An object that is one minute of arc in angular size would be 1/60 of a degree or (1/60) of 0.017 radians or 0.00028 radians in angular size. This corresponds to 0.28 feet in linear size if 1000 feet away, about 1.5 feet if one mile away, and about 6 feet if four miles away. The sizes just calculated are based upon the an estimate of the minimal angular size of the object. However, if the estimates of Mrs. D and Mrs. A are more nearly correct, then we should use an angular size comparable to 0.1 degree or 0.0017 radians, rather than 1/60 of a degree. The linear size estimates are now about 1.7 feet if 1000 feet away, 8.4 feet if one mile away, and 33 feet if about four miles away. This last size estimate agrees with the size estimates of by Mr. B and Mr. C, and probably with the fuselage length estimate given by Mr. D. However, their estimates were purely qualitative since they had no measurement of distance. It is unfortunate that the interviewers didn't think to obtain rough angular size estimates (such as the size of a pea at arm's length) from the witnesses. Despite the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining size estimates from the data presented in the OSI files, it seems clear that the object seen by five people was not an ordinary aircraft, and moreover, the detail reported by two observers who used binoculars (not just one observer, as implied by the SR14 summary) rules out other readily identifiable aerial phenomena.
HOAX OR THE "REAL THING"?
Although the sighted object bears some resemblance to experimental semi-circular or circular aircraft that had been proposed in the 1940's, there were no such craft flying around and even if there were they wouldn't have been flying in an area far from any aircraft research facilities. Hence we are left with a sighting report that clearly describes the "real thing", a craft not made by mankind, or else it is a hoax. Could it be a hoax? I say no because of the way the sighting was reported. It took the witnesses about three weeks to report the sighting. This suggests to me an element of caution on their part. Did they really dare to report such a thing? And yet, they probably felt, as stated by several of the early witnesses to flying saucers, that it was their duty as American citizens to report these things so the government would know about them. But then when they did decide to make a report they did not run to the newspapers or TV or radio to get the maximum publicity for their story. Instead, the two men who worked at the Ames research laboratory reported it to the security office at the laboratory. This, to me, is the proof it wasn't a hoax. No person in his right mind, who works at a defense installation and who (probably) needs a clearance (Confidential, Secret, Top Secret) to perform his duties, is going to try to hoax the security department. The witnesses probably expected an investigation of their claims. If such an investigation took place and uncovered the hoax then they would likely lose their jobs. Of course the "dyed in the wool skeptic" or scoffer might argue that they played for high stakes: if they could get their story past the OSI investigators they could either laugh at the government (they did it only for fun) or use the investigation as evidence it was real and make lots of money selling their story to the press, or both. There is no indication I am aware of that they ever told anyone other than the OSI the details of their sighting. Hence they didn't "do it for money." Of course, I cannot prove they didn't do it for fun, but it seems like a highly risky undertaking, to put one's job on the line merely to be able to laugh at the OSI investigators. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they saw the "real thing," a flying craft not made by mankind. One can only wonder, at this late date (2001), whether or not they carried their secret with them to the end. (Note of interest: this sighting occurred exactly 1 month after the more famous sighting by Charles B. Moore and others near Arrey, New Mexico, while they were tracking a high altitude research balloon.)SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE ON VISION
There may be a question as to how well the witnesses could have seen this object. Studies of the visual detection and recognition of military targets and other studies concerned with the presentation of visual information on TV-type displays have shown that detection of a target against a somewhat "contrasty" background requires that the angular size of the object subtend roughly one "eye resolution element," which is about one minute of arc or about one-third of a milliradian. For the shape of an object to be barely recognizable requires about 1.5 to 2 resolution elements along any major axis of the object (if it is square or circular it has no major axis; in any other case, the orientation of the object will be barely detectable with 1.5 to 2 resolution elements along its major axis). For objects with non-simple surfaces (e.g. automobile, aircraft), it is barely possible to differentiate between classes of comparable non-simple surfaces if there are about four resolution elements along any major extension. Thus, for example, to distinguish between a plane and a blimp seen at great distances would require that the plane be seen in such a way that the fuselage subtends several resolution elements and the wings subtend several resolution elements. An object with a structured surface can usually be identified (either by the observer or by an analyst studying an accurate report by the observer) when there are 6 to 8 resolution elements along any major extension and several elements along any minor extension. The requirements for typical visual detection, determination of object orientation, object class differentiation, and object identification are of interest in analyzing this report because here we have a case of an object for which the angular size was sufficient that not only could the observers detect it, but they were also able to assign a general shape (circular or oval) with the naked eye. The ability to make this statement about its shape with the naked eye implies that the angular size of the object was such that it subtended at least two resolution elements in its major dimension. It probably subtended more, but two is sufficient to allow me to make the following point: with the binoculars, the angular size was "amplified" by a factor of eight, meaning there were at least 16 resolution elements across the major dimension of the object, many more than necessary for identification as a radar kite, an airplane or some other normal, manmade or natural phenomenon.