I
have been chasing sightings that predate Arnold, but just those made in the
months prior to that rather than in the years earlier. I’ve been looking for
documentation that proves a sighting was pre-Arnold, meaning that it was
published in some form before June 24, 1947. My luck has been sporadic. I’ve
found some but there are more out there. The trick was to figure out where to
look.
There
are many cases that were reported after Arnold but that were made prior to him.
For example, there is a report from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma dated May 17, 1947,
made by Byron Savage who said that he, and his wife, had seen a round, flat
object traveling nearly due north at a speed estimated at three times that of a
jet. I have found nothing that documents this sighting prior to Arnold, but the
Air Force accepted the date and listed it in the master index for Project Blue
Book.
Another
May sighting took place on the nineteenth at Manitou Springs [Colorado
Springs], Colorado but wasn’t published until June 28 in the Denver Post. Dean Hauser, along with six
other railroad workers, said that he and they watched a silver, metallic object
fly in from the northwest, stop overhead and then maneuver erratically for some
twenty minutes before it disappeared to the west-northwest in a cloudless, blue
sky.
A
similar case, dated June 12, 1947, came from Weiser, Idaho (with Weiser being
redacted from the Blue Book master index for some reason). According to the
information, Mrs. H. Erickson (identified that way as a convention of the time)
said that she had seen two high-speed, round objects at a high altitude. They
were flying in a trail formation and left a vapor trail that persisted from
more than an hour.
All
these sightings were by civilians, though Savage is described as a field
engineer. I mention this simply because it seems that in early 1947, the
military was much more interested in sightings by military pilots. And, since a
military pilot, in late 1946 or early 1947 might be inclined to mention such
things through military channels, those at ATIC would be aware of their
sightings. This means that there was a mechanism for collecting the data on
such observations, but nothing shows up in the Project Blue Book files.
There
are many examples of these early sightings by military pilots. The first listed
military sighting is from June 28, 1947 in Montgomery, Alabama. There was
another civilian pilot sighting on June 14, 1947, but like so many others it
was not reported until after Arnold. The witness, Dick Rankin, claimed some
7000 hours of flight experience, but was on the ground when he saw the “V”
formation fly over. In a statement to the military, Rankin wrote:
My
name is [redacted, but is Richard Rankin]. I am 47 years old and have flown
since I was nineteen years old. I first soloed in an aircraft in1919 … I have
accomplished 7000 hours in the air as pilot of both civilian and Military
aircraft [though there is nothing in his statements to suggest that he had ever
been a military pilot only that he had flown military aircraft]. I am well
acquainted with most articles that one would see in the air and I feel that I
am well qualified to say when I see articles flying through the air, although I
would not attempt to say that I am infallible… The following is an account of
what I saw on 14 June 1947 from the yard of my home at [redacted], Bakersfield,
California.
At
approximately 1200 noon on the 14 of June I was lying in the front yard of my
home. There was a lad mowing the lawn at the time. I looked up into the sky and
saw ten articles flying from South to th [sic] North at what I would judge to
be 350 miles per hour. As I have stated before, I have done quite a lot of map
work with the US Forest Service. I distinctly remember that at the time I saw
the articles I mentioned it to the lad who was mowing the lawn at the time. I
told the lad that the objects were in all probability some sort of Army or Navy
test planes from the nearby test centers on the deserts of Southern
California…. At the time I did not give the slightest thought to anything but
that the objects were some sort of test ship for the Government Service. The
objects resembled the pictures that I have seen of the XF5U-1, the so-called
“Flying Flapjack” that the Navy is testing. After the objects disappeared I
proceeded into the house and had my noon meal. At approximately 1415 [2:15
p.m.] I went back into the yard to sit and lie in the shade. At this time the
objects reappeared going from North to South, although this time there were
only seven of the articles. When I first saw the original ten objects they were
flying in a “V” formation with one object straggling in the rear of the
formation. When the objects appeared the second time they were still in the “V”
formation although there was only seven of the objects at this time. I remember
at this time that I told the lad, who was still working on the lawn, that
probably three of the objects had proceeded back to their base on a different
course. I actually thought that this was the case, that the other three objects
had probably gone back to their base on the other side of the mountains from
Bakersfield. A week later when I read of Mr. Kenneth Arnold claiming that he
had seen articles flying through the air over the Cascade Mountains in
Washington, I realized that the articles I saw were probably the same thing. I
was still reluctant to mention this to anyone thinking that they would probably
say I was crazy. After sometime I mentioned the incident to the editor of the
“Oregonian”, a Portland, Oregon newspaper. At this time I was in Portland for
the remainder of the summer…
The
sighting is interesting because of the description of the objects, which match
that given by Arnold. Had he told this to anyone prior to Arnold’s sighting,
had there been any sort of documentation of it prior to Arnold, and had he not
mentioned Arnold by name and location, suggesting that he was well aware of the
Arnold sighting, this would be a wonderful bit of corroboration for Arnold.
The Flying Flapjack |
There
is another document in the Project Blue Book files about this, and it is a
“Memorandum for the Officer in Charge.” The military was apparently attempting
to find Dick Rankin in California, and ran their check through various Palm
Springs agencies including the police, the newspaper, Chamber of Commerce but
could find almost no record of him there.
On
July 11, 1947, according to the Memorandum, the Postmaster in Palm Springs was
asked if a person named [redacted, but obviously Richard Rankin] had ever lived
in Palm Springs. Ryland M. Gorham said that he, Gorham, had lived there for 14
years and he didn’t recognize the Rankin’s name, which isn’t all that
surprising given the large transient population in the area, not to mention the
fact that in 1947, Rankin lived in Bakersfield. The problem was the newspaper
article, which seems to have generated the investigation mentioned, “He
[Rankin] now operates a string of auto courts, spending his winters at Palm
Springs.” That same article mentions that Rankin has seen the objects over
Bakersfield, which would suggest another avenue for investigation as well.
What
makes this disturbing, considering all that has transpired here in the last few
days (meaning the NSA monitoring of nearly everything in the name of National
Security) is the following from that Memorandum:
A
check of General Delivery records revealed a letter addressed to Mr. [redacted,
but so poorly done that the last name Rankin can easily be deduced], Palm
Springs, mailed from Cicero, Indiana, postmarked at Cicero, Indiana July 1947,
at 5 p.m. The return address on the envelope was listed as the Gospel Tract
Worker, Route 1, Cicero, Indiana. Mr. Gorham permitted the contents of the
envelope to be examined inasmuch as the contents was [sic] 3rd Class
material and the envelope not sealed. The records were of a religious nature
concerning the sad plight of American non-church goers, the second coming of
Christ and etc. Superintendent of Mails was contacted by Mr. Gorham and stated
that there was a Mr. [redacted, but Rankin] who are received mail through the
general delivery office of the Palm Springs Post Office, but that the last
mail, other than the letter mentioned above, came through the Post Office
approximately two years ago. The Superintendent of Mails seem to have a very
uncanny memory and recalled where the mail coming for [redacted… Rankin] had
been addressed to. This mail was addressed to [redacted but is Richard Rankin]
in care of a trailer camp located in Palm Springs. On calling the trailer camp
office, it was found that Mr. [redacted… Rankin] had lived in the camp but
departed approximately two years ago and left no forwarding address.
Investigation is continuing in an effort to locate Mr. [redacted… Rankin] and
obtain a statement from him.
Clearly
they finally succeeded in finding Rankin and getting a statement.
Interestingly, his return address, though mostly redacted, showed that he was
in Portland, Oregon. I’m not sure why it was such a task for them to find him,
given the information in the newspaper which said, “Rankin, who plans to spend
the summer here at 834 N. E. Simpson street [sic]…”
Arnold's original drawing of the object for the Army. |
This sighting can be seen as extremely
important. The description of the UFOs, that they looked like the Flying
Flapjack, matches that given by Arnold. And, it matches that of the photographs
taken by William Rhodes, about two weeks after the Arnold sighting was reported
in the newspapers.
To
look at all this from the perspective of someone who accepts the idea of
extraterrestrial visitation, this information is important. First, those
earlier sightings show that something was happening before Arnold. Second,
Rankin’s report reinforces Arnold because Rankin described an object that
resembled the objects Arnold saw. Third, the Rhodes photographs further
reinforces Arnold because it is another sighting from another part of the
country that resembles what Arnold saw. None of these men knew one another and
each reported his sighting independently of the other. The timing is
interesting because all the sightings were within a month of each other,
suggesting that they were seeing something real. Each of these sightings seems
to support the other, and then add in those sightings from May and early June
and a very interesting and realistic picture emerges. Everything suggests that
what is
being seen is something that was not created on Earth.
The Rhodes Photograph, July 7, 1947 |
But,
looking at all this from the other side of the spectrum, that is from the
skeptical side, we must note that Rankin didn’t make his report until after
Arnold. Rankin, in fact, mentions Arnold which means that he was aware of
Arnold’s sighting and Arnold’s description of the objects. Rhodes’ photographs
were taken over two weeks after Arnold’s sighting, which means, if they were
faked, Rhodes had the information about what the objects looked like. While
none of the men knew each other, the Arnold sighting was reported around the
country. It is clear that Rankin know about it before he made his report, and
Rhodes, coming after Arnold, certainly could have been influenced by it. While
it is true that neither man knew the other, it is also true that those
following Arnold could easily have drawn their descriptions from him.
The
final point here is that the government investigators on this case pawed
through Rankin’s mail. While I suppose, since it was third class mail and the
envelop was unsealed it was legal for them to look at it, that still doesn’t
mean they should have gone through it. I suppose the legal definition would be
no expectation of privacy because of the classification of the mail and the
open envelop.
For
those interested, the Air Force finally determined that Rankin had seen birds.
To me, it seems ridiculous that a pilot with 7000 hours of flight time would be
fooled by birds. If he was unfamiliar with the sky and what to expect, had he
seen the birds under unusual conditions, then it might be conceivable. But
there was nothing in the weather reports to suggest that viewing conditions
would have obscured birds to the point where the Rankin would be unable to
identify them.
At
any rate, this is one of the sightings made before Arnold that appears in the
Project Blue Book files. For those keeping score at home, in the great AMC
analysis of these early sightings, this is Incident No. 29. I don’t know how
the sightings were assigned numbers. Arnold was Incident No. 17.
Although
this is another of those pre-Arnold sightings, it wasn’t reported until after
Arnold. Had there been documentation for it prior to Arnold, it would be a
valuable observation. After Arnold, it is interesting, but nowhere as
important.
12 comments:
It is fascinating the read about these very early cases. Best wishes for your ongoing efforts in this regard.
The challenge is, as always, in the evaluation of this sort of evidence. In terms of the Rankin sighting, for example, we don't seem to have any data that would allow a reasonable estimate of altitude to be made. This makes it difficult to rule out the birds hypothesis, however unlikely such a misidentification may seem (stranger things have happened).
We shouldn't be too distressed by this. We know that very few cases happen to occur in such a way as to have really good quantitative data attached to them. We must also allow for the fact that it is perfectly reasonable that the Arnold case would have encouraged people to report similar experiences, with serious studies all tending to show the incidence of actual hoaxes as being quite low. The major problem is the mis-identification issue, and the tendency for observers to radically misjudge things like distance, speed, elevation etc without some assistance from landmarks or equipment etc to give a frame of reference.
It would be really amazing if a sighting of a disc definitively prior to Arnold and with enough data to rule out alternative possibilities could be found at this distance in time. Very best wishes for your efforts in this direction
Very thought-provoking. Thank you.
....I must confess to a little worry that simply since there is no actual published media evidence predating the Arnold sighting, we should discount any post-Arnold timeline claims of pre-Arnold sightings. As this subject is SO not totally understood, I wonder if Dave Saunders postulated statistical 'Remarkability' concept might be of use here...
Kurt -
It would be nice to have some documentation for those sightings prior to Arnold in some form from that period. I'm not advocating that we reject, out of hand, those sightings, only suggesting that some things might have been contaminated because of Arnold. That's why I mentioned that the Air Force accepted the dates of those sightings as real.
The thing is, I know that some sightings would have been forwarded to ATIC because they would have been made by military pilots and given the circumstances, inquiries would have gone up the chain of command. We find hints to that stuff in the records, but the sightings themselves seem to have disappeared.
Kurt
The short answer is no.
Statistical treatment of UFO data set has been done a number of times with interesting results. It needs a large data set and other conditions to be met. It isn't suitable for studying individual cases or small groups of cases. At first sight if something is reported that seems really odd the most likely explanation is an error in perception.
Anthony:
I may be out in left field on this, but while I'm not sure about ETH, the problem I have with sceptics is their assumption that EVERY anomalous sighting is either a hoax or an error in perception, regardless of reliability of witnesses or the circumstances involved.
For me a lot of skeptics (not all) are like academics who will absolutely blast a new theory in their field without addressing it's particulars. Occasionally, the new theory becomes the new paradigm.
I find UFOs/UAPs endlessly fascinating, and I don't fully understand the skeptic mentality. What do they get out of their constant, aggresive sniping and bashing?
I guess it does make comment sections either exciting or appalling, depending on point of view.
At times I wonder if there is a skeptics point system that they keep score with. Perhaps there is a skeptics fantasy troll league.
Anthony
..yes I understand your point.
I also recall that Dave Saunders was hired by Condon to be part of his USAF Blue Book review contract, and that after working in that environment Saunders became a whistleblower, releasing the infamous "the trick would be" Low Memo that demonstrated the fraud perpetrated on US taxpayers by USAF contract managers and University of Colorado administrators....
BUT.... all that aside, Saunders tried to find a way to evaluate low sample size information. (His finding that sighting reports followed NOT a local time pattern, but rather Absolute Sidereal Time is certainly interesting)
So allow me to simply rephrase my concern that the approach you suggest is akin to throwing out the baby to keep the bath water....
Kevin: overall, after reading most of the CUFOS reading list and quite a few of your books, I find that I agree with a skeptical approach (not a dismissive or debunking one). As I have been pondering this topic for nearly a year, filtering and vetting reports, something not done in the more sensational books and publications is critical to even getting to the point of a hypothesis of any sort. False data corrupts a hypothesis.
After my reading, I came to the following conclusion - that single witness reports and any report from anyone even remotely unreliable just have to be dismissed. Examples per your books are "repeaters," con artists and magicians (Gulf Breeze as an example), and those who are familiar with UFO literature, etc. Overall, your books do this quite well and add some authority.
I read Leslie Kean's book and did some further searches on JAL 1628 and discovered via web search that the pilot had UFO literature contamination, refused a fighter escort due to the Mantell incident here in KY, and wrote a book afterwards. The book is fact, but again due to the nature of the subject, the other pieces could be dis-info published by a debunker or contaminated as a joke, etc.
It makes it a tough subject, and these early, single-witness sightings, even tougher.
At present, my leading historical favorites come from Ruppelt and Blue Book (F-94 intercept over Michigan, with Pilot and Radar Operator visuals, ground radar and fighter fire control radar contact) and the Coyne Huey incident in Ohio.
Cheers and keep it up / Robert
Good luck, RobertIII with finding any human being on this planet who everyone agrees is not "remotely unreliable." Given the often-mentioned changes between the two editions of Ruppelt's book, some will (I do) consider him to be at least "remotely" unreliable as a source of information.
As far as equating "repeaters" with con artists and magicians goes, I recommend any doubter of the fact that multiple UFOs can be honestly witnessed by the same person or people familiarise themselves with Project Identification. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley_Rutledge
Daniel: have been looking for the Rutledge book for some time and am interested in reading it.
Again and again, you run into the possibility of iffy data and the requirement to filter it. And finally, the primary problem with UFO's - that individual sightings are essentially not repeatable and thus cannot be duplicated. I remain interested : )
Cheers/Robert
Wade and Kurt
Hello..I do tend to agree that all to often very good evidence is disregarded. A good example is the Colorado Commission treatment of the Ellsworth / Bismarck case. On the other hand I would argue that at at time were ufology has to establish itself yet as a credible area of study this issue is less in loosing what may be valid cases through too stringent a set of criteria for evaluating evidence, but rather the reverse. The challenge is to extract the baby from bath water, or to extract a signal from the noise.
It is very counterproductive to not heavily discount cases in which alternative conventional explanations can not be effectively ruled out. This is undoubtably a very stringent filter and not many cases pass it, understandably as we are dealing with whatever data was coincidentally captured at the time. There are enough that do pass,in my opinion, to establish a primae facie case that 'something is going on' and we can then look at wider patterns
The more extreme sceptical position is a different matter and will not be affected by any amount of evidence ( and you can usually find some reason for disregarding almost any piece of data) but in terms of moving our understanding forward the noise in the current data set is lamentable.
Robert111
Must admit I am far more impressed by the Japanese Airlines case than yourself. I am not convinced that exposure to UFO literature makes one unreliable. Everyone in this discussion, from all perspectives, would fall into that category and many millions of people will own UFO literature. It is not therefore surprising to find such people represented in the group of UFO witnesses. I am also not sure if turning down fighter escort ( wasn't aware such an offer had been made,although I haven't read Terauchi's book... Do you have a primary source for that?) diesn't strike me as odd...UFOs tend not to be an actual threat. As to writing a book... who wouldn't after such an experience
Conversely we have hard radar data with expert analysis thanks to John Callaghan which is consistent with visual observations by three credible witnesses from the aircrew. I think this classes as an interesting case. If it turns out to be some natural phenomena, an extraordinary coincidence of different events or something more solid I can not yet say with any confidence.
I shouldn't be surprised to find the first response to a story like this would qualify as a 'troll' trying to discredit reasonable assessment. Rather than outright denial, I suspect what is in operation is a procedure of shifting perception of what is reasonable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
This is analogous to 'push polls' where people can be pressured by false perceptions of peer review to accept rather outrageous theories.
Post a Comment