Pascagoula Perspective

 

While I was doing research on the Internet, I found a reference to me about the Charles Hickson – Calvin Parker abduction in Pascagoula, Mississippi on October 11, 1973. This was in a skeptical magazine, but it was based, apparently, on a reference I had supplied to Ron Story’s The Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters, published in 2001. What I had written there was:

The landing site of the UFO was only a few hundred yards away from and in full view of a heavily traveled highway. No one ever came forward to corroborate the story, or to suggest that he or she had been on the highway and saw the UFO.

This bit of analysis was based on the skeptical argument that had been offered over the years. Turns out to be wrong. First, the location site of the UFO landing and the abduction is only briefly visible from the highway, given the construction of the bridge that must be crossed, the surrounding terrain, and the vegetation in the area. In other words, it is in a location that is in view of the highway for only seconds and it is difficult to see.

What I have learned about this in the world today is that there were others in the area who saw the bright blue light that surrounded the UFO. I learned, in talking to Calvin Parker, that he had talked with people who told him they had seen the UFO that night in 1973. Among those witnesses were Vernon and Maria Blair, crane operator Louis Lee, and a carload of people including Ray Broadus, Emmanuel P. Sigalas and finally a fellow named Larry Booth.

Vernon and Maria Blair at a much younger age.
Photo courtesy Philip Mantle and Calvin Parker.

The Blairs and Louis Lee had not talked about their observations until decades later. They said they wanted to avoid the ridicule that is associated with reporting a UFO. They could read the newspapers and see the news reports and they just were not comfortable with dragging the spotlight to them.

I asked Calvin Parker about this, because he was talking about new witnesses, and that there were newspaper articles and other documentation that provided dates. I, of course, was of the opinion that these new witnesses had just appeared on the scene recently and to me, that was a problem.

However, there is a document dated October 12, 1973, created at Keesler Air Force Base by officers at the base. It mentions the military personnel who were involved in the interrogation of Hickson and Parker while they were at the base to be checked for radioactive contamination. But more importantly, it provides the names of two men who had reported seeing something in the area of the abduction on the night of the abduction.

That document names, specifically, Ray Broadus, and another, independent witness identified only by his first name, and that he owned a gas station. Later, Ralph Blum reported on a fellow named Larry Booth who owned a gas station. In other words, here were the names of two witnesses who made reports the very next day.

Add to that, in interview conducted with Emmanual P. Sigalas, months after the abduction. That doesn’t matter, because, as noted he was in the car with Broadus and that gives us the date.

My point here is simple. When I wrote those words most recently quoted, it was that I had accepted the words printed by Philip Klass and other skeptics. Given these criticisms, that is, no one saw the object from the highway and there were no other witnesses to the event, I had believed them. When Parker told me that this wasn’t true, I investigated and found that there were other witnesses, and some of them were interviewed the day after the abduction. That certainly changes some of the problems with the case and provides, well, a different perspective. I just thought I would mention it.

The General Exon Quotes are Accurate and I can Prove it

 

About once a decade, someone challenges the information and the reporting of what Brigadier General Arthur Exon said to Don Schmitt and me in 1990. True, there were several challenges at that time and a number of writers did what they could to

General Exon

dismiss Exon’s statements without bothering to interview him though Karl Pflock did call him in 1992.

In Pflock’s book, Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe, he mentions Exon only briefly in two places. On page 36, Pflock wrote:

In 1989, Roswell authors Randle and Schmitt located retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Arthur E. Exon. The general was stationed at Wright Field in July 1947 as a lieutenant colonel and student at the Air Force Institute of Technology, following an assignment on the staff of the Air Materiel Command, also at Wright Field. According to Randle and Schmitt, Exon was aware alien bodies and debris from Roswell were on the base and knew of research being conducted on the debris. Randle and Schmitt also reported that Exon told them he flew over what may have been the debris field and crash site and knew of a high-level group established to control “access to the wreckage, bodies and information about the crash.” As we will see, General Exon has quite a different take on what he actually said and intended to convey.

This really doesn’t say much but it does, to some extent, provide an introduction to Exon and a suggestion that our reporting, that is Don’s and mine, was more enthusiastic than the information warranted. On page 124, Pflock wrote:

…However, what of the recollections attributed by Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt to retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Arthur E. Exon?

When first made public in 1991, it seemed Exon’s memories of the possibility that bodies had been flown from Roswell to Wright Field in 1947 might be based upon firsthand information. If so, this would be highly significant, especially since Exon also seemed to have firsthand knowledge of the debris field and crash site, as well as a shadowy high-level group established to keep the truth about Roswell under wraps. However, in a lengthy September 1992 telephone conversation, Exon told me [Pflock] his comments about bodies and debris at Wright Field were based solely upon rumors he heard from colleagues at Wright Field and nothing more. As for the “control group,” he said he merely was making educated guesses as to who likely would have been selected for such a group. Finally, with respect to his alleged knowledge of the debris field and crash sites, he told me he remembered flying over several sites in New Mexico quite some time after July 1947, on missions that had nothing to do with the Roswell incident. One such location might have fit what he had been told about the crash site by ufologists because it had vehicle tracks running to it.

With that, Pflock is finished with his discussion of Exon and what he said. We have no way of judging what Exon might have said to him because no recordings exist of the conversation. Without going into depth about this, there are a couple of important points to be made here. Just what did Exon say to me during the May 19, 1990, interview with him? Although I didn’t ask about Roswell, I did mention flying saucers and retrievals. Exon said to me:

As a result of that, I know they saw the one sighting and then where there, a good bit of the information came down. There was another location where it was, where apparently the main body of the spacecraft was, where they did say there were bodies there. I’ve been, I’ve got special information, but it may be more rumor than fact about what happened to those bodies, although they were all found apparently outside the craft itself, but were in fairly good condition. In other words, they weren’t broken up a lot.

…But one of them was that it went to the mortuary outfit, I think it was in Denver, where these people were being identified. But the strongest information was that they were brought into Wright-Pat. But whatever happened to the metal residue, I imagine it’s still there in the [unintelligible] some place.

While Exon does mention rumors, it seems, based on the context here, that he was referring to what happened to the bodies rather than there being bodies. Of course, that’s my somewhat biased interpretation and others might believe he was suggesting that all the information about the bodies was rumor. It is clear that Exon is not suggesting that he had seen the bodies himself.

We can see, however, that Exon had some information about bodies. He also has some very specific information about those bodies which would seem to make the information a little stronger. But it is also interesting that these rumors came from his colleagues at Wright Field and you have to wonder what would prompt them to invent such stories and then share them, especially in 1947. From the history, it is clear that the Air Force was downplaying the Roswell crash and didn’t even create a file for their records.

Exon, in my interview with him, moved from talking about the bodies directly into this control group, which is something he mentioned spontaneously with no prompting from me. He said:

Of course, President Truman and General Spaatz [commanding of the Army Air Forces in 1947], the Secretary of Defense [although that office wouldn’t exist for another few months], who has now passed away, and other people who were close to the ones who made up the key investigative teams in relation to the released information.

This means it was Exon who introduced the idea of this special investigative team into the conversation and it was not some leading question from me. He then said:

One of my officers who did some research, who worked for me at Wright-Patterson, who had done some research on this as part of his school, came up with a deal that there was great concern at that time and there was fear that the people would panic if the sketchy information that they had such as what was it and where did it come from and what was their mission and so on and so on, got out. So, they decided to make it a national cover up. And that there probably wouldn’t be much released until everybody who as involved in it, including the 13 people I’m talking about and their immediate staff who made up the, oh what was it, the twelve people who made up the investigative team had passed away.

This really doesn’t sound like idle speculation, but does seem to suggest some inside knowledge of what was happening in 1947. Exon wasn’t a guy deeply emersed in UFO lore, though he did have some specialized knowledge based on his military career. He might have been guessing about some of the participants, but he was talking about something with which he was familiar.

On June 18, 1990, Don Schmitt met with Exon in California. Although there were problems with the tape recording, important parts of the interview were recorded. Don had asked about any name for the operation and Exon finally said:

They were involved in what to do about the residue from that, those two findings.

Don said, “You say those two?”

Probably part of the same accident, but two distinct sites. One, assuming that the thing, as I understand it, as I remember flying the area later, that the damage to the vehicle seemed to be coming from southeast to northwest but it could have been going in the opposite direction but it doesn’t seem likely. So, the farther northwest pieces found on the ranch, those pieces were mostly metal.

The point is that Pflock, in his analysis, provides us with nothing to review. He wrote that Exon said this and that and was somewhat dismissive of what we had written. However, when the context of what Exon said to Don and me, it suggests a somewhat more intimate knowledge of the situation based on his own experiences and the information gathered in conversation with those directly involved.

Philip Klass, in his book, The Real Roswell Crashed-Saucer Coverup, doesn’t directly address Exon’s testimony. Klass wrote, quoting Pflock, “Moreover, the GAO will pursue its own hands-on review of Air Force records, paying particulate attention to such ‘oversights’ as the bodies issue and, it is hoped, the reasons for the Air Force’s failure to interview retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Arthur E. Exon.”

This seems to suggest that Pflock believed that Exon was critical to understanding the Roswell case. I suspect that Pflock thought that, under questioning by his fellow Air Force officers, Exon would be a little more forthcoming with information about what he had seen, what he had done and what he had heard. I suspect the Air Force avoided Exon because they didn’t want to call a high-ranking and highly decorated Air Force officer a liar.

Klass noticed the same thing. The only other mention of Exon in Klass’ book was a footnote on page 143. Klass wrote, “This criticism of the USAF for failing to interview Exon is surprising in view of Pflock’s own interview with him, as reported in Roswell in Perspective (p. 30) [the forerunner to his book on the topic and is essentially the same thing he wrote there].”

Klass then recapped that information and said nothing more about Exon and the possible importance of these interviews. We are left chasing the footnote back to Pflock but we are unable to assess the importance of that because we don’t have access to Pflock’s interview.

Stan Friedman also spoke with Exon, and, according to Friedman, Exon said that Don and I had misquoted him. I pointed out that I had the interviews on tape and Friedman’s response that he didn’t care what I had on tape, it was what Exon told him (Friedman) and he was going to keep saying we had misquoted the general. Ironically, this would become important, but not for the reasons that Friedman thought.

Knowing that I had carefully transcribed the interviews from the tapes, I knew that I had not misquoted Exon. Since Friedman insisted, he was still going make this false charge, I sent a copy of the book, a copy of the transcripts, and copies of the tape to Exon and asked what I had gotten wrong.

Exon reviewed the material that I sent and then wrote a response. Exon, in his letter to me of November 24, 1991, wrote, “Although I believe you did quote me accurately, I do believe that in your writings you gave more credence and impression of personal and direct knowledge that my recordings would indicate on their own.”

At that point, no more was heard from Friedman about misquotes. Friedman’s false claims were relegated to the trash. But now we had a statement from Exon saying that the quotes were accurate. We are arguing about interpretation at this point. Following is the letter from Exon.

It was Kal Korff who took things to the extreme with his endless assaults and misquoting of me and his claims that we were misleading the public in a very non journalistic way. I have addressed those comments at length before now. Greg Sandow, a disinterested third party who had the opportunity to review the transcripts, listen to the tapes, and ask a few other questions provided an in-depth analysis of Korff’s suggestions. You can read that here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-havent-wanted-to-turn-this-blog-into.html 

And, of course, for those who would like to review Sandow’s analysis for themselves, you can read his entire report in the following:

Which brings us to the latest challenge. A fellow had emailed Mark Rodeghier that he wanted to review the material, that is our tapes, transcripts and other assorted contacts with General Exon. Rodeghier replied that he was unable to locate the material requested. I believe that is because the CUFOS office had been closed as the rents skyrocketed (or the landlord wanted to sell the building). The files were split among several places, and if I understand the situation, many of the files had been transferred to Texas for a project to scan the material as a way of saving it and making access available to researchers.

This prompted the man to suggest that he was now going to tell anyone who asked him that the information that Don and I had published was “unsubstantiated” unless the material “miraculously” reappeared. Had he bothered to contact either Don or me, we could have supplied the material. I have the tapes. I have the transcripts. I have the notes from the meetings with Exon.

But the point here is that none of that is necessary and even if the source material no longer existed, I can prove the accuracy of the quotes. Exon supplied that when he reviewed the material. That was the irony of Friedman’s attack. Had Friedman not claimed we had misquoted Exon; I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to ask Exon what was inaccurate. That, of course, resulted in Exon’s review of the material and his letter saying the quotes were accurate. What better endorsement could we have? The man himself said the quotes were accurate.

And even if that didn’t exist, there is still the review of the material by Greg Sandow, who mentioned the accuracy of the quotes in the books that Don and I wrote. In other words, there is nothing unsubstantiated in the books and our take on the interviews have been validated.

I hope that this is the last time that we have to go through this, though it is sometimes a little bit of fun. A challenge to our reporting, validated by those involved, meaning Exon, and then the review of all that material by another who also provided a written commentary on it.

This means that those who read the books, who look at the testimony of Exon, can rest assured that we accurately reported what he said. The interpretation of those statements might be an area for additional discussion, but that discussion begins with the importance of what Exon said and not the accuracy of the quotes.

'X' zone Broadcast Network - Jen Stein on Travis Walton

 

This week’s guest was Jennifer Stein, who is responsible for the documentary, Travis, about, what else, the Travis Walton abduction. This came about because of things that Mike Rogers had said, not only on this program, but what he said to others. In one case, Rogers had said that the whole thing was a hoax, only to retract that statement, in a matter of speaking not long after making it. I had reached out to various colleagues to solicit opinions on this, and ended up speaking with Stein. I thought she would make an interesting counter to some of what Rogers had said. You can listen to the program here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/46966498

One of the things we discussed was the Steven Pierce tale that Philip Klass had offered him, that is Pierce, ten thousand dollars to admit to the hoax. You’ll remember just a couple of weeks ago I talked to Robert Sheaffer about that. Sheaffer

had said that he’d read a transcript of the conversations between Klass and Pierce and it seemed that no such offer had been made. It was just some sort of a misunderstanding because of a rumor allegedly started by Rogers. I hadn’t seen the transcripts at that time but Sheaffer was sure that his interpretation was the correct one. Stein wasn’t so sure. I have added the transcripts at the end of this post for those who wish to read them can do so. I’ll be interested in what each of you thinks, having listened to the show and seen the transcripts.

But I also have to mention that there may have been communication from Klass to Pierce through the local police department. So, when Klass mentions they had never met or talked with one another, that was the truth. Once again, we have a conflict about what happened, when it happened and how it happened. It really comes down do who you wish to believe about all this.

I also mentioned that I had no trust in James Harder, having worked with him in 1976 on an abduction investigation. I saw Harder manipulating the situation between the recorded hypnotic regression sessions. He provided the script in the guise of attempting to provide comfort to the witness. He mentioned to me that his job was to validate the Barney and Betty Hill abduction case by finding another, credible case. I would have thought that his job was to find the truth.

He provided information between the sessions that appeared in the next session. He mentioned to the witness that Betty Hill thought she had been physically examined and in the very next session with the witness, the witness said that she knew she had been examined. Stein pointed out that Harder had but one session with Walton and there really had been no opportunity for him to influence Walton’s memories of the event. Stein thought the session was more of a relaxation exercise because, for Walton, the abduction was quite stressful. In other words, Harder’s part of the story was small and probably unimportant.

For those interested, you can visit Jen Stein’s website about Travis, the documentary she produced here:

TravisWaltonTheMovie.com

And for those interested in the Virtual Conference that will be held on November 6, you can find information about it here:

TheObservation.com

Next week, I’ll talking with Nick Redfern about his latest book, Time Travel. And the following week, for those of you who don’t think I was fair when I interviewed Bob Young, I’ll be chatting with Stan Gordon. We’ll get his take on all this, meaning the Kecksburg UFO crash. Stan had been investigating the case for decades.

Click on the document to expand... Klass' transcript of his telephone conversation with Steve Pierce.

'X' Zone Broadcast Network = Robert Sheaffer

You might say that I view Robert Sheaffer as the resident skeptic on the program because, while we disagree on many topics, we can discuss those disagreements in a civilized fashion. This week, he and I talked about some of the current topics in the world of the UFO. You can listen to the show here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/46641154

In the last few months there has been a discussion about the Travis Walton abduction and we began with that topic. Mike Rogers has said that he was through with Walton, that the story was a hoax, that the UFO sighting was real and that no one saw Walton abducted. Rogers also reversed himself on a number of these points.

Robert Sheaffer

Sheaffer and I talked about the story that Philip Klass had offered Steven Pierce ten thousand dollars to say that the story was a hoax. Sheaffer was of the opinion that the original claim had come, not from Pierce, but from Rogers. Sheaffer, who had researched the story in the personal papers of Klass held in an archive, said that he seen a transcript of the first telephone call between Klass and Pierce. This came about after the allegation about the bribe was made in a book. From the transcript, Shaeffer said that it seemed both men had been surprised by the allegation. Sheaffer was certain that no such offer had been made.

I did ask if a tape of the conversation existed, but Sheaffer wasn’t sure. Apparently, there are some tapes in the archive. Sheaffer said that not all that long ago someone had asked for permission to review the material, but was told that the archive was closed and would be for about a year. That, of course, didn’t answer the question. Given the controversy, it would be nice if the tape did exist, but in my experience, I have been accused of altering tapes, editing tapes, and leaving out critical statements when a witness was confronted with words that he or she didn’t like… even when they heard themselves uttering the phrases, they claimed they hadn’t uttered.

Just last week, I talked with a person familiar with the story who said that the offer was made in a Western Union Telegram, which could render the telephone transcript as irrelevant. There seems to be no evidence that Klass had ever used Western Union to make such an offer. That allegation seemed to be stretching the point to breaking.

We did get deep into the weeds about the exact location of the abduction part of the Walton incident with a suggestion, that has been raised by others, the site has been moved so that a fire watch tower could be used to create the light show for those in the truck with Rogers. Of course, Rogers, when I spoke with him didn’t accept the idea.

I also wanted to talk about some skeptics accepting any solution to a sighting no matter how ridiculous that explanation might be. Although I used Levelland as an example, we did talk about the Lubbock Lights. Sheaffer said that an analysis of the photos showed that two of the pictures, when set one on top of the other suggested that the lights had not moved in relation to one another. For those who wish to learn more about that, you can read it here:

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread906605/pg1#pid15505257

I have, in the past, discussed these pictures at length, including my interview with the photographer, Carl Hart, Jr. You can read that posting here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2006/08/carl-hart-and-lubbock-lights.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2019/01/historys-project-blue-book-lubbock.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/04/carl-hart-jr-lubbock-lights.html

Sheaffer did mention the Coast Guard pictures taken in 1952. There has been an explanation offered for what caused the lights. Here Sheaffer took up a skeptical argument, meaning that he was skeptical of the explanation.

The Salem, MA, Coast Guard Picture.

You can find more information at his blog:

www.BadUFOs.com

Finally, we talked about the artifact, either natural or artificial that had passed through the Solar System not all that long ago. I’ve talked with Dr. Loeb about it on this show a couple of times and you can listen to those shows here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/07/galileo-project-and-avi-loeb.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2021/01/x-zone-broadcast-network-dr-abraham-avi.html

Next week, I’ll be talking to Rob Mercer about his discovery of some of the Project Blue Book files and the fact that he found a complete index with all the names in it. In the publicly released version, all the names had been redacted. 

'X' Zone Broadcast Network - Mike Rogers Talking about the Walton Abduction

Because of the latest controversy surrounding the Travis Walton abduction, I reached out to Mike Rogers, who was there when the UFO was seen. He had been an important voice in the sighting report for more than four decades. You can listen to my interview with him here:

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/46433727

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/46434231

We spent the first interview discussing the whole story from the moment that Rogers and Walton saw the UFO and the men with them, Steve Pierce, Allen Dalis, John Goulette, Ken Peterson, and Dwayne Smith, until they returned to look for Walton after the abduction. It is the story as it has been told many times but here, we hear it from one of the men who was there in 1975. We covered the search for Walton and the law enforcement reaction to the story. I wanted to cover all this for everyone to have, well, the proper perspective on this classic UFO case.

I will note here, because Rogers said it several times, that no one saw Walton abducted. They all saw the craft, but they had fled after Walton had been struck by the beam. Rogers said that he hadn’t seen the beam, but had seen Walton flying through the air.

As the hour expired, we talked about the lie detector tests. Rogers said something about a first test in California but he didn’t know the results or the details. There was a second test, apparently arranged by Jim and Coral Lorenzen of APRO for those at the National Enquirer, which Walton failed. Rogers wasn’t clear if this was the California test, or there had been an earlier test. I suspect that they are the same or the one in California never happened.

We came back to the lie detector tests. Walton passed a second one (third?) arranged by the Lorenzens. It seems they rejected the first test(s) because they had been given too soon after Walton’s return. That his shock at the events might have skewed the results and frankly, I’m willing to accept that explanation. The Lorenzens are to be faulted because they denied the first failed test until Philip Klass learned about it. This, of course, is not a reflection on Walton.

In 1993, Jerry Black, a somewhat disinterested third party, arranged still another lie detector test for Walton. This one seems to have been conducted without a particular bias, and Walton passed it.

We stayed with the lie detector test question a little longer. A number of years ago, Walton appeared on a show called, Moment of Truth. He was asked if he had been abducted by a UFO and he answered, “Yes.” The polygrapher determined that his answer was a lie.

According to Rogers, Steve Pierce, who was there, at the taping of the show, changed his mind about the Walton abduction. In fact, and according to Rogers, of all the men who were there in 1975, apparently only John Goulette still believes that abduction part of the story. I must note here that two of the men who were there in 1975 have since died.

I asked Rogers his reaction to that test but he kept talking about the money that Walton and others had earned at the show. The answer I finally got was that Rogers believed the UFO sighting because he had been there and seen the UFO, but he said, again, that no one actually saw Walton abducted.

Steve Pierce

It had seemed, for years, that the men presented a solid front, with no one breaking ranks. Steve Pierce had been pressed by Philip Klass to admit it was a hoax for ten thousand dollars. Pierce’s friends suggested that if he took the money, he would be bruised and he’d spend it alone (Yes, there is a quote to that effect in the interview). I saw that as something of a threat. I mentioned pressure from both sides to get Pierce to do what they wanted. You can read my interview with Pierce that covers this point here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/07/steve-pierce-and-travis-walton.html

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/03/philip-klass-travis-walton-and-steve.html

And if you scroll down in the following story, you’ll find a little additional information. You can read it here:

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/09/project-aquarius-steve-pierce-and-other.html 

We also talked about the transcript going around in which Rogers is quoted as saying that the story was a hoax. I asked about this and Rogers said that he never said anything like that. He said that the audio interview he’d had with Ryan Gordon had been manipulated to change the meaning. I have not heard the interview but have seen the transcript. That’s something that Rogers and Gordon will have to work out.

What comes out of these two hours with Mike Rogers is that the once solid wall for the Walton abduction is not as solid as it once was. Rogers was somewhat evasive when I asked specific questions about the reality of the abduction and if he believed that Walton had been abducted. He repeated that he had seen the UFO but that no one saw Walton abducted. Is there something that he’s not telling us? You can, quite naturally, listen to the interview and decide for yourself but I will say, this turned somewhat troubling for me.

Next up is Robert Sheaffer. We’ll talk about UFO skepticism and maybe touch his opinion of the Walton abduction.

  

Lewis Chase and the RB-47

 

(Note: Back when I was taking a creative writing course in college, the instructor said to never give away your writing. That weakened the market and made it more difficult for you in the future. When one of those posters  on this blog suggested I do something with the RB-47 case, my first thought was to provide a link to the book in which I had written about the sighting. A good marketing strategy. However, I just wanted to answer the question without making it seem that I was overly mercenary about it. Here is the write-up of the case. If anyone would like to buy the book, it is the UFO Dossier, and you can click on the book cover on the left which will take you to Amazon and the book.)

According to the Condon Committee report, that is, the Air Force sponsored University of Colorado investigation, they learned about the RB-47 incident at a “project-sponsored conference for air base UFO officers held in Boulder in June 1967.” The aircraft commander of the flight, then Major Lewis Chase, who was assigned as the UFO officer at Malmstrom Air Force Base in 1967, mentioned his sighting that occurred in 1957. Roy Craig, who was the investigator for the study on this sighting, wrote:

Lewis Chase

According to the officer, a Major [Chase] at the time of the encounter, he was piloting a B-47 on a gunnery and electronic counter-measures training mission from an AFB [Air Force Base]. The mission had taken the crew over the Gulf of Mexico, and back over South Central United States where they encountered a glowing source of both visual and 2,800 mHz. electronic radiation of startling intensity, which, during the encounter, held a constant position relative to the B-47 for an extended period. Ground flight control radar also received a return from the “object,” and reported its range to the B-47 crew, at a position in agreement with radar and visual observations from the aircraft.

Craig tried to find the report in the Project Blue Book files or in the Defense Command records but failed. He did mention that the most important members of the crew, in relation to the sightings, were the pilot, Chase, co-pilot 1^st Lieutenant James McCoid, and the Electric Counter Measures Officer, known as a “Raven” in the Number Two position, Captain Frank McClure. Those interviewed were surprised that there was no report in the Project Blue Book files, and it was clear from those interviewed that a report had been made by the base intelligence officer Captain E. I. Piwetz, the crew was debriefed at length, and the aircraft commander, Chase, had filled out the forms being used at the time for UFO reports.

During the investigation, Craig gathered additional information from the crew members he could locate and who were not serving in Vietnam at the time of his work. Craig learned that there were a series of incidents that began when the RB-47 crossed the coast of Mississippi and McClure picked up a signal on his scope. McClure was surprised to see it move “up scope” which wasn’t supposed to happen. His job was to find ground-based radar stations emitting signals at around 3000 MHz. Since these were ground based stations, the signal would, naturally, move down scope as long at the aircraft was flying straight and level. McClure thought, at first, this was an equipment malfunction and didn’t mention to either the other Ravens with him or to the aircraft commander.

Near Meridian, Mississippi, they turned toward the west, heading for Louisiana and eventually the Dallas – Fort Worth area, where they would again turn, this time to the north toward their home base. While on the east – west leg of the flight, the pilot spotted a bright white light that he believed was coming right at the aircraft. According to the Intelligence Report created by Piwetz in the hours after the encounter:

At 1010Z [that is 5:10 CDT] aircraft commander [Chase] first observed a very intense light white light with light blue tint at 11 o’clock [position] from his aircraft, crossing in front to about 2:30 position, co-pilot [McCoid] also observed passage of light to 2:30 o’clock where it apparently disappeared. A/C [aircraft commander] notified crew and the ECM operator nr 2 [McClure] search[ed] for signal described above…

 The Condon Committee report noted that the pilot had seen a white light that crossed in front of the plane, “moving to the right, at a velocity far higher than airplane speeds.” The pilot, according to this report, said the light was as large as a barn. The co-pilot also saw the light.

In what might be a confusion of the events, given that the Craig was gathering the information some ten years later, he reported that after the light disappeared, McClure switched his monitoring equipment back to the original frequency and picked up something at the two o’clock position. At this point Chase requested permission to switch radio frequencies to a “ground interceptor control radar and check out the unidentified companion.” The ground radar showed the object on their radar and that it was holding about ten miles from the RB-47.

After the UFO had held the two o’clock position and the ten-mile range and as the Chase had varied speed, heading and altitude, the number two monitoring officer, McClure, reported the object was beginning to move up-scope, to a position in front of the aircraft. According to Craig:

It moved to a position ahead of the plane, holding the ten-mile range, and again became visible.  The pilot went to maximum speed. The target appeared to stop, and as the plane got close to it and flew over it, the target disappeared from visual observation, from monitor number two, and from ground radar. (The operator of monitor number two [McClure] also recalled the B-47 navigator having this target on his radar scope at the same time). The pilot began to turn back. About half way around the turn, the target reappeared on both the monitor and the ground radar scopes and visually at an estimated altitude of 15,000 ft. The pilot received permission from Ground Control to change altitude, and dove the plane at the target, which appeared stationary. As the plane approached to an estimated distance of five miles the target vanished again from both visual observation and radar. Limited fuel caused the pilot to abandon the chase at this point and head for his base. As the pilot leveled off at 20,000 ft. a target again appeared on number two monitor, this time behind the B-47. The officer operating the number two monitoring unit, however, believes he may have been picking up the ground radar signal at this point. The signal faded out as the B-47 continued flight.

Here’s where we are on this, at this point. If the information is accurate, the UFO was seen by a ground-based radar, by the aircraft-based radar, was seen visually by the flight crew, and was detected by monitoring equipment on the aircraft emitting an electromagnetic signal at about 3000 mHz. More precisely, there are three chains of evidence from the visual sighting to the radar returns and to the detection of the electromagnetic signal. That makes this a very strong case.

To add to the impressive array of evidence, according to Craig, both the co-pilot, McCoid, and the number two monitoring officer, McClure, said that they were impressed with the way the UFO disappeared and then reappeared. They said that during some of the encounter, the object could be tracked on the navigator’s radar. McClure said that he remembered the navigator, Thomas Hanley, was receiving a return on his radar and that the bearings to the object matched, exactly, what McClure was receiving on his scope.

Craig, during his investigation, developed a series of questions about the sighting. He wondered if the monitoring station might have picked up a ground-based radar or a reflected signal. He wondered if the visual sightings could be airplane lights, afterburners or meteors. He wondered if the visual sightings were actually the same as the objects on the radars. In other words, he was wondering if the sightings were separated into individual events then they might be explainable. Craig could see that the overall event was mysterious, but that elements of it might have conventional explanations.

Craig also noted that there was a sharp divergence on the report of the sighting and the data that might have been gathered. Chase seemed to believe that records in the form of scope photographs and wire recordings, which was standard on all flights including training flights, had been made, but others disagreed. They thought that this was a “shakedown” prior to deployment of the aircraft overseas and that such records were not made. In his search, Craig was unable to find any such records.

Assuming that these sorts of records were not made and therefore did not exist, Craig decided on another course. He wrote:

Since it appeared that the filmed and recorded data we were seeking had never existed, we renewed the effort to locate any special intelligence reports of the incident that might have failed to reach Project Blue Book. A report form of the type described by the pilot could not be identified or located. The Public Information Officer at ADC Headquarters checked intelligence files and operations records, but found no record of this incident. The Deputy Commander for Operations of the particular SAC Air Wing in which the B-47 crew served in 1957 informed us that a thorough review of the Wing history failed to disclose any references to an UFO incident in Fall 1957.

Later work by others would discover some documents including the form that Chase said that he had filled out. Their problem was that they had the date of the event wrong, believing that it happened in September 1957 rather than July 1957.

With no documentation, with only the testimony of the half the members of the crew taken a decade after the event, there wasn’t much else that could be done. In the conclusion, Craig wrote:

If a report of this incident, written either by the B-47 crew or by Wing Intelligence personnel, was submitted in 1957, it apparently is no longer in existence. Moving pictures of radar scope displays and other data said to have been recorded during the incident apparently never existed. Evaluation of the experience must, therefore, rest entirely on the recollection of the crew members ten years after the event. These descriptions are not adequate to allow identification of the phenomenon encountered.

And that was the end of it. This was an intriguing case that contained some interesting evidence that could lead to some important conclusions. Visual sightings of the UFO, radar contacts on the ground and in the air and electromagnetic radiation from the UFO, all possibly documented with wire recordings, scope photographs and with written reports by crew members and ground radar stations.

Although the details of the case as they were known then by two members of the Condon Committee who had quit in a dispute over the ultimate purpose of the study, it was Dr. James McDonald who straightened out the mistakes in the case. David R. Saunders and R. Roger Harkin published UFOs! Yes! in 1968, before the final report from the Condon was issued.

McDonald determined that the date of the sighting was July 19, 1957 rather than September, which was why they couldn’t find the case file. When it was located, many of the things that the Condon Committee reported were found to be untrue. In fact, part of the massive report included an appendix Q, which were weather records for Mineral Wells, Texas on September 19, 1957, but are wholly irrelevant to understanding the case.

There are four long analyses of this case. As mentioned, McDonald and Klass wrote opposing views. Later Brad Sparks and Tim Printy did the same thing. Sparks endorses the extraterrestrial believing this is one of the best cases for that. Printy’s analysis points out the problems with the case but in the end, isn’t sure what it proves.

Taking a page from Klass, which was to deal with each element of the sighting alone rather than as a whole, some of the flaws in the case can be seen. What we know was that the aircraft had flown from Forbes Air Force Base in Kansas, south out into the Gulf of Mexico for a gunnery exercise and as a problem in celestial navigation. When that was finished, they turned north heading toward Meridian, Mississippi. As they approached the coast, the Number Two Raven, McClure, saw a radar signal that was confusing to him.

According to McClure, the detected signal started at the rear of his scope and began to move upward, in what is now thought of as the “Up Scope Incident.” This sort of thing was, according to nearly everyone, impossible. The purpose of the monitoring system in the aircraft was to detect the signal emitted from enemy ground-based radars and therefore, they would always be moving down scope. The system is passive which means they don’t emit a signal but search for other radar signals. The only way for them to move up scope was if the radar was airborne and the craft carrying it was approaching the RB-47 and then passing it.

McClure, interviewed by the Condon Committee in 1967, said:

I had… a radar receiver…. It had a DF capability which can tell you the bearings from you to the object… Any ground radar that you intercept has to go down your scope because the airplane is moving forward… This particular signal… it was behind me and it moved forward which indicates it was either in the air or the aircraft was in a turn…. So I called the front because I asked them were they turning. He said, “No.” They were flying straight and level. So I just ignored the thing because I figured that’s something that can’t happen and I’ll just forget about it…

 Chase would tell investigators that at this point McClure changed frequencies that he was searching. He was thinking that his equipment had malfunctioned in some fashion. McClure didn’t think much about it at the time it happened. Only after the other events of the evening, did McClure and the others attach significance to this sighting.

Philip Klass in studying this aspect of the sighting believed that the problems were a malfunction in the equipment and a signal received from a station near Biloxi, Mississippi.

Sparks, in his analysis said that the aircraft crossed the coast closer to Gulfport, which meant there were no ground-based radars to account for the signal. He based this on the information that Chase had supplied to the Condon Committee. He also said that the radar site, at Keesler Air Force Base was not in operation at the time. It was a training site, and this was summer and long after midnight.

While the source of the signal has not been identified, according to Printy, the site could well have been in operation on July 17, early in the morning. It is true that the site was a training facility but they did hold late night classes and they did work on the radars in the hours when it would necessarily conflict with nighttime training.

In the end, there is no evidence that the signal came from a ground source, but it does mimic one of the types of radars being used at the time. It was radiating on the proper frequency. In other words, there is no positive solution for this part of the case.

Raven Two, McClure, didn’t mention this problem to the pilot at the time, other than request information about the attitude of the aircraft. If it was in a turn, then the strange movement of the return could be explained. If they were in straight and level flight, then there was some sort of a problem.

Once the flight reached the area of Meridian, Mississippi, they turned to the west, heading toward the Dallas – Fort Worth area, or to a point somewhat south of there, north of Waco. According to the Wing Intelligence report, quoted above, the bright light startled Chase. He thought it was another aircraft heading directly at his, at the same altitude, and that he would have to take evasive action. Chase warned the crew to prepare, but then the light flashed by from left to right. Chase said, according to the documentation in the Condon files:

I didn’t have any time to react at all – that’s how fast it was and it went out to about the 2 o’clock position and all the lights go out on… I asked him [McCoid], “Jim,” I said, “Did you see that?” He gave me some remark like, “Well, I did if you did.” He wasn’t going to admit to anything… Then one of us made the remark, “Well, it must be a flying saucer.” … We were laughing about it in the interphone.

According to the Air Defense Command sighting questionnaire, filled out by Chase some three months after the event, the object or light, was an intense “blue-white light.”  He thought it was about two miles away, but then it was a light seen in the sky without a point of reference. He told the Condon investigators that it was impossible to estimate the distance to an unknown light in the sky. Or, in other words, it could have been much farther away if it was a very bright object.

Interestingly, nearly everyone who has studied the case agree with the idea this was a meteor. It matches descriptions of other such fireballs seen under a variety of conditions. Sparks, in fact, wrote, “This meteor fireball sighting is the only part of the RB-47 incident having a mundane explanation, in this case as a natural phenomenon.”

It was during the next phase of the flight, as the RB-47 approached the next turn that the sighting changed in nature. According to what Chase told Klass:

We actually turned over Meridian, but by the time we got over Jackson we have to be very accurately on course, straight and level for the work to be done. So Meridian would have been the actual turning point with the ECM mission starting at Jackson, in other words the Navigator would have to have a precise fix and you’re on course with no turns so he chart the points along the line.

After the visual sighting and the discussion of “flying saucers,” McClure began to search for some sort signal. At about 4:30 (CST), McClure found a signal that mimicked the characteristics of the CPS-6B radars and like the signal he had detected when they had crossed the coast into Mississippi earlier. The signal was scanning at the same rate as that of the radar, meaning there would be a signal, it would disappear as the radar antenna spun and reappear when the antenna was pointed at the aircraft.

McClure wondered if the UFO that had been seen earlier was the source of the signal that he was now watching. If it was, then it would suggest that the UFO had changed course and was pacing the aircraft, clearly something that no ground station could do. McClure told Chase about what he was seeing on his scope and wondered if he had visual contact with anything out there. He continued to make his observations.

 The wing intelligence report, which was created within hours of the aircraft landing said:

A/C [aircraft commander, Chase] notified crew and ECM NR 4 [McClure] for signal described above, found same approximately 1030Z [4:30 CST] at a relative bearing of 070 degrees; 1035Z, relative bearing of 068 degrees; 1038Z, relative bearing 040 degrees. At 1039Z A/C sighted huge light which he estimated to be 5000 feet below aircraft at about 2 o’clock. Aircraft altitude was 34,500 feet, weather perfectly clear. Although A/C could not determine shape or size of object he had a definite impression [sic] light emanated from top of object. At 1040Z ECM operator nr 2 reported he then had two signals at relative bearings of 040 and 070 degrees. A/C and co-pilot saw these two objects at the same time with the same red color. A/C received permission to ignore flight plan and pursue object. He notified ADC site UTAH and requested all assistance possible. At 1042Z ECM nr 2 had one object at 020 degrees relative bearing. A/C increased speed to Mach 0.83, turned to pursue, and the object pulled ahead. At 1042.5Z ECM nr 2 again had two signals at relative bearings of 040 and 070 degrees. At 1044Z he had a single signal at 050 degrees relative bearing. At 1048Z ECM nr 3 was recording interphone and command position conversations. ADC site requested aircraft to go to IFF mode III for positive identification then requested position of object. Crew reported position of the object as 10NM (nautical miles) north west [sic] of Ft Worth, Texas, and ADC site UTAH immediately confirmed presence of object on their scopes. At approximately 1050Z object appeared to stop and aircraft overshot. UTAH reported they lost object from scopes at this time and ECM nr 2 also lost signal. Aircraft began turning, ECM nr 2 picked up signal at 160 degrees relative bearing, UTAH regained scope contact and A/C regained visual contact. At 1052Z ECM n2 had signal at 200 degrees relative bearing, moving up his D/F scope. Aircraft began closing on object until the estimated range was 5NM. At this time object appeared to drop approximately 15,000 feet altitude and A/C lost visual contact. UTAH also lost object from scopes. At 1055Z in the area of Mineral Wells, Texas, crew notified UTAH they must depart they must depart for home station because of fuel supply. Crew queried UTAH whether a CIRVIS report had been submitted and UTAH replied the report had been transmitted. At 1057 ECM nr 2 had signal at 300 degrees relative bearing but UTAH had no scope contact. At 1058Z A/C regained visual contact of object approximately 10NM northwest of Ft Worth, Texas, estimated altitude 20,000 feet, at 2 o’clock from aircraft. At 1102Z aircraft took up heading for home station. This placed area of object off the tail of the aircraft. ECM nr 2 continued to D/F signal of object between 180- and 190-degrees relative bearing until 1140Z when aircraft was approximately abeam Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. At this time signal faded rather abruptly. 55SRW DOI has no doubt the electronic D/F’s coincided exactly with visual observations by A/C numerous times thus indicating positively the object being the signal source.

 The report was taken by Captain Elwin T. Piwetz within hours of the aircrew landing in Kansas. The memories of the crew would be fresh and suggest these are the best of the interviews conducted. Those held some ten years after the fact don’t agree precisely with these statements, but the discrepancies are all minor and relatively unimportant.

This interview, conducted by the Wing intelligence officer, would seem to provide a good case. Observations that were backed up by both airborne radars and ground-based radars. But the Blue Book file has some contradictory information in it. There is a TELEX alerting those at ATIC and Blue Book that a sighting had been made. Most of the information in that TELEX reflects what the Wing intelligence report said, but there is one line that is troublesome. Although partially hidden by a piece of paper obviously put there to hide some of the information, the line says, “UTAH had negative contact with object.”

On the TELEX someone had identified UTAH as the ground radar and had also written, “Note,” with an exclamation point. This document created within hours of sighting as well and is in direct contradiction of what was reported by Chase and his crew. They also reported that all the documentation they had created had been removed by someone and none of that appear in the Blue Book file.

This demonstrates that the Blue Book file is no help in resolving the questions raised by the sighting. It seems inconceivable that the aircrew would believe that the ground radar station reported they had tracked the object and that those at that station would deny it.

The same can be said for the CIRVIS report. The aircrew said the report had been filed, but if there was no radar contact on the ground, then the report might not have been filed. Or, the ground station filed the report based on what the aircrew said. The search for the CIRVIS report is ongoing.

It also seems odd that the Condon Committee investigators could not find the Blue Book file on the case. True, in 1967, as they were investigating UFOs, some of them had access to the Blue Book files. Ironically, as they investigated a series of sightings at Malmstrom Air Force Base, they were dealing with the base UFO officer, Lieutenant Colonel Lewis Chase. In the course of that investigation, or rather the documents surrounding it, it became clear that some members of the Condon Committee had been granted security clearances so that they could pursue specific sightings.

What that means, simply, is that had they wanted to follow up on what Chase had told them about his sighting in 1957, they had access to the files. Granted, the information supplied by Chase gave the sighting date as September 1957 instead of July, but even a limited search of the records should have turned it up. After Condon finished his work and after Blue Book was closed, James McDonald did find the case file. It wasn’t as if it would have been in another file cabinet, or that the Project Card didn’t contain sufficient information to suggest that it might be the case. Their conclusion that the information is no longer available is inaccurate.

Brad Sparks, in his report published in Jerome Clark’s massive UFO Encyclopedia, Second Edition, wrote:

The RB-47 incident is the first conclusive scientific proof for the existence of UFOs. Calibrations of the RB-47’s electronic measurements provide an irrefutable case. By comparing the measures of the airborne UFO microwave emissions against a known microwave source (the Duncanville, Texas, air defense radar [known in the documentation as UTAH]), with both signals compared simultaneously, the accuracy of the UFO measurements becomes scientifically unassailable. Since both signals were measured at the same time as 30 degrees apart, this proves that it was impossible for the UFO signal to have been a misidentification of the Duncanville radar signal. The UFO signal was the dominant signal since the Duncanville signal was not detected until the RB-47 flew into the strongest part of the Duncanville radar beam.

Even if this statement is considered to be hyperbole, it does suggest that the case was mishandled by the both the Air Force and the Condon Committee. It screamed for a follow up in 1957, when the aircrew was reporting radar contacts from the air, reporting electromagnetic radiation detected emanating from the UFO and with visual sightings of the UFO. As noted, the Blue Book file contains contradictions that should have been resolved in 1957. Did Duncanville track the object or not? And if they didn’t, why did the flight crew believe they did? Those simple questions should have been answered in 1957.

Tim Printy, at his skeptical website wasn’t quite as enthusiastic about the case as was Sparks. Printy wrote, “Is the case solved? I would never suggest so unless there was much more evidence as to aerial activities that morning. As a result, the case is still unidentified.”

Which, of course, seems to be a proper solution here because there are so many aspects that were not explored when various individuals and entities had the opportunity. In 1957, with the Air Force charged with the investigation of UFOs, and with a case that seemed to have so many independent chains of evidence, it would be expected that the Air Force would investigate. That investigation was apparently reduced to having Chase fill out their questionnaire, and paying attention only to the visual sighting that took place near Fort Worth. According to the Project Card, the case file referred only to the “1^st sighting,” which, of course, it was not. They claimed that it was solved as an aircraft, specifically American Airlines flight number 655. Unfortunately for the Air Force, that flight was on the ground in El Paso, Texas. What this demonstrates was that they simply didn’t care to continue to investigate.

Klass concluded that the sightings were a combination of things and taken separately, they were all explainable in the conventional. The first radar sighting was a simple electronic error that flipped the image on the radar screen so that it appeared traveling up scope rather than down. The first visual sighting was of a meteor with which Brad Sparks agrees. The other radar sightings from the ground were misidentifications of the ground radar beams since the frequencies of those beams matched, to a degree the pattern emitted by the UFO. The second visual sightings were American Airlines flight number 966, which according to Klass, “If American Airlines flight #966 was on time, it would have been approaching the Dallas airport at the time that the Duncanville radar operators noted an unidentified target in the same location…. On final approach, the airliner’s landing lights would have been turned on, and this could explain the RB-47 crew’s observation that it had overflown a bright light northwest of Dallas.”

Unfortunately for Klass, American Airlines flight number 966 was involved in a near miss situation in west Texas and was nowhere near Dallas at the time. There is no explanation for the sighting, which doesn’t mean that it was alien, only that it is unidentified.

It is interesting, however, that Klass acknowledges the Duncanville [UTAH] radar tracking an object when the Blue Book file suggests otherwise. Again, this is one of the unresolved points in the case.

In the end, the consensus seems to be that this case is unidentified. The explanations offered for it or rather the radar displays on the airborne detectors might be explained, in part, by ground stations. As noted, there is no evidence that the radar at Biloxi was in operation at the time, and if that is the case, then the explanation fails at that point.

It should also be noted that the flight crew, while unsure of how much was recorded or when the recording started, all agree that there were some recordings made and photographs of the scopes taken. Those have all disappeared and there is no evidence that they were ever part of the Blue Book file.

Given what has been documented, there should be other evidence somewhere. The Condon Committee had the best opportunity to find it in the late 1960s. Members of the team had the clearance to see the files, unless there was something there that would be considered a threat to national security and classified at a level that would not have allowed review by the civilians of the Condon Committee. Chase told one of the committee members who was attempting to learn about the Belt, Montana, sightings in 1967 that related to the allegations that missile launch capability had been compromised that he couldn’t get into that because of the classified nature of the reports.

However, given the instructions the Air Force had given Condon, it is not surprising that nothing came from that information. To probe too deeply could have exposed a significant case. Today, we have the remnants of the case and nothing else. Condon did his job, but here it was not in the public interest.