Documents / Document

James E. McDonald statement, Symposium on UFOs, House Committee on Science and Astronautics

Princeton (kirkmcd archive) · 1968-07-29 · 55 pages · text from the file's own layer

This is the prepared statement James E. McDonald, a senior physicist at the University of Arizona's Institute of Atmospheric Physics, submitted to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics for its July 29, 1968 Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects. He draws on hundreds of witness interviews and weighs eight hypotheses. His conclusion is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial surveillance devices. He argues that scientists have wrongly neglected the subject and urges much more scientific investigation and further Congressional hearings.

Longview. Furthermore, a typical pilot balloon of about 1 meter diameter could be no higher than about 2500 ft
altitude to subtend as large an angle as 10 minutes of arc. Taylor report (official files) gave transit times of 2-3
minutes for the unknowns to cross the Longview sky, and, during such a time interval, the normal ascent rate of a
pilot balloon would carry it up by 1200-1800 ft. To then fit the angular-size requirements would clearly require that
the balloon have been released at some nearby location, which fails to match known pibal-station locations at that
time. Furthermore, surface winds were from the west, and winds a short distance above the ground were
southwesterly, as indicated by pulp mill smoke-drift described in Taylor's report. This, plus the previously cited
upper-flow directions, contradict the balloon hypothesis for all three directions of arrival, particularly those coming
from north and northwest. To hypothesize that these were, say, Skyhook balloons coming from three different
(unknown) sites, at three different high altitudes, but all so arranged that the apparent balloon diameter came out at
about the same 10 minutes of arc each time is scarcely reasonable. In all, I can only regard the balloon explanation
as untenable.
Disc-shaped objects have been sighted in dozens of instances, including Arnold's 6/24/47 Mt. Rainier sighting. In
many, though not all, the odd flipping or fluttering motion has been described by witnesses (Refs. 8, 10). What the
dynamical significance of this might be is unclear. We know no more about this in 1968 than we knew in 1947,
because such observations have been ignored as nonsense -- or misidentified balloons.
3. Case 11. Salt Lake City, Utah, Oct. 2, 1961:
A midday sighting of a lens-shaped object involving one airborne witness and seven witnesses on the ground
became headline news in Salt Lake City (Ref. 32). Accounts of the incident have been summarized elsewhere (Refs.
2, 10, 13, 25). A private pilot, Mr. Waldo J. Harris, was taking off on Runway 160 at Utah Central Airport at almost
exactly noon on 10/2/61 when he noted what he at first idly viewed as a distant airplane. He noted it again in the
same area just after becoming airborne, once more after gaining some altitude, and then became somewhat puzzled
that it had not exhibited any appreciable change of position. About then it seemed to tilt, glinting in the noonday sun,
and exhibiting a shape unlike any aircraft. To get a better view, Harris climbed towards the southeast and found
himself at its altitude when he was somewhat above 6000 ft. By then it appeared as a biconvex metallic gray object,
decidedly different from conventional aircraft, so he radioed back to the airport, where eventually seven persons
were taking turns viewing it with binoculars. I have interviewed not only Harris, but also Jay W. Galbraith, operator
of the airport, who, with his wife, watched the object, and Robert G. Butler, another of those at the airport. As Harris
attempted to close in, he got to a minimal distance that he thought might have been approximately two or three miles
from the object, when it abruptly rose vertically by about 1000 ft, a maneuver confirmed by the ground witnesses.
They indicated to me that it took only a second or perhaps less to ascend. Just before the abrupt rise, Harris had been
viewing the object on an essentially dead-level line of sight, with distant Mt. Nebo behind it, a significant feature of
the case, as will be brought out in a moment.
Before Harris could close his distance much more, the object began moving off to the southeast at a speed well
above his light-plane top speed. It was soon an estimated ten miles or so away, but Harris continued his attempt to
close. However, after seeming to hover a short time in its new location , it began rising and moving westward, at an
extremely rapid speed, and passed out of sight aloft to the southwest in only a few seconds. Some, but not all of the
ground witnesses, observed this final fast climb-out, I was told. Military jets were called, but the object had gone
before they arrived.
Both Harris and the ground observers using binoculars attested to lack of wings or tail, and to the biconvex side
view. Harris said he had the impression its surface resembled "sand-blasted aluminum", but his closest view was
about 2-3 miles away, and its estimated size was put at about 50-60 ft diameter (and only a tenth as thick) so the
impression of surface texture must be regarded as uncertain. AIl witnesses confirmed that the object "wobbled"
during its hovering. Jay Galbraith said that, when Harris' Mooney Mark 20A was only a speck, they could see the
disc rather easily by naked eye, suggesting that its size may have been substantially larger than Harris' estimated 50
ft. Galbraith's recollection of its final departure was that it climbed at a very steep angle, perhaps within about
20degrees of the vertical, he thought. Butler also recalled the final departure and stressed that it was a surprisingly
steep climb-out, quite beyond any known jet speed. All remarked on 10/2/61 being a beautifully clear day.

Cases discussed

About this file

Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 55 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.