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

"computation showed that the existing winds would have carried the balloon to the southeast, and
it would have been over Rosalia, which is 12.5 nautical miles southeast of Fairchild, in about
fifteen minutes."
In fact, Rosalia lies 33 statute miles SSE of Fairchild, or about twice as far as Menzel indicates. The net drift of the
balloon cannot be deduced simply from the winds in the 7-10,000-ft layer; and, in fact, an examination of the upper-
wind data for that area on February 6 indicates that the winds at lower levels were blowing out of the southwest. The
trajectory of the balloon would have taken it initially east-north-east, then east, and finally curving back to the
southeast as it got up to near the 10,000-ft levels. By that time, it would have been already east of Spokane, nowhere
near Rosalia.
The small light (candle or flashlight bulb) used on night pibal runs is almost invisible to the naked eye beyond a few
miles' distance. (A 1-candle source at 3000 ft is equivalent to a star of about the first magnitude. At 6 miles, then,
one finds that the same source equals the luminosity of a sixth- magnitude star, the limit of human vision under the
most favorable conditions. For a pilot, looking out of a cockpit with slight inside glare to spot a 1-candle source
against a dark back ground would require that the source be only a few miles away.) At some 30 miles, the B-36
pilot could not have seen the small light on a balloon east of Spokane.
Menzel states that
"the balloon carrie white running lights which accounted for the blinking described, and the
circling climb of the UFO is typical of a balloon's course."
Neither inference is supportable. The light used on pilot balloons is a steady source; only if one were right above it,
with its random swing causing intermittent occultation, would one ever perceive blinking. But then, flying at B-36
speeds, the pilot would have swept over the sector of perceptible occultation in only a matter of seconds. Yet here
the pilot watched it for a reported 3-5 minutes. Furthermore, "circling climb" cannot be called "typical of a balloon's
course." The balloon trajectory is controlled by the ambient wind shears and only with unusually strong directional
shears would a pilot flying a straight course perceive a pilot balloon to be "circling."
In all, there appear to be so many serious difficulties with the balloon explanation for the Rosalia sighting that it is
not possible to accept Menzel's statement:
"Thus all the evidence supports ATIC's conclusion that the UFO was a weather balloon."
4. Case 34. Boston. Mass., June 1, 1954:
At 0930 EDST, a Paris-New York TWA Constellation was passing near Boston when the cockpit crew spotted "a
large, white-colored disc-like object" overhead (Ref. 41). Capt. Charles J. Kratovil, copilot W. R. Davis, and flight
engineer Harold Raney all watched it for a total time of 10 minutes as they flew on their own southwestward course
to New York. They would occasionally lose it behind overlying clouds. Knowing that they were flying into
headwinds, they concluded that it could not be any kind of balloon, so they radioed the Boston airport control tower,
which informed him that jets were scrambled and saw the object, but could not close with it.
After landing in New York, Capt. Kratovil was informed that official spokesmen had attributed the sighting to a
"weather balloon" released from Grenier AFB, in New Hampshire.
Discussion:
I am still in the process of trying to locate Kratovil to confirm sighting details; but the fact that four newspaper
accounts for that day give the same information about the major points probably justifies acceptance of those points.
From upper-wind data for that area and time, I have confirmed the presence of fairly strong flow from the WSW
aloft, whence Kratovil's press comment, "If this was a weather balloon, it's the first time I ever saw one traveling