Symposium on unidentified flying objects: hearings before the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, second session, July 29, 1968.

•
67
2. Case 32. Odessa, Wash., December 10,1952
According to an official case-summary (Ref. 7, Rept. 10), two airmen in an
F-94 "made visual and radar contact with a large, round white object larger
than any known type of aircraft" near 1915 PST on 12/10/52 near Odessa.
The radar operator in the F-94 had airborne radar contact with the object
for 15 minutes, and during that same interval, ground radar was also track-
ing it. The summary states that "the object appeared to be level with the inter-
cepting F-94 at 26,000 to 27,000 ft," and it is pointed out that "a dim reddish-
white light came from the object as it hovered, reversed direction almost in-
stantaneously and then disappeared." It is stated that the skies were clear above
3000 ft. The official evaluation of this incident is "Possible Balloon", although
the report notes that no upper-air research balloon was known to be in the
area on this date. The principal basis for calling it a balloon was the observers'
description of "large, round and white and extremely large", and it was re-
marked that the instrument package on some balloon flights is capable of yield-
ing a radar return.
Discussion. To conclude that this was a "Possible Balloon" just on the basis
of the description, "large, round and white and extremely large", and thereby
to ignore the instantaneous course reversal and the inability of a 600-mph
jet to close with it over a period of 15 minutes seems unreasonable. We may
ignore questions of wind speeds at the altitude of the object and the F-94 be-
cause both would enjoy the same "tail-wind effect". In 15 minutes, the F-94
would be capable of moving 150 miles relative to any balloon at its altitude.
On the other hand, airborne radar sets of that period would scarcely detect
a target of cross-section represented by the kinds of instrument packages hung
on balloons of the Skyhook type, unless the aircraft were within something
like 10 or 15 miles of it. Yet it is stated that the F-94 was pursuing it under
radar contact for a time interval corresponding to an airpath ten times that
distance. Clearly, categorizing this unkown as a "balloon" was incompatible
with the reported details of the case.
On the other hand, there seems no reason to take seriously Menzel's evalua-
tion of this Odessa F-94 sighting (Ref. 25, p. 62). Menzel evidently had the full
file on this case, for he adds a few details beyond those in Ref. 7, details similar
to those in Ruppelt's account of the case (Ref. 5):
"Dim reddish-white lights seemed to be coming from 'windows', and no trail
or exh,aust was visible. The pilot attempted to intercept but the object performed
amazing feats—did a chandelle in front of the plane, rushed away, stopped, and
then made straight for the aircraft on a collision course at incredible speed."
He indicates that after the pilot banked to avoid collision he could not again
locate it visually, although another brief radar contact was obtained. Having
recounted those and other sighting details, Menzel then offers his interpre-
tations:
"In the east, Sirius was just rising over the horizon at the exact bearing of
the unknown object. Atmospheric refraction would have produced exactly the
phenomenon described. The scone atmospheric conditions that caused the mPrage
of the star would have caused anomalous radar returns."
Now stars just above the viewer's horizon do scintillate and do undergo
turbulent image-displacement, but one must consider quantitative matters. A
refractive excursion of a stellar image through even a few minutes of arc would
be an extremely large excursion. To suggest that a pilot would report that Sirius
did a chandelle is both to forget realities of astronomy and to do injustice to
the pilot. In fact, however. Menzel seems to have done his computations incor-
rectly, for it is easily ascertained that Sirius was not even in the Washington
skies at 7:15 p.m. PST on 12/10/52. It lay at about 10 degrees below the east-
ern horizon. A further quite unreasonable element of Menzel's explanation of
the Odessa case is his easy assertion that the radar returns were anomalous
results of the "atmospheric conditions". Aircraft flying at altitudes of 26,000
ft do not get ground returns on level flight as a result of propagation anomalies.
These extreme foreings of explanations recur throughout Menzel's writings;
one of thier common denominators is lack of attention to relevant quantitative
factors.
3. Case 33. Rosalia, Wash., February 6, 1953
Another official case-summary of interest here is cited by Menzel (Ref. 25,
p. 46). Keyhoe (Ref. 4), who studied the ease-file on it much earlier, gives
similar information, though in less detail. A B-36, bound for Spokane was
over Rosana, Wash., at 1:13 a.m. when, as Menzel describes it,