Editing UFOs An International Scientific Problem (section)

=== Case 5. Washington National Airport, July 19 and 26, 1952===

Many more Bluebook file reports that are in the "explained" category
also involve radar-tracking of intriguing nature, but have been tagged with
a variety of other identifications. One of the msot famous is the 1952 epi-
sode near Washington National Airport (July 19 and 26, 1952). I shall not
give an account of it here (see for example Hall or Ruppelt or Ref. 1), but
only remark that my own analysis of the radiosonde data for those two nights
leads me to diametrically opposite conclusions from those that have remained
the official views for fifteen years. There were only very weak inversions
and moisture gradients present on those nights, incapable of causing the
striking radar and visual effects reliably reported.I have recently inter- 3
viewed five of the CAA controllers and four pilots involved in that sighting 2
and can only say that it is a case of extremely great interest - fully deserv- O
ing the national-headline treatment it got in 1952.

Further measure of the limited knowledge of the actual history of UFO -<
investigations held by the USAF personnel charged with UFO responsibilities
can be found in the same April 5, 1966 testimony previously cited. (See O
H.D. 55, Hearing by Committee on Armed Services, HR, 89th Congress, 2d 2
Session, 4/5/66, p. 6075). Congressman Stratton asked Bluebook Officer
Quintanilla: "Was there not a sighting, back it seems to me in 1947, when
an object was observed on radar, either at National Airport or Bolling, both ft
coming in and going out? It seems to me there was also a visual sighting O
that went along with that...Is this in your records at all?" Now, almost q
anyone who had attempted a serious study of UFO history would immediately g
recognize that Mr. Stratton, albeit confused about his recollected details,
was asking of the famous Washington National sightings of July, 1952. Yet 5
the incumbent Bluebook officer replied, "I am sure that if the sighting was g
reported to the Air Force it is on record, but I am not aware of this parti-
cular one, sir." [[Allen Hynek|Dr. Hynek]] did not offer correction, if he was aware that
correction was needed.

Some months later, after I had been at Project Bluebook, studied their
file on this important case, recomputed the refractive-index gradients to
assess the Air Force claims that anomalous propagation effects caused the
radar returns (numerous objects moving with variable speeds, high acceler-
ations) and weighed official claims that optical refraction anomalies caused
the visual reports (mainly from pilots flying well above the weak ground-
inversion and sighting some of the objects maneuvering even above their
flight altitudes), I asked Air Force consultant Hynek how he could have per-
mitted those incorrect radar "explanations" to be passed on to press, public,
and Congress for all these years. His reply was in the form of a question:
"How could I set myself up against all those radar experts from Washington?"
This led me to comment that it should have taken him only about one or two
weeks of study of standard radar-propagation references to become fully con-
versant with all relevant radar details, and that homework ought to have been
done by him twenty years ago, in view of his UFO consulting obligations. It
is, I fear, such casual failure to really close with the puzzling nature of
the UFO problem that has left it in limbo for twenty years. And all of that
time, Pentagon press statements gave repeated assurances that real expertise
was at work proving the correctness of the Air Force position as to misiden-
tified natural phenomena. It is a very distressing and a very unbelievable
story, which is only faintly hinted by the brief remarks that can be made
here. But from the point of view of deserved international scientific atten-
tion to the UFO problem, candid criticisms of the USAF handling of this
problem seems necessary to make clear that there has never been any in-depth
UFO study within the U. S. Hence, I now wish to put myself on record once
again as characterizing most of the past 15 years of Bluebook work as
scientifically incompetent and superficial. Yet it has done the trick: it
has kept all of us unconcerned about the UFO problem.
Conspiracy? No, not as I see it. Foulup.