Part 2-13: "Appeared to Touch the Ground"
|
June 5, 2006
Dan Wilson: Pickering re-interviewed by Bill
Jones,
April 12, 1977. Taken from UFO's: A History 1948 - Loren Gross. (Text
in previous chapter)
The Pickering interview was just
presented in full in previous chapter, Part 2-12. Brad Sparks: Where is the part about how the
UFO
"dipped down touching a grass strip that was a cleared extension of the
runway"? Fran Ridge: The UFOH 1948 is where that came
from,
but two docs I found say "came very near". Doc USAF-SIGN8-217 is the
Pickering questionnaire, followed by the page in question, frame 218,
which can be found at the end of this "chapter".
In fact, this is one Wendy
Connors found
a long time ago
Brad Sparks: I thought your other postings
already
answered this, it was a 1977 APRO
interview of Pickering. That Jan 14, 1948, doc states it "appeared to
touch the ground or was very close to touching it," which confirms the
1977 interview. Fran Ridge: I don't know (without
looking) about the interview, but FTR we will have to go
with the two docs that say "very near the ground". Don't you think?
Brad Sparks: No. I wasn't challenging it, just
wondering. The Jan 14, 1948, report fully confirms it, that it
"appeared to touch the ground" or came very close (an apparent caution
about saying too much that would sound too unbelievable). Fran Ridge: Dan, Since earlier documents (two
of
them) say "very near the ground" it would seem that the 1977 interview
might reflect either Pickering's thoughts that year or an error in the
interview notes. But as Brad pointed out, Pickering probably was afraid
to put into the 1948 report (remember landing cases were rare in 1948)
what he really saw, especially when he was warned not to even talk
about
the incident. Brad Sparks: Yes but .... the Jan 14, 1948,
report
DOES say it "appeared to touch the ground" or come close to it, so the
impression was not invented only decades later in 1977 for APRO, it was
reported all along just not elaborated on because of understandable
sensitivities. Tom DeMary: The "Wendy" document is
at at
the Blue Book site. In the
1977
interview Pickering also claims that the object made a circle around
the entire air base, something not claimed in anyone's (including
Pickering's) 1948 Blue Book statements. That seems more than "a little
off" to me. The 1977 interview is included in K. Randle's Mantell
article at UFO updates.
Brad Sparks: Well I beg to
differ.
Pickering's 1948 account specifically places the object maneuvering
over Commercial Point 3-5 miles to the WSW of Lockbourne and
disappearing
into the high overcast at 120 degs (ESE) at the end of 20 minutes of
maneuvers which had included a landing or near-landing. This
makes a circling of the base consistent with appearing on both
sides of Lockbourne, east and west. Can't make it out to be in
one direction only so as to make it Venus -- which was not in the
ESE at 120 degs azimuth. Thanks for locating the BB Archive doc
refs as it led me to the unsanitized name of the Lockbourne amateur
astronomer Control Tower operator I previously discussed who turns out
to be Frank M. Eisele. This is now bringing to memory that maybe
McDonald investigated this case and maybe interviewed Eisele and
others (it's a vague memory, not
sure). I won't put this (transcript) on
CE and
SHG yet.
Want you to read it first,
then I'll post it. Be ready to respond to Brad Sparks: Well in a way it's
laughable. Mantell chased the object for
90 miles from Godman to Franklin. A 100-foot Skyhook isn't even
visible to the naked eye from 90 miles distance. That's an
angular size of 0.7 arcminute and Minimum Angle of Resolution is about
1 arcminute. Sorry doesn't wash, it's a violation of the laws of
physics and physiological optics. Kevin seems to think that Mantell
could
climb vertically straight
up to a Skyhook at 100,000 ft (notice even Moore does not say the
Skyhook went that high). Does he not realize that the F-51D had a
maximum climb angle of only 17 degrees? It couldn't go straight
up like some later jets could. Also the 10 minutes at 20,000 ft
without oxygen reminds me of a
comment that was reported of Mantell's radio conversation in AF files
where Mantell said he would fly that way for 10 minutes then break
off. That could mean Mantell knew exactly how long he had and was
well aware of what he was doing. Also the oxygen mask blocking
the clear reception of voice reminds me that the last transmission was
garbled and could not be understood. Drew Speier: I may do a follow-up report on
the
Mantell case in July. Kevin Randle:
Read the transcript and I think
there
are a couple of points that
need to be made for the sake of accuracy. Thomas Mantell was not an
"ace." He was a transport pilot who received the Distinguished Flying
Cross for action during the Normandy Invasion, but he did not shoot
down five enemy aircraft (the requirement to be an ace). That is not to
say he wasn't brave, as the DFC proves, just that he didn't fly
fighters during the war. Fran Ridge:
Kevin, I wasn't aware of that,
so
when WFIE did the story I
didn't make any comments. I was more concerned about the fact that they
wanted to use the story because it was somewhat "local", and I did
strongly suggest that we had about 1500 unknowns and that the Mantell
case was not listed AS an unknown. It still isn't, but there are far
too many problems with the evidence gleaned from BB docs recently to
write it off as a Skyhook. I suspect that it will remain a mystery, if
nothing else. Fran Ridge:
There were about 100 launchings
of
Skyhooks per year, about two a
week. Skyhooks were written about (highly publicized) and discussed in
unclassified documents. But, there is no launch date and location that
even comes close to producing a Skyhook over Godman at that time. There
WAS, but that has been changed twice and apparently turns out to be
completely wrong. I'm open to new evidence and won't be upset if it
indeed turns out to be a balloon explanation, but now is the time to
place these events where they properly belong for the record. Kevin Randle:
Thomas Mantell died in a tragic
mistake
of misidentification
complicated by his violation of regulations. It is a sad tale but it is
time to retire this from the UFO lore. Mary Castner:
Boy did I stir up a mess. Just a
FYI we
will be posting the
Skyhook tracking chart as well as some other data by the weekend I
hope. So stay tuned. Fran Ridge:
Mary, by the time this is all
over we
will have the case presented
where it rightfully belongs, Skyhook or no Skyhook. Too many loose ends
and problems as Brad has skillfully pointed out. But not for long. Then
on to bigger and better things. I think you are doing all of us a
favor. Anxious to see your report.
|
|
|