Part 2-17: The Accident Report Arrives
|
June
13, 2006 Tom DeMary:
The correspondence discussed
below is for Sign Incident #187, and
located at:
and is very legible.
Is this really a pro-UFO statement or simply the obvious observation that the calculated positions of Venus in paragraph 3 conflict with the observed positions reported in paragraph 2? It is quite clear that the measured positions reported in the letter are far from the known positions of Venus during the afternoon of 7 Jan 1948. This was a serendipitous discovery arising from an inquiry into another sighting, probably of Venus, from Godman Field in August 1948. You don't answer my
question: Since when in the AF files
have you EVER seen an anti-IFO or pro-UFO conclusions stated in writing
as "conclusive"???? If you look at the historical context of the time,
1948, and the
AF's efforts to make this sensational case go away, then this kind of
blunt
anti-IFO statement is indeed very unusual and significant -- and in
light
of Deyarmond's next step of declaring the Mantell case
"unexplained." No
one in all of 58 years of UFO history ever knew that the AF had
internally concluded the
Mantell case was "unexplained" and had covered it up with
weasel-worded. Today in 2006 we find out about it for the
first time.
Curiously, the positions cited by
Col Hix and Lt Orner do not
agree.
They are at different times.
Col. Hix reports 215°, but
the letter attributes a 240° azimuth
measurement to Orner at 1400 hrs. This measurement is not what Lt.
Orner reported
in his statement at:
It's obviously a mistake in the
analysis memo.
There, he reports that the
240° azimuth, 8° elevation
measurement was taken at 1735CST. He gives no time for the 250°
azimuth at
which his object went below the horizon.
We are only reading a part of
Lt Orner's reporting including his
theodolite tracking at Godman Field. Cpl. James Hudson at Clinton
County AFB heard the azimuth-elevation readouts from Orner's
tracking over the Plan 62
Interphone System, linking several airfields in the region which was
activated during the Mantell incident. Hudson at CC AFB heard and
recorded the
exact readouts and times 6:54 - 7:02 PM (CST) of Orner's theodolite
tracking at
Godman Field from around 250 degs (254.6 to 253. 9 to 253.0 degs).
I initially presumed that this
was Venus (it was almost an hour after sunset), but Venus does fit.
Venus set at 249° at 1907 CST, but was nowhere near 240° , 8 at
1735 CST. It
would have been there around 1818 CST, however. Did Orner make a
mistake in
his notes? 240° points a little south of Madisonville. I reason
that the 1400 time in the above letter seems almost
certainly incorrect, since the aircraft were dispatched toward
215°. But what
of 1735CST? Was something seen at that time and azimuth? I can only
note the
discrepancy in these theodolite measurements. Daniel Wilson made an
interesting related find, which seems to
cloud things even more.
USAF-SIGN1-526 In this affidavit Cpl Hudson reports theodolite measurements from Godman Field with azimuths around 254° (a little off from Venus, but not too bad) and elevations and times that correlate very well with Venus. Fine on the surface, but how many theodolites were tracking objects that evening? Does this infer that Orner's measurements were taken in afternoon after all, and not at 1735 CST or later. Very confusing! No, Hudson recorded what he heard
of Orner's readings
over the interbase interphone system (see above). This does not
match Venus too
well, especially the sequence of DECREASING azimuths (254.6 to 253.
9 to 253.0
degs), whereas Venus' azimuth must INCREASE as it set. Here is what I
found around the time my computer crashed last week:
Godman Field Control Tower Latitude
N 37
54.4
Longitude W 85
58.0
Jan 7,
1948
TIME
OBJECT (UFO)
VENUS
Azimuth
Elevation
Azimuth Elevation
5:35 PM
CST 240
degs + 8 degs
232.9
degs +15 degs 23.0 mins
6:54 PM
CST 254.6
+
2.4
246.3
+ 2 11.7
6:56 PM
CST 253.9 +
2.0
246.7
+ 1 51.6
7:02 PM
CST 253.0
+
1.2 247.5
+ 0 52
7:06 PM
CST disappeared 248.0
+
0 12
7:07 PM
CST
Venus set below horizon
(Corrected for refraction,
parallax, etc.)
The problem with this being
Venus is that the azimuths are off by
7 to 8.3 to 7.2 to 5.5 degs and the elevation by 7 degs at first, but
more
troubling is that the object WENT SOUTH from 6:54 to 7:02 PM,
instead of Venus
which WENT NORTH. A setting celestial body cannot do this.
However the nearly simultaneous disappearance of Venus and the
object is troubling
too.
Even if we postulated that the
theodolite was
miscalibrated by 7-8
degrees, that would mean all the directions are shifted consistently by
that same angle (it's called a "systematic error"). The
amount of that shift
does not CHANGE from minute to minute!!! Once the theodolite is
anchored
that is it, a 7 degree error stays 7 degrees from then on.
How then can we
get only a 5.5-degree error if the hypothesized miscalibration was 7
(or was it 8?)
degs????
Even so a miscalibration still doesn't explain the RELATIVE azimuth changes heading SOUTH when they should have been heading NORTH. Also the magnitude of azimuth change is problematic. The object moved South (to the left) by 1.6 degs in 6 minutes when at the same time Venus moved 1.2 degs (in those 6 minutes) to the North (to the right). Ah, yes. The money shot. It
was
worth the wait. The UFO was mimicking the balloon and Venus.
It's a fact that there were several interesting sightings of anomalous
objects by Skyhook technicians while they were tracking their own
balloon.
I have received a copy of this
report
(AccRep) from Rod Dyke. It is 127 pages long. Brad Sparks: Wow. It keeps getting smaller and
smaller. I think it was first described as 400+ pages, then the next
figure I saw was like 250 pages and now we find out it's only 127
pages. I wonder what's going on here?
Fran Ridge: The
documents below were found by researcher, Dan Wilson. Page three of
this restricted routing slip had something we all had missed. Venus, we
knew, had been ruled out a long time ago. But Brad brought to
the attention of the UFO community, the statement by A. Deyarmond, made
in November of 1948 (11 months after the incident), that the case was
considered unexplained.
Col Garrison Wood wrote a letter
to
Keyhoe in 1960 about the case, and said that as he recalled it,
"Patterson Field" had contacted Godman _before_ their sightings that
morning and told them to report any. It would be interesting to see
whether this was documented at the time.
As you mentioned to me offline
Wood
has serious credibility issues to say nothing of whether to rely on
1960 memories of exact timing -- did Wright-Pat contact Godman
BEFORE or AFTER the first sightings??? Wood was forced out of the
AF for corruption charges.
If the 1960 letter to Keyhoe
survives,
it will be in the NICAP files at CUFOS, probably in the Mantell files.
I have just discovered some relevant news clippings about the Mantell
case, transcribed by Ted Bloecher, and will scan them for you.
Mark Rodeghier: Because of all the recent
discussion about this case, Mary C. borrowed the CUFOS Mantell and is
reviewing them at home. So you can contact her about looking for
this document.
Fran Ridge: Mark, This may be real important.
I'd love to see this posted with a
CUFOS credit on the dir. Can you check into this for us? ------------------------------ Joel Carpenter: Greenwood/Carpenter Map overlay
(1.5 GB)
http://www.nicap.org/images/MantellSightings_overlay2.jpg
Newsclips, map, skyhook launch
charts (Original link no longer works)
http://www.ufocentral.org/greenwood/mantell/ To Everyone:
Notice my subject line: "MANTELL CASE COVERUP." Well no one has commented on 58-year-delayed revelation of the AF COVERUP in the Mantell case -- the AF's stunning "unexplained" conclusion after "conclusively" ruling out Venus, in secret Nov 1948 documents including one by Albert Deyarmond at AMC Intelligence. No one ever heard of or knew about this before I discovered it recently *, we're finding out only after 58 years. It rivals the AMC TOP SECRET Estimate of the Situation and at least we have copies of the relevant documents. Joel Carpenter: Your points are all valid, even
taking the hyperbole into account. I am sure this subject is trying the
patience of the list, so I won't prolong it except to note that I agree
with you in general. Obviously, if this case was straightforward, it
would have been buttoned up by the emeritus ufologists decades
ago.
It's not straight-forward. The evidence is internally contradictory.
Which data you choose to accept, and which you choose to discard,
either way it says something about where you stand relative to the
whole phenomenon, Richard Hall: I second Joel's sentiment. The
new
discoveries are quite fascinating and a thorough re-analysis certainly
is called for. However, I am not particularly troubled by some internal
inconsistencies. That is virtually always the case in human testimony.
Further, I am now thoroughly convinced that a Skyhook balloon (or
equivalent) definitely was observed from Nashville, Tennessee. We need
to pin down the tracks of all such balloons in the area about that time.
------------------------------ June 16, 2006 Tom DeMary: The Blue Book papers report
"Seyfert's balloon" as SSE of Nashville, moving SSE, then West at 10
mph. I suggest that might should have been "moving SSE, west of
Nashville at 10 mph." Brad Sparks:
The problem with this theory is
that
the AF document actually says Seyfert said it was "moving FIRST SSE,
then W" so it's much more alteration required to force-fit it
into your suggested emendation. It's an extended discussion of
MOVEMENT. ----------------------------- June 19, 2006 Dan Wilson: Don't think that we have this
document
yet. 12 April 1948 letter states: "Capt. James F. Duesler is no longer a member of this Organization, therefore status of investigation promised Mr. A. C. Loedding by subject officer can not be determined." http://www.nicap.org/bb/USAF-SIGN1-367.jpg (http://www.bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=USAF-SIGN1-367) ------------------------------ June 21, 2006 Tom DeMary: Loedding clamps down on UFO
reports. Dick Hall:http://www.nicap.org/docs/mantell/mantell480107docs17.htm USAF-SIGN1-376-377 Fran: These are the same documents that Dan Wilson found and we posted on May 28th. Those were MAXW-PBB3-713 & 714. USAF-SIGN1-377 is a clearer version of MAXW-PBB3-714. Fran, The data I
submitted had to
do with sunrise and sunset, not Venus setting times. I was comparing
the sunset times to the changing colors seen on the "UFO" in that one
story. That and the Seyfert observation and a couple of others show
pretty definitely that a Skyhook-like balloon was in the area. They
reflect sunlight very brightly, as my own 1956 or so sighting
indicates. Also, Venus as you know doesn't sit still for 1-1/2 hours as
Hix reported. Venus has practically nothing to do with the Mantell
case, I agree. If a Skyhook weren't brightly illuminated by sunlight no
doubt his calculations about how far the human eye can see something
would be close to the mark. The light reflection changes that
altogether. Drew Speier: Fran, Would you be available next
week, say
after Wednesday, to do another interview? We want to run our follow-up
piece to the Mantell story the second week of July. You will
probably be the only person we interview for this one. We want to talk
about how the investigation was reopened because of our stories.
I think we can mention how you are looking at
Blue
Book files now, etc., as well. Fran Ridge: Depends on my analysts' final
comments. The re-investigation is ongoing and we are going over the
skyhook path charts. No question a skyhook was in the region, but not
everybody could have seen it. We think we can prove Mantell could not
have seen it at all, let alone risk his life going after it. Also found
evidence of a cover-up. But we have to get this right, FTR, and
everybody caught the interview we had. And who knows, somebody
reading it might be another key witness. We found another F-51 crash;
pilot killed. BEDFORD, Indiana. UFO involved, and radar. And no records
in Blue Book files as yet, but we are only up to mid-1952 on those. ------------------------------June 22, 2006 Fran Ridge: Brad, I want to do this
(interview),
but I don't
want to go out on a limb. What do you think we have at this point? Brad Sparks: You can say that we still don't
know it
was a UFO rather than an IFO. But the 70-foot Skyhook balloon
that is now known to have been in the area was south of Nashville,
Tenn., and at about 160 miles distance was too small or far away to be
seen from Godman Field at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The balloon would
have had to be something like 1,000 feet in size to be both visible and
prominent enough for anyone to pay attention to it. The AF secretly
concluded the Mantell case was "unexplained," a fact that was not
discovered until this renewed investigation, after almost 58
years. The AF had always dismissed it as either a Skyhook balloon
or the planet Venus, neither of which were visible, apparently. Other
sightings that day are still being investigated, but some may be actual
UFO's. The Mantell Accident Report is still to be analyzed (by
the way what is the progress on that???). ------------------------------ June 25, 2006 Jean, Thanks for the crash
report.
Looking it over carefully. Perhaps I am a bit too suspicious but page
14 of 76 (Richard L Tylers's report) and page 20 of 76
( Glenn T. Mayes's report) sound very much alike. Both talk of the
plane doing three circles and then go into a power dive and slowly
rotating, and did not burn on impact. A power dive? That is okay
for Tyler of the ANG but for a civilian (Mayes) to say a power
dive, that sounds like he was being coached--told what to say--get
your stories straight ,
etc. Great job! Dan Wilson:
Mantell Incident
Crash
Report
Frame (15 of 33)
says
only one pilot in the flight (the element leader) had
an oxygen mask. Mantell was the Flight Leader. ------------------------------ June 26, 2006 Jean Waskiewicz:
I have created a PDF file of all
the
pages in the package I received leaving out the duplicate pages for
now. It is 22.17MB and I loaded it onto my site at:
Brad Sparks: I'm already seeing that the
Accident
Report has more complete versions of the seemingly same statements of
the same witnesses than what appears in the Sign/BB files. The
editing has been done smoothly enough that you would never know you are reading
an edited version if you didn't have the
complete version to compare with. ------------------------------ June 27, 2006 Fran Ridge: Did we ever run into any of
these
documents on Mantell? Ruppelt: "I dug out the file. In 1949 all of the original material on the incident had been microfilmed, but something had been spilled on the film. Many sections were so badly faded they were illegible. As I had to do with many of the older sightings that were now history, I collected what I could from the file, filling in the blanks by talking to people who had been at ATIC during the early UFO era. Many of these people were still around, "Red" Honnacker, George Towles, Al Deyarmond, Nick Post, and many others. Most of them were civilians, the military had been transferred out by this time." Fran Ridge: In 1956 a former head of
Project Blue
Book (Capt. Ed Ruppelt) stated in his book ("The Report on Unidentified
Flying Objects", page 41): ------------------------------"According to the old timers at ATIC, this report (Chiles-Whitted case) shook them worse than the Mantell Incident. This was the first time two reliable sources had been really close enough to anything resembling a UFO to get a good look and live to tell about it." When I mentioned the AF being shook up on the original TV interview, somebody asked me where I got that. Well, two places: Lewis Blevis in 1960 and Ruppelt in 1956. June 28, 2006 Dan Wilson: The 9 Oct. 1961 letter
mentions
the
Mantell Case, saying that there was no radioactivity connected
with the remains of Capt. Mantel's aircraft, a P-51. MAXW-PBB9-515 Dan Wilson: Clingerman Request for
Transcription of
a recording made 7 January regarding an unidentified flying object and
the discussion that took place between the three P-51 National Guard
aircraft and the tower operator at Godman Field. During an
investigation 9 January 1948 at Godman Field it was learned that such a
recording was made. Maj. Matthews says his office has no record and
refers to Detachment Commander, 733 AFBU, Godman AFB.
http://www.nicap.org/docs/mantell/mantell480107docs18.htm USAF-SIGN1-295
|
