|
Date:
Tue, 22 May 2012 12:36:35 +0100 Subject: Re: [Current Encounters] Jan. 27, 1965; Plum Tree Island (Hampton), Virginia (BB) Martin Shough wrote: Worth noting that the witness was looking N-NE
across 1.8 mi of the Back River roughly towards the
Plum Tree Island NASA aviation test range operated
by Langley, whose nearby runways were about E or ENE
from him. The site appears to have been used mainly
for model drop tests and the like from helicopters
and cherry-pickers. Since BB approached Langley one
supposes that no testing of unusual illuminated
LEM-style rigs or similar was actually taking place
or they would have jumped on the explanation. All
they got from Langley was that there was a
helicopter "in the area east of Langley" during the
sighting time. Clear as mud, but that *could* place
a chopper in the line of sight. It was good enough
for BB, of course. But why this chopper would be
carrying a bank of multiple red lights is another
question, not to mention the parallels with similar
cases. Anyway, here're a few bits of
possibly-relevant background:
The 1959 location map of the planned Plum Tree
Island test range:
1960 Operations Plan:
Photos of a paraglider test at Plumtree in 1961:
1965 letter (undated but 14 Dec 65 date added in
pencil) requesting permission for unspecified drop
tests there:
Interesting NASA video, undated, showing model
drop tests of various lifting bodies and capsules at
Plumtree:
Martin
------------ BTW the single helicopter reportedly in the
area was an H-3 Sea King, not an especially quiet
machine I feel but others more knowledgeable may
want to comment. True, the W or WNW wind direction
was not necessarily most favourable, but on a
cold, clear night over open water one might expect
that some sound might be heard from a Sea King
near enough to subtend a significant visual angle
(resolvable string of multiple lights) - yet the
report says it was silent.
------------ Hi Martin, Thanks
for the NASA test range data. The AF reporting
on the case is a bit murky. Too bad we don't
have the NICAP reports -- see UFO Investigator
Mar-Apr 1965 p. 4b. Crimmins told NICAP the
lights looked like they were "on the edge or
rim of a rapidly rotating disc."
NICAP
UFO investigator Mar-Apr 1965 p. 4b:
The Langley AFB report to
BB is very fuzzy and marred by errors and
contradictions. It is unclear what the
estimated distance to the object was, but
seems to have been the 1.8 mile distance to
Plum Tree Island, which seems to be where
the object hovered and then landed for 5
minutes of the 1-1/2-hour sighting. Crimmins
estimated the object's size at 75 feet,
which at a distance of about 9,000 ft (1.8
mi) would represent a naked-eye angular size
of about 0.5 deg or almost Full Moon, which
is huge. But Crimmins also used 20x 50mm
binoculars which would magnify the
equivalent angular size to almost 20 times
Full Moon, an extraordinarily large image
over an extraordinarily great length of
time, making it highly unlikely to be a
helicopter. Crimmins also noted no sound.
Moreover, the AF report
states that the Navy helicopter was in the
area east of Langley AFB only from 6:00 to
6:30 PM, whereas Crimmins sighted the object
from 6:00 to 7:30 PM, or for 1 hour after
the helicopter had left. The AF did not
state exactly where "east" of Langley AFB
the helicopter was located nor what sort of
mission it was on.
The sketchy AF report gives
the impression the object was seen to the
NNE yet states that "upon disappearance" the
object was at an "azimuth of 090 degrees
from the observer." That is Due East from
Crimmins, straight out to sea, and well away
from Langley AFB. So if it was a helicopter,
it apparently did not return to base,
assuming it was based at Langley AFB about
NNW of Crimmins or at Norfolk Naval Air
Station to the S of Crimmins.
Since Crimmins was using
20-power binoculars he could see a
helicopter out to a very great distance.
Visibility was reported at 10 miles but with
bright lights and binoculars the distance
could be much greater.
Among the errors and
discrepancies in the Langley AFB report to
BB, besides the typo in the Zulu time of
Crimmins' sighting, there is the question of
the date of reporting and investigation. The
AF reporting officer 1st Lt. Dockum claims
that the sighting description was given to
him by Crimmins in a personal interview on
Jan. 29, or 2 days after the sighting (why
the delay?). Yet Lt Dockum states that he
searched the (landing) area "in a helicopter
the next morning after the reported
sighting," or on Jan 28. That would suggest
that Crimmins reported his sighting by phone
on the morning of Jan 28 with sufficient
detail that Lt Dockum could find and search
the landing site by helicopter. Maybe
Crimmins did both, report by phone on Jan 28
and in person on Jan 29, but it is a little
odd to not just say that, in as simple words
as I have just given.
Lt Dockum claims,
apparently falsely, that "Mr. Crimmins
stated that he thought that a helicopter
would explain his sighting." Crimmins
certainly would have denied any such claim
in his report to NICAP. Even on its own
terms, the AF claim that the witness himself
acknowledged a helicopter IFO explanation
does not explain why the hell Crimmins would
have even bothered reporting the sighting to
the AF at all if he had had any inkling it
was simply a helicopter operating in an
active aviation area!
The BB file has a 3x5 card
with a handwritten note:
"for additional information
see [redacted -- Nayadley ??] folder."
------------ I agree with
just about all of this, Brad. Some of the
same points occurred to me. I'd only add
one comment to this:
Lt Dockum
states that he searched the (landing) area
"in a helicopter the next morning after
the reported sighting," or on Jan 28. That
would suggest that Crimmins reported his
sighting by phone on the morning of Jan
28.
Perhaps Lt
Dockum meant to say that he searched in a
helicopter the next morning after the
sighting was reported instead of
after the reported sighting?
Martin
|
