JACOBS, David Michael, 1942- the CONTROVERSY OVER UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS in AMERICA: 1896-1973
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Microfilmed by Univ. of Wis. Department of Photography 73-20, 258 JACOBS, David Michael, 1942- THE CONTROVERSY OVER UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS IN AMERICA: 1896-1973 The University of Wisconsin ,Ph.D., 1973 History , modern University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan � David Michael Jacob s, 1973 All �ghts Re se�ved ___ _i .. _ . (This title card prepared by The University of Wisconsin) PLEASE NOTE: The negative microfilm copy of this dissertation was prepared and inspected by the school granting the degree. We are using this film without further inspection or change. If there are any questions about the film content, please write directly to the school. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS THE CONTROVERSY OVER UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS IN AMERICA: 1896 - 19 73 A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy BY David Michael Jacobs May Degree to be aw arded : January 19____ __ 1¢¢¢ 19_7�3'----- August 19__ _ APPROVED by Thesis Reading Committee: Ma��Jr�· Da�a�ai!7 J �- i�·" ©Jt:� - 1 v £aA/ CP.JfUp�� �t�d >rz. (/A� 7JJll:tt;n �]rL Dean, Graduate School THE CONTROVERSY OVER UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS IN AMERICA: 1896 - 1973 BY DAVID MICHAEL JACOBS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHI�OSOPHY (History) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON 1973 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have incurred many debts in the past years as part of this project. I thank William L. O'Neill for encouraging me to go forward with this dissertation topic. I owe my greatest academic debt to Paul K. Conkin who patiently oversaw the dissertation , diligently corrected its innumerable errors, and good-naturedly kept my thoughts on an even keel throughout the writing. His criticisms were invaluable lessons in clear thinking. While I was conducting the research, Richard Greenwell and Coral and James Lorenzen at the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization (Tucson, Arizona) and Stuart Nixon of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (Kensington, Maryland) gave encouragement and immeasur able help by allowing me complete use of their organizations ' files . Judith Endicott was particularly helpful in my research at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama . My discussions with J. Allen Hynek at Northwestern University filled many gaps in my knowledge of his and the Air Force 's roles in the UFO controversy. I thank Roger Keeran for listening to countless rehashings of my theories and helping me over many rough spots in my writing and ideas . Lynn and Charles W. Hieatt deserve gratitude for the friendship and support they gave during the trying days of writing. The debt I owe to Irene D. Jacobs for listening to my ideas , reading and editing my writing , and giving moral support over the past two years is so large that mere acknowledgement becomes absurd in the face of it. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • ii INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. THE MYSTERY AIRSHIP : PRELIMINARIES TO THE CONTROVERSY • 3 II. THE MODERN ERA BEGINS : ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE THE MYSTERY • 47 III. THE 1952 WAVE: EFFORTS TO MEET THE CRISIS • • • • • • • 83 IV . THE ROBERTSON PANEL AND ITS EFFECT ON THE UFO CONTROVERSY 120 V. CONTACTEES , CLUBS, AND CONFUSION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 146 VI. 1954 TO 1958: CONTINUED SKIRMISHES AND THE RISE OF NICAP 181 VII. THE BATTLE FOR CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS •••• 216 VIII. 1965 : THE TURNING POINT IN THE CONTROVERSY 262 IX . THE CONDON COMMITTEE AND ITS AFTERMATH • 301 CONCLUSION • • • • 352 A NOTE ON SOURCES 357 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 360 iii 1 INTRODUCTION Unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have been a source of con tinuing controversy . Steeped in ridicule and existing on the fringes of scholarly pursuit , the subject of unidentified flying objects has a history of its own . This involves the Air Force 's efforts for over twenty years to cope with the UFO phenomenon , the growth of national organizations dedicated to investigating it , and the scientific community's fear or re luctance to study the subject because of the ridicule attached to it. It also involves press coverage of the subject, motion pictures and tele vision shows about it, and the small group of people who have made a living capitalizing on the fantasy aspects of UFOs. The debate over unidentified flying objects in America was surrounded by emotion , ignorance, and loose thinking. I do not attempt to solve the problem of the origin of the phenomenon. Rather , I try to explain some of the reasons why people ex pended great amounts of time and energy on it. My focus is on describing and , in part, analyzing societal responses to the appearance of a mys terious phenomenon . There are semantic difficuLties inherent in a discussion of un identified flying objects. There is no word to describe a person who studies the UFO phenomenon , one who believes that UFOs represent a unique phenomenon , or one who believes that UFOs are products of extraterrestrial intelligence . The lack of precise language prompts people to use the terms "flying saucer" and "unidentified flying object" synonymously. 2 They are different. The term "flying saucer" conveys the idea of objects intelligently controlled and extraterrestrial in origin. The term "un identified flying object" denotes just that , an unidentified flying object regardless of speculations about its origin. There also is a difference betw.een a UFO sighting and a UFO report. The first is an event that happens to a person , and the second is the description that the person gives of the event. Moreover, there are two types of UFO reports : those that investigators can explain given sufficient information, and those that investigators canno t explain even with sufficient information. Unhappily, these two types of reports do not have different labels , and the context in this study will have to make the meaning clear . Semantic rigor was not a characteristic of the debate over UFOs. Finally , a word about the time span of this study. The UFO sighting waves dictated my chronology. The first maj or sightings took place in 1896 and 1897. I had to leap to 1947 (with a short interlude around World War II) because there were no known large-scale sighting waves between 1897 and 1947 . The sighting waves prompted public reaction. Therefore, the history of the debate coincides with the times wh en people reported unidentified flying objects in American skies. 3 CHAPTER I THE MYSTERY AIRSHIP: PRELIMINARIES TO THE CONTROVERSY During 1896 and 1897 many people supposedly witnessed an "airship" which flew over large areas of the United States . The ''sightings" started in California in November 1896 and continued until May 1897, with a break from January to the middle of March . People sighted an airship in Arkan- sas , California , Colorado , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa, Kansas , Kentucky, Michigan , Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma , South Dakota, Tennes- see, Texas , West Virginia , and Wisconsin. Because many of the sightings were simultaneous , there seemed to be more than one object. The sighted airships appeared most often as dirigible-type machines, cylindrical or cigar-shaped and driven by a mo tor attached to 1 an air screw or propeller. When people said they saw an "airship ," they were differentiating between it and a glider or an heavier-than-air "flying machine." Also , most people distinguished between an "airship" and a "balloon ," which was definitely round and had a basket attached to it . They reflected a popular belief that the solution to aerial navi- gation would be through an airship rather than heavier-than-air flying machines , which had not yet assumed the importance in the popular imagi- nation that they would after 1903. Many of the early designs for the "machine that would conquer the air" looked like dirigibles with a passenger car on the bottom. 4 It is a fact that thousands of people saw something in the sky ; but the descriptions of what they saw varied greatly, either because the witnesses were inaccurate or the objects actually were different . In Omaha, Nebraska, the sighting of an airship interrupted a Knights of Ak-Sar-Ben initiation ceremony: the object was "at least eighteen inches in diameter , the reflection from which passed along what appeared to be a steel body, the length of which could only be estimated at from twelve to 2 thirty feet ." In Chicago , on April 10 , 1897, the Chicago Tribune reported that people saw an object "about seventy feet in length , of slender pro- portions , and fragile construction ••••A few observers claim they also saw, a short distance ab ove the body, lateral structures resemb ling wings or sails. These appeared to be about twenty feet in width , and , as they 3 were. seen from one side, their length could not be accurately estimated. " In Mount Carroll, Illinois , witnesses described an airship as being eight 4 to ten feet long and two or three feet high. "A dim outline of it could 5 be seen, which appeared to be shaped like an egg" in Wausau , Wisconsin . An airship over Dallas , Texas, was "in a luminous , hazy cloud" and had "sails or wings outstretched on both sides of its cigar-shaped body" ; "on both ends ," the report said , "there were large rotating fans projecting from the sails at an angle of about 45 degrees , the one in front being elevated , while the one at the rear was depressed, somewhat resemb ling 6 the body of a bird." Witnesses estimated its length to be about 200 feet. In Fort Worth , Texas, an airship looked like a sixty-foot long "passenger 7 coach," long and pointed at the ends, with wings "like that of a bat." Witnesses repeatedly reported lights on the object ; this usually was the first indication that an airship was approaching.