.
UFOlogy’s “best case”
.
About a year ago, Paul Kimball privately accused me of taking on only easy UFO cases and felt that skeptics were purposefully ignoring the RB-47 UFO incident. I replied that the reason skeptics/debunkers/disbelievers/whatever could not explain the case was because there just wasn’t enough information and, without a time machine, it would be
impossible to satisfy UFO proponents. I felt there was little hope of any success in resolving the case but, I was intrigued by his challenge. Therefore, I decided to conduct a review of the case.
I was of the opinion that all the explanations to date had their flaws. That would include Klass and Brad Sparks, who had “self-crowned” himself the “RB-47 expert” (Just look at his e-mail address). In order to address the challenge, I began some private conversations with several UFO skeptics in an attempt to review the case materials to see what might have been overlooked or erroneously reported. My intentions were not to “debunk” or explain the case because I thought those expectations were too high. I decided the best thing to do is see if all possibilities had been covered and review the arguments that had been presented to date.
Some might suggest that I am questioning the honesty/integrity of the air crew on this RB-47. I strongly disagree with that characterization. As a retired submariner, who has conducted his share of intelligence gathering missions that were similar to what the RB-47 crews were performing, I know the risks they took under very adverse and stressful
conditions. I have nothing but respect for what they accomplished. However, I will not allow my respect for them to prevent me from suggesting the possibility that errors could have been made at the time or their memories of the event can be flawed.
One of the skeptics I have been in contact with about the case is Marty Kottmeyer. I sent him a copy of Sparks’ article on the subject and, after reading it, he gave me the following response in a letter dated March 31, 2011:
I have to say after mulling it over this evening, I ended up with a big old silly grin. What I figured out was not so much the solution as the punch line. You have the critical issue: Aliens with radar?
It does seem rather odd that the UFO would decide to use an S-band radar signal to track or test an Air Force RB-47. It is this clue that seems to have been glossed over/down played by those presenting this case as the best evidence. I want to thank all the people, who were involved in this year long effort. Those in the Reality Uncovered group were
very helpful in this effort (specifically the forum member “Access Denied”, who unearthed some important documentation).
Hopefully, this issue will help others, who might want to pursue this case in the future.
.
The RB47 case: UFOlogy’s best evidence?
Introduction
This case is a rather extensive event that is composed of two to three separate incidents that UFOlogists have linked together over the years as proof that a UFO was monitoring the movements of a USAF RB-47 aircraft through the southern United States. The UFO was seen by the flight crew and its electronic signature was monitored by the intelligence officers inside the plane. It was also reportedly tracked by ground radar as well. This makes it an important case for UFOlogists because it contains visual observation and confirmation of these observations with electronic data.
UFOlogists enjoy presenting cases that are decades old because they know there is little that can be added to what is already known. Much of what is presented by UFO proponents is what can be found in the Blue Book files and in research conducted by those who examined the case previously. However, that does not mean a case is considered good evidence for something unknown to science. A mysterious incident in 1957 can remain mysterious simply because there is just not enough in the way of cold hard facts (things that can not be denied and must be accepted) to support an explanation.
Objectives
Despite my reservations about looking at this case, I decided to discuss it with several skeptics and see if we could come up with any information that had not been previously discovered/revealed. My intentions were to take a look at the arguments for and against to see how good they stood up to serious examination.
I felt there was little hope of finding an acceptable explanation for this case because of its status in UFOlogy. It was already voted by many as the best UFO case ever, which means that no matter what I proposed, I seriously doubted that UFO proponents would accept it. I would also be vilified/ridiculed for having the nerve to suggest any explanation was plausible. Despite these concerns, I received positive feedback and felt the endeavor would be worth the effort.
Acquiring the documentation
The first thing was to accumulate everything that had been presented about the case. Sparks’ article, while proclaimed the best UFO investigation of the event, was unavailable for many years, unless one had a copy of Jerome Clark’s expensive UFO encyclopedia. About five years ago, after being unable to obtain an electronic copy from others, I obtained a copy of it by driving down to the Boston Public Library. I could have saved myself the gas because in the last few years, it has finally appeared on the internet. Several web sites now contain the contents. This web site (http://wiki.razing.net/index.php/(1957/07/17)_RB-47_radar/visual_multiple-witnesses) and NICAP now contain the document in question for all to see.
The Klass explanation can be found in the Blue Book files (because he sent it there in the 1970s) and in his book UFOs: Explained. What was missing was the supporting documentation and interviews he conducted. Luckily, he left copies of many of his personal files with the American Philosophical Society. For a fee, I was able to get his entire RB-47 file consisting of about 300 pages of letters, notes, interviews, and technical data.
Other pertinent materials were collected by various members over several months. This included obtaining copies of the notes Dr. McDonald made in his conversations with the crew members and obtaining technical information a outt eairc aft. Isaac K oiwa helpful inobtaining a copy of the Summer of 1977 CUFOS bulletin, which contained some pertinent information. Due to my obligations of writing SUNlite, family matters, and personal interests elsewhere, the going was slow but steady as the group moved forward over the months.
Arguments for and against
The original paper written about this case was by Dr. James McDonald back in the late 1960s after the Condon report had concluded that it could not be explained. McDonald’s stamp of approval had immediately made this case a “classic”.
Phil Klass took on the case in 1971 and wrote a rather extensive study on the incident. Klass suggested that it was equipment malfunction, a bright fireball, an airliner, and reception of ground radar signals that made the event appear mysterious to the air crew. I was aware there were some errors in his explanation but the overall explanation seemed plausible to most UFO skeptics, including myself.
In 1977, The Center For UFO Studies (CUFOS) published a rebuttal. It is not widely known and did not seem to make much of an impact. The main argument had to do with a letter between Dr. Hynek and Lewis Chase, the pilot, who Phil Klass had communicated with in his examination of the case. Chase chose to clarify his position on what transpired and felt that Klass had done a good job on the radar data but had not fully explained the case.
This is pretty much where the case stood until the late 1990s, when the case was revived by Brad Sparks. He had written a lengthy entry in Jerome Clark’s UFO Encyclopedia
that was a very extensive rebuttal to Klass’ explanation for the case. The article begins by promoting itself as solid proof of UFOs being something other than misperceptions and hoaxes:
“New findings by aerospace researcher and UFO investigator Brad Sparks establish this case as the first scientific proof of the existence of UFOs, and it uses the first-ever calibrated electronic measurements of microwave signals which were emitted by the UFO and which correlate precisely with eyewitness visual observations and radar tracks.” 1
I think this description is a bit of hyperbole.
Some examples are: It is described as scientific proof. Scientific proof can be replicated and is subject to far higher protocols/review than this article experienced. Even the Condon study did not consider the case “scientific proof” of anything more than they could not explain it.
Sparks never proves the signals were • emitted by the UFO. He makes that link but there is not one iota of real proof to establish the UFO was the source of the signals.
Additionally, the observations of • the witnesses do not “correlate precisely” with the signals measured. The observations of the crew were estimates, which are subject to error. Stating they are “precise” is just more exaggeration.
Klass never bothered to publicly argue with Sparks on the case. By the time this was written, he was at an advanced age and apparently had little interest in such an exchange. As a result, Sparks was “the last man standing” and could declare his investigation had withstood scrutiny.
Case summary
A brief overview of the case is necessary at this point. Prior to discussing the case, I have a section where all the pertinent facts and information is presented so the reader can get a basic idea of all the details that were needed to understand what is being discussed. I then broke the case down into four different sections.
The first section of the flight occurred when the RB-47 crossed the gulf coast in Mississippi. One of the operators detected a radar signal that acted strangely as if it were an aircraft flying by or around the RB-47. I refer to this part of the flight as “The Up-scope incident”.
The second section of the case occurred some time later when the RB-47 was flying westward from Mississippi to Louisiana.
A very bright light flew across the front of the RB-47 and then disappeared. I have labeled this “The 1010Z encounter”.
After this event, the plane continued westward into Texas. As they flew westward, the operators recorded many radar signals from different directions. A ground radar station became involved and reportedly tracked the UFO as well. The pilot and copilot saw a UFO in the same general direction from which the signals were emanating. I call this section of the sighting as “The approach to Duncanville”.
Interested in the UFO, the RB-47 turned towards it and began to pursue it. What transpired is a series of maneuvers as the RB-47 tried to close the distance. However, the UFO was elusive and would vanish every time the plane got close. The RB-47 would eventually start to run low on fuel and had to depart for their home base in Kansas. I have tagged this final section of the UFO event as “The Pursuit”.
Simulation
During my efforts to understand this case, I chose to see what it would be like to fly a B-47 on the course described to get a feel for the conditions under which this all transpired. The Microsoft Flight Simulator program (Flight Simulator X) is an excellent device for such a thing. It can give one the feel for what the pilot had to deal with while flying his aircraft and some limitations he encountered.
You will see screen shots of the aircraft throughout this article using this program. Additionally, the program provides a celestial simulation that proved to be interesting in pursuing some celestial explanations that had been made in the past. While the celestial mechanics were correct compared to planetarium programs, the twilight settings were not very accurate even though the sun rose at the correct time. This carried forward in the imagery in this issue. The sky should have been brighter than the simulation showed when the plane was near Dallas.
Presentation
This issue will be dedicated to presenting what I discovered in my examination of the case. Some of it will be new and some of it will be more of the same stuff previously mentioned. It is up to the reader to judge if it has any merit. Hopefully, it will add some new information and views about the case that were never presented or publicly considered prior to this publication.
Notes and References
Sparks, Brad. “RB-47 radar/visual case”. 1. The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon From The Beginning, Vol. II: L-Z, 2nd Edition. Jerome Clark editor. Detroit, MI: Omnigraphics, Inc.; 1998. Page 761
.
An RB-47 UFO case primer
The purpose of this section is to familiarize the reader with the technical particulars. It will provide information that will be necessary in evaluating the arguments being presented.
The crew
The RB-47 had six crew members. Three were the flight crew and the other three were the Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) officers who were referred to as “Ravens”. The Ravens were in a capsule that was located in the bomb bay of the RB-47. The names of the crew members were:
Pilot: Lewis Chase
Copilot: James McCoid
Navigator: Thomas Hanley
ECM #1: John Provenzano
ECM #2: Frank McClure
ECM#3: Walter Tuchscherer
It is hard to determine the ranks of all the crew members at the time but the report states that Chase was a Major (O-4) and McCoid was a first Lt. (O-2). The navigator’s
rank was not listed but he was probably a first Lt or Captain (O-3). The Ravens were probably Captains at the time. All were very experienced operators and knew their equipment.
The RB-47
The RB-47 was a B-47 bomber that had been converted into a flying electronic intelligence gathering machine. A capsule had been inserted into the bomb bay of the craft, which contained the three operators (EM#1, #2, and #3), who monitored their instruments for electromagnetic signals being radiated. The plane had antennae in various places and highly sensitive receiving equipment in order to detect these signals from great distances.
These planes were used to fly near and over the Soviet Union in an effort to gather information on the types of radar being used to defend the Soviet Union. Several were intercepted by Soviet aircraft and at least two were shot down. Despite the odds, one reportedly was able to fly 450 miles into Soviet air space.
The air speed of the RB-47 has been some what exaggerated by both Sparks and Klass. This seems to have been inspired by the pilot’s (Lewis Chase) recollections of speeds he felt the craft was flying at many years after the event. However, if one looks at the actual flight characteristic charts of the RB-47 and the pilot’s manual for the B-47, one quickly realizes that some of his speed estimates in the 1960s and 1970s appear to be slightly exaggerated.
It also tends to validate what he wrote in his initial report back in September 1957.
.
In Brad Sparks’ paper, he computes the speed of Mach 1 at 34,500 feet (using radiosonde data from July 17, 1957) as being 687mph (597kts). He did not show his calculations but after examining the radiosonde data for three locations (Jackson, MS, Fort Worth, Tx and Shreveport, LA), I computed similar results (ambient temperature at --39C to -40C at 10,500 meters = 685-686 mph/595-6 knots using an on-line calculator). Therefore, I used 686mph for computing airspeeds of the aircraft, which will be necessary later.
Examining the speeds for maximum fuel efficiency (upper right), we discover the optimal speed is about 380-440 knots. This is confirmed by flight operating instructions
manual for the B-47A, which states:
Maximum range is obtained by climbing to performance altitude as rapidly as possible and then maintaining 0.74 Mach throughout the cruise portion of the flight, slowly increasing altitude, about 1500 feet per hour, as fuel is consumed. Although 0.74 Mach is optimum, the airplane can be flown at 0.70 to 0.76 Mach with a maximum loss of range of only 3%. Cruising at Mach numbers above or below these values will result in appreciable loss of range.4
Chase wrote in his report that at 1010Z, the plane was flying at Mach 0.74, which computes to 441 knots at 34,500 feet. This was what the craft was flying at for most of the flight and is consistent with the chart and manual.
This brings us to when Chase pursued the UFO with his craft at maximum speed. This speed was listed as Mach 0.83 in his report. He told Phil Klass that he pushed the aircraft to Mach 0.87 at one point. Brad Sparks increased the top speed to values of around Mach 0.89. I suspect Sparks arrived at this Mach value by using the maximum listed speed of around 610 mph (this value varies between different versions of the B-47) to arrive at Mach 0.89 for 34,500 feet. While this maximum speed is correct it is for an altitude of about 15,600 feet, where the speed of sound is much higher. Examining the B-47A manual, we discover the following statement about the plane’s maximum speed:
The aerodynamic characteristics restrict the maximum allowable indicated Mach number to 0.85.6
It goes on to note that this “high speed buffeting” will depend on altitude and gross weight of the aircraft and that this speed can be considered an adequate safe speed. Flying outside the envelope would be considered hazardous and could result in a high-speed stall.
This is probably why, Chase noted in his report the plane only flew at Mach 0.83 during the pursuit. It is possible that he might have pushed it beyond that speed but Mach 0.85 should be considered the limit in any flight path consideration.
The RB-47 standard aircraft characteristics manual shows the flight envelope for the aircraft (see below). It confirms the statement found in the B-47A’s manual. The maximum speed for the RB-47H at 34,500 feet is shown to be Mach 0.85. I suspect it might be possible to fly faster but would a pilot really be interested in jeopardizing the aircraft and his crew in a chase for a UFO? It just does not stand to reason for him to do this.
Based on this information, it seems that any speed computations have to be based on these limitations. Any values above this previously used by Klass and Sparks have to be considered invalid.
The equipment on the RB-47
The RB-47 was fitted with several pieces of electromagnetic sensors. While they had various designators, the AN/8ALA-6 and AN/ALA-5 are the items of interest being used by Frank McClure when he was analyzing the radar signals. They were able to display the direction the signal was coming from as well as the various characteristics of the signal received.
Another item of interest was the navigation radar (AN/APS-23, which was part of the AN/APQ-31 system). It was actually a Bombing/Navigation radar designed for looking down and not really designed for tracking airborne objects. However, according to Dr. McDonald’s notes from his interview with the Navigator Hanley, it was possible to track some aircraft at a limited range:
He said it was a pulsed radar, a regular search radar, similar to the APS-54…if you were hunting for a tanker that was below you or in front of you, by eliminating the time-delay, you would have the large band corresponding to six-miles of range in which there would be no competition between the ground return and the skin paint from the aircraft. That would facilitate seeing the aircraft. Under that condition, the B-47 navigational radar could ordinarily spot aircraft the size of a KC-97 out to a range of perhaps 4 miles…10
One can then conclude that the Navigator might be able to pick up an airborne target if it were large and close to the aircraft.
Ground Radars
No examination of the case is complete without grasping the electronic environment the plane flew into. It is not like there were only a few air defense radars present. There were actually many throughout the flight. Each radar had its own unique characteristics and some of these radar stations had more than one radar. There is a table on this page showing all the characteristics of the various radars and locations for these radars.12 On the next page, the locations for these radar sites are shown on a Google Earth image. The green sites are the non-air defense radar sites, while the red ones are USAF radar sites. The dark blue site at Sidney was not active in 1957.
The most important radar on the list is the AN/CPS-6B and FPS-10 radar. They are essentially the same radar set with the same characteristics. The only difference had to do with the number and types of indicators available (as well as the telephone system not being supplied with the FPS-10). The AN/CPS-6B was essentially 6 radar sets in one. It transmitted six different beams (see the table above). Each beam transmitted at different angles and used different frequencies.
.
The radar determined the altitude of the object by calculating the difference in time between the return on a target of the slant signals and the vertical signals. There was also a separate early warning beam that was radiated at a low angle to detect targets that were far away. The basic beam coverage
is shown on the previous page.13 It is important to note that this coverage only shows the ability of the beams to detect a target with an effective size of one square meter. It does not show all the side lobes of each beam and the limit to which the beams actually extended into space.
Another ground radar that operated in the same frequency band (S-band) was a modified AN/APS-2F airborne radar. It was obtained by the National Weather Service (NWS) and used as a weather radar.
It had the designation of WSR-1. According to Phil Klass’ research, there were several airports in the region that employed Air Surveillance Radars (ASR) that operated in the S-band. These were designated ASR-2 and 3.
.
There were other ground radars in and are listed in the table on page 9. I am not even sure this table is complete since the military and civilian ASRs might have existed at some airports not listed. The WSR radars seems to be complete but I may have missed some locations. It appears one might be able to classify the area of Eastern Texas and Oklahoma as an “S-band minefield”!
Airborne Radar
The most common airborne radar that operated in the same frequency range of interest was the AN/APS-20. The “B” version is listed in the table. It was found on several aircraft. Some of these were quite common in 1957.
Another less common airborne S-band radar was the AN/APS-82. It was essentially experimental in 1957 and was fitted on top of the E-1B tracer aircraft (the predecessor of the E-2 Hawkeye aircraft). It operated at a frequency between 2850-2910 MHZ. The first flight of the prototype was not until December 1956. The same radar was mounted on a WV-2E in August 1956, which was designated EC-121L.
Mobile S-band radar
The Marines had a radar called the SP-1M which was a mobile version of the SCR-615B. It was used sparingly and there is no evidence that it was anywhere near Texas. I only listed it for the purpose of comparison.
The Mission
One aspect of the case has never been really resolved because the crew members seem to disagree on what the purpose of the flight was. McClure would tell Klass that they were just shaking down the aircraft after periodic maintenance and it was destined to be deployed overseas for use by another crew. The copilot, McCoid, agreed with this. The other ECM operators, Provenzano and Tuchsherer told Dr. McDonald that they felt there was a recording of the events no matter what kind of mission it was. Major Chase told Phil Klass it was not a shakedown but was a training flight instead. A training flight would have been recorded in many ways (wire recordings/photographs of displays, etc.), while a shakedown flight might not have been. Chase stated that the intelligence report (written by the intelligence officer Piwetz) proves this. However, the report only mentions that ECM #3 began a recording at time 1048Z, which means they probably were not recording anything prior to this. There is no indication that any photographs of any of the displays were ever made and McClure denies having such a capability that morning. One would think that he would remember operating this equipment
to record the displays.
Sparks rejected the idea that this was a shakedown flight and has determined this had to have been a training mission. This means that everything must have been recorded. I am of the opinion that McClure was probably right because the original date of September 1957 was selected based on McCoid and Chase looking at their old flight logs to determine what date they had conducted a training flight that matched their memories. If the July 17th flight was listed as a shakedown flight, Chase might have overlooked it as the one he remembered.
One can not say for sure but it seems to be part of the conspiracy theory that this critical data was taken away and never shown to project Blue Book. One can hurl all the accusations one desires but it does not change the simple fact that there is no tape recording to examine. I will let the reader decide if it is conspiracy, foul up, or there was very little information recordedon the flight.
Quelle: SUNlite 1/2012
4577 Views