The World of Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space AgeMenzel, Donald H. (Donald Howard)
Science
The World of Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age
Menzel, Donald H. (Donald Howard)
Unidentified flying objects
_Charge 3b._ The Coast Guard cutter had used its spotlight and turned
the beam in the direction of the house only once that night, while
signaling another boat at a time two hours earlier than the sighting
and a place roughly five miles from the house. [The December 1, 1958,
edition of the document gives the distance as 4½ miles; the 1959
edition gives 5½ miles. Whatever the true distance, the statement is
incorrect. A signaling incident did occur at the time and about the
place specified, but it had no relation to the Fitzgerald sighting. The
light was used frequently in the hours between midnight and 4 A.M., as
the cutter carried out its search for the missing cabin cruiser. In a
statement obtained by the Akron Committee itself, the chief boatswain’s
mate affirmed that “subject spotlight was flashed on and off a number
of times during the night, picking up objects in all directions. It
is hard to estimate how many times spotlights were snapped on and off
during subject search, but they were used quite often during short
periods of time.”]
_Charge 4._ The statement that the supposed confirmatory witness, Mrs.
S, could not recall anything unusual for the night of the sighting
was “a lie,” as evidenced by her signed statement. [Incorrect. When
the investigators visited Mrs. S, she asserted that she had nothing
to contribute. At about 2:30 A.M. (half an hour earlier than the
Fitzgerald sighting) she had indeed noticed a bright-red glow that
had startled her at first until she realized that it probably came
from the nearby Ohio Edison plant or from the foundry. The signed
statement printed by the Akron Committee in the December 1958 edition
of the document bears no date. The notarized statement used in the 1959
edition is dated March 25, six months after the sighting had occurred.
After the Air Force interview, apparently, Mrs. S had changed her mind
for reasons unknown.]
_Charge 5._ The statement that another confirmatory witness, Mr. G,
was not available for interview was “pathetic” because it was Mrs.
G, not Mr. G, who saw the UFO. [The point of this accusation is not
clear. Because of a typographical error in a letter, “Mrs.” was changed
to “Mr.” The fact remains that the supposed witness, Mrs. G, was not
available. Also, the light she reported had appeared about 2 A.M., an
hour before the Fitzgerald sighting.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account