Project Blue Book: Exposed

June 24, 1947: Kenneth Arnold and Fred Johnson

On June 24, 1947 the modern UFO era was ushered in when Kenneth Arnold, a Boise, Idaho, businessman saw nine objects flash across the sky near Mount Rainer in Washington state. They were flying one behind the other, at about 9,500 feet, at a speed estimated, by Arnold, to be more than 1500 miles an hour.

Although fascinated by the strange craft, Arnold didn't land immediately to inform the press. Instead, he continued flying, searching for a lost aircraft. When he did land, he talked to reporters and started a mystery that has lasted since that day.

Arnold, in relating the tale later, told military investigators that, "The air was so smooth that day that it was a real pleasure flying and, as most pilots do when the air is smooth and they are flying at a higher altitude, I trimmed out my airplane in the direction of Yakima, Washington, which was almost directly east of my position and simply sat in my plane observing the sky and the terrain."

His attention was called to the strange objects when sunlight flashed off the metal surface. "It startled me as I thought I was too close to some other aircraft. I looked every place in the sky and couldn't find where the reflection had come from until I looked to the left… where I observed a chain of nine peculiar looking aircraft."

The string of nine objects were flying in a formation that he estimated to be five miles long. They dodged in and out of the mountain peaks in a fluid motion that tilted them up and revealed their bottoms to him. He noted that they were quite far away.

Arnold had also seen a DC-4 that he estimated to be fifteen miles from him. He compared the objects to that aircraft, believing them to be smaller than the four-engine, propeller-driven airplane.

When he landed in Yakima, Washington, he told the assembled reporters that the objects moved with a motion like that of saucers skipping across the water. The shape, however, according to drawings that Arnold completed for the Army, showed objects that were heel shaped. In later drawings, Arnold elaborated, showing objects that were crescent shaped with a scalloped trailing edge.

Hearing Arnold's description of the motion of the objects, reporter Bill Bequette coined the term "flying saucer." The term, then, didn't refer to the shape of the objects, but to the style of their movement.

Arnold's sighting didn't gain front-page status immediately. Stories about it appeared in newspapers a day or two later. It was, at that time, the story of an oddity. Arnold claimed later that he thought he had seen some sort of new or experimental jet aircraft.

Because this was the first of the flying saucer sightings to gain national attention, it became important for military officers to determine what he had seen. They spent great deal of time and effort investigating it, and eventually wrote it off as mirages. That is, Arnold, because of the atmospheric conditions that afternoon, had seen a mirage in which the tops of the mountains seemed to be separate from the rest of the ground. It looked as if huge bits of land were hovering above the ground and could, under the proper circumstance have appeared to be saucer-shaped objects flying near the tops of the mountains.

In a report prepared for the Army Air Forces, Arnold expressed his displeasure at such suggestions. He wrote, "A number of news men and experts suggested that I might have been seeing reflections or even a mirage. This I know to be absolutely false, as I observed these objects not only through the glass of my airplane but turned my airplane sideways where I could open my window and observe them with a completely unobstructed view."

That, of course, didn't satisfy those who believed that Arnold had made an error. Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the onetime consultant to Project Blue Book, studied the case for the military. It was Hynek's opinion that if Arnold's estimate of the distance was correct, then he had to have underestimated the size of the objects. If, on the other hand, he had overestimated the distance, then his timing of their flight was wrong. Hynek believed, according to the documents available in the Blue Book files, that the objects were closer than Arnold thought. Hynek wrote, "In all probability, therefore, objects were much closer than thought and moving at definitely 'sub-sonic' speeds."

My comment to that is, "So?" We still have the sighting of nine objects that are not conventional aircraft. They are flying in a loose formation, and traveling at a fairly high rate of speed. Even if they are subsonic, that doesn't explain what they were, only that the observed speed was within the capability of aircraft being flown in 1947. It doesn't answer the questions of what they were.

Others at AMC, apparently impressed with Hynek's analysis, also wrote off the case. In their summary of the flying saucer reports, that is, the Project Sign analysis, someone wrote, "AMC Opinion: The report cannot bear even superficial examination, therefore, must be disregarded. There are strong indications that this report and its attendant publicity is largely responsible for subsequent reports."

It seemed to indicate to those looking at the Arnold report in the late 1940s believed that Arnold had misidentified some kind of known, subsonic aircraft. But the question remains, what were they? The description of them fits nothing in the inventory at the time with the possible exception of the Northrop Flying Wing. It was a large, four-engine, propeller-driven aircraft that was not flying in that area. And, there weren't nine of them available even if they had been flying at the time and in the area.

There is another aspect of the case that needs to be clarified. In the Air Force file on the Arnold sighting, there are "galley proof" pages from a book written by Donald H. Menzel, the Harvard astronomer who believed that all UFO sightings were misidentifications or outright lies. In the book, Menzel proposes the mirage theory that the Air Force eventually accepted as the answer to the Arnold case.

But Menzel wasn't done with one explanation. He offered many. In his first book about flying saucers, Menzel suggested that Arnold had seen "billowing blasts of snow, ballooning up from the tops of ridges… These rapidly shifting, tilting clouds of snow would reflect the sun like a mirror… and the rocking surfaces would make the chain sweep along something like a wave, with only a momentary reflection from crest to crest."

It is an interesting theory and one that makes sense except longtime residents say that the snow in late June, what there is in the mountains, is wet and heavy and wouldn't be sweep around like the powdery stuff that falls in the winter. In other words, Menzel's explanation does not conform to the weather of the time, nor does it account for Arnold's description of the craft.

Menzel, apparently realizing the flaws in his theory, offered the possibility that a high layer of fog, haze or dust just above or just below Arnold's altitude might account for the sighting. Menzel claimed that these layers could reflect the sun in almost mirror-like fashion.

Again the explanation fails, if only because Arnold saw movement and that would require some sort of turbulence at altitude. Arnold had remarked about how stable the air was. A perfect day for flying with no real winds, or turbulence, and unlimited visibility.

Menzel, in his book with Lyle G. Boyd, The World of Flying Saucers, wrote that Arnold may have seen orographic clouds. These are huge, circular-shaped clouds that can form on the downwind side of mountains. But, as Menzel himself noted, they stand still and are not particularly reflective. In other words, Menzel, after suggesting the clouds, then eliminates them himself.

In the book The UFO Enigma, published after his death, and co-authored with Ernest H. Taves, Menzel suggested that Arnold may have been fooled by drops of water on the cockpit windows. He wrote, "I cannot, of course, say definitely that what Arnold saw were merely raindrops on the windows of his plane. He would doubtless insist that there was no rain at the altitude at which he was flying. But many queer things happen at different levels in the earth's atmosphere."

But remember what Arnold said about those who had suggested mirages?"… as I observed these objects not only through the glass of my airplane but turned my airplane sideways where I could open my window and observe them with a completely unobstructed view." If the object had been water drops on the windows, they would have disappeared when he opened the window for his unobstructed view.

So, the real problem with this report seems to be that Arnold may have underestimated the size of the objects or overestimated the distance to them. These are not fatal flaws. And they are not reason enough to throw out the report. Arnold was, after all, a pilot who had flown in the area before. He was familiar with what the terrain looked like. Instead of nitpicking Arnold's estimates of distance and size of the objects, or inventing multiple explanations that are contradicted by the facts, the military investigators should have been looking for corroboration of the case. Had they looked, they would have found it.

Just about the time that Arnold lost sight of the objects, Fred Johnson, listed as a prospector, reported watching five or six disk-shaped craft as they flew over the Cascade Mountains. He said they were round with a slight tail and about thirty feet in diameter. They were not flying in any sort of formation and as they banked in a turn, the sunlight flashed off them. As they approached, Johnson noticed that his compass began to spin wildly. When the objects finally vanished in the distance, the compass returned to normal.

After learning of the Arnold sighting, Johnson wrote to the Air Force on August 20, 1947, saying, "Saw in the portland (sic) paper a short time ago in regards to an article in regards to the so called flying disc having any basis in fact. I can say am a prospector and was in the Mt Adams district on June 24th the day Kenneth Arnold of Boise Idaho claims he saw a formation of flying disc (sic). And i saw the same flying objects at about the same time. Having a telescope with me at the time i can asure you there are real and noting like them I ever saw before they did not pass verry high over where I was standing at the time. plolby 1000 ft. they were Round about 30 foot in diameter tapering sharply to a point in the head and in an oval shape. with a bright top surface. I did not hear any noise as you would from a plane. But there was an object in the tail end looked like a big hand of a clock shifting from side to side like a big magnet. There speed was far as i know seemed to be greater than anything I ever saw. Last view I got of the objects they were standing on edge Banking in a cloud." It is signed, "Yours Respectfully, Fred Johnson."

The Army Air Forces had asked the FBI to interview some of those seeing flying disks. Johnson was one of those interviewed. The FBI report contained essentially the same information as the letter that Johnson had sent to the Army. The FBI report ended, saying, "Informant appeared to be a very reliable individual who advised that he had been a prospector in the states of Montana, Washington and Oregon for the past forty years."

Dr. Bruce Maccabee, a physicist with the Navy, wrote in the International UFO Reporter published by the Center or UFO Studies, that the Johnson sighting is important, not because it takes place near where Arnold saw the nine objects, but because it seems to be an extension of the Arnold sighting. It provides independent corroboration for the Arnold sighting, strengthening that case, and reducing, to ridiculous, some of the explanations that have been offered to explain it.

Menzel, the Harvard scientist, decided that Johnson was being honest in his report, that is, Johnson was not lying about it. He was merely mistaken in his analysis of the sighting. Menzel wrote that Johnson had probably seen bright reflections from patches of clouds. It didn't seem to matter to Menzel that Johnson saw the objects only about a thousand feet over his head, watched them through a telescope, and had them in sight for almost a minute, before they disappeared by turning toward a cloud.

Johnson's sighting is important for another reason that is noted in the Air Force file. Johnson spoke about his compass behaving oddly as the objects flew overhead. Here is the first example of what would become known as an electromagnetic effect, that is, a type of interaction with the environment. It would suggest that Johnson was seeing something real, rather than something such as bright reflections from patches of clouds.

The AMC Opinion on this case is, "From the limited evidence submitted, it is impossible to reach a definite conclusion. However, two possible psychological factors are readily apparent; one, the observer stated he submitted this report solely because he had read several days following his observation of another sighting. Therefore, he very likely either consciously or inadvertently may have attempted to conform his report to that recounted in the newspaper; and two, he colored his report with interference of huge magnetic fields, as to implications of which he was obviously uninformed."

There is no evidence that Johnson's report was colored by what he read in the newspaper. An equally plausible explanation is that, after seeing the objects, he didn't know where to report it, or even if anyone else would be interested in what he saw. By reading the newspaper, he learned that others had, in fact, seen the objects and there was interest in such reports. And, he now knew of a place to report the sighting.

The Air Force investigators also realized that if Johnson's compass was affected by the objects, it was suggestive of a massive magnetic field. They reasoned that such a field does not exist and therefore the reaction of the compass must have had nothing to do with the sighting of the objects. Of course, if the objects did generate a powerful electromagnetic field, then his compass would have been affected just as he suggested.

What we see in these two cases is the classic divide and conquer strategy used throughout the UFO investigations. Arnold made his report and had no corroborating witnesses. Johnson made his report because of what he had read about Arnold. What the military officers didn't do was link the cases. If they are not linked, they can be dealt with individually. Neither case, by itself, is particularly impressive. They are single witness reports which means they can be interpreted as some sort of individual aberration. But linked, we have not only a multiple witness case but independent observers that include a pilot in the air, an observer on the ground, and a report of electromagnetic effects.

Why should we link the cases? Because, as noted by Maccabee, it seems that just as Arnold lost sight of the objects in the Mount Rainier area, Johnson spotted them overhead. Arnold said that he lost sight of them in the area where Johnson said he first saw them. It seems to be reasonable to believe that the two reports are related.

If we want to take an objective look, we must be aware that Arnold said there were nine objects but Johnson said he saw only six. The Air Force, in its file notes, "There are several major differences, notably as Dr. Hynek points out that these objects had tails, and that the inferred size, as determined from the estimated distance, is quite different."

But again, we retreat to the evidence in the case file. If Arnold's estimate of distance is correct, then we wouldn't expect him to see fine details on the craft. Even if he badly overestimated the distance, he was still a long way from them. Johnson, on the other hand, was must closer and he looked at them through a telescope. That means, quite simply, that he might have observed details on the craft that were invisible to Arnold because of the distances involved.

We are left with two very interesting cases, that, when linked, provide an important corroboration for one another. We are left with two cases that have no good explanation for them. Those explanations tried all are badly flawed or so outrageous as to be useless. Of course the fact that the reports are not explained does not mean that either Arnold or Johnson saw extraterrestrial space craft. It only means that they saw something unconventional that, at the time, was not explained as aircraft, mirages, blowing snow or raindrops on the cockpit canopy. That tends to rule out the mundane so that we are left with the extraordinary.