Project Blue Book: Exposed

July 24, 1948: The Chiles and Whitted Case

In the Project Blue Book files are some cases that are extremely puzzling. If we look only at the master index for every case in the files, we see lots of explanations that, on the surface, seem plausible. Only after studying the reports do we see that the explanation often explains nothing but does fill one square. Such is the report made by Eastern Airlines pilots Clarence S. Chiles and John B. Whitted.

According to the files, Chiles and Whitted were flying a DC-3 at about 5000 feet, on a bright, cloudless and star-filled night. Twenty miles southwest of Montgomery, Alabama, they spotted, slightly above them and to the right, what they thought was a jet aircraft of some type. Within seconds it was close enough that they could see a torpedo-shaped object that had a double row of square windows.

Chiles called the attention of his co-pilot to the object saying, "Look here comes a new Army jet job." The object approached in a slight dive, deflected a little to the left and passed the plane on the right, almost level to the flight path. After passing, it pulled up sharply and disappeared into a cloud.

Questioned within hours of the event by investigators, both men said that they believed the object was about a hundred feet long. Whitted said, "The fuselage appeared to be about three times the circumference of a B-29 fuselage. The windows were very large and seemed square. They were white with light which seemed to be caused by some type of combustion. I estimate we watched the object for at least five seconds and not more than ten seconds. We heard no noise nor did we feel any turbulence from the object. It seemed to be at about 5500 feet."

Chiles, in a statement dated August 3, 1948, wrote, "It was clear there were no wings present, that it was powered by some jet or other type of power shooting flame from the rear some fifty feet… Underneath the ship there was a blue glow of light."

Apparently all the passengers were asleep with the exception of Clarence L. McKelvie. Chiles wrote, "After talking to the only passenger awake at the time, he saw only the trail of fire as it passed and pulled into the clouds."

Within hours of the sighting, Chiles and Whitted were on radio station WCON in Atlanta, Georgia. They were also interviewed by William Key, a newspaper reporter. At some point during the interviews, someone suggested they had been startled by a meteor, but both men rejected the idea. They had seen many meteors during their night flights and were aware of what they looked like and how they performed.

There are some other points to be made. In a newspaper article written by Albert Riley, he quotes the pilots as saying, "Its prop-wash or jet-wash rocked out DC-3."

In another article that is part of the Blue Book files, Chiles is again quoted as having said there was a prop wash."…[B]oth reported they could feel the 'UFOs backwash rock their DC-3."

This was, of course, one of the first cases that Project Sign could review. The study had been in existence for only about seven months, but it was on the scene of the report quickly. A review of the files, shows that they did search for an answer and went to extraordinary lengths to find evidence. They gathered information from every airline which could possibly have had aircraft in a position to see the object. They also queried all branches of the military, searching for any other pilots who might have glimpsed the object but who had failed to report it.

What they found in the search were that other pilots had "strange" encounters that night. About fifteen minutes before Chiles and Whitted had their sighting, there was another report from the Blackstone, Virginia area. According to the Blue Book files, "Object #2 was observed by Feldary, Mansfield and Kingsley at 0230 hours 24 July 1948, while airborne, between Blackstone, Virginia, and Greensboro, North Carolina. This sighting is considered separately [from the Chiles-Whitted sighting] since the descriptions of speed as 'meteoric' or 'terrific' the manner of travel described as an arc or horizontal, and the fact that it 'faded like a meteor' seem to indicate that the object seen was not the one observed in Incident 1 [that is, the Chiles-Whitted report]."

Other sightings in the Chiles-Whitted folder are from events that took place two nights later. They are included because the descriptions of the objects seem to match some of that made by Chiles and Whitted. Again, those sightings seem to be of a meteor.

The search for additional information turned up a report from Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. Walter Massey, a 23-year-old ground maintenance crewman, said that he saw a cigar-shaped object fly over. Massey was interviewed on August 10, 1948 by Lieutenant Colonel Cropper, the Acting District Commander, 6th District Office of Special Investigations [that is, AFOSI].

He learned that Massey was "standing fire guard on a C-47 [the military version of a DC-3], directly across from Operations, and I had to take down the take-off time which was between 0140 and 0150." Because of that, we have a good idea of the exact time of his sighting.

He told Cropper, "It was coming out of the north. I was facing the north and actually didn't see it until it was overhead, but it came out of the north and was in my view for about twenty seconds. The last I saw of it the object was taking a southwest course."

He continued, saying, "The first thing I saw was a stream of fire and I was undecided as to what it could be, but as it got overhead, it was a fairly clear outline and appeared to be a cylindrical shaped object with a long stream of fire coming out of the tail end. I am sure it would not be a jet since I have observed P-84s in flight at night on two occasions."

Massey thought the object was about three thousand feet high, but said that at night he couldn't be sure. He also said that he thought, at first, it was a "shooting star or meteor, but a shooting star falls perpendicular. This object was on a straight and level plane."

Of course, we know that meteors can seem to fly at all sorts of angles, and given the location of the observer and the meteor, it can seem that the flight is, more or less, straight and level. Massey was asked how the object differed from a meteor and pointed out that what he saw was long and cylindrical in shape. In other words, he was describing an object that trailed a glow.

Interestingly, Cropper asked, "Did it give you the impression that there were windows or holes and did the decks appear to be divided into sections?"

Massey answered, "I am not sure. It would be hard to tell if there were windows and a divided deck could not be recognized from the ground."

That was a good answer on Massey's part. Clearly he wasn't taking his cues from Cropper who then asked, "Did you read the newspaper account of the two civilian pilots who saw this strange object about the same time and did the paper's description seem to refer to the object you saw?"

Massey responded, "I read the write up about the rate of speed. I don't see how they could tell if it had square windows or round windows but the description seemed to fit my impression."

When asked specific questions about the object, Massey said, "It looked like it was about the size of a B-29… It was too large for a jet. It seemed to be a dark color and constructed of an unknown metallic type."

Under the questioning about seeing anything like this at any other time, Massey said, "During the Battle of the Bulge, a sergeant and myself were on guard duty and saw something that resembled this object in question. We later found that we had witnessed the launching of a German V-2 rocket. It carried a stream of fire that more or less resembled this object. This object looked like rocket propulsion rather than jet propulsion, but the speed and size was much greater."

Because of the similarities in the description of the craft, the locations and the timing, Air Force investigators linked the two cases. They wondered, rightly, if the various witnesses could have seen the same object. They also wondered why it had taken the craft an hour to fly the two hundred miles between the two locations. If it was moving at the 700 miles an hour estimated by Chiles, then it should have gotten to the Montgomery area faster than it did.

J. Allen Hynek was asked for his assessment of the case. He could find no "astronomical explanation" if the case was accepted at face value. In other words, Hynek was saying that if the testimony of Chiles and Whitted was accurate, then it couldn't be explained. He also wrote, "[The] sheer improbability of the facts as stated… makes it necessary to see whether any other explanation, even though far-fetched, can be considered." He was saying there that there could be no flying saucers and we should therefore accept any other answer no matter how ridiculous it might seem because it was preferable to a flying saucer.

Let's fall back, for a moment, to the timing of the event. This was July 1948. It was about the time that those at Project Sign who believed that flying saucers represented extraterrestrial visitation had put together their estimate of the situation. General Vandenberg rejected it and almost everyone who had been involved was replaced at Project Sign.

What this does is provide us with a couple of conclusions for this case. First, Captain Robert R. Sneider, one of those who lost his job in the great Sign cleaning, wrote on November 12, 1948, "A preponderance of evidence is available to establish that in almost all cases an unidentified object was seen within stated times and dates over an extended area, pursuing a general Southerly course. Descriptions as to size, shape, color and movements are fairly consistent."

Sneider also wrote, "The flying anomaly observed remains unidentified as to origin, construction and power source."

But eventually there was another solution offered. Hynek, in his attempts to explain the case suggested that Massey might have been mistaken. Maybe he saw the object at the same time as Chiles and Whitted. If that was the case, then, according to Hynek, "the object must have been an extraordinary meteor." The glowing ion trail might have produced the "subjective impression of a ship with lighted windows." Hynek thought that psychological research would be needed to answer the question of whether such an impression would result from the stimuli of a bright meteor seen close.

Philip J. Klass, who believes that all flying saucer reports can be explained in the mundane, in UFOs Explained, wrote about a series of sightings that took place on March 3, 1968 over parts of Tennessee, Indiana and Ohio. In Tennessee, three people, including the mayor of a large city, were talking when one of them saw something in the distance and pointed it out to the others. As the object approached, they saw an orange-colored flame firing from the rear. All thought the object was a fat cigar, "the size of one of our largest airplane fuselages… "

The woman sent a letter to the Air Force in which she described square shaped windows that appeared to be brightly lighted. And she thought the fuselage had been constructed of flat metal riveted together. She provided a drawing for the Air Force investigators.

At about the same time, a group of six near Shoals, Indiana saw a huge, cigar-shaped craft with a flaming tail and many brightly lighted windows flash overhead. The people thought the object was at treetop level. One of those who reported the sighting to the Air Force even suggested that it wasn't a meteor because "meteors don't have windows and don't turn corners."

There were other sightings in Ohio on that same night at about that same time. A school teacher with four academic degrees including a Ph.D. was out walking her dog when she saw three objects fly overhead. These craft looked like inverted saucers and she thought they were about 1500 feet above the ground.

But hers wasn't the only sighting in Ohio. An industrial executive who lived in Dayton was returning from Cincinnati when he saw three bright objects in what he thought of as a triangular formation. As they flew, they seemed to make a "distinct curve" in their flight path. Because of their speed, and a lack of noise, the executive believed that the three objects were under intelligent control.

If we assume that the observers in Tennessee and Indiana saw the same objects that were sighted in Ohio, and we check the time carefully, we learn that the re-entry of a Soviet booster of the Zond-IV occurred about the same time. Is it possible that the Zond-IV is responsible for the series of sightings, including those of a cigar-shaped craft that is quite similar to that reported by Chiles and Whitted almost twenty years earlier?

There is a problem with that assumption, however. The witnesses in Tennessee and Indiana saw a single object. Their descriptions do mirror those of Chiles and Whitted. But the witnesses in Ohio saw three objects. If we separate the sightings, then we have two events, not a single case. And, if there are two events, then the Zond-IV re-entry is inadequate to explain everything. In fact, the witnesses in Tennessee and Indiana might have seen exactly what they reported, and if that is the case, then a link to explaining Chiles and Whitted as a natural phenomenon is broken. There is no reason to assume that Chiles and Whitted saw a meteor, nor is there sufficient reason to believe that the witnesses in Tennessee and Indiana saw Zond-IV.

The connection was the similarity of the drawings made by Chiles and Whitted and one of the observers in Tennessee. If she saw Zond-IV, then that would be suggestive of a psychological aberration that would induce the hallucination of windows on bright streaks of light. But once again, we have the same problem that Hynek had two decades before. There is no solid scientific evidence to support the conclusion.

During the interviews with newspaper reporters, Chiles and Whitted supposedly said that they had felt turbulence that they believed was the result of the passage of the object. If true, that single fact would rule out a meteor as the culprit.

A search of the Blue Book files reveals that Chiles said in a statement he signed on August 3, 1948, "There was no prop wash or rough air felt as it passed."

In a statement taken by military officers in the days that followed the sighting, Whitted said, "We heard no noise nor did we feel any turbulence from the object."

It would seem, then, that neither man reported any turbulence or disturbance of the air as the object passed them. The quotes from the newspapers would, therefore, be in error.

On July 13, 1961, Dr. Donald E. Menzel, wrote to Major William T. Coleman at the Pentagon, discussing UFO sightings and a book that Menzel was writing. Menzel noted, "One further question that we have. Our study of the famous Chiles case indicates that the UFO was merely a meteor. Apparently this was a considered solution in the early days. We wonder why it was abandoned."

Of course, he is referring to Hynek's suggestion that had not gained much support at Sign in 1948. By way of contrast to Menzel's argument for the meteor theory is Dr. James McDonald's counter argument which was based on his review of the newspaper files and his own, personal interviews with Chiles and Whitted. McDonald wrote, "Both pilots reiterated to me, quite recently, that each saw square ports or windows along the side of the fuselage-shaped object from the rear of which a cherry-red wake emerged, extending back 50-100 feet aft of the object. To term this a 'meteor' is not even qualitatively reasonable. One can reject testimony; but reason forbids calling the object a meteor."

And, we can take this one step farther. As mentioned, it is well known that meteors can appear to fly parallel to the ground. They can fall straight. They come in a variety of colors that can fool people. But they never trail upwards. Remember Chiles, in his statement explained that they lost sight of the object as it "pulled up sharply" and disappeared into a cloud. That description alone should sufficient to eliminate a meteor from consideration for the explanation.

So we're back to where we started. Two airline pilots see something flash through the sky at them. Both talk of a double row of square windows, a cigar shape, and a red flame from the rear. A passenger on the plane sees a streak of light, but no details.

An hour earlier a man at Robins Air Force Base sees a cigar-shaped craft flash overhead. He sees no windows, but his position on the ground, and his viewing angle of the craft might have precluded those details. His general description matches that given by the pilots. If the cases are linked, then the meteor answer is lost.

If the cases are separated, then it might be conceivable that Chiles and Whitted saw a meteor. But there seems to be no indications that someone confronted with a bright light that streaks past them would "manufacture" a double row of windows and a cigar shape. No one has conducted the experimentation to learn if this is something the mind does when confronted with the sudden appearance of a "streak of light."

And, an examination of the case file reveals no persuasive evidence to suggest that a meteor is, in fact, responsible for the sighting. If, as Sneider, one of the Air Force investigators on the case suggested, we take the sighting at face value, then contrary to the Air Force opinion, there is no solution for the sighting. It should have stayed as unknown or unidentified.

In this case we see clear cut evidence that the Air Force was interested in solving cases regardless of the circumstances. Hynek said that if you reject the evidence and consider even the most far-fetched explanations, then this could be a meteor. But that idea is predicated on the assumption that there were no flying saucers and therefore anything seen must be explainable as a common object.

If we do not separate the cases, and we accept Massey's timing of his sighting, then the meteor explanation fails completely. And, we must remember that Massey was standing fire guard for an aircraft that took off shortly after the sighting. In other words, there was a written record to corroborate his timing of the event. We are, therefore, left with two sightings of a single object that has no solid explanation.

We come back to the original point. There is no solution for this case. That does not mean that Chiles and Whitted saw a craft built on another planet. Witness testimony, by itself, is never going to be sufficient to prove that theory. However, given their description of the object, their credibility, and that both men had been pilots during the Second World War, and had hundreds if not thousands of flying hours, it is reasonable to believe they reported accurately what they saw. Those are the facts. Everything else is speculation.