Below is a reprint of an early analysis of media coverage of UFOs, a study by a journalism professor on newspapers' reporting of flying saucers. Previously presented at Blue Blurry Lines, Feb. 24, 2016.
The Flying Saucer
A Manufactured Concept
Herbert Hackett
Ohio Wesleyan University
(From Sociology and Social Research, May- June, 1948.)
It is interesting to examine the making of public opinion in the matter of the "flying saucer." Public opinion is, of course, not a thing, but the mixture of responses of a number of people to similar or related stimuli. This mixture takes form as a stereotyped, verbalized concept which is, for all practical purposes, a thing and thus used as the basis for action.1 The flying saucer is an excellent subject in that it is almost wholly a manufactured concept, lasting a short period of time and, so, easy to study. It is, in addition, not too closely tied to the emotional colorations of prejudice and habit which would distort a similar study of opinion on Russia, vivisection, or the home.
It was of little immediate interest when a pilot in Idaho “saw” a flying saucer. The wire services carried the story, tongue in cheek, and, having little news in the area, kept it alive from day to day with recapitulations of the original. Early the stereotyped concept was suggested; the term “flying saucer” was simple, so homely that everyone could visualize it. It was at once given authority by its appearance in the press. "There must be something to it. I read it in the paper.”2 Later, we will see, the concept was strengthened by repetition, repetition by variations, “scientific" evidence and speculation, photography, analogy, wit, denial, apology. Newspapers, through juxtaposition, headlining, and suggestion, soon related it to other concepts, to well-established stereotypes and slogans — “the greatest air force in the world" and universal military training to protect "the American way of life" from "the menace of red- Fascism." Other events were soon reported which fitted the general pattern of the first story of early June 1947. A pilot "saw" one of the "what'sits" at 10,000 feet, going at 1,200 mph. When next “seen" the saucers had already acquired common, if vague, attributes of shape, size, speed, and altitude, and in a day or two had added "a blue, fiery tail," or "two tails like a comet." They came out of the West.
So far there had been only a groping toward a plausible concept, with a gradual elimination of less easily grasped characteristics such as "disintegration," lateral and/or vertical revolution, and a "blister" for the pilot. Seemingly, however, the picture was about complete, for the wire services and editors the country over began to “lay” the story, concentrating all news of the event in one place, featuring the story by headlining and position, dramatizing it through pictures, invoking every “expert" in the land for pontification.
If we take Los Angeles as an example, it is interesting to note the lack of "live" news at the moment. The sensational Overell murder case had become involved in legal technicalities. There had not been for some time a sex crime where the “partially clad body" of a beautiful, young woman had been found.3 At the national level, John L. Lewis had been “good” for several weeks, coming to terms with the big steel companies, and the Russian”front" was still stalemated. In the week of the saucer story St. Louis was concerned with the threat of flood and Chicago was involved in bitter discussion of rent control, but these were matters of local interest. In most of the nation it was a “ low” week, from an editor's viewpoint.4
The scarcity of news was thus a large factor in the rapid increase of interest in the story. This increase is shown by a table, based on the Los Angeles Times:
DateTotal Inches Page One Inches
July 4 6
July 5 28
July 6 92 36
July 7 136 32
July 8 95 18
July 9 57 13
July 10 8
Samples of flying saucer headlines
The Los Angeles Herald Express, on July 7, devoted over half the front page to the story, putting it in the same class as V-J Day and the "Black Dahlia" sex murder. The national coverage is somewhat less than the Los Angeles average. The Chicago Sun, not a “yellow" sheet in the usual sense, devoted 194 inches, 60 on the front page, on July 8. The story was displayed with two “end of the world" headlines, an 84-point and a 72-point streamer, both 8 columns.5 This is little less than the V-J Day display.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer was more representative of the conservative press, with a peak of 68 inches and a maximum of 18 inches on page one. The St. Louis Post Dispatch, recognized for its sense of news values, did not go above 55 inches, and never displayed the story higher than the fold of the front page. Both papers tended to treat the saucer as a human interest feature and not as news.
Any such discussion by the press is, of course, a repetition of the concept. Whether the story is based on “ acts" or not, whether it is "true" or not, does not matter; for public opinion is often based not on a thing, measurably objective, but on a picture of a thing, repeated. It is better, perhaps, as Hitler demonstrated with his “big lie,” that the basis of the concept be not easy to demonstrate, allowing for the creative imagination of the teller and the lazy credulity of of the hearer. It follows, then, that the use of variation in report is an obvious strengthening factor. The skeptic is deceived by this lack of dogma, saying to himself, “ of course the stories are fantastic, but they have something in common; some common experience produced them." He thus maintains his sense of objectivity and can discuss the matter "rationally." In a sample mass-observation interview 6 it was found that few denied the simple concept, the majority merely attacking details which seemed to weaken the validity of the whole : e.g., “ as big as a five-room house,” "it disintegrated before my eyes." Another function of variation is that the individual is not inhibited but can exalt himself by observing some new features of the saucer. The conservative individual, too, is not unduly offended. He may accept the older, “proved” parts of the concept and reject the new, perhaps more specific in detail.7 Such repetition, in all its variations, and the endorsement by the authority of the press are the two basic “causes” of public opinion about the flying saucer. Other forces, however, were at work.
“Scientific" evidence and speculation were soon brought to bear on the subject, strengthening the authority of the press. A “savant" "sees" one and, headlined, achieves authority far beyond that usually invested in a dairy inspector, which he was. Other “experts” report their observations: a meteorologist seems to give credence to the man-made aspect of the phenomena by denying that they are meteors; an engineer, who turns out to be only a pilot, chases one of the objects, discussing it later in terms of a plane spotter, another form of “expert” ; a priest finds something in his back yard, still hot, and takes three days to admit it is a hoax; the FBI, stereotype of accuracy and dependability, investigates; physicists explain that “all rapidly moving bodies look elliptoid.”
The photographer presents his "factual" evidence, a series of blurs on a negative. Artists reinforce the concept with Buck Rogers pictures. Historians discuss the appearance of saucers in past years — the strange missiles over Sweden in 1946, something in San Francisco a few years ago. The air force admits one “flying wing," which might look like a saucer but it is still on the ground.
With few exceptions the experts do not say that the discs exist: The spot on the film might be; the drawing could represent; the shape is possible; history has recorded something. In fact, usually buried deep in the story, is the statement or inference that the expert does not credit the stories at all. But the denial is in terms of the things it denies.
Such denial merely serves to instill the picture more firmly in the public mind For it is obvious that a denial is as much a repetition of the concept as is an affirmation.8 Especially strong is the denial by the air force, so firmly stated that it must conceal “top drawer" secrets.
Wit, too, is a denial, making homely the unusual. The homely we can accept. Ridicule also strengthens our belief, clearing away our doubts with the acid of emotion.9 So we find the saucer joke, the saucer gag, and clever ridicule working with the "straight news" story to make familiar the unusual. The concept having been fixed, interest in it is maintained at a strategic level by relating it to the public tensions of the moment. One newspaper displayed the story between news of Russian aggression and features on compulsory military training.
Such juxtaposition is, of course, accidental in most cases, but a glimpse at the less responsible press will show how editors can build tension merely by relating other tensions. Such news as that of the atomic bomb, Russia, and our "shell of an army, a handful of 1,500,000 men" is soon read with eyes "big as saucers." By suggestion the public is led to see dangers which may not in fact exist, for example, the chaos which will result if the discs are part of a "foul plot of the Reds," -who are "out for world domination." By juxtaposition the press can suggest without a grain of evidence. By innuendo concept is related to concept, each reinforcing the other, wheels within wheels.10 The deliberate display techniques used by many papers, three of four in Los Angeles, is sound "journalism" perhaps, if weak logically.
We have seen how the concept was developed, how through repetition and the authority of the press and "experts" it became accepted. The pattern has much in common with the creation of Hitler's "Jew" or the manufacture of a stock "Communist." It is the die by which un-American activity committees mold the stereotype "un-American." It is the blueprint of the unsemantic world of unreason.
If, as the President's Commission on Civil Liberties has stated, we are in for a period of ogres, of witch hunts, and of jousting with the straw men built of hate, then it seems wise that we study the method by which they are introduced to the public. It might be useful when someone tries to prepare the way for a man on a White Horse.
Notes
1 See Sofia/ Distance, a Syllabus, University of Southern California.
2 (Citation missing. Deals with story receiving authority solely due to being covered by the press.)
3 During the short span of the saucer story Los Angeles seems to have solved the problem of the "sex-fiend." Cf. Lincoln Steffens, Autobiography of Lincoln Steffens, p. 285 ff., the chapter entitled, “I Make a Crime Wave."
4 Papers studied closely include those of Los Angeles, St. Louis, Chicago, New York, Columbus. A quick survey of Atlanta, San Francisco, Dallas, Cleveland, and Cincinnati papers showed no significant differences.
5 72 point equals 1 inch.
6 Redlands, California, July 10.
7 Cf. our ideas of "One World," a concept which most accept because it has the authority of age, 8 or 10 years, and because of its generality, which each can interpret. Many, however, reject the details of such a concept, which are its logical projection.
8 "Coca-Cola does not refresh" is almost as effective as "Coca-Cola, the pause that refreshes." Cf. the kidding of product and sponsor on some radio shows.
9 Cf. the use of wit in anti-Semitism and the deliberate manufacturing of the “darky," happy-go-lucky, shiftless. Magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post have well-known formulas for Negro characters. Cf. also the force of ridicule in building the self-stereotype of minority groups as "God's chosen people."
10 Cf. from the congressional debate on the Atomic Commission : Lilienthal was born in Lithuania; Lithuania is now part of Russia; so, it is suggested but not stated, Lilienthal is a "Red."
. . .
About the Author
Herbert Lewis Hackett, as a boy in 1929
At the time of the article, Herbert Lewis Hackett was Assistant Professor of Journalism, Ohio Wesleyan University Delaware, Ohio. He was an instructor in the department of journalism and English, and also taught writing skills training into the framework of an introductory course in sociology. He was the author of several books on writing. Here's a brief biography by his grandson, Ethan Daniel Davidson:
My grandfather was Herbert Lewis Hackett, born 16 January, 1917, Rangoon, Burma. He ended up back in the States, by the outbreak of WWII. After having earned his PhD in Linguistics from University of Michigan, he was drafted into the Army, commissioned as a Captain, given the assignment of teaching English to German POWs at a camp in Shamrock, Texas. He seems to have gotten into a fight with his CO after hearing of his father's death, and was ultimately discharged; it's my understanding he was a very reluctant conscript anyway. It was while working at the camp that he met the daughter of an itinerant preacher: Sarah Wilborn. Herbert and Sarah moved frequently, as Herbert was a college Professor: Arkansas, Salt Lake, Lansing, Buffalo. Herbert died of a heart attack in Buffalo, 1964.
Herbert L. Hackett, 1957
He didn't seem to have much else to say about UFOs, but he did mention them as an example in his 1957 book on writing clearly, Understanding, and Being Understood:
"Is the report on the facts consistent within itself? This question implies that facts should not contradict themselves. An early report of the flying saucer, for example, stated that it moved at two thousand miles an hour, and that it had a 'blister' in which two or three men were observed; yet that speed would make it impossible for an observer to note such details.”
Flap entered the UFO lexicon due to Captain Ed Ruppelt’s use of the term in The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects: “In Air Force terminology a ‘flap’ is a condition, or situation, or state of being of a group of people characterized by an advanced degree of confusion that has not quite yet reached panic proportions.” The term got repeated by UFO buffs, and flap took on a different meaning, more about a heightened period of UFO activity, not the commotion it caused.
In late 1947 and early 1948, things were so slow that there was no flap of any kind. James Thrasher’s Feb. 11, 1948, syndicated editorial column noted “a slump in the grain market,” but also in the UFO business: “...like the New York Stock Exchange, we've been a little nervous lately. And all we can say is we hope those flying saucers don't put in another appearance — at least till we're feeling better.”
As we know, the saucer business was far from finished, but the next UFO event to make national news was something else. A series of 1948 UFO incidents in Illinois received national news coverage and can be considered the second flap of the flying saucer era. It caught the attention of the Air Force’s UFO investigation, chiefly due to one of the key witnesses being a high-ranking experienced trained observer. Colonel Walter F. Siegmund (1887 - 1964) was 61 years old at time of the sighting, the retired commandant of "Camp Kearns," Army Air Forces Base, Kearns, Utah.
The Alton Evening Telegraph, Alton, Illinois, July2, 1952
The First Reported Sighting
On Tuesday April 6, 1948, Robert Price of Caledonia, Illinois, reported seeing “a bird as big as an airplane.”
Freeport Journal-Standard, Freeport, IL, April 7, 1948
“Boone County Farmer Reports Seeing Bird As Big As Airplane”
Seeing the story prompted another witness to come forward, Veryl Babb, a truck driver, who thought it looked like a pterodactyl. More incredibly, the witnesses “believed it might be a visitor from another planet.”
The Evening News, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, April 9, 1948
"Monster Bird" Reported In Flying Saucer Area by United Press
Once the report was out, others came forward saying they had seen the same thing even earlier before, but hadn’t spoken about it at the time. There was James Trares, a 12-year-old boy, who said he’d seen a plane-sized bird about three months before. The other witness, Col. Walter F. Siegmund, said he had seen it on Sunday, the 4th, several days before the other witnesses, but at the opposite end of the state.
The story by Paul Dix of United Press was carried widely across the USA:
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Missouri, April 10, 1948
“Mysterious Huge Bird Reported Seen Over Glendale and Alton'”
Col. Siegmund said he didn't see any flapping of wings but he was sure it was a huge fowl and not a type of aircraft. "At first I thought there was something wrong with my eyesight," Siegmund said. "But it was definitely a bird, and not a glider or jet plane...But from movements of the object and its size, I figured it could only be a bird of tremendous size."
Belvidere Daily Republican, Belvidere, Illinois, April 15, 1948
“Gesell Solves Bird Mystery -- Or Does He?”
"It was an airplane towing a glider," Gesell said. "I saw it myself.”
1948 04 16 The Freeport Journal-Standard, April 16, 1948
“'Monster Bird' Comes To Rest; Farmer Sees Giant Heron In Field”
A United Press story published April 18, 1948, seemed to put the mater to rest, when another of the witnesses retracted the bird evaluation: “Saturday, Bill Gesell of Belvidere, another of those who saw it, put his foot down on the tale and said it definitely was an airplane-towed glider. Veryl Babb of Freeport, the truck driver, said he had to agree.”
The sightings didn’t end, nor did many of the witnesses impressions that they were seeing a big bird. Col. Siegmund, on the other hand, had studied up and concluded it was not a paranormal anomaly:
The Ogden Standard-Examiner, Ogden, Utah, April 25, 1948, reported:
“‘Enormous’ Bird Is Sighted again, flapping Over City” (UP)
“Siegmund said he had been doing considerable research on birds since sighting the fowl and had concluded it was an albatross or condor that had wandered far from home. S. B. Heckler of the St. Louis Audubon society said it was probably a huge pelican.”
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Missouri, April 26, 1948
“Flying What-Is-It Is Seen Chasing Plane Over City”
One witness account would seem (in part) to support the towed glider explanation:
Mrs. Kristine Dolezal, 2055 Russell boulevard, heard an airplane flying low over her home today. "When I looked up," she said, "I was amazed to see this big dark thing apparently chasing the plane. It was clumsy, and flapping its wings sort of lazily. The plane and the bird finally flew off in different directions."
Two St. Louis policemen had witnessed it together the previous Saturday night, and even they gave conflicting descriptions. Patrolman Francis Hennelly said:
"The thing was as big as a small airplane. Its wings were flapping, and it was headed southwest, flying at an altitude of several hundred feet. I thought it was a large eagle, but I've never seen one that big before."
Cpl. Clarence Johnson had a different description: "It looked like a witch flying across the sky," he asserted. "It wasn't Halloween, either."
The Altoona Mirror, Altoona, Pennsylvania, April 29, 1948
“Flying Monster in Missouri May Be Bird, Plane or Witch” (UP)
“Charles Hertenstein, ace trouble shooter for Mayor Aloys P. Kaufmann, planned his strategy today for capturing the night-flying “what’s-it” that has terrified residents recently. Kaufmann assigned Hertenstein the task of catching the giant bird —if it is a bird—yesterday. That was after he received letters from indignant taxpayers, denouncing the city for its lack of action.”
Confounding Witness Testimony
St. Louis Star-Times, St. Louis, Missouri, May 1, 1948 had an editorial piece on the mystery, “Wonderful Nonsense,” noting the conflicting descriptions:
“We have been through the flying saucer, submarines-off-the-coast and balls-of-fire stages recently, and right now St. Louis has a queer-bird mystery which it is enjoying immensely. This creature, which in many ways resembles the fabled filli-lulu bird (and may be one for all we know) has so far been positively identified as an enemy projectile, an eagle, a small plane, a condor, a magnetometer towed by aircraft, the last surviving member of the great auk family and a blue heron. Those who have seen it agree that it flaps its wings, doesn't flap it(s) wings, is very large, just a little bigger than a duck, flies quite high, stays near the earth, has feathers and is as naked as a billiard ball.”
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Missouri, May 2, 1948, carried the story, “The Gigantic Bird Mystery” by Dickson Terry (illustrated by Amadee), and it summarized the case and the theories that had been advanced. It also had a bit of news about how even such a witness as Col. Walter F. Siegmund could be the subject of ridicule.
"Col. Siegmund is a well-known sportsman, in addition to being widely known in Army circles, and when a news service sent out a story about his having seen the thing, he began to get joking letters from friends all over the country, all asking the same question: What had he been drinking? Col. Siegmund has been looking up material on big birds and has come to the conclusion that what be saw was an albatross."
According to Loren Coleman in Mothman and Other Curious Encounters (2002), there were another few incidents, the last on May 5, then, “the sightings came to an abrupt end.” Not quite the end. There was at least one other report, one from about 200 miles away in Carrollton, Missouri:
1948 06 05 Mexico Ledger, Mexico, Missouri, June 5, 1948
“Did Monster Fly Over this Way?”
The Air Force Takes Notice
A version of the story appeared in the April 11 Dayton Daily News, where the Project Sign folks at Wright Field couldn’t miss it, especially since the headline featured the words “Flying Saucer.”
Project Blue Book files contain a 6-page report on the bird story, and the fact that Col. Siegmund was involved seems to been their primary concern.
"11 April 1948, 4 miles north of Alton, Illinois" Part of the file discusses the credibility of the report:
“Reliability: Impossible to evaluate.
Colonel [Siegmund] was never questioned but some sort of investigation obviously should be made in lieu of the fact that he was once commandant of Air Force Base [Kearns].”
Looking at the Air Force file, it’s interesting to see how incomplete the folder is. Many of the other cases feature large collections of newspaper articles, but this one does not, just a lone clipping, and there’s no indication that any investigation or interviews were conducted. During the Project Grudge days, a later review by Dr. J. Allen Hynek caused the sighting to be downgraded from "unidentified" to "bird."
This reflects unfavorably on the Air Force’s analysis of UFO cases. Apparently this evaluation was based on a single newspaper clipping, yet it became part of Blue Book’s statistics, carried as a “solved case,” without investigation.
The Witnesses to the Flap
The 1948 giant bird flap is better documented than most early UFO cases, but it’s largely been ignored, except by Forteans and cryptozoologists. What was left out of the Air Force file,and from most accounts of the sightings as a “Thunderbird,” is that Col. Siegmund later changed his mind, downgrading his estimate of the object’s size, and that he concluded it was only an albatross or a condor. The cryptozoology coverage generally quotes only from the “monster bird” stories and ignores the testimony of those who reported seeing something mechanical, or ordinary large birds, or even a witch.
There’s no doubt the many witnesses were seeing something, but there is reasonable doubt about whether all of them were seeing the same thing. The case was marked by conflicting witness testimony, and we have to wonder if some of the later reports were “copycats,” or were due to “priming.” Whenever people saw something flying, some may have exaggerated what they saw out of the excitement of seeing it too, and of being part of something special. It’s happened with other things, from the mundane to the paranormal; from escaped panthers to UFOs. Having heardof the flying monster, some people wanted and expected to see a giant bird.
Luis Dominguez illustrated the cover for UFO Flying Saucers #10 (Gold Key, 1976) depicting Kareeta, the 1946 UFO.
For the sake of history, it’s worth remembering that a year before Kenneth Arnold made flying saucers famous, there was a notable sighting in 1946, of a bird-like UFO, as reported in the Saucers that Time Forgot article:
The Giant Claw from 1957 was probably inspired more by Godzilla than the 1948 case, but the infamously bad film is noteworthy for at least one thing.; it’s technically a UFO movie. When the monster is initially sighted, it is investigated as a UFO, and it turns out to be extraterrestrial, but a giant bird!
