Lying, Saucers, and the Government

 (Originally from Blue Blurry Lines,  Aug. 2, 2017)

Most people know Major General John A. Samford from his historic July 29, 1952 press conference given after the Washington, D.C. radar incidents. He spoke on behalf of the Air Force and Project Blue Book to talk about the small but troubling percentage of UFO reports "from credible observers of relatively incredible things."

See our previous article, Pentagon UFO Report 1952: We Can Do Nothing for coverage on the conference and what was disclosed. 

Major General John A. Samford, July 29, 1952 

Gen. Samford was Director of Air Force Intelligence. Captain Edward Ruppelt, in the notes made in preparation for his 1956 book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, described Gen. Samford in his entries on the key figures involved in the Air Force's Project Blue Book:

An earlier draft of Ruppelt's notes.

Samford, Major General John 

General Samford never committed himself one way or the other on the subject of UFO’s. He was always very much interested and gave me the utmost in cooperation, but he never said much. He used to ask many of the other people at meetings what they thought and there were a lot of “pro” answers but he never agreed or disagreed with anyone. The only time that I ever heard him say anything was when Col Porter got real nasty about the whole thing one day and began to knock ATIC, UFO’s, me and everything associated with the project. Then the General said something to the effect that as far as he could see, I was the first person in the history of the Air Force’s investigation that had taken a serious approach to the investigation and that he didn’t see how anyone could decide until I’d collected more data.

At the present time the General is the one who is so rabid on the fact that nothing will be released. He got “burned” real bad on the press conference in July 1952. His statements were twisted around and newsreel shots of him were “cut and pieced” to get him saying things that he didn’t. He wanted to play along with the writers but they misquoted him so badly that now he is saying absolutely nothing. Donald Keyhoe keeps writing about the “silence group” in the Air Force, those who want to clamp down on UFO news.  Gen Samford is the silence group and friend Keyhoe can take all of the credit for making him that way. 

 (From "Figures Associated With Project Blue Book")

Samford's Dynamic Disclosures in See Magazine

No mention of saucers on the cover.
See magazine, dated March 1953

See was a bi-monthly magazine, sort of a more sensational version of Life, but featuring a heavier emphasis on entertainment. See's covers featured beautiful buxom women, making it look more like a girlie pin-up magazine, but they did cover news and current events. In their last issue for 1952, See made news for its coverage of the flying saucer controversy in an exclusive interview with General Samford of the USAF. The press reported:

"'It would be foolhardy to deny the possibility that higher forms of life exist elsewhere,' reported the general just as it would be 'unreasonable' to deny that we may already have been visited by beings from outer space. Regarding the, unexplained phenomena, and the possibility of the presence of an alien intelligence, General Samford added, 'We believe that all of this eventually will be understood by the human mind, and that it is our job to hasten the understanding.'"

In Loren Gross' UFOs: A History 1952 November—December,  he summarizes the same interview from See, but emphasizes different points than the newspaper article.

The November issue of See magazine featured an interview with Chief of Air Force Intelligence General John A. Samford by the periodical's Washington editor Serge Fliegers. The General, for the most part, repeated what he said during the big press conference at the end of July. He acknowledged that 25 per cent of UFO reports were made by military personnel, rejected professor Donald Menzel's theories, and insisted that evidence of visitors from space was lacking. Have UFOs been seen over Russia, asked Fliegers? The General replied that the U.S. Air Force didn't know. The Air Force, according to Samford, also lacked satisfactory proof of the supposed "ghost rockets" reported in 1946. Before Flieger left Samford's comer Pentagon office overlooking the Potomac, he questioned the General about the possibility Communist agents were spreading flying saucer reports to put fear into Americans about Russian secret weapons. The General answered: "We cannot discount that possibility. It is under investigation."

Indiana Evening Gazette, Dec. 26, 1952

Says Space Visitors Possible

NEW YORK -- It is definitely possible that intelligent beings from some other world have been able to visit our planet, or at least to travel within our atmosphere, Major General John A. Samford, Chief of Air Force Intelligence now investigating the Flying Saucer mystery, said today, in an exclusive interview in the current issue of See Magazine, just released.

"It would be foolhardy to deny the possibility that higher forms of life exist elsewhere," reported the general just as it would be "unreasonable" to deny that we may already have been visited by beings from outer space. Regarding the, unexplained phenomena, and the possibility of the presence of an alien intelligence, General Samford added, "We believe that all of this eventually will be understood by the human mind, and that it is our job to hasten the understanding."

In commenting upon the 20 percent of flying saucer reports which remain mysteriously unexplained, General Samford declared the saucers' behavior indicates they "either have unlimited power or no mass." Many "credible people have seen incredible things," he asserted, "some of which have later been satisfactorily explained, while others so far have defied explanation."

General Samford said that the Air Force is keeping nothing from the public regarding Project Flying Saucer. The only information not disclosed is names of those reporting saucer sightings and the method used by Air Force Intelligence to investigate and evaluate these reports.

A Harvard professor's theory that flying saucers are caused by reflected light has not yet been proved, General Samford reported. Even if it were true, he stated, "It would not account for all reports, by any means."

The general branded as false the rumor that jet pilots have had orders to shoot at saucers. "We have thousands of letters and telegrams begging us to rescind this 'shoot-on-sight order. But no "such order was ever given."

The theory of the late Secretary of Defense, James A. Forrestal, that flying saucers were related to this country's experiments with "man made moons" -- platforms that could be suspended in the atmosphere for defense and observation -- was categorically denied by General Samford. "Saucers are in no way related to these moons," he said.

Here's a partial transcript of the See magazine article itself:

Flying Saucers- the last word!

SEE presents an exclusive interview with the worlds best informed military man – Major General John A. Samford – on the worlds most exciting modern mystery 

Frequent Queries Answered Below

What do flying saucers look like?

Why did they make no sound? 

Are they really caused by reflected light? 

Does mass hysteria explain them?

Do they contain visitors from space? 

No other mystery has so inflamed the imagination of The 20th century man as the Mystery of the Flying Saucers. And no one else among us knows more about the flying saucer stand Major General John A. Samford, a tall quiet gentleman with penetrating eyes and a crack record as a fighter pilot, who sits in a corner Pentagon office overlooking the Potomac. General Samford is Chief of Air Force Intelligence. As such, he is head of Project Saucer, which has been investigating the enigmatical objects which have streaked across our heavens.

Last summer, when another rash of saucer sightings spread from coast to coast, General Samford how they press conference to quiet public furor. But that conference left a number of points on answered or unemphasized. Hence, in an effort to fill the gaps in public understanding of the subject, the questions which appear below were put to General Samford by Serge Fliegers SEE's Washington editor, who has followed saucer reports from Stockholm to Seattle.

Q: General Samford, what do flying saucers look like? 

A: There is no single pattern. Unidentified aerial objects, as I prefer to call them, have been described as having cone shapes, disc shapes, ball shapes. Reports have them going and incredible speeds. 

Q: When did the reports start coming in? 

A: Here in the U.S., the Air Force started investigating such reports in the fall of 1947. On December 30, 1947, it directed its Air Force Material Command, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio to set up a project to evaluate all facts concerning them. 

Q: How many reports of come in since then?

A: Serious reports analyzed by Dayton center total about 1500. Sixty-odd percent come from the civilian population. About eight per cent come from civil airline pilots, and about twenty-five per cent from military personnel, including military pilots.

 

Q: But doesn't that destroyed the "mass hysteria" explanation of saucer signings? After all, most pilots are pretty reliable man. 

A: The Air Force has never believed that all reports on unidentified aerial objects are caused by hysteria. But careful evaluation by our Dayton center showed fully 80 per cent of the reports concerned natural, explainable occurrences. 

Q: What is your reaction to that Harvard professor's (Dr. Donald Menzel) theory that flying saucers are caused by reflected light? 

A: The theory is appealing, but has not yet been proved. Therefore the Air Force cannot yet accept it as a satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, it would not account for all reports, by any means. 

Q: Violent headlines have declared that jet pilots had orders to shoot at the saucers. Is that true? 

A: We have thousands of letters and telegrams begging us to resend this "shoot on sight "order. No such order ever was given. I repeat, the Air Force never ordered it to pilots to shoot down any of these so-called "flying saucers." The pilots had orders to find and find out what they were all about. 

Flying Saucers Not Hostile 

Naturally, if a jet fighter pilot sees an object approaching at great unknown speed,  heading, say, for New York City, he is going to try to contact it. Then, if it proceed against his warnings and its actions appear hostile, he will try to intercept it. 

Q: Has the Air Force any reason to believe that these unidentified aerial objects may be a danger to us, or may be trying to harm us?

A: None whatsoever. 

Q: You say that 80% of the sources reported could be explain naturally. What about the other twenty per cent? 

A: The Air Force is still trying to answer that. 

 - - -

The Air Force Responds

The part about Gen. Samford saying it was unreasonable "to deny that we may already have been visited by beings from outer space," was a pretty spectacular claim to be coming from the United States government. In response to the See article, the Air Force issued a press release to correct the record. We've been unable to locate the document, but have the fragments from it carried in newspaper articles.

Oil City Derrick, Dec. 29, 1952

"As limited as man is in his knowledge and understanding of the universe and its many forces, it would be foolhardy indeed to deny the possibility that higher forms of life existed elsewhere.
It would be similarly unreasonable to deny that intelligent beings from some other world were able to visit our planet, at least to travel within our atmosphere.
"However, the Air Force desires to reiterate emphatically that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that this possibility has been translated into reality."

According to Donald Keyhoe's Flying Saucers from Outer Space, the See interview was a counterfeit:

"I saw the AP story on it," I said. "But the Air Force is a little sore about that article. (Al) Chop told me they didn't interview General Samford directly—it was supposed to be labeled a hypothetical interview based on public statements he'd made."

A "hypothetical interview." Serge Fliegers' article was a mix of fact and fiction.

Who was Serge Fliegers?

Mike Wallace (L) interviewing Serge Fliegers (R) in 1962.

"Serge Fliegers See's Washington editor..." was best known as a European correspondent for Hearst newspapers. A mini bio of him appeared in The Freeman magazine, April 1953:

Serge Fliegers was brought up in Switzerland, educated at Cambridge and Harvard. As a correspondent he has traveled in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, speaks eight languages, including Arabic. Between covering the United Nations for the Inter Continental Press and writing magazine articles, he manages to find time for his special interest- opera and instrumental music.

In 1964, Fliegers' name came up during the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Word got to them that Fliegers claimed that an anti-Khrushchev, pro-Chinese group in the Soviet Union had trained Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate the President. Investigating the credibility of Fliegers and his sources, investigators contacted Dan Brigham, an editor of the New York Journal American newspaper. Brigham was able to give them Fliegers' location for questioning, and reported that Fliegers was "one of the biggest fakers in the business and anything he says has to be taken with a large grain of salt." 

Warren Commission Exhibit No. 1444
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1444.pdf

When Fliegers was questioned about the source of his assassination information,  he said that his source may received this information from another source who, in turn, may have received the information from contacts in Russia. Pressed for the identity of his source  Fliegers was evasive and said it was impossible for him to contact him by telephone. The information went nowhere, and turned out to be rumors and speculation repeated by a reporter as if it were facts.

The Policy of Silence

Was the See interview an example of what Ed Ruppelt was saying, that Gen. Samford's comments were "cut and pieced” to get him "saying things that he didn’t?" Samford's statements were similar to his remarks from the July 29, 1952 press conference on the Washington, D.C. UFO radar incidents. 

Project Blue Book's files has the AF transcript of Samford's press conference:
https://www.fold3.com/image/1/12428060
Saturday Night Uforia has an easily searchable version of the transcript.
http://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/articles/articlehtml/samfordpctanscript.html

If the See "interview" had it's origin there, great dramatic license was taken with Samford's words. Maybe after getting burned by Serge Fliegers in See, Gen. Samford set an example for the Air Force, setting the policy that the best way to handle the press on the UFO topic was silence, "saying absolutely nothing."

Thanks to The Saucers That Time Forgot's Claude Falkstrom for the lead on this article, and to Jan Aldrich for additional details on the AF press release refuting the See article.

. . .

UFO Expert and Lecturer, Norman S. Bean

 

Norman S. Bean was a first-generation ufologist. He was born in 1906, so he was a full-grown man when the 1947 news of flying saucers captured his life-long interest. Electronics engineer by trade, his 1967 profile in the Palm Beach Press described him as a graduate of Tufts College, Mass., who had “designed electrical equipment for Pan-American Airways, Philco Corp. and RCA. In 1943 he designed a television camera for guided missile projects: after the war he is credited with designing the first RCA commercial TV camera for both sports and studio use.”

Broadcast News, Oct. 1946

Around 1950, Bean became the electronics and TV engineer for station WTJV in Miami, Florida. In his spare time, Bean kept up with UFO literature and gathered enough knowledge that in 1952, he began lecturing locally on the topic, sometimes as often as three times a week, His position was that flying saucers were real, and he believed them to be spaceships from another planet. 

He didn’t speak much about it publicly, but Bean and his wife Louise had a strong interest in psychic phenomena. “I read a book about Edgar Cayce's life in 1952. It opened my eyes and changed my way of thinking.” His passion was flying saucers, and he connected with others who shared his interest, including the saucer clubs that started forming. He also became friends with a notable UFO witness from Miami, Pan American World Airways pilot Bill Nash, of the July 14, 1952, Nash-Fortenberry UFO sighting.

 

Bill Nash

Bean’s First Saucer Sightings

They say, “seeing is believing,” but up until late 1953, Bean had been believing without seeing. From Bean’s letter to The Little Listening Post newsletter:

"There have just been two saucer sightings over Miami. March 18 [1954] I had my first daylight sighting. Saucer was following a B-36. Several witnesses, (one my technical assistant, Carl McClure, is an ex-navy spotter.) It was his first sighting. I had a night sighting ln Sept. [1953], through my telescope. On that occasion I watched the object hover for four minutes. It was glowing red."

As we shall see, Bean was just getting started.

 

Norman Bean on left. From PIC magazine, June 1954

At the beginning his ufology career, James Moseley went to Miami in Feb. 1954 to meet William Nash and “contacted a number of interesting people... Norman Bean, a pseudo-engineer and saucerer who'd invented a psychic machine that he claimed healed people at a distance; and marine PFC Ralph Mayher, whom Nash had put me onto. In late July 1952 Mayher had shot some movie film of a saucer. His superiors took the film to a local television station to have it developed, where it was processed by none other than Norman Bean.” (Shockingly Close to the Truth, 2002). Bean only played a minor supporting role in  this UFO case, but the full story can be found at NICAP’s page on the Mayher film. 

Besides his frequent lectures, Bean also frequently appeared on local radio stations to talk about flying saucers and their origins. At these appearances, members of the audience would sometimes tell him stories they heard about captured flying saucers, and even alien bodies. When in March 1954 Bean was unable to speak as planned, he asked his friend Bill Nash to fill in.

The Saucerian, Jan. 1955

Based on some of those second-hand tales, Nash said in his lecture on saucer, he said he was convinced, "the Air Force has collected hardware from outer space." That caused quite a stir and launched even more rumors and speculation. (For more on that story, see Captured UFOs and Building Hangar 18: A Chronology.”

Agent of N.I.C.A.P. 

NICAP (the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) described both Bean and Nash as “member-investigators” and also on their “Panel of Special Advisors.” They’d later refine that a bit, listing Bean among their “Scientific and Technical” panel.  

Bean in 1959

With Sputnik and the UFO flap of 1957, his lectures had titles such as, “Satellites and Saucers, and "Mystery from Outer Space." Things slowed down but never stopped. The 1966 saucer flap put UFO speakers back in big demand, and it kept Bean in front of eager audiences.

Here is What Bean Believes about UFOs

Now for our feature presentation, an excellent profile on Norman S. Bean’s first two decades as a ufologist, from the Tampa Bay Times, July 22, 1973, written by Gene Rider.

Illustration by Rick McCormick.

13 UFOs over Miami

The press continued to be interested in Bean’s views on UFOs. The Bulletin (Bend, Oregon), Jan. 9, 1974, reported that Bean believed saucers were extraterrestrial ships that are magnetically controlled, powered by atomic reactors for anti-gravity flight, and that when an earthly nation discovers the secret, “it will rule the skies.” The Miami News, Nov. 6, 1975, reported, “Bean, who says he has seen 13 UFOs over Miami in the last decade or so, said it is not unusual for the objects to sit suspended over airports.” Bean said, "This happens at airports all over the world. It's as if they are curious about our methods of flight."

The Bermuda Triangle… and Roswell?

Charles Berlitz's 1974 book, The Bermuda Triangle included some UFO cases, and two of them were provided by Norman S. Bean. 

In the 1979 documentary based on the book, the credits listed a few ufologists among the technical advisors including William L. Moore, Don Berliner and Bean.

Bean was also mentioned in 1980 book by Berlitz and Bill Moore, The Roswell Incident. It was in a section titled, “Holes in the Cover-up,” a passage about a rumor that had been repeated about an of alien autopsy…

Norman Bean, Miami, Florida, electronics engineer, inventor, and lecturer on UFOs, remembers an incident that took place in the mid-fifties. After a lecture he had just given he had a conversation with a retired air force officer, a Colonel Lake, who informed him that a close friend had talked to a doctor in Dayton, Ohio, at some length about the autopsies of the "saucer" crew in which he had participated. According to Colonel Lake, the internal organs were similar to those of human beings, with basic organs "just like chickens and people." Colonel Lake, naturally aware of security regulations, said he could talk about this now in a general way because "all this is going to be a matter of public information in a few months." 

By the time of the Roswell book, Bean was in his mid-70s, and retired, but not from ufology. The Feb. 1981 MUFON Journal announced him as their new State Director for Florida. 

“It is an extreme pleasure to announce that one of the pioneers in UFOlogy in the U.S.A. has accepted the position of State Director for Florida. Norman S. Bean, a retired RCA engineer… Norman has interviewed several thousand UFO sighting witnesses during the 30 years he has been lecturing on UFOs. Many of our new MUFON members in Florida have joined as a result of the radio talk programs that Mr. Bean has participated in around south Florida.” 

After serving almost four years, Bean retired from the role in late 1984 due to “his inability to travel and advancing age.” A few years later, the MUFON Journal, April 1987 carried some sad news. 

Bob Pratt learned from Mrs. Louise Bean that her husband Norman Bean, former State Director for Florida, died on December 8, 1986 at the age of 80. Mr. Bean, a retired RCA engineer with many television related patents and truly a UFO pioneer, was recognized by Larry King on his CNN radio show, featuring the Japan Air Lines flight 1628 UFO sighting report. Norman had appeared on many of Larry King's radio programs when they both lived in Miami, Florida. 

Norman Stuart Bean 1906-1986

Gone, but we remember...

. . .

 

For more news clippings on Norman Bean’s UFO cases and lectures, see the PDF clipping collection at NICAP.

Kenneth Arnold's Flying Saucer Philosophy

(Originally published on Blue Blurry Lines, March 15, 2017, as

UFOs, Kenneth Arnold and the American Bible.)

Kenneth Arnold was the original credible witness, a straight-shooting, down-to-earth ex-Boy Scout. Jacques Vallee wrote, "I now think of referring to the (flying saucer) problem as 'the Arnold Phenomenon' after that celebrated witness, businessman Kenneth Arnold." (11 April 1963 entry,  Forbidden Science Volume I.)  However, in the years since, Arnold's role as the herald of the UFO age has been diminished by the overemphasis and promotion of the Roswell crash franchise. His role is important, and there's a lot more to his story.

Shortly after his encounter, Arnold had the first of many other sightings on his flight to Maury Island, a trip that began his informal role as the first civilian UFO investigator. He became interested in Charles Fort's books of phenomena and joined the Fortean Society. Over the years, he came to believe that the objects he'd seen were living creatures, possibly related to "Ezekiel's wheel" described in the Book of Revelation. There's a lot more to Kenneth Arnold's story than just his first sighting, but UFO history has largely ignored it.

Ray Palmer and an Amazing Book

UFO historians have sought to diminish or deny the role of another pioneer, Raymond A. Palmer, who was promoting the reality of extraterrestrials space ships visiting the Earth as early as 1945. Palmer was a science fiction author, but interested in the reality of space travel, Fortean phenomena, Theosophy and all sorts of paranormal topics, so in 1948 he created a non-fiction magazine to discuss them, Fate magazine. Palmer wrote to Kenneth Arnold and persuaded him to tell his story, which became the cover feature for the first issue of Fate. As a result, the two men became life-long friends and worked together, the best-known example being their collaboration on the 1952 book, The Coming of the Saucers.

In 1945 Ray Palmer became fascinated with something that's been called the American Bible,

"... an amazing book called 'Oahspe' which purports to be a history of the past 79,000 years, both of the earth and of heaven... which ties into a cohesive whole all the legends and folktales of the world, and all the archeological discoveries of the past, and depicts a logical and convincing, and for the most part provable relationship between all the races of mankind for LONGER than science says civilized men existed on the earth, or even cave-men!" (Amazing Stories December 1945)

"Oahspe, A New Bible in the Words of Jehovih and His Angel Embassadors" was published in 1882, by John Ballou Newbrough supposedly written by automatic writing, channeling the word of Ormazd, "the Creator." In The UFO Phenomenon: Fact, Fantasy and Disinformation,  John Michael Greer describes it's significance to UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis. 

"Like many channeled works, Oahspe defies easy characterization. Written in the style of the King James Bible, it combines Christian imagery with ideas borrowed from many other religions... What sets it apart most strikingly from the religious visions of a previous century, though, is the way it locates its theology in outer space. Its angels and gods live on countless planets... and travel from world to world in Etherean vessels that range from little scout craft to vast mother ships the size of a planet." 

Ray Palmer's Mystic Magazine, May, 1954

These vessels are referred to as fire, sun and "star-ships." An example from Oahspe: "Then Osire left this high place and with his host, aboard the etherean ship of fire, sat out toward the earth, at break-neck speed; for such was the disposition of this most determined god."

Ray Palmer promoted the text in the pages of his magazines over the years, and went on to publish three versions of it between 1960 and 1972, writing that, "Oahspe is truly a gateway to understanding."

Arnold's Souvenir Card

In 1950 Kenneth Arnold published The Flying Saucer as I Saw It, an the illustrated pamphlet to be sold as a souvenir at his lectures on the topic. He used the same saucer image for a calling card. His daughter, Kim Arnold wrote: 

“Kenneth Arnold used to give out philosophy cards to the many people he would meet. They were the size of a common business card. The front of the card had the image of the second to the last of the nine flying saucers he saw on June 24, 1947. The back of the card expressed this quote:”

     Many people have inquired as to my philosophy – due to my involvement in the phenomenon known as "Flying Saucers.” The following I accept is worth thinking about. 

     A great man is the unbelieving man; he is without spiritual sight or spiritual hearing; his glory is in understanding his own understanding. It is he who subdues the forest, tames the beasts of the field to service. He goes alone in the dark, unafraid. He follows no man’s course, but, searches for himself; the priests cannot make him believe, nor the angels of heaven; none can subdue his judgment. He says: why permit others even priests, to you think for you? Stand on your own feet – be a man. Through his arm are tyrants and evil kings overthrown. Through him are doctrines and religions sifted to the bottom and the falsehood and evil in them cast aside. Who but the Creator could have created so great a man as the unbeliever? 

KENNETH ARNOLD

It's an unusual piece of writing, not what you'd expect out of a man like Arnold. It turns out the language is taken from scripture. It's taken from Ray Palmer's beloved Oahspe.

Oahspe, a New Bible in the Words of Jehovih and His Angel Embassadors, Page 361

26. Nevertheless, the Creator created a great man amongst these; and such is the unbelieving man. He hath neither gold nor silver, nor house nor land; and he is without spiritual sight or spiritual hearing; but his glory is in understanding his own understanding.
27. He it is that subdueth the forest, and tameth the beasts of the field to man's service. He goeth alone in the dark, fearing naught. He followeth not the course of any man, but searcheth for himself; the priest cannot make him believe, nor can the angels of heaven; none can subdue his judgment. He beholdeth the glory of the earth and of manhood. He calleth to the multitude, saying: Why permit ye others, even priests, to think for you? Arise, O thou, and be a man! Arise, O thou, and be a woman!
28. He inspireth of the earth and for the earth; through his arms are tyrants and evil kings overthrown. Through him are doctrines and religions sifted to the bottom, and the falsehood and evil in them cast aside. Yea, who but Ormazd could have created so great a man as the unbeliever?

We can't know exactly how Arnold came to use the Oahspe text on his calling card, but there can be little doubt that his friend, Ray Palmer, was influential in its genesis.

Kenneth Arnold's story was on the front cover of the 1st issue of FATE Magazine in 1948, but on the back cover there was an ad for...

The Flying Saucer: A Manufactured Concept - 1948 article by Herbert Hackett

 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: 

Date Total 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.”