UFO Contemplation

Friday, September 05, 2014

A paper that puts Roswell and other UFO things in perspective

Dead on Arrival?
The Development of the Aerospace Concept, 1944–58
by STEPHEN M. ROTHSTEIN, MAJOR, USAF
School of Advanced Airpower Studies

This paper, which is archived at our (private) UFO web-site, contains the military milieu for the period when flying saucers were prominent and the Roswell incident had taken place.

These excerpts show the internecine conflict between the U.S. Army, The U.S. Navy, and the new U.S. Air Force, and why I think the U.S. Navy is the ultimate source for UFO information, not the U.S. Air Force.

The paper also makes clear that if a extraterrestrial craft had crashed and was recovered near Roswell, the event didn't impact the United States military in an overt, significant way.

The paper also allows for a possible non-extraterrestrial accident that might account for the Roswell incident.

And the last excerpt here could give a clue as to why James Forrestal was murdered....

On 20 November 1943, von Kármán forwarded the report to the War Department.4 For reasons unclear, the Air Force backed away from the project. ORD, however, did not; and in January 1944, they contracted von Kármán’s team to begin research in White Sands, New Mexico. By the year’s end, ORDCIT had fired an eight-foot, 500-pound missile 11 miles down range and was be-ginning to explore the effect of attaching lifting devices to improve its range and guidance characteristics. 

Interestingly, all of these events—as well as the emergence of the aerospace concept itself—took place prior to the Air Force gaining its independence in July 1947. Furthermore, these events established virtually every strand of horizontal and internal issues that will come to challenge the aerospace concept throughout the rest of this study. Consequently, understanding the period of 1944–47 is critical.

The Navy’s role was to control the high seas. Naval leadership—attuned to the emerging possibilities of rocketry to extend the reach of their fleets, as well as the Army’s organizational maneuvering with the Germans and Project Hermes—decided to enter the missile melee.

Beginning roughly in July 1947, the aerospace concept fell upon hard times, stagnating—and at times perhaps even receding—for the better part of the next six years.

If in the summer of 1947 the aerospace concept appeared to be taking hold within the Air Force, encouraged by Air Force leaders clearly thinking about the prospect of an operational domain that naturally extended beyond the atmosphere, within three years the concept had all but died.

“Secretary Forrestal Announces Results of Key West Agreements, 26 March 1948” (n.d., located in Air University Library, Maxwell AFB, Ala.), 9, 12. The resulting potential ambiguity between the Air Force and the Navy over which service owned the strategic at-tack role was clarified in a subsequent amendment to the Key West Agreement that appeared three months after it was signed. On 1 July 1948, Secretary Forrestal issued a memorandum for record that said “the Navy’s requirement for . . . forces . . . would not be the basis for the development of a strategic air force. On the other hand, the memorandum also included the statement that ‘although strategic air warfare was assigned to the Air Force as a primary function, it was agreed that the Navy should not be denied the air necessary to accomplish its mission.’” Quoted from “Chronology of Changes in Key West Agreements, April 1948–January 1958,” prepared by the Historical Section, Joint Chiefs of Staff on 7 February 1958...

RR

Singular UFO sightings/events

One of the problems with UFO “research” or scrutiny is that significant UFO episodes happen once and are rarely or never repeated, causing absence of the repeatability intrinsic to scientific methodology.

For instance, the World War II phenomenon of “foo fighters” never occurred again, nor the ghost rockets over Scandinavia.

Kenneth Arnold’s chain of “saucers” has not been seen outside the 1947 time-frame.

A Roswell incident has not recurred, Aztec being a misguided extrapolation of the Roswell tale.

The green fireballs over the American southwest in the late 40s and early 50s, despite a spate of later sightings, have not been seen in the sighting numbers that took place originally.

The McMinnville (Trent) object, while duplicated in hoaxes, never appeared again in legitimate photographs.

The odd entities allegedly seen alongside landed aerial craft in the 1950s, mostly in Europe, have not recurred.

While the 1959 Reverend Gill (Papua. New Guinea) sighting provided elements seen in similar sightings (noted here recently), archetypal sightings are missing in UFO reportage.

The giants of Voronezh (Russia), 1989, never showed up again.

The Betty/Barney Hill abduction, the Travis Walton kidnapping, the Pascagoula experience, and Rendlesham kinds of events were one of a kind, not duplicated or even approximated in later or recent UFO reports.

The raft of alien abduction accounts can be placed in a neurological setting, not an actual physical setting.

And yes, UFO sightings over military installations, can be said to have been duplicated and still occurring but no related sighting has the cachet of the sightings noted above.

(There are other singular UFO sightings or episodes that you can, also, cite certainly.)

That such UFO sightings, as those noted, are virtually unique goes to the problem of investigation or scientific scrutiny; one time, singular events lie outside methodologies to explain them.

Why is this so when it comes to UFOs?

That’s the matter “ufology” can’t deal with, and hasn’t.

RR