Naval Surface Weapons Center (NSWC)

White Oak, Silver Spring, Md. 20910

December 16, 1974

The Editor

Science Magazine

Dear Sir:

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 6

Summary of the Report

During a personal interview in May of 1973 and during several subsequent

telephone interviews in 1974, the major observer, who wishes to remain anonymous

because of his elective position in county government, revealed that on a Friday

evening in April 1970, before the start of daylight savings time, he had observed

an apparently motionless object in the sky. He observed the object repeatedly

during and after his trip home from work for a period of time starting about 6:00 p.m.

and lasting an estimated two hours.

He first saw the object "directly" ahead of him as he drove along a straight

stretch of Route 11 just south of Woodstock, Virginia (Point A on Figure l).

The evening was "brilliantly clear ••. like you have in the spring of the year without

a cloud in the sky." The sun was "way low in the west" and the object appeared

"due south of me as a speck through my windshield -- a black spot that didn't be-

long up in this perfectly clear sky." He continued to watch it at every opportunity

during his roughly twenty minute drive. At first he thought it was a plane, but

then decided that it was remaining too fixed in position to be a plane. After

traveling about 11 km. (7 miles), he came to another straight stretch in the road

where the object appeared to be directly ahead of him (Point B on Figure 1). He

then stopped (Point C on Figure 1) and watched it for a couple of minutes while

trying to determine where it was with respect to his home, since an apparent increase

in angular size suggested he was getting closer to it. At about 6:20 p.m. he arrived

home in Mt. Jackson, Virginia (Point D on Figures 1 and 3), where he stood in his

driveway and sighted the object using one of the local power lines and a local

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 7

telephone pole for altitude, azimuth, and angular size reference. He watched the

object for about four or five minutes to see if it was moving with respect to the

fixed reference points, "and it wasn't moving." He then went into the house to

get his binoculars (7x 50) and his wife and children. For "maybe five minutes" they

took turns watching the object through the binoculars before going back into the

house. He returned to the same position in his driveway several times "until it

got so dark we couldn't see it." He stated that throughout the time of careful

observation using the power lines and pole as references, a period of time that may

have been as long as one and one-half hours, "it didn't move one iota." The object

was gone when he looked for it the next morning.

During the interview the major observer made a sketch of the object as seen

through the binoculars, and I made elevation angle measurements. Subsequent to

the interview the major observer supplied several county maps showing his sighting

lines, and a plat of his property that showed the right-of-way of the power line

and the position of the telephone pole. He also supplied information about the

height and diameter of the local power line which he had used as reference. Also

subsequent to the interview, I obtained the appropriate U.S. Geological Survey

maps,³⁷ weather records,³⁸ and pertinent information on balloons and helicopters.

The following sections of this paper present the detailed information contained

in the report and the analysis of this information based on the supplementary

material which was obtained.

Date and Atmospheric Conditions

According to the major observer, the object was seen on a clear Friday evening

in the latter part of April but before the start of daylight savings time (Sunday,

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 8

April 26, 1970). A search of the weather records for Staunton, Virginia, the

closest weather station (about 90 km. (56 miles) south of Mt. Jackson in the

Shenandoah Valley) revealed that the evening of Friday, April 17, 1970 was the

latest Friday in April that fits the description. The following weather characteris-

tics are listed for Staunton, Virginia on that date in the time period from 6:00 p.m.

to 8:00 p.m.: scattered clouds (less than 20% cloud cover) at 4.6 km. (2.9 miles) at 6:00

p.m. to clear sky at 8:00 p.m. ; wind 2.5 m/sec. (5.6 mph) at 210⁰ (south-

southwest); surface visibility 19 km. (12 miles). It is reasonable to assume that

these were also the basic characteristics of the weather near Mt. Jackson and that   

it would be possible for the sky to be perfectly clear near Mt. Jackson while, at the

same time, be slightly cloudy but clearing near Staunton.⁸ The major observer

did not remember specifically whether or not there was a wind, but he did remember

that the power lines were not swaying noticeably. This suggests that at least the

component of the wind velocity perpendicular to the power lines was small, perhaps

less than 2.5 m/sec. Local sunset was about 6:45 p.m., and twilight lasted until

shortly after 8:00 p.m.

Geographical, Geological, and Demographica1 Features

Figure 1 illustrates the geographical location of the sighting. Route 11 is

just west of the north fork of the Shenandoah River. The U.S. Geological Survey maps³⁷

show a chain of mountains 3 to 5 km. (1.9-3 miles) east of Route 11 with heights in

the range of 600 to 900 m. (2,000-3,000 ft.) above sea level. Short Mountain, which

is about 820 m. (2700 ft.) high lies in this chain. Another chain, with heights in

the range 600 to 900 m. above sea level, lies 13 to 16 km. (8-10 miles) west of Route

11. The valley floor varies in height from 240 to 290 m. (790-950 ft.) along the

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 9

section of Route 11 from Woodstock to Mt. Jackson and is about 270 m. (890 ft.)

high at Point D on Figure 1. When there are no leaves on the trees, it is possible

to see the south end of Short Mountain from most of Route 11 between Points A and D.

Only within the city limits of Edinburg is there a sizeable stretch of road from

which it is not visible. At Point A the direction of the road is such that the

south end of the mountain appears "dead ahead"; at Point B the south end appears

slightly to the left of directly ahead.

The population of Mt. Jackson is about 680, that of Edinburg is about 770, that

of Woodstock is about 2,340, and that of New Market, which lies 11 km. (7 miles)

south of Mt. Jackson, is about 720 (1970 Census).

Location of the Object

With the assumption that the observer was seeing the same object at each time

of observation, it is possible to use his sighting directions along the road to

estimate the location (or locations if the object was moving) of the object during

the entire period. Since the sky was clear and the south end of Short Mountain

was clearly visible from most of Route 11, and since the observer reported no other

objects, it seems reasonable to accept this assumption.

The observations from Points A and B were made from a moving car, so they may

be accurate to only within several degrees. Since the road at Point A is straight

and points directly toward the south end of Short Mountain (see Figure 2) for a

distance of about 300 m. (1,000 ft.), the observer's claim that the object was

directly ahead of him would imply an error in direction of probably less than ± 2⁰

and certainly less than +/- 5⁰  (the horizon directly ahead is "framed" by trees which

are about 10⁰ apart). To allow for this largest expected error in sighting "directly

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 10

ahead," the sighting sector from Point A on Figure 1 is 10^o wide. The road does

not line up perfectly with the south end of Short Mountain at Point B, so to allow

for ample margin of error, the sighting sector from that point is 20^o wide. The

center lines of the sighting sectors are projections of the road direction as pre-

sented on the Geological Survey and County maps. The sighting sector from Point D

is too narrow (less than a degree) to be shown on the map. The sighting line from

Point D is a projection of the line made by the position of the observer and the

position of the telephone pole, as determined from the plat of his property (see also

Figure 3).

The evidence in support of the observer's belief that the object did not move

during his trip home is not conclusive. However, the fact that the sighting lines

from all three points intersect in a rather small region, plus the claim of the

observer that the object did not appear to move while he was watching it either

from Point C (outside his car) or from his home, suggest that the motion, if it

existed, was either continuous but very slow or intermittent.

Assuming that the object did indeed remain motionless, the sighting lines from

Points A and D localize its horizontal position to about 3.6 to 6.1 km. (12,000 to

20,000 ft.) southeast of Point D, over the side or top of Short Mountain (see Figure

4). Using this horizontal distance with the angle of elevation from Point D, it is

possible to determine the approximate height of the object. During the personal

interview, the elevation angle was measured with respect to the top of the telephone

pole and the power lines. The angle of elevation of the object was determined at

that time to lie in the range 16 +/- 2 degrees, while that of the top of the pole was

determined to be about 10 degrees. A more accurate measurement made by the major

observer about a year later gave 10 degrees as the elevation of the top of the pole

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 11

and an estimated 20^o as the elevation of the object. Using 18 degrees as a reasonable

average of the two measurements of the angle of elevation of the object, its alti-

tude above sea level would have been in the range 1440 m. (4720 ft.) if 3.6 km.

distant over the west side of Short Mountain to 2250 m. (7380 ft.) if 6.1 km. dis-

tant over the east side. The most probable height is at the intersection of the

centerlines of the sighting sectors from Points A and D. This height is about

1860 m. (6100 ft.). The slant distance from the observers at Point D to the ob-

ject was in the range 3.8 km. (12,400 ft.) to 6.4 km. (21,000 ft.), with the most

probable distance being 5.1 km. (16800 ft.).

Size of the Object

In order to determine whether or not the object was moving, the major observer

"lined up" the object so that it extended by equal amounts on either side of the

top power line. He thus determined that the angular width of the object in the

direction perpendicular to the wire was from three to four times that of the wire.

Since the angular width of the wire [0.952 cm. diameter (0.375 inches); 7.62 m.

(25 ft.) above his head where it crossed his sighting line; slant angle 18^o;

slant distance 24.66 m. (80.9 ft.)] was about 3.86 x 10-⁴ radians (79.6 seconds of arc),³⁹

the angular extension of the object (excluding the white fog region) in the direction

perpendicular to the wire was in the range 1.16 to 1.54 milliradians. Since the

major axis (length) of the object was at an angle of about 35 degrees to the wire

(see Figure 5), the angular length of the object was in the range 1.4 to 1.9 milli-

radians. Thus, the object was about 5 m. to 7 m. (16-23 ft.) long if it was at a

horizontal distance of 3.6 km. and 9 m. to 12 m. (30-40 ft.) long if it was at a

distance of 6.1 km. The lower bounds on the width of the object are, from Figure 5,

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 12

0.8 m. to 1.2 m. (2.6-3.9 ft.) if it was 3.6 km. away and 1.5 m. to 2 m. (5-6.5 ft.)

if it was 6.1 km. away.

It should be pointed out that the observation of an object in the size range

that has been calculated at the distances reported by the major observer is within

the physiological capabilities of the normal human eye. The observer wears glasses

for reading and other close work, but claims to be able to see distant objects

quite well, a situation which is not unusual considering his age. (His optometrist

has stated that the major observer's vision is 20/20 in each eye.)⁴⁰ The limiting

angular resolution of the normal eye with a four millimeter pupil is about 0.3

milliradians, which means that objects separated by that angular amount will be seen

as separate objects.⁴¹  However, against a uniform bright (blue) background, a dark

object which is of somewhat smaller angular size, perhaps as small as 1 x 10-⁴

radians, may be detectable as a "dot" (1. e., no structure). Thus, at

15 km. (49,000 ft.) the approximate distance from Point A to the intersection of

the sighting lines from Points A and D on Figure 1, a dark object perhaps as small

as 1.5 m. (5 ft.) in diameter could be just barely detected against the uniform

background of the sky. This size is commensurate with the smallest calculated

dimension of the object, so that the claim that the object was seen from Point A

is not inconsistent with the visual capability of the observer. However, the above

minimum size is based upon the detection of stationary objects by stationary ob-

servers who know where to look. To be detected from a moving car by an observer

who does not know where to look, an object might have to be about twice as large

as the minimum detectable size.

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 13

Description of the Object

When first seen, the object appeared as just a "black spot" against the clear

blue sky. When viewed with the naked eye from the observer's home, the object

still appeared dark against the sky, but it was now close enough to appear to have

a definite shape. Figure 5 contains reproductions of the major observer's sketches

of the object (May 1973 and September 1975) as seen through the seven power binocu-

lars. He described the object as follows: "From the main arch of the (upper) curve

to what I would say was the front or top part of it, it was dark. But from there

to the lower end it was definitely metallic ••• but it didn't reflect like a

star (sic); it wasn't flashy or shiny." The bottom part "looked a much lighter

shade (sic) than the fore (top) part. At the very bottom end it had a color like

the red color of a fire or a brilliant reflection ••• and then a white-like con-

trail." The contrail was "a definite white fog, just as you expect from a jet

it wasn't a perfectly straight contrail as far as it extended, but it appeared to

be a billowy contrail right off the bottom of it. But it didn't go any place...

it appeared to be fixed right at the bottom of this object." The observer reported

that he saw nothing else in the

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 14

sky near the object either with or without the binoculars. There was no audible

noise. As the evening went on, the object became indistinguishable from the

blackening background of the sky. There appeared to be no source of light asso-

ciated with the object.

Analysis of the Report

I shall now present a detailed analysis consisting of representative arguments

and counter-arguments in a series of attempts to explain the report in terms of

known phenomena. The arguments to be presented naturally refer specifically to

this report, but they are typical of arguments used in the analyses of all well

documented UFO reports (for example, see References 13, 19, and 20).

The basic characteristics of the object described in the report are (1) it

was dark against the bright blue sky, (2) it was apparently rather large, and

(3) it maintained a fixed position for an extended period of time. Dark objects

which are seen in the sky and which could exhibit these characteristics are

insects, birds, helicopters, and balloons. (Astronomical objects are ruled out

primarily because the object was reportedly dark against the sky, but also because

the sighting lines to the object are not parallel and because the object was seen

considerably before sunset.) However, various other characteristics of the object

make these identifications difficult, if not impossible, to accept. For example,

one might consider the possibility that the several observers at Point D misiden-

tified (a) a hovering bee, some other insect, or a hummingbird which was at close

range, (b) a helicopter that was hovering at a large distance (several kilometers),

or (c) a dark colored, large, freely-floating balloon. Explanation (a) is contra-

dicted by the major

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 15.

observer's claim of seeing the object at distances of up to 15 km, (9.3 miles) by the

duration of the sighting, and probably also by the time of the year (early spring).

Explanation (b) is not contradicted by either the distance over which the object was ob-

served or by the duration of the sighting, although one might wonder why a helicopter

'.

would hover, motionless, over the side of a mountain in the middle of the Shenandoah

Valley for a period of about two hours. However, explanation (b) is contradicted by

the rather detailed description of the object by the observer, who would have recog­nized

a helicopter³⁶ if it were close enough to subtend an angle of about 1.5 milli-

radians to the naked eye, especially if it were viewed through seven power binoculars.

Also, the overall shape and "tilt” of the object is difficult to reconcile with typi-

cal orientations of helicopters. Moreover, a helicopter would turn on its running

lights as evening came (if it were flying legally), yet no lights were reported in

the vicinity of, or associated with, the object. Explanation (c) is also improbable

for several reasons. One of these is the distance over which the object was report-

edly seen. To be visible over about 15 km., a balloon would have to be quite large,

like a weather balloon. However, I was assured in several conversations with weather

bureau personnel³⁸ who are acquainted with weather balloon characteristics that it

would be virtually impossible for such a balloon to meet the combined requirements of being

dark colored and being large enough to be seen for 15 km. (Lally⁴² claims

typical weather balloons at low altitudes can be seen against a bright sky background

over distances of up to 7 km.) and being over the Shenandoah Valley at an alti-

tude as 1ow as two kilometers. Of course, a large, dark colored, locally-launched

balloon (not launched by the weather service, however, since there are no launch

sites in the Shenandoah Valley) could satisfy all of these requirements, but it would

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 16

still have to satisfy the requirement of perfect balance between the weight and

buoyancy of the balloon in order to remain at a fixed altitude. However, the main

reason to reject the freely-floating balloon explanation is the very probable existence of at least

a gentle breeze in the vicinity of Mt. Jackson since there was a 2.5 m/sec. wind

at Staunton. Of course, the reported shape and orientation of the object are also

inconsistent with expected shapes (spherical, conical[apex downard], or elliptical) and orien-

tation (rotationally symmetric about a vertical axis) of a stable, hovering balloon.

Since a straightforward identification of the object in a manner that is consistent

with the totality of the report is apparently not possible, one is left with the following choices:

(1) attempt to identify the object with some rare, but

"understood" physical phenomenon; (2) show that certain parts of the report can be

ignored, and that the remaining parts describe an object which can be identified;

(3) claim that the object was not real, and that the report is a fabrication; (4)

claim that, since the data are insufficient to establish the nature of the object,

the report is of marginal value and one must wait for better data before reaching

a conclusion; or (5) conclude that the report describes a truly new physical pheno-

menon.

An example of the type of explanation that would be consistent with the report

and the first choice above would be that the object was, in effect, a hoax (inten-

tional or unintentional) on the part of someone other than the observers. The

object might be an oddly-shaped balloon or kite (shaped so that when viewed from

Point D its shape would resemble that of the object shown in Figure 5 "anchored"

to Short Mountain so that it would not drift away. However, the possibility that

this could be a valid identification of the object seems extremely remote since the

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 17

side of Short Mountain is a forest (the region denoted by VIII on Figure 4) which

would make launches of large balloons or kites very difficult, to say the least.

Moreover, the apparent height of the object would have required tethering cable

lengths greater than a kilometer, depending upon how far downwind from the launch

point the balloon or kite became stationary. With particular regard to the kite

hypothesis, the kite would have to be unusually large (typical dimensions are less

than 3 m. (10 ft.)) and would have to be constructed in such a way that it would

not flutter in the wind. Moreover, it would have to be designed so that it could

appear with the upper end toward the northeast (the left in Figure 5) even though

the wind was from the southwest. (A typical kite tilts upward and into the wind

so that, if Figure 5 contained pictures of a kite, one would expect the upper end

to be tilted toward the right. I can think of no way in which a kite could have

its upper end downwind from its lower end.)

With regard to the tethered balloon hypothesis, it is difficult to imagine

how a balloon could take on the shape and tilt described in the report. In par-

ticular, a typical balloon made of flexible material would not come to a point at

its upper end; rather, it would be rounded so that it would have an overall "ice

cream cone" shape. Even if the drawing of the object showed a rounded upper end,

it would still be only marginally consistent with a balloon because of the apparent

tilt of the object. For the axis of an ice cream cone shaped balloon to be tilted

as shown would require a strong (and steady) wind because the gas in the balloon

would always be "trying" to make the cone axis vertical. Only a rigid "balloon"

could have the shape and orientation of the object shown in Figure 5. Of course,

even a rigid balloon, shaped like a long narrow football to match the shape in

Figure 5, would "try" to maintain a vertical axis if tethered at the (lower) end.

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 18

To make it tilt sufficiently, the tether would have to be attached near the middle

of the "balloon." Of course, the colorations of the "balloon" plus the addition

of a "white fog" would be necessary to match Figure 5, and one would have to have

a perfectly steady wind so that the "balloon" would not move or wobble.

The second choice offers the possibility of explaining the report by the

"divide and conquer" technique which has been used very successfully, although

perhaps not always in the best interests of science, to explain other reports of

unusual phenomena. To apply this technique, one could argue that the only signi-

ficant part of the report is the multiple witness sighting lasting for "maybe five

minutes." By giving zero weight to (i.e., ignoring) the statements of the major

observer's children, the number of observers can be reduced from four to two. With

regard to the object itself, one could argue that the report is correct only as to

(1) the general shape of the object, and (2) the absence of other objects in the

sky near the object. These arguments reduce the report to its "hard core," i.e.,

to the portion that is least likely to have been misreported because it contains

only the most obvious details and was made by the smallest number of (supposedly)

reliable observers. According to the "hard core" of the report then, a dark object

was seen in the southeast against the clear blue sky just before sunset. The ob-

ject was motionless for about five minutes. The two observers were not able to

identify it despite its rather large angular size and despite the aid of binoculars.

It is not possible, from the hard core of the report, to estimate the actual size

of the object since its distance is not known. Yet, despite the loss of the size

information and despite the loss of the information on the fine detail of the ob-

ject, it still seems unlikely that it can be identified as an insect, a bird, a

balloon, a kite, a helicopter, or some other known phenomenon.

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 19

The third choice is often used as an "ultimate resort" by those who are con­terrestrial

vinced that there are no unknown, macroscopic,physical phenomena left to discover.

They would argue that if the phenomenon described in the report cannot be explained

in terms of known phenomena, the report must be a fabrication, either intentional

or unintentional, on the part of the person(s) making the report. An intentional

fabrication would be a premeditated hoax (fraud); an unintentional fabrication

would be a manifestation of physiological and/or psychological phenomena. Reasons

for intentional fabrication could include the desire for monetary reward,

the de­sire for public notice, and, perhaps, "status inconsistency.⁴³ Reasons for unin-

tentional fabrication include mental distress, and/or hallucination (psychological),

and incorrect sensory data (physiological). Since the report presented here was

confirmed in part by at least one other reliable observer, it seems highly unlikely

that it is an unintentional fabrication. Moreover, in view of the fact that the

observers neither expected nor received either compensation or publicity, and, in

fact, may have even placed their social and economic security in jeopardy, it seems

extremely unlikely that the report is an intentional fabrication.

The fourth choice, which is to adopt a "wait and see" attitude, is a legiti-

mate choice for a scientist who is only marginally familiar with the literature

on UFO phenomena. Whether this scientist eventually decides to accept an explana-

tion in terms of known phenomena, or whether he decides to accept an explanation

in terms of a new phenomenon would depend strongly upon his inner feelings toward

"semi-scientific" subjects and upon whatever further studies he might make.

The fifth choice is probably not a legitimate choice for a scientist to make

based on the information contained in only a single report such as this one.

Bruce S. Maccabee Page 20

Discussion

The analysis of the previous report has been presented in detail to illustrate