COMMENTS FOR PART TWO:

Well, it's taken a while but after a long interim fueled by personal events I think I'll be able to get back to serious work on the site, the personal events having now clamed down. There's still real-world work which gets in the way, but I think I'll be able to deal with that. So hopefully this will be the last two-or-three week post and I'll be able to get it back on schedule for the rest of the year.

Meanwhile, as to this post (and this series) there is and will be a huge amount of what I call 'context' -- that is the technological state-of-the-art of the time. Obviously that matters just in trying to assess the various possibilities as to the cause of 'flying saucer' reports of the time. But also within this context it gives deeper background when some of the nitty-gritty is provided, as in this from the included article, Speed's New Foe...

Reciprocating-engine planes don't go fast enough to make this a problem. But in jets, ram heat shoots up high enough to require cockpit refrigeration. The skin of a jet fighter doing 650 m.p.h. near sea level on a hot day gets up to 170° F. Other sources of heat -- the sun's rays, the pilot's body temperature, and the plane's electrical equipment and power plant -- would bring the cockpit up to 200° but for its refrigerating system.

And it is this kind of dynamic which rarely gets thrown into the mix in appraising the sighting reports, but which deserves consideration. For instance, using a very simple example, Kenneth Arnold's original 1947 report of 9 shiny discs over Mount Rainier. Arnold calculated their speed at 1200 mph which, taking into account Rainier's elevation of just under 15,000 feet would (according to the chart included in the article) have resulted in a skin temperature of approximately 300° Fahrenheit.

This means that if Arnold's calculations were accurate that not only would it have represented a significant technological leap in the speed of aircraft, but likewise in the cabin-coolant systems. Of course, the coolant issue is only relevant if they were piloted aircraft. But if they weren't, it equally represents a nearly-unbelievable technological leap in remote-control aircraft (as will be illustrated in the contextual articles coming up in Part Three).

Finally, in a change of subject, the visions of a future space station are both interesting when they fall wide-of-the-mark and fascinating in their true foresight ("a re-diffusion television service which would ensure worldwide cover") decades ahead of the reality.

COMMENT FOR PART ONE:

A lot of emphasis on the possibilities of space travel in this one. Pretty interesting stuff to my mind in terms of what they got right and what they got wrong.

For more UFO-centric fare, there's the fascinating report of Roman Lupton from January, 1969 -- the last of the unidentifieds in Blue Book files -- to be found as the pictures of the week on the This Week page.

On a personal note, along with dealing with life issues which have kept me distracted for a fair few months, I got to experience the theft and ultimate wreck of my car. Thank god for insurance.

UPDATE: 1-1-18

Well, just a short note to say that in yesterday's rush I slapped together a temporary This Week page which has now been replaced with its permanent version.

COMMENT FOR OUR SPEAKER TONIGHT: DONALD E. KEYHOE:

Well, to put it simply, I just couldn't let the year end without something new for the speaker series.

It was cobbled together in one day, which probably shows. But thankfully the content of Keyhoe's remarks -- and the bullying he put up with -- are what it's about.

I'm dead tired and will post more tomorrow.

COMMENT FOR PART TWELVE:

Well this one concludes the year 1948.

More to say on this, but I'll wait until others have time to read.

It's too bad he seems to have ignored a great deal of information which would appear to rule out "experimental flying objects which were either guided or not guided".

Wow -- for all the background info you dug up.

Which makes me wonder if he was being disingenuous, or if it's the old case of "to a hammer everything looks like a nail".

COMMENT FOR PART ELEVEN:

This one is all about context.

I'll comment more, later.

They obviously saw the light moving about, just as Gorman did. It wasn't a planet, nor a damned balloon. How the heck could any halfway competent pilot become confused by either? He was in a frigging "dogfight" with the thing.

Indeed. Some imaginary day, it would be interesting to track down other cases of similar maneuvering lights (of which there are several) to compare descriptions and maneuvers. I know of at least one such which occurred at an atomic storage site, which I have filed away for a future post.

Fascinating and important context as always. And I particularly appreciate the link to Parsons, and especially this bit...

I’m not going to get into the messy business of historically reconstructing Parsons’ precise humoral complexion (such a process is time consuming to say the least, and doesn’t make for engaging blog copy). I will only note that if the history of other occult scientists like Paracelsus serves as any guide, it can be damn near impossible to separate out a scientist’s magical beliefs from their scientific ones. Indeed, in Parsons’ time, many established scientists held space travel and occult mysticism in similar esteem.

COMMENT FOR PART TEN:

This post (and all foreseeable future posts) are on the two-week posing schedule. Life just won't let loose of me.

Meanwhile, Gorman! And context in spades. Plus will o' the wisps and parachuting spiders, oh my.

I'll wait to comment further until others have chance to read.