UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, October 23, 2014

The 1947 Flying Disc Panoply (by way of the FBI)

If you don't have or haven't seen the gathering of the FBI papers dealing with "flying discs," I suggest you get your hands on the PDF. (We have it in our archived files, and will provide it, if there is a real interest by some readers here. (Isaac Koi also will have a PDF is you have access to him via Above Top Secret.)

The picture above is one of several provided in the FBI papers; it's the Urie sighting of August 1947 at the Snake River Canyon.

What's interesting, to me, is that in all the witness accounts, none refer to the "things" seen  as flying discs or flying saucers. (UFO was not coined yet for flying objects reported by persons.)

The FBI consistently uses the term "flying disc" or "flying discs" derived from the Roswell reportage and in a time-frame devoid of the saturation of the term "flying saucer" that came from a reporter's sobriquet for Kenneth Arnold's observed gaggle of objects near Mt. Ranier earlier in 1947.

More importantly perhaps, is the sincerity of the reports, all coming well before the lunatic-like reportage in the 1950s and afterward. Flying discs were yet to be knickered by buffoonery.

One might find the 1947 witness descriptions extremely intriguing, smacking of intelligently controlled vehicles which would, sensibly, seem to be from somewhere beyond Earth.

What happened to sightings after 1947 may be attributed to the foolishness of Adamski and other "contactees." (See Nick Redfern's book Contactees for an overview of the milieu and persons involved.)

But for a pure rendition of the flying disc phenomena [sic] -- that's how the FBI referred to the sightings -- find the PDF, or ask me for it, and take a refreshed look at the subject matter of this blog.

You shall be enlightened.



  • A.C Urie stated that the disc was flying at 1000 mph. How did he ascertain this speed? Assuming that his sons felt the same and saw the same thing as their father.

    Hat shape? This appears to be the prototype shape of the flying saucers as depicted in early 1950 movies and various photos of "flying saucers." Yes, I'm aware that Urie's sighting is 1947, hence prototype visual perspective.

    Arnold's sighting occurred a few months prior to this. Did Arnold's description influence Urie? I see no hard evidence that supports such influence one way or the other. But it is a possibility.

    Hynek's initial response is atmospheric eddy, yet recants this years later.

    The key to this case lies in the hat shape description in my opinion. Not necessarily aerodynamic is it? A visual distortion by Urie is a possible explanation.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Thursday, October 23, 2014  

  • The context - the FBI's - is what's really.interesting, to me, Tim.

    Look at the other reports and let me know what you get from them.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 23, 2014  

  • Rich, sorry for the late reply. I think that I get your point. The term "disc" is never mentioned by the witnesses. The FBI coins the term.

    Is that the your point?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Friday, October 24, 2014  

  • Not really Tim.

    I think my point -- my main point -- is that in those 1947 reports we find purity of observation, unsullied by all the hoopla that came about in the 50s and after that.

    The witnesses actually saw strange things or craft.

    Something odd was flying around, and lots of it in the Northwest United States.

    That the FBI used the Roswell disc sobriquet, generally, is interesting too.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, October 24, 2014  

  • Tim Herbert said:

    "The key to this case lies in the hat shape description in my opinion. Not necessarily aerodynamic is it? A visual distortion by Urie is a possible explanation."

    What do you really mean by "not necessarily aerodynamic" Tim? I would appreciate more clarity in the assertions. Is a hat shape an aerodynamic one or not? Why?

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Saturday, October 25, 2014  

  • Don,

    The hat shape craft, as rendered from the description by Urie...see drawing...does not appear to be aerodynamic or a stable platform to be flying at "1000 mph." Further, the hat design seems inefficient.

    I readily admit that I'm not an engineer in the area of aerodynamics, but merely rendered an opinion...a conjecture, if you will, in keeping with Rich's current blog scheme.

    As far as Urie's story, one should ask why the hat shape description vs. that of Arnold's boomer rang shape, or that of a saucer, or a cigar shape. Kind of a strange shape, would you not agree?

    Based on the drawing rendition, the craft is powered by bilaterally mounted engine pods which is more of an earthly propulsion system which would lend to Urie seeing something made here on this planet...at best.

    Or, he simply saw a run of the mill aircraft who's actual shape and design was lost in a type of visual distortion. Is this not possible?

    Again, an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, October 26, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home