Talk:Chiles-Whitted UFO encounter

A bit of balance required

This article really needs a bit more ... balance. Consider:

They knew that rockets could fly, but there was no known technology that could account for a rocket being as maneuverable as the pilots had asserted.

Erm, rubbish. The V-2 rocket had thrust vectoring vanes in its exhaust stream, and at least one account describes a V-2 executing a 55° turn "immediately". In fact, they were prone to some crazy flight patterns if the control systems failed. Throughout the 1940s the US was test-firing captured V-2s, including 16 in 1948. Apparently, all of them were test-fired at White Sands (in New Mexico), which is a long way from Montgomery. However, Redstone Arsenal is much closer to Montgomery (well, about 150 miles, but that's well within range for a V-2), and in 1948 it had just been designated the center for US Army rocket research and development. Some of the systems they were developing back then included Bumper, a two stage rocket first test fired in 1948 (but after the C-W incident.) Bumper's first stage was a V-2 (with its characteristic very long exhaust plume with bluish ethanol flame), while its second stage was a Wac Corporal (with a nitric acid oxidiser, which tends to produce a reddish-brown exhaust cloud.) Many of these test rockets were painted in various strongly contrasting geometric patterns to aid in telemetry; as they whisked past at hypersonic speed (5 times the speed of sound), perhaps these patterns could be mistaken for windows?

Now, I cannot assert that Chiles and Whitted saw a Bumper, or a WAC Corporal. So far as I know, none of those early intermediate range rockets were actually test-fired from Redstone as early as 1948. It's even less likely that they were fired in the general direction of Montgomery (at least, not deliberately.) But their description sure sounds a lot like a late 1940s rocket launch, and they were very close to a rocket research centre ... Let's apply some Ockham's razor here; it's gotta be a couple of orders of magnitude more plausible than an extraterrestrial visitor who couldn't fly straight. -- Securiger (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that a similar object was seen earlier over the Netherlands and again seen over Robins AFB shortly before the pilots saw it. Anything launched from Redstone would have had to fly south to reach Montgomery and that would not have taken its flight path anywhere near Robins, assuming the object flew in a straight course for most of its flight. The speculation about the paint job on rockets of those days is interesting, but unfortunately, all that can be said about this case will remain speculation, and does not present any overwhelming reason to strongly alter the article's text or approach. 91.32.71.128 (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP is correct. The claim that a rocket could not be maneuverable is factually untrue and appears in the article without any citation, failing Wikipedia's standards. The article's "text and approach" need alteration from the ground up.Jtcarpet (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation and factual accuracy issues

This article lacks in-line citations, and most of its material--including direct quotes--lacks any attribution whatsoever. It thus fails Wikipedia's basic publication criteria. (Also, of the three references listed, two are generic UFO "encyclopedias.") Furthermore, a recent study published via the website of the UFO research organization NICAP backs the meteorite hypothesis in detail, and says that in the actual, original testimony of the witnesses--as opposed to later media reports--there was no mention of an extreme upward motion or of air turbulence as described here. That study is available here and should be accounted for by this article: http://www.nicap.org/reports/480724montgomery_shough.pdf.Jtcarpet (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten the article and added citations from UFO skeptics and "ufologists" who appear to be reliable. The clear weight of evidence in this case does lead to the conclusion that a very bright meteor - probably a fireball, or bolide type - was the object observed by Chiles and Whitted. I have included that evidence in the article, with citations. Populism (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)